Agenda item


To receive an update on the Local Plan consultation, with particular focus on environmental matters.


A presentation was received from members of Strategic Planning in respect of the consultation taking place on Enfield’s Local Plan, with focus on environmental policies and design and character policies.


Strategic Planning and Design Officers were keen to hear from the local experts in attendance to help shape and refine the policies. 


The process (set out by Government) at Enfield is currently at Stage 1 - the plan preparation stage is known as Reg 18 and involves collecting evidence about the borough’s needs and using this to identify issues and ways that they could be addressed through the plan whilst testing options. Reg 18 can be repeated several times until it reaches Stage 2 known as Reg 19, a draft plan which can be published, hopefully by the summer of 2022.



Therefore, focus on the following policies were received:


Climate Change


The following issues were suggestion for inclusion in the Plan:


Overheating resulting in fewer or no trees

Tree preservation


Green space preservation

No more flooding

More reuse of building materials in new builds

Less Pollution and vehicle, waste and rubbish dumping

Green space preservation


Build for a Lifetime - high quality buildings

Embodied carbon

Compliance of enforcement

Embedding Principles



Air Quality

Should all policies relate to refurbished developments







Blue and Green Enfield


The following points were received:


Paving over front gardens - policy and enforcement issue (why allow paving over)

Positives include water gardens

Degradation of boundary walls etc

Loss of verges for crossovers

Good example boundary ditch nature area

Further work needed eg Salmons Brook link

Better links with Lea Valley Park Authority and Thames Water

Lack of attention to agriculture

Conflict between Blue & Green and the proposed development north of Enfield Road and Crews Hill.

Enhancement of Green Space et Trent Park and commercial activities

Enfield Chase - historical landscape

SPG3 - offsetting is in developers’ advantage

Use of buy-out verses offset eg Tottenham Hotspur Training Ground



Design and Character


The following points were received:


Take note of public interest as public need to decide what they want

Not just residents, focus must be for all users

Importance of mixed use - walkable facilities - large scale design, social infrastructure and public space

Remove obstacles (eg. Nursing Homes)

CIC needs to go to comms where development is




Reflect existing character

Problems with height and loss of greenery

Densify in ways which respects character


Policy Responses:


Categorisation of change for example Hadley Wood should not be a focus for change and change should be slow


Generally positive but concerns about individual decisions


Contradictions such as Heritage and Environment verses development pressure.


Anything Missed:


How to involve the public with site briefs and area-based design coding.

Hierarchy of assets and character needs to be discussed.








The following points were received:


Sustainable active polices and active travel.




walk to school, quality of schools,

employment close to home

Can commuting be reduced

Offices, workshops, industry in suburbs

Work hubs

Emphasis on school zones, LTN’s

Car sharing/Car Club

Enforcement of planning matters eg. Car free development

Arnos Grove to Grovelands - alternative routes.

Need to repair potholes

Maintain cycle safety

Footways need better design

Better cycle parking at key transport hubs

Scooters - safety only in cycle lanes

Reduce public transport fares.




Protection - threats to landscapes, places, buildings and settings from schemes

Heritage at risk register

Not all assets on the lists

Weighting given in practice - but more weighting is needed

Conservation/protection - keep what is in good condition

Interest in local lists and put on national lists


Policy Response:


GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) used for archaeology purposes

Street naming and intangible heritage - can we link in policy

Pre-application consultations with stake holders and link with process

Loss of areas of special character such as landscape at Enfield Chase

Make character of growth clearer.


Anything Missed:


Character appraisals

Need to make clear that local views are not just the ones in the map

How does heritage inform new design?


Design briefs for sensitive sites

Gatekeeping of sites and the heritage value - if something credible then policy can be triggered

Area of arch interest to be revised

Development with heritage setting - should have condition to prevent PD (or article 4)

Policies need to be strong on “intangible heritage” with an interpretable way finding for local stories to make place



Edward Jones thanked everyone for their contributions and asked if there were any further questions, which were received as follows:



1.         Clarity was sought on the “Character of Growth” report.


            In response it was noted that all the Borough was looked at and the purpose of the study was to see how much is valued in certain areas and how much change is needed. This area can be revisited later on in the year if necessary.


2.         Results of the consultation were explained.  Staff will go through each consultation and where significant change of direction is needed, then each representation will be looked at.  If the Mayor of London chooses not to proceed then the consultations will start again, until the inspectors find an acceptable version.


3.         It was confirmed that Enfield are not losing residents as envisaged through the recent census.  The population is not growing but it is not declining either. The London Plan has been adopted not just about population numbers but providing housing for those who are living in the Borough.