We welcome as members individuals and organisations who care for Hammersmith
As a Member, you will receive at least two printed newsletters and regular email updates each year, outlining our activities, and giving you the opportunity to participate in our campaigns. 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 January, and only costs £6 for individuals £8 for couples or families, and £15 for organisations. Additional voluntary donations are always welcome.
We were surprised and excited in equal measure to see a radical new proposal published by the council, in partnership with Foster and Partners and Sir John Ritblat of Delancey. This is designed to temporarily solve the conundrum of getting across the river while the original bridge is repaired. Details can be read on the council’s website, there’s obviously more detailed work needed to bring it to fruition.
Key points are:
There’s been generally positive comment in the press and social media, and we were particularly pleased to see our favoured approach of offsite construction/restoration being embraced, which should improve the quality of the end result.
Since the public Task Force meeting in October, there have been snippets of gossip from behind the scenes, but little significant progress to report. TfL have been instructed to pay for a temporary ferry river crossing, and to contribute £4M towards the bridge stabilising work, drawing from their recent £1.8B government emergency funding.
Central government has now promised to fund the project, conditional on a substantial contribution from the local authority. LBHF report that funds are not available to meet this demand. The Hammersmith Society and others are pressing the government to take the long view, and release the Bridge funds now, and negotiate separately with the local authority, and this is set out in our letters to the Task Force chairman and the Secretary of State for Transport, as previously published.
Enquiries to LBHF and other parties have revealed some further context to the funding problem. We understand that Hammersmith became involuntary owners of the Bridge in 1985, when the government abolished the GLC (Greater London Council); there is no record of a condition audit taking place at the time, and no maintenance arrangement accompanying the gift, which was perhaps a mistake.
In normal circumstances structural repairs to the bridges over the Thames have been paid for by TfL, with costs of a fraction of the c. £150M budget for Hammersmith Bridge; this very substantial cost arises largely from the design of the structure with cast iron, and design restrictions on the repair methods imposed by Historic England Grade ll* listing status.
Continued →
Following the Zoom public meeting three weeks ago, we considered our recent articles on the bridge, and, as promised, wrote to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Baroness Vere, Chair, and Dana Skelley, Director of the Bridge Task Force, as shown below (click to open).
We’ve made suggestions borne of our various architectural & engineering experiences, and feedback from members who contributed, balancing aesthetics, cost-effectiveness, speed of the works vs. longevity & value to the public.
We think the repairs might be done more quickly and cheaply, and the result might last longer and be more useful as a bridge, if the slightly modified approach were taken, as outlined. As an alternative, we’ve also dared to think the unthinkable given the proposed closure duration and costs, and suggested bridge replacement. An architectural competition could be held to decide how to best reuse what is there, but make it fit for the next century as Bazalegette did to the 1827 original, back in the 1880’s. As we’ve said, this need not involve a total loss of the iconic appearance; it would be up to innovative designers to come up with the solution – we’ve already seen ideas coming from local architects and engineers.
With huge sums of central Government capital and revenue expenditure being regularly announced, the cost of solving the Hammersmith Bridge problem seems small by comparison, and given the considerable inconvenience already endured both sides of the river by some of the most vulnerable members of society, the project deserves immediate and full financial support.
Many Society members joined the Zoom public meeting with the Bridge Task Force a week ago. A FAQ, links to Task Force reports, and a copy of critical correspondence between the Task Force chairman and LBHF immediately prior to the meeting, can be found on the council website, and a recording of the meeting can be played by clicking on the video image here.
Our report on the meeting has to tread carefully to resist the winds of political bias which seem to be jeopardising project navigation. The exchange of letters between the chairman of the Task force and LBHF reveals the entrenched and opposing positions of government and local authority concerning the funding of the bridge repair programme. At the meeting the Task Force chairman declared that the government is ‘completely ready to fund the entire project subject to local contribution’ – the proportion of this contribution was not defined – while the LBHF deputy leader reported that substantial local authority contribution has already been paid out for the bridge work to date, and LBHF could not afford any further funding.
Alongside the funding impasse, the meeting provided an excellent explanation of the bridge problems, the anticipated repair works, the investigations in progress, and proposals for temporary pedestrian crossings.
A summary of the current critical issues:
We’re a little concerned that substantial time and costs are currently being allocated for shoring up the cast iron pedestals that are clearly a long way past their best: 4 months/£2.3M blast cleaning prior to 7 months investigation and temporary stabilisation/£13.9M, followed by 21 months/£32M permanent stabilisation, in addition to a planned temperature control system to lower the risk of further cracking.
Continued →
In March of this year the government promised legislation to improve the supply of new homes, including legislation on building safety, rental reform, social housing – and an update to the planning system.
Following this, a government White Paper Planning for the Future proposed very significant changes to the planning process for public consultation which closed last week.
At present, LBHF planning applications are assessed against the development policies in the LBHF Local Plan, in the London Plan, and in the government NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). The White Paper proposes a new approach: a new form of Local Plan, replacing the current format of more abstract policy guidance, by a format with a prescriptive system of development rules and a design code. The Local Plan would also include borough zone plans, which would identify three categories of development:
In Growth and Renewal areas, proposals which are compliant with the Local Plan in height, use-type etc, and compliant with the government NPPF rules, would be effectively guaranteed an automatic outline planning consent, providing a level of certainty in site purchase values. At the next stage, a full planning application, with detailed proposals, would be granted consent if the proposals comply with the more detailed rules and design codes of the Local Plan.
Public consultation in the planning process would be limited to the stage when the new Local Plan is put together by the local authority: community involvement would be excluded from full planning application stage, because (it is argued) the application would be assessed against rules which have already been agreed through public consultation.
The intention is to establish a clear set of planning rules, which are in line with government policy, and have been agreed through community consultation; armed with these certainties applications would avoid the ambiguities of policy interpretation and community objection which (it is said) can delay the full planning application stage.
To illustrate examples of acceptable design and styling, and to provide a basis of resolution of design disagreements, Design Codes would form part of the Local Plan, and would be reviewed through public consultation when the new Local Plan is being put together. Design codes would be coordinated with the government’s National Design Guide, itself heavily influenced by the CreateStreets campaign and to the emerging National Model Design Code. To help the process, a chief officer for design and place-making would be appointed within each local authority.
Continued →
We reported earlier this year on plans for the Linford Christie Stadium site, which is right on the edge of Wormwood Scrubs and which, like the open space itself, is Metropolitan Open Land. Last year the Council held a consultation on the future of the stadium, which resulted – with apparently a big push from QPR supporters – in 80% of respondents supporting a possible 45,000 seat stadium. The Society has consistently supported the views of the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs, that development on that scale is not compatible with the character and development of the Scrubs.
The plan now is to invite potentially interested developers of all three levels of stadium identified as commercially viable – a large scale sports stadium or arena as for QPR; a covered entertainment arena for music gigs and events; an enhanced but smaller community sports facility perhaps managed by Imperial College which would would primarily build the facilities for its students, but also allow Kensington Dragons FC, Thames Valley Harriers and the public to hire them – to put forward their bids. They would also have to say how they would address the planning issue of overcoming the protection of Metropolitan Open Land designation for LCS, and other challenges, including protecting the hospital, the pony centre, and the current users and nature of the Scrubs. There will then be assessment of which, if any, of the proposals should be invited to try to move forward. That is when they will have to focus on planning issues including overcoming the restrictions of MOL – almost certainly leading to a public inquiry and a decision by an inspector, not just an LBHF planning department decision.
Meanwhile, festivals promoter Slammin’ Events, has approached the Council with a project to put on a music festival for “up to 10,000” people as a test event in 2021. The attractions of such revenue-generating events for the Council must be obvious, but the location – adjacent to Hammersmith hospital, poorly connected to public transport, and liable to impact for all the neighbouring residential areas is just not suitable.
Continued →
A head of steam is certainly building up for Bridge repairs, especially as winter approaches, but it remains to be seen whether this will translate into action.
After much media/social media coverage, including stories on London TV news, a task force was set up on 9 September, chaired by Baroness Vere (roads minister), which includes representatives of the local councils, TfL and Network Rail (for their experience of cast iron bridges), the Port of London Authority and GLA. The task force’s project director is Dana Skelley, a chartered civil engineer, formerly director of roads for London and responsible for the London-wide roads modernisation ahead of the London Olympics and the repairs to Hammersmith Flyover.
Completing the full repair of the Bridge is currently predicted to cost £141-£163m, with stabilisation just to allow safe pedestrian and river traffic at £46m, considerably more than first envisaged. We covered the announcement of a temporary pedestrian/cycle bridge in April, which is believed to have been costed at less than £10m. Before lockdown, planning was to be sought for this during the summer with construction starting this autumn, but this has not happened. We followed up in June with our ideas about widening the pathways while work progresses elsewhere, making the bridge suitable for safe bidirectional cycling and walking; these are also clearly ideas yet to be considered given the new circumstances of complete closure.
Neither the Council nor TfL can finance costs at this level, so government support is essential. The possibility of tolls to finance the work has not been ruled out, indeed some are campaigning for this to make more funds available to speed up the work.
Continued →
Since the Town Hall extension was shrouded in scaffolding last year, internal strip-out has been progressing, and this year a gentler strip-out has been taking place inside the old Town Hall building, pictured.
We’re told that this continued where permitted during lock-down, but now we can see that the real demolition has started at last, and the destruction of the concrete steps and walkways is wonderful confirmation that the new Town Hall and the new Civic Campus are on their way.
The steps and walkways recently featured in the wedding episode of BBC2’s well-received series Trigonometry, together with the entrance hall of the old Town Hall itself as wedding venue, a space facing the new Town Square that will be hugely improved by the removal of the ugly 70’s construction. Nearby filming locations included the adjacent Riverside Gardens and Macbeth Streets.
The Society’s committee is of the view that as part of the renovation work, there is a great opportunity to improve the Bridge to make it better suited to future needs, requiring more space for pedestrians and cyclists, as mentioned in our last article. Our proposal is to widen the pathways to allow safe and satisfactory bidirectional walking on one side, and bidirectional cycling on the other, so that cyclists no longer need to compete with road traffic, significantly improving safety. Currently, because of the somewhat narrow walkways, it’s not possible to safely cycle or even pass easily when walking, certainly not in a wheelchair or buggy. We think this can be done both at modest cost (certainly compared with the 🔗Garden Bridge!) and largely independently of the planned repair works, so as not to lengthen the closure. We have a brief update on repair works at the foot of this article.
The bridge’s narrow pathways for most of the span measure approximately 1.6m, widening at the pillars to approximately 1.8m, but still too narrow for bikes to pass safely (one of the reasons cyclists have to dismount currently), let alone to support social distancing needed now, and possibly in the future. We’ve now looked at the structure in a little detail, and, as shown on the photos here, the pathways are supported by simple cantilevers, apparently bolted on.
Hammersmith Bridge – historical repairs (photo: Keepingthingslocal)
Steelwork underneath the bridge was repaired section by section in the 1970’s, and a new grid of substantial longitudinal girders replaced the originals (pierced where bridge hangers meet the deck). Historic photos (right) show the original, very much less substantial steelwork. Given the scope of the repair works, and amount of money and time to be spent on repairs, there seems little reason not to now consider the attached pathways in more detail, especially if the planned temporary bridge removes the need to keep it open during the works.
Continued →
Good to see that existing gas main infrastructure will be repurposed for the Hydrogen economy - and quite soon. The original 19th century "Coal Gas" was ~50% #hydrogen, so it's actually not a completely new idea. eandt.theiet.org/content/articl…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 21 hours ago
So proud @HammersmithSoc persuaded Bernie Sanders to join the campaign to get the Bridge open again! Come on @grantshapps and @CharlotteV, please finance the work and get the Bridge reopened. twitter.com/HammersmithSoc…
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 2 days ago
@sbcalling @OldLondonW14 Did they ever expand into Phorcandles 🕯🕯🕯🕯 or 🍴🍴🍴🍴 ?
— Hammersmith Society @(HammersmithSoc) 3 days ago
©2021, The Hammersmith Society | Privacy | Contact | Join | @ Subscribe | ⓘ
Campaigning for over 50 years