Forum Topic

Demonstration - Morrisons

No-one as yet has mentioned a demonstration outside the Civic before the Planning Meeting.  If anyone is attending the meeting will you be outside beforehand demonstrating so that the Councillors, as they arrive, can see the strength of feeling on this particular development?  If so, I will join you.

Eileen Henderson ● 3055d45 Comments

So after all the ramblings, no-one will be there!!!

Eileen Henderson ● 3050d

Raymond,My apologies, always willing to hold my hand up when I'm wrong and now I'm home I've dug out the BAAP and nowhere within it does it specify a ratio of different land uses.It's designation M7 on page 97 of the link below :http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/1_7.pdfNot that I think it particular helps, indeed reading the 2008 site brief to me that brief was more supportive of residential led development than the 2015 Local Plan.However, that's not why I'm posting, I'm posting because I was factually wrong earlier and my apologies for that.Regards,Adam

Adam Beamish ● 3051d

I know for a fact that the BAAP designation (2008) was the same as the Local Plan (2015) designation is now in terms of the ratio of land uses, it was 75:25 in favour of retail in 2008.  It hasn't changed !.And you can't place any weight upon the fact that a planning application was refused 30 odd years ago for mixed use development on the site.Unless things have changed tremendously, and I admit I've never done it in Hounslow as a member of the public, anyone can make an appointment to view the register of planning decisions from 1947 which the Council are legally bound to retain - I've spent many hours as an employee sifting through those records.As I say, any objectors speaking tomorrow night would be wise simply to focus upon the non-compliance with the Local Plan designation, not upon any spurious conspiracy theories.

Adam Beamish ● 3051d

Apparently when International Stores ( who had a store there in the 1960s fronting the High st, applied for development of the site, it was refused for mixed development and would only permit a single storey store with adequate parking.So far those records have been mislaid for the past 22 months. If you know how and where to delve into the records and can find the original International Stores application then please do pass this on.So it precedes 2001 more 1978.But it appears the site designation change was sometime between 2008 and 2015 when the detail was ratified.  It had been queried by a small number of residents prior to 2015.Apparently is was in lieu of the anticipated Ballymore development being completed with a full size supermarket and car park thus compromising the future viability of a store on the Morrisons site.That is now almost completely unlikely to happen in that form so the Morrisons site should have not been ratified as such and most certainly not hawked as a prime development site by LBH at Cannes prior to 2015.Trying to get any sort of data over this site is very difficult indeed and has been since 2015.

Raymond Havelock ● 3051d

Was the site ever 'designated' solely for retail Raymond ?.  From my recollection the site only took any kind of 'designation' (I'm not talking about the lawful use of the site, which is obviously A1 retail but an entirely different issue to an actual site specific designation within an adopted policy document) when the Brentford Area Action Plan was published in 2008.And the BAAP designation ratio was also 75:25.I could be wrong but I'm sure I'm not as I worked at LBH from 2001 to 2006 so I'm familiar with all the policy documents that existed prior to the BAAP.Don't disagree re. the adverse impacts of the temporary closure of the supermarket, but that's not a reason for refusing planning permission.As I've always said, objectors are best to focus upon how the scheme doesn't anywhere near accord with the adopted Local Plan designation for the site.

Adam Beamish ● 3052d

Firstly David.You have to ask who and why was the designation of the site changed from Retail to mixed residential/ retail.This happened a while back but had question marks over it. It has been raised before but never properly explained.I doubt you will find many who are completely against a development of the site as long as it will improve what exists and bring something that would want one itching to move here.This will not.  The supermarket, is integral the hub of this town and keeps it just about ticking over. It is really a bit too small which is why it's not as good as should or could be and whilst some would prefer Waitress or Sainsburys, it is a wide range supermarket and as valuable as any amenity.It's been revealed that the supermarket generates 27,000 customers a week.Even if a small percentage use the rest of the high street, that's exceptional.It supports the commerce of the rest of Brentford.Is the risk of losing that footfall with not even a temporary replacement in place worth taking?The risk of taking out most of Brentford's remaining commerce, depriving a children's school of direct daylight and sunlight for most of their academic year.Damaging the environment and justifying it with carbon offsets.And all for a few trinkets like a Cycle superhighway?  Hardly a benefit to locals who walk or cycle the back streets and in any case we have the worlds first Cycle Superhighway along the A4 just a minutes cycle away.Except like most trinkets that light up the faces of politicians, there won't be any money for maintain it -Just like the A4. Not even swept properly.The developers have now conceded that the replacement supermarket will be a smaller retail space and with considerably less parking. Without the big family shoppers, the operators will walk away. Loaf of bread and pint of milk purchasers will not make it profitable or competitive. It may not be a proper supermarket but a local or metro - more expensive and another loss to an already beleagured local community.The ratio is supposed to be 75 % retail  25% Residential.  That is what the already flawed Local Plan changed the designation to. It was at one time solely retail. But nonetheless it is primarily a retail site.EL or any other developer would not purchase the site unless indications of the opportunities had been made.Otherwise the site would have been redeveloped ( probably with a larger store over a car park). But all previous indications were that permission would not be given.  Were EL  enticed by promises at Cannes by LBH representatives prior to purchase of the site?It is not a Brownfield site. It was low level residential and small shops. It is also a Roman Ruin site.It does nothing to alleviate to increase the shortage of 3 bed family homes, it does add to a glut of 1 bed homes.EL were either mislead or complete opportunists and if the latter very bad for the people of Brentford and not what is needed.Surely, they can come up with better ?And where is the infrastructure to support all this?  None of it is adequate and nothing is planned. Even some councillors have conceded that.This has not been thought through, Apparently a Cycle Superhighway is more important than the well being and local commerce of the people who live here.Ballymore is nowhere near. They are torn with UK and overseas funding issues, and retailers are not keen on the risk with such seismic changes in retail filtering through.If this has to be done it needs to be got right for all the right reasons and not the sparkles of the treasure chest or the egos of politicians.

Raymond Havelock ● 3052d

Well, I'm going to be contrary to everyone in this post... I'm supporting the development of the site!Perhaps it is one or two stories too high on the side of half acre, besides that it is about time the whole site gets a modern treatment (the current supermarket, as it is, needs a big shake up), the sooner the better!I would like to throw some thoughts below:1. The land is privately owned as it was bought by EL a couple of years back.2. As they own the land, they want to have it develop and get some income out of it. Nothing different of people owning land... or properties...3. Although the Local Plan estipulates 75:25 for the site, there is no requirement to provide a new supermarket on the site (please correct me if wrong).4. National planning policies and proposals (Housing White Paper) go in favour of development of brownfileds, with higher density in town centres and well connected areas, and on the developers side.My point is if the development meets current policies ( I'm not an expert on planning but I work with regulations and regulators), there is very little the council can do to reject the proposal of a privately developed site.If it gets rejected for the wrong reasons, the developer (EL) might appeal the decision, and if held, the council (me and you and everyone) doesn't get a penny from the developer who will build with 0 contributions to transport, schools, cycle superhighway,  S106 deal, etc. (as occurred with Wheatstone House next to Fountain Leisure Centre).I'm not trying to defend the council but I understand they are in a difficult position and they are just trying to get the best outcome.I don't believe there is any dark conspiracy either (I'm from a country where councils and politicians are properly corrupted and everybody knows about it, I've never seen this in the UK, fortunately). On the contrary, I believe the council is doing a great job on promoting Brentford (i.e. facilitating Brentford FC to stay in Brentford in a brand and amazing new stadium, developing an exciting plan for the Golden Mile - nothing secret there, a consultation is coming in summer, and there have already been some workshops with businesses).Personally, Im very excited to see the changes coming, I love Brentford dearly, there are great things here (it's biggest asset is their people and the strong community, which is very unique) but there are some other bits which are not working at all and what it doesn't work, just needs to be amended, like the Morrisons site.Finally, if someone is insterested, have a look on London Green website, there is a 3D montage of the Police Station development which combines all three developments together, London Green, Essential Living and Ballymore, it gives an idea on how that section of the high street might be in 5 years time....

David Fernande ● 3052d

They have a really warped idea of what they want to do to Brentford, led not by any elected policy,  but by unelected Brendan Walsh and his team who seem to have the politicians eating out of the palm off his hand and is given the green light by them "what know better than the plebs who vote for them"A Gravy train executive who left a trail of disaster in Ealing and has fingers in a lot of taxpayer funded pies.They have plans, big plans but it is all so secret except to Cllr. Curran's little clique.They really ought to come clean and rather than tit bits or riddles or little jokes, publish clearly what Labour are really planning to do to Brentford.But honesty and openess...Well it's not very Labour is it. Not Hounslow Labour for sure.

Raymond Havelock ● 3052d

Seems they're hell bent on turning Brentford into a smaller version of Croydon.

Vanessa Smith ● 3052d

how awful the site will look once 'developed', have a shufti at the article on the home page. I looks like a mundane and slightly depressing soviet era monstrosity, lacking in colour and imagination. Still, what do I know? I'll only have to live with it for the next 25 years or so.

Keith Iddon ● 3052d

Sad but very true SteveWho honestly believes what our councillors tell us these days when decisions are made weeks in advance of any vote

Paul Fisher ● 3052d

Indeed I am surprised there isn't more comment / debate about the Morrisons site but, from what I can gather, people don't hold out much hope from Hounslow Cllrs anymore in light of the way the vast majority were treated with the Church Street closure.

Steve Taylor ● 3052d

Thanks Steve, I don't particularly like the closure of Church Street, but in some ways I can see the reasons, even if as Vanessa says it won't change people's driving behaviour.Personally I think Guy is an impossible position on here.  He's one of the few Members that posts and makes an attempt to defend his actions.  But he is a member of a political party so can't necessarily speak as freely as he might otherwise do.I do wish though that this thread might focus more on the Morrisons application that is coming to Committee on Thursday night, I'm surprised there haven't been more recent posts about it.

Adam Beamish ● 3052d

Yes Paul, that is the sad thing about it and this thread really does sadden me. I used to always respect and value contributions from Guy and Adam even though I may not always agreed with them. Adam, as usual makes some good points and of course has an in depth knowledge of how Council works so his views are welcome and repected although not always what one would want to hear but they give us something to think about and debate.Guy's posts, on the other hand, are becoming more and more pathetic and quite nonsensical as he is sucked into the (local) party ethos and makes feeble and laughable attempts to defend his position as he kicks democracy in the teeth. It didn't take long....very sad.

Steve Taylor ● 3052d

And of course when they are completely loyal they get rewarded with the prime special responsibilty postions and when they are not 100% on board they are threatened with deselection

Paul Fisher ● 3052d

"Hounslow Labour councillors do as they are instructed to do by the leadership or face the consequences and are too weak to resist"Spot on Paul. If this wasn't the case why could anyone with half a brain not understand about traffic and pollution and the new developments of apartments?  You couldn't make it up with this lot of backstabbers.

Steve Taylor ● 3053d

I live in hope that those of us who are really disappointed and appalled at their behaviour have longer memories. I don't think the lies and misinformation perpetrated by some of them will be forgotten in a hurry, let alone forgiven.

Vanessa Smith ● 3053d

The problem is though Vanessa is that they all think they are invincible these days

Paul Fisher ● 3053d

The predictions for Labour in this year's locals outside London look really dire. I just wonder if they will permeate the brains of our local representatives before next May?

Vanessa Smith ● 3053d

“Air quality• There has been a recorded reduction in pollution in thelocal area when comparing data from 2016 with that gathered in 2014.• This reduction is larger than the reduction recorded borough wide, however final analysis to account for variations in atmospheric conditions between years has not yet been undertaken.”The air quality data presented at IBAF did not include NOx readings at Busch Corner, which is the most polluted hotspot in the borough, and one of the most polluted in London. Busch corner is directly affected by Church street closure, and if NOx levels are down along Twickenham Rd, we should see similar reduction at Busch corner too. Guy, can you please reassure the local residents that this is indeed the case? Looking at 2015 data, Busch Corner monthly NOx readings range between 65 and 98 µɡ/m3 (with upper safe level being 40), and bias-adjusted annual mean at 71.7µɡ/m3.The level of 71.7 means that  1-hour objective for NOx is regularly breached, making it unsafe to be in this location for over 1 hour. According to LBH’s  Air Quality Annual Status Report 2016,  having carried out a preliminary survey at this site, LBH suggests that there is no relevant public exposure (except a bus stop), where members of public are not expected to spend at least an hour. So where do we decide to stick another school? Just next to the very bus stop where public is not expected to spend an hour, but school children will be spending 6-7 hours each day.

Marina Thomas ● 3053d

They'll have figured that already and will have decided that, in the absence of a viable challenger, they will ride the storm.

Phil Andrews ● 3053d

I am in no doubt that more people signed the petition to re-open Church St. to traffic than voted for her in the last election. Go figure...

Keith Iddon ● 3053d

What this boils down to Keith is the old conundrum about whether elected members are representatives or delegates of the community they were elected to serve.  Politicians like to believe they are representatives, free to disagree with the wider community and to impose their own superior judgment upon us at will.In this part of the world this seems to be taken to extremes, and is exacerbated by what appears to be a kind of group insecurity, leading our lords and masters to oppose the popular view almost as a point of principle in the belief that to do otherwise somehow detracts from the authority and the control which they wield over us.That and the very unique circumstances of this particular case where, as everybody in this area knows, they are basically standing by a colleague who is driving this very much for her own reasons.

Phil Andrews ● 3053d

I agree with alot of what you say Vanessa, you know my thoughts on the South Street mini-roundabout debacle and I wouldn't say I'm a specific supporter of the Church Street closureBut traffic wise if traffic is moving slowly on a main arterial route than people will rat-run where they can.  If they don't have that option, or it isn't as easy to do so, most of the traffic remains on that main arterial route.  And it becomes so bad that eventually people think "bugger this, it's quicker for me to walk or cycle".  Of course not everyone is able to or will, but I think a fair proportion will, I know my travelling habits have certainly changed in the last 10 years or so, and although I own a car I don't use it as much as I once did (not just because of changing jobs).However, I will say a couple of years back I was in the States and in Los Angeles in particular the reliance on the private car shocked me, the freeways were constantly loaded with traffic whilst the car-share lanes (only for those cars with at least 1 passenger) were relatively underused.So maybe nothing works, other than my draconian musings about birth control and over-population !.

Adam Beamish ● 3053d

My apologies for a stray apostrophe - note to self, check grammar.

Vanessa Smith ● 3053d

The tone of some of the responses on here suggests that it's our local politicians who seem to think they know what's best for us, and that because they say that our daily experience of more traffic and longer delays on Twickenham Rd is wrong that we are ill informed and should leave it to them to make the decision, despite a vast majority of votes against...it's almost like we're being patted on the head and told not to worry (lol)

Keith Iddon ● 3053d

"Councillors can't always just go with what the majority of residents want, however popular it might make them."Apart from the fact that many of this lot of councillors would need a miracle on the scale of Lazarus being raised from the dead to make them popular, the fact is one of Guy's esteemed colleagues said that he thought the evidence was 'inconclusive', and officer's saying that the 'closure hasn't been as significant as what some us believe' is - with respect - total b/s. What was the point of the consultation if it was to be totally ignored? Hardly any notice was taken of the views of one hell of a lot of people, so we're all wrong and a couple of bods who don't live here or travel around this area know better than the benighted locals do they? I think not. Surely to God in a democracy the majority count, their reasons for voting for this are totally incomprehensible, they are either thick (highly likely) or they are not understanding that there is always a political dimension to the decisions they take, they are OUR representatives and more of us said no to closure than yes - simples.I can't understand the mindset that thinks that if it is made more difficult for drivers to get around they'll all automatically take up cycling, or walking - it is NEVER going to happen. The best we can hope for is that traffic is controlled so that it keeps moving albeit slower than we'd like. It's like the housing developments that don't provide parking in the (forlorn and misguided) hope that residents will all jump on public transport - it doesn't work, because not all public transport goes where people want to go, at the times they want to go there. Of course the traffic on Twickenham Rd. was already bad, the closure further up - of Cole Park - hardly helped, but no notice was taken of that, and that ridiculous mini roundabout at South St. and the failure to do something at the junctions of Worton Rd. and Mogden Lane all added to the chaos and all that BEFORE Church St. Far too little account of local housing developments and the new proposed schools that won't be served by public transport can only exacerbate the problems. So if we know that how is it councillors and officers don't?

Vanessa Smith ● 3053d

"A joined-up approach was needed from the council’s traffic department to address congestion and pollution along Twickenham road before closing off any roads. But why bother? It’s much easier to ignore the problem and pretend that those who object to road closures are some sort of deluded anti-cycling, anti-walking, anti-environment petrolheads."Couldn't agree more - Guy can bang on all he likes, who believes these officer's reports against the evidence of their own experience? We all know the old adage lies, damned lies, and statistics, and that sums up the rubbish report on Church St. The stupid thing is now that this incredibly bad decision has been made Hounslow are going on about various 'treatments' to parts of Twickenham Rd. - some of which were been pointed out to them even before Church St. was closed - and which they wouldn't listen to. So now this farce is going to cost even more money, which they keep telling us they haven't got, really bright. I would say that 'averages' don't tell you much at all, it's a bit like the famous 'average' wages and 'average' house prices, which we all scoff at as they bear no relation to life as we live it. Still what do we know? We only live here and put up with these dreadful deteriorating traffic conditions and the extra traffic forced down OUR residential roads, and the poor air quality. But hey! Our houses are so much cheaper than those in Church St. so it doesn't really count. Labour council? Don't make me laugh. We needed a comprehensive traffic plan taking the area from the A4 at Gillette right through to the A316, piecemeal faffing around will not work, the extra schools coming on line in the area have to make a difference as do even more proposed housing developments. Why don't councillors think for themselves just for a change? That's what they're there for, to represent us, not to slavishly swallow every officer's or consultant's report, pathetic.

Vanessa Smith ● 3053d

Councillors may have party affiliations but are supposed to put the interests of their ward electorate first and their own opinions second.When well informed residents do react en masse it is because they know it is wrong or something is afoot.If it is not a clear cut issue and there is doubt the really councillor ought to yield to the majority public opinion and bite the bullet. Even if they end up being right.Then work out a way that is acceptable and does achieve a benefit.And the Morrisons project clearly fits the bill. It is wholly unacceptable and needs to be rejected until what is acceptable is put forward.But indications are that it is yet another fit up propagated by the Regeneration directorate. Hardly democracy in action.There have not been too many decisions locally made in the face of wide public opposition that have turned out to be the right ones. Some have been costly and others have been pure indulgence.Constant contempt for the local electorate and the overpowering egos of this borough are going top on my Labour Party Policy Consultation form.

Raymond Havelock ● 3053d

TfL will/may be interested if buses fail to stop because overcrowded, particularly if this is repeated or consistent.When I've raised this before (this was about the morning rush hour) they looked at data and decided there was not a sufficient problem for them to make changes. I don't know their precise definition of a 'problem' but more than one bus in a row being overcrowded, or the same problem day after day, would have weight with them, I think.  They seem to have very comprehensive data, so it's probably about pointing them at problem areas.

Guy Lambert ● 3054d

“However, the overall average bus journey times on this route has shown only minor increases. “I’d be delighted to live in the same parallel universe where this bus report was produced. It could be that when averages for the entire days are taken, the delays seem minor. During the day buses seem ok, however if you ever try getting on 267 during school time, i.e between 8.20-8.50 am or 3.20-4pm you’ll know what I mean. Do you honestly believe local people would be complaining and turning up for council meeting if there wasn’t a problem?I will record school time bus overcrowding and upload it to Youtube, if you could take it up with TFL it would be great. If someone at LBH is serious about improving local roads for everyone, they should start with addressing bus overcrowding, which could in turn encourage some parents out of their cars.With regards to diesel emissions cover-up  this is something I heard an environmental campaigner talking about on LBC this evening, they did an FOI request, and apparently government knew about carcinogenic properties of diesel, but decided to push ahead with promoting it anyway.

Marina Thomas ● 3054d

I am not suggesting we should move the schools, and we can't do much about over-population in London either. However, when the road is already congested and there is a high concentration of schools in the area (currently over 4000 children along Twickemham Rd) what we don't need is even more traffic on this very road. And for no good reason, other than a few residents not wishing cars driving past their houses.

Marina Thomas ● 3054d

Marina, we are clearly never going to agree about this, but I just want to set the record straight about the evidence.Here is the evidence about bus times:Bus route 267 runs the full length of Twickenham Road.• Analysis of iBUS data shows an increase in peak hour journey times between November 2015 to November 2016.• This increase most notable in the PM peak in the southbound direction with an increase in journey time of 162 seconds (27%).• However, the overall average bus journey times onthis route has shown only minor increases. Data from bus route H37 has shown some increases in bus journey time in the AM and PM peaks in the eastbound direction of 52 and 91 seconds respectively.• Data for westbound buses also shows an increase in journey time of 51 seconds in the AM peak, however, the PM peak shows a decrease of 14 seconds, and again there is a small improvement to the average daily bus journey time.• The analysis of bus routes 235 and H28 has shown some improvements to these bus journey times, aside from thewestbound direction of the H28, which has a 141 second increase in journey time in the PM peak. Whilst it seems pretty clear that there was a modest increase in congestion, this happened everywhere in London, not just the Twickenham Road. Saying that journey times increased by 30% at all, never mind linking any increase entirely to the closure, is not based on any evidence.Air quality• There has been a recorded reduction in pollution in thelocal area when comparing data from 2016 with that gathered in 2014.• This reduction is larger than the reduction recorded borough wide, however final analysis to account for variations in atmospheric conditions between years has not yet been undertaken.I also accept that there was no data about particulates but I took (and take) the view that the relative amount of particulates is likely to be similar to the relative amounts of NOxI have remonstrated with TfL in the past about overcrowding on the 267 but they have always denied there is a serious problem. If people have evidence this is wrong I'll happily have another crack at them.If you knew me you'd know how absurd it is to believe that I was motivated in any way to favour a wealthy riverside enclave against the interests of the wider population.Oh, and the last Labour government was keen to reduce CO2 emissions to combat climate change and acted in pretty well precisely the same way as any other government in the developed world, whatever their political make up. I don't think science had established the harmfulness of particulates, and nobody at all knew until a couple of years ago that the emissions figures (for cars, not commercials or buses, it seems) were being fiddled by Volkswagen and probably all the other car makers.

Guy Lambert ● 3054d

So where do you put the schools then ?.I know it's never goes down well but if people really did care so much about the planet they might not have so many children, then in addition to all the other problems caused by over-population there wouldn't be so great a need for more schools.Sorry for the controversial view.

Adam Beamish ● 3054d

I would agree with you, Adam, if the congested road did not have 6 (soon 7) schools in the immediate proximity. I am all for walking and cycling. I have a car, but I hate driving, and we only use it for out of town trips. I walk with kids to school in all weather, and it is a very long walk.  By joined-up thinking I do not mean some huge expensive initiatives. For starters, if people were able to get on a bus at school hours, I am sure many parents would be happy to leave cars at home. 4-5 buses per hour on a route that serves 7 schools just in Isleworth is laughable. Bus companies could be asked to use cleaner vehicles etc. At the moment the feeling in the community is that our children are victims of some sort of sick behaviour-modifying experiment, and they don’t deserve it.

Marina Thomas ● 3054d

Wwhere I see things differently to other posters is that if we look at the Officer's report the impacts of the Church Street closure haven't been as significant as what some of us believe or want to believe.That's why I would never be a Councillor, on the one hand you've got professionals telling you "the closure hasn't made any significant difference", and on the other you've got 74% of local residents saying "we want to keep the road open".  Councillors can't always just go with what the majority of residents want, however popular it might make them.In my previous job I sometimes commuted by car through Isleworth (pre-Church Street closure) and it was an absolute nightmare most of the time from Busch Corner to the A316 and vice-versa.  I ended up either going by car on the motorway, or sometimes using public transport or cycling.I'm sure the closure of Church Road has impacted on that, although as I say the situation was already terrible.  Tough decisions have to be made when it comes to pollution, and so far most anti-car measures have failed because sadly there's still a mentality amongst many people, even in a capital city, that they must have a car and that they should be able to drive everywhere.  That's why the notion of "joined up measures to address congestion and pollution" is a fantasy that's already been tried and failed all over London.In my personal view, the only way to change that mentality is to make using the car as unpleasant as possible.  And if that means forcing traffic away from rat-runs and onto one already busy road, then so be it, because eventually those drivers will think "hey, this is  pointless, I don't need to drive the short journey to work or school", I'll walk, cycle or take the bus".Quite possibly it won't work, I have my doubts that we'll ever get people out their cars, but I'm not going to condemn any attempt to do so.

Adam Beamish ● 3054d

“There is no point being a councillor if you can't promote what you believe in”So you believe in diverting more traffic towards roads where our children spend 6.5 hours each day and away from a wealthy riverside enclave? What a strange belief for someone who was elected to act in the interests of the local people and protect the vulnerable! The reduction in pollution occurred at the same time as bus journey times increased by 30% on Twickenham Road, which I find hard to believe. You didn’t measure particulates emissions, which are now officially classified as Class 1 carcinogen by WHO, I quote: “World Health Organization (WHO) warning that diesel exhaust fumes are a “major cancer risk” and belong in the “same deadly category as asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas”. Those idling DIESEL buses are now spewing carcinogens just a few metres outside a nursery at isleworth Town school for 30% longer.You also probably believe in sticking a school or 2 near one of the worst pollution hotspots in London - Busch corner - at the time when the local roads are at the bursting point. Local 267 bus network is still a diabolical shambles, which means those extra pupils will be dropped to school - guess… - by CAR!!!A joined-up approach was needed from the council’s traffic department to address congestion and pollution along Twickenham road before closing off any roads. But why bother? It’s much easier to ignore the problem and pretend that those who object to road closures are some sort of deluded anti-cycling, anti-walking, anti-environment petrolheads.This is just like the last Labour government that encouraged people buying diesel vehicles whilst fully aware of dangers of the diesel emissions. They opted to reduce greenhouse emissions instead. In words of a pollution expert I just heard on the radio - they decided to kill people now in order to save people later.

Marina Thomas ● 3054d

Thanks for accepting my word - not fashionable in these parts.It is true that there was a majority for reopening Church Street and I accept that on this occasion I and Labour colleagues took a different view. All the polling suggests, however, that you are quite wrong about Labour supporters and Brexit. Every poll I can find suggest that for every Labour Brexiteer there are (and were) 2.5 to 3 Labour remainers.Indeed we'll see what happens in future elections. There is no point being a councillor if you can't promote what you believe in, nor if you can't accept the democratic verdict.

Guy Lambert ● 3054d

Indeed Keith but just demonstrates once again how completely out of touch our local councillors are these days with local issues but heh they know best of course especially the one who runs the whole sorry show

Paul Fisher ● 3054d

Not very much extra congestion?. You must be joking.

Keith Iddon ● 3054d

I accept your word for that Guy - but in some ways it makes your decision even more worrying. If, as you say, the environmental and traffic effects of the closure were very marginal, why on earth did you and most of your colleagues choose to ignore the expressed wishes of the great majority of Isleworth residents? It seems that the last thing the Labour Party does (nationally and locally) is to listen to the voters. The Labour Party refused to listen to Labour voters nationally on Brexit and are suffering accordingly for it in the polls. The Church Street decision is the same refusal to listen at local level and will inevitably have the same longterm results. The Brexit vote showed clearly that Labour nationally can no longer rely on traditional political tribalism to ensure they get the working class vote. Interesting to see what happens in future local elections.....

Mick Brent ● 3055d

Well I wasn't coerced. I listened to the evidence. There is no more pollution (less, actually, but that's probably to do with general improvements in vehicle tech) and not very much extra congestion (the Twickenham Road was always very congested).If we were coerced, how come two of my Labour colleagues voted the other way and one abstained?As to Morrisons, I haven't a clue which way it will turn out and certainly nobody is trying to instruct me which way to vote (it would be a waste of breath anyway)

Guy Lambert ● 3055d

I don't know enough about the Morrisons situation to comment, but I find it much easier to believe that intelligent human beings (who are supposed to be working in the interests of the people) were coerced into a dodgy decision by political interests, than that they actually voted freely to continue the closure of Church Street despite the huge local opposition and the resulting appalling pollution and traffic chaos which has resulted. That would be almost beyond rational belief!

Mick Brent ● 3055d

Rubbish, Paul.Rubbish about Church st, rubbish about Morrisons.

Guy Lambert ● 3055d

The decision will have already been made just as the Church St closure and the new Mayor elect were in advanceHounslow Labour councillors do as they are instructed to do by the leadership or face the consequences and are too weak to resist

Paul Fisher ● 3055d