To receive an update on the Local Plan consultation, with particular focus on environmental matters.
Minutes:
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
Biodiversity
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
U.H.I
Build for a Lifetime - high quality buildings
Embodied carbon
Compliance of enforcement
Embedding Principles
Education
Rewilding
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
Character
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.
Transport
The following points were received:
Sustainable active polices and active travel.
How:
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.
Priorities:
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?
Enforcement
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.