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!
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Sunday, 12 June 2016
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
- Green space within walking distance.
- Good walking and cycling routes to shops, entertainment, etc.
- Accessible routes for people with nobility problems.
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.
Wednesday, 30 March 2016
Enfield rent now 54% of average pay
Green mayoral candidate Sian Berry has published data on rents at http://www.sianberry.london/rents-map-london/
The data shows that rents in Enfield average £1,248 per month - that's 54% of average household take-home pay. In short, rents are unaffordable - 18,525 local households get housing benefit and 2,934 families are homeless.
So, no news there. Everyone knows that London housing is increasingly unaffordable and beyond the reach of ordinary working people.
There can be no quick solution to a housing problem in which we have been investing for over thirty. For let's be clear - this is a problem that's been created by decades of government policies aimed at creating good feelings amongst the Baby Boom generation. A combination of more money for housing, more people needing housing and historically low build rates has driven up prices making my generation feel rich. And thus likely to vote for the government in power.
But there are things that the Mayor could do. Sian has proposed rent controls and a London Renters Union that would represent renters' interests. These policies would help shifty the balance of power from landlords to tenants. She would also close City Airport and use the land for housing and businesses. A future Green government would go further, of course, with extended rights for tenants.
Sign up to support Sian Berry's plan for a London Renters Union
The data shows that rents in Enfield average £1,248 per month - that's 54% of average household take-home pay. In short, rents are unaffordable - 18,525 local households get housing benefit and 2,934 families are homeless.
So, no news there. Everyone knows that London housing is increasingly unaffordable and beyond the reach of ordinary working people.
There can be no quick solution to a housing problem in which we have been investing for over thirty. For let's be clear - this is a problem that's been created by decades of government policies aimed at creating good feelings amongst the Baby Boom generation. A combination of more money for housing, more people needing housing and historically low build rates has driven up prices making my generation feel rich. And thus likely to vote for the government in power.
But there are things that the Mayor could do. Sian has proposed rent controls and a London Renters Union that would represent renters' interests. These policies would help shifty the balance of power from landlords to tenants. She would also close City Airport and use the land for housing and businesses. A future Green government would go further, of course, with extended rights for tenants.
Sign up to support Sian Berry's plan for a London Renters Union
Thursday, 12 November 2015
The RoadWatch Debate in Context
For months Enfield RoadWatch has been collecting signatures on a petition opposing Fairview's plans for houses and a school on Green Belt land. Yesterday it presented the petition, now with 4,500 signatures, to Enfield Council. A debate followed.
If we strip out the repetition and political point-scoring we find the following arguments:
Continued economic and population growth are not consistent with the protection of the natural environment either locally or globally. And the destruction of the natural environment will ultimately be disastrous for the health and well-being, and ultimately the survival, of much of humanity. The loss of two fields in Enfield is a small matter compared to deforestation in Brazil or famine in the Horn of Africa. But the drivers - fetishisation of growth, rampant consumerism and corporate greed - are the same.
Only Greens see these connections. That's why we need a Green government.
************************************************
* Notes on population:
If we strip out the repetition and political point-scoring we find the following arguments:
- Green Belt: Everyone agreed that the Green Belt is vital for recreation, to clean the air, provide habitats (especially for rare species) and preserve Enfield's special green character.
- Brownfield sites: The Tories said that there are 280 acres of brownfield land in Enfield that should be developed instead of encroaching on the Green Belt. Labour said there is not so much and some is needed for recreational use.
- Population: Labour said that the population of Enfield is expected to rise by 100,000 in twenty years! The Tories said 'don't be silly' - it will be much less. *
- The Tories said that the Green Belt is sacrosanct and no-one should ever be allowed to build on it. Labour said that building on some Green Belt land might be the least bad option.
- Backlog: Like most of the UK, the borough is already short of houses and flats. It needs a lot more just to meet the needs of the current population and our children and grandchildren.
- Housing policy: The only way that the backlog can be dealt with is by public investment in homes that will not then be subject to 'right to buy'.
- Population: The forecast growth is partly the result of national and regional policies and different policies would have different results. (Actually one Tory did say that leaving the EU would reduce the growth but even he didn't seem to be serious.) Different policies could produce a city that was less unequal, healthier and had lower population growth.
Continued economic and population growth are not consistent with the protection of the natural environment either locally or globally. And the destruction of the natural environment will ultimately be disastrous for the health and well-being, and ultimately the survival, of much of humanity. The loss of two fields in Enfield is a small matter compared to deforestation in Brazil or famine in the Horn of Africa. But the drivers - fetishisation of growth, rampant consumerism and corporate greed - are the same.
Only Greens see these connections. That's why we need a Green government.
************************************************
* Notes on population:
- Official forecasts here and here are for much small growth numbers than Labour claims. Perhaps 40,000 extra by 2032. That's still quite a lot.
- Given the confused and highly unsatisfactory state of policy on migration, affordable housing and housing benefit, the likely long-term increase in the number of people wanting to come to northern Europe and the near certainty of at least one change of government in the next twenty years no forecast is reliable.
Tuesday, 10 November 2015
Two curious "conicidences"
Fairview Homes is seeking removal of Green Belt status from land it owns (or soon will own) south of Enfield Road. (Shown blue on map.)
What's the big red area between Enfield Road, Trent Park and Hadley Road on the map?
It's more Green Belt farm land. It's red on this Private Eye map because it's owned by an offshore company, LindenTree Properties. (This is much the largest offshore property in Enfield.) I can find almost nothing about LindenTree. It may be a wholly ethical company despite a form of ownership often used to minimise tax payments and avoid public scrutiny.
But I do notice two odd 'coincidences':
What's the big red area between Enfield Road, Trent Park and Hadley Road on the map?
It's more Green Belt farm land. It's red on this Private Eye map because it's owned by an offshore company, LindenTree Properties. (This is much the largest offshore property in Enfield.) I can find almost nothing about LindenTree. It may be a wholly ethical company despite a form of ownership often used to minimise tax payments and avoid public scrutiny.
But I do notice two odd 'coincidences':
- It shares a boundary with the Fairview triangle.
- It was bought at about the same date as Fairview bought its option to buy the triangle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)