The examination in public in session, with planning inspector Steven Lee in the chair, representatives of civil sector groups and opposition councillors photo left
The latest email newsletter sent to supporters of Enfield RoadWatch provides a summary of how the green belt protection group views the proceedings during the first stage of hearings for the Examination in Public of the Enfield Local Plan (held between 22nd and 30th January at the Civic Centre - the sessions were recorded and can be viewed online). The newsletter is reproduced below, with permission.
Read in conjunction with other reports by the Enfield Society and Enfield Dispatch, the newsletter helps us make sense of the complex processes involved in the development of the plan and its examination by the official planning inspector. A key question at the moment is what conclusions the inspector has drawn from the submissions that were made at the hearings, in particular about whether proposals for housebuilding in the green belt at "Chase Park" and Crews Hill are "sound". He might want them dropped to make the overall plan sound, or he might find the plan as a whole "unsound" and send the council back to the drawing board. What will he make of the bombshell dropped by the Mayor and TfL, who want housebuilding within walking distance of Cockfosters and Oakwood stations? We shouldn't have to wait too long now to find out, as he is expected to issue a "note" about his findings so far in the near future.
We are fighting to save Enfield's Green Belt and to promote affordable homes on brownfield sites, where people need them most.
Local Plan Stage 1 hearings update and what happens next.
Dear Supporters
The Stage 1 examination hearings for Enfield's Local Plan concluded on January 30 after six intense sessions scrutinising legal and compliance issues, the allocation of housing and employment land, the need for Green Belt release and more. The purpose of the hearings is for the Government-appointed Planning Inspector to determine if the plan is ‘sound’: was it positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with the London Plan and national policy?
The local interest groups were arrayed down one side of the room and the council’s appointed lawyer [KC], officers and the developers on the other. It’s highly unusual for there to be so much local engagement at this stage and it was notable how well-informed all the local speakers were. We think many of our arguments had traction with the Planning Inspector.
A number of elements and issues in the proposed plan give the Inspector pause and could affect its soundness. Among them are the protracted problems with the Regulation 19 database, from which some public representations were still missing at the start of the examination hearings. The council has committed to transfer all the data to a specialist outside company, whose platform is more robust, by March 31. Any representors who did not have an opportunity to submit hearing statements must be given the chance to do so. We are unsure how many people that amounts to. You should be contacted by the Council if you are among them.
There are also some Duty to Cooperate issues with neighbouring local authorities and statutory consultees and other concerns which could have a bearing on the plan's soundness. The GLA [Greater London Authority] and TfL [Transport for London] contend that the plan in its present form is unsound because of the proposed Green Belt releases. However, a statement delivered from the Mayor about the need for Green Belt release in the next London Plan and an upcoming London-wide Green Belt/ grey belt review caused some consternation. [Enfield Dispatch article]
The Inspector was very clear throughout the rest of the hearings that he is assessing the plan under the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] and current London Plan but the council's KC tried to emphasise whenever possible that the future cannot be ignored and the new rules must be material considerations in this case. The Inspector is thinking about that. We argued several times, and I think with traction, that releasing Green Belt before the London-wide survey would be jumping the gun, because it might prove that none of Enfield's Green Belt is needed or, if some, not the sites currently proposed.
We are now awaiting the Planning Inspector's notes or report. If the Inspector finds the plan unsound and looks to make it sound through some main modifications, he could decide to delete the two large Green Belt releases, reduce the housing target accordingly and leave it there. In which case, there would be a more considered strategic release of Green Belt once the London-wide survey is complete and the new London Plan is in place [the current one expires in March 2026]. However, in the GLA's statement they recommended three ways to make the plan sound. Removing the Chase Park and Crews Hill allocations was only the third option. First was a major modification increasing the Green Belt release as suggested by TfL [see below] and second was the inclusion of an Area Action Plan within the local plan. Both those remedies would probably fall foul of the new pragmatism rules, which prevent a local plan examination from becoming too drawn out. The work and consultations needed for those options would probably take too long. However, we don't know if there are exceptions to the pragmatism rule so we are concerned about that.
The Planning Inspector will now be busy with the Bristol Local Plan until late April, so we do not expect the Stage 2 hearings to happen until late May or early June. Those will include site-specific sessions. At the end of Stage 1, the Inspector would not commit either way to moving on to Stage 2. If he finds the proposals unsound and not able to be made sound with modifications, he could stop the whole process and require it to start again. That would take place under the new NPPF, which has less protection for the Green Belt and more emphasis on development, so making the current plan sound would probably be preferable.
We will keep you updated. Thanks, as always for your support. Together we are stronger.
Ian D’Souza
Chair
The Transport for London [TfL] proposal
TfL's hearing statement gave the first suggestion that the Mayor might be changing his stance on protecting all of London's Green Belt. The statement suggests that, in order to make the Local Plan sound, any Green Belt release needs to have greater housing density than currently proposed and that the first Green Belt to be released should be adjacent to the Piccadilly Line [Oakwood to Cockfosters]. This would mean developing a large area of Trent Country Park. Heritage and ecological considerations aside, this would allow development without major infrastructure investment.
TfL's proposal would also include the greenfield land currently proposed for release - Vicarage Farm - but later on once there is a critical mass allowing for public transport investment. So instead of 4,000 homes on Vicarage Farm, we would end up with 12,000 all along Enfield Road/ Bramley Road [A110]. That would change the character of Western Enfield entirely. The Green Belt in question is all high-performing and its release would cause high harm to the remaining Green Belt.
We hope that TfL's suggestion does not indicate that the upcoming London-wide survey will make access to public transport an overriding factor for Green Belt release, regardless of the quality of Green Belt in question. The GLA made the point that very little of London's Green Belt is near public transport so, in Enfield's case, we fear that it may. [Dispatch article about TfL's proposal]
Enfield Dispatch articles about the local plan and hearings
Day 1 Khan set to support new housing on London's Green Belt for first time, inquiry hears
Day 2 Council admits it won't be able to meet London Plan housing target for Enfield
Day 5 'High harm' to Green Belt caused by housing plan, Enfield Council admits
Overview Enfield Dispatch local plan stage 1 hearings overview
Links to some of our partner organisations:
See also
Examination in public of Enfield Local Plan begins (Palmers Green Community 22 January 2025 - news item plus forum comments)
