Green-Tory Alliance Threatens Labour’s New Town Plan in Enfield 2026

Key Points

• No Overall Control: Following the local elections on 7 May 2026, Enfield Council has fallen into no overall control, with Labour losing its majority.
• Election Results: The Conservatives emerged as the largest group with 31 seats, followed by Labour with 27, and the Green Party holding 5 seats.
• Unlikely Alliance: Green councillors are in talks to team up with the Conservatives to block Labour’s flagship “new town” development.
• Green Belt Protection: Both the Conservatives and Greens campaigned on manifestos explicitly pledging to protect the Green Belt at Crews Hill and Chase Park.
• Project Scale: The proposed development aims to build up to 21,000 homes, significantly more than the 6,000 originally proposed in the draft Local Plan.
• Ministerial Pressure: The Labour central government had designated Enfield as one of seven confirmed locations for its national “new towns” programme.
• Potential Deadlock: If the Greens and Conservatives formalise an agreement, they would hold 36 seats—a clear majority over Labour’s 27—effectively allowing them to withdraw the council’s support for the project.

Enfield (North London News) May 18, 2026 — The future of a proposed 21,000-home “new town” in North London hangs in the balance today as an emerging cross-party alliance between the Green Party and the Conservatives threatens to torpedo the central Labour government’s flagship housing development. Following a dramatic shift in local power during the May 2026 elections, Enfield Council is now under no overall control, leaving the Green Party’s five councillors holding the balance of power. Both opposition parties have expressed a shared determination to halt any development on the borough’s Green Belt, specifically targeting the Crews Hill and Chase Park sites that were central to Labour’s urban expansion strategy.

Will a Green-Tory Coalition Block the Crews Hill Development?

The political landscape in Enfield has shifted significantly following the results of the local elections held on 7 May 2026.

As reported by the Enfield Dispatch, the Labour Party, which previously held a firm majority, saw its seat count dwindle to 27, while the Conservatives rose to 31 seats. This result left the Green Party, with 5 seats, as the ultimate kingmakers.

According to reports from Tom Lowe of Building Design, both the Conservatives and the Greens campaigned on a platform of protecting the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Enfield Conservative manifesto explicitly pledged to

“immediately withdraw from the new town process”

and scrap plans for building at Crews Hill and Vicarage Farm. This sentiment was echoed by the Greens, who have prioritised the preservation of green spaces over the high-density housing targets set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

As noted by James Bone in local reporting, the discussions between the two parties are “unusual but focused.” As reported by On London, Green councillor Laura Davenport stated:

“I think the Tories have that in common with us. If we want the best for the borough, we have to work together.”

This potential alliance aims to use their combined 36-seat majority to vote down any motions related to the “new town” and potentially withdraw the council’s expression of interest in the government’s scheme.

Why Did the Labour Vote Share Collapse in North London?

Enfield was one of seven councils in the capital to fall to no overall control as the Labour Party’s vote share across London experienced what analysts describe as a historic decline.

As reported by psephologists Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for LGC Plus, Labour endured a “historic defeat” caught in a pincer movement by parties to its left and right.

The data suggests that while the Conservatives maintained their core support in outer London, the Green Party and Reform UK made significant inroads into traditional Labour territory.

In Enfield, the collapse was attributed largely to local opposition to the “new town” project. As reported by The Enfield Dispatch, residents in the north of the borough expressed deep-seated fears regarding the loss of open spaces and the strain on local infrastructure.

Alessandro Georgiou, leader of the Conservative group, told the media that he would do “everything possible” to scrap the project, claiming that the electorate had given a clear mandate for the protection of the Green Belt.

Can Sadiq Khan Overrule the Local Council?

With local councillors threatening to withdraw from the development process, questions have been raised regarding whether the Mayor of London or the central government can intervene.

As reported by Building Design, there is speculation that Mayor Sadiq Khan may seek to head off local opposition by removing the scheme from council control and placing it under a development corporation.

Historically, the Mayor has the power to take over planning applications of “strategic importance.” However, such a move would be politically sensitive. As reported by On London, Khan had previously spent years opposing the development of Enfield’s Green Belt before performing a U-turn in 2025, a move that critics suggest contributed to the Labour Party’s local losses.

Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader and London Assembly member, has been vocal in his criticism, stating that the Greens would provide a better alternative for “genuinely affordable” housing without sacrificing the environment.

What is the Government’s Stance on the Enfield New Town?

Despite the local turmoil, the Labour government remains committed to its national housing targets. In March 2026, Secretary of State for Housing Steve Reed confirmed Crews Hill as a landmark site. As reported by The Enfield Dispatch, Reed stated:

“People want real homes they can actually afford and infrastructure that really works – this government is making that a reality for communities across the country.”

Reed’s colleague, housing minister Matthew Pennycook, had previously described the Crews Hill site as

“very promising” with growth potential that was “clear as day.” The government’s proposal for 21,000 homes includes a target of 40% affordable housing, with at least half for social rent.

However, as reported by Housing Today, the local Conservative and Green groups remain unconvinced, arguing that the project would result in “high-rise blocks” that are out of character with the area.

Background of the Crews Hill Development

The saga of the Crews Hill development began in 2021 when the then-Labour-run Enfield Council drafted a Local Plan that identified the area for approximately 6,000 homes. The site, which consists of a cluster of garden centres and former nursery land in the Metropolitan Green Belt, was seen as a vital resource for meeting London’s chronic housing shortage.

By 2025, following the election of a national Labour government with a mandate to “get Britain building,” the scope of the project was dramatically expanded.

The New Towns Taskforce identified Enfield as a prime location for a “new town,” effectively combining the Crews Hill and Chase Park areas to accommodate 21,000 homes.

This expansion was met with immediate resistance from local conservation groups, such as The Enfield Society, which launched petitions against the release of Green Belt land.

The political tension escalated when the national government confirmed Enfield as one of only seven sites to be fast-tracked for development.

This move forced local councillors into a difficult position, balancing the demands of their national party against the increasingly vocal opposition of their constituents. The May 2026 local elections served as a referendum on this issue, resulting in the current political stalemate.

Prediction: How This Development Will Affect Enfield Residents

If the Green-Tory alliance successfully blocks the “new town” project, Enfield residents can expect a significant period of planning uncertainty.

For those living in the north of the borough, particularly near Crews Hill and Whitewebbs, the immediate result will be the preservation of current green spaces and a halt to the anticipated construction traffic and noise. However, this may come at a cost to younger residents and those on the housing waiting list, as the 8,400 affordable homes promised by the project would be cancelled or significantly delayed.

Furthermore, a “torpedoed” new town project could lead to a legal and administrative battle between Enfield Council and the Greater London Authority (GLA). If the Mayor of London decides to bypass the council via a development corporation, residents may find themselves with even less influence over the final design of the project than they currently have. Conversely, if the project is scrapped entirely, the borough will likely face immense pressure from the central government to identify alternative brownfield sites for high-density development, potentially leading to taller tower blocks in urban centres like Edmonton and Southgate to compensate for the lost housing numbers.