To receive a briefing listing the planning applications and listed building applications for discussion.
1. Former Middlesex University Trent Park Campus, Trent Park Country Park, Snakes Lane, Enfield, EN4 0PS (REF: 19/02205/NMA)
This application concerns non-material amendments to house types, given previous approval under the redevelopment scheme.
1.1 Reconfiguration of Flat over Garage House Type
CAG objected to this change which they saw as material as the proposals reduced the quality and appearance of the original property. Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable.
1.2 Reconfiguration of House Type 6
CAG objected to this change which they thought was material. While being supportive of the proposals for the reconfiguration of the roof, they objected to the loss of the individual bays, the relocation of the chimney, the removal of the characterful side bay and the changes to fenestration. Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable. They agreed overall that the proposals would destroy the clarity and simplicity of the original scheme.
1.3 Amendments to House Type 7
CAG objected to these amendments which they thought were material changes. They objected to the removal of the chimney, the change to the canopy on the entrance porch, the removal of the modern style balcony and of the high side window. Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable. They agreed that the changes moved away from the simplicity of the consented scheme.
1.4 Amendments to House Type 10
CAG objected to these amendments which they agreed were material changes. They objected to the significant alterations to the design, moving away from the simplicity of the consented scheme, including the change of porch style, the string course, the specification of the roof materials and the layered brick patterning.
1.5 Amendments to House Type 15
CAG objected to these amendments which they agreed were material changes. They objected to the alterations which took away from the simplicity of the consented scheme: including the complicated fenestration, changes to the window head detail and to the quoins. The majority were however content with the introduction of a third dormer window on the front roof. It was unclear whether the face brickwork has changed from the consented scheme.
CAG was also concerned, in general, about the proposed fenestration changes to most house types. Further framing has been added; the net result being to negate the original design simplicity.
CAG agreed that the sum of the changes were material as they significantly altered the architectural style of the whole scheme. Overall the proposals were unacceptable and lowered the quality of the consented designs.
2. Clarendon Cottage, 17 Gentlemen’s Row, Enfield, EN2 6PT (REF: 19/02293/FUL)
The application proposed significant alterations to this grade 2* listed 16th century building with 17th and 18th century extensions.
CAG objected to the application because of the lack of clarity in relation to NPPF (Paragraph 189) policy. It was difficult to determine what was proposed from the plans.
It was suggested that the Charles Lamb Society also be contacted for comment.
3. 31-33 Church Street, Enfield, EN2 6AJ (REF: 19/02117/FUL)
This was a retrospective application for the refurbishment of the existing shop front and changes to the signage on the building, opposite the post office, a locally listed building.
CAG had no objection, subject to confirmation that the proposed illuminated signage was no more than had been approved recently for the new Metro Bank on the Market Square.
4. Commercial Premises, 105 Chase Side, Enfield, EN2 6NL (REF 19/02447/FUL) (Chase Medical)
At its meeting in March CAG had received a presentation on this application which had been subject to extensive CAG consultation over the past 3 years. Key changes since March included the part green roof, the addition of solar panels and air conditioning units on the front lower roof.
CAG had no objection to the application subject to the following conditions:
· The lift motor overrun to the agreed 791mm above roof level as defined on an earlier drawing 1211-413 dated 21/11/18 titled 13 person stretcher lift.
· Cladding to the overrun to be light grey in colour.
· The three brick types (red multi, creamy white and blue engineering) to be specifically conditioned by the manufacturer and type following the onsite review, 24/5/19 of the sample panels and CAG’s earlier approval 8/4/19.
· The mortar type to be specified to the manufacturer and type. The same mortar to be used for the three brick types.
· The external brickwork to be finished in Flemish bond.
· Joints to be restricted to eight laid bricks per 600mm of brickwork.
· That the building should have shallow bucket handle mortar joints.
· The provision of an agreed sample control panel.
· That the air conditionings units be placed in a less visible position.