To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services detailing a petition that has been received which meets the criteria (in terms of the number of signatures) for debate at Council.

(Report No.120)

Before moving on to deal with this item the Mayor invited John Austin, (Assistant Director, Governance Projects) to provide a brief statement providing advice for Members regarding consideration of the Petition and also Opposition Business (items 7 & 8 on the agenda).

Members were informed that the advice should be taken in the context that no planning application for the development on the green belt land at Enfield Road had been received but it was likely that one would be submitted in the near future.

Council was informed that members of the Planning Committee had been advised that they would need to exercise caution in relation to views they expressed on the issue at the meeting.  As such, it was important that they avoided any appearance of having predetermined the assessment of any planning application by making any definitive statements for or against the acceptability of any development at Enfield Road.

He informed members that they could still take part in the debates and indicate a view.  However any contributions made, must not indicate that they had a closed mind on any planning application.  They must remain open to the consideration of any proposal on its individual merits as well as all other relevant factors, such as committee reports, supporting documents and the views of objectors.

Members noted the advice provided and Council then moved on to receive the report (No.120) of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services detailing the petition, which had met the criteria (in terms of number of signatures) for debate at Council.

The Mayor invited Madeleine Betton and Ian D’Souza, the lead petitioners, from Enfield Roadwatch Action Group, to present their petition to the Council, who having thanked Members for receiving the petition highlighted the following issues:

·                The need to recognise the background and context to the petition in terms of the reasons why so many families chose to settle in Enfield given the community spirit and cohesive nature of a large multicultural society; love of green spaces and high standards of education.

·                That over 4,000 people had signed the petition, which it was felt showed the level of passion in terms of protecting the green belt and objection to what it was felt would be an inappropriate development that had the potential to endanger the reasons why Enfield was such an attractive place to live.

·                All Enfield’s strategies, reports and plans had upheld the green belt status of the site at Enfield Road that was the subject of the petition.  The site had also been listed as an area of special character, with the reasons for protecting the green belt having grown rather than diminished over the years.

·                Although the draft proposals had included the development of a school, this was not felt to needed in the area given its proximity to existing provision at Highlands School.  Similarly the need for additional housing in the specific area was not recognised meaning, the petitioners felt, there were no special circumstances which could be used to justify development of the site.

·                The potential extent of the impact any development would have on existing residents and the surrounding area.  The petitioners were keen to protect the environment, keep the area light and open, with clean air and pollution free roads and it was felt elected representatives needed to take account of the strength of these concerns and local opposition to the potential development.

·                Whilst recognising the demand for additional housing across the South East of England, local residents felt that Enfield should only have to accommodate its fair share, with the focus for these type of developments on brown rather than greenfield sites and residents not required to make sacrifices in order to maximise returns for developers.  There was also a need to recognise and take account of the additional infrastructure requirements that would be associated with any large scale residential development.

·                Members were urged to protect the quality of life for residents within the borough and to demonstrate the same level of creativity and vision as displayed by those who had originally created the green belt in considering these type of approaches from developers.

·                The need to safeguard and avoid the gradual erosion of the green belt and other open spaces in the borough, recognising their contribution in making Enfield such unique and attractive place to live.

·                The need to recognise that Enfield’s four star reputation was in part based on how it decided to manage its assets and there was a need to ensure, even in times of increasing pressure from a growing population, the Council was able to consider the bigger picture and work with integrity.

The petitioners concluded by urging the Council to recognise the strength of feeling and level of opposition to any proposed development on the site at Enfield Road and to ensure that all necessary steps were taken to protect green belt sites from future development for the future benefit of all those living in the borough.

The Mayor thanked Madeleine Betton and Ian D’Souza for their presentation, which was then subject to a short debate.  Issues highlighted during the debate included:

(a)     Members advised they recognised the concerns raised and thanked the petitioners for highlighting the strength of feeling and views for Council to consider.

(b)     The need to recognise that Enfield was one of the greenest boroughs in London, with the green belt space one of its defining features.  As well as local residents, many organisations including the Campaign for Rural England and Federation of Enfield Ratepayers and Residents Association (FERRA) were keen to ensure that this green belt space was protected, with the Council having a key role as its custodian.

(c)     The support of the local ward councillors in relation to the petition and need to preserve the special character of the site at Enfield Road.

(d)     The following issues highlighted in specific response to the petition by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Leader of the Council:

·           The Council deeply valued and appreciated the borough’s network of green spaces;

·           The need to recognise that the Council’s current planning policy was to resist development in the green belt unless extraordinary circumstances could be demonstrated.  Any applicant who wished to build would therefore have to make a case which would be subject to robust assessment and independent scrutiny;

·           Decisions on any planning application would be the responsibility of the Planning Committee.  Members who served on Enfield’s Planning Committee were not subject to political whipping and would need to consider each application on its merits, taking account of the statutory planning framework, national, regional and local planning policy, site circumstances as well as the views of residents and other key stakeholders;

·           The current outline development proposal for the Enfield Road site, including the proposals for an academy school, had been submitted by a private developer and not by the Council.  At this stage no formal planning application had been submitted;

·           Any proposal for residential development on the green belt would generally be considered inappropriate, as it would represent a departure from the Council’s own Local Plan.  It was important to recognise, however, that the Council would not have the final say on whether or not to grant planning permission in these circumstances, as any application of this nature would normally have to be referred to the Mayor of London or possibly the Secretary of State, for final decision.

(e)     The need to avoid the matter becoming a party political issue.

(f)      The green belt was an area of bio diversity and home to significant amounts of wildlife and ancient trees, which contributed towards its special character.  The impact of any proposed development on these issues would need to be treated as a material consideration as part of the assessment of any subsequent planning application, with detailed scrutiny also likely from outside organisations such as the London Wildlife Trust.

(g)     The need to recognise the wider health benefits and associated  impact of any potential reduction in green space and of current national policy in relation to management of the green belt and open space with the Council looking to actively encourage sustainable transport, walking and cycling schemes.

In concluding the debate the Leader of the Council thanked the petitioners for their presentation.  Whilst noting the views expressed and level of support for the petition he reiterated that the final decision on any development proposals could only be made once a formal planning application had been received and had been assessed and considered in the normal way.

The following was therefore unanimously agreed as an outcome of the debate.

AGREED that Council receive and note the petition along with the fact that any planning application received in relation to development of the site would need to be assessed against relevant national, regional and local planning policy having regard to site circumstances and representations received and in accordance with the statutory planning framework.

Councillors Lee David-Saunders, Alessandro Georgiou, Joanne Laban, Michael Lavender, Dino Lemonides, Terence Neville, Ann-Marie Pearce, Michael Rye, Edward Smith and Glynis Vince Smith declared non pecuniary interests in this item as they had signed the petition.  They remained in the meeting and took part in the debate on this item.

Councillor Jansev Jemal declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.  She withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item.