Agenda item

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development (application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended the original permission HGY/2013/2610 for changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations are to replace the requirement of providing a new station entrance and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead requiring pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and accessory works.

Planning Officer, Robbie McNaugher introduced the item for section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development (application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended the original permission HGY/2013/2610 for changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations are to replace the requirement of providing a new station entrance and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead requiring pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and accessory works.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• There would be a lip and a difference in materials, this would delineate the cycle way from the foot way. This met design standards and would be subject to a stage one, stage two and stage 3 road safety order.
• TFL have done extensive modelling and looked at the impacts on increased capacity. For example, on match days passenger levels had been looked at closely.
• In terms of costs there has not been a budget to secure the link bridge. This was incredibly expensive compared to what officers initially expected. The option to have a paid link was looked at, but this would have to be manned. Officers had taken into consideration the slight increase to the overall footway width. The current cycle lanes were not in line with standards. This scheme had been optimised and was the best officers could do.
• The floating bus stop was a reasonable distance from the bridge itself, the bus stop was an island within a cycle lane and a road. There were new standards published by TFL regarding a bus stop bypass. Officers would take consideration into the design to slow cyclists down before the bypass. This design would go through the network management team at TFL and safety auditors.
• Lighting would be part of the safety design, officers would give more attention to the detailed design of this.

Quentin Given represented the Ferry Lane action group. He attended the committee and spoke in objection of this proposal; a summary of his speech is below:

Quentin welcomed the proposal for a new crossing and widening of footway, he also welcomed the agreement by highways of reducing the speed limit to 20mph. His specific concern was about the conflict on the southside of the road between pedestrians and cyclists. He was disappointed that the suggestion of changing the staggered crossing had been rejected.

Andrew Johnson, the Director of Engine Room Community Centre attended the committee and spoke in objection of this proposal, a summary of his speech is below:

The proposal for a link bridge was heavily supported by residents. This area had an overcrowded, dangerous footpath with an influx of pedestrians and cyclists. He requested that the team share plans for the bridge as per the original planning permission and find funding required to provide a fully accessible eastern entrance to Tottenham Hale station. He also raised concerns around theft in the area.

Cllr Peacock, Ward Councillor for South Tottenham attended the committee and spoke in objection of this proposal, a summary of her speech is below:

Cllr Peacock was concerned about pedestrian and cyclist safety, she appealed to members to go to the area to assess the situation and reflect on what the proposal was seeking.

The following was noted in response to questions to objectors:

• In the objector’s view, cyclists took little consideration of the cycling lane and the pavements were narrow. The MET police had met with students and spoke about theft in the area. There was also an issue with E bikes on this foot path.
• Objectors felt that the local population had not been engaged in the process of this scheme.
• Officers explained that dropped kerbs were trip hazards and the materials for a lip were a standard. Drop kerbs could cause issues for the visually impaired.
• The deadline for usage of this funding had been extended from last year. TFL remained committed to collaboration on a plan of a link bridge or a suitable alternative.

Matthew Yates TFL, Head of Projects, Consents and Urban Design TFL attended the committee and spoke in support of this proposal. The following was noted from this speech:

• The link bridge was originally intended to improve connectivity across the railway, it was not required to address capacity. TfL had secured £4 million to provide an alternative to the previous scheme. If Haringey cut down costings on this, money could be spent on the wider environment, funding could be for wayfinding signage, particularly along Ferry Lane, but also in surrounding areas.
• The cycle lane at the moment was not of the correct standard, the barrier was between the cyclists and the pedestrians and not the cyclists in the road. Cyclists did not feel safe using those cycleways and that's why there are cyclists and E cyclists using the pavement. This proposal had been supported by road safety audits.
• TFL were pleased that the pedestrian crossing proposed at the junction with the bus station was welcomed. The bus stop bypass again had been through a stage 1 audit. TFL had published a review which could be sent to the committee. Their research had found that they were safe for all road users, including bus passengers. Casualty data indicated that there was a low risk of a pedestrian being injured by someone cycling at a bus stop.
• There were targeted stakeholder engagement exercises with Ferry Lane action group, Haringey officers and cycling groups. TFL could not guarantee that funding would be available next year for this scheme.

The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

• The proposed application in 2013 was for an improved station, TFL were not precluding a link bridge in the future.
• There was an opportunity to make improvements in the area and TFL wanted to work with the Council to ensure this happened
• TFL believed the proposal was safe and there was a road safety audit to prove this.

The Chair asked Robbie McNaugher, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report. The Chair moved that the recommendation be rejected following a vote with 3 for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Committee rejected the proposal for planning permission. The reason for this was on the basis of local plan strategic policy SP7 for transport which was about promoting road safety.