An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the Council to consider.

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Councillor Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

1.            Issues highlighted by Councillor Smith were as follows: 

·         The Local Plan, which was about to go out on consultation, was an important document which would shape the future development in the borough until 2036.  If we got it wrong, there would be consequences. 

·         His feeling that the Labour administration believed that the borough’s population was due to rise substantially, increasing housing need, leading to the need for more building. His concern that the administration were proposing to allow building on the green belt in areas such as Crews Hill, to increase back land development and to permit high rise blocks in town centres. 

·         The view that building on green belt land would not conform to the Mayor of London’s draft London Plan.  Opposition members queried therefore why such proposals had been included in the consultation document. 

·         It was felt that the main reason for the housing shortage was due to Council’s failures, including delays to large regeneration schemes such as Meridian Water and even to the small housing site schemes.

·         Concern about the possibility of enormous fines if the Meridian Water Station development was not completed by May 2019.

·         Fear that these new proposals, if they went ahead would change, for the worse, the character of Enfield for ever and would damage Enfield residents’ quality of life. 

2.            Councillor Caliskan, the Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

·      The Council were required to update the local plan under the National Planning Policy Framework.  Under the new plan, Enfield would need to increase house building targets to 1,900 properties per year, up from the 798 currently required and in contrast to the Government’s figure of 3,500.  Many more houses were needed. 

·      She argued that there was no point questioning population growth figures or thinking that migration would be reduced because of Brexit, as most migration was domestic; people would continue to come to London whether Brexit happened or not.  All predictions indicated that population would continue to grow. 

·      Without a good plan, it would not be possible to control or shape development in the borough.  Over the past 15 years the average price of houses in the borough had increased from £160,000 to £460,000, and average rents by £400.  Too many people could not afford the cost of housing.  Over 3,000 people were on the temporary housing register.  Half of all council housing had been lost since 1979.  New development was essential.  Work was also needed to tackle climate change, to improve infrastructure, to enable society to grow and prosper. 

·      The local plan was due to be published as part of the start of a 12-week consultation, at the options stage.  The Council was seeking the views of the public, before finalising the plan for submission.  It was a call for sites and a call for ideas from residents and other stakeholders. 

·      The designation of land as Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) was an issue,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the Council to consider.

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

1.              Issues highlighted by Councillor Laban were as follows: 

·       Acknowledging the difficult external circumstances within which the traders in Enfield Town were operating, it was felt that the problem should not be ignored by the Council: the shops were struggling. 

·       The health of the high street was very important to the community and it was an issue that had been raised on the doorstep, during the recent local government elections. 

·       The new Palace Exchange development had led to many of the previously existing shops moving to other premises in the new development, rather than bringing new shops to the area and increasing the offer, as had been hoped. 

·       The 2011 riots had had an impact on the town’s reputation.  Funding provided by the Mayor, that could have been used to improve the high street, had been spent by the administration on a market gardening project instead. 

·       The night time economy had declined over the past 20 years: much of it had shifted to the retail parks, with the building of the Southbury Leisure Centre where there was free parking.  The Dugdale Centre was one of the very few places providing evening entertainment in the town. 

·       In July 2018, the Opposition had raised concern about the increases to parking charges.  They had felt that the administration had not taken enough account of the impact that this could have on footfall.  Especially as there were other places nearby where parking was either free or less expensive.  The Opposition had argued in the past for a 3 hour free parking window on Sundays to boost shopping, but this had not been accepted. 

·       Other areas had been given much more regeneration funding than Enfield.  Edmonton Green had also been offered rate relief which had not been available to retailers in Enfield Town. 

·       Although there were proposals to improve the high street, in the Enfield Town Masterplan, it was felt that more needed to be done more quickly to boost the shopping and leisure activities in the town.  Councillor Laban hoped that the majority group would accept the recommendations in the paper. 

2.              Councillor Caliskan, the Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

·       Councillor Caliskan had initially welcomed the topic for opposition business but had been disappointed by the content of the paper and its sole focus on Enfield Town, ignoring other key shopping areas such as Palmers Green, Southgate, the Angel Edmonton and Edmonton Green. 

·       The current administration was keen to serve the whole borough, all the town centres and high streets.  They were looking at the overall strategic approach, to deliver improvement, whilst also allowing for bespoke place making for particular areas. 

·       The administration was in the process of developing a town centres action plan and would be consulting with traders, business leaders, councillors and everyone with an interest, on their priorities.

·       A number of meetings had already been held. 

·       The National context was grim.  One hundred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

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

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

1.         Issues highlighted by Councillor Laban were as follows: 

·         She highlighted three key areas of concern, housing, customer services and scrutiny. 

·         Housing was one of the biggest issues in London and this administration’s record in this area was, in her opinion, less than impressive.  Meridian Water was in limbo after 18 months of failed negotiations.  She felt that if they had used the GLA framework, houses would have been built by now.  She also had concerns about the impact on the proposed development of the Labour Mayor of London’s industrial strategy. 

·         After eight years the small housing site developments were still not complete.  It had been a scandal that the nearly completed buildings at Jasper Close had had to be knocked down because they had not been protected against bad weather.  There were also significant delays in other housing schemes. 

·         Concern that customer service standards had dropped significantly and this was not in her opinion due to cuts.  Management of the transformation to new ways of working had been poor.  The website was not fit for purpose: it could not cope with the large number of users pushed on to it.  Members Enquiries and Freedom of Information requests were taking far longer than they should.  Good customer service was important to residents, particularly the vulnerable. 

·         Cuts to scrutiny reduced accountability. 

·         Many people had yet to see the reality of the Council’s vision.  

2.         Councillor Achilleas Georgiou, Deputy Leader, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

·         That he could rebut every point made by the Opposition.

·         That the Conservative Opposition lacked belief in themselves, shown in the wording of the recommendations, and in that several members were defecting to safer seats.

·         Acknowledgement that the Labour Administration aimed high but could not always achieve what they hoped to due to shortage of money from Government.  That the Conservative Government had attacked local government: Enfield’s funding had been reduced by £161m since 2010 with a further £35m proposed for 2019-20. 

·         Recognition, that despite the cuts, the administration had been able to, among other things, find a further £4.2m for education, fund 16 new police officers, install more CCTV cameras, 93% of schools had been judged good or outstanding, create two new parks including an artificial grass pitch on Enfield playing fields, plant 623 new trees, reducing the carbon footprint, build new homes and attract new businesses including the Camden Brewery. 

·         He looked forward to welcoming many more hard working Labour councillors on 3 May 2018. 

3.       Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

a.            The need highlighted by the members of the Opposition Group:

·         To acknowledge concern about the huge reductions in spending areas including in the capital programme, including for Meridian Water, in social care, children’s services and in environment.  Most of the capital expenditure being for Cycle Enfield. More money should be being allocated to repairing the infrastructure, repairing schools, and maintaining council properties. 

·         Also concern about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7