S. KENSINGTON STATION

The developers have amended their application to try to make it more acceptable.

The Society’s Planning Committee has not considered the amendments in detail, but at first glance they don’t address the key issues of height and bulk.

CANCELLATION OF PLANNING COMMITTEE METING – 3 JUNE 2021

Pursuant to Part Seven, Section 2 of the Constitution (Functions Delegated to Officers), The Director of Planning and Place has decided, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor James Husband, to withdraw the following reports from the Planning Committee Agenda of Thursday 3 June 2021:

STR04 & STR05 South Kensington Underground Station; 20-48 (even) and 36-46 (odd) Thurloe Street; 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street; 20-34 Thurloe Square, London.

(Please find LINK to the relevant section of the Council’s Constitution – see page 153, paragraph 1(xv)).

This decision has been taken following a formal written request from the Applicant to enable the development proposals to be amended.

Accordingly, the scheduled Planning Committee meeting on 3 June 2021 has been cancelled due to lack of business.

**************************

For The Chelsea Society’s views on the redevelopment of this station see TCS submission on SOUTH KENSINGTON STATION

………………………………………….

On 30th May 2021 The Chairman of The Chelsea Society’s Planning Committee made the following further submission to the members of the Planning Committee of RBKC:

Dear Councillors,

I am writing, as chairman of the Planning Committee of the Chelsea Society, to urge you at your meeting on 3 June to refuse Planning Application PP/20/03216 for the refurbishment of South Kensington station.

1900 objections to it have been registered on the RBKC website, including from all the local amenity and residents organisations, as well as from the Kensington and Chelsea Societies. All the ward Councillors of the Brompton and Hans Town ward, the local MP and the local member of the Greater London Assembly have also expressed their opposition. This is a formidable expression of public opinion, which deserves to be respected.

The main reasons for this opposition is the design, character and size of the proposed building and its incompatibility with the surrounding Conservation Area. It is modern, unsympathetic, overly dominant, and destructive of important vistas and views. To approve its construction would be in breach of the Council’s
Statutory Duty of Care to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas under Section 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990. It would also be incompatible with the following Council policies:

CL1 Context and Character

CL3 and CL4 Heritage Assets

CO5 Renewing the Legacy

CL8 and CL9 Existing Buildings.

Detailed analyses of the application’s deficiencies are set out in the many submissions from associations and individuals which the Council has received.

Council officers, in the report which they have submitted to you on the application, do not in the main dissent from these comments. Their report is replete with negative assessments of the building’s suitability. To cite just a few:

They describe it in para 1.7 as “alien and out of keeping with its context”; and they note in para 1.8 its “failure to preserve the character and appearance of the Thurloe/Smith’s Charity Conservation Area”.

They say of The Bullnose design that “the increased height leads to a cliff face to the rear; and that the finished result is a building that is unsympathetic in regards to the setting of the listed building to the rear, over which it looms in an overly dominant way which is harmful to its setting”.

As regards Thurloe Street they note that “the creation of what is effectively a large monolithic building…would erode an important element of the character of the Conservation Area: and that “the proposed roof addition will be visible in views from Exhibition Road and neighbouring streets”.

They refer to the alien façade proposed for Pelham Street, note that “the scale, massing and continuous form of the proposals is harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area” and conclude that “the massing, particularly at roof level, is over-dominant in relation to the buildings on the South side of the street”.

They describe the proposed roof level for the Thurloe Square building as having a “top heavy and overly dominant appearance that is inconsistent with the existing terrace to Thurloe Square (west) as well as the bother terraces around the Square” and conclude that the proposals are “harmful to the setting of the listed buildings on Pelham Place and Thurloe Square as well as the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”.

They also recognise that harm will be done to the surviving Victorian wall of The Station whose setting will be “adversely affected by the Bullnose building and the loss of the rear elevation of Thurloe Place”.

But despite all these criticisms (and the many others which are contained in their report) officers, bizarrely, recommend approval of the application. Their reason for doing so is that they characterise all the potential harm as less than substantial; and they claim that this harm is outweighed by the advantage of the construction of 50 new units of accommodation, 17 of which will be affordable (though only on the basis of the Discount London Living Rent).

Officers do not provide any evidence for these judgements; and it would set a hugely damaging precedent if the Planning Committee simply accepted them unchallenged. Whether the level of harm done by the proposed building is substantial or less than substantial, and whether it is outweighed by the provision of a certain quantity or type of accommodation, are matters of political appreciation which elected Councillors are much better placed to make than unelected officers.

On any reasonable analysis the comments made by local residents and amenity associations, and by Council officers themselves, suggest that the term “less than substantial” does not do justice to the scale of the damage which the proposed building would do to the surrounding area; and the benefit from the accrual of 17 units of accommodation which, even if so described, would not be genuinely affordable, is limited. And of course it cannot be argued that the only way in which affordable housing can be provided on this site is by the adoption of this particular proposal. It is open to Transport for London, the public body which owns the site, to commission a different design.

We hope therefore that you will exercise the political judgement for which you were elected; refuse this application; and require Transport for London to submit a new design which is appropriate to the station’s unique environment.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lever

Chairman of the Planning Committee, The Chelsea Society

On 24th August 2020 the Chairman of the Society’s Planning Committee had written to the planning officer at RBKC as follows:

Dear Mr Wentworth,

Subject: Planning Application PP/20/03216 and LB/20/03217 South Kensington Station

I am writing on behalf of the Chelsea Society to register our objection to the planning application submitted by Native Land and Transport for London for the re-development of South Kensington Station.

The Chelsea Society, founded in 1927, exists to protect the interests of all those who live and work in Chelsea and to preserve and enhance the unique character of this part of London. We have around a thousand members. Although South Kensington Station is just outside our geographical area, it is used by many of our members and is a site of such importance that its future will affect the conservation area of which Chelsea is a part.

Our views on the re-development of the station are set out in detail on the society’s website. In sum:

-South Kensington is one of London’s most iconic underground stations. Its restoration and improvement should be conservation-led and should reflect the station’s original heritage and style.

-The priority should be to re-furbish the station itself so as to increase its capacity and to provide step-free access to the platforms.

-Any further development should be along the lines of the Planning Brief written in 2015 by Deloitte Real Estate for Transport for London and reviewed by RBKC planning officers. TfL originally undertook to work with local amenity groups to develop proposals for the site on the basis of this brief. It is regrettable that TfL has reneged on this commitment.

We object to the current application on the grounds that it fails to meet the objectives of the Local Plan, the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. It would inflict significant harm on the listed buildings which surround the station and on the Conservation Area within which it is located. It would involve the unnecessary destruction of heritage assets. It would impose buildings of unacceptable bulk and height. It would add an unnecessary volume of retail and office space, when the priority of a public body like TfL should be affordable housing. And it would cause acute levels of traffic congestion.

The exact details of the incompatibility of the application with the three Plans are set out in the submission from the local MP, the local GLA member and the Ward Councillors for the Courtfield and Brompton/Hans Town wards and we do not therefore repeat them here. We support the points made by those elected members and we urge the Planning Committee to give them due weight.

The areas of concern to which we draw particular attention are the following.

Relationship with the enhancement of the station

The application is predicated on the implementation of plans for improvements to the capacity of the station for which planning permission already exists and which would include the provision of lifts for step free access. But TfL have recently announced that these plans will not go ahead. The Council should insist that before any consideration can be given to the Around Station Development there must be a clear commitment, with a timescale, by TfL to undertake this work.

Thurlow Street

We would prefer this building to be re-furbished rather than demolished. But it is important that the shop fronts are carefully preserved and retained as small units.

The Bullnose

The Bullnose does indeed need to be demolished, but the proposal to replace it is incongruous in style and volume. It should be no higher than a ground and two upper stories in order to preserve the open aspect of the area in front of the station and to preserve views of the Natural History museum.

Pelham Street

A low scale terrace in Pelham Street has the potential to enhance the street scene. But what is proposed is too bulky and too dominant. It would have the effect of “canyonising” the street. If flats are to be built here, they should be no more than a ground and two upper stories above street level.There should be no retail or restaurant use except in Pelham Street’s westernmost 50 yards. But provision could be made for community facilities (doctors, dentists etc).

Thurlow Square

The proposed building on Thurlow Square is also inappopriate in terms of its mass and height. It would overshadow the Grade 2* listed buildings on Pelham Place opposite and would cause severe harm to the appearance of a conservation area.

We therefore urge the Council to reject this application and to to encourage Native Land/TfL to submit an alternative plan which is more respectful of the heritage of the area and of the station itself.

Would you be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of this objection and to ensure that the Chelsea Society is identified as the author of it when it is published on your website.

Best regards

Paul Lever

Chairman of the Planning Committee

The Chelsea Society