Forum Topics

About time too!

AGAIN LABOUR COUNCILLORS BREAK RANK AND CHALLENGE CLLR STEVE CURRAN AND CABINET. This is the third time in three months – unprecedented since her took over.Two groups of councillors have called in Cabinet decisions to be examined by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.The first call-in – next Wednesday – is supported by the 12 councillors below, with the lead being Cllr Unsa Chaudri. It concerns the Cabinet's decision to purchase affordable homes in developments in Brentford, Hounslow High Street and Feltham, at a cost of £82m.The second call-in – to be heard one week later – concerns the Cabinet's decision regarding Council Tax Support. It is led by Cllr Theo Dennison and proposes consultation on cuts of up to £7.8m in support for the Borough's poorest households. Fuller details of this call-in are not yet available.These follow one last November regarding traffic changes – when Cllr Richard Eason called for the resignations of two Cabinet members, Cllr Katherine Dunne and Hanif Khan.Details of next Wednesday's call-in became available today and are as follows:What Decision is to be Called-In: Council Housing Building Programme Update “ ...approved the following purchase schemes to be included within the approved Council Housing Building Programme:1. 50 homes from Network Homes in Fern Grove, Feltham.2. 55 homes from Barratt Homes at High Street Quarter, Hounslow.3. 164 homes from Berkeley Homes/St Edwards at the Homebase site in Syon, Brentford.”Whose Decision is being called in: Affordable Housing Committee (Councillor Steve Curran –Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration)Reason(s) for Call-In (Continue on a separate sheet if required):1 Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;· This item did not appear on the Forward Plan for a clear 28 days.· There has been no consultation with ward councillors in respect of majorproposals likely to impact the immediate area.· The Ward location of one site was incorrectly stated.· The status of at least one of these sites is otherwise described in the LocalPlan and consultation does not appear to have been considered to begin to resolve this.2 Inadequate evidence on which to base a decision;· The report contains assumptions of outcomes from a yet to be decided planning application.· The decision allows for procurement, agreeing terms, associated costs, without detailing or showing these costs.· The report does not refer to any agreement for future costs and charges to the authority or potential tenants should the report be agreed.3 Contrary to the budget or policy framework;· This decision does not adequately explain the financial implications of these proposed purchases.· There is insufficient shared Background Information to explain processes, unit costs, specifications and the appropriateness of the mix of purchase being sought.A key decision but not treated as such;With an estimated cost c.£81.9m plus transaction costs and ongoing revenue costs this must a key decisionInsufficient consideration of legal and financial adviceThe report contains no information on future financial implications (revenue costs) of purchasing leasehold properties within a larger development There is no evidence of any legal advice on the implications of making this decision prior to the authority making a decision on Planning Permission

Vanessa Smith ● 89d5 Comments ● 87d

Gas and electric suppliers.

ENERGY SUPPLIERS.Because I haven't got a head for figures I have stuck with SSE Swalek for 47 years. But owing to Look After My Bills without my permission signing me up to Utility Point in October 2021, I have had the opportunity to try and figure out which energy provider gives the best deal. I have learned that using switching companies provides the worst deals and leave behind a trail of stress. For instance Look  After My Bills and Utility Point for 4 months have both blamed each other and both have launched an investigation into the mess they have dropped me in. And the situation has not been resolved with 2 BBC consumer programmes investigating hundreds if not thousands of complaints against these 2 companies.My energy provider for 47 years, SSE had suggested that I start off with them as a new customer and on 12-1-21 a contract was agreed with a customer service agent emailing me the following details."Good day Mr Milkins,This is to confirm the effective start date with Swalec-SSE is the 29 January 2021 to take over the gas and electricity supply.This means that you will only be charged from the date mentioned above going forward. All other charges will be applied by your current supplier until the date your supply starts with Swalec-SSE.Thank you.Regards,Yolanda."Hooray. Then I get the following  email from Jolene from SSE on 20-1-20."I understand that you have been sent an email regarding the dates the supply has come back to us and you were advised that you would not have a bill until SSE started [29-1-21], feedback is being provided to that adviser so this incorrect information is not given in the future, for this I can offer a goodwill payment of £30.00 for incorrect information given. SSE can keep their £30 !!!!!!!!!!I have now learned how easy it is to find the cheapest deal for gas and electric. Find a company offering a 2 year fixed tariff which I have done. To date, the best deal offers a 2 year fixed tariff.                                 For gas, the daily standing charge is 27 pence per day. The charge for gas is 2.952 pence per kw hour.For electric, the standing charge is 24.02 pence per day. The charge for electric is 17.42 per kw hour.These prices are considerably cheaper than my former supplier. If anyone can direct me to a better deal, please let me know as haven't signed up to EDF yet.

Neil Milkins ● 87d0 Comments ● 87d

OFGEM Investigation Into Utility Point.

IMPORTANT UPDATE. UTILITY POINT HAVE HAD THEIR SUPPLY LICENCES REVOKED BY OFGEM?                                                                                                                                                                                          After spending nearly 4 months trying to get to the bottom  of how Look After My Bills illegally changed my energy supplier from SSE to Utility Point, today has come a breakthrough. I had to deal with the matter myself after Look After My Bills who claimed to have started an investigation into the matter 65 days ago refused to respond to my last dozen or so phone calls or my last 8 emails. Today someone posted the following on trusted website Trustpilot regarding Utility Point and Look After My Bills.                                                                                                                                   "I just got a quote from LAMB and it suggested I change to a company called Utility Point.According to Trustpilot, this company are under investigation regarding giving customers incentives for positive reviews.The OFGEM website says they have revoked their supply licences with effect from 4 January say you work with suppliers who value their customers and are committed to improving their customer service.“Don’t worry, if a supplier has terrible customer service we won’t switch you to them even if they want to pay us!”I think you need to have an urgent review of some of the companies you are recommending.I won’t be using LAMB."

Neil Milkins ● 97d3 Comments ● 95d

Look After My Bills Nightmare.

Sorry to get on peoples' nerves but my warning to people about the possibility of the collapse of energy company Utility Point has shaken Look After My Bills into issuing the following statement to a disgruntled Trustpilot reviewer.                                                                                                                                                 Hi Jenny,I understand that there has been a lot of concerns around receiving your refund from Utility Point.At this point in time last year, we switched a lot of customers to Utility Point, we are now switching these customers away from Utility Point. This means that Utility Point have to process refunds for 1000's of customers, so please bear with them as this can take some time. They have doubled their resources to help deal with this backlog and have informed us that the majority of these refunds will be processed in the next 10 days.We review the suppliers we work with regularly based on a number of factors including customers' feedback, Trustpilot reviews, Citizens Advice Bureau and financial stability. If we have several customers expressing dissatisfaction with a particular supplier, we raise an investigation to decide whether we want to continue working with them.If you can kindly respond to my private request for more information then I can look to go through your account with us in greater detail and let you know how best to proceed.I look forward to hearing from you.​Thomas - Senior Energy AdviserLook After My Bills

Neil Milkins ● 101d0 Comments ● 101d

Look After My Bills Nightmare.

To save people the agony of having to deal with a future nightmare  with Look After My Bills and Utility Point please read their horrendous reviews on Trustpilot.                                  This is an email I received from Trustpilot this week.                                                People are reading your review!Hi Neil Milkins,You recently wrote a review on Trustpilot and it looks like people find it helpful.117 people have already read your review.                                                                                                       LOOK AFTER MY BILLS SHAMBLES.It is now 12 weeks since Look After My Bills without my knowledge or permission changed my energy provider from S.S.E. to Utility Point. Jacqueline Loughman promised me 9 weeks ago that they would resolve the matter within 14 days. A week ago their senior complaints manager Daniel promised me he would phone me on (29-12-20) and have the matter resolved. No phone call and no answer to my emails to him. In the meantime I am going to have a sky high electric and gas bill when this matter is resolved. It is near impossible to get a reply from them once you have emailed and phoned them and it is totally impossible to phone Utility Point as ALL their phone lines have been cut off. I have been on the phone and emailing 19 hours in total trying to sort this mess out. Anyone thinking of going with Look After My Bills or Utility Point please check their horrendous reviews on Trustpilot.

Neil Milkins ● 107d2 Comments ● 107d

The Council WANTS to hear from Isleworth residents

I've posted this on the CW4 Forum but it is important for Isleworth residents too.   You have until Tuesday 12th JANUARY to make your comments known to Hounslow Council, it's earlier if you're attempting to run a Business, that one is Thursday 7th January.Should you be concerned about the traffic issues in our lovely borough, finally HOUNSLOW COUNCIL are ASKING FOR YOUR OPINIONS but you must do this almost immediately after NEW YEAR.The Council has organised a series of engagement meetings online, the link is given below, on the many road changes made so far including one for Businesses in the Borough, the C9 in Chiswick and Brentford, the road closures in the centre of Chiswick and the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood scheme in Grove Park/Strand on the Green.    (Not included are the many additional schemes for further LTN's to come)It’s important that as many opposing voices as possible are heard to challenge Hounslow Council's view that these schemes are well supported.  WE NEED TO RAISE THE DIFFICULTIES THEY HAVE CAUSED.There are four events, allocated by area, anyone can attend.  They are online, book via Eventbrite using the link below. Hounslow Council wants people to submit questions in advance though they can also be asked during the sessions.  More details via the link. dates are:•    7pm on Thursday, 7th January: BUSINESSES  boroughwide•    7pm on Friday, 8th January: North Chiswick (LBH language for north of the A4 - including C9 in Chiswick and Brentford & the road closures in the centre of Chiswick)•    7pm on MONDAY, 11th JANUARY: South Chiswick (LBH LANGUAGE FOR SOUTH OF THE A4 - incl. Hartington Rd)•    7pm on Tuesday, 12th January: IsleworthPlease circulate this widely to friends, family and neighbourhood groups. It is vital that the other side of the argument regarding the borough’s traffic is heard.Hounslow Council say they WANT TO HEAR FROM US - NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP, it's our last chance!They have more LTN's planned for us here in W4 too.  So get your voices out there now before they start on the next tranche of misery.

Jennifer Selig ● 117d3 Comments ● 107d

E-scooters and legal use

Reading the report on this sites news page and one wonders if our Council are from another dimension.Have none of these people seen what is already going on out in the streets of this borough?There are E scooter users riding with 2 people, riding on pavements, roads, in the dark, hooded,, no lights. often no refelective gear at all, or safety gear, riding along with dogs. Then riding with ear plugs and by the nature of the design completely unable to use hand signals or look behind them without losing control.70 years nearly of RoSPA and it's come down to this - just to suit a trend wave?Now a shop selling these and marketing towards pre- provisional licence age young people is to open in Northfields Ave.Yet on the BBC a report states that riding these is still illegal.Its so twisted that cameras and  all means of enforcement can be deployed against fully insured and tested road users and yet not for people who clearly break the law, show not road sense for themselves or for others, pedestrians or road users.This current behaviour underlines the fact that users cannot be trusted so clear and effective regulations have to be in place.HGV and PCV drivers go through hell and risk losing their livelihoods if involved with a cyclist accident. They are treated as though guilty before any evidence or investigations are completed.Even when found completely not at fault, they are pilloried on social media.  yet very little ever mentioned of the victim if it was in the event their fault. Or if it was neither parties actual fault.But one is not insured, tested, retested and trained.  The other is not.And those supporting all this remain very deft at avoiding the facts and the real problems and issues.RoSPA , set up to bring safer use of roads for ALL road users has been completely swept aside and this is slamming all the advances and changes that they have brought about. Wholly irresponsible to the point of arrogant stupidity.                

Raymond Havelock ● 136d7 Comments ● 134d

Fighting to save bowling in Gunnersbury Park

A great many of you were disgusted at the appalling way CIC treated the Gunnersbury Park Bowls Club and expressed your support for our fight, so here's an update. Putt in the Park, with the backing of the CIC, put in a planning application, which would involve destroying the bowling green in order to turn it into crazy golf and use the pavilion as a restaurant/cafe. The first application was refused. They have now put in another application. Since the project remains the same, if there were a level playing field this application should also be refused. But who knows what's going on in the background...Our task now is to make sure the Planning Committee know how much we value the bowling facility and want it to continue. Our objections should be sent to under the email title :Bowls Green and Pavilion, Gunnersbury Park, W3 8LQ (Ref: P/2020/3080) by 30 October 2020. Bowling is an almost a century-old tradition in GP, it's excellent to maintain physical health, to promote wellbeing and good mental health, to help combat obesity, to prevent loneliness and isolation in the older community. It should remain in the park as an amenity for posterity, costing the councils not a penny as it would continue to be maintained and looked after by the members as it has for so many years. If we win our fight, anyone can come along on their own or with friends to try bowling. We can provide free instruction to get you started and also the free use of equipment. You'll really enjoy it! So send in your objections and let us safeguard bowling in GP!

Bela Cunha ● 190d16 Comments ● 151d

Hounslow Labour Councillor abuses Pensioners 4th November 2020.

A 69-year-old pensioner has been abused and publicly slandered by a serving Isleworth Councillor, who until 2018, served as the Borough of Hounslow Mayoress.The 69-year-old was sitting watching a European Football match in a community club in Isleworth when Councillor Sue Sampson aggressively approached (uninvited) and demanded the pensioner leave the club.  Ms Sampson seemed agitated and uncontrolled and her spoken broadcast was made (loudly) in front of several dozen people.  It was embarrassing.  The encounter went like this: -Councillor Sampson “You have got to leave this club now”.Pensioner (after being taken aback) “Oh, why is that?Councillor Sampson “Because you are being investigated by the police for identity fraud”.Councillor Sampson “and, you have heard from my Solicitor”Pensioner “I have never heard from your solicitor”Councillor Sampson “It doesn’t matter, you have to leave this club”.Pensioner “I’ve just told you I have not heard from a solicitor”Councillor Sampson “You can’t speak.  You have to leave this club now”.At that point, the pensioner (me) left the building feeling absolutely humiliated and confused.I wrote to (and emailed) Ms. Sampson two days later and requested the Police Crime Reference she alluded to and that ‘her solicitor’ clearly spell out what this ‘fraud’ was.  Not heard a word from her, the police, or any solicitor.This encounter was distressing enough but I’ve been contacted by and 80-year-old woman and a 64-year-old man who have confirmed Ms Sampson abused them shortly after I left the club that evening.Needless to say, a full complaint is being prepared and will be submitted to the appropriate authorities in due course.

Christopher Devlin ● 159d9 Comments ● 153d

Punch-ups at Hounslow

‎Brentford TV‎ to Brentford Today & TV: #Debate Not Hate#7tSponhsodaregd · OPEN WARFARE ERUPTS ON COUNCIL: VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN STEVE CURRAN PROPOSED BY CHISWICK CONSERVATIVES. A degree of antagonism is to be expected between councillors but the recent traffic schemes have stoked it to a new high, going from smouldering to red-hot. It has now crossed a line and got up close and personal. It has turned from mere hostility into undisguised fury, a state as close to open warfare as councillors can get without carrying arms.At the heart of the matter are the changes on Chiswick High Road, Turnham Green Terrace and Devonshire Road. It is not just their physical implementation, good or bad. It is about whether the Labour Council – with overwhelming Labour votes from Brentford to Feltham – really cares sufficiently about the relatively well-off Tory bastion on its eastern fringe. Backers of Cllrs McGregor and Biddolph believe it doesn't, that consultation has been minimal to non-existent, and that all this is evidence of political malice and class warfare, aggravated by a cultural chasm. It is Chiswick v the Rest.At first glance there seems little chance of the motion passing – Labour has a big majority – but it could trigger a process in the Labour Group itself to vote on Cllr Curran's leadership. The Group meets on Monday, the day before the Council meeting. When elected to his position, Cllr Curran won by one vote. Other Labour councillors could now offer themselves to the Group as an alternative – and there are a number of possible contenders: Amrit Mann, Katherine Dunne, Tom Bruce, Shantanu Rajawat. This is what happened in the Ealing Council Labour Group in similar circumstances recently, also centred around traffic changes – and their leader, Julian Bell, only just scraped home. The Hounslow Group doesn't have to follow suit but it could if it chose to do so. At this stage, it would look disloyal to step forward but the option remains open. If that happened, Cllr Curran would need to round up and secure support with various promises. He is a strong personality who loves his job and he would not give it up without a hello of a fight. He sees himself continuing for a number of years.The council debate itself offers a platform for the Tory rump to put the blame where they believe it belongs: on Cllr Curran and his Cabinet colleagues. They argue that he has used the current crisis to ram through major changes without the need for discussion and against the wishes of many locals. They will stake their position ready for the next council elections – under Cllr McGregor, an old bruiser – hoping that voters elsewhere may join them in their opposition to Cllr Curran's style of leadership. In response Cllr Curran will no doubt say the new restrictions were brought in at the behest of the Tory government, are on trial and will be independently reviewed in time. The Tories will say the High Road cannot wait, that he is "destroying Chiswick".It's the sort of row which would best be relished in the Council Chamber itself, where others can join in with a bit of shouting and jeering. Instead it will be online and not so entertaining. On the other hand it will be accessible and there will be many, not just in Chiswick, who might tune in for the big fight and savour the thumping even if there is no chance of a knock-out.

Vanessa Smith ● 167d4 Comments ● 163d

Swyncombe Ave to be blocked off

Informed yesterday that borough engineers have been measuring up for the blocking off of Swycombe Ave.This is being claimed as a direct fallout of the LTNs in Northfields & Boston ManorTheres no doubt it is a bit busier and for longer. But then Windmill road and the section to Northfields is far busier and taking an age on the E2 even at usually quiet times of the day.But the LTNs have been installed in very quiet localities.I think the extra traffic is more down to the major roadworks in South Ealing Road and Culmington road/Church lane with huge diversions which feed to Northfields and Little Ealing Lane plus the Road works in Boston Manor road Half Acre leaving Swyncombe Ave. as an only through route for local traffic.A bus route uses the road for students only and yet for 70 years even London transport have been refused permission to operate a bus route through the road, even a hoppa type was refused in the 1990sBut in all honesty, Swyncombe has always been a busier road even when at school in the 1970s it was a bit of a race track and had long queues.Residents concerns were dismissed as long ago as 1971 when Gunnersbury School was planned to move to the locality and expand by 200%.  There were though more schools locally then but in recent months a new school has reopened at the bottom of the road. But then there were two thriving sports grounds which had traffic all weekend. That's gone now so it's actually quieter. But closing it?   That will be as damaging as the LTNs and divide a community up even more.The real losers will actually be the residents of Swyncombe Ave as they will have the same problems inflicted as those in LTNs are experiencing now, especially the further isolation of elderly, less able and infirm.This is the result of meddling where it was not needed. Creates a problem that did not exist, and spawns another problem in the next street. and on and on.Hounslow ought to be leaning on Ealing over the LTNs without consultation, not looking to expand on an already ineffective imposition.It has to be accepted too that it is the Key local link route for emergency services. The Ambulance Station is in Boston Manor road and is already badly affected by the LTNs.For this reason and that it is also the route to a rehabilitation hospital, that there are no speed humps to allow safe transit of frail patients.And the wisdom of closing Occupation lane is still rather poor as that is causing patient transport issues especially for volunteer tranpost who do not have the benefit of air suspension vehicles.It could be anyone of us,family, friends or colleagues that might need that facility at any time.But certainly something to calm the speeds of road users. It's one of the few roads where the 20mph is less observed.

Raymond Havelock ● 187d30 Comments ● 164d

Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads backed up.

Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads 'backed up' with trafficGrant Shapps warns he is 'not prepared to tolerate' badly designed closures and cycle lanes, imposing 'sweeping changes' to communities. The Transport Secretary has admitted too many cycle lanes are being left “unused” with traffic “backed up” as a result of his green transport revolution, The Telegraph can reveal.In a strongly worded letter sent to councils, Grant Shapps has warned he is “not prepared to tolerate” badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes which are imposing “sweeping changes” to entire communities.And in a move that will infuriate cycling and green campaigners, he has declared the Government is not anti-car, explaining: “No one should be in doubt about our support for motorists.”Mr Shapps announced a £250 million Emergency Active Travel Fund in May intended to promote walking and cycling as the country emerged from lockdown. Councils were invited to apply for the cash by drawing up projects intended to entice people away from their cars and take more active forms of travel.However, critics have complained that badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes have in fact increased traffic and pollution on main roads, as well as reduced the number of people visiting high streets at a time when small businesses are desperate to recover from lockdown.Private residents have even launched legal action, claiming that because the schemes were introduced under emergency Covid powers, disability groups, local residents and businesses were not consulted, and consequently, normal local democratic procedures have been ignored.Meanwhile, so-called ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, where bollards and planters close off residential streets to traffic, have resulted in delays to 999 emergency response times as police, paramedics and fire crews encounter newly shut roads.The letter, sent on Friday to local authority transport bosses and local highways authorities and seen by The Telegraph, warns how a “notable number of councils used their funding poorly and were simply out of step with the needs of the local communities.”Mr Shapps continues: “I saw or heard from the public and parliamentary colleagues about far too many instances where temporary cycles lanes were unused due to their location and design, while their creation left motor traffic backed up alongside them; of wide pavements causing unnecessary congestion in town centres; and other issues that many have, rightly, reacted angrily to.”He explains how he had ordered his staff to “engage” with those councils where he had “concerns”, because badly thought out road closures and cycle lanes had been introduced.“Since then, numerous schemes have been scaled back and revised,” he wrote. “I am pleased with this, but the work will continue where local residents continue to have concerns.”He warns the second round of funding in the scheme could see some town halls receiving “considerably less” money if they fail to “embrace good design” or “consult their local communities”.He adds: “We all want to see the benefits that active travel brings to be realised, but poorly implemented schemes will make no friends for the policy or more broadly for active travel…“The crucial test is, does it deliver for the community it serves, and has it been done with their consultation.“Schemes must balance the needs of cyclists and pedestrians with the needs of other road users, including motorists and local businesses.“Only authorities which have passed these key tests will receive the funding they have asked for.“I want to be absolutely clear: we are not prepared to tolerate hastily introduced schemes which will create sweeping changes to communities without consultation, and ones where the benefits to cycling and walking do not outweigh the dis-benefits for other road users.”With The letter comes after thousands of people have held demonstrations and signed petitions forcing some town hall bosses into a series of humiliating U-turns after they introduced schemes with little or no public consultation.Last week, the Telegraph revealed how some councils were making hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines from motorists driving on newly closed roads.Projects in some parts of London have proven so divisive that planters have been daubed with graffiti and bollards ripped from the concrete. In one West London borough, opposition has been so vehement that police have had to attend to support council workers as they installed planters and bollards to close roads.So far, a total of £42,102,454 has been secured by 111 councils in England, including many London boroughs where opposition has been most vocal.

Bernard Allen ● 183d8 Comments ● 171d

Hounslow's answer to Dominic Cummings?

For those familiar with the saga of the cladding/painting houses on two estates in Isleworth and the unhappiness of tenants and neighbours over the chosen colour on some homes, the role of the planning department in this was also being questioned. Advice from an independent source was that no planning permission was required and the work could have been done under permitted development.A Freedom of Information request to ascertain why Hounslow's housing and planning departments had gone down this road was returned with an answer that confirmed that our advice was indeed correct, but still did not answer the question as to why this was done. We pointed out that the information in the FOI was in fact incorrect so therefore there was no need at all for planning permission and we again asked for an explanation of their actions. Having gone round in ever decreasing circles and still not getting the courtesy of an straightforward answer I wrote to one of the Isleworth councillors, copying in the cabinet member for housing who had previously poo-pood residents complaints and asked that they personally asked planning and housing for an answer. Today I am told that our queries are being treated as a Stage 1 complaint, as we had not asked to go down this route I asked why this was happening without our agreement? The answer staggered me:"I have asked firmly and frankly for answers to these questions multiple times. I have also made my opinion very clear on this colour scheme. Peter Matthew has been very clear he will only deal with further questions and concerns as a Stage 1 complaint." So, an elected member is letting a council officer, a paid borough employee dictate what he will and won't do, since when did we elect officers? We elect councillors to act as our representatives and advocates not to stand for this nonsense. I find this absolutely outrageous, and it is clear that this officer will use the council's appallingly slow and ineffective complaints process as an opportunity to keep kicking this matter into the long grass. There have been many justified comments about how our P.M. is having his plonker pulled by one Dominic Cummings - well here we have the Hounslow version. What is wrong with the people we elect? It is quite simple - why did the housing department let planning persuade them they needed planning permission for work that could have been carried out under permitted development? Why did the affected homes have the removal of their permitted development rights inserted as a condition of the planning permission? Why were planning officers allowed to dictate the external colour scheme without any consultation?

Vanessa Smith ● 186d1 Comments ● 186d

Another nail in the coffin.

Wards: Brentford – Isleworth – Osterley and Spring Grove - SyonItem Address Ward Ref. No. Case officer details2 Syon Park, London Road, TW8 8JF Syon 00707/E/P116 Creation of a one-way link road between Syon Park and London Road, including associated engineering operations, earthworks,drainage and landscaping.No. ofsubmissions:Summary of objections (x7)- Will negatively affect the existing quite cycle route linking Syon House to London Road.- Cuts through a Grade I listed landscape to sacrifice this for commercial gain is unacceptable.- Extra traffic will only add to delays and pollution.- Would create an urban intrusion into a local, national and internally valued rural setting.- No realistic assessment has been given of volume of vehicle movements.- Left exit into London Road with increased usage of Syon Lane off London Road.- With no future use of the Wyevale premises or a master plan predictions are not possible to ascertain potential maximum traffic flow.- If the gates are left open, as suggested, at the busiest hours of the day drivers would inevitably be tempted to ignore “no entry” signage andenter via the proposed new route.- No preventative measures are indicated to deter usage by lorries/large vehicles.- Proposed gates and signage would clutter an existing rural setting.- Loss of grassland.- Fails to preserve the character and appearance of the parkland and conservation area.- Fails to preserve or enhance both the setting and special architectural and historic character of the Grade I Listed landscape.- Very special circumstances of the proposed have not been demonstrated.- Archaeological survival potential is assessed as “high”; therefore, ground intrusion from proposed tree planting and subsequent root actionwould remove or severely disturb any archaeological remains at the planting location.- The planning application provides insufficient information on public benefits to offset what may be the “less than substantial harm” to aheritage asset.- Negative impact on biodiversity and Archaeology.Summary of support (x8)- Allowing vehicles to come off the main road will reduce congestion and pollution.- Closure of garden centre has led to a drop in visitors to the park the proposed road will help bring back visitors.- New egress will aid in cars being able to leave the site without having to use Park Road.- Will improve access to nursery.- Will help businesses and residents of Brentford.General comments (x4):- Closing Church Street was a terrible mistake19Wards: Brentford – Isleworth – Osterley and Spring Grove - Syon- Reopen Church Street with traffic calming measures.- Suspend all parking on Park Road on event days.- Opening Church Street would have prevented the closure of Wyevale Garden Centre.Summary of reasons for approval- Less that substantial harm to listed park outweighed by public benefit.- No harm to highway and pedestrian safety subject to safeguarding conditions.(Please note that this item was previously added to the week 11 list recommending refusal, since then further information has been submitted toovercome the reasons for refusal).

Vanessa Smith ● 192d14 Comments ● 186d

Chaos reigns

Bollards have suddenly appeared on Twickenham Road separating cyclists from the rest of the traffic and thereby narrowing an already overly congested road. And making access to West Mid hospital so awkward for the Ambulance service - there is nowhere for drivers to pull aside to let emergency vehicles pass! They have also placed bollards in Park Rd which has the rear access to WMUH! As far as we can tell no consultation with LAS was done prior to this bonkers and dangerous idea. Apparently this is to promote healthier lifestyles - the fact you might die because an ambulance cannot get access to a hospital doesn't matter! Really healthy!It has now been confirmed that no consultation with either LAS or the West Middx. hospital was done. The cycleway is now to be 'tweaked' with the view to allow easier access for the ambulance service whilst maintaining cycle safety. There is also going to be a road safey audit. Stable doors and horses?I'm not sure what passes for brains these days, but it seems to me that all relative consultations should have taken place before Hounslow went off on one, sticking bollards everywhere. Clearly if you are on a bike you are an exalted being around here - and sod the rest of us. It has also been declared that this is going to happen starting at Brentford Bridge right up to College Rd. Isleworth. I have reached the conclusion that the elected councillors in this borough are totally useless, and are only interested in dictating to the rest of us how we should live our lives, and if one more of them or their bloody officers mentions sodding Covid as a justification/excuse for imposing all this rubbiish on us I will scream.

Vanessa Smith ● 200d19 Comments ● 191d