Proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 in and

Summary of responses to consultation

March 2010

Proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 in Gunnersbury and Chiswick

Summary of responses to consultation

Contents

Page

Introduction 3

Executive summary of results 4

Background 5-7

About the bus service proposals 5

About the consultation 6

Analysis 8-21

Public responses 8-18

Method of response 9

Respondents’ current and projected ridership 9

Route 27 proposal and responses 10

Route E10 proposal and responses 12

Route H91 proposal and responses 15

Route 440 proposal and responses 17

Stakeholder responses 19

Appendices 22-29

Appendix 1: Street distribution list 22

Appendix 2: Consultation leaflet 24

Appendix 3: Letter to Gunnersbury Drive households 28

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 2

Introduction

In summer 2008, Transport for (TfL) consulted stakeholders1 and the public on proposals to change route H91 and extend routes 27, 440 and E10. This report explains the background to the proposals, how the consultation was conducted and summarises the responses.

On-going liaison and engagement with affected councils and other key organisations informed the development of the proposals. This included borough liaison meetings, site visits, evaluation of public requests and consideration of planning decisions made by local councils.

Based on this information, TfL prepared proposals and opened them to stakeholder and wider public consultation over an eight week period from 20 June until 15 August 2008. The consultation was conducted and advertised using a local leaflet distribution, website updates, emails, a local meeting and a press release.

The consultation asked people: Do you currently use any of these routes? Would the changes make you more or less likely to use the routes? Do you support the proposed changes to these routes? Why? Do you have any other comments or suggestions in relation to the proposed bus service changes?

Eight stakeholder and 555 public responses were received, reflecting a public response rate of 7.7 per cent (555 responses from 7189 leaflets). Those responses, the eight stakeholder responses and additional comments from the London Borough of are summarised in this report.

TfL considered the consultation results alongside other operational, cost and transport planning factors to inform decision making about whether to go ahead with the services as proposed, or to alter or abandon the proposals. We are reporting our final decision to respondents who provided contact details.

1 Organisations such as councils, transport user groups, community, business and health representatives.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 3

Executive summary of results

Public consultation results 59 per cent of respondents said that overall, the proposed changes would make them more likely to use the routes. Only 8 per cent said they would be less likely to use the routes (24% answered ‘about the same’ and 8% left blank).

Route 27 Respondents were broadly in favour with 70 per cent supporting the proposal. Positive comments focused on new links and increased service to west Chiswick. Negative comments focused on the loss of the direct link to Heathfield Terrace and concerns about increased traffic on Chiswick High Road.

Some respondents asked if the extended route could continue along Chiswick High Road, Chiswick Roundabout and Gunnersbury Avenue to enter Chiswick Office Park from Bollo Lane. There is currently no service on Gunnersbury Avenue.

Route E10 Respondents were broadly in favour with 74 per cent supporting the proposal. The primary reason for support was the new and convenient links from Chiswick to . Support was not unconditional, with respondents noting several operational challenges to introducing and running a reliable service.

Respondents focused on the need to serve the roads proposed and the perceived unsuitability of the roads. Respondents also asked that the extension go further, to reach into Chiswick High Road.

Route H91 58 per cent of respondents were in favour of the proposals. Few supporters gave detailed reasons but mentioned preferring to see a faster service along the High Road and to see the bus removed from the ‘unsuitable’ roads it currently uses.

Those against objected strongly to the loss of direct links from Wellesley Road to Hounslow and/or Hammersmith, particularly for older people.

Route 440 56 per cent of respondents were in favour of the scheme. Few supporters gave detailed reasons but mentioned the usefulness of the Power Road terminus for Estate residents, the new links for Acton passengers, and the value of another service to west Chiswick. Those against the proposal focused on the relative benefits of the H91, 440 and 391 serving Wellesley Road (with 440 perceived as least useful), and the 440 route becoming too long, convoluted and potentially unreliable.

Stakeholder results Stakeholders were broadly supportive but requested that alternative routes be considered for extension, or routeings and termini be altered.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 4

Background

About the bus service proposals

The London bus network is under constant review to make sure it meets changing public requirements.

The schemes presented in this consultation were developed to achieve several aspirations, including: To provide more accessible links between communities To provide access to opportunities such as employment, especially in the new Chiswick Office Park development To encourage people to use public transport instead of private cars, by making the public transport offering more convenient and attractive To allow faster bus journeys around Turnham Green To offer a bus service to residents around the northern section of Gunnersbury Avenue and Bollo Lane To offer more direct links between the Great West Road, and Turnham Green.

The changes to routes 27 and E10 are designed, in part, to serve the Chiswick Office Park development and will be initially be supported with funding obtained by the London Boroughs of Hounslow and Ealing as part of the planning process.

The specific proposal presented for each route is outlined in the analysis of public responses alongside public consultation responses (pp. 11-20).

Turnham Green Traffic and Transport Scheme

The London Borough of Hounslow developed and conducted a public consultation on their ‘Turnham Green Traffic and Transport Scheme’, around the same time as the TfL consultation. The council’s scheme related to road layout and traffic flow changes, and included references to corresponding bus route changes being considered by TfL. The two consultations are independent but had been discussed and were seen to be complementary, with the bus route proposals still being feasible if the London Borough of Hounslow’s proposed traffic management changes went ahead.

TfL and the London Borough of Hounslow have discussed the relevant common issues arising from the consultation responses. TfL has taken into account these issues in its overall considerations.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 5

About the consultation

The public and stakeholder consultation ran over an eight-week period between 20 June and 15 August 2008. It was designed to enable TfL to understand local views about the service proposals before making a decision about whether to proceed, or to reconsider alternative options.

This consultation was in addition to stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the regular programme associated with bus service tendering.

The consultation objectives were: To give stakeholders and the public enough information about the scheme to allow them to give informed responses (using varied techniques) To gauge the level of support for altered routing To understand concerns and objections To identify issues not already thought of To allow stakeholders and public to influence our final decision about routeing and stops

Consultation audience The consultation audience included local residents and businesses in a defined geographic area (see roads list in appendix 1) along with: Assembly members Council representatives Local user groups School travel advisors Local media

Consultation leaflet A consultation leaflet was created to explain the proposals and was distributed to stakeholders and 7189 addresses in and around the areas which would be served by the proposed bus routes. Leaflets were sent using first class post. A copy of this leaflet is shown as appendix 2.

People could respond using a variety of methods: prepaid leaflet reply slip, letter, telephone, textphone, email or web.

Meetings & site visits TfL staff met with the Sutton Lane North Residents Action Group to discuss their views. Staff also presented to resident businesses and estate management personnel at Chiswick Office Park. This meeting was organised because a large number of staff at the site would be affected by the changes (as much as neighbouring residents) but would not receive leaflets. We invited representatives of and Overground to co-present and deliver a holistic picture of transport developments in the area. Attendees brought questions on behalf of their businesses and reported back to their staff. Consultation materials were shared using Chiswick Office Park Estate Management’s internal communication channels.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 6

We also attended borough liaison meetings throughout the planning of the scheme, and have engaged in ongoing discussion with officers of Ealing and Hounslow councils.

Email Members of the public could reply by email: [email protected] and stakeholders could reply using [email protected].

Website A facility was set up on TfL’s website containing the consultation leaflet and questionnaire.

Advertising: The consultation was advertised through local press.

Languages & Formats A translation service to other languages was available, along with Braille, audio, large font.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 7

Analysis Public responses

We received 555 responses to our consultation from members of the public, in addition to feedback from stakeholders (considered separately, pp. 21-23). The consultation achieved a response rate of 7.7 per cent (555 responses from 7189 leaflets). We asked three main questions and also invited respondents to add further comments.

Method of response

The majority of responses (95%) came from consultation leaflet reply slips.

There were 529 returned leaflets, 15 emails, 7 responses from the website, 3 letters and 1 phone call.

Respondents’ current and projected ridership

Q1. Do you currently use any of these routes?

Number Percentage Regularly 243 44% Occasionally 212 38% Never 66 12% Blank 34 6%

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 8

Q.2 Would the changes make you more or less likely to use the routes?

†

Number of Percentage Respondents More likely to use 330 59% Less likely to use 47 8% About the same 135 24% Blank 43 8%

48 respondents (8%) said they would use one or more of the routes for the first time if the proposed changes were introduced. ²

²Based on respondents who answered ‘never’ to the question on current use and ‘more likely’ to the question on likely future use.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 9

Route 27 proposal and responses

We proposed to extend route 27 (24 hour service) from Turnham Green to continue along Chiswick High Road and terminate within Chiswick Office Park. The route would no longer serve the stop in Heathfield Terrace. No changes to the frequency were proposed. This would give a new bus service to Chiswick Park whilst also facilitating local traffic changes in Turnham Green being considered by the London Borough of Hounslow.

Q.3a Do you support the proposed changes to these routes? (route 27)

Number of Percentage respondents Yes 391 70% No 28 5% Not sure 58 10% Blank 77 14%

The proposed 27 extension was well received by the public with 70 per cent of respondents in favour of the change and five per cent against.

Comments in favour Respondents were broadly in favour of the proposal and gave reasons including: Increased service to west Chiswick, 24 hours a day New links for existing passengers to Chiswick destinations Could use the 27 to reach Chiswick Business Park and interchange with the E10 to travel on towards Ealing

Comments against In conjunction with the H91 change, a small number of respondents interpreted the proposals as disadvantaging residents of Heathfield Terrace and surrounding streets, and instead favouring tenants at Chiswick Office Park.

Some believed the extension to be unnecessary as it would exacerbate traffic on Chiswick High Road without offering any benefits beyond the existing High Road bus services.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 10

Heathfield Terrace stand The removal of the Heathfield Terrace stop and stand divided respondents, with 12 people commenting in favour and 10 people against. Seven of the 12 people in favour of the change also commented on concerns about traffic around Turnham Green. None of the 10 who wished to see the stand remain commented on traffic around the Green.

Those in favour of removing route 27 buses from Heathfield Terrace said: They don’t want to see any stands around Turnham Green Several route 27 buses currently stand at once and cause congestion They want extra parking spaces to be introduced there (as per London Borough of Hounslow’s consultation document) Buses here can block line of sight for cars exiting driveways Drivers currently leave engines running on stand

Those against removing the stand said they wanted the ‘Post Office’ stop to remain (Heathfield Terrace) because it offers convenience to local homes and services such as the Post Office. Only one objection was made to the removal of the Arlington Park Mansions stop.

General comments Some respondents noted that there is no current service to Gunnersbury Park and suggested that the 27 continue along Chiswick High Road to Chiswick Roundabout, proceed north along Gunnersbury Avenue, Gunnersbury Lane, Bollo Lane and enter Chiswick Office Park from north.

A stop outside Gunnersbury station was requested for ease of interchange to westbound bus services and tube and train services.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 11

Route E10 proposal and responses

TfL proposed to extend route E10 beyond Ealing Broadway Station to Chiswick Office Park using the roads shown in the diagram below. Buses would pass Haven Green in both directions to stop near Ealing Broadway Station. The scheme would provide new bus links to the northern part of Gunnersbury Avenue, Acton Town station, Bollo Lane and Chiswick Office Park.

Q.3b Do you support the proposed changes to these routes? (route E10)

Number of Percentage respondents Yes 413 74% No 30 5% Not sure 56 10% Blank 55 10%

The response to the E10 proposals was very positive, with 74 per cent of respondents supporting the proposals and 5 per cent against.

Comments in favour 180 respondents commented specifically on the new links that would be created, between home and work, town centres, shopping, schools and other services.

Respondents also suggested that the extended E10 would create a more convenient alternative to the E3, and would ease queues at bus stops in Chiswick where Chiswick Office Park workers currently change from one bus to another to head north/east.

Comments against Change does not go far enough - should go beyond Chiswick Office Park to serve public areas and the central section of Chiswick High Road Some would prefer to see route E11 extended Bollo Lane is already adequately served by routes 440 and E3

Respondents expressed concerns about: Length – if the route becomes longer, more likely to become unreliable Parking – restrictions may be necessary on Bollo Lane, and parked cars displaced onto side roads

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 12

Bus stops – difficulty of siting stops on Gunnersbury Avenue Traffic congestion – changes could exacerbate congestion on Gunnersbury Avenue and Bollo Lane Junction problems –Gunnersbury Lane/Bollo Lane and Gunnersbury Avenue/Gunnersbury Lane Prospect of buses running along Gunnersbury Drive (see section below)

Some respondents note that existing traffic congestion on Gunnersbury Avenue causes rat running (Kingsbridge Road, Tudor Way, Carbery Avenue, Lillian Avenue and Gunnersbury Crescent) which may also worsen. A resident requested complementary traffic calming measures to overcome this. The is the highway authority for these roads.

Some respondents suggested changes to the junction of Bollo Lane and Gunnersbury Lane. These included: that traffic lights need adjustment as only 4-5 vehicles get through at a time a left turn filter from Bollo Lane into Gunnersbury Lane (at same time as right turn filter in opposite direction) that light phasings and road layout need improvement generally

Respondents suggested that there were problems with pedestrian facilities on Bollo Lane, part of which has a pedestrian path on only one side.

Some respondents suggested locations for new bus stops: Near the International School of London on Gunnersbury Avenue to serve the student population At the junction of Gunnersbury Avenue/Elm Avenue.

Right turn from Gunnersbury Lane into Gunnersbury Avenue TfL originally proposed for buses to run directly from Gunnersbury Lane into Gunnersbury Avenue. This is currently not permitted. Investigations into providing a bus-only turn concluded that this would not be possible. Therefore, buses would have to use the existing signed route for all traffic via Gunnersbury Drive. Households on Gunnersbury Drive were individually consulted on this revised proposal in November 2008. A copy of the consultation letter is shown as appendix 3.

Some residents objected to the use of Gunnersbury Drive by buses Generaland comments were supported by the local ward councillor. Three meetings 42 respondentswere held specifically with the councillor said they specifically wanted the on bus this to issue, serve and the TfLroads proposed.explained 28 respondents the technical specifically / traffic capacity said the reasonsroads were why unsuitable a bus only for right the bus. 37 respondentsturn could said not bethey incorporated were specifically at this concerned junction. about congestion on the proposed route.

Other comments included: The route is reliable, but overcrowded. Adjust frequency but retain routeing Request for a night service on Bollo Lane

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 13

The extension is unnecessary, duplicating the Underground service from Ealing Broadway to Acton Town Others argue that it is necessary to substitute for the during service disruptions and would offer enhanced accessibility for mobility impaired passengers

Suggested routeings: stay on Gunnersbury Avenue to Chiswick Roundabout and enter Chiswick Park from front, to reach network hole go via South Ealing station extend route E11 instead from existing terminus via Ascott Ave, Elderberry Rd, Popes Lane and then as proposed E10 via Ealing Common Station, , Gunnersbury Lane then Bollo Lane as proposed

© Google 2009

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 14

Route H91 proposal and responses

We propose to change route H91 so that it runs directly along Chiswick High Road between Turnham Green and Chiswick Roundabout. The route would no longer serve Town Hall Avenue, Heathfield Terrace, Wellesley Road and Oxford Road North. These roads would be served by route 440 instead.

The main objective of this proposal was to provide a more direct service for through passengers between the Great West Road and Gunnersbury Station/Chiswick/Hammersmith

Number of Percentage respondents Yes 321 58% No 76 14% Not sure 81 15% Blank 76 14%

The response to the H91 and 440 responses were positive.

Comments in favour Few respondents gave detailed reasons given for supporting this proposal.

A small number commented on each of the following: The new Chiswick High Road routeing will speed up the service The currently used roads are unsuitable (too narrow) for buses Drivers currently pause at the Oxford Road stop too frequently

This sample comment offers a specific reason for support: ‘H91 covers a variety of districts including Hammersmith; Chiswick; ; and Hounslow, which should better be viewed as a connection among these districts, and hence a more direct routing on the Chiswick High Road is recommended. 440 can then act as a substitute providing local service to the inner streets near Chiswick.’

Comments against 67 respondents objected strongly to the loss of direct links from Wellesley Road to Hounslow and/or Hammersmith, especially focusing on the needs of older people who live in the Wellesley Road (and south) area and currently use the H91 service. Examples were given of vulnerable populations on the route who use the service including residents and visitors to sheltered accommodation blocks in

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 15

Wellesley Road and Meadowcroft nearer the railway line, and Age Concern (Oxford Road North).

People find H91 useful but see less or no value in 440 as a substitute because of its different destinations and lower frequency (6 vs. 4 buses per hour). Some respondents asked that if route H91 is removed then route 440 should not replace it, being seen as a nuisance with no benefit.

Specific comments on lost direct links: A number of references to reaching Charing Cross Hospital: If H91 removed and replaced by 440 will need 3 buses to get to Charing Cross Hospital Loss of link to Piccadilly Line at Hammersmith Describe Hammersmith as a useful mixed shopping destination but Chiswick as predominantly restaurants and of little use to some residents Concern about alighting and crossing the Green at night to reach Heathfield Terrace/Wellesley Road Route H91 would then duplicate route 391 – currently its advantage is that it doesn’t run along the Chiswick High Road and is therefore faster at busy times

General comments Why change a system that already works well? Request increased capacity and frequency for growing population in Brentford area Do not believe that the rerouting would speed up the H91 – Chiswick High Road can be so congested that cars use Wellesley Road when in a hurry

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 16

Route 440 proposal and responses

We propose to extend route 440 from Turnham Green to a new terminus in Power Road. The route would use the roads shown in the diagram below.

The main benefit of tis proposal would be to retain a local service in Wellesley Road, and to bring buses closer to some residents in Gunnerbsury Avenue.

Q.3d Do you support the proposed changes to these routes? (route 440)

Number of Percentage respondents Yes 311 56% No 51 9% Not sure 105 19% Blank 87 16%

56 per cent of respondents were in favour of the scheme and 19 per cent were unsure.

Comments in favour Few people made specific comments to explain their support of this extension and rerouting. Positive comments included: The 440 would be an extra bus serving the west end of Chiswick The Power Road terminus would helps residents of Gunnersbury Park Estate reach Chiswick High Road and carry shopping People in Acton would benefit from new links

Comments against Some respondents asked that if the H91 and its links to Hounslow and Hammersmith were removed, it not be replaced. Otherwise the disbenefits of bus traffic and noise at night outweigh the transport benefits offered by the 440 – a lower frequency route with different termini. Others said that the Turnham Green end of Wellesley Road is unsuitable for buses due to parked cars.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 17

A few responses received late in the consultation period asked that route 391 be diverted via Wellesley Road instead of route 440.

Some respondents were concerned that the route would become too complex and unreliable, and said that the route was already too convoluted.

Concerns were also expressed about: Traffic congestion at Chiswick Roundabout delaying the service Substandard road surfacing in Power Road Current and future 440 reliability Congestion at bus stops on Chiswick High Road, and how the extension might exacerbate this unless carefully managed

General comments Stops were requested: On Chiswick High Road before bus turns into Oxford Road North Halfway down Heathfield Terrace, near the junction with Wellesley Road Outside the Chiswick Health Centre

A small number of respondents made requests for rerouting: extension from Wellesley Road to Richmond via Kew Road, Mortlake Road Roundabout re-routing to better serve South Acton estate, now that new layout facilitates this further extension to Brent Cross

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 18

Stakeholder responses

Aside from individual responses, we invited responses from a number of stakeholders. These included transport user groups, community and health representatives and seven London boroughs, namely: Brent, Camden, Ealing, Hammersmith and , Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. This section summarises the responses received.

London Borough of Ealing Ealing Council had said they were unable to support an earlier proposal to extend route E11 from its current terminus at Ealing Common via Ascott Ave, Elderberry Rd, Popes Lane and then as the proposed route E10 to Chiswick Park. ’ current proposal was developed in response to this.

Ealing Council expressed concerns that the proposed E10 extension would make the route too long and create reliability problems, due to congestion on the North Circular.

London Borough of Hounslow Hounslow Council were broadly supportive of these proposals, as they provide new links to Chiswick Office Park, and largely complement proposed highway changes at Turnham Green.

The council expressed reservations about the service to Wellesley Road being provided by route 440: they felt that route 391 would provide more useful links for local people. However they also recognised that route 440 is a lower frequency service than route H91 or 391, and therefore helps to achieve their objective of reducing the number of buses in Sutton Lane North. The council is also generally supportive of any measures to improve connections to and from employment sites on the Great West Road (served by route H91).

Hounslow Council has accepted that London Buses will respond to any issues raised by local residents as a result of the change.

Westminster City Council The City Council submitted a formal response supporting the proposals.

Navin Shah, Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow Mr Shah expressed no objections to the proposed changes and commended the greater reach of buses from Brent.

Ealing Cycling Campaign No objection to H91 and 440 changes proposed.

London TravelWatch London TravelWatch welcomed the plans to divert the H91 service to improve interchange at Gunnersbury station.

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 19

London TravelWatch welcomed the extension of the 440 but asked that a different route be considered to serve Wellesley Road so that a direct link is maintained with Hammersmith for passengers who currently use the H91.

London TravelWatch welcomed the extension and increased frequency on route E10, and the extension of route 27.

Park Royal Partnership The Partnership welcomed the 440 extension in principle, provided that the reliability of the route is not compromised through the additional length and traffic congestion at the Chiswick Roundabout and Sutton Lane North.

The Partnership also asked that the destination on the bus blinds be carefully worded to show that: the terminus is Chiswick (Gunnersbury Avenue) rather than simply ‘Chiswick’ or ‘Gunnersbury’ the route still operates via Turnham Green

Ealing Public Transport Users’ Group (EPTUG) The Group supported the 27 extension. They expressed concerns that there will be reduced passenger numbers on routes 27 and E10 within the Park on Sundays, and asked for confirmation that crew facilities will still be accessible on Sundays.

EPTUG supported the E10 extension and recommended that northbound buses use Gunnersbury Drive, and stop on the approach to Baronsmede. They suggest that buses use existing stops on Gunnersbury Lane (E3) and Uxbridge Road (207, 427) and that at least one stop be added in each direction on the northern part of Gunnersbury Avenue. They advise against stopping bays being created as buses may have difficulty re-entering traffic.

EPTUG is content with the H91 proposal and asked if the Turnham Green westbound stop will move from the 272/E3/H91 stop to the 237/267/391 stop.

The group supported the 440 extension as far as Oxford Road North, but instead of terminating at Power Road, they requested an extension to the Kew Retail Park, via Mortlake Road or to the Gunnersbury B&Q store to make the terminus more attractive to passengers. Detailed reasons and routeings were provided.

The group also recommended that the road be widened at the junction of Sutton Lane North and Chiswick High Road by removing some trees from the northwest corner of the Green. This would allow a dedicated right turn lane to be introduced.

They asked that bus destination blinds read: 27 Gunnersbury, Chiswick Office/Business Park E10 Chiswick Office/Business Park, Bollo Lane 440 Gunnersbury, Power Road, or Chiswick Roundabout, B&Q store, or Kew Retail Park

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 20

Sutton Lane North Residents Action Group The Sutton Lane North Residents Action Group represents the residents of Sutton Lane North, Chiswick, comprising the 15 households and the board of Arlington Park Mansions (comprising 65 flats).

We understand that this group has formed around the issue of traffic congestion on Sutton Lane North.

The group met with TfL to discuss their views and has also had ongoing liaison Hounslow Council. They also submitted a detailed written response to the consultation.

The group would welcome changes to the bus routes around Turnham Green that would help eliminate traffic delays, which they perceive to be largely caused by northbound buses on Sutton Lane North turning right into Chiswick High Road.

The group supported the proposed changes to routes 27, E10 and H91, but asked that the 27 extension be introduced urgently, using a temporary terminus opposite the War Memorial on Heathfield Terrace if necessary.

The group did not support the 440 rerouting, but would support the extension if it continued via Chiswick High Road.

The group made additional recommendations: E3: Rerouting the northbound service to turn right from Sutton Court Road into Heathfield Terrace, to avoid Sutton Lane North 272: Rerouting the northbound service to turn right from Sutton Court Road into Heathfield Terrace, then left onto High Road and immediate right into Belmont Road 391: Rerouting the 391 to serve Wellesley Road and Heathfield Terrace (instead of routes H91 or 440) and using Oxford Road North, Town Hall Avenue and Heathfield Terrace (eastern end) to move north/south

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 21

Appendix 1: Street distribution list by post code in alphabetical order

W3 W4 (cont.) Amstey Court Belgrave Court Boddington Gardens Bishops Close Bollo Bridge Road Burlington Road Carbery Avenue Cambridge Road North Central Parade Castle Row Colville Road Chaseley Court Conrad Tower Chiswick Court Copperfields Court Chiswick High Road Enfield Road Chiswick Park Greenock Road Chiswick Road Gunnersbury Court Colonial Lane Gunnersbury Crescent Devonhurst Place Gunnersbury Gardens Dewsbury Court Gunnersbury Lane Duke's Gate Hanbury Road Garden Court Kingsbridge Avenue Grange Road Lillian Avenue Grosvenor Road Manor Court Gunnersbury Mews Manor Gardens Harvard Lane Osborne Road Harvard Road Park Drive Heathfield Court Park Parade Heathfield Court Park Place Heathfield Gardens Park Place Drive Heathfield Terrace Park Way Horticultural Place Princes Avenue Ivy Crescent Princes Way Kings Place Drive Larch Drive Roslin Road Marlborough Road Rowley Industrial Park Montgomery Road Stirling Road Oxford Road North The Ridge Way Power Road Triangle Way Prospect Place Tudor Court Rothschild Road Tudor Way Silver Crescent Victoria Court Sutton Court Road Sutton Lane North W4 Temple Road Antrobus Road The Grange Close Arlington Gardens Thorney Hedge Road Barley Mow Passage Tomlinson Close Beaconsfield Court Town Hall Avenue Beaumont Court Walpole Gardens Wellesley Road Weston Road

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 22

W5 Arran Mews Baronsmede Crosslands Avenue Elm Avenue Evelyn Grove Gunnersbury Avenue Gunnersbury Drive Gunnersbury Manor Leopold Road Pope's Lane St Paul's Close Stuart Avenue Tring Avenue Warwick Road

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 23

Appendix 2: Consultation leaflet

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 24

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 25

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 26

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 27

Appendix 3: Letter to Gunnersbury Drive households

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 28

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]

Consultation report: proposed changes to routes 27, 440, E10 and H91 29