Forum topic: The David Burrowes "referendum"

I doubt many voters in Palmers Green or Winchmore Hill who went out on May 1st 2014 to vote in the local elections would have even heard of mini-Holland let alone given it any thought.

Can you seriously believe many life long Conservative voters will have said to themselves, "I can't possibly vote for them this time, they supported the cycle lanes bid document."

At the time it was not a key local issue. Few sensible people could have believed such a daft scheme as envisaged in the bid document would actually come to fruition in such a form. Even the Labour run Council's cabinet member for the Environment was saying as late as February 2015 that "it was only about getting the money....and what ever scheme we put in businesses will have to be on board with it"

www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=790244554377723&id=255844137817770

This of course is also the reason why the Conservative group says it supported the bid.

True, the final scheme design has not been announced yet (it was scheduled to have been done by the end of last November). The Council's timetable shows that as soon as this happens, it will try to rush it through as quickly as possible. I can't see how David Burrowes would have been able to plan and execute a referendum within that timescale. Therefore, he conducted it at the most appropriate time.

If the referendum shows a rejection of the scheme, the final design should not be implemented unless it has resolved, with proper scrutiny, all the issues. This does not appear to be a likely scenario. Even since the close of the public consultation, new issues have arisen. I for example have questioned the accuracy of the traffic modelling and no answer or explanation has been forthcoming to-date.

In my opinion, the Council and TFL really need to go back to the drawing board with this and start afresh. Had Enfield Council , stuck to its word, this mess would not have happened.

I really do not follow what you are saying about Quieter Neighbourhoods. I was at the meeting in the URC Fox Lane and the audience seemed pretty hostile. At the design workshops in St. Johns and the Fox, there were very mixed opinions. In my view, the roads were set out more than a century ago to allow people and traffic to pass through. We should keep it that way.

Since WW2, town planners have had different ideas. They built fast high capacity roads to orbit residential and commercial areas, which work like cells. Any built in the future are likely to also accommodate cycling in a very comprehensive way.

But going on house prices ....where to people actually prefer to live? Places like ours.

The rest of what you are saying really is off topic. However, a cycle superhighway is not going to beautify the shops and make our town look like Hampstead.

I agree, Colin. My feeling is that there was significant support for the QN idea. In Old Park Road, where I live, we have tracked support and its between 80% and 90% of households. Paul is right, of course that the roads were designed 100 years ago for people and traffic - but one of those variables has changed dramatically since then. The planners couldn't have envisaged HGVs travelling down OPR at 40 mph or cars at over 60mph (tracked myself using a police speed tracker).

So Burrowes' plan looks like it's working.

@davidburrowesmp tweeted:

"Boris agrees to halt approval of Cycle Scheme following MP's referendum"
www.davidburrowes.com/content/cycle-scheme …