Wednesday, 14 December 2011

H&F protest at City Hall this morning

City Hall
Protestors from the Save our Skyline group, opposed to the Council's plan to construct two towers of luxury flats on King Street, will be protesting this morning with Vanessa Redgrave outside City Hall in an attempt to influence Mayor Boris Johnson, in advance of the Mayor's final decision on the development. It comes after this farcical meeting of the infamous planning committee, where hundreds of residents were roundly ignored.

The throng will be gathered outside City Hall at 10am if you fancy joining them - I'm told by a mole that they will be greeted by several Assembly Members to support their campaign to be listened to, though I suspect this might not include any Conservative members. 

One thought for the day - compare and contrast this article from the Council about how outrageous it is that Thames Water are not listening to residents in Fulham - to how the Council listens itself to any resident who is unlucky enough not to live in Fulham - such as Hammersmith or Shepherd's Bush. No luxury flat towers planned for Fulham as yet, I understand.

1400 UPDATE - The camnpaigners have attracted widespread media interest, with the BBC reporting their protest here. Significantly it seems they have highlighted that our Council's plans actually contradict the Mayor's own London Plan - so his response will be an interesting one. 


  1. This assumes that everyone in Hammersmith and Shepherd's Bush is against the proposed changes. They are not. Of course, people who perceive themselves as losers will be far more vociferous than the many supporters of development, but this does not prove very much. If councillors simply decided not to proceed with a project because there were objections to it, the result would be stagnation. Unless anyone can come up with an idea no one dislikes? In which case, I would suggest the results would be extremely timid and bland.

    On a minor point, you again use the tendentious term 'luxury flats'. Please could you define luxury in this context, since I suspect that said flats are on the small side and have no luxurious features other than an exorbitant price (unless indoor plumbing, central heating and fitted kitches - all amenities enjoyed by Abu Hamza if the press is to be believed - count as luxuries in the modern world).

  2. A fair point, but I would just point out two things -

    1 - The developers themselves use the term "luxury" so I assume they know what they are talking about

    2 - I am merely contrasting our Council's desire to talk about how some residents (those in Fulham with regards Thames Water) should be listened to at all costs, and their decision not to listen to residents either in Hammersmith or Shepherd's Bush who feel - both in numbers and passions - just as strongly about proposed changes to their own areas.

    Oh - and Abu Hamza resides at HMP Belmarsh, not Shepherd's Bush anymore. And not in luxury, one hopes.

  3. Fair point re Mr. Hamza's current address - I meant of course his dwelling when he was still an 'H&Fer'. Not saying your other points aren't fair, mind you.

  4. The only supporters of this development are the developers and the now departing Stephen Greenhalgh who only think of very short term financial gain.

  5. I would say that the huge majority of voters support this project.

    Who wouldn't want to get rid of the town hall extension, provide good pedestrian access to the river, build hundreds of new homes (both luxury and affordable), bring money, trade, people, jobs, prosperity and investment into an area that is scruffy and suffering continuous declining in investment?

    1) NIMBYs
    2) Socialists who don't like their voting base undermined by improving conditions.

  6. The last response lives in another universe-maybe Stephen Greenhalgh's PR office.. go to to get a true feeling of oposition from Zac Goldsmith Conservative MP (neither NIMBY or socialist) or English Heritage. 8,500 signatures.

  7. Who would want to lose their local cinema, lose affordable housing, evict blind residents and lose buildings of architectural merit? Not the majority of Ravenscourt Ward voters, ie those who live in the ward where this is planned. Nor do we want to see the council giving away public land for developers to build luxury flats, yet another supermarket and council offices. Oh, and we would like a surface level crossing to the river, please, so everyone can use it.

  8. The council can afford to appear to support local residents regarding the Thames Tunnel as the council will not be the body making the decision in the end, but when it comes to most planning decisions, most of the residents' comments are ignored.

  9. I've heard the square in front of the Town Hall called 'the windiest corner in Hammersmith'. Just how much more windy will it be when they surround it with 4 tower blocks? And the plan is to put a cafe there!

  10. Fantastic goods from you, man. Ive study your stuff ahead of and youre just as well amazing. I enjoy what youve got right here, adore what youre stating and the way you say it. You make it entertaining and you even now manage to help keep it wise. I cant wait to go through additional from you. That is really an incredible weblog.

  11. RE: "The last response lives in another universe -maybe Stephen Greenhalgh's PR office."

    Wrong. I live & work & vote in Hammersmith & I have no connection with the council at all.

    So what exactly has Zac Goldsmith got to do with it? You rate his opinion on this? I doubt he has ever once walked down King Street in his life. He has inherited millions, dresses in fine clothes & travels the world in luxury.

    I don't see him shopping in Poundland or Iceland and meanwhile I would like to have my share of glamour arrive in Hammersmith.

    If you think he's worth quoting on the matter then you must be hard-up.

    As for your local cinema, then that's confirmation of your NIMBY status.

    And anyone who thinks the council can put a 'surface level crossing' to the river - across a multiple lane government-owned highway - is unlikely to see reason on anything.

  12. There's already a subway. The building of a bridge will destroy half of the very park it's providing access to.

    Also, cinema good. Home for the blind good. Luxury flats bad. Bad, bad, bad.

  13. It won't destroy 'half the park'.

    The cinema is bad.

    Are you campaigning for improved accommodation for the blind? If so why don't you do that?

    Instead you are using the blind to further your own agenda.

  14. As I understand it the council has withdrawn the plans today.


    I suppose it must be true then!

  16. Great news if true.This is an example where power went to Stephen Greenhalgh's head and his flock of sheep. Planning decisions should be independent to politics. There has been so much waste of time and resources because people have not been listened to. Lets hope the tide has turned and residents are put before developers.

  17. "Are you campaigning for improved accommodation for the blind? If so why don't you do that?"

    It seems a moot point now, given the recent news, but a great start would be to not knock down their accommodation in the first place. Problem solved!