Industrial warehouse at Shaftesbury House, Edmonton, London N18

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a two-storey industrial warehouse with offices, parking, access, landscaping and servicing areas.

“The application proposes the demolition of the existing warehouse with ancillary office to redevelop the site to introduce a replacement two storey warehouse facility. A mezzanine office space that would be ancillary to the proposed B2/B8 use is proposed. The building would measure 13.5m in height, featuring a dual pitch roof with rooflights that would be concealed from street views behind a parapet. The proposed floor area would be 2940 square metres.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant warehouse lies in a locally significant industrial site, beside industrial buildings and opposite two-storey homes, with low public transport accessibility.

“The application site is located within a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) in Edmonton.”

“View of the existing front elevation from Parkstone Avenue 4.5. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is subject to a 1 in 100 year surface water flooding risk (+17% climate change) event. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2 The subject building is not in the setting of or itself a listed heritage asset or within a Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The assessment considered design, transport, residential amenity, drainage, biodiversity, employment, sustainability, waste, fire safety and environmental health.

“The main planning issues raised by the proposed development are:”

“Principle of Development • Character and Design • Traffic, Access and Parking • Neighbouring Residential Amenity • Flood Risk and Drainage • Biodiversity, Trees and Landscaping • Socio-economic considerations • Sustainable Design and Construction • Waste • Fire Safety • Environmental Health • Health Impact Assessment…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Transport, policy, trees, highways, drainage and environmental health officers raised no objections, while urban design and sustainability officers raised concerns.

“Transportation: Officers have no objections following revised details to clarify vehicle access and cycle parking. Planning Policy: No objection. The site will remain in industrial use.”

“Urban Design: Objection. Concerns raised with the proposed service yard given the proximity to the residential properties on the opposite side of the road, the acoustic wall impacts on natural surveillance and ground floor activation and insufficient testing of options for the redevelopment of the site.”

Officer report

What residents said

Notification letters, a press advert and site notices were used, but no comments were received from the public consultation.

“Public Consultation 6.14. Public consultation involved notification letters being sent to 65 neighbouring properties on 22 July 2025, a press advert in the Enfield Independent was published 30 July 2025 and 2 site notices were erected on 5 August 2025.”

“Following the public consultation, no comments were received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior planning officer introduced the application and highlighted its key points; members asked no questions.

The committee vote

Members voted 10 in favour, with none against and no abstentions, on the officer recommendation.

“The officer’s recommendation for the application was put to the vote; Members voted:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions, with delegated authority for their final wording.

“That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Director of Planning and Growth be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.”

“That the Director of Planning and Growth be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes