Forum Topic

Why don't Chiswick residents get a 'CPZ-style' consultation on Fishers Lane?

Can someone explain why Ealing Council are scrapping most of their LTNs because they consulted residents about them and found they were hugely unpopular but are not doing so for the Fisher's Lane closure?I'm sure cynics will claim that the LTNs were in wards held by Labour councillors and Fisher's Lane in Ealing is in Lib Dem territory and they need the million plus revenue that comes from the fine machine but that can't be true. The new 'open and transparent' Ealing Council will be able to provide a convincing alternative reason to any of their residents who ask.

Francis Rowe ● 1866d71 Comments

Perhaps they will pump the revenue into relaying some roads.In the evening when it's a lot quieter you might as well play the drums for a good 5 secs in the middle of the road as that is what it is like on the Avenue when an E3 of truck comes along. Dips bumps the whole lot. In the last 2 years, they have fixed one part due to noise 4 times. and it will need fixing again soon. At least half the road needs flattening and resurfaced. Glad i don't live on top of the speed table,70% just cross it at normal speed or over the speed limit. Even buses fly it if no person is on board late at night. What a waste of money that was, to think some wanted more of them installed not that they blooming live on the road.

Julian Pavey ● 1866d

I agree that something more needs to be done. The top news story that states there was 'some initial opposition' is clearly wrong. There has been major opposition, with I believe 87% of people wanting it reopened.That opposition is still very much there, for the reasons I have stated many times on W4. The traffic has been displaced to other roads, journey times have become longer, and therefore pollution increased.The story also claims that it has made it safer for people walking, as the footpath is very narrow. This suggests that more people are walking on the road, which I very rarely see. With buses, scooters, bikes, and many cars still using the road, it would be potentially very dangerous to do so.Finally it has definitely had an impact on how much shopping myself and others can now do sensibly on that end of CHR, as the option to drive and park on either Dolman or Chiswick Common Road is no longer an attractive option.I really hope others agree, and we can work on overturning this decision before it does become permanent.

Mark Edwards ● 1866d

Although we in Ealing did vote against the LTNs but Ealing Council are doing their best to ignore us and keep them in place.  After the consultation the government put out guidelines about what the consultations on LTNs should look like. Ealing Council are now trying to say that the consultation won't stand because they didn't meet the guidelines and blaming the government for it. You couldn't make it up. God forbit Ealing should concern themselves with details like (a) they're only guidelines so don't need to be followed and (b) the guidelines came out after the consultation had already been done. They're discussing it at the council meeting this month. My money is on them not removing them, doing another consultation and skewing it in favour of the way they want it to go. 
Ealing Council have shown nothing but contempt for the people who pay their wages for years now. Power corrupts and all that. Vote them out next opportunity. They need to go. 

Tania Bapuji ● 1866d

Another example of you not bothering to read documents Francis?As explained in the Ealing report, Fishers Lane is part of a cycle scheme, not a LTN.  Or a CPZ.  If you look at previous Ealing documents as well, Fishers Lane has never been included with the LTN projects.It seemed to be wishful thinking on some people's part that the process Ealing came up with for LTNs was also going to apply to Fishers Lane but there was never any indication this would be the case.You also shouldn't believe the chiswickw4 guesswork.  I know that the number of fines in June was considerably less than the "60 per day" referenced in the article and I'd say there is a good chance this figure will continue to reduce.  You could always do a FOI if you wanted to keep track.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

Is it just me or are there no lights on the flying motorbike signs, in the picture on the front page. I could be wrong.  I think FL also looks eerily quiet and uninviting in the picture.  I am yet to see a cyclist on Fishers Lane on the occasions I pass by or walk through, so why are we inconveniencing so many for so few. Walking is no longer an issue this far in to new regulations in my opinion.

Maggie Dodge ● 1866d

If the number of fines is considerably less than 60 per day then someone at the council is not doing their job properly. At the weekends I walk or cycle down Fishers Lane 6 times a day on average and I reckon I see a car going through around half the time.

Simon Tranter ● 1866d

"as the option to drive and park on either Dolman or Chiswick Common Road is no longer an attractive option".Good it's working. It's stopping polluting BMW 4 series drivers using their cars for very short trips in Chiswick. Excellent.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

Michael, regardless of the three letter acronym the authorities are using to describe a scheme should there not be an overriding principle that residents are consulted on changes in their area and that no change should be maintained in the face of overwhelming opposition?The article's projection on PCN revenue looks sound to me. There were over 3,000 tickets issued in the first eight weeks of operation at this site. If the camera had continued to dish out fines at this rate and if people had paid the discounted rate there would have been £1.4million worth of fines issued. The rate of issuance may have fallen, and it would be interesting to know how you have inside knowledge that it has, but the latest FoI on Hartington Road shows that a surprisingly high proportion of people pay the full rate so it doesn't seem to me that left field to say that well over a million will be raised from the camera this year.

Francis Rowe ● 1866d

There was a 6 month consultation on the scheme.  It is aligned with Ealing council's policies.  People complaining that they can no longer drive half a mile to the shops doesn't have to be treated as a significant complaint  given the whole point is to discourage short car journeys and enable more sustainable travel.  In fact, all the people complaining that they could no longer drive half a mile to the shops may have helped the decision to make it permanent.I did a FOI on the numbers and other information about people being fined.  I have sent the information to other media but if they don't use it, I'll happily post it here.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

I don't live in the area but it is pretty clear that the main problem for people about the Fisher's Lane closure is not the extra few minutes it takes to get to the shops. The complaints on this forum and elsewhere seem to be primarily about the traffic queues on Acton Lane and sometimes South Parade and how this has made the area a generally less pleasant place to be and caused more pollution near where they live.Other residents of Ealing were given a 'CPZ style' consultation not just the opportunity to comment on the measure during the trial. I don't think I've seen any information published on the responses during the trial but Hounslow conducted a survey through Steer which showed opposition in the region of 80%. As Hounslow residents would tend to be more likely to benefit from this schem it must be concluded that Ealing residents opposition would be at least of this measure. The survey done by ward councillors indicated that opposition was 77% if I recall correctly.Is it really credible that this overwhelming opposition is made up entirely of people angry about having to drive a bit further to the shops?  That seems unlikely to me.

Francis Rowe ● 1866d

"Good it's working. It's stopping polluting BMW 4 series drivers using their cars for very short trips in Chiswick. Excellent."That seems a very personal response to a perfectly reasonable post? How do you know what my personal circumstances are, and why is it excellent stopping people from carrying out family shopping in their local area? If you have read any of the other posts concerning this matter, you would realise it is increasing traffic and pollution in other areas, as people still need to use their cars to carry out various duties, be it taking their children to school, activities, going to work, etc. etc. It is NOT stopping people using their cars. And, not that I should have to justify my actions to anyone, but if I am popping to the shops for a few items, then I always walk.

Mark Edwards ● 1866d

It’s a consultation not a referendum.  The % of opposition is irrelevant, it is the substance of the complaint. Judging by what gets posted on this forum, I wouldn’t be at all surprised a high proportion of these are general ranting or complaints about short journeys.I haven’t seen pollution data for the area but if there is no evidence it has increased then complaints about this can be discounted as well. People claimed that pollution increased on CHR but the air quality monitor there says otherwise. What you don’t seem to have quite grasped yet Francis us that it is OK to make life more difficult for private car drivers in London. This is supported by policy at national, mayoral and borough level.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

People who care about pollution don't drive BMW 4-Series Gran Coupe's to the gym or half a kilometre for shopping. Or if they do they are seriously deluding themselves. People driving cars is what is causing the pollutions. There is political, professional and academic consensus that restricting people from doing so has positive impacts on pollution, road safety, public health and emissions reduction. People who refuse to believe that are prioritising their personal convenience over the public good and creating arguments that are not supported by any facts to make themselves feel better about it.You polluting our environment and fighting for your privilege to continue doing so is personal. I am very glad you are losing.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

Would you mind telling me how you know what kind of car I drive, and what you think I use it for? I find the kind of personal attack very concerning - is this the kinds of depths people will sink to in order to try and get their points across? Post any more personal details, and I will take it to the police/my solicitor.

Mark Edwards ● 1866d

Yes sure. It is a matter of public record because of your appeal against your fine at the Hartington Road restriction.I enjoyed reading the adjudicator's pithy response to your appeal:"The CCTV and photographic evidence shows that the signs in Hartington Road are clear. Even if there are no advance warning signs for drivers turning right out of the sports club, a driver of a vehicle travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions has time to see the signs, take them in and if necessary stop and turn around."Check out the London Tribunals website for more of this wholesome content.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

I'm no pollution scientist but don't big long lines of motor vehicles with their engines on but not moving generate pollution? This is what is happening at the moment to a degree that didn't happen before. I walk my dog almost daily on Acton Green. As a contact lens wearer I can detect higher levels of pollution and it is definitely worse than it was.As for the nonsense about this being about trips to the shops - please stop with that.  Generally I walk as most people in the area do but when Fisher's Lane was open I would occasionally use it to cut through to the rear entrance to the Sainsbury's car park which is little used. When Turnham Green Terrace was closed and it was impossible most of the time to get to the Sainsbury's car park by the Acton Lane entrance without a substantial wait in a traffic queue someone on this forum suggested shopping in Acton. Having found easy access free parking and prices well below those in Chiswick I'm not switching back even if they did open Fishers Lane. It may be further to drive but it is worth it.

Anita Blake ● 1866d

Michael, you've completely missed the point of my original question. The consultations on the LTNs elsewhere in Ealing were mini-referenda and explicitly so with the leader of Ealing Council saying he would adhere to the outcome. The residents of Bedford Park and Acton Green have not been given that opportunity and that to me seems to lack even-handedness.I don't believe that making things more difficult for private car users is the policy of either Hounslow Council or Ealing Council - can you point me to where this is in their manifestos or where they have stated it elsewhere? In fact to the best of my recollection they have both explicitly denied being anti-car when accused of it. The only policy maker who has such a dogmatic stance would be Andrew Gilligan who unfortunately is probably the reason Fishers Lane will remain closed.The problem with using road restrictions to limit private car use is that a large proportion of traffic on London's roads is non-private and the only way you can reduce that is through economic harm. The doctrine of evaporation is a delusion of such a power that nearly nine months on from the Fisher's Lane closure with the associated traffic in the area getting no better some people still believe in it.I checked the Steer consultation results and surprisingly you didn't pick me up on the error I made in the proportion of people objecting when I said it was around 80% - in fact it was 91% of people opposed to it. You may believe your insight into these matters gives you a greater understanding of what benefits the area than the people who live in it but I think it is you are so blinded by a misconceived dogma that you cannot accept than the measures you support do much more harm than good.

Francis Rowe ● 1866d

Why should anyone care what Michael  Robinson thinks. He’s not interested in how many people want Fishers Lane open.  He doesn’t have a problem with anti car measures. He makes dubious comments about air quality. He’s init worried about making life easier for the elderly or bus users. In fact he’s only interested in cyclists. Does that qualify him for anything useful?

Maggie Dodge ● 1866d

Why should a cycle route be subject to local referendums?  The whole point of a route is that it is part of a network and that will be impossible to achieve if each 100m section, or whatever is considered 'local', is voted upon.  What other mode of transport would do this for a network?We vote for politicians who then enact their policies, that is the theory.Hounslow and Ealing transport policies don't explicitly say "we will make life more difficult for private car drivers" but they do have objectives for reduction of private car use, reduction of pollution from vehicles and other related points.Perhaps you can say how these objectives can be achieved by making it easier for private vehicle users?As I've said, it is a consultation, not a referendum.My prediction is that Fishers Lane will be like all the other dozens of road closures that have happened in Chiswick over the years (including my own street).  There is an initial uproar, people get used to it and after a year or so, it will be like it was always closed and you won't get much support if you suggest that what it really needs is lots more cars driving along it .  If you disagree, perhaps you can point to the campaigns to re-open streets like Chiswick Road, Beverley Road, Vaughan Avenue, Thornton Avenue and dozens more examples.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

I can't help but wonder if Michael would adopt the same blasé attitude to the concerns of the majority if this wasn't about something he personally espouses at every opportunity.

Bruce Hammal ● 1866d

From the Government's document:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/932122/decarbonising-transport-setting-the-challenge.pdfAccelerating modal shift to public and active transportWe want public transport and active travel to be the natural first choice for our daily activities. An important aspect of reducing emissions from transport will be to use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network. For those able to do so, we would like cycling and walking to be the easy and obvious choice for short journeys. We are already exploring how we can use vehicles differently, such as through shared mobility. New technologies and business models may help facilitate modal shift, such as Mobility as a Service platforms. This will require behavioural changes and we will consider how government and others can support this shift through infrastructure and encouraging those forms of travel.For active travel to be chosen in preference to car journeys it has to be the most convenient choice.It follows there must be carrot and stick - making car journeys less convenient at the same time as making active travel more convenient.

Will Watson ● 1866d

What I think doesn't matter Bruce.  We are just seeing the application of policy at government, mayor and borough level.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

It is national and local policy for people to change their transport behaviours. People campaigning for active travel are in the mainstream now. People campaigning to have no restrictions on their private car use are not. I know the car lobby is finding it difficult to accept and is bewildered as to why they keep losing but this is the reason. The car lobby has no support from national government, TfL, Hounslow Council or the judiciary. In the case of Fishers Lane it has none from Ealing Council. None. It has some toothless local wannabe demagogues organising pointless petitions and rallies, Howard Cox and some shock radio jocks. That's it. It is very irritating I know but the active travel campaigners will win. It is inevitable. They have overwhelming odds in their favour. The good news is that the vast majority of people will be beneficiaries. It will just take them a while to realise it as Michael says. This story has been written thousands of times and always has the same beginning, middle and ending no matter how special some Chiswick people think they are. Car-free places and places with car restrictions are great, safer, more attractive, economically successful, less polluted etc. You've all seen them and enjoyed them on your holidays and business trips. Some Onesies have dialled in from car-free piazzas sipping beer in the peace and quiet for the consultation calls. And remember you've always got Dry Cleaning World and loads more taxi pick up and drop off spots near CHR. So some small victories to hold on to.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

So Michael, you're happy to support policy just because it's policy? That does seem unlikely. Suppose it became government, local and mayoral policy to ban bicycles as the work of the devil and encourage everyone to drive everywhere at the risk of being fined. Would that be OK too? I'm sure the majority would oppose such madness but according to your view that would  be irrelevant. Policy is policy and what the plebs think matters not a jot. Excellent!

Bruce Hammal ● 1866d

You're not going to get cycling campaigners to be sympathetic to people being ignored by politicians. We've had it for decades and still do in many places like RBKC. Better get used to it. It sucks.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

Paul, please tell me there are other things you care about!

Bruce Hammal ● 1866d

There's plenty Bruce. But I am afraid to report that I am prepared to devote a great deal of my scarce personal time to this cause and I feel like I am only at the very beginning. There is so much more to do.

Paul Campbell ● 1866d

I think you and Michael should get yourselves up to the M25 and join up with the Insulate Britain protestors. That's a worthy cause and it also has the added benefit of seriously annoying drivers! Of course you, and they, would probably have to drive there as unfortunately bicycles aren't allowed on motorways. I can feel another campaign coming on.

Bruce Hammal ● 1866d

That's known as a "reductio ad absurdum " argument Bruce.  You need to do much better than that If you want to convince the policy makers and decision makers to change.

Michael Robinson ● 1866d

The antis have lost the argument about Fishers Lane and have now lost the battle. It’s argument for argument’s sake.

Edward Seaton ● 1866d

Spot on, Francis.

Claire Moran ● 1866d

Wow Paul has still not recovered from losing RBKC has he. The cheats didn't prosper on this occasion, oh dear, it usually works.  Or having friends in the right places.

Maggie Dodge ● 1866d

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if Fisher's Lane is to be confirmed as 'closed to traffic' then it should at least be done properly and safely and not, as now, by relying on a few road signs and a couple of cameras, particularly if its main purpose is to be for cyclists and pedestrians.  Certainly revised road markings and realignments are needed, and ultimately even the re-routing the 272 bus so suitable barriers can be put up. It might even be worth closing the junction of Fishers Lane with CHR, as that's always been a difficult and dangerous junction and still is. According to the report on ActonW3, it looks as if most of the LTN's in Ealing that residents voted against will be abandoned, at least in their present form.

Peter Evans ● 1866d

I agree, time to move on. The residents of Prebend Gardens now have an opportunity to reduce the traffic on their streets.

Tom Pike ● 1866d

I crossed Fishers Lane at South Parade today and was almost run over by a dodderer driving a silver hatchback who turned off South Parade. I hope he gets a PCN and really should be examined to see if he is fit to drive.

Carl Wynne ● 1866d

What exactly is 'a dodderer' Carl?  Do you mean an elderly person? If so that is appalling, ageist and discriminatory language.  Otherwise, please explain what you mean.

Claire Moran ● 1866d

"Elderly" is not considered PC.Try older adult or senior.

Will Watson ● 1866d

It’s a huge improvement on dodderer !

Maggie Dodge ● 1865d

Maybe it was someone with a tickling stick. 

Rob Reynolds ● 1865d

I don't need to travel that far to annoy drivers Bruce. Driving the full length of Sutton Court Road at the speed limit is extremely effective.

Paul Campbell ● 1865d

Poor motorist who failed to spot a person crossing a pedestrian crossing in broad daylight and failed to spot/observe the no entry signs. Not fit to be in charge of a vehicle.

Carl Wynne ● 1865d

Quite right. Time to take action against those who ignore crossings and traffic signs, sail through red lights, take no notice of one way streets, step off the pavement without looking and generally ignore the rules of the road because they don't suit.Did I leave anybody out?

Bruce Hammal ● 1865d

By whom, Will?  Age UK describe themselves as providing care and support for the elderly, and the NHS has no problems discussing the elderly:  https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/advice-for-life-situations-and-events/loneliness-in-the-elderly/But, as on everything, you always know better.

Claire Moran ● 1865d

https://beyondtheautomobile.com/2021/09/14/car-dependency-is-a-spectrum/?fbclid=IwAR2tvFnjpuZKqlaFiwU6AJir9AswFRJ_N1E0KtRAPjx7lAZAUfrmfV1ZvaY

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 1865d

Try typing "why is elderly offensive" into Google and you may learn something.In case you can't be bothered:"Elderly is problematic because of its association with dependency and frailty, which typecasts whole generations. Although it is natural that we refer to people in groups by their age, chronological age is a poor guide to understand any given person; their health, their personality and their experience."From ageuk.org.uk

Will Watson ● 1865d

Interesting to see definitions for different points on the car-dependency spectrum.In Chiswick we have "car first" at the moment we need to shift to "car last".

Will Watson ● 1865d

Currently broken, what can we do anything to restore it?

Russell Pearson ● 1865d

Will is that the royal “we”

Maggie Dodge ● 1865d

You routinely use mental health issues as insults against people. Forgive me for not giving a toss about this whine.

Carl Wynne ● 1863d

Lol, all you do is whine! Have your thought about changing the spelling of your name?

Russell Pearson ● 1863d

A committed Onesie opines. I take it that you have no issue with people using mental health issues as a slur. You should be ashamed of yourself. What else is OK with you? Racism, gender? I guess so.

Carl Wynne ● 1863d

It is also complete nonsense. The footpath under the bridge is so high above the road that a railing has had to be placed there to stop people falling off into the road. So one of the central reasons given by Ealing for keeping it closed ie that the footpath is very narrow, is not a reason at all, indeed it makes one wonder when they last looked at the footpath. Even if it were a good idea to spill off the pavement into the road, you cannot,  you would break your neck- the  footpath will not get wider if the road stays closed. It cannnot.And it is also dangerous for people to bypass the footpath and walk down in the road competing with the cyclists.Ealing abhor their Chiswick residents they never to do anything to treat us fairly. Now the 440 has gone the elderly and disabled must take taxis to the High Road or the health centre, with Fishers Lane closed these cost more.Yes a proper consultation about something, anything, would be good.

Helen Martin ● 1862d

So,  bring back the 440up Fishers Lane. Bicycles would still be allowed, you know. Walkers could still use the narrow footpath- they’d have no choice, it is much higher than the road, whether it is open or closed.

Helen Martin ● 1862d

Long title- sorry.I looked up the CO2 emissions/km of the model of one of the cars mentioned in this thread, and it’s staggering how much variation there is on what cars emit. Cars are essential to some, but to some others they are simply a luxury. Plenty of high CO2 emitting large cars and SUVs in the Car Park of a nearby health club last time I was there.Why are Hammersmith, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea the three areas in the UK with the highest numbers of SUVs? Because they need them? Don’t think so. Do the drivers of these cars realise how much CO2 they put out compared to smaller cars? Don’t know? Do some of them care? Should we penalise the drivera of these cars, to get them to pay for the cost of the damage they are doing? The slightly higher level of Road Excise  Duty isn’t doing the trick.

Andrew Jones ● 1861d

There's already quite a spread in the rates of new car tax ranging from £0 to over £2000:https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tablesThere's a similar spread on annual rates:https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-registered-on-or-after-1-march-2001The principle of taxing the highest emissions vehicles at the the highest rate is pretty well established - it's all about governments having the will to use it.Alternatively over-use of vehicles and excess fuel consumption can be addressed through the price at the pump, though again governments have ducked this option for a long time. To use this as a really effective mechanism there would need to be some banding system to acknowledge the difficulties facing people living in places with no or very poor public transport so it might get quite messy. Of course once all vehicles are electric (!?) it would be necessary to tax that too and as far as I know the electricity meter can't yet distinguish between a kettle and a Tesla.

Bruce Hammal ● 1861d

Hi Bruce,I acknowledged the difference in VED rates though with hindsight ‘slightly higher’ is an understatement, so I stand corrected by you on that.Even so, once the VED is paid there seems little disincentive for the driver of a gas guzzling, heavy CO2 emitting vehicle to drive wherever they want (LTNs notwithstanding) - if there was they wouldn’t be doing it so much!I assume that CO2 emissions and MPG are closely linked and that’s where the simple to implement idea of making fuel more expensive has a little problem. I would want it to cost someone who is driving a 25mpg car 25 miles, MORE than twice what it would cost someone driving a 50mpg car the same distance.You make a good point about providing ‘relief’ to those living in places where car use is more ‘essential’.Thanks for replying in a constructive way!

Andrew Jones ● 1860d

Andrew I always favour discussion over argument! Of course the (white) elephant in the room here is the push towards electric vehicles. How to regulate their impact on the environment? We will need alternative methods of measuring this once tailpipe CO2 and mpg become history. Pollution and congestion aren't the same beast. Anyway, when we have this clean new world of chargers everywhere, let's hope we have some electricity to put through them - and that it's not being generated by coal again. We sure have some problems to solve in the years ahead.

Bruce Hammal ● 1860d

Eventually we will probably have self charging vehicles.

Janice Evans ● 1860d

Perhaps, but if we’re still generating CO2 in the course of making the electricity that is eventually used to charge the vehicles, the CO2 still gets emitted, just not from the tailpipe/tailpipes of the cars.Of course there are other technologies out there and cleaner ways of generating power, but even if everyone who had a car suddenly changed it to an electric one, there are still many, many problems.

Andrew Jones ● 1860d

Ealing Council has voted to make the opening of Fishers Lane to the community permanent. Fantastic news for everybody. Seriously.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

Tremendous news just at the end of my road. Keep Fishers Calm: 4000 houses leafletted, meetings with cabinet members on site, 200 emails to key decision makers in 3 weeks, 72% in favour including primary school head, parents, disabled, residential home residents, older adults, people who have lived here for 40 years and in their 80s. A brilliant campaign, a great result, a little bit of the world more peaceful and less polluted.

Edward Seaton ● 1859d

Unless they significantly modify the physical arrangements here, they've done no such thing.

Peter Evans ● 1859d

Top spin! You left out the bit where Ealing Cabinet also voted to remove 7 LTNs.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

None of which are in Chiswick. This is the only new Ealing scheme in Chiswick. It goes to show how good we are at campaigning for active travel over this way (the opposition is pants admittedly).At this rate we'll be getting all the government's budget for West London.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

Well done Paul, us and them. Way to go! It's not a game you know.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

Thanks Bruce! I do like a gracious loser. Good to see you're practicing for tomorrow night.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

I wasn't aware I had lost anything. Grown ups would be trying to find an equitable solution not engaging in childish points-scoring. I'd certainly rather be living under Ealing's regime than Hounslow's.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

The Cabinet decision will be'called in' to be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Date to be determined.

Andrew Steed ● 1859d

Yes but Paul knows what the outcome will be. On more than one level which is worrying.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

Let’s just enjoy the victory in Ealing and add Fishers Lane. Onesies rule !

Maggie Dodge ● 1859d

Andrew, is there much of a chance this committee might turn against the borough leadership like the Hounslow one did? I not Cllrs Driscoll and Block made a pledge that they would not support active travel measures that their constituents were opposed to. Can we take it that this principle would apply to all borough residents not just the ones in their ward?

Andrew OSullivan ● 1855d