Agenda item

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for information.

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou, Leader of the Opposition, introduced the Opposition Priority Business paper on the Local Plan.

Councillor Georgiou noted that Enfield’s Core strategy had been adopted in 2010. Inevitably, since then, there had been changes to planning law, planning guidance, and regional plans such as the London Plan. In addition, there had been a number of planning appeals from the Planning Inspectorate that informed local planning applications. Until Enfield adopted a new Local Plan the borough would find it difficult to resist some planning applications that might be regarded as impacting negatively on Enfield.

The current draft Local Plan had been formulated without input from other political groups on the council (unlike all previous Local Plans). The plan also failed to reflect key themes in the London Plan 2021 and national government planning policy, especially on the Green Belt. The consultation with the public in Enfield had been successful and a large number of responses had been received. However, a significant number of the responses questioned aspects of the draft Local Plan. It therefore appeared that the draft Local Plan did not command wholehearted support from the residents of the borough.

The prompt establishment of a cross-party working group would play an important role in ensuring that the Local Plan was progressed through collaborative working.

Recommendations:

·         A cross-party working group should review the draft Local Plan and make recommendations to the Cabinet and Council.

·         Full Council should debate the revised Local Plan prior to submission.

·         Proposals to allow building on the Green Belt should be reviewed in the light of the London Plan 2021 and in the light of opposition to development on the Green Belt by the Mayor of London and National Government.

·         Careful consideration needs to be given where taller buildings may be acceptable.

Some members felt that the current draft Local Plan was not supported as it had not been debated in the Chamber and expressed full support for the Petition.

It was noted that the Local Plan would be a mechanism to promote urban regeneration, utilize the brownfield sites to safeguard against development on the green belt and provide green spaces for the health and wellbeing of local residents. Members commented that without a Local Plan the borough remained vulnerable to inappropriate and undesirable development in unsuitable locations.

The Local Plan was a very important document, which would allow for the development and regeneration of the local area in the way that is desired through extensive consultation and public debate.  The Local Plan would protect the borough from inappropriate development which impacted on the borough and would enable the council to make significant, informed decisions. Members noted that although building on brownfield sites had merit, two thirds of the brownfield sites in the borough were currently in private ownership. The Local Plan would enable the council to address the housing situation in the borough, where there were over 3,500 residents in temporary accommodation.

During the debate, a procedural motion under paragraph 4.2 was moved by Councillor Dey and seconded by Councillor Ozaydin to extend the time for the debate for a further 20 minutes which was put to the vote and AGREED.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Nesil Caliskan, thanked all members who contributed to the proactive and constructive debate ahead of the difficult decisions the council would have to make in complex policy areas for the benefits of residents.  The Planning Inspector had to agree that the council has a sound Local Plan, working practically and collectively for the whole borough.  There was more work to be done, particularly to find a compromise between developing on the green belt and building up and infrastructure and use of strategic development land.

Following the debate, the recommendations in the paper were AGREED.