Forum Topic

Departure of Chiswick Gators and the Sports Hall

While I'm pleased to see Chiswick Gators have got a new venue and it is not to far away, this is still effectively a loss of sports youth provision for Chiswick.I'm sure lots of people are going to leap to blame the SCLN and it is undeniable that this was a factor but, talking to parents whose children were members, the main problem was the maintenance of the sports hall. The roof always leaked and it was too cold in the winter, too hot in the summer.If my memory serves me correctly, there was about £6million transferred out of the borough school's capital budget to pay for the Barnes Bridge walkway. I like the walkway but has it been provided at the expense of sports provision for our children?

Mark Evans ● 1145d75 Comments

I think it probably has alot to do with the LTN/ can we cant we access/park debate. Ive played football fairly regularily in the seession after theirs on friday night- agreed it is too hot in the summer ( although full sparlking new  air con units were installed during/post-covid for the examinations/schooling ) and dont recall there being a roof leak . Too cold is just daft- its a sports hallThe whole experience is very impacted by the people running the venue and they can range from brilliant to inept.EIther way its a big loss- huge amount of people getting togther  to play sport from across the boroughs is a good thing, surely

Tim Garfoot ● 1144d

With regard to the walkway there is some hopeful news and some disappointing.The goodish news is a small notice has appeared on the downstream side saying landscape architects have been engaged to restore (whatever that means) the wooded copse bulldozed during construction.Completion targeted for year end.The not so good news is the replacement for the Thames Traders building demolished just upstream of the rail bridge has run into issues. What they are I don't know.

Adrian Irving ● 1144d

"If my memory serves me correctly, there was about £6million transferred out of the borough school's capital budget to pay for the Barnes Bridge walkway. I like the walkway but has it been provided at the expense of sports provision for our children?"Really!?....surely that can't be true.

Nick Jenkins ● 1144d

Some people seem very keen to blame the relocation of the club on the SCLN but the founder who has taken the decision does not mention it as a factor in their thinking. Reason 859 for opposing LTNs bites the dust.

Paul Campbell ● 1144d

as my dear departed dad used to say " Eyes and they (chose) to see not...""....In addition, parents were consistently receiving PCNs when dropping off and picking up from the club when they were unaware of the access restriction on Staveley Road that applied until 7pm if you entered from the A316. A proposal to open up Burlington Lane to allow access from the A316, which would have given an alternative route to the school, was recently dropped by Hounslow Council. It has been suggested that some members have quit the club because it was becoming impractical to get there particularly on Friday evenings..."

Tim Garfoot ● 1144d

That is the author of the article. Here is the actual statement from the club. As usual you have to read past the misleading faux outrage to get to the facts. Michael Kwentoh, founder of the club, said, "Chiswick School has been the home of Chiswick Gators since we started out in 2016 with a wonderful group of Chiswick School students, and the school will always have a special place in our hearts. I started coaching basketball at Chiswick school back in 2011 just before the London 2012 Olympics games. However, with the club’s promotion to Basketball England’s Premier division this year (competing now as West London Gators), the time was right to move to new facilities with competition-standard basketball courts. We hope to welcome young people from Chiswick School - and from across West London - to train with us and to enjoy the fantastic game of basketball at our new venues- Hammersmith Academy and Gunnersbury Sports Hub.

Paul Campbell ● 1144d

Nick, it is true. I made quite a lot of noise about this on the forum  at the time but no one seemed the least bit bothered.The irony is that looted cash in the from of fines  generated by the new, poorly signposted, restrictions was also sunk in to the project to fill the large hole created by a budget overspend, allegedly.

Adrian Irving ● 1144d

There is no point pretending the restrictions weren't part of the reasons for leaving. Just talk to any of the parents.The previous article on this subject says, "The Chiswick Gators has confirmed to us that a move is on the agenda and that access restrictions are one of the reasons it has been forced to look at a change of location."The specific problem is that one of the sessions was on a Friday and traffic is often a nightmare. If this is exacerbated by the SCLN which forced parents coming from the south and east to take a much longer route often causing delays. During the A4 closures (for some of which the SCLN was suspended) trips to the club had to aborted because it was taking to long.Fines were annoying obviously but generally people only got one so it was the extra journey times that were the real problem. For many there simply wasn't a viable public transport alternative. Although the E3 goes to the school it gets stuck in the same traffic.That said, the main reason for the move to Shepherd's Bush is probably the state and management of the sports hall. It doesn't sound like this was a decision taken lightly.

Francis Rowe ● 1144d

There is no doubt that the usual people, including the editors of CW4, will be opportunistic and seek any anecdotal evidence however tenuous it might be to support their convictions. Personally I prefer to listen to what the club has actually said than the implacable opponents of car reduction and active travel schemes.

Paul Campbell ● 1144d

The report of the transfer of money from the schools' capital budget to fund the walkway is here:http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=dukesmeadowupdate017.htmNot all of it went to the walkway as it has funded the new boathouse as well and, it should be pointed out, this is the capital budget and couldn't have been used to repair the sports hall.However, if you are going to cut capital spending then this should be offset for an increased budget for maintenance of existing assets.On the restrictions, as they were designed to discourage people from driving to the area by making it more difficult, inevitably it will have been an issue for club members. Numbers were well down apparently compared with pre-Covid and alot of people who left said they were finding it too difficult to get there rather than having a problem with the club which was hugely popular with the kids.

Mark Evans ● 1144d

"they were designed to discourage people from driving to the area by making it more difficult".No they were not. You could access the club directly by car from the A316 or from the A4.They were designed to STOP people driving through the area from the A316 to the A4 and to encourage people living in the area to walk or cycle more of their local journeys. This is just the fag-end of Peter Thompson's failed attempt to dismantle the LTN before he and the other local Tories rallied behind the residents to prevent the Council removing the Burlington Lane restriction.

Paul Campbell ● 1144d

You can't drive to the sports hall from the A316 before 7pm without receiving a fine. The Friday session finishes at 7pm and parents were strictly forbidden from turning up late to delay their arrival until they could arrive freely.The club is on the record as saying that the restrictions were a factor in why they were considering a move.Cllr Dunne is on the record as saying that the restrictions are not just about discouraging ratrunning but generally making driving more difficult in the hope that people will abandon cars.The Burlington Lane restriction removal would have helped club members access the site and, as I understand it, was supported by the club.Now we have a situation in which families will drive within 50 yards of the sports hall but still be able to get more quickly to the new venue.You can argue the toss about whether it was the quality of the facility or the restrictions that were the main reason for the move, and for the record I believe it was the former, but if you claim that the latter wasn't a big issues for families going every week that only indicates you don't know any of them.

Mark Evans ● 1144d

"You can't drive to the sports hall from the A316 before 7pm without receiving a fine. The Friday session finishes at 7pm and parents were strictly forbidden from turning up late to delay their arrival until they could arrive freely"Yes you can. The restriction starts immediately after the entrance to the sports hall off the A316. You can drive in and out any time. Perhaps people spreading misinformation to continue vainly trying to further a cause they already lost is part of the problem here. Especially if the people spreading the misinformation are doing it directly to the families concerned. The opponents of car reduction schemes are nothing if not self-defeating but I suppose maintaining a perpetual state of false crisis is the only hope they have.  The club has clearly stated that its success required higher quality facilities and I am happy to believe them rather that the forum's car lobby.

Paul Campbell ● 1144d

keep waving your LTN flag, ignoring the tuimbleweed and  desolation as businesses and infrastrcurure crumble all aroundthe idee that no-one was negatively impacted or fined is ludicrous- I can personally vouch for tens of  people that were and like many still, have no idea how they fell into the  chicanery of when why why and how they got fined, due to the crazy implementation and opaque signageGive it a rest

Tim Garfoot ● 1143d

Tens of people eh? Wow. Opaque signage. Ha ha. Inattentive drivers get fined. Call the UN and tell them about the most oppressed people of Chiswick. Perhaps you could organise a vigil for a basketball club that has moved to higher quality facilities. I'm not sure the community will recover from the loss. The anti-LTN mob don't seem able to make their mind up whether Grove Park is, to quote a local Councillor, a "ghetto" or a "private enclave". Meanwhile the residents are just getting on with their lives and greatly enjoying the quieter safer streets.

Paul Campbell ● 1143d

Think  you are getting confused between Roku and Chiswick School sports hall. On Hartington Road you can drive up to the sports ground and turn in without a fine but on Staveley Road you can't. The difference is apparently due to the fact that the Staveley Road was instituted as a School Street and if you allowed people to drive up part of the road people would just drop off and do a U-turn.

Diane Brown ● 1143d

You can enter Staveley Road from the A316 and drive up to the school entrance and enter without getting PCN.Go past the island in the middle of the road you will enter the Zone. You can also drive into the Chiswick new cemetery with out incurring a PCN.How do I know? I do it most days with a vehicle that I forgot to register.You can also turn in from the A316 to Hartington Road and enter the Roko sports club and one of the private estates on the left, just don't go to the mini roundabout or your will get nicked.   

Bernard Allen ● 1143d

You may have been lucky or they could have changed how they enforced. When a friend got a PCN visiting the sports hall I went to have a look at the camera and the one pointing east is east of the mini-roundabout that you refer to so people were getting nabbed before that. The one pointing west is further down towards the A316.I was told by someone at the school that although teachers were exempt there was concern about people dropping off and making U-turns so the camera was deliberately positioned at the eastern end of the road.This is a while ago so perhaps the camera has since been moved or the Blade Runners have got to it.

Diane Brown ● 1143d

Hiya Paul how are you?What part of Chissy do you live in then buddy?

Pete Docherty ● 1143d

Interesting. People certainly did get PCNs for visiting the sport halls in the past. Given what you say perhaps it was unwise to have highlighted that the zone of enforcement appears to have changed. I wonder if it was the complaints from Chiswick Gators that led to the shift. To be fair to the council, they seem to have done quite a lot to try to persuade them to stay. What would have been more effective however would have been to provide them with adequate well maintained facilities to use.

Mark Evans ● 1143d

The start of the restrictions has not changed. As Bernard says it is immediately after the driveway into the school on Staveley and always was, deliberately so in order to maintain access for the cemetery and the school and the allotments. When you are determined to believe an uncaring Council that does not know the area is punishing residents it is hard to imagine that they actually did think through access requirements from the start and then further amended the scheme in response to feedback through the consultation period.One or two parents getting a PCN when leaving the school and turning right to drive through Grove Park will of course be inflated by the opportunists.I don't get confused by the scheme. I am probably the world's leading expert on it.

Paul Campbell ● 1143d

Diane BrownI haven't been lucky The Times of the enforcement may of changed to longer hours, but The camera On Staveley Road is positioned on a lamppost in the island just after the School Entrance. That's where its always been sine the restrictions were installed.The Camera just after the school gate faces towards Burlington Lane. so if you enter SR from the A316 you want get a PCN unless you pass the school entrance.The camera facing down SR towards the A316 is located on a lamp post on Burlington lane to catch anyone entering the road. Some visitors leave the school and forget about the restrictions and turn right down SR townwards Burlington Lane so they have passed the camera at the school entrance and driven into the Zone so with receive a PCN.I have also used the road every day since the restrictions were installed. As I am on about Staveley Road, There's no Mini Roundabout on it.  That's in Hartington Road, But as I only drive to the Roko entrance and the first private estate on the left, I don't go any further on that road and I haven't received a PCN since it started.

Bernard Allen ● 1143d

Looking at Google Streetview for September 2022 the cameras are exactly where Diane said they were. The camera pointing east is directly across from the school entrance and therefore wouldn't be able to determine whether a vehicle had turned in. The camera pointing west is close to the A316 junction and seems to me too far away to identify number plates by the school entrance. Even if the technology was able to read the plates there would be other vehicles in the way.Basically, they don't appear to be set up in a way that would allow them to accurately determine which vehicles turned into the school.Bernard is a reliable guy and I don't doubt what he says but I also have a friend who assures me he entered the sports hall from the A316 just before 7 and left over an hour later when he shouldn't have been liable to a fine whichever way he turned. The possibility occurs to me that Bernard's car may have found its way onto an exemption list without him being aware. Either way I wouldn't recommend chancing it.There are far more that one or two parents from Gators who have been fined and the broader problem is how the restrictions have made the journey more difficult. Even this was based on a misconception of the way they were being enforced the problem was real and the club has confirmed it was a factor.Unfortunately an inquest is pointless now as the decision has been made. Perhaps the best way forward on this would be to give councils greater flexibility in the way they can spent fine revenue. If a School Street or a restriction near a school raises revenue through PCNs then that could be spent on the school. If that was the case Chiswick School's sport hall roof might have been fixed more quickly and parents complaining about getting PCNs would have had the consolation that they had made a contribution to the repair.

Mark Evans ● 1143d

Your objections like most objections to LTNs are based on a total misunderstanding of the scheme. A car has to pass the signs notifying the restrictions to incur a PCN. The signs are positioned after the entrance to Chiswick school. The camera is used to issue fines to people that pass the signs. It can and does constantly distinguish between people passing the restriction and people driving into the school. That is how the scheme works. Anybody can drive up to the sign and anybody can drive into Chiswick school and park their car from the A316 at any time and they have always been able to do so.Your friend is either confused, lying or was wrongly fined and should have appealed. You have no idea if a repair to the roof would have satisfied the club that the quality of the court was adequate following their promotion and the ongoing success of the club requiring a higher quality competition court. I suspect you are as wrong about that as you are about how traffic restrictions actually work.Now if you have any humility you will accept that the premise for your objections has been wrong from the start and cease to spread misinformation to confuse people. Doing that isn't going to change the scheme or how PCNs are issued or how sports clubs select appropriate facilities for their needs.  But it isn't helping your equally confused fellow citizens like Diane.

Paul Campbell ● 1143d

"Your objections like most objections to LTNs are based on a total misunderstanding of the scheme"That's what I would call shooting yourself in the foot. Scores of people have been fined for misunderstanding.Why? Poor signage, chopping and changing of times, dismal communication from Hounslow, rumour and perception. Could those be the reasons or are they all the victims of their own stupidity?

Adrian Irving ● 1142d

Well on looking at the camera position at the A316 end of Staveley Road , it’s hard to say what’s going on,A camera has been placed in between the Cemetery entrance and the School entrance on a lamp post on the Pavement side of Staveley road, which in theory could be used to capture vehicles turning into the school entrance.There’s a smaller contraption fixed to a lamp post on-the pavement opposite the road island just past the school entrance. It doesn’t look like a camera, but they come in all shapes an sizes nowadays so you can’t be sure.I cannot remember the camera layout being like this before unless the London Mayor has added one of his cameras in Staveley Road . Which I doubt.So it’s anyone guess what camera does what,

Bernard Allen ● 1142d

I am sure that Humpty, "probably the world's leading expert on it", can explain.

Richard Greenhough ● 1142d

Bernard, That's a Viva city monitor been there since Jan 2022 I believe ....https://vivacitylabs.com/liveable-neighbourhoods-monitoring/ interesting technology......there is a map pf locations in the article. 

Joseph Forshaw ● 1142d

Probably spending too much time on silly forums like this and OneChiswick listening to clueless people pontificate about schemes that are quite simple but beyond their understanding has resulted in more people being confused and some extra fines being issued to them as a result. Plus local populist politicians whose stock trade is fear-mongering and perpetual crisis haven't exactly helped people understand the situation.If you are looking for somebody to show sympathy with people  being fined for motoring infractions you have barked up the wrong tree. Even though I have helped people avoid paying fines for first offences by drafting polite and contrite letters that are probably effective because they stand out from the tiresome outrage, vitriol, victimhood and rudeness officials usually receive from entitled motorists who are unwilling to face up to the consequences of their actions.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

Thank you Paul, a consistent and  predictable response.Signage.I have just walked up Leamore Street Hammersmith. It leads directly onto the King St cycle lane.H&F have installed a good sized digital notice just before the junction.It is triggered by an approaching vehicle so catches the eye.What's the message? A red triangle enclosing a bicycle with  capital letters below saying CYCLES CROSSING.A very good idea or should motorists just pay more attention and have seen the small unlight sign left above it ?Compare and contrast signage on Hounslow's C9 and then ask yourself if all that could be done was done to clearly signal C9 and the road restrictions imposed by Hounslow.Thoughts?

Adrian Irving ● 1142d

JosephThank you for that information.I have I got this right ? The S4 monitor siting on the same lamp post as the Zone sign  is collecting data of the level of car, cycles, and pedestrians using Staveley Road from the A316.Then the other larger camera mounted on a lamp post  before the Zone sign is the camera that’s Hounslow uses to issue PCN from.This camera is in such a position as to pick up a number plate of a car entering the Chiswick School entrance, which is not what the neighbourhood was told by Hounslow Council ,So apologies to all on the forum as I have been giving out the wrong information

Bernard Allen ● 1142d

Thoughts? Close more roads to through traffic with bollards. ANPR is a compromise for motorists that they clearly don't appreciate. Take the compromise away and make the schemes even more effective by physically blocking cars like they do in your LTN.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

Thank's Paul. Again a predictable reply. I say reply as you didn't answer my question about clear signage.No surprise there then but no matter if you can't/ won't respond to a simple enough enquiry.

Adrian Irving ● 1142d

My reply couldn’t be simpler. Get rid of the signage and cameras that motorists resent so much and replace them with bollards.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

Your talking bollards again. I'm talking signage. I talking about the actions that were or were not taken to make signage clear, not bollards.Back to my question."A very good idea or should motorists just pay more attention and have seen the small unlight sign left above it ?Compare and contrast signage on Hounslow's C9 and then ask yourself if all that could be done was done to clearly signal C9 and the road restrictions imposed by Hounslow.Thoughts?"

Adrian Irving ● 1142d

You could  have had a whole troupe of Maggie Dodges, Margie Frews, Francis Rowes, Adrian Irvings, Joanna Biddolphs, Julian Paveys and Sam Hearns dancing naked 24/7 holding big neon signs saying “Do Not Enter” and motorists would still have been fined. Just as motorists will be blithely ignoring the sign you are so excited about and leaning out their windows to swear at cyclists who object to them nearly killing them at that junction. Bollards are the answer. To everything. As you well know living in a lovely LTN that is beautifully is protected by them on a number of entry roads.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

I know for a fact that this is easier to explain to eight year olds than it is to the stubborn old fools on this forum. You see a No Entry sign? It means do not go past that sign. You see a restricted entry sign like on Staveley? It means don’t drive past the sign. It isn’t a noticeboard informing people that there are restrictions in the area. It is the start of the restricted area. No wonder people get fined. They don’t know the basics of their Highway Code. Everybody over 65 should be fully tested to drive every year.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

The roof has been an ongoing issue for users of the sports hall for about a year. Puddles would appear at various locations and the staff would just offer paper towels to clear them up. This was clearly dangerous and was a key reason for the growing concern of the Gators and other clubs using the hall. I think there would be a lot more acceptance of large scale PCN issuing at a site if there was a visible community benefit to the gathering of these fines. The huge sum that has been raised on Staveley Road seems to have disappeared into council coffers. Has a single project funded by it been announced? If School Street restriction enforcement went to the school itself it would change attitudes very quickly.I'm pretty confident that my friend is right about being fined when turning into the school having entered the Staveley Road from the A316 and others appear to have had the same experience although many of these cases appear to have been some time ago. The fine wasn't appealed because it was assumed it was in line with the rules. I've looked up what the available information is on this online and can find no references to the turn into Chiswick School being allowed whereas it is clearly stated on a number of occasions on council information that the turn into Poly Stadium is okay.Rather than accept the word of someone who claims to be an all-seeing sage on enforcement at this spot since the cameras were introduced, I'd still avoid accessing the school from the A316 during restricted hours unless you have an exemption. As far as I can see the way the cameras are positioned would make it very difficult to distinguish between cars travelling west who turn into the school and those that don't. Happy to be enlightened by someone who knows what they are talking about on this issue.My purpose in starting this thread was to highlight the under investment in school sports facilities and I said right from the start that traffic restrictions were secondary. The deterioration of conditions at the sports hall were so bad that the Gators may have left even if there was totally free access to the site. However, both the club and the parents were on record as saying that the restrictions were a consideration and, given the emotional attachment to the location, it was a huge wrench to move so their concerns shouldn't be belittled or dismissed.Going forward what matters is not really the SCLN but how investment can be made to ensure that more community clubs providing an invaluable resource to the area don't leave.

Mark Evans ● 1142d

Compulsory testing every year for all pensioners who refuse to read and understand the Highway Code.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

Thank you for another predictabe reply still avoiding the question.Let's get you bollard point answered before going any further.I  agree bollards are a good solution in the right circumstances  and avoid any "misunderstandings". To "everything" is simply not practical. You said people misunderstood the changes and I agreed but then raised the question why that was.Naked people and bollards aside the simple question I am asking you is, do you think Hounslow did all the could to clearly signpost C9 junctions and the introduction of new restrictions?If so fine, that's your view.If not could this be one of the reasons as you say, people misunderstood the changes?If it's none of the above then why do you think people "misunderstood"?

Adrian Irving ● 1142d

Yes they did everything necessary to warn drivers. Have you seen how many signs there are warning drivers at Rivercourt Road and Weltje Road that there is a cycle lane? Does it stop people driving into cyclists on the lane? No. What is the solution? Close both roads to cars at the A4. It is inevitable that this will happen. Bollards. Beats me why people misunderstand. Seemingly otherwise intelligent people on this thread are still unable to understand the most basic instructions to motorists even when it is spelt out to them. There is something about cars that seems to make people irrational.

Paul Campbell ● 1142d

"No wonder people get fined. They don’t know the basics of their Highway Code. Everybody over 65 should be fully tested to drive every year."I suspect that most people over 65 would know their Highway Code well enough to be able to understand the difference between a trunk road and a motorway, unlike you.

Richard Greenhough ● 1142d

Compulsory testing every year for all cyclists who refuse to read and understand the Highway Code.

Richard Greenhough ● 1142d

Beats me why people misunderstand. Seemingly otherwise intelligent people are still unable to understand the most basic instructions to cyclists even when it is spelt out to them. There is something about cycles that seems to make people irrational.

Richard Greenhough ● 1142d

Perhaps then you can tell us where the highway code explains what a trunk road is? You sound rather out of date. 

John Hall ● 1142d

Why are SO MANY people so self-centred?  It isn't just cyclists...

Philippa Bond ● 1142d

"Beats me why people misunderstand. Seemingly otherwise intelligent people on this thread are still unable to understand the most basic instructions to motorists even when it is spelt out to them. There is something about cars that seems to make people irrational." At last, an answer. "unable to understand the most basic instructions"WARNING! CHEAP SHOT BELOW.You mean like a lot of cyclists red light running.I am forced to agree then.

Adrian Irving ● 1141d

Cyclists like motorists run red lights deliberately. They know they are doing it. They are choosing to ignore the instructions. Both cyclists and motorists do it because they know they will get away with it 99 times out of a 100. What we have here is people who cannot get their heads around a driving restriction. It's the most basic concept that you get fined if you drive past the sign. Not near it. Past it. Bernard actually did get it before the stubborn fools confused him and made him doubt himself because they are determined to prove a point that does not exist and cannot accept that they are just plain wrong. No Council can possibly help people like that. You just have to shrug your shoulders and leave them to being bewildered. At least its fewer drivers even driving where they are allowed.

Paul Campbell ● 1141d

Highway Code rule 253 explains what a motorway is and which types of vehicle and driver are not permitted to use it. Despite what Humpty thinks, the A4 through Chiswick is not a motorway.

Richard Greenhough ● 1141d

"Yes, but it's shorter."  "It's what I've always done."  "I don't know any other way."  "I just want to go that way."  It makes one wonder how much concentration and consideration goes into guiding and propelling what can be a dangerous instrument!

Philippa Bond ● 1141d

Wow! Paul, just Wow!

Adrian Irving ● 1141d

Or as Kate Bush put it - "Ooh, yeah, you're amazing!We think you're incredibleYou say we're fantasticBut still we don't head the billWow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!"

Richard Greenhough ● 1141d

You got it in one Richard.

Adrian Irving ● 1141d

I'm not sure how detailed knowledge of the Highway Code would help members of visiting sports teams driving out Dan Mason Drive . The only warning you get is a yellow sign announcing an access restriction on Hartington Road. We all know where Hartington Road is but a visitor to the area won't so a detailed knowledge of the AtoZ is required. As far as I can see this is the only notification drivers get when crossing the road. I find it hard to believe this complies with the relevant legislation and clubs in the area tell visitors who get caught to appeal apparently with a high degree of success. However, there will still be a substantial bounty for Hounslow Council every time a team visits Riverside Lands or the rowing clubs or Dukes Meadows. For many the fines are probably easily affordable but for others it is a real blow. While it is impossible to measure how much this serves to discourage people, particularly families participating in sport, it can't help. Quite where and when the Gators parents were getting fined may be up for debate but if they are telling us it was a problem we should believe them.  Hounslow Council has undoubtedly decided that any cost from making participation in sport more stressful and expensive is justified by the revenue it brings in. I raise this point not to argue that the restrictions are good or bad but to point out the fundamental unfairness of the way they are implemented which would be mitigated by better signage.

Francis Rowe ● 1138d

Drivers could observe the statutory signage on Hartington Road itself and in particular the two signs at the start of the restriction.If drivers cannot see signs and refuse to understand the Highway Code then they should stop lobbying for ANPR schemes and start lobbying for bollards. The local Conservatives spent two years lobbying for nine cameras to fine anybody driving through the area in any direction. "High degree of success" - the usual evidence-free anecdote. What are the actual statistics on success of appeals against the Hartington Road signage? Tiny and fractional and condensed in a small time window when there was a legitimate claim that some foliage was partiaally obscuring one of the statutory signs on Hartington.The main learning from this thread is confirmation that some of the most vocal opponents of SCLN don't actually have a working knowledge of the scheme or even of standard traffic restrictions in general and have just been verbally incontinent for three years.

Paul Campbell ● 1138d

Where exactly are the signs on Hartington Road? I'm not saying that there are none but the last time I drove up there on a Sunday (some months ago admittedly) I only noticed a camera enforcement sign near the Roku entrance. I may have missed them at the junction of the A316 but the attention of any driver is likely to be elsewhere crossing this busy junction. I looked on Google Streetview and couldn't see any. As for appeals, I am inclined to believe what people are telling me but perhaps Richard Jennings could confirm that the actual chances of a successful appeal are for someone crossing from Hartington Road. Overall, according to an FoI request there were 2,379 PCNs on Hartington Road cancelled or written off by the council in 2022, well over 10% of the total issued. The number for participants in sport caught out by the Hartington Road trap will be a small proportion of this as most of them would be issued on Saturday. However, particularly with the rowing clubs there will be a high proportion of lawyers or people with ability to draft an appeal which demonstrates to the council they know what they were talking about.

Francis Rowe ● 1138d

This has nothing whatever to do with the Highway Code nor is it to do with the age of the drivers. That's just a nonsense argument.The very fact an enormous amount of fines have already been issued tells any well balanced person the signage isn't doing it's job.Instead of pretending it's all the fault of the ignorant drivers wouldn't it be more intelligent to sort the issue out so the scheme actually worked?

Adrian Irving ● 1138d

Go there so that you have an informed view of the scheme instead of relying on hearsay, anecdotes and your own idle speculations about an area you clearly have no first hand knowledge of. The other thing that this thread demonstrates is that there is zero point in me answering any of your questions because you are all so determined to be the victims of an uncaring and capricious Council you are unable to process facts.And Adrian in a way you are right. And that is what I have been saying throughout. The experience of ANPR schemes all over London and locally in the past three years provides us with a great body of evidence that no matter how good the signage is a significant proportion of drivers will incur fines because they either do not see signs or do not understand them. For anybody who cycles regularly in London it will be one of the least surprising conclusions that a significant proportion of drivers are inattentive to their surroundings and ignorant of the Highway Code. What you don't seem able to grasp is that it is drivers and our local Conservative Councillors who lobby for ANPR schemes. They are for drivers. The people lobbying for car reduction schemes and reallocation of space from cars to people much prefer bollards.

Paul Campbell ● 1138d

Francis, according to the London Tribunals website, 100 appeals at Hartington were allowed out of over 500 submitted.I haven't checked the reasons why they were allowed. I believe some in early days were because of claims foliage obscured fines, plus there were admin mess-ups by Hounslow etc.You would expect considerably more appeals to succeed if the adjudicators believed the signage was inadequate.There are fewer appeals but a similar proportion of refused appeals at Staveley Rd.

Michael Robinson ● 1138d

Is there a cure for velomania as displayed by Humpty Campbell? When I was a regular bicycle commuter from Chiswick to Victoria it was the norm for me to stop at red traffic lights and watch other cyclists cruise past. If every cyclist who daily displays ignorance of the Highway Code was fined, then those local councils struggling to balance their budgets would have a very useful additional source of income.

Richard Greenhough ● 1138d

"Where exactly are the signs on Hartington Road?"  Moving north-west up Hartington Road, after passing Roko there are two narrowings of the road, the first one with priority for oncoming traffic, the second one with priority in your favour. The No-Motor-Vehicles (NMV) signs then appear, just before the junction with Chiswick Quay.Here's a photo of a van going through the second narrowing.  The left-hand NMV sign is only partly visible through the tree to the left of the van, and the right-hand NMV sign is not visible at all:It's only when you are past that tree that you can see both NMV signs:The side road to the left is Chiswick Quay, followed immediately by the mini-roundabout at Cavendish Road.Most adjudicators take the view that when you reach them, the NMV signs are clear, and passing them during controlled hours without a permit is a clear contravention.  But some adjudicators can be persuaded that the visibility of the signs is poor, and require an instant U-turn to avoid a contravention.In the last 6 months there have been 94 appeals to London Tribunals adjudicators related to these NMV signs in Hartington Road of which only 11 (12%) were successful.There are no advance warning signs on Hartington Road, but there are warning signs on A316 about 150 yards before the Hartington Road traffic lights.  There is now a sign on Dan Mason Drive (not yet on Google Street View) showing that an NMV restriction is in force 320 yards ahead.

Richard Jennings ● 1137d

As others have pointed out, the restriction signs are, at best, awkwardly placed at some apparently arbitrary distance along Hartington Road. They do not align with any of the existing chicanes, which might reinforce their intention, and they're not in the obvious place at the junction with the A316.  If they were there, drivers could readily take another route, while the present location offers no alternative other than to do a U-turn in the road. I'm told the present location is to allow access to sports facilities but it's clear, from the level of income being raised by these restrictions, that they are not delivering whatever safety and environmental improvements they promise.

Peter Evans ● 1137d

Thank you Richard, that is very helpful. It explains why I might have missed the signs as I had no idea they were that far up Hartington Road. On Google Streetview they have been covered up, presumably because of  the A4 restrictions at the time.  Very pleased to hear that a sign has gone up now at the end of Dan Mason Drive.  Is it normal for adjudicators to give different rulings on appeals at the same location? I would have thought they would refer to precedent established by their colleagues rather than contradict them and either the sign is compliant or it isn't. It sounds like your chances of success at appeal depends on how well you make your argument which seems to me fundamentally unjust. That  guarantees that, other than those being helped by your good self, those getting off will be lawyers or those well enough versed in legal principles to make the adjudicator wary of ruling against them. This doesn't strike me as a very equitable system.

Francis Rowe ● 1137d

The restriction is not at an arbitrary distance as you go on to explain when you contradict yourself by describing exactly why it is placed where it is. To enable access to the sports facilities including the Quintin rowing club accessed at Ibis Lane. Same as the restriction on Staveley has been deliberately positioned to allow 24/7 access to the cemetery and the school car park.Some people don't know the area. Some people pretend they don't know it. Whether the complaining is informed or not is now irrelevant.

Paul Campbell ● 1137d

The distance isn't arbitary, that is as far west as they could place it to allow maximum access to Hartington Road without allowing non-exempt vehicles free access across Grove Park. I presume you can turn into Chiswick Quay without getting pinged.Its positioning does explain the very high level of fines though. There will be other vehicles travelling up and down the road under normal traffic conditions so you won't have any visual clues to a potential restriction other than the sign.Just before you approach you come to a chicane at which you have priority so you will naturally look out to the distance to check there are no other vehicles coming the other way.As the sign comes into view past the tree which obscures it when you are further away your attention will be on the mini-roundabout. Most drivers, unfamiliar with the road are likely to assume that the signs relate to that and will not take proper note as a result.The original experimental traffic order for this restriction  shows that it was intended to put signs at the junction with Ibis Lane which would have given motorists an additional chance to spot the restrictions and not to have to do a sudden u-turn. I don't think these were ever installed. If anybody was appealing a PCN that might be a detail worth including but probably not sufficient on its own.  I don't think the Highway Code ever envisaged local authorities introducing complex restriction signs in this way. It shouldn't be a requirement for motorists to have to process this level of information as they drive, their attention should be on the road. The council's lack of effort to ensure higher compliance shows that the revenue benefit outweighs concerns for reducing traffic in Grove Park.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1137d

Jeremy,  you are ignoring that all of the various exemptions to the No Motor Vehicles sign were a result of lobbying by the Conservative councillors.Indeed, Conservative councillors wanted an even more complex scheme where every road in the area was covered by signs and cameras.I daresay the council would have been perfectly happy with a bollard but that was far too simple and easy for the Conservative councillors.

Michael Robinson ● 1137d

And there were additional signs at Ibis Lane. Massive yellow ones on both sides of the road that lots of drivers blithely ignored on their way to donating generously to the Council's ongoing funds for further transport measures.

Paul Campbell ● 1137d

I did say the signs were at an apparently arbitrary distance down Hartington, and even allowing for the explanations of their location, it looks as if they could just have easily been put on one of the existing chicanes and served the same purpose, or had a new chicane built to put them on, which would at least make them more obvious.That many residents have permits also adds to the confusion, as a non-resident driver might well see other traffic driving down Hartington and passing the signs with apparent impunity and follow them through.

Peter Evans ● 1137d

Can you imagine what issues there might be with putting the signs on a chicane? This forum is full of retired people who know better than highly qualified active professionals in every field from contract law to traffic engineering despite having no actual knowledge, facts, experience in those fields. When you know nothing I guess it is easier to assume that people making decisions you don't understand and disagree with are incompetent or malicious. The decision must be arbitrary if you don't understand it right?Drivers who blithely follow people past restricted entry signs can most generously be classified as welcome contributors to the Borough's transport funds.

Paul Campbell ● 1137d

Whether the current signs are actually compliant with the regulations is still questionable. As Richard has pointed out the adjudicators have been inconsistent in their judgments on appeals on this point.What seems obvious to me is that general practice across other local authority areas is to make access restriction signs so unambigious that they negate any chance of inadvertent breaches by motorists. I've been in both Oxford and Bristol recently and there drivers are alerted to an access restriction with very large unambiguous signs on both sides of the road which won't be ignored. The intention is clearly to properly enforce the restriction.I've never come across an access restriction signed in the way the ones at Hartington Road and Staveley Road are. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the intention her is not primarily to discourage driving through the restricted area but gather revenue. While I'm sure borough traffic officers wouldn't implement signage which is unambiguously illegal, it does appear that they have been asked to implement this scheme in a way that pushes the evelope on what is allowed.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1137d

Jeremy, an adjudicator allowing an appeal does not mean the signage was questionable.  It can mean that Hounslow failed to provide the required information.As you appear to be one of the retired posters on this forum who claim better knowledge of signage regulations than transport professionals, could you please provide specifics on what you believe the signs should be?Please provide references to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.  I'm sure I don't need to provide a link as you appear to know the requirements intimately.

Michael Robinson ● 1137d

Michael, Richard made no mention of inadequate paperwork in these adjudications. Some adjudicators believe that the requirement to u-turn before passing the sign rendered an appeal valid.I have never claimed to have any great knowledge of signage regulations. However, a disagreement between adjudicators on signs on Hartington Road can only mean the legality of the current configuration is questionable.Quite how this could be rectified I am not qualified to saw other than repeating my earlier point is that signage I have seen in other cities across the UK notifying drivers is far more prominently placed and clearer. I have never come across roads like Hartington and Staveley where you find vehicles proceeding as normal due to the access exmeptions combined with relatively obscure signage. Hard to avoid the conclusion that this is deliberate.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1136d

I just checked one of the appeals and it referenced inadequate information provided by Hounslow hence the appeal was allowed.I have no intention checking every single one of them.  I'm assuming you are retired and have plenty of time on your hands, so that is something you can do.Rather than assuming, I also provided the reference to the legal definition of signs so you can check those as well, rather than assuming.As I mentioned before, every single exemption on the No Motor Vehicles sign was a result of lobbying by the Conservative Councillors.It wasn't just at this location.  They also wanted exemptions on the No Motor Vehicles signs at other locations such as Harvard Hill.  Fortunately the traffic department stood firm on these.

Michael Robinson ● 1136d

In an earlier post I reported that "In the last 6 months there have been 94 appeals to London Tribunals adjudicators related to these NMV signs in Hartington Road of which only 11 (12%) were successful."I have just checked those 11 successful appeals, which involved 8 adjudicators. In 3 cases, Hounslow either did not provide adequate evidence to the adjudicator or were criticised for not addressing the appellant's claims in their rejection letter.  In 2 cases, the lack of a warning sign in Dan Mason Drive was a key reason (this lack has now been remedied).  The other 6 cases concerned the adequacy of the signage. The NMV signs themselves are compliant with the regulations, but there was concern that the overall situation, with no warning signs for some journeys and a requirement to make an instant U-turn on sighting the NMV signs, made it almost impossible to stay within the law in some circumstances.  For example, there was a case where a vehicle was towing a boat from a marina, and a U-turn was impossible. Foliage growing in front of the signs was also a factor in a couple of cases.

Richard Jennings ● 1135d

Thanks to Richard J for the clarification. Whether or not the signs meet the basic legal requirements, if motorists are meant to U-turn on reaching them to avoid being in breach, a further sign making that clear graphically would seem a reasonable requirement.

Richard Greenhough ● 1135d