The Overview & Scrutiny Committee of Enfield Council met on Monday 26 January 2026. The primary focus of the meeting was to consider a call-in of a Cabinet decision regarding the disposal of surplus property at New Cottage Farm, Junction 24, M25, The Ridgeway, Enfield. The committee was scheduled to review the call-in procedure, the reasons for the call-in, and the officer's response.

Call-In of Cabinet Decision: Surplus Property Disposal – Land at New Cottage Farm

The committee was scheduled to consider a call-in of the decision made by the Cabinet on 14 January 2026 concerning the disposal of surplus property at New Cottage Farm, located south of the M25 motorway, north of The Ridgeway, and adjacent to Junction 24 of the M25. This decision was included on the Publication of Decision List issued on 14 January 2026.

The agenda included a review of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) Call-in Procedure and Guidance, which outlines the options available to the committee. These options include taking no further action, referring the decision back to the decision-making body for reconsideration, or referring the matter to the full Council. The procedure also details the steps for presenting the case for the call-in, officer responses, and general debate.

The report pack indicated that the call-in was initiated by a group of councillors, including Councillor Edward Smith, Councillor Chris Joannides, Councillor Tom O'Halloran, Councillor Reece Fox, Councillor Andrew Thorpe, Councillor Joanne Laban, Councillor Andy Milne, and Councillor Chris Dey.

A key reason for the call-in, as detailed in the reasons for call-in document, related to Green Belt Issues. Concerns were raised that the Council's decision to sell the land was premature, given that the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had not yet announced a decision on the proposed Local Plan, which designates the site for non-residential development. The call-in document stated:

The decision by the Council to sell the land is therefore premature given its planning status is undecided. This is likely to add to the uncertainty over the development timescale for the proposed scheme and is the first of several risks that may delay it.

The officer's response, however, maintained that land ownership and disposal decisions are separate from plan-making and development management functions. It was argued that any change in planning policy or land use can only occur through the Local Plan Examination or a subsequent plan-making process, and that future development would require planning permission. The Council considered that proceeding with the disposal presented a good opportunity and did not prejudice the Inspector's role in the Examination. The response also noted that the proposed disposal is subject to statutory consents from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and the Duchy of Lancaster.

The original report to Cabinet, dated 14 January 2026, outlined the purpose of the disposal as approving the sale of Green Belt land totalling 27.6 acres. The land is situated partly within the London Borough of Enfield and partly within Hertsmere Borough Council. The report detailed that the land was declared part of the Green Belt round London by virtue of Deeds of Declaration dated 11 August 1937 and 6 October 1941. To sell the land and release it from restrictive covenants, the Council needed to apply for consent from the DLUHC and the Duchy of Lancaster. The report recommended agreeing to the sale, subject to obtaining these consents, and authorising the Director of Property to finalise the Heads of Terms.

The report also highlighted that the sale would deliver a capital receipt to the Council, contributing to the Council's capital strategy targets. Financial implications included the potential to avoid interest costs if the capital receipt was used to repay debt. Legal implications detailed the requirements of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, which mandates achieving the best consideration reasonably obtainable, and the procedures for off-market disposals. It was noted that the sale was not based on an open marketing exercise but an unsolicited offer.

The report also addressed environmental and climate change implications, stating that any development would result in significant carbon emissions that should be mitigated by compliance with planning policies and best practice. An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) Stage 1 screening was attached, which indicated no significant equality impacts.

A supplementary agenda indicated that Part 2 of the meeting would involve the exclusion of press and public due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person.

The meeting was also scheduled to note the dates of future meetings.