What vegetation clearance are Network Rail planning

in Winchmore Hill?



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




"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"



 How much longer do we have wait for this mess

on Green Lanes to be cleared?




Enfield Council Waste Collection Consultation


Find out what is proposed and take part in the consultation


Waste Survey image





 more details here


Do you like dog walking

and have some time on your hands?


Winchmore Hill Dog Walking

would like to hear from you

Read the job description



Enfield Council undertakes



and the 'patient' is poorly

a cause for concern?

more details here





you can make a difference 



Subscribe to 'This week in N21' 



* indicates required
Email Format






 Check out who is building what in N21 






Join the Park Run

in Grovelands Park





Lots of other sporting activities

to join in N21!

more details here




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 




Grange Park Horticultural Society Trading Hut

is open for the new gardening season


 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





Are you thinking of starting a business?


Are you unemployed?










New & Updated Business Pages


Armour Security

Barber El's

Chi Chi's Coffee & Waffle House

Cloud9 Wellness Hub 


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


The Sacred Tree

S.E Beauty

Siobhan Cosgrave Herbalist & Naturopath

The Southgate Club

Swiss Care Clinic

Winchmore Lounge


Another serious accident on Green Lanes



Sunday 4 November

Fox Lane junction with Green Lanes

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



Giovanni Restaurante & Pizzeria



have a sneak preview here





Enfield Council: making our roads safer for everyone?




The results of the Fernleigh Road Area

Quieter Neighbourhood Consultation:

a partial 'victory' for residents



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




Council to keep cycle lane dividers

despite safety fears

read Cllr Daniel Anderson's defence of orcas




If you are concerned about the safety of orcas

please sign the petition




Whose clever idea was this?



Have you tripped over or hit one of these

whilst walking, driving or cycling?



download the leaflet on how to report incidents


 Report it to Enfield Council

on the incident reporting page




Enfield Council say orcas are safe - really?





Read this research published

in the Evening Standard




Segregated cycle lanes are putting patients' lives at risk

medical leaders have warned



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

read the Telegraph article




A beginners guide to taking wildlife photographs


Read here



Fix My Street





Check out pollution levels today












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




More details here




St Monica's Players have put forward

an alternative plan for the Intimate Theatre

View the proposals


Petition: Save The Intimate Theatre




Sign the petition


Steven Berkoff backs call to save The Intimate Theatre

Read the article in The Stage




 Claire Hill is on a mission

Why less is more for Winchmore Hill









Bush Hill Park councillors here

Grange councillors here

Winchmore Hill councillors here






Winchmore Hill ward

November newsletter

download here

Grange ward

November newsletter

download here



Winchmore Hill Police 






Southgate Homebound

and Disabled Association



 more details here



Ruth Winston Community Centre





Winchmore Hill Community Care




more details here  



Dementia Cafe

at St Peter's Church Hall

on Fridays

More details here





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.



The Highlands Village Book Group

invites new members

 contact Kate on 07944 756757

Winchmore Hill Book Club

Grovelands Park
Facebook Group


Winchmore Hill & Palmers Green Memories 
Facebook Group


Winchmore Hill Families 
Facebook Group


N21 Community

Highways flower beds - another 'victim' of the Great Cycle Lane Con

on Monday, 21 November 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Highways flower beds - another 'victim' of the Great Cycle Lane Con


An open letter to LB Enfield from Christine Williams


 Christine Williams and her daughter Lizzie

Read the Enfield Today article here

Dear Sir/Madam,


Along with a multitude of other grievances the Great Cycle Lane Con can claim yet another victim - highway flower beds.


No-one at the Council, it seems, thought fit to notify Enfield in Bloom, at least as a courtesy to its Chairman, Dennis Lushey, of the damage to be inflicted on various flower beds because they were in the way of this ill-conceived scheme which almost nobody wants but which, through devious means, has been forced upon us all.


The magnitude of the disruption is becoming clear now Green Lanes is underway and this is only the start. These are the 'Easy, non contentious ' areas that are being tackled first. We know what gridlock is like. - we had a dry run 2 weeks back one Tuesday evening when Enfield was at a standstill for hours and we shall endure many more like that when The Town and shopping centres are being done.


We Enfield residents will be sealed in along with our mad, money grabbing council.


But, back to the flower beds. Enfield in Bloom, sponsored splendidly by Spurs, is essentially run by volunteers to keep our borough- our environment - an attractive place in which to live and work and to promote a community spirit through flowers and planting. As such, many of the highway beds are sponsored, often on behalf of businesses but some by individuals and tended by volunteers. In effect, the Council enjoys an unpaid workforce who maintain many centre piece beds for the benefit of fellow residents.These public beds are the borough's ' shop window' to the world.


My daughter and I tend one such bed on the corner of Park Avenue and Village Road in Bush Hill Park. Enfield in Bloom recently paid for complete re-landscaping here only to now discover it is in the firing line and therefore to be demolished, with hundreds of pounds wasted and for which Enfield in Bloom should be compensated. The bed is a focal point in the area and we have striven to make it a feature for all to enjoy.


Ultimately, all there will be to look at will be concrete and railings.


Nobody will back down now; it has all gone too far and we are all committed to this insanity for years. We must live through it and hope against hope that one day we might get our Borough back.


Yours faithfully,


Christine Williams



A planter on a cycle lane in Camden


Enfield has been 'promised' something similiar 






Enfield In Bloom Gold Winners in N21 2016

on Saturday, 01 October 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Enfield In Bloom Gold Winners in N21 2016

Best Highway/Open Space Planting

Firs Farm Wetlands



Best Environmental/Wildlife Garden


Woodcroft Wild Space



Best Small Front Garden/Balcony


Mary Macguckin



Best Communal Garden


Blake Court



Best Innovative Growing Space (Allotments)


 Barry & Evelyn Craven



and a silver for Grange Park Primary School!



Save Our Southgate Launch - Project Humpty

on Wednesday, 28 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Save Our Southgate Launch - Project Humpty

The Boundary Commission published the initial proposals for new constituencies in England, which will equalise them at around 75,000 people per constituency. 


This statement has been reprinted with the consent of David Burrowes MP


On Tuesday 27th September the SOS - Save Our Southgate campaign was launched at a meeting of community group and residents association representatives.


David Burrowes said "I am pleased to help launch SOS which is also known as Operation Humpty because the aim is to put Enfield back together after the planned break up of the constituency into 5 pieces. It is primarily a community led campaign because it is in the best interests of Enfield to reject the plans and seek a revised plan."


Earlier this month the Boundary Commission's initial proposals were published for redrawing constituency boundaries to equalise constituents numbers and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. The plans are subject to consultation over the next 3 months. In Enfield the proposals will have a dramatic effect on Enfield Southgate which would be abolished and see its wards dispersed across 5 constituencies. David Burrowes has called on Enfield Council to oppose the plans as a "bad deal for Enfield".


This is the new constituency proposed by the Boundary Commission (BCE), which will see Winchmore Hill, Southgate and Southgate Green wards merged with five wards from Finchley (Brunswick Park, Coppetts, East Finchley, West Finchley and Woodhouse).  Grange would become part of Enfield constituency comprising Enfield Town, CHase, Enfield Highway, Enfield Lock, Highlands, Southbury, Town and Turkey Street)





David Burrowes statement to Enfield Council is as follows:


"There may be different political interest views across the 3 Enfield constituencies but for the purpose of the Council I would suggest there can be a consensus that it is overall a bad deal for Enfield. It is not in the best interests of Enfield residents to be represented by 5 different MPs.


The initial proposals of the Boundary Commission do not sufficiently respect the local government borough boundaries. The plan splits Enfield Southgate 5 ways and leaves 2 wards orphaned respectively to 2 MPs representing otherwise Haringey or Barnet borough wards. It creates a new Finchley and Southgate constituency which lacks community connection or cohesion and puts 3 Enfield borough wards in the minority interest of a constituency with majority Barnet borough wards. It would leave 5 Enfield borough wards as a minority interest of their new MP.


There are several detailed issues with proposed individual ward changes which are likely to be challenged by residents and community groups but the proposal to move Cockfosters into Chipping Barnet highlights the lack of respect for community and local government links. Whilst there is at the western boundary a geographical link to Barnet, the latest local government ward boundary changes firmly establish the link between Cockfosters and Southgate and the predominant parochial, residential, commercial and social interests of Cockfosters are within the borough of Enfield. The Piccadilly Line makes an obvious but important point about the natural and significant link between Cockfosters and its neighbouring Enfield wards representing Oakwood, Southgate and Arnos Grove.


Enfield Council should oppose the initial proposals and request a new plan which better respects the borough link and ideally enables 3 MPs to be representing Enfield borough wards. The Council may also wish to comment upon the growing population and needs of the borough which needs to have a majority interest of 3 MPs rather than be split across 5 constituencies.


Finally the boundary review does not reflect the recent increase in electoral registration and population growth in Enfield. Any future boundary review is likely to lead to the growth of the current Enfield constituencies and need for continued representation by 3 MPs."




The public can have their say by giving the Commission their views on these proposals in a twelve week consultation period, David Burrowes is urging people who feel that these proposed changes will not be beneficial to the people of the west side of the borough, to submit their objections. You can do this in a number of ways


1. You collect signatures urging the Boundary Commission to reject the proposals to split the Enfield Southgate constituency across FIVE parliamentary constituencies?



2, complete the online consultation https://www.bce2018.org.uk


3. Attend the public hearing at Romford, 31st October - 1st November, 9am - 5pm, at Havering Town Hall, Main Road, Romford, RM1 3BB



You can find more information at:




Chase Farm Charity Garden Project

on Wednesday, 28 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Chase Farm Charity Garden Project



My name is Savi Tailor and I am the Community Fundraiser for the Chase Farm Charity.


Since August 2015 we have been fundraising  to transform two under-used outdoor spaces in to specialist therapeutic gardens, which will not only look beautiful but help our patients and their families with recovery and rehabilitation. The designs have been  put together with a local architectural garden designer, with input from patients and staff. 


The Adelaide Ward Garden is designed to support dementia patients and includes a row of shop fronts and individual front gardens, to provoke memory recall and provide a stimulating environment. Dementia touches many people. There are 850,000 people in the UK living with dementia. By 2025 this number is expected to exceed one million.



“In the morning patients here don’t know what to do with themselves.

 If I can go outside and watch things grow I have something to look forward to and a reason to get up.”

 Joyce, patient on Adelaide Ward (Aug - Nov 2015)


The Adelaide Ward garden is designed to:

Support memory recollection through sound, smell and visual stimulation

 Reduce the risk of depression

 Provide a calming environment

 Decrease anxiety levels

 Increase social interaction

 Promote independence



The Capetown Ward Garden is based on a Japanese, Zen garden, providing a tranquil space for people recovering from a stroke or brain injuries.



Patients will be able to:


Escape to a quiet place away from the ward

 Measure key milestones of progress through rehab

 Take part in group gardening and horticulture therapy

 Develop muscle strength and balance

 Enjoy therapy sessions in the fresh air

 Increase motivation, self-esteem and self-confidence

 Decrease anxiety levels


The gardens are going to cost £120,000 to build, but the good news is that we have already raised £95,000, through donations from individuals and groups locally, so we are well on the way to making these gardens a reality over the next two months.


Work started on the 1st June 2016 with 5 amazing local volunteers helping to clear the gardens, followed the next week by over 55 staff from Tesco who incredibly managed to completed the task, and first part of the transformation.



We now have all block paving going in on the Adelaide Ward garden and several corporate companies coming in to start doing some of the planting up. The contractors will then move over to begin the ground works on the Capetown Ward garden,

How can you help?


Can you make a donation?

Could you organise a fundraising event for us?

Could you spare some time to help us to build and plant up the garden?


More information about the Chase Farm Garden Project and how you can help us achieve it can be found on our website:




I can be contacted at the following times:

Monday – Friday : 9:30 – 1:30pm

Royal Free Charity

Chase Farm Hospital

The Ridgeway




Direct: 020 8375 2186

Mobile: 07399 487 234


Registered Charity No 1165672 | A Company limited by guarantee | Registered in England and Wales No. 09987907


Follow us on Twitter @BarnetHospChty


Savi Tailor

Community Fundraiser (Chase Farm)

A day in the High Court exposes Mini Holland consultations as a sham

on Tuesday, 20 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community, News


A day in the High Court exposes Mini Holland consultations as a sham


Yesterday (Monday 19th September) Save Our Green Lanes (SOGL) were in the High Court seeking an injunction to stop the work which has begun on the cycle lanes in Ridge Avenue. The council put in a £2m works order to Jacobs to start "mobilisation" just one week into the statutory consultation - not after the results had been evaluated.





This was a real David v Golaith situation in Court 37 - the SOGL team, led by Constantinos Regas, a public policy expert and SOGL member pitted against Mr James Goudie QC, his legal entourage and a coterie of highways and Cycle Enfield officers, with a sometimes frantic passing of notes to Mr Goudie. What ensued was three hours of delving into the legalities of highways acts, TMOs (traffic management orders); references to 'Bob the bus' (Williams v Devon County Council, which was in the High Court and the Court of Appeal); safety concerns about bus passengers crossing cycle lanes, the concerns of Arriva bus company, Transport for London and the emergency services about how the A105 cycle lane proposals would cause congestion and slow them down.


The judge, Mr Justice Dove, was told that Enfield Council had actually signed contracts with its contractors for the first £2m whilst the A105 Statutory Consultation was running. He was read sections of the London Cycle Design Standards that confirm that the scheme design contravenes best practice and that Enfield Council had sought ways to avoid a public inquiry on the cycle lane scheme which they know to be hugely unpopular.


There was a great deal of confusion about what orders Enfield Council had made and the judge asked lots of questions to clear this up. It transpired that although Enfield Council had undertaken a statutory consultation on the Highways Act 1980 works (the construction of the cycle lanes) and the traffic management orders (which regulate their use), the council hasn't yet made the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs).


Only if the TMOs are made can a public inquiry be required. Enfield said that they wouldn't make the TMOs until the cycle lanes are completed! Constantinos told the judge that the Highways Act works were indistinguishable from the TMOs - both are required for the scheme. Mr Justice Dove described this as a 'chicken & egg' situation and questioned at what point it would be possible to raise a legal challenge. Essentially, SOGL was bringing this case too soon but by the time the scheme is completed, it could arguably be considered that the challenge was being brought too late because of the expense incurred. The judge said he wasn't empowered by the law to grant the injunction because the TMOs are not in place.


By 3.15 on Monday afternoon, the whole Mini Holland consultation process and perhaps the wider consultation process for these schemes all over London was exposed as a complete farce. The millions of pounds already spent on exhibitions, consultations, publicity etc was an elaborate smokescreen to kid the people of Enfield that they were being consulted. Enfield signed the multi-million pound works order with Ringway Jacobs just one week into the statutory consultation.


Wasn't the A105 Statutory Consultation intended to consult local people about the Traffic Management Orders?


Weren't there over 1600 objections to the Statutory Consultation?


So is this a fait accompli - a done deal?


People are now realising what this all means for them. To quote local resident Helen S:


"It's astounding that despite several other options and in the face of fierce local opposition, Enfield Council has persisted in pushing on with this farce. I can only suppose that the reason is because they can undertake work on the main roads under the guise of the cycle scheme and use the money granted from the London Mayor to effectively finance maintenance rather than find the money out of their own highways budget. SHAME ON YOU ENFIELD COUNCIL for your disgraceful undemocratic and unconstitutional behaviour".


Enfield Council sought costs of almost £25,000 but the judge said that SOGL's claim was covered by the Aarhus Convention on environmental matters and capped the liability at £5,000.

The Council was quick to put out a press release explaining that the injunction had been rejected - without explaining the circumstances of course.


Council spokesperson Andrew Golder told the Enfiield Independent that after 18 months of consultation and changes to the A105 leg meant it was finally ready for construction, and would benefit "the vast majority of people in the borough."


He said: "During Monday's hearing, the Judge made it very clear that the Save Our Green Lanes group had failed to express any grounds that had any merits. REALLY?

"Save Our Green Lanes has repeatedly failed to persuade independent judges that there is anything flawed about the A105 Cycle Enfield scheme. Instead of working with the Council to identify and address their concerns they have instead resorted to unsuccessful legal action, delaying tactics and spin in a failed attempt to prevent a major regeneration project – which will benefit tens of thousands of people – from taking place" REALLY?


"The A105 scheme has been heavily modified to reflect the comments made by people living along its route and we are confident that Cycle Enfield will transform our town centres, revolutionise transport and hugely benefit businesses in our borough" REALLY?


"The decision to proceed with the borough-wide Cycle Enfield proposals is fully supported by Cabinet." REALLY?


Read the Enfield Independent Article


The judge didn't address the issue about the works order having been signed before the end of the consultation.


What next?

Is the battle to protect Green Lanes from chaos over?

No of course not, it belongs to the local people, so the fight will go on. If you are not happy with this awful Enfield Mini Holland Mess contact councillors, in particular the leaders of this scheme, but please complain in measured tones, no abusive language please - it isn't yet the time for mass public protests.


SOGL want Enfield Council to undertake a pilot scheme using plastic barriers so that the real-world impacts can be seen.





They first made this request in December 2014 and SOGL have said that if the trial is well-designed, they will support its findings (whether positive or negative).


But will Enfield Council listen to its citizens?




What do you think? - please leave your comments

Why we need the re-instatement of Parks Police

on Thursday, 15 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Why we need the re-instatement of Parks Police


14 September 2016

An open letter to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment


Why we need the re-instatement of Parks Police




Dear Councillor Anderson,


As you are aware your recent reorganisation of the management of the Parks and your decision not to renew the contract with the Parks Police means that there is no longer dedicated Parks Police cover for all the Parks in the Enfield Borough. The previous system had worked well for many years as, although they were few in number the Parks Police did a valuable job in patrolling all the parks, working well with The Friends Of The Parks groups of volunteers. No other form of security has replaced the Parks Police now leaving the valuable assets of the Parks exposed.


Tuesday September 13th was the hottest day in September for 100 years with all the grass and woodland in the park tinder dry in the beautiful sunshine after a wonderful summer. At about 6.20 pm as I came through the woods of Grovelands Park I noticed that there was a plume of thick smoke billowing up from a fire in the middle of the open park area and I could see that a group of about 10 or 15 youths were there and that they had obviously started the fire. Barbecues and fires are forbidden in the Park and I was concerned that the fire could spread and ignite the dry grass, especially as there is a meadow nearby which is left uncut for ecological reasons to sustain the wildlife of the park. It would be disastrous of this was destroyed.


At my age (70) and being on my own I decided it would not be wise to intervene personally and now not being able to call the Parks Police, which is what we always did when there were incidents in the park, I called the office of the local police station. From that number I got an answer machine, which advised me to leave a message or call 101. With no alternative I did both but had to hang on for quite some time before I was connected to anybody on the 101 system. Whilst waiting I was treated to a pointless recorded message from Bernard Hogan Howe, which was irritating and increased my frustration at the delay.


Finally my call was answered and I explained that I was a committee member of the Friends of Grovelands Park, that there was a fire burning and that a group of boys, the perpetrators, were there and that also at the weekend we had other incidents of fires and vandalism. Several Dog Waste bins had been set on fire (why dog pooh bins?) and some fallen tree branches had been set fire to with flames reaching and scorching the branches of an ancient Oak tree .I asked, in the absence of Parks Police, could they get an officer out to put a stop to the anti social behaviour and prevent further damage. (I need not remind you that a while back we had a serious fire that had been started in the children's playground when a piece of equipment costing about £30,000 was destroyed).


The operator asked me if we needed the fire brigade and in attempt to be responsible I declined the offer of calling out Fire Engines that might have more life threatening things to attend to and instead suggested as common sense that if the police just came by they could deal with it before it spread. (Perhaps using their big boots to stamp it out if that did not require a 'Dynamic health and safety risk assessment' first!)


I was told that it would go on to the crime reporting system and be dealt with so I left the park assuming that all would be well. The next day whilst going up to the park for a prearranged meeting with the police I was stopped by a park user who told me about that the fire and that it was still burning until the morning dog walkers had put it out. I was astonished and on checking we discovered that the officer who received the report from the 101 systems had made the strange somewhat lazy decision to do absolutely nothing, as 'there was no crime'. This was clearly not true as the fire ipso facto was the crime, which is why I had called it in and one wonders what is the point of the reporting system if incidents are ignored when reported.


Fortuitously, the fire did not spread and do serious damage and I accept that the incident is fairly minor in the spectrum of Borough wide crime but it clearly illustrates the point that all members of the Consortium of the Friends Of Parks Groups have been making recently that, notwithstanding inevitable cuts, the removal of Parks Police, who would have responded, is a retrograde step.


You seem to have £8 million pounds to waste in topping up the scheme for Cycle lanes on Green lanes, which is deeply unpopular but do not have money for other services or to provide security for the very popular community parks and the people who use them. A questionable approach to priorities.


Perhaps you would advise if there is any prospect of the return of our valued Parks Police officers to provide some security in our treasured parks as it does seem that there is an increase in vandalism since the Police were stood down.


Michael J McDonagh

Event Director

Friends of Grovelands Park

There were three arson attacks on playground equipment in Grovelands Park in 2014 and 2015.



WARNING: M25 cat killer strikes in Winchmore Hill

on Thursday, 15 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


WARNING: M25 cat killer strikes in Winchmore Hill


On Monday 12th September an elderly man living in Winchmore Hill opened his door to find the body of a decapitated cat on his doorstep.


Shocked but unaware that there have been a number of similar incidents he disposed of the poor animal's body. The incident does however bear a striking resemblance to a number of attacks on cats around the suburbs of London. You may have seen media coverage of the so-called 'M25 cat killer'. Previously known as the Croydon Cat Killer, a person or persons unknown apeears to have mutilated and killed as many as a hundred cats, originally in South London but now all over London. There have been attacks on cats in Archway, Barnet, Finchley, St Albans and Walthamstowe and is now being investigated under Operation Takahe.


Google 'operation takahe' and you will find that there has been massive coverage of this sadist; there is even a Wikipedia page for the M25 cat killer

Investigations into these attacks has been co-ordinated by South Norwood Animal Rescue and Liberty (SNARL).



SNARL is a small animal rescue centre based in South Norwood, specialising in the rescue and rehabilitation of poorly treated, abused and ill cats and other animals. Set up in 2014, the two founders heard about attacks on cats around Croydon in September 2015 and began investigating them and arranging to have post mortems conducted to confirm the cause of death. Whilst there is no body in this instance SNARL has seen a photo and believes the attack in Winchmore Hill bears all the hallmarks of the other killings across London. Apparently the cat killer often returns to the same area on a number of occasions, although the attacks might be weeks or even months apart. The SNARL team are working with the Special Operations Unit of the RSPCA and the Operation Takahe unit of the Metropolitan Police, based in Croydon, headed up by Detective Sergeant Andy Collins.

Here is a link to their FACEBOOK PAGE


In the meantime if anyone in Winchmore Hill is missing a tabby and white cat since 13/9/16 please contact 07961 030064 or 07957 830490



Most of the attacks have occured at night so SNARL strongly urge cat owners to keep their cats in at night.


Try to discourage your cat from going onto the street or the front of your property


If you spot anything suspicions - someone who might be trying to befriend a cat on the street dial 101. If you are seriusly worried that a cat is in danger SNARL say it is OK to dial 999.


Contact SNARL should you come across anything suspicious or dare I say it, another case. 


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

07957 830 490 or 07961 003 064



Cycle lane road works begin - a dark day for local democracy in Enfield

on Monday, 12 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Cycle lane road works begin - a dark day for local democracy in Enfield


On Thursday 8th September, the Conservative opposition leader Cllr Terry Neville explained to Enfield Council's Overview & Scrutiny Committee why the hasty decision to approve the A105 (Green Lanes) cycle lane should be sent back to the 'decision maker' Cllr Daniel Anderson for further consideration.

The next day, Friday 9th September, notices were attached to lamposts along Ridge Avenue telling residents to move their vehicles as the cycle lane building work is about to begin.

On Tuesday 13th September the temporary traffic lights were in operation on RIdge Avenue; residents standing around in utter disbelief; traffic queuing as far back as The Green Dragon - congestion, pollution and rat running - the chaos has begun. 




1600 objections to the Statutory Consultation

Concerns raised by the emergency services?

Contracts were sigend and the curt letters to local residents and businesses telling them to remove their cars went out even with legal action pending

Makes a mockery of local democracy?


The Call In 


The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is made up of six councillors, four Labour and two Conservative, including the Chair, who only votes in the event that the vote is tied.  Given the composition of the Committee it was no surprise that the decision was not sent back to Cllr Anderson for further consideration.


Here are the main reasons given by Cllr Neville for the 'calling in' or challenging the decision to proceed with the A105 cycle lane scheme:-


Reason 1 - Insufficient Consideration of Objections

There were over 1600 objections lodged in the statutory consultation. Cllr Neville argued that it wasn't feasible that the decision maker - Cllr Anderson could have read and digested all of these objections. Cllr Anderson argued that the objections were analysed as and when they came in. They fell into four groupings:


  • Objections about the principle of the proposals
  • Objections about a common feature of the proposals
  • Objections about a specific location
  • Objections based on a technical or procedural matter


When asked to elaborate why he had taken the decision so quickly, Cllr Anderson commented "they contained nothing new under the sun".


A large number of the objections appear to have been submitted as a result of the Save Our Green statutory consultation awareness leaflet, enclouraging people to object to "the whole of the A105 cycle lane scheme from Enfield Town to Palmers Green.".  This does not in anyway devalue the responses, as residents and businesses were being helped to understand the scheme in a way that was not done by Cycle Enfield. 


Just because the objections are the same as had been previously stated - that this cycle lane will only benefit a tiny minority of cyclists and have a massive negative impact on the lives of the majority of residents and business owners doesn't mean that tier views don't have any validity?


Enfield Council cite the relevant legal principles concerning consultation (approved by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey). One of the four principles states that 'the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals.


In essence this statutory consultation was an elaborate and expensive exercise in non-demcracy



Reason 2 - Arriva Objection

Section 9 (3) (a) of The Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 specified that "a public inquiry should be held before mAking an order if its effect is to prhohibit or restrict the passage of public service vehicles along a road and an objection has been made to the order".

Arriva operate the 121, 329 qnd W6 bus routes along the A105. Arriva's Commercial Planning Manager Bob Pennyfather wrote in an email 28/7/16:

"We have no wish to impede the provision of improved facilities for cyclists but we do have to raise serious concerns about the impact on bus services of these proposals. Enfield Council publicly supports the provision of good bus services but these proposals, as framed, will have a significant impact on bus services"


Mr Pennyfather submitted a formal objection to the proposals on the following grounds:


"Parts of the A105 are wide, but parts are sufficiently narrow that reduction in carriageway width will delay buses;


We have major concerns over the introduction of speed tables or any other vertical deflection. These have a disproportionate impact on buses and their passengers, even before the constant impact of heavy vehicles coming off the deflection affects the road surface on the exit side;


We rely on bus lanes to help give some predictability to journey times, and we object to the proposed removal;


I seek clear and specific assurance that the bus stands on, or adjacent to, Green Lanes at Green Dragon Lane, Fords Grove and Hedge Lane are protected for continued use by buses.


Until such time as we can resolve these issues, I have no option but to raise a formal objection to the proposals".


It appears that Transport for London has put pressure on Arriva, because on 1 September 2016, the objection was withdrawn. 

However, on Friday 26th August when when Cllr Anderson too the decision to proceeed with the A105 cycle lane this objection still stood in place.



Reason 3 - Loading & Unloading 

In the commercial sections of the road it is proposed that "loading bays are located outside of the cycle lanes and vehicles do not need to cross them in order to load or unload. 

In the residential sections "loading gaps will be provided at regular intervals along the residential sections of the route. These are created by making the cycle lane advisory over a short distance; placing doulbe yellow lines at the kerb side to prevent parking; and introducing a loading restriction to prevent loading and unloading during peak periods. 

Section 9 (3) (a) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 specifies that a public inquiry should be held before making an order "of its effect is to prohibit the loading or unloading of vehicles or vehicle of any class in a road on any day of the week

  1. at all times;
  2. before 07.00 hours:
  3. between 10.00 and 16.00 hours; or
  4. after 1900 hours

and an objection has been made to the order (other than one which the order making authority is satisfied is frivolous or irrelevant) and not withdrawn

Enfield Council has circumvented this by making use of an Experimental Traffic order, rather than a conventional Permanent Traffic order for these loading changes. This has not been done because the Council is prepared to undertake a pilot scheme on their proposed loading and unloading arrangements, although they argue that "this will enable them to be modifie in an expediant manner in the loght of feedback and operational experience".   

Under curent legistation, there is no need to hold a public inquiry when loading and unloading changes that are made under an Experimental Traffic Order, which can last up to eighteeen months. 


Mini Holland Minutes 14.6.16 (obtained under a Freedom of Information request) show that 'measures' have been taken to avoid a public inquiry.







Reason 4 - London Ambulance Service Comments


The London Ambulance Service did not submit a formal objective, but has raised "issues/potential concerns"


  1. The reduction in the road width
  2. Managment of vehicles that breakdown and block the road
  3. Traffic that avoids main routes and use rat runs
  4. Issues around the ability of vehicles to move out of the way of 999 ambulances on route to 999 calls
  5. If congestion does increase on these routes then the potential for ambulamance service fleet to be slowed down while on duty"
Enfield Council argues that these points have been "fully considered" and that they will "continue to work with the LAS (and other emergency services) post implementation, to monitor the impact of the scheme and to identify suitable mitigation measures, if and as required".


What next?





Demolition and division in Old Park Ridings

on Saturday, 10 September 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Demolition and division in Old Park Ridings


A number of Old Park Ridings residents are up in arms because they fear that the character of their home area is changing. The large family properties at the Enfield end of Old Park Ridings are outside the Grange Park conservation area, so are not protected from redevelopment. 


In April 2016 permission was granted for 124 Old Park Ridings - which used to be known coloquially as the 'pink house', to be demolished and permission granted for "the subdivision of site and erection of 2 x 2 storey 5 - bed detached single family dwellings with mansard roof, balcony at rear and basement with habitable rooms and garage with lift access and barrier".






Yet no work has started and neighbours believe that the developer is reapplying to build eight flats on the site, although there is nothing uploaded yet on the Enfield Council planning application portal.


It appears the same developer is about to acquire 128 Old Park Ridings, providing planning permission can be granted to demolish and build eight fltas on this site. You can view the planning application here




128 Old Park Ridings



These redevelopments are not completely without precedent, as the property at 126 Old Park Ridings was demolished and the site divided into two town houses around 2006.


Further down the road, permission was granted in July 2016 to convert 82 Old Park Ridings from 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".




This former family home has seen better days and perhaps is not the most attractive property on the road.


Across N21 and beyond there is a growing trend to demolish larger houses and subdivide the land into smaller houses or blocks of flats. Is this better use of land at a time when we have a serious housing shortage or should more care to be taken to conserve these older Grange Park properties.


What do you think?


Why not leave a comment?


Save Our Green Lanes Judicial Review to go to appeal

on Tuesday, 23 August 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Save Our Green Lanes Judicial Review to go to appeal
The Save Our Green Lanes campaign group has been refused permission to apply for judicial review - on the grounds that Enfield Council does NOT have to listen to the views of its residents. In his judgment, Mr Justice Ouseley stated that the council can make assertions about safety, traffic congestion, improved local economy, etc., without evidence, even if those claims later turn out not to be true. Secondly in his judgment, the council has given us a second opportunity to make comments at the statutory consultation.
In the recent A105 statutory consultation there were a large number of objections lodged - the report on the Statutory Consultation has yet to be published, yet Cllr Daniel Anderson is intending to plough on regardless. 
The judge concluded that it is acceptable for a local authority to make claims for which there are no grounds, and to then not tell residents the truth when later analyses show those claims to be false.
The judge had gone through the claims made by Enfield for the A105 Cycle Enfield scheme in some detail, including the claim that the scheme would result in ‘a better Enfield for everyone’ During the hearing the very great gap between what was claimed by Enfield in its publicity for the scheme and the truth reported in the later impact assessments was revealed. Air quality would be worsened at many points along the A105 and any ‘regenerative’ impact on shops is likely to be negligible at best, or more likely negative.
Indeed, Mr Justice Ouseley concluded by saying that “There will be winners and losers” if the Cycle Enfield plans for the A105 go through. Despite this, however, he concluded that this did not mean that the claims made by Enfield Council during the consultation that the scheme would lead to a ‘better Enfield for everyone’ were ‘unfair’.
Despite SOGL providing many witness statements from people who had been denied access to a paper copy and from visually impaired residents who testified to the failure of the council to provide consultation materials in accessible format the judge also concluded that 'no-one who had asked for a paper copy had not received one' and accepted the council's claims that materials had been provided in accessible format to visually impaired people.
The judge also did not consider the independent report that SOGL had commissioned on air quality that found that the data used by Enfield for their air quality report had been seriously flawed and the report exaggerated the likely benefits.
Following the hearing Costas Georgiou, deputy Chair of SOGL said:
"We had supplied many sworn witness testimonies showing the council failed to make paper copies of the consultation available on multiple occasions, and testifying to the illegibility of the council's supposedly accessible format materials. The judge did not even mention these issues during the hearing, and chose instead during his summing up to just read from the report to the Cabinet – a report whose lack of accuracy has been the subject of a formal complaint to the council which remains unresolved.”
If left unchallenged the decision leaves Enfield residents facing the scheme being bulldozed through by a council that is determined to ignore the damage the scheme will cause to residents and businesses. The decision also appears to give Local Authorities carte blanche in future to make unsubstantiated claims for any scheme they decide to pursue. This potentially has wide-reaching implications for local authority governance.
Mr Georgiou said:
“SOGL is therefore appealing this decision. We also call on Enfield Council to hold an independent Public Inquiry as required by highways law.”

Putting parking outside cycle lanes is dangerous - see for yourself

on Thursday, 21 July 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Putting parking outside cycle lanes is dangerous - see for yourself


What happens when you locate parking bays outside of a cycle lane so that people have to cross over a cycle lane to get to the pavement?


ACCIDENTS - watch this shocking clip taken of a recent accident in Rusholme, Manchester. Note the cyclist riding on the pavement to avoid 'the obstruction'. The elderly lady was knocked unconscious.






This CCTV footage shows an accident actually happening





This video takes you along the Rusholme cycle route, through residential areas as well as the famous 'Curry Mile' and other local high streets. It is shown at double speed (sorry) but gives you some idea of that is proposed for the A105, Green Lanes through to London Road, from Palmers Green Libary to Enfield Town.



Most city cyclists are commuters, wanting to get from A to B as fast as possible. By putting the cycle lane alongside the kerb, inside of parked cars it is inevitable that they will come into conflict with pedestrians. 





How many cars will be crossing over the cycle lane every day?

watch this video to show that accidents are already happening



Firs Farm Wetlands Festival - a day to remember

on Wednesday, 20 July 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Firs Farm Wetlands Festival - a day to remember




July 16th dawned, warm and dry




More than two thousand people made it to the Firs Farm Wetlands, for what was a glorious celebration of this major environmental regeneration project.




 Here are a few highlights. 




 " We are always at our strongest when we are working together"

Cllr Bernadette Lappage, Mayor of Enfield


 Mayor Lappage's official charity is 'Enfield Sounds Great', celebrating musical talent across the borough.

The green space where East and West Enfield meet was full of music from noon til night.













 Wetlands means water in lots of different ways








with plenty of liquid refreshment






and activities for young and old












The political 'tug of war' continued 
watch the video to find out whether Labour or Conservatives win



the Conservatives won the tug of war but Labour won the penalty shoot up!






 Family moments, sitting in the sun



or quietly contemplating our wonderful new space 




 Congratulations to Mark Nolan on winning the Firs Farm Wetlands Photography competition


Now that the crowds are gone, peace has returned, a special to celebrate any day of the year.













Congratulations to Toni Guiver and the Friends of Firs Farm Wetlands,

with a little help from Enfield Council and Thames Water.











The A105 cycle lanes statutory consultation has begun

on Thursday, 07 July 2016. Posted in N21 Community


The A105 cycle lanes statutory consultation has begun


On Thursday July 6th Enfield Council announced the formal statutory consultation on the A105,

from Enfield Town to south of Palmers Green.

Residents who are against the cycle lanes are being given just 24 days to lodge their objection to Cycle Enfield.


Perhaps you have seen the notices on lamp posts?




 Is this designed to communicate what is happening along the route?


We are told that there will be thousands of leaflets will be distributed shortly. Here is the leaflet - urging you to object to the Draft Traffic Management Plan 


Please read - what does it tell you?




What does it NOT tell you?


* That it is planned to put cycle lanes running parallel to the pavement from Enfield Town to south of Palmers Green


* That all the street parking next to the kerb will be removed


* That the limited parking and delivery bays for businesses and residents will be located outside of the cycle lane. Where such cycle lane schemes already exist there have been scores of accidents


* That buses will have to stop in the middle of the road


* That if the cycle lanes are installed, there will only be one lane for all other traffic, so it will lead to hold ups


* That bus passengers will have to cross the cycle lane to get on and off a bus. Again there have been scores of accidents where these bus stop arrangements already exist


This short presentation is designed to take you through range of potential problems with the A105 cycle lane scheme


 Click on the image to view the leaflet















Save Our Green Lanes has lodged a judicial review with the high court, but are awaiting a decision.
Surely Enfield Council should be waiting for the outcome before launching the statutory consultation?

Why Cycle Tzar Andrew Gilligan thinks local knowledge is important when planning road schemes

on Friday, 01 April 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Why Cycle Tzar Andrew Gilligan thinks local knowledge is important when planning road schemes


In December 2009, Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor of London’s cycling tsar wrote an article for a local Greenwich website, vehemently criticising Greenwich Council’s plans to reconfigure Greenwich Town Centre.


In the article, he argues that:

 “any close examination of the proposals shows them to be damaging, if not indeed unworkable”


He goes on to argue that:

the suggested changes will only remove traffic from a relatively small part of the centre.

But they will impose extra traffic on the rest of the centre ­ and across a far wider area”

Isn’t this exactly what Mr Gilligan is proposing to do in Enfield?

In this article Mr Gilligan also expresses concern about the impact on bus services in Greenwich. To quote:  


“Most options proposed will also devastate Greenwich's bus service, hardly conducive to a car­free future.

The only one which doesn't do this will, as the council admits, lead to extra congestion”. 

So Mr Gilligan how come this isn’t acceptable for bus passengers and residents in Greenwich but acceptable for the residents of Enfield?


Under the Cycle Enfield proposals, bus passengers in our borough will be adversely affected in many ways. Bus stops are to be removed, with passengers forced to board or alight from a bus across a bike lane. There will be delays to bus passengers and other road users because of the removal of bus lanes entering Palmers Green and Enfield Town. As the A105 (Green Lanes) is narrow, buses will have to stop on the carriageway whilst passengers get on or off, resulting in a build up of traffic behind buses.


Would Mr Gilligan accept this level of disruption for bus passengers in Greenwich?

The "victims” – Mr Gilligan’s choice of words “will be local residents and nontourist businesses".

So if Mr Gilligan can understand the problems for residents and businesses in Greenwich, why is he so blinkered to the problems that his cycle lane scheme will create for residents and businesses in our local area?

Mr Gilligan pours scorn on:

 “a loaded questionnaire”

 “a public exhibition lasting all of three days, tucked away in a room down a back corridor of a building accessed via a path leading off a side street” 

“no data to back up their claims”


“They say some of the pedestrianisation options would reduce overall congestion and pollution, but the people at the exhibition admit that no modelling has in fact been done on how the proposals will affect traffic flows”

This is all starting to sound awfully familiar. Mr Gilligan do you think that these accusations could also be levelled at your cycle lane proposals for Enfield?


The people of Enfield have likewise been ‘sold’ cycling as a panacea for the problems of congestion and failing high streets. We have been told that the proposed cycle lane schemes will reduce congestion and pollution, without a shred of evidence to back up these assertions.


Mr Gilligan clearly has an in-depth local knowledge of Greenwich and can see few advantages for the proposed road scheme.  He argues strongly against pedestrianisation.


Pedestrianised streets can be bleak, particularly at night. Pedestrianisation would probably lead to a rise in Greenwich's already growing problem of drunken anti­social behaviour”


Yet Mr Gilligan seems perfectly happy to “pedestrianise” Enfield Town. If you take away parked cars and through traffic from Church Street (except for buses and cycles) almost certainly there will be a worsening the problems with antisocial behaviour and lack of footfall that already exist.


As the Enfield reader peruses the article (see link below), the parallels between Greenwich and Enfield become ever stronger.  Mr Gilligan can forsee:

 "additional traffic congestion" 

“because buses turning right at St Alfege Church and stopping on Nelson Road to pick up passengers would significantly slow down the traffic flow through the town centre, causing major jams”


With his detailed local knowledge of Greenwich, he can also predict that: 

“traffic and pollution would be spread over a wider area. Even if the total number of vehicles does not change, most drivers coming from the east and south will have to use more roads and drive significantly further to pass through the area. This means more pollution for everyone, and more traffic for many”.

Mr Gilligan can envisage that:

there will also be traffic jams in new places”

“many local journeys will become very long and convoluted” 

“more rat­-running by locals”

If Mr Gilligan can understand perfectly the problems that these proposals would cause for Greenwich, why does he choose not to understand that these are EXACTLY the problems that will result from installing segregated cycle lanes along Green Lanes, (from Enfield Town to the North Circular), Southbury Road and around Enfield Town.


Perhaps he believes that it is acceptable because it is not in his backyard. Our local area (not his) can be sacrificed for this ill conceived Mini Holland scheme.


Mr Gilligan’s conclusion?


“ Unsatisfactory as it is, the status quo remains the least worst option. The latest proposal seems yet another of the council's ill­-thought through Olympic­ related schemes. Its benefits are modest and its drawbacks far greater”


Ditto the Cycle Enfield proposals!


Enfield Council, TfL and the GLA must call a halt to these similarly ill-thoughout proposals before they inflict the problems that Mr Gilligan can so clearly envisage in his own locality.

Is hypocrisy Mr Gilligan's middle name?




This is what cycling in Enfield SHOULD look like

on Wednesday, 16 March 2016. Posted in N21 Community


This is what cycling in Enfield SHOULD look like


The Netherlands are often held up as an example of how cycling can become a travel mode for many more people. If we had cycling lanes like this who wouldn't want to use them?


However Green Lanes can't be like this, it is too narrow, the cycle lanes won't be properly segregated. 


Surely this is what the Mini Holland money should be spent on?




Councillor Daniel Anderson, who is leading the scheme has said about the Enfield Town scheme which was resoundingly rejected in the Cycle Enfield consultation:


"As we have always said we will listen carefully to what people have told us and revise the plans to best meet the community's needs – as we have done with our proposals for Palmers Green.........We will address any significant issues that have come out of these consultations and seek TfL's support in agreeing revisions, which address residents' views and concerns. Nonetheless, we remain committed to the principle behind the schemes, simply because

there is no sustainable alternative."


What changes have the Council made to meet the community needs in Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill?


Enfield Council is having to rethink the proposals for Enfield Town, surely they should also be rethinking the  A105 too?