Page 1

February 2017

Feasibility Report | AD6000 | Dissertation | Luc Jones

Chelsea Creek


Contents 01 Site Analysis 01

Introduction 1

02

Landscape Context

2.1 Greater London 2 2.2 Chelsea 3 2.3 Connections & Access 2.4 Site Photos & Views 6

03

Historical Context

3.1 Chelsea 7 3.2 Historical Art Colony 8

04

Cultural Context

4.1 The River Thames 9 4.2 The Thames Path 10 4.3 Crime 11 4.4 Demographics 12

05

Ecological Context

5.1 Habitats & Species 14 5.2 Topography & Hydrology 16 5.3 Flora 17 5.4 Archaeology 18 5.5 Micro Climate 20

06 Summary 22

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


Luc Jones S1405409 University of Gloucestershire AD6000: Major Research Project Dissertation Module Tutor: Bill Burford 13/02/2017

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire


01 Site


Analysis


55 Lots Road Kensington & Chelsea London SW10 0QH


1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Reason for Development

1.1.4 Purpose of Report

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) have requested that the Site named ‘Chelsea Creek’ be regenerated, in order to develop the Chelsea Riverside area. It is intended that the development will further enhance and regenerate the character, economy and ecology of the Chelsea Creek site. The proposed design should incorporate new and intuitive methods of design to further enhance sustainable lifestyles in London. It should assist with bringing communities together, and provide recreation and opportunity for all abilities, cultures and beliefs, furthermore, the area would benefit from commercial development, therefore, it is intended that this site be developed so that the economic growth of the area can be further enhanced.

The first part of this report titled ‘01 Site Analysis’ sets out to inform the reader of the potential strengths and issues of the site, with regards to Landscape Context, Connections & Ecology. Furthermore, it is intended that the information presented throughout this report will provide sufficient rationale for the design intentions with regards to planning considerations. This reports aims to achieve a clear and coherent conclusions that leads to a design that provides for the human needs of the user, as well as the ecology and economic needs of the Chelsea Riverside area. This Information will then be summarised to aid the second part of this report titled ‘02 Design Rationale’. Please see ****** for more information regarding the design access statement.

There have been numerous proposals for the ‘Chelsea Creek’ site, which is currently lying dormant as a disused power station, with adjacent land. The site has a fresh industrial character, and its location suggests that it is a potential node for commuters and residents. The Mayor of London published a statement in 2015 regarding green infrastructure in the City, leading to the ‘Green Infrastructure Task Force’ being established, who published the London Infrastructure Plan until 2050, which sets out the needs for London over the coming decades. This report sets out guidelines for the development of green infrastructure in within London, this proposal will use this as a key initiative do assist with the aims of this the Mayors of London’s plans to enhance green infrastructure within the city, thus, creating an affluent, biodiverse, engaging environment along the river Thames.

1.1.5 Structure of Report

1.1.2 Design Intentions The design intention the proposed Chelsea Creek site development, is a high quality, biodiverse natural environment that is: • In-keeping with the local character and native plant species of the region. • Reinforcing the existing quality of the area. • In-keeping with the urban character of the neighbouring districts and river bank environments. • Enhance the character of the allocated buildings specified along site the landscape proposals. • Integrate and provide a more sustainable and beneficial links and transports in and outside of the site. • Enhance the potential for ecological range and potential wildlife. • Enhance the quality of health and well-being of the potential residents. • Introduce new commercial opportunity to further increase the value and economy of the area. • Encourage opportunity for more employment in the area alongside the initiatives put across by the Mayor of London’s Plan 2015. • Introduce and encourage tourism to the site, as well as improving the multicultural intergeneration of the area and links through the design for all.

1.1.3 About Author This report is part of the AD6000 Dissertation: Major Research Project at the University of Gloucestershire, Landscape Architecture Department. The author of this report is Luc Jones, a third year BAHons Undergraduate student.

As discussed (1.1.3) this report will be broken down into two parts, ‘01 Site Analysis’ will extract information through desktop research and site visits to provide a clear and cohesive analytical breakdown of the proposed site named ‘Chelsea Creek’. This report will: • • • • • • •

Provide an insight to the surrounding landscape context of London, with regards to access, connections & transport as well as any statutory designations that impact the site. Provide and introduction and summary of the proposed site and areas history to establish a distinctive character for the site. Highlight the cultural influence of London and Chelsea with regards to demographics, economy, and crime. Provide a detailed break down of the site ecology and what planning implications may impact on this particular site. Consideration of planning with regards to visual impacts and views. A summary & site appraisal of all the above to provide a detailed and educated design access statement and rationale.

‘02 Design Rationale’ will take all the information presented in ‘01 Site Analysis’ and propose an informed design statement for the Chelsea Creek site. This will entail: • • • • • • • • •

Vision and strategy for design. Break down of the client brief and the development brief. Principles for design. Site zoning strategies and rationale for purpose of design. Precedent studies to aid the design rationale. Design Development, with sketch plans. Design Access Statement for the Chelsea Creek site. Final masterplan with accompanying visual aids. Conclusions and annotation of the key features and elements for the proposed design.

Accompanying Documents The Documents listed below should be read along side this report: • •

AD6000_Chelsea Creek_Presentation Board_LJ_S1405409 AD6000_Chelsea Creek_Detail Area Plan_LJ_S1405409_1-200_A1

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

1


2.1 Landscape Context Greater London 2.1.1 Description London is the capital and most populous city of England and has been a major settlement for two millennia. London is a key hub for diversity with numerous cultures thriving throughout the Greater London area with over 300 different languages spoken within the city. The current population for 2016 is estimated at 8.7 million (London Census 2015). 2011 Statistics showed that 36.7% of the Greater London population are born in foreign countries, making London the second biggest immigrant population behind New York City.

CAMDEN CITY OF LONDON

TOWER HAMLETS

WESTMINSTER

London was the worlds largest city between 1831 and 1925, after which globalisation allowed other major cities to develop and take over from London, however, in 2008 London was declared alongside New York, Hong Kong and Nylonkong as one of the most ‘influential’ cities. As discussed above culture is key to making any city buzz, during the 1960s London was considered the worldwide centre for youth culture. Needless to say London still remains the top ranked place to visit (Trip advisor, 2016).

RBKC SOUTHWARK

GREENWICH

LBHF

Tourism is key with regards to the cities financial income and London’s prime industry is tourism creating 350 000 full time jobs further to this in 2015 London was voted the most visited city, this will be greatly due to the knock on effect from the 2012 Olympic games. With regards to character, it is hard to distinguish a particular style or character for London due to the vast array of architectural style, especially after Former Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s abolishment of the city wide sky scrapers ban. However, towards the Chelsea Creek site (Fig. 1) which is in the west of London, building character and style can be considered ‘white stucco’ or ‘white washed’ and some of the traditional grand buildings throughout London are built with Portland stone.

Site Location LAMBERTH

LEWISHAM

WANDSWORTH

2.1.2 Issues & Opportunities North

Culturally London is an extremely diverse city, which allows for many opportunities to develop a space to influence and benefit all walks of life. However, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) area has a focus demographic of middle class residential & commercial. This demonstrates the primary demographic that this proposal will have the greatest affect on. The mix of character all around allows for this proposal to be rather experimental and inclusive, please see the London Plan 2015 (policy 7.4) where it states that people should be able to live and work in in a safe, healthy, supportive and inclusive neighbourhood that they are proud to identify. Tourism will be essential to attracting a wider range of visitors to this area, as well as adding to the growing working population by providing more employment through development. By increasing the appeal for visitors in this area this will in turn support the Mayors plans to increase its economic growth from the existing 330 000est. of tourism employment, (London Plan 2015, Chapter 7) to further enhance Chelsea Creek area. Connectivity is also key, and the Thames Path will connect the site to the rest of London via the river Thames and the future ‘Vaxhaull Missing Link’ project. This will bring more interest to this area of London allowing for a more vibrant and diverse end of town. The new ‘Battersea Power Station Development’ is another example of the south west of London developing its own distinct appeal. This suggests that the Chelsea Creek location will benefit from regeneration combined with characteristic of this development has a great way of opportunity to contribute to these links.

2

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

2.1.3 Planning Considerations

Figure 1 - Map of Greater London Not to scale

Greater London is wholly governed by the Greater London Authority (GLA), London is then broken down into Boroughs (Fig 1). Please refer to the London Plan Overview section 1.44 ‘A new quality of life.’ The series guidelines will direct this proposals aims and will support the ‘02 Design Rationale’.

Summary • • • • •

London is a diverse multicultural city, with lots of vibrant distinctive districts. No distinctive character allowing for great provision for original design. Tourism is a key element to development throughout London. Ensuring a greater quality of life for both visitor and resident. It is important to the design that it follows the guidelines set out by the London Plan 2015 with regards to ‘a new quality of life’.


2.2 Landscape Context Chelsea 2.1.4 Description of Chelsea Chelsea is a thriving social community full of high end housing and accommodation as well as luxurious leisure, and amenities. Fig. 2 to the left, shows the placement of the Chelsea Creek site in relation to the rest of the two boroughs. Also shown on the map are the local green spaces surrounding the site. It is clear the largest green space is Battersea Park on the south of the river. The site locally known as ‘Chelsea Creek’ hosts the now decommissioned Lots Road Power Station, which stands out as a key landmark for the river bank of Chelsea. Lots Road runs along the north of the site and accommodates typical Londonesque style terrace housing which have mostly been converted into offices. There are still however, some residential units still existing. Also along Lots Road sits the newly redeveloped Chelsea Academy providing secondary and sixth form education. This can have a potential direct link into the proposed site due the lack of green space locally. Lots Road pub acts as key interaction point for commuters and local residents this helps to amplify the character of the area and also enhance the community atmosphere. Chelsea Harbour is located to the south west of the site which is a 20th century residential and commercial development. This is a surprisingly quiet area amidst the busy life of London, however, the lack of green space nearby prohibits the potential opportunity for outdoor interaction and a healthy active lifestyle. Nevertheless, the Thames Path runs along front of the site towards the Chelsea pier.

RBKC

LBHF Wandsworth

North

Figure 2 - Borough Boundaries Not to Scale

2.1.5 Issues & Opportunities Although fig. 1 shows a satisfactory number green spaces, a considerable number of these spaces are either private or not functional space. The Cremone Gardens located north of the site boundary on Lots Road is a space for reflection and remembrance. This garden is predominantly hard landscape, however, it is monitored and maintained frequently by the council. Although there is a limited access to green urban space, Battersea Park however, offers a great peaceful green park which really takes the user away from the city into nature. There are also sports facilities located inside the park, which are private and have to be paid for to be used. This suggests that this area could really benefit from a smart urban park that is open and accessible to the public. Health and activity is a key element to incorporate providing opportunities for residents, students, workers to rest and play locally without walking to Battersea Park or into Chelsea centre. There is also limited restaurants and bars nearby, other than Chelsea Harbour, this highlights the definite opportunity for commercial development in this area. In return this will bring greater value to the site by returns through business and further encourage more jobs to be made catering to the needs suggested by the London Plan 2015 (1.53 pt 1). It states the plan will provide a city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth. Lots Road Power station is a great opportunity to encourage a rich character and culture to the site, if designed well the re development could be hugely successful, Battersea Power station up river is a great example this.

2.1.6 Planning Considerations The site falls into two Boroughs (Fig 2), divided through the middle of the creek. To left is Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council (LBHF), and to the right is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). There is already Planning permission for 420 residential units, as well as 180 affordable units. Therefore to support both RBKC and LBHF as well as the London Plan 2015 housing needs, development of residential and commercial facilities will only be a positive motive for the area.

Summary • Area is predominantly Residential therefore the introduction of commercial development would be beneficial. • Active public green space would also help to improve the area. • More affordable housing in order to support the RBKC & London Plan 2015. • Enhancing the rich and affluent culture of Chelsea presented through its distinct London character. • There is already Planning permission for 420 residential units, as well as 180 affordable units. • The Site falls into two boroughs, RBKC & LBHF.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

3


2.2 Landscape Context Connections & Access 2.3.1 Routes & Connections It is important to understand the accessibility of the site with regards to pedestrian routes, Cycle routes, sustainable transport links to and from the site and the personal vehicle routes. The Predominant mode of transport through the site is the personal motor vehicle, this will be partially due to the area falling outside of the London Congestion Charge zone. The riverside of Chelsea is fed by key A roads such as the A3220 and the A308 which lead to major roads connecting the area to greater London, the south, and west of England (Fig 3). It is also clear to see from the diagram to the right that links to the London underground are merely one stop away on the Overground from Imperial Warf. The Chelsea Creek site has satisfactory links to other parts of London and the south of England, however, the site is limited with regards to bus connections.

2.3.2 Issues & Opportunities As discussed above the limited number of bus connections near the site (Fig. 4) prevent the potential opportunity for sustainable travel too, from and through the site. This provides great opportunity for new bus links to be created. For example, to the main nodes of London, like; Oxford Circus, Notting Hill, Westminster, the City, and the River Embankment. The site as discussed is predominantly accessed by the personal motor car. In an ideal world, the number of cars in and around the proposed site would be reduced, this could be a difficult task if full restriction of vehicles is implemented. The proposed design rationale will propose ways to mitigate the pollution, and traffic volumes circulating the site.

Legend

West Brompton

North London Underground Train Station

Fulham Broadway Bus Stop

River Bus Connection A Roads Imperial Wharf B Roads

As well as the limited bus connections there is only one train connection within a reasonable walking distance (LBHF side). This has created a high volume of pedestrian foot traffic passing through the area to access the overground service. This suggests that the users frequently pass the site, thus presenting the idea that this space could potentially become an influential passage for the public via transport connections. This can make the Chelsea Creek site a vital artery to connect to Chelsea as well as the rest of London. ‘Quiet ways are a network of cycle routes throughout London that form part of the vision to transform cycling in the capital’ (Sustrans, 2016). The opportunity is great for an increase of safer cycle links connecting to other districts of London, alongside Sustrans initiative as cited above. Not only this they state ways in which to Improve walking in towns. Again this is a concept that will strongly influence the design proposal of the Chelsea Creek site. This proposal aims to further enhance the city as well the surrounding area, in its joint goal to be more sustainable, cleaner and friendly.

C Roads

Train Line River Boat Route Figure 3 - Key Routes & Connections

2.3.4 Public Transport 2.3.3 Transport Planning Considerations Policy 6.9 of the London Plan 2015, encourages the development of cycle highways and Quite ways. Further to this paragraph 6.34 of the London Plan states that New developments should provide cycling parking and cycle changing facilities to encourage more cycling. (Policy 6.9 in Chapter six of the London Plan 2015) Policy CT 1 of the RBKC Local plan encourages the initiative of improving alternative transport methods opposed to the car.

4

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

There are Limited bus routes passing through the site, in fact the only bus that comes close is the C22 (Fig 4). Other than this the nearest bus connections will be found on the main roads (Kings Road) leading to Salone Square and Walham Green. Further to the point made by previously (2.3.2) this site would benefit from the introduction of more bus connections passing through the site connecting it to the rest of the City. Figure 4 on page 11 shows the current bus routes that impact the Chelsea Creek site, as well as this, the Transport for London PTAL rating for the Chelsea Creek area has been illustrated. The site is predominantly PTAL 3, however, the Lots Road corner, has a PTAL rating of 4. It is clear to see that closer to the Kings Road the PTAL rating increases to 6a.


2.3 Landscape Context Connections & Access Continued

Legend North

Santander Cycles Docking stations “Boris Bikes” Cycle Superhighway Route CS8

Legend North

Pedestrian Route Thames Path National Trail

PTAL - 3 PTAL - 4 PTAL - 6a

22 & N22 Picadilly Circ. to Putney Cmn. C3 Cromwell Rd. to Battersea Stn. 170 & 19 Victoria Stn. to Clapham Jct. 11 & N11 Earls Court to Putney Figure 4 - Bus Routes & PTAL Rating

Figure 5 - Cycles & Footpaths

2.3.5 Sustainable Transport With Regards to Cycle routes there are no London designated cycle highways near the site other than the CS8 (Fig 3, nevertheless, there are an abundance of London Cycle Docking stations “Boris Bikes” (Fig 5). There are 4 main cycle Highways in London as listed below: CS2 - Stratford - Aldgate CS3 - Barking - Tower Gateway CS7 - Merton - The City CS8 - Wandsworth - Westminster The nearest cycle highway to the site is the CS8, which runs along the east of Battersea Park over Chelsea Bridge as shown in Figure 5. Also Shown on Figure 3, the nearest train link is the London Over ground service which will lead to Waterloo east, and north London.

Summary • • • • •

Improving Cycle connectivity and provision. Links between the train station and areas of town potentially create an opportunity for a stopping point or a passage to create a safer environment. There is potential for more bus connections to and from the site. The site is predominantly accessed by the personal motor car, and this needs to be addressed in the proposed strategy in order to make the space, safer and cleaner. Pedestrian routes will also need to be enhanced and considered in this proposal.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

5


2.4 Landscape Context Site Photos & Views

1

Image looks into the site from the road showing the great vantage point the user has over the creek. 6

1

2

3

4

3

4 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Important view up creek to centre of London, bad weather on the day of visit, however, the Shard can be seen. View on from Lots Road showing the magnitude of the power station, and the impact it has on the area. The industrial character of the power station walls, also shows how dark this side of the power station can be.

1 2

View east from Chelsea harbour showing the link the national train and harbour site has with the creek.

6 7 8

Important view from the perspective of the residents living on the boundary of the proposed site.

View of power station from the LBHF side of the site, key views in from residents.

5

7

View of current power building accompanying the power station from residents of Chelsea Creeks perspective Legend North

0

6

5

Location of Site Photo

Views into site from residents

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

Key engaging lines of sight

8


3.1 Historical Context Chelsea 3.1.1 History of Chelsea Creek & Chelsea Designed by James Russel, built in 1904 and decommissioned in 2002 the Lots Road Power station was the first of its two sister power stations, Battersea and Greenwich, along the river Thames. It provided power to the London underground until passing control to the national grid late in the 20th century. Before the site was striped bare it had a series of docks for ships and barges used to transit around 700 tones of coal to the station. Around the time of decommission, the two chimneys were used to support a radio transmitter to broadcast across London. Whilst the Thames Water building on the north east boundary is listed, the Lots Road power station is in fact not a statutory listed building. The word Chelsea derived from the old English term landing place for chalk and limestone. By 1694 Chelsea had already established its self as a popular location for the wealthy, and still to this day the Kings road is the major artery with a diverse mix of shops, restaurants and bars. 1978 saw the development of Chelsea park hamlet which again allowed the area to grow in status amongst London. Chelsea is now most famous for the RHS Flower show, Royal Chelsea hospital that homes ‘Chelsea Pensioners’ who served in second World War. Finally Chelsea Football Club who compete on the world stage from Stamford Bridge Stadium in Fulham Broadway. Culturally the area developed from the swinging 60s to the 70s when a growing Bohemian and Punk population arrived from Notting Hill.

3.1.2 Counter’s Creek Counters Creek flows into the Chelsea Creek from the top (fig. 8), and acts as a boundary line between RBKC and LBHF. Traditionally it was connected to a stream of fresh water that flowed from Kensal Green, by North Kensington, and then flowed into the River Thames on the tideway at Sands End, Chelsea. Now the only remaining opening is the Chelsea Creek. By the eighteenth century the creek had become known as Counter’s Creek, which is believed to derive from ‘Counter’s Bridge’ which crossed the creek at the west end of Kensington High Street. Currently the only open part of the creek is the Chelsea Creek site, the rest is now culvert under ground. Previously during the 19th century the stream was used to channel sewage towards the Thames, whilst this is still prominent, the introduction of the Tide Way Tunnel in 2023 will help to reduce this by a rather large percentage.

3.1.3 Issues & Opportunities

1 - National Library of Scotland OS Historic Map1888-1913

2 - National Library of Scotland OS Historic Map1837-1961

3 - Ordnance Survey Ltd Map 2016

Figure 7 - Historic Maps

Character is a key element to base this proposal on, Lots Road all be it has a relatively fresh level of history, its rich industrial atmosphere still exists and is a great element to develop upon. This combined with the indulgent history of the surrounding area, it is clear that this proposal will no doubt benefit all users. The proud wealthy heritage of the surrounding context provides great opportunity for a well thought through narrative that caters to the local life as well as informing and educating the visitors. Educating the next generation of what was previously on this site, whilst at the same time displaying of how society is developing would be a great initiative for this proposal especially with the local schools and existing residents nearby. Originally Chelsea was considered the borough of artists, with a reputation as London’s bohemian quarter. Although this idea has somewhat dissolved the Chelsea College of Art and Design and the Chelsea arts club present a great opportunity to develop the idea of art as a key theme or concept. The Lots Road power station presents its own issues with regards to its structural stability. Currently the station is a shell, and in order to develop and make safe it will be costly to restore. Although this may initially appear negative if the right development is incorporated the returns made could balance out the cost of repair not to mention the architectural aesthetic benefits of the end product.

3.1.4 Planning Considerations The NPPF Suggests whilst Heritage sites and listed Buildings must be preserved, ultimately it is down to the Local plan to dictate the direction of the borough. RBKC Local plan indicates Lots Road Power station as a strategic site within the borough. Chapter 27 Paragraph 27.1.2 states that it would be appropriate to renew the legacy, and engage the public realm. RBKC Renewing Legacy policy also states that special character should be enhanced on developments close to the river Thames and canals in chapter 34 Paragraph 34.3.8 of the local Plan.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

7


3.2 Historical Context Historical Art Colony 3.2.1 Sand Ends For centuries this swampy place was a rural backwater, cut off from other villages and the main thoroughfares into the City of London. Its earliest recorded landowner was John de Saundeford in the reign of Edward I. Barbara Denny, a contemporary historian, writes that King Henry VIII granted the manor of Sandford to the Abbot of Westminster, but in 1549 it returned to the Crown. Ten years later, Queen Mary sold it to a mercer from London, William Maynard. Although the estate had a manor house, for centuries the land was used mainly for pasture. In spite of its rural charms, the area was affected by flooding, dampness and the effluent descending from Counter’s Creek, sometimes referred to as a sewer so by the early 19th-century, the estate was in decline.

LBHF

Westminster

un Co

RBKC

e re

sC

r te k

William De Morgan

3.2.2 Art & Bohemian Culture The Chelsea area since it was established has been rich with a somewhat aristocrat culture, and there has been a wide variety of movements and cultures that have developed over the centuries of its existence. For example, the writer Oscar Wilde found residence in the area. Alongside this, Chelsea was described as the borough of artists, which is a theme that has been lost over time and the modernisation of the area. Chelsea was considered London’s bohemian quarter. The Bohemian movement was the practice of an unconventional lifestyle, often in the company of like-minded people, with few permanent ties, involving musical, artistic, or literary pursuits. In this context, Bohemians may be wanderers, adventurers, or vagabonds. In Particular William and Evelyn De Morgans ceramic works were rather influential to the Chelsea Creek site.

3.2.3 William De Morgan Born 1839 in Chester, the son of a mathematician pursued a Kaleidoscopic career as a designer, potter inventor and novelist. Originally experimenting with stained glass his worked shifted in 1872 to ceramics, where he set up a pottery works in Chelsea which he stayed until 1881. De Morgan was particularly drawn to Eastern tiles. Around 1873/74 he made a striking breakthrough by rediscovering the technique of lustre ware (characterized by a reflective, metallic surface) found in Hispano-Moresque pottery and Italian majolica. His interest in Persian style of design allowed De Morgan to develop work that reflected exceptional creatures entwined with rhythmic geometric motifs that float under luminous glazes. With regards to this development the shapes that De Morgan used in his work could strongly impact the design rationale of this project.

8

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

Richmond

Sands End Wandsworth

Figure 8 - Map showing the location of Sand End, an image of William De Morgan, and an example of his ceramic work.

Summary • • • • • • •

Lots Road Power station is not listed, but the site is designated a strategic site by the RBKC Local Plan. A strong middle class demographic has been apparent since the late 16th century. Lots Roads rich history needs to be enhanced in order to create a culture based upon education, interaction. Renew the legacy of the site and the surrounding area The influence of the art culture will present a great opportunity for a concept. William de Morgans work with ceramic present a great patter to formulate a layout on. The area has home to many different movements and cultures, like Bohemian art. This could present a good opportunity to re instate this link through this design proposal.


4.1 Cultural Context The River Thames 4.1.1 Description The River Thames is a total of 354 kilometres long from the esturay through Greater London all the way to Swindon. According to the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology the Thames as a whole is facing growing pressures such as; Population growth, intensive agriculture, climate change, water resource challenges. It is the second largest river in the UK behind the River Severn. The Thames has played several roles in human history; economic, maritime, boundary, a fresh water source, a source of food and more recently a leisure facility. Administrative powers of the Thames have been taken on by the Environmental Agency, however, in London where the Thames is designated the Tideway part of the river, it is administrated by the Port of London Authority. The Tideway area runs from the mouth of the esturay all the way to Teddington lock, by which the tide for the most of London is controlled by the Thames Barrier. The Thames tidal passage plays an important role in creating a vital link and migration route for aquatic species. Therefore, it is vital that the Thames Tideway is improved in order to support the fish life cycle. Currently there is 10 000 tonnes of sewage related litter in the water, and in order the reduce this the introduction of the proposed Tideway Tunnel will look to improve this matter. Once the tunnel is complete in 2023 it will redirect sewage through London to treatment centres, meaning that the river will have 90% less sewage and litter in its water. This will have a dramatic effect on water quality, use and marine biology.

4.1.3 Issues & Opportunities As already discussed the volume of litter in the Thames is currently dangerously high, this will initially cause an issue if this proposal looked to allow people to interact with the water. Nevertheless this allows for potential of natural SuDs and water filtration systems to be installed which will help to improve the biodiversity of the area by encouraging more wild life and further improving water quality. It is suggest that perhaps a grey water recycle system providing non-drinking water to any development on the proposed site will encourage a more sustainable design. Policy 7.29 of the London Plan 2015, paragraph 7.96 states that major development proposals must have facilities to enable access to and from the river.

4.1.4 Planning Consideration

4.1.2 Thames River Path

The installation of a smart sustainable urban park will be in the interests of the city to further improve water quality and the health of the aquatic species in this area of London. Policy 5.3 Chapter 5 of the London plan supports this idea but stating it wants the highest standard of sustainable design to support their achieved goal to improve London.

The Thames path runs along the river Thames 184 miles from Greenwich to Swindon, the path was proposed in 1948 but was only opened in 1996. In order to follow the path through Greater London the user must look out for the national trail symbol. The Path does not always follow the river bank and in some cases the public will be diverted away from the river due to certain properties and ownership of land.

All London Green Grid (ALGG) framework paragraph 4.7 suggests that proposals should support and encouraging the green infrastructure throughout London. Therefore it is in the interests of the LBHF, RBKC and GLA to support this proposal as it will contribute to the development of green and blue infrastructure throughout London.

A prime example of this can be seen on the Chelsea Creek site, due to a large cluster of residential house boats moored along the Chelsea Embankment the river path is diverted down Lots road along the north of the site and back into Chelsea Harbour, where it connects with the Pier and further on through Fulham. Through the city the path is split on to either side of the river and each is still classed as the Thames Path. On pages 13 and 14 a series images have been selected showing the Journey from London Bridge to Battersea Park. As referred to in the first part of this report London is a vibrant multi-cultural city and the Thames path experience really illustrates this through the mix of post-industrial redevelopment to artists busking and even the areas for congregation and street art. The Thames Path is a key element to showing all the different characteristics London has to offer.

Summary • The Thames is managed by the Port of London Authority throughout Greater London. • The Thames is will be cleaner in years to come and the introduction of Sustainable ecological design will help this initiative. • The Chelsea Creek provides a great opportunity for natural ecological design, the introduction of natural filtration systems and more diverse wildlife and aquatic species. • There is opportunity to integrate and develop the National Trail that runs around the site.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

9


4.2 Cultural Context The Thames Path Authors Journey along the Thames Path in images, Start: London Bridge End: Battersea Park

10

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


4.3 Cultural Context Crime 4.3.1 SW10 0QD Crime Overview This section assesses the potential threat in proximity to the site and the potential impact this should have on the design solutions to further enhance the area. Fig. 9 shows the key hot spots for crime in the Chelsea Riverside area, the information was sourced from UkCrimeStats & Police.com and edited to further support this proposal. The crimes represented in this diagram range from, petty theft, vandalism to violence and sexual assaults as shown in fig.10 the ratios of crime that occur throughout this area post code. The first point to be raised as London is a densely populated city and full of a wide range of cultures therefore, fig.10 shows the proportion of crime that occurs in this area opposed to the rest of London. It is also important to understand that a high percentage of crimes that have been reported have been inside the domestic homes between residents.

4.3.2 Issues & Opportunities

Legend North

As Discussed previously the guidelines set by the RBKC and the London plan help to illustrate ways in which the site can be developed in order to design out crime. The obvious issues with regards to crime in the site, is the locality and nature of which it occurs. Predominantly in this area, vehicle crimes are common. To reduce this, encouraging more people to use the site will increase the human behavioural effects and in turn reduce the amount of theft that occurs. As discussed by many psychologists, for example Jan Gehl, (2010) in Cities for People, the idea that people attract people, will increase the area population and the purpose of the space. This has proven to have a positive effect on the crime rates. Lynch (1960), and Altman (1989) have also researched and proven ways in order to prevent crime by increasing the value of the space by allowing the user to adapt it creating more of a meaning.

Low no. of crimes Medium no. of crimes Figure 9 - Crime Hotspots for SW10 0QD

If the meaning of the site is greater to the surrounding residents then the chances of the space being successful are higher. Therefore, anti-social behaviour will decline, theft and crime will decline due to public surveillance and vehicle crime will also decrease because of the same reasons.

SW10 0QD

4.3.3 Planning Considerations Policy 7.3 of the London Plan 2015 discusses the topic of designing out crime, and they state; “All Boroughs and others should seek to create safe, secure and appropriately accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.” They also list ways in which to design out crime and paraphrased below; • Consistent maintenance allowing for legible routes and walkways. • Clear indication of private and public space. • Encourage a high level of human activity. • Design an appropriate sense of ownership. • Incorporate security feature to design elements. • Cost of maintenance and surveillance kept to a minimum. The RBKC discussed the importance of designing out crime and stated their own guidelines to do this in their adopted SPD from January 2008, and they refer to policies and guidelines states in the RBKC UDP.

Other Crimes; Drugs Arson Types of Theft Public order

Vehicle Crime

The Rest of London Violent Crime Figure 10 - Crime in contrast to the rest of London

Anti-social Behaviour Burglary & Robbery

Figure 11 - Representation of the level of crimes being committed in the area.

Summary • • • •

Crime in this area is merely a small fraction compared to the rest of LBHF, RBKC & London. The main crimes that occur are Vehicle, anti-social and violence. The Mayor of London and RBKC have outlined in policy that they want future developments to design out crime as a high prioirty. This can be done by increasing the number of people using the site and enhancing the meaning of a space by allowing the user ownership.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

11


4.4 Cultural Context Demographics 4.4.1 Demographic Overview

4.4.3 Ethnicity

This section looks at the demographic of the Chelsea area, in particular the Chelsea riverside and the general zone surrounding the proposed site. The information used has been sourced and edited from the Chelsea Riverside Ward Profile Census from March 2011 & Census 2011: Kensington & Chelsea and LBHF Website.

The ethnicity data collected has attracted a lot of attention in the press, largely due to the decline in the proportion of ‘White British’ residents in London. RBKC: 71% of the population of RBKC fall within the combined White groups which is an 8% decrease since 2001. The major increase in the intercensal period is in the Asian/Asian British group which has increased from 4.9% to 10%. Within the Riverside area white groups make up 68.9% of the population, the mixed groups make up 6.3%, the Asian group makes up 10.1%, Black group make up 7.1%, Arab group make up 4.1% and the other ethnicity groups make up the remaining 3.5%. (See Figure 3 below). LBHF: The 2011 Census found that 100,500 residents in H&F are from an ethnic group other than White British, comprising some 55.1 per cent of the total population (42.0 per cent in 2001). The proportion is the same as the London average.

4.4.2 Population On average London Boroughs have grown by 13.9% since the last census, however, the RBKC is the only borough to see a 0.1% decrease. LBHF, on the other hand stated they had a 10% increase of population since 2001-2011. The Chelsea Riverside has a residential population of 8 671, of which 8 505 are workplace population giving the area the ranking of 3rd highest population in the borough. Census data showed that higher numbers of male residents aged between 25-49 lived in this area as opposed to females of that age range, elder and younger generations. 15.3% of the riverside residents area are aged over the pensionable age of 65. To conclude 25.9% of residents in the ward are aged less than 24, 62.1% between 24 and 65 and 12% 65 and over. (See Fig. 12 Below). Locally situated to the site is the Cremorne Estate, which will provide the majority of the residential population. The estate is comprised of large high rise flats and the largely residential nature of the area, made up of 4 storey terrace housing.

68.9%

12% 65yrs+ 10.1% 6.3%

25.9% 24-65yrs White

Mixed

7.1%

Asian

Black

4.1%

Arab

3.5% Other

Figure 13 - Graph representing what people who reside within the RBKC class their ethnicity as. Sourced from the 2011 Census RBKC.

4.4.4 Housing 62.1% Under 24yrs

Figure 12 - Age difference within the Chelsea Riverside ward area. From the 2011 Census for RBKC

12

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

With regards to accommodation in the Chelsea River area 83.7% of household spaces were Flats (3 588 households, ranked 8th) compared to 83.1% in the borough and 52.2% in London. 15.4% are houses in the riverside area. Due to the growing population throughout Greater London, over crowding in accommodation is a common issue. 9.2% of households in RBKC are defined as overcrowded using the census methodology. This is in fact lower than the London average (11.%) but far higher than England and Wales (4.7%). This data ranks RBKC as 28th in relation to England and Wales with regards to overcrowding inside housing. According to the LBHF 2011 Census, there were estimated 84 214 household spaces in H&F. 80 590 consisted of at least one usual resident (95.7%); this is lower than the London figure of 96.4% but slightly higher than the average for England & Wales of 95.6%.


4.6 Cultural Context Demographics Continued

4.4.5 Health Overall, RBKC is ranked first in England and Wales for the percentage of residents that assess their health as very good (57.8% compared to 50.5% in London). 17.9% of residents in Chelsea Riverside have a long term limiting illness (1551 residents) compared to 12.3% in RBKC and 14.1% in London. Residents in H&F have better general health compared to London and England & Wales as a whole, as 85.7% declared they had good health. The Borough ranked the fourth highest in England & Wales in terms of the proportion of the population reported to have a very good health as a percentage of the total population (56.5%).

4.4.6 Political & Economic implications

Legend North

As specified previously, the majority of the population in the Chelsea are working. Furthermore, after the Brexit vote last summer (2016), Britain is a country that is somewhat divided and confused with regards to their views on cultures. London however, I a very multi-cultural city, which showed in the referendum voting results, therefore, the idea of integrating and allowing cultures & beliefs to work together to create an exciting and unique place, would make a great concept for development.

4.4.7 Planning Considerations Chapter 30 of the RBKC Local Plan talks about keeping life local for social, community, local shopping and walkable neighbourhoods. With regards to The Surrounding demographic, it is essential that the new design proposal takes into account the information presented on this page in order to provide for diverse range of ethnic groups that are developing within the neighbouring boroughs. Paragraph 1.10E of the London Plan 2015 states; The central population projection used in preparing this Alteration therefore anticipates London’s population rising from 8.2 million in 2011, to: • 9.20 million in 2021; • 9.54 million in 2026; • 9.84 million in 2031; • 10.11 million in 2036.

Commercial Property Residential Properties

Figure 14- Shows the density and relationship between residential dwellings to single purpose commercial properties. This map represents, both housing and apartments dwellings.

Summary • • • • • • • •

Average property price in RBKC £2m (July 2012) Chelsea Riverside has a population of 8 671 residents Predominantly White British ethnicities. Average age range of people living in Chelsea is 24-65yrs. High percentage of residents in good health. High population are working, mostly in the financial, insurance line of employment. 83.7% of flats in Chelsea. Health can be improved, not just for Chelsea but nationally as well.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

13


5.1 Ecological Context Habitats & Species 5.1.1 Ecology overview This section discusses the key ecological resources relating to the Chelsea Creek site. There will also be a brief insight to the potential effects of certain types of development, and what impact this can could have on the habitats of the site. The Information provided was sourced from the 2001 Cumulative Impact report for the Proposed Creek development. This data has been edited in this report and referenced at the back of this feasibility study in the Bibliography and References. Legend

Throughout the surveys its has been confirmed that the a high proportion of the ecology for the site is no more. Along with this the value of the site has decreased as a result of the power station closure early in the year 2000. The Creek its self is by far the most poignant ecological feature for this site and this is a concept that will most definitely be carried on into the design proposal. The Creek is fed by the tidal inflow from the Thames. Therefore this means the creek becomes negligible during low tide, which in turn results in silt deposition leading to an eventual loss in habitat.

North

Previous Building Outline Scattered Scrub

The British Gas pond shown in fig.15 is connected to the main creek through a small tributary beneath the Chelsea Harbour drive and is 0.1 hectare. The secluded area of the proposed site falls into the LBHF borough. The pond is designated an SBI with a dense mix of marginal and emergent vegetation. Plant species that exist here are predominantly Rubus ulnifolius and R. areniacus (Bramble) as the bank narrows toward the water, the vegetation will mostly consist of sphagnum moss and other marginals.

Dense Scrub

Recolonising Grassland

5.1.2 Creek Basin The surveys undergone by the Natural History department post shut-down showed clear decline in bird and fish species within the Creek and its basin. The decreasing the gravel levels through siltation have reduced the temperature of the water, which has had an affect on the species that feed in the water currently, for example Sea Bass is no more. However, this proposed development will ensure that by increasing the gravel levels which are more favoured by fish for feeding and the introduction of tall submergents and marginals the temperature and oxygen levels of the water will increase. This will in turn contribute to the improvement of the water quality of the Tributary and Thames.

Tall Grassland

Priority Inventory Mudflats Figure 15 - The existing habitats of the Chelsea Creek site.

5.1.3 Planning Considerations Chelsea Creek and the River Thames are part of the ‘River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI)’. The Thames is recognised as an SMI since it supports diverse communities of fish, water birds, invertebrates and wetland plants. The British Gas Pond is classified as grade I borough wide importance, specified by the LBHF. This space would benefit from ecological development as targeted by this proposal. Please see Chapter 7 Policy RTC1 of the LBHF draft plan, which sets out to encourage the development and improvement of vacant space in the borough. The LBHF Draft Local Plan also refers to the Chelsea creek as a specific area of importance in LBHF, and specifies its distinction as having potential for landmarks, ecological resource, refuge for plants, wildlife and a possible resource for recreation and sport. (LBHF DLP 2015, PPG 7.163)

14

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


5.1 Ecological Context Habitats & Species Continued

5.1.4 Micro & Macro Algae The Environment Agency commissioned the Natural History Museum to undertake an assessment of the Impact of shading on the macro and micro flora of the Thames. It was published in august 2000. They concluded that algae communities found varied predictably with the degree of shading. Shading frequently increased diversity particularly with macro algae, but not necessarily algae biomass. Macro algae provide shelter and food for many aquatic species and micro-algae are an essential and fundamental element of the food chain. Micro-invertebrates which graze on the algae and hence the fish species feed upon them.

5.1.5 Issues & Opportunities Once the site is operational, there will most definitely be an rise in the number of people using the site as well as an increase of movement, noise and light. This disturbance will have an impact on the wildlife that currently live on the site. Which will have a knock on effect on the number of fauna species using the site once complete. Therefore this reduced population will need to be mitigated to ensure that a healthy level of wildlife is still interacts with the site. This provides great opportunity for the design proposal to involve strong ecological design where the habitats and fauna take priority over the human user. This will ultimately further enhance the quality and range of biodiversity with in this site, in accordance to the ALGG & London Plan 2015. The Creek presents the best opportunity for ecological development and will be used as a focal point of the site, by enhance plant life and encourage a diverse range of aquatic bird species and marine species from the tideway.

Summary • Chelsea Creek has a Grade I Borough-wide Importance status. • Animal species have declined since the power station closed. • In accordance with legislation the site will benefit from the enhancement of the ecological elements that already exist. • Macro algae provide shelter and food for many aquatic species and micro-algae are an essential and fundamental element of the food chain. • The LBHF Draft Local Plan also refers to the Chelsea creek as a specific area of importance in LBHF • The Thames is recognised as an SMI since it supports diverse communities of fish, water birds, invertebrates and wetland plants. • The decreasing the gravel levels through siltation have reduced the temperature of the water, which has had an affect on the species that feed in the water currently, for example Sea Bass is no more.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

15


5.2 Ecological Context Topography & Hydrology 5.2.1 Topographic Overview This part will give a detailed insight to the general existing ground levels of the site. This will provide a good platform for analysis and benefit the design with regards to key areas fro development. This page will also discuss the existing vegetation of the Chelsea Creek site, This can be used to aid the design of a planting strategy that is, biodiverse, and also in keeping with the sites heritage. As well as this it is important to understand the hydrology of the site, where does water go, where does it come from, where are they collection points, what infrastructure exists already to mitigate water collection (Please see Fig. 16). The information shown in this section, has been sourced from, The Environmental Agency & Natural England. Along side this text is supported by an existing Visual Impact report submitted to the RBKC for the development of the Chelsea Creek site.

5.2.2 Geological information This site is located in a built up urban environment, therefore the variety in soil types will be rather low. Like most of London the soil is expected to be a London clay. The soil in this site is classified as a freely draining lime rich loamy soil. This site in particular has a Priority Habitat Inventory Mudflats status from Natural England. The mudflats have a intertidal sediment consisting of; Sand, Mud and a mixture of A2.2, A2.3, A2.4 minerals.

Legend North 1:2000 @A3

+ 5.50 General direction for ground water

+ 6.00

Main areas for Water collection

+ 2.00

+ 6.10

+ 5.00 + 2.00

5.2.3 Topography Fig. 16, shows the variety of level changes on the site. The data sourced from ArcGIS, demonstrates that the site is predominantly level and their are little changes. Most of the dramatic changes will due to the infill on the LBHF side of the creek. Never the less, the water level is found to be, base of the creek was surveyed to be -1.98 below sea level, where as on average the lowest contour shown (Fig. 17) is recorded at +2.0m. This therefore suggests that the maximum (other than in flood situations) the water level will most likely be +3.0m. Furthermore, fig. 16 indicated that the boundaries of the site will most likely average around +6.0m above sea level.

5.2.4 Hydrology Taking the information presented regarding the contours and general topography of the site, fig.16 has illustrated the general direction of ground water draining on the site. Seeing as the site is mostly level, water is slow to drain, however, it is clear that it takes it course towards to the creek. Nevertheless, as previously stated, the lack of level changes cause there to be large volumes of waterlogged zones, in particular shown (fig 16) are the key areas where large volumes of water will collect on site. The site is also designated by the Environment Agency as a high risk flood zone, which is expected with regards to its location and the creek running through the middle. Run off from the Power station will need to be mitigated as asbestos has been found with the structure of the disused power station.

16

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

+ 5.70

+ 6.00

Figure 16 - Topographic and hydrological map of site.

5.2.5 Issues & Opportunities The site as discussed previously is designated a flood zone, (The Environment Agency) therefore the key areas specified (fig. 16) will need to be mitigated in the design rationale. Furthermore, asbestos has been identified in the materials of the power station. Therefore, any run off from this building or any others on site of similar age will need to be dealt with safely and taken off site to be treat. It may have already added to the contamination of the soil, and creek. The key collection points specified in fig. 16, show that the relatively level topography leads to large areas of water logging, the lack of gradient will also slow the speed of ground water running off to the lake.


5.3 Ecological Context Flora 5.3.1 Pre-existing Grassland The topography of the southern part of the LBHF Site suggests that the ground has been artificially raised. This supports and area of grassland previously frequently mowed and improved in nature but which has over the past few years been neglected, allowing for a tall grass sward to develop. The dominance of species such as perennial rye grass, and red fescue (Festuca rubra) suggest the area was seeded. However, other grasses include: • • • • • • • • • • •

Holcus lanatus (Yorkshire fog) Hordeum murinum (Wall barley) Picris echioides (Bristly ox-tongue) Taraxacum officinale (Dandelion) Calystegia sepium (bindweed) Malva sylvestris (Mallow) Achillea millefolium Red dead nettle Common vetch Medicargo lupulina Crisium spp.

Legend North 1:2000 @A3

Existing Tree Locations

5.3.2 Known Exisitng Stress Tolerant Plants • Vulpia myuros (Rats tail grass) • Cerastium fontanum (Common mouse ear) • Geranium rotundifolium (Round leaved crane’s bill) • Plantago lanceolata (Ribwort plantain) • Plantago coronopus (Buck’s horn planctain) • Melilotus spp. (Melliot) • Trifolium campestre (Hop trefoil) • Tussilago farfara (Colt’s foot) • Yellow-wort (Blackstonia perfoliata) Other taller ruderal vegetation consist of; • Cirsium arvense (Creeping thistle) • Broad-leaved dock • Conyza canadensis (Canadian fleabane) • Sambucus nigra (Elder)

5.3.3 Trees

Figure 17 - Existing Trees

5.3.4 Planning Considerations Horse chestnuts at the southern boundary of the LBHF side are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO: No. T297/6/01)

5.3.5 Issues & Opportunities Nevertheless, the existing tree species pose a great opportunity for the existing character and habitat to be enhanced. Likewise, the wide variety of existing grasses, and dense scrub species illustrate the fertility of the soil and ability to grow planting. However, due to the contamination issues stated in 1.5 (p24) the growing of food crops may be an issue in the current soil. All the the risk for flooding is high, this presents a great opportunity for hydrophilic design as suggested 02 Design rationale of this report.

Trees on the site are mostly situated within the original Chelsea Harbour landscaping scheme and comprise a mixture of planted semi-mature, and mature specimens of:

Summary

• • • • •

• • •

(Sycamore) (Horse Chestnut) Malus asp (Crab Apple) Tilia europaea (Common Lime) Taxus baccata (Yew)

All trees currently existing on site have TPOs. The site is predominantly level, showing a limited range of level changes. Although the site has been identified as extreme flood risk, the water drains well to the creek.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

17


5.4 Ecological Context Archaeology 5.4.1 Archaeological Introduction This page sets out an overview for the archaeological history of the site. Using information sourced from ‘A tale of two power stations: environmental archaeological investigations at Battersea and Lots Road’ (Branch, Green, Batchelor, Young, Elias, Cameron, Athersuch, 2010). It has been edited for the purposes of this report, most data has been directly put into this report. Words such as Boreholes (BH) have been abbreviated into the body of text. An Understanding of the site history is beneficial as it provides an indication of potential contamination issues. Research has found that the site is predominantly Alluvium clay, Terrace Gravels, and London Clay. Firg. 18 illustrates the predominant materials that rests beneath the Chelsea Creek site. The information was devised using 2008 archaeological survey from by CPM Ltd from Cirencester. Alongside this, the data from the 2010 survey as referenced in the previous paragraph helped to provide the map (fig 1) shown on page 8 of this report.

Legend North

1

1

3

4

5

6

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

7

Peat Deposit

Typical London Clay Mixture of Mud & Chalk & Flint Gravel Tidal River

5.4.3 2010 Archaeological Investigation

18

Highest area of Peat Deposit

2

Lots Road Power Station is 250 m from the modern course of the River Thames on the north bank of the river. Chelsea Creek, the lower reach of a minor left bank tributary of the Thames, is close by to the west and south of the site. The broad spread of alluvium marking the confluence of Chelsea Creek with the Thames extends for a short distance into the southern corner of the site. The remainder of the site is mapped by the BGS as Kempton Park Gravel, with the alluvium a butting this gravel to the east of the Creek. The alluvium in other areas overlies the Shepperton Gravel. Both the Kempton Park Gravel and Shepperton Gravel overlie London Clay. The ground surface is underlain by substantial but varying thickness’s of made ground.

Collectively, the radiocarbon dated sedimentary sequences recorded at Lots Road Power Station indicate periods of sediment and peat accumulation from the Mesolithic periods onwards ( 9500 cal BC). During this time, the biostratigraphic assessment and analysis data indicate the transition from freshwater wetland and dry land comprising mixed deciduous coniferous woodland, to an environment consisting of open deciduous woodland with evidence for human activities. At the beginning of the Late Holocene, the evidence from Lots Road suggests the vegetation cover was more open in character, which was perhaps associated with animal husbandry. During this time, there is some evidence for a stronger estuarine signal in the fluvial record, especially after 430–640 cal AD.

Power Station Footprint: Sand & Silt Sand overlaying Gravel +0.1m

5.4.2 Overview

Investigations have shown that the Chelsea Creek site alluvial sediments comprise silts and sandy and clayey silts sometimes organic-rich, overlaying sand, and gravel (Kempton or Shepperton Gravel). These complex stratigraphic sequences indicate deposition of alluvial sediments under progressively lower energy fluvial conditions probably from the suspended sediment load of the river. Localised peat formation at both sites represents semi-terrestrial environmental conditions (e.g. back swamps or channel fills), with signs of intermittent fluvial inundation.

Borehole Location 2010

Figure 18 - Archaeological Map of site

5.4.4 Contamination The Chances of the Chelsea Creek site ground be contaminated are extremely, considering the site was previously a power station powered by coal, which is evident through the infill coal pit and dock previously used for the delivery and transit of coal. with regards to soil contamination, chemical analysis have identified a moderate level of methane, and carbon dioxide, which is typical for a post industrial site. Further more the proposal for the Chelsea Creek will look to mitigate these contamination issues by re-mediation through the introduction of planting. Please see below for a more detailed break down the of the ground make up, sourced from ‘A tale of two power stations: environmental archaeological investigations at Battersea and Lots Road’ (Branch, Green, Batchelor, Young, Elias, Cameron, Athersuch, 2010).


5.4 Ecological Context Archaeology Continued

5.4.5 Planning Consideration LBHF and RBKC UDP policies on archaeology do not identify the site as having high potential for archaeological remains. However, an archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) conducted by the Museum of London Archaeological Service and the results found the site to have medium significance with regards to archaeological resources on site. Although this assessment was was undertaken before 2008, and the new London Plan follows the same guidelines, Paragraph 7.8 chapter 7 that before any work is carried out on a site with archaeological potential, the strategy must be significantly thorough in order to not impede the area of interest. This site however, as previously discussed has medium archaeological significance, therefore with the right scheme there will be no loss to the heritage of the RBKC or LBHF area. Page 57 of the ALGG paragraph 4.28 states that “Landscapes and heritage assets play a role in creating the basis for individual and collective cultural identity.”

5.4.6 Issues & Opportunities Contamination of the ground can be a potential threat the potential planting introduced to the site. However, the LBHF side of the site shows potential for the removal of natural peat deposits, which can be located beneath the made ground of the site. This is a potential natural source of gas. Like most regeneration projects the possibilities of the archaeological remains below the surface are high. With this in mind this site has been established as an area of medium significance with regards to archaeological importance. This posses an issue if the proposal looks to alter the levels or potentially build downwards. Nevertheless the opportunity to use this heritage to the advantage of the proposal is great, as discussed in the legislation and policy section of this page with regards to the Mayor of London plan the proposal should look to not disturb areas of archaeological potential.

Summary • Typical post-industrial soil contamination will need to be re-mediated. • Methane and Carbon Dioxide have been found in the soil. • The sites ground is made up from, London clays, • Alluvium silts, Kempton Gravel, Flint and Chalk Gravels and Peat deposits. • Peat Deposits provide the Potential for a source of natural Gas.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

19


5.5 Ecological Context Micro Climate 5.5.1 Description

650mm 700mm

This section is a detailed look into the Micro-climate taking into account the climate of Greater London and then using data to provide an approximate Micro-climate for the Chelsea Creek site. All the information in this section has been sourced from the Met Office and edited for the purposes of this report. It is important to note that the nearest weather station to Chelsea is Kew Gardens, which is 8 Miles away and there is a difference in +0.2m from sea level, nevertheless, this will have little effect on the out come of the results as shown in figure 1 by the limited difference between each Greater London based weather centre. Figure 20 also shows the temperature recorded on average since 2010, and highlighted on the map is the area defined as a ‘Heat island’. The Chelsea creek site falls into this area, which will have an effect on the proposed site. This is an important factor to mitigate in the design proposal.

10.3 Northwood Weather Centre

Waltham Cross Weather Centre

850mm

11.7

600mm

London Weather Centre

560mm

Dartford Weather Centre 10.8

10.7 Kew Weather Centre

5.5.2 Average Annual Temperature

10.6

Legend North All information used in this diagram was sourced from the Met Office 2011

25˚c 20˚c

790mm 15˚c

650mm 10.2

10˚c

Wisley Weather Centre

Kenley Weather Centre

Average Annual Rainfall mm Average min Temp (°c)

5˚c

0˚c

9.9

London ‘Heat Island’ Avg min temp 11°c

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 20 - Illustrative Micro climate of London based of information sourced from the Met Office.

Figure 19 - Annual Average Temperature

5.5.4 Planning Considerations Figure 19 - Shows the maximum and minimum average temperature recorded between 1981 - 2010, from the Kew Gardens climate station. This data was sourced from the Met Office website and edited for the purpose of this report. The highest average temperature for this weather station is 23.5’c recorded in the month of July. The lowest average temperature is 1.7’c recorded in February.

20

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

Please see policy Policy 5.3 of the London plan 2015 with regards to sustainable design. It is key avoid internal overheating (Policy 5.3 C.b), ensuring developments are comfortable and secure for users, including avoiding the creation of adverse local climatic conditions (Policy 5.3 C.g)


5.5 Ecological Context Micro Climate Continued 5.5.4 Average Daylight Hours 218.4 205.3

203.6

211.1

173.3 146.4 118.2

117.2 Legend

79.9 hrs

70.6 hrs

59.8 hrs

North

49.6 hrs

Information based upon site visit.

Sun Path

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec Wind Path

Figure 21 - Annual Average Daylight Hours Figure 22 - Base on site visit, wind paths, and sun path diagram

Figure 21 This shows the results from data collected from the Kew Gardens weather centre recorded between 1981 - 2010. It presents the average daylight the Chelsea Creek site will have access to through out the year. It is clear to say that the site will achieve greater hours of sunlight through the late spring/summer season compare to the late autumn/winter season.

Summary 5.5.5 Wind & Sun Fig. 22 Above shows the general micro-climate in context to the surrounding climate of London, it shows the sun path which can be applied through out the year as it follows the same east-west direction. This provides evidence that the proposed site will be exposed to a lot of sun light throughout the year. Alongside this, the site has a wide mouth to the Thames Tideway, which is a large expanse of water between the site and the south of the river (Wandsworth). This there suggests that the Creek site plays the role of a wind tunnel feeding towards the British gas pond to over to Imperial Warf. Furthermore there, other wind channels the affect the site (Fig 22) This will play a minor role in affecting the level of wind entering the site.

• • • • •

The site is located inside what is classified by the Met Office as the inner-city heat zone, 11˚c Average temperature. Large volumes of rainfall throughout the year 622mm Approx per annum. The site is susceptible to large amounts of wind from the wide expanse of the Thames creating a wind tunnel through the creek. There will be a large volume of direct sun throughout the year, due to the lack of buildings blocking the sun on its path. Ensure developments are comfortable and secure for users, including avoiding the creation of adverse local climatic conditions.

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

21


6.0 Summary Site Appraisal 6.0.1 Landscape Context

6.0.3 Historical Context

• • • • •

• Lots Road Power station is not listed, but the site is designated a strategic site by the RBKC Local Plan. • A strong middle class demographic has been apparent since the late 16th century. • Lots Roads rich history needs to be enhanced in order to create a culture based upon education, interaction. • Renew the legacy of the site and the surrounding area • The influence of the art culture will present a great opportunity for a concept. • William de Morgans work with ceramic present a great patter to formulate a layout on. • The area has home to many different movements and cultures, like Bohemian art. This could present a good opportunity to re instate this link through this design proposal.

London is a diverse multicultural city, with lots of vibrant distinctive districts. No distinctive character allowing for great provision for original design. Tourism is a key element to development throughout London. Ensuring a greater quality of life for both visitor and resident. It is important to the design that it follows the guidelines set out by the London Plan 2015 with regards to ‘a new quality of life’. • The Area is predominantly Residential therefore the introduction of commercial development would be beneficial. • Active public green space would also help to improve the area. • More affordable housing in order to support the RBKC & London Plan 2015. • Enhancing the rich and affluent culture of Chelsea presented through its distinct London character. • There is already Planning permission for 420 residential units, as well as 180 affordable units. • The Site falls into two boroughs, RBKC & LBHF. • Improving Cycle connectivity and provision. • Links between the train station and areas of town potentially create an opportunity for a stopping point or a passage to create a safer environment. • There is potential for more bus connections to and from the site. • The site is predominantly accessed by the personal motor car, and this needs to be addressed in the proposed strategy in order to make the space, safer and cleaner. • Pedestrian routes will also need to be enhanced and considered in this proposal.

6.0.2 Cultural Context • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

22

The Thames is managed by the Port of London Authority throughout Greater London. The Thames is will be cleaner in years to come and the introduction of Sustainable ecological design will help this initiative. The Chelsea Creek provides a great opportunity for natural ecological design, the introduction of natural filtration systems and more diverse wildlife and aquatic species. There is opportunity to integrate and develop the National Trail that runs around the site. Crime in this area is merely a small fraction compared to the rest of LBHF, RBKC & London. The main crimes that occur are Vehicle, anti-social and violence. The Mayor of London and RBKC have outlined in policy that they want future developments to design out crime as a high prioirty. This can be done by increasing the number of people using the site and enhancing the meaning of a space by allowing the user ownership. Average property price in RBKC £2m (July 2012) Chelsea Riverside has a population of 8 671 residents Predominantly White British ethnicities. Average age range of people living in Chelsea is 24-65yrs. High percentage of residents in good health. High population are working, mostly in the financial, insurance line of employment. 83.7% of flats in Chelsea. Health can be improved, not just for Chelsea but nationally as well.

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

6.0.4 Ecological Context • Chelsea Creek has a Grade I Borough-wide Importance status. • Animal species have declined since the power station closed. • In accordance with legislation the site will benefit from the enhancement of the ecological elements that already exist. • Macro algae provide shelter and food for many aquatic species and micro-algae are an essential and fundamental element of the food chain. • The LBHF Draft Local Plan also refers to the Chelsea creek as a specific area of importance in LBHF • The Thames is recognised as an SMI since it supports diverse communities of fish, water birds, invertebrates and wetland plants. • The decreasing the gravel levels through siltation have reduced the temperature of the water, which has had an affect on the species that feed in the water currently, for example Sea Bass is no more. • All trees currently existing on site have TPOs. • The site is predominantly level, showing a limited range of level changes. • Although the site has been identified as extreme flood risk, the water drains well to the creek. • Typical post-industrial soil contamination will need to be re-mediated. • Methane and Carbon Dioxide have been found in the soil. • The sites ground is made up from, London clays, • Alluvium silts, Kempton Gravel, Flint and Chalk Gravels and Peat deposits. • Peat Deposits provide the Potential for a source of natural Gas. • The site is located inside what is classified by the Met Office as the inner-city heat zone, 11˚c Average temperature. • Large volumes of rainfall throughout the year 622mm Approx per annum. • The site is susceptible to large amounts of wind from the wide expanse of the Thames creating a wind tunnel through the creek. • There will be a large volume of direct sun throughout the year, due to the lack of buildings blocking the sun on its path. • Ensure developments are comfortable and secure for users, including avoiding the creation of adverse local climatic conditions.


End of site Analysis, Please turn over for 02 Design Rationale

01 Site Analysis | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

23


02 Design


Rationale


Contents 02 Design Rationale 07

Introduction 27

08

Design Principles

09

Design Concept

9.0 Design Concept 30 9.1 Layout Zoning 31 9.2 Residential & Commercial Zoning 31

10

Design Precedents

10.0 Sport & Recreation 33 10.1 Health & Well being 34 10.2 Post Industrial & Urban Regeneration 35 10.3 Post industrial Regeneration 36 10.4 Biophilia 37 10.5 Features & Play 38 10.6 Architecture 39

11

Design Development

11.0 Concept Layout 40 11.1 20/01/17 Initial Idea 1 41 11.2 23/01/17 Initial Idea 2 42 11.3 27/01/17 Initial Idea 3 43

12 Design Proposal 12.0 Final Design 44 12.1 Final Design Annotations 45 12.2 Key Design Elements 46 12.3 Design Statement 49


7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Introduction

7.1.4 Design Intentions

The design rationale is intended to set out the key principles for the design of the Chelsea Creek site. It will also state the intentions for the proposed development. below is the design vision for this project and what the intended goals to be achieved are. Following that, through extensive research, a select variety of design themes, theories, and precedents that help to formulate an educated and well thought-out design rationale for the Chelsea Creek site. This will be done through extensive research into existing design methods and theories proposed by notable landscape architects, architects and designers. It will also use results founded by accredited researchers to ensure the best possible design for the users, mental and physical health.

The design intention the proposed Chelsea Creek site development, is a high quality, biodiverse natural environment that is:

7.0.2 Design Brief To redevelop the Chelsea Creek the development will further enhance and regenerate the character, economy and ecology of the Chelsea Creek and surrounding area. The proposed design should incorporate new and intuitive methods of design to further enhance sustainable lifestyles in London. It should assist with bringing communities together, and provide recreation and opportunity for all abilities, cultures and beliefs, furthermore, the area would benefit from commercial development, therefore, it is intended that this site be developed so that the economic growth of the area can be further enhanced. Using well researched design principles, provide a strong and interesting concept that relates to the site and its character. Using the established design principles provide a clear informative design proposal that clearly addresses the human needs of the user and further improves the ecosystem of the creek. Furthermore, giving its location, the final design proposal should look to develop the economy of the area, and ultimately increase the financial return for the Chelsea creek site in particular.

7.0.3 Structure of this Chapter • Outline the key principles that will be used to formulate the design proposal • Explanation of the design concept and the reason for the creation of that concept • Examples of existing work and what transferable qualities can be applied to the design of Chelsea Creek • A clear time line out how the design was developed to ensure that the best possible end result is achieved. • The final design proposal with annotation. • A conclusion of the final design, explaining the key features of the design and why they are effective.

• In-keeping with the local character and native plant species of the region. • Reinforcing the existing quality of the area. • In-keeping with the urban character of the neighbouring districts and river bank environments. • Enhance the character of the allocated buildings specified along site the landscape proposals. • Integrate and provide a more sustainable and beneficial links and transports in and outside of the site. • Enhance the potential for ecological range and potential wildlife. • Enhance the quality of health and well-being of the potential residents. • Introduce new commercial opportunity to further increase the value and economy of the area. • Encourage opportunity for more employment in the area alongside the initiatives put across by the Mayor of London’s Plan 2015. • Introduce and encourage tourism to the site, as well as improving the multicultural intergeneration of the area and links through the design for all.

7.1.5 Vision As landscape architects we study the importance of putting health and welfare at the summit of our design values, not only this but the relationship between built and natural environments. Whilst, modern architecture over the past century, has appeared to dominate environments we use, and merely framing the naturalness, thus creating another asset to the design, it is intended with this project that naturalness and architecture be fuse together. ‘Biophilic Design’ is an innovative way of designing the places where we live, work, and learn, it allows humans to interact with the natural environment, and wildlife vice versa. The Chelsea Creek development will, fulfil the human needs of those who use it, furthermore it will support and encourage wildlife by developing habitats for a mixture of species to establish and thrive once more. On the other hand, Chelsea Creek has an exciting industrial character, along side a diverse affluent culture within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This provides an opportunity for the development of commercial and residential property, with a focus on adding affordable residential units that are demonstrate a new and innovative approach to the design of affordable living. It is intended that more employment and retail be brought into this area of Chelsea, which will further increase the value and economic development, of the Chelsea riverside, as well as Greater London. Therefore with the above in mind, it is intended that this area will become a vibrant social hub for activity, community and leisure, whilst at the same time catering to the surrounding community by giving them a distinct space that they, are proud to associate and accept ownership, ‘The Peoples Place’. It will also be a hub for business, and ecological development ensuring that the welfare of all users, be they human or wildlife, be improved and supported through this project.

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

27


8.0 Design Principles

8.0.1 Biophilic Design Terrapin Bright Green Describe ‘Biophilia is human kinds innate biological connection with nature’ In their article named 14 patterns of Biophilic Design. Good biophilic design must nurture a love of place, where the health or performance priorities of the intended user are the forefront of design & planning. With regards to this Lots Road development in Chelsea it is essential that the proposed site development include the principles put forward by Terrapin Bright Green in this article. This will in turn have a knock on effect of the public & social health of the user living and visiting the area. The 14 patterns they proposed are: i. Visual Connection with nature - A view to elements of nature, Living systems and natural processes. ii. Non-Visual Connection with nature - Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes. iii. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli - Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. iv. Thermal & Airflow Variability - Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments. v. Presence of Water - A condition that enhances the experience of a place through seeing, hearing or touching water. vi. Dynamic & Diffuse Light - Leverages varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature. vii. Connection with Natural Systems - Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem. viii. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns - Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured or numerical arrangements that persist in nature. iix. Material Connection with Nature - Materials and elements from nature that, through minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology and create a distinct sense of place. ix. Complexity & Order - Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature. xi. Prospect - An unimpeded view over a distance, for surveillance and planning. xii. Refuge - A place for withdrawal from environmental conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead. Xiii. Mystery - The promise of more information, achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment.

8.0.2 Hydrophilic Design Hydrophilic Design in relation to Chelsea Creek is an idea that one can integrate water into this proposal allowing the user to Really interact with the space. This ethos reinforces the idea of creating a healthy active environment. Examples of this could be water play, Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SuDs), water facilities and features. Instead of designating one area for water and one the user allowing them to view the water. Why not force each element to interact with each other in a safe and enjoyable way. Figure 23 - Crossrails Station Roof garden

28

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


8.0 Design Principles

8.0.3 Design for Health & Well being Studies have shown that a natural landscape can have a positive affect on a persons psychological and physical health. Take Ulrich’s study on patients recovering from surgery for example. He found that those with a view of a green natural landscape recovered quicker than those who did not have a view. Therefore forces this design to be more orientate around health and well being. By design spaces that can be inviting and somewhat challenging it can have a positive impact on a person physical health. With regards to psychological health, those who will be look onto the proposed site will feel positively or negatively. therefore, if the proposed design is pleasing this will then help to improve the health of the person residing there. The introduction of areas for play and recreation will again encourage and educate people to prefer a more active lifestyle.

8.0.4 People Attract People One of Jan Gehl’s earliest published texts, and it stresses the importance of designing urban public space with the idea of people as guiding principles. Gehl explains why places like, Venice, New York, or Buenos Aires have an active street life. He states that they are inherently attractive to people and they are most likely to walk and linger in the space. Attracting people into the public realm with festivals, shopping, and dining is as important in an active street as keeping their interest to linger there. He also goes on to suggest that mixed-use zones can have a wider appeal and create more dynamic spaces. Gehls later work goes on to tell us a city survives only if its residents make use of its public spaces on an ongoing basis, and those residents will only do so if the city feels clean, safe, and interesting to them. Gehl’s emphasis on starting with people instead of traffic when designing or redesigning urban areas can greatly impact this proposal. Gehl argues that because humans look straight ahead most of the time, what is at eye level should catch a pedestrian’s interest enough to want to linger a while on a city street. Such spaces must also be safe, sustainable, and healthy for human occupation. Below are 12 key principles taken from Gehls work defining how to make a walkable environment: 01 Protection from Traffic 02 Protection from Crime 03 A Place to Walk 04 Protection from the Elements 05 A Place to Stop and Stand 06 A Place to Sit 07 Things to See 08 Opportunities for Conversation 09 Opportunities for Play 10 Human-Scale 11 Opportunities to Enjoy Good Weather 12 Aesthetic Quality

8.0.6 Urban Regeneration Urban regeneration is the attempt to reverse that decline by both improving the physical structure, and, more importantly and elusively, the economy of those areas. In all regeneration programmes, public money is used as an attempt to pump prime private investment into an area. This is a principle directly applicable to the redundant Chelsea Creek site and the power station.

Figure 24 - Tate Modern

Design Principles Using the Information provided on the previous two pages, going forward the main design principles are: • • • • •

Biophilia Hydrophilia Health and Well being People Attract People Urban Regeneration

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

29


9.0 Design Concept

Urban Regneneration It is imperative to the development of the chelsea creek site that the economy of the area me enhanced. In order to do this, the power stations architectural prowess must be restored and enhanced. Further more retail & housing must be encorporated to genrate returns A similar concept to the health an and make money from the proposed site. wellbeing, providing sports and Historically Chelsea was know as the art recreation to allow people to be quarter for London, that is a trait sadly active for free. This promotes social lost do to modernisation and an influx in interaction, for all ages. It will benefit new cultures integrating with the british the socialisation of the many young society. With this in mind the ‘art people in chelsea as well as those colony’ of chelsea can be over the age of 65yrs. reinforced through provisional design, that intergrates the old and new De Morgans work with ceramic tiles was cultures of london. developed in a Chelsea based work shop, in particular the link between de Morgan and counters Creek was great. The shaped and forms he created in his work really reflect the idea of biophilia . The Birds andf the fishes combined are symboic of the potential As discussed in the design ecosystem that can be encouraged in the principles, it is imprative to the proposal. The natural flowing shapes can be design that the landscape seen in the concept sketch below. The choice improves the physical and mental of colours in his work were modest but effective mental health of the surrounding really creating a value to the appearance of his residents and the prospecting work. This is a key feature that needs to be residents. To do this, a natural wild inturpreted into this site. Value! Art! Individualism! landscape should be incorporated, as well as challaging deviating spaces that enage the user.

Sport & Recreation

Chelsea Art Colony

William de Morgan

Health & Welbeing

Views

The view up the river presents a great opportunity to be developed upon. It is an additon to the site that if well incorporated it will add value to the space.

Figure 25 - Concept Sketch

30

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


9.1 Design Concept Layout Zoning

Legend North Scale: 1_2000 @A3

Key Routes

Ecological Development Sports/Activity

Green Space

Commercial

Potential Residential Potential Events area

Figure 26 - Zoning Diagram

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

31


9.2 Design Concept Residential & Commercial Zoning Rationale for Zoning • London has a high demand for affordable housing. • Site already has permission for 420 residential units, as well as an additional 180 affordable units. • Judging by the no. of residential dwellings in the area the site would benefit more from affordable housing. • This will also bring in more working people, for retail, commercial offices and labour etc. • London plan in 2015 wants to bring 49000 homes a year. New Mayor view on housing suggests the preference on housing that is affordable, and for Londoners, wants to achieve 50 per cent affordable. • Therefore prioritise affordable housing units. • Commercial property will bring in money, thus, increasing the value of the site. • Creating more jobs, and opportunities for small business growth. • Affordable office space in the city. Close to links transport, more transport will need to be implemented. After 2010 when the Business rate faced steep hikes has deterred smaller business from opening in the city. • No. of units will need to be managed, as too much development will over whelm the area, which will over crowed and the tight access will prove an issue. • Potentially a hotel, by creating an attraction. • Maybe educational, science museum, arts and craft centre etc.

Commercial

Green Space

Residential

Location of Development

• • • • • • • •

Inside the old power station, higher levels. Re build the inner, use the existing merely as a façade, a shell, build a structure inside. I like the idea of a world inside the power station. LBHF side of the creek, this has the most surface space. Must maintain east view down river, view of shard. Some development can take place on the RBKC side of the creek. Would prefer to have a higher percentage of natural landscape. Naturalness should be a key feature/principle.

Figure 27 - Zoning Diagram 2

What Features • • • • •

32

Antiques is popular in this, potentially create an antiques district Pop up venue for antiques markets. Commercial offices. Office let in RBKC Average ft2 Per annum. Typical Rent: £60 Typical Rates: £20 Typical Service charges: £89 Carter Jonas London Office market Update 2016 provides evidence that the Chelsea creek site falls outside the main city office zones, therefore, suggests that potentially cheaper office rates could be applied here to rival the towns, that have branched of London I.e. reading, Maidenhead, slough, Croydon Ealing

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

How to Achieve • • • •

Improving transport links and connections into the centre of the city and out. The nearest station would be Victoria, so buses, bikes, train. Imperial Wharf presents great opportunity with a direct link to Clapham Junction. And one stop from the district line. Housing as apartment, flats, tasteful, studio apartments, No individual housing units. Must mitigate parking … will have to be underground. Parking only allocated to residents during the week?


10.0 Design Precedents Sport & Recreation Project Name: Docklands City Park – Stage 1 Project Type: New Multi-functional Parkland Year of Completion: August 2016 Landscape Architect: MALA Studio Location: Corner Collins Street and Harbour Esplanade, Docklands Melbourne

Project Name: Water Square Benthemplein Project Type: Urban Storm Water Management Year of Completion: Design 2011-2012, completed 2013 Landscape Architect: DeUrbanisten Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands

Sport & recreation Elements

Sport & Recreation Elements

• • •

• • • • •

The Installation of public sports courts encourages interaction and provision for organised sports. Recreational lawn, for informal recreation and rest. The raised planters, with a large amount of space for informal seating. This can also be climbed on allow the user to be active.

Transferable Design Elements • • • •

Image 1

Sports court provides area specifically designed for activity. Encourage recreation for free and provides facilities for sport. The steps in the amphitheatre provide an opportunity for climbing thus being a challenging feature for the user. The amphitheatre creates a social environment forcing people to integrate. Being around other people is an innate predisposition that improves health.

Transferable Design Elements

Engaging spaces that allow the user to explore and deviate from a formal line of force. Choice of material, timber is a good material as long as it is well treated as it helps to illustrate a natural environment. Trees overlapping the spaces, creating elements of shade in the sun. whilst at the same time if there is rain it a provides a natural refuge and shelter. Art sculpture adds an artistic quality that can be incorporated into the Chelsea Creek concept. This art sculpture also produces steam which creates an entirely new environment that invites and excites the user.

Image 2

• • • •

The Amphitheatre would work well in the Chelsea Creek site acting as informal seating for people to rest, observation, eating lunch or simply interacting with others. The Court has a great sustainable feature as it can flood with heavy rain. The Chelsea creek is a high risk flood zone, therefore, installation of a multi purpose flood water retention pool would be beneficial to the site. This design allows the residents to have a space they can congregate and be proud of. The open clear space provide a good level of natural surveillance

Image 3

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

33


10.1 Design Precedents Health & Well being Project Name: Velenje City Centre Pedestrian Zone Promenada Project Type: Riverside Development Year of Completion: 2014 Landscape Architect: ENOTA Location: Velenje, Slovenia

Project Name: Governors island Phase 1 Park & Public Space Project Type: Parkland Development Year of Completion: 2014 Landscape Architect: West 8 urban design & landscape architecture p.c Location: New York, USA

Health and Well being Elements

Health and Well being Elements

• The social interaction that is created through forcing people to sit together and interact. • The diverse planting will help to improve psychological health. • Water is a really tranquil feature to have, as the changes in levels create the sound of water crashing. • This space could be transferred to the Chelsea Creek site at the point where the road crosses the creek. • One of the leading concepts for the design is to create a space for events, this can be applied over the creek. • This addresses the biophilic elements of the concept, as it leads the user towards the water, and potential wild planting along the waters edge.

• • • • • •

Image 5

Image 7

34

Image 6

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

The Planting that submerges people takes them away from an urban environment. The mixture of planting compliments the industrial architecture which helps to improve the users perspective of the space. The high volume of people that are attracted to this space help to amplify Jan Gehls principle that people attract people, thus creating a more enjoyable environment. The industrial elements can be transferred to the Lots Road power station. This design illustrates that if you create a focal point out of the history of the site it can create a great amount of depth to the design. Framing the architecture of the cityscape that towers over the site can be linked to a similar feature at the Chelsea creek site with regards to the view of the city from the creek.

Image 8


10.2 Design Precedents Post industrial & Urban Regeneration Project Name: Landshafts Park Project Type: Industrial Regeneration Year of Completion: 2002 Landscape Architect: Latz + Partner Location: Ruhr area Germany

Project Name: Boroughs Market Project Type: Industrial Regeneration Year of Completion: 1851 Landscape Architect: Latz + Partner Location: Ruhr area Germany

Urban Regeneration

Urban Regeneration

Created in the 1990s this is 1 of 100 projects from Internationale Bausausstellug (IBA) who look to create new, ecological, economical, social and cultural parks. The 230 hectares of regenerated mining industry land structures have been broken down into 6 sub parks; The Blast Furnace Park, Water Park, Sinter Park, Rail Park, Play points & Ore Bunker Gallery. Each sub park offers provision for exploration, education and relaxation. Each Existing structure is enhanced through planting, and landscaping, the users are also allowed to interact with the park through play such as water, rock climbing and areas for recreation.

• • •

Image 9

Transferable Design Elements • •

Transferable Design Elements

This is a wholes sale and retail food market in Southwark. The present market, located on Southwark Street and Borough High Street just south of Southwark Cathedral on the southern end of London Bridge, is a successor to one that originally adjoined the end of London Bridge.

The market is a key element that i wish to apply to the Lots road power station. The market can bring a lot of money to the site, and also cater the many cultures of the area, for example art, antiques and perhaps even artisan.

The industrial elements can be transferred to the Lots Road power station. The industrial elements have been untouched which helps to accentuate the architecture and Character of the buildings. Planting has been used to re mediate the water which no doubt has been contaminated through industrial waste.

Image 10

Image 11

Image 12

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

35


10.3 Design Precedents Post Industrial Regeneration Project Name: Rosa Luxemburg garden & Halle Pajol Project Type: A public railroad space, both opened and covered Year of Completion: 2014 Landscape Architect: Situ Paysages et urbanisme Location: Paris 18 ème, France

Project Name: Haute Deûle River Banks Project Type: Post-industrial regeneration Year of Completion: 2008-2015 Landscape Architect: Atelier des paysages Bruel-Delmar Location: Lille France

Urban Regeneration

Urban Regeneration

A public railroad space, both opened and covered, for the Pajol Market Hall – In Paris, all along the railroad tracks of the Gare de l’Est and inside the old market hall of the Halle Pajol, the Rosa Luxemburg Garden stretches from north to south. The long train track outlines a continuous route that encompasses a covered garden under the Halle and an open garden in contact with the streets of the neighbourhood. The open garden develops to the north of the Halle, restored by Françoise-Hélène Jourda (youth hostel, services, businesses and municipal library). Tiered terraces host rows of seats, grassy surfaces and a play area. A grove of Scots pine punctuate each of these landings while a border of ash trees accompanies the principal path. This long walkway mimics a “railroad” that slides smoothly under the Halle and the library.

The Haute Deûle River Banks development project leans on recognition of the site qualities that form its basis and its enrichments. The water presence is undeniable, as much in the district history as in its present-day configuration, despite a loss of recognition.

Transferable Design Elements • •

• • • •

The structure of the building strongly resembles the power station at Lots road. The Benches compliment the building, through the use of conten steel. The trees add a natural architectural quality complimenting the rigidity of the building. The informality of the barrier preventing you from going into th river is a good representation of the industrial character of the site.

The structure of the power station could well be comprimised, therefore, the installation of an internal structural unit could help to create a new environment inside. This design shows that a variety of non-native planting can be grown inside the building through a green house like effect.

Image 12

36

Transferable Design Elements

Image 13

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

Image 14

Image 15


10.4 Design Precedents Biophilia Project Name: Crossrails Station Roof Garden Project Type: Partially Sheltered Public Garden Year of Completion: 2015 Landscape Architect: Gillespies LLP Location: Canary Warf, London

Project Name: Eastside City Park Project Type: New Build Year of Completion: 2012 Landscape Architect: Patel Taylor Owner: Birmingham City Council

About the Design

Design elements & Key Landscape Features

A unique and partially sheltered public garden that works to unite the residential neighbourhood of Poplar and the business district of Canary Wharf. Located in the North Dock atop of Crossrail Place – a five storey mixed-use development – and Canary Wharf Crossrail Station, Crossrail Station Roof Garden is an exotic, landscaped garden that provides a new elevated shared space between the two areas – open daily from dawn till dusk. The development is the first building to open for Crossrail – London’s new east – west link.

• •

Transferable Design Elements

• • •

• • • •

This an exciting new approach to park and garden design. By placing it underneath a roof, it creates the theme of security and shelter. The roof also helps the planting to grow, by creating heat like a green house effect. This design could be applied to the power station, underneath the roof,where an indoor exotic park oasis could be developed. It also provides a natural escape from the built up urban environment of Canary wharf, similarly to the Chelsea Harbour area and the Proposed Chelsea Creek site.

Image 15

This site has a relatively flat and monotonous terrain with and open character. The parks linear avenues and low terrain allow for the key focal points to be made prominent, such as; Biomorphic sculptures, water features and wild flower meadows.

How is this site Biophilic There is an adverse number of refuge spaces aimed at a diverse range of landscape preferences The sites form has created enough of a buffer from the surrounding environmental stressors (Traffic, Noise, Crowds etc.). The most prominent Biophilic pattern this site presents is ‘Prospect’, however, other patterns can be seen in this park.

Image 16

Image 17

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

37


10.2 Design Precedents Features & Play Project Name: Redevelopment of the east side Paprocany lake shore in Tychy Project Type: Riverside Park Year of Completion: 2014 Landscape Architect: Robert Skitek Location: Tychy, Poland

Project Name: N/A Project Type: Pocket Park Year of Completion: N/A Landscape Architect: N/A Location: N/A

Transferable Features

Transferable Features

• • •

• • • • •

The main purpose in selecting materials was to emphasise the natural character of an area by using mainly natural materials. Follows the water edge and allows people to view the river with a sense of hierarchy over space. The informal net seating is an exciting fun way for people to interact with the landscape.

Image 18

38

Image 19

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

This Design is a good representation of the simplicity of design having a massive impact. The site is well populated because their is plenty of activity for people. The colours are also bright and inviting with invites the user in. The use of informal seating forces people to interact and socialise The space is left to the interpretation of the user, allowing them ownership of the space.

Image 20


10.2 Design Precedents Architecture Project Name: Millennium Promenade Project Type: Sustainable Urban Drainage Design Year of Completion: 2000 Landscape Architect: Grant Associates Location: Bristol Harbour

Project Name: Haute Deûle River Banks Project Type: Post-industrial regeneration Year of Completion: 2008-2015 Landscape Architect: Atelier des paysages Bruel-Delmar Location: Lille France

Transferable Features

Transferable Features

• • •

• • • •

The SuD system in the middle would be a great feature to incorporate in the Development of the Chelsea Creek. Similar to the Millennium Promenade the proposed Chelsea Creek will have residential development, therefore introducing a system of retaining and filtering grey waste water and run off will support the design intentions. The buildings are complimentary of the natural landscape also, and the clear views in and balconies create a very social and communal environment.

Image 21

Image 22

The way the glass reflects the brick work and creates the idea of invisibility for the developed parts. The re-instated red brick buildings create a real sense of character, a similar principle can be applied to the Chelsea Creek Site. The Design proposal will look to combine the tradition engineering bring with modern glass and steel structure. The corten steel furniture also helps remind the user of the previous industrial character.

Image 23

Image 24

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

39


11.0 Design Development Concept Layout

40

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


11.1 Design Development 20/01/17 - Initial Idea

Commercial Offices

11.1.1 Initial Idea 1 Description The principles set out on page 36-37 of this report, this initial concept idea has been formulated. This layout has a primary focus on the views east up the river towards London. Therefore, everything has been orientated, from the top of the creek to open out and frame the view of London. Residential development has been proposed, on the south of the site, as it has the best means of access and allows for potential great views from the apartments. The Idea of Biophilia has been incorporated through the wetlands shown on the plan below, as well as the potential grey water SuDs system that lies between the two apartment blocks. Furthermore, a Wildlife Interpretation centre has been located at the top of the creek, which could have an impact on re-mediating the creek. Event space has been created in relation to the school and the power station. This would be the best location for such feature as involves two key features to the area.

Wetland Planting

Power Station

Bridge Walk

Play & Social Area MUGA Boarwalk

Terraced event space

Parkland Residential Apartments

Residential Apartments Wetland Interpretation Centre

ffic

e

icl

n

Di

re

io ct

eh fV

Residential Apartments

Residential Apartments North Sketch Plan 01 Scale: 1_1000 @A3

Tra

o

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

41


11.2 Design Development 23/01/17 - Initial Idea 2 11.2.1 Intial Idea 2 Description Artificial Grass

Following the design principles, and the ideas proposed on page 46, this plan has looked to develop upon the idea of more development. The site would benefit from a higher number of residentia and commercial units. Therefore, the LBHF south side of the site has been installed with more residential blocks. This blocks could also have some retail restaurants and cafes, in order to establish some new quarters for social interaction and amenties for the residents. The Water could play much bigger role within the site, therefore, the park area, now steps down towards the water. Following William de Morgan’s Style of flowing lines and bird feathers, feel that waving shapes reflect this and the idea of fluidity. The shape of the MUGA area has been adapted to fit with the lines of froce from the buildings and views.

Commercial offices Restaurants Cafe Bars

Wetland Planting

Power Station

Bridge over potential dam

Play & Social Area

Terraced walk ways with platers

MUGA

Outdoor Stage Lowered to waters edge Residential Apartments

Wetland Interpretation Centre

Residential Apartments Mix of Commercial & Residential Apartments

k

ar

P ar

Residential Apartments Retail Reastaurants

ing

C

nts

ra tau Res afes C

Car Park

ing

Car Park

ing

42

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

North Sketch Plan 02 Scale: 1_1000 @A3


11.3 Design Development 27/01/17 - Initial Idea 3 11.3.1 Initial Idea 3 Description Offices Food & Drink establishments

The two previous ideas allowed the design to really develop. The sketch plan on this page, illustrates all of the key themes from the concept shown on page 38 of this report. The shapes and fluidity of the design represent de Morgans ceramics, as well as the vast number of planting zones that allow the user to engage with the naturalness of the site. The soft fluid lines contrast really well with the hard lines of hard landscape and structure. This helps to illustrate the idea of Bohemian art, which is somewhat on conventional, never the less the shapes work well to compliment each other. The idea of creating spaces for refuge throughout the design allow for new human spaces to be formed. The power station has now been developed, it is intended that this space could potentially become, an indoor parkland with commercial and retail elements incorporated. Event space is key to adding another key attraction to the site, therefore event space can be found, outside the power station, opposite the power station, and inside the power station on the ground floor. The Wildllife centre has been taken away from the site, but now replaced with a possible space, for a hotel, art gallery, commercial offices, and maybe even residential. A Boardwalk has been placed weaving in out over the river to help combine human and nature without one damaging another.

Power Station: Offcies Food & Drink Retail Hotel Indoor exotic park land

Wetland Planting

Offices

Offices Hotel

Offices

MUGA

Offices Residential

Terraced area Residential

Retention basn

Offices Gallery Hotel

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

North Sketch Plan 03 Scale: 1_1000 @A3

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

43


12.0 Design Proposal Final Design

5 4 6

7

1 3

8

2

16 9

19

21

15

18

20

17

10

11

14 13

12 North Masterplan Scale: 1_1000 @A3

44

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


12.1 Design Proposal Final Design Annotations 1

Internal power station development, Hotel, spa, Commercial Offices, Galleries, Food & Drink establishments over looking the indoor exotic parkland.

12

Another commercial quarter, with food and drink establishments and outdoor dining space.

2

Exotic indoor parkland, with a glass roof combining with the planting to produce its own heat, thus creating a whole new environment and climate for the user. Three large imported tree will grow through all levels to the roof.

13

The main hub for this part of the site with shops, bars, library and outdoor informal seating and dining space. It is a large space for mass gathering of people over looking the SuDs inlet.

3

The Void - This is a floating boardwalk through the chimney, the emptiness of the chimney creates the idea going from an oasis to nothingness. The only lighting in the Chimney will come from the opening at the top.

14

Inlet that increases in gradient and can either flood or be dry. The base of the inlet will be planted with grasses and marginal planting that can survive when submerged in water. The space can be explored by people when dry.

4

Plaza space at the entrance of the two office buildings opposite. The space will allow people to gather with being to dense. The large mature London plane will be planted with a corten steel planter approx .50m high, allowing it to become informal seating.

15

Terraced levels looking onto the power station, following the fluidity lines of de Morgans ceramics and reflecting the water. The levels can create and event space, for example and outdoor cinema projecting on to the wall of the power station.

5

Large 4 Storey office building, overlooking the plaza spaces. The ground level adjacent to the 6 will be on ground restaurants bars and cafĂŠs, which will give this isolated part of the site a sense of purpose.

16

Wetland submergent planting that is retained by a floating frame to create a rigid appearance of the planting. This contrasts nicely again the curvilinear patterns of the terraced levels.

6

Open outdoor seating with tables for outdoor dining in relation to the food and drink establishments.

17

Steps down towards the river, creating the idea that the user is viewing the natural landscape as if it is a movie. The steps can be used to sit eat lunch and play on. It is intended that the steps be constructed from the same timber as the board walk.

7

Lowered to water level (+2.00) this will be a dense mix of wetland marginal and submarginal planting. The Gradient will gradually increase creating a dryer area which will be tall grasses. The area can be flooded if water levels rise.

18

Plaza space at the entrance of the two office buildings opposite. The space will allow people to gather with being to dense. The large mature London plane will be planted with a corten steel planter approx .50m high, allowing it to become informal seating.

8

Boardwalk Bridge over the proposed creek dam, made from timber it connects to the board walk that runs along the face of the power station over all the wetland planting. The dam will prevent polluted water from entering the creek, therefore, cleaning the water

19

Recreation activity area, artificial grass allows the space to used all year round, people can sit play and walk on the grassed area. The centre has a large hard material space with water jets shooting up. There will be table tennis and seating blocks.

9

Multi-Use Games Area, free for the public to use, the surface will be coloured ‘Tiger Mulch‘ which contains recycled rubber and plastic. The Area can flood making it an emergency retention basin in the case of severe flood.

20

Shared space across the road, along with this, material changes in order to slow the vehicle down to increase safety. This allows the main part of the site to flow seamlessly into the British Gas pond area of the site.

10

Communal space with shop fronts, food and drink establishments and outdoor dining.

21

Plaza space for outdoor dining connecting with the hotel, gallery, office buildings surrounding the space.

11

The Thames Path promenade, with double sided timber benches that flow with the shape of the water, creating a sense of fluidity. Each long bench is broken up with small and large native trees.

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

45


12.2 Design Proposal Key Designed Elements 12.2.1 Route Hierarchy

12.2.2 Vehicle Routes

The Diagram below dictates the hierarchy of routes that have been designed into the proposal. The main route shown as the thickest line below will be Thames Path (National Trail), which is now the quickest and most enjoyable route for the public. It will connect with the Chelsea Harbour along the river front. Other key routes shown are those that will be predominantly used. It also shows hows the design is intended to direct the user in a new and exciting way to different areas of the site.

Ultimately, the reduction of vehicles would be the end goal, therefore with regards to parking on site only a small number of parking bays have been included. Most of which will be disabled parking to allow ease of access to all areas of the site. Resident parking will be underneath the buildings, thus reducing the visual impact of cars on the road. All the roads in the Chelsea Creek site will be Shared space, (Areas filled with red on the Diagram below) and giving the priority of the space to the pedestrian. The main road that runs over water as shown on the diagram below will be shared space.

46

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


12.2 Design Proposal Key Designed Elements 12.2.3 Key Nodes

12.2.4 Key Views

These areas have been designed into the proposal as they create opportunities for people to gather. Further adding to the principle of health and well being by encouraging people to interact with one another. Other than layout design, these node will be established through development. For example, the large nodes marked on the diagram below will most likely be a quarter for socialising with bars, restaurants, cafĂŠs and shops. This will also help to create community cohesion and add more interesting space to be explored with the site.

As discussed in the design concepts, a strong basis of the the design intention was to emphasise and utilise the amazing view up the river. This can be seen in the diagram below, it is clear to see how the building layout has been formed so that it frames the view up the creek from the bridge. As well as the view east towards the city, the power station offers an incredible amount architectural prowess. Therefore, it will act a focal point of the site, like a sculpture, this is why the design has allowed the chimney to be framed using building form. The SuD basin gives the impression that the grey water or run off will towards and up the chimney.

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

47


12.3 Design Proposal Design Statement Form & Function The design intention behind the chelsea creek proposal, was to allow the user to interact with the naturalness of the landscape, but at the same time provide a safe and enjoyable environment for a community to thrive. The From has been based upon the exisitng layout of the surrounding area, the lines of sight towards the centre of the city, and the artistic appearance of bohemian art. The site will provide a place for people to live, socialise and remain healthy and active. In turn this will improve the mental and phsyical health of all the people that will be imapcted by the proposed development.

Ecological Improvements Through the daming of the creek the water will begin to clean, which will help to enhance the ecological state of the creek basin as well as the surrounding environment. Through the inroduction of oxygenated water, fish can potentially be allowed into the creek. By introducing a diverse variety of planting to the water, as well as the main areas of landscape, the biodiversity of the area will increase. All the roofs on the site will be planted with trees and shrubs, adding to the idea of biophilia, as it will encourage more bird species, whilst at the same time be a natural means of dealing with drainage. The over riding aim for the ecological improvement of the site is it to re mediate the contamination issues in the water and the soil, through the introduction of planting and wildlife to the site, whilst at the same time contributing massivly to the improvement of London.

Health & Well being Features This has been achieved through the introduction of sports facilities for free. This will encourage people to be more active and entice those who do not normally participate in physical activity. As a city the importance of encouraging people to be healthier considering that lifestyles are becoming more and more sedentary is at its highest. This design acts as a statement that we as designers of the built environment need to ensure that the welfare of the human is equally at the summit of our design principles, as well as ecology. By providing a mass of green naturalness to the proposed site will have a knock affect on the mental welfare of the resident and workers that will habit the site. Being surrounded by other people will encourage socialisation amongst youngsters and shows those who are older that you are never to young to play.

48

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017


12.3 Design Proposal Design Statement Urban Regeneration In order to make sure the site lasts the site needs to bring in revenue, this will be done through the introduction of businesses. An emphasis should be mate on independent business and those that really depict the areas culture, such as antiques, art, design and fashion. However, it is important to note that you simply cannot retain a culture, in order allow humans to live a happy full life, every must have the ability to except change. This must not be mistaken with conformity. Cultures and environments change, with this in mind the proposed development welcomes business, cultures of all backgrounds. This will make the site thrive and create more a symbol of diversity and equality. Residential housing will increase the value of the site, the majority of the site will be high-end luxury apartments, however, this design provides a good number of affordable living units. Finally the Regeneration of the power station is rather symbolic, what was once the provider of energy and power, is now a provide of life culture.

Building form & Style Brief Whilst the power station building form will be retained, and its style should be reflected in the buildings located within the site design. The use of yellow/brown engineering brick will help to reflect the industrial character of the sites history, whilst at the same time combining it with glass steel structure shows that design and style has adapted, but we should still remember what paved the way for modern architecture. Instead of the landscape reflecting the building, this design encourages the building to reflect the landscape, more maybe perhaps merge the two so they are one. The buildings in this design have been shaped in a way reflect light in smaller spaces and invite people into different spaces.

Conclusion The key intention of this design was to make a statement with regards to ensuring that peoples well being be improved through this design. This design has made a conscious effort to achieve that goal. It provides areas for rest, areas for play, and areas for work. Alongside this it has created a journey allowing the user to experience a wide variety of different environments. It has provided all cultures and abilities the chance to be challenged and educated, with regards to ecology, recreation, and design. Chelsea is an incredibly wealthy part of London, and this design responds to that statement really well. It provides facilities to socialise, whether that be free or paid. It presents opportunities for gathering, and events which highlights the proposed site as a potential hub for activity drawing people in from all walks of life. Those who will reside in and around this site will experience a community that interacts and will work together to ensure that the quality of life is improved.

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

49


Bibliography This page shows all the links and sources used to formulate this report

Planning References: Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. LBHF, 2012. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan. 93 Lots Road – PP 02 1324 Inspectors decision.pdf, 2011 Mayor of London. 2011Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: The All London Green Grid. Branch, Green, Batchelor, Young, Elias, Cameron, Athersuch. 2010. A Tale of Two Power Stations: Environmental archaeological investigations at Battersea and Lots Road. Circadian, 2001. Lots Raod Power Station Development & Land at Thames Avenue, London, SW10: Cumulative Impact Report. RBKC, 2014. Information about Lots Road. Carter Jonas, 2016. Commercial Edge: London Office Market Update. Farrells. 2016. Chelsea Water Front Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Design & Access Statement. Mayor of London, 2016. The London Plan 2015: UDP RBKC, 2015. Local Plan 2015. Thames Water, 2013. Application for Development Consent: Heritage Statement. Doc ref; 5.3, Appendix E.

URL links to Background Research on Lots Road Power Station: http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/luxury/property/lots-road-power-station-development-is-the-biggestchange-for-chelsea-in-living-memory-45796.html#gallery http://www.primeresi.com/the-other-power-station-lots-road-gets-1bn-makeover/22372/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsjybHH7TvY http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/lots-road-power-station http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lots-road-power-station-gets-a-new-life-in-1bn-flats-and-shopsproject-8838979.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c6126042-ffd0-11e4-bc30-00144feabdc0.html http://www.hampsteadscience.ac.uk/article_Lots_Rd.htm http://www.aworth.co.uk/index.php/case-studies/lots_road_power_station_london http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/myads/copyrights?from=2f6172636869766544532f61726368697665446f776e6c6f61643f743d617263682d3431362d312f64697373656d696e6174696f6e2f7064662f756e697665727369312d38353832385f312e706466

50

AD6000 | Chelsea Creek Kensington & Chelsea | Feasibility Report | February 2017

General Background Research Terrapin Bright Green. 2014. 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Grayson, N. 2014. Birmingham: the UK’s First Biophilic City. Crown. 2013. Green Living Spaces Plan. Kevin Lynch. 1960 - Image of the City. TFL. 2005 - Improving Walkabiltiy Report Walk21 Lecture - Bronwen Thornton 2016 Hess. P; Farrow. J. 2014- Walkability in Toronto’s High-riseNeighbourhoods ASLA Speck & Associates 2009 - Oklahoma City Downtown Walkability Analysis & Recomendations Leyden. K PhD 2003 - Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importnace of Walkable Neighborhoods. Gehl, J. 2006. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press. Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for People. Island Press. Gehl, J & Svarre, B. 2013. How to Study Public Life. Island Press. Kilner, J. 2016. A Walkable City Needs...Good Design. Living Street (Pedestrians Association) [online] Livingstreets.org.uk. Design for Walkability. SPUR. Available from: https://designforwalkability.squarespace.

.

com/. Date Accessed: 02/01/2017 Tripadvisor. 2016. Available from: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Tourism-g186338-London_England-Vacations.html VisitThames. 2016. Facts about the River Thames & Useful information. Available from: http://www.visitthames.co.uk/about-the-river. https://www.thameswater.co.uk/counterscreek/ Wikipedia. 2016. Counters Creek. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter’s_Creek Londons Lost Rivers. No date. Available from: http://www.londonslostrivers.com/counters-creek.html. The de Morgan Foundation. 2016. Ceramics. Available from: http://www.demorgan.org.uk/collections/ceramics Lambert, T. No Date. A Brief History of Chelsea, London. Available From: http://www.localhistories.org/chelsea.html. Wikipedia. 2016. Chelsea, London. Available From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London

Data Collection Baker. D. 2011. Census 2011: Kensington & Chelsea: A summary of all Key Statistics and a selection of Quick Statistics from the second release of Census statistics (11 December, 2012) Mayor of London, 2015. Data Downloads: 2011 Census. TFL. 2017. WebCAT:PTAL Rating. Available from: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/ planning-with-webcat/webcat. OpenStreetMap. 2016. Dorset Explorer. Available from: https://explorer.geowessex.com/ National Library of Scotland. 2016. Map Images: OS Historic Maps. Available from: http://maps.nls.uk/ http://www.ukcrimestats.com/ https://www.police.uk/


Any images in this report not refereed to on this page are the authors images.

Images

Images 1 - 2 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2016/08/docklands-city-park-melbourne-stage-1-by-mala-studio/ Image 3 http://www.urbanisten.nl/wp/?portfolio=waterplein-benthemplein Image 5- 6 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2015/06/velenje-city-center-pedestrian-zone-promenada-by-enota/ Images 7 - 8 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2015/01/governors-island-ph-1-by-west8/ Image 9 - 10 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2011/08/post-industrial-landscape-architecture/ Image 13 - 14 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2016/08/rosa-luxemburg-garden-by-in-situ-architectes-paysagistes/ Image 15 - 16 & 23 - 24 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2012/03/haute-deule-river-banks-new-sustainable-district-by-brueldelmar/ Image 18 https://designingthelandscape.com/2015/03/12/biophilic-design-case-study-01-eastside-city-park-birmingham-city/ Image 19 http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2015/11/paprocany-lake-shore-by-rs/ Image 21 - 22 http://www.baliawards.co.uk/finalists/bristol-harbourside/

02 Design Rationale | Luc Jones | S1405409 | University of Gloucestershire

51

Chelsea Creek | Dissertation | Feasibility Report  

Third Year Dissertation Design Feasibility Report

Chelsea Creek | Dissertation | Feasibility Report  

Third Year Dissertation Design Feasibility Report

Advertisement