Industry News
© Ioana Marinescu via London Borough of Enfield
levels four and five of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which was the council’s goal from the outset. Furthermore, the homes provide ample room for residents internally,
exceeding the London Design Guide space requirements by five square metres. George explained the reasoning: “The council wanted bigger spaces for residents because there’s a strong correlation between space standards and life opportunities.” In addition, to provide more space, the architects created courtyards on
the eastern terrace houses, while on the opposite side the more traditional family homes have gardens at the rear. The evident quality of the development begs the question how the
council could afford it in these cash-strapped times? “When the [potential contractors’] bids came in, the estimates were a lot greater than our budget, so the council had to strike the balance between cost control and not value-engineering-out some of the design features that made the homes so attractive,” said George. He added: “Despite the cost pressures, we stuck to the principle that the specification of the homes is largely the same, whether they are for tenants or shared ownership.” And while the scheme has a number of signature features, the Enfield councillors opted to not overcomplicate their maintenance tasks – by specifying solutions that can be easily replaced. George explained: “The main thing we considered – especially since the flats would be maintained by a council housing team – was that as far as possible the specified components were not too bespoke.” Meanwhile the residents were offered a choice with elements such as the type of flooring and kitchen units, but their engagement in the Dujardin Mews project was greater than that.
Listening to the community As the new scheme was meant to rehouse residents from the Alma Estate, the council opened a ballot inviting them to express their interest in the development. “Because we knew those homes would be so desirable, we thought the fairest way to allocate them was through a ballot,” clarified George, adding: “We invited tenants from across the estate to put their name in the ballot and approximately 85 of them did so; from the leaseholders, 19 came forward.”
“We wanted to ensure that Dujardin Mews becomes an example of a future
London street” Peter George, Enfield Council
While 19 leaseholders were what the council was targeting, just 19 of the 85 rent-paying households could be allocated a home in the new street. Because of this, further criteria had to be devised, which is when the Alma Estate residents stepped in. George explained: “The council allowed the residents to come up with the criteria; they decided first priority should be given to tenants who had lived at the [Alma] estate the longest and that the council should consider whether their housing need was correct, or if the tenants in question had made a positive contribution to the area.” He added: “This was the different thing we did, and I think that
empowered the tenants.” At the time of writing, all 19 council tenants have moved into their new
homes, while councillors are currently working on moving the remaining leaseholders into the properties. Peter George admitted the whole of Enfield Council was “incredibly proud” with Dujardin Mews. He concluded: “Local people have had a really positive reaction, the
general view is that the homes are beautiful, and I hope the tenants are not only enjoying the quality of the homes, but also benefiting from the superior space standards.”
Project team
Developer: London Borough of Enfield Contractor: Gurkan Architects: Karakusevic Carson with Maccreanor Lavington Structural engineer: Peter Brett Associates
26 | HMM July 2017 |
www.housingmmonline.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
