We Asked, You Said, We Did

We asked for feedback on detailed proposals to improve the infrastructure of Portobello Road within the phase 1 area between Chepstow Villas and Westbourne Grove, including those two junctions and the junction with Denbigh Terrace.

The consultation was open for six weeks from Wednesday 29 October to Wednesday 10 December 2025.

The detailed proposals for phase 1 focused on road safety including new bollards, flood mitigation and trees, accessibility and paving surfaces, power supply for market stalls and lighting.

The proposals built on feedback received through a multi-stage participatory process that started in 2023. The purpose of the extensive process was to find a balance with the community between needing to improve the infrastructure of Portobello Road while celebrating and protecting the market for generations to come.

We received 246 responses to this consultation.

The consultation invited open comments about the proposals. The comments were analysed, themed and grouped under five headings, taking into account the number of mentions to each theme.

Summary of feedback under each grouping:

1. Character and the impact of construction works (450 mentions)

Protecting the traditional character of Portobello Road and its 160-year-old street market is a priority for consultees. Many see the proposed surface materials as “too modern” for Portobello. Even though one of the objectives of the repaving was to support flood mitigation, consultees still asked for surfacing options which are more in keeping with the area, less expensive and quicker to lay.

The extensive works to resurface road and footways using granite setts was seen as potentially too costly and disruptive, outweighing the benefits. Residents said that access to closes and housing estates during the works was particularly worrisome.

Another point of contention was the proposal to widen pavements and raise parking bays to pavement level. Many consultees did not see the point of wider pavements because visitors can walk on the carriageway on busy market days and said that vehicles on raised parking bays would cover shops and forecourt stalls even more than they already do.

Nevertheless, many did praise the ambition to improve accessibility with smoother pavements, a lower kerb upstand, more dropped kerbs, and surfaces in contrasting colours.

2. Road safety bollards (287 mentions)

The moveable safety bollards proposed in the consultation were well supported by consultees and seen as an improvement to the current barriers. However, vehicle access was still raised as a key concern, particularly for residents.

In fact, vehicle movement overall and parking were contentious topics. This included strong opposition to the proposal to ban left turns from Portobello Road at the Chepstow Villas junction, conflicts between resident vehicles and business deliveries on Denbigh Terrace, and requests to retain the current provision of parking bays throughout the phase 1 project area.

Nevertheless, many consultees welcomed proposals to improve pedestrian safety at junctions, and some asked for further measures to slow down cars, bicycles and scooters.  

3. Market infrastructure (147 mentions)

There were many comments about Portobello market, ranging from infrastructure to support traders and visitors to the retail offer. In fact, improvements such as power supply for all stalls and new lamp posts that support seasonal lights and decorations were some of the most uncontroversial proposals across the consultation, alongside flood mitigation and greening. The retail offer was also a recurring theme in responses to the consultation, with consultees asking for more to be done to protect the antiques trade and traditional fruit and veg stalls while opposing souvenir shops and food outlets.

Key concerns regarding the market included crowding, the number of stalls (with most asking for the same number to be retained during the works and afterwards), more support for visitors (such as signage, drinking fountain, and toilets), more crime prevention, and better waste collection.

Seating was raised in a contentious way because some believe seating support disabled visitors and residents using the market while others fear it would encourage anti-social behaviour.

4. Transparency and accountability (91 mentions)

Many consultees asked for enhanced transparency during the project cycle and further information on specific topics such as costs and procurement, the operation of the proposed moveable bollards to facilitate access, and a detailed construction management plan.

Despite those concerns, overall support for the proposals was expressed by many. The key positives mentioned were strengthened road safety measures and better bollards, flood mitigation, improved footways with better accessibility, traditional lamp posts, and tree planting.

On the other hand, many consultees opposed the project as a whole, primarily because of the perceived risk of undermining the character and “charm” of Portobello Road (often phrased a “Disneyfication”), the disruption caused by construction works, and the overall cost.

5. Flood mitigation and greening (88 mentions)

Most consultees support the ambition to improve flood resilience, although some questioned how effective the proposals would be and if the benefits outweigh the burden of construction works. Some consultees said they want the Council to take the results of the proposed trial seriously before rolling out the implementation of underground flood attenuation.

Tree planting was well supported, although consultees said they want to avoid negative impacts such as fruits and roots damaging pavements. Some consultees also worry that the new trees proposed at the Denbigh Terrace junction may overshadow the existing large rose on the Longlands Court railing.

The project team carefully analysed all the feedback and tweaked the plans accordingly, focusing on mitigating the impact of construction works.

The Council Leadership Team is expected to discuss the project and make a final decision in February 2026.

You can review all documents related to this decision, including the full consultation report and officers’ detailed response to the feedback, on this Leadership Team Meeting webpage.

You can also read more here about the 2024 consultation results and download the full citizen’s recommendations.

To relocate the cycle hangar on St James's Gardens to Darnley Terrace

Seven reponses were received, all objecting to the relocation. 

The Council has decided to proceed with the relocation, but to undertake further consultation on changes to parking nearby to increase resident parking availability.

We asked for views on three proposals in the October 2025 Housing Parking Changes.

You said

We received no objections to any of the Housing parking proposals.

We have made the traffic order as originally advertised.

We asked for views on 33 proposals in the October 2025 Miscellaneous Parking Changes.

We received a total of 18 objections, 69 letters of support and four comments across two of the on-street parking proposals.

We have made the traffic order as originally advertised apart from the proposals relating to extending the hours of parking control in the vicinity of the new redeveloped Olympia Exhibition Centre which has been amended based on the consultation responses.

Following the feedback received, the decision was made to omit the extended hours for visitor (pay-by-phone) bays south of Kensington High Street so that the hours of control for visitor (pay-by-phone) bays in Abingdon Ward will remain as they currently are.

Whether the Council should introduce ‘green man’ pedestrian signals and associated improvements at the junction of Kings Road and Beaufort Street.

The changes were fully supported by 127 responses (83 per cent). Fifteen (10 per cent) supported in part and 10 (7 per cent) objected to the scheme. One of the respondents had no opinion on the proposals.

The Council has decided to proceed with the scheme.

Colville Square Playground is a much-loved play area for younger children (up to age six), located alongside Colville Square in North Kensington, near Portobello Road, Notting Hill.

During autumn 2025 we asked for your views on refurbishing the playground, by giving your feedback on the current facilities, as well as ideas for improvement. Specifically, we asked for your opinions on new children’s play equipment, park furniture, colour schemes, materials to be used and whether to increase the size of the playground.

Survey responses 47.

A consultation workshop also took part with several children and staff from Colville Nursery and Pre-School.

Who took part: Most respondents were female at 85 per cent, and 87 per cent were aged 25 to 54 years. Sixty two per cent identified as white ethnic origin and four per cent as having a physical or mental health condition that was expected to last 12 months or more.

How people use the playground: Nearly one in five people visit the playground every day and a further 47 per cent visit two or three times per week. Only two per cent visit the playground rarely.

Satisfaction with the playground: Dissatisfaction was highest with the gardens surrounding the playground at 44 per cent; the gardens are not part of the playground refurbishment programme, however this feedback has been passed on to the parks managers for consideration. Satisfaction with fencing was 49 per cent, play equipment 47 per cent, seating 40 per cent and playground surfacing 29 per cent.

Areas for improvement: Common themes included replacing the ‘tired and outdated’ play equipment, providing more seating and swings for young children and ‘making the play area bigger’.

Popular choices of play equipment: The most popular choices were toddler swings, trampolines, playhouses, slides, basket swings, climbing frames and junior (flat) swings. Interactive play panels, fun ground graphics and roundabouts were also chosen, but less frequently.

Colour theme: Bright colours, such as red, blue and yellow, were preferred by nearly three quarters of respondents.

Materials: A combination of wood and painted metal play equipment was preferred by 53 per cent of respondents, with 38 per cent preferring mostly natural wood / timber.

Other items within the playground: Shade from sun and rain, more seating and picnic tables were popular. Drinking fountains and a pushchair park were less popular.

Make the playground bigger: 83 per cent asked for the playground to be made bigger, with more play items.

Designing and delivering the refurbished playground: The full consultation report and feedback from the Colville Nursery and Preschool workshop have been given to companies interested in designing, manufacturing and installing the refurbished playground. Their proposed designs will be assessed and scored against the feedback received from residents and the highest scoring company will be asked to install their design at Colville Square Gardens.

Increasing the size of the playground: All interested play companies have been asked to increase the size of the playground to the southern and eastern boundaries, as this was a very popular choice for residents.

Timescale: It is planned to rebuild the playground during spring 2026.

if the Council should introduce four new Sheffield stands on the piazza on Tetcott Road, providing space for eight bicycles.

Nine responses were received to the consultation, all in support of the proposals. 

The Council will proceed with installation of the cycle stands.

The Safer Kensington and Chelsea Partnership brings together the Council, Police, health services, the National Probation Service and voluntary sector organisations to address community safety issues in the borough. A consultation was launched to find out what the most important crime and community safety issues affecting residents and businesses in the borough are. This consultation was an opportunity for residents and stakeholders to tell us how resources from a range of statutory services should be used to make the borough a safer place to live, work and learn. 

• Overall feelings of safety: Sixty-five per cent of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that they felt safe in their neighbourhood during the day, whilst just over a third (34 per cent) of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that they felt safe in their neighbourhood at night.
   
• Community safety priorities: The top community safety priorities identified by residents were antisocial behaviour (65 per cent), followed by theft (56 per cent) and Drug offences (40 per cent).
   
• Effective ways of reducing crime: High visibility patrols by police/wardens is viewed as the most effective way of reducing crime (87 per cent), followed by law enforcement and criminal justice outcomes for criminals (64 per cent).
   
• Supporting community response to crime: Publication of successful prosecutions and enforcement action against those who commit crime in your neighbourhood (48 per cent) was seen as the most important way to support the community response to crime, closely followed by community groups that help to advise the Council, Police and other services on the issues affecting their neighbourhoods (47 per cent).
   
• Communication channels: The top communication channel to receive news and updates about the Council continues to be the Council’s website (51%), followed by Enewsletters (45 per cent).

The survey results have supported the Safer Kensington and Chelsea Partnership in developing the next Community Safety Plan.  Residents' feedback including those affected by crime or using local services has been central to shaping the Partnership’s strategic priorities.  The new plan is scheduled for approval by Full Council in July 2026

A consultation was designed to seek feedback on how environmental issues are impacting residents’ local area, what environmental improvements residents would like to see happen, and which actions they think the Council should prioritise to shape a greener, healthier, and more resilient future for Kensington and Chelsea.

As extreme weather events like heatwaves and flooding become more severe and frequent affecting the borough and our communities, the survey also aimed to explore how the Council can adapt to climate change and help build a more climate resilient community.

• Your environmental priorities and concerns – Respondents identified air pollution (72 per cent), high levels of road traffic (67 per cent) and extreme weather events (50 per cent) as the top three environmental issues impacting them.
   
• Extreme weather priorities –   Respondents suggested the top three initiatives to help tackle extreme weather events should be:
  1. Increase tree cover and shaded areas to reduce the impact of heat waves (75 per cent)
  2. Implement sustainable drainage systems for roads and buildings/roofs to manage water better (58 per cent)
  3. Strengthen local infrastructure to withstand extreme weather (41 per cent)
• Tackling climate change and reducing carbon emissions – The top three actions respondents think will help reduce carbon emissions are:
  1. Enhancing green infrastructure to improve air quality and reduce urban heat islands (69 per cent)
  2. Improving energy efficiency in Council-owned public buildings (47 per cent)
  3. Installing renewable energy on Council-owned buildings (47 per cent)
• Acting on climate change – The top three motivators for respondents acting on climate change are, protecting the environment for future generations (75 per cent), improving the health and wellbeing of my community (62 per cent) and contribute to a greener, more sustainable borough (50 per cent).
   
• Air quality –  Almost two-thirds of respondents  either strongly agreed (31 per cent) or agreed (34 per cent) that air pollution in the borough has affected their daily life or health. When asked about specific focuses for tackling air quality in the borough, residents mentioned traffic reduction/management and more trees/planting.
   
• Biodiversity and Greening – More than three quarters (78 per cent) of respondents said the main reason they visit green spaces in the borough is for their mental wellbeing, followed by physical exercise (72 per cent). Respondents suggested the top three priorities for protecting and enhancing biodiversity should be:
  1. Planting more trees (80 per cent)
  2. Creating more community gardens or pocket parks (68 per cent)
  3. Installing green roofs and walls on buildings (43 per cent)
• Specific focus for parks and green spaces - The top three things respondents would like the Council’s parks and green spaces to provide that they don't already offer are, improved facilities (e.g. toilets, seating, café, children’s facilities, water features etc.), managing dogs in parks and promoting responsible park use.

The feedback from this survey will be used to influence the review and update of key environmental action plans, specifically the Climate Emergency Action Plan, Air Quality Action Plan and the Biodiversity Action Plan.

Feedback will also be fed into the development of a new Parks Strategy and be used to inform the Council’s response and mitigations against extreme weather events

Housing Management ran this consultation to ask residents if they supported the main aims of the draft Housing Asset Management Strategy and sought feedback on the five key investment priorities proposed and any other comments on the draft.

The majority of respondents supported the Strategy’s overall aims to keep homes safe, well-maintained, energy-efficient, and to strengthen resident involvement. Some respondents questioned whether the Strategy would be fully implemented or supported in practice. Respondents felt that more specificity was needed, with clearer commitments on delivery and timelines.

Recommendations from live resident engagement and consultation feedback informed the final revisions to the Strategy. Overall, the consultation confirmed strong resident and stakeholder support for the Strategy’s approach and priorities and provided practical insights that strengthened commitments, improved clarity and ensured the Strategy reflects the needs and experiences of residents across the borough. The following changes and clarifications were made in response to consultation feedback:

• Further simplified technical language and adjusted terminology to make the Strategy clearer and easier for residents to understand. Amended wording and strengthened commitments to improve fairness and transparency in investment decisions.
• Added clear definitions of the Decent Homes Standard and Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and clarified regulatory compliance and reporting under the Building Safety Act.
• Strengthened emphasis on resident involvement and how feedback continues to guide investment priorities.
• Incorporated clearer reference to repair and maintenance standards through the commitment to develop the RBKC Home Standard.
• Highlighted explanation of building components replacement cycles, emphasising a robust, data-driven approach to investment planning.
• Enhanced references to performance and progress monitoring, including where residents can access performance and investment data.
• Learning from Grenfell: Added clarity on how delivery of commitments will be assured and monitored through independent oversight, member scrutiny, community engagement, and transparent reporting.

The Government requires all Health and Wellbeing Boards to produce an assessment of pharmaceutical services in its area. The Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment (PNA) reports on the need for and provision of pharmacy services in a local area. It is used by NHS England to make decisions about applications to open new pharmacies or to change their location.

Thank you for feeding into our latest Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment.

Your views have fed into the production of the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2025 to 2028. Details of the consultation and findings can be found in the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2025 to 2028

We have produced the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2025 to 2028

If the Council should implement improvement works to reduce speeds and improve pedestrian facilities at the junctions of Franklin’s Row/Turk’s Row and St Leonard’s Terrace/Franklin’s Row/Cheltenham Terrace. 

Twenty-three responses were received (22 from residents and one from The Chelsea Society). Of these, seven (30 per cent) supported the scheme in full, eight (35 per cent) supported it in part, seven did not support the scheme and one person said they had no opinion.

The Council has decided to approve an amended scheme (Option 2) - subject to consideration of any responses received in relation to the statutory consultation.  Option 2 makes no changes to the Turk’s Row/Franklin’s Row junction, where some respondents believed the proposed extended footways would cause congestion.  All other proposals will proceed.

if we should introduce a raised central reservation in Silchester Road.

Sixteen respondents replied to the consultation. Thirteen supported the scheme in full and three supported in part.

Following consideration of all comments received, the Director of Highways and Regulatory Services has decided to proceed to detailed design and implementation of the proposed raised central reservation on Silchester Road.

Whether the Council should introduce tree pits in Elm Park Gardens.

There were 49 responses to the consultation. Forty-nine residents responded regarding the proposals on the western arm of Elm Park Gardens. Thirty-three responded on the proposals on the eastern arm of Elm Park Gardens.

Thirty-one (65 per cent) of the respondents supported the proposed carriageway tree pits on the western arm of Elm Park Gardens. Three (six per cent) supported the proposal in part and 14 (29 per cent) objected to the proposal. One person had no opinion.

Twenty-four (50 per cent) respondents supported the proposed carriageway tree pits on the eastern arm of Elm Park Gardens. One person (two per cent) supported the proposal in part and seven (15 per cent) objected to the proposal. One person had no opinion.

A full summary of the consultation replies, and the Councils responses can be found in the Consultation Report.

Following consideration of all the comments received, the Council has decided to proceed with the introduction of tree pits on the western and eastern arms in Elm Park Gardens, subject to final investigations on site.

Whether the Council should introduce tree pits in Grenville Place and Prince of Wales Terrace.

Grenville Place

There were 12 responses to the consultation. Ten (eighty-three per cent) of the respondents supported the proposed carriageway tree pits in Grenville Place, one (eight per cent) supported the proposal in part and one (eight per cent) had no opinion. There were no objections to the proposals.

Prince of Wales Terrace

There were 12 responses to the consultation. Eleven (ninety-two per cent) of the respondents supported the proposed carriageway tree pits in Prince of Wales Terrace and one (eight per cent) supported the proposal in part. There were no objections to the proposals.

A full summary of the consultation replies, and the Councils responses can be found in the Consultation Report.

Following consideration of all the comments received, and the investigatory ground works, the Council has decided that:  

• The tree planting scheme in Grenville Place will not proceed as the proposed locations are not viable.

• The tree planting scheme in Prince of Wales Terrace will proceed at two of the four tree pits initially proposed, subject to final investigations.

Whether the Council should add sinusoidal road humps to Ladbroke Square and Ladbroke Terrace, following a successful application for Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) funding by local residents.

We received 169 responses to the consultation.

Eighty-eight responses (52 per cent) were from people who supported the installation of road humps on Ladbroke Square, eight (five percent) supported in part and 68 (40 per cent) objected to this part of the scheme. Five of the respondents (three per cent) had no opinion on the Ladbroke Square section of the proposals.

Ninety responses (53 per cent) were from people who supported the installation of road humps on Ladbroke Terrace, four (two percent) supported in part and 74 (44 per cent) objected to this part of the scheme. One of the respondents (one per cent) had no opinion on the Ladbroke Terrace section of the proposals.

A full summary of the consultation replies, and the Councils responses can be found in the attached documents.

Following consideration of all the comments received from residents and councillors, the Council has decided to proceed with the introduction of the road humps on both Ladbroke Square and Ladbroke Terrace.

The scheme has proceeded to detailed design, and we plan to give notice of the final proposed positions of the road humps once that design has been completed. Following our consideration of any responses to the statutory notice, we hope to construct the road humps later this year or early in 2026.

We asked for views on 11 proposals in the June 2025 Housing Parking Changes.

We received a total of 2 objections, across 2 of the Housing parking proposals.

We have made the traffic order as originally advertised apart from the proposal relating to Tavistock Crescent which was amended.

We asked for views on 32 proposals in the June 2025 Miscellaneous Parking Changes.

We received a total of 56 objections, 7 letters of support and 1 comment across 10 of the on-street parking proposals.

We have made the traffic order as originally advertised apart from the proposals relating to Kingsdown Close and Portobello Road which were amended and Sheffield Terrace, Elm Park Gardens, Draycott Avenue and Ixworth Place, and Lennox Gardens which were dropped in their entirety. 

We asked for views on proposals to extend parking controls in Holland Ward and part of Abingdon Ward, which would extend the hours of control for residents’ parking and Pay-by-phone visitor parking, and introduce Sunday controls in some streets which have not had these before.  

We received 201 responses in relation to the proposals. The level of support for extended parking controls was fairly consistent across most of the consultation area. However, analysis showed a distinct area north of Holland Park where there was opposition to the proposals.

We have amended the area in which we will formally propose to extend parking controls, so that it will not include Holland Park or Holland Park Mews (as the majority of respondents in that area do not support the proposals). We will carry out a statutory consultation on extending controls in the rest of the consultation area.  

Whether the Council should make a Local Development Order which would remove the need for a separate planning permission to change windows in all (non-listed) residential properties.

Thirty-nine responses were received. Of these twenty-nine were wholly supportive, with a further five respondees supportive in principle but raised some concerns or caveated their support. This includes a response from the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum. Three responses were negative and didn’t support the making of the LDO. Two further responses, both from statutory consultees noted that they had no view.

The Council has decided to make the Local Development Order. In order to allay some of these concerns the LDO have been drafted to make it explicit that changing a window from one made of wood to one made of uPVC will not be allowed under the LDO. An additional clause has also been added to state that the adding of film to a window, or replacing conventional glass with mirrored glass, is not permitted by the LDO.