Forum Topic

Hanwell Community Forum v Ealing Council

Reading that Hanwell Community Forum (HCF)HCF is threatening to take the council to court because they want to give QPR the go ahead for the redevelopment of Warren Farm is appalling. HCF only has a core group of a dozen or so people and the three meetings that I have attended over the last four years has never seen more than fifteen people present. The last meeting I went to had eight people, so for HCF to claim that she is representing the interests of ALL Hanwellians is simply not correct.Warren Farm will be open to everybody. The facilities will be massively improved from pitches to showers. I would suspect that QPR are likely to put on training sessions for the local community. I also noticed in yesterday's Evening Standard that Notting Hill Home Ownership describes one of the attractions for the new development "The Boatyard" as "Warren Farm which has a very large sports ground with football and cricket pitches". It would be a fantasy to claim that I am a QPR fan. Many more people would use Warren Farm if it was properly maintained. HCF has not done any consultation with local residents so to claim that the council is relegating residents green spaces is sheer utter tosh.Questions I would like answered are:If HCF proceeds with legal action who is going to foot the bill for HCF to take the council to court? How many people agree with HCF for them to proceed with legal action?Are those signatories freely available? Can those signatures be audited? Have they consulted all local residents to claim representation before taking the case to court? If not, why not?How many Hanwell residents are needed for HCF to claim that they are representing the interests of the majority of residents?How long will the plans be suspended if HCF takes the council to court?One example of the dicatorship of HCF is the redevelopment of the Uxbridge Road through Hanwell. I discovered that HCF wanted the improvements to match their own self interest and not those who also live in Hanwell. I spoke to the Chair, Carolyn Brown, at one of the consultations, who disagreed with the plans despite having significant benefits for cyclists.  Carolyn and HCF has done a huge amount of good for Hanwell, but that does not give her (or them) the power take the council to court on under the guise of representating Hanwell residents.

Ben Owen ● 4675d23 Comments

It has only been based on emissions for the last 8 or years.Before that no-one ever mentioned them in association with ved.

Keith Iddon ● 4664d

>It's Vehicle EXCISE duty BTW, a contribution to the exchequer which 'pedalling pedants' do not pay.It's a tax based on emissions.There are a fair few models of motor vehicles which are exempt due to their very low emissions, and happily ALL models of pedal cycle are.

Paul James ● 4664d

It's Vehicle EXCISE duty BTW, a contribution to the exchequer which 'pedalling pedants' do not pay.Get off your damned bike and back on topic!

Nigel Brooks ● 4665d

Get real, Nigel.Look at Uxbridge Road in the morning rush hour.CAR DRIVERS ILLEGALLY talking on their blinking phonesCARS ILLEGALLY jumping red lights (Uxbridge Road turning right into Church Road is a jolly example)CARS IILEGALLY stopping in the Advanced Stop Line BoxCARS ILLEGALLY having out of date Vehicle Emissions Duty tax discs (some may know this as road tax)CARS ILLEGALLY having no insurance or MOT If it were one isolated car driver then it would, while not OK, be attributable to the actions of a mindless individual, but it is not.Blah blah blah. If anyone is free tomorrow morning (Sunday 23rd), and confident enough to CYCLE 75 miles (in 10 hours), then come and mingle in a 30+ strong group of cyclists as we meander through London, in a 75 mile stop-at-every-red-light procession on a cycle tour of London’s prisons. Meet at The Grange Pub, The Common at 10.00am. I will lead the ride.However, there are conditions for those who moan about cyclists and want to come. I will insist that: You will keep to the law and give priority to pedestrians on the canal towpath;  You must be able to tell the difference between red and green; You must be able to count the number of red lights and tell friends that not all cyclists cycle jump through red lights or cycle on the pavements; In fact, I want you to go further than that. You must tell your friends that a lot of cyclists are wonderful at keeping to the law; You must stop thinking that all cyclists tear up the rule book to suit themselves; You must recognise the impatience of motorists and their attitude to cyclists.Let’s call an end to all this bickering or shall we meet at the bandstand in Elthorne Park at dawn with our swords?!

Ben Owen ● 4665d

Dare I say, typical incompetent Labour mishandling of public resources. It is bad enough when they mortgage our grandchildren's future to create non-jobs and balance the books but to mortgage the future for generations to come simply to rake in a bit of cash is inexcusable bordering on wilfully negligent.

Nigel Brooks ● 4665d

Declan,The land where Warren Farm is located is classed as Site of Metropolitan and Local Importance for Nature. Conservation in the Unitary Development Plan. Although there are playing fields in it, the classification still stand. Facilities at present are poor but the money that has  exchanged hands in order to facilitate this deal would have more than provided the present users with first class pitches and a new or refurbished pavillion. A two hundred year lease?? This is unheard of. A lease in a property is normally less than half of this. Perhaps up to fifty would have been more appropriate.

Rosa Popham ● 4665d

Is Warren Farm classed as open land?? as far as I know its playing fields.Also very poor quality playing fields that get extremely waterlogged and some of the worst changing facilities in London.It is obvious that the council do not want to spend money to renovate the facilities or improve the land so the best solution is to hand this over to some one who does.QPR will created a world class training ground for themselves but also a community facility for all the residents in Ealing something that we do not have in Ealing. QPR in the community is one of footballs best community projects and I am sure Ealing residents would greatly benefit.I agree with the first post, HCF as far as I am concerned do not have any grounds to oppose this, also who gives them the right to speak for the people of Hanwell, and take action in there name.Also some of the objections are just wrong, how would the facility in Warren Farm increase traffic in Old Hanwell? Yes the council want to make money out of this, but for once they have the correct solution, other councils may look at this and would find it easier just to sell the land to a developer which would be far worse.So HCF please think about what you are doing and at least check with the residents of Hanwell before trying to act on there behalf.

Declan Devine ● 4666d

@Paul. Taking the Council to Court is appalling???? As you would say, what tosh.Giving away open land over which we all have a right to roam and enjoy is 100 times more appalling. The also ran relegated QPR will NOT be offering that. If such precedents are allowed then our descendants will have barely anywhere to go and enjoy open spaces. As population grows that need will increase until either we have Chinese laws or the plague gets us.You say in rather blunt dictatorial Great Victorian Aunt terms that cycling is good for you. So are open spaces. You accuse the HCF of being dictatorial by relying on the opinions of a few attendees. In reality there is a considerable number of people who oppose. Judging a book by its cover has resulted in you misleading, actually or potentially, some of the readers.

George Knox ● 4666d

Paul,Then start a thread on cycling.Just because you don't like HCF's apparent attitude to cycling bears no relation to why Ealing Council should give away 61 acres of public land to the two billionaires who own QPR.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4667d

>and let's get back to the matter on hand.The attitude of the HCF to Ealing Council's plans for Uxbridge road and it's relation to cycling is entirely on topic here.And it appears that some think cycling shoulddn't be provisioned because they see some cyclists breaking the law (but seem to accept trangressions by other road users).

Paul James ● 4667d

Put away your cycle clips (whatever happened to them) and let's get back to the matter on hand.The loss of 61 acres of Metropolitan Open Land - and exactly  what are the benefits to Ealing rate payers?Don't all speak at once ...........

Eric Alan Leach ● 4667d

Allison,Delighted to see your word in print.Spot on.Where's the collection bucket?Arthur

Arthur Breens ● 4667d

"I really and truly hope that someone rams something into one of your wheels or that the full force of the Road Traffic Act is thrown at you and others of your selfish, law-breaking ilk."Wow.No, I'd never ride my bike through a crossing if the light is red (or flashing amber if there are pedestrians on the crossing); you weren't very clear in your original post as to where the pedestrians were that were being "weaved through".I do witness many people in cars (and on bikes/motorbikes) moving forward on an amber light when there are pedestrians still on the crossing, which is also illegal of course.It seems I see many types of road users breaking the law, but you only see cyclists breaking the law, or at least only seem to get angry about people on cycles breaking the law, is that a fair comment?

Paul James ● 4667d

We should all obey the rules of the road and THE LAW, many cyclists I see every morning on the Uxbridge Road do not.Cars park on the pavement and in many cases, this is sanctioned by the council to allow free flow of other traffic.If you are one of those who weaves around a pedestrian legally crossing the road on the pedestrian crossings in west Ealing (again a daily occurrence) there is no 'depends' about it. I really and truly hope that someone rams something into one of your wheels or that the full force of the Road Traffic Act is thrown at you and others of your selfish, law-breaking ilk.

Nigel Brooks ● 4667d

>Where did I say ALL cyclists?"Obey the rules of the road, show respect to other road users and it will be reciprocated."What percentage of people on cycles have to "Obey the rules of the road, show respect to other road users" before it's reciprocated? 100%, 99%, 50%?This to me looks like a case of somebody trying to find the worst behaviours of a group of people they identify as a group and then using that behaviour to justify their negative attitude toward the entire group.>The overwhelming majority of car drivers however do not drive on the pavement In Hanwell, we're repleat with cars on pavements, and they don't get there by levitating!>or weave around pedestrians crossing the road.Pedestrians crossing the road in front of cyclists? If I'm on my bike and a pedestrain walks out in front of me I probably wouldn't stop for them and I might go round them giving them plenty of room, depends. I understand other people on bikes, and in cars, might give them a close pass to teach them a lesson.

Paul James ● 4668d

Where did I say ALL cyclists?There are enough bad drivers in all types of vehicle. The overwhelming majority of car drivers however do not drive on the pavement or weave around pedestrians crossing the road.If the Cherington Road flow reversal happens, that problem will go away only to be replaced by crashes on the new roundabout!

Nigel Brooks ● 4668d

If you stand at the clock tower junction for an hour you'll observe a fair few ILLEGAL left turns by motor vehicles from Cherington Road onto the Broadway and constant red light jumping (the last three cars through the light phase pretty much always go thorugh on red, and at speed). I nearly got pillored by a motorist doing the same whilst crossing on the green man there the other day.However, I wouldn't go on to assert all drivers are the same, why do the same for cyclists?

Paul James ● 4668d

Get real.Look at Uxbridge Road in the morning rush hour.Cyclists ILLEGALY on the pavement.Cyclists ILEGALY jumping red lights.CYCLISTS IILEGALY riding around pedestrians crossing the road.If it were one isolated cyclist then it would, while not OK, be attributable to the actions of a mindless individual, but it is not.Obey the rules of the road, show respect to other road users and it will be reciprocated.

Nigel Brooks ● 4668d

"Cyclists need to stop cycling on pavements for starters, stop breaking the Highway Code as if it doesn't apply to them "So, you assert ALL cyclists behave like this do they? Hmm, Ok.And you single out badly behaved people on bikes for some reason. If you're going to get injured by a vehicle on the pavement in London it'll likely be by a motorised vehicle driving by a badly behaved driver.

Paul James ● 4668d

but not everybody is fan of cycling and cyclists."You need to be.Fitter healthier happier people, busier local shops, less air pollution, less noise pollution, less crowded roads and public transport, less fatalities and serious injuries on our local streets.-------------------------------------------------------Er, no, I don't need to be a fan of cyclists and won't be until they pay me some respect as a pedestrian.  Cyclists need to stop cycling on pavements for starters, stop breaking the Highway Code as if it doesn't apply to them and,if at all possible, stop being such self-righteous berks.Back to Warren Farm.QPR do not need a training ground on Warren Farm.  They can find space outside of London in the same way Spurs and Arsenal have. I know they crashed and burned last season but Fernandez allegedly has very deep pockets.  All the more enragiing then if Ealing Council has spent £150k of public money to buy off a local amateur football team so they can then sell off public land.  Land which is used quite regularly by a good mixture of local organisations and individuals.Where's the collecting bucket?

Allison Franklin ● 4668d

"but not everybody is fan of cycling and cyclists."You need to be.Fitter healthier happier people, busier local shops, less air pollution, less noise pollution, less crowded roads and public transport, less fatalities and serious injuries on our local streets.The Hanwell Carnival itself started out as a cycling parade in 1898, less of a new religion, more of a welcome resurgence.

Paul James ● 4668d

I am a veteran of conflict with the council. When Arcadia was planned to rise brass-clad to dominate Ealing I objected. I gave money, there was an enquiry and the silly proposal was squashed by the planning inspector and John Denham MP. I through my council tax paid for the council's legal team. That cost in the region of £100,000. The officer who approved the flawed plan called the Arcadia debacle a "minor hiccup". Strangely he is still in post.Then there was Dicken's Yard a development this time on our land "sold" off to a developer who has sold half the flats to non-dom millionaires. This is a group in special need of a land bank who may never live here. Ben that sticks in my throat especially when our children cannot afford to start their married lives in Ealing. So maybe the same officer is pulling the puppet strings behind this deal. What are the benefits for the next seven generations?These decisions are really important because they don't just affect us they affect all Ealing residents for the next 200 years. As such they are not to be taken lightly.Warren Farm needs defending as our public open space until and unless really good arguements come forward to convice all the people of Ealing. Until they do I'm digging into my pocket.

Arthur Breens ● 4673d

Ben,This is quite a rant.Under the 200 year lease QPR Warren Farm will not be open to everybody. Two thirds of it will be for exclusive use of QPR which BTW is owned by just two people. QPR will control access to the other third. A massive fence will enclose all of the 61 acres making the site resemble a prison.Ealing Council's Leader Julian Bell talks about benefits for Ealing residents accruing from this give-away, but doesn't give any details. Perhaps you can fill us all in about the details of these benefits.Ealing Council paid local team Larkspur Rovers £150,000 to stop playing at Warren Farm. Why wasn't that money spent on refurbishing the changing rooms and showers? Warren Farm is Metropolitan Open Land, which is owned by the public. It has the a same protection as Green Belt land.Did Ealing Council engage with those who live locally in Southall and Hanwell about how Warren Farm might be maintained and managed better? I'm not aware that they did.  As part of the formal public consultation Ealing Council quite bizarrely sent hundreds of letters to Ealing Hospital and very few to residents of Old Hanwell.Paying for the Judicial Review? Collections will begin tomorrow at Hanwell Carnival and I'll be making a contribution. A petition will also be started tomorrow. So let's just see how many sign it. Signatories freely available? What does that mean? HCF won't hold them in a secret vault somewhere. Audit the signatures? Wow we are into Franz Kafka now.I accept that Carolyn is a forceful leader but HCF is not just her. I think the self interest stuff is somewhat harsh. I can find no-one in Hanwell who voted for reversing the flow along Cherington Road for example. I also know that cycling is the new religion but not everybody is fan of cycling and cyclists.When you and others discover all the facts around this Ealing Council /QPR deal - which I suspect will not stand up in court - you may well change your mind.If there is a court case it will because hundreds of people have requested one and paid for one.If you don't want a court case why not start a petition about it and see how many people sign it.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4673d