Day five of the Enfield Local Plan examination saw a lengthy debate around the justifications of building on Green Belt and the impact it would have, reports James Cracknell
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2da3a/2da3a0b2c11ef6a6fc2223f3dbd860f582cdf0c5" alt="Vicarage Farm in Enfield, one of Green Belt sites proposed for release by Enfield Council"
Enfield Council has admitted its plans to release Green Belt land for development would cause “high harm” to two large sites proposed for thousands of homes.
On the penultimate day of the first stage of hearings examining the council’s Enfield Local Plan document, the subject of the Green Belt and the justifications given for building on it dominated the discussion.
The council claims that there are “exceptional circumstances” which would permit the release of 436 hectares of Metropolitan Green Belt land in the borough, for both new housing and employment, and these claims were tested for several hours today (Wednesday 29th).
Ian Gillespie, a planning consultant representing the council, was quizzed by the government-appointed planning inspector, Steven Lee, on whether the council had factored in the harm caused to the sites it had chosen, most notably Crews Hill and Vicarage Farm, dubbed ‘Chase Park’ in the Local Plan.
Gillespie said: “It was a melting pot of issues and considerations and we do acknowledge that, in relation to Chase Park and Crews Hill, they are areas that are going to result in high harm to the Green Belt.”
Lee then asked how “proactive” the council had been in looking at other alternative sites, to which Gillespie responded: “The policy team sat down with a map and looked at the whole of the borough and sites on a constraint-based approach […] making sure there weren’t obvious opportunities that hadn’t been considered.”
The London Plan states that brownfield sites must be considered first before councils consider the Green Belt for housing or employment development instead – with “all reasonable steps” being taken to avoid the release of protected sites.
Lee asked if the council had “done everything possible” in this respect and whether, for example, if a new brownfield site of 5,000 homes was found, it would mean Green Belt release was no longer necessary.
Matthew Reed KC, a barrister representing the council, said: “It might have that effect […] if one was able theoretically to find another 5,000 units, there may be a judgement to be had as to whether it is right to seek to meet still more of the housing need. But, at some point, a judgement had to be reached as to how far that process of analysis was going to be taken.
“In principle it is possible it would weaken the case for the release of Green Belt if there is a further significant capacity identified within an urban area, but the point is it does not come down to a binary approach.”
David Harbott, representing Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Planning Forum, said he was “concerned” that Colosseum Retail Park had now been “excluded” from the Local Plan when the developer still had “14 years to address its viability challenges” with the site, where planning permission for 1,600 homes lapsed last year.
Harbott added that Meridian Water, the council’s flagship housing project in Edmonton, had been “discussed for many, many years with an aspiration for 10,000 homes” while only 6,700 had been included in the Local Plan.
Lakis Pavlou, from the same community group, said they had identified eleven brownfield sites that should have been included in the Local Plan for mixed use development, including a retail site along the A10 that had been ignored despite an adjacent supermarket being included. He said the response from the council to the forum’s suggestions were “unsatisfactory”.
Richard Knox-Johnston, chair of the London Green Belt Council, said that housing on brownfield sites was “more likely to be affordable” because new infrastructure did not also need to be provided alongside them and transport connections were more likely to already exist. His organisation’s own analysis suggested 39,000 homes could be built on brownfield land in Enfield.
Knox-Johnson added: “I think, frankly, they [the council] weren’t keeping their brownfield register up to date. We might say that was on purpose – the Green Belt housing will help them make up a financial shortfall.”
This point about whether there were “alternative motives” behind the council’s Green Belt allocations is one that has come up several times throughout the five days of examination hearings so far, but was one that became more prominent as the Green Belt debate took centre stage.
Better Homes Enfield had also conducted an analysis of brownfield land in Enfield and identified capacity for 35,000 homes, more than the total provided for in the Local Plan when Green Belt is included. Matt Burn said: “There appears to be two councils in this – one that produces certain capacity figures and the planning department which produces other capacity figures.
“But we are not guessing [with our figures] – we are relying on evidence generally provided by the council itself.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6faa2/6faa20347edb72c5cd85d389178df7b61351b36a" alt="Crews Hill Golf Club is one of the council-owned Green Belt sites earmarked for housing development in its draft Local Plan"
Carol Fisk from Green Belt campaign group Enfield Road Watch pointed out that Ikea’s submission to the Local Plan examination included the claim the council was “suppressing” the capacity of its site at Meridian Water.
Joanne Laban, speaking on behalf of the opposition Conservative group on the council, said of the decision to release Green Belt for housing: “We believe it is a political decision and not a planning decision.”
Fellow Tory councillor Alessandro Georgiou pointed out that at Meridian Water just “200 homes in 14 years” had been delivered. He asked: “How can the council justify exceptional circumstances [for Green Belt release] when they are in charge of this site and its direction?”
Lachlan Anderson-Frank, the council’s principal planner, denied that any potential brownfield sites had been ignored and said: “We feel that our process has been quite comprehensive and cannot be said to be biased in one direction or another.”
Explaining the lower housing allocation for Meridian Water, he added: “The council considers that while 10,000 homes is deliverable, it will take well beyond the plan period [2041].”
Reed, the council barrister, directly addressed the accusations around the suggested “manipulation” of housing figures to justify Green Belt release. He said: “To the extent it is suggested that they relate to the financial aspects of the council as a landowner, of course we are dealing here with the position of the local planning authority and whether or not its decisions are justified bearing in mind the usual questions to consider of viability, deliverability and suitability, and those are the issues that need to be looked at on an objective basis, and have been done so.”
On the first day of the hearings, last Wednesday (22nd), the Greater London Authority announced it would soon be reviewing its own Green Belt policies via a London-wide review, with some release of protected sites now said to be “unavoidable” in light of higher housing targets.
Reed said: “If anything it makes the case for release stronger – it is noise, but it is very loud noise.”
Neil Rowley, speaking on behalf of developer Comer Homes which owns Vicarage Farm, said: “The ‘noise’ is incredibly relevant. What is clear is that finding a few small brownfield sites is not going to move the dial.
“We would say Enfield Council is doing exactly the right thing – it is clear there is a housing crisis. The only way to tackle that is to identify Green Belt sites and to deny that is inconceivable.
“In other parts of the country developers would give anything to be within 15 minutes of a Piccadilly Line station.”
One of the exceptional circumstances listed by the council in its justification for Green Belt release is the provision of family and affordable housing, with family housing claimed to be easier to deliver on such sites.
However, there was confusion expressed by the planning inspector at the council’s figures, with one document suggesting 60% family homes could be delivered on Green Belt sites, contradicting the Local Plan policy itself which stated a lower, 40% figure.
Burn said: “There is this disconnect between the case for exceptional circumstances around it being set on this 60% family housing figure and that being viable […] but when it comes to the actual policy, it is not there.”
Reed argued that, regardless of which figure is used, “delivering family housing is more challenging in urban areas.”
But Lee told him: “The justification has to be what’s in the policy. It can’t be a case of aspiring to 60% and that’s the justification, while the policy is only 40%.”
Reed added: “It is hard to underestimate how high the shortfall is in affordable family housing, contributions to the levels anticipated would affect real people.”
Getting back to what the impact of the Green Belt release would be, Conservative councillor David Skelton said: “The housing requirement in Enfield has been raised in an arbitrary way and has not been adequately explained. There seems to have been a default preference for Green Belt sites from the beginning of the process.
“It would be highly premature to allocate Green Belt sites ahead of the London Plan – Enfield should not be jumping the gun on this. The history of the Green Belt and its value is fundamental to Enfield.
“We believe these plans increase urban sprawl which is what the Green Belt is intended to stop.”
Knox-Johnston from London Green Belt Council agreed and added: “It will also lead to changes in the borough’s character and will be devastating on the areas that are sacrificed.”
The final day of the first stage of hearings takes place tomorrow (Thursday 30th) and will again be livestreamed via YouTube.
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.
More information on supporting us monthly or yearly
More Information about donations