GREEDY DEVELOPERS REAR THEIR UGLY HEADS AGAIN

 Dear Resident

 

Just as you thought we had won the argument - the two towers and 9 storey slab block are back on the agenda.

 

Although the Mayor’s approval of the outrageous plans to more than double the volume of the site of the Cromwell Road Holiday Inn was quashed by judicial review, the application has reappeared and will be decided at a new mayoral hearing in City Hall on the 22nd October.

 

This time the hearing will be determined by the deputy mayor Jules Pipe.  Will that make any difference to the result?  We doubt it!

 

Last time round we raised 900 written objections to the proposals.  Once again we are calling for your support.  Please write by 11th September 2020 to:

kensingtonforumhotel@london.gov.uk

 

While you can of course repeat your comments of last time round, we would like to suggest that you consider the following:

·         Oppressive bulk & mass:  the increased height of the slab block on which the two towers will sit, from seven to nine storeys (most surrounding buildings are generally four to five storeys) with a children’s playground sitting at roof level on top of the ninth floor, crushing the surrounding buildings and dominating the site and distant views.

·         Affordable housing: this increase is to accommodate 62 affordable housing units – an increase from the original 46.  RBKC has since approved plans for 600 new homes on council owned land. At least 300 are planned to be at social rent and 97 of which are to start this year.   This site is inappropriate and the playground provision inadequate and wholly unsuitable.

·         Unnecessary additional hotel rooms:  according to the GLA’s own forecast the borough’s total need for extra hotel rooms was to be 150 by 2041.  A recently approved site in Notting Hill Gate is for 175; the Harrington Hall hotel, currently undergoing refurbishment, will have 200 rooms.  There will be more than enough hotel accommodation without the net increase of 183 proposed in this development.

·         London Plan and Local Plan:  This development contravened large key parts of the London Plan and the Local Plan.  Recent revisions to these two plans have not in any way increased this development’s viability.

·         Economic activity: the projections for increased employment, servicing the proposed development are vague and possibly unrealistic given anecdotal evidence.

·         Historic England’s Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings issued in May this year states that the redevelopment of such sites should take the opportunity to produce a less harmful development.  

This proposal is  certainly not that.  

The taller of the two towers, at 102m will be 12 metres taller than the existing tower.  

The second tower at 76m would be 3m less than the current one.

·         Changes in the economic climate in 2020 have had a dramatic effect world wide  - will large event facilities for hundreds of delegates with a luxury spa, gym etc ever be really necessary again?

·         Huge increase in density:  this is one of the most densely populated corners of the capital  -  do we really need over 300 more ‘serviced apartments’ making use of our already overstretched utilities?

 

Objections need to relate primarily to the revisions to the original failed application but that does not preclude you from commenting on the scheme as a whole. The economic environment has dramatically changed in 2020 which renders the rationale for a huge increase in floor space impotent.

 

If you need any further information or help in writing do please contact us.

Thank you if you have already written in response to this new call-in.

 

With very best wishes

 

Friederike Maeda, Chairman ACGRA