knock on effect of the traffic problems elsewhere that other posts have mentioned.
I would never drive there in peak hours now. We get some things there every few weeks and get the rest from Green Lanes or delivered. Depends what you are after, but GL isn't more expensive, esp if you are after fruit and veg.
Just to back up Anne's recent comment about disputes between the stores - the most recent post we had about this said that the problem was failure to agree among the various tenants.…
evelopments like those planned for the Sainsbury's Arena site & the Heartlands area this section on page 31 might help with traffic impact but, depends on how well assessments on the ground are carried out before hand and whether they are taken into account/how they are interpreted by the council and the developer;
106. Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport (in accordance with chapter 11 of this Framework). In town centres, local authorities should seek to improve the quality of parking so that it is convenient, safe and secure, alongside measures to promote accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.…
g there and occasionally swooping down out of sight. I could only see it in silhouette but I did see it's wing feathers fluttering. But something wasn't quite right. Although it was hovering and swooping it stayed in the same place all the time.
Next stop was the traffic lights by Endymion Rd which, being red, geve me the chance to study the bird a little more closely.
It was a kite, and not of the feathered variety. On the roof over the sports shop you can see a pole, like a fishing pole, and looking closely you can just make out the tether that leads up to the 'bird'.
It certainly had me thinking for a couple of minutes. I wonder if it's working on the birds though?…
member that he said something about the box not going all the way to the curb- and this image seems to have a large gap between the box and the curb on the bottom left hand corner. Worth looking at, as I seem to think Alan indicated many of Haringey's yellow boxes were in fact illegal.
Also, a better argument (if correct) is that a 2 second time lapse is not really credible evidence of being stationary. Is it fair to assume you were coming out of Sainsbury and turning right to go up GL? Or, were you going left into Sainsbury coming from Finsbury?
If you were going North, I think it fair to say that the traffic crawls out of (Williamson??) Road, and I have had instances where I can see a clear exit route (I seem to remember this is the issue with a box junction- do not enter unless your exit is clear), ie there is room on the carriageway beyond the box junction but a car or two ahead of you has had to slow or stop because pedestrians have crossed on a red man at the crossing forcing the whole chain of vehicles behind to slow or halt temporarily while the pedestrian removes themselves from the road... I would argue this is not stopping, but doing what you are legally obliged to do and give way to the pedestrian.…
Added by Justin Guest at 10:55 on December 11, 2014
omer parking.
The transition of Unit 3 at the Arena Shopping Park from Royal Mail Sorting Office to TK Maxx will see a 15% increase in retail space.
Given the atrocious traffic planning around the last growth in retail space on the site, my concerns on hearing the news of the change last year were about the effect on traffic.
My concern was heightened when I read the following glib statement in last year's change of use application from the developers:
The application premises are located in a sustainable location with good public transport links located in close proximity to the site. In addition there is a large resident catchment population thereby enabling local residents to either walk or cycle to the application premises.
In other words, they weren't going to consider the impact of the additional traffic at all.
It was somewhat reassuring to see that the Council's approval of the change of use application was subject to both a traffic management and parking management plan.
Last week the parking management plan was lodged (copy attached). This foresees the growth of staff parking at the Arena from 26 spaces to 39 spaces - a 50% increase. Despite the addition of 15% more retail space, it makes no allowance for any increase in the number of customer spaces however. With existing provision for 200 customer vehicles, one might have expected an additional 30 spaces.
As you may suspect, I'm neither a retail expert nor a traffic planner, but, unless there's an assumption of existing over-capacity of customer parking spaces I'm not immediately convinced of the logic that underpins this new parking plan.
Most worryingly for me however, is the effect of the retail space growth on the flow of traffic in and around the development. Those of us who have lived in the area for a few years will remember the traffic fiasco that accompanied the last increase of retail space in the same area.
We'll have to wait for the publication of the traffic management plan to see how the developers and the Council plan to tackle the issue this time round, but last week's parking plan taken along with past experience doesn't leave me feeling reassured.
Link
Planning Applications related to Unit 3, Area Shopping Park
…
oker' 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?…
Added by Alan Stanton at 0:14 on February 27, 2009
remains there is an access-only 7.5 T weight limit on these roads which were built in the early 1900's for nothing more than the odd horse & delivery cart. The damage these things do to roads, housing stock and infrastructure such as sewers and storm drains is well known. Like all of us, businesses need to adapt with the times and to changing legislation; Endymion Rd and Turnpike Lane are built to withstand heavy traffic - to get from Green Lanes to Wightman Road or vice-versa using either of these main roads represents a detour of no more than 1.5 miles from any point on the ladder; is that going to put any firm out of business? I rather doubt it.
As for 2-way traffic, most of the roads in the ladder have the capacity to accommodate this plus parking without the need for partial parking on the pavement - some of the roads at the Finsbury Park end are very wide indeed. I accept that scratches & dents sometimes occur but that can happen anywhere - my wife's car got more dents & scratches parked outside my son's school and in Sainsbury's car park than it ever did in our street. And most drivers of modern cars fold up their mirrors when leaving them (some cars do this automatically).…
e versa, causing major problems for everyone who relies on them, while goodness knows what it did to pollution – though probably somebody here will have figures that claim this is all “anecdotal” evidence and can therefore be discounted.
Perhaps the "two wheels good, four wheels bad" faction that so often dominates this discussion area might once in a while consider that cycling - though doubtless healthy - is not an option for people with small children, heavy shopping, elderly relatives, bags of stuff from Sainsbury's or plain old physical infirmity, all of whom need to use cars, buses or other vehicles at some point. And, unfortunately, not everyone can afford to live within walking or cycling distance of their work: some people have no option but to live in the much-criticised (on HoL) Hertfordshire and work in central London, so they may just need to pass through Harringay en route.
Similarly, previous complaints that because Gardens residents managed to get their roads blocked to through traffic ("Unfair!" goes up the cry) then so too should Wightman residents ignore the fact that Harringay is not just one group of streets on the west side of Green Lanes but a wider area with numerous competing needs. Impeding buses by forcing traffic off Wightman onto GL really doesn't help those unfortunate enough not to live on the Ladder but who still have to get to work or other activities - just look at the recent GL grid-lock when Wightman was closed again for work on the traffic-calming measures that so many had called for.
We all know that part of the problem is geographic, with the railway an impenetrable western barrier and GL a major artery between the North Circular and Manor House for access to central London, so surely any solution has to start further out? Block traffic from the North Circular, send everyone down the A10 and give them the problem instead, perhaps? Reinstate trams from Palmers Green to Finsbury Park? I don't know either, but I don’t believe closing Wightman and/or Ladder roads permanently and creating misery for the rest of the area is the best answer. …
nd Washhouses Building which fronts the High Street). However, the current plans are all about what Sainsbury’s wants for its planned store and cramming in as much housing as possible in excessively high blocks (up to 8 stories) in the area left after creating the store car park (114spaces).
A new grouping (Hornsey Action Group), has started a petition against the Depot plans which focuses on retention of the Baths Building and saving the view Alexandra Palace as this is key to preventing many of the excesses of the current plans. The proposed design involves knocking down the Baths Building and creating a 3-lane entry/exit road to the site for supermarket traffic and delivery lorries.
We are writing to ask you to sign the petition below (follow link) that will help with this. (note: to sign the petition you must either live or work or be a student in Haringey).
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?Id=29
If you would like a paper copy to help collect signatures let me know and I will forward to you. (crackcom@btinternet.com)
A summary briefing document of the planning application HGY/2013/2019 is attached - full details can be found at http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=27
Background
The petition is a bit technical in what it is asking of the Council, but it is important for the Council to recognise this view as an important local view, as this means a number of their own policies and national policies come into play which make it much more difficult for them to give permission to knock the building down. The developers clearly recognise this as they go to great lengths not to mention the view in any of the background documents despite it being raised with them during their consultation exercise by many people.
There is a long and complicated history behind this development, Sainsbury's actually obtained planning permission after a Public Inquiry in 2000 for a large store behind the high street (which was to be accessed via a new rear access road – subsequently built as part of the New River Development by St James). However, they failed to bring this forward, and continue to hold the whole site to ransom to satisfy their demands (they actually only own 30% of the site, Haringey Council own the other 70%). The planning application is being driven by the requirements of Sainsbury’s for an oversize supermarket with a “commensurate” surface level car park (114 spaces) that must be visible from the high street. This means the Baths Building must be knocked down to create a 3-lane entry/exit access road to handle “...the delivery vehicles and quantum of car journeys expected”.
Some Upcoming Significant Dates
3rd Nov (6pm) at 3Compasses pub on Hornsey High Street – Opening by the Mayor of Haringey of a photo exhibition of Buildings of Hornsey High Street (organised by HornseyN8 Group and Hornsey Traders and Stakeholders Association) to last for the month of November.
7th Nov (7pm) at St Mary’s CofE School on Rectory Gardens, Hornsey High Street – Public meeting about the Hornsey Depot Plans organised by Labour Party’s 3 prospective candidates for the Hornsey Ward in next years Council elections
15th Nov (6.30pm) at Greig City Academy on Hornsey High Street – Public meeting about Hornsey Depot Plans organised by Lynne Featherstone Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey & Wood Green
26th Nov (7pm) at Greig City Academy on Hornsey High Street – Development Management Forum organised by Haringey Council with Developers and Council Officers in attendance.…
ope with the extra traffic (which is why the council did its best to limit car ownership for the New River estate). add to the constant comings and goings to the supermarket the residents cars and it will be log jammed 24/7. Sainsbury’s will spell the death knell for our (Hornsey residents who use the High St) local shops and impact badly on Crouch End as well. Also the council never kept its promises to provide facilities on New River estate (GP practice, school etc). This will cause local GP surgeries and school into meltdown. That's IF the council enforce building of social housing - which I doubt. the last time this was up for consultation most objected (residents, shopkeepers etc). I cannot see this being any different. I hope local can overcome their usual apathy and attend meetings and respond to consultation. and involve MP and councillors.…