A new grassroots campaign group is calling on Kensington & Chelsea Council (RBKC) to urgently reconsider its plans for sweeping changes to the borough’s Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS).

In a letter to RBKC’s Leader Elizabeth Campbell and its CEO, Maxine Holdsworth, also shared with this website, Coalition Against Asset Stripping raised the alarm that the Council’s Draft Leasing Policy and proposed Asset Strategy will have detrimental impacts on local communities if they are not significantly re-worked. Both polices were before RBKC’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee in July and the Draft Leasing Policy is scheduled to go before RBKC’s Leadership Team for approval this month. In their letter Coalition Against Asset Stripping outlined some of the most acute concerns.

Coalition Against Asset Stripping VCS Letter

Affordability

Under the draft policy, RBKC plans to align VCS rents with the Rateable Value (an estimate of the price on the open market) in one of the most overpriced neighbourhoods on the planet. Coalition Against Asset Stripping identify this as a major issue despite RBKC’s claim there will be a “discretionary” discount of up to 50%. The campaign group also questions this claim, as the draft policy provides no detail on how decisions on the discount will be made or why the Council believes Rateable Value to be the best approach. The draft policy lacked financial modelling among the 416 pages provided to the Scrutiny Committee, making it difficult for community groups to respond to the policy.

Even with a 50% discount, the Council’s plan to employ the Rateable Value will see rents rise, and many groups, including those with subsidised or peppercorn rent, could face an existential threat if the policy is implemented. RBKC’s plans include removing utilities costs from rents, causing a significant increase in VCS expenses, especially for groups in poorly maintained, inefficient buildings.

Although RBKC’s draft claims VCS groups will benefit from more secure tenancies, this is questioned by the Coalition Against Asset Stripping who point out that a long-term tenancy is only helpful if the tenant can afford it. The wording of the draft policy suggests that any discounts will be temporary. Short-term and insecure tenancies are a major problem for VCS groups, with many funders unwilling to support organisations that lack long-term accommodation to deliver services.

RBKC already has a habit of providing discretionary rent discounts, seemingly made on the whims of Councillors and senior officers, benefiting a handful of VCS groups, with no explanation provided to others. This preferential treatment from the Council has added to the impression that RBKC’s approach has been unequal and inconsistent, which was the focal point of the Leasing Policy consultation. The Council presented the draft policy as being based on fairness but local VCS employees we spoke to agreed that the Council’s focus on correcting the unfairness that it has embedded was a distraction from the bigger issues, which the Coalition Against Asset Stripping identified in their letter.

In the letter, the Coalition stated that it had discussed the Council’s plans with local organisations likely to be harmed under the new policies, and several organisations reported that they had not been consulted on the Leasing Policy or even aware of its existence.

Another issue raised in the new campaign group’s letter was the knock-on effects of higher rents. As well as the organisations named on leases, many other grassroots organisations rely on the buildings, with spaces often sub-let to small organisations to deliver services and events. Increased costs are likely to be passed on to these groups, although RBKC does not address this in its analysis.

Asset Strategy     

In their letter, Coalition Against Asset Stripping challenged the Council’s proposed Asset Strategy. The Coalition identified serious flaws, including 15 Gertrude Street in Chelsea being listed as a VCS asset but also slated for disposal (sale). This contradiction reflects wider confusion in RBKC’s approach to its VCS assets. Canalside House, by far their biggest VCS asset, is absent from the 2026 asset list, despite having been listed in the Council’s government-run post-Grenfell Asset Review. In 2023 RBKC did a secret deal with the property developer Ballymore that will see Canalside House demolished yet there is no mention of this in the draft.

RBKC has not responded to repeated requests from this website for information on what became of the 2018 Asset Review. In their letter, the Coalition Against Asset Stripping also calls for more transparency including the immediate publication of the latest VCS Property Review.

To cut costs, the local authority is looking to consolidate its VCS assets, utilising multi-use buildings as “core operational hubs” (Kensington Town Hall is set to be one of these). But the Asset Strategy ignores important factors for charities such as privacy, storage and the need for consistently available office space in culturally appropriate locations.

Inauthentic Consultation

Multiple VCS organisations told the new campaign group that they did not receive a copy of the draft policy and were unaware of its progress to Overview & Scrutiny and Leadership.

For its consultation, RBKC issued an online survey to VCS groups, but we have been unable to find the results. The Council facilitated workshops with tenants, but again we cannot find any published details. Meetings were held with sector representatives, but it appears that the advice of these representatives was not taken on board as the consultation and draft policy have the hallmarks of predetermined outcomes set at Kensington Town Hall, rather than reflecting VCS needs, priorities and values. An ideological bias towards minimal public spending was identified in the early years of the borough’s creation and has remained consistent since.

While the Council introduced a raft of new approaches after June 2017, these have not democratised the borough. Council Officers claim that the VCS consultation was conducted in accordance with the Charter for Public Participation, but the absence of Canalside House alone undermines this claim. RBKC engaged its Citizens Panel for the consultation. Details for the outcome have not been made available, but figures published for other Panel consultations show that 16% is a typical typical response rate from Panel members; 47% of participants are over 60; 81% white (the borough recorded a 64% white population in the 2021 census) and 64% have access to a private car (42% in the census).

Equality/Equity

The Coalition Against Asset Stripping flagged that RBKC’s consultation might not have considered the needs of many Black and minority ethnic-led groups, including those not named on tenancies. This raises concerns about negative impacts on VCS groups with certain protected characteristics, and it is not clear from the draft whether or not this was a serious consideration for the Council. The Coalition called on RBKC to publish its Equality Impact Assessment.

Grenfell Tower

The newly-formed campaign group described the Council’s reference to the Kroll Report as “deeply offensive to bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire” and called for a formal apology. The 2021 Kroll Report was an independent examination of several RBKC property transactions made in the years before the Grenfell fire. The findings included criticisms of the Council’s community consultations and their failure to make decisions in the public interest. Despite this, RBKC’s Draft Leasing Policy presents the Kroll findings as reflecting positively on the Council.

Fair Funding

RBKC’s proposed VCS squeeze comes in the context of the government’s Fair Funding Review with the Council citing a “significant medium-term funding gap” to justify its proposed Leasing Policy and Asset Strategy. The proposals are scheduled to go to the Leadership Team for approval on 23rd September.

You can read the Coalition Against Asset Stripping‘s letter here: Coalition Against Asset Stripping VCS Letter

by Tom Charles

@tomhcharles

cover image: Canalside House on Ladbroke Grove