A new town in the north of the borough: 'opportunity' or 'cause for alarm'?

Is the proposal for a "new town" in the north of Enfield borough "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to change lives and help families grow and thrive", as council leader Ergin Erbil describes it, or "a cause for great alarm", the view taken by the Enfield Society?

Map showing the "indicative" location of proposed Crews Hill/Chase Park new town taken from the Newtowns Taskforce report. The term "indicative" here is pretty generous, as it omits almost all of the proposed "Chase Park" development, most of which lies to the south west of the green blobThe identification by the government's New Towns Taskforce of Crews Hill and "Chase Park", in the north of the borough, as potential locations for a "new town" has been greeted with enthusiasm by Enfield Council's leader, but with dismay by the Enfield Society and by campaigners from Enfield RoadWatch Action Group and Better Homes for Enfield.

The New Towns Taskforce issued its recommendations for the locations of twelve English new towns at the end of September, one of them being "an expanded development bringing together Chase Park and Crews Hill, Enfield; delivering green development and helping address London’s acute housing need"; the new town is, they say, "a strong and exciting proposition that could lead the way in sustainable Green Belt development and provide homes that London desperately needs".

An update on the Enfield Council website quotes council leader Ergin Erbil as saying:

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to change lives and help families grow and thrive in Enfield. Family sized homes and a brand new town built for local people and shaped by local people. I am so proud that the New Towns Taskforce agree that Crews Hill and Chase Park is a fantastic location for a new community. We’ll continue working closely with the Government and Greater London Authority and will keep residents updated.

“Our aim is simple: to make sure people can stay in Enfield, raise families, and build their lives here. A New Town would allow us to build thousands of family sized homes and council homes, all set around new public parks and supported by quality services. We are absolutely committed to getting this right for our residents and they will be involved every step of the way.”

While Crews Hill is a long established settlement in the very north of the borough, known for its garden centres and plant nurseries, and in earlier decades for the glasshouses where fruit and vegetables were grown to supply London's greengrocers, "Chase Park" is not somewhere you'll find on a map: it remains merely an aspiration - the name chosen by Enfield Council for the new housing estates it proposes should be built on Green Belt land to the east of Trent Park on either side of Enfield Road.

The inclusion in the next Enfield Local Plan of both Crews Hill and Chase Park as sites for housebuilding has been one of the most contentious issues being discussed as the draft plan goes through the drawn out and exhaustive "Examination in Public" stage. Voluntary sector groups like the Enfield Society and Enfield RoadWatch have been hoping that their arguments that the plans for both areas fail environmental sustainability tests will be accepted by Steven Lee, the planning inspector who is running the Examination in Public - one reason being that the proposed density of new housing in those locations would be insufficient to support new public transport provision and thus inevitably lead to a significant increase in driving, contributing to climate change.

However, should the government decide to go ahead with the Crews Hill/Chase Park new town scheme, this last argument would be somewhat weakened, as the much larger scale of housebuilding that the taskforce is proposing (21,000 rather than less than 10,000) should be enough to support new and improved bus and rail provision. Furthermore, in principle at least, when new towns are built the required facilities such as schools, clinics, shops etc should be put in place before people move in, reducing the need for residents to drive to other locations.

But for many people the most important issue relating to the proposal is whether or not Green Belt status is sacrosanct. Even if it were possible to minimise effects such as increased driving, a new town would remove a big chunk of the green areas that surround the metropolis, act as its "lungs", and reduce urban sprawl.

In this context, the government has been floating the idea of some Green Belt being reclassified as less valuable "Grey Belt", worthy of less protection. So it is significant that the taskforce report states that "Much of the proposed site is currently low value land, comprising commercial nurseries, garden centres, a golf course and lower quality greenfield land".

There is much to take issue with in this cursory dismissal of the "value" of the land in question. Are the green fields and river valley that I gaze at as I travel by bus between Oakwood and Enfield Town really "lower quality"? To quote Enfield RoadWatch:

"They repeatedly refer to Enfield’s much loved Green Belt as ‘poor quality’ and ‘lower quality greenfield’. That’s a short-sighted view using an outdated land classification system. Our Green Belt is Grade 3 agricultural – in most cases 3b, which is not protected – but most experts no longer consider this Agricultural Land Classification System [ALC] to be fit for use in planning decisions. Grade 3b can produce moderate crop yields, adding to food security, in addition to providing good grazing for livestock and grass for harvesting, all of which we see locally. Our Green Belt also offers climate benefits such as carbon sequestration and flood management, as well as providing habitat for wildlife in our much nature-depleted country. Poor? Lower Quality? No!"

Referring to Vicarage Farm (which makes up a large chunk of the proposed "Chase Park" development), Enfield RoadWatch comment:

"Perhaps all that beautiful rolling countryside, the last remnant of the historic Enfield Chase, is just rolled into the ‘lower quality greenfield’ category. Did the taskforce even visit Enfield or did they just accept what the council told them? We know the answer to that one!"

As regards the council's dismissal of the value of the nurseries and garden centres in Crews Hill, Better Homes for Enfield have this scathing comment:

"The 'bold vision' for Crews Hill, wrapped in the language of a New Town designation, is being sold as progress. But for the hundreds of people whose livelihoods depend on the area’s businesses, including the horticultural nurseries, garden centres, landscapers, builders’ yards, and family-run suppliers, the reality is far more precarious.

"The current narrative paints Crews Hill in Enfield as underutilised land waiting to be transformed into thousands of homes. What it does not acknowledge is that this transformation will come at the cost of hundreds of jobs, decades of entrepreneurship, and the quiet resilience of family businesses that have weathered economic downturns, supply chain shocks, and the rise of online retail. These businesses are not 'in the way'. They are the backbone of Crews Hill’s economic identity, they are the 'builders', not the 'blockers'." 

A final point. Enfield Council assure us that:

"There will be lots of opportunities for residents to engage and shape details as they develop and the government’s New Town policies evolve. The council will remain at the heart of this process and any final decisions. This will ensure what is created benefits the borough and those that call it home first and foremost."

But is that in fact the case? For one thing, the government has on more than one occasion talked about wanting to greatly speed up planning decisions by reducing the scope for objections. For another, if the government does decide in favour of the new town, planning decisions will be taken out of the hands of the local authority, ie Enfield Council, and a new town corporation or similar body will be set up, reporting to the government. There will be none of the painstaking scrutiny that the current draft Local Plan is being subjected to.