kensal ecoquarter - overview report

Kensal Canalside Pre-Feasibility Studyo v e r v i e w r e p o r t

D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 8

Kensal Canalside Pre-Feasibility Study o v e r v i e w r e p o r t

D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 8

Willie Miller Urban Design

Colliers CRE

Battle McCarthy

Alan Baxter Associates

Gardiner & Theobald

Kevin Murray Associates

20 Southbrae Drive

Glasgow G13 1PY

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

contents

Kensal Canalside Pre-Feasibility Study o v e r v i e w r e p o r t

D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 8

Summary 1

1 Introduction 5

2 Approach 7

3 Outcomes 13

4 Next steps 17

K E N S A L C A N A L S I D E P R E - F E A S I B I L I T Y S T U D Y

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 8 | K E V I N M U R R A Y A S S O C I A T E S | 1

summary

This is the Overview Report of a ‘pre-feasibility study’ into

the creation of a potential EcoQuarter at North Kensal.

Commissioned by the Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea in April 2008. It aims to explore whether

the Council’s current vision for the site – comprising

placemaking, regeneration, sustainability and transport

infrastructure aspirations – has the potential to be viable and

deliverable in the longer term as a major transformational

project.

The study considered constraints and physical parameters,

a range of diverse future scenarios and opportunities, as

well as costs, risks and other deliverability issues. These are

provided in the full compendium of documents including:

• OverviewReport–thisdocument.

• BaselineReport–settingoutexistingconditions

and parameters.

• OptionsReport–exploringtheimplicationsof

alternative scenarios and options.

• RiskReport–identifyingthevarioustypesofrisk

which could affect implementation of the various

options.

During the commission, the global credit crunch and

economic crisis increasingly undermined the team’s ability

to consider future situations with any degree of reliability.

Nevertheless, we consider that there are some key findings.

Positive strategic role

There is definite potential to undertake significant

development on the study area – and to influence

regeneration in the surrounding areas in the northern part

of the Borough and in adjoining boroughs, and possibly

even at a London level and beyond. The full scope and scale

of transformation is dependent on a number of factors,

including the ability to capitalise upon opportunities and

address some very real constraints.

Constraints

There are a number of key constraints affecting development

of the site:

• Therailandcanalcorridorsformbarrierstonorth-

south movement within and beyond the site.

Whilst development could possibly be built over the

railway, this is unlikely to be viable for the canal.

• Safetyconcernsaroundthegasholdersarelikelyto

prevent residential development on portions of the

site as long as the gasholders are in place (until at

least 2016).

• Thesinglevehicularconnectiontothesitemakes

it isolated, both in terms of public and private

transport. It also places significant physical

constraints on the quantum of development.

• TheexistingSainsbury’sstoremayormaynotwish

to move from its current site - it could possibly be

redeveloped as part of a larger, denser development.

• WeunderstandthatCrossrailareseekingtousepart

of the southern portion of the site as a temporary

bus garage during construction works, to 2017.

Scenarios and development choices

The scale of future scenarios considered range from modest

housing to large scale mixed use destinations, with greater

developments requiring much more infrastructure, including

a Crossrail station. These were indicative scenarios rather

2

than specific physical options, but they did indicate

variability in delivery and impact across both time and space.

Economic viability

None of the scenarios is considered viable in the immediate

future because of market circumstances. However, the lower

scale residentially-oriented developments (shown by options

A and B) would probably secure landowner developer support

in time, because they are of a more modest scale and are less

dependent on costly infrastructure.

The more significant developments, exemplified in options

D, E and F, have more market risk at present. This is because

they are so dependent on substantial infrastructure such as a

Crossrail station and one or more bridge crossings.

Risks and benefits

Whilst exploring the viability of different development

options for the site, the study also considered benefits that

could accrue for the local area. If the potential to provide

direct connections from the site to a wider London is

realised, whether through Crossrail or some other means, the

site could potentially fulfil a role of much wider significance

than the purely local.

Indeed the scenarios indicated a potential to contribute to

London’s international role as a world gateway city, whilst

also contributing to the regeneration of North Kensington,

responding positively to climate change, and intensifying

development in an accessible locations. However, this would

see the less intensive development of the site as a missed

opportunities (options A, B and even C), and options D, E

and F as more aspirational and potentially bringing greater

economic and social benefit.

In terms of sustainability, there are benefits in an approach

that brings improved access to a wider range of community

facilities and employment in an area of social deprivation,

as well as new development biased towards low car usage,

public transport, and low carbon energy efficient buildings.

Important risk factors include:

• Roleandwillingnessofthefourkeylandownersto

participate in such a large scale project.

• Timingofthegasholderdecommissioning,andthe

spatial extent of its safety buffer.

• Costsandvaluesofdifferentdevelopmentand

infrastructure components.

• ImplicationsofsecuringaCrossrailstation–ornot.

Recommendation

The recommendation is to pursue as ambitious an option

as possible in partnership with the key landowners, and

to continue to build up the parallel case for a station. We

see this option being represented as a composite of C and

D at this stage, beginning in the eastern part of the site,

and extending westwards over time as the gas holders are

decommissioned. This composite is more ambitious than

options A and B, but is more feasible than option E. It could

also provide a basis for including part of option F if the

opportunity presents itself.

Next steps

Assuming the Borough remains keen to pursue the concept

further, the next steps would be to:



Allocate the area as a Special Development 1.

Opportunity in any relevant policy framework.

Undertake detailed, phased masterplan design and 2.

feasibility testing.

Identify the impacts/benefits upon the wider area, 3.

as part of the case for transformational change.

Work closely with all the current landowners.4.

Work towards making a Crossrail station viable. 5.

At the appropriate time – engage with the local community.



1 introduction

In April 2008 a team of consultants was appointed by the

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to undertake a

preliminary feasibility study for a major redevelopment at

Kensal in the north of the borough. The team was led by Kevin

Murray Associates and comprised:

Kevin Murray Associates lead consultant

Willie Miller Urban Design spatial design

Alan Baxter Associates transport

Battle McCarthy sustainability

Gardner & Theobald costing

Colliers CRE property

The brief was initially termed an ‘ecotown’ or ‘eco-

neighbourhood’. Although this terminology has been

dropped to avoid confusion with a specific government

programme, many of the ideas have continued in the

evolution and testing of the concept.

The brief, and subsequent review, is focused around the

opportunity to deliver radical and transformational development

on a 19 hectare site lying between the main Great Western

railway line and Grand Union Canal in the north of the Borough.

As key sites within the area come forward for redevelopment,

there is potential to transform not only those sites but also

to make physical, social and economic linkages that could

regenerate the area as a whole, making it a more sustainable

neighbourhood from a number of perspectives. If delivered,

a visionary project if this type could deliver scale, critical

mass, diversity, connectivity, and a vibrant urban hub, all

in the context of a 21st century low carbon scenario. This,

however, depends on a radically different approach from the

‘do-minimum’ – which is becoming increasingly challenging

in the current investment context.

Context

In response to the brief, a vision of what this opportunity

could deliver was identified. It embraced:

• Agoodfunctionalpieceofcity,withwellintegrated

development that is permeable and of human scale.

• Developmentofahighlyaccessible‘centre’witha

range of public transport services, and retail and

leisure functions.

• Anenhancedresidentialcatchmentthattransforms

its existing nature and weaknesses and is high

enough to support good bus or Crossrail services,

and community services.

• Aboveall,creationofazeroorlowenergy

development that is also modest in use of other

resources.

As the project review progressed, it became apparent that

these aspirations could apply in different ways at a variety of

scales – from a very localised transformation, to a Borough-

wide and West London transformation, up to a London-wide

and potentially international scale.

aerial view of site + site boundary

6

The purpose of this pre-feasibility study was to assess how

practical and realistic such an overall vision could be. The

brief asked us to:

• Undertakeaninitialpre-feasibilityofthepotential

for an ‘EcoTown’ approach using key sites at Kensal.

• Identifyeitherthattheconcepthasnopotentialor

– if it does – to scope out the next stage of work in a

vision concept and brief.

The commission took place against a backdrop of

ongoing progress with the Local Development Framework

(LDF). Following the Council’s initial stage of LDF public

consultation, an Issues and Options consultation on the

Core Strategy in 2005, the Council held two further public

consultations which coincided with this commission:

• Immediatelybeforethecommissionbegan,in

February to April 2008, the Council held a further

Issues and Options public consultation on its Core

Strategy and North Kensington Area Action Plan.

The Kensal site was specifically included within this

Area Action Plan.

• BetweenJulyandOctober2008,theCouncil

undertook public consultation on a combined

document “Towards Preferred Options” which

included both the Core Strategy and the North

Kensington Area Action Plan. This focussed

particularly on strategic policy directions and

alternative visions for the Borough, together with a

focus on spatial areas in south of the Borough.

We understand that this commission will inform the LDF

process as it moves forward.

This Overview Report sets out the approach and key findings

of our commission. It should be emphasised that all of the

core work was undertaken before the full impacts of the

credit crunch had worked through.



2 approach

To navigate through the complex issues presented by the

site and brief, the approach to the commission involved a

progressive sequence of stages:

• Baselineinformation–assemblingrelevant

information about the site and its context.

• Optiongenerationandtesting–generationof

options as alternative scenarios, a review and

testing workshop, then a refinement of these

scenarios as conceptual options.

• Discussionswithkeystakeholders,including

landowners and politicians.

• Analysisofkeyconstraintsandotherdimensionsof

risk to the project, or to elements of it.

These various stages have been reported on in a sequence of

separate Reports.

Baseline analysis

To ensure that the options stage was informed and realistic,

a thorough baseline assessment was undertaken. The

main points are captured in the Baseline Report under the

following headings:

• Sitelocation-inarelativelyisolatedpositionat

the northern extremity of the Borough, the site is

currently only accessed from Ladbroke Grove. It

is split by rail tracks carrying the Great Western

main line and the Heathrow Express. Existing uses

include Sainsburys and two gasholders, as well as

derelict land. The Grand Union Canal and Kensal

Green Cemetery define the northern edge of the site.

• Policycontext–asummaryofkeypointersfrom

the statutory planning framework, which contains

important clues as to the potential long term role of

the site both locally and strategically.

• Areaanalysis–ananalysisofthephysicalformand

character of the site, dividing it into a number of

characterzonesforanalyticalpurposes.

• Ownership–therearefourkeylandholdingswhich

canbedividedintodistinctzones,eachofwhich

offers varying levels of potential for more intensive

use.

• Transport–accessibilityisakeyissue.This

section of the Baseline Report looks at existing

vehicular and pedestrian networks, public transport

accessibility, and examines the potential for

securing a new Crossrail station.

• Sustainability–thebriefplacessustainable

development at the heart of the project. We took

a broad view of sustainability, encompassing

economic, social and environmental issues. This

section places the site in context using indicators

for each of three types of issue.

• Propertymarket–anintroductiontofactors

which will affect the future use of the site from the

property market’s perspective.

• Infrastructureandcontamination–asummary

of key factors, focussing on remediation and the

impact of the gasholders on future development.

• Costs–anoverviewofcost-relatedfactorsthatwill

impact on how the site can be developed.

Significant physical constraints identified at this early stage

included:

• Therailandcanalcorridorsformbarrierstonorth-

south movement within and beyond the site. Whilst

8

development could possibly extend over the railway,

this is unlikely to be viable for the canal.

• Safetyconcernsaroundthegasholdersarelikely

to prevent residential development on significant

portions of the site as long as the gasholders are in

place (until at least 2016) – although there is a view

that these safety requirements are excessive.

• Thesinglevehicularconnectiontothesitemakes

it isolated, both in terms of public and private

transport.

• Sainsburysareunlikelytowanttomovetheirstore

from its current site, although it could possibly be

redeveloped as part of a larger, denser development.

The Baseline Report contains more details of this stage of the

process.

Options generation and testing

The options stage was pivotal in the overall process. It was

a progressive learning and testing approach to unearth the

relationships between the various issues, identify a number

of possible scenarios, and crystallise both the client’s and the

consultants’ thinking about practical ways of developing the

site in response to the study brief.

A client workshop was used to test different development

scenarios for the site, based on a set of alternative scenarios

of progressive scales and intensity of development.

The process of generating and testing options was designed

to be creative and open, with the aim of avoiding closing

down ideas and choices before they had been explored.

This open approach resulted in consideration of a wide

range of possibilities. It enabled a variety of futures and

outcomes to be constructed, explored and developed, then

further reviewed and tested for feasibility, desirability

and plausibility. This method enabled exploration of

scenarios that were acknowledged as being, to varying

extents, desirable and plausible – not simply a wish list of

workshop images - 13 May 2008



A

Amax

D F1

B

C

E F2

a few idealised end-states. The scenarios explored a future

situation (2025) well beyond the limits of current policy, and

also without community involvement at this early stage.

Importantly, it generated a wide range of relevant issues for

further testing, review and, where appropriate, policy action

and dialogue with landowners and statutory bodies.

The development of the range of scenarios involved initial

construction using two key variables – one relating to an

increasing scale and quantum of development, the other

to an increasingly diverse range of uses and activities. The

absence or presence of a Crossrail station was included in the

range. Using the knowledge gained from the initial stages of

baseline research, the options were developed and reviewed

in a collaborative workshop with the client, following which

the consultant team updated and modified the options in

response to further baseline information that subsequently

emerged.

The final options are shown on the accompanying table and

plans. Further detail is available in the Options Report,

which also describes the options generation and testing

approach in more detail.

10

option gross area

storeys residential units commercial floorspace

description Crossrail station

north south total

A 6.7 ha 4 1256 920 1256 7,000m2 Residential, 3 and 4 storey [average 3.5 for calculating number of homes], some

higher, Sainsbury retained as is, canal extensions through site, no development south

of railway, no station.

no

A max 12.8 ha 5 2435 920 1992 7,000m2 Same as A but includes development south of the railway no

B 15.2 ha 6 2922 1104 3355 12,000m2 Residential,5and6storey,somehigher,Sainsburyincludedinreconfiguredbuilding,

canal extensions through site, residential development south of railway, Crossrail

station.

yes

C 15.2 ha 7+ 3896 1288 5184 20,000m2 Residential,6and7storey,communityandretail,Sainsburyincludedinreconfigured

building, canal extensions through site, residential south of railway, Crossrail station.

yes

D 15.7 ha 6-12 1260 920 2180 164,201m2 Business, leisure, retail and residential, 11 and 12 storey, residential south of railway,

Crossrail station. A London destination rather than a residential dormitory.

yes

E 16.7 ha 13+ 1989 404 2393 480,000m2 Business, leisure, retail and residential, 13+ storeys, megastructure around Crossrail

station, underground parking. A London destination rather than a residential

dormitory.

yes

F1 16.7 ha various 0 920 920 580,000m2 Large single user on megastructure around Crossrail station, underground parking.

An international centre of excellence – for example in health or education.

yes

F2 15,2 ha various 0 404 404 500,000m2 Same as F1 but without a crossrail station nor construction over the railway (unless

viable)

no


D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 8 | K E V I N M U R R A Y A S S O C I A T E S | 1 1

Stakeholder discussions

In the latter part of the study, discussions took place with

two key stakeholder groups - landowners and key local

politicians to present the issues surrounding redevelopment

of the site and understand their aspirations.

These discussions highlighted a divergence between the

aspirations of these two key groups of stakeholders. This in

summary was as follows:

• Thekeylandowners viewed major redevelopment

proposals cautiously. Generally, they favour lower

intervention options without new rail bridges

and stations –unsurprisingly given the inherent

additional cost and risk in the more interventionist

options. Put very simply, the optimal commercial

scenario could be described as achieving maximum

possible development capacity of high value

development (likely to be residential) with minimal

strategic interventions such as a rail bridge or

station.

• Key politicians took a rather more proactive stance.

They aspired to see the site developed for more than

just housing, instead setting their sights on mixed

use with employment and community benefits or

the single-user campus type scenario. They were

keen to move forward with the process of securing

appropriate redevelopment of the site.

It is important to note that local communities are also a

key stakeholder. Whilst it was – with good reason - beyond

the scope of this pre-feasibility study to engage with

communities, it is important that early, genuine community

engagement takes place if regeneration of the site is

progressed. We discuss this in more detail in the Risk Report.

Risk assessment

Identifying the risks that might derail this project has

always been a critical part of this commission. As we have

explained above, our initial proposal recognised that there

are a number of potential risks that could prevent this project

either from being delivered or fulfilling its potential – in

other words, failing to meet the high aspirations that have

been set for the project.

Our analysis identified a number of key barriers to

implementation and risks to the project, each of which is

explained in more detail in the Risk Report:

• Property market – the main property market risks

focus around creating a distinctive location that the

market will be persuaded to invest in, particularly

in the way that would be required to meet the

ambitious ‘ecoquarter’ aspirations.

• Landowners – the main risks relate to failing to

ensure that key landowners act in concert to provide

an outcome that is more substantial and beneficial

than the sum of their individual aspirations.

• Placemaking and liveability – the key risk is in

delivering the substantial scale of development

envisaged but without distinctive character,

comfortable human scale, user-friendly sense of

space or integration, and linkage with surrounding

areas. In other words, the scheme might ‘tick the

boxes’ but not deliver a sustainable neighbourhood

of enduring quality.

12

• Sustainability – the main sustainability risks relate

to providing a basic development that does not meet

the higher aspirations of an ecoquarter. This is as

much about aspiration and eventual user lifestyles

as it is about the initial development.

• Local infrastructure and carrying capacity – there

are some risks around the carrying capacity of the

area to take the scale of development anticipated.

Improvements are required before major scale

development can be successfully progressed and

integrated.

• Delivery of a Crossrail station – risks are presented

by uncertainly over Crossrail: firstly, whether and

when any station might be delivered, and secondly

how much development can be progressed before

hitting any trip generation thresholds.

• Political support – because of the boldness and

scale of any Kensal ‘ecoquarter’ scheme, there will

always be a risk of political fragmentation and

changes in vision and direction throughout the

duration of such a major project. This could also

have property market confidence implications.

• Community support – any major scheme will

generate community concerns – and likely

opposition. The greater the scheme, the greater the

potential for opposition unless clearly identified

community benefits can be communicated.

• Regulatory requirements – regulatory

requirements could have a significant bearing

on what may be possible. Of these, the safety

zonearoundthegasholdersiscurrentlythemost

prominent uncertainty.

To supplement these generic risks, the Risk Report also

summarised specific risks for each of development option.

This demonstrates a clear relationship between risk and

reward: option A offers the least risk, yet is also the least

aspirational and ambitious in terms of regeneration benefits,

Crossrail and other public benefits. The more ambitious

development options contain greater risks, but also the

promise of greater rewards.



3 outcomes Decision areas

The process of generating and testing options produced a

range of development scenarios for the site. These varied in

terms of both use (encompassing residential, mixed use and

single institutional users) and scale (from developing only

the area to the north of the railway to a megastructure which

decks over the railway and takes in the entire site).

In the Options Report, we have identified three key decision

areas which need to be aligned to have any chance of

securing the more ambitious proposals of the area becoming

a major destination:

• Thelong term strategic aspiration for the role

of the location – whether to play a wider socio-

economic role in West London and beyond, or focus

on the more immediate neighbourhoods at the

Borough scale.

• WhetherthereisaprospectofsecuringaCrossrail

station in the medium term, which is closely

linked to the first decision area, but not necessarily

resolved immediately.

• Whetherthevariouslandowners are willing to act

in concert with the Council to promote the more

ambitious development options.

The Options Report also identified a number of associated

factors, none of which are small challenges – all require a bold

approach and committed follow-through:

• Securingtheoptimumsolutionintermsof

matrix for plotting scenarios

environmental sustainability.

• Achievingwider regeneration benefits beyond the

immediate locality.

• Ensuringthatthecarrying capacity of the

local area can accommodate the quantum

of development associated with each option

– particularly in terms of infrastructure and

community facilities.

• Producinganeconomically viable approach that

contributes to the public realm and well-being.

• Ensuringthatplacemaking and liveability are of

the highest order, particularly for the more intense

development options.

The original directional choices can be summarised as:

• A,AmaxandB:lowerintensityhousingdriven

options. Potentially deliverable – but not necessarily

fully transformational.

• C:highdensitycommunity,potentiallydeliverable,

but not fulfilling potential role.

• DandE:increasinglydensemixeduse,potentially

viable as destination, but raising questions over

14

delivery and may bring disbenefits in terms of

community value.

• F1andF2:‘centreofexcellence’campus.

Aspirational, highly transformational, but only

deliverable under certain circumstances.

Recommended approach

As a result of ongoing review, early dialogue with landowners

and members, and changing market circumstances, we

recommend proceeding with a cautiously optimistic

approach, anticipating a change in future circumstances.

This would allow for:

• Progressive,butlinked,implementationbydifferent

landowners/developers.

• Agreaterlevelofmixandscalethanthat

represented by options A and B, with potential to

bring Borough and London-wide benefits.

• Avoidingthehighestriskoptions–intermsofscale,

cost and complexity.

• Maintainingtheaspirationaltargetofsecuringa

station because of its wider benefits.

This approach is exemplified by a new Balanced Composite

taking elements of options C and D (see plan overleaf ). This

includes a reconfigured Sainsbury’s block with car parking

incorporated in the building and residential uses above.

This reconfigured Sainsbury’s store would lie within a new

street layout on the eastern part of the site. Development

would only occur on the western part of the site once the gas

holders have been decommissioned and then removed. This

aims to build up a critical mass of development over several

stages, including elements of key infrastructure.

This composite option responds to a number of particular

constraints:

Continued use of the gas holders until at least 2016, •

and related health and safety constraints.

The need to create a second access to the site south •

of the railway, connecting to Barlby Road at at least

two points and with a possible western connection

to Mitre Way if feasible.

An anticipated requirement for Sainsbury’s to retain •

visual prominence from Ladbroke Grove.

Avoiding prejudicing the potential for a future •

Crossrail station.

We would emphasise that this remains a conceptual

approach at this stage which needs further feasibility testing

and discussion with key stakeholders. It is not yet a fully

costed masterplan framework.



indicative framework

phase 2

phase 1



4 next steps

First and foremost, this commission has established that

there is potential for comprehensive redevelopment of the

site to contribute not only to the case for a Crossrail station

but other wider regeneration benefits in the north of the

Borough.

Further, more specific and detailed testing of a specific

approach is now required to underpin this approach in

policy terms. In addition, exploring the options by creatively

engaging with the local community and other stakeholders

is important to address one of the key components of the

project – as interested parties.

It is proposed the next steps would be to:

1. Allocate the area as a Special Development

Opportunity in any relevant LDF policy framework,

setting down key goals.

2. Undertake detailed phased masterplan framework,

socio-economic impact appraisal and feasibility

testing.

3. Identify the impacts/benefits upon the wider area,

as part of the case for transformational change.

4. Work closely with all the current landowners.

5. Work towards making a Crossrail station viable.

6. At the appropriate time, consult with the local

community about concept and content – within the

broad framework of the LDF programme.

Kevin Murray Associates

20 Southbrae Drive

Glasgow G131PY

[email protected]

kensal ecoquarter - overview report

Documents

e w r e p o r td e c

s i d e p r e f e

i t y s t u d yd e c

s i b i

s s o c

current site

significant development

quantum of development