Confirmation that Enfield's Green Belt is threatened

As Basil says it’s a large volume of paper. It’s perhaps less of an issue for councillors to read in depth now, instead the purpose being to approve the plan’s second cycle of public consultation, two years plus since its first airing.

This is our chance to review and add input now. Housing will inevitably take centre stage for many residents but the plan is hugely broad and impactful in its span.

Here are a few headlines I picked up on a gentle walk through.

On housing, we have the 2nd highest level of households in the UK, 3500 families, living in temporary accommodation and London’s highest eviction rate.

HMG methodology suggests a need for close to 4500 new homes every year; the London Plan sets a figure close to 1250; while this draft plan sets a preferred option of 25,000 over its lifetime to 2039, which seems to be a little higher than the Mayor requires but way short of HMG’s number.

And it’s not only housing which seems to be putting pressure on our finite land but also employment needs in offices and industrial locations, the putting to rest of dead bodies (read Firs Farm), and we can expect the inevitability of such as new schools. So where do all such things go?

Headlines so far - and I have no doubt will continue - is the proposal of housing on the green belt but if not green belt then where? The plan asks for suggestions which require real thought rather than a knee jerk of no / anger. The apparent never ending supply of easy brownfield land as the fall back option always strikes me as something of a mirage yet as well as green belt many such areas have been identified to reach the 25,000 housing figure. HMG’s methodology, call it three times larger, would on the face of it require either pretty much all of the green belt to be given over, or perhaps the borough covered end to end in tower blocks. Even so, Enfield’s much lower figure throws up some surprising housing sites, including:

The large retail park on the A10 covering eg Sainsbury, Morrison's, B&Q (already publicised and well flagged in the London Plan);

TFL car parks at Arnos and Cockfosters, again already widely flagged;

Enfield Town, particularly the large tower block, again widely flagged;

Car parks at Fords Grove, Lodge Drive and Michendon Southgate ;

ASDA and M&S at Southgate, and Sainsburys at Winchmore Hill;

Travis Perkins in PG.

Plus many others less local or which I’m not familiar.

The common reaction seen so far appears to be shock / anger and the list above is unlikely to dampen that.

Densification around transport hubs is a main theme of the London Plan and so no surprise to see the expectation of more flats in areas such as PG.

Tall buildings are another theme, already causing anger in Enfield Town and the A10 retail park, and as far as I can understand potential slated for a part of PG to the east of Green Lanes between the Triangle and the North Circular (the map isn’t clear to me).

So I think it’s fair to say there is no solution to this one which isn’t going to put the odd back up. Supply your alternatives rather than blaming the council / councillors / someone else is my best answer to that. Something has to be done so what would each of us do beyond moaning about it all?

A positive for PG is that growth and investment will be focused on the borough’s five main centres, of which PG is one; and what I also think is a positive - residential spaces will not be allowed on the ground floors of PG’s high street.

The intended move from car parks to housing probably implies as much as is needed but the plan positively reaffirms the intent to follow the London Plan and existing Enfield Transport Strategy. “The Local Plan aims to support delivery of the London Mayor’s Transport Strategy by rebalancing the transport system away from car use and towards more sustainable transport modes.” (13.1.1). As I’ve said a million times, the car-centric world we’ve known and which continues to be defended by many is changing: LTN’s are HMG policy; there's effectively no difference in the direction of travel from the last two London mayors who represented both main parties ; and of course both main local parties fully committed to the original mini Holland principles. The underlying data won’t change so don’t expect the long examined outcomes to do so either.

Enfield’s appalling health gap, reflected in hugely different life expectancy east to west, is worsening and ten eastern areas rank within the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods in England. There is a clear, stated intent in the plan to improve things. I hope so.

And there’s much else including a comment that Whitewebbs golf course has “no/little opportunity to develop” and will instead provide nature recovery uses. I don’t know what that is but hopefully it is somewhere you can walk in nature without the threat from golf balls.

So, much to read and comment on and a full six weeks to do so, albeit easier, if less productive, to wait a few years untll things happen, say you weren’t consulted and blame Ian Barnes / Nesil Caliskan for everything.

Some sensible comments above from Karl, and also on the useful website On London, where Charles Wright has an article entitled Enfield: Council’s Local Plan proposals for Green Belt homes could be in a for a rough ride.

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/enfield-councils-new-local-plan-proposals-could-be-in-a-for-a-rough-ride/

The article deals mostly with the arguments about building on the Green Belt being put forward by opposition councillors and groups such as the Enfield Society and Better Homes Enfield. However, their claims that there is enough brownfield lane available run into the problem of proposals to do just that being turned down by the planning committee: