The land, known as the Clearings in central Chelsea, was zoned for residential development. Quite rightly so: it sits smack bang in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. Yet somehow Savills managed to persuade the Planning Committee that a better – and considerably more profitable – use would be noisy, traffic-generating padel courts. (If you are thinking of using Savills to sell your home, you might want to bear that in mind!)
Hundreds of households will now have to endure this nightmare, apparently because peace and quiet are an inconvenience when they stand in the way of profit.
What is particularly extraordinary is the justification offered for this change of use. Charlotte Jordan of Savills attempted to dress up what looks very much like commercial greed as a public benefit, suggesting that the development would benefit local residents and Marlborough School. This despite a substantial wave of objections from those who actually live in the area.
Wilshire Close,(above) which is council-owned and will bear much of the brunt of the noise and disruption, is particularly exposed. One is left wondering whether the objections of its residents carried quite the same weight as those of more influential voices. Perhaps the underlying assumption was that, being council tenants, they could simply lump it.
MISARA mounted a powerful campaign, highlighting the social harm that padel courts would inflict on residents throughout the neighbourhood. There is substantial evidence of other councils rejecting similar proposals in residential areas precisely because of the noise and traffic problems they create. So why was Chelsea different?
And here is where things get rather more interesting.
The Dame has never been shy of taking on powerful local figures. Her campaign against the former council leader, Merrick Cockell, is well known. One hopes that her determined efforts helped frustrate his much-coveted ambitions for a seat in the House of Lords.
But there is another question that deserves an answer. Rumours have circulated that Cockell may have been involved in lobbying in connection with the Clearings planning application. Is there anything in this? Who spoke to whom, and what representations, if any, were made behind the scenes?
It may all be entirely innocent. But given the extraordinary nature of this decision, residents are entitled to ask questions. Planning decisions should be transparent, and the public deserves to know whether everyone involved was playing by the same rules.
There is, after all, rather more to this story than a few padel courts.
MISARA and Wilshire Close residents now need to set up The Padel Court Monitoring Group which religiously and daily record all instances of noise and traffic disruption so that when a re-application comes up again in 12 months’ time there will be no excuses for approval. The planners and planning committee should feel great shame. They would not have agreed this were it sited next to their homes.
Leave a Reply