Some Labour councillors again appeared inexplicably determined to avoid rejecting the scheme despite warnings from council officers that it would be a serious flooding risk

The latest plans for 'Tepe Tower' in Brimsdown — The latest plans for ‘Tepe Tower’ in Brimsdown

Councillors have voted a third time to defer plans for a Brimsdown tower block described as “dangerous” despite again being urged to reject it by civic centre experts because of the “safety risks” it would pose.

At a planning committee meeting on Tuesday (16^th) councillors were told that despite some improvements being made to the proposed ‘Tepe Tower’ development on the site of the derelict Station Tavern pub in Green Street since the last time it was considered nearly two years ago, there were still three “fundamental” reasons why they should refuse it.

On the previous two occasions it was debated by the committee, in July and October 2022, Enfield Council planning officers gave twelve reasons why it should be rejected, but councillors instead voted to defer it both times after some Labour members on the committee appeared inexplicably determined to avoid rejecting it.

Following another 20 months of negotiations with the developer, the scheme underwent a redesign, with the height of the tower reduced from 21 to 17 storeys and the number of flats cut from 100 to 81. However, councillors were told that it still presented a safety risk, with flooding being a chief concern in addition to its “incongruous” design and total lack of affordable housing.

Planning officer Gideon Whittingham, who at times appeared exasperated during the discussion, went to great lengths to explain to councillors why the tower should not be approved, even presenting a chart listing the positive and negatives of the scheme – colour-coded in green and red for emphasis – which showed there were four times as many negatives as positives.

However, the Labour chair and vice chair of the committee, Sinan Boztas and Mahym Bedekova, instead proposed approving the development, after Cllr Boztas falsely claimed that the tower’s design was similar to that of a scheme already approved on a nearby site, and that the flooding issues could be resolved by adding a condition – something Gideon had earlier explained would be impossible because of the additional cost this would create for the developer. Cllr Bedekova did not provide a reason for wanting to approve the tower.

Bektas Ozer, another Labour committee member, claimed council planning officers had ignored the outcomes of five workshops that had contributed to the scheme being redesigned and said it was “not our position to say what is right and how it can be improved”.

At this point, Conservative committee member Michael Rye warned: “There is a great danger in the motion you are proposing, because it undermines the responsibilities of the planning committee – who wants to approve a building that does not meet flooding requirements?

“Trying to approve it is dangerous.”

Another Tory member, Lee Chamberlain, said he had “never seen anything like it” and added: “Although we now have a shorter list of reasons for refusal, they are still quite significant.”

Cllr Rye instead proposed deferring the scheme to give the applicant more time – in addition to the two years already given since it was first debated by the committee – to again redesign the tower and try to make it safe.

Earlier in the meeting, planning agent Murat Aydemir, acting on behalf of applicant Yen of London Ltd, said: “We strongly disagree [with the reasons for refusal] because we have held five workshops which required the whole scheme to be redesigned and officers had the chance to respond but never pointed out they didn’t agree with the scheme or that it was not high quality.”

Murat also claimed that the tower block, if approved, would have “no negative effects”.

The meeting had begun with Gideon carefully and clearly explaining what the negative effects were.

Gideon said that the new design of the tower remained unsatisfactory, that it presented a serious flood risk because the proposed basement water tanks were inadequate and were “at risk of failing”, and that there was no chance of any of the tower block’s issues being mitigated by way of Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy contributions because a financial viability assessment showed it would lose the developer millions of pounds.

“There is a substantial safety risk with this development,” Gideon concluded. “The flood modelling is incorrect – the risk is greater than has been presented. If there were a flood, people would need to evacuate, however the ground floor would itself be flooded.

“A building of this size, in this location, would displace floodwater and therefore it needs to compensate for that. The modelling data [from the developer] was incorrect and raises doubts over the suitability of the compensation provided.”

Gideon also said the tower block would “increase the pressure on the sewage system” with “serious concerns” about the impact on neighbouring properties.

He added: “Effectively we do not know if this site is suitable for development or if flooding can be mitigated or what the implications on cost would be and how much change to the development would be required. Given the unknowns, we think it would be unjustifiable to add a condition to further consider the impact.”

At the end of the debate, the council’s director of planning and growth, Brett Leahy, admitted “it has not been an easy journey”.

Councillors subsequently voted unanimously to defer the scheme for a third time.

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.