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.
Since the election of the new government, we’ve seen a significant rise in medium to large offices in Hammersmith being proposed for conversion to residential use, under Permitted Development (PD) rules which are much more relaxed than normal planning rules. So far, nearly 400 potential flats have been proposed, all on busy main roads, with Hammersmith Road a particular hotspot. The Chairman’s annual report highlights developments at 255 and 149 Hammersmith Road, as well as the former Whiteleys Depository near the railway/A4 in West Kensington. Another proposal at 161 Hammersmith Road (Griffin House, formerly home to Virgin Media), was recently refused by planners, but likely to return with revisions, or an appeal.
The Telegraph recently reported Hammersmith a ‘refusenik’ in accepting such conversions, and we can see plenty of reasons why they might refuse. But Deputy PM, Angela Rayner, has just requested 81,000 new homes per year in London (a doubling compared to recent achievements), as part of the new government’s electoral commitment for 1.5m homes in this parliament. There will be significant political pressure.
As a Civic Society, how should we best respond? Should we welcome the provision of more housing, albeit potentially substandard as reported, with few, if any, of the amenities we would normally expect – just to be a place to sleep – and lament the likely permanent loss of business and commercial space? Or just celebrate The Brave New World?
London’s vacancy rate stands at 10%, a 20-year high and up from about 5% when the pandemic struck, though still well below the circa 14% level seen in New York
We have a number of substantial buildings being proposed for conversion, while an equal, possibly larger number, are still being constructed – we refer mostly to Olympia in the same road of course, starting to open next year according to recent news. We’re aware of other smaller developments still on the drawing board, or at early planning stages, such as proposed offices at Shepherds Bush Market and 76-80 Hammersmith Road. The developers of most of these mention “biotech” and “lab space”. Why the merry go round? In an ideal world, wouldn’t we just (re)use what we have?
Many larger offices appeared in the 1980-2000 period when desktop computers arrived making office requirements pretty uniform, and open-plan became a thing. These were refurbished once, twenty-ish years ago, and are all now past their sell-by date – literally – and can no longer be rented because the better, newer ones are what people want to rent, and be seen renting. Hammersmith suffers through having an oversupply of what is said to be dated stock – expensive to refurbish to the expected rentable standards, and perhaps impossible to repurpose for biotech. Some developers claim the restrictions of existing floor-ceiling heights rule them out even as modern offices, though there’s always a way, should one be determined.
Property data company CoStar reports “London’s vacancy rate stands at 10%, a 20-year high and up from about 5% when the pandemic struck, though still well below the circa 14% level seen in New York,” Away from the centre, vacancy rates in Hammersmith are about 19.3% and Docklands about 16.2%, CoStar says.
The developers of 255 Hammersmith Road, the largest PD conversion currently proposed, told us a year or so ago – when they were proposing an extremely green office refurb – that ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) were high on renter’s shopping lists. In building terms, that means green, plus providing better amenities for employees. Existing buildings such as 255 score pretty poorly here – L’Oreal moved to a new building in White City, with its recent award winning landscaping, and 245 next door – formerly Bechtel – was totally demolished and rebuilt with amenities, such as its award winning landscaping.
Then there are prevailing economic conditions, added to redevelopment time – Olympia was consented exactly a year before the pandemic – it might not have come forward as the proposal we see now – and 245 was built in a different economic climate, becoming that most modern of things, shared workspace.
This now all points to the quickest path of least resistance – PD conversion to resi, eschewing all those ESG aspirations, with pretty much guaranteed sales, rather than the more expensive pre-pandemic option of rebuilding like for like, in the hope of finding a tenant to pay premium office rates, when offices per-se, are just a little bit last year.
Permitted Development has existed to some extent for a long time, being formalised in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1948. This allows you to build a small extension, small side return, or install a garden shed without asking for permission, “small” having precise definitions, plus limitations, for example in conservation areas. It’s the significant relaxation of the rules, particularly around commercial space that’s new, and particularly relevant in a declining office market. PD started to become significant in 2015, and regulations were extended every year in some way or other until 2020.
This makes it hard for planners, mere mortals, and the rest of us to keep track of what is or not allowed; even the parliamentary scribes appear to be struggling, evident should you try to decipher the butchered text – example adjacent.
There’s a longer story to be written on another day as to how one might better draft these regulations in a structured way, so that they can be maintained and amended while provably retaining their integrity once updated, and still be understandable by a wide range of readers. When governments talk about ‘planning reform’, perhaps this could be a starting point. Might AI come to the rescue? This same word-soup problem, added to the contained guidance, shoulds, woulds and coulds, bears significant blame for Grenfell according to the report. Few normal people working in the construction industry could follow the butchered and wordy regulations, however well-intentioned they were – we wouldn’t want PD conversions to offer a repeat. We can just wonder what might happen if this nettle were properly grasped at a high level in government, until then we might reasonably wonder why they keep blaming “The Planning System” for the housing shortage. Perhaps the problem is closer to home? We digress.
Related to PD is the “prior approval” process, the most common mechanism used to allow phone boxes to be put on the street and particularly these days, 20m phone masts. The planning authority (LBHF) can only reject prior approvals on a limited grounds, the same issue they are likely to have with office-to-resi PD conversions. It’s hardly surprising that, in general, Civic Societies take a dim view of PD, with these typical examples as outcomes.
Members and supporters are looking to us for a steer, so here’s a suggestion: We’ll object to plans that involve the conversion of offices into rabbit-hutches with few, or no amenities, have no opening windows and such other faux-pas. We’ll attend exhibitions and work with developers if there seems a likelihood of a reasonably liveable outcome, to help improve them to an acceptable standard. Please feedback your ideas.
©2025, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for over sixty years