OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

There is a planning application to add some flats around the Evans Cycles shop on Crouch End Hill.

I found out via Facebook Crouch End appreciation Society

Obviously the neighbours either side are up in arms about the view, their right to light and privacy. 

The Hornsey Historical Society makes this point:

The Hornsey Historical Society wishes to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed extensions to Nos. 33‐35 Crouch End Hill. The existing building which was built as a funeral undertaker's property is of considerable architectural interest in its design and use of materials, and although not recognised in any way, Deserved to be included in the list of Buildings of Local Interest. the proposed extensions are completely out of scale and would seriously detract from the appearance and character of this part of Crouch End Hill. At the present time the bank and the public house with this building provide a pleasant group leading to the large scale former telephone exchange. To insert massive extensions as proposed would mar the attractive stretch of Crouch End.

This is definitely part of a trend - something very similar has happened to the old Hornsey Journal buildings. The height has been increased and a dense set of residences crammed on to the site. Haringey planners love it as it helps meet the targets for the number of new dwellings they have to build. George Osborne loves it - he has abolished the need for some sorts of planning permission on sites that are already built on, especially extra storeys. Perhaps if this set of objectors get organised they might be able to mitigate the hideous black finish and the dis-improvements to the facade.

Something similar is planned at Lynton Road, too.

The transportation comments presage a shake up in the CPZs and continue to believe that not giving residents parking permits will make the new flats "car free".

It has been noted that the existing Crouch End (A) CPZ currently operates for a two hour period during week days. However given the future review of the existing Crouch End (A) Parking Zone operational hours, which will take place in connection with The Hornsey Town Hall development proposal, it is considered that in this instance the car-free designation is considered as an effective mechanism to deter car ownership

Tags: 161 tottenham lane, evans cycles, lynton road

Views: 415

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Now, there's nothing I enjoy more than wading through the usual pile of odure that is the developer's consultants' Transport Statement. And this time a supporting transportation comment from the planners too. Joy unconfined.

It's a feature of these paper exercises in deception that there's a lot of nonsense talked about the TfL PTAL (public transport accessibility level) ratings. Crouch End usually comes out as a #3 (moderate). But this isn't really good enough for a development to go car-free, so on this occasion they brazenly fiddle the stats to get a higher rating (#4)!

To accomplish this they've decided that the Crouch Hill station on the London Overground Barking – Gospel Oak line is a major commuting asset for the residents of Crouch End. That the line doesn’t go anywhere near central London, as anyone who actually lives in the area could have told them, does not get a mention.

Perhaps more laughable still, they build their paper castle further by comparing Crouch End travel patterns to those of Archway, which has an excellent PTAL rating. Words fail. But here goes – we are told that because commuters in Archway use public transport less as a percentage, then the public transport in Crouch End must therefore be fantastic. QED.

The fact that the public transport stats simply reflect the fact that more people in Archway cycle and walk to work (it’s closer to central London dummies) is also strangely unmentioned.

Alas here in the real world Crouch End is not well served by public transport. As the consultants themselves discovered, commuters here are highly dependent on rail/tube services despite having no immediate stations. The consequence is that the bus routes ferrying people to the stations, particularly the W7, can be badly overcrowded in the rush hour – a situation that has existed for many years. With an increasing amount of development, not least the forthcoming Town Hall project, this is a bad situation getting worse.

Finally, the compliant attitude of the council in all this by encouraging the use of 'car-free' clauses in planning applications (mentioned in the post above) which effectively ban residents of new residential developments from car ownership, is simply an outrage. I do not use a car myself, and would like to see car use declining. However, if my prospective new neighbours wish to purchase a permit to park on the streets of the town where they live and pay their council tax, I see no reason why they should not enjoy exactly the same rights as everybody else.

‘Car free housing’? This is simply a lousy escape clause for developers and councils who flatly refuse to constructively engage with transport issues. It is completely unsustainable - despite the egregious idea of offering a £50 sweetener to a car club in mitigation.

The consultants' report concludes -

“4.4.2 The development is located in an area with a high public transport mode share, which is equivalent to that experienced in areas achieving a PTAL rating of 6, indicating that car free development is applicable, in line with the Development Plan policy.”

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Specious horsesh*t.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service