Bid to ease car park 'anarchy' at the Arena has stalled

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 26, 2009 at 9:07

Useful observations Caroline, but I can't help thinking that stupid decision or not, the Council didn't do its job properly. It failed to foresee the traffic chaos (and this didn't need a crystal ball) or anticipate the huge downside for the people of Harringay. Neither were we consulted on the decision to grant planning permission.

So, to me it's fairly evident that the decision process ignored local interests and failed to effectively look at the consequences fro traffic in an area already plagued by traffic flows well above average. There were other choices and mitigating action could have been taken.

But, I guess the point is that we are where we are and for the Council to in effect try and wash its hands of the affair at this stage is a disgrace. They should be getting stuck in and ensuring that a solution is found ASAP. We are now almost two years down the line with only a half solution kind of imnplemented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony on February 26, 2009 at 10:13

I agree with Caroline, if cars are allowed out of (and it only seems to be out of, not into) Arena more easily then they will cause greater disruption on green lanes (and surrounding roads). It maybe that there is a majority of HOL members who use Arena by car and therefore want to be able to get easier but I for one do not. A longer green light out of Arena means a shorter green light along green lanes.

As I see it the main people who suffer from the disruption currently are people who shop in Arena by car. I do agree that maybe the access wasn't thought out propoerly originally but other than shutting the shops down I can't see how that can be solved now. The shops are there and people want to travel to them by car. I do agree with Hugh that the council should be getting involved more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james walsh on February 26, 2009 at 10:47

The only reason to visit arena with a vehicle is to pick up large/heavy building products from homebase and to transport heavy shopping loads from sainsburys. of course there is a petrol station as well. otherwise, arena is almost the same as wood green high street. buses could have easily serviced all of arenas customers.
Have you been on the W5 that services sainsburys ? what a pity it is always empty due to the brain numbingly slow progress into/out of arena.
has anyone seen the fist fights between frustrated drivers ?
i notice that ten yellow jacketed staff are needed to police the traffic. apart from being next to useless in their job what is it costing to pay their wages per week and who is paying ? surely this money could be better spent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on February 26, 2009 at 23:09

" The only problem I can see with charging is that it is a policy supported by the Daily Mail (allegedly)! "

- and would be opposed by Sainsbury's et al because it would reduce the number of customers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 26, 2009 at 23:20

Now there's the rub. You really do need to read some Jared Diamond. If they CHARGED for the parking they could get more business. The easing of congestion may encourage people to go there who are prepared to spend more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james walsh on February 27, 2009 at 0:12

Check this - Arena macdonalds

Attachments:

• morning sunlight clock 002.jpg, 704 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on February 27, 2009 at 6:14

Middle-class bourgeoisie you mean ? :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 27, 2009 at 0:14

I don't know what's preventing the implementation of the new scheme. But Hugh's suggestion about the Council's role is obviously sensible. It is entirely appropriate that a local council offers to 'broker' an access/traffic agreement among private businesses and landowners.

So I didn't read the same thing ias Hugh in the "council spokeswoman's" comments in the Hornsey Journal. Isn't "working to resolve the situation" precisely what is being promised? I haven't heard that Haringey Council is trying to "wash its hands of the affair". Or is there information I don't have, Hugh?

At the risk of boring everyone, can I also suggest there might even be a place here for a U.S. style Good Neighbor Agreement. I've mentioned this before on HoL. And also given some links on one of my Flickr pages.

Finally, can I also raise the issue of how we - meaning the Council and the community - can support local businesses. Yes, including a branch of Sainsbury's.

A lot of people who talk 'green', still prefer to use their cars for many routine tasks. For example, when loading-up a week's family shopping; or going out late at night to a film or restaurant. Or even when popping in to the local dry-cleaners with an armful of clothes.

Isn't a key question about charging and traffic restriction policies whether they facilitate traffic flow. Or whether they have an unintended consequence: literally - driving people away to places like Brent Cross and Lee Valley Tesco with their big free - and accessible - carparks?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 27, 2009 at 0:28

Thanks Alan; as always a thoughtful contribution.

Here's what the quote said:

"This is a private matter between Wildmoor Properties and Sainsbury's PLC, which requires private agreement. The council will continue to use everything in its statutory powers to work to resolve this situation. The use of the council's exceptional powers of compulsory acquisition has not been ruled out"

I took that to mean something like:

It's a private issue which Sainsbury's and Wildmoor need to sort out themselves. It's beyond our statutory powers. If there were something we could use our powers for we would and ultimately we might even use compulsory acquisition".

I'd say at best it's an ill-considered quote. At worst this is a political game of blame shifting. Whatever the case, I would welcome a statement from the Council which confirms that they are actively and aggressively involved in what you sensibly describe as entirely appropriate 'brokering' of an access/traffic agreement among private businesses and landowners.

This is pretty much two years down the line, Alan. I'm not hearing any sense of urgency or determination to get the thing fixed. If I've misinterpreted what's been said, then please let the appropriate person correct me and explain exactly what the Council is doing. I'd be the first to applaud their actions - as I have done with a good number of other officers and members.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james walsh on February 27, 2009 at 0:29

As a car owner i am drawn to Alans ideas. hugh ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 27, 2009 at 0:52

Thanks, Hugh. The way to find out what officers are actually doing is to ask them directly. I suggest an email to Niall Bolger the Director of Urban Environment, requesting an urgent response. Post both your email and his reply. Although to be fair to Mr Bolger, and from all the comments I've read about The Arena there's no simple solution to the problem. But that's a reason to try harder - not give up.

I'm especially interested because we have a similar problem with the Hale Retail Park just south of my ward. And traffic problems near us are likely to get a lot worse if and when the "Hale Village" development is ever completed and the Hale Wharf plans are progressed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on February 27, 2009 at 1:14

You may be right. On the other hand, one might take a view that the Council should be keeping us informed without our asking. It's hardly news that I and many of my neighbours are interested. I think that's pretty much understood, Alan.

But I may well take a deep breath and write yet another mail to the Council and hope this is one of the lucky ones that gets a reply. (Although, in the interest of fairness I should point out that some departments are very responsive............and some most certainly aren't).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page