The Gaumont is an impressive development by Cadogan. It is currently being fitted out and is expected to be opened in Q4 this year by Curzon cinemas.

The main spaces at Curzon Chelsea will include:

The Main Stage – a 300-seat auditorium with Dolby Atmos sound and 4K projection, designed for premieres, screenings and large-scale events.

The Atrium – a central, flexible space for gatherings, receptions and live programming, with capacity for up to 300 guests.

Studio A – a highly adaptable studio supporting podcasts, writersʼ rooms, workshops and experimental screenings.

Studio B – a flexible screening and event space for up to 60 guests.

The Pod – a dedicated, fully equipped audio and video recording studio.

The Gallery – a bar, café and creative social space designed for informal working, meetings and day-to-day use

Curzon chairman and CEO Philip Knatchbull announced on 15th May 2026 “Curzon Chelsea reflects a rethinking of the role that Curzon holds at the cutting edge of the industry by creating a multi-purpose environment for the wider creative community. Our flagship location will span film, art, storytelling, content creation, podcasting, live performance and conversation-led events. In this sense, Curzon Chelsea brings together everything we have been envisioning for the future of Curzon and creative culture generally.  Curzon Chelsea will operate as an all-day destination, maximising the use of the flagship location. Screening rooms, studios, production facilities, a restaurant and bar, and flexible event spaces will operate concurrently within a single, interconnected site, enabling people to meet, collaborate and develop in real time.”

The building was named after Leon Gaumont, a French engineer who was one of the originators of cinematography.

Another was William Friese-Greene (1851-1921) whose basement workshop and studio was at 196 Kings Road (where the Gaumont now stands) and whose life is celebrated in the 1951 film “The Magic Box.” Starring Robert Donat.  Perhaps they will show the film on opening day!

Friese-Greene was a society photographer, with studios in London, Bath, and Bristol. In 1889 he patented a “chromophotographic camera” – the first to use a roll of celluloid film to capture a sequence of images, but it captured only 5 frames per second and was not a commercial success. He also patented x-rays, 3D film, and two-colour cinematography. However, he died almost bankrupt in 1921!

The post The Gaumont appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

An Application was made for planning permission to build a 34-storey skyscraper at the south end of Battersea Bridge,(since reduced to 29 storeys). The Chelsea Society objected.

On 24th April 2025 the Planning Committee of Wandsworth Council rejected the application.

Planning Officers at Wandsworth had recommended the scheme be rejected due to the size and harm to heritage assets, siding with over 5,000 petitioners and 2,004 public objections — although the scheme also had 1,892 comments in support. 

The Mayor of London refused to call the application in for decision by him, and the developers appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.  Their appeal was dismissed on 14th May 2026.

Historic England had also objected to the ‘visually intrusive and incongruous addition to the townscape’, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea described the scheme as ‘discordant, dominant and oppressive’.

This is what it would look like if permission had been granted (with thanks to Denis Strauss for the photo-montage)

The Chelsea Society and the Cheyne Walk Trust had objected as follows:

“The Chelsea Society exists in order to safeguard the unique heritage of our part of London. The Cheyne Walk Trust is a residents’ association for the Cheyne, Royal Hospital and River Thames Conservation Areas with members living on Cheyne Walk, Chelsea Embankment and adjacent streets.

Our joint objections are focussed on the severe potential damage and harm to the historic and celebrated views of and from the conservation areas along Chelsea’s north bank of the River Thames, a designated Area of Metropolitan Importance.

A crucial part of Chelsea’s heritage is its riverside which constitutes one of the most iconic vistas in London. It forms part of the Thames Conservation Area and the adjoining Cheyne and Royal Hospital Conservation Areas, which contain numerous listed buildings such as the Grade 1 listed Chelsea Old Church, the Grade 1 Royal Hospital Chelsea, the Grade 1 Chelsea Physic Garden, the Grade 2* Lindsey House, the Grade 2* Crosby Hall, the Grade 2* Albert Bridge and many other Grade 2 buildings. Its skyline forms a harmonious whole which has been a much loved feature of our city for centuries.

The proposed building would do huge damage to this heritage.  Although located in Battersea it would be visible from all over Chelsea and would dominate and overwhelm the whole of the riverside. It would be completely out of character with the existing skyline and would set a precedent for further high rise development on the Wandsworth side of the river that would destroy the whole nature of the area.

The proposed skyscraper is vastly too tall for the space and location envisaged. It breaches Wandsworth Council’s Planning Policy set out in July 2023 where the height restriction is 12 storeys and where regeneration is favoured over demolition in order to meet Zero Carbon policy goals. It is also completely out of keeping with the heights of the immediately surrounding buildings.

A development on this scale would also involve a significant increase in the requirement for supporting amenities and services, but there is no indication of how these would be met.

Finally it would generate traffic chaos, Traffic flows across Chelsea, Albert and Battersea Bridges are already at unsustainable levels and for much of the day Cheyne Walk/ Chelsea Embankment are gridlocked. A new skyscraper next to Battersea Bridge would make this even worse and would further overload the whole of the Chelsea and Battersea traffic system.

For all these reasons, but particularly because of the impact on the heritage of Chelsea’s riverside, we urge Wandsworth Council to reject this application. To allow this skyscraper to be built in this location would from a Chelsea perspective be an act of wanton vandalism.

Turning to the Wandsworth Local Plan aspects of this development, we support the objections made by the The Wandsworth Society, The Battersea Society and the Putney Society. More specifically we set out the following concerns:

1. The Riverside Area Strategy in the recently adopted Wandsworth Local Plan (July 2023), having gone through the full process with an independent Inspector, defined the application site (MB-B2-02) as suitable for buildings of 5-6 stories. Some debate might follow Appendix 2 of the Local Plan Policy LP4 that could arguably allow (TB-B2-04) a height of 7-12 stories on this site.

The present application for a 34-storey tower completely contravenes and ignores the spirit, purpose and detail of the Local Plan and the rigours of the Local Plan process.

2. The site is part of a group of buildings between the Grade II* Listed, Albert Bridge and the Grade II, Listed Battersea Bridge. Various Grade I Listed buildings are within sight of the location, as is Battersea Historic Park (Listed Grade II*). Two of Lord Foster’s buildings form the bulk of the river frontage of the Ransome’s Dock Quarter of which this is part and are a maximum of 7-12 stories. When designing his two buildings, Lord Foster respected the group value of the setting.

 “The principal building on the waterfront is eleven storeys high. Its massing is designed to respect the heights of neighbouring buildings and to frame the view of the river from the opposite bank.” (Foster & Partners).

The recent adjacent buildings for the Royal College of Art on a larger site adhere to their context and are of 5 Stories.

3. In the Planning Inspectorate’s Report on the Examination of the Wandsworth Local Plan of 23 June 2023, the Inspectors made a number of important comments concerning Tall and Mid-rise Buildings – Policy LP4.
4. 115. We considered the representations regarding the application of Policy LP4 and MM146 modifies its wording by deleting “will not be permitted” and replacing it with “The Council will seek to restrict proposals for tall buildings outside of the identified tall building zones”, ensuring that the policy is in general conformity with the London Plan. It must be acknowledged that a number of respondents also raised concern that the proposed modification to Policy LP4 has been regarded as the “watering down” of the policy by allowing tall buildings beyond Tall Building Zones. Thus, a careful balancing of the issues is required to ensure that the Policy meets the 4 tests as set out within the Framework.
5. The modification will allow a degree of flexibility and thus, providing opportunities for tall buildings where one can demonstrate other material considerations in support of a tall building beyond an identified tall building zone. However, it must be borne in mind that such opportunities are likely to be extraordinary rather than ordinary, and we are not persuaded that the Borough should be made a free for all in relation to tall buildings across Wandsworth. Such an approach would not be in accordance with the London Plan or be appropriate given the proximity of Westminster World Heritage Site and other Designated Heritage Assets that are spread across the Borough, as well as sensitivity in terms of amenity/living conditions and other important conservation and design considerations. The quality of many parts of the Borough would be vulnerable to buildings that are out of place with their surroundings as a result of their height.
6. Moreover, there is nothing persuasive before us to demonstrate that it is necessary to allow buildings to exceed the appropriate height range within the tall building zones as stated at Criterion D of Policy LP4. 

 7. In the Design Review Panel (DRP) letter to DP9 (planning consultant). Dated 6 March 2024, they state: “In the first DRP, the Panel expressed concerns that the height of the building had not been properly considered in terms of its visual impact on heritage assets. This proposal is a significant departure from the recently Adopted Local Plan. Both the tower and podium trigger consideration as tall buildings and both are non-compliant with the mid-rise zoning of the Plan.”

It is more than regrettable that this application not only ignores Local Plan policy but blindsights the built context. Through semantic, tautological and flawed post-rationalisation, the applicants seek to justify a 34-storey tower, half the width of the Thames. Battersea and Albert Bridges are the markers on this stretch of the river Thames; this small site does not warrant such gross overdevelopment with a new over-scaled marker.

8. Allowing a tower even approaching this height in breach of Local Plan policy would set a dangerous precedent.

9. Whilst the existing building and its adjacent public realm are of poor quality, the proposal fails to add sufficient public realm enhancement to justify approval.  DRP letter to DP9 of 6 March 2024.

“Unfortunately, we are not convinced the public benefits offered as mitigation are sufficient, and we still feel it seems overdevelopment for this tight and constrained site.”

10. Battersea Bridge Road is part of the Red Route traffic control system. It has double red lines along the frontage of the site, right in front of the two proposed residential entrances. Double red lines prevent “any stopping, loading or parking at any time”.  The proposed design fails to respond to this simple reality, would encourage continuous breaches and add to the existing substantial traffic congestion.

para 111 of the NPPF states; “Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. 

11. The submitted proposal has an unresolved fire strategy with the residential means of escape discharging through the car park. Such fundamental design considerations, especially post Grenfell, should be fully resolved before application submission. It would appear irresponsible to consider this 34-storey application for consent before fully resolving the safety regulations.

12. The architect’s Design & Access Statement (DAS) claims to provide “exemplar homes” and a “high quality residential experience” yet 50% of the affordable flats are single aspect.

The London Plan Guidance – Housing Design Standards (June 2023) – section C4 Aspect, orientation, daylight and sunlight states in C4.1 New homes should be dual aspect unless exceptional circumstances make this impractical or undesirable;

One of the single aspect typical affordable flats (DAS P59) shows a bedroom furniture layout with a wardrobe halfway across its only window. Yet the GIA daylight report claims that the “scheme performs excellently in daylight overall”

13. The podium rooftop play area fails to meet GLA play space requirements for the affordable occupants and provides nothing at all for the market occupants.

14. Whilst GLA and London Local Plans seek to reduce reliance on private cars and encourage more sustainable movement.  The scheme provides only 18 car parking spaces for 143 apartments (8%). Where is it envisaged that 92% of the residents will park? The site has a PTAL 3 rating that represents only average public transport connectivity.

15. The submitted draft Construction Management Plan (CMP) implies an overall construction programme of c.two-and-a half to three years. Given the constraints and footprint of the site and the proposed height, this is unrealistically optimistic – it would undoubtedly take longer. Further, the draft CTMP sets out a requirement for 200 to 450 HGV movements per month during the development period on the main access route and this includes  Battersea Bridge itself. The increased congestion on this already heavily trafficked Thames crossing would massively exacerbate congestion and inconvenience in the wider area for  residents and businesses across south west London.

Conclusion

The proposed building would create huge harm to Chelsea’s  heritage.  Although located in Battersea it would be visible from all over Chelsea and would dominate and overwhelm the whole of the riverside. It would be completely out of character with the existing skyline and would set a precedent for further high rise development on the Wandsworth side of the river which would destroy the whole nature of the area.

As observed by the DRP, the submission appears to have been rushed by the applicant team. This appears to be due to the timing of the option to purchase the site subject to obtaining planning consent for the present scheme.

The application site is “a unique location on a bend of the River Thames”, hence, is of extreme visibility along both sides of the riverside. This location deserves comprehensive and timely consideration not an ill-considered, hasty and greedy overdevelopment of a tight and constrained site.

Any development should comply with the London Plan and the recently adopted Wandsworth Local Plan policies. It should contribute to this important context rather than seek to ignore and ride roughshod over its sensitive setting. Approving, or even considering, this application would be to make a mockery of the Local Plan process.

In the light of these concerns, we jointly request  that the Council for Wandsworth refuse this application.”

The post Skyscraper Finally rejected! appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

It is with great regret that The Chelsea Society records the death on 5^th April 2026 of a long-standing and distinguished member, Dr. Paul Knapman. We send our condolences to his widow, Penny, and her family.

After Epsom college, he studied medicine at St George’s Hospital, qualifying as a doctor before deciding to pursue a career in forensic medicine and the law. He was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn, and in 1980 succeeded Gavin Thurston as HM Coroner for Westminster. He served until his retirement in 2011, having presided over many thousands of inquests into deaths arising from natural causes, accidents, and self-harm, but also from terrorism, and disaster. He heard evidence in numerous cases that attracted intense national and international attention, including those connected with the Iranian Embassy siege of 1980, and the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984.

He heard inquests arising from major acts of terrorism, including IRA bombings in London and, most notably, the 7 July 2005 attacks, when he served as the “incident coroner” for the multiple coordinated bombings that killed 56 people. His calm authority and organisational clarity were widely credited with helping families, officials and institutions navigate an unprecedented tragedy.

Transport disasters also fell within his jurisdiction, including the Clapham Junction rail crash, the Marchioness riverboat disaster, and later the Ladbroke Grove crash, each involving complex forensic, legal, and emotional challenges.  He also presided over many high-profile inquests involving public figures from politics, the arts and international society.

A memorial service will be held on Thursday 9th July at 11.30 at St Bride’s Church, Fleet Street, London EC4Y 8AY followed by a reception at Apothecaries’ Hall, Black Friars Lane, London EV4V 6ER. Please let the family know if you plan to attend via PAKMemorial2026@gmail.com

The post Paul Knapman appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

There will be a series of lectures this year about the Moravians and their church at Fetter Lane, which moved to Moravian corner (near World’s End) in Chelsea in WWII, and became the home and studio of sculptors Ernest and Mary Gillick.

For details and free tickets see   https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/fetter-lane-moravian-church-88137553153

The post The Moravians 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.

We are pleased that on 17th April 2026 the developers announced:

“From the outset, London Square and the National Army Museum sought to engage positively with neighbours, the wider community and local stakeholders in developing the plans. However, following the submission of the planning application in September 2025, we recognise that there has been a strong level of interest and feeling expressed by the community. We have carefully listened to this feedback, alongside comments from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In light of this, we have taken the decision to withdraw the current planning application. This will allow the project team the opportunity to review and amend the proposals in response to the feedback received, something which cannot be accommodated through the current application and the planning process in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Chelsea Society had campaigned against this application on the following grounds:

“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 Another reprieve! appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

The Chelsea Society understands that the redevelopment of the Marks & Spencer building has been postponed/abandoned, and that M&S have signed a new lease.  We do not yet know for how many years.

The post A Reprieve appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

This is John Rocque’s 1746 map of Chelsea, colourised by Matt Brown and reproduced here with his permission.

See https://londonist.substack.com/p/1746-chelsea-and-the-kings-road-mapped

The post 1746 map of Chelsea appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

This is a principal reason why The Chelsea Society has been working to protect Chelsea for nearly 100 years.

“These benefits arise from the profound emotional connections people form with familiar historic places – from piers and pubs to cinemas and churches – which also provide belonging and help us make sense of who we are.

The loss of cherished buildings and landmarks can cause grief and emotional distress, as seen by the reaction to the sudden demolition of the Crooked House pub in Staffordshire and the illegal felling of the iconic Sycamore Gap tree at Hadrian’s Wall.

Evidence in “Connecting People and Place: Valuing the Felt Experiences of Historic Places” also shows that historic places possess restorative qualities comparable to natural green spaces, promoting wellbeing.”

The report builds on Historic England research published in 2024 which found that the presence of nearby everyday historic places – rather than rare, exceptional sites – increases residents’ life satisfaction.

The post Historic Places are Vital appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

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.