All - the Council will engage in a consultation from the 4th September to the 25th September in different areas of the borough for pavement parking removal. In Alexandra the road involved are Palace Gate Road and Crescent Road.
This is what I gather from a recent officer's briefing:
- The consultation follows approval in April 2023 Cabinet of the Footway Parking Policy ( : https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s138669/Appendices%20A-D.pdf) where it was decided that all pavement parking not meeting current government guidance will be removed
- Current guidance given: that 2 metres of footway is the ideal width, with 1.5 metres allowable for pinch points. If, due to existing site conditions (highway configuration) a minimum of 1.5 metres cannot be achieved, footway parking will be removed
- After surveying the roads officers have grouped 4 possible options to meet the guidance :
- 1 - move parking from the pavement to the road ,
- 2- Move parking from the footway onto one side of the road and remove footway parking from opposite side of road,
- 3 - Remove footway parking and provide some alternate parking on both sides on the road ,
- 4 - Keep some footway parking .
- Existing disable bays will remain.
Not all options will suite each road and selection of possible options will depend on if there is enough width to meet the guidelines so there will be two possible options for each road.
Residents will receive (hand delivered to each property) a note describing the possible options for the road for comment. Note this is not a Yes/No comment, officers would like to understand the impact and views (pros/cons) about each option.
The timeline given is:
- Decision and recommendations report on one option: Oct/Nov 24
- Update to residents with the proposed layout :Dec 24
- Update letter, setting out the finalised design and when the statutory consultation will commence and how to participate: March/April 2025
I will keep you posted and let you know of any update I receive.
Replies
That's great - thanks for sharing the link, Alessandra.
Despite some slightly patronising comments about “global significance”, I believe that the discussion of overhanging hedges here is extremely relevant. Does anyone seriously expect Haringey to run a consultation on overhanging hedges! Would Haringey consider appointing Hedge Wardens? So, exactly when are we expected to discuss this literally thorny issue!
All of Jackie’s points are so important: this is a local, not a global consultation. When measuring width of available footpath, Haringey needs to take its measurements not just at ground level, but also upto at least 6 ft, or the height of a standing person’s head. What is the use of a footpath measuring 2 meters wide on the ground, but severely reduced from perhaps 2 ft upwards, so that the usable footpath is in reality only 1 meter wide?
I stand by my assertion, and am rather dumbfounded that anyone could doubt it. Perhaps you need to come on a walk with me around the local streets! You would quickly see that my path is obstructed far more frequently by overhanging plant-life than by any vehicles.
Nothing is intended to be patronising about referring to globally important issues: it's just observing what's actually happening, which is that the council is recognising the links between the local and the global. Sorting out the issue of cars at council level is of course linked to national level, and policy developed on the basis of the environmental impact of late 20th-century growth of car use in society, which is now being addressed, albeit slowly. It's pretty commonplace to recognise that local and global are connected in pretty much all areas of life: I'm sure that's not controversial.
On which note, as hedges have come up as a tangent here, it might well be unsurprising that there is not a major consultation on plans to address the scourge of hedges in Haringey, as the council presumably realises that the need to counter the impacts of pollution with e.g. small-leaved shrubs, particularly in London as mentioned above, is more of a priority for them than what is, separately, a valid issue to address cases of overhanging hedges.
I really don't think there needs to be much of a conflict between sorting out pavement parking and addressing concerns about hedges - it would just seem to be a shame for one to distract from the other. I'm afraid if there is the suggestion that hedges are genuinely more of an issue than pavement parking, without being measurably demonstrable, then that is likely to sound fairly far-fetched to the council and others (certainly national policymakers and researchers), but I would say by all means follow it up, perhaps without getting at any individuals for being selfish, as there could be all sorts of reasons why hedges get neglected, and we can't know about the residents' situations, or how long term or transient renters, owners or others may be. Personally, I absolutely agree that overhanging hedges are an issue and would be happy to help address it, whether with the council or talking to residents to find out if they have challenges maintaining certain hedges on a case-by-case basis. And I have a trimmer I would happily deploy voluntarily!
In summary, great, let's do hedges, just separately, without distracting from or actually suggesting that they're more of an issue than pavement parking (otherwise the hedge cause might be harder to support!).
Oh dear Michael, this is tedious and yet I will once more attempt a simple explanation. Because I believe you care, and I want you to 'get it'.
Please give your attention only to the words I'm writing. Just these words. Not what you think I might be saying 'between the lines'. I've no hidden agenda.
It is all undeniably relevant to the new parking proposals for which (as yourself) am very pleased to know haringey are finally addressing.
OK here goes.
The utterly valid points raised re overgrown hedges or similar eg trees and bushes etc, and their indisputable relevance to the new parking options are (here comes the crux) based on actual measurements taken by Haringey of what is presumed to be "usable" public pathway -- from property line to kerb.
However along PGR there are a number of frontages which deviate to the norm -- homes where (for whatever reason) owners don't cut back sufficiently and in good time to avoid causing public interference, h&s concerns and nuisance
The impedence from what are (typically) chronically over grown or over hanging foliage will render all measurement taken at ground level inaccurate.
Haringey may or may not have even measured at any point deemed 'not easily accessible'; unless we know such derangements have indeed been factored in, then the consultation is already flawed.
That is all.
edit: PS <<I'm afraid if there is the suggestion that hedges are genuinely more of an issue than pavement parking, ... then that is likely to sound fairly far-fetched to the council and others (certainly national policymakers and researchers)>>
Thanks for the tip on how not to come across as far-fetched 👍
To be clear, there has been no suggestion that "hedges are genuinely more of an issue than pavement parking". None.
And what does THIS even mean?? "...(otherwise the hedge cause might be harder to support!)"
please Michael, just stop already. We are on the same side. Well, possibly.
Good. Thanks, Jackie. I'd say more than enough time spent on this thread which is meant to be about the pavement parking consultation. I don't know if the specifics of that are still of interest, but personally I think Option 3 seems best, as it would help discourage speeding, which Option 2 might encourage. So have opted for that. Thanks, council, and good luck with the next stages of the consultation.
What I was referring (suggesting hedges more of an issue) was David's original post, where the suggestion was made (as it says in the original comment, if any doubt):
'At least as much footpath would be restored to us by enforcing this regulation as by any reduction of pavement parking.'
To be clear, that would seem to be a suggestion that hedges are more of an issue. But perhaps I'm misreading that...? Hey ho. Anyway, more than enough of this on here. Happy to engage in a hedge chat on another forum perhaps!
Michael, I see nothing wrong with conversations on this forum moving away from the original topic of a thread. And there are many types of obstructions on pavements that can make life difficult for pedestrians - particularly when in combination, as in this instance, pavement parking together with overhanging hedges!
Dear all, I am slowly catching up and can see that this thread has moved from the parking consultation to a lot of other topics.
I would like to signpost the parking enforcement team base phone number (020 8489 2102) that can be also used to report obstructive parking .
None of these reasons are inherently "seedy"; pls choose another adjective
<< it is men-only
- it appears to be also religiously exclusive
- there is no signage
- it only operates in the evenings
- there are men showering at the back
- the owner says it is a 'health' club, but the men drive here, buy drinks from the shop (often alcohol) and stand smoking outside ... >>
However now I've seen photos, thank you, do agree -- the parking is not right and if illegal then a straightforward fix, no? Inform the council.
And those overly bright lights -- well personally I'd find that extremely irritating. It may constitute a public nuisance. Again the council.
Yes I remember Dave and his handy shop and miss him and all we had very much. Of course I want our area to have what it needs and not be allowed to go downhill because of a couple of very bad landlords (I believe there are only a few owners in all and that's for both sides of the street)
Haringey are well aware of the situation and yet gave permission to buckthorn for extra flats and whatever this health club is.
Haringey are aware of the destruction done without permission to the historic terrace frontage. Where is their follow up on orders given to restore?
Our local police are well aware of what goes on behind the scenes in some of the shops. Is there a task force for such? Or do the police choose to look the other way? (Can't imagine WHY?)
So if the council do nothing and the police do nothing then who we gonna call?
PS Buckthorn or whatever they're calling themselves have been notoriously "bad landlords" for a long time. Even before other owners set up various specialist "cleaning" services.
Absolutely. Perhaps you don't remember Dave's shop or how central it was to the community, but for those who live near or pass the shops daily, it is extremely obvious.
They ripped out the shopfront, put up a shutter and were called out by the council for so doing.
Perhaps you weren't around or involved at the time, but when the dubious landlords of the strip were trying to force Dave out, we had 243 people sign objections to the consultation and myself and a previous councillor spoke at the Planning Sub-Committee against the landlords, known at the time as 'Buckthorn Investments', registered in the Virgin Islands and taking the community for a ride. They've since changed their name and registration slightly, but they run all the HMOs above the shops and clearly have this as an operation, as the manager is in and out of those flats.
The swingers club behind the pub may not be there any more (even if the sauna is), but the point here is about noticing change and responding to it. This is happening now, and we can care/chose to respond. Swingers was before my time and always behind the shops. This is literally turning a vital and loved hardware shop into the opposite.
It is seedy because, for starters:
- it is men-only
- it appears to be also religiously exclusive
- there is no signage
- it only operates in the evenings
- there are men showering at the back
- the owner says it is a 'health' club, but the men drive here, buy drinks from the shop (often alcohol) and stand smoking outside, creating a very seedy and unfriendly atmosphere. Health club...?
I agree, apparently there might be something dodgy with money laundering fronts, too. Would be more than happy to address that, though at least they pretend to (and do) offer a service to the community (e.g. hairdressing...).
Here's the sauna boss's van, frequently illegally parked in a way which, I hope you can see, is significantly more in the way than the nearby hedge.
Michael
You claim this orthodox men's club (which I've not seen or know of myself) is "seedy". How so?
What about a "swingers" club -- would you consider that "seedy"?
Fact: Ally Park has one (at least)!
I'm not aware of any negative impact, but wd be interested to hear of others' impressions if that's the case. Otherwise live and let live.
What about shops which are fronts for money laundering? These exist in our little high street Are they "seedy" or only illegal?
Oh and when a homeowner is (undoubtedly) aware an untended hedge or similar grows beyond their property line, either because they can see it does and / or are informed on more than one occasion, yet choose not to take remedial action, then calling them "selfish" is objectively accurate. I can think of a few other descriptives as well.
So much occurring! I'm grateful for all concerned citizens , especially those who are willing to speak up and take action on issues which present a genuine risk to the safety and wellbeing of local residents, legitimate businesses and the social cohesion of our AP community.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next