Forum Topic

What a terrible scheme - There has been no consultation

Until recent weeks I had no idea at all about this scheme. How can that be when I live here?  I now discover that it has been going on in a secretive way for a couple of years or more, with people - our neighbours in some parts of Grove Park - quietly promoting their own self-interests with Hounslow.  It is very sad that such a thing could happen.There has been no consultation with many people in Grove Park about the proposed scheme, and that is an outrage! There are many issues here.  For all of us that live in the Grove Park area it is our home, and we need to move easily around our home area without restriction.  Then with traffic, I completely understand why nobody wants their roads used as rat runs.  But if everything is shunted only onto Sutton Court Road, that will produce enormous problems.  Sutton Court Road is already hugely congested (pre-Covid-19) at different times of day.  The proposed plan would make it incredibly diffiult for people to get in and out of the area at key times of day - and that includes people who live here, people who work here, people making deliveries etc etc  We all need to look carefully at what can sensibly be done that can help to improve the rat run situation etc.  But not in a way that leaves the place in which we live impossibly congested on key thoroughfares, and like some kind of horrible restricted police state.By the way, regarding traffic, the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has affected Chiswick badly, and is something we should all be campaigning about far more vociferously.And the Chiswick Piazza.  That will damage accessibility and trade for the wonderful shops that we all value so much.  I personally would never have voted for spending a single penny on the ghastly project.  I do hope that people who live in Grove Park will wake up and do their very best to resist these awful schemes. Thanks

Rae Lewis ● 2317d38 Comments

Sorry - I meant to add this to a thread.  I mean the proposed scheme for Grove Park - or are they calling it 'South Chiswick'?

Rae Lewis ● 2317d

You must be fun at parties

Sam West ● 2316d

A gratuitous and unnecessary comment.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2316d

There wasn't a consultation per se but there was a request for suggestions about the South Chiswick area. This wasn't advertised by the council but it was the subject of at least one article on this site. That some of your neighbours took the time and effort to submit ideas and they are now being adopted is something that I don't think you can blame the council for. Overall, I think the ideas are good. I will always argue against changes being proposed as part as a simplistic anti-car agenda which some people in the area are keen to promote but these seem to me to provide genuine benefits to residents. Any change will deliver winners and losers but the important thing is that there are significantly more of the former. If more traffic appears on Sutton Court Road because less is going through surrounding residential streets that is a positive not a negative outcome.As I understand any project that is implemented has to be done with non-permanent infrastructure and will be subject to a proper consultation if anything is actually going to be made permanent. The council will probably make little effort to publicise that the changes are under review so you should be on the look out. If the impacts are as negative as you suggest they will be you should be able to gather ample evidence.

Paul Corcoran ● 2316d

An interesting reply Paul. SO the onus will be on individuals to somehow 'prove' the negative impacts. As the actual goals of these schemes are opaque, I wonder how they can be effectively challenged.I think many of these schemes do seem sensible, such as closing the exit onto the A4 from Harvard Rd which was a true rat run. Many of the concerns raised by locals seem to be the challenge for residents to move around the area, as for OAPs or others with health issues, some journeys do need a car. Why will only a couple of postcodes be treated as local residents, if you happen to live just across the A4 are you an outsider?The big problem here is that there is no bigger plan for Chiswick. It is being carved into little pockets, which risk making this a very difficult place to live if you want to go somewhere beyond the end of your road, and destroy our community.

Paul Green ● 2316d

It's a fair point about locals needing to prove the negative impacts. There is bound to be something on an inertia about these proposals because to unwind them will mean someone at the council admitting a mistake. Also if ANPR cameras are involved there will be a revenue stream that the council will be very unwilling to give up. The best thing for a resident to do if they feel the changes are not working is to send feedback to the council and then post here to ensure their views are in the public domain. What doesn't work is a petition which the council will just ignore.

Paul Corcoran ● 2316d

The Council also pay no considerations to consultations either so do not listen to any promises councillors may make to vote with the majority view of residents

Paul Fisher ● 2316d

"I think many of these schemes do seem sensible, such as closing the exit onto the A4 from Harvard Rd which was a true rat run"Assuming you mean Harvard Hill, when I lived in Burnaby Gardens, that exit was very useful as the alternative was to sit in a queue to exit Fauconberg Road (or Elmwood Road) onto a jam-packed Sutton Court Road with the A4 traffic lights only allowing small numbers of vehicles through at a time. IMHO the occasional rat-runner was a price worth paying to avoid the SCR jams.

Richard Greenhough ● 2316d

“ the occasional rat-runner was a price worth paying to avoid the SCR jams.”Except it isn’t occasional.  About 80% of the vehicles using Harvard Hill have driven through from the A316 (Hartington Rd or Staveley Rd) just to avoid Hogarth roundabout.

Michael Robinson ● 2316d

"About 80% of the vehicles using Harvard Hill have driven through from the A316 (Hartington Rd or Staveley Rd) just to avoid Hogarth roundabout."So ? Putting in some traffic calming measures such as sleeping policemen in Fauconberg and the surrounding roads so that those vehicles have to travel at crawling speeds would still be better than making it far more difficult for residents to leave the area at busy times. Actually, closing off Fauconberg Road between Grove Park Terrace and Gordon Road could create an improved area for the shops and cafes there as well.

Richard Greenhough ● 2316d

... except the vehicles often already travel at crawling speeds and that doesn’t seem to put them off.You seem to think that some residents saving a few minutes on some car journeys is more important than an area either being clogged up with nose to tail idling traffic or cars cutting through as quickly as they can.Others may disagree. Including the current government who are providing funding to councils to specifically address through traffic in residential streets.

Michael Robinson ● 2316d

How long ago did you live in Burnaby Gardens Richard? In my ten years living in this area the volume of cars has increased significantly. Here is what some of the current residents of Burnaby Gardens are saying on the consultation page:1. "I live on Burnaby Gardens, close to Harvard Hill and I have personally almost been hit twice by speeding cars that use the road as a quick access to the A4.With Burnaby Gardens been a residential road and the majority of the homes on it have young children, and a school (Falcon Boys) right on the Conner of Burnaby Gardens leading to Harvard Hill, surely limiting / restricting access to the A4 should the a priority before someone is injured or worse.I know a lot of us on Burnaby Gardens are extremely concerned about this and would truly appreciate the council’s support in addressing this urgently."2. "Commuter traffic using residential road (Burnaby Gardens) as a shortcut to access A4 westbound. Driving too fast through a narrow residential road which is close to two schools particularly during morning and evening peak hours."3. "Our road is very busy with dangerous drivers speeding up towards/away from the entry/exit point to A4 from Harvard Hill.The children at local schools and my own children are put in danger daily by inconsiderate drivers racing past as they cross the road and get in/out of their parents’ vehicles.Please please please do something"4. “The build up of traffic caused by a procession of cars wanting access to the A4 via Harvard Hill has increased steadily over the last 4 years. So much so that pre Covid, residents weren't able to use their cars and drive away from a parking spot on Burnaby Gardens between the hours of 5-7pm most weekday evenings. The build up of fumes from idling engines was also unbearable”.

Paul Campbell ● 2316d

And the Chiswick Piazza.  That will damage accessibility and trade for the wonderful shops that we all value so much.  You must be joking right about the state of the Grove Park Piazza? that whole area is really difficult to negotiate as a pedestrian and quite dangerous to.  and something needs to be done about it and the area will improve.  right now it looks shabby at best.

Matthew Swain ● 2316d

The parking survey done in the area was interesting."of the 13 spaces outside the shops (excluding the one disabled blue badge space), 7 were filled with the same parked vehicle for a period of at least 6 consecutive hours. A further 2 spaces were filled consecutively for at least 3 hours. "I'm not sure who all the long-stayers are but they don't appear to be people shopping there...

Michael Robinson ● 2316d

"If more traffic appears on Sutton Court Road because less is going through surrounding residential streets that is a positive not a negative outcome."Are you suggesting Sutton Court Road is not a residential street?

Jo Roberts ● 2316d

I note that three of the four responses you quote specifically refer to vehicles speeding. Hence my suggestion that traffic calming measures are needed.

Richard Greenhough ● 2315d

There are two issues concerning the Burnaby Gardens residents: speed/safety and idlng queues/pollution. The two issues are both present on weekdays. Speed outside of peak and idling queues during peak. Parents of young children especially are naturally prioritising speed first because of the immediate danger to their lives. Calming speed will solve one of the problems and there is no budget for physical measures to do it in the way that the government is funding these schemes so it can't happen. Closing Harvard Hill solves both problems and there is budget for a cheap temporary solution which can be removed following the consultation period. That is why that is what is going to happen. It is the rational solution and the minor inconvenience of several more minutes of driving for people like me who uses a car to exit at HH and who happens to live on one of the roads less affected by the problems of the rat run should not outweight the benefits of removing immediate and longer-term danger to the health and wellbeing of residents in the firing line.

Paul Campbell ● 2315d

People are coming round to the idea that we do need to reduce car use, and discouraging the use of “rat runs” through residential roads is one contribution to this.Recent examples in Chiswick are the Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens closures at the junction with the South Circular. These roads had very serious problems with blockage and pollution from queueing traffic before the closures. The closures do cause inconvenient diversions for their residents’ car journeys, but the reduction in traffic problems in their roads makes it a worthwhile sacrifice.The current plan ’South Chiswick Traffic Measures’ proposes an ambitious range of traffic controlling obstructions, and grants some exemptions to residents within the CS and RV zones. However, the plan seems set to cause serious problems of detours, delays, congestion and increased pollution to the GP and FR zones north of the railway and beyond, as witnessed by the large number of signatories to a counter petition, and the complaints on several related threads on this forum. For one small section of a community to have exemption from the traffic reduction measures is unwise. It will create conflicts with adjoining sections, and there’s plenty enough of ‘them’ and ‘us’ divisions in our world already, without creating new ones within Chiswick.The only way to build a consensus for traffic control measures is that they need to apply to everyone. That is fair, and will also have the effect of keeping the measures within reasonable bounds.

Jeff Gear ● 2315d

"the plan seems set to cause serious problems of detours, delays, congestion and increased pollution to the GP and FR zones north of the railway and beyond"Can you give some specifics?

Michael Robinson ● 2315d

Jo, Sutton Court Rd is a bypass for Hogarth roundabout and the traffic survey measured about 8,000 vehicles a day.  About 6,000 of those were just driving straight through the area.If you get rid of the traffic driving through, there will be a substantial decrease in traffic in the area, not an increase.  Increases in traffic is one of the pieces of misinformation flying around.

Michael Robinson ● 2315d

If the overall effect is less traffic in GP then great. Maybe I'm completely missing something, but you say that SCR is a bypass for the Hogarth roundabout. How does the current restriction plan change that? By not applying restrictions at Burlington Lane, even though the obvious quickest route from the A316 to M4 is via Hogarth roundabout, the moment the roundabout gets slightly congested / backed up, the easiest diversion is down Burlington - SCR - A4. Even if the school streets plan is in effect in dropoff times (and the Burlington route is not mentioned on the map I've seen) there could still be a lot of traffic going past the school during the rest of the day, creating pollution next to the school field and Chiswick House. Perhaps the assumption is that won't happen and it is something they will monitor closely. I hope so. I think what i'm unclear on is if the purpose is to reduce traffic that is just passing through, why not restrict all cut-throughs including Burlington Lane and make everyone use Hogarth Roundabout to get from A316 to M4?

Jo Roberts ● 2315d

But it's like when the councils aim to reduce the amount of recycling. The amount of rubbish doesn't go away.  People just find other ways to dispose of it, often illegally. The amount of traffic that wants to get from Chiswick to Kew/Brentford/Richmond etc that used to go through Stile Hall Gardens won't go away either.  Instead there will be even more horrendous queues backing up from the Chiswick Roundabout all the way down the Chiswick High Road causing total gridlock all down the High Road, making it impossible for buses and private cars alike and for all the roads trying to get onto the High Road.

Claire Moran ● 2315d

Jo,  some very valid points.  I believe there is a belief that traffic won't use Burlington but it isn't possible to guarantee this 100% hence the need to monitor and adjust.The only way to get certainty is block off a road completely, but the more there are of these, the more detours there are for residents.I believe the proposed measures are intended to be a balance between measures to stop traffic and maintaining reasonable residential access.  There could be more measures to stop traffic but access would then become more difficult for some people.

Michael Robinson ● 2315d

In early December last year I had booked with some others to do the Kew Christmas event. My charming Irish cab driver was talking so much he missed the turn down from the High Road to take the cut through on Wellesley Road/Stile Hall Gardens. I spent an hour sitting in the cab queuing at the Chiswick Roundabout to try to get to Kew Gardens and missed the entire event. That was before these new restrictions.

Claire Moran ● 2315d

Couldn't they just give all Grove Park residents access to all Grove Park roads rather than just very specific access? Stops the rat runners but access for locals is not a problem then? I'm not a car owner myself so am pretty unaware of how that might all work.

Jo Roberts ● 2315d

People were still attempting to use Wellesley and Stile Hall the other afternoon, and being forced to U-turn. Out of interest I cycled up to CHR, and traffic was flowing freely onto the roundabout.Rat-running is often a habit, rather than a time saver.

Ken Munn ● 2315d

Jo,There has never been a scheme implemented to date with the number of residents there are in Grove Park all having "private access" for their cars.There could possible be an alternate method that doesn't involve registrations based upon time between locations, so the area could be accessed, but not driven through under a certain time,However number plate recognition cameras are expensive so this would still mean closing off the least used roads - such as Harvard Hill, Eastbourne, Park, Milnthorpe.

Michael Robinson ● 2315d

Michael "I'm not sure who all the long-stayers are but they don't appear to be people shopping there..."Perhaps the cars belong to people working there?

Jennifer Selig ● 2315d

I live in Hartington Road and need to drive to the GP's in Burlington Lane opposite the Station, I also drive to the local shops and need to park.  Ditto the facilities in Fauconberg Rd  - will these new restrictions delay or prevent me doing so?

Jennifer Selig ● 2315d

I don't believe there will be any change visiting those places from Hartington Rd.

Michael Robinson ● 2315d

If the Harvard Hill closure goes ahead, let’s hope they (a) install a camera to enforce compliance (but I know that’s unlikely) and (b) put very big No Access to A4 signs on Fauconberg and Elmwood Roads.  Because it’s pretty likely drivers will just exit onto the A4 from the right hand side.(I’m sure all the low traffic neighbourhood gurus have seen the footage from Lewisham tweeted by @BBCTomEdwards of the drivers mounting the pavement to avoid the barriers. I’m afraid my tech skills aren’t up to sharing it.)

Sarah U Benson ● 2315d

Maybe flowing freely when you went at a certain time of day and when we are still locked down, Ken, but the traffic tailbacks there in normal times from between 4 and 7 pm are usually horrendous.  And if there is any problem with lights, car crashes etc, forget going anywhere for a couple of hours at least.  That's before these latest closures.

Claire Moran ● 2315d

i can second that Claire. I would say at least 2 evenings a week traffic backs up from Chiswick roundabout as far as Acton Lane junction by the HSBC, and sometimes as far as the lights and junction with Heathfield Terrace. On these occasions it can not move at all for ages. That is well over a mile of traffic, with buses stuck just as much as cars.Of course, that is in nornal times. Hence the large volumes that did use Wellesley, although to be fair that was strangely designated as an A road and presumably seen at one time as a sensible way of bypassing the clearly overloaded roundabout. So with the closure of Wellesley, pressure on the roundabout will increase. Then we have the stadium and numerous flats. Best not to plan to travel in the evenings, unless you are young and fit enough to cycle.

Paul Green ● 2315d

There are many references to specific problems in the several threads on this topic.My main point is:“The only way to build a consensus for traffic control measures is that they need to apply to everyone. That is fair, and will also have the effect of keeping the measures within reasonable bounds.”For one small section of a community to have exemption from the traffic reduction measures is unwise. It will create conflicts with adjoining sections, and there’s plenty enough of ‘them’ and ‘us’ divisions in our world already, without creating new ones within Chiswick.Seeking ways to reduce rat running through residential streets is laudable. However there need to be better approaches which don’t involve preventing access to a wide area, involving expensive ANPR systems and creating knock on problems in adjacent areas.

Jeff Gear ● 2315d

MichaelWho did this survey ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2315d

"There are many references to specific problems in the several threads on this topic."Yes, and I think I've responded to most of them!  There is a lot of misinformation, such as the belief that rerouted resident traffic will cause more traffic when this is a very small proportion compared to through traffic."However there need to be better approaches which don’t involve preventing access to a wide area, involving expensive ANPR systems and creating knock on problems in adjacent areas."Except there is no such thing as the perfect solution.  It is all trade-offs.  Instead of ANPR there could be physical barriers like planters.  These are the same for everyone but would generally mean longer reroutes for some journeys. Given the objective is to stop traffic cutting through residential streets and keep it on arterial roads, that may mean longer queues on the arterial roads.  So be it. Less traffic on residential streets is being prioritised higher than the convenience of people driving into or out of London.I'm not saying resident ANPR exemptions is the only way which things can be done but there are already differences between different areas with CPZ zones.  Someone in Grove Park can't park in a resident CPZ zone along Chiswick High Rd.

Michael Robinson ● 2314d

I believe it was done by the engineering consultancy Capital Traffic Management commissioned by Hounslow for the Liveable Neighbourhoods project.

Michael Robinson ● 2314d

You are right. Of course Sutton Court Road is a residential street and it isn't great if traffic increases on it. However, it is less residential and more habituated to traffic that some of the back streets in this area that will benefit from the scheme.For Sutton Court Road it will be swings and roundabouts. Some traffic will be diverted onto it but that will mitigated by fewer cars using it to pass through Grove Park.

Paul Corcoran ● 2314d