Kensington and Chelsea Council has granted planning permission for a new nursery and 27 residential flats at 2-14 Telford Road and 246-248 Ladbroke Grove, despite significant objections from residents concerned about overdevelopment and loss of light.
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 development. The decision was made after extensive discussion and consideration of resident concerns regarding daylight, sunlight, and the absence of affordable housing contributions.
Residents voiced strong opposition, with Deville Teller, representing homeowners at 123 Telford Road, stating that sky visibility would be reduced by 50% for some properties. Jessica Jones, speaking for residents in 42 flats, described the scheme as an overdevelopment of a constrained site with the costs and harms pushed onto existing residents.
Loss of Light and Design Concerns
Objectors argued that the proposed building's height and massing would significantly impact neighbouring living conditions, leading to a substantial loss of daylight and sunlight. They also raised concerns about the scheme being overdevelopment of a constrained site.
The applicant's planning consultant, Anthony Frendo, acknowledged the impacts but argued the building's height, massing, and design were 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.
Councillor Lloyd North, Chair of the Environment Select Committee, questioned the building's height and whether alternatives to minimise the situation had been explored. The applicant confirmed the height had not changed since pre-application discussions and was based on an analysis of the surrounding townscape. The site benefits from an implemented planning permission (ref. PP/04/02652) for a part-5/part-6 storey building with a basement, establishing an accepted baseline for the site's redevelopment potential. The current proposal is for a part-four, part-five and part-six storey building, with the main block being appreciably taller
than the implemented scheme, reaching approximately 20.3m high (21.8m with plant area). However, the sixth storey is set back, and the design aims to reduce its apparent bulk. The implemented scheme had a maximum height of approximately 15m for its most substantial element.
Affordable Housing and Viability
A key point of contention was the lack of affordable housing contributions. The applicant's viability assessment suggested the scheme could not viably support such contributions. While the Council's independent assessors agreed, they recommended early and late-stage viability review mechanisms to capture any future improvements in viability.
The Council's independent assessors reviewed the applicant's viability assessment. They agreed that no affordable housing contribution could be viably secured at this stage. Their review involved assessing the applicant's benchmark land value, development value, and development costs. They found the applicant's rental assumption to be unsupported by market evidence and considered the benchmark land value should be lower. They also assessed the build costs, finding the applicant's appraisal to be higher than their own assessment. Despite these differences, their overall conclusion was that the scheme could not viably support an affordable housing contribution at this time, but recommended early and late-stage viability review mechanisms.
The legal agreement will secure early and late-stage viability review mechanisms.
These mechanisms will allow for the residual land value and overall viability position to be reassessed at defined stages. If viability improves, any additional viable contribution will be captured for affordable housing provision. The exact thresholds or conditions are not detailed in the provided text, but it is stated that these reviews will revisit the viability and revisit all the assumptions... to then try to catch as much as viability payment.
Councillor Sam Mackover, Vice-Chair of the Environment Select Committee, 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 London Plan targets for affordable housing are pretty high targets for affordable housing within developments,
with an expectation of 25% to 35%.
The current decision conflicts with these targets as it results in zero affordable housing contributions.
The committee expressed discomfort with this outcome, questioning the point of London Plan targets if viability assessments can circumvent them. Officers explained that the starting point is to aim for 35% affordable housing on-site, but the policy allows for viability assessments to be submitted if on-site provision is not viable. In this case, the viability assessment showed a deficit, leading to the zero contribution, which is noted as not a policy compliance in terms of provision of affordable housing on site.
Decision and Benefits
Despite the objections, the committee granted planning permission, acknowledging the public benefits of providing 27 new homes and a nursery. Officers concluded that these benefits, alongside improvements to the site's design and environmental performance, outweighed the conflicts with policies regarding living conditions and tree protection. The absence of affordable housing was noted as regrettable, but the inclusion of viability review mechanisms was seen as a way to potentially secure future contributions.
An informative was added to the decision to encourage ongoing engagement with local residents throughout the development process. The committee also noted the implemented fallback permission for a substantial building on the site as a material consideration.
