Planning & Environment Archives - The Chelsea Society

Houseboats News

Michael Stephen — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 17:40:02 +0000

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.

LOTS ROAD

Michael Stephen — Sun, 14 Dec 2025 20:15:55 +0000

The Chairman of the Society’s Planning Committee, Sir Paul Lever, has written to the Chairman and members of the RBKC Planning Committee as follows:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Chelsea Society about the planning application for the redevelopment of Lots Road South (PP/25/04416) which you are due to consider at your meeting on 16 December.

The Chelsea Society exists to protect the interests of all those who live and work in Chelsea and to preserve and enhance the character of this unique part of London. We have over 1100 members. We urge you to scrutinise this application with particular care, not least because the Council is the landowner and development sponsor as well as the planning authority. It is important therefore that you apply the same standards to it as you would to an application in which the Council did not have its own commercial vested interest.

The site was subject to a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as well as a specific Site Allocation in the 2024 New Local Plan. Both these documents were themselves subject to lengthy public consultation and in the case of the Site Allocation to review by the Planning Inspectorate which demanded changes to the wording originally proposed by Council officers. It seems to us that on any objective analysis the application cannot be considered to be compatible with the requirements set out in these documents. For example:

The site falls within an Employment Zone (the only such zone in Chelsea) and development should only be permitted if it is employment-led and respects the agent of change principle. The Planning Inspector set the employment requirements as having ‘Around 4,000 sq m (GIA) of commercial floorspace (Class E and B8) of which at least 3,000 sq m will be business floorspace (Class E(g) office, research and development or light industrial or B8 storage or distribution). The Planning Application states that the commercial floorspace within the Employment Zone is 1,438.7 sq m. This is less than half the minimum requirement of 3,000 sq m established by the Planning Inspector and therefore cannot be considered employment-led.
The SPD and Site Allocation, endorsed by the Planning Inspector, set the maximum heights between 6 and 10 storeys. The Planning Application includes two buildings within RBKC, one 13 storeys and the other 11 storeys. It therefore fails the Council’s own policy on heights.
The SPD and the Site Allocation sets the number of new gross residential (C3) units at ‘Around 100’. The Planning Application proposes more than double this number, with 209 units. During the New Local Plan process, officers tried to change ‘around’ to ‘a minimum of’ and the Planning Inspector explicitly rejected this, given the constrained nature of the site and the need for the development to be employment-led. The Planning Application therefore manifestly fails the quantum-of-development test established in the Site Allocation and the SPD.
There are numerous other defects in the Planning Application when measured against the SPD and the Site Allocation, such as the lack of variation in the roofline along Lots Road, the lack of respect for the scale of buildings along Lots Road, the loss of the Auction House, the lack of a buffer zone along the railway line and the absence of a workable servicing plan within the development.

The report from Council officers invites you to ignore these inconsistencies and to endorse an application which is wrong both in law and in policy and which will be will be resented by local residents and businesses. The Chelsea Society urges you not to do so without further reflection. The Lots Road Forum has submitted detailed proposals for improving the scheme to make it more compliant with the New Local Plan and which would in their view not jeopardise its underlying viability. They would tackle the problem of the canyonisation of Lots Road, as well as design issues, traffic congestion and the future operation of the community centre and of the affordable workspace units.

These suggestions have not been addressed in the report before you. We urge you, before taking any final decision, to require the Applicants to address them seriously and to discuss them with local representatives.

The post LOTS ROAD appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Marks & Spencer site

Michael Stephen — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 09:00:41 +0000

We have heard that the demolition of this building has been delayed, and may not happen at all.

We hope that it will not be demolished, as it is a serviceable building, and the environmental costs of demolition and rebuilding are not sustainable. In addition, the noise, vibrations and dust, would cause a serious diminution in the quality of life for local people, as would yet another dsruption of traffic on the Kings Road for an exended period.

We hope that M&S will remain on this site as long as possible because their shop is much valued by our members and the wider local community.

**************

HISTORY

The Chelsea Society and very many local people had objected to this planning application, but two Chelsea members of the RBKC Planning Applications Committee abstained, thereby allowing permission for demolition and rebuilding to be granted. The Mayor of London decided to let the development go ahead.

On 11th June 2025 the Developers met with the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Society and the Chairman of its Planning Committee. They informed us that Marks & Spencer would close in January 2026, and would re-open with a food-store only, about 30 months later. We impressed upon them the importance of traffic management, so that vehicles would load and unload on site and so that the Kings Road would be obstructed for the absolute minimum of time. We also requested that any obstructions be removed at weekends and in other periods when no work was being done. We also asked that the movements of heavy vehicles be kept to a mimimum and that use should be made of the river for transporting heavy materials. We were pleased to hear that the existing vehicular access to the underground car park would not be narrowed, so that two cars would still be able to pass, although the planning consent had reduced the number of spaces available to shoppers.

The Chairman of the Planning Committee of the Chelsea Society, Sir Paul Lever, had written to the Mayor of London as follows:

“I am writing on behalf of the Chelsea Society about the planning application to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) ref. PP/23/00968 for the demolition and redevelopment of 81 – 103 King’s Road SW3 4NX, which has been resolved for approval by the RBKC Planning Committee and which will shortly be being submitted as a Stage 2 Referral to the GLA.

The Chelsea Society was founded in 1927 to preserve and improve the amenities of Chelsea for the public benefit. We have over a thousand members. We strongly urge you to reject this application, which in our view is incompatible with a number of local, London and national policies.

Our objections reflect those set out in the letter to you of 6 November (copy attached) from Gail Collins on behalf of the Directors of the Charles ll Place Management Ltd and in the two independent reports, on the heritage and environmental aspects of the application, referenced in that letter. (Charles II Place objection 6.11.23) We support all the arguments made by Ms Collins. We attach particular importance to two issues.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOLITION

The application proposes the demolition of a building which is only 40 years old and which is in serviceable condition. Emerging Policy GB2 of the Local Plan prioritises retention and refurbishment over demolition and rebuilding. Similarly London Plan Guidance requires the benefits of redevelopment to clearly outweigh the harm arising from demolition. The only public benefits associated with this redevelopment would be a small increase in office space, for which in Chelsea there is not a high demand. This would be offset by a reduction of one third in retail space for which in the King’s Road there is an identified shortage. Overall therefore the impact would be negative.

HERITAGE AND TOWNSCAPE

The proposed building would be significantly taller than its surroundings and would be damaging to the heritage of Chelsea. In the consideration of the application by RBKC proper attention was not paid to the potential impact on important heritage assets. RBKC planning officers took the view that no harm would be caused. By contrast your colleagues in the GLA assessed the level of harm as less than substantial; and the specialist conservation architect, Mr Paul Velluet, rates it as on the border between less than substantial and substantial.

National Policy (NPPF para 202) requires that even a level of less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of an application. In this case there are no such benefits.

There are other aspects of the application which, in the view of the Chelsea Society, are objectionable. They are set out in Ms Collins’s letter. The fact that there is a huge amount of local opposition to it, reflected in a petition with thousands of signatures, is also relevant. So too is the prospect of the partial closure of the King’s Road carriageway for up to two years. But we believe that the issues of the acceptability of demolition and the damage to Chelsea’s heritage and townscape are particularly compelling. We hope therefore that the Mayor will use his authority to reject the application.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lever

Chairman, the Planning Committee, the Chelsea Society”

See below a letter from local resident Graham Love to Cllr. Elizabeth Campbell, leader of RBKC.

“Governance failures in Council proceedings”

I am writing on behalf of my friends and neighbours of the Smith Street Residents Association to bring to your attention serious failings of governance in the way that the Planning Department and the Planning Committee currently function.

This is particularly concerning given that many of these issues were flagged in a report commissioned by you over 2 years ago, which identified a “qualitative and quantitative deficit in effective council engagement”, but have apparently continued unchecked.

It is disappointing, to say the least, that a council that claims on its website to put residents’ concerns at the centre of its decision-making, in practice pays no heed to these concerns at all.

We base our observations on the process we have seen followed during planning application PP/23/00968, which is the application to demolish the existing building at 81-103 Kings Road, currently majority occupied by M&S, and replace it with a new, much larger building.

You will be aware that there was very substantial local opposition to this proposal, with over 1300 residents submitting written objections and over 4,000 signing a petition asking for the application to be rejected.

In addition, local residents commissioned and submitted at their own expense reports by planning consultants, carbon consultants and heritage experts, which clearly demonstrated that the project breached the council’s planning guidelines; was unnecessarily damaging to the environment, and was of an inappropriate scale for the heritage and conservation areas situated all around this site.

Our experience as residents seeking to engage with the planning process in the run-up to the Committee meeting itself was quite negative, and it was clear that the developer got much better access than we did as concerned local citizens.

Planning officers are reluctant to engage with residents or to provide information unless forced by FOI requests. The planning website is poorly organised making it very difficult to track documents, comments etc.

Turning to the Committee process itself, as an experienced Chairman myself I was surprised at how this was run.

The objectors had submitted detailed factual reports on the impact of this project from both a heritage and carbon emission perspective, as well as planning consultants who had identified a significant number of RBKC policy breaches, and these experts also presented their cases at the Committee.

An overwhelming concern was the excessive bulk of the proposed building on a site surrounded by listed buildings and conservation areas.

However, there was no 3D model presented to the committee, only scarcely intelligible drawings. The objectors had commissioned architect-drawn CAD drawings showing the new perspectives, but these were not permitted to be shown to the Committee.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary and extensive objection from local residents, the Chairman was happy to accept bland assurances from the applicant and from planning officers that “it was all ok”, ignoring the additional evidence presented by the objectors.

The carbon emissions report, which clearly showed that rebuilding would create vastly more environmental damage than refurbishment, was not even addressed, other than obtaining equally bland assurances from the applicant that the existing building, despite being less than 40 years old “could not be brought up to modern standards”.

At no time was there a proper discussion of the fundamental objections raised by residents to this development, nor any real acknowledgment of their concerns for the impact on the area.

As you will know, the normal practice in a meeting is for the Chair to request views from the members of the committee and then to sum up, adding any personal views of their own as appropriate.

In this case, the Chair led off with his own views, which paid no heed to the views of residents, and only afterward did he ask members of the committee to offer their own.

Despite this rather dictatorial approach, 3 of the 5 members of the committee expressed concerns about the proposal. In the end, the proposal was carried by only 2 votes (including the Chair) out of 5, with 2 members abstaining- which is itself an extraordinarily poor way to reach a decision.

In summary, we believe this preference for the interests of an overseas developer over those of local residents represents a clear failure of proper governance and a breakdown of local democracy, and we invite you to examine the processes currently followed by the Planning Committee with a view to putting urgent corrective measures in place.

Yours sincerely

Graham Love

Chelsea

10 October 2023

The post Marks & Spencer site appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Planning Committees

Michael Stephen — Wed, 23 Jul 2025 19:07:53 +0000

An attempt by Government to squeeze out of planning system most of what little is left of local democratic accountability.

See the Chelsea Society’s submission 22.7.25

TCS Response to consultation

The post Planning Committees appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Skyscraper rejected!

Michael Stephen — Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0000

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

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 has refused to call the application in for decision by him, but we would expect the developers to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

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 were granted (with thanks to Denis Strauss for the photo-montage)

The Chelsea Society and the Cheyne Walk Trust had objected to Wandsworth Council 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:

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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 rejected! appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

Sloane Sq

Michael Stephen — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 17:05:54 +0000

The Society has been consulted by Cadogan and RBKC about the possible widening of pavements around the Square.

The public consultation is now at Sloane Square Pavement Scheme – Kensington and Chelsea’s Consultation and Engagement Hub – Citizen Space (rbkc.gov.uk)

Easing pedestrian congestion would be a good idea, and it can probably be done without impeding traffic flows around the Square.

Members may be interested to know that in its very first Annual Report (1928) the Council of the Society said that “It is naturally interested in the prospective layout of Sloane Square, where the roundabout traffic system has been permanently adopted. Various attractive suggestions have been made, but it is understood that apart from financial considerations, there are difficulties due to the Underground Railway and the existing public conveniences. The Borough Council have courteously promised, through our late Chairman, Sir Albert Gray KCB, KC, that the Society shall have an opportunity of seeing the plans when these have taken shape.”

The post Sloane Sq appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

S. KENSINGTON STATION

Michael Stephen — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:35:34 +0000

We were informed on 13th December 2023 that the Planning inspector had allowed the developer’s appeal, and overturned the refusal by RBKC of all proposals except the introduction of shop fronts to the grade II-listed pedestrian subway.

For The Chelsea Society’s views on the redevelopment of this station see TCS submission on SOUTH KENSINGTON STATION

………………………………………….

On 30th May 2021 The Chairman of The Chelsea Society’s Planning Committee had made the following further submission to the members of the Planning Committee of RBKC:

Dear Councillors,

I am writing, as chairman of the Planning Committee of the Chelsea Society, to urge you at your meeting on 3 June to refuse Planning Application PP/20/03216 for the refurbishment of South Kensington station.

1,900 objections to it have been registered on the RBKC website, including from all the local amenity and residents organisations, as well as from the Kensington and Chelsea Societies. All the ward Councillors of the Brompton and Hans Town ward, the local MP and the local member of the Greater London Assembly have also expressed their opposition. This is a formidable expression of public opinion, which deserves to be respected.

The main reasons for this opposition is the design, character and size of the proposed building and its incompatibility with the surrounding Conservation Area. It is modern, unsympathetic, overly dominant, and destructive of important vistas and views. To approve its construction would be in breach of the Council’s
Statutory Duty of Care to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas under Section 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990. It would also be incompatible with the following Council policies:

CL1 Context and Character

CL3 and CL4 Heritage Assets

CO5 Renewing the Legacy

CL8 and CL9 Existing Buildings.

Detailed analyses of the application’s deficiencies are set out in the many submissions from associations and individuals which the Council has received.

Council officers, in the report which they have submitted to you on the application, do not in the main dissent from these comments. Their report is replete with negative assessments of the building’s suitability. To cite just a few:

They describe it in para 1.7 as “alien and out of keeping with its context”; and they note in para 1.8 its “failure to preserve the character and appearance of the Thurloe/Smith’s Charity Conservation Area”.

They say of The Bullnose design that “the increased height leads to a cliff face to the rear; and that the finished result is a building that is unsympathetic in regards to the setting of the listed building to the rear, over which it looms in an overly dominant way which is harmful to its setting”.

As regards Thurloe Street they note that “the creation of what is effectively a large monolithic building…would erode an important element of the character of the Conservation Area: and that “the proposed roof addition will be visible in views from Exhibition Road and neighbouring streets”.

They refer to the alien façade proposed for Pelham Street, note that “the scale, massing and continuous form of the proposals is harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area” and conclude that “the massing, particularly at roof level, is over-dominant in relation to the buildings on the South side of the street”.

They describe the proposed roof level for the Thurloe Square building as having a “top heavy and overly dominant appearance that is inconsistent with the existing terrace to Thurloe Square (west) as well as the bother terraces around the Square” and conclude that the proposals are “harmful to the setting of the listed buildings on Pelham Place and Thurloe Square as well as the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”.

They also recognise that harm will be done to the surviving Victorian wall of The Station whose setting will be “adversely affected by the Bullnose building and the loss of the rear elevation of Thurloe Place”.

But despite all these criticisms (and the many others which are contained in their report) officers, bizarrely, recommend approval of the application. Their reason for doing so is that they characterise all the potential harm as less than substantial; and they claim that this harm is outweighed by the advantage of the construction of 50 new units of accommodation, 17 of which will be affordable (though only on the basis of the Discount London Living Rent).

Officers do not provide any evidence for these judgements; and it would set a hugely damaging precedent if the Planning Committee simply accepted them unchallenged. Whether the level of harm done by the proposed building is substantial or less than substantial, and whether it is outweighed by the provision of a certain quantity or type of accommodation, are matters of political appreciation which elected Councillors are much better placed to make than unelected officers.

On any reasonable analysis the comments made by local residents and amenity associations, and by Council officers themselves, suggest that the term “less than substantial” does not do justice to the scale of the damage which the proposed building would do to the surrounding area; and the benefit from the accrual of 17 units of accommodation which, even if so described, would not be genuinely affordable, is limited. And of course it cannot be argued that the only way in which affordable housing can be provided on this site is by the adoption of this particular proposal. It is open to Transport for London, the public body which owns the site, to commission a different design.

We hope therefore that you will exercise the political judgement for which you were elected; refuse this application; and require Transport for London to submit a new design which is appropriate to the station’s unique environment.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lever

Chairman of the Planning Committee, The Chelsea Society

On 24th August 2020 the Chairman of the Society’s Planning Committee had written to the planning officer at RBKC as follows:

Dear Mr Wentworth,

Subject: Planning Application PP/20/03216 and LB/20/03217 South Kensington Station

I am writing on behalf of the Chelsea Society to register our objection to the planning application submitted by Native Land and Transport for London for the re-development of South Kensington Station.

The Chelsea Society, founded in 1927, exists to protect the interests of all those who live and work in Chelsea and to preserve and enhance the unique character of this part of London. We have around a thousand members. Although South Kensington Station is just outside our geographical area, it is used by many of our members and is a site of such importance that its future will affect the conservation area of which Chelsea is a part.

Our views on the re-development of the station are set out in detail on the society’s website. In sum:

-South Kensington is one of London’s most iconic underground stations. Its restoration and improvement should be conservation-led and should reflect the station’s original heritage and style.

-The priority should be to re-furbish the station itself so as to increase its capacity and to provide step-free access to the platforms.

-Any further development should be along the lines of the Planning Brief written in 2015 by Deloitte Real Estate for Transport for London and reviewed by RBKC planning officers. TfL originally undertook to work with local amenity groups to develop proposals for the site on the basis of this brief. It is regrettable that TfL has reneged on this commitment.

We object to the current application on the grounds that it fails to meet the objectives of the Local Plan, the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. It would inflict significant harm on the listed buildings which surround the station and on the Conservation Area within which it is located. It would involve the unnecessary destruction of heritage assets. It would impose buildings of unacceptable bulk and height. It would add an unnecessary volume of retail and office space, when the priority of a public body like TfL should be affordable housing. And it would cause acute levels of traffic congestion.

The exact details of the incompatibility of the application with the three Plans are set out in the submission from the local MP, the local GLA member and the Ward Councillors for the Courtfield and Brompton/Hans Town wards and we do not therefore repeat them here. We support the points made by those elected members and we urge the Planning Committee to give them due weight.

The areas of concern to which we draw particular attention are the following.

Relationship with the enhancement of the station

The application is predicated on the implementation of plans for improvements to the capacity of the station for which planning permission already exists and which would include the provision of lifts for step free access. But TfL have recently announced that these plans will not go ahead. The Council should insist that before any consideration can be given to the Around Station Development there must be a clear commitment, with a timescale, by TfL to undertake this work.

Thurlow Street

We would prefer this building to be re-furbished rather than demolished. But it is important that the shop fronts are carefully preserved and retained as small units.

The Bullnose

The Bullnose does indeed need to be demolished, but the proposal to replace it is incongruous in style and volume. It should be no higher than a ground and two upper stories in order to preserve the open aspect of the area in front of the station and to preserve views of the Natural History museum.

Pelham Street

A low scale terrace in Pelham Street has the potential to enhance the street scene. But what is proposed is too bulky and too dominant. It would have the effect of “canyonising” the street. If flats are to be built here, they should be no more than a ground and two upper stories above street level.There should be no retail or restaurant use except in Pelham Street’s westernmost 50 yards. But provision could be made for community facilities (doctors, dentists etc).

Thurlow Square

The proposed building on Thurlow Square is also inappopriate in terms of its mass and height. It would overshadow the Grade 2* listed buildings on Pelham Place opposite and would cause severe harm to the appearance of a conservation area.

We therefore urge the Council to reject this application and to to encourage Native Land/TfL to submit an alternative plan which is more respectful of the heritage of the area and of the station itself.

Would you be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of this objection and to ensure that the Chelsea Society is identified as the author of it when it is published on your website.

Best regards

Paul Lever

Chairman of the Planning Committee

The Chelsea Society

The post S. KENSINGTON STATION appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

MAKE BATTERSEA BRIDGE ROAD JUNCTION SAFE -TFL CONSULTATION

Michael Stephen — Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:14:53 +0000

David Waddell writes: “The considerable traffic dangers at the Battersea Bridge/Cheyne Walk junction have been a major concern of the Chelsea Society and Cheyne Walk Trust for may years. After two fatalities and some 70 accidents over 5 years (2017 to 2021) highlighted in a major public petition, TFL eventually installed a first controlled pedestrian crossing at the northern end of the bridge.

A major TFL consultation thereafter, reporting in June 2023, prompted significant unified input from RBKC and Chelsea’s amenity associations. TFL ignored demands for a 3 Phase option to make safe the 3 unsafe arms of the junction with a subsequent review of road use to ensure optimum and equable traffic arrangements for the whole riverside route from Chelsea Bridge to Cremorne Road, and access to Chelsea.

Responding to the TFL Consultation Report, The Council for RBKC together with Chelsea amenity associations, supported by Greg Hands, MP for Chelsea & Fulham, welcomed TFL’s commitment to improve the 3 unsafe arms of the junction by installing controlled crossings, and to review the banned left turn southbound at Chelsea Bridge, but expressed serious concerns over TFL’s Cycle Superhighway plans for:

A left turn ban at Beaufort St for vehicles approaching the junction from the west, creating renewed pressure on other roads north into Chelsea including Oakley St, Royal Hospital Rd and Tite St. and the heavily used Kings Rd.
New sections of traffic-constricting westbound and eastbound bus lanes on the Embankment from Chelsea Bridge to Battersea Bridge. This would just provide lanes for the infrequent 170 bus, even though TfL have cut the frequency of this service by reducing it from every 7 minutes to every 10 minutes.

The Chelsea Society, Cheyne Walk Trust and residents’ associations are working closely with RBKC to ensure that Chelsea’s interests in securing safety at the Battersea Bridge junction is achieved without unacceptable and unnecessary detriment to traffic flows for those who live in Chelsea.

*******************************

Dear Members,

The Council of RBKC, The Chelsea Society, Cheyne Walk Trust and Lots Road Neighbourhood
Forum together with many Chelsea Residents’ Associations urge Chairs and/or Secretaries of all
Chelsea Associations to respond to the TFL Battersea Bridge consultation on behalf of their
Association and also to ask their members individually to respond also as described below, in
order ensure that the Battersea Bridge/Cheyne Walk junction is made safe whilst avoiding new and
additional traffic problems in Chelsea.

RESPOND BEFORE 24 JANUARY 2023.

Following two fatalities and numerous accidents in 5 years, much public pressure, including Rob
McGibbon’s effective petition, has secured an initial safety improvement at Battersea Bridge. After
many years of delay, TFL has completed in late 2021 a Phase 1 task of installing a light controlled
pedestrian crossing at the Cheyne Walk junction with the northern end of Battersea Bridge. In 2022,
TFL notified pre consultation survey plans for Phase 2 safety enhancements for the remaining three
arms of the Chelsea/Battersea Bridge junction that remain unsafe without improvement.

Together with the Council of RBKC, the Chelsea Society and many other local societies
welcome this initial work and the intention to introduce further essential enhancements in 2023
after formal consultation due to close on 24 January 2023.

There are significant concerns on consultation and potential problems that will arise if the scheme is
not modified. The initial TFL plans appear to be an extrapolation of older plans essentially based on
the introduction of Cycle Superhighway 8 (CS8) along the north bank of the Thames from
Westminster to Hammersmith.

Hence, rather than simply addressing urgently required and vital
safety improvements at the Chelsea/Battersea Bridge junction, the scheme proposes measures that
will adversely impact access and movement for many Chelsea residents and others passing through
Chelsea with significant new traffic queueing and congestion through central Chelsea and its main
local access roads.

Briefly: there has been no pre-consultation survey advice in south east Chelsea; the plan proposes to
ban left turns for eastbound traffic north into Beaufort St, increasing overloading of already
constricted north bound traffic in Oakley Street as well as on The King’s Road. New traffic-
constricting bus lanes are proposed along Chelsea Embankment and Cheyne Walk. At the same time
Chelsea riverside including Battersea Bridge is under fresh traffic pressure following the closure,
without consultation, of northbound and southbound junctions to east/west traffic at Chelsea
Bridge.

Significantly, the scheme fails to consider the Battersea Bridge junction in the context of the
whole Chelsea Embankment/Cheyne Walk route and the impact on Chelsea’s main roads and access.

Councillor Cem Kemahli for RBKC in formal submission to TFL has raised significant objections and
proposed a widely supported 3 Phase CHELSEA OPTION that will Make Battersea Bridge Safe as a
priority and evaluate the remaining TFL proposals on their merits. See Cllr Kemahli’s RBKC letter to
TFL below

Members are asked to respond directly to TFL to support the Chelsea Option and the 6 specific bullet points below:

 Welcome essential plans to introduce light controlled pedestrian crossings on the
remaining 3 arms of the junction
 Support the 3 phase CHELSEA OPTION proposed by the Council of RBKC for immediate
action to make safe the three unsafe arms of the Battersea Bridge Cheyne Walk junction
(Phase 2)
 Consider it vital that the Phase 2 safety measures at the BB junction are decoupled from the
wider TFL plans based on CS8 Chelsea Embankment/Cheyne Walk and that those TFL
plans be fully evaluated in a 3rd Phase
 Insist that the banned north and south turns at Chelsea Bridge be reinstated to avoid
excessive traffic being funnelled to the constricted and weight-limited Albert Bridge and,
in particular, the extremely dangerous Battersea Bridge junction, and generating
excessive queueing on Chelsea Embankment/Cheyne Walk
 Object to banning the left turn north into Beaufort St for traffic travelling east as
impractical, unnecessary and hugely disruptive for residents in SW Chelsea (Cremorne
Rd, Blantyre St, Cheyne Walk, Cremorne Estate, Beaufort St etc.) who will not be able
to access their homes without traffic-generating detours west of Beaufort St via Oakley St
(already subject to massive tailbacks), Flood Street or Royal Hospital Rd and The King’s Rd
 Consider Improvements/changes at Battersea Bridge as part of wider traffic patterns
and problems at all three bridge junctions on Chelsea riverside, namely Chelsea
Bridge, Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge, and Insist that Phase 3 evaluation must include
and/or assess the impact on all access roads to and from RBKC, including Chelsea Bridge
Rd, Tite St; Royal Hospital Rd, Oakley Street, Beaufort St and Cremorne Rd., and
consequent traffic flows along The Kings Rd and north and south across Chelsea

Please submit response directly to TFL using links below before 24 January 2023
 https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/batterseabridge or haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk or
 FREEPOST TFL HAVE YOUR SAY (no stamp needed)
You may also wish to support the very effective petition below:
Change.org Make Battersea Bridge Safe: https://www.change.org/p/transport-for-london-make-
battersea-bridge-safe-to-cross/u/31213539?recently_published=true

We are pleased that RBKC have now written to TfL as follows,

Letter from Cllr. Cem Kemahli, RBKC

TFL PROPOSALS FOR BATTERSEA BRIDGE/CHELSEA EMBANKMENT

As the proposals that TfL has put out to formal consultation are virtually unchanged from those that you shared with the Council and others in the summer, I am tempted simply to resend my letter of 19 August. As you know that letter welcomed the fact that this junction’s unacceptable collision record was being addressed through new safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists. In particular, I supported the provision of pedestrian crossings on the three arms that still do not have them today.

However, the proposed safety improvements at the junction include some changes which in our opinion have little to do with safety at the bridge. Long term changes to traffic management need a separate strategic approach looking at the whole of the Chelsea Embankment traffic flows from the Chelsea Bridge to Battersea Bridge. These should not be conflated with the need for improved safety at the Battersea Bridge junction.

We made clear our objection to these changes in our previous response but for the record we repeat them here in summary form with detailed arguments on each point in the balance of this letter:

Banned left turn to Beaufort Street

Makes resident access more difficult and pushes more traffic onto the already congested Oakley Street.

Westbound bus lane from Royal Hospital Road to Battersea Bridge

Will add significantly to queuing and spread consequent pollution in all the streets of east Chelsea north of the Embankment through to the Kings Road.

Chelsea Bridge banned left turn

Installed as an emergency measure in 2020, and TfL has not yet published analysis of the impacts on the Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge junctions. After over two years, why has TfL not applied the Battersea Bridge left turn solution to Chelsea Bridge?

I will now address the detailed reasoning behind each of the above:

Banned left turn to Beaufort Street

I said in August that we did not support yet another banned turn into Chelsea from the TfL Road Network, at Beaufort Street. Coupled with the existing right-turn ban, this change will make residents’ access to Beaufort Street more difficult and push additional traffic onto Oakley Street. Given the volume of correspondence about that road, which is still a TfL-funded Quietway, I need hardly tell you that we would not wish TfL to add more traffic to that road. The answer from some residents is for TfL to ban the turns into that road too, but the Council remains of the view that it is unfair to load all traffic onto just one road – in this case Royal Hospital Road. The published TfL view is that because relatively few vehicles make the left turn at present, the increase in traffic on other north-south roads will be “negligible”.

Several months on, TfL has not demonstrated to our residents in any detail why it would be so harmful to implement a safety scheme that retained the ability of drivers to turn left into Beaufort Street. The simple explanation remains that it would result in unacceptably long eastbound queues:

“We have proposed to ban this turn to reduce the number of movements at the junction, and to protect bus and traffic journey times over the wider area”.

The website goes on to say that options that retained the left turn to Beaufort Street were modelled and that in each case there would be more congestion, with eastbound queues reaching back to King’s Road. We think this is because eastbound traffic would have to pass through the junction in a single lane. This is of course what westbound traffic will have because the nearside westbound lane will be for left-turning traffic only.

The TfL website summarises the predicted traffic impacts in terms of journey times, for buses and for general traffic. It does not provide any information on queue lengths. Previous discussions between officers suggests that the scheme proposed by TfL will have westbound queues stretching far beyond the Royal Hospital Road junction in the busiest peak (evening). This is three times the forecast length of the eastbound queue in the busiest (morning) peak, stretching towards King’s Road.

As we understand it, the reason that TfL will not retain the left turn to Beaufort Street is that doing so would increase that morning peak queue by around 150 per cent, and risk affecting the performance of the King’s Road/Beaufort Street junction. Presumably, the equivalent risk at the Albert Bridge/Chelsea Embankment junction has been accepted by TfL because of the significant demand to turn left onto Battersea Bridge.

The Council agrees that the left turn south onto Battersea Bridge must be retained, and that this will have consequences for traffic flow. The Council is not yet persuaded that TfL has exhausted all possible design options that would retain the left turn north into Beaufort Street. For example, we understand that TfL has not assessed or modelled the impact of a design that would add early release signals for cyclists to the current eastbound layout, (a short left turn lane, which may be used by straight-on cyclists, and two straight-on lanes). Is that the case?

Has TfL examined whether left-turning traffic could be held at its own signal, to allow the pedestrian crossing on the north arm to run at the same time as the crossing on the bridge arm (while the main straight-on eastbound and westbound traffic flows have a green light)?

I had hoped that by this stage TfL would have been able to show that it had carried out further work since August to look at all possible options for retaining the left-turn – even if some of these had to be discounted for one or more reasons.

It is also worth noting that in basing its design decisions on traffic modelling, TfL has ignored the potentially substantial traffic impacts of LB Hammersmith and Fulham’s recent decision to introduce new traffic restrictions on non-residents in roads west of Wandsworth Bridge. It appears these changes came as a surprise to TfL as much as they did to us. We sincerely hope that if these LBHF traffic restrictions place additional traffic on Chelsea roads, then TfL will act to ensure that the LBHF scheme is not allowed to compromise much-needed safety improvements at Battersea Bridge.

Westbound bus lane from Royal Hospital Road to Battersea Bridge

The other main concern that I raised in August – the long westbound bus lane – remains an objectionable feature of the design. Your officers have confirmed to mine that without that bus lane, the traffic queues would be roughly half as long – this makes sense, as it would allow traffic to queue side by side rather than in single file. I note that this queue would still stretch beyond the Albert Bridge junction at the busiest times, though presumably for shorter periods and therefore with less risk to the operation of that sensitive junction.

Your engineers have said that while the bus lane doubles the length of the queue, it would have no impact on the time taken for westbound traffic to clear the junction – this is because the bus lane would give way to two traffic lanes on the approach to the junction such as to maximise the number of vehicles that would clear the junction in each signal cycle from the two traffic lanes. However, TfL has not published modelled journey times for an option without any bus lane, making it impossible to isolate, in terms of congestion impacts, the effect of the bus lane from the effect of the junction changes themselves.

With only one fairly low-frequency bus route able to use that bus lane, the number of bus passengers to benefit from that bus lane will be low – has TfL carried out a benefit: cost ratio analysis? Moreover, it is noted that the bus journey time case for adding a bus lane is even weaker in the afternoon peak, when the journey time impacts of the safety scheme are, by TfL’s figures, expected to be less than a minute.

As with the banned turn, the TfL webpage attempts to provide a justification based on cyclist safety and, in addition, on encouraging compliance with the 20mph speed limit. It is arguable that if there is room for a bus lane in one direction on this stretch of Chelsea Embankment, it would have greater safety and speed-reducing benefits in the eastbound direction, away from the Battersea Bridge junction, where traffic speeds are likely to be much higher than those in the westbound direction.

Shared space section of footway

At the start of this letter, I said that the proposals were virtually unchanged from those we saw in the summer. One change that has been made since then is the proposal to open up the footway in the north-west corner of the junction to cyclists, in order – I understand – to exempt them from the left-turn ban. Even with a slight extension of the footway, it will not be a large space. Allowing people to ride across this space introduces a risk of conflict, undermining the safety objectives of the scheme. Of course, if the left turn for traffic were retained, with an early release signal for cyclists, cyclists would safely be able to turn left on the carriageway.

Chelsea Bridge

The proposal to use signals to protect cyclists from vehicles turning left onto Battersea Bridge demonstrates that improving cyclist safety at junctions does not have to mean banning vehicle turning movements. This Council continues to call on TfL to apply its engineers’ ingenuity to the Chelsea Bridge junction, such that traffic would be able to turn left onto that bridge without compromising cyclists’ safety.

Consultation

I note that the current consultation does not ask people whether they support the scheme, either in part or in full. This would have seemed a more obvious question to put to people, than asking them what impact they expect the proposed changes would have on levels of walking, cycling, bus use and driving. It does provide an opportunity for people to make comments in a free-text box – I hope that the report of the consultation analysis will be able properly to capture the main themes of any comments that people make.

Conclusion

The Council has been consistent over the past couple of years in wanting to see safety improved at this junction and in asking TfL to find ways to do this without adding to the list of banned turns. More recently, when the idea of a 600 metre stretch of bus lane emerged, I questioned the justification for it. Both features have been presented as mitigation measures to reduce the forecast negative consequences of reducing the junction’s traffic capacity. When I wrote to you in August, I proposed that TfL should deliver the safety improvements that we all want, and then monitor the scheme for a period to see whether, in fact, the forecast traffic impacts materialise and require mitigation.

I continue to hold the view that this would be the best way to proceed – in effect, it would continue the phased approach that TfL has already taken at this junction, with Phase 1 having been built already, Phase 2 being the three remaining pedestrian crossings and the protected lane for westbound cyclists, and Phase 3, only if found necessary, being the bus lane and the removal of the left turn to Beaufort Street. I know that this would mean some minor design changes, particularly to the extent of the kerbs on the north-west corner, in Phase 2. By all means have a plan to mitigate unacceptable delays, but let’s not assume that we will have to use them if doing so has other negative consequences.

We have come so far on the basis of a strong local consensus that this junction must be made safer for people, even if this results in less capacity for vehicles. It would be wonderful if we could find agreement on how best to do this.

Kind regards,

Cllr. Cem Kemahli,

Lead Member for Planning, Place and Environment

RBKC

The post MAKE BATTERSEA BRIDGE ROAD JUNCTION SAFE -TFL CONSULTATION appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

King’s Walk

Michael Stephen — Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:14:54 +0000

The new building on the Kings Walk site has now been unveiled!

The post King’s Walk appeared first on The Chelsea Society.

St. Wilfrid’s Care Home

Michael Stephen — Thu, 20 Apr 2023 13:23:24 +0000

Tite Street
As members will know, St. Wilfrid’s Care Home closed some time ago, and the site will be sold and redeveloped.

This will be a hugely important development, on which The Chelsea Society will focus its attention at each stage and make its own representations to Councillors and
Planning Officers. We will also meet with the buyers when we know who they are.

The existing building is very undistinguished, and we are in principle willing to accept redevelopment. We would also be willing in principle to accept the use of part of the site
for private houses/flats. However, we consider that the key points are:
• Height no greater than the existing building.
• No loss of the existing green space, and open views across the site
• No obstruction of light to the listed artists’ studio windows on the West side of Tite Street.
• Use of part of the site for another care home. (We think RBKC should use it to make the provision which they have
so far failed to make following the closure of Thamesbrook).
• Design of the new buildings must be compatible with the existing buildings in Tite Street, many of which are listed. We do not want an ultra-modern building in this Conservation Area.

The post St. Wilfrid’s Care Home appeared first on The Chelsea Society.