Forum Topic

Loraine led a campaign against pedestrianising Barley Mow a few years ago, which she won. As a result the road is now completely deserted, all the businesses there have closed. Sam, who was a great asset to Chiswick, and who spent years trying to explain that pedestrianising for part of the day was not the end of the world but beneficial, sold his Brasserie, the successor and Chisou failed to survive without that outside space. Sam has now re-opened in Hammersmith and we are left with long-term empty properties. A great loss for Chiswick; a great result for those fighting pedestrianisation. View that as a cautionary tale.Luckily the political climate has changed and there is a realisation that we can no longer expect to drive everywhere. Short urban journeys should not be made by car except for deliveries and the disabled. Congestion, pollution and climate change necessities should make this blindingly obvious. Add to that the necessity to socially distance, expand  the area available for walking and cycling, and allow shops, especially cafes & restaurants to spill outdoors. Central and local government has understood this and provided legislation and funding to support it.Supporting our local traders does not mean driving your large car to the High Rd, nor insisting on cutting through residential and shopping streets to shave a few minutes off your trip or commute. It might mean re-thinking the way we shop and travel around locally, it might mean some innovation, such as the Flower Market which I and a team of locals are working to set up. It might mean other innovations that are being planned, such as a local cargo bike delivery service, local app ordering, making more effort to attract punters...We need to look at how other parts of London (or Paris, Europe, New York, the world...) are adapting themselves to the new reality and copy the best of that while ensuring we retain what makes our area special for us.Or of course, we can boycott our local shops, fight bitterly against every change, moan that the council is out to get us, whine about how the signage is covered in lavender and not easy to understand, and generally talk down our area until we come to believe our own rhetoric that it is a miserable, dying, polluted, congested hotspot. I know what I plan to do.

Karen Liebreich ● 2304d

"Loraine led a campaign against pedestrianising Barley Mow a few years ago, which she won. As a result the road is now completely deserted, all the businesses there have closed. Sam, who was a great asset to Chiswick, and who spent years trying to explain that pedestrianising for part of the day was not the end of the world but beneficial, sold his Brasserie, the successor and Chisou failed to survive without that outside space. Sam has now re-opened in Hammersmith and we are left with long-term empty properties. A great loss for Chiswick; a great result for those fighting pedestrianisation. View that as a cautionary tale."Karen, you have just written a huge lie about me and the reason Sam's closed. I supported the campaign along with virtually every other nearby resident but I did not "lead" a campaign ! It was also supported and 'called in' to the CAF by the the Local Councillors. However, LBH granted Sam's a license for outside dining.Sam Harrison did an extremely good deal and sold his business, goodwill and assigned the lease to the Hawksmoor Group.The other fact you're 100% wrong about is that Sam Harrison won, as he got his outside dining. The only time the outside dining was at best 60% full was when he held a street party, the other times it was approximately 10 - 20% occupied.The fact that the Hawksmoor guys couldn't make it work had absolutely zero to do with me or the other residents, but that Sam's customers didn't transfer their custom from him to them.As a long standing resident, together with my neighbours we had to put up with additional noise, restricted access to our homes and much more traffic / inconsiderate parking by the customers of Sam's.Karen, you owe me an apology as absolutely everything you wrote in your opening paragraph was a complete lie ! Do not think for a moment that I will not take any action if I dont receive an apology from you, because you would be mistaken.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2304d

Tom, I can get the idea on DR, and it will probably help the bars and restaurants a bit, at least those on the west side with outside terrace area. Are Vinoteca really hoping to put tables in the street, I guess if done well it could work but not sure I would fancy it. I think the people 'spilling out' of the Italian Job need to be careful, especially as it seems there are cyclists regularly heading the wrong way up DR. I do wonder what some of the other business think, have you asked them? The pet shop or dry cleaners, I can't imagine they are too pleased. We have seen traders who do speak out suddenly getting a lot of negative reviews. Having eaten and drunk on that street for 20 years, I never once thought, if only there were less cars. Traffic in the evenings was always v light. Just my simple view.But while this may work for DR, it doesn't apply to TGT. There is far too much remaining traffic, the E3, vans, taxis, scooters and cars to pretend this can be a quiet street. Removing a lot of the parking had already been done without closing to through traffic. So the question remains, what was the point? And without knowing the point, how can we judge success. I would suggest that only fair approach is for LBH to contact all the traders and for them to give honest feedback at the end of the scheme. I am not boycotting these roads, which is unfair to traders, but as others will simply find it easier to go elsewhere. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your world view.

Paul Green ● 2304d

Paul, there's already a couple of new tables outside Vinoteca, but the idea is make the vacated parking spaces more suitable for outside dining by putting in "parklets" or decking. It is very common on the continent. The same can be done on TGT. In both cases it's reallocating space from vehicles to pedestrians.I agree the biggest changes in traffic are only now going come in with "access only" being enforced. It looks like there's a straightforward way with APNR to allow loading and unloading which should allay some of the concerns of retailers. It should be possible to make a fairer assessment than just asking retailers their opinion. The overall effect from COVID-19, with reduced covers for restaurants and limited numbers in a shop at any one time will mean most retailers will likely see a fall in turnover, irrespective of the traffic restrictions. But if you measure how retailers are doing on DR and TGT compared to the High Road as a whole, using VAT receipts as an example as an objective measure of turnover, it should be possible to see if there are significant differences one way or the other. I'd expect with so many other schemes like this all over the UK, an overall picture will emerge over the next six months. This is an experiment, and I think we will be able to judge the results, not just on retail but on congestion and pollution as well. But the government is expecting overall a positive outcome. As Grant's Shapp's said: "There’s clear evidence, including from the Prime Minister’s time as mayor of London, that making streets safe for walking and cycling is good for retailers, business and the economy."

Tom Pike ● 2304d

Pedestrianizing Barley Mow was a bit of a thorn in Sam's side. He and I would talk about his efforts in doing so quite often. About the same time we were attempting to get the raised planter redone. We would commiserate on how hard it was for businesses to be heard by the council, in particular when we were demonstrating initiative to contribute back to the community. I do believe, however, it was also the gatekeepers of Turnham Green that resisted his efforts. The very ones that shot down the LBH proposal to have a silent cinema on the green coinciding with a book fair at the time.To Tom's point about parklets/decking on streets to provide additional seating for restaurants and cafes - at present I can site three different protocols with regard to obtaining a license for doing so. What Tom refers to is akin to what is happening in New York. Venues are able to use "curb lanes" to create an outdoor dining space to help offset seats lost to distancing. They are able to do so for free and yet have to demonstrate compliance with regs for area used and how it is barricaded.When I asked Jo Biddolph and John Todd about this many weeks ago, the response back from John via the LBH planning department was business as usual: full fees, 28-day consultation. Last week, Michael Robinson was good enough to share a new draft guidance more aligned with the New York scheme yet it still requires 10 working days (why is it councils still abide by the "working days" calendar as opposed to the real time business pace of 2020 not to mention the urgency of crisis management?). I've heard from colleagues Westminster is already abiding by the draft guidance and they have been able to put tables in place at their venue in Soho. Quick. Cheap. Easy. Efficient. It is a flat fee of £100 regardless of allowable space used.So I had a look at LBH Planning yesterday. Their incredibly tone-deaf response is still a 28-day consultation period. They make some concession for the past three months of trade lost, but they are still requiring payment based on area used charged by the square meter. Payment prior to obtaining the license.So my question is, when will LBH pull their fingers (perhaps heads as well) out and abide by the most recent draft guidance and pave the way - pardon the pun - for businesses to use pavement/carriageway quickly? There is no way to "save the summer six" if we have no choice but to wait out a 28-day consultation period. As I see it, if the government has made grants and loans available, it damn well better protect that investment by streamlining the very lifeline needed to make sure businesses can capitalize on that investment. Otherwise public money used to shore up businesses will be wasted.

David Lesniak ● 2304d

Regarding your last para, overall I'm not at all confused save your award, which I now know was an MBE, will definitely try and spell your surname correctly in future.Karen, as a published author, you do have a remarkable writing talent when it comes to misleading others as to what is fact and what isn't by a publishing a grain of truth surrounded by a bushell of inaccuracies. For instance Sam Harrison won his case to have outside dining which gave Chisou the same facility,  both used this facility. Never mind that residents had additional noise pollution with both Environmental Services and Police being called for late night noise / ASB or access was inconvenient.As for Sam's petition having 7 times more signatures, that's  because he also got his Balham customers to sign his petition ! Thus, not a level playing field and not sure why the views of South West London folk should be considered valid above those of the adversely affected Council Tax paying local residents whose weren't It's also worth noting that at the CAF, yes I did speak, and Chiswick's Councillors also spoke and objected, as did  a resident of Devonhurst Place speaking on behalf of her fellow residents, yet you omit to mention this.Barley Mow Passage is a dingy little road so it was no surprise that the outside dining didn't work commercially and had nothing to do with me, as much as you'd clearly like to apportion blame in my direction. As posted by others, Sam sold his business with the benefit of outside dining to Hawksmoor who traded under the name of Foxlow, who couldn't make it work either ! Basically, Sam got what he wanted but couldn't make it work and he sold up. Must say I'm surprised that you didn't know that he got outside dining but are happy to imply he didn't with the implication that was down to me - it wasnt.Moving on, and getting to your real motive in making your first post on this thread, when we met by accident outside HSBC, and what we discussed.  This was about the LendLease scheme you had for planting on their land which went pear shaped, you told me you had Heads of Terms agreed with them, a relevant point though, HoT's aren't legally binding until Exchange of Contracts is completed - didn't you know that ? When I mentioned to you that I'd been forwarded emails by the businesses you had 'persuaded' to support this scheme - my my my the your language was something to marvel at ! You were clearly surprised and very angry  about these emails getting into the wider domain. As an aside, I suspect the reason for LendLease pulling out was your vigorous objection and legal campaign to their Empire House redevelopment, which by the way,  I supported your campaign by both attending your meetings and with several financial contributions - I guess you'd forgotten that or maybe a bit of confusion on your part ?Finally, an apology without any caveats is required,  and as previously mentioned I'm not at all confused, more like bemused as to why you published that first paragraph of your first post, without checking your facts first, thus making it defamatory.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2303d

I watched the A4 or the (Cromwell Road extension) being built.The Chiswick Roundabout and flyover was built first, demolishing some really good thriving businesses and solid homes.Then came the wanton destruction of roads and homes from Hammersmith through Chiswick to create a six lane road joining up with the Chiswick Flyover.The elevated section of the M4 was built next to finally join to the new motorway.The worst thing ever built in Chiswick, was the Chiswick Businesses  Park. Built on the old London transport bus works and skid testing facility, this very large part of land should have been used to build homes .But unbeknown to local residents, the Chiswick roundabout was ment to be a much larger motorway intersection connecting the M4. to the M40 (now the west way) and a new motorway to be built through Chiswick from the M4 through southern Chiswick and to follow the railway line through Grove Park, over the river beside the Barnes Railway bridge and on through the centre of Barnes to join up with the unbuilt section of the M3. This was going to be called the motorway inner ring road.A lot of Chiswick and Barnes residents protested to the government of the time and the result was these roads were put on hold, the only road to be built from this project was the westway, if this project had gone ahead there wouldn’t have been a grove park to worry about..The business park and any  Offices should have been built on the A4 the golden mile and the large areas that became vacant within Chiswick should have been housing.

Bernard Allen ● 2303d