Agenda Item 2

At a meeting of the Chiswick Area Committee (Monitoring) held on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 at 7:30 pm at The Council Chamber, Chiswick Town Hall, Heathfield Terrace, Chiswick W4.

Present:

Councillor Thompson (Vice Chair in the Chair) Councillors Barwood, Gilson, Day, Lee, Kinghorn and Oulds. David Hopkins

Apologies for Absence

Councillor Lynch (Chair); David Beattie

Councillor Davies sent apologies but was able to attend for the final part of the meeting.

28. Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

Councillor Thompson, Vice-Chair of the Area Committee took the Chair as Councillor Lynch was unwell.

The Chair made the following announcements:

The Committee noted the death of Shirley Hadi, Chair of the Friends of Chiswick Library and recognised her sterling work for the people of Chiswick over many years through a variety of activities. The Committee passed condolences to her friends and family. The switch on of the Christmas Lights in Chiswick High Road would take place on Thursday, 20 November 2003 at 6.30 p.m. A press release with details was attached to the update from the last meeting, circulated to members and the public. Two reports listed on the agenda had been deferred, pending further information. More information was awaited in respect of the Bus Review report and the authority had received news that consideration of the West London Transit had been postponed until May. The Chair apologised to those members of the public attending for those items. He intended to rearrange the agenda order to reflect the interests of members of the public attending.

29. Chiswick Bus Services Possibilities

Consideration of this issue was deferred, pending the receipt of further information from external agencies.

30. West London Transit

Consideration of this issue was deferred, pending further information.

31. Licensing Act 2003

See the report of the Head of Street Management and Public Protection – Agenda Item 3.

Andy Fielding, Assistant Head of Street Management and Public Protection, presented the report. He explained that the new Licensing Act was a substantive piece of legislation introducing a new regime for licensing. The key changes were set out in the report. The legislation provided a mechanism for the government’s intention to introduce more flexible opening hours, subject to the wishes of local communities. The Act gave extra powers to the police and local authorities to deal with the implications of extended opening. The legislation removed Licensing from the Magistrates Courts to the local authority.

The local authority was required to establish a Licensing Committee of between 10-15 elected members to discharge its licensing functions. The draft Statutory Guidance indicated that all applications subject to objections would need to be determined by the Licensing Committee, via a Sub Committee of 3 elected members drawn from the main Committee.

In Hounslow it was proposed that the Licensing Committee should consist of 15 members. This would be made up of two representatives from each of the Area Committees, together with further nominees from the political groups to ensure political balance.

The timetable for introducing the new arrangements would be six months from the date Parliament agreed the Statutory Guidance. This agreement was imminent, so it was anticipated that the new scheme would be live between April-June 2004. The licenses, if granted, would not be implemented for 12 months, so that two parallel arrangements would be in place for a time. The authority had approximately six months to set up its Licensing Committee, agree its Licensing Policy and put new procedures in place.

Mr Fielding invited the Area Committee to put forward two nominations for members to serve on the Licensing Committee.

The Chair thanked Mr Fielding for his clear presentation and stated his belief that it was sensible to bring licensing procedures together as a way forward to control licensing arrangements in local areas. The Chair invited comments.

Peter Eversden of the Chiswick Protection Group informed the meeting that the London Forum and Civic Trust had given evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee and the GLA about the cumulative effect of licensing premises for dancing and other activities within an area. He referred to the Open All Hours papers available on the Civic Trust website. There was concern about the movement of people from one licensed premises to another, possibly across boroughs, when opening hours varied and some remained open later. This caused a lot of disturbance.

Mr Eversden urged caution since other government departments such as the Home Office and Ministry of Leisure and Sport had not yet finalised their legislation. He warned that there were loopholes.

David Hopkins, Co-opted Member, joined the meeting at this point.

The Chair spoke of his experience as a ward councillor trying to prevent late licenses, for example a request by All Bar One to have late opening every night. Members were conscious that Chiswick High Road had a large residential component. He hoped that councillors would have the opportunity to bring such information to be considered in respect of licensing.

Councillor Kinghorn stressed that within London there needed to be a dialogue across boroughs. Licensing practices would interrelate since there would be movement across Hammersmith, Hounslow and Ealing to access premises with late night opening.

Mr Fielding acknowledged that there were many concerns about implementation but the new Act did bring together 5-6 regimes to one. The draft Guidance was ambivalent and there were a number of issues concerning zoning and the cumulative effect. Mr Fielding agreed that Councillor Kinghorn’s point was fundamental. He envisaged Hounslow’s Licensing Committee meeting with those of other authorities to address cross borough issues.

Councillors Gilson and Lee were nominated and agreed as the Area Committee’s representatives on the Licensing Committee.

Resolved:

That Councillor Gilson and Councillor Lee would be the Area Committee’s representatives on the Licensing Committee.

32. Crossrail Benchmark Scheme and Options 5 & 6

See the report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration – Agenda Item 4.

Chris Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport, provided the Committee with an overview of the scheme. Crossrail had confirmed their intention to proceed with the Benchmark Scheme, including the line to Richmond/Kingston.

The Benchmark Scheme proposed routes along the Heathrow Corridor, the Richmond/Kingston Corridor, plus two in East London and North Kent. The scheme proposed 24 trains per hour from Central London, with most going to Paddington. The project would not be in operation until 2013 at the earliest.

Crossrail had approached the London Borough of Hounslow in February to discuss a route southwest to Norbiton. Options were a route via the North London line or via a Chiswick tunnel around Fishers Lane, with a station near Sainsburys. The Council had commented that one option had poor interchange and the second had implications for the community of major works on Chiswick Back Common. The Council also proposed two other options – a route from the North London line to the Hounslow loop and an interchange at Chiswick Business Park linking with Hounslow and Feltham. It was also suggested that if a tunnel option were to be pursued an interchange at Turnham Green would be more sensible.

Crossrail had now confirmed the route to Richmond/Kingston. This had been a surprise since there had appeared to be a stronger case for a northwestern route. No reasons had been given for the change, but there was a station proposed close to Turnham Green. Mr Calvi- Freeman pointed out that this might be an advantage to support the campaign to get the Piccadilly Line to stop at Turnham Green. He understood that Bob Kylie, in respect of the London Underground, had instructed managers to reconsider the Piccadilly line stop.

Mr Calvi-Freeman clarified that if Crossrail went ahead, there was a strong possibility of an interchange at Turnham Green station but to achieve this there would be major digging up of Chiswick Back Common. What was now suggested was a station under the Chiswick Back Common Tennis Courts, with access to the ticket hall via a subway under Turnham Green Terrace. There would be lifts to access the tube station. However, this option would require the removal of a row of shops in Turnham Green Terrace between Thornton Avenue and the station. Letters had been sent the previous day to the owners of the properties.

Members of the Chiswick Area Committee were asked to consider whether they supported this proposal or wished to consider pressing for alternatives, such as the interchange at Chiswick Business Park. However, Mr Calvi-Freeman cautioned that it might not be possible to persuade Crossrail to change their plans.

Part of the proposal was to use the existing District Line to Richmond for Crossrail, replacing the District Line service with a more frequent, faster service to Central London, the City and East London. It would be an advantage to see half the services to Richmond and half to Hounslow/Feltham. Mr Calvi-Freeman had done some work to show how this could be achieved. He showed diagrams to the Committee to demonstrate Options 5 and 6, as suggested by the Council.

He believed that it would be relatively simple to consider an alternative alignment of a tunnel towards Acton to emerge at the Chiswick Business Park. Trains could then run through Brentford to Hounslow or to Kingston. It would be expensive if it was necessary to continue the tunnel towards Richmond but Mr Calvi-Freeman suggested that any expense should be considered in the context of a £10 billion project. However, the alignment the Council had suggested was straightforward via Chiswick Business Park and was compatible with the new buildings proposed. There was an option for northbound trains via the Hounslow loop to a station on the edge of the Chiswick Business Park site. If the route were to be aligned with Gunnersbury Station, there would need to be a tunnel. There was also the possibility of continuing from the Business Park towards Strand-on-the-Green under the river. The London Borough of Richmond were keen to finance a technical consultant to take this forward. Mr Calvi-Freeman would be meeting with Richmond on 13 November.

Mr Calvi-Freeman explained that work was being undertaken to investigate whether Crossrail’s proposals were the best option for the borough.

The Chair thanked Mr Calvi-Freeman for a thorough presentation. He believed that Crossrail was generally welcomed as a benefit but there were implications for the local area.

Councillor Lee suggested that the Business Park option appeared to be a good one to avoid digging up Chiswick Back Common but that the station would be a long walk from the High Road.

Mr Calvi-Freeman confirmed that Turnham Green would give better access to the Town Centre. However, a station at Chiswick Business Park avoided disruption to the Common and to roads in the Turnham Green area. The Business Park would provide interchange with the North London line and a shorter link between Richmond and Heathrow. There were also benefits in respect of access to employment for 10,000 employees in the Business Park and the regeneration of the Bollo Lane area, which Ealing Borough welcomed. He believed that it would be about a five minute walk from the High Road to the new station.

Councillor Kinghorn considered that there were some reservations and some advantages to the Crossrail proposals. He was concerned that a railway link such as the District Line might be removed, when people had chosen to live in that area because of the rail link. The idea of splitting the line with use by the District Line service and others might be a reasonable option, especially if there was a link with the Hounslow loop line. He noted that the option of building at Turnham Green would cause upheaval for 10-15 years and questioned whether the pain would be worth the gain.

Councillor Kinghorn also questioned the distance through Chiswick Business Park to the proposed interchange and asked whether the platform could reach underground to enable people to walk through from the High Road. He was unclear about the business case for all trains going through to Kingston but suggested that it would be worthwhile supporting the London Borough of Richmond, and possibly also Ealing to consider joint applications to Transport for London to explore possibilities for alternative schemes.

Mr Calvi-Freeman informed the meeting that the trains would be 200 metres long so that the platforms would be 210 metres. Two ticket lobbies and entrances would be required because of the length of the platforms. No attempts had yet been made to design a station for the Business Park, although there would be a need to resolve issues of access before other buildings were constructed.

Mr Calvi-Freeman understood that limitations in signalling would mean that a mixed service on the same line would be unreliable. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Lee about the safety of building tunnels under residential streets near the Business Park, Mr Calvi-Freeman explained that such tunnels were safe if dug sufficiently deep.

Peter Eversden, on behalf of the Chiswick Protection Group, advised that whilst community groups had had limited time to consider the proposals in the report, the feedback he had received suggested that people were willing to put up with the disruption of Chiswick Back Common in order to secure the Turnham Green interchange. Mr Eversden explained that the Chiswick Protection Group had discussed a multi-level station in the past in the vicinity of the Business Park with the Acton residents’ group. Residents in that area had considered that they would lose out by such an interchange because the loss of Chiswick Park and South Acton stations would mean a farther walk from home to the nearest station.

Mr Eversden suggested that Hounslow’s needs could be met by linking the Hounslow loop with the North London line with a better interchange. He also questioned why the project was expected to take as long as 2013 to implement. He understood that a process of UK/European legislation was significantly delaying approval, despite news of the potential closure on safety grounds of sections of the Central Line in 2010 if Crossrail was not in place to relieve the pressure on services.

Mr Eversden also pointed out that Crossrail were about to embark on exhibitions for public consultation. He did not believe that decisions could be made until there had been the opportunity to view the proposals.

Terry Thorn, Chair of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, declared an interest in that it appeared that the line would go under his house. The Society’s concern related to the likely impact on services from Gunnersbury Station in these options. He pointed out that a significant number of properties were affected by the options. He did not want to start any dispute between West and East Chiswick but felt that it was important to consider the comparative impacts on residents concerned. With regard to the interchange station, Mr Thorn took Councillor Lee’s point that there must be access routes other than the Business Park and that the station access as shown looked a long way round. Mr Thorn also asked what impact there would be on the current Silverlink and District Line services, which were well used by local residents. He believed that a full presentation on all the options was needed with time to consider. He too believed that there should be no decision made at this meeting. The Society were seeking a presentation of all the options.

Another local resident, Mr Lionel Guyett, asked whether an option via Isleworth and Brentford was out of the question. He pointed out that 4000 new flats were being built in Brentford with an influx of 20-30,000 people. The area was currently the least served but would need additional services.

David Hopkins, Co-opted Member, stated that he was very excited by the prospect of Crossrail. Comparing it with the Victorians’ investment in the District Line service, which had opened up the area, he welcomed Crossrail as an investment in the future. He felt that it was essential to the prosperity of London to improve transport links. Nevertheless he accepted that there were concerns about the effect on people’s homes and their distance from a station. Having listened to the comments in respect of East and West Chiswick, he suggested that the concensus seemed to be that East Chiswick wanted a station and West Chiswick did not.

The alternative for West Chiswick would be more trains through Gunnersbury Station at the entrance to the Business Park. Mr Hopkins agreed with the comments about alternative options to link with the North London line and with Hounslow via Brentford and did not believe that the loss of the District Line service would be prohibitive if it were replaced with an alternative service. However, he pointed out that the south of Chiswick relied on the service to Waterloo from Chiswick Railway Station. He believed this area would benefit from an interchange between the Waterloo line and Crossrail or better services to Waterloo.

A local resident, Richard Jennings, spoke in support of Mr Eversden’s comments. He believed that the former plan for a station behind Sainsbury’s would have put the station in ‘no man’s land’. This was similar to the Business Park proposal. He believed that it made more sense to have a station in the centre of the community at Turnham Green, with a line, which would also serve Gunnersbury. Looking at Options 5 and 6 together, Mr Jennings expressed great reservations about the reliability of the service. He believed that the current District Line service was unreliable because it split to serve different directions and this would apply to other split routes.

Councillor Barwood suggested that members needed to decide if Crossrail was wanted in Chiswick to provide better links. It appeared that an interchange at Turnham Green would

bring Crossrail to many more people than an interchange at the Business Park, despite the problems.

The Chair invited Chris Calvi-Freeman to comment on the issues raised.

Mr Calvi-Freeman confirmed that there was no intention to pre-empt the opportunity for residents to consider the proposals via the Information Centres provided by Crossrail. However, he understood that these would be a general education event, so that those staffing the exhibition might not have detailed information.

He accepted the sense of Mr Eversden’s comments in respect of improving the interchange between the North London line to Hounslow to the benefit of the borough as a whole. A new station at Chiswick Business Park with an interchange between Silverlink, the North London line and the Piccadilly Line would be worth considering without Crossrail. An interchange at Strand-on-the-Green would be difficult to achieve because of limitations of space and the resistance of local residents. Mr Calvi-Freeman pointed out that there would be less disruption in excavating land at the Business Park to achieve the interchange than at Turnham Green, since spoil from the Business Park would be removed by train not by lorries.

However, he recognised that the balance of opinion favoured the option of Crossrail at Turnham Green. The problem of that option was that it promoted a route to Richmond whilst removing the opportunity to run Crossrail to Brentford and Hounslow. He agreed with the issues raised about the growth in Brentford, but pointed out that Crossrail was engineering led rather than assessing the demand in a developing area. Mr Calvi-Freeman also agreed with the point made that a variety of routes did make a service less reliable. He recognised that any option was unlikely to achieve a system suited to everyone’s needs.

The Chair drew attention to the recommendations in the report. He noted that there would be future discussion about the project at this Committee.

Members amended the recommendations of the report as follows and agreed them as amended:

Members welcomed the Crossrail Scheme Members agreed to further consideration being given to Options 5 and 6 Members recognised the benefits to Chiswick of the Turnham Green option. Members did not consider it appropriate at this stage to opt for a particular scheme. Members proposed that it would be appropriate to offer support to the boroughs of Richmond and Ealing in respect of developing a scheme to mutual advantage.

Resolved:

That members agree the amended recommendations of the report as set out above.

33. The Post Office Review and proposed branch closures

See the report of the Principal Economic Development Officer – Agenda Item 10.

Jan Henson, Economic Development, spoke of the escalation of the Post Office’s plans to close Post Offices across Greater London. There were 38 Post Offices in the borough and it was proposed to close 11. Maps showing the position of Post Offices were circulated for members’ information.

The Leader of the Council would be meeting with the Post Office team on 19 November and invited the Chair or a nominee of each of the Area Committees to attend with him.

Councillor Thompson advised that Councillor Lynch would wish to attend, but that he would attend if Councillor Lynch were unable to do so.

Jan Henson invited members’ comments on the closure of the Post Office at Sutton Lane.

The Chair stated that the Post Office had released information about closures in stages so that it had taken time to appreciate that the plans would decimate sub Post Offices. Councillor Thompson expressed concern about the pressure this would put on the one main Post Office in Chiswick and his belief that the main office would not provide the level of service people wanted.

Howard Simmons, Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration, joined the meeting at this point.

Councillor Kinghorn spoke of the concern amongst those running Sub Post Offices, even those not currently identified for closure. He noted the trend to encourage transfer of services to main Post Offices rather than other Sub-Post Offices, thus weakening the remaining Post Offices. Councillor Kinghorn also noted that the new arrangements for paying benefits directly to a bank account undermined the Post Office service and business. This had upset a number of people. Councillor Kinghorn believed that the Council needed to fight the closures on several levels.

Councillor Lee stated that central government had denied attacking local Post Offices but this was happening in practice. He noted the closure of two Post Offices in Chiswick – one in Sutton Lane in his ward and one in Chiswick Riverside opposite the Fountain Centre. However, Councillor Lee also drew attention to the fact that closures in the London Borough of Ealing, in Bedford Park and at Park Parade, Gunnersbury Lane, affected Hounslow residents. He noted that the main Post Office was massively overworked and overcrowded. There were signs that the Post Office was being run down, with the second delivery being axed. He believed this to be a very serious matter, particularly given the importance of the Post Office to the elderly, its use as an economic and social tool and the lack of an alternative viable replacement for the services it provided.

Peter Eversden, for the Chiswick Protection Group, suggested the importance of cross borough discussions with Ealing to oppose closures, given the implications of closures in Ealing for residents of North and Mid Chiswick. He gave as an example the closure of a Post Office within Ealing at the top of The Avenue. This led people to use an alternative, which was now in turn scheduled for closure.

Terry Thorn, on behalf of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, noted particular concern amongst residents at the closure of the Post Offices opposite the Fountain Leisure Centre and at Sutton Lane. This meant that the nearest Post Office would be Brentford, which was also closing. The loss of a public service would have a major impact. There would be particular disadvantage to elderly and disabled people, who would now need to take a bus to reach a Post Office.

Picking up on the points made, Jan Henson advised that there had been no cross- borough discussions to date but that she would raise this point with the consultation team. Ms Henson explained that the Post Office was seeking to close 3,000 Sub Post Offices but a consultation with Postmasters had identified 9,000 wishing to close because of the loss of benefits’ payments and other pressures. The Post Office had not offered enough support to make the Postmasters feel their businesses were viable.

Councillor Lee linked this point with the diminished importance and use of local shops in secondary parades through the concentration of facilities in the centre. This isolated the local Post Offices. Nevertheless, the Chair noted that local Post Offices provided a community resource, especially for the elderly.

Members agreed the recommendations of the report for the Chair to attend a meeting to make representations to the Post Office consultation team.

Resolved:

1. That members agree the recommendations of the report. 2. That Councillor Lynch or Councillor Thompson would attend a meeting with members of the Post Office consultation team. 3. That members’ point about the need for cross borough considerations in respect of Post Offices be put to the consultation team.

34. Chiswick Community School Car Boot Sale - Congestion Relief Proposals

See the report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration – Agenda Item 6.

The Chair sought to clarify the recommendations of the report. He noted that the report asked members to endorse the proposals. Since this would be a matter for consideration by the Chiswick Area Planning Committee, the current wording of the recommendation was inappropriate.

The Chair proposed that the recommendation should be amended to read as follows :

That the Committee notes the current congestion problems associated with the successful Chiswick Community School car boot sales and instructs the Head of Traffic to move to consultation on proposals and to bring the results back to the Chiswick Area Planning Committee.

Mr Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport, explained that the popularity of the Car Boot Sales established by the Chiswick Community School PTA had led to traffic congestion problems in the vicinity. Congestion in Staveley Road blocked the A316 and disrupted the E3 bus service. These problems had been particularly severe on Sunday, 5 October, leading to a meeting between interested parties and the Council, including the Griffin Brewery Sports Club, the School PTA, the Friends of Duke’s Meadows and the Horticultural Society, to put forward suggestions to alleviate the problem.

Options suggested were to reinforce the existing restrictions by converting the single yellow lines paid for by the PTA to double yellow lines, plus extending their length and introducing larger signs and double yellow lines around the traffic junctions at Riverside Drive/Staveley Gardens. It was intended to ask the Head of Traffic to develop more detailed options, to consult and to bring proposals back to the Area Planning Committee in the New Year.

The Chair cautioned members that as the issue would be brought back to them to consider as a Planning Committee, they should restrict their comments to general comments.

Councillor Kinghorn acknowledged that the Car Boot Sales had become a serious problem, with people fighting over parking spaces and parking dangerously. He accepted the need to consult residents on options to improve the situation, which they would find satisfactory. Councillor Kinghorn also suggested that Transport for London should be contacted since there was a problem of people parking on the A316.

Councillor Barwood suggested that the Farmers’ Market caused part of the traffic problem, so that they needed to be consulted too.

Lionel Guyett, Chair of the Chiswick Community School PTA, informed the meeting that the Car Boot Sale was held 11 days per year and was the largest, most popular sale in the South East. He stated that the School was grateful for the Council’s support. The Sale raised £40,000 per year, providing tangible benefits for the Community School.

Organisers and volunteers were aware of the problem. However, Mr Guyett had not witnessed any fights. He believed that generally the problems were minimised. Cars were in by 8 a.m. A further problem had been created by Griffin Sports Club building up banks so that it was no longer possible to park on the verge.

A member of the public commented that he had witnessed violence in Alexandra Gardens. On some Sundays there were a range of events such as the Car Boot Sale, the Farmers Market and sports taking place together. Residents in Alexandra Gardens could not get out. He asked where residents of Alexandra Gardens could park, if there were yellow lines on the junction.

In response, Mr Calvi-Freeman stated that double yellow lines on the junction might displace 10-15 cars further down Riverside Drive. If this did not prove successful, other options might be to consider a one way system in Riverside Drive for Car Boot

Sale days or ‘grasscreting’ at the Sports Club to allow parking without damage to the verge.

Councillor Kinghorn expressed reservations about the suggestion in paragraph 3.5 of the report that the restrictions might be met from S106 funding. Whilst he supported the school raising money, he also believed that the problem had been caused by the school, hence they should contribute to a solution.

On another issue, Councillor Lee asked what regulations the PTA had in place to regulate the perpetration of crime at the Car Boot Sale. The Chair of the PTA explained that tickets were issued, with conditions. If these were not accepted, people were asked to leave the queue. Similarly, if suspicions of selling illegal goods were reported, the perpetrator would be asked to leave immediately.

The Chair urged that the authority should consult as widely as possible, recognising the benefits to the school. The Committee agreed the recommendations of the report as amended.

Resolved:

35. Community Plan

See the report of the Area Committee Co-ordinator – Agenda Item 9.

The Chair noted that the priorities raised by members at the last meeting had been incorporated. He asked whether members wished to add anything else.

Councillor Kinghorn sought to clarify whether the reference to Polish and Russian Orthodox communities related to religious communities, in which case there were other churches in Chiswick, which attracted worshippers from outside the area.

The Chair understood that the reference was to the sizeable Polish and Russian Orthodox resident community. Peter Eversden of the Chiswick Protection Group, clarified that mention had been made of these communities because they were well established and it was important not to neglect white minority ethnic groups when considering the wealth of communities within the borough.

Mr Eversden also noted that the minutes of the last meeting noted that the local survey had identified concerns about crime and the level of Council Tax. The Chair agreed that these should be included.

David Palmer, Area Committee Co-ordinator, informed the meeting that the process of consultation was ongoing via the Council’s website. A Stakeholder Conference would be held at the end of November. The Chair and Vice Chair had been invited to this. Comments from members and residents were welcomed to help formulate the Community Plan early in the New Year.

Resolved:

1. That concerns about crime levels and Council Tax levels were to be added to the list of local priorities.

2. That the report be noted.

36. Five Year Review of CIP

See the report by the CIP Review Co-ordinating Panel – Agenda Item 11.

The report invited comments. Julian Knott of CIP was present to take comments back to CIP.

A representative of the Friends of Harvard Hill Park advised the Committee that CIP were responsive to some of the Harvard Hill Park issues, but nevertheless the park was in a state of decline with graffiti, rusting play equipment, poor landscaping and vandalism. Whilst CIP officers were happy to discuss the problems, they did not have the budget to deal with the larger issues. For example, the Friends had been told that there were no funds for extra paint, although only £77 worth of paint was required. Photographs of the state of the park were circulated for members’ information and the Council were requested to give direction and resources to secure improvements.

The Chair thanked the Friends of Harvard Hill Park for a helpful example. In respect of the £77 required for paint, he informed the Friends that the Area Committee had an allocation for small grants and suggested that they speak to the Area Co-ordinator after the meeting for more information.

Peter Eversden, Chiswick Protection Group, believed that it was fair to say that CIP as an organisation was responsive, but unable to respond, since in 2002 they were in receipt of the same funding the Council had in 1992. He spoke of the experience of tree maintenance where a three year programme had been extended to 7/8 years. CIP representatives would be attending the next Chiswick Protection Group meeting to explain the situation.

Terry Thorn, Chair of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, on the other hand did not perceive CIP as responsive, quoting as an example the fact that he had been waiting for information in respect of a tree replacement in Thorney Hedge Road for over a year.

Drawing together comments, the Chair acknowledged that all these examples were useful. It appeared that people considered that CIP provided good services in sports, leisure and libraries but had concerns in respect of tree and grounds maintenance and tree replacement. Councillor Kinghorn identified that the latter areas were labour intensive and the money was not in the system to support this.

Councillor Lee addressed the Committee as the only Chiswick representative on the Review Committee. He regretted that he had had to miss a meeting that evening

because of a clash of dates. He explained that the Review Panel was in the middle of its deliberations. Across party, members were realistic about the problems. One of the issues to be considered was whether CIP was correctly structured as an organisation.

Councillor Kinghorn spoke of the concept of areas helping themselves, embodied in the work of the Friends of Duke’s Meadows and the Friends of Harvard Hill Park. He believed that much could be achieved through the work of volunteers, with proper audit and controls, in labour intensive areas. Councillor Kinghorn gave as an example information provided in a presentation by English Heritage at Chiswick House of gardening work undertaken by groups of Friends, with equipment provided by English Heritage. He suggested that this could be a way forward, providing systems to control, order and audit were in place.

Mr Eversden also considered that much could be achieved by voluntary groups, spoke of options for winning match funding and drew attention to the report on the Living Spaces Grant as an option for funding.

Mr Guyett, Chair of the Chiswick Community School PTA, spoke very positively of the work of volunteers, but cautioned volunteers to be careful about issues of liability. Whilst there were unlikely to be difficulties with tasks such as painting, he gave an example of volunteers repairing climbing frames where liability had been an issue.

Resolved:

1. That the above comments from members be noted, in particular that members recognise that money is not available for labour intensive areas and suggest that volunteer groups, with proper audit and controls, might be encouraged to undertake some work.

2. That Friends of Harvard Hill Park be advised to apply for a small grant towards the cost of paint.

37. Living Spaces Grant Report

See the report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration – Agenda Item 12.

The Chair thanked Peter Eversden for bringing information about the Living Spaces grant to the Committee’s attention at the last meeting.

David Palmer, Area Co-ordinator, explained that the report was for information. The Council could not apply for funding but local amenity groups could. Julian Knott of CIP was happy to assist local groups with any bid.

Howard Simmons, Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration, advised that the report was being taken to all the Area Committees since the grant provided a real opportunity for local groups to access funds for environmental improvements. He advised groups to contact Uttam Gujral, Head of Community

Development and Regeneration for advice about the grant.

Peter Eversden noted that the London Plan said that there should be 2 hectares of Open Space close to every home. He reminded people that the grant could be used to create space as well as improve existing space.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

38. The Battle of Turnham Green Trail

See the report of the Assistant Chief Executive – Corporate Policy and Regeneration – Agenda Item 13.

Howard Simmons, Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration, hoped that members would welcome the news of an initiative from the Battlefield Trust. A sign-posted battlefield trail was proposed to recognise the importance of the stand off at Turnham Green as a turning point in the English Civil War. He informed members that a similar report was going to the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee with proposals for a trail to commemorate the Battle of Brentford. Mr Simmons hoped that the Chiswick Area Committee would endorse the proposal and give permission to proceed.

Councillor Lee fully supported the idea, which recognised the increased interest in the history of the area. However, he stressed the importance of designing boards with appropriate protection to be graffiti and vandal proof. He suggested that it might be possible for the Area Committee to make a contribution to ensure that boards were vandal proof.

Councillor Oulds asked whether there were plans to extend the scheme beyond the borough boundaries through consultation with Ealing, since events such as Prince Rupert’s cavalry charge had taken place at Acton Green. Mr Eversden of the Chiswick Protection Society advised that attempts were being made with Ealing to replace a current information sign, which was incorrect.

Mr Simmons believed that the proposals offered a real opportunity to interpret and celebrate important events in the area, with scope to ensure broad coverage. He noted the need for boards to be vandal proof. This would add to the cost, but Mr Simmons noted that the Area Committee might consider a contribution. He took the point about meeting with Ealing and would pursue this.

Mr Simmons also gave notice of Battlefield Trust walks round the sites on Sunday, 16 November – 10.00 a.m. Brentford – from Brentford Magistrates Court 1.00 p.m. Turnham Green from Turnham Green Station.

Mr Eversden suggested that this might provide a good opportunity to pursue a trail of

Chiswick, linking with the Bedford Park walks book and other walks. Councillor Day suggested the possibility of linking with the Sculpture Trail to visit both historical and visual sites.

The Chair suggested that this might be linked with general improvement of the signs on Turnham Green and Chiswick Back Common to improve the area. He noted that there was a lot of activity and proposed that the issue of signage and trails might be brought together at a future meeting in discussion of the Town Centre plan.

Resolved:

1. That members agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

1.1 That members note the contents of the report and give in principal consent to the Battlefield Trust London and South East Branch to erect signs on Turnham Green and Chiswick Common and the positioning of three way markers in order to allow the pursuit of funding.

1.2 That any permission granted is subject to agreeing the final design of the boards and the exact location of both boards and way markers.

1.3 That any permission granted is conditional on the Battlefield Trust identifying sufficient funds to undertake the construction, erection and any ongoing revenue costs attendant to the scheme.

2. That members’ comments in respect of the proposals be noted.

3. That the Chiswick Area Committee should discuss the broader issues of signage and trails in the context of the Town Centre Plan at a future meeting.

39. A4 Corridor - Monorail

See the report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration – Agenda Item 5.

Mr Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport, advised that the attempt to consider a tram service along the A4 had proved financially non viable. However, a private consortium, the Ambersham Group, considered that it would be financially viable to run a Monorail service from Hammersmith to Hatton Cross without subsidy. The proposed route showed stations at Hammersmith, British Grove, Hogarth Roundabout, Sutton Court Road, Chiswick Flyover, with options for Lionel Road (as the potential site of the Brentford Football Stadium) or under the M4 elevated section to Green Dragon Lane, Ealing Road and Boston Manor Road.

Councillor Kinghorn supported the principle of a monorail as modern and fast but noted that there were other examples of monorail schemes. He was concerned that the Council should not tie itself into support of one scheme when he was aware of others in development with a suspended system, which might represent more advanced

15 technology. He had received information in respect of such a scheme being developed in discussion with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and would provide the details to the Head of Transport. Councillor Kinghorn believed that it was important to talk to BAA about a solution to take the monorail to Heathrow and that any system developed should be compatible with other systems.

Councillor Oulds supported Councillor Kinghorn in stressing the dangers of using outdated technology.

Councillor Lee also took the point about the risks of adopting one system when there might be better systems available. However, he did not wish to discourage the development of a system at no cost to the authority as this appeared to be a good deal. Nevertheless he had some concerns that the proposal might be speculative.

Councillor Lee also noted the number of houses fronting the A4, particularly beyond Gillettes Corner in Spring Grove and Osterley. He questioned what the impact would be for these residents looking out at a monorail passing their windows. Councillor Lee suggested that it would be helpful to see an artist’s impression, especially for those residential areas, to assess the impact.

Peter Eversden of the Chiswick Protection Society welcomed the proposals for the community but urged the Council to put pressure on Transport for London to develop an integrated transport version. He believed that it was important to press Transport for London to do the development work, rather than using Council resources. Mr Eversden spoke of concern that money from the Parking Highway Account had been used to commission the previous survey by Ore Arup. He also mentioned that London Community Groups were pressing Dave Wetzel at the GLA about funding through taxing land value.

Addressing these points, the Head of Transport informed the meeting that the survey work commissioned from Ore Arup had been key to Ambersham in developing their scheme. He reported that he had met with the people developing a suspended monorail and agreed that it was better technology. However, the Ambersham study represented a way forward. In respect of Transport for London, Ambersham had not found much interest initially, but a recent letter from Bob Kylie mentioned the monorail and a copy of the study would be sent to him to pursue the issue.

Terry Thorn, Chair of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, asked how the monorail would transfer at Chiswick Roundabout. The Head of Transport explained that there was space between the edge of the flyover and properties. Ambersham were confident of running a route to Hatton Cross and probably through to Heathrow.

The Chair noted that the scheme was worth encouraging.

Resolved:

That the report be noted, with members’ comments.

40. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2003

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2003 were confirmed.

Councillor Lee commended the Committee Administrator for the quality of the minutes produced for the Area Committee.

There were the following matters arising:

Item 20, page 6 – Crime Issues Mr Eversden, Chiswick Protection Group, advised that the problem with the Tree Protection Orders was not yet resolved. There were problems relating to the handover of land from Ealing to Hounslow.

Item 21, pages 7-9- Turnham Green Public Conveniences Mr Eversden considered that the minutes did not reflect a complaint that members of the public were not being listened to when the vote was taken. He considered that public representatives were not in favour of the agreed scheme. Members considered that the minutes reflected the key discussion and decision and recognised that there was opposition. Members confirmed that the decision rested with members and that the ultimate decision would be a matter for the Chiswick Area Planning Committee.

Item 25, page 14 – Capital Bids It was agreed to inform Peter Eversden outside the meeting when Arts Trust money would be available from the Chiswick Business Park development.

Councillor Davies had sent apologies but was able to join the meeting at this point.

41. Urgent Business

There were two items of urgent business accepted by the Chair.

1. Councillor Oulds raised concern about the problem of rubbish generated by the restaurants along Chiswick High Road, despite the best efforts of waste personnel to collect the waste. He suggested that provision of wheelie bins should be considered for the High Road as a more hygienic option.

David Palmer, Area Co-ordinator, recalled to members an earlier paper on the Waste Management Strategy. It was likely in February that Chiswick would become a pilot area for the removal of refuse from bins.

The Chair asked that there should be report back to the Area Committee on the possibility of wheelie bins on the High Road.

2. David Hopkins, Co-opted Member, drew the Committee’s attention to the problem arising from the closure of footpaths round the ex Feathers Pub site. This was causing pedestrians to step out from the underpass into a busy road with fast moving traffic. The Chair asked for this danger to be investigated as soon as possible. Councillor Barwood also noted that builders’ lorries were being parked on a piece of land in the vicinity, which should be clear.

The meeting finished at 10:00 pm.