A new Application (PP/23/00968) has been made for the redevelopment of this site, which has attracted more than 1,000 objectors.
There is an article about this in the Architects’ Journal https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/mp-among-more-than-1000-objectors-to-pilbrow-and-partners-chelsea-ms-plans
The Chelsea Society has objected (see below) but on 19 June 2023 the applicants submitted revisions to their proposal. The Chelsea Society has objected as follows to the revised application.
“The Chelsea Society continues to object to this application. The revised version is not significantly different to its predecessor and does not adequately address the concerns which we expressed in our objection of 17 April. It is incompatible with a number of Council policies; would be damaging to the character of the King’s Road and the conservation area opposite to which it is situated; and would, even in its revised form, be disruptive to the privacy of neighbouring residents.
In addition the proposed construction traffic management plan would involve an unacceptable level of increased congestion, pollution and inconvenience in the King’s Road.
Demolition of a serviceable building.
The application involves the demolition, apart from the basement, of the whole of the existing building on the site. This building is relatively new, perfectly serviceable and not unattractive in appearance. Its demolition would be contrary to policy GB3 (Whole Life-Cycle Carbon) in the New Local Plan which recommends the retention and refurbishment of existing buildings over demolition and rebuild. There might be an exceptional case for demolition if the new building were to bring social or community benefits which could not be provided in any other way. But this is not the case. It constitutes a supermarket and offices, both of which are already present.
Height, Scale, Bulk and Massing
The proposed building would be at least one storey higher than the existing one and higher than any of the buildings in its immediate vicinity. It is not easy, because of the confusing way in which the design is presented, to estimate exactly how tall the new building would be, but the increase in height would clearly be significant and would give the building an excessively dominant appearance. It would also be materially larger than most other buildings in the King’s Road. This would be contrary to Policies CL1, CL 5 and CL12 in the current Local Plan, which require new buildings to respect the setting of the borough’s townscapes and to resist buildings which are taller than their surroundings; as well as with Policy CD1 (Context and Character) in the new Plan.
To allow a building of this height and mass to be constructed would contribute to the further “canyonisation” of the King’s Road. It would also be damaging to the view from Chelsea Green down Markham Street to the King’s Road, one of the iconic vistas in the borough (it is bizarre that Council officers made no mention of this view in their pre-application advice).
There are elements in the application clearly intended to soften the building’s impact, for example the setting back of the top storey and the slightly curved effect of the façade. But they do not mitigate the overall problem that the building is too large for the site and its context.
Privacy
The proposed building contains extensive terraces and balconies at the rear which would have a negative impact on the privacy of residents in surrounding streets, notably King Charles 11 Place, and would constitute a source of noise and light pollution. Those residents are rightly concerned that the construction of these terraces and balconies would facilitate a future application for a change of use to residential accommodation which would, if granted, accentuate the loss of privacy.
Construction Traffic Management Plan
The plan for managing traffic during the construction phase of the proposed development appears to envisage the blocking off of part of the King’s Road carriageway and its reduction to one way traffic for a period of up to two years. This is totally unacceptable. We have seen from the recent experience of the Curzon cinema and King’s Walk projects what the consequences of such a closure would be. There would at times be total gridlock the whole length of the road from Sloane Square to Oakley Street. King’s Road is one of the busiest streets in Chelsea (it is absurdly disingenuous of the applicant to claim that “traffic flows along the King’s Road are low”) and the pollution and damage to air quality caused by this congestion would be a major health risk. Given that there is no social or community value in the proposed new building, it would be wrong for local residents and local businesses to pay such a high price for the benefit of private interests.”
The six local Councillors have also objected, as follows: (They are Cllr Elizabeth Campbell (Leader of the Council); Cllr Kim Taylor -Smith (Deputy Leader); Cllr Cem Kemahli
(Lead member for Planning and the Environment); Cllr Josh Rendall; Cllr Emma Will; and Cllr Will Pascall).
“As local ward councillors for Royal Hospital and Stanley, we greatly
opposed last year’s application for this site. Those plans produced an
overly large and bulky, non-descript building, of little merit to the area.
Plus, there is the additional issue of the loss of parking and an unknown
future for the locally important and economically crucial anchor tenant of
M&S.
There were numerous planning issues associated with that application in
the form of daylight/sunlight, bulk, and massing, which officers rightly
noted and resolved upon to refuse the application.
The current application is much changed from its predecessor but shares
similar characteristics and cause for local concern. We outline our issues
below:
M&S
Whilst we appreciate that M&S is a tenant of the owner and therefore not
necessarily a planning issue, we must stress the long-term loss of such a
tenant will indeed have second order planning effects upon the area. The
loss of this critical retail name would have knock-on impacts to the need
and demand for other retail establishments in the area.
Our draft local plan notes that in policy PLV12 “The rich iconic brand and
history of King’s Road will be enhanced to ensure it remains one of
London’s most vibrant shopping streets, containing a lively and diverse
mix of shops, restaurants, and world-class cultural attractions.”
Losing an anchor tenant in the centre of the Kings Road would be at odds
with this objective. We strongly resist the loss of this “big box” site and this
specific retailer. M&S has long been part of the fabric of the Kings Road,
and we expect them to wish to remain here for the years to come.
Carbon
While the existing building is unlikely to be anybody’s design favourite, the
embodied carbon within its walls must be considered in its demolition.
Removing and replacing an office and retail building for a similar use,
albeit larger unit, can be argued to be a poor use of the land – and indeed
a refurbishment might ought to have been considered instead.
Bulk and Massing
Although much reduced from the previous submission, the current
application is a great deal larger than the existing building and while it sits
outside a conservation area, much weight must be given to the impact a
larger building will have on the character of the neighbouring conservation
areas. We are, at this point, not fully assured that this site does not cause
material harm to these protected areas and urge due consideration of this point.
A further risk of approval would be to encourage the ongoing canyonisation
of Chelsea by producing additional street-facing buildings of significant
increased height. The character and charm of the area is its low-rise
nature, save for a few tall residential buildings.
The increased massing to the rear of the development will cause
detrimental harm to the residents of Charles II Place and their vantage
over the site. This is further compounded by the new glazing which allows
direct sightlines from the offices into the residential units.
Terraces
We have great concern regarding the use of the terraces at the rear and
the potential for overlooking of neighbours. This application introduces
viewpoints which the residents of Charles II have, up to this point, not had
to contend with in the buildings existing design. We oppose the loss of
privacy for our residents and their peaceful enjoyment within their home
should be materially more significant in planning matters than office
workers access to private outdoor terraces.
Parking
One great issue we objected too was the loss of parking proposed by the
previous application. While the Council encourages those who are able to
visit our high streets on foot, bicycle, or public transport, we fully
appreciate the role the car has to play in transporting heavy goods, large
families or those with physical needs around, or indeed to, our borough.
We are pleased to see several spaces are planned to be provided, but we
request if the application were to be approved, the bays be protected from
any future change of use to ensure they remain available to the public for
perpetuity.
Construction
If approved, this site will mean the third large-scale construction project for
these wards on the Kings Road in the last 10 years. Residents have rightly
objected to the issue of traffic and demolition noise brought about by any
construction work. We would expect this site, if approved, to propose a
locally supported Construction Traffic Management Plan, which we would
wish to see brought back to Committee for decision.
Summary
Our objection centres around the bulk and massing of the proposed new
development with the associated planning impacts on the neighbourhood,
especially its impacts on surrounding conservation areas. We have strong
reservations regarding the use of terraces and the privacy implications the
new offices will have on the residents of Charles II Place. The construction
and carbon impact on the community needs to be considered by the Committee when making a decision.
The loss of M&S and the diminished number of new parking spaces for
residents who need them are negatives to the area which we strongly
oppose.
The Chelsea Society has objected to the application as follows:
“The proposed building would be incompatible with a number of Council policies; would be damaging to the character of the King’s Road and the conservation area opposite which it is situated; and would be disruptive to the privacy of neighbouring residents. In addition the construction traffic management plan would involve an unacceptable level of increased congestion and inconvenience in the King’s Road.
Demolition of a serviceable building.
The application involves the demolition, apart from the basement, of the whole of the existing building on the site. This building is relatively new, perfectly serviceable and not unattractive in appearance. Its demolition would be contrary to policy GB3 (Whole Life-Cycle Carbon) in the New Local Plan which recommends the retention and refurbishment of existing buildings over demolition and rebuild. There might be an exceptional case for demolition if the new building were to bring social or community benefits which could not be provided in any other way. But this is not the case. It constitutes a supermarket and offices, both of which are already present.
Height, Scale, Bulk and Massing
The proposed building would be at least one storey higher than the existing one, and higher than any of the buildings in its immediate vicinity. It is not easy, because of the confusing way in which the design is presented, to estimate exactly how tall the new building would be, but the increase in height would clearly be significant and would give the building an excessively dominant appearance. It would also be materially larger than most other buildings in the King’s Road. This would be contrary to Policies CL1, CL 5 and CL12 in the current Local Plan, which require new buildings to respect the setting of the borough’s townscapes and to resist buildings which are taller than their surroundings; as well as with Policy CD1 (Context and Character) in the new Plan.
To allow a building of this height and mass to be constructed would contribute to the further “canyonisation” of the King’s Road. It would also be damaging to the view from Chelsea Green down Markham Street to the King’s Road, one of the iconic vistas in the borough (it is bizarre that Council officers made no mention of this view in their pre-application advice). There are elements in the design which are clearly intended to soften the building’s impact, for example the setting back of the top storey and the slightly curved effect of the façade, but they do not mitigate the overall problem -that the building is too large for the site and its context.
Privacy
The proposed building contains extensive terraces and balconies at the rear which would have a negative impact on the privacy of residents in surrounding streets, notably King Charles 11 Place, and would constitute a source of noise and light pollution. Those residents are rightly concerned that the construction of these terraces and balconies would facilitate a future application for a change of use to residential accommodation which would, if granted, accentuate the loss of privacy.
Construction Traffic Management Plan
The plan for managing traffic during the construction phase of the proposed development appears to envisage the blocking of part of the King’s Road carriageway and its reduction to one way traffic for a period of up to two years. This is totally unacceptable. We have seen from the recent experience of the Curzon cinema and King’s Walk projects what the consequences of such a closure would be. There would at times be total gridlock for the whole length of the road from Sloane Square to Oakley Street. King’s Road is one of the busiest streets in Chelsea (it is absurdly disingenuous of the applicant to claim that “traffic flows along the King’s Road are low”) and the pollution and damage to air quality caused by this congestion would be a major health risk. Given that there is no social or community value in the proposed new building, it would be wrong for local residents and local businesses to pay such a high price for the benefit of private interests.
We would be grateful if you would identify the Chelsea Society as the author of this objection when it is published on the Council’s planning website.”
**************************
The Chelsea Society had objected to a previous Application as follows:
“Application number: PP/21/01425
Site Address: 81-103 (odd) King’s Road, LONDON, SW3 4NX
Proposal: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment for new building up
to five storeys (Use Class E); basement excavation works; creation
of a courtyard area at ground and lower ground levels; roof terraces;
landscaping works; installation of plant; and associated works.
(MAJOR APPLICATION)
Comment received: PLANNING APPLICATION PP/21/01425 81 – 103 KING’S ROAD
The Chelsea Society exists to protect the interests of all those who
live and work here and to preserve the unique character of this part
of London. We have around a thousand members.
We object to the above planning application because it is in our view
incompatible with the Council’s policies on context and character;
on design quality; on building heights; and on optimising site
capacity through design-led approach.
The current building on the site is not listed, nor is it within a
conservation area. But it is located directly opposite the Chelsea
Conservation Area and is immediately visible at the end of Markham
Street, an unspoiled vista typical of Chelsea. More importantly it is
on the King’s Road, one of London’s most iconic streets. Preserving
the unique nature of the King’s Road should be a key planning
priority for the Council.
King’s Road is a shopping street, but it is quite different in character
to, for example, Oxford Street, Sloane Street or Kensington High
Street. Its defining features, in architectural terms, are its low-rise
buildings, the multiplicity and variety of its individual shops, the
irregularity of its skyline and its combination of narrowness and
airiness. The proposed development would be damaging to this
unique character. In particular:-
– The height, scale and massing of the building would have overall
an overbearing and dominant impact;
– At the front elevation this would have a canyonisation effect of
enclosure on King’s Road: the building would be significantly higher
than its surroundings and would be an incongruous, monolithic slab
in an otherwise heterogeneous streetscape. The view down
Markham Street would be damaged.
– At the rear it would cause harm to existing houses, given that its
proposed height and scale is significantly greater than what
currently exists: the proposed green wall would not mitigate the loss
of light and the building’s bulk would adversely affect their outlook.
The proposal would thus be contrary to the following Council
Policies
a) Pg 182 – Policy CL1 Context and Character states that the
Council will require all development to respect the existing context,
character and appearance, taking opportunities available to improve
the quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it
functions, including being inclusive for all.
b)Pg 185 – Policy CL2 Design Quality states that the Council will
require all development to be of the highest architectural and urban
design quality, taking opportunities to improve the quality and
character of buildings and the area and the way it functions.
c) Pg 203 – Policy CL12 Building Heights states that the Council will
require new buildings to respect the setting of the borough’s valued
townscapes and landscapes, through appropriate building heights.
To deliver this the Council will, inter alia, a. require proposals to
strengthen our traditional townscape in terms of building heights and
roofscape by requiring developments to: i. reflect the prevailing
building heights within the context ii. provide, for larger
developments, a roofscape that reflects that of the context of the
site; iii. seldom use height to express local landmarks so the
prevailing building height is maintained; b. resist buildings
significantly taller than the surrounding townscape other than in
exceptionally rare circumstances, where the development has a
wholly positive impact on the character and quality of the
townscape; etc
d)
Pg 125 – Policy D3 Optimising site capacity through the design-led
approach – which includes the requirements – ref `Form and layout’
1) enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that
positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout,
orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to
existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and
proportions and `Quality and character’ 11) respond to the existing
character of a place by identifying the special and valued features
and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect,
enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features
that contribute towards the local character.
We have other concerns about the application.
It involves the excavation of two basements, something which it is
the Council’s policy only to allow in the case of a large site where all
construction activity can take place in an enclosed space. It is not
clear to us that this condition can be satisfactorily fulfilled in this
case.
The space allocated for servicing the range of commercial and
other activities which are envisaged for the site is rather small. We
would urge the Council to satisfy itself that what is proposed is
realistic.
The construction activity which will take three years, has the
potential to cause massive disruption to life on the King’s Road. A
robust and credible Construction Traffic Management Plan will be
required. We are not convinced that the applicant has yet produced
one.
We have put some of these concerns to the developers during the
course of the consultations which they have undertaken with the
Chelsea Society. In doing so we acknowledged that the concept
they are working on is in many respects attractive and imaginative
and that some of the facilities which it embodies would be an asset
to Chelsea. A lower, less massive building of this design might be
welcome. But in its current form it is too high, too dominant and too
monolithic
Planning committee member (Royal Hospital Ward), The Chelsea
Society
Date of Comment: 16/04/2021 10:51:33
Comment type: Objection
