Agenda item

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

(a)       The Opposition Group were concerned at the current performance of the Council’s planning function in relation to:

·                the determination of major planning applications and possibility that this may lead to the Planning Authority being placed in “special measures” by the Department of Communities & Local Government.

·                the impact of being placed in “special measures” in terms of providing developers with the option of submitting major planning applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) rather than the local Planning Authority for determination.

·                the adequacy of planning consultation & advice on specific applications.

·                the current level of planning contributions being required and potential deterrent in terms of encouraging development activity.

(b)       Wider concerns were also raised in relation to what were felt to be shortcomings in the strategic planning of the Authority.

(c)       The need for the relevant Cabinet members to take responsibility for the concerns highlighted in relation to planning performance, in order to ensure that Enfield’s attractiveness as a “place to do business” in wider regeneration terms was not adversely affected.

As a result of the concerns expressed the Opposition Group were seeking the commissioning of an independent peer review to examine all aspects of planning performance and benchmark this against other authorities, in order to identify the scope for any improvement.

Councillor Goddard, Cabinet member for Business & Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

(a)       what was felt to be the lack of clear focus within the Opposition Business Paper, given the range of issues highlighted.

(b)       The need to recognise that the Council was operating (in strategic planning policy terms) under its Local Plan & Development Management Document and was now in the process of developing three Area Action Plans, involving substantial and wide spread public consultation.  Major developments were subject to planning briefs and had also been considered in accordance with the required planning processes.

(c)       In terms of planning contributions, the Authority was in the process of consulting on its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) policy, with the level of contributions sought being consistent with other local authorities.

The concerns raised in relation to planning policy and the wider impact in terms of Enfield being seen as “open for business” were therefore refuted with examples provided of Enfield having been commended for its clarity of vision and the number of applications for major developments being submitted.  In addition the Council had recently launched a Planning Charter, to which a number of major developers had signed up, which it was felt again demonstrated the confidence in Enfield being an attractive borough in regeneration and development terms.

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

(a)       The wider strategic and business planning concerns identified by the Opposition Group in relation to:

·                the future use and development of the Southgate Town Hall site;

·                the development and delivery of new school places under the Primary Expansion Programme;

·                the procurement of services for vulnerable clients at Honeysuckle House;

·                what was seen as the limited progress in relation to the redevelopment of vacant sites for housing purposes at Parsonage Lane and Forty Hill;

(b)       The need, identified by the Cabinet member for Environment, to recognise:

·                the large volume of planning applications being dealt with by the Authority.  These would be subject to careful consideration in order to ensure they complied with the relevant planning policy considerations.

·                The positive outcome of a recent independent peer review of the Council’s Planning Department undertaken by the Planning Advisory Service.

·                The improved performance of the Authority in determining major planning applications which was above the % that would trigger the Planning Authority being placed in to special measures.

(c)       The scope and range of large scale housing redevelopment projects being progressed across the borough with associated employment and regeneration opportunities including, as specific examples, the schemes at Ladderswood and Alma Road.

Councillor Laban summed up by confirming that the Opposition Group had noted the decision of the Members & Democratic Services Group (8 July 13) to recommend the commissioning of an independent review of the planning function by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS).  She confirmed that the Opposition Group would be willing to support the review as a way forward in terms of addressing the concerns they had raised.

In response to the debate Councillor Georgiou felt it was important to address the concerns raised in relation to management of the Middlesex University & Southgate Town Hall developments by highlighting the specific context and background to decisions made regarding use of these sites. The progress made by the current Administration in delivery of school places under the PEP was also highlighted and commended.  In addition the opportunity was also taken to outline the significant level of inward investment being attracted to Enfield through its various regeneration and redevelopment schemes, with the biggest of these involving the Meridian Water project.

Given the independent nature of the review already commissioned by the Members & Democratic Services Group no request was made by the Leader of the Opposition for a vote to be taken as an outcome of Opposition Business.