Enfield groups tell prime minister: “New towns are for Placemaking, you should not be Placebreaking”

Enfield Groups call out the lack of evidence, lack of transparency and misleading assumptions in the New Towns process in their consultation response

Full text of press release issued by Action for Enfield's Future on 18th April 2026

On the eve of the National Day of Action for Nature, Parks and Green Spaces, and their own event at Crews Hill, Action for Enfield’s Future, Enfield Roadwatch and the Enfield Society are calling on the Prime Minister to intervene, in the strong belief that he is unaware of the extent to which, in the case of Crews Hill & Chase Park New Town, his flagship New Towns policy is being discredited. The letter is here

Throughout the New Towns process, AfEF, a coalition of local interest groups, has been presenting expert evidence which explains why Crews Hill & Chase Park is an inexplicable choice for a 21,000-home new town. 

Evidence provided to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee and a 57-page report submitted to the London Assembly Planning and Regeneration Committee Call for Evidence seem to have been wilfully ignored in the decision-making process.

Most recently, this “No Evidence. No New Town.” report has been published by Better Homes Enfield https://betterhomes-enfield.org/2026/04/14/no-evidence-no-new-town/

We are concerned that our New Towns Consultation submission will suffer the same fate as previous submissions and ask that evidence be made public to daylight a process that has been fundamentally flawed throughout.

We’re exercised that the public is expected to give detailed, evidence-based explanations of why CH&CP NT shouldn’t be chosen as a new town, when neither the Council nor the Government have given an evidence-based explanation as to why it should.

It’s a bit cockeyed.

Enfield Council submitted a proposal to build a new town at Crews Hill and Chase Park to the government’s New Towns Taskforce in late 2024. However, the council has refused a request from the London Assembly to publish it. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-work/london-assembly-current-investigations/new-towns-london.

We know that regular consultation meetings were held between developers, Enfield Council and London Assembly officers before Enfield’s New Town submission was made^[1]. 

The local MP, Feryal Clark, has encouraged residents to get involved by participating in the national consultation. But when, at the same time as publishing the consultation on the 12 proposed new towns, the government also publishes a shortlist of seven, this suggests that decisions are being made in the background based on unpublished evidence before the consultation is complete.

The Leader of Enfield Council, Cllr Ergin Erbil insists that Enfield residents will be consulted “all the way” but they have not been. Even the vibrant, commercially successful businesses in Crews Hill, threatened with CPOs and the loss of hundreds of local jobs, insist that they have not been approached by Enfield Council.

This, despite an assumption to the contrary by the Secretary of State Steve Reed in a recent visit to Enfield, when he was forced to admit that he hasn’t yet visited the site of Crews Hill& Chase Park (though “I’d like to, if I can, I have probably got a bit of time.”). Government housing chief quizzed on 'new town' – but misses chance to visit Crews Hill - Enfield Dispatch

The Strategic Environment Assessment (600+ pages), published for consultation at the same time as the highly technical New Towns consultation, includes the erroneous statement that “The broad location comprises a combination of relatively flat urban land and arable fields with the A1005 intersecting through the centre” (p 296). The A1005 is an imposing Ridgeway. Unsurprisingly, tomorrow’s event at Crews Hill is subtitled “Seeing is Believing”.

Crews Hill & Chase Park is the only Green Belt site currently being proposed as a new town.

Enfield Council has handed over London’s last remaining semi-rural community at Crews Hill, and its most beautiful, ancient countryside across Enfield’s Ridgeway, to the government for a 21,000-home new town stretching from the M25 to Oakwood station. 884 acres. Three times the city of London.

But while there is consensus at all levels of governance (Nationwide, London-wide and locally) for a “Brownfield first” approach, no evidence has yet been provided to justify or explain this unprecedented encroachment into London’s Green Belt.

There is certainly overwhelming evidence of an acute housing crisis in London where homes ranging from family homes to homes appropriate for later life are not affordable for those who need them. The need is undeniable.

However, the crisis can be solved sooner rather than later by dealing with….

• Underoccupancy
• Planning permission for thousands of homes given, but not built
• Empty properties, 4500 in Enfield alone
• Addressing the many flaws in  the  rental sector.

The Green Belt at the proposed site of Crews Hill & Chase Park New Town in Enfield epitomises the Government’s primary objective “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open” (revised NPPF 2025). How was it ever considered suitable?

There are many questions to answer.

• How has its inclusion in the shortlist escaped even the most basic scrutiny?
• On what basis have ministers concluded that the site is “promising”?
• To what extent have developers influenced the decision?
• Why were Enfield’s councillors so keen to submit CH&CP in response to the Government’s invitation?
• Why did the NTTF repeat Enfield Council’s mischaracterisation of Crews Hill?
• And why have the same misrepresentations found their way into the SEA?
• Where are the records of site visits?