Forum Topic

SaveOurSkyline Campaign

As mentioned in the news page, last night's meeting was professionally organised and very well attended - well done to the organisers for the first step on what will no doubt prove to be a very long journey - but we are with you!I think it is of importance to note that I believe that most people who attended are not against the redevelopment of King Street and the Town Hall site in principle, as long as there is clear benefit to the community and that the redevelopment is inkeeping and in scale.I am slightly concerned that the message from the meeting could be taken as no development at all when it is obvious that the area needs regeneration, not reinvention.The message is "No, not this", rather than "No".http://www.hammersmithtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=community&spage=common/consavetheskyline002.htm

Madalyn Roker ● 5309d26 Comments

'By giving away the land in return for free use of office space it is turning a capital receipt into a cost saving.'Interesting point - that would probably explain why all the property disposals the Council are currently making seem to be making such a small impact on the debt that they have.

Ellen Kearney ● 5185d

I think this point may have been made before but the structure of the scheme may have alot to do with the way Council finances work. Capital receipts are treated differently to the way income is and the Council has less flexibility in the way that it uses it. The Council also has a lot of saleable assets so has a lot of flexibility on the capital account whereas it can't easily raise revenue or decrease costs on the income account. By giving away the land in return for free use of office space it is turning a capital receipt into a cost saving.

Paul Corcoran ● 5211d

Everyone agrees that it would be nice to pull down the 1975 Town Hall extension, and reinstate the monumental steps and the square in front of the 1930s Hammersmith Town Hall. The problem is the cost. The administration in Hammersmith (leader Stephen Greenhalgh) is trying to find someone else - a developer - to bear this cost and also provide new offices for the Council to replace those demolished, instead of getting council-tax payers to bear it. After all the extension was a mistake made by a previous council and in fairness the council should fix it at their own expense. Of course council-tax payers can't afford it in the present economic climate. The proposed scheme is a bad deal for council-tax payers: Helical Bar and Grainger plc will reinstate the square, yes, but only by foisting on us blocks of 15 storeys which are completely out of scale with the surrounding mainly Victorian architecture of 3-4 storeys and with the older riverside listed buildings. The riverside skyline will be ruined. The site is surrounded by many conservation areas, of which the Mall CA is the best. It is unique in London. The proposed scheme is vandalism. We don't want huge blocks of flats, comparable in size to Charing Cross Hospital, to be built to provide enough profit to fund the demolition of the 1975 extension. In addition the cinema and the mansions blocks (54 social housing flats) would be destroyed and not replaced to accommodate the 320 luxury apartments. It is better for Hammersmith Council to take a stepwise approach: sell the car park for a low-rise scheme in keeping with the surrounding area (while digging out and retaining a bigger underground car park), use the receipts to cover the quadrangle and get the new offices (if the Council still needs them after cutting so many jobs and outsourcing), and finally get the extension quietly pulled down in due course. But we will have to wait a few years for this less testosterone-fuelled, developer-led solution.

Mrs Una Hodgkins ● 5212d

'The architecturally preferred solution would be to cover over the quadrangle in the centre'Architecturally preferred by whom? One of the significant benefits of the scheme which I think most people would agree on is the opening up of the square in front of the Town Hall.

Paul Corcoran ● 5212d

Well, the Council want offices right next to the old Town Hall, because the offices of the Councillors are there. The architecturally preferred solution would be to cover over the quadrangle in the centre (like at the British Museum) and build offices on three floors in there. But English Heritage won't have it, because the Town Hall is Grade 2 listed. Aaarggh.....!

Mrs Una Hodgkins ● 5269d

Has anyone in the council actually stopped to consider if they need the new offices being so generously "offered" by the developers. Is there an option to just demolish the 60s block, landscape the square and stop there? Relatively cheap. Could the "homeless" office staff be relocated to Cambridge House or any of the other half empty buildings in the area? Just a thought .... we wouldn't need 100+ luxury flats at all.

Madalyn Roker ● 5269d

Yes, they will get this. I don't have a problem with the office accommodation but who knows - if Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham - are joining services as announced - how much office space will they need?  None of us knows as yet.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5269d

It is true that the developer will provide to the Council standard office accommodation. This office space will be greater than for the 700 staff who used to occupy the Town Hall extension. The Council has recently moved staff out of one whole floor in the extension in order to make room for employees from the local Primary Care Trust, and is thus earning rent from them. They will probably continue this practice in the new offices. This flexibility may be good thing overall, but we thought that they were reducing staff, not going into the business of providing office space, of which there is of course a huge oversupply in Hammersmith and elsewhere.

Mrs Una Hodgkins ● 5269d

The Council may have given away the land but won't they in return be getting purpose built office accomodation which they don't have the resources to develop themselves and will save them significant amounts of rent on an on-going basis?

Ellen Kearney ● 5269d

The council are GIVING Helical Bar and Grainger plc ("King Street Developments") the car park and the registry office which together constitute over 50% of the land area or "footprint" of the development. The other parts are Cromwell Mansions and the cinema. Cromwell Mansions will be acquired by compulsory purchase from Pocklinton Trust, and the cinema is already owned by St James Developments (Tesco land bank), so Tesco are presumably well-advanced in their negociations with KSD for their new supermarket.The open market value of the full site should be more than £50M (one third of the selling price of the 320 flats, say £160M), but "King Street Developments" are going to acquire it for just the cost of the mansion block (say one fifth or £10M - IF an "open market" value is available under such a forced compulsory purchase?), plus the new offices to be used by the council but which would have been built anyway, plus the cost (£3M?) of pulling down the extension and making good the north-facing square. The costs are minute - approximately £20M and mostly IN KIND. The council have left themselves at the mercy of the quality of the design and build actually realised and are NOT receiving hard cash for council tax payers. And we are going to have to wait a long time for the flats to be actually sold and the Band H council tax to start to come in.... but the planning permission granted will be EXTREMELY valuable to KSD who can sell on the site at any time. The council are over a barrel.

Mrs Una Hodgkins ● 5283d

'Helical Bar has put in its application at the bottom of the market'I wasn't aware that commercial property prices had fallen significantly and many would argue that they are currently at quite inflated levels. Whatever, Helical Bar's investment is not without risk and there is no guarantee for them. In pure financial terms the business case for the Council looks strong and it would be wrong to get distracted from that by chasing possible appreciation in capital values.

Paul Corcoran ● 5288d

I think you would have to make the case here that fourteen-storey towers next door to a four-storey Town Hall would be an improvement - to whom? Cost savings? Helical Bar has put in its application at the bottom of the market; the added value in a few years' time will be theirs and not ours. So look at cost against the value of the land and future profit.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5289d

According to the item on the front page the full plans are out. The Council don't seem to be in the mood to compromise over the tall towers so it is this project or nothing.I know it would be wrong to be seduced by pretty pictures from the developers but the scheme does see to offer the chance of a huge improvement to the area and the cost savings that it offers to the Council in terms of office space will reduce the pressure to make front line service cuts.

Ellen Kearney ● 5289d

The wording of the letter suggests that the properties were subject to a compulsory purchase.

Paul Corcoran ● 5303d

The trustees may, of course, feel that it is for the greater good, or they may, at the end of the day, be left with little choice. I quote from a Pocklington Trust letter:The position of Pocklington is that we strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:1. Our tenants will be forced from their homes. 2. These properties represent a significant part of Pocklington’s permanent endowment the income from which is vital for the continuing work of the charity.They may be able to invest elsewhere, but that doesn't compensate for losing your home. You or I might be able to adapt but it's an entirely different story if you are blind.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5303d

If the Council offered the Trust a full market rate for the properties and the trustees felt it was to the benefit of the charity to accept I don't think this can be put forward as an objection to the scheme. Are they not taking the capital raised to invest in housing elsewhere and won't the blind residents be offered suitable accommodation? They may not like being moved but presumably in accepting the offer the trustees felt it was for the greater good. I don't know if the move will mean that many people will have to be rehoused by the Council but ultimately central government picks up the bill for that whereas the people moving into the new flats will be paying Council Tax so from a revenue point of view it will benefit H&F.

Paul Corcoran ● 5303d

Pocklington owns the building. Thomas Pocklington Trust is a leading provider of housing, care and support services for people with sight loss in the UK. See www.pocklington-trust.org.uk. The building on Cromwell Avenue is solid, although needing a bit of upgrading. If it goes, not only will the tenants - including a number of blind residents - have to leave, but the Pocklington flats will no longer be available in the future. So a charity which does good, and costs the taxpayer nothing, will be prevented from serving Hammersmith residents. Furthermore, the Council will then have to pick up the tab for rehousing people in the future who would have been looked after by the Pocklington Trust. Does any of that make sense? Go to www.saveourskyline.co.uk to sign the online petition.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5303d

Are the Pocklington Trust buildings being acquired by a compulsory purchase order or is the charity just a tenant?

Paul Corcoran ● 5303d

Barnes people are beginning to recognise the effect this will have on their view, but the impetus came from Hammersmith residents. If this development goes ahead, it will lever the way open for further high rise along King St west. Do nothing? Yes, and lose the Pocklington homes for the blind, the cinema - no cinema left in Hammersmith when this goes - and introduce high rise luxury flats with their own walkway to Furnivall Gardens.There's no affordable housing in this development at all. Nothing for the blind Pocklington tenants. Is this a disgrace or what?

Rosemary Pettit ● 5303d

I'm not detecting a huge groundswell of opinion from people I know in Hammersmith on this matter. Is this because opposition is centred on Barnes? - the name of the campaign is perhaps a clue as the people whose skyline will change will mainly be south of the river.

Paul Corcoran ● 5304d

Not so, there's no cinema planned for the NCP carpark opposite Lyric Square. The 2007 Armadillo application had a cinema as a community benefit, but the new plans (2010/02842/FUL), submitted to the Council (see www.hammersmithgrovencp.co.uk) are for slabs of office block and no cinema.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5305d

As well as the large number of screens up the road in Shepherd's Bush an Everyman cinema is planned for the new office development near Lyric Square so the loss of the cinema was probably inevitable whether or not the development took place.

Ellen Kearney ● 5305d

I think that everyone recognises that the car park next to the Town Hall could and should be built on. But any building(s) should be in keeping with the area in terms of height and, hopefully, design because they would be next to the listed 1930s Town Hall.The Friends of Furnivall Gardens exists to protect the gardens and their surroundings. The proposed footbridge, embankment against the Great West Road and steep slope for the path up to the bridge will destroy the existing simple landscape and the beauty of the park.

Mrs Una Hodgkins ● 5307d

I do not believe this scheme will regenerate the area, rather it will deprive us of some of what is good, and could be so much better, in the area. A local resident presented his vision for the cinema at the meeting; how it could become independent and profit making and put some heart and soul in the area. Instead we will have another supermarket, larger than the Sainsbury's in Kings Mall which will help destroy our community, and nothing for our youth.

Jenny Durley ● 5307d

The benefits the scheme offers are significant including the footbridge. The costs are the high buildings and the displacement of the Pocklington Trust residents. High buildings in themselves are not necessarily unattractive and this is not the Cotwolds. The developers could be obligated to make sure the Trust is able to properly rehouse those in its care. Like the original poster I think there is the danger of the campaign slipping into NIMBYism. At the meeting there was the spectacle of people who obviously lived in and owned very expensive houses in the area getting on their high horse that the scheme would essentially be funded by luxury flats.

Ellen Kearney ● 5308d

As one of the organisers of Wednesday's public meeting I hope I can set to rest Madalyn's concern. No one is against redevelopment of the Town Hall site. When I first heard about it I was delighted that the ugly  extension was to come down, the square reinstated and the Town Hall revealed in its distinctive 1930s' dignity as Hammersmith's premier civic building. But looking further at the footbridge butting up to the Town Hall, the demolition of the cinema and the Pocklington homes, the injuries offered to conservation areas by the 14plus-storey towers, and the wedge this will open to other high rise along King St - it is a price too high to pay.

Rosemary Pettit ● 5309d