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

 

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.   

Councillor Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

 

1.              Issues highlighted by Councillor Smith were as follows: 

 

·         Despite being non-partisan and agreeing with the objectives of projects such as Meridian Water, developing the small housing sites and the desire to create more affordable housing, he felt that the current management of housing projects in the borough was inadequate with cost overruns, poor procurement, shortage of staff and lack of expertise. 

 

·         Concern about what he saw as serious failures in the management of the major works contract where some replacements were taking more than 87 weeks.

 

·         Anxiety about issues with the provision of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) including timescales, since approval of the Edmonton Leeside Area Action Plan was still some way off. 

 

·         Concern about the impact the proposed increase in the number of affordable homes, from 35% to 50%, on the Meridian Water project and the dependence on house price rises.  These uncertainties he felt would impact on the attraction of the project to major development partners.

 

·         Concern about the relocation of the Angel Road Station which could end up being an expensive white elephant, for the Council, who might be unable to recoup the costs already expended. 

 

·         Concern that there had been no proper appraisal of the options or demonstration that the Meridian Water project would not make a loss.

 

·         The view that the leadership should get a proper grip on their regeneration projects for the benefit of Enfield residents, failure of which could undermine the Council’s whole position. 

 

2.              Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

 

·         That the Opposition failed to understand that the Council’s award winning housing development programme was progressing well.

 

·         The Opposition, during their 8 years in power, had not built any new Council homes.

 

·         The Labour administration was building: 118 new homes in Fore Street including shops and a community centre; they were balloting residents on the Snells and Joyce estates about creating thousands of new homes; at Meridian Water 10,000 new homes were planned; at the award winning Dujardin Mews development in Ponders End, 39 new homes had been completed, providing new houses for some of the borough’s poorest residents; Countryside properties were building 300 homes as part of phase one of the Alma Estate re-development and demolishing one tower block;  even more were planned for Phase two. 

 

·         The Council was building, not just homes, but communities.  The work on the Alma Estate had been recognised as best practice for involving people in the plans by the GLA.  New houses were also being built in the Electric Quarter, Ponders End, powered by Energetik, the Council’s renewable energy supplier.

 

·         In the west of the borough, at Enfield Town, Parsonage Lane and St Georges the percentage of affordable homes had increased from 40% to 55%.  More homes were included in the Enfield Master Plan.  At Oakwood, on the New Avenue Estate, 410 new homes were planned and 40 at New Southgate as a first stage.  The Labour administration was replacing tower blocks with new affordable homes through major regeneration schemes to help tackle inequalities in the borough.

 

·         In contrast the Opposition had provided no new homes during their 8 years in power, there had been no progression on Meridian Water, and the small housing sites had been left to rot.

 

·         The Guardian, the Observer, the Civic Trust, RIBA had all recently recognised the good work that Enfield was doing in delivering innovative housing projects.

 

·         Councillor Oykener felt that the government was involved in social cleansing and had provided no ability to replace lost housing stock.  They had attacked the housing revenue account with rent reductions and despite the Grenfell Tower fire were withholding the money needed, for councils to install sprinkler systems. 

 

·         The Labour administration had a good track record in developing solutions to the broken housing market and would carry on delivering. 

 

 3.       Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

 

a.            The need highlighted by the members of the Opposition Group:

 

·       To recognise that the previous Conservative Administration had begun the Ladderswood and Highmead projects and completed Enfield Island Village and Highlands. 

 

·       To recognise that housing repairs were generally poor and that the performance of the current contractor was unacceptable. Delays had had a huge impact on local residents.  87 weeks to carry out a 27 week contract was not good enough.  It was felt that the contractor should be taken to court to account for the delays and that acknowledgement should be made that the financial penalties in the contract were too low to motivate the company to improve. 

 

·       To understand the concern about the failure to secure the nearly completed properties at Jasper Close, which had led to the them being knocked down and started again.

 

·       To recognise concern about paragraph 6.2 in the London Plan and the need to provide more strategic industrial land.  That the current administration had been negligent in failing to appeal against the designation of land when they would have been certain to win. 

 

·       To admit that potentially the Council will not be able to realise the land values expected, that a third of the Meridian Water site is unlikely to be available for residential use.  This was due to the incompetence and irresponsibility of the current administration and that they will not be able to strike a deal with a new development partner.  Eight to ten thousand new housing units would have transformed the borough but this was now unlikely to happen. 

 

·       The view that this administration lacked vision and drive.  Challenges were not insurmountable. 

 

·       That the lack of progress and failure of the small houses project was a scandal. 

 

·       That the administration cannot claim that the achievements of the last 8 months made up for the last 8 years.  Fine words were not good enough, action was required. 

 

b.            The need highlighted by members of the Majority Group:

 

·       To recognise that the economic wellbeing of the borough was no laughing matter and the view that the Opposition’s Priority Business paper was simple and irresponsible. 

 

·       To understand that Barratt’s final offer on Meridian Water had been rejected because it was not good enough.  It would have been bad for Enfield.

·       To accept that the Labour Administration had embraced business.  They had bought land at Meridian Water on the open market and had not paid inflated Compulsory Purchase Order CPO prices.

 

·       To acknowledge that the administration would benefit from the rising price of Strategic Industrial Land which would put them in a good place for the future. 

 

·       To recognise that that an administration would be remembered for the contribution that they had made to society. 

 

·       To recognise the needs of the huge numbers of households in temporary accommodation, those sleeping rough on the streets and those forced to use food banks. 

 

3.              At the end of the debate Councillor Smith summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group as follows: 

 

That over the past 5 years only 500 to 600 new houses (both public and private) a year had been built in Enfield.  This was far fewer than the 1,900 the Mayor of London was asking for.  Only a few schemes had been completed, Dujardin Mews and a small number of others.  The majority had been started under the Conservatives. 

 

4.              Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the majority group responding to the recommendations in the Opposition Priority Business Paper:

 

The majority party would continue to bring forward housing development schemes including in Meridian Water where remediation works and work on the new station were underway.  In his view the Conservatives had done nothing in their time in power. The Labour Administration had had to start from scratch by purchasing land. 

 

He was happy to support recommendations 2,5,6,7. 

 

Recommendation 2:  That the Leader of the Council provides a confidential briefing on Meridian Water to the Leader of the Opposition to reassure her that the concerns raised in this report are being addressed and the Council’s position will be protected.     

 

Recommendation 5:  To appoint a full time Assistant Director for Housing with the experience and skills necessary to sort out the poor performance of Enfield’s Housing Department and show that we are serious about Council Housing.

 

Recommendation 6: That the new Executive Director for Regeneration and Environment undertakes a full review of the Regeneration Department when she starts in the spring.

 

Recommendation 7:  That the current re-organisation of the Housing Department regarding the management of major and minor works is completed as soon as possible.

 

Recommendation 8:  The future Council would consider if a report on progress should be brought back to a future Council meeting.

 

Councillor Laban thanked Councillor Taylor for his response and was happy that some of the recommendations had been accepted.