Share<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Chelsea residents are fighting a cancer unit expansion <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Even a world-class cancer hospital is not safe from planning objections <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n If they\u2019ll block this, what exactly counts as acceptable development? <\/p>\n In this special edition of Nimby Watch<\/a>, we\u2019re visiting the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.<\/p>\n Hang on, are we in the posh bit of London? You never bring me anywhere nice. We are indeed in Chelsea! Right in the heart of zone one, still one of London\u2019s most desirable postcodes, and, of course, with the stratospheric property prices that go along with that.<\/p>\n Well, this feels like that natural habitat of the Nimby: well-heeled residents with access to lawyers, plenty of social capital and lots of free time \u2013 plus a hefty property price to defend. I\u2019m guessing that\u2019s what brings us here? You guess correctly. A leaflet being passed around the neighbourhood is going viral in certain corners of the internet. \u2018OBJECT NOW\u2018.\u00a0<\/p>\n Any readers unsure as to how they\u2019re supposed to feel about the development plans are further guided by a large screaming emoji, while text warns the new build would be \u2018almost TEN STORIES High!\u2019 and \u2018one of the TALLEST\u2018 buildings in the local area.<\/p>\n Huh, that \u2018one of the\u2019 is interesting there, isn\u2019t it? Almost as if there are already existing buildings taller than it in the area. Which, of course, there are. Because it\u2019s in central London. There\u2019s a high-rise council block about a hundred yards away, there are some of London\u2019s busiest museums about the same distance away, as well as some of London\u2019s most famous shopping streets.<\/p>\n Sounds like the bustling heart of a metropolis! Not if you believe the leaflet, which warns of \u2018harm to residential amenity during and after construction\u2019, \u2018harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area\u2019, \u2018loss of privacy\u2019 and \u2018FIVE YEARS of noise, dust\u2019 and the like during construction.<\/p>\n I get the picture. They don\u2019t like the project. What is it that they\u2019re objecting to, anyway? A new high-rise office building? Luxury flats? Student housing? Is someone trying to build a central London waste incineration plant, for some reason? I wouldn\u2019t like one of those. Yes, so\u2026 let\u2019s get to that. The building work the leaflet is objecting to is, in fact, an extension and redevelopment of the Royal Marsden, an NHS hospital specialised in researching and treating cancer patients.<\/p>\n So\u2026 this leaflet is actually urging local residents to oppose a redevelopment of one of the country\u2019s best cancer centres because of \u2018noise\u2019, \u2018dust\u2019 and that it would be \u2018TEN STORIES\u2019 high? Yes, yes, that\u2019s exactly what it\u2019s doing.<\/p>\n I just want to stop and check here, because I feel sure you\u2019re leaving something out. Is this one of those plans where a hospital gives most of their land to new housing to fund a redevelopment, or is creating a new industrial site as well, or something? Those schemes are often the only way NHS Trusts can finance much needed improvements \u2013 but no, this isn\u2019t one of those. It is a straightforward redevelopment.<\/p>\n About half of the Royal Marsden\u2019s existing site is older than the NHS. It has seen a 30% increase in demand in the last five years alone. It needs more space, both for treatment and for research. The development would give it an accessible entrance, a patient courtyard, much more room for theatres and recovery, and would place wards on higher floors where beds would have windows \u2013 giving patients natural light.<\/p>\n But at what cost, if one of those cancer patients might sometimes look inside someone\u2019s home? That genuinely seems to be one of the objections raised in this leaflet. In fact, the leaflet seems so manifestly ridiculous and monstrous to some people that there have been suggestions it was, in fact, a parody.<\/p>\n And is it? Please say it\u2019s a parody. I need something to restore any kind of basic hope in human decency. For several reasons, I am forced to conclude it is all too real. The first is that Nimby Watch has checked the planning responses to date, and seen the real objections residents have been filing.<\/p>\n One suggests \u2018the idea of what they are proposing sounds horrendous and an overbearing incursion to all locals\u2019. Another says \u2018the scale of the proposal would significantly alter, for the worst, the character and quality of life of resident living\u2019.<\/p>\n \u2018My home is a Grade II Listed building,\u2019 another local writes *in their objection to an expansion of a cancer hospital*. \u2018The proposed development would cause significant harm to its setting, character and historic significance, contrary to the statutory duty to preserve listed buildings and their surroundings.\u2019<\/p>\n Good god. Good GOD. What about the leafleteers themselves. Have we heard from them? They have, in fact, responded to a query from an associate of Nimby Watch.<\/a> \u2018No, the leaflet is not a joke,\u2019 they insist. \u2018What it reflects is the rather uncontroversial position that residents are entitled to be informed of, and to comment on, a major planning application that may affect them.\u2019<\/p>\n You may be shocked to hear that the authors declare that they are not against expanding cancer hospitals in general, of course, but instead are opposed to the particularities in this case. They also note that the Royal Marsden is expanding on another of its sites. The implication that one expansion is more than enough to tackle the scourge of cancer, which affects one in two of us over our lifetimes, is wisely left unsaid.<\/p>\n \u2018You are, of course, entitled to support the application,\u2019 the writer concludes. \u2018Others are equally entitled to object to it.\u2019<\/p>\n They\u2019re quite correct. Am I also entitled to think that something has gone deeply, profoundly wrong in the souls of people who object to the extension of a cancer hospital because it affects their Grade II listed property? You are indeed! It\u2019s a free country. You\u2019re also free to bear this example in mind when people tell you that \u2018we can just build on brownfield<\/a>\u2019. If people will object to this, is there any plan that could ever pass unscathed?<\/p>\n \u00a0\u2013 the best pieces from CapX and across the web.<\/p>\n CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.<\/p>\n Columns are the author’s own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of CapX.<\/p>\n \t\t