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.

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. 

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.

The Council’s Disability Forum Planning Group (DFPG) provides advice to Hammersmith & Fulham Council on making sure that planning applications create new buildings that are accessible and inclusive, and that work for everyone. The group will use the Social Model of Disability and a human rights way of working in all its work.

The group is looking to recruit new members from the local disabled community with interests in planning.  The council will provide training and access to relevant expertise.

The publicity flyer is shown here, click on its image to open the full invitation in pdf and for further information or to apply, 🔗follow this link to the council website

Closing date for applications: Friday 28 February at midday.