NOTED the following questions and observations
- 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
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.
- 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
- 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
said that he would be pleased to discuss this property
matter after the meeting.
- 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.
- 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.
- An attendee raised the following
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
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
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
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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- A local business owner asked the
He was aware that the Panel were looking at two applications for
the site. Is the present application being considered more than the
Once the application is agreed, would there be room for more
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
- 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.
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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.