Kensington and Chelsea Council has approved the redevelopment of Eldon House at 90 Sloane Avenue, amidst a debate over affordable housing contributions. The Planning Committee granted planning permission for the demolition of the existing five-storey building and the erection of a six-storey structure featuring retail space and 24 residential units.
The proposed scale of development is broadly acceptable and would work well in transitioning the varying scales around the site to provide balance. The increase in height of the existing single storey podium on Draycott Avenue from one to six stories is acceptable on balance. The proposed replacement building would be set back at the upper levels of the building which would reduce the overall harm on the character and appearance of the conservation area and on the setting of the Grade II* Michelin House.
The approval is contingent upon the completion of a Section 106 agreement and adherence to several conditions. The proposed development aims to replace the current building, which houses a retail unit on the ground floor and 20 flats above, with a modern mixed-use building. The sizes of the residential units are as follows: the 1-bedroom flats range from 54 to 80 sq.m, the 2-bedroom flats range from 95 to 127 sq.m, and the 3-bedroom flats range from 142 to 196 sq.m.
A significant point of contention during the meeting was the absence of on-site affordable housing or a payment in lieu, attributed to viability concerns. Councillor Toby Benton questioned the feasibility of incorporating affordable housing off-site or securing a payment in lieu. Officers clarified that an independent assessor had scrutinised the applicant's viability assessment and concluded that an affordable housing contribution was not viable due to a projected deficit of £1,750,000. The report states: The submitted FVA has demonstrated that the proposals could not accommodate affordable housing off site and could not secure a payment in lieu.
Councillor Anne Cyron raised concerns regarding the viability assessment methodology, emphasising that the assumptions used could significantly influence the results. She sought assurance that the council's technical advisors had thoroughly examined the matter.
To address potential changes in viability over time, the council included an early and late stage review mechanism in the Section 106 agreement. Councillor Sarran requested more details on how this review would operate, particularly concerning the timing of assessments. An officer explained that there will be triggers within the Section 106 drafting
for early and late stage viability reviews. The early stage review will occur early in the development process, and the late stage review will capture the real sales values of the completed development. The purpose of these reviews is to allow the council to revisit the viability and increase contributions if profit increases over time. The resolution of disagreements between the developer and the council is not specified in the meeting information.
Councillor Sarran also inquired about the council's stance on public art and how developments can contribute. Officers responded that the definition of public art was being broadened to include a culture plan. Due to site constraints, on-site public art may not be feasible, but the developer would likely make a financial contribution towards public art or cultural activities in the borough. The monetary value of the developer's contribution towards public art is listed as £TBC subject to negotiation through the legal agreement process
. The funds will be overseen by the council's culture team and the community.
Councillor Aarien Areti raised a question about parking permits, given the addition of four residential units. Officers clarified that the additional four units would be permit-free, and the legal agreement would specify which units would be permit-free, with clear communication in sales materials. Councillor James Husband confirmed that the existing 20 units would retain their eligibility for parking permits.
Councillor Aarien Areti also noted a reduction in commercial space, but officers confirmed that the remaining commercial space would still be viable and significant.
Councillor James Husband raised the issue of the impact on neighbouring properties, particularly regarding light. Councillor Toby Benton sought confirmation that any loss of light was within acceptable standards. Officers acknowledged that two properties, 128 and 130 Draycott Avenue, would be affected above the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance. However, the impact was deemed acceptable because the affected rooms have other windows and the existing context of the site. Specific mitigation measures are not detailed in the meeting information.
The Section 106 agreement includes several obligations for the developer, including a Construction Traffic Management Plan Fee (£2,800.00), a Demolition Traffic Management Plan Fee (£2,800.00), Highways Improvements (£250,000.00 maximum), Carbon Off Setting (£22,424.00), Public Art contribution (£TBC), Monitoring 2.5% fee (£TBC), and a Monitoring Fee for Parking Permit Free units (£600.00). It also includes transport obligations, economic development obligations, and monitoring/reporting of energy demand.
The committee voted to grant the recommendation, with the conditions outlined in section 1.8 of the Public reports pack, noting the addendum report and the need for the Section 106 agreement to be completed by the end of October.