Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood: More information published as consultation is extended to July

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

 map of fox lane quieter neighbourhood

Enfield Council has published further information about how it will be assessing the success of the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood. The consultation period has been extended until 11th July and a webinar to update residents has been scheduled for 26th May. Data on traffic levels and speeds on surrounding roads is currently being collected. There will be further monitoring of traffic levels in the summer. In the autumn the council will be reporting on all monitoring activity and the outcomes of public consultation and will take a decision to either make the scheme permanent or remove it.

Online consultation

The deadline for filling in the online consultation is now 11th July. You can fill in the survey more than once if you have changed your views or wish to add further comments.

Online event on 26th May (webinar)

The project team will brief about the monitoring and evaluation plan, consultation and engagement activities, the Equalities Impact Assessment, and an overview of next steps. There will be a presentation followed by an opportunity to ask questions. To participate you need to register by 5pm on 26th May.

New documents

The council has published two new documents and a further two will become available before the webinar on 26th May:

There are also two new maps of monitoring points within the quieter neighbourhood and on nearby streets:

Project rationale

The project rationale document starts by placing the quieter neighbourhood scheme in the wider context of national, London-wide and borough policies and strategies:

The Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood is delivered in the context of local, regional and national policies and strategies that seek to respond to the climate emergency, reduce traffic congestionand increase levels ofphysical activity, and post-pandemic, to enable a green recovery. Nationally the government has committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and is supporting local authorities to encourage sustainable transport through its Active Travel Fund and the 2020 national walking and cycling strategy, Gear Change.

Across London, the 2018 Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS) sets the overall direction and city-wide objectives for transport. The MTS set a target for 80% of all tripsto be made on foot, by bicycle or by public transport by 2041.

The 2019 Enfield Transport Strategy sets out how the council will deliver the MTS locally. Key objectives of the Enfield Transport Strategy include firstly the delivery of measures that encourage more walking and cycling, and secondly the promotion of safe, active and sustainable journeys to school. The council’s emerging Health and Wellbeing Strategy aims to reduce health inequalities and prioritises enabling active lifestyles. Creating an environment in which people feel comfortable walking and cycling for everyday journeys will help more people to be physically active.

Traffic monitoring

fox lane qn traffic monitoring map
Traffic monitoring points - Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood Traffic monitoring points (click here to expand)

The monitoring plan document sets out what data the council will monitor and how it will do the monitoring.

Data and insights will be collected from a range of sources. Reporting on each of these sources will be brought together in a formal report which will outline the data collected, methodologies for any data analysis, our findings from the data, and provide links to further detail. The report will be published for anyone to access.

A range of qualitative data (based on review and judgement) and quantitative data (based on numbers) will be considered as part of the monitoring of Fox Lane Area QN.

It is important to note each focus area does not have a specific target to reach in order for the project to be evaluated as successful or not. This is because the project needs to consider and balance all of the various impacts of the scheme as a whole, and their alignment with the details provided in the Project Rationale document. The report will set out the detail and invite elected members to make a decision. Decisions will be subject to the normal process of review and scrutiny.

The document gives details of how the following will be monitored:

  • Traffic speeds and volume
  • Bus journey times
  • Cycling counts
  • Pedestrian counts
  • Impact on emergency services
  • Residents', businesses' and stakeholders' views
  • Equality considerations
  • Crime and anti-social behaviour
  • Noise quality
  • Air quality
  • Healthy Streets Indicators
  • Road collisions.

Links

Fox Lane QN page on Let's Talk Enfield website

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood: More information published as consultation is extended to July
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#6039
04 Jun 2021 23:33
A recording of the 26th May Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood webinar is now available to view.

Basil Clarke posted a reply
#6089
05 Jul 2021 20:01
File Attachment:


Just a reminder that the consultation for the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood ends on 11th July. More details higher up this discussion thread.

If you've already responded, you can do so again, if only to confirm that your views haven't changed.

Click here to respond.

It's not just people living in the QN who can benefit from it, as it's now a brilliant area for other people to walk or cycle through. I don't live in the Fox Lane area, but I pass through it on foot three or four times a week, either on my way to somewhere (Broomfield Park, Grovelands Park, Southgate Green, Arnos Park or further afield) or I just go for a walk for exercise and enjoyment. It's now so relaxing walking up Fox Lane, whereas before it was noisy and stressful. The contrast is a clear sign of how overuse of cars has spoilt simple pleasures, like walking through leafy streets, stopping to chat to neighbours. The number of people walking along Fox Lane has shot up, and there are plenty of people on bikes, including kids having fun.

So some of the roads around are getting congested, with traffic queuing? Well, main roads throughout London are full of congestion and traffic queues, even if there's no LTN in the area. The reason? There is far too much driving for the capacity of the road system. The North Circular through Edmonton was widened at the cost of much money and disruption, but traffic is frequently at a standstill in both directions. Increasing road capacity only works for a short while before traffic levels increase and we're back to queues. And in many places there's no possibility of adding road capacity without large-scale demolition.

The fact that there was too much driving for the main road system in the PG area was to a degree hidden away before the LTN, because there was the possibility of cutting through residential areas - in effect, brushing the problem away under the carpet. Remove the LTN today and the peripheral roads will become a bit less congested, but it will only be a matter of a year or two before Southgate Circus is overwhelmed, as the amount of traffic is growing inexorably (and cars are getting bigger and taking up more space).

It's time we faced up to the fact that there is too much driving. It doesn't require people to give up driving, it just needs people who can (which is probably most drivers) to use their cars less.c

The LTN gives people an opportunity to use alternative methods of getting around without being exposed to the noise, stress and danger that was the Fox Lane area before for cyclists and walkers. And let's not forget that many people in and around the LTN can't drive anyway - because they can't afford a car, because they're too young or too old, because their eyesight is failing, or simply because they don't want to drive. But we've been treating these thousands of non-drivers as second-class citizens by not providing them with a safe and pleasant environment to move around in, even though they're not the ones who creating the danger and unpleasantness.

And then there's the most pressing reason of all for us to reduce car usage - the climate crisis, which is already upon us. Just look at the horrendous temperatures in the US and Canada, and the heatwaves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions starting now.
Ann Jones posted a reply
#6091
08 Jul 2021 16:57
your readers might like to see the attached from Enfield Independent.

PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#6097
15 Jul 2021 00:20
File Attachment:


The Enfield Dispatch and Enfield Independent both carry a report by local desmocracy reporter Simon Allin about a threatened legal challenge to the Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood scheme from a group called One Community Against Fox Lane LTN on the grounds that a document stating the reasons for the scheme was not published on time. The report quotes Enfield Council as stating that "a formal decision report [...] will be produced once the consultation closes and other monitoring data is reviewed and analysed. This report will provide a response to any objections raised.”

https://enfielddispatch.co.uk/legal-threat-over-low-traffic-scheme-consultation
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6098
15 Jul 2021 14:23
A document allegedly not available for the first two months of a pilot, but which was itself extended by five months – and remains ongoing, if no longer subject to consultation – would seem more than enough time for even the slowest reader and assessor to still make their mark. But I guess most will not be surprised by legal noises given active travel’s history.
In the wider world, today the Department of Transport announce changes to address, “chronic road congestion”, which will focus on reducing single occupancy car journeys. Guidance will be issued to local authorities on supporting “shared occupancy schemes”, ie give someone a lift if they are going your way rather than have them use their own car.
Separately the IPRR’s cross-party commission announce their findings from citizen’s juries, including a call for better public transport networks, and for these to be free by 2030. Surely a better use for national resources, be it (road) space or personal savings.
And directly from the world of cars, the RAC identify cars as having increased in size by a third in the last few decades. The RAC’s director says, “not only are cars getting bigger, there are also more of them.”
With road space not increasing, especially in London, is the pressure of congestion really such a surprise, and does anyone really think that current transport policy (at all levels) including the hierarchy with cars in bottom place of importance is due to change?
I would be looking to sense which way the wind is blowing ever harder and seriously think about saving the lawyers’ fees.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6099
20 Jul 2021 09:11
“The government has pledged to push ahead with their (LTN) expansion”, pointing to its own polling which suggest twice as many people support them as oppose them.
The Department of Transport say “more of the zones would be introduced" (on top of the more than 200 so far in place), adding, “There is clear evidence that the provision of segregated cycle lanes and other measures such as LTN’s drives significant increases in cycling and, after an initial period of adjustment, reductions in motor traffic, both locally and more widely”.
Reports serious w/e press.
So while the government cannot even agree with itself on Covid never mind with rail providers, shops, and other levels of the political hierarchy, on LTN’s and segregated cycle lanes we have the government, London’s Mayor and our council in harmony.
Ann Jones posted a reply
#6106
22 Jul 2021 13:55
This version might be easier to read.

Also attached iss a letter from this week’s Enfield Independent in response to that article both interesting.

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

Adrian Day posted a reply
#6110
22 Jul 2021 21:55
It's good that the Council are listening to carers and people with disabilities - and perhaps this particular engagement should have been done earlier. And it's understandable that some carers need vehicles to complete their visits - however the cause of delays is not LTNs but too much traffic. We need to reduce the high percentage of journeys made by car which could easily be made by walking, cycling or public transport (and then there will be more space for those who must drive). LTNs have proven to one effective tool in the box marked 'how do we reduce vehicle journeys' alongside road charging, cycle lanes , improved public transport and better pavements. Plenty of research studies over the past year have shown a majority of people support these measures - as well as central government, GLA and Enfield Council . There will also be measures that can be taken to smooth flow on peripheral roads including traffic light phasing . Finally LTNs make the area much safer for those using mobility aids - in my residential road someone who is slow crossing a road no longer had to be fearful of through-traffic racing along at up to 60mph. We need many more LTNS in Enfield.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6111
23 Jul 2021 09:00
Another reason we need more LTNs - they reduce road injuries https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

And to underline the point about support for LTNS https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/steady-support-for-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london/
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6113
23 Jul 2021 17:21
re the press letter highlighted, I never cease to be amazed that however extensive the level of consultation there comes along a claim that there was no consultation; a claim as inaccurate as the Fox Lane LTN area being The Lakes Estate, that non-defined and much smaller area made up by an estate agent a decade or so since for marketing purposes. “Hampstead Borders” sounded much better to me but was perhaps a step too far.
As for the rest, numerous evidence reports behind eg the Mayors Transport Strategy and the linked same of Enfield Council will assist and correct much of the (apparent absence of) understanding and I’d specifically commend reading a report from this week’s PGC newsletter
https://climateexp0.medium.com/why-we-need-road-pricing-7fc151f1ca1d
“There is no solution that does not require large-scale modal shift to active, public and shared transport for moving people.”
The draft Enfield Local Plan, now out for consultation, captures the same conclusion:-
(13.2.1) “The healthy streets approach, set out in the London Plan and Enfield Transport Plan, and aims to achieve a significant step-change away from car use to more sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling and public transport.”
Denial may still be widespread but the status quo is gone; we all need to discover our legs much more than has been the case. LTN's are one tool in the box to encourage us all - UK wide - on exactly that path.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6114
24 Jul 2021 13:01


And less than 50 protestors at this morning's well-publicised demonstration against Enfield LTNs on Southgate Green. That's around 0.01% of the Borough's population....the 'majority of Enfield residents oppose' claim doesn't quite ring true!

Moderator's note: 3 or 4 subsequent posts arguing about whether there were 50, 60 or 100 demonstrators have been deleted. Too boring, try Facebook instead.
Ann Jones posted a reply
#6115
24 Jul 2021 23:25
I think your numbers are wrong. Bystanders dont always get the best picture. Huge support from passing traffic Saturday morning 10.00 am in the rain. Local people making extended journeys adding pollution to surrounding roads. And let me add to below post re. Consultation: in the only limited engagement some residents had to this LTN, 73% said NO to blocked roads. This is from Enfield Council’s own website. To add insult to injury, no one from the impacted roads now considered to be inside the LTN were even invited to participate. To be clear, this means residents of Bourne Hill, The High St, Cannon Hill, Aldermans Hill or Palmers Green High St/Green Lanes. Yet Enfield Council says they are inside the LTN. Consider these are our neighbours. This is our neighbourhood.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6116
25 Jul 2021 11:02
So that’s no consultation but there was consultation. At least that’s cleared up.
In reality there has been a rolling series of informing work over many years, typically residents’ association and /or council inspired, or involved. Perhaps the most familiar for the current LTN was the large exercise typically referred to as “Starbucks”.
The consultation on the live Fox Lane pilot lasted many months and ended only recently. I understand it was available to anyone and everyone. A report will doubtless follow.
But even then a consultation is an informing exercise – informing two ways – and forms part of a balancing decision which necessarily will factor in other dimensions such as cost, risk / reward, HMG policy, London policy, local plan requirements and more. An often repeated phrase, that a consultation is not a referendum, is accurate. That’s not how UK democracy operates.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#6117
25 Jul 2021 11:41
Karl Brown wrote:

...a claim as inaccurate as the Fox Lane LTN area being The Lakes Estate, that non-defined and much smaller area made up by an estate agent a decade or so since for marketing purposes.


Drury McPherson Partnership?

https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/conservation-areas/lakes-estate-conservation-area/heritage-conservation-and-countryside-information-lakes-caa.pdf

;-)
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6119
25 Jul 2021 13:56
Anyone in the country could fill-in the Fox Lane LTN consultation - as many times as they wanted. It was publicised throughout the Borough on all relevant social media channels and websites as well as by pro- and anti-LTN groups both within and outside the LTN. Short of door-to-door calling on every household in the Borough not sure what else could've been done (and given lockdown that might've been awkward...).
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6120
25 Jul 2021 16:16
Picking up Alan Thomas’ comment - The decision to delineate a number of streets into a new conservation area (CA) after years of pressure to do so – with requested with a much larger footprint than was finally agreed- by the residents association in particular and then call it whatever isn’t really a clincher as is implied. The CA includes Broomfield Avenue (an existing LTN) which is outside of the LTN and in most eyes also outside of the Lakes Estate. The Fox Lane LTN excludes Broomfield Avenue but includes eg Devonshire Road, The Meadway CA, many streets to the north of Fox Lane, the Leigh Hunt Drive estate (an existing LTN), a number of streets separating the Lakes and Meadway CA’s plus a plethora of other sundry streets .
Think of it as the Fox Lane LTN is more than Fox Lane, but it’s a handy name to use, just as it's more than the Lakes Estate, whether that’s defined by the CA name or the completely arbitrary boundary which more usually defines it.
The original author might have had the historic Old Park Estate in mind.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#6121
25 Jul 2021 19:25
File Attachment:


I can't see how what you call a particular group of streets has any bearing on whether or not an LTN is a good idea or a bad idea. However, the question of where the Lakes Estate is and how long it's been called that has come up in this forum thread and is an interesting one in its own right.

The map shows the Lakes Estate Conservation Area and the Meadway Conservation Area superimposed on the council's map of the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood. The Lakes Estate, as defined by the conservation area, occupies something between a quarter and a third of the QN area.

The style of houses and streets in the Meadway CA is completely different from those in the Lakes Estate, that much is clear. But some of the streets that aren't in either CA don't feel that different from those in the Lakes Estate CA, for instance, Oakfield Road, the Mall, Amberley Road. Probably also Cranley Gardens and Burford Gardens (but not Caversham Avenue). Why aren't these in the Lakes Estate? Are they regarded by experts as less worthy of conservation? If so, why?

Is it because they're not named after lakes? But that goes for all of them apart from Derwent and Ulleswater.

And when did the name Lakes Estate start being used? It was certainly in use in 2010, when the CA was created, and presumably the creation of the CA was preceded by many months of discussion and consultation during which the name would have been used.

The Enfield Society says that it was originally known as the Old Park Estate - but did it continue to be called that after the houses were built?

The adverts for newly built houses in Conway Road and Ulleswater Road that are included in the CA assessment mentioned by Alan Thomas don't mention either Old Park Estate or the Lakes Estate, but just say they're near Broomfield Park.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#6122
25 Jul 2021 20:24
File Attachment:


In an earlier post Karl Brown called Leigh Hunt Drive "an existing LTN". And so it is! Those dastardly developers, in cahoots with the council, only went and sneaked in an LTN without calling it that so that people could live on a private estate. They missed a great chance for drivers to do the sensible thing and use a cut-through between main roads.

Just take a look at the map above. Instead of letting cars enter and exit on the Bourne as well as High Street, the developers put in a "modal filter" so that only pedestrians and cyclists can get through at the Bourne end of the estate. It would have been really easy to create a nice cut-through for cars, but the selfish and undemocratic council didn't because they only care about cyclists.

The result is that people living in Leigh Hunt Drive can't drive straight to Grovelands Park or Southgate Methodist Church. They have to drive all the way round Southgate Circus and get stuck in traffic. I suppose at a pinch they could walk to the church, but it's unfair and undemocratic. Who remembers a consultation about an LTN in Leigh Hunt Drive? Nobody, because there wasn't one!

Why hasn't One Community Against the Enfield LTNs kicked up a fuss about this?
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6123
25 Jul 2021 21:42
Even worse nearby Crothall Close off Fox Lane is also a low traffic neighbourhood. A few of the residents have window posters saying they want the LTN to end. I assume they'd like the road extended a few metres to Bourne Hill so through traffic can use it? In fact most housing estates built in last 30 years are low traffic neighbourhoods.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#6124
25 Jul 2021 22:46
Adrian Day wrote:

Even worse nearby Crothall Close off Fox Lane is also a low traffic neighbourhood. A few of the residents have window posters saying they want the LTN to end. I assume they'd like the road extended a few metres to Bourne Hill so through traffic can use it? In fact most housing estates built in last 30 years are low traffic neighbourhoods.


I would say the last 50 or possibly even 60 years. And if Victorian and Edwardian town planners had had even an inkling of the number of cars that there would be on the road today, they too would have designed residential side streets in a way that prevented drivers cutting through them.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6125
26 Jul 2021 10:01
Basil asks why some equivalent streets were not included in the CA. Controversial at the time the answer is that even pre austerity our council had insufficient dedicated resource to manage more than a proportion of those streets deemed worthy on top of the existing CA’s. (Determining CA’s was a HMG requirement.) Perhaps with The Mall et al included it might have been called The Conway CA. I’m not clear if the streets north of Fox Lane, from Amberley to Caversham, were part of the original character assessment and tabbed for inclusion. If so I’m sure it would have been The Fox Lane CA. Someone with a longer and deeper local memory may have the answer.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#6126
26 Jul 2021 10:40
Karl Brown wrote:

Picking up Alan Thomas’ comment - The decision to delineate a number of streets into a new conservation area (CA) after years of pressure to do so – with requested with a much larger footprint than was finally agreed- by the residents association in particular and then call it whatever isn’t really a clincher as is implied.


I was questioning the assertion that the term 'The Lakes Estate' was coined by an Estate Agent. A digression to the thread topic certainly, but not intended as a "clincher" (of what?) and I remain nonplussed - despite having grown up in the area - about the term and its use. Seems to me that it is something of a moveable feast, as the last few posts have shown...

Me, I'm looking forward to the return of the Trolleybuses.
Colin Younger posted a reply
#6127
26 Jul 2021 15:34
The Lakes Estate Conservation area, set up in 2010, was the last of 22 conservation areas to be designated. The Fox Lane and District Residents' Association had pressed for all roads between Aldermans Hill and Bourne Hill to be included, but the council felt that this would be unmanageable given the planning implications of such a wide designation; the smaller area is still probably the largest conservation area in terms of tr number of properties included. The Lakes estate was developed from 1902 on the Old Park Estate , the area to the north from 1908 on the site of Clappers Farm, which would account for the differences in the style of houses. The council based the designation on assessments by the then Paul Drury Partnership. The use of the term "Lakes"Estate seems to have been based on nothing more than a few road names.
Elaine Hall-Freeman posted a reply
#6128
29 Jul 2021 07:35
It’s a shame that you can’t accept that a majority of people are against these LTNs . It appears democracy only works if we are made to kow-tow to a very vocal minority! It must have taken quite a time for you to take a photo with no traffic around. Shame you weren’t there from 10-11am, the official time. It was uplifting! Passing busses, cars, vans etc. honking like crazy in support.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6129
29 Jul 2021 08:45
Please share some evidence for your assertions. All the research I've seen conducted in the last year shows more support than opposition for LTNs - and that it's those opposing who are in the 'small and noisy' group. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/steady-support-for-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london/ . Remember Enfield's population is over 330,000 - so 50 to 100 people at a demo doesn't even hint at a majority (but a tiny percentage). And finally, in this case, the camera doesn't lie - no evidence of the claimed gridlock on periphery roads whatsoever - remember this is a Saturday morning!
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6131
29 Jul 2021 10:41
Seems the government is to announce further funding for additional LTN’s tomorrow (Friday 30/7) as part of a new walking and cycling strategy. Boris Johnson said to be “strongly in favour” of more of them.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
#6137
30 Jul 2021 15:38
Elaine Hall-Freeman wrote:

It’s a shame that you can’t accept that a majority of people are against these LTNs . It appears democracy only works if we are made to kow-tow to a very vocal minority! It must have taken quite a time for you to take a photo with no traffic around. Shame you weren’t there from 10-11am, the official time. It was uplifting! Passing busses, cars, vans etc. honking like crazy in support.


I drove past a few minutes after 11, High Street was empty, Aldermans Hill quiet too. Was it markedly different just 10 minutes earlier? I doubt it.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
#6138
30 Jul 2021 15:43
Ann Jones wrote:

I think your numbers are wrong. Bystanders dont always get the best picture. Huge support from passing traffic Saturday morning 10.00 am in the rain.


Rain? False claim. I was running in the park so know exactly that the rain stopped at 9.20am. Therefore there were 40 mins of clear dry weather before this protest started. Given everyone there should have been "local", the weather cannot be said to have had any impact on turn-out. You could have waited from the rain to stop, driven from Hertfordshire, and still arrived in time...
Adrian Day posted a reply
#6139
30 Jul 2021 17:18
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007619/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf

Yes more evidence that the opposition to LTNs is small - see page 30.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#6140
31 Jul 2021 09:56
Thanks Adrian, a report that is well worth a (full) read and I think should be mandatory for anyone at this stage promoting non-evidence based opinion. In terms of expressing the direction of travel this government report puts it on a stick and waves it in your face.
On LTN’s specifically it evidentially debunks so many themes raised over the last year or so: boundary road and other nearby road overspill; adverse issues with the emergency services; street crime problems; inclusivity / exclusivity; and apparently there being no such thing as traffic evaporation.
It suggests there is no alternative to the paths it outlines, but if there is, you need to specify exactly what that alternate is to meet the same goals. A fair shout and there’s 35 reports listed at the back which give a good start point for any research supporting such work.

This forum thread has now been closed. This contribution from Karl Brown has been copied to a new thread discussing recent government announcements about more active travel schemes , including LTNs.
Read 22 more comments