A rights-based case for new homes at Crews Hill and Chase Park

In the not-so-sleepy suburbs of London, a political battle is underway. Proposals for up to 21,000 homes at Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield, have been withdrawn from the Government's New Town Programme by the incoming Conservative minority-controlled council. The plans, centred on an existing station with links to central London, were already controversial and withdrawing them was a pre-election commitment from politicians.But, are elected members balancing the views of the constituents who voted for them with the rights of those who may not have, but are still deeply affected by their decisions?Over the past year, my practice, We Made That, has been working with Key Cities to develop Rights to Place, a report advocating for spatial justice in UK cities. Through that work, we have been speaking with local authorities, communities and charity representatives across the country to understand rights-based approaches to the built environment. One of the key pillars of spatial justice we identified is the ‘Right to a Home'. With one in three children in London living in temporary accommodation, the debate around Crews Hill can usefully be framed in terms of the rights of people who are unhoused, many of whom may not live near the proposed areas of growth.Commissioned by Enfield LBC and working alongside Alan Baxter on the Chase Park Masterplan in 2025, we found that by reaching out to communities across the borough, targeting a broad demographic with particular focus on young families and residents in areas of high housing need, we were able to engage in highly informed and revealing conversations. By thinking of the ‘Right to a Home' and reflecting the needs of those who either don't have one, or who see little prospect of gaining their own in the future, we can gain a more complete picture of what is truly at stake in debates like this. The most vocal participants in planning discussions are rarely those most in need of the homes being considered. This comprised a programme of in-person engagement events, each designed to meet people where they already gather, lowering barriers to participation and ensuring a genuine diversity of voices. Our methodology combined tactile sticker-voting exercises, reflective prompts drawing on lived experience, and curated visual precedents to stimulate discussion around housing types, outdoor spaces, streets, and community infrastructure. A session with the Enfield Youth Council also brought an additional educational dimension, building young people's understanding of the planning process whilst capturing long-range aspirations from the 11 to 19 age group.Across these conversations, what stood out was not opposition to new housing but a clear appetite for it. Many residents felt that additional homes are essential to remain in the place they love. Four clear, specific themes emerged across the engagement. First, fostering community interaction was a consistent priority, with participants calling for shared spaces that reduce social isolation across all age groups. Second, there was broad backing for a genuinely mixed offer of homes, from terraced houses and maisonettes to well-designed, mid-rise flats, all built to high environmental standards and supported by both private and shared outdoor space. Third, green infrastructure was valued not simply as visual amenity but as multi-functional space supporting wellbeing, biodiversity, food growing, children's education, and intergenerational connection. Fourth, there was support for moving away from car dependency, provided that viable alternatives, including car clubs, e-bikes, safe cycling routes and well-connected mobility hubs are delivered alongside it.Very little of this depth of understanding and aspiration for quality is reflected in the mainstream debate around Enfield's New Town, yet each of these priorities offers a clue as to the new kinds of development that could be supported at Crews Hill and Chase Park, if it's given a chance. With careful design and investment, these could be places that open up access to closed-off green spaces, that support the rewilding of monocultural agricultural land and that support future generations to live comfortable and active lifestyles. Perhaps most importantly, the scale of housing delivery that's possible at Crews Hill and Chase Park could make a meaningful dent in London's housing need in a way that will be all but impossible to achieve via other means. By thinking of the ‘Right to a Home' and reflecting the needs of those who either don't have one, or who see little prospect of gaining their own in the future, we can gain a more complete picture of what is truly at stake in debates like this. The most vocal participants in planning discussions are rarely those most in need of the homes being considered. A rights-based approach does not dismiss the concerns of existing residents; it broadens the conversation to include those who currently have no seat at the table. If decisions like those being made in Enfield are to be genuinely accountable, they must weigh the rights of the unhoused alongside the preferences of those who are already housed. That is, perhaps, the most important conversation we are yet to have. Holly Lewis, co-founding partner, We Made That

Title

HOUSING

A rights-based case for new homes at Crews Hill and Chase Park

By Holly Lewis | 08 June 2026

Popular articles by Holly Lewis

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by Holly Lewis