City Hall official speaking on first day of Enfield Local Plan examination reveals “London-wide review” of Green Belt sites, reports James Cracknell

Green Belt land in Enfield and (inset) London mayor Sadiq Khan (credit GLA)

Sadiq Khan looks set to end his opposition to Green Belt development after a City Hall official speaking on the London mayor’s behalf at an inquiry into the Enfield Local Plan said building on protected sites would be “unavoidable” in light of higher housing targets.

In a dramatic intervention at Enfield Civic Centre which appeared to take people by surprise, the Greater London Authority’s head of strategic planning said that changes recently made by the new Labour government to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – particularly around the higher, mandatory housing targets and looser protection of Green Belt land – meant the mayor would need to change his previous position.

Lisa Fairmaner said she was speaking under delegated authority from the mayor, meaning her words had been agreed in advance with Khan. The mayor had intended to make an announcement on his new Metropolitan Green Belt policy later this year, she said, but the timing of the Enfield Local Plan examination had forced him to announce it sooner.

The draft Enfield Local Plan is being examined in public by a government-appointed planning inspector this week and next and includes two large Green Belt sites – Crews Hill and Vicarage Farm, dubbed ‘Chase Park‘ – which Enfield Council has controversially earmarked for thousands of new homes.

The GLA was among the principle objectors to these sites being built on, but Fairmaner told the hearing today (Wednesday 22nd): “In principle, the need for some Green Belt release to contribute towards London’s housing need, to tackle the housing crisis, appears unavoidable, given the changes to national policy about needing to release Green Belt where housing and other development needs cannot otherwise be met, and the significant increase in London’s mandatory housing need figure.”

Fairmaner explained that the government’s new version of the NPPF – published only last month – had removed a key bit of text which had been used by City Hall to calculate London’s housing targets, and this meant the next version of the London Plan would have to use the new mandatory national formula – which for the capital would be 88,000 homes per year, up from the current 52,000 yearly target.

The GLA’s chief planner described it as a “significant increase” and said: “Clearly this will require a step change in delivery. In order to achieve this, the mayor will continue to optimise delivery of housing on brownfield sites first, however this will be insufficient to plan for the number of homes required.

“Even with significant interventions […] it would be unreasonable to argue that the jump to 88,000 homes can be achieved wholly within London’s existing urban extent. In accordance with the December 2024 NPPF, where the need for that housing and other development cannot be met through other means, the Green Belt should be reviewed and alterations to the Green Belt proposed to meet those needs in full.”

Across London as a whole, City Hall plans to conduct a “London-wide Green Belt review” in the near future, but in Enfield the process has been “accelerated” because of the timing of this week’s Local Plan examination and the council’s proposals, Fairmaner explained.

However, she said, any Green Belt development should create “sustainable liveable neighbourhoods with access to public transport options, making the best use of land” – something that the GLA still argued was not the case with Enfield Council’s plans for Crews Hill and Chase Park. Although the mayor’s objections to these proposals remained, she said, “the reasons that underpin that assessment have been reduced”.

City Hall was now “concerned”, Fairmaner said, that the opportunity for new homes on Enfield’s Green Belt would be “squandered” by the council’s current plans, which she repeatedly described as being “unsustainable” because of their lack of existing public transport routes.

She went on: “London’s Green Belt has a limited number of locations served by public transport. The Green Belt within proximity to Oakwood and Cockfosters stations on the Piccadilly Line is one such location, and this connectivity could accommodate higher densities than are possible by locations poorly served by public transport.”

In light of this, City Hall had commissioned a “piece of work” by “independent qualified professionals” to assess the area. Fairmaner said: “The scale of this development would support other opportunities in terms of transport connectivity, in turn enabling the increase of the number of homes that could be supported on the parcels [at Vicarage Farm] already proposed for release.”

Fairmaner’s statement confirmed that the story reported earlier this week by the Dispatch, around a Transport for London (TfL) proposal for up to 12,000 homes on land including parts of Trent Park, had been drawn up as part of a co-ordinated effort by City Hall to demonstrate that more Green Belt homes could be built in Enfield than the council was proposing in its Local Plan, even though this was intended to be illustrative rather than a firm plan in itself.

She continued: “It is important to stress, that the timing of this work is running in advance of the London-wide work, including the London-wide Green Belt review and further work to fully understand the potential housing capacity within London’s existing form.”

Admitting it was a “fluid situation”, Fairmaner added: “We recognise the speed with which we have had to prepare this analysis […] but it would have been unhelpful to come to you today to give an opinion on Enfield’s proposed Green Belt release based on assertion and conjecture.”

The view from the press desk at today's Enfield Local Plan public examination

Inspector Steven Lee, appointed by the government’s Planning Inspectorate to preside over the examination of the Enfield Local Plan, responded to Fairmaner’s statement by saying what she’d said was “significant” but “a little surprising”. He went on: “Your point is that issues of Green Belt release should be dealt with through the London Plan review [but] Enfield has got there some time sooner.”

In response to the GLA statement, speaking on behalf of the council was barrister Matthew Reed KC, who said: “There was much in that statement that was supportive of the approach we have taken.

“I take the point about [the need for] sustainable development, but it [the change in direction from the GLA] does alter the landscape in which the local authority will need to consider things – it does suggest that our approach is aligned with the future.”

Conservative councillor Alessandro Georgiou countered that point and said: “The position [of the GLA] is that there should be an adopted Enfield Local Plan, but without the deletion of PL10 and PL11 [Chase Park and Crews Hill] it is hard to believe it is in compliance with the London Plan.”

Carol Fisk, a long-time campaigner against Green Belt development in Enfield, added: “Given the mayor has announced a London-wide Green Belt review, is it not jumping the gun to be including the Green Belt in Enfield when the result of the review could find sites [elsewhere in London] without the need for Enfield?”

After wryly observing that this was “the most interesting London borough plan examination I have been to”, James Stevens, appearing at the hearing on behalf of the Home Builders Federation, said he thought it was “reasonable that Enfield Council alighted on the decision it did” as a way of trying to “solve London’s housing crisis”.

A spokesperson for Berkeley Homes agreed and added: “It has always been clear that London is not meeting its housing need and further opportunities [beyond brownfield land] would be required.”

Wednesday’s hearing had begun with a discussion around the council’s public engagement, with several criticisms levelled at the civic centre by representatives of local community groups, including The Enfield Society and Enfield Over 50s Forum, who all attacked the council over a number of issues. These included missing public representations, links to blank documents and spreadsheet errors, among others.

The problems, which the council did not deny, prompted the inspector to say that he might need to consider halting the examination hearings to allow additional time for ongoing issues to be rectified. He concluded: “It is a concern for me, even now, because of the potential for people to be prejudiced, which is something I have got to be mindful of.”

However, for now, the hearings will continue – with the next session scheduled for 9.30am on Thursday (23rd).

Each day of the Enfield Local Plan public examination is available to watch live on YouTube:
Visit youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmKJVbTyn5ib5N9vSIlZbKgNxlz40ia1X

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.