Awaiting the results of the 'Experiment'


This Week in N21

If you don't have a plan, you become part of somebody else's plan - your guide to the Local Plan




"I love this newsletter,

I read it as soon as it pops into my inbox!"

"thanks for reminding me that we are

so lucky to live in this great place"




If you have a story about life in or around

Grange Park and Winchmore Hill,

or wish to communicate with people in the local area 

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


Community hub or crematorium:

Enfield Council must decide


Response to the Local Plan








The Fox Lane LTN consultion has closed.

Enfield Council was given an undertalking that

the LTN trial will be evaluated based on:

* Residents' views on how the benefits of the project compare against the disbenefits


* Data on the volume of motor vehicle movements in the area


* Data on the speed of motor vehicles in the area


* Impacts on the primary roads surrounding the area


* Bus journey time considerations through discussion with Transport for London


* Outcomes of ongoing dialogue with the emergency services.


Cllr Maria Alexandrou:

The chaos caused by the LTN scheme


Winchmore Hill councillor Dinah Barry

explains that LTNs are:

 "a bit more complicated than blocking off a few roads"



Stop The LTNs - Fox Lane & Enfield

Fundraising page




Concerns over 26-storey tower block

plans for Enfield Town



Read the results of the Civic Voice survey







Download the September issue



Check out who is building what near you


2021 planning applications

2020 planning applications



Local Residents Associations 

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



Gardening & green spaces


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





Winchmore Hill Community Care


more details here  

Winchmore Hill Book Club

Grange Park N21
Facebook Group

Grovelands Park
Facebook Group
Winchmore Hill & Palmers Green Memories 
Facebook Group
Winchmore Hill Families 
Facebook Group









breathe image
 Please, I can't breathe


Southgate Green a Friday afternoon, but it could be any afternoon – same congested traffic, kids playing oblivious of the fumes, traffic crawling from Waterfall Road, Cannon Hill, and the Green, all the way to Southgate Circus

How can this be acceptable?

 "Is the lack of consultation part of the problem?"

asks Bambos Charalambous in Parliament?"


"Has not that been caused by the Government's insistence that the schemes be implemented straightaway within an eight-week period, not allowing any consultation with communities or very limited consultation at best?"





"this is the road my son walks to school along"


watch the video

"does this look like better, safer streets to you?"


This ambulance could not get through to Fox Lane


watch the video








Consultation on outdoor dining

on Winchmore Hill Green




Help ensure this open space remains open

and enables people to continue to meet on the Green


Bush Hill Park councillors 

Grange councillors 

Winchmore Hill councillors







Winchmore Hill Police

Winchmore Hill Safer Neighbourhood newsletter

September 2021

Grange Safer Neighbourhood newsletter

September 2021





Are you thinking of starting a business?


Are you unemployed?





Connecting the residents of Grange Park,
Winchmore Hill
& Highlands Village


facebook logo


twitter logo






Can you help your local community?







read the article





















Stop our neighbourhood becoming a dump





PROTECT the Green Belt

and Open Spaces in Enfield






N21 Community

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?



Firs Farm Wetlands is officially open

on Friday, 11 March 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Firs Farm Wetlands is officially open
The Friends of Firs Farm are pleased to announce the official launch of Firs Farm Park, one of Europe's largest Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) schemes, wetlands and cycleway took place on Wednesday 9th March.
Enfield Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, Cllr Daniel Anderson and Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, Matthew Pencharz officially opened the project which aims to tackle pollution, prevent flooding, bring wildlife into the park and make it easier for visitors to access the area. Councillor Sarah Doyle, Associate Cabinet Member, Bambos Charalambous and representatives from Thames Water and Environment Agency, were also present.
The new £950,000 project will see whole parts of the park landscaped to create not only a wetlands area to prevent pollution, but a woodland watercourse and walk plus educational features such as an outdoor classroom and ‘dipping platform’ for schools and community groups.  To date, 30,000 tonnes of soil have been moved, over a hundred trees have been planted, shrubs, bulbs, marginal water plants and wildflower meadows have been seeded.
The new 600 metre path and cycleway, now links the east and west points of the park and provide access for all sections of the community such as cyclists, pedestrians, those with buggies and disabled people. It will be an attractive route for local children to get to and from school, and help people travel to and from their places of work.
Funding for the scheme came from the Mayor of London, Thames Water, Enfield Council and the Environment Agency.
Toni Guiver, Chairman of Friends of Firs Farm, who kickstarted the project says
“The success of the wetlands is a perfect example of how a local community can work together to achieve something amazing.  Aside from enhancing and utilizing a redundant piece of land for the benefit of the local community, it addresses a very real issue– flood relief. SUDS mimic nature and typically manage rainfall by slowing water down before it enters streams, rivers and other water courses and providing a natural storage facility.
“We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Council, Environment Agency, GLA, Thames Water and Thames 21 for their support, as well as all the volunteers from Thames Water, Sony DAB, SSE Utilities, Interlek and our local community.  We forward to further collaboration in the future to ensure the success and long term future of Firs Farm Park. “
Cllr Anderson added:
“I am delighted to open this new wetlands and cycleway and to see how the entire park has been transformed. From just a bare piece of land to over 2.4 hectares of improved space; this park is now not only a welcoming retreat for native wildlife but also for local people”.



Firs Farm Wetlands will host a major community festival on Saturday July 16th.


The Friends of Firs Farm meet weekly to continue clearing, planting and maintaining the new park. Volunteers are always welcome.


More information can be found on our website and Facebook pages  


Why are the long suffering people of Winchmore Hill not employing tactics of non co-operation? asks Robert Taylor

on Friday, 11 March 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Why are the long suffering people of Winchmore Hill not employing tactics of non co-operation? asks Robert Taylor


Robert Taylor, who has lived in Winchmore Hill all his life and is a former traffic engineer with Enfield Council Highways Department is probably more knowledgeable about the Cycle Enfield proposals for the A105 (Green Lanes) than even the Council's own officers, councillors or consulting engineers. He can marry in-depth technical knowledge of traffic management with real local knowledge of his home area.


He has written this article because he believes it is important that the residents and business owners are fully aware of what is being proposed in our local area, regardless of the wishes of local people.  

A prelude to a more formal call to action?


Read on:


At Enfield Civic Centre on Wednesday evening (March 9th) there was meeting of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee. At this meeting arguments were put forward by Cllr Daniel Anderson (Lab) and Cllr Terry Neville (Con), as to why the Council's Cabinet decision (taken on 10th February) to progress further with the A105 (Green Lanes) cycle lanes scheme should or should not be ratified.


As this Overview and Scrutiny Committee had four Labour and two Conservative voting members the result of the vote was foregone conclusion - the previous Cabinet decision to progress the scheme further was approved. Naturally this does not mean that the bulldozers will be moving in to Green Lanes today. Local government does not work like that! The next stages of the process will be the publication of the legal Traffic Orders. Any written objections to these Traffic Orders must be considered by Enfield Council.


In practice only new objections, which have not previously been submitted to the Council, will only considered. This will, of course, make it difficult for anyone to raise objections to the scheme because most of its predicted adverse effects (of which there are many) have already been brought to the Council's attention - and often ignored or just brushed aside.


By that time the election for a new Mayor of London will probably have been held and the odds are that either Zac Goldsmith (Conservative) or Sadiq Khan (Labour) will be the new Mayor.


If it is the former there is some hope that he might insist that Enfield Council go back to the drawing board. The reason for believing this is that he is knowledgeable about Mini Holland schemes because one is planned in his Richmond Park parliamentary constituency. However it has not encountered anything like the problems that have occurred in Enfield. This was because the Richmond cycling schemes, unlike the Enfield ones, have been designed in such a way that local peoples' views were really taken into account.


Unfortunately Zac Goldsmith has not made an absolute commitment to stopping Enfield Council's present A105 scheme if he were to become Mayor. Specifically has not said that he would undertake to ensure that a new design was produced which not only complied with the diktats of the overbearing TfL organisation but was also fully in accord with the wishes of local residents and businesses. But he might well do so if enough local people made it clear to him that this is what they would like him to do.


On the other hand, it seems to the case that if the new Mayor of London were to be Labour's Sadiq Khan there would be very little chance that he would do anything at all to stop the Labour controlled Enfield Council from proceeding with its current A105 scheme.


Boris Johnston, the current London Mayor, has recently written to David Burrowes MP, stating that the only further consultations that are now necessary for the Green Lanes cycle lanes scheme to go ahead relate to the details of environmental improvements in Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill (Probably he has The Triangle in Palmers Green and the section of Compton Road near to the junction with Green Lanes in mind).


He suggests that these designs should "be developed in conjunction with the local community through co-design workshops this spring".

The question now arises if anyone who lives in the area should actually co-operate with Enfield Council by participating in these proposed "co-design workshops". To do so would only serve to help to legitimize one aspect of the overall cycle lanes scheme that the Council is trying to impose on local people and businesses that overwhelmingly do not want it to be constructed. Why should anyone be of any assistance at all to an overbearing Council which has treated local peoples' views with such contempt?


Possibly some people might hold the view that this is a rather extreme position. The answer to that view is to point out that it is exactly the same tactic as the one used by the Enfield Cycling Club and the London Cycling Campaign in relation to the referendum organised by David Burrowes MP, at the end of last year, which showed that 75% of local people were opposed to this scheme.


Obviously those two organisations were (quite rightly) so worried that this referendum would produce results that would be unhelpful to their case that they refused to co-operate with David Burrowes by providing him with statements expressing their support for the cycles lanes scheme - and he had to use their previously published material.


Why should we long suffering Winchmore Hill people not employ the same tactics of non co-operation?



Robert Taylor

If you wish to contct me please leave a comment in the box below. The comments are moderated and not shown live.

Letter to mayoral candidates about Cycle Enfield

on Thursday, 03 March 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Letter to mayoral candidates about Cycle Enfield


Dr Linda Miller, who is Chair of the Enfield Town Residents Assocation has written a letter to the the two mayoral candidates Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith, asking for their views on the Enfield Town cycle lane proposals

Here is Sadiq Khan's reply - will be honour this commitment now that he is Mayor of London?



I want to be a Mayor for all Londoners and central to that is making London a greener, healthier City and improving opportunities for cycling are important in delivering this ambition.

Schemes such as Mini-Hollands are designed to be transformational and there is an important role for public consultation so that changes can be made if necessary, and groups such as yourself listened to. I am really glad you've been active in raising issues and it's important that all views are taken into account when deciding on a scheme that will benefit Enfield Town and its residents - it must be a workable scheme that takes into account the needs of disabled users among others.



I understand that the Enfield Town section of the scheme is still being considered and that the London Borough of Enfield and Transport for London are reviewing the proposals in light of the consultation responses and you would expect them to bring forward a final scheme that is workable, benefits residents and that takes into account the needs of disabled users among others.



My manifesto, which was published recently, included a commitment on cycling Quietways, which are continuous cycling routes running through parks, alongside waterways and down quiet backstreets – to broaden London's safe cycle network. I also am committed to completing the roll out of current town-centre cycling improvement plans, and beginning a new round of schemes. But in all this, the needs of local residents affected by the schemes must be paramount, in particular disabled residents. We must learn from the recent cycling schemes across the city, and make sure we do not repeat the same mistakes.



Yours sincerely,


Sadiq Khan


Labour's Candidate for Mayor of London



Dear Mr Khan


Invitation to provide written statement for circulation to residents in Enfield


I am writing to invite you, as the two main Mayoral candidates, to provide a short statement for circulation in the Residents Newsletter sent out weekly to members of the Enfield Town Residents Association. You are probably aware that in the last Mayoral election Enfield was one of the boroughs that voted for Boris Johnson.


Enfield residents will be particularly keen to hear from you as Enfield is one of the boroughs selected to receive funding under Boris Johnson's 'Mini-Holland' funding stream. While none of us are against initiatives to ensure safer cycling facilities, in Enfield we find ourselves confronted with proposals that will worsen bus services, deny access to the town centre to blue badge holders, cause real problems for local businesses and re-route 10,000 additional vehicles through a road in one of our conservation areas.


Regarding bus services


The schemes include proposals to remove a bus lane along a main access road and, in our main shopping street, to hold all buses in a single segregated lane unable to overtake. As there are 50 buses an hour on services along that road at present, stopping at three bus stops, you can imagine the very detrimental impact that this will have on services.


Problems for businesses


The proposed changes will cause problems for businesses too; over fifty shops in the town have no access other than through their front door, and the proposals very much limit local parking and loading facilities.


Local businesses have overwhelmingly rejected the proposals because of the real difficulties these plans will cause them with deliveries; indeed one large business has called the plans 'a threat to our investment in Enfield Town' .


No parking for blue badge holders


At present blue badge holders are able to park in the main shopping street and the two adjoining main roads in Enfield Town. There is additionally a single parking bay for disabled people. Under the plans all parking is to be removed, including the disabled bay; blue badge holders will be allowed to be set down in loading bays but will not be able to park. Obviously this is only of use where a disabled person is driven by a companion; furthermore we question whether any socially aware individual would consider the idea that being dropped off in a loading bay was an appropriately dignified way to treat people.


Traffic will be made very much worse in a residential area


Under the plans all through traffic will be routed away from the main shopping road and onto a road in one of Enfield's conservation areas, doubling traffic and air pollution. The reason for these changes is to enable two, two-metre wide cycle lanes to be sent along our main shopping road. Disabled people are being excluded from the town centre to benefit the fittest members of society.


Furthermore the changes will not actually improve cyclist safety – the main roads involved in the scheme have seen no reportable accidents involving cyclists for at least the last three years (in other words, they are already amongst the safest in the borough). Yet this scheme was selected by TfL for £4.3 million expenditure as part of the borough's Mini-Holland proposals.


Did it have to be like this?


No. Following their selection for funding London Borough of Enfield in fact put forward six alternate design options. There was one that had the support of residents, businesses, churches and community groups. This was 'option 4', which put the cycle lanes along the parallel residential road now destined for traffic chaos under the current proposals. It avoided problems for shops. It did not require disabled people to be 'cleansed' from the town centre.


Why didn't Enfield take this option forward?


Because TfL, under the direction of Andrew Gilligan, rejected the option as being insufficiently 'transformational' In reaching this decision they paid no heed to the needs of residents or any other group other than cyclists.

Enfield residents have just overwhelmingly rejected the options selected by TfL for Enfield Town in a consultation. All residents associations in the borough have expressed their opposition to the plans. Nonetheless Enfield appears intent on proceeding with the plans because, according to the Lead Councillor for the scheme, "it is the option that TfL will fund".


So we have a situation in which residents and businesses are being confronted with proposals that will bring them no benefits and in fact will significantly damage quality of life, economic viability and public transport. It is fair to say that this is the over-riding concern for residents and businesses at present. It is one of the key issues in this area that will decide how people vote on May 5th.


I am therefore writing to invite you to provide a statement outlining your position on the Mini-Holland plans to help inform our residents' voting decisions. In particular we seek your views regarding:


  • Whether you will continue to approve the TfL Mini-Holland grants or call them in for review


  • Whether, if you decide to continue with these grant allocations, you are willing to re-consider the options on the table in Enfield and seek 'win-win' resolutions that will benefit residents and shops as well as cyclists?


  • Whether you will instruct TfL commissioners and administrators to take the needs of disabled people into account when approving all future proposals for infrastructure change, including those funded under the Mini-Holland schemes?


Yours sincerely,

Dr Linda Miller

Chair, Enfield Town Residents Association



We await a response from the two candidates

Should you wish to write to them about the Green Lanes proposals or any other matter, their emails are

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

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



Historic England do not support building of a school in Grovelands Park

on Saturday, 20 February 2016. Posted in N21 Community


Historic England do not support building of a school in Grovelands Park


In 2014 Enfield Council applied to Historic England for pre-application advice on proposals to build a new primary school within the old boudary of Grovelands Park, with access to the site from The Bourne in Southgate. Here is a link to the proposals





The council received a reply on October 29th and The Grovelands Residents Assocation acquired a copy from Gary Barnes, the officer responsible for the project. The key paragraph is on page 5:-


"Historic England strongly discourages your Authority from pursuing the option of developing Grovelands Park for school use. In the event of an application being made on the basis of the existing information currently available, Historic England would object to the proposals".



"Grovelands Park, and the house at its centre, are heritage assets of the highest significance,and represent a rare surviving landscape of two of the most pioneering Artists of the 18th century: Humphry Repton and John Nash. The proposals for a new primary school on an area of significant, but degraded parkland have not in our view been adequately justified as required by National and Regional Planning Policy, and have the potential to cause irreversible harm to the grade II* park and the grade I listed villa at Grovelands. Historic England is not currently persuaded that the public benefits would convincingly outweigh this harm, and is unable to recommend that your Authority pursues this as an option for meeting school place requirements within Enfield"


You can read the letter in full here


The Grovelands Residents Association who have been monitoring the proposals, report that that a high level meeting between the council and Historic England in December 2015, at which  it was agreed that if the council carried out some further tasks, Historic England would reconsider its position. These tasks include demonstrating that there is no alternative site for a school and that the presence of a school would not be a bar to obtaining Heritage Lottery funding to assist with the wider Grovelands estate."


The GRA note that "Historic England also rejects the argument that the Bourneside land was of no significance in the Repton design. The council's argument is that the original drive was further to the east, joining the road somewhere near the bend opposite Bourne Avenue (which may well be true though this is largely based on a few contemporary records rather than physical evidence). Furthermore, the eyes of visitors to the house would have been drawn towards the lake and valley, thus the land on the other side of the drive was comparatively unimportant. Historic England rejects this line of argument, pointing out that Repton aimed to use the wider landscape as part of his design and that the house was sited in such a way as to take advantages of wider views to the north and east".


For more details, please see the Grovelands Residents' Association website.


In February 2016, The Lime Trust, a Multi Academy Trust, based in Essex advertised a public consultation in relation to the building of two new primary schools, on the Chase Farm deelopment site and in the "Grovelands area".  However, the Grovelands project has disappeared from the Trust's website. 





Further information may be available following the consultations, to be held at the Dugdale Cente, on February 22nd, with meetings at 10.30am, 1.30pm and 6.30pm