What vegetation clearance are Network Rail planning

in Winchmore Hill?

31.10m1

 

Read the (revised) letter sent to some WH residents

View the aerial shot of the works

This Week in N21


Putting winchmore Hill back on the map

 

READ HERE

 



"I really like this newsletter. Informative, concise and a great link to the community"

 

"I read this newsletter the moment it pops into my inbox"

 

SUBSCRIBE HERE

 How much longer do we have wait for this mess

on Green Lanes to be cleared?


26.10p3


 


 

Enfield Council Waste Collection Consultation

 

Find out what is proposed and take part in the consultation

 

Waste Survey image

here 

 


 

15.11k4


 more details here



 

Do you like dog walking

and have some time on your hands?


26.10m3


Winchmore Hill Dog Walking

would like to hear from you

Read the job description

 


 

Enfield Council undertakes

Retail 

6.10m1

and the 'patient' is poorly

a cause for concern?

more details here

 


 

  5.9g3


 

you can make a difference 

4.3h6


 

Subscribe to 'This week in N21' 

 

5.1b2


* indicates required
Email Format

 

 


 

 8.3g4

 24.1k2

 Check out who is building what in N21 

 here

 


 

13.2b8

 

Join the Park Run

in Grovelands Park


29.12b8

 

www.parkrun.org.uk/grovelands/

 

Lots of other sporting activities

to join in N21!

more details here


 

 11.5b2

 

Bush Hill Park Residents Association


Enfield Town Residents Association


Fox Lane & District Residents Association


Grange Park Residents Association


Grovelands Residents Association


Western Enfield Residents Association

 

Winchmore Hill Residents Association 

 

 

13.2b9d 

Grange Park Horticultural Society Trading Hut

is open for the new gardening season

 14.2g2

 10-12 Saturdays and Sundays

Garden sundries and seeds available at favourable prices

 

The Friends of Grovelands Park

more details here


Become a Friend of Firs Farm

find out how to join here


Gardening Friends

more details here


Grange Park Horticultural Society

more details here


North London Organic Gardeners

more details here

 

Woodcroft Wildspace

more details here

 


 

10.5b2

 

Are you thinking of starting a business?

 

Are you unemployed?


www.enterpriseenfield.org

 


 

 

25.4h6

 


 

 26.4h4

 

New & Updated Business Pages

 

Armour Security

Barber El's

Chi Chi's Coffee & Waffle House

Cloud9 Wellness Hub 

Fitnesshub21

Fortitude Dance Company

Fun English Conversation Classes

Gadget Bees

Geo Thermal

Hair 21

Mesa Kitchen & Lounge

Mi Homes

More Yoga

Nourished Naturally

Parkwood Builders

 PH Sports

Punto

The Sacred Tree

S.E Beauty

Siobhan Cosgrave Herbalist & Naturopath

The Southgate Club

Swiss Care Clinic

Winchmore Lounge

                            



Another serious accident on Green Lanes


5.11k1

 

Sunday 4 November

Fox Lane junction with Green Lanes

"Removing the mini roundabout has made that junction much more hazardous"

 


 

Giovanni Restaurante & Pizzeria

Reopens


31.10k1

have a sneak preview here

 


 

13.4b7

 

Enfield Council: making our roads safer for everyone?


3.10p5

 


 

The results of the Fernleigh Road Area

Quieter Neighbourhood Consultation:

a partial 'victory' for residents

 

1.3h8

more details here

 


 

The distance between the zebra crossing

north of Masons Corner and the crossing

outside the Post Office at 822 Green Lanes

is 400 metres


29.6g2

 


 

Council to keep cycle lane dividers

despite safety fears

read Cllr Daniel Anderson's defence of orcas


http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/16268414.Council_to_keep_cycle_lane_dividers_despite_safety_fears/?ref=eb

  


 

If you are concerned about the safety of orcas

please sign the petition

 

9.5h4


https://www.change.org/p/london-borough-of-enfield-tell-enfield-council-to-take-the-orcas-out 


Whose clever idea was this?


16.7k3

 

Have you tripped over or hit one of these

whilst walking, driving or cycling?


 18.2g3

 

download the leaflet on how to report incidents

here


 Report it to Enfield Council

on the incident reporting page

here

 

 18.2g4

Enfield Council say orcas are safe - really?


 22.5.17

 


 

31.1g4

Read this research published

in the Evening Standard

here

  


 

Segregated cycle lanes are putting patients' lives at risk

medical leaders have warned

 

13.6d8


Ambulance on the wrong side of the road opposite Sainsbury's

read the Telegraph article

here

 


 

A beginners guide to taking wildlife photographs


14.2g4


Read here

 


 

Fix My Street


9.4g1

www.fixmystreet.com

 


 

Check out pollution levels today

  

12.1c8

 

http://www.londonair.org.uk/

 


 

11.1c8


CHECK OUT WHAT WE CAN RECYCLE HERE

 


 

12.6g4

Can you help your local community?

 

n21online is a community portal

for the Winchmore Hill postcode 

 

If you have a news story about life in or around Winchmore Hill, or wish to communicate with people in the local area about an activity, business, campaign or local event; please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

facebook logo      twitter logo

 


 

16.11x1

More details here



 

 

9.11m4


St Monica's Players have put forward

an alternative plan for the Intimate Theatre

View the proposals

 

Petition: Save The Intimate Theatre

 

14.9g3

 

Sign the petition

 

Steven Berkoff backs call to save The Intimate Theatre

Read the article in The Stage

 


 


 24.7g2

 Claire Hill is on a mission

Why less is more for Winchmore Hill

 


 

BAMBOS CHARALAMBOUS MP

FOR ENFIELD SOUTHGATE

https://www.bambos.org.uk/

 


 

14.5g1

Bush Hill Park councillors here


Grange councillors here


Winchmore Hill councillors here


https://new.enfield.gov.uk/

 


 

19.6d1

 

Winchmore Hill ward

November newsletter

download here


Grange ward

November newsletter

download here

 

 

Winchmore Hill Police 

CONTACT HERE

 


 

29.12b9a

 

Southgate Homebound

and Disabled Association

 

26.10c1 

 more details here

 


 

Ruth Winston Community Centre

 

 

 ruthwinstoncentre.com


 

Winchmore Hill Community Care

 

29.12b7

 

more details here  


 

9.8b9a

Dementia Cafe

at St Peter's Church Hall

on Fridays

More details here

  


 

5.1c2


www.noahsarkhospice.org.uk



Chickenshed Theatre 

 


 

The Fontliners Book Club

meets once a month in the Winchmore

 email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 READ OUR 2018 NEWSLETTER

 

The Highlands Village Book Group

invites new members

 contact Kate on 07944 756757

 
Winchmore Hill Book Club
 


Grovelands Park
Facebook Group

12.1c7
 

Winchmore Hill & Palmers Green Memories 
Facebook Group

 14.10b5
 

Winchmore Hill Families 
Facebook Group
 


 

N21 Community

The 'Quiet' consultation that LBE doesn't want to tell you about

on Saturday, 21 October 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

The 'Quiet' consultation that LBE doesn't want to tell you about

 

This consultation has now closed.Attempts were made to 'game' the outcome; with details of the consultation posted on a number of cycle relaed websites, urging people to take part.

 

We wait to hear the outcome of what Enfield Council say ws an exercise "to shape the plans for your neighbourhood by telling us what you think."

 

 


 

 

The Fernleigh Road Area 'Quieter Neighbourhood' proposals and consultation, went live quietly on Wednesday, 18th October. The proposals are designed to control vehicle movements on the 'ladder' of roads linking Hoppers Road with Green Lanes; from Station Road to The Bourne; through the heart of Winchmore Hill. 

 

The basic idea seems to deter drivers from using alternative routes to Green Lanes, especially during peak hours; even though this will make the congestion even worse. Have Enfield Council told Winchmore Hill about the proposals which are going to have a major impact on thousands of people?

 

Apparently 2,100 copies of this leaflet have been distributed around the roads on the 'ladder', but it is a generic leaflet, with no mention of Winchmore Hill or any of the proposed changes, merely that the details can be found on the cycle enfield website. 

 

31.10g2

 

Suppose you go to cycle enfield in search of the comnsultation, you might start at the A105 page under 'Major Projects'?

Not a word about this consultation, not even a download of the leaflet and map which outlines what is being proposed. 

http://cycleenfield.co.uk/major-projects/a105-scheme-consultation/

 

Here is the map, which outlines the proposals on the consultation page

 

20.10g1

 

Here is a summary of the key proposals:


* It is proposed to make the whole area a 20 MPH Zone, which most people are unlikely to object to, although traffic calmng measures such as speed humps (which the emergency services dislike), which few people are likely to object to. In the text of this illustration we have an admission that more people are using alternative routes through residential streets, to avoid the new junctions on Green Lanes.

 

* The left turn from Station Road into Ringwood Way and Ratcliffe Road will be banned, from 7:30-9:30 am and 5:00-7:00 pm. The text box reads:

"Although this will also affect residents, we are responding to complaints about the amount of traffic using these roads to avoid the new traffic lights on Green Lanes".

 

* It is intended to reduce the width of Orpington Road, Haselmere Road and Fernleigh Road to deter drivers from using them. This is to be done by widening the parking bays.The residents of Fernleigh Road and Woodberry Avenue are to be given a choice of either having their road narrowed with planters placed in the road or speed humps! This will entail the loss of seventeen parking spaces in Woodberry Avenue and five in Fernleigh Road. Is this really going to have any impact on driver behaviour, or more naivety on the part of the so called scheme designers?

 

* It is proposed that Eaton Park Road would become one way for vehicles travelling towards Green Lanes and that Meadowcroft Road would become one way in the other direction.

 

* It is also proposed that while all of Stonard Road would remain a two way road, there would be No Entry signs on it at the junction with Avondale Road. The effect of this "point no entry" would be that vehicles would not be able to use Stonard Road to travel all of the way from Green Lanes to Hoppers Road. It would also mean that vehicles coming out of Avondale Road would not be able to turn right into Stonard Road.

 Download the technical drawings here

 24.10g4

 

This so called consultation lasts for only three weeks. It is scheduled to close on 12th November 2017.


Here is the link, which you will need to take part in the consultation

https://www.consultations.cycleenfield.co.uk/traffic-and-transportation/fernleigh-avenue/consultation/intro/


You can request a paper copy of the questionnaire by calling 020 8379 4859.

 

 

So what do you think?


If you live on one of the above roads where new measures are proposed, perhaps you are happy at the prospect of fewer cars, but will that really happen?

 

Add your comments below; (Your contact details will not be published)

 

It is important for people to make their views known, both through the official consultation process, through the press and social media.

Enfield Southgate - a four way carve up

on Thursday, 19 October 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Enfield Southgate - a four way carve up

 20.10m5

 

On 17 October 2017, the Boundary Commission published its revised proposals,for the new parliamentary constituencies in London; following on from the extended consultation undertaken in 2016.

 

You have until 11 December 2017 to comment on the proposals, which will see the N21 wards split across FOUR constituencies. Travelling from Bowes Park to Enfield Chase you would travel through FOUR parliamentary constituencies!

 

Whatever your political affiliations, this carve up of our parliamentary constituency does not make sense. 

 

Overall, the Boundary Commission's priority seems to be to create constituencies which are of about equal size; rather than aligning constituency boundaries with local authority boundaries, or to make any real attempt to put together wards with a shared affinity; transport links or community focal points. 

 

 19.10h5

 

Grange ward will join Enfield, which stretches up the north east of the borough, to Turkey Street.

 

Winchmore Hill and Southgate Green wards are to become part of a new Finchley Enfield Southgate seat, which will encompass Brunswick Park and Coppetts Wood.

 

Palmers Green will become part of Edmonton, whilst Bowes ward will join Hornsey & Wood Green.

 

This illusion, courtesy of Bambos Charalambous MP, shows how it is proposed to distribute the current Enfield Southgate wards.

 

 24.10g1

 

 

It means that the serving MP, currently Bambos Charalambous will have to communicate with two town halls. Given that there is often a close alignment between issues that an MP is asked to consider, with issues which are the responsibility of a local authority does this make sound economic sense? 

 

The Boundary Commission is independent of Parliament, although they can accept or reject the proposed changes. The old age that "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" comes to mind, especially as there seem to be similar comments across most of London. 

 

Here is link to the Revised Proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in London

 

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6485

How fast is your broadband connection in N21?

on Tuesday, 19 September 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

How fast is your broadband connection in N21?

Local resident David Haywood has been lobbying Openreach about the slow speed of his internet connection for several years. 

 

Is this a problem that you have suffered?

 

Anecdotally , it seems that there is a local problem, certainly for BT customers. BT Infinity is not yet available in N21, although it is offered in some other parts of the borough.

 

You can test your broadband speed regardless of your internet provider:

 

http://www.broadband.co.uk/broadband-speed-test/


Here is the national average


19.9g7


And the speed from this N21 postcode, less than 0.5 miles from the exchange

 

Your last test (2017-09-19 11:40:17) 7.84Mb download speed

0.85Mb upload speed

 

Well below the national average.



 

On 19.9.17 Mr Haywood wrote the following letter to  Bambos Charalambous MP

 

Dear Bambos Charalambous,

Could you please help me with this issue.

I live in Wades Hill and my post code is N21 xxxx, There is no fibre broadband connection available to my immediate area, and I need to upgrade my internet speed.

 

An internet search confirms the lack of fibre connection, but there is no target date for its installation. I have been chasing Openreach for years but can get nowhere. It makes a mockery of the recent claims by BT that the London Borough of Enfield has one of the fastest internet speeds in the country.

 

It is ridiculous that when rural areas complain about lack of connectivity, they quickly become the centre of activity and money is thrown at them. In the meantime, concentrated urban areas like N21 are ignored. As I understand it, the procedure is to make the connection by upgrading one of the telephone green boxes in the street, but those near my home have not been touched.

Could you please chase this up with Openreach to find out when this area will be connected. Admittedly, there is a Virgin cable available in Wades Hill that could give me a faster connection, but I would prefer a BT fibre connection which gives me a good choice of potential broadband suppliers, rather than rely on just one.

 

Regards

David Haywood

 

If you would like our MP to take up this issue on your behalf you can submit your letter via 


https://www.writetothem.com/

 


N21 wins Gold in Enfield In Bloom 2017

on Saturday, 26 August 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

N21 wins Gold in Enfield In Bloom 2017

 


26.8f3


Dennis Lushey, Chairman of Enfield in Bloom says:

"I was delighted with the response from the N21 area. Overall, entries was up by 25% this year and as usual the standard was very good.

Please accept my congratulations to all the winners and we would like to add that we have been delighted with the response of both new and previous entrants".



Thanks to Dennis for sending these pictures of this year's N21 gold award winners. 



 Open Space Display Firs Farm Wetlands, Gold

The Friends of Firs Farm


26.8f2



Flower Bed outside Grange Park Train Station, Gold

The Grange Park Horticultural Society

 

26.8f1



Environmenal Gardens - Woodcroft Wildspace, Gold

The Friends of Woodcroft Wildspace

 

 26.8f5

 

 

Communal Gardens - Homewillow, Gold 

 

26.8f7

 

 

Communal Gardens - Blake Court, Gold

 

26.8f6

 


Flower Beds/Street Planters - For the Horse Trough on Winchmore Hill Green, Gold

4th Winchmore Hill Rainbow Guide Group


28.8f1



Other N21 awards

 

Front Gardens

Elaine Pitter, Silver

Giacomo Castagnetti, Silver

Communal Gardens

Barnabas Court, Silver

Pegasus Court, Bronze

 

Allotments (Cheyne Walk)

Barry & Evelyn Craven, Silver

Brenda Burke & Diane White, Bronze.

 

Schools

Grange Park Primary School, Silver

 

Public Houses

The Winchmore, Silver

The Salisbury Arms Bronze

 

Also congratulations to the Friends of Broomfield Park

Broomfield Park Community Orchard, Gold 

Broomfield Park Conservatory, Gold.

Stage 2 Safety Audit - why is LBE risking our residents?

on Wednesday, 14 June 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Stage 2 Safety Audit - why is LBE risking our residents?

 

The Stage Two Safety Audit of the A105 (Green Lanes) cycle lanes was finally published on 7th June. This detailed safety audit should have been undertaken prior to the start of the construction, ie before September 2016.

Why didn't this happen?

 

These reports were delivered to the London Borough of Enfield in December 2016 and January 2017, for comments to be added by the designer and the LBE project team - whether they accept the risk, if so, what they propose to do about it. Why has it taken six months for these to be made public?

 

Could it be because the designers Jacobs (a division of Ringwood Jacobs construction contractors) and London Borough of Enfield have ignored the majority of recommendations the risk assessors made?

 

15.6f2

 

The Safety Audit runs into hundreds of pages and is presented in fourteen sections. Scroll down for links to the individual reports so that you can see the risks identified by TfL in the sectins of the road that are most relevant to you. 

 

Many of the problems are common to each section. Here are some of the most urgent problems highlighted in the report. 

(NOTE: Design organisation is Jacobs; Client organisation is LBE).

 

15.6f3

 

In many instanes the designer and LBE have REJECTED the safety hazards identified by TfL; or else have indicated that the 'problem' will be monitored.  

For how long is not specified. Until there is a serious accident?

 

 


 


The use of 'Orcas' as a segregation measure may lead to trips / falls for cyclists and pedestrians

 

The proposals include 'Orcas' as a semi / soft segregation measure alongside the cycle track. The Audit Team are concerned that the 'Orcas' may not be adequately visible to road users, particularly pedestrians, cyclists and powered-two-wheelers. Pedestrians crossing the carriageway may fail to appreciate the raised nature of the 'Orcas', with a potential for trips and falls within the carriageway. Riders of two wheeled vehicles may fail to appreciate that the 'Orcas' are raised, particularly in inclement weather. Riders may become destabilised as they over-run the features, leading to an increased potential to become unseated, with a resultant potential for personal injury. The potential for injury is exacerbated as the features are situated in positions where they are encouraged to be traversed, such as outside residential accesses.

 

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that any potential trip hazards are removed, this may require the use of an alternative type of segregation measure.

Design Organisation Response: Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected

Client Organisation Comments: Designer's response accepted – post implementation monitoring will be carried out.

 

 15.6d8

 

There have been scores of people reporting they have tripped over or witnessed other people tripping over the plastic orcas and the concrete cycle lane dividers. The council has taken out four orcas opposite Sainsbury's but there are dozens more already installed along the completed sections of the cycle lane. 

 

Will LBE continue to install orcas? 

 

When wil the remaining orcas be taken out?

 

More information about orcas can be found in Councils remove hazardous low level cycle lane dividers

 


 


Bus passengers boarding or alighting may result in collisions with cyclists on the track

 

Visually impaired pedestrians, particularly those alighting from a bus may follow the kerb line and inadvertently enter the carriageway. Visually impaired pedestrian unknowingly within the carriageway are at an increased potential for collisions with motorists.

 

In addition, bus passengers alighting may not anticipate or be able to see approaching cyclists immediately adjacent to the bus, which may result in cycle to pedestrian type collisions.

This may result in cyclists diverting away from the cycle track whilst their path is obscured, which may result in increased collisions with pedestrians or vehicles who may not expect cyclists diverting from the track.

The Audit Team are concerned that proposed cycle tracks run immediately adjacent to proposed bus stop boarders. Therefore bus passengers would board / alight a bus from / onto the cycle tracks.

 

RECOMMENDATION


It is recommended that the layout of the bus stop boarders / cycle tracks are altered to mitigate the potential interactions with bus passengers. This may include, but is not limited to, providing tramline tactile paving prior to the ramps down to carriageway level and an increased separation between the boarding / alighting area and the cycle track.

Design Organisation Response: Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected

Client Organisation Comments: Designer's response accepted – operation of the bus stop boarders will be monitored post-implementation.

 

 


 


General – various footway level sections of cycle track. Potential lack of delineation may lead to collisions with visually impaired pedestrians

 

The Audit Team are concerned that the proposed measures do not appear to indicate a delineator between the footway and cycle tracks provided at footway level. This could lead to visually impaired pedestrians inadvertently entering these sections of cycle lanes or potentially entering the carriageway via the ramp between the two facilities.

Cyclists on the cycle track or motorists on the carriageway are unlikely to anticipate a visually impaired pedestrian and this may therefore result in increased collisions between these users.

 

RECOMMENDATION


It is recommended that as well as a good visual differentiation between the footway and cycle tracks, a detectable delineator should be provided to ensure that all users are aware of the edge of footway.

Design Organisation Response: Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected

Client Organisation Comments: Designer's response accepted

 


 


Here are the individual sections of the report for you to check out the section of the A105 that is most relevant to you. 

 

A105 South of Ecclesbourne Gardens to Oakthorpe Road

Section 1

LINK

 

A105 Between Oakthorpe Road and Aldermans Hill

Section 2

LINK

 

A105 Green Lanes junction with Aldermans Hill

Section 3

LINK

 

A105 Lodge Drive to Osbourne Road

Section 4

LINK

 

A105 Green Lanes junction with Bourne Hill / Hedge Lane

Section 5

LINK

 

A105 Oaktree Avenue to Carpenters Gardens

Section 6

LINK

 

A105 Green Lanes J/W Highfield Road

Section 7

LINK

 

A105 Queens Avenue / Compton Road

Section 8

LINK

 

A105 Green Lanes J/W Station Road / Fords Grove

Section 9

LINK

 

A105 Radcliffe Road to Sherbrook Gardens

Section 10

LINK

 

A105 Ridge Avenue

Section 11

LINK

 

A105 from Berkeley Gardens to Borden Avenue

Section 12

LINK

 

A105 North Of Borden Avenue to Walnut Grove

Section 13

LINK

 

A105 Bush Hill to Roseneath Walk

Section 14

LINK


Meanwhile people continue to drip over the cycle lane boarders; drivers are hitting them, as well as the 'wands' and bus boarders. Crossings have been removed making it more dangerous to cross Green Lanes, Ridge Avenue, Village Road and London Road.


If you spot any incidents or accidents which you believe are a result of the cycle lanes it is important that you report them. 

Please take photos if it is safe to do so, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


https://beta.met.police.uk/report/report-a-road-traffic-incident/

 

also report any incidents to:

 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Helping Firs Farm Wetlands's Tesco Bag Challenge

on Thursday, 27 April 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Helping Firs Farm Wetlands's Tesco Bag Challenge

  

27.4d5

 

      It has taken a mere three years to transform a section of Firs Farm's underused playing fields

      into an award winning wetlands habitat, linking four communities on the south of our borough,

      linking Bush Hill Park, Edmonton, Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill. 

 





 

In an article in the Sunday Times magazine (23.4.17) Simon Barnes wrote:


27.4d6

 

"Firs Farm was one of those classic north London parks: a bleak, fiercely mown sward surrounded by trees, with a few football pitches. Beneath it there was a stream, running unseen through a pipe. As soon as I got to the place there was a classic coot punch-up among the marsh marigolds. A blackcap sang from the trees. Children played around the edges of the pools. For the stream has been set free from its chains and a small but lovely wetland has been created. It's already a nice place to visit, whether you're a human or a coot. And, yes, it absorbs water in times of heavy rain and releases it slowly, cleaner than it entered. The water is no longer an enemy. It's back on our side, to the benefit of humans and wilder forms of life; and the park still has pitches.


This is stuff that should be policy in every town and every city and given government backing. It's happening here and there on an ad hoc basis. It's happening in north London with help from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the charity Thames 21, which is partly funded by Thames Water, and it's been taken on with exemplary enthusiasm by Enfield council.

 

When looking at what people want, it's instructive to look at the rich. Traditionally, they get a large place in the country that looks out on an open landscape with mature trees through to a lake. Wetlands help us to deal with flooding and they improve water purity. And what's more, they are also good for our souls".

Read the article here

 

 

27.4d3        The next phase of Firs Farm Wetlands will be to add more facilities to encourage children

        to spend more time playing outdoors, in the fresh air, away from their screens, all year round.


        The 'big' project will be a community centre, which can be used by schools, volunteers,

        charities & community groups, offering refreshments and a shared space for all the local community.


        One step at a time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.4d7

 

        The Friends of Firs Farm Wetlands are delighted that their application to the Tesco Bags of Help Grant Scheme

        has been successful, for a second year in succession.

 

        Customers voting for Firs Farm Wetlands at Tesco stores during May and June 2017 can help to raise money for an outdoor table tennis table

        like this.

 

 

 

27.4.d1

 

Toni Guiver, who was the brains behind Firs Farm Wetlands writes:

 

"Our project along with the other two successful projects in our region will go forward to a vote in Tesco stores where their customers will decide the outcome by voting for their favourite project each time they shop. Voting will take during May and June they will notify us by the end of July 2017 confirming the amount of funding we will receive. The project with the highest number of votes across your region will receive up to £4,000, the second placed project up to £2,000 and the third placed project £1,000.

 

We are up against some stiff competition and therefore we are appealing to you to aid us in getting this first bit of "Play Equipment for our older children" in Firs Farm Wetlands Park & Playing Fields. Everyone will be able to play on these but our initial aim was for something for the older children.

 

A suitable site will be chosen for these, away from the wetlands area, and agreed with the council to avoid disturbing the wildlife but easy to get to.

 

With your help we can achieve this and we can hold some fun table tennis competitions to help raise funds for other items in Firs Farm including our Festival next year July 2018 and for other fun stuff in Firs Farm. Only YOU can make this happen in your Firs Farm?"

 

To Vote, you will need to pop into a Tesco store near you and once you have made your purchase (of any value) you will receive one token per transaction. The nearest store for us is the TESCO EXPRESS on Green Lanes, but here is a list of other participating local stores

 

CHASESIDE SOUTHGATE EXPRESS N14 5PH

EDMONTON EXPRESS N18 2XF

ENFIELD EXPRESS EN3 5UT

ENFIELD LOCK EXPRESS EN3 6GS

ENFIELD SOUTHBURY ROAD EN1 1RT

LEA VALLEY EXTRA N18 3HF

OAKWOOD EXPRESS N14 4XA

PONDERS END EXTRA EN3 4DP

WINDMILL HILL ENFIELD EXPRESS EN2 7AE

 

 

LVE YOUR GREEN SPACE?



27.4d4


 

Friends of Firs Farm Wetlands, Park & Playing Fields, Firs Lane London N21 2PJ

 

If you wish to join the Friends of Firs Farm please send your full name address contact email & numbers to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

www.firsfarmn21.org

 

www.facebook.com/FirsFarmParkN21

 

https://twitter.com/FirsFarm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enfield Council isn't listening

on Thursday, 30 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Enfield Council isn't listening


Councillor Terry Neville OBE, Leader of the Conservative Group on Enfield Council has tabled a motion, 'Enfield Council isn't listening', to be discussed at the Council meeting on 6th April. 

 

Here is the paper that Cllr Neville is presenting.

 

We have chosen this subject for our Opposition Debate Paper and debate because we have been collectively struck by the volume and force of email and other communications complaining about the fact that "no one in the council listens or wants to know". Moreover, while as an Opposition we do not expect the implementation of Conservative policies, we can and do point out failings in the administration which have consequences, but here again, these are dismissed on a wave of party political bias - i.e. everything the opposition says must be wrong and is thus is to be ignored!

 

And the irony is that "listening" as often as not has very little cost!

 

Leaving aside the fact that it is still very difficult to communicate with the council as an organisation – yes, residents, businesses, would be developers, and others all still have great difficulty in getting through to anyone, and if they do, they all say the same. The reality, as we shall demonstrate is that despite all the claims and protestations by Labour councillors to the contrary, on the issues that matter, the Labour administration is simply ignoring the views of the people it represents.

 

1. Cycle Enfield


I'm not proposing to rehearse the many arguments much deployed on this subject, which are well known to all members. Suffice to say that the A105 and A1010 schemes provide ample evidence of the Labour administration's failure to listen to the concerns of local residents and local businesses whose lives and livelihoods were likely to be affected by the proposed schemes, neither of which secured majority support in the consultations. In the case of Enfield Town, while with obvious great reluctance and only after the intervention of TfL, the fact remains that the alternative proposals have never had a proper public airing despite the many concerns that have been expressed.

 

So much for the merits, the implementation of the A105 has led to severe inconvenience to residents and motorists alike, but the real losers in all of this are, as was predicted, the numerous businesses operating along the route. Many of the business proprietors have pleaded for a meeting with Councillor Anderson but he has failed to meet them, preferring instead it seems, to display (and in writing) an arrogance better suited to the former Soviet Regime. Indeed one business went so far as to send Councillor Anderson copies of the firm's accounts showing a c30% reduction in sales, only to be met by a patronising and almost insulting response. Councillor Anderson's grasp of facts as used in his public pronouncements (e.g. Evening Standard) is poor - or is he just economical with the truth. Either way it does not suggest that he is a listening Cabinet Member - more worryingly that he simply doesn't care.

 

2. Highway Maintenance


Members' mailboxes on both sides, are I'm sure peppered with complaints about the state of the borough's roads and pavements. Similar complaints appear from time to time in the local newspapers. It was something of a surprise then, at the budget meeting in February that Councillor Anderson and the Labour Cabinet had failed to include any money for highway maintenance in the capital programme for 2017/18. I raised this during the debate and there was some muttering to the effect that this would be picked up at the March Cabinet. It wasn't! Further enquiries revealed an even more shocking revelation - that the £7.2million allocated for the year just ended was some 27% underspent! Could that be because having employed the main highways contractor (without undertaking a separate tendering process) to undertake the Cycle Enfield works, the contractor was overloaded and couldn't complete the much reduced highway maintenance programme? Whatever the reason, (and it certainly wasn't government cuts) the underspend was fortuitous and could now be used to tide them over until Councillor Anderson got both his and the Cabinet's act together!

 

3. Parks


The Friends of the Parks pleas and views have also been falling on deaf ears! They, on whom frankly the council depends for support both political and physical to ensure that our parks are maintained to a reasonable level, have regularly been treated with arrogance and indifference. By way of example the first draft of the Friends Agreement was approved by the Cabinet Member without the draft document being consulted upon with the Friends of the Parks Groups. The Groups were basically expected to sign up! The only reason that didn't happen and that there is now a revised agreed version is because it was called in by the Opposition Lead Member for Environment, which allowed Friends of the Parks Groups to voice their concerns at the OSC.

 

4. Controlled Parking Zone Residents' Permits


In July 2016, a decision was made to reform the basis for calculating the charge for Residents Parking Permits. There was a public consultation on the proposed changes, which included axing the 50% discount for over 65's, and moving to an engine based charging model rather than the CO2 one. The result of the consultation on whether people wanted the council to move to an engine based charging method was a clear majority against - 58% disagreed.

 

Only 31% agreed, and 9% wanted neither and 2% didn't know or were unsure. However, this did not stop the Cabinet Member for Environment pushing the decision through regardless. This is another perfect example of failing to listen. The council in this instance lost the consultation, the people overwhelmingly rejected the proposal to change to an engine based model, but instead of conscientiously reflecting on the responses from residents as the law requires, the decision was made to implement the proposal come what may and in contradiction to the outcome of the consultation.

 

5. Housing Board


The Customer Voice, which sends representatives to the Housing Board chaired by Cllr.Oykener, and Senate were established by the council as part of the review of housing governance following the decision to reintegrate Enfield Homes arm's length company back into the council in April 2015. This provides a very interesting example of the council not wanting to listen. It is the overarching housing representative body for tenants and leaseholders for the Borough of Enfield and has 15 members. While the Conservative Group strongly supported the establishment of tenant and leaseholder led bodies, we remain concerned that members of these two bodies are appointed rather than elected. Labour argued that appointed representatives would be collectively competent and that they should therefore be selected on the basis of skills and commitment. This however completely overlooks democratic principles and more importantly creates the perception (and the reality) that Labour councillors are not actually interested in hearing the views of residents who don't happen to share the same views as them. Again shades of a Soviet regime.

 

6. The Public Transport Consultative Group

 

The Public Transport Consultative Group (PTCG) had its membership and remit reformed earlier in this municipal year. The rationale was to broaden the membership of the PTCG so it was more reflective of the diverse nature of our borough. Whilst no one would disagree that the objective was a good one, the decision was used as a smoke screen to remove certain residents' associations/groups from serving on the panel many of whom had voiced disappointment at some of the Administration's transport policies, in particular Cycle Enfield.

 

It was decided that representatives from the voluntary sector can serve on the panel but only if approved by the Cabinet Member for Environment, while other groups needed the sanction of the Chairman of the PTGC. Membership of the PTCG, apart from the councillors, is therefore down to the chosen and select few who in practice are unlikely to 'rock the Labour Boat". The Conservative Group opposed the decision because it believes that the Administration deliberately chose to exclude hard working community groups from the PTCG in order to create a more amenable panel for its transport policies. Hand picking groups to make the PTCG more reflective of the Administration's views on transport is not an example of a listening council, it is more an example of one that is so wrapped up in itself that it does not care about those stakeholder groups who have genuine concerns about the effects that policies have on local residents.

 

7. Federation of Enfield Community Associations


Recognising that the court case on possession is now at an end, I cannot leave a paper on the subject of failing to listen without including a paragraph on this topic. Members are aware that a petition was submitted by residents calling on the council to renew the Federation of Enfield Community Associations' (FECA) lease on 11 Mottingham Road Edmonton N9 8DX. The petition was signed by thousands of people across the borough. The Labour administration failed to acknowledge the strength of feeling within the community on this issue, ignored the wishes of residents and at considerable public expense, continued to pursue its politicalagenda to remove FECA from the shop unit in Mottingham Road which it had used to provide much needed advice to council tenants that is otherwise unavailable.

 

 

Recommendations


 

1. That the Labour administration undertakes that in future it will, in line with the Code of Conduct, and recognising its representative role in local democracy, listen and respond courteously and conscientiously to the views of residents and businesses generally.

 

 

2. On those issues that affect residents' quality of life, and businesses' economic and general wellbeing, the Labour administration will respond wherever practicable by giving effect to their views, particularly where such views are widely held or supported.

 

 

Terry Neville OBE JP

 

Leader of the Opposition

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

For and on behalf of the Conservative Group

 


Deviating by design?

on Monday, 20 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Deviating by design?

 

 

The trees outside the Green Dragon Parade, outside Pounds, Couture, Past Times Toys and other businesses on this parade were removed with very little warning in early March. 

 

 

27.3d4

 

These trees, planted less than five years ago were not scheduled for grubbing up on the A105 Statutory Consultation drawings.

 

Why have they been removed?

 

I have looked carefully at the amended consultation drawings and compared them with the Google Earth images. I have come to the conclusion that the drawings were produced in a hurry, without the necessary surveys and do not show in sufficient detail the work that is needed to be carried out to make the scheme viable. There are enough errors on the two areas that I have looked at as to question the suitability of those drawings being publicly issued for consultation. If other areas contain similar inaccuracies, then it would render the whole consultation process meaningless and a complete waste of time.

 

Here is the road outside of Pounds as shown on the consultation drawings and on Google Earth.  Firstly the trees that have just been cut down are clearly seen on the Google Earth image and they are shown as being retained on consultation drawings.

 

27.3d1

 

 

 

Secondly, on the Vicars Moor Lane end of the drawing, the road widths kerb to kerb are shown. 

 

27.3d2

 

 

One of the numbers is indistinct but ignoring footway width they add up to (I would reason) 16.25 metres. I have dimensioned the existing kerb to kerb width on Google Earth. It is more than 4 metres less.

 

 

27.3d3

 

 

Therefore the road must be widened by more than 4m. and pavements narrowed to make space and yet this major road widening is mentioned nowhere on the drawing.

 

We are having the wool pulled over our eyes.  Why was this not done by Ringwood Jacobs, the consulting engineers responsible for both the drawings and the construction. ? It is an easy exercise. I am a first timer and I was able to do all of the above in under an hour.

 

A similar thing has happened outside of Coffee Break on the Fords Grove junction. Ringwood Jacobs found difficulty getting the cycle lane around the tree that is shown as being retained while still leaving a footpath.This once again is evidence that the construction stage of this project was started with insufficient detailed design having been carried out.

 

So they cut the tree down!

 

Peter Johns

Retired Chartered Engineer, Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer



Save Enfield Southgate Boundary Commission Update

on Friday, 17 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Save Enfield Southgate Boundary Commission Update

 

17.3f8



UPDATE FROM DAVID BURROWES MP ON THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY COMMISSION CHANGES

 

Thanks to all those who responded to the first consultation by the Boundary Commission and made respresentations to oppose the plan to break up the constituency of Enfield Southgate and create a new Finchley and Southgate seat. We now have the opportunity in a second consultation to make any further comments.

 

This consultation runs until the 27th March and all representations can be viewed at:

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/search/comments

 

This is what you can do:


1) If you have not made any submission to the Boundary Commission this is your last chance!

 

Please use this link which takes you to the representations of David Burrowes MP and the "Save Our Southgate" campaign which has made a counter proposal to retain Enfield Southgate

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/29278/view

 

Add your own comment. You may like to write something like the following in your own words:

 

"I support the counter proposal of David Burrowes MP and Save Our Southgate which respects the historical, geographical, community and transportation links of my area. The current Boundary Commission proposal would disintegrate Parliamentary representation of Enfield and I would refer the Commission to the conclusion of the 6th Boundary Review which made much more sense. I would urge the Commission to take account of the significant support for Save Our Southgate's counter proposals from around 900 individual representations which comes from Enfield Council, cross party, community groups, residents associations, and businesses. It is marked that there is very little support for the proposed new constituency of Finchley and Southgate. Not one community, resident, business or political organisation is advocating for this new constituency."


 


 

2) If you have already made a submission or particularly have concerns about Grange Ward being moved to Enfield North you may like to use one of these links:

 

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/15987/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/24615/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/25901/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/25905/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/27021/view 

 

write something like the following in your own words:

 

"I would urge the Commission to take account of the significant support for David Burrowes MP's and Save Our Southgate's counter proposals from around 900 individual representations which comes from Enfield Council, cross party, community groups, residents associations, and businesses. Grange ward needs to be considered as a whole and be retained in Enfield Southgate. The polling district YJB which is closest to Enfield Town and which has always been part of Grange Ward is a relatively recent addition to Enfield Southgate.

 

Since 2010 it has benefitted from being connected to Enfield Southgate and linked to the predominant geographical, demographic, educational, and transportation links of the rest of Grange Ward. I would refer the Commission to the conclusion of the 6th Boundary Review which made much more sense. The current biggest local issue facing Grange Ward is the introduction of a cycle lane scheme. It has highlighted the connection of all of Grange Ward via the A105 from Enfield Town (YJB) through Grange Park to Winchmore Hill and Palmers Green and the need for cohesive representation by our MP in relation to issues that have a local, regional and national dimension.

 

Grange Ward has the key transportation link of Enfield Chase rail line through to Grange Park and then Winchmore Hill which reflects community links to the constituency of Enfield Southgate through residents associations, community groups, churches, and school catchment areas."

 


 

3) If you have already made a submission or particularly want Bush Hill Park to be moved to Enfield Southgate you may like to use one of these links

 

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/28403/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/29728/view

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/32829/view

 

write something like the following in your own words:

 

"I would urge the Commission to take account of the significant support for David Burrowes MP's and Save Our Southgate's counter proposals from around 900 individual representations which comes from Enfield Council, cross party, community groups, residents associations, and businesses. Bush Hill Park ward should be moved into Enfield Southgate. I would refer the Commission to the conclusion of the 6th Boundary Review which supports this move and made much more sense.


Bush Hill Park has stronger community, cultural and transportation ties to Enfield Southgate than Edmonton. The barrier of the A10 impacts upon community cohesion and demography. Bush Hill Park is increasingly isolated and distinct from the needs of communities in Edmonton and has a stronger affinity with Enfield Southgate and would benefit from parliamentsry representation within this constituency."


 


 

4) If you have already made a submission or particularly want Palmers Green to be retained in Enfield Southgate and not be moved to Edmonton you may like to use this link

https://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/29278/view

 

write something like the following in your own words:

 

"I would urge the Commission to take account of the significant support for David Burrowes MP's and Save Our Southgate's counter proposals from around 900 individual representations which comes from Enfield Council, cross party, community groups, residents associations, and businesses. Palmers Green ward should be retained in Enfield Southgate and not moved into Edmonton. I would refer the Commission to the conclusion of the 6th Boundary Review which supports this and made much more sense.


Palmers Green has strong historic, geographical, transportation and community ties to Southgate. Broomfield Park, Old Southgate Town Hall, Green Lanes, Palmers Green Station and the rail link to Winchmore Hill and Bowes Park, schools, residents and community groups all represent a case of community cohesion within Enfield Southgate constituency. The main community, cultural and business interests of Palmers Green point to the existing wards of Enfield Southgate not Edmonton. The A10 is a significant barrier and boundary which impacts the cohesion and demography of the area. Palmers Green is a cohesive community which is distinct from Edmonton and would become isolated if it was moved to Edmonton."



DAVID BURROWES


http://www.davidburrowes.com


Accidents on the new cycle lane

on Thursday, 16 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Accidents on the new cycle lane

Cycle Enfield has created an incident reporting page for accidents and incidents that arise from the A105 and other cycle lane schemes being constructed in the borough


19.9g6

REPORT INCIDENTS HERE



There have been a large number of accidents and incidents involving pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists, many of which are going unrecorded.

It is imprtant that they are passed on to Enfield Council and also Transport for London who are responsible for London's roads; and to the Mayor of London. 


Here are just a few of the accidents and incidents which have occured since the new cycle lanes opened.

Feel free to email details of any incidents that you are aware of that might serve as a warning to fellow residents. 


Christine R (17/9/17)writes: 


"I am writing to express my disgust at the travesty called cycle lanes in Green Lanes Winchmore Hill. During months of disruption and hold ups I had two tyres on my car ruined from concrete obstacles relating to the cycle lanes . There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to where these go and it is unclear to motorists and cyclists alike. Then to add insult to injury I was crossing a clear road just past Sainsburys when I fell flat on my face having tripped over one of these obstacles. I hurt my knee, finger and foot. I went into Atkinsons chemist where they kindly mopped up the blood and put a dressing on. They urged me to write in as I was by no means the first person they had helped in this way. The next day I had a huge black eye where I had also hit my head.


The irony is that there is rarely a cyclist to be seen and sometimes they ride outside the lanes. I have been told that cyclists actually avoid these lanes as they think them to be dangerous.

Thousands of people opposed this scheme and were ignored and thus millions of tax payers' money has been wasted when other services are being cut. I think the people who proposed this ludicrous scheme should be held responsible"



Rachael K (15/8/17) writes


"I was hit by a car when cycling into Enfield in the new cycle lanes on Friday 11th August.


I was cycling along Park Avenue into Enfield Town, just as you follow the road to the right before the petrol garage on your left and Sainsbury's local on your right. I was crossing over Bush Hill in the cycle lane and a motorist did not see me and drove straight into me- I ended up flying on to her windscreen and into the road. I grazed my ankle and injured my back (luckily not seriously) and think I hit my head but was wearing a helmet so there was no damage. Unfortunately I didn't get the drivers details as was too shaken. I went to hospital on Monday 14th August as my back was seizing up and they said this will continue to happen for a while but there is no spinal damage.


I do not blame the motorist- the location of the cycle lane across the junction is absurd and I am not surprised that she did not see me. The cyclists have right of way but I will not continue across any of these roads in the future without stopping. In fact, due to the damage to my bike and to myself I am not sure if/when I will be back on my bike".

 


Arkin Jonsey Redif writes:


"Monday night (15.5.17)  around 11pm I stopped and helped an old lady who was forced out of the way by on coming traffic and drove up one of the new layout bus stops on Green Lanes. She was very shook up and her air bags deployed after hitting a lamp post, I waited with her and some witnesses until the police arrived. The new bus stop layout protruded into the road without any warning signs in place to avoid the high kerb. Yes this is a construction issue, one of many however, the cycle lanes have made the roads so narrow there is now no margin for error which is a major concern. I am also now witnessing emergency services unable to pass cars as no one can move out the way for lack of room as well as cars being stuck behind rubbish trucks collecting along Green Lanes and busses stopping to collect passengers, this no doubt is increasing pollution due to an increase in congestion during and after the cycle lanes finally complete. Cycle lanes are great in the right places but unfortunately this is only the beginning of the chaos we are experiencing. I also heard from someone today a cycling teacher refuses to use the lanes as she claims they are to narrow, go figure"


17.5.d8a

 


On Thursday 2nd March there was accident on Masons Corner. The bus going down Green Lanes hit the black car turning up Green Dragon Lane. The blue car following the bus had to break sharply and ended up over the cycle lane kerb. Fortunately on this occasion no one was hurt.

 

 

16.3d7

 

 

Residents have mentioned other accidents in relation to the new cycle lanes, whcih may or may not have been reported to the police and Enfield Council. The police are being asked to provide details. So far nobody has been seriously hurt, but many residents, including cyclists beliee that it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt.

 

Please be even more cautious when driving and walking around the areas where the cycle lane is being constructed and on the completed sections.  Here are some of the places where accidents have already happened or there are concerns about safety risks. 


When heading south approaching Masons Corner, many drivers have hit the concrete cycle lane border, because they are focusing on traffic turning up Green Dragon Lane. 

 

16.3d8

 

 

Beware also of the concrete divider when turning left out of Green Dragon Lane 

 

A number of drivers are reported to have hit this concrete divider, presumably this  is why there is a cone in it. At night both of these concrete cycle lane dividers on Masons Corner are invisible as they are not lit.

 

16.3d9g

 

Danger to cyclists as well as motorists?


20.3d8



The black marks on the edge of the border suggest that cyclists are also hitting these concrete borders


20.3d7

 

  

MIND THE HUMP

 

On the north side of the Masons Corner junction, the hump is very pronounced  it has been called 'the Masons Corner Mountain'. If you stand on Masons Corner it won't be long before you hear a loud metallic noise as a lorry, bus or another large vehicle goes over the big bump. There have been reports that buses are being damaged and at least one has had to be towed away.


To quote a Masons Corner business owner:


"the bumps in the road are too high, sometimes it sounds like a major accident and it won't be long before one of the skips overturns, or even a bus or large lorry, we are here all day and this noise happens every five minutes or so.

Also a resident who lives above the shops on Masons complains that it is like a mini earthquake every time a heavy lorry passes through.

 Please remove them AND what has happened to the zebra crossing outside Peter Barry estate agents, which was muted three months ago and what a dangerous place with the bumps!!!


 

Watch out also for the botched attempt to address the problem with the hump on the left side of Green Dragon Lane.

 

16.3d9g

 

 

Paul Burke cycle journalist for the Evening Standard:

 

"At best, speed humps make cycling very uncomfortable. At worst, they make it dangerous".

 

"Councils such as Islington would lay them like land mines along practically every road in the borough. Ken Clarke, the minister who first introduced speed humps did not reckon on the vicious zeal with which councils would use these "damn things" to wage war on the motorist. And neither did he foresee how dangerous that war would become, not for motorists but for cyclists.

  

If you cycle in London, you'll know exactly what I mean. Hemmed in on one side by a row of parked cars, and on the other by traffic moving just fast enough to kill you but not fast enough to overtake you. Then someone in one of those parked cars opens a door and knocks you clean off your bike!.

 

If Sadiq Khan wants to support cyclists he should get rid of speed humps

 

  


 

REDUCED VISABILITY FROM SIDE ROADS

 

This photo also shows clearly how drivers pulling out of junctions have poor visibility because of the cycle lane.

 

16.3d9

 

20.3d1

 

 


 

 WHERE ARE THE BUFFER STRIPS?

 

 The cycle lane design drawings show a buffer between the cycle lanes and car parking. 

16.3d9a 

 

However, there is no strip on the sections on Ridge Avenue.

The road is too narrow. 

  

16.3d9e

 

 

MIND THE ORCAS

 

People have been tripping over the orcas, the plastic strips which are used to segregate the cycle lanes.


20.3g6

 

London London Ambulance Service has stated 

"light segregation can and does create trip hazards on public roads – and increases casualties to a point where various schemes have been taken out in London and other areas of the UK."


A number of councils, including City of London and Camden were starting to take them out, even berfore work started on the A105.

 

Councils remove 'hazardous' low level cycle lane dividers

 


 

BUS BOARDERS - ACCIDENTS ARE ALREADY HAPPENING

 

This is one of the new bus boaders, where passengers have to cross the cycle lane to get on and off the bus. Buses now have to stop in the middle of the road, as there is no longer any room to overtake.


There will be 27 of these bus stops between Enfield Town and Broomfield Avenue in Palmers Green, including the heavily used bus stop opposite Sainsburys and in our shopping parades, 


 

16.3d9c

 

Note that the bus stop is located in the middle of someone's drive, another potential hazard. 

 

Notice also how far they protrude into the road.

 

One women has written her car off after hitting a bus boarder. To quote:

 

"I unfortunately had a car accident along Park Avenue on 28th February at about 8.15pm and caught the near side of my car on a protruding bus stop, which resulted in two flat tyres and one wheel totally caving in. My car was eleven years old so ended up as a write off. There were no hazard warnings before the bus stop and they were also resurfacing the other side of the road. I've had to buy another car and my old car was going like a dream before this happened. So basically I'm out of pocket!

 

I'm really angry about this because I feel that these bus stops are a real hazard, the pavement isn't even graduated it just suddenly juts out. I've emailed the council and I've spoken to their insurers in fact they can battle it out with my insurers. Further along Village Road there are little bumps to divide the cycle lane and there is also a little bit of pavement on Masons corner which divides the cycle lane and the main road just on the bend. This is so dangerous for cyclists and cars alike. I've been a cyclist in the past and it will only take a slight swerve over one of these bumps or the raised pavement and there could be a terrible accident".

 

The cyclist rides up to the level of the pavement.

  

20.3d3 

 

Look at the debris that has already collected on the new cycle lane.

Is Enfield Council going to keep these lanes clear?


This elderly lady was strolling about on the cycle lane in front of the bus stop apparently totally oblivious that she was standing in the middle of a cycle lane.

 

20.3G7

 




INCREASED DANGERS FOR RESIDENTS GETTING OUT OF THEIR DRIVES


Here is an email written by a resident about the damage caused to cars of visitors to her home, by the steep kerb.

 

To get out of her drive she has to cross the bus stop and cycle lane and to avoid the kerb which has caused damage to vehicles she has to pull out into the middle of the road, over the white line.

   

I am writing to you once again regarding the drive & cycle lane outside the above address.


May I first remind you that a 'bus stop' is right outside my property with another 'bus stop' right opposite (which has never been a problem in the past) but with the cycle lane now in place & the fact that the 'bus stop area' has been built out considerably into the road, this has meant the width of the road has been halved on both sides of the road cutting the width of the whole road by HALF.


Over the past week, several people who have had to drive into my drive, have been appalled at how difficult & dangerous it is to enter - & in particular - exit my drive. They said it is dangerous because they had to cross the middle white line when turning left out of the drive subsequently making the oncoming traffic stop to let them out. This was precisely my original complaint! This is a dangerous maneuver & waiting for an accident to happen any day! When Rilwan Oshingbade came to look into my original complaint, he had no car so was unable to understand this for himself. Anyone leaving my drive has to pull right over to the right to line the car up to turn left - 'I' know this BUT VISITORS who have never driven in or out of my drive before DON'T & find it very difficult & dangerous. Would you please send someone IN A CAR to try this maneuver themselves because it's not just me complaining, it's all my visitors!

 

18.3d4

 

Also the kerb is so deep now, you daren't go over it as it will damage the car tyres. One particular visitor, on leaving my drive, caught his tyre on the kerb & damaged the under side of his car!

Also the workmen have done more work on the cycle lane outside my house since I last wrote to you & they have left the surface where the drive meets the road so uneven, the car 'jolts' heavily from side to side as you go in & out of the drive. I have had a number of years with back problems & I certainly feel the 'jolt' in my back as I go in & out now - also this will eventually ruin my tyres! This simply MUST be put right.

 

I was willing to wait to see if the cycle lane was beneficial for cyclists but had not considered it would be such a hazard to car drivers! I'm not complaining for the sake of just complaining but this is now a serious matter & the whole 'cycle lane' idea MUST be looked into with some urgency. I would appreciate a reply to this email as soon as possible please.

 

No action has been taken by Enfield Council as yet to recify this problem. The stock answer is that the council will monitor the situation.

 


 

Is this an accident waiting to happen?

 

18.3d5

 

 


 

 

 REPORTING ACCIDENTS AND POTENTIAL HAZARDS

 

A safety report will be compiled. It is important that accidents are reported. If you witness any incidents, please email details to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., ideally with photographs to demonstrate what has happened. These will be passed on to councillors and council officers.

 

A105 SAFETY AUDIT

 

A independent safety audit was conducted, A  Road Safety Audit Overview considers the road safety implications of a scheme on all roads users, particularly vulnerable users. The RSA team are independent from the designers and identify potential risks and mitigation measures for consideration by the designer and client.

 

If you read the report you will see that it raised many safety concerns. You can see that the designers and Enfield Council have chosen to disregard the majority of its findings because they are trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. The findings of Enfield Council's own expert advisors have been largely ignored. The stock answer is that the situation will be monitored.

 

RSA is not a single procedure but a series of stages carried out pre and post implementation.

 

Stage 1: Completion of Preliminary Design / Conceptual Design

Carried out as soon as practicable following completion of the preliminary design, when the scheme is sufficiently progressed so that all

significant features are clearly shown.

 

Stage 2: Completion of Detailed Design

Carried out as soon as practicable after the detailed design is sufficiently progressed so that it could be constructed.

.

Stage 3: Completion of Construction

Carried out as soon as practicable after the works are complete.

 

Stage 4: Monitoring

Carried out when monitoring identifies an emerging collision problem.

 

YET ONLY THE FIRST STAGE REPORT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED.  THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SECOND SAFETY REPORT BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK STARTED. 

 

A105 Safety Audit

 

 

This page is work in progress. Many pedestrian crossing refuges are being removed, encouraging people to take more risks when crossing the road.

Please report any examples where you thing there is an accident waiting to happen. 

 

 

 

New path being created along the New River

on Tuesday, 14 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

New path being created along the New River

 

UPDATE: construction work has been delayed whilst the lease between Thames Water and LBE is finalised. Work is now scheduled to begin by late summer.

 

Over the past few days (early March) an observant local resident noticed that all the trees on the stretch of Green Lanes between Carpenter Gardens Barrowell Green were beng felled.

 

This is how it used to look

 

16.3d5

 

 

 

16.3d6

 

This is how it looks now that all the trees have been removed.  

 

 

 14.3d9

 

13.3d3

 

 

Living in close proximity to the site she contacted a local councillor, who sent this leaflet. It hasn't been distributed, but it appears that this section of Green Lanes is to have a makeover, in conjunction with Thames Water; part of the Gateways Projects 2016/2017.

 

14.3d8 

 Here are some more details from the Highways Department


The design for the New River/Green Lanes site has been developed in consultation with Thames Water, and aims to make the space more accessible. The design includes a range of features such as:

 

* Bespoke granite block signage (created from sandblasted reclaimed granite) at site entrances

 

* A row of semi-mature clear stem oaks along Green Lanes. These mitigate the removal of the self-set vegetation and also open up sightlines towards Green Lanes

 

* A line of granite boulders to stop vehicles from accessing the site. These also create informal 'play on the way' opportunities for children walking along the site (a similar arrangement has recently proven very successful at Albany Park) and a number of them will have bespoke bird feet patterns on them to inspire curiosity and encourage children to find out more about wildlife along the New River

 

* High quality paving and new planting areas with low growing plants to promote biodiversity such as bee and butterfly attracting shrubs and perennials

 

* A new footpath leading from Carpenter Gardens to Barrowell Green

 

* The works are progressing on site, and it is anticipated that the tree planting will be carried out towards the end of April 2017 and construction work completed soon after at the start of May 2017.

 

14.3d7

 

DOWNLOAD THE LEAFLET HERE

 

Note the leaflet shows cars parked by the side of the new green space - sorry Highways but all parking is due to be removed. Perhaps you need to change your image before it goes to print. 


14.3f1



Open Letters to Cllr Denial Anderson and LBE officers

on Thursday, 02 March 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Open Letters to Cllr Denial Anderson and LBE officers


Local residents and business owners are sick to death of the banal, glib answers trotted out by senior Enfield Councillors and officers, when we clearly face a serious crisis in Winchmore Hill and now also in Palmers Green.

 

Here are a selection of the responses sent to me. Take the time to read them. They are detailed, written by people who have clearly done proper research and believe that this undemocratic Enfield Mini Holland mess should be halted, before our local high streets are destroyed and we have accidents on what until now hasn't been an especially dangerous road.

 


 

No thought, No Consultation, No Consequences (other than for us)


Stuart (12/10/17)

I am aware, unless misquoted, Cllr Anderson recently cited the Brexit vote as a bigger problem for local businesses than the disruption caused by the Cycle Enfield Road Works - in all seriousness, whilst I don't believe in the idea (just my personal opinion) I have said from the start, I'm not against this project per se as I believe only time will tell if it is or is not, "on the whole", a good idea. Only time will tell if the design/layout is good or not for the community as a whole. What has really, really, really disappointed me, is the lack of management of the disruption.

 

The lack of urgency. The lack of productivity of the workforce. The haphazard manner in which the project is being handled; laying new pavements and then coming back to dig them up because the street lights have not been connected, etc, etc, etc. Much of what I've seen beggars belief and as I've said before, stinks of either incompetence or corruption.

 

Going back to Cllr Anderson's comment; in my humble opinion, I don't believe people are buying fewer chips because of the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit situation! They are buying fewer chips because they can't get stopped anywhere near enough or are avoiding the area completely because of the constant gridlock caused by the roadworks! My business has been absolutely hammered by these works; by being cut off from the road, from the loss of parking, from the loss of, and I'm of the opinion this is what will finally kill my business, the slip road and replacement of it with a 15 foot pavement.

 

And now to add insult to injury, we've been disrupted once again this week by "workmen" cutting holes in the pavement, that they've just laid, to allow for the planting of trees directly outside our shops - in fact in front of all the shops on our parade other than the one that isn't an independently owned business but a huge PLC; coincidence or planned? As has been pointed out by a neighbour - should these new trees end up like the existing trees, that are at the south end of the parade, they will almost completely obstruct the view of our shopfronts from the road - what then? Is there a plan in place? Budget to ensure these are "kept" from overpowering the shopfronts? A plan to plant only species with limited growth potential? What is the thinking? The way we're going, these shops will be of no use as "shops" for much longer! No thought of or consultation with the businesses affected and no thought of any potential consequences to us!? Perhaps if my business does crash and I lose my home I can bring my family to live in the shop!!

 

At the last count, I counted 27 vacant shops in the town, 29 including our 2, empty and attracting zero interest, ex restaurant units. Now I see Argos has closed also! What is the thinking? Where are we going as a town centre shopping hub? What action, if any, is planned to rejuvenate the town? I don't believe the two wheeled cavalry will be coming to the rescue, no matter how much has been spent on a super highway for them!

 

In fact I think the new road layout and design has made driving through the area an absolute "must avoid unless absolutely necessary"! Where will the "shoppers" come from?

 

I'd really like to hear what you (the Council/Councillor) have to say on these points.

 

Below you can see the pictures; our shop front, the existing trees, the same trees, to almost perfect scale, if they were outside our shop. What do you have to say, because there was no consultation and, seemingly, no thought that went into this decision and obviously no consideration of any consequences?

 

12.10g7

 

 

You may be thinking, "this guy must have a lot of time on his hands to be taking pictures and sketching drawings!" - well your right! Must be this damn Brexit vote; every time I'm on a counter shift at our Enfield shop lately, I find myself with "F-All" to do!!!

 

I look forward to a timely response.

 

John Phantis, GM

 Fish&Chips@ London Road Ltd

78-82 London Road

Enfield Middx

EN2 6HU



 


The Cycle track is incomplete and therefore unsuitable to use


Dear Mr. Taylor, Mr. Miller, (9/10/17)


I have been told of a minor accident where a cyclist was nudged off the road and onto the cycle track on Friday afternoon. There then followed a heated disagreement.

 

The car driver claimed the cyclist was in the wrong for using the vehicle carriageway instead of the cycle lane/track. The cyclist responded that the cycle track was incomplete and therefore unsuitable for use.

 

In fact the truth is that it is LBE and its contractors/designers that are at fault. Work is left incomplete for months at a time and there is no signage to guide highway users as to what and what not they can and can't do. The result is total anarchy. Cyclists still ride on pavements. Cyclists ride the wrong way along cycle tracks/lanes. Pedestrians walk in cycle tracks. Vehicles park in cycle tracks and motor cycles and mopeds use the cycle tracks.

 

In the meantime, parking enforcement officers seem to concentrate on enforcing parking notices on HGVs parked in side roads because they can get no nearer shops to make deliveries because of the barriers.

 

This is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs for which, in my opinion, Enfield Council is entirely responsible.

 

This email has been sent for record purposes only. It's purpose is to record inadequacies in the design, the implementation, the planning, the programming the supervision and the workmanship and of dangers brought about to the public the warnings of which go unanswered. It does not seek to enter discussion. It does not require a response.

 

Peter Johns

 

 


 


Annual budget to maintain the modified A105


Dear Mr Taylor, Mr Miller

 

I trust that, in this period of financial stringency, you have allowed sufficient money in your annual budget to cover the increased cost in use of the modified A105.

 

Street cleaning becomes more difficult and therefore more expensive as does the work of snow clearance in winter. Also the complicated modifications to storm water drainage introduces a much larger annual expense to keep this drainage operational. Moreover should any of these roads, cycleways and footways need to be dug up, the cost of doing this plus the extra complication of proper reinstatement makes roadworks far more costly. For the A105 to continue to function properly year on year these additional costs must be budgeted for.

 

Fiscal control of the A105 implementation works is woefully lacking. Your answers to my FOI requests bear witness to this. You would be making a similar mistake by ignoring the increased cost in use of this badly thought out modification to our transport network.

 

This email has been sent for record purposes only. It's purpose is to record inadequacies in the design, the implementation, the planning, the programming and the workmanship and of dangers brought about to the public. It does not seek to enter discussion. It does not require a response.


Peter Johns

 


 

Unacceptable construction noise


Dear Sirs (19/9/17)

 

I live at 5xx Green Lanes in Palmers Green. It's just gone midnight approx 00.34 on Tuesday 19 September 2017. I'm up at 430am for work tomorrow. Your noisy construction work is still going on and I cannot sleep. It's extremely loud and intolerable for any human being. Can you confirm what time this noise will stop? Will this be going on all week? Please note that I may be taking legal action including seeking injunctive relief as I simply cannot sleep. Confirm the names of your lawyers to me by return. Many thanks.

 

Kind regards

 

Beyzade Beyzade

 

Barrister


 


 


Ignoring warnings about dangers at Bush Hill Parade junction


 

Dear Mr Taylor and Mr Anderson (22/9)

 

I have been observing the chaos on this Parade on and off all day and I have seen every type of hazard that I have brought to your attention so far.

 

 

Vehicles unsure whether to turn right to right or left to left from Bush Hill & Church Street.

 

 

Vehicles stranded in the middle of the road because their passage was blocked by opposing traffic.

 

 

Vehicles waiting at lights to turn right without pulling forward to activate sensors. (no road markings to inform).

 

 

Vehicles unaware of the left hand filter at Village Road.

 

 

Near collisions as right turning traffic from Church Street drove in front of cars from Bush Hill.

 

 

Pedestrians having to run to get past the central Island to the opposite side of this Parade to beat the countdown.

 

 

But by far the most dangerous thing I've seen today was a small child on a bike cycling back and forth over the central cycle crossings into the paths of cars, he was seemingly unaware that he didn't have right of way.

 

Will you do something about this junction urgently before someone gets injured or killed.

 

 

Richard Turner, Manager Lords DIY


 


 

 

Dear councillors (22/9)

 

Since June you have been copied into nmerous emails pointing out the dreadful state of our junction at Bush Hill Parade. You have remained silent, and Stuart Miller has done nothing apart from replying with copy and pasted rhetoric.

 

Cars used to have a safe three phase traffic light sequence, pedestrians had numerous crossing opportunities with one car phase being red at any one time and pedestrian operated access to all of the central refuges. Cyclists had the option of road use across all junctions without traffic conflict or they could use the existing pedestrian crossings.

 

The following is a reminder of how bad this junction is for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists so that you might feel obliged to do something. Mr Miller is not included in this mail as he has proved himself incapable of doing anything positive and this email would be wasted on him.

 

The removal of an important light phases had resulted in chaos. Vehicles and cyclists coming from Church Street to turn right towards Enfield Town have no give way instructions or indeed any road markings to advise them. All vehicles and cyclists coming out of Bush Hill Road lack similar information. The resulting streams of opposing traffic conflict with each other as each one is trying to find the correct way to go and at the same time trying to make sense of the cycle lane markings in the road. It's outrageous that the final positions reached by vehicles in the middle of Bush Hill Parade depends entirely on which vehicle gets to turn right first!

 

If two or more vehicles are turning right towards Enfield Town then any vehicles from Bush Hill that wish to turn right to Winchmore Hill are not just blocked, but can prevent traffic behind them from passing. These vehicles often give up their right turn and carry on down Church Street.

 

However, if a vehicle from Bush Hill is first to try and turn right, it will often find itself stuck between two streams of opposing traffic. To their right, traffic traveling up Bush Hill and to their left, traffic turning right towards Enfield Town which then conflicts with traffic from Bush Hill traveling to Church Street.

 

You would do well to be reminded that around fifteen years ago, after a horrendous accident on our parade, Church St. and Bush Hill traffic were given this dedicated phase to improve safety.

 

After the removal of three of the four central refuges, pedestrians now have only one opportunity to cross the Parade and this single phase pedestrian/cycle crossings leaves pedestrians and cyclists stranded on the perimeters of the Parade. The elderly and disabled who not able to cross at a brisk walking pace will either find themselves stuck in the central triangular refuge waiting for another full round of vehicle movement or stranded in the middle of the road at the end of the countdown.

 

Cyclists have gained nothing too as there is still no dedicated route between Ridge Avenue and Village Road. The stupidity of this design is that cyclists are expected to leave the road at the flats on Bush Hill Parade and cycle to one of the pedestrian crossings to rejoin the cycle lane opposite the Library. This is no different to the options before the works started so most cyclists are still using the road.

 

Should you wish to leave your office in Silver Street please visit Bush Hill Parade by car so that you can experience another problem - the left hand turn filter light at Village Road. If you are first at the lights you can not see it and you will get angry drivers sounding their horns at you. Or if you are feeling brave, come down Bush Hill and try to turn right towards Winchmore Hill.

 

This email is for your benefit and for you to address. Please do not pass this to Mr Miller

 

Richard Turner, Manager Lords DIY


 


 

 

Are you working from a position of ignorance?


Dear Mr. Taylor, Mr. Miller (22/8)


It is now over two months that pedestrians have gone without the Green Lanes road crossings to which they are entitled, to pedestrians crossings that meet all recommendations of Tfl design guidance and to the pedestrian crossings required to be provided under the LoHAC contract which you constantly refuse to enforce. I ask myself why?

 

There is only one conclusion that I can come to and that is because you have not carried out a proper study of pedestrian movements in the A105 corridor. There are many examples provided by yourselves of evidence to this fact. I also conclude that you are working from a position of ignorance.

 

This email has been sent for record purposes only. It's purpose is to record inadequacies in the design, the implementation, the planning, the programming and the workmanship and of dangers brought about to the public. It does not seek to enter discussion. It does not require a response.

 

Peter Johns.

 


 

Why are you delaying putting in crossings on Winchmore Hill Broadway


Dear All, (17/8)

 

Here is the copy of an email that has just been sent to David B Taylor...

 

"We need a temporary or permanent pedestrian crossing at Winchmore Hill Broadway for pedestrians who are unable to walk to the Station Road traffic light crossing or to the Sainsbury crossing. Now the Southside of the Broadway is partially blocked off and parked vehicles on the North side there is only just enough room for cars to pass each other. 2 buses or lorries it is impossible. This afternoon an elderly gentleman who has very restricted movement was stranded in the middle of Green Lanes by Compton Road with vehicles passing either side of him. I parked my car to try and help him but a lady ran out of a shop to help him. He could only shuffle along with the help of his stick. It is obvious that at the speed he could move it would take him about 10-15 mins to get across the road via Station Road.

 

Please can you see what can be done to for the elderly and restricted pedestrians and avoid what could have been a disaster." For how much longer are you going to monitor the situation from Silver St.? Surely you must do something.

 

Peter Johns.

 


 

Unacceptable pavement widths


Dear Mr. Miller, (2/8)


I have just seen another response made by council officers to a query about reduced footway widths, it stated...

 

"... where footway widths are referenced, this includes all space that pedestrians might use, including buffer strips. With regards the minimum width of a pavement, there is no legal minimum. The minimum width ... of just under 6 foot is not feasible on a number of footways.

 

 

The granite setts I referred to in the email below are a buffer strip. Are the council saying that they expect pedestrians, including the elderly, disabled and those women in high heel shoes, to walk on these granite setts?

 

I also thought that the sole purpose of a buffer strip in this situation was to reduce the likelihood of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists. And what is even worse, the reduced footway referred to is in front of a parade of shops.

 

This, to me, is further evidence that in order to fit cycle lanes/tracks into a road reserve with inadequate space that you and your designers are prepared to abandon all necessary minimum recommended standards. The 6 foot width was once there. It is no longer.

 

 

In my opinion this is unacceptable.

 

 

Peter Johns.


 


 

 

Major safety concerns are being ignored


Dear Cllr Taylor (2/8)


I wrote to you over a week ago to remind you that I was still awaiting answers to the several questions that I have asked you over the past few months regarding safety issues concerning the Cycle Enfield scheme, none of which you have provided adequate answers to.

 

You failed even to acknowledge receipt of that last email.

 

I am writing to raise several additional safety issues. I hope you will now give me the courtesy of a full and detailed set of replies. Let me say that while I realise you have delegated responsibility for the Cycle Enfield scheme to Cllr Anderson, this does not absolve you from responsibility. As Leader of the Council you should surely be on top of all policies currently being implemented across the council – and especially ones with such serious legal implications such as this. I therefore seek your response on the following issues, in addition to those I have raised previously.

 

I note that between my last email to you and this one Mr Turner has been in contact with you once again about the hazards presented to pedestrians by the Cycle Enfield design in the vicinity of St Stephen's church. This adds to the growing list of hazards introduced by this scheme and brought to your and your councillors' and officers' attention over the past months by residents, with no effect to date other than the removal of four 'orcas' at Sainsbury's, and then only after the hospitalisation of several people. I write regarding further hazards brought to your attention by residents and for which there is now growing evidence that residents were correct to be concerned.

 

1. Trip hazard introduced by 'Cobblestones' ('sets'). A resident wrote to your colleagues some weeks ago to point out the trip hazard presented by the uneven 'cobblestones' used to delineate the cycle lane and providing photos of this. As usual his email was ignored. Last Thursday this is what happened:

 

 2.8f3

 

This man tripped on the uneven cobblestones, knocked out a tooth and was taken to hospital for further investigation. In other words, they tripped on the trip hazard that had been identified to your fellow councillors and officers and who had decided to do nothing. Would you like to reflect on LBE's liability should this resident to seek personal injury compensation, given that this trip hazard had been made known to LBE several weeks previously?

 

2. Hazardous junctions. After I wrote to you last Monday a member of ETRA contacted me to raise her concerns regarding the safety of the junction of Windsor Rd with the A105. Our member has a disabled friend who lives on Windsor Road who is now extremely anxious at the difficulty of turning out of this junction since the cycle lane work has extended it. I kept a note of what she said to me and her exact words were: "There have already been several incidents already with people trying to get into and out of this road – you have to swing right out in order to turn out or into it". I had this conversation with our member on Wednesday night. On Thursday, there was a serious accident at the junction of Windsor Rd and the A105, precisely as had been predicted by these residents:

 

 2.8f4

 

Indeed, Mr Turner sent you an email on Thursday describing what had happened, which was almost word for word the situation that our member had described. This is yet another example of where residents can easily see the serious – and obvious - hazards these designs present to ordinary residents going about their everyday life. But you and your colleagues continue to ignore these issues.

 

3. Dangerously narrowed road at hazardous bend. Many people have pointed to the serious risk now presented to drivers at the bend in the road on the A105 adjacent to the junction with Bush Hill – another junction where you are now building out the kerb in the same way as at Windsor Road – but this time on a dangerous bend. When the Borough still had rational people in charge of Traffic and Transportation hatched white lines were painted on the road to indicate to drivers to stay away from the middle of the road, to minimise the risk of accidents.

 

The photos below show these hatched lines – and in addition show that now, the design has so severely narrowed the road that drivers are forced onto the hatched lines. In other words, car drivers are left with no choice other than to drive on the most dangerous part of the road, increasing the likelihood of collision.

 

 2.8f5

 

 

This is clearly another accident (or several) waiting to happen. If you saw this design in another borough, would you like to tell me where, on a stupidity scale of 1- 10 (where 10 is the highest level of stupidity imaginable) you would rate that design?

 

These points are neither funny nor trivial. Lives are being put at risk. Residents have repeatedly brought these risks to your attention and you have repeatedly ignored them – only to have residents provide you with the proof, from the back of an ambulance.

 

Will you please now as a matter of some urgency answer the questions I have asked you in the emails I have been sending you since February.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Dr Linda Miller

 


 

FOI requests on dayworks are being ignored (26/7)


Dear Enfield Council


The schedule of rates that I requested under the FOI are not the ones sent to me.

 

 

The schedule of rates sent to me are those that, I am informed, were the subject of a competitive tender for the framework contract. These rates are more appropriate to reactive and maintenance work and have also been redacted. The rates appropriate to the A105 cycle lane project construction have been left blank. Have these rates, e.g. for earthworks, drainage, road paving and kerbs and footway paving, been negotiated? They are not shown as redacted. Do they exist or is this project being reimbursed as dayworks?

 

 

I asked to see the A105 project schedule of rates. If they do not exist please inform me.

 

 

I also note that Regeneris in their Economic Impact Assessment assumed that the construction stage of project would last 6 months.

 

 

Everywhere that I look in the studies leading up to this work starting I can find serious flaws. I am surprised that it wasn't picked up by someone.

 

 

Peter Johns

 


 

If it ain't broke don't fix it! (15/7)

 

Dear Councillors

 

I am writing to make a complaint in the strongest terms regarding the cycle lanes that run from Enfield town to Palmers Green. The first question has to be WHY! Why have you done this. The road along there was perfectly good. Buses could stop with enough room for other vehicles to pass safely. Not any more, you now have to go on the other side of the road to pass making tha manoeuvre unsafe. People getting off buses now have to step into the cycle lane. I know of at least one person being hit by a bike.

 

The roundabout at Winchmore Hill broadway worked perfectly well it doesn't traffic lights. Because of this traffic now queues up Station Road where it didn't before. The traffic lights going into Sainsbury's along Green Lanes are totally unnecessary again causing more traffic queuing. I use this road every day in my work as a driving instructor and since February when the Ridge Avenue section opened have counted only 30 cyclists using them. At the lights by Ridge Avenue library cyclists come off the cycle lane and into the road to go through the lights when they are Green. WHAT IS THE POINT!

 

You have totally wasted money that could have been spent on schools, social care etc. Businesses are suffering. As a council you have no idea and no care for the people you represent. You should all resign or a least hang you heads in shame because this will come back to haunt you. The utopian idea you have that everyone will get on bikes will never happen. Stop now before you cause even more upset and misery. If I were you I would abandon your plans for Enfield town because I'm sure you haven't properly thought through where all the traffic is going to go. Sometimes the old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it' works and it certainly does in this case. Think on Enfield Council!

 

Mark Duncan


 


 

 

It is clear that pedestrians are simply not on Cycle Enfield's radar, neither during construction nor in the final design (12/7)


Dear councillors

 

Once more we have to write to you about this crossing. It's turned into quite a saga & we are still waiting for this zebra to be made usable. Perhaps this email will be hard to follow, but that's in the nature of Cycle Enfield itself.

The latest news is that late last night ie Monday 10th July trucks & equipment arrived to remove the white zebra markings, which were 'not to legal requirements', & paint new ones.

 

This work was completed but the crossing remains barriered, which happened on Monday 26th June, and the Bolisha beacons are still not connected, although one of the lights for the crossing, on the same column as the Bolisha beacon, came into use on Thurs/Friday 29/30th June.

 

On 3rd July we emailed Stuart Miller asking why the white stripes next to each kerb had been painted over in black. We received no answer and the query has now been overtaken by events.

We have been asking about this crossing since at least 30th March when the central refuge of the previous informal crossing had already long been removed.

 

The cycle Enfield newsletter of 28th April reported "Our lighting contractor Bouygues are scheduled to install the new crossing adjacent to Regency Court later this week."

on 5th May "Our lighting contractor Bouygues is installing the new crossing adjacent to Regency Court.

 

On 19th May "The new crossing adjacent to Regency Court has been installed and is awaiting connection" The last repeated in every newsletter since.

 

I have pasted in further down my email of 18th May relating to this & to other crossings between Stephen's church & Enfield Town. Despite that email pedestrians were still being encouraged by a ramp & 'pedestrians' sign to use the unsafe 'crossing' at Bush Hill right up until it was barriered on 26th June, the same day as the Regency Ct crossing, & no attempt had been made to provide pedestrians with safe passage anywhere else between St. Stephens & Enfield Town. Only since the barriers have you constructed one temporary informal crossing north of Bush Hill/London Rd junction.

 

The loss of central refuges across busy side roads, Lincoln Rd. & Village Rd north, puts pedestrians at further risk.

On 12th June the reply to the email below was: "Thank you for your enquiry to which I have been asked to respond. I have been in touch with our contractors and asked them to consider the position of pedestrian signs around existing works to ensure these do not lead to the mistaken impression that the contractor is encouraging the use of non-operational crossing points. "

 

It is clear that pedestrians are simply not on Cycle Enfield's radar, neither during construction nor in the final design.

Jennifer Williams




Why are you denying that the Council has lost control of these works (4/7)


Dear Mr Miller

 

Although it needed only a simple answer, you have failed to respond to my email.

 

 

We are now in month 14 of the 6 month implementation period programmed for these works and a notice dated 1st July has just gone up saying Palmers Green Triangle will be closed for 3 months from 17th July.

 

It appears to me that you have now lost control of these works - assuming of course that you even had control in the first place.

 

Moreover your minuted statement that construction is not expected to last more than two weeks outside any premises is proving far from reality. Barriers are up for far longer than that with all the negative economic impact proving far greater than anticipated.

 

Was it your contractor that produced this fiction of a programme? If not who did produce it?

 

We are sick and tired of living in a building site but we residents are not suffering as much as shopkeepers, delivery drivers, bus drivers and those having the misfortune to travel along and have accidents on this road.

 

I refer to the LBE cabinet meeting of 10th February 2016 minute 5.12.2 which states.

"Subject to Cabinet approval, the detailed design and construction will be undertaken by Ringway Jacobs via the London Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC). This contract was the subject of a competitive tendering process and is expected to deliver significant long-term benefits for London. Implementation is programmed to start by May 2016 and take approximately 6 months to complete. Construction will be carried out in phases and is not expected to last more than two weeks outside any premises."

 

Can you please define "implementation" for me.

 

Thanking you in anticipation.

 

Peter Johns

 


 

Park Avenue junction is a death trap (23/5)


Councillors

 

Cycle for Enfield as we know has been beset with many problems. I would like to bring to your attention the junction of the A105, Park Ave and Village Rd at St Stephens Church. 

 

I thought the idea of cycle paths was to make it safer for cyclists, this junction is a death trap. Whoever designed this cycle crossover did not have safety in mind for any road users be they on bikes, in vehicles or on foot so whoever passed this scheme in Enfield Council is at fault for discounting public safety.

 

The crossing put in for cyclist crossing over Park Ave is far too close to the junction with the A105 so that any vehicle turning left at the junction only has 9 to 10 feet before it connects with the cycle path at which vehicles are supposed to stop, also if vehicles are travelling from the Bush Hill Park side it is a sharp bend just before the cycle path. Having double white lines on the road cyclists would assume all traffic would stop and they would have a clear run on the cycle path.

 

Traffic turning right into this junction from the A105 would be going at least 20 miles per hour which has a stopping distance of 40 feet. Any vehicle turning left into Park Ave would be going at least 10 miles an hour, at 10 miles an hour stopping distance would be approximately 20 feet and at 5 miles per hour the stopping distance would be approximately 10 feet depending on weather conditions, any cyclist using the path at this junction would be expecting vehicles to stop so there is bound to be an accident.

 

Any motor vehicle driver who did indeed notice the double white lines and stopped would cause havoc as the car behind being unable to see the road markings could crash into them.

 

This is a very busy junction which I observed for over a three quarters of an hour; there were a large number of vehicles using this junction from all directions but not one stopped at the double white lines.

 

I would now like to quote the highway code - "double white lines across the carriageway are for traffic to give way at a major road and can be used at mini-roundabouts". No mention of cycle tracks with these road markings. What it does state as Rule 81 "cycle only crossings, cycle tracks on opposite side of road must be linked by traffic light signalled crossings you may cross the road but only when green cycle is shown."

 

In my opinion if the track followed the A105 rather than being dropped back 9/10 feet it would have been a much safer option.

 

John Jewson

 

Bush Hill Park Resident

 

Retired from the London Ambulance Service

 

and Vice Chair FERAA


 


 

 

Rat-running on Radcliffe Road (20/5)

 

Dear David (Burrowes) and local councillors

 

Has anyone taken a walk – or indeed tried to take a drive - around Winchmore Hill Broadway since the arrival of the lights at the junction with Green Lanes, Station Road and Fords Grove/Farm Road?

 

When the road was being re-surfaced a few weeks ago we had a taste of what was to come. All traffic was sent on a diversion up and down Radcliffe Road between 8pm and 6am. There was a continuous stream up and down a totally unsuitable residential road. We thought it was temporary.Little did we know!

 

Now the lights have been switched this volume of traffic is even worse – and it continues through the whole day and night. Did whoever set up the timing on the traffic lights ever consider just how much traffic uses Station Road? Have they hung around long enough to review what's happening?

 

Traffic on Green Lanes is flowing straight through with a lengthy green timing – in both directions and indeed the lights are often green with nothing in sight. By contrast the queue up Station Road seems never less than 10 cars and in the middle of the morning on Friday (1030) was 14 cars and today, Saturday ( 1030 again) up to 18. Since 2 cars can go through at a time on green, 1 extra on the orange ( and frequently in desperation a fourth on red!) this means several changes of light and lengthy waits.

 

Absolute nonsense – no wonder Radcliffe Road has become a race track with cars hurtling through in both directions. We have even had lorries, council Refuse Lorries and builders' lorries with skips all tearing down the road – and it all has to play chicken at the right hand bend as well as dodging in and out of the cars parked on both sides of a residential street.

 

This is a totally unsustainable situation. We are a narrow side road not designed to be a race track.

 

Something needs to be done and urgently before there is a serious accident.

 

Claire K

 


 


As a registered blue badge holder who wishes to support the local businesses (unlike Enfield Council) I have experienced the following problems (15/5)


Winchmore Hill Broadway.

 

There were no parking spaces available either North or South of Green Lanes.

 

I had to park in the Fords Grove car park and walk with my crutches up hill over the bridge to collect my urgent Medication from Atkinsons Pharmacy, then back to the traffic lights to cross the road. The walk to the paper shop, the butcher and the baker. Then walk back to the traffic lights with my crutches, carrying my shopping, back to the car park. Total time taken 30 minutes. Usually it takes about 10 minutes.

 

Whilst I was there I witnessed one of the apparently shouting at a disabled woman on her scooter as she had apparently got inside the pedestrian barriers and wanted the worker to move the barrier across Compton Road so she could leave. This I observed from a distance do cannot confirm what actually to place.

 

Palmers Green.

 

I had an appointment at the optician.

 

No on street parking.

 

New temporary traffic lights at The Fox roundabout and congestion at the triangle.

 

It took 15 Minutes to travel from Winsor Road to Palmers Green car park. 4 changes of lights.

 

Please also note the 3 cyclist who passed me while I was waiting ignored the red lights. (what is new!).

 

After I left the carpark I tried to return to Hedge Lane via Hazelwood Lane only to be met by congestion due to parked vehicles and traffic try to avoid the chaos.

 

The way things are going I wonder how many local shops will be left by the time the cycle lanes are completed.

 

I also would like to draw your attention to a prominent local cyclist's comments. 'CYCLE LANES ARE NOT FOR REAL CYCLSTS'

 

That shows the contempt that some of them have for your lanes.

 

 

Observations (11.5.17)

 

Several cyclists in the main road going around Masons Corner. Not using the provided cycle lane. Blocking and holding up traffic. Understand this has been photographed.

01.00 hrs this morning the traffic lights were red to allow cars to exit Sainsbury. Suggest traffic lights be switched off when Sainsbury are closed.

Palmers Green is becoming grid locked at times due the closure of Broomfield Lane and the temporary traffic lights. I took 20 minutes to get from the Fox to the North Circular. This is even before you start work on the Aldermans Hill junction.

 

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT THEN !

The proposed closure of Bourne Hill from 10/5 for 6 weeks has not yet happened. Has this been cancelled ? Understand traffic will be diverted via Aldermans Hill. Can this be possible with the current congestion (see above).

 

The closure of Compton Road due 8/5 for 2 months has not happened. Has this been cancelled ?

 

Problems for the disabled at Winchmore Hill Broadway. I had to assist a disabled man with his shopping as there was insufficient room on the pavement due to the current road works.

He also asked if I knew what he will have to do when the cycle lanes finally get going. Does he have to us the cycle lane or the pavement ? I could not help him. Do you know ?

I have also been talking to someone I met someone who runs a group for the elderly and those with visual problems. I was told that a lot of the members are concerned with having to cross the cycle lanes to get on and off the buses that they rely on. Also one of the members with visual problems keeps on getting lost due the road works, fences and crossings being moved. Can you understand how he feels ?


Richard Johnsen (Frustrated driver and local shopper)

 


 

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING WINCHMORE HILL BROADWAY (3.5.17)


Dear Mr. Taylor, Mr. Miller, 


I am lodging the following formal complaints regarding ongoing works to the pedestrian ways on The Broadway N21.

 

Complaint 1.

I notice workers are currently reducing footpath widths on The Broadway. This reduction has not been shown on drawings circulated during the consultation.

 

Complaint 2.

Insufficient space has been allowed for cycle lanes, motorised transport and pedestrians to co-exist.

 

I do understand that most laws concerning building and infrastructure are not retrospective and therefore do not apply to any infrastructure in place before the passing of any law and in some cases existing pavement widths are less than the recommended minimum of 2.4m. However this is no excuse for making other, additional sections of the pavement area narrower than the officially recognised minimum of 2.4m. This will make the area more difficult to negotiate for pedestrians and bus passengers and in particular for those with prams or pushchairs and for wheelchair users. Furthermore, with some of these road alterations you are reducing pavement widths even further, when these footways were overloaded even before you started works.

 

These reduced width pavements will, following cycle lane construction, be more heavily used and more obstructed than before. That is before considering street furniture - road signs, street lighting, a post box, etc. Deliveries to shops and flats will now have to be, in many cases, trolleyed in along these pavements. Cycles are parked on pavements chained to street furniture and cyclists continue to defy traffic laws by riding along these pavements.

 

All of this will make pedestrian traffic much more difficult, but especially so for those with push chairs, wheel chairs, mobility scooters etc. etc. As it affects wheelchair users and mobility scooters more than other groups of road users this should have been examined in an equality impact assessment.

 

Complaint 3.

I therefore also question whether making worse and/or denying of proper access to the disabled is legal. It would appear to conflict with your duties under the Equality Act 2010. I can see no reference to narrowing of the pavements, or reference to surveys of pedestrian traffic existing or predicted, in your 'Predictive Equality Impact Assessment'. I therefore believe that both you and your designers have both been negligent in not properly considering the consequences of footpath width reduction.

 

Complaint 4. Work has commenced without the necessary detailed survey to ensure that everything will fit. Neither have you carried out Road Safety Audits at the required points in the design process.

 

Complaint 5.

Business proprietors have not been warned in sufficient detail of your proposals nor has sufficient attention been given to mitigating the adverse impacts of the work on their day-to-day actions.

 

Taken together Council tax and business rate payers are seeing large sums of money wasted on things that will not work in practice with proposed increased inaccessibility threatening the livelihoods of those living and working there.

 

I look forward to your early response to the above complaints.

 

 Peter Johns

 


 

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ENGAGE AND LISTEN

 

To all Councillors & Officers of Enfield Council


I need to update you on the complete farce of a project that has been damaging our parade since January.

 

A while ago we noticed that Bush Hill Road seemed too narrow for two way traffic and we informed Rilwan about this. Not surprisingly Ringway had to dig up the side by the park to widen that section for suitable traffic flow.

 

For over fifteen weeks the barriers outside my shop removed our parking and for nearly six weeks an unconnected piece of cycle lane was left untouched until yesterday. But we were still fed the lie by various parties that there was mitigation and that parking was provided.

 

Two days ago Ringway finally realised that they had built a section of cycle lane next to an advertising board which projected into that lane. So they had to dig up paving again to assist its removal.

 

And today the idiots are digging up the paving on Bush Hill Road yet again because they forgot to connect the power to some street lights!

 

Add to this their disgusting misuse of barriers (over 900 metres) on our parade for months and the fact they are permitted to work from 7:00am till 6:00pm but choose work 8 till 4, we have a disgraceful situation where the A105 has been worked on for over half a year now but is under 30% complete.

 

I have been complaining regularly about the dreadful way this project is damaging our businesses and bar one copy and pasted reply from Daniel Anderson I have been ignored by every Labour Councillor.

 

This is totally unacceptable and contrary to the councilors code of conduct - you are required to engage and listen!

 

Daniel Anderson, and Alan Sitkin – when are either of you going to start engaging with people that have genuine concerns about your cycle lanes instead of your pals at Better Streets for Enfield?

 

Doug Taylor – Are you going to explain to your constituents in Ponders End that their disruption and losses will be similar to that committed on the A105? Are you also going to allow this project to continue even though there are no functional plans for the Nags Head junction?

 

To every Labour councillor – you are currently part of a council that is ignoring every attempt to engage. Every step of the way certain parties are brushing people off with rhetoric about road widening, public realms and their discredited audits, they are wasting money on publicity stunts to try and repair the tarnish that their behavior is causing.

 

And when people posted complaints on Enfield Councils facebook page about Daniel Anderson's planters, they were removed along with the observation that we were witnessing Chinese style politics!

 

I hope that some of you recognise that Enfield Council is being steered down a very undemocratic path and try to impress on your colleagues the need to speak to all parties and listen.

 

Richard Turner, Lords DIY

 

and on behalf of the residents and traders of Bush Hill Parade & Avenue Parade










YOU ARE STILL IGNORING OUR BUSINESSES

Dear Cllr. Anderson


Referring to your post on Better Streets For Enfield on 7th April. I find it sarcastic and insulting to the thousands of people that are trying to convince you that your designs for Cycle Enfield need to be changed.

 

I'm truly staggered how you say "so few opponents were actually present" as a way of devaluing their strength of feeling. And then insult them further by commenting "and how muted were their reactions. So so tedious".

 

 

But not as tedious as your regular engagement with Better Streets For Enfield, where you surround yourself with "yes" people and preach to the converted. Getting pats on the back for being so resolute and affiliating yourself with the view that your opponents are cycle haters.

 

 

Cllr. Anderson, you are meant to be an elected representative of the people . So for Christs sake will you start acting like one and engage with the people of Enfield instead of a minority pressure group that seems to use you as their personal council mole.

 

 

Please be reminded of a few of your roles set out by the LGA.

 

 

As the local elected representative you will engage with residents and groups on a wide range of different issues and take on an important community leadership role.

 

 

As an elected representative it is important to let local people know what you have been doing, but it's equally important to listen to people and groups in your area.

 

 

The councillor's workbook on neighbourhood and community engagement expects you to show the following strengths.

 

 

An understanding of your ward, the representation of local voices, communicating and influencing skills.

 

 

So far Cllr. Anderson you have have exhibited little or none of these strengths and definitely are not fulfilling your role as an elected councillor in charge of a major project.

 

 

In contrast to your insular approach to politics, my colleagues and I engage with the local community seven days a week, we meet and talk to many hundreds of people and we hear opinions from every social and political demographic.

 

 

In almost two years we have only met five people that support your project. In just over seventy days 368 people have signed our petition to challenge the continuation of your cycle lanes. Indeed, many of the opponents to your scheme are cyclists themselves and convey to me their dismay at the folly of your designs.

 

 

And today, during a walk around our Parade, I hear the usual comments about how this project is a waste of money, how cyclists will use the roads and the laughs at the double painted cycle lanes in the middle of our Parade!

 

 

All these opinions would be valuable to you as a councillor and would help you to understand the considerable objection to these lanes and the impact that this project is having on peoples lives. But to ignore them, pretend that they have no value or to remove them like the negative comments about your planters were removed from Enfield Councils Facebook page is unacceptable.

 

 

So my advice to you Cllr. Anderson is to re-read The councillor's role & communication in the LGA Guidelines and The councillor's workbook on neighbourhood and community engagement and see if you can emulate the roles and strengths it expects from councillors.

 

 

Maybe then the traders and residents along the A105 and the A1010 might get a personal visit from you and a chance to voice their opinions instead of reading about your PR stunts at Forty Hall and your £8000 planters.

 

 

Regards

 

Richard Turner, Lords DIY

 

And on behalf of the residents and traders of Bush Hill Parade & Avenue Parade


 



DO NOT IGNORE MY EMAIL

 


We live in Bush Hill Road close to the main junction at Ridge Avenue and life has been turned into complete hell. When your cycle lane project started we realised this would cause us a great deal of inconvenience and more than one sleepless night. But we had absolutely no idea of the huge impact you were planning on causing permanently on our lives.

 

Recently retired we made a conscious decision to live out the rest of our lives in Enfield where we have spent our lives. We have worked extremely hard to get our home as we want it, we have all the local shops we want just a short walk away and the corner of Bush Hill Parade is a great place for meeting the local community and stopping for a quick chat.

 

 

You have changed all that! The major issue to us is making Bush Hill Road one way – no consultation, no informing us, we just got up one morning and signs were there. How incredibly arrogant of the council. And although there has been no consultation as yet on your plans to put a cycle lane in Bush Hill Road (laughable as I have lived here for 13years and can honestly say in that time I have seen one cyclist on one occasion) you are forging ahead with it anyway. A lot of the people here think this is a temporary closure but you can see by the work you have completed at the junction you are making our road one way permanently.

 

 

We now feel completely trapped in our home and I can't tell you how badly it is affecting us. A trip to anywhere even say Grange Park station to pick up our grandchildren (and no at 1 & 3 they can't walk or cycle) involves a major journey to return home, queuing to the end of Old Park Ridings, queuing at the end of Green Dragon Lane and always no matter which direction you try to enter Bush Hill Road from queuing along London Road, Church Street or Ridge Avenue and you can taste the exhaust fumes! This is not going to get any better when the work is done as where the traffic moved in two lanes it now has to queue all the time and woe betide if there is a bus needing to stop and allow its passengers off into the path of a wayward cyclist, it holds up the traffic further, you should live here with the car horns constantly beeping and the emergency services, who sound their sirens day or night at the junction (we accept they have to do this) but now traffic can't move out of their way so it takes much longer to get through. And then you send a bill to say our rates are increasing!

 

 

All the local small businesses are seriously thinking of closing as you had already imposed high rates, now people can't park to go there and they are all saying business is 25-30% down and they can't survive. Please stop ruining Enfield before it is too late, by the day I am seeing 'for sale' signs on houses of people who have lived here for years.

 

 

The other side is yes wouldn't it be wonderful if Enfield was a mini Holland and there were less cars on our roads but did you seriously look at the demographic of Enfield before you decided on this course. How many councillors ride bikes all the time? Exactly, and do you really think the people of Enfield are going to? I don't know anyone in favour of this scheme or who is rushing out to buy a bike anytime soon. We are a very very different borough to Waltham Forest and if you took the time to listen to your constituents you would do as Enfield Councils website says you do: Councillors do not just look after the needs of those who elected them but have a duty to the whole community, a responsibility to champion the needs of all the constituents in their ward.

 

 

The council have done this in order to get the money whilst it is available from Tfl but you are not serving the needs of your constituents or indeed listening to them. There are a very small minority of cyclists in the borough who welcome these lanes although unbelievably a week ago I saw the very rare sight of one on the road along Ridge Avenue where the cycle lane has been completed and was he using it? No he was weaving in and out of the traffic. And the amazing thing is he doesn't have to pay road tax and insurance like all the rest of us responsible drivers.

 

 

A recent article in the Evening Standard about how the cycle lanes project is severely impacting negatively on Enfield was met with a tirade of abuse on social media from cyclists who probably don't even live in the borough and have, like Enfield council, no care at all for less able, elderly residents or families with young children.

 

 

I am quite sure most residents would have, like me, preferred our councillors concern for our health, our monetary contribution and your dogged determination to see a project pushed forward, to have been expended on saving Chase Farm A & E which would have much better served the boroughs welfare.

 

 

I have just received a letter through my door from Rilwan Oshingbade to inform me that Bush Hill Road will be closed at the junction of Ridge Avenue for 5 nights 9pm to 6am from Monday 3 April. So it would seem that residents living in the lower end of Bush Hill Road are having a curfew imposed on them as there is no other way for us to get to our homes and neighbours who are taxi and minicab drivers are being told you won't be able to return home till after 6am! isn't this carrying things a little too far even in our 'big brother' borough.

 

 

I do hope that as it says on the letter PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER you do not ignore the contents of this email.

 

 

Kind regards

 

Brenda Skee

 

 


 


MISREPRESENTATION OF CYCLE ENFIELD CONSTRUCTION IN THE MEDIA

 

Cllr Anderson

 

As usual I am obliged to let you know how much damage your mismanagement of the A105 project has inflicted on my business and the surrounding area. The mass of barriers still paralyses traffic trying to pass through or visit this parade. Most of the barriers still enclose incomplete works some untouched for over three weeks. Traffic jams occur regularly as vehicles try to negotiate the 140metres between temporary lights. Ambulances get stuck, sometimes turning around to avoid this junction. And now we are informed that this entire junction will be closed for five nights between 8pm and 6am for resurfacing, and still there is no parking!

 

As usual Cllr.Anderson I am still waiting for you to visit the area concerned if only to learn from your mistakes. Instead you disrespect us further with your ridiculous PR exercise that chose to spend over £8000 on planters on a 60m section of Green Lanes on the borders of Haringey instead of repairing pot holes and paving! And if that wasn't insult enough, I read in the Evening Standard your comment in the article about the drastic drop in income businesses along the A105 have shouldered.

 

"To date we have completed over a third of the A105 Cycle Enfield Scheme and work is accelerating"

 

I regularly use the A105 route and I knew this to be false so I recorded a journey along Green Lanes and was shocked at the lack of work that has been done.

 

After 1 1/2km from the North Circular you first meet a 200m stretch of barriers on the right that cuts off the shops from the road and ends at the Bourne Hill junction Then you meet a partly completed but non operational section next to Sainsbury which leads to the long term barriers surrounding Station Road ex-roundabout. Another ½km or so and you meet the only section of operational cycle lane. 450m from Masons Corner to Cambridge Gardens.

 

After that is a short stretch of incomplete works before you meet the barriers at Bush Hill Parade and Avenue Parade.

 

Finally there is about a 1/2km section of incomplete works until you meet the recent barriers and temporary lights at the bottom of Bush Hill.

So after nearly five months of inconvenience, traffic jams and massive loss of trade, the 5.7km stretch of the A105 has 18% part completed but non operational cycle lanes, about 6% under construction and most importantly - it has under 8% completed and operational cycle lanes.

 

And you have the shameless audacity to pronounce that this scheme is over a third complete.

 

Daniel Anderson, your incompetence is causing untold damage to our thoroughfares and businesses and is misrepresenting the aims of Cycle Enfield and Enfield Council.

 

I strongly suggest that you explain at the next Council meeting why you are so grossly uninformed about the A105 project and why you have consistently avoided visiting Bush Hill Parade and other areas to witness first hand the damage and lack of mitigation that you so vociferously deny exists.

 

Richard Turner, Lords DIY

And on behalf of the residents and traders of Bush Hill Parade & Avenue Parade

 


 

 

WHO OWNS ENFIELD MINI HOLLAND - ENFIELD COUNCIL OR TfL?

 

Dear Cllr. Anderson

 

At the Call-in Meeting on the 1st March 2017, a meeting open to the public, you stated that 'Cycle Enfield' is "a TfL scheme, not an Enfield scheme".

 

Cllr Chamberlain corrected you at the time, saying that this was not the case (ie, it is an Enfield scheme). On Friday I received confirmation from Leon Daniels at TfL that the Cycle Enfield scheme is indeed an Enfield scheme, not a TfL scheme.

 

Given that you are lead cabinet member for Cycle Enfield, and have been for some two years now, is it really the case that you were not in possession of the facts regarding ownership of, and responsibility for, this scheme on the 1st March 2017?

 

The alternative explanation is that if you did know this, then you deliberated stated something you knew not to be the truth, in a meeting open to the public.

 

Which of the above is the explanation for your behaviour, please?

 

Dr Linda Miller

 

 


 

TOWN PLANNER SAYS THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS DONE IN HOLLAND

 

The following Freedom of Information request has been sent to TFL, I request a list of all the cycle schemes that have been rejected for lesser increases in journey times due to harmful impact on bus resources and income. I know that there are at least two such schemes in the London Borough of Southwark, including at Camberwell.


Clearly, the solution is to convert this scheme to an extension of the Low Emissions Zones proposed for Haringey, with bus lanes and other bus priority measures that cyclists can use, cycle friendly junctions on the main-roads alongside parallel cycle routes on quiet-ways including an extension of Cycle Superhighway to Edmonton Green via North Middlesex Hospital and Pymmes Park to replace the insane proposal of removing the bus lane on the A1010 south of the A406.

 

I will add, that the Conservative Group in Enfield are being extremely generous to the Edmonton Labour Group in attempting to reverse this scheme. Politically, they would be much better off sitting back and not trying to resolve the scheme, not intervening to improve it for bus users and pedestrians, because I can tell you now that when Edmonton residents wake up to not being able to take the bus to work and not being able to park their cars, that they will in droves, vote Tory. The Borough will also be set back a few decades in terms of social equality due to material reduction in ease of access to employment. As a Town Planner myself, I can tell you that parking and public transport delays are some of the few things other than the cancellation of the Great British Bake Off that will get sleeping voters from their chairs.

 

I will add, that I have studied the Dutch approach at University. When they removed parking spaces and introduced cycle lanes, they did it bit by bit, removing a parking space here and a parking space there, trialling and seeing the impact before removing more. Often they would remove just one parking space at a time. This was a great success which allowed people to adapt, with adequate time for mitigation to be put in place. Just because you say this is Dutch does not mean it is, and it is certainly not the Dutch way to remove over 40% of parking on a busy commercial road with countless businesses in one go. An approach that was not and will never be taken in Holland, so it is fraudulent to claim that such a cockeyed approach has anything in common with the far more sensible Dutch Planners.

Yours sincerely,

 

Philip R, MSc, PGDip.

 

 


 


MAJOR SAFETY CONCERNS ON THE A105 CYCLE LANE

 

Dear Cllr. Anderson

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Your response starts with the incredible statement that " the roads will actually be wider along much of the stretch". I have no need to challenge this assertion, it's veracity is destroyed by the responses made by Jarvis to recommendations in Mini Holland cycling scheme Stage 1 Road Safety Audit ref : 2524/032/A105/BOR/2015. I refer you to pages 7,8,10,14,23,24 and 25 where Jacobs state " The scheme reduces carriageway widths ". Page 23 of the report contains an interesting fact that " an acceptable carriageway width is 3.25 meters in each direction". The cycle lane scheme required the removal of pedestrian refuges and this was an obvious indicator that the road was not wide enough to support the scheme. Pages 23, 24 and 25 of the audit report confirm this. Just read the response about the proposed crossing at St. Monica's church " there is no longer space for an advisory crossing island " or the responses re Compton Road and Vicar's Moor Lane junctions with Green Lanes, " pedestrian refuges could not be retained as the carriageway is reduced to accommodate the proposed cycle lane, parking bays and an acceptable traffic lane width". I presume that's a width of 3.25 metres!

 

You mention that the scheme has the support of health professionals and you mention Glenn Stewart in particular. I attended a meeting last June, organised by Enfield Over 50's Forum, where Mr Stewart gave a presentation on the health benefits the cycle scheme. One of the issues raised, by the attendees, was the safety of people boarding and alighting from buses directly onto a cycle lane. The response to this came not from Mr Stewart, but from a cyclist. He stated quite emphatically, that there would be no problem. Why? Because he, as a competent cyclist would not use the cycle lane and therefore those using it would have plenty of time to stop. Was the pertinent information that cyclists won't be using the cycle lane ever fed back to Enfield councillors and officers ?

 

In response to my concerns about the safety of orcas and mini orcas you referred me to the ongoing road safety audit which contains very interesting and informative information. Enfield's Parking and Traffic Policy 2017 document does the same. I read in Section 3.16 that Mandatory Cycle lanes are expected to increase significantly with the introduction of new cycle schemes. I presume that the A105 is one such scheme and at some point it will become a Mandatory Cycle lane. In order to comply with the definition of a Mandatory Cycle Lane you will have to remove all the expensive looking orcas and replace them with a solid white line. One has to question the value for money aspect of this.

 

You refer me to Enfield's mitigation measures. Let's look at a few. Up grade car parks, does that mean becoming a pay and display car park. Staged works so that they finish quickly and without disruption. Minimising disruption? Ridge Avenue was a sea of barriers with no work happening. Finishing quickly? Ridge Avenue scheduled work September to December 2016 just about finished, a three month job took 5. Sainsburys junction, planned work November to January, still ongoing, may finish mid March. Hope.

 

I'm confused by this sentence: An increase in the number of journeys made by bicycle will help reduce congestion, which is likely to increase given that Enfield's population is set to rise by 75,000 within the next 15 years and therefore improve journey times".

 

I've looked at the report on Enfield's web site relating and to population growth figures 2013-2033. Currently, the 65+ age group account for 12.8% of Enfield's population. In the short term to 2023 those aged 55-64 are especially likely to increase their proportion. In the long term to 2033, the 60+ age group is likely to increase their proportion. Whilst the proportion of under 15's is set to fall over the same period. The stepped graph illustrates the change very dramatically. Had these population growth projections been reversed, you may have been able to argue that there would be an increase in journeys made by bicycle, but as it stands this argument fails. You have created a very expensive white elephant.

 

With regard to changes made to the draft traffic management orders resulting from statutory consultation. Here's how it works, a proposal that is plainly ridiculous and unenforceable is proposed, placing time constraints to designated parking on the west side of Green Lanes. From Monday to Saturday between the hours 8am-6.30pm parking allowed for 2 hours followed by a 4 hour no return restriction. A report is then produced removing the time constraint and the council says we listened.

 

The Inrix report is also interesting. We all know that London is becoming an increasingly congested city, due to increased mini cabs and delivery of online purchases. I note that Cambridge with its miles of cycle lanes and thousands of cyclists is 13th in the table. I was interested to learn about SCOOT technology and how it optimizes traffic light timings to reduce delays. When can we expect to see the benefits of SCOOT in place across Enfield.

 

I am well aware of the former mayor's role in encouraging cycling. I am also aware of the current mayor's decisions around schemes and purchases made by the previous mayor. His scrapping of the diesel/ electric Boris bus, the illegal water cannons which the mayor had no authority to deploy and possibly, the scrapping of the garden bridge. All vanity projects for Boris. Regrettably, Boris's penchant for rushing through, not thinking through, his projects have had disasterous consequences for cyclists. The CS2 cycle route has seen loss of life, in particular the at the Bow / Aldgate roundabout, which has now had to be redesigned.

 

I notice that have ignored my concerns about cyclists safety when they are hidden behind parked cars. I refer to the Stage 1 audit report section 3.4 page 7 which highlights the possibility of nose to tail collisions where cars have to brake suddenly prior to turning into side roads and the more worrying possibility of cycle vehicle conflict. The scheme's plan to hide cyclists behind parked cars represents a danger to both cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. The issue of drivers turning left into side roads had been dealt with, but what about vehicles turning right having to brake suddenly to avoid a cyclist thereby placing themselve in danger of being hit by oncoming traffic. I can't imagine that any auditors will accept this state of affairs .

 

Incidentally, when will the Stage 2 audit be published ? I presume that it has taken place as it should have done on the completion of the design stage.

 

I notice that Sadiq Khan has recently made a number of statements expressing concerns about cycle schemes, " the needs of local residents.. must be paramount" , " first phase has not been a huge success - we need to learn" , " we are speaking to councils to divert cyclists away from main roads particularly in outer London" and finally, " the construction of segregated cycle lanes in itself causes pollution".

 

I would be interested to know if Enfield Council is taking an notice of the mayor of just carry on regardless in it's own bombastic manner.

 

Yours sincerely

Catherine Ranasinghe

 


 

OUR BUSINESSES ARE SUFFERING

 

Dear Councillor Anderson

 

Thank you your reply. I shall address each of your points in turn:

 

Support for the scheme


I make reference to the survey carried out by David Burrowes, which showed that 75% of the 17,0000 consulted were against the plans. I make reference to my friends, my neighbours and my colleagues who live and work in the area, all of whom are dismayed by the works and the chaos that they are causing.

 

I base my views on empirical evidence, namely views of the shopkeepers and shop users that I meet while conducting my everyday local business. While in Lords last week, no less than 3 people signed the petition against the scheme in the brief 10 minutes that I was there. Each was vociferous in their anger at how they feel the scheme is causing disruption and chaos.

 

While also visiting my pharmacist, she lamented about the loss of trade that she was experiencing. Elderly people who can no longer park easily are having to resort to using the pharmacy at Sainsbury's. Many of her customers have been loyal customers over the years, and are sad to withdraw their patronage; they value the personal care and attention of a dedicated pharmacist who has been involved in their health care over the course of many years and who they consider to be a trusted friend. Plans to upgrade the shop are now on hold as the future is so uncertain.

 

My hairdresser was especially grateful for my custom last week, as apparently so many clients had cancelled appointments. The shop was empty but for myself and one other customer. Again, the owner is considering his future in Winchmore Hill, as with customers opting for salons which are more accessible, his future is also precarious.

 

In all, I visited 5 shops during my morning shop in Winchmore Hill. I can assure you that not one single business owner supports this scheme. Without exception, each business owner was in despair about the loss of footfall and consequently the loss of business. If you are seeking to rely on the fact that this scheme has the support of the local community, please, go out into the local community and canvass the opinions of the local people. Perhaps also consider the question that you are asking. Phrased in such nebulous and inherently biased terms as "would you support a healthier and safer Enfield for everyone," no doubt you will gain overwhelming support. Ask people the more honest and specific question of whether they agree with cars being pushed onto residential roads, local shops ceasing trading and pollution increasing as cars line up behind busses that now hold up all traffic and you will finally be recognising the reality of the impact of this scheme on local residents.

 

While you may view me as someone who is "vociferous in their opposition", my opposition stems not from a dislike of cyclists or of cycling schemes, far from it, my opposition stems from the insouciant manner in which this scheme has been conceived and is now being imposed. To state that I might not agree with what you are trying to achieve is both trite and lazy. I have made clear that I support sensible initiatives which make our streets healthier for residents; I too am one of those residents and stand to benefit from healthier streets. However, in the morning, my own road is now completely clogged up with traffic. Living on a hill, as more than 20 cars form an orderly but impatient uphill queue all along Old Park Ridings - engines idling - the fumes are both visible and pungent. Is this your vision of a healthy street initiative? No doubt Green Lanes will continue to experience a significant decrease in traffic flow as traffic is squeezed into bottlenecks and the area avoided, however, these drivers are not now on bikes making their daily commute to work, they are in fact either queuing on my road or seeking out new routes throughout the residential back streets of Winchmore Hill and Grange Park.

 

Finally, to seek to rebut my contention that this project does not have the support of local people by resorting to bringing those "who have not expressed a view at all" into the equation is quite simply lamentable.

 

Funding


I am glad that money is being spent on our key destination centres. Sadly, however, the traffic chaos which is resulting is likely to leave these so called destinations more akin to ghost towns than destinations.

In general I welcome initiatives to increase more active forms of travel, especially when such schemes are well conceived, appropriate and proportionate to the needs and desires of the local population, young and old. Shopping list and weather permitting, I often enjoy the very scenic and pleasant trip to Enfield on foot, via the town park. For most people, despite what they might tell you in surveys, it isn't simply the availability of cycling lanes or indeed the safety of cycling that prevents people from being active, it is pure and simple inertia. We have had pavements for very many years and despite the fact that walking requires nothing more expensive or complicated than a sturdy pair of shoes, many people will still make ridiculously short journeys by car. Cycling is certainly one strand in the fight to improve public health, but it not one into which we should sink all our hard earned funds in the naïve expectation that people will suddenly invest in pedal bikes, or the fancy and expensive electric bikes to which you make reference.

 

A more pragmatic and sensible approach would surely have been to have made our quieter residential roads more amenable to walking and cycling? This would have avoided clogging our main arteries and displacing traffic into areas of Winchmore Hill and Grange Park that simply do not have the capacity to support such levels of traffic.

 

Construction process


I welcome the fact that you say that you are working with the local shops to minimise disruption, however, please bear in mind however, that mere platitudes and imperious signs declaring that "we are making our streets better for everyone" will not help ease their suffering. Listen to these people; they live and work here, they interact with residents here, they know how this area works far better than you or any of the remote consultants employed to produce business forecasts. If they are saying that these plans will ruin their businesses and are causing disruption for the people who live and shop here, your duty as our elected representative is to respond, not to arrogantly posture that you are doing this for a greater good.

 

Cycling as a mode of transportation

I have no objections to cycling as a means of transportation – I own a bike myself. At the risk of repeating myself, I would be happy to cycle along the quieter residential streets of Winchmore Hill and Grange Park which are far more scenic than Green Lanes.

 

Punishing car drivers


Whether it is your intention or not, the reality is that you are displacing car drivers away from the main arteries which are designed for cars . You might not be punishing them, but you are punishing the residents of Winchmore Hill and Grange Park whose roads have now been transformed by a volume of traffic they were not designed to support. You are also punishing the owners of local businesses who make Winchmore Hill a community.

 

To conclude, I do not wish to enter into protracted correspondence with you Councillor, even I can recognise the folly and futility of doing so. However, please do not resort to accusing those who oppose you "as not agreeing with what you are trying to achieve" as if you yourself are the paragon of virtue and your detractors are somehow less socially aware or responsible. You will find that most, if not all residents of Winchmore Hill would happily work towards a healthier Enfield, after all, its where we actually live. My concerns, and indeed those of many of the local people who have shared their opinions with me, is that this scheme quite simply does not fulfil these healthier objectives. In this regard, we have every right to hold you to account. I am sure, as I end my correspondence with you, many will just as vociferously take up the mantle.

 

Yours sincerely

Suzanne De Jarne

 


 

OUR BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN IGNORED


Dear Cllr Anderson,

 

Thank you for your response. I address your various points below. You say that you " take the viability of businesses in Enfield extremely seriously, but do recognise that during any infrastructure work some temporary disruption

inevitably occurs. For this reason a number of mitigation measures have been put in place, which are publicly available here

http://cycleenfield.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Minimising-disruption-for-residents-and-businesses.pdf .

 

If you take the viability of businesses so seriously, why did it take you until mid-February – some four months after work had started - to publish your very generic mitigation measures? Shouldn't these have been more specific and drawn up in advance, not four months after work had started? There isn't even a mention of mitigation measures for bus users. And we note that, risible as these measures may be, you appear nonetheless to have not even managed to abide by those. You have said you will complete the work in stages to minimise disruption, so why have you got work ongoing in Winchmore Hill, Bush Hill/Church Street intersections and now Palmers Green simultaneously?

 

Regarding Palmers Green, virtually the whole section from Osborne Road to Fox Lane is under road works with a metal fence between the shops and the pavement. Around 30 shops and restaurants are affected – how is any business along that part of the road supposed to receive deliveries?

 

You say you " are always ready to discuss and consider any other mitigation measures local businesses feel may be useful and would be happy to arrange meetings with council officers and representatives from our contractors Ringway Jacobs. Indeed as you are aware Rilwan Oshingbade is Ringway Jacobs public liaison officer who is on site and available to deal with local business concerns."

 

Indeed we are, and the businesses are in agreement that Mr Oshingbade is indeed a very charming young man. Powerless, but very charming. He has certainly listened to businesses' concerns. To date, though, he has been unable to resolve a single issue. He appears to look increasingly embarrassed, though, as he hears more and more accounts of the problems LBE and Ringway Jacobs are causing for businesses. However, as we are aware of the limitations of some qualitative measures we have chosen not to assess him on a 7-point Likert-like 'degree of squirm' scale. Given your expertise in ' recognised standards of modes and methodologies' we assume you need neither the nature nor the limitations of Likert scales explained to you.

 

But given that you have kindly suggested that you are happy to discuss what other mitigation measures your officers might offer to the shops, perhaps you would like to explain to Lords DIY (copied in on this email) what you can offer them, given that they have already lost £8,000 to date and estimate they will lose a total of £30,000 by end of the financial year?

 

What are you going to do to help them?

 

Will you be happy to donate your honorarium and expenses to them, perhaps?

 

What about the dozens of other businesses that are suffering severe loss of income?

 

What compensation schemes are available to them?

 

Have you lost a single percent of your income in all the time you have been inflicting this damage on shops?

 

You say that " However, I would like to be clear that any such liaison will not involve the rerouting of the A105 scheme as this is a fundamental part of the Cycle Enfield project and the arguments for the scheme have already been subject to considerable debate both within and outside the Council, including three failed attempts at a judicial r eview where the courts ruled in the Council's favour".

 

Your mathematical skills appear to be deserting you, Daniel. There was one failed attempt at a judicial review. An attempt that failed because the judge did not appear to notice the significant number of witness statements contained in the evidence bundle, given he said in his summing up that SOGL might take further action "when the full witness statements are in". It is for that reason - and your decision to place a works order during the consultation period, which only later came to light and is prima facie proof that you had no intention of consulting - that we have lodged an appeal.

 

We then attempted one injunction, which failed because of - to use the judge's own words - the 'chicken and egg' nature of the situation regarding highways law. Indeed, he had to rely on clarifications from your barrister because he couldn't make out exactly what you had done either. So, one failed application for judicial review, which we are appealing; and one failed application for injunction, which failed because of a very specific legal point but which the judge suggested might be successful once the TMOs are 'made'. Three failed attempts at judicial review?

 

Count again, Cllr Anderson.

 

You say that " Taken as a whole, we are confident that this improved network will encourage cycling, while not adversely affecting other forms of transport significantly."

 

If you are so confident it will not adversely affect other forms of transport then why did you not set up a public inquiry when you received an objection from Arriva Buses during the statutory consultation, as you are required to do by law? 

 

That would have allowed you to present your case in a public forum. If it is so obvious that there will be no adverse impact on bus services, then why did TfL lean on Arriva Buses to withdraw its complaint instead of allowing their concerns to be properly considered? And we note that although Arriva did, consequently, withdraw its formal objection the company was at pains to emphasise that it continued to hold the same concerns.

 

You say that ' An increase in the number of journeys made by bicycle will help reduce congestion'. Even in the inner London boroughs cycle lanes have only led to a rise to around 2% of journeys by cycle – it is extremely unlikely that cycle use in the outer London boroughs will achieve that – especially given that TfL report that most of the switch to cycling comes from young men abandoning buses. You have given over a third of the road to (at best) one fiftieth of transport users. That is NOT going to help reduce congestion AND YOU KNOW IT.

 

You state that " the facts are that visitors to our local town centres, including Winchmore Hill and Palmers Green, predominantly come by bus or walk. Much of the existing traffic in the area is passing through but not stopping to benefit the locality".

 

The fact is that you projected figures for shopper transport mode from surveys of visitors conducted with interviewers positioned mostly around bus stops. A survey of visitors actually purchasing items in shops (i.e. actual shoppers) showed that shoppers arriving by car were far more numerous than you had estimated, but you chose to ignore that – presumably because it was an 'inconvenient truth'. Now, the truth is confirmed and very many of these businesses are being hit very hard indeed by the loss of passing trade. As one of the retailers who has seen his sales drop by around 50% since the onset of the work on the A105 said: "People shop when they can get a parking space - if they can't, they don't come in. We rely on people pulling up and coming in to buy jeans, a top and a pullover. If they can't park I will not be able to carry on, if there is no passing trade."

 

You also say " Turning to your report, I would be interested in knowing which of the recognised standards of modes and methodologies was used in its creation. " Recognised standards of modes and methodologies were used in its creation?" Been hitting Wikipedia again Daniel? Modes and methods in creating a report? We assume what you meant to ask was "how did we decide on the assessment methodology to use, how did we agree the research instrument and what statistical analyses did we use?" Shall we answer that set of questions instead, since they make more sense?

 

We sought advice from a researcher with over 20 years' experience in designing and onducting evaluations and assessments (for, amongst others, BIS, the Low Pay Unit, the Local Government Association, the GLA and UKCES); they recommended that we gather quantitative data on shops' percentage losses. This was considered to be optimal, given shops would be understandably reluctant to reveal their actual takings (i.e. cash taken per week) to an interviewer. It also seemed the most relevant figure to request, given that Regeneris reported percentage impact on the local economy in their calculations.

 

Given the post-Christmas period is normally a quiet trading month it was agreed that shops should be asked to gauge their trading levels against a normal January/early February, as being 'up, the same or down'. Those who said up or down were then asked to put a figure on the extent by which trade was up or down.

 
The researcher recommended that shops should also be asked if they have ever experienced any similar drops in trade, to determine whether they were reporting on fluctuations that were in fact not at all atypical. Lastly, our advisor recommended that these data should be collected using face to face interviews. This would also allow the interviewers to give appropriate reassurances regarding data security, save the shopkeepers time (in comparison with an online or paper-based self-completion questionnaire) and allow the interviewers to collect any further comments the shopkeepers wished to make. The draft interview instrument was then circulated amongst a group of ‘critical friends’ from a business background who suggested some minor re-wordings.
 
Regarding analysis, you say “ I also note that you have extrapolated the claimed loss in revenues in January/early February to an annualised figure.”
 
No. We did not do that. We calculated the impact of the losses to date asked to put a figure on the extent by which trade was up or down. The researcher recommended that shops should also be asked if they have ever
experienced any similar drops in trade, to determine whether they were reporting on fluctuations that were in fact not at all atypical. Lastly, our advisor recommended that these data should be collected using face to face interviews. This would also allow the interviewers to give appropriate reassurances regarding data security, save the shopkeepers time (in comparison with an online or paper-based self-completion questionnaire) and allow the interviewers to collect any further comments the shopkeepers wished to make. The draft interview instrument was then circulated amongst a group of ‘critical friends’ from a business background who suggested some minor re-wordings.
 
Regarding analysis, you say "I also note that you have extrapolated the claimed loss in revenues in January/early February to an annualised figure."
 

No. We did not do that. We calculated the impact of the losses to date on the year's turnover as at the date of interview – ie over the trading year as measured to the first week in February when the interviews took place. We note that you claim that the report "has been examined both by members and officers" and yet none of you appear to have noticed the section where the report actually said this: Note these figures are for the 12 month period to the first week in February. In fact, the loss by the end of the financial year in March is likely to be greater than this as the works, and the drop in trade, continues.

 

It was therefore a calculation of actual impact of X number of weeks drop in sales as a proportion of a trading year. This is calculated as:

[N weeks x current percentage trading] + [50 - N weeks x 100% turnover].

(e.g. 5 weeks x 60% of usual trade, as reported) + (normal trade outside the period)

 

We used 50 weeks as the trading base across a 12 month period to allow for closure times at bank holidays, Easter and Christmas. The calculation did not involve any prediction forward ahead of that current week. However, since the roadworks did not look set to finish at any time soon, these shops will absolutely see a further drop in their turnover (and we will see an even larger drop in the local economy as a whole) as the weeks of construction progress – and as we said in the report.

 

The reason we calculated an annualised impact is because the point of the survey was to compare the data with the predictions made by Regeneris – which, you will recall, were expressed as annualised percentages. And yes, we did say at the time that this was a completely inappropriate way to express impact on small businesses, given that small profit margins may make it difficult for them to survive beyond the construction period itself.

 

You continue "This is a flawed approach not least given that this period in the year is generally recognised as one of the weakest periods of the year in retail trade so to extrapolate this to an annualised figure results in an accurate representation."

 

That is precisely why we asked them to compare their trade to a normal January, Cllr Anderson. Are you really so contemptuous in your opinion of the many business members of SOGL that you believed they would not even know this to be an issue in estimating sales figures?

 

For this reason we first asked traders if their trade was currently up, the same or down compared to normal January trading figures. NOTE we asked the question in that precise wording sequence, in order to avoid any 'priming' effects that might be induced by using the more negative word 'down' first.

 

In response, two did report improvements in trade – and yes, we included them in the overall calculations of impact on the local economy. Ten reported no change in sales turnover, although they were being affected in other ways – estate agents reporting a drop in walk-ins over the month (down to a third of the previous year), hairdressers and surgeries reporting people arriving late for appointments because of a) the traffic and b) being unable to find anywhere to park, and staff having to work into their lunch breaks and evenings in order to catch up with these appointments. Note that we also included the 'no change' group in calculating total impact on the local economy.

 

You also state that "I also note in the report you state that a number of businesses noted a drop in trade as early as September, which is well in advance of any of the substantive works in the vicinity of the business concerned and well before some of the junction works that have led to some of the temporary delays.

 

I cannot, therefore, accept in this case the assumption that any drop in trade was necessarily due to the construction works required for the delivery of the Cycle Enfield scheme or the assumption that if a business stated that they had seen revenue drop from the start of work that this translates to an 18-week period."

 

From the outset you have denied the fact that the A105 is an essential artery through the borough. Far from revealing the impact on businesses was unrelated to the more widespread traffic works, the findings reveal that, just as SOGL predicted, if you choke off a major artery upstream, you will see effects further downstream. In fact, shopkeepers were asked when their trade first showed a decline.

 

Some, it is true, did say that it had happened over just the last few weeks. One estimated three weeks, three said four weeks, eight said eight weeks. We do not believe that these differences imply some unreliability in their ability to report – rather they show that shopkeepers were doing their best to give accurate reports of when their takings first started to fall, and this varied depending on the nature of their business and their exact location. But yes, a total of 17 said that their problems had started with the commencement of works further along the A105 in September.

 

Since you are so interested in methodology and statistics Cllr Anderson, let me state that we estimated percentage impact separately for each of these businesses based on number of weeks for which they had been affected by the time of the interview. At no point did we say all businesses had been affected, nor that they had all been affected for 18 weeks. Quite how carefully do you say you read the report, Daniel?

 

Finally, to return to your claim that "I cannot, therefore, accept in this case the assumption that any drop in trade was necessarily due to the construction works required for the delivery of the Cycle Enfield scheme"

Really, Cllr Anderson? You think that a total of 38 shops experiencing drops in sales of between 5 and 50% is just due to some random other factor? Really?

 

May we remind you, Cllr Anderson, that these were long-established shops, not fly-by-night enterprises. Some of the 50 shops we surveyed have been trading for between 30 and 50 years. They are well qualified to report on their turnover and the way it has reacted to external threats in the past. One of the final questions we therefore asked the 38 shopkeepers who reported a trading loss was whether they had ever experienced such a drop before. We asked that expecting them to probably allude to the 2008 recession.

 

We found that three did refer to the recession, one to seasonal fluctuations and one to a particularly cold winter when sales had fallen. Five businesses in total. The others had experienced nothing on this scale. Do you really still want to cling to this belief that the damage to our local economy is nothing to do with the construction work? The other 33 shops reporting a trading loss were quite clear that the construction work was where the blame for their drop in trade should be laid.

 

We intend to repeat this survey in March and extend it to Palmers Green. This detailed monitoring of the impact on vital local businesses is something that Enfield Council should be doing. Indeed Regeneris stress "the need for ongoing monitoring".

 

Lastly, you say that "Regardless of our differences in opinion of the results of your research document, I do not believe it to be a good strategy for you to continually publicly promote the erroneous message that the area is gridlocked and a no-go area for customers, which it is not, but can help create the very situation you wish to avoid."

 

If the area is not gridlocked, can you explain to us why the 329 bus is now terminating at Wood Green, Cllr Anderson? When are you going to stop lying?

 

You reiterate at the end of your letter that "we take the vitality of local business seriously and again offer any business the opportunity to discuss their individual needs with council officials and representatives from Ringway Jacobs". We await to hear from Lords DIY how you propose to respond to their 'individual needs' – and those of the many other shops whose businesses you are in the process of wrecking.

 

If you genuinely take the vitality of local businesses seriously why are you continuing to lie about the costs of this scheme for the local economy?

 

Thirteen shops in Winchmore Hill are already considering closing if business does not improve soon; nine at Bush Hill parade junction.

 

How many shops are you willing to sacrifice across the borough in order to drive this scheme through, Cllr Anderson? Because there are a lot of shops along the A1010 that will be in the same situation soon.

 

Kind regards,

Costas Georgiou

On behalf of the Committee and membership of SOGL

 
 
 
WILL YOU COMPENSATE BUSINESSES FOR LOSS OF INCOME?
 
Dear Stuart

Stuart Miller | Cycle Enfield Community Relations Officer

 

Thank you for your response. It has taken two weeks since our email for you to send a link to a one-page pdf. It has been a month since we have been asking for information. This contrasts with the assertions made on Cycle Enfield's twitter account that the document was more substantial, a supposedly live document that needed to be redacted.

 

It seems to us that your mitigation plans (published in February) are an afterthought, prompted only by our repeated requests. The works started in September. If you have detailed plans, where are they?

Why is there no mention of bus users in the mitigation plan?

 

How are you going to compensate businesses for lost earnings?

 

Why are residents complaining to us that they are being kept awake at night because of works? It is obvious that they haven't been told to expect that.

 

You claim to be working in phases. The works stretch over 2.5 miles.

 

If we do not receive answers to these very reasonable questions very soon, we shall be contacting the Information Commissioner over the Council's lack of transparency.

 

Many thanks

SOGL

 

 


 

YOUR CLAIN THAT THIS CYCLE SCHEME WILL 'BENEFIT EVERYONE' IS A LONG WAY FROM THE TRUTH

 

Dear Cllr Doug Taylor

 

You wrote in the Independent last week in support of the Cycle Enfield scheme. You said that we need to think about how to prevent gridlock, and that one of the ways to do this was to encourage more cycling and use of public transport. In the longer on-line article you said that building more roads was not an option. True: but what on earth made you think that making our current roads worse was a good idea? Roads that support the growth industries of finishing, packaging and distribution in our industrial heartlands?

 

And who do you think it is that is disagreeing with the idea that we should encourage more cycling and use of public transport? What residents and businesses have consistently said – and you have consistently ignored - is 'yes' to cycle lanes, but 'no' to putting them along main roads where they would cause the predictable problems we are now seeing. But you insist on promoting the idea that people are either 'for' or 'against' cycle lanes. What the various campaigning groups – and they include many cyclists – have said from the start is only that the cycle lanes should not go along our main roads, where they will very much worsen congestion.

 

Indeed, even Mayor Sadiq Khan now says this, and yet you allow your officers to continue with the plans that were drawn up mainly to placate Andrew Gilligan, the then 'Cycling Czar'. But he is gone, and the Mayor is saying that wherever possible cycle lanes should avoid main roads. There is no good reason why the cycle lanes could not be re-routed away from the A105 and other main roads across the borough. Why then have you not demanded the plans are revised to take this into account?

 

And how do you plan to encourage more use of public transport when the plans will worsen bus services? Your officers and the scheme promoters and funders at TfL claim that modelling shows little impact on bus journey times. Yet Arriva buses have raised very many concerns about the impact of the changes: they say that parts of the A105 are so narrow that this reduction in carriageway width will delay buses; that the introduction of speed tables will have a disproportionate impact on buses and their passengers; and that bus lanes are essential to help give some predictability to journey times, and therefore object to their proposed removal.

 

Cllr Taylor, these are all concerns that residents have made repeatedly in the past. Surely when they were made by a bus company you and your officers should have listened?

 

But what did happen after Arriva Buses made its many concerns about the A105 scheme known during the consultation period?

 

Did you hold a public inquiry, as you are required to do by law? No. Instead, your bully-boy friends in Transport for London wrote to Arriva telling them that "It would be unwise to request a local public inquiry as a contractor of London Buses".

 

I'm afraid that looks very much like a threat to most people. And so Arriva was forced to withdraw its objection – but note that Arriva then wrote to TfL to emphasise that its concerns remain.

 

Public transport can be much more effective in encouraging people out of cars than can cycle lanes – how many people did you see cycling to the shops in the bad weather last weekend, Cllr Taylor? The reality is that even in the inner London boroughs cycling has not reached the holy grail of 5% - but what has happened is that people have started to desert the buses because of their lengthening journey times. Do you really think you will encourage more people to use buses in Enfield by taking out the bus lanes as you propose?

 

You knew from the start that there was an option of routing the cycle lanes along roads parallel to the A105. True, this was originally opposed by Andrew Gilligan. But Gilligan is now gone and since then Val Shawcross has instructed Enfield to review the Enfield Town scheme and seek a less contentious scheme; surely a sensible course of action at that stage would have been to review the plans as a whole and consider whether there were other, better options across the borough? But no, you plough on regardless.

 

Again, in the on-line version of your article you said there was misunderstanding about the funding and that it could not be used for other purposes. Well, that is not the whole truth, is it? What you omit to say is that it is only the first £30million of 'mini-Holland' funding that cannot be diverted. You also plan to spend in the region of a further £10million that you will take from other TfL funding strands provided to Enfield for improvements to, and maintenance of, existing transport facilities. So you could spend that money for the benefit of the very great majority of residents who use public transport services. But you chose instead to spend it on a tiny minority of (mainly) privileged young people who shun public transport.

 

A group of vociferous and atypical cyclists continually tries to promote the idea that anyone who is against this scheme is 'anti-cycling'. I doubt that a single member of this borough who opposes the current Cycle Enfield scheme is anti-cycling. What we are against is its current, damaging, iteration. What we do want to see is a revised plan that takes into account the reality of business needs and the transport choices of the great majority of people in the borough.

 

For you to claim that a scheme that damages bus services and the local economy is "to everyone's benefit" is an affront to the truth, Cllr Taylor. Isn't it time you and your colleagues woke up to the realities of this scheme?

 

Yours sincerely

Dr Linda Miller




MY BUSINESS IS SUFFERING


Cllr. Doug Taylor and Cllr. Daniel Anderson


Cycle Enfield has impacted heavily on Winchmore Hill Broadway to Masons Corner and is currently destroying Bush Hill Parade & Avenue Parade. The Regeneris report was a sham and your continuation with this scandal is an insult to every resident and trader in Enfield.

 

If my losses carry on at the same rate as I am experiencing now; by April Lords DIY stands to lose over £30,000.

 

Who the hell gave you the right to treat people with such contempt?

 

Your behavior is immoral and undemocratic and will be remembered by many thousands of people at the next elections.

Richard Turner, Lords DIY



Cllrs. Doug Taylor and Daniel Anderson


My official figures for this February - Footfall down 27.5% and takings down 23%

 

The single parking space outside my shop that the traders and I on this Parade have relied on for the last couple of weeks has now been removed. Over eighty metres of barriers are now in front of the shops on Bush Hill Parade, and the same on Avenue Parade opposite. And as the destruction moves towards Bury Street West our businesses promise to suffer even more.

 

Please tell me how, as elected Councillors and public servants, that you can justify your decision to carry on with this farce when your Financial Impact and Traffic Modeling Audits are so flawed.

 

And please tell me if you have ever stopped to ask why there is so much opposition to this project, or even asked me or anyone else how they think this project could have been improved – of course not. You have arrogantly assumed that you knew what was right for Enfield's cyclists; but failed to accommodate residents and traders equally.

 

You had the ideal opportunity to turn TFL's money into an amazing project that would improve cycling, transport links, health and regenerate thoroughfares; but you messed up.

 

You are a disgrace to Enfield, all of its residents and hard working traders.

 

You should retain a shed of dignity and call a halt to this mess.

 

Richard Turner, Lords DIY


 


 

THESE BUS STOPS ARE DANGEROUS


Dear councillors


Thank you for your email dated 4 March


Your opening statement is " Regarding width reduction what I said is entirely consistent with the points you reference from Jacobs". Can I refer you back to your email dated 23 February when you stated " given that they ( the cycle lanes) are narrower than parked cars the road will actually be wider along much of the stretch. " Just to remind you, the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is littered with Jacobs declaring "the scheme reduces carriageway widths". Don't you mean to say entirely inconsistent?

 

The first two sentences of your email of 23 February, lead me to believe that your thinking is as follows:-

1. That a road is a hard surface between pavements edged with kerb stones. Your email of 4 March confirms my interpretation as you state " the roads as a whole will be no narrower as we are not extending pavements" and

2. That you believe that there is simultaneous parking on both sides of the road, and that the removal of parking will increase road widths as a cycle lane is narrower than a parked car. Obviously, no one will dispute that a cycle lane is narrower than a parked car.

 

However, the statements you make in both emails regarding parking, demonstrate a lack of understanding of parking along the A105 both pre and post implementation. The crux of your argument is that you are increasing carriageway widths by removing cars from both sides of the A105, therefore freeing up the carriageway width occupied by two cars and replacing it with two narrower cycle lanes. On one stretch of the A105, between Hedge Lane and Compton Road there are very few instances where the carriageway is wide enough to allow cars to park opposite each other, indeed on some stretches double yellow lines forbid it. In fact, the majority of parking alternates along both sides of the road. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that, in future, there will be no parking on the A105. Indeed, this has to be the case to justify your sentence " However, this will no longer be permitted once cycle lanes are installed and given that the width of the cycle lanes will be less than the width of a parked car, the moving traffic in a number of places will have more space to navigate". I'm sorry to have to disabuse you of your belief that there will be no parking. Take a look at the plans where you will see designated parking and loading bays, or better still take a look at Ridge Avenue. In essence the cycle lane scheme removes the width of only one parked car from the road not two. It follows therefore, for your argument to succeed, that the width of the parked car you are removing must be somewhere in the region of 2.8 - 4.0 metres.

 

You seek to argue that as you are not extending pavement widths, you are not encroaching into road space for vehicular traffic. You may not be extending pavements but there are other structures encroaching into the carriageway which reduce considerably carriageway widths. As one of these structures is difficult to explain I illustrate with 4 photos.

 

The first two are of the new bus stop boarders at the north and southbound bus stops at Solna Road. The north bound bus stop boarder seems to be a particularly long one, I would estimate 3 bus lengths. The southbound bus stop has a much smaller bus stop boarder, so illustrates more clearly that buses will stop to the right of the offside cycle lane and clear identifies the tailbacks that will result from buses having to stop so far into the carriageway. As I understand it 27 of theses bus stop boarders will be installed. I note that you state " we have added a 0.5metre buffer strip where feasible". This is a very telling statement, in what circumstances would it not be feasible ? Oh yes, it cannot be used in circumstances where its' use would prevent retention of " acceptable carriageway widths of 3.25meters in each direction" Jacobs.

 

 14.3f2

 

14.3f3

 

As say these bus boarders will be monitored and this is essential bearing in mind the following extracts from the appraisal undertaken by the Centre for Accessible Environment as reported in the undated report entitled Approval of Cycle Enfield proposals for A105 - KDM4342

 

"The design of these bus stops is of particular concern as pedestrians are required to move onto the cycle lane when alighting and disembarking from the bus " " this does not appear to be a recognised bus layout in any of Transport for London's guidance and we would strongly advise that it is not used as it does not appear to benefit either pedestrians or cyclists and could be a potentially hazardous area for all users"

 

The other two photos show the work in progress at the Green Lanes / Osborne Road N13 junction. The two parallel rows of cobble stones to the right of the pavement, outline the cycle lane. As you can see, there is an additional structure protruding some distance into the carriageway. The second photo shows the southbound 329 having to drive almost entirely on the opposite side of Green Lanes in order to proceed. You can identify the northbound Bourne Hill bus stop road markings too. The removal of the barriers will free up a bit of the carriageway, but I am a a loss to see how a northbound cycle lane can be accommodated.

 

 

14.3f4

 

 

Regarding my comments about orcas, you say I am mistaken. In what regard, that they are trip hazards or that Camden Council and the City of London are removing them because they are trip hazards ? You cannot say, with certainty, that they will remain as one of the road safety audits may recommend their removal given the precedent set by other London authorities. You also say "they are a central feature of the scheme to create segregated cycle lane. Are these the same segregated cycle lanes about which London's mayor has said " construction of segregated cycle lanes in itself causes pollution" ?

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct the figures you quote in respect of population growth. I think you have make a typing error as the Greater London Authority projection is for an additional 45,526 people in Enfield by 2040, Section 10.2.2 Approval of Cycle Enfield proposals for the A105. With regard to the proportions of cyclists within different age groups, can I refer you to an European Commission Mobility and Transport, Road Safely Report, which gives a modal split by age groups in the Netherlands. I don't intend to use all the data just that relating to cycling. In the 12-17 age group 52% of journeys are by bicycle. This falls dramatically to an average of 21% in the 18-59 age group, rising to 24% for 60-74 age group, falling back to 17% for those aged 75+. These figures show that the bicycle is considerably less popular with the elderly, and given the predicted growth in the proportion of those in the 60+ age group in Enfield,support my argument.

 

You seem to think that I have a cynical attitude to the question of parking restrictions. Not at all. To reiterate, the proposal was that between certain hours, on certain days, parking would be limited to 2 hours with no return within 4 hours. Failure to enforce this regulation would have would have left Enfield open to ridicule. As such, I would suggest that it was a dispensable proposal which was never intended to be enacted.

 

I notice that you didn't respond to the cyclist statement that he wouldn't use the cycle lane, as his right. Indeed section 63 of the Highway Code advises " although not compulsory you should use the lanes". The success of the scheme depends on its use.

 

You chose not to respond to my point about the safety of cyclists being hidden behind parked cars. If you look at Table 2 section 3.2.1 of Appendix B in the Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for A105, you will see that the officers response re cycle lane positioning, relates to ways of resolving conflict between those entering and leaving parking bays and the carriageway. In order to prevent dooring a 0.5 metre buffer strip will be installed. No thought has been given to the safety of cyclists where vehicles turning into side roads cannot see them. Did no one appreciate the hazards this bizarre idea of hiding cyclists behind parked cars could pose for cyclists and pedestrians ? Or was everyone so entranced by Boris's money ?

 

Finally, can I refer you to the London Assembly Mayor's Question time of 18 January 2017 where he discussed his healthy streets vision saying "An important part of this will be to consider the whole range of what makes streets work for people rather than focusing too heavily on one mode of transport" and " healthy streets is about "prioritising people".

Isn't it time that you prioritised the people of Enfield, instead of pursuing your own vanity project

 

Yours sincerely


Catherine Ranasinghe


 


 


WHERE ARE THE PARKING BAYS


Dear Cllr. Anderson,

I am writing to query the status of the parking proposals as part of the CycleEnfield scheme along the stretch of Park Avenue me and my family live on. The works in our area appear to be coming to an end and it appears that the parking bays along the road (as were clearly shown in the original consultation plans) have not been implemented and it appears that there is no intention to do so (judging by the low level bollard installation that has taken place today)

 

During the consultation period I was assured that there would be replacement parking provision here and at the time discussed these spaces directly with one of the members of the team fielding questions on the day. They assured me that this would go ahead.

 

Could you please respond to this request for information as a matter of urgency - we as a family were in disagreement with this scheme for much of this consultation process (and felt that comments were not heeded or listened to) and this incident only serves to prove this case.

 

I look forward to your response and assurance that the scheme will be built as designed:

 

Chris Jeffcoate



Woodberry Surgery Extension Planning Application

on Monday, 13 February 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Woodberry Surgery Extension Planning Application

 

The Woodberry Practice has been established as a doctor's surgery at 1 Woodberry Avenue for over 100 years and has provided a well valued service to our local community, throughout this period. In recent years, we have had to cope with a growing, ageing and diverse, population with increasing needs and demand. We are, however, considerably constrained to meet these demands, from our current premises. We have, over the years, made several concerted but unsuccessful attempts to relocate to new and local purpose built developments.

 

Our aim with our proposed extension plans is to complement our existing services with new community health services for our local community, taking into consideration any concerns of our neighbours.We hope that the local community and neighbours alike will be in favour of the following proposals and advantages in respect of our new extension proposals.

 

 

 14.2d1

 

 You can view the planning application here


1. Our extension will be a single storey development, not too high above fence level, which complements our current building and the appearance of nearby homes; appealing in both design and environmental considerations.

 

2. Existing trees and shrubbery will not be affected.

 

3. In view of items 1 and 2, the proposed structure will not affect light to neighbouring properties.

 

4. Glazing will be adapted to maintain both the privacy of neighbouring residents as well as the confidentiality of our patients.

 

5. The front of the proposed extension, on Green Lanes, will have a garden area which will be more appealing than the current fencing in place.

 

6. Our patients treat our premises with the respect that is usually accorded to a doctor's surgery as opposed to other types of establishments such as pubs and restaurants. We therefore do not envisage any significant impact on noise pollution as a result of our extension.

 

7. The relocation of our surgery entrance to a point on our extension will allow better access to patients in wheelchairs or who have mobility problems.

 

8. The extension will allow for more ground floor consulting rooms that meet modern standards and compliances.

 

9. We will be able to bring services that are usually provided at hospital into our community clinics. Hospital Consultant appointments, Phlebotomy, Family Planning clinics, Minor surgery, physiotherapy and counselling services are just some examples.

 

10. We would be able to use the additional space for teaching undergraduate doctors, running patient educational events and health promotional programmes.

 

11. Additional space will also be used to create a better working environment for existing staff and not just used solely to run additional services or see more patients.

 

We have not received any confirmation or approval from the NHS & the Council in respect to proposals to merge with another practice. Discussions, practical implications, planning issues and legal implications surrounding any merger can take a considerable time to resolve.

 

We do however, propose to offer a 7 day a week service from our existing premises, together with 3 other Practices in Enfield. We hope that this will improve accessibility to appointments with doctors, nurses and Healthcare assistants for all our patients and those living in Enfield. We have listened to our patients who have requested the need to see a doctor, who has access to their medical history, and at a time that fits in with their working and family commitments. This service will run at weekends and will be appointment based. We will not be running a walk-in service like an urgent care centre or casualty department.

 

We fully appreciate the difficulties with parking in our area. We are happy to work with local residents and the Council to address these problems in any way we can.

 

We all sincerely hope you will look on our plans favourably and appreciate that we have the interests of our patients at heart in all our proposals."

 

Many thanks.

 

Dr Jane Selwood,

Dr Katherine Bluston

Dr Cristina Lopez-Peig

Dr Yogasakaran Arjuna

 


 

Response to the surgery extension proposal from a Winchmore Hill resident:

 

 

NO-ONE HAS BEEN CONSULTED

 

There wasn't even a courtesy letter informing immediate neighbours about the plans. This has already been extremely badly handled.

 

• The plans are being put in on the basis of a possible merger that hasn't been agreed yet - disruption and consequences based on a possibility and without full information – not good enough

 

• The surgery have not demonstrated any interest in working with local residents (and let's not forget that they are here to serve us and not the other way around.

 

PARKING


There is simply no room for an extension to this surgery and no amenities to service it. The fact that there is no parking is sufficient reason to reject the application alone.

 

• Residents in the street have been refused permission to get dropped kerbs to park in their own drives so there is not even enough parking for residents.

 

• Those that do have drives they can park in get blocked in 10-20 times per day – patients park across white lines and dropped kerbs

 

• Where will an expanded surgery of 15k people park?

 

• Neighbours have been abused by patients when asking patients to park elsewhere – abuse, rudeness, fisticuffs and fear are the consequences

 

• How are sick, elderly, mums with kids, sick people, disabled people going to get to the surgery? Where will they disembark and get picked up? Do the doctors expect them to cycle to the surgery when sick?

 

• An enlarged surgery means more services are needed – vans, UPS, gardeners, food suppliers, drug suppliers, ambulances, disabled buses – where will they park?

 

• Safety - accidents will happen. People will be killed! The citing of the surgery on a junction of Woodberry Avenue with a busy road (now with a cycling lane that people will trip over) means that ambulances and big vans and cars will block the sight-lines of people crossing the road. Kids will get run over. Old people will be knocked down or too scared to cross. I have seen near accidents on a number of occasions.

 

• The Surgery plannning application states that visitors will be able to park closeby in Green Lanes, but they can't because of the cycle lane so they will be parking in Woodberry Avenue.

 

• At the moment, we get 2 x the number of people coming here because one person needs to sit in the car and hop about everytime a resident needs to get in their drive and the other to go into the surgery. They leave their cars running. There are fumes and health consequences from that.

 

• There are training courses and health sessions planned from the surgery. That will mean 20+ people trying to find parking AT ONCE in addition to the normal surgery patients

 

• The doctors claim to be willing to work with neighbours being blocked in but the management have never even once tried to help. They have a notice up and that is it and the manager refuses point blank to engage with these concerns.

 

DMD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/ THE PROPOSED BUILD


• The Borough of Enfield is committed to sustainability. How is bringing more cars left running outside our houses with their choking fumes sustainable? I thought the cycling lane was supposed to make things greener.

 

• How is building a huge building that takes up the majority of a green garden sustainable? A brick and glass building with a pile of weeds on top is not sustainable.

 

• It will bring disturbance and noise 24/7 to the area. The surgery will be open 8am – 8pm but the services surrounding it – cleaning, maintenance and decoration - will take place around those times. They already have cleaners in at 11.30pm sometimes, decorate and drill on weekends including Sundays (against council laws), leave lights on all weekend at night, toilet fans on. It will be worse than already.

 

• No issues regarding security, policing, clearance of litter, noise assessments, light pollution assesssments, impact assessments have been carried out in line with the DMD documents.

 

• Hospital procedures will involve storing drugs – how safely will these be locked away? There have been incidents with drug addicts breaking into adjacent properties and people in the surgery gardens at night because of inadequate security measures.

 

• The building will block the natural light from neighbours and bring noise pollution, light pollution and loss of privacy to residents.

 

• The surgery's address is 1, Woodberry Avenue. It is adjoined to a residential property and people live in flats on the Woodberry Avenue side and at the end of the garden behind the Accommodation Bureau whose lives will be blighted by this. The impact of this on us is being ignored. The proposed plans will block about 40% of the natural light overall from the adjoining property.

 

Take a look at the plan of the back of the proposed


                 16.2d5

 

It incorporates a glass floor to ceiling wall that will overlook the bedroom and kitchen of the adjoining flats depriving its residents of the right to privacy. There are 4 windows in addition. It will block about 2 hours of morning light as the sun rises from Green Lanes over the back of the property. Will these windows be open?

It is about as 'un-neighbourly' as you can get in terms of design.

 

WHERE THE SURGERY WOULD BE BETTER PLACED?


• Next to the library within the Sainsbury's grounds, where there is SAFE PARKING, A PHARMACY, A COFFEE SHOP and SAINSBURY'S where it BENEFITS everybody

 

• Choudhry's purchased the Police Station 3+ years ago – it's empty. They want to produce luxury flats. Make the surgery the ground floor (no-one would want a luxury flat on the ground floor where people drive into Sainsbury's) and build flats above it or have a conference room on the second floor as a barrier.

 

• This council needs to engage with the community.

• The proposed extension will bring chaos to residents and patients alike

• Pollution and accidents and misery will be the upshot.

 

• THIS EXPANSION PLAN IS MADNESS AND WILL NOT WORK. MAKE YOUR OBJECTIONS LOUD AND CLEAR TO THE COUNCIL. TAKE PICTURES OF CARS BLOCKING YOUR DRIVES AND SEND THEM TO THE COUNCILLORS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councils remove 'hazardous' low level cycle lane dividers

on Thursday, 26 January 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Councils remove 'hazardous' low level cycle lane dividers

 

"Dear Enfield Council

Yesterday (10.5.17) afternoon I witnessed for myself someone tripping over these excrescences. The elderly man, who I adjudge was the grandfather of the two small children that he had just collected from the school in Highfield Rd., was attempting to cross Green Lanes with the children in hand from the filling station towards Sainsburys when he tripped and fell. The hapless man was left sprawled face down in the traffic lane with the two small children standing helpless in the traffic lane beside him"


11.5d2


The latest of a string of emails to LBE councillors and officers, about people tripping over the new concrete cycle lane kerbs and orcas/armadillos - the plastic dividers), which now litter the road all the way to Enfield. 

 

 

Now watch this short video (ignore the typos) show just how dangers orcas or armadillos are to pedestrians.  


 

Most of the accidents reported in our area seem to be to elderly people. One women has fractured a leg, leaving her on crutches and housebound; an unknown number have been taken to hospital.



The London London Ambulance Service is quoted in the Local Transport Today (LTT) that


"light segregation can and does create trip hazards on public roads – and increases casualties

to a point where various schemes have been taken out in London and other areas of the UK."

 

SO WHY IS ENFIELD COUNCIL STILL PUTTING THEM IN?


26.1d7

 

26.1d8 

 

 

 

26.1d6

 

 

6.2f2

Check out who is building near you 2017

on Thursday, 05 January 2017. Posted in N21 Community

Print

Check out who is building near you 2017

 

plan

 


Using n21online planning page, you can check out all the new planning applications submitted during 2017 in the N21 postcode.


2016 applications can be viewed HERE


Link to the Enfield Council Planning Portal. HERE



DECEMBER


5A Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BP

Ref. No: 17/05512/CEA

Rear garden outbuilding.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P1B7OJJNMUU00

 

28 Church Hill London N21 1JA

Ref. No: 17/05491/CEA

Rear garden outbuilding.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P19O9KJNMU000&activeTab=summary

 

22 Hillcrest London N21 1AT

Ref. No: 17/05486/CEA

Extension to outbuilding at rear.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P19I5XJN00900&activeTab=summary


51 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1PA

Ref. No: 17/05477/TPO

Fell 1 x Oak tree covered by LBE Tree Preservation Order (No.357) 2012.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P184OJJNMT300


54 Park Drive London N21 2LS

Ref. No: 17/05465/CEA

Single storey rear extension

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P179YTJNMSC00

 

29 The Chine London N21 2EA

Ref. No: 17/05472/FUL

Subdivision of site and erection of 2-bed single family dwelling with rooms in roof and basement.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P17SYEJN00900&activeTab=summary

 

41 Hillfield Park London N21 3QJ

Ref. No: 17/05445/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5m deep x 3.45m high (3.04m high to eaves)

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P15KDQJN05300&activeTab=summary

 

55A Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/05414/FUL

Sub-division of site and erection of an end-of-terraced 2-storey, 3-bed dwelling house and extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights to existing dwelling.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P100TZJNMPR00&activeTab=summary

 

26 Fords Grove London N21 3DN

Ref. No: 17/05404/NMA

Non-material amendment to 17/02626/HOU to allow parapet onto the existing external wall of the utility room.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0YFDAJN05500&activeTab=summary

 

49 Firs Park Gardens London N21 2PX

Ref. No: 17/05373/CEA

Erection of outbuilding at side.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0V3BAJNMNA00&activeTab=summary


Longridge 5 Quakers Walk London N21 2DE

Ref. No: 17/05379/CND

Details for minor material amendment to 16/05764/FUL to allow additional rooms in loft and rooflights at front and rear.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0WECPJNMNN00

 

55 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/05385/CND

Details submitted for 17/00635/FUL pursuant to condition/s 4, 6, 7 and 8 for subdivision and conversion of property into 2 x single family dwellings comprising 1 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed, involving conversion of garage into habitable room, installation of bay windows to ground and first floor, projecting gable and new vehicular access (Part retrospective).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0WSE8JNMO400&activeTab=summary

 

St Martins 5 Ringmer Place London N21 2DD

Ref. No: 17/05402/NMA

Non-material amendment to planning application ref: 17/00317/HOU to allow reduction in footprint to rear store and removal of single side extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0YF15JN05500&activeTab=summary

 

31 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LE

Ref. No: 17/05357/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0T8MLJNMM600

 

3 College Road London N21 3LL

Ref. No: 17/05353/CEA

Extension to rear dormer with Juliette balcony.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0SV0IJN06500

 

12 Elmscott Gardens London N21 2BP

Ref. No: 17/05347/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0SGM2JNMLE00&activeTab=summary


74 The Chine London N21 2EH

Ref. No: 17/05350/CND

Details submitted pursuant to reference 16/00227/HOU comprising of external materials (03), detailed drawings of windows, cils and heads (04), surfacing materials (05) and boundary fence, levels and patio details (07, in respect of single side and part single, part 2 storey rear extension, raised patio to rear and alterations to the front garden including raise in height of driveway

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0SM76JNMLM00

 

3 & 7 Sherbrook Gardens London N21 2NX

Ref. No: 17/05354/HOU

Vehicular access at 3 and 7 Sherbrook Gardens.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0SXFGJNMLW00

 

12 Elmscott Gardens London N21 2BP

Ref. No: 17/05360/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.3m deep x 3.5m high (2.5m high to eaves).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0UAW5JN05300

 

26A Eversley Crescent London N21 1EJ

Ref. No: 17/05244/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 17/03597/HOU comprising of materials (3) and tree protection plan (4) in respect of single storey rear, side and front extensions, front entrance porch, block paving and landscaping at front.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0FHYAJNMFC00

 

6 Chadwick Avenue London N21 1ST

Ref. No: 17/05312/HOU

Rear dormer with front roof lights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0L4OFJNMJH00

 

18 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LD

Ref. No: 17/05323/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.545m deep x 3.225m high (3m high to eaves)

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0LJKBJN06200

 

81 Park Drive London N21 2LT

Ref. No: 17/05138/HOU

Two storey side extension involving conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation, front entrance porch and rear garden patio with decking.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZXOJMJNM8P00

 

15 Beechdale London N21 3QE

Ref. No: 18/00088/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.8m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P2AE4NJN05300

 

5 Wilson Street London N21 1BP

Ref. No: 17/05291/FUL

Vehicular access with hard standing.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P0JCUJJNMI200&activeTab=summary


25 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BP

Ref. No: 17/05250/HOU

Two storey side/rear extension and first floor side extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0FQBUJNMFP00

 

89 Bush Hill Road London N21 2DG

Ref. No: 17/05276/HOU

Outbuilding at rear.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0HW9PJNMH500

 

19 Brookside London N21 1JT

Ref. No: 17/05243/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 15/01901/FUL comprising of sustainable drainage scheme (3) in respect of vehicle access

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0FHXRJNMFA00


1A Cambridge Gardens Winchmore Hill London N21 2AS

Ref. No: 17/05256/FUL

Rear dormer with roof lights to front elevation.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0G4CKJNMG200

 

5 Firs Park Gardens London N21 2PX

Ref. No: 17/05159/CEA

Alterations to roof to form gable end, rear dormer and roof lights to front.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P038EIJNMA100


89 Old Park Ridings N21 2ER

Ref. No: 17/05190/HOU

Single storey side and rear extensions and alterations to existing basement level.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P070MIJNMCA00

 

8 Clarendon Way London N21 2LX

Ref. No: 17/05150/FUL

Conversion of roof space with rear dormers to provide additional bedrooms, first floor rear and side extensions and front entrance porch.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P02X8LJNM9H00

 

49 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AN

Ref. No: 17/05154/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P032SUJNM9P00

 

72 Langham Gardens London N21 1DJ

Ref. No: 17/05140/HOU

Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and erection of garage at side.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P02J87JNM8U00


17 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AB

Ref. No: 17/05106/CEA

Extension of roof at side to form gable end, involving rear dormer with Juliette balcony and front roof lights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZVO4WJNM7100

 

97 The Chine London N21 2EG

Ref. No: 17/05013/HOU

Conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation, installation of bi-fold doors at rear.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZKSMFJNM1I00

 

4 Roseneath Avenue London N21 3NE

Ref. No: 17/05014/CEA

Rear dormer with roof lights to front, alterations to rear fenestration and conversion of garage into habitable room.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZKSMTJNM1K00

 

18 Seaforth Gardens London N21 3BS

Ref. No: 17/04848/HOU

Part single, part first floor side and front extension, with increase in roof height to provide accommodation in roofspace, including front, side and rear dormers with juliette balconies to rear, rooflights to side and alterations to existing fenestrations, including installation of gable dormer to garage and canopy to front entrance porch.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ1GWMJN06Y00

 

2 Ridge Terrace Green Lanes N21 2AE

Ref. No: 17/04908/FUL

Conversion of loft space into 1 x 1-bed self-contained flat, involving installation of rear dormer with front roof lights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7ACGJNLVA00

 

51 Eversley Park Road London N21 1NR

Ref. No: 17/04865/CEA

Rear dormer with juliette balcony.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ21LRJNLSO00

 

 

NOVEMBER


102 Firs Lane London N21 2PG

Ref. No: 17/04921/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7TWBJNLW100

 

72 Broad Walk London N21 3BX

Ref. No: 17/04941/HOU

Single storey rear extensions and conversion of garage into a habitable accommodation.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZF06SJNLXY00


17 The Birches London N21 1NJ

Ref. No: 17/05011/HOU

First floor rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZKPT7JNM1D00

 

28 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BN

Ref. No: 17/04938/TPO

Works to trees covered by LBE ORDER (NO 1) 1966:- 1x Beech (1610a) - Reduce up to 14m and 1x Oak (1611) - Crown lift up to 2m.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OZDGP9JNLXK00&activeTab=summary


11 Seaforth Gardens London N21 3BT

Ref. No: 17/04849/FUL

Creation of a lower ground floor, two storey front extension with bay windows, part single, part two storey side extension involving conversion of garage and extension to roof to provide additional bedroom, single storey rear extension, raised terrace at rear and front porch.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ1HY9JNLRS00

 

38 Cranleigh Gardens London N21 1DS

Ref. No: 17/03928/HOU

Two storey side, part single part 3-storey rear extensions, involving extension of roof at side to form gable end, including conversion of garage and relocation of entrance door with porch.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OVRLOTJNKA900&activeTab=summary

 

8 Welbeck Villas Highfield Road London N21 3HN

Ref. No: 17/05002/CEA

Rear dormer with patio doors, Juliette balcony and front rooflights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZKELAJNM1100

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/04907/VAR

Variation of condition 02 of reference 16/02727/FUL to allow additional curtilage to the west, including ground floor alterations to both properties and revised access arrangements.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7ABQJNLV800

 

54 Woodland Way London N21 3QA

Ref. No: 17/04990/HOU

Single storey front extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZIMQ0JNM0400

 

26 Hoodcote Gardens London N21 2NE

Ref. No: 17/05022/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4m deep x 3.8m high (3m high to eaves)

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZPLGXJN05300

 

10 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BN

Ref. No: 17/04942/HOUErection of railings and gate to a maximum height of 1.8m.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZF07GJNLY000

 

3 Brackendale London N21 3DH

Ref. No: 17/04919/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7OC0JNLVV00

 and

Ref. No: 17/04918/CEA

Alterations to roof to form gable end with rear dormer and rooflights to front.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7OBOJNLVT00

 

6 The Grangeway London N21 2HA

Ref. No: 17/04937/TCA

Works to 1x Acacia in Grange Park Conservation Area:- Crown reduce up to 3m, crown lift up to 5m, crown thinning up to 10%.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZDGOYJNLXI00

 

140 Bush Hill N21 2BS

Ref. No: 17/04876/HOU

Installation of new front boundary wall with railings, brick piers and automated gates.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ3CMEJNLTD00

 

826 Green Lanes London N21 2RT

Ref. No: 17/04992/PRJ

Change of use of first and second floors from office (B1(a)) to 1 x studio and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats (C3).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZIQHXJN05500

 

35 The Chine London N21 2EA

Ref. No: 17/04998/TCA

Works to 1x Silver Birch in Grange Park Conservation Area:- Crown reduce by 2m.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZK1A6JN06500


8 Broad Walk London N21 3DB

Ref. No: 17/04910/HOU

Replacement front boundary wall with brick piers, railings and automated gates.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ7D41JNLVF00

 

14 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DX

Ref. No: 17/04966/PRH

Single storey 3.226m rear extension to existing 2.774m extension totalling 6.m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZI63GJN05300

 

51 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1PA

Ref. No: 17/04902/HOU

Two storey side extension with pitched roof, single storey rear extension, rear dormer with front rooflights and a front entrance porch.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ5O00JNLUP00


10 Chaseville Park Road London N21 1PD

Ref. No: 17/04903/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey side and rear extensions.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OZ5O0YJNLUR00&activeTab=summary

 

740 Green Lanes London N21 3RE

Ref. No: 17/04833/ADV

Installation of internally illuminated automatic teller machine (ATM) surround (RETROSPECTIVE).

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYZSWPJNLQQ00


1 Simpson Close London N21 1SR

Ref. No: 17/04826/CEU

Part single, part 2-storey rear extension and two storey side extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYZN90JNLQA00

 

Uplands Court The Green Winchmore Hill London N21 1LD

Ref. No: 17/04881/FUL

Replacement hardstanding.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ3KX8JN06500


5 Denleigh Gardens London N21 1HZ

Ref. No: 17/04241/HOU

Extension to roof to form gable end and increase roof height with rear dormers and front rooflights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWWHZDJNKSH00

 

7 The Grangeway London N21 2HB

Ref. No: 17/03996/HOU

Alterations to fenestrations at side.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OW4N3WJNKF700&activeTab=summary


74 Firs Park Avenue London N21 2PT

Ref. No: 17/02590/FUL

Sub-division of site and erection of an end-of-terraced 2-storey, 3-bed dwelling house and rear dormer with rooflights to existing property.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OR891YJNI6N00

 

OCTOBER


36 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EJ

Ref. No: 17/04762/FUL

Redevelopment of site by the erection of a detached 2-storey, 4-bed dwelling involving lower ground floor and associated parking.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYQUREJNLMW00


83 Carpenter Gardens London N21 3HH

Ref. No: 17/03986/CEA

Single storey rear extension

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW3V5ZJNKEC00

 

88 Broad Walk London N21 3BJ

Ref. No: 17/04880/HOU

Demolition and reconstruction of the existing garage, salvaging brickwork to use in the construction and conversion of the garage to a granny annex.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OZ3ILSJN05500

 

48 Grange Park Avenue Winchmore Hill London N21 2LJ

Ref. No: 17/04689/HOU

First floor infill extension at side involving alterations to roof.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYHA5WJNLIO00

 

26 Percy Road London N21 2JA

Ref. No: 17/04718/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYMONJJNLK600

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/04661/CND

Details submitted for 15/03316/FUL pursuant to condition/s 6, 13, 15, 16 and 17 for redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYDNQHJNLGV00

 

12 Ridge Road London N21 3EA

Ref. No: 17/04719/CEA

Rear dormer with Juliet balcony and rooflights to front.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OYMOODJNLK800

 

14 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DX

Ref. No: 17/04611/HOU

First floor rear extension and rear dormer with front rooflights.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OY4PHGJNLDO00


25 The Chine London N21 2EA

Ref. No: 17/04159/HOU

Lowering of existing basement level.

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWO8GKJNKO100


76 Broad Walk London N21 3BJ

Ref. No: 17/04082/FUL

Redevelopment of site by the erection of 2 detached 2-storey (1 x 6 and 1 x 5 bed) dwelling houses including rooms in roof, basement levels with incorporating swimming pools, integral garages and associated landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWBQNYJNKJI00


805 Green Lanes London N21 2SG

Ref. No: 17/04211/CEU Use of property as 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWUEX9JNKQK00

 

55 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/04379/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref:17/00635/FUL comprising energy statement (4), water efficiency (6), cycle parking (7) and refuse storage and recycling (8) in respect of subdivision and conversion of property into 2 x single family dwellings comprising 1 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed, involving conversion of garage into habitable room, installation of bay windows to ground and first floor, projecting gable and new vehicular access (Part retrospective).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OXES8FJNL0U00

 

17 Elmscott Gardens London N21 2BP

Ref. No: 17/04302/CEA

Alterations to roof to form gable end, rear dormer and rooflights to front.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OX77Z7JNKW200

 

38 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EJ

Ref. No: 17/04283/HOU

Demolition of garage and erection of detached 2-storey building at side to provide a garage to ground floor and bedroom over.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OX6R6MJNKVA00


220 Winchmore Hill Road London N21 1QR

Ref. No: 17/04275/FUL

Conversion of garage into utility room, involving increase in roof height and alterations to fenestrations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OX1WC4JNKUN00


21 Hoppers Road London N21 3LN

Ref. No: 17/04187/FUL

Conversion of single family dwelling house into 1 x 1 and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flats including conservatory at rear and rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWTSHIJNKPJ00

 

SEPTEMBER


14 Myddelton Gardens London N21 2PA

Ref. No: 17/04067/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWBCLZJNKJ100


1 Queens Avenue N21 3JE

Ref. No: 17/04077/CND

 Details submitted for 15/00703/FUL pursuant to condition/s 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 for conversion of part of existing building to form 5 self-contained flats (comprising 2x1-bed, 2x2-bed and 1x studio) including alterations to roof, creation of roof terrace and balcony and associated landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWBI88JNKJ900

 

20 Park View London N21 1QX

Ref. No: 17/04234/HOU

Single storey rear extension. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWW9LTJNKS000


19 Macleod Road London N21 1SW

Ref. No: 17/04295/HOU

Conversion of garage into a habitable room involving installation of windows to side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OX71WDJN00900

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/04235/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref: 16/02727/FUL comprising dust and air quality management (16-vii) in respect of erection of 2 x 4-bed detached single family dwellings with rooms in roof, balcony at first floor levels and off street parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWW9M5JNKS200

 

8 Viga Road London N21 1HJ

Ref. No: 17/04222/CEA

Side dormers with front and rear rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWVYDKJNKRE00

 

123 The Chine London N21 2EG

Ref. No: 17/04206/TCA

Fell 1 x Catalpa Bignoides in Grange Park Conservation Area

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWUBN2JN00900

 

19 Brookside London N21 1JT

Ref. No: 17/04179/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref: 15/01901/FUL comprising sustainable drainage scheme (3), in respect of vehicle access.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWOS1MJNKOU00

 

95 Vicars Moor Lane London N21 1BL

Ref. No: 17/04182/CEA

Single storey side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWOV0NJNKP100


100 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LB

Ref. No: 17/04201/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.95m deep x 2.8m high (2.8m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWU8YKJN07600

and

Ref. No: 17/04154/CEA

Rear dormer with Juliet balcony and roof lights to front.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWN09QJNKNN00


51 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1PA

Ref. No: 17/04158/TPO

Works to 1x Oak covered by: LBE Tree Preservation Order (No.357) 2012:- Fell.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWN5W0JNKNX00


19 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DY

Ref. No: 17/04231/CEA

Extension to roof at side with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWW7XCJN06Y00


11 Ringwood Way London N21 2RA

Ref. No: 17/04132/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWKUIFJN00900

 

72 Broad Walk London N21 3BX

Ref. No: 17/04130/CEA

Single storey rear extension and conversion of garage into habitable room.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWKUBBJNKMF00

 

76 Ridge Avenue London N21 2AU

Ref. No: 17/04012/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW6C7LJNKGD00

 

5 Landra Gardens London N21 1RS

Ref. No: 17/04116/CEA

Outbuilding at rear for use as granny annexe.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OWJ5AFJNKLN00

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/04127/NMA

Non-material amendment to allow curved screen on the south and east elevations, change from timber panelling to a glazed hardwood window with lead strip details to match existing timber windows on the front facade (south elevation), incorporation of site levels as approved planning condition consent, reference no. 17/00738/CND and revised detail between the external seating area and the curved wall of the building and the existing 2 windows at ground floor level on the east elevation retained for planning application ref: 15/03316/FUL (Redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OWKJE5JN06Y00

 

26 Hoodcote Gardens London N21 2NE

Ref. No: 17/03985/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW3V5MJNKEA00

 

19 Colne Road London N21 2JG

17/04113/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OWJ3C8JN07600

 

14 The Chine London N21 2EB

Ref. No: 17/04054/HOU

Replacement of hard standing in front garden and replacement boundary wall.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW9RFUJN05500

 

15 Brackendale London N21 3DH

Ref. No: 17/04021/HOU

Single storey side/front extension involving conversion of garage into habitable room and front porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW7KH8JNKGZ00

 

16 Laburnum Grove London N21 3HS

Ref. No: 17/04039/HOU

Replacement outbuilding to rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW7VOQJNKHB00

 

54 Woodland Way London N21 3QA

Ref. No: 17/04038/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6.0m deep x 3.325m high (3.0m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW7VGPJN07600

 

8 Maxim Road London N21 1EX

Ref. No: 17/04016/FUL

Redevelopment of site by the erection of a detached 2-storey, 5-bed dwelling house and associated landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW6F3KJNKGM00

 

25 Landra Gardens London N21 1RS

Ref. No: 17/03995/HOU

Single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OW4HK6JNKF300

 

Garages Adjacent To 1 Old Park Ridings Green Dragon Lane London N21 2NJ

Ref. No: 17/03982/FUL

Demolition of garages and erection of 1 x 2-bed single family dwelling with amenity space and parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OW3TLOJN00900

 

4 Downes Court London N21 3PS

Ref. No: 17/03866/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/02121/PRH.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVI4QDJN06500

 

46 Hillcrest London N21 1AT

Ref. No: 17/03976/VAR

Variation of 16/04251/HOU condition number 2 to allow reduction in size of single storey rear extension with pitched roof and installation of door to side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVYMDYJNKDK00

 

34 Old Park Ridings London N21 2ES

Ref. No: 17/03955/HOU

Widening of existing vehicle crossover.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVWGGYJNKCC00

 

5A Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BP

Ref. No: 17/03956/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and side and rear dormers with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVWGHOJNKCE00

 

70 Hillfield Park London N21 3QL

Ref. No: 17/03948/CEA

Conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVV2LUJNKBW00

 

Ground Floor 4 The Green Winchmore Hill London N21 1AY

Ref. No: 17/03950/ADV

Installation of externally illuminated fascia sign and non illuminated projected sign (RETROSPECTIVE).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVV5FGJNKC100

 

1 The Spinney London N21 1LL

Ref. No: 17/03947/HOU

Creation of lower ground basement extension and single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVV2LEJNKBU00

 

15 The Birches London N21 1NJ

Ref. No: 17/03951/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, front rooflights and Juliette balcony.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVV5GCJNKC300

 

79 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/03931/CEA

Single storey rear extension pursuant to ref: 17/01335/PRH together with alterations to roof to form gable end, rear dormer with Juliet balcony, roof lights and raised patio.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVSTXKJNKAJ00

 

77 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/03935/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to 17/01334/PRH.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVT2CMJNKAU00

 

46 Hillcrest London N21 1AT

Ref. No: 17/03918/NMA

Non-material amendment to planning application ref: 16/04251/HOU to allow alterations to size, roof and fenestration of single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OVR4K9JN06500

 

Ground Floor And Basement 770 Green Lanes London N21 3RE

Ref. No: 17/03454/FUL

Change of use of ground floor and basement from pet shop and grooming room (Class A1) to Sui Generis.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OU1SG1JNJLE00

 

Police Station 687 Green Lanes London N21 3RS

Ref. No: 17/03315/LBC Redevelopment of site to provide 14 residential units involving demolition of outbuildings and erection of 2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed houses, 3 storey block of 2 x 1 bed self contained flats together with the refurbishment and conversion of the former Police Station and retained cell block into 4 x 2, 2 x 3 and 2 x 1 bed self contained flats with associated landscaping and parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTL4K6JNJD700

and

17/03314/FUL

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTL4I3JNJD600

 

 



AUGUST

50A Barrowell Green London N21 3AY

Ref. No: 17/03570/HOU

Single story side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OUBIOXJNJQN00

 

JULY


70 Church Hill London N21 1HX

Ref. No: 17/03539/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OU5YLWJNJOK00

 

17 The Birches London N21 1NJ

Ref. No: 17/03050/HOU

First floor rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSOC1UJNIXO00

 

6 Drayton Gardens London N21 2NT

Ref. No: 17/03450/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, patio doors, Juliette balcony, front rooflights and flank window.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OU0HCYJNJL100

 

8 Hillfield Park London N21 3QD

Ref. No: 17/03445/HOU

Single storey rear extension with glazed roof.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OU0BS1JNJKX00

 

10 Bush Hill London N21 2DA

Ref. No: 17/03449/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.3m deep x 3.9m high (2.7m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OU0EFOJN06Z00

 

96 Fords Grove London N21 3DP

Ref. No: 17/03366/HOU

Conversion and extenison of garage at rear to provide an outbuilding.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTPDCQJNJGB00

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/03422/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/02727/FUL comprising of details of access and junction (7), details of const. vehicle wheel cleaning (10) and construction environmental management plan (CEMP) (16) in respect of erection of 2 x 4-bed detached single family dwellings with rooms in roof, balcony at first floor levels and off street parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTYJVMJNJJK00

 

21 Seaforth Gardens London N21 3BT

Ref. No: 17/03391/HOU

Installation of rooflights to extension roof, alterations to fenestration and increase in side door opening.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTR9P0JN05A00

 

6 Landra Gardens London N21 1RT

Ref. No: 17/03355/HOU

Single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTNODOJNJFN00

 

96 The Chine London N21 2EH

Ref. No: 17/03344/TCA 

Works to trees covered by Grange Park Conservation Area:- 1x Wisteria tree - Fell

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTND6AJNJF900

 

6 Landra Gardens London N21 1RT

Ref. No: 17/03355/HOU 

Single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTNODOJNJFN00

 

35 Broad Walk London N21 3BU

Ref. No: 17/03373/HOU 

Single storey side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTPGB2JNJGQ00

 

28 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BN

Ref. No: 17/03325/TPO

Works to trees covered by LBE ORDER (NO 1) 1966:- 1x dead Oak (T1) - Fell, 1x dead Oak (T2) - Fell, 1x dead Beech (T3) - Fell.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTL7B5JNJDV00

 

25 Landra Gardens London N21 1RS

Ref. No: 17/03309/HOU | Received: Mon 24 Jul 2017 

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTG6TXJNJCS00

 

843-845 Green Lanes London N21 2RX

Ref. No: 17/03380/PRK 

Change of use from dance studio to pre-school registered nursery.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTG6TXJNJCS00

 

928 Green Lanes London N21 2AD

Ref. No: 17/03321/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 17/00001/FUL comprising of refuse (4), cycle parking (6) and deliveries (7) in respect of change of use from hairdressers (class A1) to micropub. (A4)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTL4O7JNJDM00


7 College Road London N21 3LL

Ref. No: 17/03241/FUL

Rear dormer with juliette balcony, and front roof lights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTCBWPJNJ9100

 

16 Hadley Way London N21 1AN

Ref. No: 17/03295/FUL

Installation of cabin at rear of garden, to be used as dog grooming parlour.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTFKHIJNJBQ00

 

3 Seaforth Gardens London N21 3BT

Ref. No: 17/03283/HOU

Part single, part two storey rear extension, first floor balcony at rear, conversion of roof space to provide additional bedrooms together with rear balcony and rooflights to sides.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTE5C6JN06Y00

 

Land At The Rear Of Elm Park Road London N21 2HP

Ref. No: 17/02865/FUL

Redevelopment of site by the erection of 3 x 3-bed 2-storey terraced single family dwellings with rooms in roof and associated amenities.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OS0KKRJNIN400

 

50 Station Road Winchmore Hill London N21 3RA

Ref. No: 17/03287/HOU

Part single, part two storey rear extension with rear dormer and front rooflight.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTE9D1JNJB300

 

35 The Spinney London N21 1LL

Ref. No: 17/03290/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTEC64JNJBA00


The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/03237/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 15/03316/FUL comprising of potable water (8) in respect of redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTC6AVJNJ8X00

 

Land Between St Paul's Vicarage And 6 Denleigh Gardens Church Hill London N21 1JA

Ref. No: 17/03220/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/03819/FUL for the details of materials(3), construction methodology plan(4) and access and junction details(6) for the erection of 2-storey 4 bed single family dwelling with associated access, parking, amenity space off Denleigh Gardens and new boundary wall together with creation of a new access and parking for the existing house.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OTABN3JNJ7K00


The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/03199/NMA

Non-material amendment pursuant to planning application ref: 15/03316/HOU to allow curved screen on south and east elevations and change from timber panelling to a glazed hardwood window with lead strip details to match existing timer windows on the front facade (south elevation).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT8N3SJN06Y00

 

44 Drayton Gardens London N21 2NS

Ref. No: 17/03185/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT85VIJNJ5V00

 

88 Broad Walk London N21 3BJ

Ref. No: 17/03103/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 14/03074/HOU (Conversion of garage into granny annexe ancillary to existing dwelling with installation of windows and entrance at side and windows to front) for condition 4 (Materials)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSVQWKJN06Y00

 

843 Green Lanes London N21 2RX

Ref. No: 17/03159/FUL

Replacement front boundary wall with brick piers and gates.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT12B8JNJ3R00

 

7 Ridge Avenue London N21 2RL

Ref. No: 17/03174/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, front rooflights, Juliette balcony and extension of soil pipe at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT2WY7JNJ4X00

 

52 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LD

Ref. No: 17/01330/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/02524/PRH.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONB9WIJNG8000

 

Public Open Space Hoppers Road London N21 3LP

Ref. No: 17/03128/FUL

Redevelopment of site by the erection of a detached 3-storey, 5-bed dwelling house with vehicular access and amenity space.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSXTRIJNJ2700

 

25 Cranleigh Gardens London N21 1DR

Ref. No: 17/03141/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSZB35JN06Z00

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/03123/CND

Details submitted to 15/03316/FUL for energy statement pursuant to condition 14, for the redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSXLE8JNJ1U00

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/03133/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/02727/FUL for details of levels(5), refuse storage and recycling (9), rainwater recycling system (22), site waste management plan(28), Secure bike storage (29) for the erection of 2 x 4-bed detached single family dwellings with rooms in roof, balcony at first floor levels and off street parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSZ4UQJNJ2I00

 

14 Myddelton Gardens London N21 2PA

Ref. No: 17/03120/PRH

Single storey rear extension 8m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSXFO9JN06Z00

 

76 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AH

Ref. No: 17/03115/VAR

Variation of condition 2 and 3 of planning approval ref: 16/01333/HOU to allow material change roof coverings of the extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSXCYJJNJ1L00

  

7A Wades Hill London N21 1BD

Ref. No: 17/03124/TCA

Fell 1x Ash (T1) in Winchmore Hill Conservation Area.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSXO67JNJ1X00

 

19 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DY

Ref. No: 17/03157/FUL

Single storey rear extension and rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT120NJN05A00

 

Public House 41-43 Station Road Winchmore Hill London N21 3NB

Ref. No: 17/03100/ADV

Installation of externally illuminated signs comprising of 1 x fascia, 1 x hanging, 5 x wall mounted and 1 x wall mounted sign writing, with non illuminated sign comprising of 1 x wall mounted.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSVMBHJN06500

 

38 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EJ

Ref. No: 17/03017/HOU

First floor front extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSM8ZGJNIVW00

 

44 Colne Road London N21 2JP

Ref. No: 17/02562/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, juliette balcony and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OR50HPJNI4U00

 

3A Broad Walk London N21 3DA

Ref. No: 17/03003/HOU

Two storey front extension, single storey rear extension and basement level.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSKMSEJNIUZ00

 

6 Arundel Gardens London N21 3AE

Ref. No: 17/02966/HOU

Outbuilding at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSI8GQJNISS00

 

36 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AL

Ref. No: 17/02948/FUL

Vehicular access

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSCWUYJNIRN00

 

79 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/03018/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/01335/PRH together with alterations to roof to form gable end, rear dormer with Juliet balcony and roof lights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSM8ZNJNIVY00

 

52 Colne Road London N21 2JP

Ref. No: 17/03013/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with flank window, rear dormer, patio doors, Juliette balcony and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSM66MJNIVN00


47 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EL

Ref. No: 17/03022/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSMBTEJNIW300

 

1 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DB

Ref. No: 17/02978/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, flank window and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSIGWOJNITJ00

 

38 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EJ

Ref. No: 17/03015/HOU

Demolition of garage and erection of 2 storey building at side to provide a garage to ground floor and studio flat over. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSM67TJNIVR00

 

40 Treves Close London N21 1TT

Ref. No: 17/02986/HOU

Single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSK357JNIU600

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/02993/CND

Details submitted to 15/03316/FUL for boundary treatments pursuant to condition 6 for the redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSKED8JNIUO00

 

77 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/02979/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/01334/PRH

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSIJNWJNITO00

 

80 Orpington Road N21 3PH

Ref. No: 17/02984/CEA

2-storey rear extension with juliette balcony.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSJ0F1JNIU000

 

21 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DB

Ref. No: 17/02974/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OSIE1LJNITA00

 

8 Brook Park Close London N21 1RF

Ref. No: 17/02638/TPO

Works to tree covered by LBE ORDER NO (215) 1991:- 1 x Oak (T6) :- Crown reduction by 3 meters and thinning by 20%, 1 x Hornbeam (T5) :- Crown reduction by 3 meters and thinning by 20%.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ORFVC6JN06Y00

 

JUNE


52 Broad Walk London N21 3BX

Ref. No: 17/02961/HOUSingle storey rear extension and front porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSDDLOJNISB00


6 Landra Gardens London N21 1RT

Ref. No: 17/03000/NMA

Non-material amendment to 16/02720/HOU to allow enlargement of single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSKLUGJN06Y00


St Martins 5 Ringmer Place London N21 2DD

Ref. No: 17/02949/NMA

Non-material amendment to planning application ref: 17/00317/HOU (Part single, part 2-storey rear, side and front extension and vehicular access) to allow changes to rear and side doors and windows and relocation of side extension front wall.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSCXTSJN06Y00

 

83 Hoppers Road London N21 3LP

Ref. No: 17/02934/PRH

Single storey 1.417m rear extension to existing 3.083m extension totalling 4.5m deep x 4m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OSBCHFJN06Z00

 

35 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DY

Ref. No: 17/02883/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OS7IG0JNIOM00

 

63 Church Hill London N21 1LE

Ref. No: 17/02749/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 17/01926/FUL in relation to conditions for: Cedar Cladding treatment (3) for the installation of external cladding to side and front elevations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ORSDXYJNIGI00

 

68 Hoodcote Gardens London N21 2NE

Ref. No: 17/02770/NMANon material amendment of reference 17/00774/HOU to allow alterations to rear elevation and roof canopy material and installation of Juliet balustrade.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ORU8X1JN06Y00

 

16 Grange Park Avenue Winchmore Hill London N21 2LJ

Ref. No: 17/02292/HOU

Single storey front extension involving front porch, first floor front/side extension, rear and side dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQCGN7JNHPP00

 

28 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DA

Ref. No: 17/02172/CEA

Ancillary use of property by the residential occupier for business purposes in connection with beauty business.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ045FJNHJ800


30 Beechdale London N21 3QG

Ref. No: 17/00645/MULFPD

Single storey rear extension and loft conversion, removal of chimney breast, installation utility room, wc .

 http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OT0TS2JN00A00

 

11 Laburnum Gardens London N21 3HU

Ref. No: 17/00676/IN

Loft conversion with rear dormer

 http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=OSNRFMJN06B00

.

18 Radcliffe Road London N21 2SE

Ref. No: 17/00619/DEXFPD

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OT0TS2JN00A00

 

34 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/00384/DOMFPD/1

Erection of 2 x 3- bed semi detached dwellings.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OS5H2WJN02N03

 

Keble Preparatory School Wades Hill London N21 1BG

Ref. No: 17/00575/DEXFPD

Construction of a store and teaching kiosk.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ORUAUJJN00A00

 

16 Oaklands London N21 3DD

Ref. No: 17/00608/IN

Conversion of garage to habitable room, first floor partial front and rear extension, formation of rear dormer in loft, alteration to roof, minor internal alterations and associated electrical works

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ORSU0LJN06B00

 

98 Wades Hill London N21 1AJ

Ref. No: 17/00562/DEXFPD

Loft Conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ORJL0WJN01900


764 Green Lanes London N21 3RE

Ref. No: 17/00591/IN

Rear extension and internal alterations to enlarge restaurant

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ORJAGWJN06B00

 

35 Church Hill London N21 1LN

Ref. No: 17/00557/IN

Side and rear extensions loft conversion and internal alterations

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OR7YILJN06B00

 

3 Arundel Gardens London N21 3AG

Ref. No: 17/00516/PAINSP

Single storey rear extension and loft conversion. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQWZ41JN00A00

 

39 Compton Road London N21 3NU

Ref. No: 17/00532/IN

Single storey side extension & loft conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OR48STJN06B00

 

29 Radcliffe Road London N21 2SD

Ref. No: 17/00538/IN

Single storey rear extension, internal alterations, refurbishment and associated works

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OR4FHAJN06B00

 

8 Broad Walk London N21 3DB

Ref. No: 17/00508/MULFPD

Erection of 2 storey rear and side extension, loft conversion with dormer window, internal alterations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQV02SJN00A00

 

3B Broad Walk London N21 3DA

Ref. No: 17/00526/IN

Single storey rear extension including new kitchen/dining room space plus alterations to controlled services and fittings

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OR2J9PJN07000

 

76 Woodland Way London N21 3QA

Ref. No: 17/00500/IN

Loft conversion and associated works

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQV5W4JN06B00

 

16 Arlow Road London N21 3JU

Ref. No: 17/00491/IN

Single storey rear extension removal load-bearing walls and rear chimney breast at ground floor and loft conversion and new WC at ground floor

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQV0BGJN06B00


27 Beverley Close London N21 3JB

Ref. No: 17/00450/DEXFPD

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ37JTJN00A00

 

543 Green Lanes London N13 4DR

Ref. No: 17/00470/IN

Erection of 9 new build flats with basement car parking

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQRAAXJN06B00

 

110 Hoppers Road London N21 3LH

Ref. No: 17/00419/IN

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ3IC8JN00400

 

25 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AB

Ref. No: 17/00414/IN

New loft conversion with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ3G1YJN00400

 

39 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AN

Ref. No: 17/00425/DEXRGD

Loft conversion.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPOT6LJN00A00

 

62 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LD

Ref. No: 17/00413/DEXBND

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPMR22JN00A00

 

11 Stone Hall Road London N21 1LR

Ref. No: 17/00457/DALBND

Re-roofing

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ5GTDJN00A00


9 Welbeck Villas Highfield Road London N21 3HN

Ref. No: 17/00402/DEXFPD

Single storey extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPDQ7MJN02N00

 

32 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/00336/IN

Rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPN1ICJN00400

 

48 Orpington Road London N21 3PG

Ref. No: 17/00465/IN

Loft conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQI81WJN07000

 

34 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/00384/DOMFPD

Erection of 2 x 3- bed semi detached dwellings.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OP0N69JN00A00

 

57 Woodland Way London N21 3QB

Ref. No: 17/00408/IN

Rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPF5IJJN00400

 

80 Woodland Way London N21 3PX

Ref. No: 17/00390/IN

Loft conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPSAPMJN07000


71 Woodland Way London N21 3QB

Ref. No: 17/00396/IN

Single storey rear extension & property refurbishment

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPU5L8JN07000

 

Winchmore Hill Preschool 843-845 Green Lanes London N21 2RX

Extension and internal alterations to existing school 2. At Winchmore Hill Preschool Green Lanes

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ORZX43JN06B00

 

49 Hoppers Road London N21 3LN

Ref. No: 17/00275/IN

Single storey rear extension & formation of ground floor WC

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OOCQC8JN02N00

 

9 Hillfield Park London N21 3QJ

Ref. No: 17/00340/DEXFPD

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OO8OHYJN00A00

 

45 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AN

Ref. No: 17/00334/IN

Loft conversion with dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPHJDQJN02N00

 

17 The Alders London N21 1AR

Ref. No: 17/00350/IN

Loft conversion and rear dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPOGCRJN07000

 

4 Brackendale London N21 3DG

Ref. No: 17/00412/IN

Dormer Loft conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ3EURJN07000

 

38 Hillcrest London N21 1AT

Ref. No: 17/00321/IN

Two Storey Side Extension, Single Storey Rear Extension, New Ground Floor WC and Dormer Loft Conversion

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPBO5AJN07000

 

65 Hoppers Road London N21 3LN

Ref. No: 17/00269/IN

Loft conversion with rear dormer, comprising of two bedrooms and one en-suite bathroom and single storey rear extension to existing dwelling Amendment made to the Person Carrying Out the Works.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONXVOBJN02N00

 

9 Hurst Road London N21 3JT

Ref. No: 17/00293/IN

Loft converion with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OOPN5DJN00400

 

71 Farm Road London N21 3JD

Ref. No: 17/00266/IN

Ground floor internal alterations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONXS1BJN00400

 

Land Adjoining 1 Hill House Close London N21 1LG

Ref. No: 17/00281/DOMFPD

Erection of 1 x 4- bed detached single family dwelling.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ON7NJRJN00A00

 

60 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AH

Ref. No: 17/00226/IN

Creation of new structural opening between kitchen and dinning room

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ON67FPJN02N00


110 Woodland Way London N21 3PX

Ref. No: 17/00223/IN

Side and rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ON671YJN02N00

 

29 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AG

Ref. No: 17/00260/MULFPD

Single storey side extension, removal of wall at ground floor level and loft conversion with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMV6MJJN00A00

 

59 Ringwood Way London N21 2RA

Ref. No: 17/00261/DEXFPD

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMWIYZJN00A00

 

1 Barber Close London N21 1BE

Ref. No: 17/00230/DEXFPD

Single storey front, side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMG7BOJN00A00

 

1B Gatward Close London N21 1AS

Ref. No: 17/00197/IN

Loft conversion.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMG7F9JN00400

 

223 Firs Lane London N21 2PH

Ref. No: 17/00182/IN

Loft conversion.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM4WV3JN00400

 

14 The Spinney London N21 1LH

Ref. No: 17/00180/IN

Two storey side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ON671YJN02N00

 

11 Arlow Road London N21 3JS

Ref. No: 17/00151/IN

Ground floor rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLVU6DJN02N00

 

5 Welbeck Villas Highfield Road London N21 3HN

Ref. No: 17/00176/IN

Loft conversion.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM4QR8JN00400

 

43 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AG

Ref. No: 17/00170/IN

Single storey rear extension and associated works.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM366VJN00400

 

759A Green Lanes London N21 3SA

Ref. No: 17/00189/CALBN

Refurbishment

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLS2EEJN00400

 

70 Houndsden Road London N21 1LY

Ref. No: 17/00155/IN

Double storey side extension, single storey rear extension and loft dormer extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM30IJJN00400

 

4 Compton Road N21 3NX

Ref. No: 17/00173/MULFPD

Single storey rear extension and installation of new WC

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM4QR8JN00400

 

28 Station Road Winchmore Hill London N21 3RB

Ref. No: 17/00144/IN

Single storey rear extension and associated internal alterations

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLIX32JN06B00

 

67 Carpenter Gardens London N21 3HH

Ref. No: 17/00161/MULFPD

Single storey rear extension, loft conversion and installation of new WC.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLF0SIJN00A00

 

5 Laurel Drive London N21 1LJ

Ref. No: 17/00138/IN

Loft conversion with rear dormer extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLH199JN06B00

 

77 Farm Road London N21 3HR

Ref. No: 17/00128/IN

One residential unit

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLDJMHJN05Q00





52 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LD

Ref. No: 17/02524/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5.1m deep x 3.2m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OR2XJEJN05A00

 

5A Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BP

Ref. No: 17/02404/HOU

Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, side and rear dormer windows together with conversion of garage into habitable room and detached garage at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQK6D9JNHVF00

 

MAY


102 Firs Lane London N21 2PG

Ref. No: 17/02500/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 5m high (4.4m high to eaves). 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQXBZ4JN00900

 

25 Cranleigh Gardens London N21 1DR

Ref. No: 17/02466/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQVFXQJNHZF00

 

47 Eversley Park Road London N21 1JJ

Ref. No: 17/02437/HOU

Single storey front extension and front porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQT4HOJNHXV00

 

25 Green Dragon Lane London N21 2LB

Ref. No: 17/02414/HOU

Two storey side extension and first floor rear extension (RETROSPECTIVE).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQR9UHJNHWB00


Longridge 5 Quakers Walk London N21 2DE

Ref. No: 17/02433/CND

Details submitted to 16/05764/FUL for external materials pursuant to condition/s 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15 and 17 for redevelopment of site and erection of 2 x detached 5-bed single family dwelling houses with associated landscaping and parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQRW61JNHXJ00

 

45 Fernleigh Road London N21 3AN

Ref. No: 17/02428/HOU

Extension to roof at side involving enlargement of rear dormer with flank window.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQR9ZWJNHX300

 

14 Solna Road London N21 2JS

Ref. No: 17/02434/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQRW7AJNHXL00

 

54 Park Drive London N21 2LS

Ref. No: 17/00969/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM8P41JNFOJ00

 

Ground Floor 4 The Green Winchmore Hill London N21 1AY

Ref. No: 17/02465/ADV

Installation of externally illuminated fascia sign and non illuminated projected sign.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQJX09JN05500

 

Chaseville Parade 11B Chaseville Park Road London N21 1PG

Ref. No: 17/01348/FUL

Rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONGR7BJNG9000

 

10 Bush Hill London N21 2DA

Ref. No: 17/02482/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.3m deep x 3.9m high (2.7m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQX1KGJN00900

 

First Floor Flat 2 Roseneath Avenue London N21 3NE

Ref. No: 17/02262/FUL

Rear dormer and rooflights to front.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ6WGKJNHO100

 

Ground Floor 4 The Green Winchmore Hill London N21 1AY

Ref. No: 17/01971/FUL

Change of use of ground floor to mixed use cafe (Class A1) and (Class A3).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPF4GGJNH7R00

 

859 - 861 Green Lanes London N21 2QS

Ref. No: 17/01910/FULConstruction of an additional floor to existing building to provide 2 x 1-bedroom self contained flats, access via external stairway and landing area to first floor rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OP4MUZJNH4200

 

112 Firs Lane London N21 2PG

Ref. No: 17/02469/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.725m deep x 3.9m high (3.05m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQVILEJN00900

 

77 Hoppers Road London N21 3LP

Ref. No: 17/02340/CEA

Rear dormer with front rooflights and extension to soil pipe.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQEXK6JNHS800

 

42 Woodland Way London N21 3QA

Ref. No: 17/02468/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5m deep x 4m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQVIE2JN00900

 

20 Colne Road London N21 2JD

Ref. No: 17/01070/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with flank window, rear dormer, front rooflights and juliette balcony.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMJKPFJNFU400

 

13 Beechdale London N21 3QE

Ref. No: 17/02277/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end, flank window, rear dormer and front/rear rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ7DF3JNHOL00

 

Site Adjacent To Winchmore Hill Station Opposite Moor Park House, Winchmore Hill N21 3NG

Ref. No: 17/02360/PATInstallation of a replacement telecommunications monopole to a maximum height of 15m with equipment cabinets at base.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQGNQ0JN00900

 

56 Eversley Park Road London N21 1NU

Ref. No: 17/02238/HOU

Single storey rear extension with pitched roof

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ3WBRJNHMK00

 

3 Berkeley Gardens London N21 2BE

Ref. No: 17/02241/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ51SIJNHMR00

 

Longridge 5 Quakers Walk London N21 2DE

Ref. No: 17/02287/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref: 16/05764/FUL comprising tree protection plan (5), SUDs (11), revised energy statement (14) and construction management plan (16) in respect of redevelopment of site and erection of 2 x detached 5-bed single family dwelling houses with associated landscaping and parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQCGHWJNHPF00

 

32 Solna Road London N21 2JS

Ref. No: 17/02311/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.836m deep x 3.655m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQCZ4CJN06Z00

 

38 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DE

Ref. No: 17/02299/HOU

Conversion of garage into habitable room to form Granny Annexe ancillary.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQCM2UJNHQ300

 

9 Downes Court London N21 3PT

Ref. No: 17/02286/CEA

Rear and side dormers with front rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ7OG7JNHP700

 

86 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DE

Ref. No: 17/02312/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQCZEEJN06Z00

 

70 Hoodcote Gardens London N21 2NE

Ref. No: 17/02141/HOU

Two storey side extension, part single, part 2-storey rear extension and first floor side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPU91UJNHHG00

 

Curie Lodge 86 Pennington Drive London N21 1TQ

Ref. No: 17/02348/NMA

Non-material amendment to 14/04976/FUL to allow relocation of boiler extracts, aerial and satellite dish.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQG9FOJN05500

 

12 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AD

Ref. No: 17/02246/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ5A6IJNHN200

 

68 Grange Park Avenue Winchmore Hill London N21 2LL

Ref. No: 17/02247/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ5A6WJNHN400

 

14 Myddelton Gardens London N21 2PA

Ref. No: 17/02222/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ3ICMJNHLO00

 

18 Laburnum Grove London N21 3HS

Ref. No: 17/02159/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPZHVAJNHIM00

 

8 Ballentyne Court 17 Newsholme Drive London N21 1UF

Ref. No: 17/02228/TCA

Fell 1x Fruit Tree in Highlands Conservation Area.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ3NZDJNHM300

 

50 Station Road Winchmore Hill London N21 3RA

Ref. No: 17/02186/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5m deep x 3.5m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ1H39JN06Z00

 

40 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DE

Ref. No: 17/02191/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.5m deep x 3.8m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ1QE5JN06Z00

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/02212/NMA

Non material amendment to 16/02727/FUL to allow alterations and relocation of entrance door from south elevation to west elevation and extension to front. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ3911JN06Y00

 

39 The Orchard London N21 2DJ

Ref. No: 17/02080/HOU

Single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPQCA4JN06500

 

16 Stone Hall Road London N21 1LP

Ref. No: 17/02101/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form part gable, rear dormer and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPQXNAJNHER00 

 

16 The Chine London N21 2EB

Ref. No: 17/02084/HOU

Replacement hardstanding and erection of new boundary wall and gate.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPQE15JNHDW00

 

3 Arundel Gardens London N21 3AG

Ref. No: 17/00516/PAINSP

Single storey rear extension and loft conversion.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=O9Y0HQJN00900

 

4 Downes Court London N21 3PS

Ref. No: 17/02219/CEA

Rear dormer with rooflights to front and side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQ3EXJJN06500

 

21 Chaseville Park Road London N21 1PH

Ref. No: 17/01963/FUL

Conversion of single family dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats (1 x 3-bed, 1 x 2-bed) involving single storey rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation and first floor side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPDQLWJNH7600

 

16 The Orchard London N21 2DH

Ref. No: 17/01889/HOU

Single storey rear/side extension with flank windows

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OP2S7HJNH2Y00

 

30 Beechdale London N21 3QG

Ref. No: 17/02118/HOU

Single storey rear extension with rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPSMQ2JNHFW00

 

30 Beechdale London N21 3QG

Ref. No: 17/02118/HOU

Single storey rear extension with rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPSMQ2JNHFW00

 

35 Church Hill London N21 1LN

Ref. No: 17/02099/HOU

2-storey side extension, single storey rear extension involving conversion of garage into habitable room, together with rear dormer and rooflights to front and side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPQXMFJNHEN00

 

30 Beechdale London N21 3QG

Ref. No: 17/02119/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with flank window, rear dormer and front rooflights and extension of soil pipe.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPSMQIJNHFY00

 

843 Green Lanes London N21 2RX

Ref. No: 17/02089/FUL

Change of use from dance studio to pre-school nursery (Class D1), together with 2-storey infill extension with roof lights, involving installation of fence to south and west boundary, railings and gate to front boundary and alterations to all fenestrations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPQJMRJNHE200

 

40 Vicars Moor Lane London N21 2QJ

Ref. No: 17/02091/CEA

Alterations to roof to roof to form gable end with flank window, rear dormer and rooflights to front.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPQL91JN00900

 

24 Old Park Ridings London N21 2EY

Ref. No: 17/02090/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPQL5QJN00900

 

62 Vera Avenue London N21 1RL

Ref. No: 17/01940/HOU

Widening of existing vehicular access.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPBYQ9JNH6100

AND

Ref. No: 17/01924/VAR

Removal of condition 12 of approval P13-02135PLA in relation to the code for sustainable homes.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPBF97JNH5000

 

36 Old Park Ridings London N21 2ES

Ref. No: 17/01716/HOU

Side dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOLND2JNGTV00

 

9 Welbeck Villas Highfield Road London N21 3HN

Ref. No: 17/01970/CEA

Single storey rear extension with rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPF4FVJNH7O00

 

78 Ridge Avenue London N21 2AU

Ref. No: 17/02043/HOU

Outuilding at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPMX63JNHC100

 

124 Wades Hill London N21 1EH

Ref. No: 17/02006/HOU

Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and rear dormer with side rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPH200JNH9N00

 

5 Hansen Drive London N21 1SB

Ref. No: 17/02036/HOU

Single storey rear extension with roof lights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPMOQBJNHBM00

 

51 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1PA

Ref. No: 17/01989/HOU

Outbuilding at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OPFFPTJNH8S00

 

159 Worlds End Lane London N21 1PJ

Ref. No: 17/01934/FUL

First floor rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPBT5EJNH5P00

 

157 Worlds End Lane London N21 1PJ

Ref. No: 17/01933/FUL

First floor rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPBT53JNH5N00

 

3 Ridge Avenue London N21 2RL

Ref. No: 17/02009/NMA

Non-material amendment to 16/00091/FUL to allow alterations to the roof design and roof light.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPH6CNJN06Y00

 

12 Viga Road London N21 1HJ

Ref. No: 17/01964/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPDQMXJNH7800

 

10 Hill House Close London N21 1LG

Ref. No: 17/01968/CEA

Single storey rear extension with rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPE1RZJNH7I00 

 

26 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BN

Ref. No: 17/01936/CEA

Side dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OPBT5WJNH5T00

 

Capitol House 794 Green Lanes London N21 2SH

Ref. No: 17/01864/FUL

Redevelopment of site involving demolition of existing building to provide a part 6-part 7 storey block of 84 residential units comprising (29 x 1 bed, 37 x 2 bed and 18 x 3 beds involving balconies together with parking at basement level, landscaping, private and communal amenity space.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OP0WP6JN00900

 

37 Eversley Crescent London N21 1EL

Ref. No: 17/01677/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.7m deep x 3.4m high (3.4m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOCA20JN06200

 

APRIL


140 Hoppers Road London N21 3L

Ref. No: 17/01827/HOU

Single-storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOX7MWJN06Y00

 

Flat 1 Barnard Court 82 Pennington Drive London N21 1AF

Ref. No: 17/01799/TCA

Works to 1x Chestnut Horse and 2x London Plane in Highlands Conservation Area:- Reduce by up to 3m and reduce off building line to give 2m clearance

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OORIMZJNGXR00

 

32 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/01717/HOU

Single storey rear extension and alterations to rear fenestrations.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOLQ5WJNGTY00

 

62 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LD

Ref. No: 17/01794/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5.25m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OORDDOJN05L00

 

2 Firs Park Avenue London N21 2PT

Ref. No: 17/01781/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.9m deep x 3.24m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOR6INJN06Z00

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/01747/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/02727/FUL comprising tree protection plan (18) and arboricultural protection measures (20) in respect of erection of 2 x 4-bed detached single family dwellings with rooms in roof, balcony at first floor levels and off street parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OONTAJJNGV100

 

45 Uplands Way London N21 1DU

Ref. No: 17/01746/HOU

Two storey side extension, part single, part 2-storey rear extension, rear dormer with side rooflight and front porch extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OONTA5JNGUZ00

 

29 Radcliffe Road London N21 2SD

Ref. No: 17/01752/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/00301/PRH.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OONYWPJNGV900

 

33 Hyde Park Avenue London N21 2PL

Ref. No: 17/01615/CEA

Alterations to roof to form gable end, rear dormer and rooflights to front.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OO6OJSJNGO500

 

146 Wynchgate London N21 1QU

Ref. No: 17/01666/HOU

First floor rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOB05PJNGQW00

 

50 Houndsden Road London N21 1LY

Ref. No: 17/01707/HOU

Two storey side extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOLHSEJNGTB00

 

28 Laidlaw Drive London N21 1SS

Ref. No: 17/01727/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3.5m deep x 3.2m high (2.6m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OOLYZKJN06200

 

63 Church Hill London N21 1LE

Ref. No: 17/01296/FUL

Installation of external cladding to side and front elevation.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ON7YKJJNG6000

 

71 Hoppers Road London N21 3LP

Ref. No: 17/01679/CEU

Use of property as 2 self contained flats.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOCB8FJNGRO00

 

1 Bazile Road London N21 1HD

Ref. No: 17/01672/HOU

Single storey rear and side garage extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOC8I7JNGRJ00

 

752 Green Lanes London N21 3RE

Ref. No: 17/01636/CEU

Use of premises as a restaurant.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OO7AW5JNGPC00

 

45 Station Road Winchmore Hill London N21 3NB

Ref. No: 17/01556/CNDDetails submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/00803/FUL comprising sound insulation (4) and landscaping- cycle parking- bin storage (5) in respect of conversion of store for A1 use into 1 x 1-bed to residential unit.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONY4BBJNGK500

   

97 Park Drive London N21 2LT

Ref. No: 17/01655/PRH

Single storey rear extension 3m deep x 3.55m high (2.68m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOAHVKJN06200

 

69 Uplands Way London N21 1DU

Ref. No: 17/01667/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OOB065JNGQY00

 

25 Brackendale London N21 3DH

Ref. No: 17/01645/HOU

Single storey rear extension, two storey side extension with installation of bay window to front elevation, erection of front entrance porch canopy, rear dormer with front and side rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OO8ZWJJNGQ200

 

33 Hyde Park Avenue London N21 2PL

Ref. No: 17/01651/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.6m deep x 3m high (2.8m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OOAG5EJN06200

 

12 Orpington Road London N21 3PG

Ref. No: 17/01455/CEA

Rear dormer and outrigger dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONMGRMJNGE000

 

110 Hoppers Road London N21 3LH

Ref. No: 17/01626/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OO72GEJNGOP00

 

871A Green Lanes N21 2QS

Ref. No: 17/01580/FUL

Conversion of roofspace into 1 x self contained studio flat with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONZQVJJN06Y00

 

4 Cadogan Gardens London N21 1ER

Ref. No: 17/01479/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, single storey side extension and front entrance porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONOE7DJNGFT00

 

19 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DY

Ref. No: 17/01480/CEA

Single storey rear extension and extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONOECNJN06Y00

 

First Floor Flat 70 Compton Road London N21 3NS

Ref. No: 17/01552/FUL

Rear dormer, frony rooflights and extension of soil pipe at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONXT4MJNGJT00

 

61 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DD

Ref. No: 17/01257/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ON40UJJNG3U00

 

681 Green Lanes London N21 3RS

Ref. No: 17/01524/TPO

Work to 1x Oak covered by LBE ORDER NO (173) 1985:- Remove lowest limb.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONVSUBJNGIN00

 

Land Adjacent 1, Deepdene Court, London, N21 2NH

Ref. No: 17/01536/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref:P13-01149PLA comprising construction management plan (16) in respect of erection of 1 x 3 storey block of 3 x self contained flats including a lower ground floor (comprising of 3x2-bed flats) amenity space at lower and ground floor levels, external staircase access and green roof, access from Deepdene Court with associated parking, new access at upper ground floor level from Green Dragon Lane.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONW180JNGIU00

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/01516/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref:15/03316/FUL comprising securing car park (26) in respect of redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONUEZRJNGI500

 

47 Eversley Park Road London N21 1JJ

Ref. No: 17/01500/HOU

Vehicular access with block paving and garden wall to front and single storey front porch extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONTPZBJNGH000

 

21 Stone Hall Road London N21 1LR

Ref. No: 17/01510/NMA

Non-material amendment to planning application ref: 15/05093/HOU approved under appeal (APP/Q5300/D/16/3145562) to allow alternative species to be planted to north boundary from that approved under ref: 16/04619/CND.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONTXOIJN06Y00

 

2 Firs Park Avenue London N21 2PT

Ref. No: 17/01226/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMYBB9JNG2K00

 

30 Anderson Close London N21 1TH

Ref. No: 17/01448/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONMB53JNGDQ00

 

44 Compton Road London N21 3NX

Ref. No: 17/01384/FUL

Change of use from house in multiple occupation (C4) to 4 residential flats consisting of 1 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self contained flats, including a single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ONHGASJNGA900

 

1-24 River Bank London N21 2AA

Ref. No: 17/01062/FUL

Formation of third floor involving extension to roof and dormer windows to all blocks totalling 8 x 2 bed self contained flats togther with 3-storey rear extension to provide lift shaft.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMJHXBJNFTV00

 

 

MARCH


8 Clarendon Way London N21 2LX

Ref. No: 17/01244/HOU

2-storey front extension involving creation of front entrance porch and first floor rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMYUBBJN06500

 

21 Cranwich Avenue London N21 2BB

Ref. No: 17/00391/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKLA5QJNMKS00

 

52 Langham Gardens London N21 1DJ

Ref. No: 17/01286/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ON6KOZJNG5D00

 

803 Green Lanes London N21 2SG

Ref. No: 17/00829/FUL

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLVGAEJN00900

 

681 Green Lanes London N21 3RS

Ref. No: 17/01103/ADV

Installation of internally illuminated totem sign and 8 x non-illuminated wall mounted signs.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMM1P8JNFVU00

 

Vacant Land Springbank London N21 1JH

Ref. No: 17/00120/CND

Details submitted to 16/02727/FUL for external materials (03) and surfacing material (04) in respect of erection of 2 x 4-bed detached single family dwellings with rooms in roof, balcony at first floor levels and off street parking.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJK60GJNM6400

 

77 Woodland Way London N21 3QB

Ref. No: 17/01078/HOU

First floor rear extension and rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMJYQSJNFUN00

 

5 Hansen Drive London N21 1SB

Ref. No: 17/01179/HOU

Conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMV5TMJNG0C00

 

13 Onslow Gardens London N21 1DY

Ref. No: 17/01059/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension with rooflights (PART RETROSPECTIVE).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMICFHJNFTK00

 

79 Halstead Road London N21 3DT

Ref. No: 17/01143/CND

Details submitted pursuant to ref: 16/04676/FUL comprising tree protection (4), details of access and junction (5) and landscaping, cycle parking and bins (7) in respect of subdivision of site and demolition of the garage and rear extension and erection of 1x2 bed dwelling.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMSZNYJNFYG00

 

82 Old Park Ridings London N21 2ES

Ref. No: 17/01061/CND

Details submitted pursuant to Ref: 16/03927/FUL for hard and soft landscape proposals (13) in respect of conversion of single family dwelling into 4 flats comprising 3 x 3 bed and 1 x 1 bed involving new pitched roof over existing two storey side extension, extension of lower ground and lightwell, part single part two storey rear extension and rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMII3QJNFTS00

 

Flat 1 110 Vicars Moor Lane London N21 1BN

Ref. No: 17/00837/FUL

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLVHNQJN05500


27 Beverley Close London N21 3JB

Ref. No: 17/01128/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMRHAOJN05A00

 

Capitol House 794 Green Lanes N21 2AW

Ref. No: 17/01080/PRJ

Change of use from offices (Class B1(a)) to residential (Class C3) creating 65 self contained units (4 x studio, 52 x 1-bed, 9 x 2-bed)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMK05CJN05300


25 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1NX

Ref. No: 17/01100/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMLVGZJN05500


The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/01051/CND

Details submitted to 15/03316/FUL for materials (3B) and levels (5) for the Redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMHYHSJNFT700

 

35 Church Hill London N21 1LN

Ref. No: 17/01049/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey side extension incorporating integral garage, single storey rear extension and rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMHYG1JNFT300

 

62 Colne Road London N21 2JP

Ref. No: 17/01040/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMHN94JNFSJ00

 

220 Winchmore Hill Road London N21 1QR

Ref. No: 17/00914/CEA

Single storey rear extension submitted pursuant to prior approval ref: 17/00105/PRH, and extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, front rooflights and Juliette Balcony.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM3OP4JNFLO00


7 Willow Walk London N21 1NG

Ref. No: 17/00929/CEA

Proposed alterations to rear fenestration.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM50CLJN00900

 

4 Henrietta Gardens London N21 3BF

Ref. No: 17/01010/HOU

Front and rear dormers.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMETTEJNFR400

 

119 Green Dragon Lane London N21 1HE

Ref. No: 17/00365/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OKFYIXJNMJ500


3 Henrietta Gardens London N21 3BF

Ref. No: 17/01009/HOU

Front and rear dormers including extension to roof at side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMETSFJNFR200


83 Wades Hill London N21 1AU

Ref. No: 17/00981/FUL

Subdivision of site and erection of 2 bed bungalow with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OM90C6JNFOZ00


4 Branscombe Gardens London N21 3BN

Ref. No: 17/01056/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 15/00521/FUL (Subdivision of site and conversion of 1 x single family dwelling into 2 single family dwellings) comprising details of: Enclosure (2), Refuse storage & recyclinging (3) and Cycle parking spaces (4)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMI7J8JN05A00


14 Solna Road London N21 2JS

Ref. No: 17/00974/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM8XK5JNFOU00

 

47 Eversley Park Road London N21 1JJ

Ref. No: 17/00992/CND

Details submitted pursuant to condition 3 (Trees) of planning application ref: 16/05649/HOU (2-storey side extension, single storey rear extension, rear dormer, front rooflights, patio doors and Juliette balcony and extension of soil pipe at rear and erection of front entrance porch)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMDXYOJNFPR00


Flat 869-871 Green Lanes London N21 2QS

Ref. No: 17/00952/FUL

Installation of staircase to rear providing access to first floor flat.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM6V1HJN05500


5 Henrietta Gardens London N21 3BF

Ref. No: 17/01011/HOU

Front and rear dormers.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMETUAJNFR600

 

27 Chaseville Park Road London N21 1PH

Ref. No: 17/00963/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form part gable end with rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM8JHYJNFOD00


3 Ridge Avenue London N21 2RL

Ref. No: 17/00884/CND

Details submitted pursuant to condition 4 (Refuse) and condition 7 (Cycle parking) of planning application ref: 16/00091/FUL (Conversion of single family dwelling into 2 self contained flats (comprising 1x2 bed and 1x3 bed) involving a single storey rear extension)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLW4DDJNFIT00


11 Blenheim Close London N21 2HQ

Ref. No: 16/05373/FUL

Change of use from residential dwelling to HMO for up to six individuals including conversion of garage into habitable room.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OH1FDKJNL6N00


FEBRUARY


47 Ridge Avenue London N21 2RJ

Ref. No: 17/00951/CEA

Extension of rood at side to form gable end with rear dormer and 2x rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OM6UDOJNFNJ00


8 Bush Hill London N21 2DA

Ref. No: 17/00916/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.3m deep x 4.0m high (2.85m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM4POOJN05300


19 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1NX

Ref. No: 17/00761/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer, front rooflights, Juliette Balcony and extension to soil pipe at side.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLQ3NOJNN4600

 

30 Firs Lane London N21 3ES

Ref. No: 17/00921/FUL

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKNITYJNMMH00

 

78 Ridge Avenue London N21 2AU

Ref. No: 17/00719/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLHDX1JNN1P00

and

Ref. No: 17/00716/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer and front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLHB2ZJNN1I00

and

Ref. No: 17/00720/HOU

Detached outbuilding at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLHDXFJNN1R00

 

62 The Chine London N21 2ED

Ref. No: 17/00871/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey rear extension involving valley roof, conversion of garage into habitable room and alterations to front porch.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM0Z95JNFJ200

 

39 Compton Road London N21 3NU

Ref. No: 17/00698/CEA

Rear dormer and rooflights to front

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLFAUVJNN0C00

 

17 Bazile Road London N21 1HD

Ref. No: 17/00531/HOU

Two storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKY63MJNMRN00

 

59 Ringwood Way London N21 2RA

Ref. No: 17/00679/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OLEU17JNMZK00

 

102 Firs Lane London N21 2PG

Ref. No: 17/00558/HOU

Single storey rear extension and rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OL00P4JNMT100

 

126 Barrowell Green London N21 3AX

Ref. No: 17/00425/HOUConversion of garage into habitable room.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKNG0FJNMMA00

 

148 Barrowell Green, London N21 3AX

Ref. No: 17/00526/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKY3DXJNMRC00


871A Green Lanes N21 2QS

Ref. No: 17/00081/FUL

Conversion of roofspace into 1 x self contained studio flat with rear dormer, outside amenity space and cycle storage.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJIGTRJN05300

 

5 Sherbrook Gardens London N21 2NX

Ref. No: 17/00331/HOU

Vehicular access and paved front driveway

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKDXNZJN05300

 

JANUARY


126 Barrowell Green, London N21 3AX

Ref. No: 17/00463/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5m deep x 2.85m high (2.78m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKPFE9JN05L00


First Floor Flat 70 Compton Road London N21 3NS

Ref. No: 17/00388/FUL

Rear dormer with front rooflights

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKL7CMJNMKL00

 

67 Carpenter Gardens London N21 3HH

Ref. No: 17/00273/FUL

Single story rear extension and rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OK8EA7JNMEV00

 

45 Firs Park Avenue London N21 2PR

Ref. No: 16/05942/HOU

Single storey rear extension and conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OIL501JNLWE00

 

124 Old Park Ridings London N21 2EP

Ref. No: 16/05960/FUL

Redevelopment of site and erection of a new building containing a 1 x 4 bed dwelling and a new building containing 1 x 3 bed flat and 2 x 2 bed flats with mansard roof and balconies at rear. Open for Comment

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OIMWTMJNLXB00

 

49 Hoppers Road London N21 3LN

Ref. No: 17/00420/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OKNA2GJN05A00


Pennsylvania Court 54 Elm Park Road N21 2HS

Ref. No: 17/00330/FUL

Amendment to planning application reference P13-00992PLA (erection of a 3-storey block of 5 x self-contained flats (comprising 2 x 1-bed, 2 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed) with balconies to front and side) to reduce parking spaces from 5 to 3.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OKDVGYJNMHB00

 

25 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AB

Ref. No: 17/00366/PRH

Single storey rear extension 1.38m deep x 4m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKFZNOJN06200


St Martins 5 Ringmer Place London N21 2DD

Ref. No: 17/00317/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey rear, side and front extension and vehicular access

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OKCAEDJN05300

 

1 Woodberry Avenue London N21 3LE

Ref. No: 17/00175/FUL

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OJV788JNM9P00


29 Radcliffe Road London N21 2SD

Ref. No: 17/00301/PRH 

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 3.2m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKAK1RJN05300

 

39 Compton Road London N21 3NU

Ref. No: 17/00296/HOU 

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKAHB6JNMFZ00

 

13 Compton Road London N21 3NU

Ref. No: 17/00259/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OK387IJNME200


29 Radcliffe Road London N21 2SD

Ref. No: 17/00309/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 3.2m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OKC04CJN06200

 

40 Cheyne Walk London N21 1DE

Ref. No: 16/05852/CEA

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OI9Y6CJNLRN00

 

16 The Chine London N21 2EB

Ref. No: 17/00092/HOU

Replacement hardstanding and erection of new boundary wall and gate.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJIXPAJNM5S00


1-18 Holly Lodge, N21 3JR

Ref. No: 15/05529/FUL

Replacement windows to block.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NYUEZPJN28000

 

792 Green Lanes London N21 2SH

Ref. No: 17/00260/FUL

Conversion of upper floors to provide a total of 8 residential units (5 x1 bed, 2 x2 bed and 1x 3 bed) involving erection of a first floor side extension and part 2, part 3 part 3-storey rear extension with accommodation in roof space and dormers to side and rear and provision of undercroft car and cycle parking

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OK388FJNME400

 

907 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/00191/PRJ

Change of use of a building from office use (Class B1(a)) to 1 x 1-bed self contained flat (Class C3).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJX8PCJN05300

 

34 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/00216/VAR

Removal of condition 13 of planning application ref: 15/01077/FUL in relation to Code for sustainable homes.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJXR3WJNMBH00

 

34 Houndsden Road London N21 1LT

Ref. No: 17/00215/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 15/01077/FUL (Demolition of existing bungalow, subdivision of site and erection of 2 x 2-storey 3-bed semi detached single family dwellings, rear dormers, 1 x vehicle access, off street parking and rear amenity space) in relation to condiitons for: Comprising external finishes (01), surfacing (02), ground levels (03), enclosure details (04), landscaping (05) refuse and recycling facilities (06), construction vehicle management (07), construction cleaning, management (08) and cycle facilities (10)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJXOAAJNMB800

 

Keble Preparatory School Wades Hill London N21 1BG

Ref. No: 17/00206/FUL

Minor material amendments to planning application ref: P14-00584PLA to allow refurbishment of an existing playground and proposed teaching pavilion adjacent to the existing Junior School building,

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJYWKGJNMBM0

 

The Green Dragon 889 Green Lanes London N21 2QP

Ref. No: 17/00234/CND

Details submitted pursuant toplanning application ref: 15/03316/FUL comprising refuse and recycling facilities (18), cycle parking facilities (19) in respect of redevelopment of site to provide 7 x 3-bed, 3-storey town houses with sun terraces to front and rear and off street parking at front, part single, part 2-storey rear and single storey side extension to extend a retail unit (A1) at ground floor with ancillary storage and staff facilities at first floor and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats at second floor, external staircase, vehicular accesses to Vicars Moor lane, car park at rear and associated plant and landscaping

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJXR36JNMBD00

 

3 The Chine London N21 2EA

Ref. No: 17/00179/CND

Details submitted pursuant to planning application ref: 16/02797/HOU in respect of window details (05) in respect of single storey rear extension with changes to rear fenestration.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OJVNA5JN05300

 

36 Elsiedene Road London N21 2RP
Ref. No: 17/00138/CEA

Rear dormer with Juliette balacony and 3x rooflights at front. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJO8X5JN05300

 

103 Woodland Way London N21 3PY

Ref. No: 17/00198/HOU

Outbuilding at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJXFZ2JNMB100

 

4 Cadogan Gardens London N21 1ER

Ref. No: 17/00131/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension and extension to roof at side to form gable end with rear dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJO3OUJNM8200

 

15 Halstead Gardens London N21 3DU

Ref. No: 17/00074/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJI8MFJNM4X00

 

Palmers Green High School 104 Hoppers Road London N21 3LJ

Ref. No: 17/00122/TPO

Work to 1 Oak tree covered by LBE ORDER NO 115:- Crown Reduce by 1.5m and reduce lateral branches by up to 2m.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMEOJJNM7D00

 

110 Woodland Way London N21 3PX

Ref. No: 17/00113/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJLXWNJNM6V00

 

21 Kent Road London N21 2JH

Ref. No: 17/00112/HOU

Replacement garage at rear. 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJKV33JNM6R00

 

29 Broadfields Avenue London N21 1AG
Ref. No: 17/00101/HOU

Single storey side extension and rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJKJGJJN05300

 

8 Broad Walk London N21 3DB
Ref. No: 17/00078/CEA

Extension to roof at side to form gable end.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJIBDMJNM5600

 

43 Laburnum Grove London N21 3HT

Ref. No: 17/00079/FUL

Sub division of site and erection of a 2-storey, 3-bed detached dwelling house, with outside amenity space and vehicle access via rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJIBE0JNM5800

 

220 Winchmore Hill Road London N21 1QR
Ref. No: 17/00105/PRH

Single storey rear extension 5.73m deep x 3.17m high (2.95m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJKNYZJN06200

 

113 Woodland Way London N21 3PY

Ref. No: 17/00089/HOU

Part single, part 2-storey rear and 2-storey side extension with pitched roof over to form annexe, and rear dormer.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OJIOZ5JN05300

 

12 Maxim Road London N21 1EX

Ref. No: 17/00039/HOU

Single storey rear extension 

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJ9OBJJNM3800

 

98 Wades Hill London N21 1AJ

Ref. No: 17/00031/CEA

Rear dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJ9EZTJN05300

 

29 The Chine London N21 2EA

Ref. No: 16/05943/FUL

Subdivision of site and erection of 2-bed single family dwelling with rooms in roof and basement level.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OIL7QVJNLWH00


42A Radcliffe Road London N21 2SE

Ref. No: 16/03419/FUL

Retrospective Juliette balcony at rear.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OAYR5YJNIHU00

 

171 Firs Lane London N21 3HY

Ref. No: 17/00058/PRH

Single storey rear extension 4.5m deep x 3m high (2.9m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJBCVVJN06200

 

98 Wades Hill London N21 1AJ

Ref. No: 17/00032/HOU

Single storey rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJ9EZTJN05300

 

54 Park Drive London N21 2LS

Ref. No: 17/00036/PRH

Single storey rear extension 6m deep x 3m high (3m high to eaves)

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OJ9L1UJN06200

 

928 Green Lanes London N21 2AD

Ref. No: 17/00001/FUL

Change of use from hairdressers (class A1) to micropub (class A4).

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJ59X5JNM0Z00


51 Oakwood Crescent London N21 1PA

Ref. No: 16/05896/HOU

Two storey side extension, part single, part 2-storey rear extension and canopy porch

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OIFYWQJNLTP00

 

69 Uplands Way London N21 1DU

Ref. No: 16/05630/HOU

Erection of a first floor over existing bungalow to create a two-storey dwelling house.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OHIK9MJN05500

 

9 Park Drive London N21 2LU

Ref. No: 16/05171/HOU

Single storey side and rear extension and detached outbuilding at rear to be used as a gym, store and shower room.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OGFZADJNKVJ00

 

1 Barber Close London N21 1BE

Ref. No: 16/05952/HOU

Single storey front, side and rear extension.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OILG48JNLWO00

 

15 Halstead Gardens London N21 3DU

Ref. No: 17/00073/CEA

Rear dormer with front rooflights.

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&;keyVal=OJI8LTJNM4V00

 

12 Maxim Road London N21 1EX

Ref. No: 17/00039/HOU

Single storey rear extension

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJ9OBJJNM3800

 

Pennsylvania Court 54 Elm Park Road N21 2HS

Ref. No: 17/00130/FUL

Minor material amendment to planning application reference: P13-00992PLA (Erection of a 3-storey block of 5 x self contained flats (comprising 2 x 1-bed, 2 x2-bed and 1 x 3 bed) with balconies to front and side.) to allow reduction of site and car parking area with provision of boundary wall, railings, gate and soft landscaping

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJO3OCJNM8000

 

16 Oaklands London N21 3DD

Ref. No: 17/00134/HOU

Conversion of garage into habitable room involving alterations to front elevation with first floor front and rear extension and rear dormer

http://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJO6HBJNM8500