We asked, you said, we did

Read more about this engagement

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on our minor amendments to the Burnt Oak North (BON) Controlled Parking Zone (HA8) in order to address local parking concerns.

You said

We received 13 responses from approximately 3344 properties, which equates to an overall response rate less than 1%. As the changes made were minor in its capacity, this level of response was anticipated.

2 respondents objected to the minor amendments directly. 11 respondents either sent an enquiry, objected to the scheme as a whole or responded to the update emails that were sent relating to measures that were previously implemented.

We did

Based on the feedback received we will be making the minor amendments permanent on 24 February 2025.

The minor experimental amendments being made permanent are:

• existing shared use bays in Orange Hill Road, Deansbrook Road, Watling Avenue, Grange Road and Fortescue Road changed from ‘Resident permit holders and Pay by Phone’ to ‘Permit holders and Pay by Phone’.
• shared use bay outside no. 35 Abbots Road.
• single yellow line within a parking bay in Orange Hill Road, which operates between 8am to 9.30am and 3pm to 4.30pm
• loading bay (Mon-Fri 8am-6.30pm) in Deansbrook Road outside the parade of shops
• double yellow lines and inclusion of North Road Estate and Brearley Close into the BON CPZ.

The proposed double yellow lines in Market Lane have not been implemented, however this will be reviewed at a later date.

We have written to residents detailing the outcome of this consultation. You can read this letter here.

Read more about this engagement

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on one scheme proposals within Area C. We asked for whether residents thought that the schemes would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area C.

You Said

We received 58 responses to this engagement.

C1: Peel Link Connection

• 60% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area C
• Concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour
• Potential issues with parking from commuters/ non-residents
• Improve the existing short-cut with timber bridge which suffers from flooding and fly tipping

We did

• The proposed link be lit with CCTV provided and overgrown vegetation trimmed.
• If parking is identified as an issue following implementation, the Council will consult on local parking controls w.
• The current proposal is to provide a permanent direct, safe and accessible link to serve communities to the north and south of the rail line.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on five scheme proposals within Area B. We asked for whether residents thought that the schemes would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B.

You Said

We received 23 responses to this engagement.

B1. Colindale Avenue corridor improvements: Pasteur Close to Roundabout

• 78% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B

B2. Colindale Avenue corridor improvements: A5 to Colindale Station

• 83% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B
• Concern over the lack of controlled crossings at Colindale Avenue/ Edgware Road

B3. Aerodrome Roundabout enhancement

• 78% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B
• Concerns about flooding on the Aerodrome roundabout

B4. Aerodrome Roundabout enhancement

• 78% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B

B5. RAF Museum entrance

• 78% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area B

Area B General Comments

• Poor surface quality, narrow footway
• Narrow width of bridge outside Colindale Station resulting in overcrowding on footway.

We did

B2. Colindale Avenue corridor improvements: A5 to Colindale Station

• The Council is delivering a separate scheme to improve crossing facilities at the A5 junction.

B3. Aerodrome Roundabout enhancement

• Surface flooding will be managed on the roundabout using sustainable drainage systems to provide additional capacity.

Area B General Comments

Footways will be resurfaced and widened on the northern side to improve access to the Colindale Station

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on six scheme proposals within Area A. We asked for whether residents thought that the schemes would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A

You Said

We received 29 responses to this engagement.

A1. Improved walking routes: Bristol Avenue to Blundell Road and Lanacre Avenue

• 83% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A
• Important to consider safety for those using the park at night linking to Colindale Station
• Improved surfacing, lighting and landscaping will be welcome.

A2. Watford Way pedestrian connection

• 66% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A
• Route may be potentially longer than on Aerodrome Rd
• Is there CCTV proposed in underpass?
• Poor quality of pedestrian footways in the area

A3. Booth Road traffic calming

• 72% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A
• Suggest extending 20mph on all of North and south Colindale
• Booth Road is not too busy and doesn’t require traffic calming which may displace traffic to nearby streets.
• Traffic calming will not be observed by drivers

A4. Heybourne Park to Montrose Park Walk

• 72 % of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A
• Potential Issues with antisocial behaviour in Montrose Park if linked to Heybourne Park

A5. Walking and cycling link to Mill Hill Broadway (East - West)

• 55% of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A
• High levels of traffic on Bunns Lane
• Step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway Station required
• Consider direct bus services from Colindale to Mill Hill Broadway.

A6. Walking and Cycling link to Mill Hill Broadway (North-South)

• 52 % of respondents agreed that this would improve public spaces and improve active routes around Area A

We did

A1. Improved walking routes: Bristol Avenue to Blundell Road and Lanacre Avenue

• Existing lighting to be upgraded where appropriate subject to funding
• Footways will be resurfaced, and landscape features introduced to improve drainage and make the route pleasant.

A2. Watford Way pedestrian connection

• The proposal will improve an existing link which feels isolated and overlooked.
• CCTV and lighting will be investigated in the subway subject to funding
• Footway Improvements and trimming of overgrown hedges proposed outside subways.

A3. Booth Road traffic calming

• The introduction of an area-wide 20mph speed limit is outside the scope of this project.
• Booth Road serves as an alternative route for the A5 although it is a residential street. Traffic surveys indicate that Booth Road receives about 5,000 vehicles a day.
• We will provide suitable traffic calming features with appropriate spacing that will encourage compliance.

A4. Heybourne Park to Montrose Park Walk

• We will trim back overgrown hedges and upgrade lighting to improve personal safety.

A5. Walking and cycling link to Mill Hill Broadway (East - West)

• We will widen footways on Bunns Lane to provide a shared use facility for pedestrians and cyclists
• Works within the station is outside the scope of this project.
• Bus services are managed by Transport for London who have been consulted on the proposals.

Read more about this consultation.

We asked

We asked for your input in order to help shape the council’s new Data Charter, including your views on the council’s processing of personal data; our open data; and what makes a good customer information request service.

You said

We received 22 responses to the online questionnaire.

73% of respondents had used the council’s information services.

Around a third of all respondents had submitted an FOI request to the council at some point.

Suggestions and comments related to the new Data Charter included:

• Making sure older and digitally excluder residents can access data - for instance in libraries
• I would like to be able to understand the structure of the council.
• it might be worth considering whether you could publish statutory returns teams send to Government Departments
• I would like to review the underlying data teams use to back up their consultation proposals, so would be good if that data was available on the portal and flagged/tagged in some way/linked to Engage Barnet
• Comparisons to other, equal-sized boroughs
• If the charter is too restrictive or authoritative and it could hinder democracy and allow Barnet departments to hide behind The Charter.
• Adequate training of staff so they fully understand how to keep people's data safe and private
• Important to look at from the residents viewpoint.
• No single person employed by Barnet should have the power to exercise complete control over its data.
• Making sure older and digitally excluder residents can access data - for instance in libraries
• I would like to be able to understand the structure of the council.
• it might be worth considering whether you could publish statutory returns teams send to Government Departments
• I would like to review the underlying data teams use to back up their consultation proposals, so would be good if that data was available on the portal and flagged/tagged in some way/linked to Engage Barnet.

We did

We have reviewed the responses and these, along with results from related focus groups, will be incorporated into a final report that will inform the final Data Charter, which we aim to publish early in the 2025/26 financial year.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed schedule of Non Executive Fees and Charges, to be implemented from January 2025.

You said

We received two responses to the online questionnaire. One of the respondents made a comment and the comment was:

• The fees should increase rather than the cuts to council tax support. Non-Executive fees are paid by people who can afford it because of the choices they make. Let them pay the costs of the budget.

We did

We reviewed the responses; Council approved the proposed the Non Executive Fees and Charges. The executive fees and charges were authorised under the delegated authority of the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Resources and Effective Council. The responses were also reviewed in this Decision - Authorisation for the proposed Non-Executive Fees and Charges for 2025(External link)

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed schedule of Executive Fees and Charges, to be implemented from January 2025.

You said

We received 25 responses to the online questionnaire. 25 of the respondents made a comment and the comments were:

• Social care
• This is very difficult to understand
• "What does “appointeeship “ mean?!!
• I believe that £2,000.00 per annum for ALL social care would be very fair "
• I do not agree with the charges being proposed for social care or care within the home.
• Against the idea
• no
• It is hard for people who are on benefits to pay these charges. Especially older people on pension credit. Please consider NIL or lower rates for such people. For example a green bin collection - there is a lower charge for younger people on benefits but not people on pension credit. If you keep putting up the charges, people will not be able to afford to use the services. Perhaps have an all inclusive simple package for cremation fees for those on benefits. Thanks
• please do not increase the price
• "Most of these people, like my son rely on pip and eesa.
• He doesn't have savings and in honesty if we had to pay, I would end up looking at residential which I am against. I am a nurse and struggle as it is.
• Assisting tech covers speech devices, this is their only form of communication, I m sorry but to take that away is discriminating.
• At present, respite is hard to get unless you are on a safeguarding.plan, so would mean less respite for other users as you d cut back unless at risk"
• I support the proposed increases in fees and charges. The council needs to be able to support its services by recovering costs
• The Family contribute 50% towards the care of my parents. They have no way to provide this themselves. Adding another cost to us will be hard to bare as the cost contribution is from family that also have to support themselves and young children
• Social care charges must not be increased. These are the most vulnerable and poor people in our community. They are not getting the increased 4/5% inflation raise on their incomes so these increases will push more people into poverty, and poor Disabled people into destitution.
• I do not think the proposed changes are a good idea. We pay enough council tax and people who receive care are already struggling and do not need to be burdened by increased charges.
• I personally cannot afford to pay any fees whatsoever as hardship is already bitting too deep
• Very disappointed and concerned by the proposed changes to adult social care charges.
• What a wonderful time to be increasing fees- just before the Autumn budget which is said to cut benefit to even the most disabled people. What great timing - when the disabled, like myself, are terrified as to what the future holds as it is. Brilliant.
• I disagree with the charging as I believe that adult social care is a fundamental right and should be accessible to everyone who needs it regardless of their financial situation. If you start charging, people will avoid seeking necessary support and it will lead to deterioration in health which will cause increased pressure on the NHS.
• We understand costs are rising - however this will reduce income to the poorest during the cost of living crisis.
• outrageous how can anyone afford these
• Resigned to increases
• No increase in fees and charges

We did

We reviewed the responses; Council approved the proposed executive fees and charges. The Executive Fees and Charges were authorised under the delegated authority of the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Resources and Effective Council. The responses were also reviewed in this Decision - Authorisation for the proposed Executive Fees and Charges for 2025(External link)

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Colindale Avenue and West Hendon Playing Fields.

You said

There were 31 comments on the Colindale to West Hendon Playing Fields section of the Barnet Loop.

• 25% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 9% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 16% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 6% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 10% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 9% requested provision of cycle parking and storage
• 25% provided other comments (importance of cycling in the park, value in connecting green spaces in Colindale, more vegetation required at some parts of the route)

We did

We will improve signage and pedestrian crossings. We will also reduce parking obstructions. We will use data on occupancy and patronage to guide these changes.