Matt Burn from Better Homes Enfield gives his view on what Labour’s planning changes mean and whether they’ll work to deliver the new homes the borough needs

Crews Hill contains many Green Belt sites such as this one in Theobolds Park Road that could be classified as ‘grey belt’

The government is consulting about new planning rules that could significantly impact Enfield. The consultation proposes reclassifying selected Green Belt land as ‘grey belt’ and using it to build homes.

The definition of grey belt is likely to include Green Belt land that has previously been developed, such as car parks. It could also include areas which make a limited contribution to the Green Belt’s purpose; for example, preventing urban sprawl or stopping neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

Other Green Belt land, not classified as grey belt, could be developed if a local council does not meet its housing targets, particularly if the land is near to infrastructure such as a railway station.

So why is the government proposing this? The government argues there isn’t enough brownfield land to deliver the housing needed and that the grey belt, and potentially other Green Belt land, is required to reach their higher housing targets. They plan to set ‘golden rules’ to ensure communities benefit from developments on Green Belt land. For instance, at least 50% of the new homes should be affordable, and there would need to be the necessary improvements to local infrastructure, such as schools, health services and green spaces.

What could this mean for Enfield? If the proposed changes come into force, it will make it far more likely that parts of Enfield’s Green Belt will be used for new housing. Crews Hill in Enfield is likely to be impacted by these changes. The area has several sites in close proximity to the railway station that might be classified as grey belt. Some could be protected if they qualify as ‘glasshouses for horticultural production’ but the government’s consultation suggests this may change.

Other Green Belt land close to public transport and existing infrastructure could also be developed if Enfield Council continues to miss its housing targets. Some may welcome these changes, including the council itself, which has proposed building on parts of the Green Belt in its new Local Plan, and which hopes to raise £800million by selling off some of the Green Belt land it currently owns. The council’s existing plans include land which might be considered grey belt, but also greenfield sites which make a high contribution to the purpose of the Green Belt.

Our view, as Better Homes Enfield, is that it seems reasonable that previously developed Green Belt sites should be considered for redevelopment, particularly if they can provide the type of genuinely affordable homes Enfield needs, along with improvements to green spaces and social infrastructure, and if this could be achieved without compromising the function of the Green Belt.

However, we are concerned about whether the community will truly benefit from the development of grey belt sites, especially as the government’s ‘golden rules’ would be “subject to viability”. This phrase is significant because it allows developers and landowners to avoid delivering genuinely affordable housing if they can show it’s not financially feasible.

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that even new homes labelled as ‘affordable’ are often out of reach for most of Enfield’s residents.

The government argues that allowing private developers to build on selected areas of Green Belt, alongside changes to the way land is valued, will deliver the homes and infrastructure communities need. In our view, this is unlikely to be sufficient; delivering the homes Enfield needs within a reasonable time-frame requires the introduction of private rent controls, bringing long-term vacant homes back into use as social rent housing, stopping the Right to Buy scheme, and significant government investment in building new council housing.

Unfortunately, this is not what is proposed.

The government consultation on its proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework runs until 24th September and can be accessed online:
Visit gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms

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.