The admission this week came as a government planning inspector quizzed council representatives on the civic centre’s new Enfield Local Plan, reports James Cracknell

A wide range of small and large businesses are currently based in Crews Hill

Enfield Council has confirmed it will issue compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) against “unsupportive” businesses in Crews Hill to ensure its plans for 5,500 new homes there can proceed.

Crews Hill is the single largest Metropolitan Green Belt area in the borough where the council wants to allocate new housing, but this could be hampered by a complex arrangement of different landowners – with several opposing residential development.

The area is today known primarily for its concentration of horticulture businesses, including several garden centres and plant nurseries housed in large glasshouses. There’s also an array of pet shops, with reptile and bird specialists, as well as an equestrian centre.

But at this week’s public hearings examining the council’s new Enfield Local Plan, which allocates new housing across the borough over the next two decades, government-appointed planning inspector Steven Lee questioned how the civic centre would enable new housing on land where existing businesses refuse to leave.

Council barrister Matthew Reed KC admitted: “The council will consider the exercise of CPO powers as necessary […] of course that brings with it appropriate compensation.”

Lee later asked if relying on such an approach to oust local businesses was “justifiable”, to which Reed responded: “It is a process of last resort […] but it is exactly what the government wants to see happen to facilitate the delivery of sites and enable the scale of delivery.”

Reed also said the approval of the Local Plan would likely provide an “impetus” for some of the remaining landowners to “come forward”.

Over the past decade, as discussions around potential new housing at Crews Hill have taken place, developers such as Berkeley Homes have begun buying up plots of land. Berkeley now owns a large greenfield site to the west of Crews Hill Station, as well as Enfield Garden Centre in Cattlegate Road, which it bought for £6million in 2018. However, others such as Thompsons of Crews Hill have refused to sell up – owner Rod Thompson told the Dispatch in 2021 he’d had “probably 30 developers trying to buy my site”.

Lee suggested this reluctance to sell could mean that greenfield sites in Crews Hill would end up being built up first, while legal wrangling continued over brownfield sites. But Reed said the council was “putting itself in the centre of delivering the scheme” given it was itself a major landowner in the area.

Discussing employment, the council’s spatial planning manager Edward Jones explained that some horticulture sites would remain, while new businesses would also arrive. “Crews Hill is a residential-led project,” he said. “The framework does refer to a local centre and two local parades [of shops] anticipated to contain small-scale employment and services needed for a primarily residential community.

“In addition, there will be some provision of existing uses – glasshouses and some of the current uses that characterise the area.”

But Vicki Pite, representing Enfield Over 50s Forum, said: “There is huge concern over employment for young people. We see Crews Hill – with the garden centres and animal husbandry and all sorts of things – as employment that is not vulnerable to AI or online shopping and therefore they are very sustainable jobs.

“There is a college nearby [Capel Manor] offering qualifications in these areas [horticulture] and it seems strange with the difficulties with employment locally for young people that this is not seen as an opportunity.

“Crews Hill is thriving, it’s developing, it’s improving; these are sustainable jobs and I would see it as a significant hub for horticulture and agriculture – it is a massive opportunity.”

Jones responded: “The [policy] talks about existing rural uses as being important, including equestrian and some horticulture uses which could be provided in suitable alternative locations.”

Lee then asked directly whether the Crews Hill housing plans would lead to a net loss of jobs. Robert Smith, from council consultants Hyas Associates, did not give a straight answer but said the development would “retain elements” of horticulture but also “supplement” that by “creating additional jobs in retail and community infrastructure”.

A map showing how many homes are proposed on each of the six Crews Hill housing sites

The two-day discussion around Crews Hill, as part of the stage two public examination of the Local Plan, also included a debate on the extent of the Green Belt area proposed for de-designation. The council is proposing to remove the whole of Crews Hill Golf Course from the Green Belt, despite only proposing 200 homes on a small part of that site. Kings Oak Plain, which forms part of the newly-planted Enfield Chase woodland to the south, is also proposed for removal from Green Belt despite not being allocated for housing.

The golf course is also a designated site of importance for nature conservation (Sinc), and there is another Sinc at Glasgow Stud in the north-east of Crews Hill where new housing is proposed as well. Smith said the council would only develop areas with “no or negligible ecological value”, but Lee questioned why land that wasn’t earmarked for development was still being proposed for removal from the Green Belt.

Reed appeared to concede this point and said: “One needs to distinguish between the core areas [for development] and these other areas which one could describe as peripheral.

“The question comes down to, should it [Green Belt release] be more closely defined down to those specific [development] areas? That might need to be considered as a modification as appropriate. But that’s for further thought.”

Regarding the impact on the Sincs specifically, Reed added: “The policy is to seek to ensure that there is protection and enhancement of the Sincs as a matter of principle, and it is only when it is necessary to deliver housing in the various parcels that there would then be consideration of development on the Sincs.

“At the same time […] it has been shown that [development] can happen without having a significant effect on those Sincs.

“It wouldn’t be right at this stage to set in stone what the levels of development will be, or their location.”

Asked if the golf course would be forced to close, Smith said: “Yes, that’s correct. Given that its ecological value is to be protected, it can perform a more natural, open space provision for the overall place-making area, a public park with associated footpaths through it, but quite a lot of it to become a more naturalised environment.”

But Carol Fisk, from campaign group Enfield Road Watch, warned: “There are questions, if the golf course goes, how well that site will be maintained. The golf club spends an awful lot on looking after the trees and the acid grassland.”

At the first stage of hearings on the Local Plan, in January, the council conceded that its housing plans would cause “high harm” to the Green Belt. Asked for more detail on that point this week, with regards to Crews Hill specifically, Smith said: “It is around the edges of the proposition where the greatest harm occurs, going west of the railway line, where there is additional harm, the north buffer to the M25, and […] parts of the golf course and Glasgow Stud, where development in those areas is going to cause the greatest harm.”

Lee again asked why the council couldn’t “restrict development to those areas where the harm would be reduced”, to which Smith responded: “The scale of development has an impact on this in terms of feasibility and a critical mass for supporting services, schools, and other things that will only come if you have a certain scale of development.”

He continued: “The land to the west is greenfield, agricultural land, therefore it is the most [financially] viable and most able to contribute to the strategic infrastructure costs, so it plays an important role.

“Removing it would remove a component of being able to pay for the infrastructure, and it is also one of the most compatible with the provision of family housing, which is a key driver of growth.”

The greenfield land to the west of Crews Hill Station, owned by Berkeley Homes, is earmarked for 800 homes — Greenfield land to the west of Crews Hill Station, owned by Berkeley Homes, is earmarked for 800 homes

Edward Smith, a Conservative councillor for Ridgeway ward on the border with Crews Hill, said: “People have blithely talked about this being a ‘grey area’ but that is an oversimplification. There are parts where the harm is low or negligible but for around a third of the site that is not the case. For this particular development, although we don’t support it at all, there is a strong case for redefining the boundaries to a level that reduces harm to the Green Belt.”

Fisk added: “I’m afraid it’s going to be piecemeal development, because not all the landowners are on board. It will probably start west of the railway because that’s where development is easiest, and then others come online later. So it is not going to achieve comprehensive development, it is going to achieve the opposite of that.”

Also asked about Green Belt de-designation and the distance of Crews Hill from the existing urban boundary in the borough, Martin Taylor, a director at Lichfields, representing Berkeley Homes, said: “To a degree, there is already a hole in the Green Belt at this location […] in so far as it is a hole, it is an extension of an existing hole rather than a new hole, which somewhat does bring into focus whether the existing boundaries will be defensible for the long-term.”

In terms of new infrastructure, the council is proposing two new schools – a primary and a secondary. It has also been in talks with Transport for London (TfL) over improving the frequency of the 456 bus – currently the only bus service in Crews Hill – as well as creating a new bus service to Southgate. If necessary, this could even be subsidised for the first few years.

Meanwhile, a new east-west road would be built, including a bridge over the railway line, and a second entrance to Crews Hill Station is proposed. Improving service frequency at the station would be subject to another discussion with rail operators. And, for active travel, the council hopes to create new cycling routes in the area.

Robert Smith explained the creation of new shops and local services would reduce the need for new residents to travel away from Crews Hill. “This goes back to the need to provide a community of certain scale that can provide those facilities to avoid people having to travel off site,” he said.

In regards to active travel, however, Pite said: “Crews Hill is astonishingly steep, I cycled it many years ago, and walking it is tough, and I’m thinking about any older people living in the development.”

Responding to concerns about Crews Hill becoming “car dependent”, the council’s head of strategic transport planning, Chris Cole, said: “There have been various developments over time that have shown if you can provide good levels of sustainable transport then people chose not to [drive].”

But Fisk remained unconvinced and said: “Given the school and central shopping improvements happen further down the plan period, we are worried car use will become imbedded before people have a chance to start doing those things locally.”

The Enfield Local Plan public examination resumes on Tuesday, 22^nd July, with a two-day discussion around another Green Belt site, Vicarage Farm, dubbed ‘Chase Park’ by the council. All sessions can be watched live via the council’s YouTube channel:
Visit youtube.com/@EnfieldCouncil

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.