-
I was halfway through a detailed reply to all your points, but felt it wasn't working....lets just agree to disagree.
My point is that it's temporary access and they have a pretty good proposal to minimise disruption and damage. It's only temporary, but it seems that a lot of the objection is carried over from the original planning application which is appoved and is very unlikely to be overturned. So it doesn't really matter what I say - people have made up their minds and are objecting to the whole thing and not just the CMP.
Looking at the overall picture I would imagine their current plan is less disruptive than the wheelbarrow option......we will see what actually gets approved if anything. It's usually just money that makes the final decision on whether it goes ahead.....I'm sure the wheelbarrow option would cost more, but basements cost a fortune anyway.
I would have thought any vehicle damage to the trail will be easily remedied. The fields at Glastonbury seem to recover pretty well. Take a look at what they are doing on the Heath - I'm sure it will survive once they put all the muck back. The proposal does include skip lorries and a 4x4 with trailer on the walk....check out appendix A.
I have no personal interest in this, but am sympathetic as I have been involved in a couple of planning applications in the past. Common sense rarely prevails, as people dig their heels in and the process drags on forever. This can mean that a site is an eyesore for years while it is resolved so no-one is happy.
jcst900-
I was halfway through a detailed reply to all your points, but felt it wasn't working....lets just agree to disagree.
I never do that. Disagreeing is just fine on its own. :)
My point is that it's temporary access and they have a pretty good proposal to minimise disruption and damage. It's only temporary, but it seems that a lot of the objection is carried over from the original planning application which is appoved and is very unlikely to be overturned. So it doesn't really matter what I say - people have made up their minds and are objecting to the whole thing and not just the CMP.
Well, that's part of what I was saying. Remember, though, that the approval was only conditional, and unless the conditions are discharged to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee, the consent isn't worth much. It can be read in two ways--one would be that consent is there and the conditions are a mere formality that is just waved through, and the other would be that the conditions are really quite important and it will be very difficult to discharge them satisfactorily. All too often it ends up being the former, but I think in this case it could well be the latter.
(Just speculating here, but could the conditional approval (as I've said above, I find it rather puzzling that the authority approved this one) be a consequence of the Government's deeply misguided 'presumption in favour of development' as part of the NPPF? It would be interesting to find out if there has been any rise in conditional approvals and undischarged conditions since. I haven't done much reading around planning since, so I'm not really up-to-date.)
I've seen stranger things happen than an application like this not being followed through. I think what this highlights in any case is that better planning guidance relating to the Parkland Walk is needed.
Looking at the overall picture I would imagine their current plan is less disruptive than the wheelbarrow option......we will see what actually gets approved if anything. It's usually just money that makes the final decision on whether it goes ahead.....I'm sure the wheelbarrow option would cost more, but basements cost a fortune anyway.
Well, it's debatable what's least disruptive. If the applicants' claim about the tremendous extension to the length of the construction period in case of wheelbarrows is true, then that would cause more disruption; I have no doubt that this would extend the period, but I'm very doubtful that it would be as much as they state. As I said above, there are wider principles at stake.
I would have thought any vehicle damage to the trail will be easily remedied. The fields at Glastonbury seem to recover pretty well. Take a look at what they are doing on the Heath - I'm sure it will survive once they put all the muck back. The proposal does include skip lorries and a 4x4 with trailer on the walk....check out appendix A.
I haven't seen what's being done on the Heath, as I don't live in the area. I've seen plenty of cases, though, in which lots of promises were made for reinstatement afterwards and they were very rarely followed through. As a recent example, very serious damage was caused to Porter's Field in Walthamstow Marshes when it was used as the site of the Basketball Training Arena during the Olympics (and as a planning process, what went on there was simply scandalous). I'd be very reluctant to accept any such assurances.
I have no personal interest in this, but am sympathetic as I have been involved in a couple of planning applications in the past. Common sense rarely prevails, as people dig their heels in and the process drags on forever. This can mean that a site is an eyesore for years while it is resolved so no-one is happy.
It is certainly true that developers often leave sites as 'eyesores' for extended periods of time to exert pressure. Here we have apparently already seen that happening. It is entirely the fault of the developer, who should certainly not have moved materials on-site in advance of any full approval for development. More often than not, I have seen this tactic applied in bad faith.
Once again, campaigners question the principle of development of this site. Formerly public railway land is proposed to be developed as a private residence. In my view, for reasons stated above, it is right to oppose this here. I'm only an occasional user of the Parkland Walk, but it has still left a lasting impression on me that makes me feel strongly enough to care about it. I know with what passion campaigners in my area defend the natural world in London (as far as that can be said to exist), and I can only imagine that the Friends of Parkland Walk must feel likewise. To suggest that this is a lack of common sense is really not acceptable.
Oliver Schick
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.