Fox Lane & District Residents' Association has published on its website notes of last week's public meeting in Burford Hall that was convened by Paul Mandel to discuss the council's plans to prevent traffic from driving through the area that the council has designated as the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood. I've reproduced them at the end of these comments (PGC and FLDRA "borrow" one another's content regularly, meaning that more people get to read it).
The FLDRA website also has a downloadable survey questionnaire, to be returned by 31st January.
The note taker estimated the attendance as 150+, but I think it was much larger. The notes are pretty sketchy - not meant as a criticism, as I quickly gave up making notes myself because it was very difficult.
In my view, it was a useful meeting which allowed those present to hear a full range of opinions about the proposals and it was a pity that neither deputy council leader Ian Barnes or any council officers were there to hear the opinions and suggestions for alternative schemes.
Having David Bird present was very helpful. He is a transport planner and has designed schemes for other boroughs also intended to remove through traffic. He lives in Meadway and introduced himself as "not an objector as such", saying that he considers that the volume of traffic along his road is unacceptable and some sort of scheme is definitely required - an important point that the note-taker has missed.
David Bird's 4th proposal was very interesting, but is likely to be far too expensive given that the council wants to set up low-traffic neighbourhoods throughout the borough. The most interesting variation would put ANPR cameras not at the ends of roads, but at carefully chosen points along them. The advantage of this is that residents whose cars are recognised will be able to drive along the full length of all roads. Visitors will still be able to access every address in the area, but would not be allowed to pass the ANPR cameras, meaning that to reach a destination they would have to approach and leave using the same end of the road. This would minimise inconvenience to residents while making it an expensive business for outsiders to drive through the area. (It might not, however, deter boy racers with obscured number plates or in stolen cars from driving along roads at 80 or 90mph, while the council's scheme would.)
It needs to be pointed out, however, that under the council's plans (which are likely to be significantly modified anyway), inconvenience to residents would, in my view, be massively counterbalanced by the huge drop in traffic along their streets with reductions in danger, noise and air pollution and a chance for the streets to become social spaces again.
Another point that was missed by many opponents at the meeting was that there would not be long queues of cars waiting to exit Fox Lane at either end. They forget that the majority of cars on the area's roads at the moment are just driving through - and won't be able to when the scheme is in place. All the traffic in the area will be visiting or leaving addresses in the neighbourhood - a much smaller amount of traffic.
Notes from the Fox Lane Low-Traffic Neighbourhood meeting, as published on the FLDRA website
|
Meeting |
Fox Lane Low Traffic Neighbourhood Residents Meeting |
|
Date |
10th January 2020 |
|
Time |
20:00 |
|
Venue |
Burford Hall, Palmers Green United Reformed Church |
|
Attendees |
150+ Residents of Lakes Estate and surrounding area Cllr Dinah Barry Cllr Maria Alexandrou Cllr Derek Levy Cllr Anne Brown |
|
Apologies |
Bambos Charalambous MP Cllr Ian Barnes Cllr Daniel Anderson Cllr. Lindsay Rawlings Cllr. Claire Stewart Richard Eason (Enfield Council) Richard Mapleson (Chair Fox Lane and District RA) Chris Wing Richard Silver Maxted Jones Michael Lord Metin Hassan |
|
Notes |
Attendees asked to sign-in and Fox Lane Low Traffic Neighbourhood (FLLTN) questionnaire. The speakers from the floor were invited to give their name and road but these were not captured to ensure the focus is on the comments not the speakers identity. The accuracy of comments from the floor has not been verified. Several shows of hand were requested to show support, but none carried out |
|
20:00 |
Meeting start delayed due to volume of attendees waiting to enter venue |
|
20:10 |
Meeting start |
|
Paul Mandel (PM) |
Fire Exits explained. Introduces himself. Explains the initial exhibition at former Starbucks. Explains produced leaflet to put in windows. Explains meeting is because the council did not organise its own residents meeting to discuss the proposal. Introduces David Bird who is an experienced Transport Planner. |
|
David Bird (DB) |
Lives on Meadway, which is affected by a high volume of traffic. Has reviewed the council proposal and traffic flow details produced by the council and would like to put forward some alternative solutions to initiate debate. Unfortunate that had to raise an FOI to the council for traffic flow data. Meadway has nearly 1,500 vehicles a day passing through, the same volume for The Mall, other roads the volume is not so high. Has produced illustrations for alternative proposals. Wants Enfield council to engage with residents, as residents want to engage over proposal. Proposal 1: Council Proposal; could be effective but would cause mass inconvenience. Proposal 2: Three Road Closures; Closing Meadway, The Mall and Selbourne. Would cause some inconvenience but reduce traffic flow into the estate. Proposal 3: Time Based Closure; closing entrance from 07:00 to 09:00. Would stop the prime time through traffic, modern technology could be used to enforce. Proposal 4: Prevent Pass-through Traffic; using technology (ANPR) to prevent pass through traffic. There is a scheme in Newham that operates but not aware of its effectiveness. |
|
PM |
Introduce Jeremy Hay Campbell who formed the FLLTN group. |
|
Jeremy Hay Campbell |
Lives in Burford Gardens and along with an Amberly Road resident was inspired last summer to speak to residents to see if change was wanted and subsequently formed the FLLTN group. The group is apolitical and encouraging people to put forward alternatives to the council plans but still reducing traffic and speed. They have produced a proposal. |
|
20:35 |
PM invites question, comments and suggestions from the floor. |
|
Floor |
Is any of this discussion of relevance if the decision will be made by an individual councillor (Cllr Ian Barnes). |
|
Cllr Derek Levy |
There are several councillors here to listen and are keen to engage. The process needs to ensure that the decision goes before cabinet or full council. |
|
Floor |
Cllr Ian Barnes needs to ensure residents are on board with the council proposal. |
|
DB |
In relation to the process, a Traffic Regulation Order will be required to proceed. Residents can raise a petition against this which would force the decision to be pass up within the council. |
|
Floor |
Resident in surrounding area. With the current council proposal 350,000 cars would be displaced onto the surrounding roads. |
|
Floor |
Resident in surrounding area. The current proposal would increase pollution on surrounding roads. Their son has recently been diagnosed with asthma the proposal would increase risk to his health. |
|
Floor |
Their understanding from the council is that there has yet to be full consultation, but a revised trial scheme would be implemented, there would be 6 months consultation. Waltham Forest scheme showed increase in traffic on surrounding roads in first 12 months, but this then settled down. Concerned residents should Google ‘Evaporating Traffic’. |
|
Floor |
Feels the council will not consult and the change will just happen. |
|
PM |
Cllr Ian Barnes said the consultation will be done at the same time as the trial. |
|
Floor |
Beware of an Emergency Traffic Order as there can be no objection at it can be for 18 months. |
|
Floor |
David Taylor (Enfield Council) said the Connaught Gardens LTN has been delayed because of the issues with FLLTN. The council are undertaking a redesign of the proposal and reviewing all feedback. |
|
Floor |
Will the consultation change the trial? Hopes it will be a constructive exercise. |
|
PM |
There have been lots of comments but are there any alternative ideas? |
|
Floor |
Question to DB: How does ANPR work with service delivery (e.g. Amazon, Tradesmen, Carers)? |
|
DB |
Vehicles will still be able to get to an address. They will need to follow the correct route. |
|
Floor |
How will people outside the Lakes estate who need to visit numerous times a day be consulted? They are a carer for a relative. |
|
PM |
Consultation should be done on boundary roads as well. Thinks this is the first LTN in Enfield. |
|
Floor |
Old Park Road. In favour of the proposal. Would like to hear alternative proposals. The planters helped stop commercial down Old Park Road. They would like to hear willingness to compromise. |
|
Floor |
Old Park Road. Was optimistic at the beginning of the meeting. We need to work together if we want a better solution. |
|
PM |
Calls for order. |
|
Floor |
Fox Lane / Bourne Hill Junction. Sees speeding into the Lakes estate. An alternative option could be to close roads at their Fox Lane junctions. |
|
Floor |
ETO cannot be opposed but TRO can be opposed. Can DB explain what to do to challenge? |
|
DB |
ETO is for 6 months but can be extended to 18 months. Can legally challenge on the process but not the merits of a scheme. |
|
Floor |
Had seen on council website that the FLLTN will commence in the next 3 to 4 weeks. |
|
Floor |
Winchmore Hill. The Green Lanes cycle lane experience, there was no consultation. What is behind this scheme? Where is the problem? |
|
Floor |
A lot of people here are not against lowering traffic flow and pollution. We want to solve the problems, but the council are going about it the wrong. We want discussion and engagement; it must be done properly. |
|
Floor |
There is obviously a need, but the scheme must be right, not wasting public money on a scheme that few agree with. |
|
Floor |
There needs to be a reduction in traffic, but the scheme must be right. |
|
PM |
Asks for ideas. |
|
Floor |
Like the idea of vehicle recognition. |
|
Floor |
Green Lanes traffic has been forced in the Fox Lane neighbourhood. FLLTN would force traffic no onto surrounding roads. ETO was used for the cycle lanes. |
|
Floor |
Proposed show of hands for DB description of problem, too many cars going too fast on the FL roads. Feels that there is going to be scope creep to try and reduce car usage. A modified and restrained scheme is required. |
|
Floor |
People want their independence and should have cars. With the proposed scheme what would happen with refuse vehicles etc which use the roads? |
|
Floor |
A long-term resident but know nothing about the Starbucks consultation. Did the change to the St Monica’s catchment area make the problem worse? |
|
Floor |
How do we get the council to engage? |
|
PM |
If we have ideas, we should tell the council. Do we support ANPR/Permits to restrict traffic? Could we have a show of hands? |
|
Note |
There was no formal show of hands as a section of the floor wanted more discussion. |
|
Floor |
Suggestion of 20mpm blanket speed limit, with no traffic calming. |
|
Floor |
Old Park Road. Everyone is here because they care. The council have done two surveys, there are charts available. The planters did reduce speed and traffic. |
|
|
Asked if people felt there was a problem. There is an opportunity and we need to get past the council bulldoze feeling. |
|
Cllr Maria Alexandrou |
All cllrs have been invited to discuss the scheme. Cllr MA and DA met with Richard Eason and had a heated discussion. Cllrs want to hear residents’ ideas. |
|
Floor |
Old Park Road. Residents need to be open minded. So many people present tonight show there is a problem. |
|
Floor |
Worried that Devonshire Road has not been mentioned. Monitoring showed speeding of 59mph down the road. |
|
Floor |
Feels we are all disenfranchised. We should raise a petition for proper consultation. |
|
PM |
The meeting will close soon. Invites those who are interested to stay behind to form a working group to take things forward. |
|
Floor |
We should ask the council to comment on the alternatives and give evidence of why the selected proposal is chosen. |
|
Floor |
Ridgeway and Oakfield road are shown to be fine, but the proposal will route traffic down these roads. |
|
Floor |
Needs proper impact study against measurable criteria and then published. Would be willing to have inconvenience if it could be proved it would benefit the greater good. This cannot be done in isolation. |
|
Floor |
Fox Lane/Bourne Hill Junction. Already a dangerous junction, proposal would make it worse. Extreme schemes do not work. Please can the council find a way for a less extreme scheme. |
|
PM |
Just three more questions. |
|
Floor |
What happens next? Feel the council approach has pitted residents against each other. |
|
Floor |
Feels lot of agreement in the room. Thinks there is a better solution, and something must be done. Recommends the FLLTN group proposal. There is a key issue about what happens to boundary roads, but over time traffic does evaporate from the boundary roads. |
|
Floor |
Asks for action points. |
|
PM |
Asks for attendees to complete the questionnaire. Will use questionnaires to feedback to the council and collected email addresses. Asks for volunteers to remain to form a working group to take actions forward. |
|
21:40 |
Meeting Closed. |
