Forum Topic

Lammas Park (Again) - URGENT HEALTH WARNING

A concerned local noticed the water coming into these ponds wasn’t right and has carried out a lab analysis test on the tennis courts endI’ve seen the report and it looks legitimate Can’t include picture but the text states:-Water quality DANGERKeep children and dogs away from this water.22 February 2025Test for E.coli levelsResult 3603 E.Coli/100mlColony Forming UnitsMore than 3x above maximum limit for river waterIf you come into contact with this water wash your hands thoroughly with soap in running water and dry them completely - use liquid soap and warm water if you can.Source NHS InformE.Coli/100mL:Test site location: What3Words tricks.influencing.brandedSource of pollution:Ealing Council Sustainable urbanDrainage System (SuDS) scheme has connected surface water drains to the ponds in the north of Lammas park which flow into the large excavated basins in the south of the park.The surface water drains shows a very high level of sewage contamination. The grey water and brown sludge is clearly visible. The water in the discharge pipe also smells of sewage.Test equipment: Fluidion Alert One AnalyserSymptoms of E. coli infectionSymptoms include diarrhoea, stomach cramps and occasionally fever.About half of people with the infection will have bloody diarrhoea.People usually notice symptoms 3 to 4 days after they have been infected. But symptoms can start any time between 1 and 14 days afterwards.These symptoms can last up to 2 weeks.Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS)A small number of people with E. coli 0157 infection go on to develop a serious condition called haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include:•peeing less•tiredness•swelling•bruisingThis can sometimes lead to kidney failure and death, although this is rare.The risk of HUS is highest in children aged under 5 years.Source: NHS Inform websiteEaling Council and Thames Water — a circus and its clowns (allegedly)

Colin Goodman ● 96d102 Comments

Not wishing to be rude but is it necessary for the cycling lobby to hijack this?With the new front page story of a Victorian house being demolished and Ealing council ratifying in favour of developers the writing is on the wall for Lammas Park Add to that the absolutely hopeless position of Thames Water and clearly we’ve lost Lammas Park forever in the guise that generations had enjoyed Sad

Colin Goodman ● 75d

Dominik. Perhaps I’m missing something or don’t understand. Where is, or are racist comments made?This is a dangerous allegation

Peter Yale ● 76d

Racist, oh go on play that card, this could be fun."He called me a name", what next, off for counselling?  Go and have a bleat on 'X' the ideal fora for such sensitive souls.As I posted. there are some at whom it is really easy to look down one's nose. Thank you for making it easy Dominik.

N V Brooks ● 76d

Despite our differences of opinion, I have always been polite to you Nigel. I don’t know why you call me names and use such crude language.The snobbish and racist remarks from you and your little cohort of friends now make sense. If you’re not comfortable with people in Ealing who aren’t like you, then just ignore them.

Dominik Klimowski ● 76d

So sorry, I had neglected to note a need for awareness at your owning a raincoat. I did not dispute your figures, or indeed any figures rather your wife's liberal interpretation of them to make a point.  "According to latest figures released in 2024, just over 50% of households in Ealing don't have access to a car."  13/03/25 12:19. WRONG  When I see data misused, I shall 'call it out'.Enjoy what is left of the sunshine.

N V Brooks ● 78d

There are some at whom it is really easy to look down one's nose. Thank you for making it easy Dominik.

N V Brooks ● 78d

I’m sure Dominik could afford a car if he chose to. He’s made his choice, which is up to him. Others have made theirs, but he seems critical of them. Perhaps he dislikes being in a minority? Who knows.He’s ignoring the TfL figures that show 2/3 of households in Ealing have at least one car. But that’s the LCC way. Cherry pick the stats that might show they are right and ignore the genuine figures. Then ignore it being pointed out to them.Dominik is very quiet about this. Unusually so.Mint good for him to cycle to and from work. One hopes there’s a shower there because most people who work with cycling commuters will know there’s a particular whiff that comes into the office, especially on a warm day…..

Simon Hayes ● 78d

I’m looking at the figures in question and they show 50% of households in Ealing with no car (an increase on previous years), and 81 cars per 100 households in Ealing (a decrease from 95 in 2021). Like I said, if you dispute the figures then that’s up to you, but don’t tell me I’ve misinterpreted them. I’m simply reading them out to you. Although at first glance they may look incompatible, they are a good illustration of the divide in Ealing (and to a greater extent, in many parts of London).I asked you your thoughts on the graph on page 19 of the Tfl document I linked to which shows a decline in regular trips taken by car. I was interested to know your thoughts, as I know you value data from Tfl. I am curious to know whether you now dispute both the Tfl figures and the DVLA ones (from the Healthy Streets site).You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but please don’t pretend you have done and then start calling me names. Nothing is deleted here, so you can go back through your comments at any time to check.As for your parting remark about cycling in nice weather. I, like many others, commute across London by bike. The primary reason I do so is I need to save money. I also own a raincoat. You’re well aware of this as I’ve mentioned it before in answer to people’s questions.Not all of us have money to burn on owning and maintaining a car, or even spending on public transport every day. The figures above would substantiate this. It’s not nice to look down your nose at people. Check your privilege Nigel.

Dominik Klimowski ● 78d

They are the perfect LCC foot soldiers. Engaged in a minority transport interest, will countenance no criticism of their lifestyle choices despite how much they affect others and blunder on regardless misquoting data to meet their narrow agenda.  Perfect X posters really.

N V Brooks ● 78d

Let’s help Dominik out here.The TfL figures were produced under a Freedom of Information request and were presented to the London Assembly when the ULEZ expansion was going ahead. Not that long ago.They contain a lot of detail, including income groups and other data that aren’t garnered from DVLA.  The level of information is such that it’s unlikely that they have simply made up these figures, otherwise they might have doctored the results to be more favourable for themselves.The detail will have been obtained from each local authority, which have the responsibility for administering parking permits abd the like.What Dominik might not understand, as a non car owner, is that the DVLA holds registration details but not necessarily where a vehicle is kept. The two are quite distinct, with the latter required for parking permits and insurance, etc.Of course, this information won’t make a scrap of difference to Dominik and his wife, as they aren’t interested in debate (despite his claims), but rather to impose their views on everyone else and ignore anything that proves them wrong.They would be much better off sticking to X.

Simon Hayes ● 78d

Dominik, I do not trust any figures from “official “ sources- government/council & even less so from tfl & khan.Figures are manipulated, twisted, renamed, applied to knife crime too.Cars are a necessity for many, people want & need cars.There’s a constant penalising of drivers, at any opportunity.Congestion, pollution, ultra congestion, electric.Because it suits you & your lifestyle to walk or cycle, it doesn’t for plenty of others - who are attempted to be forced into doing so.I have a car & I can assure you I’m by no means rich .This is to Charlotte

Peter Yale ● 78d

Your wife inaccurately interpreted the ownership figures and then interpreted these as fact. The Tfl figures show car ownership in Ealing significantly higher than the figure  that she either intentionally or unintentionally misquoted. In addition the TfL data does not show car ownership in rapid decline as she claimed. I really cannot make this any clearer for you. If you cannot interpret this as a response the message you find some help to read it to you. It's a shame that you're not going anywhere at it's a sunny day,the kind of weather where minority transport enthusiasts like yourself are out and about on their velocipedes.  Rain is predicted for litre so no doubt the minority transport enthusiasts will soon be scurrying home.

N V Brooks ● 78d

I'm not going anywhere Nigel.My questions were:What do you mean by ‘accurately quoting a report’ in this instance? And which statistics do you dispute: the DVLA ones, or the Tfl ones?If you've lost track of what I'm referring to, it's several comments back.Can you give an answer that everyone can read, rather than one that we have to 'interpret'?Many thanks.

Dominik Klimowski ● 78d

Then walk away if neither you nor your wife have anything sensible to add bye.Just a word,that I did in fact answer your questions, if you are incapable of interpreting my responses without being a patronising fool, then that's really not my problem as I don't have time to break everything down into words of one syllable for you

N V Brooks ● 78d

Nigel, why is it you insist on answers to your questions, but can’t answer anyone else’s? On each occasion you resort to childish namecalling or puerile remarks. It’s not conducive to a proper forum, just really boring.

Dominik Klimowski ● 78d

But velophiles is actually a word as a "pretty smart" person like yourself must realise.

N V Brooks ● 78d

Do stop being a patronising twat Dominik however difficult that must be for you. What joy it must be in your home.Simply ask your wife in future to quote a report accurately.

N V Brooks ● 78d

Life is not a series of disappointments, but this forum certainly is. You probably feel the same way.What do you mean by ‘accurately quoting a report’ in this instance? And which statistics do you dispute: the DVLA ones, or the Tfl ones? Please be specific. Confer if you wish. Take your time..

Dominik Klimowski ● 78d

""Perhaps you can tell your beloved to read a report in full before she posts rubbish."Could you be more of a sexist pig, Nigel?(Spoiler, don't care, no you couldn't).Also, if you're going to call people names, you chose "velophiles""Pedalophiles" was right there in front of you. Modern, relevant, funny. You chose "velophiles".You're the joke."" (13/03/25 22:26:00 Charlotte Lester)Velophile (plural velophiles): - Someone who enjoys bicycles or cycling (source: Wiktionary, https://en.wiktionary.org › wiki › velophile). Some people enjoy/appreciate bicycles or cycling more then others. Some people could be obsessed or persistently preoccupied about this enjoyment/appreciation.

Anthony Hawran ● 78d

Oh, let me give your observations the time that they deserve.Move along dearie, nothing to see here. Really don't care what you and the other virtue signallers think.

N V Brooks ● 79d

One word: Tough. Enjoy living in the 19th century. I'll enjoy my Hybrid SUV and the new one coming in June. Lovely sense of freedom which allows me to forget about my disabilities for an hour or three. Will I give you observations a minute of thought? Not a chance.

N V Brooks ● 79d

"Perhaps you can tell your beloved to read a report in full before she posts rubbish."Could you be more of a sexist pig, Nigel?(Spoiler, don't care, no you couldn't).Also, if you're going to call people names, you chose "velophiles""Pedalophiles" was right there in front of you. Modern, relevant, funny. You chose "velophiles".You're the joke.

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Not sure how to do that on here - let me know and we'll meet up. Always interested to meet someone passionate about their cause.

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Message me then.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

Good! Lets meet up and chat in person.

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Er, no.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

Panicking much?

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Thanks Charlotte. Yes, people read this forum and laugh at the virtue signalling bollocks people like you come out with.If you don’t like how other people live, that’s up to you. Whingeing about it here isn’t going to make a scrap of difference to the planet. Maybe write to Donald Trump instead!And your assumptions about me are so wide of the mark it’s laughable. If that’s the best entertainment you can find you might need to get some help.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

I've read your posts, Simon, you are a lonely man masquerading as an expert. I haven't taken a flight for the last 25 years, I don't use Amazon, I walk to work. The emergency services have access to all areas. Welcome to the modern world? Pretty sure I'm younger than you. And by the way, slagging off other people on this forum is not doing you any favours. A lot of people read this forum but don't post. Thanks for the entertainment.

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Better stop getting those Amazon deliveries than Charlotte. Or use a bus. Or expect your local shops to have any deliveries. Or ambulances, police or fire engines staying in their garages.You bleeding heart types are hilarious. I wonder if you have qualms about flying off on holiday. Go and look at the problems with that.It’s amazing how simple minded some people are. Welcome to the modern world.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

"car ownership and usage remains higher in Ealing than many London boroughs. Long may it remain so"Brilliant, well said.Except for -Road runoff infecting our rivers, including screenwash, tyre particulates, disc brake particulates, oil, diesel, microplastics... all finding their way into our rivers and streams and destroying ecosystems that we are part of. Cars are carbon intensive to make and run, and we all need to become carbon literate. Cars are a danger to all road users, especially disgusting and pointless SUVs, and only rich people can afford cars, driving around pumping out fumes into the lungs of poorer, younger people.

Charlotte Lester ● 79d

Life, for you, must be one long series of disappointments. The rubbish to which I refer is that so freely spouted by your beloved who seems incapable of either accurately quoting a report or who takes the existence of frogs as proof of water quality. As I said such a disappointment for you.

N V Brooks ● 79d

Stick a small pond in your back garden and you will get frogs. Why not try that Dominik? Gardening is far more beneficial for you than cycling.As for the stats, well you disappoint every time.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

Are you talking about the frogs in Lammas Park? Have you been to seen them? I was amazed - I don't think I've seen that many frogs in my life up til now.Which facts do you deem to be 'rubbish' and why? The DVLA stats or the Tfl ones? Don't disappoint me again!

Dominik Klimowski ● 79d

New best prepared to be disappointed then the. I don't confer with anybody, let alone my friends, before I post. Perhaps you might ask your beloved to confer with the facts before she posts the rubbish that she puts up here on topics as diverse as traffic and frogs about which she seems to know very little on either topic.

N V Brooks ● 79d

I wonder what Dominik has against private car ownership. Is there some psychological disorder triggered by an event involving a car when he was a child? Surely he could make an exciting movie about it.What Dominik, his wife and the small band of people who agree with them don’t comprehend is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with owning and using a car, in London or elsewhere. It’s not illegal. Just because some po faced cycling nutters wish it was doesn’t make it so.But Dominik, think about the ownership model of Uber next time you jump in one after your big night out.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

I have literally provided you with Tfl data, Nigel. Also, why would you dispute DVLA data? Is there a conspiracy I don’t know about?And what is the rubbish you’re disputing?By all means confer with your friends before you reply. I want it to be a witty riposte please, or I’ll be disappointed.

Dominik Klimowski ● 79d

No really 🤣Perhaps you can tell your beloved to read a report in full before she posts rubbish.I prefer to use the raw TfL data not that "Healthy Streets" have an agenda do they? 🤣🤣Despite the best efforts of the whining velophiles, Covid 19 and clueless politicians car ownership and usage remains higher in Ealing than many London boroughs. Long may it remain so.

N V Brooks ● 79d

81 cars per 100 households does not mean 81% of households own a car, Nigel.Page 19 here shows how trips have changed by mode of travel since 2005. These figures show a downward trend in journeys taken by car: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-2024-car-ownership-trends-acc.pdfThe Healthy Streets figures are taken from DVLA. The other figures are from Tfl. You can dispute them if you wish.

Dominik Klimowski ● 79d

The TfL source is reliable. Anything else is just spin by campaigners.

Simon Hayes ● 79d

Well, there's a shock. An organisation campainging for a reduction in car ownership cites a lower figure :-)I think that I will trust the official figures which do not show an improbable 10% reduction in two years.Heathy Streets in fact shows 81 cars per 100 households in their own data further on in the report. Rather shoots your limited access claim out of the water Angela doesn't it?

N V Brooks ● 79d

According to latest figures released in 2024, just over 50% of households in Ealing don't have access to a car.https://www.healthystreetsscorecard.london/results/results_outcome_indicators/#ResultsCarOwnership

Angela Klimowska ● 79d

Paul is entitled to his opinion. It’s just sad that he never produces anything remotely resembling a fact to justify anything he says. Apparently what he believes is always the truth, regardless.One of his favourite bleats is that most households in Ealing don’t own a car. A bit of research would reveal that 60 percent of households do, in fact, own a car. That’s a majority, for those who struggle to understand these things.Mind you, anyone who supports Heathrow expansion, as Paul does, has got some seriously skewed values.https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-0972-2425/London%20Car%20Ownership%202022_23.csv

Simon Hayes ● 80d

Thinking would be good, joined-up thinking would be a real bonus.

N V Brooks ● 80d

If the Council were as concerned about flooding as Paul James would like us to believe, they wouldn't be looking to build 300 flats on the Gurnell site nor would they have used HS2 spoil to raise the level of the Ealing Central Sports Ground in Perivale. Preserving green spaces at higher elevations to act as flood plains would reduce the risk the flooding at lower levels. But joined up thinking has never been one of this Council's strengths.

Vlod Barchuk ● 80d

Virtually every area of West London save for those aat the top of a hill is listed having increased risks between now and 2050. Perhaps you should ask those who kowtow and blindly support this pathetic apology for an administration in Ealing why given this risk they permit the construction of ever taller and more densely packed housing.However, in your case I can fully understand that living just above the floodplain in Olde Hanwell you should be very, very worried  although building fetid ponds in Lammas Park will be of absolutely no help to you.

N V Brooks ● 80d

They are putting them in as a sop to the environmentalists so that they can continue building on more of the green space in London. Maybe Mason has a cunning plan o put giant umbrellas on his towers to deflect all that nasty rain away.

Simon Hayes ● 80d

You didn't look at the projections in the West London Strategic Flood Risk Assessment's maps that I linked to then....Why do you think they are putting in such systems in the first place? For fun? To annoy you?

Paul James ● 80d

Yet another subject on which you have so little knowledge but feel inclined to post just to prove that you are still alive. If you could and could be bothered to read the thread and background data you will see that the entire area is deemed as very low risk by the Environment Agency for flooding. The risk is further,for one of a better word, downstream just north of the A4 where numerous underground brooks and streams converge. Never mind let's just dispoil a public resource a public park by building fetid swamps to deal with a non-existent problem. The bit like the enormous, joke, pent up demand for cycle lanes. 

N V Brooks ● 80d

(don't worry everybody, we'll all be dead or on our last legs before this all really kicks in, so, keep carrying on as normal, the kids and grandkids can deal with it!)

Paul James ● 80d

Lots of internesting maps here, I hope you've all got wellies and boats and properties on stilts if you manage to stop the authorities building drainage systems!https://westlondonsfra.london/mapping-tool/

Paul James ● 80d

New research reveals that Ealing Council is heavily involved in two pan-London drainage plans/organisations. The LoSUDS plan was crafted in 2016. The LoDEG orgnisation involves our Council, the other 31 London Councils, the Environment Agency, TfL, Thames Water Flood Officers and Thames Water.No wonder I got no response whatsoever from the Environment Agency re the E.coli revelations in Lammas Park!!Also LoSUDS/LoDEG are well underway in digging up a third Ealing park - at Belvue Park, Northolt. After Dean Gardens and Lammas Park this makes three. I wonder which will be the fourth to be dug up?

Eric Alan Leach ● 80d

The million pounds over four years was the increase thet gave themselves , Nigel. Straight after being re-elected and after years of telling us there was no money. Pure greed.https://neighbournet.com/server/common/eacouncil220.htm

Simon Hayes ● 81d

You are way off the Mark Simon. It's not one million pounds over four years it's 1 million pounds every year. Each councillor draws c.£12,000 per year plus special responsibility and cabinet allowances; that equates to well over 1 million pounds each and every year. For what?

N V Brooks ● 81d

It’s a dreadful read from front to back or back to front. Puff pieces and rather skimping on facts.They do at least have contact details for all councillors reinstated, which will please Arthur. I suggest contacting these representatives and asking thrr we m to represent all of us, not just the cycling lobbyists and LGBTQ+ community.They could start by reinstating ward forums, which were far more use to residents than the town ones they introduced.No mention of the continued big allowances taken by councillors, over a million pounds across the four years from 2022-26. The increase was the first thing Mason and his Labour cohort voted on after the last local elections.No mention of the reduction in council housing in most of thr new developments or re-developments across the borough. Affordable housing is not the same as social housing (ie council housing, which is what’s really needed).No mention of the £400m loan Ealing took out to fund its loss-making development arm Broadway Living. There’s a genuine risk that this entity will go belly up in the current economic climate (despite it ‘getting on’ with Gurnell). Then a 4.99 percent council tax hike will seem like a dream…No mention of the failure to get the planning committee to decide on the John Lewis planning application in West Ealing (despite it being a key council duty). Instead left to local residents to oppose the application at a planning tribunal, which the council failed to attend.No mention of continued failing to submit Authority Monitoring Reports, despite a legal obligation to do so. This gives developers the whip hand at planning appeals (at our expense).A boast about Community Infrastructure Levy being introduced this year to replace the old s106 payments from developers. It’s taken Ealing Council over decade to introduce what other London authorities have been collecting for years. It’s more beneficial for the areas being developed because it is a simpler and more transparent scheme than s106, where infrastructure spending mysteriously didn’t happen.There’s plenty more, of course, but nothing you’d read in a publicly funded propaganda rag.Some pretty pictures, though.

Simon Hayes ● 81d

Just received the ''propaganda on the council tax'' latest edition of around Ealing. Unsurprisingly no mention of the shambles that is Lammas Park in the borough, the usual findings of the survey that suggests that (again) c.87% of respondents think the council is doing a good job. I've never been asked and know of no-one that has been, who'd have thought eh?

peter king ● 81d

As the weather warms up it's going to be wonderful with the mosquitoes around a fetid lagoon or two. I do hope the council apologists all live next to it although I doubt that they do. Councillors have, as ever, been totally silent, hope that they enjoy taking their generous allowances.

N V Brooks ● 83d

In conversation earlier this morning with a friend of mine that lives on Elers Road he offered the following observations:"Yep, I was talking to the Thames Water guys at the site yesterday.  Ealing Council initiated the connection of the surface water interceptor to the top swamp, presumably to keep it wet and justify the scheme.TW were busy trying to find out where the sewerage contamination was coming from, some inept builder has probably connected an extension foul water drain to a rain water drain.Two points, the ecoili is now making its way through the linked pipe to the main Suds area.  The second is that the Thames Water guy said that "surface water can't be guaranteed to be uncontaminated" (his words) and their surface water network was adequate and he had no idea why Ealing would want to connect the enclosed surface water drain to the lagoons.The fact that Ealing did this (last year) without testing the water first is nothing short of criminal."And also this slightly later on:"I have just talked to the guy sitting in the cab of the tanker again.  His job is to watch the level in the surface water interceptor and if it rises so it might start running down the council pipe into the lagoon he pumps it out.This is negligence bordering on  criminal by the council, how can the officers not think to test the water before they diverted it into the lagoons."

Tony Colliver ● 83d

Any comments from Angela and the Council Apologists (that’s not an indie band by the way) following TW closing Elers Road and FINALLY doing extensive works on the foul sewers?!?!?Surely to God absolutely NOBODY can be in any doubt of how Ealing council views Lammas Park now? They simply couldn’t give a “fig”.These works were in no way required but sewer maintenance was and is.If anything they’ve made an issue where there never was one and we’ve lost vital open land forever.Those who signed off on this mad scheme need to have serious investigations taken against them as it all stinks as bad as the “park” did as I entered via Clovelly Road today.Next up…. Half million pound “apartments” the Borough desperately needs and MPIM entertainment

Colin Goodman ● 84d

My recent experience with the Environmental Agency (EA) is very worrying. After two detailed phone calls about the problem neither it nor its 'local agents' (Ealing Council?) have bothered to get back to me. When I said I'd send them an email the EA said no you can't send us an email. The EA seems as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Eric Alan Leach ● 86d

Actually, you can do a quick assessment using their online tool (enter a postcode here https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/postcode). The postcode for the park is W13 9QD, which is the postcode for Elers Rd. The current risk varies on Elers Rd; at the north end currently low, increasing to medium between 2040-60, risk is lower in the middle of the street but then is high at the southern end. The risk of flooding in the part itself is deemed very low, except for a strip running across it. There is a water surface map which might be easier to follow. (https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=517262&northing=179829&map=SurfaceWater). It’s interesting to look around the borough, as it seems that there are some areas more likely to flood than the streets around Lammas Park (Acton Main Line, parts of Perivale).

Vlod Barchuk ● 86d

A very knowledgeable local lady has pointed out the following information from the East Lodge planning application.‘4.5 flood Risk Zone The site is less than 1 hectare and is designated by The Environment Agency as having “Very Low Risk” of flooding by rivers and sea and “Low Risk” of flooding by surface water. Furthermore, the site is within the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone 1 which has a low probability of flooding from rivers and the sea.‘I wonder if the EA just invented that and really the park is underwater most of the time.

Simon Hayes ● 86d

You guys are crazy trying to prove what a disaster this is with, well….y’know…actual hard facts like!!!!The apologists won’t see it.As Vlod says…. In theory absolutely ANYWHERE could flood.If you see a fella with a load of lumber knocking up a boat in Lammas with two of various types of animal tied to healthy tree stumps around the park then start to panicThe history was all summed up perfectly on this very forum by a gentleman who worked clearing the drains decades ago.Any chance of flooding is a result of penny pinching and cluelessness in development and works since. That “flooding” is minimal at bestEnd of

Colin Goodman ● 87d

You're conflating experience of flooding with a risk of flooding. Please tell us when the area has actually experienced flooding? Perhaps a time when the park has been so wet that it's impossible to pass through it? I played football for a couple of years three decades ago in the park on Sunday afternoons and in the worst weather one could get a little patches of standing water on the grass but that was it. There'll always a risk of flooding anywhere but that risk needs to be quantified. What is it? 1 in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

Vlod Barchuk ● 87d

I’m not sure Angela or her husband really understand this. Viewing everything through a prism of moral righteousness doesn’t give them much perspective.Lammas and the surrounding area are not at significant flood risk, despite what’s been claimed by the council. A big puddle down at the Northfield Avenue end that evaporates in a few hours isn’t a flood, however you soon it. Even the pictures used on the notices around the works don’t show flooding, but do show the effect of a drain and gully that hadn’t been cleaned out.If one is concerned about flooding one shouldn’t go around cutting down mature trees, in parks and on roads, and not should one pursue a policy of concreting over ever larger areas to throw up very tall tower blocks which put added strain on sewage infrastructure.What you also don’t do is decide to build a huge residential development on Metropolitan Open Land at Gurnell, which is on a flood plain and which the council have planned mitigation that involves just warning residents that their underground car park will be full of water. I wonder what those insurance premiums will be.It would need some biblical scale rainfall to produce the sorts of flooding we are being warned about. Even the very wet winter and spring of 2023/24 didn’t produce such an event in this area. Even when saturated there was no Hortonian overland flow down the streets of Northfields.As for being a lovely addition to the park, well that’s debatable. If it’s not a traditional park pond, but basically a bog it’s not going to be a wonderful asset, particularly next to a children’s playground. It will have, at best, a residual pool of brackish water into which kids and animals will tumble.Meanwhile the useable playing area in the park is reduced further. This was a popular place for games of football, picnics and dog walking, now all pushed into a smaller zone.Oh, and trying to claim vehicle pollutants are a major issue is laughable. The EColi bug is very dangerous and is present now. They close parks elsewhere when it’s found.

Simon Hayes ● 88d

Except it does have a history of flooding - there is an underwater stream running under the park.  The top end used to flood often and path became impassable.  The existing ponds have helped the issue but still overflow from time to time so more drainage basins should help the issue.  They have not been connected yet so the benefits not visible.  2700 properties were identified as being  at future risk and flash flooding is becoming more common as a consequence of climate change.

Angela Klimowska ● 88d

Ruddy voice recognition (the same programme that shows 'Trump' if you say 'racist'). Reposting in order that  it makes sense.I should have added that given you appear to have swallowed the councillors active travel b******t hook, line and sinker I know a man who is trying to sell a bridge over the Thames. If that doesn't appeal he has tickets for Elvis Presley's comeback concert in which you might be interested.

N V Brooks ● 88d

As others have pointed out, this area has no history of flooding so the ostensible reason for the scheme doesn't make sense. The whole project has been mired in secrecy which has not inspired confidence.

Vlod Barchuk ● 88d

I should have added that given you appear to have swallowed the counselors active travel b******t hook, line and sinker I know a man who is trying to celebrate over the thames. If that doesn't appeal he has tickets for Elvis Presley's comeback concert in which you might be interested.

N V Brooks ● 88d

Enough of the pearl clutching please. A simple review of the facts about council mismanagement of this and many other projects will reveal you to be nothing more than an apologist for this woefully incompetent administration.

N V Brooks ● 88d

I didn't apologise for the council or even mention them.  It's bizarre how anyone contributing a different perspective or pointing out inaccuracies  on this site gets instantly jumped on by you and/or Simon making childish remarks or irrational insults.. A drainage plan in an area identified as at risk from flood sounds completely sensible and unavoidable.  The works at the top of the park made a big  improvement and residents got used to it.  I'd put money on the naysayers actually liking these more recent changes once they are established complete with planting. They stand to make the park a lot more interesting and useful and the biodiversity benefits they will bring will also have positive health impacts. The concern about pollution seems a bit selective.  Why not check other water sources in Ealing? Some of harmful pollutants will come from vehicles as surface run off ends up here.  This could be improved upon but the people outraged about the pollution are the same people who don't think there is a need to support traffic reducing schemes/active travel improvements,

Angela Klimowska ● 88d

Abject not object.

N V Brooks ● 89d

Regretfully, Angela and her beloved Dominik are serial apologists for the object failure that poses as a local authority in Ealing.

N V Brooks ● 89d

Angela might change her mind if a child or dog goes into the water and contracts the bug. Or are they going to put ugly fences up round the swamps, which rather defeats the objective of ‘improving’ it.

Simon Hayes ● 89d

Oh good grief, wait long enough and members of the Labour "glee club" turn up like a bad smell. Somehow appropriate given the subject matter. Simply another poorly planned and executed operation by this piss-poor council. Roll on the elections.

N V Brooks ● 89d

I wouldn't expect this water to be clean.  The water quality has been compared against figures for bathing waters which drainage SUD's are not.  Seems like an unnecessary scare to try and get more people to turn against the drainage works.

Angela Klimowska ● 89d

Some people have been doing basic tests on the stagnant water in the Elers Road /Church Lane part of the park which was meddled with a few years ago.All produced concerning results ,  But fell on deaf ears when flagged up.No-one accepts any responsibility at LBE or Thames Water who simply refer back to LBE.  But LBE also has a rather lethargic non existent Public Health dept..or is supposed to except that too seems to be non existent except for issuing leaflets promoting council funded issues which usually turn out to be flaky and box ticking only.The glossy brochure for the scheme that is nothing short of rank amateur, proclaimes a "water play adventure for kids".Nothing at all about how this will be maintained in a 100% safe way how wilding features will be mitigated as that means animal urine, vomit and faeces in and around the water and cross contamination by species, transmission of this by birds and domestic animals as well as propagation of airborne disease caring insects and until the past 3 years the profusion of Horse Flies in the vicinity which liken a bee or wasp sting or a mite bite to a drop in the ocean

Raymond Havelock ● 90d

With regard to water testing my approach has always been to get the Environment Agency (EA) to do the testing. I don't want Thames Water or Ealing Council doing the testing, as I'm sure the responsible State organisations who should be involved are the EA and the NHS.

Eric Alan Leach ● 92d

It will be a fetid bog most of the time. If it was always full of water, like a proper park pond, it wouldn’t be much use as an overflow would it.Back to school Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 92d

The park is still there Colin and will always be, and with more interest too. It'll look amazing when done I reckon.

Paul James ● 92d

When I first saw the screenshot of the report my first instinct was to ask if it could be shared as I knew there’d be shouts of trespass.Then I realised the photo the person took to confirm the taking of the sample was in an area with no herras fencing around it.There’s one of these swamps already in play, open to dogs and children, at the Walpole end of the park. The ones behind the fencing connect to this one.I’d estimate about £1.5Mill has been spent on this joke.A huge expense when you consider that maybe spending just £10k a year maintaining the gullies, kerbs and stormwater drains in the area would’ve had a far more positive impact. Instead we’ve not only lost a valuable community park forever but also allowed it to become a swamp with possible health risks.Clown show!

Colin Goodman ● 92d

I came here because I saw your video shared by a colleague  and I worry about ecoli. I have some questions - I would like to see a video from the lady who did the testing, and how it was conducted, and what else she found because its bound to be more than one thing. I would like to know how you got past the barriers because I have a science background and would also like to do some testing. Did you have permission from the council or just move the fence? I would also like to know what comparative testing you have done in the area and if you have a contact at the council for feedback. Thank you for your investigation.

Charlotte Lester ● 93d

View:https://youtu.be/UGWrdwkpb4EThanks

Eric Alan Leach ● 93d

Oh dear, the medication has worn off early today and the veloviles alter ego has resurfaced

N V Brooks ● 93d

That’s five people more than are interested in you, sock puppet.

Simon Hayes ● 93d

I couldn't agree more with everything Sean is saying. Dear Simon Hates, you’re claiming that Sean is turning this into a rich Vs poor thing where that's always your go-to on any suggestions about driving less. Good to see you back here where there are five people who will pretend they want to hear what you have to say.

David Greane ● 93d

The Ealing Wildlife Group, or its founder at least, are 100 percent pushing the stagnant ponds in the park. Apparently anyone saying it’s a bad idea is nimby living in an ivory tower with a paved over garden!

Simon Hayes ● 93d

There are shops closing all the time, everywhere. Not just small supermarkets like the Tesco on Northfield Avenue. Plenty of empty units thet can’t be filled now. Rents and rates are too crippling for many, while the dominance of online deliveries makes profit margins wafer thin for small businesses.Earmarked for closure are very useful places like Wickes and B&Q, both with steady streams of customers every day.The limit of the council imagination is a new coffee shop and some sort of bike repair place. Little wonder retail in Ealing struggles.

Simon Hayes ● 95d

The latest rubbish from that well-known comedy duo Mason and Manro is simply priceless. It requires the recruitment of additional GP's more building of local shops and improved transport infrastructure. Apart from popping in a few cycle lanes none of this is within their control and they cannot pretend that it is. More chaos ensues from these morons and Councillor Dismal is probably the worst of them. Surely it is time to send them a very clear message at the ballot box next year.

N V Brooks ● 95d

Well done Eric.As an example of how dim our local elected officials are just read the story on the front page about 20-minute neighbourhoods. There’s this priceless line: ‘It would also increase the importance given to parks, green spaces, and recreational areas.’Hilarious. Just remember how these idiots ignore public opinion when they come begging for your vote next year…..

Simon Hayes ● 95d

I reported the likely E.coli outbreak in Lammas Park to the Environment Agency  at 8am this morning. The report reference is 2361188. The Agency is investigating.

Eric Alan Leach ● 95d

Well it’s more than ‘boggy’ now. It wasn’t a problem in the past 100+ years. No reported incidents of drowning or E.coli. If it was wet people tended not to walk in the puddles. Common sense there.Ironic that cutting down trees actually increases the amount of rainfall that hits the ground, thereby increasing potential surface runoff.I wonder if Paul has ever been to this park?

Simon Hayes ● 95d

My point is this area has been boggy for as long as I remember it, and if you've got standing water, do not stand in it, or let dogs or children in it.It needs sorting out, has done for a looong time!Thames Water? Renationalise it today, until that happens it will prefer to pay shareholders than spend the money managing drain water and sewage properly.

Paul James ● 95d

If anyone needed any proof what a **** one of the resident cycling stazi is then look no further than the response here!Mind boggling.This from the same person who has tried to play the Climate Card numerous times but is not up in arms about the loss of trees and open parkland.There is no hope for this individual.

Colin Goodman ● 95d

Er... This is where generations of children have played is safety. Where generations of adults have relaxed and had recreation is safety.Where trees have flourished and lasted hundreds of years.All that has been destroyed ...by imbecilic decision makers and their influencers.How do glib and crass comments about puddles and the River Brent relate?Parks exist because rivers and canals were never safe once urbanisation spread.Good Grief.  Maybe you need a Pint of Lammas Special Brew.

Raymond Havelock ● 95d

The mismanagement of Lammas Park is the issue here Paul.It must be very exciting in your house…..

Simon Hayes ● 96d

As everyone who gets out from their little 'motorist shaming' Hanwell enclave would know the Brent is polluted by misconnected foul drains from any number of properties in Greenford. This was very widely reported. As to getting either the developers or Thames Water to reconnect appropriately, or the Envionment Agency to extracttheir collective digits and enforce these breaches, that's another matter.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704l7xr3ero

N V Brooks ● 96d

..and did they check the river brent too?...

Paul James ● 96d

FFS change the record and grow up you silly little man.Doubtless the ponds are also full of the tears of cyclists chased by skip lorries in their dreams. Idiot!

N V Brooks ● 96d

Why not change the subject Paul?The Lammas Park debacle is a perfect example of the incompetence at LBE. Turning a valued and valuable community asset into a sewage storage facility isn’t really a great idea, although if the ponds are big enough I suggest you use them for swimming so that you don’t have to drive to a pool in future.

Simon Hayes ● 96d

Jeez here we go. Not if you hand in your license. Right……

Peter Yale ● 96d

Any puddle in Ealing is going to show similar right?As well as metal particles from brake pads etc...

Paul James ● 96d