Polly Toynbee’s article about the proposed new town in Enfield mischaracterises local opposition and overlooks more practical options (Nimbys can’t stand in the way of Labour’s legacy: a 21st-century new town boom, 1 September). Objecting to the town is a rejection of poor planning, not nimbyism.
There is no evidence the new town would alleviate Enfield’s mainly affordability-based housing crisis. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the proposed planning reforms will reduce house prices by just 0.8% by 2029-30. And the risks of building on the green belt include increased flooding, loss of access to nature and high car-dependency. All three contradict the government and the mayor’s objectives. Far from being built mainly on golfing greens and “a cluster of glasshouses and garden centres, an unplanned sprawl”, the town threatens 884 hectares of Enfield’s green belt, including wooded land and farmland.
Describing Enfield as “the perfect borough for a new town, with excellent rail connections” ignores reality: the added traffic would cause major problems in the north of the borough. Crews Hill runs just two to four trains per hour, with few to no alternative connections available. The infrastructure will not cope with 40,000-plus additional residents.
Enfield should focus on its capacity to build up to 37,000 brownfield homes, far more than the new town proposal of 21,000 homes. Alternative sites include the 10,000-home Meridian Water development, which has been 10 years in the making but so far delivered just 300 homes. Such developments must take priority over covering the green belt in concrete.
Kathrin Spinnler
London
