Quaker meeting outside and garden

Quaker meeting entrance

Quaker meeting house brickwork

Quaker meeting wooden ceiling

Quaker meeting room 1

Quaker meeting room 2

Quaker meeting plaque

Quaker meeting house frontage

(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.

The Hammersmith Quakers have expressed their gratitude for the advice and support of both our affiliate 🔗 The Brackenbury Residents Association and the Hammersmith Society, and especially Tom Ryland who found time to come to the Town Hall and lend his expertise on planning matters. 

Victoria kindly offered the following words about the Quakers, providing a helpful background to the use of the new Meeting House:

Health scares, 18 metre masts, autonomous vehicles, economic recovery, critical national infrastructure, Huawei… It’s a long list.

2020/01852/TEL56: Rylett Road / John Betts House: 5G proposed mast and cabinets

In Hammersmith we’ve started to see planning notices for 5G base stations, ironically mostly from the company named Three, and yes, since you ask, they are using Huawei.

From the Society’s perspective, our concerns centre on the mast height, positioning, and the associated, rather retro, street clutter.  There’s some further reading at the foot of the article, but first, to get some perspective, let’s get our terminology clear, review the most prevalent public concerns and take quite a hard look at the benefits – both real and more far-fetched.

The most widely used 5G band in the UK will be 3.6GHz…
…5G is just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM.
– Institution of Engineering and Technology

A quick canter through some confusing G’s

1G to 5G phones

Here 1G means ‘First Generation’ AKA Analogue ‘brick’ phones of the 1980’s, 2G (AKA ‘GSM’ or ‘Global System for Mobile Communications’), a typical Nokia from the late 1990’s, 3G, the first phones with really usable Internet connections, and today’s 4G, typified by a smartphone – Apple or Android. There was even a 2.5G and we mention 4.5G later.

The gifts of Heinrich Hertz, or a billion of them, come in the form of a Gigahertz (GHz), the frequency a thousand times the Megahertz we’ve had since VHF FM radio days.  1G to 4G phones have used various radio frequencies over the years, depending on operator and country, from 🔗 800MHz up to 2.6GHz, but the operating frequency used doesn’t directly affect the data speed as far as the user is concerned.  WiFi is sometimes confusingly termed 2.4G or ‘2.4 Gig’ or ‘5 Gig’, referring to bands – 2.4GHz (the same frequency as a microwave oven but a minuscule fraction of the power) and 5GHz: a less congested, shorter range band that has nothing to do with 5G: 5th generation mobile technology.

In the digital world we similarly have Megabits describing the speed of received data – whatever the technology that delivered it – and the Gigabit of your scribe’s home, and likely your office’s high speed Ethernet wired network. We won’t discuss the many flavours of WiFi on top of the frequency bands mentioned: A, B, G, N AC, AX… a story seemingly involving yet another G, until WiFi leapfrogs 5G by changing it’s letters to numbers, becoming WiFi 4, 5, and 6, and in future extending into a new 6GHz band.  That’s the GG’s corralled 🐴

The most popular 5G band, 3.6 GHz, is slightly higher than current ranges, the implication may be more base stations as range is slightly reduced, but other bands may be used to compensate. The 700MHz band for example, cleared in June this year (responsible for the loss of several HD TV channels), has yet to be auctioned off, but is earmarked by OFCOM for 5G.

Mobile emissions

If you are at all concerned about health effects, first check and understand the implications of the 🔗 SAR value for your existing 2G/3G/4G phone, which have been published by manufacturers since the days of 2G when such concerns first arose – or better, stop using it now !

Unfortunately in addition to the above health concerns, the 5G cause has been muddied, and probably harmed by overzealous marketing, too many G’s and spurious claimed benefits – we prefer to keep to the tried-and-trusted recipe of ‘more & faster’, on which it certainly will deliver. 

In the autonomous vehicle gold rush, 5G has been presented as a key part of navigation and safety, but its importance is moderated by looking at the planned coverage maps, or considering the simple question – what would happen if coverage were not available or reliable, or the oncoming vehicle was 10 years old – would it be acceptable for safety to be compromised? Of course not, but here again subtle misinformation is the key – there’s a more detailed discussion below, but for now you can park great swathes of hype.

Planning

Setting aside the geo-politics and technologies for a moment, our concerns regarding the current proposals for those such as the 🔗 Rylett Road one shown above, are around visual amenity of 18 metre masts, and inappropriate placement in a conservation area, blocking access to the newly widened pavement for a possible cycle cut-through, the pelican crossing and sight-impaired Pocklington Trust residents adjacent, when there are so many better locations nearby, including on existing buildings, and/or sharing with other companies base stations as recommended in the NPPF.

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

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

The Council is struggling to finance the upkeep of its school estate, a portfolio which includes over forty primary schools.  Limited funds have been available since the government Building Schools for the Future programme was terminated in 2010, and in March last year the Council introduced a “Community Schools Programme”, proposing to finance the improvement works by the building of affordable housing on school grounds. The programme starts with Flora Gardens and Avonmore Primary Schools.

Flora Gardens School Site

We are concerned at the direction of this policy: the unquestionable priority of good public education facilities does not justify the loss of public open space.

Public open space is sacred, it is a rare and precious commodity, and the acceptance of a practice which permanently removes the open space to alleviate a temporary financial shortfall is a mistake: it erodes the quality of our urban surroundings to the detriment of the public realm, and removes potential sites for future social facilities such as youth clubs and provision for the elderly, but also removes spare capacity essential to accommodate the likely increase in space requirements arising from the current review of school standards. 

Hammersmith Community Gardens Association is a local charity that has been operating on a site in Ravenscourt Park since 2004.  The existing glasshouse structures have been refurbished twice but are at the end of their life, and existing facilities are limited or inadequate for use in winter.  They are looking to raise £115,000 for new glasshouses, and so far have pledges of £48,000.  The Hammersmith Society recently agreed to make a contribution.

Pledges can be made via https://www.spacehive.com/31651, they need to raise all funds by 12th August to complete the campaign and unlock additional Mayoral and Council funding.  Pledges will not result in money being taken unless the total amount is pledged.

HCGA provides a range of activities from school visits, volunteer gardening sessions for people including refugees and those with health and learning difficulties. Pop up Yoga is held twice weekly, with the glasshouses acting as headquarters for the wider organisation.

The new glasshouse will be configured for maximum use. A large central space that can be used for meetings, concerts & workshops leading out on to the walled garden. To facilitate this vision they have negotiated a 25 year lease on the site, with full planning permission.

More about HCGA, by HCGA

Former garage, Wellesley Ave (photo:yell.com)

Developers appealed against the decision of the Council to refuse permission for the development of substantial office accommodation on the site of the former Aston Martin garage. Local residents had objected to the proposals on a wide number of grounds. They also regret the passing of the garage which was generally a well mannered and friendly neighbour.

The appeal was dismissed after careful consideration by the Inspector. The major reasons given were:

•  The overbearing impact of the proposals on the rear gardens in Wellesley Avenue and Dorville Crescent and loss of privacy at 29 Dorville Crescent.
• Living conditions at the proposed maisonette at 14 Wellesley Avenue on account of the refuse area being directly below the bedroom window.
• The height and mass of the proposed office building and dominance of the second floor would mean a ‘failure to integrate’ with the intimate residential nature of the street, it would be visually obtrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
• Inadequate provision for Sustainable Drainage Systems.

Official Appeal Decision