Agenda item

To receive a presentation on Heritage. ‘To Follow’.

RECEIVED a presentation from Christine White, Heritage & Urban Design Manager, who updated the Forum on heritage at risk, in the borough.

The following comments and questions were received, which officers responded to:

a.    A question was received with regards to how often officers had to intervene with carrot and stick measures. The officer responded that the stick approach had been used in a number of cases in which urgent works notices were issued to protect buildings. In some instances, if the owners did not comply, the council would have to step-in in default but that this was not done lightly, due to budgets and recovery of funds through the courts; the carrot technique was mentioned as involving raising funding priority.

b.    It was asked what festival programmes were planned for Trent Park. The officer replied that there was a steering group that look at this, which Cllr James chairs, and is attended by a member of the conservation group, along with other stakeholders. It was said the only festival planned for Trent Park this year was the Ghana and Mauritius festival, and that this was a question for the steering group.

c.    There was a query how Verena McCaig fit in with Broomfield House. The officer advised that Verena McCaig was the Heritage at Risk Officer at Historic England; and that for council owned entries on the register, Historic England put themselves down as the contact, and for privately owned heritage at risk queries the council is put down as the contact. This was followed up by an enquiry if the contacts on the list were all from Historic England, to which officers explained the list detailed Enfield’s entries on the Heritage at Risk register; a document compiled by Historic England.

d.    A member asked, with regards to registered parks and gardens, where Enfield ranked on the league table. The officer responded that Enfield had five parks/gardens, of which four were registered, but did not know the comparison of this relative to other boroughs. It was confirmed that the four which were registered were all council owned, and that the one which was not was owned by Lee Valley Park.

e.    It was then queried if the Director of Environment & Operational Services could commit to getting Forty Hall back to the base line condition that needs to be achieved, before introducing grounds maintenance. Officers replied that the intention would be to produce a management and activity plan to give Historic England confidence that through various workstreams, things were moving forward. This was followed up by an enquiry as to what the timescales for this would be, to which officers said they did not know, but could come back with.

f.     The Forum asked if the works on Trent Park terrace and landscape were part of the planning permission and section 106 agreement and had time conditions. The officer confirmed this to be the case for the part of the site in Barkley’s ownership, and that the wider country park was Enfield’s responsibility.

g.    A question was received with regards to who owned North Lodge previously, and what confidence officers had that Tottenham Hotspur were going to resolve the issues. The officer responded that it was privately owned previously, and that they could only follow the rules/regulations and deal with any matters as they arise.

h.    Forum members enquired if a possible resolution regarding Lavender Hill Cemetery Chapel, was to convert/market it as residential usage, as they felt it was better properly preserved and maintained, than left rotting. The officer advised that a site meeting was set for May with Historic England, and a historic building preservation trust was coming to see if there were any possible projects/interests. It was expressed that a range of options were being explored, the fact that it was positioned near the edge of the road rather than in the middle of the cemetery was a positive quality, and members queried what input they could have in deciding what happened to these sites.

i.      It was asked if a change of use application had been submitted for Southgate House, and if conditions would be placed on it, requiring the building to be restored. The officer said she was unaware of any applications being made yet, that the change in ownership was relatively new, and that they would look to have the condition of the building returned to a suitable state of repair.

j.      A question was received regarding if the depth of the detail of the original listing determined the conditions for preservation. Christine responded that the listing protected both the inside and outside of buildings. She said the list entries were originally just for the purpose of identifying the building, and were not exhaustive of everything of interest, and they would always argue it did not matter if something were not in there, it would still be of interest, but that the fuller the description the better. It was explained that any application for works would need to have heritage considerations, and that in the case of Southgate House, there was a lot of documentation regarding the building.

k.    A member queried, in respect of Holly Hill Farm, how they work with property services to keep buildings properly maintained. The officer replied that they chase them, that urgent works notices were not usually used in these circumstances, but instead they engage/broker meetings with Historic England, who review the portfolios progress, and support the work being done. Funding had been made available for repairs, and the condition survey was being updated so repairs could be timetabled, with a planned inspection by Historic England, due to take place in May.

l.      The Forum enquired if the high-density of at-risk buildings around Church and Fore Street was due to the owners not having the money to maintain them, and if so, what could be done to alleviate the situation. The officer replied with a summary in which she outlined the heritage at risk in and around the Edmonton area. It was asked if the conservation areas in that part of the borough had local study groups. It was advised that they did not, but the Enfield Society had done lots of works to engage the community in Edmonton with regards to heritage.