The estates in Angel Edmonton will be demolished to make way for double the number of homes and a net increase in social housing, reports James Cracknell
Councillors have approved plans for the biggest estate redevelopment project in the borough.
Joyce Avenue and Snells Park estates in Angel Edmonton, commonly known as Joyce and Snells, will be redeveloped over the next two decades and beyond with more than twice the number of homes being built in place of the existing blocks, which will all gradually be demolished.
The Enfield Council-led scheme is set to cost nearly £800m and is being supported by £50m in funding from City Hall.
In December 2021, a ballot saw 78.5% of residents voting in favour of the council’s regeneration proposals. This vote was followed a year later by the submission of detailed plans for the first phases of the redevelopment and outline plans for later phases.
The existing estates date back to the 1950s and 60s and comprise 795 homes, in blocks up to 15 storeys tall, of which 390 are social-rented homes and 44 are managed by housing associations, with 361 in private ownership.
The application approved by Enfield Council’s planning committee last night (Tuesday 16th) is for a “phased, comprehensive residential-led mixed use redevelopment” comprising up to 2,028 homes, a new community centre, nursery, energy centre and flexible commercial floorspace in buildings of up to 26 storeys, together with “new publicly accessible parks, landscaping, public realm, pedestrian and cycle connections and highways/access works”.
Half of the new homes (1,013) will be designated affordable, representing a net increase of 579 affordable homes – more than double the current number (434). The affordable homes will be split across social rent, shared ownership and shared equity tenures, but there will be a net increase in social housing overall.
The plans won approval with support from Labour councillors on the committee, with three Conservative councillors voting against the scheme after raising a number of concerns over the development’s height, its impact on demand for public transport, and daylight levels in some of the new blocks. A fourth Tory councillor abstained.
One of Tory objectors, Michael Rye, said he was disappointed that a scheme submitted by the council did not follow the council’s own policies on tall buildings. He said: “I regard this as a missed opportunity. I am concerned we have brought forward proposals that are not compliant with the Local Plan or emerging Local Plan – what example will that set?”
Although the development will see the amount of public open space doubled, because the number of homes on the estate will more than double, the amount of open space per person will reduce.
Cllr Rye said: “There is a deficiency of open space in the development – collectively this is a totally unsatisfactory set of proposals, a missed chance to do something exciting for the area rather than cramming in extra homes without appropriate open space.”
The council’s conservation advisor, Nicholas Page, responded to some of the concerns raised. While he admitted that the scheme “did not tick every box” he said: “I am confident the scheme will better the current situation. The existing blocks do not make a positive contribution, so although the new blocks are of greater scale, they are far superior. The scheme has the potential to enhance the conservation area and the quality of the public realm.”
Responding to concerns over the height of the development, planning officer Joseph Aggar acknowledged that it did not follow the council’s tall buildings policy for the local area but claimed that it “follows the spirit of the policy” because the layout of the scheme would shield the tallest blocks from view of the high street.
Regarding open space, Joseph said even with a decrease in relation to the rising population, the quality of space available to residents would improve, with the existing open spaces being “not fully accessible” and of “low quality” while the development proposed a new public park, community garden and private amenity space for all residents. The scheme also proposes a £500,000 contribution towards improving Florence Hayes Recreation Ground and Pymmes Park.
Another Tory committee member, Lee Chamberlain, raised concerns over daylight levels in the new flats, and impacts on neighbouring properties, while party colleague Peter Fallart said he was worried about the impact on local bus services. A council transport officer responded that Transport for London was satisfied with the scheme, while Joseph said the daylight impacts were outweighed by the overall benefits.
Labour committee member Josh Abey commented on the benefits of the new housing the development would provide and said: “There will be a massive uplift in social rent, three-bed homes compared to the existing estate. So while I share some of the concerns, my thinking is that in absolute terms there is a huge increase [in social housing].”
Upper Edmonton ward councillor Thomas Fawns also spoke to emphasise the need for a new pedestrian crossing at Sterling Way, to the north of the development, and was told in response that this would be funded as part of the scheme.
Further plans include both temporary and permanent replacement buildings for Boundary Hall and Fore Street Library, which will both be demolished to make way for the scheme, as well as a replacement multi-use games area.
The council says existing secure tenants and resident leaseholders will all be offered a home on the redeveloped estate.
More information about the council’s plans can be found on a dedicated website:
Visit joyceandsnells.co.uk
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.
More information on supporting us monthly or yearly
More Information about donations