Kensington and Chelsea Council has granted planning permission for a new development at 2-14 Telford Road and 246-248 Ladbroke Grove, which will include a nursery and 27 residential flats, despite significant local opposition over the absence of affordable housing and the impact on neighbouring living conditions.
The Planning Committee voted to approve the application, which involves the demolition of an existing building and its replacement with a part four, part five, and part six-storey structure. The decision came after extensive debate, with local residents and ward councillors raising concerns about the loss of daylight and sunlight to their homes, the scale of the development, and the lack of any affordable housing contribution.
Concerns over Daylight and Sunlight
Objectors highlighted that the proposed building would significantly reduce daylight and sunlight to their homes. Deville Teller, a resident of 123 Telford Road, stated that Sky visibility will be reduced by 50%
for their property, arguing that the harm was substantial and contrary to Local Plan Policy CD9. Jessica Jones, speaking on behalf of residents in 42 flats, described the scheme as an overdevelopment of a constrained site with the costs and harms pushed onto existing residents.
The applicant's planning consultant, Anthony Frendo, acknowledged the impacts but argued the building's design was appropriate for the area. DPR, the daylight and sunlight consultants, presented their assessment, which indicated that while some windows would experience reductions, the retained levels of daylight were considered reasonable in the urban context. Mark Kidd, a senior partner at DPR, clarified that rights of light are a private legal matter.
Comparison to Previous Approval
The current proposal is being compared against a previously approved, substantial building on the site. This implemented planning permission (ref. PP/04/02652) was for a part-5/part-6 storey building plus basement. This established an accepted baseline for the site's redevelopment potential and its relationship with neighbouring properties. The approved building occupied a broadly similar footprint to the current proposal, but its scale and height were expressed through three distinct elements. The first element, adjacent to No. 16 Telford Road, was approximately twice its width and reached approximately 12.75m. The second, central element was approximately three times the width of No. 16 Telford Road and rose to around 13.3m. The third and most substantial element occupied the corner of Telford Road and Ladbroke Grove, approximately four and a half times the width of No. 16 Telford Road, reaching an overall height of approximately 15m, with the uppermost storey set back.
The current proposal would result in a building approximately 20.3m high, with an additional plant area and lift overrun increasing the overall height to approximately 21.8m. The main block would be appreciably taller than the implemented 2004 scheme; however, its upper level is set back, and the building has been designed as a corner building within a varied urban context. The linking element of the current proposal would broadly match the height of No. 16 Telford Road, although officers objected to the detailed roof-terrace arrangement, recommending Condition 27 to secure alternative, more recessive details for a smaller and less visually intrusive roof terrace in this location.
Affordable Housing Debate
A key point of contention was the absence of affordable housing. The applicant's viability assessment indicated that the scheme could not viably support an affordable housing contribution due to a projected deficit. The Council's independent assessors reviewed this and agreed that no contribution could be viably secured at this stage. The applicant's assessors stated that the proposed scheme generates a negative residual land value of -£956,000, which is approximately £6,176.00 below their benchmark land value of £5,220,000, meaning they would not be able to provide any affordable housing contribution. Based on their figures, BNPPRE (the applicant's own viability assessors) concluded the developer would make no profit and a £2.4 million loss.
However, the Council's independent assessors found the applicant's rental assumption to be unsupported by recent lettings information and available market evidence, suggesting the Benchmark Land Value should instead be £3,243,000. They also found the applicant's construction costs to be £2,405,029 higher (18.45%) than the Council's assessment. Despite these discrepancies, the Council's assessors identified a deficit of £1.87 million, concluding that the scheme would not be able to viably provide affordable housing contributions on a current basis. They calculated that the applicant would make a net profit of 9% on GDV, which they consider a level many developers would be willing to work to. Sensitivity analysis indicated that a 2.5% increase to sales value and a 5% decrease in costs would render the scheme viable for affordable housing contributions.
Councillor Sam Mackover expressed discomfort with the zero affordable housing outcome, questioning the effectiveness of London Plan targets if viability assessments could circumvent them. Councillor Anne Cyron also voiced concerns about the viability figures, noting the independent assessor's comment that it was unlikely a developer would proceed on such basis.
The applicant, Gagan Manak, founder of Manak Homes, assured the committee of their commitment to building high-quality homes and contributing positively to the community, stating they were taking a hit on their margin to bring the scheme forward.
Viability Review Mechanisms
The Council's independent assessors recommended that early and late-stage viability review mechanisms be secured through the legal agreement. These mechanisms would enable the residual land value and overall viability position to be reassessed at defined stages, with any additional viable contribution secured in accordance with adopted policy. The early review would have certain triggers, such as the commencement of development or a date specified within the Section 106 agreement. The late review typically occurs when the development is mostly completed or a certain percentage of occupation has been achieved. These reviews would allow for the captured viability if sales values are in excess of what was initially indicated.
Design and Environmental Improvements
The council acknowledged several design and environmental improvements as significant public benefits. The proposed building is described as being of acceptable design quality and would sit appropriately within its varied urban context. The façade design incorporates rhythm and hierarchy, with curved features at the corner and entrances, and the use of glazed brickwork, two tones of red brick, and soldier courses adding texture. The proposal would improve the appearance of the site and make a positive contribution to the streetscape.
Environmentally, the proposal includes green roofs and PV panels. A financial contribution towards planting trees along Telford Road is also proposed. The development aims to optimize building design to reduce energy demand, with an expected regulated CO2 reduction of 74.2% on-site for the residential component. Measures include an air-source heat pump system and photovoltaic arrays. The proposal also includes measures to manage surface water runoff using a blue roof and an attenuation tank.
These improvements, along with the provision of 27 new homes and a nursery, were considered to outweigh the conflicts with policies regarding living conditions and tree protection. However, the report does not explicitly detail how these specific improvements directly mitigate the concerns raised by residents regarding loss of daylight, sunlight, and tree protection, beyond stating they are part of the overall benefits.
Decision and Rationale
The committee ultimately granted permission, acknowledging the public benefits of 27 new homes and a nursery, alongside design and environmental improvements. While conflicts with policies regarding living conditions and tree protection were noted, officers concluded these were outweighed by the benefits, particularly in light of the previously approved, substantial building on the site. The absence of affordable housing was described as regrettable, but the inclusion of viability review mechanisms was seen as a way to potentially secure future contributions.
Construction Timeline and Disruption
The planning permission is granted with a condition that the development shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of the permission. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and a Site Construction Management Plan (SCMP) are required to be submitted and approved before development commences. These plans will detail routeing of vehicles, access arrangements, estimated vehicle numbers, work programmes, and measures to protect pedestrians and other highway users. The Code of Construction Practice will also apply, restricting noisy works to Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm, with further restrictions for high-impact activities. Informatives are also included to encourage ongoing engagement with local residents, including newsletters and public posters, and to designate a go-to person for issues during construction. The CTMP will need to consider other significant building works in the vicinity.
Ongoing Resident Engagement
An informative was added to the decision to encourage ongoing engagement with local residents throughout the development process. Councillor Peter Marshall highlighted the lack of coming together between applicants and objectors, and the applicant stated they had offered face-to-face meetings and were open to feedback. Councillor Lloyd North requested a condition for ongoing consultation with ward councillors and the public, to which the applicant agreed. While a formal condition was not imposed, an informative was agreed upon, and the council officers will finalize its wording. This informative will state that the applicant should engage with residents and consult as the development progresses. The Construction Traffic Management Plan will also include a one-page summary of its requirements affixed to the site frontage for public viewing. The applicant's founder also stated they are always happy to take a phone call and have a chat.
The decision was made with considerable reluctance from some committee members regarding the lack of affordable housing.