Issue - meetings

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

The Council Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.

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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

The Council Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.

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

1.         The background to the issue being raised for debate had been the current housing crisis across London, which the Opposition Group felt had been aggravated by the Labour Government’s:

·                record between 1997-2010 in building the fewest houses for public and private use since the 1920’s; and

·                uncontrolled policy on immigration.

2.         In terms of Enfield, the Opposition Group were looking to examine the record of the current Administration given what they felt to be the lack of progress on delivery of the following major housing development schemes, inherited from the previous Conservative Administration.

a.      Meridian Water – concerns raised were as follows:

·                The lack of progress which it was felt had been made in preparing the site for redevelopment in terms of the acquisition of relevant land and the identification of a developer.

·                The delay in construction of the main highway, as a pre-requisite to progressing wider development of the site.

·                The need for action to be taken as soon as possible in order to facilitate the necessary acquisition of land, including use of compulsory purchase powers in order to secure the significant development opportunities presented across the site in terms of both housing and regeneration and in recognition of the increasing land costs.

b.      Small Housing Sites – whilst supportive of the general purpose and nature of the overall programme concerns raised were as follows:

·                What was felt to be an unacceptably long delay in development on the seven small residential sites having commenced, given the timeline outlined within the paper for the design and planning process.

·                The need to ensure that adequate cost and programme monitoring arrangements were established for all estate regeneration and other housing schemes.

3.      In addition, the paper raised a number of issues in relation to the Housing Gateway Scheme, with specific concerns as follows:

·                The structure of the financial loan between the Council and Housing Gateway Company that had been set up to purchase and hold the properties, given it was being funded via the General Fund rather than Housing Revenue Account.

·                The detrimental impact of the scheme in terms of the local housing market and at limiting opportunities for those looking to purchase their own homes within the borough.

·                Whilst recognising the need for action to be taken to address the unprecedented levels of demand for social housing, it was felt the Housing Gateway scheme was wrong in principle and represented a financially imprudent approach given that it would not deliver any additional housing build.

As an outcome of the debate the Opposition were looking to highlight what they felt had been the limited progress made by the current Administration in terms of taking forward the housing development opportunities identified, with specific actions identified as a result in relation to:

·                bringing forward a viable timescale in order to secure redevelopment of the Meridian Water site, with associated land acquisitions.

·                Establishing appropriate monitoring systems for management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78