This is the detail posted on London Borough of Enfield website:
Planning Application Details To comment on an application email firstname.lastname@example.org
Application Date: 21-Jun-2011
Application Reference: TP/11/0904
Registration Date: 06-Jul-2011
Publicity Start Date:
Publicity End Date: 15-Aug-2011
Application Type: MAJOR - Full application
Extension of time to:
Main Location: MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, 182, CAT HILL, BARNET, EN4 8HU
Full Description Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide 272 residential units comprising 178 self contained flats within 5 x 6-storey blocks with basement parking (Block E - 2 x 2-bed and 22 x 3-bed, Block F - 6 x 1-bed, 14 x 2-bed and 10 x 3-bed, Block G - 6 x 1-bed, 14 x 2-bed and 10 x 3-bed, Block H - 10 x 1-bed, 22 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed, Block I - 10 x 1-bed, 22 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed), 3 x 3 and 4-storey blocks comprising (Block A - 3 x 1-bed and 6 x 2-bed, Block C - 6 x 1-bed and Block D - 3 x 1-bed and 8 x 2-bed) and 94 2 and 3-storey terraced single family dwelling houses (40 x 3-bed and 54 x 4-bed), associated car parking spaces, communal amenity space, landscaping and internal access roads.
Status: Registered application
It is clear this proposal is too dense, destroys a large percentage of the woodland and will disturb the habitat of protected species.
The key objections to L&Q’s proposed development are (and feel free to use any of these in your letters):
1. The campus should be retained as an educational site. Both Enfield and Barnet Councils are predicting a shortfall in school places in the primary school age group in the next few years and the Secondary schools in Enfield and Barnet are already over-subscribed. The site is not identified in the Mayor’s London Plan 2011 for opportunity housing nor as an area of intensification, therefore, presumably assumes ongoing educational use.
2. The proposed building works clearly do not reflect the character of existing development in the surrounding area in both scale and size. The location of high-rise flats along the main road frontage heightens the visual density effect and the scheme is dense, and architecturally, bland and uninteresting.
3. There is no indication that Section 106 payments will be apportioned to this side of Enfield Borough. The Planning Officers’ Society Note, April 2011, clearly states: ‘Section 106 payments should be restricted to the regulation of development and in particular site specific mitigation. They should not be used for generic payments to the Local Planning Authority’. Therefore, should the London Borough of Enfield utilise such payments elsewhere, it would be unlawful.
4. There will be a major increase in the population in this area and yet the scheme lacks any provision of facilities for children or the elderly, an absence of which could lead to anti-social behaviour and put a strain on social services provision. Additionally, no assessment has been made on the ability of the medical services or emergency services to cater for such a major increase in the population.
5. The parking availability provided in the scheme provides one space per household but this will lead to problems with overspill parking in the surrounding streets. Consideration has not been given to two or more car households, carers, visitors or contractors parking.
6. The Great Crested Newt is protected by European Law. L&Q state none were found to be present when their survey was undertaken. Within two days a licensed surveyor found adult newts in the pond and adults and juveniles within metres of it. This was verified by LEHART and registered with Natural England.
7. The Flood Risk Assessment avoids calculating the run-off co-efficients both pre and post development. Already gardens in Vernon Crescent and Oakhill Park flood regularly, despite efforts to remediate this. Additionally, L&Q state they have included SUDs (sustainable urban drainage systems) but do not say what they will be used for, or indeed, who will monitor them. With a larger area to be concreted under the planned development, the flooding problems will get worse.
8. The loss of established trees which are a legacy of the old Enfield Chase.
9. We are gravely concerned about the high level of ground contamination on the site. L&Q’s report is less than transparent about its findings which suggest they are concealing information which may harm their interests in developing the site – parts of which we believe are unfit for human habitation or recreation. Additionally, there is no evidence that other potentially harmful toxic substances, such as, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, sulphur, asbestos and radioactive isotopes, were even tested for.
10. The bat survey was inadequate and not seriously undertaken. Requests to allow our experts to undertake a survey has been denied.
Wednesday 7th March 2012. I urge everyone to attend. Details of venue will be distributed at the residents meeting on 23rd February.