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.
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.
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?
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.
@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"??