Agenda and minutes

Conservation Advisory Group
Tuesday, 3rd September, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Andy Higham 

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Anne Brown, Ergin Erbil, Ayfer Orhan and Guner Aydin and from P Fisk, P Hutchinson and C Horner. 


David Burder was standing in for P Hutchinson. 



Membersof the ConservationAdvisory Groupare invitedto identify any disclosablepecuniary,other pecuniaryor non-pecuniaryinterests relevantto itemson theagenda.


There were no declarations of interest. 


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 159 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Group that took place on Tuesday 30 July 2019. 


The minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2019 were agreed as a correct record. 


Change in the Order of the Agenda


Members agreed to change the order of items considered so that the items concerning the tree officer and Berkeley Homes representatives could be taken first.  The minutes reflect the order of the agenda. 


Heritage Briefing

To be circulated separately. 


The Conservation Advisory Group received the Heritage Briefing note circulated separately from Christine White, Heritage and Urban Design Manager. 


Highway Trees pdf icon PDF 78 KB

To receive a presentation from Andy Robinson on trees on the highway.  Attachment B. 


Andy Robinson, Principal Arboricultural Officer, gave a presentation to the Conservation Advisory Group on his work with trees in the Council. 


He highlighted the following in response to questions raised in advance:


·         The local authority has a duty of care to manage and maintain all the trees on the highway.


·         The local authority policy is set out a tree strategy document on the Council website


·         Everything that it is practical to be done is done to make sure that people are not harmed and property not damaged by trees. 


·         A risk based approach is adopted.  The Council has to ensure value for money and is working with very limited resources.


·         Enfield is responsible for more than one hundred and ten thousand trees along the public highways.  Trees in parks are a separate issue. 


·         Enfield makes extensive use of the London wide easy tree database where all data including on species and services is recorded. 


·         All trees are surveyed on a three yearly basis. 


·         Their priority are the trees on the highway, in parks and on housing estates.  But trees in other areas such as property services, facilities management, registry office, Salisbury House, education sites and car parks are also dealt with. 


·         The team is made up of 9 people in total but this is not fully staffed.


·         The team deals with complaints, enquiries, insurance claims and carries out tree surveys.


·         Safety is a key issue.  Trees on the public highway must be managed to keep them safe.


·         Insurance claims are a big issue but on average only 10 trees a year are lost to these.


·         There is a replacement planting budget of £90,000 which is about 300 trees.  Housing also spend about £60,000 on trees.  In parks there is no budget for street trees.  New plantings are from memorial trees.  The Council also receives grants for specific projects. 


·         If a tree is lost the Council tries to replace it using the following priority:


·         A tree in a conservation area

·         A tree requested by a councillor or resident

·         Other sites on the database.


·         Trees subject to a tree preservation order are dealt with by another department but the team helps out.


·         If the tree is a danger to persons or property it may have to be removed but if it can be made safe through pruning this will be carried out. 


·         The priority is to maintain and retain where possible.


·         The Council employs only two well established subcontractors to work on the council trees. 


·         Current tree diseases active in the borough include:  bacterial leaf strain, Massaria and Ash dieback.


Questions/Comments from CAG members:


1.            There had been problems recently with the call centre not passing on calls.  This was being investigated.


2.            Cabling under the streets had always been a problem when finding places to plant new street trees. There were only a few places where it was possible to avoid the cables and the vehicle crossovers.


3.            Trees in parks were usually only replaced when people requested a memorial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


Planning Applications and Listed Building Applications pdf icon PDF 6 MB

To receive a briefing listing of planning applications and listed building applications for discussion.  Attachment C


1.            Former Middlesex University Trent Park Campus, Trent Country Park, Snakes Lane, Enfield, EN4 0PS (REF: 19/02560/VAR)


Dan Massey (a director at Berkeley Homes) and Andrew Purcell of Purcell Architects presented proposed changes to the plans for the Trent Park  development. 


They highlighted the following: 


·         The development included planting 400 new trees.


·         The changes had come about as they sought to continually improve the plans.


1.1       Changes to the Mansion House


The original plans for the Mansion House would have involved removing the ceilings to the second floor rooms.  The new proposal was to keep the ceilings in place and instead lift the roof by 400 mm to improve the internal height of the attic rooms. 


Most of the roof was early 20th century with only five older trusses which were not supporting.  Old slates would be reused and new ones would match the existing.  The roof slope would be similar to the existing.  The 12 chimneys were decorative and would not be covered significantly. 


CAG members expressed some concern about changes to the classical proportions of the building and requested some further information including a high level architectural study, a survey of the original timbers and comparisons with the rooves of buildings of a similar style. 


1.2       Changes to the Walled Garden  REF: 19/02095/VAR          


The changes proposed included increasing the number of homes from the 28 consented to 32, amendments to the layout of the walled garden and change to the design of the homes and the amendments to the external façade. 


CAG agreed that they preferred the more pleasing contemporary approach and were supportive of the proposals. 


1.3       Phase 2 and 3 Houses


Berkeley Homes presented some information on the proposed changes which CAG had discussed at the last meeting.  They said that the changes to the consented scheme had been put forward following review of the phase 1 building works.  Minor tweaks were proposed to ensure that they respond to the historic precidents.  All brickwork and roofing materials would remain the same as the consented scheme.


House Type 6


CAG were happy with the majority of the changes including the way the roof was configured and the repositioning of the chimney.  They objected to the elogated porch canopy over the front bays, the loss of the side bay and the changes to the fenestration. 


House Type 7


CAG had accepted the removal of the chimney and the modern style of the balcony but objected to the porch canopy, the removal of the tall side window and the changes to the fenestration. 


House Type 10


CAG on balance preferred the simplicity of the original design.  They objected to the revised canopy design and the changes to the fenestration. 


House Type 15


CAG were concerned that the revised design took away the simplicity of the consented scheme.  Objections included the complicated fenestration, changes to the window heard detail and the quoins.  They accepted the addition of the third dormer.


Overall CAG remained opposed to fenestration details, canopies that reflected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.



No applications have been before the last Planning Committee that have, previously, been considered by CAG. 


The application for 105 to 109 Chase Side had been considered at the 27 August 2019 Planning Committee and had been approved.  CAG expressed concern about the disappearance of the building at the back of the development which had had Crittall windows.  Planning Enforcement would be asked to look into the matter. 


CONSERVATION OFFICER Updates on Cases Discussed at Previous CAG Meetings pdf icon PDF 71 KB

To receive an update from the Conservation Officer on cases discussed at previous CAG meetings.    Attachment D


Listed Building 2 Cannon Hill, London N14 7HG (REF19/01446/LBC)


The application was still in progress.  An internal photographic survey had been received and was being reviewed by the assigned officer. 


Conservation Areas, Listed Building Applications and Appeals Determined pdf icon PDF 466 KB

To receive a list of conservation areas, listed building applications and appeals determined.   Attachment E


CAG noted the applications which had been before the group:


The Laurels, 25 River View – The application for a part single, part 2 storey part first floor rear extension had been refused. 


Garnault, 80 Bulls Cross – the single storey rear extension had been refused.


24 The Grangeway – the change of use from retail to restaurant with the installation of an extractor duct had been refused.


Crescent West, Hadley Wood – two applications for extensions had been refused.


72 Vicars Moor Lane – the extensions had been refused on the basis of insufficient detailing and the scale and massing of the bulk head. 



Toenablemembers of the ConservationAdvisoryGroup to bringup urgentmatters not covered elsewhere on theagenda


1.            Enfield Town – Liveable Neighbourhoods Bid - A meeting on the Enfield Town Liveable Neighbourhoods Bid is being held at the Dugdale Centre on 15 September 2019. 


2.            23 Camlet Way – the application was agreed subject to an enhanced landscaping condition.  This was not apparent at site level.  Andy Higham to advise further.


3.            6 Greenway – Andy Higham was urged to appoint a dedicated enforcement officer. 


4.            King and Tinker Public House – changes have been made to the car parking arrangements.  Enforcement officers are aware and are looking into it. 


5.            Town Park Sustainable Drainage Project – this was seen as a credit to the team who had designed and implemented the scheme.   Bridget Periera was asked to pass on CAG’s approval to the relevant people. 


6.            Enforcement Team – there was a shortage of planning and enforcement officers.  Posts had recently been advertised.  Two new members of staff appointed.  Another four posts to be filled. 


7.            Consultations on Planning Applications – it was possible to make comments as a group representative on line if you register. 


8.            Kitcheners Yard – a barn had been demolished.  Enforcement would be asked to look into it. 


9.            The Maze Inn – there was no further update.  If the demolition was found to be unlawful planners could request a high quality replacement rather than a rebuild. 


10.         Southgate Office Village – the planning department was waiting for the developers to submit some revised plans.  It was likely that there would be a planning panel to enable residents and members to consider the plans.


11.         Statues at Trent Park – it was difficult to identify some of the applications on line because of the way the IT system worked.  Bridget would discuss with IT to see if improvements could be made.


12.         Replacement of Paving Stones with Asphalt on the Lakes Estate Conservation Area – the very dark colour was felt to be out of keeping with the conservation area.  It was suggested that this would fade with time. 



To note the dates agreed for future meetings. 


NOTED that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday 1 October 2019.