Voice of the Citizen: Amid the chaos of dealing with the cyber-attack, a hastily re-arranged meeting of the RBKC’s Planning Committee will next week decide the future of another massive building project on Lots Road. Yet this is no ordinary development, as RBKC is the owner and sponsor of the project. Here, Richard Jacques, Chair of the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum, shares his views on what is being proposed and why all eyes should be on the five Councillors tasked with holding their colleagues to account.

 

The concerns and suggestions of residents are either summarily dismissed or simply ‘noted’

 

Next Tuesday afternoon, five RBKC councillors will decide the fate of Lots Road South. A decision with the potential to change forever both the skyline of Chelsea and the lives of all those who live and work in the historic Lots Village. But this is no ordinary planning meeting, as in the case of Lots Road South, the Council is both the landowner and developer, working hand in glove with its commercial development partner, Mount Anvil. In such a situation, many might ask how the Council can exercise its duties as a planning authority and, in effect, mark its own homework? But that is precisely what will be taking place at next week’s Planning Committee.  

For those not familiar with this decade-long saga, Lots Road South is a parcel of land at the borough boundary comprising of the former Lots Road Auction House, the old car pound, and several smaller industrial buildings. RBKC acquired these assets over the years at prices that some argue made little economic sense for an ex-industrial site in the area’s only employment zone. 

The Council’s stated intention was to build a 65-unit extra-care facility to replace the care home it sold to developers on Dovehouse Street. A worthy endeavour that the local community has always supported. But to fund this new facility, rather than use the money from the Dovehouse Street sale, the council envisaged a large-scale private development of apartments and business units. 

After years of disingenuous public consultation and argument, weary residents believed the matter had been settled with the 2024 adoption of the borough’s New Local Plan, where the Government-appointed Planning Inspector ruled that the site should be an employment-led development, delivering around 4,000 square metres of new business space, with 65 extra care units and around 100 new homes, and with maximum heights of no more that 6 to 10 storeys.  

For many in the area who have suffered decades of disruption from the development of both the Lots Road Power Station site and the Chelsea Academy, the Planning Inspector’s decision was another bitter blow. Still, at least an end was in sight. You can therefore imagine the collective dismay when RBKC and its developer announced they would be ignoring the Planning Inspector’s decision and bringing forward a development with  274 new homes, including two towers at 13 and 11 storeys, and reducing the commercial space to about 1,400 square metres, removing any pretence that this development was employment-led. 

Now, when faced with a development that seems to break every rule in Council’s recently approved rulebook, you might now be expecting planning officers and members of the Planning Committee to be squaring up for a battle royal with Mount Anvil and the RBKC property team. Yet, I am sorry to say the truth appears far from this. 

Firstly, planning officials have produced a 275-page report arguing for approval, where the concerns and suggestions of residents are either summarily dismissed or simply ‘noted’. One telling example of this disregard for those who will live and work in the area is the discussion of the impact on the Lots Village Conservation Area, which is addressed in just over 1,000 words. Compare this with the 3,000-word assessment of how the buildings will appear when viewed from the Brompton Cemetery, and you might be forgiven for thinking that our Council cares more for the dead than the living.

So what should we expect from next week’s Planning Committee? At a recent ‘factual briefing’ for Committee members, where only the developer was allowed to speak, only two Councillors turned up and, despite our best efforts, asked nothing but the most supine of questions. We must hope that they are in better form on Tuesday. And while experience would suggest that there is little prospect of the Planning Committee altering the overall size and shape of the development, there is still much to play for in the final designs and, perhaps most importantly, how the coming years of construction will be managed to minimise the impact on a community that has often felt blighted, forgotten and silenced.