The Planning Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council met on Monday 12 October 2026 to consider a planning application for the demolition of an existing building and redevelopment to provide a nursery and 27 residential flats. The committee considered the application and officers' recommendation.

Redevelopment of 2-14 Telford Road and 246-248 Ladbroke Grove

The committee considered a proposal for the demolition of the existing building at 2-14 Telford Road and 246-248 Ladbroke Grove, and its redevelopment to provide a part four, part five, and part six-storey building. The proposed development includes a nursery on the ground floor and 27 residential flats above.

Decision: The committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

Discussion:

The application was met with significant objections from local residents and ward councillors, primarily concerning the impact on neighbouring living conditions, particularly regarding loss of daylight and sunlight, and the absence of affordable housing contributions.

Impact on Living Conditions: Objectors, including Deville Teller of 123 Telford Road, expressed concerns that the proposed building would significantly reduce daylight and sunlight to their homes, with one resident stating, Sky visibility will be reduced by 50%. They argued 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 overdevelopment of a constrained site with the costs and harms pushed onto existing residents.

The applicant's planning consultant, Anthony Frendo of Maddox Planning, acknowledged that there would be impacts but argued that the proposed building's height, massing, and design were appropriate for the varied townscape. DPR, the daylight and sunlight consultants, presented their assessment, stating 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, raised concerns about the height of the building and the loss of light, asking if alternative ways to minimise the situation had been considered. The applicant confirmed the height had not changed since pre-application discussions and was based on an analysis of the surrounding townscape.

Affordable Housing and Viability: A key point of contention was the absence of affordable housing contributions. 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. However, they recommended early and late-stage viability review mechanisms to be secured through a legal agreement, allowing for any improvement in viability to be captured for affordable housing provision.

Councillor Sam Mackover, Vice-Chair of the Environment Select Committee, expressed discomfort with the zero affordable housing outcome, questioning the point 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. He explained that they were taking a hit on their margin to bring the scheme forward.

Environmental Considerations: Concerns were raised about the impact on a lime tree on the adjacent fire station site. The applicant's arboricultural assessment indicated it was possible to construct the tree, with hand-digging and monitoring required. Conditions were recommended to protect the tree. The proposal also included green roofs and PV panels, with a financial contribution towards planting trees along Telford Road.

Design and Scale: The proposed building's height, ranging from four to six storeys, was discussed in relation to the surrounding context, which includes Victorian terraces and newer developments. Officers noted that while the building was taller than some immediate neighbours, it was within the context of taller developments in the wider area and the sixth storey was set back.

Community Consultation and Engagement: Councillor Peter Marshall, Opposition spokesperson for Planning, highlighted the lack of coming together between applicants and objectors. The applicant stated they had offered face-to-face meetings and were open to feedback. An informative was added to encourage ongoing engagement with local residents.

Decision Rationale: The committee ultimately granted permission, acknowledging the significant public benefits of providing 27 new homes and a nursery, alongside improvements to the site's design and environmental performance. While acknowledging the conflicts with policies regarding living conditions and tree protection, officers concluded these were outweighed by the benefits, particularly in light of the implemented fallback permission for a substantial building on the site. The absence of affordable housing was noted as regrettable, but the inclusion of early and late-stage viability reviews was seen as a mechanism to potentially capture future contributions. An informative was added to encourage ongoing engagement with local residents.