Sunday20 August 2017

Green light for Rogers’ exclusive Hanover Square scheme...

  • Email
  • Comments (3)
  • Save

…but decision prompts anger over affordable housing contributions tied to development

Members of Westminster city council’s planning committee have backed the demolition of a 1920s Mayfair office building to make way for a Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners designed boutique hotel and flats development.

The decision was in line with advice from planning officers, who recommended approval for the practice’s 22 Hanover Square scheme, which will deliver a 50 room hotel and up to 81 serviced apartments on the corner site.

They said Rogers’ two-part structure, which is 11 storeys tall at its highest, was a “substantial improvement” on Celanese House, the current building on the site.

In a report to this week’s meeting, officers described Celanese House as “somewhat elephantine in scale” and said the structure detracted from nearby heritage buildings in the Mayfair Conservation Area.


22 Hanover Square

Celanese House set to be demolished for the new development


As part of the approval, planning committee members also approved the use of £2 million out of a total £9.5 million in Section 106 planning obligation contributions for public realm improvements to Hanover Square, which the officers’ report stated had no justification in planning policy.

David Boothroyd, a Labour member of the planning committee who opposed the scheme, criticised new committee chair Conservative Richard Beddoe for leading the panel in steering the £2 million contribution away from the council’s affordable housing fund.

“The housing crisis is getting worse and families in Westminster are being forced out, so I was looking forward to a new chair fighting their corner,” he said.

The planning officers’ report had suggested that the Hanover Square development could support combined Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 payments of £14.5 million.



Readers' comments (3)

  • Anger should also be directed at allowing something like this to be built in Hanover square. It's not an improvement.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Eh?!?! “substantial improvement” Does everyone the reviewed this travesty have a surname that starts with a Tr and end with an ump?! Eh?!!? Either that or they are blind and think whatever a well known architect does is gold. This clearly proves it is not. This proposed building is terrible before you even consider what needs to be demolished to make way for it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Austin Clegg

    The existing building is decent and well-mannered, built of good durable materials and with elevations proportioned to fit in with those on surrounding buildings.

    The proposed replacement is a flashy and vulgar affair designed to appeal to the filthy rich.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register
  • Email
  • Comments (3)
  • Save
Sign in

Email Newsletters

Sign out to login as another user

Desktop Site | Mobile Site