The Government’s own environmental assessment suggests the proposal could involve far more than Crews Hill Golf Course and garden centres.

Enfield residents are being asked to respond to a consultation on a proposed new town at Crews Hill and Chase Park.

But there is one basic problem.

We still do not know where the new town would actually be built.

The Government and Enfield Council have still not published the proposed boundary. Repeated Freedom of Information requests seeking this information have been refused.

The consultation documents are huge and complex. One appendix alone, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), runs to 622 pages.

But neither the consultation nor the SEA identifies the actual new town boundary. They do not identify the specific sites proposed for housing either.

Instead, the SEA says: “The design and layout of proposed development across the broad location is not known at this stage.”

That is a remarkable position. Residents are being asked to comment on a proposal for up to 21,000 homes, without being told where those homes would go.

But the same SEA gives some clues.

It says the broad location includes: “parks such as Whitewebbs Park, Hill [sic] Fields Park and Trent Park.”

It also says the broad location includes: “Botany Bay Cricket Club, Crews Hill Golf Club, Southgate Hockey Centre, Trent Park Golf Club and Enfield Golf Club.”

So this is not just about Crews Hill Golf Course and garden centres after all.

The Government’s own environmental assessment points to a much wider area, including major parks, sports grounds, golf courses, nurseries, garden centres, existing homes and local businesses.

And it goes further. The SEA says the new town could result in the loss of large areas of greenfield land and, potentially, formal open space, sports and recreational facilities. By the SEA’s own estimate, almost two-thirds of the broad location is greenfield land.

We are very concerned that residents have to dig through a 622-page SEA to discover that other golf courses, parks and sports facilities are named as being within the broad location being assessed for the 21,000-home new town.

So why will the Government and Enfield Council not publish the boundary?

If the plans are still too vague to show residents where development might happen, the consultation is premature.

If the boundary exists but is being withheld, residents are being denied the basic information they need to respond properly.

Either way, this is not good enough.

The concern many residents will have is obvious. With local elections taking place on 7 May, is the true extent of the proposal being kept vague until after polling day?

That question now needs a clear and urgent answer.

People should not have to read through hundreds of pages of technical documents to try to work out whether their local park, sports ground, golf course, business or neighbourhood may be affected.

Nor should they be expected to go to the polls without basic information about the borough’s future.

The Government and Enfield Council should publish the proposed boundary, identify the land being considered, and give residents a proper chance to respond.

No boundary. No proper consultation. No new town.