Forum topic: The David Burrowes "referendum"

In my view, David Burrowes' "referendum" on the A105 Cycle Enfield proposals is unnecessary, unsatisfactory and risks just confusing matters.

1. There has already been a lengthy (3 month) widely publicised consultation exercise, run in accordance with the usual methodology. Information about the scheme has in fact been available for over a year. Anyone taking an interest in local matters would have been aware of the information from the Council, the numerous letters for and agsinst to both newspapers and the poster campaign run by Save Our Green Lanes. As always, the vast majority of people weren't interested enough to respond. Having said that, the number that did respond is considerably higher than is normal for council consultations.


2. The consultation was "complicated" because it was thorough, providing details for the entire route so that the public could make their own judgements as to whether or not the plans were sound. If it had not been so detailed, the Council would justifiably have been accused of hiding things.


3. We do not yet know the full results of the consultation, only the easily derived online overall approve/disapprove figures. There were reportedly many responses sent in by other methods.


4. There can be no certainty as to whether the "referendum" pack has been delivered to everyone who should have a voice.


5. One pack per household is undemocratic. The size of households varies from one person to many and all adults are entitled to a view.


6. Many recipients, seeing a pack from an MP coming through their door, will throw it straight in the bin and fail to notice what it refers to. (No disrespect intended to David Burrowes or MPs in general - I do not share the widespread contempt for MPs that has been spread by the gutter press)


7. People will be voting without knowing the current details of the proposals, which probably include some significant changes in response to the feedback from the official consultation.


8. It is normal practice to employ an impartial body to send out voting papers and count the returns, such as the Electoral Reform Society - this is not going to happen.

I have found the actual detail on the N21online home page. This is not a referendum on the A105 Green Lanes section of Cycle Enfield as Basil implies but rather is headed as a Referendum on the scheme itself, ie the Mini Holland / Cycle Enfield programme affecting the approximate one third of a million residents of Enfield, as well as its businesses and visitors. However it is limited to (all / some of?) David Burrowes’ constituents. (And so not local businesses).


The “voting” limitation includes part of Basil’s point 5 in addressing household adults but also what about my son and other children, a key target market for this forward looking project; why ignore them? The A105 Consultation didn’t. The public meeting and indeed Fox Lane workshops on the linked and hugely supported Cycle Enfield Quiet Neighbourhoods work didn’t.


The letter’s attachments - views of opponents, is focused specifically on the A105 scheme. It is almost word for word the A105 consultation submission of FERAA, who are a representative voice of our Resident Associations. I’m a member of two local Resident Associations and am still waiting the opportunity to provide thoughts for input so such a representative picture can be laid out. Missed that boat it seems, and based on the consultation results so far it looks unlikely FERAA are representing the collective voices of residents within the various organisations they cover in this section of the Borough. A democratic deficit I think they phrase it.


The other attachment, views of Cycle Enfield supporters, is pitched in the cycling-generality rather than being A105 specific. How are you supposed to compare and contrast these two very different papers tackling different things in being asked to come to such an impactful decision?


David Burrowes has said on his web site that the referendum will be defining for the Cycle Enfield scheme. The letter carries a date of 19 November with postcard replies required in 14 days so perhaps others are like my own household and apparently have now missed the chance to comment / vote / whatever it is.


But an Enfield wide scheme, already subject to an immense local consultation, and with several other Borough consultations currently live, with impacts on a third of a million or so of Enfield's residents, being defined by the postcards submitted by a chosen few and decided outside of the well-established planning, consultation and governance process the UK works to? We've heard a lot about democracy this week in Parliament. I'm all for it.


Let’s not forget that the Mini Holland proposals are “Sound”, ie have been determined in public hearing and under cross-examination to be: positively prepared, meeting objectively assessed development needs of the area; justified, setting out the most appropriate strategy based upon the evidence; effective, being deliverable and addressing cross boundary issues; and consistent with national policy. I may not like all of it, and certainly have issues, but at least there’s an open, well-established, legally tested process in place to let me say whatever those issues may be and expect them to be reasonably considered.

I kind of agree with Colin that it is an odd referendum. It is more like a a canvassing of opinion.

It says on David Burrowes website "Andrew Gilligan has also agreed to help me with my referendum of constituents which will help determine whether constituents support the cycle lane scheme, and therefore whether it goes ahead or not. I am determined to ensure that my constituents have their voice heard by Enfield Council and the Mayor." I assume therefore that Gilligan is satisfied with the way it is being conducted.

It would have been far better if pre-numbered postcards had gone out to every elector, rather each household and returned to Electoral Reform Services. But, I imagine that would have been prohibitively expensive. It is either; all being paid for out of David Burrowes Parliamentary Allowance or he will claim it under Parliamentary expenses and, if so it would be closely scrutinised. Either way, he must be limited to a tight budget.

Simple "yes" "no" options only would have been better, though.

Nevertheless it is likely to give a far better representation of local feeling towards the A105 scheme than the Council's consultation results summary. After all you didn't have to live in the Borough, let alone the A105 corridor in order to take part in their consultation and the summary of responses was very much at odds with the feeling at the three public meetings.

Perhaps this is because, it was difficult for less IT literate people to complete and if you didn't have a computer it was extremely difficult to obtain I paper copy. I tested it. Furthermore It could be completed by anyone anywhere in the world and multiple submissions, made. All you needed to do was put in a postcode. And it only needs Google maps and Royal Mail postcode finder, to come up with one of those. It was very easy to hijack. I didn't test that!

The Council received over 800 SOGL postcards from local people opposing the scheme, but these were NOT included in the consulation summary. Whilst some of those people may have completed a consultation response, most probably did not.

Karl, interesting that the letter in the pack you received is dated 19th November, The one delivered through my letterbox yesterday is undated.

This gets worse: a postcard response with yes, no, maybe and don’t know options available to a segment of Enfield (only) , compared to all the consultation and workshop efforts going on across the Borough and somehow expected to give a clearer picture of public feeling. And paid for, it seems, out of the public purse, on top of the public purse meeting the much wider work.


And even if the packs had gone numbered to every elector as is suggested, the question remains what about children and also what about all the shopkeepers who have been making so much noise on this subject. Ignore them I suppose, more key groups within Enfield who don’t count.


I (my household that is) don’t have a pack (yet or ever I don’t know which). The documents on N21online, which I’ve taken to be the version some are allowed to vote on, contains the 19th November date with instructions to return within 14 days, ie today (3rd December).


Oh dear.

Karl, surely local people, the ones likely to be most affected should have the final say. Children are more enfranchised with this "referendum" than they would be in a more formal one. With this, the whole household can come to their collective opinion.

Surely, if the referendum is being funded by an allowance it doesn't involve any additional public expense. If it is coming from expenses it will be closely scrutinised and would certainly be money better spent than a duck island or £2,600 TV.

And by the way, you didn't look at the N21 website properly, the letter shown there does not show the N21 date.

Can’t speak on funding, noting only that you appear to have insight to the process. Better than other ways to spend £2600? I can’t add.


Not sure what not showing the N21 date (N21 date of what I wonder) refers to nor how to look at a web site properly / improperly, I was simply commenting that the referendum letter hosted on that site has a date of 19th November on it which suggests a referendum end-date now in the past.


I have never come across a household collective opinion being determined as a part of a UK election / referendum vote. It certainly feels an unusual approach. And it still seems strange given the weight of issues put forward by and on behalf of local traders and landlords that they are being excluded in a referendum you say is seeking to address the local people most affected. Maybe the parking changes made since the first proposal mean they’re not feeling affected any more. But no one is going to find that out through this particular process.

Tracking through the contributions to this thread I was particularly struck by this paragraph taken from Paul Mandel's contribution on the 3 December:

Nevertheless it is likely to give a far better representation of local feeling towards the A105 scheme than the Council's consultation results summary. After all you didn't have to live in the Borough, let alone the A105 corridor in order to take part in their consultation and the summary of responses was very much at odds with the feeling at the three public meetings.

and this one taken from Paul's contribution on the 4th December:

Karl, surely local people, the ones likely to be most affected should have the final say.

Both of which seem to reflect a mind which has chosen to limit the scope of the issues to the preferences of residents on the route, or affected by the route, rather than looking at the issues as a whole:

- the needs of people traveling (which after all it's the primary function of roads and not confined to residents of The Borough of Enfield);

- health and fitness issues;

- democratic issues i.e. the right of individuals, whether driver/motorcyclist or cyclist to by travel by their most convenient route,

- the right to travel safely;

- the effect of traffic (whether cyclists, motorcyclists or drivers ) on local communities;

Hope I haven't missed anything.

Looked at in this way it is only too clear that the so-called referendum organised by the local MP David Burrowes cannot decide the issue, and that in terms of an overall view the Council's consultation is superior in principle and information collected. Just a pity that more people didn't respond to that consultation, though measured in terms of consultations generally the response was better than most.

For the past few days I've been following and contributing to a thread about the Green Lanes and Enfield Town on the Streetlife website. The anger against the proposals is palpable which may be justified, though I can't tell because I haven't followed the Green Lanes in any depth, and I'm not at all knowledgeable about Enfield Town. What is clear however is that no-one is prepared to even think about the problems - even when prompted - of a growing population and the extra cars likely to ensue, or, for example poor air quality and other health issues. The arguments are all about how changes are likely to affect them as individuals in terms of convenience, though often the fears of shopkeepers are brought in as support.

Well, those issues are important and real needs satisfied, but for the Council, for London's mayor, the horizon has to be an overall better place to live, and for me a more pedestrian focused town centre, with a plaza in front of a new set-back railway station, has to be a strong contender for better future.

Given the wide spread of issues it would be an absolute travesty if these proposals were to be settled via a referendum about one facet of opinion. Should it settled in that way I'd expect a legal challenge, and I'd be confident of the success of that challenge.