Royal Masonic Hospital Block A, as proposed

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:

• In conservation terms, there remain significant concerns over the inappropriate glass podiums over Block A as pictured above. These have been tamed and improved since originally proposed, but there’s no getting away from the fact that there’s no actual use proposed for Block A, other than as an entrance, so these are strictly unnecessary additions without a clear public benefit. The NPPF sets the criteria for such interventions on such listed buildings, as we, Friends of Ravenscourt Park and the Historic Buildings Group have said before, this remains unaddressed. The Design and Access Statement uses an inappropriate combination of the council’s industrial strategy and an apparent inability to subdivide the heritage rooms as reasoning for their creation.

• Continued →

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.

OPDC PlaceLab1 – 15 minute city

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.

Old Oak West

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.

Why is it important to Hammersmith?

Boat race + North Acton towers [BBC]

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.

Workshop

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.

Old Oak West placemaking

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.

The implications for North Hammersmith of adoption of the OPDC Local Plan by Henry Petersen
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.

Our member Henry Peterson has a a lifetime’s experience in the world of planning, and been a long-term adviser to affiliate St. Helens Residents Association and the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum.  He’s written on OPDC matters extensively, including for us, and his comments were mentioned several times in the recent Local Plan adoption meeting.

Here he takes the long view of what’s happened at OPDC, specifically in its long Local Plan development and eventual adoption on 22nd June, with reference to the falling-out with CarGiant that unravelled its original aims, and suggests what the plan now means for North Hammersmith.

The alarming vision presented is a land-grab to replace the lost CarGiant area, coupled with yet more ultra high-rises on the horizon in North Acton, and indeed 15-20+ storeys all along the boundary of Wormwood Scrubs with poor local public transport, sufficient for LBHF’s leader to withhold his support for another likely overbuilt Mayoral project.

In Henry’s words: “One of London’s last large brownfield areas deserved better.” 

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

As we mentioned in the 5G article a couple of years ago, some Freeview TV channels provided by the Crystal Palace transmitter in London are being given over to 5G services, and a further switch-off is happening at the end of this month, OFCOM having auctioned off the 700MHz TV band to EE in 2021. Although little publicised by Freeview themselves, we found comprehensive details here. Update – Freeview have now published the changes.

In summary, the one remaining multiplex in that band is being switched off with the loss of several channels, and movement of others. You may have to manually retune your TV apparently.

Channels closing: BBC News HD, Forces TV, FreeSports, More4+1, NOW 80s, Quest HD, Quest Red+1, QVC HD, QVC Beauty HD, PBS America+1, That’s TV Music, That’s TV UK, Together.

Channels moving: BBC Four HD, CBeebies HD.

5G mast [ photo: Chiswick Calendar ]

Rylett Road cycle cut-through

5G of course brings the benefits of speed to those that need it, and 5G handsets are now becoming mainstream. We covered issues around the oversized base stations last time, and subsequently managed to help the council to see off the specific example at Rylett Road, (which as we suggested at the time, has now become a convenient cycle cut-through instead, as shown).

Our affiliate SPRA was very active in opposing a proposed base station adjacent to the A4 on their patch, and ultimately successful. Having seen the immensity of the masts “in the flesh” (as opposed to just line drawings), and the somewhat outlandish amount of associated street clutter (for the 21st century), this was a good result.

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.

King St. “CS9” as proposed in 2018

Over the last year or so, we’ve been participating in the Council’s resident-led  Cycling & Walking Commission, via our membership secretary, along with residents including representatives of one or two affected resident’s associations, such as affiliates SPRA & SBRA.

Due to the pandemic, meetings were held as online workshops, the process being chaired by Cllr. Iain Cassidy, and facilitated by the council’s preferred consultants, WSP, who provided expert guidance and showed design options used elsewhere in the UK and Europe. We heard from several special interest groups including disabled cycling group Wheels for Wellbeing.

Summary

• A two-way temporary cycleway named CW9 is to be built along Hammersmith Road / King St including replacing older track on the right in the one-way part of King St.
• The design is similar to Chiswick CW9 “temporary” scheme including bus bypasses.  A halfway-house one-way wand scheme is currently being deployed as a step to the “temporary” two-way scheme.
• Our preferred A4 route is not being actively pursued currently. Any “permanent” scheme, like the original “CS9” is now unfunded.
• The design favours cycling at the unnecessary expense of pedestrians and busses – as a result we have accessibility, safety and increased pollution concerns – this doesn’t appear to be a fair and equitable solution for Hammersmith.
• The E-Scooter Trial is an independent activity – TfL and DfT to review results.

Terms of Reference

Modal Share 2019
All London : Inner London has significantly lower car use. (Source TfL)

In common with TfL’s leanings, most discussion was around cycling, with a healthy proportion of commissioners chosen for those credentials, despite the clue in the name (and Terms of Reference) Cycling and Walking Commission, we therefore felt the need to keep walking and other users on the agenda as (almost) everyone walks if they can, and the number of journeys by foot + bus represents at least 40% of all journeys.  As shown, walking represents a 25% “modal” share, but is often the Cinderella of the show by needing no specific new infrastructure – or does it ? 

Her Majesty’s Government has decided that Gigabit broadband (FTTP) will help overcome recent economic woes, bridge the digital divide, and level up, and has declared £5 billion public funding for the first million homes and businesses. Initially, it correctly prioritises those most in need – often in rural or semi-rural locations – but at £5000 a pop, it needs to be worth it. Time to look closer to home, and see how this relates to Hammersmith – and our conservation areas – if and when it’s promoted widely here.  Some green markings have appeared adjacent to “Post Office” manholes hereabouts, so this may be sooner rather than later. 

You’ll doubtless know that so-called “fibre broadband” is already here – but what might “Fibre To The Premises” (FTTP) mean – and should you opt for it ?  Below, we look at the implications for you and the streetscape, the technologies being deployed, and, by running the numbers, show that provided you and the Telcos are doing the right thing – several of which are mentioned – your home would be hard pressed to need the virtues of FTTP for a good many years to come – if ever.

The slowest 20% get 17M, the average 56.7M, and the top 20% get 150M

Hammersmith FTTC Broadband Cabinets

Recent street markings

Currently if you have “fibre” and aren’t on Virgin, you’re unlikely to have FTTP, you probably have fibre to a green cabinet less than a few hundred metres away, known as “Fibre To The Cabinet” (FTTC). Then, most often, the familiar phone wires, but somewhat shorter than before, which, with some updated tech in the green box and your home router, yields a big speed-up.

Local Broadband map (Thinkbroadband)

Here in Hammersmith, as one of the denser areas of London, we’re quite well served for broadband, with one or two known not-spots (the Western side of St. Peters Square being one, where our affiliate SPRA is exploring FTTP provision), but generally above London average speeds   Published stats show that the slowest 20% get 17M, the average is 56.7M, and the top 20% get 150M.  That suggests most are already on FTTC – or better.  Several companies are now offering FTTP, Openreach (BT) being just one.

Openreach fibre digging [perhaps your front garden?]

Prompting this article, your correspondent recently sat in on an IET Zoom presentation “Holes & poles : fibre to the home”, exciting stuff if you’re into that kind of thing. The clear message was that the industry has managed to wring out as much as it can from the ancient pair of copper wires that provide landline phones – now rarely used – and diggers are needed for what comes next.

There’s been a substantial discussion about the problematic last few metres from your garden wall or gate to front door. In fact the last 5-10m – never mind the last mile – is often the biggest hurdle, as we discuss later.  Logistical, cost and maintenance reasons mean wireless is ruled out, and, as the existing wires have had it, digging up the garden is likely if there are no usable ducts, followed by new holes in the front wall for a fibre “cable” and boxes on the wall.  Fortunately fibre being fibre, it’s completely safe, and the consequences of an errant garden fork are inconvenient rather than dangerous, so it need not be buried as deep as main services.

Would it be transformative locally ? 

Quaker meeting entrance

Quaker meeting house frontage

2021 Environment Award – Quaker Meeting House

Quaker meeting plaque

Quaker meeting room 1

Quaker meeting room 2

Quaker meeting wooden ceiling

Quaker meeting outside and garden

(Click on images for full-sized versions, then scroll through the set)

Our member Victoria Timberlake has been instrumental on the New Meeting House Committee to get this project from inception to completion through many hurdles over a period of 17 years. We first reported on plans for the proposed development in our October Newsletter of 2014.

The previous post-war meeting house stood in a rather noisy location adjacent to the A4 and in the way of the new Town Hall development for which its site was required. The Council offered the new site as a swap, and we think this new use is an excellent fit for the area.

The new building brings a welcome break in the line of terrace houses on Bradmore Park Road, reminiscent of the open playground space that went before. Brackenbury is lucky to have this new neighbour, with its refreshing display of design enthusiasm enriching surface and form: the intriguing circular shape of the building, the gates, screens and brickwork on the street boundary. Careful design and quality of construction dress the functional needs of the interiors, and bring a quiet and serene air to the circular Meeting Room, full of light from the high clerestory windows and the views to the meadow garden behind, while maintaining privacy for the neighbours.

The space to the side and rear of the meeting house has been sown as a wild flower meadow, and will be spectacular next summer.  Alongside this greening, the building uses FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) sourced materials, and is designed to be environmentally efficient, with solar panels and CO₂ sensors for occupancy detection, adjusting air circulation in each space accordingly.  The low energy building database records it as AECB (Association for Environment Conscious Building) standard certified.

12-14 Wellesley Ave – 2019 proposal

The Hammersmith Society is supporting our affiliate, the Brackenbury Residents Association and the local action group in objecting to the development proposed for the former Aston Martin garage at 12-14 Wellesley Avenue.

The application scheme proposes a 3-storey building, significantly higher than the street building line, with 1,800 square metres of office space for an estimated 150 employees, in a street with a residential population of around 80.  We reported that an earlier application for a larger scheme was refused planning consent and lost a subsequent appeal – refer to our related stories with more recent coverage in last winter’s newsletter.  The current, slightly reduced scheme was again refused consent earlier this year.

Former Nicholas Mee garage, Wellesley Ave

The applicant is appealing against the refusal, and the local residents group is inviting support for their petition against the development.

Hammersmith Society’s letter of objection