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.

The Gaumont is currently being fitted out with three screens and is expected to open later this year.  It 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. He died almost bankrupt in 1921.

The post The Gaumont 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.

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.