3256 - The Kensington 15

3.8
Adjacent buildings
Eastern Boundary
On the north-eastern corner is 255 Kensington High St, which based
on record information has a single basement with four storeys above
ground. It is assumed to be load bearing masonry construction with
shallow strip footings.

To the south of Whitlock House is 12-14 Earls Court Rd, which

comprises three storeys of residential above ground floor retail. Based
on record drawings and visual similarities of rear elevation it is likely
that this building was constructed together with Whitlock House
and would therefore likely share the same reinforced concrete frame
construction and possible piled foundations.

Southern Boundary
Numbers 27 to 32 Pembroke place sit directly adjacent to the
southern site boundary, whilst numbers 1,4, 5 and 32a sit on the
other side of the Pembroke place access but are in close proximity to
the site. These buildings are 2-3 storey Victorian terrace houses and
therefore most likely to be load bearing masonry construction with
shallow strip footings.

Western Boundary 255 Kensington High St, north west corner 12-14 Earls Court Rd, east elevation

267 Kensington High St (Leonard Court) constructed circa 1950 is

residential building rising five storeys above ground with a single
story basement. It is assumed to be a load bearing masonry structure,
which is consistent with the findings of the site investigation which
found corbel footings sitting on concrete strip footings.

To the south of Leonard Court runs the rear wall of the Edwardes
Square dwellings gardens. This is defined by a masonry wall on
shallow strip footings which has been extended vertically and/or
incorporated into single storey buildings on the other side of the wall.
11.3 m

225 High Street Kensington

8.8 m
3 STOREY RETAIL & RES.

5 STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK BH D

BUILT CIRCA 1810

BH A
BUILT CIRCA 1950
267 High Street Kensington BH1 TP 9
BH 9
TP 9a
TP 1
SRMcA 2
TP 9b
BUILT CIRCA 1924

A A
4 STOREY

SRMcA 4
3 STOREY OFFICE BLOCK

Leonard Court 6.2 m

BUILT CIRCA 1990

TP 2

30.2 m
TP 8
63.5 m

1 Edward Square
BUILT CIRCA 1930

.
RETAIL & RES

TP 3
A 1990
2 STOREY

12-14 Earls Court Road

3 STOREY OFFICE BLOCK

BUILT CIRCA 1924

BUILT CIRCA 1950

BUILT CIRC
CINEMA

5 STOREY

BH C

B B
TP 4

SRMcA 3
.

9 Edward Square
RETAIL & RES

BH B
A 1990

SRMcA 1 BH 7
5.9 m

TP 7
BUILT CIRC

BH 5 TP 6
4 STOREY

TP 5
28 Pembroke Place 29 Pembroke Place
HOUSE

3 STOREY TERRACE HOUSE

SE
BUILT 1874-1896

BUILT 1874-1896
PUBLIC HOU
3 STOREY TERRACE

CA 1830

5.5 m
BUILT CIR
3 STOREY

C
27-32 Pembroke Place, south elevation Garden wall to the rear of Edwardes Square houses, with south elevation of Leonard Court beyond
 3256 - The Kensington 16

4.0
Proposed Block 2

Alterations Block 1 TH 8 Block 3

4.1 TH 7

Overview
Town Houses 1 - 6
Block 4
The proposed development comprises a mixture of uses spread
across different blocks above ground.

•• Block 1, nine storeys above ground, private residential

Block
•• Block 2, five storeys, private residential over ground floor 5
cafe and cinema entrance Key plan showing the division of building blocks. Proposed superstructure

•• Block 3, six storeys, affordable residential, over ground floor

retail

•• Block 4, four storeys, office and cinema entrance

•• Block 5, three storeys, affordable residential

•• Townhouses 1-6, four storeys, private residential

•• Townhouses 7-8, three storeys, private residential

It is proposed that the buildings are grouped into six

superstructures, each with their own framing system and lateral
stability system: This division is denoted by the colour-coding in
the figure below.

4.2
Existing structure
With the exception of the Odeon facade, the existing structures
on the site will be demolished.

4.3
Superstructure
The superstructure of all buildings will be of in-situ reinforced
concrete construction. Lateral stability will be provided by shear
walls and where required augmented by frame action.

Cut-away view indicating lateral stability elements

 3256 - The Kensington 17

4.4
Retained facade
Due to its historical significance and architectural merit, it is
proposed to retain the existing facade of the Odeon Kensington.
It is not listed.

At this stage retention proposals have been based on limited

architectural archive drawings obtained from the Metropolitan
Archive and the Paye appraisal (refer to appendix). This will need
to be confirmed and augmented by a detailed structural fabric
survey, to facilitate the development of detailed proposals.

It is anticipated that the facade comprises a load bearing

steel frame clad with a pre-cast concrete ashlar blocks and
masonry. This is likely to have been notched to fit around the
steel members with the mortar assumed to have provided an
adhesive bond as well as corrosion and fire protection to the
steel . In practice this type of cladding proved to be permeable
and the resultant expansion due to corrosion of the underlying
steel typically leads to cracking of the surrounding masonry
(commonly known as Regent St disease). The use of impressed
current cathodic protection (ICCP) should retard any further
corrosion of the steel, whilst the damaged masonry treated with
a mixture of repair and sensitive replacement. Photograph of portico entrance onto Kensington Elevation of portico entrance onto Kensington
High Street, to be retained High Street, 1926 to be retained
With respect to the structural system it is proposed that the
vertical load bearing system of the facade is maintained on
existing footings, however it is assumed that the building
behind the facade provides lateral support and therefore once
this is demolished an alternative system is required. In the
temporary condition (construction phase), it is proposed to
install a steel support frame outside the north elevation as
this is a proven solution for this type of facade. Specific to The
Kensington, this temporary frame will be designed and installed
so that there is no detrimental impact on the two London Plane
trees on Kensington High St. In the permanent condition a
connection will be formed with the new concrete frame such
that lateral forces are transferred into the new lateral stability
system, whilst vertical load paths and movements remain
separate.

Photograph showing a facade retention frame to

the outside of an existing masonry building. North facade to be retained

4.5
Substructure
At this stage in design, an outline foundation design has been
produced based on the Ground Engineering site investigation
factual report dated April 2007. This investigation characterised
the ground conditions in detail, though it is anticipated that
further site investigation will be undertaken to verify details of
the existing foundations to the former Post Office building and
the buildings along Earls Court Rd. This information will be used
to refine the detailed design.
In addition, detailed discussions in relation to construction of
the proposed basement wall were undertaken with specialist
substructure contractors experienced in this type of project. The
feedback received was used to establish a suitable wall zone
accounting for construction tolerances, clearances to adjacent
structures and feasible wall types based site spatial constraints.
This information was preliminary and exact values will vary
dependent of the final design details and contractor selected,
therefore full details will be confirmed at later stages of design.
Image illustrating the basement volume with internal structure omitted for clarity
4.5.1
Basement Excavation & Wall
Construction
The existing basement condition varies across the site. Two
separate single storey basements sit beneath the Odeon, one
each under the north and south elevations. Based on visual
appraisal and discussions with current occupants the Post
Office building and Whitlock house are both assumed to have no
basement (this will be confirmed based on record information
yet to be received and/or further site investigation).
It is proposed that a new four storey basement covers almost
the entirety of the site, with one and two storey basements
under blocks 3/5 and the northern part of block 2 respectively.
The maximum depth of excavation will be approximately 19m
depending on the exact location and the final foundation
solution. It is proposed that the new basement wall will run
behind the Odeon retained facade, with the existing basement
in that location being modified to incorporate the foundations
for the new structure above.
Prior to excavation of the site, a new, stiff embedded retaining
wall will be installed from ground level. Augmented with
temporary propping this will facilitate excavation of the
basement without detrimental to the adjacent structures and
in the permanent condition will form the basement wall and be
propped by the basement floor slabs.
4.5.2
Basement Wall
A stiff, embedded retaining wall will form the basement box,
resisting lateral pressures from groundwater, soil and surcharges
as well as vertical loads from the basement floor slabs and
structure above. It will be designed to resist ultimate limit state
forces and to remain within deflection limits determined on
the basis of maximum acceptable ground movements (refer to
section 5.6 for further details).
The proposed retaining wall solution will be robust and will have
been used successfully on similar projects in RBKC and London.
To ensure the suitability and buildability of the wall, the design
has been developed based on detailed input from two major
contractors with specialist experience of constructing deep
basements on confined sites within London. Based on this input
3256 - The Kensington 18
a number of design refinements and construction processes
have been identified:
- The structure of each section of wall will vary in
accordance with the loads acting on it and which type of plant
can access that location and install the wall within the site
constraints.
- Prior to construction the effect on the foundations of the
adjacent buildings will be calculated on a case by case basis to
determine what, if any mitigation measures are required. These
may include:
•• Reduced rate of construction and completion of shorter
segments of wall during each construction phase
•• Injection grouting beneath adjacent foundations (with prior
agreement through the party wall process)
•• Underpinning of adjacent foundations (with prior agreement
through the party wall process)
•• A stiff piling mat will be utilised to provide a stable working
platform for the plant ensuring accurate installation.
•• Where required by the retaining wall type, screens will be
erected adjacent to the plant to protect adjacent buildings
and members of the public from ‘splashing’ of liquid
materials.
 3256 - The Kensington 19

4.5.3
Foundations and basement
structure
The basement depth, ground conditions and irregular column
layout make The Kensington well suited to raft foundations
and this is the solution proposed beneath all blocks. Piled
foundations are also a viable option and may be suitable
for some parts of the development depending on the final
construction sequence selected (see below).

The basement floor structure will be of-situ reinforced

concrete (RC) construction. According to the spans and loading
requirements this will be a mixture of flat slab construction and
one-way spanning slabs between down-stand beams. Columns
and walls will also be of RC construction.

Due to the different uses above and below ground, a number of

transfer structures will be utilised at the underside of ground
level to reconcile the structural grids where required. Depending
on the specific load span and spatial requirements these are
either fabricated steel beams, storey height steel trusses or
RC downstand beams. Beneath townhouses 1-4, RC walls are
utilised as deep transfer beams

Based on the proposed raft solution it is anticipated that a

‘bottom-up’ construction sequence will be utilised. Therefore
as the basement excavation proceeds downwards temporary
props will need to be installed to restrain the retaining wall. The
design assumes that these will take the form of whalers across
the corners sitting at approximately 1.2m above slab level. The
raft and slabs will be connected into and receive lateral restraint
from the D-wall, where possible using pull-out bar boxes (e.g.
Kwikastrip) or if required post-fixed dowel bars. Late pour strips
will be utilised to minimise stresses arising from early-age
shrinkage. The floor slabs will act as permanent props to the
basement wall. Refer to section 4.6 for further details of the
proposed construction sequence.

Alternatively, for programme reasons it may be desirable to

pursue a full or partial ‘top –down’ sequence utilising plunge
columns in large diameter piles. Due the irregular column grid
and the large number of transfers at ground level the ‘top-down’
scheme may feature:

•• Piles and plunge columns installed from LG1 level (with

basement wall cantilevering to ground level)
Cut-away illustrating structure below ground level
•• Temporary columns – used to facilitate construction, but
redundant in the permanent case and therefore cut-out

•• Raft foundation for permanent foundations, or hybrid with

piles
 3256 - The Kensington 20

4.6
Construction

4.6.1 Demolition &

Temporary Works
All buildings and substructure on site will be demolished, except Stage 1 - Removal of Existing Basement Structure Stage 5 - Construct raft foundation and begin core walls and columns
retained facade and it the basement and footings directly
beneath. Based on the date of construction it is assumed that
the Odeon sits on shallow foundations which would be removed
as part of the demolition and excavation. Similarly the former
Post Office building.

Whitlock is a newer construction that occupies the site of

previous building which incorporated a basement. No details
of the substructure are currently available. In discussions with
the current building manager it was noted that no basement
existed for the building, this seems to be borne out by the
details indicated on the survey drawings. On this basis and
having looked at adjacent buildings, it would seem likely that
made ground would exist under and around Whitlock house
and this would in turn suggest that piled foundations would
be the likely foundation system. This will need to be verified at
Stage 2 - Secant and diaphragm wall construction Stage 6 - Completion of substructure construction
a later stage. As the building is tightly hemmed in by existing
buildings to the north and south it would seem likely that piled
foundations along these lines would have to be inset away
from the boundary location, and this would in turn suggest that
ground beams or a thick raft would be required to pick up the
columns located on the N and S perimeter of the building. Since
the building proposed to replace Block 3 has deep single storey
basement (approx 4m) and raft foundation, it is likely that any
piles in this location would need to broken down or extracted
to accommodate the new construction. This would need to be
coordinated with installation of the new secant pile wall around
the proposed basement and temporary propping of the adjacent
buildings and pavement vaults (if required) and underpinning.

Temporary works to support the retained facade are covered in

the Block 1 superstructure section.
Stage 3 - Begin excavation and install temporary props Stage 7 - Superstructure construction, except Block 4, to provide site
access

4.6.2
Construction Sequence
The sequence shown adjacent outlines the initial principles
for constructing The Kensington based on raft foundations
STAGE 8: BLOCK 4 CONSTRU
and a ‘bottom-up’ sequence. Mace have taken these principles
SUPERSTRUCTURE FULLY C
and developed a more detailed sequence based on logistical
constraints and their construction expertise. This can be found
in the separate construction management plan prepared by
Mace.

Stage 4 - Complete excavation and installation of piles Stage 8 - Completion of Block 4 superstructure fully constructed

4.7
Impact Assessment
Detailed assessments as outlined below will generally be
undertaken at the appropriate stage of design by AKTII Limited.
AKTII have extensive experience in the development of designs
for deep basements in London and throughout the world. Given
the size and importance of the project, construction will be
undertaken by an established main contractor and associated
supply chain with significant experience of such ground works.
Comprehensive calculation packages will be prepared by AKTII
Limited for Building Control approval at the relevant stage of
design.
4.7.1
Ground Movements
4.7.1.1 Soil parameters and design
approach
A detailed assessment of ground movements for comparison
against relevant acceptance criteria will be undertaken
during the detailed design stage to ensure that there is not a
detrimental impact on adjacent buildings in the short and long
term. The procedure for implementing this analysis is outlined
below.
Preliminary assessments of likely ground movements have been
made on the basis of the site investigation results obtained to
date bench-marked against typical stiffness parameters for the
London Clay deposits. These preliminary analyses have formed
the basis of the assessment of the viability of a raft foundation
and retaining wall proposals, which are to be verified in the next
stage of design. A detailed design philosophy shall be developed
in preparing the Geotechnical Design Report as required
under the provisions of Eurocode 7. Ground modelling for the
assessment of ground movements shall principally comprise
the following analyses addressing both vertical and lateral
movements:
•• Elastic halfspace analysis of the proposed raft foundation
considering short and long term conditions accounting
for variation in pore water pressure and considering time
dependency of movements; use of halfspace model to
assess vertical ground movements below and adjacent to
the excavation with consideration of rebound heave effects
in both short and long term conditions
•• Elastic plane-strain 2D section cut analyses for assessment
of lateral and vertical ground movements in regions adjacent
to the excavation including the effects of basal heave
•• Review of predicted ground movements against empirical
derivations and case study data (eg CIRIA C580 data). The
results will be assessed against relevant acceptance criteria
as outlined below in order to secure the relevant formal
approvals for the works to be undertaken. Any resulting
requirements with regard to the Contractors’ methodology
will be detailed and enforced through the project
specifications and preliminaries.
4.7.1.2 Construction phasing
The construction phasing shall be considered in the assessment
of time dependency effects. At this stage of design development
the following stages have been identified as critical to one
or all of the structures that may be affected by the proposed
development.
•• Stage 1a: Short term heave due to demolition
•• Stage 1b: Short term heave due to excavation
•• Stage 2a: Short term settlement due to construction before
application of brittle finishes
3256 - The Kensington 21
•• Stage 2b: Short term settlement due to construction after
application of brittle finishes
Case 2: 0.90ψ2Gk
Where Qk,proposed is determined considering live load reduction
•• Stage 3a: Consolidation settlement due to building occurring by factor αn (Ref: EN 1991-1-1:2002 eq. NA.2)
during 100 year design life
Long term effects
•• Stage 3b: Consolidation settlement due to building occurring
Load from proposed building
after 100 year design life
Ref: EN1990:2002 Quasi-permanent combination eq. 6.16a
•• Stage 4a: Long term heave due to gross unload occurring
during 100 year design life Case 1: 1.00ψ2Gk,proposed + 0.30ψ2Qk, proposed
•• Stage 4b: Long term heave due to gross unload occurring Case 2: 0.90ψ2Gk
after 100 year design life
where Qk,proposed is determined considering live load reduction
Through the use of superposition the relevant design conditions by factor αn (Ref: EN 1991-1-1:2002 eq. NA.2)
for the affected structures may be determined.
ii. Material factors
4.7.1.3 Time dependency effects Soil parameters
For the purpose of ultimate limit state design using Type
With reference to Tomlinson (2001) and Brien & Sharp (2001), 1 combinations, encompassing the structural design of the
where relevant the following apportioning of the total ground raft, retaining walls and assessment of any secondary effects
movement into short- and long-term response with regard to generated from tilt of cores, etc. the undrained shear strength
settlement and heave are assumed as follows: With reference will be modified in accordance with EN1997-1:2004 Annex A.
to Tomlinson (2001), the rate of consolidation settlement will It follows that the Young’s modulus values derived from the
been assumed to conform to drainage model type 1 using the undrained shear strength will be subject to the same partial
coefficient of consolidation (Cv) value as determined by relevant safety factor. When considering serviceability effects the soil
soil tests to be undertaken. Consolidation curves shall be parameters will be utilised without the application of partial
derived for the London Clay deposits. It will be assumed that safety factors.
the rate of long term heave development follows the same
progression through time. Concrete
To account for cracking in concrete elements in the short-
term the Young’s modulus for the concrete will be modified
4.7.1.4 Design standards to 0.75Ecm. To account for the combined effects of creep,
shrinkage and cracking in concrete elements in the long-term
Design will be undertaken in accordance with Eurocode 7 with the Young’s modulus will be modified to 0.60Ecm.
load factors taken from Eurocode 1. All relevant ULS and SLS
cases shall be considered, which in the case of this design are
likely to comprise structural (STR), geotechnical (GEO) and uplift
(UPL) cases. The partial safety factors to be utilised in design
together with the relevant load case combinations are listed
below:
i. Load factors
Demolition
Case 1: 1.00ψ2Gk, existing + 0.30ψ2Qk, existing.
Where all loads are assumed to be uniformly distributed over
the site and the weight of buildings and imposed loads are
estimated from record information
Excavation
Case 1: 1.00ψ2Gk,soil
Where Gk,soil is equal to the weight of soil in accordance with
the recommendations of the SI report
Proposed building
Short term effects
Load from proposed building at end of construction Ref:
EN1990:2002 Quasi-permanent combination (6.16a)
Case 1: 1.00ψ2Gk, proposed + 1.00ψ2Qk, proposed
 3256 - The Kensington 22

4.7.2 In summary:

Ground Water Flow
On the basis of the findings from site investigations as outlined
elsewhere in this report, a perched water table is thought to
exist on the site overlying the relatively impermeable London
Clay deposit. Perched water levels can vary seasonally and are
prone to rapid changes through heavy rain events on permeable
surfaces, accidental events (such as burst water mains) and
the introduction of new underground construction causing
blockages to natural perched water flow. The River Thames is
located approximately 3km to the South and it is assumed that
the ground water flow would be in this direction. The presence
of open green space in nearby Holland Park may also impact on
the prevailing groundwater flow regime.
In common with the existing Odeon basement, the proposed
basement will extend down into relatively impermeable London
Clay deposits. In contrast to the existing basement, but in
common with the consented scheme the proposed the basement
will extend laterally for the complete width of the site. In order
to assess the potential impact on peak groundwater levels of
interruption of flow within the gravel strata and the need for
any resulting mitigation measures groundwater monitoring
ULS (STR & GEO) Design Cases: normal conditions γf = 1.35
accidental conditions γf = 1.00
Figure 24: Plan diagram showing existing and proposed basement in the
ULS (UPL) Design Cases: normal conditions γf = 1.10 context of the wider ground plane, demonstrating it’s isolated nature. .
SLS (ALL) Design Case: normal conditions γf = 1.00
It is expected that the upper layers of the London Clay deposits
will contain fissures, leading to penetration of the perched water
in the long run and the potential to form an increased head
of water. The depth of penetration is subject to engineering
judgement based on knowledge of the surrounding ground
conditions and on site investigation results.
Concrete Basements – Guidance on the design
and construction of in-situ concrete basement
structures (Narayanan & Goodchild)
With reference to BS EN1991-4, the use of a partial factor of
1.2 on the most unfavourable or accidental ULS design case is
recommended, this level being taken as ground level unless
there is high confidence in the water table. The factor of 1.2 is INDICATES
in accordance also with the provisions of BS81101:1997 Table 2.1
PREDOMINANTLY
GREENFIELD SITE
for water retaining structures. This additional provision shall be
(PARKLAND)

has continued. It is noted however that the impact of the adopted in design as the only variation to the Eurocode 7 design
proposed development is not anticipated to be significant procedure, with the exception that the accidental groundwater
due to the isolated nature of the proposed basement, the level will be taken as 1m below ground level as per BS8102,
low flow rates in the terrace gravels and the background of which has been the adopted figure in UK construction for many
fluctuating groundwater levels. Any significant effect which years. It is considered that taking the accidental level at the
NO SHADING INDICATES NO
is isolated will be mitigated through the construction of a free ground surface would be unduly conservative. SIGNIFICANT BELOW GROUND
OBSTRUCTION
draining layer to the north of the proposed basement which
will drain any elevated peak groundwater and return it to the
downstream perched water table in a controlled manner.
4.7.3 DARKER RED INDICATES BASEMENT
LIKELY TO SEVERLY IMPEDE
SURFACE AQUIFER FLOW IE
BASEMENT EXTENDING TO LONDON

Groundwater levels for design Surface Water Flow CLAY

The design philosophy in relation to ground water levels to be
assumed in design of the permanent works is outlined below
for reference. Analysis will be completed upon receipt of the
outstanding site investigation information.
With reference to section 3.0, according to the Environment
Agency flood map, the site is not at risk of flooding and
consequently lies in flood zone 1 with a return period of event LIGHTER RED INDICATES BASEMENT NOT
EXPECTED TO EXTEND TO LONDON CLAY
of 1 in 1000 years. No change or increase to the extent of THUS ALLOWING FLOW UNDER

hard-standing over the site is proposed. New surface drainage

BS EN1997-1:2004 & National Annex
The Kensington project will be designed to Eurocode 7 (BS
EN1997-1:2004 & National Annex) and as such the following
limit states shall be considered:
1. Ultimate Limit State (ULS): Design values shall be the most
unfavourable design conditions that could occur during the
lifetime of a structure during an extreme or accidental event.
2. Serviceability Limit State (SLS): Design (characteristic) values
shall be the most unfavourable design conditions that could
occur in normal circumstances. The option is given to the
will be installed in areas of hardstanding within the proposed
PROPOSED SITE
development discharging to the public sewer with consent via BOUNDARY
new below ground drainage installations. Given the surrounding
public sewer invert levels it is anticipated that the surface water
can be disharged by gravity through the basement at high level
into the public sewers.
In order to meet the BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes
requirements, at least a 30% reduction in surface water run-off
from the existing rate will be required. Storage tanks are being
located within the site boundary to attenuate surface water
prior to being discharged into existing sewers. A. EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

designer to determine design values for ground water by

either “applying partial factors to the characteristic water
pressures or by applying a safety margin to the characteristic
water level” cl.2.4.6.1(8). Partial safety factors for use under
B. PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL INDICATES INFERRED REGION OF
normal conditions are noted within the code, guidance for 7.50 m 32.75 m
PREDOMINANT SECONDARY AQUIFER
CUT-OFF
accidental conditions comes from 2.4.7.1(3) & the National
Annex. For the uplift design condition UK NA Appendix A
140.00 m
Table A.NA.15 can be used.

4.7.4
Impact on Adjacent Buildings
The impact of the proposed development on the adjacent
buildings will be assessed and approvals secured via party wall
awards. The assessment will be based principally on movement,
vibration and other non-structural issues such as noise limitation.
A package of relevant drawings, calculations and reports shall be
prepared for review by the adjacent owners appointed structural
engineer and relevant third parties. Assumed temporary works
designs shall be prepared prior to the Contractor completing the
final design.
4.7.4.1 Damage criteria assessment
The ground movements predicted through the halfspace
modelling shall be combined with those resulting from the
retaining wall analysis as appropriate in order to develop
predicted vertical and lateral ground movement contouring. This
contouring shall be used to assess the impact on the adjacent
buildings, and if required feedback into the design process to
ensure acceptable values. This analysis shall be made available
to the party wall surveyors upon request as part of the party
wall awards process.
The applicable components of ground movements will be
as defined above. It is proposed to use the classification of
visible damage to walls scheme as outlined in CIRIA C580 with
reference to Burland et al, 1977, Boscardin and Cording, 1989;
and Burland, 2001. Subject to the approval of adjacent owners’
party wall surveyor and relevant LBC, Damage Category 1
(very slight) shall be assumed acceptable. In the case of listed
buildings Damage Category 0 (negligible) may be enforced. This
will need to be determined through consultation early in the
next stage of design.
Vibrations limits shall be defined in accordance with BS ISO
4866:2010, which addresses the recommended vibration limits
for buildings. Reference will also be made to the related CIRIA
Technical Note 142 Ground-borne vibrations arising from piling,
in particular chapter 5. On the basis of the current information
the adjacent buildings would appear to fall under Category 7
type Cc in the worst case as defined under BS ISO 4866:2010.
This classification may be improved if evidence of adjacent
basements is confirmed. Peak particle velocity limits shall be
defined and monitored as deemed necessary during the works.
4.7.4.2 Groundwater
A regime of inspection has been defined, further details will
be sought to allow an assessment to be made of the potential
impact from variation in the perched water regime resulting
from the proposed basement.
No fundamental alteration of the groundwater regime is
proposed or is expected to occur as a result of the proposals.
Provided sufficient means of permeation is maintained adjacent
to the boundaries to relieve any water pressure that might
otherwise occur (either through retention of the existing gravel
material or provision of permeable material) the proposed
development is not anticipated to present a significant impact
on surrounding properties.
4.7.4.3 Monitoring
A regime of monitoring of the surrounding buildings and
the proposed retaining walls and adjacent pavements will
be specified. Pre-condition surveys and appraisals will be
undertaken for all adjacent buildings as part of the party wall
awards process. Drawings and specifications will be prepared
in line with best practice for agreement within the party wall
award. Appropriate green, amber and red trigger levels shall be
set with reference to relevant CIRIA guidance documents on the
observational methodology.
The scope of monitoring is likely to include the follow:
•• Movement monitoring of party walls via targets surveyed
using electronic levels
•• Vibration monitoring using transducers placed on the
foundations of the adjacent buildings
•• Crack monitoring via the use of graduated tell-tales
•• Movement monitoring of retaining wall/capping beams via
targets surveyed using electronic levels
•• Monitoring of adjacent pavement levels via studs surveyed
using electronic levels
•• Monitoring of retaining wall movements via use of
Inclinometers cast in secant piles
•• Potential use of extensometer bored in place to monitor
heave movements in clay
4.7.5
Highways Approval
The proposed basement construction adjacent to the public
highway will be subject to Highways Agency and Local Authority
approval.
An approval in principle (AIP) document shall be prepared in
accordance with the provisions of Highways Agency BD2/12
Technical Approval Of Highway Structures. Full calculations will
be subsequently issued for building control approval. Temporary
works assumed in the design of the permanent works will be
outlined within the AIP. The Contractor will be expected to liaise
with the third parties as necessary to obtain the necessary
licenses for temporary works supporting adjacent highway
structures.
An additional approval will be sought to allow the facade
retention temporary works to be placed externally to the site
on. Full calculations will subsequently be submitted by the
Contractor.
4.7.6
Utilities Approval
A desk study has been undertaken as recorded in section 4.0.
Full statutory searches were undertaken as part of this study.
On the basis of these findings it is expected that the following
third party approvals will be required prior to commencing the
relevant construction activities.
3256 - The Kensington 23
4.7.6.1 National Grid Gas (NGG)
-NGG installations are located within Earls Court Rd and
Kensington High St. As such discussions have been started with
the NGG Asset Protection team with a view to defining relevant
retaining wall movement limits and securing the necessary
approvals and easements..
.
4.7.6.2 Thames Water
Thames Water installations are located beneath Kensington
High St and Earls Court Rd, including water distribution mains
and foul sewers. Beneath Kensington High St is a trunk water
main. Thames Water developer services have been contacted
to confirm whether an impact assessment will need to be
undertaken for both sewers and the trunk main prior to gaining
approval.
4.7.6.3 UKPN
-UK Power Networks (UKPN) distribution cables are located
below the pavements on Earls Court Rd and Kensington High
St. As such discussions have been started with the UKPN Asset
Protection team with a view to defining relevant retaining wall
movement limits and securing the necessary approvals and
easements
4.7.6.4 Other bodies
The site lies greater than 25m from the nearest LUL tunnel
installations. As such no consultation is likely to be necessary.
Other minor services providers indicated as affected in searches
undertaken while completing the desk study shall be consulted
following notification of the project.
 3256 - The Kensington 24

4.8 Demolition & 4.9 Sustainability

construction impact The proposed scheme shall be subject to assessment under the
BREEAM framework and the Code for Sustainable Homes. It is
intended that secondary or recycled aggregate content within
Reference is drawn to the draft Construction Management Plan
the substructure concrete construction shall confirm to the
(CMP) included with the submission and the notes regarding
BREEAM requirements for the relevant credit. This availability
assumptions related to phasing contained within this report.
of appropriate sources locally have been confirmed and shall be
The CMP will be developed during subsequent stages of design
controlled through the structural specification.
and planning of the works following the appointment of a main
contractor to include amongst other items detailed consideration
of:
•• Noise and vibration 4.9.1 Removal of waste
•• Dust
•• Visual impact
Reference is made to the draft CMP included within the planning
•• Obstruction of pavements
application. This document will be subject to development upon
•• Bringing excavated spoil up to awaiting skips / vehicles
the appointment of the main contractor.
•• Transporting the spoil away from site, using local roads
•• Delivery of construction material to site

Demolition 4.9.2 Construction materials

All demolition work will be planned and undertaken in
accordance with BS 6187:2011 Code of Practice for Full and Reference is made to the draft CMP included within the planning
Partial Demolition. The Contractor will devise an appropriate application. This document will be subject to development upon
demolition methodology and safe method of work to be the appointment of the main contractor.
documented within the demolition plan. The demolition plan will
include (but not necessarily be limited to):
•• Statements addressing the planning & management of site
work to include:

•• Details of any structural surveys required, if any

•• Sequence of works, logistics & detailed methodology

•• Details of supervision, monitoring & site management

•• Description of how the structural stability of the building

and adjacent structures is to be maintained during the works
and upon completion. Details of auxiliary and temporary
support designs to be provided.

•• Description of measures to be taken to protect the public

and site operatives including details of exclusion zones,
control and protection measures. The Contractor will be
required to consider less vibratory methods of demolition
(eg hydraulic bursting, chemical fracturing, etc.) and the
use of pre-weakening and isolation to limit transmission of
vibration to adjacent structures. A discussion of the impact
on adjacent buildings is included.
 3256 - The Kensington 25

5.0 Conclusions This document presents the Subterranean Construction Method Statement, which records the process undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility
of the proposed development in accordance with RBKC planning requirements. As noted above, the design philosophy and procedures set out
above will form the basis for the detailed analysis and assessment works that will subsequently be required to secure the necessary third party
approvals prior to commencing works on site.
Appendix
Site Constraints Drawings
 NOTES:

1. BASEMENT SIZE AND LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO FURTHER

RECORD INFORMATION SEARCHES AND SURVEYS.

2. APPROXIMATE TREE SIZES AND TYPE TBC

3. EXISTING STRUCTURE INFORMATION SUBJECT TO FURTHER

RECORD INFORMATION SEARCH AND SITE VISITS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND TBC FROM SITE

CURRENT PLANNING CONDITIONS SURVEYS.
ALLOWS FOR REMOVAL OF TWO TREES POSSIBILITY OF VICTORIAN PAVEMENT VAULT
CONSTRUCTION - NOT SHOWN ON RECORD
INFORMATION COLLECTED TO DATE. TBC. 5. BGS BOREHOLES ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLAN SHOWN.

6. NO BOMB DAMAGE HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN CLOSE

PROXIMITY OF THE SITE.
C
7. THERE ARE NO LUL ASSETS SHOWN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
THE SITE.

8. AREA OF INFLUENCE FROM GROUND MOVEMENTS TAKEN

FROM CIRIA C580 EQUAL TO 1.5 x RETAINED HEIGHT.

11.3 m
EXTENT OF BASEMENT

225 High Street Kensington

TBC. POSSIBILITY OF 8.8 m
SITE BOUNDARY AND EXTENT OF PROPOSED BASEMENT

4 STOREY RETAIL & RES.

VICTORIAN PAVEMENT 5 STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK

TAIL & RES.

BH A BH D

BUILT CIRCA 1920

VAULT CONSTRUCTION BUILT CIRCA 1950
TOTAL AREA OF INFLUENCE FROM GROUND

1990
267 High Street Kensington BH1 BH 9
TP 9 MOVEMENTS DUE TO RETAINING WALL DEFLECTION.

BUILT CIRCA
TP 9a (= 1.5 x RETAINED HEIGHT)

6 STOREY RE
TP 1
SRMcA 2
TP 9b
ADJACENT FOOTINGS WITH SITE INVESTIGATION

BUILT CIRCA 1924

A A

4 STOREY
SRMcA 4 ADJACENT FOOTINGS WITHOUT SITE INVESTIGATION. T.B.C. BASED
ON RECORD INFO AND FURTHER S.I. INVESTIGATION.
EXTENT ESTIMATED AT THIS STAGE

5 STOREY OFFICE BLOCK

ASSUME FOOTINGS IN Leonard Court 6.2 m ADJACENT FOOTINGS

BUILT CIRCA 1990

THOSE LOCATIONS ARE
Extent of corbel Estimated face of adjacent wall Footing sets
AS PER TP2 Footing depth
TP 2 LOCATION footings beyond (site boundary) to back of position of
B.G.L. (mm)
wall face (mm) proposed basement wall (mm) basement wall

267 High Street Kensington 4050 640 819 YES

30.2 m
TP 8 Leonard Court 4100 500 680 YES
1 Edwards Sq. (back) 1500 510 655 YES
9 Edwards Sq. (back) 850 50 186 NO
63.5 m

28 Pembroke Place 1000 50 188 NO

1 Edward Square 29 Pembroke Place 900 50 187 NO

BUILT CIRCA 1930

BUILT CIRC & RES.

TP 3
12-14 Earls Court Road 4100 500 * 680 YES

4 STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK

225 High Street Kensington 4100 500 * 680 YES

A 1990
2 STOREY

12-14 Earls Court Road

* ASSUMED, T.B.C.

RETAIL
BUILT CIRCA 1924

BUILT CIRCA 1990

SITE CONSTRAINTS REFERENCES
CINEMA

5 STOREY
SITE CONSTRAINT REFERENCE

SITE LAYOUT ORDINANCE SURVEY MAPS

BH C

BOREHOLE LOCATIONS CONISBEE DWG 050277-SL(5)01 SITE SURVEY

SHOWING LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLES DEC 2006
3 STOREY TERRACE HOUSES

B B
BGS BOREHOLES BGS WEBSITE
TP 4
BUILT 1811-12

THAMES WATER SEWERS TW DRAWING TQ2579SW

SRMcA 3

BUILT CIRC & RES.

9 Edward Square BH B
NGG INSTALLMENTS MAP REF: TQ2579

A 1990
SRMcA 1 BH 7

RETAIL
5.9 m

TP 7
LUL TUNNELS LUL TUNNELS LOCATION PLANS
BH 5 TP 6

4 STOREY
TP 5
POST OFFICE TUNNELS POST OFFICE TUNNELS
28 Pembroke Place 29 Pembroke Place
UXB LOCATIONS BOMB DAMAGE MAP OF HAMMERSMITH &
E HOUSE

KENSINGTON, LONDON SHEET IV. 15

3 STOREY TERRACE HOUSE

BUILT CIRC HOUSE

BUILT 1874-1896
BUILT 1874-1896

LOST RIVERS LOST RIVERS REFERENCE MAPS

3 STOREY TERRAC

A 1830
5.5 m

PUBLIC
TOPOGRAPHICAL LEVELS GROUND ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY HOLE
LOCATION PLAN C10761 GI REPORT APRIL 2007

3 STOREY
C SITE BOUNDARY S&P DESIGN AND PLANNING STATEMENT APRIL 2007
& OPTION 4a JULY 2012

TREES LOCATION PLAN

SUBSTATIONS MAP TQ2579SW

ADJACENT FOOTINGS (SHADED BLUE) GROUND ENGINEERING FACTUAL REPORT C10761

FIGURE 1.1: SITE CONSTRAINTS

EXISTING BUILDINGS AND BASEMENTS

PROJECT ODEON KENSINGTON TITLE SITE CONSTRAINTS: EXISTING BUILDINGS

DATE 04/07/14 SCALE NTS CAD FILENAME - STATUS PRELIMINARY

REV P2 DATE 13/03/2014 DESCRIPTION FOR INFORMATION BY GV CHECKED RH DRAWN GV CHECKED RH PROJECT No. 3256 DRAWING No. S-SK-004 REV P3
 NOTES:

1. FOR RELEVANT REFERENCE DRAWINGS REFER TO TABLE

BELOW.
2. THE SIZE AND DEPTH OF UTILITIES TBC

SITE BOUNDARY

355mm TRUNK
63mm - 180mm WATER WATER MAIN
FOUL SEWER 1200x800mm
DISTRIBUTION MAIN

BH A BH D

BH1 BH 9 TP 9
A
TP 1 SRMcA 2
TP 9a A
63mm WATER TP 9b
DISTRIBUTION MAIN

SRMcA 4

63mm - 180mm WATER

SUBSTATION DISTRIBUTION MAINS

TP 2

TP 8
FOUL SEWER 2100x1000mm

FOUL SEWER 1200x800mm

TP 3

SITE CONSTRAINTS REFERENCES

SITE CONSTRAINT REFERENCE

SITE LAYOUT ORDINANCE SURVEY MAPS

BH C
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS CONISBEE DWG 050277-SL(5)01 SITE SURVEY
SHOWING LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLES DEC 2006
180mm
B
DISTRIBUTION MAIN B BGS BOREHOLES BGS WEBSITE
TP 4
THAMES WATER SEWERS TW DRAWING TQ2579SW
SRMcA 3
BH B SUBSTATION NGG INSTALLMENTS MAP REF: TQ2579
SRMcA 1 BH 7
LUL TUNNELS LUL TUNNELS LOCATION PLANS
TP 7
BH 5
FOUL SEWER MANHOLE TP 6 POST OFFICE TUNNELS POST OFFICE TUNNELS
INVERT LEVEL 5.73mOD
TP 5
UXB LOCATIONS BOMB DAMAGE MAP OF HAMMERSMITH &
FOUL SEWER 300mm DIA KENSINGTON, LONDON SHEET IV. 15

LOST RIVERS LOST RIVERS REFERENCE MAPS

TOPOGRAPHICAL LEVELS GROUND ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY HOLE

LOCATION PLAN C10761 GI REPORT APRIL 2007

SITE BOUNDARY S&P DESIGN AND PLANNING STATEMENT APRIL

FOUL SEWER 900x600mm
C 2007 & OPTION 4a JULY 2012

TREES LOCATION PLAN

UKPN/SUBSTATIONS MAP TQ2579SW

FOUL SEWER MANHOLE
INVERT LEVEL 4.99mOD

UTILITIES SIZE AND DEPTH FOUL SEWER MANHOLE 125mm WATER

FIGURE 1.2: SITE CONSTRAINTS INVERT LEVEL 5.73mOD DISTRIBUTION MAIN
EXISTING SERVICES TO BE CONFIRMED

PROJECT ODEON KENSINGTON TITLE SITE CONSTRAINTS: EXISTING SERVICES

DATE AUG 2012 SCALE NTS CAD FILENAME - STATUS PRELIMINARY

REV P1 DATE 29.08.12 DESCRIPTION FOR INFORMATION BY AW CHECKED DW DRAWN AW CHECKED DW PROJECT No. 3256 DRAWING No. S-SK-005 REV P1
Appendix 2.0
Borehole Logs