Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Local Transport Implementation Plan Consultation - Ends 8th November
There are 3 references to Wightman Road in the draft Local Implementation Plan (LIP):
The first two consolidate the perception that it is Council policy, in contravention of two of the Mayor's Transport Strategy Goals, to see and use Wightman Road as no more than a traffic pressure valve for Green Lanes, not as a significant residential component of the Harringay Ladder Neighbourhood.
This view is reinforced by the absence of representation from Wightman Road residents on bodies such as the Green Lanes Strategy Group. There is no specific mention of measures to address residents' concerns in respect of environment or safety.
Notwithstanding these inadequacies, the LIP2 process provides an opportunity for a significant improvement in quality of life for Wightman Road residents through:
I attach some of the LIP2 documents and a discussion document addressing residents' concerns and the LIP2.
- the junction with Turnpike Lane
- the Railway Bridge
- the possibility of a new bus route] and one reference to investment [bridge maintenance].
The first two consolidate the perception that it is Council policy, in contravention of two of the Mayor's Transport Strategy Goals, to see and use Wightman Road as no more than a traffic pressure valve for Green Lanes, not as a significant residential component of the Harringay Ladder Neighbourhood.
This view is reinforced by the absence of representation from Wightman Road residents on bodies such as the Green Lanes Strategy Group. There is no specific mention of measures to address residents' concerns in respect of environment or safety.
Notwithstanding these inadequacies, the LIP2 process provides an opportunity for a significant improvement in quality of life for Wightman Road residents through:
- Recognition and acknowledgement of impact of current and future council policy on Wightman Road and of issues which concern residents
- A stated shift in vision to recognise Wightman Road as a significant residential component of the Harringay Ladder/Green Lanes Neighbourhood.
- Planned proactive enforcement of current provisions in respect of vehicle speed and weight across the Harringay Ladder neighbourhood to improve safety and ensure success of 20mph zone
- Enhanced dialogue between residents, traders, Safer Neighbourhoods Team (Police), councillors and officers specifically addressing status and development of Wightman Road in the context of its neighbourhood
I attach some of the LIP2 documents and a discussion document addressing residents' concerns and the LIP2.
Tags for Forum Posts: LIP2, Road, Wightman, consultation, noise, pollution, transport, vibration
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Paul you are absolutely right. The traders would like Green Lanes to be a pedestrianised boulevard with plenty of parking nonetheless. The council seem to play Tony Blair to their George Bush.
Just comparing a journey in Harringay using Green Lanes as opposed to the same stretch of Wightman tells you that they have pretty much already achieved this (although all last years DEATHS were on the same little stretch of Green Lanes).
What can stop this? Are we to petition forever? I thought we had elections every four years...
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Paul, is this £1.2m on your horizon also?
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
The Exec. Summary outlines 1.245 million in three tranches from 2011 to 2014. I know little other than that gleaned from the LCSP.
An on-going grouch is the undemocratic and frustratingly arrogant approach to these matters taken by the Chair of the Green Lanes Strategy Group which seems to have sway in these matters.
Although the new Neighbourhood maps in the LIP documentation make it clear that the Harringay Ladder extends from Green Lanes to the East Coast mainline, so if the Green Lanes corridor money - the £1.2 million - is for the Neighbourhoods either side of Green Lanes to address the 6 MTS goals then there should be money for enhancing the quality of life of residents this side and improving their safety and security.
There is mention of the idea of 20mph for all residential roads ala Islington. There is also over £1.1 million projected for 'DIY Streets' low cost home zone treatments in three areas.
-
-
I was at one of the kick-off meetings Paul and I asked what's included in the area of benefit defined as the Green Lanes Corridor. Northern and southern limits stretch from Turnpike Lane south to the borough boundary; east-west is less well defined. The answer from Urban Initiatives suggested that it's not fixed but that current thinking is the closer to Green Lanes, the more likley is an initiative to happen.
The suggests to me that as far a Wightman is concerned, it's very much worth getting in to the conversation.
That's strong language on the GLSG Chair, Paul. To be fair, you ought to clarify what your complaints are and what is the basis for them.
-
Permalink Reply by TTTH on
-
I submitted some comments and they said they would get back.
"Dear Mr Bannon,
Sorry for the delay but we have had several simultaneous consultations to manage, so the mailbox has been very busy.
I will get a response to your questions about the Alroy Road crossing issue and will contact you again within the next couple of days with detailed responses to your other points.
Regards
Greville
Greville Percival
Senior Consultation Officer
Transport Policy & Projects
River Park House, 225 High Road,
Wood Green, London N22 8HQ
Tel: 0208 489 1326 M: 07803 714263
It's been over two weeks now, I've prompted them many times and still no feedback. Great consultation!
-
-
I disagree Hugh. To be fair the democratic basis and constitution of the GLSG needs to be clarified and publicised if, as it seems, important discussions are occuring, and influence on spending is being exerted, through that body. There's no objection to a group of well motivated and civically minded individuals getting together to form a view and lobby, but that should be separate - and be seen to be separate - from spending decisions. The answer to which you elude from Urban Initiatives gives added credance to the views already expressed about the Council preferences for favouring Green Lanes at the expense of Neighbourhood areas to the West. It also flies in the face of the idea of Neighbourhood and demonstrates either a total lack of joined up thinking about traffic flow or a deliberate policy as previously suggested. Oh, in the previous post I neglected to mention the £2.9 million for a major Wood Green town centre scheme. Is it time for another feeding frenzy for the pavement replacement companies? And £65k for resurfacing Warham after the winter - well if the appalling traffic scheme east of Green Lanes were removed then Warham could go back to being the relatively peaceful side road it should be. But are we treading on too many politicians collective interests in suggesting that?
In respect of the LIP or the Green Lanes corridor programme - it's the same thing. The spending is not one or the other and neither should the decision making be.
-
-
Not sure what you're disagreeing with Paul.
I agree that the democratic basis of GLSG needs clarifying and have said so many times, but you've made a strong personal statement about the Chair that I think ought to be complemented with an explanation.
As far as the substance of the issue, I can't see that we're in disagreement.
-
-
Hugh, and who is in a position to perform that clarification? And why is it down to an individual contributor on HOL to call for that clarification? Why haven't the members of the body demanded clarification? The Chair has discretion, as you know, to invite participation in a broad inclusive and representative fashion in order to maximise the legitimacy of the process and the decisions made, and to ensure that any charges of lack of transparency be negated. The interests of residents impacted directly by decisions made pertaining to Green Lanes deserve to be taken account of. The residents at the top of the hill with whom I speak have repeatedly made the point that their interests are not simply being ignored, they are not being sought. It is legitimate for non-elected stakeholders such as traders and residents' groups to be heard and their views weighed. A consultation process which neglects the idea of elected bodies governing for the benefit of the whole community is not what I recognise as democratic. I'm touched by your concern for people's feelings, now that I've defended my position, perhaps someone from the GLSG who is in a position to speak for the whole group might come forward and complement the residents of Wightman Road with an explanation of why their views do not warrant the same representation in the process as other groups. And if you do, please do better than 'you're too far away'.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Paul, there was a time when Tony Benn used tell us at least once a week that when he met a powerful person, or a group who claimed power over or in the interests of others, he had five questions he liked to put to them:
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interest do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
And how can I get rid of you?
Now that Tony just falls asleep at Party Conferences, lulled to oblivion by the Gordon Slayer, Mrs Duffy, maybe we should start asking his questions on his behalf.
Indeed I think Hugh, Liz and others have politely hinted at such questioning since 2008.
btw I think the Chair is aware of Wightman Road. I have seen the Chair's doggie taking walkies on our pavements.
-
-
Yes OAE, I believe you're right. But sometimes it's more acceptable for someone else to say it outright. As for the pavements, we were promised they'd be repaired and were failed on that also. I must contact the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods over that!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
