Forum topic: How dare the Federation of Enfield Residents speak on my behalf?

The vice president of the Federation of Enfield Residents did not speak on behalf of this particular resident when he wrote to Enfield Dispatch criticising the proposal to extend the ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) to the whole of Greater London. Nor, I suspect, on behalf of residents living near the A406 and A10 in Enfield, currently exposed to high levels of toxic pollution from vehicles that do not meet the ULEZ emissions limits. And certainly not on behalf of the very high proportion of residents of Edmonton who do not drive but have to contend with the fumes created by drivers from leafier parts of the borough passing through their streets.

How can Peter Gibbs say with a straight face that the "benefits are hard to measure" when in recent years one report after another has told us how bad the air pollution problem is in England, especially in urban areas, and how harmful it is to people's health?

The current ULEZ was not "imposed" on us, it was thoroughly consulted on. It is people making excessive use of cars - especially huge SUVs - that are imposing pollution (noise pollution as well as atmospheric) and danger on everyone along the routes they take, and the people worst affected include children whose lung development is being held back and the many carless residents of the areas that they drive through.

Peter Gibbs is of course entitled to his personal view on this matter, but how dare he claim to speak on behalf of "Enfield residents"?

Link to the ULEZ extention consultation, which runs until 29th July .

[Transcribed text of the letter follows]


Larger Ulez fears

Dear Enfield Dispatch

When the London mayor imposed his Ultra Low Emissions Zone (Ulez) it had a ring of authenticity — remove the minority of older technology vehicles to reduce pollution. Number plate readers around the north and south circular roads enforced Ulez in central boroughs. The impact fell harshly on small traders and low-income individuals who either passed the charge on to customers or were forced off the road if they could not afford a more modern vehicle.

Now the mayor wants to extend Ulez to the whole of London. Commuters, residents and all travellers accessing London businesses and amenities, transport, health or educational services, would have to ditch older cars and vans prematurely from mid-2023, buy a modem replacement, or rely on public transport.

This is now primarily a revenue-raising scheme with benefits hard to even measure, but clear downsides for many. It is disproportionate, unfair and onerous. It is anti-business. The mayor recognises no limits to his revenue ambitions and offers no reinvestment to redress the unfairness. He is bearing down on private transport to promote his inefficient loss-making public transport services. There is no justification for his creeping taxation scheme — mileage charging for all comes next, the ground being prepared by Ulez. We should all reject this policy via the ongoing Ulez consultation.

Peter Gibbs

Vice president, Federation of Enfield Residents

Source: enfielddispatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Dispatch-46.pdf

I’ve found myself commenting before, including to our local press, about FERAA taking their agenda and wrapping it in a, “speaking for the people” wrapper. I suspect it doesn’t do themselves, or those remaining member associations, much good.


In this one, I was most touched by, “inefficient loss-making public transport services” when referring to TfL. Personally I often find our inefficient loss making private rail service a complete nightmare, not least when compared to the train-a -minute Victoria Line, or the resilience built into the main London TfL tube, bus and overground routes. A forced change over to London’s public sector element, be it tube or bus, is not so unusual in trying to get home when using our private sector line. More buses and better train services, especially in the suburbs would be appreciated, but compared to much of Europe where a public service transport system is actually seen as a public good and not simply a vehicle to knock the opposition mayor would certainly be a good place for the government to start. Indeed, actually having a functioning government at this time wouldn’t go amiss. Worth mentioning the private rail network is now effectively nationalised, John Majors franchise system really having bit the dust, covid putting the final nail in its coffin. 56 million daily ticket options do apparently remain however, something I never ever find efficient to navigate.

In my limited experience of Peter Gibbs, this is very much his style. Apart from the FERAA role he also chairs the Consortium of Friends of Enfield Parks where he felt he spoke for all parks. No-one was prepared to stand against him so his style persisted. (Remind you of anyone?) I stopped attending the meetings years ago as they were so negative. Instead I set up the Friends of Enfield Parks Facebook group where we share advice and good ideas.

It certainly looks as though FERAA is going down all (remaining) guns blazing, its road-lobby tradition unaltered from a long time ago. It has been a pretty leaky umbrella with a questionable function - it certainly does not include all local residents associations in membership.
That aspect aside, the intention to extend the ULEZ across Greater London is to be applauded - better late than never. Even Enfield Council opposed the decision to cut off ULEZ at the North Circular. The London Mayor has now woken up to his responsibilities. He would of course do better if he could rely on the Dept for Transport which still lacks a holistic mission - dare one mention the term “levelling up”? - to ensure integration of public transport as a national service, one that recognises the ethical and environmental imperatives of our era and of eras to come.
Roger Blows