Showing posts with label Kensal Triangle Residents Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kensal Triangle Residents Association. Show all posts

Monday, 15 May 2023

Campaign launched for a low-rise sustainable development as an alternative to Ballymore's tower based proposal at Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's site


 

We have covered several major developments on the borders of Brent because they will affect our local residents  including Brent Cross, Old Oak and O2 Centre at Finchley Road.  Now a major development of the Ladbroke  Sainsbury's site is the subject of a campaign by Kensal Triangle Residents' Association under the banner of Keep Kensal Green.

The Association wants a low rise sustainable development as an alternative to the tower blocks proposed by Ballymore and cite the Unity Place development in South Kilburn as a potential model. The campaign say that nearby residents in Brent should have been consulted:

Climate change threatens every part of the planet. The solution at local level requires collaboration between council, planners and residents.

Our mission is to promote an alternative proposal that provides affordable housing, more trees and green spaces; a plan that our local community can get engaged with that meets environmental standards

This campaign is being organised by KTRA (Kensal Triangle Residents Association) co-ordinating with the wider community in North Kensington, Ladbroke Grove and Notting Hill Gate.

We need 30,000 signatures to stop Ballymore’s existing large scale development in favour of a smaller, low rise, sustainable alternative which has the potential to provide North Kensington with attractive affordable canal-side accommodation which could be the pride of the community. (See our website for details)

 

The proposal

 

Campaigners' illustration of a possible lower rise development

Jude Allen, petition organiser and producers of the above video said:

In 2021, Ballymore announced a strategic partnership with Sainsbury’s to build “Project Flourish”, a £1.7 billion regeneration scheme with 3,500 housing units on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s last remaining brownfield site.

This large scale development which stretches over 18 acres from Ladbroke Grove to North Kensington, features a bigger Sainsbury's surrounded by 20-30 storey high tower blocks, completely at odds with the low rise residential housing of the surrounding area. 

As a local resident, I made the video to provide more information about the development and raise awareness about its potential impact on our local community and the environment.

If we don't stop this development there will be increased traffic, more pollution, 10 years of noisy construction work and following the Southall Gasworks health scare reported in the Guardian on 27, April 2023, potential health risks to local residents from digging up contaminated land on the historical Kensal Gasworks site.

We only have 2 months left to object to this development before Ballymore submit their planning application to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at the end of June.  

 PETITION SITE


Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Border dispute over Moberly/Jubilee sports centre development to be decided tomorrow

Flyer issued by Kensal Trian gle Residents earlier this year
Controversy over developments on the borders of Brent and other boroughs have been quite a feature recently: Brent Cross: (Brent and Barnet), Welsh Harp-West Hendon Estate (Brent and Barnet), Harlesden Incinerator (Brent and Ealing) and are now joined by the Moberly Sports Centre (Brent and Westminster).

Tonight the Moberly application will be heard by the planning committee and a lobby is planned by the mainly Westminster group, Save the Jubilee Sports Centre, to persuade Brent not to grant planning committee. Brent officers' with some conditions have recommended approving the application.

The Moberly is situated in Brent on the border of Westminster but owned and run by Westminster City Council.

Save Our Jubilee campaign has been given space on the blog  LINK of Westminster Labour councillors to argue their case:
The Save Our Jubilee campaign has been fighting Westminster City Council to keep the much-needed sports facilities at the Jubilee Centre, one of Westminster’s two most deprived wards.

Westminster’s plan for the new Moberly sports centre is part of a wider plan which involves the demolition of the Jubilee centre and its replacement by market housing. The plan involves combining most of the facilities provided at the Jubilee and Moberly now in one new centre.

We think it isn’t a good deal for Brent residents. This is why.

1. No affordable housing will be provided to meet the desperate needs of Brent residents. Brent’s Site Specific Allocations DPD identifies the Moberly site as one that could be redeveloped to improve the existing sports and nursery facilities and in addition to provide 104 housing units. Brent would normally expect half of these to be affordable – a valuable contribution to meeting housing needs in the borough. Westminster are proposing 71 flats (fewer than Brent thought the site might accommodate) and all these will be market housing for sale with no affordable units included.

2. Loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. Westminster City Council’s decision to relocate services from the Jubilee to the Moberly site has resulted in a massive new building, seven storeys high at the northern end, which will rob neighbouring homes in Brent of daylight and sunlight. As a result, properties in Chamberlayne Road, City Heights and Noko will experience daylight levels below BRE guidelines, while properties in City Heights and Noko will have no direct sunlight at any time of the day. The Report attempts to justify this on the grounds that the developers of Cityview and Noko should have anticipated the redevelopment of the Moberly site. But they were facing an open space. It was reasonable for everyone to assume that this would be left undeveloped in line with Brent’s planning policies.

3. Loss of outdoor sports facilities. On the north side of the Moberly site there is an 18 x 36 metre floodlit artificial turf pitch used mainly as a football pitch by local youth clubs and adult teams. The report Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities produced jointly by the London Borough of Brent and Sports England in 2008, looked at the distribution of STPs (Synthetic Turf Pitches) across the borough and considered that the south of the borough was adequately served by the pitch at the Moberly. However, if Westminster’s application for the Moberly site is approved, this pitch will be lost and, as a result, wards in the south of Brent will no longer meet minimum standards for outdoor pitch provision. The replacement pitch offered is in Westminster, 1.2 miles away, nearly in Maida Vale – and foreign territory for most of the Brent and Queen’s Park youngsters who use the Moberly now.

4. Replacement, not better provision. Westminster City Council argues that the benefits provided to Brent residents by the new sports centre are so exceptional that Brent’s policies in relation to affordable housing and overshadowing should be set aside We say that, contrary to Westminster’s claims, the benefits offered by the new development are in no way exceptional. The new centre will, firstly, not provide any more usable leisure space than exists now and, secondly, the facilities mainly replace sports facilities already provided in the existing Moberly and Jubilee centres – which include a 25 metre pool, two sports halls, and gym and fitness suites..

For these reasons, we hope that the current planning proposals by Westminster will be refused by Brent Council at the Planning Committee meeting on 9th April.
There were 29 comments opposed to the proposal (along the lines of the above) and 12 in favour on the following grounds:
  • The facility will provide excellent sports facilities in an area which does not have easy access to such facilities
  • The proposed development will benefit sports provision in local schools
  • The proposed development will increase visitors to the area which will be good for local businesses.
  •  The proposed sports facility will benefit the health of local residents.
  •  The building is of an appropriate size similar to neighbouring City View
  • The proposal will be an improvement on the existing dilapidated facilities.
  • The cost of the development will not be to taxpayers but the facilities will benefit all residents

Kensal Triangle Residents' Association have maintained a neutral stance on the issue with opinion divided between supporters and opponents.

There will be an arrangement giving Brent residents access to the Centre. The proposed facility would have a floor area of 9293 sqm and would include the following facilities:
  •  25m 6-lane swimming pool;
  •  8-court sports hall;
  •  Boxing hall
  • Multi-use sports hall
  • Community Activity Room
  • Fitness suite
  • Three exercise studios
  • Health Spa
In its comments supporting the proposals Brent Parks and Sports Department is decidedly bullish:

Brent’s Sports and Parks service feel that the redevelopment of Moberly sports centre will bring fantastic new opportunities for Brent’s residents to take part in a wide range of sports and recreation activities in this state of the art new leisure facility.

Brent has one of the most inactive adult populations in England and the new opportunities that Moberly bring to increase residents ability to become more active is welcomed. Brent has a number of health inequalities across the Borough including high levels of diabetes and obesity and a more active lifestyle through use of this new sports centre will help people lead a healthier life.

The range of facilities is significantly greater than that at the current Moberly centre. 

The inclusion of swimming pools brings a new facility dimension to the Kilburn area and will offer both adults and children the opportunity to learn and take part in swimming. Swimming was the most frequently participated in sports activity across England according to Sport England’s Active People survey and the provision of only a third pool within the Borough of Brent will enable more people to take part in this popular activity.

The range of different facilities spaces available from boxing to 8 court sports hall, studios and community space reflect that a wide and ranging programme will be offered to the local communities. 

From a strategic perspective, the Borough’s Planning for Sport and Active recreation facilities strategy identifies the need for additional publicly accessible fitness stations and upgraded sports hall provision which Moberly will provide.

The Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy has a number of themes which the provision of a new sports centre at Moberly will help to achieve, namely:

Theme 1: Increase provision of appropriate Facilities
Theme 3: Get more people active
Theme 5: Increase sports opportunities for young people
Theme 7: Improve partnership working

It will also help the Council deliver against it’s Corporate priority of ‘a strong community’ and it’s associated outcome of ‘Excellent sports, leisure and cultural facilities used by more people’. Also the priority ‘Improving health and well-being’ and achieving the outcome of ‘More people living healthier and longer lives’.
In the now familiar mantra associated with such developments (cf Willesden Green Library and the luxury flats sold overseas and the upcoming development at Bridge Park complex) Brent Council accepts the view that provision of ANY affordable housing on site is not viable given the developer's provision of the new Sports Centre:

After careful consideration of the viability issues and in light the high quality sports and leisure facility that will be accessible to Brent residents at the same prices as Westminster residents the lack of affordable housing on-site will be acceptable provided there is an appropriately worded clause in the section 106 agreement to claw back any financial surplus that could be used to support the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough
It should make for an interesting discussion tomorrow night. The lobby/demonstration outside Brent Civic Centre is due to start at 6.30pm.

It may not be too late to apply to speak on the issue:  Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer  020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

Thursday, 27 February 2014

Three boroughs near solution after long 'dangerous junction' campaign by residents

Crossing photographs from Father David Ackerman

Guest blog by Jay of Kensal Triangle Residents' Association about a long persistent campaign that now looks as if it will yield results.
 
Positive movement on the Harow Road/Ladbroke Grove Junction!  A solution may well be in sight.
On Friday 7th February representatives from Transport for London, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Brent councils, West One ( the infrastructure management company employed by Westminster Council to manage its traffic planning) and Kensal Triangle Residents Association joined in a meeting kindly organised  and hosted by Fr David Ackerman for a meeting at St John's Vicarage to discuss the Harrow Road /Ladbroke Grove crossing. 

This brought together professionals and locals to address the need for immediate action. The campaign for the provision of safe pedestrian crossing facility has been going for nearly eight years now, and the meeting was arranged to give updates on plans formulated by West One as a result of the last round of surveys.
The meeting proved to be positive on all counts.  It was agreed by all that the attempt to improve the situation by providing wider refuges in the middle of each arm of the junction had not worked at all. West One, in conjunction with TfL are now recommending to all parties that a system be installed with a phase where all vehicle traffic is stopped at the junction to allow a pedestrian crossing phase with the traditional ‘green man’light.  This will allow pedestrians enough time to cross any one arm of the junction.  (it was not proposed to encourage crossing diagonally over the junction as is the case at Oxford Circus)  

There will also be consideration of lane confusion, signage and the hold-ups on Kilburn Lane. 

West One needs to consult with the two other councils to ensure that this solution us agreed by all parties, and further modelling needs to be done to ensure that congestion will not be increased by the new scheme, but the overall message was that positive and effective action is being taken  to make the junction safer for pedestrians and drivers. 

West One could not give a precise timetable for implementation for the plan, but hoped to finish the modelling by the end of March, and installation of the new lights by the end of 2014

The meeting was also notable for its focus on a solution, and Fr David was glad to host a meeting that brought together the most important people who can affect change.  It was extremely helpful and positive to have a meeting so close to the junction concerned, where everyone could see the scale of the problem.

The Background to a Long Campaign

The Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove Junction

KTRA have been campaigning to get ‘green man’ lights at this junction for 8 years.

It took a long time to find out which Borough took responsibility for the junction as it is on the boundary of three boroughs.  Westminster is the lead borough, as it has the south east and north east corners.  R B K and C has the south west corner and Brent the North West.  This is one of the difficulties, as funding is complicated due to shared responsibility between the three boroughs.

Further, as it is a main road, Transport for London is involved, and has to survey the junction to determine what difference a change in phasing would make.  This also has implications on funding any changes.

Almost everyone who lives in the area agrees that the junction is dangerous. It is particularly hazardous for anyone with impaired mobility or eyesight, and it is a nightmare for parents with children, or teachers with school groups trying to cross. It is a huge barrier in the way of any attempts to get more children walking to school

Over the years we have delivered a petition of over 1000 signatures (the previous incumbent at the church collected some of them from the congregation) two long scrolls of wallpaper covered with drawings and comments, many form children, asking for the junction to be made safe, and attended two meetings at Portcullis House arranged by Glenda Jackson with representatives from all t he boroughs to try and find a way forward.  Martin Low from Westminster Council has said in one of these meetings that he is not averse to the idea of a pedestrian phase at the lights, but it depends on TfL and price.

Our position is
1).  Even though there have not been any fatalities or major injuries the junction is dangerous.  There are people who get the bus one stop to Sainsbury’s rather than cross the road there.  There is no time when it is safe for pedestrians to cross any arm of the junction

2) It can only get worse. The junction is used by several different groups of school children as well as  anyone getting off the number 18 to get a bus going down Ladbroke Grove.  In the morning and evening rush hours it is particularly bad.  As the area is developed more and more there will be more pressure on the junction – especially as Sainsbury’s remains the only large supermarket in the area.

3) Widening the refuges in the centre of each arm has not made a difference - most of them did not last a week.  They did not tackle the central problem; that it is unsafe to cross the road.

4) Every junction on the Harrow Road from Harlesden clock to the Edgeware Road has a pedestrian phase, except this one.  There are also numerous pedestrian crossings along the Harrow Road.

Every Junction on Chamberlaine Road from Kensal Rise Station down to the Harrow Road has a pedestrian phase.

There are no traffic lights  on Ladbroke Grove until you get to Ladbroke Grove Station, where there is a separate pedestrian crossing controlled by lights.  It is obviously generally accepted that on all of these roads pedestrian safety needs to be ensured by the provision of light controlled crossings.

5) We consider that putting a pedestrian phase into the Crossing will not cause more traffic queues. 
Coming down Chaimberlaine Road from Kensal Rise the traffic is held up by the lights at Harvist Road and Bannister Road: it is more often than not fairly clear after both of these junctions until cars reach the bend by Ilbert Street: congestion is caused there by the narrowness of the road and parked cars at any time of day or night.  Crossing the Harrow Road is relatively straightforward, except for right turning vehicles.

Coming up Ladbroke Grove, congestion is caused by the two roundabouts at Barlby road and the entrance to Sainsbury’s.  This can cause tailbacks to Ladbroke Grove Station.  Once over the roundabout at Sainsbury’s cars move freely to join a short queue at the Harrow Road lights

There is congestion all along the Harrow Road from Harlesden: it can take seven minutes to get from the Scrubs Lane Junction to the lights at Kensal Green Station.  There is then usually some clear road before the tailback at the Ladbroke Grove Junction.  This tailback is caused by the poor layout of the junction and the bus lane.  The road essentially becomes single lane, with space for only four or five cars to pull into the left hand lane at the junction in front of the number 18 bus stop. Consequently, most of the cars wishing to continue east along the Harrow Road are stuck behind cars attempting to turn right into Ladbroke Grove – and only about four of these make it across the junction in any given phase of the lights.  Moving the bus stop back a few yard would help – it is still set up for the now defunct bendy buses,  and does not need to be anything like as long as it is. 

There is much less problem for traffic coming out of Central London on the Harrow Road: there are two lanes and a left filter lane at eh junction, and although it is still nerve-racking for vehicles turning right up Kilburn Lane, cars going straight on or turning left are not impeded.

A light system with a pedestrian phase, and with right turn filters on the traffic phases would be of benefit to pedestrians and drivers alike


Wednesday, 30 November 2011

HS2 vanity project a 'disgrace' at time of massive cuts


Last night's meeting sought to re-galvanise the High Speed Rail 2 campaign ahead of the decision on whether to proceed with the project which is expected to be announced by Justine Greening MP on December 20th.

Among the issues that were discussed were:
  • The fact that the carbon emissions from the trains will be higher per passenger than car travel.
  • The project is a standalone one sponsored initially by Lord Adonis without any links with a strategic transport development plan.
  • The lack of connectivity of HS2 (especially with HS1) and the lack of any concrete plans/station locations north of Birmingham.
  • The economic case assumes time travelling on trains is 'wasted but we all know people work on trains.
  • The costing of £32bn for the whole project does not include the many farm bridges that will be required, works needed as a result of the Environmental Impact Assessment, and the rolling stock.
  • In places under Kensal the roof of the tunnel will be less than 10metres below some houses and there is no assessment of the noise and vibration that will be made by 250mph trains as they brake going into Old Oak Common.
  • Because Euston will lack platform space we will lose the Overground link with Euston.
  • Technology does not exist as yet for running 18 trains per hour in each direction at these speeds.
  • The ongoing subsidy for HS2 will benefit the richest in society and no figures have been published for the eventual fare.
  • The Transport Select Committee Report on HS2 raises so many issues around context, finance, environmental impact, number of trains per hour that it amounts to requesting that they go back to the drawing board.
  • A Westminster Council report, although ostensibly against the project, is aggressively challenging on the route and other issues.
In discussion it was suggested that campaigners should not be duped into concentrating on the detail but instead focus  on what the £32bn could be spent on instead of HS2 at a time when public services are being cut and other railways need investment. A leaf should be taken from the St Paul's Occupiers and the project exposed as a ' @$*&%£#' disgrace'.

The meeting agreed that a bullet point update was requested that could then be used to write to MPs, including' off-route' ones, as well as London Assembly Members.

The Green Party passed this motion on HS2 at its Cardiff Conference:
The Green Party believes that long-distance service provision should not concentrate on high speeds where this will affect local service provision or take up and excessive amount of limited resources.
 Current proposals for a new north-south high speed rail route are based on assumptions about continuing growth in mobility, energy use and CO2 emissions which are not compatible with green party policy.
The Green Party does not support the current (2011) high speed rail proposals known as HS2 but will review this policy if and when evidence emerges that HSR is embedded within an overall policy context that can deliver reductions in the demand for transport, energy use, land take and CO2 emissions.
Further information:
www.stopthetunnel.blogspot.com
www.ktra.co.uk
http://pancamdenhs2alliance.org/