Forum topic: Further consultation on future of Bowes Road site adjacent to Ritz Parade

At Phase 1, around 300 sq. m is provided within the frontage building and the current thinking is that this would accommodate a foodstore. There would be no parking provided for this as its primary purpose is to serve pedestrians. There would be a dedicated service bay provided at the front of the store to allow deliveries.

At Phase 2, at ground floor level a multi-functional space, approximately 150 sq m in size, will be provided and we intend to apply for a mix of uses that would allow the space to be occupied as a community facility, office, shop and restaurant. Previous plans for this unit included a GP surgery; however, following consultation with the NHS and local healthcare providers over the past year it is clear that this site does not meet the location requirements for such a facility. Notting Hill Housing are continuing discussions with the NHS to establish if there is another opportunity to provide such a facility along the North Circular Road.

Southgate Green Ward Forum Tues 27/3

It's hard to go out on a cold night but this is the next Ward along from Bowes so...

There were about 50 people there to hear a presentation by Notting Hill Housing Trust. There are real problems being discussed here, even though very few of them could be solved by the Council under the present political arrangements.

Nevertheless a strong presence of informed council officers had come to back up the planners and developers, together with all three Councillors and the cabinet member for this corner of the Borough. A formidable panel.

The audience was also experienced in outcomes. Great potential for a stand off but actually a good informative exchange of ideas.

(So tempting to write this up as a boxing match but people were being polite ...)

The Ritz parade on the north side of the North Circular west of Clockhouse Junction, east of the turn at Wilmer Way, has been scruffy for years since the sell off by Transport for London of "road expansion space" in 2009. As it is a patchwork of ownership and upkeep, it is planning and road blight exemplified.

Notting Hill Housing are working with the council to provide housing on the site based on two years of consultations, but at present only have a portion of the site in their possession and ready to go.

(I was amused by the "indicative images" on the slide show featuring about three cars on the North Circular and some very elegant pedestrians.)

The current plans can be seen here www.nhhg.org.uk

Ref 18/00388/OUT. or email

Input from the audience focussed on several interesting aspects from which other wards can learn
(ding ding round one...)

1. The ratio of units to parking spaces. 37 flats to 17 spaces is a recipe for more overflow parking on the streets already crowded with Tube station parking overflow. Free participation for three years in a Car Club for new occupants was not considered enough by those with prior experience of local developments with too little parking space. They were asking for residents in the new blocks to be automatically excluded from any local prospective CPZ, and by implication on the consultations relating to that, as a restrictive clause in the sale of the flats. Reduction in value of development versus existing community just before an election. Residents might win that one....

2. Inclusion of solid planting of shrubs along the borders between the traffic and the pavement to reduce air pollution on the pedestrian route. OR provision of a green pedestrian route through the site to allow people to walk parallel to the north circular away from the pollution. A route passing through the "underground" car park did not sound ideal. The developers were challenged to rethink this kind of provision for pedestrians in their plans. The developers did not look keen....nobody actually mentioned gates on the site but through pedestrian routes are not compatible with raised gardens, privacy and security.....

3. Financial Contributions from the developers, legally paid to the council towards the costs of reducing the impact of their development. ( see "CIL charges" and "Section 106" charges) Now here it became obvious that some of the "generous" funds, given to the council out of the developers "profits" under these national legal arrangements, were not going to be spent directly in the area under pressure, but in those areas identified by the council as a priority ie not in Southgate Green or on local schools. The sheer size of Enfield creates issues here. But if the Southgate Green community come up with a plan everyone behind the table promised to look at it and it might attract some of the funds back........at which point the point was made very clearly that the residents had already said what they wanted, in two consultations, so why should they do their Councillors' jobs for them......

4. Just what is a community space? When is a cafe a "chain coffee shop" and when is it a "community space"? When the outcome of a long consultation requests inclusion of a meeting space in the plans, and the developers offer a commercial space that might house a community cafe....or might not....are they meeting the design brief? (This ward meeting was not actually meeting inside the ward boundaries, such is the shortage of community meeting spaces)

5. Impact on schools and doctors' surgeries of additional people. This was so obviously outside the remit of developers, council officers and even Councillors that discussion here was pointless. Nevertheless a two week wait for an appointment (personal experience) means that interest in exactly where the local NHS Commissioning Group would commit to a new health centre was keen. A half promise from the developers to look at a site near Clock House Junction needs a strong follow up.
6. No comfort was offered to the parents of the overflow Bowes New Southgate primary school currently occupying spare classrooms in Broomfield School. Due to be evicted from that site by Broomfield after 2020, (B need the space back for secondary provision), the parents present were outspoken in their quiet desperation. They are caught in a trap, between developers prioritising housing, land-banking in the borough, and that their educational trust was not top of the list for the few sites and funds available.

Boxing aside, the reality is that there are no grounds for an appeal in all this. It would cost too much and likely lose. The adverse effects of increasing the number of people expected to live in our spaces, whether it be local water shortages or more rubbish collections or poor access to schools or GPs, none of these effects have the power to override the need to maximise the housing available in these sites. Meanwhile buildings sit empty elsewhere in the borough.

It all felt a long way away from the optimism of the 2012 North Circular Development Plan.