Appendix A
Southgate Town Hall Planning Brief
Consultation Report
October 2011
Contents
Executive Summary
1. The Planning Brief consultation
2. People consulted and how we consulted them
3. Who responded to the consultation
4. What local residents said
5. What organisations and community groups said
6. Updating the planning brief
Appendices
A – Table of all comments received B – List of community groups, businesses and statutory groups contacted C – Notes from youth, community and council meetings D – Letters and consultation material
Executive Summary
The purpose of the planning brief is to provide the planning framework and detailed design guidance for the Southgate Town Hall site. The planning brief must be taken into account when considering options for the future development of the site. The planning brief contains information on what the site is like now, the surrounding environment and features, and the requirements for any redevelopment in terms of mix of uses, design, transport and landscaping.
The purpose of the brief was to set out an approach to securing the refurbishment of the library and the redevelopment of the site and to consult residents and stakeholders. The consultation took place for 8 weeks from July 25 to September 16 2011. This report sets out:
• Who we consulted on the brief • When we consulted them • How we consulted them • The profile of people who responded in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, religion, and location in the area. • The responses we received to the consultation and proposed changes to the brief as a result
The key findings from the consultation are: - 113 responses were received on the consultation from individuals, community groups and stakeholders. Of these, 40% objected to the key principles (such as allowing residential use on the site or not allowing education use), and 60% supported the refurbishment of the library and retention of both of the buildings and/or had specific comments on certain detailed parts of the brief which we have addressed through amendments (such as reducing the permitted height of buildings or more information needed on the heritage value of the site).
- Key issues raised in the objections were: school places, too much housing being built in the area, and that the town hall should be a community use building rather than being converted for housing. This report sets out the Council’s response to the key issues raised and provides an approach to deal with these.
- Other common issues raised were parking and traffic, unclear over the mix of uses and how they would be laid out on the site, need more focus on the heritage and history of the building, concern that building heights and density are too high.
- 14 responses were from community groups and stakeholders. The main issues raised were: • ensuring the heritage and civic importance of the site was recognised and maintained • that biodiversity and environmental issues were clearly defined • concerns raised over traffic congestion and parking. • other groups raised concerns over the build standards of the Housing and also the type of housing planned 1. The table in Appendix A sets out all the comments received, we have provided a response and suggested how the brief will change as a result of the comments. This report will be made available for residents, community groups and organisations to view.
2. 1. The Planning Brief consultation
The Southgate Town Hall planning brief is required to ensure that the future development of the site accommodates appropriate uses, and the design of any new development is consistent with the planning policy framework and design guidance. The key objectives for the site are as follows: • To deliver improved library services, and an associated community facility, on the site;
• To meet housing need and a accommodate a potential health facility;
• Facilitate the re-use of the site, maximising its relationship with the surrounding area, whilst recognising its local civic and heritage importance and value within the community;
In addition the brief will ensure that the social, environmental and economic benefits are maximised from any redevelopment. Once adopted, the planning brief will be a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in the Local Development Framework and a significant material consideration in making decisions on planning applications.
Public consultation on the draft planning brief took place for 8 weeks from 25 th July to 16 th September 2011. This report explains how we carried out this consultation including the different groups and organisations consulted and the methods used, as well as the responses we received from local residents and organisations and our response to these. Finally it sets out how the brief will be changed as a result. If the changes are agreed, the final planning brief will be adopted by the Council .
How the consultation complied with Planning Regulations
As the Brief is a Supplementary Planning Document, the Consultation Report has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning Local Development (England) Regulations 2004 and identifies: - The names of the organisations/groups who we consulted in connection with the preparation of the Planning Brief SPD (Chapter 2 and Appendix B); - How those people were consulted (Chapter 2); - A summary of the main issues raised in the consultations (Chapters 4 and 5); and - How those issues have been addressed in the Planning Brief SPD (Chapter 6).
The consultation process reflects the Council’s and consultation approach set out in the Statement of Community Involvement (2006).
3. 2. People consulted and how we consulted them
To get residents’ views on the brief, different consultation methods and events were arranged throughout the 8 week consultation period such as mail-outs to residents and businesses, newspaper articles, attendance at community forums and a youth forum for 13-16 year olds. We also attended public events and held an open day at Palmers Green Library. The table sets out the consultation methods and activities and the different people consulted:
Date Consultation activity and method Groups targeted Approximate number of people attending/ involved
25 th July-16 th Article about the planning brief and all Residents, stakeholders, Any resident, September planning brief documents place on the businesses, community business or 2011 Enfield Council Website groups website user
25 th July Posted consultation letter to community Race equalities groups 18 groups 2011 groups representing different racial groups or organisations
25 th July Posted consultation letter to community Disability equalities 9 groups 2011 groups representing different disability groups groups or organisations
25 th July Posted consultation letter to community Age equalities groups 6 groups 2011 groups representing different age related groups or organisations
25 th July Posted consultation letter to community Faith equalities groups 10 groups 2011 groups representing different Faith groups or organisations
25 th July Posted consultation letter to community Gender equalities 7 groups 2011 groups representing Gender related groups groups or organisations
25 th July Posted a consultation letter to the Enfield Sexual Orientation 1 group 2011 LGBT Network Equalities Groups
25 th July Emailed or Posted consultation letters and Statutory Stakeholders 50 planning brief details to Statutory and Consultees consultation Bodies
25 th July Emailed adult library members to inform Library users, local 7000 members them of the consultation plans and residents documents 25 th July Enfield Residents Panel members: sent the Residents panel 200 consultation letter to members of the panel members, Residents, in the N13 postcode stakeholders, businesses, community groups
25-27 th July Posters and Leaflets delivered to local Community 50 Businesses and community groups, Library organisations, library and Park in Green Lanes and Alderman Hill users
27 th July Posted consultation letters to local Businesses in the 197 2011 businesses in Green Lanes and Alderman surrounding area Hill Area. (Businesses listed in Appendix B)
27 th July Article in Enfield Independent and Enfield Residents, stakeholders, Circulated to Advertiser Newspapers businesses, community all residents of groups the borough
28 th July South West Partnership: emailed the Council officers and 53 consultation letter to the members of the partners group
1st August Article in Our Enfield Magazine Residents and Circulated to community groups all residents of the borough
2nd August Posted consultation letters to local Local residents 2713 residential properties in the N13 Area within addresses a defined boundary of Southgate Town Hall
3rd August Consultation letter, planning brief and Local residents 13 consultation forms sent to local residential associations
3rd August Consultation letter sent to local schools: St Schools and young 6 schools Anne’s, Broomfield, Palmers Green High, people Tottenhall Infants, Bowes Primary and Hazelwood Schools
5th August Attended on your doorstep at Broomfield Local residents 30 Park 2.30-5pm
6th August Attended on your doorstop at Broomfield Local residents 13 Park 10.30am-1pm
8th August Parent2parent and ourvoiceenfield.org.uk Age and disability 2 sent consultation details groups
8th August Other council departments and colleagues Council officers and Approx 100 sent notification of the consultation plan council partners 20 th August Open Day at Palmers Green Library Residents, community 120 attended groups and library the day users, young people 6 young people completed children’s questionnaires
25 people attended the tours of the town hall
1st Presentation at the Conservation Advisory Conservation Advisory Councillors September Group Group members, and 14 Councillors and Council members of officers the public representing resident associations, historical and conservation groups
3rd -4th Display and attendance at the Enfield Town All Approx 3 September Show individuals
13 th Presentation at Bowes, Palmers Green and Residents, ward Approx 50 September Southgate Green Community Forum Councillors people in attendance
13 th Youth Forum at Palmers Green Library Young people 10 young September people attended
4. 3. Who responded to the consultation
We received 113 responses to the consultation. This included responses from organisation/community groups and individuals representing a sector of the community.
26 people completed and returned the consultation form; this chapter sets out the different ages, ethnicities, and religion of people who filled in the consultation form. We did not collect this information from people who responded using other methods or attended community events and group meetings as this may have led to attendees being unwilling to participate given this was face-to-face consultation.
Equalities monitoring
Gender
All 26 of the respondents declared their gender, with 16 of them being female which represents 62% of the respondents and 10 male which is 38% of the respondents. The GLA mid 2011 population projection for the Palmers Green Ward show that ward has a split of 50.7% female to 49.3% male. Therefore the respondents return shows a higher return from females than males based on the ward population
Age of respondents
Age Groups of Consultation Respondents
8
7
6
5
4 No of No
3
2
1
0 0 to 10 11 to 14 15 to 21 22 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 + not given
Age
27% of the respondents were within the 41 to 50 age group. This is a higher response than often received from this age group, who traditionally do not respond to these types of consultation but due to the interest in school places and the use of the building being discussed, this meant may more people of this age group were interested. Both the 51-60 and 61-70 age group had a 15% return. 19% of the respondents did not give their age. The 22-40 age groups were the lowest out of the forms returned, but a lot of these people may have returned comments via other methods e.g. email, which did not record people’s details, whereas the older age groups are more likely to use the form. 30% of the Palmers Green Ward (according to the council’s mid 2009 population figures) are within the 0-24 age group. We had no responses on forms from this age group, this is not untypical in consultations as parents will often complete the forms or young adults may use online methods.
We created child specific questionnaires for the open day at Palmers Green Library, which 5 were completed, but contain no identifiable data. We also consulted with young people at a youth forum for which 10 young people aged 13-18 attended. Views of young people are attached in Appendix B
People with a disability
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Yes No not stated
Disability
70% of the respondents answered the question about disability, of which 8% said they considered themselves to have a disability. Sexual orientation 50% of the form respondents described their sexual orientation as heterosexual. Other chose not to fill this section in. Ethnicity 65% of the respondents declared their ethnicity of which 82% said they were British. The others who declared their ethnicity were Italian, Mauritian and Ashkenazi Jewish. Religion Only 35% of the respondents declared their religion. These included, Christian, catholic or spiritualist. To ensure we covered all faiths in the area, we sent out letters to different religious buildings, as well as equality and voluntary groups who may have particular connections with people of certain religions such as the Enfield Faith Forum Geographical location of responses
The map shows the postcode of all respondents who gave us their address and where they live in relation to Southgate Town Hall. The majority of the respondents live near the Town Hall and to the North- West of the area. The largest area for respondents came from the 2 roads nearest the Town Hall, Shapland Way and Davey Close, due to the close proximity of the roads to the site and also a generic letter that was delivered to these residents for people to sign and return. A large number of responses were from addresses in the Lakes Estate and in the roads behind the Town Hall along Broomfield Lane, for many of these school places and increased traffic was a concern. The consultation table (Appendix A) sets out how we have responses to the comments raised.
How we received the responses
How we received the responses
60
50
40
30
Number of20 Responses
10
0 Consultation Form Letter Email Online Verbal/ Face to Face Method of response
We placed all the consultation documents on the Council website, which enabled people to view the planning brief when it was convenient to them. A large number of people viewed the Southgate Town Hall webpage (www.enfield.gov.uk/southgatetownhall ) during the consultation period, which is likely to have resulted in he largest number of responses coming via email.
5. 4. What residents said
For all of the detailed responses please refer to Appendix A
Summary of main issues raised during the consultation
School places- the site should be allocated for education use
The town hall should be retained for community use
There is too much housing being built in the area Concern over the low level of parking, and that redevelopment of the site, particularly new homes, will increase traffic congestion and the amount of people parking on surrounding streets. Comments were in favour of the New River being opened up for access next to the site, provided it does not harm surrounding amenity or biodiversity and that the pumping station remains secure. A number of respondents asked about the current situation with Truro House.
Concerns were raised that proposed heights (up to 4 storeys) and density in the draft brief are too high.
Natural England and other consultees requested more information on biodiversity included in the brief. English Heritage and other consultees requested that the brief should include more information on the heritage value of the buildings, recognition of the buildings as heritage assets, and their considerable local interest. Several consultees requested that the town hall should be listed. It was considered that Chapter 7 on planning obligations should be directly related to development on the site, rather than a general approach with little guidance on the site objectives. A number of comments indicated that the section on the mix of uses is unclear and that more information should be provided on how the different uses will be laid out on the site. In addition a number of consultees suggested additional community uses. Comments were made that if the town hall is converted for housing some policies and standards may be more difficult to achieve due to the constraints of the building.
Concerns were raised over the section in the brief which refers to a ‘landmark development fronting Green Lanes’ as well as other references to new development along Green Lanes.
Comments were made against the removal of the library annexe.
5. What organisations and community groups said
Responses were received from the following organisations: A full list of all organisations that were informed of the planning brief is included in Appendix B. The responses are summarised below;
1. The Coal Authority • Reviewed the document and had no specific comments to make.
2. English Heritage • The purpose of brief is to provide a well-considered vision for the site- this should be made clear as part of paragraph 2.2. • Clear historic environments objectives should be included within Section 3.2 to ensure the plan draws on the historic significance, character and heritage value of the site. • Site information – the brief needs to be expanded to articulate the historic design elements. Truro House points also needs to be expanded • There is a need to capture the civic heritage of the site.
3. Environment Agency • Overall happy with the brief as it allows opportunities to achieve sustainable drainage systems and enhance and protect biodiversity • Brief should be strengthened to include a commitment to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the New River • Building retention should ensure that it complies with current regulations on water efficiency • Urban design- we encourage green roofs which are supported by policy 5.11 of the London Plan • Section 6.6: Increased lighting and management activities can have a detrimental impact on wildlife using the river corridor. Providing direct access to the new river path could increase the impact and its effects will need to be explored • Planning Policy Statement 23 should be mentioned.
4. Fox Lane Residents Association • Unhappy at the timing and length of the consultation period • Brief fails to highlight the building’s historical importance • Concerns over parking spaces. • Concerns over type of housing • What type of community facilities? the brief is unclear
5. Green Lanes Business Association • Existing library should be refurbished, with children’s library and other children’s facilities on the ground floor and an additional entrance on the Green Lanes side of the building • Would like a Walk-In medical centre for local people • Free parking for building visitors • Small coffee shop facility on site
6. Highways Agency • Reviewed the document and had no specific comments to make on the planning brief.
7. The Murphy Group • Section 6.6 Housing – Lifetime Homes, the plan is likely to have new and refurbished homes. To fully meet Lifetime Home standards it relies on meeting a criteria of 16 points. In practice only new builds generally meet this standard, therefore some flexibility must be allowed.
8. Natural England • Objectives of the brief –the 12 objectives are broadly supported. However the site abuts the New River (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation/ SINC), and there is little reference to the potential for ecological or biodiversity enhancements to the site • Stronger consideration needed in relation to ecological improvements linking into Council’s Core Policy 36 on Biodiversity
9. Southgate District Civic Trust • Agree with key objectives listed in 3.2 • Agree with mix of uses (6.1), retention of buildings (6.2.1) and urban design (6.3.1) • Concerned about the density of the properties and would like the density lower, so rooms and living accommodation would be larger. Height should be lower. • Despite good transport links, feel the parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit is too few • Agree with trees and landscaping (6.6.1 &.6.6.2), housing (6.8.1) and sustainability (6.9)
10. Thames Water • Trees and shrubs should not be planted over the route of the sewers or water pipes • Require 24 hour vehicular access for emergency repairs, therefore in any pedestrianised area; the sewerage and water supply must not be impeded by street furniture.
11. The Victorian Society • The former town hall is undoubtedly a heritage asset and should be retained and. formally recognised as a Heritage Asset, in accordance with PPS5 Policy HE8.
12. Greater London Authority • In agreement with the principles and objectives of the brief. Reference to draft London Plan should be updated to reflect the adopted London Plan (2011).
13. Theatres Trust • Support the refurbishment and reuse of existing buildings as it is more environmentally friendly.
14. Capacities Ltd • Would like the Town Hall retained for community use • Set out a number of specific comments on design which we have addressed in the responses table in Appendix A.
6. Updating the Planning Brief
Based on the responses to the consultation a number of changes have been made to the planning brief; see Appendix A for full details of all the comments and changes. The main changes are as follows;
Issue raised during Proposed change to the planning brief consultation School places- the site should be We have added more information to the brief to address school allocated for education use places in Palmers Green. The site has not been allocated for education use (see the consultation table number 7 for more information). The town hall should be retained We have removed the requirement in Section 6.2 that ’the town for community use hall should be converted for primarily residential use’ but residential use is still permitted on the site There is too much housing being We have added further information to the brief on density and built in the area heights which sets out why this site is not suitable for large amounts of housing (mainly due to the retention of the existing buildings). However in order to achieve the library refurbishment housing will be permitted on the site. Concern over the low level of The reference to 0.5 parking spaces per residential unit has parking, and that redevelopment been removed from the planning brief and more information has of the site, particularly new been added about the general approach to parking, particularly homes, will increase traffic the impact of parking on surrounding roads and streets. congestion and the amount of people parking on surrounding streets. Comments were in favour of the We have added more information to Section 6.6 of the brief to New River being opened up for advise on the issues to consider if the path is opened in this access next to the site, provided it location. does not harm surrounding amenity or biodiversity and that the pumping station remains secure. A number of respondents asked Wording added to section 4.2 the planning brief to set out the about the current situation with current situation with Truro House including more guidance on Truro House. how the redevelopment of the site should relate to Truro House given its status as a Grade II listed building. Concerns were raised that We have amended these sections (6.5.1 and 6.5.2) in order to proposed heights (up to 4 storeys) reduce the overall density and height of any proposed scheme. and density in the draft brief are We have indicated that new development of up to 3 storeys will too high. be acceptable. 4 storeys will not be acceptable unless it is only on part of the site, and located at the rear where there is a lower ground level. Natural England and other A new section (6.11) has been included on biodiversity, consultees requested more including recognition of the status of the New River as a Site of information on biodiversity Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). included in the brief. English Heritage and other We have added a new section to the brief (6.10) on the consultees requested that the brief historical value and features and been clear on the treatment of should include more information these in any redevelopment scheme. Throughout the brief we on the heritage value of the have included reference to the historical value of the buildings buildings, recognition of the (Chapters 3, 4 and 6). In relation to requests to list the building, buildings as heritage assets, and English Heritage, the listing body have not made any reference their considerable local interest. to this in their response to the planning brief consultation. Several consultees requested that the town hall should be listed. It was considered that Chapter 7 Section 7 has been amended to make it clear that the on planning obligations should be refurbishment of the library will be the priority in any Section 106 directly related to development on agreement, with affordable housing, public realm, education the site, rather than a general contributions (towards new school places) and transport being approach with little guidance on the other key priorities. the site objectives. A number of comments indicated We have explained the appropriate land uses in more detail that the section on the mix of uses (Section 6.1.1) including adding the suggestions for new is unclear and that more community space made by residents during the consultation. information should be provided on how the different uses will be laid We have also included more information (Section 6.1.6) on the out on the site. layout of the different uses in relation to one another. In addition a number of consultees suggested additional community uses. Comments were made that if the Section 6.8: a paragraph has been included to recognise that town hall is converted for housing converting the town hall could limit the extent to which certain some policies and standards may Core Strategy policy requirements (such as housing mix, be more difficult to achieve due to wheelchair homes and Lifetime Homes) can be met. However the constraints of the building. the policy position will be our starting point for negotiations with developers and any deviations will need to be fully justified. Concerns were raised over the It will be made clear in the brief that no new development will be section in the brief which refers to built at the Green Lanes frontage other than a new entrance to a ‘landmark development fronting the library. Green Lanes’ as well as other references to new development along Green Lanes. We have amended section 6.2.1 of the brief to set clearer criteria on the removal of extensions of the existing buildings Comments were made against the and made it clear that it would be in exceptional circumstances removal of the library annexe. and would need to be fully justified in both design and viability terms.
Appendix A
SEE THE TABLE AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
Appendix B: Lists of community groups, stakeholders and businesses we contacted .
Local Businesses that were contacted The following businesses within Alderman’s Hill and Green Lanes were sent letters informing them of the planning brief and inviting them to comment and that they could attend the open day if they wished. Many of the businesses were also given posters to advertise the consultation. Green Lanes Business "H" Salon Association Penny's Alterations 1001 Supermarket Green Lanes Dental Care Peter Michael A Steward & sons Green Pounder Shop Phones 4 U Accounting Direct Greggs Photo 7 Digital Ada Supermarket Gujranwala Picnic Kebab House Aksular Hair Palace Design Pierres Patisserie Alderman’s Pharmacy Halifax Pizza Hut Delivery Alfred Herring Pub Hallmark Post Office Alpine Hardwood Floors Hamilton Pound Saver Anglian Home Improvements Harley Bain Premier Dry Cleaners Anthony Pepe & Co. Harna's Polski Sklep Printfields Anthony Webb Hayat Shisha Profile Aragosta Headstart R P News Aroma Patisserie Holland & Barratt Rameli Restaurant Audiovision HSBC Range Homes Auto Power Hurshens Record Detective Agency Barclays Iceland Rimini Barnet & Enfield Children’s Rights Service Indian Palace Rodeo Baskervilles Inghams Ronald Brown Beauty Hair Direct Inn on the Green S.T. Food & Wine Bennett-Walden Job Centre Santander Bet Fred Kafejka U Agi SCOPE Body Beauty Kebabish Scruples Bon Appetit KFC Simal Boots Khin lee Smokers Paradise British Heart Foundation Kulfonic Polski Sklep Sole D'oro British Red Cross Ladbrokes Specsavers Broomfield Estates Laiki Bank Spin City Broomfield Off License Lapels Stanze C A Phillips Lemon Tree Starbucks Cali Nails Lloyds TSB Stef & Phillips Cancer Research UK - Palmers Green Londis Stoneview Cardridge World Lugis Barbers Store Twenty One Catwalk Clothing M2M Express Subway Chef Gourmet Restaurant Mark & Co Solicitors Sunkissed Chester Stevens MC Homes Superdrug Clarks McDonalds Swirlz Cobblers Corner Mehdi & Ward Swiss Care Coco Hairdressers Millennium Fried Chicken Taste Buds Café Coffee Culture Mojan Chinese Express Taste Of Raj Connect Mont Clare Tax Assist Accountants Coversure Insurance More Than Coffee Thalia Cristo Cafe Morrisons The Carphone Warehouse Crown Nails Morrisons The Live Room The Only Place for Cuts On The Hill N L Epilation Pictures N. Salamis F.C and Salamina DD Jewellers Cyprus Supporters The Salon Deeyar National Estates The Smile Studio Delhi Express Nationwide The Wishing Well Desireable Gifts & Events Natwest T-Mobile Di Nero Navara Health Foods Top Discount Diamond Nails Newsagents Triangle Gym Dipali Nissi Triangle Metalworks Domino's North London Hospice Trios Dry Cleaning by Olivia Office Interiors Turkish Bank Elegant Flooring Olive Branch Turn 'Em Clean Enfield FairTrade Campaign Omonia Unique Glow Fabulous Hair Oxfam Venture Fair Box Palmer Hair for Men Videofair Flowerzone Palmers Green Antiques Waitrose Walkers Dispensing Food of Peking Palmers Green News Chemist Fox Pub Palmers Pharmacy Welcome News Plus G Mantella Papa Johns Pizza Westlakes Gemm Hair Sudio Paramount Gym WH Smiths Gents Hair Salon Park Side Cafe William Hill George's Fish Bar Patersons Winkworths
Local Community Groups and Associations that were contacted
All the following groups were either posted or emailed with details of the planning brief consultation. We also offered to visit the groups and give them a presentation of the brief if required,
Category of Organisation Names of Organisations Contacted community Age Concern Enfield community Association of Cypriot Parents in Enfield community British Red Cross Society - Palmers Green & Southgate community Broomfield Museum Trust community Cypriot Elderly and Disabled Group of Enfield community Cyprus Turkish Women's Association community Darji Mitra Mandal of the UK community Enfield and District Soroptimists community Enfield Bangladesh Welfare Association community Enfield Bangladesh Women’s Society community Enfield Branch of the National Autistic Society community Enfield Business and Retailers Association community Enfield Cypriots Association community Enfield Saheli community Enfield Somali Community Association community Enfield Turkish Cypriot Association community Enfield Voluntary Action community Enfield Women's Centre community Federation of Enfield Community Associations community Federation of Enfield Residents and Allied Associations community Friends of Broomfield Park community Greek and Greek Cypriot Association community Hindu Dharam Sabha community Iranian community service community Koza educational association community Naree Shakti community North London Bangladeshi Association community our voice community Palmers Green Angling Society community Palmers Green Association community Palmers Green Good Neighbours community parent2parent community Punjabi Education Association community Rethink community Ruth Winston House community Sanatan Bengali Association community Sangam Asian Ladies Group community Shakti Sewa, Enfield Asian Carers Consortium community SOLACE (Enfield)Women's Aid Ltd community Southgate District Civic Trust community TaB Centre Plus community The Broomfield House Trust community Townswomen Guild - Arnos Grove community Urdu Trust council Bowes, Palmers Green and Community Forum council Joint Services for Disabled Children Equality Enfield Disability Action Equality Enfield LGBT Network Equality Enfield Mental Health Users Group Equality Enfield Over 50s Forum Equality Enfield Racial Equality Council Equality Enfield Vision Faith A Temple of the Trinity Lodge Faith Enfield Free Church Council Faith Oshwal Association of the U.K Faith Palmers Green and Southgate Synagogue Faith Palmers Green Baptist Church Faith Palmers Green Mosque Faith Palmers Green United Reform Church Faith Riverside Community Church Faith St Monica's Roman Catholic Church Health Connaught Surgery Health Dentist Health Dentist Health Fox Lane Dental Care Health Gillan House Surgery Health Grovelands Medical Centre health Park Lodge Medical Centre health Park Parade Dental Practice Health Rochdale Surgery Health The Palm Medical Centre Health The Surgery resident Bounds Green and District Residents Association resident Broomfield Houseowners and Residents Association resident Broomfield Residents Association resident Enfield Borough Residents' Association resident Fox Lane and District residents association resident Group 52 Housing Co-Op resident New Southgate Tenants Association resident Oakthorpe Action Group resident Riverlink Housing Co-op resident The Broomfield Association resident Westminster Drive Residents Association resident Wolves Lane & District Residents' Association school Bowes Primary School school Broomfield School school Hazelwood Schools school Palmers Green High School school St. Anne's RC High School (Upper) school Tottenhall Infant School
Statutory Consultees Companies and Organisations that we contacted via email or letter
Metropolitan Police Service T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Barnet Council Virgin Media Limited Thames Water Property Services British Gas Welwyn Hatfield District Council Ecotricity East of England Development Agency Good Energy Broxbourne District Council Green Energy UK Vodafone Limited EDF Energy Networks Network Rail Npower Environment Agency Powergen Epping Forest District Council Scottish and Southern Electric Waltham Abbey Town Council Utilita Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council Natural England Mono Consultants Ltd Network Rail O2 PLC Hertfordshire Police Authority Essex County Council Essex Police Authority English Heritage - London Region Department of Transport Highways Agency London Development Agency Greater London Authority Hertsmere Borough Council London Borough of Haringey Coal Authority Hertfordshire County Council Waltham Forest Council Airwave Solutions Ltd Enfield Primary Care Trust British Telecommunications Plc Haringey Council Hutchison 3G UK Ltd Thames Water Interoute Communications (UK) Ltd Transport for London O2 (UK) Ltd Enfield Professional Development Centre - LBE
Appendix C: Notes from Youth, Community and Council Meetings
Children’s Comments on Southgate Town Hall Draft Planning Consultation at Palmers Green Library on 20 th August 2011
During the Open Day on Saturday 20 th August, we provided face painting and craft activities in the Children’s Library, this was to enable their parents/carers to spend time looking at the full consultation boards and planning brief and ask the team questions.
The Council’s Play Development Team led the activities in the Children’s Library and helped the children complete their questionnaires. The questionnaire contained 5 questions and we had 5 responses. The children who responded were aged 5,8,9,10,11.
Southgate Town Hall and Library Planning Brief Children’s Feedback Form
1. Would you like to live here?
4 children replied Good 1 child replied OK
2. What do you think of the library?
All of the Children replied Good, with the following comments: - like the range of books that are available - like’s the idea of an adult and children’s section - lots of nice books
3. What do you like about the area?
All the Children replied Good, with the following comments: - Nice transport - A nice park near by - Park - Park nearby, loads of local shops - Nice park and good shopping
4. What don’t you like about the area?
None of the children marked any of the faces but added the following comments: - Busy roads, whilst riding my bike - Busy roads, traffic - Too much traffic
5. Any other comments
No other comments added
Youth Forum meeting Comments of 13 th September 2011 on Southgate Town Hall Draft Planning Consultation
Introduction
A Youth Consultation forum meeting was set up in partnership with Enfield Councils Youth Engagement officer, Youth Service Participation Officers and Neighbourhood Regeneration Community Engagement Officer. The participants were young people already engaged in various Enfield consultations through the Youth Forum and Youth Parliament in Enfield.
The Consultation meeting consisted of ten young people aged 13 – 18 years old (school years 7-13). The format that was applied was a welcome, brief introduction on the Southgate Town hall consultation then a tour around the site, so young people could get a sense of the buildings.
The rest of the consultation meeting consisted of an open discussion around the proposals and how they felt they could input into the designs of the library and community facility. Below is a brief overview of the points raised by the young people in three separate categories
Southgate Town Hall
• Why can’t the Town Hall just be one large residence • Children’s Home • Not residential, wants it to be for community use • Use the town hall for community and not residential- use the 2 new identified areas for residential • No play space in the area • Create a local/ family history research facility at the Town Hall like they have at the Dugdale Centre • Council Chamber – should be used as a residential/ sitting or reception room • The Town Hall should be half residential and half housing, the community space shouldn’t be in the library
Library • The library should be painted different colours – more attractive • “Teen zone” is awful signage and stereotypical. The area should not be named Teen zone • Learning Zone to be created with round desks to enable sharing of work easier, also small pods/glassed off areas to enable students to do group project work • Separate pods for project work • Self check out facility • Library card – not always able to get, is there not some other way to use Library Service without signing up – link to oyster, scan card • School Textbooks – felt there was not enough school curriculum related stock in the library. The youth forum would like to be involved in helping to choose the stock for the curriculum areas as well as the general teenage stock • Would like to be involved in decorating/ volunteer to do children’s and young people area or at least be involved in the planning of the new library
Community Space
• Facilities to be similar to a youth centre • Room should be multi purpose, with one room aimed at young people but used by others when not in use by young people e.g. elderly people and support groups • Community space shouldn’t be in the library but in the Town Hall space • Social area to catch up – extension of the library i.e. a drop in zone with a cafe • Young people want ownership, to help design and decorate it, also possibly a graffiti room • Suggested activities for use of room included- zumba/kung fu/ all sports or music activities, but others felt technological activities are important • Different rooms for different ages
Conclusion
This feedback will be incorporated into the Consultation Report. A response will be put together to let the Youth Forum know of the impact /changes to the proposals.
It was also evident in the meeting that the young people had valuable feedback for the library consultation that is currently taking place and it was agreed that this would be passed to them. Due to how enthusiastic and vocal the young people were in being involved in the design, changes to services and consultations, they will be invited to take part in further discussions with the Council around the Southgate Town Hall project.
MINUTES OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP 01 September 2011
MEMBERS: Councillors : Christopher Cole, Ingrid Cranfield, Daniel Pearce, Michael Lavender, Geoffrey Robinson.
Co-opted: Mr. D. Stacey (Chairman) (Bush Hill Park Conservation Area Study Group), Mr. T Dey (Vice Chairman) (Federation of Enfield Residents and Allied Associations) Mr. P. Fisk (Forty Hill and Bulls Cross Study Group), Mr. A. Newman (Clay Hill Study Group), Ms H Walton (Edmonton Study Group), Dr. C. Jephcott (Enfield Preservation Society), Mr. B. Macdonald (Enfield Town Conservation Area Study Group), Mrs. A. Bishop-Laggett (Federation of Enfield Residents and Allied Associations), Mrs. I. Stone (Southgate District Civic Trust), Dr. D. Gandhi (Southgate Green Study Group), Mr. P Hutchinson (Grange Park Conservation Area Study Group), Mr T Hanrahan (Meadway Conservation Area Study Group), Mr . G. Dalling (Edmonton Hundred Historical Society) and Mr. D. Alexander (Trent Park Conservation Committee) Mr C Younger (Lakes Estate Conservation Area Study Group).
Officers: Christine White (Heritage Officer), Suzanne Johnson (Planning & Regeneration Officer), Jacqui Glover (Clerk)
Also present: Chris Horner (Southgate Green Study Group), John Davies (The Enfield Society) and David Holmes (Enfield Town Conservation Area Study Group)
Italics denote absence.
4. SOUTHGATE TOWN HALL AND LIBRARY REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION
4.1 Suzanne Johnson, Planning & Regeneration Officer presented the item to the Group. The production of a report from responses received is scheduled for October 2011. In answer to Listed Building reference it was advised that the Town Hall and the Library were not listed buildings. However Truro House is and Suzanne assured the Group that the proposals would enhance and compliment the building.
4.2 Tony Dey brought attention to the significance of Truro House, advising that it is the only one of its type in the borough. He said that both sites are very significant.
4.3 Graham Dalling advised that he had worked at the Town Hall for 33 years and enquired whether the War Memorial in the front entrance would be rescued and re-located and the old Southgate Council Coat of Arms be retrieved too.
4.4 Councillor Cranfield enquired what would happen to the artefacts stored in the basement of Broomfield Houses. CW advised that these would need to be salvaged and stored elsewhere.
4.5 Councillor Lavender said that this would be an opportunity to decide what is worth saving and what is not. He felt the Town Hall and library were buildings constructed with both lack of ambition and budget and were quite disappointing. Peter Fisk agreed adding that there may be an argument to save the Town Hall but there was none for the library. He advised that modern libraries now have to be flexible spaces. SJ advised that it would cost more to replace. 4.6 Dennis Stacey enquired on the quality of the buildings. CW replied that both buildings are not without some interest. They were not devoid of some historical and architectural interest.
4.7 Councillor Cranfield reminded the meeting that the Labour Administration had pledged to keep a library on the site.
4.8 Ann Bishop-Laggett suggested that a registry office could be incorporated on the site to serve south west side of the borough.
4.9 Irene Stone asked if this would be a total council development from beginning to end. SJ replied that it was early days to determine just yet. The consultation responses had not yet been analysed. SJ advised that the library would be retained by the council.
4.10 SJ confirmed that an architect would be engaged once the brief was adopted and the delivery plan in place.
4.11 Cllr C enquired at the possibility of basement flooding as the building is located next to the river, GD confirmed that the 2 basement rooms had been flooded by ground water on more than one occasion in the past. SJ advised that the building had been identified as not being in a high flood risk area.
4.12 A request for an extension of the consultation period was proposed as this event had taken place during the summer holiday period. SJ agreed to enquire if this would be possible.
RESOLVED: The Group invited Suzanne to attend a meeting after the consultation has closed.
Appendix D: Letters and consultation material
This appendix sets out all of the different materials we used to inform about the planning brief. It includes copies of the letters sent to statutory consultees, businesses, community groups and local residents. Also included is the statutory public notice, this went into the local press.
A copy of the article included in the Our Enfield Magazine which is distributed to households and available in public libraries and council buildings
The Key Facts leaflet was produced to provide a brief summary of the plan. This leaflet was also available in Palmers Green Library
Article from Our Enfield Magazine
Copy of the Statutory Notice Placed in the Enfield Independent
Comment Organisation Objection (O)- Where an Comment from community group or Officer comment Change made to the planning brief number name objection has been made to the resident (left blank if key principles - Blue coloured text has been added to from a the planning brief resident) Support (S)- Where the - Scored through text has been removed comment is in support of the proposals in the brief
General comment (G)- When a comment has been made that refers specifically to a part of the brief 1 G Paragraph 6.2 fails to refer to the historic The clock tower will be retained in situ. Section Sentence added to section 6.2: Town Hall Clock, which was given to the 6.2 deals with the retention of the buildings and The town hall, including the clock tower, Southgate Council in 1914/15 and has states that the town hall will be retained, must be retained. served the public well for nearly 100 years, therefore including the clock tower. A new and to require its retention in use. section will be included in Chapter 6 to deal New section added to Chapter 6: specifically with the historic features, including 6.10 Heritage and Architectural Features the clock tower. All of the existing interior and exterior heritage and architectural features must be retained in situ, specifically the exterior features such as the town hall clock. If a feature cannot be retained in situ then it should be relocated, preferably to the refurbished library.
The exception is in the town hall, where if converted to residential use, there will be a requirement to relocate these features to a public building. 2 G Concerned about the lack of parking for Any new development requires car parking Additional information added to Section 6.7: users of the facility. spaces to be provided which are below the maximum car parking standards set out in the 6.7 Traffic and parking Movement and London Plan (2011). The general approach to access car parking in planning is to reduce the amount of car parking in new developments and 6.7.1 The number of parking spaces encourage walking, cycling and public transport. provided on the site will have a direct The London Plan states that in areas of ‘good’ impact on residents in the properties public transport accessibility (which the site is), off Shapland Way. The site has a parking standards should be significantly less Public Transport Accessibility Level than 1 parking space per residential unit. of 4 which is classed as having ‘good’ access to public transport by For the community uses and commercial space Transport for London. the approach is the same: car parking should be minimised where possible. However, there is a 6.7.2 The approach to residential car need to provide adequate parking to prevent parking in new developments, as set overflow parking on surrounding streets. out in the London Plan (2011) and Core Strategy (2010), is that it should Adequate parking for disabled people must be be minimised to encourage more provided for both residential and non-residential sustainable forms of transport like uses and the amount required will be walking, cycling and public transport. determined through the planning application In addition the Mayor’s policy is that process. on sites with good access to public transport that the number of spaces We are currently preparing a Development should be less than 1 space per Management Document, which will provide residential unit. Given the location of Enfield policies on car parking. These will be the site, at the crossroads of two referred to once the document is approved. busy roads (Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes (A105)), its location near Palmers Green and Green Lanes centres, and residents concerns over traffic congestion on local roads, it is considered that car parking should be minimised as much as possible to reduce traffic congestion and encourage more sustainable modes of travel, provide that it can be demonstrated through a Transport Assessment that this will not have an adverse impact on local roads and streets.
6.7.3 In relation to the parking spaces for community and office uses (B1, D1 and D2 uses) the approach will be the same. 6.7.4 The Planning Brief does not set out an amount of residential units or floorspace as its purpose is to identify the framework for development to take place. However any planning application (which will be specific on floorspace and number of residential units) must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment (incorporating a Travel Plan) setting out the amount of car parking proposed and justification for this including: the impact on surrounding roads and streets in relation to traffic congestion and overspill parking, servicing and access arrangements and mitigation measures proposed.
6.7.5 Any development must provide adequate disabled parking spaces for both the residential units and community/commercial use space. This should be based on the requirements in the London Plan.
6.7.6 Any development must provide secure and well-designed cycle parking based on the minimum standards in the London Plan (2011). Motorcycle parking bays should also be provided, the amount should be based on the Transport Assessment.
6.7.7 Suitable access and parking should be provided for refuse collection, servicing and emergency vehicles.
6.7.8 The main vehicle access to the site is currently from Shapland Way which should continue to be main access route. There is an alternative access at the front of the site from Green Lanes although this should not be the main vehicle access point. The Transport Assessment should set out proposed access arrangements. and could be blocked in a redevelopment
6.7.9 Redevelopment of the site should improve pedestrian and cycle links to surrounding streets, particularly Palmers Green and Green Lanes town centres and Broomfield Park.
6.7.10 The Council is preparing a Development Management Document, which will provide more detailed policies on traffic and car parking. This should be referred to, once adopted.
6.7.1Redevelopment of the site should improve pedestrian and cycle links to surrounding streets, particularly Palmers Green town centre.
6.7.2 The main access to the site is from Shapland Way which should continue to be main access rou te. There is currently an alternative access at the front of the site from Green Lanes although this must not be the main access road and could be blocked in a redevelopment.
6.7.3 Car parking should be provided in accordance with the draft replacement Lo ndon Plan (2009). Cycle parking should meet the minimum standards set out in the draft replacement London Plan (2009). Given the location of the site and the good public transport links available it is considered that a residential parking ratio of 0.5 spa ces per unit will be acceptable. The commercial parking space should also be minimised. Disabled parking spaces should be provided in accordance with the draft London Plan (2009).
6.7.4 The option of underdeck car parking should be explored in order to help minimise surface car parking.
6.7.5 Adequate access should be provided for refuse collection, servicing and emergency access
6.7.6 A Transport Assessment must be submitted for the site incorporating a movement and access strategy and Travel Plan.
3 G Enquired on behalf of a Goan community The refurbished library will include community No change required. group, whether the building/community space and this could be made available for space could be used for weddings/parties as community groups to use however this is not well as community group usage. likely to be large enough to accommodate functions such as weddings or parties due to the need to prioritise the library refurbishment and the potential noise issues that could affect nearby residential properties. 4 G I am pleased that the library is non- N/A No change required. negotiable. It is a prized local asset.
I am in favour of the Town Hall being listed. English Heritage, the body who list buildings, See the response to Number 72. have been consulted on the planning brief and have not requested that we consider the building for listing. However we have added much more on the heritage value of the building to the planning brief- see the response to Number 72.
I would not like to see the existing buildings The existing buildings will not be demolished. No change required. being demolished and a new-build Section 6.2 has been amended to make this development put up on the site. clearer.
I would be in favour of there being some space reserved for the voluntary sector. The refurbished library will include space for No change required. Maybe Ruth Winston House could use the community use, including voluntary groups. space effectively to develop additional services. They are somewhat cramped and do excellent work.
I am concerned about the busy Broomfield Lane. It is already clogged with traffic and when it isn’t drivers go along it too quickly. I For general comments on traffic congestion, See response to Number 2. am registered disabled and we badly need a please see our response to Number 2. The pedestrian crossing in Broomfield Lane Planning Brief cannot deal specifically with between Broomfield and Belmont Avenue. pedestrian crossings and parking free zones but Also there needs to be a parking free zone we will pass the comments onto our Traffic and on one side of Broomfield Lane – the park Transportation team. side. We residents already suffer from traffic in the summer. The development will make the situation worse. See response to Number 24. I think a good use for some of the ground Acceptable uses on the site include community floor would be to create a space to house a uses (D1 and D2 Use Classes). A nursery is nursery or pre-school facility. It would make classed as a community use (D1). See the sense to limit the number of children to 25 or response to Number 24; we have amended the fewer. There is a shortage of such facilities brief to be clearer about the types of uses that generally and Palmers Green is one of the would be allowed. few areas in the west of the borough where the birth rate is on an upward curve. No change required. I still think the library should have been relocated to the Waitrose site. The decision has been made that the library will stay on the existing site and the Planning Brief confirm this as a requirement for future development of the site. No change required. I am please that the underused Town Hall building is to be developed. N/A
5 Natural G Natural England has no substantive Agreed- we will amend the Planning Brief to New section added to Chapter 6: England comments to make on this planning include comments on biodiversity, wildlife and 6.11 Biodiversity proposal. However we would like to stress ecological enhancements. that the absence of comments or direct 6.11.1 The New River is a designated Site of involvement on individual plans or proposals Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), is simply an expression of our priorities. It local wildlife site, and part of the Green should not be taken as implying a lack of Chain Walk, which is a walking network of interest or indicating either support for, or green spaces. objection to, any proposal. Chapter 3:Objectives of the planning brief. This 6.11.2 Core Strategy: Core Policy 36 states section lists twelve objectives, which can be that any proposals and planning broadly supported. However, given that the applications should protect, restore and site abuts the New River Site of interest for enhance sites of biodiversity value such as Nature Conservation (SINC) there is little waterways, nature conservation sites, and reference to the potential for ecological or green corridors. Therefore improvements biodiversity enhancements for the site. to the biodiversity value of sites are References are made to improving access to required through the planning process. and along the New River, but appear to be subject to constraints with regard to any 6.11.3 In relation to the Southgate Town potential development, residential, Hall site any redevelopment must aim to community or commercial. The council connect of the Green Chain Walk along the should give stronger consideration to New River at this point, which will also ecological improvements, linking in to the connect this as a biodiversity corridor, and Councils Core Policy 36 on biodiversity as enhance the existing biodiversity value of well as providing opportunities for green the site. Further green infrastructure and Infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements biodiversity enhancements will be sought at the site. as part of any planning application.
Although Natural England does not wish to 6.11.4 Planning applications will be offer any further substantive comments in screened to assess the need for an respect of this draft Supplementary Planning ecological assessment. Proposal must also Document, we would expect the Local refer to the requirements of the Biodiversity Planning Authority and any potential Action Plan. developers to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining any applications at this site: Local wildlife sites : The proposed site is adjacent to local wildlife site, the New River Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), the county ecologist and/or local wildlife trust should be contacted. Protected species . If represented from other parties highlight the possible presence, or the Council is aware of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the council should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application. Paragraph 98 and 99 of ODPM circular 06/2005 and Paragraph 16 of Planning Policy Statement 9 provide information on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system. We would draw the council’s attention to out protected species standing advice, which provides guidance on when protected species may be impacted by a proposal. Biodiversity enhancements. This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes; this would link into the council’s core policy 36. The council should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from applicants, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, WE would draw your attention to section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 40 of the same Act also states that the ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’. 6 O I will respond in detail to the consultation on The primary objective of the Planning Brief, See the response to Number 7 on school the old town hall in due course. But I’d like to given that the library is staying on the site, is to places, 24 on community uses and 72 on the give advance warning that there is growing secure its refurbishment. This will require heritage significance of the site. movement in N13 for the restoration of the significant funding which is unavailable in the town hall to proper civic uses. This could be Councils’ budget. As a result the potential for in a mixed-use arrangement where “third redevelopment of the rest of the site has been sector” enterprises stand alongside council explored in order to fund the library services. The suggestion which the previous refurbishments. The residential use option will administration floated that the town hall provide sufficient funding to allow the library (along with the library) be sold off for private refurbishment to go ahead. There is no funding development will be fiercely opposed across for the Council to refurbish Southgate Town Hall Palmers Green. Beyond this, there is in our to bring it up to that standard that would be community a serious lack of confidence in required for a community use building, including consultations run by your department. There installing disabled access. Therefore if a is evidence for this on the website “Improving community group wanted to use the space in the Our N13 Neighbourhood” which I know Del future they would need to be in a position to pay Goddard sees. Many citizens regard for the refurbishment of the building in addition consultations as a smoke screen for the to general running costs. This approach would worst kind of development conspiracy. I also provide no money for the refurbishment of hope you are going to prove them wrong. the library. Palmers Green people value their civic heritage, as last year’s opposition to the Library showed.
Four issues were made clear in the meeting Please see the response to Number 24 in following your helpful introduction. Firstly, relation to community use for the building and there is a strong demand for a major Number 7 in relation to school places. Having community centre which should be housed in examined other examples of town hall the town hall, not the library - as the Advice refurbishment projects many of them have been Bureau and various meeting facilities once coupled with grant funding and/or large amount were. Secondly, many local residents of housing, (some with over 100 units). In estimate that the demand for social addition none of the other town hall projects infrastructure such as school places have also been coupled with a library consequent on the housing development refurbishment on the same site, which adds to proposed in the brief will be much greater the difficulty of funding the project and also limits than the brief allows for. We were puzzled the development potential of the site. by Cllr Goddard's assurance that the young couples to whom the development partner In response to the comments raised on the would be selling flats will not have children, heritage significance of the site, see response and wonder what kind of eugenic policy will Number 72 to English Heritage. secure this bold aim. Thirdly, we believe that there are possible ways to float an alternative community-led mixed-use development (such as those at Hampstead and Tottenham town halls) and the insertion into the brief of an overly tight condition about business planning is a breach of good practice in consulting public views on the borough's preferred project. If we are not to be allowed the time to work up an alternative plan now we will need proper facilities for this at the next stage of the planning process. Fourthly and lastly, despite your remarks on the importance of design guidance, we are sceptical about your assertion that the brief as it stands will go far enough to ensure sensitive treatment of the site and its surrounds.
All in all it seems that the area forum proved not to be a suitable occasion to shed more light on the reasons why people want to protect the town hall site from the kind of development being proposed. Your spot - despite being well introduced - was overshadowed by others, including Pinkham Way waste disposal, main road traffic, housing and policing. There was just too much packed into the meeting to allow rational consideration of the town hall issue and that was a pity. It was also unfortunate that Cllr Sitkin several times referred to "Questions and Answers" as if to suggest that residents needed clarification from councillors rather than a fair chance to contest their plans. I noted that in the matter of the waste recycling plant at Pinkham Way some of the councillors advocated delay; while in the matter of the Town Hall they seemed to suggest that the project proposed should be given an accelerated path: this is not consistent!
1 Consultation process
Along with several other consultees, including the Conservative Party opposition group, I have asked for an extension of the consultation period and not yet received a reply to this. To meet the suggestion that alternative plans should be fully costed this would need to be around three more months. I note that the Cabinet Meeting on 13 July 2011 resolved that: “ the redevelopment of the site will take place in accordance with the views expressed by the community (Cabinet 13/7/11 Point 7.1).” which will not be achieved unless consultation is much more extensive and better supported.
2 Design and conservation considerations
Careful reading of the independent character appraisal commissioned by LBE in preparation for specifying the Lakes Estate conservation area will show that the architectural historians and surveyors employed had a concern for the streetscape of the Green Lanes which was omitted from the new conservation area but deserves separate consideration. Clearly the Southgate Town Hall building, and the library alongside, make an important contribution to this streetscape. I would argue that the town hall has a special significance because Southgate Urban District Council asked its architect to produce a building, which would echo the domestic styles of the surrounding community. This is unusual in London, where the spate of town hall construction following the municipal reforms of 1889 to 1899 led to a preferred monumental style ("Edwardian Baroque") rather than Southgate's vernacular style. There is a strong case for protection of the whole of the Town Hall site in light of its architectural and cultural significance and I expect to see a campaign for listing emerge in the coming months. In any case, LBE could specify a new conservation area to cover this part of the Green Lanes, and the range further north to The Fox, which would be comparable to the high street corridors protected in other boroughs.
Additionally
My understanding is that The Lakes conservation area supporters and similar groups have names of 20 to 30 objectors to the re-development proposal in addition to the 70 concerned people who have made submissions to you. If we are now approaching 100 formal statements of concern or objection I believe that the 12th October cabinet should declare a further - more open-ended - round of consultation rather than endorse the current brief. 7 G I don’t agree with The proposed housing is not in detriment to the No change required. 1. Housing if to detriment to library. library; it will make the library refurbishment possible.
2. Making a 'gateway' to palmers green town No change required. centre as there is no problem with access The gateway is not about improving access but now. is an urban design term to indicate an important location. This can be achieved by improvements to the existing buildings of Truro House and Southgate Town Hall.
See the response to Number 2 on parking 3. Removing car parking to build more at See the response to Number 2 on parking. west.
No change required. An opportunity arises to provide a community Agreed- community use is an acceptable land meeting space, Something mainly ignored in use. the proposals for Broomfield House.
Sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 amended to read:
Given the shortage of primary school places School places has been a major issue for 6.1.3 The Council has an agreed 10 year this must be considered residents: the future use of this building and strategy to provide sufficient primary demand for school places in the area has led school places to meet the rising residents to request that the building be demand. The strategy was agreed by converted to a school. However the site is not Cabinet in November 2010. By providing considered appropriate. We have spoken to our school places in the geographical area Education team who have confirmed that to of demand, the strategy seeks to reduce ease the current shortage of places a report will the movement of pupils across the be brought to Cabinet in December 2011 to Borough which is not only beneficial agree extensions to existing schools in the area, and cost effective for parents but also which will be available for entry in summer 2012. helps to stabilise local communities and reduces traffic movement at peak times.
A recent review of the school destinations of families living on the Lakes Estate who have applied for a reception place for the school year 2011-2012 indicates that the 37 families concerned have been successful in securing places at local schools or at a denominational school of their choice. The strategy will be further reviewed this winter to ensure that it continues to provide sufficient, local school places.
Proposals to respond to the current forecasts are being developed and will be brought to Cabinet in December 2011 for availability in 2012. Given that this site is not expected to be a large housing site or deliver a significant number of large family homes (as the existing buildings are being retained), the number of units and their size are not likely to result in any significant pressure on school places and certainly not in September 2012.
6.1.4 The suggestion that the Town Hall should be used for a school is not supported for the following reasons:
• Due to the adjoining public library there are potential security issues which would be difficult to resolve • The building is on several different levels with no disability access • If a school is provided on the site there will be no funding available to refurbish Palmers Green library and add enhanced community facilities • The location of the site on a busy road would make access, parking and drop- off difficult and would be likely to have a significant impact on surrounding streets • There would be insufficient outside space.
6.1.3 It is not considered that education uses are appropriate in this location. This is based on the Core Strategy (2010) anticipated demand and the requirement for new school places, which directs new educational facilities towards Growth Areas to accommodate for any increase in population as a result of new housing. The North Circular Road, incl uding New Southgate is a Growth Area with the capacity for around 2000 new homes. The spatial strategy for this area is as follows:
“Redevelopment will provide the impetus for improvements to local connections, community facilities and open spaces. The d evelopment of the existing Broomfield and Bowes school buildings either side of the North Circular Road into an all age school will be pursued to improve the education facilities for local children.”
6.1.4 Core Policy 8 also sets out the requirement for new schools in the south west of the borough stating that the anticipated demand for places will be located close the North Circular Road, in relation to the increase in housing planned along the North Circular Road by Notting Hill Housing Trust. Addit ionally the New Southgate Masterplan, 2010 (SPD) has identified capacity at Garfield School, if required, to accommodate an additional form of entry to accommodate the housing planned in the master plan area.
8 S Good plan N/A No change required
9 S Happy that both buildings are staying and the N/A No change required library is being refurbished 10 S Happy with the plans N/A No change required
11 G What is happening to Truro house? Isn’t it full Truro House has planning permission for Section 4.2 amended to include a paragraph of squatters? refurbishment of the house and development in on Truro House: the grounds (Planning application reference: Truro House TP/08/2244), subject to the developer signing a Truro House and stable block are directly legal agreement. Discussions are on-going with opposite the site, also facing Green Lanes. the developer regarding the legal agreement It is a Grade II listed building (including the which must be signed before the development walls) which is identified on the Heritage at can go ahead. There are no squatters in the Risk Register. Subject to a legal agreement building. being signed by the developer, planning permission has been granted for the refurbishment of the house to a single residential dwelling and residential development of 25 units in part of the grounds. Section 6 provides more details on how development on the Town Hall site should relate to Truro House.
12 O Keep the Town Hall for community use and See the response to Number 6. No change required. not residential
13 G School places are an issue in Palmers See response to Number 7. See response to Number 7. Green- why not education uses? 14 S Glad the library is staying N/A No change required
15 O There is already too much residential in the London has a shortage of housing. The Mayor New paragraph added to Chapter 6: area sets housing targets for all London Boroughs 6.8.1 All London Boroughs have annual and these are then included in our Core Strategy housing targets, which are set by the Mayor (2010), which identifies where new housing will in the London Plan (2011). This is due to be located. In comparison to other London the London-wide housing shortage. The borough’s Enfield’s housing targets are relatively provision of new homes is therefore low. The delivery of well-designed housing on supported the delivery of new homes on the site will help meet Enfield’s housing needs the site will help to meet the boroughs however, as the site already includes two housing needs. In addition the provision of buildings, the library and the town hall, it is not housing on site will assist in funding the anticipated to be a large housing site. refurbishment of the library.
16 G Concerned that other libraries would be The Library Strategy is currently out for No change required closed if palmers green is refurbished consultation. Palmers Green is one of Enfield’s largest libraries and the council is committed to refurbishing it. 17 G How will parking be managed? See response to Number 2 on Parking See response to Number 2 on Parking
18 S Good use for STH as residential, things have N/A No change required. got to be maintained and it will help with the maintenance. 19 G Broomfield House, no information in post or Broomfield House has a webpage: No change required. internet http://www.enfield.gov.uk/info/511/planning- conservation_areas/1219/broomfield_house_restorati on_project We will ensure it is kept up to date to reflect the latest position. 20 O Too much residential in the area - Truro See response to No 15 See response to No 15 House/Maple Leaf/Morrisons feels like a building site and don’t know why we need so many residential areas 21 G 1. Keep Southgate town hall N/A No change required
2. Won’t be able to use library if no parking The library will have parking for customers See response to Number 2 on parking including designated disabled parking bays. See number 2 for more information on parking.
3. Need more information about Subject to adoption of the planning brief the See the response to Number 24 on community refurbishment of the library Council will publish more detailed plans for the uses. library refurbishment. Please also see our response to Number 24 on community uses. 22 S I do not have a problem -in principle-with the Subject to adoption of the Planning Brief the We have added a new section to talk about the Town Hall being turned into flats. Palmers delivery of the scheme will go ahead. This will delivery of the site. Green does need younger residents. I am be with the Council retaining the freehold of the 8. Delivery of the site however deeply suspicious after the last library building. 8.1 The purpose of the Planning Brief is to dubious attempt to 'move' the freehold set a framework for the future of the site. A Library into an old leasehold supermarket the planning application will still need to be cost of which would have been more than submitted and approved by the Council selling the Library! The Borough Auditor before any physical works or development seemed to be quite interested in the financial can take place. aspects of this at the time, as it was such appalling value for money and in breach of 8.2 As the site is owned freehold by the Enfield's own rules regarding the same. Council we can be clear about how we will I am deeply opposed to any attempt to close develop and deliver the site to achieve the or sell off our freehold-paid for purpose built refurbishment of the library. Palmers Green Library. It would cost millions to build a local community asset like this 8.3 Our delivery strategy is to secure the today, even assuming that the funds were refurbishment of the library building as our available to do it. priority.
Talking of Neighbourhood Regeneration, See Number 11 for the response on Truro See Number 11 for the response on Truro Truro House looks even more shabby and House. House. run down every year while Southgate Town Hall and the Library seem remarkably smart and in good condition. Do you think your priorities are the right ones? 23 Councillor Ann O I am totally opposed to yet more housing and See response to number 15 on housing and See response to number 15 on housing and Zinkin the conversion of the town hall in this number 7 on school places. number 7 on school places manner. With the shortage of school places a Free School was a far better option. Money talks and that's what this is all about 24 G I love what has been done to Enfield library, The library will accommodate additional space Sections 6.1 and 6.2 have been amended to another one like that would be great with for community use. The purpose of the planning be clearer about the type of uses that would be cafe, music studio, develop your own brief is not to be too specific about the type of acceptable: business dance and drama studio to engage community uses that would be appropriate in the our youngsters. library building but to set the framework for 6.1.1 A mixed use development is required, community use in the building. Subject to the which respects the heritage and Planning Brief being adopted the detailed townscape value of the buildings and specification for the refurbishment of the library the context of the surrounding residential will be drawn up and the suggestions that character of the area, whilst recognising the residents have made over what the community proximity of Palmers Green District Town space should be used for will be taken into Centre. The following use is required on the account. site: Library (D1 Use) and an associated community use space (D1/D2 use)*. In addition the following uses will be acceptable: • Residential (Use Class C3). • *Community and leisure uses (Use Class D1 and D2), which are not deemed to be more appropriately located in town centres and which would not have a significant traffic impact. Examples of appropriate community uses include health clinic, gallery, museum, sports and leisure. • Offices, research and development, studios and high technology light industrial workspace (Use Class B1 (a) and b) ), which are not deemed to be more appropriately located in town centres. Any B1 uses must also be compatible with the library, existing surrounding residential properties and other uses proposed on the site as part of a mixed use scheme.
6.1.2 During the planning brief consultation the local community suggested a number of different uses for the community space. These should be considered in relation to the provision of new community space. Suggestions included: - Café - Dance, drama and sports space - Music studio - Museum and gallery - Training facilities - Youth club
6.1.3 As the site is located outside of nearby Palmers Green District Town Centre and Green Lanes Local Centre, retail uses (A1-A5 Use Classes) and hotels (Use Class C1) will not normally be acceptable on the site as these should be directed towards the existing town centre. There may be scope to provide a small-scale retail use or café which is associated with, and ancillary to, a D1 or D2 use.
25 G I very much appreciate being contacted in N/A No change required this way in my role as a member of the library. Past consultations have concentrated on people who live in the ward where the library is located, to the exclusion of library users 26 O I object to residential (Use Class 3) as it will See response to number 15 on housing and See response to number 15 on housing and cause major traffic congestion, reduce number 2 on parking and traffic. number 3 on parking and traffic. parking, add to pollution as well as put a strain on other public services like train and bus as well as facilities residents currently use 27 O As a regular library user and resident of We are unable to bring the town hall up to .See the response to Number 6 and 72. Enfield Borough for 15 years, I would like to usable standards without incurring significant say that I think the old town hall area should costs given the current condition of the building. be face-lifted and left as it is. I am absolutely Therefore rather than the town hall remaining disgusted by the current rampant scramble to vacant and in poor condition, with the library in wring every last drop of a red cent of need of refurbishment, the proposal is to supposed service value and efficiency out of upgrade both buildings and put them to better our public grounds and buildings. I believe I use- see the response to Number 6. qualify as "grumpy old", the latest media catchword to denigrate any accurate The Planning Brief sets out clear guidance on assessment of callow, self-serving nonsense, the retention of the buildings, design and nevertheless, I will register my displeasure significance of the historical features-see the and suspicion at the desperate sneaking response to English Heritage, Number 72. behaviour of "property professionals" in and around North London. They seem to take gargantuan delight in knocking down anything which does not realise every last groat of surplus value no matter how aesthetically attractive, locally relevant or still-fit-for-purpose. I am so sick of reading "Edwardian plumbing" or "Victorian heating" offered as reason to demolish the old and erect disgraceful plastic boxes... every square millimetre calculated, every inch shaved to the minimum. e.g. the vile new edifice on the corner of Green Lanes and the North Circular. I can't see why a bit of repointing and a slap of paint on the old town hall buildings would be detrimental to our community biodiversity? That piece of land will not be improved in any way by your plans, certainly not artistically, in beauty or bearing, the only recipients of any profit from the enterprise will be council planning staff and their business associates. What is wrong with lovely old brick buildings with high ceilings and wide spaces? Atmosphere? They are an enormous part of the local history with Walker Family and Pymmes connections... There are plenty of ugly undeveloped spare acres within walking distance of my flat. Why not build on them? Leave the lovely old buildings alone! 28 G Building over the library car park will make The library will be saved refurbished to improve See response to Number 2 on parking. the library inaccessible for most people and it for the community with no loss of floorspace. will gradually mean the loss of the library The plans will include adequate parking for service. Save palmers green library, this is library users. See response to Number 2 on an excellent library as it is your plans will ruin parking. it.
29 The Murphy G Section 6.8 Housing, point 6 Lifetime Homes It is recognised that it can be difficult for Sentence added to the end of Section 6.8: Group – The regeneration is likely to be designed to refurbishment to achieve Lifetime Homes incorporate a number of new build houses however this is our starting point and we will The Planning Brief requires the retention of and apartments, in addition to apartments begin negotiations based on the standard and Southgate Town Hall as part of any designed within the existing refurbished identify with any prospective developer what redevelopment scheme. It is recognised building. To fully meet Lifetime homes criteria will be difficult to meet. that the refurbishment of existing buildings standards relays on meeting a criteria of 16 can make the achievement of certain points. In practice only new build houses can standards and policies, such as Lifetime incorporate all these points, apartments Homes or mix of housing (Core Strategy) achieved as part of a refurbishment are difficult, however the starting point will another matter and cannot incorporate the always be the development achieving whole of the requirements, therefore there highest standards possible and full must be some flexibility to allow for this. financial and design justification must be given where these cannot be met. 30 O I would like the Council to consider putting a See response to Number 7 on school places See response to Number 7 on school places school on this site. The demographic data referred to in the Core Strategy (2010) is now out of date, and there is a shortage of primary school places in the area (I can substantiate this claim if necessary). Building more flats will just make this problem worse. 31 G I would like to see more community space The refurbished library will include additional See previous response Number 15 regarding and less development. This area has had a space for the community. See previous housing and 6 regarding community use in the lot of new residential accommodation built of response Number 15 regarding housing and 6 town hall. late but the community would benefit from regarding community use in the town hall. more 'indoor' community space large hall for social clubs, and weekend clubs for those who work. And would like the chance to do something in the locality and meet local people socially. The cost benefit of different options at the public expense. The site is being treated separately from No change required. How this will integrate with the plans for Broomfield House. Broomfield House?
There will be a mix of private and affordable No change required. What type of social housing will be housing on the site; however we cannot identify accommodated, for family, U.K citizens, who will be housed in the social units at this European citizens, benefits, in work but stage. This is not the purpose of the planning disabled people, key worker? brief. The Planning Brief states that 40% of all residential units should be affordable, base don our Core Strategy policy.
No change required. Who makes the decision - MP, Council? The Council’s Cabinet will make the decision to determine if the planning brief will be adopted. They will also make the decision to proceed with the delivery of the scheme, including the library refurbishment. 32 S I agree with the proposals and would like to N/A No change required. see expanded community use at the site, which would bring more people to library re museums community group usage, cinema.
More social/council housing.
I think school places (primary) needs to be addressed for Palmers Green, but do not feel Affordable housing will be provided as part of No change required. this would be a suitable site any redevelopment scheme. See response Number 7 on school places. See previous response Number 7 on school places. 33 S Town Hall- very good. Other sites kept for We have included more information to the See response to Number 24. community citizen’s advice - waterfront café. planning brief on community uses- see the Community uses - could include response to Number 24. cinema/gallery/café/arts space ( re Willesden green model) would bring regeneration to are and benefit whole community, toddlers, OAPs. 34 G I am behind retaining & refurbishing the See previous responses numbers 15, 7 and 11 See response Numbers 7, 15 and 11 library. Don’t want the town hall for and regarding housing, school places and Truro residential use, with more and more housing House. being built in the area and no extra schools (especially infant and junior schools) I think Palmers Green is in serious need of a school. The position of the Town hall would be very good. Is this a possibility for the town hall to be turned into a school? Truro House has been neglected for years. It would I think make a wonderful school, is this a possibility? 35 O Library should be in the high street. The principle of the library remaining on the No change required. current site is established in the planning brief.
Too much housing in the area already See the response to Number 15 regarding See the response to Number 15 regarding housing. housing.
36 S Ok for library and residential use but council The council would retain the freehold of the No change required should retain freehold for library library as part of any redevelopment scheme 37 S I agree totally to library staying and being N/A No change required refurbished 38 O I believe that the proposals to change the Please see previous response number 6 in See response to Number 6 and 24. function for Southgate Town Hall is against relation to turning the town hall into a community the interests for the people of Enfield. I use building. We have amended the planning believe that the building should continue to brief to be clearer on community uses- see the house community information agencies - response to Number 24. CAB (reinstated) drop-in centre for benefits advice, health and housing issues, educational and child welfare concerns - this would help the residents to have a familiar place where they can feel that their concerns are being heard and dealt with. There should also be a centre for community arts/crafts, etc.. which will bring the various sections of the diverse community togeather; promoting better understanding between all members of the Borough of Enfield. The existing agencies at present are unable to give people the time or attention they need in order to resolve any of the problems that they ncounter in their daily lives, which would be overcome with the proposed scheme for Southgate Town Hall.
The Broomfield Library needs to be retained as it is a vital information and recetional The library is being retained as part of the No change required. /study resource centre for the people in this proposals. part of the Borough of Enfiled. I hope that this is a true consultation of the wishes of the local people and that their needs and requirements are taken into account when the final decision is taken on Southgate Town Hall.
There is already many social housing See response to Number 15 on housing and 2 projects dotted around this part of Palmers See response to Number 15 on housing and 2 on parking Green and it has as a result started to on parking. change the feeling and appearance of the residential suburb that the area was originally, bringing in its own set of problems - traffic congestion, litter, noise pollution, etc. 39 S The brief appears reasonable in requiring (a) With regards to the comment regarding social No change required. the retention and enhancement of the housing it is Enfield’s policy (in the Core existing library, (b) the retention for Strategy, 2010) that any residential development conversion into flats of the old Town Hall into over 9 dwellings should provide affordable flats. They are both worthy buildings to keep housing on site. This is based identified need and reuse for sustainability, which is good. for additional private and social housing in The old Finchley Town Hall of a similar Enfield. design was converted to flats so there is a Chapter 7 of the Planning Brief amended to precedent. There is room for some new The refurbishment of the library building is the reflect the Section 106 priorities for the site: homes at the back of the buildings, which priority for Section 106 contributions but should be supported. I think a developer affordable housing; education (school places), 7. Section 106 Planning Obligations would be interested in converting the Town transport and the public realm will also be a 7.1 Section 106 payments (or planning Hall and building some new flats for sale in requirement. obligations) are a fee paid to the Council by exchange for refurbishing and enhancing the a developer to make a development library/local amenity-landscaping facilities. As acceptable in planning terms. Section 106 the site opposite the Town Hall has already payments are required on all mixed use been developed with a block of flats for development which incorporate residential social (subsidised) housing by a housing uses. association, it is not appropriate for the developer to provide yet more social housing 7.2 Enfield’s Section 106 Supplementary in the locality, which for good management Planning Document sets out the Council’s practice is best managed by a private Section 106 priorities according to different resident's company try, once the flats are areas. The site is located within the North sold. Better for the developer's contribution Circular Area Action Plan boundary and the to be directed to refurbishing and enhancing Section 106 priorities for a mixed- use the old library and other local facilities residential scheme in this area (between 10 and 49 units) are identified as: affordable housing, learning and skills facilities and transport. Contributions towards community infrastructure are listed as a lower priority in this location.
7.3 However given that the purpose of the Planning Brief is to secure the refurbishment of the library the Section 106 priorities will be considered differently for this site. The refurbishment of the library (community infrastructure) will be the highest priority. Education (financial contributions towards additional school places), affordable housing, public realm works and transport will also be prioritised in any Section 106 agreement based on their high priority level in the Section 106 SPD. Given the constraints of the site and the need to deliver the library other Section 106 priorities identified in the SPD may not be required. This will be subject to discussion based on the land use mix and quantum in any planning applications submitted.
7.4This approach will ensure the objective of the Planning Brief, to refurbish the library, is achieved.
7.1 Major developm ent of over 10 residential units or a net increase of 1000sqm of commercial development, or a combination of these, will be required to provide Section 106 contributions for the following: • Education • Affordable housing • Employment of local people in construc tion phase and end use • Open space, play equipment and sports • Site specific transport contributions • Health • Community facilities • Administration charge • Public realm improvements
7.2 S106 requirements for the site must be met, in accordance with the require ments in the S106 Supplementary Planning Document (2011).
40 G Consultation Question 1 6.1.1 sets out the acceptable land uses for the See response to Number 24. We have Suggested Land Use and Development site. Those not listed are not deemed to be amended the information on the mix of uses to Principles appropriate in this location. However more make this clearer. 6.1.1 Lists some of the various alternatives clarity has been given to the land uses and Use for the site all of which appear acceptable Classes description to provide more clarity. (although the list would not appear to be comprehensive).
6.1.2 In the context of a holistic plan for the In accordance with the London Plan, hotels wider area it would seem likely a decision should generally be located in designated town No change required. would follow to maintain the concentration of centres to maximise access to public transport retail facilities in the nearby Town and Green and other town centre services and facilities. Lanes areas based on such factors as The town hall site does not fall within a maximising footfall for retailers and designated town centre boundary. minimising the burden on shoppers. Being only 200m from The Triangle it seems difficult to make a similar co-location argument for a hotel complex, indeed it is probably not unreasonable to assume hotel guests could prefer to be within striking distance of but not actually within a bustling leisure / retail area. I am not supporting a hotel but fail to see the logic argued in the document.
6.1.3 Is a surprising omission. Large numbers of in-fill developments across the See the response to Number 7 in relation to See the response to Number 7 in relation to Palmers Green Town area over the last few school places and education use. The library will school places and education use. years have put pressure on school places, as provide a valuable learning resource and we will highlighted for example by the Hazelwood take your comments about educational/training School management objection to the New uses and adult learning into account when River Crescent development. Prioritising considering uses for the additional community new facilities towards planned growth areas space in the library building. Please also see our is in itself not sufficient rationale to rule out response to Number 24 regarding community development in other areas of the Borough. uses which includes reference to training space. I understand a private school / Academy or some form of non-Borough school use of the building for educational purposes has been proposed. While I am not supporting, it does seem unusual to simply rule out the possibility based on growth in school places elsewhere. The document does not make the case. Looking at education uses in their wider context then the consideration that such uses are not even to be contemplated in the location seems an unduly narrow viewpoint: • The Borough has only this month been promoting a scheme to raise children’s’ aspirations through achievements in out of school activities and learning. The Town Hall could be a centre for such educational activities. • The Enfield Arts Support Service has successfully identified, supported and just helped place two gifted Borough musicians in premier establishments. Recently I was informally asked to help identify possible practice locations for EASS pupils. Again the Town Hall could potentially offer such an educational facility. • This months report from the Work Foundation identifies structural issues with the labour market which re-skilling amongst other solutions could assist. Perhaps the site could be an ideal location to provide such (wider) educational benefits for the development of Palmers Green (Enfield) residents and its businesses, both existing and new. • Looking much wider, the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) has very recently produced a report, building on the earlier Leitch Review and in line with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills with their extensive post-Leitch activity highlighting the educational / training / employability shortcomings of the UK and in particular when considering the Town Hall, how education / training can be used as a core facilitator of a sustainable community. o The (Draft document highlighted) diversity of Palmers Green and the acknowledged tolerance of its residents will sooner or later need to be translated into actual cohesion. Various educational uses potentially offer one such supporting channel. The Commission on 2020 Public Services / LISS: “At root, it is the idea that ‘public services should explicitly be judged by the extent to which they help citizens, families and communities to achieve the social outcomes they desire’. This means focusing …. on how the confluence of citizen agency, civil society and the state can collaboratively create the right conditions to improve social and economic outcomes”. o Housing alone may not provide such an optimal route, merely adding to the absolute scale of the community, rather than addressing its fundamental health and opportunity. Simply ruling out educational uses because schools are envisaged elsewhere seems a thin and potentially highly wasteful argument to take in what might be appropriate for a community.
6.1.5 Is an entirely reasonable requirement Section 6.1.5 will be removed from the brief. Removal of Section 6.1.5: although as presented in the Draft gives the 6.1.5 If a community use is proposed a clear reader the impression the community end user for the space must be established somehow stands separate from the author, and set out in any planning application as well sponsoring organisation and their plans. That as a detailed funding strategy for the would be deeply unfortunate and should be community use. corrected both in words and form.
6.2.1 I see no rationale to contemplate We will amend the planning brief to be clearer Section 6.2.1 amended: demolition of part of the library building. about potential demolition of extensions. 6.2.1 Both of the existing buildings must Specifically designed for such a purpose, my be retained and refurbished as part of family’s use over more than two decades has any redevelopment scheme (including never encountered an issue with the building the clock tower) . The library should be or its facilities. Comparison, after visits to the refurbished in its current building and brand new National Library of Scotland and any new community space should be Brighton’s new central library, reveal what an located to maximise the physical links excellent, forward looking, open design the between the library and other Palmers Green library was – and remains. community uses. Its utility remains perfectly suitable in my experience. There appears no rationale to 6.2.2 Both the town hall and the library offer up the prospect of part demolition for have a number of extensions, such as the sake of facilitating any other use of the the toilet block on the town hall. These wider site. The Cabinet paper of 13 July annexes will be considered for 2011 is clear in stating the retention of the redevelopment provided that there is no current library building. The demolishing of loss to the overall library floorspace and the West wing can hardly be classed as a that any demolition is justified through minor alteration capable of being delegated. design and viability considerations. The The idea should be withdrawn as an option west wing of the library forms a until clarified. significant part of the building and is built in the same style as the main library however; it is not as prominent and visible as the town hall and main library building when approaching the site from Green Lanes. The presumption will be in favour of retaining this annexe however it is recognised that, given the need to retain the existing buildings, and deliver a refurbished library, the site is constrained and innovative solutions will be considered. The town hall should be converted for primarily residential use.
Figure 4 on Page 15 of the draft brief will also be amended to remove the ‘Potential for removal of extensions’
The existing library building should be retained and refurbished as part of any redevelopment scheme. The west wing of the library can be removed, provided that sufficient space is available in the redevelopment scheme to accommodate the uses currently located in the west wing. The town hall should be converted for primarily residential use . An important aim of this consultation is to seek the view of the community on this approach.
6.3 Urban Design Section – No comments
6.4 Section. – excluded from my Draft Section 6.4 is Figure 4 on page 15 however this Numbering will be checked and corrected in document was not headed on the page. final version.
6.5.1 It would be appropriate to make clear Section 6.5 is currently unclear and this could Section 6.5 amended to read: the size of the potential (net) residential site result in a higher density development than is Density and heights and massing rather than focusing the document on the appropriate on the site. Therefore this section 6.5.1 The density of a development refers to 0.52ha site as a whole, including library and will be reworded. the amount of development on a site, based any other non-residential aspects such as on its size. The London Plan (2011) sets health, and associated non-residential car out a density matrix for residential parking. development based on how accessible the site is by public transport and the density and character of the surrounding area.
6.5.2 Given that the site will come forward as a mixed use development, the existing buildings on the site must be considered when calculating the density as they add to the overall density of the development. Any new development must take account of: - the net space available for new development, excluding the footprint of existing buildings - the existing heights, scale and massing of existing buildings on the site and reflect these in the design. - the context and character of the surrounding area
The site is located within the Urban Density Zone set out in the London Plan. The density of development on the site is based on its public transport accessibility and the nature of development surrounding it. As the site is in an urban area and has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 4, a density of between 100 and 150 units per hectare will be appropriate on the site, subject to detailed housing type, design and viability considerations. Any increase in de nsity above this range, must be justified through exemplary design and an improvement in environmental standards.
6.5.2 Four story buildings are not the norm in We have received a number of comments about Please see the response to Number 61. Palmers Green and if the aim is to “respect heights so we have amended these sections to the context of the surrounding residential make this clearer. Please see the response to character”, nor should they be on this site. Number 61. 6.5.3 The risk as written is that even four stories is not a cap. That is very inappropriate. It is unclear how the development will (sic) increase in height and scale towards the corner of Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes since this represents the apex of the existing (three story) library and Town Hall buildings, unless these are to be altered in height or the proposed development is to be no more than three stories at maximum. These various conflicts / contradictions over height should be clarified beyond doubt.
6.9.4 Is perhaps the single most powerful statement in the complete document. I This objective is already included in Section 3: No change required. would commend it be used as the primary Objectives: which refer to community value and aim with various objectives supporting as potential of the site. appropriate. The idea of turning this prime Civic Building – and potential facility – into residential space other than as a fall back choice when every other option, including do nothing, has been surfaced and fully considered is not a route that would be followed against such a primary aim other than in possibly seeking short term financial gain at the expense of other invariably longer term, options with a wider benefit mix. Only today (29 August) BBC Radio 4 Today carried a feature extolling the value of Town Hall’s as a valuable element of a high street.
Consultation Question 2 - Other matters a. The ambition of the Consultation Thank you for taking the time to comment on the No change required. process is welcome, particularly after consultation process. This is really useful and so many non-consulted changes in your feedback will be used when we write other the vicinity. It does however read documents of this kind. . more as a pre-event Communication than a pre-event Consultation. b. The audience will have a significant overlap with the population who recently consulted on Broomfield House. The laudable Objectives listed in the July 2011 Consultation Plan will doubtless be tainted by that process and its on-going secrecy. Such items are not stand alone for those who live with their consequences, “Joining Up” as the document puts it. c. Nor is it evident how “Joining Up” with existing activities, teams and efforts has integrated the thinking for this site with wider ideas where resident groups and the trade association have been working to regenerate Palmers Green town as far as the library site. d. It very clearly misses the opportunity – I would say the obvious requirement - to place the Town Hall opportunity in the context of area enhancing development / use possibilities and instead reverts directly to residential use (plus health which has apparently been identified as a financial opportunity if sufficient GP’s can be interested). That reads as disappointing short term expediency at the expense of true local leadership, concern and interest. There are surely other and almost certainly better options, to meet Aim 1 of the Councils Business Plan. Less a case for the Draft planning document than for politicians to make. e. It is unclear why the delivery of housing should necessarily be an objective in its own right rather than a potential outcome, not least with around 2000 new residencies being mentioned in the papers as slated nearby. Perhaps that could become 2075 or so as one option. f. Given the relatively close proximity it would appear important to definitively state that the site, or any part of it, is not captured within the area covered by the Broomfield Estate Covenant(s) g. It is positive to note that the redevelopment of the site will take place in accordance with the views expressed by the community (Cabinet 13/7/11 Point 7.1). Unlike the on-going secrecy surrounding the Broomfield House consultation it has to be suggested that full detail of community input is made available and if necessary further, non-minor, revisions communicated for comment and debate before being finally adopted. h. The Consultation Form has allocated space for any response set at perhaps 50% of that available for personal detail. While attachments are possible it does serve to give the impression of not reaching out as positively as it could do for input. It would be worth reviewing the format in any future LBE consultation flyer. i. The Consultation could usefully extend to capture the Winchmore Hill Area Forum given the close proximity of several streets, including my own, in this particular Ward to the site. These streets are much closer to the site than many within Palmers Green, Bowes and Southgate Green Wards.
41 O The tour of the Town Hall which you We have amended the brief to be clearer on our Please see our response to Numbers 6, 15 organised reinforces my view that it should approach in the brief and reasoning behind this- and 24 regarding community use and housing. primarily be used for community purposes. please see our response to Numbers 6, 15 and The default option that it be turned in to yet 24 regarding community uses and housing. more housing is unacceptable. Palmers Green (not just the Ward by that name) needs a community focus/hub of its own. There are many organisations in the area, but nowhere for them to come together. One lesson from recent disturbances is that the community needs to come together. Increased housing density along Green Lanes and the nearby sections of the A406, new flats behind Old Park House etc coupled with the conversion of family housing in to flats and the influx of different national/ethnic groups will make community cohesion a significant task which the Council should focus on. Use of STH as a community centre, and linking it to the Library, would be a powerful asset in this regard. The Council Chamber in particular should be preserved and the original matching seating restored for future meetings. This would preserve an important historical link between the past and, I would hope, allow us to build on this for the future development of the local The length of consultation was noted however it No change required. community. has been decided not to extend it due to the large number of responses received and the fact The Planning Brief makes an unrealistic that we consulted for longer than is usually demand for responses to be made by 16 required for a Supplementary Planning September. Consultation is taking place over Document which is six weeks. a main holiday period when people, including I note many Officers and Councillors, are away. The conditions set for proposing community use cannot be met quickly, and the apparent desire of the Council to wash their hands of involvement in such use is reprehensible. Why are the Council so reluctant to work with the local community? How short-sighted of them not to do so. This could be a text book example of re-use of a historic asset in new ways for future generations. Merely to turn it in to housing is a failure of imagination and a signal of a lack of civic pride. The Consultation Plan is a helpful innovation, but the consultation period needs to be set at a realistic length - say Christmas this year. There is no explanation that I can see for a rush to decide what to do with this community asset. Given the urgency of my request for a longer consultation period I have copied in Councillors in wards around the Town Hall. Others may have an interest, so I have no objections to a wider circulation. 42 O This should be kept as it's a original feature The town hall is being kept, as is the library See our response to Number 6 on community to the area and not to be distorted into building. See our response to Number 6 on use and Number 15 on housing. residents flats I think we have a lots already. community use and Number 15 on housing 43 O I have been reading the briefing for the Please see our response to Number 7 on school Please see our response to Number 7 on Southgate Town Hall, and I note that it says places and Number 15 on housing. We have school places and Number 15 on housing. that the building is not suitable for education amended the wording in the brief on the issue of needs as there is not the demand in the education use and school places. area. I would beg to differ. I know of three families who live in the Lakes estate just north of Broomfield Park or in Broomfield Lane, who have not been able to secure a junior school place for their children to start school this year because demand in all the local schools is too high. Consequently they have been allocated places in schools a long way off, and initially in De Bohun school, one of the worst schools in the borough. These families I am sure would appreciate another local school, and no doubt there are others in the same situation. The document states that there are proposals to increase housing along the North Circular and in New Southgate and that Bowes School and Garfield School can be increased. I understand that the original plan was to relocate Bowes School into the grounds of Broomfield School, but due to funding shortages, this is not going ahead. So I am not sure how Bowes School will increase its capacity. Garfield School is one of the worst in the borough, and I doubt most parents would be happy to send their child there. I live within the catchment area and I really do not want my children going there. Unless Garfield School can be improved, would it not be better to spend the resources on a new school? I really don't see why the Town Hall cannot even be considered for educational needs, when this is desperately needed, when housing is acceptable. Surely there is plenty of housing, and more becoming available along the North Circular.
I am also wondering whether it is a good We have removed the reference to blocking the We have removed the reference to blocking idea to block access from Green Lanes. Green Lanes access to the site- please also see the Green Lanes access to the site- please Broomfield Lane is always a solid line of our response to Number 2 on transport and also see our response to Number 2 on traffic going towards Green Lanes, and any parking. transport and parking. type of development will only exasperate this. 44 O Does not agree with section 6.13. We are on Please see our response to Number 7 on school Please see our response to Number 7 on the edge of the catchment area for Bowes places. We have amended the wording in the school places. Primary. With 2000 new homes along the brief on the issue of education use and school North Circular we are worried we will have no places. primary school. Building residential flats reduces catchment areas so we have an acute shortage of primary schools places in the borough. The council have not carried out a survey for anticipated demand of new school places. As houses and flats are built or converted this demand rises. We know many young families who are worried about the lack of primary schools and shrinking catchment areas 45 O I do not agree with section 6.13. Building Please see our response to Number 7 on school Please see our response to Number 7 on residential flats increases demand for places. We have amended the wording in the school places. schools and with all the redevelopment in the brief on the issue of education use and school area I am concerned that we will not longer places. be in a catchment area for any primary schools. We have not been consulted on whether there is demand for a new school places. There is significant numbers of young families in the area concerned about the lack of schools in the area. This could force families to move elsewhere and this is where here the community breaks down 46 G I do not support clauses 6.1.1, and 6.14 of There are two buildings on the site, one of which No change required. the Supplementary Planning Document. My is the library, which will be refurbished however reasons are as follows: The building is the Town Hall building will not also be a library suitable for single use. and will be another use. The site is already a mixed use site as the town hall is currently vacant offices. 47 G I have read the report and my main comment As part of the redevelopment of the site there See the response to Number 2 on parking. would be to urge you not to reduce the will be changes to the existing layout, including ground level parking which is so important to the car parking. Please see our more detailed access the library. To reduce it could also response to Number 2 in relation to parking. reduce library use. An underground car park is not a solution because people fear car vandalism. 48 G (a) The draft planning brief seems to be a bit We will amend this to make it clearer. Section 2.1 will be amended: of a scissors-and-paste job with several 2.1 The site is currently occupied by two inconsistencies which leave the reader distinct buildings that are connected scratching his head. As a (trivial) example, together, Southgate Town Hall building, paragraph 2.1 speaks of two distinct which fronts onto Green Lanes, and the buildings on the site, Town Hall and Library, library building , along Broomfield Lane. but then goes on to refer to one as being a Palmers Green library provides a public wing of the other. Not an encouraging start. library service as well as a number of back office library functions. Southgate Town Hall forms a separate wing of the building and consists of vacant office space. The remainder of the site is occupied by surface car parking and soft landscaping.
(b) The Objectives (section 3) are acceptable, especially the priority given to a N/A revamped Library. Whether the objectives as No change required. a set are mutually compatible remains to be seen. Agreed- English Heritage have been provided a (c) Section 4 includes two points worthy of response to the planning brief in relation to the Please see our response to 1 and Number 72 comment. 4.1.1 says that "the building" heritage value of the buildings. Please see our on heritage. (meaning I suppose both buildings) are not response to Number 1and 72 on heritage. Listed. Even so, I hope that the final brief will require (see also para 6.2.1) that, whatever happens to the Town Hall and the Library internally, their external character and distinctiveness must not be damaged nor should they be obscured by overbearing new structures.
(d) Para 4.1.4: while this may technically be true, it is the fact that the previous Enfield The brief provides an overall planning No change required. administration and its planning officers framework for the future of the site. It is a wheeled out arguments about the site's requirement that the library remains on its inaccessibility and the prohibitive costs of current site and is refurbished. adaptation and enhancement in support of their abortive and costly scheme to transfer the Library to an inappropriate site further up Green Lanes and all this without any (publicly declared) scheme for the development of the site. Ironically, the current brief stresses the excellence of the site public transport and other connections (though silent on costs).
(e) A mix of uses (section 6.1) is appropriate, although the draft already appears to We have amended the section on land uses to See the response to Number 24. threaten an overemphasis on housing. be clearer- see the response to Number 24. While the Town Hall might primarily be used for residential purposes, I believe that it could equally be attractive for office development or to light industrial or artist/craft studio purposes. By the same token it could function as a hotel, though it's hard to imagine that it would be viable.
(f) The site is not suitable for educational Agreed. We have amended the section on Agreed. We have amended the section on use, at least at below adult level. education use to be clearer- please see our education use to be clearer- please see our [Clarification is needed of the status of the response to Number 7. response to Number 7. Broomfield/Bowes school scheme in the wake of the intended funding being axed by the Coalition government].
(g) The brief needs to be more specific about See response to Number 24. community use (6.1.5) making it clear that a Agreed- we have removed section 6.1.5 and developer should think beyond a standard added more information to Sections 6.1.1 and add-on cafe to the Library. If the Library is to 6.1.2 to be clearer on community uses – see function more vigorously, communal space response to Number 24. and associated facilities will be needed. There is a dearth of open community space in the district and this absence will not be remedied by the regeneration of Broomfield House, if that ever happens - the current scheme makes only a gestural provision anyway and the funding for it has of course disappeared. So this site ought to provide a facility of which the local community could be proud.
(h) A health facility is also an acceptable use Agreed- the refurbishment of the library and We have added more information on the but not at the sacrifice of Library and community space are the Council priorities. The configuration of the different types of uses, see community space. I'd have said that modern library building is a large space and the our response to Number 98. medical practices have to be multi-functional basement and the ground floor are currently to be viable and therefore of a certain scale - used for back office functions so the building could it be squeezed in? does have potential. We have added more information on the configuration of the different types of uses; see the response to Number 98.
(i) 6.1.7 refers to possibly siting the health We have removed the existing text in Section We have removed the existing text in Section facility "along the Green Lanes frontage." 6.1.7 and replaced it to be clearer about the 6.1.7 and replaced it to be clearer about the This is one of several references to such a location of different uses. location of different uses- see the response frontage but nowhere in the maps is there an below and also the response to Number 98. indication that new structures will be put up 6..1.7 Any new health facility should be at that point - just what is envisaged here? incorporated into the existing library building where possible, or othe rwise situated along the Green Lanes frontage .
(j) Section 6.3 needs to be thoroughly re- The terms used in Section 6.3 are often used in Section 6.3 last bullet point amended: written and the extensive rhetorical passages urban design and planning and their purpose is • Any development fronting Green Lanes purged - e.g. "active frontage", "vitality of the for the Council to be able to appraise any The Green Lanes frontage should streets", "landmark element", "gateway". planning application on its design against clear provide a landmark element which acts These are specious terms regularly deployed requirements and criteria. The last bullet point in as a gateway to Palmers Green town by developers in order to seduce potential Section 6.3 refers to a landmark element; this is centre, this will be most effectively clients and it ill-behoves the Council to intended to refer to the creation of a new achieved by the creation of a new encourage them in their own black arts. entrance to Palmers Green library, facing Green entrance to Palmers Green library in Again, some of these terms imply the Lanes so we will clarify this. In urban design this location. An entirely new building creation of a large building next to Green terms a gateway is intended to act as a sense of is not considered acceptable along Lanes which the maps in the draft do not arrival and can often be achieved through Green Lanes. show and which in any case seem to landscaping and public realm treatment. It is not . contradict the remarks about being sensitive intended to indicate a new building. We will to Truro House.[Evidence here that scissors clarify this in the final brief and we will also add a and paste have been at work].(See also 6.6). fact box explaining what the different terms Just what form would a "gateway" into mean. Palmer's Green "shopping centre" take? - and is the assumption that traffic on Green Lanes is only moving North?
(k) Similar misgivings arise over 6.5 where We have had a number of comment son the guidance about housing density limits is We have had a number of comments on density density and heights- please see our response immediately abandoned by reference to and heights- please see our response to to Numbers 40 and 61 to see how the planning "exemplary design", an entirely subjective Numbers 40 and 61 to see how the planning brief will be amended to address these. concept. Equally lax are remarks about brief will be amended to address these. housing blocks of "up to 4 storeys" implying that they could overshadow the Town Hall and the Library which are at best three storeys only.
(l) While remarks about devoting less surface In terms of the costs of this and the technical No change required. space to car parking are welcome, sub- feasibility, further work will be required once the surface parking provision sounds costly and planning brief is adopted. could well run up against water-table problems so close to the New River.
(m) That said, the mix of uses envisaged We have amended the brief to be clearer on Please see our response to Number 2 on suggests that more parking space than at parking. Please see our response to Number 2 parking. present will realistically be required. on parking.
(n) And that leads on to the striking absence of any consideration of what the It is not the purpose of a planning brief to go into See the response to Number 2 on parking. development will do in terms of generating detail about the exact land uses and the even more vehicle movements than at amounts of each use that will go on the site. present at the already grossly busy junction Therefore it is difficult to anticipate the transport of Green Lanes and Broomfield Lane. The movements as this will be based on the amount Council must make an assessment, if it has of car parking that will be provided- see our not already done so, of the traffic implications response to Number 2 on parking and traffic. of this brief. It is surely not enough to leave the potential developers to come up with a transport assessment (para 6.7.6).
I was pleased to hear in your presentation at We have added more information to the We have added more information to the the Area Forum last night a commitment to Planning Brief on delivery of a refurbished Planning Brief on delivery. publish a report on the consultation in the library. The refurbishment of the library is an spirit of transparency (how differently things essential requirement of any redevelopment of are being handled in respect of the the site. Broomfield House proposals). A couple of questions arise: what is the timetable for the completion of this report and for the presentation of the Planning Brief in final form? (if you told us this I missed it - acoustics not good). Second, I am unclear how the envisaged development of the site will proceed. Is the intention to go for a comprehensive one-fell-swoop process? Or is it going to be a piecemeal process? And either way, by one developer or by a consortium? What particularly concerns me (and other local residents I imagine) is whether the Library makeover (in theory uncontentious) will have to await agreement about other uses for the site. As you heard, the prospect of housing in quantity there is far from uncontentious. How are we to be assured that the whole scheme will not collapse in to the sands of the planning process and an improved Library with it? 49 S Could café face New River/ opportunity for The community space will most likely be We have added the following wording to wildlife spotting? Suggestions for community incorporated in the existing library building. Section 6.3.1: use- exercise classes, gallery/café, Where possible we will ensure that the • Provide access to, and enhance the setting community cinema, local museum, children’s redevelopment maximises the river frontage and of, the New River frontage, and ensure that club views for all users, we have added a section to the library and community space the planning brief to reflect this. Your benefits from the river aspect . suggestions for community use will be taken into account when a detailed specification is written for the library refurbishment. 50 S Agrees with suggested land uses. Do not like Underdeck car parking is often an efficient way No change required. option of underdeck car parking. to avoid excessive levels of surface parking which can look unattractive.
Keep as many original features as possible In relation to the original features we have See the response to Number 1 and 72. added a new section on heritage to the brief to be clear that we would like these features to be protected. 51 O No I don’t agree with suggested land uses Please see our response to Number 6 and 24 See the response to Number 6 and 24 for and development principles. I disagree with regarding community uses. more information on community uses. selling the town hall for housing. This is a heritage building and should be retained for In relation to other town halls mentioned these use by the community. Other boroughs e.g. sites have not included the refurbishment of a Hackney/Haringey have kept their town halls. library on the same site, which adds a significant Other uses should be considered. Why is cost to any development. In addition the Enfield selling off a heritage site which is of Haringey (Hornsey) town hall included the huge significance in the history of the old development of over 100 residential units. Southgate? How come other boroughs can Hackney Town Hall has been converted into an retain their redundant town halls and put events and exhibition venue however due to the them to community/commercial use. A short need to refurbish the library and parking issues term financial gain at the expense of a long this would not be an appropriate use for term future which could include a revenue Southgate Town Hall. We have considered a stream. Part of the site could be sold for range of different uses for the site and none of housing and the money used to help finance these would provide enough funding to refurbish the renovation of the town hall and the the library and allow us to retain the town hall for library. The old meeting room could be used community use, even with housing built at the for hire. The town hall could be multi use back of the site. Community space will be venue. It maybe possible to move “Ruth incorporated into the redevelopment- see the Winston House” into the old town hall & response to Number 28 for more information. incorporate a cafe open to us all. It could be used for mother & toddler groups, teenagers who badly need a centre in Palmers Green. The council does not Seem to have considered the bigger picture. They are purely driven by short term profit which will probably be minimal.
The planning brief is very vague about We have amended the brief to be clearer on See Number 40 for proposed changes to density of housing. density. density.
No consideration has been given to the shortage of schools in the area when See response to Number 7 on school places See response to Number 7 on school places suggesting this scheme.
Details of health centre vague The purpose of a Planning Brief is not to go into See our response to Number 24 great detail about the land uses however we have added more information on the uses - please refer to our response to Number 24.
The consultation form has ridiculously small We indicated on the form the comments could No change required. boxes for people to make their views known. be included on another sheet of paper which many people have included. 52 G The town hall is a very solid building that I We have considered office and function space in No change required. feel would be better suited to office use than the town hall but it would not provide enough housing. Housing near river could be funding to refurbish the library- see the response attractive. The council chamber should be to Number 6. preserved, this could be used for functions such as wedding ceremonies. 53 O No to housing - too much development Please see our response to Number 15 on Please see our response to Number 15 on already. Yes to community, education, housing and Number 2 on parking. housing and Number 2 on parking. offices, municipal, hotel (not clear why not) Car Park assessment? 54 G As a library user I am concerned that the Please see our response to Number 2 on Please see our response to Number 2 on parking currently provided on site for use by parking. parking and Number 98. members of the public is retained in any redevelopment, at minimum, at a substantial part of the present level. I think it is quite an important factor in improving access to, and levels of use of, the library – in other words, in that respect, the site as it exists is well- adapted to its primary purpose of providing a public library service.
I do not agree with sacrificing this within a We will amend section 6.1.6- see the response redevelopment to increase the attractiveness to Number 98. of a residential development, and the commercial returns from the latter. To a lay person like myself the planning brief is not particularly clear or explicit as to the parameters it sets in this respect – I can find two references; 6.1.6 Residential and non-residential floorspace should be designed in order to minimise the impact that a non-residential uses would have on residential amenity particularly in relation to privacy, overlooking, noise, access and parking.
6.7.3 Car parking should be provided in accordance with the London Plan. Cycle parking should meet the minimum standards set out in the London Plan. Given the location of the site and the good public transport links available it is considered that a residential parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit will be acceptable. The commercial parking space should also be minimised. Disabled parking spaces should be provided in accordance with the draft London Plan (2009).
If the implication is that the transport links are sufficiently good, and the site’s position is sufficiently close to focal points for other ‘natural’ journeys (e.g. shopping at Palmers Green, supermarket shopping at sites with parking) to allow the public parking to be reduced, I do not agree with the planning brief being on that basis. In my view, the site is, to an extent, on a limb geographically, people will not make awkward and time- consuming journeys by bus, and consequently, I believe reducing the parking will undermine use of the library. Redeveloping the site to maintain or improve the library service ought to be the primary aim and focus of the redevelopment of the site, with commercial or residential property redevelopment (and the receipts from that) very much secondary/ fitted around that. 54 S I think this is a superb idea, would be good to Your suggestions for community use will be No change required. get some free street dance classes there for considered when we work up a detailed boys and girls to get low income teens/young specification for the refurbishment of the library adults off the streets since the occurrence of and provision of new community space. most recent violence. 55 G The idea is to make Southgate Town Hall We appreciate your detailed comments and your Please see our response to Numbers 6 and 24 into a trust with a board to oversee the efforts to provide all this information in your on community uses. everyday running etc. Organisations such as response. Please see our response to Numbers the IOP the council and even Southgate 6 and 24 on community uses. College would become Southgate Town Hall 'Partners'. For example Southgate College could provide catering services such as a recital in the forms of canapés cooked by the students.
Events and exhibitions could be sponsored by local or national businesses which are located in Palmers Green, Winchmore hill and Southgate. They will be called 'Sponsorship Partners'. Sponsorship could even help with funding parent groups in providing resource etc. They can also even offer advice as well in terms of generating business.
The rest of the money can be generated by a cafe, rent from small businesses and community groups based at the town hall and any courses that the place might run. The reason being is that the general feeling amongst residents living in Palmers Green is that there is nothing that brings the community together. There community groups dotted in and around Palmers Green which use local church halls and they deal with issues in their area. Southgate Town Hall could bring these groups together. Another aspect is somewhere for young parents to meet up and talk to each other whilst there children could play or learn – an expansion on what the library provides already in terms of reading sessions for under fives.
I have spoken to people to Tottenham and they told me how Tottenham Town Hall have been taken over by the community and not only does it make money, it also provides a valuable service to the community. 56 S I have looked at the Draft Planning Brief. In N/A No change required. terms of comments - I welcome the plans to retain the existing buildings fronting Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes and to retain the Library given that this is currently publicly owned space/buildings.
I think it is very important that the new We have stated that affordable housing should We have added more information to section housing provision is not exclusively privately be provided on the site based on our Core 6.8.1 regarding the provision of affordable owned and that there is at least a 50/50 mix Strategy requirement of 40%. housing. of social housing and private housing. 6.8.1 Any newly constructed housing on the site must meet the following requirements: • The scheme should aim to achieve the affordable housing, tenure mix and housing type requirements set out in the Core Strategy (2010). This is a requirement of 40% affordable housing on site of which 70% should be social rented and 30% should be intermediate. • Where development cannot meet the aspirations in the Core Strategy, justification should be provided based on the viability of I welcome the proposals for improved delivering a suitable mix of uses on landscaping on both road frontages - this is Agreed the site and the mix of housing in the very important and the commitment to it surrounding area. should not be diluted going forward
I also welcome the potential to open up No change required. access to the New River along the south side We have added further positive information on of the site. Again I think this is important. The this to the brief, following discussions with New River walk is a wonderfully peaceful Thames Water. stretch in the heart of Palmers Green/Winchmore Hill but its attraction is No change required. diminished by the fact you have to leave it so frequently. Now that there is the opportunity to create some new access without impacting existing buildings, it should be taken.
I am worried that if new development is put We will remove the two areas marked blue and We will remove the two areas marked blue and on both those areas marked blue ("potential replaced them with a diagram which is not as replaced them with a diagram which is not as for new development") on Figure 4 then the location specific in relation to the location of new location specific in relation to the location of site could become overcrowded. It would be development. new development. nice to think that it would be possible for the blue area on the south of the site to become a public open space with children’s play areas and a cafe - which combined with the Library - would create a really attractive public facility in the are 57 G I am pleased and support the desire to retain Please see our response to Number 2 on traffic Please see our response to Number 2 on the library for public use. The service and parking, Number 7 on school places and traffic and parking, Number 7 on school places provided by the children's library is excellent, Number 15 on housing. and Number 15 on housing. and the rest of the services seem to be well used. I do note however that you are likely to take away the parking spaces form the library, which would be a pity. I am very concerned about the main thrust of the brief which seems to be towards additional housing development. I have a number of specific worries:
1. Traffic and congestion - Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes are already congested at peak times. Additional housing would put further pressure on these roads, especially Broomfield Lane which is a narrow residential road for much of its length. Additional traffic would also increase the congestion and risk of accidents on Broomfield Avenue (south end) and Cranford Avenue. It is already difficult to turn right out of Broomfield Venue (south side) and there are fairly regular accidents. As well as cars, many people walking to the station or to the doctor's surgery or indeed the high street need to cross the road at that point. It is already difficult to cross, especially for young children or those with limited mobility. Increasing traffic on that road would increase the likelihood of a serious accident. Traffic is also often busy down Broomfield Avenue and Cranford Avenue, usually from non resident drivers trying a shortcut through. I feel that additional housing at the library site would lead to additional traffic on Broomfield Avenue, and also on Cranford Avenue. Non resident drivers also go too quickly. There are increasing numbers of families with young children on Broomfield Avenue and Cranford Avenue and speeding drivers trying to avoid congestion on Broomfield Lane are likely to cause an accident.
2. Pressure on Resources, especially schools - there is already a shortage of local school places in the area. Residents on Broomfield Avenue, Hawthorn Avenue, Cranford Avenue and surrounding roads are not able to get into Hazelwood School, and are finding it increasingly difficult to get into Bowes School. Given the likely developments on the A406, it will become even harder to get into Bowes School. It seems unhelpful to sell off council land to build more houses for people who will not be able to find a school place, instead of using the council land to open a much needed new school in Palmers Green. Garfield School is not in walking distance (your own planning document says that Arnos Grove station is not in walking distance) and is not a very good school. I know that local politicians and other groups would like to use the Southgate site to open a school, and I think that needs to at least be offered as an option for discussion to the local community.
3. Additional Development on the A406 - I understand that high rise developments are being planned for land along the A406 in Bowes Road. If this is indeed the case, then I cannot believe that there is a need for housing at Southgate Town Hall, neither is there likely to be sufficient community resources, e.g., schools, doctors surgery, public transport to support additional people. I have already touched on schools. The doctor’s surgery nearest Southgate Town Hall is already very busy, and it is hard to get an appointment. It will become harder if significant numbers of new patients register. Peak time travel on the train from Palmers Green to London and back is already very over crowded and will just get worse with substantial new development. 58 O First I would like to thank you for the very Please see the responses to Number 6 and 24 Please see the responses to Number 6 and 24 interesting tour of the old Southgate Town on community use. on community use. Hall on 20th August. I had no idea that the interior, especially the Council Chamber, had been so grand and, without the modern partitioning in the larger rooms, could be made into very acceptable community use. I do have a complaint that the consultation period is far too short, coinciding as it does with the tail-end of the school holidays – a busy time for families – and late summer holidays for other people such as myself. There is surely no special urgency about this project. I feel very strongly that the Town Hall should be retained for community use. Apart from Church halls and senior citizens’ Ruth Winston House, there is nowhere in Southgate or Palmers Green for general community use.
The ‘Key Facts’ leaflet issued with the There will be a mix of private and affordable No change required Supplementary Planning document refers to homes as part of any development of residential ‘Conversion of the Town Hall for residential units. use’. Does this mean use by residents of the area or handing it over to the property developers for conversion to residential accommodation? If the latter it will surely become ‘luxury’ flats for workers in the city of London looking for somewhere near the very convenient railway line direct to the City who will probably have no interest whatsoever in the local scene, and the building will be lost forever to the residents of the area. This building is part of our heritage and should be kept for community use. Also residential development behind the Town Hall and Library might well become ‘commuter’ accommodation and thus be alienated from the local scene.
I urge the Council to extend the consultation The consultation will not be extended due to the No change required period as there has been very little time for large response we have received to the community groups to get together to discuss consultation. the future of this area 59 O Although I did the online consultation The purpose of the planning brief is to set a We have amended Section 6.2 to be clearer yesterday I didn't realise the plans included general framework of future development of the about the existing buildings and what must proposed blocks of flats in place of part of site, it cannot be too specific on some details remain on the site as part of any the existing library and car park. If the west such as location of car parking as this will all redevelopment scheme. wing and annexes of the library are depend on the full details of a development demolished how are library services to be scheme such as amount of floorspace and improved? Where will the parking be? design. There could be potential for the removal of some of the small annexes provided that this can be fully justified through excellent design and there is no overall loss to the library floorspace provided. The brief does not allow full scale demolition of the existing buildings and instead requires them to be retained.
Will the new housing will be social housing? I Any new housing on the site would be a mix of No change required. think it should be. private and affordable.
I don't think the old town hall is suitable for Please see our response to Number 6 and 24 Please see our response to Numbers 6 and 24 housing - it should be used for the benefit of regarding community use. regarding community use. the community and not sold to a developer. Figure 3- proposed land uses and building configuration. Disagree. I disagree with the town hall being redeveloped for residential use and also that the original buildings be demolished. There are not many older buildings left in the area 60 G • There is strong feeling that the site might be Agree- we also feel that the site is unsuitable for See our response to Number 7 on school suitable for a school due to the shortage of a school. See our response to Number 7 on places. Primary places. I thoroughly DISAGREE with school places for more information. this idea as the location is totally unsuitable. The air quality would have a detrimental effect on the health of very young children situated so close to the North Circular Road/Green Lanes/and Broomfield Lane, used as an entrance to Morrisons supermarket. In other words a great deal of traffic congestion already. Children need to be outside in fresh air and a playground in these surroundings is not desirable. The purpose of the planning brief is to set a • The idea of using the car park and part of framework of the design of any new We have added more information on the the West wing of the library to build bland development. Section 3.2 and 6.3.1 refer to the heritage value of the building to sections 3.2 new blocks of flats would not be in keeping standard of design that would be required in any and 6.3.1 – see our response to Number 72 in with the character of the Town Hall. new build. relation to the comments made by English Heritage.
• There is a desperate need for space for There will be community space in the adult education i.e. English classes. Perhaps refurbished library and this could be a potential See our response to Number 24 on community some of the Library West wing could be used use for this space. See our response to Number uses. to provide space for these. 24 on community uses.
• There is a beautiful old council chamber in It is difficult to achieve this given that the the old Town Hall which should be retained chamber does not have disabled access and No change required. and not sold off to a developer. Perhaps it would require significant investment to achieve could be used for functions at this end of the this which is not available. We don’t consider borough as Enfield this to be a location for functions given residents Town is quite a long way away. concerns about traffic and parking and the relationship with surrounding residential properties.
• The old offices would make good space for We have identified the site as being suitable for See our response to Number 24. artists and artisans to rent as workshop offices and workspace and provided more space. information on this in the final version. Please see our response to Number 24 on the type of uses that will be acceptable.
We have added a section in the brief to give Added a new section to the brief on delivery. • The Freehold should be retained by Enfield more information on delivery. The freehold of the Council. library building would be retained by the Council.
This could potentially be accommodated in the See our response to Number 6 for more • There could be a permanent venue to hold refurbished library building however we need to information. the local Forums instead of pubs/schools etc. maximise the value on the rest of the site to pay Hopefully some of these creative ideas might for the refurbishment of the library. Please see help to retain the character of a lovely our response to Number 6 for more information building and protect the library surroundings. on this. 61 Southgate S The Town Hall is not a listed building and we N/A No change required. District Civic understand that the greater part has little Trust merit because of its condition. Architecturally, there are interesting brick facades on to Green Lanes and the New River, so we are pleased that these buildings will be retained.
Section 6.6.1 amended to read: 3. Objectives of the Planning Brief. 3.1 It is Agreed- Paragraph 6.6.1 refers to the need to 6.6.1 The landscaping at the front of the site considered that a redevelopment of the site take into account mature trees and improve the should be improved to create a more attractive would enhance the appearance and landscaping at the front of the site, facing green frontage onto Green Lanes taking account of amenities. It is not in a Conservation Area lanes. We will add the word ‘existing’ before existing matures trees whilst providing a so any trees without TPO's would not have mature trees to make it clear that the existing buffer against the road. Trees must be any protection. We would therefore hope trees should be retained. retained unless it can be demonstrated that that in these circumstances any redesign their removal will significantly enhance the would take into consideration retention of streetscape and setting of the town hall and healthy mature trees fronting roads. library.
3.2 We agree with all the objectives listed N/A No change required. here.
6.1 Mix of uses. Agreed- affordable housing will be required on We have added further information to Section We agree with a mixed use, and consider the site base don the Core Strategy policy of 6.8.1 of the planning brief to refer to 40% that of the options for use of the site, 40%. affordable housing and other Core Strategy affordable residential housing is to be housing policies. preferred. The library should remain on the site because it is so well established and used, that to relocate it totally elsewhere when the existing can be refurbished would be an unnecessary expense. No change required. 6.2.1 Retention of buildings. N/A We agree with this. No change required. 6.3 Urban Design. N/A 6.3.1 We agree with all the objectives listed here. See the response to Number 40 on density. We recognise that the section on density could 6.5 Density, Heights and massing. 6.5.1 be made clearer and that the range identified in Density should be at the lower range per the draft plan was too high and we have hectare so that rooms can be made larger amended Section 6.5.1- see the response to and provide more comfortable living Number 40. accommodation, even if it means less families are accommodated Change made to Section 6.5.2: We have amended Section 6.5.2 and 6.5.3 in 6.5.2 The existing library building and town 6.5.2 It is hoped that this development does relation to height to reflect the comments we hall building are 3 storeys (based on not have 4 storeys. Any demolition that have received. average residential height) excluding takes place will probably be behind the the basement level. Cyril Smith House existing buildings and it would be on the other side of Broomfield Lane is unacceptable for any replacement or new a residential block of flats which buildings to be seen above these. The Town ranges from 3 to 4 storeys in height. Hall has a pitched roof, and we know that it has a lower Ground Floor (or semi- 6.5.3 The back of the site, along Shapland basement). The library has a flat roof and Way is at a lower level than Cyril Smith there are residential properties in Shapland House and the surrounding pavement. Way all of which should be taken into It is considered that development up consideration from a visual point of view. to 3 storeys will be acceptable. 4 6.5.3 As stated above, we do not agree with storeys will not be allowed unless it is predominately 4 storeys across the site. We confined to a small part of the site, have reservations about a gradual increase located at the rear of the site where the in height and scale towards any road that is ground level is lower and justified involved, unless the maximum height was 3 through exemplary design that storeys. enhances the heritage and civic importance of the existing buildings.
6.5.4 New development should not be visible from behind the roofline of the town hall or library from the Green Lanes aspect.
It is considered that the maximum height for any buildings will be up to 4 storeys.
6.5.3 Development will: • Development should be limited to predominately four s toreys across the site. • Gradually increase in height and scale towards the corner of Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes
See our response to your comments on 3.1 6.6 Trees and landscaping. N/A regarding mature trees. 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 We agree with both these objectives.
6.7 Movement and access. We have removed the reference to 0.5 car See the response to Number 2 on parking. 6.7.3 It should be realised that most people parking spaces per residential unit to recognise have a car (or two) in spite of good public concerns that this is too low. Please refer to the transport links. This may not be only for response to Number 2 on parking. social use, but necessary for their work. A parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit is considered too few. We agree with the other objectives.
6.8 Housing. 6.8.1 We agree with these requirements. N/A No change required.
6.9 Sustainability. We agree with all these standards. N/A No change required.
We have covered above the items that our We have added more information on Truro We have added more information on Truro Association has any knowledge of, as an House in the planning brief- refer to our House in the planning brief- refer to our amenity society with an interest in Palmers response to Number 11. Please also see the response to Number 11. Please also see the Green. This site has a Civic Heritage, and is response to English Heritage, Number 72. response to English Heritage, Number 72. opposite Truro House which is listed, and the Town Hall provides a setting which could be within its curtilage along the New River and fronting Green Lanes. 62 G Agree with the fact that landmark and key Please see our response to Number 2 on Please see our response to Number 2 on building with good architectural features parking and traffic and Number 15 on housing. parking and traffic and Number 15 on housing. should be reserved and put to good use. I There is limited funding available for the NHS disagree in increasing the population load but we have indicated that a health use could be that the immediate area is receiving; there appropriate on the site. are new housing projects in the area. With the possibility of Chase Farm being closed down the town hall could be used for certain departments of the hospital that could operate semi autonomously. Senior citizens home and centre or a hospice. Ample parking would be useful. 63 David O I am writing on behalf of a significant number N/A No change required. Burrowes MP of my constituents who have expressed serious concerns about the consultation regarding the future use of Southgate Town Hall.
First, the timing of the consultation over the school summer holiday period has meant This has been raised but no extension to the that many constituents are only at a late consultation period has been agreed. The No change required. stage becoming aware of the proposals. I statutory consultation period for an SPD is 6 would urge the Council to extend the period weeks and we have consulted for longer than of consultation to allow more residents time this. to have their say.
Southgate Town Hall is an extremely significant part of the old Borough of English Heritage has also responded to the draft See the response to Number 72 in relation to Southgate's civic history. The present brief and we have made a number of changes English Heritage’s comments and Number 24 redundant use of the building should not based on their comments on heritage and in relation to community uses. distract from its value in terms of heritage history. See the response to Number 72. The and connection with the local community. brief is proposing to retain the buildings, The history of the Town Hall needs to be fully sensitively convert them, and enhance the respected. It points to a community asset appearance of the whole site. Please also see which supersedes the library. As you will our response to Number 6 and 24 on community know the Town Hall was built in 1893 and the uses, we have made this clearer in relation to library was added in 1940. The Town Hall the objectives for the site. was should properly seek answers to the question of what community use should be made of the Town Hall. constructed following the decision to grant the people of Southgate their own local Governance. The Town Hall represents the formal existence of the original Urban District of Southgate. It should therefore not be understated and underestimated the historic and civic value of this building since it represents the distinct identity of Southgate which is still cherished by many members of the community. I would invite the Council to not only extend the consultation but to also change its scope, rather than the present brief which is geared around disposing of a property for development. The Town Hall is first and foremost a community asset and therefore the consultation. The Council's draft planning brief is a poor deal for my constituents. More investment in the library is a poor return for the loss of the Town Hall.
The Council has dismissed the idea of an Please see the response to Number 7 on school Please see the response to Number 7 on educational use for the Town Hall without places. school places. detailed analysis of the new opportunities for a free school to be accommodated. A further consideration would allow the Council to establish the demand for primary schools in the immediate catchment area which I believe would show the need for additional primary school places to accommodate parent preferences particularly in the Lakes Estate area.
My constituents wish to have a consultation We have amended the planning brief following N/A document which results in a plan that is the consultation to reflect the views of the acceptable to the community rather than a community. plan which is acceptable to developers. Without an extension to the consultation and revision of the scope of the document the Council will understandably be accused of wanting to sell off the family silver on the quiet. 64 The Victorian G The former Town Hall is undoubtedly a Based on your advice, and comments from See our response to Number 72. Society heritage asset. It is remarkable that this English Heritage, we have added more building has not been formally recognized information to the Planning Brief on the heritage and protected either by local listing or value of the buildings. See our response to national. The building is extremely well- Number 72 based on the comments by English designed and retains its handsome Heritage. Edwardian character (it was extensively remodelled in 1914). As a former town hall it expresses civic pride in its grandiose appearance and the quality of construction. At the end of the consultation document it is mentioned that the Town Hall should be retained, we feel this should be expressed as a criterion of any development for this site. To this end the Town Hall should be formally recognized as a Heritage Asset, in accordance with PPS5 Policy HE8: ‘Where a development proposal is subject to detailed pre-application discussions (including, where appropriate, archaeological evaluation (see HE6.1)) with the local planning authority, there is a general presumption that identification of any previously unidentified heritage assets will take place during this pre-application stage. Otherwise the local planning authority should assist applicants in identifying such assets at the earliest opportunity’. The later buildings of the site are not of the same quality and value and their alteration would be acceptable. 65 O • The closure of the consultation period on We have been working closely with the Libraries No change required. 16th September, pending an agreed Service and received early feedback from the outcome of the ongoing Libraries Libraries consultation. There will be no conflict consultation seems perverse. The proposal between the planning brief and the outcome of to propose the planning brief to CABINET the Libraries consultation. FOR APPROVAL on 16th October without the overwhelming support of the local population would seem a recipe to political disaster No change required. • It is not accepted that the site development The key objective for the site is to refurbish needs to be neutral (self) funding in capital Palmers Green library and in order to do this we terms. I accept that there has to be a have examined the development potential of the sensible business case that where capital site. The land uses in the planning brief will funding is spent the supporting sustainable provide a means to achieve this and community revenue stream has been identified use is included as an acceptable use class.
• It is not acceptable that, provided a certain We have amended Section 6.2.1 to provide See our response to Number 40. square metre is provided, the public areas of more details on the approach to the existing the library can be generally be on more than extensions, See our response to Number 40. one floor. This is exactly one of the objections to the earlier site at 286 Green Lanes. It should be generally a target that children services and major public areas are on a single floor so that adults can properly scrutinise their young people. If this means that the library extension is retained so be it!
• I do NOT agree with the corporate policy Please see our response to Number 7 on Please see our response to Number 7 on dogma advocated by Cllr Del Goddard education and schools. education and schools. excluding education planning use in its entirety from the building on the basis of location alone. The PTAL value of the site makes it admirably suited for part of the site to be in some form of educational use as it will maximise green travel. The ability to have community use of a part of the site jointly with educational use could be introduced NOW and needing just a lick of paint by volunteers. For example, the reception class for Bowes school could be acceptable in planning terms as a temporary use of part of the site with other communal uses at evenings and weekends. This is more sustainable than parents having to drive to the Argos Superstore site in Fore Street. The Argos Superstore should be developed for residential use.
• it is unacceptable that the parking provision We have removed the reference to 0.5 parking Please see our response to Number 2 on of any residential use of the site is less than spaces per unit. Please see our response to parking. one parking space per unit; and that Number 2 on parking. adequate disabled parking spaces are retained for both staff and disabled library users
• the present front door access and front Agreed- we would also like to achieve ground drive facing Green Lanes is admirably floor entrance to the library from Green Lanes as No change required. suitable for our key building opposed to first floor access off Broomfield Lane and this is outlined in the brief.
• the idea that young couples will occupy any This is not included or assumed in the planning residential occupation on the upper floors brief. No change required. and not generate/procreate children is of course perverse. The location is not ideal but nature will take its course; especially since according to the brief the accommodation is intended to be "tenure blind" 66 G It is my understanding that the planning brief Agreed- see the response to Number 24 on See the response to Number 24. currently considers that appropriate acceptable uses which include community development responses might include a spaces, offices and workspace. The brief mixed use development which might include proposes a mix used development which will offices. Whilst there are a number of core generate employment and training opportunities policies which include the provision of for the local community. affordable and quality housing for the residents of Enfield it does seem to me that enhancing and creating job opportunities for the residents of Enfield is desirable not least so persons can afford that housing without public subsidy. The service sector both in the United Kingdom and in Enfield provides jobs for significant numbers of persons. I do not set out a lengthy description of the service sector suffice to say it could encompass everything from accountants to graphic designers to architects. to online shops even at stretch a builder provides a service.
The barriers to entry into a field or market for many in the service sector are many but primarily I think are the issue of office space. Though there is un let office space in the London Borough of Enfield the overwhelming bulk of that space is only available on long leases typically for a number of years which is a barrier to entry and employment in this sector for many. It is also the case that much of the available office space is for medium to large companies or groups is unsuitable to sole practitioners or new starts with few employees. To address this problem there has been an impressive growth in serviced offices with more flexible leases in the London area though not in Enfield as yet. An example of an expanding company in the provision of such spaces might be easy offices (in the same stable as easy gym easy Jet etc). The serviced office model though is not the only model in existence and I would draw your attention to for example http://thecubelondon.com/ which has as its strap line diverse and collaborative workspaces and http://thetrampery.com/ which has as its strap line: co working in the Shoreditch triangle. Might I ask that you and your colleagues take a look at those sites which fully set out the facilities provided and the value proposition? These are fully commercial enterprises and I see no reason why spaces offering a similar mix of facilities would not be commercially successful in our borough. When meeting your colleague yesterday I waited for a short while in the library. I noticed that all of the computer terminals were in full use even at 1030 in the morning. It is my informed supposition that many of those persons were not students doing homework but people actually doing, preparing, researching or otherwise engaging in business. A venue providing the opportunity for what has become known as co-working would I believe be an excellent fit for the library facility. I will leave it there please take a look at the similar buildings and their uses which I have provided in the links. We should not of course copy slavishly what other boroughs are doing but I believe the general idea is worth some further consideration. Thank you for your time 67 O I would like to make a general point that I'm See the response to the following: See the response to the following: very disappointed that Enfield Council is Number 6 on retaining the town hall for Number 6 on retaining the town hall for prepared to 'sell off' for housing the main community use. community use. civic building left in the original Palmers Number 7 regarding school places and an Number 7 regarding school places and an Green and Southgate borough. Southgate education facility. education facility. Town Hall is an important historic landmark Number 24 on the types of community uses Number 24 on the types of community uses in Palmers Green and its sale seems to suitable on the site. suitable on the site. confirm the view of residents that Palmers Number 72 in relation to the heritage value of Number 72 in relation to the heritage value of Green is an area neglected by the Council the buildings which we have received advice the buildings which we have received advice and while Enfield has its Civic Centre and from English Heritage on. from English Heritage on. Dugdale House and Edmonton has Community House, this area is being left with no community centre. It is an iconic building with several attractive features such as the Council Chamber with its wooden panelling and leaded light windows, gabled roof and clock tower and interesting fireplaces and tiling which should be preserved. From my tour of the building it seemed suitable with minor updating for a range of uses: • Reinstatement of the Citizens Advice Bureau - Enfield's only remaining CAB is situated in Ponders End which is too far away for the residents of Palmers Green and Southgate. As an ex-CAB advice worker in Southgate Town Hall I 'm aware of the huge demand for CAB services in this area and with the current economic climate there is increasing need for debt, housing, employment and benefits advice. The old office rooms still exist and minor modification would be all that is required. • Health use - A clinic or GP consortium would be acceptable and could be sited on the ground floor for easy access. • Council Chamber - ideal space for large meetings for groups (such as Area Forums, ward meetings and community groups) which would be appropriate in terms of its heritage.. As it is such a light and airy space it could also be used as exhibition space for artwork, dance and drama groups etc. • Offices for local community groups, particularly those reflecting the changing cultural and ethnic diversity of Palmers Green. Having the local groups together on one site with facilities for a large meeting room (the Council chamber) would help with community cohesion and encouraging new local community initiatives. Educational Use - There is an acute shortage of primary school places in the area and according to the LEA my area, the Lakes Estate, is a 'black hole' and children are not able to access places in any of the three local schools (i.e. Hazelwood, Bowes and Walker). While there may not be sufficient space for a primary school would it not be possible to have a Nursery/Infant school on this site as there is sufficient outside space for a playground and it is ideally situated next to the library? The Town Hall is in a central spot in Palmers Green and as long as the traffic congestion is sorted out on Broomfield Lane after the completion of the A406 road works it will be a much more suitable location for a primary/infant school than any extension to Bowes or Broomfield (mentioned in the planning brief) which are sited directly on the North Circular road.
Redevelopment of the Library: The existing library is well used and the recent renovation of the west wing for a separate children's library has been very The brief has been amended to be clearer about See our response to Number 40. successful and should be retained both from the extensions and annexes of the existing the children's viewpoint and the other library buildings- see our response to Number 40. users who don't want to be disturbed by noise from the various music and story sessions. Thank you for your suggestions – see the In terms of the planning brief 'to deliver response to Number 24. improved, modern library services, and associated community facility, on the site' (3.2) I consider these to be: Thank you for your suggestions – see the • Local history unit / Local museum area - to response to Number 24. help community cohesion by providing a place for recording and researching the history of the different communities in Palmers Green. We have been told that any redevelopment of Broomfield House will not include the reinstatement of the museum and so the artefacts from Broomfield House museum donated by local residents should be displayed in Palmers Green and not in Forty Hall. If the Council Chamber in the Town Hall cannot be saved this area could also include any local heritage items listed above. • Community Cafe - most modern libraries provide this facility and it would provide a useful meeting point for small groups. • Citizens Advice Bureau/ Information centre - If the CAB cannot be located in the Town Hall then space should be provided in the library complex. Currently one morning a week is provided for an advice session which is completely inadequate and there should be separate rooms available to enable confidential advice to be given.
Access to the site - currently the main access Agreed- it is an objective in the planning brief to No change required. to the library is on Broomfield Lane by a flight create level access to the library from Green of steps which is unsuitable for the disabled Lanes. and families with young children. Level access with an improved lift service should be introduced from Green Lanes.
I am sure I am not alone in wanting the main See the response to Number 6. See the response to Number 6. historic building in Palmers Green to be retained and used as a community centre and in the light of the recent riots it's very important that local residents have a sense of pride and community spirit in the area. The ruins of Broomfield House neglected for the past 25 years have created a feeling that Enfield Council does not care about this area and the retention of Southgate Town Hall for community use would help to restore voters’ faith in the Council. 68 O Firstly, as you will no doubt not be surprised, Requests were made to extend the consultation No change required. I must complain about the consultation period but were not granted due to the large period. As has already been discussed, and number of responses received and the fact that not for the first time in fact, Enfield Council we had already consulted for a longer period of tends to make a habit of this. The period of time than is required for a Supplementary consultation is yet again over a long holiday Planning Document. when many people will be away or, towards the end, concentrating on getting ready for the new school year. Their minds are on other things. Despite Councillor Goddard’s comments about the area of consultation being widened and allowing a couple of day’s slippage, this is not enough. This is an important document that needs to be correct. We do not want something that canny developers will be able to drive a horse and cart through. Allied to the above it is extremely late in the day to be discussing this issue at an Area Forum, a very busy Forum with other major issues being discussed! This should have been carried out much earlier when the brief was first produced. Many people at the Forum on Tuesday evening were unable to speak or ask questions because of the tight time scale of that meeting.
The brief itself fails to highlight the historical We recognise this and have amended the brief Please see the response to 72 in relation to importance of both the Town Hall and the to be clearer on the heritage value of the English Heritage’s comments on the brief. library within the local community, although, I building, please see the response to 72 in understand, it has already been noted as a relation to English Heritage’s comments on the ‘building of local interest’ by Enfield. brief.
Whilst I understand the comments from See the response to Number 1 and 72 (English Councillor Goddard about the lack of capital We have examined the town hall for conversion Heritage). funding and the need to provide housing, I do to housing and it is achievable- we will be more not see that this should be to the detriment of specific in the planning brief on the protection the community. Has the Town Hall been given to the exterior and interior of the building, assessed properly as viable for housing, again see the response to Number 1and 72 indeed, can it be done. What are the (English Heritage). protective measures, if any, for, not only the façade of the building and the frontage to Green Lanes, but to some of the internal areas e.g. the old Council Chamber. What is to stop a developer gutting the internal aspects entirely?
I am also concerned that any building on the site will be restricted to as many as four We have had a number of comments regarding See the response to Number 61 on heights. storeys, two such ‘blocks’ within the areas of the proposed height of new buildings so the brief potential new development as noted would will be amended to reflect this- see the response hardly be ‘hidden from view’ as mentioned at to Number 61 on heights. the Forum.
The minimalisation of parking space would Please see the response to Number 2 on Please see the response to Number 2 on be a further problem. Whatever the library parking and traffic. parking and traffic. floors end up as being used for this will undoubtedly involve a requirement for more parking spaces, to the detriment of those trying to use the library itself. We should be working towards making libraries more viable, not restricting their use. Has any kind of impact assessment been carried out on the potential increase of traffic in that area?
Councillor Goddard stated that the Please see our response to Number 7 on school Please see our response to Number 7 on development of any housing on the site places. school places. because it would all be in the form of flats would not result in any children living there and would not affect the rising problem of lack of school places. What about the potential of so called ‘luxury developments’ of houses, such as to be built behind Caversham Avenue, N13? How does he know that any development will be only flats, and if so, will potential occupants have to sign a “non-childbirth contract”. There is already a problem in some roads on the Lakes Estate where there are no schools now available for residents there. This is not going to get any better.
The Brief is rather woolly about the We recognise this and will amend the final brief community facilities question. Is the library to be clearer about community uses- see the See the response to Number 24. itself and possible health space seen as response to Number 24. meeting the community use requirement, there appears to be a lack of local community facilities. What about wider resources for community/voluntary groups use, clearly linked with the Library of course, with a cooperative arrangement between Enfield and the Community? Particularly as the potential for community use within a rebuilt Broomfield House looks to be dead in the water, and wasn’t particularly sufficient or viable in the first place.
Overall I believe that the brief is not tight We have amended the brief significantly based Changes made throughout planning brief as enough and does not meet the needs of the on the consultation process. The purpose of the set out tin this table. local community. I feel that developers will be brief is to respond to residents concerns and use able to impose their will upon what eventually the consultation to clear up aspects of the brief happens on that site and the Council will not that are uncertain. Once adopted the planning have the will to contest their actions (the brief will be a material consideration when development at 110-112 Aldermans Hill determining planning applications for the site being a prime example). The community and developers will be expected to comply with should be given more time to discuss this the framework and requirements set out in the issue before it is hurried through. brief otherwise planning permission will not be granted.
69 Fox Lane O Firstly, as you will no doubt not be surprised, This response is the same as the previous entry See above (Number 68). Residents I must complain about the consultation (Number 68) as the residents submitted a Association period. As has already been discussed, and personal response and also the same response not for the first time in fact, Enfield Council on behalf of Fox Lane Residents association- tends to make a habit of this. The period of therefore see the comments to Number 68. consultation is yet again over a long holiday when many people will be away or, towards the end, concentrating on getting ready for the new school year. Their minds are on other things. Despite Councillor Goddard’s comments about the area of consultation being widened and allowing a couple of day’s slippage, this is not enough. This is an important document that needs to be correct. We do not want something that canny developers will be able to drive a horse and cart through. Allied to the above it is extremely late in the day to be discussing this issue at an Area Forum, a very busy Forum with other major issues being discussed! This should have been carried out much earlier when the Brief was first produced. Many people at the Forum on Tuesday evening were unable to speak or ask questions because of the tight time scale of that meeting. The brief itself fails to highlight the historical importance of both the Town Hall and the library within the local community, although, I understand, it has already been noted as a ‘building of local interest’ by Enfield. Whilst I understand the comments from Councillor Goddard about the lack of capital funding and the need to provide housing, I do not see that this should be to the detriment of the community. Has the Town Hall been assessed properly as viable for housing, indeed, can it be done. What are the protective measures, if any, for, not only the façade of the building and the frontage to Green Lanes, but to some of the internal areas e.g. the old Council Chamber. What is to stop a developer gutting the internal aspects entirely? I am also concerned that any building on the site will be restricted to as many as four storeys, two such ‘blocks’ within the areas of potential new development as noted would hardly be ‘hidden from view’ as mentioned at the Forum. The minimalisation of parking space would be a further problem. Whatever the library floors end up as being used for this will undoubtedly involve a requirement for more parking spaces, to the detriment of those trying to use the library itself. We should be working towards making libraries more viable, not restricting their use. Has any kind of impact assessment been carried out on the potential increase of traffic in that area? Councillor Goddard stated that the development of any housing on the site, because it would all be in the form of flats would not result in any children living there and would not affect the rising problem of lack of school places? What about the potential of so called ‘luxury developments’ of houses, such as to be built behind Caversham Avenue, N13? How does he know that any development will be only flats, and if so, will potential occupants have to sign a “non-childbirth contract”. There is already a problem in some roads on the Lakes Estate where there are no schools now available for residents there. This is not going to get any better. The Brief is rather woolly about the community facilities question. Is the library itself and possible health space seen as meeting the community use requirement, there appears to be a lack of local community facilities. What about wider resources for community/voluntary groups use, clearly linked with the Library of course, with a cooperative arrangement between Enfield and the Community? Particularly as the potential for Community use within a rebuilt Broomfield House looks to be dead in the water, and wasn’t particularly sufficient or viable in the first place. Overall I believe that the brief is not tight enough and does not meet the needs of the local community. I feel that developers will be able to impose their will upon what eventually happens on that site and the Council will not have the will to contest their actions (the development at 110-112 Aldermans Hill being a prime example). The Community should be given more time to discuss this issue before it is hurried through. 70 Michael O The Conservative opposition: Lavender, Leader of the (i) queries whether the combined use of the We have added more information to the brief on See the response to Number 98. Opposition building for housing and a community facility the configuration of different land uses, a (i) will function adequately without resulting in suggested approach to layout and rationale detriment to the residential amenity of the behind this; see the response to Number 98. dwellings constructed or converted on site; or The aim of the Planning Brief is to achieve the (ii) will realise best value for the council and refurbishment of the library and to achieve this council tax payer; via redevelopment on the rest of the site. This represents a best value approach to the scheme.
The loss of parking as a result of any The brief requires that adequate parking should Please see the response to Number 2 on residential development may have an impact be provided for community uses. Please also parking. on the viability of any part of the building see the response to Number 2 on parking. used for community purposes due to the lack of off street parking nearby (Morrison’s locks its main car park after closing).
(ii) Notes the need for educational facilities Please see our response to Number 7 in relation in the Borough and the fact that suitable sites to education and school places. Please see our response to Number 7 in rarely come onto the market. The relation to education and school places. Conservative opposition therefore believes the Council ought to explore the possibilities of using the site as a free school, particularly since interest has been shown in the site by a potential user;
(iii) notes the function which the facade of Costs provided by Architectural Services No change required. the building performs in the street scene and indicated that façade retention is a much costlier the fact that the building is a recognisable option than the retention and conversion of the landmark, however the Conservative whole town hall building. In addition conversion opposition notes the views expressed by of the building will allow the interior features of Conservation Groups that architecturally the the town hall to be retained. building as a whole lacks particular merit and a robust cost-benefit analysis needs to be performed in relation to retaining any internal features or anything other than the facade. The Council's attention is drawn to the sensitive redevelopment of the Lloyds Bank and Post Office buildings at the corner of Pinner Road and Station Road in Harrow as an example of how a facade can be retained but a developable space created behind without altering the impact on the street- scene;
(iv) notes comments made at local residents It has been decided not to extend the No change required. association meetings and at the consultation period due to the large amount of Conservation Advisory Group regarding the responses received and the fact than the ill-timed consultation during the summer consultation undertaken was longer than is recess. The Conservative Opposition notes required for a Supplementary Planning similar comments made by the Labour Document. Administration when in opposition. It calls for the consultation period to be extended;
(v) notes the depressed state of the property The alternative approach is for the town hall to No change required. market and queries whether a sale at the remain vacant while the library building further current time provides best value to the deteriorates in quality. council and council tax payer;
(vi) believes that the redevelopment of the Agreed- we will be clearer in the final brief See the response to Number 11 on Truro site should take into consideration its regarding Truro Houser and the heritage value House and Number 72 in relation to the proximity to Truro House opposite; of the site- see the response to Number 11 on comments made by English Heritage Truro House and Number 72 in relation to the comments made by English Heritage.
(vii) requests details of what is to happen to We will provide more information in the interior the mosaics in the Southgate Town Hall and exterior features- see our response to See the response to Number 1. chamber, fixtures to the building such as Number 1 for proposed changes to the final public memorials and the Landscroon murals brief. In relation to the Landscroon murals these which are currently crated in the basement; will be considered in the preparation of a detailed specific for the library building which will be prepared following the adoption of the planning brief.
(viii) believes the approach of the Labour The library building will be retained by the No change required. Administration to be hypocritical, given its Council- we have added more information to the commitment prior to the local elections to brief on the delivery of the site. retain the building in public ownership;
(ix) calls for the profit on the resale of the The Planning Brief cannot deal with financial No change required. lease of the Waitrose building (which had matters relating to other sites. been intended to be the replacement library) to be ring-fenced for the provision of library services in Palmers Green or elsewhere; and
(x) calls upon the council to further consult Agreed- a new section on delivery has been Agreed- a new section on delivery has been with the public following receipt of design added to the planning brief and further added to the planning brief and further proposals and receipt of tenders. consultation on design proposals will be part of consultation on design proposals will be part of the planning application process and referred to the planning application process and referred in the final planning brief. to in the final planning brief. 71 O As a retired architect/planner with many The purpose of the consultation is to make the See the response to Number 24. years experience in the public sector, I have brief as clear as possible and respond to the to say that I have concerns about the views of residents. This process has resulted in ‘woolliness’ of the draft brief. Many a clearer planning brief that better reflects the statements appear to be contradictory and concerns of the community. In relation to the open to interpretation, be it from the refurbishment of the library this is a clear perspective of developer, council planner, objective as set out in Section 3.2. Please also politician and resident. see the response to Number 24. If the Council’s primary objective is to develop the site so as to secure funding to ‘enable’ major improvements to the existing library, then the brief needs to be more explicit about this. If this is the case, then what is the brief for improvements to the Library and is there a ‘ball-park’ figure for the funding required. See our response to Number 72 in relation to Existing buildings Agreed- we have amended the brief to add more English Heritage’s comments. In my opinion the brief undersells the information on the heritage value of the architectural, social, historical and townscape buildings. See our response to Number 72 in importance of both Southgate Town Hall and relation to English Heritage’s comments. the Library buildings. I think they are both landmark buildings and are listable I consider them to be 'heritage assets' in English Heritage's terms. In any event Southgate Town Hall is already a 'building of local interest' as identified by the Council itself, something that is not referred to in the draft brief (4.4.1). Even though not listed at present, the Council should at least acknowledge the importance of both buildings.
Objectives Agreed- we have added the retention of the An objective added to Section 3.2 in relation to One of the key objectives should be the buildings to Section 3.2 as an objective for the retention of the buildings: retention of the existing town hall and library redevelopment. • To retain the existing buildings on the buildings per se - this is sustainable. site as part of any redevelopment scheme given their heritage value, townscape merit and significant contribution to the local character.
The west wing of the library is an integral We have amended our Planning Brief in relation Please see our response to Number 40. part of it and it should be kept as such. It to this. Please see our response to Number 40. seems to me that this part of the library works extremely well, so I am surprised that you are prepared to write it off.
If housing and other uses are considered We have undertaken initial work to assess the See our response to Number 1 and to Number appropriate for the town hall building, where suitability of the town hall for conversion to other 72. is the assessment of the existing building in uses. We have added a new section to the terms of it form and structure and whether it planning brief in relation to existing historical and would be possible or viable to convert it for heritage features – see our response to Number these uses? Are there any problems with the 1 and to Number 72. This should make it clearer plan form of the building and what are the that the buildings should be retained, including constraints? For example, the council their interiors and not just the façade. chamber is an important space and should be retained, as should the main entrance and staircase. I also think that any new dormer windows in the roof of the town hall would not be acceptable and that the brief must say this (dormers would spoil the distinctive character of the building). As written, a developer will conclude from the brief that they can get away with simply knocking down everything behind the front and side facades of the town hall and building a new building behind these. Or, heaven forbid, knock down the landmark building altogether. Easy - there is hardly a word of praise about the town hall building in the brief.
I also suspect that developers will think they This has been raised in another response and See the response to Number 48 and 98. may be able to stick a new building in front of we will amend the final brief to be clearer- see the town hall (reference to the last bullet the response to Number 48 and 98. point in Para 6.3.1 referring to 'a landmark element', and a 'gateway to Palmers Green (Para 3.2) and 'providing an increased presence on Green Lanes' (Para 6.5.3) or even 'increasing the height and scale towards the corner of Broomfield Lane and Green lanes (Para 6.5.3). I don't know if I have missed something, but isn't the town hall building a 'landmark' and 'gateway' building already in its own right! I don't think it needs a landmark placed in front of it and nor would putting a building in front of it be appropriate.
The landscaping (including the tile-topped Agreed- we have amended Section 6.6. to See the response to Number 61. piers and Yew trees) along the Green Lanes reinforce the importance of existing trees, see Frontage is important to the setting of the the response to Number 61 town hall building and shouldn't be considered a 'soft spot' for the developers to rip out.
Access to and through the site is one of the key considerations and not adequately Agreed we can add more information on this- See the response to Number 98 in relation to addressed in the draft brief - for example, it please see the response to Number 98 in the proposed layout of different uses on the really needs to be clearer about whether the relation to the proposed layout of different use site. new library access (and servicing) is going to son the site. be from the ground level off Green Lanes. If that is the case, then how would this be integrated with the access and new uses in the town hall building? If public access to the library from Green Lanes is to be improved (par 6.3.1), what are the implication of this for the current entrance?
Community Use I have no doubts at all that the most appropriate new use for the town hall Pease see the response to Number 6 and Please see the response to Number 6 and building would be 'community use'. Not only Number 24 on community uses. Number 24 on community uses. would such a use more naturally 'fit' the plan form and character of the building, it could be achieved without the level of internal demolition (and cost) that a housing developer would no doubt try to argue is necessary as the only viable way of developing the site. 72 English G Thank you for your letter dated seeking our N/A No change required. Heritage views on the above document. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment English Heritage welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Southgate Town Hall Planning Brief, and to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. We welcome the production of a brief for this site, which will help ensure that development is of the highest quality and enhances its immediate and surrounding local context.
The Town Hall and Library annexe, although Agreed – we will make the amendments We will add a new section in Chapter 2 to unlisted, are of considerable townscape merit suggested by English Heritage to reinforce the highlight the value of the buildings: and make a significant contribution to the requirement to retain the existing buildings. 2.2 The buildings on the site are of local character. We also, therefore, welcome significant historical and townscape value and support the proposal to retain and reuse and make a valuable contribution to the them. However, we recommend that this local character of the area. The Council is intention could be made clearer in the also committed to refurbishing Palmers document through a stronger, upfront vision Green library in its existing building. The for the site which emphasises the historic reason for preparing the Planning Brief is and aesthetic qualities of the buildings as therefore to: justification for their retention. This point is • To deliver improved library services, currently made in the document, but it is and an associated community buried within the Urban Design section on facility, on the site; page 14. A vision could highlight the • To retain the existing buildings and attractiveness of the buildings as a selling- facilitate the re-use of the site, point for the site, and as a stimulus for a high improving its relationship with the quality schemes where there are surrounding area, whilst recognising development opportunities within the site. its local civic and historic importance and value within the community and townscape;
Under PPS5 buildings that have been identified as having heritage interest during Agreed- we will make the amendments We will make the amendments suggested by the process of decision-making or through suggested by English Heritage to reinforce the English Heritage to reinforce the heritage and the plan-making process should be treated heritage and historic significance of the historic significance of the buildings. as heritage assets (see PPS5 paragraph 5 buildings. and definition of heritage assets). We would therefore suggest that there is an opportunity to give further emphasis to the historic significance of the Town Hall and Library annexe throughout the document, which can inform the suggested design response. This could include considerations of their period style, materials and scale. With these principles in mind we have the following detailed comments which we would suggest should be considered:
2. Why are we preparing a planning brief for Section 2.3 added: Southgate Town Hall? Agreed- the brief will be amended accordingly. A planning brief is required to provide a A key purpose of the brief is to provide a well considered vision which can steer well-considered vision for the site which can potential developers to help ensure that the steer potential developers to help ensure that aspirations for the site are realised. It will the Council’s aspirations for the site are ensure that the future development of the site realised. This could be made clear as part of accommodates appropriate alternative uses, paragraph 2.2. and the design of any new development is consistent with the planning policy framework and design principles for the site. In addition the brief will ensure that the social, environmental and economic benefits are maximised from any redevelopment. The buildings on the site are of significant historical and townscape value and make a valuable contribution to the local character of the area. The Council is also committed to refurbishing Palmers Green library in its existing building. The reason for preparing the Planning Brief is therefore to: • To deliver improved library services, and an associated community facility, on the site; • To retain the existing buildings and facilitate the re-use of the site, improving its relationship with the surrounding area, whilst recognising its local civic and historic importance and value within the community and townscape
3. Objectives of the Planning Brief An additional objective has been added to Clear historic environment objectives should Agreed Section 3.2; be included within 3.2, to ensure that To retain the existing buildings on the site development conserves and draws on the as part of any redevelopment scheme given historic significance, character and heritage their heritage value, townscape merit and value significant contribution to the local of the site. character and, to protect and to enhance the heritage value of the buildings.
4. Site information Agreed We will add a new paragraph to Section 4.1: As a preamble to the design response in 4.1.5 History, heritage and design section 6, the site information section should Southgate was a local district of Middlesex take a value judgement about the strengths from 1881 to 1965. The borough included and weaknesses of the site. Paragraph 4.1.2, Southgate and Palmers Green and for example, describes the buildings Southgate Town Hall was its administrative concerned in terms of materials and design, and civic centre. Enfield’s Characterisation but does not pose these as valuable Study (2011) highlights the impact that the townscape elements which can be identified relocation of the civic functions has had on for retention and conservation within the Palmers Green stating that it has lost its design response. This paragraph could key anchor use. The Characterisation Study usefully be expanded to articulate the historic gives Southgate Town Hall as an example design elements of these buildings which the of a building that needs a viable new use to Council would want to draw on when support its ongoing role as a historic considering opportunities for new landmark. Improving the setting and development; their materials, style and scale. visibility of the best buildings, particularly those in prominent locations on key routes, could greatly improve perceptions of the quality of the borough.
The town hall was built as municipal offices) in 1893. It was extended in 1916 (this is the section that contains the former Council Chamber) and by the Library wing in 1940. The buildings reflects these construction periods; the town hall and chamber is a Victorian building whereas the library is an example of 1930’s municipal buildings influenced by European architectural styles.
The library was purpose built as the new central library for the Southgate District at which time it was common to group civic and municipal buildings together on the same site. It was built by the Middlesex County Council Education Committee who at the time were building a number of similar buildings including Bowes Road and De Bohun library.
Given the heritage significance of the buildings and their distinctive building styles which are representative of their period, the design of any new development should complement and reflect the existing materials, style and scale.
4.2.2 We welcome the acknowledgement of Grade II listed Truro House. The point could Agreed. We have added new section on Truro House in usefully be made that the planning brief site the Planning Brief- see the response to falls within the setting of Truro House and its Number 11. separately listed boundary walls. This will Truro House need to be taken into account when designs Truro House and stable block are directly are considered for the site. opposite the site, also facing Green Lanes. It is a Grade II listed building (as well as the separately listed boundary walls) which is identified on the Heritage at Risk Register. Subject to a legal agreement being signed by the developer, planning permission has been granted for the refurbishment of the house to a single residential dwelling and residential development of 25 units in part of the grounds. Section 6 provides more details on how development on the Town Hall site should relate to Truro House.
In addition, this section could consider the New section added to 4.2 character of the surrounding area (for 4.2.7 The character of the surrounding area example period, typology, density), drawing Agreed. and streets to the south and west is mainly on any information gathered as part of the Victorian terraces interspersed with more Enfield characterisation study, which is modern buildings are Cyril Smith House important in informing the design of any new and the housing estate off Shapland Way. development within the SPD area. The New River provides a very attractive green aspect to the southern boundary of the site. Green Lanes is a busy transport corridor characterised by a mix of commercial, retail and residential uses which are in typically higher density, larger blocks. Broomfield Park is a very attractive expanse of green space north west of the site. As previously mentioned Truro House is of significant historic and townscape value. The location the site, on a junction and with the New River to the south, contributes to the isolated feeling of the building with no development on directly either side of it. The same applies to Truro House and this serves to increase the importance of the relationship between the two sites and their location in the townscape. .
6. Appropriate development responses We will add a new objective to Section 3.2 We will add a new objective to Section 3.2 We suggest that this section, if not earlier in relating to the heritage significance of the relating to the heritage significance of the the document, could accommodate a clear building. We have also added a new section in building: vision for the site which relates to the stated this chapter on heritage and historic features. 3.2 intention to “capture the civic heritage of the • To retain the existing buildings on the site” (page 14) enhanced with high quality site as part of any redevelopment new development. scheme given their heritage value, townscape merit and significant contribution to the local character and, to protect and to enhance the heritage value of the buildings. We have also added a new section in Chapter 6 on heritage and historic features. 6.1 Mix of uses – we support any change of use which minimises the need to harm the historic significance and character of the N/A No change required. building.
We have amended Section 6.2 to be clearer 6.2 Retention of buildings – it is unclear why Agreed on the retention of the existing buildings. the existing library building is considered 6.2.1 Both of the existing buildings must worthy of retention, and why removal of the be retained as part of any west wing is considered acceptable. These redevelopment . The library should be policies should be explicitly justified, based refurbished in its current building and on the site assessment set out in section 4. any new community space should be located to maximise the physical links between the library and other community uses.
Both the town hall and the library have a number of extensions, such as the toilet block on the town hall. These annexes will be considered for redevelopment provided that there is no loss to the overall library floorspace and that any demolition is justified through design and viability considerations. The west wing of the library forms a significant part of the building and is built in the same style as the main library however it is not as prominent and visible as the town hall and main library building when approaching the site from Green Lanes. The presumption will be in favour of retaining this annexe however it is recognised that, given the need to retain the existing buildings, the site is constrained and innovative solutions will be considered.
6.3 Urban Design - we welcome the opening Agreed. We will move bullet point 11 to the top of the references to design quality and context, bulleted list in Section 6.3 and add more however, to reinforce this point, we suggest information on the historic significance of the that bullet point 11 could be moved to the top site: of the list. It could also be worded to align • The design of any new development must with PPS5, in referring to the historic capture the civic heritage and historic significance of the site. significance of the site, including the re- use of existing materials on the site , and respect the setting, style and character of the existing buildings and Truro House.
A new bullet point added to Section 6.5.3 in 6.5 Density, Height and Massing – we relation to the scale of the historic buildings: welcome the consideration of scale shown in Agreed • Respond well to the scale of the paragraph 6.5.3. In addition, we would wish existing historic buildings to ensure that new development on the site responds well to the existing scale of the historic buildings. English Heritage has published Understanding Place (2010) to provide further guidance on how contextually and historically sensitive design and be achieved.
Conclusion No change required. We hope that these comments prove useful N/A in strengthening the Southgate Town Hall Draft Planning Brief. We would strongly advise that the Borough’s own conservation staff are closely involved throughout the preparation of the Planning Brief as they are often best placed to advise on these matters. Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by you. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, where English Heritage consider it appropriate to do so. 73 O I am pleased that your plans include Please see our response to number 7 on Please see our response to number 7 on retaining the library for public use. We use schools places, number 6 and 24 on the town schools places, number 6 and 24 on the town the children's library regularly and are very hall and community use, and number 15 on hall and community use, and number 15 on impressed by the service. housing. housing.
I am, however, very angry and shocked by the main proposal in the brief which proposes the site be used for additional housing development and I strongly object. These are my issues:
1. SCHOOLS - there is already a shortage of local school places in the local area. Residents on the Lakes Estate are not able to get into Bowes, Hazelwood, Walkers, or St Monica's Primary Schools. Our daughter has been sent to De Bohun's school this September for Reception, which is two miles and two bus journeys away with a 4 and 1 year old, as no places were available in our local schools in walking distance. I am absolutely astounded and angered that you propose to sell off council owned property, rather than utilise it to resolve the primary (and secondary) school crisis in the local area, which will only get worst with the likely developments already proposed on the A406. I was also of the understanding that the council had no land to facilitate an additional school, and am therefore utterly dismayed to see this planning brief. For your information, any children from your proposed development, would not have got into to Bowes School Reception class this year and so would have to travel at least one and a half miles (by car or bus only adding to congestion) to Garfield School. I find your brief fundamentally flawed regarding schools. I cannot comment in too much detail on the situation regarding secondary school places in the area, albeit that I am aware of a pupil in Winchmore Hill that was sent to a secondary school in Ponders End, and on their day of appeal, there were 200 other families also appealing, so there appears also be a secondary school crisis in our local area. I know that local politicians and other groups would like to use the Southgate site to open a school, and I think that needs to at least be offered as an option for discussion to the local community. Your school places projections were wrong this year and need to be revisited.
2. Traffic and congestion - Broomfield Lane and Green Lanes are already congested at peak times. Additional housing will put further pressure on these roads, especially as residents are likely to have to drive their children to schools. There have already been a number of traffic incidents in this area, and increasing traffic will only increase the likelihood of a serious accident.
3. Additional Development on the A406 - I understand that high rise developments are being planned for land along the A406 in Bowes Road. If this is indeed the case, then I cannot believe that there is a need for housing at Southgate Town Hall, neither is there likely to be sufficient community resources, e.g., schools, doctors surgery, public transport to support additional people. Peak time travel on the train from Palmers Green to London and back is already very over crowded and will just get worse with substantial new development. Please can you confirm receipt of my response and let me know if you have any questions. I hope you take into account my issues, and utilise your council property to better our community, rather than selling it off. 74 G Further to the area forum on Wednesday Following comments from English Heritage and See our response to Number 72 and Number 1 another major concern has come to mind the Victorian Society we have provided more in relation to English Heritage’s comments. and that is the Town Hall facade which is to information on the heritage value of the building- remain unchanged. My concern is that as it is see our response to Number 72 The purpose of not listed, once sold off to a developer, they the brief is to set a clear framework for the future may change it in some way, and once this is of the site that must be taken into account when done it is too late to preserve it. Having making any planning applications or decisions experience with the deviousness of some affecting the site, including any demolition. developers such as those responsible for 101/112,Aldermans Hill N13, who rapidly We have also added a new section in the demolished a pair of properties once a Planning Brief on heritage and architectural Conservation Area had been declared. When features-see Number 1. this happens it is too late to preserve anything. As you can appreciate my worries English Heritage have not indicated in their on this subject are well founded. Is there any response that the buildings should be listed but way the Town Hall could get Grade 1 listing? have requested more detail on the heritage significance of the buildings. 75 Environment S Overall we are happy with this planning brief. N/A No change required. Agency Through this re-development there are opportunities to achieve a sustainable drainage system and enhance and protect biodiversity. We hope you find the following comments useful. We have amended Section 3.2 to read the Section 3 – Objectives of the Planning Brief Agreed- will amend this. following: We suggest altering the following objective to To open up public access to the New River, “To open up public access to the New River, provided that this does not have a detrimental provided that this does not have a impact on residential amenity, surrounding detrimental impact on residential amenity or land uses or biodiversity. biodiversity”
We have added text to Section 4.2.5: Agreed we will amend this. Also refer to our The New River is a designated Site of Section 4.2.5 – The surrounding area response to Natural England as changes we Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), We feel that this section could be also made regarding this. local wildlife site, and part of the Green strengthening by including a commitment to Chain Walk which is a recognised network protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of of green spaces. The Planning Brief the New River. requires that access to this space is enhanced as well as its biodiversity value.
Section 6.2 – Retention of Buildings Agreed- Section 6.8 refers to the Code for A new sentence added to Section 6.9.1; We note that part of the library and town hall Sustainable Homes Level 4 which would include Residential units should achieve Code for will be refurbished/converted, as part of this water efficiency as par t of the Code. We will Sustainable Homes Level 4 and non- we will be looking for the residential element add information to Section 6.9.11 regarding residential uses should achieve a BREEAM to achieve at least Code for Sustainable BREEAM. very good rating. Homes Level 3 for water efficiency. There should also be a similar standard for commercial (BREEAM) for water efficiency. This is in line with The London Plan section 5.61. New sentence added to 6.9: Section 6.3 – Urban Design Agreed- we will add a new sentence to Section 6.9.5 Green roofs should be incorporated We would encourage green roofs to be 6.9. Please also see response Number 6 on into the development where possible to incorporate into this development which will biodiversity enhance biodiversity and reduce surface enhance biodiversity and also provide water run-off. attenuation for surface water. This is supported by Policy 5.11 of The London Plan. Every opportunity should be taken to enhance landscaping within this area for biodiversity. New sentence added to 6.6.2: Section 6.6 – Trees and Landscaping Agreed- we will add a sentence to this Access to the New River should be Increased lighting, activity and management paragraph to reflect the biodiversity value of the considered in relation to the impact on regimes (e.g. mowing grassland) can corridor. wildlife and biodiversity. have a detrimental impact on wildlife using the river corridor. Providing direct access to the New River path could increase this impact and its effects will need to be explored. Additional planning policy document to be Appendix A: National and Regional Policy Agreed. added to Appendix A. Planning Policy Statement 23 should be mentioned in this section as the site is located within a Source Protection Zone 1 area. Source Protection Zone 1 areas are designated closest to the source of potable water supplies and indicate the area of highest risk to abstracted water quality.
When this site is brought forward for No change required. development we would advise the applicant Agreed- this will be discussed with any potential to take advantage of our pre-application developers service. Please encourage the applicant to engage with us as early as possible. Our pre- application service is free and draft documents can be submitted for comment, with responses given within three weeks. 76 Thames Water S These comments are on behalf of Thames N/A No change required. Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water). Thames Water are the statutory water and sewage undertaker for the Borough and are hence a “specific consultation body” in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2004. Section 6.6.1 amended to include the Section 6.6 Trees and Landscaping following: Thames Water recognises the environmental Agreed- we will add a sentence in the Planning New trees and shrubs should not be benefits of trees and encourages the planting Brief to reflect this. planted over the route of sewers or water of them. However, the indiscriminate planting pipes . of trees and shrubs can cause serious damage to the public sewerage system and water supply infrastructure. In order for the public sewers and water supply network to operate satisfactorily, trees, and shrubs should not be planted over the route of the sewers or water pipes.
Section 6.7 Movement and Access Agreed- we will add a sentence to the Planning A new sentence has been added to Section Thames Water will require 24 hour vehicular Brief to reflect this. 6.7: access to any pedestrianised area to Thames Water will require 24 hour undertake emergency works. Access to the vehicular access to any pedestrianised sewerage and water supply infrastructure area to undertake emergency works. must not be impeded by street furniture. This Access to the sewerage and water supply will enable Thames Water to operate the infrastructure must not be impeded. This network with as little interruption to the will allow Thames Water to operate the service as is possible. network with as little interruption to the service as is possible.
In principle Thames would be happy to open the path. Our concerns are, and the reason it We will add wording to the brief to reflect this. We have added the following wording to has not been open to the public previously, is Section 6.6.2 and 6.6.3: the security of the pumping station which is 6.6.2 Part of the New River path is accessible situated along that stretch. The practicalities from the site. Any development should would need to be discussed with the Thames improve access and links to the New operational manager in the first instance, River Path for the general public and however assuming adequate fencing is users of the site, including exploring erected to protect the station and a new gate options to open up a direct access to the inserted then this should not be a problem. river path from Green Lanes, provided Any solution which is put into place would this does not have a negative impact on need to be approved by the Thames's surrounding uses and residential Security Team and any cost borne. amenity. The developer should aim to Therefore in principle the new path can be agree public access to part of the river included in the Southgate Town Hall path that is in Thames Water ownership Planning Brief. But further discussion would for users of the site. need to take place between John (for Thames) and Enfield 6.6.3 Thames Water have confirmed that, in principle, they could open up the section of the river path that is currently closed. The security of the pumping station will need to be maintained with the addition of fencing. A new gate would also need to be considered. Any solution will need to be discussed with Thames Water’s Operations and Security team.
77 O I am writing with regard to the above which I Please see our responses to Numbers 6, 15 and Please see our responses to Numbers 6, 15 believe the Council are either going to 24. and 24. demolish the West Wing, selling the whole building or build a new block of flats with car park. It seems to me obvious that the people who are making these decisions do not live in the area otherwise they would realise that they are just creating more traffic, adding to the already bulging seams of Palmers Green with more inhabitants. This area used to be a quiet place and with the help of Enfield Council is becoming an inner city area. It has been changed over the years by Enfield Council which thought it a good idea to put more pubs and restaurants here and has brought in some of the seamier side of life. I would urge the Council to re-think what they are intending and look at the knock on effect on those of us we actually live here. If it had been based in Enfield Town I am sure they would have come up with more attractive ideas. 78 Joanne G I have recently been contacted by residents N/A No change required. McCartney with concerns about the development of the Assembly Southgate Town Hall site and the associated Member for Draft Planning Brief. I would ask that you Enfield & consider these views when deciding on the Haringey next steps for the site. I must also confess that I am a local resident and a regular user of Palmers Green library and therefore know the site well. Residents have expressed the following to me:
• There is concern that this important consultation was held during the school We have carried out consultation for longer than summer holidays when many people are is usually required with a Supplementary No change required. away and therefore may be unaware of the Planning Document which his a six week plans for the site. statutory consultation period.
•Whilst residents want to see the site used and not lay dormant there is concern that too It is a requirement of the brief that community See our response to Number 24 in relation to little importance has been placed on the space be provided on the site as part of any community uses. community aspects and benefit of this site for redevelopment. We have had some very useful community purposes. Palmers Green lacks a comments on the community uses that could be local community hub and this site could offer included in the building and we have amended the opportunity to develop such a community the brief to be clearer about potential community hub offering a range of functions from the uses and the layout of the building- see our site of the old Town Hall – the use of the response to Number 24 in relation to community library would be on a much smaller scale. uses. There is an opportunity for the Council to “think big” and to develop something really innovative and community led.
• Whilst there is great demand for affordable housing in the Borough, and across London, Please see the response to Number 7 on school Please see the response to Number 7 on there is concern that a residential places. school places. development on the site will place a great strain on local services, particularly school places. As chair of governors at a local Palmers Green primary school I am aware that families living close to the Southgate Town Hall site were unable to gain places this year at any of the immediate local primary schools and have been offered places some distance away. This is causing great concern locally and recent housing developments such as the units on Green Lanes, just north of the A406, will place further demand on school places.
• There is a great desire to improve library Thank you for your comments regarding the services and this aspect of the scheme is refurbishment of the library. These will be We have added a new chapter to the planning welcomed. However, the overall size of the considered when we prepare a detailed brief to be clearer on delivering the library should be maintained and if possible refurbishment specification which will be refurbishment- Chapter 8. increased. Increasingly IT demand has prepared after the planning brief is adopted. Any resulted in greater floor space being taken plans for the library refurbishment and over by this use and this will have to be development of the site will be subject to further factored into any improvements. There is consultation as part of the planning application also the opportunity to set up a homework process. We have added a new chapter to the club in the library. planning brief to be clearer on delivering the I trust that you will consider the above points refurbishment- Chapter 8. as part of the public consultation process. 79 S In principle I agree. However I have Please see the response to Number 2 on Please see our response to Number 2 on reservations as to the feasibility of using parking and traffic. parking and traffic Shapland Way for access due to the fact that its junction with Broomfield Lane is on many occasions during the day completely gridlocked with traffic. 80 Green Lanes S At the GLBA committee meeting the N/A No change required. Business Planning Brief for Southgate Town Hall and Association Palmers Green Library was discussed at great length. Agreed- the brief sets out the requirement for We have added a new chapter to the planning It is of the opinion of the committee and its the refurbishment of the library and the creation brief (Chapter 8) on delivery of the library members that the existing library should be of a new entrance to the library from Green refurbishment. refurbished and brought up to date with the Lanes. The children’s library will be improved in addition of a children's library. This should be the refurbishment. We have added a new introduced on the ground floor with other chapter to the planning brief (Chapter 8) on children's facilities with an additional delivery of the library refurbishment. entrance on the Green Lanes side of the building.
We would also like to see a "Walk In" The draft planning brief identifies that health use No change required. medical centre for the use of local people in is appropriate on the site. In terms of delivering the surrounding wards and FREE parking for this in the redevelopment this will need to be visitors to the building. lead by GP’s and the NHS.
Agreed- we have identified in the draft planning No change required. Finally we think that a small coffee shop brief that a café would be appropriate on the site facility would be good selling light snacks provided that is ancillary to a community use. such as croissants, sandwiches, rolls and hot and cold beverages as an alternative to the snack van that parks in the car park at lunchtime. We hope that the consultation period has proved to be a success and good things come to this beautiful building. 81- 93 13 identical O x 13 I totally disagree with the London Borough of N/A No change required. written Enfield's proposal to build residential responses properties on the site of Palmers Green from residents Library (PGL) and Southgate Town Hall of Shapland (STH). I feel that such a development would Way and have a detrimental effect upon the area, both Davey Close during the building phase and after.
General The surrounding area has seen an increase We do not want to replicate Cyril Smith House See the response to Number 40 and 61 on in building projects in recent years. When with the Southgate Town Hall site. We are density and heights. Cyril Smith House (CSH) was built it was retaining both of the existing buildings on the considerably larger, at four storeys, than the site and converting these to deliver a refurbished building it replaced and architecturally out of library. While the planning brief allows for infill context with the area. The council wants to development on the rest of the site we have replicate this within the STH development. added more information to the final brief on density and design to ensure high quality development of an appropriate scale and density- see the response to Number 40 and 61 on density and heights.
The proposals would have significant impact We have removed the reference in the brief to See the response to Number 2 on parking and on the local infrastructure such as; closing the current access from Green Lanes traffic for more information. Traffic- : The plan proposes using Shapland and added more information on how the impact Way as the main access road to the of traffic on local roads must be access before development. This would cause severe planning permission is granted. See the congestion on Shapland Way given that it is response to Number 2 on parking and traffic for a single carriageway road. Also, the main more information. entrance would be situated on a blind bend. Forcing traffic down this road would not only increase the traffic density for residents in Shapland Way and Davey Close, but also increase the likelihood of road traffic accidents, not to mention the danger to pedestrians.
Parking - Shapland Way and Davey Close We have removed the reference to 0.5 car residents have their own designated parking parking spaces per unit and added more See the response to Number 2 on parking and spaces. What the council is proposing on the information to the brief on the potential impact of traffic for more information. new PGL development is for residents of overflow parking on residents of Shapland Way one apartment to share one parking space. including how this must be addressed through Where would those people visiting PGL or the planning application process. See the the proposed new GP clinic or possibly an response to Number 2 on parking and traffic for office going to park? more information.
Utilities- The new development would have Following adoption of the planning brief a No change required. a significant impact on the local utilities. detailed refurbishment plan will be drawn up for When Cyril Smith House was being built, the library and we are currently carrying out a myself or other residents in Davey Close and survey of the site in relation to the underground Shapland Way had either our water or and overground services. This information will electricity cut on numerous occasions which be shared with any developers to ensure that was a major inconvenience. The concern is there is minimal impact on surrounding that this would be repeated. How will Enfield properties. Council ensure that by building new residential properties, utilities to the existing residents will not be compromised, bearing in mind that residents living in Davey Close still have problems with their water supply?
Social Impact - As already mentioned, this We have amended the brief in response to the Please see the response to Number 7 on area of Palmers Green has seen a significant concerns over school places; please see the school places. number of residential developments. response to Number 7 on school places. Together with the STH site, this would put a significant burden on local services, particularly local schools and doctors. The local primary schools are nearly all over- subscribed. However, Enfield Council has mentioned that Garfield School (which is basically in New Southgate), could shoulder the burden. In reality, parents would go to primary schools such as Hazelwood, Highfield, walker and St Monica’s Primary School, which are nearly all over - subscribed.
If this proposal goes ahead as "affordable housing" there is a fear that people would The housing would be a mix of private and A new bullet point has been added to Section take advantage and buy the properties with a affordable units. We recognise that buy to let 6.8.1 on housing: view to let. This would then turn the area into can be a problem and create transient • We will work with developers to consider a "transient" neighbourhood, where some neighbourhoods therefore we will include a ways to discourage the sale of units for residents have little regard for their paragraph in the final planning brief and also in buy-to-let to help reduce the rate of surroundings. Also, squeezing more any agreement with a developer about limiting population turnover and strengthen the residents into such a small area could easily the amount of buy to lets on the site. community. We will write this into an raise tensions with everyone living cheek and agreement with the developer of the site. jowl and fighting for their own space. Developers should make sure that their sales and marketing for the new homes discourage buy-to-let purchasers.
Past experiences - Shapland Way and See the response to Number 2 on parking. Davey Close have had periods of disruption See the response to Number 2 on parking. with strangers parking in resident's parking bays. When the council occupied Southgate Town Hall, its workers would park in either street, causing confrontations with the residents whose parking spaces they occupied.
The proposal also contradicts the Core We do not believe the brief is contradictory to Policies as outlines in the Council's Draft these policies. The purpose of a planning brief Planning Brief for the reasons already based on a specific site is to set out a framework mentioned. These are; Core Policy No.9- for the redevelopment of the site that complies Supporting community cohesion; Core Policy with existing planning policies. The policies you No 21- delivering sustainable water supply, mentioned are considered in relation to the drainage and sewerage infrastructure; Core planning brief; Policy No 24- the road network; Core Policy No 30 - Maintaining and improving the quality Core Policy 9: Supporting Community Cohesion; No change required. of the built and open environment; Core We believe that the planning brief help meets Policy No 32- pollution; Core Policy No 46 - the following requirement of the policy: Infrastructure contributions. ‘Promoting accessibility whereby all members of the community have access to good quality health care, housing, education and training, employment, open space and other social facilities in locations that best serve the community.’
Core Policy 21: Delivering sustainable water We will add more information to Section 6.9 of supply, drainage and sewerage infrastructure- the planning brief in relation to water supply We believe that the development can meet the and drainage: policy by: 6.9.6: The development must contribute to - ‘ Promoting water conservation and efficiency the delivering of a sustainable water supply measures in all new developments, and, where and drainage by promoting water possible, via a retrofitting process in existing conservation and efficiency measures, developments; and including retrofitting and incorporating - Ensuring that sustainable drainage measures sustainable drainage measures to reduce are incorporated within new developments, surface water run-off. wherever possible, as a means to manage surface water run off.’
Core Policy 24: The road network. We believe No change required that the planning brief is in accordance with the following policy through the ; ‘The Council will encourage sustainable travel choices and reduce growing congestion levels through the promotion of Travel Demand Management Programmes, and will support the use of low carbon vehicles, including electric vehicles. Standards for the provision of off-street parking in new developments and requirements for transport assessments, travel plans, car clubs and car share schemes will be set out in the Development Management Document’
Core Policy 30: Maintaining and improving the No change required. quality of the built and open environment. The planning brief is in accordance with the policy as it is reinforces that:; ‘ All developments and interventions in the public realm must be high quality and design- led, having special regard to their context’
Core Policy 32- Pollution. By improving the No change required. quality of the existing buildings on the site we can help to achieve this policy: ‘Improve air quality by reducing pollutant emissions and public exposure to pollution, particularly in areas identified as having poor air quality in the Air Quality Action Plan. Criteria for assessing applications will be set out in the Development Management Document. The area action plans, particularly the North Circular Area Action Plan, will consider how pollution can be reduced or successfully mitigated against at a local level;’
Core Policy 46: Infrastructure contributions. The No change required. planning brief meets the requirements of this policy by setting out an approach to securing infrastructure contributions from the development and also referring to the Section 106 SPD.
The possible inclusion of office and light We have amended the planning brief to be Please see the response to Number 24 industrial businesses are not appropriate for clearer about the type of uses that are the area. acceptable on the site and have removed the reference to light industrial businesses- please see the response to Number 24.
The inclusion of an extra 2000 new homes in The figure of 2000 new homes is an agreed Bowes Park/ North Circular will have a policy in our Core Strategy. No change required. significant impact on Palmers Green.
In the installation of a small power plant - This could potentially be accommodated in an where??? existing building or in a refurbished building. No change required.
Overall, Enfield's proposal offers little in the The overall approach in the planning brief is to way that benefits those residents living in achieve the refurbishment of the existing library No change required. Davey Close and Shapland Way. Having in its current building. The brief also permits a spoken to people living in these streets, there café and health use on the site. The addition of is a strong feeling that what the Council is the other uses, such as housing will help to proposing would cause unnecessary achieve this. tensions associated with a large number of people living in such a small area. The overall view is for the library to be enhanced. By this, I mean keeping the library area itself on the same floor and expand the Resource Centre into a learning zone/ Sure Start place. This, coupled with a cafe and a GP clinic, would be beneficial to local society as a whole as the only venues which offer such services presently are church halls.
94 O Disagree with residential development at the Please see our response to Number 2 on Please see our response to Number 2 on Town Hall. Already too much congestion parking and traffic and Number 15 on housing. parking and traffic and Number 15 on housing. corner of Broomfield Lane/ Green Lanes- flats an eyesore already. All recent developments are too small and badly positioned. Further flats in the grounds of the Town Hall would be similar. Cramming people in is not the answer to Council's financial problems. Look at council staffing to save money please. 95 O I do not agree with the planning brief as it We do not see this as a high density site and See our response to Number 40 on density seems to have already been decided that it we have amended the brief to be clearer on the and Number 15 on parking. will be a dense housing development of 4 approach to density that will be taken when stories. This is an extremely serious issue for assessing a planning application, see our our area and my main concern lies in the response to number 40 on density. In relation to resulting residential densities, height of the delivery of new housing in the area please building, traffic, parking and safety issues. see our response to Number 15. This particular area has already had several developments converting from larger housing units to massive multiplied residential units, such as Cyril Smith, the developments adjacent to the railway and the Library, Westminster Drive, the developments behind Truro House (27 units) and the large development of new flats at the junction of North Circular and Green Lanes, and the flats near Iceland. It paints a bleak picture showing the transformation of an area with medium sized Edwardian and arts and crafts housing to a concrete jungle.
You have not shown in the brief a true We will include a diagram showing the heights of We will include a diagram showing the heights picture of what developments are already in surrounding buildings in the final planning brief. of surrounding buildings in the final planning the immediate area. I am very surprised that We will amend the last bullet point in section brief. We will amend the last bullet point in you have not used an up to date aerial photo 6.3.1 to make it clear that this is not referring to section 6.3.1 to make it clear that this is not pages 9, 10 which would show Cyril Smith a new building in front of the library at Green referring to a new building in front of the library House as a new large 4 storey block, taking Lanes- see the response to Number 48 and 98. at Green Lanes- see the response to Number up the green you can see around it. Perhaps 48 and 98. this could already be your landmark building. You state that a landmark building (6.3.1) could be built on the front of Green Lanes and Broomfield Lane. 6.5.3 Gradually increasing in size towards the corner of Green Lane and Broomfield Lane, not shown on plan pages 13 and 15. Would this be built in front of the Town Hall and Library? Plans shown pages 13 and 15 you do not show the Large new 4 storey building Cyril Smith House or the 27 units which have been given planning permission on Truro House land
Paragraph 4.1.1 states that the town hall is As confirmed by English Heritage, no parts of No change required. not listed, some parts are. the building have statutory Listed status.
6.1.5 A community space is very much The funding arrangements for the community We have added a new chapter to the brief on needed for meetings and organisations, but space would be discussed in detail once the delivery of the site (Chapter 8) who would organise and look for funding. planning brief is adopted. We have added a new Perhaps the developers could fund it. chapter to the brief on delivery of the site (Chapter 8).
Paragraph 6.1.7 removed, see the response to 6.1.7 Why does a new health centre have to We have removed this paragraph and added Number48 and 98. be in the Library and if not how could you fit it more information on the layout of the proposed on the Green Lanes frontage? uses on the site- see the response to Number 48 and 98.
96 G I thank you and Councillor Dell Goddard for N/A No change required. agreeing an extension of time to accept responses to this public consultation. This has enabled me to consult others and Bowes Ward councillors and include more material in my submission. My observations and comments, at this stage, are as follows:
1) Land uses and development principles: Please see the response to English Heritage Please see the response to English Heritage Building maintenance has been sadly (Number 72) as while English Heritage have not (Number 72) neglected over a prolonged period. Clearly, directed us to consider listing the building they there is need for modernization, and it should have requested more information on its historical be an issue of how much change is required significance which has been added. and avoiding damaging or drastic proposals. Southgate Town Hall and the Palmers Green Library complex should be listed and protected and reference made to the RIBA Library archives and to records regarding the late architect and designer of the Palmers Green Library, Mr J.T.W.Peat FRIBA. Interior conversions are required, and exteriors need to be saved throughout. Floor areas should comply with RIBA recommendations or Parker Morris standards.
Disabled access exists and needs to be Agreed No change required retained.
Trees should be saved. Agreed- we have added more information on Section 6.6.1 amended to read: retaining existing trees to the brief. 6.6.1 The landscaping at the front of the site should be improved to create a more attractive frontage onto Green Lanes taking account of existing matures trees whilst providing a buffer against the road. Trees must be retained unless it can be demonstrated that their removal will significantly enhance the streetscape and setting of the town hall and library.
Car parks exist, are needed and in use, and See the response to Number 2 on parking. See the response to Number 2 on parking. should be retained. Ramped pedestrian access and stairs need to be retained.
The Children’s’ Library wing should be We have amended our wording on this in the Section 6.2.1 amended: saved. The Library and Children’s’ Library brief. 6.2.1 Both of the existing buildings must are convenient at the same first floor level. be retained and refurbished as part of any redevelopment scheme (including the clock tower) . The library should be refurbished in its current building and any new community space should be located to maximise the physical links between the library and other community uses
6.2.2 Both the town hall and the library have a number of extensions, such as the toilet block on the town hall. These annexes will be considered for redevelopment provided that there is no loss to the overall library floorspace and that any demolition is justified through design and viability considerations. The west wing of the library forms a significant part of the building and is built in the same style as the main library however it is not as prominent and visible as the town hall and main library building when approaching the site from Green Lanes. The presumption will be in favour of retaining this annexe however it is recognised that, given the need to retain the existing buildings, the site is constrained and innovative solutions will be considered.
Changes have been made in the layout of Agreed- subject to the approval of the planning No change required. floor space with a part shift from books to brief a detailed specification will be prepared for computers and tapes. It is important to retain the refurbishment of the library building and your the library interiors. Ground floor library uses comments will be taken into account. should remain as should basement archives. Facilities for Palmers Green residents should be given a priority. Staff should be consulted. Staff offices should be retained. CCTV aerials are numerous and unsightly, as is courtyard plant. Remedial actions are required in this respect. Within the above recommendations, it is clear with respect, that land uses and development principles require modification.
The proposed density of 100 and 150 and higher units per hectare would be too high; Agreed- we have had a number of comments on See the responses to Number 61 on heights proposed height of 4 storeys would also be this so have amended the planning brief to and 40 on density. too high. A 2 storey drawing office worked reduce the height and density ranges- see the satisfactorily years ago, and this would responses to Number 61 on heights and 40 on suggest that a single residential block of two density. storey flats would be suitable for this site. Adjoining housing at Shapland Way is also of such height.
We have removed the reference to 0.5 parking We have removed the reference to 0.5 parking Parking provision of 0.5 spaces per unit spaces per unit- see the response to Number 2 spaces per unit- see the response to Number 2 would be too low, and underdeck parking on traffic and parking. on traffic and parking. would be too dense.
Attention is drawn to an excessive proposal for a residential building which is shown as We will amend Figures 3 and 4 in the final brief. We will amend Figures 3 and 4 in the final erroneously overlapping a pedestrian path. brief.
2) Other matters:
I would be willing to visit and inspect and We have been working with the Council’s No change required. comment on the interior of Southgate Town Architectural Services team on the proposals. Hall in the near future if facilities for my doing so could be arranged? This would enable me to comment in more detail about what I would consider would be relevant considerations. Alternatively, you may decide if you have not already done so, to refer to a staff architect. See our response to Number 72 in relation to See our response to Number 72 in relation to In my opinion, Truro House, Broomfield the heritage and historical value of the buildings the heritage and historical value of the House, and Southgate Town Hall and and the response to Number 11 on Truro House. buildings and the response to Number 11 on Library, deserve due recognition as three Truro House. vital complexes of architectural heritage and history. They ought to be urgently restored, treated with respect and proper financial resources and investment. We do not have detailed plan available for this as yet but the library refurbishment plans will be No change required. Are there plans available showing proposed shared with the public, when available. updated staff quarters? 97 G I would like to make a comment re the We have removed the reference to 0.5 parking We have removed the reference to 0.5 parking planning brief, mainly in the regards of spaces per residential unit to reflect concerns spaces per residential unit to reflect concerns parking. I live in Palmerston Crescent and regarding parking- please also see our response regarding parking- please also see our have done for 12 years. Parking close to my to Number 2 in relation to parking on the site. response to Number 2 in relation to parking on house (or even in my street) has always In relation to the issues you raise regarding the site. been an issue as the houses are turning parking on other sites I will pass your comments increasingly into flats therefore four cars per on to my colleagues in Planning Policy who are 'house/property' is not unusual and there is preparing planning documents for wider areas an enormous amount of dropped kerb drive (the North Circular Area Action Plan and ways in this street (presumably put in place Development Management DPD) that will deal also because of the parking problem). The with levels of car parking. parking situation I fear will worsen dramatically once all the new shopping facilities open close to the end of my street in Green Lanes and once residents have moved in to the new housing above these shops. Already employees of the businesses on Green Lanes (Chris & Sons and the Bus Depot) park in this street and I can see that with new residents, new employees and new customers I will never be able to park in the street in which I have purchased a property. (I have also been mugged within my street and therefore am even more cautious about parking far away!) I can only imagine re the above that considering 0.5 parking spaces per property appropriate on any new development here would only worsen the situation for residents close by such as in Palmerston Crescent.
Please could you pass on also that Truro Please see the response to Number 11 on the House is an eyesore which could be a very latest with Truro House. This is also a priority for See the response to Number 11. beautiful property so close on the river as it the Council and we recognise its importance to is. I believe the squatters should be removed this area as a Grade II listed building. from here and that this property should be transformed to its former glory. As a resident of this area that on a daily basis passes Truro House and The Town Hall/ Library I personally would consider the repair of Truro House much more of a priority than developing the Town Hall.
Also, slightly less to do with the Town Hall brief but still to do with regeneration in this We appreciate your concerns. Given the exact No change required. area, I am very interested to learn more location of your property on Palmerston specifics (having just read the NCR Crescent I would not expect you to be adversely document) regarding the New River Green effected by opening up a small section of the Corridor/ Wildlife Corridor/ Pymmes Brook New River path next to the town hall or by proposals as both Pymmes Brook and the development on the site. However I would New River (land) attach directly to my own advise you to look out for consultation on the land/property. The New River walkway was North Circular Area Action Plan as this may not a public thoroughfare when I purchased have further information regarding the river my property and having this quiet and private corridor. I will add you to our consultation area was a very large part of why I database so you will be advised when the purchased this particular property. Currently, document is out to consultation. since making this public what once was very private is now less so - i.e.: anyone walking along the river can see directly into my bedroom. As this is not used by masses it is currently bearable but increases in pedestrians through this area will definitely decrease the 'privacy' offered and indeed the asking price of my property. I would expect that the opening of this walkway as public and the building of the flats on the other side of the river (since I moved in) has probably done this already - Please don't decrease the value of my property further by making it less secure, less peaceful and less private!
I would like also whilst speaking of this section of the New River to mention that the Please contact us directly regarding this and we No change required. trees on this ground adjoining the end of my will provide the information. garden have become so huge (not being pruned at least in the 12 years I have lived here) that they could maybe need a little care. The Environment Agency do attend to the trees along the brook which also adjoins my property. The section of land along Pymmes Brook next to no 62, the trees on this area are also huge and have not been attended to - I am unsure who this section belongs to as the Environment Agency have said this section is not theirs but the trees here are stopping any light getting to my garden in the afternoons - I would very much appreciate something done with these, or if you know who I can contact about this. 98 S I live reasonably nearby and am an N/A No change required. occasional user of this library as the Southgate branch is my local one. As presented the scheme seems reasonable, so I just wanted to mention a few things.
We are currently holding a consultation on the I have seen recently that Enfield was thinking library services. However the principle of No change required. about rationalising, or reducing, the number refurbishing Palmers Green library is established of libraries in the Borough. If this were in the Planning Brief. The findings of the library correct, (and it's not a policy that I would review will be used to prepare a detailed support) then are you going to use this specification of the library however it is not the development as an opportunity to enhance purpose of the planning brief to go into details and/or expand Palmers Green library's about other libraries. facilities and scope?
Please see our response to Number 2 on car We have amended the planning brief as Wondered about having residential property parking as this has been raised by a number of follows: right next to the library. Noise, car parking, residents. On the other matters, section 6.1.6 of people using space which currently belongs the draft brief mentions noise, access, 6.2.2 Layout of different uses to the library (a potential infringement) overlooking and privacy. We have amended this security. Apart from parking, I don't feel that section in the final planning brief to make this The layout of the different uses will these and other potentially negative issues clearer. ultimately be determined in a planning are mentioned in the plan. application but should be based upon the requirements of this brief: • As the library will be refurbished in its current building it is considered that any additional community space (D1/D2) should be co-located in the library building to provide a link between different community uses and to maximise usage and the benefit to the community. This will also ensure that access between different community uses for disabled people and the mobility impaired can be achieved in the most effective way. • The commercial space (B1 a and/or b) should also be co-located in this building for the same reasons. • Providing all of the non-residential space in the same building will also make it easier to achieve a successful mixed use development as separation of parking and access to the buildings can be better achieved. • Any new build residential development must be accommodated to the rear of the site, maximising the New River frontage and minimising the visual impact from Green Lanes. • Based on the library building being considered more suitable for community space, it is considered that the town hall is the most suitable building for residential units in a conversion. • Residential and non-residential floorspace should be designed in order to minimise their impact that a non -residential uses would have on residen tial on other uses on the site and surrounding amenity particularly in relation to privacy, overlooking, noise, access and parking. • As both of the existing buildings are being retained, new development along the Green Lanes will be unacceptable other than works to the existing buildings to enhance them and their settings, and a new entrance to the library. 6.1.7 Any new health facility should be incorporated into the existing library building where possible, or otherwise situated along the Green Lanes fron tage.
This feels like a real opportunity to offer good We will provide a new community space in the See our response to Number 24. and relevant services to people in the area. library and we have provide more details on this Especially those who might adversely be in the final planning brief- see our response to affected by the economic problems that we Number 24. are likely to face for potentially a long time. I wondered if you were thinking about widening the library's scope so that it can liaise with and not so much support but at least help the community based and supportive activities that will be based in the area. Have you a plan or determined criteria as to what they might comprise? 99 O My wife and I would like to provide feedback Please see our response to Number 7 regarding Please see our response to Number 7 on the current proposal for the school places. regarding school places. redevelopment of Southgate town hall. The proposal appears to favour redevelopment as residential units, rather than creating a new primary school. As parents of two young children, and with many friends in the same situation on our road, we would strongly favour the site to be used for education. 100 Highways G We have reviewed the SPD and do not have N/A No change required. Agency any comments to make at this time
101 S I was interested to read about the plans for It is our commitment to provide a refurbished No change required. development of the town hall and am very high standard library that offers an excellent pleased that it includes plans to develop the service to the community. library too. Palmers Green Library is the best I’ve ever known in the suburbs of London and the staff are always very polite and helpful. I do hope the cuts will not detract from the professionalism and dedication of the current establishment. 102 G Section 2 - strongly agree. N/A No change required.
Section 3- Disagree, I do not think that a Please see the response to Numbers 6 and 15 Please see the response to Numbers 6 and 15 residential development is suitable. I think in relation to community use in the town hall and in relation to community use in the town hall the whole area should be used for new residential use on the site. New community and new residential use on the site. See our community activities just like we have in space will be provided in the refurbished library, response to Number 24 on community uses. Edmonton (community house). We need a see our response to Number 24 on community council run area which all community groups uses. can use on any day of their choosing. Being a community place, there will be noise, therefore not suitable for residential properties. We also need a large good area for community activities.
Section 6 - Agree N/A No change required.
103 S Section 3 - Agree. N/A No change required.
I am struck by the objective to heighten the Your comments regarding the disjointed nature No change required. contribution the building makes as a gateway of the stretch of road from the library to Palmers to the town and as part of Palmers Green Green triangle are why we have made the because- although I'm aware that it is reference in the objectives to the creation of a technically in the town - my inner feelings gateway to the town centre and making a about it are that it belongs to a hinterland not positive contribution to the public realm in this the town itself. Visually and emotionally I'd area. The plans for Truro House (see our bet that most ordinary residents - I mean the response to Number 11) will also help to achieve ones who don’t attend meetings/paw over this. In addition the requirement to create a new the local press - see it in that way, and when access to the library which faces Green Lanes I first came to the area it was years before I will help to achieve this objective. The Planning even realised there was a Palmers Green Brief cannot deal with anything other than the Library. It was for that sort of reason that I site in question but it may be a possibility to supported the move to re-house the library in secure funding from the developer to pay for the building now occupied by Waitrose by the public realm and traffic enhancements along this previous administration. This means, I think stretch. that the Town Hall/Library cannot by itself achieve the aims set for it in the planning brief. Something needs to be done to the road and to the frontages of the buildings between Broomfield Lane and Aldermans Hill which integrate them into the town. I know that a local group called Improving Our Place has proposed "Squaring the Triangle" (converting Palmers Green Triangle at the foot of Aldermans Hill into a Town Square) at meetings of the local area forum and in meetings with Cllr. Bond and that might assist but would not be enough. Reducing traffic speed with associated road amendments - they need not be expensive- from the Town Hall northwards, perhaps with associated tree planting would help. At the moment this short stretch of road is a fast drive through nondescript buildings. It is not part of the town in any real sense.
Section 4 - disagree strongly. The planning Agreed- we have added a new section on See the response to Number 5 on biodiversity. policy context section (5) of the planning brief biodiversity and wildlife to reflect you comments- lists biodiversity as a component in the see the response to Number 5. The New River planning process, so I was surprised to find is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation no reference to it in this section given that (SINC) and our comments now reflect this. there is still land which has not been hard surfaced adjacent to the New River. This is particularly disappointing, even frightening, because New River must be some sort of wildlife corridor. In the end we are dependent on the balance of life which supports our species so the failure to consider this key component in what is claimed to be a time of awareness is worrying.
Section 6 - disagree strongly - I do not agree Agreed- We have amended section 6.5.2 to give We have amended section 6.5.2 to give more that any building on this site should be four more information the height of new buildings . information on the height of new buildings. See storeys in height See our response to Number 61 for more our response to Number 61 for more information. information.
104 S Section 1 - Agree. I agree in principle to the Thank you for your detailed comments on the We have added a new section to the Planning redevelopment of the site. My priority is the refurbishment of the library. The purpose of the Brief on delivery of the site- Section 8. urgent need to upgrade the Palmers Green brief is to secure the refurbishment of the library Library facilities so that they are fit for through the redevelopment of the site and set a purpose / use as a 21st century community general planning framework for this. The brief is resource. I understand that the fabric of the not the place to set detailed requirements for the building will be retained and the first floor library refurbishment however; subject to the windows should definitely be updated. adoption of the Planning Brief we will prepare a detailed specification for the refurbishment of the library. Once detailed plans have been drawn up for the building we will invite the local community to view and comment.
The library will extend to the ground floor and Your comments are all very useful and will be it is of critical importance that as much light considered when we are preparing the as possible is available. To achieve this aim specification for the library refurbishment. how about considering an atrium or central stairwell. It should be possible to create an airy feel to the ground floor. Additionally technology as an enabler of learning is of equal importance. The library PCs are in constant use. How about configuring the workstations so that they don’t resemble a 1950s office environment and bring this area bang up to date. Wi-Fi and iPAD/Kindle type eReaders should be considered. I would also like a cafe culture to be promoted and an area set aside for local artists to display their work. We have a very talented local community with a rich diversity. The Palmers Green library should be used as an open canvas. At a time when we hear that future library workers will typically be volunteers, the new library environment should be designed in active participation with the valued staff.
Sufficient parking must be available to meet See our response to Number 2 on parking. See our response to Number 2 on parking. the needs of the number of customer visits engaged. 105 The Coal G Thank you for consulting the Coal Authority N/A No change required. Authority on the Southgate Town Hall Planning Brief. Having reviewed the document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on this document at this stage
106 O No - do not agree for residential. Alternative Please see the responses to Number 6 on See the responses to Number 6 on community uses would be preferable. We need a music community uses and Number 15 on housing. uses, Number 15 on housing and Number 24 school for school children or arts facility for The refurbished library will include a new on community uses. local artists to exhibit their work community space and we have included your suggestions on the types of community uses into the planning brief. 107 S I agree broadly with the brief. My concern is The purpose of the Planning Brief is not to be See response to Number 2 on parking and that the car parking area has been labelled specific about where car parking will be located, traffic. as potential for new residential development. but to set a general framework for what will be Where will the Town Hall residents park their acceptable. The exact amount of car parking is cars? not something that is appropriate to include in a planning brief as this will be dependant on a detailed planning application and the amount and type of floorspace included in a scheme. It is unlikely that all of the surface parking would be removed as part of a redevelopment. In addition there is also an option to provide underdeck parking in any new build scheme. For more information see the response to Number 2 on parking and traffic. 108 Greater S Thank you for consulting the GLA on the Agreed. We will amend the planning brief to We will amend the planning brief to reflect the London Planning Brief. GLA welcomes the reflect the adopted London Plan (2011). adopted London Plan (2011). Authority production of planning guidance for this site and supports the objectives for this area in terms of regeneration. The draft SPD is largely fit for purpose and would provide a helpful framework for developers, consultations, local authority officers alike. I note the reference to the draft London Plan which should be amended to reflect its adoption in July 2011. The GLA would welcome pre-application discussions on any proposals for this site, should they be of a scale that is referable. 109 The Theatres S Thank you for your email of 25 July Agreed No change required. Trust consulting The Theatres Trust on the draft Planning Brief for the Southgate Town Hall Supplementary Planning Document. The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres. The Theatres Trust Act 1976 states that ‘The Theatres Trust exists to promote the better protection of theatres. It currently delivers statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use through the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO), Articles 16 & 17, Schedule 5, para.(w) that requires the Trust to be consulted by local authorities on planning applications which include ‘development involving any land on which there is a theatre .’
We have no particular comment to make on the document but wish to support the Council in its proposals to redevelop vacant buildings. Refurbishment and re-use of existing buildings usually requires significantly less energy than building new ones and therefore supports the aims of sustainable development, especially where the existing building makes a positive contribution to local character or where it can form the basic building block of a new development. Improving the environment and securing the re-use of buildings, even those with historic value, can make an important contribution to the regeneration of urban areas. 110 S I did attend a meeting some time ago when The response is written based on the library No change required. some representatives of Enfield Council being move to the High Street which his not the shocked us by mentioning, for the first time, case. The Planning Brief sets out that Palmers the proposal to put the existing Palmers Green library should be refurbished in its Green Library into Iceland on Palmers Green existing building. High Road so I am commenting from this point of view.
Re Palmers Green Library:
1) I feel very strongly that the present Palmers Green Library should be maintained and improved. It is a well used place of education and has good facilities with a wide range of media from books to cds, DVDs and computers. This needs to be added to and up dated to keep in line with the times and money would be better spent on equipment and refurbishment rather than the wasteful re vamping of another building. I cannot see how, with this economic situation, Enfield Council thinks that getting rid of this library is a cost effective, useful or sensible move.
2) The Town Hall is well placed with ample free parking which would not be the case of the proposed one on Green Lanes. Here, a 'Pay and Display' car park would be the only means of parking for those who do not live close by and for the elderly and disabled, some of whom will find this costly and therefore off putting. 'Pay and Display' has the knack of catching one out if time overruns, a wonderful money spinner for the council but not so kind on anyone who is so engrossed in their library visit that they end up having to pay a parking fine. This is not conducive to attending a library.
3) It is a nonsense to assume that a High Street library would be more frequented by the public than one not located on the High Street. And please don't quote those amazingly high numbers frequenting the Wood Green Library. Many of them are snoozing dossers and sandwich eaters and a visit there is not a pleasant experience. It is more like a seedy shopping mall than a library. Anyone who uses Palmers Green High Road will know that many of the people shopping there, and some of the shop keepers, hardly speak English and are very unlikely to 'pop' into / spend time in a library whilst shopping etc. I feel this should be looked at in the light of those who currently use the facility i.e. the core of us who have lived here and supported the community in so many ways, in particular the library, for our entire lives or at least a substantial portion of them and the schools who already make good use of it (who in the present location can be dropped off by bus, easily and safely) rather than hoping to hook a few 'newly arriveds' and other casual 'possibles' who may never be convinced of the merits of a library.
We should be improving what we have in the existing building by keeping up with current trends rather than using tax payers money to create what is potentially a white elephant, a very expensive variation on a theme. 111 S It has come to my attention that there are The planning brief sets out a planning No change required. plans to make alterations to the buildings and framework to enable the refurbishment of the use of Southgate Town Hall/Library site. My library. Subject to the approval of the planning chief interest is in the library of which I and brief a detailed specification for the my children have been members for ten refurbishment will be prepared and we will take years. We are very lucky in Palmers Green the comments form this consultation into to have a spacious and well stocked library, account when preparing this. including a large area housing children’s books. The children’s section, particularly the large reference section, has been an invaluable resource. When my children are required to undertake project work for school we will usually borrow several of these books to help with project work and find them a much easier resource to use than endlessly looking at websites on a computer screen. I don’t know what the detailed plans are for the library, but anything which will affect the layout and space available would be a serious loss to the community and should be avoided at all costs.
The other major issue which makes Palmers In relation to the parking area the redevelopment See the response to Number 2 on parking and Green library such an attractive and valuable of the site (which his required in order to fund traffic and to Number 72 on the architectural resource is the ability to park there. My the library refurbishment) will require us to and historical importance of the existing elderly father has just moved to the area and consider development opportunities over the buildings. will soon be joining the library. He has great whole site. See the response to Number 2 on difficulty in walking any distance, so the fact parking and traffic and to Number 72 on the that it is possible to park at the library and architectural and historical importance of the have lift access to the library floor is vital in existing buildings. his ability to use this resource. Other libraries in the area do not provide such good access for elderly/disabled people. Please do not consider building on the parking area.
Thirdly, these buildings are some of the more architecturally interesting buildings in Palmers Green. Part of their charm is that the site is large enough for the buildings to stand out without having other buildings cheek by jowl with them. The site would be ruined by further development around the existing buildings. I hope these views will be taken into account when your plans are being discussed. 112 Capacities Ltd O 1 Introduction and overview The Planning Brief sets out appropriate land We have amended the land uses section to be This submission is from one local small uses for the site, including community use, clearer see the response to Number 24. business but reflects the views of other local offices and workspace. See the response to business owners with whom we have had Number 6 and Number 24 conversations. Our consultancy firm Capacities Ltd is based in central Palmers Green. In past years we have explored possibilities for renting office space in the range of converted houses at 261 to 295 Green Lanes which accommodate a cluster of professional services firms. Because we are dedicated to serving neighbourhood needs more than private interests we would prefer to locate alongside similar “public service” enterprises. We have noted the developments of Hampstead Town Hall and Tottenham Town Hall to provide office space for such business units. We therefore declare an interest in seeing the local authority support a consortium of potential tenants for predominantly “third-sector” and “small business” uses of the Town Hall site in contrast to the preferred solution which this consultation seeks to promote. There is a strong economic argument for our approach. This asks the council to consider long-term pay-offs from securing whole community benefits against those obtained by selling off a major community asset. In our view the borough council holds the Town Hall in trust for the people. Engaging in asset stripping as proposed here lies on the margin of legitimacy. We, with others in the conversation, have been shocked by the proposal’s drive towards such asset stripping. Although not fully declared, we interpret the key aim as bolstering short-run borough income through a speculative development by a volume house builder who will become the council’s preferred partner. Such a strategy would be questionable for the re-development of any community site. When the site at issue is the central civic building of the former Southgate Urban District this initiative casts the current borough administration in a remarkably Philistine role. No doubt some of its present political leaders will recall their own contributions to the debate in the nineteen eighties about the re-development of the London County Hall. That was also a project undertaken to generate revenue from the forced selling-off of a civic asset.
Enfield Council as local planning authority promotes core strategy policies to nurture that section of the Green Lanes N13 designated as “the town centre”. This is a stretch of mainly commercial properties, some of them recorded by the character appraisal for the Lakes Estate conservation area as being of real distinction. But the Green Lanes high street also provides key public spaces. By tradition, sociable uses were strong at the northern end, around the two large churches (St Monica’s and St John’s) and at the southern end, around the Town Hall and Library buildings. Stevie Smith’s affectionate wartime essays on living in “Syler’s Green” document this tradition.
We understand that the borough’s core policy for Palmers Green’s high street is to cut this range to a more restricted stretch of conventional shopping street. Such a reduction of the “protected high street” eliminates public spaces at the northern and southern extremities. It also compromises some of the more quirky independent retailers and eating places. The new strategic view sets the background to this proposal since it exposes an anchor site to downgrading from a major civic space to a mainly commercial complex. The new complex will be dominated by over-sized apartment blocks of (we expect) banal quality built for quick-profit sales and letting. We are In response to comments received from English See the response to Number 72. calling for steps to be taken to protect the Heritage we have added more information to the whole Town Hall site from being downgraded brief on the historic and heritage importance of in this way. If the borough council’s brief the buildings and their contribution to the local were to be put on hold for a while, we and character and townscape- see the response to others would use the time allowed to apply Number 72 (the response from English for protection of the community assets Heritage). involved. Our central argument is this. If we are to strengthen civility in Palmers Green – and thus advance community cohesion in line with borough and national policies - we must foster a version of the high street which The town centre boundaries are set in our Core embodies positive shared memories. The Strategy (2010) and cannot be changed in the No change required. authority’s prior decision to restrict the official planning brief. However the brief does recognise town centre to the principal range of retail the importance of the buildings, and Truro shopping units has imperilled several House, to the townscape. Hence why both important buildings. If treated more buildings are required for retention. sympathetically, the sites lying just beyond the main drag could play their part in promoting civic endeavour and sociability. Chief among the buildings which could amplify civic spirit are the old Southgate Town Hall and adjacent Palmers Green See the response to Number 6 in relation to Library. While we recognise that this brief schemes carried out on other town hall sites. See the response to Number 6. provides only for the demolition of the west wing of the latter building, its thrust is to diminish the whole profile of the site by favouring private flat owners over other proposed users. We strongly object to this impoverished vision for the balance of future uses of the site.
The recent refurbishment of Tottenham Town Hall illustrates the possibilities for a more community-oriented mixed-use building. At Tottenham the council chamber has been remodelled and redecorated to provide a space for both private and public functions; a community eating place will be added; an MP’s surgery is accommodated; and a range of small enterprises will rent office and studio spaces. The present proposal for a small health centre to occupy part of a remodelled Town Hall building would probably sit well with an overall scheme of the Tottenham type. Our contention is that this kind of vision for a community and small business led development should be fleshed out and presented alongside the council’s preferred way forward. We are asking for time and support to enable such a comparison in a consultation conducted more seriously than this one.
2 Response to Question 1: do you agree with suggested land use and development principles? We strongly disagree. Our introductory remarks indicate our broad grounds for wanting to present a completely different vision for use of this site, focused on community uses and benefits. Turning to the questions and points posed in your paper, we have specific and serious reservations about the following elements in the council’s brief. The following paragraphs are numbered and headed in line with your treatment.
6.1 Principles for appropriate development 6.1.1 The brief begins by offering a range of We have amended this section to be clearer on We have amended this section to be clearer possible mixed use patterns which seems the mix of uses and we have also amended the on the mix of uses and we have also amended reasonable; but much of the later exposition section on density – see the response to the section on density – see the response to is clearly weighted towards high density Number 24 on mix of uses and 40 on density. Number 24 and 40. residential development rather than the other two options of community and office uses. We note that the latter two options are qualified by the proviso that they should not be deemed to be more appropriately located in the town centre, which begs the question of how best to demarcate Palmers Green’s town centre.
6.1.5 This principle requires that supporters We have removed this paragraph from the Section 6.1.5 removed from the planning of community uses for the site (which we planning brief. brief: favour as part of the overall mix) must If a community use is proposed a clear end produce what would be in effect a clear user for the space must be established and business plan specifying end users and set out in any planning application as well funding arrangements. Supporters of a as a detailed funding strategy for the mainly residential project have not so far community use. offered the same level of detail. For our preferred community-led pathway to be properly charted and planned we would need additional time and expert support and we would ask that this be granted. We suspect that supporters of the residential-led project have already assembled some of the resources they need and we ask for fair treatment.
6.1.6 This principle requires occupants of any new residential accommodation to be We have amended this paragraph to reflect the Section 6.1.6 amended: given substantial protection from users of importance of the community use on the site – • Residential and non-residential floorspace other facilities, an order of priority which also see the response to Number 98. should be designed in order to minimise would make sense if the site were to become their impact that a non -res idential uses predominantly residential. We want to would have on residential on other uses on contest the implicit assumption underlying the site and surrounding amenity this principle. particularly in relation to privacy, overlooking, noise, access and parking. 6.1.7 This principle seems vague and difficult. It relates to someone’s vision for situating a new health service facility in the library (which might suit health education), or We have removed this paragraph and added Section 6.1.7 will be removed- see the in the Town Hall building, or in a new building more information to section 6.1 to make clear response to Number 48 and 98. on the Green Lanes frontage. Each of these that no new buildings will be acceptable on the possibilities raises considerable potential Green Lanes frontage other than a new problems. The requirement in 6.1.7 sheds entrance to the library- see the response to next to no light on how any of the three Number 48 and 98. options might work out.
6.2 Retention of buildings This section declares requirements to retain the library building, but with the possible stripping out of its very substantial and See the response to Number 40. decently designed annexe; to retain the town We have rewritten this paragraph- see the hall building, remodelled to include response to Number 40 residential apartments; and to demolish some minor buildings in addition to the library annexe. While we agree that these two buildings should be retained, we urge that the library annexe be added to the list for retention on grounds of architectural distinction and library users’ needs. We strongly object to the addition to the section on “retention” one-track directions on “appropriate uses” which beg questions about comparison with contrasting use proposals. This section should be entirely rewritten to give space to a wider range of practicable proposals for the site.
6.3 Urban Design Principles Most of the principles set out here are No change required. standard design policies recommended by The other sites mentioned did not have planning the revised London Plan (2011), the London brief prepared to be clear about what is required. Housing Design Guide (2010) and earlier The purpose of preparing the planning brief is to design guidance offered by CABE and other set very high standards for redevelopment. experts. Our difficulty with these good practice principles subsists in doubts – based on practical experience – about the capacity of the council to enforce these principles as guiding lights for a commercial venture where securing revenue streams is the central consideration. We think this doubt about taking the design principles seriously casts a long shadow over the requirements for “capturing civic heritage” and offering a tasteful “streetscape profile”. Recent council- approved residential developments nearby on Green Lanes and Broomfield Lane may be referred to as evidence that this kind of commitment to design principles may be honoured in the breach as well as in the observance.
6.4 We note that section 6.4 appears to be This is a typographical error. We will ensure the numbering is correct in the missing from your document. final version of the brief.
6.5 Density, heights and massing The description of “up to” or perhaps We have amended this section to reduce “predominantly” (both terms are used) four- heights and density- see the responses to See the responses to Number 61 on heights storey buildings in two main blocks suggest Number 61 on heights and 40 on density. and 40 on density. to us that the developer who will be invited to bid for this project will be encouraged to operate at the upper limits of the London Plan’s density guidance and maybe even beyond these. The maximum guided density of 150 dwellings per hectare would yield 75 units in this proposed project. Such a scale would be visually obtrusive, would seriously crowd out other users and would raise issues about car parking. The next two sections [6.6 and 6.7] on landscaping and car parking suggest ways to handle issues of high density development, but we foresee grave engineering and costing problems.
6.8 Housing requirements The Core Strategy housing policies (2010) are This section calls for a mix of tenures and also based on viability considerations. We have added the following to the end of affordability in line with London-wide and Section 6.8: Enfield policies but then goes on to suggest The Planning Brief requires the retention of that “where the development cannot meet Southgate Town Hall as part of any the aspirations” [of policy-makers] redevelopment scheme. It is recognised consideration might be given to meeting that the refurbishment of existing these on other sites! This is not good buildings, especially older properties, can enough – but well illustrates the constraints make the achievement of certain standards of a for-profit and for-capital-release project and policies, such as Lifetime Homes or in which the council needs to give mix of housing difficult, however the commercial incentives to its preferred starting point will always be the partner. development achieving highest standards possible and full financial and design justification must be given where these cannot be met.
6.9 Sustainability Much of this section sets out the usual policy We will remove the words ‘aim to’ Section 6.9.4 amended: constraints surrounding development of a 6.9.4 The redevelopment of the site should site of this size. We note that in 6.9.4 the aim to deliver maximum social and brief calls for the redevelopment of the site to economic benefits to the local “aim to deliver” maximum social and community including the employment of economic benefits to the local community. local people in the construction, and in Does this mean that the developer might be any commercial or community space allowed to declare aims which are then provided on the site. under-fulfilled? We fear it will be taken in this vein. This is not the case; setting out the S106 7 Section 106 Planning Obligations requirements is a standard policy approach and No change required. We note that the council’s wish that any S106 payments are negotiated for all planning development partner should offer planning applications above a certain size. obligation contributions in cash or kind under nine separate headings in accordance with its 2011 SPD suggests that the authority itself perceives very substantial potential dis- benefits to the local community from such a development which need to be mitigated or compensated by these contributions. While this is common practice we regard such a bargain as a bad bargain. It would be much preferable that the whole development should add to the welfare of the surrounding local community without the need for monetary or other special obligations.
Response to Question 2: are there other matters which you wish to be included in the The consultation period has not been extended planning brief? due to the large number of responses received No change required. We want to have an opportunity to make and the fact that we consulted for longer than is appraisals of alternative approaches to the usually required for an SPD. redevelopment of comparable town hall sites such as Tottenham Town Hall (with the Clyde Road Depot) and Hampstead Town Hall. We would use these appraisals to underpin an outline proposal for alternative patterns of mixed us in opposition to the mainly residential pattern proposed by LB Enfield. This would require an extension of the consultation period so that it would end on 13 th December 2011 and we hereby request that the council’s cabinet agree to this in order to meet the concerns expressed by us and many other residents. Concluding remarks We object to the blatantly biased terms in which parts of this consultation paper have been written. Several sections foreclose serious discussion of community benefits by asserting implicitly that the council’s preferred option will prevail against all alternatives. This will happen if the consultation is closed without allowing time and space for a considered community-led counter-proposal. We therefore object to the inadequate time allowed for community-led proposals to be prepared and ask the authority to provide: • further access to all parts of the site for us and our advisers to assess alternative uses; • supported arrangements for the public presentation of competing plans; • an additional three months for continuing this consultation. If, as seems likely, the council’s officers are working to bounce through a pre-planned project for which planning permission will have been already assured, the requests listed in the above paragraph will be denied. If, on the other hand, the council were to see the benefit in a full discussion with representatives of community organisations and small enterprises like ours, they will provide the opportunities we are requesting. 113 O I object to residential use (Use Class C3) We will be providing a new community facility in See the response to Number 24 on land uses mentioned n 6.1.1 as this removes the site the library and this will be likely to include space and 6 on community use in the town hall. permanently from public use and ownership. for young people to use. See the response to The site would be better used as an indoor Number 24 on land uses and 6 on community youth meeting/activities centre (ideally use in the town hall. placed next to the library facilities). Young people tend to congregate on the streets with nothing to do because of lack of such facilities. This would be a way to benefit the whole community. The financial reasons for the proposed planning should be included in the brief.