please empty your brain below

It's a lovely area that I once had the privilege of having on my doorstep. I hope the anti-development campaigers succeed, and although Trent Park House is being converted to residential, there are well-advanced plans for a museum to honour it's history and role during WWII.
London's green belt should be sacrosanct but it seems like our green wedges, it isn't and open to the whims of local councils at the behest of developers.
Sorry to carp but I found it difficult to find the location on Google maps, in fact I failed.

Also a link to Trent Park would be worthwhile.

However very readable as always.
Map link: paragraph 1, paragraph 3

Trent Park map link: paragraph 8
Rather vitriolic words used in this blogpost.

Whoever wrote the developers wording is still a person and most likely needs a job to support themselves and any loved ones. There are many jobs they could undertake that would have worse outcomes for society as a whole.

Although you may not agree with the words they have used or the underlying rationale for why they have done this, would you reconsider the comments you have made and make them less abusive?
It's my DG comes to my neighbourhood moment. Trent Park is lovely, a regular walking route and a godsend during lockdown.
The Housing being built on the site already is annoying but the site is big enough to avoid it and i guess there was a fair amount of derelict student housing on the site beforehand - so some justification.
Although i appreciate the Council is compelled to find sites for development, the farm site seems much much worse for development and the development appears to be on a much bigger scale. The developer justifications also bear a questionable relationship with the truth 'Vicarage Farm is already surrounded on 3 sites by development'.
Have i become a NIMBY ?
Thanks to DG for bringing this to my attention.
I've done that walk as part of a longer day trip walk around Trent Park, then continuing on the LOOP eastwards, before returning back on the Merryhills path.

Personally, I don't think the councillors never really wanted development here (and other parts of the green belt nearby) to happen. A few years ago, a previous version of our current government set local councils strict housing targets, which impossible to meet without building on open space and green belt. They were so unpopular, especially with Tory voters, costing them the Chesham and Amersham seat, that the government has rolled back on this.
People need homes to live in a lot more than they need fields to look at!

I do a fairly well-paid job and still can't see myself living in anything other than a mouldy flatshare if I want to stay in London. It wasn't like that when the Green Belt was brought in - the balance of considerations has changed. We are committing suicide as an economy and society if we can't build.
I can't help wondering if you had a "press the buzzer" moment on encountering that sign about keeping dogs on a lead. I suspect I would have.
I do like A Nice Walk! It always soothes the soul.
Shame this one ended with a jolt!
It seems developers only see open space in terms of money to be made.
Yes, housing is needed, but as you say, for everyday people.
If you don't build houses for the rich, the rich don't disappear. They just take what would otherwise be (what used to be) housing for ordinary people.
So they don't have a Neighbourhood Development Plan in Enfield.
Which aspect of this development do the developers see as "sustainable"? It's yet more car-borne, Ocado delivery van-served rural sprawl.
If Oakwood Station's a mile away from the development, it sounds perfectly walkable to me. By the time you've got your car, and negotiated the traffic caused by lazy commuters, a walker would be pretty much home.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy