Agenda item - OPPOSITION BUSINESS - GLA & Mayoral funding: Mini Holland proposals

Agenda item

OPPOSITION BUSINESS - GLA & Mayoral funding: Mini Holland proposals

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

 

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

Minutes:

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

 

1.         The need to recognise and thank the Mayor of London for the level of investment provided for projects within the borough over the last four year period.  This had included funds to refurbish the Hertford Road Business Centre and investment in the Council’s market gardening initiative along with a range of other projects detailed within the Opposition Business Paper.  Investment had also been pledged for the new Meridian Water Railway Station as well as third rail track.

 

2.         In addition to the investment outlined in 1. Enfield had also been successful in bidding for funding as part of the Mayor of London’s Mini Holland programme, with £30m allocated for investment in cycling and street scene improvements.  The bid had been developed with cross party support and its success was regarded as an excellent achievement for the borough in times of austerity.

 

3.         The Opposition Group recognised the benefits of the Mini Holland funding in terms of:

 

·                generating investment for Enfield’s businesses;

 

·                acting as a catalyst to increase and provide safer ways of cycling; and

 

·                 improving infrastructure and street scene;

 

Concerns were, however, identified in relation to:

 

a.         The need to ensure that the opportunity represented by this funding was not wasted and that the scheme was designed to benefit, and had the full support of, the borough’s residents and businesses.

 

b.         The Council’s ability to deliver such a large scale regeneration scheme, given perceptions about its previous track record in consulting upon and delivering these type of large scale projects.

 

c.         The level of apprehension already being expressed by some local businesses, residents and other stakeholders about consultation on and development of the detailed proposals and how this would impact on them.  The need to work and communicate with residents and local businesses was therefore seen as key in order to ensure that the project was a success.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Opposition were looking to recognise and thank the Mayor of London for the level of investment provided in Enfield and to ensure that the necessary consultation and governance arrangements were put in place (as promised within the bid submission). It was felt this was necessary in order to gain the support of residents and the local business community and to ensure that any issues raised were properly considered and, where necessary, acted upon.

 

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

 

1.         The constructive nature of the issue raised under Opposition Business, but need to also recognise the amount of time and effort that had gone into developing the bid proposals which had been the main reason for its successful outcome.

 

2.         Whilst appreciating the cross party support for the bid, it was felt that the Council could demonstrate a strong record of consultation, for example, on development of the South West Enfield Area Action Plan which had recently been approved following an extensive consultation process with local residents and businesses with virtually no amendment.  He felt that a strong approach towards consultation was already embedded in the way that the Council approached regeneration schemes.

 

3.         It was recognised that there had been some initial misunderstanding about what the proposals would involve, but he reiterated the commitment that the Council was proposing to work with local residents, businesses and other stakeholders, and would consider the issues raised in order to deliver a successful scheme.

 

4.         The scheme was seen as a catalyst for regeneration and would link in with development of the Enfield Town Area Action Plan aimed at delivering a socially and economically vibrant town centre.

 

It was therefore felt that the scheme needed to be recognised as a real opportunity for the borough with an assurance provided that the detailed proposals would be developed in full consultation with local residents and businesses.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

(a)       The need to recognise and welcome the opportunity provided as a result of the successful bid, for which there was support on a cross party basis.

 

(b)       The concerns raised by the Opposition Group in relation to:

 

·                the outcome of the initial consultation meeting with local businesses in Enfield Town and need to ensure that communication and consultation moving forward were genuine and designed to fully engage residents and local businesses;

 

·                the need for careful consideration to be given to the planning of cycle routes and hubs in order to recognise not only safety issues but also the likely purpose of journeys.  Not all areas would be conducive to cycle routes, given the existing urban environment and space available, so it was felt thought needed to be given to where routes could best be sited with use made, wherever possible, of less busy secondary routes parks and other greenways as an example linked to the main hubs.

 

·                the fragile nature of the commercial vitality of town centres across the borough and need to ensure this was not damaged, particularly in Enfield Town, as part of the development of the Mini Holland proposals.

 

(c)       The need identified by members of the Majority Group:

 

·                to recognise that whilst welcomed, the investment provided by the Mayor of London was funded via the precept levied on local authorities and only represented a small proportion of his overall budget;

 

·                to recognise that the scheme was designed as a catalyst to encourage cycling along with the associated health benefits.  This would involve the creation of schemes designed to segregate motorists and cyclists;

 

·                to acknowledge the success of the current Administration in developing and delivering large scale regeneration and other innovative projects such as Meridian Water.  The need to ensure that residents and local businesses were kept fully informed and engaged in development of the proposals had been recognised and would form a key part of the scheme moving forward;

 

·                The need to protect and avoid damaging the commercial viability of town centres had been recognised.  Whilst the scheme would involve the development of innovative solutions, given the need to manage existing pressures on infrastructure, the Council remained committed to working with local business over development of the detailed proposals.

 

Councillor Laban summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group by highlighting the recommendations set out in the Opposition Business paper which it was felt would ensure that residents and business faith in the project was maintained at the same time as delivering the best scheme possible.

 

In response Councillor Taylor felt there was a need to recognise the overall context within which the bid had been developed including the aim to tackle health, environmental and air quality issues across the borough.  Whilst the clear objective of the programme was to encourage an increase in the level of cycling as a mode of transport it was recognised that the detailed design of proposals would also need to take account of the purpose of travel.

 

Concerns had already been expressed locally about proposals relating to Enfield Town.  It was, however, important to note that an important element of the bid had involved Enfield Town which the Mayor was keen to see progressed.  The development of these proposals would involve consideration of a range of options which would, as emphasised during the debate, be subject to an ongoing process of consultation with a range of key stakeholders including residents and local businesses.

 

In terms of the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper, the Leader advised of the intention for Cabinet (under the new Administration) to consider proposals relating to the necessary governance structure and consultation arrangements on the scheme.  The involvement of scrutiny in the process would he felt be a matter for the relevant panel to consider as part of the process in setting their work programme.  Whilst the scheme represented a great opportunity for the borough and the aim was to move forward with the support of all major stakeholders, it would not be possible to guarantee that every concern raised as the consultation and design process was progressed could be actioned.  An assurance was provided that the Council would listen to views being expressed but the final decision would ultimately rest with the authority.

 

The recommendations in the Opposition Business Paper were not therefore approved, although it was noted that development of the Mini Holland proposals would be subject to further Cabinet consideration of the necessary governance structure and consultation arrangements.  No vote was requested by the Leader of the Opposition on the outcome of the debate.

Supporting documents: