HEYTHROP COLLEGE - UPDATED 26/04/19


Dear VRARA member,

Here is a Guardian article concerning Heythrop College. This is good news – the next step will be a public inquiry.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/23/london-deputy-mayor-rejects-luxury-caviar-care-homes-scheme

Michael Bach 

Chairman

VRARA



PREVIOUS HEYTHROP COLLEGE NEWS



Dear VRARA Member,


Heythrop College Planning Application Result


I am sad to say that we were not successful in getting this application refused.


The Planning Committee did not accept that:



Both the change of use to housing and the lack of a mix of housing are contrary to the Council’s Local Plan.

The only unresolved matter is the Construction Traffic Management Plan – see link below:


https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-2124124.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=2124124&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1


This shows:


·         The Route: (Question 8) all construction traffic entering Victoria Road from Kensington Road,  down Victoria Road, then travelling west across St Alban’s Grove to South End where it would enter the site – this is unfair and all work on Kensington Square frontage should be accessed from Kensington Square;


·         The hours: (Question 10) - all collection and deliveries (Monday to Friday only) must be between 9.30am and 3pm during school term time and 9.30am to 4.30pm outside term time – there would be a period where there could be up to 60 lorries/day coming through, although for most of the time it could 30+ lorry movements/day: they have agreed that the flows would be organised so that there would only be one lorry on the road along the route at a time;


·         A holding area for lorries at the northern end of Victoria Road and a “one-way system” at the north of Victoria Road – in through Victoria Road and out through Prince of Wales Terrace (Question 11) – this should be resisted – there should be no lorry “holding area” in Victoria Road, which would make the “one-way system’ unnecessary


·         Various parking suspensions along the route where the roads are narrow – which particularly affect St Alban’s Grove and South End


VRARA needs to ensure that the developer provides CCTV cameras to identify any accidents involving damage to buildings, street furniture and other vehicles and a bond to pay for any damage.


I would welcome any views you may have as soon as possible.


If you want to write to the Council, the reference is PP/18/05313: Heythrop College: Construction Traffic Management Plan.


Send it to Joseph.Whitworth@rbkc.gov.uk and William.howe@rbkc.gov.uk  as well as to our Councillors:  cllr.matthew.palmer@rbkc.gov.uk , cllr.max.chauhan@rbkc.gov.uk and cllr.maxwell.woodger@rbkc.gov.uk


Michael Bach

Chairman

Victoria Road Area Residents’ Association



PLANNING NOTIFICATION

IMPORTANT: THIS COULD SEVERELY AFFECT YOU

HEYTHROP COLLEGE is a 3.3 acre site behind Kensington Square, has been in educational use for 150 years and is designated by RBKC as a “Social & Community use” site. This has been bought by developers for a large 142-unit luxury retirement housing scheme with some on-site care facilities All of the college campus, including the 109-bedroom student hall of residence would be demolished. The site would be enlarged by decking over the Circle/District Lines. All construction traffic would be through a circuitous route to the “back door” of the site – a narrow entrance in South End.

THE PROPOSAL

● The developer proposes to redevelop the site into over 140 super-expensive, luxury retirement homes

● As the developer describes it: “the scheme is the retirement property equivalent of Claridges”; its website says it has “…the feel of a luxury private members’ club…for the golden generation of ultra-high net worth”.

● Despite this, the developer claims that these units comply with RBKC “Social & Community use” policy as a “care home”, thereby escaping the obligation to build affordable housing.

CONTRARY TO COUNCIL PLANNING POLICY

The Council has a clear policy that “social and community uses” should be protected and retained, to protect low-value uses from high-value uses, such as residential – let alone super-luxury 1 and 2 bed flats (costing more than £2m for a 1-bedroom flat rising to up to £7.75 million for a 2 bedroom flat) with astronomical service charges:

● This scheme involves only a minimal level of “extra-care” mandated for residents, which results in the developer claiming that this is the equivalent of a care home, but the luxurious facilities makes these into nothing more than luxury residential retirement units with all the trappings of luxury housing.

● It is unthinkable to grant to this developer of ultra-high net worth retirement homes the valuable privilege of exemption from providing affordable housing, by claiming it is the equivalent of a real care home

WHO IS IT FOR?

● With unrestricted long-term ownership, these very high-priced retirement flats are targeted purely at foreign owners/investors and are destined to become yet more “buy-to-leave-empty” properties, owned through offshore companies. They simply represent money parked in London property, with only very occasional use.

● These UHNW non-resident ghettos are destroying the fabric of our local community. Lights out at night, nobody using the local shops and amenities, lots of security guards. As the developer would say, it’s for the “Golden Generation of UHNW”.

This is NOT a “Social & Community” benefit – it is another nail in our local community.

It’s time to call a halt!

DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

● The proposal is for a building mass more than 3 times the existing buildings – making it one of the largest housing projects in the Borough

● The amount of buildings is inflated by a deck built over TfL’s lines near High St Kensington Station

● It is one of the most remote sites of any scheme ever built in this borough – nearly half a mile from Kensington Road

● massive 5-year construction traffic nightmare - peaks at over 60 large trucks a day thundering down quiet residential side streets (Victoria Road, St Albans Grove), entering site via South End, a very narrow street.

● South End is also proposed as the main entrance for all future traffic once the project is completed

IMPORTANT NOTE

The construction traffic of any development would create a nuisance – but this scheme would be a nightmare. However, your objection should not make this the main, let alone the only grounds for objection: it is the effect of the enlarged site due to the raft and the sheer scale of the resulting development, and the nature of that development, that should be objected to.

URGENT – HELP US PUT A STOP TO THIS DEVELOPMENT – OBJECT BEFORE 26 OCTOBER

Submit your objections to the council using the summary reference points below.

Go directly to RBKC’s comment form on the application page on the Council’s planning website https://stopheythrop.org/

Compose your objection beforehand – you can then either paste it into the “Comments” box or make a document and upload it.

Objections however should be expressed in your own words.

When posting objections on the RBKC website, it would be helpful to please check the two boxes regarding the use of your name, if you are happy with that. Please mention your street in your objection – so we know how many of our residents have objected.

Copy your objection to your street representative, the Council planning@rbkc.gov.uk and to our councillors: cllr.matthew.palmer@rbkc.gov.uk , cllr.max.chauhan@rbkc.gov.uk and cllr.maxwell.woodger@rbkc.gov.uk

The Issues for your objection

The proposed development would eliminate all social and community uses – a college with a hall of residence – contrary to the Council’s Local Plan Policy CK1:

● Policy CK1 explicitly seeks to preserve low-value Social & Community uses, against high-value uses such as luxury housing

● “Extra-care” formula not a care home – merely expensive residential retirement homes with huge service charges

● These super-expensive flats for “Ultra High Net Worth” buyers (developer’s phrase) would be:

    o aimed at foreign “Buy-to-Leave-Empty” buyers - these hollow out our neighbourhood; or 

    o expensive 1-year lease option which would appeal to medical tourists

● Social & Community uses are exempt from providing affordable housing – a completely unacceptable financial subsidy for this housing development – they are not even providing an affordable care home!

● Massively increased scale of development - over 3 times floorspace of present buildings - totally inappropriate to site and area.

● The deck over TfL Rail lines must be stopped – it needs separate long-term planning consideration

● 5-year construction traffic nightmare, peaking at 60 heavy lorry runs daily down quiet side streets (Victoria Road, St Albans Grove, South End)

● Any redevelopment of this site must be an order of magnitude smaller.