Tuesday, 14 December 2021 – Forgotten Powers

In June 2020, Enfield Council’s Planning Committee refused permission for a 17-storey development in Southgate Town Centre called Southgate Office Village.  It was refused on the basis of the height and massing of homes in the Southgate Circus Conservation Area, in particular on its imposition on the Grade II-listed Southgate Tube Station.  The members of the Committee unanimously agreed that they didn’t want the development.

The developer, Viewpoint Estates, appealed the decision and, today, the Committee’s decision was overturned by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate on the basis that “it would cause no harm to the setting or significance of heritage assets nearby, or further afield.”  The inspector found that, in its favour, the development would add to the borough’s much needed housing supply.

However, with such a decision, the S106 obligations originally negotiated and presented to the Committee and, where they still serve a purpose, that is, are not relevant to the original reason for permission being refused, they remain a condition of planning permission.  Enfield’s planning policy for employment and skills, not relevant to the original refusal, stipulates that 25% of the labour employed on the construction of the development should be local residents as well as 22 apprenticeships created for local residents.

Enfield Council can still, ultimately, withhold planning permission if reasonable endeavours are not made by the developer to make these contributions.  Having previously worked for Enfield as Employment and Skills Officer, my experience is that, and because they made my job redundant, I know the council puts little stock in whether required Employment and Skills contributions have been made when discharging the relevant S106 obligation.  Similarly, and probably because of this, developers in Enfield have never shown reasonable endeavours to satisfy these obligations.

However, given that they didn’t want the development in the first place, Enfield has an opportunity here to retrospectively refuse permission.  This is not a technicality they can wield but a real-world requirement in the nation’s guidance on assessing and allowing major developments to ensure they provide more benefit than harm to a neighbourhood.  Assuming that the planning inspector is right and the Planning Committee is wrong that the height and massing of homes is not an insurmountable harm, and despite much needed homes being built, then the development still has to provide sufficient local jobs for it to be deemed acceptable by the Planning Inspector.

Experience strongly indicates that Viewpoint Estates won’t make the reasonable endeavours to make the minimum efforts to do so and it will be interesting to see if Enfield imposes this planning obligation on the developer or whether it ignores this condition that they are legally obliged to monitor and enforce, or whether they grant full permission for a development that doesn’t meet its planning requirements and that they didn’t want in the first place.  If they do refuse permission on the basis of a lack of employment and skills contributions, it will be the first time ever.  I will keep an eye on this one.