Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wood Green car-free plan axed
Proposals to transform Wood Green into a car-free shopping haven have been scrapped.
The plan had been drawn up in a bid to breathe new life into Wood Green town centre and establish it as a successful metropolitan shopping centre.
Pedestrianisation was mooted as one part of the image overhaul which Haringey Council hopes will attract “affluent” spenders to the area.
The proposals aim to tackle what the council sees as three decades of decline.
But at a planning meeting last Thursday council officers said they had dropped the idea following opposition from residents consulted earlier this year.
Around 450 people signed an online petition amid fears that banning cars from High Road would increase traffic in the Harringay Ladder.
Eddie Finnegan, of Wightman Road, said: "Bus-only or pedestrianisation of Wood Green High Road is superficially attractive until you consider the consequences. As a Harringay resident for 31 years I know what those will be. Traffic will be atrocious and it will only get worse."
Councillor Gina Adamou, who represents Harringay ward, said Green Lanes traders were also concerned that shutting off the high street would drive customers away.
The pedestrianisation plan had been devised to tackle the loss of trade in Wood Green.
Customers and high-quality retailers have turned their back on the area in favour of shopping centres at Brent Cross and Enfield, the council said. It suggested that pedestrianising High Road, or making it only open to buses, would make it safer and more attractive to shoppers.
Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of the planning commitee, said: “I know there are concerns, but there’s also an opportunity to do something really positive for Wood Green.
"Wood Green’s high street is dying. You go into Marks and Spencers and you can only get the end-of -the-line stuff, for anything better you have to go to elsewhere. That’s what Wood Green has been reduced to. We have to be more imaginative."
Officers said "no commitment" would be given to a bus-only High Road without a review of the impact of traffic on surrounding streets. But they said the council’s vision includes better bus routes and improved cycling facilities.
If the plan is approved, Shopping City will be redeveloped with the possibility of a department store moving to the area. The number of fast-food outlets and budget shops would be reduced.
Public services like a polyclinics and police “shops” would be introduced and Wood Green Central Library would be refurbished or relocated to a new premises in High Road.
A decision on the plans will be taken at a cabinet meeting on October 14.
more here scroll down on the news page
Tags for Forum Posts: traffic, wightman Road, wood green, wood green spd
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
There is evidence, see the survey figures posted previously [without Road alterations and signing to send traffic through the new link road].
I wish I had your faith in 'planning'. Even competent planning can't plan away the finite nature of Road space and the inevitable displacement - and judging by past experience, we don't enjoy that luxury.
Ofcourse nobody drives from Manor House to Wood Green - that's why Green Lanes is so clear.
Now the issue of revenue and expenditure is something on which we can agree. I don't go back 31 yrs. I go back to 1987 when traffic volumes were much lower. It's true that the expenditure on traffic claming on my street has kept pace neither with the increase in traffic volume or the revenue generated by the CPZ. So yes, the Council's resistance to spending is a major issue for my area. I cross the railway and I see speed platforms, beautifully block paved drop curbs, interactive speed limit signs and so on, whereas on Wightman Road I see vandalism by the Council in the removal of the slabbed pavements in N8 and no meaningful spending on improving the Road/Traffic related environment. This country may have improved on traffic calming ... but not on my street. Oh, silly me, I've just fallen in - what's the point of spending on traffic calming for the street where you're planning to send the traffic when you close Wood Green High Road? A plan with a long legacy - so is it worth looking back 31 yrs, you bet!
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
... whereas on Wightman Road I see vandalism by the Council in the removal of the slabbed pavements in N8
Paul, just a small point regarding the above about the new tarmac laid down for the pavements; I happen to think the council/contractors have done an excellent job. Different perceptions!
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I should imagine the reason tarmac paving has been used is because the road is too narrow for cars to park on the road with the volume of traffic the road takes. So the cars have to park on the pavement and paving stones are too weak to take the cars' weight.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I thought it was just cheaper? Anyway, I hate it... but my kids LOVE it.
-
-
Very interesting. So they had looked at a by-pass road parallel and east to the High Rd. May well have worked and pedestrianized the High Rd to boot.
Were they planning a by-pass solution this time around I wonder. The current consultants/council officers may not be aware of this 1980 plan.
-
-
Isobel, thanks for your viewpoint, but:
1. Residents on this site have done the best they could to gather evidence that traffic patterns on the Ladder would be affected by the closure of WGHR to cars. And, as a result, we do have evidence. I've already posted it above. It's not conclusive, because of its size, but it's pretty compelling evidence.
2. If you look at the petition Isobel you'll see that proper planning is all we were asking for. We said don't do it with out proper planning.
And why did we do this? Because, sadly, there is plenty of evidence that we cannot rely on the Council to consider the impact of their road schemes on this area. (See the earlier post already referenced). So, don't for a moment assume that there'd be proper planning to deal with any knock on effects of changes to WGHR.
3. Yes, I seriously think drivers use WGHR instead of Wightman et al. Of course they do. In fact I often do as well if I'm going that way and it's often quicker. I'm not aware of any evidence which would help us either way with that issue.
So, now perhaps we should all turn our attention to Green Lanes and working to make that into somewhere we want to be, you want to be. Get involved with the Charter. It's a start.
-
Permalink Reply by coolhat on
-
I too was saddened by the Council's decision not to pedestrianise Wood Green High St. Once again it seems that those with the loudest voices are the ones that get best representation at local govt. ... but I am also suspicious of the ulterior motives that the Council might have for not implementing this scheme and agreeing with Ladder residents protests. The days of the urban car are limited. I see it only as a matter of time before such a scheme happens. It saddens me that people can be so selfish and not see the bigger picture - a sure fire case of 'nimby-ism' if ever there was.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Can't win eh. Either we say nothing and run the risk of (yet) more cars clogging up Wightman and the ladder roads. Or we complain and are nimbies. Great. I think sorting out the traffic in this part of London requires vision and insight, and I saw none of that in the plan.
Coolhat - I cycle up and down Wightman Road every day. I do not think it can sustain much more traffic, ditto some of the more unfortunate ladder roads. I REALLY resent being told that I am a nimby for asking Haringey to do proper research before they shut off a major A road in our neighbourhood.
-
-
I wonder which road Coolhat lives on and how many times they have been knocked off their bicycle in London. I'm not trying to save the earth or start the anti-car revolution, I just want a civilised place to live. So if Wood Green is my back-yard then as far as pedestrianising is concerned, not in mine thanks.
P.S. My back yard is actually the area around Ferme Park Road which has quite nice traffic measures. My front yard however [stretching the point] is The Gardens. Which has rising bollards to keep cars out. Starting to see my point of view??
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I agree Alison, isn't is amazing that when people take the time to read and analyze council documents, spot problems and organise others to ask the council to reconsider their ideas in the light of concerns raised which I believe is the point of a consultation process, they are dismissed as shouting nimbys which is an insult frankly to those who put the hours in making sure they had got this right and doing the footwork to ask others what they think.
If we are not allowed to organise to scrutinise the effects of things on our community because that makes us nimby, then is little point in consultation and dialogue with the council. I do not recall when I was filling in the online consultation form, hundreds of comments in support of the car free plan. Why not if that is what you want? Easy after the event to say "oh that would have been good, but I didn't get around to telling the council so I'll abuse those who did express their opinions"
Shame we didn't see the debacle of the Arena shopping centre coming and ask the council to reconsider their plans in the same way
And hey have you noticed the number of shops closing and the decline of the road that is still a high street with a butchers, bakers and probably a candlestick maker, independent retailers and even a place to buy a popcorn machine. If you care about your urban environment, start caring about Green Lanes, my backyard and proud of it!
-
-
Forgive me my frankness Coolhat, but what tosh. The Ladder has never before had any voice, let alone a loud one. We haven't been consulted before or listened to on most of the traffic changes that have had such a devastating affect on our roads.
Nimbyism!? So, what, we're all allowed to have an interest in an area half a mile away or more from where we live, but there's something somehow ilegitimate or immoral about opining on what happens outside our own front door? How ja get there? Read my earlier post and the link to the study which shows the ill effects on health and community of heavy traffic in residential roads.
And, what sort of conspiracy do you see afoot here? I wish. I wish they'd conspire to sort out the traffic mess they've made here that we've been trying to get them to sort out for nigh on ten years. Or do you see them being perverse conspirators, just toying with us a little?
And, once again, read the petition. We didn't say don't do it. We said don't do it at the cost of our health and well-being.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddie Finnegan on
-
Stephen, Matt and Isobel - there was nothing simplistic or nimbyist about our traffic-effect campaign or the HOL Petition that ensured it was delivered so effectively. AND ISOBEL I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU HAVE TO SHOUT SO LOUDLY UNLESS YOU THINK THE CROTCHETY OLD GIT WHO GOT QUOTED HAS BEEN SO DEAFENED BY INCREASINGLY ATROCIOUS TRAFFIC OVER 31 YEARS ON WIGHTMAN ROAD THAT YOU NEED TO YELL TO GET THE OLD EFFER TO REALISE THAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE NOT IN THE MEDIEVAL ERA OF THREE DECADES AGO. NOW THAT HE'S MANAGED TO SHOOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT, MAYBE HE'LL STAY IN THE HOUSE AND AMUSE HIMSELF BY COUNTING VEHICLES THROUGH THE WINDOW.
The 7- 8% increase recorded on Sunday last did not cause gridlock on Wightman Road - simply because traffic had been directed eastwards and not as predicted along Wightman and other Ladder roads. When I asked Cllr Brian Haley (at the Sept 1st Area Assembly) about the likely effect of Sunday's diverted traffic on Wightman Rd, and whether this was being seen as a 'dry-run pilot' for future WG planning, he was tight-lipped as always but denied that it was a pilot or that it would disturb Wightman Road. Clearly the diversion plans were in place, but not announced, at least four weeks in advance.
If this means, as I suspect, that diversion plans for the day were revamped during July-August following some scrutiny of the online and written objections (both LBH website and HOL), well and good.
If anyone thinks that the expensively purchased Wood Green Spatial Plan, (promised from eternal years, according to Stephen) and the future prosperity of WG are being ditched just because a few hundred Ladder residents have got into bed with the Council - well, that person has a strange idea of what LOCAL community development is all about, and perhaps a more inflated image of our clout and importance than we have ourselves.
Isobel's blue sky appreciation of how 'this country' has got better at traffic calming measures and road change implementation has very little to do with our realities on Wightman Road. Have a close look sometime.
Stephen's surprise that we might be surprised at the backwash of Haringey's long considered plans for our neighbours' improvement misses the point. Our campaign/petition came at the point where there was something to object to - a very present danger on top of everything else we've experienced on Wightman Road and its neighbouring roads over many years.*
* Isobel, those '31 years' which so got up your nose are not a figment of my imagination. The quote was simply from my one or two-line comment on haringeyonline's rather cacky facility for objection. If, however, you had been able to accompany me on my eight hours of 'doorstepping' visits to my Wightman Road neighbours (between Duckett and Hewitt Rd junctions) you would have a much keener appreciation of why many of these long-term residents are so fed-up with their Council's abuse of their patience and their Council Tax. Their signing of that Petition was a BIG NO to more traffic here - not a NO to Wood Green's development. And you think these old folk have just scored an own goal???
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
