LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date : 26th June 2012

Report of Assistant Director, Planning & Environmental Protection

Contact Officer: Aled Richards Tel: 020 8379 3857 Andy Higham Tel: 020 8379 3848 Ms H. Brown Tel: 020 8379 4019

Ward: Lower Edmonton

Application Number : P12-00916PLA

Category: Householder Developments

LOCATION: 88, 90, 96, 102, 104, 106, 108, 116, 118, 120, 124, 126 & 132 HERTFORD ROAD, LONDON, N9 7HL PROPOSAL: Replacement front boundary wall and railings, installation of low level railings to boundaries between the front gardens, formation of hardstanding to rear involving replacement fencing, gates and locked bollards, relocation of wheelie bins to the rear and refurbishment of front elevations involving repainting and repairs to windows, doors, railings/ balconies and external steps. Applicant Name & Address: London Borough of Enfield CIVIC CENTRE, SILVER STREET, ENFIELD, EN1 3XA

Agent Name & Address: Henry Bird, Shepherd Epstein Hunter Phoenix Yard 65, Kings Cross Road London WC1X 9LW

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Application No:- P12-00916PLA

1

30

8b

24

12

19

41

30

5

9

8a

1

OX

FO

RD

CLO

SE

8

3 4

32

38

52

43

59

50

62

51

34

13

El Sub Sta

11

2a

2

1

9

1

13.1m

CR

10

8

120

TCB

18

20

2

132

BO

UN

CE

S L

AN

E

19

1

64

HE

RT

FO

RD

50

RO

AD

1

11

21

84

96

31

12

2S

erv

ice

s

Clu

b

2

13.2m

111

Un

ite

d

107

Edm

on

t on

113

109

Sub Sta

St Edmund's

12

CROYLAND ROAD

13.3m

Catholic ChurchTCBs

51

44

37

El

58

28

11

29

36

Presbytery

11

5

Primary School

RC

St Edmund's

73

45

13.5m

59

24

Hall

18

24

OS

WA

RD

PLA

CE

6

81

30

65

Development Control

Scale - 1:1250Time of plot: 11:25 Date of plot: 21/06/2012

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150m

© Crown copyright. London Borough of Enfield LA086363,2003

1. Site and Surroundings 1.1 The site is a terrace that forms a crescent of houses on the east side of

Hertford Road, north of Edmonton Green. It is made up from 25 houses with front and back gardens. They are all 3 stories high plus a basement level. The north end of the terrace abuts a petrol garage and to the south is a small, open space. The terrace, its front and back gardens, the open space to the south and the petrol station site have been designated as ‘The Crescent Conservation Area’. The Crescent is listed at Grade II in view of its architectural and historic importance.

1.2 Most of the houses have long front gardens with paths that lead to the street.

A few, in the middle have a shared open front space with no boundaries. Some of the front gardens are quite over-grown. They each have some form of front boundary to the street though these vary in design. The houses all have front area railings (around the basement) many of which are original. The front elevations of the houses are relatively well-preserved but are in need of some repair and refurbishment. The rear of the properties has been altered far more extensively and appears disordered with various fire escapes, extensions and altered fenestration. The gardens are equally disordered and largely do not resemble gardens but back areas used for access to the houses and parking. The rear boundaries are particularly poorly maintained. Bounces Road, the rear access road, is in urgent need of resurfacing.

1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential with an urban character.

The Hertford Road is wide and busy with much modern development with extensive low-rise housing in the form of terraces and apartments.

2. Proposal 2.1 The application concerns only the privately-owned houses, the rest are owned

by Newlon Housing Trust which is applying for similar works for their own properties. Numbers 88, 90, 96, 102, 104, 106, 108, 116, 118, 120, 124, 126 and 132 are the subject of this application.

2.2 The proposed works include: The replacement of the front boundaries to the

street with a new dwarf wall and railings with locked gates to each property with an audio entry system; the removal of bushes and trees, leaving the specimen trees in place; front gardens will be laid out with grass; bin collection will be relocated to the rear of the terrace from Bounces Lane; repair and redecoration to the front elevations. To the rear: Control of on-street parking; delineation between the adopted highway and garden spaces; new hard standing for wheelie bins and cars; new boundary fencing for the rear gardens.

3. Relevant Planning Decisions 3.1 LBC/01/0003 – 118C Hertford Road, Enfield, N9: Replacement windows to

front elevation. Refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed UPVC windows would represent an inappropriate form of development, resulting in a detrimental impact on the character and

appearance of the Listed Building contrary to Policy (I) C1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4. Consultations 4.1 Statutory and non-statutory consultees 4.1.1 English Heritage (Archaeology) comment that in view of the limited ground

works involved in the scheme, they did not feel there was a need for archaeological intervention.

4.1.2 The Victorian Society comment that they are supportive of the principle of the

refurbishment though had concerns about the details:

a) The reinstatement of the original arrangement at the front of the terrace would be preferable with a communal front garden. If this isn’t possible restrictive covenants to ensure that the appearance of the front is controlled should be considered.

b) The detailing of the front boundaries could be improved; the railings should be caulked in to the copings rather than suspended on a bottom rail in order to appear authentic.

c) The gates and handle design could be improved. The voice entry system should be designed for easy removal and replacement as they are likely to have a shorter life-span.

d) The bin storage wall to the front of 132 is a mistake since the character of the Terrace is based upon uniformity. Bin storage arrangements are far more flexible than the architecture of the Terrace. The steps to 102, 104 and 106 would break the continuous sweep of York stone.

e) The joinery should be black rather than white – white painted window joinery is not contemporary with the Terrace.

4.1.3 In summary, the Society consider an open front area is historically more

accurate and aesthetically desirable however the owners of the properties were not willing to support a scheme that prevented them from having private front gardens. The proposed solution of low fencing will restore a sense of openness as far as possible. Caulking in the uprights into the coping stones is the historically accurate method of fixing railings but is far more expensive than a bottom rail. If all the other details are accurate the impact of the bottom rail can be minimal. The voice entry systems cannot be too easy to remove because of theft. The bin storage wall to number 132 has been amended so the railings are consistent along the frontage. The steps to the basement areas aren’t actually changing. Painting the window joinery a darker colour would be more historically accurate. Modern tastes are for white and cream and may well be preferred by the residents. This will be borne in mind in the conditions and if a darker colour can be agreed then it will.

4.1.4 Edmonton Study Group No comments were received from the Group though their support for the

principle was expressed verbally when the CAG met to discuss the applications though they felt the detailing of the two sets of applications (one submitted by the Council and one by Newlon needed to match up).

4.1.5 The Ancient Monument Society were pleased about the principle of the scheme.

4.1.6 Arboriculture had no comments and raises no objection. 4.1.7 No comments were received from the Council for British Archaeology Society

for Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Twentieth Century Society or the Georgian Group.

4.2 Public 4.2.1 Consultation letters were sent to 82 neighbouring properties. A site notice

was placed in the vicinity of the application site. Apart from an email detailing a civic dispute about parking and rubbish, no comments were received.

4.3 Conservation Advisory Group 4.3.1 The Group advised that:

The detailing of the railings and design at the front needs to match. The design should be as historically accurate as possible. The Council’s application was better detailed.

The Council’s application was of an acceptable standard. Newlon’s scheme needs to be amended to be more historically accurate and better quality in order to obtain consent.

5. Relevant Policy 5.1 London Plan Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities

Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime Policy 7.4 Local character

Policy 7.5 Public Realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology Policy 7.9 Heritage-Led Regeneration

5.2 Unitary Development Plan

(II)C18 – Protection of Curtilages of Historic Buildings (II)C31 – Removal of detracting features in Conservation Areas (II)GD3 - Aesthetic and functional design (II)CS2 Land and Environmental Considerations

5.3 Core Strategy Core Policy 30 - Maintaining and improving the quality of the built and open environment Core Policy 31 – Built Landscape and Heritage Core Policy 39 - Edmonton 5.4 Other Relevant Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

6. Analysis 6.1 Historical Context 6.1.1 The Crescent was constructed between 1826 and 1851 and is listed at Grade

II in recognition of its architectural and historic importance. It is of particular significance in this location where much of the locality has been rebuilt in recent times. The contribution it makes to the street scene and to the general amenity of the area is considerable with its imposing sweep of buildings that are can be seen for some distance in views from the north and south along Hertford Road, and in the generous front gardens that separate the houses from the street. The development dates from a time when Edmonton was an affluent area populated by gentry and the wealthy mercantile classes. It was a speculative build, the developer’s aspirations for the area are apparent in the metropolitan sophistication of the architecture; the houses are very similar to contemporary examples in the west end of London and areas such as Islington. The Crescent is missing 3 houses at its northern end, which seems to be due to it never being completed, the pedimented ‘middle’ section is resultantly not actually central.

6.1.2 Each house would have been built as a single dwelling though most are now

subdivided into flats. The area at the front, now divided into gardens, would have been an open, shared space with railings on a dwarf, retaining wall fronting the pavement. The layout and much of the detail can be discerned from old photographs. The front railings were probably removed during the Second World War and since then the front area has been divided up with a mixture of walls, fences and hedging some of it very overgrown. A sense of the how the layout must have looked is gained from the middle three houses under the pediment which do not have front boundaries and have a generally well-tended lawn with attractive trees. The rear gardens would have always been divided between the houses and are now generally run-down in appearance and vary in length with poorly maintained parking spaces and access road (Bounces Lane) at the ends of the gardens. This area reportedly invites antisocial behaviour. The front elevation is fairly well-preserved with much historic joinery and ironmongery. Much of the detailing (door cases, glazing patterns etc) vary along the terrace, reflecting the changing fashions over the period that it was constructed. Where the front elevation is an attractive asset to the area the rear elevations have been altered extensively and appear disorderly.

6.1.2 The Conservation Area Appraisal gives a concise summary of the work that

needs to be done to restore the Crescent and its surroundings in order that it can be fully appreciated. The general lack of repair of the buildings and their front and back gardens is one of the major issues as is the general state of Bounces Lane. The front gardens with the mix of boundary treatments and rubbish bins (and general littering) probably have the single most negative effect on the character of the listed buildings, the conservation area and the general amenity of the area.

6.2 Background

6.2.1 The plans for the restoration of the front and rear gardens and the repair work to the buildings that make up this application are part of a Council-led scheme. Newlon Housing Trust own 12 of the houses in the Crescent, the rest are privately owned. The scheme has been developed in conjunction with the Council’s own Project Team with the architects working on behalf of Newlon. Applications submitted by Newlon are considered elsewhere on the Agenda

6.2.2 Since a major aspect of the applications is for the restoration of dwarf walls

and railings to the front gardens the two schemes need to match up precisely. The design of the Crescent is based on uniformity and that, despite slight changes of detail, is the main impression it gives. The railings and walls need to be the same height and design to allow them to join up and restore the impression of a consistent and attractive frontage.

6.2 Principle 6.2.1 The principle of the proposal is to be welcomed; the intention being to

improve the setting and appearance of the listed buildings and the appearance of the Conservation Area. The other aspect of the application is improving the security for the inhabitants and improving Bounces Lane to the rear.

6.2.2 As mentioned above it is vital that the two schemes proposed are identical

concerning the railings and front gardens in order to restore the uniformity of the frontage. The ideal proposal in design terms would be an accurate historic restoration and the proposal must be assessed against this ideal as well as the basic benchmark of improving and enhancing upon what is currently there. Two differing schemes that do not physically match up would present a confused and inconsistent frontage and would not be granted permission.

6.2.3 A less rigid approach can be taken to the rear gardens which are not well-

preserved and in desperate need of some sort of order being reinstated. The rear elevations were never intended as the public face and accordingly far less attention was paid to their design, their appearance is even less organised than they would originally have been. The layout of the gardens can differ between the schemes since this is unappreciable from anywhere other than the upstairs windows of the Crescent. The gardens are currently already different lengths, unifying them would be desirable but improving the existing situation is more important.

6.2.4 Making the front gardens and rear gardens secure is welcome from the point

of view of the residents. It will also prevent fly tipping that currently occurs frequently along the front gardens. The application attempts to directly tackle the social problems that reportedly exist due to the secluded but unsecure character of the front and rear gardens.

6.2.5 Removing the waste collection from the front gardens to Bounces Road is

intended to also discourage fly tipping and improve the appearance of the street scene. Improving the garden boundaries and the road surfacing itself is also acceptable in principle.

6.3 Railings and Dwarf Wall

6.3.1 The front boundary is currently a mixture of different treatments. Many are low walls with railings though there is no consistency in design or height and almost all have no real merit. As an important element of the foreground of the listed buildings and the entrance to their curtilage this incoherent jumble is not appropriate.

6.3.2 The application proposes the demolition of all the existing boundaries at the

front and its replacement with a dwarf wall of stock bricks and natural stone coping at 405mm in height with iron railings set on a bottom rail. The overall height of the wall and railings proposed is 1600mm. The standards are set in the coping stones and every fourth upright in a panel is caulked in the coping, the other uprights rest on the bottom rail. The uprights have barbed arrowhead details on their tops and the standards have urns. The proposal is for each house to have a gate with its own voice entry system. The gates are all positioned to the north of their section so that the front railings and gates for each property are a self contained piece of design. This means that if a neighbour decided not to take part in the scheme, the front boundary for the properties will not look unfinished. The standards have dog-leg supports on the garden side. The uprights are 20mm solid square and the standards are 40mm solid square, they are spaced at 150mm from centres.

6.3.3 The original front boundary did not have gates as there was access from

either end of the Crescent and the front area was shared. The current owners and inhabitants of the Crescent would not accept a shared garden as was established as part of the consultation process, so individual access has been accommodated. Although this is a missed opportunity in terms of restoring the historic boundary treatment, there can be no doubt that what is proposed is an improvement in terms of quality and design on what is there currently.

6.3.4 The original wall was higher but this was because it acted as a retaining wall

for the front area which is no longer needed. The more usual form of railings from this period is for a lower wall, in the manner of what is proposed, with the railings making up most of the height. Railings from the beginning of the nineteenth century vary in height but as a rule area railings were significantly shorter than those that front highways and public squares (like those that are being proposed here). It is important that they present a secure frontage but also that they are not imposingly high and defensive in appearance. 1600mm is roughly head height for most adults, making the boundary not easy to climb nor imposingly tall. The stock brick and natural stone copings are historically appropriate materials. Flush copings on a wall this low will mean there will not be a small area of pavement under the coping that is difficult to clean. The bottom rail is not an historic detail, the justification is the prohibitive cost of caulking in all the uprights. Although this is a compromise on the quality, if the rest of the railing details and materials are accurate the impact of the bottom rail can be minimal. The proposed scheme is still incomparably more appropriate than what is currently there and this is the only real compromise due to cost. The barbed arrowhead and urn details are based on the originals and so appropriate. The dog-legs are an authentic detail and the spacing of the uprights strike the right balance between a secure front boundary and visual permeability. A general guide for historic spacings is 25mm uprights at 140mm spacings, so the proposed will have an authentic impression.

6.3.5 Core Policy 30 states that the Council will ‘reverse the decline in the loss of

street greenery, architectural detailing, boundary treatments and addressing the impact of parking on front gardens.’ This aspect of the proposals goes

some considerable way towards restoring the historic boundary treatment and is therefore in accordance with Core Policy 30.

6.4 Front Gardens . 6.4.1 Except for number 132 which has no rear garden, the bin storage and

collection which currently happens along the boundaries of the front gardens will move to Bounces Lane at the rear of the Crescent. New stone aprons will be laid on the inside of the gates and lawns laid. Other than the few specific trees that have been identified as worth preserving, the bushes and trees will be removed. New metal railings dividing the garden boundaries at 900mm are proposed. These will fix to the area railings attached to the houses and the new railings front, street.

6.4.2 The removal of the bin collection to the rear would be positive for the

appearance of the Crescent and would discourage fly-tipping. Number 132 would have a bin store set slightly back from the street. The stone aprons would be in-keeping with the stone path that runs along the top of the front gardens and the materials used for the new front boundary. The removal of trees and new low railings between properties would have the effect of opening up the front garden space, allowing the Crescent to be fully appreciated and the front gardens properly maintained. Policy (II)C18 of the UDP states that the curtilages of buildings of architectural and historic interest should retain their historic, form, character and use and be in character with the historic design and use of the curtilage. Also, that they do not result in the curtilage becoming fragmented in terms of occupation and/or use; and to seek to use planning conditions and agreement to secure these ends for the foreseeable future.’ This application will go some way to restoring the original, open form of the front area.

6.5 Repair of the Front Elevations 6.5.1 It is arguable whether much of this work requires permission at all since much

of it is like for like repair. New cast brass door numbers are proposed for the front doors which are traditional and appropriate door furniture. Otherwise the stripping back and replacement of joinery, the replacement of missing area railings and the repair of door architraves and railings is all positive and needed.

6.6 Back Gardens 6.6.1 The application proposes to tidy up this rear space, removing scrub, old

fences and bits of old wall. New 1800mm high feather edge timber with concrete post fences are proposed to replace them with gates at the ends for access to Bounces Lane. At the ends of the gardens, directly adjacent to the fencing, hard standing is provided for bin storage and then between that and the Lane hard standing for parking is to be laid. A path past the cars is to be designated so the bins can be collected easily.

6.6.2 In general the works will improve what is currently a chaotic and unattractive

area. The only conceivable loss is the removal of fragments of historic boundary walls. These however are very limited and not sufficiently well-preserved that their significance can currently be appreciated. The new waste-collection and parking arrangements will improve the appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the listed buildings.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The works proposed are generally of high quality and demonstrate an

understanding of the significance of the heritage assets affected. The setting of the Crescent is currently in a poor state and this application will go a long way in restoring much of its previous appearance at the front and organise the logistical difficulties of waste collection and parking to the rear. It is worth stating that ‘the other half of the scheme’ as submitted by Newlon would ideally be identical and granted consent at the same time. Their scheme cannot be a consideration here, suffice to say that this application proposes a well-detailed and thought out balance of historic restoration and if applied to the whole Terrace would have an immediately positive effect, improving the appearance of the conservation area, the setting of the listed buildings and the buildings themselves. As it is it will still improve those houses is it is applicable to.

7.2 It is considered, therefore, that the proposals are acceptable for the following

reason: 1. The proposals, by reason of their quality of design and materials, will

improve and enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area and the appearance and setting of the Listed Buildings.

8. Recommendation 8.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. C60: Approved Plans. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, as set out in the attached schedule which forms part of this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. C08: Materials to Match. The external finishing materials shall match those used in the construction of the existing building and/or areas of hard surfacing.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and to preserve the historic

and architectural character of the listed buildings and their setting.

3. C09: Details of Hard Surfacing. The development shall not commence until details of the surfacing materials to be used within the development including footpaths, access roads and parking areas and road markings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surfacing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved detail before the development is occupied or use commences.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety and a satisfactory appearance.

4. C10: Details of Levels. The development shall not commence until plans

detailing the existing and proposed ground levels including the levels of any proposed buildings, roads and/or hard surfaced areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that levels have regard to the level of surrounding development, gradients and surface water drainage. 5. Details of Voice Entry System: The development shall not commence until

plans detailing how the proposed voice entry system is affixed and can be removed from the proposed gates and railings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the historic and architectural character of the

setting is maintained.

6. Paintwork: The development shall not commence until details and samples of all new paintwork to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the historic and architectural character of the Listed Building is preserved.

7. Samples of railings: The development shall not commence until samples of the ironwork and dwarf wall of the proposed new front boundary, including bricks and coping stones, and the proposed railings dividing the front boundary have been submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Authority and thereafter shall be erected and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the character of the setting of the Listed Buildings is preserved.

8. Repair and Redecoration: Following the building operations for which

consent is hereby granted, all repair and redecoration of the existing buildings shall be carried out in materials which closely match those used in the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the historic and architectural character of the building

is properly maintained, in accordance with Policy 31 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. C16: Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas. The parking area(s) forming part of the development shall only be used for the parking of private motor vehicles and shall not be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with Unitary Development Plan Policies and to prevent the introduction of activity which would be detrimental to amenity?

10. C19: Details of Refuse Storage. The development shall not commence

until details of refuse storage structure for number 132 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied or use commences.

Reason: To preserve the setting of the listed buildings and the character of the Conservation Area.

11. Time Limited Permission. The works to which this consent relates shall be

begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

12. Height of proposed new boundaries: Notwithstanding the provisions of the

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any amending Order, the height of the proposed boundaries between the front gardens shall be erected other than those indicated on the proposed drawings and shall not exceed 900mm in height without the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the setting of the listed buildings and the character of the Conservation Area.