Forum topic: Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood: More information published as consultation is extended to July

Picking up Alan Thomas’ comment - The decision to delineate a number of streets into a new conservation area (CA) after years of pressure to do so – with requested with a much larger footprint than was finally agreed- by the residents association in particular and then call it whatever isn’t really a clincher as is implied. The CA includes Broomfield Avenue (an existing LTN) which is outside of the LTN and in most eyes also outside of the Lakes Estate. The Fox Lane LTN excludes Broomfield Avenue but includes eg Devonshire Road, The Meadway CA, many streets to the north of Fox Lane, the Leigh Hunt Drive estate (an existing LTN), a number of streets separating the Lakes and Meadway CA’s plus a plethora of other sundry streets .
Think of it as the Fox Lane LTN is more than Fox Lane, but it’s a handy name to use, just as it's more than the Lakes Estate, whether that’s defined by the CA name or the completely arbitrary boundary which more usually defines it.
The original author might have had the historic Old Park Estate in mind.

I can't see how what you call a particular group of streets has any bearing on whether or not an LTN is a good idea or a bad idea. However, the question of where the Lakes Estate is and how long it's been called that has come up in this forum thread and is an interesting one in its own right.

The map shows the Lakes Estate Conservation Area and the Meadway Conservation Area superimposed on the council's map of the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood. The Lakes Estate, as defined by the conservation area, occupies something between a quarter and a third of the QN area.

The style of houses and streets in the Meadway CA is completely different from those in the Lakes Estate, that much is clear. But some of the streets that aren't in either CA don't feel that different from those in the Lakes Estate CA, for instance, Oakfield Road, the Mall, Amberley Road. Probably also Cranley Gardens and Burford Gardens (but not Caversham Avenue). Why aren't these in the Lakes Estate? Are they regarded by experts as less worthy of conservation? If so, why?

Is it because they're not named after lakes? But that goes for all of them apart from Derwent and Ulleswater.

And when did the name Lakes Estate start being used? It was certainly in use in 2010, when the CA was created, and presumably the creation of the CA was preceded by many months of discussion and consultation during which the name would have been used.

The Enfield Society says that it was originally known as the Old Park Estate - but did it continue to be called that after the houses were built?

The adverts for newly built houses in Conway Road and Ulleswater Road that are included in the CA assessment mentioned by Alan Thomas don't mention either Old Park Estate or the Lakes Estate, but just say they're near Broomfield Park.

In an earlier post Karl Brown called Leigh Hunt Drive "an existing LTN". And so it is! Those dastardly developers, in cahoots with the council, only went and sneaked in an LTN without calling it that so that people could live on a private estate. They missed a great chance for drivers to do the sensible thing and use a cut-through between main roads.

Just take a look at the map above. Instead of letting cars enter and exit on the Bourne as well as High Street, the developers put in a "modal filter" so that only pedestrians and cyclists can get through at the Bourne end of the estate. It would have been really easy to create a nice cut-through for cars, but the selfish and undemocratic council didn't because they only care about cyclists.

The result is that people living in Leigh Hunt Drive can't drive straight to Grovelands Park or Southgate Methodist Church. They have to drive all the way round Southgate Circus and get stuck in traffic. I suppose at a pinch they could walk to the church, but it's unfair and undemocratic. Who remembers a consultation about an LTN in Leigh Hunt Drive? Nobody, because there wasn't one!

Why hasn't One Community Against the Enfield LTNs kicked up a fuss about this?

Even worse nearby Crothall Close off Fox Lane is also a low traffic neighbourhood. A few of the residents have window posters saying they want the LTN to end. I assume they'd like the road extended a few metres to Bourne Hill so through traffic can use it? In fact most housing estates built in last 30 years are low traffic neighbourhoods.

I would say the last 50 or possibly even 60 years. And if Victorian and Edwardian town planners had had even an inkling of the number of cars that there would be on the road today, they too would have designed residential side streets in a way that prevented drivers cutting through them.

Basil asks why some equivalent streets were not included in the CA. Controversial at the time the answer is that even pre austerity our council had insufficient dedicated resource to manage more than a proportion of those streets deemed worthy on top of the existing CA’s. (Determining CA’s was a HMG requirement.) Perhaps with The Mall et al included it might have been called The Conway CA. I’m not clear if the streets north of Fox Lane, from Amberley to Caversham, were part of the original character assessment and tabbed for inclusion. If so I’m sure it would have been The Fox Lane CA. Someone with a longer and deeper local memory may have the answer.

I was questioning the assertion that the term 'The Lakes Estate' was coined by an Estate Agent. A digression to the thread topic certainly, but not intended as a "clincher" (of what?) and I remain nonplussed - despite having grown up in the area - about the term and its use. Seems to me that it is something of a moveable feast, as the last few posts have shown...

Me, I'm looking forward to the return of the Trolleybuses.