The risks of building on the green belt include increased flooding, loss of access to nature and high car-dependency, writes Kathrin Spinnler
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.
Continue reading...