Decision - Opposition Business - Safeguarding the Green Belt from residential development

Decision details

Opposition Business - Safeguarding the Green Belt from residential development

Decision Maker: Council

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Councillor Edward Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         The strength of local opposition towards development on the green belt, as highlighted in the petition considered in relation to the Enfield Road site.

 

2.      The increased interest, which the Opposition Group claimed to have recently noted, in the development of sites in the green belt for residential development and need identified to consider the issues raised and ensure the necessary steps were taken to maintain the current safeguards against these type of developments.

 

3.      The principles and protection established within National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan towards the function and acceptable use of the green belt.

 

4.      Whilst recognising the rapid population increase within Enfield over the last decade and need to consider, as part of the imminent Local Plan review, how this level of growth could be accommodated the Opposition Group were keen to ensure that consideration of the issues raised regarding protection of the green belt were included as part of the process.  In addition they did not support the recent figures quoted by the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development relating to the level of future ongoing population growth anticipated by 2032 and associated number of new homes identified as required (50,000).  It was highlighted that based on the current projections within the Greater London Assembly London Plan the target for Enfield had been assessed as a minimum of 798 new homes per annum (an increase from 560).

 

5.      The recognised contribution of the green belt in terms of combatting pollution, maintaining biodiversity, improving the quality of life and protecting the environment.

 

6.      The need to recognise the current restrictions within the National Planning Policy Framework and principles established under case law in terms of alteration of established green belt boundaries and the fact this should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and linked to review of the Local Plan.  As a principle it was felt the construction of new buildings in the green belt should continue to be regarded as inappropriate and proposals for these type of developments resisted.

 

7.      Whilst recognising the increasing demand for new housing and associated infrastructure within the borough and targets within the London Plan it was felt these should not be regarded as exceptional circumstances in terms of potential green belt development.  The Opposition Group felt there was a need to make clear that large scale residential development of the green belt was not permissible with a clear steer to developers on this point and within its planning policy and guidance.

 

8.      The need to consider alternative options in terms of suitable sites for large scale housing developments, including the potential for development on brownfield land as a means of ensuring the Council was able to meet its targets within the London Plan.  In response to a Council Question submitted on this issue, the Opposition Group had noted that according to the Council’s Housing Trajectory (2014) approx. 110 hectares (270 acres) had been identified as brownfield land available for residential development across the borough and felt the priority should be focussed on these sites as opposed to the green belt.

 

9.      The specific concerns highlighted within the Opposition Business paper:

 

a.      in support of the petition already considered, in relation to any proposed residential development on the Enfield Road site; and

 

b.      in relation to the acquisition of Sloeman’s Farm by the Council and its potential future use; and

 

c.       the purchase of the former Middlesex University site in Trent Park and assurances sought in relation to the impact on conservation of the green belt as a result of any future development proposals relating to the site.

 

As a result of these issues, the Opposition Group had identified a number of issues within the Opposition Business paper on which responses were sought designed to clarify the Administration’s position in relation to the specific sites highlighted and overall stance in relation to protection of the green belt.

 

Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

1.      It would not be appropriate for him, as part of the response to the debate to comment on specific or potential planning applications.

 

2.      The need to recognise that population growth was a fundamental issue that needed to be addressed within Enfield.  The figures quoted by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Business Regeneration had come from the Office for National Statistics, with the population in London projected to grow by over 1.5m over the next 15 years.  The impact on Enfield, in terms of meeting this additional housing and associated infrastructure need would therefore need to be carefully considered and planned and he therefore welcomed the debate.  It was important to recognise, however, that the identification and use of brownfield sites would not be sufficient on its own to meet all of the projected need identified.

 

3.      Whilst recognising and supporting the benefits and success of the green belt, there were challenges that needed to be addressed in relation to meeting the additional housing need identified and all options would therefore need to be considered.  As an example reference was made to the recent suggestion by The London Society, who had originally campaigned for establishment of the green belt, around the concept of green wedges.

 

4.      The major challenge identified in relation to the provision of green space not only in terms of the green belt but also in terms of development across the borough with, for example, provision for domestic gardens no longer a key feature in many housing developments.  As a result the need to achieve some balance had been identified, particularly in the more developed areas of the borough with the example provided of Angel Gardens in Upper Edmonton were a small open space had been created on a site that could have potentially accommodated 120 residential properties.

 

5.      The need to recognise that any development would involve a range of considerations needing to be taken into account.  The consultation shortly to be commenced on the Local Plan would provide an opportunity to consider all options in a structured way, taking account of the overall level of development needed within the borough, available sites and targets for the provision of housing that the Council had to meet in accordance with the London Plan.

 

6.      The need to address the growth in population across London and within the borough could not be ignored and would require all options to be considered in terms of how the borough was shaped for the future.  It was hoped that this debate could be undertaken in a mature and reasonable way, taking an evidence based.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

(a)       The need highlighted by members of the Opposition Group:

 

·                To recognise the desire of developers to acquire green belt land, on the basis that it would often be less costly to develop than brownfield sites.  It was felt a clear message needed to be provided to developers that the Council was strongly opposed to development on the green belt in order to discourage potential applications.

 

·                To recognise the contribution that the green belt made to the unique character of Enfield as a borough.  Both the Conservative and Labour Party candidates for London Mayor had expressed views against development of the green belt.

 

·                The note the work being undertaken by the London Land Commission to develop a register of brownfield sites suitable for potential residential development, which included a range of unused sites owned by public sector organisations.

 

·                To recognise the extent of new house building achieved under the current Conservative Government, which had been achieved without encroaching on the green belt.

 

·                To ensure that the benefits of the green belt were recognised, along with the fact (as part of any debate) that alternative options were available in terms of addressing the population growth currently being experienced including the Government’s focus on the economic development of areas outside London and immigration, as part of the wider debate on the European Referendum.

 

·                To highlight concerns in relation to delays in the delivery of the residential developments at Meridian Water and on the small housing site programme.

 

·                To recognise that allowing development on the green belt would not only destroy the environment, but could increase flooding, and also result in the need for more infrastructure: for roads, drainage, health facilities, and shops.  It would also increase traffic congestion. 

 

·                To ensure that the figures provided in relation to future projections for population growth and housing development within the borough were accurate and evidence based.  Given the concerns raised and need identified to consider all available options the suggestion was also made that the Council consider setting up a Joint Commission to consider how best to ensure the Council was able to meet current and future demands in terms of the need for housing development.

 

(b)       The need identified by members of the Majority Group:

 

·                To recognise that the Council had not built anything on the green belt and that current policy within the Local Plan and London Plan precluded development on the green belt, which in order to proceed would therefore require approval via the Mayor for London or Secretary of State.

 

·                To recognise the obligation on the Council in terms of having to plan for an increase in the borough’s population and the number of new homes required to meet the projected level of demand.  This would require full and careful consideration of population data and projected trends as provided by the Office for National Statistics and Mayor for London and all available options in order to properly address the significant challenge identified.

 

·                To recognise the duty on the Council to review its Local Plan and ensure this was done to the satisfaction of the Planning Inspectorate taking account of the projected increase in population and including consultation on all available development options within the borough.

 

·                To recognise the negative impact of the Conservative Government’s benefit reforms in terms of the growth in population within the borough.

 

·                To recognise that the Administration were not in favour of development on the green belt, but had identified a need to consider all available options in terms of addressing the projected increase in population and level of new residential and associated infrastructure development that would be required.  This process would need to recognise the finite extent of development site options and balance needing to be struck between managing the level of development in already densely populated areas against the availability of alternative brownfield or other sites within the borough.

 

·                To recognise the significant contribution which the Meridian Water development would make towards the provision of additional residential accommodation within the borough.  Any debate on available options would also need to consider the mix of high as well as low rise units that could be provided within any potential development opportunities.

 

·                To highlight, in relation to the concerns raised about the former Middlesex University site in Trent Park, that the site had originally been vacated by the University as a result of proposals for its development not having been approved by the then Conservative Administration.  The site had now been sold to a Housing Developer with a planning application anticipated, which would be subject to the usual planning assessment and decision process.

 

·                To highlight that in relation to the Enfield Road site, any planning application received would be also subject to the usual assessment and independent decision making process by the Planning Committee.  It was however, important to note that any application would be from a private developer and not the Council.  Any associated proposals to create a free school would also require approval from the Secretary of State, although this would be in accordance with Conservative Government policy.

 

During the above debate the Mayor advised that the time available for Opposition Business had expired.  In view of the nature of the discussion and number of members who had indicated they still wished to speak it was agreed that the time available should be extended for a further 15 minutes.

 

At the end of the debate, Councillor Smith summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group by highlighting what he felt had been a useful debate.  The view which he felt had been outlined by the Majority Group - that whilst reluctant to develop on the green belt this may be inevitable given projected population growth and the limited number of other alternative sites, was not one shared by the Opposition Group.  It was felt this stance would send the wrong message to developers and that the position was not supported by the uncertain nature of future population projections.  In addition the Opposition Group felt that there were other alternative development sites which could be explored as a priority in order to ensure that the future character of the green belt continued to be maintained and protected.

 

Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the Majority Group by focussing on the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper.

 

In relation to recommendation 9.1 (providing a response on the issues highlighted relating to the Enfield Road site) he felt these matters had already been considered during the debate and in considering the petition under agenda item 7 (Min.89 refers).  He was not therefore minded to provide any further response.

 

He advised that the Majority Group were willing to support:

 

(a)     recommendation 9.2 (agree to comply with the criteria laid down by Government and the Mayor for London to protect the rural character of the green belt and not allow residential or other inappropriate development on it); and

 

(b)     recommendation 9.3 (to confirm the details of the Local Plan review, including the proposals relating to public consultation and to publish its terms and scope) recognising the desire to engage in a full and open debate on the issues.

 

In terms of the remaining recommendations he advised that the Majority Group were not minded to support:

 

(a)     recommendation 9.4 (publishing a list of significant brownfield sites within the borough available for residential development) given the potential commercial sensitivity of the information and fact that the details of many sites were already in the public domain.

 

(b)     recommendation 9.5 (the statement that the green belt remains safe under a Conservative Government) given the fact that according to figures he had obtained 6 times as many new homes had been built in the green belt under the current Conservative Government than under the previous Labour Government.

 

(c)     recommendation 9.6 (to provide a development plan for the former Middlesex University site at Trent Park detailing the Council’s requirements) on the basis that the Council had already established a cross party Working Group to focus on plans for future use of the site.

 

(d)     recommendation 9.7 (agrees to support a call on the next Mayor for London to tighten provisions relating to development on metropolitan green belt) given the imprecise nature of what was being sought.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote be taken on each of the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper.  In accordance with section 15.4 of the Council Procedure Rules this was on a roll call basis, with the results as follows:

 

The following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper were approved:

 

(1)     (Recommendation 9.2) The Administration agreed to comply with the criteria laid down by Government and the Mayor to protect the rural character of the Green Belt and not allow residential or other inappropriate development on it;

 

(2)     (Recommendation 9.3) The Administration agree to publish the terms and scope for the Local Plan review, including the start and proposed completion dates and when public consultation would be undertaken;

 

For: 56

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Lee Chamberlain,

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Lee David-Sanders

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Ahmet Hasan

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Donald McGowan

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville OBE JP

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Anne-Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Glynis Vince

Councillor Haydar Ulus

Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya

 

Against: 0

 

Abstentions: 0

 

The followingrecommendations were not approved:

 

(3)     (Recommendation 9.1) The Administration agrees to provide a response to the issues highlighted within section 4 of the Opposition Business paper relating to Enfield Road.

 

In support of recommendation 9.1: 19

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Lee David-Sanders

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against recommendation 9.1: 32

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Haydar Ulus

Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya

 

Abstentions in respect of recommendation 9.1: 5

 

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Don Delman

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor George Savva

 

(4)     (Recommendation 9.4) The Administration agrees to publish the list of significant brown field sites within the Borough that are available for residential development as has been asked for by the Opposition on a number of occasions.

 

(5)     (Recommendation 9.5) The Administration agrees, given that a Labour Government under Ed Milliband was not elected and that the green belt remains safe under a Conservative Government, to provide a timetable for the disposal of Sloeman’s farm to the private sector.

 

(6)     (Recommendation 9.6) The Administration agrees, in order to reassure local residents and protect the environmental and civic amenity of Trent Park, to provide a development plan for the campus site setting out the Council’s requirements in terms of public access to the listed House and grounds; whether the educational use of the House will be preserved; the heights and density of the residential development and the design standards that will apply; and

 

(7)     (Recommendation 9.7) The Administration agrees to support a call to the next Mayor of London to tighten further the provisions relating to the metropolitan Green Belt so that it becomes impossible for development to take place in the Green Belt for other than specified exceptions.

 

In support of recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 20

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Lee David-Sanders

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Don Delman

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terence Neville

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 34

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Guney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Bernadette Lappage

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Haydar Ulus

Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya

 

Abstentions in relation to recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 2

 

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

 

Councillor Joanne Laban declared a non-pecuniary interest as a result of her employment in the office of one of the Deputy Mayors for London.  She remained in the meeting and participated in the debate and decision on this item.

 

Councillor Jansev Jemal declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.  She withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item.

Publication date: 19/01/2016

Date of decision: 11/11/2015

Decided at meeting: 11/11/2015 - Council

Accompanying Documents: