Wembley Matters has previously written about the proposed high-rise development on the site of Saisnbury's and the old gas works beside the Grand Union canal on the border of Brent and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). LINK
Keep Kensal Green LINK put forward alternative low-rise plans for the site and raised concerns about the use of contaminated land.
The hybrid plan for two of the principals involved are now to be decided by January 31st with a closing date for comments Friday of this week, January 12th.
There are nearly a thousand comments on the K&C planning portal LINK in support, objecting and neutral. Those in support are often just a few words 'more housing', 'homes', 'more jobs' and clearly from people desperate for affordable housing and others want to see a larger Sainsbury's (with coffee shop):
As someone renting a council
house and looking to buy, I see this as a positive change. It's about providing
housing for those who need it and enhancing our community, something I support
The addition homes is a
significant step towards helping the housing crisis, especially for families
struggling with the high costs of private renting. It's vital to provide not
just more homes but affordable options too.
Living in a one-bedroom flat
with my husband and two children has been challenging. The development's
promise of new homes, could be a life-changer for families like mine.
There aren't enough homes
for local families on a low income.
I support affordable homes
and this development
We are definitely in need of
a large supermarket. But there must be the infrastructure to support it.
We need more space for free
more social housing and sport facility and make commercial shop with reasonable
rent need. Parking – as a business owner, we need at least 1 hour free parking
next to the local shop.
Objections, because they have to address valid planning issues write at much more length.
This submission questions whether the development will actually meet local needs and supports a low-rise alternative.
There are many reasons that
Project Flourish should not be granted permission, but my main objection is to
the practice of building a development that relies on being purchased by
overseas investors.
It does nothing for the
community - in fact it is extremely detrimental to people's health. I've been
working in the area where Ballymore built Good Luck Hope near Canning Town and
I have proof that all the more than 50% of the properties, even though sold,
remain empty and unoccupied. Not only are most of their tower blocks ugly and
dull, they are literally stealing the light from local residents. The architect
Thomas Heatherwick recently stated that `ugly buildings are a health issue'.
You only have to go and see how Good Luck Hope has turned a beautiful Riverside
into a bleak and desolate place, where very few people actually live and the
wind whips around the artificial canyons.
I believe that a low rise
sustainable development is the only solution. In reality, it will house just as
many people as Ballymore's project simply because, as aforementioned, half it
will be empty. The ludicrously named Project Flourish will require tens of
thousands of tons of highly polluting concrete, whereas a low rise development about
a third would be necessary and by using green concrete reducing the CO2
emissions. Their proposal will require deeper foundations disturbing more
of the potentially toxic soil. Whereas a low rise development could employ
sustainable methods as used in the London Olympic site to detoxify the earth.
As our planet approaches the
brink of climate heating, do we really want the legacy of human beings to be
that we allowed greedy property developers to win out and, whilst lining their
pockets, destroy the well-being to so many people in the Ladbroke Grove and surrounding
areas.
Yes, they are creating
providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs and wealth, but that is short-term. For
the next ten years, it will overload the already congested infrastructure and
fill the air with dust, noise and fumes. What a wonderful opportunity this is
for the Royal Borough of Kensington &
Chelsea to develop the Gaswork site into some of the most beautiful housing
sustainable development, providing homes for thousands of people that will
truly benefit the community and cost a fraction of this proposed high-rise development.
The Golborne Forum makes a comprehensive submission objecting to the scheme:
Kensal Canal Side /
Sainsbury's Supermarket site redevelopment proposal by Ballymore and
Sainsbury's
The Golborne Forum objects
to this proposal;
Hybrid application
There are 3 sections of this
brown field site but this application is applicable to only two of the principal
owners of the site. This application provides an incomplete picture of what will eventually be the final
development of this extensive but restricted site as it is bound by a canal and
a railway line north and south with land restrictions to east prohibiting any
access or egress to Wood Lane and only one access point from Ladbroke Grove (canal
path access should not be considered as part of the access provision).
Soil contamination and
remediation
The site has a long history
of contamination; the remediation plan is insufficient to explain how it will
deal with soil decontamination, movement and clearance of contaminated soil, effective and safe
management of the process going beyond dust control and air contamination and
air pollution. There are insufficient safeguards in this plan to ensure the
health and quality of life for individuals living in, around and near the
development; in RBKC and the wider environment. It does little to address
chronic under provision of truly affordable social housing and social housing.
Access and egress and
public safety
Accessing and leaving the
site is insufficient for this proposal and there remains a third of the site
for future development which would put further strain on plans as outlined
here. The intersection of what is called the Sainsbury Roundabout where is
meets Ladbroke and near to Kensal Road junction with Ladbroke Grove is
currently unable to cope with the smooth movement of traffic at times of high
demand. It can already take 20 minutes to move north from Ladbroke Underground
Station up Ladbroke to this roundabout on a TFL bus.
The proposals to have what
is effectively a single High Street leading from the point of access to the
newly provided supermarket while also allowing for motorised deliveries to the supermarket, new shops,
residential tower blocks and building will not be able to cope with the need at
times of high volume. This will result in stalled traffic backing up along Ladbroke Grove heading north
and south and Kensal Road accessing Ladbroke Grove will result in increased air
pollution in what is effectively residential areas and routes of access to and from
schools for children and adults who are walking. It also means that public
transport will be less reliable and attractive to users to encourage them out
of their cars.
The consequence of this will be a continued deterioration of air
quality for residents of this part of west and north London and is particularly
serious for vulnerable infants and children. This will also
create difficulties for cyclists for whom there is insufficient consideration
of travel routes on Ladbroke Grove and into / out of the Kensal Canal Site
proposed residential and commercial development. Additionally it is likely to
drive more cyclists onto the Canal Path
which is a shared route with pedestrians - this path was not designed for
shared used and in the recent past, cyclists were not permitted to access the
route. Now that they do it is clear that there are issues with cyclists and pedestrians
sharing this existing provision. There is no evidence that there are plans to
upgrade this canal path in the development, to the east or to the west.
This congestion at the
entry/egress point is an issue for emergency services vehicles. It will slow
response times, impede access, and feasibly make it impossible to gain access
by road at times of heavy usage. There
are no obvious solutions to potentially life limiting events.
Super density of housing
and population
Only 2 of 3 principals in
this site are applying so this is an incomplete and misleading view of final
development proposals for this site
The application is not clear
about final social housing proposals and affordable housing split along with
market housing, but the information that is provided is insufficient to meet
current legal requirement for
approximately 35% and much less that the Mayor of London plans expectations. It
is also unclear how social and affordable housing is to be defined - but is
sufficiently vague as to be an irrelevant question. It is sufficient to point
out that it is inadequate to meet the needs
of the Borough.
Provision of replaced supermarket
and then a " parade of shops and business on a new High Street"
concept creating additional demands by daily visitor numbers and demands on the local services both by
private vehicle, delivery vehicles and public transport before allowing for cycle
and footfall demands on the roads footpaths and canal paths
In this part of the
development there is a plan for five tall buildings at 29 stories each, as well
as a number of surrounding blocks. The height of these tower blocks in neither
in keeping with the local area nor with the intentions of RBKC. They will
impact on the skyline, in issues of overshadowing on the Cemetery and for residents
in Kensal House.
The plan for up to 3500 new
residences would create a possible 5000 + new residents and the subsequent
demands on other services; transport, environment, schools, surgeries, sporting facilities(indoor and out),
green space provision and tree cover – this does not include forecasts for
additional future development on the remaining 1/3 of site not part of this
application and planning must take into consideration possible future demands
on the site and its services.
Provision of green space
and tree cover
This plan puts insufficient
stress on the provision of ground level greenspace and grass areas, nor does it
go far in addressing the concern of the wider community for increased mature
tree cover which is recognised as an important part of supporting communities
with cleaner air and increased shade in times of high temperatures and
sunlight.
The loss of Canalside House
so that its footprint can become a green park like space is a loss to the
community of an important affordable space for community organisations. It is
also a loss of an architectural
feature which shows the area's history and is a building which proves to be a
welcome visual reminder of RBKC's northern access route. There is much talk of
a "landmark building" at this junction and yet one already exists but
is under threat of demolition. It seems that this building should be preserved to
meet this aim.
It is not clear how access
to the canal footpath will be enhanced and designed to ensure that the path is
integrated into the plans for this area. It seems to lose out to designs for
the built environment rather than
enhancing the natural environment with grassed areas and tree cover.
Architectural and Place
impact
This site is at the heart of
a number of key historic sites for this area: Kensal Green Cemetery, The Boat
House Activity Centre, Canalside House, Kensal House, Canal footpath and access.
The plans do not enhance and
indeed they destroy some of these features. The main issue is the density of
building for the area and infrastructures extant and needed in the future for the implementation of the
plan as submitted. Reconsideration is needed for the provision of the amount of
truly social housing as well as the need for additional market housing in RBKC,
of green space and tree coverage and amenity space.
Underpinning these
objections and concerns are the lack of clarity of safe and effective soil contamination
and any resultant airborne contamination which will result from this or any process required to ensure
the site is safe for residential development and public use.
In summary:
The Golborne Forum objects
to this planning application
PP/23/06575 because:
1. We are asked to comment
on a planning application which the wider community knows is incomplete as it
involves only two of the principal parties on this site.
2. The decontamination
approach and solutions for the site is unsatisfactorily addressed and therefore
risks creating serious health issues for the local community, and a wider
catchment
3. The transportation
infrastructure solutions do not resolve major issues around the needs of the
emergency services, the proposed new residents and retailers business, their
clients and the wider community who need to use Ladbroke Grove as their
principle transportation route; private vehicle, public transport, cycling and walking.
The resulting traffic chaos will contribute to poorer health outcome for local
infants, children, adults with underlying conditions and the general public.
4. The super density
proposed changes for the worse the skyline, puts pressures on local services
and infrastructures, amenity services and green space amenity provision.
5. It gives insufficient
attention or provision for green space amenity and increased tree cover
necessary for a healthy environment.
6. It provides little
safeguards for existing architectural and historical prominence and sense of place.
The Golborne Forum
recognises that there is a need for increased provision of homes, both in the
social rented and in the market sector. However, this proposal does not meet
this aim without serious impact on the community in the short and the immediate
term but also long term! The Forum would welcome proposals that ensure the
development is safe, has limited and timed impact on the environment and health
concerns, is in tune with the sense of community and history of the
local area and meets the housing needs of the socially rented sector as well as
the market sector in an equitable and impactful way.
