# Unit 9 Latimer Industrial Estate, Latimer Road, Kensington and Chelsea

- **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong
- **Authority:** Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005682
- **Application reference:** PP/25/06763
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of a light industrial unit and a five-storey building with flexible Class E floorspace and 7 flats
- **Homes:** 7
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** L2
- **Development plan policies:** Kensington and Chelsea New Local Plan Review 2024 SA9, CD1, CD2, CD4, CD9, CD10, CD12, CD15, St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan 2018 LR1, LR5, E2, London Plan 2021 D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D14, HC1, IP1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance and setting of conservation area, neighbours' living conditions, planning obligations
- **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, decided-on-publication-day, non-determination, plan-led, brownfield, previous-appeal-followed, small-scheme, tier-2

## Summary
Redevelopment of a single-storey industrial unit on an allocated North Kensington site with a five-storey mixed-use building of Class E space and seven flats. A near-identical scheme had been dismissed only for want of a planning obligation; this time a completed unilateral undertaking was in place. Allowed on 17 August 2026, with the Framework cited only by the 2024 paragraph number for brownfield land.

## Issues and findings
- **Background.** The Council confirmed that "had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have resolved to grant planning permission" (DL ¶5), and "the previous appeal decision is a significant material consideration in this instance" (DL ¶8).
- **Character and conservation area setting: no harm.** "the proposed development would not result in harm to the significance of the CA as a whole. It would therefore preserve the setting of the CA." (DL ¶19).
- **Living conditions: acceptable** (DL ¶45). **Obligations:** the June 2026 UU secures highways, carbon, air quality, tree and car-free obligations (DL ¶47-49).
- **Framework (2024 text).** "In the context of paragraph 125 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused." (DL ¶56). The HDT showed delivery "was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years" (DL ¶56).

## Planning balance
Plan-led: "the proposed development would comply with the development plan taken as a whole" (DL ¶68), with 2024 ¶125(c) brownfield weight as supporting material consideration.

## What made the difference
The completed UU cured the only defect found in the previous appeal. The Framework played a supporting role only; the letter predates any reference to the 2026 text and applies the 2024 paragraph number.

## Transferable points
- A 17 August 2026 letter applying 2024 ¶125(c) (brownfield) with no reference to the new Framework: a transitional example, though the outcome would be the same under 2026 L2 and S4 (DL ¶56).
- A near-identical previously dismissed scheme is a significant material consideration where only the obligation has changed (DL ¶8, ¶21).

## Policy findings
- **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** 2024 para 125(c) brownfield wording applied as the Framework test (substantial weight, approve unless substantial harm); no 2026 reference in the letter (DL 56)
- **HE9: pass.** mapped; site outside but in setting of Oxford Gardens - St Quintin CA; no harm, setting preserved; decided on LP HC1 and s72 terms, no Framework heritage policy cited (DL 19, 22)
- **DM6: pass.** UU (6 June 2026) obligations meet the Framework and CIL tests (DL 47-48)

## Key facts
- Non-determination appeal; the Council would have granted subject to an obligation (DL 5)
- Near-identical scheme dismissed on appeal (APP/K5600/W/25/3367853, 29 Oct 2025) only for lack of a planning obligation; given significant weight (DL 7-8, 21)
- Site allocated in KCLP SA9 for homes above retained Class E ground floor (DL 11)
- Housing Delivery Test shows delivery substantially below requirement over three years (DL 56)
- Decided on the day the 2026 Framework was published, with no switch paragraph; s288 window (to 28 Sep 2026) has passed

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005682
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2b1758d6-b2dc-493b-aee3-d824dba36ccb

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005682.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.