CAMPAIGNERS say the lack of transparency at the way Cycle Enfield has been funded is “frightening and shocking”.
Resident John Callen could not get a straight answer when he asked Enfield Council how much it would cost to improve the drainage on the A105 cycle lane.
The authority told him it could not say until the end of the financial year.
He said: “It is really frightening and shocking that they seem to be avoiding these questions.
“What financially responsible company manages their funds in this way?
“It feels like they are treating resident with disdain for asking for answers.”
Enfield Council will be spending £7.6 million on the controversial renovation of the A105 in the Cycle Enfield project.
The breakdown of this funding means that £6.4 million is coming from TfL, and the remaining £1.2 million is provided by the borough’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP).
In a separate Freedom of Information request submitted on November 10 last year, Mr Callen requested that the council outline how much money was going towards the scheme and who was providing it.
Enfield Council replied saying £42 million was being put towards the scheme, with £30 million coming directly from the TfL mini-Holland budget.
But the remaining £12 million was not outlined in the same way – and will come from Enfield’s LIP, contributions from TfL Overground and cash raised from “development taking place near one of the cycle routes”.
The authority, however, denied this means money has come from private investors.
Mr Callen then made an official complaint demanding to know how much of Enfield’s LIP was put aside for the programme and what contributions, financial or otherwise, were being put forward by external providers.
Each borough is required to set out its own LIP to improve transport networks including road maintenance, bridge strengthening and traffic signal modernisation.
In emails to Mr Callen, Enfield Council has stated further funds are available from private developers under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act but have not disclosed whether there are private investors.
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows local authorities to grant planning permission on land which would otherwise be illegal.
This is commonly used to secure affordable housing, but can also restrict the use of land or can be used to levy periodic payments to the authority.
They have stated that the project is not being funded by council tax of Enfield Residents.
Works were undertaken to improve the drainage for both the cycle lane and main carriageway, instead of shutting the road and disrupting travel in the future.
Mr Callen added: “I just find it absolutely disgusting that the council are not trying to answer the questions they are being asked.
“They have been sold all the toys in the cycle lanes toy box and are ploughing ahead with the scheme, regardless of what residents think.
“No one is against cycling and making it safer for cyclists, but there is almost a religion built up around cycling which shields it from criticism.”
Enfield was one of three outer-London boroughs to be awarded the hefty sum by TfL.
The Enfield Independent requested comment from Enfield Council.