Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

Roger Blows attended the initial consultation event about plans by Transport for London (TfL) to build housing on both car parks at Arnos Grove station, which was held at Bowes Road Library on 19th June.  He provided the following report back to the Broomfield Home Owners & Residents Association (BHORA) and to PGC.

arnos grove station car park redevelopment sites

I braved the appropriately wet weather and went to this event this afternoon. There were quite a number of (vocal) people there and very little in the way of detail. I gleaned the following:

This is (I was told) deliberately a preliminary consultation to see how locals react. A further consultation will take place later in the year, supposedly when more flesh will be on the bones.

A similar event was held last night about similar plans for Cockfosters.

Housing comprising 150 units is envisaged for the two Arnos car parks.

The developer is Grainger plc, a long-established builder and rental landlord.

TfL is a not-for-profit organisation and of course the returns from this development will not make a few people very rich but will be ploughed into making public transport even more pleasurable than it currently is.

All units will be rentals with a proportion (40%) reserved for key workers paying affordable rents.

They will be “car free” (i.e. no parking provision) and tenants will not be able to secure off-site parking eligibility.

As for aesthetics, I was assured that heritage sensitivity would be of course paramount, with the listed tube station fully respected. Finding an architect of the quality of Charles Holden (or the recently deceased I. M. Pei) might stretch the budget.

To the West of the station (Site A) a public square is envisaged, so on that side at least the housing blocks of unspecified height will lie some way back from the station building.

Site A stretches downhill and ends in a tree’d area - I was assured that these and other track-side wildlife habitats would not be damaged.

A reorganised set down/cab catching/bus stopping space in front of the station is planned (as is a lift in the station).

The development if it proceeds via planning consent might complete by 2023.

The TfL representative I spoke to made reference to CIL/Section 106 resources perhaps being directed to strengthening the Arnos medical centre.

Feedback via See also www.arnosgroveconsultation.com.

Comments noted focused chiefly on the parking issues which BHORA highlighted three or more years ago, but the remorseless march of the district into urban status as distinct from suburban was also a source of grief.

Excerpt from display boards at initial consultation

At Arnos Grove Station Car Parks we believe there is the opportunity to:

  • Utilise brownfield, public sector land to help deliver around 150 new private and affordable homes for rent;
  • Preserve and enhance the setting of the Grade II star listed London Underground station;
  • Through quality design, create a positive relationship between the new development and the local area;
  • To create a new public square to the immediate west of the station;
  • To encourage a shift to more sustainable modes of public transport and reduce the need to travel by car in the local area; and
  • To deliver a car-free development, with the exception of disabled car parking for both station users and new residents.

Links

Arnos Grove consultation home page

Display boards used at meeting

Online survey

Cockfosters consultation home page

Log in to comment
Adrian Day posted a reply
24 Jun 2019 11:02
Sounds a sensible proposal - reduces vehicular traffic in area, helps address housing need and will support Tfl finances. Guess Palmers Green station car park will be next.
Michael Hobbs posted a reply
27 Jun 2019 08:11
I am not sure that it will reduce vehicular congestion in the area. We may find that it simply pushes pick-ups and drop-offs to the surrounding streets. TfL should look at the proportion and number of cars entering the parking area that are simply picking-up or dropping-off.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
27 Jun 2019 11:04
Redundant land + excellent PTAL rating + desperate housing need = much needed medium-high density residential development.

Great to see, crack on TfL.
Sanjay Merchant posted a reply
28 Jun 2019 21:51
This is what will happen if there is no allocated parking for these proposed dwellings. Most families have cars in London, the residents of the proposed housing will need to put their cars somewhere, probably in the surrounding streets. Anyone who has tried to park in Arnos grove will know it is a nightmare at the best of times. Especially since the land behind the shops has been sold off to private parking companies. Then we have the matter of commuters who won't have a car park to use, they will drive to the next station ie Bounds Green which doesn't have a controlled parking zone, so they can effectively park for free further congesting the likes of Warwick Road, which already is a rat run thanks to the incompetence of previous TFL traffic measures surrounding the widening of the A406 in the Bounds Green quadrant. This area is supposed to be the boundary for ULEZ, I would like to know how building flats would do anything but worsen the air quality in the area. It beggars belief it really does. There are parts of Enfield where the density of property is nowhere near the south of the Borough, yet the council/TFL seems hell-bent on putting as many flats in our area as possible.
Karl Brown posted a reply
29 Jun 2019 10:28
Talking at a local RA AGM last evening, Bambos MP highlighted that 21 tube station car parks across London are currently slated for such housing development. What he didn’t say in a short, wide ranging, and therefore necessarily detail-lite talk, was that the intent was clearly flagged in the draft London Plan as, amongst other things, being another step away from the dominance of space hungry cars and encouraging more of us towards active travel. No doubt there’s going to be many a toe trodden on that particular journey but the long term direction of travel is more than clear: private cars are now at the very bottom of London’s travel hierarchy –officially.
David Hughes posted a reply
29 Jun 2019 23:21
The contrast between Sanjay Merchant's and Karl Brown's recent contribution to this topic are stark, and the 'dyed-in-the wool' petrol-head contributors to this website would do well to note that even the Government now seems to understand that driving around London in family cars, often with only the driver on board, is not sustainable. After all few places worldwide can boast better public transport that our city, and far too many Londoners are currently under-exercised, and would do well to walk or cycle more often.

And bear in mind that the parental school run for their children can also deprive children of needed exercise. Finally I was struck by the fact that Sanjay M. seems to assume that, because may families have cars, they have a right to a parking place; I don't think that assumption holds water.
Sanjay Merchant posted a reply
30 Jun 2019 10:00
David, firstly where do you get London has better public transport than many other comparable cities in the world? In terms of value for money versus reliability, London has been found to be firmly towards the bottom of any league tables that compare our city against others.

I am also not sure were your petrol head reference comes from, I am specifically playing devil's advocate at the ramifications of putting housing in a totally inappropriate place, and the knock-on effect in the surrounding areas. Don't forget that business suffers as much as anything else when local parking becomes prohibitive.

With regards to the school run, I used to walk 2 miles each way to and from Minchenden School in the 80s. But what is the relevance of that to people possibly keyworkers who might need cars to travel to work? Does a hospital porter in chase farm travelling from Arnos Grove, want to hop on 2 or more modes of transport to make a journey that takes 15 minutes by car? When we have a world class transport system yes open the debate, but we don't especially in the Enfield Area. It serves a purpose, nothing more.

With regards to public transport being underutilised, have you ever been on the train into Moorgate during the rush hour, or the Picadilly Line into King Cross?
Karl Brown posted a reply
02 Jul 2019 09:44
The aspect of new housing being centred on transport hubs (and high streets) as being in a “totally inappropriate space”, as Sanjay Merchant postulates, is a ship that has long since sailed at both London and Enfield planning levels. These are exactly the sorts of locations that are now very much the way forward and the (highly credible)arguments well documented in dense GLA paperwork.
I flagged up these key consultations, when there was the opportunity to input, and some of their possible impacts, several times on this site as well as when speaking at eg BHORA’s AGM in 2018,
Me, at an Enfield level, I suggested Hadley Wood – existing public transport, shopping centre and more space than in many parts of the borough. Don’t suppose they wanted more housing either.
I’m not as convinced about the local businesses and everything else suffering when local parking becomes prohibitive line: a trip south no further than Crouch End seems to question that argument.
Getting across the borough, and beyond: a committed Spurs fan here in PG now finds he can cycle to the new stadium and its dedicated parking racks rather than spending a lot more time using his car or Freedom travel pass doing the same journey. There might well be something in that
Darren Edgar posted a reply
02 Jul 2019 11:03
@Sanjay

Weird. I bought flats in two new developments, Finsbury Park and Newington Green, both of which had no parking allocation and a contractual prohibition on being able to apply for or have any parking permit for any streets in the locality. Neither area has suffered any negative effect from residential parking need as a result.

Bounds Green is having CPZ's introduced, most of the streets by Bowes Park station have them now I understand.

How would building the flats worsen air quality? Can you talk through your logic/how you're making that spurious connection? Or are you hanging your hat on the aforementioned parking/traffic??
Sanjay Merchant posted a reply
02 Jul 2019 22:26
David the CPZ extension you are referring to relates to the Haringey side of the Bounds Green area. If you walk around the Enfield Segment you will see there are no parking restrictions throughout the day. There really is no comparison between Finsbury Park/Stoke Newington and Arnos Grove especially when you bring the A406 into the equation. The construction of flats along Bowes road has the potential to shift a large number of vehicles into the Bounds Green area. Warwick Road is already used as a rat run for people trying to avoid congestion on the A406 travelling eastbound. Before you say that there should be a CPZ on the Enfield side of the boundary, the local residents have already rejected such proposals in the past.
Sanjay Merchant posted a reply
03 Jul 2019 09:31
Karl, your example of Crouch end is quite pertinent to our family. My sister runs an independent retail outlet just around the corner from the clock tower, and yes parking has a massive impact on footfall in her shop.

With regards to cycling to WHL, who in their right mind would want to do a stupid thing like that. Aside from being the nearly team in North London, it's hardly a great place to leave your bike for a few hours, is it?
Darren Edgar posted a reply
03 Jul 2019 09:46
A very convenient set of answers there.... no restrictions supposedly on the Enfield section but when you complain about and rally against AG resi development based on supposed parking issues you say that local residents reject CPZs anyway. If there is a solution to a problem a people reject it then that's there problem. Progress shouldn't be restricted because of it.

Also see no reason for the lack of comparison. Other than personal convenience to your argument. London is desperate for new housing - if people see an opporunity to get on the ladder, in a location with excellent public transport connectivity, the lack of parking won't be a problem. It wasn't in FP and it won't be in AG.

So it is only a matter of concern for those currently using that land to park their cars..... which a local CPZ solves. Lots of bus routes serve the station and parking is expensive - maybe people need to give up the luxury of the giant metal personal box.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
03 Jul 2019 09:49
Crouch End - where has the significant change been in parking availability the last few (5-10) years? I'm struggling to think of a big car park that's been removed or added or any major changes to the street parking situation.
Karl Brown posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 08:19
Strikes me that having four dedicated cycle parking locations as an integrated part of the new stadium build and two specific cycle routes converging towards it highlights sensible planning. It is the future. 15mins by bike from PG I’m told versus a lot more (time and cost) by public transport or car, seems to be the cherry on top.

On the “massive impact on footfall” parking has in Crouch End, has that been quantified and specifically versus some causal change in the parking situation? i have this emerging theory that the less room given over to space hungry cars, then the more there is available for feet.
Neil Littman posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 09:59
So what happens to encourage car owners to change to electric vehicles? Either we are moving towards replacing petrol or diesel cars with 'clean' electric cars or simply removing all cars from our streets. Which is it? I find the policy confusing.
Neil Littman posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 12:04
What the original piece didn't mention is that TFL's reasons for getting involved in the development of new housing may be equally motivated by recouping some of the money they have lost in their deficit which stood at the beginning of the year at around £1 bn. This is due to falling passenger numbers and revenues due to frozen fares plus the overrun on Crossrail. The housing crisis has been with us for over 10 years and TFL could have addressed this a lot sooner but their financial crisis has brought this to a head. Maybe I am being cynical and ultimately we do need more housing but I am also sceptical about what counts as 'affordable' If the properties were being sold rather than rented without car parking then they would have a much harder job getting people interested.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 12:26
@Neil - why not both? Discourage car use but have electric as the dominant alternative if a car is a must.

I agree with you regarding TfL's rationale, not that I see a bit wrong with it.

Is this scheme all PDR then?

Personally I reckon they'd do fine as sales too. Why wouldn't they? Priced at a level for younger first time buyers, car parking isn't a high priority when the site is so well connected.
Neil Littman posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 17:40
David, Hi. The properties cannot be sold at all. Grainger Developments are a specialist rental company. I asked a friend of mine who works in development and planning at another council his thoughts and he said it was a 'really complicated issue' which he would explain to me over a meal. I think it will also include what the definitions are of 'key workers' and 'affordable' and how TfL benefit financially from the various schemes. Will the places be available to those on DHSS benefits for example such as my girlfriend who is disabled or will they only award places on a points basis. There is a lot more to the schemes. On a personal view I think living 'car free' in Cockfosters is a bit more difficult than the other areas.
Sanjay Merchant posted a reply
04 Jul 2019 20:05
David, what is convenient about the answers? They are facts.

The CPZ can be implemented in Bounds Green, yes, but you are effectively taxing residents for a Development at the next station and the consequential knock-on effects. We live in a democracy, right? If people don't want a CPZ that's not for me to comment on its a decision at an individual level. By the way, there also is a proposal for flats to be developed on Bowes Road were the Jehova's Witness hall is currently situated.

That's the problem with anything planning related in this area, people don't think about the knock-on effect of any development or how it may actually cause more problems than it solves. The widening of the A406 was a classic example.

And in regards to running a retail business in somewhere like Crouch End, what business experience to you have in retail to be in a position to comment on the effect of parking on local business? Aside from being a property speculator?
Darren Edgar posted a reply
05 Jul 2019 15:21
@Neil

Thanks. I'd overlooked Grainger's involvements stupidly somehow. Personally, from a TfL cashflow perspective, I consider that a big positive if it means the site will be retained by TfL as a rent producing site. I'm not sure what's been divulged though as to exactly how the development agreement has been structured? The JV may be Grainger putting in for the development, TfL putting in the land, and then sharing the end product (and income generated thereof).

Would like to have seen sales not BTR personally, but hey ho.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
05 Jul 2019 15:27
@Sanjay the convenience comes from complaining about a potential impact on residents of a situation whilst simultaneously stating that the obvious and workable solution is not deliverable because residents will refuse it.

Ditto that apparently other schemes elsewhere aren't comparable just....well....because (the actual because being that they don't suit your argument). Well connected locations (AG is one) are perfectly desirable and functional as car free, including without the new/incoming residents affecting nearby streets.

I know there are flats proposed for the Jehovas site. Are you able to make that relevant to the debate?!

I enjoy the whataboutery of your posts though. Can you not answer the Crouch End parking question then? Two people have asked. And it's your argument that it underpins. Or is everyone expected to take your opinions and anecdata as "facts"??