Major redevelopment of Joyce and Snells approved by councillors

Estates in Angel Edmonton will be demolished to make way for double the number of homes and a net increase in social housing, reports James Cracknell.

Councilors have approved plans for the biggest property redevelopment project in the borough.

Angel Edmonton’s Joyce Avenue and Snells Park properties, commonly known as Joyce and Snells, will be redeveloped over the next two decades and beyond, with more than twice the number of homes built to replace existing blocks of flats, all of which will be phased demolished. .

The scheme led by Enfield Council will cost almost £800m and is supported by £50m of City Hall funding.

In December 2021, at a poll, 78.5% of residents voted in favor of the council’s regeneration proposals. This vote was followed a year later by the submission of detailed plans for the first phases of redevelopment and outline plans for subsequent phases.

The existing estates date from the 1950s and 60s and comprise 795 homes, in blocks of up to 15 storeys high, of which 390 are social rented homes and 44 are managed by housing associations, with 361 privately owned.

The application was approved by Enfield Council’s planning committee last night (Tuesday 16^th) refers to a “phased, comprehensive, mixed-use, housing-led redevelopment” comprising up to 2,028 homes, a new community centre, a nursery, an energy center and flexible retail space in buildings of up to 26 of storeys, along with “new publicly accessible parks, landscaping, public realm, pedestrian and cycle connections and highway/access works”.

Half of the new homes (1,013) will be designated as affordable, representing a net increase of 579 affordable homes – more than double the current number (434). Affordable housing will be split between social rent, shared ownership and shared ownership, but there will be a net increase in social housing overall.

The plans were approved with the support of Labor councilors on the committee, with three Tory councilors voting against the scheme after raising a number of concerns about the height of the development, its impact on public transport demand and the level of natural light in some of the the new blocks. A fourth Conservative councilor abstained.

One of the Tory opponents, Michael Rye, said he was disappointed that a scheme put forward by the council did not respect the council’s own policies on tall buildings. He said: “I see this as a missed opportunity. I am concerned that we have put forward proposals that are not in line with the Local Plan or the Local Plan being developed – what example will that set?”

Although the development will result in a doubling of public open space, as the number of dwellings on the property will more than double, the amount of open space per person will be reduced.

Cllr Rye said: “There is a deficiency of open space in the development – ​​collectively this is a totally unsatisfactory set of proposals, a missed chance to do something exciting for the area rather than cram in extra houses with no open space suitable.”

The council’s conservation advisor, Nicholas Page, responded to some of the concerns raised. While admitting the scheme “didn’t tick all the boxes”, he said: “I’m confident the scheme will improve the current situation. The existing blocks do not have a positive contribution, so although the new blocks are larger in magnitude, they are far superior. The scheme has the potential to improve the conservation area and the quality of the public realm.”

Responding to concerns about the height of the development, planning officer Joseph Aggar admitted it did not comply with the council’s policy on tall buildings for the local area, but claimed it was “following the spirit of the policy” as the layout of the scheme would protect the tallest blocks from view Main Street.

On open space, Joseph said that even with a decline relative to population growth, the quality of space available to residents would improve, with existing open spaces being “not fully accessible” and of “low quality”, while the development proposes a new public park, community garden and private leisure space for all residents. The scheme also proposes a £500,000 contribution towards improvements to Florence Hayes Recreation Ground and Pymmes Park.

Another Conservative backbencher, Lee Chamberlain, raised concerns about the level of natural light in the new flats and the impact on neighboring properties, while fellow party member Peter Fallart said he was concerned about the impact on local services by bus. A council transport officer responded that Transport for London was happy with the scheme, while Joseph said the daylight impact was outweighed by the overall benefits.

Labor committee member Josh Abey commented on the new housing benefits the development would provide and said: “There will be a massive increase in social rent, three-bed houses compared to existing property. So while I share some of the concerns, I think in absolute terms there is huge growth (in social housing).

Upper Edmonton ward councilor Thomas Fawns also spoke to highlight the need for a new pedestrian crossing at Sterling Way, north of the development, and was told in response that it would be funded as part of the scheme.

Further plans include both temporary and permanent replacement buildings for Boundary Hall and Fore Street Library, which will both be demolished to make way for the scheme, as well as a replacement multi-purpose games area.

The council says existing secure tenants and resident tenants will all be offered a home on the redeveloped property.

More information about the council’s plans can be found on a dedicated website:
Visit joyceandsnells.co.uk

Independent news outlets like ours – which report for the community without wealthy backers – are under threat of closure, turning Britain’s cities into news deserts.

The public they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, annual or one-time donation.

Choose the news. Don’t miss the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 a month backers get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 a month backers get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted each month. Annual £50 backers get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else.

More information about our monthly or annual support

More information about donations