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.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
When we last reported on the bridge, the stabilisation works were just about to start. Since then, the council’s contractors have built the ramps to take pedestrians away from the works on the pedestals, and have dismantled the outer casings, completely exposing the troublesome cast iron pedestals for the first time in 135 years, as shown in the photo gallery kindly provided by our member, Jane Bain. Bazalgette’s relatively straightforward design can at last be appreciated, clearly demonstrating the ease with which the pedestals could be replaced by unbolting, as we’ve suggested for some time.
On 28th June, the new Local and Affiliate News page (and homepage sidebar) provided news of the parliamentary adjournment debate initiated by the MP for Putney, Fleur Anderson, and contributed to by our MP Andy Slaughter, and Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, on the subject of bridge restoration funding.
What ensued was a familiar ping-pong between the junior minister on one side, relying on a somewhat worn line that because it’s called Hammersmith Bridge it’s LBHF’s responsibility, and in a pincer movement, MP’s on the other side trying to winkle open the Treasury coffers, making the point that the closure effects are widespread in South West London by reference to Putney Society comments and others, and listing other bridges that are funded in different ways, mostly by TfL, in a ‘policy…all over the place’. It was also made clear that stabilisation work had been started at some LBHF financial risk, given the Task Force delays and machinations around the so-called ‘business case’ that we previously reported.
Worryingly, the business case is now referred to specifically in terms of the stabilisation works, and a further business case is now being requested for the major works to release the established 1/3 government funding. Given unimpeded government largesse elsewhere, and an excessively drawn-out process previously, this might be seen as a further delaying tactic, the politics of which are unclear. The point was made that a similar debate with a similar ping-pong & result occurred a year ago, and that the current TfL funding crisis is hardly helping matters, given its 1/3 agreed funding responsibility. The full debate text is here.
Reference was made to the Prior Information Notice (PIN), which we tweeted at the end of May for expressions of interest in the full restoration works, providing us the hope and expectation that a contractor and plan can be primed, notwithstanding funding. New Civil Engineer reports that 28 organisations have expressed an interest.
There’s little more to say now. Despite the volume of water under the bridge, only matched by the volume of debate about funding, possible tolls, listed status, age, and poor condition, the actual engineering continues to look rather more straightforward than the funding. It’s noteworthy that the bridge appears to disassemble much as you’d expect a workmanlike design to do at the hand of Bazalgette – it’s all reasonably accessible, and should be straightforward enough to work on. We are not aware of any issues in the stabilisation process so far.
We continue to press all parties to resolve the funding problems with urgency.
©2024, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for over sixty years