Enfield’s Local Plan
EVIDENCE BASE
Detailed Green Belt Boundary Review
March 2013
1
Contents
Boundary Review Process 2 Introduction 3 National Green Belt Policy 5 Local Context 6 Scope of Review 7 Methodology for boundary strengthening 7 Stage 1: Initial Findings public consultation (July 2011) 9 Stage 2: Further changes post public consultation (April 2012) 10 Stage 3: Final Proposed Submission Changes 10
Appendix A – Proposes Submission Green Belt Changes (under separate cover)
Appendix B – Schedule of Reponses to Consultation ((under separate cover)
Enfield’s Detailed Green Belt Boundary Review
2
1.0 Boundary Review Process
1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out the recommended boundary changes to Enfield’s Green Belt. The Council published its initial proposed boundary for public consultation in July 2011. Post consultation, 3 additional amendments were made, which subsequently fed into the Draft Green Belt Review Report 2012 that accompanied the Draft Development Management Documents and Policies Map public consultation (May – August 2012).
1.2 The review has made an assessment as to whether the existing boundaries provide robust and defensible boundaries over the Core Strategy plan period, (next 15 to 20 years). In total, the Council is proposing to take forward 30 site changes and effectively proposes a realignment to the Green Belt boundary that results in 13 gains (additional land added 3.71 hectares (9 acres) into the Green Belt designation) and 19 losses ( loss of some 8.06 hectares (19 acres). The gains and losses amount to 32 as two sites, Site 2.1 Enfield Chase – Slopers Pond Cottage, 1‐3 Waggon Road and Site 10.1 Cedar Road / Lavender Gardens resulted in both gains and losses. The boundary review results in a total net loss of some 4.35ha (10 acres) of land previously designated Green Belt.
1.4 Appendix A to this report highlights the final boundary amendments and clearly states where a change has occurred as a result on the public consultation exercise, for transparency. For an explanation of the Council’s justification for change, Appendix A should be read in conjunction with the Schedule of Review Responses, Appendix B.
1.5 The changes in Appendix A have been reflected on the Proposed Submission Policies Map that accompanies the Proposed Submission Development Management Document (March 2013).
3
2.0 Background to the Green Belt Boundary Review
2.1 The Core Strategy (2010) is accompanied by a Policies Map (November 2010). The Policies Map carried forward the Green Belt designations from the 1994 Unitary Development Plan with amendment. The strategic changes made to the Green Belt through the Core Strategy, were found ‘sound’ on conclusion of the examination and were limited to a de‐designated section of the Green Belt land in the northeast of the Borough, known as Enfield Island Village; and the additional Green Belt designations inherited from local borough boundary changes which came into effect post the adoption of Enfield’s 1994 Unitary Development Plan, (UDP).
2.2 Core Policy 33: Green Belt & Countryside, states the Council’s intention to bring forward any proposed changes to the detailed boundary of the Green Belt as part of a subsequent Development Management Document. The Inspector’s report into the examination of the Core Strategy supported this approach.
2.3 Historically the boundary of the Enfield’s Green Belt was originally defined on the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 6 inches to the mile hard‐copy Base Map adopted in 1994, without the benefit of GIS digitisation. Since this time and with the advance of technology the 1994 Map (as delineated from a coarsely drawn hard‐copy version) was digitised for development control purposes, with the legal boundary remaining that of the 1994 paper version.
2.4 The Council, through the preparation of the Development Management Document (DMD) is proposing changes in order to provide strong defensible Green Belt boundaries.
2.5 This review therefore examines both the accuracy and durability of the detailed inner and outer Green Belt boundary and recommends minor changes as considered necessary with the aim of securing a strong defensible boundary that will endure over the next 15 to 20 years. The review sits a part of the evidence base to support the Development Management Document and proposed changes to an updated Policies Map.
2.6 This review was not undertaken to release or include land of strategic nature, the justification of releases of this scale has been considered through the Core Strategy, adopted in November 2010. However, in undertaking the review there have been some minor additions and deletions to the Green Belt designation.
4
3.0 National Green Belt Policy
3.1 The core principles of previous National Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) Green Belt Protection remain firmly in place in the new National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF). The NPPF advocates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF carries forward the five principles of National Green Belt Policy introduced in the 1950s. The popularity and success of Green Belts has resulted in them remaining a part of national planning policy. There are five equal purposes of including land in Green Belts:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built‐up areas; 2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and 5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
3.2 Although the general extent of Enfield’s Green Belt has been considered and justified through the adoption of the Borough’s Core Strategy, the NPPF states in paragraph 83 that “local authorities should consider Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, sot tha they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period”.
3.3 When defining boundaries the NPPF is not as detailed as previous PPG2 but it does state authorities should:
. Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; . Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; . Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer‐term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period; . Make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development; . Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and . Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
5
4.0 Local Context
4.1 The Green Belt affecting Enfield is tightly drawn around the urban area of the Borough. Almost a third of open land in Enfield is designated as Green Belt, which is located in the north, north‐west and east of the Borough. Green Belt land represents some 3062 hectares. This green asset is important for several reasons: its contribution to the overall suburban and rural setting; the opportunities it provides for access to the open countryside, for outdoor sport and recreation; and for the diverse uses including agriculture, nature conservation and its historic significance. The Enfield Characterisation Study (February 2011) categorises the Green Belt into 4 distinct landscape character types, 3 of which, (nos 1, 2 and 4) are also recognised as Areas of Special Character.1
4.2 (1) Farmland Ridge and Valleys The north and north‐western Green Belt area which extends from Hadley Wood in the north‐west corner of the Borough, across the whole of the top northern edge of the Borough to Capel Manor and Bulls Cross in the north east is characterised by Farmland Valleys and Ridges and is notably Enfield most important landscape type as it forms a special area of landscape character which is a major asset to the Borough. The Study notes the area’s high landscape quality and that its designation as Green Belt has meant that the landscape has been well protected from twentieth century built development.
4.3 (2) Rural Parklands Within Enfield’s Green Belt two key areas have been characterised as rural parkland, Enfield Chase in the north‐west and the large area of recreation land in the north‐east comprising Whitewebbs Park, Forty Hall parklands, and the parklands surrounding Myddleton House. This Green Belt typology offers landscapes with strong national heritage and a focus on recreation. Within the wider environment these historic landscapes are generally widely visible forming large woodland areas which are prominent from the north and south.
4.4 (3) Nursery & Glasshouses This landscape type yis a relativel common type to be found in the Lee Valley given that the Lee Valley has been the centre for market gardening since the eighteenth century. Enfield has one such area which developed around the settlement of Crews Hill. Crews Hill (excluding the Rosewood Drive development), is within Green Belt. It is characterised by glasshouses, nurseries and garden centres, equine activities and little trees and hedgerow vegetation. This particular part of Enfield’s Green Belt is an important feature and contributes to the local economy. However, the density of development of other associated structures is high which has had a substantial visual impact and sense of openness on this part of the Green Belt.
4.5 (4) River Valley and Floodplain In Enfield the key area of the Valley and floodplain typology is the River Lee stretching across the eastern boundary of the Borough from the M25 in the north to the edge of Banbury Reservoir in the south.
1 Areas of Special Character Review 2012 6
5.0 Scope of the Review
5.1 The integrity of the Green Belt is seriously compromised where Green Belt boundaries are constantly changing. Furthermore public confidence in Green Belt policies is dependent on their certainty and longevity.
5.2 The aim of the review was to examine the existing boundaries as set out on the adopted Policies Map (2010), in accordance with a set of criteria. The review was undertaken at the time PPG2 was current national policy and also took into account any physical changes that have occurred on the ground since 1994. The findings were re‐appraised following publication of the NPPF. The review’s primary objective is to provide for a strong defensible Green Belt boundary that will endure and protect the openness and rural character of the surrounding countryside of Enfield from encroachment. The review provides an understanding of the current strengths and weaknesses of the existing Green Belt boundaries and has in turn recommended amending the boundary where appropriate to provide certainty over the next 15 to 20 years.
5.3 The scope was limited to a local level consideration of the Borough’s detailed Green Belt boundary to the extent that it has assessed:
. The current strength of the Green Belt boundary; . Proposes discrete adjustments to the Green Belt boundary in order to ‘strengthen’ and improve its defensibility and resilience; . Ensures Green Belt boundaries are digitised and cartographically consistent with Ordinance Survey Mapping, follow rational lines, ensuring boundaries on the ground that meet the provisions as set out in national policy;
6.0 Methodology for boundary strengthening
6.1 The boundary review marked the first opportunity to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the delineated boundary that protects the Enfield Green Belt. Analysis was undertaken, both desk‐top and fieldwork, to determine the extent to which it can be secured over the long term taking account of physical features and planning decisions. The review used the criteria for defensibility to decide whether the existing boundaries were either ‘strong’ or ‘weak’. Where boundaries were found to be ‘weak’ the review worked outwards to establish whether there were potentially any ‘strong’ Green Belt boundaries which were physically linked to existing boundaries.
6.2 It is important to ensure that the approach to defining these boundaries is logical, defensible and consistent. A set of criteria has therefore been devised taking account of the need to ensure that boundaries: . are well defined using recognisable features, . are not excessively tightly drawn to require review before the end of the Core Strategy plan period, . Provide a clear delineation between marking the urban / rural interface, and . focus development in areas that will not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt.
7 6.3 Criteria for Boundary Analysis
6.4 A strong boundary is one that is well established and resistant to change. It is difficult to alter or destroy, taking into account planning and appeal decisions. A weak boundary is one that may still identifiable/ visible, but can be easily altered or destroyed.
6.5 In this context a boundary is defined as a recognisable linear feature or boundary between two separate areas of land. On the basis of the principles set out above, known boundaries have been classified having regard to whether it is a strong or weak boundary with respect to how well it supports the aims of Green Belt policy. The criterion is set out in the table below:
Strong Weak Motorways, Adopted Highway, and Private roads local classified Roads. Rights of way
Railway lines Strong natural landscape features Undefined natural landscape e.g. river watercourses, lakes, features. Prominent ridges, blocks of woodland and strong tree lines.
Protected parks e.g. MOL, playing Landscaped areas, incidental fields, allotments, cemeteries, local areas of open space, informal parks, amenity greenspace areas with undefined boundaries Residential dwellings with clearly Building Line where residential defined physical boundaries, such as dwellings with unclear, an established building line or row undefined, intermittent back of gardens made up of 3 or more gardens residential properties.
Other non‐residential development Power lines with established boundaries. Building line (of non‐residential Can include listed, historical or areas uses). forming part of a distinctive landscape character
Table 1: Defensible Boundary Classification
8 7.0 Stage 1: Initial Findings published for Public Consultation July 2011
7.1 The review divided the Green Belt into 26 study areas, represented in Appendix A by the 26 maps. The initial findings of the review demonstrated that much of Enfield’s outer Green Belt is strongly defensible. For example, the entire boundary at the Borough’s northern border requires no amendments, (Study areas 25 and 16) owing to the boundary following the local authority boundary and the M25 Motorway acting as a strong physical and visual boundary. Similarly, the outer eastern Green Belt boundary remains strongly defensible as it also drawn to the local authority boundaries where Enfield Borough meets Epping Forest and Waltham Forest. These borough boundaries also align with the River Lee which further physically and visually strengthens the Green Belt boundary on the east.
7.2 Weaker boundaries have typically been highlighted along the inner boundary where the Green Belt meets with the more urbanised character of the Borough. Typical examples include where the Green Belt boundary runs through the curtilage of properties / rear gardens. Where boundaries were found to be ‘weak’ the review worked outwards to establish whether there were potentially any ‘stronger’ Green Belt boundaries within the area which were physically linked to existing boundaries. The same criterion was used and aerial photography examined to establish ‘strong’ boundaries. Site visits provided a check of the results. In some cases where a strong boundary is not present a more appropriate weak boundary has been considered as a better alternative than the original. For example, in Study Area 18, site reference 18.1 Enfield Island Village – Manton Road / Ostell Crescent where a lack of a distinct property curtilage and or boundary is present, the alternative recommendation is to run the Green Belt boundary to the building line. In Study Area 10, site reference 10.2 Bramley House, a cartographic correction has also taken the boundary to the building line as opposed to property boundary to ensure the original extant of the Green Belt remains in situ.
7.3 The initial findings of 2011 recommended some 29 amendments to the borough’s Green Belt boundary and that resulted in 14 gains (additional land added 4.19 hectares into the Green Belt designation) and 15 losses (loss of some 5.99 hectares of Green Belt designated land). The majority of the recommended changes were minor in nature and are justified on the grounds of providing a more robust, logical and defensible boundary and where an adjusted alignment, or small variation, provides for a more logical or practical boundary. For example in a number of cases this includes recommending boundaries are re‐aligned to adopted highways or classified roads, hedge / tree lines, property boundaries, and where relevant strong landscape features such as the New River and River Lee. There owere als some instances where, for consistency, the recommendation is to align a Green Belt boundary with corresponding open space designations. Where boundary changes have been put forward, a commentary of the assessment is provided and these are set out in Appendix A. In total 30 responses were received to the public consultation undertaken in the summer of 2011. The responses and a summary of the comments are provided in Appendix B: Schedule of Review Responses. The Council has considered all responses and provided its considered response within Appendix B.
9
8.0 Stage 2: Further Changes Post Public Consultation July – September 2011
8.1 Of the 30 responses received, 15 comments were boundary specific, suggesting alternative boundaries to those in the initial findings report. Six responses put forward new sites for exclusion from Green Belt. The remaining comments put forward alterative boundaries to those published in the Council’s initial findings Appendix A. Of the 15 comments related to alternative boundaries, the Council made 3 changes to the 30 it originally put forward by way of the initial findings
8.2 As a result of the 2011 consultation, the Council proposes to take forward 3 additional amendments to the Green Belt boundary making a total of 30 boundary amendments. These changes have been highlighted within Appendix A, and include the following:
1. Boundary extension: The boundary at site reference: 4.4 – (Hadley Wood Golf Course/Covert Wood – northern side – 32‐44 Beech Hill and entry to Hadley Wood Golf Course) agreed amendment that extends to exclude The Lodge; (See Appendix A Map 4, page 14); 2. New site: The deletion of Green Belt land at site reference: 9.2: Enfield Chase – Royal Chace Hotel; (See Appendix A Map 9 Page 18); and 3. Boundary extension: The boundary has been realigned to exclude the Lee Navigation at site reference: 24.1 – Meridian Water ‐ Boundary to the west of Advent Way. (See Appendix A Map 24, page 62).
8.3 Additional land added to the Green Belt results in a gain of 3.71 hectares. The de‐ designation of sites 4.4 and 9.2 now equates to a loss of 8.06 hectares. The boundary review results in a total net loss of some 4.35 hectares of land previously designated Green Belt. This takes the amount of Green Belt Land represented in Enfield from 3062 hectares, to 3058.05 hectares, in percentage terms accounting for an overall decrease of 0.14 percent.
8.4 Formal consultation on the above changes was taken forward through public consultation of the Draft Development Management Document and Policies Map (May – August 2012).
9.0 Stage 3: Final Proposed Submission Changes
9.1 Further comments were made on the proposed Green Belt boundary as part of the consultation on the Draft DMD( May – August 2012). A summary of those comments and the Council’s response is set out in Appendix E of the Proposed Submission DMD Consultation Statement.
9.2 No further amendments are proposed post public consultation on the Draft Development Management Document and Policies Map (May 2012). The boundary changes are now carried forward to support the Proposed Submission Draft Development Management Document and Policies Map, on the grounds of providing a robust, logical and defensible boundary. The DMD provides additional policy references on garden land development and development within the urban fringe. This would prevent inappropriate development as well as promote the role new development should perform on properties that adjoin the Green Belt.
10
11 Appendix A - Green Belt Boundary Schedule
1
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Contents
Site Reference: 1.5 –Hadley Wood Northwest Green Belt – Bartrams Lane north of Crescent West 6
Site Reference: 1.7 –Hadley Wood Northwest Green Belt –5‐21 & 120‐128 Wagon Road Hadley Wood 8
Site Reference: 2.1 – Enfield Chase –Slopers Pond Cottage, 1‐3 Wagon Hadley Wood 10
Site Reference: 4.2 –Hadley Wood Golf Course/Covert Wood –eastern side, section 2 –4‐8 Greenoak Place 12
Site Reference: 4.4 –Hadley Wood Golf Course/Covert Wood –northern side –32‐44 Beech Hill and entry to Hadley Wood Golf Course 14
Site Reference: 5.4 – Enfield Chase – Cockfosters station car park, Cockfosters Road Cockfosters 16
Site Reference: 9.2 ‐ Enfield Chase –Royal Chace Hotel, 162 The Ridgeway Gordon Hill 18
Site Reference: 10.1 ‐ Cedar Road/Lavender Gardens 20
Site Reference: 10.2 –3‐30 Bramley House Court, Clay Hill 22
Site Reference: 12.1 –New River (section from Goat lane to Severn Drive) 24
Site Reference: 12.2 Hoe Lane 26
Site Reference: 13.1 ‐ 81, Dendridge Close, Enfield 28
Site Reference: 13.2 –New River (Section from Turkey Brook –Bullsmoor Lane 30
Site Reference: 14.1 –Site east of New River between Bullsmoor Lane and M25 junction 32
Site Reference: 16.1 –North of Innova Park, Mollison Avenue 34
2
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Contents
Site Reference: 17.2 –Warwick Road 36
Site Reference: 17.3 – Ordnance Road 38
Site Reference: 18.1 – Enfield Island Village –Manton Road/Ostell Crescent 40
Site Reference: 18.3 – Enfield Island Village –River Lee Navigation/Land South of Navigation Drive 42
Site Reference: 18.5 – Enfield –South of Warwick Road 44
Site Reference: 18.6 – Enfield –Land south of Medcalf Road 46
Site Reference: 18.7 ‐ Enfield –Land south of Prince of Wales Primary School 48
Site Reference: 20.1 ‐ Brimsdown ‐ River Lee Navigation at Mossops Creek 50
Site Reference: 21.1 – Ponders End ‐ Land South of the Ponders End Industrial Area/ River Lee Navigation 52
Site Reference: 21.2 ‐ Ponders End ‐ Land bordering A1055 Meridian Way 54
Site Reference: 21.4 ‐ Ponders End ‐ Land South of Morson Road 56
Site Reference: 22.1 –Edmonton ‐ Land to the west of the Lee Valley Athletics Centre 58
Site Reference: 22.2 ‐ Edmonton ‐ Builders Merchants, Picketts Lock Lane 60
Site Reference: 24.1 –Meridian Water ‐ Boundary to the west of Advent Way 62
Site Reference: 24.2 ‐ Meridian Water ‐ Harbet Road 64
3
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 General Layout
4
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Page left intentionally blank
5
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 1
Site Reference: 1.5 –Hadley Wood Northwest Green Belt – Bartrams Lane north of Crescent West
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
6
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 1
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 1.5 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Relocate boundary to follow the road and private lane edge. Hadley Wood Northwest Weak 2,187 m² gain. Green Belt – Bartrams lane north of Crescent West
Description: The southern half of this section runs along the inner edge of aforest strip parallel to Justification: In other sections of the Green Belt boundary around Hadley Wood the boundary follows lines of clear Crescent West then the unnamed private lane of Crescent West to its north. North of the forest strip delineation between the urban area of Hadley Wood and the adjacent rural Green Belt area, the result of a strong the strip of land within which it sits opens into a larger heavily forested parcel, and the northern end of and coherent subdivision pattern. These lines therefore mark the boundaries between clearly defined landscape this section of the Green Belt boundary again follows the inside edge of another forest strip along the typologies. However in this section, the Green Belt boundary follows a line approximate to the inner side of a forest edge of the lane. strip rather than along the edge of the road, and thus does not follow a boundary between the two landscapes. Along other sections of the Green Belt boundary where it follows roads, the boundary runs along the Although private, this lane is nonetheless the actual edge of the urban area. To amend the boundary to follow the edge of the highway land, so that any tree lined strips such as this are within the Green Belt. This has edge of Crescent West and the private lane would make treatment of this section of the Green Belt boundary the advantage of additional protection of these strips and avoids a situation of having a narrow (5‐10 consistent with other boundary sections where it follows a road, thereby ending the situation of the Green Belt m) strip of land between a road and Green Belt land potentially useable for urban purposes but in boundary cutting across a rural setting, and of separating the trees from the open section of land. reality unable to be developed in an acceptable manner or for appropriate uses.
Bartrams Lane at Looking North‐east Tree cover on Bartrams the junction with Lane delineating the along Bartrams Crescent West Lane proposed addition into Green belt
7
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 1 Site Reference: 1.7 –Hadley Wood Northwest Green Belt –5‐21 & 120‐128 Waggon Road Hadley Wood
N.B Not drawn to scale
ADJOINING LOCAL AUTHORITY GREEN BELT
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
8
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 1 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 1.7 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Remove the area inherited from Hertsmere in 1994 from the Green Belt designation. Hadley Wood Northwest Weak in terms of providing 19,520m² loss Green Belt –5‐21 & 120‐ a defensible boundary that 128 Waggon Road will endure the next 15‐20 Hadley Wood years in a suburban setting, with the adjacent housing not being within the Green Belt designation. Description: The Green Belt boundary in this section runs partly in front the houses on the north side Justification: Amending the Green Belt boundary to exclude the properties that were inherited into Enfield as a of Waggon Road Hadley Wood, then returns to run along their rear boundaries, which also constitutes result of local authority boundary changes will maintain a strong, consistent and defensible boundary between the as the borough boundary. The boundary wraps in a similar way around the houses on the southern side rural‐suburban interface. of Waggon Road at Nos. 120‐128. These houses occupy an area of 1.83 ha transferred from Hertsmere through borough and county boundary changes in 1994. This area was transferred in order to bring these houses under the same local authority as the rest of Hadley Wood. They are designated as Green Belt because this is the designation for nearly the entire rural part of Hertfordshire. The adjacent part of Herts immediately north of these houses, in Hertsmere borough, is designated as Green Belt under the Hertfordshire Structure Plan. The borough and Green Belt boundary at the rear of these houses marks the line of transition from the rear gardens of the houses to the agricultural landscape to the north, with an intervening hedge line along the boundary. The Green Belt boundary at the front runs along Waggon Road, and the southern side of Waggon Road is lined with large dwellings and within a suburban setting.
Waggon Rd looking Looking east along Looking west along Looking east along Waggon Rd at Nos. 5‐ 21 north at Nos. 5‐21 Waggon Rd Waggon Rd at Nos. Nos. 120 ‐ 128 Waggon 120‐128 Rd
9
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 2
Site Reference: 2.1 – Enfield Chase –Slopers Pond Cottage, 1‐3 Wagon Hadley Wood
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED ADDITION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
10
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 2
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 2.1 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Amend the Green Belt boundary to exclude all of 1‐3 Wagon Road and to include the abutting Enfield Chase –Sloper s Weak Eastern plot: 733.4m² loss 29m² of farmland presently not in the Green Belt . Pond Cottage, 1‐3 Triangular plot: 27.92m² gain Waggon Hadley Wood
Description: 1‐3 Wagon Road is one parcel of land containing two dwellings. The current Green Belt Justification: The fact that the two parts of the site are no longer used independently and thus have different boundary follows the line of a previous hedge through the property separating the houses, so that characters no longer applies, as the entire site is used for residential purposes. It therefore makes sense to exclude No.1 on the eastern part of the land within the Green Belt , whilst No.3 on the western part of the site the full parcel from the Green Belt . is not in the Green Belt . The parcel is an excision from a much larger parcel of farmland on the north side of Waggon Road abutting the long‐established Hertfordshire/Middlesex (now The original mapping of the Green Belt excluded a very small part of the adjoining farm (28m²) from the Green Belt Hertfordshire/Greater London) boundary. and it is proposed that in order to align the Green Belt boundary to property boundaries as much as possible, this The boundary was set to run along the hedge line at a time when the eastern part of the parcel had a area be added to the Green Belt . As this area is not farmed or used for any other purpose, extending the Green Belt rural character to it (containing a farm shed) and the western side an urban character (containing a designation to follow the boundary will have no practical impact. dwelling house) and they were used independently. However the dividing hedge has since been removed and both parts of the site are used for residential purposes.
Slopers Pond Cottage Slopers Pond Cottage North on Wagon Adjacent to Slopers street facade Road looking east Pond Cottage Looking east garden NE
11
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 4 Site Reference: 4.2 –Hadley Wood Golf Course/Covert Wood –eastern side, section 2 –4‐8 Greenoak Place
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
12
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 4
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 4.2 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Adjust Green Belt boundary to align with the property boundary between the golf course and the Hadley Wood Golf Weak arbitrary boundary 740.9 m² loss houses at 4‐8 Greenoak Place. Course/Covert Wood – line eastern side, section 2 – 4‐8 Greenoak Place
Description: Abutting the golf course and adjacent to the Green Belt are the rear gardens of properties Justification: The discrepancy between the Green Belt boundary and the property boundaries is the result of at 4‐8 Greenoak Place. The Green Belt boundary in this section does not align with the property planning consents that allowed for the subdivision of sites along Cockfosters Road for residential development at boundary between these three houses and the golf course. It appears that the Green Belt boundary the rear, as part of the creation of Greenoak Place. The result on the ground has resulted in a weak indefensible follows a previous boundary between the golf course and the rear boundaries of the houses along boundary line. Cockfosters Road from whose grounds these three parcels were excised, and the Green Belt boundary In view of the need to provide a strong coherent boundary and the fact that the property boundary between the now runs within these properties rather along their rear boundaries. In the case of 6 Greenoak Place houses and the golf course still represents a logical boundary, it would be appropriate in this section to adjust the the boundary actually runs through the dwelling house itself. The gardens of these three dwellings do Green Belt boundary to follow the current property boundary. not form a continuation of the adjacent heavily tree‐lined areas of the golf course, but rather are fully landscaped.
13
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 4 Site Reference: 4.4 –Hadley Wood Golf Course/Covert Wood –northern side –32‐44 Beech Hill and entry to Hadley Wood Golf Course
N.B Not drawn to scale
N.B Not drawn to scale
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820 ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
14
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 4 Change made post public consultation refer to Appendix B Table (i) representation No. 16
Site Reference: 4.4 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Relocate the Green Belt boundary so that the properties at 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 Beech Hill and The Hadley Wood Golf Weak 4,592m² loss. Lodge are excluded from the Green Belt and to provide a strong defensible boundary aligned to property and Course/Covert Wood – planning curtilage. northern side –32‐44 Beech Hill and entry to Hadley Wood Golf Course Description: Dwelling houses at 32‐40 Beech Hill and the entry to the golf course (42‐44 Beech Hill). 32, Justification: The Atkins Open Space Study in 2005 did not identify 32‐40 Beech Hill or the adjacent storage 38 and 40 Beech Hill face the street while 34 & 36 Beech Hill face the golf course. 40 contains a small shed/garage within the golf course land as open space. The approval of planning permissions over the years has electrical substation compound in its front garden. 42‐44 constitutes the part of the golf course resulted in the subdivided parcel of land relating to the suburban residential character of Beech Hill. fronting Beech Hill. Planning permissions have been granted over the years which have allowed for a replacement It is recommended that to apply a strong and consistent boundary the Green Belt boundary be aligned to run around dwellings and a further four new dwellings. the property boundaries of the new dwellings, and the planning curtilage of The Lodge, excluding them from the designation. Please refer to Appendix B.
Golf Club via Beech 38 Beech Hill (vacant, Access road to 34 Hadley Wood Golf with 36 behind) Hill Beech Hill Club service area
15
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 5 Site Reference: 5.4 –Enfield Chase – Cockfosters Station car park, Cockfosters Road Cockfosters
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
16
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 5 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 5.4 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Adjust the boundary on the southern side of the Cockfosters station car park so as to include all of Enfield Chase – Weak 233.8m² gain Trent Park in the Green Belt. Cockfosters Station car park, Cockfosters Road Cockfosters
Description: In this section, the Green Belt boundary separates the Cockfosters station surface car park Justification: from Trent Park Cemetery and Trent Park itself. The Green Belt boundary follows a logical and obvious It is logical that the Green Belt aligns to the property boundary of Trent Park and that the policy designations of boundary between the urban use of the car park (owned by Transport for London) and non‐urban use Green Belt and open space boundaries are consistent, and thus for the Green Belt to not exclude the corner of Trent of the cemetery and Trent Park. Park which is presently outside the Green Belt . On the southern side of the car park, where the Green Belt boundary meets the railway corridor land, it is suggest that the boundary be altered so that the small triangular area outside of the Green Belt but within Trent Park, and designated as open space, be brought within the Green Belt. This is a minor adjustment involving a very small area of land.
Non‐Green Belt part of Non‐Green Belt part of TFL compound adjacent to TFL compound adjacent to Trent Park adjacent to Trent Park adjacent to Trent Park, Cockfosters Trent Park, Cockfosters Cockfosters station car Cockfosters station car station car park 1 station car park 2 park 1 park 2
17
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 9 Site Reference: 9.2 – Enfield Chase –Royal Chace Hotel, 162 The Ridgeway Gordon Hill
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
18
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Spring 2011 Map 9 Change made post public consultation refer to Appendix B Table (i) Representation No. 17
Site Reference: 9.2 –Enfield Chase Current Boundary Area of Green Belt Recommendation: Remove from Green Belt –Royal Chace Hotel, 162 The Strength: loss/gain: 1,5100m2 Ridgeway Gordon Hill Weak in terms of loss providing a defensible boundary that will endure the next 15‐20 years in a suburban setting, with the adjacent housing not being within the Green Belt designation.
Description: Hotel on urban fringe. The site consists of the original hotel building Justification: (previously a large house) and its curtilage, and the adjoining house at 160 The Ridgeway, When the Green Belt boundary was first set in the late 1940s, the Royal Chace Hotel, positioned on the suurban fringe of Enfield was included in the Green which has been subsumed into the operation of the hotel. The site is within the Green Belt.. To the east, the site is bounded by the suburban residential character of detached houses along Oak Avenue, and to the north (across The Ridgeway), Belt, with the exception of the adjoining house. The original site is 15,220m² and the the west and the south, open farmland and hedgerows. additional land is 2,100m². The Council holds aerial photos showing the site dating back to 1946, shortly before the Successive planning permissions have led to greater intensification in the use of the site, that overtime have undermined the semi‐rural character of the creation of the Green Belt. The photos indicate that the use of the site has been site. The nature of the site as it sits within the landscape today relates more to the suburban built ‐form character of Enfield than the Green Belt landscape intensified through the provision of additional buildings, and that the house at 160 The to its north, west and south. The defensible and enduing nature of this Green Belt boundary has over the years become weakened. In order to provide a Ridgeway was absorbed into the operation during the 1970s. However the essential strong boundary the heavily landscaped hedge that wraps around the west and southern boundary of the hotel is considered to be amore robust nature of the use of the site has remained constant. boundary. Please refer to Appendix B.
Royal Chace Hotel from Royal Chace Hotel Royal Chace Hotel Royal Chace Hotel North North Looking South‐West Looking West along The Ridgeway
19
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Spring 2011 Map 10 Site Reference: 10.1 ‐ Cedar Road, EN2
N.B Not drawn to scale PROPOSED DELETION PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
20
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 10
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 10.1 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Amend the Green Belt boundary to align with building frontage. Cedar Road, EN2 Weak Eastern site: Loss of 81.19m² Western site: Loss of 46.52m²
Description: Justification: The Green Belt boundary follows the southern edge of Lavender Hill Cemetery along the highway, The boundary is carried across the highway, Cedar Road and there is no apparent physical marker on the ground at Cedar Road. this point. The line spans only a short distance, however there is an appropriate and stronger alternative boundary which follows the building line. The building has no clear front boundary treatment therefore the only visible marker for a boundary would be the building itself.
View along Cedar Road View along Cedar Road towards north east towards north east
21
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 10 Site Reference: 10.2 –3‐30 Bramley House Court, Clay Hill, EN2
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
22
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 10
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 10.2 ‐ 3‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Amend the Green Belt boundary to align with rear building line of Bramley House Court. 30 Bramley House Court, Weak 240.5m² loss Clay Hill, EN2
Description: Justification: The Green Belt boundary cuts through the rear building line of Bramley House Court. The building was The extensions have been in place for a number of years and aligning the Green Belt boundary to the rear building extended at the rear in the 1970s, and the rear extensions jut slightly into the Green Belt. line would be a more appropriate and stronger alternative boundary.
Bramley House Court on Looking north along St Looking south along Rear boundary fence of corner of Clay Hill and St John’s Terrace with footpath leading towards St Bramley House Court John’s Terrace Bramley House to the west. John’s Terrace
23
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 12 Site Reference: 12.1 –New River (section from Goat lane to Severn Drive)
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED ADDITION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
24
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 12
No change post public consultation
Site Reference: 12.1 Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Amend the Green Belt boundary so that it follows the eastern edge of the New River. New River (section from Strong 7,890m² gain Goat lane to Severn Drive)
Description: Justification: The existing Green Belt boundary follows the western edge of this length of the New River, and As a landscape feature, the New River marks a strong boundary for the Green Belt, however, the open character includes open space in the form of playing fields and allotments. The current boundary excludes the continues across to the eastern bank of the New River. Extending the Green Belt boundary to the eastern banks body of water and the green strip of land on the eastern banks of the New River. East of the river, would provide an equally strong Green Belt boundary. The residential properties which abut the River on this side residential development marks the urban fringe. have a consistent curtilage pattern, and therefore mark a clear edge to the urban area.
Entrance to the New Looking north along the View along New River View across the New River via Goat Lane proposed addition to from Goat Lane to River to the Pumping the Green Belt Severn Drive Station
25
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 12 Site Reference: 12.2 Hoe Lane
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED ADDITION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
26
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 12
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 12.2 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align the Green Belt boundary to the hedge line. Hoe Lane Weak 47.54m² gain
Description: Justification: The boundary follows the edge of an area of open green space and is marked by a hedge. The hedge The current Green Belt boundary deviates from the hedge at this point and therefore charts an arbitrary line on the lines the northern section of the highway, Hoe Lane. ground. As a consistent feature, the hedge is a strong clear marker for the Green Belt boundary in this location and distinguishes the area of open space/Green Belt from the residential development which surrounds this area.
View along Hoe Lane looking east towards the railway line
27
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 13 Site Reference: 13.1– 81 Dendridge Close
PROPOSED N.B Not drawn to scale DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
28
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 13
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 13.1 ‐ 81 Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: The Green Belt boundary should follow the property curtilage and the boundary of the designated Dendridge Close, Weak 50.27m² loss local open space.
Description: Justification: The Green Belt boundary incorporates an area of local open space but as it reaches the last row of As a built feature, the flank of the residential building marks a clear boundary. However, there is no defined residential properties along Dendridge Close it follows the western building line of a residential difference between the parts of the garden included and excluded from the Green Belt, therefore the boundary is dwelling (81, Dendridge Close). At this point, the boundary includes part of the garden attached to the inconsistent at this point. For consistency, the most appropriate boundary would be to follow the property curtilage. property and excludes the rest of the garden and residential curtilage.
View from Turkey Street View from open space View from open space View from Turkey Street looking south towards 81, looking north towards looking towards 81, looking along frontage of Dendridge Rd Turkey Street Dendridge Rd 81, Dendridge Rd
29
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 13 Site Reference: 13.2 –New River (Section from Turkey Brook – Bullsmoor Lane
N.B Not drawn to scale PROPOSED ADDITION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
30
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 13
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 13.2 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align the Green Belt boundary to the eastern edge of the New River New River (Section from weak in parts. 11,430m² gain Turkey Brook – Bullsmoor lane
Description: Justification: Up to this point the Green Belt boundary follows the southern edge of a footpath until it extends The boundary follows the western edge of the New River, however the open character continues across to the across the New River, then it tracks a line north to align with the western side of the river. The existing eastern bank of the New River and this would provide an equally strong Green Belt boundary which follows the banks Green Belt boundary follows the western edge of this length of the New River and open spaces to the and the uniform curtilage of the residential properties and school premises which abut the River. west. The current boundary excludes the body of water and the green strip of land on the eastern banks of the New River. East of the river, residential development predominately marks the urban fringe.
View along New River from Looking south along New Looking south towards Hoe Looking north towards Bullsmoor Lane with Bullsmoor Lane looking south River towards Turkey Street Lane pedestrian bridge proposed addition on the east bank of the New River
31
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 14 Site Reference: 14.1 –Site east of New River between Bullsmoor Lane and M25 junction No change post 2011 public consultation
N.B Not drawn to scale PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
32
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 14 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 14.1 Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Site east of New River Weak in parts, in terms of 17,200m² loss Align the green belt boundary to the eastern edge of the New River between Bullsmoor Lane providing a defensible and M25 junction boundary that will endure the next 15‐20 years in a suburban setting, with the adjacent housing not being within the Green Belt designation. Description: Justification: The current Green Belt boundary follows the eastern boundary of Kingswood and Redgate Nurseries, The northern section of the site adjoins the M25 and has been maintained as an area of open grassland, continuing and aligns with the highways, Bullsmoor Lane and Great Cambridge Road. This area of Green Belt is the sense of openness and congruous with the rest of the Green Belt to the west where there is an extensive area of surrounded by residential development to the east and south which are outside of the designation; the open grounds/gardens associated with Capel Manor. However, the southern part of the site contains a number of M25, Capel Manor with its college, house and extensive gardens, and verges of open space continue structures/uses including commercial premises associated with a number of different retail activities (aquatic centre, this area of Green Belt, to the north and west respectively. pet and garden centre), residential properties, areas of hardstanding, advertisements associated with the commercial uses of the site, and boundary treatments enclosing the northern, and parts of the eastern boundaries. The southern part of the site, is juxtaposed between the area of rural Green Belt to the west and urban/suburban residential development on its eastern and southern flanks, and therefore represents a difficult interface between 2 areas of distinct character. The intensification of development on the site, has over the years resulted in a visual and functional relationship this site now has with the development character to the east, creating a greater distinction between this site and the wider green belt beyond. This distinction demonstrates the vulnerability of the Green Belt boundary in this location, and therefore an alternative, stronger boundary has been considered. The New River provides an strong landscape feature boundary to the west and the northern physical boundary treatment, a combination of brick wall, building lines and tress that physically and visually divides the northern and southern sections of the site, represent a stronger Green Belt boundary. This would allow features that are still intrinsically linked to Green Belt to remain within this designation .
View from New River View from Great View from Great View from New River View from New River View from New towards the Great Cambridge Rd along Cambridge Rd looking south towards the M25 River looking south Cambridge Rd frontage looking west junction looking east towards the looking east north east Kingswood and Redgate nurseries
33
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 16 Site Reference: 16.1 – North of Innova Park, Mollison Avenue, EN3
N.B Not drawn to scale PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
34
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 16 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 16.1 Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: North of Innova Park, Weak 1,788m² gain Align the Green Belt boundary to the northern boundary fence of the industrial estate. Mollison Avenue, EN3
Description: Justification: The Green Belt boundary incorporates a parcel of land enclosed by the railway line to the west, two The parcel of Green Belt land is a tapering green strip which provides a landscaped buffer and acoustic barrier from large industrial units within the wider footprint of the Innova Park Estate to the south and west, and the Innova Park development, particularly through the change in levels across towards Mollison Avenue. This the highway Mollison Avenue to the north. vegetated space marks the edge of the Innova Park development and because of this, and provides a greater role in helping to maintain a sense of openness out towards the wider Green Belt.
The existing Green Belt boundary was aligned with the boundary of the former sewage treatment works. Since this time, the development of Innova Park has created new development boundaries corresponding to the new building footprints. In relation to the new development, this section of the boundary appears to follow an arbitrary line with no definitive marker on the ground. The development boundaries are demarcated by boundary treatment which offer a more appropriate alternative boundary. The boundaries of the development also correspond to the boundary of the Strategic Industrial Location designation covering Innova Park, and would therefore mark a line between different land uses.
View from Solar Way View from Mollison View from Mollison View from Mollison looking west Avenue looking south east Avenue looking south Avenue looking south west
35
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 17 Site Reference: 17.2 –Warwick Road, EN3
PROPOSED N.B Not drawn to scale DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
36
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 17 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 17.2 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align the Green Belt boundary to the edge of the open space Warwick Road, EN3 Weak 138.17m² loss
Description: Justification: The current Green Belt follows the western edge of open space situated between Ordnance Rd, The boundary is carried across the highway, Warwick Road and there is no apparent physical marker on the ground at Warwick Avenue and Mollison Avenue. this point. The line spans only a short distance, however there is an appropriate and stronger alternative boundary which follows the edge of the open space and aligns to the adopted highway.
View of parking bays next Looking north along Looking south along Warwick Road Warwick Road to Warwick Fields Open Space
37
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 17 Site Reference: 17.3 – Ordnance Road, EN3
EXISTING GREEN PROPOSED N.B Not drawn to scale DELETION BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
38
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 17 No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 17.3 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Remove from the Green Belt Ordnance Road, EN3 Weak 3,703m² loss
Description: The Green Belt boundary follows Rammey Marsh in this location, which is an area of open Justification: space within the Lee Valley Regional Park. The current Green Belt boundary follows the edge of Ordnance Road as it existed at that time. Since then, the road layout has been altered as part of the redevelopment at Enfield Island Village to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the site. This means that the southern tip of Rammey Marsh, which was originally open space and therefore consistent with its designation as Green Belt, now forms part an enhanced highway access along Ordnance Road. Due to the nature of this change, this land no longer contributes towards the wider objectives of the Green Belt function and therefore provides an opportunity to realign the boundary of the Green Belt to the new highway.
South east corner of Looking east towards South east corner of Smeaton South side of Smeaton Mollison Avenue and Ordnance Road Road towards proposed Road looking north. Ordnance Road Junction removal from the Green Belt
39
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
Site Reference: 18.1 – Enfield Island Village –Manton Road/Ostell Crescent
N.B Not drawn to scale EXISTING GREEN PROPOSED BELT ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
40
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 18.1 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Move Green Belt boundary up to the building line at its north‐west elevation to strengthen the Enfield Island Village – Weak 202.1m² gain Green Belt boundary in this location. Manton Road/Ostell Crescent
Description: This section of the Green Belt boundary is situated between the Enfield Island Village Justification: This flatted property appears to have no defining curtilage to its North‐ west elevation other than the estates. The area is mainly comprised of open space which was provided as part of the outline fascia of the building itself. This elevation faces onto the open space immediately in front of the building providing an permission given for the masterplanning of the Enfield Island Village area. The site as a whole provides open character. A small dune occupied with vegetation does provide a buffer between the building and the rest of a clear and coherent Green Belt boundary between the adjacent estates. the open space and may in fact provide the delineation of ownership. However, no evidence has come to light Between the most north‐eastern extent of Manton Road and the most northern extent of Ostell confirming this is the case and would not be a material consideration for the purposes of this review. In addition, Crescent lies a flatted property that turns its back onto the open space. There appears to be no planning permission for a future extension to this elevation does not outweigh the fact that it does not provide for a defining rear boundary with which to ensure the Green Belt boundary designation remains in situ. This defensible boundary. As there is no clear alternative at this point and with a view of ensuring the openness can be was confirmed via site visits. To ensure that the Green Belt designation remains consistent, it is preserved so far as possible, the proposed new line would provide a clear basis for a defensible boundary. proposed that the Green Belt boundary is altered to run in line with the rear building wall in the absence of an alternative physical boundary.
East view of Area immediately Manton Road view North‐west view subject site in front of subject of subject site towards subject site site
41
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18 Site Reference: 18.3 – Enfield Island Village –River Lee Navigation/Land South of Navigation Drive
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
42
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 18.3 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: South‐eastern tip to be corrected to follow the established river bank. No change to the green River Lee weak 45.92m² loss belt boundary at the south‐western portion of the site. Although the boundary is considered to be relatively weak at Navigation/Land South this location, the permanence of the buildings ensures that the interface between the built environment and open of Navigation Drive landscape is not further jeopardised.
Description: The green belt boundary picks up the River Lee Navigation at the Enfield Lock and Justification: The south‐eastern corner of the dock is constructed at an oblique angle which does not match the continues southwards to encompass the area taken up by the dry dock depot site. Numerous Council’s records. This cartographic error to the east of the site is proposed for correction to ensure the Green Belt industries are sited here, with some providing services to canal boats and other miscellaneous boundary aligns with the river bank. activities. However, as the boundary wraps around the depot site there are a number of discrepancies At the south‐western tip, the boundary runs along the southern boundary following the line of the industrial sheds with the layout of the current boundary of the depot site. that are located along the boundary. Two large permanent building structures provide a natural boundary defining the perimeter of the property boundary. The green belt boundary then continues westerly along the perimeter line to the point at which it then joins at the building line of the south‐ western most building. From aerial photos and a recent site visit, it is clear to see that the adjacent open space has been littered with abandoned vehicles, building materials and other miscellaneous products which have led to the degradation of its open space appearance. In consideration of whether the green belt boundary should be moved to follow the property curtilage of this site, it is proposed that no alteration is proposed across the south facing elevation of the aforementioned building. This will ensure a good degree of permanence and prevent any encroachment into the Green Belt.
South looking north South of Enfield East looking west South‐east corner towards Enfield Dock Dock close up towards Enfield of Enfield Dock Dock
43
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Spring 2011 Map 18
Site Reference: 18.5 – Enfield –South of Warwick Road
EXISTING GREEN N.B Not drawn to scale BELT PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
44
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 18.5 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Draw line around the perimeter of Warwick and carry through to join up the length of properties South of Warwick Road Weak 69.94m2 loss fronting Medcalf Road.
Description: This area is located at the end of residential properties just off Ordnance Road. Warwick Justification: The suggested change is to draw the Green Belt boundary around Warwick Fields open space, aligning Fields Open Space which is also in the Green Belt and lies to the east of the site providing attractive the boundary to the adopted highway which represents the most defensible and enduring boundary in this instance. views in this area. The current Green Belt runs south along the perimeter of the park. In considering the operational requirements of maintaining the public highway, it is proposed that the Green Belt boundary is tightened around the boundary of the park and follows the perimeter of the car parking bay.
Proposed Parking Bay fronting South of Warwick Warwick Road Open Space boundary change Road
45
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
Site Reference: 18.6 – Enfield –Land south of Medcalf Road
N.B Not drawn to scale EXISTING GREEN BELT
PROPOSED DELETION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
46
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 18.6 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Take Green Belt boundary line around the perimeter of Medcalf Road. Land south of Medcalf Weak 398.9m2 loss Road
Description: The Green Belt boundary runs along the south elevation of no.84 Medcalf Road to the Justification: The current Green Belt boundary runs across Medcalf Road. It is suggested that the perimeter of the pavement. At this point the current Green Belt boundary cuts straight across the road to pick up the road is followed as this is considered a more defensible boundary.. south elevation of no. 85 Medcalf Road. By cutting straight across the road, the Green Belt now encompasses the parking area of this no‐through road. It is considered that by taking the boundary around the perimeter of this no through road would ensure the strength of the Green Belt remains clear and legible.
Medcalf Road parking Looking north along Medcalf South of Medcalf Road bays Road towards Ordnance Road
47
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18 Site Reference: 18.7 ‐ Enfield – Land south of Prince of Wales Primary School
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN PROPOSED BELT ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
48
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 18
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 18.7 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Extend Green Belt boundary line to the west to provide a more defensible GB boundary line. Land south of Prince of Weak 322.8m2 gain Wales Primary School
Description: The current Green Belt boundary runs along the southern boundary of Prince of Wales Justification: The existing boundary line follows the curtilage of the Prince of Wales Field up to an undefined route at School. The Turkey Brook runs in a south‐easterly direction towards the River Lea and provides the the intersection with Turkey Brook. At this point, the boundary is drawn at no particular location to cross the Turkey route for the current Green Belt boundary. Access to the Brook can be made from Bilton Way or the Brook and traverse southwards. What is proposed is the use of a datum point which can be measured on the ground pedestrian footbridge over Mollison Avenue where it opens into afootpath. to ensure a strong defensible boundary can endure. As such, it is proposed, that the Green Belt boundary aligns to the existing line of trees, which is currently used to delineate the Prince of Wales School field with Newbury Avenue Allotments, to provide the datum point for where the western extent of the Green Belt is more likely to endure. This way mark is considered to be strong and defensible enough to ensure continuity of the boundary.
Boundary point to Allotments on the left West view along Turkey Brook take datum for Green school on the right Turkey Brook moving south Belt boundary easterly
49
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 20
Site Reference: 20.1 ‐ Brimsdown ‐ River Lee Navigation at Mossops Creek
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN PROPOSED BELT ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
50
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 20
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 20.1 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align the Green Belt boundary to its most vertical route. River Lee Navigation at Strong 67.43m2 gain Mossops Creek
Description: The River Lee Navigation currently provides for a strong Green Belt boundary. At the point Justification: Small change proposed to straighten the Green Belt boundary line at this junction. This will pick up the where Mossops Creek meets the River Lee Navigation, there does not appear to be any known datum remaining River Lee Navigation. Due to the lack of a consistent boundary, the most appropriate boundary is to point with which to use as a definitive mark of the Green Belt boundary. follow the channel in the most direct route as possible in this instance.
Corner of Mossops East bank of Lee Creek and the Lee Navigation looking Navigation South
51
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21 Site Reference: 21.1 – Ponders End ‐ Land South of the Ponders End Industrial Area/ River Lee Navigation
N.B Not drawn to scale
PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
52
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 21.1 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align Green Belt boundary to the top of the canal bank. Land South of the Strong 856.6m2 gain Ponders End Industrial Area/ River Lee Navigation
Description: The Lee Navigation separates to form a small island. Very little of this section of Green Justification: This proposed change seeks to fortify the boundary as close to the top of the river bank as possible to Belt is publicly accessible due to large industrial buildings backing on to the canal and very limited ensure a clear and strong delineation of the Green Belt boundary. opportunities from the A1055 Meridian Way and the A110 Lea Valley Road. The western extent of the existing Green Belt boundary follows the line of the rivers edge for most of this section. To ensure this boundary can clearly be detected it is proposed that the Green Belt boundary is redrawn at the top of the bank to ensure the boundary is defensible.
53
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21 Site Reference: 21.2 ‐ Ponders End ‐ Land bordering A1055 Meridian Way
N.B Not drawn to scale
EXISTING GREEN PROPOSED BELT ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
54
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21
No change post public consultation
Site Reference: 21.2 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align Green Belt boundary westwards to follow the established road Land bordering A1055 Weak 1,500m2 gain Meridian Way
Description: This section of Green Belt traverses along the landscaped section of the A1055 Meridian Justification: The current designation currently follows a line of shrubs, hedgerows and trees within the site adjoining Way. This eastern section of the A110 current Green Belt designation appears to follow the landscaped the A1055 Meridian Way. This is considered to be weak as the line is incoherent and picks a number of different verge at the back of the footway. fauna to mark the Green Belt boundary. The proposed route follows the A1055 Meridian Way which is considered to follow a more established and defensible route.
South looking North along A1055 Meridian Way
55
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21 Site Reference: 21.4 ‐ Ponders End ‐ Land South of Morson Road
N.B Not drawn to scale PROPOSED DELETION
EXISTING GREEN BELT
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
56
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 21
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 21.4 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Align Green Belt boundary southwards to fall in line with the boundary ditch that runs along the Land South of Morson Weak 164m2 Loss property boundary line of this industrial area. Road
Description: This site is found behind a busy industrial area located on Morson Road. A large building is Justification: The current Green Belt boundary runs along the building line of this property in the industrial area set to the rear of its southern boundary with a ditch that runs east to west along the back of the site maintaining a tight boundary. PPG2 seeks to ensure that the Green Belt boundary will endure therefore, it is and into the Lee Navigation. considered that moving the boundary to follow the rear property boundary line which runs along the rear of this industrial area retains the permanence of the Green Belt without devaluing its importance of maintaining the Green Belt designation to the south. It is considered that the Green Belt boundary should track the industrial boundary line with its current course.
57
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 22 Site Reference: 22.1 –Edmonton ‐ Land to the west of the Lee Valley Athletics Stadium
N.B Not drawn to scale EXISTING GREEN BELT PROPOSED ADDITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
58
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 22
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 22.1 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Fix Green Belt boundary to wrap tightly around the building edge. Land to the west of the Weak 2,680m2 gain Lee Valley Athletics Stadium
Description: This site is located to the east of the A1055 Meridian Way at its junction with Picketts Lock Justification: The current Green Belt boundary currently runs east to west through a car park and south along the Lane. The area comprises The Lee Valley Athletics Stadium complex, a large vacant storage, roads edge therefore, excluding the distribution centre out of the Green Belt designation. In its current position there warehousing and distribution centre and associated car parking space which is laid out in between appears to be no definitive physical boundary. It is considered that the only alternative in this circumstance is to align both sites. the boundary to the front building line, wrapping the Green Belt to its eastern elevation would serve to protect the Green Belt designation in a vulnerable location. Much of this site has been developed within the last ten years for sport and recreational value. The large warehousing building located to the south west of the site could become available for development should the current building remain unoccupied for long lengths of time. To ensure this does not have a negative impact of the setting of the Green Belt designation, it is proposed that the line be drawn east to west along the building line and continue along its eastern elevation along the building line up until Picketts Lock Lane. The proposed realignment will serve to strengthen and provide a coherent and defensible Green Belt boundary that endures.
Lea Valley Athletics West view of Lea Valley Industrial/warehouse building centre car park industrial building in Lee Valley complex
59
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 22 Site Reference: 22.2 ‐ Edmonton ‐ Builders Merchants, Picketts Lock Lane
N.B Not drawn to scale EXISTING GREEN BELT PROPOSED DELITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
60
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 22
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 22.2 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Realign Green Belt boundary to reflect accurate base mapping and correct previous cartographic Builders Merchants, Weak 3,424m2 loss error. to tightly wrap around the whole property line, excluding the whole site from the Green Belt. Picketts Lock Lane
Description: This site is situated on the Malice Strip side of the River Lee Navigation immediately Justification: This site is part of the larger site occupied by a Builders Merchants. The majority of the site is not within beside Picketts Lock. The site is rectangular in shape and access to the site is gained from Picketts Lock the Green Belt and it is only this northern section which is within designated Green Belt owing to a cartographic base Lane. The site itself is in use as a Builders’ Merchants warehousing depot. The depot is an established mapping error. The boundary would serve stronger when tightly wrap around the whole property line, excluding the use with planning history dating back to 1988. The surrounding area to the south is predominantly whole site from the Green Belt. This boundary serves to protect any further expansion or encroachment into the made up of the Lee Valley Park and the Deephams Sewage works to the west of the site. Green Belt designation.
North view of Burdens West view of North boundary of looking south Burdens building Burdens building building Supplies company down the Lee supplies company supplies company Navigation
61
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 24 Site Reference: 24.1 – Meridian Water - Boundary to the west of Advent Way
N.B Not drawn to scale
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
62
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 24
Change made post public consultation refer to Appendix B Table (i) representation No. 14
Site Reference: 24.1 ‐ Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Move Green Belt boundary to the east of the River Lee Navigation to create a strong defensible Boundary to the west of Weak 12,690m2 gain boundary. Advent Way
Description: This area is found juxtaposed with the A406 North Circular Road, Advent Way, Argon Way, Justification: The current Green Belt boundary runs along the Industrial area’s perimeter fence line where the Eleys Industrial Estate, The River Lee Navigation and pockets of highway landscaping. Pedestrian access boundary picks up the Park Way Road and continues to follow indiscriminate pockets of open land in between A406 is limited and compromised by the traffic and intermittent pockets of walk‐able space. The Green Belt North Circular Road, Harbet Road and Argon Road. The boundary crosses roads in a haphazard way and does not boundary in this location follows a very unclear and often incoherent route delineating the western delineate any real identifiable defensible positions. extent of the Green Belt. The Council proposes to move the Green Belt boundary to the towpath edge of the River Lee Navigation. It is considered that this will still meet the aims of providing a strong and durable boundary. Please refer to Appendix B.
Proposed Green Belt South looking North South looking North change underneath along Lee Navigation towards Lee Park Way A406 and Argon underpass Road
63
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 24
Site Reference: 24.2 ‐ Meridian Water ‐ Harbet Road
N.B Not drawn to scale EXISTING GREEN BELT PROPOSED DELITION
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
Aerial View (not drawn to scale)
©Crown Copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Licence no. 100019820
64
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011 Map 24
No change post 2011 public consultation
Site Reference: 24.2 – Current Boundary Strength: Area of Green Belt loss/gain: Recommendation: Move Green Belt boundary to the eastern side of Harbet Road. Meridian Water ‐ Harbet Weak 13,390m2 loss Road
Description: This area is situated in the south‐eastern most tip of the borough boundary. It is also the Justification: The current Green Belt designation traverses along the western edge of Harbet Road along the building area with the least Green Belt designated land. The Green Belt boundary in this location is bordered lines of the large commercial buildings. Towards the lower half of Harbet Road, the buildings abut Harbet Road at 45 with the London Borough of Haringey and the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The west side of degrees thus not providing any continuous edge to follow. As such, the boundary runs along the perimeter fence wall Harbet Road is predominantly made up of garages, test centres, builders merchants, general into the Hastingwood Trading Estate and along its south‐westerly boundary. warehousing and bulk sale goods. The east side of Harbet Road is characterised by a very large depot The proposal is to move the Green Belt boundary to the eastern side of the road and use the continuous fence line to used for the storage of cars. Further south is a skip reclaim yard. Beyond both uses lies a large flat open demark the Green Belt boundary until it reaches the bridge which crosses the River Lee. The Green Belt boundary will space housing a pylon. then continue along the northern bank of the River Lee to its end point. The consideration for this proposal is borne out of the need to tightly define the area of Green Belt on the eastern edge to prevent encroachment onto the open land and also to loosen the boundary on its western side to ensure flexibility and to facilitate access to the road for statutory undertakers. The eastern edge of Harbet Road has the least number of breaks and provides an almost linear route along the road to the river. The western side of the road heavily relies on the buildings in situ, which have no statutory protection from demolition. As such the eastern side of Harbet Road is considered to be strong and clear in defending it against inappropriate development.
Trading Estate looking South East towards Borough boundary View from Harbet Road access off Harbet site included in the Green Belt with LB Waltham towards A406 North Circular Rd Forest Road
65
LDF Green Belt Boundary Review Summer/Autumn 2011
Appendix B – Schedule of Responses to Public Consultation.
Detailed Green Belt Boundary Review
March 2013
www.enfield.gov.uk Table (i) Comments made during consultation (July - September 2011)
REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
1a Alan Cox Associates N/A Support NA No change 2a Resident N/A Objection in principle ‐ risk of further encroachment into the The purpose of the review is to provide strong No change Green Belt. defensible Green Belt boundaries to protect and prevent encroachment into tge Green Belt.
3a English Heritage 1.5 Hadley Wood Batrams Lane Unclear whether historic interest of area has been taken into The proposed change extends the Green Belt to No change account (Hadley Wood conservation area) cover the hedgerow along the northern side of Bartrams Lane and should therefore indrectly assist with protecting the setting of the conservation area.
4a English Heritage 4.4 32‐44 Beech Hill Hadley Unclear whether historic interest of the area has been taken into This proposed change to exclude 32‐44 Beech Hill No change Wood account (nearby clubhouse stable range is Grade II listed building) from the Greenbelt reflects development that has already been allowed to occur at this site. The boundary change will ensure that the Green Belt boundary remains srtrong and defensible over the long term. The proposed realignment would not itself affect or undermine the protection of teh Grade II listed clubhouse.
4b English Heritage 5.4 Cockfosters station car park, Unclear whether historic interest of area has been taken into This proposed change will incorporate a small No change Cockfosters account (Trent Park conservation area). additional area (c. 150 m²) of Trent Park into the Green Belt, and so achieve consistency of the boundary of Trent park and the Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation with that of the Green Belt. It will thus enhance protection of the natural features of the conservation area. The proposed change should therefore stand.
Page 1 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
5a GL Hearn 14.1 (Waterworld) and NEW SITE Support in principle for the review. Need to reconsider the release The Council has proposed the realignment of a weak No Change CONSIDERATION ‐ northern of the northern section of the site. Site is severed from wider enduring boundary to a stronger more defensible section. Green Belt and therefore concerns over its certainty and longevity. physcial boundary of the New River. The result of M25 is strong boundary which releases the southern section of the site, but maintains the northern section of Green Belt as distinctive open grassland that has a strong defensible boundary. The New River acts as a appropriate and defensible boundary for the southern section.
6a Gregory Gray Associates NEW SITE CONSIDERATION ‐ Consider removal of Garden Centre. The site's existing use is no justification for removal No Change ‐ The Garden Centre Crews Hill ‐ Cattlegate from the Green Belt.. The review deals with defining Group defensible and enduring Green Belt boundaries. This particulr site is located within the existing Green Belt and is some distance from the boundary / fringe. The boundaries remain strong and defensible.
Page 2 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
7a Jameson Hill ‐ Nicolas NEW SITE CONSIDERATION ‐ Consider removal of the site to provide a clearer distinction The residential development to the east of this site is No change Land Holdings Fairview Rd Gordon Hill (rear of between residential area and Green Belt. acknowledged, however the rest of the land 66 The Ridgeway) surrounding the site is undeveloped and open in nature. The exising boundary is considered to be strong and defensible and in this instance is aligned to the property curtilages.
8a McCarthy (Resident) N/A Objection in principle The purpose of this review is to provide strong No change defensible Green Belt boundaries to protect and prevent encroachment into the Green Belt.
9a Natural England N/A Support in principle NA No change 10a Planning potential for NEW SITE CONSIDERATION of Objection to land being excluded from the Green Belt review. Through the Core Strategy examination the Inspector No change Fairview New Homes Land at Enfield Road Claims discrepancies in methodology for identifying sites to be concluded there was no justification on the grounds examined for boundary review. Claims that Core Strategy fails to of housing supply to warrant the release of parcels of achieve housing targets in draft NPPF and London Plan. Extent of land from Green Belt designation. As a detailed review is not what was promised at Core Strategy hearings. boundary review ‐ the remit here is for the Council to Wishes to see list of sites considered and then excluded from ensure a strong and defensible boundary endure over consideration for removal from Green Belt. the Core Strategy period. In this case the property boundaries to the east, south and west perform this function of strong boundaries. This allows for this undeveloped site in its openness and character to continue to relate best as Green Belt.
11a Thames Water NA Do not remove any sites in Thames Water ownership No sites proposed for removal No change 11b Heywood (Independent) NA NA NA No change
12a Tibbalds NA Support NA No change 13a Sport England NA Support NA No change 14a British Waterways 18.3 Enfield Island Village No comments NA No change 14b British Waterways 20.1 Brimsdown No comments NA No change 14c British Waterways 21.1 Ponders End Do not agree with the proposed boundary extension. Further, It is not within the remit of this detailed Green Belt No change British Waterways wish to see the entire island known as Columbia boundary review to remove the entire Island known Wharf excluded from the Green Belt. as Columbia Wharf to initiate regeneration. The proposed change on Map 21.1 corrects the current weak boundary only.
Page 3 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
14d British Waterways 24.1 Meridian Water ‐ boundary Reconsider proposed alteration so as not to preclude the The Council has reconsidered the boundary Boundary amended. development of sustainable water based transport associated with alignment and will move the Green Belt boundary to waste management operations. run along the towpath edge of the River Lee Navigation. It is considered that this will meet the aims of providing a strong and durable boundary without comprising the future operations of the Edmonton Eco‐Park site.
14e British Waterways 24.2 Meridian Water ‐ Harbet No comments NA No change. 15a Capel Manor College 14.1 ( Waterworld) and NEW Need to reconsider the release of the northern section of the site. The Council has proposed the realignment of a weak No change. SITE CONSIDERATION ‐ Support partial release. Boundary should be realigned to the east enduring boundary to a stronger more defensible northern section. of New River and south of M25 to create new access for Capel physcial boundary of the New River. The result of Manor and Linear park/green corridor. which releases the southern section of the site, but maintains the northern section of Green Belt as distinctive open grassland that has a strong defensible boundary. The New River acts as a appropriate and defensible boundary for the southern section.
15b Capel Manor College NEW SITE CONSIDERATION ‐ Consider consolidating the boundary adjacent to property owned See response to 7a. The defensible boundary in this No Change Fairview Rd Gordon Hill (Rear of by the college to the rear of 66 The Ridgeway. instance is that aligned to property curtilage as they 66 The Ridgeway) represent the strongest boundaries without encroaching into the open land designated Green Belt and serving to delineate between the open landscape and built up suburban form.
Page 4 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
16a DLA (Hadley Wood Golf NEW SITE CONSIDERATION ‐ Two alternative options presented. First seeks to exclude the As this is part of the golf course land the strongest Boundary amended. course The Lodge ‐ Hadley Wood Golf lodge, ancillary buildings & wider curtilage which includes golf boundary was considered to be that of property Course course entrance from Green Belt. The second is more tightly boundaries / planning curtilage & land ownership. Its drawn around the curtilage of the lodge. Green Belt status does not impair the operation of the club and further adds to the aesthetic qualities of its setting. However for consistency the Council has amended the boundary to the property / planning curtilage as the appropriate delineated boundary.
17a NLP for Royal Chace NEW SITE CONSIDERATION Consider removal the hotel site relates to the built form and not to Agreed ‐ the Council proposes to amend the Boundary amended. Hotel Royal Chace the Green Belt. The current boundary is weak and does not allow boundary to to follow the heavily landscapes for a strong recognisable feature. hedgerow that wraps around the west and south boundary of the hotel site.
18a Environment Agency NA No comments NA No change 19a GVA (LaSalle) 24.1 Meridian Water ‐ boundary No comments but await final plans NA No change west of Advent way 19b GVA (LaSalle) 24.2 Meridian Water Harbet Remove existing development to the east side of Harbet Road and No justification to release land regardless of existing No Change Road use the existing developed boundary as the stronger Green Belt land use on the site. The boundary remains strong in Boundary. this location therefore there is no reason to amend.
20a North London Waste 24.1 Meridian Water ‐ boundary Reconsider proposed alteration so as not to preclude the See reposnse to 14d Boundary amended. Authority west of Advent way development of sustainable water based transport associated with waste management operations.
21a GLA NA No Comments NA No change 22a Optic Realm NA Support NA No change 23a Graham Murdoch NA Support NA No change 24a Hertsmere NA No Comments NA No change
Page 5 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
25a Lee Valley Regional Park 22.1 Edmonton ‐ land to west of Object to the addition of parking area into the Green Belt as a Most of the car park is already in the Green Belt, the No Change Authority Athletics Stadium result of the proposed realignment boundary currently follows no established identified line. The proposed designation provides the strongest boundary applied to ownership.
Page 6 REF RESPONDENTS SITE REFERENCE SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
26a Mr Phillips NA Objection in principles The purpose of this review is to provide strong No change defensible Green Belt boundaries to protect and prevent encroachment into the Green Belt.
27a Mr John Waller NA No objection to revisions The purpose of this review is to provide strong No change defensible Green Belt boundaries to protect and prevent encroachment into tge Green Belt.
28a The Enfield Society 14.1 ( Waterworld) Objection to proposed boundary change that would exclude land The Council has proposed the realignment of a weak No Change from the Green Belt and leave it open to development. enduring boundary to a stronger more defensible physcial boundary of the New River. The result of which releases the southern section of the site, but maintains the northern section of Green Belt as distinctive open grassland that has a strong defensible boundary. The New River acts as a appropriate and defensible boundary for the southern section. Both the Core Startegy and DMD policies provide gudiance for development on the urban fringe.
29a Mr M.H Marshall NA No objection to revisions NA No change 30a Green Belt Forum 14.1 ( Waterworld) Objection to proposed boundary change that would exclude land The Council has proposed the realignment of a weak No Change from the Greenbelt and leave it open to development. enduring boundary to a stronger more defensible physcial boundary of the New River. The result of which releases the southern section of the site, but maintains the northern section of Green Belt as distinctive open grassland that has a strong defensible boundary. The New River acts as a appropriate and defensible boundary for the southern section. Both Core Startegy and DMD policies provide gudiance for development on the urban fringe.
Page 7 Table (ii) Comments made during DMD consultation (May ‐ August 2012)
REF RESPONDENTS NAME SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
34a GVA Grimley on behalf of LaSalle Penny Agar Policies Map (Green Belt designation): Request confirmation that the amended Confirmed No Change Invesment Management boundary to the west of Advent Way is aligned to the towpath edge of the Lee Navigation.
34b GVA Grimley on behalf of LaSalle Penny Agar Policies Map (Green Belt designation): Seek a further amendment to the proposed There is no justification to exclude the land from its Green Belt No Change Invesment Management boundary to exclude the existing development to the east of Harbet ad from the Designation. There is a need to tightly define the area of Green Belt on Green Belt (as shown in Appendix 3).It is not considered that this land contributes the eastern edge to prevent encroachment onto the open land and to the key functions of the Green Belt and the proposed boundary realignment also to amend the boundary on its western side to ensure flexibility provides a more appropriate boundary having regard to the extent of and to facilitate access to the road for statutory undertakers. The development that has taken place on the site and future potential of the site to eastern edge of Harbet Road has the least number of breaks and contribute towards the regeneration of Meridian Water. A further benefit of the provides an almost linear route along the road to the river. Conversely, proposed alignment is that the open space to the east of the development on the western side of the road heavily relies on the buildings in situ, Harbet Road is part of the Lee Valley Regional Park, owned by the Lea Valley which have no statutory protection from demolition, leaving the Green Regional Park and designated area of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Belt boundary weak. The proposed boundary is therefore considered Conservation (SMINC). According to the Council’s definitions another type of to be the most strong, enduring and easily recognisable. strong boundary is a Protected Park, for which the Council defines as ‘MOL, playing fields, allotments, cemeteries, local parksand amenity greenspace’. It is considered that the designated SMINC would fall under this definition and should be deemed a strong boundary.
44s Planning Potential on behalf of Fairview Stuart Slater DMD 82 (Green Belt) and 84 (Area of Special Character): Justification for inclusion of sites in designated areas referred to is No Change New Homes Support the protection of the Green Belt where justified. However concerns over provided in the evidence base which supports the DMD. the criteria used to place sites within the Green Belt boundary and Areas of Special Character.
44t Planning Potential on behalf of Fairview Stuart Slater Policies Map (Green Belt designation): No change. This representation relates to the release of the large No Change New Homes Previous representations submitted in 2011 on behalf of Fairview requesting the expanse of open Green Belt area south of Enfield Road. The current de‐designation of their Enfield Road site are still considered relevant. Principally Green Belt boundary in this location is well defined. Consideration has that Enfield Road serves as a strong physcial boundary to the teh north of the site. been given to the site's large open field extending beyond Enfield Road into expansive Green Belt to the north. Therefore the site withholds the aims of the Green Belt policy.
52S Greater London Authority (GLA) Colin Wilson Policies Map (Green Belt designations): Officers have noted to discrepancy and amended the Green Belt No Change The Council’s review of the Green Belt boundaries has been considered. The Review report and Appendix A to reflect the actual net loss at 4.35ha. Council notes that there are some 30 changes to the borough’s GB boundary, which results in 13 gains and 17 losses – net loss 6.07ha of Green Belt land. As discussed between officers, the total overall loss of Green Belt land suggested in Appendix A does not marry with the figures suggested above, and officers would welcome further confirmation being provided.
Page 1 Appendix B Schedule Part 2 REF RESPONDENTS NAME SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
52t Greater London Authority (GLA) Colin Wilson Policies Map (Green Belt designations): Comments noted, however the methodology used as part of the No Change There are three larger sites which together amount to over 5ha and amount to a detailed Green Belt Boundary review sought a consistent approach to substantial loss of Green Belt land, thereby raising issues of conformity to the defining the Green Belt boundary and in this case used the following London Plan. Site 1. Hadley Wood North – it is appreciated that this row of houses criteria: more closely relates to the urban character on the south side of Waggon Road. Residential dwellings: with clearly defined physical boundaries, such as The extensive back gardens of these properties, however, assist in providing a an established building line or row of gardens made up of 3 or more more gradual transition from rural to urban. There is a concern that in allowing a residential properties. de‐designation, that intensification of these properties could result, thereby threatening the open character and buffer created by the current building line. This is considered to be a strong, enduring and defensible boundary. The DMD provides additional policy references on garden land development and development within the urban fringe. This would prevent inappropriate development as well as promote the role new development should perform on properties that adjoin the Green Belt.
52u Greater London Authority (GLA) Colin Wilson Site 2. Royal Chace Hotel – noted that this site has been introduced in the current Comments noted, however proposed boundary stands on the grounds No Change round of consultation. It appreciated that the site has extensive areas of of providing a more robust, logical and defensible boundary, in this hardstanding and buildings within the curtilage, such buildings are typically found case the hedge line. The DMD provides additional policy references on in the Green Belt and it could be argued they do not necessarily conflict with the garden land development and development within the urban fringe. open character. The grain of development is significantly different to the This would prevent inappropriate development as well as promote the residential development to the east, and there is concern that de‐designation role new development should perform on properties that adjoin the could threaten this and result in residential developments coming forward to Green Belt. match the scale of development on, for example, Oak Avenue. This would result in an extension to what is otherwise a defensible planning curtilage/ property boundary to the Green Belt in this location.
52v Greater London Authority (GLA) Colin Wilson Site 3. Bullsmoor Lane ‐ a substantial parcel of land containing a garden centre, Comments noted, however proposed boundary provides a more No Change industrial buildings and dwellings. Such buildings are also found in the Green Belt robust, logical and defensible boundary, in this case the New River. and do not in themselves compromise its character. This parcel of land assists in The DMD provides additional policy references on development within creating a buffer between the Green Belt and dense residential areas to the south the urban fringe. This would prevent inappropriate development as and east. The concern is that de‐designation would create pressure for well as promote the role new development should perform on development to come forward of a density similar to that to the east, adding properties that adjoin the Green Belt. pressure on the site to the north to be de‐designated, which is understood to be in the same ownership. It appears the site has recently been subject to development not in keeping with its Green Belt designation and officers would welcome confirmation of the planning history relating to the site and any enforcement proceedings taking place.
Page 2 Appendix B Schedule Part 2 REF RESPONDENTS NAME SUMMARISED COMMENTS LBE RESPONSE Change / No Change
52w Greater London Authority (GLA) Colin Wilson Protection of Green Belt is a key priority for the Mayor: other boroughs are also Further discussions were held between officers from the Council and No Change assessing their Green Belt designation through a similar process and collectively the GLA on 31st January and 14th February 2013. As a result of these there may be cause for concern regarding the overall loss of Green Belt land discussions specific responses to GLA comments on sites in the Green across London. With a net loss of Green Belt land proposed by Enfield, largely Belt are provided above. through the 3 large sites, officers are not comfortable recommending some of these alterations to the Mayor at the current time. Welcome further discussion to ensure no general conformity issues arise at the submission stage of the document.
Page 3 Appendix B Schedule Part 2