Local Plan Examination: week one report

  By

This week the Local Plan Examination began on the 22nd. Matters discussed this week were Legal and Procedural and the housing need and supply. These are very “high level” and at this stage the Inspector, Steven Lee, appears to be ensuring that the Plan has followed the legal requirements for its various stages of preparation.

The first subject discussed was whether the representations had been correctly logged and that everyone who wish to take part in the Examination had been informed. The Society has played an important role here as around half of the representations were submitted via our website.

The discussion then moved onto “general conformity” with the London Plan. Here the GLA and TfL were present and both made serious points as to why they did not think the Plan conformed. An essential point is around the “consultation” that must take place between the Council and bodies like the GLA. Whilst both parties agree that consultation has taken place, it is the Council’s view that that doesn’t require agreement. This seems to be important as, if the Council can issue a Plan which contains policies which the GLA object to, what is the point of a regional Plan?

It’s also important to note that, after resisting Green Belt release in London for many years, the Mayor must now consider it in light of the recent changes to planning policy introduced by the new Government.

One very important point was revealed by the GLA, namely that if Green Belt is to be released then it must be developed to maximise housing delivery (technically it must be “sustainable”). The GLA (and TfL) both say that this is the only way to create the necessary economics for new bus routes and to reduce car use. At present 3,750 homes are proposed at Vicarage Farm (Chase Park) but the GLA have been doing some modelling for much higher density housing centred around transport hubs such as Oakwood and Cockfosters. This doesn’t mean that the GLA approve of building at Chase Park, but it points to what the GLA will expect to see in any future Plans involving Green Belt.

Day two was spent looking at part of the Housing need and supply. The Council admitted early in the proceedings that it could not meet its target of 12,400 houses required by the London Plan up until 2029 and would be short by around 3,000. A considerable part of the day was spent examining the way Enfield has calculated its housing numbers from 2029 to 2041 and how the London Plan has any influence (if any) on this. The Council have used their own assessment method and have not followed what the London Plan suggests, though the Council believe this is a sound approach.

Day three returned to the Legal and Procedural matters and looked at the Strategic Assessment which must be carried out by local authorities to inform site selection. Consultants LUL, acting for the Council in this regard, admitted that two mistakes had occurred for the heritage impact at Chase Park and Crews Hill—underestimating their heritage significance—though they said it made no difference to the outcome.

One issue which arose was whether ‘reasonable alternatives’ had been assessed and under questioning from the Inspector, it appeared that no alternatives over employment land supply had been looked at.

Each day the Inspector gave a list of actions to the Council and this list is growing quite quickly. There is now a suspicion that the Enfield Plan was submitted before all the details had been finalised.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.