Do you use Hampstead Heath? Then this may interest you...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by matt on February 8, 2009 at 15:06

Or email the following letter to Glenda Jackson at jacksong@parliament.uk ;

Dear Glenda,

I am writing to express my deep concern about an application to the Parks for People fund from the City of London Corporation, which involves building a vehicle-only road on Hampstead Heath. I would be horrified if the Heritage Lottery Fund provided the money to build a road on such a much loved open space.

The road will bring no benefit to users of the Heath and will greatly reduce its amenity. I am particularly concerned about safety as local residents, Heath users and school children will have to cross the road to get to the Heath. Current research and planning practices suggest that shared-use roads are safer for pedestrians than vehicle-only roads.

The Corporation of London claims to be building the road to improve safety on the main footpath from Highgate Road onto the Heath, but the dangers to pedestrians on that path will be greatly reduced when the depot and stores are moved to Kenwood as planned. Without the depot and stores, the Highgate Road entrance would be perfectly capable of carrying the amount of traffic that would be needed to service the café and proposed new heritage centre. But the Corporation of London has not fully investigated the access options from Highgate Road, which is a shorter, safer and more logical route for the road.

I am concerned that the real reason for building the road is to service the offices that the Corporation plans to build on the depot site. I am not necessarily opposed to all aspects of the Lottery bid, but I am concerned that the proposed vehicle-only road will be used as a dangerous construction route for the various building projects which the Corporation are planning for the Parliament Hill Triangle.

I hope you will join the campaign to stop this unacceptable proposal.

Yours sincerely,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on February 8, 2009 at 17:06

Thanks Graham, a useful counter argument.

• ▶ Reply