Agenda item

To consider and agree a work programme 2020/21 for the Environment Forum.

 

A draft programme including some suggestions is attached. Further suggestions welcome. 

Sarah Cary, Executive Director Place gave a presentation on a proposed work programme for the Environment Forum including Council priorities and the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic.  Copies of the slides were available on the Council website or from the Committee Secretary. 

 

Key points of the presentation were as follows: 

 

·         Enfield had approximately 330,000 people and 125,000 households.  It has a housing crisis with average cost of housing 12.3 times average salary, relatively high levels of unemployment compared with the London average, a good cultural offer with lots of theatres, parks, open spaces and libraries and a wealth of cultures and languages, that enliven the borough.

·         The Council’s overriding aim was to create a lifetime of opportunities for everyone including three key priorities: good homes in well connected neighbourhoods; safe healthy and confident communities and an economy that works for everyone. 

·         The priorities involved planning to build more and better homes for residents, to invest and improve Council homes, to deliver household and regeneration schemes and to drive investment to deliver good growth for London, being open, supportive and welcoming to new developments.  

·         The Council was working towards being free from crime, inspiring people to meet their potential, delivering essential services to vulnerable residents and creating healthy parks and community spaces. 

·         The Council wanted to provide an economy that worked for everyone, by providing high quality employment, enhancing skills, developing the town centres and crafting a good cultural offer.  The Council was also prioritising the issue of climate change and was always concerned to provide value for money. 

·         The Council faced significant challenges as a result of the Coronavirus crisis. So far, the Council had responded well, keeping schools open, redeploying staff, supporting vulnerable local people, organising the delivery of food parcels and medicines. 

·         The country was now formally in recession 49,000 in Enfield were on furlough (about 35% of the borough’s work force).  Not all would be able to return to work so unemployment would increase.  Footfall in town centres was down 60-80%.  The Council was preparing for the possibility of local lockdowns, a potential second wave of infection and an increase in demand for social services while also continuing to find significant extra savings to maintain a balanced budget. 

·         To note that a draft work programme had been circulated with the agenda.  Items put forward had been grouped under four headings Sustainable Transport, Climate Action, Environment, Heritage and Design.  The topics suggested were as follows:

 

·         Sustainable Transport

Ø  Under 18s and Freedom Passes: concessionary travel

Ø  Further rail devolution; TfL taking over GTR services

Ø  Bus Economics: Cost of running services

Ø  Impact of Covid 19 on bus and rail services

Ø  Expansion of the ULEZ to the north circular

Ø  Public realm changes to support cycling and walking and better air quality

 

·         Climate Action

Ø  Community initiatives promoting environmental sustainability in support of the Climate Action Plan

Ø  Government housing retrofit programme

Ø  Refurbishment and retrofit in schools

 

·         Environment

Ø  Air quality in the borough

Ø  Enforcement in the green belt

Ø  Workshop on development of green infrastructure and parks strategy

Ø  Rewilding and tree planting

Ø  Future landscape of planning – planning reform

Ø  Including white paper and extension of permitted development

Ø  Emerging new local plan policies

Ø  Major applications that substantially affect the green belt

 

·         Heritage and Design

Ø  Use of Heritage Lottery Funding

Ø  Workshop on housing needs, capacity and design of buildings

Ø  Major applications that substantially affect conservation areas

 

The Chair read out a list of suggestions she had received via email before the meeting – (comments in response in brackets): 

 

·         Enfield Chase Restoration Project (this would be included under rewilding and tree planting item mentioned above).

·         Planning Applications within in conservation areas (this had been included above)

·         Monitoring the Local List and Historic Buildings at Risk (this would be considered for inclusion in the workplan)

·         Strategic transport implications of major developments such as that proposed at Chase Farm and the Colosseum Retail Park (major planning applications were included)

·         Transport for London Development at Cockfosters Underground Station (major planning applications like this would be included)

·         Update on Planning Applications previously covered by CAG (this could be considered for major applications)

·         Becoming a Fair Trade Borough again (this was a possibility)

·         Tackling air pollution and carbon emissions from traffic (would fall under the item on air pollution above)

·         How to move beyond relying on incineration for waste disposal (further details required)

The chair then opened the discussion to everyone in the meeting and the following suggestions for items to be included in the work programme were received (comments in response in brackets): 

 

·         The Local Plan and the Green Belt – (these were already part of the proposed work plan)

 

·         Whitewebbs Golf Course (no decision had yet been taken on this but it could come forward at a later date)

 

·         Meridian Water Development

 

·         Transport for London development at Arnos Grove (could be considered as a major application)

 

·         The Edmonton Incinerator – this is due to be replaced by a new heat and power plant.  Members were invited to write to the chair with more details about what they would like to see discussed by the forum. 

 

·         Review of planning applications and not just those affecting conservation areas (major planning applications with an impact on conservation areas and the green belt would be considered.  A mechanism for how this would work would be developed and communicated to forum members) Sarah Cary assured members that planning officers would always welcome input from conservation groups on specific planning applications.  These groups could also make deputations to the Planning Committee.  Planners did appreciate the good advice they received from conservation group representatives and would want to continue to receive this. 

 

·         Consideration of Listed Buildings and Local List – The Enfield Society monitored these regularly and worked closely with Christine White (Heritage and Urban Design Manager) to try and prevent buildings falling into disrepair.  It was requested that these lists could be considered at the forum least once a year. 

 

·         Public Footpaths and Rights of Way – Enfield’s current map was acknowledged to be poor and could be improved.  (this was an issue that could be considered)

 

·         The impact of the Coronavirus on the way we work.  The move away from offices in city centres to more local centres and the need for smaller local office hubs in local centres.

 

Other Comments

 

1.            Some support for the broadening out of discussion on environment issues but also a concern that the specific focus on conservation areas would be lost especially if the forum was only able to consider major planning applications. 

 

2.            Concern about how the best of the work of the former Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) could be incorporated into this new Environment Forum.  The new forum had a very wide remit and it would be difficult to give CAG matters the same focus as they had had previously in the separate body. 

 

3.            The former Chair of the Conservation Advisory Group, Dennis Stacey was keen to talk to senior officers about how this could happen and was waiting for them to contact him.  Sarah Cary assured him that a meeting had been offered and would be arranged. 

 

4.            The Conservation Advisory Group was made up of lay advisors with a wealth of experience.  That input was in danger of being lost. 

 

5.            Concern that the comments made by individual conservation group representatives would lose the impact of a joint response.  Part of the benefit of the Conservation Advisory Group was the ability for highly skilled representatives to work together looking at things from different perspectives to achieve a common agreement which then had additional force.  Having to process separate comments from individual groups would make more work for the planners. 

 

6.            Concern that comments that were put into the online planning system were no longer published. 

 

7.            Concern that it would not be possible to cover all these issues in a two-hour meeting once a month. 

 

8.            The comment from the former Chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Aksanoglu, that the input of the Conservation Advisory Group was vital to the planning process. He suggested that special meetings could be held to discuss major planning applications if needed. 

 

9.            Minor applications could also have a substantial impact on the borough. 

 

10.         Concern that the planning processes could be delayed by having to wait for applications to be considered by the forum. 

 

11.         To acknowledge that the forum this was a very different body from the Conservation Advisory Group with a different purpose. 

 

The Chair thanked everyone for their contributions and summed up by saying that all suggestions and comments would be considered as part of the final work programme.