Developers to exhibit details of proposed Arnos Grove station housing scheme

A petition against building housing on the Arnos Grove station car parks has been launched by Cllr Daniel Anderson and to date has attracted nearly 900 "signatures".

Cllr Anderson argues that car parking will be displaced onto neighbouring streets, resulting in a controlled parking zone being introduced. That it will lead to more congestion. That more front gardens will be turned into car parks, leading to flooding and environmental problems. That it will do nothing to solve the borough's lack of truly affordable housing. And that it will ruin the appearance of the listed station.

https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-let-s-stop-tfls-proposed-development-of-the-car-parks-at-arnos-grove-station

Local democracy reporter Simon Allin has an update on the Arnos Grove station car park housing scheme in the Enfield Independent:

https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/18039971.details-revealed-flats-enfield-tube-station

"Local democracy report"??!! What's the when it's at home? Is that an actual job title for his coverage requirement in the EI or just what localist anti-development campaigners are now calling themselves....??

No, you're barking up the wrong tree completely. The Local Democracy Reporter scheme was set up in 2017 to help plug the huge gaps in the reporting of local democracy issues in the UK. Local papers had been reduced to simply regurgitating press releases and did very little proper journalism. There are now 150 or so Local Democracy Reporters, paid for by the BBC but employed by local papers around the UK. Their job is to provide balanced reporting on local authorities and other local democratic institutions. The car park housing controversy is exactly the kind of issue they are meant to cover.

Simon Allin has been the LDR at the Enfield Independent for the last couple of years and as a result the paper's coverage of important issues has improved considerably. (However, the Independent seems to have got rid of the reporters that they had previously, which wasn't really the idea!) His stories can also be used by the Enfield Dispatch. I'm pondering registering to use them on PGC, if I can qualify.

For more information see https://enfielddispatch.co.uk/local-democracy-reporting-service/

My own unresolved reaction to this proposal was helped at the weekend by a press article highlighting a new 1000 people / 636 household estate in the USA. It’ll be car free and parking nearby will be banned under terms in your lease. The space that would have been for parking will be turned over to shops, green space and a plaza. There’ll be designated spots for ride sharing pick-ups. Residents are to be encouraged to travel by foot, bike, scooter, bus or taxi.
The aim, “to remake cities for people not cars” and “we want our residents to see life from their doorstep, not struck behind a windshield”. As the developer also added, “we are seeing the first generation of people choosing not to own cars”.
Putting your money where your mouth is I guess.

My approach to this is very straightforward: London needs homes more than stimulants to drive a car about shedding minute fragments of tyres and, currently, exhaust gases, which are good for no one's health. And bear in mind that down in the heart of London the Mayor is busy finding ways to limit car use there.

Integrated policies for a city must be a good thing.

There is though a problem. Which is that people who currently park near the station may well have chosen their current homes knowing that the parking will be available. Which in turn may mean adjustments of bus routes or other approaches I haven't thought about, plus secure cycle storage - I have a white-collar neighbour who rides a small motorbike into central London every day. There is a lot which can be done.

The latest information about the plans and a link to an online consultation is available at https://www.givemyview.com/arnosgrove/news. (It doesn't seem to say anywhere how long the consultation runs for.)

The information boards that were on show at Garfield School are also on line at https://www.givemyview.com/resources/arnosgrove/consultationboards.pdf

I believe what is being missed is the opportunity to allow the build, but subject to environmental building stipulations. UK building regulations are frankly pitiful. Airtightness standards are risible, insulation mediocre at best, renewables rarely mandated and embodied energy doesn’t even get a look in. All that matters is the build cost bottom line with no consideration whatsoever for running costs for the purchaser nor the building’s effect on the environment and the people who live nearby. The result? Cheap-as-possible, inefficient-as-allowed housing that makes a quick buck for those involved. As soon as this is approved any influence we have on making this a worthwhile contribution to our environment will disappear just as quickly as the developers as they move on to their new prospect.

Chelsea's point is absolutely right. The council has set up a climate emergency task force, whose discussions are so far being kept secret because of "commercial sensitivity", but undoubtedly one of the lines will be working on must be imposing far stricter environmental standards on all new building in the borough. They must ensure that environmental standards are toughened up before this development, the new housing at Cockfosters and the replacement for Southgate Office Village are given the go-ahead. This might mean that the architects will need to go back to the drawing board and that costs will rise, but unless action is taken the longer-term costs to the environment will far outweigh them.

To add to my point, from a fiscally prudent point of view it makes far more sense to address the issue at time of build - it being considerably cheaper to install/build-in at this stage, rather than post build. Just for a start, I’m sure you can imagine the difference the price that an individual can negotiate purchasing a single solar system and a developer purchasing say 30 or 50. Still there continues to be a large number of developments springing up with absolutely no foresight or care concerning these issues, whilst the Treasury enacts legislation to raise VAT for home solar-battery systems from 5% to 20%, at the same time advising rates for fossil fuels including gas and coal should remain at 5%. Go figure.