Forum Topic

Council blocks off Wharcliffe footpath in Hanwell

Have you seen the Gazette this week regarding the blocking off of this established footpath, which is an incredible piece of Ealing Council's big brother attitude to us Hanwell walkers? What really incensed me in this article is that the rivers and waterways of this Borough are going to be neglected by Councillor Taylor, who is in charge of our parks and countryside but does not take it seriously. For him roads are more important than our environment. He even arrogantly has a go at the people that have brought this issue to the public's attention but cannot address the real issue itself. The real issue is that the leaders of the council have been having cosy chats with the owners of the West Middx golf course and the decision to block off the path emerged as a result of these. A trumped up health and safety concern consisting of the lack of a bridge across a small ditch was then dreamed up as an excuse to justify the closure. This is absolute rubbish as the Council was given £5k to do this but hasn't bothered. They are now hidding behind some inflated H&S issue and mudding the ownership of the path with Network Rail forgetting that this path has been open for years without any trouble at all. This is a complete sell out to the golf course against the wishes of the residents of Hanwell and what for?  

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6443d24 Comments

Health and Safety. refuge of Scoundrels!!

Peter Chadburn ● 6442d

It's quite incredulous the damage this Conservative Council is doing to the life and soul of Greater Ealing, this is another example.I know that ditch, it would be easy-peasy to put a simple crossing over it Time and time again this council have stitched the voters of Ealing up.What are the opposition party's doing about it?      "I APOLOGISE FOR VOTING CONSERVATIVE"

Peter Wright ● 6442d

Re  "I APOLOGISE FOR VOTING CONSERVATIVE"        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    sadly quite true, and even more sad is the alternative would be even worse. The demise of Ealing largely took place under their " leadership " and don't forget the outrageous way they increased  the Council tax, 28% in one jump alone. Maybe both need being taught a lesson.

Tony Price ● 6442d

So what have you done with this £5000 Stacy, diverted it to your heritage site or lost it in Iceland, perhaps the erection of more CCTV?What that council chamber needs is a party to take the role of the Sword of Damocles and I hope to God you can come up with a better one than springs to my mind.

Peter Wright ● 6442d

and don't forget the outrageous way they increased  the Council tax, 28% in one jump alone''IIRC 1987 Labour with Benn and Pound in their number, increased the then rates by a national record 65%. The next year it was 35%. This led to Maggie's legislation on rate capping and Labour losing control in 1990 against the national trend at the time. Their nuclear free zone, womens and gay and lesbian subcommittees had not endeared them to the electorate either. Ah the good old days of old Labour.

Graham Weeks ● 6442d

I do not know the path but is this not a case for establishing a public right of way usng the ramblers association to help?.

George Knox ● 6442d

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this issue here.  The Gazette article mixed up two pretty separate issues.  I will deal with the first one here and do a second posting.  The Council closed the Wharncliffe footpath on pure safety grounds as it is duty bound to do.  We don't need to consult people nor should we where safety is concerned.  This is not a silly "health and safety" issue it is a real, immediate and serious risk to the public of personal injury.  You can't cross the stream safely without a bridge.  The footpath just comes out randomly on the golf course and needs to be agreed and marked.  It is not safe and it is the Council's public liability insurance that would be called on if there was an accident and it would be invalid if we did not physically prevent people from using a path that we consider unsafe.  Hanwell Steering Group and Brent River and Canal Society have been putting out a very one-sided leaflet about this issue without acknowledging that Council officers have expended considerable effort on dealing with this matter culminating in a seven page letter which explained this in detail sent on 26th November to BRCS.  This letter concluded with an offer to meet with BRCS as soon as possible.  BRCS have been invited to help us sort this issue out but there is no agreement for this path to cross railway land and Network Rail will simply not allow anyone to have formal access unless they take on full responsibility for the land in terms of tree management, public liability, etc.  Recurring revenue spent on this is revenue that cannot be spent elsewhere.  Does anyone want to suggest things that the Council stops doing to pay for this?  We are keen to work with BRCS and find out what they can do to help us.  There is no reason why BRCS cannot negotiate rights with Network Rail, get a suitable constitution in place, take on some public liability insurance and manage the site.  Maybe Nic Ferriday should just get on with the job if it is as easy as he asserts.  The Council would like to reinstate a proper footpath but it will need some help from you all out there.

Phil Taylor ● 6442d

We took some photos of the footpath when it was first opened but haven't any of the brook unfortunately.If Dorset County Council here took the same attitude as Ealing 95% of the footpaths would be closed. We have waded through tractor ruts deeper than that piddling ditch and what about all those "dangerous" stiles we have to climb?

Peter Wright ● 6442d

PhilThank you for responding on this issue but I cannot accept your post as being accurate in its content or addressing the issues contained in my post. In fact you have been very selective in your reply. Let me try and address your inaccuracies; 1)If you really think this is a 'real, immediate and serious risk to the public of personal injury' why have you not blocked off the path at all of the other entrances, which there are probably 6 others, surely invalidating your public liability insurance? Also if you believe it is a health and safety issue why do you not prevent whoever is widening the ditch from doing so as it is they who are causing the H&S problem? I am of course presuming that you think that the H&S issue is with the ditch and not the wonderful woodland walk itself, which i would find incredible.2) There are many ways to cross the golf course but across the ditch at this point is the most direct, which links up to the hoggin path on the golf course and continues back into the Brent River park, not random as you assert. People can wonder on many other off beat ways across the golf course, which i am sure would upset the golfers alot more but they only want to access the most direct and dedicated path not cause trouble with the golfers.3) You seem to have deliberately missed the point about the £5k the council recieved to install the bridge, money that is already in the council coffers. You merely ask what else the council can stop doing to pay for this, well how about the £1M fake heritage quarter, which I believe you are responsible for? What about the millions you are spending on the self congratulatory 'Around Ealing' mag?  4) Why do you think it is for BRCS to fix this problem as the people of Hanwell pay our council taxes as well as anyone else but we always get a bad deal from this council?

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6441d

Nigel,Your points:1) It is the Council that will pick up the bill therefore it is I think up to the Council to work out how to manage its risks.  2) Ditto3) As I understand it the £5K S106 commitment is from golf course and we are up for using it to make a sensible path.  This is capital not revenue mind.  Someone still has to pay for upkeep over time (revenue).  4) Council tax is not a bottomless pit.  We have legal duties in many areas which come first above enhancements to open spaces.  We will get more done in our parks with some help from our partners.  All areas complain that they don't get their share - they can't all be right!  Nigel,People know who I am - I think!  Conservative councillor for Northfield and portfolio holder for Customer and Community Services.  Have you got any interests to declare?

Phil Taylor ● 6441d

I hope that it will be possible to reopen this footpath at some stage. A friend and I used to use this route for one of our training runs. We always managed to get over the brook without too much difficulty, but in recent months we had to stop using the footpath, as a barrier of branches had been put up on one side of the brook. Now I know why!

Catriona Mitchell ● 6441d

It's a while since I saw this brook but I remember thinking at the time that all this needs is a pipe of a suitable diameter to be placed in the brook and then packed around the outer sides. I'm sure the rangers could have done it without any fuss, that is, before their 'reorganisation'. Can anybody supply photos of this dangerous brook please?

Peter Wright ● 6441d

PhilI do wonder if you could really address the points I have raised rather than hiding behind this somewhat arrogant ‘it is for the council to decide’ manner. I pay my rates so I think I deserve more than a dismissive, flippant response such as this. I am presuming you do not know this path and its surroundings, which is why you have chosen to reply in this way and avoided any detail on points 1 & 2. Perhaps you would care to walk the route before you comment again.On the third and fourth points you have failed to respond to my suggestions to your requests concerning where the council can make savings from our council tax burden, which I did on your Heritage Zone. Why are you investing in this extravagance now with the country in recession? It just does not make sense when you claim you have no money to address H&S concerns? Which should take priority? ‘The council tax is not a bottomless pit’ so stop this ridiculous folly now! It is not, I presume, a legal necessity to impose a Heritage Zone in Ealing. However I am glad you concede that you already have the £5K to address the bridge so please just get on with it.I do wonder if your partners are the groups you mention in your newspaper article but why do you think they will be helping you anymore when you insult them, when they are unpaid volunteers, unlike councillors in Ealing whom I presume are well paid. How much do you get out of my rates each year?As for interests I am not sure what you are getting at but I can tell you I am interested in the place I live in, Hanwell, and the parks, green spaces, wildlife etc is this what you are talking about? What are your interests?

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6440d

PeterOh how right you are, I think it also stems from the loss of Hanwell's park rangers. I can take some photos and if i can work out how to post them i will. Can someone help me with this?

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6440d

PhilYou have been very quiet on this forum for over a week and I have waited patiently for a response to my points that I raised to you over a week ago.However, since you raised the matter of 'interests' I have been doing some research regarding your 'interests' in the so-called 'Heritage Quarter'. On your very own blog you have boasted that the Heritage quarter will be wonderful when it is complete. What you refrain from saying is that you actually live in it, in fact I believe only round the corner from the pictures you have posted. You are also responsible for the implementation of this extravagant and ridiculous scheme. I believe that you will be spending over a million pounds on your own roads and local parks. I understand it is about £400k on your parks alone, so it is with a sense of shock that I hear you still ponder over whether to spend a poultry £5K on a small bridge in Hanwell to prevent a health and safety problem and open up a woodland walk enjoyed by many.How dare you patronise the people of Hanwell with your comments, ‘All areas complain that they don't get their share - they can't all be right!’ as it is quite plain that not only the area you live in but the area you are a councillor for are the sole beneficiaries of this daft, elitist project. Surely there must be something illegal about you being the cabinet member in charge of the HQ and benefiting personally from it, or at the very least, exceptionally distasteful and a slap in the face to the people of Hanwell (after all your self-righteous preaching on this forum and your own blog) and the rest of the Borough. I think you should consider your position as one of the main beneficiaries of this '£1m council-tax-funded-make-over' you are responsible for instigating in terms of conflicting interests.This is SHEER HYPOCRISY!!!! What say you???? What say others???

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6432d

Re  What say others???        xxxxxxxxxxxxxx      on the face of it Nigel, it stinks. Let's see what " the Council " have to say

Tony Price ● 6432d

Nigel,I am sorry that you don’t like my answers or the level of detail.  You now seem to have veered off onto another set of topics.  I can only imagine that the fact that we have never met allows you to be so aggressive in your comments on what I have said.  Many of my colleagues would think me a fool for trying to have this debate with you but here goes.  The Heritage Quarter lighting was agreed at a Cabinet meeting on 22nd July 2008.  See paper here.  If you check the minutes of the meeting I declared my interest, ie the fact of my living in the Heritage Quarter itself.  Note the paper is in portfolio holder Susan Emment’s name.  Street lighting is not in my portfolio although the parks and other elements of the Heritage Quarter are.  The paper talks about spending £1.256 million.  £799,200 for the cast iron columns in the Heritage Quarter and £456,800 to equip all conservation areas that wanted them with modern heritage style columns.  I know Cuckoo Estate already had these and this budget added them for Churchfields, Hanwell Clock Tower and St Mark’s Conservation Areas.  Whilst the refurbished cast iron columns cost £934 at the time of the report the embellishment kits to provide modern heritage style columns were £750 each.  Perhaps you think it was a mistake to provide the more expensive heritage style lighting in Hanwell?  You may well feel that Hanwell misses out but I could cite the £1 million currently being spent on the Hanwell town centre regeneration programme and the £2.35 million to be spent on Hanwell Community Centre, to name just two examples, to counter that line of argument.

Phil Taylor ● 6432d

As a founder member of SEAL (with Arthur Breens, Judy Breens, Mark Kehoe & Eric Leach) I should add that the budget was passed thru`council earlier on 26th February 2008 and Cllr Will Brooks was portfolio holder at that time.Phil has the figures juxtaposed as the cast iron was £456,000 and the new heritage for conservation areas was the higher £799,000.It should also be noted that Northfields & South Ealing are mainly Edwardian or Victorian.

Robert Darke ● 6432d

I used to use as play ground around there. when i was young like so many others before me why have they now decided to block it off

Mark Ryan ● 6428d

I do not understand Phil's point about whether or not this is Revenue spend, but in the Council budget the Ward funding rules will change in April making £10,000 available for Revenue spending. Capital will be reduced accordingly.Don't know if that helps

George Knox ● 6425d

A poor quality video showing some cheap stream crossings on part of the Dorset coastal path, used by many hundreds of walkers and tourists each year without incident. Notice the pipe placed in the ditch then covered with shingle. Sorry about the quality, I'm messing around with my old Hi8 camcorder.       

Peter Wright ● 6425d

I jogged through there last Sunday 22 Feb and it was all open.  What's the fuss?I'm a big fan of the Brent River Park, as I regularly jog along various parts of it.Just today I was down by Long Wood, at the far end of the borough, near Osterley.  The Rangers have done a great job at clearing up and repairing the path and the board walk.

David Millican ● 6422d

'What's the fuss?'My thoughts too. This walkway has been safely used for several years so why suddenly close it and why after a lunch meeting between the golf club and big town hall cheeses, Darran Singh and Jason Stacey?  Is this how things get sorted now in Ealing? Yes the fence is down again at the moment. Are you saying it’s open officially again then, there are no signs up? I hope so but I doubt it, unless the council is now saying it's safe again to jump over the ditch in the absence of the bridge they won’t pay for. There is also now the matter of having to clamber over an ever-increasing barricade of dead branches etc that the golf club seems to have put on their side of the ditch.The council keeps putting a fence up and someone keeps pulling it down again. It's just so stupid. Don't the council have better things to do than to waste time trying to keep people out of the wood. Can a councillor tell us what is going on? They are remarkably forward in broadcasting how good they think they are but very backward in stumping up such a small amount of cash for this little project.

Paul Wiltshire ● 6421d

PhilWhat are you talking about I have not been aggressive towards you but merely trying to get you to answer the points I have made? I realise that you are a politician but please stick to the point as it is parks that I am talking about and the excessive amounts that are being spent on your two local parks in comparison to withholding £5k, which as you say is already in the council coffers, on making the Hanwell woodland walk safe. I have not mentioned cast iron columns and embellishment kits, which you veered off onto, but as you mention it, when were council tax payers consulted on this? In fact when were we consulted on the whole £3.647M Walpole/Northfield wards HQ project? I do not think you have any right to pretend Hanwell got a good deal out of the lamp posts debacle when you know you stole Hanwell’s antique ones for your HQ area against the wishes of residents.I do think this HQ idea is a waste of money, particularly in this current climate but you have declined to comment on the value for money of this, which I can only presume means you, as a direct beneficiary, agree with this extravagant scheme. What measures are in place to provide evidence that us taxpayers are getting value for money or is this all just an expensive publicity stunt? At the same time you are cutting Library staff, what sense does this make?Let’s just see why I think Hanwell misses out; You mention the £1M for Hanwell town centre but once again, that is a lot less in comparison to your area Ealing with its £3M for town centre improvements and £2.7M for Ealing’s library (on top of your HQ spend). Let alone the £0.5M for Northfields library in comparison to nothing for Hanwell's. As for the Community Centre you are only doing this because you are moving your own staff, displaced from the sale of Dickens Yard, in there. So once again it is you  who will benefit. And for the record, remind us once more, how much you stand to benefit from the proceeds of your overdevelopment of Dickens Yard? I do not see how, just because you have declared an interest in the HQ, this allows you to wriggle out from the fact that you retain responsibility for deciding where to allocate funds for Ealing’s parks. Quite obviously you have chosen to allocate this massive sum of £400k to the two parks closest to you, whilst hypocritically arguing cuts must be made elsewhere in order to accommodate spending £5K in Hanwell, which you know is not true as you already have this money in your council bank?

Jacqueline Byrne ● 6418d