Library mural at Enfield Town Library, Enfield

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a permanent “To Autumn” mural on the side elevation of the library extension.

“Executive Summary 3.1. The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the installation of “To Autumn” mural on the side elevation of the Enfield Library.”

“The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the installation of “To Autumn” mural on the side elevation of the Enfield Library extension.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The library is locally listed, within the Enfield Town Conservation Area and Major Centre, beside locally listed Library Green and nearby homes.

“Site and Surroundings 4.1. The site comprises the Enfield Town library which is Locally Listed (Entry No.031). The building is a Carnegie library, in English baroque style built in 1912 as a major civic development on the site. A two-storey side extension with a glass and steel frontage was approved in 2008 (Ref: CAC/08/0004) and was built in 2010, this addition is also Locally Listed (Entry No.31). 4.2.”

Officer report

Earlier site decisions

Earlier permissions covered a library extension, an advert and a temporary ice rink with viewing platform and marquee.

“TP/10/1291 - Installation of an ice rink, viewing platform and associated marquee for a temporary period between 18 November 2010 and 9 January 2011. – Permission Granted with Conditions – 08.11.2010. AD/09/0020 - Installation of a non-illuminated advert mounted on site hoarding to all elevations. – Permission Granted with Conditions – 22.05.2009. 6.3.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Heritage identified less-than-substantial harm, while Environmental Health and Urban Design raised no objections subject to conditions or on design grounds.

“Heritage: The local planning authority should weigh any harm against any public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), the level of harm to the Enfield Town Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset is ‘less than substantial’.”

Officer report

Public views

Twenty-six objections and three supportive comments addressed heritage, design, maintenance, consultation, cost, community involvement and town-centre benefits.

“Comments of support summarised below: • Positive impact that high quality, community led artwork brings to the town. • The mural draws on Enfield connection to John Keats and its orchard history • Community values maintained through its co-design process with local young people • Create a welcoming public space and encouraging footfall in the town centre • Support this application as it enhances and aligns with the past, future and present of Enfield • Inclusion of local…”

“Objections comments summarised below: • Out of keeping with character of area and the context of Enfield Town Centre • Fails to enhance the Conservation Area • Contravene conservation rules • Conflict with local plan • Weakness of heritage and design assessment • Negative impact to the stonework • Impact on the future preservation efforts within the Conservation Area • A waste and inappropriate use of public money • An expensive eyesore • Ongoing cost for maintenance • Lack…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and two councillors spoke against the recommendation, while two representatives spoke in response for the applicant and council.

What members discussed

Members considered the retrospective process, opposition levels, appearance, conservation, heritage, workmanship, maintenance and decommissioning arrangements.

“The Committee discussed the application. In relation to Members’ questions and regrets regarding that this was a retrospective application, officers advised that this was not a material planning consideration. In relation to questions and concerns about the high volume of public opposition to the application, officers advised that the content of any representation could be considered, but the volume of opposition was not a material planning consideration.”

“Members also asked questions about the aesthetic appeal of the mural, its appropriateness in a conservation area and related heritage concerns, the quality of the work and associated maintenance and eventual decommissioning. Officers advised that other benefits, such as placemaking, and the highly localised impact on the conservation area outweighed heritage concerns; the work was of a very high quality and a decommissioning plan…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted seven in favour, three against and none abstaining on the officer recommendation.

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

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions, with delegated authority to finalise their wording.

“That the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions…”

“The Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes