Concern Raised Over Potential Weltje Road Access Restriction

A significant impact on traffic in Chiswick is feared after councillors were told that an emergency traffic order (ETO) is expected next month to restrict access to Weltje Road. Under the proposal, only residents of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) who have registered for permission would be allowed to use the road, with enforcement carried out by ANPR cameras.

The measure mirrors the restrictions already in place on Rivercourt Road, where drivers travelling from the A4 into Hammersmith face fines unless they are LBHF residents. When that scheme was introduced, large numbers of motorists were caught out in the early weeks, and Chiswick Lane saw a rise in usage as displaced traffic sought alternative routes.

Weltje Road is the last remaining access point to the eastbound A4 between Chiswick Lane and Hammersmith Broadway. Closing it to non-Hammersmith residents would force Chiswick drivers onto three already-busy routes: Sutton Court Road, Dukes Avenue and Chiswick Lane. Local councillors estimate that as many as 2,500 vehicles a day could be pushed onto these roads, increasing journey times and adding pressure to junctions that are already at capacity at peak times.

The move has caused alarm not only in Chiswick but also among residents in the Ravenscourt Park area, who rely on Weltje Road for local access. A petition organised by Hammersmith Conservative activist Tim Janman has gathered signatures from 44 Weltje Road residents opposing the cameras, but councillors say their concerns have so far been ignored.

One Chiswick resident, writing to Hammersmith and Chiswick MP Andy Slaughter, described the proposal as “a beggar-my-neighbour action by Hammersmith Council,” arguing that it would simply shift congestion onto roads in neighbouring boroughs. The resident added that Weltje Road “has been the exit road for local residents for at least half a century” and is not used as a long-distance rat-run. They also disputed any cycling benefit, saying that recent injuries at the junction were caused by the design of Cycleway 9 rather than by traffic volumes.

Hammersmith & Fulham had previously raised concerns about cyclist safety at the Weltje Road junction after the introduction of Cycleway 9, noting a spike in serious injuries. However, changes to signage and layout appear to have reduced collisions.

What has particularly angered Chiswick councillors is the accusation that LBHF officers did not consult Hounslow Council. Cllr Linden Grigg’s investigation found no evidence of cross-borough engagement, even though the impact of the scheme would fall most heavily on Hounslow roads. It is understood that by introduction of the measure through an Emergency Traffic Order, LBHF is not legally required to inform neighbouring councils of the change as the restriction is considered a trial and stakeholders are consulted on the impact rather than ahead of the start of the measure.

Cllr Vickram Grewal, Deputy Chairman Political for the Chiswick wards, has written to residents urging them to contact Andy Slaughter MP and ask him to press LBHF to reconsider. He warned that the situation is reminiscent of the Rivercourt Road restrictions, which have caused “considerable inconvenience to Chiswick motorists and contributed to congestion on Chiswick Lane.”

Opponents have also said that LBHF needs to consider bus journey times which are markedly slow in the borough. It is claimed that the Rivercourt Road restriction further reduced bus speeds on King Street and a Weltje Road restriction could have additional impacts on routes using Sutton Court Road and Chiswick Lane.

The council would be able to start enforcement of the restrictions as soon as the ETO and the ANPR cameras in place with no requirements for advance public notice.

Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More

This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism.

Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets.

We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more.

However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do.

We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area.

A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site.

One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute.

If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor.

For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site.