Case Reference: 3270885

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Opened on 21 September 2021
Site visit made on 7 October 2021
by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14th December 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/W/21/3270885
Southgate Office Village, 286 Chase Road, Southgate N14 6HT
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Enfield.
• The application Ref.19/01941/FUL, dated 20 May 2019, was refused by notice dated 15
September 2020.
• The development proposed was described as ‘an application for full planning permission
for demolition of office (B1) buildings and erection of mixed-use (C3) scheme ranging
from 2 to 17 storeys with a dual use café (B1/A3), with associated access, basement
car and cycle parking, landscaping, and ancillary works’.
Preliminary Matters
1. Owing to the continuing pandemic, the Inquiry was conducted on a ‘virtual’
basis, using the Council’s Teams platform. It opened on 21 September and
closed on 11 October 2021, after 10 sitting days. I am grateful to all parties for
the positive way in which they approached the ‘virtual’ event, and the patience
shown in the face of a number of issues. Chief amongst these was the situation
in relation to closing statements. These were originally intended for 1 October,
but that attempt had to be abandoned owing to IT issues. Another attempt was
made on 6 October but again, there were problems. The resumption on 11
October was not without difficulties either; the delivery of the closing
statement on behalf of the Council could not be completed. It was helpfully
agreed that the Inquiry could proceed on the basis of the already submitted,
written version of the Council’s closing statement which meant that the
appellant’s closing statement could be delivered without further delay.
2. As well as the main parties, the Inquiry was assisted by a Rule 6(6) Party:
Southgate District Civic Voice1 who relied on the Council’s evidence to an
extent, but made their own submissions in relation to consultation, and the
impact of the proposal on its surroundings. A number of interested parties
made submissions to the Inquiry too.
3. To familiarise myself, I carried out an unaccompanied site visit in advance of
the Inquiry2 but in addition, I carried out an accompanied site visit on 7
October 2021, following an itinerary helpfully agreed between the parties3.
1 Referred to hereafter as SDCV
2 On the morning of 16 September 2021
3 ID33
4. As set out in the Statement of Common Ground4 the scheme was revised after
the initial submission. These revisions included an increase in the affordable
housing offer to 35%, an additional 16 residential units (taking the total to
216), a reduction in the commercial floor-space, a reduction in the size of the
basement car park, and a reduction in the building height by 4 metres in
response to comments from Historic England about the potential impact on
views from Grovelands Park. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of the
scheme as revised but note that the description of development on the original
planning application form, reproduced in the header above, remains correct.
5. In the lead up to the Inquiry, some minor changes were made to the internal
layout of some of the residential units to bring them into line with National
Space Standards. These minor changes were reflected in revised plans. Given
the nature of the changes proposed, which have no external manifestation, I
am content that they can be taken into account without prejudice to the cases
of any of the various parties to the Inquiry. I have proceeded on that basis.
Decision
6. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for demolition of
office (B1) buildings and erection of mixed-use (C3) scheme ranging from 2 to
17 storeys with a dual use café (B1/A3), with associated access, basement car
and cycle parking, landscaping, and ancillary works at Southgate Office Village,
286 Chase Road, Southgate N14 6HT in accordance with the terms of the
application Ref.19/01941/FUL, dated 20 May 2019, subject to the conditions in
Annex A to this decision.
Main Issues
7. In its decision notice of 15 September 2020, the Council cited four reasons for
refusal. In advance of the Inquiry, their second reason for refusal, relating to
the amount and mix of affordable housing, was withdrawn.
8. Against that background, the main issues to be considered are the effect of the
proposal on (1) the character and appearance of the area (encompassing the
issue of design) and linked to that the setting and thereby the significance of a
range of designated heritage assets; and (2) the living conditions of existing
residents of the area.
9. There are a number of other issues that require attention too, notably
consultation. Finally, it is necessary to address the various routes to a decision
given the position of the Council in relation to whether it can demonstrate a
five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
Reasons
Character and Appearance and Heritage Assets
10. Southgate Office Village (the appeal site) sits around 200m to the north of the
town centre5. It is occupied by a group of office buildings that date from the
1980s. The arrangement of the existing buildings on the site is inward looking
and somewhat defensive; the site is impermeable.
4 Referred to hereafter as SoCG
5 For reasons I elaborate upon below, that centre is very clearly Southgate (London
Underground) Station
11. The office buildings themselves are uninspiring and very much of their time. In
my view, they offer nothing positive in townscape terms. It is relevant to note
too that prior approval has been granted for their conversion to residential use.
There is a ‘fallback’ position to consider, therefore.
12. Against that background, an analysis of the impact of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the area is inextricably linked to its design, and
potential impact on the setting and thereby the significance of heritage assets.
13. Reference was made in evidence6 to Le Corbusier’s maxim that ‘the plan is the
generator’. That ‘plan’ seems to me to be a good place to start. The essential
idea behind the scheme is to arrange a series of five blocks7 around a public
route through the site connecting Park Road with Chase Road which allows for
connection to the site of the Marks & Spencer store on Winchmore Hill Road,
using the footbridge across the railway. Making the site permeable in that way
seems to me a firm basis for the proposal. I note that the Council’s alternative
approach, proffered in evidence8, adopts a similar approach.
14. It is fair to say that it is the height of the various blocks, and in particular the
taller ones, rather than their layout, that causes the Council, and local
residents, most consternation. However, leaving aside for a moment the impact
of height, the arrangement of the various blocks on the site is logical. The
lowest block at 3 storeys (B2) sits in the north-east corner (roughly) of the site
adjacent to the terraced housing on Park Road. Block B1 (5/6 storeys) in the
north-east corner fronts Chase Road and sits adjacent to Lonsto House, a
building of relatively significant scale. Block A1 in the south-west corner of the
site, fronting Chase Road, adjacent to the White Hart Public House (a specific
relationship I deal with below) would house 8 storeys of accommodation.
Adjacent, in the depth of the site, Block A2 would be 13 storeys, while the
tallest element, Block A3 (17 storeys) would be located in the south-east
corner of the site, adjacent to the railway.
15. I say that arrangement has logic because there would be a sense of transition
in the relationship of the lower buildings in the northern part of the site (Blocks
B1 and B2) with their neighbours, and Block A1 sitting opposite the buildings
on the opposite side of Chase Road (Chase House and Bramwood Court) with
Blocks A2 and A3 rising from Block A1 into the depth of the site. I appreciate
that there may be other potential approaches, but it seems to me that if you
are going to design a scheme for tall buildings on the appeal site, then this
particular approach is a sound one.
16. Turning then to the height of the various blocks, it is instructive to start an
analysis of this matter with reference to the positions adopted by the Council
and SDCV. Mindful, I’m sure, of the need to optimise an urban site such as that
at issue (a matter I return to below), the Council is prepared to accept 11
storey buildings on the site9, and SDCV has set out that interaction with the
public demonstrated that that 6-8 storeys might be tolerated by a majority of
local residents. The main question then is whether the extent to which the
scheme before me would rise above that, renders it somehow unacceptable.
6 By Dr Miele
7 Identified as B1, B2, A1, A2 and A3 on the plans
8 By Ms Firth
9 Through Ms Firth’s alternative proposal
17. The Council and SDCV have focused their concerns in this regard on the
harmful impact they say the proposal would have on the setting and thereby
the significance of heritage assets. Chief amongst those referred to are the
Southgate Underground Station complex, and the Southgate Circus
Conservation Area. The former is at the heart of the latter.
18. The Southgate Station complex is the work of Charles Holden and is made up
of the station itself, a Grade II* listed building, its associated pylons, also listed
at Grade II*, and 1-8 Station Parade, which wraps around the station, with its
associated lamp-posts, a Grade II listed building. The special interest of these
buildings and structures, and their significance, have been well covered in the
evidence and I do not need to rehearse it at length.
19. However, it is right to underline that the group made up of the cylindrical
modernist booking hall of the station, Station Parade, and the pylons within the
concourse is very striking. The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal says that
‘in a contemporary photograph (Fig.4) the new station resembles a recently-
landed spacecraft whose downdraught has cleared the space around it’.
20. Notwithstanding the development that has taken place in the area since that
contemporary photograph, and others submitted in the appellant’s evidence,
the architectural form of the complex retains this power to surprise (in a very
pleasing way). It is a testament to the skill of the architect and the vision of his
Client10 and the individual buildings and the group are of profound significance.
21. The complex, and the transport interchange it facilitates, is very clearly the
central focus of the conservation area, and further, in my view, it firmly marks
the town centre. It does that in two ways. First, it is located (as an intentional
design decision) at the junction of a number of major roads, Chase Side, Chase
Road, Winchmore Hill Road, The Bourne, Bourne Hill, and High Street. It
occupies a nodal point therefore.
22. Second, the modernist architectural treatment of the complex with its smooth
curves and very careful detailing, distinguishes it in a very marked way from
surrounding buildings – hence the reference to a spacecraft as set out above. It
is that power to surprise, alongside its strategic location, that give the complex
its landmark quality. That too encapsulates the manner in which the setting of
the group contributes to its significance, and to the significance of the
individual buildings within it.
23. What then is the impact of the proposal, and in particular the taller elements of
it, on the setting and thereby the significance of the complex? It might be
argued that by being much higher, the proposal will usurp the complex as the
town centre, and the central focus of the conservation area. In my view it
would not, and I reach that conclusion because first of all, the complex will
retain its nodal location. Situated as it is, fronting Chase Side, the appeal site
cannot compete with that.
24. Secondly, the architect of the proposal at issue has taken a conscious decision
not to slavishly mimic the distinctive architectural treatment, and in particular
the horizontal emphasis, of the station complex. The elevational treatment of
the proposal is very carefully detailed, but sculpted rather than smooth, largely
orthogonal, and vertically emphasised.
10 Frank Pick of the London Passenger Transport Board
25. Further, the height of the taller elements of the proposal is not so extreme that
it would harmfully compete with the station complex. It is the form of that
complex that sets it apart, not its scale.
26. All that can be demonstrated by considering the serial views in a northward
direction from High Street where the station complex (or at least parts of it)
would be seen in juxtaposition with the proposal. These views have been
modelled in the submitted visual material11 and take in the relationship
between South Point House and the station complex. South Point House, widely
recognised as a detractor, sits relatively close to, and rises above, the station.
27. However, what makes South Point House so harmful to the setting and
significance of the station complex, is not its scale, but a combination of its
proximity, and the rather presumptuous way it nods towards the station
building (in particular), with its window design, and horizontal emphasis.
28. By contrast, the proposal at issue while much taller than the station complex,
would not seek to align itself architecturally with it, but would sit apart, as a
well-designed complex in its own right. As a consequence, I find that there
would be no harmful visual tension between the station complex and the
appeal scheme.
29. I reach the same conclusion about views of the proposal that would be
available from within the station complex and other places where the station
complex and the proposal would be seen alongside one another12.
30. Overall, it is my firm conclusion that while the setting of the station complex,
and the individual listed buildings that make it up, would change as a result of
the proposal, that change would not be harmful to the setting of the complex
or the individual buildings within it, or their significance as a group, or as
individual buildings.
31. Given that the station complex is the principal element of the significance of
the Southgate Circus Conservation Area, there would be no harm to the setting
or the significance of this conservation area as a result of the proposal, in this
respect, either.
32. That said, the appellant has highlighted the juxtaposition between the White
Hart Public House, which lies within the conservation area, and the proposal
(which lies without) as one that would be harmful, albeit in a limited way, to
the setting and thereby the significance of the conservation area. There would
be a significant difference in height and scale between the White Hart and
Block A1 that it would be viewed against. There is however already a disparity
in scale between the public house and the adjacent, existing office building on
the appeal site.
33. To my mind, the increase in height in Block A1 does not make the relationship
more incongruous because what is lost by reason of the increased height of
Block A1 is more than compensated for by its far more considered design, and
sympathetic use of materials. In my view, the new relationship between the
White Hart and the appeal proposal would not be harmful to the setting or the
significance of the conservation area.
11 View 6 and Views S1 and S2
12 As demonstrated by the submitted visual material
34. In its evidence, the Council also raised concern about the impact of the
proposals on the setting and thereby the significance of other heritage assets in
the vicinity13. I looked at these in the course of my various site visits. There
would be places where these assets would be seen in conjunction with the
proposal. However, I see no good reason to consider that the consequent
change in the setting of the assets concerned would detract from their
significance. Change in this regard would not be necessarily harmful.
35. More distant views of the complex were the source of some adverse comment
too. The suggestion is made that the town centre does not need to be ‘marked’
from distance to make it legible. I agree with that, but neither would there be
anything harmful, to my mind, in being able to see the upper parts of the
complex from more distant viewpoints, like those in Oakwood Park for
example14, marking the position of the town centre.
36. To sum up on this issue, it is my view that the proposal is a very well-
conceived response to the appeal site in terms of its layout. The various blocks
have been composed in a way that responds appropriately to the prevailing
context and the height of the taller blocks would not be excessive. The
individual residential units would provide a high standard of accommodation. As
a result, the scheme would make very efficient use of the site, and certainly
much better use than the fallback15. On top of that, the public realm would be
expanded, and the site would become permeable, with the added benefits of a
playspace, and a pocket park.
37. Bearing in mind what occupies the appeal site at present, what I regard as the
excellence of the design would uplift the character and the appearance of the
area. Moreover, it would cause no harm to the setting or the significance of
heritage assets nearby, or further afield.
Living Conditions
38. There are two main aspects to this issue. In terms of visual impact, the
proposal would be prominent in views from the rear of houses on Chase Road,
Hillside Grove, and Park Road. However, notwithstanding the height of the
tallest blocks, the separation distance would be such that they would not
appear overbearing or oppressive in what is an urban context. The separation
distances involved means that there would be no harmful overlooking or loss of
privacy. The technical evidence demonstrates that any loss of sunlight and/or
daylight resulting from the proposal would be within what I regard as
reasonable bounds. The presence of the proposal might be an unwelcome one
to residents close to the appeal site, in particular, but objectively assessed, it
would have no harmful impact on their living conditions, in these terms.
39. Concern was raised too about traffic, parking and servicing. The scheme is
intended to be car free with limitations on the ability of residents to apply for
parking permits, and it provides a relatively limited amount of car parking in
the basement storey.
13 The Lodge to Grovelands Park (Grade II), The Wall at 44-50 The Bourne (Grade II), the
Church of St Andrew on Chase Side (Grade II), the Bourne Methodist Church (locally listed)
and the road sign finger post on Southgate Circus (locally listed)
14 View C
15 Which would of course not have to provide affordable housing, or make contributions
through the Community Infrastructure Levy
40. As such, I do not consider that the comings and goings of traffic along Hillside
Grove and Park Road would lead to any harmful impact on the living conditions
of residents and neither should there be any additional parking pressure as a
result of the scheme. Servicing and deliveries can be dealt with by condition.
Other Matters
41. SDCV addressed the Inquiry of the subject of consultation and as a group, they
have clearly done a lot of valuable work in raising community awareness of the
proposal. That said, I do not believe the appellant was shy in this regard and
genuine attempts have evidently been made to engage with the public. The
difficulty is that consultation or engagement is not the same thing as giving
control over the design, or the height, or the scale, of the scheme to the local
community. The appellant is policy bound, and I deal with this below, to make
best use of the site. Moreover, any scheme for the site must be a viable one or
that best use will not manifest itself. There is obvious scope for tension
thereby, between the wishes of the community and those of the developer.
42. I can offer no ready solution to that; the planning process does not function by
means of plebiscite. I must make my decision based on an objective
assessment of what is proposed in the light of the development plan and other
material considerations. That said, there are aspects of the development plan
that bear on this point and I return to this matter below.
Conclusion
43. Reference has been made to a raft of policies in the development plan. It is fair
to say that the Enfield Core Strategy16 which was adopted in November 2010 is
of some vintage, pre-dating the initial version of the National Planning Policy
Framework17. The associated Development Management Document18, adopted
in November 2014, is dated in some ways too.
44. That said, in the light of my conclusions above, there would be no divergence
from CS Core Policies 4 (Housing Quality), 5 (Housing Types) or 30
(Maintaining and Improving the Quality of the Built and Open Environment) or
indeed the CS read as a whole. For similar reasons, there would be no telling
departure from DMD Policies DMD 6 (Residential Character), DMD 8 (General
Standards for New Residential Development), DMD 10 (Distancing), DMD 37
(Achieving High Quality and Design-Led Development), DMD 38 (Design
Process) or DMD 43 (Tall Buildings).
45. The most important policies for determining this appeal are obviously those in
the very recently adopted London Plan 202119. Reflective of Chapter 11 of the
Framework, and paragraph 119 in particular, LP Policy GG2 says that to create
successful sustainable mixed-use places that make the best use of land, those
involved in planning and development must, in summary, enable the
development of brownfield land particularly on sites within and on the edge of
town centres, as well as utilising small sites; prioritise sites which are well-
connected by existing or planned public transport; promote higher density
development in locations that are well-connected to jobs, services,
16 Referred to hereafter as CS
17 The current version is referred to hereafter as the Framework
18 Referred to hereafter as DMD
19 Referred to hereafter as LP
infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking, and cycling; apply a
design-led approach to determining the optimum development capacity of
sites; and understand what is valued about particular places and use that as a
catalyst for growth, renewal, and place-making.
46. Alongside that, LP Policy D3 seeks the optimisation of site capacity through the
design-led approach. It says, put very simply, that all development must be
designed to make the best use of land in a way that is contextually
appropriate. Put very simply, LP Policy D4 is geared to deliver high-quality
design and place-making.
47. All that is taken forward in LP Policy D9: Tall Buildings. First of all, the policy
deals with the principle of ‘Locations’. We are told that Boroughs should
determine if there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate
form of development and that any such locations and appropriate tall building
heights should be identified on maps in Development Plans. Tall buildings, we
are told, should only be developed in locations that are identified as suitable in
Development Plans.
48. The policy then goes on to deal with ‘Impacts’ and says that schemes should
address firstly visual impacts notably the views of buildings from different
distances. In long-range views, attention needs to be paid to the top of the
building – it should make a positive contribution to the existing and emerging
skyline and not adversely affect local or strategic views. In mid-range views,
attention should be paid to the form and proportions of the building. It should
make a positive contribution to the local townscape in terms of legibility,
proportions, and materiality. In immediate views, attention should be paid to
the base of the building. It should have a direct relationship with the street,
maintaining the pedestrian scale, character and vitality of the street. Where the
edges of the site are adjacent to (of relevance in this case) buildings of
significantly lower height, there should be an appropriate transition in scale
between the tall building and its surrounding context.
49. LP Policy D9 then sets out that whether part of a group or stand-alone, tall
buildings should reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context
and aid legibility and wayfinding. Architectural quality and materials should be
of an exemplary standard to ensure that the appearance and architectural
integrity of the building is maintained through its lifespan. Proposals should
take account of, and avoid harm to, the significance of London’s heritage
assets and their settings. The buildings should positively contribute to the
character of the area. In many ways, this approach follows the path of the
Framework, and Chapter 12 (Achieving Well-Designed Places) in particular.
50. Bearing in mind the conclusions I have formed in dealing with the main issues
above, the proposals are in easy compliance with LP Policies GG2, D3 and D4.
There is compliance too with the ‘Impacts’ element of Policy D9.
51. That brings me to the ‘Locations’ part of LP Policy D9. While the appeal site has
been identified as potentially suitable in the Council’s Character of Growth
Study20, and the Council seems willing to accept a tall building or buildings on
it, the site has not been identified as one suitable for a tall building or tall
buildings in a development plan. The proposal cannot meet that requirement,
therefore.
20 A background document to the emerging Local Plan
52. The way in which LP Policy D9 should be interpreted is ultimately a matter for
the Courts and on my reading, it is not entirely clear whether the policy limits
tall buildings to locations that have been identified through a development plan
or allows for tall buildings to come forward wherever their impacts can be
shown to acceptable. In the context of what is widely accepted to be a housing
crisis in London, and the length of time it might take for sites suitable for tall
buildings to work their way through the various local planning processes across
the capital, the latter would appear to me to make more sense.
53. Being prudent, I find that the inability of the proposal to meet the requirements
of the locations element of LP Policy D9 renders it contrary to that policy.
Bringing the scheme forward in defiance of that would take away the
opportunity for the Council, residents, and other interested parties, to consider
the matter through the emerging Local Plan process. Notwithstanding that,
however, it is my view that the scheme’s ready accord with other policies in the
LP, notably GG2, D3, D4, and the impacts element of D9, alongside policies in
the CS and DMD, means that, in my view, the proposal is still in accord with
the development plan, read as a whole.
54. It is instructive to consider the alternative. If I were to conclude that the
inability of the proposal to accord with the locations element of LP Policy D9
meant that it failed to accord with the development plan read as a whole, then
other material considerations would come into play. Chief amongst those would
be the operation of Government policy in paragraph 11 of the Framework. The
Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable
housing sites with the appropriate buffer. The evidence shows that at present,
they can demonstrate a supply of just over two years. In the light of footnote
8, that would make LP Policy D9 (amongst others) out-of-date. Based on my
findings above, the proposal would have no harmful impact on the significance
of designated heritage asset so paragraph 11d)i presents no barrier.
55. That leads us on to paragraph 11d)ii. This sets out that in the situation under
consideration, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a
whole. The only harmful aspect of the scheme is that its timing relative to the
emerging Local Plan means that the Council, residents, and others with an
interest, would lose the opportunity to consider the suitability of the site for a
tall building, or buildings, through the examination process, whenever it might
take place. To my mind, bearing in mind the parlous state of the Council’s
housing land supply, the harm that flows from that pales against the enormous
benefits of the open-market and affordable housing the scheme would bring
forward in a well-designed, contextually appropriate scheme.
56. It seems to me therefore that whichever way one approaches the matter, the
answer is the same; planning permission should be granted for the proposal.
Conditions and the Obligation
57. Discussions between the appellant and the Council around the conditions the
Council would favour in the event that the appeal was allowed, and planning
permission was granted, took place before and during the Inquiry and a draft
list of suggested conditions was produced21.
21 ID12
58. This facilitated a ‘round table’ discussion involving all parties. I have considered
the various conditions in the light of that discussion, and advice in paragraph
56 of the Framework. This explains that planning conditions should be kept to a
minimum and only imposed where they are necessary; relevant to planning
and to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable
in all other respects. It continues to the effect that, of relevance, conditions
that are required to be discharged before development commences should be
avoided, unless there is clear justification. Footnote 25 sets out that sections
100ZA(4-6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will require the
applicant’s22 written agreement to the terms of a pre-commencement
condition, unless prescribed circumstances apply. In that regard, I have treated
the inclusion of pre-commencement conditions in a list agreed by the appellant
as conferring that written agreement.
59. In the first instance, the standard conditions relating to commencement, and
the approved plans are required. In relation to the latter, the suggested
condition includes a list of drawings of the site as it stands, and of the various
supporting documents. Given that the purpose of the condition is to facilitate
subsequent applications for minor material amendments, the list only needs to
include drawings of the scheme as proposed.
60. In order to ensure that the quality of the design is carried through into its
construction, it is reasonable to apply conditions that require external materials
of the buildings themselves, and of the hard surfaces around them, to be
subject to the approval of the Council.
61. The boundaries between the development site and adjoining properties need to
be properly dealt with so the Council does need to be able to exert control over
their design. It seems to me imperative too that these boundary treatments
are completed before the development is occupied or brought into use and
retained in their approved form afterwards. I saw during my site visit that the
existing arrangement of buildings on site has a relatively complex series of
levels. I note too that the scheme as proposed relies on a careful approach to
levels so as to accommodate parking, amongst other things, in the basement.
Obviously, where levels at the bases are set will have an influence on the
eventual height of the buildings. On that basis, a condition is necessary to
allow the Council control over levels relating to the buildings, and the various
hard surfaces.
62. It is clearly necessary to apply a condition that gives the Council some control
over soft landscaping, including trees, and the design of the play-space. I have
expanded the suggested condition to cover the proposed pocket park too and
to require the play-space and pocket-park to be completed before occupation
of the development.
63. A condition is needed to ensure the development achieves the designed
BREEAM rating, and another to ensure that the measures identified in the
‘Sustainable Design and Construction Statement’ are carried out. Another
condition is necessary to deal with living/green roofs.
64. It seems to me necessary to address issues around air quality thorough a
condition. The potential for contamination in the ground needs to be dealt with
in this way too.
22 And I take that to include the appellant’s written agreement
65. Given the nature of the existing boundary, and the levels, at the northern
extremity of the site, a condition is required protective fencing and/or ground
protection for the duration of construction, and in advance of the final
boundary design (which I have addressed above).
66. In the absence of any existing trees of value on the site, the condition
suggested to deal with tree protection is not necessary.
67. Conditions are however required to deal with drainage of the site securing first
of all a sustainable drainage strategy and second, verification of full
implementation of that strategy. Linked to that, a condition is needed to deal
with groundwater monitoring to assess the potential impact of the basement on
flood risk, and to prohibit the use of surface water infiltration.
68. Given the nature, scale, and complexity of the development proposed, there
exists the potential for implementation to cause difficulties for neighbouring
occupiers. In that context, it is necessary to apply conditions to address piling,
and to secure a plan to ensure the construction process is properly managed.
69. Conditions are needed to cover cycle parking and, so as to avoid any highways
related issues, secure a delivery/servicing plan. In order to address matters
around the living conditions of occupiers of the development in relation to
lighting, noise, security and means of escape in case of fire, appropriately
worded conditions are required. For similar reasons, a condition is needed to
address the potential for noise from plant at rooftop level.
70. A draft Unilateral Undertaking was submitted in the course of the Inquiry23 and
was the subject of discussion, informed by a CIL Compliance Schedule very
helpfully prepared by the Council24. As a result of those discussions, the
appellant and the Council reached a position where the various obligations
could be dealt with through an Agreement under s106. A completed Agreement
was submitted after the Inquiry closed25.
71. Mirroring the requirements of Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations 2010,
paragraph 57 of the Framework says that planning obligations must only be
sought where they are: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I have considered the
various obligations against that background.
72. On my analysis, the various obligations relating to Contributions (relating to
the Car Club, Healthy Streets, Public Realm, Travel Plan, and Carbon Offset);
Monitoring; Transport (including the Travel Plan, Sustainable Transport
Package, Parking Restrictions, and Highway Improvements); the Employment
and Skills Strategy; Construction and Design (including the Considerate
Constructor’s Scheme and the retention of the architect); Affordable Housing
(including its exact quantum and tenure, and the approval of affordable
housing proposals); the Viability Review; Energy; and the District Energy
Network Strategy have a clear policy and/or calculator basis. As such, all the
obligations meet the tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations
2010, and paragraph 57 of the Framework.
23 ID14
24 ID13
25 ID19
Final Conclusion
73. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Paul Griffiths
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Mark Beard of Counsel Instructed by the Head of Legal
Services, London Borough of Enfield
He called26 Kevin Murphy BArch MUBC RIBA IHBC
KM Heritage
Kathryn Firth MA(UD)
Partner, FP Design
Mike Ibbott MA MPhil MBA MRTPI
PIEMA Director, TP Bennett
FOR SOUTHGATE DISTRICT CIVIC VOICE (SDCV)
Chris Binns of SDCV and
Graham Davis, Chair of SDCV
They called Ian Harvey SFIPM
Executive Director, Civic Voice
FOR THE APPELLANT
Christopher Young QC and Instructed by Simply Planning
Sioned Davies of Counsel
They called27 Ignus Froneman BArch.Stud ACIfA
IHBC Director, Cogent Heritage
Chris Bath BA(Hons) DipArch MA(UD)
PDAP ARB RIBA Partner BPTW
Dr Chris Miele MRTPI IHBC
Senior Partner, Montagu Evans LLP
Ben Pycroft BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Director, Emery Planning
James Stacey BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Tetlow King Planning
Holly Mitchell BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Director, Simply Planning
26 Michael Cassidy (an Officer of the Council) took part in the discussions about conditions
27 Peter Sofoluke of BPTW took part in the discussion about conditions
INTERESTED PERSONS
Kevin Long Local Resident
Geraldine Hearne Local Resident
Jonny Neill Local Resident
Bambos Charalambous MP Member of Parliament for Enfield
Southgate
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Opening Statement for the appellant
ID2 Opening Statement for SDCV
ID3 Opening Statement for the Council
ID4 English Heritage letter of 09/07/19
ID5 Errata Sheet (Dr Miele)
ID6 Mr Bath’s Presentation to the Inquiry
ID7 Bundle of Third Party representations (put in by SDCV and the Council)
ID8 Pre-Application Material
ID9 Draft Proposals Map and extracts from the Emerging Local Plan
ID10 Errata Sheet (Ms Mitchell)
ID11 Statement of Common Ground
ID12 Draft Conditions
ID13 CIL Compliance Schedule
ID14 Draft Unilateral Undertaking
ID15 Site Visit Itinerary
ID16 Closing Statement for SDCV
ID17 Closing Statement for the Council
ID18 Closing Statement for the appellant
ID19 Completed Agreement under s106
Annex A: Schedule of Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: 16-173 – Southgate - D-32 - Park Road -
East Elevation - Rev A; 16-173 – Southgate - D-31 - Chase Road
Elevation - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-30- South Block - South
Elevation - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-29 - South Block- North
Elevation (Internal Street) - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-28- North
Block- South Elevation (Internal Street); 16-173 - Southgate - D-27 -
North Block - North Elevation - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-26 -
Section DD - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-25- Section CC - Rev A; 16-
173 - Southgate - D-24 - Section BB - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-23
- Section AA - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-22 - Roof Plan; 16-173 -
Southgate - D-21 - Seventeenth Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-20 -
Sixteenth Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-19 - Fifteenth Floor Plan; 2
- 16-173 - Southgate - D-18 - Fourteenth Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate
- D-17 - Thirteenth Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-16 - Twelfth Floor
Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-15 - Eleventh Floor Plan; 16-173 -
Southgate - D-14 - Tenth Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-13 - Ninth
Floor Plan; 16-173 - Southgate - D-12 - Eighth Floor Plan; 16-173 -
Southgate - D-11 - Seventh Floor Plan Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-10
- Sixth Floor Plan Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-09 - Fifth Floor Plan Rev
A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-08 - Fourth Floor Plan Rev A; 16-173 -
Southgate - D-07 - Third Floor Plan Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - D-06 -
Second Floor Plan - Rev B; 16-173 - Southgate - D-05 - First Floor Plan -
Rev B; 16-173 - Southgate - D-04 - Ground Floor Plan - Rev A; 16-173 -
Southgate - D-03 - Basement Plan - Rev A; 16-173 - Southgate - Fire
Brigade Access Strategy - Residential-LR; and 16-173 - Southgate - Fire
Brigade Access Strategy - Commercial-LR.
3) Prior to the commencement of building works above ground, a sample
panel and a schedule of materials to be used in all external elevations
including walls, doors, windows and front entrances within the
development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details.
4) Prior to the completion of the external building works, details and design
of the surfacing materials to be used within the development including
footpaths, shared surfaces, access roads, parking areas, road markings
and all other hard surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The surfacing shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details before the development is first
occupied or the use commences.
5) Prior to the commencement of building works above ground, full details,
including a schedule of materials to be used, of all boundary treatments
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance
with the approved details before the development is first occupied or the
use commences and retained as such thereafter.
6) Prior to commencement of development, details of the existing and
proposed ground levels, including the levels of any proposed buildings,
roads and/or hard surfaced areas, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details.
7) Prior to the completion of the external building works, details of trees,
shrubs, grass and all other soft landscaped areas forming part of internal
and external amenity spaces, and the design of the play-space, and the
pocket park, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Where feasible, biodiversity enhancement
interventions shall be incorporated within the design. The planting
scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in
the first planting season after completion or occupation of the
development whichever is the sooner and any planting which dies,
becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall
be replaced with new planting in accordance with the approved details.
The play-space and the pocket park shall be completed in accordance
with the approved details before the development is first occupied or the
use commences.
8) Before the development is first occupied, evidence confirming that it
achieves a BREEAM New Construction rating of no less than 'Very Good’
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The evidence required shall be provided in the following
formats and at the following times: (a) a design stage assessment,
conducted by an accredited Assessor and supported by relevant BRE
interim certificate, shall be submitted at pre-construction stage prior to
the commencement of superstructure works on site; and (b) a post
construction assessment, conducted by an accredited Assessor and
supported by relevant BRE accreditation certificate, shall be submitted
following the practical completion of the development and prior to first
occupation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
details so approved and retained as such thereafter.
9) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures
identified in the submitted document entitled ‘Sustainable Design and
Construction Statement’ dated May 2019 (and any subsequent revisions).
Before the development is first occupied, the developer shall submit to
the local planning authority a statement confirming that the development
has been carried out in accordance with the measures therein.
10) Above ground works shall not commence until the feasibility of and
details pertaining to the installation of biodiversity (green/brown) roof(s)
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. If identified as feasible, the biodiversity (green/brown) roof(s)
shall be: (a) biodiversity based with extensive substrate base (depth 80-
150mm); and (b) planted/seeded with an agreed mix of species within
the first planting season following practical completion of the building
works. The biodiversity (green/brown) roof shall not be used for any
recreational purpose and access shall only be for the purposes of
maintenance, repair or means of escape. Details shall include a full
ongoing management plan and maintenance strategy/schedule for the
green/brown roof. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
11) The development shall be built in accordance with submitted document
entitled ‘Air Quality Assessment: Southgate Office Village’ dated May
2019 and all of the measures proposed to control dust must be fully
implemented during on-site works. All Non-Road Mobile Machinery
(NRMM) of net power of 37kW and up to and including 560kW used
during the course of the demolition, site preparation and construction
phases shall comply with the emission standards set out in chapter 7 of
the GLA’s SPG ‘Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and
Demolition’ dated July 2014, or subsequent guidance. Unless it complies
with the standards set out in the SPG, no NRMM shall be on site, at any
time, whether in use or not, without the prior written consent of the local
planning authority. The developer shall keep an up-to-date list of all
NRMM used during the demolition, site preparation and construction
phases of the development on the online register at
https://nrmm.london/.
12) The development shall not be occupied until a scheme to deal with any
contamination of the site including an investigation and assessment of
the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to
health and the environment has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Any remediation shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved scheme and the local planning
authority shall be provided with a written warranty by the appointed
specialist to confirm its completion prior to the occupation of the
development.
13) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved
(including all preparatory work), details of protective fencing/ground
protection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
14) Notwithstanding the details provided in the Drainage Impact Assessment
(September 2019), development shall not commence until a final detailed
Sustainable Drainage Strategy has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The details shall be based on the
disposal of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in
accordance with the principles as set out in the Technical Guidance to the
National Planning Policy Framework and should be in line with DMD Policy
SuDS Requirements and: (a) shall be designed to a 1 in 1 and 1 in 100
year storm event with the allowance for climate change; (b) follow the
SuDS management train and London Plan Drainage Hierarchy by
providing a number of treatment phases corresponding to their pollution
potential; (c) provide source control SuDS measures across the site; (d)
maximise opportunities for sustainable development, improve water
quality, biodiversity, local amenity and recreation value; (e) must be
designed to allow for flows that exceed the design capacity to be stored
on site or conveyed off-site with minimum impact; (f) establish clear
ownership, management and maintenance arrangements; and (g) details
submitted shall include levels, sizing (calculations where necessary),
cross sections and specifications for all drainage features.
15) Prior to occupation of the development, a Verification Report
demonstrating that the approved drainage / SuDS measures have been
fully implemented shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. This report must include: (a) as built drawings of
the sustainable drainage systems including level information (if
appropriate); (b) photographs of the completed sustainable drainage
systems; (c) any relevant certificates from manufacturers/ suppliers of
any drainage features; and (d) a confirmation statement of the above
signed by a chartered engineer.
16) The development shall not commence until groundwater monitoring is
undertaken to assess the potential impact of the basement on
groundwater flood risk. The groundwater monitoring should be
undertaken over a period of at least 2 months between the winter period
(between October and the end of March) with a minimum of 3 site visits
at bio-weekly intervals. The results of the monitoring should be submitted
in writing to the local planning authority. Following the results of the
groundwater investigation, if significant groundwater is present on site,
detailed groundwater flow modelling which will include an assessment of
the impact of the proposed basement on groundwater should be
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This shall
include appropriate mitigation measures including avoidance, changes to
floor levels, appropriate drainage measures, and appropriate basement
construction. For clarity, ‘significant’ groundwater is defined as a standing
water level 0.5m or more above the surface of the London Clay or as
identified (by the local planning authority) to have the potential to cause
groundwater flooding.
17) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground at this site is
permitted unless agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
18) No piling, other deep foundations, and/or investigation boreholes using
penetrative methods shall be carried out until details have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
19) That development shall not commence until a construction methodology
for the relevant phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The construction methodology shall contain:
(a) arrangements for wheel cleaning; (b) arrangements for the storage of
materials; (c) hours of work; (d) arrangements for the securing of the
site during construction; (e) arrangements for the parking of contractors'
vehicles clear of the highway; (f) details of how delivery vehicles will be
managed to ensure there is no occurrences of vehicle idling in close
proximity to the site; (g) details of how vehicle deliveries will be
managed to ensure there is no undue noise and disturbance to
neighbouring occupiers as a result of the deliveries; (h) the siting and
design of any ancillary structures; (i) arrangements for the loading and
unloading of plant and materials; (j) a scheme for recycling/disposing of
waste resulting from demolition and construction works; (k) enclosure
and/or hoarding details; (l) measures to control dust, noise and other
environmental impacts of the development in accordance with 'London
Best Practice Guidance: The control of dust and emission from
construction and demolition'; and (m) the procedure for dealing with
noise complaints arising from neighbouring occupiers. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction
methodology.
20) The development shall not be occupied until details of the secure covered
cycle parking facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The cycle parking facilities shall be provided
in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of any part of
the development and retained for their intended purpose thereafter.
21) Prior to the facility being operational, an Operational/Service
Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The plan shall include but not be limited to the
following: (a) details of how delivery vehicles will be managed to ensure
there is no occurrences of vehicle(s) idling in close proximity to the site;
(b) details of how vehicle deliveries will be managed to ensure there is no
undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers as a result of the
deliveries; (c) confirmation that loading doors will be closed shut prior to
any vehicle being unloaded in the site; and (d) the procedure for dealing
with noise complaints arising from neighbouring occupiers. The
development shall be operated in accordance with the approved details.
22) The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
document entitled ‘Noise & Vibration Assessment’ reference RP01-18348
dated 10 August 2018 before it is first occupied.
23) Prior to occupation, the development shall achieve a Certificate of
Compliance to the relevant Secure by Design Guide(s) or alternatively
achieve Crime Prevention Standards which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Measures necessary
to achieve such compliance shall be retained thereafter.
24) Before the development is first occupied, or brought into use, details of
any external lighting and any internal lighting within communal areas
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details before it is first occupied or brought into use.
25) Prior to the commencement of above ground works, a Fire Statement
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Fire Statement shall be produced by a suitably competent
and qualified person which shall detail the building’s construction,
methods, products and materials used; the means of escape for all
building users including those who are disabled or require level access
together with the associated management plan; access for fire service
personnel and equipment; ongoing maintenance and monitoring; and
how provision will be made within the site to enable fire appliances to
gain access to the building. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and the various measures and
means shall be retained thereafter.
26) Before any above ground works commence, details of any rooftop plant,
extract ducts, fans and so forth, including an acoustic report, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
report must set out the sound level generated from the combined plant to
be installed and detail noise control measures to be employed to ensure
the noise from the combined plant does not exceed a level of 10dBA
below the typical measured background noise level measured as L(A)90
15 minutes during operational hours, at the façade of the nearest
residential property.