Agenda item



NOTED the following questions and observations from attendees:


  1. A resident commented that she had lived and ran a business in the area in excess of 50 years. She had walked and cycled, in the area, when she was younger. There was now serious  transport  issues on the High Road, making it very difficult to get onto the High Road and sometimes 30 minutes to travel out of Ponders End. Referring to the current application, businesses will have cars and vans coming in and out of the development which will not be environmentally friendly. The maisonette where she lived suffered from anti social behaviour with an abundance of rubbish accumulation. With more people coming to live in the development, this intense site will look unsightly. It was advised that it was difficult to curtail the buy to let market, but the developer could make houses more attractive so that new residents could take pride in their homes. Studio’s and smaller apartmens formed a smaller percentage of the housing mix of the scheme. Three bedroom properties and above accounted for 65% of the scheme, encouraging family based accommodation so residents would stay longer in these properties and be part of the community.
  2. A resident raised concern about businesses and transport issues surrounding lorry deliveries to the industrial area of the development. It was advised that this issue would be part of a traffic management programme to stop businesses suffering.
  3. An attendee commented that as there was no provision for a day nursery within the development and only one day nursery in the area, was there any provision for a childcare facility within the Master Plan? It was advised that there was a possibility that a childcare facility could be accommodated in the Broadbent Building. Paul Walker, Assistant Director of Regeneration, Planning & Programme Management  said that he would be pleased to discuss this property matter after the meeting.
  4. A resident commented that their garden currently backs onto the student accommodation block. The development plans show that the accommodation block would be replaced with two blocks of apartments imposing her property and that the proposed new road seems very close to her property. She was also very concerned about security, overlooking & privacy and the proposed new road accessing college Court and the High Street.  It was advised that it was very important that residents had gardens. The developer would be creating rear gardens backing onto garden walls and fences. Some properties may benefit from a more typical garden backing onto a garden, by the creation of a green corridor through the development. The resident was further advised that her garden would be backed up to a high quality wall, trees and planting. The proposed new road behind her property would be 4-5 metres from her home. The two apartment blocks behind her property (shown on plan) would not be facing her home. The rear of her home will be facing the new residential street instead. The Master Plan will address overlooking when window design is implemented and will also be considered by the Planning Committee.
  5. The Chief Executive of Enfield Enterprise Centre asked about the Queensway Enterprise Centre, which includes 57 industrial units and employs approximately 300 people. It was a busy estate and the resident was alarmed that the car park at the end of the estate was being taken away. What was the rationale behind this decision? It was advised that it was not the intention of the scheme to jeopardise the Enterprise Centre, but in order to achieve the building of one of the schemes new street, some land from the estate car park would be needed. However, the scheme already allowed for the provision of 30 car spaces within the revamped multi storey car park. The Council and developer would continue talking to the Enterprise Centre. Councillor Hurer asked about the ownership of the multi storey car park. It was advised that the multi storey car park is closed at present. When the Council open it, it will have 90 spaces in total.  The Chief Executive of Enfield Enterprise Centre then mentioned that there would be issues about delivery and van management. It was advised that vans would still be able to access the area and service businesses. The access way into the estate may be shared and the scheme may look at how successful the shared access will be.
  6. An attendee raised the following concerns:

·        Parking and access to the development/industrial estate would be the biggest problem.

·        Only 3/25 people attending the panel meeting did not own a car. People moving into Ponders End, would need a car.

·        With only 3 car spaces for every 4 residential apartments available, no one will buy, due to lack of parking availability.

·        The development will turn into a ghetto.

·        The Enfield Master Plan talks about reducing crime, but it will get worse with this scheme.

·        The proposed accessway into the industrial units is ridiculous.

·        The Enterprise Centre has many deliveries by 40 feet lorries and the developer is trying to attract families with children?

·        With all the access problems of the scheme, a lot more accidents would occur.

·        How will the deliveries to the Enterprise Centre get there? There would not be any parking at the Queensway end of the site.

·        All commercial vehicles in the area would congest the surrounding roads.

·        Don’t mix light industrial areas with housing.


It was advised by Councillor Hurer, that the Mayor’s London Plan sets the level for parking standards. The Planning Committee must have robust reasons for refusal of planning   permission or the application of conditions or decisions  may be overruled at a future appeal.

  1. Councillor Hurer asked for clarification as to what type of industries would be occupying the industrial units, what was anticipated i.e. arts, culture. Councillor Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration, opined that creative industries are currently moving out of London and the incentive would be how the developers/Council would capture and develop these industries. This would be an opportunity to do that. The use of Queensway and what is adjacent to the development site  would have to be thought through aswell.
  2. An attendee asked what opportunities there would be for local employment, if there is such a shortage of parking for the industrial site. It was advised that this would be an issue for traffic management which will be bought to the Planning Committee when the application is considered. Historically, the university site had generated traffic figures and the developer would do their homework as regards traffic management.
  3. A local business man commented that all traffic on the site would have to go in and out of the area. There would be more traffic on Queensway. Where would the access way to the multi storey car park be located? There would be more cars coming out of the development at Queensway which will always be congested. How would this be managed? It was advised that the developer would be looking at access ways to and from the development. There would be a small rear access way to exit the development for local journeys. The existing junction at the library would be improved and  traffic calming measures to be put in place. The developers were aware of transport and traffic issues of Queensway and these would be investigated.
  4. A local business owner asked the following questions:

·        He was aware that the Panel were looking at two applications for the site. Is the present application being considered more than the previous one?

·        Once the application is agreed, would there be room for more dialogue?

·        Once the new development roads had been built, would they all be leading to Queensway?

·         It was advised that the Planning Panel were there to hear the Council’s scheme. The first application by Inpath Ltd (P12-00732PLA & P12-00733HER) was a full application which would be heard by the Planning Committee on Tuesday 18 December 2012. The present Council application (P12-02677PLA) should be determined at Planning Committee in January 2013. The Panel would just be listening to the proposals this evening. It was an outline application and additional information (reserved matters) must be received regarding the application from the developers. The time frame to receive this information would be up to the developer. Only the outline planning application would be going to Planning Committee, not detailed information.

·         It was further advised that it would be difficult to develop a road from the High Street to Queensway. The developer would be creating a green link from the High Street to Queensway. Councillor Hurer commented that traffic generation could also be created by parents and children. The developer had looked at schools, local employment and the local infrastructure of the area.


An attendee from the Ponders End Community Development Trust (PECDT) commented that 15,000 people had moved into the area since 1999 and that this was not a new problem. The site had been empty since 2008. Major developments were often not carried out by Local Authorities well. An example of this was the new Academy School in South Street where lorries  are entering areas they shouldn’t. The development had to be managed better. He and others would be living in a mess and trying to run a business. Councillor Hurer advised that a transport study would include the monitoring of contractors by the Council, but that the problem was that sometimes contractors did not respond. Aled Richards, Head of Development Control, advised that construction should be improved and communicated. He was unhappy to hear about the construction problems regarding the Academy but advised that should approval be granted to the development a construction management report should be submitted.

  1.  A local businessman commented that business owners will be affected by the scheme. The planning authority should look at the impact of the development in the area and that economic regeneration would be difficult to achieve. It was advised that business matters were not material to the planning application.

Paul Walker, Assistant Director – Regeneration, Planning & Programme Management commented that a longer view would be needed. This was only an outline application, the detailed application would address how the development would be built and managed. The Council would try and minimise any problems to residents and he stated that when something new is built there is always an element of disruption and inconvenience. Councillor Hurer commented that one complaint received by residents was that they were not being informed. The attendee stated that the PECDT would meet more regularly so as to better inform businesses and residents through newsletters, but it would be a good idea perhaps to set up a business forum for business. His repeated concern was, what do businesses do to plan long term? It was advised that the Council can learn from experience to inform residents & businesses better, so information flows easily.  Residents/business owners could contact Paul Walker - Assistant Director – Regeneration, Planning & Programme Management or Marc Clark – Project Manager (Ponders End High Street) to speak to, on a one to one basis, for any issues they may have regarding the scheme, including the possibility of a business forum for business.

  1. A local resident asked whether any thought had been given to closing the Queensway entrance and providing access to and from Hertford Road to the development. This may solve transport issues surrounding Queensway. An emergency access way could be provided at Queensway. It was advised that the Queensway issue had already been addressed with reasons given. Part of the thinking has been to minimise traffic flow through the site. Councillor Hurer advised that there would be another month before the application is heard and for residents to contact Steve Jaggard – Group Leader (Transport Planning & Policy) and let him know their views.
  2. An attendee asked if there would be vehicular access into Derby Road from the new road within the development. It was advised that there would not be access from Derby Road.
  3. A local resident commented that some of the proposed apartments would be overlooking the Mosque.  There was a lot of traffic activity around the Mosque especially at Ramadan time which lasts for one month. Cars were parked in the immediate area and some attendees of the Mosque would also pray outside the Mosque. The resident had no issues with religion but there was a lot of traffic generation and noise throughout the month of Ramadan. Surrounding roads were clogged up with parked cars. The resident had thought that the Mosque would be re-located from the area.
  4. An attendee commented that car ‘joy riding’ was an issue in the nearby Tesco’s car park and that an alternative route to the A1010 should be created by negotiating with Tesco’s. Tesco’s traffic should be coming in from Queensway to alleviate traffic issues.
  5.  Aled Richards, Head of Development Control, stated that any  residents who wish to make any representations about the application and for inclusion into the report, may do so before 11 January 2013. Any representations made after this date will be read out at the Planning Committee on the day.