Enfield Town Residents' Association


ETRA members are asked if they would be prepared to support objections being raised by Chase Side residents to a proposed 5G radio mast. 

Letter of Objection:

Objection letter to 5G mast – 08012023


Whitewebbs Cattle Proposal

The proposal to graze cattle in Whitewebbs Park

Cattle proposal leaflet


ETRA keeps an eye on planning applications submitted to Enfield Council which may impact our members.

Most of the local small-scale applications for domestic or single shop developments are highlighted in our newsletter, along with the details of how to view their details on the council’s website.

Larger developments which are likely to have a greater impact will be featured here. Some schemes of interest at the moment are the Coliseum development on the B&Q site at Southbury Road and the proposals to build on the car parks serving London Underground stations in the borough.

While these developments are not in our immediate vicinity, they all have implications for amenities currently used by our members.

For larger developments there may be a consultation period when residents’ views are invited. We encourage our members to give their views when such matters potentially affect them. When we hear about relevant consultations we will publicise it on our Consultation page and will also notify members through our newsletter.

Current planning applications

17 Sydney Road – House to Flat conversion

Cllr Chris Dey’s  letter of appeal to residents: 17 Sydney Road

You may make a comment supporting or objecting to this application. You will need to create an account to do this, or login if you have previously created an account.

Your comment will be registered against the application and acknowledged electronically if you provide an email address. Please do not include personal information in the comments box (e.g. name, address, telephone number etc.). When making comments on an application please note that whilst your name will not be displayed, your address and comments will be publicly available.

Note that in the event of an appeal being lodged, we are obliged to forward your comments with your address to the Planning Inspectorate who will share this information with the Applicant/Appellant (Planning Inspectorate Privacy Statement).

Please be aware that we will not accept any comment that is derogatory or offensive.

This web form will time out after 20 minutes and you will lose any comments that have not been submitted. Our advice is to draft your comments in another programme (notepad or MS Word) and then copy and paste your comments to this web form.

The Planning Service is committed to protecting your privacy. Find out by reading our privacy notice available at

You must log in to make a comment.

Login and make a comment.

Not got a login? Register here.



Clock Parade proposed development – very short notice of this.  Cllr Milne is arranging a “call in”.  Everyone is urged to write to the council.  See link below. In the search bar, type in Clock parade and it should be the first entry on their list.

Private Road Residence’s letter of objections:

To: 09/03/2022

Subject: Clock Parade, London Rd.  21/04817/FUL.  Case Officer. James Clark

Redevelopment of site including part demolition and rebuild to create a 4 storey building and a part 5 part 2 storey building to comprise 41 net additional residential units with commercial floor space at ground floor level, an enlarged basement car park, associated refuse and cycle storage and landscaping.

For the attention of James Clark. Case Officer. Development & Planning Control

PLEASE NOTE: This is an updated letter on behalf of my assocation following on from the submission we made to the first application.

Dear James Clark,

I write on behalf of the Private Road Residents’ Association concerning the above planning application about which, having studied the plans, we have various observations and objections.

Firstly, we wish to make clear that Private Road itself is private. The developer maintains that, “There are no restrictions along the section of Private Road that is adopted highway.” We must contest this assertion in the strongest possible terms: Private Road is unadopted in its entirety, from London road to its locked gate at the eastern end.

It is owned by residents with a right of way over it  but no parking rights for other traffic. Also there is a footpath right of way which runs alongside the Sainsbury building and which does not seem to be shown on the current plans but must be clearly delineated : any proposed re-location of this footpath must be undertaken through discussion with my Association.

It should also be noted that there should be no loading/ unloading etc. on Private Road.

We feel that the section of Private Road by Sainsbury’s, where it joins London Road, should now be adopted by LBE  with either the Authority or the Developer then undertaking to install an electronic gate or barrier which they , LBE or the Developer, will maintain for the residents. The area in front of this barrier should be cross-hatched to prevent blockage parking. This could all be achieved through a 106 Agreement.

It should be noted also that Private Road is a greatly favoured walk-through for many local people – shoppers,  dog walkers and families with push chairs and small children, all of whom habitually walk down the middle of the road. Any heavy and/or additional traffic will therefore, pose a risk for all these pedestrians.

There is no denying that the Clock Parade site is tired and in need of renovation and we are not opposed to a redevelopment that enhances and improves the neighbourhood. Since Clock Parade is immediately adjacent to Private Road, which is part of the Bush Hill Park Conservation Area, this is a vital consideration – any development must be sympathetic to this critical point.

Regarding the appearance of the two proposed blocks, frankly, the innovative pre-plan design showing high arched windows with the eponymous clock above, is greatly to be preferred. The revised plans, however, indicate that inspiration was drawn from the brutally angular 1960s block of flats opposite- a building which surely should never be used as a yardstick for good design. The neighbourhood boasts many  attractive types of architecture and Clock Parade should reflect this. Reference is also made to ‘apartment blocks’ in Private Road, which is not the case; there is one small block comprising only 10 flats standing within its own grounds and with full parking .

The proposed open balconies also give cause for concern as, unfortunately, open balconies on any blocks of flats anywhere, tend to attract an overspill of household items which , clearly visible, seriously detract from the street scene. Therefore, balconies if included should be enclosed.

A further worry is the ‘Communal Play Area’ – this needs far greater explanation and clarity.

The amount of car parking spaces is totally unrealistic. In spite of heavy pressure nationally on the use of foot and bicycles, there will still be far more cars accompanying this development and parking in Private Road is not allowed. Nor is there parking availability in any of the nearby side roads where they are already heavily congested and yellow lined.  We also have grave  doubts that the survey of traffic movements carried out on a Tuesday in October 2020, was done at a time when the public was highly cautious about venturing out at all, with many still working from home. These circumstances would result in an unreliable assessment of traffic. We can assure you that there is always  vigorous traffic movement entering and leaving the Sainsbury Local Store – frequently to the detriment of access for my residents.

The Developer’s study should therefore be re-visited and carried out when all Covid  restrictions have been lifted and a more normal traffic flow resumed – especially at weekends. A more significant point now emerges –

“Since the developer has gone to enormous trouble to conduct a parking survey it suggests that they are only too aware that there will be huge demand for parking – which begs the question – why do they not provide far more adequate facilities in their design. In the local roads mentioned , there is less parking on the daytime but come the evening with people home from work the situation is very different, with considerable congestion, as any local walker would be able to tell them.

We are also extremely concerned that the local infrastructure will be inadequate to cope with the increased pressure on medical services, which are already overstretched. There will therefore be a need for additional GPs, dentists, school places/ nursery places,clinics etc.  – have these been factored in to the plans?

Re: Sainsbury’s: if it is to return to the site on completion, which considering all the disruption may not be the case unless LBE has received a formal undertaking that they will and which should be confirmed, then their customers will need the frontage and side parking as before.  Now, to the Developer’s claim of Clock Parade as a ‘vibrant shopping facility…..’.  we wonder from where they gleaned this optimistic data since businesses have not flourished there for decades – vibrant it isn’t. And who will attempt to shop in new retail outlets if they cannot park? Why have the plans deposed the frontage parking which would assist this?

Another great concern is for the resident of No.1, Private Road who currently has a boundary wall which forms the back wall of Sainsbury Local. How will this wall be retained during and after demolition? If it is to be removed how and with what will it be replaced? To say nothing of the overlooking and great loss of privacy that that resident will suffer from the proposed flats above along with residents further down Private Road  who will also be adversely affected.

In conclusion, once one has ploughed through the jargon talk with which the application is littered, the proposal boils down to small cramped flats in an overdeveloped site which, sadly, has been aligned to a singularly ugly building nearby with no character whatsoever. The commanding location deserves a development which enhances the street scene not dominates it and we respectfully urge the Authority to reject this application.

Yours sincerely,

Christine Williams. Mrs.  Hon.Sec.

A planning application submitted recently:

Location:  1-24 Salisbury Court, 69 London Road, EN2 6ER (block of flats on West side of London Road towards Lincoln Road junction)

Proposal: Prior approval for construction of one additional storey to existing block of flats (currently three floors), to provide five further self-contained flats.
Link to LBE website:  21/04747/PRA