Colebrook Court – Sloane Avenue
The Chelsea Society has submitted the following objection
to Planning Application PP/22/01540:
“The Chelsea Society exists to protect the interests of all
those who live and work in Chelsea and to safeguard the
character of this unique part of London. It has nearly
The Society urges the Council to reject this Application.
The reasons are the proposed building’s excessive height,
its incongruous design and its failure to meet the Council’s
requirement for 35% affordable housing.
The proposed building would be 13 storeys high with
the plant & machinery located on top of the 13th storey.
The existing building on the site is 4 storeys high and the
prevailing height of the other buildings in the surrounding
area is 9 storeys. London Plan policy D9 stipulates that
tall buildings should be developed only in locations that
are identified as suitable for them in development plans.
This is not the case for Colebrook Court. The New Local
Plan Review, on which the Council is consulting, mentions
Colebrook Court as a small site potentially capable of
providing 20 new residential units, but it is not included as
one of the locations appropriate for tall buildings.
A 13 story building would be inimical to the character of
the surrounding environment and damaging to Chelsea’s
skyline, including the vista from the Royal Hospital.
The materials proposed for use are sympathetic, but, as
noted in the pre-application advice given on 5 August 2021
(Alison Long’s letter, reference PRE/AR/21/04060/L3FU),
the curved form of the tower block is incongruous and
out of keeping with the style of the area. A design more in
conformity with the other mansion blocks in the area would
be more appropriate.
The proposal fails to meet the Council’s requirement for
35% of the floor space to be used for affordable housing.
It offers only about 20%, which is unacceptable. The 35%
requirement has been in place for several years now and
anyone contemplating a development of this size would be
aware of it and should factor it into their planning. If it is not
commercially attractive to do so in respect of this building,
then the developers should change the design and build
a less expensive one. Otherwise the development should
simply not take place.
The Council has a responsibility to respect its own policies,
and if it gives planning permission for a development which
fails to do so, it is calling its own credibility into question. It
should make clear to developers that the 35% requirement
is not something which can be negotiated down but a rule
which will be applied in all cases.”