pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

Enfield Council's cabinet member for the environment has given the go-ahead for implementation of the "Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood" scheme, as originally proposed in November 2017, though with some modifications in response to points raised during the consultation process. No information is available about how soon the work will be done (a few elements are already in place - the "Copenhagen crossings" shown on the map below as pink circles).

fox lane qn consultation map smallerMap showing the original proposals, some of which have been modified or dropped.  For the key to the map see this article from November 2017 (click on the map to enlarge)

The scheme encompasses a large area of entirely residential streets extending from Palmers Green Triangle nearly all the way to Southgate Circus.  The map above was extracted from the original proposals, so does not reflect any changes, but the overall concept remains the same.

fox lane qn entry concept

Planters at Neighbourhood Zone entry points

The entire area will be signed as a "Neighbourhood Zone" with a non-mandatory 20mph limit.  The green circles are the signs indicating this, which will be mounted on large planters installed in the roadway to discourage drivers from using the roads as through routes (see the artist's impression).

Along Fox Lane itself there will be sinusoidal speed humps, designed to enourage slower driving without creating noise or hazards for cyclists.

The road narrowing shown on the map will not be included and the details of point no-entry treatments in the Meadway estate have change

The decision was among those listed in Publication of Decision List 23/18-19, published on 28th September, and took effect on Monday 8th October.  The summary information in the decision list is shown in the box below. The full consultation report is also available an incorporates an analysis of responses and objections.

Excerpt from Publication of Decision List No 23/18-19

AGREED: that the following decisions will come into effect on 8th October, subject to not being called in:

1. That the Quieter Neighbourhood scheme for the Fox Lane Area as illustrated in Appendix A of the report be implemented, including:

  • Provision of neighbourhood zone encouraging lower speeds with entry treatments using signs and planters.
  • Provision of speed humps in Fox Lane
  • “3D speed cushion” markings in Devonshire Road
  • Informal crossing point at the Amberley Road/Fox Lane junction
  • Point No Entry on Meadway
  • School Street in Cannon Road

2. That the following is noted;

  • Road narrowing, other than at junctions, is not progressed.
  • Measures for the Meadway/Greenway junction will be brought forward for consultation with ward councillors and local residents

3. That the traffic management orders be made to bring the scheme into operation, including any necessary experimental traffic management order relating to the point no-entry in the Meadway and the Cannon Road School Street.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Do nothing. This is not recommended as Quieter Neighbourhoods form an essential part of the strategy to promote walking and cycling in the Borough.

Implement the scheme as consulted on. This is not recommended as several comments made in response to the consultation raised legitimate issues that have been addressed as part of the development of the final scheme.

Introduction of modal filters. This option was considered, but is not recommended at this time, subject to the monitoring of the recommendations contained with this report.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed recommendations will enable a scheme to be implemented that promotes walking and cycling by reducing the impact of traffic in the Fox Lane area. In view of this mixed response to the proposed point no-entry, it is also recommended that this be installed on a trial basis, with further consultation undertaken before a final decision is made whether it should be retained, removed or modified.

Links

Publication of Decision List No 23/18-19

Full report on the outcome of the Fox Lane QN statutory consultation (The report is the third item in this document pack)

Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood proposals published (PGC 1 November 2017)

Log in to comment
John Phillips posted a reply
16 Oct 2018 13:43
I was rather alarmed to see, on clicking through to the map attached to the document pack, that the side roads off Fox Lane get planters but not Lakeside and Grovelands Roads. These will now become the preferred rat-runs for vehicles avoiding the Green Lanes shopping area.
The continuous pavements are welcome but have done next to nothing to reduce levels of traffic, noise, fumes and speeding.
I thought the scheme was supposed to be holistic in that it would not prefer some roads over others. Have I got it wrong?
John Phillips
Lakeside Road
Adrian Day posted a reply
17 Oct 2018 12:46
I suspect you're right, John. I understand the final design was based on the feedback from individual street residents.
Colin Younger posted a reply
18 Oct 2018 10:36
I agree with the concerns expressed about the likely increase in traffic and traffic speeds along Lakeside Road. The traffic measurement data for Lakeside Road is likely to be faulty because the equipment was deliberately sabotaged early in the survey period, and I'm not aware that it was replaced or repaired.

The continuous pavement was never likley to reduce traffic speeds along the road, nor were planters. The only answer for this are properly designed and placed speed humps.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
18 Oct 2018 10:45
Can't say I'm happy with the school street being agreed. Great example of a surface level easy "vote winner" but totally ill-thought out.

It's a tiny short cul de sac. Not a busy through road. "School Streets" are great ideas where I've seen them elsewhere but Cannon Road is not relevant - it doesn't having speeding traffic or room for hundreds of school run cars. Majority of all school traffic already burdens Conway Road and Harlech, not Cannon, and they do not form part of the school streets proposal but will now bear the entire brunt of it as even more parents park there (often obnoxiously).
Karl Brown posted a reply
19 Oct 2018 13:07
I was struck by the disappearance of the proposed planter with its suggested 20 mph speed limit signage at the eastern end of Fox Lane. The speed humps will start much further up yet the automatic speeding sign near the rail bridge reveals frequent speeding of vehicles. Why would anything change given that nothing is changing? This is a fast, often unpleasant stretch of residential street, now seemingly being ignored. Picking up an earlier thread, you could rat run from Green Lanes to Aldermans Hill without any indication things have apparently changed to make local life easier for pedestrians and cyclists. And so much for my own hope of a safer cycle route to Southgate.
Däna Roberts posted a reply
22 Oct 2018 23:11
While the continuous pavement was being built, one road was closed at a time - roads next to the closed road experienced a big increase in traffic. If only Grovelands Road and Lakeside Road are unprotected by planters and every other road has one, if not two, then the "Quieter Neighbourhood Plan" will have the effect of turning Grovelands and Lakeside into rat runs.

Any driver who wants to avoid the high street lights travelling south will turn up Fox Lane and turn left down Grovelands before they reach the first speed hump on Fox Lane. Grovelands is the shortest and straightest street in the relevant area and suffers high speeds already.

No testing was done on Grovelands and the revised plan was not publicised before it was adopted last week.

Why are only two streets left unprotected in the area - which will mean that all the traffic which previously would have been spread through the area will instead choose Grovelands and Lakeside? Surely WAYZ and other satnav software will quickly pick up on the easy streets to travel down?

The original proposals included a planter at the bottom of both roads - on what basis have those been withdrawn?

It is not a fair outcome for the residents of those roads (yes, I am one!) and we need to challenge it. Does anyone know who we should address our concerns to??
Richard Mapleston posted a reply
25 Oct 2018 09:05
I am Chair of FLDRA - the Residents Association. We too have published the Council Plan - in edited form so you don't need to scroll to find item 3. We recently issued a call for comment - to our email in-box - so it is helpful to see these views as well. We will be writing on behalf of FLDRA to the Council. But meantime it would help if contributors to PG Community Newsletter copied us in on any comments that they might have please.
Neil Littman posted a reply
25 Oct 2018 10:34
Have to say that I don't think there are any winners with schemes like this as reducing traffic flows in one part of the area simply moves the traffic to another part instead of being evenly distributed and it is very unlikely that the overall level of traffic in the area will reduce at all unless you go for the drastic solution that happened in Walthamstow where all side roads are basically for entry and exit only and the only through routes are the main roads on the boundary of the area. The same thing as Fox Lane QN will probably happen to the Fernleigh Road QN and everyone will be complaining that they didn't expect it. I think they should have put platforms on all the road entrances and left the rest as is.
Däna Roberts posted a reply
25 Oct 2018 15:59
Hi Richard

Can you let me know where you issued a call for comment? I’m not sure where to look.

Also what address should we use to copy you in on responses? I am aware of a good number of people with concerns that. Grovelands and Lakeside are being left out, so before FLDRA respond to the council, how should these people be in touch with you?

Many thanks
Karl Brown posted a reply
25 Oct 2018 16:15
Responding to Neil Littman’s posting regarding a net nil outcome, to the contrary there is a well-established phenomenon called traffic evaporation which seems to result in a broadly 15% average reduction in traffic after certain traffic management schemes are installed. Why? Varies, but covers such things as people discovering they have legs, that there is public transport, that they didn’t need to make a particular journey in the first place, and more. Let’s now see what happens with the Fox Lane QN for after all the consultation and analysis over many years that seems to be an entirely reasonable next step. its long past the time something needs to be off the drawing board and tested "live".
David Hughes posted a reply
26 Oct 2018 19:55
I've just read the Council's current proposals for the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood - and learned a key lesson: it's just as important to respond when you like/support proposed changes as when you object. Why? Because otherwise the Council could get the impression that the scheme is unpopular and vote-threatening when it's not, and therefore become more cautious about implementing a scheme as first envisaged.

I shall mend my ways.

Going back even further to the time when the Council made its bid for cash to build cycle lanes on through roads, and to improve residential areas for residents and cycling, I remember reading the document describing comparable schemes already existing in Germany. In a sense we've done something on similar lines, but the Germans made much more of using their equivalent of QNs to foster cycling, especially among the young not yet cycling because they need to learn and practice. You need speed limits well below 20mph for that, and frankly I am charmed by the German picture which is similar to the scene in which I grew up; my friends and I played all sorts of games on our bikes, it was wonderful training for a life of cycling.

I know that most readers will think/say that it's too late now, and ask how the Germans managed it; is it and illusion? Possibly, but we've reached a maximum in car ownership, air quality is a key issue and vehicle tyres are a significant contributor to that (beyond battery powered cars). Further health and fitness is a big worry, and lack of it is a very big worry for the NHS.

Often I ask myself if personal car ownership is necessary in a big city. I'm not suggesting that we go that far, but surely we don't have to quibble about speeds of 20mph or lower in a purely residential area.
Karl Brown posted a reply
27 Oct 2018 13:27
I understand there has been a drafting error on the maps (now being corrected and reissued asap) and that there will be planters at the Fox lane junctions of Grovelends and Lakeside Roads. At the Aldermans Hill end the continuous footway is expected to slow traffic but if monitoring shows that more planters are needed then there seems a view that they can be considered for addition.

so as i said earlier in a posting, a good time to get it "live" and see what emerges.
Colin Younger posted a reply
27 Oct 2018 19:29
I fail to understand how planters and/or continuous pavement at the ends of roads will slow down traffic along the length of any of the cross-connecting roads. These may reduce through traffic (as Karl says that will be tested) but only something like speed humps (preferrably sinusoidal ones) will slow cars down once in these roads.
Colin Younger posted a reply
27 Oct 2018 20:16
I had an interesting chat today with a resident of one of the connecting roads running from Forest Road to Hoe Street in Walthamstow. They had tried alternating one way roads but for some reason this had been abandoned in favour of closing off the Forest Road ends. It may be that they encouraged faster driving given that no traffic flowed against them

These few roads don't have off-street parking and there is no turning space at the closed end - the roads are to narrow for this, so there are issues for owners of cars at the closed ends in particular. I don't know how they get out - reversing along their length on to Hoe Street? Or vice versa?
The roads are obviously quieter so that can be seen as a success.

However an unexpected issue is that on bin collection day he has to be out by 6am to avoid being trapped by the refuse lorry!

I don't know what happens in Broomfield Avenue in this context, it may be wider and the entrance to Pilgrims Close may give the necessary reversing space.

Thinking about road dimensions and the planters, I assume that cars won't be able to park on the opposite side of the road entrance/exit at least as far along to allow the full length of a refuse lorry or fire engine (and removal lorry?) to proceed in to and out of the road. Something about devil and details springs to mind, so I hope that the engineers have had their tape measures out.

I've commented before that the traffic measurement sensors on Lakeside Road were cut at the start of the monitoring and I don't know whether enough (any?) representative data was gathered. I hope that measurement of post-implementation traffic is better.

These comments should only be seen as observations, not anti-quieter neighbourhoods, which I support.
Larry Roberts posted a reply
28 Oct 2018 12:21
Agree wholeheartedly
Christie Wagland posted a reply
02 Feb 2019 12:19
Hi, is anyone else concerned about the seemingly increased traffic level/speed of cars on the roads that haven’t been given planters so far? We’re on Grovelands, and it certainly seems worse to me. I emailed and called the council for some answers, as I know they measured the traffic on our road after the planters went in, but no response whatsoever. I’m so worried there’s going to be an accident.

Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Clicky