Forum Topic

Who supports Capital Motors and Top Hat Dry Cleaners ?

"Paul Sahota of Capital Motors, which is off Devonshire Road, is adamantly against the proposed closure and says it would force his business to close if cars can’t access the garage. He looks after a huge number of the local cars with MOTs, repairs and servicing.Mike Moran, who runs the Top Hat Drycleaners on Devonshire Road says that his turnover is down by 80% since the lockdown started and added “If this is made permanent, I reckon I will be closed by Christmas”Both of these long standing, respected and valued businesses have expressed their deep concerns about the closure of Devonshire Road to traffic which will adversely affect their ability to trade. As a long standing customer of both of these excellent businesses how am I to get my car to Paul and deliver and collect my heavy dry cleaning and collect it from Mike ?Are LBH and the Cycling fraternity happy to see these businesses go bust ? Because on the other thread the Cyclists appear to think it's a great idea to close Devonshire Road to through traffic. A poorly thought out idea with zero concern for some of our much loved businesses.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2345d78 Comments

Lockdown has brought nothing but harm and destruction from the beginning, and we've hardly started. Welcome to the 'new normal', which has nothing to do with any virus.

Michael Brown ● 2345d

George IV pub is finished so could be used as a drive-through to Paul's garage.

Michael Brown ● 2345d

Why don't you stop with the baseless conspiracy theories? A post about Chiswick that you turn into another rant about your NWO obsession. Words cannot express how much your conspiracy theory c**p winds me up!

Guy Smith ● 2345d

I'm a bit confused Loraine.The closures to through traffic are clearly following government policy and DfT statutory guidance issued earlier in May and updated last week.Indeed, the government has streamlined processes to accelerate the implementation of these type of schemes to reallocate road space.Credit to our Chiswick councillors who have moved on from arguments about bike lanes and have issued a statement in support of government policy.The details of the implementation haven't been released yet so it is somewhat premature to proclaim death of businesses.

Michael Robinson ● 2345d

..and you'd imagine any long term scheme would allow for access to Prince of Wales Terrace to get to all the flats.

Peter Evans ● 2345d

The unnecessary destruction of this country and the harm caused to its population, combined with your crap, winds me up Mr Smith; but it's just too bad.

Michael Brown ● 2345d

Dear Confused of Stile Hall Road,Quite frankly neither I, nor the businesses or their customers are concerned about streamlined processes to accelerate these schemes to reallocate Road space for the strident few when it will clearly adversely affect long standing independent businesses!You clearly don't give a Tinkers Cuss to and about these valued businesses. I'm sure both Paul and Mike really value your contribution....

Loraine Pemberton ● 2345d

PeterYes you would, but no mention is made of egress. An ill conceived and thought out idea for the benefit of the few but the detriment of the many

Loraine Pemberton ● 2345d

I think you may be getting a bit ahead of yourself here. I am a customer of both and I will be astonished if the proposals stop people accessing Capital Motors or their homes. There are mechanisms around that.There is little point lashing out at the "cycling fraternity" (sisters ride too fyi) when these measures are the result of government policy being pushed out via the DfT and TfL and then LBH and when the policy is supported by our Councillors. You'll have a hard job fighting all of them. Much better in the short term to talk to the Councillors who are representing Chiswick in the discussions with the Council about what specific mechanisms will be put in place for access. In the letter I sent in about TGT I highlighted the need for the to shops maintain loading and unloading and emphasised the vital service they are providing to residents especially at the moment. Also disabled access of course.Mike knows his business better than me but I certainly can't depend on parking outside his shop for delivery and collection. I'd be driving round and round Annandale and Dev Rd waiting for a space to clear if I did that. Park in the vicinity and lug when I have to but usually hang 5 shirts off the Brompton bars every week.

Paul Campbell ● 2345d

You are WRONG, you have no evidence to back up your claims. A dodgy youtube video does not constitute evidence. When Private Eye (the best publication for real journalism in this country) start covering the NWO, chem trails, project blue book and 9/11 being an inside job then maybe I might agree with you.

Guy Smith ● 2345d

Loraine, I'm not aware of a street in Chiswick called Stile Hall Road.  There is a Stile Hall Gardens and Stile Hall Parade, could you be referring to one of those?If you don't care for government policy, I'd suggest you write to:Rt Hon Grant Shapps MPSecretary of State for Transport33 Horseferry RoadLondonSW1P 4DRIf you don't want to do it, then perhaps you could ask Cllr Biddolph given she has mentioned in the past about the advantages of having councillors from the same party as the government.I'm sure both are excellent businesses, as are other businesses on Devonshire Road who support the proposals (and according to The Chiswick Calendar article, some of whom don't want to be named).  As I said, why don't you wait until the implementation details are available before proclaiming their demise?

Michael Robinson ● 2345d

I have seen councils try to restrict car parking for high streets before - it always ends up badly.A simple test: you do a weekly shop for a family of 4. Do you go to the butcher, greengrocer and fishmonger on TGT, lug your shopping onto a bus, changes buses once if not twice and then walk 1/2 mile from the bus stop with the very heavy shopping, or do you decide to take the car to Sainsbury's accepting that the food quality will not be as good.The reality is 90%+ of people will do the latter and the small shops suffer.Hounslow Lab councillors do not care about that - probably never seen the inside of a proper butcher or fishmonger and think shopping at Sainsbury's is middle class

Justin Stephenson ● 2345d

Not the PM. He said F***K business.

Stewart Jones ● 2345d

No I don't Justin, because I live in Chiswick.

Carl Wynne ● 2345d

Keep Devonshire Road open to all and simply ask people to be sensible:

Michael Brown ● 2345d

Just walked down Devonshire Road on a warm June evening and imagined the road filled with local people sitting at tables.

Edward Seaton ● 2345d

Be careful you don't get run over by cyclists who insist on going down the one way part of the street the wrong way!

Robert Joseph Manners ● 2345d

I was walking my bike actually. Popped out at quarter-to-ten at night to buy a cake, some flowers and four cans of beer. Could have taken the car but that would have been totally unnecessary.

Edward Seaton ● 2345d

Did you manage to free your mind of the impact on the people who might lose their livelihoods?

Dan Evans ● 2344d

I wish to record for posterity that Michael Brown said something sensible at last. Please see his last post in this thread.I'm not expecting it to last, however.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2344d

I can see possible benefits for complete road closure for cafe society / outdoor seating in the road etc on Devonshire road. Clearly detrimental to other non-hospitality businesses too of course. But I don't get how there is much (any) benefit for Turnham Green terrace if there are still buses using the road. The pavements aren't going to be meaningfully wider etc. Whatever the pros/cons of it, the decision should be led by the main stakeholders, aka the business owners, as to what they think best suits their road.

Rob Reynolds ● 2344d

Would that be that you have never done a shop for a family of 4, never used the small shops on TGR or you live within 50 yards of an E3 bus stop It may come as a surprise to you but not all of chiswick is on the E3 bus route, everywhere else would need to change at least once and most would need to walk at least a couple of hundred yards - try doing that with a week's worth of meat, veg & fish (not to mention some nice chocolate!) from TGR shops for a family of 4. And of course that is when the weather is fine.I am lucky, not a family of 4 and I live close to an E3 stop, so I will not need to change my shopping habits but I am not representative of all of Chiswick.It is inevitable that the Council proposals if implemented will result in a loss of trade for some shops on TGR (and Devonshire Road).  That may, and probably is likely to, result in some of them closing.  That is what I have seen happen when councils elsewhere have restricted parking on or close to major shopping streets

Justin Stephenson ● 2344d

Hopefully when the detailed plans are available there will be a way for vehicles to enter and leave Prince of Wales Terrace included. If not, then there will be grounds for serious protest.

Richard Greenhough ● 2344d

It is not what happened on Orford Road in Walthamstow. Quite the opposite. And before you look down on the residents of Walthamstow like you did with the Labour Councillors, Sam Hearn remarked upon how "Chiswick" Orford Road is when I went there with him.They have loading access before 10am and after 6pm and they have a bus with access. The street is class with thriving shops, cafes and restaurants. the design is excellent with the pavement blending with the road and creating lots of space for people and businesses. The traders who were protesting with a coffin have apologised for their reaction to the proposals because their businesses are doing better than ever.I think this will be a hugely positive step for everybody.Btw - I have a family of four and I live a 20 min walk from TGT and I shop for my meat, fish and veg there every week and often multiple times a week. I very rarely take my car and if I do I know I can't rely on parking on TGT and mostly end up parking elsewhere and walking. Usually I go by bike. When there is segregated cycling on CHR I will be able to take my children with me.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

And if there are plans for entry and exit to Prince of Wales then everybody will calm down and welcome the experiment presumably?

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

Pretty easy to do.

Tony Smart ● 2344d

Would you not accept that support from the traders on the road should be a precondition of the experiment being tried given that they are supposed to be the principal beneficiaries? It is extraordinary that they were not sounded out about the scheme.If access is maintained to PoW Terrace including for customers of Capital Motores then the only people actually being restricted from using Devonshire Road at this point will be residents in the roads immediately to the south.  This will mean that the reduction in traffic on Devonshire Road will be marginal rather than transformative. On the cost side this traffic will be directed to Duke Road and the junction which is already the most dangerous for cyclist in Chiswick.I can concede that it might be worth given the partial closure of TGT a try if there is a mechanism for a quick full reopening should the knock on effects on South Parade, Bath Road and Fishers Lane prove too negative, but I just can't see the overall benefit of the plan for Devonshire Road. Do you have any argument other than lofty generalisation to convince people otherwise?

Dan Evans ● 2344d

Where does this bizarre idea that roads are for the benefit of traders come from?

Ken Munn ● 2344d

Your imagination?I was under the impression that the aim of restricting access was to make these roads a more attractive shopping environment and facilitate social distancing. Have I got this wrong?

Dan Evans ● 2344d

Yes I believe that making streets like Devonshire Road and TGT car free makes them more attractive and inviting places for people to come and linger especially during this period of social distancing. I belive that will create an improved business environment for the majority of traders. I also believe in Prospect Theory and the need for political will to enable some people to experience the benefits that they are otherwise unable to imagine because they are concerned about losing the potentially lower level of benefits that they have with the status quo. I say some because the Chiswick Calendar article states quite clearly that some traders can already imagine the benefits, some have been willing to be quoted and others are keeping quiet because they know that their fellow traders will be upset with them. So there is no collective view from the traders despite the attempts by some people with very strong and frequently stated anti-LBH views to represent them as having one that is against the proposal.One thing I don't get about local politics is that we, the residents, vote for Councillors to represent our interests and then some people seem to believe that they should prioritise the interests of businesses above all else ignoring facts and evidence from similar schemes that have been hugely successful. Thankfully that is not the case here as the Chiswick Councillors have published an excellent walking and cycling policy that supports the government, TfL and the Council in the collective ambition to reallocate road space to walking and cycling.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

Hi Justin. The E3 doesn't go anywhere I need to get to from home.

Carl Wynne ● 2344d

One of the traders on these roads told me that she and quite a few others weren't keen on the idea but didn't want to comment for fear of a negative reaction from the council and some customers. However, she added assuming estate agents and cafes are all in favour then the majority would probably back it on Turnham Green Terrace although I was surprised to hear the names of some shops that were against it.It would also be interesting to know if the shops saying they were in favour were made aware of the predicament of Mike Moran and Capital Motors before being asked to comment.There is clearly no consensus on this and, the lack of prior consultation seems to indicate the council isn't particularly interested in what the traders have to say anyway. The concern among shopowners is that the funding is there and the council need to have suitable projects to draw it down so they aren't actually that concerned about how it impacts trade.

Francis Rowe ● 2344d

Change is difficult and it is hardly surprising that some traders have concerns and fears. From my experience of engaging with the Council they are very conscious of the impact of the proposals on business and they are also depending on the Chiswick Councillors with their local knowledge to aid in the discussions to implement government policy in as positive a way as possible. I am quite surprised by all this feedback that traders found out about this when the news story was published on this site. I would have assumed that they were engaging in regular dialogue with the local Councillors who I am quite sure would have known about these proposals in advance. I would have expected that dialogue to have included drilling down into specifics like ensuring entry and exit to Prince of Wales, disabled access etc. Plus there are other support services available for these businesses and the Councillors ought to be helping them to access these - help with set up of collection and delivery services for example. But I'm not the expert. I know that the Chiswick Councillors support the policy so I'm a bit baffled as to what is happening here.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

Here maybe?'Would you not accept that support from the traders on the road should be a precondition of the experiment being tried given that they are supposed to be the principal beneficiaries?'Principal beneficiaries should be the people who use the road, for whatever purpose.

Ken Munn ● 2344d

Ken I think everyone else but you is working on the assumption that people walking on these two streets are there to shop so what benefits them and encourages them to visit more benefits the traders.

Dan Evans ● 2344d

You need to read the article about this subject. While local councillors might support the overall policy they seem cooler than lukewarm on these specific proposals and Sam Hearn hasn't held back with his criticism of the council's approach. He is right that without even the most basic traffic analysis this really is a shot in the dark and could end up causing more problems than it solves.The council appears to be making the same mistake that TfL did with CS9 in announcing it more or less as a fait accompli so that the first thing that many businesses hear about it is that it is happening. Lots more people could have been brought on board if someone from the council had taken the time to explain what was planned and adapt those plans based on concerns raised. Just announcing it to the press inevitably adds to the stress of already stressed out business owners who will inevitably fear the worst.Despite Dan's plea for you to avoid lofty generalisations I see you couldn't resist the temptation. I can assure you it will be zero comfort to local traders that you have told them about some theory which makes you believe they are wrong about what is good for their business.

Francis Rowe ● 2344d

All of this assumes that we are all going to waft about buying coffee, cake and ice cream whilst lightly perusing, as if on some Riviera.  Meanwhile anything that you need to put in the car to take away (lighting, dry cleaning, bathroom bits and pieces, artwork/framing, mirrors, pet supplies - to name but some of the trades along Devonshire Road) may be more easily purloined somewhere more accessible?

Paul Garnham ● 2344d

Francis, would you not accept that local traders can also get it wrong about what is good for their business?  If they always got it right then there would be a lot less empty shop lots.Pedestrianisation of shopping streets is hardly new and before every scheme there have been complaints that it will be the death of the street.  Paul Campbell has already mentioned Orford Road in Waltham Forest where traders who led protests against pedestrianisation now admit they were wrong.I've been to Orford Rd and it is very pleasant.  Quite like Devonshire Rd in terms of types of shops, except without the parking and the traffic and fewer empty shops.Doing things quickly will provide more feedback about what works and what doesn't work than months and months of consultation and modelling given, as is already apparent, there will never be consensus anyway.

Michael Robinson ● 2344d

Cut the c**p.I fully support the traders.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2344d

You have ignored my query about the role of the Chiswick Councillors in this but that's OK because you probably don't know the answer. Is it unreasonable to expect that they would discuss the proposals with traders before the announcement? Is it unreasonable for the Council to expect that the local Councillors would do that? Would you prefer other Council representatives to bypass your elected representatives in this process. I don't understand that because I know that the Council officers are very keen to engage with the local Councillors in order to benefit from their knowledge of what works and doesn't work here and that they are very wary of the reaction they might get if they were to bypass them. You have also ignored the things I've said about Orford Road which I think is highly relevant to these specific proposals and the reasonable suggestion that car-free streets are more attractive and inviting and encourage lingering which is good for traders. And the facts about the % of people who use their cars for shopping in Chiswick. And the suggestion about Prince of Wales exit and entry, which is easy to do and might also enable a loading bay outside L&S. And disabled access. And the comments on loading access for traders. And the reasonable suggestion that it is very difficult to depend on parking outside these shops today anyway.I get that Sam has to walk a line between supporting the policy without irritating his voters. I am pleased that our local Councillors support the reallocation of road space to walking and cycling and I hope that your suggestion that they will take the "we support walking and cyling in general but we can never support any specific proposals that might adversely affect drivers" is misplaced as that would be counter to the DfT's guidance and rather obviously so.It seems to me that the supporters of the proposals are doing all the giving by making suggestions to how they can be adapted to suit different stakeholders while the opponents are stubbornly refusing to contemplate any possible upsides and beginning the inevitable descent into outraged ad hominem criticism. If you believe that is the way to win an argument then good luck.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

Which ones? The ones who support the proposals or the ones who don't support them or all of them?Whatever happens for me it will still be all of them.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

Michael, as someone who has often castigated me and others for citing anecdotal evidence I am surprised to see you using it in this instance. That some shop owners in one instance reportedly may have changed their minds about a scheme in a completely different area doesn't change the fact that people whose livelihoods depend on the prosperity of the businesses that they run will be best placed to judge what is likely to work for them. They should be listened to.It may be that the Department of Transport won't be particularly keen to fund a project that is widely disliked by the people supposed to be benefiting from it so the council may have made an error in not trying to bring local shops on board. They might salvage the situation by giving some reassurances about a fail safe if the restriction of access proves counterproductive for trade which would allow it to be restored subject to a ballot of shops on the street. Also if a cyclist was seriously injured around Fishers Lane while this experiment was taking place it would be good to have some reassurance that the measures could be unwound quickly.

Francis Rowe ● 2344d

What can I say? On yer bike Campbell.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2344d

That's the spirit Jeffrey and the level of thoughtful debate I've come to expect.

Paul Campbell ● 2344d

The changes are hardly likely to be Crossrail-levels of engineering.  Taking a guess I would say:- some sort of access restriction between PoW Terrace and Glebe St to prevent through traffic but still permit access to PoW Terrace- two way traffic for vehicle access and cyclists along this section - which there isn't at the moment- all/most loading bays to be retained- parking removed, but provide disabled parking.  I'm not sure there is disabled parking at the moment.- traders permitted to extend out onto the pavement I hope at no costThats just a guess.  Lets see what the plans actually are.

Michael Robinson ● 2344d

Francis, some traders in Orford Rd marched a coffin along the street.  Given the success of the street following the changes (going from lots of empty lots to no empty lots), they didn't appear to be best placed to judge what is likely to work.They got it wrong.  Are you saying traders in Chiswick have something like papal infallibility and are always right?Clearly that should be listened to but that doesn't mean a veto."It may be that the Department of Transport won't be particularly keen to fund a project that is widely disliked by the people supposed to be benefiting from it so the council "Yeah right. I'm sure Grant Shapps has civil servants reading chiswickw4 right now.Some "disgusted of Chiswick" type comments are nothing compared to  complaints about some measures in other boroughs that are going ahead." it would be good to have some reassurance that the measures could be unwound quickly."See my post where I guess at what the likely measures will be.  My guess it will be nothing more than some signage, redesignation of parking, changing the street to two way and I hope no costs for traders to expand onto the pavement.As I said, more will be learned from actually doing it than any amount of consultation.

Michael Robinson ● 2344d

"As I said, more will be learned from actually doing it than any amount of consultation."The obvious problem with that scenario is the high risk of business closures, as expressed by Mike Moran of Top Hat who has stated if it goes ahead he could be out of business by December. Once a business closes due to poor trading there's no way back ! Many of the businesses on DR rely on their customers being able to drive and park near to their shops. Are the supporters of this scheme really prepared  to risk the closure of these long standing and valued businesses ?A full and comprehensive Consultation of these businesses should be undertaken before any decision is made.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

Given that Devonshire Rd only has about 16 parking spaces for about 30 businesses, parking hardly looks essential. (these are general parking spaces, not spaces for loading)With that few parking spaces and that many businesses, a business that depends on people driving there and being able to find a parking space on the street seems to be fundamentally flawed.If it was easy to find a parking space on the street, that implies few people actually drove there. If it wasn’t easy to find a parking space, how could businesses be dependent on parking if it wasn’t possible to easily find a parking space on the street?What about the businesses where providing additional space on the pavement will enable them to serve more customers?Are opponents of this scheme really prepared to risk the closure of these long standing and valued businesses?

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

Predictable reply from you and clearly shows you really don't care about a large section of businesses on Devonshire Road.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

So you can’t explain why businesses are dependent on parking given there are so few parking spaces on the street and you don’t appear to care about the businesses that will benefit by expanding on the street.Have you discussed your concerns with Cllr Biddolph? I would hope that Cllr Biddolph was told about the plans before the news announcement and of course Cllr Biddolph is aware of government policy for reallocation of road space given the Chiswick Cllrs statement supporting it.

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

Cake and eating it. When C9 was being 'discussed' we were told repeatedly that taking pavement space away would have deleterious effects on the cafés and restaurants that relied on outside dining. Now, we're told that Chiswick is not the Riviera. I'm happy to walk my dry cleaning to my chosen dry cleaner, about 500 metres. Bathroom bits and pieces are just that, bits and pieces that can be carried, as I used to do from the much missed bathroom place on TGT. When I refurbed the upstairs bathroom, the heavier stuff was delivered by the retailer. Artwork - unless it's a very major piece - can be carried, as we do from the framers on TGT. Petfood, I've never bought, but unless you were feeding a pair of St Bernards, how heavy can a week's worth be?One more thing - when I had my leg in plaster we drove to La Trompette. I hobbled out and into the resto, but the driver took ages to find somewhere to park the car.

Ken Munn ● 2343d

"- some sort of access restriction between PoW Terrace and Glebe St to prevent through traffic but still permit access to PoW Terrace- two way traffic for vehicle access and cyclists along this section - which there isn't at the moment- all/most loading bays to be retained- parking removed, but provide disabled parking.  I'm not sure there is disabled parking at the moment.- traders permitted to extend out onto the pavement I hope at no cost"1) what about egress ?2) 2 way traffic onto CHR ? A dangerous concept 3) loading bays are vital to businesses 4) disabled only parking, any ideas on how customers will be able to collect heavy goods from Top Hat and Chiswick Pets ?Also there are many people who dont have a blue badge but due to age, mild disabilities cannot cope with heavy shopping, don't they matter or deserve consideration?5) traders extending onto pavement will work for some, but not for others.The prime consideration should be to ensure that none of the businesses suffer from lack of trade due to this proposal and it's clear that businesses,  as well as their customers, are deeply concerned.Why do cyclists need 2 way access to and from DR  surely they can use the one way system as they've done for years ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

Paul, suggesting you should read further on the subject or are engaging in lofty generalisations doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack. Indeed neither would suggesting you don't actually know what ad hominem means in this context.I'm completely on board with the notion that we should take this opportunity to urgently look at allocating more space away from motor vehicles as a way of mitigating the traffic tsunami that is likely to hit us once lockdown is fully ended. As far as I am aware most of our local councillors share this belief, and as you have repeatedly pointed out, it is government policy.That does not necessarily mean that every scheme that restricts traffic movement is a good scheme and certainly is not the case that anyone opposing a specific proposal doesn't support the principle behind it.There are good reasons for caution about closing Devonshire Road and TGT particularly concerns about where displaced traffic will go. For the TGT closure this will mainly be South Parade and Fishers Lane which could potentially delay two bus routes which are critical services at the moment for key workers. It would also direct more traffic to the most dangerous junction in the area for cyclists. With Devonshire Road closure there are similar problems and the result is the direction of traffic away from a commercial area to a residential one. Plus it will elevate the risk at the dangerous junction previously mentioned.On top of that the supposed beneficiaries of the scheme are not enthusiastic. While some shops may be optimistic about the outcome their hope does not trump the genuine fear of their neighbouring businesses that the changes could be terminal for them. A radical policy for our roads and streets is essential but protecting the local economy is critical right now.It is not relevant that once upon a time some shops in Oxford changed their minds about pedestrianisation or that there is a theory that people can sometimes resist change that is to their benefit. What matters here is a reasoned assessment of the specific impact of restricting the access on these two roads.  In the absence of even the most basic analysis of likely traffic patterns should these plans go ahead, it will be hard to convince me and others that the closures won't achieve the exact opposite of their aims.

Francis Rowe ● 2343d

Only someone with fixed inflexible views would respond with that comment, but read my last reply to Paul Campbell.Oh dear, you just couldn't resist bringing in Cllr Biddolph into the discussion, no I haven't and why would I? However, I have discussed with many of DR businesses who are not in favour of this scheme in its current format.You should perhaps properly comprehend the Councillors statement about this scheme, as in read between the lines.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

FrancisWell said, a fair, accurate and balanced assessment of the issues about this proposal.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

Still no explanation of why the businesses are completely dependent on just 16 parking spaces.  Still no concern for the businesses who could serve more customers by expanding onto the pavement given the numbers of customers and staff in the shops will be restricted.Given Cllr Biddolph is your Cllr and also Cllr for Devonshire Rd (West side anyway) I’d have thought she would be the first person to contact if you have concerns about council plans.  Are you saying you have never contacted Cllr Biddolph before to complain about something? What is the difference now?It’s interesting that you say we should “read between the lines” of the Cllrs statement so we have a “proper comprehension”. Are you implying what they said isn’t the truth? Perhaps you could provide us with a translation. Although I’m not sure how you can claim to “properly comprehend” the unwritten meaning of the Cllrs statement given you say you haven’t communicated with them.

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

Francis I wasn’t suggesting that you were directing ad hominem attacks. I was referring to the implicit  framing by the OP and other opponents of the scheme that its supporters are content to see the demise of Chiswick institutions. They must be bad people right? If only the OP had been so considerate about the needs of traders when Sam wanted to have a few tables outside his restaurant in the Barley Mow passage. Opponents should consider that supporters believe that it will benefit the traders, especially the ones that need the most help because social distancing will mean that they cannot have enough covers on the existing premises to turn a profit and some extra tables outside might make all the difference.Orford Road is in Walthamstow. The experience there is highly relevant precisely because the traders were so vociferously opposed to changes that ultimately benefitted them in a way that they found impossible to imagine. The physical and cultural similarities with both Devonshire Road and TGT are striking.The announcement mentioned that Fishers Lane is also under review and that is another proposal that I support.It is inevitable that the government’s policy will lead to more traffic on major roads and away from residential roads and shopping streets. That is a good thing. Acton Lane and Goldhawk Road will be the north/south routes across CHR. The majority of journeys in London are under 3 miles and are made by able-bodied people. Discouraging many of these journeys by making them slightly less convenient is welcome. We don’t need traffic surveys to know this. We need to do, review and improve. The proposal is to put in a temporary scheme and consult before making permanent. That is a fair compromise and far better than endless delays caused by consultations and protests. The status quo hasn’t been working for a long time now and Chiswick could really do with a shake up that is designed to make two of our flagship streets more attractive and inviting.

Paul Campbell ● 2343d

Good grief, someone got on his bicycle the wrong side today !Did I say businesses are "completely dependent on just 16 parking spaces ?" No, I didn't. What you're doing, as per usual, is twisting my words. I believe I've said that pavement trading space will suit some businesses but not all. It's imperative that any changes to DR suit ALL businesses and not disadvantage some, which appears to be the case with the current proposal.Thank you for reminding me that Cllr Biddolph is one of my Ward Councillors, but so are Cllrs Gill and Mushiso. However, in this instance I've no need to contact my Ward Councillors. This matter has been published and therefore in the public domain and I'm capable of making my own decisions.As to the rest of your diatribe, put your wooden spoon away because I'm not biting, you know you're starting to come across as rather a sad and single minded person, I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for you. However, I'm sure I'll get over that sentiment 😉And now some cooking to get on with, followed by again exercising myself and the dogs, a spot of dead heading the plants which is very satisfying, so I'm busy busy busy...Hope you too have a satisfying and busy day Michael 🤞

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

You haven't really thought this through Loraine.If Devonshire Road is made two way up to the access restriction then egress will be on to CHR.You are claiming this is a "dangerous concept" ignoring all the other streets with two way access onto CHR.Devonshire Road used to have two way access onto CHR.  This was stopped because too many cars were rat running.  if through traffic is stopped, why should two way access not be restored?I agree that loading bays should be retained. Are you saying there shouldn't be disabled parking? I think Devonshire Road doesn't have it at the moment so introducing disabled parking will be an improvement.As to your other examples, what happens now if people drive to Devonshire Rd and there are no free parking spaces?  There are only 16 after all.  If there are always free car parking spaces then there can't be many people using them.Devonshire Rd was made one way because of the volume of cars rat running.  It was said it couldn't be two way for cycles because car parking didn't leave enough room.Once the problems created by cars are removed, then all sorts of new things are possible.  Like cycling both ways down Devonshire Road.

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

Just what I expected Loraine.A flounce after being unable to answer questions with some personal insults and a last line that nobody believes you really mean...

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

We get it Ken, you really are quite amazing, a modern day saint perhaps. Unfortunately, it would be difficult for businesses to survive if their custom only came from those with your great virtue. They remain dependent on lazy people like me who probably would drive if they needed to drop off a few dresses or coats for dry cleaning.

Anita Blake ● 2343d

And voila. The inevitable descent into ad hominem attacks from opponents of the scheme who also just totally refuse to contemplate any compromise or suggestions that there are benefits. Why do people think that this is going to be an effective way of dealing with proposals that have been formulated to support public health and economic recovery?

Paul Campbell ● 2343d

As I've said I feel sorry for you. Anyway, notwithstanding that, are you so committed to Devonshire Road being converted to the proposed scheme against the wishes of many of its longstanding businesses that you don't think there should be a Consultation ?Where's the Democracy in that ? PS. You're pretty good at personal insults as well as trying to take the higher moral ground. Be honest Michael your passion for making Chiswick cycling mecca transcends all else whatever the cost to its businesses and residents. Yes cycling should be safe, so should walking which has become more hazardous over the past 10 weeks, not from cars but from cyclists, think about the little girl in Bedford Park...

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

Says the Prince of Ad Hominem attacks 👏

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

" It's imperative that any changes to DR suit ALL businesses "Where does it say that roads are there for the benefit of business?

Ken Munn ● 2343d

Oh dear, someone hasn't got his thinking hat on. Roads are their for transportation, you know getting goods to and from destinations and onwards. Perhaps that's why businesses abound roads and not in the back end of nowhere with dirt tracks.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

The comparable modified street referred to is Orford Road in E17 in Walthamstow. If you find it on Google Steetview you can see what they've done. The pavements have been widened and are flush with the 'road' surface. It's one way and there's no access for traffic between 10am and 10pm, except, significantly, for 'local buses' which can still use it. As others have suggested, and as you can see on Streetview, this is now a popular stretch of increasingly upmarket shops, cafes and restaurants, but having said that, Walthamstow's other wide-ranging 'cycle-friendly initiatives' have generated predictably 'mixed reactions'!

Peter Evans ● 2343d

Loraine,There will be a consultation. As part of the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) process there is a 6 month period when anyone can provide comments.  The council must make a decision within 18 months if the changes will become permanent or be removed.  They can make further changes during this period but there is still an 18 month deadline.Government statutory guidance explicitly asks councils to do this and in fact have made it easier and faster by removing the requirement to publish notices of ETOs in local newspapers,As I said, if you don't like this, no point complaining here.  You should complain to the DfT or ask Cllr Biddolph or one of the other Cllrs to complain on your behalf.  Given the funding and policy is coming form Westminster, you could also contact Ruth Cadbury MP.Maybe you are confusing a personal insult with every time I or somebody else points that out you are mistaken, or haven't thought something through.  They aren't the same thing.

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

No. Roads serve all, not some. With the emphasis on serve.

Ken Munn ● 2343d

Exmouth market in Islington is another example of a very nice street where motor vehicle access is restricted to access and loading.https://goo.gl/maps/MxDMmK7BDV31VaX2A

Michael Robinson ● 2343d

So with a timed restriction like that the self-confessed lazy and fickle people on whom businesses depend and who are so lucky they manage to get a parking space outside the dry cleaners will still be able to do so if they can be bothered to get up early!

Paul Campbell ● 2343d

Gosh, you really know how to win friends and influence people don't you ? 🤣🤣🤣

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

Can you really not see the humour in that? Come on drop the confrontational attitude for a minute and read it again with your favourite cyring laughing emojis in  mind.

Paul Campbell ● 2343d

Nothing humorous in threatening the livelihoods of long standing Chiswick businesses so that a few cyclists don't have to peddle a few hundred extra feet. As for a confrontational attitude thats your skill.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2343d

So dramatic. What's this got to do with cycling? You've got to drop this obsession - reading plots from evil cyclists in everything that happens. This is about creating car-free streets that are attractive and great for everybody. I love Orford Road because it is so lovely not because I could cycle on it. This scheme is about creating space for social distancing on foot and for Tamp, La Trompette, Urban Pantry, Beehive, Italian Job et al to have a chance of getting a few more covers out on the street to help their busineses. With entry and exit to PoW, loading bays by L&S for plumbers to pick stuff up from the Bathroom shop and the others, disabled access and spaces next to Top Hat or the pet shop for people who can't walk there what is not to like about giving the rest of the road space over to people? People just blindly opposing without knowing any details and refusing to even contemplate the benefits and accusing people who like it of being heartless look like they have more of a fixed agenda than the supporters who are exploring the options to help people. What did Kerr call them on another thread? "The fixed car-lobby" I think.

Paul Campbell ● 2343d

I think the issue is the proposals have been lacking in firm details. As a shop keeper in Devonshire Road it is hard to understand how the proposals will work when there are such gaps in the information. I am open to exploring options and am certainly not blindly opposing. I can see that depending on how you use these roads you will have varied opinions but I would like to see a solution that isn't so drastic to ensure that long standing businesses who I must stress KNOW their businesses more than anyone can survive. We are always adapting and overcoming but in order to do this we need to understand the details of the plan. This allays fears or puts an end to speculation and conjecturing .

Penny Ledbury ● 2342d

There are disabled people who don't have car and blue badge but use cabsAs some of my neighbours do, will cabs stops waiting areas be near the shops, you should think of everyone if you want businesses to survive.

Janice Evans ● 2342d

Serious question. Why are you against everything that anyone ever does to try and improve the area?Why were you against Sams putting a few chairs out?

Tony Smart ● 2342d