Enfield Council acknowledges that housing plans will significantly harm Green Belt areas, sparking intense debate during the Local Plan examination.
Enfield: The Local Plan examination is in full swing. Day five featured a long discussion about building on Green Belt land. The council is facing tough questions about its housing plans.
Enfield Council revealed that its proposal to develop Green Belt land would cause “high harm” to two major sites. These sites are meant for thousands of new homes.
During the hearings, the council argued there are “exceptional circumstances” for using 436 hectares of Green Belt land. This land is intended for housing and jobs.
Planning consultant Ian Gillespie faced scrutiny from the planning inspector. He acknowledged that the chosen sites, Crews Hill and Vicarage Farm, would significantly harm the Green Belt.
The inspector asked if the council had explored other site options. Gillespie explained they reviewed the entire borough for potential sites.
According to the London Plan, brownfield sites should be prioritized before considering Green Belt land for development. The inspector pressed the council on whether they had done everything possible to avoid using protected sites.
Matthew Reed, a barrister for the council, mentioned that finding a new brownfield site could change the need for Green Belt development. However, he noted that a decision had to be made on how far to analyze this.
Concerns were raised about the exclusion of Colosseum Retail Park from the Local Plan. This site had planning permission for 1,600 homes that lapsed last year.
Community members pointed out that several brownfield sites were overlooked. They suggested including these sites in the Local Plan for housing development.
Richard Knox-Johnston from the London Green Belt Council argued that building on brownfield sites is often more affordable. He claimed that 39,000 homes could be built on brownfield land in Enfield.
Knox-Johnston also suggested that the council might not be keeping its brownfield register updated. This could be a strategy to justify Green Belt housing development.
Better Homes Enfield conducted its own analysis and found capacity for 35,000 homes on brownfield land. They criticized the council for inconsistent capacity figures.
Carol Fisk from Enfield Road Watch highlighted Ikea’s claim that the council was “suppressing” the capacity of its site at Meridian Water.
Opposition councillors argued that the decision to release Green Belt land was political rather than based on planning needs. They questioned the council’s ability to justify this decision.
The council’s principal planner defended their process, stating they had considered all potential sites. He explained that while 10,000 homes at Meridian Water is feasible, it would take longer than the current plan period.
Reed addressed accusations of manipulating housing figures to support Green Belt release. He emphasized that decisions should be based on viability and suitability.
On the first day of hearings, the Greater London Authority announced a review of Green Belt policies. They indicated that some release of protected sites might be necessary due to higher housing targets.
Neil Rowley from Comer Homes stressed the importance of identifying Green Belt sites to address the housing crisis. He argued that small brownfield sites alone wouldn’t solve the problem.
The council justified Green Belt release by claiming it would provide family and affordable housing. However, there was confusion over the percentage of family homes that could be delivered.
Conservative councillor David Skelton criticized the arbitrary increase in housing requirements. He argued that allocating Green Belt sites prematurely could lead to urban sprawl.
Knox-Johnston agreed, stating that this would change the borough’s character and harm valuable areas. The hearings will continue, with the final day scheduled for tomorrow.
