Poor consultations, where local authorities or developers seem to be going through the motions of listening to local people, are all too common. But the Government’s new town consultation was especially poor, particularly given the scale and importance of what is being proposed.
Imagine being asked whether you support a major new housing development.
Before answering, you would probably want to know some basic things. Where will it be built? How parks, roads, businesses, homes, woodlands and wildlife sites will be affected? What type of buildings are proposed? What will happen to traffic, local infrastructure, public access and green space?
Now imagine being asked to judge the proposal without being given that information.
That is effectively what happened during the Government’s consultation about the new town.
The consultation showed a broad new town area including Trent Park, Whitewebbs Park, Forty Hall, homes, businesses, farms, sports clubs, stables, designated wildlife sites and large areas of Enfield’s historic landscape. But it didn’t show how each of these would be affected. It also didn’t show where the development would go, what would be protected, what would be lost, or when any of this might happen.
This is a serious failing. It means that residents, businesses and local groups were being asked to respond to a proposal they could not properly understand or assess.
To many of us, this hasn’t come as a surprise. Local campaign groups have been asking for more information about the proposed new town at Crews Hill and Chase Park for months. Those requests have been refused, including requests made under Freedom of Information rules.
That is bad enough. But it gets worse.
The Government’s consultation was accompanied by a 600-page technical document called a Strategic Environmental Assessment, or SEA. This type of assessment is supposed to help decision-makers and the public understand the environmental consequences of major development proposals before big decisions are taken.
But the consultants who carried out the SEA also appear to have been kept in the dark.
As a result, there is confusion about even the most basic information. For example, the Government refers to the broad location of the new town as covering around 884 hectares, but the area assessed in the SEA covers a much larger area, around 2,000 hectares.
Because key information was missing about the proposed new town, the SEA could not reach reliable conclusions on major issues. Key questions about transport, public parks, ecology, landscape, water, infrastructure, carbon, existing jobs and public access are left largely unanswered. This raises questions as to why the SEA was allowed to go-ahead without the information needed to form robust conclusions.
These are not the only problems. In our full consultation response, we set out further technical and methodological concerns with the SEA. But even if those were fixed, the basic problem would remain: the assessment went ahead without first establishing what was actually being assessed.
And yes, that is as ridiculous as it sounds.
At best, the Government’s approach shows a concerning lack of understanding of the role and quality of key evidence. At worst, it raises serious questions about whether key information about the new town is being hidden from the public.
That may sound strong. But Feryal Clark, one of Enfield’s MPs, recently said she has “finally seen a proposed site boundary” and concluded that the current proposal is too large. She described the development as “excessive” and called for the new town to be scaled down. That site boundary should have been available to the public during the consultation.
Instead, residents, businesses, local groups and, it seems, even the Government’s own consultants, were placed in the bizarre position of being asked to assess and comment on a new town proposal without being given the information needed to do so.
Six local campaign groups, including Better Homes Enfield, made a formal complaint about the consultation in May 2026. The Government has still not properly responded to the concerns raised. We also asked for an extension to give people more time to respond to the consultation, but this was refused.
This was not a transparent or sound basis for a consultation. Nor was it a sound basis for an environmental assessment. It did not treat local people, businesses or community groups fairly or with respect.
Instead, it has made people frustrated and undermined public trust and confidence in the Government. We are calling on the Government to change its approach and to work with local communities, not against them.
Better Homes Enfield 