William Morris by Chris Tranchell
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 our second article, committee member Chris Tranchell writes a personal appreciation of the life of William Morris, describing what it means to him, and to Hammersmith.

We’re fond of our local Kelmscott House celebrity, not because of his often overplayed politics, but because he embodied a well-rounded life as an original polymath, a founder of the Arts and Crafts movement, who matches our interests in both architectural conservation and design quality, or as our president Hans Haenlein neatly puts it, Head-Heart-Hand.

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

Edward Woods Estate : solar panels on southern elevations

Our beady eye on planning applications has noted the seemingly innocuous application 2022/00504/CLP for removal of the arrays of a total of around 1000 solar panels across the southern elevations of the three tower blocks alongside the A3220, that form the Edward Woods Estate on the edge of the borough, but also ‘the largest building-integrated renewable energy array in London’.

The panels have recently been assessed as a high fire risk, and the plan is to remove them all, without replacement.  Just a few hundred metres from the Grenfell Tower, this is another aspect of the ongoing cladding scandal, with added spice.

We’re fans of renewable energy, (this website is 100% renewably powered by way of a miniscule example), and it was good news seeing such huge arrays installed here in Hammersmith just a decade ago, and now equally disappointing that the greenest borough, can’t find a way to economically replace or remediate them by reducing the risk to acceptable levels, especially in the current energy crisis, in visible support of a very public climate change strategy. We’d like to understand if there are any implications for other buildings with such PV panels, including small residential – read on…

The situation helps highlight more arcane yet significant structural problems in the energy market, which we expand on below, and which despite all the recent column inches on the subject, have not been talked about in mainstream media. Your reward for reaching the end of the article is an insight into why you’re still regularly paying the gas price for wind or solar power.

Edward Woods was ‘The largest building-integrated renewable energy array in London’, the solar part of the project costing around £1m a decade ago. To put it in context, this scale is equivalent to about two years of the entire borough’s Solar Together buying scheme applications (and rather more than actual installations), a scheme which is being promoted by the council at the moment.

Perhaps a significant lesson is staring us in the face?  As the climate change team say below, they’re focusing on other interventions instead, namely insulation and boiler replacements which are a more effective use of limited funds, especially on buildings taller than 18m with new post-Grenfell constraints. Take your cue, and look at this offer from the council to provide free Ecofurb Plans to help you identify what’s best to do in your particular circumstances, which can otherwise be a challenge to work out, as we mentioned before.

We approached Cllr. Wesley Harcourt, cabinet member for the Environment, for comment. The council’s climate change team responded with the statement in the blue box below.

108-116 Glenthorne Road – Hotel Proposal

Dalling Road Open Space, St David’s Day 2019
[Photo: Richard Jackson]

We’ve been keeping an eye on the plans to redevelop the parade of shops that many will know as ‘The Fireplace Shop’ at the western end of Glenthorne Road, seen in the background of adjacent photo, before it closed a couple of years ago.

The plans (ref 2021/03464/FUL) are for a 23-bed boutique hotel with café on the ground floor, and are not out of scale with the road or the existing buildings (the addition of a set-back mansard is planned as shown, similar to others opposite). A public consultation was held in late September last year at the Grove Neighbourhood Centre, which we attended.

But a concern is that being on a busy corner of the one-way system, and needing regular servicing via Studland Street adjacent, the level of activity may be too intrusive for the residents nearby and would often occur during antisocial hours, plus there’s a particular overshadowing problem noted for 50 Studland Street alongside. The project really needs a little more development, and a thorough review of the transport statement and travel plan included in the application.

A joint letter of objection with our affiliate BRA is attached.

April 2023 update

A number of relatively small changes have been proposed as part of a revised planning application to address the planners, neighbour’s and our concerns under ref: 2022/03664/FUL, but there remain a number of issues on which we and BRA commented: Comments

Do we need to think differently when when solving problems?
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.

By way of introduction to this new set of member-contributed articles, here we present a thought-provoking article from longstanding member Emeritus Professor Derek Clements-Croome, discussing the tension between specialists and generalists, so-called hedgehogs and foxes, leadership, and how we think, with reference to sustainability and the tension between cost and value, with examples such as the Grenfell Tower.

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

It’s been a relatively quiet six months at the bridge since we last reported on it.  LBHF announced the award of a 9-month stabilisation contract to deal with cracks in the cast-iron pedestals, at a cost of £8.9m, and there’s been some to-ing and fro-ing on who’ll pay (finally equally split LBHF, TfL, DfT), setting aside the cost of the future major repairs necessary, still undecided.  The stabilisation will enable the main repair and renewal of other components of the bridge to follow in a separate contract.

During the stabilisation contract cyclists will not be allowed on the main carriageway but must wheel their bikes on the walkway – hoardings have gone up to that effect, though social media suggests that the dismounting instructions have yet to reach all quarters!

We noted late last year that the council had observed planning niceties by applying to itself for permission for the stabilisation works under ref 2021/03680/LBCHF. which it formally approved at the end of February. We understand similar has happened on the South side with LBRUT.  Subsequently, an application has been lodged for temporary removal of sections of the handrail to allow pedestrians/cyclists to still cross while bypassing the pedestal housings, under 2022/00786/DLBC. 

Engineering

Concrete infill from 2021/03680/LBCHF

We remain a little disappointed that the plan still involves pouring concrete into the now infamous cast iron pedestals – not recognised bedfellows – but this is an old comment that has so far been met with a tin ear. We must hope the thermal effects and regular bridge vibration which have been written about at length, and even reported by a concerned member of the public last week, don’t gradually separate or crumble this unusual mixture. If it was a recognised and tested process, a standard method statement would be referenced, but instead the designer has listed an array of materials and notes on the drawings, the word “suitable” signposting a degree of conjecture.  We can find no risk assessment to cover the effect of the additional mass, in the light of concerns about the strength of the pedestal footings noted during earlier investigations. The figure mentioned was 6 tonnes per pedestal, and it would be sensible to properly address this risk.

The documents state that Historic England is satisfied that the proposal respects Bazalgette’s design because the pedestals are not visible, which was precisely the point we made last year. If invisible, then remove them and do the job properly as a self-respecting engineer such as Bazalgette would do, having recognised a design or material weakness, and with the existence of better modern materials. Replacing them with something stronger, lighter, maintainable, and built offsite, allowing a quick like-for-like replacement (12 bolts), and future bearing maintenance, without all the onsite paraphernalia and disruption now planned, is the right thing to do, and also cheaper – especially long-term.  The existing plan falls into the unfortunate category of being neither fish nor foul – not comprehensive enough to improve function, future maintenance and de-risk the structure, not quick or cheap enough to say it’s a disposable fix until major repairs can be undertaken.

Repair and Renewal

The  repair and renewal contract involves replacing 172 hangers, repairing the bearings at the top of the four towers and dealing with defects in many other components to restore the bridge to its former glory, strength and usefulness.  There are two options for providing a temporary crossing for the public during this repair work:

• 

  Foster & Partners bridge proposal

  The Foster scheme on which we reported last year, involving a ’tube’ structure within the Heritage bridge passing between the towers and allowing the progressive replacement of bridge sections and components.

• The Beckett Rankine scheme involving a 5-span crossing adjacent to the Heritage bridge.

A decade of Hammersmith crash data involving a pedal cyclist 2011 – 2020 [ source: crashmap.co.uk ]

The temporary cycle path or Safer Cycle Pathway as the council denotes it, is not without controversy.  At the extremes, Cycle Twitterati heap praise on the council for going though with it, and at the other end of the scale, there are a couple of petitions with well over 3000 signatures asking for it to be removed, along with its accompanying scheme in Hounslow (currently being made rather more permanent at the cost of felled mature trees).  The good news is that cycling has increased by 7 – 22% since the pandemic, though the maths dictates that this represents an increase from only around 2% to somewhere less than 3% of journeys.

The route now constructed follows the TfL scheme which was issued for public consultation in 2017.  TfL encountered widespread opposition to their ideas for high street cycleways both in Hammersmith and elsewhere, and were probably pleased to agree to the LBHF proposal to design and build the scheme, paid for by TfL – and to potentially include King Street improvements at the same time. The idea of a shoppers’ cycleway in King Street and a cycle by-pass on the A4 was agreed to after feedback from the public, and this Society around the time of the 2018 local elections. These ideas failed due to the very public funding problems at TfL, added to by the pandemic, resulting in this ‘temporary’ scheme.

Here we are, stuck in the middle, seeking an equitable solution for the majority of Hammersmith.  We have skin in this particular game through participation in the cycle commission last year as we described before. Unfortunately many of the concerns raised by the commissioners, and by ourselves in recent articles have come to pass, and it’s a little concerning to see the “safer” moniker applied – and rewarded on social media with statements such as “I feel safer” – when feeling is not actually demonstrably safer, more a testament to a lack of awareness of the issues, with around £3M spent on this social media-inspired scheme.

Safer for who?

Cyclists? It’s well documented by ROSPA, TfL and the DfT crash data that 75-80% of accidents happen at junctions, (as illustrated by the crashmap above), and there are 23 of those to navigate along the route from the Broadway to Goldhawk Road, only a handful of which are protected by the new wands or other lane segregations.  However well-intentioned, arguably it’s disingenuous to encourage the inexperienced and unwary using the word safer when mostly it’s not (more evidence below).  Main roads, especially their junctions, can be dangerous for all sorts of reasons, especially when HGV’s are involved, but are essential for the many forms of transport that we all rely on. So why campaign to use them when there are better and safer alternatives nearby ?

The A4 route, has just 2 junctions over the same distance as King St., with just 2 minor incidents in 10 years, admittedly with fewer cyclists, but still a significant number – including regular use by members of the cycling commission – making a comparison worthwhile. Together with with adjacent cul-de-sacs approximating modern LTN’s, caused by the creation of the A4, they provide a measurably safer and less polluted route. We’ll wait to see how the untested slalom in the middle of King Street, and well-documented issues with bidirectional paths fare with all those junctions, but a significant number of cyclists are observed voting with their pedals, and still using the North side of the road Eastbound from Goldhawk Road.

The safety of pedestrians at bus islands/bypasses arises again, and we refer to the dismay of the charity for the blind NFBUK, after reviewing our commission advisers’ chosen reference Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow during visits last year, which rather undermines their advice. By way of confirmation, bypasses are such a hazard to pedestrians – particularly those less able – that TfL buses now need canned announcements which start at the Broadway, warning passengers of the dangers of the cycle lane when disembarking.

C9 Cycle Lane: pedestrian danger signs

Latterly, the council has deployed these rather scruffy temporary signs, tacitly acknowledging the dangers the scheme has created.  With significant modifications already ongoing in Hammersmith’s main shopping area, upheaval on the Broadway and in Hounslow, one has to wonder if there’s been a little too much speed and not enough haste.  It’s regrettable that the scheme which you see today proceeded without commission review.

Specific issues

6 buses queuing along C9 cycle lane: 7pm

There are number of problems in King St., many at at the Western end, as highlighted by the photo adjacent.

• Local police patrolling the area outside Latymer and West London Free Schools have observed what they describe as a number of ‘near misses’ between vehicles/cyclists/school children. It would appear that the design of the crossing outside the School and the turning into Weltje Rd across the cycle path is causing confusion. The council are aware.
• Pedestrians had been wandering into cyclists on the unusual newly raised road section outside Kings/Mall/Livat. This then had to be removed over the weekend of 12/13th March.
• The manager of Royal Dry Cleaners has reported multiple incidents of people tripping on the raised kerbs of the island bus stop outside his shop. On one occasion someone fell into the road.
• The owner of a restaurant near the King Street slalom reports slips and trips on average every other day at the adjacent bus bypass, and a noticeable loss of trade because customers can no longer stop due to the ‘sterile kerb’.
• Increased pollution (those buses are all diesel-powered).
• Rat-running down backstreets, and frustrated road users honking horns in the evenings.

Buses

Sustainable transport modes 2021
[ source: TFL ‘Travel in London Report’ 14 ]

Bus speeds 2021 [ TfL’Travel in London Report’ 14 ]

Members using buses East-West in the borough report what a poor experience it’s become.  Let’s be clear, other than walking, according the TfL data (adjacent), buses carry more passengers than any other transport mode in London, and carry the most disadvantaged members of society. Erosion of bus routes and infrastructure recently (AKA multipurpose peak-time bus lanes replaced by exclusive 24h cycle lanes), mean bus speeds remain at an all-time low having recovered briefly in lockdowns, and are in the bottom 25% of 15 major world cities to the shame of TfL. Belatedly TfL have woken up to this issue, and proposed a solution – banning other road users, and putting in new bus lanes ! 

Levelling up or down ?

Palladium and Dorsett Hotel [ Photo: @sbcalling ]

Over the recent years we have seen the transformation of the buildings alongside The Lawn, the original name of the road on the west side of Shepherds Bush Green: the reconstruction of the site where the post office used to be will soon be complete, another new hotel, in a contemporary style building which might sit uncomfortably in the distinguished streetscape it shares. Its immediate neighbour is the Grade ll listed Dorsett Hotel, in the building which was once the Shepherds Bush Pavilion: this started life in 1923 as a palatial cinema, suffering war damage in 1944, restored in 1955, and becoming a bingo hall in 1983 – which closed up in 2001, leaving a derelict, lifeless heavyweight on the streetscape.  It was spotted by Dorsett Hospitality International in 2008, and given a new purpose with an imaginative and ingenious conversion to a luxury hotel, bringing life and style but retaining the gravitas and history of the original building, and winning our Environment Award in 2015.

Cinematograph inscription reinstated (alongside The Empire)

Next to the hotel is another piece of Shepherds Bush history, a building recently known as the Walkabout, which started life in 1923 as a 760 seat cinema – Pyke’s Cinematograph Theatre; this was enlarged and upgraded, introducing the front arch and pediment which is retained today, to become the New Palladium Cinema.

The venture proved short term, and changed hands to become the Essoldo, then the Classic, and finally the Odeon 2, which closed in 1981. Derelict for some years, it then became the Walkabout pub, which provided a popular and noisy venue until it, too, closed in 2013, leaving a diminutive, shabby building struggling to survive between its distinguished neighbours. The Dorsett Hotel came to the rescue, recognising the potential of the building with a wholesale reconstruction, led by the designers of the Dorsett Hotel conversion.

Palladium frontage

Palladium Plaque by HBG

LBHF planning played a significant and positive role in guiding the design process, together with the involvement of the Historic Buildings Group who provided the plaque wording as part of its advice, alongside the Hammersmith Society. The Dorsett magic has successfully transformed the Walkabout into such a handsome building, which now comfortably fills the space between its two important neighbours. The triumphal arch and classical pediment, retained and restored from its cinema days, anchors the 7-storey high frontage, with a crisp vertical geometry of brickwork and stone fins rising above. The design brings a confident stature to the building and comfortably earns its place in the streetscape, a visual resonance with the corner tower of the decorative Shepherds Bush Empire alongside and with the brick entrance pavilion to the Dorsett Hotel.

West London Magistrates proposal 2021

The third iteration of this project has been submitted to council planners for approval under ref 2021/03561/FUL. After the closure of the courts in 2017, the usual procedure of retaining the site in public ownership to provide facilities for public benefit was set aside, and the site was sold for around £45M to the Dominvs Group, a major hotel developer. We commented on the latest proposals formally, (see our letter at the foot of this article), here we present a summary.

Context

West London Magistrates hotels – first application 2019

The first planning application in January 2019 proposed a luxury hotel and a tourist hotel, together providing  over 800 bedrooms in a development area exceeding 37,000 sqm including buildings over 70 metres high. These proposals were endorsed by LBHF despite vehement public opposition, especially from the residents south of the site and the Friends of Margravine Cemetery. Hammersmith Society comments to LBHF concluded that the application offered ‘… a very substantial and visible development offering so little to the Hammersmith streetscape.’

West London Magistrates hotels – RSHP – April 2020

In the light of this opposition, the developer generously agreed to reconsider, but on the notable condition that there would be no compromise to the very substantial area and height of the first scheme. So a new design team was appointed, and a planning application followed in April 2020. This second scheme provided the same accommodation, in an imaginative design, a transformation after the disappointments of the first proposal.

Hammersmith Society comments and analysis were submitted in April 2020. While the proposals were developed in consultation with the neighbouring residents, bringing about the relocation of the taller elements to the back of the site, furthest remote from the neighbouring housing,  residents’ concerns remained unresolved, to a degree which was not appreciated until later in the process. The scheme received planning approval in December 2020.

Third Iteration

West London Magistrates proposal  2021 – view across railway

With the change in market conditions brought about by the pandemic, the project had to be changed again:  the luxury hotel has been replaced by a student accommodation block with 730 rooms, maintaining the same development density as the first two schemes, but in a form which was to be acceptable to the residents south of the site and the Friends of Magravine Cemetery.