Re-opening the conversation about Southgate town centre

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

Enfield Council has re-opened Let's Talk Southgate, its call for ideas about how to improve Southgate Circus and the streets immediately nearby. People are invited to highlight issues and make suggestions using MapBox. Let's Talk Southgate runs until the end of February.

 southgate n14 heart logo

 map

We want the community to shape the future. Your ideas and comments will contribute to the Southgate Town Centre Action Plan, and short, medium and long-term goals to make Southgate a vibrant and welcoming place for everyone.

This is just the beginning of the conversation on improvements in Southgate. Enfield Council invites all members of the community to get involved. We will be working with businesses, residents, and cultural, religious and community groups to capture the views of the local community.

The consultation relates to the shaded area on the map. In particular the council is seeking views and ideas about:

  • Culture and Community
  • Leisure
  • Environment
  • Transport
  • Public spaces
  • Safety
  • Local Economy
  • Health and Wellbeing

The MapBox consultation will be open until the end of February. There are already more than a hundred comments and suggestions that were uploaded during the original consultation last autumn, including some interesting proposals for moving the fire station, re-imagining the space in front of the college and transforming the double roundabout.

Full details on the Let's Talk Enfield website.

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Re-opening the conversation about Southgate town centre
Peter Rust posted a reply
#5862
12 Feb 2021 13:34
We seldom venture into Southgate now because of the increased pollution and difficulties in parking. It is almost as if the current regime set out to destroy Southgate as a vibrant happy place. Remember when Southgate was the Queen of the Boroughs? The unused and dangerous cycle paths seem designed to deal a similar death knell to Palmers Green.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5863
12 Feb 2021 19:24
Even in the depths of winter there's thousands of cycle journeys through Palmers Green. And of course people walking and cycling spend more locally than people driving. Plenty of parking in Palmers Green and Southgate if you must drive -but walking or cycling so much better for you and the environment. And as for safety, around 400 pedestrians are killed by collisions each year - less than three of those are by bikes; the rest are by vehicles. So if safety is an issue the less driving the better.

File Attachment:
Peter Rust posted a reply
#5881
18 Feb 2021 14:03
My grandfather was killed by a collision with a bike, so perhaps I'm unduly sceptical. My wife and I have 158 years between the two of us and cycling is not much of an option. But one cyclist on average every fie minutes is not remotely worth the massive disruption visited on Palmers Green. We used to be able to drive at sensible speeds through the lovely leafy roads of the borough, but now can only proceed very slowly thorough the traffic-poisoned High Streets. Perhaps the planners meant well, but the true awfulness of what they are doing will only emerge when the schools are back and people go back about their business. The traffic fumes will be appalling. But perhaps the council considers getting about for people like us should just evaporate.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5885
19 Feb 2021 08:52
Plenty of people cycle into their 80s and beyond - and of course the more who cycle the more room there is for those who must drive. Agree there is far too much traffic and traffic pollution - all of which is only caused by people driving ; if more people walked and cycled pollution would fall. However I'm pleased it's only possible to drive slowly down the High Streets - around 25,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year and speeding is a major cause.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5887
19 Feb 2021 10:04
Peter Rust concludes traffic fumes will be appalling. More correctly, traffic fumes are appalling and have been for years. However it’s only these last few years where research has really started to nail the health impact and that has now seeped in to the public’s consciousness - as well as driving change in regulations and the law (worldwide) to impact it.
On the bright side, such actions are showing real reductions in the pollutant levels we are forced to breathe; countered by ever more adverse findings on its impact on our bodies – this week being its impact on fertility.
The best way to help is surely not to drive at all unless really necessary. With this week’s news that domestic wood burning in eg wood stoves in the UK now produce three times (THREE) as many small particle air pollutants as road traffic then depending on your residential street you might even be a whole lot healthier breathing in Southgate High Street’s long traffic-polluted air.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5895
21 Feb 2021 18:16
Stuck in traffic? You could be inhaling dangerously high levels of carcinogens. The suggestion, from recent USA university research (attached), is that the cause will not be those other congestion causing vehicles but will be due to your own– formaldehyde emissions from various surfaces and benzene (a post lead additive) from your fuel. 20mins behind the wheel appears to be a watershed and the recommendation – keep your windows open. Either that or travel actively, but being California perhaps that isn’t such an easy option as London for many journeys.

Such research may give a boost to this week’s other announcement – Coventry planning to run a trial giving drivers £3000 worth of active travel vouchers to get out of their cars. Hampshire is considering something similar.

What it all means for Southgate isn't mentioned.

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

Basil Clarke posted a reply
#5907
26 Feb 2021 00:30
Peter Rust wrote:

My wife and I have 158 years between the two of us and cycling is not much of an option.


I know an octogenarian who rides his bike up Fox Lane - says at his age walking's become a bit of a problem, but cycling isn't. And then we have the example of Olivia de Havilland...



However, I don't want to be accused of being misleading. The caption here is wrong. She lived until she was 104, but this photo was actually taken when she was much younger, a mere 93...

104 is a pretty good innings, I wonder what could have been the secret of Olivia de Havilland's long life...

Peter Rust posted a reply
#5914
02 Mar 2021 18:38
It seems Mr Clarke is suggesting that Londoners should take up cycling in their eighties, in London, in March. It is entirely consistent with the complacency and arrogance of the council's plans. Thank you Mr Clarke for your help in revelaing the "thinking" behind the council's dead-end streets high pollution traffic policy.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5916
03 Mar 2021 08:05
Peter Rust and other readers may note London’s latest spatial framework was finally published yesterday (2nd March) after its six year or so journey. Covering all main aspects of our lives there is much transport related, that specific element backed up further by 2018’s linked Transport Strategy.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf
Fully evidenced and widely consulted upon, including a “road show” visit to Enfield open to anyone albeit poorly attended, it sets out the direction we will be living in for the next two decades or so. The numerous backing reports give evidence to the “why”.
Blaming the council, as in the last post, is a simple unthinking route. There’s an awful lot more to it than that. I would encourage Peter Rust and others to spend the time to do the ground work research before jumping to often unfounded and unsupportable conclusions.
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021
"Complacency and arrogance" may not always be where it is first assumed.
Read one more comment