|
The long-awaited and badly needed 393 bus route from Clapton to Holloway, which
would link Stoke Newington Church Street, Highbury Corner and the area around Holloway
Odeon, has met an unexpected obstacle.
 Due
to start at Easter this year, it will now be delayed for an unspecified period of time
thanks to the Nimbys (not-in-my backyard) of Highbury New Park, a wide and wealthy road in
Islington. They told Islington Council that they opposed the removal of traffic bumps and
the erection of bus stops. The 393 is a small single-deck bus that would run about every
15 minutes in both directions. The Council, which has a Liberal Democrat majority of only
three, capitulated to their demand and vetoed the proposals.
Elections are due to take place in May. Hackney Council transport officials who have
worked hard to implement the plans are known to be extremely angry. Stoke Newington
Councillor John Hudson said: 'This is a real disappointment after all our lobbying. I hope
car parking is not the real issue.'
Islington Council told us: 'The 393 scheme has been shelved in its present form. There has
been a historic problem with traffic speed and volume on Highbury New Park. It is the
perception of the public that speed cushions which are a necessary adjunct to plans for
a bus route do not deter vehicle traffic volume and speeds as effectively as speed
humps. But the design and effectiveness of speed cushions has moved on from when they were
first implemented. This shelving of the present scheme was a decision arrived at after
Islington Council and London Transport Buses consulted widely with local people and
listened to their concerns. We are not looking at an alternative route but will be
reviewing the present scheme to address concerns raised about the effect of the intended
bus route and traffic speeds.'
After consulting an expert in councilspeak, we understand that Islington are saying that
they may talk to the residents again about traffic calming measures. Presumably after the
May elections. In the meantime the project is 'shelved'. It is noticeable that their
statement does not include any endorsement of the need for improved public transport in
the area. Their assertion that an alternative route is not being considered is
contradicted by London Buses who say, 'The exact routing is currently under review' and
that they hope to get the service 'up and running later this summer.' Sounds like a
classic transport muddle.
The 393 is identified in the London Mayor's Transport for London plan as a key route that
will ease traffic congestion. The residents of Highbury New Park and their Liberal
Democrat rubber-stampers on Islington Council seem to have little concern for the needs of
thousands of people who live to the east of their borough. Hackney, and in particular
Stoke Newington, is notorious for its lack of east-west public transport. Direct access to
the tube and rail links at Highbury & Islington would be a great improvement. Let's
hope that Hackney Council, London Buses, the Mayor of London and more public-spirited
Islington Councillors combine to pressurise the bus blockers to to change their minds.
|
|
The land dispute at Betty Layward Primary School started out as a routine argument
over a section of the school grounds. But it broke new ground in English law, and may have
lasting repercussions for the Council.
The Betty Layward Primary School opened in January 2000. It was the first new school in
Hackney since the 1960s, and its school grounds included a 25m wide strip of woodland, a
rare and valuable resource for an inner city school.
A few months went by and parents started pressing for the woodland to be used. They found
that seven residents on neighbouring Carysfort Road, whose gardens backed onto the
woodland, were claiming what was effectively a 'right to roam' over the land, and were
objecting to the site being secured. Residents claimed their action was intended to
safeguard the woodland, and they feared the school would cut down trees for extra hard
playground space. They simultaneously presented drawings to the Council of how they saw
their back gardens being extended into the woodland.
Parents were sceptical about their motives, but the school suggested planting trees that
would warrant protection orders throughout the woodland as a guarantee that it would be
preserved. Residents persisted with demands to more than triple the length of their
gardens and submitted a claim to the Land Registry.
The Council defended the claim, describing how the woodland was inspected in 1991 when it
was transferred to Hackney Council. In 1996 the decision was made to build the new school,
and the fence between residents and the school site was still intact. A final inspection
was carried out in 1998, when three of the residents had moved in and started to remove
their fences. However, when the case went to court the Council could no longer find
records of these documents, and was forced to present a different defence.
Instead they argued that the residents' claim was invalid.
 Contemporary fun stylish home accessories
& gifts
161 Stoke Newington Road London N16 8BP
Tel 020 7275 9311 |
|
|
Normally, 'right to roam' legislation protects public access to footpaths
on private rural estates. However, the woodland provided no access to another location:
the residents were claiming purely for access to the land itself. There is no precedent in
this country, and the judge felt the matter could go all the way to the House of Lords.
Whilst finding it a fascinating point of law, he strongly recommended that both sides
settled to save legal costs. He suggested giving residents access to 4m of the woodland.
The Council gave them ownership of 5m and £20k towards costs, effectively recognising
their right to make a claim. Whereas 'right to roam' was intended to protect public access
to private estates, it was used here to take a chunk of public land and fence it off for
private use.
The outcome did not go unnoticed elsewhere. A number of groups are opposing plans to sell
off playgrounds on council estates. If Carysfort Road residents could claim a 'right to
roam' on Council land then surely they could too, and advice was circulated on the
Internet on how to go about it. Whilst the use of 'right to roam' legislation in inner
city areas appears incongruous, it looks set to grow. |
