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 this article share on facebook share on twitter

yes to low traffic neighbourhoods both sides 500px

Fox Lane LTN Group members have been leafleting streets in the area. Their flyer includes their suggestion for an alternative scheme.

People living in Fox Lane and surrounding streets are welcoming Enfield Council’s idea of closing roads to create low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) throughout the area and are calling on other residents to voice their support.

Joining together as the Fox Lane low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) group, residents from 13 streets in the area say they are pleased that active steps are being taken to cut down on speeding vehicles and rat runners so that everyone can more readily walk and cycle around the neighbourhood.

Old Park Road

ibrar and family

Resident Ibrar says: “As a parent of two children under 5 years old, we worry for their safety. Data recorded by Enfield Council show that we have cars travelling at motorway speeds on our road, and up to 3000 car journeys per day’. Something needs to be done to make our road safe and enjoyable and for this reason I fully support the proposals to create a quieter neighbourhood and stop rat running”.

"Tens of thousands of vehicles use these back streets as a shortcut every day"

Commenting on the plans, Adrian Day, spokesperson for the Fox Lane LTN group says: “For too long drivers have been using these residential roads as a cut through with recorded speeds regularly over 60mph. Tens of thousands of vehicles use these back streets as a shortcut every day. This traffic should be kept on the main roads where it belongs, so that people feel safe on the roads they live and are happy to walk and cycle. We’re delighted that the Council is bringing forward plans to tackle this issue properly.

Cranley Gardens

Resident Sarah says her daughters tried to cycle to school along the Mall (which gets over 4,000 vehicles a day) after they had completed their primary school Bikeability training. “An SUV driver nearly knocked one of my girls off her bike. They never did it again. Taking the through traffic off Fox Lane and the Mall would open up these roads for families to enjoy walking and cycling the school run.”

Campaigning for more than 30 years

The issue of heavy and speeding traffic is not new. Some residents have been campaigning about traffic problems in the area for more than thirty years. The Fox Lane "Quieter Neighbourhood" was first consulted on four years ago, and many residents have been calling for a low traffic neighbourhood ever since. The planters trial earlier in 2019 – narrowing the entrance to each road with a large planter – failed to reduce traffic or speed.

Meadway

ben and family

Resident Ben has two children aged 5 and 2. He says, “Meadway is a residential road that bears the same volume and speed of traffic as most main roads. A low traffic neighbourhood would have an enormously positive impact on our family life; at the moment it feels dangerous to cross the road or walk around the neighbourhood with children on scooters. The thought of cycling around the Fox Lane area as a family is inconceivable. A small change in driving habit and route would make our roads friendlier, healthier and safer for generations to come.”

Complaints backed up by council data

The group's complaints about heavy traffic are supported by automatic traffic count data collected by Enfield Council in late 2018 and published in summary form by Palmers Green Community earlier this year. The worst roads included Meadway - where more than 29,000 vehicles were detected over the week the monitoring was carried out; the Mall - nearly 24,000 vehicles over the week; and Fox Lane itself, with 42,000 recorded vehicles.

As an example of the problem the group points out that people living in Amberley Road, a short residential street with just 50 households, had to put up with more than 4,300 cars on the busiest day and around 27,000 over the week. It is clear, they say, that the majority of these journeys are through traffic rather than resident car journeys.

Grovelands Road

Resident and father of two Paul says: “Fox Lane is part of the route to my childrens’ primary school. Walking there is not a pleasant experience with cars speeding and being worried about crossing roads. I’d like the option of cycling up Fox Lane but at the moment that's not possible. I'd like a quieter neighbourhood to stop the rat running and the speeding boy racers..”

Agreeing with the principle, but not every detail of the plans

The Fox Lane LTN group do not agree with every detail of the Council's plans and many members would like fewer closures than proposed. However, all are in agreement of the principle of an area-wide plan to close rat runs and hope sticking points will be ironed out during the trial. The group is encouraging all residents to share their views with the Council about what they think will work.

"Dramatic improvements in air quality and daily exercise"

Adrian Day continues: “Enfield Council has declared a climate emergency. Reducing the volume of traffic in the area will improve air quality and help more people consider walking and cycling and rely less on their cars for short journeys. This will in turn improve residents’ health. The same approach in Waltham Forest produced dramatic improvements in air quality and daily exercise among residents – and showed that the surrounding road network can cope with changes to vehicle journeys. Hackney has had similar schemes for decades and low traffic neighbourhoods are now being proposed by several boroughs across London. As Enfield looks to roll out low traffic neighbourhoods across the borough it is great that we are able to play our role in finding out what works best.”

To support the Fox Lane area residents or find out more, contact them on .

Log in to comment
wesley ashwell posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 12:30
A large majority of residents in this area, myself included - as opposed to the
"people living in Fox Lane and surrounding streets" are totally opposed to the
LTN stance expressed above. The so-called traffic problems as described by them(and Enfield Council, some members of which, I suspect , may have ulterior motives) have been hugely exaggerated.

Yes ,the earlier planters scheme was a disaster, and rightly so. And what has been the official response? A needlessly extreme and undemocratic attempt to impose a grossly inappropriate and unwieldy 'quieter streets' scheme, which would be a nightmare for the majority of residents in the pursuit of their normal daily lives.

A much simpler, saner and more acceptable solution would be the establishment of a 20 mph limit throughout the area and the introduction of speed bumps on some critical roads. Job done.
roger dougall posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 13:48
Well said Ashley. This page has been created to try to create the illusion that more people support it than actually do because they feel threatened and overwhelmed by the intense opposition .
I don't see an equivalent page for residents coming together to oppose the LTN plan.Thats because they know it would be a massive own goal.
Speed bumps are a good idea but a load of false objections around the issue are presented because in reality they just want to close the roads completely with no compromise.
If there is one thing the council should learn from the Northen general election results its that if you keep ignoring the voices of the majority you will get voted out.
I suspect other motives are at play to try and force this through.Much like the fake consultation for the failed Green Lanes project.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:03
wesley ashwell wrote:

LTN stance expressed above. The so-called traffic problems as described by them(and Enfield Council, some members of which, I suspect , may have ulterior motives) have been hugely exaggerated.

A much simpler, saner and more acceptable solution would be the establishment of a 20 mph limit throughout the area and the introduction of speed bumps on some critical roads. Job done.


What are these "ulterior [sic] motives" you speak of...??

And you do know there's a 30mph limit already, right? And people still drive at 40,50,60mph. So what good would a 20mph limit do?
Darren Edgar posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:04
roger dougall wrote:

Much like the fake consultation for the failed Green Lanes project.


Ok Donald Trump....
Adrian Day posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:19
Wesley - what evidence do you have for claiming a 'large majority'?
Around 3000 rat running vehicles down my residential street, Old Park Road, each day at speeds of up to 60mph is a real traffic problem - we could just block our street but the quieter streets would soon know about it as traffic displaces, so we favour a 'whole neighbourhood' solution.
Not 'job done' - 20mph and speed humps don't stop rat runners.
It's a nightmare now for cyclists, walkers and residents - the LTN will improve things.
And finally it's a trial.
Adrian Day posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:22
Roger - David Burrows campaigned against the LTN trial with a desperate last minute door drop. Whilst clearly not the only factor, he lost and his share of vote fell further than Bambos's (Bambos supports the principle of an LTN). Burrows tried the same trick with the A105 Cycle Lanes and that also failed badly.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:25
And didn't a Winchmore Hill Tory candidate campaign specifically on the back of anti-green lanes cycle scheme and failed miserably too??
Alex Lyness posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 15:49
Take a trip to Tower Hamlets to see the ineffectiveness of 20mph limits. In Tower Hamlets the council rolled out 20 mph limits all over the borough to improve safety. Whilst a proportion of people stick to the 20 mph limits, you see huge numbers of people who just ignore it. More worryingly, in my experience it has driven lots of people to start doing stupid things like overtaking people on residential roads who are sticking to the limit because they’re too impatient to follow a 20 mph limit.

Given the speeds I see down our road (which has humps already) I struggle to see how implementing 20mph limits will drive any actual change in behaviour.
roger dougall posted a reply
13 Dec 2019 18:14
All this whining from Old Park Road residents is a bit of as joke.Walked down their road today and saw more keep our roads open signs than the close our roads signs.

Seems like a minority just hijacking the roads on an undemocratic mandate.
Adrian Day posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 00:36
No one is ‘whining’ - we are fed up with the noise, fumes and danger bought by rat runners. 3000 rat runners a day isnt a joke. I also walked along the road today and saw hardly any posters of either hue - but having lived in the street for many years, knocked on every door on this issue, seen our street Whatsapp posts and joined in street party conversations most people in the road feel stongly for a LTN.
David Hughes posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 00:56
Could I suggest that everyone who has contributed to this thread, and those have contributed to the thread 'Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published, take a few moments to think who might have lost most as a result of the traffic currently dominating The Lakes Estate: i.e. the number of vehicles, or their speed? Has it, for example, been elderly people or people with mobility problems who have lost most, or perhaps everyone who has found the constant flow of traffic irksome in any way, including from dangerously bad air quality?

Well, as I read the academic investigation of this sort of problem, it must be kids because traffic on most residential street on the Lakes Estate, and indeed on residential streets everywhere, has limited children's unsupervised and supervised freedoms to a point unknown when I was a child during and after the war. For example I walked to school several hundred metres aged five supervised only by 'big girls' aged about 8 to 10. Children these days would either be supervised by a parent or, more likely, driven to school by Mum, Dad or a neighbour. And that is leading to all sorts of problems including obesity.

I've mention this sort of problem more than once before on this website, and probably will do so again because it matters. When did you last see youngish children playing on the streets; maybe in an odd cul-de-sac? I guess very, very rarely on purely residential streets, but I think we ought to try to find ways of making them as much places of human contact as carriageway for cars; it has been done. Traffic has been feather-bedded and spoilt for too long.

There has been comment about the planters the Council installed on the ends of streets on the Lakes Estate. That was a trial, and it didn't work because drivers didn't take hint and slow down. Personally I'm pleased because the current proposals are a much better option.
roger dougall posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 11:18
David ,I wish you were right about kids playing in the streets.Things are different now since 1945.They have social media,PS4,Sky TV,power league,Netflix etc,etc . Safety is also more of a concern with parents.
It will never be like the old days again.They can play in their back gardens or parks anyway but they don't as much as they have other things to do.
It is a shame .
wesley ashwell posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 12:22
In response To Dave Eden's post on 13/12:-

1/ Some years ago The Broomfield Avenue junction was blocked off because an Enfield Council member did not want through traffic on his road(Broomfield Avenue.)There had been no public demand for such a move. I gather that some present Council members live on roads due to be endblocked, which is probably not a coincidence.
Incidentally, just imagine thirteen roads in the area similarly endblocked, which is what will happen if the Council get their way, and the subsequent mayhem is not difficult to visualise.

2/There will always be drivers that exceed the speed limit, but the majority do observe it, so a reduction to 20 mph would most certainly have a calming effect.
roger dougall posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 12:58
As Ashley has pointed out and I stated earlier. There are probably ulterior motives at play here.
It wouldn't be the first time that Council members have abused their position
Karl Brown posted a reply
14 Dec 2019 18:20
There’s a level of unpleasantness, often based on inaccuracy, brewing here so let’s cap it before things go badly awol.

Broomfield Avenue: over two decades ago this street was suffering over 6500 vehicle trips per day. That dwarfs even Fox Lane and is more A Road representative than residential. A three street (Broomfield Avenue, Old Park Road, Caversham Avenue) campaign sought to bring a respite to this combined rat run route. And then a child resident of B Avenue was hit by a vehicle, fortunately not badly, but nonetheless sufficient to energise his mother to really campaign hard. That resulted in the temporary and then permanent closure of the street. Traffic evaporated. The urban myth that this was the action of a self-serving councillor still persists. Ask who was / is this councillor, or talk to street residents, and then just like the traffic, the myth evaporates.

"Old Park Road whines for no reason": 96% of residents, including two care homes and a GP surgery petitioned the council for a respite based on a range of intolerable impacts from rat running traffic speed and volume, including actual damage and sleep deprivation. The position was accepted.

"20mph limit, job done": About 15 years ago, initially through the residents association, a team of residents worked with the council at the request of councillors and secured not far short of £1m in external funding to develop a 20mph zone. The then local councillors rejected it and there was less than unanimous residents support to press it through. The money was forfeited. Views on the effectiveness of 20mph zones, and their oft associated speed humps, appears to have hardened with traffic and community specialists who now focus on a holistic healthy street approach.

"30mph is respected now, so 20mph would be too": Covert Met Police data reveals 13% of passing vehicles operate at or below 20mph. 24% exceed the 30mph limit, 7% exceed the ACPO guideline. In the case of Old Park Road, 1 in 10 exceed 40mph, with 2600 annually exceeding 50mph, at which level death is statistically guaranteed if hit. Many streets suffer the same risk, blighting community.

And so it goes on.

Increasingly we now have the very real threat from air pollution, and the soon to be acknowledged noise impacts, to all our health as a result of non-moderated traffic use where the cost of its externalities is passed to other parties, to add in to the pot. Then comes climate change. None of this is free, even if it currently is to drivers.

By all means input views to the Council, add opinion to this site based on personal views and experiences, but ideally avoid making up facts in an effort to bolster a personal narrative, for me it simply belittles the author.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
15 Dec 2019 00:20
I'm going to let Karl have the last word on this subject, for the time being at any rate, and am closing this thread and the other thread about the Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood. Thanks to those who've contributed, but please don't bother posting to this website if you're just going to make unsubstantiated accusations about the council.

When the council reveals its modified plans, we can start the discussion again.

Clicky