Labour members of the committee voted to approve Labour councillor Mustafa Cetinkaya’s application for a dropped kerb outside his home despite the “danger” it presented, reports James Cracknell

Enfield Civic Centre with (inset left) Mustafa Cetinkaya and (inset right) planning committee chair Sinan Boztas

Two Conservative members of Enfield Council’s planning committee have publicly questioned its “integrity” after a Labour councillor won approval for a modification to his property – despite officers warning it would be unsafe.

Tory committee members Michael Rye and Lee Chamberlain have both told the Dispatch that the recent vote to approve a Labour councillor’s own personal application against the advice of the council’s planning experts “raised serious questions” about “special treatment” and the integrity of the committee itself.

At the meeting of Tuesday, 17^th September, Haselbury ward councillor Mustafa Cetinkaya’s personal planning application for a dropped kerb outside his property in Bury Street, Edmonton, was debated by members of the committee.

Ordinarily, such small-scale applications would be directly dealt with by planning officers themselves and either refused or approved in writing, but council rules state that applications by councillors should be brought to committee for decision instead.

Cllr Cetinkaya’s application was for a dropped kerb outside his home, and associated hardstanding, which would provide vehicular access for him to park his car in a space at the front of his property, instead of on the street.

The Labour councillor had previously tried to get a similar application approved by the council, in 2023, but was refused permission. On that occasion the proposal was not decided by committee because the application form failed to mention the applicant was a councillor. The property’s previous owner had also tried and failed to get a dropped kerb installed in 2016.

In her report to the committee, setting out her advice on Cllr Cetinkaya’s latest application, the council’s head of planning and building control Karen Page recommended it for refusal and pointed out that “there have been no significant changes in policy or site circumstances since the previous refusals”.

Explaining her reasons for recommending the new application for refusal as well, Page said: “The proposed crossover will result in the intensity of vehicle movements, vehicles reversing from or into the classified road, leading to vehicles stopping, slowing and turning from or onto Bury Street, prejudicial to the free flow of traffic on the classified road and to the detriment of road safety, including pedestrians and public transport, as well as resulting in a loss of on-street car parking in an area of high demand.”

She said this would contravene eight different planning policies and guidelines at local, regional and national level.

The report also made clear that Cllr Cetinkaya’s application, if it went ahead, “increases the likelihood of road dangers for all users”.

However, following a debate among the committee during which several Labour councillors expressed support for Cllr Cetinkaya’s application, the proposal was voted through by Labour members Sinan Boztas, Mahym Bedekova, Kate Anolue, Nelly Gyosheva and Ahmet Hasan, plus independent member Thomas Fawns, who is currently suspended by Labour.

Only one Labour councillor, Josh Abey, declined to support the application, instead abstaining on the vote. All four Conservative councillors voted against approval, but were outnumbered.

Speaking to the Dispatch a few days after the committee meeting, Cllr Rye, a former leader of the council, expressed his outrage at the decision on Cllr Cetinkaya’s dropped kerb.

“It was unbelievable really,” Cllr Rye said. “Had this been a planning application by a member of the public it would have been refused by an officer and not even reached the committee.

“Councillors should be treated in exactly the same way as the public.”

Cllr Rye said this was not the first time he’d had serious doubts about the integrity of decisions being made by the committee, bringing up the large-scale plans for a tower block in Brimsdown that have been deferred by the committee on three successive occasions – despite being described as “dangerous” by planning officers.

Cllr Rye added: “I fear this is the tip of the iceberg. There are decisions that raise questions – questions about how these applications are being dealt with.

“There is evidence of whipping on the planning committee.”

Lee Chamberlain, another Tory committee member and a former mayor of the borough, echoed Cllr Rye’s concerns and said: “Overturning an officer refusal on an application councillors would not normally decide, for another Labour councillor, is very serious.

“It raises questions of integrity and special treatment. I could not support their decision and I hate to think what the public would make of it.”

Matt Burn, from local campaign group Better Homes Enfield, witnessed the debate around the dropped kerb last month and said: “We agree with the officers and the planning inspector – this application should have been refused due to the adverse impact it could have on highway and pedestrian safety.

“Reported crash data shows this can be a hazardous road, which helps to explain why many similar applications for off-street parking in this area have been refused due to safety concerns.”

Every member of the planning committee has been emailed by the Dispatch ahead of this article’s publication, asking for their reasons for voting the way they did on 17^th September. None of the Labour members responded.

Enfield Council’s code of conduct for members sets out the principles for councillors to follow when they are making decisions, including “selflessness”, “integrity”, “objectivity” and “accountability”. Under the first of these the code states that councillors should “take decisions solely in terms of the public interest”.

In addition, the council’s planning committee code of practice states, in regard to applications submitted by councillors: “Such proposals must be handled in a way, which gives no grounds for accusations of bias.”

A council spokesperson said: “The council’s planning committee is bound by both the member code of conduct and the planning committee code of practice. Any concerns about the way our democratic processes operate or member conduct, should be raised with the council’s monitoring officer.

“No concerns have been raised with her about this application by any councillor to date.”

Two years ago, Cllr Boztas was one of three Labour committee chairs discovered by the Dispatch to have failed to fully declare their financial interests in the borough, with the planning chair declaring at the time that he owned “4 lands” without providing the addresses of these properties, before later correcting the omissions.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.