Agenda item


To receive a report from the Executive Director of Place presenting The Annual Monitoring Report and Updated Housing Trajectory 2019.


(Report No.208)



The Sub Committee received a covering report and presentation slides.

(Report No. 208)




1.    The Chair thanked officers, Neeru Kareer, May Hope, Harriet Bell and John Zheng, for their absolute hard work over the past few months with regards to the draft new Local Plan consultation. Councillor Barry also mentioned that residents appreciated it and felt they were genuinely being asked for their views and were keen to take part. She also thanked officers for their hard work in this matter.

2.    Neeru Kareer (Head of Strategic Planning & Design (Interim) clarified that the 2 items on the agenda are house-keeping reports, which is a requirement of the team. Due to a lack of resource, these reports should have been presented last year and as the new Local Plan is progressing now is an opportunity to bring all of the sections house-keeping up to date, starting with the Annual Monitoring Report. This is a high-level monitoring report of the plan making function, including the current plan and current policies. It was also an opportunity to be open and transparent about the Council’s housing supply and housing completions. The report is seeking Cabinet Sub-Committee approval and endorsement, to bring the monitoring report into line for a 2-year reporting period.

3.    John Zheng (Planning Policy Officer) presented a power point presentation, talking through the key points of both reports. The second report concerns the Council’s future plan making programme which is termed the Local Development Scheme, a 3-year forward looking programme of what the Council will be doing in terms of producing planning documents.


The following points were highlighted:


·         This was the Annual Monitoring report covering 2016 – 2018 financial years.

·         The presentation slides covered the following headings and will be published alongside the minutes of this meeting:

a.    Annual Monitoring Report 2016-18

b.    Housing Trajectory – updated

c.    Current snapshot of the Borough

d.    Housing Completions between 2016-18

e.    Schemes in the pipeline

f.     Housing Trajectory overview

g.    Other key Highlights




1.    The report covered not only Council led housing schemes but all housebuilding in the borough. For Council led projects, the following schemes are in progress to date:

a.    Alma Estate – 163 homes under construction, with completion anticipated May-19

b.    Electric Quarter – 21 new affordable homes and 40 market units completed

c.    Ordnance Road – 15 units completed with 100% affordable provision.

d.    Ladderswood Estate– Phase 1 40 units completed which includes 22 affordable units.

2.    The Council’s small sites housing project are yet to be formally counted and will fall into this 19/20 reporting period  , as completed owing to the reporting mechanism and criteria set by the GLA through the London Development database (LDD). There would therefore be another 100 plus properties coming from small sites developments with nearly 50% affordable units in this years return.

3.    As detailed at page 50 of the report, the Housing Trajectory overview graph would look very different by next year, when the Annual Monitoring report (AMR) is presented, if a new London planning target come into effect. The draft new London Plan is currently going through an examination in public. Though the draft new London Plan is not expected to be adopted later in 2019, it is a material consideration in the planning decisions process and whilst proposed policies may be refined, there is a clear message of the importance of increasing housing supply, draft targets set out as 1,876 new homes per year. As such, the draft new London Plan is an important consideration for Enfield in its long-term spatial policy planning. .

4.    The Council’s housing trajectory shows a supply of housing sites, over the next five years and is made up of sites with full and outline planning permissions. It also includes a combination of allocated sites, which are supported by Area Action Plans (AAPs) and non-allocated sites, supported by Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment studies (SHLAA) and council-led housing schemes through its estate renewal programme and regeneration programmes. So, the numbers within the graph, totalled from the spreadsheet show a reasonably confident projection of supply..

5.    The housing trajectory graph detailed on page 50 of the report, shows the supply of housing sites over the next 5 years compared to the current London Plan target of 798 new homes per year.

6.    As detailed on page 55 of the report, the housing pipeline details the GLA’s London Development Database and shows that Enfield has approximately 3,241 homes in the pipeline. The committee requested that any delays to completion homes needs to reference, within the narrative, to show timings as to when completion of these homes will be i.e. year.

7.    The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was adopted, by the Council, in 2016. After a period of settling in, the charge figure would increase year on year. All the monies collected, minus administration fees, had all gone towards the infrastructure at the Meridian Water site, in particular, £500,000 towards the new station.  Cycle Enfield receives a grant aid and through Section 106 collections. Therefore, education contributions and Cycle Enfield contributions come from the planning consents. The policy allowing for that collection has contributed towards the infrastructure. The Committee requested that it may be better to show in the report how much Section 106 monies have been collected and whether it has been spent. The team would be bringing a monitoring report on Section 106 and CIL to the next Planning Committee in April 2019 but were happy to bring this report to the next LPCSC meeting in April 2019, if required.

8.    As detailed at page 23 (para 5.8) of the report, members asked if issues within Enfield’s retail sector could be alleviated if CIL charging rates could be changed in some way. Officers clarified that in order to do that they would need to undertake a CIL review. This was on officers’ agenda’s as part of the new Local Plan. There could be incentives to encourage retailing if some financial burdens were removed and getting the right balance. However, the CIL only operates with 2 categories at present i.e. residential and commercial only. Officers would be looking at this further.

9.    As detailed on page 3 (para 5.1) of the report, members sought clarity on the meaning of ‘gross’ and ‘net’ in terms of housing completions. Officers’ clarified that gross is to say a planning permission for 10 houses would equate to a gross of 10 homes. When the 10 homes are built on the land which had 2 existing homes, that would be a net gain of 8 homes. So gross is approved with planning permission but there is a net of 8.

10.As detailed on page 4 (para 5.1) of the report, the student attainment figures referred to all schools in Enfield. Officers, would look at separating the attainment figures for Enfield Schools from LEA Schools.

11.The two tables detailed at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5, referring to the Mayor of London CIL and the LBE CIL quarterly breakdown would be amended to show complete titles for both.

12.As detailed on page 5 (para 5.4) of the report. Members asked for examples of new allocation sites for housing and if there had been any successes yet.

13. Appendix 1 of the report, details a complete breakdown of the Borough’s ethnic diversity.

14.As detailed at page 29 – Core Policy 4, the Development Management team no longer use this policy to assess development schemes i.e. Lifetime Homes and Sustainable Homes.

The new green deal was removed by the Government as it was not viable any longer and would need to be bought back.

Building regulations had now taken over more of the standard base than planning policies. A lot of the sustainable standards within new construction now falls under Part M of Building Regulations. This means it is less of a burden on planning and more on the Building Regulations which tie the quality of construction to the sustainability of the eco friendliness of built construction. This is the reason why some of the old planning policies have been superseded by building regulations.

15.As detailed at page 35 – Core Policy 13, the committee sought clarity regarding the decrease in jobs within the borough since 2016 and how that compared to the rest of London and UK. Contributing factors discussed included:

·         Loss of employment space in the retail sector

·         Loss of B1 floor space which relates to high density employment.

                The data was obtained from the Office of National Statistics (ONS).         John Zheng would undertake some more research to see if there is a further breakdown available of the type of jobs being lost (including wage levels) and which sectors/areas (post codes) are being affected. To get a better understanding of theses job losses and to perhaps get an action plan together, if needed.

ACTION: John Zheng (Planning Policy Officer)

16.As detailed at page 37 – Core Policy 16, the chart referred to residents in the borough who have attained those level of skills. As regards Council employment and whether foreign qualifications are translated into British qualifications or equivalent so as to have a better understanding, John Zheng will be looking into this to find out the background and will report back to the committee.

ACTION: John Zheng (Planning Policy Officer)

17.As detailed at page 38 of the report regarding loss of floor space for town centre use, this relates to where office floorspace is converted into residential. This information was obtained from the London Development Database where the team report to when there has been a conversion and loss of A1 use.

Given the shift in the way people shop, is more retail space required or is it adjusting itself to what is appropriate. Through the Local Plan preparation process the team will be undertaking more technical evidence-based work to identify what the need is. There may be a need for more or less retail space and those centres that may need expanding or consolidating can be identified.

Further discussion around empty shops, landlords not reducing rents for shops, online shopping contributing to the decline of retail centres and the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers (CPO) of the Council. Members recalled there was a Council initiative started about 3-4 years ago by the previous administration, regarding the CPO process for empty shops and the committee asked if this was still in place, what the procedure was for this and if there was anything to follow up. Neeru Kareer would look into this and get back to the Committee.

ACTION - Neeru Kareer (Head of Strategic Planning & Design – Interim).

18.As detailed at page 40 – Core Policy 22, the Committee questioned why waste was increasing and recycling was low in the borough. Was this reflected nationally. John Zheng would check with the Council’s waste officers and report back to the committee.

ACTION: John Zheng (Planning Policy Officer)

19.As detailed at page 44 – Core Policy 32, at the time of publishing this report, John Zheng had e-mailed Environmental officers and has received air quality average statistics for the borough, back from them and would share this information with the Committee. However, in terms of river quality, chemical and biological data, Environmental officers did not have this information. John Zheng would double check with those officers if this information was available and why it had not been disclosed.

ACTION: John Zheng (Planning Policy Officer)

20.As detailed at page 45 – Core Policy 34, no data available regarding satisfaction of people with parks and play areas. John Zheng had spoken with the Park’s department who confirmed that these surveys are no longer undertaken since it was shown on the previous monitoring report.

21.As detailed at page 46 – Core Policy 36, no updates to the Biodiversity policy since 2011/12. The Council did not have a biodiversity officer in place any longer. The role and funding was cut due to Council savings. The team could only report on information it could gather. Whilst the policy is in place, there are other areas of the Council that the team are dependent upon. The committee agreed that this was an issue. There had been an indication that ‘Friends of the Park’ were happy to monitor and gather this data. Neeru Kareer would raise this issue with the Parks department.

ACTION - Neeru Kareer (Head of Strategic Planning & Design – Interim).



Alternative Options Considered: Noted the following alternative options which had been considered as set out section 6 of the report:



1. The alternative is not to revise and republish the existing AMR 2015/16 and

Housing Trajectory 2016. However, this would put the Council at risk legally

    by way of providing out dated information to the public and challenged at

    public inquires on housing trajectory and five-year housing supply.

2. The alternative also sends out a negative message to residents, business,

and the development industry that Council are not prepared to be transparent and report on accurate housing supply delivery.


Decision: The Local Plan Cabinet Sub-Committee agreed to:


1.     Endorse the content of this report as evidence to support the new Local

    Plan and to demonstrate an up-to-date five-year housing supply.

2.     Note the content of the Local Plan AMR and approve it for publication on the Council’s website.


Reasons for recommendations:


1.  The updated Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is considered to set out a realistic picture of how council are performing against key planning policy indicators, addressing housing needs and supply. The current legislation and regulations require that the Council publishes up to date information to the public.



Supporting documents: