Ugly new street lighting preventing residents getting to sleep

The Council has been “rolling out” ugly new street lights – rather in the style of floodlights used on football pitches. It is excellent that there is switch to LED lighting – they use only half the energy and thus save the Council money as well as helping the environment. But there is no reason why the design of street lighting for them has to be so hideous. LED lighting could being used in a traditional lamp post.

Another difficulty is that the new lighting has been too bright – in some cases (such as Rylett Road) making it harder for people to get to sleep. “We are able to address problems of light leakage into residents’ homes where this occurs, if residents notify us of this,” the Council tells me. But getting this achieved in practice is proving a slow job. Absurd as if excessive brightness is avoided this means the financial and environmental benefits would be greater.

All this has been done without consultation – yet again making a mockery of the Council’s mantra about doing things “with people not too people”. I have asked for a schedule of when the new lights are being brought in to each street.

I have written previously about the Council refusal to allow residents to switch form the ugly, modernist “tooth brush” lamp posts to the traditional lanterns. The was something that was allowed for Black Lion Lane and St Peter’s Square when the Council was Conservative-run but others are being prevented from following the example.

The toothbrush lamp posts are ugly enough. Not content with blocking residents from adopting a more attractive alternative the Council is imposing replacements that look even worse.

Let’s bring in LED lighting but at the same time let’s have lamp post designs that make the borough more beautiful rather than  more ugly.

Mayor of London and H&F Council at war over Fulham tower block

Both the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and the Labour leadership of Hammersmith and Fulham Council are enthusiastic supporters of having yet more tower blocks. However they still manage to attack each other specific proposals. The Council opposes the Mayor’s plans for new 26-storey buildings in Old Oak. He is ignoring those objections.

Now the Mayor is getting his own back on his Labour colleagues by announcing he will block their plans for a replacement to Edith Summerskill House on the Clem Atlee Estate in Fulham.

The response from his office notes:

“The proposed development comprises the erection of a single residential tower of 20 storeys that would replace the existing 18 storey tower. With the provision of greater floor to ceiling heights the proposals would result in an increase in height from 54 metres to 72.2 metres.”

That bit doesn’t bother the Mayor at all. But it is an appalling proposal. In what sort of deranged socialist utopia does it make sense to replace a tower block with an even taller tower block? Due to the wasted space around tower block you can have more homes with lower rise buildings.

Then there is the small matter of building housing that people actually want. Overwhelmingly people would prefer to live in attractive traditional homes and not in tower blocks. The Grenfell Tower tragedy strengthens this feeling.

Anyway while regarding the general idea of a new tower block as absolutely fine the Mayor’s Office still says the specific plan put forward by the Council is unacceptable.

One objection the Mayor has to his Labour colleagues is their scheme would mean a loss of affordable housing. His report says:

“The Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG provides additional guidance on estate regeneration and makes it clear that the Mayor expects existing affordable housing to be replaced on a like-for-like basis.

This application will deliver 100% affordable housing, with 106 units for social rent and the remaining 27 units for intermediate rent (a split of 80%/20%). Across the two sites, there will be an uplift of 10 affordable housing units and would equate to 41% affordable housing by habitable room (35% by unit).

However, in light of the proposed twin-track approach to affordable housing, which sees this site reproviding the existing social rented accommodation at Watermeadow Court, in addition to its own reprovision requirements, there would be an overall net loss of 17 units based on social rent levels, and 1,188 sq.m. of floorspace at that level; this is contrary to the London Plan, the Mayor’s Affordable Housing an Viability SPG, and the Mayor’s Homes for Londoners: draft good practice guidance for estate regeneration. This is wholly unacceptable.”

At the some time the scheme fails to increase the tenure mix at the Clem Atlee Estate:

“London Plan Policy 3.9 (Mixed and balanced communities) states that “Communities mixed and balanced by tenure and household income should be promoted across London through incremental small scale as well as larger scale developments… A more balanced mix of tenures should be sought in all parts of London, particularly in some neighbourhoods where social renting predominates and there are concentrations of deprivation.” Estate regeneration therefore provides the opportunity for a more balanced mix of tenures to be introduced into an estate, promoting social diversity and redressing social exclusion. For this reason, the supporting text to Policy 3.9 notes that infill schemes on predominantly social housing estates should primarily be targeted for intermediate and market housing. 

GLA officers are seriously concerned about the overall strategy to concentrate affordable housing delivery into a tower on an existing estate, whilst redeveloping Watermeadow Court, located in a different ward with differing socio-economic characteristics, as a 100% private housing scheme. The approach would reinforce the existing tenure of the estate by providing a greater number of predominantly social rented units in a 20 storey tower, albeit introducing a small number of intermediate rented units. At the same time, the proposal at Watermeadow Court would demolish existing affordable housing and redevelop the site for private housing, in an area close to the river and Imperial Wharf, and characterised by largely private housing. The approach to delivery of affordable housing across the two schemes is therefore not considered to promote mixed and balanced communities and is contrary to London Plan Policy 3.9.  “

There are also objections on design:

“The choice of material for the upper floor facades is precast concrete, which results in a visual heaviness to the building and monolithic appearance that lacks depth or quality, and is reminiscent of the poor quality existing Edith Summerskill House.”

This is just the latest episode in the shambolic handling by Labour of the site – which at one stage even included falsification Council minutes and years of delay.

H&F parking meters still won’t take the new pound coin

In just over a week’s time, on midnight Sunday October 15th, the old pound coin – the “round pound” – will cease to be legal tender. After that only the 12 sided new pound coin can be used. Except, that is, if you won’t to park your car in Hammersmith and Fulham. Our parking meters STILL don’t accept the new pound coin.

This will mean that few people will the relevant pound coins available. I suppose any of the old pound coins the Council does continue to collect will be accepted by its bank – at least for a while. But even so there would seem to be an entirely avoidable delay that will inconvenience residents and visitors to the borough, harm local businesses and deny the Council of revenue.

There was plenty of notice given of the replacement.

I have asked the Council for an explanation….

 

No Man’s Land

This is the land that nobody seems to want.

Residents in Stamford Brook Road complained to me about it being poorly maintained. The bushes are not cut. The grass is cut but the cuttings not removed. Litter is seldom cleared.

So I raised the matter with Hammersmith and Fulham Council. The response came back that the land was in Ealing. Then this changed to say the land was in Hounslow. Then Hounslow Council came back to insist it was in Hammersmith and Fulham. Amidst the muddle and delay the email chain grew ever longer. Turf warfare with the difference that is was a fight not to accept ownership of the bit of turf in dispute.

I have now been sent what (I think) is the definitive response:

“Hounslow Council has maintenance responsibility for the Stamford Brook Green (the land was formerly under H&F Council’s responsibilities, but this changed some years ago following a boundary change).

Unfortunately a H&F rubbish bin and bench on this land were not removed following the boundary change, which has now been actioned. This clearly is confusing for residents and we have reminded Hounslow Council that they are responsible for grass cutting and maintenance and that rubbish collection is undertaken by Hounslow contractors. Hounslow Council will decide if a new rubbish bin is sited at Stamford Brook Green.

However, to respond to the concerns raised by local residents, last week H&F contractors removed the rubbish on the Green and we have let Hounslow officers know.

H&F Council is the current legal owner of the land as unfortunately the land ownership was not updated as it should have been to reflect the historic boundary change. The legal asset title is being corrected, so it is vested in Hounslow Council’s legal ownership. The operational responsibility will then tally with the legal title – both being with Hounslow Council.”

Transport for London’s flawed “Cycle Superhighway” proposals

I am a strong supporter of sensible measures to promote cycling. Indeed I have written about this regularly on this site – see here, here, here and here.

However the proposed Transport for London Cycle Superhighway strike me as deeply flawed. As Charlie Dewhirst has noted it would worsen traffic congestion and lengthen pedestrian journeys.

The scheme would cost £70 million. Hammersmith and Fulham Council is backing it – but there is a huge financial conflict of interest for the Council with these big TfL schemes. That is because the Council is provided with substantial funding from TfL to help promote and implement them. That makes it impossible for the Council to be objective in delivering a verdict on whether such schemes are beneficial or harmful to our borough. I have asked the Council how much money it has been promised.

There is concern among residents that as well as limiting access to the side streets the Superhighway will cross, there will be a damaging impact on the businesses, nurseries and schools on the south side of King Street.

For example of particular concern is the impact of changes to the Goldhawk/ King Street/ Chiswick High Road/ British Grove junction. This includes changes to access and the reversal of the one way system at the south end of British Grove onto Berestede Road such that instead of turning from a narrow street with no pavements (British Grove) into a wider one (Berestede Road) it will be the other way round.

When challenged on the risk to pedestrians this could entail at a consultation in Chiswick, I hear the TfL response was “… well it is a mistake that they will only make once…”

Would it not be less disruptive to route the Superhighway along the A4?

Please let me know your views.

Artists impression of the new scheme looking east along Hammersmith Road

Here are the dates for some proposed exhibitions of the scheme:

Grove Neighbourhood Centre  Sunday 1 October 11am-4pm

Lyric Square  Friday 6 October 11am – 3pm

Cross Keys Pub, Black Lion Lane Wednesday 11 October  5pm-9pm

Ravenscourt Park  (TfL doesn’t say where in the Park) Sunday 22 October 11am-3pm

The deadline for comments is Tuesday 31 October. You can respond here.

The letter from TfL gives more details.