-
And some general info on the Parkland Walk:
-
Signed, for some reason it autofilled in LadyLiz's name after I submitted but the point stands.
Run the walk often and regularly deliver woodchip to the friends to aid the maintenance of the path.
As someone pointed out on the ES article, he can just fork out for builders prepared to use barrows and spades, not skips and excavators... -
planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=281746
That application (from 2015) has been withdrawn. You want this one :
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=288285
Also, note that the Friends of Parkland Walk page you link to hasn't been updated from last year (when it was clearly unsuccessful in achieving its aim). There is no longer any need to object to an application for which permission has been granted. You want to look at the (not separately linked) note on their planning page:
http://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/planning
Second Construction Management Plan (currently under consideration)
A revised CMP application was received on the 2nd March. This proposal varies little from its predecessor. The 26 ton lorries are to be replaced with large skip lorries. There is still scant detail about the size of vehicles and plant or the regularity of their use. It is still proposed to use the Parkland Walk as access for vehicles and plant machinery. Provisions to ensure the safe passage of pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers etc are not explained. Concrete will be delivered to the house by a pipe across the path over a period of 10 weeks. The period of works now extends to a minimum of 62 weeks. The Friends believe this development will have the biggest single impact on users for some considerable time and would urge you to place your objections via Haringey Council Planning Services Portal.
Also currently on the front page:
Owner submits new Construction Management Plan to use the Parkland Walk as access for heavy lorries.
The owner of 3 Francis Place has submitted a new Construction Management Plan in support of his intention to develop a small former railway cottage nestling in Parkland Walk
Despite covenants in the deeds to the property that should make this plan unimplementable, the owner is going ahead and hopes to undo many legal restrictions by entering into a licence agreement with Haringey Council.
For more information on this and how you can object, please go to our 'Planning and development' page where you can view the Construction Management Plan, our objections, a copy of a letter of objection submitted by the former Conservation Officer for Haringey, David Bevan, and links to the Haringey Planning Portal where you can lodge an objection.
People shouldn't waste their time with the change.org petition (achieves nothing) but comment directly on the application. Even there, unless the reason for your objection is of a material nature (i.e., there is something in law or in planning guidance that the application violates) it's not going to make a difference other than showing strength of feeling. Don't let that stop you from adding to the strength of feeling that's already evident in the long list of comments submitted.
For anyone who doesn't understand what's going on there, Haringey previously granted planning permission to application 2015/0078, under the condition that a Construction Management Plan be submitted. This is what 2016/0666 does (fittingly bearing the number of the Devil :) ). If you comment, it is therefore worth reading the proposed Construction Management Plan, which is the document that contains the proposals to which |³|MA3K (and, it seems, a skipload of other people) object. (Also at http://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/pdfs/3%20Francis%20Place%20CMP%20rev9%20HGY_2016_0666.pdf)
Proposed comments are outlined in the Friends of Parkland Walk comments:
http://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/pdfs/CMP2%20observations.pdf
Personally, leaving aside the issue of the Deeds, which never provide foolproof legal protection (as I understand it, but IANAL), I think Haringey shouldn't have approved 2015/0078, as I think it would have been quite clear back then (partly from the long history) that the site wouldn't be accessible by vehicle except from Holmesdale Road, and irrespective of that it would be of concern for the development not to have vehicular access when finished. Still, I don't know if Haringey had any planning guidance to base a decision on. This is the sort of technical difficulty in an application with which planning committees don't deal too well (assuming it went to committee, which it should have done). I can't imagine that the Deeds the Friends of Parkland Walk talk about would have been considered adequately.
I think that if this Construction Management Plan is not approved, development of the site is probably impossible. Lack of vehicular access is manageable for a smaller development,. but this probably constitutes over-development of the site.
Good luck to those objecting.
-
That's fairly standard for a hand-coded local activists' web-site. I imagine they would have put all of that up in a hurry, might be worth pointing out to them how confusing it is not to have all the updates on one page.
-
As I understand this the developer wants to use the parkland walk for his construction lorries as there is no road access to the property.
Given the costs he is incurring I can only presume his end game is to try and achieve permanent vehicle access to the property using the precedent gained in the construction process as his legal route in.
Without permanent vehicle access the sale price of the finished property will be pretty low (as i suspect was the price they paid in the first place). With car access the developer will make a killing. -
Given the costs he is incurring I can only presume his end game is to try and achieve permanent vehicle access to the property using the precedent gained in the construction process as his legal route in.
I'd say that's not entirely impossible (that they would succeed in that, I can well imagine that it actually is what they want), but fairly unlikely. Obviously, you never know what will happen in the fullness of time. One scenario that I could imagine would be if, say, a person without independent mobility were to purchase the house at a later stage. Would they require direct vehicular access to the property as well as an on-site car parking space? As the law currently stands (IANAL) I can well imagine that they might bring a reasonable case.
There is certainly always the danger, and one of the main reasons why I don't look favourably on this development, of the creeping urbanisation of green spaces. I've observed this happening quite a lot around Hackney Marshes in particular. It's often a very subtle encroachment at first that then paves the way (often literally) for further development(s). In that respect I certainly share your worry.
Without permanent vehicle access the sale price of the finished property will be pretty low (as i suspect was the price they paid in the first place). With car access the developer will make a killing.
You may know more about property prices than I do, but while direct car access would undoubtedly increase the value of the property, I don't think it would amount to that much. This is a development in a highly desirable area of London in 2016 and it will make the developer a lot of money (if they're not planning to occupy it themselves) whether it will be for rent or for sale and certainly won't fetch a low price whatever the weather. Residential on-street car parking is available in Holmesdale Road, which is a short walk away and people will have to carry their shopping to the house etc., but it is certainly not an unreasonable scenario in this day and age.
(For instance, nearby Camden has a car-free housing policy which requires people to sign agreements that they are ineligible for residential car parking permits. This policy is considered quite successful. From memory, the population of Hackney increased by about 44,000 between 2001 and 2011 and in the 2011 census, car ownership in the borough had fallen by about 3,000 compared to 2001.)
-
Also, John, I've just had time this morning to look at some of the planning documents in 2015/0078 and actually read the proposed new CMP.
You say:
A developer that bought the house near the Highgate end wants to block community access to the walk for several months for exclusive skip and delivery truck access.
The proposed CMP says:
1.1.12 The Parkland Walk will be open and fully accessible to the public and all pedestrians and cyclists at any time.
1.1.13 No vehicle will be parked on the Parkland Walk at any time. Contractors and staff will be required to park outside of the PW on surrounding streets.
I think there are very reasonable grounds for objecting to the CMP as it stands, but in doing so it's important to get facts like this right or the objection/comment may not have the desired impact.
How this will work:
3.2.8 As vehicles enter the PW from Holmesdale Road and vice versa, they will be escorted by a minimum of two banks persons, one at the front and one at the rear. This will ensure the safety of pedestrians on the PW and pedestrians and vehicles on Holmesdale Road. Once the vehicle has completed the maneuver, the double gates will be closed and locked.
3.2.10 On the PW, the vehicle will be escorted for the whole of the journey to/from the Site by 2 banks persons to ensure the safety of pedestrians and others using the footpath, one person walking ahead of the vehicle and one person walking to the rear of the vehicle.
Once inside the confines of the Site the latter will be re-secured to allow loading and
unloading to take place within the confines of the Site.3.2.11 Pedestrians and cyclists will always be granted priority over vehicles.
The applicants also argue that:
3.3.2 The option of removing spoil by wheelbarrow to trucks waiting on Holmesdale Road as well as moving all materials from and to the Site by foot has also been considered. This would result in a higher number of movements (up to 60 per day) which is considered to impact upon pedestrian movement on the PW. For this option a total of six parking bays on
Holmesdale Road would be required to accommodate skips. It would also extend the
construction programme by around 30 weeks, thereby unnecessarily prolonging the impact
of the works.3.3.3 In close coordination with HC we have considered the advantages of the use of vehicles during the construction period as opposed to implementing the scheme without the use of vehicle on PW. The consequences of not using vehicles on the PW are:
• Additional storage space and time being required on Holmesdale Road as materials will
have to be unloaded at the roadside and moved piecemeal to the Site by foot.
• Additional deliveries as moving of materials by foot will require delivery consignments to be greatly reduced.
• Greater usage of the PW in order to maneuver materials by foot.
• Higher number of parking spaces which need to be blocked for a longer period of time.
• Significant extension of the overall construction period.3.3.4 It should be noted that in exchange for granting of a vehicle access license, the resurfacing of the pathway as well as the provision of electrical car charging stations as described in 3.2.19. will provide a benefit to the public as well as to the ecology.
3.3.5 A method without vehicular access is still acceptable and the impacts are limited in both cases. However, the implementation of the CMP without vehicular access would only be chosen if a vehicle license was refused by the landowner.
3.3.5 is a bit odd, probably because of sloppy drafting where it should say 'a CMP'. I don't really know how the vehicle license process works in this case, but the CMP is subject to planning permission being granted, and were the present CMP to be refused planning permission, a new application would have to be submitted before the process ever got to whether or not a vehicle license could be issued. It is possible, I suppose, for the present application to be granted consent and then for the vehicle license to be refused (perhaps owing to some as yet undiscovered technicality), but in any event it would be a different CMP, not the present one, that would be implemented.
Anyway, a very interesting application process and a very interesting site.
-
Don't get me wrong, John, I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I just want comments in objection to be well-argued and strong. I have myself written long sets of comments on applications that, on re-reading them years later with the benefit of hindsight as well as more knowledge and experience, I found to contain very little that had actual force or relevance. The Friends of Parkland Walk have a lot of good points, but they also get stuff wrong where it matters, e.g. their claim that the covenants in the Deeds, which the Council has ruled out, are still relevant to the discharge of the CMP condition:
It should be noted, that whilst the Friends of the Parkland Walk understand that the
Local Planning Authority has stated it will not consider items that reference the covenants in the deeds of the property, the Friends will continue to record objections on these grounds. This is due to our belief that the covenants constitute ‘material considerations’ as defined by section 70(2) of the TCPA 1990, and also because the Parks Department has
regularly enforced the requirements of the restrictive covenants preventing vehicular access over that period.The Decision Notice (14.04.15) for the planning application HGY/2015/0078 for this proposed development specifically acknowledges that there may be grounds for objection
other than on planning grounds.Note 2
This notice relates solely to a planning decision and does not purport to convey any approval or consent which may be required under Building Regulations or any
other statutory purpose.They underline 'or any other statutory purpose', but covenants in property deeds are neither relevant under Building Regulations nor 'statutory' (IANAL).
It's best to concentrate on those points that make sense. To me, the impression certainly arises from those that the CMP has to come back for another round.
-
While it is not a strong objection to argue that the applicants are untrustworthy, it is certainly interesting to read what the Friends claim in relation to management of the site at present, including that some work appears to have commenced, that materials have been left in situ, etc. It certainly does call into question whether the work will be managed as the applicants claim.
Personally, I think that if they really wanted to challenge the project effectively, they should concentrate their fire on the original planning decision, which may well be flawed, but I imagine they neither have the legal knowledge for that, nor the funds needed to fight the case. I think that challenging the CMP condition may well be a successful delaying tactic, but it won't prevent the development.
-
With copy-and-pasting it's really, really high. :)
-
Actually, I haven't had it measured for years. It used to be 75-80wpm but it may be higher now. I've also got a nice new keyboard.
-
I just managed 70 words with a text I made up as I went along (and, never far from stereotype (no pun intended), it had some very long words in it). It would be faster if I typed something in that I read off that I didn't have to compose.
Anyway, with comments on planning applications, being long-winded is most definitely a disadvantage. Short and relevant is best.
-
If anyone's looking for a secretary, PM me. :)
croft
amey
edmundro
Oliver Schick
deleted
Zerostar
Mikey5000-
Post a reply
About
Parkland Walk Development - Please Read
Posted by
@|³|MA3K
As some of you might know, I love the Parkland Walk.
Running down 7KM from the old rail tunnels at Highgate to the west entrance of Finsbury Park.
It makes a great traffic-free alternative for walkers, joggers, cyclists and a peaceful haven for wildlife (and the graf crew that are continually renewing the old railway arches and road bridges).
To cut a long story short:
A developer that bought the house near the Highgate end wants to block community access to the walk for several months for exclusive skip and delivery truck access.
The property was purchased with strict non-vehicular access and development covenants in place.
Which upsets me because:
-I am against an individual blocking of a community assest for personal gain and nil public benifit.
-Also worried about skip trucks, which kill a high number of cyclists each year making multiple journeys each day in the narrow local streets.
-Plus it feels like there is a mockery made of us all when developers can just use money to pay their way out of the conditions they signed up for.
So:
-It would be cool if you guys could take the time to check out the below links and maybe sign and object if you feel strongly about this issue.
Ta.
http://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/planning
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=288285