llection-of- rungs event. If we can't have a whole ladder, Plan B might be for a SHORT LADDER: say, Endymion to Seymour exclusive of both, including all of Grand Parade, all of Alroy/Wightman N4 and everything in between - and, if at all possible, the Gardens. This allows East-West traffic flow to/from Finsbury Park-Stroud Green-Crouch End and Manor House-Seven Sisters; to/from all areas of Tottenham; to/from Turnpike Lane-Wood Green; to/from Archway-Highgate-Muswell Hill . . . . and other neighbouring suburbs. Bus routes 29 & 141 divert via St Anns and Hermitage or Seven Sisters. Bus 341 diverts from T'ham High Road (and Manor House) via Seven Sisters. Bus W5 runs Sainsbury's to Archway as usual. [Williamson Road remains Open to Sainsbury's trade - in so far as it is ever open to anything! - but Grand Parade is blocked off at the Bridge.] All in all, less confusing diversion and less bus passenger disruption than experienced east of Wood Green last Sunday. The Gardens should be included (bounded by Salisbury Rd, Warwick Gdns & Stanhope/Doncaster Gdns) - in which case "Gardens-Ladder Car Free Day" would be the appropriate description. Disabled residents needing access/egress by car need only display their Disabled badge. Cycles/tricycles and powered vehicles for disabled residents/visitors welcome - but cycling on crowded roads/footways would be restricted. If, as seems likely, this "Car Free Day" is to be on Sunday the hours should perhaps be from 1.00pm to (?) 7.00pm to ensure that worshippers at the three local churches are not inconvenienced unnecessarily. However, if the churches wish to be an integral part of the festive occasion, I'm sure the congregants would be happy to walk to and from their service. If so, things could start earlier. All of the above outlines need lots of discussion - but let's not say it can't be done! All Residents' Associations (LCSP, Gardens, WRN4RA, Warham Road and all others) need to have input, as well as the 'GLSG' and Ward Panel. I commend this proposal to your lord/ladyships' house.…
ticed;
Sainsbury's café dropped from plans - good
90 mins free parking to allow people to shop along the high st - good. Current parking in the area is almost non-existent, with the little there is policed by the over-bearing council parking dept via their dedicated 'fine all drivers in the borough' camera ('hand car wash' sign leaning against it).
development seems quite high in parts (with one part 8 stories) but has been reduced at Hornsey High street frontage to 3 stories so the Northern Railway Tavern is still dominant feature (height wise) - mixed thoughts
Can't actually work out how the Sainsbury's store space is going to work if there's a garden in the middle of it - unless the garden and housing is all being built on top of the store?
Lots of housing good (but is there a mix?)
Where do the big store lorries enter & exit ? (surely not Cross Lane, which is too narrow)
Think the new junction on Hornsey High St (for the store) will only cause traffic to back up in the evening rush hour, esp with another junction just up the road at Church Lane
…
th large companies since councils can't afford the threat of High Court costs. Sad to note that the applicant company can't spell their own name on the form"Coal Pension Properities Limited".
Main issue is traffic though on busy afternoons walking along from Costa past Argos and Poundland towards Sainsbury's am always struck by the fact that the architects and planners permitted such a narrow space for pedestrians. Also the flank of Homebase on Green Lanes has been an ugly eyesore since it was built. There must be some inexpensive remedial work to soften this harsh front.
Short of further London wide efforts to persuade us all to use our cars less (maybe TKMax staff could take a lead) there's little that can be done. If we weren't so lazy and short of time we would perhaps walk a bit more and use the plentiful public transport. Aside from the fact the area will be intensely congested at weekends am also worried about spill over parking in residential roads as parking enforcement does not seem a deterrent in some of these road. For example the taxi company next to the Beaconsfield Pub constantly park in the small one way section from Green Lanes into Lothair Road North. Should they not arrange to park in Arena space or pay for parking like other residents? Enough. Sun's out. Time to get out more!…
little more than name. It's obvious that the sub-standard plans could not be amended sufficiently in such a short time.
One of the things we learnt from the earlier meeting was the degree of collusion between the developer and Haringey's Planning department.
One of the main criticisms expresed was the tiny proportion of affordable homes available to families (only 3%). My main impressions of the scheme are, too much bulk, too much space devoted to too many cars; not enough is greenery. The entire proposal is dependent on car-traffic – it might have been planned in the 1990s.
It seems that both council and developer are eager to carve up the space to maximise cash generation for each – and stuff residents?
The stunt that the council is pulling looks similar to the Wards Corner ram-through, that also involved the council's planning department. There appears to be to conflicts of interest whenever the council owns some of the land. The roading leading to another big Sainsbury development (Green Lanes) reflects no great credit on planners.
The Planning Committee is treated with near-contempt. Tonight, the Committee ought to reject the Application in its present form, given that none of their concerns expressed have been addressed.
However, the likelihood is that this will be voted—if not whipped—through.
…
Added by Clive Carter at 16:05 on February 3, 2014
ach participant keeps a diary of the trips they make each day - where the trips start and finish, and what mode of transport is used. Things to note:
- I believe it records a round trip as two trips, like if you go from home to the shops and back home again, that would be 2 trips.
- I don't think the data is just from residents of the study area - it just records trips made by anyone, provided the trip either starts or finishes in the study area.
- It doesn't record trips that pass through the study area, like if you went from Walthamstow to Muswell Hill you might pass through, but would not be recorded in this particular data (the NOLHAM data later on in the study document does have this, but collected on a different basis so might be difficult to compare).
- Careful not to overcount car journeys, as the survey participants record separately whether they made a car journey as a driver, or as a passenger.
Here is a chart of the data for an average day:
Observations:
It looks like the most popular journey is within the study area, but as above I think the 18000 trips actually means 9,000 round trips, so actually the most popular trip is the 14000 trips from the study area to "Haringey East", and 14,000 back again (and again as above it is not clear whether these round trips are made by residents leaving and returning, or visitors arriving and leaving) "Haringey East" means anything east of the railway, so includes Wood Green to the north and Tottenham to the east.
The large majority of the 9,000 round trips within (i.e. starting and finishing) the study area are made on foot, which is not surprising as its quite a small physical area - I'm sure most people walk to the shops, to drop their kids at school, etc.
About half of the 14,000 round trips to and from Haringey East are also on foot, a further third by bus, and the rest by car. Again not very surprising - could be either Wood Green and Tottenham residents visiting shops and restaurants etc. in the study area, or study area residents visiting shops in Wood Green and Tottenham.
There are about 13,000 round trips to and from neighbouring boroughs, this set contains the most car journeys - very roughly, car, bus and rail/tube account for a third each. I'd guess this includes a significant number of people from those boroughs visiting Green Lanes shops and restaurants, or Sainsburys/Homebase etc (or for petrol); not sure if visitors form the majority but I wouldn't be surprised. I guess this group also includes plenty of commuters, either visitors who work in the study area, or residents or work in neightbouring boroughs.
Next biggest set is about 6,000 round trips to non-neighbouring boroughs. The majority of these are made by tube/rail and I'd guess is mostly residents commuting to work in central London.
Next in volume is 3-4,000 round trips to Haringey West i.e. Crouch End, Muswell Hill. I'm surprised this is so much less than the round trips to Haringey East, although Haringey East is probably a bigger area. I also have a feeling that the good people of Crouch End and Muswell Hill do not generally like to visit us. Anyway, the most common transport mode is bus but both cars and walking also popular.
The smallest dataset is journeys outside London - seems to be mostly car journeys, I think there may be something wrong with the data here as there don't seem to be any journeys made by rail.
I'm not quite sure what to conclude from all this - I suppose though if we want to reduce car journeys overall we need to dig further into understanding the largest group of car trips, which is round trips to and from neighbouring boroughs. Are some boroughs more likely to use cars than others, perhaps because of poor tube, bus and cycle routes? It would also be useful to be able to break down each dataset according to whether they are made by residents or visitors.…
ecutive evenings, and no more, is insufficient to really consult a wide spectrum of residents, businesses etc
Rules out e.g. workers, those with young children and no childcare, elderly.
What about daytime, later evening, weekend sessions?
St James Homes from website:Design and environment working together. St James began life in 1996 as a joint venture between the Berkeley Group and Thames Water. Many of its first developments were on brownfield land where water was, or had been, a feature: for example at The Hamptons in Worcester Park or New River Village in Hornsey, north London. Since then St James has established a reputation as a design conscious developer who continues to regenerate redundant sites as attractive developments whose design has a positive impact on the environment. Not all involve water; and many include the refurbishment of important historic buildings, such as Queen Mary's Place in Roehampton or Kingsway Square in Battersea. As well as private developments of homes and apartments, projects also embrace commercial property, recreational and community facilities, with creative solutions that deliver every aspect of sustainable mixed use development and respond to the needs of today'shomebuyers and communities.
In attendance:
Reps from consultants running consultation on behalf of Sainsbury and St James
Cllr Dave Winskill Crouch End
Jennifer Bell HHS / local activist
Jason Beazley HornseyN8 Yahoo group and Hornsey Trades rep
Fran Shepherd local, HornseyN8 Yahoo group and FoPP rep
Lisa Hyde 2 The Gardens N8
Dennis Bradley HornseyN8 Yahoo group, former town planner, Amnesty
International, Hornsey CAAC
Many others
Not in attendance
Hornsey Ward Cllrs Gorrie, Whyte (attending exhibition Saturday), Reid (attended Tuesday workshop)
Presentation30 minute delay in starting.
Presentation caused many questions
Stated Pembroke House development is only residential - I advised planning application states start up businesses fronting Campsbourne Rd on ground floor is integral to development
Land is jointly owned 28% Sainsbury / 72% Council (who had no official representation at workshop)
Development includes
large café on corner opposite Turkish Community Centre fronting High St
in store bakery
Sainsbury refuse to have social housing on top of store due to "management" issues (accused by some of creating ghettos and operating a form of apartheid)
New work/life units (businesses I assume) on west side of Cross Lane
Opening hours may be 8am-11pm M-Sat and 10-4 Sunday
Possibility of 90 minutes free parking for shoppers AND locals not using store
Drainage - into New River and Moselle
Moselle in such poor state / quality of water, it cannot be above ground (same said for Heartlands development by council)
Residents would be unable to apply for CPZ permits when a North Hornsey CPZ is bought in which they seemed to think was a done deal
42% residences will be affordable/social housing (similar to NRV original promise which ended up much reduced)
Social housing in separate block on Miles Rd
One block will be 10 storeys high in direct line of site along Newland Road as far as Linzee RoadGroups then discussed and presented viewsIssues raised by locals in attendanceImpacts on traffic
along High Street
along Campsbourne Rd
along Pembroke Rd
Along Miles Rd
through NRV to new private residential development
In accessing the development directly from High St entrance (cars and delivery lorries, as well as construction lorries)
In accessing the social housing block in Miles Rd
Fears of gridlock on High St and Campsbourne Rd
Do NRV residents know that all traffic to new estate will use New River
Village roads to access?
Especially bad when events at Ally Pally which increases traffic along High St
Suggestion to install spur from railway to run construction materials to site thus reducing traffic for the duration
Noise
From delivery and construction traffic at all hours on local streets including NRV
From deliveries to the new residents especially during night
Other nearby developments
Pembroke House
Cleopatra House
Both along Pembroke Rd
Neither with anywhere near sufficient on site parking for number of units/residents
Building going on with construction traffic along same roads (High St and Campsbourne Rd)
Could have building on 3 sites at same time
Impacts on parking
along High Street
along Campsbourne Rd
along Pembroke Rd
Along Miles Rd
Inadequate onsite residents parking or too expensive to use leading to
Overspill similar to that experience from NRV onto Moselle estate
Impact of large increase in residents with insufficient
infrastructure/facilities
Such as GPs
school places
Loss of local Recycling Facility
only alternative is in Tottenham
residents use facility well because it is local
fears of dumping on local streets as happened before recycling yard was opened
Demolition of Bathhouse frontage
Very strong feeling by local residents to retain this historic 1932 building frontage with Hornsey Borough Plaque
Developers stated it is not listed by English Heritage or even the local council
Developers stated it cannot be incorporated into new development i.e. left in situ due to large café on corner
Appears it will go ahead whatever local desire
S106 funding
As the money given by St James to council for the benefit of residents on Campsbourne estate due to NRV development has yet to be spent by council no
anticipation by locals that they will benefit from such money for this development
St James rep said they can ask for S106 refund if unspent
Impact on High Street shops
questions as to why Sainsbury felt need to locate their (probably Starbucks) café in prominent site fronting High St on opposite corner to
Turkish Community Centre (our old Parish Hall). Many felt it cynical and a craven attempt to steal business directly from currently struggling small, independent businesses such as Bloomers, Olive etc. Why not locate within store or NOT facing High St or further along frontage towards GNRT away from
other cafés?
In store Bakery will directly challenge our only remaining independent baker, Starcrust, since La Brioche (was Melissa) folded last week
how long before an in store pharmacy kills off Frosts (which has been in business since the 1920s
direct threat to Hesters newsagent (which has traded since at least 1917)
will an in store post office follow? (we have had one since at least 1917)
I really fear for the future of my High Street. Having seen it close to extinction in the 70s/80s with high rents and rates, lack of investment and an uninterested council it is nice to have a (relatively) thriving local high street to shop on. But with the ever reducing parking availability thanks to a council that is just interested in grabbing money and Sainsbury's on our doorstep I do not see how many shops will survive.
Local resident for 60 years
…
t they expect around 10 additional cars per hour during their peak shopping periods (about 30 per 3 hour 'peak period').
THeir figures seem significantly lower that those that Wildmoor predicted in 2007 for a retail space, on third the size of the proposed one:
I imagine they're justifying thee lower figures that by claiming that most of their customers will come from the customer base of existing retail park users:
An additional non-food retail unit at the retail park is unlikely to result in a significant change in the vehicle trip attraction of the retail park as a whole as a large proportion of trips to the new retail unit will be linked with exiting trips to the retail park, rather than being new to the retail park
They conclude:
The net change in traffic flows is not considered to be significant and would be unlikely to result in a material effect on the operation of the local road network.
Didn't Sainsbury's say something quite similar?
Hmm, I must admit to being very sceptical, particularly given the poorly scrutinised claims of a similar nature made in the past. I'll see if I can get an expert eye cast over the plans.…
n little more than name.
It's obvious that the sub-standard plans cannot be amended sufficiently in so few days. One of the things we learnt from the earlier meeting was the degree of collusion between the developer and Haringey's Planning department. Is it not the case that both council and developer are keen to carve up the space to maximise cash generation for each – and stuff the residents?
My main impressions of the scheme are, too much bulk, too much space devoted to too many cars; not enough is greenery. The proposal is heavily dependent on car-traffic – and it might have been planned in the 1990s. Too much for commerce and too little for the community.
It's a recurring pattern.
One of the main criticisms has been the tiny proportion of affordable homes available for families (only 3%).
The committee stunt that the council is pulling, looks similar to the Wards Corner ram-through, that also deeply involved the troubled planning department. They appear to have conflicts of interest whenever the council owns some of the land. The roading leading to another big Sainsbury development (Green Lanes) reflects little credit on planners.
After 15 years of delays, the council's view seems to be force it through now, regardless of long-term consquences.
The Labour-run council is determined to press on with this big mistake and to let down residents.…
Added by Clive Carter at 14:48 on January 24, 2014
ting was on 13th October. Last week, on 24th, there was a follow up meeting. We were presented with a summary of the first meeting interpreting what the consultants described as "what people think they want". (Yup, I picked them up on that one.).
You'll see the range of ideas covered is quite broad, but then we were encouraged to be broad. We were also told to think about plans for the Green Lanes Corridor, not just the road itself.
At last week's meeting we were presented with three plans. Copies of the diagrams representing them are attached below. In each case I was at pains to get a very clear articulation from the consultants of what the objective is for each plan. I have recorded these below. The plans are:
1. Duckett's Common
Primary objective: Though not clear from the diagram, the primary objective is "to create a safer" pedestrian crossing at Frobisher Road".
Secondary objective: To create more public space (in the area opposite the Queen's head, by moving the point that the feeder road from West Green Road joins Green Lanes).
2. Salisbury/Warham Street improvements
Primary objective: "a better shopping environment"
This plan involves widening pavements between Hewitt and Warham. Buses will be prioritised. This will have the effect of constricting the flow of all other traffic along Green Lanes.
3. Sainsbury's
Primary objective: Ease traffic flow (by eating in to the Arena Car park sufficiently so as to 'indent' the bus stop)
Secondary objectives:
a. to make it easier for pedestrians to move about (through shifting crossing opposite McDonalds to north of the Bridge and by improving the crossing at the Green Lanes end of Williamson Road).
b. to improve the entrance to Harringay
So that's yer £1.2m gone. At the first meeting expectations were raised that the safety, quality of life and health issues created by high levels of traffic in residential streets could be addressed.
This time round - who knows why - all options on that score have been closed down.
I'm aware that the Green Lanes crossing at Frobisher has been a key concern for local people fro a number of years. So that one gets a tick from me. But, actually the major money in that plan will be spent creating a public space. Very nice; laudable idea, but this is in in an area where we already have public spaces Duckett's Common and Green Gate Common. More would be nice but are not a priority at that particular point. And for that reason, newpublicspace, you're fired.
Wider pavements and stuff between Hewitt & Warham. Again nice, but not my priority.
Moving the bus stop in? I can live with that as a reflection of resident's priorities. Since the council messed up that end of Harringay we've needed something improved. This will help somewhat. And I can see the sense of easing/changing pedestrian movements in that area. Sure why not.
So in summary I see a couple of nuggets that reflect what residents have said in several surveys that they want, but I don't see these plans taken as a whole as reflecting the priorities of local people.
Ach, who cares.....only £1.2m......it's not our money......let's just let them spend it how they want, eh.
Anyway, let's try something new to comment on & discuss this issue:
Vote and comment on the plans and add your own ideas here
…
rk property comprises 115,915 sq ft of retail space, with unrestricted open A1 planning consent, including food, and is let to Homebase, Sports Direct, Royal Mail, Carphone Warehouse, Subway, Costa Coffee, Dreams, Fitness First, Argos, Peacocks, Superdrug and Next. Located on Green Lanes (A105), adjacent to Harringay Green Lanes Rail Station, the scheme is anchored by an adjacent Sainsbury's foodstore.
No shortage of money to solve the traffic probelms then....…