We Asked, You Said, We Did

Whether a School Street closure should be implemented on Airlie Gardens, for Holland Park School.

Seven responses supported the School Street in part, three respondents supported in full and five respondents objected to the proposals. 

After considering the evidence for the proposal and the grounds for those objecting, or partially objecting, the Director for Highways and Regulatory Services has agreed to proceed with the School Street on Airlie Gardens.

Whether the Council should introduce a new zebra crossing, on Royal Hospital Road, on the northeast side of Ormonde Gate and West Road.

We received 38 responses to the consultation. 23 responses (60 per cent) were from people who supported the proposals, six (16 per cent) agreed in part with the proposals and nine (24 per cent) objected to the scheme.

A full summary of the consultation replies, and the Councils responses can be found by clicking the link below.

Following consideration of all the comments received, the Director of Highway and Regulatory Services has decided to proceed with the introduction of the zebra crossing on Royal Hospital Road.

The scheme will proceed to detailed design, and we will give formal notice of the zebra crossing prior to implementation. Following our consideration of any responses to the statutory notice, we hope to construct the crossing by the end of the 2026-27 financial year. 

We asked for views on four proposals in the March 2026 Housing Parking Changes.

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 60 proposals in the March 2026 Miscellaneous Parking Changes.

We received a total of 11 objections across 9 of the on-street parking proposals.

We have made the traffic order as originally advertised.

An online consultation was undertaken via the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Hub and promoted through housing newsletters, leaflets and posters in housing receptions. The consultation included a draft Pet Policy and was open from 1 February 2026 to 15 March 2026. A total of ten responses were received.

Feedback received has been used to amend the policy where appropriate.

Changes made include: 

• Strengthening links to the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy in relation to issues such as dog fouling and noise.
• Confirming the Head of Neighbourhoods as the officer responsible for considering appeals, and clarifying key timelines.
• The section on emotional support animals has been expanded to provide greater clarity and detail.

The policy confirms that Kensington and Chelsea Council's Housing Management will maintain a record of all pets on its estates and ensure that appropriate permissions are in place.

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

We received 94 responses to the consultation. Eighty of the responses (85 per cent) were in favour of the proposal, and 14 (15 per cent) objected to the scheme.

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

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 Bassett Road.

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

We received 100 responses to the consultation. 90 per cent of respondents were in favour of the proposal, 9 per cent objected to the scheme, and 1 per cent supported in part.

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

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 Oxford Gardens.

Whether the Council should implement its proposed streetscape improvements on the section of Gloucester Road between Kynance Place and Kensington Gate.

One hundred and eighty responses were received to the consultation, of which one hundred and fifty-eight were from residents, eleven from visitors to the borough, and eleven from businesses. Eighty per cent of respondents supported the proposals in full or in part, nineteen per cent objected to the proposals and one per cent had no opinion.

In March 2026, after consideration of all responses to the consultation, the Lead Member for Environment and Planning made a Key Decision to implement the scheme with some amendments:

a)           Investigate opportunities for additional and/or improved loading and visitor parking facilities on Gloucester Road or adjacent side roads.

The full Key Decision can be found on the Council's website.

Whether the Council should progress design work and implement streetscape improvements on the section of Stratford Road between Marloes Road and Allen Street.

Sixty - three responses were received to the consultation, of which 72 per cent supported the proposals in full or in part, with 28 per cent objecting to the proposals.

In March 2026, after consideration of all responses to the consultation, the Council decided to implement the scheme with some amendments to address key concerns raised in consultation:

1. Retain more Pay by Phone parking capacity on Stratford Road and seek to provide additional capacity on Marloes Road at the junction with Stratford Road to achieve a neutral overall parking impact.
2.  Reduce the length of the footway extensions at the entrance to Blithfield Street by three metres on both sides of the street in order to limit the impact on parking capacity on the street.

The full Council Decision can be downloaded on the Council’s website, this includes a revised scheme plan.

An online survey launched on the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Hub and was promoted via housing newsletters, leaflet and posters in housing receptions. The consultation included a draft of the Housing Fraud Policy for residents to consider and feedback on and was open from 3 November 2025 to 18 January 2026 receiving a total of nine responses online in addition to an email sent separately.

The feedback received has helped make ammendments to the Policy, which can be seen below.

Wording has been strengthened to reinforce that investigations are evidence led and impartial, with the investigators primary role being to gather and present facts to inform decision making.

The policy has been updated to reemphasise confidentiality, confirming that referral sources are not disclosed and anonymous reporting is permitted.

Several consultation responses raised broader concerns relating to:

• Resident engagement structures and governance
• Allegations of bias or organisational conduct
• Housing management practices and complaints handling
• Wider safeguarding and anti-retaliation frameworks

While these issues are acknowledged, they fall outside the scope of the Housing Fraud Policy, which is specifically intended to address the prevention, detection, and investigation of housing fraud. These matters are more appropriately considered under separate policies, procedures, or governance frameworks (e.g. Housing Management, Complaints Policy, Corporate Anti-Fraud Strategy, and resident engagement arrangements), where they can be addressed in the appropriate context. The consultation report has been passed to Resident Engagement Team and Complaints Team where it will be considered.

Outcome of the consultation on proposed charges for self-funders and Appointeeship services: 

Kensington and Chelsea Council proposed new charges for those who choose to use the Council to administer their non-residential care through a self-funding care scheme, as well as those residents where we act as the Appointee for State Benefit. An Appointee is a person or organisation authorised by the Department for Work and Pensions to manage benefits for someone unable to do so themselves due to mental incapacity or severe disability. 

A consultation was carried out between November 2025 and January 2026 where we wrote to all Adult Social Care service users, including those who would be affected by the proposals.

Of the 132 people who are self-funders in the borough, we received a total of seven responses, with five people opposed to the proposals. We also received three responses for the Appointee for State Benefit, with two opposed and one supportive of the proposals.

All public sector bodies are in very difficult financial circumstances and councils are under pressure to continue to support their most vulnerable residents and deliver core frontline services for all residents, but with significantly less money because of the Government’s Fair Funding Review. Kensington and Chelsea must make £108 million of savings over the next four years and in these circumstances, together with the comparatively low response rate to the survey, the Council felt it should continue with the proposals it put forward.

Self-funders are not eligible for council-funded care under the Care Act 2014 because they have savings of more than £23,250 and people do not need to use the Council to administer these services.

Although the Council is introducing charges, these council services will continue to offer good value for money and are below what other councils already charge their residents for the same service.  

If any self-funder affected by this decision does become eligible for support under the Care Act 2014, their case will be reassessed.

Kensington and Chelsea is facing £108 million in funding cuts over four years due to the Government’s new Fair Funding Review. Six councils, including five in London, have been most negatively impacted by the changes that were announced in December 2025.

We asked for residents and stakeholders’ views on our proposed budget for 2026/27 to meet this challenge.

Over 400 responses in our budget consultation 

• 84 per cent of respondents  said they understood why the Council was having to look at reducing services, make savings and increase fees/taxes 
• 48 per cent supported a five per cent increase in council tax  
• 60 per cent supported a second homes premium. 

A separate consultation on the Council tax Reduction Scheme received 546 responses and ran from 27 October 2025 to 7 December 2025. On 28 January 2026 at Full Council, Councillors agreed to reduce Council Tax support by 10 per cent. This means people currently receiving 100 per cent relief on their bill will now receive 90 per cent relief. 

Kensington and Chelsea Council approved its budget for 2026/27 with savings and council tax measures following a meeting at Full Council on Wednesday 25 February 2026.

What's in our budget for 2026/27 

• Council tax will increase by 4.99 per cent 
• A 100 per cent premium on second homes 
• A 10 per cent reduction in council tax support 

Savings measures 

The Council is already making over £21 million in savings through a staff voluntary redundancy scheme, making better use of its buildings and finding opportunities to generate income through advertising. 

Investing in our borough 

The Council will continue to spend on the day to day running of local services including twice weekly bin collections and enforcement. We have invested £700,000 towards cleaner streets, £4.4 million to improve Portobello Road and £8 million into parks and green spaces.

Outcome of the consultation on proposed charges for self-funders and Appointeeship services: 

Kensington and Chelsea Council proposed new charges for those who choose to use the Council to administer their non-residential care through a self-funding care scheme, as well as those residents where we act as the Appointee for State Benefit. An Appointee is a person or organisation authorised by the Department for Work and Pensions to manage benefits for someone unable to do so themselves due to mental incapacity or severe disability. 

A consultation was carried out between November 2025 and January 2026 where we wrote to all Adult Social Care service users, including those who would be affected by the proposals.

Of the 132 people who are self-funders in the borough, we received a total of seven responses, with five people opposed to the proposals. We also received three responses for the Appointee for State Benefit, with two opposed and one supportive of the proposals.

All public sector bodies are in very difficult financial circumstances and councils are under pressure to continue to support their most vulnerable residents and deliver core frontline services for all residents, but with significantly less money because of the Government’s Fair Funding Review. Kensington and Chelsea must make £108 million of savings over the next four years and in these circumstances, together with the comparatively low response rate to the survey, the Council felt it should continue with the proposals it put forward.

Self-funders are not eligible for council-funded care under the Care Act 2014 because they have savings of more than £23,250 and people do not need to use the Council to administer these services.

Although the Council is introducing charges, these council services will continue to offer good value for money and are below what other councils already charge their residents for the same service.  

If any self-funder affected by this decision does become eligible for support under the Care Act 2014, their case will be reassessed.

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.

This Citizens’ Panel survey focused on future support for the voluntary and community sector (VCS) exploring Panel members views on three key areas:

• Reducing the size of the Voluntary Support Sector Fund (VSSF), which provides unrestricted core funding to the sector to help with running costs of their organisations.
• Making VCS property arrangements more consistent, including by reducing the amount of property costs we are subsidising for the sector, for example tenants taking on responsibilities for property costs, including rent and repairs.
• Reviewing how the Council can make savings and generate income from its non-residential buildings.

The survey received 224 responses.

• Future support for the voluntary and community sector –  Almost half (48 per cent) of Panel members agreed that it is reasonable to reduce Council funding to the Voluntary and Community Sector given the current financial challenges, with 29 per cent agreeing and 19 per cent strongly agreeing. A total of 34 per cent disagreed (13 per cent strongly disagree and 21 per cent disagreed).
• Voluntary Sector Support Fund (VSSF) - The majority of respondents (62 per cent) believe that, given the financial context, core funding should still be provided through the VSSF. When asked which outcomes should be prioritised if core costs continue to be funded, the most common response was ensuring residents can access support that mitigates the impact of deprivation and disadvantage (62 per cent). When asked how funding should be prioritised if core costs continue with less funding available, the highest priority was given to those providing services directly to residents (51 per cent), this was followed by those working to reduce the effects of deprivation (44 per cent).
• Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) Property Policy – When asked to select which ideas Panel members thought would help make the Council's property arrangements with voluntary and community organisations fairer and more consistent, the most frequently selected option was introducing clear and consistent rent and lease terms for all VCS tenants (65 per cent). Responses were almost evenly split on whether it is fair for voluntary and community sector organisations using Council property to pay all bills, utilities, and business rates without financial support from the Council, half of respondents (50 per cent) agreed that this is fair, while 49 per cent thought not.
• Increasing income from Council owned properties – The majority (67 per cent) of Panel members supported the idea that the Council should seek to increase income from its properties to reduce savings required from frontline services. Overall Panel members show support for exploring options to increase Council income. The most popular option was co-locating services in communities so more services are available, selected by 74 per cent. Increasing the number of buildings generating commercial income was supported by 72 per cent, while reducing the number of operational buildings used by Council staff was chosen by 63 per cent.

Voluntary Sector Support Fund (VSSF):

• We are keeping the VSSF a core costs grants programme supporting the backbone of organisations' operations so they can do their best delivering for our residents.
• Around 85% of the programme budget will go to organisations that deliver services directly to residents.
• For each of the three years of funding £150,000 will be ringfenced for smaller organisations (Small Grants Fund). That's £25,000 per year for three years for six small organisations.
• Funding reductions will be staggered year-on-year, except for Small Grants Fund holders who will receive £25,000 per year for three years.
• We will fund organisations that do the most to reduce the effects of deprivation in the borough, and do the most for those residents with the greatest needs.
• We will be asking all applicants to demonstrate how they will mitigate the impact of deprivation and disadvantage in the borough, and this will be reinforced in grant funding agreements and through monitoring visits.

Voluntary Community Sector (VCS):

The feedback from this survey will be used to influence the development of the Voluntary and Community Sector Leasing Policy which is still underway.

The Council continues to face significant and growing financial challenges, including rising service demand, sustained inflationary pressures, and the impact of the Fair Funding Review on core government funding. As a result, the Council is required to consider a range of options to ensure that it remains financially sustainable while continuing to protect residents most in need.

We asked for views on proposed changes to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

The consultation was carried out in line with the Council’s statutory consultation principles and legislative requirements. It sought views on proposed changes to the working-age council tax reduction scheme, including maintaining the current scheme or reducing the maximum level of support.

In total, 546 responses were received. High-level insights included:

• Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of respondents are not in favour of making changes to the scheme. This figure increases to 77 per cent for those that are receiving support from the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, compared to 22 per cent for those not receiving support.
• Overall, almost two-thirds (63 per cent) indicated that they disagreed, to some extent with the proposal to reduce Council Tax support to eligible households by 10 per cent.
• The majority (86 per cent) of those benefiting from the current scheme indicated that 10 per cent reduction in the scheme would have a large impact on them
• Almost three-quarters (72 per cent) disagreed, to some extent with the proposal to reduce Council Tax support to eligible households by 20 per cent
• The vast majority (94 per cent) of respondents, that are currently benefiting from the Scheme, indicated that being faced with an increased bill would have a large impact.
• While a small number of respondents supported reductions on the basis that all working-age residents should contribute, overall responses reflected strong opposition to reducing support for low-income households and highlighted risks of increased financial hardship, debt, and vulnerability
• Respondents were also invited to suggest alternative ways the council could address its financial pressures. Many respondents proposed savings or income-raising measures such as reducing internal costs, increasing charges on higher-value properties or second homes, or generating additional income through fees, charges, or sponsorship – all of which we are already pursuing through wider budget proposals.

On 28 January 2026 at Full Council, Councillors agreed to reduce Council Tax support by 10 per cent. This means people currently receiving 100 per cent relief on their bill will now receive 90 per cent relief.

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.

If new cycle hangars should be implemented at 24 locations across the borough.

In total 187 people responded to the consultation, with some respondents responding on multiple locations. Table 1 in the Consultation Report summarises the responses received.

The Council has decided to proceed as follows: