large plot of derelict industrial land in Kensal Green, west London, could see over 2,500 new homes built on it as part of a joint venture between Ballymore and Sainsburys.
The site as it is today (c) Faulkner Browns Architects
The former Kensal Gasworks off Ladbroke Grove sits between the Grand Union Canal and the mainline railway out of Paddington, and there’s been a long running consultation to redevelop the site, known as Project Flourish.
The formal planning application has now been filed with Kensington and Chelsea council, and alongside a new Sainsbury’s store, the plans include 2,519 new homes, two parks, a restored canal basin and over 100,000 sqft of new commercial space around a new high street.
About a quarter of the new houses will be offered under an affordable housing scheme.
(c) Faulkner Browns Architects
The site currently has a large Sainsbury’s store, so they will be building a brand new replacement superstore next door with flats above, and once that opens, the old store will be demolished to become another block of flats.
If planning is successful, the 11-year construction programme is estimated to start in 2025. The first homes will be delivered in 2030, along with the new Sainsbury’s store and the neighbourhood centre around the restored canal basin.
The development also aims to reconnect the existing site to the surrounding area through an improved road junction at Ladbroke Grove, which will be secured through a Section 278 agreement within the planning application. The development also safeguards the location for a future pedestrian and cycle connection across the railway tracks to the North Pole site to the south side of the railway, should one be added in the future.
There are also discussions with a neighbouring development to provide a western bridge across the Canal, offering a route through the Kensal Green Cemetary to Kensal Green tube station.
A tentative suggestion that an Elizabeth line station could be built next to the development didn’t get very far.
(c) Faulkner Browns Architects
25% Affordable — I think that’s significantly less than GLA target (did GLA call these plans in for their approval)?
And is all of the 25% affordable or is that actually a mix of social tenure (affordable has a specific legal definition which in practice isn’t particularly affordable in London)
(Yes I probably could read through the detailed plans on various websites, maybe if I have the time)
There would have been more affordable housing, but local objections saw the size of the development reduced, and that always sees the affordable housing cut deepest.
as stated in thr article the planning application has only just been submitted let alone approved (or not) so just a tad early for any one to call them in!
It’s only 20% “affordable” by number of units. 25% is spin based on the number of bedrooms.
Should be a 50/50 split between available to buy and social rental, especially in that part of Inner London.
I’m all for new homes and from a selfish point of view, my own nearby property will go up in value since the development brings more facilities BUT unfortunately the project is doomed. We that live here already know that Ladbroke Grove is a bottle neck with huge traffic jams, so by adding around 7000-9000 residents without a close by underground station, it’ll be a disaster. Watch this space.
Does the 10-15 minute walk to Kensal Green and Kensal Rise tube stations not count as close?
Ian Visits, they don’t count as close enough to bring a solution, as the traffic on both Ladbroke Grove and this stretch of Harrow road already shows. You speak of close consultation with the residents of the area but the reality is that most residents have been opposing the current version of plans exactly because it does not address serious infrastructure issues that already exist here and will be made a lot worse by the amount of new housing put on the site. There are no new access roads to alleviate traffic that runs on single lane roads. The idea of a car-free development is a bit rich coming from a conservative council that shut down all dedicated cycle lanes created during the pandemic as soon as it could. You can’t pretend that almost three thousand households plus a host of new businesses won’t mean heavily increased vehicle traffic and won’t overwhelm existing public transport infrastructure without any expansion. We’re talking about a whole new neighbourhood, not just a couple of houses.
As to tour suggestion that local residents are to blame for the low number of affordable housing units planned, these are supposed to be a proportion of the total, whatever the total is. Local residents fought hard for social rent housing, units that would actually help those on the housing register.
Oh please, it’s always the same – there isn’t the infrastructure they cry, but they never suggest building just using it as an excuse. Build high, build dense, ignore the NIMBYs.
I’m not sure your points are relavant to the Ian Visits site but I’m sure you’ll be making a formal objection to the plans on those grounds via the councils planning portal.
Note ‘I don’t like it’ isn’t a valid objection under planning rules.
Oh please, there is always an excuse isn’t there? Like there could be a ten lane highway right nextdoor and you’d just then go and find some other reason to complain. People like you must be ignored
Sounds like a similar set of concerns to the big development at the o2 Centre in Camden (Labour borough). Lack of supporting infra upgrades (although some tube station upgrades squeezed out of the developer as a sweetener at the end of the consultation), dogmatically vehicle free (hence independent tradespeople can’t realistically live in the social tenure, let alone easily attend to do work), cutbacks in social tenure offered, etc. etc. I’m willing to bet the Kensal Green proposal has all the social tenure in seperate buildings with smaller room sizes and less amenities in the buildings (i.e. “poor doors” rather than true mixed developments)