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.
Continued →
We’ve reported on progress of this substantial development three times over the last two years; the plans are now complete and public, with 385 documents under planning reference 2023/03129/FUL. We’ve been in regular contact with the developers and attended meetings, as have the immediately neighbouring residents, and groups including Residents Associations either side – Ravenscourt Square – and our affiliate in Ravenscourt Gardens RA. These public consultations are summarised in the proposal’s Statement of Community Engagement on the planning portal.
We’ve said publicly many times that rescuing and repurposing this Grade II* set of hospital buildings is most welcome, but as usual, not at any cost. We review the proposal in that mindset. On the plus side, it’s a relatively sensitive proposal without the usual gross overbuilding we see in almost every other development. The team has engaged widely and openly with interested community groups, and many of our concerns have been considered and several addressed in the plans now proposed.
We welcome the refurbishment of this precious building, and appreciate the care that has been taken in the design of the alterations necessary for the new residential use; however we still have some significant concerns, most of which have been expressed in previous updates and are summarised as follows:
Continued →
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The council has reworked several pieces of longstanding planning work, and is asking for feedback from you in a series of consultations – details in our diary. We’ve been keen to progress this matter for a while, and it’s good to see new activity. Firstly we should set the historical context, to better understand how we got here, what’s new, and not so new.
Longstanding members will recall the 2008 Flyunder proposals that were developed originally by the West London Link group of architects and Hammersmith BID, including our former chairman Tom Ryland as a leading light, and then presented to the London Festival of Architecture that year. A significant part of that plan involved a reworking of Hammersmith to face more towards the river, by removing the awkward A4 spur road to the Broadway (seen above), and connecting King Street to St Paul’s Church, creating a much better and more identifiable ‘centre’. The flyunder would have been funded by building over what is now the A4, linking the roads cut in the 1950’s. This website maintains a series of articles under the flyunder tag, that details some of this work, along with the WLL website above which includes a detailed archive and feasibility study from the time.
The potential money ran out fairly spectacularly a year later when the finance industry melted down, but the whole issue had its first revival in 2011 when the flyover closed and was thought to be doomed. However the 2012 Olympics came to the rescue, because, as those imbued in the dark arts of Olympic transport will know, there are very strict maxima laid down for journey times between Olympic venues, no doubt causing the Parisians sleepless nights ahead of this year’s games. Without a flyover, the time to the western venues such as the rowing in Eton would be easily exceeded. That logic led to the special Olympic Travel Lanes, of which there is still the odd vestige if you know where to look. The flyover, as a piece of critical Olympic transport infrastructure, was patched up quicker than you can say ‘Hammersmith Bridge’, and then said to be good for about another fifty or sixty years.
The Hammersmith Residents Working Party was an early version of what came to be called resident-led commissions, which produced the Grimshaw report of 2019 addressing the central Hammersmith regeneration area. Sadly due to the range of topics covered and the divergent nature of the competing demands and constraints, the HRWP couldn’t agree the outcomes in the report and it was never adopted as a Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document as intended.
Continued →
Today we announce Hammersmith Weekly, an email containing a roundup of news focussed on our shared interest in the built and natural environment in Hammersmith. Responding to feedback from our continuous member survey and the related AGM announcement that we no longer intend to print newsletters in pre-pandemic form, it’s a pick of the week, curated and concise version of selected additions to our Local and Affiliate news, and new Architecture and Construction news pages over the last 7 days, plus excerpts of any of our own articles published in the week. For completeness, we’ve added our upcoming diary events and selected Tweets addressing relevant matters of interest for Hammersmith and nearby.
We’ll continue to send our normal Society update emails accompanied by editorial for members and supporters when we publish our own articles; Weekly is a separate and optional email to save you trawling through so many of the available websites and emails. You can expect a dozen or so short curated excerpts in a weekly email, with links to the source websites for the full stories – example adjacent. Please consider supporting the third party sources directly if you’re interested in their content. Sign up here
A reminder of how our local news page works: where available, we automatically syndicate news from the websites of our affiliate organisations, plus a number of other relevant local and nearby public sources, including mention of ‘Hammersmith’, ‘OPDC’, ‘Old Oak’ or ‘Shepherds Bush’ in Parliament and by the GLA, and Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s Cabinet, Economy, Arts, Sports, and Public realm PAC, plus Planning committee feeds.
As the example adjacent shows, we’ve been testing it on ourselves and refining it for a month or two now, and recent topics have included: TfL funding, several questions in the House about the funding of HS2 and Hammersmith bridge, Council cabinet and planning meeting updates, London Forum updates on local planning reform, matters that affect London in the King’s speech in parliament, the Leaning Lady statue (to which we pledged £500), an update on Fulham Town Hall, improvements to Google Maps to include safer cycling routes, updates on OPDC approval of more 55 storey towers, threats to London parks from commercial exploitation, an update from Coningham police panel, Wormwood Scrubs PSPO, and Brackenbury area flooding. An archive is kept here, so you can see what it’s all about.
If you ARE already a member or supporter receiving our emails, please go to an email we’ve sent you – any will do – and click on the “update preferences” link in the footer. This will take you to a personalised page where MailChimp will offer to send you an update email, so you can add Hammersmith Weekly to your preferences, like so:
Updating your preference is unfortunately a little convoluted so as to make sure you’re updating your own and not someone else’s, plus GDPR constraints which mean we can’t just send it to you without your permission.
If you’re NOT already a member or supporter, subscribing to our emails, please sign up here.
Continued →
As advertised in our diary and mentioned in recent news, the council consulted on its proposals for a new Avonmore Primary School in the first week of October via three events: two in-person at the current school in Avonmore Road, and one online. We attended the two in-person events, and noted that they were quiet.
Residents were also invited to comment via the council’s website. The council say that a hundred people responded, which included us as attendees, and we noted the survey did no more than provide a comment box, lacking specific questions.
We supported our affiliate Avonmore Residents Association (ARA) in their running of an independent and much more specific consultation to enable residents to have their say. 102 individuals responded, and of these 46 also provided their comments.
The quantitative survey results are clear: by a large margin the majority of residents are ‘concerned’ or ‘highly concerned’ on each of a dozen specific issues, including those relating to residential amenity and loss of public land which we’ve raised in the past.
Equally importantly, the vast majority (>80%) agree that the council has not consulted adequately and further, that its claims of majority public support can’t be substantiated. The full background to the building on school land issue can be found in our education section.
Ideas for the development of the Ravenscourt Park Hospital campus are beginning to emerge from the new owners Telereal Trillium with their architects SPPARC Studio. There’s an interesting ‘information pack’ with historic photos and maps on their project website; here we include the key views from the May 2023 exhibition boards.
We’ve also seen detailed comments from the two adjoining Residents Associations – Ravenscourt Gardens and Ravenscourt Square – who both have significant concerns about adjacency and the effect of access requirements for a substantial housing development on their doorsteps. These have been submitted to the council, and while noting them, here we look more at the effect the proposals would have on the Grade II* listed building and its setting.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
As proposed, the development would harm the buildings it’s supposed to improve.
The scheme proposes that the 1930’s hospital buildings would be enlarged by adding two, three or four upper floors, generally set back from the building edge, and faced with saw-tooth profile glazed curtain wall shown in the CGI’s above. The roof extensions would be limited to one level on the outer blocks of the principal building “Block A” facing Ravenscourt Park, which would be refurbished and converted for a community use yet to be defined; the remaining buildings would be refurbished and converted to residential use. We would welcome an open and inclusive process of co-design to evaluate possible future uses of Block A, to arrive at a defined and sustainable use that works for the community and developer.
The 1978 surgical and ancillary building on the northwest corner, beside Ravenscourt Square, is proposed to to be replaced by a residential block and a separate care-home block, shown as undefined white blocks “E” and “F” in the model above.
The hospital building is a stand-alone architectural whole, a form which does not readily invite extension. It employs a restrained, consistent architectural language, with regular geometric brick forms, orderly window perforations, playful articulation separating the building elements with circular balconies and pavilions, and a bold, heroic principal block facing the park. These unique qualities would be overwhelmed by the changes proposed. The roof extensions would impose an architectural levelling-up, bringing an inappropriate sameness to the distinctly separate elements of the buildings. The eye-catching angular glazing design would be at odds with the quiet regularity of the buildings below, and would hardly reflect the visual subservience required in planning policy.
The new buildings proposed for the northwest corner “E” & “F” are shown only in diagram form on the display board image adjacent, and further design information is needed, including contextual views showing the relationship of the new blocks to the hospital buildings, the overall campus, and the neighbouring buildings of Ravenscourt Square – especially Grade ll No. 11, and locally listed No. 17 on the corner.
There is also proposed access East-West through the site, between blocks “D” and “E”, which is not currently possible, and it’s fair the say that there are mixed views about this proposed feature in the adjoining communities.
The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) sets out the relevant policies for listed buildings, and requires that alterations proposed to heritage assets are assessed by Historic England according to the extent of harm they would cause, and states that ‘…substantial harm to a grade ll* listed building should be wholly exceptional’ (NPPF para 200). Some concessions may be allowed where the changes would support the future conservation of the building, or would bring about significant public benefit.
These criteria rule out the current proposals: the extensions would bring very substantial harm to this wonderful building. While they could generate funds for the conservation of the building and gardens, the accommodation they provide would bring no benefit to the public.
The early opportunity for public involvement is welcome, and we have carefully reviewed the May 2023 proposals, and set out our response above, together with a letter containing the same points to the council planners.
Continued →
Property company Yoo Capital, who are currently undertaking the ambitious expansion of Olympia, bought Shepherds Bush Market in 2020. Over recent months we’ve advertised and attended a number of public consultations, revealing plans for the area. These include (i) the redevelopment of the Old Laundry site, the triangular area behind the east side of the market, and (ii) the upgrade and renewal of the market facilities.
Two buildings are proposed for the Old Laundry site: (i) a mixed-use commercial building, of 6 upper floors, ground floor and mezzanine, and a full basement floor below, together providing for office space and Imperial College research facilities, and (ii) located on the north end of the site, a smaller building providing 40 affordable flats in 5 upper floors and ground floor.
This is a dense, complex scheme, inserting a substantial building bulk in a site landlocked behind the 2-storey shop terraces of Goldhawk Road, and 2 & 3-storey residential terraces of Pennard Road. For reference, the main commercial building is the same height as the Dorsett Hotel.
Looking North, this building would be visible from Goldhawk Road, rising above the shop terraces, and the substantial stepped, craggy elevation would not be out of place in the busy mix of style and scale, and could enrich the visual jazz of the area. From the west the building would be seen chiefly from the passing trains, and would form a new, east side to the market thoroughfare, with stalls partly tucked into the ground floor area, this would create an enclosure which could bring a sense of urban intimacy to the market thoroughfare, akin to the feel of Borough market.
On the east side, the building would be a dominant presence for the adjacent terrace of houses on Pennard Road, close to the rear gardens and crowding the outlook from rear windows. The design of the new building acknowledges this problem, and brings some mitigation with progressive stepping back at upper levels, and a landscaped area alongside the Pennard Road boundary: rules for this arrangement are set out in the Local Plan SPD (Section HS6), and the developer advises that the proposals comply with the dimensional restraints required. Resolution of this possible discord is fundamental to the development concept.
Continued →
We attended the first Placelab session held next to the North Acton gyratory at Gypsy Corner, to help shape plans for Old Oak West. Representing our affiliate Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum, Henry Peterson was there, as were a good cross-section of neighbours and resident groups. For those of you unfamiliar with Old Oak, please read Henry’s piece Taking a View from last year, where he sets out the issues around this Mayoral Opportunity Area, and its planned expansion westwards in the wake of the CarGiant debacle.
Currently the area comprises around 90 acres of post-industrial no man’s land, and is proposed to provide 9000 homes and 2.5m sq. ft. of commercial space to the northwest of Victoria Road, between North Acton and Harlesden/Willesden Junction.
With notable resonances of Earls Court, including comparable planned housing density of 250/ha, though twice the land area and in a rather less salubrious spot, the main development area is triangular in shape and similarly surrounded by railways, which provide mixed blessings for access, but it has the benefit of the Grand Union Canal rather than the West London Line through the middle. It doesn’t include the large Elizabeth Line depot alongside, because as reported, someone unfortunately forgot to specify foundations strong enough to support over-development! HS2 enabling works currently occupy a significant portion.
Though strictly in Ealing, it’s right on our borders, closely associated with Wormwood Scrubs and HS2/Oak Oak Common, and your skyline is likely to be affected as it has been already, by the 55 storey tower pictured below and adjacent, during the boat race. We think Historic England could ‘champion England’s Heritage’ better by proactively managing this ‘listed building setting’ rather more effectively.
If the developers have their way unfettered, as Henry describes, and as is the M.O. in Opportunity Areas where the normal planning shackles are largely off, they’ll add several more, and significantly overbuild. The leader of our council was the sole dissenter at the Local Plan adoption last year as Henry describes – the plan really must be deficient.
The workshop format was a sort of mini-charrette organised on behalf of the Mayoral development organisation, OPDC, by consultants Soundings, where about 30 people spread among 3 tables, were asked a series of questions about desirable locations for particular types of infrastructure, beit shops, parks, workspace, housing etc. There were, unsurprisingly, no picture cards of anything like Pilbrow’s planned 50+ storey towers for Imperial at 1 Portal Way.
The fashionable subject of 15 minute cities was aired as we show above, which these days is a byword for walking and cycling. We were asked to prioritise what type of infra should be located in annular zones 5 minutes’ walk apart from the centre. The range of views you can see shows how difficult placemaking can be, not least with a lack of an identifiable ‘centre’ or even definition of what a centre looks like, causing significant consternation on our table. In another similarity with Earls Court, we didn’t get a strong steer from OPDC as to any particular identity, making the area again fall into the awkward category of all things to all (wo)men.
Continued →
Earls Court is one of those projects that keeps on giving. We wrote about the shenanigans surrounding former owners CAPCO at the hand of a well-known former prime minister, while reviewing 25 years of property development in one of our 2021 lockdown projects.
Earls Court and Earls Court 2 were totally demolished over the period 2015-18, leaving the huge empty, but complicated, 40 acre site pictured, straddling our borough and adjacent RBKC. At a stated demolition cost of £97M, needing the world’s largest crane to lift 61 of the up to 1500 tonne beams, this and other factors inevitably broke the former owners, never mind the carbon budget, with over 15,000 tonnes of concrete beams removed.
On the LBHF side, there was a long-running battle over ownership of the social housing – Gibbs Green and West Ken. estates – which were once sold to CAPCO and eventually returned in a deal with Delancey and the council in 2019. The net effect is that by not involving the adjacent estates, this master-plan covers the smaller area of 40 acres compared to the original CAPCO proposal that foundered, covering around 80 acres. According to some resident representatives we met, the condition of parts of these estates remains poor.
Enter the Earls Court Development company (“ECDC”) with Delancey and others joining forces with TfL again. The recent site walk showed us just how much railway there is around and under Earls Court, and why little can be done without TfL involvement. Blessed with a station at each corner (Earls Court, West Brompton and West Ken.), the site unsurprisingly benefits from the maximum 6b PTAL rating.
Over the last couple of years, ECDC have run a number of workshops and local community engagement exercises to steer the master-plan, several of which we advertised to members and/or attended. Now it’s ready for all to see, and exhibition details appear in our diary (starting 23rd Feb), together with a webinar and public meeting date.
The scale of the proposed development is as immense as earlier the demolition task, with buildings up to 39 storeys around the existing landmark Empress State Building (ESB) shown, itself 31 storeys high. In West London, this makes the proposed tall buildings second-only to the North Acton towers – no boasting matter.
The model shows that the masterplan uses much of the railway and existing infrastructure to guide new structure placement – the routes through the site are predominately directly above the tunnels which are only just below the surface and insufficiently strong to be built on. A pleasing advantage of this more carbon-friendly approach, is that the routes have to be curved, indeed some of the smaller scale housing in the foreground (above) is in crescent format, the like of which we’ve rarely seen since the brutalist Hulme or Golden Lane crescents of the 60’s, or subsequently more successfully at the Barbican.
“The Table” is a concrete cover over part of the West London Line that bifurcates the site, forms the borough boundaries and was the camera location for the above panoramas. Built as part of the base for former Earls Court 2, it’s of unknown strength and therefore assumed too weak to be built on, but forms an above/below grade datum for much of the site. Servicing of all varieties is most definitely below stairs.
Continued →
Earlier this month we met with the new owners of RMH, Telereal Trillium, their planning consultants, Turley, and Trevor Morriss of SSPARC architects appointed for the redevelopment, who you may remember giving a presentation on the Olympia redevelopment at our AGM in 2019.
They gave us a rundown of Telereal Trillium’s background (mainly a large portfolio of former public sector property, a large proportion of which were in the BT and DWP estates, formerly owned by Land Securities). This is not their first listed building redevelopment – the example they gave us was the one on the website, the Grade II listed Tooting Police Station. As it’s early days, there were no more details available other than that on the website boards, shown above and on their website.
Telereal Trillium describe themselves as an £8 billion family owned property development company owned by the William Pears Group. They say that they are not “operators”, they have moved from being owners to owner/developers recently, and are not currently planning on going further into running buildings.
The 80’s block at the back of the site shown in pink adjacent, “Block E”, was suggested as the location for the main redevelopment activities, the rest of the estate is more a case of preserve, enhance and convert into luxury accommodation, with restoration of the surrounding gardens, which is good news.
Discussions with the council started in June, but there have been no formal planning pre-application meetings yet. We mentioned that we’re extremely keen to engage early, offering our experience and local knowledge on behalf of the wider community. Meanwhile we’re looking at how National (NPPF), London-wide (London Plan), and borough (Local plan) guidance applies to this project.
The large public spaces in the listed parts of the estate (“Block A”) are where the community use and engagement is critically important. We discussed possible educational and other uses, but only in outline at this initial stage.
We’re pleased that this important building has an engaged new owner, and look forward to its unique interiors being open for public enjoyment again in an appropriate form. Your suggestions for suitable uses are most welcome.
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