London Borough of Hounslow The Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN

Committee Services

If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Carol Stiles Tel. 020 8583 2066 or email [email protected].

CHISWICK AREA COMMITTEE (MONITORING)

A meeting of the Chiswick Area Committee (Monitoring) will be held in The Hogarth Hall, Chiswick Town Hall, Heathfield Terrace, Chiswick W4 on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 at 7:30 pm

MEMBERSHIP Councillor Lynch- Chair Councillors Barwood, Gilson, Day, Thompson, Lee, Kinghorn, Davies and Oulds.

Co-optees - David Beattie and David Hopkins

AGENDA

PART I - ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION WHILE THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ARE IN ATTENDANCE

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

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2003 (Pages 1 - 17)

Public Forum The Open Forum will take place as close as possible to 9.00 p.m. for approximately 20 minutes.

Members of the public may raise matters of local concern. Please bear in mind the guidelines for public participation and that it may not be possible to have a detailed discussion or response at the meeting. Points raised will be noted and used to inform the work of the Area Committee.

Protocol for the Open Forum ♦ Written items to be submitted where possible. (Proformas will be available at the back of the hall). ♦ Where they are so submitted this should be by 8.30 p.m. ♦ Speakers will be allowed at the Chair’s discretion. ♦ The Chair will normally only allow one contribution per person per item and one item per person per meeting. ♦ Items on the main agenda should not be raised in the open forum. ♦ Items where the debate cannot be contained within the public forum may be continued at a future forum or may be put on a future agenda with an officer’s report.

3. Partnership and Community Team, Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services (Pages 18 - 31)

4. Property and Land Management Best Value Review (Pages 32 - 36)

5. Corporate Equalities Management Framework- Presentation

6. Chiswick Bus Services Probable Changes and Future Possibilities (Pages 37 - 64)

7. Urgent Business

Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency.

DECLARING INTERESTS Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.

M.J. SMITH DISTRIBUTION: Council Members Chief Officers Public Press

Assistant Chief Executive (Legal) 1 December 2003

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:

ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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.

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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:

ƒ Members welcomed the Crossrail Scheme ƒ Members agreed to further consideration being given to Options 5 and 6 ƒ Members recognised the benefits to Chiswick of the Turnham Green option. ƒ Members did not consider it appropriate at this stage to opt for a particular scheme. ƒ 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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10

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:

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.

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.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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.

16

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.

17

Agenda Item 3

CHISWICK AREA COMMITTEE – 10 DECEMBER 2003

WORK OF THE PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY TEAM Report by: Director of Lifelong Learning , Leisure and Cultural Services

Summary

The attached documents outline the work of the Partnerships and Community Division which is located in the Lifelong Learning Department . The team has a particular focus on providing a range of education, training and community education services including early years and childcare. The team also commissions services for the Council from CIP and is working to promote more effective partnerships with statutory and non statutory agencies and local communities

1. RECOMMENDATIONS That members note the report and developments planned in their area

Contact: Jane Clarke Telephone: 8583-2906 Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by:

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas:

18

Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Partnership and Community Team 1. Mission and Objectives

• The purpose of the Partnership and Community Division is to contribute to the Council’s priorities for community development, economic regeneration and the achievement and progression of individuals from cradle to grave .A particular focus is on services for vulnerable groups and addressing issues of equality and inclusion.

• The services will work together to offer a range of personal development opportunities relating to education, training and lifestyle which will help build the skills needed for the job market and develop communities with high aspirations which embrace learning. This can be represented as follows

Personal

Development

Raising Aspiration

Well being • Community Division • Regeneration • Achievement (progression)

Citizenship

Lifestyle

Empowerment

Engagement

• This will be achieved by pursuing a set of agreed objectives which are

• Creating a lifelong learning culture in Hounslow • Support and promote involvement of local communities and business in education, LLL and training

19 1 • Provide educational opportunities outside the school system • Secure provision of leisure, libraries, parks and cultural services • Providing high quality and affordable childcare • Sustain community cohesion and underpin economic regeneration • Work in partnership with Hounslow residents • Be responsive to the needs of diverse communities and particularly focus on hard to reach and under-represented groups • Work in partnership with other Council departments, voluntary sector, schools and businesses • Develop dynamic and tangible partnerships with health and social services to provide cross agency services to young people and adults.

2. Council’s and Departmental Business Plans

The team supports the implementation of the Executive’s 10 priorities which are:

• “ONE HOUNSLOW”: leading and promoting Hounslow as a successful and diverse community of communities

• PROMOTING COMMUNITY COHESION & COMMMUNITY SAFETY: Diversity, culture and community cohesion; reducing fear of crime and serious crimes

• CHILDREN AND LIFELONG LEARNING: Successful schools, achieving the full potential of our children, fulfilling our ‘corporate parent’ role and providing full opportunities for lifelong learning.

• SUPPORTING VULNERABLE PEOPLE: reshaping services to adults, and improving partnership working to support a range of vulnerable groups

• ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT: improving the visual impact of the local Streetscene through waste minimisation and recycling, and new high quality and sustainable buildings. Promoting positive development of local transport networks and lobbying over Heathrow for Hounslow’s residents.

• SUSTAINABLE MIXED HOUSING: working towards our ‘decent homes’ target for Council Housing; tackling homelessness and reducing the use of B&B accommodation; sustainable housing with homes available to rent or buy for people with a range of incomes, including key workers

• POSITIVE REGENERATION: Progressing our key developments including Hounslow Town Centre (Key Site One), Feltham Town Centre and Brentford.

• IMPROVING CUSTOMER CARE: Improving the customer experience of Hounslow council and developing our consultation and communication arrangements

20 2 • BETTER PERFORMANCE: Strong performance management to improve outcomes for our residents

• RESOURCES FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENT: Developing the Medium Term Financial Plan’s objectives and improving procurement to deliver cost effective, value for money services for the borough; revising our Human Resources strategy and achieving Investors in People across the Council; and improving management of the Council’s property.

• The team supports two priorities within the Departmental business plan

Priority 6:- The LLL&CS Department recognises that education is a lifelong process and makes a critical contribution to community cohesion and economic prosperity. To this end it supports economic regeneration through the development and enhancement of early years education and childcare, opportunities to develop young people outside schools, and the education and training of adults

Priority 7:- The LLL&CS Department recognises the importance of providing leisure and cultural opportunities for Hounslow residents which provide enjoyment and entertainment and reflect the cultural diversity of the community. To this end the Department with work with Community Initiatives Partnership and other partners to secure a range of leisure, cultural and community facilities which meet the needs of the local population.

3. Role of the Partnership and Community Team

• The Partnership and Community management team will be responsible for drawing together the work of the services (including those undertaken by CIP in relation to the teams remit) and ensuring a collective focus on themes and areas of the borough in line with the Council’s priorites. Services will work in a proactive way and in consultation and partnership with the local community. The role of each service and their contribution to the division will be shared and services will be developed in a complementary way. Synergies for further partnership work will be exploited. The team will monitor its work and set clear and measurable targets for key pieces of work. Successes will be celebrated and the team will learn from those projects and pieces of work which are less successful in order to develop further.

Services provided by/through the Division are set out in Appendix A. The key tasks for our work programme for 2003/04 are set out in Appendix B.

21 3 APPENDIX A Early Years and Childcare

• Brief Description

The Early Year Development and childcare partnership (EYDCP) is responsible for ensuring there is nursery education for all 3 and 4 years olds in Hounslow through a mixture of public and private nursery provision. The service is committed to delivering an expansion of childcare provision to meet local needs and receives a grant funding for private providers and to support childcare provision up to the age of 14. Recent expansion has seen the creation of additional advisory teacher posts; Area Special Needs Co- ordinators and Childcare Development Workers. Hounslow has one of four nationally recognised Neighbourhood Nursery projects

• Partner/Community Links

Substantial links with schools, voluntary/independent/private providers, childcare organisations, parents groups and health and Social service providers for pre schools, CIP

• Management Structure and Organisation

The EY’s teams are based at Smallberry Green Primary school and include officers supporting childcare developments and advisory teachers working with the Early Years Adviser to support professional development and training in the non–maintained sector and maintained settings. The priorities and work programme are set through the Early Years and Childcare Development Plan which is approved by the Governments Sure Start Unit on an annual basis and is drawn up by the Hounslow Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership. The Partnership has broad representation form all those interested or involved in pre-school and childcare provision and has established 7 working groups relating to Communications, Special Needs, Finance, Equalities, Recruitment and Training, Education, and national strategies to support its work .The key staffing structure is:-

P and C division Head of Early Years – a new post to be advertised in the Summer Term. Early Years Development and Childcare Officer

• Funding Streams and Resources

Early Years Childcare Grant £640,370 LEA £331,500

• Key Priorities

Meet targets in EYDCP Progress Neighbourhood nurseries initiative Improve functioning of Early Years Partnership Improve support for SEN in pre-school sector Develop Early Years Centre

22 4 Primary Community Team

• Brief Description

The primary Community team is a dedicated team of teachers and officers who facilitate school improvement, community education and the development of children’s services across the primary sector through

Family education Parental involvement and training to support children’s learning Adult Education provided on primary school sites Volunteer’s programme to support learning Business and community involvement in learning Community use of the school Development and support of Childcare and after school services Training and support to staff/ voluntary projects

• Partner/Community Links

Parents, identified primary schools and their community, local community groups/voluntary organisations, Early Years, Adult Ed, Hounslow Education Business Partnership, CIP, Sure Start, UFA.

• Management Structure and Organisation (from Sept.03)

Heather Connell Head of Service

Service Manager

Project /Finance Admin Project Manager

Extended Day/Childcare Family Learning Teachers (5 posts) (4 part time posts) Community Teaching Team (6 posts)

Core Schools are: Beavers, Berkeley, Green Dragon, William Hogarth, Crane Park, Edward Pauling Outreach Schools : Up to 30 additional schools are supported through outreach programmes in any one year and arms length support offered to all primary schools across the LA Regular outreach sites – Southville, Norwood Green, Feltham Hill, Sparrow Farm

The service offices are located at HEC

23 5 • Funding streams and resources

LEA £335,000

Early years £75,000 Learning Skills Council £120,000 HEBP £35,000

Children Fund £120,000 Schools Buyback £67,000 NOF £68,000

Adult Ed. £42,000

Other £55,000

Total Budget 2003/04 approx. £915,000

• Key Priorities

Appoint to key posts and establishment of re-structured SMT Consolidate role re: school improvement, wider family issues and measurement of service effectiveness Secure funding streams Development of Breakfast Clubs and NOF after school and holiday schemes Increased qualifications of childcare staff and QA service achievements Review of Management structure of EDC Schemes(out of school childcare) Children Fund Developments – Breakfast Clubs, Family Lending Libraries, Workshops for Parents, Children’s Counselling Service, Increased Volunteers/Mentors. Development of Business Projects in Primary Schools

24 6

Youth Service

• Brief Description

The Youth Service works with Young People aged 11-25, with a core target group aged 13-19. It provides a wide range of informal educational opportunities, and is increasingly targeting services to facilitate young people’s involvement in ‘citizenship’ and to engage young people at risk of crime or of dropping out of education, training or employment. There are 4 youth centres, a team of personal advisers working as part of the Connexions Service and a wide range of projects and outreach work carried out in partnership with the voluntary sector and other agencies.

• Partner/Community Links

Voluntary Sector, Connexions, business community, Youth Offending Service, Social Services, CIP

• Management Structure and Organisation

Liz Hassock Principal Youth Officer

Senior Youth Officer H&S / DOE Senior Youth Officer Office Manager Youth Council SENDA worker Connexions PA’s Detached/Outreach/Centres HIP Training/Staff Development BMER & Voluntary Sector Curriculum Youth Counselling Service

• Funding Streams and Resources

LEA £824,000

External Funding £207,000 Transforming Youth Work £36,000 Connexions £240,000

• Key Priorities

Embed the work of Personal Advisers on Connexions Ensure equality and diversity Secure funding Curriculum development towards accredited courses Develop young people’s participation Embed high quality practice.

25 7 The Mission Statement of the Hounslow Youth Service

The Hounslow Youth Service aims to offer significant personal development opportunities to Young People aged 13 – 19.

• The core aim of the Youth Service within an equal opportunities framework is to enable young people to achieve to the maximum of their potential. • The voluntary participation in the Youth Service’s curriculum enables young people to acquire new skills and interests and to increase their self-confidence and ability to make informed and positive life choices. • The Youth Service Curriculum offer includes informal educational opportunities and recreational activities and, increasingly, in the context of the Government’s Connexions agenda, is geared towards facilitating young peoples’ access to, and involvement in, more formalised education and vocational provisions. • A Programme of opportunities to celebrate diversity. • Citizenship Education and opportunities related to Hounslow Youth Council. • Detached and Outreach work offering support, advice and guidance., • Support to young people in partnership with London West Connexions. • Targeted youth work opportunities delivered in centres and project programmes. • Accredited achievement opportunities including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the Youth Achievement Award. • Confidential, therapeutic intervention through counselling.

26 8 Connexions

• Brief Description

Connexions is an advice and information service available to all 13 – 19 year olds. Personal Advisers are employed by a range of partner agencies (CFBT, Youth Service, EWS, Leaving Care Team, Voluntary Sector) to offer different levels of advice and support for young people. All young people receive basic advice through CFBT and those with higher levels of need are referred for additional input from personal advisers with different kinds of expertise. The service operates through schools and at Post 16 through the college and community to work with those who have dropped out of education, training and employment.

• Partner/Community Links

The service has a wide range of partners – schools, colleges, Youth Service, Young Offenders Institute and YOT, Social Services, Lifelong Learning Teams, LSC, Voluntary Sector.

• Management Structure and Organisation

Connexions London West Ltd contracts with LA’s, careers companies and the voluntary sector to deliver the service across 6 London Boroughs. In Hounslow the service is overseen by a Local Management Committee whose work is supported by a Development Manager who works jointly to the Company and the Local Authority. Personal advisers are employed by contracting organisations.

• Funding Streams and Resources

£98,000 is available through the LMC to support local initiatives; £231,000 is available for Summer projects; 4 PA posts are funded by Connexions, a further 2 in the Youth Service for positive activities for young people and one planned for YOT. There are 12 FTE LA post badged as Connexions PA’s.

• Key Priorities

Embed Service Prepare for Best Value/Inspection Support Young Offenders Establish a Young Persons Centre - In Central Hounslow NEETS – to reduce the numbers of 16 – 19 year olds not in education, training or employment.

27 9 Community Initiatives Partnerships (CIP Group)

• Brief Description

CIP is a not for profit organisation which is contracted to provide a range of leisure and cultural services for the London Borough of Hounslow. These include: sports and leisure facilities, libraries, culture, the arts, museums and historic buildings, parks and ground maintenance, open spaces, play services, Sure Start and community regeneration

• Partner/Community Links

CIP is operated through a Board of Trustees and works in close partnership with the Council, commissioned through the Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services Department. It has important links in the local community with the voluntary sector and businesses

• Management Structure and Organisation

CIP is organised in a confederation model comprising a commercial company, a not for profit company (Hounslow Cultural and Community Services) and a charitable organisation (Hounslow Sport and recreational services).

There are 5 Directorates

Chief Executive

Neil Spence Linda Simpson Pal Luthra Keith Newton Julian Knott Director of Director of Culture Director of Director of Sport Director of Corporate Services & Heritage Development & & Leisure Commercial Regeneration Services

• Funding Streams and Resources

The Council allocates a budget of approximately £11 million to CIP. Additional funding amounted to £161,000 from Trusts, £140,000 from Section 106 and £1.5 million from Income and Commercial Operations

Council £11,000,000

Income/Comm ercial Ops £1,500,000 Trusts £161,000

Section 106 £140,000

• Key Priorities (service delivery for LBH)

CIP review Sports strategy Libraries plan Parks and open spaces strategy Sure Start

28 10 Joint Developments with Social Services (Children’s Services)

• Brief Description

1 Joint Development Manager post works across Social Services and Lifelong Learning to take forward joint work at a strategic level. In the past there has been a heavy emphasis on “Looked After Children”; presently work on SEN assessments is taking place and there are opportunities in relation to the vulnerable children’s strategy.

• Partner/Community Links

Schools, Connexions, Business Sector, Government Agencies

• Management Structure and Organisation

One post holder working to Service Manager in Social Services and Assistant Director in Lifelong Learning

• Funding Streams and Resources

None that are applicable, ability to bid for external funding

• Key Priorities

Support Strategic Work with vulnerable children Re-configure post in-line with new structures

29 11 Adult and Community Education

• Brief Description

The Adult and Community Education Service delivers a wide range of courses and opportunities for the Post 16 population in Hounslow, including the unemployed, parents with young children and older people. In addition the service provides sports activities through its four community sports halls and offers subsidised lettings to schools to encourage community use .The service is delivered through 8 secondary schools, one day centre based on the site of William Hogarth Primary school and through outreach bases in the local community

• Partner/Community Links

Learning and Skills Council, neighbouring Adult Education services, West Thames College, Hounslow Homes, schools, community groups/projects

• Management Structure and Organisation

There is a central team based in the Civic Centre. The Head of Adult Education and Training supports the Principal Officer. Each of the 8 secondary schools has a Centre Manager who is responsible to the Headteacher and the Head of Adult Education. This person also carries responsibility for a curriculum area and for sports hall management if that is on site, plus projects – see attached.

• Funding Streams and Resources

LSC £1.8m (vocational) 0.4 LSC £1.1m (non- 0.5 vocational) 0.006 1.8 LBH £0.006

Fees £0.5m

1.1 External Funding £0.4m

• Key Priorities

Embed quality improvement; prepare for inspection Embed data culture and management information systems Improve curriculum planning Widened participation Develop partnership work

30 12

PRINCIPAL OFFICER COMMUNITY EDUCATION POST VACANT

HEAD OF ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION

31 CENTRAL SUPPORT TEAM

BRENTFORD CHISWICK CRANFORD FELTHAM HESTON HOUNSLOW MANOR LONGFORD MUSIC CENTRE AE & T MANAGER CE MANAGER/ICT CE MANAGER CE MANAGER AE & T MANAGER CE MANAGER AE & T MANAGER AE & T MANAGER

13 Agenda Item 4

CHISWICK AREA COMMITTEE 10th December 03

PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

Summary

This report details the scope and programme for the 2003-2004 Property and Land Management Best Value Review (BVR), one of two major corporate BVRs for the Council this year and invites comments from the Area Committee on any issues relating to Property and Land Management within that scope.

32

1. Background

1.1 The scope of the review was developed in discussion with the Executive, Overview and Scrutiny, CMT and the corporate Asset Review Group. The Audit Commission inspected the draft scope as per the new staged Best Value inspection process, and their views have been reflected in the final scope.

1.2 The importance of property and land in the financial management and improvement of delivery of services to the public is recognised in the Executive Priority Resources for Future Improvement. Completion of this review is a business critical measure for that Priority in the Executive Business Plan.

1.3 Hounslow’s Corporate Response to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) identified Property and Land Management as one of two major areas for Best Value review this year, the other being Customer Services. There are crucial links between the objectives of these reviews in terms of customer access to services.

1.4 To ensure the review is achievable within the agreed 12 month period the review will focus on an assessment of operational property. The review examines the corporate strategic approach to property management including the current staffing and structures for delivering the service.

1.5 There is also the Hounslow Homes Capital Programme Review as part of the ongoing assessment the Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation, which aims to become a three star “excellent” service. (This review will ensure that the full amount of funding is released and spent to bring all Council homes up to decent homes targets by 2006).

1.6 Last year the Council underwent a major management restructure including the appointment of a new corporate Head of Project Co-ordination and Strategic Property. This has raised the profile and strategic importance of property and major development projects and provides representation on the Corporate Management Team.

1.7 The Council received the highest rating possible for the Capital Strategy and Asset Management Plan in 2001 and 2002.

2. Aims of the Review:

2.1 To consider how Council owned property and land can best be strategically used and managed at a corporate level to contribute to the delivery of the Executive’s Priorities.

2.2 To develop a corporate, strategic approach to property management of all Council owned property.

2.3 The Council has two main types of property – operational property (that used directly for delivery of Council services) and non-operational property (typically that rented to the commercial and voluntary sector). The operational property portfolio accounts for

33 the majority of the total value of properties on the Council’s asset register and are more closely linked to the aims of the Executive Priorities. There may also be greater opportunities for rationalisation of the operational portfolio with consequential revenue savings as well as the generation of capital receipts. Therefore operational property is in the first year the main focus of the Best Value review.

The priorities of year one and the review are:_

Year 1 (July 03 – July 04)

• Full baseline data review of operational property • Initial performance comparison • Assessment of Council’s current property management strategy and draft of a new one (to include fit for purpose criteria for the operational portfolio) • Review current approach to facilities management for operational property • Consultation with Members, service providers and the public • Review arrangements, structures and costs for providing property and land management services across the Council • Develop recommendations in line with aims and outcomes of other reviews, including Customer Services and Housing Capital Programme Review

Year 2 programme is as follows (July 04 onwards):

• Implement actions from year 1 Best Value review • Implement a new corporate property strategy, trial the use of “fitness for purpose” criteria • Potential revenue savings to be made from operational property • Assessment of the non-operational portfolio and procedures for sale or retention • Review of identification process for potential income regeneration or receipts from the sale of non-operational property or land • Joint actions for the use of property in service provision linked to other reviews, including Customer Services • Further consultation including tenants of non-operational property and the voluntary sector

3. What is included

3.1 Year 1 is examining current costs and usages for all property in the operational portfolio. It is proposed to develop a corporate strategic approach to managing and rationalising property to contribute to the Executive Priority for Resources for Future Improvement.

3.2 The exception to this will be Housing Revenue Account (HRA) residential property which is excluded as the Housing Capital Programme BVR is also underway. (However, there are outcomes from that review which will impact on the work and recommendations of this Review).

34 3.3 Education property and land is subject to its own detailed asset management planning processes and audited separately from the Council’s other property. The review will focus on how the two AMP processes can be integrated to ensure that Education property and land inform the development of a strategic corporate approach to property (rather than a full review of all school assets).

3.4 There is a separate review underway of the provision of services by the Community Initiative Partnerships (CIP), anticipated to be completed in January 2004. The Property Best Value review will consider any property implications arising out of the Service Review and these will be included in the final report.

4. Staged Inspection and the 4 C’s

4.1 The Property and Land Management Best Value review is one of the first new “staged” Best Value Reviews for Hounslow. The Audit Commission inspectors are involved at three key points in the review process – the initial scoping stage, the interim conclusions and recommendations, and the final report and action planning. The Audit commission will publish their final inspection report and Best Value “rating” at the final inspection stage in July 2004.

4.2 The new staged Best Value reviews are subject to the same 4C principles as previous Best Value reviews. The following table sets out the 4C activity in relation to the Year 1 operational aims of this review.

Challenge • Existing structures for service provision • Accuracy and appropriateness of baseline data • Current corporate strategy for Property Management • Current arrangements and process for delivering corporate property services • Specific external challenge to Facilities Management provision Compare • Cost and baseline data comparison with other Local Authorities • Structure comparison with other authorities • Services offered by the private sector Consult • Determine internal benefits of changes to structures and corporate property strategy • Political aspirations for role of property in delivering Executive Priorities • Customer satisfaction with access to services Compete • Investigation of property market and private companies in delivering similar property service • Assess options for delivering alternative for property and land management services both internally or by external providers

35 5. Baseline Assessment

5.1 An assessment is being undertaken of: -

• The overall quality of information and Performance Indicators in the Council’s Asset Management Plan • The asset register – does it contain the right levels of information, is the data reliable and up to date? • Valuation of the portfolio and regular refreshment of property values • Running costs calculated for comparison with other authorities, and also occupancy rates, condition of properties and management costs

5.2 Criteria are being developed for determining “fitness for purpose” of operational buildings – the case for sale or retention based on factors such as suitability and accessibility for existing use, alternative use, disposal to reduce costs or generate receipts, plus opportunities for investment to save.

6. Consultation Arrangements

6.1 An important part of the review is consultation to ensure that user experience and Member aspirations inform the development of the corporate property strategy and review of current service arrangements, hence the reason for this report to the various Area Committees.

6.2 Consultation for the 1st year review includes: -

• Members – political aspirations for the use of property and its contribution to delivery of the Executive Priorities • Members of the public (on operational property) – there may be opportunities to carry this out through the new residents panel after October, in conjunction with the Customer Services BVR • Internal service users of corporate property services including partner organisations and stakeholders

6.3 As part of the consultation with Members, Area Committee Members are asked what the principal issues relating to operational property within your area are, including in particular those areas where the Committee believes problems exist or where improvements could be made.

Contact: Lee Dawson – H.O. Project Co-ordination & Strategic Property Telephone: 020 8583 2138 Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by:

Property and Land Management Best Value Review Scoping Report 5/8/03

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas:

All

36 Agenda Item 6

CHISWICK AREA COMMITTEE (MONITORING) 10 DECEMBER 2003

CHISWICK BUS SERVICES – PROBABLE CHANGES AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

Report by: Assistant Chief Executive, Corporate Policy and Regeneration

SUMMARY

This report details current London Buses proposals and sets out some options for possible improvements to bus services in Chiswick.

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

1.1 Supports London Buses’ proposal to run route 91 via Chiswick High Road only, on the condition that a suitable alternative bus service is provided for Wellesley Road;

1.2 Notes the possible future service alterations set out in the report and requests Officers to progress these improvements in discussion with London Buses.

37

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 This report details a proposed change to route H91 from Saturday 6 March 2004 and presents a number of suggested improvements to other routes operating in Chiswick.

2.2 A total of 10 bus routes currently pass through Chiswick, with one new route proposed plus an extension of another route into Chiswick. The routes are summarised in tabular form below and each route is shown separately in a pdf attached. Each route is then discussed in turn in sections 3-14.

2.3 Chiswick Bus Route Summary

Route Termini Operator Vehicle Type Frequency* Contract Peak/IP**/ Renewal Evening/ Date (Sat/Sun)*** E3 Greenford First Double deck 6/6/10-12 May 2007 Chiswick (6/12) E11 Greenford First Single deck 20/20/20-30 May 2007 Ealing Common (20/30) H91 Hounslow West United Single deck 12/12/15-20 March 2004 Hammersmith (12/20) 27 Chiswick First Double deck 10/10/15 Nov 2005 Chalk Farm (10/12) 94 Acton Green United Routemaster 5/12/10 tbc Piccadilly (12/15) 190 Richmond Armchair Single deck 20/20/20 Dec 2006 West Brompton (20/20) 237 Hounslow Heath Armchair Double deck 8/8/10-12 tbc Shepherd’s Bush (8/12) 267 Fulwell United Double deck 11/12/15-20 Nov 2005 Hammersmith (12/12) 272 Chiswick United Single deck 15/15/20-30 May 2007 Shepherd’s Bush (15/15) 391 Richmond United Single deck 12/12/15 Dec 2006 Fulham Broadway (12/15) 392 Brentford - - - - Acton 440 Stonebridge Park United Single deck 15/15/15-30 May 2007 Stamford Brook (15/20)

* Frequencies are expressed in minutes, averaged for the time period concerned. The very late evening frequencies may be lower than the evening figure(s). ** IP: Interpeak (i.e. weekday day time, between peak periods). *** Saturday/Sunday daytime frequencies. Early morning frequencies and evening frequencies are generally lower.

38

2.4 The specification and operation of bus services within the Borough is ultimately the responsibility of London Buses (a division of Transport for London), who award the service contracts by competitive tender. Almost all routes operating in Chiswick feature modern, low floor, fully accessible buses. The main exceptions are the H91 and 94 routes, both of which will utilise newer buses from next year.

3. ROUTE E3: GREENFORD – CHISWICK

Current Situation

3.1 The E3 service runs from Greenford to Edensor Road, Chiswick, via West Ealing, Acton, Bedford Park, Turnham Green Terrace, Chiswick High Road and Sutton Court Road. (Only broad areas and main roads will be mentioned in this report unless there are significant issues at particular locations.)

3.2 This service was enhanced in May 2002 by replacing the previous single deck vehicles with new low-floor, fully-accessible double-deckers and by doubling the frequency to six minutes (Monday-Saturday daytimes) on the Chiswick- Acton sector to address previous overcrowding and to match service levels on the Greenford-Acton sector. Previously, some buses from Greenford had terminated at Acton.

3.3 This route was discussed in detail in a report to the Chiswick Area Committee on 4 November 2002, following public concern regarding the effects on Chiswick of the increased frequency and the switch to the new larger buses. Issues included noise and vibration created by the larger vehicles, the increased numbers of vehicles “bunching” along the route and standing at the Edensor Road terminus, and local traffic congestion. Members were also keen to explore the possibility of extending the route to the end of Pumping Station Road and/or providing a service to Staveley Gardens.

3.4 While passenger numbers have increased in response to the improved service levels, the majority of buses running this route through Chiswick are still relatively lightly loaded at most times of the day. The sheer bulk of these larger vehicles contributes to a view by some residents that the service is significantly over-specified. Recently, the Committee agreed to proposals to increase loading/waiting restrictions on Turnham Green Terrace in an attempt to address traffic congestion partly caused by the buses.

3.5 Despite a formal request from the Council, London Buses have ruled out reversion to single-deckers due to contractual arrangements and the fact that smaller buses would provide inadequate capacity in the Greenford-Acton sector without further increases in service frequency. The Council has no power to force a change of bus type.

3.6 The Council also proposed splitting the route at Acton, which would have allowed single deckers to be used on the Acton-Chiswick sector. Reducing

39 the route length in this way would have reduced bunching, which tends to be proportional to route length. London Buses declined this proposal due to the numbers of passengers who would have to transfer at Acton, and due to problems with terminus space at that location. The bus operator, in cooperation with London Buses has, however, made minor adjustments to the timetable and introduced additional supervisory resources in an attempt to reduce bunching.

3.7 As there is little likelihood of major changes to the E3 service in the foreseeable future, opportunities to extend or bifurcate the route have been ruled out, but the problems of excessive numbers of buses at the Edensor Road terminus, while somewhat reduced, have clearly not been eliminated.

3.8 Besides pinch-points at various locations along the E3 route, there is currently a significant problem at Sutton Lane North. As a consequence of the reversal of traffic flows on Chiswick Road (under the Chiswick Road/Acton Lane Green Areas scheme), the traffic signals at the Chiswick High Road/Acton Lane/Sutton Lane North junction were adjusted to provide more green time for Chiswick High Road. While efforts are being made to fine-tune the signals, there are currently unacceptable queues on Sutton Lane North. While private motor traffic on this road has reduced somewhat (as drivers have sought other routes) Sutton Lane North accommodates four bus routes (E3, H91, 27, 272), with a total of 25 or more buses each hour using this road. All of these buses (on average one on every cycle of the traffic lights) have to make a right turn into Chiswick High Road against oncoming traffic from Acton Lane. The larger buses in particular tend to completely block egress from Sutton Lane North while waiting to turn, and it is imperative that at least some of these buses are rerouted away from this critical junction.

Proposal

3.9 It is proposed that northbound route E3 buses turn right from Sutton Court Road into Heathfield Terrace and run past the Chiswick Post Office to rejoin the existing route on Chiswick High Road. (Refer to map.) This new route would eliminate a “dog’s leg” that yields very few passengers but causes significant delay and local congestion. The route would be reduced by about 400 metres and two stops would be missed – on Sutton Lane North and on Chiswick High Road. While the Sutton Lane North stop does not appear to be well used, the loss of the Chiswick High Road stop nearest Sainsbury’s might be unpopular with passengers with shopping, however the next stop on Chiswick High Road is less than 200 metres further east.

3.10 Recently, while Sutton Lane North was being resurfaced, the above route was employed and proved popular with the bus drivers while not generating significant numbers of complaints from passengers.

3.11 The Committee is requested to endorse this proposal. London Buses would be requested to action the change as soon as possible. There would be no change to the southbound route.

40 3.12 Consideration could also be given to reversing the direction of traffic flow on Town Hall Avenue and/or conversion of Sutton Lane North to one-way operation. These options might provide further benefits to buses and general traffic, but would require detailed traffic analysis and, if progressed, additional traffic signals. Consideration of these options should not delay rerouting of the E3 as proposed in 3.9 above.

4. ROUTE E11: GREENFORD - EALING COMMON

Current Situation

4.1 Route E11 is a relatively new service, having operated since May 2002, replacing the E10 service between Greenford and Ealing Common via West Ealing and Ealing Broadway. (Route E10 was diverted to run via another route between Northolt and Ealing Broadway). The service uses single-decker buses at a 20-30 minute frequency.

4.2 Chiswick (Business) Park has been in discussion with Ealing Council and London Buses regarding a proposed extension of route E11 to serve Chiswick Park. Funded by Chiswick Park’s s106 contributions, the extended route would run via Popes Lane, Gunnersbury Lane and Bollo Lane to a new bus- only entrance to Chiswick Park that would be developed between the two level crossings. The route would then either terminate at Chiswick Park or could be extended to Chiswick town centre.

4.3 The main purpose of the extended route is to provide a bus service to Chiswick Park from Greenford, West Ealing and Ealing Broadway, and also to provide a bus link between Chiswick Park and Acton Town Station (Piccadilly and District Lines). An alternative route, via Gunnersbury Avenue and Chiswick High Road, would involve longer travel times and the loss of the Acton Town Station link.

Proposals

4.4 From Chiswick Park, this service could run to Chiswick Post Office via Oxford Road North and Wellesley Road. This would provide a replacement service on Wellesley Road if the H91 service is rerouted (refer section 5 below), with the advantage for Wellesley Road residents of a direct connection at Acton Town to the Piccadilly Line as well as a choice of shopping destinations (Chiswick town centre and Ealing Broadway).

4.5 The Committee is requested to endorse this proposal, for implementation in 2004, as soon as Chiswick Park’s Bollo Lane entrance and link road can be completed.

4.6 The committee is also requested to endorse a proposal to request London Buses to increase the service frequency to 15-20 minutes.

41 5. ROUTE H91: HOUNSLOW WEST – HAMMERSMITH

Current Situation

5.1 Route H91 runs from Hounslow West Station to Hammersmith via the Great West Road (A4), Chiswick High Road and King Street. The route is operated mainly by single-decker buses at a relatively low frequency. (Double-deckers are occasionally used on some trips due to operational circumstances.) Its main purpose is to provide a service along the Great West Road, where there is relatively low residential demand but considerable potential patronage to and from the commercial buildings along the “Golden Mile” between Gillette Corner and the Chiswick Roundabout.

5.2 The route includes a diversion via Oxford Road North, Wellesley Road and Sutton Lane North, where it provides a local service one block south of Chiswick High Road. This diversion means that the H91 misses Gunnersbury Station and the potential connection to District Line and North London Line trains, although arguably a connection can be made on Wellesley Road.

5.3 The relatively low frequency, poor peak hour service reliability (due mainly to traffic congestion on the A4 and occasionally on Wellesley Road) and lack of an obvious connection at Gunnersbury Station, have contributed to poor patronage and the proliferation of local shuttle buses provided by major Golden Mile employers and available only to their employees.

5.4 Hounslow Council has been lobbying London Buses to improve the H91. A significant increase in frequency would help to compensate for fluctuations in running times due to traffic congestion, and would have the potential to start a “virtuous circle” of patronage increase and further service improvement. Section 106 contributions are potentially available from GlaxoSmithKline and several other new developments along the Golden Mile to “pump-prime” this service improvement.

5.5 London Buses has recently advised the Council that they propose to increase evening and Sunday services from the current 20 minute intervals to 15 minutes, and to provide earlier and later journeys from Saturday 6 March. These improvements are welcomed, but Council has advised London Buses that an improvement to the current 12 minute peak and interpeak frequency is paramount. A meeting will be arranged to explore the use of section 106 contributions to effect this improvement.

5.6 As part of the plans to improve the service, London Buses has advised that it intends to remove the Wellesley Road diversion, in order to create a simpler, more direct and more marketable route via Chiswick High Road and the A4. This would provide an obvious link between the Golden Mile and Gunnersbury Station/Chiswick Business Park.

5.7 Given the current service reliability problems and the Sutton Lane North issue (refer section 3.8), the proposed more direct route appears logical. Wellesley Road could be served by another route – the E11 or perhaps route 27.

42 5.8 Last year there was some discussion within the Council about the possibility of route H91 running entirely along the A4, i.e. via the Hogarth Roundabout instead of along Chiswick High Road. This issue has not been progressed as it did not find favour within London Buses. While it would have provided faster journeys between Hammersmith and Chiswick Roundabout and a useful service for residents and workers along that route, it would have disenfranchised many existing passengers and the potential link to trains at Gunnersbury would have been lost.

Proposals

5.9 The Committee is requested to endorse London Buses’ proposal to take route H91 out of Wellesley Road, but only on the condition that a suitable alternative bus service is provided for Wellesley Road at the time the change is made to the H91.

5.10 The Committee is also requested to endorse Council’s efforts to increase peak and interpeak H91 frequencies.

6. ROUTE 27: CHISWICK - CHALK FARM

Current Situation

6.1 Route 27 is a medium-high frequency double-decker service terminating in Heathfield Terrace at the Chiswick Post Office. It combines with routes H91, 267 and 391 to provide a very high level of service on Chiswick High Road and King Street through to Hammersmith, from which point it continues through to Kensington High Street, Marylebone Road and Camden Town. This is a convenient and very cost-competitive alternative to tube services, albeit rather a slow journey.

6.2 The current terminus is not ideal. The large buses take valuable road space and passengers may not board at this location. Route 27 buses contribute to congestion in Sutton Lane North although peculiarly they do not stop at this location.

6.3 Route 27 has been earmarked for possible extension to Chiswick Park. This would provide a useful additional destination with only a small increase in route length, and would clear the Heathfield Terrace stand and reduce congestion on Sutton Lane North.

6.4 Route 27 could conceivably run to Chiswick Park via Wellesley Road, (refer map) providing a range of useful destinations for local residents. However, the presence of double-deckers at 10-15 minute frequencies might not be welcomed in that street. Wellesley Road would be more appropriately served by route E11 as discussed in section 4 above.

43 Proposal

6.5 The Committee is requested to endorse a proposal to London Buses to have route 27 extended via Chiswick High Road to a new terminus at the back of Chiswick Park. This route extension could be implemented as soon as possible, if necessary utilising a temporary layover facility at Chiswick Park. (Note that this proposal is not the same as that shown in the route 27 map, which will be amended before the Committee meeting, however the extension via Wellesley Road could remain an option if Route E11 is not extended.)

7. ROUTE 94 ACTON GREEN – PICCADILLY

Current Situation

7.1 Route 94’s involvement in Chiswick (LB Hounslow) is limited to Bath Road only, en route to Shepherd’s Bush from its terminus in Acton Green (LB Ealing). It provides a useful (but slow) service through to Piccadilly Circus via Bayswater Road, Oxford Street and Regent Street, together with a link to Shepherd’s Bush from the District Line tubes at Turnham Green.

7.2 The service was enhanced with additional frequencies from 1 February 2003, marking an end to the unpopular former practice wherein some services from Piccadilly short-ran to Shepherd’s Bush.

7.3 The service is currently operated by Routemaster double-deckers, bringing a touch of central London to Chiswick and Acton. However, in January 2004 these will be replaced by modern, low-floor double-deckers. This will require minor alterations to the Acton Green terminus, which is LB Ealing’s concern.

Proposal

7.4 The Committee is requested to note the conversion of route 94 to modern fully-accessible double-decker operation.

8. ROUTE 190: RICHMOND - WEST BROMPTON

Current Situation

8.1 Route 190 is a useful low frequency single-decker service from Richmond via the A316 Great Chertsey Road, Hogarth Roundabout, Chiswick Lane and the eastern end of Chiswick High Road through to West Brompton via Hammersmith.

8.2 Due to the low (20 minute) frequency, this route is not particularly useful as a link between the Fullers Brewery/Hogarth Business Park area and the High Street, and the nearest useful tube connection is at Hammersmith, or Stamford Brook/ Ravenscourt Park with a short walk.

44 Proposal

8.3 The service does not come up for re-tendering until December 2006, however this should not prevent the Committee requesting London Buses to increase the frequency to 15 minutes at all times, effective early 2004, in line with the Mayor of London’s commitment to make buses a more attractive transport mode.

9. ROUTE 237: HOUNSLOW HEATH - -SHEPHERD’S BUSH

Current Situation

9.1 Route 237 is a high frequency service along Chiswick High Road using modern, fully accessible double-decker buses. This provides transport between Chiswick and Shepherd’s Bush in the east and Brentford and central Hounslow in the west.

9.2 Route 237 is benefiting from a whole-of route strategy under Transport for London’s London Bus Initiative (LBI). A comprehensive range of bus priority measures is being progressed along Chiswick High Road, London Road, and Staines Road (Hounslow), aimed at improving travel speeds and bus reliability. These measures will also benefit all other services running along the same parts of the route.

9.3 Route 237 was increased in frequency from June 2002 and there are no additional proposals.

10. ROUTE 267: FULWELL – HAMMERSMITH

Current Situation

10.1 Route 267 is a medium frequency double-decker service, providing access to Hammersmith, Brentford, Isleworth (West Middlesex University Hospital), Twickenham and Fulwell. Services extend to Hampton Court on summer Sundays and public holidays (May-September).

10.2 Route 267 operates along Chiswick High Road and will benefit from new bus priority measures under the LBI’s route 237 strategy. There are no additional proposals.

11. ROUTE 272: CHISWICK - SHEPHERD’S BUSH

Current Situation

11.1 Route 272 is a medium-low frequency single-decker service that runs from Grove Park to Shepherd’s Bush via Sutton Court Road, Chiswick High Road, Fishers Lane, South Parade, Bath Road, Emlyn and Larden Roads (LBs

45 Hammersmith and Ealing), Acton Vale and Du Cane Road . Introduced in May 2002, route 272 is a substantially new service, although the Chiswick sector of the route is merely a replacement of the previous H40 route.

11.2 This new service has not been without controversy. A proposal to run services through Strand on the Green to Kew Green or Fountain Leisure Centre was postponed pending eventual improvements to the junction at Kew Bridge. A fallback proposal to terminate the route at Spring Grove did not find favour with local residents. Outside the borough, there was a campaign to remove buses from Emlyn and Larden Roads. Despite this, the service performs a range of valuable functions, providing transport from a range of residential areas to the Chiswick Medical Centre and Hammersmith / Queen’s Charlotte &Chelsea Hospitals and providing shoppers’ and commuter services on roads not previously served by buses. It even provides a “direct”, if circuitous, service from Chiswick to the BBC Television Centre at White City.

Proposals

11.3 Route 272 is well suited to a “Chiswick Circuit” concept, as shown in the attached map, providing a range of additional destinations through the southern part of Chiswick.

11.4 Despite the previous “false start”, it is proposed to extend the service to Strand on the Green, which is one of Chiswick’s most poorly served areas in terms of public transport. The probable route from Grove Park would be via Hartington Road, Grove Park Road, Thames Road and Strand on the Green. The route would then extend onto Chiswick High Road and via Chiswick Roundabout to Chiswick Town Centre. This would provide train/tube connections at Gunnersbury Station. The terminus could be at Chiswick Post Office or at or near the Chiswick Medical Centre, both useful destinations in themselves.

11.5 Extension of the route as described above would be dependent on Transport for London signalising the Strand on the Green approach to the Kew Bridge junction. This will probably happen in the 2004/5 financial year. Spring Grove is not a suitable terminus point and this option should not be pursued. An option to take the route to Kew Gardens would have limited benefits and would involve difficult turns at Kew Bridge.

11.6 The map shows a possible return route to Strand on the Green via part of Wellesley Road. In fact route 272 is a further candidate to provide a service along Wellesley Road if options to serve this street with route E11 or route 27 do not proceed. However, running route 272 via more of Wellesley Road (through as far as Oxford Road North) would be at the expense of a useful connection at Gunnersbury Station for Strand on the Green residents. A better option would therefore be to run the extended route 272 west on Chiswick High Road from a terminus at or near the Medical Centre.

46 11.7 Besides Strand on the Green, the other key component of the “Chiswick Circuit” would be the re-routing of the 272 from Sutton Court Road via Staveley Road, Burlington Lane, the Hogarth Roundabout and Chiswick Lane. The route would then follow Chiswick High Road and Turnham Green Terrace, leaving the restricted Fishers Lane underpass to route 440.

11.8 The above option would provide a bus service to the middle part of Staveley Road / Park Road, and would provide a direct link between Fullers Brewery/Hogarth Business Park and Turnham Green station. It would also relieve pressure on the northern half of Sutton Court Road and on Sutton Lane North, although doubtless there would be some existing passengers who would be disenfranchised.

11.9 The Committee is requested to endorse the proposal to refer the above proposals to London Buses with a request for their consideration with a view to implementation sometime in 2004, subject of course to public consultation. The Committee may also wish to add alternative proposals for consideration.

12. ROUTE 391: RICHMOND - FULHAM BROADWAY

Current Situation

12.1 Route 391 is a medium frequency single-decker service providing access to Richmond, Kew Gardens, Hammersmith and Fulham Broadway. The service frequencies were increased in December 2001 and there are no current proposals for any further changes.

13. ROUTE 392: BRENTFORD – ACTON

Current Situation

13.1 The proposed Brentford to Acton (route 392) bus service is designed primarily to link office developments at Chiswick Park and along the Great West Road with Acton Town, Gunnersbury and Brentford stations. Section 106 funding from adjacent developments is to be used to support the service.

13.2 From a terminus in Grant Way (near Gillette Corner), the service is proposed to run via the Great West Road, Boston Manor Road, Brentford High Street, Kew Bridge Road and Chiswick High Road, entering Chiswick Park at the main entrance and exiting via the bus-only gate onto Bollo Lane before running north to Acton Town station and terminating at Acton Town Hall.

13.3 The above route was approved by the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee in 2002. However, in response to a petition from residents of the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate and Gunnersbury Avenue, the Chiswick Area Committee voted to withhold the use of s 106 funds unless the route ran from Brentford via Chiswick Roundabout, Gunnersbury Avenue and Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Town station and Bollo Lane to Chiswick Park.

47 While this latter route would provide a service to the Gunnersbury Avenue area, the direct connection between the Great West Road and Chiswick Park/Gunnersbury Station would be lost .

13.4. A single suitable route could not be developed that would satisfy all the requirements established above. The middle part of Gunnersbury Avenue (in the vicinity of the International School) is undoubtedly poorly served, however it has relatively low numbers of potential bus passengers (albeit reportedly a higher than average proportion of elderly people), and there would be difficulties establishing safe bus stops and crossing points given the high off-peak traffic speeds on this route. The section of Gunnersbury Avenue closer to Gunnersbury Lane and most of the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate are in reasonable walking distance of the high frequency E3 route which operates on Gunnersbury Lane and provides a service to Chiswick town centre via Acton. Further, a bus service on Gunnersbury Avenue would only be useful if it provided transport to a desired destination, which appears unlikely with the proposed route 392. While it would connect with the underground at Acton Town, it would not take passengers to Chiswick town centre.

13.5 London Buses has indicated that it takes 12 to 18 months from confirmation of funding to implement a service on a new route. It is therefore essential to make progress with route 392, as some of the s106 contributions may be time- limited. Conversely, however, it may be more advantageous to scrap the route 392 proposals and direct the s106 resources into alternatives including a higher frequency on other routes.

13.6 Looking at the main markets for route 392 (as originally proposed) it becomes clear that many of the trips could be accommodated by other means. For example, the link between Gunnersbury Station and the Great West Road could be achieved by a higher frequency route H91 service, running via Chiswick High Road as opposed to Wellesley Road. Trips between Brentford Station and the Golden Mile west of Boston Manor Road could be similarly accommodated with only a short walk between the station and the Great West Road. A higher frequency of service between Chiswick Park and Acton Town station (to supplement the low frequency route E11 extension) could be achieved by other means. There would of course, be some potential journeys on route 392 that could not conveniently be made on other services, such as from the bottom of Ealing Road to Gillette corner.

13.7 One option, therefore, to solve the Chiswick dilemma, would be to introduce a short, medium-high frequency route starting at Chiswick town centre and running via Chiswick High Road, Chiswick Park, Bollo Lane, Acton Town Station, Gunnersbury Lane, Gunnersbury Avenue to, say, Chiswick Roundabout and return (without a terminus at the roundabout). This short route would be able to be operated with minimal resources and should be able to be reliable in the face of variable traffic levels on Gunnersbury Avenue. It would provide connections at Chiswick Roundabout (routes H91, 237, 267, 272 (if extended) and 391). Passengers wishing to travel between Gunnersbury Avenue and Chiswick town centre would be able to board and alight on the side of Gunnersbury Avenue that is closest to their home or

48 workplace and would not need to cross this busy arterial. This route would provide a reliable service between Gunnersbury Station/Chiswick Park and Acton Town station, supplementing the extended route E11. Other markets would be catered for on other services as noted in 13.6

Proposals

13.8 The Committee should note that further consideration needs to be undertaken for route 392 and related alternatives.

14. ROUTE 440: STONEBRIDGE PARK - STAMFORD BROOK

Current Situation

14.1 Route 440 is a medium-low frequency single decker route, linking Chiswick with Acton via South Acton (Bollo Lane and Bollo Bridge Road). From Acton, the route extends north to Park Royal and was extended in March 2003 to Stonebridge Park. The Chiswick terminus is at the London United bus garage at Stamford Brook.

Proposals

14.2 While the service is not due for retendering until May 2007, a route extension could perhaps be negotiated with London Buses, to serve Staveley Gardens. This is a poorly served area and a possible route is shown on the map - via Sutton Court Road (north end), the A4, Hogarth Roundabout and Great Chertsey Road. This route would provide additional service to the Park Road/ Hogarth roundabout area. A turning area would need to be created at the end of Staveley Gardens, possibly by extending the route through to the edge of the Riverside Leisure Centre car park.

14.3 The Committee is requested to endorse this proposal for discussion with London Buses.

15.0 BUS ROUTE COVERAGE IN CHISWICK

15.1 The final two maps appended to this report show the areas within 300 metres, “as the crow flies” of a bus route, with the current and proposed routes in operation. The 300 metre direct line is a rough proxy for a 400 metre walk to the nearest bus stops and is presented purely for illustrative purposes.

15.2 The Current Routes map shows three poorly served areas in Chiswick:

• The middle part of Gunnersbury Avenue centred on the International School; • Strand on the Green from Meade Close to Riverview Road and north to a point at Cedars Road;

49 • The east end of Ellesmere Road including the north end of Park Road and the south ends of Dukes Avenue and Duke Road.

15.3 The Proposed Routes map reduces the Strand on the Green area to a small triangle southwest of Cedars Road and removes the Ellesmere Road area. The Gunnersbury Avenue area would not be reduced unless a service was provided along that route.

16. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

16.1 Buses are particularly used by lower income groups, women, elderly people and young people who have no access to a car. A very high proportion of buses in London are now fully accessible. This benefits not only people with disabilities but also elderly passengers, shoppers carrying heavy bags, and parents with small children.

17. ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

17.1 Improving bus services provides a more attractive alternative to the private car. This should encourage a reduction in private car traffic, which will provide environmental and health benefits by reducing pollution, congestion and accidents.

Contact: Chris Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport Telephone: 020 8583 5215 Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be Report to Chiswick Area Committee- considered by: Monitoring, 25 September 2002: Chiswick Chiswick Area Committee Bus Services Update

Report to Chiswick Area Committee- Monitoring, 4 November 2002: Update on Bus Services in Chiswick This report is relevant to all wards

50 Æ Æ

È Æ È É 51

*** ChiswickChiswickChiswick (Edensor(Edensor(Edensor Road)Road)Road)

Route E3 Greenford - Chiswick Current Route Proposed Route Addition Proposed Route Deletion Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. *** EalingEalingEaling (Warwick(Warwick(Warwick Dene)Dene)Dene)

È *** ChiswickChiswickChiswick É (Post(Post(Post Office)Office)Office) 52

Route E11 Greenford - Ealing Common

Current Route Proposed Route Addition Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. É

É È *** HammersmithHammersmithHammersmith É (Hammersmith(Hammersmith(Hammersmith Grove)Grove)Grove) 53

Route H91 Hounslow West - Hammersmith

Current Route Proposed Route Addition Proposed Route Deletion Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. *** ChiswickChiswickChiswick (Business(Business(Business Park)Park)Park) Ä

È Ã É *** ChiswickChiswickChiswick (Post(Post(Post Office)Office)Office) 54

Route 27 Chiswick - Chalk Farm Current Route Proposed Route Addition Proposed Route Deletion Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. Æ

È É

*** ActonActonActon (Acton(Acton(Acton Green)Green)Green) 55

Route 94 Acton Green - Piccadilly

Current Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. É

É 56

Route 190 Richmond - West Brompton

Current Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003.

*** Shepherd'sShepherd'sShepherd's BushBushBush

É É

É 57

Route 237 Hounslow Heath - Shepherd's Bush

Current Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. Ä

à *** HammersmithHammersmithHammersmith 58

Route 267 Fulwell - Hammersmith

Current Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. *** Shepherd'sShepherd'sShepherd's

Å BushBush

Å Ã

Ä Ä É È É Å *** ChiswickChiswickChiswick (Post(Post(Post Office)Office)Office) 59

Ç Ê

*** ChiswickChiswickChiswick Route 272 (Grove(Grove(Grove Park)Park)Park) Chiswick - Shepherd's Bush

Current Route Proposed Route Addition Proposed Route Deletion Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. Ä

à 60

Route 391 Richmond - Fulham Broadway

Current Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. *** ActonActonActon Æ (Town(Town(Town Hall)Hall)Hall) È 61

Route 392 Brentford - Acton

Proposed Route Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. Æ È

*** StamfordStamfordStamford BrookBrookBrook Ä (Bus(Bus(Bus Garage)Garage)Garage) Ã 62

*** ChiswickChiswickChiswick Route 440 (Staveley(Staveley(Staveley Road)Road)Road) Stonebridge Park - Stamford Brook

Current Route Proposed Route Addition Proposed Route Deletion Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. 63

Current Routes 300 Metre Buffer

300 Metre Buffer Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003. 64

Proposed Routes 300 Metre Buffer

300 Metre Buffer Hounslow Council Boundary

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved London Borough of Hounslow LA086444 2003.