Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Campaign against Wightman Road closure
Spotted in a local shop window..
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
So what is the point of the funding question? Let's say you are right and the council won't pay a dime. What does that mean then?
-
-
Nothing happens without money. The Council have bid for money from a fund that encourages applicants to match funding. The Council aren't matching the funding which reduces the likelihood of the bid being successful.
-
-
Then you should be delighted for per what you say, it is more likely than not that nothing will happen. Rather, or in addition to, posting here, you should consider approaching would be funders like TFL to advocate they do not get involved with the council on this project.
Here is the non-committal statement I got from the council on funding:
The study is currently focused on developing feasible options to help address the traffic and safety concerns identified within the study area, and you will be pleased to know that a proposal for a £350k bid was included within the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) submission for 2017/18 related to the outcomes of this study. If awarded, this would help to deliver short term outcomes of the study. There is a potential for similar amounts in the 2018/19 and 2019/20, making a total of circa £1m.
Additionally, we are exploring all available sources of funding to help implement these improvement measures.
-
-
It has always been the case that "it is more likely than not nothing will happen". I spoke to colleagues at the Council where I work (not Haringey) about the TFL bidding process. The first thing they asked was "have they put up any money of their own". I answered "no". Then they asked "how badly do they want to do the project". I answered "I don't think they really want to do it at all". So they'll put in a crap bid deliberately was their summation.
-
-
The upshot of your view is that this whole Green Lanes Study/Initiative is window dressing, a dog and pony show, what have you.
If so, the question is, why bother? I mean it's clear to me a fair amount of work has been into the matter by the council so far--why bother to pursue a highly sensitive issue for PR, or something else like that?
The only thing I can think of is that the "minimum intervention" was always the likely route of action but they needed to hide that foregone conclusion in a quite elaborate way. I just can't get fully on with that thinking.
-
-
-
Knavel,
I'm not quite as cynical as that. I think the Council acknowledged there was a traffic problem and they engaged the traffic consultants to look at possible solutions in good faith. But it seems to me that the consultants quickly established what everyone already knew, which is that there are no easy solutions and the hard solutions don't fit in with current Council policies primarily around the regeneration of Wood Green.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Stillman on
-
antoinette and knavel, ive been told that the project was started off by a council cabinet member who was very open to making real change to harringays traffic. he then resigned and the new person isnt interested in the project and so its not being taken seriously. under the circumstamces potentially a huge waste of money.
-
-
-
That could ostensibly be verified if the case. The resignation in question would (should) be a matter of public record.
-
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
I think the bid has already been successful.
I found this document which has details of the Council's bid for 2017-18 including the first tranche of £350K for delivering the Green Lanes Area Transport Study outcomes.
And I found this document which appears to be a confirmation letter from TfL confirming that the bid was successful.
Incidentally, as far as I can work out the council tends to spend its own (council tax) money on maintaining existing roads/paths/street lights, and applies for LIP (Local Implementation Plan) and other money from the TfL (also developers) for other projects such as reconfiguring junctions, schemes to promote walking and cycling etc.
It is not a requirement or even normal for the LIP application to include council money. I'm sure it helps, but the main criteria for being granted the money seems to be compliance with TfL/mayoral objectives such as promoting walking/cycling, reducing pollution, improving streetscapes etc.
Plus there are other sources of funding. For example S106 (developers’ contributions towards the costs of providing community and social infrastructure, the need for which has arisen as a result of a new development taking place - plenty of scope for that I would think), Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (another source from developers), and specific Council and TfL schemes for major projects or cycling/bus related schemes outside LIP.
-
-
My interpretation of the letter from TFL is that they are confirming that the bid was a valid one not that the bid was successful. After all, if the Council knew back in December 2016 (the date of the TFL letter) that the bid was successful they wouldn't be saying in their letter to residents dated 3rd April 2017 that "A bid for £350k was included within the LIP funding applications for the 2017/18 financial year. If successful this would help deliver short term objectives of the study."
-
-
My interpretation is that the budget has been allocated by TfL, no doubt there is a review process once the detailed plans are finalised (awaiting the outcome of the current engagement program and possibly further consultation). You'll know more about how local authorities work than I but I'd be very surprised if having been given a budget allocation the council now submitted detailed plans for a "crap bid" as you put it, in the hope it would be rejected?
-
-
-
Joe, that's just double talk. The bid isn't successful until the bid is successful. As of 3rd April 2017 the Council's interpretation of the letter of December 2016 was that the bid was not yet successful.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
