The Planning Committee of Enfield Council met on Tuesday 18 March 2025 to discuss two major planning applications. The meeting's agenda included a report from the Head of Planning and Building Control, and detailed discussions were scheduled regarding proposed developments at Alma Estate in EN3 and at Upton Road and Raynham Road in London N18 2LJ.

Alma Estate, EN3 (Application 24/02608/FUL)

The committee was scheduled to consider a significant planning application for the Alma Estate in Enfield, EN3. The proposal involved the demolition of existing residential blocks and dwellings to construct new residential and mixed-use buildings. These would include ground-floor commercial space (Use Class E), residential dwellings (Use Class C3), along with associated infrastructure such as road layout, parking, landscaping, and amenity spaces.

The recommendation from the Head of Planning was to grant planning permission, subject to the application being referred to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Delegated authority was requested for the Head of Planning to finalise conditions and the Section 106 agreement, including any additional terms requested by the Greater London Authority or government bodies.

The report pack detailed an extensive regeneration project, part of Enfield Council's Housing Renewal Programme. The proposal aimed to deliver 723 homes across the final phases of the Alma Estate regeneration, contributing to a total of 1,402 homes across the entire estate. A significant aspect of the proposal was the provision of 187 affordable homes within this phase, comprising 80 for social rent and 107 for shared ownership. The report highlighted that while the scheme aimed to maximise affordable housing, viability testing indicated a deficit, meaning the proposed affordable housing represented the maximum achievable level.

The application was supported by an Environmental Statement addressing potential impacts on socio-economics, human health, noise, air quality, transport, daylight, sunlight, wind microclimate, ecology, built heritage, townscape, visual impact, residual effects, mitigation, and cumulative effects. Numerous consultations with external bodies such as the Environment Agency, Greater London Authority, Historic England, Metropolitan Police, and Thames Water were detailed, along with internal consultations with various council departments.

The report also outlined relevant planning policies from the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan, Enfield's Core Strategy, and the Development Management Document, as well as Mayoral Supplementary Guidance and the emerging Enfield Local Plan. The planning assessment covered a wide range of considerations including the principle of estate regeneration, land use, housing and affordable housing provision, viability, design and townscape, heritage and conservation, residential amenity, impact on neighbouring properties, open space, landscaping, trees, biodiversity, transport, sustainability, noise, air quality, waste, contamination, fire safety, flood risk, socio-economics, health, wind, security, equality duty, and the proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms.

Upton Road and Raynham Road, London N18 2LJ (Application 24/03918/VAR)

The committee was also scheduled to consider a variation of conditions application for a site at Upton Road and Raynham Road, London N18 2LJ. This application sought to amend a previous planning permission (21/04271/RE4) which had been granted for residential dwellings and commercial floorspace.

The recommendation was for delegated authority to be given to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the agreement of a Shadow Section 106 Agreement.

The proposed variations included an increase in the number of residential units from 134 to 135, with a significant change to the tenure mix: 100% of the homes would now be affordable, an increase from the previous 92 affordable homes. The proposal included 66 London Affordable Rent homes, 42 Social Rent homes, and 27 Shared Ownership homes. Building heights were proposed to be reduced to a maximum of six storeys, a decrease from the previously consented seven storeys. The layout composition was to remain largely unchanged, but with simplified floor plans and standardised block shapes. The commercial floorspace was to be replaced with a new nursery, and the existing Scott House would see improvements to its access.

The report detailed that this application was a Section 73 application to vary conditions, focusing on minor material changes to building heights, footprint, elevational design, and the amounts of residential floorspace, open space, and use classes. The principle of development was considered established by the extant permission, and the proposal was seen to align with London Plan policies on making the best use of land and building to suitable densities. The affordable housing offer was highlighted as exceeding policy requirements, with a strong emphasis on social and London Affordable Rent tenures.

The report also addressed design aspects, including massing and height, block layouts, and architectural approach, noting changes from the approved scheme to enhance visual interest and contextual response. Residential quality and amenity were assessed, with a focus on dwelling aspect, space standards, and inclusive design. Impacts on neighbouring amenity, including daylight, sunlight, and fire safety, were also detailed. The landscape design, play space provision, and tree retention were discussed, along with considerations for biodiversity, heritage, archaeology, transport, access, parking, sustainability, climate change, environmental health, flood risk, drainage, socio-economics, health, and the proposed Heads of Terms for the Shadow Section 106 Agreement.

The report concluded that the proposed amendments were considered minor and within the scope of a Section 73 application, not materially changing the conclusions of the previous grant of permission. The overall benefits of the scheme, particularly the 100% affordable housing provision and the delivery of family-sized homes, were considered to outweigh any minor adverse impacts.