Share this article share on facebook icon share on twitter icon

southgate office village redevelopment artists impression

A report issued on 11th November by the Greater London Authority's Planning Team indicates overall approval of the proposal to demolish the existing Southgate Office Village buildings and replace them with a mixed office and housing scheme.

Strategic issues summary

Principle of development: The redevelopment of this site, which is adjacent to the town centre, to provide a residential-led mixed use development is strongly supported (paragraphs 13-15).

Affordable housing: The scheme would deliver 35% affordable housing (by habitable room), without public subsidy, and would qualify for the Fast Track Route subject to satisfying all other relevant borough and Mayoral policy requirements (paragraphs 17-20).

Heritage and urban design: Broadly supported and any harm caused by the proposed development to nearby heritage assets would be less than substantial, which would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of affordable housing units and delivery of modern office floorspace that collectively could act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the town centre (paragraphs 21-30).

Environment: Further information or clarifications relating to overheating, PV provision and passive design is required; contribution to carbon off-set fund to be secured via the Section 106 agreement (paragraphs 31-32).

Transport: Travel plans and detailed design and method statements for all stages of the development are to be secured (paragraphs 33-37).


That Enfield Council be advised that whilst the principle of development is supported the application does not yet comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 41 of this report. However, the resolution of these issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan and draft London Plan.

As reported previously, Southgate District Civic Trust is opposed to the scheme, which it regards as "overdevelopment" and not "in keeping with the distinctive village feel that Southgate has managed to retain". The GLA report, however, considers that "any harm caused by the proposed development to nearby heritage assets would be less than substantial, which would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme".

The section of the report dealing with heritage is reproduced below.


21. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the tests for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. The NPPF states that when considering the impact of the proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.

22. As indicated in paragraph 5 of this report, the site is adjacent to the Southgate Circus Conservation Area and in proximity of other listed assets. The applicant has submitted a heritage statement and a townscape and visual appraisal, which consider the proposal’s impact on heritage assets. The proposed development would appear prominently in the background of the Grade II* listed Southgate Underground station and Station Pylons in the view looking north along the High Street. However, the taller blocks proposed would not show directly behind the listed assets whilst those elements that do, appear at a scale consistent with the surrounding built environment including the existing South Point House. It is therefore considered that any harm caused to this asset would be less than substantial. In relation to the Grade I listed Grovelands Park and the listed buildings within, the proposed development would not be visible. Regarding the conservation area, as mentioned earlier in this report the massing is stepped up away from the conservation area; in addition, the existing buildings adjacent to the conservation area such as South Point House reflect a more modern architecture and are taller.

23. The NPPF at paragraph 196 makes clear that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. Having analysed these assessments and having regard to the statutory duty in respect of listed buildings in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the relevant paragraphs in the NPPF in relation to heritage assets, GLA officers consider that any harm caused to the nearby heritage assets, namely the Southgate London Underground station, by the proposed development would be less than substantial harm and clearly outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of affordable housing units and modern office space that collectively could be a catalyst for the regeneration of the town centre. The proposal would therefore address the requirements of the policies set out above.


Planning report GLA/4410/01

Civic Trust restates opposition to Southgate Office Village redevelopment proposals

Log in to comment

David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #4991 02 Dec 2019 13:39
Great intelligent rational and objective response from the GLA. Cutting the rubbish out the N***Y arguments.

35% affordable housing without taxpayer cash subsidising it that's fully policy compliant.
Minimal impact on local "heritate assets" outweigh but dropping a large amount of affordable housing and some decent attractive offices that might encourage inward investment rather than just run-down cheap rubbish.

Typical tosh from the Southgate "We only represent the views of locals so long as they are anti-development" Civic Trust".

I love Southgate but it is NOT a village. I know the V word has become very fashionable of late, based on successes like Marylebone, Highgate etc, but this is Southgate not Muswell Hill. Not even a hint of a village vibe! It's a standard local commercial centre.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #5380 17 Jun 2020 20:03

The revised planning application for a mixed housing/offices development near Southgate Circus will be considered by the council's planning committee on 23rd June at 7.30pm.

Click on this link to watch online.

The council's planning officers are recommending that the revised application be approved, subject to the usual conditions. The reasons for this recommendation are set out in this document , together with submissions from groups and individuals in support or opposing. The full document is 106 pages, but the executive summary is a manageable read.

Link to full details of the meeting and all paperwork.

Southgate District Civic Voice (formerly Southgate District Civic Trust) have expressed extreme disappointment at the officers' recommendation and are hoping to be able to express their views at the meeting.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #5388 24 Jun 2020 18:36
At Tuesday's planning committee meeting the Southgate Office Village application was debated for two and a half hours before being rejected on on several grounds, including the height and massing of the planned buildings, the lack of affordable housing, the proximity to a site of a heritage asset and the detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

For more details see this Enfield Dispatch report .
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #5389 24 Jun 2020 22:15
In an email sent to members this morning, Southgate District Civic Voice pointed out that the committee's decision is not necessarily the last word on the planning application:

"We are really pleased about this result, but have to remember it is probably only the first stage. What happens next in part depends on whether the developer decides to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate; we assume they will. The application will also be referred to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for determination. He can over rule the planning committee's refusal."