Forum Topic

Why?

Saw contractors planting up the area junction Mogden Lane/ Twickenham Rd. with shrubs this morning already having planted saplings. I confess to being completely baffled by this when they have not long since ripped out the previous planting when the pavement works were done. Did it escape anyone's notice that that planting had acted as a rubbish trap and also will attract rats when it gets denser? It may look O.K. now, but can we expect regular maintenance? Why not hard landscaping and just the saplings? Far more practical and in the long run easier to maintain. I just don't get it.

Vanessa Smith ● 4173d24 Comments

"Why" are Chiswick Councillors interested in Isleworth?  Is is becasue we are on the up and up (according to local estate agents - as we have housing stock and Brentford is flat city?).

Sarah Felstead ● 4146d

"John in particular was interested enough to travel to the High Court in London to watch the legal claim in action from the public gallery" Yes it was interesting that the Conservative Group despatched Cllr Todd to the High Court yet when the residents won the case hands down, and found Thames Water guilty of negligence and mismanagement, Cllr Todd uttered not a word of congratulations to residents. I would think his refusal to comment, after having spent all that time in court as a spectator, would be indicative of his allegiance to Thames Water? Or not...?

Steve Taylor ● 4147d

Especially relating to Thames Water it would seem.  John in particular was interested enough to travel to the High Court in London to watch the legal claim in action from the public gallery, and yet has consistently refused to support the residents on this issue as have his colleagues.They must be very sure of their ground in Chiswick if they can spare the time to interfere in the process in Isleworth with a view to giving their supposed Labour adversaries a helping hand.  Let's hope their confidence is not misplaced ;)

Phil Andrews ● 4147d

Chiswick Conservatives will know for sure though Steve as they seem to be taking a keen interst in Isleworth issues

Paul Fisher ● 4147d

"The Council has also received a Gully Cleansing contribution of £50,000"I may be wrong but I think the £50,000 Gully Cleansing money was achieved by Phil Andrews when he was a Ward Councillor.It was intended as an annual payment to be made by Thames Water and I recall being present in a meeting with Thames' Environmental Affairs Director when Cllr Andrews made the demand of them.

Steve Taylor ● 4147d

The funding received from Thames Water whilst Cllr Paul Fisher was Lead Member for Mogden for environmental improvements in the vicinity of the site was £167,919. Funding  was divided 50/50 between IBAF and CHAF - £83,500 each (the balance of £919  was indexing which was split between the two. In relation to the monitoring contribution  I can  confirm that £201,101 was also allocated 11th August 2010 of  which  £55687.81 was spent as of 31st March 2012. In relation to the Jerome Monitor Contribution £10,000 and the additional  amount towards the maintenance of the monitor I can confirm that  £  11,815.00  was allocated £2,759.00 was spent as of 31st March  2012.          The Council has also received a Gully Cleansing contribution of £50,000  which has not been spent. This was to assist in eliminating Mogden mosquitoes breeding off-site

Steve Taylor ● 4147d

"I have no idea how that sum was arrived at, nor where you got it, but in your wildest dreams the little area of ground I referred to couldn't have cost more than a thousand pounds or so."There were various S106 monies allocated. The £150K obtained by Paul was to be used 100% only to enhance and beautify the areas on all borders of Mogden which was allocated to various area committees to consult with residents on how best to spend the money. There was other S106 money allocated for 24 hour call-outs by environmental officers, purchase og Gerome meters and training of officers to use Gerome meters etc etc.

Steve Taylor ● 4147d

I just heard the figure thrown around.I've heard 2 million for the new paved are around the old magistrates' court.Who cares, it's only our money

Ian Silver ● 4147d

I have no idea how that sum was arrived at, nor where you got it, but in your wildest dreams the little area of ground I referred to couldn't have cost more than a thousand pounds or so.

Vanessa Smith ● 4147d

Paul I dont accept that you were responsible for the S 106 funding - as  mentioned by Steve in his earlier thread.Please explain my alleged link with Thames Water?RegardsJohn

John Todd ● 4147d

" but some common sense and practicality would be nice. "and perhaps justification of £150,000 spent methinks

Ian Silver ● 4147d

Steve, enquiries are underway as I type!! I wouldn't have expected a big consultation over something as minor as this, except with the people who live nearby, but some common sense and practicality would be nice.

Vanessa Smith ● 4147d

"this is a complete waste of money. It might not win any awards but hard landscaping would have been so much more practical, after all this is a small area people walk by, not a park."I can only suggest that the Ward Councillor responsible for the area in question did not consult with residents before signing off for this to go ahead. No Community Engagement??

Steve Taylor ● 4147d

With respect to all of you, can I just say whoever is responsible is a pillock. This area looks rough now, give another month or so and it will look even worse, I don't think I'd be in any hurry to claim responsibility! Unless there is money to regularly maintain this and keep sweeping the bark chippings back into the planted area this is a complete waste of money. It might not win any awards but hard landscaping would have been so much more practical, after all this is a small area people walk by, not a park.

Vanessa Smith ● 4147d

PaulPerhaps part of his party's current campaign to have Labour councillors re-elected in Syon and Isleworth will involve trying to impress residents on the doorsteps with their track record of back-stabbing local people (and coalition partners) on this long-standing and thorny issue?

Phil Andrews ● 4148d

Would you care to expand on exactly what I failed with Cllr Todd and why you have always appeared to have some form of affiliation with Thames Water?

Paul Fisher ● 4148d

"Your memory is not correct. Paul tried - and failed!"Hi John - strange that, because Ed Mayne and Gerry McCarthy confirmed ythat they have the money from Thames Water (£150K) and the spend to enhance and beautify the area is in progress. I have had various site meetings with Officers at the behest of Ed Mayne and we have discussed the spend in certain areas. Granted I was not consulted on the area mentioned by Vanessa so can only assume or conclude that this is also part of the S106 money achieved by Paul Fisher.

Steve Taylor ● 4148d

SteveYour memory is not correct. Paul tried - and failed!

John Todd ● 4148d

Sad to say, but not surprising, this area looks a right mess already. Litter thrown onto it and the blasted bark topping going everywhere. This possibly seemed a good idea at the time, but hard landscaping would have been a)cheaper - no maintenance, and b) tidier. 'Enhance and beautify' it does not do!

Vanessa Smith ● 4149d

If it is indeed the S106 money, it will be the £150K secured by ICG former  Cllr Paul Fisher when he was Lead Member for Mogden issues. My understanding is that the Mogden saga was beyond the capability and understanding of the Environment Lead member at the time as she couldn’t cope with the Thames Water management and they effectively walked all over her. Hence the Thames Water  ‘portfolio’ was taken by Paul Fisher who secured the money on the back of the High Court finding that  Mogden was mismanaged and negligent. It was a condition of the ill-fated planning application to expand Mogden which was approved by the last Conservative Lead Member. The money is to be used to ‘enhance and beautify’  the areas surrounding Mogden. I have to say that Cllr Ed Mayne  has been active in steering community engagement and participation in the decisions made to improve 'his'  areas and residents’ voices have been heard and acted upon. It has taken several site visit, consultations and meetings to achieve this though.If residents are not happy with the Mogden Lane enhancements they were either not interested in participating in the decision making or were not consulted by their Councillor in which case I would suggest that the Councillor concerned  is confronted and held accountable for wasting S106 money.  I don’t know too much about S106 spends but from my limited understanding I believe the works have to be agreed and signed off by Area Committees consisting of the various ward Cllrs?

Steve Taylor ● 4172d

I don't really care where it came from it's a bloody waste if you ask me.

Vanessa Smith ● 4173d

I think it may be S106 money granted by Thames Water

Steve Taylor ● 4173d

This would probably be a different budget to the highways maintenance/repair one Keith, but I do take your point. I would have thought when councils are so hard up that doing things like this is shortsighted to say the least, it'll either need someone to come and tidy and weed it every couple of months which I think is highly unlikely, or it will turn into s rubbish trap and eyesore which is what I think will happen. Why they never had a look to see if cutting that corner back was possible to make the left turn wider and give more room to traffic queuing to turn right I'll never know. It may be that there are cables etc. under there but frankly this latest wheeze is such a waste of money.

Vanessa Smith ● 4173d

Probably money left on the budget at the end of the financial year Vanessa and it needs to be used up otherwise it will be lost. A crazy system imo as any underspend year on year should be set aside for the next year to improve things like potholes in roads and cracks in pavements etc.. This would also cut down on injury claims and improve public safety.

Keith Iddon ● 4173d