Civic Voice launched its Manifesto 2020-2023, 50 years after the Skeffington Report on Public Participation in Planning, which arose from growing concern about the top-down nature of post-war planning and development and growing interest in the idea of ‘participatory democracy’ (that ordinary people need to be engaged in decision-making rather than simply voting for representatives to make decisions on their behalf).

A Civic Voice members survey last year found that 80% of people feel that developers do not effectively engage with the community and 72% said the same about local authorities. Recent research by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland also found a significant distrust of the planning process within communities. Just 2% of the public trust developers and only 7% trust local authorities when it comes to planning for large-scale development.  

This week’s news concerning the housing minister, the role of large developers and oblique arguments about viability, plus the role of CIL, brings these issues into sharp focus

The Civic Voice ambition is to move away from ‘confrontation to collaboration’ and from ‘consultations to conversations’. Its manifesto consists of the following three key recommendations to the Government and to Local Authorities, which aim at placing Civic Societies like the Hammersmith Society at the heart of their communities:

1. Create a more ‘accessible, balanced and collaborative’ (ABC) planning system with communities at the heart.
2. Move towards a citizen-led, participative model of governance for our towns, cities and villages.
3. Ensure local authorities have the appropriate resources and proper powers to enhance the historic environment to make better places.

Save our Skyline – River and King St views

Local residents will remember John Jones, who was for many years Chairman of our affiliate, the Ravenscourt Society, and who died in April.  For several decades he was a formidable defender of his patch of Hammersmith from ill-judged development and Council efforts to sell off land on the fringes of Ravenscourt Park.

He threw himself into the battle against the first Town Hall development plans in 2010-12, chairing a number of packed public meetings on behalf of the Save our Skyline coalition.  The campaign notably led to a Council Planning Committee meeting so crowded with objectors it had to be moved to the Great Hall of Latymer School. At that time, the Hammersmith Society worked with him to successfully see off the 15-storey glass towers around the Town Hall and a footbridge over the A4 which would have very considerably reduced the Furnivall Gardens’ open space.

A barrister by profession, he used his professional and forensic skills in the service of local causes.  His manner was a mixture of the magisterial and the mischievous, backed up by serious local knowledge and commitment. He also chaired public meetings for the Ravenscourt Action Group calling for Council action on anti-social behaviour.

An engaging obituary can be found in The Guardian following this link

The Ravenscourt Society was founded in 1971 and is no longer active, but perhaps there are residents in the area who would like to revive it; a local residents’ association is a good way to stay in touch with what is going on at the Town Hall, channel local concerns, and to build a neighbourhood network.

More: Video describing the SOS campaign

Hammersmith Bridge underside and steelwork – May 2020

The Society’s committee is of the view that as part of the renovation work, there is a great opportunity to improve the Bridge to make it better suited to future needs, requiring more space for pedestrians and cyclists, as mentioned in our last article.  Our proposal is to widen the pathways to allow safe and satisfactory bidirectional walking on one side, and bidirectional cycling on the other, so that cyclists no longer need to compete with road traffic, significantly improving safety.  Currently, because of the somewhat narrow walkways, it’s not possible to safely cycle or even pass easily when walking, certainly not in a wheelchair or buggy.  We think this can be done both at modest cost (certainly compared with the Garden Bridge!) and largely independently of the planned repair works, so as not to lengthen the closure.  We have a brief update on repair works at the foot of this article.

The bridge’s narrow pathways for most of the span measure approximately 1.6m, widening at the pillars to approximately 1.8m, but still too narrow for bikes to pass safely (one of the reasons cyclists have to dismount currently), let alone to support social distancing needed now, and possibly in the future.  We’ve now looked at the structure in a little detail, and, as shown on the photos here, the pathways are supported by simple cantilevers, apparently bolted on.

Hammersmith Bridge – historical repairs (photo: Keepingthingslocal)

Steelwork underneath the bridge was repaired section by section in the 1970’s, and a new grid of substantial longitudinal girders replaced the originals (pierced where bridge hangers meet the deck). Historic photos (right) show the original, very much less substantial steelwork.  Given the scope of the repair works, and amount of money and time to be spent on repairs, there seems little reason not to now consider the attached pathways in more detail, especially if the planned temporary bridge removes the need to keep it open during the works.

The Council is struggling to finance the upkeep of its school estate, a portfolio which includes over forty primary schools.  Limited funds have been available since the government Building Schools for the Future programme was terminated in 2010, and in March last year the Council introduced a “Community Schools Programme”, proposing to finance the improvement works by the building of affordable housing on school grounds. The programme starts with Flora Gardens and Avonmore Primary Schools.

Flora Gardens School Site

We are concerned at the direction of this policy: the unquestionable priority of good public education facilities does not justify the loss of public open space.

Public open space is sacred, it is a rare and precious commodity, and the acceptance of a practice which permanently removes the open space to alleviate a temporary financial shortfall is a mistake: it erodes the quality of our urban surroundings to the detriment of the public realm, and removes potential sites for future social facilities such as youth clubs and provision for the elderly, but also removes spare capacity essential to accommodate the likely increase in space requirements arising from the current review of school standards. 

Olympia theatre – as submitted for planning

In April the Society joined an on-line consultation meeting when the Olympia development team presented their draft proposals due to be submitted shortly to amend the original approved scheme.  We have been following their progress on the design of the theatre on the southwest corner of Olympia, and the scheme has greatly improved, now providing a lively and interesting façade to introduce Olympia on the Hammersmith Road frontage. Details of the submission should be available on the LBHF planning website shortly.

We are expecting further news about the Triangle development on Beadon Road, after the developer held an uninformative public exhibition in March to show a proposal for a combination of hotel and office uses in the new building.  

The huge Earls Court site is now in the hands of developers Delancey, who have invited the committee to an introductory presentation to take place in the near future.  This of course is likely to be on-line, given the circumstances, or much delayed.

Arboricultural Association suggested tag

Twenty-Twenty was named the “Year of the Tree” by the Tree Council, and moments before lockdown, in Davos the World Economic Forum announced the creation of the One Trillion Tree Initiative, following on from the UN Billion Tree Campaign of 2006.  We’re hoping that H&F Council and residents will take the opportunity to participate.

In contrast, while Sheffield is normally noted for heavy industry, recently it became notorious for a rather different kind: the Sheffield Chainsaw Massacre seemingly more for the convenience of the PFI road maintenance contractor than for the public good, under a plan euphemistically called “Streets Ahead”.  The before and after shots are alarming. Furthermore, Sheffield Council has been found to have misled residents over the state of some trees.

King St. tree felling 2019

Here in Hammersmith, we recently praised the council’s street tree planting programme, particularly in the North of the borough, and the associated guerrilla gardening was nominated for an award in 2018.  In 2019 however, tree fortunes reversed somewhat, and we had our own mini chainsaw massacre, where a number of street trees were removed by council contractors without notice.

Four were removed in a day at the West end of King Street. A mature tree outside the Sainsburys local was clearly dead, two were young but had died, apparently of neglect, and the 4th (pictured in the background) was partly diseased.  The removal on safety grounds is obviously an overriding consideration, however the job was half-done, and nearly a year on, ugly and potentially hazardous metre-high stumps remain littering our pavements, not just in King St. but elsewhere in the borough.  We have contacted the council’s arboricultural officer for comment on more than one occasion – so far without response. 

Update April 2021 – it took a couple of years – but the good news is that trees have now been replaced by a new Plane and a Magnolia. Now let’s see if we can get to work on those tree pits…

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

We reported in the Winter 2019-2020 newsletter that a proposal was being prepared by Architects Allford Hall Monaghan Morris for a new 25-storey tower block to the north of the A40 on Wood Lane.

The proposals replace Browning House, which is a 4-storey social housing block owned by Women’s Pioneer Housing (WPH). They are a housing association providing specialist accommodation.

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 ?