Golborne Forum responds to Borough consultation
The following response to the LDF Building on Success: Core Strategy and North Kensington Plan “Towards Preferred Options” Public Consultation Draft July 29 – October 2008 is submitted on behalf of the Golborne Forum referred to as the Forum throughout this response. October 2008
This has been discussed by the Golborne Forum Board and is based on the printed content of the plan.
The Forum has reviewed the sections referring to the North Kensington Plan Area and this response is a follow-up to our response to the previous consultation. We agree with the decision to expand the three Plan Areas to five as explained in the Development Plan Document – referred to as the Document throughout this response.
The Forum will focus on Section 3 of the Document, but agrees with the Council’s decision to look to all the Borough’s development plans contained within the document, where they have a particular impact on plans for North Kensington and on Golborne especially.
Golborne and Trellick Spatial Area (13.4)
13.4.1 The Forum would stress that Golborne Road caters for a wider shopping market than predominantly a “small local population” and has been a destination shopping area for a number of years, particularly on Saturdays. This is missing in some of the Document’s recommendations and interpretations of Golborne’s development needs.
13.4.3 The statistic of 18% vacancy rates within Golborne must not be seen in isolation from other development plans in the Document; eg the Kensal Plan indicates that by developing 3 areas for residential or commercial or a combination of both, it will create additional footfall along Portobello Road to and including Golborne Road. However the Kensal Plan makes various development suppositions and it is not clear that these are likely to come about and the Forum needs more evidence that this will in fact result in additional footfall. The Forum is concerned that any increased shop and retail provision does not exacerbate vacancy rates along Golborne Road, along the section of Portobello Road between Bonchurch Road and Chesterton Road/Golborne Road junction.
The Kensal Plan has many presuppositions on the development of the Gas Works and surrounding sites, and Crossrail developments – implying that even were they to be successfully completed, there would be an automatic connectivity to the Barlby Road, Ladbroke Grove and possible reopened Portobello Road access Intersection/roundabout. This ignores the impact of the physical barrier caused by the rail line and the bleak expanse of the bridge spanning the railway along Ladbroke Grove, the distance from this bridge past the Grand Union Centre and Kensal House to the north to the roundabout by Sainsbury, the distance across the Sainsbury development to the possible redeveloped Gas Works, the unlikelihood of there being a Crossrail Station being able to be any closer than this development. Looking at an aerial map, it is difficult to identify how a Crossrail Station would connect directly to Ladbroke Grove. Nor is it clear how any potential redevelopment of the Sainsbury site would bring future development closer to Ladbroke Grove for footfall impact and the area described.
The Kensal plan is based on developing the Gas works but it is not clear when or indeed if The Gas board will stop using them. It promotes use of the old Eurostar sheds, but Crossrail say that the site is needed as part of the over Crossrail construction plan – and add that Crossrail would really like to use the TFL Bus Garage at Great West Road, therefore using the Eurostar site as the new Bus Garage. Yet access to this site is limited and with no road access directly from Ladbroke Grove unless it goes along the Sainsbury and Gas Works road. The Forum is concerned at the traffic congestion and additional air pollution this will create in the North of the Borough. Access along Barlby Road would create the same concerns.
The Forum would want to see more detail about the impact on Golborne Road businesses, market stalls and the area’s distinct character.
The Forum would also want to see the proposals for Portobello Road extending north from Oxford Gardens, with enhancements to the market facilities such as electrical outlets made available on this stretch of the Portobello Road for potential market stall expansion actively pursued and supported.
The Forum would also want to have the various Portobello Road Markets Committees involved in any plans to extend the market shops to an opened Ladbroke Grove – would this support the survival of Portobello Market and its aims to develop further? The Forum believes that Golborne Road’s success and survival is linked to closer association with the Portobello Market. The Forum believes that this is also linked to plans to develop the entrance to Ladbroke Grove Underground Station – extending its role to an additional “Gateway” to the Portobello Market – via Thorpe Close and Oxford Gardens. The Forum believes that this focus will have great positive impact on Golborne and its market and must be a central development.
13.4.4 The Forum strongly agrees with the observation that the Golborne Road is a centre of unique character and should be treated as a Special District Centre like Portobello Road and not as a Local Centre. It also notes that many of the shop fronts along Golborne Road have original features and The Forum strongly recommends that provision is in place to safeguard these features in any individual shop redevelopment.
13.4.5 As stated in our response to 13.4.3, the Forum needs to be convinced that an active street connection between Notting Hill and Kensal – a distance of approximately 2 miles – is a likelihood. Were it to be so, would its impact be positive or negative? It must also be noted that the Forum would want assurances that residents of Golborne and the Portobello area are not disadvantaged by any such initiative – impacting on increased noise and traffic and ultimately the right of residents to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. There is no evidence to support the assertion that this would stimulate trade in Golborne Road – unlike the proposal to encourage footfall up from Oxford Gardens and the Westway flyover.
13.4.6 The Forum agrees that Trellick Tower should be seen as a special case and should not be seen as a precedent for future tall buildings in the area. The Forum is concerned that the associated plans for the development of the recently demolished Edenham Care Home do not include plans for additional care facilities for the elderly. This need is clearly identified elsewhere in the Document (9.9) and The Forum would like to see development for supported housing and housing for older people.
13. 4.8 The Forum would want to see the section of Portobello Road north of Oxford Gardens (often known as the Portobello Wall) be provided with electrical outlets to allow market stalls to operate along this stretch and become a conduit for increased footfall to Golborne Road market. See comments above about the need for further information and research for taking the market further than the existing shops north of the Golborne Road/Portobello Road junction.
13.4.10 The Forum agrees that the Golborne Road has a unique character, and repeats its assertion that the Golborne Road should be designated a Special District Centre.
13. 4.11The Forum agrees that further evidence is required but draws attention to earlier comments about the links between Golborne Road and Portobello Road being close and asks that the two Roads be considered as one destination in future development proposals. The Forum also repeats its view that the Edenham development should contain some provision for supported housing and housing and care for older people – to replace some of the provision removed by its demolition.
The Forum would also like to see access via the Westbourne Park Underground Station considered as important to future development for Golborne and Golborne Road in particular. The Forum would see this as important, if not more so, than increased pedestrian links to Harrow Road across the Grand Union Canal.
13.4.12 Wornington Green Estate – the Forum has previously submitted an extensive response to the last consultation on proposals for this area. The Forum continues to be keen to be consulted and kept informed on any plans for this redevelopment. We also need to stress that Wornington Green is a part of Golborne and therefore any plans for its development must be seen as part of a wider development plan for the whole area. The impact of the development plans cannot be seen in isolation from the impact on all the community; residents, traders, businesses and visitors and not just to the residents of Wornington Green itself.
13.4.13 The Forum notes that the Venture Centre and Athlone Gardens are owned by the Council and would like to see it consistently reinforced that these public amenities are integral to any plans for Wornington Green Estate. The Forum also notes the observations in section (9.13) Amenity Space. Section (9.13.2) stressing the obligation on developers to …..explore all options for the provision of new private outdoor space… and the Forum would take that to read as additional to and not instead of existing public amenities such as The Venture Centre and Athlone Gardens.
13.4.17 The Forum agrees with the concerns about the possible relocation of Athlone Gardens as any part of the Estate’s redevelopment. This Document’s section (10.3) Air Quality makes this a particularly important issue. (10.3.3) outlines how air quality and air pollution is not only caused by vehicle emissions – a very clear contributor to Golborne’s poor air quality due to the A40 fly over, and nitrate particles due to the bisection of the community by the railways, but also it highlights that dust generated during construction is a factor. (10.3.4) goes on to show how in contrast to the negative impact of the above, it can be counteracted to some degree by the provision of green space, trees and planting positively contributing to improving air quality by producing oxygen and absorbing particulate matter….parks in the Capital are often referred to as the “green lungs” of London. Therefore any plan to reduce the size of Athlone Gardens during any construction project would be counter productive to the overall health of the entire Golborne community. It is hard to see how there could be any justification for building on any part of Athlone Gardens, a vital community amenity, during a programme of redevelopment.
13.4.8 The Forum needs to be convinced of the impact on the wider community and its residents – as outlined above in (13.4.3) – on the assertion that “Central to any potential redevelopment….realignment of Portobello Road…. with Ladbroke Grove… Barlby Road Junction”. The Forum would expect to see this explored further in any future plans submitted by the developers and its part in the results of the Environmental Impact Study which will be central to any proposed redevelopment.
13.4.9 The Forum is in agreement with proposals to the Sustainability Appraisal for social rented housing and the provision of further market housing. We note that the Document refers to “intermediate” housing needs in earlier sections. The term “intermediate” is never clearly defined and The Forum would welcome such a clarification. Without it, we are unable to comment on how the Estate’s plans for social housing would meet this aim and therefore see how it helps to address the housing needs of the Borough.
13.4.21 The Forum is generally in favour of mixed tenure housing, not-with-standing the need for clarification of “intermediate” housing mentioned above and would agree that there must be no loss of “affordable housing” if that covers “social housing”. What is not clear is how the planned market housing will be considered as affordable property to buy and rent for the current residents of the Estate and local people. As this area is in the top 5% of the most disadvantaged areas of England, it is unlikely that the residents will be able to move from social to market housing and therefore it can not be part of the justification for mixed tenure (though The Forum accepts that there are other factors which would justify this approach).
13.4b The Forum will look to The Council to be mindful of the concerns of residents but would want the definition of residents to be inclusive of all who live in Golborne and not just those residents of the Wornington Green Estate and that this should also be extended to the traders and business people who are so important to the unique character of Golborne.
The Forum has also considered some of the wider implications of the North Kensington Plan. Following is a summary of our views and observations.
A. Notting Hill Spatial Area – We agree that Notting Hill Gate should be considered separately from the main parts of North Kensington. We also recognize that the opening of Westfields will impact on Notting Hill Gate business – as it will on the role of the Hammersmith and City line and the Ladbroke Grove Station. In the case of Golborne and Portobello Road, there are potential advantages that need to be grasped, but business at the Gate will need to assess these pressures. North Kensington as a whole will need to look at how the development at Westfield can be made into an advantage for all local business. The Forum would want to see the extension of buses south along Ladbroke Grove, joining with Holland Park Avenue. In fact buses could then integrate with travel to and from the new Westfields – offering connections for job seekers and for encouraging shoppers to travel to Notting Hill Gate to gateway into Portobello Road. We could also see Ladbroke Grove Underground serving a similar purpose for the north and central part of Notting Hill Gate. The shops and offices of Notting Hill Gate need to be supported in becoming an attractive destination for mutually beneficial potential cross business development. The Forum would also want careful consideration to be made before reducing office space at Notting Hill Gate – as this can be a major positive influence on the wider shopping and residential nature of all of North Kensington. The Forum can see the justification for redeveloping the underground entrances – as Notting Hill needs to be maintained as a major hub and public transport intersection.
B. Notting Barns West – The Forum agrees that there is a difficulty with access to shops and also to the newly created jobs opportunities of Westfields for North Kensington residents and would like to see pedestrian, cycle and bus routes developed. The Forum notes that the Document asserts that Ladbroke Grove is moderately well served for buses, but would dispute this statement. The bus service only goes as far south as Elgin Crescent. There is a clear need for a bus route to continue south on Ladbroke Grove to the intersection with Holland Park Avenue. This proposed bus route should then head west to connect with the new facilities of Westfields and ideally then continue south to support connection of the north and south of the Borough. There may be a role for an additional bus route south which they turns east to Notting Hill Gate!
We also welcome news that the Hammersmith and City line will continue to be upgraded along with the stations – as stated above.
The Forum notes that Kensington Memorial Park has received investment to upgrade to Green Flag standard and Avondale Park is scheduled for investment in the Council’s Parks Strategy. We also note the Council’s assertion that there is a general lack of quality public open space in this area. This is also the case in Golborne and we would advocate that the Council’s Parks Strategy should include plans to enhance Athlone Gardens.
We strongly support the view that Kensington Sports Centre should not be relocated as it is well placed centrally to meet the broadest cross section of North Kensington residents’ needs. The existing facilities need to be retained, in particular the only public swimming pool in Kensington, which is a vital community amenity and asset. The Forum will be interested in any proposals to upgrade the existing facilities, but the building, which is relatively recent, should not be torn down.
The Forum will be interested to hear of proposals for the development of a much needed Secondary School in North Kensington and would look to it to be a maintained community school. We would not want any new school to be considered as a School Playing Fields free development – which has been done in the Chelsea Academy. Any new Secondary school needs to be more like the Holland Park School development which provides for a footprint similar in size to the Chelsea Academy but surrounded by grounds as the Document highlights.
C. Kensal Spatial Area – The Forum does not feel that the plans for the development to the three potential sites are clearly explained and find it difficult to provide informed comment. There is substantial supposition but these suppositions are then used to inform plans for other areas - without justification or evidence to show they will become reality. It leads on suggestions for Crossrail, but then makes it clear that access to the rail sites is unclear. The plans to move the bus depot must be resisted, simply because access to the site will not be in the best interests of the community with increased pollution, traffic and noise. It is unclear what provision will be made for enhanced vehicular access to the site. The use of the Gas Works is not clear, and the implications of the “Buncefield effect” will delay any development proposals. The Forum would be wary of decisions based on current facts and unsubstantiated forecast potential.
Proposals for footbridges across the Grand Union Canal at this site are unclear as they would not lead any where – the cemetery walls being an impediment.
D. Portobello and Westbourne Grove Spatial Area – many of the comments in this section have informed comments in our detailed response in the Golborne section.
We would agree that Portobello Road and Westbourne Grove should not be merged in planning.
We would agree that more could be done with the entrances and access to Westbourne Park Station and if the back gate were to be developed then more thought could be given to directing travel across the underground line along the existing footbridge to Golborne. We note that no comment has been made about reopening the overground access on the Ealing Line and would support this being considered along with Kensal as a Crossrail station as the location is already fit for further development. It would also support directing further footfall north and west along Elkstone Road to the Golborne Market.
Submitted by The Golborne Forum Board as part of the public consultation July 29 – October 10 2008.