Why Enfield’s New Town Vision Risks Jobs and Community
The “bold vision” for Crews Hill, wrapped in the language of a New Town designation, is being sold as progress. But for the hundreds of people whose livelihoods depend on the area’s businesses, including the horticultural nurseries, garden centres, landscapers, builders’ yards, and family-run suppliers, the reality is far more precarious.
The current narrative paints Crews Hill in Enfield as underutilised land waiting to be transformed into thousands of homes. What it does not acknowledge is that this transformation will come at the cost of hundreds of jobs, decades of entrepreneurship, and the quiet resilience of family businesses that have weathered economic downturns, supply chain shocks, and the rise of online retail. These businesses are not “in the way.” They are the backbone of Crews Hill’s economic identity, they are the “builders, not the blockers”.
Across London, employment land is recognised as a strategic asset. The London Mayor rightly protects Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) and other designated employment zones because they generate jobs, sustain local economies, and provide essential services. In Enfield itself, strategic protections have been put in place for Edmonton’s industrial estates as well as for industrial land that is clearly underutilised (see image below). Policymakers understand that once employment land is lost, it cannot easily be replaced.
Figure 1 – Underused and even empty industrial land in Brimsdown that could be used for thousands of homes is protected by the Mayor. Source: Better Homes Enfield
Why, then, is Crews Hill treated differently? Why are its longstanding businesses, which provide employment for hundreds of people, considered disposable in the pursuit of “boldness”?
The New Town Task Force and politicians repeat the word “bold” as though it excuses the absence of respect for the businesses at Crews Hill. But boldness need not be callous. True boldness lies in creating a future that is shared, one that works with, not against, these employers and the skilled workers and the families who have built their lives here.
The current approach sweeps aside livelihoods while hiding behind rhetoric. The uncertainty this creates for employees, many of whom have spent their working lives in Crews Hill, is unnecessary and cruel. It undermines trust in planning and reduces the human cost of redevelopment to a footnote.
There is another way. A redevelopment strategy could respect these businesses by working with them from the very beginning, planning for continuity by creating space at Crews Hill where businesses can remain, evolve, relocate and grow, rather than forcing closure.
Of course, there will not always be agreement. Delivering the number of new homes Enfield needs, including at Crews Hill, will inevitably involve compromise, difficult choices and significant change. But compromise must be fair, and change should be managed with honesty and care. Success will not be measured by everyone getting what they want, but by whether people feel they have been treated with dignity. This means co-designing the future of Crews Hill with those who know the land, supply chains, and customer base best. There is a better way, a respectful one, working towards a shared future which recognises the need for both housing and jobs.
Enfield can be bold without being brutal. It can lead in showing how a New Town can be delivered with humanity, balancing the need for homes with jobs, growth with continuity. But that requires genuine leadership and a fundamental shift in mindset: from seeing established businesses as obstacles to treating them as collaborators. It means properly understanding the social value of work and recognising that local employment sustains not only incomes but community ties, skills, and a sense of dignity.
Crews Hill’s future is not just a question of land use. It is a question of respect. Unless respect is at the heart of this redevelopment, boldness will simply be another word for callousness.
Better Homes Enfield 