Forum Topic

More restrictions on Grove Park traffic movement

Announcing quite radical changes to local roads late on a Friday evening might suggest Hounslow are a bit embarrassed by their latest proposals for the Grove Park area but, on first glance, they look like a step forward. Perhaps sneaking through the news that the Hartington Road restriction is hear to say explains the timing.Most importantly they will end the constant flow of traffic along Burlington Lane and effectively block day-time through traffic coming into Grove Park from the south. Rather than a half baked scheme that never achieved what it claimed to do as the original measures did, this most definitely will cut the number of journeys through the area.However, lots and lots of questions need to be answered on how it will actually work. For instance, is it sensible to proceed without introducing restrictions on access from the A4 from Milnthorpe, Eastbourne and Park Roads. Sutton Court Road is likely to become very congested more often so it won't take long for locals and SatNavs to identify these as alternative routes to destinations within the area.It would also be interesting to know if TfL have approved or even seen these plans. The assumption always has been that the logical approach of restricting access at all points from the A316 was not taken because of TfL concerns about congestion at Hogarth Roundabout. Could it be that the current government has so undermined TfL's authority that it would no longer feel able to veto a Hounslow Council proposal particularly when its head of transport is a darling of Number 10?Also, what point now does the ugly Staveley Road barrier now serve? Day-time traffic through the road is going to be cut significantly so it is just diverting vehicles on roads less capable of handling them.The above is a hot take - I reserve the right to completely change my mind after more intelligent people than me explain how this is going to work.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1885d97 Comments

Agree Jeremy. The Staveley Road barriers are ugly as hell. And I wonder what the traffic lights are for. Pointless.

Simon Temple ● 1885d

I never had a problem with Staveley Road being closed to through traffic around school opening & closing times.  It made sense from a safety perspective - in fact not having access to Burlington Lane from the A316 closed off during the same times did look rather daft.Other than deliberately trying to stop traffic from Richmond ever getting into Chiswick, I am struggling to understand what is the issue that the latest road closures are trying to address.  It is obviously not safety of kids Looking at the latest traffic data I could find (June 2021)1. There was no appreciable difference in traffic volumes using Burlington Lane westbound between the A316 and Staveley Road between pre and post the LTN road scheme implementation2. The traffic volumes using Staveley Road to cut through from A316 to Burlington Lane shows no appreciable difference between pre and post LTN implementation.3. But use of Burlington Lane going west from the Staveley Road junction towards SCR shows a very significant rise (from a few hundred cars to c.3500 - this rise is almost entirely local Grove Park traffic.The conclusions that we can reach from the traffic data is that there has been a dramatic reduction in people using Grove Park roads to cut through from A316 to A4: effectively all the traffic that used to use Hartington Road for that purpose is not using the other cut through roads of Staveley or Burlington Lane.  I would assume that it is using Hogarth Roundabout.The obvious issue should be what about the traffic still using Staveley Road and Burlington Lane to escape the A316.  How much of that is local Grove Park traffic ? The data does not address that question and without an answer to that question it is impossible to know whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed by the new scheme

Justin Stephenson ● 1885d

My thoughts on the Hartington Rd and the 8am-5pm 7 days a week restriction on Staveley Road are that those responsible do not know that Staveley Gardens and Alexandra Gardens or even Dukes Meadows exist. As had been posted before, there is only one access/egress to these locations.Residents driving and delivery drivers will be forced to access/exit the area either by Hogarth roundabout or Kew Bridge routes. Burlington Lane is currently available but is hindered by parked vehicles and current restrictions. Exiting Burlington Lane to the A316 is not easy so overall, there will be an addition to the present pollution problems by causing congestion right outside the school.Does anyone concerned at LBH have a brain?

Bob Guyett ● 1885d

A further issue - has LBH considered the effect on the A4/SCR junction?As anyone who lives on SCR north of the junction knows there is a steady stream of traffic which crosses the junction from south side SCR.  Of course some of that traffic has originated in Grove Park and that will continue once the latest proposals are implemented.  But some of that traffic will not have originated in Grove Park but cut through from A316.What will that cut through traffic now do? One logical response will be that such traffic continues down the A316 to Hogarth Roundabout turns onto the A4 going west and then turns right at the A4/SCR junction.  The problem is the right turn is not really set up to take significant volumes of traffic without changing the timings on the traffic lights (again). If there is a significant increase in traffic using that turn then traffic will back up on the A4 potentially in the fast lane - no increased risk of a massive accident then!! The other logical response for the displaced traffic is to exit Hogarth Roundabout onto Chiswick Lane (is it still called Chiswick Lane by the Tesla garage?) - again not a road that will cope well with increased traffic and the junction where the fly over traffic can exit onto Chiswick Lane always looks like an accident waiting to happen to me.I hope that LBH have considered these issues and made an assessment of the amount of increased traffic that will use the two problematic responses following implementation of the latest proposals and have got approval from TfL or what ever other authority has responsibility for the A4, Hogarth Roundabout and exits therefrom.  Sadly I have no faith that they would even recognise the issue

Justin Stephenson ● 1885d

So,people who live south of the A316 in Chiswick who probably need personal transport  more because of distance to many facilities.Many of us are elderly are going to be forced to join the already busy A316 ( since Hammersmith Bridge was closed to vehicles)adding to the congestion. Why are we not allowed access to our local roads? Who do I talk to in the council about this?. I am absolutely livid and won't respond to anything until I calm down tomorrow.I understand by being rude to people won't help my cause.So this is the polite version.

Paul Jennings ● 1885d

Give us the rude version. It doesn't follow you have to be rude to people. Speak your mind, no harm in that.

Simon Temple ● 1885d

As a resident of Staveley gardens with children at Strand on the Green school, ( yes we cycle when we can) the extension to Staveley Road and blocking us from turning onto Burlington lane from a316 has just made it near on impossible to drive to school, the vet our dog attends, our Dr surgery, station if needed.....we pay our taxes too! This just compounds our council's insistence at ignoring our existence as Chiswick residents too.

Clare Smith ● 1885d

I agree Clare and it's sad you have to qualify your statement with the bracketed piece in order to obviate the anti-car lobby's inevitable attacks. They're such pests.

Simon Temple ● 1885d

So will you still be able to access Staveley Road southbound past Chiswick School or will the new arrangements restrict traffic in both directions? If so, all southbound traffic will have to continue along Burlington and have a difficult right turn onto the A316, unprotected by traffic lights, unlike the existing Staveley/A316 junction.  And will access from the A316 into Burlington by restricted by a No Left Turn for northbound traffic or another Except Permit Holders which will apply to traffic approaching from both directions? The problem of deliveries and visitors would be solved by using Except for Access instead of the permit system, but I guess Except for Access is virtually impossible to enforce, while cameras and permits can do better. What next? No Access southbound into Sutton Court Road off the A4? Maybe it's time for the residents of Grove Park (South Chiswick?) to order the gates to finally close off their community. And if any of them want to drive down my street, they can think again!

Peter Evans ● 1885d

Some good points have been raised here. The scheme severely reduces access to amenities for residents east of the A316 e.g. Staveley Gardens. I don't know if this area is a CPZ but this particular problem could be solved by giving them permit access.The right turn onto the A316 on Burlington Lane is tricky already. With the extra volume of traffic likely to be generated, signalisation might be necessary.Another problem is that making Staveley Road the only exit off the A316 outside restricted hours will make it very busy. This could be mitigated by harmonising the restriction at Hartington Road i.e. making that 8am to 5pm also.The right turn off the A4 into SCR could be a major stumbling block. As I said in my first post, it may be that TfL has had its authority so undermined by Andrew Gilligan that it can't or won't be seen to object to these schemes even though they might compromise the flow of traffic on their roads. A number have people have claimed over the years that the A4 has a sensitivity for the security services because it is a route likely to be taken by high risk terrorist targets. If true they may have a quiet word about this plan.That there is no strategic thinking behind this will not be lost on the residents of Barrowgate Road who will continue to have Grove Park residents driving passed their houses to get home while the courtesy is not reciprocated.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1884d

What about access to the cemetery?

Anita Blake ● 1884d

Don't see any problem with access to the cemetery — mourners will just have to adapt to the new arrangements.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1884d

So how do you access Chiswick mainline station? Only via SCR?

Mark Perry ● 1884d

The shops and facilities (Surgery,station etc) of Grove Park are also the LOCAL shops and facilities for residents east of the A316(Riverside). We are now prohibited from using them unless going via the already congested Hogarth Roundabout, but will be unable to park when we get there.  To get to the Sainsburys end of Turnham Green will now require using Devonshire Road and then Chiswick High Road-you know, the Road on which  Hounslow Council wants to prioritise cyclists.These measures will cause more congestion and pollution, will hurt local businesses, and will be most harmful to the old, infirm and those with children.

Nick Gregory ● 1884d

www.hounslow.gov.uk/streetspace-reviewAs I responded to the consultation I have been sent the above. I haven't the time to study it yet but thought it others may like to read.

Bob Guyett ● 1884d

Hartington Road:“ …over three-quarters of respondents strongly oppose the measure (77%) andover two-thirdsfeel it should be reversed immediately(69%), while less than 10% of respondents strongly support the measure (9%) and feel it shouldbe made permanent (8%). ” Steer ReportSo much for listening.

Russell Pearson ● 1884d

I am told that these plans were never discussed with our elected councillors, Gabriella Giles and Sam Hearn before Hanif Khan's announcement despite meetings between them and Hounslow's Jefferson and Steer's Simon Hollywood. What was discussed was C9T. Local resident's groups were not informed either. So yet again, despite huge local opposition, Khan and his cohort have chosen to carve up Chiswick, or close it down, which ever way you look at it.

Mandy Waters ● 1884d

It looks as if Hounslow wants to keep on good terms with central government by not regarding residents' objections as sufficient 'evidence' for withdrawing their main South Chiswick scheme. Ealing, on the other hand, seems to be taking a different line, so we'll see where that gets them. Of course Ealing had traffic reduction schemes all over the borough, while for some reason Hounslow only had the one in Chiswick. I'm surprised no other parts of Hounslow were thought to potentially 'benefit' from such a scheme. I can't help thinking that the Grove Park scheme was entirely set up as a test bed for different kinds of experimental and unproven ANPR camera technology - timed Access Only, Resident Permit exemptions and school time closures. I wonder who has shares in the camera company and if the company gets a slice of the penalty income!

Peter Evans ● 1884d

Unable to find any evidence of people wanting an extension of hours at Chiswick school ( Staveley Rd.)Where do we go from here.

Paul Jennings ● 1884d

From LBOHSchool Streets, which were first introduced in Hounslow in 1997, aim to restrict motor traffic near schools and reduce the use of private vehicles on the journey to and from school.  New School Street trials were introduced at 23 schools across the borough during lockdown last year. These schemes will now remain in place, with restrictions to cars operating in the morning and afternoon during school arrival and leaving times.  Chiswick School will benefit from an enhanced scheme, with a new trial starting on Staveley Road, which is adjacent to the school.  The trial will see all traffic restricted, except for local buses and permit holders, between 8 am and 5 pm, in response to feedback from residents regarding an increase in traffic on Burlington Lane.Residents and businesses in the Grove Park and Fauconberg Controlled Parking Zone areas, and Staveley Road allotment holders will be eligible for permits. Permit holders will be able to access Staveley Road at all times and Burlington Lane will allow exit-only traffic onto the Great Chertsey Road (A316).The new trial will test whether the modifications can better balance the need to provide access to residents and businesses while reducing through traffic from the roads that border Chiswick School and other streets in the area. Councillor Hanif Khan, Cabinet Member for Transport and One Hounslow at Hounslow Council, said: “School Streets have proved to be very popular with parents and pupils, and residents, so I’m delighted to confirm today that these schools will continue to benefit from the schemes.  "School Streets help to improve road safety for pupils, parents, and teachers on their way to and from school, promoting walking, cycling, and reduce pollution in the area around schools.“They’re helping us deliver on our target to become a net-zero borough by 2030 by reducing car usage and encouraging the alternatives. That’s on top of improved air quality, which is especially important for children while their lungs are still developing, and safer roads for all our residents. “We’re exploring whether there are other schools that would benefit from School Streets as well.”  The future of Streetspace across the borough Hounslow Council has decided to make the following schemes permanent:    • Duke Road     • Dan Mason Drive     • Wellesley Road     • Stile Hall Gardens     • Strand on the Green / Thames Road     • Hartington Road      • Harvard Hill     • Staveley Road/Park Road     • Chestnut Avenue     • Whitestile Road     • Challis Road     • Green Dragon Lane      • Amhurst Gardens      • Teesdale Avenue      • Teesdale Gardens Councillor Khan said “Over the last few months, after extensive engagement with residents, we’ve removed and amended Streetspace trials that were not working as intended, and today we’ve made permanent those trials that are working well. “We know there is a range of strongly-held views about Streetspace, and we hope that our balanced approach to reviewing the trials has demonstrated that we really are listening and trying to reach the best outcomes.  “Once again, I want to thank residents for taking part in the Streetspace consultation and attending our engagement meetings."Cycleway 9Hounslow Council is also gathering the views of residents to assess how the Cycleway 9 trial may affect people with Protected Characteristics. Residents are being invited to complete a survey online.    • The Streetspace reviews are available at www.hounslow.gov.uk/streetspace-review  More articles in the news archiveLondon Borough of Hounslow news RSS feed    • Facebook    • Twitter    • © Copyright 2021 London Borough of Hounslow     • Contact us     • Privacy notice     • About this site    •

Bernard Allen ● 1884d

Is there any process where they can be audited? Their claims of consultation are clearly bogus and seem to be geared up to get sign off from unelected Spads such as Gilligan.

Russell Pearson ● 1884d

So Councillor Hanif KhanCabinet Member for Transport and One HounslowHounslow Council has decided along with other members of the labour party motley crew that any street / road South of the A316 doesn't have access to their local Shops, Pharmacies Two GP Practices, Primary Schools and the only grove park post office.After reading the new proposals I get the impression that leaving the traffic lights at Riverside Drive, local residents from Staveley gardens, Alexandra Gardens, Riverside Drive, Market Drive and the Promenade will have to turn right to join the A316 to travel to the Hogarth Roundabout.As Harting Road Scheme stops you going into grove park, Now the school street in Staveley road 8am to 5pm will block our entrance to Grove Park, and new scheme to make Burlington Lane exit only will also block our entrance to grove park.Councillor Hanif Khan when you and your officers dreamt up these new schemes, did you make sure you put in the one brain cell that the council provides each morning, as it looks as though it may have dropped out during discussions.So effectively you have cut off a part of the Homefield ward which is already in an isolated position to effectively being unable to travel to their own local area, other than using to major A roads and a very already congested roundabout. But a warning, I better not get a PCN for entering the Chiswick New Cemetery or leaving it via the Lights with the Staveley Road and the A316, as I will Challenge every one even taking you to court as I have very little else to do with my time now.

Bernard Allen ● 1884d

One woman reported on NextDoor that she was given £130 PCN fines for visiting her mother’s grave. I would not hold out any hope of an appeal, or any empathy.

Russell Pearson ● 1884d

Have you looked at the total of respondents and the map indicating where they were from? There seem to be a lot of people from outside the borough.

Nora Watkins ● 1884d

Nora, may I ask where you saw the map? Is there a link you can share? Thanks.

David Lesniak ● 1884d

I was wondering the same thing, Peter. Why is it we see no evidence of these schemes elsewhere in the borough? I'm also chuckling at Hanif Khan and his One Hounslow engineering 12,673 Chiswicks.

David Lesniak ● 1884d

Just wondering Bernard why would anyone move to Chiswick, once a very desirable area?

Maggie Dodge ● 1883d

I live in Grove Park. I cant stand the measures implemented. Im keen to move out of chiswick. Friends do not want to visit us, including play dates for my child. I also live in fear of pcn's and no longer head towards brentford or kew bridge for restaurants etcIts all too complicated. A simple solution to grove park access is to allow residents to provide guest passes to be given to anyone who visits.Ive given up thinking a suitable solution will be implemented. Easier to move out of the area

Adam Robertson ● 1883d

As far as I am aware there isn't a CPZ east of the A316 in Chiswick so the suggestion of offering permit holders there is a non-starter.Although I can see the logic of what is being proposed it is a measure that has been forced on the council by the flaws in the original scheme and will deliver a whole host of new problems.The most significant of these is that of a Labour council creating what could be described as a gated community in a very prosperous area by excluding another area which contains a significant proportion of social housing. It is a very bad look for them.

Paul Corcoran ● 1883d

Looked twice now at survey so only 16 people submitted a reply to Chiswick school. Also 60% say they were against the school street scheme. So, the council members decide to extend it. Total madness and not democratic. Why can't we south of the A316 have dispensation or added to the permit list.

Paul Jennings ● 1883d

I live in Edensor area and am absolutely baffled/clueless as to how we are supposed to get to amenities over the A316 (including my parents) if we can't use Burlington Lane? Sure, we don't have to drive every time, but sometimes it is unavoidable eg if you are lugging big items about. Are we seriously about to be cut off from such a big part of our community?

Charlotte Tobitt ● 1883d

Measures being unpopular are no longer regarded as being grounds for their removal. The council is proceeding with Streetspace schemes across the borough even though, in almost every case, a significant majority of residents were against them. The relatively new notion that people can have schemes imposed in their area against their will is a central government policy and what happens if you push back has been demonstrated by the experience of Ealing Council which has had its funding withdrawn.Hounslow on the other hand, led by Hanif Khan fortified by a glass of lukewarm orange juice and a few vol au vents from his day out at Number 10, is pursuing this agenda with alacrity.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1883d

Strange how the pro LTN lobby are telling everyone on Twitter that the majority want the LTNs. How they roll out of their mouths. Some with huge numbers of followers are lying to the masses who maybe don’t live in or near one to know any better.

Maggie Dodge ● 1883d

I have emailed Cllr’s Khan, Giles and Hearn at the collective anger we seem to share following these new implementations. They have absolutely no idea about how GP residents use the roads in their community and I’m furious that these changes are being forced in, and that we all just seem to be being entirely ignored in the process.I expect absolutely no reply.

Lucy Halliwell ● 1883d

As mention further up the thread, Hounslow are creating a gated community,can you imagine when estate agents get hold of the idea and start marketing the houses inside this area.No doubt that will increase the price of the properties, but the down side is Hounslow being the worse council on the block, will note that Chiswick residents gaining off their road scheme.So this could start them looking at the rateable values and start increasing the amount of council tax you should pay to live in such an area, No doubt that will have a knock on effect to the rest of Chiswick. It may also be relevant, that the Pro LTN's, and Pro Cycling lobby have infiltrated the Grove Park Group, so any news from them my be a bit iffy in the future.

Bernard Allen ● 1883d

I live on SCR, south of the A4, and often come home from the Richmond direction, over Chiswick Bridge, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to actually get from the A316  to where I live. It looks as though within a short time, my route will have to be via Hogarth Roundabout and the A4, then turning left at the SCR traffic lights, i.e. more time, more congestion, more pollution and a heck of a lot more damned inconvenience. But, hey, who cares? If it's deemed correct by our rulers in Hounslow, it must be the will of the people of Chiswick, and therefore correct. (Remind me again, where's Hounslow?)

Colin Jordan ● 1883d

Worse than that. The council is turning Dukes Meadows into a car, coach and lorry park, with free parking Monday to Friday. It knows that coaches and lorries use the park as a free waiting up area after dropping people elsewhere in London. Around three years ago on a site visit with an officer from LBH transport, there were three coaches parked in the bays behind the band stand, two had no driver with them, presumably stretching their legs. The third told us he had dropped passengers at the Science Museum and was waiting to back to pick them up. One coach driver I spoke to had dropped passengers at Chiswick House. Lorries and other commercial vehicles use it as a lunch / break stop off. Commuters use it as free parking. All these heavy vehicles emitting diesel fumes rumble through a public park across Staveley and Alexandra Gardens.The tunnel closure sends all Virgin Active traffic along Riverside Drive across Staveley and Alexandra Gardens. Children from Staveley Gardens have to cross Riverside Drive to get to school. The council's own surveying showed that the biggest displacement of traffic from Dan Mason Drive to Riverside Drive would be between 8 and 9, when children would be crossing to go to school.All requests to meet to discuss concerns denied.Appalling treatment of the only area in south Chiswick that has mainly social housing. Presumably relying on this area not having the means to make a legal challenge.And, in contrast to other areas, no support from local councillors, as one is a sponsor and cheerleader of the sports development that is the only thing the council cares about and is willing to inflict more cars on local residents to accommodate.Shameful really.

Kathleen Healy ● 1883d

Not only are these draft restrictions cutting off the south side of the A316 they are also cutting off those who live outside Grove Park. Pollution will only increase outside the school as the traffic piles up along the 316 too.  This is a crazy scheme that only satisfies those who live in Grove Park (and not all of those) - we must seek judicial review!

Janet Tellick ● 1883d

What the blxxdy hell are they doing to our area?  I have always thought that our rubbish council have it in for grove park ... Staveley now looks awful  with the red white and black bollards- are they mad? what next.

Helen Bamberger ● 1883d

Just to add - not all of us are wealthy- if the council tax rises - I for one would find this extremely difficult- we are just trying to survive.

Helen Bamberger ● 1883d

Are emergency vehicles to be given "access all areas" status as their crews attempt to negotiate this LTN minefield? I'm asking because I just had occasion to call out the AA for assistance outside my home in Grove Park.I got a call from the chap to say he was on his way and just approaching Chiswick Bridge. I had another call from him two minutes later asking if he was allowed to come via Hartington Road, to which the answer is of course "no". When he arrived I explained to him that his options would shortly be even more limited. Bear in mind this chap is a local (he lives in Isleworth) and has been working for the AA for over 20 years, so he knows the patch well. He said his job is getting practically impossible to do without picking up fines - which are paid by the AA, but which ultimately of course are passed on to the customer. How on earth does it make any sense to stop people like this doing a vital job? Somebody please tell me an ambulance or fire brigade driver doesn't have to go the long way round when on an emergency call-out.

Bruce Hammal ● 1883d

If it was up to some Grove Park residents' groups, according to their recent suggestion, every access point into the area would be closed to non-residents, so I guess the latest Hounslow proposals meet them halfway.

Peter Evans ● 1883d

There is a CPZ east of the A316 but not all residents live in it. CM covers Burlington Lane, Corney Road, Dartmouth Place-and Pumping station Road. The proposals are an absolute travesty which will only serve to further increase traffic on the A316. It is hard enough already trying to access the roundabout so goodness knows what it will be like with extra traffic. No idea how I can get to the station, GP or chemist in peak hours. It is almost impossible as it is to turn right out of Edensor Road at peak hours

Louise Mirwitch ● 1883d

I just wonder why the council are so against our area- ? - hopefully we will be informed ?

Helen Bamberger ● 1883d

I doubt an emergency service vehicle has ever been fined for accessing a road with a camera. The problem is usually planters that make access impossible. As access is possible then it is important that children are not encouraged  to play in the road, where cars still drive, albeit there are ess of them.

Maggie Dodge ● 1883d

chuckle

Simon Temple ● 1883d

I absolutely despair. Having been a resident of Chiswick for over 20 years I have never seen it so appallingly misused, and residents opinions so completely and utterly disregarded. Countless surveys and endless consultations tell the council that the vast majority of residents do not want these measures. It is clear to me that LBH have no intention of taking any notice of us. They are just hoping we will go away. I think they’re probably going to win to be honest with you. I have no energy to protest anymore!

Sarah Potter ● 1883d

Hounslow have ignored residents over the LTN near to the West Mid and continue to ignore the residents of Chiswick. I have already given up my membership of Chiswick Pool but will now just give up doing anything in Chiswick. The rules are too complicated  and risk of fines high, the whole point of this ridiculous exercise. I feel sorry for residents and the many businesses which must be suffering as a result of this crazy council.

Elizabeth Price ● 1883d

They simple solution would be to reverse the whole thing and admit that Hartington Road was the best "link road" not the one that went past Chiswick School.However, they won't do that.But now all cut through traffic is blocked from the "north part" of South Chiswick - Burlington Lane to you and me - what is the point of the Staveley Road barrier?

James Mcconnell ● 1883d

I think they’ve genuinely lost the plot. Snippets here and there make me believe it’s unravelling.  The Labour Councils are shaking in their boots about May elections. Some are not standing, jumping before they’re pushed. It’s all good news. We just need to hold on a bit longer

Maggie Dodge ● 1883d

I’m wondering how long it’s going to take for the Tories to deal with the fact that they have a cuckoo in their nest in the form of Johnson, and turf him out. The likes of Curran and Khan are gleefully enacting his measures with spiteful alacrity, but the buck stops at No 10.

Russell Pearson ● 1883d

It’s very strange, leaving me no idea which way to vote. Still first things first let’s get the Labour Councils, who are forcing these stupid road closures etc on us, out on their ears

Maggie Dodge ● 1883d

Adam -One would think given the recent TfL/LBH attempt to elicit responses from various groups (you know, what does the LGBTQ+ community think of these measures) a strategy for opposing such changes would include the negative impact on child development. If nothing else it will be fun to watch your Grove Park neighbors who support these schemes (who also have young children) wriggle and writhe trying to defend them while turning a blind eye to kids having to forfeit play dates. You can see the same "strategy" in play when it comes to defending the cycle way despite it being used routinely by powered vehicles also known as e-bikes. They want toddlers to use the cycle way but are blind to the illegality of motorized vehicles using them as well. All with no training/licensing necessary. You do the math.

David Lesniak ● 1883d

In your desperation to see this as a party political issue you are misunderstanding what is going on here. Russell is right to identify the Prime Minister as the originator of these policies and, if by some miracle, a Conservative administration was elected in Hounslow it would face the same dilemma that Labour does, made more acute by the fact that it would have to resist a policy of its own government.The voting in the mayoral elections show that there has been no major swing against Labour in the local area since the Streetspace policies were introduced. In fact if the pattern was duplicated next May Chiswick could end up with some Labour councillors. This is far from an endorsement of Streetspace as the trend is the same in areas demographically similar to Chiswick with the Conservative vote collapsing.Streetspace doesn't seem to have much impact probably because despite all the sound and fury on here most people's lives are unaffected and for those that are negatively impacted a good proportion understand that both Labour and Conservative parties share responsibility for what is going on.If you want these policies to stop what you need to do is tell your local councillors to stop complaining to the local Labour administration who will do nothing as they are quite happy with a policy which brings in large amounts of money at the expense of people who didn't vote for them. You need to tell them to start loudly and clearly demanding that Andrew Gilligan will be sacked. Only then will some sanity be restored to transport policy in the borough.

Francis Rowe ● 1883d

Frances, I don’t mind admitting I’m not great on politics. I’m a Chiswick resident living in the Ealing borough. I can only go on what others say but it seems likely that Peter Mason, Labour leader of Ealing, is not keeping his promise of removing 7 x LTNs, blaming Boris Johnson. Those who appear knowledgable to me say that he definitely could remove them if he wanted to. Who to believe 🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 1882d

I have written to Hanif Khan asking for the rationale for the measures and copied Homefield Counsellors. Especially want answers why allotment users who are not locals as they have to drive are given priority over actual local residents over access to Staveley Road

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

...and amongst all of these so called LTN no proposal for making the crossing at Dan Mason Drive / Hartington Road/ A316 safe and usable for cyclists and pedestrians which is in my view a desperately needed measure even if the development of the football pitches doesn't happen. This aside from the fact that I cannot now collect my kids from their Richmond school and enter Grove Park to access  my local amenities in a single trip without making a stupid round robin trip  all the way round to SCR and adding to pollution and congestion outside two of my local schools

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

...I had not even thought of how those that live within the danger zone manage their guests and visitors into the area. Do you know how deliveries and taxis will be impacted in your zone? I suppose anyone who wants an Uber will have to walk to the A316 to get picked up but that is er a red zone.

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

.....well it was a labour prime minister responsible for prioritising the mass switch from petrol to diesel engine cars...even Jeremy Clarkson knew that was a stupid idea...Labour have form on ill though out transport policy and ones that are directly responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

I stopped going to CHR years ago only go there for the dentists. Grove Park had all the amenities a local would need but will likly stop using those as well now or at least much less frequently, except for GP. Now I either walk to Barnes or drive to Sheen- fewer coffee and charity shops, more shops that actually sell stuff and less likely to get mugged. Chiswick is a write off!

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

this requires a concerted effort not just to vote against labour but to make sure the electorate vote is not split across many candidates - I suggest everyone voting for the main opposition to the current incumbent party or vote for the party with an agenda to dismantle LTN

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

Reply from Cllr Hearn: With respect we are listening and have been listening. It is the Labour run Hounslow Council that has refused to consult with local councillors who live and work in the area. There is a meeting of the Chiswick Area Forum on Tuesday 14th September in the Town Hall where you will be able to ask questions and express your views in the public forum section of the meeting. In the mean time you might like to lobby the following individuals.jefferson.nwokeoma@hounslow.gov.uk        Assistant Director of Traffic and TransportNiall.Bolger@hounslow.gov.uk                          Chief Executive of HounslowSteve.Curran@hounslow.gov.uk                        Elected Leader of Hounslow Council victoria.lawson@hounslow.gov.uk                    Executive Director of Environment, Culture & Customer Servicesguy.lambert@hounslow.gov.uk                          councillor with cabinet responsibility for roadskatherine.dunne@hounslow.gov.uk                  councillor with responsbibility for Communities and Climate Emergency

Lucy Halliwell ● 1882d

you could also write to  Robert Jenrick and ask the SS for communities and local government why Government policy is so intent on destroying local communities

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

I feel much the same about Chiswick. I use Sainsbury’s for convenience. I socialise and shop elsewhere because it’s now horrible on the High Street I used to love. My children used to love coming ‘‘home’ to Chiswick, now I love going to them. No cycle lane except where they work well and no CPZ.

Maggie Dodge ● 1882d

You really only need to look at the facts to get a handle what is going on. Ealing Council originally were one of the most enthusiastic about these schemes and introduced a large number of LTNs. Peter Mason managed a coup to take over the leadership of the Labour group and immediately announced a further consultation on LTNs scrapping one that was already proving problematic. After that Andrew Gilligan contacted Ealing to say that there funding for transport was being suspended and that they had to show evidence if they wanted to scrap any of the schemes they had previously received funding for. In the meantime Ealing had conducted the consultations which showed massive opposition to all the LTNs they had put in. However, the government doesn't regard this as evidence to support ending LTNs before their trial period. Ealing Council meets again next month and faces the difficult decision as to whether to stick with their promise to remove LTNs that don't have resident backing or do what the government is telling them and leave them in until the end of the trial at least.In the meantime Hounslow, have been the government's favourite pet with Hanif Khan wined and dined at number 10 and the council not only making a whole range of Streetspace measures permanent but adding more even though their own surveys show the schemes are not popular. There can be no doubt Andrew Gilligan is the driving force behind the government's policy. Ealing and Hounslow have taken two diametrically opposed approaches and yet they both will likely end up with the restrictions in place with Gilligan personally intervening at the detailed level. As a previous poster has said, the only way to get a change in policy is to have him removed. That Conservatives in the local boroughs are not lobbying for this shows they are more interested in scoring political points than delivering what their constituents want.

Mark Evans ● 1882d

But this is not party political. It is a competency issue. Local residents would have little or no objection to the premise of LTN if they were well thought out measures that actually consider the local community they are supposed to protect. As it happens because of incompetence, inability to plan and manage then execute a project there are measures that are urgent but have not even been considered under these LTN measures such as controlling speeding traffic and high volume traffic on Riverside Drive and others. The local South Chiswick residents living on the east side of a316 have been lumped in with none local rat runners and penalised from unfettered access to Grove Park and Brentford. Writing to the SS for transport or the pm and asking for resignations  will met with the scorn it deserves. Writing to the SS for Communities and asking why he has allowed such important community initiatives to be left in the hands of incapable counsellors may have more impact. In the meantime if everyone voted out this tranche of incompetents it paves the way for letting someone more capable to do the job properly. If you vote for spammers all you will get is nuts!

Simeon Gill ● 1882d

Maybe a form of protest from all properties South and South East of the A316, is to withhold paying your council tax.As the Government and the local council are preventing local residents from gaining reasonable access  by vehicle if needed, to local state run schools, GP Surgery’s, Pharmacy, Sub post office and other food shops.The 8 to 5 closure of Staveley Road may also prevent vehicle access to the Chiswick New Cemetery, so in theory you could get a PCN for tending you love ones grave.

Bernard Allen ● 1882d

Maybe a form of protest from all properties South and South East of the A316, is to withhold paying your council tax.As the Government and the local council are preventing local residents from gaining reasonable access  by vehicle if needed, to local state run schools, GP Surgery’s, Pharmacy, Sub post office and other food shops.The 8 to 5 closure of Staveley Road may also prevent vehicle access to the Chiswick New Cemetery, so in theory you could get a PCN for tending you love ones grave.

Bernard Allen ● 1882d

As an Ealing resident who is affected by LTN restrictions in both Ealing and Chiswick, I will be using my vote next May to hopefully remove 'Del Boy' Mason and his bunch of incompetents from power. Unfortunately I believe that both Ealing and Chiswick will still have the clowns in charge come 6th May as there are people who vote thinking that it is a general election. There are many people on both this site and Ealing's who want change but apart from a few gains it will be more of the same going forward. The good folk of Chiswick could always do what some in Ealing did and march on the town hall, wherever that is in Hounslow. Without visible signs of unhappy residents they will do nothing. Worth a try?

peter king ● 1882d

I will also NOT be voting for this awful council.

Helen Bamberger ● 1882d

Will you be voting for this awful government?

Mark Evans ● 1882d

No!!

Helen Bamberger ● 1882d

Sorry, Lucy, but Online shows the next meeting to be in October, not September. MeetingChiswick Area Forum - Tuesday, 12 October 2021 7:00 pm.Nothing is listed online for the Sept. 14th date that you mention.It seems v. sad that Glebe Estate, Central Chiswick, customers are expected to walk 3 miles to the City Barge and back for their SOTG pint of bitter.

Peter Crowther ● 1882d

First time I will not vote for anyone which I find really difficult- how can I vote for the two top councils- I have no trust  in either of them .

Helen Bamberger ● 1882d

The reality is that it makes no difference who Chiswick voters vote for - LBH will be run by the same bunch of clowns after the election as before for the simple reason that Hounslow is a very safe Lab council - Lab has 49 councilors out of 60.I guess we can all attend the Council forums and workshops on the LTNs but again the evidence is that the Council will simply ignore anybody who does not agree that the Council policies are correct.Lab views Chiswick as nothing more than a piggy bank, and if they can annoy the voters of Chiswick, who have traditionally voted Tory, I am guessing Lab considers that a bonus

Justin Stephenson ● 1882d

Indeed, makes no difference.As per another thread“After Lenin died, Curran placed more emphasis on the bureaucracy wielding power, with him at the top, concentrating on Hounslow.” ?

Russell Pearson ● 1882d

The aspect of this that makes no sense to me is that bus services have recently been reduced along the A316 making the area even worse served by public transport than it had been before.I appreciate that we all need to drive less but if there is no alternative for people to switch to then measures like this just generate more traffic and pollution rather than reduce it.

Felicity Caborn ● 1880d

Grove Park, twinned with Sark....

Bruce Hammal ● 1880d

An entire area of Chiswick - Chiswick Wharf, Regency Quay, Pumping Station Rd. Corney Reach, Grantham Rd., Corney Rd, Edensor Rd and Alexandra Gardens is now to be cut off from Grove Park - the surgery, railways station and pharmacy. The only way out of these areas will be along the A316 to the dangerous Hogarth roundabout - already heavily congested most of the day. The only way west along the Great West Road will be via the Hogarth roundabout too. The E3 bus route will be much effected as cars forced to turn right at the Edensor Rd traffic lights will block buses wishing to go left. This half-baked scheme is opposed by all our local Councillors. Residents in the areas above were given no warning and there was no prior consultation. I shoudl add that the previous limited time-based scheme on access along Staveley Rd by Chiswick School made sense and worked fine.This is a MONSTROUS new initiative, based on no statistical evidence (if traffic has increased along Burlington Lane it is because of the restrictions previously introduced to ban through traffic on Stavely Rd). It should be resisted by all means possible.

Robin Knight ● 1880d

I think we must, at present, get behind our local Councillors all of whom oppose this latest scheme. Our Councillors need to come up with an opposition policy that bites.

Robin Knight ● 1880d

As outlined previously, the most effective way for our local councillors to bring these schemes to an end is to write to the Prime Minister and demand he sack Andrew Gilligan. Have they done that?

Francis Rowe ● 1880d

Need to listen to Francis Rowe. What he says is correct.  Hounslow may be happy to make life in Chiswick a misery, but the opportunity for this all arises from a Government initiative which offers cash to councils to institute LTNs.So we need to be looking first to lobbying Government.Another factor which doesn't help, of course, is the closure of Hammersmith Bridge which has increased traffic in Chiswick so also needs sorting.

Rae Lewis ● 1880d

I have just tried to get to Hammersmith- all those cycle lanes which were nearly empty- it took the bus nearly an hour- is this going forward ?

Helen Bamberger ● 1880d

A simple solution to mitigate the traffic on King Street would be the installation of a right turn phase on to Goldhawk Road. And/or to remove the small island bit that simply protects the traffic signal which gets in the way of being able to get around those waiting to turn right. Both would be grand. It would help eliminate traffic idling on King Street backed up to Ravenscourt Park which is a common occurrence. And it would also eliminate the new rat runs through St Peters Square created by these measures.

David Lesniak ● 1880d

Robin your post at 10.10 this morning has missed a a couple of largish areas. Residents of Staveley Gds are also affected as is access to Dukes Meadows which is already screwed up by the road block under the railway.What I really don't understand is that seemingly residents of Fauconberg Rd CPZ along with some other CPZs will be allowed to drive past the school any time they like.Does anyone know why they are permitted yet affected residents are not?

Bob Guyett ● 1880d

Also the residents who have allotments in Staveley Road will be allowed down the road as well

Bernard Allen ● 1880d

It seems perverse that local residents with their permits are allowed to mow down school children while the rest of us aren't.  You'd expect these school schemes to ban all traffic if the idea is to make things safer for children coming and going from school and to stop motor assisted pick-ups and drop-offs.  And there seems no logic to extending these restrictions to the working day, while other nearby streets appear to have full time restrictions. More confusion.

Peter Evans ● 1880d

I can see merit in some of the proposals but stopping access into Burlington Lane makes no sense to me, it’s one hell of a detour to access the mainline station if you are coming north. Maybe people will chose to drive rather than take the train?Along with Staveley and Burlington, the A316 also runs past Chiswick School so not sure how that helps pollution if you simply displace the traffic onto that road.Oh and I wouldn’t fancy living on SCR .

Mark Perry ● 1880d

Most of this makes no sense at all, except to someone with very perverse logic. I can't help but think there is more to it than meets the eye - or can be owned up to without causing a riot. The School Streets business is utterly inexplicable - obviously nobody would object to measures designed to protect children - but on days and at times when there are no children present?  What on earth is that about? By the way do any of our resident statisticians have access to figures that show how many traffic-related incidents have occured on these school streets in recent years? Or is it the case that the restrictions are to deal with potential danger? I'm not saying that's not a valid reason for doing it, it would just be interesting to know.

Bruce Hammal ● 1879d

Lobbying central Government would take the line of why the SS of state for Communities is presiding over the wilful destruction of communities by allowing Councils to highjack a reasonable initiative that is intended to make street safer and cleaner in local residential areas for the cynical purposes of generating cash revenue from the communities it claims to serve and protect.

Simeon Gill ● 1878d

why are our posts which are interesting are put way up from the next post- it makes me wonder that they should be lost...does anyone agree- Simeon was the last post- not put next but many places above ???

Helen Bamberger ● 1878d

Again - mine is not the next post!!!! Put way up beside Simeon's !!!

Helen Bamberger ● 1878d

Why are the results of Hounslows own consultations ignored?The results overwhelmingly oppose the South Chiswick LTN. This is Hounslows own data. Yet the decision is to make these permanent.Hartington Road: 85% of respondents opposed the trial and 75% wanted the road restrictions stopped. Only 13% supported the trial and 8% thought the thing should be made permanent.Staveley Road: 73% opposed the trial and 69% wanted the trial stopped. 27% supported the trial and 24% thought it should be permanent.Park Road: 87% oppose the trial and 85% want it stopped. 12% support the trial and 10% want it made permanent.What is the point of giving feedback when we are simply ignored.

James Mcconnell ● 1878d

I think it’s a matter of concern that huge amounts of money are  being wasted on these surveys, if they are then ignored. Is this expenditure audited at any point and people held to account ? If not why not ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1878d

They need to feign that they’ve “consulted” to tick some boxes. Any decent audit would reveal it as inadequate. But they know that’s not going to happen as Gilligan rules the roost, and he’s unaccountable. So the charade continues.

Russell Pearson ● 1877d

According to Diana of the Corney Reach Estate who is coordinating a petition to the Council, some 2,000 persons in 1,200 homes are potentially affected by this unilateral and unreasonable plan - that's about 10% of the entire popultion of Chiswick, I believe. For once, I'd hope that the cycling lobby could get behind this petition - unless, of course, cyclists assume they will not be hit by the restrictions because they cycle and/or go the wrong way down one-way streets. It is time for ALL residents in Chiswick to stand up against this classic example of arbitrary and totally unrepresentative local government.

Robin Knight ● 1876d

Here’s the link to the petition - please forward to anyone you think interested https://petitions.hounslow.gov.uk/Staveley/This is in support of John Todd’s actions

Diana Claridge ● 1875d