UPDATE – Haringey Cycling Campaign – views on proposals for Middle Lane/Park Road junction

UPDATE 17 Nov – we received the news last night that the proposal for a mini-roundabout has been dropped. We look forward to seeing an alternative proposal come forward.

Haringey Cycling Campaign were first consulted on these proposals in July this year. We objected at that time on the grounds that the proposals were not compliant with Transport for London’s London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) and as such would be detrimental to the safety of people cycling through this junction. At that time we suggested an alternative light-touch junction alteration, pending a more extensive area-wide scheme being brought forward, would be to place the existing zebra crossings on raised tables to slow vehicle speeds and improve safety for all road users.

LCDS, paragraph 5.5.4 states: Mini-roundabouts are not generally recommended for inclusion on cycle routes. The main problems they raise are failure of vehicles to observe give way due to the geometry and failure to reduce speed through the junction. Where they exist, they should be considered for replacement where they have more than one entry lane and/or where there is an angle approaching 180 degrees between the entry and exit arms (and therefore little horizontal deflection).

Collision statistics for the last 5 years at this location (2 slightly injured cyclists, 2 slightly injured pedestrians and one slightly injured motorcycle rider, all in collision with motor vehicles, with no recorded injuries at this junction since 2013) suggest that this junction is not exceptionally dangerous in the context of other nearby junctions. It is probable that some of these injuries to cyclists and pedestrians were caused by failure of vehicles to observe give way… and failure to reduce speed through the junction. A mini-roundabout at this location, given the proposal includes an angle approaching 180 degrees between the entry and exit arms and other issues described by LCDS, is likely to increase such risks to vulnerable road users.

We formally objected by email again on 2 November, adding that in addition to the issues described above, this scheme may jeopardise the recent bid for Liveable Neighbourhoods funding for Crouch End, given that the design principles for Liveable Neighbourhoods specifically require adherence to TfL’s ‘Streets Toolkit’, including LCDS.

In the longer term we would like to see a scheme put forward that minimises or eliminates turning conflicts at this junction. A more ambitious scheme could deliver this alongside increased green space, including sustainable drainage features to unlock multiple benefits to people and the environment at this location. The proposal for a mini-roundabout is dangerous and should not be taken forward.


‘Top 10’ improvements for Haringey becomes ‘Top 29’

We meet with Haringey Council at least every 3 months.

We keep an ongoing ‘Top 10’ list of improvements we’d like to see made in the borough. In reality, of course, the list is much longer. In fact, in light of our part in our recent ‘space for cycling’ campaign in Haringey, we now have a Top 29. 

Read more here

St Ann’s Road/Hermitage Road new cycle entry on to roundabout which we campaigned for.

What do local election manifestos say about cycling in Haringey?

Much of the attention of cycling campaigners has latterly been on TfL and the need for space for cycling on London’s main roads, however it’s councils that control the vast majority of London’s streets. If they wanted to, they could create Space for Cycling all over London. The use of a few bollards, for example, is a relatively cheap intervention that can free entire communities from the blight of rat running through traffic and create streets in which far more people feel safe and comfortable using a bike to get around.

When elected, your local councillor will provide a link between the council and your community. They are meant to represent all their constituents, not just those who voted for them. Haringey Cyclists work with our local representatives to help make real improvements to our streets. Noticed that the railings have been cut to allow north/south cycling across St Ann’s Road via North Grove? Or how the awful, dangerous speed cushions slapped on Crouch Hill have been replaced by cycling-friendlier alternatives? Pressure from Haringey Cyclists, as well as the local councillors for those wards helped to make those changes happen. Improvements such as these can of course happen without the help of councillors, but electing councillors who are supportive of their constituents’ concerns can really help change things for the better.

Obviously not many people will ‘vote bike’ as a single issue and not take any other policies into account – councils have wide ranging responsibilities of which transport is just one element. So please don’t take the following as an endorsement of one party over another – read their manifestos yourself, speak to your local candidates and make up your own mind about who deserves your vote! Also bear in mind that there are likely to be differences in attitude at a ward level from what it might say in the manifesto, for better or worse. Have a look at http://space4cycling.org/ to see if your local candidates are living up to, or exceeding the fine promises in their party manifesto.

We did, however, think it would be interesting to look at the manifestos of our prospective representatives purely from a cycling perspective and see who might be our ‘champions’ in local government after 22 May. We read the Haringey manifestos of Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens, purely because these are the parties we think are most likely to gain the votes needed to elect councillors, and because we couldn’t find the manifestos of any of the others online… Apologies to the others.

First up, Labour. Apparently Haringey’s ‘streets have never been cleaner’, we assume this means litter and not the actual air you breathe on these streets! It gets better after that, including the bold ambition to make Haringey streets the most pedestrian and cycle friendly in London. If this ambition is to become reality there is a lot of work to do. Haringey is bordered by boroughs with much higher levels of cycling (Camden, Hackney, Islington) and also by two councils with ‘Mini-Holland’ projects (Enfield and Waltham Forest) which aim to deliver substantial improvements through provision of protected cycle lanes and by filtering through traffic out of residential areas. So Haringey has some catching up to do before we draw level, let alone outdo, our neighbouring boroughs. The proposed E-bike hire scheme then gets a plug, a welcome development. But are hills, or roads that look unpleasant to cycle on, more of a deterrent to people riding bikes in Haringey? Electric bikes, without a network of safe and inviting routes on which to ride them, are unlikely to significantly increase cycling levels in the borough. Proposals to develop a ‘new’ network of quietways might address this, and it’s great to hear that these quietways will be direct. Routes along back streets and parks are great, and Haringey has both in abundance, but the usefulness of quiet routes diminishes if the route adds significant extra time or distance over a more direct, busier route. Any proposed cycle route is only as good as it’s weakest link, and crucially must not give up when they have to cross busy roads and junctions. Similarly proposed 20mph speed limits borough-wide is a step forward, but a residential road with large volumes of traffic travelling at 20mph is still probably unpleasant enough to put most people off cycling. The manifesto promises £25m, described as funding for ‘improving our pavements and roads making them more pedestrian and cyclist friendly’ and later simply to ‘improve roads and pavements’, we look forward to hearing greater detail about what this means for cycling. Recent Haringey Council road ‘improvements’ have turned pavements into car parks, so as always the devil is in the detail. One really encouraging aspect of Labour’s manifesto is not in the transport section, but later the link is made between public health and active travel, and the role safe cycle routes can play in this. So, overall, not bad, quite encouraging in places. It could however be argued that the council’s recent record works against the manifesto in a lot of ways – recent highways projects have done little or nothing for cycling. But perhaps it’s unfair to judge this new manifesto on the track record of the current administration…

Lib Dems next. Reading this starts badly with one of their ‘top six’ pledges being free (car) parking on local high streets. A pledge to, in effect, bring more traffic, more pollution and more danger to high streets is an obvious negative from a cycling perspective (and, we expect, a negative to the vast majority of shoppers in Haringey who walk or take the bus!). Cyclists are offered more ‘cycle lock-up points’ on high streets, which is welcome but kind of misses the point that high streets are often unpleasant places to cycle to precisely because there is too much traffic on them. It’s great that the Lib Dems want Haringey to be a cycling borough, but the manifesto seems confused about how this might be delivered. It offers 20mph speed limits on ‘residential’ roads only – but people on bikes need lower speeds or safe space to cycle on non-residential roads too! ‘Listening to cyclists’ (present company excepted) isn’t going to give very revealing answers as to why those who don’t currently cycle do not. Similarly the proposal to improve the cycle network sounds good, but we would question whether Haringey actually has an existing cycle network to improve! Similar to Labour’s proposed E-bike scheme, cycle hire at stations is to be welcomed, but is access to a bike really a limiting factor for people who want to cycle? The following passage from the manifesto: ‘We would also sign the Safer Lorries, Safer Cycling campaign pledge to ensure the council only uses the best equipped lorries and best trained drivers [great, thanks] to stop cyclists being killed’. Kind of makes it sound like riding a bike in Haringey is dicing with death! Nearly 6000 people in Haringey cycle to work every day, and many more cycle through from neighbouring boroughs or for purposes other than the journey to work. Very, very few of them end up seriously injured in hospital (around 10 people a year), and deaths are thankfully rare. It’s true that riding a bike on the borough’s roads can often feel quite dangerous, but making the inference that cyclists in Haringey are regularly being killed by trucks is hardly going to help Haringey become a ‘cycling borough’.

Finally, the Green Party. We expected big things from this manifesto – cycle campaigning in London has really found it’s voice over the last few years, if there was a time to push for the sort of changes that countries across the world are implementing to make streets more liveable for everyone, it is surely now and we would expect the Greens to be pushing this agenda forward. To be fair to the Greens their manifesto is quite short and punchy, so there’s not a lot of detail on which to judge their cycling offer. But what is there is full of the sort of unfortunate caveats that typify current attitudes to cycle provision: 20mph ‘with exceptions’; separated cycle lanes ‘where possible’. In local government-speak, only separating cycle lanes from other traffic ‘where possible’ tends to mean the cycle lane is of no use at all, because separation from other traffic is often most needed where it is difficult to deliver (but not impossible if the political will is there). Similarly an ‘exception’ to 20mph is acceptable from a cycling perspective when separated space is provided. Kudos, however, for actually mentioning the need for separated cycle lanes!

So there you have it. Hopefully we’ve been fair in the above, have a read of the manifestos yourself and let us know what you think in the comments below. And don’t forget to log on to http://space4cycling.org/ and see which candidates in your area are supporting your local ward ask!


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



The saga of Tottenham gyratory (Broad Lane proposals)

We’ll be discussing this at our meeting on Monday 14th October, but here’s what it looks like from our perspective:

  • Haringey Cycling Campaign and London Cycling Campaign have been involved in consultation on this since the beginning of 2012, with LCC’s  Engineering Group making the main response on behalf of local groups and LCC as a whole.
  •  The consultation hasn’t been very satisfactory and we have never been given a set of “final” drawings to comment on.
  • We were promised the scheme would be looked at in the TfL junction review but it really never was.
  • Laterly after persistent lobbying TfL have made some improvements, but this 20 mph consultation is a surprise as we were always told Broad Lane would be 20mph.
  • If any “Cyclist Dismount” signs are erected on cycle routes in this scheme, we think direct action would be in order…

Here’s some recent blogs on the scheme:



And a post on Harringay Online:




Green Lanes Public Realm Improvements – Our View

The Statutory Overview and Scheme overview Document (the plans unless any objections) can be viewed here:


As mentioned by Geoff on Harringay Online ”This is the one opportunity to have a close look at all the detail and to make constructive comments.”

Views and comments are invited and welcomed and the closing date for these is Friday 21st June 2013.

‘If no major objections are received’, works are planned to start in July/August 2013 and will last 9-12 months.

Comments should be emailed to: frontline.consultation@haringey.gov.uk
or posted to: Frontline Consultation, London Borough of Haringey, FREEPOST NAT 20390, PO Box 264, London N22 8BR

A number of people have enquired about what the proposals include for cyclists? Well, here’s our letter to the Major Schemes Project Manager:

HCC_Logo_Col-smallCo-ordinator:  Michael Poteliakhoff


Mr Stephen Jones

Major Schemes Project Manager
Sustainable Transport Group
Place & Sustainability
London Borough of Haringey
2nd Floor, River Park House
225 High Road, Wood Green
N22 8HQ


Green Lanes Statutory Notification / Scheme Overview

Thank you for your email of 5th June.

The report of consultation on this scheme confirmed:-   “Cyclists do not regard either Green Lanes or Wood Green as cycle friendly, but Green Lanes is seen as offering a more adverse cycling environment than Wood Green”.

Unfortunately nothing, apart from new cycle parking, is included in the proposals to address this.  The consultation also confirms 9% of trips to the Green Lanes centre are by bicycle, compared with 10% by car.  The available car parking is already fully used and there is no scope for increased provision, so encouraging cycle use is a “near market” which can benefit local shops, who of course are in competition with supermarkets, with large free car parks.

Haringey Cycling Campaign participated in the initial consultation on this scheme and proposed improving cycle access by ending one-way traffic restrictions for cyclists on local roads.  Most of the “Ladder” roads are presently one-way.  As many are long roads with a considerable gradient, this discourages cycle use.  There are also recommended “London Cycling Guide” cycle routes converging at the end of St Annes’s Road.  As illustrated in the Scheme Overview cover, cyclists use this route and cut through to Green Lanes in front the “Salisbury” pub.  HCC suggested this be allowed for in the scheme, but there is no indication of dropped kerbs, or shared use, to allow this.  There is also no indication of how cyclists are to access the one existing contra flow cycle lane at Colina Rd.  Clarification of the proposed work here and at the St Anne’s Rd junction is essential.  Please see below an extract from the TfL London Cycling Guide, showing local routes.

No doubt one reason for the ending one-way restrictions not being included in the proposals, is the consultation finding that a majority of interviewees were not in favor of cycle contra flow.  This very much depended on how the question was asked.  Cycle contra flow is a relatively new concept in this country, with very few examples in Haringey.  As such, many people might think it sounded unsafe and would instinctively be worried about it.  If it the question had been put in the context of a strategy for environmental improvement and reducing traffic congestion, supported by illustrations from Denmark and Holland, I am sure the results would have been different.

Simpler ways of providing cycle contra-flow with fewer signs and markings were enabled by amendments to the regulations introduced by the DfT in 2012.  Pro-cycling boroughs such as City of London and LB Camden are already taking advantage of this by implementing cycle contra-flow as standard on their one-way streets.  Haringey will not compare favourably with these boroughs if they do not take this opportunity do the same.   At the very least future ending of one-way restrictions should be allowed for in the current work, so HCC propose that all the new road narrowings have an adequate width for cycle contra flow (4.5m).  In this way the work would be “future proofed”.

The plans note that existing road markings not shown, are to remain, implying the existing bus lane is to be retained.  HCC welcomes this (the overview could be clearer on this point).  In addition, although pavement widening is mentioned under “General upgrade and renewal” it is understood there is to be no realignment of kerbs to the main thoroughfare.  This opens up the possibility of a northbound 2m width cyle lane to operate at the present times when car parking is not permitted.  This would be a great benefit to cyclists and with a good width slower cyclists will not be intimidated and are more likely to “stop and shop”.

I look forward to your response.

Michael Poteliakhoff
Haringey Cycling Campaign


cc Cllr Nilgun Canver,  Cllr Toni Mallett 


Minutes of the HCC meeting held at GNRT – Monday 10th June 2013


Simon Hollowood (Steer Davies Gleeve)

Alistair Hanton (LCC Trustee)

Ricardo Johnson

Bob Somers

John Draper

Lois Johnson

Imelda O’Brian

Andrew Rendle

Joff Verby

Selena Calder

Adam Coffman

Anna Gudaniec

Patrick Field

Michael Poteliakhoff


Apologies: Cllr Toni MallettNick Chitty


Hornsey Community Streets

MP will email LBH and Cllr Toni Mallett about poor consultation.  AG said there was only 3 days notice of the drop-in session for the scheme and although Nick Chitty joined a working group, it never met.  There are now roadworks in progress at Uplands Road for which there was only the vague description “cycle and pedestrian improvements currently underway”, for which there has effectively been no consultation.


Hornsey High St Sainsbury’s development

MP attended part of a local consultation meeting on this and reported there was no mention of cycle access in the developer’s presentation.   AG will be attending a further meeting on the 11th.


Potholes  (post meeting note)

There is an excellent LBH campaign to fix these.  Please report any you see on

www.haringey.gov.uk/potholes   (net)

poteholes@haringey.gov.uk             (email)

@haringeycouncil #haringeypotholes   (twitter)


20 MPH Limit

AC said we should support this.  (There is a Council vote on setting up a consultation on this, on 18.6.13, which is certain to pass with wide support from councillors, however strong support will be needed at consultation stage)



JV and AR are looking in to possibilities for a new email group.


LBH cycling and walking study

MP introduced Simon Hollowood from SDG.  SH outlined the scope of the study, concentrating on local centres and including “PERS” audits and two community audits at Bruce Grove and Wood Green.  The cycling aspect of the study will factor in the general cycling environment and not just designated cycle routes.  The Study will feed in to the next LBH application for “LIP” funding.   MP ran through the current list of HCC suggestions, sent to SDG and there was a useful discussion of additional points.

AR said on a general level LBH are reluctant to consider unconventional solutions, eg would not install scheme similar to Islington’s at the Emirates Stadium.

Eo’B said an interactive map for cycling improvement suggestions would be effective.

SC suggested a cycle crossing from Lothair Rd to the Arena Shopping Centre.

There was support in the meeting for improved access to Finsbury Park, but this would not provide 24hr routes.

LJ said the humps in the Gardens area are not cycle friendly.

Eo’B said the Wightman Rd traffic islands are a major deterrent to cycling as cars try to cut in before the pinch points.

LJ thought the Bounds Green cycle lanes encourage cars to ignore cyclists when they turn left in to side roads.

SM made detailed notes (including points not listed above), which would be used for the study.


 Green Lanes Major Scheme

MP summarised the present proposals, as can be seen-on:-

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/gl_snp_booklet_final_digital_copy.pdf   and


MP will draft comments.