Residents, businesses and local Cllr's objections to Catalyst Housing
Phase 3 Planning Application PP/21/07028 as of February 1st 2022
Phase 3 Planning Application PP/21/07028 as of February 1st 2022
Over 110 objections are currently lodged by residents, businesses and local Cllr's to the Phase 3 Planning Application for the redevelopment of Wornington Green / Portobello Square.
Here is the link to all the objections.
Go to the bottom of this Council page and click on Documents related to case PP/21/07028
And here is an edited selection of residents objections:
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I object because,
There is little or no NEW social housing. There is replacement of the demolished Wornington Green Units but very few new and additional social housing units that are so dearly needed in North Kensington. How are the community of North Kensington benefiting from this phase?
Residents of Wornington Green, of which I am one, and local community members have never been properly consulted about any of the phases of the long and tortuous regeneration of Wornington Green. The majority of residents opposed the regeneration from the start and have suffered greatly, emotionally, mentally and physically due to its disruption, destruction, pollution and loss of trees and wildlfe. Residents voices were not listened to and people lost all trust in Catalyst. No one will engage with their so called consultations now because, ' they will just do it anyway.' The `consultations' and Newman Francis facilitated residents steering group are a sham. Catalyst's meaning of consultation is them simply telling residents and community what they are going to do to them.
There has been no consultation with the community over the demolition and move to Ladbroke Grove of beloved and historically significant Venture Centre ( oldest Adventure Playground UK and site of first Steel Pan Yard) and no explanation as to why commercial units will be built on top of the new centre or who will own those units or who will run them or who will benefit from them. Or how these units could affect Venture.
The building of retail units in this phase has in no way taken into consideration the affects on the high street and hospitality of covid. A 15 story tower is not welcome in North Kensington for obvious reasons.
The opening of Wornington Rd from Ladbroke Grove in addition to the other new rds being built as part of the regen is dangerous and will bring more noise and pollution to residents who have already suffered builders workers trucks going up and down and living on a noisy, polluted building site for 11 years.
Residents and community do not want to lose anymore mature trees. This phase proposes to cut down another 36 plus trees. We have already lost over 200 trees in this regeneration. What was an estate with plentiful green spaces and lush trees with bird song and squirrels is now almost barren. Those last remaining trees are precious on every level not least because they mitigate against very high pollution levels. They and the worlds of wildlife that they give life to are intrinsic to our well being. New trees cannot replace them.
Wornington Green was named so for a reason. It was green. Its name and all vestiges of its history are being wiped out and replaced by Portobello Square. No respect has been given to the people or wildlife that have lived there. There is nothing that carries its history, culture or legacy forward.
Wornington Green residents and North Kensington community have been treated with utter contempt by Catalyst. There have been no meaningful consultations, our opinions and concerns are ignored and work on the previous Portobello Sq new builds has been incompetent and dangerous. There are fire wardens in Faraday House because the buildings were not built to be fire safe. In Bond Mansions there have been floods and problems with fragile ceilings and doors falling off.
Catalyst are not trustworthy and are only operating as a business. They are not a Housing Association working for the good of their tenants. Or even working for the people who buy new properties. They are unhappy with the quality of workmanship and customer service too. Ask them. How they feel and if they regret buying into Portobello Sq.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
This redevelopment has already caused untold misery to North Kensington residents for 13 years now, and I believe the proposals for this final phase are the worst part yet.
Tree felling:
It is reckless and irresponsible to propose the felling of so many trees and replacing them with an inadequate number of inadequate younger trees the midst of a climate emergency. The felling of trees as part of this phase has always been and continues to be unacceptable to many residents myself included. Mature trees have a positive impact on quality, mental health, crime, safety, traffic, and much more. Removing this many trees to facilitate a bad development (especially when so many could be easily retained in the current plans ) is sacrilegious and will damage the lives of residents in this area for years to come.
As residents have demanded, money from the Section 106 should be set aside for the re-planting of the trees already lost during the first phases of this development. I would like to see this included as a condition of this permission.
Roads and traffic:
The proposed re-opening of Portobello Rd and Wornington Rd to traffic is a terrible idea - we have been perfectly happy having these roads closed and pedestrianised for the last 6 decades and do not see the need for this to change now. The fact that new retail unites are being proposed here in what has long been a residential area is a bad thing, which will negatively impact on existing local businesses and turn what was once a peaceful, green, residential sanctuary in the heart of London into another shopping street in the misguided belief that anyone is going to come to Portobello Market by getting the Bakerloo Line to Kensal Town.
The delivery traffic during construction has been inadequately thought out with construction traffic being diverted all the way to Chelsea! Equally little thought has been given to traffic planning once the estate is complete, and the scheme seems to be encouraging more people to drive, increasing the noise and air pollution which residents must put up with right outside of their front doors on these re-opened through roads. The changes to traffic flow will add a fifth exit to the dangerous and already congested Barlby roundabout, where 19 collisions have occurred in the last 5 years. There is no benefit to residents in re-opening these streets, but a vast number of drawbacks. For decades the children of Wornington have been able to play on their streets - a rare pleasure in London. There is no rationale for depriving future generations of this.
Architectural quality:
The buildings proposed will remove the final trace of the Wornington Green Estate as it once stood - a monumentally beautiful piece of late modernist architecture which is still far before the end of its lifespan. I am yet to understand the rationale for its demolition (other than profit). When designing Wornington Green care was taken to clad the building in the small red brick common in North Kensington, and shroud the entire complex in greenery. Residents walkways were designed to foster conversation, and give people semi-private spaces similar to a mews but raised up into the sky. The buildings proposed in this plan make no attempt at that.
Instead of the existing wonderful architecture, we will be given the unimpressive `flavour of the month' style which is spreading all across London. Blocky, beige, and uninspired. If this development goes ahead, you will cross the railway on Ladrboke Grove and not know you're in Notting Hill. RBKC is one of the only areas of London which doesn't already have huge swathe of this terrible, cheap, fad architecture. To turn North Kensington into another Nine Elms or another Coal Drops Yard would be a short-sighted mistake.
The quality of Catalyst's construction (as already proven by the first two phases) is sub-par, and residents are already having far too many issues in relatively new buildings. Please do not allow them to remove beautiful, working buildings and replace them with ugly, nonfunctional ones. That the first two phases of Portobello Square will be completed is bad enough, but phase 3 should be re-thought.
Building height:
The construction of a tower (even higher than previously rejected by the planning committee) is wrong. When you think of `Portobello Road' you think of the market, the painted houses, the pavement cafes, and the `village in the middle of London'. What that does not bring to mind is `overpriced and poorly designed tower block'. The skyline should not be cluttered with more towers in this area, and residents should not be forced to live in shadow. St Pauls is to the City of London what Trellick is to Notting Hill and North Kensington, and views of it from all parts of London must be preserved. There is only one tower north of the Westway, and it should stay that way. Again, the rationale for this tower's inclusion in the estate has not been explained to residents, and seems only to be for private profit. The fact that Catalyst will also now house their own offices in this tower, further changing the character of what has always been a residential area, is an additional slap in the face to the residents whose lives they have made miserable over their lifetime.
Venture centre:
The moving of the Venture Centre and destruction of a historic adventure playground is totally unacceptable. This site is vitally important to the history of play theory and to the social history of North Kensington. To move it to another site and provide the half-hearted replacement which is proposed is unacceptable.
Social housing:
The proportion of social housing included in this development is appallingly low. Given how much has changed in this borough and nationally since the outline planning permission was granted 13 years ago, I believe that this council should be demanding a much nigher proportion of social housing is built as part of phase 3 than was previously planned. Catalyst may claim that they will not turn a profit if this is the case, but the fact that they have for the last 4 months been employing two security guards to sit 24 hours and monitor residents trying to protect their own trees does not speak of an organisation going through financial hardship.
We are seeing a part of our community destroyed, and much like the previous phases it will be destroyed without anything to be gained by existing residents. These flats will be sold off plan to people abroad, with local residents unable to get a look in. As so many already do they will sit empty, driving prices up for those of us actually trying to live here. The planning permission should condition that all of these houses should be advertised within North Kensington for a significant period before being sold off as investment properties.
Infrastructure:
This redevelopment (and I understand that the committee cannot consider speculative developments, but it is worth noting this is one of three large-scale residential developments being currently proposed in this area) is going to place a huge strain on local infrastructure. On street parking is being provided, in direct contradiction of RBKC's own SPD. No provision is being made for increased public transport (in fact busses in this area are facing service cuts). The council should use it's powers under section 106 to ensure that Catalyst or anyone else wishing to redevelop in North Kensington makes investment in the local infrastructure provision, with money set aside specifically for the construction of a cross rail station at Kensal New Town, an Overground station at St Quintin Park, segregated cycle infrastructure, and improvements to local roads. If developers are coming to North Kensington to turn a profit, then it is only fair that they should be forced to pay for the strain they will put on our existing community and it's infrastructure.
Trust:
We do not trust Catalyst. Wether it be the planting of new trees, the timescale for he redevelopment, their promises to re-house residents, or the upkeep of Althone Gardens - they have time and again broken planning conditions and shown that they are not worthy of redeveloping this estate. I urge this council not to continue handing over swathes of land for them to have their way with, but to take this application as an opportunity to hold them to account and insist they adhere to the planning conditions of their previous permissions for this estate. I would urge the committee to withhold their support for this application until a time when the previous planning conditions have been fulfilled.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I have the following objections and comments.
1. Trees
I object to the felling of 32 mature and magnificent trees. These trees are vital for biodiversity and our health and well being during a Climate Emergency and pandemic. They are also located in one of the most socially deprived and polluted parts of the borough.
The community has estimated that over 250 trees were felled at Wornington Green during this regeneration. Catalyst Housing have refused to answer questions about the extent and nature of previous tree removal in questions asked by the Council on behalf of residents. Over this matter Catalyst have been negligent in listening and responding to the concerns raised by hundreds of local residents, organisations and Councillors.
The London Plan states that if planning permission is granted that necessitates the removal of trees there should be adequate replacement based on the (calculated financial) value of the trees removed.
Catalyst in their Arboricultural Impact Assessment state that they will replant more trees than was originally planned during this phase and that "nine years after completion.and following a short- term loss, there is a significant net benefit to the public in terms of the available arboricultural assets within the public realm." This might be factually correct for the increased number of Phase 3 trees being planted, but counting all the trees lost in previous phases of development, this statistic is misleading. It masks the shocking truth. The horrific nature of losing over 250 mature trees that cannot be mitigated against.
This is also underlined by the Urban Greening Factor documents submitted in the application. These show that the development falls short of the 0.4 target set out in Policy G5 of the London Plan with a calculated score of 0.25. Almost 50% deficient.
Catalyst state that they are mitigating loss by supplying green roofs. I have observed the state of the green roofs in the previous phases of building and urge the Council to inspect these. There is very little in the way of greenery rooted and growing here. There is no community access to nurture or appreciate it.
In summary, this planning application is environmentally damaging and can offer no net eco benefit for the loss of so many mature trees. For this reason permission should be refused and a comprehensive redesign undertaken for Phase 3. Catalyst and the council need to go back to the drawing board and employ more imaginative designs to their flawed 2010 masterplan and work more closely with residents and community groups to redesign a better greener development.
2. New roads
I object to the new through roads that are being proposed connecting Portobello and Wornington Road with Ladbroke Grove.
At this juncture, access should only be available for cycles or emergency services. All service traffic for the new builds could enter via alternative pre-existing roads. Opening this section up to roads would create a rat-run for more traffic flow at a time when cities are moving away from prioritising roads and car use.
It should be noted that Wornington Green is located in in an area that exceeds the national recommendation for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions.
This area should be fully pedestrianised to make a more interesting and greener square with the focus on the wonderful mature trees that are already located here and which provide a buffer against the busy traffic already using Ladbroke Grove.
3. The 15 storey tower
I object to a 15 storey Tower which is a change from the existing 4-6 storey buildings in the area and is contrary to the Local Plan Policy guidance. There will be issues of shading for the proposed square and surrounding blocks and this will provide an unnecessary visual element to the wider locale.
I recommend that other blocks in the development are built one storey higher to accommodate any housing need.
We don't need a tower as a landmark setting for the new development and to frame the public square being proposed. Our attention should be on the quality of the built environment at ground pedestrian human level.
4. Venture Centre
The Venture Centre is a historic community centre with the only purpose built pan yard in the country. It has its origins in the North Kensington communities struggle for human rights. As far as I can see, it is Catalyst determining the future of this asset of community value. I don't believe Venture have done any formal consultation about its future. Even as to whether it should be moved! Many people in the area probably don't know about the plan to demolish and relocate. I agree the buildings and play spaces could do with an exciting upgrade but this could be part of a unique child and community centered project.
It is proposed to have a commercial area to the building. I am concerned about how this operates and how it will be distinct from the community space. Does the Venture Centre need this commercial arm to flourish? Please consider making this commercial space into something like affordable artist studios or other facilities determined by a true community consultation.
There is an aspiration in the application to make Venture more accessible to the wider community beyond Wornington/Portobello Square. Maybe that extra footfall for visitors is another reason to have more community and less commercial space here.
Pollution is an issue in the area and especially so for children who have not got fully developed lungs. If Venture is relocated here and is closer to proposed new through roads that generate more pollution - what are the long-term consequences for children's health? This is not addressed in the planning application.
5. Failure of consultation and lack of co-design
Catalyst state that they have consultation and co-design at the heart of this regeneration. But there has been very little meaningful evidence of this beyond tick box engagement. They ignored all opportunities to meet and work with local residents campaigning around the loss of trees.
This is also revealed by looking at their Statement of Community Involvement documents. One of these has 32 pages of letters written to Ladbroke Grove residents inviting them to a June 2018 drop in consultation session. But there is not one recorded response from these residents.
The London Plan states that there should be "full and transparent consultation and meaningful ongoing involvement with estate residents throughout the regeneration process to ensure resident support." Catalyst housing in this planning application have not demonstrated a critically robust and fit for purpose consultation.
6. Social housing
It should be noted that Catalyst Housing are knocking down and replacing the original social housing estate of 500 properties and adding on a few extra social housing units. The remainder are homes for the open market where a one bedroom flat is approximately £700,000. Catalyst are supposed to be a social housing provider first and foremost. This development should offer far more truly affordable housing for local residents or those in temporary accommodation. Their marketing suite has been opened during the pandemic whereas any community office has been shut.
Catalyst's financial advisors estimate that the Phase 3 Development will result in a deficit of - £56.82 million (for a 373 unit scheme) or -£61.48 million (377 unit scheme).
The Council should not grant permission for Catalyst to exceed their original 1000 homes and ensure that their financial management of the project does not impact negatively on the social housing element that should be the priority. Is there a demand locally for shared ownership properties ? These should be converted into social housing. Put local people before profits.
7. This Planning Process
There are over 200 planning application documents to access online. Most are complex and jargon heavy. Some even have "draft" written on it. Are we supposed to accept "draft"? They are also not available in other languages for residents who might need them.
There should be a simple document at the beginning to summarise all the salient details of what Phase 3 regeneration involves. RBKC need to overhaul this planning process that is a barrier to community understanding and consultation.
There is also a patronising tone behind some of the planning documents that provide "heritage" context to this regeneration. Statements like: "The Wornington Green Estate does not contribute to the heritage significance of the area." These are desk top studies made by "professionals" who have no real understanding of the rich history of Wornington Green Estate in North Kensington. This is a failure of place making. Wornington Green Estate is being erased off the face of the
earth. There is no cultural legacy being planned for the people and place that existed here for over 50 years. Portobello Square is being marketed as the new Notting Hill. This is evidenced in the imagery and words selected on the advertising hoarding that now surrounds the estate. Perhaps one legacy that could keep the memory alive is to rename Athlone Gardens as Wornington Green?
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I have friends who live nearby and it is unacceptable in my view, that in the midst of a climate emergency architects, landscape architects and Council officers/Councillors do not avoid destroying trees. Several mature trees, including London Plane trees have already been destroyed in the area. As the song goes: "Like a true nature's child, We were born, born to be wild."
But obviously not in RBKC. The 15-storey building appears to only have one staircase, surely after the Grenfell Tower fire this must be reviewed?
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I STRONGLY object to the Catalyst plans for the Wornington Green planning application.
The hideous and disproportionate tower block plan is not only inappropriate but an affront to the integrity of the local community. The planned new roads and even further felling of highly environmentally and physiologically valuable trees would demonstrate negligence, indifference and a thinly concealed commercial greed on the part of Catalyst and the RBKC council to the obvious detriment to the resident community.
I strongly appeal to all individuals involved to act in a considered and honourable manner to set a positive example with regards to the welfare of future generations of local residents.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
Objections to Wornington Green phase 3 planning application on behalf of 375 Portobello Road Residents' Compact.
The Residents' Compact (RC) represents residents of 42 homes at 375 Portobello Road, W10 5SL. Our homes are adjacent to the Wornington Green / Portobello Square development site. 375 Portobello Road RC objects to the plans submitted for phase 3 development of Wornington Green on the following grounds:
New roads:
Making Wornington and Portobello through roads will invite more traffic and rat- running up to Ladbroke Grove, inevitably generating more pollution, noise, and hazard to children and pedestrians in what is currently a very quiet and safe neighbourhood. Crossing the road at Barlby roundabout is extremely dangerous and will only become more so with the addition of another entrance to the roundabout. We have not had through roads in this area for 50 years, and we like it that way. Let's keep Wornington Green phase 3 as a pedestrians and bikes only zone. Tower block: A15-storey tower will overshadow the entire neighbourhood and create wind tunnels along Wornington and Portobello Roads. We understood that developers promised no more than 9 storeys. The tower seems to have only one staircase, which of course is unthinkable after Grenfell. Please keep building heights to no more than six storeys.
Loss of trees and green space:
We have been saddened and amazed by the loss of so many trees over the last ten years. Living without trees in what was once a mini urban forest is depressing and affects our mental health and happiness. Tree loss also affects air quality and hence leads to worsening respiratory conditions. We cannot afford to lose any more trees. The trees proposed for new planting are small varieties and will take many years to grow. Even when fully grown, they will not come close to replacing what has been lost.
Biodiversity:
Over the past decade we have noticed a significant absence of birds of various species (e.g. jays, blackbirds, robins, nightingales, goldfinches) in a neighbourhood that was once filled with bird song. We believe this is associated with the loss of a large number of mature trees. We are also concerned that this development will have a negative impact on insect life, butterflies, and bees, as well as foxes, squirrels, and other small mammals. We need to create conditions for increased biodiversity. Cutting down mature trees and planting a few saplings is bound to reduce habitats for all kinds of wildlife.
The Venture centre:
Despite being expected to serve a larger community, there is no increase in the size of the Venture Centre. The Venture Centre was and is created by the community. We don't want a `community centre' that is imposed by developers in their own image of what they think our lives should be like.
Impact of works:
Noise, vibration, and levels of dust and particulate matter from the building work are intolerable. We have also experienced an increase in rats and mice being driven out of existing buildings and into our homes as demolition progresses.
Living adjacent to this large and protracted development has forced residents to endure increased levels of noise, heavy vehicle traffic, dust and other particulate matter, for eleven years to date. Catalyst promised that our local park, Athlone Gardens, would be finished by 2018, yet it remains only half-finished, treeless, flat, lacking trees and amenities, and still only half the size it was originally. A child born on our estate in 2010 will be in their second year of university before the development is completed and will not enjoy mature trees until their 50th birthday. 375 Portobello Rd RC feels that consultation at all stages has been desultory and purely a box-ticking exercise. We have not been meaningfully involved in any of the major decisions affecting our homes and quality of life. As social housing residents we are aware of the acute need for increased social housing provision in Kensington and Chelsea. This development provides no additional social housing, no additional community facilities, no increase in public realm green space, no increase in canopy cover, no additional local services such as schools or health and wellbeing facilities. We find it intolerable that we should be subjected to ten more years, at minimum, of degraded living conditions in return for no perceivable benefit to existing residents. Not only do we find no local benefit from this development, but we foresee permanent negative impact caused by increased traffic, rat-running, loss of trees, pollution, noise, increased carbon emissions, loss of wildlife, and increased pressure on local services.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
Golborne Councillors are appalled that, despite numerous so-called consultation events, little has been taken into account of the countless concerns of the community. Why bother go to such extremes if Catalyst is so determined to ignore the very valid comments and concerns of local people?
In particular we would say that we have been informed that there can be no changes to the masterplan that was agreed - against huge community protest and with a majority of just one on the Planning Committee - in March 2010. However there have been amendments, notably to the height of the tall building (agreed at nine storeys, now 15), to the layout of the park (no longer a park, now a garden square), and to various commitments about accommodating the vast amount of overcrowding on the estate (now only replaced like for like). The SPD committed to a larger community centre, to adequate private outdoor space for each home, and to improved health services; these vital issues, in an area of huge deprivation, have been ignored.
Like for like in new buildings - many of which are rife with problems of damp, mould, flooding, and fire safety defects - is no kind of improvement for anyone. In fact some of the new homes are worse than the old ones, as media reports have revealed.
More specifically, the world has changed since 2010. We are facing a dramatic and worsening climate emergency, with perceptible climate change. Air pollution has got worse, not better. And as we - hopefully - emerge into a post-Covid world, issues of increased home working, the need for better public space and more pollution-absorbing trees, and a peaceful natural environment on our doorstep, is now essential. The idea of destroying 272 mature trees to replace them with a few saplings is repellent - as the protests and fierce resistance in Athlone Gardens confirms. Creating a worse public environment with rat runs and private parking is a recipe for disaster and puts young lives at risk. And yet the insistence of Catalyst to stick to a 12-year-old planning permission that has been effectively made redundant is out of touch, and an embarrassment.
We know more than we did 12 years ago. The idea of building a 15 storey high-rise with one staircase, in sight of the shrouded skeleton of Grenfell Tower, and in an area where countless residents lost family and friends, and fear of death by fire is very real, is distasteful as well as dangerous.
This plan must be pulled and drastically revised. People's lives depend upon it.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
The initial planning application for this development was originally approved over 10 years ago. In that time a number of laws have changed which affect this application, and these changes make the current Phase 3 proposal unfit for purpose.
Firstly, the original plans insisted there would never be a tower block associated with this development. The current Phase 3 plans feature a tower block. This 15 storey structure will increase population density in the area, and current plans do not feature enough additional services and amenities to support that increase, for example healthcare, public transport, schooling, green spaces and residential parking have not been taken into consideration. The originally approved plan required the buildings to be the same footprint as the current estate, and to remain the same height. Once again, this is not the case with the tower block proposed in Phase 3 (and in fact with the other buildings already completed in Phase 1 & 2).
Directly related to the green space point above- we have already lost 200 mature trees due to this development and stand to lose another 65 if the current Phase 3 plan goes ahead. Much of the legislation around tree planting in public spaces has changed since the original proposal, for example the legislation around removing mature trees. Now street trees and trees in public spaces should be replaced 2 for 1 with 2 younger trees for each mature tree cut down, offsetting the greater carbon absorption provided by mature trees. We live in the most polluted borough of the most polluted city in the UK (in terms of air pollution). If we are serious about reducing our carbon output as a nation, that means reduction at all levels, in terms of transport, energy generation and building projects such as the redevelopment on Wornington Green. It requires co-operation across all sectors and every industry to play their part in the de-carbonisation process.
There are no plans for 2 for 1 tree replacement in public spaces. Street trees have to be replaced with street trees, not trees planted in private gardens, which can be cut down, dug up or replaced by the new owners.
Based on the above, I would therefore also challenge Catalyst Housing that they are not providing `public realm improvements' at all but actually quite the opposite. They are dramatically reducing the quality of the current public spaces in favour of trying to turn excessive profits.
Here is the link to all the objections.
Go to the bottom of this Council page and click on Documents related to case PP/21/07028
And here is an edited selection of residents objections:
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I object because,
There is little or no NEW social housing. There is replacement of the demolished Wornington Green Units but very few new and additional social housing units that are so dearly needed in North Kensington. How are the community of North Kensington benefiting from this phase?
Residents of Wornington Green, of which I am one, and local community members have never been properly consulted about any of the phases of the long and tortuous regeneration of Wornington Green. The majority of residents opposed the regeneration from the start and have suffered greatly, emotionally, mentally and physically due to its disruption, destruction, pollution and loss of trees and wildlfe. Residents voices were not listened to and people lost all trust in Catalyst. No one will engage with their so called consultations now because, ' they will just do it anyway.' The `consultations' and Newman Francis facilitated residents steering group are a sham. Catalyst's meaning of consultation is them simply telling residents and community what they are going to do to them.
There has been no consultation with the community over the demolition and move to Ladbroke Grove of beloved and historically significant Venture Centre ( oldest Adventure Playground UK and site of first Steel Pan Yard) and no explanation as to why commercial units will be built on top of the new centre or who will own those units or who will run them or who will benefit from them. Or how these units could affect Venture.
The building of retail units in this phase has in no way taken into consideration the affects on the high street and hospitality of covid. A 15 story tower is not welcome in North Kensington for obvious reasons.
The opening of Wornington Rd from Ladbroke Grove in addition to the other new rds being built as part of the regen is dangerous and will bring more noise and pollution to residents who have already suffered builders workers trucks going up and down and living on a noisy, polluted building site for 11 years.
Residents and community do not want to lose anymore mature trees. This phase proposes to cut down another 36 plus trees. We have already lost over 200 trees in this regeneration. What was an estate with plentiful green spaces and lush trees with bird song and squirrels is now almost barren. Those last remaining trees are precious on every level not least because they mitigate against very high pollution levels. They and the worlds of wildlife that they give life to are intrinsic to our well being. New trees cannot replace them.
Wornington Green was named so for a reason. It was green. Its name and all vestiges of its history are being wiped out and replaced by Portobello Square. No respect has been given to the people or wildlife that have lived there. There is nothing that carries its history, culture or legacy forward.
Wornington Green residents and North Kensington community have been treated with utter contempt by Catalyst. There have been no meaningful consultations, our opinions and concerns are ignored and work on the previous Portobello Sq new builds has been incompetent and dangerous. There are fire wardens in Faraday House because the buildings were not built to be fire safe. In Bond Mansions there have been floods and problems with fragile ceilings and doors falling off.
Catalyst are not trustworthy and are only operating as a business. They are not a Housing Association working for the good of their tenants. Or even working for the people who buy new properties. They are unhappy with the quality of workmanship and customer service too. Ask them. How they feel and if they regret buying into Portobello Sq.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
This redevelopment has already caused untold misery to North Kensington residents for 13 years now, and I believe the proposals for this final phase are the worst part yet.
Tree felling:
It is reckless and irresponsible to propose the felling of so many trees and replacing them with an inadequate number of inadequate younger trees the midst of a climate emergency. The felling of trees as part of this phase has always been and continues to be unacceptable to many residents myself included. Mature trees have a positive impact on quality, mental health, crime, safety, traffic, and much more. Removing this many trees to facilitate a bad development (especially when so many could be easily retained in the current plans ) is sacrilegious and will damage the lives of residents in this area for years to come.
As residents have demanded, money from the Section 106 should be set aside for the re-planting of the trees already lost during the first phases of this development. I would like to see this included as a condition of this permission.
Roads and traffic:
The proposed re-opening of Portobello Rd and Wornington Rd to traffic is a terrible idea - we have been perfectly happy having these roads closed and pedestrianised for the last 6 decades and do not see the need for this to change now. The fact that new retail unites are being proposed here in what has long been a residential area is a bad thing, which will negatively impact on existing local businesses and turn what was once a peaceful, green, residential sanctuary in the heart of London into another shopping street in the misguided belief that anyone is going to come to Portobello Market by getting the Bakerloo Line to Kensal Town.
The delivery traffic during construction has been inadequately thought out with construction traffic being diverted all the way to Chelsea! Equally little thought has been given to traffic planning once the estate is complete, and the scheme seems to be encouraging more people to drive, increasing the noise and air pollution which residents must put up with right outside of their front doors on these re-opened through roads. The changes to traffic flow will add a fifth exit to the dangerous and already congested Barlby roundabout, where 19 collisions have occurred in the last 5 years. There is no benefit to residents in re-opening these streets, but a vast number of drawbacks. For decades the children of Wornington have been able to play on their streets - a rare pleasure in London. There is no rationale for depriving future generations of this.
Architectural quality:
The buildings proposed will remove the final trace of the Wornington Green Estate as it once stood - a monumentally beautiful piece of late modernist architecture which is still far before the end of its lifespan. I am yet to understand the rationale for its demolition (other than profit). When designing Wornington Green care was taken to clad the building in the small red brick common in North Kensington, and shroud the entire complex in greenery. Residents walkways were designed to foster conversation, and give people semi-private spaces similar to a mews but raised up into the sky. The buildings proposed in this plan make no attempt at that.
Instead of the existing wonderful architecture, we will be given the unimpressive `flavour of the month' style which is spreading all across London. Blocky, beige, and uninspired. If this development goes ahead, you will cross the railway on Ladrboke Grove and not know you're in Notting Hill. RBKC is one of the only areas of London which doesn't already have huge swathe of this terrible, cheap, fad architecture. To turn North Kensington into another Nine Elms or another Coal Drops Yard would be a short-sighted mistake.
The quality of Catalyst's construction (as already proven by the first two phases) is sub-par, and residents are already having far too many issues in relatively new buildings. Please do not allow them to remove beautiful, working buildings and replace them with ugly, nonfunctional ones. That the first two phases of Portobello Square will be completed is bad enough, but phase 3 should be re-thought.
Building height:
The construction of a tower (even higher than previously rejected by the planning committee) is wrong. When you think of `Portobello Road' you think of the market, the painted houses, the pavement cafes, and the `village in the middle of London'. What that does not bring to mind is `overpriced and poorly designed tower block'. The skyline should not be cluttered with more towers in this area, and residents should not be forced to live in shadow. St Pauls is to the City of London what Trellick is to Notting Hill and North Kensington, and views of it from all parts of London must be preserved. There is only one tower north of the Westway, and it should stay that way. Again, the rationale for this tower's inclusion in the estate has not been explained to residents, and seems only to be for private profit. The fact that Catalyst will also now house their own offices in this tower, further changing the character of what has always been a residential area, is an additional slap in the face to the residents whose lives they have made miserable over their lifetime.
Venture centre:
The moving of the Venture Centre and destruction of a historic adventure playground is totally unacceptable. This site is vitally important to the history of play theory and to the social history of North Kensington. To move it to another site and provide the half-hearted replacement which is proposed is unacceptable.
Social housing:
The proportion of social housing included in this development is appallingly low. Given how much has changed in this borough and nationally since the outline planning permission was granted 13 years ago, I believe that this council should be demanding a much nigher proportion of social housing is built as part of phase 3 than was previously planned. Catalyst may claim that they will not turn a profit if this is the case, but the fact that they have for the last 4 months been employing two security guards to sit 24 hours and monitor residents trying to protect their own trees does not speak of an organisation going through financial hardship.
We are seeing a part of our community destroyed, and much like the previous phases it will be destroyed without anything to be gained by existing residents. These flats will be sold off plan to people abroad, with local residents unable to get a look in. As so many already do they will sit empty, driving prices up for those of us actually trying to live here. The planning permission should condition that all of these houses should be advertised within North Kensington for a significant period before being sold off as investment properties.
Infrastructure:
This redevelopment (and I understand that the committee cannot consider speculative developments, but it is worth noting this is one of three large-scale residential developments being currently proposed in this area) is going to place a huge strain on local infrastructure. On street parking is being provided, in direct contradiction of RBKC's own SPD. No provision is being made for increased public transport (in fact busses in this area are facing service cuts). The council should use it's powers under section 106 to ensure that Catalyst or anyone else wishing to redevelop in North Kensington makes investment in the local infrastructure provision, with money set aside specifically for the construction of a cross rail station at Kensal New Town, an Overground station at St Quintin Park, segregated cycle infrastructure, and improvements to local roads. If developers are coming to North Kensington to turn a profit, then it is only fair that they should be forced to pay for the strain they will put on our existing community and it's infrastructure.
Trust:
We do not trust Catalyst. Wether it be the planting of new trees, the timescale for he redevelopment, their promises to re-house residents, or the upkeep of Althone Gardens - they have time and again broken planning conditions and shown that they are not worthy of redeveloping this estate. I urge this council not to continue handing over swathes of land for them to have their way with, but to take this application as an opportunity to hold them to account and insist they adhere to the planning conditions of their previous permissions for this estate. I would urge the committee to withhold their support for this application until a time when the previous planning conditions have been fulfilled.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I have the following objections and comments.
1. Trees
I object to the felling of 32 mature and magnificent trees. These trees are vital for biodiversity and our health and well being during a Climate Emergency and pandemic. They are also located in one of the most socially deprived and polluted parts of the borough.
The community has estimated that over 250 trees were felled at Wornington Green during this regeneration. Catalyst Housing have refused to answer questions about the extent and nature of previous tree removal in questions asked by the Council on behalf of residents. Over this matter Catalyst have been negligent in listening and responding to the concerns raised by hundreds of local residents, organisations and Councillors.
The London Plan states that if planning permission is granted that necessitates the removal of trees there should be adequate replacement based on the (calculated financial) value of the trees removed.
Catalyst in their Arboricultural Impact Assessment state that they will replant more trees than was originally planned during this phase and that "nine years after completion.and following a short- term loss, there is a significant net benefit to the public in terms of the available arboricultural assets within the public realm." This might be factually correct for the increased number of Phase 3 trees being planted, but counting all the trees lost in previous phases of development, this statistic is misleading. It masks the shocking truth. The horrific nature of losing over 250 mature trees that cannot be mitigated against.
This is also underlined by the Urban Greening Factor documents submitted in the application. These show that the development falls short of the 0.4 target set out in Policy G5 of the London Plan with a calculated score of 0.25. Almost 50% deficient.
Catalyst state that they are mitigating loss by supplying green roofs. I have observed the state of the green roofs in the previous phases of building and urge the Council to inspect these. There is very little in the way of greenery rooted and growing here. There is no community access to nurture or appreciate it.
In summary, this planning application is environmentally damaging and can offer no net eco benefit for the loss of so many mature trees. For this reason permission should be refused and a comprehensive redesign undertaken for Phase 3. Catalyst and the council need to go back to the drawing board and employ more imaginative designs to their flawed 2010 masterplan and work more closely with residents and community groups to redesign a better greener development.
2. New roads
I object to the new through roads that are being proposed connecting Portobello and Wornington Road with Ladbroke Grove.
At this juncture, access should only be available for cycles or emergency services. All service traffic for the new builds could enter via alternative pre-existing roads. Opening this section up to roads would create a rat-run for more traffic flow at a time when cities are moving away from prioritising roads and car use.
It should be noted that Wornington Green is located in in an area that exceeds the national recommendation for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) emissions.
This area should be fully pedestrianised to make a more interesting and greener square with the focus on the wonderful mature trees that are already located here and which provide a buffer against the busy traffic already using Ladbroke Grove.
3. The 15 storey tower
I object to a 15 storey Tower which is a change from the existing 4-6 storey buildings in the area and is contrary to the Local Plan Policy guidance. There will be issues of shading for the proposed square and surrounding blocks and this will provide an unnecessary visual element to the wider locale.
I recommend that other blocks in the development are built one storey higher to accommodate any housing need.
We don't need a tower as a landmark setting for the new development and to frame the public square being proposed. Our attention should be on the quality of the built environment at ground pedestrian human level.
4. Venture Centre
The Venture Centre is a historic community centre with the only purpose built pan yard in the country. It has its origins in the North Kensington communities struggle for human rights. As far as I can see, it is Catalyst determining the future of this asset of community value. I don't believe Venture have done any formal consultation about its future. Even as to whether it should be moved! Many people in the area probably don't know about the plan to demolish and relocate. I agree the buildings and play spaces could do with an exciting upgrade but this could be part of a unique child and community centered project.
It is proposed to have a commercial area to the building. I am concerned about how this operates and how it will be distinct from the community space. Does the Venture Centre need this commercial arm to flourish? Please consider making this commercial space into something like affordable artist studios or other facilities determined by a true community consultation.
There is an aspiration in the application to make Venture more accessible to the wider community beyond Wornington/Portobello Square. Maybe that extra footfall for visitors is another reason to have more community and less commercial space here.
Pollution is an issue in the area and especially so for children who have not got fully developed lungs. If Venture is relocated here and is closer to proposed new through roads that generate more pollution - what are the long-term consequences for children's health? This is not addressed in the planning application.
5. Failure of consultation and lack of co-design
Catalyst state that they have consultation and co-design at the heart of this regeneration. But there has been very little meaningful evidence of this beyond tick box engagement. They ignored all opportunities to meet and work with local residents campaigning around the loss of trees.
This is also revealed by looking at their Statement of Community Involvement documents. One of these has 32 pages of letters written to Ladbroke Grove residents inviting them to a June 2018 drop in consultation session. But there is not one recorded response from these residents.
The London Plan states that there should be "full and transparent consultation and meaningful ongoing involvement with estate residents throughout the regeneration process to ensure resident support." Catalyst housing in this planning application have not demonstrated a critically robust and fit for purpose consultation.
6. Social housing
It should be noted that Catalyst Housing are knocking down and replacing the original social housing estate of 500 properties and adding on a few extra social housing units. The remainder are homes for the open market where a one bedroom flat is approximately £700,000. Catalyst are supposed to be a social housing provider first and foremost. This development should offer far more truly affordable housing for local residents or those in temporary accommodation. Their marketing suite has been opened during the pandemic whereas any community office has been shut.
Catalyst's financial advisors estimate that the Phase 3 Development will result in a deficit of - £56.82 million (for a 373 unit scheme) or -£61.48 million (377 unit scheme).
The Council should not grant permission for Catalyst to exceed their original 1000 homes and ensure that their financial management of the project does not impact negatively on the social housing element that should be the priority. Is there a demand locally for shared ownership properties ? These should be converted into social housing. Put local people before profits.
7. This Planning Process
There are over 200 planning application documents to access online. Most are complex and jargon heavy. Some even have "draft" written on it. Are we supposed to accept "draft"? They are also not available in other languages for residents who might need them.
There should be a simple document at the beginning to summarise all the salient details of what Phase 3 regeneration involves. RBKC need to overhaul this planning process that is a barrier to community understanding and consultation.
There is also a patronising tone behind some of the planning documents that provide "heritage" context to this regeneration. Statements like: "The Wornington Green Estate does not contribute to the heritage significance of the area." These are desk top studies made by "professionals" who have no real understanding of the rich history of Wornington Green Estate in North Kensington. This is a failure of place making. Wornington Green Estate is being erased off the face of the
earth. There is no cultural legacy being planned for the people and place that existed here for over 50 years. Portobello Square is being marketed as the new Notting Hill. This is evidenced in the imagery and words selected on the advertising hoarding that now surrounds the estate. Perhaps one legacy that could keep the memory alive is to rename Athlone Gardens as Wornington Green?
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I have friends who live nearby and it is unacceptable in my view, that in the midst of a climate emergency architects, landscape architects and Council officers/Councillors do not avoid destroying trees. Several mature trees, including London Plane trees have already been destroyed in the area. As the song goes: "Like a true nature's child, We were born, born to be wild."
But obviously not in RBKC. The 15-storey building appears to only have one staircase, surely after the Grenfell Tower fire this must be reviewed?
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
I STRONGLY object to the Catalyst plans for the Wornington Green planning application.
The hideous and disproportionate tower block plan is not only inappropriate but an affront to the integrity of the local community. The planned new roads and even further felling of highly environmentally and physiologically valuable trees would demonstrate negligence, indifference and a thinly concealed commercial greed on the part of Catalyst and the RBKC council to the obvious detriment to the resident community.
I strongly appeal to all individuals involved to act in a considered and honourable manner to set a positive example with regards to the welfare of future generations of local residents.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
Objections to Wornington Green phase 3 planning application on behalf of 375 Portobello Road Residents' Compact.
The Residents' Compact (RC) represents residents of 42 homes at 375 Portobello Road, W10 5SL. Our homes are adjacent to the Wornington Green / Portobello Square development site. 375 Portobello Road RC objects to the plans submitted for phase 3 development of Wornington Green on the following grounds:
New roads:
Making Wornington and Portobello through roads will invite more traffic and rat- running up to Ladbroke Grove, inevitably generating more pollution, noise, and hazard to children and pedestrians in what is currently a very quiet and safe neighbourhood. Crossing the road at Barlby roundabout is extremely dangerous and will only become more so with the addition of another entrance to the roundabout. We have not had through roads in this area for 50 years, and we like it that way. Let's keep Wornington Green phase 3 as a pedestrians and bikes only zone. Tower block: A15-storey tower will overshadow the entire neighbourhood and create wind tunnels along Wornington and Portobello Roads. We understood that developers promised no more than 9 storeys. The tower seems to have only one staircase, which of course is unthinkable after Grenfell. Please keep building heights to no more than six storeys.
Loss of trees and green space:
We have been saddened and amazed by the loss of so many trees over the last ten years. Living without trees in what was once a mini urban forest is depressing and affects our mental health and happiness. Tree loss also affects air quality and hence leads to worsening respiratory conditions. We cannot afford to lose any more trees. The trees proposed for new planting are small varieties and will take many years to grow. Even when fully grown, they will not come close to replacing what has been lost.
Biodiversity:
Over the past decade we have noticed a significant absence of birds of various species (e.g. jays, blackbirds, robins, nightingales, goldfinches) in a neighbourhood that was once filled with bird song. We believe this is associated with the loss of a large number of mature trees. We are also concerned that this development will have a negative impact on insect life, butterflies, and bees, as well as foxes, squirrels, and other small mammals. We need to create conditions for increased biodiversity. Cutting down mature trees and planting a few saplings is bound to reduce habitats for all kinds of wildlife.
The Venture centre:
Despite being expected to serve a larger community, there is no increase in the size of the Venture Centre. The Venture Centre was and is created by the community. We don't want a `community centre' that is imposed by developers in their own image of what they think our lives should be like.
Impact of works:
Noise, vibration, and levels of dust and particulate matter from the building work are intolerable. We have also experienced an increase in rats and mice being driven out of existing buildings and into our homes as demolition progresses.
Living adjacent to this large and protracted development has forced residents to endure increased levels of noise, heavy vehicle traffic, dust and other particulate matter, for eleven years to date. Catalyst promised that our local park, Athlone Gardens, would be finished by 2018, yet it remains only half-finished, treeless, flat, lacking trees and amenities, and still only half the size it was originally. A child born on our estate in 2010 will be in their second year of university before the development is completed and will not enjoy mature trees until their 50th birthday. 375 Portobello Rd RC feels that consultation at all stages has been desultory and purely a box-ticking exercise. We have not been meaningfully involved in any of the major decisions affecting our homes and quality of life. As social housing residents we are aware of the acute need for increased social housing provision in Kensington and Chelsea. This development provides no additional social housing, no additional community facilities, no increase in public realm green space, no increase in canopy cover, no additional local services such as schools or health and wellbeing facilities. We find it intolerable that we should be subjected to ten more years, at minimum, of degraded living conditions in return for no perceivable benefit to existing residents. Not only do we find no local benefit from this development, but we foresee permanent negative impact caused by increased traffic, rat-running, loss of trees, pollution, noise, increased carbon emissions, loss of wildlife, and increased pressure on local services.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
Golborne Councillors are appalled that, despite numerous so-called consultation events, little has been taken into account of the countless concerns of the community. Why bother go to such extremes if Catalyst is so determined to ignore the very valid comments and concerns of local people?
In particular we would say that we have been informed that there can be no changes to the masterplan that was agreed - against huge community protest and with a majority of just one on the Planning Committee - in March 2010. However there have been amendments, notably to the height of the tall building (agreed at nine storeys, now 15), to the layout of the park (no longer a park, now a garden square), and to various commitments about accommodating the vast amount of overcrowding on the estate (now only replaced like for like). The SPD committed to a larger community centre, to adequate private outdoor space for each home, and to improved health services; these vital issues, in an area of huge deprivation, have been ignored.
Like for like in new buildings - many of which are rife with problems of damp, mould, flooding, and fire safety defects - is no kind of improvement for anyone. In fact some of the new homes are worse than the old ones, as media reports have revealed.
More specifically, the world has changed since 2010. We are facing a dramatic and worsening climate emergency, with perceptible climate change. Air pollution has got worse, not better. And as we - hopefully - emerge into a post-Covid world, issues of increased home working, the need for better public space and more pollution-absorbing trees, and a peaceful natural environment on our doorstep, is now essential. The idea of destroying 272 mature trees to replace them with a few saplings is repellent - as the protests and fierce resistance in Athlone Gardens confirms. Creating a worse public environment with rat runs and private parking is a recipe for disaster and puts young lives at risk. And yet the insistence of Catalyst to stick to a 12-year-old planning permission that has been effectively made redundant is out of touch, and an embarrassment.
We know more than we did 12 years ago. The idea of building a 15 storey high-rise with one staircase, in sight of the shrouded skeleton of Grenfell Tower, and in an area where countless residents lost family and friends, and fear of death by fire is very real, is distasteful as well as dangerous.
This plan must be pulled and drastically revised. People's lives depend upon it.
PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT
The initial planning application for this development was originally approved over 10 years ago. In that time a number of laws have changed which affect this application, and these changes make the current Phase 3 proposal unfit for purpose.
Firstly, the original plans insisted there would never be a tower block associated with this development. The current Phase 3 plans feature a tower block. This 15 storey structure will increase population density in the area, and current plans do not feature enough additional services and amenities to support that increase, for example healthcare, public transport, schooling, green spaces and residential parking have not been taken into consideration. The originally approved plan required the buildings to be the same footprint as the current estate, and to remain the same height. Once again, this is not the case with the tower block proposed in Phase 3 (and in fact with the other buildings already completed in Phase 1 & 2).
Directly related to the green space point above- we have already lost 200 mature trees due to this development and stand to lose another 65 if the current Phase 3 plan goes ahead. Much of the legislation around tree planting in public spaces has changed since the original proposal, for example the legislation around removing mature trees. Now street trees and trees in public spaces should be replaced 2 for 1 with 2 younger trees for each mature tree cut down, offsetting the greater carbon absorption provided by mature trees. We live in the most polluted borough of the most polluted city in the UK (in terms of air pollution). If we are serious about reducing our carbon output as a nation, that means reduction at all levels, in terms of transport, energy generation and building projects such as the redevelopment on Wornington Green. It requires co-operation across all sectors and every industry to play their part in the de-carbonisation process.
There are no plans for 2 for 1 tree replacement in public spaces. Street trees have to be replaced with street trees, not trees planted in private gardens, which can be cut down, dug up or replaced by the new owners.
Based on the above, I would therefore also challenge Catalyst Housing that they are not providing `public realm improvements' at all but actually quite the opposite. They are dramatically reducing the quality of the current public spaces in favour of trying to turn excessive profits.
