Forum Topics

Hammersmith Bridge & Ferry continued incompetence

...and inaction - raised again on the news page I see . Years now, of inaction, studies, waste of ££/ time/ huge, lasting impact on the people who need to use it, and no hope of an end in sight. Millions spent on consultants and engineers, and as it stands , nothing that will actually perform a function of getting people over the river. If the councillors, the government an the *******ing Mayor of london really cared aboutthis , versus blame every one else- this could have( and still  be) fixed in two- three weeks.There's plenty floating jettys on the Hammersmith side that are used by the rowing clubs, that with some minor safety upgrades could allow a huge chunk of able bodied people to walk onto a few RIB boats, and be over the other side in 2 minutes, even allowing for the changing flow of the thames - instead there will be a £££ millions spent, on a temoprary measure, that will then become permanent and someone somewhere will claim credit .If asked- the Army would have this fixed by tea time today- why are we cursed with such idiotic, risk averse "follow the rules but ignore reality" politicians , transport officials and council employees...?! I wont have it that anyone in involved in this process " 100% focussed on the right outsomes " BS , going back years, decades even, has been catastropically incompetent- and yet they are all still employed and contracted and taking the money...mind-blowing! DO you remember  when this country used to err make and fix things, and even plan to fix things before they broke?!

Tim Garfoot ● 2082d7 Comments ● 2080d

Camden Council agrees that ETO unlawful....when will Hounslow do the right thing?

See attached.  https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/london-borough-of-camden-agree-quashing-order-on-experimental-traffic-order/London Borough of Camden agree quashing order on Experimental Traffic OrderThe London Borough of Camden has agreed that an experimental traffic order (“ETO”) it made on 23 November 2020, covering Haverstock Hill and the surrounding area, should be quashed. The ETO would have led to works to increase cycling capacity but removal of a significant amount of resident parking.The claim was brought by Amit Shah, a local resident who was concerned about the adverse impact on disabled and elderly residents, as well as the impact on local businesses. The claim centred around the lack of engagement with local residents and businesses prior to the ETO being made.The claim was brought on two legal bases. First, that updated statutory guidance from the Department of Transport required engagement with local residents and businesses prior to an ETO being made, which was not carried out. Second, the scheme was in reality a permanent scheme and not one that was an “experiment”.Following the claim being issued, the Council agreed to withdraw the ETO, and subsequently agreed to an order quashing the ETO.Leon Glenister acted for the claimant, instructed by Lisa Foster of Richard Buxton Solicitors. For reports in the local press, please see further here and here.

David Riley ● 2084d14 Comments ● 2081d