Our objection to the Hornsey Depot proposals – Nov 2013


For further background information see:

Website by the developers

The planning application itself

ePetition by local residents to keep the Hornsey Baths structure and view of Alexandra Palace

HCC objection to planning application

HGY/2013/2019  Hornsey Reuse and Recycling Centre

High Street,  Hornsey,  London  N8 7QB

The Traffic and Transport document supporting the application claims the proposals follow National, London and Local planning guidance on encouraging sustainable transport, however on examination this is either not the case or is not substantiated.

In summary the T&T document states:

“ there is a good network of cycle routes available in the vicinity of the Site” (14.5.33) , negligible numbers of cycle trips will be generated by the development and no mitigation measures are needed.

“in order to encourage cycling as a mode of transport, the Proposed Development will provide

secure cycle parking and cycle facilities for all uses within the Site, in accordance with TfL cycle parking standards.”

The main N/S cycle and pedestrian access to the site is via LCN 7 running North on Cross Lane, which is also planned to be a Quietway route.  St James, who are the developers for the New River Village and the current proposed development, refused to allow LCN 7 to be routed through the New River Village and also failed to carry out work at the Cross Lane right of way to make it usable as a shared pedestrian and cycle route.  The present LCN route has the following hazards:-

Inadequate width for shared use, uneven surface, overhanging vegetation, broken kerbs.

It is not surprising that it’s use is limited or that few additional trips would be generated.  It is essential this route be brought up to standard, as a condition for the development, or failing that as part of a section 106 agreement. It is not good enough for the developers to effectively sabotage an essential part of the cycle network and then claim they are supporting sustainable transport.

The landscaping proposals indicate new bollards replacing the existing barrier at Cross Lane. This is very welcome, however in the developer’s pre planning presentation we were told the bollards would be at the S end of Cross Lane.  The live/work units are accessed from Cross Lane, so to pick up/ set down and then park a vehicle this would make more sense.  This needs to be clarified.

The TfL cycle parking standards require approximately 500 residential cycle parking spaces and parking is shown located inside each residential block, but no numbers are given. There should also be cycle parking and changing/ shower facilities for retail staff (not indicated) and adequate parking provided for customers.  The architect has confirmed there are 22 spaces near the Store entrance.  There are some lines on the drawing in this location but no labeling to say what they are.  These points need to be clarified.

The lane widths at the retail vehicle access do not appear adequate for shared cycle use (no dimensions are given), and there is no defined cycle access across the one-way system for cycle use.  The lane widths should be increased and the cycle access defined.  There is cross circulation of large delivery vehicles to the delivery yard, which could be dangerous.

The prediction of only a 3.5% increase in traffic at the High Street appears low.  The scale of the development would suggest a much larger increase.  Various assumptions must have been made about the direction of travel of flat owners and shoppers vehicles leaving the site, which could be wrong.  The assumption that 442 flats and live work units only need178 car parking spaces is also suspect.  It is likely on street parking will increase.  The proposals appear to be a considerable over-development of the site.

Promoting sustainable transport is only one way of protecting the urban environment.  The South of the site is in a conservation area.  The development could be much improved by being more sympathetic in it’s design to the existing buildings, with a street frontage continuing and matching the existing buildings.  Vehicle entry could be through an arch with large delivery vehicle access rerouted to the rear.

In view of the inadequate and misleading assessment of cycle access and the need for mitigation, and in view of clarifications needed, please register the objection of Haringey Cycling Campaign to this scheme.

MP 10.11.13