David Burrowes MP has published the text of a letter written to him by the Mayor of London following a meeting at which Mr Burrowes raised concerns about the Cycle Enfield scheme.
In the letter Boris Johnson says that he agrees that it is "very important for Enfield, with the support of TfL, to ensure that the scheme is not moved forward to the next formal approval phase until the borough engages more extensively and intensively with residents and businesses". He adds that Leon Daniels, Managing Director Surface Transport at Transport for London (TfL), has been in touch with Enfield's Chief Executive, Rob Leak, to discuss how to progress the project.
However, in his letter Mr Johnson emphasises that "none of this implies an end to the scheme" and restates his belief that "the scheme has potential to deliver transformational benefit to Enfield residents".
This message was reinforced by a statement from the Mayor's Office for the Enfield Gazette: “This isn’t about a change of direction, it’s about taking a little more time to bring about the widest possible consensus."
Letter from Boris Johnson to David Burrowes dated 18 January 2016
Dear David,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me last week and to discuss your and your constitutents' concerns about the Enfield 'Mini-Holland' scheme.
As we discussed, and as I am aware, there are some substantial concerns in Enfield with the scheme as currently proposed, which Enfield's consultation has also reflected. I appreciate you taking the time to give me your perspective on it, including sharing your referendum results, and I recognise your work in drawing attention to the issues both residents and businesses in the area are raising.
We agreed in our discussion that it was very important for Enfield, with the support of TfL, to ensure that the scheme is not moved forward to the next formal approval phase until the borough engages more extensively and intensively with residents and businesses. It is clear that more discussion is crucial. Leon Daniels has spoken with Rob Leak and I understand that they have agreed this approach.
For the avoidance of doubt, none of this implies an end to the scheme. I continue to be certain that the scheme has potential to deliver transformational benefit to Enfield residents including those in your constituency, which is indeed why Enfield won the funding in a heavily-contested field.
Instead, it is an opportunity for the council to continue to engage intensively with residents and businesses and ensure that the final scheme which is brought forward for approval is the right one.
Yours ever,
Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
In a message on his website, David Burrowes writes that "Boris has in effect called for a 2 month halt to the Council's approval process to enable more engagement with my constituents to see if greater confidence and consent can be achieved for an A105 Cycle Enfield scheme". However, there is no mention of any timeframe in Mr Johnson's letter.
Comment
On the basis of the Mayor's carefully drafted letter it is impossible to assess whether this a major or minor setback to Enfield Council's plans. Possibly of equal or greater significance will be data on assessments of the potential impact on bus services, air quality and congestion which are due to be fed into the consultation process at the next meeting of the Enfield West Partnership Board, which takes place this Thursday.
The Partnership Board will be presented with the details of key changes to the drawings made in response to feedback from the official consultation. As originally conceived, Thursday's meeting would have been invited to recommend that the Council give the go-ahead to undertake detailed design, statutory consultation and implementation. It is possible that as a consequence of the Mayor's intervention a further consultation phase will now be inserted prior to approval of the detailed design work.
Misleading interpretation of the "referendum" results
In his latest website posting David Burrowes again makes the misleading assertion that his "referendum" had a "decisive outcome", though he does not repeat his earlier outrageous claim that 75 per cent of his constituents are opposed to the cycle lanes scheme.
The number of cards returned as a proportion of the number distributed was so low that no conclusions can be drawn about the degree of support among constituents for or in opposition to the cycle lanes.
Clearly, the results of this flawed poll cannot be taken as evidence of widespread support for Cycle Enfield. However, they do give the lie to the repeated claims by anti-cycle lane campaigners that there is huge public opposition. If that had been the case, the number of votes against would have been 10,000 or more. In reality, only 1,973 people took the easy step of ticking the No box and posting the card back (no need to use a stamp) - only 12 per cent of those polled.
The real conclusion to be drawn from the "referendum" is that the overwhelming majority of those polled are either indifferent or prefer to leave decisions to their elected representatives. It is seriously misleading to pretend that this was a "decisive outcome" that showed overwhelming opposition.
