Forum Topic

The trend away from the Tories in Chiswick appears to have been in place for some time now. That it has apparently accelerated in the Mayoral elections from the council elections is probably a function of Jeremy Corbyn no longer being Labour leader and the impact of Brexit becoming more evident.You attribute to Occam the rule that a single explanation is more likely but what he was actually saying is that the simple explanation is the one you should generally choose. For your analysis to be correct a range of assumptions would need to be true including the implausible one that most voters were aware of what Shaun Bailey was saying.The pattern of Tory support continuing to erode in relatively well off Remain supporting areas is not confined to Chiswick or areas where there are LTNs. Similar patterns are apparent in Hammersmith, Fulham, Putney, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond and Ealing.If transport issues had any impact on voting it would have been to shore up Tory support. You can't really make an argument that they are popular in Chiswick given the overwhelming evidence that they are not. It is therefore really, really alarming for the Tories that they polled so poorly.By the time of next local election it is a better than even chance that there will be no Cycleway and very little left of Streetspace. Therefore the boost that they provided to waning Tory support will disappear.The Mayoral results suggested at the moment the Tories would just cling on in all three wards but if you neutralise the traffic issue  and take into account boundary changes then what currently is the Turnham Green ward looks certain to go to Labour next year.The irony of this is that the one thing that might save Joanna Biddoplh's seat is if Hounslow manage to retain Cycleway 9.Personally I think this is a shame. Some very good, hard working councillors who have faithfully represented the interests of their constituents will be out. It is a sad fact that only a tiny proportion of voters are aware of the name of the people who represent them on the council and therefore the electorate benefit of doing the job well is limited.

Paul Corcoran ● 1983d

I made the mistake in another thread of mentioning that the Streetspace schemes were unpopular thinking that it would be a generally accepted opinion but found myself in a twilight world of 'alternative facts'. When the statement was questioned I did take the time to look into the matter a bit more closely and did change my opinion - I had underestimated just how unpopular they were - the evidence is unquestionable by any rational person. I'm not really interested in convoluted explanations of why this might not be so any more but in Ealing borough at least we seem likely to find out the truth of the matter once and for all quite shortly.In trying to fit the figures to a particular narrative, Tom (I'm presuming it was Tom who put together this analysis) does appear to have missed the bigger story. Paul is exactly right to mention the shift in voting intentions of professional people working in the service industries. As a group they would have tended towards voting Conservative but a significant number have deserted the party. I think this may be just the beginning of this trend as the impact on the service sector has yet to be fully realised.The Conservative brand may be toxic locally and in many other parts of London but there would have been no 'personal vote' factored into the result earlier this month. People across the spectrum recognise there is a strong group of councillors representing the Chiswick area and this is a part of London much better informed on local politics than most. It might be worth their while considering if they could run as independents next time out.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1982d

Funny reference, James, and thank you for it. For background, in my anti-apartheid campaigning days at the Tory Reform Group, we argued against sanctions as they would hit the poorest hardest plus we believed governments should work with emerging leaders in public as well as behind the scenes. That's a simple summary, of course, but, to use ugly but apposite words, the issues were never as straightforward as black and white. On the current bitter debates on Streetspace, LTNs and cycling generally, I have never been driven by wanting to keep my seat. My actions and responses have always been nuanced reflecting the reality of life in our home town. From my experience of cycling in Chiswick in winter 2017 (which didn't have the result my challenger hoped for) to the publication of our walking and cycling policy (produced at my suggestion while I was leader of our group) to the first-ever Market Research Society compliant survey in the borough of views on Streetspace, on Devonshire Road and Prince of Wales Terrace (which I commissioned and which shows that traders wish for a compromise that works for all businesses) I have wanted to respond to the fact that all issues are complex and multi-dimensional.  Even in a survey of businesses about business, traders worried about the impact of changes on residents living above their shops and nearby.  The results are not black and white but nuanced. There are people in this forum discussion who prefer me not to remind others of my history on these complex issues but all voices should be heard so here they are (not least because the full analysis of the Devonshire Road survey is not linked to the article on the home page here and it is worth reading); the history is below with most recent first: ** Devonshire Road survey analysis: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2021/05/16/devonshire-road-first-market-research-society-compliant-survey-reveals-over-half-want-the-road-restrictions-reversed-and-a-high-level-of-support-for-a-compromise/** Chiswick’s Hounslow councillors' walking and cycling policy: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2020/05/18/hounslow-conservative-councillors-welcome-new-government-policy-on-walking-cycling/**  Cycling challenge: http://turnhamgreen.yourcllr.com/2017/10/02/cycling-through-chiswick-proves-an-eye-opener-for-conservative-candidate/When councils impose policies and schemes on their communities it demonstrates that they have forgotten the one fundamental fact about democracy: they were elected to serve us. I was elected but I am also one of us.

Joanna Biddolph ● 1982d

Councillor Biddolph - thank you for publishing the survey regarding Devonshire Road. I have a question about your statement that "over half the businesses want the scheme reversed". This is based on the 21 businesses who said it was "acceptable" for Devonshire Road to be "opened fully" as before.  However, businesses could choose any of the 6 options, and I wondered if some businesses might have preferred the restrictions or "closures" as you put them, but still ticked that it was acceptable to revert.  You did state that of the 21, 7 had also said that partial closure (option 2) was also acceptable and presumably the other 14 may have also picked other options?The reason I ask about their preference is that when you went on to ask about a limited arrangement and asked them to choose which months would be their preference, "8 participants selected NO months for outdoor eating and drinking", which suggests that these 8 businesses are opposed to any of the initiatives.Similarly, when asked what day of the week or time of day would be acceptable, 6 businesses chose "none".My interpretation is that there is a hard core of 6-8 businesses who "want the scheme reversed" - about the same as the enthusiasts on the other side, the 7 businesses who wanted "all year-round eating and drinking", and that your statement that over half want the scheme reversed may have been overstating it a bit.I also wanted to ask about the terminology - particularly for the "road closure preferences".  Option 1 is "open fully" and options 2-6 are "partial closure" or "full closure".My understanding of the Devonshire Road arrangements is that the road has not been closed to vehicles.  They can access and exit for any reason, including for deliveries to businesses in Devonshire Road, Prince of Wales Terrace and Devonshire Mews (who weren't consulted).  It is closed to through traffic and parking has been restricted / removed.Of your options 2-6, I noticed that none of your options included the current arrangements and were all for full or partial closure of the road to all traffic: "road closed at certain times on certain days of certain months".I have no issue with presenting businesses the option of a full road closure and note that 31 out of 37 businesses endorsed that with 24 out of 37 supporting it every evening (I assume during the months when in operation).  I think it is great that you'd propose to go further than the current arrangements and can see that it would make it safer if all vehicles are banned from access while street dining is taking place.  However, I did wonder if there was some unconscious bias in only presenting "open fully" and more restrictive "closure" options and not the currently operating "closed to through traffic" option.

Ed Saper ● 1982d

Ed, your understanding of access to Devonshire Road isn't right.  Drivers can't "access and exit for any reason" and that's the point.  You can't drive in and drive out without stopping and stopping can only be to deliver/collect and then it's only to deliver/collect bulky/heavy goods.  You can use a loading bay to collect ordered bulky/heavy goods but you can't use a loading bay to park to buy something bulky/heavy you haven't ordered (how that can be proven is unknown to me but that is the rule).  You can park in a loading bay to drop off something bulky/heavy. You can't park in a loading bay while you have a coffee in a cafe or eat an ice cream or buy a lamp, a painting, a rug, a shirt, a dress, have a hair cut, shave, have nails done, etc, or even pick up a pizza to take away (it's not bulky/heavy).  One of the problems with the "except for access" rule is that it's not universally understood.  The exceptions are blue badge holders who can park in the disabled bays for as long as they need so they can park to shop, have their hair done, etc.  (Looking beyond Devonshire Road, in Hounslow generally, blue badge holders are also allowed to park for up to three hours on single/double yellow lines; free in pay and display/metred spaces, in resident and shared use spaces; and in Hounslow's car parks.) Enforcement is the issue and if the Serco van isn't there (ANPR cameras have not been installed) and if a parking attendant isn't around you might not be fined.  But the rules are in place and they are being enforced even though enforcement is currently intermittent.  "Except for access" does mean you can drive in to access Prince of Wales Terrace (POWT) and the fact that Devonshire Road is one way means that it can never be closed to traffic because the businesses on POWT include a car mechanic garage whose customers with cars being serviced/repaired need to drive out again; deliveries and visitors to the W4 Bathrooms showroom also need access and to park to load/unload and leave which means driving down Devonshire Road; residents who live on POWT who need to drive can only do so down Devonshire Road.  Part of the role of the survey was to expose the reality of the way Devonshire Road is used; not everyone is aware of the Prince of Wales Terrace aspect. Devonshire Mews businesses were not consulted because the survey was of retailers/shop front businesses on Devonshire Road and Prince of Wales Terrace whose businesses rely on customers and suppliers being able to park outside and/or who want to provide outside eating/drinking. In terms of options, there is only one "open fully" option, surely. All other options are partial closure or full closure though they could have been described as "partially open" or "not open" (though "not open" is rather an opaque way of saying "closed").  The full closure option cannot work as it would mean POWT businesses would have to close and residents on POWT would be trapped in. The current arrangements for trading are undefined - they have emerged because of the relaxation of outdoor eating/drinking licensing - but were there in the options: businesses could tick the times of day, days, months they are currently trading or different combinations as they wished.  The reason for the survey was because the current arrangements are not working for all - for a variety of reasons.  And, as the survey options showed, some cafes/restaurants are unfairly discriminated against by not having space outside their doors to spill out onto (either because there is no space or the space is a loading bay; there are ways to rectify these unfair anomalies as the survey indicated).  Let's remember residents of Devonshire Road, too, who live above the shops, bars, cafes and restaurants.  Late night outdoor dining has an impact on them as does playing music outside.  Utopia doesn't exist. There was no conscious or unconscious bias in the survey which was as extensive and thoughtful as it could be.  It did not include the seventh option I had included in the original suggestions because it could not have worked - the market researcher's advice was if it doesn't work, don't include it.  That was the option you raise - all vehicles banned from access while street dining is taking place - because for some businesses and residents, driving down Devonshire Road is the only route they can take.

Joanna Biddolph ● 1982d

Yes, I did commission a third party to make sure the survey was MRS-compliant.  That person put the survey into a much more accessible and easy to use format; analysed the responses; and provided bullet point headings to summarise the analysis.  That person is an experienced professional market researcher working for a well-established agency that is a member of the Market Research Society (MRS).  The brief was to ensure the survey and its analysis were MRS-compliant and I was assured that it was.  On the comment, there are several similar businesses on Devonshire Road; no names were disclosed; as soon as I was contacted about it I asked the market researcher to remove it from the analysis; it was removed; I reissued the analysis asking recipients not to use the previous version.  The fact that one person in this stream has saved it as a pdf is deeply regrettable and of course I wish that hadn't happened as it has enabled that person to repeat information that was removed, on request and willingly.  I don't see that person's repeating of that information as an attack on me but as an attack on the businesses to which it might apply.  I find that deeply concerning.  There was no need to repeat the wording.  Back to the main point about MRS-compliance,  I hope the fact that I can't amend the analysis myself demonstrates that it was done by a third party - the professional market researcher I commissioned to ensure the survey and its analysis were MRS-compliant.

Joanna Biddolph ● 1982d

Thank you Cllr Biddolph for the clarification.I appreciate you took some time to respond and it isn't always possible to answer every point, but the key issue I raised was with the conclusion that over half the businesses want Devonshire Road to go back to the way it was before.In the comments one business said "I think either option to open Devonshire Road in full as before, and partial closure are good options for businesses and customers."  That doesn't sound like a strong preference for Option 1.The survey data suggests that there are just 6-8 businesses who want a full reversal and nothing else.  I did suggest you may have overstated the opposition and I wondered if you thought your statement could be clarified?  Perhaps by telling us how many businesses opted for the other options - from a rough calculation (37 minus 21 who opted for reopening plus 7 who also opted for option 2), it was at least 23 and given the clues in the survey, would be 29.  "78% of businesses want to keep the restrictions in some form and 43% don't want Devonshire Road to fully reopen" puts a different spin on things - maybe not an accurate one, but my point is that how you frame your conclusions in a press release is just as important as how you collect the data.  As regards the other points, I note the issue with enforcement via camera, but you didn't explain why you thought the current "access only" with restricted parking arrangements were unworkable and thus could not be presented to businesses as an option.You said "the current arrangements are not working for all - for a variety of reasons" and that the survey was intended to find a new solution.  One of the key pitfalls of a survey is to prejudge the results or to expect a certain result - you end up asking leading questions or omitting options.  In this instance it appears you've made a conclusion but not actually asked the businesses what they think.I understand the current arrangements prevent customers shopping via car during the restricted periods, but so do the partial and full closures of options 2-6, which would additionally prevent access to businesses for loading etc.Perhaps there are practical reasons I'm unaware of - and maybe you could explain those?(Re. Devonshire Mews - we used to have two units on Devonshire Mews with plenty of visitors and requiring "access for loading" which would fall into the "other businesses" category you did consult, so I have some insight on how these options would impact them and I would suggest you at least have a conversation.)

Ed Saper ● 1982d

David, my point was that Cllr Biddolph set criteria for who should be consulted but that it wasn't consistent.On Devonshire Road it is any type of business - retail, salon, hospitality and others - of which there are 3.  She includes Prince of Wales Terrace because it includes the garage and bathroom showroom - I guess those are retail businesses (not sure of her criteria) - and the main way to access via vehicle is from Devonshire Road.The businesses on Devonshire Mews are usually accessed via Devonshire Road as well - certainly by foot and bike and also by vehicle. You can't drive through the Mews as there's almost always a car parked blocking it (I won't comment on the parking situation other than to say I really do understand how territorial people can be!)Half the businesses on Devonshire Mews were likely included in the survey anyway as they back onto the Mews - for instance Trompette backs onto it and has a second kitchen in one of the units.  All their deliveries come down the Mews - there are often Macken vans delivering etc.The other half were excluded by Cllr Biddolph, despite meeting the same criteria she used to include the POWT businesses and the "other" ones on DR.  I cycled up the other day with the kids....we bought ice cream and visited one of the units we used to have - and it is now MJ Finn, who've moved in from Glebe Street.We used to work with them and frequently popped into their offices so I'm sure they get visitors, have postal pickups etc.  We used to manufacture and operate mail order.  It was a terrible location for us as we needed frequent deliveries of pallets, had multiple deliveries during the day and had daily drop offs and separate pickups by FedEx / other couriers.  We were in the wrong place and needed to move, which we did - to an industrial estate.  I wouldn't have expected other businesses on DR to be heavily disadvantaged for us.  Restricting access to cars and loading will potentially impact the DM businesses, but with a bit of consultation - perhaps a loading bay on Glebe or POWT, could be accommodated. I would imagine that many of the DM businesses would welcome DR being buzzy and fun - we usually went to Beehive for lunch and drank in Pickwicks, it would have been great for the team and I suspect we'd have been fully in favour.  I think it is becoming apparent that although Cllr Biddolph went into this wanting to do a fair and unbiased survey, she was not the right person to be deciding which businesses were consulted and which were excluded, she wasn't the right person to visit the businesses and deliver the survey (if that's what happened), she wasn't the right person to draft the questions and she may have prejudged the outcome - as a result, all sorts of unconscious bias probably crept in.And you can see it from how she presented the results.  21 out of 37 businesses said they'd accept the road reopening and maybe 27-30 out of 37 said they'd accept road closures of some sort, but she led with only the first stat because it confirmed her bias - and we don't know what businesses think of the existing arrangements because she decided not to ask them, probably because she doesn't agree with them.  I've done a lot of surveys and I've made all the same mistakes as Cllr Biddolph may have done - I'm not suggesting, as others have, that she deliberately set out to get to the result she wanted.  I think she may well have been surprised by how many businesses wanted to go further than the access restrictions and want to make the area a semi-permanent pedestrianised area and I think she's probably evolved her thinking as a result, which has to be a good thing for the businesses involved.

Ed Saper ● 1981d

Ed -Please be clear I get where you are coming from personally. My point has to do with the strategy of advocacy.When we drilled down as you are doing now and asked questions about other consultations on any level your mates did anything and everything they could to brand many as anything negative you can conjure up. The intent was to minimize. It's been going on so long it is now called cancelled. Not just me, but really anyone asking pertinent questions. Simply look at any related thread. You'd also see the intermittent TLTR as a way of brushing aside and ignoring the issues.So you continue to advocate for loading and vehicular access to what is at best a tertiary street. Where is the same ardor for premises on more primary roads where access should be a given. Perhaps locations such as DM should be nothing more than professional services like Finn and the MZA which would minimize if not negate the need for HGVs. But I also know Trompette has its prep kitchen in that alley. I've no clue where their deliveries come and go. But it seems to me as long as you have retail and hospitality you need vehicular access during the business day at a minimum. And I agree with your example that even the likes of Finn would need to have access for their customers. And yet the businesses who have been heavily disadvantaged by these measures and the imposition of CS9 have no say. You're upset traders on DM haven't been consulted. Are you equally upset traders all across the borough haven't been consulted about what's happening/happened in their patch? If not, your position is disingenuous at best.

David Lesniak ● 1981d