The 2024 AGM will be held at Chelsea Old Town Hall, Kings Road, at 6pm.
Read More »Registered charity 276264
The 2024 AGM will be held at Chelsea Old Town Hall, Kings Road, at 6pm.
Read More »The Chelsea Society and very many local people 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 has now decided to let the development go ahead.
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
Read More »
The benches on the Embankment are an important part of Chelsea’s riverside heritage but they were in an appalling state. If woodwork exposed to the weather is not properly maintained, it becomes de-natured and eventually has to be replaced.
These benches are the responsibility of TfL, and The Chelsea Society has persuaded them to carry out a refurbishment programme. The benches between Chelsea Bridge and Albert Bridge are now looking much better, but the benches between Albert Bridge and Battersea Bridge are still in a neglected state..
Read More »
The Chelsea Society welcomes Ben Coleman MP as the new Member of Parliament for Chelsea.
He has accepted his appointment as an ex-officio Vice-President of the Society, and will speak at the AGM on Monday 18th November 2024.
Read More »
The Chairman of the Society has written to thank Greg Hands for his service to Chelsea whilst its MP, and for all the help he has given to the Society.
He has been given Life Membership of the Society
Read More »The Chelsea Society was represented by its Chairman and Vice-chairman at the Founder’s Day parade at the Royal Hospital on 6th June 2024. The salute was taken by The Princess Royal, who made a short speech and met pensioners who had served in the Second World War. Two of them had landed on the Normandy beaches 80 years ago.
Read More »There is a proposal to build a 34-storey skyscraper at the south end of Battersea Bridge.
This is what it would look like (with thanks to Denis Strauss)
There is a petition which you may wish to sign at https://www.change.org/p/s-o-b-b-stop-one-battersea-bridge
The Chelsea Society and the Cheyne Walk Trust have 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 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 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.
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.”
Read More »
The Society has been consulted by Cadogan and RBKC about the possible widening of pavements around the Square.
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.”
Read More »Here is the bronze sculpture of Oscar Wilde by Sir Eduardo Paolozzi, which the church have allowed to be sited on Dovehouse Green, subject to planning permission.
Some like it – some don’t
For those who would like to contribute to the cost, the link is https://www.justgiving.com/paolozzifoundation
Read More »By kind permission of Auriens, our Summer Party this year was held at 6-8pm in their delightful garden at 2 Dovehouse Street, Chelsea.
Nearly 100 members and guests attended
Read More »