SPECIAL PLANNING PANEL
WEDNESDAY 26 July 2000
PROPOSALS FOR ENFIELD TOWN PHASE II
THE PANEL:
Councillor Rye (Chair), Councillor Dey, Councillor Horridge, Councillor Pearce.
OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL:
Stephen Tapper Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation)
Andy Higham Case Officer
David Snell Team Leader
Glyn Jones Head of Transportation Planning
Christine Neyndorff Director of Leisure Services
Claire Lewis Assistant Director, Libraries and Culture
David Tullis Head of Property Services
Jonathan Buckingham Development Surveyor, Property Services
Phil Mallinder Town Centres Manager
THE APPLICANTS:
Steve Wherle John Laing Property Limited
Robert Harris John Laing Property Limited
Mark Pointer Chase and Partners Commercial Agents
Mark Anders Geoffrey Reid Associates Architects
COUNCILLORS:
Councillors Egan, Eustance, Macphail, Mattingly
Approximately 110 members of the public also attended.
1. OPENING BY THE CHAIR
Councillor Michael Rye, Chair of the Panel opened the meeting and welcomed everyone to the special panel meeting. He outlined the purpose and order of the meeting and invited Members, Officers and Applicants to introduce themselves.
2. OFFICER’S SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES
Stephen Tapper, Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) gave a verbal outline of the main planning issues and some of the possible negative impacts that the Panel might like to consider. The main issues highlighted were as follows:
· Likely impact on local shops.
· Appropriate mix of uses.
· Traffic and transportation requirements needed to be satisfied.
· They needed to minimise any adverse impact and to improve traffic circulation.
· To ensure a satisfactory public transport provision.
· To ensure adequate car parking.
· Contingency arrangements for parking during the construction period.
· To ensure the shopping centre servicing arrangements were satisfactory and did not conflict with pedestrians and car park users.
· Good links to the town centre by foot.
· Satisfactory access for the disabled, families etc.
· Impact on local residents and the wider community.
· The importance of good architecture; it is in a conservation area and at the centre of a local community.
· The sustainability of design and construction.
· To ensure an appropriate form of consultation.
· There was a considerable lead in time and the Planning Panel was part of the process.
He finished his summary by telling the audience that there was a process underway of reviewing the effectiveness of Planning Panels and he asked permission to take some photographs of the meeting in action as part of the review process.
3. PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS
Steve Wherle introduced himself and his colleagues and thanked the Panel and public for their attendance.
He then gave an overview of where Laings and the Council were in the redevelopment process. The main points of his opening summary were as follows:
· The scheme was in outline only; the detail would develop over the next two years.
· Therefore this was an appropriate time to listen for feedback and to take away comments to help develop the final design.
· He could not promise the amendment of designs in particular ways.
· He suggested that it might be appropriate to set up a focus group with leading stakeholders to have regular meetings on the progress of the development. This would be actioned subject to planning application agreement.
· Laings had been in continuous discussions with retailers who supported the outline proposals.
· A red line on the viewfoils defined the outline proposals.
· There were limits as to what could be achieved with the scheme.
· There was a decline in the retail element in the town centre which would accelerate.
· It would not be a ‘Bluewater’, just a development with 23 units.
· The units would be large and relevant to today’s requirements.
· Retention of the catchment area trade was a priority.
· The town centre has lost some 41% of trade to over 270 shopping areas countrywide; it was their desire to recover some of this leakage.
· Their target was to increase retail spending in the town centre by 25%.
· This increase did not mean an increase of 25% in cars and people visiting the town centre; people would spend more.
Mark Anderson, Geoffrey Reid Associates made a presentation, with the main points as follows:
· Bringing the eastern section of the town centre into play.
· To improve existing unsightly property.
· Sydney Road would be closed and the one way system would be relocated around London Road and Genotin Road.
· A scheme in the heart of Enfield.
· Good quality attractive public places, good pedestrian links and separated traffic.
Viewfoil 3 – Indicative drawing from Marks and Spencers towards London Road and Woolworths.
Viewfoil 4 – Indicative drawing of the new civic space at the corner of Cecil Road and London Road.
· The new civic and cultural space would be the new gateway to Enfield.
· Ground floor would be a new leisure facility with the two levels above accommodating the civic space which would include cultural and library facilities.
· The provision of a car park for 552 spaces which was located behind the activities and did not distract from the views.
· The proposed car park had been redesigned with improved landscaping and retention of some trees. The height of the car park would not be seen from adjacent houses.
· There would be management offices and a first floor link via a bridge to the shopping scheme. The provision of public toilets would also be in this area.
Viewfoil 6 – Three-dimensional plan depicting safe access into the heart of the scheme by bus.
· A total of some 235,000 square feet; 150,000 square feet of retail, up to 44,000 square feet of leisure, 40,000 square feet of civic space and car parking for 552 vehicles.
· A dedicated service area for the new 23 units. The number of vehicles would be restricted during the day. The area would not be visible from the street.
· The movement of goods to the shops would be via a dedicated link bridge.
Viewfoil 7 – View of London Road and Woolworths.
Viewfoil 8 – View of pedestrian walkway and entrance from Church Street.
In respect of the architecture:
· Will build upon quality and style in an appropriate mix of materials.
· It would be modern and suit the needs of people.
· Materials to be used would include brick, stone, render and timber utilised in a modern way.
· The present proposals were indicative and in outline.
· Massing would be two and three storeys which was in keeping with the rest of the town centre.
· The higher buildings were placed alongside other current higher buildings.
· They were looking to the future.
· They were using the right materials, from the right areas of the world.
· The scheme was total in its entirety.
The construction period would be over the next two years or so with the following programme:
· The provision of a temporary 208 space car park close to the edge of Town Park.
· March 2002 – main site; looking for any contamination and archaeological issues before the start of construction. The scheme was due for completion October 2003.
· Summer 2002 – commence construction on the main retail area and the development of Genotin Road and bus routes.
· Christmas 2002 – Start construction of the cultural centre and multi-storey car park.
Mark Pointer, Chase and Partners, Commercial Agents gave an overview regarding commercial issues. The main points were as follows:
· The retail and non-retail element comprised 235,000 square feet.
· There would be two anchor stores and units between 500 sq ft and 5000 sq ft and first floor storage and ancillary space.
· A multi storey car park.
· 40,000 sq ft health and fitness facility for either a single or two occupiers at ground floor level.
· Above this would be the civic facility of up to 44,000 sq ft.
· Want to create a body of retailing to join up with the current provision.
· Want to draw shoppers from the market place into the new scheme.
· There would be good public transport links via buses and rail.
· The main anchor stores would be sited near to Woolworths.
· The smaller shops would be concentrated in one section.
· The range of unit sizes would enable a variety of rental levels. Some retailers currently had to ‘double up’ which was expensive and inefficient.
· A full range of catering and retail would be targeted.
Steve Wehrle summed up the presentation.
4. OPEN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Question From Peter Jennings (resident)
Mr Jennings asked whether there were any proposals to pedestrianise Church Street which he felt would be at minimal cost and he asked whether there was a need for the Genotin Road link to be made a roundabout.
He confirmed that Church Street was outside the application area. Discussions had taken place with the Council and that their redevelopment plans would include the ability for this to happen.
In respect of Genotin Road, he said that their traffic engineer had proposed the loop be moved one road to the east. The removal of Sydney Road would vastly improve movement from a pedestrian point of view and that the loop to the east would integrate Palace Gardens and the new scheme.
Question From John Challis (Cecil Road Residents’ Association)
Mr Challis felt that new retail would mean that more parking spaces would be needed. He asked about the traffic flow and the interpretation of the plan and the indication of some five lanes.
It was confirmed that the first line on the plan depicted the pavement with the second line being the enhanced drop off point for buses and the third line indicating the lane feeding the car park.
Mrs Weenan pointed out that local people were aware of the bottleneck effect at the rear of Waitrose and it was her view that this scheme would make it worse. Other residents agreed with this and one said that he felt that the traffic congestion surrounding Enfield Town e.g. Southbury Road complex etc precipitated the building of a by pass. He felt that Genotin Road would be ruined and that the library did not need relocation and that the building should be retained. He asked whether the developers had considered the impact of resurgent shopping areas and that multi storey car parks suffered with problems of security, theft and joyriding.
Councillor Rye said that he had no knowledge of plans for a by pass. He added that the traders generally welcomed a small retail development.
Glyn Jones confirmed that the Council were not working on plans for a by pass nor to accommodate a large increase in traffic flow. He said that the Council wanted good traffic management. There was a wider future vision which could include the removal of traffic from Church Street but not pedestrianisation as there needed to be bus and disabled access etc. In respect of Southbury Road, he confirmed that Enfield Town was particularly congested on Saturdays and that the provision of increased car parking provision would attract additional traffic. It was the intention to encourage shoppers to Enfield Town by other means and it was a fact that the majority of shoppers arrived via modes other than cars.
Statement By Mr Bill Price (East Enfield Residents Association)
It was Mr Price’s view that shoppers from the eastern part of the borough were deterred from going to Enfield Town by the congestion experienced at Carterhatch Lane.
Question From Mr Maddin (Resident)
He asked about traffic flows in Genotin Road and the extent of the demolition of existing buildings.
It was confirmed that this would be a one way flow with two lanes coming from the direction of the station. The design was north to south and the two lanes widened out into three and four lanes at the junction with London Road. It was also confirmed that the Town House would be demolished.
Steve Wherle said that the demolition of the Town House would affect some two/three units. He also described the proposed traffic flows which should result in less heavy traffic conditions.
Question From Mr E Polcaro (6 Genotin Terrace)
Mr Polcaro asked about the impact on local residents of this commercial venture. It was his view that Genotin Road was too narrow to accommodate the redevelopment and that Genotin Terrace would become a traffic island. He added that the houses were old and could not withstand major redevelopment in the vicinity.
He felt that the opposite was true about the isolation of Genotin Terrace. He said that the proposals would give more connections than existed at present. He went on to say that Enfield had a declining shopping centre with more than 40% leakage over the past few years and that there would be a more adverse impact if there was no development and things stood still. Everyone with a land interest had been contacted and if outline planning permission were granted then everyone affected would enter into detailed discussions to agree what level of compensation was payable within the confines of compensation laws.
Question From John Davis (resident)
Mr Davis asked whether the siting of the cultural centre outside the centre of the redevelopment was influenced by cost.
Steve Wherle said that he did not know the costs involved but that its siting was logical in terms of massing and operation of this and adjacent buildings. The Council would raise objections if this height of building was located in another area. There were also issues about the ease of access.
Question From Jonathan Prime (Minister of the Free Church)
The Reverend Prime said that his church was proposed for demolition. He addressed the Council by saying that there was a desire to retain community buildings and that his church attracted over 500 people per week from a wide age range. It was his view that the church did serve the community and they wanted to be in the town centre as they had been for some 100 years.
The Chair said that this sent a clear note to everyone and that he was not privy to a response. However, he said that he would ensure this issue was taken on board when the application came before Planning Committee.
He felt that the nature of the construction was important, particularly in a Conservation Area. It was his view that the new proposed buildings were radically different and did not blend in with Palace Gardens.
It was reiterated that the designs were indicative of the massing and general layout and the pictures were a representation. It was intended to use traditional materials which would weather well. There were already many differing styles and was therefore not different from Palace Gardens. All views would be taken into consideration as part of the consultation. There was a need to get it right to become a success.
Question From Leo Feord (Our Lady)
He asked about the apparent abandonment of building lines which were softened to the rear but not in the front. He also asked about the displacement of car parking during the construction stage where there would be provision for 208 and the loss of 500 spaces.
It was confirmed that there would be a phased programming of taking out parking spaces and replacing like with like. After Christmas there would be a net loss of no more than 200 but there would eventually be an increase in provision of some 38%.
In respect of the building line, it was pointed out that this had moved forward to a more true line with the carpet shop and Woolworths. The sketch within the agenda pack was merely indicative to illustrate massing.
Question From Anita Saunders (5 Genotin Terrace)
Ms Saunders had a multi faceted question asking whether the provision of parking for residents in Genotin Terrace was being addressed (there was none currently), she felt that her home could not withstand the strain of development close by. She had started an association to make the terrace a nice place to walk through, and asked about the provision of pedestrian crossings within the development.
Steve Wherle reiterated that the developers could not work outside the ‘red line’ depicted on the plans (Genotin Terrace was outside the development area), however he said that talks would be held over the next twelve months regarding possible adverse effects on buildings. He said that a condition survey would be undertaken and monitoring would be put in place; he did not expect problems.
Question From Richard Reeve (Enfield Cycling Campaign)
Mr Reeve asked that the developers thought about cycling and pointed out that the plans showed nothing to accommodate cyclists except the contraflow bus lanes. He also asked how cyclists could access and navigate safely the new development and where would bikes be securely left; he suggested a facility in the multi storey car park.
He confirmed that the proposals included a facility in the multi storey car park area but had to defer on cycling issues to Glyn Jones.
Glyn Jones said that on behalf of the Council he supported cycling and wanted a network introduced and a priority on the east/west route in Enfield Town. Discussions had already taken place but it was a difficult issue with the limited amount of road space available. It was felt that additional bus priority would help cyclists. It was his view that the developers could go some way further to improve conditions but there was a need to ensure wide footways, provision of bus lanes and adequate road space. He suggested that Laings revisit this issue.
Question From Mr John Jewson (Bush Hill Park Residents’ Association)
Mr Jewson addressed Glyn Jones and said that Enfield Town was dying due to lack of adequate car parking and what there was proved expensive. He challenged the statement that people could use a bus when loaded with household shopping. He said that shoppers could go to Tesco and Sainsburys and park for free. He concluded that measures such as cutting down on spaces and making them more expensive were a waste of time. He reiterated that shoppers could not cope with buses when laden down with goods.
Question From Pauline Stonehouse (Resident)
Ms Stonehouse wanted assurance that materials used would be in keeping with the surrounding area. She also asked about the footway and how people were to walk their dogs.
The Chair confirmed that the footway was due to be lost; he suggested that the developers revisit this issue.
Steve Wherle said that the northern route in Sydney Road could be reconsidered as this had been raised several times. On the downside, he said that there would be a dislocation to the rest of the town centre and could create a ‘muggers’ alley’. The objective was to draw people to the town centre. There had been no firm conclusion on the point and further debate would take place.
Statement By Mr B Avery (Enfield Bowling Club)
Mr Avery said that their club was based in the Town Park and they had leased a green and clubhouse from the Council since 1996. Members were allowed to park in the area due to be earmarked as the temporary car park. It was his view that the club would die if this provision were no longer available as people had no way of carrying heavy equipment on public transport. He expressed concern at the high parking charges, which would fall due as some games took four hours to complete. His club appreciated all that the Council had done to help them and he asked that their situation be borne in mind in the hope that they would be given an allocation in the temporary car park.
Question From Eric Brett (Chair FERAA)
He supported concerns raised at the increase in the sales area; he said there was a need to accommodate extra customers.
He addressed the developers and asked about the existing exit at Palace Gardens. He asked whether the provision of an open piazza type area with seats and greenery could be considered. He said that schemes had a way of coming to fruition and there was a need to ask developers to consider such details.
It was confirmed that public spaces were key to the success of the development. It was intended that the existing square would house good public space with the shoppers’ routes being pleasant and would provide an activity area, rest places, planting etc. The shopping centre was not enclosed; it would be weather protected.
Steve Wherle said that the existing owners of the square intended to work alongside Laings to co-ordinate the enhancement of this area.
In respect of the traffic, he said that Laings were looking to increase retail spending by some 25%, which did not mean more people and cars. It was envisaged that the increase in cars would be 4%-5%. He reiterated that the local retailers were fully supportive of the scheme and they showed concern at the current level of leakage.
Question From John Price (The Oriental Chef)
Mr Price asked about the north/south contraflow and the demolition of the shops in Genotin Road.
It was confirmed that all businesses affected in the redevelopment area would be contacted with a view to negotiating theirs rights and compensation.
Question From Frank Pearce (Willow Residents’ Association)
Mr Pearce raised concern about the increase in traffic particularly in Willow Road area and also the relatively high speeds reached. It was his view that road space in the town centre area was limited and there was more scope for retail on the A10. He said that the town centre should be reserved for community services and it should stay a market town.
The Chair remarked that this was a fair comment.
Question From David Weenan (Resident)
Mr Weenan questioned the viability of the scheme and asked what was the financial input from the Council.
He confirmed that the financial element was tied up in legal documents. He said that broadly the Council provided the scheme idea and invited bids; Laings were selected as the preferred developer. They were working with the Council on costs and returns and have struck a deal with a long lease. This provided the Council with a civic facility at nil cost and the premium to fit it out. The developer took the risks on the return on their investment. Should the scheme outperform, the developers would be in discussion with the Council in respect of sharing in any super profit. The developers anticipated a 15% profit on their outlay over a five to seven year period.
Enfield had to make the choice as to whether the scheme was wanted; it was his opinion that the town centre would die if the scheme did not go ahead.
Mr Jewson asked about the provision of pedestrian crossings near St Annes School into the town centre and the loss of the car park behind the Town House. He also asked about the bus provision.
He responded by saying that he could not comment on the bus service. However he pointed out the numerous crossing points on the viewfoil displayed and explained about the walkway on the first floor of the development.
Question from Mrs June Weenan (resident with a wheelchair bound mother)
Mrs Weenan doubted whether the shops would be accessible without using the upper floor walkway.
Steve Wherle said that their original brief was to reinvigorate London Road and to provide fully signalled and accessible crossings. He confirmed that the current crossing would be there in the future with a series of other crossings along the length of Cecil Road. He pointed out that lifts could be used as well as other alternative routes to reach the town centre.
Mr Richards raised concern about the ground floor access in Sydney Road. He also asked about any proposals for the old library building, and was it listed. He also asked whether crime prevention (he mentioned problems experienced at Wood Green Shopping Centre) was an integral part of the development proposals for the town centre.
Steve Wherle reminded the meeting that this was a different catchment area to Wood Green.
In respect of the library building, he confirmed that this was outside the development red line and the future of the building was in the hands of the Council.
Christine Neyndorff said that the old building was not listed but was within a Conservation Area. There were no current proposals for the library, and a change of use would be subject to full consultation study. The reasons to move were complex; the current library had many restrictions such as no disabled access to the first floor and the building was much too small to accommodate users’ needs such as more I.T., and other facilities. It was also difficult to develop and would mean encroaching on the surrounding green which would prove unpopular with many residents. The new building would provide enhanced facilities, including a local history museum.
Question From Tim Robinson (Employed at a local design agency)
Mr Robinson challenged the statement that this scheme would not generate more traffic congestion. It was already the situation that employees at the design agency had inadequate parking provision, which was often taken by unauthorised users. It was his opinion that all roads into the town centre were diabolical and he questioned why the current design seemed to create a bottleneck in London Road. He said that there was a need to work on the corner to make it more appealing.
He said that there was a welcoming vista. He took an objective view regarding the car parking provision which anyone had the right to believe or otherwise. He reiterated that the 25% target in extra spending would not generate 25% more cars.
A resident in Park Crescent was of the opinion that the extra cars would cause overflow car parking in her area.
Question From Mr Barry Oakley (Resident)
Mr Oakley’s view was that there was too much emphasis on retail and commerce. He wanted a town that was pleasant to be in and he wanted this to be reflected in the architecture. He urged the developer to consider the social aspect of the scheme with places for eating, drinking and socialising.
Steve Wherle agreed with the resident. He said that the scheme was trying to provide facilities to the public and that shopping was the true test. If he got things wrong, then the company would not make a profit. If provision were made for shops, facilities and catering, this would prolong the stay of shoppers.
Phil Mallinder stated the traders’ view:
· There was initial concern which was followed up with lengthy discussions.
· Traders were now of the opinion that they accepted the element of trade decline and fully supported the scheme.
· They agreed that they could not stand still but needed the development to provide a full range of shopping facilities.
Mr Lanston said there was a need to ensure that the scheme had the best appearance possible. He said that the drawings were poor and if realised, it would prove a disaster. He felt that Palace Gardens had stood the test of time over the past 20 years. He said that the town centre had suffered and the retail had left, being replaced with building societies and travel agents. He asked whether there was a strategy for the right sort of mix.
He asked about what would happen to the temporary car park after the scheme had been completed.
Finally, he urged caution about encroaching on the green at the old library and asked for consideration of an appropriate use for the redundant building.
Steve Wherle reiterated that the application was in outline only and that detailed drawings would be the outcome of full negotiations, and at the appropriate stage. He said that the movement towards building societies etc was indicative of the decline in the retail sector.
Mark Anders shared the resident’s views and said that this was an early opportunity in the scheme for input from the public. He emphasised the need to get the right feel and mix.
David Tullis said that the area in Cecil Road had been acquired to mitigate car-parking shortfall. No options appraisal had taken place but would be considered if the scheme were implemented. There were no proposals at this stage to redevelop this land. In respect of the library and green this would need an options appraisal for its use. There were no current development proposals and he reiterated that full consultation would be sought over its future use.
A resident raised concern about the first floor location of the Shopmobility Scheme. The resident said that most disabled did not drive and used Dial A Ride; they would also need escorting to the first floor.
The Chair said that the Panel had picked up this issue.
Steve Wherle undertook to take this issue away and look at as this resident had a valid point to make.
Question and Statement From Mr Jewson (Bush Hill Park Residents’ Association)
Mr Jewson said that it needed clarifying whether Laings were talking about Enfield Town or the Borough as a whole. He questioned whether the Council and developers had considered the effect on other local shopping areas and he had not heard of a co-ordinated strategy, planning and effect on other areas of Enfield.
He also raised concerns about the difficulty which the visually impaired, as well as wheelchair users, would encounter with upper walkways.
He confirmed that research had programmed in all known developments including the expansion of Brent Cross. It was his belief that Enfield Town traded to different customers and at a different level from shoppers at Edmonton Green.
The Chair closed the meeting by thanking everyone for attending. He said that all of the issues raised would be considered at Planning Committee in the future.
NOTE: Steve Wherle has asked for the following amendment to be made:
The transitional road arrangements are only necessary while Sydney Road (north of Cecil Road) and Genotin Road are closed at the same time, which is currently proposed will last for only one year, rather than the two years suggested earlier in the notes.