The Enfield Society warns of risk of “substantial harm” to St Andrew’s Church from building heights included in the Local Plan, reports James Cracknell

Palace Gardens Shopping Centre in Enfield Town and (inset) St Andrew's Church — Palace Gardens Shopping Centre in Enfield Town and (inset) St Andrew’s Church

Enfield Council has been accused of “ignoring its own advice” with its policy for tall buildings in the Local Plan.

Evidence collated by the civic centre itself in preparation for the draft plan – currently undergoing public examination – suggested that any new buildings at Palace Gardens Shopping Centre in Enfield Town should be capped at a height of 27 metres in order to protect the setting of the conservation area and numerous listed buildings.

However, the tall buildings policy in the Enfield Local Plan instead states a higher maximum for tower blocks on the site, of 39m. This higher number is roughly equivalent to 13 storeys, while the lower height recommended by a council character study equates to around nine storeys.

Although the difference is only four storeys, The Enfield Society has strongly opposed the higher level currently included in the plan and was unable to get a clear answer from the council, on why it had rejected the lower number, when the subject was debated at length during a hearing last Thursday (30^th).

Explaining why the lower maximum of 27m was more appropriate for Enfield Town, archaeologist Dr Michael Shapland told the civic centre hearing: “Beyond a certain height, obviously a tall building will start to impact upon heritage assets and many other things as it gets taller and the degree of harm it will cause will start to go into the realms of substantial.”

Within Enfield Town Conservation Area the tallest buildings at present are five storeys, although on the edge of the town centre there are examples of some twelve-storey blocks, including Enfield Civic Centre.

The Enfield Society commissioned Dr Shapland, of Archaeology South East, to undertake a heritage impact assessment on Enfield Town. He explained that “of all the battles The Enfield Society wishes to fight, they’ve picked this one”.

He said: “Quite pragmatically, they have accepted that tall buildings of this lower height [27m] might well be acceptable given all the other considerations, but when you tip into 39m, the taller height, that’s when it becomes substantial harm – in my professional opinion – and that’s when The Enfield Society has a problem.

“It’s the lower height that’s recommended in the [council] evidence base, the character growth study. And yet in the Local Plan, it’s the higher height.”

Four years ago plans by Palace Gardens owner Deutsche Bank for a 26-storey tower block were ditched after a furious public backlash. However, it’s understood the German company is now preparing to submit fresh plans, having recently secured a long-term lease on the site from the council.

The wording and numbers included in the Local Plan could therefore be crucial in determining the height of such a scheme.

Dr Shapland continued: “Taking St Andrew’s Church, for example, which is Grade 2*-listed in the conservation area, it is the oldest [and] most important building in Enfield Town centre.

“If you go to 39m, when viewed from important places in the setting of this key listed building, this focal point of the medieval town, the height of that [new] building will start to over-top and dominate and project above the roof line of St Andrews Church.”

He added: “The council is not following its own advice, which I think it is quite strange.”

Edward Smith, a Conservative councillor, also spoke at the hearing on the issue. He said: “We need something clear [on maximum heights], because if we don’t have something clear, we will end up with applications for enormous tower blocks in Enfield Town.

“It’s inevitable, and reasons will be found to pass those [schemes] that will be against, I would think, the views of the majority of people who live in that area or shop there.”

Inspector Steven Lee, who is presiding over the Local Plan examination on behalf of the government’s Planning Inspectorate, said: “It has been drawn to my attention that there is a disconnect between the evidence and the policy. So is it fair to say that I cannot, based on what’s before me, see the outcome of the policy in the same way as I can with all the other 57 areas?

“Because the link between the character growth study and the policy [in the other areas] is direct, and there’s a very clear straight line between it […] whereas with Palace Gardens there is a disconnect.”

In response, the council’s barrister Matthew Reed KC explained that any height and design for a tall building that may be submitted for Palace Gardens would still be subject to detailed consideration, by both planning officers and councillors, for its impact on the conservation area.

Reed said: “You can take comfort from the fact that the London Plan itself only requires the identification of maximum heights [in borough local plans] that may be appropriate, and it’s couched in the same conditionality as the rest of the policy.

“Whatever might be said, there ultimately will be a requirement to consider the detail that comes forward [from developers] in one direction or another.”

The council did appear to concede, however, that one paragraph in the tall buildings policy on Palace Gardens might need to be modified, or even removed. This was a line which stated that “there may be scope for proposals above the height […] to be considered positively” if they also “contribute to delivery of housing”.

After a debate on this wording, Lee concluded: “That paragraph is not helpful […] it has already set some hares running.”

Reed responded: “We certainly want to make sure that there’s no encouragement, that there will be a positive approach taken towards some particular form of development over another.”

Stage three of the Local Plan examination continues on Tuesday, 11^th November, with a debate on climate change and the environment. All sessions are livestreamed on the council’s YouTube channel:
Visit youtube.com/@EnfieldCouncil/streams

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.