Kensington Aldridge Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre

Frequently Asked Questions

• the need for an academy
• about Academies
• about the Kensington Aldridge Academy
• cost
• the leisure centre
• the planning brief
• next steps and getting involved
• key responses from the planning brief
• the process
• the architects

 

Need

1. Why does the Royal Borough need a new school?

• As a local authority the Council has a responsibility to provide sufficient school places for residents in the Royal Borough.
• Over 30 per cent of local students currently travel outside the Royal Borough for their secondary education.
• Demand for secondary school places is especially pressing in North Kensington and this situation is only set to increase with the growing population.
• We need to address this issue to ensure that children have access to sufficient high quality education within the Royal Borough now and in the future.

2. Will every child be guaranteed a place in this academy?

• Children would have to apply for a place in the academy, in the same way that they do for any other state school. Admissions are fair, and must be in accordance with the School Admissions Code.

 

About academies

3. What is an academy?

• Academies are publicly funded independent local schools that provide a first class free education. They are all-ability schools established by sponsors from business, faith or voluntary groups working with partners from the local community.
• Academies provide a teaching and learning environment that is in line with the best in the maintained sector and offer a broad and balanced curriculum to pupils of all abilities, focusing especially on one or more specialism.

 

About the Kensington Aldridge Academy

4. Have architects been appointed to design the new academy?

The competition to design a new academy and leisure centre for North Kensington has been won by a Studio E-led team. During the summer the Council held a design competition with more than 40 firms entering.

Studio E are experienced school and leisure centre designers, having worked on the City Academy Hackney, the Ark Academy Wembley, the Burgess Park sports centre and the Watford Central leisure centre.

The architects are familiar with our borough having redesigned Emslie Horniman Pleasance, the classroom of the future at St Francis of Assisi primary and they completed the sports and IT extension to St Charles Catholic Sixth Form College.

5. Why is this an academy and not just a regular school?

• Establishing academies is the Government’s preferred method for funding schools in the UK. To qualify for financial support from the Government for this school we needed to ensure that it was an academy.
• Academies were introduced in 2000 to bring a distinctive approach to school leadership by drawing on the skills of their sponsors and supporters. They are an integral aspect of the Government’s strategy to raise education standards in disadvantaged and challenging areas.
• Academy status also gives the school greater freedom to promote enterprise and innovation while offering students the opportunity to specialise.

6. Will you have to pay to send a child to this academy?

• No.
• Academies are state schools and they are completely free of charge.

7. How big would the school be in terms of size?

• We are currently looking at Studio E’s designs and the final size of the school needs to be agreed. However, the Department for Education (DfE) and Partnership for Schools have funded a new academy with a gross internal area of 8,850m2, including internal sports facilities. The architects are also presenting a costed option to the Cabinet Members of an academy in line with the DfE’s original area for an academy at 10,700m2.

8. Who are the sponsors of the academy?

• The lead sponsor of the academy is the Aldridge Foundation with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as co-sponsor.
• Both sponsors have a proven track record in delivering high performing schools.
• The Aldridge Foundation already sponsors academies in Darwen and Brighton. Darwen has achieved excellent GCSE results and Brighton, which started from a challenging base as an underperforming school, has now been transformed. The Aldridge Foundation is also sponsoring the Portslade Academy which will open later this year.
• All academies the Aldridge Academy sponsor are non-selective, non-denominational, community schools for local students and their families.
• The Royal Borough is the co-sponsor of the Chelsea Science Academy which opened on time and to budget in September 2009. The recent Ofsted inspection indicated that the borough’s schools achieve high standards at all key stages and that it provides excellent support. The Council will ensure that the proposed academy plays a key role as a leader of teaching and learning.

9. Will the sponsors benefit financially from the academy?

• No. The Aldridge Foundation is a not-for-profit charitable organisation which has already delivered two highly successful academies in Brighton and Darwen.

10. What will the curriculum be like?

• The main focus of education would be on core subjects and achieving the highest levels of literacy, numeracy and science.
• Alongside this the academy would specialise in entrepreneurism and expressive arts.

11. What will the academy specialise in?

• The academy’s specialisms would be entrepreneurship and expressive arts.
• Entrepreneurship is an integral part of teaching and learning across the whole curriculum, helping raise attainment and aspirations.
• In keeping with the sponsors’ commitment to developing a curriculum that makes learning relevant and provides skills for life, a second specialism is planned to be the expressive arts. This part of the borough is rich in its vibrancy and enthusiasm for the expressive arts and the academy would contribute significantly to the cultural life of the community through this specialism.
• The value of such specialist creative activity in schools is reflected in Ofsted’s latest report “Learning: creative approaches that raise standards” which recognises that creative learning practices in schools are improving standards and students’ personal development. Of the 44 schools visited by Ofsted for the report almost all were using creative approaches

12. How will the academy be able to deliver a full sports curriculum and would it have access to other sports facilities?

• The detailed provision of sports facilities will be looked at more closely when the plans for the academy are developed.
• As with all other schools, the academy would deliver a sports curriculum, whether on-site or using nearby facilities as many other boroughs and inner London schools already do.
• For instance, students from Chelsea Academy routinely use off-site sports facilities, as do the pupils from the Cardinal Vaughan School.

13. When would the academy open?

• Our intention is to have the school open by September 2014. This is, of course, subject to getting planning permission and on the Partnership for Schools who will be working with the Aldridge Foundation and the Royal Borough to deliver the project.

14. Are the transport links sufficient in the area to support an academy?

• The studies we have carried out so far have shown that a school on this site could be supported by the existing transport links.
• Further studies will be carried out as the plans develop including a traffic and parking assessment as part of the planning application process. The study will assess the impact of the increased intake of the academy on parking, traffic, public transport and the local road network. Further details will be included within the application for detailed planning permission.

15. What would the new academy look like?

• The final design of the new academy still needs to be decided.; However, Studio E’s initial design proposals can be viewed below.
  
  • design one
  • design two
  • design three

16. How will admissions be arranged? Is this based on proximity to the academy?

• Yes.
• The academy would be a neighbourhood school so admissions will be based on locality

17. Would there be provision for special needs educations?

• Yes.
• It is still early days so we would look in more detail at how many special needs education places are provided although the school will be fully Disability Discrimination Act compliant.
• We are committed to ensuring that children of all abilities can benefit from this new school.
  

18. What would the age range be at the academy?

• The new academy would be co-educational and accommodate 900 11 to 16 year olds and a sixth form of up to 240.

19. How would parents be involved in the academy?

• As much as possible.; We will establish a partnership with all parents as this is crucial to the success of the academy.

20. Would the academy offer community uses?

• As with any such project we would seek to deliver additional benefits for local communities. The planning brief for the area also includes a mechanism for delivering additional social and community uses on site either as part of the academy or elsewhere.
• The details on this still need to be worked out but this could include weekend and out of hours community uses.

 

Cost

21. How much will the academy cost and how will it be funded?

• A total of £57.8 million has been agreed towards the building of the new academy and leisure centre.
• The Council will provide £10.4 million for the academy in addition to the £17.6 million already provided for the academy by the DfE.  This extra funding will ensure that the academy is built to the same high standards as Chelsea academy.

22. Will this school cost as much as Chelsea Academy?

• The costs associated with academy projects need to be considered on an individual basis.
• There were specific site conditions at Chelsea Academy which meant that some £4-5 million pounds of additional funding was required and the Programme was procured at the peak of the market.  Building costs alone have decreased by some 9% since.
• Additionally, Chelsea Academy received £36.2 million of funding from central government whereas Kensington Academy was granted £17.6 million.  This is a reflection of the changed economic situation that we are now in.
• With this additional funding in place, better conditions on site and efficiencies from improved procurement method, the Council is confident that a state-of-the-art academy, meeting the same high standards as Chelsea Academy can be delivered.

23. Is the Council using its reserves to fund the school?

Yes, the Royal Borough is funding £10.4 million towards the academy out of its reserves with the remaining £17.6 million coming from the Government’s contribution.

24. Are you still on track to deliver the academy by 2014?

• Yes.
• The procurement option chosen will see the academy building ready for fit-out by July 2014 at the latest – in time for the 2014/15 school year.

25. Would you need to consider temporary accommodation?

• This is not currently the intention but we are keeping our options open at this early stage.
• We have previously used temporary accommodation at the Chelsea Academy and at Holland Park School and it has worked well in both cases.

26. Will the Aldridge Foundation be contributing any money towards the building of the academy?

• The remit of the Aldridge Foundation as lead sponsor has never been to contribute financially to the capital cost of building the academy.
• The Aldridge Foundation will provide the ethos and educational direction for the school in perpetuity and deliver the high standard curriculum that we aspire to in the Royal Borough.
  
  

The leisure centre

Background

27. How old is the leisure centre?

• The leisure centre was originally built in the mid-1970s as a swimming pool.
• It was further developed in 1986 to include dry-side facilities including full size and smaller sports halls and squash courts. In 2001 Kensington Leisure centre was reopened after a £3m redevelopment and upgrading which resulted in an improved swimming pool, sports hall, new café bar/reception and better facilities for disabled people.

28. Wasn’t the leisure centre recently refurbished?

• The latest significant redevelopment took place more than a decade ago, in 2001. Since then no major improvement works have taken place and the facilities and the building itself have aged significantly. 

29. Has the Council considered alternative sites for the leisure centre?

• The Council has considered other sites that might be suitable for the construction of a new leisure centre and found no other sites in North Kensington currently available for development that could realistically be used to house a new leisure centre to the minimum specification.
• Also we know that local people treasure having this facility there and we want to make sure that local communities can enjoy this for many years to come. Rebuilding it is the most effective way of ensuring that this is achieved.

30. Will the same or additional facilities be included in the new leisure centre?

• The new leisure centre would be at least as big as the current facility and would contain a swimming pool.
• The exact mix of other facilities will depend on the size and layout of the new leisure centre as well as demand from the local community.
• The Council and architects will work with users and the local community to establish exactly what facilities will be included in the new leisure centre.

Rationale

31. What is wrong with the present premises?

The current centre was built in the 1970s and just isn’t tailored to the health needs and pastimes of local people.  The internal layout is sprawling and as a result makes poor use of the space.  The layout also makes the building hard to maintain and oversee and therefore expensive to run.  We believe by rebuilding rather than refurbishing we will significantly reduce running costs.

Environmentally speaking, the current centre is a poor building and a refurbishment is unlikely to successfully address this failing.  A new building would certainly be low carbon, in fact we would expect it to achieve a BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) “excellent” rating which would mean a significantly reduced carbon footprint and lower fuel bills.

Architecturally the current centre has little or no merit.  With award winning architects on board, we believe we can do better. We want to design new and much improved facilities that meet local needs and aspirations and which help people become healthier

But perhaps most importantly of all, the current centre is coming to the end of its useful life.  Leisure centres built in the 70s typically have a lifespan of between 30 and 50 years.  So the current centre’s time is up.  As a result repair and maintenance costs are starting to mount.  We think a really good refurbishment would only keep the centre in business for another decade or so and still leave fundamental shortcomings unaddressed.

Cost

32. How much would it cost to put the current leisure centre right, compared with the cost of a rebuild?

The architects estimate that a full refurbishment would cost in the region of £14million, and would last around ten years, versus around £20 million lasting 50 years for a new centre. We also need to take into account that the running costs for the original building are also set to get more expensive as the building ages, so by rebuilding it now we can save money in the long-term. 

Refurbishment on the scale of providing a like-for-like facility would still involve closing the leisure centre for up to a year. New builds therefore provide a more cost effective construction option. Finally, because we are intending to build a new academy at the same time, we may be able to achieve economies of scale on the cost of a new centre. That means there may never be a better time than now to try for a brand new, state of the art centre for the people of North Kensington.

33. Is the funding of the academy linked with the funding of leisure centre?

• No, £17.6 million has already been provided by the DfE for the academy which clearly shows Government commitment to the school and is a significant investment in the challenging economic climate.  
• During the Cabinet meeting in December it was agreed that an additional investment of £10.4 million would go towards the new academy from the Council.
• The Cabinet committed to providing £24.7 million for a new leisure centre and £5.1 million for public realm improvements and other enabling works.  Funding for the leisure centre is coming from the Council’s own capital reserves and is not dependent on grants.

Consultation

34. Why didn’t the Council start with a consultation of users before formulating its first plan many years ago?

• We have consulted on the plans widely over the last eighteen months.  There have been a number of consultation events on the academy and leisure centre and these have happened on the following dates: 20.11.10, 2.2.11, 9.02.11, 22.02.11, 16.05.11, 21.06.11, 29.06.11, 19.07.11, 28.09.11.  The meeting on the 2 November was the first Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) User Forum meeting where only current users of the centre received an invitation.  Previously, consultation events held at the centre and other local buildings and were open to all interested people including local residents, current centre users and representatives of local groups.  At all these meetings the future of the leisure centre was an agenda item and discussed.
• A consultation event was held by GLL at the leisure centre on 28 March 2012 to update users on how the project has progressed following the January 2012 drop-in sessions on the designs.
• A Public Realm Scrutiny Committee Working Group on Leisure Facilties, comprising Cllr Joanna Gardner, Cllr Barbara Campbell and Cllr Pat Mason, conducted consultation with a range of current users and non-users of the leisure centre, and their report included a list of suggestions for a new centre based on this consultation, which has been passed to the architects.

35. What was decided at the December Cabinet?

• After carefully considering a number of design and cost options, the Council’s Cabinet committed to funding both the new academy and brand new leisure centre.
• During the meeting the Cabinet reviewed a range of options for the development and agreed on one which includes an additional investment of £10.4 million towards the new academy from the Royal Borough.  The Cabinet also committed to providing £24.7 million for a new leisure centre and £5.1 million for public realm improvements and other enabling works. This is on top of £17.6 million of funding already confirmed by the Government for the academy.
• The Council’s Cabinet carefully discussed the different options available for the leisure centre. The option to refurbish the existing leisure centre was rejected after architects estimated that full refurbishment would cost in region of £14 million, and would only extend the centre’s life by ten years.  A brand new leisure centre should last much longer.

36. If leisure users do not support the plans will you listen and change the development proposed?

We have many different users of the centre and quite often the use of the facilities conflict with each other and the operator tries to strike the right balance between competing demands. Decisions will be based on a range of opinions from leisure users, industry experts, architects and politicians.  As well as consulting and satisfying existing users, we have an obligation to provide a facility that attracts new users, not just today but into the future.  The present building whilst enjoyed and loved by sections of the community is neither attractive nor flexible enough to increase its usage.  The architects chosen for the redesign will continue to talk to users and non-users as the facilities are designed.

37. Have people with learning disabilities been consulted yet?

Yes.  We have consulted with current and potential users of a new leisure centre.  For example, one of the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s Working Group key recommendations is that the borough’s leisure facilities “meet the needs of people with restricted mobility and other disabilities, throughout the centre not just parts of it.”  They spoke at length with user groups including those representing local disabled people and also disabled people.  Also, the Kensington and Chelsea Community and Physical Activity Network (CSPAN) have a dedicated sub-group for disabled people and disability issues. Again the new leisure centre has been a key agenda item at its meetings.  Local organisations such as Action Disability Kensigton and Chelsea have been invited to our public consultations events.   We are proud to support local clubs such as Emperors Swimming Club, who teach swimming to disabled people regardless of age or disability.

Pool

38. Why has the Council gone back on its previous assurances (e.g. about the length of the pool)?

• It was common practice between the 1950s and early 1970s to build 33 metre long swimming pools.  These incorporated a 25 metre short course length and an additional 8 metres deep end that could accommodate diving from boards either at 5 metres high or at the Olympic and World Championship height of 10 metres. However this type of design is now obsolete, and diving – where it is still practised – is now normally accommodated in special diving pits.   New, modern pools are built either to 25 metres (short course) or 50 metres (long course), which are the standard lengths used for school and club competitions.  This is why most surviving 33 metre pools have had bulkheads built into them to create a 25 metre length.
• From the very outset of the public consultation over the new leisure centre, we heard the views of several current users who enjoy the 33 metre pool length.  We knew that reducing the length to 25 metres would not be welcomed by these users. We did not set aside their opinions lightly. However, we had to take account a number of other considerations when deciding the optimum length and breadth of the new pool.  These included the following:
  • we wanted the new leisure centre to meet the needs of everyone, including people and families who are not necessarily interested in distance swimming and who simply want to have fun in the water.  We wanted therefore to build a leisure pool as well as a conventional swimming pool.  We hoped by doing so to draw local people into the new leisure centre who might never have used it before.  We also wanted to retain a training pool for non-swimmers, ie to have three pools in total.   
  • we knew the footprint of the new leisure centre was limited by the amount of land available; we had to have regard to the overall cost of the new centre as well.  We were concerned that if we designed in a 33 metre swimming pool it could make it difficult to fit in, or afford, a decent sized leisure pool as well as a training pool
  • we wanted the pool to be wider than it is now, with two extra lanes, so the potential for conflict between different users could be reduced. Eight lanes would give us the capacity to offer much more opportunity for general and lanes swimming, as well as a wide variety of club pursuits, lessons and school sessions.
  • we wanted a pool which meets Sport England and Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) standards. The Amateur Swimming Association also wrote to us at some length, concluding that they ‘would positively oppose any decision to remain with a 33.3 metre length’
  • the Chelsea and Westminster Swimming Club (CWSC), which has 400 members, wrote to us making several compelling points in favour of a wider pool with a 25 metre length
• The Council weighed up these competing considerations and concluded that an eight lane 25 metre pool with a leisure pool and a training pool would provide the optimum mix of water facilities in the new leisure centre. It would mean a pool that can provide for teaching at all levels, for fitness swimming, fitness training such as aqua aerobics, distance swimming at all standards and competitive.

• The proposed teaching pool would add further flexibility; we are currently investigating the provision of a 20m x 10m tank with a movable floor.  This would provide excellent swim teaching space, allowing fewer lessons in the main pool and therefore a wider range of times in the main pool for fitness swimming and club use.  At the very peak time of fitness swimming (e.g.: 7.30am – 8.30am), this pool could provide extra lane capacity with the weaker swimmers in the teaching pool at a constant depth of 1.2m freeing up more lane space in the main pool for stronger swimmers.

• This decision had regard to the interests and preferences of those swimmers who had told us they preferred a 33 metre length, but the Council concluded on balance that other considerations should prevail.

39. What would adding a third pool provide that the current two pools cannot?

With a sloping, shallow water level the leisure pool will be the ideal place for all the family to enjoy. In addition, it will help adults and their young children gain confidence in the water, before taking swimming lessons in the other pools. It would enable younger people to have fun and develop a sense of comfort and security in the water. This is currently not provided.

Academy

40. How much would current access to the facilities be curtailed by the school's use?

The detailed provision of sports facilities will be looked at more closely when the plans for the academy are fully developed.  As with all other schools, the academy would deliver a sports curriculum, either on-site or using nearby facilities as many other boroughs and inner London schools already do.  For instance, students from Chelsea Academy routinely use off-site sports facilities, as do the pupils from the Cardinal Vaughan School.  The academy would become another customer of the leisure centre but would not have any exclusive deals on the use of the new facilities.

41. Does a sports hall in the school mean the leisure centre will not have one, and can non-school users access the school's hall?

The proposed new centre will have a 120 station gym and an eight-court sports hall.  This would enable us to offer more flexible programming for casual use and for local clubs and organisations.  The academy would have its own dedicated four badminton court-size sport hall which would be accessible to the community outside of curriculum time.

Process

42.  If the leisure centre is rebuilt what alternative provision is being organised for users while it is closed?

Discussions are already under way with our centre operator GLL on how they can assist current users. GLL operate in London with thirteen other local authorities including Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham.

Three centres are approximately a mile away from Kensington Leisure Centre.  These include Phoenix Fitness Centre and Janet Adegoke Swimming Pool which  is 1 mile away to the east, Porchester Centre is 1.1 miles away to the north, and the Jubilee Sports Centre which is 1.2 miles away the north). Additionally the new Holland Park School facilities are only 0.7 miles to the south.

 GLL has experience in handling leisure centre redevelopments and in keeping disruption to service users to a minimum. Chelsea Sports Centre will remain open during any refurbishment or rebuilding of Kensington Leisure centre. GLL will also be considering how to facilitate travel to proposed alternative centres.

We will also talk to our local schools and other local providers such the Westway Development Trust, particularly to see if they can accommodate clubs and sports hall users. We are also looking for other flexible spaces close to the leisure centre that may be able to accommodate a fitness room and studio in the short term.

43.  How long would it take before the new building is open?

We want to see minimum disruption to the service and to local residents’ lives.  Therefore, we will seek strong assurances from the appointed building contractor about the centre reopening as soon as possible.  Depending on the final design of the centre and how the building programme dovetails with the academy building, the earliest we would see the centre opening is eighteen months after  first closing.  An extensive refurbishment may see the centre closed for up to 12 months.

44.  Can temporary facilities be set up so that some provision remains whilst work is taking place?

This could be an option as part of a package of losing a valued service whilst a new centre is built.  We are looking at whether this could be incorporated when building the new centre.  However, there is difficulty in finding adequate space within a ten minute walk of the existing facility.  The lack of space is one of the main reasons why the new academy is proposed to be sited on the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and Silchester Car Park.

45.  Can the work be phased, starting with the academy, so that the leisure centre isn’t closed for so long?

Phasing the work would not shorten the length of time the leisure centre is closed, to rebuild the leisure centre would take around 18 months whether or not it is done at the same time as building the academy.  In addition, building in two phases would be considerably more expensive.

46.  The quality of life for local people will be impacted when there are two sets of building work going on at once.

The quality of life for local people would be impacted, even if the leisure centre was only being refurbished.  If we did nothing now we will still have to revisit this issue in five to eight years time and deal with the potential disruption then.  It makes sense to combine these two projects into one short building programme which will reduce the length of time disruption takes place.  We will ensure that we continue to work with the local community to keep any impact on the quality of life to an absolute minimum.

47. Will improvements such as new windows and cladding be made to the estate including Grenfell Tower?

Estate renewal work is managed by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation. The Royal Borough are in discussion with the TMO in order to determine whether there is finance available to enable improvements to the adjacent estate. Updates will be provided to the Lancaster West Estate Management Board and the KALC Residents’ Forum.

 

The Planning Brief

48. What is the Planning Brief?

• The Planning Brief – known also as a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) – takes the policies set out in the borough-wide planning policy document, called the Core Strategy, and provides more detail on the planning requirements for the development of the site. It also sets an indicative masterplan as to how the Council envisages the development of the site.
• The Planning Brief was informed by a feasibility study carried out in July 2010 and consulted on between January and May 2011. Following the consultation, amends were made to the brief and this was adopted in May 2011.

49. When did the consultation on the Planning Brief take place and what did it involve?

• Consultation has included a number of elements:
  - A ‘snap and say’ day on 20 November 2010 attended by 50 residents – a drop in event where small groups of residents walked the sites and, using photographs, identified the things they liked and didn’t like about the area. A survey was also available to gather facts about the use of open space and how people move through the area.
  - A workshop on 2 December 2010 attended by 40 residents.
  - A presentation on 6 December 2010 to the EMB of the Lancaster West Estate.
  - Three events on the draft SPD brief as part of the formal consultation period – a drop–in event on 2 February 2011 attended by 20 residents, an evening event on 8 February attended by 30 residents and a final event on the evening on 22 February 2011 at the leisure centre attended by 80 residents.
  
• When the draft Planning Brief was made available for public comment, an organisation called Planning Aid was appointed by the main residents’ groups to make sure that they had an effective voice in commenting on the draft brief.
  

50. Where was the consultation publicised?

• The consultation was publicised in leaflets and letters sent out across the local area and was advertised in the local newspaper as well as on the Council’s website. Posters were also put up across the estate.
• In addition to the initial survey in late 2010, the formal Planning Brief consultation period ran for six weeks from 25 January to 8 March 2011. 57 people responded to this and there were over 400 specific comments.

51. Has the Planning Brief changed as a result of the consultation?

• The Planning Brief has been amended in a number of areas following comments from local residents and key stakeholders.
• However, the significance of this project stretches beyond the immediate area and has the potential to benefit hundreds of residents who will be able to send their children to a school in their own borough and enjoy the new leisure centre facilities.
• It is important, therefore, to consider the priorities of communities in North Kensington along with those near to the site.

52. Have Councillors now approved the Planning Brief?

• Yes. The Royal Borough’s Cabinet approved the Planning Brief in April 2011.  It was subsequently adopted on 16 May 2011.

53. Wasn’t there a request for the Planning Brief to be ‘called-in’ by councillors?

• There was a request from a local resident to Cllr Gardner, Chair of the Royal Borough’s Scrutiny Committee to call in the Council Cabinet’s Key Decision on the Planning Brief on grounds that it breached Council and national planning policies specifically intended to protect open space and residential amenity from development.
• Cllr Gardner declined this request noting that the Planning Brief had been prepared in accordance with the relevant legislation and is in conformity with the Core Strategy.

54. Can the Planning Brief be challenged?

• The Planning Brief has been adopted following approval from the Royal Borough’s Cabinet.
• There was a three month period where the Planning Brief could be challenged and a Judicial Review requested but this has now expired.

 

Next steps and getting involved

55. I want to have my say in the emerging proposals – how can I do this?

• In order to move the project forward, Studio E architects are further developing the design of the academy and leisure centre following the Cabinet decision in December 2011.
• We want people to get involved so we have set up a residents’ forum which meets on a monthly basis. If you are interested in joining the forum or becoming involved then please contact kalcenquiries@rbkc.gov.uk
• We are also interested in all those who make use of the centre facilities and what we can do to improve and extend the borough’s leisure centre provision. A leisure group has been formed which includes regular users of the leisure centre so they can input into the emerging proposals. If you would like to be involved please contact the manager of Kensington Leisure Centre on 020 7727 9747 or email kensington.enquiries@gll.org
• We held two drop-in sessions on 26 and 28 January 2012 to share how the designs are progressing following the Council’s Cabinet decision in December. Feedback from those sessions is being reviewed and considered where possible.
• We will be holding a public exhibition on the full designs on Thursday 19 April from 4.30pm to 8.30pm and Saturday 21 April from 10am to 2pm. This will be an opportunity to see how the plans have progressed following the drop-in sessions in January and comment on the full designs. The Council, Aldridge Foundation (lead sponsors of the Academy), Studio E (lead architects) and other members of the project team will be on hand to answer any. The exhibition will be held in the Lower Hall of Notting Hill Methodist Church on Lancaster Road, and we will be advertising the event locally and on the Royal Borough’s website, in the coming weeks.

Key responses from the Planning Brief

56. Cost – how does the cost of Kensington Academy compare with the Chelsea Academy or Holland Park and does this project have the same priority?

• Delivering a high quality school for the north of the borough is a key priority for the Council.
• That is exactly why it has teamed up with the Aldridge Foundation – a highly reputable co-sponsor with a strong track record in delivering high quality schools across the country.
• It also needs to be noted that the costs associated with each project need to be considered on an individual basis.  A portion of the cost for the Chelsea Academy, for instance, was due to additional works that needed to be done to prepare the site, so we will not know the final cost for this project until more detailed plans are developed.

57. Site selection – were other sites considered for the academy?

• It is never easy in a densely populated borough, near the centre of London, to find a big enough site to build a new school.
• We carried out a site selection process for the school in 2009 and looked at five sites – Barlby Primary School, Kensal Gasworks Site, Princess Louise Hospital, Middle Row/St Mary’s and the Kensington Leisure Centre Site.
• However, none of these were suitable for a school, predominantly because they had poor accessibility, were too small, or were not in Council ownership.

58. Alternative sites – what about the other two sites the public suggested – the Virgin Active Gym and Silchester Garages?

• The Virgin Active/ St Thomas Primary School site is not available. The freehold for the site is owned by Stenham Property who lease the property to Virgin Active. Virgin has confirmed that this is a well used facility and the Council has been informed by the operators that they do not wish to sell.
• In addition, while the Virgin building is an old school, it does not offer accommodation regarded as appropriate for a new school. Demolition would therefore be required, further adding to project costs.
• There is also the additional complication of having to offer continuous provision of accommodation, either on or off site, for St Thomas Jones Primary School during the redevelopment. Even if the site were available, these complications would not allow for the school to qualify for Government funding as it needs to be open by 2014. The Silchester Garages site would not be available for the construction of the school by 2014 as the 14 properties on Shalfleet Drive and their communal garden could not be assumed to be available by that date. When they are taken out of the site, the area is simply not big enough to accommodate a school. Furthermore, in this scenario the school would be accommodated on two separate sites which is not ideal.
  

59. Open space – will building the school on the selected site result in the loss of open space?

• The details of the scheme are yet to be worked out but some loss of open space would be inevitable. However, the portion of the open space that would be reprovided would be significantly improved.
• It is worth noting that currently one third of the site is taken up by a car park, which does not add greatly to the local amenity.
• A lot of the open space on the site is also made up of the playing pitches, which would be reprovided at the Westway Sports Centre, just five minutes from the site.
• In addition, the current play area would be retained or replaced and further improved.

60. Parking – would car parking still be provided on site?

• In areas like this, where there are adequate alternatives to car use and there would remain significant parking capacity in the area, the Council does not resist the loss of car parking.
• It should also be noted that many of the spaces in the existing car park are used by commuters. The reduction of car parking at this site will help minimise car use in the local area.

61. The road – is the new road still proposed and won’t this encourage ‘rat running’ and add more traffic to the area?

• The plans for the site do include the provision of a road.
• As part of the process going forward, we would need to determine how this road is best managed to serve the academy and the new leisure centre whilst considering the impact on local residents.
• Our early thinking suggests, however, that this new connection would be used primarily by pedestrians and cyclists and would therefore not have a great impact on the traffic in the area.
• Currently there is no convenient and clear way of getting to the leisure centre – you need to know where it is to find it. The new road could help address this and make it a more accessible facility for visitors.

62. Noise – won’t the noise from the school be disruptive to local residents?

• Naturally there would be some noise impact however our experience from other schools is that this can be mitigated very effectively through staggered school hours.
• As part of the planning application for the school, the Council will expect a full list of mitigation measures that the school will intend to use and where necessary impose planning conditions to control and minimise noise and disruption for residents living in the area.

63. Housing - will there be any housing as part of this development?

• The preferred option chosen by Cabinet in December includes the provision of some new housing along Bomore Road. A more detailed appraisal of this element of the project will be undertaken in the coming months.

64. Trees – would any trees be lost as a result of the construction work?

• There would be some loss of trees but none of these would be protected trees.
• Replanting would also take place to make sure that any trees lost were replaced.
  

65. Other uses – would there be retail/ a library provided on site?

• The Planning Brief does not include every possible use on the site. It sets out what you ‘have to’ do on site as opposed to what you ‘could do’.
• The Planning Brief sets out the options in a realistic way recognising that it would be a challenge to provide more uses on an already constrained site.

 

The process

66. What process has lead to the current consultation on the academy vision?

• The consultation on the ethos and vision for the academy is the latest of several processes that previously the Council, and now the academy sponsors, have undertaken for this significant project.
  1. It started with consultation by the Council on the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework (LDF) during 2008 and 2009.; This looked at opportunities for the wider Latimer area, for this specific site, as well as borough-wide planning policies such as those relating to open space.
  2. The next stage was looking at the more detailed planning requirements for the academy and leisure centre site by preparing a Planning Brief. The Planning Brief – known also as a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) – takes the policies set out in the borough-wide planning policy document, called the Core Strategy, and provides more detail on the planning requirements for the development of the site. This was consulted on between January and May 2011 and adopted in May 2011.
     
  3. The adoption of the SPD allowed the academy sponsors to consult with the local residents on the early vision and the ethos for the academy itself, and this consultation took place in the summer of 2011.
• This will be followed by further consultations on the design of the proposed school and on separate plans for the leisure centre.
• Following an architect’s exhibition held in September 2011, Studio E architects were chosen as the designers for the project. They will now develop designs and a community panel and leisure group panel will be formed in order to ensure ideas from both groups are fed back to the architects. Once a preferred option is confirmed by the Council’s Cabinet the view is to submit a planning application for the site in April 2012.
  

67. What are the next steps?

• Now that the architects have been appointed, we are looking to invest £1.5 million in procuring a design team for the academy to develop more detailed plans.
• Further consultation with residents by the sponsors and the Council’s Leisure Department will continue to take place through 2012.
• Two drop-in sessions were held at the leisure centre on 26 and 28 January to share how the designs have progressed now that the Cabinet has chosen a preferred option. 
• A public exhibition will be held on Thursday 19 April and Saturday 21 2012 at Notting Hill Methodist Church on the full designs for the academy and leisure centre. Further details on the event will be advertised on the Royal Borough’s website, the next project newsletter and in the local press in the coming weeks.
• We aim to submit the planning application in May 2012 for determination in the summer/autumn of 2012.

68. What systems have been put in place to ensure that people are informed and consulted as the project progresses?

• Any public consultation activities going forward will be publicised in the local media and in key community areas across the borough.
• We will also be writing directly to stakeholders and local groups to keep them up-to-speed on the process.
• In addition, we are making plans to host regular residents’ meetings which will be another opportunity to keep up to speed with the project and discuss any issues.

 

The architects

69. What was the process for choosing an architect?

• During the summer the Council held a design competition with more than 40 firms entering.
• An exhibition was held in early September 2011 so that local residents would have the opportunity to see and comment on the shortlisted designs.
• The six shortlisted architects presented to a panel of Councillors and a representative of the lead sponsor before a decision was made.

70. Who are the architects?

• The competition to design the new academy and leisure centre was won by Studio E architects.
• Studio E are experienced with school and leisure centre projects, having worked on the City Academy Hackney, the Ark Academy Wembley, the Burgess Park sports centre and the Watford Central leisure centre. They are familiar with the borough having redesigned Emslie Horniman Pleasance, the classroom of the future at St Francis of Assisi primary and they completed the sports and IT extension to St Charles Catholic Sixth Form College.

71. Will design options be available to view and comment on?

• Yes.
• You can view the preliminary designs and find out more about the proposals for Kensington Aldridge Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre by visiting www.rbkc.gov.uk/kalc and http://www.kensingtonaldridgeacademy.co.uk/

• A community panel made up of local residents and groups will review these options as the project develops.

• A separate leisure group which will include regular users will also be formed so that they can input into the proposals.

72. When will the final design option be presented and voted on?

• The architects are now further developing their designs following the Cabinet decision.
• During this process and up to the submission of the planning application we are working with local residents’ groups and user groups to ensure they are involved in the process and that our plans and thinking are shared every step of the way.