The plaque is a gift from the Royal Mint, and the sculptor was the Royal Mint lead-designer Lee R. Jones.  It is located, by kind permission of the Moravian congregation, in the building at Moravian Close which was their studio. Their home is on the left of the picture below.

Mary is best known as the designer and sculptor of the first coin to bear the image of Queen Elizabeth II. Ernest is best known for the Cenotaph in Glasgow.

The plaque was unveiled by the great-nieces of Mary Gillick (Katherine Smith and Julia Stacey), seen here with a photograph of Mary aged about 18.

The plaque and the unveiling were arranged by Ian Foster.

Also present was Philip Attwood (former Keeper of Coins and Medals, at the British Museum).

Also present was Bella Hobson, the grand-daughter of Walter Godfrey, the architect responsible for the rebuilding of Chelsea Old Church and The Temple Church. He was also the first director and the inspiration behind the foundation of the National Buildings Record, the basis of today’s Historic England Archive, and edited or contributed to numerous volumes of the Survey of London.

The post Ernest & Mary Gillick appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Hired electric bikes are still being parked on pavements and in other places where they cause obstructions, and hazards to pedestrians. They are also encroaching upon spaces reserved for residents’ and visitors’ parking.

RBKC has authorised places where these bikes can and should be parked, but they are not always being respected.

We know that the Council has seized more than 1,000 bikes and fined the operators, but it does not have the resources to monitor this irresponsible behaviour on a sufficiently frequent basis. However the hiring companies do have the ability to “geo-fence” the authorised areas very accurately.

If they did this, hirers would not leave the bikes outside those areas because their credit-cards would continue to be charged.

If the hiring companies refuse to do this geo-fencing, their licence should be suspended or revoked.

In the case of the few hirers who would still leave a bike outside an authorised area, a fixed penalty should be imposed on the rider and collected via the credit card which the hiring company has taken, and the bike should be impounded until the hiring company pays for its release.

The post Obstruction by bikes appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

These house are in Durham Place, which was built in 1790 and is one of Chelsea’s most iconic terraces.

The window on the left has the delicate glazing bars typical of that period in architectural history.

In the window on the right all this has been ripped out, and replaced with an ugly plate glass window which disfigures the entire terrace.

How could this have been permitted? – if indeed it has ever been permitted.

It would be a valuable service to Chelsea if the owner removed the plate glass window and restored the glazing bars.

The Chelsea Society would expect RBKC to permit this restoration.

The post A Tale of two Windows appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Margaret Thompson MA, MPhil, DPsych, CPsychol, AFBPsS

It is with great regret that The Chelsea Society records the death of Dr. Margaret Thompson on 28^th January 2026.

Her Memorial Service at Christchurch Chelsea at 12 noon on Saturday 28^th March 2026, and a reception at the Sketch Club in Dilke St. afterwards. were attended by the Council of the Society and many of its members, and many of Margaret’s friends and family, together with the Leader of RBKC and several Councillors.

Margaret was the wife of the Society’s Chairman Dr. James Thompson, and had lived in Paradise Walk, Chelsea, since 1982. She successfully led a campaign to oppose major development in Paradise Walk in 1983, and in 2006 she led the “Save Sloane Square” campaign, which was successful in preserving the Square. She became Secretary of the King’s Road Association of Chelsea Residents, and acting Membership Secretary of the Chelsea Society.

Her distinguished academic and professional career began in 1963 as a Posner Scholar at New Hall, Cambridge, where she wrote a  Dissertation on “Cerebral Dominance and Reaction Times,” supervised by Professor Oliver Zangwill, the father of Neuropsychology. In 1965 she coxed the Cambridge Coxswains’ eight – beating Oxford on the Cam.

In 1966 she was a research experimental psychologist at Oxford University Psychology Department with Professor Jeffrey Gray on “learning theory, fear and stress” and devised a histological method for oestrus cycle determination.  A distinguished academic and professional career then led to her appointment as Honorary Consultant at the Royal Brompton Hospital.

In 1973 she was Lecturer in Psychology, at the Middlesex Hospital Medical School; in 1975 Senior Clinical Psychologist at the  Westminster Hospital; from 1976-2000 Consultant at The Priory Hospital, Roehampton; and in 1977 Educational Psychologist for the Inner London Education Authority.

From 1987 until retirement in 2021 she was in Private Practice, and acted as an Expert Witness in many cases.

She leaves her husband James, her daughter Alyson, and her grand-daughter Seraphina.

The post Margaret Thompson appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

The Chelsea Society has been fighting for many years, with other local people and our successive MPs and Councillors, to protect the houseboat community and the essential character of Chelsea Reach.  This is because the operator of the moorings has been evicting traditional houseboats and replacing them with much larger box-like floating structures.

The Planning Applications Committee of RBKC decided on no less than three separate occasions that this activity constitutes a breach of planning control and issued an Enforcement Notice to compel the removal of two mega-boats. Unfortunately they were overruled by a Government Inspector in respect of those two boats, and there are now four of them in place.

The Planning laws have so far failed the people and the Conservation Area which they were enacted to protect, and the Chelsea Society will renew its efforts to get at least two of the mega-boats removed.

Fortunately, this may not be necessary as the company which owns the company that operates the moorings is now in Administration. The opportunity has therefore arisen for a not-for-profit company owned by the boat-owners themselves to buy the assets of the operating company from the Administrator. We understand that the boat-owners have a corporate vehicle ready to do this, with funds from boat-owners and supporters.

This would solve the problem of restoring the appearance of the moorings and protecting the community without any further recourse to the planning laws, because a company owned by the houseboat community itself would remove the mega-boats and would not in future accept any boats which did not respect the character of Chelsea Reach.  We understand that this would be supported by RBKC, and by the Port of London Authority who own the river-bed on which the moorings stand.

Of great importance for the houseboat community – the owner-occupiers of the boats would get long-term security of tenure, and protection from excessive licence fees, mooring charges and service-charges.

The Chelsea Society gives its full support to the Chelsea houseboat community in this endeavour.

The post Houseboats News appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

The post LOTS ROAD appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Along the River Thames and other rivers and canals people have made their homes on boats. Some people own their boat and others rent it from someone else.

All these boat owners are vulnerable because, if they rent the boat their tenancy may be terminated, and even if they own the boat it may be evicted from its mooring.

Although the boats are their homes, these people do not enjoy any protection from eviction or harassment as do tenants who occupy a house or a flat on land.

The Chelsea Society tried to close this loophole in the law, and proposed the following amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill which has just received Royal Assent.

“That Clause 64 of the Renters (Reform) Bill be amended as follows:

64. Meaning of “the 1988 Act”

(1) In this Act “the 1988 Act” means the Housing Act 1988.

(2) The definition of “dwellinghouse” in section 45(1) of the 1988 Act shall include a boat used as a dwelling, and the berth where such boat is moored.

(3) References in the said section to a tenancy shall include a licence to occupy such boat and/or berth, and references to a tenant shall include a person occupying such boat and/or berth by virtue of a licence from the person having control of such boat and/or berth.  References to rent shall include a licence fee.”

This amendment was proposed to the Conservative government before the 2024 General Election, and was again proposed to the Labour government after the election.  Unfortunately neither of them acted upon it, and people who live on boats are still vulnerable.

The post Houseboat dwellers appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

The Society has been involved, along with Tite Street residents and the Cheyne Walk Trust, in a series of consultation meetings with London Square, a Middle East owned development company, about their proposals for the demolition and re-development of the former St Wilfrid’s Care Home. Our concerns have focussed on both the use and the design of the new building. Above is a computer-generated image of what the proposed building would look like, together with the existing buildings.

PLANNING APPLICATION PP/25/04989, 29 Tite Street: Objection by the Chelsea Society

The Chelsea Society has reviewed this application with particular care.  Tite Street is one of the most iconic streets in Chelsea.  It is unique not only because of its cultural, artistic and historic heritage, but also because of its distinctive architectural style. Few streets have such a concentration of Grade 2 and Grade 2* buildings.  It is a key part of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area.  The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places à “higher duty” on the Council in the consideration of proposals in Conservation Areas to ensure that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

In the Chelsea Society’s view this application falls significantly short of the quality required to meet this criterion.  We therefore urge the Council to reject the application in its present form and to require the applicants to make significant changes to it.

This reflects the advice which the applicants have already received from Council officers and from the Council’s Quality Review Panel.  We understand that there have been seven sets of pre-application advice from Council officers and two reports from the Quality Review Panel.  The pre-application advice letters of 27 January, 31 January and 24 February 2025 are of particular relevance.  Key elements of this advice have been ignored or inadequately implemented.

Our concerns relate to the use of the site, the scale and massing of the proposed building and the failure properly to preserve garden space and townscape gaps.

USE OF THE SITE

Both Council officers and the Quality Review Panel recommended that any new development should retain an element of care provision and should include some form of onsite community use.  The proposed building contains neither.  Officers’ advice reflected Local Plan 2024 Policy HO5 which requires that social and community use of the kind which St Wilfrid’s Care Home constituted must be protected  “unless the loss is to improve sub-standard accommodation or increase the existing provision on the site.”  There is an established need for such accommodation in Kensington and Chelsea as evidenced by the Local Housing Needs Assessment 2022.  We do not think it acceptable that the applicant can decline to consider any element of care provision simply on the basis that their own expertise is in residential property.

Nor do we accept that the requirement to maintain a significant element of social and community use can be discharged simply by the provision of more exhibition space to the National Army Museum site next door.  The Chelsea Society is supportive of the Museum’s wish to expand.  But we do not feel that on its own this expansion can constitute local social and community use.

This was also the view of Council officers who in their pre-planning advice letter of 27 January 2025 said:

“4.12.  The need for further social and community use floor space within the building itself is likely required.

4.15.  The need to provide social and community space is a requirement of the Local Plan 2024 Policies.  The extension of the NAM would not be considered a “public benefit” which could be utilised to outweigh other deviations from policy.”

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

It is a long-standing Council policy that when an element of affordable housing is required in à development (as it is in this case), it should be provided on site other than in very exceptional circumstances. Council officers reminded the applicants of this requirement in their pre-application advice letter of 27 January 2025 in which they stated:

“4.30. Community housing must be provided on site unless exceptional circumstances justified by robust evidence support the provision of off-site within the Borough or by providing a payment in lieu.

4.31. Payment in lieu will only be acceptable as a last resort where it is physically impractical to provide the Community housing on site or it is inappropriate in terms of the numbers that can be provided on site.”

The applicants have ignored this advice.   But they are proposing to demolish entirely the existing building.  They therefore have a blank canvas on which to design its replacement.  There is no practical reason why they could not have designed a building with 35% Community housing on site.  If the Council were to allow them to make a payment in lieu this would effectively make a mockery of the Council’s own policy and would exacerbate a trend where no, or hardly any, Community housing is included in new developments in the Chelsea part of the Borough.

SCALE, HEIGHT AND MASSING

We agree that the existing St Wilfrid’s building is mediocre in character and constitutes a “negative building” in the Buildings Audit.  We welcome its replacement with a building more in keeping with its surroundings.

But the mass, scale and height of what is proposed as its replacement would, in our view, give rise to substantial harm to the Conservation Area.  The proposed development would be above 21 metres in places (measured to parapet height) which even the applicants acknowledge is potentially in breach of Local Plan Policy CD8.  Figure 6.3 of the Local Plan clearly indicates that Tite Street is not an appropriate location for tall buildings.  This is confirmed in the comments by Council officers in their pre-application response of February 2024 at paragraph 4.33:

“Tall  buildings will only be acceptable within the locations that are identified for tall buildings ………… the site is not a site allocation and the site has not been identified as a suitable site for a tall building.  As such, the maximum height of the building should be below the 21m threshold.”

Council officers reiterated this point in paragraphs 4.3 – 4.6 of their pre-application letter of 31 January 2025.

The proposed building would result in an increased canyonisation effect in this part of Tite Street as a result of the excessive height of the building itself and the loss of a significant part of the current townscape gap.  This would be harmful to the character of Tite Street and of the surrounding Conservation Area and would worsen the outlook from the houses opposite.  Council officers emphasised this in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of their pre-application letter of 31 January 2025:

“The proposed height of the building in combination with the design and massing results in a dominant built form.  The mansard style design of the roof results in a horizontal emphasis with no break of massing, emphasising the impression of height, mass, and sits in sharp contrast with the roof profiles along Tite Street.  The height of the proposed building should be reduced and should sit no more than between 6 and 5 storeys, with the higher storey not continuing the length of the street”.

It is important therefore that any new building on the site should be below 21 metres in height; and that the height over the Tite Street gap/garden where the existing Convent Chapel is located, should be no higher than the current height of the Chapel.

The west side of Tite Street is marked by a variety of building heights.  This was deliberately intended from the very beginnings of development in the street, with buildings being commissioned for their individuality.  It is a feature which should be replicated in any building on the other side of the street.  The building proposed in this application does not reflect this.  It is too uniform and slab-like and is over-dominant in relation with the properties on the other side of the street.

TOWNSCAPE GAPS AND GARDENS

The current Conservation Area Statement for the Royal Hospital Conservation Area (March 2016) emphasises the importance of the Townscape Gaps in Tite Street as an important breathing space in the dense urban environment.  Any change to these gaps would therefore be in direct conflict with RBKC’s Local Plan 2024 Policies CD2, CD3 and CD4.  The gaps, particularly the “garden” gap at the southern end of the site, should therefore be preserved as they stand.

The current application fails to do this.  It would involve the encroachment of new build of up to 5 storeys (about 20 metres in height) over at least 50% of the existing townscape gap.  This would vitiate much of the benefit of the proposed green space (which in any case would be significantly smaller than the existing garden) and would erode this gap to the detriment of the street and to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

Paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 of the Council’s pre-application letter of 24 February 2025 emphasise this point and indicate the unacceptability of the proposed intrusion into the Tite Street gap.  It notes that the existing Chapel is effectively single storey and that a 5 storey structure over the whole of this part of the gap would be harmful to the Conservation Area in general and to the settings of two Grade II listed buildings,  ie 44 and 46 Tite Street in particular.  The advice states at 3.10:

“As previously identified, it is recommended that development is pulled back to the established building in line with the Chapel.  The existing building line does intrude into important gap 1, which does establish a base line for development, albeit the built form in this location is primarily single storey.  Development within the gap should therefore need to further reduce the overall height proposed where it intrudes into important gap 1.  This should offer the opportunity to create an architecturally distinct building(s) to sit aside the main proposed mansion block.  Such an alteration will also aid in addressing the grain of the proposed built form, being more responsive to the existing grain along Tite Street”.

The applicants have failed to follow this advice.  The Council should insist that they do so.

A further consequence of the overbearing nature of the proposed building would be a damaging impact on the light enjoyed by the historic listed studio apartments on Tite Street, in particular nos 34, 44 and 46.  The townscape gap and St Wilfrid’s garden are intrinsic to the wider context and setting of these houses and to their architectural and historic heritage.  This was noted by Council officers in their pre-application letter of February 2024:

“This gap provides a relief and breathing space in the dense urban environment, as well as allowing glimpses of the open spaces and the tops of the buildings behind the site. It is also an established part of the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings”.

The importance of the artists’ studios in Tite Street, and their relationship to the townscape gap and garden is recognised in paragraph 6.17 of the Local Plan and Policy CD1 (context and character).   In their pre-application letter of 31 January 2025, paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19, Council officers noted:

“the impact of the proposed built form with nos 44 and 46 should be carefully considered and the height may need to be reduced to ensure its significance is preserved ……… the impact on no 44 in particular is of concern.  Currently the overall height appears to exceed the terminus of those buildings on Tite Street, which in combination with the horizontal massing proposed, does appear overly dominated. The height should be reduced and the massing broken up to reflect the vertical emphasis of the listed buildings on Tite Street.”

Again the applicants have failed to follow this advice.  We urge the Council to insist that the unique characteristics of the current buildings in Tite Street are not compromised by the redevelopment of St Wilfrid’s.  What the applicants are currently proposing is not, in the view of the Chelsea Society, compatible with this important part of Chelsea’s heritage.

I would be grateful if you would record the Chelsea Society as the author of these comments when you publish them on the planning website.

Paul Lever

Chairman of the Planning Committee

The Chelsea Society

If members of the Society want to comment on the application a link is available on the RBKC planning website under reference PP/25/04989. The website of the Tite Steet Association (https://friendsoftitestreet.co.uk) sets out the concerns of local residents about what is proposed.

The post Tite Street appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

A world first for heart care — right here in Chelsea

See a short video at https://youtu.be/v86pO2-5KMo?si=0nMBZBvaEo8THu91

The Royal Brompton Hospital has always been at the forefront of heart and lung care — from the UK’s first hole-in-the-heart operation in 1956 to Europe’s first Cystic Fibrosis (CF) clinic 1965. Today, it’s recognised as one of the world’s top ten cardiology hospitals — and it’s right on our doorstep. Expert surgeons perform highly specialised, life-saving procedures every day. They’re already pioneering minimally invasive techniques, but now we can further revolutionise complex surgery – treating more patients and saving more lives.

Now, the Chelsea community has the chance to lead the way again. With your help Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals Charity want the Royal Brompton to be the first in the UK to have a Robot Assisted Cardiac Surgery Programme with the ground-breaking da Vinci 5 system.

What does that mean? Surgeons will be able to perform life-saving procedures through tiny keyhole incisions instead of traditional open-heart surgery. For patients, this means faster recovery, fewer complications, and safer options for those who might not otherwise be strong enough for surgery.

This incredible step forward will take place here in Chelsea. But it needs the support of people who care about their local hospital. Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity is raising £1.7 million to help fund the da Vinci 5 system.

Together, we can make history in Chelsea. 

By supporting this project, you’ll help ensure Royal Brompton Hospital can continue to deliver world-class care for generations to come.

Contact us:

If you’d like to find out more and what your support can bring, please contact Tracey or Phil in the Philanthropy team at philanthropy@rbhcharity.org, call us on 0203 096 2950 or 0204 553 7403 or to make a direct donation click here

The post Royal Brompton Hospital appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

The official re-opening of the Trafalgar public house, relocated to 224- 226 Kings Rd. (on the corner with Chelsea Manor St) was on Trafalgar day 21^st October 2025. It was attended by the Chairman of The Chelsea Society, and the Vice-chairman whose ancestor fought in the battle 220 years ago.

The grade II Listed Building, constructed in 1910, was designed by Reginald Blomfield as a bank, (latterly the Nat West Bank) in the ‘Wrenaissance’ style, the elevations comprising soft red brick and Portland ashlar on a plinth of grey granite.

The building has been sensitively converted to  a pub and restaurant, with a theatre venue in the basement, named the Havannah Room (after  HMS Havannah, launched in 1811 and commanded by the 3^rd Earl Cadogan during the Napoleonic wars).

Many historic details have been retained, including the high ceilings which give a sense of spaciousness.  The dining area has been separated from the ‘pub’ space, creating an elegant linear room, with beautiful Montgolfier-Empire chandeliers, the whole both cosy and grand at the same time.

The Trafalgar retains a ‘real pub’ feel with  timber panelled booths and the walls adorned with mosaic-esque panels, and a collection of  historic images and paintings, including  some facsimiles which refer to the building’s past as a bank.

The front door  has a heavily moulded surround with a triple keystone, above which is a carved panel bearing a crown and anchor (as if the architect foresaw that one day the building would become The Trafalgar pub!)  and a festoon, which is now adopted as the logo for the Pub, – a rare bond between the new establishment and the building it has adopted.

The post THE TRAFALGAR PUB appeared first on The Chelsea Society.