Healthy Streets

Green Lanes cycle lanes proposals have public backing

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

According to a press release issued by Enfield Council today, a majority of people who responded to the public consultation about the A105 Cycle Enfield proposals indicated that they were in favour of the scheme going ahead.

The press release states that "60 per cent of the 1,646 people consulted said they supported the plans, while just 40 percent were opposed to them".  However, the Cycling Weekly website breaks down the in favour submissions into two subcategories:  in favour - 51 per cent, and partially in favour - 9 per cent.

The council hope to start work on the Green Lanes scheme in spring next year - though it will first have to be approved by Transport for London (TfL), which is providing the bulk of the money for the scheme.  One of TfL's functions is, of course, to manage bus services within Greater London.  As yet it is unclear to what extent TfL share the concerns expressed by some residents about the potential impact of the cycle lanes on bus schedules, particularly the proposed removal of some sections of bus lane, eg southbound through Palmers Green and northbound along London Road, Enfield.

The degree of public support for Cycle Enfield has come as a surprise to anti-cycle lanes campaigners, who have made repeated assertions that the vast majority of residents were opposed to the scheme.  In an article in today's Evening Standard the Mayor of London's Cycling Commissar, Andrew Gilligan, sets out his explanation for the public's approval of the scheme and predicts that, though "this may sound weird, but even drivers, in the end, will benefit from these schemes".

The positive response to the A105 cycle lanes scheme is good news for residents who have been working with the Council to develop proposals for Quieter Neighbourhoods - smaller schemes designed to make residential side streets quieter and safer.  In the case of the Fox Lane and Connaught Gardens Quieter Neighbourhoods, an impressive degree of consensus had emerged about what changes were needed.  For instance, a scheme to curb rat running between Hedge Lane and the North Circular - something which is currently causing great nuisance to people living at the eastern end of Hazelwood Lane and particularly to residents of Callard Avenue and Arnold Gardens.

After the very positive work achieved in workshops for the first tranche of Quieter Neighbourhoods, things have gone very quiet.  As was revealed on the Palmers Green Community forums last week, this is because the schemes had been quietly put on hold pending progress with Cycle Enfield.  Not just so that they can be coordinated with changes to the A105 and other main roads, but also because Quieter Neighbourhoods depend on TfL funding, which will only be available if the main Cycle Enfield proposals go head.

The full text of the press release:

Majority back Cycle Enfield plans

Plans for a pedestrian and cycle-friendly transformation of Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill have received a major boost after they won the backing of local people. The plans for Palmers Green, which are being funded through the Mayor of London’s £30 million Mini Holland fund, will see the town centre improved with wider pavements, more trees, bike lanes, landscaping, and more car parking. There will be extra parking spaces serving the shopping area and there will also be major improvements to the Winchmore Hill area with a safe, separated cycle track running from Palmers Green to Enfield Town allowing people to make local journeys by bike instead of car.   Despite campaigners against the plans claiming they were “deeply unpopular” and would benefit only “1 per cent” of the population, the number of people who said they were in favour of Enfield Council’s Cycle Enfield plans outnumbered those opposing them by two to one new research has shown.

In all, 60 per cent of the 1,646 people consulted said they supported the plans, while just 40 percent were opposed to them   Enfield Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, Cllr Daniel Anderson, said: “The silent majority have spoken – and shown they actually like our plans, despite a vocal campaign which has been spreading disinformation about what the proposals would actually mean for Palmers Green.   “The funding we have received from the Mayor of London gives us a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform our town centres, boost business, revolutionise our transport links and transform our borough into one which meets the needs of residents, businesses and people travelling through it.   “We’ve always said we’d listen to people who got involved in the consultation and we have, and now residents recognise that this scheme is going to improve their quality of life and bring dramatic improvements to this part of the borough.   “Most people recognise that our Cycle Enfield scheme for Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill is good for residents, good for business, good for health and good for the borough and I am delighted that the people who took part in the consultation were so positive about the project.”

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson MP, said: “It is very gratifying that the people of Enfield have spoken to back these plans to benefit the entire town. If this scheme did only benefit cyclists, it would not have been so widely supported. “People in Palmers Green, the vast majority of them non-cyclists, understand that it will transform a traffic-dominated town centre into more attractive place for everyone: a place where people want to be, whether or not they are on a bike.”   The Mayor’s cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, said: “This is now the third Mini-Holland scheme, after those in Waltham Forest and Kingston, to be backed by a clear majority of local people in a consultation. These schemes are popular. One of the lessons of this process, I think, is that those who make the most noise aren’t always the most representative.

“We and the council are listening to residents and businesses who have concerns, and we’ve always said we’ll make changes to get the details right. But both we – and our opponents – must also listen to the majority who say these plans are a good thing, and want them to happen.”   The Palmers Green proposals will be submitted to Transport for London for approval, and, if obtained, work will start in the Spring of 2016.

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Green Lanes cycle lanes proposals have public backing
Katy McGilvray posted a reply
#1777
10 Nov 2015 15:07
Around 1,600 is a paltry number compared to the number of residents who will be affected and shows how flawed the joke of "consultation" was.

The consultation online was initially difficult to find, was complicated and information on how to obtain paper copies was scant. The data pulled from the consultation cannot be so easily judged considering that it was split into different sections of road that had be commented on individually. For example, someone could have voted "No" overall to the scheme but said "Yes" the changes to The Triangle. Would that be counted as a "support" vote?

Giving residents only a few days to look at the plans for such a massive and expensive scheme was a joke. The consultation meeting at The Fox for example was also filled with yes men who went quiet or dodged the question when asked about the negative effects of the scheme and why certain parts of Green Lanes were missing completely.

In the actual, proper community meetings that were organised I can assure you that just about everyone in the room was opposed to this scheme. The people in support could not come up with concrete arguments for and just prattled on about saving children from air pollution or some other concept that was only loosely tied to the scheme.

If no one had questioned this scheme I have no doubt that Enfield Council and TfL would have just pushed it through with no consideration.
David Hughes posted a reply
#1782
11 Nov 2015 00:12
Katy I think we can agree that 1600 is a paltry number, but you must also concede that your meeting was a fraction of that, and I imagine largely self-selected in opposition to the scheme.

However, what really worries me is your evident anger towards the Council, as if the Government (which provided the £100m which lies behind the scheme), Boris (who allocated the £30m Enfield received), and Enfield Council are in some sort of self-serving conspiracy. To the contrary, with London's population rising, particularly in the outer-boroughs, something just has to be done to encourage the per capita use of cars for short, driver only journeys; the people who took these decisions are doing their best for the future.

And anyone with responsibility for the welfare of the people they represent has to take account of public health issues, of course including the effect of poor air quality, but also rising obesity/sedentary lifestyles/consequential Type 2 diabetes. Given the statistics for bike ownership most children seem to own one at some time, but without heavily calmed traffic or, as London is choosing, cycle lanes on through routes, parents are never going to encourage the use of those bikes.

But perhaps even more important is the long term future of cities which it falls to government and councils to manage. Are we really going to grow and grow traffic until streets come to a halt, or should we find more agreeable - in terms of space, resources, quality of life - ways of getting about? For shorter journeys walking and cycling would be best for most of us most of the time, with public transport of longer journeys. Cities worldwide are thinking about reducing car use, some even about car-free cities. Change is inevitable.

Recently I haven't been following the twists and turns of the discussion closely so I don't know whether you are concerned about parking issues and the claimed effect on retail outlets, nor how far the council has met those concerns. However, no doubt also you've read the evidence to the effect that improving the public realm matters more - which is why TfL expects that sort of approach for Enfield Town. Personally I remember similar anger to yours about proposed pedestrianized high streets which are now firmly established and well-loved by shoppers and outlets.

Change can be hard, but this change, or some other approach with similar outcomes is inevitable.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#1784
11 Nov 2015 16:39
It’s certainly a small number compared to the scale and importance of the issues being addressed albeit huge compared to typical consultation responses.


Other than the absolute number (1646 responses) it’s the 640 against the scheme which struck me. Given the sheer scale – breadth and noise - of the campaign against the A105 proposal I would have expected many more to be negative had it truly struck a note with people. It’s certainly a lot more than both anti- petitions (whatever happened to them?) and more in line with aggregate anti votes in the local elections but hardly evidences that the weight of public opinion is against the scheme as has been heavily touted. It's no more than a crowd at any one of Broomfield Park’s five summer Blues concerts.


Next I guess it’s the “Referendum” from our neutral MP and more angst of a Political nature as the Conservative group (officially) make a U Turn. I often wonder what the present position would have been had the Conservative party succeeded in the local elections and been faced with their own winning bid submitted pre-election which looks exactly the same as the current proposals, only with less retail parking. And of course we can all guess the answer to that one. Politics indeed.
Maire Harris posted a reply
#1785
12 Nov 2015 10:29
Just want to reiterate that the 'proper community meetings' were in fact organised with Green Lanes SOS, an opposition campaining group, and fell far short of being a neutral forum for discussion. They were also wholly unrepresentative of public opinion as shown by the results of the consultation. I found the consultation easy to complete online and the invitation to do so was widely communicated. I also felt, from attending the meetings and listening to the arguments put forward by both sides, that the arguments 'against' were lacking in substance whilst the arguments 'for' were backed up by real evidence. The issue of children's health in terms of air pollution etc is critical to the argument and one of the main reasons why these schemes need to be implemented.
Tom Mellor posted a reply
#1790
15 Nov 2015 21:58
Uhm wrong, wrong, and wrong. How many consultations have you seen with responses close to that number in Enfield? How many schemes have you seen with such wide spread engagement in Enfield?

I fail to see how 3 months can be classed as ''a few days''.

The online versions of the scheme at least had every part of the route mapped.

The 'proper' community meeting arranged by David Burrowes who is against ( trying to vote score) and advertised with flyers made by the anti group Save Our Green Lanes was not representative, not least because it was filled with an almost homogeneous demographic.

And what sort of pro arguments were you expecting? Air pollution, obesity, congestion, lack of childhood freedom, are all reasons to curb our car dominated society. Apparently some people don't see all these things as a problem. At least say so, but don't act like you support improvement without willing to see change which inevitably means putting the car in last place when it comes to transport policies.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#1791
16 Nov 2015 10:27
Of course the key and extensive consultation on all this took place as part of the build up to the approval of the Mayors Transport Strategy 2010, London Plan 2011 and Further Alterations to the London Plan 2015. Impact Assessments and all other expected aspects are well rehearsed in these. What we are now looking at is implementation at a London level rather than decisions as to whether this is the correct strategy or not - that has been determined as a part of the public Examination processes.

So we are looking at, "Transformational change in up to four Outer London town centres to provide exemplar facilities for cyclists. Programmes will be based around providing cycle-friendly town centres, cycle routes and cycle superhubs at local railway stations." facilitated by, "substantial funding concentrated in relatively small areas to achieve the greatest possible impact and make them as cycle friendly as their Dutch counterparts."

This was all very well highlighted before 20 Boroughs bid to be the chosen exemplars and a bipartisan bid from Enfield was one of the winners.
Colin Green posted a reply
#1798
19 Nov 2015 15:21
Whilst I have lived in Palmers Green for more than 30 years, I am currently neither cyclist nor a car driver. The first I saw of the proposal was when I came back from abroad and saw the original poster opposing the scheme which appeared to show tumbleweed on Green Lanes. Looking at the Enfield Council proposal documents showed a radically different proposal than that in the posterl. As a retired academic, enthusiastic for open governance, I would have made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, if they had had jurisdiction, about the material being put out by some of the opponents of the scheme as it is more reflective of the approach of a Joseph Goebbels than one of informing the electorate of the pros, cons or nature of the project.

On the consultation, I agree that the public meetings were poorly publicised in advance; I would have attended had I known in advance that the one in the Fox would take place for example. On the other hand, the material provided by the Council was exceptionally good both for the original proposal and for the consultation. On the numbers participating in the consultation, in Australia, voting in elections is compulsory as is registration to vote. In this country, participation rates for elections let alone consultations is rather low but I don't think that I favour the Australian solution.

On the proposals themselves, the authoritative estimates of the numbers dying in London from air pollution each year keep going up, the most recent being from Kings College which give a figure of 9000+ annual deaths from fine particulates and nitrogen dioxide alone. In short term, pending the arrival of electric, driverless cars, promoting cycling is part of the answer. In Copenhagen, the proportion of commuting journeys made by bicycles is already 35% - and bicycle takes up only 25% of the road space required by a car. At present, I live in an area of a traffic jam in a car park; so walking instead through a Copenhagen Green Lanes would be glorious
Karl Brown posted a reply
#1800
22 Nov 2015 12:04
On reading the notes from the Environmental Audit Committee: Conference on the Government’s Approach to Sustainable Development a couple of points seemed to have some relevance to our own local debate – itself of course itself part of a much bigger picture

Q59 Mike Barry (Director of Sustainable Business, Marks & Spencer): Just a quick word on the consumer. We listen to consumers as much as Government listen to the electorate: 35 million people in our shops every year, we listen, and 80% of them are telling us they are concerned about the future. They want a better future, they want more from central government to take a lead on solving it. When we start to develop solutions that they can participate in, we have shown evidence that we have done the heavy lifting; we will join the journey. But be very clear, 80% of British society say, “We want a better future”. They have seen the linkages of what is happening in their locality, they have seen the issues to do with noise, to do with transport, to do with air quality all the time. We have to find a better way of helping this planet grow and the economy grow within it, and unless we do something very different in the future—both as government and businesses—we will not have an economy and a society to prosper, and that is a huge challenge for all of us

Q61 Lord Krebs (Chair, Adaptation Sub-Committee, Committee on Climate Change): On that question of climate change denials, opinion polls show that the significant majority of the UK population accepts the reality of climate change and the importance of action. Those who lead the campaign to deny the reality of climate change are simply blind to the facts. The facts are irrefutable. The temperature record, as has been measured, the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to be measured, but they are a result of burning fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect. It is like gravity. We do not expect suddenly, if I pick this up and drop it, it will float away up into the atmosphere. We know gravity works and gravity is real and climate change is like that. We have to stick to the facts and say this is what is ineluctable and acknowledge, as Amyas has said, there are certain uncertainties about the speed of change and the magnitude of change but nevertheless it is real and it is a real problem.

Stephanie Hilborne (Chief Executive, The Wildlife Trusts): It is interesting because it brings it back to the ethics point in a way, and what leadership is, which someone else mentioned earlier, and leadership is about doing what is right, not what is easy. Almost always doing what is right is harder than not doing what is wrong. To question it, what harm is there by believing it is happening and what damage can you do by acting more quickly? None. It is the core of risk management, whereas arguing that it is not, we are wasting time arguing. I love your gravity comparison

Q62 Chair (Huw Irranca-Davies): I only have a few brief comments here. Just in light of the last contribution, I remember being called into No. 10 when I was a Minister to explain the right decision that I had made in a particular environmental matter, and it was the right decision. I stood by it. I went through with the then Prime Minister’s special advisers why I had arrived at that particular conclusion and how robust my decision-making was. I said, “There was a right decision and there was an easy decision. I went for the right decision”. They listened and they said, “Okay, we will go with you on this one, but next time can you take the easy decision?” A lot of this is to do with long-term thinking.
0