OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

Have you got a minute - no repetition, little deviation, but some hesitation

I have very recently received the minutes from the April Stakeholder meeting from the Liveable Crouch End project.

I offer them unedited. These arrived following the intervention of Cllr Hearn Chair of the Project Board and Cabinet Member responsible for Air Quality, Biodiversity and Trees, Carbon Management and Zero 50, Liveable Neighbourhoods, London Plan and NPPF Consultation, Parks and Open Spaces, Planning Enforcement, Planning Policy and Delivery, Renewable Energy, S106 / CIL policy, Sustainability, Strategic Transport.

Liveable Crouchend Stakeholder forum MEETING MINUTES 

Haringey Civic Centre 

23 April 2019 2-3.30pm 

Attendees: 

 

Sam Neal – LB Haringey Project Manager (SN) 

Chris Harrison – Project Centre (CH) 

Jereme McKaskill – Project Centre (JMK) 

Faith Coles – Project Centre (FC) 

Clive Carter – OpinioN8 (CC) 

Adrian Essex – OpinioN8 (AE) 

Chris Barker – Haringey Living Streets (CB) 

Selena Calder – Haringey Cycle Campaign (SC) 

 

Minutes 

 

  1.  Feedback from the Pre-Engagement process by JMK 

  • Overview of pre-engagement results which are now available on Haringey’s Liveable Crouch End web page in the Have Your Say section: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/liveable-crouch-end  

  • Key desires of residents and others who responded to the pre-engagement are to see: 

  • Less traffic 

  • Improved air quality 

  • Improved pedestrian and cycling space / facilities. 

 

  1. Feedback from the co-design workshops by JMK: 

  • The full summary of the co-design workshops is available on Haringey’s Liveable Crouch End web page in the ‘Hay your say’ section: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/20190507_co-d... 

  • Jereme referred to map of the project area and drew attention to Ferme Park Rd, Middle Lane and Shepherds Hill as areas of most interest at the co-design workshops, as people had concerns about the implications of the scheme on these areas.  

  • The streets mentioned above are the main routes people had concerns about, but they were mostly very supportive of the principles around the reduction of rat-running through the residential areas.  

  • In addition to preventing rat running, there was a big focus on the town centre. It was clear that this area is very important to everyone who attended the workshops.  

  • The results of the pre-engagement exercise, surveys undertaken and the co-design workshops are feeding into our design development.  We will be speaking with key stakeholders over the next few months as the designs are developed to ensure we stay on the right track. As part of this process we are also trying to meet with schools and businesses, to ensure they have the opportunity to input into the designs enabling us to design the best scheme for everyone.  

  • CH – We want to work with schools around initiatives they are already implementing e.g. helping with signage to support no-idling campaigns and the STARS programme. We want to make sure we have the right things designed in at the right locations, so we’ll be checking in with key groups to ensure this happens.  

Comments: 

  • CC – Commented that we have to push back against the car or we won’t make progress. There will be traffic displacement but that is necessary for improvements to happen.  

  • SC – Suggested LBH / PCL could sell the scheme as making the area better for communities. 

  • CC – Suggested that LBH / PCL link the scheme to climate change and charge young people with ownership / selling the scheme to their parents.  

  • JMK – We agree that all these initiatives will ultimately hopefully have a positive impact on climate change, however we need to ensure the focus is on the elements that residents identified in the pre-engagement, i.e. improvements to walking and cycling, improved air quality and less traffic. 

  • CC – Asked if the scheme has political support from the Council?  

  • JMK – Yes, leader of the Council is very supportive and has approached other members / groups about this.  

  • SC – We need to work together on this, if we’re divided the project risks failure and not getting the rest of the funding from TfL so we must all be supportive of the aims of the project. 

  1. Further engagement: 

  • JMK – Business engagement is continuing, we’re in contact with Lewis from Dunn’s Bakery who’s keen to start up the Business Forum again and help ensure businesses have a say in the scheme. Parking is likely to be the key concern for businesses, especially loading, which is difficult for some businesses due to parking restrictions where they’re located.  

  • We are speaking with schools and trying to meet with other stakeholder groups over the next few weeks while the designs are still being developed. 

  • MA – Would it help if the CENF communicated this information to the resident’s associations?  

  • CH – yes it might be good to have some things coming from the CENF or other groups besides the Council / PCL 

  1. Questions and answers: 

A Roads:

Q. Who is responsible for the A roads?

A. TfL is responsible for London's major road corridors including red routes and A-roads. The London boroughs are responsible for all the remaining roads within their boundaries

Q. Could budget be found to do resurfacing work (textured road surfaces) on key roads to help slow traffic?

A. This is something LBH / PCL can look into.

CPZs:

Q. Is anything being done about the parking CPZs? They cause problems with vehicles moving around all day to avoid the enforcement times in different zones.

A. The Council are aware that parking / CPZs are an issue, but it has to be looked into thoroughly before any changes are made.

Parking in the evening is important to encourage people to come to the restaurants / cinemas etc and important for weekend trade for other businesses. Cuts to CPZs / parking on these days could cause issues for people / business owners.

LBH have already spoken to the Parking Team and discussed the surveys we have for the area and how any changes made by them could help us achieve the objectives. We will be looking into progressing this alongside the Liveable Crouch End scheme.

 

Clock Tower:

Q. the original Clock Tower plans – are these still part of the concept designs?

A. Yes in some format. There was no backlash at the co-design workshops and in fact many people were supportive of the ideas to increase the pedestrian area around the Clock Tower and suggested improvements to the idea presented, so this will be going forward in some form. We’ve mapped bus movements using the proposed new road layouts and they work so the designs will be progressed and a couple of options potentially put to consultation.

Traffic levels:

Q. Will traffic levels go back to normal after some original dispersal to elsewhere?

A. Yes, going by the example of Walthamstow this is what’s happened and is expected to happen.

Air quality monitoring:

Q. Is air quality monitoring going on?

A. Yes, monitoring is happening throughout the scheme. NOX tubes are already in place across the area, on main roads and in quieter residential areas. These will monitor levels throughout the scheme.

Q. Is ULEZ coming into effect when the scheme is implemented going to skew results? We need to be aware of this.

A. suggested we compare to London – wide average stats to work out the difference in effect which could be thanks to our scheme.

Other:

Q. Some general discussion of the bus gates and questioning how effective they will be / how quickly people will get used to them / will there be a backlash with the view that the Council is trying to make money off people? Etc.

A. Generally thought they would be fine after some bedding in time.

Q. Could rising bollards be used for school streets and similar interventions?

A. Rising bollards were discussed and haven’t been looked at for this scheme due to the costs associated with them for maintenance.

Q. Will interventions be included within the cells to slow vehicles / cyclists down?

A. We will have to go through the process of looking at the detail for this. We would like to minimise the amount of traffic calming we put in so it would be good to design the scheme in such a way that we don’t need calming measures. For example, we might be working on signage with walking times to try to encourage people to walk in the local area.

  1. General Comments: 

  • We need to go through the process of costing options so we know we have enough funding to implement the overall project.  

  • Trees, interesting / artistic benches and other features, entry treatments etc would be nice and hopefully provide some quick wins.  

  • We’re going to break the area down into smaller areas for the consultation so people don’t have to look at and comment on all the areas if they don’t want to and can focus on the areas of most interest to them.  

  • Details such as materials, furniture and specific designs of traffic interventions will be developed following consultation  with input from stakeholders.  

  • There will be visuals / maps / images etc available for the consultation to help people visualise the scheme.  

 

 

 


Tags: liveable crouch end

Views: 42

Reply to This

© 2019   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service