Forum Topic

Park And Staveley protest on now. Please join

Protesters now gathering. Police are there. Save the traffic island.Go immediately if you wish to support.

Sean Wales ● 2230d65 Comments

Let's be clear, it's a Park Road protest - and no-one actually cares about the traffic island, it's about potentially directing traffic down Park Road.At least be honest with yourselves about your motivations.

Ian Philips ● 2230d

Staveley Road residents in favour of planned changes. Getting 8,000 vehicles per day at the moment.

Ken Munn ● 2230d

SeanGood luck with the protest, I've just got back from Chiswick House and am waiting for for Nelson to come for my annual chimney sweeping, so can't come to show my support, just wish I'd known earlier

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/protests-on-staveley-rd-continue-daily/

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Ken what a load of BSThere are not 8k a day vehicles travelling down Staveley Road but when these changes come in all traffic for the area will be funnelled along Burlington Lane up Sutton Court Road - running people over by the Station and coming out of the park.And I do agree Cllr Hearn is a disgrace. Only looking after his own interests - somehow imagining that traffic will divert down Park Road and along Lawford Road (his house is on the corner - the ugly one with the constant scaffolding) - rather than take the quickest option to speed down Burlington Lane.BTW how did he ever get planning permission for that house?

Richard Potts ● 2230d

I am not a Park Rd resident. My objections are clear. Removing traffic island very dangerous. Staveley will still see traffic once tail backs occur on Burlington and Sutton Court. Drivers will always try to seek other routes.

Sean Wales ● 2230d

Sean, the traffic island will be replaced by a barrier running diagonally between the roads with a gap for people on bikes.That is a far easier way of crossing the road than a traffic island.If you want an idea of what a permanent arrangement could look like, see this example in Shepherds Bush.https://goo.gl/maps/6sjKU543cY4MG4Fr6Are you saying you don't want to see the pavement extended most way across the road?

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Michael, that pavement would make it a permanent solution rather than a trial? Are you suggesting that this is a fait accompli and that there will be no ability to comment and reverse? No wonder people are taking matters into their own hands...

Cecile Parfitt ● 2230d

Michael Robinson doesn't care.He helped invent the "data" that identified a problem that didn't exist.This is all about an ideology - so don't expect a sensible answer.

Richard Potts ● 2230d

The barrier is being done as part of an Experimental Traffic Order using temporary materials.If the decision is made to make the scheme permanent, then the temporary barriers would be replaced by permanent measures.There are a large range of possible options for a permanent design - building out the pavement, planters, mini-parks...  All those would be up for discussion.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

The traffic data is all available from the council.There were almost 50 sensors in place throughout the area.You can get the data yourself and do your own anaylsis if you disagree with any of the facts regarding traffic I have provided.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

LB Hounslow and accurate Statistical Surveys - HmmmmmWhen were these surveys carried out as in month(s) and year ? Pre or post Covid ?You say 8,000 vehicles per diem, but that wouldn't be on Saturdays or Sundays would it ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

"All those would be up for discussion."  Bah!  rubbish when has the local council ever offered a proper consultation - never.  Only a box ticking exercise all slanted to get the resuults they want.

Jennifer Selig ● 2230d

Its a shame how this scheme is dividing the community and pitting neighbour against neighbour. I said many times the issues with these schemes are the creation of winners and losers, which the likes of Michael and others steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.  The quote in the article was interesting about Park Road:'the new scheme would divert some of the traffic down their quiet street, but it would make a huge difference to Staveley Rd'. Therein lies the rub, if you live on a currently quiet and narrow road do you want to risk a lot more traffic diverting down it? If the issue on Staveley is more speed than volumes then there are other measures to lower speed. Did the consultation specifically ask people what measures they wanted? It seems Michael, Tom and others play tag to get involved in these threads. The message is always the same, we know best, you don't. Live with it.Plus the data was pre-COVID and as restrictions re tighten all these schemes risk permanence, with claims of success, during a period of abnormal traffic. With tweaks these schemes can be improved, but the usual suspects turn up to shoot down every suggestion.

Paul Green ● 2230d

Discussion? Great, how will that take place? Are we going to have a proper consultation and be able to explore alternatives that really meet local needs? Not seen any plans on how this will be done. Just a few Web 1.0 survey forms so far.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

The surveys were done by specialist consultants tracsistraffic.comThe data available, all 1.2M readings, is from them, not LB Hounslow.The measurements were done over 2 weeks last October.Over 8,000 is average Mon-Fri traffic on Sutton Court Rd. Staveley Rd averaged over 5,000 Mon-Fri, 90% driving through the area.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

But Michael, this protest is about Staveley and Parks Roads and NOT Sutton Court Road where you clearly state that Sutton Court Road has 8,000 vehicles per diem ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

PaulAn excellent point re pre Covid survey, I wonder what the numbers would be now ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

Rubbish.  Having gone through a similar road closure on my street I know full well there are winners and losers.Staveley Rd traffic issue is both speed and volume.  Over 5000 vehicles per weekday with 75% breaking the speed limit.  Given I have actually looked at the data, I *DO* know more than you.The measures were proposed using moveable plastic barriers spec'd for 50mph collisions.  They aren't in the slightest way permanent.The whole point of doing this using temporary material is to see what happens so it can be changed easily.Opponents have no solutions, just some vague hand waving.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

"It seems Michael, Tom and others play tag to get involved in these threads. The message is always the same, we know best, you don't. Live with it."And this message keeps coming from the official cycling campaigners (like Mike and Ken) and a few people they are able to mobilise. The don't even want to see that by trying to divide people this sort of their behaviour actually does more harm to cycling than good.

Alex Shpinkov ● 2230d

You mentioned 8,000.  I assumed you were talking about SCR as that is the traffic volume there.Staveley has over 5,000.  If I've said 8,000 elsewhere for Staveley then that is my mistake and I apologise.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Michael you may acknowledge winners and losers but several of your fellow lobbyists do not in any way. Any closure is cheered and its implications for others ignored. If you acknowledge them then how do you balance that? What increase in vehicles along Park Rd is acceptable vs less traffic on Staverly Road. Are there no other traffic calming methods, like the chicanes on Hartington. The limit of the access only on Hartington to two tiny CPZ zones is crazy. It is v easy to expand this to all of Grove Park

Paul Green ● 2230d

2 CPZ makes no sense. Michael, having number crunched the data, do you think the solution being rolled out is the best for the area? Could the approach be improved?

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

Apology accepted

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

The point is, it is impossible to predict exactly how traffic will behave hence do something, monitor what happens, make changes if necessary.As an example from the closure of Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley.  It was known that maybe traffic would divert along Oxford Rd N.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  No point doing something there if it isn't needed, but there are measures that could be taken if it is.You are claiming something is 'very easy' with no knowledge of what is actually required.  If it is 'very easy' you will be able to point to lots of similar council schemes involving management of traffic over an area of about a square mile.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Part of the problem with the 'it's just a trial' argument is that people don't really believe this. The narrow exemption for the Hartington Road restriction confirms the suspicion of many that this is for the benefit of council coffers and not road safety in Grove Park.The easy way to stop protests would be a guarantee that any traffic islands would be made good if the scheme was scrapped and make its retention on a consultation after the trial in which people on the roads directly affected were asked the question 'Did this scheme improve your quality of life?' with a yes or no answer and the majority view determining what happens next. I don't believe the council will commit to either of these things.

Francis Rowe ● 2230d

No such thing as 'best'.With any design there are always compromises and trade-offs.  In this case, trade-off between resident convenience, effectiveness at reducing traffic, complexity to implement and maintain.The council could have implemented something with no ANPR and using 'hard' barriers at certain locations.  That would have been very effective at reducing through all through traffic, quick and easy to do,  but there would have been much longer detours for some journeys.I've never heard of anywhere using the 'linked cameras' as proposed for SOTG/Thames Green before (although Hounslow will be testing it first at Green Dragon Lane in Brentford).  I think it is good to try new things and it will be interesting to see how it works.  But it makes sense to do this on a single road first.So I don't think it is worth months or years of debate as to what is 'best' as there won't be agreement what that is.  Get something in, monitor what happens, make changes if needed.Cllr Hearn has claimed "there is a simpler and more elegant solution" but he has never bothered to write down what that actually is, so he is talking his usual duplicitous bollocks.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Standard noise.Mobility scooter in the road today. There will be people lying in the road protesting if they try to remove it in a year.Usual story.Eat sleep rave repeat.

Tony Smart ● 2230d

Looking at the large hole being dug for the ANPR in Hartington, I wonder how temporary will these be. Are they cheap and easy to move about later, such as with the barricade at Harvard Hill?

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

Its just a pole in the group.  Easy to remove, camera can be used elsewhere .  Same as putting back traffic islands.  These are available off-the-shelf.The expensive stuff is doing build-outs and changing the kerb-line hence this would only be done for permanent measures. May need to worry about drainage, utilities etc. etc.For example, traffic has been blocked at the junction of Riverview Rd and Grove Park Terrace.https://goo.gl/maps/wU2U1aPeeNcLckPx7You can see how the pavement has been built out and greenery installed.I wonder if residents there would want it removed?

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Francis - I've mentioned this to you before.  There is a statutory requirement to restore the road layout if an experimental traffic order is not made permanent.The dumb thing is that the protestors don't realise that the new arrangement will make it easier to cross.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Yes, there used to be camera there. Was puzzled by why delivery guys on bikes would get off and wheel their bikes through. Then I saw it. Last time I looked it was gone, and they were riding through. Wonder what they’d say to ANPR access only now for vehicles, it’s a pain to park there and to get in and out, or so I’m told by locals. Bet they won’t ask, in case they wanted it.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

Micheal, were any GP residents directly involved in designing these specific measures? Were you? Has there been any consultation before implementing them? On the access only, can you clarify why the Hartington Road restriction cannot be extended to all GP residents instead of two CPZ? And why can one camera for the western end of Thames road go in and use the same database? Allowing all GP residents access to this road? This is not vague or difficult.

Paul Green ● 2230d

Michael, these people aren't dumb and you attributing a mistaken opinion to them doesn't make them so.Most of the residents understand that the traffic island is redundant once the barrier is in place. The issue is making good. If there is a statutory requirement to do this, Steve Curran could shut down this issue by making a statement now that the island will be restored immediately to its original state if the scheme is scrapped.The traffic island is in any case secondary to the concerns of Park Road residents. What would be the arguments against a consultation in which the majority view of residents was paramount?

Francis Rowe ● 2230d

A consultation isn't a referendum.  I should know - there have been *three* consultations on the street where I live about a closure.  Consultations didn't change anyone's mind.  For this, the majority of residents on the street wanted measures to stop speeding and rat-running traffic.A majority of residents not on the street but in the area nearby didn't want it closed  for a couple of reasons.  One is because they didn't want to have a detour for some journeys.  Another because of concerns about possible displaced traffic.Ultimately the street was closed because a quieter and safer street was seen as more important that some inconvenience for some people's car journeys.  That's council, TfL and government policy.  Reducing traffic on residential streets is prioritised higher than convenience of some people's car journeys.Fears about displaced traffic don't seem to have materialised but if it does become an issue, there are other measures that can be taken.The point is that Staveley Rd is a high volume, high speed rat run.  Park Rd residents may have a concern about the implications but I don't see why they should have a veto on a trial.  Just as residents on streets off Wellesley Rd didn't have a veto for the closure there.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

There were 4 consultation sessions in October of last year.  I know the Grove Park Association has also been involved and are supportive.Some of the measures were obvious.  I predicted that Harvard Hill would be closed two years ago before the scheme even existed, it is such an obvious rat-run.I asked you if you could point out a council that had implemented an area wide traffic scheme just using cameras over an area of a square mile.  I assume you couldn't find one.  That would seem to indicate that it isn't easy.The point about the cameras on SOTG/Thames Rd is that a database isn't needed. Needing a database and all the management adds a lot of complexity and is a weakness, not a strength.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

There’s no comparison with Wellesley Road and what’s planned for all of Grove Park. If they were planning to close off Marlborough road, Burlington Road, Oxford Road etc to stop any access to CHR then there might be.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

If a database isn't needed, why do I need to register my car for the Hartington Road scheme?

Cecile Parfitt ● 2230d

2019 traffic measurements for Wellesley Rd were just over 7,000 vehicles a day.That's a bit under Sutton Court Rd which is over 8,000 but more than Staveley Rd at over 5,000.Fears about displaced traffic from Wellesley and SHG closure don't seem to have materialised.  If they do, then the first issue is likely to be traffic heading down Oxford Road North.  That can be addressed by banning right turns except buses.If traffic then starts to use Marlborough and Burlington, that can be addressed by closures/banned turns/no entries as well.  There is really no reason for someone to drive down Wellesley Rd as a bypass for part of CHR.The Wellesley Rd area can be viewed as a low traffic neighbourhood in exactly the same way as Grove Park.  My prediction is the Barrowgate Rd route to Grove Park will be closed off at some point in the future.However if there is no issue with displaced traffic from the closure, and there doesn't appear to be so far, then no point implementing additional measures.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

I said that a database isn't needed for the Thames Rd/SOTG cameras.  They use time taken between two points.  Stop and that is OK, drive through and that is a fine.However SOTG/Thames Rd lends itself to that as it is about 1 km of road with no other entrances and exits.The council are using a database for Hartington Rd but in general, managing and maintaining databases is a pain in the ass and add complexity and mistakes.  I predict people will be fined when they believe their details are in the database and resolving these appeals will take more time and effort.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

In 2020, managing a database is not that hard. Look at all the CPZs across Hounslow. You can add all the CPZ data or get data from the DVLA. Errors can be corrected. You can use the same database for both SOTG and Hartington cameras. Sorry but you are being ridiculously dismissive of a simple piece of tech. It seems easier than some v subjective question of how long it took to stop and get a pint of milk or cutting GP in tiny little segments

Paul Green ● 2230d

I understand that consultations aren't supposed to be referenda but in this case the scheme is for the benefit of a distinct group of people unlike say Cycleway 9 which could be of benefit to those from a wider area.Why would it not be a good idea to check whether a majority of the people who are the supposed beneficiaries are in favour?

Francis Rowe ● 2230d

Yes and running a whole new separate database from the CPZ one, where people have to submit their car details and proof of residency once again, makes no sense either from an IT or managerial perspective. There would be no duplication of effort if the CPZ database was used for all of Grove Park, and all CPZ included. The way proposed for Hartington only with just 2 manually reapplied CPZ, doubles the work and the potential confusion. It’s frankly bonkers.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

Not everybody in a CPZ will be registered on the CPZ database (if such a thing exists): those with garages or driveways on which to park for example.

Ken Munn ● 2230d

3 routes there, 1 get them to apply for a CPZ permit. 2 use the same DB to supply an access only one, with no windscreen badge, that could be free. (New Access permit is free, for now.) Or 3 use the DVLA registered at this address details. They supply bulk data requests to the motor trade already.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

See how Fulham manage it“ If you have a valid parking permit, you won’t need to register – we’ll automatically create a free access permit on our system so you can drive through the control points without penalty.Vehicles registered to an H&F address will be added to a permitted list, exempt from the restrictions and the registered keeper of the vehicles will not be sent a fine.If you’re a resident but your vehicle is not registered to an H&F address (for example company, hire and courtesy cars), please apply at www.lbhf.gov.uk/boroughaccesspermit with supporting documents and we’ll create a free access permit for you on the system. You can also email us on parkingpermits@lbhf.gov.uk”https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/sw6-traffic-reduction-scheme/sw6-traffic-reduction-scheme-frequently-asked-questions

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

Paul,I really don't know why you and Russell are wasting time on this forum.  You should set up a partnership of IT consultants then charge councils telling them how easy it is to implement ANPR systems covering large areas with databases containing thousands of residents.The average rate for IT consultants is around £500 a day, more for more specialist knowledge.You can point to all the successful implementations in, err, well I'm sure you can come up with something.Given you are such an expert, you'd make a killing.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

That’s a grand idea Michael. Happy to provide consultancy.If H&F can do it, so then so can Hounslow.

Russell Pearson ● 2230d

"The dumb thing is that the protestors don't realise that the new arrangement will make it easier to cross."No, the dumb thing is the overbearing arrogance of you and your chums ! You don't compromise, ever admit these schemes are flawed but just patronise and abuse those who disagree with you or have the temerity to suggest alternatives.These schemes, that you so avidly support, have created absolute havoc in Chiswick for both residents and businesses and just as bad, or possibly worse, are dividing Chiswick making it so difficult for those north of the A4 to get to south of the A4 and vice versa. Not everyone can cycle and for some of us walking would be painful, as for using buses - forget it in these Covid times.But hey you don't care and your chums at LB Hounslow certainly don't, with them it's all about short term gain from central Government funds and long term distress and misery for everyone who pay Council Tax and Business Rates !Did you know that at least 2 businesses on Devonshire Road are now actively looking for new premises outside of LB Hounslow as, fortuitously, they have breaks in their leases. Another long term business on Devonshire Road told me they will probably be out of business by December unless Devonshire Road is reinstated to how it was in the very near future. Well done to all those who supported these changes to access to once thriving roads but a special thanks to Messrs Curran, Khan, Frost, Robinson, Smart and what's the other chaps name - something to do with Scotland and Glencoe 👋

Loraine Pemberton ● 2230d

I suspect that in normal circumstances the scheme would have gone through a consultation before anything was implemented.However with COVID, all council funding for transport projects was reset and it has all been provided by the government (some directly from government to councils, some from government to TfL to councils)The objectives of the S Chiswick scheme are very well aligned with the government requirements, so there would have been no problem meeting them.  However the government required implementation to start within 8 weeks of getting the money.  This  effectively ruled out going through a consultation before implementation and meant implementation using experimental traffic orders, so consultation after implementation of a temporary measures.  The government streamlined the experimental traffic order process to make it even faster.The local councillors are obviously silent about the role of their own government in how things were done.Some will claim that the council shouldn't have applied for any money, but this would have affected all future funding as well.  The requirements for types of scheme that will be funded won't changing either.  Again, having been through 3 consultations for my street, an issue with consulting before implementation is that it mainly consists of people shouting opinions about what might happen.I think it is more valuable to implement something then the opinions will be about what actually happens.  Many people change their minds when they actually experience a quieter street and find it isn't the end of the world that some journeys are a bit longer.Looking back at the comments for Wellesley, the opinions predicted certain gridlock, chaos, and so on.  While circumstances have changed, it makes sense to protect streets now before traffic builds up rather than wait.

Michael Robinson ● 2230d

Michael Robinson, why are you so interested and committed to banging the drum for road closures in an area far removed from where you live.  Are you a not-so-undercover mole for Hounslow Council/a bike manufacturerh/Hiking boots?  What?  It's not as though Grove Park is a must visit shopping destination - it's just a very pleasant residential area with playing fields, the river and Chiswick House Gardens.  With your big flat feet or two wheels you can visit at anytime, we even have our own hopper tfl "germ machine" - we won't bite you.  So why so hell bent on making our lives down in this part of Chiswick so flipping miserable and hemmed in?  Who is paying you?

Jennifer Selig ● 2230d

Far removed? I live a hell of a lot closer to the area than Loraine Pemberton does but you don't seem to be doing your "Ausweis Bitte" routine for other people posting.  I'm willing to bet I live closer to the restrictions at SOTG/Thames Rd and Harvard Hill than you do as well.It looks like you have a problem with people who have different opinions from you, but that is your problem, not mine.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

'It looks like you have a problem with people who have different opinions from you, but that is your problem, not mine.'Are you totally sure about that Michael?

Paul Corcoran ● 2229d

I don't have a problem with different opinions Paul - just when someone presents opinion as fact with no or dodgy evidence to support it. ;)

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

Looks like Michael just started writing his autobiography.

David Lesniak ● 2229d

"just when someone presents opinion as fact with no or dodgy evidence to support it. ;)"You mean when a prolific cycling poster said 8,000 vehicles a day used Staveley Road, but it was actually Sutton Court Road- does that count as dodgy evidence  ?Just asking 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 2229d

Michael, firtly you criticise people for arm waving or vague comments rather than clear suggestions. When simple and clear suggestions are made you keep trying to dismiss them. It is absolutely the case that you cannot deal with any dissent against the proposals as made. Hounslow already has lots of systems that interrogate large databases, they will be cloning one of these for the Hartington Rd database. Interrogating 5000 records is no harder than 500.Why are you so emotionally wedded to all details of the current proposals? I asked before, did you help to devise them?

Paul Green ● 2229d

“ Hounslow already has lots of systems that interrogate large databases, they will be cloning one of these for the Hartington Rd database. ”That was quick Paul. I suggested you should become an IT consultant because you claimed to know how to implement these systems and less than 24 hours later you have posted a plan. Hounslow must have been desperate for your services.Can you give us some more detail? What are the all these systems? What databases do Hounslow run? Could you tell us what platforms they run on? If they are ‘cloning’ a database will that not present an issue to keep the data in sync or have you already devised a plan to do that.What sort of challenges did you find planning the project given everyone will be working from home? Do Hounslow have the IT staff in house or will they need to employ contractors? If contractors, can you post the job adverts as people may be interested applying. Where did you find the budget given I’m not aware that government funding covers IT projects.How did the discussion go with the Hounslow chief exec and head of IT about the priorities of your plan compared to all the other projects? Compared to the issues created by tens of thousands of residents coming off furlough, rising unemployment, rising cases of COVID, a project to ensure some residents don’t have an extra few minutes car journey must be the very top of the list.You are so confident about all this that I’m sure you won’t have any issues answering all these questions and providing even more information.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

Having read the posts and the article on the latest protests it is interesting to see exactly how dismissive some of those in favour of the proposals are about opposition.Michael: protestors are dumbLBH: protest is illegal.In the Soviet borough of Hounslow clearly anyone engaged in what the police described as completely legal, peaceful and compliant with social distance, protesting is "illegal".Lets be frank about this.  The protestors are not dumb, they have legitimate concerns and engaging in peaceful protest is a perfectly acceptable way of expressing those concerns.If LBH thinks otherwise then the Councillors who spout such nonsense should be removed from office because they have a clear case of sh#t in brain

Justin Stephenson ● 2229d

"What sort of challenges did you find planning the project given everyone will be working from home?"Indeed, Michael. Care to answer that?You forget/dismiss the enormous increase in home deliveries during this crisis. Those deliveries are critical to local businesses since mid-March but especially now in Lockdown 2.0. Rent continues to accrue, people are told to stay home and businesses are supposed to do what exactly? Tell their landlords that Michael Robinson lobbied to kill off businesses in Chiswick and maybe toss in a "small price to pay" barb attributed to another of your mates?Yet you steadfastly refuse to accept that fact and, god forbid, accommodate for it. You have no clue and you want nothing to do with learning about it. Because to you, its inconvenient and obviously a threat to your lobbying efforts. By the way, are you paid for that through the London Cycle Campaign? If so, that's public money. Which means you should be held to account. Pretty much what's happening now.

David Lesniak ● 2229d

Please don't make things up Justin.  I didn't call the protestors dumb.  If you read my post, I said, 'The dumb thing is...'.

Michael Robinson ● 2229d

English is not your strong point.When you said that "the dumb thing is protestors do not realise..." you are most definitely calling them dumb, stupid etc.  You and the council who talked about "illegal" demonstrations are cut from the same cloth.  You simply cannot accept that others may have different views to you.As i have posted before, if the council actually wanted to reduce the rat run, improve school kid safety they would be closing the entrance from the A316 to Staveley Road, not fiddling around at the Park Road junction.  I suspect the majority of people in that part of Chiswick would understand that and support it.  Maybe you can explain why that simple change to the A316 junction was not implemented

Justin Stephenson ● 2229d

> Michael Robinson, why are you so interested and committed to banging the drum for road closures in an area far removed from where you live.I wonder if it has anything to do with London Cycle Campaign’s project to make as much noise as possible about cycle lanes in London and to try and discredit anyone who objects.https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-supports-low-traffic-neighbourhoodshttps://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/mid-september-2020-londons-streets-news-round-uphttps://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/cw9-takes-another-big-step-forwardI’m a member of LCC, bit disappointed by their myopic approach to a complex issue.

Russell Pearson ● 2228d

Park Road 1Staveley Road 0

Ken Munn ● 2228d

> Park Road 1Staveley Road 0Grove Park, -1 no appeal allowed.

Russell Pearson ● 2228d