“ Well reasoned arguments from Ben, thank you, but there are bigger issues remaining with this project in general and the loss of the carpark which is far more than an obsession for existing local residents..
The site is covered with deep man made earth platforms, ramps and embankments overlaying each other and more complex than I have ever seen short of prehistoric monuments, the earthworks of which all appear to be better built. The construction challenges appear well beyond effective solutions the developers can likely afford and certainly beyond what they would be prepared to spend.
Apart from more expensive artwork I can see little improvement in the aesthetics. The buildings at top of the hill were always a red herring and the reduction in height from a maximum of 8 storeys (bizarrely now claimed to have 12) to 7 recognises anything higher would have been expected to run foul of various planning policies and guidelines.
The built environment for people people living on the site squeezed between the busy rail lines and road will still be very poor. As I have repeatedly pointed out the plans have all hallmarks of the worst and quite frankly dangerous failed budget high rise estates of decades ago. To these are added windows, rooms, apartments and communal spaces such as corridors and lobbies that are far far smaller than anyone would have considered building just a few years ago.
However somehow high rise now appears to be the go to solution for high volume budget housing. This will undoubtably be a significant national scandal in years to come.
The blocks as drawn now to cram in the nearly 300 apartments have only a single stairwell and lift each. The single stairwell is likely to be banned under anticipated revised fire regulations and may breach existing regulations for the taller blocks and that with a ground floor shop. A single lift is surely unacceptable in case of breakdown or even routine service taking it out of operation.
The access remains exceedingly poor, the pathway up to the town will still be as steep and proposals to reduce the gradient of Station Approach seem geometrically impossible. All access apart from the northern path will emerge halfway up the hill mostly after a circuitous term around the estate and have conflicts for both vehicles and pedestrians crossing the Great North Road.
Pedestrian crossings, a maximum of two, will have to be light controlled reducing traffic flow and increasing congestion and pollution on the road while the number of vehicles entering and leaving the site will increase drastically with tradespeople and deliveries. Any pedestrian bridge accessing the island site has been ruled out due to cost. An escalator up to the town would be even more expensive and its operation unfundable.
Station users from High and New Barnet alike still face steep climbs to access buses let alone complete their journeys on foot. Even the bus option gets particularly intimidating for those travelling alone later at night, even before considering less frequent services.
There is simply no effective mitigation of the appalling access to the site in the revised proposals.
As for residents not expecting to be able to park on or near the proposed estate that is not the experience of similar new housing designed as car free. They either park illegally on site whenever they can get away with it and swamp surrounding areas with or without parking permits that somehow still seem available. The car park was also earmarked for a hub for future integrated transport projects which will now be impossible. Central London is also a very different proposition for everybody living without access to a car, in many places significant streets having a Tube station at each end and another in the middle.
The trope of the car park just being a facility for wealthy out of town commuters is a gross distortion as a the vehicles parked there at any time shows clearly. Around half the users during the day are local people making infrequent but urgent visits to central London where set time appointments mean it is impossible to plan a one off journey using several buses and tube connections. Later in the day and evening the car park makes similar one off journeys to cultural events in London, cultural life for which the Night Tube was created.
There are studies promising that closing park and ride facilities reduces traffic. All appear just to expound theory and none have significant survey data whatsoever. People will either drive into London, move into London increasing pressure on the capitals housing or indeed have family or friends drop them off at the station, doubling their impact on local traffic.
Very few people who use the car park have the luxury of the extra time to complete their journey by bus. This is not just about the duration of the journey, although no one wants a three hour return trek from Barnet to central London. It is even more critical to be able to complete it at a necessary predetermined time.
It is exceedingly significant TFL have said they will not operate bus services to the station itself and their operations people have indicated if they were forced to do so they would expect their drivers to frequently bypass it to maintain schedules. The gob-smackingly obvious greatest need for public transport for High Barnet is a bus service from the Station building linking the church, hospital and shopping centre. There is simply no joined up thinking, there will not be any. I note the current TFL advertising campaign on London buses highlights all the new vehicle charging points installed at station carparks...
I must say I had been thinking of something more like the recent prize winning council estate in Norwich ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49970607 ) built on light raft foundations with new retaining walls where necessary and limited to the existing commercial storage yard. It has to be said even that land supports a large number of local jobs, each container serving a separate business and the scaffolding yard ironically being a key strategic resource for the house building industry.
The project as it is surely deeply flawed, quite possibly uneconomic to build and probably not a starting place for something that should be acceptable to anyone. ”