Forum topic: "Mini-Holland" - be positive, please

In the run up to next week's consultation about "Mini-Holland" in Palmers Green and Southgate, a fresh poster campaign has been launched by opponents of the scheme, under the slogan "Campaign to Save Our Green Lanes" and showing a "hazard ahead" road sign.

This looks distressingly like yet another completely negative approach to the upcoming consultation following similarly negative and exaggerated campaigning last year from the GLBA and N21.NET websites.

While I'm not convinced that reducing car parking along Green Lanes would affect businesses as much as the campaigners fear, I do agree that it is a possibility and hence a reasonable cause for apprehension. However, it does not justify complete opposition to any measures to improve conditions for people riding bikes along Green Lanes. And, as the campaigners have been told repeatedly, there has never been an intention of completely removing car parking in the shopping areas.

Why not take a positive approach? Consider the benefits of making cycling safer and pleasanter and think of ways that this can be done without causing problems for businesses.

Why see things purely in black and white? We don't have to choose between, on the one hand, a nightmarish "cycle superhighway" with lycra-clad maniacs hurtling along on both sides of the road, running down little old ladies as they go, and, on the other hand, the present noise and fume-filled traffic corridor, full of hazards for bike riders and pedestrians (including shoppers). There are plenty of reasonable solutions somewhere in between these two horrendous extremes, so why not work constructively with the Council to design such a solution?

And why save "our" Green Lanes? Who are "we"? As someone who shops in Green Lanes several days a week (on foot), drinks in pubs in Green Lanes, eats in restaurants in Green Lanes, I would like to save "my" Green Lanes so that I can cross the road safely and breathe clean air. There is at present no safe route for me to walk from my house in Park Avenue to Palmers Green station without crossing a busy road at a point where pedestrians have no rights. If I were in any way disabled I would probably be too scared to walk to the station. If I had young children, I wouldn't want them walking to the station.

As things stand, the old, the infirm, the young and people who wish to walk or cycle - two methods of travel which pre-date the motor car, create no noxious fumes or noise and use no non-renewable resources - these people are being robbed of their right to do these things safely in the heart of our community. Green Lanes is "theirs" too.

The Mini-Holland money is a one-off opportunity to create a better Green Lanes, which treats everyone fairly. At the moment pedestrians and people who wish to cycle do not get a fair deal, they are treated as second-class citizens.

Finally, I'm very disappointed to see the Ruth Winston Centre joining in this negative campaign. I fully understand that they are concerned about how their members arrive at the Centre. It is essential that the final design provides a proper solution to this question. But the fact that there is a potential issue on a short section of the road is no reason to oppose the entire A105 scheme, which is what the poster is doing.

Many Ruth Winston members will have been children in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. They would have played out in the street unsupervised, walked to school, gone out cycling in the countryside for the day without their parents, using roads with a fraction of today's traffic. Things that today's kids can't do because of the dangers posed by cars.

People born in the 1930s and 1940s - including Ruth Winston members - are living to unprecedented ages. I think that there are three important factors. First, they enjoyed freedom and exercise when they were young because they could walk, cycle and play outside. Second, they ate food made from natural ingredients. These factors both reduce the risk of long-term conditions such as diabetes, obesity and lack of fitness. The third factor, which explains why they are living much longer than previous generations, was improved medical and social services after 1945 - the NHS, better sanitation, improvements in housing, the elimination of deadly infectious diseases.

It is by no means certain that this improvement in life expectancy will continue, some people fear it will go into reverse. People born in the 1970s and later may not live to such impressive old age because for many of them the first two factors don't apply. They still have most of the medical and social services that their parents enjoyed (though these are under threat), but many of them didn't have that healthy start in life (both physical and mental) that came from the freedom to play out, walk the streets and ride their bikes.

Making Green Lanes safe for children on foot and on cycles will be one step towards restoring that good healthy start in life that Ruth Winston members had. I'm sure that they will see the sense in doing so.

So yes, get involved in the Mini-Holland debate, but please take a positive approach.

Very well said Basil

It is indeed an asset central to countless households as well as a small number of landlords and our local retailers and other organisations. All have a stake of different forms and deserve a reasoned hearing. It is certainly not “our” Green Lanes whoever “we” are, so in the interest of openness and having some data rather than simply emotion from the anti-bike / pro-car, could we:

Find out who the backers actually are

Find out who are the Palmers Green shopping area members of the GLBA

Ideally understand what percentage of their total trade relies on the central Green Lanes parking spaces and would be lost forever by any new scheme

I note from the latest Palmers Green Life, prepared and distributed by the Deputy Chair of the GLBA, that they now apparently represent both businesses and residents in Palmers Green so better all have clarity on what might be being said on their behalf.

Splendid piece Basil. Thank you.

What is needed here is proper informed opinion and a balanced solution, with no one group being advantaged or disadvantaged too much. I'm not convinced that the relatively small number of cars parked along Green Lanes represent a really significant percentage of shoppers, most of whom come on foot or by bus, surely? But one busload may account for a large number of people coming to the area to spend money, which suggests that the removal of the Fox Lane stop (if the cycling scheme goes ahead) will be disadvantageous for dropping off and picking up would-be visitors. How to reconcile such matters as these? By discussion and planning, not by emotion.

As for the GLBA: if they represent residents as well as businesses, they've never asked me for my views, nor anyone else I know of! From where do they get residents' views - and how?

I have been carrying out a survey empty spaces in the car park behind Waitrose in Palmers Green and these are my findings so far:

52 spaces 29th Jan at 2pm
58 spaces 31st Jan 3pm
84 spaces 1st Feb 12:30
81 spaces 2nd Feb 2pm
82 spaces 5th Feb 11:15am

These figures exclude the disabled spaces which always had some empty spaces as well.

on the High St there are around 17 spaces for cars to park on the Eastern side and around 22 on the Western side between the Fox pub and the Triangle. These spaces are generally full when I visit the high street and so it must be quite difficult for anyone to actually find a space directly outside the shop they want to visit.

I also noticed that the pavement on the Eastern side between the roundabout at the Fox Pub and just beyond the Alfred Henning Pub is sufficiently wide to allow a cycle path and pavement without removing the carparking, in fact the cars could be used as protection for the cyclists from moving vehicles. These spaces could have allocation for disabled drivers.

North of the Fox pub the road widens out and car parking is only on one side and there is sufficient space to move the car parking out to again allow protection for cyclists and have a cycle lane on both sides without affecting either parking or traffic.

I have suggested to the council that they allow free parking in the Lodge Drive car park for 2 hours or so whilst still charging on the High St. Then to put notices on the parking meters telling drivers they could have parked for free in Lodge Drive car park. They could use the mini holland money to finance this and encourage people to naturally move away from parking in the High St.

If you go to Wood Green or Church Street Enfield you cannot park on the main shopping street and people are accustomed to parking elsewhere and walking to the shops. If the current carparking facilities in Palmers Green are under utilised then surely we can persuade people to start using them instead of the high street itself

Out counting empty parking spaces in the first week of February can't be the most fun winter activity - I've got to admire your dedication.

It is good to see data being collected, and suggesting that some of the grant money be used to encourage free parking off the high street is great. Practical suggestions are of course exactly what the Council want. When it comes to encouraging on-street parking on high streets to happen in car parks next to the high streets, so far I'm far from convinced that the idea is an automatic death-sentence for any high street. Especially one like ours, where there really is so much parking nearby. For the council to boost that with a financial incentive to use it seems like good sense.

Hope you had a warm drink to defrost afterwards!

Are you suggesting a two-way cycle path on the eastern side along these two stretches?

Although the pavement is wide, it doesn't look wide enough for a two way cycle track. One of the most important features of good infrastructure is giving space both for pedestrians and cyclists: for pedestrians, so they don't feel intimidated, and for cyclists, so they aren't cramped into narrow tracks that slow down cycling.

All those concerned in creating healthy places – public health professionals, planners and landscape architects – need to recognise landscape as an asset that has enormous potential to improve our health and wellbeing.

So says the President of the Landscape Institute in that organisation's attached position paper. Many sections are relevant for the local discussions now taking place: from cycle lanes on Green Lanes and the investment driven improvements to the centre of Palmers Green which are indicated will be implemented in parallel; Quieter Neighbourhoods for our residential streets; and Play Streets designed to encourage free play for our children and wider social interaction. The importance of our parks is another obviously relevant area.

Nicer places to live, work and relax are better for you than noisy, polluted, stressful ones seems to be a potted summary. Bleeding obvious I can hear some say.