Forum Topic

Devonshire Road

Badly thought out.  Confusing rules.  Ongoing gas work blocking other nearby roads (Brackley Road).   Negatively affecting local businesses.  If this is really about protecting people and social distancing, how about a pedestrian one way system, northbound on one side of Devonshire Road and southbound on the other?  It just looks like another ill thought out scheme by Hounslow council.  Honestly my two year old would have pulled together a better plan.

Kieran Fox ● 2310d156 Comments

Spot on, ill thought out solution to a problem that didnt exist. Just like TGT.

Paul Green ● 2310d

Post your two year olds recommendations on here. It will be good to see what they come up with that provides the best options for all parties.

Paul Scullion ● 2310d

I have just passed Devonshire Road and there is a mobile cctv can parked outside the bath shop. It was there half an hour earlier when I passed the other way.I went and took photos much to the discomfort of the chap inside.I don't know if there is another further down to catch access only drivers but whatever they are up to it's a sure way to further kill off business in the road.

Adrian Irving ● 2310d

Negatively affecting local businesses?You mean that intriguing example highlighted by Councillor Biddolph of an Ealing man who decided to drive with his family over to Devonshire Road last week "specifically to find a hairdresser", despite hairdressers not being yet being open for business?Or do you have a slightly more credible example in mind?

Tom Pike ● 2310d

My two year old suggests you should only be allowed to shop on Devonshire if you use your own scooter (and it's pink).  I said that wasn't practical, but she was having none of it!  I told her that I use the shops on the road and I know a couple of the owners/managers and they told me business is down.  But she is firm, it's scooters or nothing.

Kieran Fox ● 2310d

I think she's absolutely right. Scooter previsions are key to the future success of high streets. More needs to be done to accommodate this form of green transport. More roads need to be converted to "scooter-only" zones if this country is going to get back on its feet.

Paul Scullion ● 2310d

This might be a stupid question, but how will they know that you are driving in for access only, say to Capitol Motors?

Jill Merrett ● 2310d

Perhaps the pro-closure lobby can explain the actual benefits and goals, as to be frank they escape me. I have shopped, had coffees and visited restaurants on DR for years. I have never once thought, gosh if only there was less traffic I would come here more often. Its nice when its shuts for events, maybe that could have become more regular. A fortnightly Sat or Sunday for example.The CCTV van underlines how stupid it is and will stop me visiting. So if I did want to go and buy some large pet food bags from the pet shop, what if I cant find a space? Do I sit and block the road for 5 minutes to avoid being a rat runner? You used to be able to drive around and look for a space in Annandale Rd, I assume that is no longer possible? If you want to widen pavements then block some of the spaces, as is happening. As with TGT, you can do that without banning through traffic. They are not linked in any way.If the issue was rat-running, then how about looking at say putting in a local access only ANPR at the bottom of DR near Dorchester Grove northbound, to stop rat running. Or southbound, depending on the greater issue. W4 residents could be exempt. Actual problem identified and sorted. What we have is a desire to do something (read anything), with an immediate availability of money to implement said something. Same with TGT.

Paul Green ● 2310d

Tom, I have special powers so can predict the future and can see further than the end of your nose.😇

Adrian Irving ● 2310d

As I understand this scheme, its main short term purpose is to provide more space in these two shopping streets for pedestrians to maintain safe distancing by spreading into the road, where the parking bays will be suspended and the amount of through traffic reduced. Under the legislation, any longer term ambitions as part of a wider traffic management scheme can be argued about later.

Peter Evans ● 2310d

I would have been fined - just before lockdown when i went to get the car serviced. I completely missed the turning for Capitol Motors and had to go around the block and come back again - a genuine mistake - as i hardly go there and the signs on the road entering threw me slightly as i thought they were no entry. At this rate i will be too scared to drive down there again for car servicing - lets hope nothing happens to the car in the next year - will have to find somewhere else to go instead. Won't be visiting anywhere else there anytime soon especially not with the car.

Julie Morse ● 2310d

Was I dreaming or has the recommended "social distancing" been reduced to 1 metre now?  If so why the parking bay suspensions at all?

Derek Hill ● 2310d

Derick, don't ask awkward questions.😁

Adrian Irving ● 2310d

If you're scared you might miss the turning, Julie, maybe it's Specsavers you should be heading to.

Gordon McDonald ● 2310d

Adrian, most people's experience of consultations is that they are ignored, certainly my experience of both TFL and LBH is that is the case. Reversing a road closure will be almost impossible I suspect, escpecially as it will raise revenues for LBH who are now even more in the red after COVID, as are most local authorities. Social distancing has NOTHING to do with through traffic. Its perfertly possible to close parking bays (but ideally not then fill them with massive concrete planters) to allow more social distancing. THere will still be double deckers, taxis, delivery vans, bikes and scooters, and local access vehicles on TGT. It will not be possible to walk in teh carriageway, so why stop local through traffic? THERE IS NO LOGIC, NOR WAS THERE A PROBLEM. Money was avaialable and LBH went for it, it also raises money. THat is all you need to know.

Paul Green ● 2310d

The recommended distance is still 2 metres if possible, otherwise at least 1 metre "with mitigations", such as face masks, not speaking face-to-face, etc.  For people over 70, the recommendation is to be "especially careful and diligent about social distancing".

Richard Jennings ● 2310d

As you now know what the signs mean (and "Access only" is really quite clear), it's a shame you nevertheless feel unable to trust yourself to make the turning into Capitol Motors. You are right, Capital Motors will inevitably lose trade from those who feel similarly uncertain, as will the hairdressers who have to cope with the loss of the custom from Ealing families who drive over specially when they are closed. I'm also concerned for the customers of Top Hat who have been unable to park right outside Top Hat much of the time as Mike Moran already has his van parked there. At least in this case, Mike does have the option of sacrificing his own convenience for that of his customers, if his business's survival hinges on it.    Of course that's offset by the increased capacity for outdoor dining with some shops actually feeling able to spill their seating out onto the street this weekend  and the generally more convivial atmosphere of a lower traffic environment which I hope you are now able to enjoy without bringing your car.

Tom Pike ● 2310d

I have found LBH to be very responsive to the issues raised in the Streetspace consultation and diligent in following the government’s guidance to reduce traffic volumes on streets including shopping and through roads. They just need to get on with it a bit quicker and up enforcement levels to stop antisocial people moving the plantlocks onto the pavement, parking illegally in the suspended bays and continuing to speed through streets that are now access only. Then we will see that people begin to really live the once in a generation change in how we move about our local areas ushered in by Grant Shapps. The embedding of behavioural change that he asked for is only just beginning.

Paul Campbell ● 2310d

..and while more shops are obliged to limit the number of customers coming inside and have queues outside, there will be less room for people to pass by on the pavement. 

Peter Evans ● 2310d

As an over 70 I think a 1 in 2000+ chance of meeting somebody with the infection is a risk I would take any day. One metre or 10 centimetres, the odds are the same. If you'll pardon the expression - it's called overkill.

Derek Hill ● 2310d

Vehicle movements are so occasional along the retail section of Devonshire Road that pedestrians have always used the road instead of the pavement. You could more effectively achieve what these measures are aiming for by formalising this by instituting a 5mph speed limit and pedestrian priority.

Francis Rowe ● 2310d

Francis, I believe there is no such thing as a 5mph limit in the UK and the lowest signed speed limit is 20mph.Pedestrians always have priority anyway insofar as drivers must always try and avoid a collision. You will see “pedestrian zone” signs but these are informational and will be backed up by other restrictions on motor vehicles. The street design can also reinforce “drivers are guests” through kerb design, raised platforms on roads etc. There won’t be any of this done as part of an Experimental Traffic Order but it is certainly something to consider for the future.

Michael Robinson ● 2310d

Take a drive, or a walk, along the riverside behind the old Civil Service grounds.  Several 10 mph signs there.

Derek Hill ● 2309d

Sainsbury's car park is 5mph

Felicity Caborn ● 2309d

Crazy scheme just when retail needs our support cars are not a problem we used to have 2 dogs and would load the car with their food from Chiswick pets a wonderful store. I can’t believe believe any decent council would bring in such measures at this time, just shocking typical of Hounslow just want to collect revenue through fines, that’s labour run council for you!

Jayne Thorburn ● 2309d

"Hounslow just want to collect revenue through fines, that’s labour run council for you!"It's not just that, it's also they will get their hands on grants from Government and to get the grant LBH have to meet a deadline - hence the haste to push these schemes through pdq !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2309d

The boroughs earning the most from traffic revenue are Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Wandsworth - all Tory. I wouldn't knock this income stream too much as it pays for our Freedon Passes!

Peter Evans ● 2309d

Sainsburys Car Park is private land, not a public road. I can't see how they could enforce it anyway.I took a quick look at google street view and could only see a 20mph sign on Riverside Drive..The City of London want to introduce a 15mph limit for their streets but they can't until there is a change in regulations by the Department for Transport.

Michael Robinson ● 2309d

The 20mph signs are also effectively unenforceable but they do have a value in persuading at least some people to lower their speed.It is probably the case that if there was a personal injury claim resulting from a collision on a road where there were 5mph signs it would be made clear cut if the driver was going over the limit so, although criminal action may not be possible civil action would be.

David Parker ● 2309d

The only part of Riverside drive that's belongs to Hounslow Highways is the short bit from the A316 to the Cross Roads with the Alexandra Gardens and Staveley Gardens.The 20mph sign located by the empty bungalow is the boundary of the the park and it used to be a 10mph sign, not so long ago as this couldn't be enforceable because no one from the parks department ever patrolled the area. If you go further into the park you will still find 10mph signs doted hear and there along the road.Although after receiving a letter from LBOH today outlining the Proposal of the Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans)of Dukes Meadows Dan Mason Drive, The Promenade Chiswick, Riverside Drive, Promenade Approach Road W4 2SH.The amount of extra traffic that will be attracted to the Dukes Meadows must be quiet a lot as there maybe a requirement adopt these roads under Hounslow Highways control as there is also ancillary Car Park to be built. 

Bernard Allen ● 2309d

For clarity. You can drive along Devonshire Road if you are using one of the two loading bays . They are now for non commercial vehicles too . Not properly advertised by Hounslow council at all . Please do still use the shops here and let others know loading for 20 mins is included in the " access".

Penny Ledbury ● 2309d

Cars and vans so often go too fast driving over corners on pavements nowadays.  It's become less pedestrian friendly and it is interesting that there are even lower speed restrictions in places.  I'd forgotten seeing those!

Philippa Bond ● 2309d

Penny, I would love to, but cannot risk a ticket. What do you do if the two bays are occupied? If you carry on to an exit then you presumably get fined, or sit and block the road? But once you are past the two bays your only chance of getting back to them is to exit and re-enter from CHR. Businesses need to lobby LBH.

Paul Green ● 2309d

Penny's right, the loading bays deserve to be more widely known. In fact as these spaces are gong to be freed up much more frequently there's likely more availability than before. That was certainly the case when I had brunch at Urban Pantry yesterday.If you do have to make a second pass to snag one for loading, then if you're ticketed I would hope you could rely on a dated sales receipt to show intent and get it dismissed.Maybe our local councillors could get this confirmed as it is in everyone's interests to understand how the loading restrictions will be enforced, on both Devonshire Road and Turnham Green Terrace.

Tom Pike ● 2308d

Believe me we have. Deaf ears.

Penny Ledbury ● 2308d

What nonsense Philippa ! On Devonshire Road - cyclists going the wrong way and on Chiswick High Road - cyclists routinely on the pavement, they're an absolute hazard to Pedestrians.Funny thing though  yet to see a car going wrong way down Devonshire Road or cars routinely using pavements on Chiswick High Road

Loraine Pemberton ● 2308d

Thanks Tom. Yes , my shop is right next to a loading bay in Devonshire Road and have noticed availability is good on the whole. Please do still visit!.

Penny Ledbury ● 2308d

"Maybe our local councillors could get this confirmed as it is in everyone's interests to understand how the loading restrictions will be enforced.."Or maybe the councillors responsible for the new regulations could explain ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2308d

Loraine is quite right; car drivers are angels. Cyclists are the collective antichrist. All of them.

Gordon McDonald ● 2308d

Your sarcasm aside, I've repeatedly written on this Forum that if motorists flout and break the law they should be prosecuted and penalised. Unfortunately cyclists  aren't

Loraine Pemberton ● 2308d

... anyone for tennis?

Stuart Kerr ● 2308d

I've just looked at police collision data for the area within 100m of Devonshire Rd and in the last 5 years, 9 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles and none by cyclists.There really is no debate that motor vehicles present the biggest risk to pedestrians, by a huge margin.  Police generally prioritise their efforts based upon harm done to the public rather than complaints on internet forums, so that means they focus on drivers.Devonshire Rd used to be two way then was changed because of issues caused by cars rat running.  With less traffic driving through and more space on the road, it can be changed back to two way cycling.

Michael Robinson ● 2308d

Two way cycling on Devonshire Road will be very welcome. It will enable people on bikes to use the quiet streets of the Glebe Estate instead of dangerous Chiswick High Road to access the shops, cafes and restaurants on the road. At least until Cycleway 9 is built.Just need LBH to stop all the drivers who are breaking the law by continuing to use it as a through road at the moment so that it is safe for pedestrians and cyclists to use the road in both directions.

Paul Campbell ● 2308d

I wonder if you can make the case that driving into Devonshire Road with the intention of visiting a property counts as 'Access', even if it turns out that you aren't able to because there's nowhere to park. Expert advice welcome! TGT is a different story at the moment, with traffic seemingly taking no notice of the new signs and using the road much as before. The long term answer for this kind of scheme is to 'pedestrianise' the road surface so motor vehicles understand they shouldn't be there except in special circumstances.

Peter Evans ● 2308d

Yes there are lots of very good and attractive examples of "pedestrainised" road surfaces. Orford Road in Walthamstow and Lime Street in the City are good examples.

Paul Campbell ● 2308d

Michael and Paul, when will you obsessives understand a very basic point. Not all of us can cycle, and even when I could, some journeys need a car. Your constant idealistic mantra that would seem to ban cars from pretty much everywhere is lunacy. Also, I regularly observe cyclists going the wrong direction on one ways, I dont have much of a problem with that if traffic is light. Traffic was ALWAYS light on Devonshire Rd, there was no problem to begin with. I think the concept of mixed use road space is on the retreat, some groups have been very vocal about it. In the case of TGT, there are still far too many permitted vehicles for it to work without creating a false sense of safety that will lead to accidents. Nor any crowding on the pavements that requires it.

Paul Green ● 2308d

Try to be more courteous to your neighbours and respect their right to have and express views with which you are uncomfortable if you can Paul. The current arrangements cater for the people who need to use their cars and I havent seen anybody objecting to that.

Paul Campbell ● 2308d

Loraine - just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. This is the standard of driving that is being experienced nowadays.  Too much, too fast and vehicles that are too large for small streets. Sadly, empty open roads encourage some drivers to drive even faster as they apparently previously used nose-to-tail traffic instead of a speedometer and this speed is continued when they turn into smaller roads. I like you have experienced the many cyclists selfishly riding on pavements as if we weren't there - and I've also experienced the two or three buggies side by side -the selfishness I will not excuse just because they are mums (or carers) with buggies.  They still need to share.

Philippa Bond ● 2308d

Paul, the current arrangements cater quite well for all users in my experience. I have in the past cycled on DR, regularly walk there, and occasionally use a car. All are possible. CS9 is also coming. So where is the problem? There isn't one, this is a money making scheme looking for a rational. Its possible to reduce the parking bays without banning traffic, as is also the case on TGT.If you want to build a good cycle quite route, leave TGT open and close Fisher's Lane. THen have a quite route down across CHR and onto Duke Rd, linking north and south Chiswick. A great idea and one suggested by the LibDem counsellor. But it is not being implemented. Why not focus your cycling ambitions on that?Finally, I am not uncomfortable with other people's views, but I do object to the high handed moralising by some of the cycling brigade on here, who also choose to ignore the realities of some other peoples lives.

Paul Green ● 2308d

Just 'walked' down Devonshire Road. CCTV car operated by Serco sitting there waiting to nab anyone driving through. Do yourself a favour and pull into one of the parking bays for a minute or two if you dare to drive down there! How much that costing LBH??

Robert Joseph Manners ● 2308d

Paul, you have responded rudely to my posts expressing a view that two way cycling and pedestrianised paving would be good on DR. That is not high-handed moralising. Despite all your protestations to the contrary as a "former cyclist" your habit of ascribing negative characteristics to people who ride bikes or, "the cycling brigade" as you are calling them, bears all the usual hallmarks of bigotry and serves your argument poorly. You are even accusing neighbours who support the schemes of only doing so because they ride bikes. Take a step back.These are not cycling schemes. They are traffic reduction schemes. But if one of them enables two way cycling on Devonshire Road as a side-benefit then that is great in my view.And you can still drive your car to the shops so why don't you just chill out and accept that these schemes are happening. Because they are.

Paul Campbell ● 2308d

Paul,Just looking at the language you use "I think", "I have in the past", "cater quite well for all users in my experience" "So where is the problem?" and other similar phrases, you appear to be assuming that if you think something is good or bad, then it must be the same for everyone else as well.  A bit high handed, perhaps?If the entire population was like Paul Green, then maybe you would have a point but I don't think this is correct.Also, please don't invent what others have said.  Your leap from what has been proposed to "would seem to ban cars from pretty much everywhere" is nothing but hyperbolic fantasy.My post was simply pointing out the evidence of casualties in the area and that there should be no problem for Devonshire Rd returning to two way cycling, as it used to have.  I'm sure you would agree that facts are better than evidence-free opinion.

Michael Robinson ● 2308d

Michael, if you cant spot the moral high ground that you and other adopt then its because you are so high up on it you are lost in the clouds. THere also seem to be plenty of others objecting to these changes, which by a simple count would put the objectors in the majority. You have still failed to clarify what problem the closure of DR and more specifically TGT is solving. It seems to be a moveable feast. For example, where exactly are you casualty stats relating to? Given that cars will still enter DR for access, and that the initial turning allows access to the parking in front of the George IV, I see nothing to suggest that the accident rate will change, desirable as this might be. If you want to engage in actual debate rather than this ludicrous and patronising exchange, where it is noticable you never actually answer questions put to you. Then see my previous post around a quiet way down Fishers Lane and onto Duke Rd or Duke Avenue, giving access then to the river and Grove Park. Why not spend some energy campaigning for that, I cant see why anyone would object, can you?CS9 is coming which will give a safe east-west route, there is no north-south route.

Paul Green ● 2308d

As pointed out Paul, you seem to have difficulty engaging in discussion without resorting to phrases like "you obsessives", "moral high ground", "high up on it you are lost in the clouds", "ludicrous and patronising exchange".Are you able to have a discussion without trying to denigrate people?If you can't, maybe you should lay off posting on this forum for a while.  These measures aren't going away and you will just get more and more frustrated.As I said in my post, the casualty stats were from an area approximately 100m around Devonshire Rd and were to illustrate the point that motor vehicles are responsible for almost all pedestrian casualties in the area (indeed for all of Chiswick High Rd)As has been pointed out, Devonshire Rd is not a cycling scheme and making the road two way for cycling is just an additional benefit, and I can't see a good reason for not doing it.Hounslow has announced they will be looking at addressing traffic in the Fishers Lane and Dukes Avenue area.  I await those plans with interest. There are finite resources so everything can't be done at once. As I have mentioned before, Hounslow has commissioned a redesign of the Sutton Court Rd/A4 junction and I'd expect that will also address some of the streets off SCR.  I await those plans with interest although I do know there is currently no funding to actually implement this project.

Michael Robinson ● 2308d

Not as much as the revenue that LBH will get assuming that the Temporary Access Restrictions that are in place currently (which will be replaced by Experimental Access restrictions as of tomorrow, 9th July) allow LBH to issue PCNs to those drivers who are illegally driving down Devonshire Road.

Andrew Jones ● 2308d

I should have added that it would be extremely helpful if Hounslow would reveal how they intend to undertake enforcement, in particular with respect to those drivers who genuinely are trying to access premises and/or undertake loading in Devonshire Road. I won't hold my breath.

Andrew Jones ● 2308d

Micheal, lets try and stick to facts and debating points then:'Devonshire Rd is not a cycling scheme and making the road two way for cycling is just an additional benefit, and I can't see a good reason for not doing it.' From my perspective, I cant see what this achieves, other than more confusion, and given the narrow carriageway it risks more accidents as there are still vehicles heading southbound. Nor does this fit into any coherent broader cycle route.Regarding the Fishers Lane area (and I havent seen anything from LBH on Dukes Avenue), this would make sense, address a clear problem and create a quite route. It would be a far better use of resources which as you note are scarce. Unlike the changes say on TGT.Sutton Cr Rd/ A4 brings a host of issues, the rat running up Heathfield Gardens, the queues along Barrowgate Rd. The general queues down SCR to the A4. Its fine with plans and redesigns (I believe several have been put forward previously), but again I see real problems where scarce resources would be far better deployed than on none existant problems.So in summary, I dont understand why LBH dont focus on actual problems, that require proper thought and analysis. Rather than grab any spare cash going to implement poorly thought out schemes, and risk worsening congestion problems in the long run.

Paul Green ● 2308d

"..it would be extremely helpful if Hounslow would reveal how they intend to undertake enforcement, in particular with respect to those drivers who genuinely are trying to access premises and/or undertake loading in Devonshire Road"Where are those councillors when you need them ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2308d

Cllr Lambert was having his picture taken near a pot hole in Chiswick! Wouldn't dare come to Devonshire Road for a pic near the plant pots or the CCTV car!

Robert Joseph Manners ● 2308d

Paul,Devonshire Road used to be two way for cycling when there were far more vehicles using it.  The removal of some parking spaces now means there is more space in the road.  With around 10 parking spaces and let's say an average stay of 15 mins, at most there would be 40 vehicles per hour. That is hardly anything.  Duke Rd, for example, is also narrow, is two way and it had a peak of about 200 vehicles per hour.Devonshire Road is most convenient route for people who would like to cycle to the High Rd from the area west of Chiswick Lane and a good part of the Glebe Estate.  It is also the most convenient route for people who live south of the A4 who want to cycle to the High Road via the underpasses by the Hogarth roundabout. It is also a destination in its own right, so people cycling one way to Devonshire Rd can cycle the same way back.

Michael Robinson ● 2308d

Councillor Biddolph would be responsible for bringing such concerns to the attention of the Borough, in this case specifically to confirm if an appropriate sales receipt would be sufficient to show intent to locate a bay for loading on either Devonshire Road or Turnham Green Terrace.

Tom Pike ● 2308d

Michael, have to disagree with you. Making a 50 yard stretch at the top of DR two way cycling is pointless. Heading northbound its easy to cycle on Ingress St to reach CHR, or to dismount to visit the shops on DR. Specifically regarding Devonshire Rd, you say 'It is also the most convenient route for people who live south of the A4 who want to cycle to the High Road'.No its not. Have a look at a map. Hogarth roundabout is at the very eastern tip of Grove Park and not particularly accessible. Also DR is to the eastern end of the High Rd, and there are plenty of shops, the library and medical centre plus the main supermarkets to the west.That is why as the Libdem Ealing Councillor Steed states in the front page article, there are ongoing discussions for a 'quiet way' cycle route down Fisher's Lane and then probably onto Dukes Av. Stopping say the entry onto the A4 at the bottom of the Dukes Av would significantly reduce traffic (genuine rat running), and allow a cycle into the heart of Grove Park via Chiswick House paths. So an ongoing scheme, that is being discussed and creates a real solution to a real problem, may not now see the light of day as scarce resources are going on an unnecessary scheme that doesn't address a real problem.If you really wanted to get people on their bikes I would think you would look at where people live and where they want to go. As I said before, Chiswick desperately needs a safe north-south cycle route. The recent changes on the top end of Devonshire Rd are not it.

Paul Green ● 2308d

Tom, are you suggesting the borough is not yet aware of the concerns people have about these new arrangements?

Francis Rowe ● 2308d

Of course not, Francis. But if you would like an answer to a specific question, council officers will prioritise responding to a query from a councillor.

Tom Pike ● 2308d

I actually have been to Devonshire Road and had a picture taken when the planters were originally placed.The current expectation is that we will lose more revenue from reduced parking fees than any we will get from enforcing  access restrictions. Of course that will depend on how many people want to pay voluntary fines.The restrictions will be enforced by ANPR cameras.The scheme is innovative, and we have designed it the way we have because we want to preserve the possibility of access for loading to support local businesses who have that need, and access for blue badge holders. The option would be just to block the road south of Prince of Wales Terrace  or to make it strictly no motor vehicles, perhaps between specified hours.It's fair to say that, because it is a new concept, it will take a while to become absolutely clear as to timings etc. We have also recognised that people may occasionally miss the turning for PoW Terrace and do a circuit. The enforcement will therefore, at least in the early days, err on the side of leniency.

Guy Lambert ● 2308d

Paul, there are a good number of people living on the east side of the A316 and the underpasses at Hogarth roundabout are the easiest way ro Chiswick High Road.I was on Devonshire Rd on Saturday afternoon for a beer and Tuesday lunchtime for a coffee and people were regularly cycling the wrong way down Devonshire Rd.  Rather than telling them “You shouldn’t be cycling along here because there are plenty more shops to the west“ simply accept that people are cycling both ways along Devonshire Rd anyway and there is no reason why it should not be legally two way for cycling. As I said, traffic along Devonshire Rd will be a lot less than Duke Rd so there is no reason why Duke Rd is two way but Devonshire Rd one way.

Michael Robinson ● 2308d

Guy, I guess the first question is what is the purpose of the scheme?  That should drive the decisions.  Is it to help with social distancing?  If that is the case are you trying to get more people to walk on the road? If so, can they walk on the road when there will be cars, vans and bicycles still using it?  I have a couple of young children, scooter and buggy is the normal mode of transport,  the road will not be an option.  That section of Devonshire was never that busy.  People would move to let you pass on the path.  Is this scheme fixing a problem that was never a problem?  The final question is how will it be judged successful?  Less virus transmission?  Or just someone’s gut feel?

Kieran Fox ● 2308d

Kieran, rather than composing my own amateur (I am not the lead member on this, though I'm closely engaged) response I refer you to the explanations on the council website here:https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2171/hounslows_streetspaceOnce the situation in Devonshire road has settled down I expect the traffic volumes to be radically reduced and very slow moving, as it will become apparent that this street is for walking and cycling by default. Of course, because this is experimental we will not be in a position to spend much modifying the street scene but I'm certainly hoping we'll see some dining/cafe areas and 'parklets' where once there were parking spaces, so it will become normal to walk and scoot down the road. For somewhere local where this is already happening - see Chiswick Mall.

Guy Lambert ● 2308d

You can't justify calling the PCNs issued by these measures 'voluntary fines'. Nobody will continue to drive along Devonshire Road or Turnham Green Terrace knowing that they are going to receive a fine. Like all fixed penalties they effectively operate as a regressive tax and which people will have to pay because they were confused by the changes or unaware of them.If we are to accept your assurances that enforcement of these measures is not the primary purpose of the changes and in fact will be revenue negative it would be helpful to have more transparency about how access restrictions are to be enforced.As enforcement has started the answers to all the questions below must be known so there is no good reason not to have them in the public domain.How precisely will a contravention be defined?What will be the time taking to pass along both roads under which a vehicle will be fined?What are legitimate reasons for use of loading and unloading bays e.g. can you stop to buy a coffee?If loading bays are unavailable what is the recommended course of action for a driver of a vehicle?Under your 'lenient' policy with regard to appeals, can you specify some examples of what would be seen as a legitimate ground for having a PCN cancelled?If a driver appeals a fine on the basis that they couldn't stop because all the bays were full will that be considered grounds for cancellation of a PCN?If their intention was to stop to load an item they intended to purchase, i.e. they had no sales receipt, what extra proof would you still accept this appeal?How often will you publish the number of PCNs issued on each road?

Francis Rowe ● 2308d

It is nice to see Cllr Lambert engaging in this discussion. I get the overall intention for DR, but I never found traffic volumes that high and simply removing much of the parking would have lowered them. Chiswick Mall for example has not banned vehicles.Unfortunately, the kind words of a local cllr carry little weight in terms of the legality of PCNs and the difficulties appealing them. this will raise money, lets be honest. Also. why would enforcement be lenient initially, you can forget to make the turn for the garage tomorrow or in 12 months time. I have in the past. More to the point, none of this happy description of a dramatically reduced traffic volumes apply to TGT. There will still be E3s, lots of delivery vans, local access traffic etc, plus scooters and cyclists. It is also a key local route linking the community that is otherwise cut off by the tube lines so traffic will also be displaced elsewhere. TGT makes no sense at all.

Paul Green ● 2308d

Michael, without getting back into name calling you are excellent at completing avoiding points put to you. Sure, if you want to formalise 2 way cycling on 50 yards of DR, so be it. I am NOT telling them not to do that, so don't put words in my mouth. You are willfully ignoring my pointSecondly, yes people live to the east of A316, but my point is that the vast, vast majority of Chiswick residents south of the A4 live west of the A316, do you dispute that?Also the advantage of the quiet way on Fisher's La and Dukes Av is that it links north and south Chiswick, which the area desperately needs. Liking Bedford Pk and Grove Park. We have CS9, but transport planning in W4 has already ignored the need for north-south links.Again, can you address this point. Why are you not actively campaigning for a safe north-south cycle route? Are you stating that Cllr Steed and others are wrong to suggest the Fishers La/ DUkes Av route? Answers please. Try moving on from the DR debate.

Paul Green ● 2308d

My wife has just gone with my seven year old son on their bikes from Grove Park to Elliott Rd to get his haircut. She asked me for guidance on the safest route. The route is Gordon Road to Fauconberg Road to Staveley Road to Park Road, through Chiswick House, through the Dukes Avenue underpass, dismount and walk through the alleyway to Duke Road, through Glebe Estate to Devonshire Road. Avoiding Sutton Court Road, Dukes Avenue and CHR which are all too dangerous for them.This will be much safer for them when Harvard Hill is closed, the diagonal filter is on Staveley Road and drivers obey the law on Devonshire Road and it is made two-way for bikes.

Paul Campbell ● 2308d

"This will be much safer for them when Harvard Hill is closed, the diagonal filter is on Staveley Road and drivers obey the law on Devonshire Road and it is made two-way for bikes."Making Devonshire Road two-way for bikes will make it less safe for pedestrians after years of one-way working.  It is easy to cycle via Ingress Street and Annandale Road, and you then have a light-controlled crossing of CHR.  I'm familiar with the many contraflow cycle 'lanes' in minor streets in Paris, and they work well.  But on a shopping street with extended pedestrian use of the former parking bays, contraflow cycle use is not a good idea IMHO.

Richard Jennings ● 2307d

Paul,Suggest you take a look at the consultations section of Hounslow Cycling website and you can see all the things we have been campaigning for. This includes an improved surface crossing at Sutton Court Rd as referenced in responses to S Chiswick Liveable neighbourhoods in 2019 and borough transport strategy in 2018 for example.I can point you towards  posts I made last year on this forum referencing closure of Fishers Lane to motor traffic except buses and making DR two way to cycling. Of course this was rubbished by some posters saying “you can’t possibly do that”. Funny that both are now on the cards...SCR is the only viable surface crossing as underpasses present their own issues - just try and negotiate the gradients and chicanes in a cargo bike.Traffic reduction on Dukes Ave would be very welcome to improve cycling there. That would mean closing off the Dukes Avenue ratrun which had over 2000 cars a day taking a shortcut to the A4 and SCR. Just wait for the howls of protest if plans come out for that.Politics is “the art of the possible” and it is pointless banging heads against a wall asking for something that won’t happen. Hounslow has already announced they are looking at Fishers Lane and Dukes Ave so campaigning has worked to get these on the agenda. Now wait for plans. Hounslow has commissioned a redesign of SCR but permanent measures would require construction and there is no funding for that. Campaigning has helped get this on the agenda as this time last year there wasn’t a plan. There is nothing I can do to magic funding out of somewhere for this project so again, it is wait and see what happens if they can get money.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Michael So you support cyclists breaking the Highway Code and the Law, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this road still one way ?You constantly say safe cycling is essential yet you condone unsafe cycling behaviour - simply astounding !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

"but I'm certainly hoping we'll see some dining/cafe areas and 'parklets' where once there were parking spaces"Toward that end, Guy, LBH should have in place new protocol for venues to create outdoor dining spaces. As it stands, there is they typical 28-day consultation period for licensing along with the 100% fees which will allow traders to use only a portion of the licensed space so that distancing may be maintained. No business will pay 100% for less access.You're missing a trick here. New York City has allowed venues to use the pavement for free although they must comply with regulations in terms of space used and how it gets dilineated. Currently the LBH system is mired in the past. I understand Ealing normally has monthly permits and yet LBH insists upon 6-month permits. So that, too, is indicative of the lack of support and understanding of what traders were up against pre-COVID.

David Lesniak ● 2307d

So I guess we are in agreement in part. However, I see few possibilities that will make the occasional cyclist or one with children feel comfortable on SCR, the junction with the A4 or the northern stretch of SCR given its high traffic volumes. Lots of cyclists do use the underpasses, I did and my family do, look at the earlier post by your friend Paul. It is possible I assume to use a cargo bike. But perhaps if not then it is necessary then it may be for those you use SCR junction.I think you will find that closing Dukes Av rat run would garner more support than closing TGT. Residents on the east side of Barrowgate Rd have long complained about traffic volumes and speed. So perhaps the funding available could have been used for a trial closure there. TO address a problem it seems you accept, and put in temporary cycle lanes down Dukes Av. Rather than say close TGT, where there was no problem and its still not great for cycling. The art of the possible should surely include these schemes, where there is local and central govnt support and clear rat running to address. My point though has always been that closing both TGT and Fishers Lane will push all traffic along South Parade, Acton Lane and Sutton Lane. An already v busy route. That is not sensible, it will gridlock west chiswick.

Paul Green ● 2307d

Paul, as with Michael you seem good at avoiding the actual point. Sure if you want to get the eastern end of CHR then your route makes sense. But we need a safe north-south route, ideally as close to the geographic centre of CHiswick. THis needs to connect Grove Park with Befdord Park, and on to the river. That allows access to both ends of the High Rd, and intersects with CS9. That would seem to me to be the planned quite route along Fishers La and a traffic calmed Dukes Avenue. Do you disagree? What if you wife had wanted to go to the medical centre or Sainsburys or the Italians deli? Would it still be via the amazing 2 way stretch of cycling on DR? It seems you and Michael are very passionate about DR. Fine, but also try and have a broader perspective please.

Paul Green ● 2307d

I don’t see the reasoning Richard. “contra-flow” in the context of Devonshire Rd is likely to be a peak of 10s of vehicles per hour. There isn’t enough parking spaces or access traffic to generate anything more than that.Why should two way cycling be any more dangerous to pedestrians than one way cycling?Take a look at Exmouth Market in Islington as an example. It is a one way street, two way cycling, motor vehicles for access and loading only, more pedestrian footfall than Devonshire Rd because it is more established as a low traffic street. There is even a bike shop on it.Also Orford Rd in Waltham Forest. One way street, two way cycling, motor vehicles access only and also a bus route, retail and food and drink destination.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

“ I think you will find that closing Dukes Av rat run would garner more support than closing TGT. ”Ha! I think you have a lot to learn about what is needed to get any improvements for cycle routes Paul. Restricting motor traffic always, always, always has opposition. Just look at what happened with Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens and the current S Chiswick proposals. I can give you dozens of examples in other boroughs as well.I have previously posted the idea of closing off the Dukes Ave ratrun on this forum and there wasn’t a great deal of support but a lot of “you can’t possibly do that!”, “gridlock”, “traffic chaos”, “we will be trapped” type comments as there always are when someone suggests closing a road to motor traffic.Hounslow has said they are exploring it so I’ll be waiting and seeing.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Just telling you what I saw when I was on Devonshire Rd on Saturday afternoon and Tuesday lunchtime Loraine,I don’t condone breaking the law but in this case, I see no reasons why two way cycling should not be legalised and Cllr Lambert has said this should be reviewed.On Saturday I saw Cllr Biddolph patrolling along Devonshire Rd and I’m sure she will support making Devonshire Rd two way for cycling given the number of times she said there should be better north-south cycling routes in Chiswick.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Michael please, this is what I mean by pedantry. Making 50 yards of one road two-way cycling in the absence of a broader coherent plan and clear route is meaningless and does not in any way deliver a north-south cycle route. Are you serious?As the esteemed Richard Jennings notes, 'Making Devonshire Road two-way for bikes will make it less safe for pedestrians after years of one-way working.'

Paul Green ● 2307d

I think its a lot easier when you work with people to build a broad coalition, rather than be seen as being too partisan. Also, the use of access only signs and cameras as being trialled in other areas, would allow local residents to use roads such as Dukes Av, Barrowgate and Heathfield Gardens, but stop the large volumes of rat runners, including vans and lorries.I don't see that many complaints about the closure of Wellesley and Stile Hall, do you? The odd voice but this was consulted and there was clear support, unlike say TGT. The repercussions and possible further road closures do need careful consideration. Do you acknowledge that there will be more pressure on Chiswick roundabout which will have knock on effects, mainly for the westbound CHR traffic that already has problems.

Paul Green ● 2307d

"I don’t condone breaking the law but in this case, I see no reasons why two way cycling should not be legalised and Cllr Lambert has said this should be reviewed."Weasel Words Michael, you stated you saw no reason to say anything to these law breaking and dangerous cyclists !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

Put your money where your mouth is Paul.I say Devonshire Rd will be two way for cycling by end of next year.What do you say? £50 to a charity of the other person's choice based upon who is right?Put up or shut up... ;)

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Well yes Loraine.  You may like playing vigilante where you live but if I'm sitting inside a bar or cafe having a nice beer or coffee or food with friends, I don't feel the need to get up and run down the road and remonstrate with people.  Same with the drivers of the illegally parked cars and the cars illegally driving through.  I didn't say a word to them either.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

"Devonshire Road is most convenient route for people who would like to cycle to the High Rd from the area west of Chiswick Lane and a good part of the Glebe Estate.  It is also the most convenient route for people who live south of the A4 who want to cycle to the High Road via the underpasses by the Hogarth roundabout. It is also a destination in its own right, so people cycling one way to Devonshire Rd can cycle the same way back."You're saying as long as it's convenient for cyclists no-one else matters, even though it's inconvenient for businesses and their customers. Such consideration 🤣

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

"I don't see that many complaints about the closure of Wellesley and Stile Hall, do you? "Paul, given I live on one of those streets when you say "I don't see that many complaints" I am metaphorically rolling on the floor laughing at your statement.I could give you the 5 years history of what went on but given it has happened, that would be pointless.  Suffice to say, I think you are being somewhat naive about the reality of closing roads.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

As previously stated on numerous occasions  ALL traffic transgressors should be held to account ! You have made it abundantly clear that cyclists never should be.Pedestrians want to walk on pavements, use crossings without cyclists hurtling past. Time for cyclists to be identifiable and be fully insured. Btw do you often drink alcohol and cycle ? Just asking as you mentioned having a beer 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

Actually Paul most of our family trips involve going to shops on TGT and Devonshire Road. I have been a weekly customer of Mackens, Covent Garden Fishmongers, Mortimer & Bennett now B&S, Andreas' veg now Natoora, Top Hat for 20 years. Pus the stalls that way and L&S. I used to use the car more for these local trips but over the years we have migrated more and more to the bike. So this is a typical route for us and many of the families in the streets around us.For the Italians we take the Harvard Hill underpass, cross Wellesley to Marlborough Road and then a short stretch down CHR. The closure at Stile Hall is already making this safer and Cycleway 9 will improve the Wellesley road bit further at least.For the medical centre we take the Sutton lane South underpass, Heathfield Gardens, across Turnham Green and onto Dolman Road. Again Cycleway 9 will improve this as we will be able to stick to the new lane on Heathfield Terrace. The propsect of the closure of the left turn from the A4 onto Sutton Lane North is exciting even though it would mean that when I drive in on the A4 from the west I will need to continue to the Hogarth roundabout to access Grove Park.Yes I also support the filtering of Dukes Avenue and the closure of Fishers. That would also be additive to enabling more and more people who can to get around their local area without a car. The more routes the better.Don't worry my perspective has been encompassing all of these possibilities for many years now. In addition to TGT and DR.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

FYI these are the new government pavement licensing guidelines meant to be going through parliament later this month.Fees are capped at £100 and consultation period is 5 working days.I think some councils have already changed policies in anticipation of the legislation.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pavement-licences-draft-guidance/draft-guidance-pavement-licences-outdoor-seating-proposal

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Good for you Michael, enjoy the fun. But after long discussions, its happened. The question remains, do you now see many complaints now? I wasnt asking about the history, which I am sure its complex.I think also now you have the joy of a pretty much traffic free road, you need to carefully consider the implications of further road closures that will force traffic onto ever more concentrated routes. And what that means for people living on those. This is one of the main reasons I argue we need a coherent plan, not a raft of piecemeal closures. Traffic will not disappear, mainly due to large volumes of commuter and commercial traffic that uses Chiswick to bypass the main arterial routes. This needs proper analysis and planning.

Paul Green ● 2307d

Paul,  traffic isn't at the same levels pre-lockdown and I think lockdown itself showed people what a low traffic street could be, and they liked it.  Someone still started a petition asking for the roads to be opened although I haven't checked how many signatures it has.You can see Hounslow's pre-Covid transport strategy at the link below.  I believe this is being revised post-Covid and I think should be out for review in the next couple of months.https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/hounslows-local-implementation-plan/

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

I think we need to be very careful to extrapolate current traffic as some indication of the new normal. It has already risen, and once theatres, cinemas, sport, bars etc are all fully open, and more people are in offices, it will see a big uplift. That may take 3, 6 or 12 months but life will normalise quicker than many now think. The inertia against pubic transport may take longer to change.the big challenge is the traffic flowing in and out of London. Even now queues southbound on SCR to the A4 are back post 4pm, as I found the other day. Even with a longer green signal at the A4 junction. Wait until the football matches allow fans in, and the new Brentford stadium opens. You may now be immune to the traffic that will generate, many others are not. THe approved plans there seemed to assume a lot of office parking along the A4 would be made available to matchday fans.

Paul Green ● 2307d

MichaelYou're being a tad selective with your replies, was that a tricky question for you too answer ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

'Btw do you often drink alcohol and cycle ? Just asking as you mentioned having a beer 😉'Michael referenced having a beer or a coffee,  he didn't mention going on a bender. A beer and a cycle home is fine.

Matthew Swain ● 2307d

It's  you, Matthew, who mentioned him "going on a bender" not me ! I merely asked if he often drank and cycled only because he brought up the subject. However,  I forgot cyclists never, ever break the law... 🤣🤣🤣

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

I’m clearly not as obsessive as you are Loraine.

Michael Robinson ● 2307d

Complete  and utter tosh, whenever you're losing points you resort to insults.Some people say you won't be content until all motorised transport is banished and we are back in the 19th century in terms of transport, I couldn't possibly comment.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2307d

Used Devonshire Road twice this week.The first time entering the road reminded me of a road in Kingston, that I inadvertently strayed into,and received a pnc  for my troubles.As I entered I observed lots of Cones just strewn along the pavement and road not really making any sense of whats been quoted on this forum.On leaving via PWT taking the right hand turn very slowly I could observed that there was only two parked vehicles, to my left, the rest of the road was deserted of life in general.The second time I turned into Devonshire Road, there wasn't a vehicle in sight, two pedestrians to my right on the pavement, and a gentleman, who I think must of have started a one man protest as he was walking towards me down the middle of the road.I turn right into PWT and leave 30 minuets later. On the way out I observed a small gathering of what I think were some of the shop owners who didn't look very happy at the complete empty street, all you needed was the tumble weed and you could use the street as a western set.When the cameras are finally erected I will refer to DR as the Honey Trap Lane.LBOH there was nothing wrong with the road, that had to be put right, other than copying  Kingstons idea of making money on the back of Government policy.

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

So why did you drive there?

Carl Wynne ● 2307d

How do you get you car to a garage for an MOT and Service?CYCLE THERE?

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

Do you think that opponents of this scheme continually denigrating the road is going to be good for the businesses that they purport to support? I don’t.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

Just saying as it is, you cannot do that unless experienced the new measures.

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

Yes I’ve been experiencing them and posting positive videos of the street being used as intended to encourage more people to come and visit. The handful of intransigent traders and residents vocally opposing this scheme need to snap out of their despondency and start making the best they can of the changes.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

The other option the traders can pull together and get local support via a petition to stop this ridiculous scheme. I absolutely support them in their quest and I feel sure with very little effort they will achieve 10,000 plus signatures let’s show our solidarity and tell Hounslow council to stop this crazy scheme. Devonshire road is not a busy traffic street there is no justification for this scheme. Chiswick High Road is a different matter total congestion in normal times the councils should be doing everything possible to elevate this not adding to it!

Jayne Thorburn ● 2307d

Yes I’ve been experiencing them and posting positive videos of the street being used as intended to encourage more people to come and visit. The handful of intransigent traders and residents vocally opposing this scheme need to snap out of their despondency and start making the best they can of the changes.Who are you or me come to think about it, have the right to tell a group of local people in their road to snap out of it.I was born in the borough, and I wouldn't talk about local businesses owners or local people like that.So coming from a person who has only lived here 10 years, doesn't really make you a community minded person.   

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

Ah yes that would be a really pragmatic response to government policy to reduce traffic volumes. Petitions have such a strong track record of success that it would easily combat and reverse the united policy of the DfT, TfL and the Council. The time spent by the traders futilely hoping for your petition to be successful will serve their businesses well. Not. Keep breaking the law in your car on TGT please Jayne. We all remember from the BLM threads how obsequious you are to the law and government policy and guidance.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

20 years

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

So you have only lived where you are now 10 years

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

Yep 10 years in Grove Park. 10 years off Acton Green. Born in Queen Charlotte’s when it was in Chiswick. And yes regardless of my connections to the area I think it would be advisable for the handful of traders to accept and embrace and let the others who are secretly supportive take advantage to drive their businesses,

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

Gosh Paul,  imagine the horror you would have caused if you said something like f**k business....

Matthew Swain ● 2307d

Paul C, I have been criticised for your friend Michael for labelling people. But I am afraid I do find your tone and attitude to those who dont agree with you appalling. Local businesses fighting for their survival are entitled to their views, and name calling wont change themI strolled along DR and TGT around 3pm today. Admittedly it was drizzling, but DR was empty. One pedestrian and a couple of parked cars, all the empty bays make it look somewhat abandonded. I dont see how a table and chairs could realistically sit in these empty bays. I hope it gets better because right now it looks like its dying.TGT was a mess. Half a dozen cars parked in what now seem to be blue badge only bays. I saw one driver arrive, try and fail to get a ticket from the machine, then rush into a shop with a worried look. There was a parking attendant moving along the road as I left, so it will be an earner for LBH With two Mackens vans parked on the east side, and some parking and the planters on the west, it remains a narrow and challenging road for cycling. Two E3s heading in opposite directions struggled to navigate the parked vans. There were still lots of cars driving on TGT, but also plenty of vans and scooters. One lone cyclist. Also a distinct lack of customers.I do hope DR improves, and the sun will bring out more people. But the whole thing is a mess, especially TGT where noone seems to understand what is going on and it remains a pointless farce.

Paul Green ● 2307d

Would that be the same person who has devised and implemented the traffic reduction policy that local Conservative Councillors and voters are railing against? Interesting. Wait till they see the effects of his “Get Brexit Done” policy.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

Name calling? Explain.Another opponent writing an essay denigrating the streets that the businesses he purports to support rely upon. Great work Paul.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

Well, back to where it all started.I posted what I experience over two days, also I was using Capital Motors, a quality local Chiswick business.I am not going to post with rose tinted Glasses, the road wasn't as busy as it was before the measures that have been added so far.I think I am correct, but not even Guy knows how the cameras are going to work. So you can see why the hesitation of a Customer of the road can enter the road to use a disabled bay or loading bay to find them all occupied.So if you continue to the end of the road and turn left and leave the road you will be given a pnc for driving down the road, so any driver will hesitate to use the road because of that scenario.But my understanding that even if a delivery Driver turns into PWT drops off a parcel and leaves straight away, in theory when they leave the road they could even receive a pnc as they are inside the timing of the Cameras.This set up hardly invites visitors to shop on Devonshire Road.       

Bernard Allen ● 2307d

Paul C, you said earlier 'The handful of intransigent traders'. That is name calling. I dont think they are intransigent, I think they are fearful for their livelihoods. And people like you are doing them no favors.And dont be ridiculous, I am not denigrating these roads. I have posted a 100% accurate description of what I observed. I have always shopped on these streets and will continue to, but due to the restrictions there are now a couple of businesses I now wont be able to shop at as I used to.As I said at the end of my last post, I really hope things improve, because its not looking good right now. I was also trying to work out where/ if there are loading bays for the public on TGT, but the remaining spaces all seem to be blue badge. So nowhere for the public to legitimately stop on TGT.

Paul Green ● 2307d

That’s not name calling. It is a description of the response to change of a handful of traders. It means unwilling to accept change. It is quite evident that is their mindset. Name calling would be a pejorative version of this description. Of course you are denigrating the streets. You are just as intransigent as the handful of traders. Of course you walk down the road on a mizzling afternoon seeing doom and gloom that you attribute to these measures because you can’t accept the change. But it has happened and it isn’t going away so you too would be best advised to adapt.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

Surely whether or not it's going away will depend upon the consultation which is supposed to occur once the measures have been tested in operation. Or is that just a cover story?

Bruce Hammal ● 2307d

Quite right Bruce. Permanence is dependent on the ETO consultations of 6 months. I meant not going away right now because of forum moaning or arm folding by a few blokes on Devonshire Road,

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

What a lot of responses.  I was chatting to my two year old again about Devonshire Road.  They suggest the changes probably were not needed,  maybe even ridiculous, but realistically, it doesn’t really matter what we think.  It’s hardest for the owners if they can see it effecting their livelihoods.  But it is what it is. Let’s get down to Devonshire on our scooters (If age appropriate) have a coffee, get our hair cut, have a couple of beers, get our shirt cleaned,  buy a treat for the cat and an antique bowl to put it in,  have a pizza for dinner, one more beer and then head home.  We can visit the other shops the next day.  (While socially distancing and ridding scooters down the middle of the road). Cheers

Kieran Fox ● 2307d

Paul, seriously get a grip, you are becoming really tedious. Giving a fair account of what I saw is not denigrating it. I actually want these shops to succeed and our local community to thrive, whereas you just want to make points about cycling.Should I pretend it was packed and there was a fun fair and free food and drink. You are embarrassing yourself now, put the keyboard away and go to bed.

Paul Green ● 2307d

No mention of cycling. No points. There you go again. You can’t suppress your bigotry. You have the gall to accuse others of name calling when you call people tedious and constantly try to diminish their points of view on non-cycling topics by calling them cyclists. Do you have any mirrors in your house Paul?You and others keep announcing the demise of your favourite streets and it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Paul Campbell ● 2307d

I’m not sure a few people moaning at this point will make that much of a difference, Paul. What I’d like to see is a comparison of retail turnover between TGT/DR and the High Road. If there’s a clear drop where the traffic restrictions were put in, then I think that counts against them continuing. At the moment it’s just anecdotal information. I heard Urban Pantry have seen a boost, but I’ve no idea if that’s representative. In a few months a much more informed decision can be made.

Tom Pike ● 2307d

I am just an occasional visitor to this forum and it is even rarer for me to post. When I do it is to try and impart information that others might find useful. Could I just say that the tone of debate currently is really not very edifying and much as the participants might enjoy the contest it is getting very repetitious. It also won't lead anywhere. May I suggest again that anyone with views on the matter, either pro or anti, use their energies to respond to Hounslow Council's feedback page - and encourage others to do the same. It runs until December 27th so that's plenty of time to compose a reasoned argument for your case.. That's me done!https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/streetspace-feedback/

Bruce Hammal ● 2307d

Bruce, no disagreement from me but one caveat: wait for the situation to stabilise before giving a reaction to the council's consultation. From experience, it takes a while for changes such as these to bed down, and for the public to become acquainted with and adapt to the new pattern.

Ken Munn ● 2307d

"From experience, it takes a while for changes such as these to bed down, and for the public to become acquainted with and adapt to the new pattern."And if the public don't acquaint and adapt in sufficient numbers due to inconvenience  and difficulties, what then for these businesses ? I'm just being realistic and posing the obvious questions that LB Hounslow should have factored into their deliberations before making such sweeping decisions that maybe have disastrous consequences to some of our local businesses. It's all rather Heath Robinson in its implementation.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2306d

"(I am not the lead member on this, though I'm closely engaged)"Councillor Lambert, please ask your colleague Councillor Khan, who IS the lead member, to join in on this forum and respond to the concerns of local residents.

Richard Greenhough ● 2306d

Thank you, Michael. The info on pavement licensing changes is extremely helpful and I am grateful for it. This should have been implemented in conjunction with the 4th and now the Eat Out to Help Out campaign.

David Lesniak ● 2306d

"handful of intransigent traders and residents vocally opposing this scheme need to snap out of their despondency and start making the best they can of the changes"Oh I dunno, Paul, is this denigrating? You'd think local traders could do with all the support the community can muster at a time like this. And there you are weighing in with this snark. Snap out of it? About as insensitive as you can get.For some perspective on why traders might be other than their normal cheerful selves that Paul demands I offer this example: yesterday two young mothers came in to the shop. One opted to try and pass a dirty diaper over the counter to a member of staff. Over the display counter of food, I might add. When said staff mentioned the loo was available and more appropriate, her response was "its only wee wee." So with that lurking in the background you can well imagine any additional stresses put upon businesses might, just might trigger something emotional if not despondency in and of itself. Yes folks, that's what being a trader in Chiswick can entail. And then we get to hear "snap out of it."

David Lesniak ● 2306d

"Councillor Lambert, please ask your colleague Councillor Khan, who IS the lead member, to join in on this forum and respond to the concerns of local residents."Or write to him directly. SImple.

Ken Munn ● 2306d

Hanif Khan does not participate in forums or answer emails he communicates with his people from a specially built studio. Here he has pronounced on bus lanes. Swift Action, as 🚌 Bus Lane hours extended to 24/7. in line with, Govt. #StreetspaceLDN and Active Travel.

Additional space for those returning to work, using @LBofHounslow main roads on bicycles accessing services, loading and jobs.@willnorman @htravelactive @HounslowCycling pic.twitter.com/gynMftr3Lg— Hanif Khan (@HanifKhan_1) July 6, 2020

Kevin Howard ● 2306d

Clearly a man of the people.

Richard Greenhough ● 2306d

A man who really gets involved with the local people

Bernard Allen ● 2306d

I guess they saw the hygeine rating online and figured it was that type of place.

Tony Smart ● 2305d

I am a trader in Devonshire Road and although I'm not too content with the  current implementations of measures I do think we should be positive and constructive. Devonshire Road is not dying . Today with more businesses open it is a good sight!. I do really think there should be better implementation and more clarity on the rules , the signage could be clearer. To repeat Devonshire Road is a good place to come , it is not abandoned and is not yet dying!!. To be clear traffic can enter Devonshire Road if using the loading bays to load for up to 20 mins and this is now not only goods vehicles. Please lets be as positive as possible and not ring the death knell quite yet!.

Penny Ledbury ● 2305d

"... I do think we should be positive and constructive. Devonshire Road is not dying. Today with more businesses open it is a good sight!"Well said, Penny.

Richard Jennings ● 2305d

Yes well said Penny, and I will be carrying on supporting the businesses on Devonshire Road 👍

Loraine Pemberton ● 2305d

Is cycling now allowed both ways on Devonshire Road? Was there an hour or so ago and went to cross the road part way up. Looked as normal to see if cars/ cyclists etc coming and as nothing stepped out. Then had to jump back as two cyclists came down the wrong way. Did point out that it was one way only and they just looked blankly at me.

Margot Crowther ● 2305d

Well said Penny. I will be supporting as well. I have honestly thought that the streets looks great when I have visited this week. People still driving through but not so many and more and more people out enjoying the extra space.

Paul Campbell ● 2305d

No, it's still one-way, but you get the occasional cyclist going the wrong way and endangering pedestrians like you.  I've learnt over the last 19 years always to look south as well as north before crossing the road there.

Richard Jennings ● 2305d

If only it was the occasional cyclist going the wrong way along Devonshire Road

Loraine Pemberton ● 2305d

Have lived in Devonshire Road for 22 years and cyclists have always ignored the no entry signs thinking it's their right to ride both ways. They'll all be in their element now these new 'plastic' restrictions are in place!

Robert Joseph Manners ● 2305d

Not sure if anyone has asked this but -How will the Council know that you do actually live in/off Devonshire Rd or Glebe Street etc?  How are LBH recognising your car number plate and that you are entitled to enter the area?    Do you have to have applied for a Parking Permit so your number plate is registered with the Council?  What happens if you have off street parking and have not needed to apply for a Permit?WILL THE COUNCIL ONLY RECOGNISE CAR NUMBER PLATES REGISTERED FOR A CAR PARK PERMIT?  Should that be the case, how does one get their vehicle on the approved list?  Perhaps Guy Lambert can supply a quick answer.   

Jennifer Selig ● 2304d

For JenniferFrom front page articleNo fixed cameras have been installed at either Devonshire Road or Turnham Green Terrace and the council did not respond to a question about when they might be in place. It is thought that any enforcement for the time being will be undertaken by a mobile Serco vehicle which has been observed in the vicinity on a number of occasions. Serco have the contract to enforce parking and traffic violations in the borough. A camera at the northern end of Turnham Green Terrace currently enforced stopping restrictions around the tube station and at the bus stop near the bridge but it is no known if it can be adapted to enforce the access restrictions.

Bernard Allen ● 2304d

Jennifer, my understanding is that they will have two ANPR cameras on Devonshire Road, one at the entrance from the High Road and one near Glebe Street.  The only reason to detect the number of a vehicle will be to time how long it takes to pass from one camera to the other, and thus to identify those vehicles not accessing shops etc. on the way through.  The vehicle number can then be used to find the owner's name and address from DVLA if a PCN is to be issued.There will be no list of local vehicle owners because that information is irrelevant.  Vehicles are only exempt from the "no motor vehicles" restriction if they need to stop in Devonshire Road or Prince of Wales Terrace.

Richard Jennings ● 2304d

This seems a sensible way to enforce it and from the front-page article it also seems to be the same approach that's being taken on Turnham Green Terrace. It would be possible to put into the ANPR processing a condition that if a car subsequently does additional circuits in order to get an empty loading bay, then that won't trigger a ticket.The traders are definitely correct that the most important issue is clarity, so those that need access know that they can get it without a ticket. Given Guy has confirmed this is not about raising revenue, it's in everyone's interests that the approach for enforcement is given good publicity. Also as Guy indicated, the current uncertainty is likely down to this being a novel scheme needing more than the usual consideration. It looks like there is a potential outcome here would allow ANPR enforcement on a consistent and understandable basis.

Tom Pike ● 2304d

Just talk with your feet, boycott Devonshire Road and TGT. Shame for all the local businesses 😔

Beverly Roberts ● 2304d

You mean talk with your steering wheel.  The new arrangements are to make it easier and safer for people using their feet.

Peter Evans ● 2304d

"clarity"It would seem to me rather than simply change the signs on posts, at the outset there would be A-boards down on the ground drawing attention to the fact that those signs everyone has grown accustomed to have suddenly changed.Otherwise its a bit like changing the fine print and then claiming the info was there all along when it wasn't.

David Lesniak ● 2304d

Agreed. There is every reason to make the parking and access restrictions as clear as possible. The council have said this is not a money making scheme, so they should have no hesitancy about this once they have decided on the exact way of enforcing it.

Tom Pike ● 2304d

For all those with feet that work!

Jennifer Selig ● 2303d

Quite so Jennifer, but it's not just feet that need to work, in my case it is my  left hip and knee, due to childhood Polio.  I'm certain that many of Chiswicks older residents have similar issues, so those who say that a few hundred years or 2/3 miles don't are talking out of what they sit on !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2303d

Grrrr predictive text, yards not years !

Loraine Pemberton ● 2303d

Having re-read the sheet that came through the door from Hounslow, it says the intention is to reduce traffic volumes by preventing through traffic. I don't think that there was much "through" traffic as there is no access to the A4 other than joining Chiswick Lane via Ashbourne Grove, which does not really save any time. It does greatly reduce access to The Glebe Estate, forcing everybody down the top end of Duke Road which is a notorious bottleneck, and scene of many standoffs between motorists. The extra traffic on Duke Road now means you cannot safely step out into the road to avoid other pedestrians on the narrow pavements.

Alan Green ● 2303d

Shame too for Chiswick Residents Beverly when the shops close and you have abandoned streets ... Boycotting is frankly taking it out on the wrong people. Hounslow still get their rates whether there are open shops or not!. Please think again!!.

Penny Ledbury ● 2303d