Housing developers in the borough where Grenfell Tower burned down used a complex planning loophole to build 700 fewer social homes between 2009 and 2016 than they had initially promised, according to new research.
Freedom of Information Act requests from housing charity Shelter reveal that developers have consistently failed to meet Kensington and Chelsea's 50% target for social homes in new developments.
The borough's council is facing strong criticism for its handling of the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire in June, which started a wider debate about the safety, quality, and quantity of social housing in the borough and across the country. So far 20 of the families displaced by the fire have been permanently rehoused, while 54 have accepted offers.
Developers typically win planning permission by submitting plans promising a certain number of affordable homes. However, they often later commission "viability assessments" from independent consultants – which, if published, are usually heavily redacted – to show that the agreed level of social housing would put the project at risk by reducing the profit margin.
Under pressure to provide more housing at a time of historic shortage, councils often agree to the lower amount, with developers offering in exchange various enticements, payments, and public amenities through section 106 of the Housing Act. This has frequently been used to push through the development of some of London's luxury towers.
In Kensington and Chelsea from 2009 to 2016 viability assessments prevented 831 affordable houses being built, of which 706 would have been social housing.
One housing development on West Cromwell Road, built by the development arm of Tesco, originally pledged that 119 of its 280 homes would be available for social rent, meaning they would be reserved for those on low incomes.
But between 2011 and 2015, Shelter claims on the basis of several viability studies, the amount of social housing in the development was reduced to zero.
At another development, on Kings Road in Chelsea, after a viability assessment carried out before planning permission was granted, developer Cadogan Estates agreed to provide 5 out of 45 affordable homes. A Greater London Authority's report shows the developer also paid more than £5 million in community infrastructure levy (CIL) payments.
Shelter chief executive Polly Neate said: "At a time when we desperately need more affordable homes, big developers are allowed to prioritise their profits by building luxury housing while backtracking on their promises to build a fair share of affordable homes.
"The government must make sure we treat affordable housing commitments as cast iron pledges, rather than optional extras, and act now to close the loophole that allows developers to wriggle out of building the affordable homes this country urgently needs."
On Wednesday the council voted unanimously to terminate its contract with the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which was responsible for all social housing in the borough. Both KCTMO and the council have provided evidence to the ongoing public inquiry into the Grenfell fire and representatives from both will be called to give evidence in person on their role in the management and refurbishment of the building.
Elizabeth Campbell, leader of Kensington and Chelsea council, said in a statement: “Housing is a London-wide issue. All boroughs need to work together, and with developers, to ensure the capital has the right mix of housing.
“In places like Kensington and Chelsea, an independent viability report often results in the ability to build more homes, due to the sums of money developers have to pay instead of providing affordable housing on site.
“That said, we are getting tougher with developers to ensure that where affordable housing can be provided – it is. Grenfell has focused everybody’s minds on the issue of housing and we want to find solutions."
A spokesperson for Cadogan Estates said: "It is national planning policy for viability assessments to be used to determine the level of affordable housing that can be delivered as part of a development scheme. These assessments are independently and transparently tested by viability experts acting for the local planning authority before a planning application is determined by elected councillors.
"Each development is different depending on its location and specific context, and therefore it is right for every planning application to be determined on the basis of its individual merit. At 196-222 King’s Road we sought to deliver the maximum possible affordable housing, in addition to other community benefits such as the re-provision of a much loved local cinema and public house."
CORRECTION
The Kings Road development by Cadogan Estates commissioned a viability assessment, which recommended its level of affordable housing, before it was granted planning permission. An earlier version of this post misstated the time at which that report was commissioned and stated an incorrect original affordable housing target for the scheme.