Parkland Walk Development - Please Read

Hello

I live round the corner and as a regular Parkland Walk walker and cyclist with my young son have already objected. It's great that this is now on LFGSS. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this in the thread yet, but there was an article about this in the Standard a few days where the objectors (ie the owner's neighbours basically) were described as 'environmental extremists'....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/financier-slams-environmental-extremists-who-object-to-basement-dig-plans-under-2m-highgate-home-a3214856.html

Amusingly the owner is himself a member of the main extremist opposition organisation (the very radical Friends of Parkland Walk, who carry out revolutionary acts such as litter collection, undergrowth cutting back, various planting operations etc).

Per Zoopla the cottage was bought for £1.9m.......even by Highgate standards that's a high price!

I have to say the idea of permanent vehicle access is scarily plausible, but I hope unworkable as it would involve turning part of Parkland Walk into a driveway. However, sadly, in my experience of planning in Highgate anything is possible if you have deep enough pockets and resources........

Anyway, please object to the CMP - all support to preserve the treasure that is Parkland Walk is much appreciated.

Thanks

JB

litter collection, undergrowth cutting back, various planting operations

'Guerilla gardening', no doubt about it.

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.

This doesn't match what it says in the plan.....?

This is what will happen no matter what you read in the plan.

Given the site and the route to it through the Parkland Walk it simply is not possible to not deny access.

It sounds like you need to be careful what you are campaigning against. Planning permission has been granted so the development will happen. Surely it's better to support a plan which has less impact on the walk than protest for the sake of it?

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

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

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.

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

^Lol is it your house or something?

Very funny.....nope.....just someone who's actually seen the site, read their proposal and think's it's pretty reasonable.

Have a read of this....

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/how-to-respond-to-a-cycling-scheme-an-objectors-guide/

I believe planning was granted in error and sets an unfortunate precedent for the Parkland Walk.
Thus better to push back in whatever fashion.

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.

What on earth is a sock puppet? It's ok I googled it....sorry but you are making an incorrect assumption. I was asked to sign the objection by a fellow cyclist on another forum, but before doing so, a friend who had read the proposal suggested that the original post here was not true......I also read their proposal and did a bit of research.

I would be much happier if people objecting based it on facts and valid arguments, not just assumptions. It's all too easy to jump on the 'sign here' bandwagon.

I'll post a proper reply to your points later...

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

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

I dunno, that sounds preferable to me. Admittedly it'll probably cost more but thats not our problem.

A bloke pushing a wheelbarrow makes almost no noise and leaves almost no environmental damage. Its also a lot safer for all concerned. Multiply that by however many trips you need to make a lorry load and its still not as bad as driving a lorry up there.

The increased length of time is a shame but thats an acceptable inconvenience I think. Also its a building project, its bound to overrun anyway.

Also isn't the main point that the guy bought the house speculatively based on him getting planning permission to extend it? He took a gamble. It might not pay off. He needs to accept it if it doesn't rather than having a big strop.

Bear in mind that road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. One truck will cause a lot more damage than the equivalent number of wheelbarrows.

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.

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.

Signed

Parkland Walk featured in today's Observer as one of the country's best urban walking routes.

1 Attachment

Money talks..

Haringey council appear to have told him to do one...

https://twitter.com/Friends_of_PW/status/753190650015784960

Interesting. It appears to come down to whether the Parks Department granted a licence for vehicular access to the Parkland Walk.

I can't link to the documents directly, but if you scroll down to 'Decision Notice.pdf' and '3 Parkland Walk site meeting 20 June 2016.pdf', you can see that planning permission was granted and that the detail of granting vehicular access depended on that licence.

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=288285

That may not be the end of it, of course, provided the applicants still have an appetite for legal action. I still think Haringey shouldn't have granted the original application in the first place.