Agenda item

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

 

1.         The need identified by the Opposition Group for the current Administration to recognise the need for action to be taken in order to preserve those aspects of the Borough most valued by residents, in terms of the day-to-day living environment, and which would make Enfield a place in which they wanted to stay and live.

 

2.         Areas of concern identified included:

 

a.         The need to support local businesses, particularly in town centres and those areas affected by the disturbances in 2011, utilising all available sources of funding;

 

b.         The proposed use of funding being made available by the Mayor for London to support local business on the Market Garden initiative within Enfield, as opposed to further investment in town and local retail centres;

 

c.         The time taken to redevelop small vacant housing sites across the borough;

 

d.         The impact of traffic calming schemes across the borough, which it was felt had failed to understand the local environment and been undertaken in an uncoordinated way.  It was felt these schemes, combined with a range of anti-car measures, had led to increased traffic congestion across the borough with a detrimental impact on local residents;

 

e.         The appearance of the physical street scene across the borough, which had seen paving slabs replaced in many areas by tarmac and unsatisfactory communication with residents in terms of them being able to report incidents during the recent bad weather;

 

f.          Planning enforcement activity, with measures needed to challenge the erosion of conservation areas and Green Belt as well as quality of developments and adherence to the planning process.

 

Whilst supportive of the Enfield 20:20 concept the Opposition Group felt there needed to be more focus on the issues highlighted in order to safeguard the living environment within the borough.

 

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

 

1.         What was felt to be a lack of clear focus within the Opposition Business Paper, given the range of issues highlighted and need to develop more evidence based solutions.

 

2.         The need to recognise the following national, regional as well as local policy context in terms of the issues raised and impact in terms of key drivers on the local environment:

 

a.         at local level the Council had continued with the Core Strategy almost entirely as adopted by the Opposition Group under the previous Administration, which included a range of housing and other soci-economic and development objectives.

 

b.         at regional level the Council was required to take account of the Mayor for London’s strategies and policy objectives as set out within the London Plan in relation to areas such as housing, planning development and the Green Belt

 

c.         nationally the Council was having to manage the impact of the Government’s programme of welfare reforms.

 

3.         In terms of support for local business and town centres the Market Garden initiative had been funded through the GLA but not via the Outer London Fund.  The aim behind the initiative was to create local employment opportunities designed to address increasing levels of poverty within the borough and was supported by the Mayor for London.  Funding secured via Phase I & II of the GLAs Outer London Fund was being used to support improvements and development work within Town Centres, with particular success along the eastern corridor of the borough such as Hertford Road where the occupancy rate for retail units was approx. 98%.  Occupancy problems had been recognised in Enfield Town, but these were largely due to the high cost of rents and size of units available.  Whilst outside of its direct control, the Council was working with the retail and property companies in the private sector in an attempt to influence and address these issues.  The mini Holland scheme was also provided as another example of the way in which the Council was working (on a cross party basis) to address the issues raised.  Members were also asked to support the various local initiatives being planned as part of “Small Business Saturday” on 7 December 13.

 

4.         The policy being followed in relation to management of the Green Belt had been set out in the Core Strategy and Development Management Document (DMD).  A review of the Green Belt boundary had been completed, which had been subject to a process of consultation, with the changes proposed resulting in 13 site gains and 19 site loses.  This only accounted for a 0.15% loss overall in terms of the Green Belt within the DMD, which was due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. It was not felt this represented a mismanagement or deterioration of the Green Belt.

 

5.         The central theme in the Opposition Business Paper that Enfield was no longer a place that people wanted to live was not accepted, evidenced by the demand for housing and increased prices in large parts of the borough, which the Meridian Water and Estate Renewal Programme had also in part been designed to address.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

(a)       The improvements highlighted by the Opposition Group in relation to the street scene and environment across the borough under their Administration including CCTV, wheelie bin pilot and street lighting PFI and concerns highlighted at what they felt to be:

 

·                a lack of clear strategy and piecemeal approach towards the implementation of traffic management schemes across the borough and impact this was having in terms of congestion and traffic displacement in surrounding areas.  The need to recognise the opportunities and threats arising from the proposed extended opening of the tube network in managing this issue was also highlighted alongside the need for a review of the strategy for managing the free flow of traffic across the borough;

·                the impact that the levies and fees charged for development activity was having in terms of regeneration and planning development across the borough and for a review to be undertaken on the level of fees and levies charged;

·                the limited impact of market gardening as an initiative designed to stimulate growth and local employment opportunities;

·                the way in which the Core Strategy and planning objectives and guidelines were being applied in relation to developments across the borough, with specific examples provided of the extension of George Spicer School on Metropolitan Open Land and in Conservative Areas despite opposition from the Conservation Advisory Group;

·                the detrimental impact on the appearance of the street scene by the replacement of paving slabs with tarmac;

·                The delays in delivery of the housing renewal and delivery programme;

 

(b)       The need highlighted by members of the Majority Group in response to the issues highlighted under Opposition Business to recognise:

 

·                the co-ordinated nature of investment being provided under the Local Implementation Plan in relation to highway, traffic and transport scheme and increased level of resident satisfaction in terms of highway maintenance across the borough;

·                The programme of investment, as opposed to budget reductions, in the Waste Management and Street Cleansing service, which had seen a borough wide roll-out of the wheelie bin programme and improved recycling rates;

·                The investment and improvement in CCTV provision and monitoring across the borough;

·                The impact of the Government’s Welfare Reform programme in terms of the increase in transient proportion of the population in the borough and associated pressure this created in terms of the transport, housing, health and education infrastructure;

·                The impact of the Government’s Planning Policy Framework in terms of the presumption now being in favour of development;

·                The success of the efforts made to improve and enhance the environment in the borough, measured in relation to the increase from 75% - 81% in resident satisfaction with the borough as an area in which to live.  76% of residents surveyed had also said that they felt the Council was working to make the borough a cleaner and greener place in which to live;

·                The actions being undertaken in conjunction with the Sustainability & Living Environment Scrutiny Panel to improve work around bio-diversity, levels of air and water quality across the borough and to develop a sustainable programme of energy efficiency initiatives;

·                The Estate Renewal and small housing site development programmes now underway across the borough and impact that the lack of what was felt to be a joined up approach in national and regional housing and economic policy had created in relation to the provision of affordable housing.

 

(c)       The passionate but differing nature of the views expressed by both Groups in relation to management of environmental issues in the borough.

 

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 Lavender was invited to sum up on behalf of the Opposition Group and highlighted the following recommendations as outcomes for the Administration to consider and comment upon:

 

(a)       review and reconsider support for the Market Garden initiative, in view of what were felt to be the limited benefits.

 

(b)       maintain an ongoing review of the Council’s Transport and Traffic Management Strategy with a focus on a more coordinated approach that recognised the impact of schemes on the flow of traffic across the borough and other unintended consequences e.g. parking displacement.  The review should include an analysis of the threats and opportunities presented by plans to extend operation of the tube network.

 

(c)       review the level of fees and charges in relation to planning and development activity and whilst recognising that not all of these were directly controlled by the local authority, undertake benchmarking with other authorities in order to compare the level of fees charged.

 

(d)       Review the level of business rates with a view to reducing them where possible, as an additional support for local business.

 

(e)       Provide improved training for councillors serving on the Planning Committee designed to improve the credibility of the planning process and way that decisions were made.

 

In responding to the debate Councillor Taylor (Leader of the Council) advised of the difficulty he had in identifying any clear actions, given what he felt to be the lack of focus and detailed evidence based recommendations within the Opposition Business paper and way in which issues had been highlighted during the debate.  Councillor Lavender referred to the procedure rules on Opposition Business which stated that the debate should contain specific outcomes, recommendations or formal proposals and felt the Opposition in presenting their paper had complied with this requirement.

 

Councillor Taylor highlighted that the procedure also required the issue paper to set out the purpose of the Opposition Business and any recommendations for consideration, which he felt had not been done.  Whilst proposals had been identified during the debate it was not felt that these had been presented in a coherent way enabling actions to be considered and identified as an outcome.

 

In view of the comments made in summing up a request was made for the current rules within the Opposition Business procedure to be reviewed by the Members & Democratic Services Group in order to clarify the requirements on the way that recommendations were identified and presented for consideration under Opposition Business at future Council meetings.

 

The proposals identified as a result of Opposition Business were not therefore approved.  No vote was requested by the Leader of the Opposition on the outcome of the debate.