Local Plan 2021- Submission by Councillor Stephanos Ioannou

Draft Local Plan-

Submission by Councillor Stephanos Ioannou of Southgate ward.


Introduction and Outset

This is my response to the Draft Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation 2021.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important consultation. I am very concerned about the numerous examples of projects which will affect the Green Belt land in Enfield. This space is invaluable and once it’s gone it won’t be coming back. There has obviously been a lot of concerns raised by Enfield residents about these plans and I respectfully add my voice to those valid concerns. I am also concerned with the plans in respect to high-rise developments and how this might be achieved through the council working collaboration with supermarkets to free-up parking space in return for more housing. I believe that overall, the plans are not fit for purpose and that this does not serve well the residents of Enfield and particularly those in Southgate which I represent.

These comments are not just my own, but also the comments residents have also asked me to pass onto the relevant department for their consideration, therefore these comments come from other members and groups in the community.

If I may make a general point first, it is hard for residents to comment on the consultation as a whole because it is presented in the form of a large number of documents with no guidance on how they relate to each other, or on which are principally technical papers and which are statements of proposed policy.

I am used to dealing with complex topics and if I find the papers and the process impenetrable, so probably will many others many others. A consultation presented in such a ragbag fashion is a poor consultation, likely to attract comments only from the truly committed rather than more typical residents.

I am writing to object to a variety of draft policies.  

1. I am writing to object to the following Policies: SP PL10, pages 80-87, and Figure 3.11; Policy SP PL9, pages 77-80 and Concept Plan Figure 3.10; Policy SA45: Land Between Camlet Way and Crescent Way, Hadley Wood, page 364; Policy SA54, page 374; and Policy SA62 page 383 and SP CL4 pages 277-279:

All of which propose the redesignation of Green Belt for housing and other purposes.
These sites are part of historic Enfield Chase, which is unique in the southeast and played an important role in the development of Enfield. It is a rare and valuable landscape asset, and its loss would cause permanent harm not only to the Green Belt, but also to the very character of the borough.

2. I also object to Policies SA62 page 383 and SP CL4 pages 277-279:

Because they transfer part of Whitewebbs Park, a public amenity, into private management. I reject the Council’s analysis that Whitewebbs Golf Course was losing money and call for its reinstatement.

3. I am also objecting to Policy SA52 page 372:

Which would remove part of Rammey Marsh, a wildlife area and public amenity, from the Green Belt.

4. I am also objecting to the tall building policies on pages 156-160, Figure 7.3, Figure 7.4 and Policy DE6, and SA2 Palace Gardens Shopping Centre page 321:

I absolutely abhor the Encouragement for tall buildings, including in sensitive locations such as the town centre conservation area (see pages 156-60, Figure 7.3, Figure 7.4 and Policy DE6, and SA2 Palace Gardens Shopping centre page 321). A higher quality version of figure 7.4 is also available, showing proposed maximum building heights across the Borough. 

There are many reasons to be sceptical of the proposals for more high-rise blocks in the London area, and particularly here in Enfield. I will list just a few:

Security: Unlike a traditional house on a street, a lot of the public space in and around a tower block is not overlooked by residents. Crucially the entrances to tower blocks are often concealed – there are no twitching lace curtains to put off would-be thieves and muggers. The absence of so called “defensible space” means that tower blocks can be frightening places to walk in and out of – the fear of crime in such places is often worse than the reality. And because it is unclear who is responsible for the space around tower blocks, that space is often abused with litter, abandoned cars and graffiti.

Anonymity: The sheer number of people coming in and out of tower blocks means that residents do not question the presence of strangers. In privately run blocks security can be vastly improved by the employment of a porter, but such a luxury is usually out of the reach of cash-strapped councils.

Location: Tower blocks are only really popular when they are located in fashionable areas. For example, while Erno Goldfinger’s Trellick Tower in Notting Hill is very popular, Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower in unfashionable Tower Hamlets is loathed. And try telling the residents of Park Hill estate in Sheffield that they live in a modern masterpiece.

Families: High-rise living is particularly unsuitable for families because of the absence of outside space. One of the reasons that tower blocks have such a bad reputation is that councils placed so many families in tower blocks against their will. The reputation of tower blocks may begin to change if people have more choice about where they live. Doubts will remain, however, about a building type that is only really suitable for those without children.

5. I am also objecting / supporting mentioned policies on pages 64-65, Figure 3.7:

Objection to (2): should deliver new homes including through high density development that also preserve key views of the station. This may include tall buildings only in acceptable locations as identified in policy DM DE6 Tall buildings and Figure 7.4 (and any updating successor).

There is a clear objective by the council and its administration to see areas like Southgate become concreted over with high-rise developments.

Whilst I recognise the need for additional housing in the borough, I thoroughly object to the suggestion for high rise buildings in places like Southgate.

May I also bring to the attention of officers the recent decision by the planning committee to reject proposals for such high rises at Southgate Office Village, after the community made clear the concerns ranging from character, impact on cultural heritage in the circus area, in addition also to the effect on the skyline. Moreover, there was a clear communication from Heritage England on the effect it will have from Groveland’s park and how the skyline again will be impacted.

I do not need to go more deeper into this case as the planning documents and the reasons for refusal by the committee were clear and published. Given this precedent has been set I would encourage the council to look at such decisions before resurrecting the failures of the past.

I would also like to mention the clear conflict of goals mentioned by the council in this document. To be specific point (2) conflicts with (3D) (3E) (3A).

Referring to point (3D) the type of buildings in Southgate is that of semi detached or detached housing going into the Meadway, Oakwood and Groveland’s estates therefore the conflict here regarding high rise buildings is clear.

Referring to point (3E) the exact refusal of Southgate Office Village which its intentions was to promote high rise dense housing was partly because of the lack of existing office space in the area, and the issue that this development would take the last remaining significant office block in Southgate out of action.

Referring to point (3A) I need not to go deep, in that again the department for planning recognise and must respect the Grade II listed status of Southgate Tube and thus must not seek to distort the surrounding area in favour of housing targets. We must show respect for our town centres and Southgate’s unique character must be preserved.

Support of point (4) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Support of point (5) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Support of point (6) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Support of point (7) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Support of explanation point (3.6.3) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Part Objection of explanation point (3.6.4) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Officers and those drafting the plan are trying their best to subtly introduce the word high rise into points made in the section for Southgate, once again I reiterate my comments above that the decision for Southgate Office Village sets a major precedent against the plans for high rises in Southgate. This must be respected, and the council should drop this comment.

Major Objection of explanation point (3.6.5) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

May I echo many residents’ concerns in having to now contemplate the building on top of supermarkets, therefore worsening their shopping experience in Southgate all together and adding yet another layer of inconvenience.

On a more serious note, there is no guarantee from supermarkets that they would be willing to see such construction on their sites, again due to the impact of customer experience, but also in what respect will the council look to partner with the council on such schemes? Enfield council have clearly struggled in prior development schemes such as Meridian Water for example, hence such foresight is if anything too ambitious when the council cannot even work on schedule for its existing developments. There is no real obligation by supermarkets to work in partnership with local authorities on such causes- hence the council might want to be careful when partnering up with profit seeking groups like supermarkets.

When supermarkets were contemplating their original construction, I am sure their sole purpose was to satisfy shoppers and not the local authority and their goals / targets. Therefore, the intentions of the council to work in partnership is actually a little too ambitious, as the common values of business and citizen satisfaction i.e. ASDA and Enfield Council goals for Southgate in this case are far apart.

Support of explanation point (3.6.6) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

Support of explanation point (3.6.7) in the Draft Strategic Policy SP for Southgate

I would also like to refer to one resident who made the following point in relation to the distribution of a leaflet by the Leader of the Council Nesli Caliskan:

“To be fair, the uncertain nature of the projections is recognised in some of the more technical Local Plan documents, but it is conspicuous by its absence from the headline statements, where these can be found, or from Councillor Caliskan’ s “Future Enfield: Enfield homes for Enfield people” leaflet distributed to households a few weeks ago.

However, the discussion of future housing need in the documents is very heavily influenced by the housing targets set by central government and the GLA. The demographic contribution to the future need is of course related to the uncertain household projections discussed above. A large chunk of the targets which government has been trying to set is due to central government’s use of formulae which place great stress on affordability, essentially based on average house prices in an area with average wages of those working in the area, wherever they live. Affordability of rental accommodation is ignored; of course, there is a relationship with house prices, but it is not a simple one.

This culminates in the statement in Councillor Caliskan’ s leaflet that the government would like us to build 4,397 homes per year. This appears to be taken from central government calculations consistent with what was probably the most mutant of their formulae in December 2020. However, they dropped this formula in April 2021. The figure of 4,397 was dead in the water at this point and should not have been used in any documents prepared after this point, including Councillor Caliskan’ s leaflet. Some might think that the purpose of using the figure make anything significantly less seem like a good result or compromise for the borough.

This means that it is probably the worst time possible to be committing to plans for the next twenty years. There is a real danger that Green Belt is given up or unsuitable tower blocks built because it is assumed that the projected growth is bound to happen. If it doesn’t, we have ruined parts of our borough for nothing.”

6.I am also objecting to DM BG10 in the Draft Enfield Local Plan. This allocates Firs Farm Wetlands (Site ID SA59) as a site for burial and/or crematorium use. I oppose this policy because: 

Firs Farm wetlands is a vitally important community resource, essential to the health and the draft Policy directly contradicts Strategic Policy SP CL4 in the draft Local Plan. This identifies Firs Farm as facilitating and contributing towards developing sport and leisure facilities in Enfield. 

The proposal will significantly affect the local Site of Interest for Nature Conservation and reduce the biodiversity and nature conservation interest of Firs Farm wetlands, contrary to several other policies in the draft Local Plan. 

The proposal will reduce the effectiveness of the flood alleviation provided by Firs Farm wetlands, which Enfield Council has spent more than £1 million to provide. 

The proposal will adversely affect the environment and local traffic, and this has not been properly considered in the Integrated Impact Assessment of the draft Local Plan.

The policy introduces uncertainty into the future use of Firs Farm wetlands that jeopardises funding for projects secured by local community groups (e.g. from Thames Water) that have been endorsed and supported by Enfield Council. 

I now move over to my recommendations:

  1. Does the vision for Southgate set out an appropriate vision for the future of this place? If not, what components do you think should be changed or are missing?

The vision for Southgate from the outset is extremely vague in the areas that bare some positive comments, please see reference to my points above which I agree with. With that said I am surprised to see officers focused on the more significant changes in the area, focusing mainly on high-rises instead of the wider more significant issues which I will mention in more detail below. I believe the below points have been mainly left out or not commented on in enough detail:

  • Cleanliness of Southgate

There is a serious perception that this council does not take pride in the cleanliness of the local area, this perception must change if we want to attract quality shops and shoppers to our area. In turn with a good high street will come happier residents, and with that I feel that we must look to clean up Southgate once and for all

  • Green in Southgate
    The point about open spaces was very vague, and I feel officers have let down residents and councillors with recent actions such as the implementation of parklets on Chase Side. Many residents feel they take up unnecessary space, congest the pavement, and do not add any green value to our high street. Many residents expressed that they feel planters, hanging baskets, SUD’s and even vast flowerpots where the pavement widens outside CYNERGEY BANK would have been more beneficial. Also mentioning the green space outside NANDOS which has been left neglected.
  • Art in Southgate
    As a home to a local college and a high concentration of primary schools in the area there is a unique opportunity for the council to collaborate on cultural projects with schools. For example, street art on walls, and council funded painting schemes that have brought about the colourful zebra recently on Chase Side. Generically speaking anything to brighten up and colour our street is welcome, and this again was left out
  • Congestion in the Southgate Circus area
    Many residents are appalled by the way in which the council has not addressed the issue of congestion in Southgate which has only been getting worse in the last two years. Winchmore Hill Road, Chase Side and Bourne Hill as well as High Street have seen more congestion- note all these key roads have recently experienced even more congestion due to the introduction of the LTN’s which have exasperated the issue. I therefore ask the department to look for a solution to make Southgate a pleasant commuter spot for both motorists and those who use public transport and rely on bus routes into our town. May I also ask the department look to suspending the LTN scheme to relieve the area of extreme congestion, and in addition to come up with a new scheme that will stem the flow of traffic on Southgate roundabout.
  • Farmers Market in Southgate- Something unique…
    We must be more creative in our approach and one of the ideas which really stood out from one resident was the idea of closing Minchenden Car Park for a timeframe during the week, maybe even the weekend, and utilising it for farmer use. This will add another element to our town and attract a new type of custom that will be unique like the market in Enfield Town. The space is there, the setup is possible, and the benefits will be better economic activity for our local area
  • Parking in Southgate
    If we are to talk about helping our local shops then we must take the decisive step and give an incentive for local shop owners to give their customers complimentary parking. I am talking about a scheme where council authorised coupons are delegated to shops and provided to drivers who shop local. Half an hour free parking for local shops will dramatically transform the fate of our high street which can get a boost of confidence, and shop owners will feel we are trying to support them post pandemic.

    Moreover, the council must seriously look at the way in which delivery companies have been neglecting our high street parking bays along Chase Side. Many shoppers and residents are beginning to desert out centre as the availability of parking, and the way in which delivery drivers on motorbikes dominate the scene have made the centre unattractive to shop. Many shop owners also are talking about packing up and going online because of this reason. We must now instigate a discussion whereby the council must make it mandatory for bikes especially outside McDonalds to sue their loading bays behind the store on Crown Lane to mitigate this negative effect.
  • Festivities for Southgate
    I am not surprised to see the council not meeting the attachment to culture when it comes to festivities. Southgate is home to a large Greek, Cypriot, Turkish, and even Jewish and Chinese community. The council does not make the effort to celebrate the communities which make our area, and I would advise the council to look at celebrating with its communities’ events such as Orthodox Easter, Hannukah and even Chinese New Year. With the progression of social media and cultural awareness we must look to celebrate and advertise that Enfield council recognises the contribution made by communities in Southgate. May I add other parts of London, such as Barnet, celebrate Hannukah with a placement on Golders Green Square. Also closer to home is Cockfosters who do the same. This should be pan-borough schemes and all areas should celebrate with other wards.

Conclusion:

Council officers will be reading my comments above, and may I make it clear that these comments although from my document are mostly compiled of views of local residents which I have moulded into a wider viewpoint. Most of the issues mentioned are bread and butter issues where the council if they just kept the place clean, tidy, green, then I am sure in turn the respect by businesses, residents and passers by will be far greater than is currently the case. We must therefore work to resolve the most basic of issues before we progress onto major projects, and I hope officers will listen to the points I believe have been missed out. On a more serious note I am heavily concerned with the views on high rise developments and I hope the departments relevant will note that prior applications have been met with much opposition by local residents and councillors who all voiced heavy views against the development. The plans also for ASDA are concerning as both parties (business and council) do not have shared interest therefore this ambition could just be a la-la land idea in an ideal where that businesses will partner with councils to make genuinely affordable homes.

MEQ- Hugh Myddelton House, 25 Old Farm Avenue, LONDON, N14 5QR. [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Original Email from resident:

Not looking for a response to my complaint yet. It’s a given that people do tend to attempt a holiday this time of year  But. Meanwhile the abuse of our good nights sleep by the bin lorries continues Yesterday was awakened at 6:20 AM.

Please don’t think this complaint will go away. I might be dying of cancer but I will pursue this issue till my last breath. Literally.

Just as a reminder the current problem is:

Can I just confirm back with you that the Environmental Planning department are washing their hands of this issue as it would appear to involve the Council’s own waste collection team?

Are local authority waste collections exempt from Planning Law?

Do you think that palming off this problem with generic email contact address is an appropriate response to a local tax payer with stage 4 cancer that is having his sleep disturbed on a weekly basis by his local authority with no attempt by that authority at redress other than passing the problem back?

Where do I go to escalate this parlous response? Because I am going to escalate until someone, somewhere takes effective action.

I would have thought simple enough questions to be answered?

Best regards,

Response:

Dear XXXXX,

Following on from my previous email, I have spoken to Barchester and I can confirm that the waste collection was the Council collection. For this reason I will refer your latest complaint to Waste Services.

Yours sincerely

MEQ- Crown Lane…

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Cllr Ioannou,

Thank you for your recent enquiry about the state of Southgate Ward.

The Waste Enforcement Team has informed me that weekly inspections are carried out of Crown Lane and the surrounding area by Waste Enforcement Officer, XXXXX.

Any waste found is inspected for evidence and formal enforcement action taken where sufficient evidence allows. Recently, XXXX has been paying particular attention to the area at the rear of the old Maze Inn, on Crown Lane and Ashfield Parade, due to an increase in the number of commercial premises placing black sacks of waste out illegally.

Businesses in Southgate (specifically Chase Side, Ashfield Parade, Crown Lane, Southgate Circus, Tudor Parade and High Street) have previously been made aware of their responsibilities in relation to their commercial waste, with trade waste investigations having been conducted by the Commercial Compliance officers within the last 18 months to ensure all businesses within the locality have arrangements in place. XXXX liaises with the litter wardens, who also visit Crown Lane and surrounding areas three times a week and inspect black sacks for evidence. The heat map below shows how many Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued by the litter wardens in Chase Side, Crown Lane and Ashfield Parade for fly-tipping offences within the last month

The rear of Ashfield Parade is private land and is cleared routinely by the managing agent. XXXX works closely with the agent to obtain evidence, allowing for investigation and often formal enforcement for fly-tipping offences by the residential bins.

Black sacks deposited next to the litter bin on Crown Lane will be investigated as fly-tipping, however investigations are ongoing regarding presentation of commercial waste by businesses in both Crown Lane and Ashfield Parade. XXXXX will be issuing notices to businesses in due course. Once sacks are inspected for evidence, they are referred to the Street Cleansing team for removal.

Street Cleansing are responsible for the removal of flytipping on the public highway only. They have had additional flytip clearance teams working across the borough during the period of the pandemic as we recognised that being at home, people produced more rubbish. 

Some of these extra resources are still in place now, this enables them to visit most public highways within the Borough on a daily basis Monday to Friday, with one team at the weekend to cover emergency fly tip reports. Their teams try to look for evidence in the rubbish when they see that it is likely and if found, they will send photographs to the area Waste Enforcement Officer to take the appropriate action whilst still removing the dumped waste.

I hope this answers your enquiry.

Kind Regards

PAVEMENT RENEWAL SCHEME Road Name: Queen Elizabeth’s Drive N14 – Phase 4 (No.80 to No.106 – Both Sides)

A section of the above road has been identified for pavement renewal. Please see the attached letters (which includes a plan) that will be delivered to residents shortly, notifying them of the works and how to apply for a dropped kerb for vehicles.

The work is scheduled to start on Monday 4th October 2021 and will last for approximately 8 weeks. The scheduled dates could be subject to change due to any unforeseen circumstances.

For further information on pavement renewal schemes, please see Road and Pavement Maintenance.

MEQ 31692 Oakwood Park Road overgrown walkways [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Original Email

Dear Department,

Having gone down The Vale, Oakwood Park Road and Oakwood Avenue it is clear that the shrubs need some attention and cleaning up given the recent weather has mean they have grown quite fast.

I therefore ask the department when we can expect a crew member to visit and sort out the overgrown bushed on the roads mentioned and also at the entrances to oakwood park

Response

Dear Councillor Ioannou,

Thank you for getting in contact and sharing your enquiry, I do trust that you and your family are well.

The service has returned back in house, operating as part of the overall park’s service. We can confirm that a team will visit the areas highlighted as an issue and reduce vegetation and cut verges.

Recent weather has impacted on the growth rate, however this is considered a short term situation.

Yours sincerely,

streetside hedge in east London town

Carriageway Improvement works – Newsholme Drive, N21 [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Councillors,

CARRIAGEWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME: NEWSHOLME DRIVE, N21 (HIGHLANDS AVNUE TO OUTSIDE NO. 15 NEWSHOLME DRIVE)

As part of Enfield’s £6.5m investment for 2021/2022 in the Borough’s highway infrastructure, the above section of road has been identified as requiring resurfacing.

The work is scheduled for : THURSDAY 1ST JULY 2021

The scheduled dates could be subject to change due to any unforeseen circumstances.

Please find attached a copy of the letter explaining the works in full detail which is due to be delivered to residents.

Regards

Carriageway Improvement works – Pennington Drive, N21 [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Councillors,

CARRIAGEWAY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME: PENNINGTON DRIVE, N21 (MOYNIHAN DRIVE TO TRESILIAN AVENUE)

As part of Enfield’s £6.5m investment for 2021/2022 in the Borough’s highway infrastructure, the above section of road has been identified as requiring resurfacing.

The work is scheduled for : FRIDAY 2ND JULY & MONDAY 5TH JULY 2021

The scheduled dates could be subject to change due to any unforeseen circumstances.

Please find attached a copy of the letter explaining the works in full detail which is due to be delivered to residents.

Regards

LTN CONERNS- MEQ

Email sent by Department:

Dear Cllr Ioannou,

Thank you for your email. I have saved Ms XXXXX comments as a response to the Fox Lane and Surrounding Streets Quieter Neighbourhood consultation.

You may wish to forward on this link to the monitoring plan which shows that data will be collected on Wynchgate as part of the monitoring of the impacts of this trial.

Kind regards,

My (Stephanos) Response

Hi Liz

Thank you for the email and the link which I have had a quick look at. I have some concerns:

  1. The LBE ½ on WHR could be placed further up preferably before Reighly Way. This is where the traffic typically starts since the trial of the LTN and moreover the current pinpoint on WHR is only next to Crowland Gardens which is- in my opinion- pointless as it wont gather significant data as the jams are rarely there
  2. I feel that there should a minimum of three LBE ½ on High Street, Winchmore Hill Road and also Chase Side. The traffic starts on these arteries coming up to Southgate Circus and this is where the issue has been exasperated since the introduction of the LTN scheme
  3. Can I also ask why the department are so eager to put 7 LBE ½ point just around the Medway area? I think people now having become more aware since receiving unjustified fines that the area is a no-go-zone via the Medway hence these points seem pointless… unless if the department just wants to simply prove less cars are going to be going through which will indeed be the case but he traffic will be moved to the boundaries of the scheme

I hope you had a good bank holiday weekend

Thanks

Response by Department:

Dear Cllr Ioannou,

Thank you for your email.

To clarify your questions, we have assumed by “1/2” you mean “traffic count location”. We will refer to these as “Automatic Traffic Counts” or ATCs in this email.

ATCs are one of a few streams of data we are collecting to monitor traffic during the trial. The primary purpose of the ATCs is to review volumes of traffic and their speeds. For consistency and to enable comparison of data, we have placed ATCs in the same location as when data was collected back in 2018 and 2019 prior to the project’s implementation. This means we are limited in our ability to shift the sites. This is the case for Winchmore Hill Road, where the ATC is located close to Crowland Gardens. The site will nevertheless capture all vehicles at this location, the majority of which would also be picked up if the site were located closer to Southgate Circus (as they travel along the length of the road). We have however reviewed the ATC  locations based on public feedback and added some sites where we can. These are noted as the blue/cyan symbols on the monitoring map. Placing a number of sites on the same stretch of road would not provide us with significantly more information.

Another stream of traffic monitoring is via bus journey times. Bus journey times are of course impacted by congestion and as buses travel along the roads you have suggested, and other primary roads in the area, we are able to seek insights of travel times and therefore congestion via this data. The data is reasonably detailed, enabling us to look at particular sections of a route, including pinch-points on the network around key junctions.

With regards to your third question, these sites were identified back in 2018 and 2019 so that each road within the Quieter Neighbourhood area could be assessed before and after implementation. We do anticipate these volumes to be low as you say but it does help to inform us about how traffic volumes have changed in the area. Traffic data is collected both to monitor impacts on other roads and to assess the effectiveness of the trial against the project objectives.

Kind regards,

Vehicles parking in the taxi rank at Ashfield Parade N14 [SEC=OFFICIAL]

This exchange is on behalf of the Southgate Police Team who asked for assistance in asking why the council have let the situation of parking on Ashfield Parade get so out of hand:

Original Email:

Dear XXXX,

Firstly I just want to say thank you for your email and even more thank you for taking the time to get involved and bring up these issues which affect our area. Like you I get really annoyed with the issue as some believe the parking rules don’t apply to them. Never the less I think it is important also you made these points because I can go to the department responsible and ask why enforcement isn’t being carried out enough

Dear Parking Team,

The issue raised here by Charlotte is not uncommon, it is something that I have asked the department on numerous occasion and never really get a progressive response. My points really are:

  1. If the department is aware that people are parking illegally down the taxi rank of Ashfield parade, why haven’t the department looked to increase the concentration of wardens in the area to ensure motorists are ticketed much more quickly and are thus disincentivised to this again next time?
  2. If the department do not wish to pursue this rank issue, they why haven’t the council looked at my solution prior where I asked for a sustainable urban drainage system (SUD) or put it more simply a green section to cover and takeover this disused rank?
  3. It is common knowledge that the ranks are not being used. The only ranks being used are on chase side and the Southgate station parade. Ashfield and Bourne avenue are literally almost never in use- I can almost say this is a fact. Now I am aware the mayors policy is not to decrease the number of ranks, but surely we can see the logic here and take either option one or two above to avoid the strip being misused?
  4. Can the police not working with Enfield parking services to at least better the stretch of road? I am happy to meet with both parties and we can discuss there?

Response

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Cllr Ioannou

Thank you for your email.

Ashfield Parade has been highlighted as a parking problem and NSL have made an effort to make more visits.

I can confirm that since 1st April this year 340 visits have been made to Ashfield Parade and 45 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued to vehicles for being parked in the taxi rank.

Extra visits will continue here for the foreseeable future however I’m sure you will appreciate this isn’t always easy when the volume of parking complaints seems to be increasing generally across the borough.

With regard to removing the taxi rank altogether this is something the Traffic team would need to consider, their email is ‘traffic@enfield.gov.uk’.

I hope this is of information.

Regards

Enforcement of residents parking bays, Chase Rd, N14 [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Original Email:

I live at XXX Chase road, N14 6XX. Every day since before the first lockdown there have been numerous contraventions of the residents parking bays. i.e., un permitted vehicles, vehicles with covid permits etc.

The residents don’t see parking enforcement officers between Hillside Grove and Mayfair terrace. When we call to complain, we can’t get through to Crown Lane ( NCP) parking office.  I have been in a queue for over an hour, listening to music and nobody answers the phone. This is a regular occurrence.  Enfield parking services are only operating from 9 am until 12 noon Monday to Friday. 

Why aren’t the council enforcing the restrictions?

Why aren’t NCP answering the phones?

Why have the hours been reduced at the council parking services?

Why do residents have to keep trying to complain about the lack of service?

We pay from £110 per year for a service that isn’t been enforced and this is for over 18 months and probably close to 2 years. 

The weekends will be worse after the pubs / restaurants are fully operational as Saturday evenings are really bad because of the Hart pub at the top of Chase road.

Last night I was walking home from Southgate station and I had to walk in the middle of the road as there were approximately 6 cars parked on the pavement opposite the Hart pub. 

When are the council going to address the issues raised here?

Yours sincerely

Response:

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Cllr Ioannou

Thank you for your email and I am sorry to hear that it is felt that the parking contractor is not providing an adequate service.

Since the end of lockdown the Parking Enforcement Team have received an unprecedented amount of complaints specifically in relation to schools and general enforcement issues such as obstruction of driveways.  It has been a challenge to ensure all complaints are responded to however we do endeavour to do so and monitor the contractor on a daily basis.

The NSL Parking Shop telephone line, 020 3856 0036 is an extremely busy line and staff there have to not only take phone calls but also deal with the public attending the Parking Shop too. 

The Council’s phone line is not an instant response service and it was a departmental decision to reduce the phone line hours to enable them to attend other duties. Requests for enforcement however can be made to the Parking Team via email as well as phone at ‘parking@enfield.gov.uk’.

383 visits have been made to Chase Road, N14 since 1st April this year and 30 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued which confirms that extra visits are being made.

I will remind NSL to keep this on their list for extra enforcement particularly near the pub and between Hillside Grove and Mayfair Terrace.

I have copied Mr XXXX in on this reply for his information.

Regards