To: Cllr Elizabeth Campbell (Leader), Cabinet Member for Planning Cllr Gerard Hargreaves, Stanley Ward Councillors KimTaylor-Smith, Will Pascall, Paul Warwick and RBKC Council
Protect Sutton Estate From Demolition
We ask that RBKC Council extend the Chelsea Conservation Area to include Sutton Estate which is under imminent threat of demolition due to the Planning Appeal by Clarion Group (formerly Affinity Sutton) which begins on 9th May 2018.
Why is this important?
The preservation of the Sutton Estate is strongly supported by The Victorian Society due to its fine architecture, historic value and its contribution to the Chelsea Conservation Area. Furthermore, RBKC have given no explanation whatsoever for why the Estate was not originally included in the Conservation Area, since all other buildings of that period are, and as a result remain protected from demolition.
The Sutton Estate is an Edwarian social housing estate completed in 1913, the largest ever built at that time, comprising 16 red-brick blocks, designed by renowned architect Edward Charles Philip Monson. It was founded in 1900 with the funds of entrepreneur and philanthropist William Sutton who left his fortune to provide housing for the poor.
Clarion Group (who took over Affinity Sutton) propose to demolish the historic estate and replace it with an ugly modern block which The Chelsea Society calls “bland and lacking in character”, with a large part of the land to comprise luxury housing. James Hughes of The Victorian Society wrote in support of the estate's preservation, saying “Sutton Dwellings is an early example of social housing which makes a positive contribution to the local area and sits well with the 1915 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings opposite. With its handsome proportions it is unsurprising that many residents are unhappy at leaving...Affinity should spend its money on sensitive restoration rather than demolishing this early attempt to address inequality in London.”
There has now been a date set, 9th May, for the appeal of their plan, which was rejected on the grounds that it did not provide enough replacement social housing. The new plan will still fall short in social housing by 70 apartments.