Hammersmith Bridge with Toll, 1827, designed by William Tierney Clark (Hammersmith & Fulham Archives)

We’re pleased to see that a ferry operator has finally been appointed, and conversely disappointed at a low proposed (peak) capacity of 800/hr. total, i.e. 400 each way, cost – not free – £1.55 proposed, though included in hopper & concessionary fares, restricted operating hours of 6am-10pm, and of course the service delay until later this year. 

But as the tale below shows, a temporary bridge was the right solution 140 years ago when the original bridge was falling down through neglect, and remains so today, on the second anniversary of bridge closure.
Accordingly, we  wrote to the Prime Minister recently.

John Dixon by Ian Pearce

Last month we were sent a copy of the lavishly illustrated hardback ‘John Dixon’ by Ian Pearce, published in 2019 (cover shown), which has a fascinating chapter illuminating the design & construction issues of the original Tierney Clark suspension bridge, and its rebuilding as the current bridge, which John Dixon’s company took over in the 1880’s, under Bazalgette and his son Edward.
Readers may order the book direct from the author at the much reduced price of £18 (including UK p&p) using this link.

Hailstone’s book

Here we also need to mention the joint endeavour by the Fulham and Hammersmith, and Barnes and Mortlake Historical Societies in recently updating Charles Hailstone’s 1987 book: A History of Hammersmith Bridge.

To say that the various accounts show history repeating itself would be rather an understatement. Included in Pearce’s book are warnings writ large for those again contemplating tolls and ferries.

A comparative list between then & now:

Hammersmith Bridge under reconstruction, showing Temporary Bridge, by John Archibald Webb
(Richmond upon Thames Borough Art Collection)

✔ A toll that irritated residents both sides of the bridge.
✔ Ownership issues preventing adequate finance & oversight.
✔ Lack of maintenance leading to near collapse.
✔ Concerns over bridge loading capacity, weight.
✔ Questionable strength of bridge chains and hangers.
✔ Roadway disintegration.
✔ Use of inappropriate materials for cost reasons.
✔ Engineers reports unheeded, or “disappeared”.
✔ Plan for a temporary ferry with low capacity & limited hours.
❌ Effect on navigation and the Boat Race.
❓ Temporary bridge, 23ft wide with a separate walkway.

It’s of note that Tierney Clark’s Széchenyi Chain Bridge in Budapest, of similar design to his one in Hammersmith and earlier in Marlow, is also currently closed – for repair and rebuilding – not for the first time,  perhaps with some familiar issues ?

During Bazalgette’s 1880’s bridge reconstruction, a temporary bridge was built both wide enough for traffic, and with spans sufficient for navigation and to allow the Boat Race to continue as shown here, in response to the inadequacies of a proposed ferry, an outcry from the residents of Castelnau (@TfL take note), and at the time, a statutory duty to maintain a crossing, needing an Act of Parliament to circumvent.  Eventually though, the rebuilding was done in just 30 months, and at a cost of £82,177 which is about £10.5M in today’s money. 

181 Talgarth Road – April 2020 RSHP scheme

In April last year we reported on the hotel development proposed for the former West London Magistrate’s Court site at 181 Talgarth Road, a proposal which would include two hotels:  a 442-bedroom, 23-storey luxury hotel, and a 440-bed, 10-storey tourist hotel. Permission for the development was agreed in July, and after referral to the Mayor’ office the consent was confirmed in December.

Since then, with the change in economic circumstances, the developer Dominvs Group has chosen to revise the scheme:  retaining the tourist hotel, but providing Student Accommodation for up to 696 students, possibly linked to the Imperial College White City campus, in place of the 23-storey luxury hotel. 

181 Talgarth Road – March 2021 proposed scheme

Initial proposals are for a student block with massing generally similar to the approved luxury hotel block, but adjusted to reduce the maximum height by two storeys, to 68 metres, and to enlarge the plan to add 2,400 sq. m floor area. We understand that TP Bennett, architects of King’s House at the other end of Shortlands, are to be appointed for this building, and that the accommodation would be run by Scape who are well-known in the sector.

No change is proposed to the tourist hotel design, but the landscaped public realm within the site would become a student amenity space, providing access to the student cycle store – a more mundane provision which lacks the tempietto, restaurant and bar which created a welcome spark in the earlier scheme. The prospect of a revised planning application has revived the considerable public opposition to the earlier development, and the Society is participating in consultations currently taking place.

181 Talgarth Road – 2021 proposed public realm

This new scheme opens a further chapter in the uncomfortable history of this important site. The story began with the sale of the land by the Ministry of Justice, evidently failing to follow Cabinet Office guidelines which require that, prior to commercial sale, sites in public ownership should be assessed for residential, educational or similar public benefit. The sale of the Magistrates Court site was advertised with enticements including ‘precedent for tall buildings’ and reports of ‘positive pre-application feedback from LBHF’  without revealing the LBHF advice received.  It is not clear if the £42m purchase price paid by Dominvs was based on a development valuation gleaned from the ‘evolving’ Town Centre Masterplan – a plan which has been evolving since 2015, but has still not been reviewed through public consultation. The provisional Masterplan currently circulating is based on a plan which incorporates the completed A4 fly-under tunnel, describing a misleading urban context for the hotel site. 

Ravenscourt Park Tea House – from 2021/00539/LBCHF

The Ravenscourt Park Tea House, a popular stopping point in the park, has been in a dilapidated condition for some time, and been a concern of the Friends of Ravenscourt Park, as well as being on Historic England’s Buildings At Risk register. It closed in 2019 largely because of its increasingly poor condition.

The Friends, chaired by our committee member Annabelle May, had a very informative and encouraging meeting recently with senior planning officer Steve Hollingworth and head of capital projects Nilesh Pankhania.  Two architects from Burrell Foley Fischer also attended, and showed their detailed plans for total external refurbishments, using the approved materials, with the aim of making the building weather proof and usable again. A stark revelation was the neglect and inappropriate patching-up of past decades. 

Ravenscourt Park Tea House – from 2021/00539/LBCHF

These works also include the much-needed total redesign and refurbishment of all the public toilets on the site.  The planning application has been lodged, and they hope to be able to start works in early summer.  We were told that funding has been identified.

Ravenscourt Park Tea House – 1831 – from 2021/00539/LBCHF

As the Friends have campaigned for a long time about the deteriorating state of this important 200 year old Grade II historic building, this was all extremely good news, and as a focal point in the Park we all look forward to seeing it in use as a café again before too long.

Foster & Partners / Delancey temporary bridge proposal

Bridge proposal

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, the company now owning the Earls Court development site.  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:

• Raised temporary deck envisages crossing for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on 2 levels.
• The deck would overlay and rest on the footings of the existing bridge.
• River traffic could pass underneath.
• Costs believed lower and timescale significantly faster than previous plans.
• Partial dismantling and offsite refurbishment of the existing structure while temporary structure in place.
• Transport Secretary given outline brief by H&F Council Leader on 25th November.

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.

Funding

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. 

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:

• Project funding: government funding is confirmed conditional on LBHF contribution; LBHF and TfL have no funds available to contribute. TfL to fund the ferry crossing and contribute £4M towards the stabilisation works as a condition of their £1.7B second government support grant.
• Engineering works: completion of pre-design survey work requires a further 4-month programme to inspect each upstream pedestal (the lower housings at each end of the suspension chain); the contractor is ready to proceed with the work on release of funding. See project funding statement above.
• Project Plan: LBHF report that they have provided the ‘robust project plan’ called for by the chairman. We would expect to see a review of alternative options including the replacement of the bridge with a modern structure, taking into account the cost and programme viability of restoring a bridge built over 130 years ago for a very different traffic type and density. 
• Temporary crossing (stage 1): ferry transport for pedestrians and cyclists has been investigated and can be operational within 66 days of contract commitment and release of funding.  See project funding statement above.
• Temporary crossing (stage 2): pedestrian and cycle use of the bridge can be resumed for a  limited period after installation of temporary stabilising frames over the pedestals.  Obtaining the necessary statutory planning consents and carrying out site construction would require around 7 months; estimated cost is £14M.  See project funding statement above.
• Project programme: overall period for completion of the works as currently foreseen, including measures to meet TfL increased traffic loading requirements, is estimated at approximately 6 years – from release of funding.

Bridge permanent stabilisation – cast iron pedestals – slide from meeting

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.

Planning for the future

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.

Changes to the planning procedure

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:

1. Growth areas where ‘substantial development’ would be suitable (similar, we suggest, to Earls Court, Old Oak Common etc)
2. Renewal areas such as existing built areas where development is encouraged (Hammersmith Town Centre, for example)
3. Protected areas like conservation and heritage areas, green belt and parkland.

Planning zones

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.

Community involvement

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.

Design codes

CreateStreets – Bonnington Square

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.

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.

‘Hospitality in the Park’ run by Slammin’ Events in Finsbury Park

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.

Hammersmith Bridge closed: Motor traffic:10th April 2019; Completely:13th August 2020

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.