Forum topic: Business Association lists its concerns about cycling proposals

Their claim of being 'in favour of promoting sustainable and healthy travel' is a far cry from the 'reject mini Holland' leaflet when the scheme was first announced.

I sympathise with the lack of communication thus far, although we are clearly a long way away from implementation. We will have further consultations in due course.

Their alternative suggestions aren't adequate at all and fail to understand cycling as a mode of transport, probably because they don't see themselves as cycling. There is no 'parallel' route next to Green Lanes, only a messy road layout that involves plenty of stop start. The 'Fox lane' suggestion is amusing, seeing as it is perpendicular to the road. The A406 comment is a red herring as clearly any cycle route would have to cross it. If we were have their 'proposed' route (which doesn't have any real details), we would have to prevent any through traffic and ensure that vehicle numbers and speeds are low, or we would have to get rid of some parking on these roads to find space for cycle tracks, which I'm sure the residents would appreciate.

The fact that cycling is now a minority activity is irrelevant because the entire scheme is attempting to increase the number of people on bikes.

Clearly the GBLA treat cyclists as a separate class of humans and don't envisage anyone else using it as a form of transport. With that assumption nothing will be done to the appropriate standard to enable more people to cycle.

If they understood cycling, they would know that to enable it, there must be a high quality network along main roads. Thus even the light segregation is not good enough. We must have properly segregated cycle tracks. We must ask ourselves, 'can children use this?' If the answer is no, then it is not good enough.

Look at similar roads in the Netherlands to see how they handle the problems deliveries, parking, buses, and pedestrians, and follow the best practice. By all means improve the car park and allow parking for free. It currently is only lightly used and as such is a waste of space.

This is interesting, even if at times going beyond a Mini Holland brief and straying into areas of other self-interest.

The absence of both local Residents Associations (FLDRA and BHORA) with their many hundreds of household members in the extensive list of interested parties is somewhat surprising. Were these the same residents and community groups referred to in paragraph 1 I wonder, and if not, why on earth not.

But most striking is the crystallisation of a seemingly increasingly common assertion about consultation; effectively a growing view across many areas which seems to be that if consultation does not reflect “my” view then it hasn’t really been undertaken, or effectively undertaken or properly undertaken, the consulter “isn’t listening” or such waffle.

Decisions are inevitably a balance of most-often conflicting opinion, data, policy and other factors. Often politicians are elected to make the final call, frequently subject to Public Hearing, Judicial oversight, and perhaps subject to an ultimate re-election challenge. They will not please everyone; what is crucial is a fair, balanced assessment of all the facts from all stakeholders, consultees and other sources of data and an explanation of the route to reach the end point. Almost uniquely, perhaps with the exception of Save Chase Farm, we have seen local elections tackle the Mini Holland subject at an early stage. That can only provide very useful data from a large, relevant, stakeholder group.

Where decisions can run into trouble is in giving too much weight to the shouty: a decision, by Liam Mulrooney it seems, has now been made to retain the triangular tarmac section of the Triangle space. Good, or maybe not so good. Much will depend on whatever scheme is ultimately determined to be the appropriate after all this current angst and what that in turn means for the Triangle architectural space itself. The final scheme may align or it may contradict, or maybe there will be no final scheme at all. But retaining the tarmac come what may has been the subject of a voracious shouty campaign by individuals and groups.

Where did that approach fit with consultation and the present day shouty views of some on Consultation I’m left to wonder.

And balance is a tricky thing. Consider as one example the comment on the importance of parking for transient purchasers of fast food. Accepted, and clearly a positive for these transient drivers as well as the shop owners and associated property landlords who can be expected to be in favour of the status quo. Yet I recall many local residents publically expressing total dismay at the introduction of fast food outlets into Palmers Green centre not so many years back and the numerous downsides that would bring in their eyes. It’s quite possible many may now “shop” elsewhere and as a result detrimental to the local economy, high street and other retailers. In overall local business case terms their shopping loss is possibly greater than the equivalent gain from fast food sales. Who is assessing such a bigger picture for the total population of shopkeepers and where does that stand against them being only one of a myriad of users of the same public realm? Not an easy call, and as the apparently “perfect” financial markets just down the road taught us, things can affect others than those making their optimum personal decision.

Free parking, why not? I suppose one argument is that with the Palmers Green Town Centre section of Green Lanes already almost constantly full with paying drivers then the economic case to generate vacant spaces would be to achieve market clearing levels on price, ie increase the parking fees. That’s economics. The alternate, economic, viewpoint would be to conclude that if the spaces are so valuable to shopkeepers then they – in an exactly similar way to supermarkets have decided to fund their own car park spaces – could be expected to subsidise them. But that’s logic, so often missing from such considerations when blind emotion can mist the eyes and positions become emotionally entrenched.

In the interests of transparency, such as is highlighted as a positive in the letter, it would be useful to see a listing of Green Lanes based GLBA members. For instance, is it one or one hundred? Does it include any of the National retailers?

…” is, I am sure, what people care about.” Well maybe, or maybe not; there’s always the real risk associated with making assumptions about what people think. Readers can check elsewhere on the web site the actual source documents and take a view as well as the support for the (unpublished) “ .. We love the Triangle..”. Of course that area, as heart of this community is important and should be reflective of that role.

What we both know is that before and after the data gathering exercise that there was intense lobbying and pressure on the Council to secure the status quo for the triangle tarmac before Mini Holland possibly generated any alternate options.
It might be enlightening to understand what, if any, other structural / planning related decisions were taken a as result of the same data gathering exercise, and under what process. My suspicion, admittedly unproven, would be zero. And that would be unusual.

My point, again, that there are numerous stakeholders, possibly several options available based on their collective input plus planner’s skills and always a process with a beginning and an end. In this particular case, fixing the end before the beginning may, just may, not be the optimal solution for every party involved. Hence the need for openness and balance. And then of course, on the one hand, to contemplate legally challenging a consultation which may not go in your chosen direction raises issues of what’s OK for my favourite goose, may not be OK for that unpleasant looking gander. Consultation is not a pick and mix, or as I said, shouldn’t be determined by the shoutiest.

Simply let everyone have a voice, openly, and then act on all the data. That’s all.