Agenda item

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

Cllr Lee Chamberlain introduced the Opposition Priority Business paper on the Provision and Maintenance of Housing by London Borough of Enfield.

Cllr Chamberlain expressed that the current Administration was failing to provide adequate housing as required. Cllr Chamberlain felt there should be a building by building review, and the information from that review should be made available to residents who could validate if it was correct. Plans should be set out clearly so residents were fully aware of the Council’s intentions. The Administration was invited to make necessary changes to improve its housing delivery. It was hoped the proposals would be received in the spirit they were sent.

Cllr Caliskan responded that the country was suffering a housing crisis, and the national cost of living crisis had worsened the housing situation. This Administration had a housing investment programme, but that had been affected by higher costs of construction, and had to refocus and reprofile so it could be financially responsible. The Opposition had consistently opposed housing schemes and borrowing to invest in housing stock, and had opposed affordable housing in their wards. The paper did not offer solutions. The Council was already carrying out stock surveys on a rolling basis.

Opposition members expressed concerns particularly in relation to the delays to delivery of housing at Meridian Water; allowing Council-owned family houses to be sold off by auction; and use of prefabricated modular developments. The Housing Scrutiny Panel should meet more frequently and have an expanded role. Management of the Housing Revenue Account was questioned. Greater provision of affordable housing was needed in the borough, but in appropriate ways and locations.

In response, members raised that the borough had faced doubling rates of homelessness this year and was affected by central government’s policies, and cutting of housing budgets. Despite the cuts, the Administration had ambitious plans and were investing in homes and estates. Opposition members were urged not to undermine the Administration’s efforts, but to work with them.

During the debate, a procedural motion was moved by Cllr Ozaydin and seconded by Cllr Ergin Erbil under paragraph 13.20 (viii) of the Council’s Procedure Rules to extend the debate for a further 10 minutes which was put to the vote and AGREED.

During the extended debate, a further procedural motion was moved by Cllr Ozaydin and seconded by Cllr Ergin Erbil under paragraph 13.20 (viii) of the Council’s Procedure Rules to extend the debate for a further 10 minutes which was put to the vote and AGREED.

Cllr Georgiou highlighted the responsibilities of the Administration around the Shires Estate’s problems; a large percentage of the housing stock not meeting the decent homes standard; high spending on temporary accommodation and poor conditions for residents; out of borough placements; lack of clarity around prefabricated modular developments; the debt sunk into Meridian Water; money wasted by Housing Gateway; and insufficient scrutiny permitted of housing processes.

Cllr Caliskan responded that the proposed recommendations in the opposition business paper lacked substance. Previously agreed reports set out the approach to surveying housing stock, and there was a rolling programme. The forthcoming Local Plan would properly address housing need, but brownfield and small sites would not be adequate to meet this need. The Opposition should stop opposing housing delivery. The Council worked within the context and budget constraint set by national government and tried to support the borough’s residents as best it could.

After the debate, Members took a vote on whether to approve the Leader’s response to the Conservative Opposition Business paper. Members agreed the Leader’s response.

The recommendations in the Opposition Business paper were therefore not accepted.