Community Schools Programme – Avonmore Primary School  and flats as proposed

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.

Avonmore Consultation – Feedback

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.

Riverbed geotechnical bore drilling

You’ll probably have noticed a drilling rig in the river adjacent to the bridge in recent weeks. We understand that in addition to geotechnical bores through the main piers, the rig is in the river to drill bores to investigate the riverbed strata to understand just how strong it is, if and when the Foster-COWI temporary bridge goes ahead.

While the relevant people and equipment are onsite, bores are also being drilled into the foundations alongside Digby Mansions, to ensure the chain anchorages and bridge abutments are in good shape. So far it appears that Bazalgette and his predecessor, Tierney Clark, did good enough jobs, and the foundations can take the extra loads.

The separate ‘stabilisation’ works are progressing, as we reported before, the concrete has been poured into the troublesome pedestals.  However, there have been delays in getting the steel support frames built and ready to lift the main bridge chains, allowing the bearings to be replaced.  That work is yet to start, which means that the delayed schedule for the bridge to open to cyclists this month looks like it’ll stretch out further. We don’t have a schedule yet for when the bearing replacements will be complete and the bridge reopened, restricted to pedal power.

As far as funding the Foster-COWI proposal and full refurbishments are concerned, the LBHF website says that the ‘business case’ was submitted to the DfT in Dec 2022, and our local and affiliate news page threw up this question from Hansard last week mentioning its ongoing review. It’s not clear how much progress this represents.

Meanwhile, MP’s North and South of the river have spotted an opportunity to ask the government to drop a crumb from the post-HS2 feast to progress the project, while also noting the inevitable cost increase, now to over £200m. More than a crumb then – and we’re hungry for a positive answer.

H&F wheelie bins

Members have been writing to us about council plans for wheelie bins in some areas, though parts of the borough already have them from a pilot scheme. Our interest is to ensure that they don’t damage the streetscape and the wider environment through excessive or unnecessary deployment of plastic, especially of the large and/or dayglo variety. 

The council circulated leaflets to 16,000 households in the borough announcing more wheelie bins and food waste containers. To date, there has been no suggestion of a public consultation process with residents before deployment, which hardly matches the philosophy of ‘Doing things with residents, not to them‘ listed against every council policy. There is a possible opportunity to reject them, but only after the fact, through an unpublished ‘reassessment’ process. Out would go your dustbins (if you have them) and in would come tall and bulky plastic bins – one for waste and one for recycling. You would also be given a smaller food waste container.

To take the food waste first – for the majority who do not have a compost bin, this container may be helpful. It would remove food from black bags and so reduce ripping and spillage. It can be locked to prevent animal access and the waste will be processed to make fertiliser. So far, so good.

The large bins are another matter.  Not only are they much taller than a regular dustbin at about 1.1m, and therefore much more obtrusive above a wall or fence, they are also bulky and take room in a front garden. For residents who pride themselves on an attractive and green garden this will come as a blow. Where are the bins to go? Who is to pay for the necessary re-paving? 

As the bins have to be wheeled out to be emptied their access has to be clear – no shielding them behind shrubbery. If you normally do not have a bin you would be required to have two. Bins would be the first thing that greets you and your visitors, and the ‘kerb appeal’ of your home and the whole street could be significantly harmed as the photos below show, reducing amenity, social and financial values, to the detriment of all – aside from an unspecified figure on the council’s bottom line.

Bin sizes

World’s fastest wheelie bin- 88km/h

The standard 240L dayglo green recycling bin is the largest size commonly available, and three – yes three – times the size of the a conventional 80L bin, which is about half the height, and one-sixth of the weight – empty. It can hold five bin bags, or the weight of a large grown man, as many a comedy sketch – or recent world speed record – confirms. The black ‘waste’ bin at 140L is nearly twice the size of a conventional bin. This represents an aggregate of just about five times the bin storage space you probably have now, and in a world increasingly short of space, and trying to reduce waste of all sorts, appears to send a very odd message.

Being careful what you wish for by Richard Farthing 
Click on the image to open the pdf

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.

In the ‘dog days of summer’, our chairman took a look through his inheritance of exhibition materials and development proposals, and wondered just how much development proposals improve during second and possibly later iterations after being rejected or otherwise failing at the first hurdle.

If you have an article you would like to be considered, please contact .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society

Askew in Bloom – Award nomination 2023

Jane Mercer Award Winner Olena O’Leary (Askew in Bloom)

Robert Iggulden discusses proposals for increased engagement with our affiliates

Vice Chairman describes Nominations

Chairman’s address – Royal Masonic Hospital

Members at the 2023 AGM

Andy Slaughter MP with Nina Jindal – treasurer

Andy Slaughter MP discusses electoral boundary changes at the 2023 AGM

Olena O’Leary of ‘Askew in Bloom’ celebrates her Ukrainian heritage

AGM 2023

Committee member Annabel Clarke with Elizabeth Ryland at the 2023 AGM

Committee member Annabel Clarke with members and former committee member Julian Hillman

Chairman presents a token ‘Grenfell Crimp’ to a slightly bemused Andy Slaughter MP

Hoxton hotel – Environment Award winner 2023

The team behind the Hoxton Hotel – winner of the 2023 Environment Award

Askew in Bloom – Award nomination 2023

Andy Slaughter MP with ‘Askew in Bloom’ winners of the Jane Mercer Award 2023

(AGM Photos: Franco Chen. Click for full-size versions)

Summary

After a rapid run though the mandatory AGM procedures, approving the 2022 minutes, 2023 accounts, and committee re-elections, our guest speaker needed no introduction. As our local MP, with Twitter handle @Hammersmithandy, he has over 40 years experience as local councillor, deputy then leader in 1996, and an MP since 2005.  He talked about the various battles over the West Ken. estates that were originally given over to CAPCO for redevelopment as part of Earls Court, then reclaimed, the continuing issues with Charing Cross Hospital, the Bridge, flooding, and then onto large developments and the general pace of redevelopment, with a particular discussion on Shepherds Bush Market. He also mentioned that with the recently confirmed electoral boundary changes, his constituency is, not for the first time, being radically reshaped to lose the northern half to Ealing, while he could gain Chiswick in the new ‘Hammersmith & Chiswick’ constituency should he be elected next time.  He subsequently answered a number of questions from the audience including a topical one about Thames Water.

This year the main Environment Award was given to The Hoxton on Shepherds Bush Green. An addition to its own merits discussed in detail in the narrative, the building achieves the unusual feat of making a slightly awkward red brick building adjacent – Lawn House – fit better into the streetscape, so that the whole of ‘The Lawn‘ can be seen as a piece, perhaps the most characterful stretch of buildings in the borough, having won 2 further awards from us: the Dorsett (2015), and the Palladium (2022).

We again presented the Jane Mercer Award for “proactive co-operation, collaboration and communication” to a community gardening project – this time Askew in Bloom . The group shares some of the same enthusiastic members as last year’s winner, the Green Project, but this project has been running independently since 2019. It brings daily joy to what used to be a fairly ordinary W12 thoroughfare, and they are now spreading the word to other parts of the borough, starting with Dalling Road. More power to their collective elbows – and fewer asphalt tree pits!

C9 safety record – collision rate involving pedal cycles King Street
(C9 route only)

The council’s short-notice decision to make C9 permanent was reported in HammersmithToday in March. That would be less significant if the January to June Key Decisions List had mentioned it, or if the cycle and walking commission had been in the loop.

This key decision was made on 6th March – on the cusp of a legal minimum five working days notice, but despite being ‘key’ was not sufficiently important to be discussed at the 17 minute Cabinet meeting that day.

We are in the business of being a ‘critical friend’, as a former chair once put it, and here we need to be critical. An apparent reluctance to encourage public – or even cabinet – scrutiny in such a significant decision making process is concerning. Let’s be clear: we expect a well-designed, safe and efficient public transport system for everyone, and the C9 bidirectional design unnecessarily precludes that simple and democratic vision, marginalising those unable to cycle – and that’s quite a few. We might also reflect on the fact that bicycles are ‘vehicles’ in law, and while cycling is classed as ‘active’, it remains a form of private transport being favoured over actual public transport, while at the same time being encouraged to use a less safe infrastructure.

Without independent design and vetting, the council created and reported on it’s own survey in October/November 2022, on which the decision appears to rest. The detailed report has been redacted which raises its own questions, but the summary is problematic too. Firstly it’s a small self-selecting sample of around 700 people, of whom only around half live in the borough. Secondly, 45% of the able-bodied, and 22% of the disabled respondents said their preferred mode of transport was cycling. But only 3-4% of the public actually cycle according to TfL’s cycling counts, casting respondents as ‘keyboard warriors’, unrepresentative, or both.

The survey data, redacted as it is, shows a design successful enough to split the public 92% against (drivers), 89% for (cyclists), with 68% of disabled respondents not regarding C9 as beneficial. Overall, only 52% of the respondents thought C9 to have a positive impact, and last time that percentage voted for something of significance, there was some notable buyer’s remorse.

Safety

It’s been widely reported by others that this two-way design is, rather then the moniker ‘safer’, actually the more dangerous cycle path, as the accident rate (above) confirms. We’ve disregarded the council’s collision data supporting its decision, as it erroneously compares three years of pre-C9 accidents with less than one year with, while failing to normalise the data as an accident rate, per the chart above. Nevertheless, it still shows a higher percentage of cycle-related accidents since C9.

The risks were evident before implementation as a result of advice from transport experts, including those that have studied Dutch and Danish implementations (the latter removing bidirectional paths in urban areas over a quarter of a century ago on safety grounds), through the council’s own unflattering public engagement exercise (painfully extracted by FOI), it’s own Walking/Cycling Commission – which was not consulted in detail – it’s own Disabled Residents Commission, and, last but not least, us!  80% of accidents continue to happen at junctions, and much vaunted segregation does little other than provide a false sense of security for unwary users, to which we might partly attribute the increased accident rate.

The Disabled Residents Commission didn’t support the existing ‘temporary’ scheme, or the bus bypass concept, their abandoned bus shelters, or staggered pedestrian controlled crossings, and were as surprised as we were to see the 22% claim above. For reference, TfL’s latest data says 83% of disabled and 82% of able-bodied Londoners have never used a bike.

We put these and further specific points to Cllr. Holder, responsible for this policy, who passed them on to officers for detailed response, yet to be received.  At the moment, we have no idea what a proposed ‘permanent’ C9 looks like, such is the lack of communication and consultation on this important transport artery.

Updated situation, post-pandemic

Creating Hammersmith Avenue by Alex Reid
Click on the image to open the pdf

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.

In this article, our member Dr. Alex Reid revisits the work done on the original Flyunder proposal, and in recognition of the times we live in, looks at how the essence of it could be reworked into a vision for the 2020’s, recognising a much-prolonged lifespan for the flyover, and the longterm declining pollution levels on the A4.  

As cheerleaders for the original Flyunder proposal, we support the essence of these proposals, especially in respect of possible improvements to the environment, and the prospect of measurably safer cycling facilities along the A4, as long as A4 capacity can be substantially maintained, which earlier research suggests is possible. The creation of the Society was of course as a result the A4 ‘cutting a great divide through the townscape’ in the early 1960’s.

If you have an article you would like to be considered, please contact .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society

Breathe London solar-powered wireless AQ monitor – close up on a lamp post on C9. These are Clarity node S sensors

As an off-beat way to mark the half-century since that iconic song Can the CAN topped the charts in June 1973, in the last six months LBHF has sponsored air quality monitors installed on roadsides near a number of primary schools, and on the C9 cycleway. The short and long-term numbers show that air quality isn’t very poor as claimed, suggesting instead that the Clean Air Neighbourhoods policy should be canned, or rather better, renamed and prioritised towards the basket of the other proposed environmental improvements in an unfortunately misnamed policy. With London Climate Action week around the corner, this is especially true when the extra miles, economic and other downsides of the proposed LTN’s are considered.

The policy aims to improve the overall environment in H&F, and who can deny that’s a good idea? But the unnecessary LTN part of the policy is likely to make the air worse in the worst hot spots, and the PR fails the fact-check, which we explore further below.

Our interactive map of ‘BreatheLondon’ sensors coloured by sponsor, May 2023. Click for more detail

50 monitors in H&F were supplied by Breathe London, as part of a 430+ fleet across London supported by Imperial’s ERG (Environmental Research Group). When they produce data, which can be intermittent because they’re radio linked, they appear to give reasonably consistent results in line with the council’s ‘regulatory’ stations HF4 and HF5 at Shepherds Bush Green and the Broadway, plus a new one, HF7 by Frank Banfield Park, which are run professionally by Ricardo Environmental.  Those stations are rather more sophisticated and reliable, covering more pollutants than the NO₂ and PM2.5 measured by the new monitors, which are nevertheless of most interest. We’re told that the council is also supplementing these with a private network of sensors, details of which are unavailable, though this from 2021 turns up in searches. In this article, we set the scene for an ongoing citizen science project, building on a previous article

A good news story

Long Term AQ Trends 1970-2020
[ Chief Medical Officer’s 2022 Air pollution report ]

Contrary to many reports, since the H&F Air Quality commission first reported in 2016 (and the 2015 publication of the KCL report the council relies on), average nitrogen oxide levels in the borough have nearly halved, in line with the national figures shown adjacent. The decades-long steep straight-line downward trends previously described, suggests a proportionate and realistic plan is needed to address causes of the remaining local issues, rather than the imposition of unhelpful LTN’s.

PM2.5, though a quarter of the level it was in 1970, is still said by the WHO to be the main concern. While the council’s CAN page describes a good range of issues, it relies on short term pandemic-skewed data to shore up a fragile argument, ignoring long-term trends. If the graph adjacent represented rates of infant mortality, road accidents, heart attack, cancer rates or obesity, everyone would be singing from the rooftops, celebrating great successes. However normal rules don’t apply to Air Quality.

‘Clean Air’ vs. Roads

RMH Block A – May 2023 proposal

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.

RMH Blocks E & F as proposed May 2023

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.

Conclusion

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.

The Origin and Possible Future of Hammersmith & West London College by Hans Haenlein
Click on the image to open the pdf

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.

In this article, our president, Professor Hans Haenlein, updates us on an issue close to his heart: Hammersmith & West London College, both from an architectural but as importantly, a topical Further Education point of view, tracing its origins back to the Arts & Crafts movement and William Morris.

If you have an article you would like to be considered, please contact .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society