| Author | Message | ||||
     John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 39 Registered: 05-2004 |
A PCA public meeting held on 26 March 07 saw the first public airing of Ealing Council's outline proposals for Pitshanger Lane under TfL's "Streets for People" scheme. There was a great deal of public interest, with over 150 people crammed into St Barnabas Millennium Hall. Two variants of a possible remodelling of Pitshanger Lane were introduced by Peter Tonkin of Ealing Council and described in detail by Glenn Higgs of MVA Consultancy, with local resident Tony Purton providing a historical perspective. The ensuing debate can only be described as lively, with the widest possible range of questions and opinions being put forward. One thing is sure - the people of Pitshanger, both residents and traders, care a great deal about Pitshanger Lane! This thread has been started to enable to debate to continue on-line. Details of the outline proposals produced by MVA Consultancy for Ealing Council will be posted here as soon as possible so that those unable to attend the meeting will be able to join in too. | ||||
| Alan Henderson Registered User Username: alan_h Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2007 |
First of all a thank you to the PCA for organising the meeting. I felt that Glenn Higgs gave a very good presentation and dealt extremely professionally with what I felt were some unnecessary hostile remarks from the floor. There is no doubt that the options presented would make a big impact on the Lane and would address the obvious problems that exist - you don't need to consult on a brief to know what they are. Of course the options are a compromise - but they have to be better than doing nothing ! I am assuming that the PCA will formally respond to the consultation - in a positve way - and would like to make two points. (1) - much of the congestion occurs by the Methodist Church due to parking on both sides of the road and as there is no opportunity to reduce pavement width then there should be enforced parking restrictiuons on one or both sides of the road at that point. (2) I don't believe that the majority of those living in the immediate area should need to drive to, and park at, the shops. However I recognise there will be some who do and perhaps a proportion of the parking bays could be designated for disabled badge holders only. Finally - I do hope that this is the start of a positive way forward - it may take the Council 6 years to come back - but at least they came back - don't knock them!! | ||||
| Lynda Pullman Registered User Username: asteroid Post Number: 36 Registered: 05-2004 |
Thanks to the PCA for organising the 'Streets for People' meeting. The turnout was indeed impressive - the best I have seen to date at a public meeting. Our guest speakers were polite and gracious in delivering the possible outline solutions to the ongoing congestion problems associated with Pitshanger Lane. Our guests dutifully noted our ideas and suggestions and courteously attempted to answer the questions put to them by the audience. In return several members of the audience forgot their manners and were boorish and aggressive in their behaviour. Our guests did not deserve the evident hostility and rudeness from those self-appointed guardians of the Lane who seem to think that their solution is the only solution. Pitshanger Lane and the surrounding area belong to us all and the facilities we enjoy are for everyone including residents, traders, their employees and dare I suggest transient shoppers. Any scheme put forward will be a compromise unless we are prepared to raze the whole site and start building again. The Council, their consultants and planners are not the enemy and deserve our courtesy and respect. I hope that at any future meetings to discuss revised plans the audience will offer considered and measured responses. Attempts by the rude and bullying rabble-rousers within our community to railroad through their own diktats should be rejected. Their hysterical and patronising behaviour is offensive. No tree has yet been destroyed. The residents of Pitshanger have an opportunity to be part of the plan for the future. The initiative has been a long time in coming, let's make the most of it. I eagerly await the next meeting to hear what the planners have to offer us. | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2004 |
MVA Consultancy Presentation Material There is now a copy of the MVA Consultancy presentation material from the meeting on 26 Mar 07 available for download here (pdf format, large file). There are also higher resolution street plans available for download at the following links: Option 1, Option 2 Tony Purton Presentation Material Tony Purton's presentation material from the same meeting is available for download here (PowerPoint format). | ||||
| peter duckworth Registered User Username: peter_duckworth Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2007 |
Thanks to the PCA for organsing the meeting. I would like to suggest one extra feature to the proposals which would be to have a further "Raised Platform" at the junction of Castlebar Park and Pitshanger Lane. This is a tricky junction for school children to cross on their way to and from school and anything that would make it safer would be welcomed. | ||||
| Andrew Dixon Registered User Username: adlight Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2004 |
I'm afraid I was away for the meeting but have spoken to a couple of people since and read the above material. 'Pity if we gave a rude impression to the guests - maybe a symptom of how we behave badly in crowds! It would appear that both plans as presented contain "tables" accross the road. I am not aware that speeding is a problem in the Lane. I have a real problem with bumps as a way of calming traffic. I think they make an area feel "angry". Some local authorities are now removing them. The state repair of roads in Ealing is very bad (try cycling and you'll soon agree). I feel that a lot of money has been spent on humps in streets where speeding cannot be a hazard ( e.g. the narrow streets of Hanwell). The money would have been better spent on repairs and painting 20 mph on the road surface. There are 20mph limits in the borough but only backed up with bumps - the 20mph signs would be so much cheaper and could work if used widely. The Lane has become a jewel in Ealing's crown. Let's do all we can to keep the dialogue going. It can easily break down as we have seen with planning issues in the past. A representative stearing group as Tony P suggests may be what we need. It's worked in the past. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 58 Registered: 04-2005 |
In order to create coherent discussion of the Pitshanger Lane Traffic Scheme I have compiled the attached 'appreciation' based on the proposals presented by Ealing Council and seeking to widen the discussion to deal with 'unintended consequences'. I very much hope that the PCA will take a firm lead in canvassing local opinion and representing their views to Ealing Council's transport planners.
| ||||
| John Kane Registered User Username: johnkane Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2004 |
I attended the meeting and thought it productive. I thought that most of the points put forward by the audience were polite, constructive and well-argued. Yes, some people did get frustrated when questions weren't answered properly but that reaction is not unusual nor particularly regrettable - obfuscation seems to be an accepted part of politicians' and bureaucrats' armoury and is worth challenging. My own question didn't really get an answer so I'd appreciate it if anyone can shed some light on what remains to me a mystery: why was the study carried out in the first place? More specifically, has it been presented as a response to a PCA initiative, a Transport For London directive, a local council decision or because of representations from individual residents? My feeling from the meeting was that most people thought that the whole thing was a case of overkill. I might, of course, be wrong in that assessment so I would echo Tony Purton's request for an opinion survey of local residents. John | ||||
| John Kane Registered User Username: johnkane Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2004 |
Okay, apologies - I should have read the earlier editions of the Pitshanger On-line Newsletter! It appears from perusing the back-issues that the PCA itself has had a key role in driving this initiative forward. My supplementary question therefore is this: is there a way for members to view AGM and committee meeting minutes on-line? I freely admit to the odd senior moment of forgetfulness but with no recollection of a general meeting asking the committee to approach the council for a solution to a traffic problem, I'd like to know how far the committee position is based upon local soundings or democratic votes from general meetings. John | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 41 Registered: 05-2004 |
The Streets for People meeting held on 26th March is reported in the April edition of the PCA Newsletter here. The report is necessarily concise, so it might be worthwhile providing a little more information here on the background to the PCA’s involvement with the Pitshanger Lane Streets for People proposals. The PCA first heard about the Streets for People proposal at a meeting of the Council’s Ealing Area Committee in June 2006. (We send a representative to these meetings to monitor topics of interest for the Pitshanger Area). As far as the PCA is concerned, this came out of the blue. It’s not something we asked or campaigned for, but it was obviously of interest. At this meeting, we successfully pressed for a PCA role at all stages of the consultation process, so that we could keep everyone informed of progress via the PCA newsletter and web site, and by holding public meetings. The PCA was, and remains, neutral on the Streets for People proposals, and is concentrating on promoting local publicity and consultation. After the June 2006 meeting of the Ealing Area Committee, nothing happened until November 2006, when the Council appointed MVA Consultancy to develop a Streets for People plan for Pitshanger Lane, with the aim of submitting the completed plan to TfL to gain their approval and funding for implementation. In December 2006, PCA Committee members attended a site visit to Pitshanger Lane with Ward Councillors, Council Officers and MVA Consultancy. This visit allowed the consultants to see at first hand some of the traffic problems that occur in Pitshanger Lane. The next key date was the public meeting organised by the PCA on 26th March 07, which saw the first public airing of the outline proposals produced by MVA Consultancy. (This was the first view of the proposals for the PCA Committee too). As has been reported elsewhere, the meeting was very well attended, lively and at times heated. So what happens next? As mentioned briefly in the April PCA Newsletter, the PCA will be running a questionnaire to probe more thoroughly into some of the sensitive areas revealed by the public meeting. We’re working on the questionnaire right now – it’s currently on its third draft. Another PCA initiative in the pipeline is a design workshop, where it will be possible for local residents and traders to see the outline proposals in more detail, make comments and contribute ideas. We aim to use the results of the questionnaire and the design workshop to influence the Council’s further development of the Streets for People proposals before the proposals are finalised and presented back to all of us individually for formal consultation. In terms of the PCA’s position, any step away from neutrality will depend on the outcome of the questionnaire and the design workshop. Finally, it is necessary to refer to a piece of pre-history. Turning the clock back to 2000/01, the PCA, acting on the views of members expressed in a poll, arranged two public meetings on traffic planning. However, the trail then went cold due to the Council having no funding for improvements to Pitshanger Lane. We’re not aware of any linkage between these earlier meetings and the Council’s Streets for People proposals. John Bird, PCA Committee | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 60 Registered: 04-2005 |
There may be many PCA members who don't see the problem with traffic in Pitshanger Lane - literally - because much of the chaos occurs during the day while most residents are at work. I have taken numerous photos over the last few years, all of which I have captioned and sent to Ealing Council in the hope that they would acknowledge that there is a problem and do something about it. The proposed scheme is presumably the response to that realisation. I attach a tiny selection of these photos in the form of two Powerpoint presentations which will give a flavour of the problem. Watching traffic jams is something of a spectator sport for those who live and work on Pitshanger Lane. A copy of the 'appreciation' I posted above is available in hard copy at Oscar's cafe. Whilst it is not for the PCA to speak for the community, it does seem from the public meeting on 26 March that local residents feel strongly about what the Council is proposing. The PCA can help the community to understand the issues and the possible solutions so that they can express their views either through the PCA or individually direct to Ealing's Transport Planning department. AN ALL-DAY DESIGN WORKSHOP HELD IN ONE OF THE LOCAL MEETING HALLS WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO MEET THAT OBJECTIVE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF VOLUNTEERS, MYSELF INCLUDED, WHO WOULD WILLINGLY HELP TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 61 Registered: 04-2005 |
Here are some photos showing local examples of the various road treatments suggested by Ealing Council.
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 62 Registered: 04-2005 |
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FoI/07_112 dated 27 March 2007 – response dated 11 May 2007 PREAMBLE: At Pitshanger Community Association's meeting in St Barnabus church hall Pitshanger Lane on Tuesday 27 March 2007 with the Council's project manager for the scheme Peter Tonkin, the Council's consultant for the scheme, Glenn Higgs of MVA Consultants, suggested rather disturbingly that most/many/all of the parking restrictions marked on Pitshanger Lane are legally unenforceable because they are not backed up by 'parking control orders' ??? RESPONSE: Thank you for your request for information received by the Council on 28 March 2007. I apologise for the delay in responding. It has been assessed and the following information provided. Q.1 What procedures are necessary to establish legally enforceable parking restrictions? A.1 Statutory advertisements are placed in the local papers advising of the intention to put in place parking restrictions. A public consultation follows and the responses are analysed. The proposal is then put forward to the area committee for their input and the results of these consultations are published on the Ealing Council website. If there are no objections a Traffic Management Order (TMO) is drawn up and is brought before Cabinet for approval. Once the Cabinet has approved the TMO it then comes into force legally. Q.2 Are all parking restrictions marked in Pitshanger Lane legally enforceable? A.2 YES, all restrictions in Pitshanger Lane have a valid TMO so therefore are legally enforceable. Q.3. Are there any parking restrictions on Pitshanger Lane not legally enforceable, if so, why? A.3 NO, there are no parking restrictions on Pitshanger lane which are not legally enforceable. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 63 Registered: 04-2005 |
More official information obtained under FoI/07_145: 1. The PL Traffic Scheme is now scheduled to be reported to committee in the Autumn cycle. 2. Pitshanger residents and traders are classed as KEY STAKEHOLDERS in the consultation process. 3. We have until the end of July to influence the design. FULL TEXT ATTACHED
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 64 Registered: 04-2005 |
More official information obtained under FoI/07_119: 1. The issue of the ownership of the pavements in Pitshanger Lane is still not entirely clear. 2. The existence of the several Street Trading licences on Pitshanger Lane was not part of the council's brief to consultants. FULL TEXT ATTACHED:
| ||||
| John Kane Registered User Username: johnkane Post Number: 17 Registered: 10-2004 |
Many thanks to John Bird for his summary of events to date - ( click here) - and yes, my memory does appear to have let me down yet again!. I don't recall the 2000/2001 poll which presumably recorded local feeling that traffic management on the Lane needed sorting out. I did attend the subsequent public meeting though and remember the alarm caused by some of the suggestions like one-way streets! Even then, there was a concern that the solution might be worse than the problem. Anyway, fair enough: if there was a significant level of support expressed in the poll, then I can see how the whole traffic issue was presented to the council as being a concern of many residents. Just one thing, though - I asked in my last post about online access to committee minutes and so on - is this access currently available and if so, is the 2000/2001 poll referred to by John still there? | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 42 Registered: 05-2004 |
Here some answers to the points raised by John Kane in his posting dated 17th May. 1) If my memory serves me correctly, the poll carried out in 2000/01 was combined with one of the early PCA membership campaigns. I think members were invited to identify (a) three things they liked about Pitshanger and (b) three problem areas. The analysis of the results may not have been particularly scientific, but I do remember some key words like "traffic" and "parking" coming up quite frequently. We used these responses from PCA members as a guide when organising the series of public meetings held at the time. (I think there was also a meeting on graffiti organised with similar justification). I doubt whether anyone still has the full set of members' responses from the 2000/01 period. 2) The poll results from 2000/01 have not been used to justify any PCA actions in recent months. 3) Streets for People is a Council/TfL initiative not a PCA initiative. The PCA got involved because the Streets for People proposals could have a marked effect on Pitshanger Lane, and, without PCA involvement, the current stage of "stakeholder consultation" could well have passed all of us by with little local publicity or influence. 4) Recent decisions by the PCA Committee in relation to Streets for People have been limited to (a) adopt a neutral line, at least for now, (b) run a public meeting (done), (c) run a questionnaire to probe the sensitive areas exposed by the public meeting (in progress), (d) run a design workshop (date set for Sat 9th June) and (e) use the results of the questionnaire and design workshop to influence the Council's further development of their Streets for People proposals. This has all been done in the spirit of maximising local visibility and involvement. 5) PCA Committee minutes are not published on-line at present. Enquiries about particular committee decisions should be referred to the PCA Secretary Debbie Edwards, e-mail debbie.edwards@pitshanger.org.uk. | ||||
| mark spencer Registered User Username: mark Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2004 |
First, thanks to the PCA for organisng the meeting, this discussion, and the questionnaire. I was unable to get to the meeting and having the info here is very helpful. On the MVA Consultancy powerpont last slide there are a series of coloured blobs in surrounding areas - as there is no key I don't know what they are - are they other calming measures? It seems to me that obvious things like a 20mph zone are essential - and I would prefer other calming measures than tables and other raised humps etc.. Unless other measures are taken then Meadvale Rd will become an increased rat run and I would favour angled parking, one way streets and other calming measures (seen in Brougham street W13) and as discussed 6-7 years ago. It also seems strange that the Pitshanger Lane measures all seem to concentrate around the shops - they need to extend to include the entrance to North Ealing School. Dedicated disabled parking and stop and shop zones seem sensible. While most of the locals can, and do, walk to the shops there are some shops (e.g. book shop, fishmonger) which attract shoppers from across the area - many by car and there does need to be options for local parking. | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 43 Registered: 05-2004 |
PCA Consultation Report Available for Download The PCA consultation report on the Streets for People scheme proposed by Ealing Council for Pitshanger Lane is now complete, and available for download here. The report records the results of the questionnaire and design workshop, and makes a series of recommendations intended as guidelines for the further development of the Council’s outline proposals. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 65 Registered: 04-2005 |
I am delighted that the PCA’s opinion poll has come out strongly in favour of doing something about the traffic chaos in Pitshanger Lane. John Bird and his team are to be congratulated on their efforts to sound out local opinion. In an FoI response in May the Council told me that the deadline for public comment might be the end of July - next week. I very much hope that before he finalises his plans, Ealing’s project manager Peter Tonkin will offer the PCA another public discussion with the local community to put new flesh on the bones of his planned scheme to show how he intends to adapt it to reflect the wishes of the ‘key stakeholders’ in the scheme as expressed in the PCA Report. To promote further thought and discussion I have submitted the attached paper and associated diagrams to Peter Tonkin, to senior Council officials, to Ealing councillors and to the Met Police Cleveland Community Team to show how the Council’s scheme might be adapted to meet the expressed wishes of the community. Hard copies of the PCA Report and my paper are available on the notice board in Oscar’s Café.
| ||||
| John Waters Registered User Username: ebbajohn Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2004 |
Now that the PCA consultation report on the Streets for People scheme has been completed what happens next ? According to Tony Purton's posting of 19th July the deadline for public comment might be the end of this month. The information provided by Tony, during the Design Workshop held at NEPS a few weeks ago, was excellent and almost mirrors the findings of the PCA report. Are these two sets of well researched information being sent to the Council with the backing of the PCA ? | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 44 Registered: 05-2004 |
The electronic version of the PCA Report was sent via e-mail to Ward Councillors and Council Officers on 6 Jul 07, followed by printed copies when they became available. There has been no feedback to date, despite a reminder sent today. | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 48 Registered: 05-2004 |
Public Consultation Launched Ealing Council has launched its formal public consultation on the Pitshanger Lane Streets for People Scheme. The Council has sent out paper copies of the consultation documents to properties in an area described as "stretching N-S from Meadvale Road to Mount Road/Castlebar Hill and E-W from Brentham Way to Kent Avenue". E-copies of the consultation documents are available for download via the following links: Leaflet Questionnaire Note that the leaflet is in folded booklet format, so you see the back and front covers first, then the inside pages. The closing date for the consultation is 21 Dec 07. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 69 Registered: 04-2005 |
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY TONY PURTON Text of e-mail sent 4 December 2007 to Peter.Tonkin@ealing.gov.uk Glenn.Higgs@mvaconsultancy.com FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Peter Tonkin, Principal Transport Planner, London Borough of Ealing Glenn Higgs, Principal Consultant, MVA Consultancy I am responding to the invitation issued by MVA Consultancy on behalf of Ealing Council to comment on the TfL-funded 'Streets for People' Scheme for Pitshanger Lane W13 received last week. I decline to use the response questionnaire provided because it is designed to obtain endorsement of features of the scheme that I consider inappropriate. However, I can confirm that I am responding: 1. as an individual 2. having no personal access, disability or mobility issues 3. I normally walk to Pitshanger Lane daily, mainly between 09.00 and 17.00 4. In live in Kent Avenue W13. The Objectives of the scheme The objectives are fairly stated with emphasis on reducing vehicle dominance in favour of pedestrians and cyclists and making it easier to walk along and across Pitshanger Lane. The proposals seem, however, to be principally vehicle orientated with not enough attention paid to the main objective of easier and safer pedestrian movement. The Proposed Scheme It is a great disappointment that after 8 months of Council/Consultancy reappraisal, the scheme offered for consultation is very little different from the proposals that attracted such criticism at the PCA's public meeting in March this year. They fail to take account of many of the recommendations of the PCA opinion survey published in July 2007 (see attached) nor the points I made in my own paper to Peter Tonkin in July 2007 (also attached) -the diagrams in my paper are also reproduced in a Power Point presentation attached. Some improvement on Pitshanger Lane is desperately needed and the scheme in broad outline would meet the remit, provided that the detail is studied, explained, rationalised and implemented. In order of priority of the stated objectives, I believe the scheme should provide: 1. A 20mph speed limit from Kent Gardens to Woodfield Road to highlight to motorists the increased pedestrian activity ahead. The basic requirement for such a speed limit is regular traffic calming measures (raised carriageway) which would be provided by frequent informal pedestrian crossing places. 2. More informal pedestrian crossings should be provided across Pitshanger Lane to provided the intended ease of pedestrian movement to and from the north and south pavements. The formal pedestrian crossing east of Barnfield Road/Queen's Walk could be deleted in favour of an informal raised pedestrian crossing. The proposed raised carriageway areas on Pitshanger Lane across the width of the Curzon, Selby and Lindfield roads should be deleted as superfluous. 3. Additional parking bays in the north side pavement for casual parking (as approved 50 years ago in the 1957 scheme)as proposed and establishing enforceable no parking/stopping/unloading areas at road junctions, at all informal pedestrian crossings, along the north side carriageway between Curzon Road and Lindfield Road and between Albert Road and Maybury Court (opposite Curzon Road) - i.e. double yellow lines with double yellow kerb stripes. 4. As a possible later option to consider car-only wheels-on-kerb parking on the south side of Pitshanger Lane as a simple and cheap solution if further manoeuvring room proves to be necessary, without touching any mature trees or disrupting the existing kerbs/pavements. As long as the kerb/pavement is not disturbed the option to revert on on-road parking would be equally simple, and cheap. The south pavement is 8 feet narrower than the north pavement and should not be sacrificed unnecessarily to the prejudice of a 'Streets for People' objective of more creative use of public spaces - such as more and larger street cafes. 5. Increased dedicated loading bays by: a. designating the recessed parking area between Harrow View and Selby roads as 'loading/unloading only', excluding disabled badge parking which presently occupies that bay at most times of day. b designating half the proposed parking bay between Barnfield and Lindfield roads (at 116/118 Pitshanger Lane) for loading/unloading only to serve the Co-op store there, excluding disabled badge parking.. c. semi-recessing the proposed loading bay on Albert Terrace on the same level as the carriageway. A full on-pavement loading bay at that point would narrow the pavement unecessarily at the western edge of Albert Terrace. d. providing a dedicated loading/unloading bay, excluding disabled badge parking, in Albert Road along the flank wall of the Co-op premises at 105 Pitshanger Lane to provide for the large and frequent deliveries to Co-op Food Store at 107/109 Pitshanger Lane and the funeral hearses picking up coffins from the mortuary at 105 Pitshanger Lane. Such a loading bay was proposed by Ealing's Highways Dept in 2006 but deleted from the scheme at the last minute. Co-op might be invited to contribute to the cost of providing this loading bay. This junction 'Co-op Corner' is a notorious scene of pedestrian and traffic disruption e. avoiding on-pavement loading bays as they could encourage further incursion onto the pedestrian pavement f. making loading bays free to other users outside 'working hours' 6. Dedicated disabled badge parking bays in the side roads off Pitshanger Lane along the flank walls of the shops. 7. Repositioning the bus stops outside and opposite Pitshanger Library to de-conflict them. On the north side, the stop opposite the Library could be moved about 50 yards eastwards past Barnfield Road to a fully recessed bus stop outside Nos. 108-114 Pitshanger Lane. On the south side, the stop outside the Library should be repositioned about 20 yards eastwards to a position closer to Queens Walk so that buses can access the stop directly across the clear junction of Queens Walk - the bus recess could be reduced by about 15ft as a result. Both bus shelters should be cantilever structures open on three sides with the closed side next to the kerb to facilitate pedestrian movement in the bus stop areas. 8. Goods deliveries to the rear access roads behind the shops. On the south side by making the access road behind the shops one-way and clearing access/egress areas in Queens Walk and Albert Road by a suitable road-wide no stopping/parking areas (a box junction?). On the north side by providing road-wide no stopping/parking areas (box junctions) in the side streets where there is rear access to shops is available - particularly Duffy's in Lindfield Road and Wine Rack in Barnfield Road. 9. Enforceability of the parking and loading regulations as a key to the success of the scheme. Unless the double yellow lines are supplemented by double yellow kerb stripes, loading/unloading for up to 20 minutes and disabled badge parking for up to 3 hours will still be permitted which would negate the whole purpose of the scheme. Enforcement will be key to the success of the scheme and consideration should be given to electronic surveillance if human enforcement is likely to be a problem 10 More creative use of the enviably wide public pavements in Pitshanger Lane through a coherent plan for public seating, litter bins and bicycle racks, taking into account actual and likely street trading areas and street cafes. 11. Retention of the street bollards (on the north side). Their continued presence will be necessary to prevent vehicles being driven onto the pavement, as they often are. The bollards should be extended to protect the pavement area between Barnfield and Lindfield roads where delivery vehicles (mostly newspaper deliveries) routinely drive onto the pavement in the early hours of the morning. That is what has caused the damage to the pedestrian paving in that area. 12. A one way street system in the side roads between Pitshanger Lane and Meadvale road, which because of parked cars cannot take passing traffic, to reduce congestion in Pitshanger Lane caused by cars being unable to turn into the side streets because of emerging traffic. Meadvale Road might be gated east of Barnfield Road to prevent 'rat-running' by motorists trying to avoid the restrictions on Pitshanger Lane. 13. Enhanced signage at either end of Pitshanger Lane to inform motorists they are entering a busy Shopping/School area with many pedestrian crossings. During a recent motoring journey through France I noticed that where the Routes Nationales pass through villages the speed limit is 30mph and signs tell motorists holw many pedestrian crossings there are in the village. Similar signage could be effective in Pitshanger Lane. THE WAY AHEAD A further public meeting should be held by Ealing Council with the principal stake-holders of the scheme, the Pitshanger community, to elaborate the proposals in relation to the points made above so that the final scheme offered at the final formal consultation stage will meet the stated objectives and be clearly understood by those who read it. No doubt the PCA would be prepared to arrange such a meeting, open to all local residents (not just members of the PCA), at which the clarifications called for can be given by officials and consultants and properly debated in a two-way manner. Tony Purton, Kent Avenue, W13 | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 70 Registered: 04-2005 |
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - EALING GAZETTE sent 10 Dec 2007 PITSHANGER LANE TRAFFIC SCHEME In complete contrast to the recently published proposals for the gross over-exploitation of Ealing's potential as a profit-making opportunity by outside commercial interests, there is an important minor development to promote the 'quiet enjoyment' by residents of their leafy corner of Ealing which deserves the close attention of all those affected. Under Transport for London (TfL)'s 'Streets for People' initiative, Ealing Council is developing a much needed scheme to deal with the chaotic traffic through Pitshanger Lane shopping centre, improve pedestrian access and make more creative use of the public space represented by the Lane's enviably wide pavements. As a result of pressure from the local community represented by the Pitshanger Community Association (PCA), through a well attended public meeting with Council officials in March this year and a thoroughly researched opinion poll published in July, the community endorsed the scheme in principle but asked the Council to spell out its proposals in more detail. A major concern was that if the improved traffic flow were to lead to increased traffic speeds and attract a greater flow of traffic along Pitshanger Lane, the community would prefer to live with the present traffic chaos because at least shoppers can cross the road while the traffic is gridlocked! Ealing's study contractor MVA Consultants has just invited residents and businesses in the Pitshanger Lane area to comment on revised proposals prior to finalising the scheme for approval by Ealing Council and TfL. Disappointingly, the revised scheme is very little different from the scheme presented in March which drew fairly strong criticism from the community, and is devoid of explanation as to how it will achieve its stated objectives to reduce vehicle dominance in favour of pedestrians and cyclists and make it easier to walk along and across Pitshanger Lane. The community's strong demand for a 20mph speed limit has been omitted for 'later consideration'. Pitshanger Lane is not a Borough through route like Argyle Road and Northfields Road, it is designated a 'local street'. It is a destination for people living in the area. The shopping area is designated a 'Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, mainly to serve the needs of local residents'. The proposal needs to be tailored to the specific circumstances of Pitshanger Lane, not dealt with as just another road improvement scheme. I hope there will be a further public meeting between the community and the Council's highways planning officials with a genuine two-way exchange of views to ensure that the details behind the scheme are properly understood and match the stated objectives and the community's aspirations. Tony Purton Kent Avenue W13 | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 71 Registered: 04-2005 |
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST – sent to Ealing Council 10 December 2007 PREAMBLE: Ealing's TfL-funded 'Streets for People' scheme has been circulated for local consultation, devoid of any detail that would enable readers to understand how the proposals will work in practice and be enforced. In order to provide an informed basis for further public discussion of the scheme, I request the following information: TRAFFIC MOVEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Is the objective of the scheme to provide for two-way traffic throughout Pitshanger Lane for: a. Cars passing cars? .... or b. Cars passing a bus or a lorry? .... or c. Bus/lorry passing a bus/lorry? 2. What is the assumed width of the vehicles involved? a. Cars (6ft?) b. Buses (8ft?) c. Lorries (8ft?) 3. What width of road is required to permit each of the above objectives to be met? a. 22ft - the present kerb to kerb width of Pitshanger Lane without parked cars b. 19ft - the width that might be made available by semi-recessed or on-kerb parking on the south side? c. 18ft - the width available where cars (not lorries) are parked in 8ft recessed bays on the north side of Pitshanger Lane d. 16ft - the present width available with cars parked on the south side of Pitshanger Lane only 4. How is the objective road width to be achieved? a. By banning all parking on both sides of Pitshanger Lane - giving 22ft b. By allowing car parking on the south side within the present road width - giving 16/18ft c. Providing semi-recessed or on-kerb parking on the south side of Pitshanger Lane of ??ft to achieve an objective width of ??ft 5. What objective road width would be provided between Curzon Road and NE School (Nos 24-34 Pitshanger Lane) under the present proposals where the pavement cannot be narrowed (16ft?)? 6. How does the objective width proposed for the scheme compare with the actual traffic passage width on other nearby roads such as Woodfield Road and Eaton Rise where buses have to pass single file between the parked cars? PARKING RESTRICTIONS 7. The purpose of the scheme will be undermined if any parking is legally permitted on the double yellow lines proposed in the scheme. 8. What road signage is intended to prevent legitimate parking on double yellow lines outside the designated parking areas for loading/unloading or for use by Disabled Badge holders? 9. What road signs are intended to prevent legitimate double parking alongside recessed parking bays or designated loading bays on the north side carriageway? INFORMAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 10. Is it intended that all pedestrian crossings will be raised pathways across the carriageway? 11. What measures will be taken to prevent all parking/loading/unloading where these informal crossings meet the pavements? 12. What is the intended purpose of the wide raised areas across Pitshanger Lane at the junctions of Curzon, Selby and Lindfield roads? 20 MPH ZONE 13. What are the basic requirements to establish a 20mph zone? 14. What are the minimum and maximum spacings of the required 'traffic calming' measures in a 20mph zone? 15. Would the raised pedestrian crossings proposed in the scheme serve as 'traffic calming measures' for a 20mph zone? STREET FURNITURE 16 Since a major objective of any 'Streets for People' scheme is to make more creative use of public spaces, what is intended in the scheme in relation to: a. Establishing a clear a 10ft wide clear pedestrian manoeuvring area on both sides of Pitshanger Lane shopping area? b. Public seating - frequency, positioning, seating height, grouping? c. Cycle racks - frequency, positioning in relation to pedestrian movement? d. Litter bins - frequency, positioning in relation to pedestrian movement? e. Telephone boxes/other standing pavement obstructions? f. Street trading pitches and street cafe areas - how deep, how many? Tony Purton | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 74 Registered: 04-2005 |
Attached is the Council's answers to by FoI request above, reproduced with the express approval of Ealing Council. The scheme was approved by Ealing Area Committee yesterday evening (Tues 22 Jan 2008) subject to the agreement of final details with the PCA and ward councillors.
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 77 Registered: 04-2005 |
The Council's Streets for People Scheme for Pitshanger Lane was 'finalised' on 19 March at a meeting involving Council officials, MVA Consultancy, ward councillors, Met Police and PCA representatives. A narrative summary of the scheme is attached.
Unfortunately, the scheme still involves taking away a great chunk of the southern pavement while effectively building out the north pavement line. There are other details which make it les thsan ideal. I have therefore submitted yet another critique to the Council in an attempt to obtain a scheme tailor-made to Pitshanger Lane's problems.
If you support these ideas, please write to Noel Rutherford, Ealing's Director of the Built Environment mailto:Noel.Rutherford@ealing.gov.uk | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 78 Registered: 04-2005 |
The PCA committee is concerned that unless the scheme the Council has put forward is accepted, warts and all, it will be abandoned - that is the threat Noel Rutherford is making to avoid taking any action to correct the glaring defects in the scheme's design, especially the unnecessary loss of pavement space on the south side. To avoid this I have asked the newly elected Mayor of London Boris Johnson to allocate the necessary funds while providing Ealing Council with the flexibuility to make sensible improvements. Ealing Council CAN be moved, but only if local residents make their demands known INDIVIDUALLY to Noel Rutherford, not through the PCA. The PCA Committee has already 'sold the pass' to Ealing Council in the name of Pitshanger residents. Original Message----- From: Tony Purton Sent: 16 May 2008 09:54 To: mayor@london.gov.uk Subject: AN SOS FROM EALING - PITSHANGER LANE COPIES TO: Richard Barnes, Deputy Mayor and London Assembly member for Ealing and Hillingdon Anthony O'Keefe, TfL Borough Partnership FOR INFORMATION TO: Darra Singh, Chief Executive Officer, Ealing Council Noel Rutherford, Director of the Built Environment, Ealing Council Ealing Councillors: Stacey, Gibb, Popham, Stafford Dan Hodges, Chief Reporter, Ealing Gazette Dear Mr Mayor, Boris Congratulations on your appointment. We all hope that London will benefit from your reign as its Mayor. I am sure you are already deluged with begging letters, but here in West London's 'Queen of the Suburbs', Ealing, we have an immediate problem we would like you to help us with. The full story is at attachment 1, but briefly Ealing Council are seeking under a TfL 'Streets for People' programme to rob our local Pitshanger Lane shopping centre of some of its lovely wide pedestrian pavements to make space for parked cars. This is contrary to TfL's declared object of the exercise; reducing vehicle domination and creating social spaces - see attachment 2 comparing the scheme with TfL's guidance. Local residents would like to see Pitshanger Lane shopping centre develop its already well-demonstrated potential as a social meeting space as well as a shopping centre, with street cafes and attractive public seating areas. Ealing Council is about to apply for the £300,000 funding for this scheme from TfL Borough Partnerships to secure funding for 2008/2009. I believe Asst Programme Manager Anthony O'Keeffe (Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H OTL Tel: 0207126 4002) is the responsible administrator for these funds. I have suggested to Noel Rutherford at Ealing Council that in view of the sensitivity of the issues involved he should approach the scheme in two stages; essential changes this financial year followed by the fully developed scheme in two years time when he has determined by experimentation, and in genuine consultation with the local population, the best solution to meet the specific requirements of our beloved Pitshanger Lane. What Ealing Council needs right now is TfL's commitment to sufficient funding for 2008/2009 to provide the scheme that WE want rather than the one THEY want us to have. I hope that your funding office/committee can exercise the flexibilty to provide the funds while allowing Ealing Council to tailor the scheme to meet local aspirations, in genuine two-way consultation with local residents. Yours sincerely Tony Purton, Pitshanger Resident | ||||
| Les Beaumont Registered User Username: lesat74 Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2008 |
Could someone please tell me when Tony Purton was elected as spokesman for Pitshanger residents? He writes to Boris Johnson that "we" have an immediate problem, and that "local residents" would like to see .... Who are these local residents? How many of them are there? The least he could have done would have been to list his co-objectors in his letter to the Mayor. I, for one, am quite happy with the proposals as are most of the people to whom I have spoken. I have also written to our local councillors expressing my support and urging them to ignore Mr Purton. However, I did not claim to represent my fellow residents, for whom I wouldn't presume to speak. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 79 Registered: 04-2005 |
In response to Les Beaumont, just because HE is satisfied with the Council's proposals it does not mean that everybody else is or must be. The WE in my message to Boris Johnson encompasses a number of objectors who, like me, have made their views known directly to Noel Rutherford at Ealing Council. I do not speak for them, but THEY do exist! And the PCA committee is well aware that they exist. I am not their spokesman. Go into Oscar's Cafe and see the protest notice from some of the Pitshanger Lane traders and the material that I have generated on this topic. Where is Mr Beaumont's 'reasoned argument' for the scheme he so keenly supports? I would like to read it. Even the Council acknowledge that the greatest risk to the scheme is serious public objection at the statutory consultation stage - that is when by law EVERYBODY can have their say. The following is designed to elecit further information from our secretive Council and I will publish the reply when I get it. THEN, people will have a chance to influence the final design to eliminate its worst features. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Purton Sent: 10 June 2008 08:30 To: FoI Requests Cc: Anthony O'Keeffe; Danhodges@Trinitysouth. Co. Uk; Noel RUTHERFORD; Darra Singh; Greg Stafford; Ian Gibb; John Popham; Jason Stacey; Stephen. Driscoll@met. police. uk; Steve POUND; mayor@london.gov.uk; richard.barnes@london.gov.uk; Steve POUND Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST - STREETS FOR PEOPLE, PITSHANGER LANE PREAMBLE: The Council's 'Streets for People' scheme for Pitshanger Lane appears to have received TfL funding of £300,000 [Noel Rutherford e-mail 02 June 2008 10.26:55]. The next phase in the project is the Engineering Design Stage, to be carried out by the Council’s designated highways contractor Mouchel Parkman. This will culminate in the ‘Statutory Consultation Stage’ when by law the scheme has to be advertised in a local newspaper and the plans made available for public scrutiny. In a draft report to Cabinet by Director of the Street Environmment Joe Tavernier dated 1 April 2008 (copy attached), the Risk Assessment reads: “The main risk to the schemes arises from formal objections received at the statutory consultation stage that cannot be justifiably overturned, delays preventing implementation during the time frame of available funding and unforeseen problems on site. Processes are in place to minimize the impact of any such eventualities”. In the last three months, Built Environment Director Noel Rutherford has been made aware of serious public concerns about the design of the scheme, especially the proposal to reduce the width of the southern pavement of Pitshanger lane to provide recessed car-parking space. Individuals and a group of local traders have called for further public discussion during the engineering design phase (see photo attached) to eliminate the unsatisfactory features of the scheme thus reducing the risk of serious objections being raised at the Statutory Consultation Phase which could prejudice the implementation of the scheme in 2008/2009. So that the local population can have a proper understanding of the scheme and the Council’s procedures and processes for implementing it while minimising the impact of public objections, the following information is requested. INFORMATION REQUESTED: 1. A copy of Ealing Council Cabinet approval of the transport plan for the financial year 2008/2009 including the provisions for the Pitshanger Lane scheme shown in the attached report [£300,000 TfL plus £10,000 Bus Priority]? 2. A copy of the Council’s submission to TfL for funding approval 3. A copy of TfL’s funding approval and any terms/limitations attached thereto 4. By what means does Ealing Council intend to address the concerns expressed by local residents to reduce the risk of serious objections arising at the ‘Statutory Consultation Stage’ which could prejudice the implementation of the scheme in 2008/2009. 5. What is the timescale plan for the implementation stages of the scheme from now until completion. NOTE: The provision of this information on the Council’s web-site under a special access url might be the best medium for response to this FoI request. Tony Purton - Ealing Resident
| ||||
| Les Beaumont Registered User Username: lesat74 Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2008 |
Tony Purton seems to have missed the point of my post. I could paraphrase his first sentence and say (in fact I thought I more or less did) that just because HE is NOT satisfied with the Council's proposals it does not mean that everybody else isn't, either. Nor do I doubt that objectors exist. I'd just like to know how many of them there are. What we do know is that 70% of the 872 respondents to the council's consultation supported the proposals. That's 610 people. Have you got more objectors, Mr Purton? Finally, since when did I have to provide a reasoned argument for the proposals? The council have done so, in my opinion, and apparently 609 other people agree with me. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 80 Registered: 04-2005 |
I’m afraid it is Les Beaumont who has missed the point. He cannot paraphrase my first sentence and turn my argument back against me because that’s exactly what I did to expose the fallacy of his argument - as he seems to admit. It is not that 609 people agree with Mr Beaumont, it is that Mr Beaumont has voted the same way as 609 other people from a choice of two evils. The Council’s consultants have from the outset assumed that the south pavement must be cut back for parked cars to widen the carriageway. The only options they offered were: A. Do you want to lose the pavement and the trees? or … B. Do you want to lose the pavement but not the trees? What 609 people and Mr Beaumont did was vote for the least worst option - not to lose the trees. In doing so they agreed to sacrifice the south pavement. I do not expect Mr Beaumont to justify his ‘choice’ because it is clear that he, like the PCA Committee, did not approach the issue from the basis of any original thought. This despite the fact that I have provided on this website under this topic all the information that he and others could have used to form their own independent opinion. The Council has perpetrated an administrative con-trick on the residents of Pitshanger Lane, and the PCA has unfortunately been gulled into supporting that administrative con trick. What the Council is proposing is official vandalism. If I and others succeed in getting the scheme modified to preserve the south pavement and to provide all the other advantages that Pitshanger Lane needs, it will be interesting to see whether Mr Beaumont will then go to the barricades with his 609 like-minded companions to demand that the original scheme be re-instated, sacrificing the south pavement with all that that entails. Whatever has happened to date, the final legal hurdle for Ealing Council, and the only meaningful one in law, is the ‘statutory consultation stage’ when EVERYBODY will have their final chance to register their OBJECTIONS. The Council may find itself in a similar situation to the EU Commission if, in the final analysis, the local population sees the light and says NO to Ealing Council’s proposals in the way that the people of Ireland have just done in rejecting the ‘Lisbon Treaty’ (EU constitution). I will continue my attempts, active since 1999, to secure improvements in Pitshanger Lane which will enhance the quality of life for residents, traders and shoppers alike rather than make the bad that we suffer at present even worse through lack of coherent thought. Ealing Council is not infallible – far from it! It has made glaring errors in the past and seems determined to continue its abysmal record. In 1999/2000 Ealing’s planning department approved and continued to support Laing Homes’ proposals to build 6 houses on the old Barralet Garden Centre site at the junction of Pitshanger Lane and Castlebar Park. If it were not for the paperwork I generated in those two years, and the action taken by Castlebar Park resident Andrew Dixon, the last house in Castlebar Park would be No.94 and project 20ft beyond the building line of Maybury Court creating a considerable eyesore. Earlier this year it took concerted action by local residents to overturn the Council’s unannounced award of extended opening hours for the Duke of Kent pub on Scotch Common. By contrast, the mobile phone mast on Scotch Common erected by O2(UK) Ltd in 2006 after the Council rejected the company’s planning application 24 hours after the legal deadline, stands as a monument to Ealing Planning Department’s incompetence. The story of these issues can be read under the topic heading ‘Planning and Licensing Issues’. The message I offer to PCA readers is that they think for themselves rather than believe everything they are told by those in apparent ‘authority’, whether that be Ealing Council or the PCA Committee. | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 50 Registered: 05-2004 |
With respect to all contributors to this thread, I think that the discussion of consultation results has become a little more complicated than it needs to be. Respondents to Ealing Council's full public consultation exercise were not forced to choose between two evils. They also had a golden opportunity to reject the scheme altogether if they were so minded. The final question in the Council's questionnaire was: "Overall, do you support the Proposed Schemes?". Of the 872 respondents to the Council questionnaire, 77% said YES, 14% said NO and 9% stated no overall opinion or did not answer the question. The Council's Ealing Area Committee could not have been given a much clearer basis for deciding to proceed with the Pitshanger Lane Streets for People Scheme. It's a pity more people didn't respond (albeit the response rate is said to be high for a Council public consultation), but if people don't vote it's difficult to take their views into account. | ||||
| mike mecca Registered User Username: mike_mecca Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2008 |
Having read some of the proposals for pitshanger lane, i am very confused why it has become such a big issue. i think its great. I believe that Mr Beaumont can read for himself and has decided it is wise to change the landscape of the lane. Mr Bird has also stressed that the voters had a choice, it wasn't a "con trick" as Mr Purton states. I have read in the ealing times that now Oscars and 15 other shops are opposing the proposals, but i dont understand how 1.6 metres less will affect that side so much. Plus, who are the other 15 shops? It is curious that only Oscars has been mentioned, or do other shops not want their name involved? However, its strange to see the pavement wider than the road and buses struggle through the lane on a daily basis. Surely, as Mr Bird states it is dangerous especially as mothers with prams have to risk crossing roads BECAUSE the zebra crosses are too far apart. That is just ludicrous. I agree a zebra crossing is needed in the middle. That would benefit all, for example if u had difficulty in walking, to cross the road at the south side you would need to walk back to the winerack crossing and than back on yourself again to get to, for example william hill. Afterall, the heart of the Lane has shifted to the middle. It makes clear COMMON sense to make a crossing there. Pitshanger lane could also benefit from changes of the street furniture. Has anyone seen the bench outside the co-op with the post office? its a joke to sit on, unless ur a 5 year old. Now larger vehicles are escaping the low emission zone via our lane, more reason to widen the road. 2 buses passing through the lane is a tricky task and we have all seen a stand still at some point and become frustrated that some drivers do not know how to position themselves. Its not their fault, its the road that causes the problems. Its also very tight with cars parked on the sides - i would like to see the number of insurance claims regarding broken mirrors or side dents/scratches! I didn't vote unfortunately but i can only see sense in this scheme. Mr Purton is trying to turn everyone to oppose it, surely we can all do the math ourselves and see it's just his power hatred of Ealing Council since Mr Purton is proud of opposing any new improvements. I for one was hoping the Kent to be open longer. Wider roads, easier bus access, new bus shelters (hopefully with bus times!), safer crossings, new furniture, more parking spaces, disabled spaces, loading spaces to help traders and customers... the opposition is to save few trees? Believe it or not i prefer to save lives especially if it is a child rather than a tree, which means we can than ourselves plant a new line of trees and increase the number of trees in the plans! Thank you Mr Beaumont for speaking up as i have been thrilled reading to your opinion. Not enough people have. Unfortunately, Mr Purton believes he can change people's opinions with his legal jargon and sometimes misses the point that some of us want improving in the Lane. Thank Mr Bird for clearing the misunderstanding with the voting, i was unaware of that and actually believed (but only for a second before realising i was over-reacting) that people had a FAIR choice of vote. Keep up the great work your all doing at the PCA! 8/10 people is very strong. If there was a re-vote which i don't believe is needed, i would be Mr 611 saying 'yes 100%' to the change. And a revote would only increase the number of voters in favour of the scheme in my opinion. Its time for a great change in the Lane, for the better and safer. Opposing this scheme is ridiculous, but Mr Purton and others against would only learn WHEN someone does gets hurt. But everyone can read the facts, measure the pros against the cons - and the only con i found are trees which can be replanted and increased so it can easily be turned from a negative to a great positive. Mr 611!!! | ||||
| Les Beaumont Registered User Username: lesat74 Post Number: 3 Registered: 05-2008 |
This will be my last post on this subject as, believe it or not, I do have a life beyond arguing the toss over whether Tony Purton's debating skills have, or have not, exposed the fallacy of my argument. An argument that I didn't realised I'd made, as I foolishly thought I'd merely asked a few pertinent questions. Nevertheless, I do take exception to the rather arrogant tone with which he misrepresents me, or patronises me or both. So, here are some straightforward questions for Tony Purton to answer without trying to cloud the issue with the Lisbon Treaty, O2 masts, Laing's Homes, The Kent pub, who killed JFK, etc etc. (Ooops, sorry, JFK was a mistake, but maybe the LB Ealing can throw some light on that under the Freedom of Information Act, Tony.) Anyway, here are three, easy to answer questions for Tony, each needing a YES/NO answer or any number between 1 and 611: Do you believe you represent the majority view? Are you prepared to risk losing TfL funding and therefore any improvements to The Lane, for the sake of getting your own proposals accepted? How many people support you? Finally, thanks to John and Mike for adding some support and clarity to the discussion. | ||||
| Martin Kelly Registered User Username: majik Post Number: 58 Registered: 05-2004 |
Hi Les I only want to make one quick point. Those who voted only voted on a range of options to various problems we suffer along the Lane. The proposed plan was an amalgam of all these disparate options. The plan that is proposed has not been voted on by anybody, so no one can claim any mandate either way. The council are trying to force this plan through with any kind of approval. Many of us have grave concerns over this plan. Remember the original Tram proposal was supported by over 70% of the West London population until the details were released and then more and more people, including all the supporting local councils changed their mind and opposed it. Final thing, TfL have already apporved the money so no need to worry about that. Martin Sorry Les that was 3 | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2004 |
This topic has been very quiet for a while. Back in June 2008 Ealing Council predicted that the detailed engineering design for the Streets for People scheme would be ready in the Autumn of 2008. That didn't happen. But in March 2009 it emerged that the Council Highways Department had been considering a design variant with a wider carriageway, and hence deeper insets to the pavements, than had been previously agreed. This design variant was abandoned following pressure from the Cleveland Ward Councillors and others. An engineering design rather more faithful to the outline design agreed in March 2008 is now being prepared. The Cleveland Ward Councillors plan to hold a special meeting of the Cleveland Ward Forum (date tbd) at which the completed engineering drawings will be available for inspection by the general public. This development is covered in the PCA Newsletter for March 2009 here. The PCA Streets for People Resource page can be found here. | ||||
| Tobias Morris Registered User Username: tobias Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2004 |
I would like to start a campaign against the proposed changes to pitshanger lane - certainly a petition in the first instance to gather support and names of those who agree that we can then submit to the council. I have noticed a growing groundswell of opinion as the changes come ever closer. I notice that Malcolm and Tony also seem to be strongly against the changes in their current form. Has anyone started a petition already? | ||||
| Tobias Morris Registered User Username: tobias Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2004 |
Message for John - I understand that you are the person who runs the website. Can you tell me whether there is a way of allowing people to add their name and addresses to a petition via a new topic on Pitshanger voice without the need for them to register a username and password? Thanks for your help. | ||||
| Martin Kelly Registered User Username: majik Post Number: 60 Registered: 05-2004 |
Over the next few Saturdays we will be organising a series of Workshops to show the plans being put forward by the Council for Pitshanger Lane. You are all very welcome to come along look over the plans at your leisure, see and hear the views of other local residents and make your views know. Venue is North Ealing Primary School (ent via Woodfield Road) from 9:30 to 12.30 on the following Saturdays June 6th, 20th, 27th & July 4th, 11th We do not represent the PCA or endorse their views. Martin Kelly & Tony Purton Come and tell us what you think and want. For further info, contact us at martinkelly@mac.com | ||||
| Tobias Morris Registered User Username: tobias Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2004 |
Thanks Martin. Assume you mean the entrance down the side of North Ealing School (it isnt woodfield road though just in case this confuses people). | ||||
| Martin Kelly Registered User Username: majik Post Number: 61 Registered: 05-2004 |
Sorry Folks The school entrance in Woodbury Park Road, not Woodfield Road. See you Saturday | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 53 Registered: 05-2004 |
Ealing Council's latest Streets for People leaflet, from the meeting of the Cleveland Ward Forum in St Barnabas Hall on 20 May 09 is now available for download here. | ||||
| C Southern Registered User Username: chalezsuv Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2009 |
At the meeting, Ealing Council declared that they were unaware of any changes to our bus transport, specifically, the use of double-decker buses. This was obviously not the case
I feel the onslaught of these buses has already negatively affected the nature of Pitshanger lane. | ||||
| Les Beaumont Registered User Username: lesat74 Post Number: 5 Registered: 05-2008 |
We've had a public consultation. Most people in Pitshanger can't wait for these improvements to get underway. As usual, up pop a vocal minority trying to get their own way again. Hopefully, the council will continue to ignore them. | ||||
| Martin Kelly Registered User Username: majik Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2004 |
Hi Les I'm sorry that you feel that those who have grave reservations about this scheme should be ignored. I have worked very hard over the past 10-15 years try and keep this area special and I truly believe that the scheme put forward will have potentially disastrous effects on the shops in the Lane. The council admitted in their own publicity that the shop keepers had not been consulted about the proposals. The eco-system along the lane is quite fragile and the loss of only half a dozen shops could kill off the rest. TfL who have put up the money are only concerned with the buses keeping to schedule and have very little concern over the future of the Lane. Come along to one of our Saturday meetings and hear the views of many of your neighbours who are also extremely worried about these plans and talk things over. At the recent meeting called by the local councillors, it seemed that 80%+ of those there were against the scheme. I'm not after my own way,as you say, but I believe that this scheme has not been thought through properly. Remember the Tram, that had a 72% approval rating, support from the Mayor, all the local councils and political parties. When we finally dragged the details of the scheme out of TfL, nearly everybody turned against it and it ended up being scraped. We all wants best for the Lane, and that should come from all the local residents and not be imposed on us by other parties with very different agenda's to ours. | ||||
| candace Brooks Registered User Username: candace Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2009 |
This is what I believe - Pitshanger Lane is precious and unique. It is a thriving community with lovely shops and pleasantly wide tree lined pavements - allowing mothers of young children (such as myself) - a safer shopping/walking to and from school experience. I and all the neighbours I have spoken with would be devasted to loose any aspect of Pitshanger Lane in it's current form and I agree whole heartedly with Martin Kelly when he highlights the fragility of the lanes eco system. The question has to be why on earth attempt to fix something which is not broken? As for the age old argument on allowing extra width for the countless and at most times (save rushhour ) empty buses - then why stop at widening just the lane???? The parked cars and narrow road do not simply disappear once you get past Holyoake walk! The fact is this is a SUBURBAN area - where there are lots of houses and shops - NOT a dual carriageway. What I am trying to point out is that even if TFL do get their way and widen the lane, buses will continue to get snarled up all the way past the church, at the woodfield Rd turnoff and of course all the way up Woodfield Rd - in particular the St Gregorys school area. Perhaps we should just turn the whole area into one giant bus lane!? (steady Mr Beaumont just a little joke!) And in actual fact I put the lanes excellent low accident rate down to the fact that, as it is currently, buses and indeed cars are forced to slow down and cannot speed through - which would of course become much more of a problem once the road is widened. In summary, I believe the odd delayed bus is a small price to pay in order to keep Pitshanger a safe and pleasant place to live. | ||||
| martin Registered User Username: martin Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2009 |
Pitshanger was designed as a city garden suburb and remains an oasis of relative calm in the chaos of London, that retains a strong community spirit which is unusual in London. I believe that the village feel contributes massively to this community spirit, and the lane itself is a social gathering point which we should celebrate and protect. The independant nature and the quality selection of shops and cafes coupled with the wide pavements make the lane a truly special place to shop. Friends and family who visit the area always comment on how lovely the lane is and how lucky we are to have a traditional "high street" where people stop and chat. The naturally wide pavements and narrow road create a pleasant place to stroll and shop, and provide a natural traffic calming effect that contributes to this special feel of the place. If the lane is turned into a 2 way street, then the traffic speeds will increase, accidents will increase, pedestrians will find it a more intimidating experience navigating the lane, and the very relaxed nature of the lane will be damaged massively. I do know that sometimes buses are delayed by a few seconds while they navigate the lane, but the price the users of the lane would pay to reduce the bus transit time by a few seconds is disproportionately high. I think it would be tragic if the current residents were to allow the lane to be turned from a safe and traditional centre of a community into another soul-less thoroughfare that cities are full of. I have seen many towns lose their identity as a result of short sighted and poorly executed town improvement plans such as this. In my experience a community never recovers from such a dramatic change. These are only my opinions. I feel privelaged to find myself living in this amazing village-in-a- city, and hope that TFL/PCA get enough similar feedback to reconsider their plans. | ||||
| Les Beaumont Registered User Username: lesat74 Post Number: 6 Registered: 05-2008 |
Candace, the Lane may not be broken but in my view it's showing quite a few cracks and could do with the improvements being proposed. Given the money being offered by TfL, we ought to be welcoming it with open, albeit guarded, arms. The fact that buses are held up at other points on their routes is a red herring. Once the Lane is no longer a problem, TfL can begin to address the next holdup. And describing the future Lane as "another soul-less thoroughfare" and the proposals as "a dramatic change" is, if I may say, a bit overdramatic. And would TfL be spending all this money if the buses were being delayed for only "a few seconds"? Have you ever sat in a car outside the school for five or more minutes while the traffic backs up to the roundabout and several buses attempt to "navigate the Lane"? No one wants speeding traffic - that's why traffic calming measures are an integral part of the scheme - but surely we would all benefit from improvements to the traffic flow and parking? I took up Martin's invitation to one of the Saturday meetings and Martin explained his detailed objections to the proposals as they now stand. The four main ones being the loss of pavement width on the Oscar's side, the potential hold-ups resulting from more than one bus waiting at the new bus stop locations, the likelihood that buses will still not be able to pass each other when one is stopped and there are larger parked vehicles on the other side of the road and the traders' desire for Stop & Shop parking to increase trade. Martin has done some detailed measurements and analysis and I think he's got a valid point about the location of the bus stops and Stop & Shop parking. I fail to see why pavement widths are so sacrosanct and have no objection to the Oscar's side pavement being narrowed. Martin told me that if it were to be narrowed by a further 60cm on top of that already proposed it would solve the problem of buses being able to pass each other. Alternatively, I suggest, parking could be prohibited opposite the bus stops but allowed along the rest of that side. I disagree with Martin's proposal to leave the Oscar's side pavement as it is and prohibit all parking on that side. This would result in a reduction of parking spaces on the Lane, force more parking on to the side streets and wouldn't be much help to the Lane's traders. If the present proposals do not solve the problem of buses passing each other then this is a fatal flaw that needs addressing. Stop and Shop is something that can be added at a later date. The rest is down to personal opinion. Whatever the final plan is, some trade-offs will have to be made. Narrow pavements or less parking? More parking or less trade? More trade or empty shops? OK, I've chosen the trade-offs to demonstrate my argument. Others will articulate them differently, of course. I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of pavement, others aren't. Democracy will rule. Hopefully. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 81 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION: Ealing Council's 28 May issued plans for the PItshanger Lane shopping parade, coloured to show the key features, are displayed in the shop windows of No.38 Watson & May, No,66 Launderette, No.82 John Martin Estates (inside), No.155 Mirage Opiticans, No.121 Brentham Furnishers. Copies of all three plans displayed at the 28 May meeting in St Barabas Church Hall are displayed in the windows of Pitshanger Library. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 82 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION: An analysis of Ealing Council's proposals for Pitshanger Lane is attached together with discussion of possible alternatives. These pages are also displayed in the window of No.38 Watson & May
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 83 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION: A list of the experiments Ealing Council have been invited to conduct to test the dynamics of their proposals for Pitshanger Lane is attached. These pages are displayed in the window of No.38 Watson & May.
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION: Attached is a record of Freedom of Information Act questions and answers regarding Ealing Council's propopsals for Pitshanger Lane. Some answers are still awaited.
| ||||
| Daniela Petrassi Registered User Username: daniela Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2009 |
To me, it seems there are plenty of valid sensible points here that need to be addressed, it's clear that the scheme is not yet right. The timing of the works clashes with the rebuilding of North Ealing Primary School on Pitshanger Lane. Due to safety concerns, the huge disruption and noise pollution likely, it seems most appropriate to postpone implementing Streets for People until after the completion of the school works next year. This leaves time for the Streets for People plans to be revised. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 85 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION: The attached Power Point presentation demonstrates key elements of the Council's scheme for Pitshanger Lane by building them up sequentially. This may help those who find drawings confusing to read. Two more workshops at NE School (Woodbury Park Road entrance) will present this and other information for discussion. Getting the scheme RIGHT is more inportant than doing it NOW.
| ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 54 Registered: 05-2004 |
An updated version of the design from Ealing Council, incorporating a few changes resulting from the meeting on 28 May 09, is available for download here. The main design changes are transfer of the Albert Road loading bay to the Lane, four stop and shop bays on Albert Road (where the loading bay was) and three at the other end of the Lane. The Cleveland Ward Councillors have signed off this version of the design and advised the Council portfolio holder that the scheme should move on to implementation. | ||||
| Martin Kelly Registered User Username: majik Post Number: 65 Registered: 05-2004 |
Yet again the councillors are trying to force through a botched, fatally flawed and incomplete scheme without any approval from the residents or traders.(Could you please show where THIS plan was submitted to the local people for their approval) Why the rush, its taken 10 years of effort on the part of the local residents to get something done and now they want to force this plan through. Why? The best way of doing any project is to get it right first time. We cannot gamble with the Lane's future. There is a Cleveland ward forum being held this Thursday at the Drayton Court Hotel at 7.30pm. Can as many residents who have an opinion, for or against please turn up. Let Pitshanger residents say what should be done about the Lane, not people who have other agenda's. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 86 Registered: 04-2005 |
Cleveland Ward councillors may have 'signed off' the 'Streets for People' Scheme but that does not mean the people have. There is still a final democratic hurdle the Council has to leap, the advertisement of the necessary Traffic Orders in the Ealing Gazette which will allow 21 calendar days for public objection, after which the Council have to secure the final go-ahead from TfL having taken account of those objections. If they follow previous form, the Council may be tempted to advertise the Traffic Orders during the long school summer holiday - a good time to bury bad news. This would be a sure indication that the Council is determined to frustrate the exercise of our democratic rights. If you don't like any aspect of the scheme, tell Ealing Council NOW and KEEP TELLING THEM.[mailto:TonksC@ealing.gov.uk] There is another way of improving the Lane without sacrificing its essential village nature - see the attached Power Point presentation.
| ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 87 Registered: 04-2005 |
A letter to Ealing Gazette in defence of democracy - AND Pitshanger Lane's broad pavements!
| ||||
| Daniela Petrassi Registered User Username: daniela Post Number: 2 Registered: 06-2009 |
Simple online petition gathering names of those who object to any aspect of the current Streets for People plans: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229CK7VX9MG Please let others know about this, it is pretty urgent now. The lane is already suffering from the effects of the recession, Robert Dyas is closing down and others considering it. If ever there was a time to protect the Lane it is now. You may also wish to e-mail the Council (see Tony Purtons' post of 14th July 09). We are lucky to have Tony and a handful of others looking out for the community, otherwise we will sleepwalk into finally wrecking the very character that attracts us to live here. | ||||
| Jamie Cuttica Registered User Username: jamie_c Post Number: 5 Registered: 01-2006 |
Since the last posting on 11 Aug 2009 the scheme is now well underway. I have personally noted the following: 1. The paving looks good on the north side and there appears to still be a significant amount of space for pedestrians. 2. The bays at the west end of the Lane (outside Samrat) are equivalent to about three quarters of the width of a normal car. At the present time, this is causing traffic congestion as there are cars parked on the opposite side too meaning that there is not enough space for traffic flow in both directions. Is the eventual plan for there to be double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road to the bays ? Well, only time will tell whether the scheme has been a success or not. If anyone wants to express their views on the current situation regarding the work taking place, I would be interested to also hear what others feel about it. | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 57 Registered: 05-2004 |
Jamie, Quite a few people have asked about the width of the pavement inset outside Samrat. The way the scheme is supposed to work in this part of Pitshanger Lane can be seen by looking at a before/after comparison. Before: Unrestricted parking on the South side (Old Oak Florist etc), yellow line on the North side (West Kebab etc), no indents. After: Yellow line on the South side, unrestricted parking on the North side in 1.4m indent. The net effect of moving the parking from one side of the Lane to the other and introducing a 1.4m indent is to increase the carriageway available for vehicles by 1.4m. This should be just enough to allow trucks and buses to pass one another. The yellow line on the South side hasn’t been introduced yet, probably to maintain parking capacity while work continues elsewhere in the Lane. | ||||
| Jamie Cuttica Registered User Username: jamie_c Post Number: 7 Registered: 01-2006 |
Thanks for your explanation John. I expected this to be the case. In the meantime, it has caused some congestion at peak times but all seems to be coming along nicely. | ||||
| Tony Purton Registered User Username: cupid Post Number: 88 Registered: 04-2005 |
FOR INFORMATION PITSHANGER LANE – A PROGRESS REPORT BY TONY PURTON Work on the remodelling of Pitshanger Lane under the TfL-funded ‘Streets for People’ scheme should be substantially completed by the end of April when the final stretch between Barnfield Road and Lindfield Road is completed. As the scheme has materialized on the ground many people have been surprised and puzzled about the design of the scheme despite the drawings displayed in shop windows late last year and the block diagram boards erected in the Lane before work began. Because the Council refused to conduct any experimental trials of key features of the design we cannot be sure how the new layout will work in reality. Much will depend on the understanding of motorists using the Lane, and the Council’s vigilance in enforcing the new parking/waiting/loading restrictions which will be the subject of an enforcement ‘Blitz’ campaign when the scheme goes ‘live’. SOME DESIGN CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LOADING BAY OPPOSITE HARROW VIEW ROAD - is to be moved back into Albert Road, where the design originally placed it in March 2008, because it has been realized that parked lorries would create a dangerous blind entry to the informal pedestrian crossing between Co-op and the corner of Harrow View Road. INFORMAL CROSSING HARROW VIEW ROAD - the North and South kerbs of that informal crossing are being built out to the line of the adjacent car-parking bays to improve pedestrian/wheelchair user sightlines. STOP-N-SHOP - Local traders have prevailed on Ward councillors to increase the stop-n-shop places to about 25 (half the available car-parking spaces) by designating the car-parking bays Curzon Road/Harrow View Road on the North side and Queen’s Walk to Selby Road on the South side as stop-n-shop bays in addition to the original 7 places. All stop-n-shop bays will be for up to 1 hour only but the timing may be reviewed in the light of experience. OTHER DESIGN PROBLEMS ARE EMERGING INFORMAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS – there are two ‘informal pedestrian crossings, one at road level from the Co-op to Harrow View Road and the other on the raised junction at Selby Road just East of the junction. There is a need for them to be marked so that their presence is understood by both pedestrians and motorists. As presently designed these two crossings would only be obvious to a blind person detecting the ‘tactile pavement’ which invites him to cross the road at that point and as such they will prove either dangerous or useless. BUS STOP MASTS/FLAGS – the three new bus stopping areas, Eastbound at 92-96, Westbound at 111-113 and Westbound at Kent Lodge near the roundabout, are all one and a half times the length of a bus. These generous bus stopping areas would allow two buses to load/unload at the same time EXCEPT THAT London buses appear to be insisting that the bus stop masts/Flags are placed in the middle of the bus stop area where the bus front doors must open (yellow markings on the ground) so that only one bus can load/unload at a time. The Council’s project team seem to have assumed that the masts/flags would be placed at the far end of the bus stop area (white circles marked) so that two buses could use it at the same time. Some common sense is required here, but will it be provided? DOUBLE YELLOW LINE MARKINGS – the double yellow lines so far marked on Pitshanger Lane where the road works are complete are missing the double yellow kerb ‘blips’ called for in the design and specified in the relevant TRAFFIC ORDERS. They are essential to the effectiveness of the scheme and indeed to the ability of Ealing Council to ENFORCE the designed waiting/loading restrictions. Without the kerb ‘blips’ lorries would have 20 minutes to load/unload and blue badge holders could stop for up to three hours on double yellow lines totally frustrating the stated aims of the design. LARGE VEHICLES – When the scheme is finished there will be no loading/unloading facilities in Pitshanger Lane for the 50ft long articulated trucks that deliver to Brentham Furnishers and [from Holland] to the Flower shop at No.111. Unless they are prevented from doing so, large lorries will simply double-park alongside parked cars, blocking one side of the road and creating the sort of traffic jams the scheme is supposed to eliminate, There is a need to ban all vehicles of more than 7.5tonnes (except buses) from either transiting or delivering to Pitshanger Lane. This would be consistent with the planning limitation on the maximum size of delivery vehicles specified in the planning approval for the Co-op store at 107/109 Pitshanger Lane but never enforced by Ealing Council. It would also encourage the use of the service road behind the shops on the South side of Pitshanger Lane. A link needs to be made with the DfT’s national distribution strategy http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/su stainable/sustainabledistributionastrategy?page=9 to restrict the access of massive vehicles into small local streets, both from a size/safety point of view and from a weight and wear point of view. ACCESS TO THE SERVICE ROAD – It is vital to ensure that access in Queen’s Walk and Albert Road to the service road behind Kenmure Mansions on the South side of Pitshanger Lane is kept clear so that it can be used for deliveries to those shops, as originally intended. To this end it is necessary to protect the entry/exit areas in Queens Walk and Albert Road with double yellow lines AND double kerb ‘blips’ – and to ENFORCE these restrictions. STREET FURNITURE – Ealing Council say that the design and layout of the street furniture for Pitshanger Lane is ‘under review’ and that when completed their plans will be published. They have not said they will be open to discussion (‘consultation’). I have asked that the plans should show the relationship of street furniture to the 1.0m/3ft private shop forecourts at Nos.38, 42, 44, 48, 52, 80, 110, 112, 157,155 as well as the existing and potential Street Trading areas [1.0m at Nos.68, 135, 2&3 Albert Terrace, the existing licensed 2.0m Street Cafe area at No.125 (Oscars) and the potential 2.0m Street Café areas at Nos. 68 (Café 786) and 90 (Cinnamon), which it is hoped that the scheme will encourage]. So far the Council has shown extreme reluctance to take ALL pavement ownership and street trading activity into account in designing and placing street furniture. If you have any thoughts on these issues you should send them to the Council’s Project Officer Christopher Tonks, mailto: Christopher Tonks (TonksC@ealing.gov.uk) | ||||
| John Bird Registered User Username: johnb Post Number: 58 Registered: 05-2004 |
The following article was published today in the PCA Newsletter for April 2010. Since the last PCA Newsletter, there’s been a huge amount of noisy and disruptive Streets for People construction work in Pitshanger Lane. With the central section just about done, work has moved to the ends of the Lane: a raised crossing for North Ealing School has been put in, and near the Post Office work continues on the last raised table and pavement indent. Once they’ve been completed and the eastern half of the Lane resurfaced, that’s it, done and dusted. Or is it? With the tarmac still sticky, a couple of changes are already in the pipeline. The first of these will be to move the loading bay for the Co-op back round the corner into Albert Road, where it was in an earlier version of the design. The second is an increase in the initial allocation of Stop & Shop spaces from nine to a total of 13 or 14, which the Cleveland Ward Councillors have agreed to in response to a request from a number of traders. Given the current trading situation on Pitshanger Lane, the PCA Committee is cautiously in favour of the Stop & Shop adjustment, but we are pressing Ealing Council to base the final allocation on a proper survey of parking use in Pitshanger Lane and the surrounding streets. We feel that’s the only way to ensure a fair result for traders, shoppers and residents, and we will be keeping PCA members informed of progress. The article concludes with a quote from Tony Purton, which reflects parts of his post to this thread dated 21 Apr 10. For the sake of clarity, the proposal from the Cleveland Ward Councillors to which the PCA Committee has responded involves a total of 13 or 14 stop and shop spaces, not 25 as referred to by Tony Purton in his post of 21 Apr 10. |
