Forum Topic

Temporary Street Trading Application - Coffee van, Fisher's Lane by the playground

I saw a notice today on Fisher's Lane for a Temporary Street Trading Application for a Piaggio APE, serving "coffee, baked treats, artisan soups (when possible)".  Looking at the detailed application on Hounslow website's pending street trade applications, the APE's pitch will be on Fisher's Lane in a (ex-) parking bay just south of the dropped kerb, next to the Playground.  Proposed trading hours are 7am-4pm, Monday to Sunday.  There is no mention as to how long a temporary Street Trading Application runs for?Even though the plans show that an A-board will ask customers to queue on the road between the pavement and the APE, I think there are so many issues with that stretch of pavement: narrowness, camber, high pedestrian traffic without adding a coffee van into the mix. No issue with a coffee van, but not that location.Objections to be received by 24/06/21,  email licensing@hounslow.gov.uk

Mary Oppe ● 1957d76 Comments

Good luck to them.

Ken Munn ● 1957d

Ken, when you say good luck to them are you referring to the people running the van or the customers queueing on the road when a bus comes past?

Anita Blake ● 1957d

To the entrepreneurs

Ken Munn ● 1957d

Trouble brewing?

Jim Lawes ● 1957d

My initial reaction was also good luck to the entrepreneur too! It wouldn’t surprise me if this turned out to be a career change forced by the pandemic, and we should support them. If they get queues, then that suggests they’re doing something right and that’s positive for the neighbourhood. I’m sure we can put our heads together and work out a safe queueing system that doesn’t harm anyone - we’re British and expert queuers!

Ed Saper ● 1957d

Isn't the problem here obvious? Whatever the designated queueing point is people are going to queue on the pavement right outside the playground. This will force passers-by and families using the playground onto the road (which may at some point during the course of the licence be reopened to traffic). There are other entrepreneurs involved here including the people who have invested in Good Boy Cafe who are now having to pay rates again. The council appears to be trying to maximise revenue by encouraging street trading licences but these new entrants won't create new demand they will just cannabilise the revenues of existing businesses. If at the same time their location compromises their customers' safety then perhaps this wouldn't be a good thing.

Anita Blake ● 1957d

There is a small group of people in Chiswick who are extreme protectionists and would do very well working for the French civil service with their petit bourgeoisie. The same people seem to object to every new licence application for a new business or a market. Some of them are Conservatives who are adopting deeply socialist ideals and rejecting the basic principles of free-market capitalism. And of course it helps that these are the same people who worry that if this business is successful then it might further complicate their efforts to restore the supremacy of the car to Fishers Lane. So this entrepreneur becomes a symbol for the petty little culture war in Chiswick. Once upon a time not so long ago nobody noticed that this small group of people did these things but now we are onto them and they don't get to have it their way any more.

Paul Campbell ● 1957d

Correct Paul. They are obviously worried that even the dimmest Fisher's Lane rat runner might notice that the coffee stall is a signal that they are not welcome.

Carl Wynne ● 1957d

Paul Campbell suggested " There is a small group of people in Chiswick who are extreme protectionists..."" And of course it helps that these are the same people...""Once upon a time not so long ago nobody noticed that this small group of people..."Paul, just because you're paranoid, that doesn't necessarily mean that people might not try and set up a coffee stall, in entirely the wrong location.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1957d

Whilst I agree with you, no need to malign the French. This is hardly Clochemerle...........oh!

Stewart Jones ● 1957d

I should have said, whilst I agree with Paul...

Stewart Jones ● 1957d

Parfait. Clochemerle en vrai Stewart.Michael, you are blind. They have been publishing their petty victories on their mouthpiece, this website, for the two decades I've lived here. It's not hidden or secretive. I always found it annoying but it was their leaders' despicable attitude to cyclists that finally mobilised me a few years ago to take a stance against them and counter-plot. It is working very well so far. They are in disarray. Join us.

Paul Campbell ● 1957d

"There is a small group of people in Chiswick who are extreme protectionists"I think a better description is "reactionary conservative" - a refusal to countenance any type of change or progress, extreme anxiety about change and a tendency to believe in conspiratorial agents behind change (see cyclists running the government, false flag ops etcetera ad nauseam).Rationality goes out the window if it means the erosion of a perceived entitlement, an advantage for someone else or even an advantage for themselves if it means change!If you previously, or currently oppose many or all of the following, you may be a reactionary conservative:- Mobile coffee shop outside a playground (e.g. too dangerous, not against in principle (NAIP) but just the wrong place);- Flower / Cheese / Antiques Market (e.g. too dangerous, unfair competition, loss of parking spaces, NAIP but just the wrong place);- Devonshire Road (e.g. too busy, will send local businesses to the wall, NAIP but just the wrong place);- Cycle Lanes (e.g. too dangerous for cyclists / car drivers / bus passengers / disabled people / old people / children, causes pollution, will send local businesses to the wall, NAIP but just the wrong place);- ULEZ (e.g. stealth tax, nothing to do with pollution, discriminates against disabled and old people, NAIP but just the wrong time, whatabout airports, coal mines etc.).The same people with the same arguments, time and time again.  Some things never change :-)

Ed Saper ● 1957d

Plus ca change a dit le petit bourgeoisie de Clochemerle

Paul Campbell ● 1957d

Paul Campbell issued the following invitation@"Join us."Paul, have you not considered the possibility that your no doubt harrowing experiences at the hands of this"group" over the past 20 years, has blinded you to the possibility that nevertheless, there can still be "good" locations for coffee stalls, and "poor" locations for coffee stalls ?And that unfortunate though it may be, this particular location just happens to fall into the latter category ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1957d

Paul Campbell clearly hasn't forgiven Anita for her 'Aren't cars terrible, aren't I amazing' assessment of most of his posts. In his haste to get her back with as much spite as he can muster he has overlooked that her suggestion that blocking a pavement by a playground and having people queue on a road aren't great ideas is entirely right.

Felicity Caborn ● 1957d

Great Post Ed!

Andrew Jones ● 1956d

The location for this is indeed ludicrous. Not for the above but for a buisness choice of location. It wont stay long. Most passing on foot just want to get under up and away and cross if need be . The road and pavement on that stretch is not exactly a place people hang around chatting for its makeup. Dont think i would  have that loaction even at the bottom of a list.

Julian Pavey ● 1956d

It's a great theory Felicity but I wasn't even talking about Anita. She may be part of the group that Ed more accurately calls "reactionary conservatives" but if she is then she is very far down the list of names that immediately spring to mind.If you are interested in who they might be then look at the people who objected to Sam providing al fresco dining in Barley Mow passage and drove him out of Chiswick, the phone box coffee shop, cherry trees on Turnham Green, the flower market, the cheese market, the antiques market, various events on Turnham Green. All more recent examples and all a matter of public record.

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

I think Michael that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a parent of children that are of an age where they enjoy going to the playground there and on Acton Green and where it is party after party at Rocks Lane I see the merits of that location for a decent coffee. Perhaps this entrepreneur also recognises that the street changes are increasing footfall and dwell time in the area.

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

There does seem to be a bit of false equivalence going on here. Some people may have objected to stalls and markets previously for spurious reasons but the safety concerns being raised here seem valid enough. To suggest such people are 'reactionary conservatives' is frankly daft.I don't know what terms the licence is to be granted on but the Ealing Council leader has committed to hold 'CPZ Style' consultations on the borough's traffic measures. The council's own consultation tool and the local Lib Dems survey both indicate between 75-80% opposition to this scheme so, if Peter Mason is true to his word, cars and vans will be steaming through the underpass again. As for Julian's objection, he makes a good point but the target customer will clearly be parents taking their children to the playground. I would imagine somebody has observed the amount of coffee brought in from elsewhere at the moment and thought the site was viable. If they significantly undercut prices at places like Good Boy Cafe and Hack & Veldt they might attract some dog walkers and people going to Rocks Lane.

Mark Evans ● 1956d

The worst thing about this thread is the 'go on, object now' message along with the email address at which to direct your faux horror and disappointment. We'll have another (worthless) online petition on our hands before you can say "skimmed babycino".

Gordon McDonald ● 1956d

Maybe I'm missing something here but 'the worst thing' seems very over the top. Is the licence conditional on the access restriction remaining in place?

Mark Evans ● 1956d

It seems unnecessary to install this facility on the road/pavement when there's plenty of open grassy space on the other side of the road.

Peter Evans ● 1956d

Fishers Lane measures are part of cycle route plans, not LTNs, so no 'CPZ style' consultation'.  The Ealing leader referred specifically to LTNs for this.There already has been a consultation for the 6 months following the Experimental Traffic Order.

Michael Robinson ● 1956d

It's the invitation to be outraged I'm referring to...'and here's how to complain'. Somebody's livelihood may be in the throes here, yet the culture of 'petition this' or 'complain about that' doesn't take this into account. These 'local' petitions often get hundreds of responses from people who are completely unaffected and often don't even know what the cause is, or where it is.

Gordon McDonald ● 1956d

So does that mean that the Fishers Lane closure continues to operate through the ETO and at some point they will have to issue a permanent order? If so wouldn't this require another consultation?What Peter Mason said was "Ealing Council promised to listen to local people’s views on active travel initiatives like LTNs, and we have done just that". I don't get the impression the plan is to treat Fishers Lane differently and it would be very difficult to justify if he did.What remains unclear is, if Ealing were to scrap the restrictions, would the licence to operate the coffee van lapse?

Mark Evans ● 1956d

No further consultation is needed to convert an Experimental Traffic Order into a permanent traffic order.  There already has been 6 months consultation.Mason said "“Remaining LTNs will be subject to a CPZ style consultation". Take a look at the Ealing Council webpage where they list all the LTN schemes and see if you can find Fishers Lane on it.  You save you some time, you can't.  However if you cycle around the area you will find the signposts for the route to Chiswick from the A40 cycle path.I don't see why the license should depend on Ealing.  Having the route closed to motor traffic improves the prospects for the coffee van, attracting more people walking and cycling but the commercial viability isn't a matter for the licensing board.  The stall holder has the risk if it doesn't succeed or reward if it does.

Michael Robinson ● 1956d

Thank you Mary for alerting us to this application. The gentlemen who seem determined to characterise you as some sort of curtain twitching busybody are clearly unaware of the details of the proposal.Placing a coffee station at this point would restrict views to the only exit from the playground and either block the pavement, forcing people onto the road or, if the queueing system advocated in the plans was implemented, make them queue in the road. The idea is such a bad one I can't imagine any other outcome than it would be rejected by the licensing committee.I find it extraordinary that some people would just like to wave this application through without even knowing if it would be valid even if Fisher's Lane reopened. This just strikes me as irresponsible.

Diane Brown ● 1956d

KenWhat about our independent bricks and mortar entrepreneurs who pay hefty Rent and Rates as against a few hundred pounds for a 6 month Licence  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

Michael, I was quoting Peter Mason directly - he said 'initiatives like LTNs' in his press statement. I think he would find it very hard to say that didn't include Fisher's Lane. Of course you may be right as the camera revenue will be hard for him to give up.The latest I can find on the Ealing Council web site is 'there will be a further period of formal consultation before any permanent traffic orders are made'. So, although I bow to your greater knowledge that a consultation is not necessary, Ealing seem committed to undertake one. See link below:https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201267/emergency_covid-19_transport_schemes/2717/road_closure_to_motor_vehicles/2I can't find any details of a report on the final review of the scheme following the ETO - has that actually taken place? If the consultation you refer to is the one run through the Commonplace web site this seems to confirm opposition in the range of 70%The licence clearly wouldn't depend on Ealing and presumably even Hounslow's licensing panel wouldn't have the power to stop a coffee van being granted a licence on safety grounds if their own transport team didn't lodge an objection. If the Fisher's Lane closure hasn't been made permanent then it would be inconceivable to me that the transport team wouldn't object because the safety concerns that some might dismiss if access is restricted become overwhelming if the road fully reopens.

Mark Evans ● 1956d

Perhaps the parking bays are being removed and double yellow lines put in and Fishers Lane closed to all motor vehicles except buses, which is part of Hounslow and Ealing’s streetspace programme ? If that is the case then it's unlikely a License would be granted

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

There are none close to the proposed location.

Ken Munn ● 1956d

The statement referring to active travel initiatives referred to 'listening' while the statement referring to 'CPZ-style consultation' just referenced LTNs.As mentioned in the link you provided, Fishers Lane is a cycle scheme, not a LTN.  "This will form part of a strategic cycle route eventually linking East Acton to Chiswick and to Cycleway 9 on Chiswick High Road." No reference to LTNs.There has already been a period of formal consultation.  There was a statutory 6 month consultation following the Experimental Traffic Order and the local authority has up to 18 months to make a decision from the date of the ETO.Consultation responses are just one part of the decision making process.  The council is only obliged to consider objections, statements of support are superfluous.  It was also interesting that in the Hounslow consultation responses where they have published the data, the responses were heavily skewed towards older age groups and certainly weren't a representative sample of the population.  All this along with traffic data and alignment with council policies will form part of the decision.

Michael Robinson ● 1956d

Waft and Gail's both on CHR/Fishers Lane corners

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

Do you know if Peter Mason means to exclude Fishers Lane? It is hard to see how he could justify saying he is 'listening' to residents about one sort of traffic measure and not applying the same approach elsewhere. There would be no consistent principle here and people would accuse him of trying to get off on a technicality.That's not to say he won't do this - the ward is unwinnable for his party and the camera is generating lots of cash but his credibility would be very hard hit locally.You say there has already been a period of formal consultation but where is the report? Has the consultation been done through Commonplace?I think you are wrong about how councils approach consultations. Normally many responses wouldn't simply fall into the categories of objection and support but would raise issues (both positive and negative about any proposal) and the council would have a statutory obligation to consider and respond to them all. Bald statements either for or against a proposal don't need any response but can be used by the council to gauge levels of support for a proposal. By committing to 'CPZ Style' consultations it is hard to conclude anything other than Peter Mason intends to give more weight to the relative popularity of individual schemes with residents.On the point about the responses to Hounslow consultation being skewed to older people, is it not the case that this could be said about any consultation ever held anywhere? Can't see how this undermines the outcome of a consultation as it is undeniable that the responses will be a fair reflection of the opinions of the people who feel strongly enough about an issue to respond.

Mark Evans ● 1956d

LTNs aren't the same as a network. As the statement says, it is part of a strategic route.  You can't build a network by asking people every 100m if they want it or not.I don't believe Ealing have issued a report yet.  They have up to 18 months from the emergency traffic order date to make a decision, so until the end of the year, more or less.  They can choose to make a decision earlier if they wish.The Emergency Traffic Order has a statutory consultation and that means the council is only obliged to consider objections.  It is part of the ETO process as defined by law.This isn't the same as an 'informational' consultation which might occur before a scheme even happens, might present a range of options and ask for opinions and the like. The consultation responses are what they are but it isn't a referendum and the council should take a balanced view.  'Feeling strongly' isn't a valid reason in itself..  People may 'feel strongly' that a bike lane increases pollution but if the Air Quality Monitoring station shows that it hasn't, then 'feeling strongly' is immaterial.

Michael Robinson ● 1956d

Exactly what I said.

Ken Munn ● 1956d

You said exactly the opposite !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

"There are none close to the proposed location." Your two are about a five minute walk away.PS: the essence of a capitalist society is competition, not monopoly.

Ken Munn ● 1956d

You can't leave your young kids alone in the playground and go to Gails. That's why I think this business is in with a chance. 

John Hall ● 1956d

Think you are right, not everyone able to sit in cafe with pets either so doubt they will lose out.

Janice Evans ● 1956d

"If you are interested in who they might be then look at the people who objected to Sam providing al fresco dining in Barley Mow passage and drove him out of Chiswick, the phone box coffee shop, cherry trees on Turnham Green, the flower market, the cheese market, the antiques market, various events on Turnham Green. All more recent examples and all a matter of public record."Paul, you should write out a 100 times:-"I must tell the truth and not resort to sophistry"With regard to Sam's he got his outside dining License but it wasn't popular with customers, as for being driven out that's absolute nonsense and a downright lie ! Apparently he had health, personal issues and an offer from Hawksmoor/ Foxlow and sold his business as a going concern. Foxlow couldn't make it work, even with outside dining, because the good folk of Chiswick didn't take to or support them as they had Sam's - were you one of those 'good folk' ?As for your other mud slinging allegations, you've chosen to believe untruths without researching the facts - quite simply SHAME ON YOU !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

Who needs to research when the members of the small group are so eager to self-identify:“Why should the rights of the mionority (sic) to have peace and quiet be put up against the rights of these businesses to make extra money?” Loraine Pemberton April 2012Same old tactics - handful of residents object, set up a petition, lobby local Councillors (who are their friends), write to MP, kick up a fuss, make life as miserable as possible for a guy trying to run and grow his business. Rinse and repeat.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=leisure&page=consams008.htmLocals Say No To Sam's Al Fresco PlansSome claim pedestrianising Barley Mow would lead to more noiseA group of residents living near the Barley Mow Passage have opposed the plan to pedestrianise the area, claiming they are in a ‘David versus Goliath’ battle to save their peace and quiet.Sam Harrison of well-known restaurant ‘Sam’s Brasserie and Bar’ set up a petition on Hounslow Council’s website claiming pedestrianising the area would bring a 'continental atmosphere' and would benefit local business. The petition has almost 300 signatures.But local resident Loraine Pemberton said this would lead to increased noise for nearby residents, and they have now set up a counter petition.She said she did not believe Sam’s claims that in the recession, it would be good for business.“Why should the rights of the mionority to have peace and quiet be put up against the rights of these businesses to make extra money?”Her neighbour Sally Shimmin said she wondered how emergency fire and ambulance vehicles were meant to access such properties as Voysey House and Barley Mow Business Centre if there were tables outside on the street.“They can't reach them via the two small roads that run to and from the passage that his diners will block with outside tables."The two residents, who claim they have the support of several others who live in flats along the High Road, also said it would be difficult to get access to their homes with vehicles.“We will be able to access but not exit as it's illegal to reverse onto a main road which would be our only option.” Says Loraine Pemberton."We have no objection for businesses to aspire and grow, as long as it’s not at the expense of residents who have been in occupation for far longer that Sam's and Chisou and already suffer from increased noise pollution."The residents have put their concerns into a letter sent to local MP Mary Macleod and plan to lobby councillors on the issue. The cost of pedestrianisation would be £4,000 and the decision would be made by Hounslow Council.The newly-opened Japanese restaurant Chisou is also supporting the idea, although the Barley Mow pub has not expressed an interest.According to Sam Harrison, other local businesses on the High Road would also benefit as this proposal would draw people to what is often consider the quietest "trading "part of the High Road.In a letter sent to local residents earlier this month, he said he fully understood their concerns and would be willing to finish outside dining at 10.30pm or earlier and if necessary, he could restrict it to Saturday and Sundays.He said the outside dining would be for a limited number of diners only.“I really believe that there is a way that this proposal can work with little disruption to local residents, mainly because at the times I am suggesting, the noise would be no greater than already being created.”However the local residents opposing the campaign do not believe him. Another local, Sarah Markworth has replied saying;“I do believe that you have good intentions, however the problem is this area acts like an amplifier to noise and so even the BEST intentions do not create a good result for the surrounding neighbours.Most of the residents along this road sleep at the back of their properties to avoid the noise of the high street and therefore introducing noise along the back of these properties is going to produce a stream of complaints. We do not have an alternative place to sleep.”.Sam HarrisonIn a statement today, Sam Harrison said that he had agreed with Hounslow Council that if approved he would fund the whole scheme. The scheme had not been turned down in 2007 as it was never put forward as a scheme. All of the emergency services had given their full approval and support to the scheme already."They wouldn't have done this without having carried out a full risk assessment" he added.April 27, 2012

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

PaulOh well done, pointing out something I've never denied and turned out to be true, yes both business and residential access was extremely difficult for many of us, but never mind Sam still got his outside dining that FAILED ! But it did cause us residents and businesses substantial inconvenience. Outside dining in Barley Mow Passage is a miserable experience, but don't let facts get in the way of you highly biased rhetoric.You seem to have deliberately omitted the objections from Devonhurst Place - wonder why that is ? Tell me Mr Campbell  if access to your home were to be substantially reduced with the added noise pollution how would you feel ? You really need to get over your bigotry against me and start to be a tad more empathetic to people who have to tolerate what you don't. Explain this though, The Lamb in its various incarnations isn't a problem to us especially since M&B acquired it. And Foxlow  worked with their neighbours to be a good and considerate one.However, Paul you carry on manipulating the facts - you're good at that, but dont take that as an accolade and ask yourself why Sam Harrison sold up when he got absolutely everything he asked for ?Mr Paul Campbell you are truly an unpleasant example  of both bullying and predetermined bigotry but also completely lacking in empathy.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

I hate to intrude, but the outside dining at Sam's Riverside is working brilliantly.

Ken Munn ● 1956d

I copied the article in full and leave it to the reader to decide whether or not you objected to Sam's al fresco dining plans as I originally stated. Perhaps instead of your hysterical verbal abuse you could link to independent sources in the same way as I have done to verify your version of events?In the meantime here are some more examples with the usual reactionary conservatives objecting. Naturally you continue to feature. Only you can know why you choose to live on a busy High Road in London and then spend a great deal of your life objecting to businesses operating in the vicinity.April 2021 Betty's in which you, despite your claims in your post above about Foxlow being a good and considerate neighbour complain about, checks notes, your experience with Foxlow as well as Sam's"When both Sams Brasserie and Foxlows operated on this site late night noise pollution from their customers was a nuisance with residents being kept awake or woken up at well past 0100 hours. This was for a period of over 12 years" LP 9th April 2021https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s168210/Objections%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdfThe phone box coffee shop. Cllr Biddolph objecting of course as she does to Betty's:http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=redboxcoffee003.htmThe stall at Specsavershttps://s106.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s156776/Healthy%20Bite%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdfI could go on as there are many more of these examples in the public records.

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

The Fisher's Lane restrictions were introduced by an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) rather than a Emergency Traffic Order. People are allowed to make comments once a scheme is active under an ETO. I don't want to get into a pointless argument about whether or not the requirement for councils to consider feedback does or doesn't constitute a consultation but the statutory requirement is the same for more regular traffic orders. I'm not sure the legislation actually states that the council is only obliged to consider objections. This would suggest no statutory obligation to consider constructive criticism which would be perverse. However, whatever the law states the council can still take into account whatever feedback it chooses and so it would be wrong for people to be discouraged from indicating support for a proposal. While it is right to say that schemes should not be decided by levels of popularity, a proposal which has a lot of backing from residents is more likely to be implemented and the case for one that is widely opposed needs to be compelling.Ealing Council seem to have made a pretty firm commitment to do what might be described as a full consultation on Fisher's Lane before making it permanent but, as far as I can work out they don't actually need to do this until the autumn. The level of traffic on South Parade and Acton Lane doesn't seem to be getting any worse and hopefully will improve over July and August so the council may not feel the need to act.However, come the autumn assuming no lockdowns it may be the case that the periodic queues reaching South Parade from Acton Lane become more regular. I think Ealing are being sincere in saying they are more inclined to listen to what residents are telling them and any consultation at this point is likely to confirm the strong levels of opposition from residents, at which point it would be hard to justify retaining the restriction.As for the application for the coffee van, it states that the site would be in a parking bay but that no longer exists and double yellow lines have been painted at this location. Does the council actually have the power to grant a licence which supersedes the presence of double yellows?

Paul Corcoran ● 1956d

"In the meantime here are some more examples with the usual reactionary conservatives objecting. Naturally you continue to feature. Only you can know why you choose to live on a busy High Road in London and then spend a great deal of your life objecting to businesses operating in the vicinity."I've lived at the same address since 1974, any comments on that ? Many nearby businesses have come and gone, nowt to do with me or other long established businesses. Oh do stop with your 'hysterical' nonsense. You make yourself look seriously stupid. Foxlows was a considerate neighbour, are you saying that neither Councillors nor individuals can object to businesses who will have a negative impact  on their quality of life ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

Its empty of parents most of the day if not empty full stop most of the day, and when it does have a hanfull of parents on a nice day or after school how much coffee etc can one drink. Dont see it myself unless im blind when passing

Julian Pavey ● 1956d

No I am substantiating my original point that there is a small group of reactionary conservatives who always object to everything. You outed yourself as a member of that group and got all hysterical with claims of bullying and bigotry and your habitual "shame on you" refrain. And you continue to be abusive as you always do when challenged in any way on this forum. You seem to be consistently unable to conduct yourself with decorum. You say that Foxlow was considerate but in April this year you told the Council in your email re. Betty's that they caused noise disturbance. Which is it?Re. the longevity of your residency on the High Road. All I can conclude is that you must really enjoy either suffering or complaining. Let's see if you are capable of responding without abuse.

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

What, you hang around checking if there's kids in there?

John Hall ● 1956d

"Let's see if you are capable of responding without abuse."You should practice what you preach...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1956d

I am so many degrees more polite than you. Your are easily the most abusive person after Moran on this forum. By a country mile.

Paul Campbell ● 1956d

I will ignore that stupid comment

Julian Pavey ● 1956d

Why anyone would want to queue in the street for an over large paper cup of 'coffee', pay three quid for it and then have to drink it on the hoof is quite beyond me.Each to their own I suppose.It wasn't so long ago that eating and drinking on the street was considered most uncouth and few people did.Where and when did all go so wrong?

Adrian Irving ● 1955d

No Paul, that accolade and title goes to you by several country miles...You just can't bear it when people stand up to you and disagree with your opinions, so you dish out your abusive rhetoric. I'm done with you, but do carry on as I'm sure your oversized ego will require the last word 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 1955d

You are not done with me. I will be tracking and publishing your efforts to stop fun in Chiswick and you will be unable to conduct yourself with decorum and will lash out with abuse and many more "shame on you"s. You cannot help yourself from both of these things. You are very predictable.

Paul Campbell ● 1955d

And most people will ignore yours too as it's BS

John Hall ● 1955d

Adrian, most of us still think it's uncouth, the only part that would concern me would be the excuse to hang around a school, if you get what I mean.Eating outside was a must because of Covid but hope it don't continue.

Janice Evans ● 1955d

"Eating outside was a must because of Covid but hope it don't continue."Golly, you are living in the past.

Ken Munn ● 1955d

I think Janice means eating on the street as opposed to eating at an outside table which of course is fine.

Adrian Irving ● 1955d

Still living in the past (Victorian?)! Fish and chips, for example.

Ken Munn ● 1955d

"Still living in the past (Victorian?)! Fish and chips, for example." Eh?

Adrian Irving ● 1955d

Ken must be pro litter.

Janice Evans ● 1955d

"Why anyone would want to queue in the street for an over large paper cup of 'coffee', pay three quid for it and then have to drink it on the hoof is quite beyond me."We've gone to a few kids football parties and sports clubs at Rocks Lane.  The parents often have to hang around and kill time - or might appreciate somewhere to get a hot chocolate with the kids after playing.I imagine that's part of the market this entrepreneur is targeting.

Ed Saper ● 1955d

Food eaten on the street. An abomination for Ms Evans, but a century(ies?) old fact of life.

Ken Munn ● 1955d

It creates litter with Covid germs......nice.

Janice Evans ● 1955d

Do you write for the Daily Express, or just read it?

Ken Munn ● 1955d

Don't read any.

Janice Evans ● 1955d

"I will be tracking and publishing your efforts"How sweet. Paul chooses to threaten someone on a public forum.

David Lesniak ● 1954d

No further comment.

Ken Munn ● 1954d

Hope they succeed

Margie Frew ● 1946d

Anyone heard if they got a License  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1946d

The deadline for comments was less than a week ago and it is not on the agenda for the next Licensing Panel meeting so you probably won't hear for a few weeks.

Francis Rowe ● 1945d

Francis, thank you for update

Loraine Pemberton ● 1945d