How Green is Meridian Water? Housing

Meridian Water is Enfield's flagship development. It's supposed to deliver 10,000 homes and 16,000 jobs. And, being on brownfield land, it leaves the Green Belt untouched.

I've studied the Masterplan, approved in July 2013, and I'll apply the criteria in my last post.

Of course, I can only comment on the document. As with many other schemes what we get eventually may be very different. And here the experience of the Council's approach to providing a 'community hub' at the Ritz Parade is fairly discouraging.

And because is a complex scheme I'm going to make this several posts, starting with the central issue - housing.

The Masterplan refers to "5,000 new homes" though more recent Council statements have claimed 10,000. I attended an exhibition on the scheme last year but came away more confused about the numbers.

You can get some idea of the intended residents by looking at the list of travel connections: Heathrow, Stansted and City airports and Cambridge, Stratford and Canary Wharf. It's clear that the focus is on jet-setting bankers and entrepreneurs.

We need more homes, especially for those who can't afford decent homes. Developments are supposed to provide 40% 'affordable' homes but this is a distraction because developers generally find ways to avoid providing so many and more because most so-called affordable homes are not affordable by people on average pay.

In my view this problem is insoluble if numbers continue to rise. It is certainly not soluble without some serious creativity about the interplay between population, housing, finance and benefits. And that probably needs a new national policy - or several!

So, while we work on the broader issue, we can ask for 50% affordable homes. It won't solve the problem but at least those 50% won't be luxury flats for offshore investors!

How to recognise a Green housing scheme

We see lots of planning applications, and less formal proposals, to build homes in Enfield. Many of them (eg the Cat Hill and Fairview school schemes) raise environmental issues.

Given that we don't have enough homes in Enfield and that the population will keep rising we need to build a lot more homes. So how should we judge new schemes?

Housing
We need more homes, especially for those who can't afford decent homes. Developments are supposed to provide 40% 'affordable' homes but this is a distraction because developers generally find ways to avoid providing so many and more because most so-called affordable homes are not affordable by people on average pay.

In my view this problem is insoluble if numbers continue to rise. It is certainly not soluble without some serious creativity about the interplay between population, housing, finance and benefits. And that probably needs a new national policy - or several!

So, while we work on the broader issue, we can ask for 50% affordable homes. It won't solve the problem but at least those 50% won't be luxury flats for offshore investors!

Sustainability
High environmental standards, especially low energy use. Our policy is that all new buildings should meet passivhaus standards for energy. (Of course, the surest way to do that is to follow the passivhaus method but we don't insist on that.) We've pressed this on various council officials and departments over the last few years but all we ever get back is "too expensive". Well, that hasn't stopped other councils, such as Camden and Wolverhampton, from building to those standards so it's obviously possible.

Community
Larger schemes should provide more than housing. They should provide local shops and community facilities. How many and which shops and facilities will obviously depend on what's already available but, as we saw in the case of the Ritz Parade, they might include a GP surgery, meeting rooms, a school, a theatre or a cinema. Green space would be good too.

And I'd add one thing that is often forgotten - space for politics and community action. Many 'public' shopping centres are actually private. On various occasions I have been told by security staff to stop distributing election leaflets in Edmonton Green shopping centre, filming for the BBC in Palace Gardens and collecting for the RNLI in Palace Exchange.

There ought to be outdoor space that can be used for politics and community action, provided that it doesn't cause a nuisance. And there should be indoor rooms for hire.

Travel 
As a Green I give priority to active travel - walking and cycling - since it is healthier and more sociable. So, specifically, I want to see:

1. Green space within walking distance.
2. Good walking and cycling routes to shops, entertainment, etc.
3. Accessible routes for people with nobility problems.

But that's clearly not enough. Many people have to travel much further than they can walk or cycle for work, shipping or entertainment. So a scheme should provide good public transport connections. Specifically there should be bus stops within walking distance and a tube or train station accessible by one bus ride (or walking, of course).

Now its only in the largest schemes that the developer can address all of this. He won't be able to move a tube station or even a bus route. So the responsibility must shared between the developer and the Council. We need both parties to recognise their responsibilities.

Ritz Parade: The 'community hub' we need

The Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) plans to build 1,400 homes along the North Circular Road in Enfield. These will probably house about 3,500 people of which a significant proportion are bound to be children. All these people will need the obvious services: shops, nurseries, schools and medical care. And, because the new homes will have relatively few parking spaces, the facilities need to be on the doorstep.

So far so obvious - but all the relevant public services are full or overloaded. A local GP practice has to cope with twice the planned number of patients but can't get funding for additional space. The local schools are full, as is Bowes School nursery.

All of this is well-known to the local community, the Council and the NHHT. Yet nothing has been done.

But now we have an opportunity. The Council has just finished a consultation on the future of the Ritz Parade. It even said that the Parade should be developed as a community hub - but was vague on the details. 

What we need
Enfield Green Party is pleased to help out.  In our submission we said that the initial facilities should include:

• A range of shops sufficient to the meet the daily and weekly shopping needs of local residents
• A medical centre serving as a base for community health professionals as well as a GP surgery.
• A nursery
• Meeting rooms for community events – at least matching those now available in the Jehovah's Witness's Hall.

As Greens we believe that community is important and that it’s very desirable that there should be a community hub – one place where facilities are concentrated and people can meet. And the Ritz Parade already provides such a place. We'd therefore like to see these facilities on or near the Parade. And, since the North Circular blocks north-south movement in this area there should be a new crossing.

The proximity of the North Circular Road is a problem of course in terms of road safety and air pollution. Air pollution causes an estimated 9,000 deaths per year in London alone.  Therefore any development should ensure that air pollution within buildings is kept to a safe level.

But it won't be enough to just produce the cheapest buildings that meet the initial needs. Good design is essential and there must be flexibility. Therefore there should be sufficient non-residential space to allow for expansion of the community facilities in the future. Facilities should be provided in ways that allow for changes in the use of space.

There are some technical needs too since buildings are so long-lived. So all development should be to the highest environmental standards. In particular, energy-efficiency should reach the passivhaus standard. 

Who should pay?
Schools are obviously the Council's responsibility. We recognise that all local authorities face appalling financial pressures due to the government's ridiculous and inhumane austerity policies (but that's a topic for another occasion). We also recognise that the new residents will pay millions of pounds in Council Tax whilst NHHT will, by law, contribute to infrastructure costs. In nay case, school places are essential both socially and legally.

The other facilities and the road crossing pose different questions. We start from the fact that the NHHT is a charity that will, when it's finished, have made a great deal of money from property development. It would therefore be wholly appropriate, in terms of both corporate social responsibility and fulfilment of the Trust's charitable objectives, that NHHT should provide or pay for these facilities.

Meeting these needs should be seen, by the Trust, the Council and the local community as one way in which it discharges its fundamental charitable purpose – not as a distraction from house-building.

Ritz Parade: What is a 'community hub'?

Who wouldn't want a community hub? That was the question at last Wednesday's Ward Forum at Bowes School. And that's what the Council said it wants as the future of the Ritz Parade on the North Circular Road. Sounds good doesn't it?

But there's a problem, well actually two problems.

Firstly no-one knows what a 'community hub' is. Is it a GP surgery, meeting rooms, a school, a row of shops or a cinema?  All these suggestions were made at the Ward Forum but the six councillors present were notably silent. And they were careful NOT to ask the local residents present what they specifically wanted. Asking them – rather than the waltz around the houses that we got – would have provided clarity to the Council's negotiations with the developer. 

Which brings us to the second problem. Whatever the local people want, the Council probably can't provide it. The Council doesn't own the land and it couldn't afford to develop it if it did. And it can't instruct the developer, the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT), which despite its charitable status seems determined to maximise its profits.

Councillors should have used the meeting to get clarity about local needs. They could then call on NHHT to deliver what's needed both on and adjacent to the site. For instance, a new road crossing would be very useful. With the money it’s made from its other sites on the North Circular it can well afford to!