Better Plan making – an engineered view
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.

With both the London Plan and Hammersmith’s Local Plan due to be rewritten shortly, and with all the noise being made about ‘The Planning System’ in recent months, here, our Chairman takes an engineered view. How can we write better planning documents to improve the ‘planning system’ ?

With the help of established methods, perhaps a dash of modern AI, this piece shows how plans can be substantially shorter and more precise, illustrated with a couple examples from the London Plan, and in a specific case, how loose wording is being taken advantage of at Earls Court.

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!

World Air Quality October 2022 – IQAir, including H&F and Breathe London data

LBHF Clean Air Neighbourhoods

We expect the council’s Clean Air Neighbourhoods policy to be a well-intentioned and researched policy, with its implications and unintended consequences carefully considered. There are good things in here, such as planting more street trees, improvements to street safety, and some incentives intended to discourage car use. However, on examination, few measures actually relate directly to ‘the name on the tin’ – air quality – and the one that does, only relates to around 12% of the air quality problem in Hammersmith according to Public Heath England’s figures below. This week’s smell of wood-burning stoves reminds us that the main problem here is PM2.5 particulates. Rather than deal with that, this policy would concentrate nitrogen oxide pollution where it’s highest – on main roads.

Welcome to the infamous Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) debate that dare not speak its name – our council knows how toxic that is. Instead it has decided to use a heavy-handed mix of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, deployed with highly inflammatory headline-grabbing phrases such as TOXIC, SILENT KILLER, DEATH, in a decades-old ‘big stick’ approach. The claim of 40,000 UK annual deaths is a misappropriation of the data, which actually relates to life expectancy. Privately the council still uses the term ‘LTN’, and funds them instead of schools, with Section 106 contributions.

Along with a proposed bridge toll, this binary “clean” vs. “dirty” social-media style campaign is beginning to make us look like Fortress Hammersmith, rather than the well-connected borough we appreciate, predicated on the idea that other boroughs wouldn’t think of putting up their barriers similarly… would they?  Hounslow’s so-called South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood  is one such controversial and euphemistically named control scheme already on our doorstep, which points to Hammersmith bridge closure as part of the problem.

The wider London picture: LTNs can increase, rather than decrease vehicle miles

Evidence from the controversial South Fulham Traffic, Congestion & Pollution Reduction (TCPR) scheme shows that the policy of diverting traffic can make it worse overall, particularly on main and boundary roads such as the A4, or to places not measured, out of sight and out of mind. This was confirmed recently by widely-reported DfT figures showing that total vehicle miles driven in the ten inner London boroughs that introduced LTNs or equivalent schemes in 2020 rose by an average 11.4% in 2021 vs. 8.9% where they hadn’t. This is one of the reasons the TCPR has had to be extended to the western side of Wandsworth Bridge Road, but the recent extension is already reported to be causing gridlock in Wandsworth itself and on Wandsworth Bridge and New Kings Roads.

Kings College and the council’s own data shows that our backstreets are already as much as 50% less polluted than main roads. Clean Air Neighbourhoods might therefore be seen as a divisive and discriminatory policy addressing the wrong target, by aiming to improve air quality in areas where it’s not a significant problem, and diverting traffic to main roads, where it would worsen the sometimes already sub-standard air quality, slowing the movement of public transport and other traffic, reinforcing last year’s similarly ill-conceived bus lane removals, and concentrating any pollution on those trying to “do the right thing” by using active travel modes – the bus, walking or cycling – or perhaps living alongside. The deeper dive at the foot of the article provides more detail. 

Daily congestion in King St (October 2022)

It’s not very useful claiming that H&F residents will be unaffected, as some councillors have, with oddly mixed messaging, potentially encouraging residents’ car use.  Let’s look past our own noses, and imagine other councils following suit and imposing their own set of rules, having had H&F traffic displaced to them.

Lock-down London would be divided up into a competing patchwork of complicated and differently administered fiefdoms, that no business or occasional visitor would want to, or in many cases be able to, cross – at least at any reasonable level of administration or cost – and Fortress London would become ever more a playground for the super-rich.

This represents a spectacular own goal from a council claiming to be “Doing things with residents, not to them”, and for whom it takes over 3700 words to explain just their South Fulham TCPR scheme (that’s 50% longer than this article, which is hardly short!). Unsurprisingly, the TCPR now has its own 7000-signature petition.

Going electric

In an era rapidly going electric (50% of new vehicles are projected to be electric in 3 years time), rather than the council’s retro big-stick approach, a far more effective policy would involve the carrot of improving public transport from it’s pitiful speeds by ungumming the main roads, and making it cheaper and more accessible, as they do in Germany. TfL has just done the exact opposite.

Instead, this policy would make it worse in the hotspots: the five most polluted spots measured in the 2022 air quality report are Hammersmith Road East/West (HF11/46), The Town Centre, Wood Lane (HF16), and of course the Broadway, all locations where traffic is already largely at a standstill. Amazingly, for a supposed ‘clean air’ policy there appear no exceptions for EV’s; this is actually an anti four-wheel policy – ‘clean air’ is a marketing ploy.

In the month of COP27, the council conflated air quality with climate change in order to ‘make it relevant’, and then casually targeted predetermined usual suspects, fitting a tired and over-politicised narrative. The two don’t always overlap, especially geographically as we wrote before, and sometimes even work in opposition, as described below.  But where the effects of climate change and air pollution do collide is in the ‘global south’ as the map above clearly illustrates, and, by encouraging pollution exports, this policy helps reinforce the situation. Do we want those countries, recently awarded ‘loss and damage’ payments from the developed world for climate change, to need to add loss and damage from our exported air pollution too?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On 28th June, the new Local and Affiliate News page (and homepage sidebar) provided news of the parliamentary adjournment debate initiated by the MP for Putney, Fleur Anderson, and contributed to by our MP Andy Slaughter, and Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, on the subject of bridge restoration funding.

What ensued was a familiar ping-pong between the junior minister on one side, relying on a somewhat worn line that because it’s called Hammersmith Bridge it’s LBHF’s responsibility, and in a pincer movement, MP’s on the other side trying to winkle open the Treasury coffers, making the point that the closure effects are widespread in South West London by reference to Putney Society comments and others, and listing other bridges that are funded in different ways, mostly by TfL, in a ‘policy…all over the place’. It was also made clear that stabilisation work had been started at some LBHF financial risk, given the Task Force delays and machinations around the so-called ‘business case’ that we previously reported.

Worryingly, the business case is now referred to specifically in terms of the stabilisation works, and a further business case is now being requested for the major works to release the established 1/3 government funding. Given unimpeded government largesse elsewhere, and an excessively drawn-out process previously, this might be seen as a further delaying tactic, the politics of which are unclear. The point was made that a similar debate with a similar ping-pong & result occurred a year ago, and that the current TfL funding crisis is hardly helping matters, given its 1/3 agreed funding responsibility. The full debate text is here.

Reference was made to the Prior Information Notice (PIN), which we tweeted at the end of May for expressions of interest in the full restoration works, providing us the hope and expectation that a contractor and plan can be primed, notwithstanding funding. New Civil Engineer reports that 28 organisations have expressed an interest.

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.

We mentioned the government’s long-awaited Heat and buildings strategy in the article about Zero carbon homes a couple of months ago. Now published ahead of COP26, the direction of travel is a little clearer. Here we summarise what it says, looking at how it will affect you and your decisions as your existing heating system reaches end of life – we’re not looking at standards for newbuilds here – they have their own paths.  A third-party summary written by Building Design is a useful primer along with a cautionary reader comment from Finland highlighting the intricacies of vapour barriers when adding new insulation inside or out.  A recent Guardian article usefully lays out the “hydrogen landscape” and the ongoing tests.

Key points

The strategy says many good things, with good aspirations, but the thing that really stands out for existing homeowners is that a hydrogen infrastructure remains a work-in-progress. The issue is still: Can it be made economically and ecologically “at scale”, and deployed using existing gas mains? The government has said it needs more time to run research projects and decide – another 5 years. Can the climate wait ?

As we said previously, the heat-pump route is more involved, and has more finely tuned parameters for success.  You might therefore want to nurse that old boiler gently into its dotage until the infrastructure research is done, because a replacement hydrogen boiler (already designed with prototypes available from, for example, Worcester-Bosch, with a negligible cost premium) would be a trivial replacement by comparison, especially in a typical Hammersmith period home.  Installation of so-called hydrogen-ready boilers could be a way to prime the pump for a national switchover, like the switch from town gas from 1967 – 77.

If you’re interested in a no-nonsense discussion between a boiler manufacturer involved in government-sponsored hydrogen trials, their ins and outs, plus heat pumps, and someone who’s actually installed both in the real world, then the video adjacent is for you. It should open your eyes to most issues homeowners are about to grapple with, and discusses many of the points here in more detail.

Bridge pedestal grit blasted

The bridge reopened on the 17th July to some small fanfare. This was after the council’s appointed engineers had blast cleaned the cast iron pedestals so that they could be fully examined for cracks, and the case for continued safe operation could be made. 

There are cracks evident in all pedestals to a lesser or greater degree, but they are now assessed as not being critical to structural integrity, provided that the pedestals are not overstressed, which means minimising the movement of the chains that run over them.

Chain heating arrangement (pedestal within housing)

Bridge Chain heater

The temporary solution, which allows the current limited use by pedestrians and bikes, is to heat or cool the chains that run over the pedestals to maintain temperature, so as to keep them in approximately the same place avoiding excess pedestal stress.  This is obviously a 24×7 energy-intensive business, a least-worst solution for the time-being.  It’s worth noting that even with only pedestrians and bikes crossing, the bridge still sways a little, it is very much a live structure.  The current and much reduced-cost proposal for shoring up the bearings on top of the pedestals (“stabilisation works”) is to replace them with elastomeric sliding bearings, at a total cost of around £6m as widely reported, a figure that doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Others can judge whether this is a good enough solution for the long term.  We’d prefer to be without the nagging doubts of the hidden cast iron bolted-in parts in critical structural positions, to allow the engineering of a robust 100-year + solution using easily replaceable bearings. This wouldn’t be expensive in the scale of the total repair bill, and as we described early this year, fixing the recurring problem effectively for good.

Without going into further exhaustive detail, which can be found in the references listed below, the main issue remains who will pay for the repairs. The most sensible option is to substantially dismantle the existing bridge with the COWI-Foster structure, or other temporary bridge in place for the duration. This would allow it to be properly repaired to a higher quality than can be achieved onsite, including replacing the troublesome cast iron, and might be quicker overall.  Consideration should also be given to lightening the structure via a lighter/improved roadway as we’ve mentioned before, so as to lower bridge loadings, potentially raise capacity a little, and we’d very much like to see wider pathways for pedestrians & bikes.

The latest update from the Task Force shows that our council leader and the newly re-appointed government minister responsible, Baroness Vere, are again at loggerheads, this time over the relatively small sum of £6m for stabilisation works, which is why they haven’t started.  If they can’t agree on this, how ever will they agree on the £100m+ full repair bill ?  We call for a ceasefire and end to hostilities by letter.

References

• Bridge Task Force documents
• New Civil Engineer – bridge reopening 
• H&F Bridge page including letters to and fro.
• Barnes Village Bugle (August) with significant detail and discussion of the proposed ferry, now mothballed.

Zero carbon homes are very much on-topic with the COP26 summit approaching in November, but to date rather more discussion has been around standards for newbuilds, downplaying the fact that by most measures 70-80% of the planned “net zero homes of 2050” are already built, 9-inch solid walls, warts and all.  “Decarbonising” them is now exercising government, councils, the RIBA and industry at many levels.

UK Domestic energy

You’ll probably have heard of plans to eliminate natural gas boilers by 2025 – certainly in newbuilds – but my house and yours won’t be so far behind.  Domestic energy use represents about 27% of UK energy consumption, with 85% of that apparently used for heating & hot water – as significant in climate effect as the usual suspects – cars and planes.

Brian’s home in Hammersmith

You may also be familiar with Tom Pakenham’s Passivhaus in Lena Gardens W6 from a few years ago, which sets a formidable standard for whole-house renovation with huge attention to detail to achieve the required standard.

But what if you took an existing Edwardian terraced family home in 2021, and made it zero carbon while living in it, but without gutting the interior, or adding 100+mm of hard insulation to the inside of all the external walls, ripping up the floors to insulate them, and possibly compromising or losing some of the period features we appreciate?  This is what our member Brian Thresh is doing – you may have seen him present the project at London Climate Action week in June.  He shows that it can be less intrusive than we might fear.

Let’s be honest for a moment, there are only so many builders in the world, and so many hours in the day, there is little practical chance of all the country’s millions of homes being laboriously superinsulated in the next few years – after all we’ve been talking about insulation for 40+ years already.  Brian expects to be able to demonstrate that his home is zero carbon, once the annual numbers roll in, through the combination of:

• Replacement of a gas boiler with a substantial 12kW air-source heat-pump
• 6.6kW of solar cells
• Battery storage
• A green & flexible electricity tariff, using a smartmeter

There’s an interesting tension here between expenditure on craftsmanship – a well designed and precisely executed complete refurbishment often with specialist materials – the Passivhaus – and the retrofit of a period home using modern mass-produced technology to achieve a similar net result, but with significantly less upheaval. 

It seems likely that the latter will prevail for the majority because of the numbers described above, with as much of the former as is practicable on the existing housing stock, but how do the finances and carbon footprint compare: Conversion / Running / Whole life?  Much of the public discussion is around carbon, and saving on everyday bills; rather less – a lot less – on Total Cost of Ownership, or Net Present Cost, important for those with shallower pockets. As Brian says, this stuff doesn’t come cheap at the moment.  It will be instructive to assess and compare over the years to come, particularly as technology improves, such that an optimised mix of solutions can be provided for each domestic setting.  Solar cells have already improved significantly, but you may not have owned any yet !

HS2 on Newsnight

If you saw the HS2 story on last week’s Newsnight, you might be surprised at how so much money has been spent, and how much digging done, including in this borough with parts of Wormwood Scrubs being churned up to break ground for Old Oak station, “the most connected station in the UK”, possibly without the project having been fully thought through.

HS2 Ltd has recently applied for a Compulsory Purchase Order on the area where they are doing works to divert the Sanford Brook Sewer, along the northern border of the Scrubs. 

HS2 is the most expensive high-speed railway in the world
– The Economist

The government’s own Major Projects Authority, like longstanding questioners including some of our members, seems have come to the conclusion late in the day that there could be more effective ways to spend huge amounts of capital, such as on East-West and local routes, but this isn’t news. At more than £33M a mile, the more than tripling of the original budget may have swung government thinking, but it was naïve to think this wouldn’t happen, given the expensive optioneering and some fairly obvious gold-plating, plus recent experience with projects like the almost identically overbudget 2012 Olympics – under the same leadership – and Crossrail, now over 3 years late. It is more than a little concerning that such projects continually require a somewhat childish suspension of disbelief, or more politely “optimism bias”, in order to get off the ground, only to wake up with a big government-largesse-fuelled hangover, discovering much of the budget has already been committed and/or spent – quite possibly inefficiently with questionable governance (Oakervee review conclusion 37), and perhaps not in the best place. 

In the case of the London Olympics, significant change or cancellation wasn’t an option of course, and we got new sports infrastructure and the repurposed housing via the Olympic village, plus a huge feel-good factor afterwards.  But HS2 has no medals, and fewer friends, dubbed by Sir Simon Jenkins as a “£100bn vanity project”, or more simply by The Economist “The most expensive high-speed railway in the world”.

HS2 Construction Old Oak/Scrubs [shepherdsbushw12.com]

Can an increasingly poor match with requirements now be blamed on COVID and a supposed waning of travel between cities – often a mainstay of the justification?  Not really, video conferencing has been around for decades, and the needs of ordinary people, now relabelled the levelling-up agenda, were secondary in the requirements – probably the root of the problem.  Members of the Society may have spotted the writing on the wall in the article a year ago where the gambit of high speed rail was set out using international comparators, and the reality of electric vehicles was suggested as potentially undermining its green credentials (if indeed they are as claimed, when the embodied carbon from concrete has been factored in).  We’d like to think Government read the article, but it’s unfortunate if ministers have again been captured by the allure of diggers & Hi-Viz, locally on Wormwood Scrubs, but in many other places too – Hammersmith Bridge excepted.

TBM “Florence” in the Chilterns [HS2 Ltd]

Looking at the situation more positively, and considering what has already been dug, a more appropriate project might be quite the reverse of what is mooted as a new approach – cutting off the northern legs. High Speed rail viability increases with distance up to about a 3hr journey time – the Birmingham route is right on the lower limit of accepted high-speed viability at 100 miles, more a sop to get the project off the ground at lowest(!) cost – the Oakervee Review concurs in conclusion 54.  Distraction by way of mooted “high-speed” links Leeds / Manchester, is muddle – in 36 miles, half the length of Crossrail, “high speed” wouldn’t achieved for long enough to be worthwhile.

Proposed Hammersmith parliamentary constituency boundaries 2021. New proposed boundaries shown in red, 2017 in blue

We’ve been alerted to new proposed changes to the parliamentary constituency boundaries, and there’s a distinct feeling of deja-vu.  Checking the annals, it was in 2017 when the last proposal surfaced.

At the time, Tom said that the “changes to parliamentary boundaries seem bizarre” – perhaps someone listened as they were quietly parked.  Equally bizarre this time, in an effort to even up constituency sizes to around 75,000, Hammersmith is again split from Fulham, with a nod to the old borough boundary of 1968, but the significant change is the proposed East-West merger to create a “Hammersmith and Chiswick” constituency, split between two separate councils and administrations.

The north of the existing Hammersmith constituency would move to Ealing/Acton as proposed in 2017, though the line is further north matching the northwards march of the H/F boundary.

It would radically alter our sitting MP’s constituency, meaning Hammersmith being represented by two MP’s (North / Central), with a total of 3 MP’s across H&F (North / Central / South), all of whom would have split constituencies (the other halves being Ealing / Chiswick / Chelsea) to dilute their efforts, and potentially reduce the voice of Hammersmith.  Or perhaps more is better? Make your views felt in the consultation.

The proposals shown above, despite their apparent non-political origins, could also appear to be politically motivated according to BBC analysis, as they may favour the ruling party.  The proposed new boundaries are shown in red, the 2017 version in blue.  More information can be found on the Boundary Commission website, where the consultation runs until 2nd August.