Kensington and Chelsea Council's Planning Committee has granted permission for the redevelopment of Eldon House at 90 Sloane Avenue, focusing on the project's viability for affordable housing contributions. The development aims to provide 743 sq. m of retail floorspace across two levels by retaining a flagship retail unit of 498 sq. m on the ground floor and slightly reducing the basement retail area to 245 sq. m.
The committee approved the demolition of the existing five-storey building and the construction of a six-storey replacement, featuring retail space and 24 residential units. The decision, made on Tuesday, hinged on the completion of a Section 106 agreement and adherence to specific conditions outlined in section 1.8 of the Public reports pack, and the addendum report, which sets out the review mechanisms for affordable housing.
A key aspect of the discussion revolved around the absence of on-site affordable housing or payments in lieu, attributed to viability concerns. Councillor Toby Benton questioned the lack of affordable housing provisions, prompting officers to clarify that an independent assessment, undertaken using the residual land value method[1], deemed any contribution unviable due to a projected deficit.
To address potential shifts in viability, the council incorporated early and late-stage review mechanisms into the Section 106 agreement. Councillor Sarran sought details on the review process, with officers explaining that these mechanisms would allow the council to reassess viability and potentially increase contributions based on real sales values at different development stages. The specific triggers for these reviews will be included in the Section 106 drafting, with the early stage review occurring when the development first starts and the late stage review capturing the real sales values on site. The outcome of these reviews is to revisit the viability and potentially increase contributions if profit increases over time.
Other points raised during the meeting included:
- Public Art: Councillor Sarran inquired about the council's stance on public art contributions from developments. Officers indicated a broadened definition of public art to include a culture plan, with the developer likely making a financial contribution towards cultural activities in the borough. This contribution will be overseen by the council's culture team alongside the community, though specific activities were not detailed.
- Parking Permits: Councillor Aarien Areti questioned parking permit allocations, given the addition of four residential units. Officers clarified that these units would be permit-free, with the legal agreement specifying which units would be permit-free.
- Commercial Space: Councillor Aarien Areti noted a reduction in commercial space, but officers confirmed that the remaining space would still be viable and significant.
- Impact on Neighbouring Properties: Councillor James Husband raised concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties, particularly regarding light. Officers acknowledged that two properties would be affected above the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance, but the impact was deemed acceptable due to other windows and the existing context of the site.[2]
Councillor James Husband summarised the discussion, highlighting the provision of new homes and improvements to existing ones. Councillor Toby Benton emphasised the importance of the methodology and triggers for the early and late review mechanism.
The committee voted to grant the recommendation, contingent on the conditions outlined in the report and the completion of the Section 106 agreement by the end of October. The full Public reports pack is available online.
[1] The report states: The assessment was undertaken using the residual land value method. In order for the development to be technically viable the residual land value of the proposal must be greater than the benchmark land value. Any increase in value is available for planning obligations including any provision of affordable housing.
[2] The officer stated, The two properties will be affected by the proposal above the BRA guidance. And the officer has assessed it carefully alongside the daylight and sidelight assessment that's been submitted with the application...the conclusion has been made, given that there are other windows for that property and the existing kind of context of the site will be acceptable, not to warrant the refusal from our site.