Just Playing Chicken

Many in K&C will be familiar already with the controversy surrounding the latest planning fad for creating so-called shared space (vehicular & pedestrian) roads, where kerbs and pavements are non-existent, and pedestrians play chicken with the traffic. The grotesquely expensive Exhibition Road is the most controversial of these recent little experiments with pedestrian safety, but it is by no means the only one.

The ‘much improved’ Lancaster Green, which is one of the features of the KALC development, will not only be much reduced in size, it will also have one of these new experimental roads right through the middle of it.

Here’s what the Planning Application Design and Access Statement says about it;

“The north-south link is a shared surface, accommodating both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. While vehicles can enter and move through this space, they are not the dominant users, this is not a road in the conventional sense, it is treated as a common space with a unified floorscape, devoid of kerbs and standard roadside markings”

One thing is certain, the kids of Lancaster West, who play in this area, will need to smarten up and get street-wise pretty fast if they hope to survive.  Either that or find somewhere else to play.

What do you think Mums?

An Alien Landscape

What planet do you suppose this picture shows?  Yes, you’ve guessed right.  It’s the Planet Grenfell, seen through the warped eyes of the landscape architects employed by RBKC to destroy Lancaster Green. It’s an artist’s impression of the area that will lie between the base of Grenfell Tower and the south side of the Kensington Aldridge Academy. At least we think that’s what it shows, but the plain truth is that this angular, alienated and alienating landscape is so grotesque that we are struggling to make sense of it.  Don’t just take our word for it. You can see for yourself if you download the Design and Access Statement that accompanies the Planning Application (page 53)

http://rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?address=&streetname=&postcode=&ward=&consarea=&caseyear=12&casenumber=01833&proposal=&decisionyear=&decisionmonth=&appealref=&batch=20&id=PP/12/01833&cn=Taylor Young&type=application&tab=tabs-planning-1

Just in case you’re wondering, here’s what the academy itself will look like from the same viewpoint, more or less.  Do not adjust your set. This really is the bizarre unearthly landscape in which the children of Grenfell Tower will have to play in this grave new world they have planned for us.

Update 6th July…

Oops…forgot to say. This isn’t exactly the view that local residents will have of the southside of the academy, as there will be a seven foot fence in the way to keep the Lancaster West brats out, and make sure they don’t spoil it all by getting too close. Let’s not forget that, like all academies, this particular carbuncle will be privately owned.

PEOPLE OF LANCASTER WEST…..

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!

IT’S NEARLY TOO LATE ALREADY!

Site Contamination

One of the concerns raised by the Grenfell Action Group in recent months is what level of ground contamination might exist throughout the site. Given the history of the site and the many previous industrial and other uses dating right back to the ‘Piggeries and Potteries’ period of the 19th century, these concerns would certainly seem to be justified.

A significant proportion of the site, in the area earmarked for the academy complex, was formerly occupied by the Silchester Road Baths built in the 1880’s and demolished in 1979. The demolition rubble from this structure is believed to have been used as infill throughout the site, including the hilly parts of Lancaster Green.  So, is the ground here contaminated with toxic material, and if so, where is it?

The Planning Application for the KALC development includes a statement claiming that the planners had no knowledge of any contamination of the site, and did not suspect any. Please see the snapshot (below) of the part of the Planning Application form where this claim is made.

However, the contamination assessment, also called the geo-environmental assessment, found toxic contamination, specifically lead and chloromethane, at several locations, exceeding safe human exposure levels. The lead contamination appears to be well above safe levels.  Please see a second snapshot below.

Question: Why would they state in the Planning Application that contamination of the site was  neither known nor suspected when it is clear from the Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report that it was suspected, and was then confirmed by the Geo-Environmental Assessment? Was this just carelessness, or was it a cynical attempt to mislead the Major Planning Development Committee by offering false assurances to discourage them from reading the technical reports? Answers on a postcard please……

There is also the unresolved question of asbestos contamination which was also suspected by the consultants. At the time that the Silchester Baths was built in the 1880’s asbestos was widely used, particularly as insulation in industrial and municipal buildings. It would therefore seem highly likely that the Silchester Baths contained lots of it. Although the dangers of asbestos were known from quite early in the 20th Century, the full extent of the risk was not widely known or discussed until much later, and the first legislation to outlaw its use, and control its disposal, was not introduced in the UK until 1985.  One has to wonder therefore, how much asbestos was uncovered during demolition of the Silchester Baths in 1979, and whether this was safely disposed of, or was simply buried with the other rubble on site.

The contamination assessment fails to adequately answer this question. According to the report, asbestos testing was carried out at just five unspecified locations, where none was found. However, it is clear from the map showing the locations of all the test holes that very few asbestos tests were carried out within the footprint of the Silchester Baths, three at most, more likely two, and possibly only one.

We should remember that only five locations were tested for asbestos throughout the entire site, including the Leisure Centre area. If we suppose a couple of tests over there, and at least one in the Lancaster Green mound (where lead was found), that leaves, at best, only two asbestos tests for the rest of the site. Maybe they were both in the car-park, and maybe they were not.

Can we have confidence that the asbestos testing was adequate, and was correctly targetted ?

And what about the lead and chloromethane?

How dangerous are the levels found?

How will the contamination be safely removed?

And when, if ever, were they intending to share this information with us?

Archived Posts

We have begun archiving some older material by moving it onto secondary pages. The first of these archived pieces is the ‘Beginnings’ article, which describes in detail the history of the KALC planning process from the Core Strategy onwards. You can find this via a link on the bottom of the banner. We have also added a short introduction to the Grenfell Action Group which you can find via the ‘About’ link.  Also on this page you will find some advice on how best to comment on, and object to, the Planning Application – a must read for opponents of the KALC  project.

Planning Policy Guidance and Lancaster Green

The Governments Planning Policy Guidance for Open Spaces (PPG 17) was drawn up to protect and safeguard open spaces, green spaces, and  other outdoor recreational spaces from the threat posed by creeping urbanisation and the constant pressure towards uncontrolled and intensive development.

Councillors and Council Officers have certainly paid lip service to this guidance in planning the KALC development, but their actions do not match their words. During the consultation for the planning brief they falsely claimed that the KALC project would satisfy the requirements of  PPG 17.

More recently, now that the architects have done their worst, they have begun claiming that the development will ‘create more green space by enlarging Lancaster Green’, and that it will deliver ‘more usable green space and an improved Lancaster Green’.

The maps on the left were included among the 105 documents submitted by the Council with the Planning Application. They show before and after views of the site. The green shading shows green-space and the grey shading shows hard-surface external space. The maps show clearly that there will be a significant loss of green space resulting from the proposed development.

The Council’s claims to the contrary are quite simply wrong, and appear to be a deliberate lie intended to mislead the public. These statements, and others like them, have distorted the consultation process, enabling the Council to mislead many residents  unfamilar with the Lancaster Green area into believing that the project has been well designed, that the needs of local residents have been properly and respectfully addressed, and that local opposition to the plans is just knee-jerk nimbyism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The character of the area, and it’s value and amenity to local residents, will be utterly changed. The massive Academy and Leisure Centre structures, and the paved areas that serve them, will completely dominate the landscape. This is, and always has been, an exercise in reckless and intrusive over-development which will be realised at great cost to the local community.

We present below some extracts from the Minister of State’s Planning Policy Guidance for Open Spaces, aka PPG 17, and invite you to form your own judgement as to whether RBKC has had proper regard to this guidance in progressing the plans for the KALC project.

“Maintaining An Adequate Supply Of Open Space And Sports And Recreational Facilities

Existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space to be surplus to requirements.

‘Surplus to requirements’ should include consideration of all the functions that open space can perform.

Open space and sports and recreational facilities that are of high quality, or of particular value to a local community, should be recognised and given protection by local authorities through appropriate policies in plans.  Areas of particular quality may include:

• small areas of open space in urban areas that provide an important local amenity and offer recreational and play opportunities;

• areas of open space that provide a community resource and can be used for informal or formal events

• areas of open space that particularly benefit wildlife and biodiversity.

The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications, either within or adjoining open space, local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur.

They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is sensitive to, the local context.

Local authorities should:

i. avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces;

ii. ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment;

iii. protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and

iv. consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation.”

We can see no evidence that the Council’s planners or architects have had the slightest regard to this guidance, nor to the Council’s own policies that were designed to respect and accord with the guidance.

A Funny Thing Happened….. The KALC Planning Application

A funny thing happened at the last KALC exhibition at Lancaster Road Methodist Church on 21st June.  That was the one with the flashy 3d scale model and not much else to see make or do.  Anyway, Council officers were full of apologies because someone, they said, had screwed up with the Planning Application and one of the essential documents had been omitted. Consequently, we were told, there had been a delay in registering the application and the documents would not be published until 29th June, leaving just the bare minimum three weeks consultation between then and 20th July, and not a ha-penny more. This cock-up story had also been shared with members of the KALC Forum who had met several days earlier.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered midweek that the Planning Application had been submitted on 28th May, had been registered on 19th June, and all the documents but one had been published online (in the Planning section deep in the bowels of the RBKC website) on 22nd June.

What a pity we couldn’t be told where this confusing pot-pourri of no less than 105 individual documents was located a wee bit earlier so that we might actually have enough time to study them in all their gory detail.

What a pity also, or more likely what a disgrace, that the Council held this last exhibition on the day before they published the Planning Application, so that not a single one of these 105 crucial documents was available for inspection by the public.

SHAME ON YOU!

So here’s the rub:

Councillor Coleridge reported back to Cabinet from the community forum in December 2011. He told them ‘local parents were hugely in favour of the scheme’

In the Planning Application Council Officers then claimed that during consultation they had found ‘clear evidence of support for both the academy and the leisure centre’.

The question is this: With all this alleged support why are they so determined to allow us only the bare minimum three weeks consultation on the Planning Application?

One has to wonder what they’re afraid of?

PS. The Council Officer reponsible for giving us that bum steer on the publication date has since been curiously reluctant to repeat in writing what was earlier said.   I wonder why?