Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Who trained the architects of the Bruce Grove station tart-up?
They forgot about disabled access.
They did leave a gap for a lift at a later date though.
How on earth did this get passed? What kind of priorities are these, to design a shiny metal box but do nothing to make a real improvement not just for eg wheelchair users but also for those with buggies or a load of shopping.
The major works at South Tottenham Station, now nearing completion, are paid for from a special fund to provide disabled access to all Network Rail stations. So no-one can claim such access is not top of the agenda.
Cllr Alan Strickland: “I’m excited to see this stunning new building move a step closer, bringing some striking modern architecture to Tottenham." Yep, steps are what it has in plenty.
Strangely I can't find these plans on the LBH planning portal - only this from 2014 which is not the one in the press releases. Does anyone have a reference to the plan - the one that looks like Tescos - I'd like to see the details of the brief and how they came to this design.
Tags for Forum Posts: access, bruce grove, cock-up, disability, station
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley Ramm on
-
From previous experience with railways works in Haringey Heartlands and at Ally Pally station which was also "improved" but with only very long steep metal stairs, Network Rail are exempt from the planning rules that apply to others. It is their land and they can do pretty much what the hell they want. That's why no planning application. So local councils can do nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Something a bit odd here. The attachments to the application form include document number 203 which is a proposed elevation to the existing building which looks single storey. But then the report to Planning sub (link below) says that the application was submitted on 14/8/14 and that final amendments were received on 2/10/15. You can see what the final amended elevation looks like on page 34 of the report
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Attachm...
This is a two storey elevation. As far as I can see, consultation, including with statutory consultees, was on the single storey extension but what was agreed was a two storey job. It's not uncommon for revisions to be received on something of this size and if they don't materially change the proposal they don't need reconsultation. Going from one to two storeys substantially changes the proposal and I would have throught the that there would need to be a second consultation. Have I missed something?
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Chapter and verse:
Way down on page 41, in the Quality Review Panel (yes, I know) summary, is written
"The panel welcomed the move (from the previous proposal) to increase the roof height and maintain a double-height space internally to retain integrity of the existing railway arches."
Elsewhere, in the (Internal to Haringey) Conservation comments on p 21: "The scheme proposes a continuous one and half storey (incorrectly referenced as single storey in the description of works) building of shop front units within the courtyard".
Planning creep, then.
Cor-Ten (or rusty steel) buildings work well in isolation (the Courtyard Theatre in Stratford-on-Avon is, surprisingly, a good example) but plumb up against weathered London stock brick it's at the very least uncomfortable, visually. Cheap, though.
-
-
Thanks Gordon. That still begs the question, which proposal was actually consulted on?
-
Permalink Reply by Glenn Wallis on
-
As LOROL pointed out at a meeting in Waltham Forest on Tuesday, Step - Free Access improvements to existing stations are funded by the "Access for All" scheme administered by the Department for Transport, so there is nationwide competition for funding. The South Tottenham scheme was originally funded 3 years ago but as we pointed out was impossible without redesigning the station entrance. That meant delay while TfL found money for the new entrance. The scheme is now likely to be finished in the spring. Blackhorse Road Overground platforms were funded 4 years ago and so far nothing has happened. This also was found to require more work that was originally anticipated and so at the moment has stalled. There is vague talk of the work being incorporated into the electrification works, but don't hold your breath.
I'm quite sure Greater Anglia had no interest in bidding for "Access for All" funds for their inner London stations, especially those they were going to lose to TfL. I am sure TfL will consider all the ex West Anglia stations it has taken over along with rest of its non accessible Overground stations in prioritising further bids for funds. TfL funds accessibility works for London Underground stations out of its own budget.
Network Rail is only interested in maximising its own income, that is why it wants retail units at Bruce Grove. It is half-way through redeveloping Walthamstow Central station and the recently completed first half is totally uninspiring and already looking tatty.
Glenn Wallis
Secretary
BGORUG
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
In my world, decent disabled access has #1 priority. Not a brick gets touched for anything else until there is proper step-free access. Even if Network Rail is not bound by this law (why not?), the Equality Act should govern all Planning Committee decisions. That, and urgent climate change prevention.
-
-
A number of bodies and her Maj the Queen are exempt from planning legislation.
-
-
Then it needs changing. Shameful.
In fact the law is only that they (the rest of us) have to make best efforts to provide access. But there usually is a way - lifts can go up the outside of buildings for example.
Architecture and other design courses should include a week spent in a wheelchair. That would change things pretty quick, or at least as fast as when those graduates got work.
-
-
I don't think this is a case of the architects or planning ignoring access. I think this particular issue is down to Network Rail and what they can get away with. Yep, planning law should change but it's why mobile phone masts can go anywhere they damn well want and why the Crown Estates get away with murder.
On providing decent access I completely agree. I do voluntary work in a grade 1 listed building and they managed to get a lift in there without in anyway compromising the architecture or interior. In fact the entrance to the lift looks like the door to a room, exactly like the other doors around it.
-
-
I did a long-term project in Hackney with a group called Access to Leisure, in the 1980s. They had a range of disabilities - eg a wheelchair user who could walk with sticks and a wheelchair user who could not, and blind people, and epileptics - we would go round all the leisure buildings and poke sticks into holes and check out the toilets - then advise the owners, and get GLC funding to pay for any conversion work needed. Often simple changes, not major works, made a difference - adding handrails, painting edges of steps, adding flashing alarms for deaf people. These should of course now be automatically included in any new building. 3% of registered disabled people use wheelchairs full-time, but improvements for them cascade to the general population.
But the most important part of the work was changing attitudes of the workers. Often a day would do it. Let's get the Network Rail managers into wheelchairs for a day or so, and see how long it takes for them to do the right thing in future. Her Maj has probably clocked this for herself now she's 89.
-
-
I remember seeing a TV programme ages ago where a TfL bigwig agreed to travel by tube with blackout glasses and only a stick to guide him, followed by a camera. There was an horrific scene where he tapped the gap between the carriages of a tube train, thought it was the door and was about to step off the platform and into the gap until the camera operator pulled him back. Changes were implemented pretty sharpish after that so your challenge to Network Rail is a good one.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
