Agenda item

To receive the report of Perry Scott, Executive Director of Environment and Communities / Brett Leahy, Strategic Director of Planning and Growth.

Cllr Ergin Erbil, Leader of the Council, provided an introduction with a reminder of the importance of having the Local Plan adopted, and its significance particularly in respect of supporting sustainable development, protection of green spaces, and provision of new homes.

May Hope, Head of Strategic Planning & Design, and Brett Leahy, Strategic Director of Planning, Growth & Infrastructure, introduced and highlighted key aspects of the report. The Local Plan was a critical document for shaping the development of the borough to 2041. It was submitted to the Secretary of State in August and the examination process was well underway. The receipt of the Inspector’s preliminary questions was part of the process, and detailed responses were being prepared. It was anticipated that public hearings would take place in early 2025. Modifications would be then made. The final adoption of the Local Plan was expected by the end of 2025.

An email from the ‘Action for Enfield’s Future’ group had been sent to Panel members. Questions raised in the email would be examined through the process, but a brief high-level response was provided to each of the questions for the Panel’s information. This included information on management of the issue of missing consultation survey responses; Greater London Authority (GLA) and Transport for London (TfL) objections; validation of evidence submitted; references to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); brownfield first principle; and alignment with Council plans and strategies.

Questions were invited from the Panel.

In response to Members’ queries in respect of brownfield sites identified, it was advised this would be a key test for the Inspector, and would be debated and discussed in detail. Sites had to be put forward by landowners and be deliverable and viable, and meeting the needs of the borough, particularly for affordable and family homes. Housing targets could not be delivered without an element of Green Belt release: it was stressed that this referred not to parks or ancient woodland but to garden centres, car parks etc and to fields that were currently inaccessible to residents on Green Belt land. At Chase Park, a large proportion (c.68%) was proposed to be 3 to 4 bed homes. A master planning stage would provide detail and inform planning applications.

In response to Members’ queries regarding future water supply and waste water treatment, the reference to upgrade needs at Deephams site was noted, and it was advised that the Local Plan was a way to manage development and assist water and other strategic infrastructure companies to then be able to manage investment decisions.

Members asked further questions about the responses to the Inspector’s questions, and potential impacts if the information was not provided. It was advised that the period between submission and examination was a normal part of the Local Plan process. The Council had until 1 November 2024 to respond to questions and was confident it would meet the deadline, but there was a risk of delays in receipt of information from third parties. The Inspector was being kept appraised, and a time extension may be permitted for some less significant questions.

In respect of the timeframes further to the preliminary questions, public hearings were anticipated in January, February or March 2025. The Inspector may then require an element of modifications to the Plan.

In response to Members’ queries regarding Brimsdown Industrial Estate, it was advised that the site had crucial employment uses, and the borough had to meet industrial needs as well as housing needs.

In respect of housing need across London, it was confirmed that the emerging Local Plan did take the London Plan into account but noted this plan was shortly due to expire. Enfield had identified its own new homes figures and these would be tested by the Inspector.

In response to Members’ queries regarding the Traveller Local Plan, the Council had made the decision to split the Local Plan, and the Inspector would consider the justification and scrutinise appropriately. Other councils had similarly split the Local Plans.

Members asked for more detail on missing responses to the consultation. It was advised that groups had been contacted in respect of missing responses, and work had been undertaken with IT colleagues to investigate the reasons for it. The Inspector had been made aware and kept updated. The issue had been contained and no-one would be disadvantaged.

In response to Members’ queries relating to concerns raised about car dependency, it was advised that the Council sought a balance with appropriate car parking provision within housing developments and did not share an ambition of zero car parking or greater densification.

Panel Members requested to receive a copy of the response to the Action for Enfield’s Future email, and to receive a copy of the response to the Inspector’s preliminary questions.

Action:  Brett Leahy