We welcome as members individuals and organisations who care for Hammersmith
As a Member, you will receive regular updates outlining our activities, giving you the opportunity to participate in consultations and campaigns. We'll invite you to our Awards Evening and AGM, and other events. Members are always encouraged to take an active part in the work done by the committee – come along and see if you can help.
The membership year runs from 1st Jan, and only costs £6 for individuals, £8 for couples or families, and £15 for organisations. Additional voluntary donations always welcome.
Under the banner ‘Taking a View’, from time to time, we’re pleased to publish articles by members on a subject of their choice, which they believe will be interesting to the wider membership.
Our member Henry Peterson has a a lifetime’s experience in the world of planning, and been a long-term adviser to affiliate St. Helens Residents Association and the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum. He’s written on OPDC matters extensively, including for us, and his comments were mentioned several times in the recent Local Plan adoption meeting.
Here he takes the long view of what’s happened at OPDC, specifically in its long Local Plan development and eventual adoption on 22nd June, with reference to the falling-out with CarGiant that unravelled its original aims, and suggests what the plan now means for North Hammersmith.
The alarming vision presented is a land-grab to replace the lost CarGiant area, coupled with yet more ultra high-rises on the horizon in North Acton, and indeed 15-20+ storeys all along the boundary of Wormwood Scrubs with poor local public transport, sufficient for LBHF’s leader to withhold his support for another likely overbuilt Mayoral project.
In Henry’s words: “One of London’s last large brownfield areas deserved better.”
If you have an article you would like to be considered, please send it to .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society
(AGM Photos: Franco Chen. Click for full-size versions)
We were delighted to announce our 2022 Awards at the AGM at Latymer Upper School on Wednesday 22nd June, introduced by committee member Derrick Wright and kindly presented by our patron, Cllr Emma Althorp, the new Mayor of Hammersmith & Fulham. The large number of members and supporters present were provided excellent hospitality for which we would like to thank Latymer. Full details and a narrative are posted on our 2022 Awards page; more AGM photos and administrative documents are posted on our 2022 AGM page.
Our guest speaker was Nicholas Boys Smith, of CreateStreets, and the CreateStreets Foundation, who gave an inspiring presentation, showing why we don’t need 55 storey towers to solve housing problems, and that real people prefer what CreateStreets refer to as “gentle density”.
The Environment Award was given to The Palladium on Shepherds Bush Green. We visited it earlier this year and were impressed with the design quality provided by the same architects, Flanagan Lawrence, who transformed the Dorsett next door, and to whom we also gave our Environment Award in 2015. This area of the borough has seen significant improvements in the last few years, and we hope that the hotel currently under construction on the North side of the Dorsett lives up to the high standards set.
Unfortunately this year there were no projects of the right type or scale nominated for the Tom Ryland Award for Conservation.
The Nancye Goulden Award was given to the Elder Press Café which recently opened in South Black Lion Lane, W6. This conversion has been carried out with unusual care and sensitivity – the shop window is retained to bring life and light which animates this little street and the builder’s yard is brought back to life as an outside seating area with fine new timber gates thrown open during the day.
For the first time in several years we presented the Jane Mercer Award for “proactive co-operation, collaboration and communication”. The Green Project, Shepherds Bush provided exactly this, an initiative setup by local residents to make the neighbourhood around Sawley Road W12 greener, and at the same time to bring the community together.
Wooden spoons were awarded to the council for a failure to fully engage with their own green agenda by keeping new street trees alive and overseeing the generally inadequate tree pits partly responsible, which were similarly awarded in 2013, 2014, and 2015; and for an unfortunate lack of inclusivity afforded by the King Street Cycleway, C9, with everyone but cyclists losing out unnecessarily, some significantly.
There’s some evidence that politics are again in charge of poor transport policy. Those of you taking note of the words in the article on Cycleway 9 just three months ago, may be rightly disappointed that the gambit proposed – actually somewhat tongue-in-cheek – was in reality already planned.
“Perhaps this is part of the grand plan, to make TfL redundant, the Mayor abandon most of his responsibilities, and the great unwashed go back to using their feet ? “
A logical extension of converting peak-time multipurpose bus lanes into full-time single-purpose cycle lanes – not just in Hammersmith – but across London, with a consequent disbenefit to 97% of the population, was that something like this could well be on the way.
While the Mayor of London blames a 4% central government funding cut, the Transport Minister has responded that the cuts were already planned over a year ago, and there’s some evidence deep in a sustainability plan from Jan 2021 to support that. One side of the political divide may also be playing games with the other, choosing to “park its tanks on the opposition’s lawn” by perhaps imposing more cuts on their supporters patch, and also meaning that our bridge continues to be unfunded as the Cinderella of this melodrama. Overall, the reduction in total peak bus frequency is 424 to 324 per hour, or a 25% reduction in the affected services, according this spreadsheet made from TfL data by Sian Berry, chair of the GLA transport committee, which might reasonably surprise you.
Please complete the consultation by 12th July so that there is a record of dismay, regardless of outcome. The story is covered in local press in more detail, the summary being that some of the oldest routes such as 11, N11, 14, 27, 31, 49, 72 and 74 will be cut, or no longer serve the borough, The 27 is again a pawn in this game, it having already been cut back as the picture above reminds us – it went as far as Chiswick Business Park in recent memory. It’s now proposed to replace the C3 route where it’s never ventured before, and no longer serve H&F at all.
Continued →
It’s been a relatively quiet six months at the bridge since we last reported on it. LBHF announced the award of a 9-month stabilisation contract to deal with cracks in the cast-iron pedestals, at a cost of £8.9m, and there’s been some to-ing and fro-ing on who’ll pay (finally equally split LBHF, TfL, DfT), setting aside the cost of the future major repairs necessary, still undecided. The stabilisation will enable the main repair and renewal of other components of the bridge to follow in a separate contract.
During the stabilisation contract cyclists will not be allowed on the main carriageway but must wheel their bikes on the walkway – hoardings have gone up to that effect, though social media suggests that the dismounting instructions have yet to reach all quarters!
We noted late last year that the council had observed planning niceties by applying to itself for permission for the stabilisation works under ref 2021/03680/LBCHF. which it formally approved at the end of February. We understand similar has happened on the South side with LBRUT. Subsequently, an application has been lodged for temporary removal of sections of the handrail to allow pedestrians/cyclists to still cross while bypassing the pedestal housings, under 2022/00786/DLBC.
We remain a little disappointed that the plan still involves pouring concrete into the now infamous cast iron pedestals – not recognised bedfellows – but this is an old comment that has so far been met with a tin ear. We must hope the thermal effects and regular bridge vibration which have been written about at length, and even reported by a concerned member of the public last week, don’t gradually separate or crumble this unusual mixture. If it was a recognised and tested process, a standard method statement would be referenced, but instead the designer has listed an array of materials and notes on the drawings, the word “suitable” signposting a degree of conjecture. We can find no risk assessment to cover the effect of the additional mass, in the light of concerns about the strength of the pedestal footings noted during earlier investigations. The figure mentioned was 6 tonnes per pedestal, and it would be sensible to properly address this risk.
The documents state that Historic England is satisfied that the proposal respects Bazalgette’s design because the pedestals are not visible, which was precisely the point we made last year. If invisible, then remove them and do the job properly as a self-respecting engineer such as Bazalgette would do, having recognised a design or material weakness, and with the existence of better modern materials. Replacing them with something stronger, lighter, maintainable, and built offsite, allowing a quick like-for-like replacement (12 bolts), and future bearing maintenance, without all the onsite paraphernalia and disruption now planned, is the right thing to do, and also cheaper – especially long-term. The existing plan falls into the unfortunate category of being neither fish nor foul – not comprehensive enough to improve function, future maintenance and de-risk the structure, not quick or cheap enough to say it’s a disposable fix until major repairs can be undertaken.
The repair and renewal contract involves replacing 172 hangers, repairing the bearings at the top of the four towers and dealing with defects in many other components to restore the bridge to its former glory, strength and usefulness. There are two options for providing a temporary crossing for the public during this repair work:
The Foster scheme on which we reported last year, involving a ’tube’ structure within the Heritage bridge passing between the towers and allowing the progressive replacement of bridge sections and components.
Continued →
The temporary cycle path or Safer Cycle Pathway as the council denotes it, is not without controversy. At the extremes, Cycle Twitterati heap praise on the council for going though with it, and at the other end of the scale, there are a couple of petitions with well over 3000 signatures asking for it to be removed, along with its accompanying scheme in Hounslow (currently being made rather more permanent at the cost of felled mature trees). The good news is that cycling has increased by 7 – 22% since the pandemic, though the maths dictates that this represents an increase from only around 2% to somewhere less than 3% of journeys.
The route now constructed follows the TfL scheme which was issued for public consultation in 2017. TfL encountered widespread opposition to their ideas for high street cycleways both in Hammersmith and elsewhere, and were probably pleased to agree to the LBHF proposal to design and build the scheme, paid for by TfL – and to potentially include King Street improvements at the same time. The idea of a shoppers’ cycleway in King Street and a cycle by-pass on the A4 was agreed to after feedback from the public, and this Society around the time of the 2018 local elections. These ideas failed due to the very public funding problems at TfL, added to by the pandemic, resulting in this ‘temporary’ scheme.
Here we are, stuck in the middle, seeking an equitable solution for the majority of Hammersmith. We have skin in this particular game through participation in the cycle commission last year as we described before. Unfortunately many of the concerns raised by the commissioners, and by ourselves in recent articles have come to pass, and it’s a little concerning to see the “safer” moniker applied – and rewarded on social media with statements such as “I feel safer” – when feeling is not actually demonstrably safer, more a testament to a lack of awareness of the issues, with around £3M spent on this social media-inspired scheme.
Cyclists? It’s well documented by ROSPA, TfL and the DfT crash data that 75-80% of accidents happen at junctions, (as illustrated by the crashmap above), and there are 23 of those to navigate along the route from the Broadway to Goldhawk Road, only a handful of which are protected by the new wands or other lane segregations. However well-intentioned, arguably it’s disingenuous to encourage the inexperienced and unwary using the word safer when mostly it’s not (more evidence below). Main roads, especially their junctions, can be dangerous for all sorts of reasons, especially when HGV’s are involved, but are essential for the many forms of transport that we all rely on. So why campaign to use them when there are better and safer alternatives nearby ?
The A4 route, has just 2 junctions over the same distance as King St., with just 2 minor incidents in 10 years, admittedly with fewer cyclists, but still a significant number – including regular use by members of the cycling commission – making a comparison worthwhile. Together with with adjacent cul-de-sacs approximating modern LTN’s, caused by the creation of the A4, they provide a measurably safer and less polluted route. We’ll wait to see how the untested slalom in the middle of King Street, and well-documented issues with bidirectional paths fare with all those junctions, but a significant number of cyclists are observed voting with their pedals, and still using the North side of the road Eastbound from Goldhawk Road.
The safety of pedestrians at bus islands/bypasses arises again, and we refer to the dismay of the charity for the blind NFBUK, after reviewing our commission advisers’ chosen reference Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow during visits last year, which rather undermines their advice. By way of confirmation, bypasses are such a hazard to pedestrians – particularly those less able – that TfL buses now need canned announcements which start at the Broadway, warning passengers of the dangers of the cycle lane when disembarking.
Latterly, the council has deployed these rather scruffy temporary signs, tacitly acknowledging the dangers the scheme has created. With significant modifications already ongoing in Hammersmith’s main shopping area, upheaval on the Broadway and in Hounslow, one has to wonder if there’s been a little too much speed and not enough haste. It’s regrettable that the scheme which you see today proceeded without commission review.
There are number of problems in King St., many at at the Western end, as highlighted by the photo adjacent.
Members using buses East-West in the borough report what a poor experience it’s become. Let’s be clear, other than walking, according the TfL data (adjacent), buses carry more passengers than any other transport mode in London, and carry the most disadvantaged members of society. Erosion of bus routes and infrastructure recently (AKA multipurpose peak-time bus lanes replaced by exclusive 24h cycle lanes), mean bus speeds remain at an all-time low having recovered briefly in lockdowns, and are in the bottom 25% of 15 major world cities to the shame of TfL. Belatedly TfL have woken up to this issue, and proposed a solution – banning other road users, and putting in new bus lanes !
Continued →
The bridge reopened on the 17th July to some small fanfare. This was after the council’s appointed engineers had blast cleaned the cast iron pedestals so that they could be fully examined for cracks, and the case for continued safe operation could be made.
There are cracks evident in all pedestals to a lesser or greater degree, but they are now assessed as not being critical to structural integrity, provided that the pedestals are not overstressed, which means minimising the movement of the chains that run over them.
The temporary solution, which allows the current limited use by pedestrians and bikes, is to heat or cool the chains that run over the pedestals to maintain temperature, so as to keep them in approximately the same place avoiding excess pedestal stress. This is obviously a 24×7 energy-intensive business, a least-worst solution for the time-being. It’s worth noting that even with only pedestrians and bikes crossing, the bridge still sways a little, it is very much a live structure. The current and much reduced-cost proposal for shoring up the bearings on top of the pedestals (“stabilisation works”) is to replace them with elastomeric sliding bearings, at a total cost of around £6m as widely reported, a figure that doesn’t seem unreasonable. Others can judge whether this is a good enough solution for the long term. We’d prefer to be without the nagging doubts of the hidden cast iron bolted-in parts in critical structural positions, to allow the engineering of a robust 100-year + solution using easily replaceable bearings. This wouldn’t be expensive in the scale of the total repair bill, and as we described early this year, fixing the recurring problem effectively for good.
Without going into further exhaustive detail, which can be found in the references listed below, the main issue remains who will pay for the repairs. The most sensible option is to substantially dismantle the existing bridge with the COWI-Foster structure, or other temporary bridge in place for the duration. This would allow it to be properly repaired to a higher quality than can be achieved onsite, including replacing the troublesome cast iron, and might be quicker overall. Consideration should also be given to lightening the structure via a lighter/improved roadway as we’ve mentioned before, so as to lower bridge loadings, potentially raise capacity a little, and we’d very much like to see wider pathways for pedestrians & bikes.
The latest update from the Task Force shows that our council leader and the newly re-appointed government minister responsible, Baroness Vere, are again at loggerheads, this time over the relatively small sum of £6m for stabilisation works, which is why they haven’t started. If they can’t agree on this, how ever will they agree on the £100m+ full repair bill ? We call for a ceasefire and end to hostilities by letter.
Over the last year or so, we’ve been participating in the Council’s resident-led Cycling & Walking Commission, via our membership secretary, along with residents including representatives of one or two affected resident’s associations, such as affiliates SPRA & SBRA.
Due to the pandemic, meetings were held as online workshops, the process being chaired by Cllr. Iain Cassidy, and facilitated by the council’s preferred consultants, WSP, who provided expert guidance and showed design options used elsewhere in the UK and Europe. We heard from several special interest groups including disabled cycling group Wheels for Wellbeing.
In common with TfL’s leanings, most discussion was around cycling, with a healthy proportion of commissioners chosen for those credentials, despite the clue in the name (and Terms of Reference) Cycling and Walking Commission, we therefore felt the need to keep walking and other users on the agenda as (almost) everyone walks if they can, and the number of journeys by foot + bus represents at least 40% of all journeys. As shown, walking represents a 25% “modal” share, but is often the Cinderella of the show by needing no specific new infrastructure – or does it ?
Continued →
A further consultation stage ended on 5 July. This was made necessary because the Car Giant section of the OPDC area was ruled to be “undevelopable” for the duration of the Plan (as a result of no agreement with Car Giant) – so the quantum of development has to be shifted to the west of the area.
Our member Henry Peterson, on behalf of a coalition of local groups and civic societies, is maintaining that this should require a new Draft Plan, but the Inspector is unlikely to agree. The following is Henry’s synopsis of the case against the Plan, with any references referring to sections of the plan available here :
More on the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum to which Henry contributes.
One news item from each selected source – more on our Local and Affiliate news page. Subscribe to our weekly highlights
©2024, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for over sixty years