Women’s Pioneer Housing, 227 Wood Lane

We reported in the Winter 2019-2020 newsletter that a proposal was being prepared by Architects Allford Hall Monaghan Morris for a new 25-storey tower block to the north of the A40 on Wood Lane.

The proposals replace Browning House, which is a 4-storey social housing block owned by Women’s Pioneer Housing (WPH). They are a housing association providing specialist accommodation.

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

The Hammersmith Society decided to make a £300 donation to the costs of a legal opinion from Landmark Chambers on a new planning manoeuvre, because it looks to set a precedent and become frequent in Old Oak and elsewhere.

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.

coronavirus (imperial.ac.uk)

Hammersmith and Fulham Archives want to hear about people’s experiences during the pandemic.  Working with our partner charity UNITED In Hammersmith and Fulham, the Archives is documenting the experience of the coronavirus pandemic of all those who live, work or play in the Borough.

All submissions will be deposited permanently in the Borough Archives as a community memory of this unprecedented time. The Archives staff are seeking selfies with personal stories, photographs featuring empty streets, children’s rainbows, your workplace or shop notices, and artwork or poetry. Details of what sounds like a fascinating community project can be found here

For those interested in family history, Ancestry Library Edition has kindly been made available remotely to library members during the H&F library closures – details here

TfL is planning a temporary footbridge parallel to Hammersmith Bridge at the request of H&F Council, to assure pedestrian and cycle transit throughout the repair programme.  The aim is to give over the entire Bridge space to the continuing works, with the result that the total closure time could be reduced by 9-12 months.

Hammersmith Temporary Bridge

In an online webinar on 3 April (replacing planned exhibitions which had to be cancelled), representatives of TfL and LBHF set out their scheme for a prefabricated steel structure supported by 2 piers in the riverbed, on the downriver side of Hammersmith bridge. It would be the same height as the Bridge and would have no impact on river traffic.   The usable deck would be 5.5m wide and there will be separation of cyclists and pedestrians (no motorbikes allowed).

Access would be via Queen Caroline Street on the Hammersmith side via gradual ramps. It would take 6-7 months to complete, and planning permission would stipulate it being in place for up to 5 years, with the aim of re-using the structure elsewhere afterwards.

Keeping foot and cycle traffic flowing has to be a welcome initiative. The one downside is that the structure would close the Thames Path on either side, meaning a detour – possibly via the rear of Riverside Studios or past the Apollo and round by Fulham Palace Road on the North side, and via Riverview Gardens on the Barnes side.

Meanwhile the pedestals, hangers, chain bearings and hanger connections are being worked on and acoustic monitoring of the Bridge structure continues. A detailed Scope of Works together with costs is expected later in the spring. The new deck will be steel, with resin on top, which will perform far better than the asphalt over boards which were alarmingly visible previously. The repairs will give 60 years of design life. 

Can we make the restored and repaired bridge work better in the future ?

Continued →

Heathrow Expansion was temporarily derailed by the Judicial Review (JR) in February, ruling the Airports National Policy (ANPS) illegal through its non-compliance with the existing UK Climate Change Act, and by extension, the Heathrow expansion plans that relied on it. By law, the Climate Change Act commits the UK government to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net zero) by 2050.

Heathrow expansion 2019

There have been many setbacks to the Airport’s expansion plans over the years from Terminal 5 onwards: claims that several top politicians would stop expansion, elongated planning enquiries, and many anti-expansion campaigns, but like the addict it appears to be, suffering Compulsive Shopping Disorder, Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) keeps coming back for just one more hit, claiming that it will then be satisfied.  Like it’s maniacal namesake in Stanley Kubrick’s epic 2001 – a Space Odyssey, to accept this would be to seriously misjudge the machine.

HAL’s public response to the JR is “10,000 quality apprenticeships by 2030, New Routes and 180,000 new Jobs”, plus the inevitable appeal against the judgement.  While new routes could be created easily with a new runway, they could also be created by displacing cargo and short-haul flights onto greener options, such as rail or electric vehicles (remembering that Heathrow is actually the UK’s largest cargo destination, with 1.8 million tons in 2018: up 20%, matching passenger volume increases since T5 opened).  The other two claims stretch credibility beyond reason, given that Heathrow currently employs 76,000, the expansion would represent a more than doubling in size.  Or perhaps that gives a clue as to the full plan ? 

Heathrow doesn’t appear to be addressing the issues that most of us care about – the effect on the environment, surface transport, and the lives of residents in large parts of the South-East – all the more so having recently become used to not being woken at or before 6AM with fewer flights during the Coronavirus pandemic; Heathrow has temporarily reduced to single runway operation.   In the new Greta-inspired world, HAL makes additional claims regarding sustainability, but it again stretches reason that the discredited greenwash baked into last year’s consultation could have been warmed over sufficiently to pass muster this time round.

Committee and several members attended the recent Climate Change event at the Lyric to hear what the recently formed commission has been discussing, and to provide input.  Sian Alexander, the Director of the Lyric, opened the meeting making the following points:

• The H&F commission is a residents’ working group engaged in a ‘public facing campaign’.
• The Commission started in 2019 and is one of a number of a H&F Residents’ Commissions.
• The Commission is chaired of local architect Paul Beaty-Pownall, and consists of twelve local members.
• Its purpose is to advise and help H&F Council achieve zero carbon emissions by 2030.
• Its first formal meeting took place in December 2019.
• We all need to be prepared for major changes.

Fehinti Balogun

We were then presented with a personal story of the effects of climate change from actor Fehinti Balogun, making an informative and entertaining presentation. He touched on how climate change affects not only himself but his wider family here and abroad, highlighting that the issue is about eco, not ego. He’s been giving a similar presentation to schools in recent months.

He noted that the Commission is believed to only need 3.5% direct support from the population for success to be guaranteed by influencing all those connected.

Paul Beaty-Pownall

Paul Beaty-Pownall summed up and introduced the workshop sessions that followed. The audience were invited to participate and circulate through four separate discussion groups in order to gain ideas and recommendations from the participants.

We hope to see the report from the commission in the coming months to inform the Council’s progress in accelerating our local responses to Climate Change.

To visualise the extent of the problem, the UK’s current emissions of thousands of tonnes of CO₂ per hour caused by electricity generation can be seen here

Along with others, the Society’s activities have been severely curtailed during the government’s enforced lockdown. We’ve found a little solace in the popular Zoom video-conferencing application (used with appropriate security precautions), and on Monday this week, keeping to schedule, managed our first online committee meeting – with 75% attendance.

Online committee meeting

The committee decided that the Society should use some of its limited funds to make a donation of £1000 to Hammersmith residents in need of support at this difficult time, via our local charity and affiliate Hammersmith United Charities which represents an excellent model of giving relatively small grants to local groups which know what practical help is needed and target it accordingly. The donation will be distributed through their Community Coronavirus Appeal, which is run in conjunction with the Council. 

We have inevitably decided to postpone this summer’s AGM until government rules allow us to convene again. We’ll announce a new date when rules change.   The Spring Newsletter, which would normally be posted out in April, will be published on this website, as a series of articles released over the coming weeks, with summaries and links emailed to members as usual.

We hope to be in a position to at least make nominations for the 2020 Environment Awards by reviewing what material is available to us via photos, and we encourage you to submit nominations by email if you have a suitable development in mind.  We may not be able to visit them, or make a formal award until later in the year, but expect to be able to publish and consider the suitable nominations.

Julian Hillman

As a trustee of United in Hammersmith & Fulham (charity no. 1187649) and a long standing committee member of The Hammersmith Society, I wanted to say something about the Appeal, which has so far raised £65k including gift aid. Firstly thanks to The Hammersmith Society for making a donation.

United is working in conjunction with the Council. We hope to raise more money as different phases of need emerge. We provide grants directly to groups supporting borough residents. This includes those particularly focusing on the extra needs of at-risk groups, including people who are:

• At risk of complications severe enough to require hospital care
• At risk of being unable to cope with isolation
• At risk because they’re living in poverty

So far we’ve been one of the fastest in London getting grants out to grass roots groups. Currently we have supported 21 organisations, awarded £20,450 and estimate we have reached 17,200 people in some way. Demand is increasing and we hold regular grant giving panels.

If you know groups doing good work who might benefit from the Appeal ask them to contact the Programme Manager Savraj Kaur – . If you would like to donate or know others who would want to help please go to: https://unitedhf.org/appeal/

We attended the Policy and Accountability Committee (PAC) meeting on 9th September which quickly deteriorated into a pro/anti cycling stooshie.  The two extremes expressed were roughly “build it now and just get on with it”, reflecting a populist mantra du-jour, and on the other side “they don’t ride safely or follow the Highway Code…”  Significant climate change, anti-car and pro-air quality assertions were also made.  Despite all of us being pedestrians at some point, and there being around 1000 cyclists per day compared with up to 1000 bus users per hour along King St, there were few speaking for the overwhelming majority.

These arguments serve to polarise the debate, create heat, yet shed little light.  Our view is one of the practicality and evidence regarding safety and air quality that doesn’t support the existing plan.  The evidence shows that the Broadway and Fulham Palace Road (the nearest analogy/datapoint to King St.), have higher NO₂ levels than Talgarth Road, and far more than any side road. Adding a cycle lane wouldn’t reduce pollution according to TfL’s own AQ report but would slow buses to walking pace through removal of bus lanes, particularly on Hammersmith Road. 

CS6 with accident hotspots 2018

TfL’s 2018 data from their exemplar CS6 built outside their HQ, Palestra, shows that most serious accidents still happen at junctions, for which despite all the cost, environmentally damaging concrete, and negative effects on other road users shown, this type of segregated path is ineffective in protecting the cyclist.  ROSPA analysis shows that 75% accidents occur at or near junctions, and a peculiarity of London are the 20% of fatal accidents with HGV’s, often turning left into cyclists, for which the mayor is making new provisions.

As shown, minor accidents are also recorded at bus bypasses, which is unsurprising.  Those complaining that cars are ‘the problem’ may note that at the time this photo was taken (lunchtime, June 12th 2019) after a meeting at TfL’s HQ, only buses and commercial vehicles were causing pollution and being delayed.  We all still need bin collection lorries, the post, deliveries of items that won’t fit on cargo bikes and so on.  The overwhelming majority, especially elderly, very young, disadvantaged and vulnerable people need buses and bus lanes (removed for CS6 above, and planned for removal as part of TfL’s CS9).  We don’t relish King Street or Hammersmith Road looking anything like this.