Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

Following last week's meeting of the Enfield West Partnership Board, the revised proposals for cycle lanes along the A105 will be considered by Enfield Council's Cabinet on 10th February.  If, as seems likely, the proposals are approved, they will then be sent to Transport for London (TfL) for its approval.  If given the green light by TfL, the proposals will then be subject to a period of statutory public consultation.

Following the consultation, the engineers would move on to detailed design work, including co-design workshops involving the community. Implementation would be expected during 2016

"Significant revisions"

In response to comments received during last year's consultation, some "significant" revisions have been made to the proposals.  Though the detailed drawings have not yet been published, they are known to include the following:

Economic and other assessments

Last week's Enfield West Partnership Board was presented with the results of various assessments of the potential impact of the A105 cycle lane, carried out by independent consultants following rigorous guidelines.  We expect these to be published ahead of the Cabinet meeting in the normal way, but in the meantime feedback from participants in the meeting includes the following summarised information:

Full Council and Cabinet meetings

The Cabinet will be discussing the A105 scheme at their meeting on 10th February (7pm at the Civic Centre in Silver Street, Enfield Town).  Before that the full Council will be debating a paper brought forward by the Conservative Group on 28th January (also 7pm at the Civic Centre).  Both meetings are open to the public, but seating is limited, so if you are planning to go it is recommended to arrive by 6.30pm.

Links

Log in to comment
Karl Brown posted a reply
26 Jan 2016 20:35
So let’s watch this space, although I’m sure there will be yet further twists and turns to come.

What now strikes me with is that the long-running heavily-touted concerns seemingly mitigated: near-shop parking, business risk, congestion, air quality, disabled parking, and bus stop location, just how much of a superior final position for all the various interests it may have been possible to work out had all the energy of the last two years been spent in that direction, looking for opportunities from the large investment won by the borough, rather than on promoting headline issues guaranteed to undermine. We might even have plans for a new tree on a new Triangle agreed by now and some sophisticated optimisation of retail between Palmers Green and the Winchmore Hill centres. If only.

Looking forward to the Quieter Neighbourhood workshops coming back onto local agendas should this part of the Enfield scheme get through its next stages.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
27 Jan 2016 19:05
At the moment Green Lanes is just a traffic conduit full of noisy polluting cars splashing water over pedestrians as they speed through. Cycle Enfield can help start to it back into a place for living in. And living is about interaction with other people, not about driving places in cars or sitting at home watching television.

Who knows, it might even do the same for Green Lanes in Winchmore Hill? It has some handsome parades of shops, but at the moment the pavements there are nearly deserted - no wonder with cars continually zooming through at 40mph.

The Federation of Enfield Residents Associations has got it completely the wrong way round. They say that "heavy traffic restrictions [...] will diminish the quality of life for thousands" as if quality of life was defined by how quickly you can get from one place to another by car. Well, this "federation" of backward lookers doesn't speak for me. I'm an Enfield resident and the things that most diminishes my quality of life are the noise, pollution and danger posed by heavy traffic.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
28 Jan 2016 01:40
Basil. FERAA may not speak for you. But it does seem like its view are in line with most Enfleld residents.
I agree that Palmers Green town centre is rather tired looking. But a cycle superhighway isn't going to improve it.
Karl Brown posted a reply
28 Jan 2016 09:44
Basil writes, The Federation of Enfield Residents Associations has got it completely the wrong way round. They say that "heavy traffic restrictions [...] will diminish the quality of life for thousands" as if quality of life was defined by how quickly you can get from one place to another by car. Well, this "federation" of backward lookers doesn't speak for me.

FERAA speaks for, or as it puts it, represents the residents’ associations active within the borough. I would hazard a guess that Fox Lane (FLDRA) is both the largest, probably most active as well as possibly the most impacted residents’ association by currently available Cycle Enfield proposals.

Hundreds of members (plus non-member residents) of the FLDRA geographical area attended a public meeting, Quieter Neighbourhoods (QN) workshops, and / or inputted to the Councils linked QN consultation. The reactions appeared to be broadly supportive of change - I’m also minded to a very large, unanimous FLDRA vote some years back saying that, in general, vehicles were viewed as travelling too fast throughout the area. I personally get no sense of a slow down since then.

The FLDRA AGM notice received earlier this week confirmed there would not be an overall association view of the Cycle Enfield A105 proposals, rather it be left to individual members to input thoughts to consultation(s). That is reasonable in the absence of a specific meeting / member consultation and knowing this is a large, complex programme of proposals.

The following day FLDRA forwarded an e mail from FERAA specifically addressing Cycle Enfield indicating how they (FERAA) had been “working extremely hard on the campaign..to save our ..roads from the Cycle Enfield scheme”. Adding that “The cycle scheme will be largely unused” before going on to say that, “we have held numerous residents’ meetings…” They then called for visible support to make clear the “demands of the overwhelming majority of residents”.

It wasn’t clear if that overwhelming majority was that highlighted by the Councils consultation (yes, a small majority), David Burrowes’ household poll (no), the Enfield Independents own poll (yes) or a straw poll of FLDRA members looking at Quieter neighbourhoods (yes I’m suggesting).

I was also intrigued to see FERAA proactively approaching all 30 or so of the borough’s Friends of Park’s groups calling for their support in opposing Cycle Enfield. Speaking on behalf and leading discussion are not necessarily two sides of the same coin.

So back to Basil’s point, just which active residents associations are FERAA representing? Are they doing so in a balanced manner? And on this basis, would FLDRA get the 2/3 vote required to maintain its current Affiliation to FERAA?
Paul Mandel posted a reply
28 Jan 2016 11:10
In my opinion, the FLDRA committee's view on cycle Enfield is inline with its membership and the FERAA chair's position is also representative of the general opinion of representatives attending FERAA meetings over the past year or so. I can vouch for all this, as someone who has attended most of the FLDRA general meetings for the past several years, been a member of the committee for a year and attended several FERAA meetings during this time. The Burrowes referendum result ties in well with all of this. The Council's consultations are likely to have given an overestimate of the borough wide support for the scheme, as

a. the London Cycle Campaign was active in getting its members to take part, Remember, Enfield is just 1/30th of their total area.

b. whilst I have no evidence for it, I imagine local Labour and Green party members and Council employees, would have been disproportionately involved in giving supportive responses.

With regard to FLDRA's affiliation to FERAA, if any member is unhappy with it, s/he can of course ask the committee to give an opportunity for this to be debated and voted on at a general meeting. I for one would be supportive of this as it is of course necessary for officers of any organisation to be in touch with and responsive to its membership. The constitution does appear not make it clear whether a simple majority of a two thirds majority would be needed to revoke the affiliation and that would need resolving.
Karl Brown posted a reply
28 Jan 2016 15:37
So what is the view of the FLDRA membership on Cycle Enfield? I'm sure they’d be interested to know.
Karl Brown posted a reply
30 Jan 2016 12:48
Who submitted, or was encouraged to, I don’t know. Personally I always consider it incumbent upon planners in whatever area to learn from experience elsewhere whenever it exists and why on earth not, for input from whatever quarter is data capable of improving an outcome. But on the specific point of various bodies being involved in producing disproportioned response, and discounting known SOGL and Conservative party activist intent in this field, how about:

FERAA, (and recall) “Representing the residents’ associations active in the Borough”.

Action Agreed
• Encouraging maximum negative response to Town Centre consultation closing Dec 12th is vital:
• All FERAA associations to distribute call to members to sign up for Town Centre survey, and all other contacts to be pressed to help with additional submissions.
• Work with business community to raise awareness of resistance
• Plan for poster and local newspaper advertisements
• Target press with protest letters.
• Press for delays using enabling studies on pollution, transport, economic impact studies as procedural blocks.
• Aim to get London Mayoral candidates to commit to delay and review scheme if they are elected in May.

So back to Basil’s point, just which active residents associations are FERAA representing? Are they doing so in a balanced manner? And on this basis, would FLDRA get the 2/3 vote required to maintain its current Affiliation to FERAA?

And then my own subsequent question given that you apparently have the answer: So what is the view of the FLDRA membership on Cycle Enfield? I'm sure they’d be interested to know.

As a general interest point, are FLDRA members, via FLDRA, helping fund such FERAA actions?
Karl Brown posted a reply
02 Feb 2016 12:56
Enlightening news in this week’s FLDRA mail out on the A105 Green Lane’s section of the Cycle Enfield programme confirming, “At no time did we say or have we said that we were for or against the proposals.” This seems entirely reasonable given the absence of any member discussion on the matter over the last two years or so and being based on a live issue, with major revisions still being made in response to consultation input, making it difficult to be for or against a (significantly) moving target.


That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:


Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations.

A calmer, balanced approach from many quarters may have avoided much of the divisive discourse this programme has long suffered from. It does after all have the potential to be a once in a generational opportunity. Residents Association delegates should of course reflect the position of their membership, and if there isn't one, not operate as if there is.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
02 Feb 2016 18:03
"That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:.....................Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Sorry Karl, I don't quite understand what you are saying. Which group is the " action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

When you have clarified, in plain English, I may be able to correct any misunderstanding you may have.
Karl Brown posted a reply
04 Feb 2016 15:16
That’s the particular group FERAA set up and you are named as being one of – the exact quote is from their very own minutes – essentially to fight against Cycle Enfield, both as an umbrella and as individual Resident Associations. Many of the actions agreed by that group to this end are listed earlier in the chain. However, it seems tricky to do so as FLDRA, or more specifically inappropriate when the FLDRA membership isn’t supportive (see earlier in the same chain). Hope that’s now clear.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
05 Feb 2016 13:39
No Karl, not clearer at all. I asked you to clarify the following statement of yours and you have not done that.

"That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:.....................Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Which group is the "action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Do you mean SOGL rather than FLDRA?

With regard to my participation in FERAA. It has nothing to do with SOGL. I have represented, with other committee members, FLDRA at FERAA meetings over the past year. Furthermore SOGL is not a member of FERAA, It can't be. It is not a residents association

In terms of support for Cycle Enfield amongst the FLDRA membership. Cycle Enfield is not the issue. It is the proposed A105 cycle superhighway that is the issue. Had you been at the AGM on Wednesday you will have heard for yourself, the great deal of hostility, and very little support, there is toward the scheme.

And let me also be very clear, it is not the principle of the scheme that most people oppose, it is the impracticality of it that is the issue.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
05 Feb 2016 14:38
Paul Mandel wrote:


Which group is the "action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Do you mean SOGL rather than FLDRA?.


If I can be permitted to intervene in this personal argument, the smoking gun proving the existence of the action group is the minutes of a FERAA meeting held on 9th November 2015:

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF



Karl's quote about the formation and composition of the action group is taken word-for-word from those minutes.

Paul Mandel wrote:

And let me also be very clear, it is not the principle of the scheme that most people oppose, it is the impracticality of it that is the issue.


It is the principle of the mini-Holland scheme that you are campaigning against, since the idea of mini-Holland is to allow cyclists to go about their lawful business safely by cycling along main roads and accessing shopping centres. Mini-Holland is not about sending cyclists round lengthy diversions.
Basil

Well I can tell you that this FERAA action group has not met. However, All the people named did attend the last SOGL committee meeting along with about five others. So what. At the last FERAA meeting, not one voice spoke in favour of mini-Holland.

As I said we are not against Cycle Enfield. I am a cyclist. I regularly go about my lawful business on my bicycle. I can also tell you that Peter Gibbs is a cyclist But, there is no need to take away road space from other vehicles solely for the use of bicycles, when it is going to leave insufficient capacity on what remains. The scheme will also cause hardship for protected groups. I suggest you read Sue Younger's comments.
Karl Brown posted a reply
10 Feb 2016 09:40
"there is no need to take away road space from other vehicles solely for the use of bicycles, when it is going to leave insufficient capacity on what remains.". Conversely, the situation seems very clear in that the planners (national and London levels) and politicians in power (national, London and Borough levels) have concluded that pressures on road space, already causing delays, will increase, health inactivity is too costly, and other points long since highlighted, all come together to make change an agreed path. Only last week Boris has indicated the latest proposed step to take one of the carriageways on the A40 Westway - an extremely car-full highway - and convert it for bicycle only only use, reducing car capacity by 1/3 in the process. How big a signal is needed.
The real challenge is how to optimise change for the benefit of all for change is undoubtedly on its way. Lots of single-issue shouting tends not to achieve that end, even the good bits risk getting lost in the storm.