Jeff Rodin responds to objections to the proposed devepelpment at 499

Note from Brian Chinnery relating to the note below:  I already pointed out to Jeff that not everything in my blog is written by me - on this occasion I had failed to credit the original authorship of the blog he refers to - this has now been corrected.

Jeff Rodin writes:

I was forwarded a copy of Brian's blog by a concerned resident with the request that I get involved in the opposition to the proposed development, utilising the knowledge and contacts that I had acquired from my experience as an Enfield Councillor for 24 years. Having read the content, I concluded that there appeared to be a lot of exageration in the concerns being expressed, but nevertheless felt that it was of sufficient concern to make further enquiries which I have now done. I have now established the background and facts and in the light of what I have found out, my views are as below.
The planning permission was granted on appeal and the permission granted included arccess arrangements which require the utilisation of a part of the footpath (Footpath 207) which runs from Green Lanes to Caversham Avenue. The permission will need 700mm. width of the footpath from Green Lanes for about 40% of its length between Green Lanes to the railway Bridge. At this point the footpath is about 2.5 metres wide and therefore the use of 700mm. will leave a footpath approx. 1.8 metres wide(6 feet), which is the same width as the footpath ison the Caversham Avenue side at the end of the railway bridge. 
Therefore the suggestion in the blog that by taking part of the footpath for the access road will leave the path just over a metre wide and therefore dangerous for mothers with buggies etc. is plainly wrong .
In the blog the suggestion is made that by fighting the footpath proposal, the development can be stopped. I am in agreement with Brian that the development is inappropriate, but that view has not been accepted by the Planning Inspectorwho used his powers to overrule the Council and grant planning permisssion. However, I do not agree that the development can now be stopped by objecting to the acquisition of the footpath and it is in my opinion wrong to build up the hopes of concerned residents by misleading them in this way. The acquisition of part of the footpath was included in the original application and there was no objection to that part of the application at the time that the planning permission was being considered by Council officers and indeed the Council's Traffic and Transportation department considered the proposal to be acceptable. Were the council to now be successfully persuaded to refuse to allow part of the footpath to be used for vehicular access, there would undoubtedly be further legal action taken by the developer, which I am convinced would be successful with the result that all that had been achieved by the residents was to put Council Taxpayers money into the pockets of lawyers.
A number of other matters are mentioned by Brian which seem to me to be intended to raise concern unnecessarily. He states that there will be 156 beds in the development, which is highly unlikely given that the mix for which permission has been granted is 8x1 bed units, 15x2 bed units, 6x3 bed units and 7x4 bed units making a total of 84 bedrooms. Brian would only be right if there were to be almost 2 beds in each bedroom, which is highly unlikely. He uses the exagerated number of beds to suggest that the development could produce over 100 cars which is unlikely to be the case if there were so many beds, as many would be occupied by children. He also raises the spectre of pressure on school places, particularly at Winchmore, but if the occupiers have so many cars, there is unlikely to be sufficient numbers of children to cause problems!
It is therefore my conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by campaigning against the loss of part of the footpath, that the development will proceed if the developer wants it to, and that the cintinuance of this campaign could well result in significant sums of taxpayers money being wasted uselessly on lawyers rather than being used to improve local services.
I would hope that concerned local residents would get involved in trying to improve our place in more meaningful ways.

Jeff Rodin
93 Caversham Avenue