Councillor Edward Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group. Issues highlighted were as follows:
1. The strength of local opposition towards development on the green belt, as highlighted in the petition considered in relation to the Enfield Road site.
2. The increased interest, which the Opposition Group claimed to have recently noted, in the development of sites in the green belt for residential development and need identified to consider the issues raised and ensure the necessary steps were taken to maintain the current safeguards against these type of developments.
3. The principles and protection established within National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan towards the function and acceptable use of the green belt.
4. Whilst recognising the rapid population increase within Enfield over the last decade and need to consider, as part of the imminent Local Plan review, how this level of growth could be accommodated the Opposition Group were keen to ensure that consideration of the issues raised regarding protection of the green belt were included as part of the process. In addition they did not support the recent figures quoted by the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development relating to the level of future ongoing population growth anticipated by 2032 and associated number of new homes identified as required (50,000). It was highlighted that based on the current projections within the Greater London Assembly London Plan the target for Enfield had been assessed as a minimum of 798 new homes per annum (an increase from 560).
5. The recognised contribution of the green belt in terms of combatting pollution, maintaining biodiversity, improving the quality of life and protecting the environment.
6. The need to recognise the current restrictions within the National Planning Policy Framework and principles established under case law in terms of alteration of established green belt boundaries and the fact this should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and linked to review of the Local Plan. As a principle it was felt the construction of new buildings in the green belt should continue to be regarded as inappropriate and proposals for these type of developments resisted.
7. Whilst recognising the increasing demand for new housing and associated infrastructure within the borough and targets within the London Plan it was felt these should not be regarded as exceptional circumstances in terms of potential green belt development. The Opposition Group felt there was a need to make clear that large scale residential development of the green belt was not permissible with a clear steer to developers on this point and within its planning policy and guidance.
8. The need to consider alternative options in terms of suitable sites for large scale housing developments, including the potential for development on brownfield land as a means of ensuring the Council was able to meet its targets within the London Plan. In response to a Council Question submitted on this issue, the Opposition Group had noted that according to the Council’s Housing Trajectory (2014) approx. 110 hectares (270 acres) had been identified as brownfield land available for residential development across the borough and felt the priority should be focussed on these sites as opposed to the green belt.
9. The specific concerns highlighted within the Opposition Business paper:
a. in support of the petition already considered, in relation to any proposed residential development on the Enfield Road site; and
b. in relation to the acquisition of Sloeman’s Farm by the Council and its potential future use; and
c. the purchase of the former Middlesex University site in Trent Park and assurances sought in relation to the impact on conservation of the green belt as a result of any future development proposals relating to the site.
As a result of these issues, the Opposition Group had identified a number of issues within the Opposition Business paper on which responses were sought designed to clarify the Administration’s position in relation to the specific sites highlighted and overall stance in relation to protection of the green belt.
Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:
1. It would not be appropriate for him, as part of the response to the debate to comment on specific or potential planning applications.
2. The need to recognise that population growth was a fundamental issue that needed to be addressed within Enfield. The figures quoted by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Business Regeneration had come from the Office for National Statistics, with the population in London projected to grow by over 1.5m over the next 15 years. The impact on Enfield, in terms of meeting this additional housing and associated infrastructure need would therefore need to be carefully considered and planned and he therefore welcomed the debate. It was important to recognise, however, that the identification and use of brownfield sites would not be sufficient on its own to meet all of the projected need identified.
3. Whilst recognising and supporting the benefits and success of the green belt, there were challenges that needed to be addressed in relation to meeting the additional housing need identified and all options would therefore need to be considered. As an example reference was made to the recent suggestion by The London Society, who had originally campaigned for establishment of the green belt, around the concept of green wedges.
4. The major challenge identified in relation to the provision of green space not only in terms of the green belt but also in terms of development across the borough with, for example, provision for domestic gardens no longer a key feature in many housing developments. As a result the need to achieve some balance had been identified, particularly in the more developed areas of the borough with the example provided of Angel Gardens in Upper Edmonton were a small open space had been created on a site that could have potentially accommodated 120 residential properties.
5. The need to recognise that any development would involve a range of considerations needing to be taken into account. The consultation shortly to be commenced on the Local Plan would provide an opportunity to consider all options in a structured way, taking account of the overall level of development needed within the borough, available sites and targets for the provision of housing that the Council had to meet in accordance with the London Plan.
6. The need to address the growth in population across London and within the borough could not be ignored and would require all options to be considered in terms of how the borough was shaped for the future. It was hoped that this debate could be undertaken in a mature and reasonable way, taking an evidence based.
Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:
(a) The need highlighted by members of the Opposition Group:
· To recognise the desire of developers to acquire green belt land, on the basis that it would often be less costly to develop than brownfield sites. It was felt a clear message needed to be provided to developers that the Council was strongly opposed to development on the green belt in order to discourage potential applications.
· To recognise the contribution that the green belt made to the unique character of Enfield as a borough. Both the Conservative and Labour Party candidates for London Mayor had expressed views against development of the green belt.
· The note the work being undertaken by the London Land Commission to develop a register of brownfield sites suitable for potential residential development, which included a range of unused sites owned by public sector organisations.
· To recognise the extent of new house building achieved under the current Conservative Government, which had been achieved without encroaching on the green belt.
· To ensure that the benefits of the green belt were recognised, along with the fact (as part of any debate) that alternative options were available in terms of addressing the population growth currently being experienced including the Government’s focus on the economic development of areas outside London and immigration, as part of the wider debate on the European Referendum.
· To highlight concerns in relation to delays in the delivery of the residential developments at Meridian Water and on the small housing site programme.
· To recognise that allowing development on the green belt would not only destroy the environment, but could increase flooding, and also result in the need for more infrastructure: for roads, drainage, health facilities, and shops. It would also increase traffic congestion.
· To ensure that the figures provided in relation to future projections for population growth and housing development within the borough were accurate and evidence based. Given the concerns raised and need identified to consider all available options the suggestion was also made that the Council consider setting up a Joint Commission to consider how best to ensure the Council was able to meet current and future demands in terms of the need for housing development.
(b) The need identified by members of the Majority Group:
· To recognise that the Council had not built anything on the green belt and that current policy within the Local Plan and London Plan precluded development on the green belt, which in order to proceed would therefore require approval via the Mayor for London or Secretary of State.
· To recognise the obligation on the Council in terms of having to plan for an increase in the borough’s population and the number of new homes required to meet the projected level of demand. This would require full and careful consideration of population data and projected trends as provided by the Office for National Statistics and Mayor for London and all available options in order to properly address the significant challenge identified.
· To recognise the duty on the Council to review its Local Plan and ensure this was done to the satisfaction of the Planning Inspectorate taking account of the projected increase in population and including consultation on all available development options within the borough.
· To recognise the negative impact of the Conservative Government’s benefit reforms in terms of the growth in population within the borough.
· To recognise that the Administration were not in favour of development on the green belt, but had identified a need to consider all available options in terms of addressing the projected increase in population and level of new residential and associated infrastructure development that would be required. This process would need to recognise the finite extent of development site options and balance needing to be struck between managing the level of development in already densely populated areas against the availability of alternative brownfield or other sites within the borough.
· To recognise the significant contribution which the Meridian Water development would make towards the provision of additional residential accommodation within the borough. Any debate on available options would also need to consider the mix of high as well as low rise units that could be provided within any potential development opportunities.
· To highlight, in relation to the concerns raised about the former Middlesex University site in Trent Park, that the site had originally been vacated by the University as a result of proposals for its development not having been approved by the then Conservative Administration. The site had now been sold to a Housing Developer with a planning application anticipated, which would be subject to the usual planning assessment and decision process.
· To highlight that in relation to the Enfield Road site, any planning application received would be also subject to the usual assessment and independent decision making process by the Planning Committee. It was however, important to note that any application would be from a private developer and not the Council. Any associated proposals to create a free school would also require approval from the Secretary of State, although this would be in accordance with Conservative Government policy.
During the above debate the Mayor advised that the time available for Opposition Business had expired. In view of the nature of the discussion and number of members who had indicated they still wished to speak it was agreed that the time available should be extended for a further 15 minutes.
At the end of the debate, Councillor Smith summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group by highlighting what he felt had been a useful debate. The view which he felt had been outlined by the Majority Group - that whilst reluctant to develop on the green belt this may be inevitable given projected population growth and the limited number of other alternative sites, was not one shared by the Opposition Group. It was felt this stance would send the wrong message to developers and that the position was not supported by the uncertain nature of future population projections. In addition the Opposition Group felt that there were other alternative development sites which could be explored as a priority in order to ensure that the future character of the green belt continued to be maintained and protected.
Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the Majority Group by focussing on the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper.
In relation to recommendation 9.1 (providing a response on the issues highlighted relating to the Enfield Road site) he felt these matters had already been considered during the debate and in considering the petition under agenda item 7 (Min.89 refers). He was not therefore minded to provide any further response.
He advised that the Majority Group were willing to support:
(a) recommendation 9.2 (agree to comply with the criteria laid down by Government and the Mayor for London to protect the rural character of the green belt and not allow residential or other inappropriate development on it); and
(b) recommendation 9.3 (to confirm the details of the Local Plan review, including the proposals relating to public consultation and to publish its terms and scope) recognising the desire to engage in a full and open debate on the issues.
In terms of the remaining recommendations he advised that the Majority Group were not minded to support:
(a) recommendation 9.4 (publishing a list of significant brownfield sites within the borough available for residential development) given the potential commercial sensitivity of the information and fact that the details of many sites were already in the public domain.
(b) recommendation 9.5 (the statement that the green belt remains safe under a Conservative Government) given the fact that according to figures he had obtained 6 times as many new homes had been built in the green belt under the current Conservative Government than under the previous Labour Government.
(c) recommendation 9.6 (to provide a development plan for the former Middlesex University site at Trent Park detailing the Council’s requirements) on the basis that the Council had already established a cross party Working Group to focus on plans for future use of the site.
(d) recommendation 9.7 (agrees to support a call on the next Mayor for London to tighten provisions relating to development on metropolitan green belt) given the imprecise nature of what was being sought.
As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote be taken on each of the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper. In accordance with section 15.4 of the Council Procedure Rules this was on a roll call basis, with the results as follows:
The following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper were approved:
(1) (Recommendation 9.2) The Administration agreed to comply with the criteria laid down by Government and the Mayor to protect the rural character of the Green Belt and not allow residential or other inappropriate development on it;
(2) (Recommendation 9.3) The Administration agree to publish the terms and scope for the Local Plan review, including the start and proposed completion dates and when public consultation would be undertaken;
For: 56
Councillor Abdul Abdullahi
Councillor Daniel Anderson
Councillor Ali Bakir
Councillor Dinah Barry
Councillor Chris Bond
Councillor Yasemin Brett
Councillor Erin Celebi
Councillor Alev Cazimoglu
Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu
Councillor Lee Chamberlain,
Councillor Bambos Charalambous
Councillor Katherine Chibah
Councillor Lee David-Sanders
Councillor Dogan Delman
Councillor Nick Dines
Councillor Guney Dogan
Councillor Sarah Doyle
Councillor Christiana During
Councillor Nesimi Erbil
Councillor Turgut Esendagli
Councillor Peter Fallart
Councillor Krystle Fonyonga
Councillor Achilleas Georgiou
Councillor Alessandro Georgiou
Councillor Christine Hamilton
Councillor Ahmet Hasan
Councillor Elaine Hayward
Councillor Robert Hayward
Councillor Ertan Hurer
Councillor Suna Hurman
Councillor Doris Jiagge
Councillor Eric Jukes
Councillor Nneka Keazor
Councillor Adeline Kepez
Councillor Bernadette Lappage
Councillor Michael Lavender
Councillor Dino Lemonides
Councillor Derek Levy
Councillor Donald McGowan
Councillor Andy Milne
Councillor Terence Neville OBE JP
Councillor Ayfer Orhan
Councillor Ahmet Oykener
Councillor Anne-Marie Pearce
Councillor Daniel Pearce
Councillor Michael Rye
Councillor George Savva
Councillor Alan Sitkin
Councillor Edward Smith
Councillor Jim Steven
Councillor Andrew Stafford
Councillor Claire Stewart
Councillor Doug Taylor
Councillor Glynis Vince
Councillor Haydar Ulus
Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya
Against: 0
Abstentions: 0
The followingrecommendations were not approved:
(3) (Recommendation 9.1) The Administration agrees to provide a response to the issues highlighted within section 4 of the Opposition Business paper relating to Enfield Road.
In support of recommendation 9.1: 19
Councillor Erin Celebi
Councillor Lee Chamberlain
Councillor Lee David-Sanders
Councillor Nick Dines
Councillor Peter Fallart
Councillor Alessandro Georgiou
Councillor Elaine Hayward
Councillor Robert Hayward
Councillor Ertan Hurer
Councillor Eric Jukes
Councillor Joanne Laban
Councillor Michael Lavender
Councillor Andy Milne
Councillor Terence Neville
Councillor Daniel Pearce
Councillor Michael Rye
Councillor Edward Smith
Councillor Jim Steven
Councillor Glynis Vince
Against recommendation 9.1: 32
Councillor Abdul Abdullahi
Councillor Daniel Anderson
Councillor Ali Bakir
Councillor Chris Bond
Councillor Yasemin Brett
Councillor Alev Cazimoglu
Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu
Councillor Bambos Charalambous
Councillor Katherine Chibah
Councillor Guney Dogan
Councillor Sarah Doyle
Councillor Christiana During
Councillor Nesimi Erbil
Councillor Turgut Esendagli
Councillor Krystle Fonyonga
Councillor Achilleas Georgiou
Councillor Christine Hamilton
Councillor Suna Hurman
Councillor Doris Jiagge
Councillor Nneka Keazor
Councillor Adeline Kepez
Councillor Bernadette Lappage
Councillor Dino Lemonides
Councillor Don McGowan
Councillor Ayfer Orhan
Councillor Ahmet Oykener
Councillor Alan Sitkin
Councillor Andrew Stafford
Councillor Claire Stewart
Councillor Doug Taylor
Councillor Haydar Ulus
Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya
Abstentions in respect of recommendation 9.1: 5
Councillor Dinah Barry
Councillor Don Delman
Councillor Ahmet Hassan
Councillor Derek Levy
Councillor George Savva
(4) (Recommendation 9.4) The Administration agrees to publish the list of significant brown field sites within the Borough that are available for residential development as has been asked for by the Opposition on a number of occasions.
(5) (Recommendation 9.5) The Administration agrees, given that a Labour Government under Ed Milliband was not elected and that the green belt remains safe under a Conservative Government, to provide a timetable for the disposal of Sloeman’s farm to the private sector.
(6) (Recommendation 9.6) The Administration agrees, in order to reassure local residents and protect the environmental and civic amenity of Trent Park, to provide a development plan for the campus site setting out the Council’s requirements in terms of public access to the listed House and grounds; whether the educational use of the House will be preserved; the heights and density of the residential development and the design standards that will apply; and
(7) (Recommendation 9.7) The Administration agrees to support a call to the next Mayor of London to tighten further the provisions relating to the metropolitan Green Belt so that it becomes impossible for development to take place in the Green Belt for other than specified exceptions.
In support of recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 20
Councillor Erin Celebi
Councillor Lee Chamberlain
Councillor Lee David-Sanders
Councillor Nick Dines
Councillor Don Delman
Councillor Peter Fallart
Councillor Alessandro Georgiou
Councillor Elaine Hayward
Councillor Robert Hayward
Councillor Ertan Hurer
Councillor Eric Jukes
Councillor Joanne Laban
Councillor Michael Lavender
Councillor Andy Milne
Councillor Terence Neville
Councillor Daniel Pearce
Councillor Michael Rye
Councillor Edward Smith
Councillor Jim Steven
Councillor Glynis Vince
Against recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 34
Councillor Abdul Abdullahi
Councillor Daniel Anderson
Councillor Ali Bakir
Councillor Chris Bond
Councillor Yasemin Brett
Councillor Alev Cazimoglu
Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu
Councillor Bambos Charalambous
Councillor Katherine Chibah
Councillor Guney Dogan
Councillor Sarah Doyle
Councillor Christiana During
Councillor Nesimi Erbil
Councillor Turgut Esendagli
Councillor Krystle Fonyonga
Councillor Achilleas Georgiou
Councillor Christine Hamilton
Councillor Suna Hurman
Councillor Doris Jiagge
Councillor Nneka Keazor
Councillor Adeline Kepez
Councillor Bernadette Lappage
Councillor Dino Lemonides
Councillor Derek Levy
Councillor Don McGowan
Councillor Ayfer Orhan
Councillor Ahmet Oykener
Councillor George Savva
Councillor Alan Sitkin
Councillor Andrew Stafford
Councillor Claire Stewart
Councillor Doug Taylor
Councillor Haydar Ulus
Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya
Abstentions in relation to recommendations 9.4 – 9.7: 2
Councillor Dinah Barry
Councillor Ahmet Hassan
Councillor Joanne Laban declared a non-pecuniary interest as a result of her employment in the office of one of the Deputy Mayors for London. She remained in the meeting and participated in the debate and decision on this item.
Councillor Jansev Jemal declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. She withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item.
Councillor Neville introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group. Issues highlighted were as follows:
1. The background to the issue being raised for debate had been the current housing crisis across London, which the Opposition Group felt had been aggravated by the Labour Government’s:
· record between 1997-2010 in building the fewest houses for public and private use since the 1920’s; and
· uncontrolled policy on immigration.
2. In terms of Enfield, the Opposition Group were looking to examine the record of the current Administration given what they felt to be the lack of progress on delivery of the following major housing development schemes, inherited from the previous Conservative Administration.
a. Meridian Water – concerns raised were as follows:
· The lack of progress which it was felt had been made in preparing the site for redevelopment in terms of the acquisition of relevant land and the identification of a developer.
· The delay in construction of the main highway, as a pre-requisite to progressing wider development of the site.
· The need for action to be taken as soon as possible in order to facilitate the necessary acquisition of land, including use of compulsory purchase powers in order to secure the significant development opportunities presented across the site in terms of both housing and regeneration and in recognition of the increasing land costs.
b. Small Housing Sites – whilst supportive of the general purpose and nature of the overall programme concerns raised were as follows:
· What was felt to be an unacceptably long delay in development on the seven small residential sites having commenced, given the timeline outlined within the paper for the design and planning process.
· The need to ensure that adequate cost and programme monitoring arrangements were established for all estate regeneration and other housing schemes.
3. In addition, the paper raised a number of issues in relation to the Housing Gateway Scheme, with specific concerns as follows:
· The structure of the financial loan between the Council and Housing Gateway Company that had been set up to purchase and hold the properties, given it was being funded via the General Fund rather than Housing Revenue Account.
· The detrimental impact of the scheme in terms of the local housing market and at limiting opportunities for those looking to purchase their own homes within the borough.
· Whilst recognising the need for action to be taken to address the unprecedented levels of demand for social housing, it was felt the Housing Gateway scheme was wrong in principle and represented a financially imprudent approach given that it would not deliver any additional housing build.
As an outcome of the debate the Opposition were looking to highlight what they felt had been the limited progress made by the current Administration in terms of taking forward the housing development opportunities identified, with specific actions identified as a result in relation to:
· bringing forward a viable timescale in order to secure redevelopment of the Meridian Water site, with associated land acquisitions.
· Establishing appropriate monitoring systems for management of all housing and estate regeneration programmes moving forward.
· Abandoning the Housing Gateway Scheme and refocussing efforts on encouraging Housing Associations to develop additional social housing within the borough.
· Strengthening Council policies around encouraging relocation and rehousing outside of London.
Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:
1. Whilst four “place shaping sites” had been inherited from the previous Conservative Administration for potential development, including Meridian Water, these had not had the necessary planning, detailed development or transport plans in place to enable the schemes to move forward.
2. In terms of Meridian Water, all that had been inherited by the current Administration was the draft Enfield Core Strategy, which they had formally adopted in November 2010. No land acquisition, remediation, transport, flood alleviation plans or Masterplan for the development had been in place, which were all key requirements for the development to move forward. These were now in place (following detailed negotiations with key partners) having secured the investment required for redevelopment of the Angel Road station and twin tracking along with development of the Meridian Boulevard (previously known as Causeway) in order to resolve access issues to the site.
3. The progress made by the current Administration in seeking to meet the increased demand for housing supply within the borough, despite consistent opposition from the Conservative Group with specific examples provided in relation to housing developments on the Cat Hill, Caterhatch Depot, Southgate Town Hall and Bury Street West Depot sites. Whilst the Opposition Group had also expressed concerns about the time taken to progress the Meridian Water development it was pointed out that these proposals had also been subject to a series of call-ins by the Opposition Group.
4. The need to recognise the previous Conservative Administration’s weak record on housing provision within the borough against the current Administration’s robust and commercially sound development plans that were now in the process of being delivered to increase and improve the quality of housing stock across the borough.
Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:
(a) The concerns raised by the Opposition Group in relation to:
· The lack of progress by the Council in acquiring land to secure the Meridian Water development and in passing, where required, the necessary compulsory purchase resolutions and in securing a development partner for the scheme. The complexities needing to be addressed in relation to the Meridian Water site and land ownership had been recognised but it was felt this should not have prevented action being taken before now to acquire the necessary land to support the redevelopment.
· The cross party support for the twin tracking and Angel Road Station redevelopment but need to recognise the role of the Mayor for London and Greater London Authority in securing the necessary investment.
· The length of time taken to secure planning permission and subsequent lack of progress in commencing development on the various small housing sites identified across the borough.
· What was regarded as the detrimental impact of the Housing Gateway Scheme on the local housing market which it was felt not only placed the Council in direct and unfair competition with first time buyers and others seeking to own their own homes but also artificially inflated house prices across the borough.
· The proposed mix of housing identified across the housing site developments and need to ensure the wider infrastructure impact of large scale housing developments on the surrounding areas, such as at Cat Hill, were fully recognised and taken into account.
· The proposed impact of the Landlord Licensing Scheme on the private rented sector across the borough and rates currently being consulted upon within the Community Infrastructure Levy, in terms of attracting further development across the borough.
(b) The need identified by members of the Majority Group:
· to recognise, in relation to the Meridian Water site, the co-ordinated and planned nature of the development programme which had been designed to deliver a viable and sustainable scheme through the following actions, in advance of the selection process for a development partner being concluded and the start of work on site, scheduled for 2015:
(i) securing the necessary inward investment for the rail and station development in order to provide the required transport infrastructure;
(ii) addressing concerns regarding the Deephams Sewage Plant;
(iii) addressing remediation and flood alleviation issues across the site;
(iv) undertaking detailed negotiations with landowners in order to acquire the necessary land in advance of any compulsory purchase orders being sought;
(v) preparation and approval of the required strategic planning framework and policies
· To commend all members and officers involved in delivery of the Meridian Water development for their efforts and work in delivery of the scheme.
· To recognise the progress made in delivery of housing developments on not only the small housing sites, but also Highmead and Ladderswood sites compared to the position inherited from the previous Conservative Administration.
· To recognise the fact that it was the current Administration who were responsible for building the first new Council housing in the borough for over 40 years.
· To highlight the innovative nature of the Housing Gateway Scheme and proposed establishment of a further new company (Enfield Innovation Ltd) to take forward the delivery of the wider housing development schemes. These had generated a large level of interest nationally and regionally including both the current Conservative led Government and Mayor for London and were seen as a key driver in addressing the current level of households being placed in temporary accommodation.
· To consider and recognise the background to the current housing crisis faced across outer London, which it was felt had been created by the Conservative led coalition Government’s reforms to Housing Benefit and policy on funding for social housing along with the impact of the Right to Buy policies over previous years.
During the above debate the Mayor advised that the time available for Opposition Business had expired. In view of the nature of the discussion and number of members who had indicated they still wished to speak it was agreed that the time available should be extended for a further 15 minutes.
Councillor Neville summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group by highlighting what was felt to be the lack of any detailed explanation by the Majority Group for the limited progress made in delivery of housing development on the Meridian Water and small housing sites. It was felt the call-ins referred to during the debate had been fully justified and had not caused any significant delay in progress being made, with the Conservative record in terms of delivering the Highlands and Enfield Island developments and initiating the Ladderswood scheme cited as specific examples of what could be achieved.
In response Councillor Taylor highlighted what he felt to be the incoherent nature of the Opposition Business paper and the commitment of the Majority Group to ensure that the various housing schemes currently on track were delivered on the basis of a co-ordinated and commercially sound programme, having been subject to the required governance processes. For these reasons the recommendations in the Opposition Business paper were not supported.
As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote to be taken on the following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper:
(1) that officers be instructed to bring forward a report to an early meeting of the Cabinet to consider the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of such land as was required to secure the redevelopment of Meridian Water.
(2) that officers be asked to bring to Cabinet a viable timescale for the redevelopment of the Meridian Water site, with critical points identified.
(3) that as regards the estate regeneration programme and other housing developments the Council should immediately put in place appropriate systems to facilitate monitoring by Members and management of cost and other programme issues in a transparent way.
(4) that the Gateway Scheme be abandoned and that instead the Council should use such resources as it has, including Right to Buy receipts to encourage Housing Associations to develop additional low cost housing in the borough, so that in turn they could use their borrowing powers to lever in private finance to provide additional social housing in Enfield.
(5) that the Council reviews and strengthens its policies on encouraging relocation and rehousing outside of London.
The above recommendations were put to the vote and not approved. In accordance with section 15.4 of the Council Procedure Rules the Opposition Group requested a roll call vote, with the result on each recommendation as follows:
For: 20
Councillor Erin Celebi
Councillor Lee Chamberlain
Councillor Jason Charalambous
Councillor Lee David-Sanders
Councillor Don Delman
Councillor Nick Dines
Councillor Peter Fallart
Councillor Alessandro Georgiou
Councillor Elaine Hayward
Councillor Robert Hayward
Councillor Ertan Hurer
Councillor Joanne Laban
Councillor Michael Lavender
Councillor Andy Milne
Councillor Terence Neville
Councillor Ann Marie Pearce
Councillor Daniel Pearce
Councillor Michael Rye
Councillor Jim Steven
Councillor Glynis Vince
Against: 37
Councillor Abdul Abdullahi
Councillor Daniel Anderson
Councillor Dinah Barry
Councillor Chris Bond
Councillor Yasemin Brett
Councillor Alev Cazimoglu
Councillor Bambos Charalambous
Councillor Guney Dogan
Councillor Sarah Doyle
Councillor Christiana During
Councillor Pat Ekechi
Councillor Nesimi Erbil
Councillor Turgut Esendagli
Councillor Krystle Fonyonga
Councillor Achilleas Georgiou
Councillor Ahmet Hasan
Councillor Suna Hurman
Councillor Jansev Jemal
Councillor Doris Jiagge
Councillor Nneka Keazor
Councillor Adeline Kepez
Councillor Bernie Lappage
Councillor Dino Lemonides
Councillor Derek Levy
Councillor Mary Maguire
Councillor Don McGowan
Councillor Ayfer Orhan
Councillor Ahmet Oykener
Councillor Vicki Pite
Councillor George Savva
Councillor Toby Simon
Councillor Alan Sitkin
Councillor Andrew Stafford
Councillor Claire Stewart
Councillor Doug Taylor
Councillor Haydar Ulus
Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya
Abstention: 0
Councillor Smith declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in this matter and withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the debate and decision on the item.