Charles Wright: Enfield, the Mayor and the Green Belt

Charles Wright: Enfield, the Mayor and the Green Belt

In an unexpected City Hall statement at last week’s opening of the public inquiry stage of Enfield’s Local Plan, Sir Sadiq Khan formally accepted for the first time that releasing protected Green Belt land to help meet housing need in the capital has become “unavoidable”.

The Enfield plan, the council’s development roadmap up to 2041, proposes controversially allowing some 9,000 new homes to be built on two Green Belt sites in the north of the borough – a proposal the Mayor has previously firmly rejected.

Khan is still opposing those specific plans. But, along with his concession on the principle of Green Belt development, came a further surprise intervention – a last-minute City Hall submission to the inquiry inspector with alternative plans for up to 12,000 homes on a different part of the Green Belt in Enfield, centred around the Oakwood and Cockfosters London Underground stations.

That proposal, which takes in part of Trent Country Park, an extensive remnant of the Enfield Chase royal hunting ground, was slammed by Enfield Conservative group leader and London Assembly member Alessandro Georgiou as amounting to a “crusade against our parks”. But Transport for London was reassuring: it wasn’t an actual proposal for development, simply an illustration of a better way to use Green Belt land in Enfield than the council’s plans.

Nevertheless, it looked like a pre-emptive strike, effectively declaring the Mayor’s hand even before he has begun his promised review of the capital’s extensive Green Belt, which will set city-wide policy for releasing such land which the boroughs will have to follow. Khan is awaiting government funding for the review, which will be conducted by City Hall planners with consultancy support, with confirmation expected next month.

Why is Khan intervening now? It’s all about timing or, perhaps more accurately, a race against time for the city’s plan makers to respond to the new government’s relaxation of Green Belt restrictions alongside its latest new homes target of 88,000 a year in the capital – 36,000 more than the current ambition. Khan’s mantra remains “brownfield” site development first, the City Hall statement says, but it adds: “It would be unreasonable to conclude that the 88,000 a year target can be achieved wholly within London’s existing urban extent…some Green Belt release appears avoidable.”

How will this happen? Enfield, seriously behind on its housing targets, argues its relatively limited Green Belt release is necessary in order to head off  “speculative inappropriate development” in the protected zone. But even before the plan’s adoption, it is being overtaken by events. The government’s more relaxed “grey belt” rules for Green Belt development are, in planning-speak, a “material consideration” when planning applications are determined, effectively meaning that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) can trump local plans.

It’s a significant change which means, as planning consultants Lichfields point out in a new briefing on the policy – appropriately titled “Opportunity knocks”- that “many more Green Belt sites will now be open to (re)appraisal for development.”

City Hall argues that Enfield’s proposed sites, with not enough homes and poor public transport links, will not realise the full potential of its “grey belt” land and actually open the door to more raids on the Green Belt in future. The inquiry getting underway means the Mayor, who has himself warned of a possible Green Belt free-for-all unless new policies are put in place, needs to set out his own stall now, in advance of his own review.

It’s a clear message to would-be developers as well as to councils drawing up their plans: City Hall wants any Green Belt release to be “on the basis of building sustainable, liveable neighbourhoods with access to public and active transport options, making the best use of land” and Khan’s review will be hunting down locations fitting that bill. “They give more ‘bang for your buck’ or more homes for the amount of Green Belt released and therefore a greater contribution towards meeting London’s housing need,” says City Hall.

Back in Enfield, Khan is arguing that the council’s proposals as they stand do not meet that sustainability test, which is set out in the new NPPF, and are therefore also not in conformity with his London Plan – a statutory requirement which, if not met, could derail the whole council plan.

The entire Green Belt issue is up for discussion at the inquiry when it continues on Wednesday, including Khan’s suggestions that the plan be delayed in order to take his criteria on board, it being amended with the details left to new area plans, or simply that Enfield’s proposed Green Belt sites are removed from its plan.

There’s a long way to go. The first stage of the inquiry continues until Friday, with further sessions to be scheduled in late spring or early summer. But the Mayor’s new stance is already opening a new front in the Green Belt debate. All sessions of the inquiry can be viewed via YouTube.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support it for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things for your money other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky. The image used with this article is from Alasdair Rae’s excellent Green Belt Atlas.

Categories: Analysis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *