Below is the planning refusal decision by Enfield Council regarding the conversion of the former Southgate Police Station into a 65-room hostel. A massive thank you to all invovled!

Dear Sir/Madam
In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and the Orders made
thereunder, and with regard to your application at:

LOCATION: Police Station 25 Chase Side London N14 5BW
REFERENCE: 24/00732/FUL
PROPOSAL: Change of use from police station (Sui Generis) to a 65-room hostel (Sui Generis)
including associated refuse/recycling and cycle parking provisions.
ENFIELD COUNCIL, as the Local Planning Authority, give you notice that the application, as
described above, is REFUSED for the following reason(s):-

1. The proposed hostel use, in the absence of adequate evidence of need or details of the group
   the development is proposed to serve, absence of details of management, support services or
   safeguards, is contrary to Policies GG1, GG3, SD6, H12 of the London Plan (2021), CP6 of the Enfield
   Core Strategy (2010), and DMD15 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2. The proposed visitor accommodation, without basic guest servicing provisions, adequate
   communal spaces for guests, undersized rooms, absence of servicing arrangements, lack of staff
   training facilities and no wheelchair access, is contrary to policies GG1, E10 of the London Plan
   (2021), CP12 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and DMD31 of the Enfield Development
   Management Document (2014).
3. The proposed development, by virtue of its inadequately sized rooms, poor internal layouts,
   insufficient provision of communal amenity space, poor quality of outlook, insufficient natural light, and
   absence of safety and security measures to ensure the privacy of residents, would result in
   substandard and inappropriate accommodation incapable of meeting the reasonable needs of
   occupiers, contrary to Policies D3, D4, D6 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core
   Strategy (2010), DMD8, DMD9 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document
   (2014) and the London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016).
4. The proposed development, not being accessible to wheelchair users or making
   accommodation for access by users of diverse needs, is contrary to Policies D5 of the London Plan
   (2021), CP12 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD31 of the Enfield Development Management
   Document (2014)
5. The proposed development, in including conflicting information suggesting the overprovision of
   off street vehicle parking and in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide a secure,
   convenient and high quality facility for all types of bicycles and would fail to promote or prioritise the
   use of sustainable modes of transport, contrary to Policies T2, T3, T4, T6, and T7 of the London Plan
   (2021), CP24 and CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD45, DMD46, DMD47 and DMD48 of
   the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
6. The proposed development, in the absence of adequate waste storage and servicing provision,
   fails to provide a convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development
   and opportunity for safe, clean, and efficient deliveries and servicing, contrary to Policies T7, D11, D12
   of the London Plan (2021), CP22 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD47, DMD48 and DMD57 of
   the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
7. The proposed development, failing to propose measures for safety and security, responsible
   management of the accommodation and adequate support for residents, risks harm to occupants and
   the surrounding community and is contrary to Policies GG1, GG3, SD6 of the London Plan (2021),
   CP9, CP17 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management
   Document (2014).
8. The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, fails
   to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of flooding and utilise Sustainable Urban
   Drainage Systems (SuDS) following the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI
   13 of the London Plan (2021), CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD59, DMD61 of the
   Enfield Development Management Document (2014).

Residents of Southgate.

Below is my full response to the application mentioned above. This has been submitted to both the Council Planning Decisions Team, and the Case Officer.

Be in no doubt that all three of your ward councillors are against this application and will fight against it at all costs for the benefit of the community.

We encourage you to take the appropriate steps to also e-mail the Planning Decisions team and the Case officer and use my comments below as a template for what you could potentially say.

CORRESPONDANCE STARTS:

For the attention of Enfield Council Planning Decisions Team relating to the application disputed below. Email: planning.decisions@enfield.gov.uk

For the attention of Allison Russell who is the Case Officer relating to the application disputed below. Email: allison.russell@enfield.gov.uk

I recognise that my comments made below can also be logged online via the Online Planning Register, but I would like my comments to be received and acknowledged by the department and the referenced Case Officer mentioned above.

In reference to planning application reference 24/00732/FUL – Change of use from police station with offices above (Sui Generis/ Class E) to a 65-room Hostel (Sui Generis) including associated refuse/recycling and cycle parking provisions.

Dear Planning Team,

I would like to have recorded my concerns regarding the planning application reference mentioned above to convert the former police station to a 65-room Hostel.

There are a range of reasons why I believe this application should and must be rejected, and I have made my points below. For your ease of reference I would like to take you through them section-by-section of concern.

Report Title: Planning Assessment

In reference to Core Policy 17 relating to town centres there are reasons to be sceptical of the application. The town centres policy mentions that Enfield Council will be strengthening the role of towns centres with commercial, retail, leisure, office, residential and other appropriate social infrastructure related uses. The core policy continues to mention aspects of community safety, policing, litter and the potential impact of noise and disturbance to local people.

From the start point this application relates to a former police station that served Southgate town centre. The police station is now owned by a privately owned company. From a community perspective we are disappointed with the decision that was then made to discontinue the former police station. However, we realise that in the current position that it is privately owned that we have to make do and make sure that any future applications made are beneficial to the cohesion and community in Southgate.

This leads me to the point that must be made that the application as it stands is reducing the amount of available office space from the first floor, second and third floor of the property. This reduced office space will impact the local economy, whether it be coffee shops or retail shops that thrive off people that shop during their lunch times and before or after work hours. The former police station did have office space on the first, second and third floor, and this added to the beneficial mix of use of buildings in the area. This application seeks to reduce the amount of office space available in the area to the detriment of the local economy.

This application will also negatively impact community safety around Southgate as the people that will be temporarily accommodated in the building could bring a broad spectrum of issues, to list a few could be robbery both inside and outside the premises, physical assaults, car break ins, anti-social behaviour and loitering outside the premises. In an area where already the police station has been discontinued and the only police station is in Edmonton, quite far away from this town centre, this adds to the concerns of the local community when they say that crime will almost certainly go up.

This application will also negatively impact noise and disturbance issues for local people as loitering and noise from inside the premises will most certainly increase as the premises operates. As mentioned before, there will be a broad spectrum of people that will either be using this as a hostel or for temporary emergency accommodation. This adds to the concerns that these people will bring with them increased noise and disturbance, which will negatively impact in Southgate as a whole.

Overall, it is entirely fair and logical to say in that this application does not add to the viability of Southgate town centre and will put the area on a faster trajectory of the downward slope that it is already on.

Southgate requires stable solutions and positive solutions to the area. This is not one of them.

In reference to Core Policy 18 of the Council Plan there is a mention of protecting retail uses in town centres and I quote “retail uses will be protected as the main function within the primary shopping areas” and “the vitality and viability of existing centres and planned investment in centres should not negatively impact local town centres”.

This application is in contradictory to the Core Policy 18 mentioned above as it will affect the vitality of Southgate by adding a new dimension that will bring horror to residents and businesses that will have to see a continuous, changing, and non-permanent solution for the building, and this is echoed by the applicant’s intention to turn this into temporary accommodation which is not a permanent measure. In addition, it would be worth for the planning department to consult with local businesses in the area to hear their views, as I have done in my capacity as a local Councillor. It is very clear in hearing their views that they are horrified by the proposals and fear that the harmony in Southgate will be permanently affected for the negative. It is also worth noting that Southgate High Street is home to local and major businesses that have been long established, and this proposal I do not believe would be a positive view in their favour and this could turn local businesses away from our High Street.

In reference to Core Policy 19 regarding offices the Council talk about the “modernisation” and “encouraging” the renewal of premises with existing office space, and again I want to echo that this space will be lost. In addition, there was an opportunity for this space to be turned into a managed workspace with a flexible lease for small and medium sized businesses to operate and this was a massive missed opportunity by the developer.

I also find it deeply concerning that on the section “Impact on Amenity and light levels” that the applicant has said disturbances would not be set to increase should the plans go ahead. This is an entirely false claim as any hospitality building and in this case are hotel, hostel or temporary accommodation – whatever you would like to wash it over as- will bring increased noise disturbance whatever the case. I therefore believe that the police should be more involved in this application to highlight the negative impact that would be brought should this application be approved.

Report Title: Marketing Assessment

The Marketing Report set out by the agent on behalf of the client is a very poor piece of work. This document shows very little relationship with the area and very little local knowledge, which again is to the detriment of our local community.

In reading the section regarding the compatible sites, I believe that the Royal Chase Hotel being converted into a care home was a poor choice of example as a hostel has absolutely no resonation with a care home. Hostels do not provide adult social care and do not provide local community use and are used for the sole purposes of business as is the case here.

Mentioning this poor comparison, I also want to bring to the attention of the planning department that the applicant is not even clear themselves whether this is a hostel, a hotel or a temporary accommodation block. The applicant has been very vague in mentioning this is a hostel and has at times mentioned that this is a hotel, which is a massive contradictory. In saying this, can I please ask the planning department if they (being the council) are sure what the intended use of this building is? They mention leisure and tourism and hospitality needs, and then on the other side talk about emergency accommodation needs, which are again two very opposing comments. This leads me to the perception that the applicant is not loyal and honest and upfront about the comments being made to the intended purpose of this building.

Moving forward, I want to talk about the target market and that the agent has mentioned tourists seeking affordable accommodation as a reason for this development to be approved. In looking again at the Marketing Report, it is very clear that the applicant has no local knowledge as they have not mentioned the other two hotels that are currently in Southgate providing this service already (Premier Inn and Southgate Hotel). This could raise the case that this is a surplus to requirements and the application is not necessary.

The Marketing Report also mentions residents needing temporary or emergency housing. I want to make my feelings clear in that this section in no way shape or form addresses the real needs of family housing that is most pressing in this borough. This is a temporary fix to a situation where persons and families are constantly on the move with no stability, and hostels in no way provide security or certainty to families and persons who know they will eventually be moved on.

And if we are to address the applicants mentioning of affordable housing, there is no certainty that the applicant will adhere to criteria of 80% of the local market rent. The proprietors are free to charge their own rate whether it be at or nowhere near the current rate for housing needs.

But what is more concerning is that the applicant is talking about local housing needs and affordable housing, but at the same time addressing the needs for a hostel in Southgate. Let us be clear when we say that affordable housing and hostels are in antithesis to each other. Nobody will consider a hostel a home, and nobody expects to be in a hostel for a long period of time therefore this is a temporary measure and a purely commercial venture the applicant seeks to achieve with no real benefit to our area. Hostels have no relationship to alleviating the pressures on housing targets and most certainly do not provide long-term benefits to our housing issues in the borough or capital.

And finally, may I take the opportunity to say that I find the way of advertising this development in the future (should it be approved) ludicrous. The applicant has mentioned that there will be an online listing via Zoopla. At what point is a hostel advertised on an online platform like this which is involved In short lettings, long lettings, sales or leases of properties. I believe I am right in saying that the applicant is confused, and Zoopla is not used to advertise hostels in this way. Again, may I encourage the Planning Team to confirm exactly what the applicant intends to use this building for as there are many contradicting statements on its use.

Report Title: Highway Safety Impact Assessment

This is a small comment to bring to the attention of the department. The applicant has mentioned that Chase side currently has a speed limit of 20 mph to ensure pedestrian safety, which is false as TFL clearly mentioned on their supporting documents that Chase side is a 30 mile per hour zone.

Report Title: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

I have concerns on subsection 4 regarding the liability of CIL, as question B clearly mentions the creation of one or more new dwellings through a new build or a conversion, and this application most certainly applies as the applicant is seeking to build a hostel for the use of supposed tourism and emergency and temporary accommodation. The answer to this question in the application form must therefore be yes.

I feel the applicant has not taken this documentation seriously and has not completed all the relevant fields and I would encourage the department to review this document and make sure that all the applicable fields have been filled.

Review: Floor Plans for proposed development

I would like to take the opportunity to bring to surface some inconsistencies I have discovered in the application drawings.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned X10 cycle storage spaces clearly however they have contradicted themselves by then saying X22 cycle storage spaces on Application Form – Without Personal Data.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned that there will be X1 Recycling and X3 General Waste contained bins. This is not in line with council policy and recycling facilities on premises must be parallel to refuse facilities. This does not contribute well to Enfield’s Net Zero ambition.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned that there will be one Disabled WC for the entirety of the building. This is disappointing given that hotels are expected on all floor levels to have by law a Disabled WC and that the ration must be 10% of your total rooms or bedrooms. This therefore falls short.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned the retention of two existing staircases but no elevator. In most hotels and hospitality buildings an elevator must be present on the premises to ease overcrowding on stairwells.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned three rooms will have an area space of below 7.5m^2. . This is against the nationally described legal minimum space standard for rooms of this type. This is in addition not an example of quality housing and is a desperate attempt by the developer to cram in as many rooms to the developer for profit seeking.

On the drawings- Proposed First Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned seven rooms will have an area space of below 7.5m^2. . This is against the nationally described legal minimum space standard for rooms of this type. May I also add that the applicant unlike the Proposed Ground Floor Plan has been vague in displaying which rooms will have 1,2,3 beds which is testament to the inaccuracies all over this application.

On the drawings- Proposed Second Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned six rooms will have an area space of below 7.5m^2. . This is against the nationally described legal minimum space standard for rooms of this type. Again, also the applicant unlike the Proposed Ground Floor Plan has been vague in displaying which rooms will have 1,2,3 beds.

On the drawings- Proposed Third Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned one room will have an area space of below 7.5m^2. . This is against the nationally described legal minimum space standard for rooms of this type. Again, also the applicant unlike the Proposed Ground Floor Plan has been vague in displaying which rooms will have 1,2,3 beds.

In terms of one bedrooms under 7.5m² there is a potential total of seventeen rooms under the national standard.

On the drawings- Proposed Ground Floor Plan- the applicant has mentioned five rooms will have an area space of below 11.5m^2. . This is against the nationally described legal minimum space standard for rooms of this type with two-beds. Again, the applicant unlike the Proposed Ground Floor Plan has been vague in displaying which rooms will have 1,2,3 beds.

In terms of one and two bedrooms under the national legal minimum that brings us to 22 rooms potentially.

I echo the word potentially as the applicant has also caused confusion in the number of rooms being applied for. The applicant says 65 however when counting the rooms on the floorplans the number is 62.

Review: Application Form – Without Personal Data

This section will seek to highlight the inaccuracies and contradictions the applicant has made.

The inaccuracy comes first in the Description of the Proposal where the applicant has made the claim that the change of use has not already started. This could not be further from the truth. Please see references to the videos below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WCPxHinO3I&ab_channel=NickMatthews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-y5NC-e1-E&ab_channel=NickMatthews

These links attached clearly show the dishonesty from the applicant and the developer, and the scant regard that they have for the planning department, and disrespect for the community. The applicant has clearly made-up their own minds and their own decision and gone ahead without prior consultation even in the form of a pre application or even waiting for the application to be complete to go ahead with the works.

This building is an asset of community value, has a heritage attached to it and needs correct and formal planning consent before any works should begin, and this should have been made very clear to them. I believe the planning department should treat these videos as unfavourable and it should be viewed negatively in part of reviewing this application. This is not in the spirit of planning and people should not be undertaking construction works without prior consent. This is in clear violation to the Description of the Proposal and therefore the applicant has lied. For the department’s reference this YouTube video was taken before the formal application was made.

May I also take the opportunity to say that when asked for further information about the development, there is a contradiction when the applicant says that the proposal does not include affordable housing and has selected no, when in other supporting documents they have talked about alleviating social housing needs and generating affordable housing. Clearly the applicant does not know again what the use of their building is and is not being transparent.

The applicant has also mentioned regarding the Development Dates that the building works were expected to commence in May of 2024. However, the application was received on the 7th of March and validated on the 27th of June. This reaffirms my point that the applicant undertook works just after applying and again without consent.

I would also ask that the planning department investigate the existing use of the building as there are claims of short leasing having been done on this property when apparently the applicants said that it was in vacant possession under their ownership.

It is also concerning to see that this application of its significant value and development opportunity does not include any plans to install electric car charging points for vehicles, which is something that the London Borough of Enfield has been very keen on installing and progressing, and especially on residential and commercial applications. Has the department investigated why this applicant does not want to install them? Should there not be a commitment by them?

The applicant has made yet another contradiction in this section under the section of residential units where they have ticked no in terms of mixed-use residential. The applicant has made it very clear that the site will be used for affordable housing, for temporary accommodation, and for hostel use. I do not believe these points that they are making, but nevertheless they have made them and that option for mixed use should have been ticked.

The applicant has also said that they will be installing a green roof of 166 square metres on the property. At what point was this in the drawings of the application? I have seen no evidence, not on the third floor or the fourth floor or in the yard at the back. Can the department please ask for clarification on this?

I also find it baffling that an application with an estimated cost of £2,000,000 for the applicant to bring it up to the standard that they desire, has not sought pre application advice.

Conclusion:

This application is riddled within accuracies, misinterpretations and instances where the applicant has made-up their own decision without prior consent and with scant regard to the local community. This is not a transparent application, and I must admit in seeing applications for the last six years as a ward councillor I find this extremely distasteful and disrespectful to the planning department and the local community.

The applicant has displayed very clearly that they have very little local knowledge of the area. This has been testament to the fact that they do not know what other hospitality facilities are in the area and are contradicting their claims on the intended use of the building whether it be as a hostel, temporary accommodation or for use of social housing.

I find it even more concerning that the applicant and the agent involved have not been transparent in the application form that is a simple tick box exercise for any developer.
Never have I seen so many in accuracies in what should be a simple exercise.

This application will set a precedent for poor quality accommodation in Southgate, whether it be for a short or long term offer, or temporary accommodation. These rooms are not fit for purpose and the applicant has been very vague in the drawings as to whether these will be one, two or three bedroom rooms. As a council, we have a duty to uphold minimum standards and this application falls extremely short of that.

I am even more concerned by the prospect of increased crime rates and anti-social behaviour in the vicinity as this will bring a new spectrum of people to the area that will not be in line with the current situation of families and young people who live in the vicinity. I already mentioned that the Department for Planning should consult more vigorously and more seriously with the policing department and get their thoughts on this.

This application is not in line with the spirit of the area, the character of the area, and I do not believe will be a positive addition to our town centre. I believe this application will set a downward spiral for businesses to vacate the area and for people to consider their position within Southgate. Families I am sure and have heard that they will be moving out to other areas of London if this were to be approved.

I urge the Planning Department to take this application very seriously for the sake of the community here in Southgate. Approval of this application will be detriment to the area and will significantly decrease community morale and confidence in our local democracy and local authority that is Enfield Council.

Please note as well I have requested this application be taken to committee for the hearing and vote it deserves.

Yours with best intentions always,

Cllr. Stephanos Ioannou,

Conservative Councillor for Southgate ward, London Borough of Enfield.

You asked for it- your Conservative team got it done.

Four years and another election over, Enfield Council finally acted upon my request to instal hanging baskets for Southgate.

I thoroughly believe that people are naturally attracted to High Streets that are clean, tidy and more importantly have an element of green space. Although these are a small addition to the Southgate area, they do add some green to a very concrete space.

This is the first step in a long journey in our request to ask the department to provide more green and green spaces to the Southgate Circus area, and we are hoping the coming years to build on this small improvement.

Do you have green ideas for Southgate? Comment below!

WALKER PRIMARY SCHOOL 20MPH SPEED LIMIT

It has been a long enough wait, but the result for Walker School is a great achievement. Now both pupils and parents can cross the road without the fear of 40mph speeding vehicles, and safety will be increased despite the lollipop lady sadly leaving Walker School soon.

Walker Primary School is one of the very few schools in the Borough not in a 20 mph zone and we are keen to rectify the situation with an effective scheme that is nevertheless sympathetic to its location in the conservation area.

Our proposals are shown on the attached plan and comprise the following key elements:

• Introducing a 20mph speed limit immediately outside and on the approaches to the school, including associated zone entry/exit signs.
• Constructing four asphalt sinusoidal road humps to help make the scheme self-enforcing.
• Rationalising the existing signs, removing unnecessary signs and reducing the size of others where possible.
• Replacing the existing anti-skid surfacing on the approaches to the crossing and refreshing the road markings.

Modern teaching facilities will replace “crumbling” classrooms at an Enfield primary school after plans for a new building were approved.

Walker Primary School has been given the green light to build new facilities – including a new IT centre – at its site in Waterfall Road, Southgate.

Plans for the new building were deferred in December last year after concerns were raised that the design could harm the surrounding conservation area.

Planning officer Kevin Tohill told a planning committee meeting on Tuesday (April 23) that the designs had been amended and the building would make “a more positive contribution to the conservation area”.

Cllr Stephanos Ioannou, Conservative member for Southgate and a school governor at Walker, spoke in support of the plans.

He said: “When a school such as Walker has a waiting list of 79 for the reception class, it is fair to say there is considerable demand from local families for this school.

“This new building will be vital in securing the future of all the parties involved in Walker School.

“Should this go ahead, pupils will arrive at a school with new frontage, new model classrooms and a sensible sized hall for P.E. lessons”

“And, of course, extending the vegetable patch so that the next generation can learn about sustainable living.

“Most important is that the redevelopment plans incorporate an ICT (information communications technology) suite so pupils can gain knowledge of a key sector in our economy.”

Cllr Ioannou said the school was in such a state that teachers had to place buckets around corridors to catch water falling from leaking roofs and the headteacher had had to mop up a flooded classroom.

He said it was no exaggeration to say the school was “literally crumbling” and even the parents of some current pupils had been taught in temporary cabins while they were at Walker.

Cllr George Savva, Labour member for Haselbury, said: “This is a state-of-the-art school that will cater for the needs of children, families and the community for children to be educated in a proper manner.

“Children learn better if they are in a good environment.

“The head is there to run the school and not to mop up.”

The committee voted unanimously to approve the plans.

To see the full article click on this link.

I fought long and hard before my election, both as a candidate and as someone who cares about policing in our borough, to keep Southgate police station open. Here you can see the letter I sent to the Borough Commander and the response I received.

INITIAL EMAIL:

To be delivered to the Borough Commanders Office….
Dear Borough Commander for Enfield & Haringey,

May I first say thank you for attending our community event at the British Legion, Southgate, on the 24^th May. It is important people from all ranks in our public services show a presence at these events, and form a bond with residents and community leaders. I hope this wont be the last we see of you in our area.

This letter I am writing to you however is regarding the current situation at Southgate police station and its immediate future.

I would like to put the case why Southgate police station should remain open:

Southgate police station is not simply an added extra in our parade of shops. Businesses, both big and small, require the station to ensure order, and make sure that should theft or disorder take place we have the knowingness our police station will come out, and deal with the situations as they come. Having gone from door to door and shop to shop along the months of campaigning, I have heard stories from local business owners and customers about the increasing theft and disorder along our high street.
In one example, a gang of seven youths entered a well-known family shop on the high street and in broad daylight took produce and walked out. The shop owner expressed to me that because there are so many of them at that time, and no police presence, he felt there was no point in even calling the police as they’d be ‘long gone’. After encouraging him to send video footage of the theft to police, the local force unfortunately did not find the culprits.
We have a total of seven banks on our road, pubs, coffee shops and restaurants… a relatively good mix. But such a high street, particularly with such a volume of banks, should be better policed as the risk will surely be increased in future.

Following from the example I have given, this leads to another problem, that given the volume of youths passing through the area and studying in Southgate, shouldn’t we better the policing presence to protect our young members of society?
We have in total six primary schools and a secondary school in the area, followed by a renowned College. The current lack of policing means that we have increased crime against youth, and already residents have come to me with their stories. You will remember when I mentioned the time a young boy was taken at knife point to the Santander opposite the Tube, and forced to withdraw all his cash. This is unacceptable, and the Met should have more community volunteers on the beat, provided with a station open 24/7 so that people can seek refuge.

In addition to the above, residents on Queen Elizabeth Drive, Oakwood Park Road, Chelmsford Road and Wynchgate predominantly have come forward to express their fear as burglaries and theft on residential property increases. In speaking to residents, you will find the unease that a closure of the station brings…A reduced police presence with fewer patrols, the safety at night around Southgate Tube Station, the unease of literally walking down the street.

When the station closes for good, the response times from Edmonton will surely not be good enough for Southgate residents. How can you therefore reassure us that the police presence in the ward will not be affected, and that crime rates will improve in future?

In being pragmatic, I would like to ask for a PLAN B

Given that it may be a ‘done-deal’ in that the Mayor, and the Metropolitan Police, have decided that the planned closure will be going ahead, I will like to offer my views as to how we can keep a presence in the area.
Southgate is also home to the Southgate Fire Brigade service. This building is ideally located at the heart of the ward, next door also to Southgate Tube Station and opposite Southgate College.

Has the Metropolitan Police considered sharing the resources for this building, and providing a future base for Southgate police and some of its offices at the fire service station?

Given that we understand the drain on Met resources, can we explore a potential partnership to utilise the fire station for both services? This idea has already been mentioned at Essex County Council, and has received some credit. If not the fire station, can the ward police explore a permeant base in a public building so that residents are aware where to find them?
Given the length of this email, I hope to simplify it better for you in a point by point, question by question list of what this letter seeks to achieve:

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police service look to re-open and make Southgate Police station fully functioning once more, for the benefit of residents, shop owners, schools, commuters, and frankly anyone who passes, lives or works in Southgate?

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police commit to keeping (at the very least) same or improving the level of police officers on the beat here in Southgate?

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police commit to working with Councillors, community groups, schooling institutions and businesses to ensure awareness of local crime, but in particular to make sure young individuals are aware of the causes and consequences of crime, and how they can prevent it?

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police look into sharing services with other public sector units such as the fire service in Southgate, to ensure we maintain some presence and a base that the community rely on?

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police give myself, community groups and residents an update as to the destiny of the station. Wil the station be sold off? Will it retain some community purpose? When can we expect it to be sold if the case. The quicker this issue is solved, the better the clarity for everyone.

Q) Will the Metropolitan Police look to better police presence in crime hotspots such as Southgate Tube Station to divert crime in future?

I hope to hear from you soon with answers to these questions, for the benefit to our community.
I kindly ask if you can email me your response at: cllr.stephanos.ioannou@Enfield.gov.uk

Kind Regards,
Cllr. Stephanos Ioannou,
Councillor for Southgate ward, London Borough of Enfield

Response:

Dear Councillor Ioannou,

Many thanks for your letter of 4^th June 2018 to Chief Superintendent Helen Millichap who has asked me to respond on her behalf. I am the lead for Neighbourhood Policing for Enfield and Haringey boroughs and I oversee a broad portfolio including local ward-based policing and community, schools and youth engagement.

You may be aware that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) carried out a public consultation last year on the MOPAC and Metropolitan Police Service’s Public Access Strategy, which recommended that each borough should maintain one 24/7 police station front counter. This strategy was ratified following the consultation and from mid-December 2017 each of the 32 London boroughs has adopted this approach, with Enfield’s front counter remaining at Edmonton Police Station. I have attached a link to the MOPAC website where full details can be found: https://www.london.gov.uk/mopac-publications/public-access-strategy

It is important to note though that the strategy is about far more than front counters, and reaffirms the Met’s commitment to visible and responsive policing at a local level. Every ward in London now has two PCs and a PCSO, overseen by a PoliceSergeant, dedicated to tackling the issues most important to local residents and building relationships with the community. You can find details of the Southgate Safer Neighbourhoods Team, along with details of the most reported crimes and crime prevention advice relevant to the ward here: Southgate | The Met. On this website (www.met.police.uk), in addition to finding out information about local policing, members of the public can report crime, seek advice and access a number of policing services.

Southgate Police Station, which as you know is not open to the public, currently houses a small number of officers working in local wards and this building will be released by the Met at a point to be determined, probably over the next two to three years. However, it is important to note that savings made from disposing of expensive to run buildings are being invested in front line policing: all officers are now equipped with tablets or laptops to enable them to complete reports whilst out in the community without having to repeatedly return to a police building; and increased numbers of officers are to be deployed in vitally important schools and youth engagement work. We are also committed to maintaining visibility and accessibility of local officers through weekly community contact sessions which are advertised on the website and elsewhere and we welcome suggestion as to where and when these sessions might take place. Enfield’s response teams, the officers who respond to emergency calls, have for some years operated from a site in the east of the borough and, as they are deployed across the borough in fast response vehicles, building closures will have no impact on the speed with which police attend urgent calls from the public. This model of response policing is in use across London.

I am grateful for your helpful suggestions about co-locating local officers in the heart of Southgate with the London Fire Brigade. This is very much in line with the Public Access Strategy’s proposal for Safer Neighbourhood Teams whose wards are more than a mile from the nearest retained police station to work from Dedicated Ward Hubs shared with other service providers or partners. I will pass on your suggestion to the Southgate SNT to make enquiries as to whether this location may be viable. Other possible venues could be medical centres, libraries, council buildings or community centres. Whilst these hubs will not be accessible to the public, they will ensure that officers can spend the maximum time possible working in their communities and not spend time travelling.

We are absolutely committed to bearing down on violent crime and are doing a huge amount of work to prevent violence, including operations involving both uniformed and plain clothed officers around transport hubs and crime hotspots, and utilising the support of the Met’s central resources such as the newly formed Violent Crime Taskforce. Critically, this is underpinned by the work of our local SNTs and I will ask Sergeant Matt Bloomfield to make contact with you to discuss your thoughts on how best we can support community groups, residents and businesses in preventing crime in Southgate.

I hope this covers all the queries you raised. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss any of these points further.

Best wishes,
Nigel Brookes

Nigel Brookes
Superintendent, Lead for Neighbourhood Policing, Haringey & Enfield Boroughs, Metropolitan Police Service