-
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.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
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