Parkland Walk Development - Please Read

You look (joined recently, two posts, both in this thread) and sound like a sockpuppet. I may be doing you an injustice there, but it's happened before. I'll respond to this, anyway:

It sounds like you need to be careful what you are campaigning against. Planning permission has been granted so the development will happen.

This depends largely on the applicants' intentions and wealth. A lot of developments for which planning consent is granted never happen, either because the applicants/any developer to whom a site with planning permission is subsequently sold don't have any intention of developing in line with it and speculate on using previous consent as leverage for a renewed, more oppressive application in a putatively changed planning environment, perhaps even when they think protesters have gone away, or, simply, because applicants don't have enough money or creditworthiness to finance a development.

Surely it's better to support a plan which has less impact on the walk than protest for the sake of it?

The alternative is a constant stream of blokes with wheelbarrows which would go on all day and make the elapsed time longer.

There are a couple of assumptions you're making here which aren't necessarily desirable unless you're one of the applicants or someone associated with them. Nobody's trying to 'protest for the sake of it'. There is, firstly, the important principle at stake to resist the creeping urbanisation of Metropolitan Open Land, which is a constant struggle; secondly, resisting the possibility of motorised vehicles being allowed on the Walk for any other reason than, say, public works; thirdly, quite simply the integrity of the Parkland Walk itself, which is a local treasure that people feel will be damaged by this encroachment, fourthly, that people protesting had already objected to the original application, to which Haringey in my view was mistaken to give consent, and are merely continuing the fight, and fifthly, that were this application refused, the applicants would have to draw up a Construction Management Plan without the involvement of motor vehicles any further than Holmesdale Road, which even if it did not succeed in stopping the development, many people think would have less impact on the walk (people pushing wheelbarrows will never manage to have quite the visceral force of a motorised vehicle, even if it's a kind of quad bike).

Now, even though I'm not in favour of the development, I have some sympathy with the argument put forward by the applicants, even if they possibly score an own goal by suggesting that a CMP involving manual moving of spoil and materials would make the development take so much longer--a material reason for the Planning Committee to look unfavourably on any future CMP that is put forward along these lines if the current one is rejected. The way you put it, however, makes you sound as if you have an interest in the CMP being approved as it is. There is really very little point in posting here if you're a sockpuppet, as if anything it will make more people want to submit comments in opposition to the application.

I would have thought 2 or 3 skip lorries per day would be in and out in about 5 minutes each way.

Well, fortunately the currently applied-for CMP limits such lorries to Holmesdale Road, so the point is irrelevant. However that may be, you did read that they wouldn't be able to turn around on the Walk so would have had to be reversed, didn't you?

It's a very short distance to the house and most people wouldn't notice as the lorries would have been and gone pretty quickly, so they would miss them.

You're not doing a very good job of pretending that you've never seen the impact of lorry movements on a construction site. This is a natural environment we're talking about. It may have been a railway path in a former life, but there is a lot to be destroyed in it by driving trucks over it.

There is also plenty of space for lorries and pedestrians/cyclists at that end of the path.

While I don't think this is true (see the point about reversing), the point is that people don't want lorries there. There's also a lot of space for lorries in Hyde Park that they could share with people walking and cycling. They could probably even play hide-and-seek or do handbrake turns there given how large it is, but funnily enough most people still wouldn't want them there.

Interestingly enough, while I may be doing jcst900 an injustice by my assumption of sockpuppeting, applicants would probably not usually sockpuppet unless they were really worried about the progress of their application.