| |
|
Action |
| 1 |
Welcome and Introductions |
|
| 1.1 |
Simon Parkinson (SP) welcomed everyone and thanked Enfield Ignatians Rugby Club for hosting the meeting.
All attendees introduced themselves.
SP advised the meeting of the apologies that he had received (see above).
SP thanked the Council officers for their attendance and for agreeing to do presentations on two very important issues: the future of sport in Enfield and the draft Local Plan, which formed the two main items on the agenda. |
|
| |
|
|
| 2 |
Presentation by the Council on the future of sport in Enfield |
|
| 2.1 |
Tim Harrison (TH) provided a presentation that covered the following four issues:
(i) The Council’s draft Local Plan and how this will shape the borough over the next 20 years;
(ii) The Blue and Green Strategy and how this will protect sports facilities and open space;
(iii) The Health and Wellbeing Strategy;
(iv) The Playing Pitch Strategy.
SP said that he would circulate TH’s presentation notes with the meeting Minutes |
SP |
| 2.2 |
Martin Baker (MB) asked why the “Hotspur Way” site had been included in the final version of the Blue and Green Strategy and why it now appeared as one of the 4 main strategic sports sites in the draft Local Plan. May Hope (MH) agreed to arrange for a reply to be sent to Enfield Sport clarifying this issue. |
MH |
| 2.3 |
Ian Lennox (IL) raised the issue about the inconsistency of the Council’s approach in negotiating lease terms with community sports clubs, the fact that affordability is not taken in to account when rent levels are discussed and that the wider community benefits associated with sports clubs’ activities are not taken in to account. SP explained that TH was not in a position to answer questions on lease issues, but that the Council had agreed to attend a future meeting of Enfield Sport to discuss this issue. SP said that the lease issues will be the main item for discussion at the next Enfield Sport meeting. |
SP |
| 2.4 |
Alan Collingbourne (AC) raised the issue of increasing levels of obesity and the importance of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. |
|
| 2.5 |
Leslie Cohen (LC) asked why there was no mention of Bowls Clubs in the Playing Pitch Strategy and what funding opportunities there were for sports clubs in the borough. TH advised that the Council had recently launched a new funding initiative, to support community based initiatives and sports clubs would be eligible to apply. TH agreed to forward information to SP, which would then be circulated to all sports clubs. |
TH |
| 2.6 |
TH advised that the Council had received funding from the Government’s “National Leisure Recovery Fund”, which would continue to the end of 2021 and that this had allowed FUSION to continue to manage the leisure centres during the COVID 19 pandemic (albeit the Council was paying FUSION do so, rather than receiving a management fee). SP expressed concern about the future of the leisure centres, particularly the swimming pools (which require subsidies) from 2022, when the Government funding runs out. TH said that he was optimistic that the leisure centres would fully re-open, but time will tell. |
|
| 2.7 |
SP pointed out that it was the Council who had invested in the leisure centres, through accessing Prudential Borrowing and it was not FUSION who had made this investment. FUSION pay back the Council the borrowing costs from the increased revenues arising from the investments (plus pay the Council a management fee). |
|
| 2.8 |
SP advised that although TH had said that funding could be secured for sport from developments in the borough (through the Community Interest Levy and Section 106 payments), the draft Local Plan did not include reference to sport and recreation, where it lists the service areas that could receive funding. This issue will be raised by Enfield Sport in its formal response to the Council on the draft Local Plan. |
|
| 2.9 |
MB asked about the status of the Enfield Playing Pitch Strategy and when he would be invited, as Enfield Sport’s representative, to the planned steering group meeting. TH said that he would come back to MB on this issue. |
TH |
| |
|
|
| 3 |
Presentation by the Council on the draft Local Plan |
|
| 3.1 |
Cem Erkman (CE) did a presentation on behalf of the Council. He agreed to forward the presentation slides to SP, so they could be circulated to all sports clubs. The presentation provided background and context to the draft Local Plan, as well as a focus on the key issues (principally the development of housing) and the parts of the document that relate to sport and recreation. |
|
| 3.2 |
MB asked if Enfield Ignatians Rugby Club could provide the Council with a “Call for Sites” on the Enfield Playing Fields issues and May Hope (MH) replied by saying that this was ok. SP added that Enfield Sport would be doing an overall response on behalf of all sports clubs, but individual clubs should do their own response where they wished to do so. |
MB/SP |
| 3.3 |
MB asked CE if he could explain the basis upon which the hierarchy included in Policy CL4 had been drawn up, what the wording actually means, what is the Council’s intention in producing a hierarchy and why reference to Spurs’ commercial developments are included. CE / MH said that the Council would provide a response that responded to the questions that had been raised. |
CE/MH |
| 3.4 |
Malcolm Springthorpe (MH) raised his concern about the significant development of housing on Green Belt land and the negative impact it would have on the environment and informal sport and recreation. CE explained the rationale for proposing some development on the Green Belt, which is primarily designed to meet the borough’s housing targets and address the housing crisis. |
|
| 3.5 |
SP raised issues about the Council’s actual commitment to sport and recreation, given that sports clubs and community sport are not mentioned in the draft Local Plan; the value and importance of sport and recreation (in terms of health and wellbeing, social cohesion etc etc) is not covered in the Plan; indoor sport and the Council’s leisure centres are not mentioned in the Plan; the commitments included in the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy are not re-stated in the Plan and given that the future of a number of strategically important sports sites is uncertain, which include:
(i) Firs Farm Playing Fields, where the changing rooms are still shut (with no sign of them being re-opened) and which is to be part developed as a cemetery in the medium term (even though the draft Local Plan identifies it as a strategically important sports site);
(ii) Bull Lane Playing Fields, where Haringey Council’s plans to invest in the site are still to be finalised;
(iii) Churchfield Recreation ground, which is earmarked as a cemetery;
(iv) St Annes school playing field which is earmarked for development. SP advised that all of the above issues would be referred to in Enfield Sport’s response to the draft Local Plan. |
|
| 3.6 |
LC asked about the future of Broomfield House, which had been left semi-derelict for 36 years. CE explained that the Council would continue to look for external funding and external partnerships, to provide a long term viable future for the House. |
|
| |
| 4 |
Minutes of the last General Meeting on 6th January 2020 |
|
| 4.1 |
The Minutes of the last General Meeting of Enfield Sport on 6th January 2020, which had been circulated prior to the meeting, were unanimously agreed. |
|
| |
|
|
| 5 |
Any Other Business |
|
| 5.1 |
None |
|
| |
|
|
| 6 |
Date of Next Meeting |
|
| |
To be confirmed |
|
| |
|
|
