Agenda item

To receive a report from the Executive Director Place (Report No: 134A) requesting additional funding for the redevelopment of the Joyce Avenue and Snells Park Estate.  Key Decision Number:  KD: 4590

This report was considered by Cabinet on 6 November 2019 and recommended on to Council. 

Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Needs seconded the report of the Executive Director Place on additional funding for the redevelopment of the Joyce Avenue and Snells Park Estate.  (Report No:  134A)

NOTED

1.            The recommendations in the report had been considered and agreed for recommendation to Council at a Cabinet meeting held on 6 November 2019.

2.            The view of the Leader that this signalled an innovative development proposal that would improve the life chances and opportunities for Edmonton residents. 

3.            Acknowledgement of the hard work of officers and many conversations with local residents over the past 2 years which had enabled the administration to bring the proposals to this crucial stage. 

4.            Awareness that residents in the area had suffered greatly from crime and anti-social behaviour, including drug dealing and daylight prostitution, thought to be linked to serious youth violence. These residents felt abandoned and wanted significant investment and improvement.

5.            The principles that underpinned this new “Enfield Model” of estate renewal included: that every regeneration scheme should benefit its residents.  The Council would lead and control the project which would be phased in over 15 years, allowing residents to move directly from their old to their new homes, with no need for decanting or to move out of the area.  Every resident, including private renters, would be offered a home on the new estate. 

6.            The Council would retain ownership of nearly all the homes.  It would provide hundreds of new council homes as well as homes for rent with long term tenancies and a local lettings scheme which won’t be eligible for right to buy.  They would be really affordable and not cost more than one third of household income. 

7.            The build to rent model would also improve standards in the private rented sector which was currently failing to provide good housing.

8.            The project made provision for key public sector workers including those working in the nearby North Middlesex Hospital.

9.            The improvements would extend to designing new neighbourhoods to help create stronger communities, addressing local problems and building the local economy.  The Council was also putting in a good growth fund bid from the GLA to improve the high street at the Angel Edmonton, Fore Street.  

10.         Acknowledgement that the scheme would be expensive but it would create over 2000 new affordable homes. High level financial modelling showed the scheme’s viability with repayment over 50 years. 

11.         This report was requesting agreement to the financing to enable the project to be bought to the ballot and final planning stage. 

12.         Whilst acknowledging the significant problems on these estates, being keen to see them addressed and approving the principles behind the redevelopment, the Opposition had the following concerns relating to: 

·         The financing of the whole scheme and its affordability. 

·         The £4m cost of bringing the report to ballot and the length of time leading up to the ballot. 

·         The view that the scheme should have been designed and surveyed before this point and expenditure capped in case the scheme was not acceptable to residents, when it came to the ballot.  

·         The proposed increase in density and lack of reference to supporting infrastructure, such as school places and health facilities.

·         The prevention of the right to buy option for future residents. 

·         The 15-year time frame for the works.  Residents would be living on a construction site for the next 15 years. 

·         That the Council should be carrying out the project itself and not putting it out into the private sector. 

·         The building on the Florence Hayes Open. Space which was one of the very few green spaces in the area.

·         Concern about the possibility that there will be a failure to deliver the scheme considering the administration’s current record with regard to projects such as Meridian Water. 

·         That money borrowed does have to be paid back. 

·         The view that the scheme should be reconsidered.

13.         The support of the majority group that:

·      Enfield desperately needed more housing and this scheme would provide huge benefits to local people.  It was also an opportunity to design out crime. 

·      Housing was an important factor in public health.  This was one of the most deprived parts of the borough and many residents were living in very poor conditions.

·      The scheme would provide energy efficient good quality homes and high-quality open space, increasing the number of affordable homes helping to bring this area up to the standards of the more affluent parts of the borough. 

·      The £4m includes the cost of designing the scheme and bringing it forward to planning.

·      The costs would be repaid over 50 years.

·      Making improvements costs money.  The Council had to borrow to invest.   

·      During engagement activities the residents had made it clear that they loved Edmonton and wanted to stay. 

·      Housing was a significant determiner of health.  Good housing was essential for all.  There is great inequality in the borough.  Edmonton residents can expect 28 years of ill health compared with the 15 year average. 

·      Migrant communities benefit the borough and should be treated with respect.  The borough should welcome all communities. 

14.         The summing up of the Leader that the work over the last 18 months had been about developing potential models of redevelopment that can balance the creation of new neighbourhoods without sacrificing the interests of those already living in the area.  These crucial issues for people who have been ignored for too long needed addressing.  The Council has a grant from the Government to share the cost of the proposals.  People deserved investment in their areas.  It is a viable and ambitious proposal for the people of Edmonton. 

After the debate the recommendations in the report were put to the vote and agreed with the following result:

For:  24

Against:  14

Abstentions: 0

AGREED

1.            To agree a further budget in the sum of £4m for work required to deliver a ballot and planning application as noted in Section 5.4.7 to be added to the Council’s HRA Capital Programme, as recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 6 November 2019.

2.            To note that Cabinet agreed at its meeting on 6 November 2019:

• To continue to develop proposals to deliver the vision for the Joyce and Snells estates as set out by residents.

• To ensure that the interests of residents remain paramount, to approve the concept that the Council undertakes the role of lead developer for the life of the scheme and brings the project forward to a planning application.

• To delegate to the Director of Housing and Regeneration authority to procure and spend against this budget, including a project team to develop the scheme to planning, including all supporting documentation, site investigations and surveys. To note that any expenditure prior to ballot could be abortive in the event of a negative vote.

• Subject to a positive result from testing of residents’ views through an engagement and consultation period, delegate authority to the Director of Housing and Regeneration in consultation with the Executive Director of Resources and the Leader and to initiate a ballot of residents.