Forum topic: The David Burrowes "referendum"

Karl, the though traffic will move on to Grovelands Road. The residents there will lose out, as will those neighbours of yours in Old Park Road, who do not want their direct access to Aldermans Hill or Fox Lane closed. No one is going to be worse of than they are now, if David Burrowes referendum, results in the funding for cycle superhighway being blocked.

So in short: if you do nothing, nothing happens.

Some interesting points raised in this discussion, but let's get back to basics - this is not a referendum and never could be. David Burrowes does not have jurisdiction over these proposals and so could never put into practice the will of the majority. In any event, his constituents are only a part of the community affected by Cycle Enfield.

I'm pleased that he is consulting his constituents, but also curious as to why he has chosen this topic. I don't remember being consulted on how he would vote, say, in the recent discussion on Syria, or indeed on any other matter.

What topics does he think should be subject to a referendum and which through the representative democracy?

It's also strange that he has chosen a topic that has been the subject of a wide consultation already. If he believes that the Council's consultation was inadequate then surely this should be addressed directly rather than launching a separate poll?

Much more important, I think, to address issues about how Cycle Enfield will be implemented. I'm concerned that the 'humps' will not create a sufficient barrier to make cyclists feel safe or stop vehicles parking over them. And there are other topics raised recently about the need for a holistic design etc. I think this is where we should be putting our effort!

“ ..if David Burrowes referendum, results in the funding for cycle superhighway being blocked.”


Difficult to find issue with Graham Bennett’s post. Taking it a stage further, the referendum came after various anti-Cycle Enfield groupings: lost very convincingly in two local elections; saw a petition hit the floor due to lack of interest; saw a subsequent e petition similarly hit the floor; saw the planned legal route blocked by the High Court; saw a post card petition to stop the consultation fail; saw a huge campaign to portray the consultation negatively actually result in a larger positive response; while we have seen the membership democracy of several civic groups undermined by a small number of anti-campaigners. Then we have a referendum, with boundaries influenced directly by SOGL, funded by a prominent anti campaigner, and partly delivered by SOGL. It will doubtless show a large number - as well as a majority – as being against Cycle Enfield.


Then we will hear about local democracy.


This week the Green Infrastructure Task Force (a multi-disciplinary / multi organisation grouping including eg DEFRA) released a report prepared for the GLA looking at future London. The work dovetails with the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 and such other integrated aspects such as The Roads Task Force and The Green Infrastructure Grid. This evolving set of analytical reports are looking to develop infrastructure that is inclusive and coherent while preparing for the anticipated (central scenario) of a 37% increase in London’s population by 2050 with the squeeze on numerous fronts that implies. Transport / road space is one significant implication. There are other trends of note, such as climate change, which they seek to address.


Four of the resulting six vision expectations in this latest piece of the jigsaw are green centric, in the vegetative sense, one is water quality based while the other is:-

“Many streets, including high streets, will be transformed into greener areas of public realm where walking and cycling will have priority.”

Given that it identifies 12% of London’s surface area as being roads (compared with 9% for domestic buildings/ 14% for all buildings) that is quite an expectation. Roads already represent 80% of London’s total public space so It’s unreasonable to expect more allocated space (and indeed the London Plan 2015 is set in the opposite direction); the proposed fall-back, should the current plan fail to address the transport issue, is road charging.


I personally can’t see the answer to Cycle Enfield as being either “politics” or “No” and go with Graham, focus on how best to implement it. The major trends needing to be addressed are several are immensely strong. Ignoring them is unlikely to be a viable solution.


The Local Plan for Enfield 2017-2032 is out for consultation today (18th December) as the first stage of its public route to be adopted. Details on the Council’s website at: http://www.enfield.gov.uk/NewLocalPlan


It asks for both comment and any new ideas to help take the Borough into a doubtless challenging future. “Do nothing” is indeed an option, as it must be in any plan. As s3.7.1 spells out, “Whilst 'doing nothing' is helpful to consider as a benchmark it is important that options are realistic. A Plan must be 'sound' if it is to pass the examination process and ultimately be adopted.” It doesn’t take Einstein to read between those lines.

Karl Brown:

This needs to be challenged.

What you have said is libellous both to David Burrowes MP and SOGL I urge you withdraw your claims immediately and apologise. (Basil Clarke too: I have taken a screen print, so you will not gain by deleting or editing). Or, if you really believe you are right, say it in the Enfield Independent, so more people can hear.

SOGL had absolutely no influence or say in the design or implementation of the referendum. This was entirely the work of David Burrowes and his office. The boundaries and all the workings of the referendum were decided by him He may have consulted others on aspects of it, but it certainly wasn't SOGL. The only part SOGL has played, is an email sent by me to our supporters letting them know that David Burrowes needed volunteers to help distribute the packs. Not one penny of the referendum cost was funded by SOGL. In terms of the funding by a "prominent anti campigner" that may be a minute part of the total cost. You appear to be referring to a small amount Costas Georgiou paid a leaflet deliverer to distrubute a few thousand of the letters, that he himself had volunteered to deliver, rather than doing it himself. That is Costas being generous, nothing else. It is hardly a scandal or a secret.

Yet again, you are having a dig at Costas (on another front) and Helen Osman. We went through this ontyl a few weeks ago and now ytyou are churning it over again. They did extremely well for independents, in last years local elections and you know it. They stood to highlight the folly of the scheme, not to win. I doubt either were under any delusion about that.

Because the result of the referendum will show will show true local feeling and not the fake picture presented by the Council after its sham consultation and you appear to know it will go against the scheme, you are suffering a severe case of sour grapes.

I am sure David Burrowes will wish to say more. Though, maybe not on this forum

Ouch, a firm welcome back to PGC after a break. Apologies if I picked up the wrong end of the stick of your misdirected e mail which mentioned your (SOGL’s?) direct input re boundaries and similarly Don’s incorrectly addressed mail which covered delivery by same. Funding: only what you have now posted twice on the subject resources plus a third, and different, source. Sour grapes? Ask people if they want major change and the majority answer will inevitably be no. But I can’t think where that gets us.


Much more importantly, I believe, is the coming to the table of many of the forces and issues I have long sought to highlight and which require answers in a balanced approach. The consultation for the Borough’s Local Plan looks at a roughly ¼ increase in population; longer term, London planners are addressing a 1/3 uplift. Simply expecting this scale to be organically satisfied, with their demands on housing, transport, parking, jobs, education, energy and more is not realistic. Nor will the growth be homogeneously spread across Enfield. The live consultation offers alternates for consideration and seeks input. This is one everyone really should be encouraged to contemplate and input to. Options before us all:


Expand into the green belt: The comparatively small development now being intensely opposed by thousands to the north of Enfield suggests that will not be welcomed.

Use industrial land: if available and if suitable, yet new jobs are also required and as one example, the North London Waste Plan currently winding its way from Reg 18 to Reg 19 status includes, amongst others, a circa 340 hectares contiguous land area to be allocated (and so protected) for waste in the same industrial space, ie this likely to be a challenging option.

The remaining two options are more aligned with the London Plan: (for local interest) essentially develop Palmers Green and Enfield Town, by renewing and intensifying existing residential space, with some implications for the parts between; and secondly, develop the transport corridor between the two, which would see intensification of Winchmore Hill and Grange.

Developing to such an extent in already highly built up, populated and parked areas (amongst many other relevant dimensions) would not prove easy. The challenges of movement and parking of vehicles in such growth scenarios is one key driver behind the London Plan’s agreed positioning: promote other transport modes, especially for the shorter distances, while acknowledging cars will remain the main modal choice. Road space is finite for driving and / or parking.

And finally a call for “Your alternate option”. If it is not the green belt, perhaps unlikely to be industrial space, other options bring possibly unwelcome change to this near locality then what is the solution? Any such newly developed solution needs to satisfy all dimensions, all parties, ultimately the Planning Inspector as well as being in general alignment with all London Plan proposals, including transport, which have been thoroughly examined and found to be “sound”.

All of which very likely leaves the issue, how will PG / the A105 corridor (including WH and Grange) / Enfield Town be developed and with what implications for transport of a substantial uplift in population / associated facility?

There is a solution on the table, certainly with difficulties and numerous issues which is the culmination of a many years set of processes. I’m not aware of any other options, funding, or anyone taking a leadership role to prepare an alternate. To me, that is what a call for “no” also requires, just what is the suggested, viable, supportable alternate? There is no easy route for the future we collectively face that does not involve compromise for as the consultation points out, there has to be something. Land is finite and ¼ extra is a lot.

So on balance on MH / CE I’ve long been in a, “best-available to look to the challenging future”, position. Within the household is a leading designer view that it’s half a job and so best not started at all. Both points are valid and long discussed; but we couldn’t fill the binary form in. And calm discussion and understanding, including risks yourself and others have highlighted, is what is really required, long since. I’ve been very consistent on that one.

Oh Karl,

So you have managed:

1. to turn "I asked him (David Burrowes) to include the FLDRA area of Southgate Green (in the referendum) and I think he agreed to that..." into "with boundaries influenced directly by SOGL"

Firstly it came from me personally, not SOGL, secondly, the idea that amounted to "inflluence" is rather insulting to DB ...which leads onto...thirdly, the referendum also covers parts of Southgate Green wards on the south side on Broomfied Park, which at the time I had no idea were in that ward"

You have made something innocent sound very sinister .

2. Funding: Didn't I say that as far as I was arare the referendum was being funded through David Burrowes parliamentary expenses. Where did I say it was being funded by (a prominent) SOGL (supporter)?

It will be very interesting if the result of the referendum shows a very different snapshot of opinion, and a higher participation rate, than LBE's consultation, itself, at best, clumsily misinterpreted by the Council itself.

The referendum, whilst certainly not perfect, has the following democratic credentials, lacking in the council's consultation.

1. Only genuine householders eligible to vote/comment. 2. Multiple submissions not possible. 3. Every household in the affected area able to easily respond.

Some may feel an opportuntity is slipping away as a result of a democratic intervention by an MP supportive of localism. Perhaps it is because people; don't want their community to be an experiment for potentially dangerous "bus boarders," or lose their nearest bus stop or their parking spot. Perhaps many don't believe LBE's improbable claim that their scheme will reduce congestion and improve air quality whilst others may be concerned that it may fatally harm already struggling local businesses

With regard to the rest of your comments, this is straying off topic. Happy to discuss elsewhere, at another time.

Hopefully, none of this breaches the terms of debate.

It will always hit the wall of 85% voting for parties supportive of MH at the Local Elections and even after one later changed their mind, it left 52% of Enfield supporting a party to govern. I have to say it influenced my vote; and neither am I seeing a referendum on other key factors on my then list.

I’ve no doubt there are many personal issues, individual bus stop locations or whatever - we all have them - influencing behaviour. But are these of a scale to be strategic deal breakers or rather issues to be considered for potential mitigation? People are voting on a scheme that as yet has not been tabled in a post consolation format. Just maybe the proposed bus stops when they come forward will all prove to be fine to them.

Take the apparent 500+ who responded to the Quieter Neighbourhood call within the FLDRA boundary and the apparent 50% of those who actually wanted to invest their time and effort to work up solutions. And then consider how successful that facilitated collaboration was starting to prove to be.
I’m told the equivalent on the east side of Green Lanes actually developed a supportable outcome.

Give people enough information, time and support and it’s amazing what comes out. That’s localism in action. Stirring up single issues from a complex whole risks leading to different, unbalanced, outcomes and I doubt anyone wins in such cases.

Stand at the Post Office and look south down Green Lanes. Take in the architecture and visualise what could be if the space was tastefully managed between the building lines compared to what the view reveals currently. Then ask why that stretch lost its natural hinterland of shoppers long, long since. That was the core issue of much work before you moved to the Lakes. How is that offset versus a bus stop, or a parking space?

Ask why not only London and not only numerous major UK cities but other world cities are moving towards cycling. I just can’t believe they’ve all got it wrong as an answer to common, pressing issues. Having studied much of the background the strategic direction comes through as appropriate. What that then leaves is detailed on-the-ground issue understanding and resolution / mitigation. No is not a strategic response.