Our investigation of small-site housing developments in Enfield found that over 90% failed to fully comply with the conditions of their planning approvals, raising serious questions about the Council’s oversight of these schemes.

Small sites can help tackle Enfield’s housing crisis. Across the borough, new homes are being squeezed onto small plots of land, gardens are being divided, and houses, offices and shops are being converted into flats.

When the Council grants planning permission for these developments, it usually attaches planning conditions that developers are legally required to meet.

These conditions are important. They help ensure new homes are built to an acceptable standard, are healthy to live in, sustainable and accessible, and that negative impacts on neighbours and the surrounding area are minimised. They can require developers to provide trees, green landscaping and biodiversity protections as well as measures that reduce flooding, noise, energy use and ensure the land is not contaminated.

Government guidance makes clear that effective planning enforcement is essential to protect the integrity of planning decisions and maintain public confidence in the planning system.

However, our research of recently completed small-site housing schemes in Enfield found that planning conditions are almost never fully complied with. Of the 34 developments we assessed, over 90% failed to comply fully with the conditions of their approval.

For example, developers failed to:

• Protect the local environment: Trees, landscaping, green spaces and biodiversity measures were not provided as approved.
• Protect neighbours and the character of the area: Design features and parking controls intended to reduce negative impacts on neighbouring properties, the streetscape and the local area were not delivered.
• Provide adequate access and waste facilities: Cycle parking, pedestrian access, accessibility measures and refuse and recycling storage were routinely missing.
• Deliver energy and water-saving measures: Required low-carbon technologies, energy efficiency measures and water efficiency standards were not met.
• Meet drainage, flooding and environmental safeguards: Drainage requirements were not fulfilled, and required land contamination and flood risk assessments were missing.
• Comply with construction requirements: Approved construction management arrangements were not followed.

Why does this matter?

When promised insulation, solar panels, heat pumps and water-saving measures are not delivered, residents can face higher bills. When trees, landscaping and biodiversity measures are not provided, neighbourhoods lose green space and wildlife habitats. Poor drainage can increase flood risk, while excessive car parking and inadequate cycle facilities encourage greater car dependency. And when design measures intended to protect neighbours are ignored, residents can lose privacy and suffer other impacts on their homes.

Developers can save money by failing to deliver what was approved. Trees, cycle stores, solar panels and health and environmental safeguards all cost money. If these are required as part of a planning approval but never provided, developers may benefit financially while residents, neighbours and the wider community bear the consequences.

And the scale of small-site development makes this particularly important.

Around 350 new homes are currently built each year on small sites across Enfield. That is more in a single year than Meridian Water has managed to deliver in nearly 20 years. The draft new London Plan expects a further 5,155 homes to be built on small sites in Enfield over 10 years.

An individual breach of a planning condition might seem relatively minor. But when the same failures are repeated across hundreds of developments, year after year, the damage to Enfield’s environment and neighbourhoods adds up.

Why is planning compliance so weak in Enfield?

Many of the failures we identified were easy to spot. The developments we investigated were all within approximately 1,200 metres of Enfield Civic Centre and could readily have been inspected by Council officers. Other failures could also have been identified simply by checking the Council’s own planning records.

Yet we could find no public evidence of enforcement action being taken by the Council to address the breaches we identified.

This raises serious questions about whether the Council is checking that developments comply with their planning conditions and, where breaches are identified, whether action is taken to put things right.

If developers can disregard planning conditions without facing consequences, what incentive do they have to comply?

On the evidence we found, the Council is failing to ensure that developers deliver what they were given planning permission to build.

Conclusion

Better Homes Enfield strongly supports the delivery of new homes on small sites. They are an important part of Enfield’s housing strategy. Done well, they can provide a steady supply of additional homes in sustainable locations, without the need for large and complex redevelopment schemes, while offering opportunities for smaller and local housebuilders.

But our research shows that far more attention is needed to ensure that what is promised when planning permission is granted is actually delivered. As things stand, the Council appears to be asleep at the wheel.

If the Council is not checking whether developers comply with their planning permissions, what is the point of imposing planning conditions in the first place?

The whole process risks becoming a performative exercise, creating the appearance of high standards without ensuring they are delivered. It also risks undermining public trust in Council decision-making and the planning system.

Enfield Council’s new Local Plan sets out a vision to deliver “high-quality affordable homes” and to tackle climate change by “delivering sustainable buildings and transport solutions and effectively managing flood risk.” It commits to Enfield becoming “a deeply green place” where “improved biodiversity, greener urban environments, and better air and water quality shall deliver places where residents’ lives are enriched with nature.”

But what is the point of promising greener, healthier and more sustainable neighbourhoods if the Council does not ensure that developers deliver to the standards required?

Our investigation raises serious questions about the Council’s commitment to turning its vision into reality. Right now, that commitment appears to be paper thin.

Appendix: Research Methodology

Small sites are defined as those measuring less than 0.25 hectares, roughly a third of a football pitch. They include garden and backland developments, redevelopment of other underused plots of land (such as dilapidated detached homes and old garage sites), conversions of existing buildings into flats, and new homes built on small pockets of land. Most deliver a few new homes, usually between one and three, although some deliver considerably more.

We examined small-site housing developments on randomly selected streets within approximately 1,200 metres of Enfield Civic Centre. Developments were selected without prior knowledge of whether planning conditions had been breached.

The only requirements were that the development had received planning permission and construction was sufficiently complete to assess compliance with its planning conditions.

We examined the relevant planning applications, approved drawings and conditions, and visited the developments to compare what had been approved with what had been built. Our site inspections were limited to features visible from publicly accessible areas. We also checked publicly available planning records to establish whether conditions requiring formal approval had been discharged.

The research was carried out during September and October 2026.