Forum Topic

Question for Cllr Lambert

You commented on a previous thread the following about local consultations "If you think the council should do the opposite of what was supported by those who bothered to submit responses, that's your prerogative. I beg to differ."So why did you ignore the Church Street consultation results and spit in the eye of the 72% who opposed the closure?No waffle please

Paul Fisher ● 2741d42 Comments

I look forward to meeting this gentleman who 'looks quite impressive' - however, I am never sure how content people who obviously seem very capable take to being a local councillor. A few of us who post here know that a lot of a councillor's role is dealing with the day to day stuff that isn't necessarily riveting or earth shattering but is nevertheless incredibly important to an individual or group, and can make a real difference in some cases. If you are politically ambitious or feel that you are too good for this work you may find you land up not filling the role and failing to engage - as has happened - and then local people get very peeved, understandably. Lynn Green understood the duties and role of local councillor and managed to show her two compatriots up in the process, therein lies the tale.

Vanessa Smith ● 2733d

I don't know either of the "other" candidates personally Rob.  I know *of* the gentleman who has been selected and tbh he looks quite impressive.  But the Faustian pact that has clearly been entered into to secure their candidacies alongside that of Councillor Sampson, and the nasty way in which Lynn Green was sacrificed by her own so-called "friends" to allow it to happen (with the obvious connivance of the other local councillors, Guy's weasel words of faint praise for Lynn notwithstanding), leave a very unpleasant taste.

Phil Andrews ● 2733d

P.S.Almost forgot, good job we still got (Mayor) Councillor Samson to sort it all out for us.

Robin Dickers ● 2733d

You forgot Cranford Phil, where the new Isleworth labour hopeful counciler hails from, when she’s in the country of course.No idea about the other bloke, never heard of him.

Robin Dickers ● 2733d

Rest assured though if it happens that there will always be someone on hand from Brentford, or Chiswick, or Scotland, to tell Isleworth residents it's all their own fault.

Phil Andrews ● 2733d

Good for you Steve! Getting to Whitton by public transport from Isleworth is a faff, I try not to use my car but so often public transport doesn't necessarily go where you want to get to.On top of everything else we've had thrown at us - we now have the prospect of a public enquiry into the Duke of Northumberland's application to build over 100 dwellings on the allotment site in Park Rd. A stone's throw from the entrance to W.M Hospital staff car park entrance, Hepple Close, Syon House, the hotel and guests entrance and the garden centre plus the good old Green School for Boys. All vehicles will have to try and make it out at the Park Rd./Twickenham Rd. junction st Busch Corner. What's more they'll have to get back in as well. We can only hope that the planning inspector listens to the arguments from Hounslow Council and local amenity groups as to the stupidity and undesirability of yet more pressure on the locality.

Vanessa Smith ● 2733d

"Take a car off people and they adapt.  I've been without my own car for 8 months now."  Yes but that is your choice, Adam.  I am sure all responsible people try to do their best for the environment. I too try to walk, or cycle  as much as possible. I have a company vehicle so I don't really have a choice about cycling to work. However, the point is that many people do not have an opportunity to adapt.e.g.  My wife works at the top of Richmond Hill / Sheen and there is no public transport. The point of this thread, I believe, is that many decent, responsible and sensible people are aware of the increase of residents around Church Street, new apartments near the Town Wharf, the new apartments where the Nunnery was. Thousands of people are migrating to the area, schools are expanding; the new Green School for Boys etc etc.  Not rocket science at all to understand that it was/is the most ridiculous idea to close Church Street at this time until a proper impact study has been conducted. The people who voted to keep it open are not idiots and certainly don't appreciate Councillors, who don't go near the area and know so little about the community, to behave like despots simply to keep their leader happy. It is so wrong and totally undemocratic and has caused chaos to traffic from the A4 to the A316 and through St Margaret's, Isleworth, Twickenham and Hounslow South.Lambert's Folly!!    

Steve Taylor ● 2733d

On that I agree entirely. The Crossrail promises just 10% increase in capacity.Not mentioned is the 40% reduction in seating.It's not as problem for a short 10 min trip but try the Thameslink trains that can be 2 hours sitting on an ironing board. Truly awful and expensive.The very expensive GWR service beggars believe. These are not standee trains but inter-city trains hideously expensive.I would suggest that these people who are so keen about densification go to cites around the world where this has gotten out of control. And rather than get driven around in limos and taken to the nice hotels and restaurants. Sample the same sort of ordinary day and existence as we do here.  The novelty wears off pretty quick. And yes, it needs to be fully addressed pretty swiftly.I don't see this happening. In fact quite the opposite and we are about to make the decision whether to leave London after 4 generations here.The question remains where to?  We cannot agree on that one yet.

Raymond Havelock ● 2733d

With the new SWR trains Raymond, as far as I'm concerned the whole concept of them is based around ensuring they can accommodate as many people as possible during peak times, comfort isn't remotely a priority, it's all about herding commuters into cattle pens to try to keep up with population growth.It wasn't that long ago that the service was an 8 coach train followed by a 4 coach train, then an 8 coach train etc.  Now we have 10 coach trains most of the time at peak times, and the capacity of those trains is significantly greater than the older trains because they provide as few seats as possible and instead focus upon being able to cram in as many standing passengers as possible.But seemingly at no point is anyone going to say "hold on a minute, we can't just keep making longer trains, more trains or stripping out the carriages even more to provide more capacity, don't we need to focus upon the fundamental problem of how this level of growth isn't sustainable ?".But that involves effectively deterring population growth...and if people don't think the state should intervene in their choice about how to get from A to B, then what hope of state intervention in population growth ?!.

Adam Beamish ● 2733d

Oddly, I kind of agree with what you say and can see the perspective.Milton Keynes Is a place I spent a lot of time in when it was just being developed.It was Wolverton Bletchley Stony Stratford and a handful of estates popping up behind new roads and lines of trees.I was only 11 at the time and the thing that struck me then was all this space and yet all the houses were crammed together with tiny windows and tiny gardens.And all the space around was just trees and footpaths going nowhere.As you say Soulless. I think a great opportunity missed.It's not all bad there but it could have been so very much better.Family moved there from Hammersmith and have remained but one lot in a nice outlying village and the others in Midland Railway Wolverton. As old as the housing they moved away from!But cars. It's fine if you have an occupation that allows hot desking requires little more than a lap top or allows working from home.I've cut my car mileage down from 35,000 to 6,000 per annum  over the last 6  years. But it comes at a price. I have to carry work equipment, it's bulky, heavy and not legally permitted on public transport. ( In actual fact the list of items not permitted on the Underground and London Buses is quite far reaching and lengthy) Rarely enforced but does have insurance implications should misfortune occur.But the reality is I could not manage to make a living without the versatility of the car. Its a 24/7 facility that can go anywhere.I have to be honest, I make a loss on my daily income on too many journeys by train.  I cannot recover the cost in fares without seriously compromising my ability to remain competitive. Often the fares exceed the income earned.I cannot sustain this.I will have to revert to using the car more.  I've not been to happy about that, as when the train is god it is good. But increasingly overcrowded and delays plus standing for two or three hours is becoming too much now.What has clinched my decision to revert to the car though, is the experiences of long awaited new trains this last few months. Air con, Wi fi, power points, great.But seats that induce such pain within a really short time that it is almost criminal.  Just how can a designer get a seat wrong?If my car seat was even half as uncomfortable as the Thameslink train to Brighton then I would probably never drive again. A journey to Bristol on the swish new GWR train made the outgoing HST seem positively sumptuous.Seriously retrograde. so much so that I'm retroing back to the car!The other is time. Using public transport when I can often adds up to 4 hours of my working day and often the car even with congestion is a less arduous and practical option.Artisans of many realms have to travel more now to operate than ever before.Overheads and changes in methods and markets have seen to that.The reality is that as many of us will have to travel to places of work for differing occupations requiring different utensils for a good while yet.  An awful lot of cars double up as mobile offices, vans and family transport

Raymond Havelock ● 2734d

Agree with much of what you say Raymond, we did recently consider relocating to Milton Keynes, a town I've visited on occasion by car visiting one specific sporting facility, but this time we went by train and spent more time wandering around - leading us to quickly conclude that the place was absolutely soulless.But I can't point the finger of blame towards 'greedy' developers, the problem is far more fundamental than that, it's the unchecked and unbalanced population that you refer to.  Over-development is a undesirable consequence of that, not a cause.And I'm not buying the logic that the private car is as much of an essential to people as you make out.  At least it certainly shouldn't be in this day and age of modern technology which should have revolutionised working practices far more than they actually have.Take a car off people and they adapt.  I've been without my own car for 8 months now.  Yes I work for myself from home (although even when I was employed elsewhere I did work from home regularly) but several times a week I have site meetings, client meetings, Council meetings, evening committee meetings and so forth, all over London, the south coast and the East of England.80% of the time I travel by train, and although I have the option of using Zipcar (which I use occasionally) most of the time when I compare the time and the costs of the train against Zipcar it's cheaper and not significantly longer to go by train.  Being self-employed I have no-one to delegate work to so I can't afford to lose hours out of my working day - time is previous to me.We're not located in the most highly accessible part of London for public transport yet there's absolutely no doubt that we don't need a car.  Don't get me wrong I miss not having a car, although then again I look at the costs of having one and realise how much I'm saving by not having one.  I also look back on the previous 2 years when I worked in the city and my then employer provided me with a company car, it was absurd, I never took the car to work once and I probably used it for business purposes once a month (as on all other times I use public transport), meaning it often didn't move from its parking space for days if not weeks.There's no doubt some people need a private car to rely on, for medical reasons, for professional reasons etc, etc.  But there is a massive unnecessary over-dependence on the private car - one only has to look at traffic queues and count the number of sole occupancy vehicles.It's the same the world over, I had the dubious pleasure of driving round the States a couple of years back and LA  for example is a complete nightmare, the only slight respite being the designated multiple-occupancy lanes on the freeways.Hence my basic belief that people cannot be given 'carte blanche' to travel from A-B by whatever means they please, at some point there has to be intervention.

Adam Beamish ● 2734d

Really this is an indictment of our total inability to adapt and think ahead.Even when the first Motorways were being constructed, the attitude of the administrators of this country from any party or within the civil service, was that these were not for the working classes. Heaven forbid that they should become mobile and work elsewhere.But thanks to Henry Ford and Alec Issigonis, the private car became the most liberating tool of the 20th century and as important to liberty, freedom and prosperity as the NHS is to our health.But we also allowed unchecked and unbalanced population growth. The vision of the new towns, satellite towns and wide open roads, cycle ways, industrial estates and improved quality of life was brilliant. We were on the right road.Trouble is untested design, architecture and experimentation led to poor quality structures and unsatisfactory homes. It's telling that the earlier New Towns are still very desirable places but the latter ones bear the hallmarks of economy and corner cutting and people just do not gel with dark grey brutalesque concrete and glass all around.Just like the present, the greed of developers and constructors need for profit took over and what was promised was not quite as it should have been when delivered.Now we are overdense and over populated in a hatful of regions of this country.Precisely back to the problems that dogged 19th and early 20th century London. Overcrowding, social divides and crime.It's not as though it is a surprise, the warnings have been with us going right back to mass immigration.Putting the xenophobic and knee-jerk aspects aside, the concerns were overcrowding, cheap labour and social integration. Then the Baby boom on top and improved health and life expectancy.What was not considered was how best to accommodate this.Slum clearance and war damage was tackled with planners and architects social revolution of concrete jungles, hi -rise and forced living. For many that was the antidote to Rackman Landlords and poor housing.As time passed this turned out to be the start of a new kind of poverty and social ill.In nearly 80 years, we still have not learned the pitfalls of urban and suburban planning.Little dabs of brilliance and success here and there but a holistic wide success?I don't think so.We now face all sorts of issues with roads. And the best we can come up with is bans, charges, restrictions and chaos.We have done virtually nothing to our road network.  All opportunities have been mishandled, or simply not envisaged when the opportunity has come along. Be it safer and better junctions, by-pass routes cycle lanes.The mentality remains that the great unwashed really ought not to be in cars, still exists. The roads should only be for those with financial means.This is far from reality.There are a great many for whom the roads are their sole means to make a living.30 years ago, working at Heathrow at 5am, Staff car parking was a given. It was the only way to be able to turn up on time without having to get up at 3am.Now this is not even permitted for many, many staff. And the only way is to get up at 3am and endure the dark, wet and cold and take a bus. Journeys are slow.It's too late now to modify, alter and make safer urban roads. The space and possibilities have been used for other things.But the stark reality is the pint glass is full and spilling over.Any more over development is not just reckless, it is a threat to the entire social well being of all who live here.Road closures, charges, restrictions are clutching at straw solutions that simply add to detriment.The solutions need to be big brave and pushed by every borough in London.New Towns- Places so well designed and built that we would all want to live there,  complete with a full range of accessibility, Road rail cycle walking, light rail etc.High quality of design and architecture and open space for people. Proper amenities and future proofed spaces.Exactly what was envisaged for Welwyn Garden City generations ago.

Raymond Havelock ● 2734d

We've debated this before Alex.Firstly in response to Steve, no-one is "right" or "wrong" about this.  As I keep openly acknowledging there's no doubt the Church Street closure has increased traffic times along Twickenham Road.  But, let's not pretend otherwise, Twickenham Road has been increasingly grinding to a halt for years now, long before the closure of Church Street.Why ? - because as the records show, there's an ever-increasing amount of traffic on our roads.  The reasons for this are numerous - people have more disposable income, we have an increasing ageing yet independent population, population growth in general, and an ever-increasing "serving the customer 24/7 attitude" which has led to an explosion in the amount of delivery vehicles on the road (e.g. LGV traffic increased by over 22% from 2005 to 2015).In my view (and it's purely a view, not saying I'm definitely right or definitely wrong, although the facts about traffic growth cannot be argued due to their status as facts) the consequences of all of the above have had far greater implications upon traffic flows in the last 15-20 years than the closure of one rat-run.As for your point about people having the right to make up their own minds, I'm not one for unnecessary state intervention, but to me somewhere there's got to be a balance between individual choice and both the future of the planet and consideration for others.We see that everyday, things that were actively encouraged/promoted 30 years ago or not regulated are now either discouraged or regulated against.  Not saying I agree with it all (in many ways we live in a mad PC-orientated world) but no-one can deny it's a very different world to the one I was born into over 40 years ago.In my view because of the wider consequences upon both the future of the planet and everyone's day-to-day lives, we can't just let people make up their minds as to how to get from A to B, nor have freedom of choice on a number of other issues.But yep I hold some pretty some strong views on such issues, I'd ban all supermarket deliveries to homes before 8am or after 9pm, and I'd make deliveries during peak times far more expensive than outside peak times.  Why ? - because of the impact on residential amenity of delivery vans turning up at 6am on a residential street and unloading trays of shopping (the irony being if I applied for planning permission for a commercial use in a residential use the Council would impose severe restrictions on deliveries to safeguard residential amenity), and to try to reduce traffic flows at peak times.And no, just for the record, whilst I do occasionally get supermarket deliveries, I never have my orders delivered before 9am or after 9pm because I think it's inconsiderate to my neighbours.And as most readers now I'd take this a step further and am all for anything the state does to actively deter population growth.We're human, it's in our blood to be self-centred and selfish.  It's easy to think "sod it, the planet is 2000 years old, I'm only going to be for a short time, let's do as I please" or, on a far more trivial, day-to-day, level, "I'm going to work at 7am and want the cupboards restocking, let's get Sainsburys to deliver at 6am so I come home to a fully stocked kitchen, sod any consideration for my neighbours."To me it has absolutely nothing to do with bureaucrats thinking they know better, that logic completely misses the fundamental issue.But hey, I know I'm in the minority here, doesn't make what I say any more or any less worthy, I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

Adam Beamish ● 2734d

"But in my view, it's a small step in the right direction.  And I wouldn't have said that 10 years ago, my attitude towards car usage and deterring the public from over-reliance on the private car has changed enormously over that time."Why all those indecisive steps? Why not just ban private cars? Or at least get councils issue special permit for each individual trip?Adam, people can themselves make up their minds as to how to get from A to B - drive, cycle, take a bus, walk... But intentionally making life miserable for some - because some bureaucrats think they know better - is not right.

Alex Shpinkov ● 2734d

Had to drive up Twickenham Road at 1.15 to 1.45 today only to get stuck in traffic due to Church Street closure.  Vehicles were cutting up Dawes Road and Worton Road,  St Johns Road and Linkfield Road trying to avoid the environmental chaos and pollution on Twickenham Road caused by inept Councillors.

Steve Taylor ● 2735d

"So for me it's actually a decision that I applaud, making an unpopular decision that you know most of your constituents don't support, and one which might ultimately play a small part in leading to further schemes which finally start to deter the selfish short journey single occupancy car drivers (and yep, I can be one of those myself, but I'm increasingly less so)."Adam, as a private citizen we can respect your right to an opinion on issues you support. However, that is not the point of this thread imho. I believe this is an issue of democracy and elected officials adhering to the will of the people.  You can vote any way you wish but a Councillor MUST follow the will of the majority no matter how much it may upset him or her to disobey the party line or cow-tow to the rich and powerful.To rule against the majority is despotism and from this thread, and previous threads on this saga, it is very clear that this fact simply doesn't sink in with Guy Lambert.

Steve Taylor ● 2735d

"I certainly didn't suggest the traffic was 'negligible' now Vanessa, I openly acknowledged that the traffic queues from Busch Corner to West Middlesex are now slightly worse."Adam you are so wrong, wrong, wrong. You have obviously had some amazing good luck when you have used the road on the odd occasion recently but I can assure you it is far, far, far worse than ever before.Try using it northbound from the A316. On Friday evening at 6.30 it was backed up all the way to the A316. So much so that cars were struggling to slip off the A316 onto Twickenham Road. My wife has the road twice a day  (south and northbound ) since 2000 and it is undeniably worse since Church Street closure. In the afternoons she uses it an hour before 'rush hour' and it is still blocked, jammed, chaotic,

Steve Taylor ● 2735d

I do get where you're coming from, although, and it isn't my field of expertise, I'm pretty sure it's a mandatory requirement to have a public consultation prior to a road closure.  So it's not necessarily about the 'point' of having a public consultation.I don't pretend for a minute that the closure of Church Street, Cole Park or any other residential street has improved matters, and I agree with you that it is human nature that drivers then try to rat-run through other residential streets.But in my view, it's a small step in the right direction.  And I wouldn't have said that 10 years ago, my attitude towards car usage and deterring the public from over-reliance on the private car has changed enormously over that time.You may be right about ward politics and such like, I don't knows the ins and out of it all, but by the same token sometimes people can be too close to things to fail to see the wood for the trees, and abit of distance/disassociation actually helps.People cry conspiracy/corruption all the time - it's no surprise to me to read in the local rag today various contributors making wild accusations about the Council dealing with that planning application I mentioned where Officers are recommending approval despite over 700 objections.  According to the contributors either (or all of) Officers, my client or myself are corrupt, or apparently the Council is unable to take on the financial might of big commercial developers.  Because of course I run the biggest planning consultancy in the country based in glitzy offices in the City, and bribe people left, right and centre...rather than being a sole trader working out his living room who simply happens to be good at what he does and prides himself on his integrity.

Adam Beamish ● 2739d

"I certainly didn't suggest the traffic was 'negligible' now Vanessa, I openly acknowledged that the traffic queues from Busch Corner to West Middlesex are now slightly worse." No - you didn't I addressed those remarks to you and Iain who did say it.But sorry Adam, I don't think you're a fool either but you are wrong,wrong, wrong on this. What neither you nor Iain has addressed is the farce of the consultation, what was the point? Please do tell. What Hounslow failed to do was also to take into account the problems further up the Twickenham Rd. exacerbated by Richmond Council's closure of Cole Park which forced traffic the other way down through Worple Avenue and Rd.  It's not just about Twickenham Rd. it's about South St. and all the residential roads in the area from that part all the way up to the A316. Twickenham Rd. was never as busy as it is now during the times between the rush hours, and as I live in the area I think I probably do know what the hell I am banging on about. We all know about what people should do - but the reality is that people do not sheep-like follow what others think is the right way. Just because a bunch of self-important, know-it-all councillors say it's so - doesn't mean it is. Phil is right - there is a lot more to this that I don't think you understand, local councillors stabbing local residents in the back, not just once but many times over, has created the bitterness, and they've only themselves to blame if a lot of us think they are a waste of space and the most untrustworthy shower the good Lord put breath in.

Vanessa Smith ● 2739d

No disrespect Adam, it is very easy to opine from on high and at a distance about Isleworth people being conspiracy theorists, but I suspect that on balance they will have a better handle on the personalities concerned and the relationships between them than a resident of Brentford or of Chiswick.  The shenanigans that have occurred are well known to many, which I suspect has fuelled more anger than the closure itself.  Had this process been conducted properly and not in a way which made so obvious the contempt in which local people are held by their alleged representatives it is likely that it could have been introduced with far less acrimony.

Phil Andrews ● 2739d

Well said Vanessa.

Keith Iddon ● 2739d

I certainly didn't suggest the traffic was 'negligible' now Vanessa, I openly acknowledged that the traffic queues from Busch Corner to West Middlesex are now slightly worse.But that's the point, before the closure of Church Street you'd still turn into Twickenham Road from Busch Corner at peak times and inevitably hit queuing traffic, the main difference before being that some of the traffic then went down Church Street, which didn't free up the capacity of Twickenham Road but simply meant the traffic was dispersed all over the side streets.When I used to commute by car back into London via the A316 (from 2008 to 2015), I always had Google Maps on my phone for sat nav, which is based on traffic flows for the quickest routes, and I would say that maybe 1 time in 20 it advised me that it was quicker to get back to Brentford via Twickenham Road (or up St. Margaret's Road and via Church Street) then by continuing on the A316 and over Kew Bridge.  Which tells me everything - Twickenham Road has been a congestion hotspot for years, with or without the Church Street closure.And come on, you're no fool, I agree with you on many things, but you know as well as I know that the various reports to committee following the temporary closure (and prior to it being formally confirmed) included data about bus timings and travel times etc. - if I recall correctly data from the 267 showed that there had been an increased delay southbound at peak times of 3 minutes following the closure, which very much ties in with the my experience I have had when travelling on the 267 at peak times lately and comparing it to my experiences pre-closure.People are bitter about the closure because it's easier to point the finger of blame and adopt a selective memory that suggests the closure of Church Street has made a significant difference.  It hasn't, it's made a small (adverse) difference to what was already a congestion hotspot.But with traffic congestion, the only way to ever get people out of their cars is to deter them from making non-essential or short journeys by car. Iain mentions Wellesley Road, when I worked in the city for a couple of years I walked back from Gunnerbury Station every night and often I'd count the number of cars queuing on Wellesley Road with only 1 occupant, and it's no exaggeration to say that it was around 90%.  That 'abuse', for want of a better word, just can't be allowed to go unchallenged, and it's only through unpopular decisions like the Church Street closure that such abuse might be minimised/reduced.

Adam Beamish ● 2739d

Oh dear! I fear neither you nor Adam is understanding this debate. Today - early afternoon - a queue of a dozen or so cars were waiting to fight their way out of Park Rd. on to the Busch Corner junction. It is the school holidays and even without traffic from the Green School for Boys right at the junction there are several turnings further down that will have to negotiate this one way in - one way out conundrum. The W. Mid car park, Hepple Close, Snowy Fielder Waye, Syon House and garden centre, the hotel and guests. So no the traffic past the hospital is not 'negligible' now, in fact we joined the queue just past the hospital entrance.  I resent the fact that those of us who opposed this closure are motivated by self interest (and the Church St. mob aren't?) Other residential roads like Worple Road and Avenue and all the roads off that that join to the Twickenham Rd. have borne the brunt of traffic trying to get away from the Twickenham Rd. crawl. These too are residential roads - not all of which are especially suited to heavy traffic conditions either. So your answer presumably would be to just close anything that takes your fancy? The fact is which you both overlook conveniently is that Hounslow undertook a consultation, what they never did was during the time of the so-called 'temporary closure' was to take that time to do traffic counts on nearby areas, pollution testing, bus timings, travel times etc. If they had they would then have known which we all did that that closure would cause this ongoing burden to the vast majority of residents. If you lived around here you would understand the bitterness felt at the abject failure of councillors to listen and stand by the results of their own consultation.

Vanessa Smith ● 2739d

Have you got your rubber ring inflated and ready Guy or are you a good swimmer? ;)

Phil Andrews ● 2739d

That has the level of veracity I've come to expect from you, Phil

Guy Lambert ● 2739d

Okay scratch that, I forgot about Michael Foot.  But I stand by the rest of my post.

Phil Andrews ● 2739d

As my kids would say on Facebook Guy, lol.  There's only one Tory taking part in this exchange and it's the guy (npi) who wanted to chop Jeremy Corbyn, the first and only radical leader that the Labour Party has had in my lifetime.

Phil Andrews ● 2739d

Sorry Phil but there is a lot of drivel in that post. The figures I quoted were correct, not fantasy, as you now acknowledge.My post bag was a long time ago - but what I said then was true, as is everything else I say on this forum. I used to be an accountant and I check my facts (not to say I might make the odd inadvertent error).You completely misunderstand the scale of government cuts. I have never once quoted a cumulative figure. Conservative councillors attempt to muddy the waters and you seem to swallow it - well they are your old chums.I have not been an active party to any alleged cynical efforts by anybody. I form my own opinions. If the council leader was commenting he would likely place me in the awkward squad.

Guy Lambert ● 2739d

Whilst I'm not personally convinced there was "overwhelming" justification for the closure of Church Street, it's never been something that I personally think necessitates the furore it has generated.The conspiracy theory is that the Church Street closure was given the green light to keep afew owners of large properties happy, because Members didn't side with the majority vote from the public consultation.That ignores the fact that the whole length of Church Street isn't suitable/ideal for modern traffic, and one of the few direct river frontages within the Borough was spoilt by traffic.  Having worked for 20 years in the public and private sectors and dealing with Councils, Officers and Councillors on a daily basis I'm a pretty hardened cynic and I've seen or know of all kinds of goings on, but the conspiracy theory has always seemed to me to completely ignore the fundamental problems of modern traffic using Church Street.As I often say, at the end of the day we're all human beings and we all have our own self-interests.  We all want to get in our own cars and drive from A to B as quickly as possible, and we'll moan if we get up by traffic, even though the fact we're in our own car ourselves is part of the problem.I don't personally believe the congestion along Twickenham Road has increased as much as people claim.  Nope, I don't travel down it everyday, but I probably did 2-3 times a week before the Church Street closure and it was always queuing traffic in both directions anyway.  The two occasions recently I've been on a 267 during peak times were slow, but comparing that to my previous journeys I'd say it took perhaps 2-3 minutes longer to get from Busch Corner past West Mid then it used to.And sadly part of that increased delay can be explained by the ever increasing population and the rigid refusal of many people to stop using their cars for short journeys with no passengers.For me it was never about 72% of the consultees knowing best, it was 72% of the consultees only being interested in their own self-interests, which ironically is exactly the same criticism gets levelled at the occupiers of properties in Church Street (none of whom I know or have ever engaged with I should add).So for me it's actually a decision that I applaud, making an unpopular decision that you know most of your constituents don't support, and one which might ultimately play a small part in leading to further schemes which finally start to deter the selfish short journey single occupancy car drivers (and yep, I can be one of those myself, but I'm increasingly less so).

Adam Beamish ● 2739d

The percentage of those voting against the closure in Isleworth and Syon wards, including the residents of Church Street, was 72% - not 59%.  Presumably you have, for your own purposes, chosen to use the figure for "all respondents", a mysterious and meaningless category which could include people on the other side of the world who have simply been asked to lend their name to support a closure in a street they've never heard of in a country they've never visited.  Hardly a scientific approach to statistics, and your use of them is at best mischievous.Then again it does tally with the fascinating saga of your bulging post-bag which you had told us about previously, in which there was allegedly a "slight majority" in favour of the closure!In another area of debate on this forum you repeatedly misrepresent the scale of government cuts to local authorities with your stubborn insistence upon citing cumulative figures as though they were annual figures.  I'm actually on your side on this general issue but your wilful misrepresentation of figures undermines our argument, and insults the intelligence of the reader.To add insult to injury you have been an active party to the cynical efforts of the administration to present the Church Street as some progressive and visionary green initiative rather than the grubby act of naked cronyism that all local people know it truly is.I don't have to slur you Guy, you slur yourself every time you choose to act in this way.  Your determination to ingratiate yourself with your leader are in a way admirable, but I do hope you will at least have the honour and decency to go down with the ship when the numbers change.  Or maybe you'll be able to suggest a different way of counting them?

Phil Andrews ● 2739d

I have always been puzzled as to how posters could be so vehement in their defence of the Church St rat run. I know nothing about the alleged shenanigans mentioned here and in the past but the reasons for removing the rat run seem overwhelming. Impact on traffic flows past the hospital must be negligible by now. If the queues are too bad drivers will either attempt another route or consider other modes of transport. This is the common approach by traffic planners when dealing with rat runs. The same will apply to Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gdns at some stage, CS9 or not. I will then have to use CHR and bear the queues if I drive to and from Chiswick rather than using the bus!

Iain Muir ● 2740d

Steve's right - quite what are councillors for if not to act as advocates and representatives of the people who voted for them? Why go to the expense and bother of having a 'consultation' if they had no intention whatsoever of taking the slightest bit of notice of it. That tells me the die was already cast long before it got to IBAF and they were just going through the motions. Either consultations are used for a purpose - to inform decision making - or save taxpayers money and act like the petty little dictators that they have shown themselves to be. We know what's best for you - so belt up - seems to be their mantra.

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d

"The only point I was trying to make was the broad one (not specific to Church Street) that just because the majority want or don't want something we can't automatically expect Councillors or politicians to support us." That would depend on your interpretation or understanding of democracy and clearly if Councillors can't understand that, they have no business being Councillors.

Steve Taylor ● 2740d

"Nothing he posts on here will detract from the one simple truth which is well known to eveybody concerned in this community, and that is that the Church Street vote was about a Labour majority expressing solidarity with a colleague who had formed a relationship of some kind or another with a resident of dubious integrity, and in the manner of its kind placing loyalty to that colleague ahead of the wider public interest."Yes, it was a clear case of stabbing the majority in the back to make the point that Labour despises democracy and prefers to rule with despotic malice. To state that in 5 years time one would do the same, rather than admit one was wrong and apologise for the environmental disaster and misery caused for thousands, simply to appease a handful of wealthy buddies, speaks volumes. A disgrace and beneath contempt.

Steve Taylor ● 2740d

The statistics are not imaginary, and contrary to that slur I have never once introduced imaginary statistics. They are taken from published documents which I looked at yesterday.And all this talk about carve-ups is Phil's own imagination, at least insofar as it relates to me. I make my own mind up and state my reasons as clearly as I can. If you don't believe me, that's your problem, not mine.

Guy Lambert ● 2740d

Interesting responses.  Quite frankly I never personally could entertain being a Committee because I'd struggle with on the one hand the expectation from much of Joe Public that "we voted for you and we want x, so we expect you to support us" and the restrictions (not just on planning issues but on all issues) of legislation, due procedure, material considerations etc.  So I do genuinely admire those of you who are or have been Councillors, rather you than me.The only point I was trying to make was the broad one (not specific to Church Street) that just because the majority want or don't want something we can't automatically expect Councillors or politicians to support us.I never get Raymond's point about professional planners think they know best - and to put it bluntly if a planner has that degree of arrogance then they won't get far in the private sector (in that respect I do think there's a big different between the two sectors).  Alot of planning issues are subjective which makes the letters after my name no more meaningful than Joe Public, and as I always advise objectors the most powerful objections are those which are articulate, factual and calmly delivered - an emotional rant making various completely wild and unsubstantiated claims will do you no favours whatsoever.But at the same time you can't say that just about 98% of representations are opposed to an application it should be refused.  People seem to forget that in most cases, long before an application is submitted, a planning consultant has already appraised what their client is proposing and given them advice as to the likelihood of getting permission - its not like in my case my client came to me and said "right, we're applying for this, get on with it".  I probably appraise on average 5 sites every 2 weeks for this particular client, and 90% of them I effectively bin on the basis there's no chance of getting permission - and the client heeds my advice because they know I know my stuff.Indeed I knew long before I submitted this particular application that (a) there would be a huge amount of objections but (b) there were very few planning grounds upon which the LPA could sustain a refusal.

Adam Beamish ● 2740d

Guy as usual is deliberately misunderstanding the issues - councillors are supposed to represent us - in a democracy the majority view carries the day where the relevant law and legislation allows. If you care - which I'm sure you don't - I think you're all mad now - never mind in five years time. This issue has simply allowed a privileged few to dictate to the majority, and caused more aggravation and the consequent knock on effects to the vast majority. So a few people in Isleworth are entitled to live in a private little enclave without traffic whilst the rest of us don't count - well - thanks a bunch. So we can have more pollution, more traffic, more delays, by virtue of the fact where we live isn't 'picturesque'? Labour party? Really? As for Adam - he knows perfectly well, where an issue is a question of  legislation as in planning then that is what has to govern decision making.

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d

Not only off-topic Adam but also irrelevant.  We all know that development planning is subject to rules, and that if an application for a build ticks all the legal boxes then popular opposition is not going to stop it.Church Street is a road scheme, not a building development.  When the proposal to close Church Street was first mooted there was no legislation that directed members either to close it or not to close it, it was a judgment call and entirely their decision to make.  Their decision was to emphasise their authority over their subjects and to flaunt what they perceive to be their political untouchability by raising two fingers to their constituents.  They were not obliged to do that under legislation, they chose to do it.Guy, as he is oft given to do, introduces imaginary statistics to paint a demonstrably false impression of a community closely divided on the issue, rather than one of a dubious carve-up between the majority of councillors in the Labour group and a very small number of self-interested and wealthy residents.  Whether he fools himself by adopting this approach only he can say, but he isn't fooling anybody else.Nothing he posts on here will detract from the one simple truth which is well known to eveybody concerned in this community, and that is that the Church Street vote was about a Labour majority expressing solidarity with a colleague who had formed a relationship of some kind or another with a resident of dubious integrity, and in the manner of its kind placing loyalty to that colleague ahead of the wider public interest.  The good news for Guy is that they will get away with it unless the community is sufficiently well organised to be able to exact its revenge at the ballot box in May, something I have thus far seen no evidence of.The fun begins when the dust settles on the election and the four-yearly bitchfest over who gets to be leader of the gang begins, because that is when the chickens are likely to come home to roost for the uniquely shady clique which presently prevails.  Watching the rats jump ship when that happens will be a spectacle to behold because there will certainly be no honour amongst people such as these.

Phil Andrews ● 2740d

Yes. The assumption is that unless you are a professional planner then all residents are ignorant.They are not and whilst the may not be au fait with planning, architecture, policy or politics, they are pretty good at recognising when some thing is not right and will bring no benefit.They know when overdensification and no infrastructure is going to be to the detriment of a neighbourhood.It's not everything that gets people riled.But we are seeing the poor results and it is remarkable how often the dismissed concerns of residents have borne out to be wholly vindicated.But it does have to be the concerns of genuine local residents and not ringers brought in from afar. Similarly, planning committees should be more local and have a better understanding of the local community and envisions.  We keep seeing an east west divide even between the same ruling party on decisions in Hounslow and a lot of common sense simply being cast aside. And some very slanted planning presentations and recommendations. No doubt Adam, from the rules and regs they have to adhere to, but that does not mean it is right or will yield the best end result.

Raymond Havelock ● 2740d

Slightly off topic but simple question for everyone based on a current genuine scenario (not in LBH).  A planning application is submitted to a Council, it attracts 700 objections from local residents, and 11 letters of support.  Planning Officers and all statutory consultees, having appraised the application, cannot find fault with it and are recommending approval when the application goes before committee next week.Are people saying that simply because 98.5% of the local community who has commented has objected to the application Councillors should refuse it ?.

Adam Beamish ● 2740d

Which 'people' do you mean?

Keith Iddon ● 2741d

It's a different issue. For the record, the consultation for the Brook Lane South CPZ went only to residents in the affected area. 96% of those who live in Church St supported the closure but I agree that 59% of those who responded overall were opposed to the closure being made permanent.Councillors have to make judgments and Church St affected more people than just the residents. It was a close vote, with Myra Savin, Tony Louki and others voting against the closure and Linda Green abstaining (if I remember correctly).I voted for it, and I explained why at the time. I am still of the opinion that, if asked in 5 years time whether we should reopen a very narrow riverside rat run through a picturesque riverside area, people will think we're mad to even ask the question.

Guy Lambert ● 2741d