Crews Hill and ‘Chase Park’ are slated for up to 21,000 homes but the local reaction so far has been largely negative, reports Joe Ives, Local Democracy Reporter

Glasgow Stud in Crews Hill is one of two sites of importance for nature conservation (Sincs) in the area

A newly-launched public consultation on the controversial ‘new town’ in Crews Hill has come under fire from local campaigners.

On Monday (23rd) the government launched its consultation on proposals to potentially build up to 21,000 homes on Green Belt land in north-west Enfield, as part of its new towns programme.

The consultation, which will run until 19th May, follows a government announcement on Sunday (22nd) confirming Crews Hill and ‘Chase Park’ – better known locally as Vicarage Farm – as one of seven new town projects potentially being carried forward.

This announcement followed an initial report by the government’s New Towns Taskforce in September, which recommended twelve locations.

The new town in Enfield, if it goes ahead, would more than double the 9,200 homes previously envisioned for the two areas in Enfield Council’s draft Local Plan. As well as extensive building on what is currently Green Belt land, it would also likely see compulsory purchase orders being used to oust horticultural businesses in Crews Hill, with a potential loss of hundreds of jobs.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) says the consultation now ongoing is aimed at getting public feedback to the proposals. However, details are thin; it provides a generic map, rather than a specific outline of the proposed new town site, although it does include a strategic environmental assessment of the general area.

In a statement this week, local campaign group Action for Enfield’s Future (AfEF) described the Labour-led local authority’s decision to back the project as “unprecedented and inexplicable” and said the move was “being taken without evidence, scrutiny or transparency”.

AfEF also criticised the government’s previous New Towns Taskforce report, saying that with “just 800 words” about Crews Hill and Chase Park, it was “thin on evidence and often inaccurate”. In particular it highlighted the report’s description of the area as comprising “poor quality green belt land” – which the group strongly refutes.

Crews Hill itself includes two areas designated as sites of importance for nature conservation (Sincs), while the Local Plan examination last year heard evidence that plans to build homes at Vicarage Farm would cause “high harm” to the Green Belt.

Council leader Ergin Erbil was himself recently criticised after posting a misleading video on social media which falsely claimed Crews Hill Golf Course – one of the area’s two Sincs – was not Green Belt land and provided no significant benefits for wildlife. He has since deleted the post.

MHCLG has not responded to enquires from the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) on how it expects to get useful feedback to its consultation, given the lack of detail it contains.

Responding to the government’s new town proposal, Matt Burn from campaign group Better Homes Enfield said: “The new town will have a population of over 46,000 people – that’s roughly one-and-a-half times the size of Windsor.

“It is important to understand what impact that could have. The government’s strategic environmental assessment is the first published report that attempts to do this.

“The report is a very broad brush, but identifies potential negative effects on health and wellbeing, air quality, biodiversity, flood risk, and the historic environment and landscape.

“This is before things like the impact on local roads and businesses are properly accounted for – that will come later. The report also suggests the land is mostly greenfield countryside.

“Taken together, the strategic environmental assessment gives a rather different impression of the site from that presented by the council leadership. Whatever happens with the new town, decisions should be based on solid evidence, not opinion.”

In a statement released in conjunction with the MHCLG announcement, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said the proposals were “honouring” Labour’s manifesto promises to create “decent, safe, secure and affordable homes”.

The minister also told parliament in January that he thought Crews Hill was “very promising” as a new town site and that the “growth potential” is “clear as day”.

Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan spent six years opposing the council’s plans for building homes at Crews Hill and Chase Park, but announced a U-turn last year and City Hall is currently undertaking a review of London’s Green Belt.

The mayor has also now “welcomed” the latest announcement on new towns and said the proposed sites in both Enfield and Greenwich – at Thamesmead – “represent significant opportunities to support the government’s growth mission and to help address London’s acute housing needs through the delivery of sustainable, high-quality neighbourhoods”.

Cllr Erbil said: “We are committed to getting this right for our residents, and they will be involved every step of the way. We will continue to work closely with government to make sure the voice of Enfield’s communities is heard.”

To take part in the government consultation on new towns:
Visit consult.communities.gov.uk/new-towns/new-towns-draft-programme-consultation/

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.