Venue: Enfield Grammar
Note: To view the livestream of this meeting, please copy and paste the following link into your browser https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_N2ZjZTNjYjctNDNiYy00ZWVlLTg3MzItNGIyZGNhMzI2NzYz%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22cc18b91d-1bb2-4d9b-ac76-7a4447488d49%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22de181320-9e9a-429c-a8db-b37ae5b5ded1%22%2c%22IsBroadcastMeeting%22%3atrue%7d&btype=a&role=a
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Guner Aydin, Yasemin Brett, Ergin Erbil, Ahmet Hasan and Ahmet Oykener.
Declarations of Interest
Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.
No declarations of interest were received.
The receive the report of the Executive Director of Place on Draft Regulation 18 Enfield Local Plan: 2019-3039.
Appendix H to this item will be circualted as a to follow paper.
Council is recommended to;
1. Approve the Reg 18 Draft Enfield Local Plan 2019 – 2039 (at Appendix A) with accompanying supporting documents, including the Sustainability Appraisal, for statutory consultation for a period of six weeks commencing as soon as is practicable in June 2021.
2. Delegate to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Portfolio holder for Strategic Planning, authority to make minor revisions as are necessary to the plan (including preparing a high-quality graphic layout) in advance of the consultation.
Councillor Nesil Caliskan moved the report with two minor amendments, and Councillor Gina Needs seconded the item. The two minor amendments to the report were the have a twelve week consultation period on the Local Plan, and following the consultation, the final version of the Local Plan to be brought back to a Full Council meeting.
1. The report and amended recommendations.
2. The following key points were highlighted by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caliskan, when moving the report:
a. That the consultation period had been amended from six to twelve weeks following requests raised by members of the public and stakeholders.
b. That a report be brought back to a future meeting of the Council in advance of any documentation being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate
c. The draft local plan presented at the meeting was built on engagement dating back to 2018/2019 when there was a 12-week consultation followed by ongoing engagement
d. The Greater London Authority (GLA), Environment Forum, councillors and Youth Parliament had been consulted on the document. Two Scrutiny Committee sessions were held on the draft Local Plan.
e. All political groups were offered a briefing by council officers although this was not taken up by all groups
f. There is a housing crisis with a growing population leading to difficulty finding decent and affordable homes. Overcrowding and residents living in temporary accommodation is an issue for Enfield. The draft Local Plan will allow for new homes near stations, and suitable for families, to be built.
g. By 2039 Enfield populations will grow by 50,000 with older people living longer and many people having children – we must ensure they are not priced out of the borough.
h. All suitable brownfield sites will be used and built on before any building on the Green Belt takes place.
i. The Local Plan provides protection to Enfield’s rich network of biodiversity and ancient woodlands.
j. As well as the 25,000 new homes Enfield has to deliver to meet the Government’s housing target, Enfield are also obliged to designate Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) to support the local economy. Every piece of SIL that is given up mist be replaced elsewhere in the borough.
k. Central Government planning changes proposals would allow for building to take place all over the Green Belt, not just the potential areas set out in the draft Local Plan. The Local Plan will protect Enfield’s wider Green Belt.
l. If the Council does not allocate adequate land for housing in our borough, our Local Plan would be found “not sounds” by the National Planning Inspector appointed by the Government. The Council would then have no Local Plan which means that landowners and developers could apply for planning permission to build houses anywhere, including all over our Green Belt, and the Council would have no legal basis to refuse those applications.
3. The comments of the Majority Group included:
· That the draft Local Plan addresses the needs of residents whilst aiming to ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
To receive a report of the Executive Director of Resources on the expansion of Energetik’s Heat Network.
The Council is asked to:
1. Approve the addition of £5m to the Capital Programme, in addition to the £32m budget approved by Council in March (KD5210), for the purpose of extending the Energetik heat network as detailed within Appendix A.
2. Approve the total investment in the proposed expansion identified in Appendix A of £49m, comprising £12m grant funding and £37m borrowing as included within the Capital Programme, to fund the proposed expansions, as follows:
a. £12m grant funding from the Heat Networks Investment Project (HNIP), to be invested in the company as equity funding;
b. £12m loan from HNIP at an interest rate to the Council of 0.01%, to be on-lent to the company at a negotiated interest rate compliant with Subsidy Control regulation;
c. £25m loan funded from either the Mayor’s Energy Efficiency Fund (MEEF or Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) or a combination of both.
3. Delegate to the Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, authority to execute on-lending and subscription agreements with Energetik to transfer the funding in paragraph 5, these agreements to at minimum mirror and reflect the requirements identified within Appendices Ci and Cii. To approve that as part of these agreements Energetik will be required to present the Executive Director of Resources with a quarterly connection statement detailing confirmed and perspective property connections compared to projections, prior to the release of required funding.
4. Approve the revisions to the company’s 40-year Business Plan as outlined within the company’s Business Plan second Addendum, whilst working with the company Directors to implement the financial model updates, in recognition of the observations in the Ernst & Young review.
5. To instruct the Director of Legal and Governance, in collaboration with Company Directors and council officers, to undertake an options appraisal and strategic review identifying a preferred strategy to support the company’s future growth with external funding and knowledge by November 2021 and consider options to reduce the Council’s interest as referenced in paragraph 56. No further funding beyond this report to be agreed until this review is complete, and a clear strategic financing direction identified and approved by Cabinet.
6. To note the ongoing discussions between Energetik and LB Haringey and LB Hackney to supply heat to residents of other north London boroughs, as included in the Energetik business plan.
Councillor Mary Maguire moved the report of the Executive Director of Resources, and Councillor Taylor seconded.
1. The report and its recommendations were noted
2. The following key points were highlighted by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Maguire, when moving the report:
a. The investment from the Council will create the infrastructure the borough will need for the future.
b. The expansion of Energetik’s heat work will reduce the current impacts on the environment
c. Before any funding is release a demonstration of its quality would be required. This will be conducted with EY to ensure best value is received.
d. The expansion would lead out of Meridian Water linking many homes to the network in the borough.
3. The comments from the Majority Group included:
· The expansion of the heat work aims to reduce fuel poverty within the borough, and climate change, by connecting homes to low cost water and heating.
· The expansion is required ahead of a ban on using gas in new build homes. Energetic is looking into how to retrofit homes to connect to the network.
· This supports the administrations aims to be carbon neutral by 2040.
· Financial loss can occur during the asset building stage, but the financial benefits would be felt in the future.
· The expansion of the heat network would be a great opportunity for the borough as the network could have capacity to heat 25,000 dwellings.
· EY have assured the Council the proposed model is sustainable.
4. The comments from the Majority Opposition included:
· Large sums of money had already been spent on Energetic, although it was noted that some of the investment would come from grants.
· Concerns were raised on the climate emergency as 1% of the Council’s fleet of cars were currently electric.
· Energetic had already reached a number of its targets, however, there was concern that the incinerator in the borough remains the networks primary source of power.
· Residents being able to have the right to choose their energy suppliers is fundamental.
· A planning application had not been considered by Planning Committee yet, but by agreeing this it could be seen as the members of the Planning Committee as having already having made a decision on a future item which could lead into a legal battle.
5. The comments from the Minority Opposition included:
· Feedback the Group had received from residents had indicated they did not feel Energetic would be value for money.
· There were concerns about increasing the Council’s debt.
· It was felt there were inconsistencies within this report and the draft Local Plan.
· Increasing the building of dwellings would not be sustainable in order to maintain the heat network.
· It would be preferred for the independent review of Energetic to take place prior to further investment being agreed.
Following the discussion members took a vote on the recommendation.
1. To approve the addition of £5m to the Capital Programme, in addition to the £32m budget approved by ... view the full minutes text for item 7.