Following this, a government White Paper Planning for the Future proposed very significant changes to the planning process for public consultation which closed last week.

Changes to the planning procedure

At present, LBHF planning applications are assessed against the development policies in the LBHF Local Plan, in the London Plan, and in the government NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). The White Paper proposes a new approach:  a new form of Local Plan, replacing the current format of more abstract policy guidance, by a format with a prescriptive system of development rules and a design code. The Local Plan would also include borough zone plans, which would identify three categories of development:

1. Growth areas where ‘substantial development’ would be suitable (similar, we suggest, to Earls Court, Old Oak Common etc)
2. Renewal areas such as existing built areas where development is encouraged (Hammersmith Town Centre, for example)
3. Protected areas like conservation and heritage areas, green belt and parkland.

Planning zones

In Growth and Renewal areas, proposals which are compliant with the Local Plan in height, use-type etc, and compliant with the government NPPF rules, would be effectively guaranteed an automatic outline planning consent, providing a level of certainty in site purchase values. At the next stage, a full planning application,  with detailed proposals, would be granted consent if the proposals comply with the more detailed rules and design codes of the Local Plan.

Community involvement

Public consultation in the planning process would be limited to the stage when the new Local Plan is put together by the local authority: community involvement would be excluded from full planning application stage, because (it is argued)  the application would be assessed against rules which have already been agreed through public consultation.

The intention is to establish a clear set of planning rules, which are in line with government policy, and have been agreed through community consultation; armed with these certainties applications would avoid the ambiguities of policy interpretation and community objection which (it is said) can delay the full planning application stage.

Design codes

CreateStreets – Bonnington Square

To illustrate examples of acceptable design and styling, and to provide a basis of resolution of design disagreements, Design Codes would form part of the Local Plan, and would be reviewed through public consultation when the new Local Plan is being put together. Design codes would be coordinated with the government’s National Design Guide, itself heavily influenced by the CreateStreets campaign and to the emerging National Model Design Code. To help the process, a chief officer for design and place-making would be appointed within each local authority.

Health scares, 18 metre masts, autonomous vehicles, economic recovery, critical national infrastructure, Huawei… It’s a long list.

2020/01852/TEL56: Rylett Road / John Betts House: 5G proposed mast and cabinets

In Hammersmith we’ve started to see planning notices for 5G base stations, ironically mostly from the company named Three, and yes, since you ask, they are using Huawei.

From the Society’s perspective, our concerns centre on the mast height, positioning, and the associated, rather retro, street clutter.  There’s some further reading at the foot of the article, but first, to get some perspective, let’s get our terminology clear, review the most prevalent public concerns and take quite a hard look at the benefits – both real and more far-fetched.

The most widely used 5G band in the UK will be 3.6GHz…
…5G is just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM.
– Institution of Engineering and Technology

A quick canter through some confusing G’s

1G to 5G phones

Here 1G means ‘First Generation’ AKA Analogue ‘brick’ phones of the 1980’s, 2G (AKA ‘GSM’ or ‘Global System for Mobile Communications’), a typical Nokia from the late 1990’s, 3G, the first phones with really usable Internet connections, and today’s 4G, typified by a smartphone – Apple or Android. There was even a 2.5G and we mention 4.5G later.

The gifts of Heinrich Hertz, or a billion of them, come in the form of a Gigahertz (GHz), the frequency a thousand times the Megahertz we’ve had since VHF FM radio days.  1G to 4G phones have used various radio frequencies over the years, depending on operator and country, from 800MHz up to 2.6GHz, but the operating frequency used doesn’t directly affect the data speed as far as the user is concerned.  WiFi is sometimes confusingly termed 2.4G or ‘2.4 Gig’ or ‘5 Gig’, referring to bands – 2.4GHz (the same frequency as a microwave oven but a minuscule fraction of the power) and 5GHz: a less congested, shorter range band that has nothing to do with 5G: 5th generation mobile technology.

In the digital world we similarly have Megabits describing the speed of received data – whatever the technology that delivered it – and the Gigabit of your scribe’s home, and likely your office’s high speed Ethernet wired network. We won’t discuss the many flavours of WiFi on top of the frequency bands mentioned: A, B, G, N AC, AX… a story seemingly involving yet another G, until WiFi leapfrogs 5G by changing it’s letters to numbers, becoming WiFi 4, 5, and 6, and in future extending into a new 6GHz band.  That’s the GG’s corralled 🐴

The most popular 5G band, 3.6 GHz, is slightly higher than current ranges, the implication may be more base stations as range is slightly reduced, but other bands may be used to compensate. The 700MHz band for example, cleared in June this year (responsible for the loss of several HD TV channels from Crystal Palace), has yet to be auctioned off, but is earmarked by OFCOM for 5G.

Mobile emissions

If you are at all concerned about health effects, first check and understand the implications of the SAR value for your existing 2G/3G/4G phone, which have been published by manufacturers since the days of 2G when such concerns first arose – or better, stop using it now !

Unfortunately in addition to the above health concerns, the 5G cause has been muddied, and probably harmed by overzealous marketing, too many G’s and spurious claimed benefits – we prefer to keep to the tried-and-trusted recipe of ‘more & faster’, on which it certainly will deliver. 

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. 

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.

To visualise the extent of the problem, the UK’s current emissions of thousands of tonnes of CO₂ per hour caused by electricity generation can be seen here

According to King’s College, the reference for air quality measurements, London is the 2,516th most polluted city in the world

We think that climate change is the key issue here, and which if properly addressed, would deal with many of today’s air quality issues. The reference work ‘Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom’ (A report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants [COMEAP], updated 2018), says clearly in its executive summary ‘As everyone dies eventually no lives are ever saved by reducing environmental exposures – deaths are delayed resulting in increased life expectancy.’

Air quality in London started deteriorating about 400 years ago, and for the entire time the Georgians and Victorians were painting the globe pink, sulphur dioxide was around 40 times the current WHO guideline level of 20 µg/m³. It was in fact raining sulphuric acid AKA ‘acid rain’, the effects of which can be seen on the Palace of Westminster or in Turner’s paintings.  The Great Smog of 1952 that killed perhaps 12,000 appears as a peak on the graph, and created a level over 10 times the level it is now, but our nonagenarian, and in one case centenarian parents survived and are still here with us, begging the question what effect it had on long term life expectancy.

The answer from COMEAP is around six months if you could (unrealistically) remove 100% of all air pollution from all sources, or more realistically 20 days per µg/m³ removed, plus you have to live to those grand old ages otherwise healthy.  Not as much as the headlines or Twitterati would have it.

Of course this isn’t a complete list of pollutants, there’s PM2.5, PM10, NO₂, and Ozone which have differing WHO thresholds as shown here, and those with respiratory conditions are much more affected than others, explaining 🔗most of the 1952 deaths.

Cycling in Copenhagen, 2015

The CS9 saga has been running for a couple of years now, and we’re finally beginning to achieve some clarity in the plans for Hammersmith.

CS9 has been renamed CW9 “CycleWay 9” to distance it from existing Central London Superhighways, and provide a facility serving a wider demographic than 🔗those installed to date.  The image being promoted is shown in TfL’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner’s Tweet, left, although we feel obliged to point out that despite the wording, the photo is not London at all – this was 🔗Copenhagen in 2015.  Nevertheless we believe this more inclusive vision is an appropriate aspiration for our borough’s roads.

Together with other members of the community, we have been successful in persuading H&F Council that TfL’s CS9 plans were flawed, now two different cycle routes are planned:  a fast commuter route using the somewhat underused paths alongside the A4, and something closer to a “🔗Quietway” plus urban realm improvements (greening) in King Street and Hammersmith Road. More 🔗on the council website, where an online debate has started.

We expect to be part of the planned residents consultation as we are concerned about potential negative impacts on pedestrians and retailers, significantly slower buses/traffic/increasing pollution, for which there is evidence from schemes such as 🔗Winchmore Hill and 🔗Waltham Forest.  TfL’s own CS9 Air Quality Report predicts only walking-speed traffic along Hammersmith Road at Olympia, and no overall improvement in air quality.  A 🔗council meeting is planned for 9th Sept, which you should attend if you are interested in this scheme (see our diary)…