181 Talgarth Road is the site where the former West London Magistrates building stands, located between the Ark office building and the BP garage, at the foot of the flyover.

West London Magistrates court: Initial design – now superseded

After the closing of the court facilities in 2017, the site was sold for commercial use, and in January 2019 the new owner submitted a planning application for a 800-bed  hotel development.  The proposals attracted widespread opposition from the local community including the Hammersmith Society, and as a result, in an unusual and public-spirited move, the developer, 🔗The Dominvs Group, chose to set aside the application, despite receiving a planning report recommending approval.

After discussions with LBHF, the Dominvs Group appointed a new design team with architects Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners (RSHP), who are also the architects for the Town Hall Civic Campus project.

West London Magistrates Court: RSHP redesign

The new design team were set to work to a demanding programme, and the Society joined a series of consultation meetings with the site neighbours, in particular the residents of the streets south of the site, whose outlook would have been dominated by the double slab block of the earlier scheme.

A planning application for the new scheme was lodged at the beginning of April, and the Society has now reviewed the proposals and returned comments to LBHF. The application may be viewed on the planning website here: 🔗2020/00915/FUL. 

UPDATED: Our detailed review is here:  Letter to LBHF – Hammersmith Society comments

Women’s Pioneer Housing, 227 Wood Lane

🔗An application has been submitted for a 29-storey tower, the proposals increasing the number of 2-person, 1-bedroom flats for WPH from 36 to 80, plus creating an additional 350 co-living accommodation units to be rented by developer HUB. These provide compact 1-person studio flats serviced by communal kitchens, living spaces and other facilities.

One justification for the 29-storey tower is the approval granted for the recently completed 34-storey ‘Ziggurat’ tower on the Imperial College White City campus site on the opposite side of Wood Lane. The latter was unpopular locally, but was approved on the basis that it was within the White City Regeneration Area. Tall buildings are only permitted under LBHF Planning Policy and the Mayor’s London Plan if they are considered ‘appropriate’,  and are within one of four development areas identified in the Local Plan.

The proposed tower is located outside of the White City development area, which raises the questions: how are applications decided for tall buildings located outside, but adjacent to the outer boundary of development areas ? And whether approvals within development areas can be used as precedent to justify nearby developments outside of the area, that would otherwise not comply with planning policy ?

Old Oak development area

Henry Peterson of the 🔗Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum and Grand Union Alliance – whose planning knowledge has been invaluable to local groups such as our affiliate 🔗St. Helens R.A. in the past – spotted that developers were seeking increases in height to approved planning permissions by means, not of a new planning application, but through a technical route using 🔗Sections 96A and 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to seek minor material amendment approval, to “optimise” a planning consent. The amendments in question are often by no means minor and should warrant a new planning application.

This route has been used in a permission for North Kensington Gate (South) on Scrubs Lane where the developers have sought to increase the approved height of the development from 19 to 22 storeys, and the housing units by 20%. The Society and others have opposed the application as the planning context has dramatically changed from the original permission, where  intensive development was envisaged on that side of the area – now no longer part of the development plan following the exclusion of the Car Giant site – and with significant public transport additions planned via a new Overground station at Hythe Road – also no longer on the agenda, partly because of the many pressures on TfL finances.

coronavirus (imperial.ac.uk)

Hammersmith and Fulham Archives want to hear about people’s experiences during the pandemic.  Working with our partner charity 🔗UNITED In Hammersmith and Fulham, the Archives is documenting the experience of the coronavirus pandemic of all those who live, work or play in the Borough.

All submissions will be deposited permanently in the Borough Archives as a community memory of this unprecedented time. The Archives staff are seeking selfies with personal stories, photographs featuring empty streets, children’s rainbows, your workplace or shop notices, and artwork or poetry. Details of what sounds like a fascinating community project can be found 🔗here

For those interested in family history, Ancestry Library Edition has kindly been made available remotely to library members during the H&F library closures – details 🔗here

TfL is planning a temporary footbridge parallel to Hammersmith Bridge at the request of H&F Council, to assure pedestrian and cycle transit throughout the repair programme.  The aim is to give over the entire Bridge space to the continuing works, with the result that the total closure time could be reduced by 9-12 months.

Hammersmith Temporary Bridge

In an online webinar on 3 April (replacing planned exhibitions which had to be cancelled), representatives of TfL and LBHF set out their scheme for a prefabricated steel structure supported by 2 piers in the riverbed, on the downriver side of Hammersmith bridge. It would be the same height as the Bridge and would have no impact on river traffic.   The usable deck would be 5.5m wide and there will be separation of cyclists and pedestrians (no motorbikes allowed).

Access would be via Queen Caroline Street on the Hammersmith side via gradual ramps. It would take 6-7 months to complete, and planning permission would stipulate it being in place for up to 5 years, with the aim of re-using the structure elsewhere afterwards.

Keeping foot and cycle traffic flowing has to be a welcome initiative. The one downside is that the structure would close the Thames Path on either side, meaning a detour – possibly via the rear of Riverside Studios or past the Apollo and round by Fulham Palace Road on the North side, and via Riverview Gardens on the Barnes side.

Meanwhile the pedestals, hangers, chain bearings and hanger connections are being worked on and acoustic monitoring of the Bridge structure continues. A detailed Scope of Works together with costs is expected later in the spring. The new deck will be steel, with resin on top, which will perform far better than the asphalt over boards which were alarmingly visible previously. The repairs will give 60 years of design life. 

Can we make the restored and repaired bridge work better in the future ?

Continued →

Heathrow expansion 2019

There have been many setbacks to the Airport’s expansion plans over the years from Terminal 5 onwards: claims that several top politicians would stop expansion, elongated planning enquiries, and many anti-expansion campaigns, but like the addict it appears to be, suffering Compulsive Shopping Disorder, Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) keeps coming back for just one more hit, claiming that it will then be satisfied.  Like it’s maniacal namesake in the epic film 2001 – a Space Odyssey, to accept this would be to seriously misjudge the machine.

HAL’s public response to the JR is “10,000 quality apprenticeships by 2030, New Routes and 180,000 new Jobs”, plus the inevitable appeal against the judgement.  While new routes could be created easily with a new runway, they could also be created by displacing cargo and short-haul flights onto greener options, such as rail or electric vehicles (remembering that Heathrow is actually the UK’s largest cargo destination, with 1.8 million tons in 2018: up 20%, matching passenger volume increases since T5 opened).  The other two claims stretch credibility beyond reason, given that Heathrow currently employs 76,000, the expansion would represent a more than doubling in size.  Or perhaps that gives a clue as to the full plan ? 

Heathrow doesn’t appear to be addressing the issues that most of us care about – the effect on the environment, surface transport, and the lives of residents in large parts of the South-East – all the more so having recently become used to not being woken at or before 6AM with fewer flights during the Coronavirus pandemic; Heathrow has temporarily reduced to single runway operation.   In the new Greta-inspired world, HAL makes additional claims regarding sustainability, but it again stretches reason that the discredited greenwash baked into last year’s consultation could have been warmed over sufficiently to pass muster this time round.

• The H&F commission is a residents’ working group engaged in a ‘public facing campaign’.
• The Commission started in 2019 and is one of a number of a H&F Residents’ Commissions.
• The Commission is chaired of local architect Paul Beaty-Pownall, and consists of twelve local members.
• Its purpose is to advise and help H&F Council achieve zero carbon emissions by 2030.
• Its first formal meeting took place in December 2019.
• We all need to be prepared for major changes.

Fehinti Balogun

We were then presented with a personal story of the effects of climate change from actor Fehinti Balogun, making an informative and entertaining presentation. He touched on how climate change affects not only himself but his wider family here and abroad, highlighting that the issue is about eco, not ego. He’s been giving a similar presentation to schools in recent months.

He noted that the Commission is believed to only need 3.5% direct support from the population for success to be guaranteed by influencing all those connected.

Paul Beaty-Pownall

Paul Beaty-Pownall summed up and introduced the workshop sessions that followed. The audience were invited to participate and circulate through four separate discussion groups in order to gain ideas and recommendations from the participants.

We hope to see the report from the commission in the coming months to inform the Council’s progress in accelerating our local responses to Climate Change.

Online committee meeting

The committee decided that the Society should use some of its limited funds to make a donation of £1000 to Hammersmith residents in need of support at this difficult time, via our local charity and affiliate 🔗Hammersmith United Charities which represents an excellent model of giving relatively small grants to local groups which know what practical help is needed and target it accordingly. The donation will be distributed through their 🔗Community Coronavirus Appeal, which is run in conjunction with the Council. 

We have inevitably decided to postpone this summer’s AGM until government rules allow us to convene again. We’ll announce a new date when rules change.   The Spring Newsletter, which would normally be posted out in April, will be published on this website, as a series of articles released over the coming weeks, with summaries and links emailed to members as usual.

We hope to be in a position to at least make nominations for the 2020 Environment Awards by reviewing what material is available to us via photos, and we encourage you to submit nominations by email if you have a suitable development in mind.  We may not be able to visit them, or make a formal award until later in the year, but expect to be able to publish and consider the suitable nominations.