Foster & Partners / Delancey temporary bridge proposal

Bridge proposal

• Raised temporary deck envisages crossing for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on 2 levels.
• 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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

To help members better gauge the local situation, we’ve used this data to create an interactive chart showing a count of infections locally in the borough both here, and pinned to the head of the website for the time being, automatically updated every day in the late afternoon.  Due to the well-known delays in test results, be aware that latest numbers are always revised upwards for 5 or more days after initial publication, so we now filter the newest unrepresentative figures – check here regularly for updates.

COVID-19 map – snapshot October 14, 2020 (updated new format). Click on map for live interactive version

A link added to the above chart, and reproduced here provides access to more detailed data and an interactive map of infections in the last week by “MSOA” (Middle Super Output Area), representing c.7200 people, an area which approximates a council ward. H&F has the distinction of having the physically smallest MSOA in the country – E02000378 – Shepherds Bush South. A snapshot is shown here.

H&F council COVID-19 advice is here.

H&F HealthWatch

We’ve been contacted by our member Jane Wilmot, also a member of the local H&F HealthWatch committee who want to find out how H&F residents have used GP practices during lockdown and in particular uncover any experiences of health inequality. HealthWatch is a statutory committee of the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

If you would like to help, please:

• Complete the survey by 12th October: Survey Monkey link
• Share the survey among all your contacts including any contacts on Twitter
• Alert anyone you know who does not have a smart phone or internet access to let them know they can contact HealthWatch for a hard copy, ask for help in completing the survey etc.

If you would like any assistance in completing the survey or would like it in another format, please contact H&F HealthWatch at or call 0203 886 0386. Healthwatch Hammersmith & Fulham address: 141-143 King Street, W6 9JG.

A Civic Voice members survey last year found that 80% of people feel that developers do not effectively engage with the community and 72% said the same about local authorities. Recent research by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland also found a significant distrust of the planning process within communities. Just 2% of the public trust developers and only 7% trust local authorities when it comes to planning for large-scale development.  

This week’s news concerning the housing minister, the role of large developers and oblique arguments about viability, plus the role of CIL, brings these issues into sharp focus

The Civic Voice ambition is to move away from ‘confrontation to collaboration’ and from ‘consultations to conversations’. Its manifesto consists of the following three key recommendations to the Government and to Local Authorities, which aim at placing Civic Societies like the Hammersmith Society at the heart of their communities:

1. Create a more ‘accessible, balanced and collaborative’ (ABC) planning system with communities at the heart.
2. Move towards a citizen-led, participative model of governance for our towns, cities and villages.
3. Ensure local authorities have the appropriate resources and proper powers to enhance the historic environment to make better places.

Save our Skyline – River and King St views

He threw himself into the battle against the first Town Hall development plans in 2010-12, chairing a number of packed public meetings on behalf of the Save our Skyline coalition.  The campaign notably led to a Council Planning Committee meeting so crowded with objectors it had to be moved to the Great Hall of Latymer School. At that time, the Hammersmith Society worked with him to successfully see off the 15-storey glass towers around the Town Hall and a footbridge over the A4 which would have very considerably reduced the Furnivall Gardens’ open space.

A barrister by profession, he used his professional and forensic skills in the service of local causes.  His manner was a mixture of the magisterial and the mischievous, backed up by serious local knowledge and commitment. He also chaired public meetings for the Ravenscourt Action Group calling for Council action on anti-social behaviour.

An engaging obituary can be found in The Guardian following this link

The Ravenscourt Society was founded in 1971 and is no longer active, but perhaps there are residents in the area who would like to revive it; a local residents’ association is a good way to stay in touch with what is going on at the Town Hall, channel local concerns, and to build a neighbourhood network.

More: Video describing the SOS campaign