"After two-and-a-half years of extensive consultation with the local community and statutory consultees, and the publication of an exceptionally complimentary report yesterday on the Chelsea Barracks application from planning officers at Westminster City Council, it is extremely disappointing that this application has been withdrawn in response to Prince Charles’ views less than a week before the Council was due to consider it."
Skip to [ Story Content and jump story attachments ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Most Read
Comments
Resource
Junkie
Advertisement
Advertisement
Main Page Content:
|
Prasad dismayed as Rogers loses Chelsea Barracks job
12 June, 2009
RIBA president Sunand Prasad has hit out at Prince Charles after developer Qatari Diar bowed to royal pressure and withdrew the planning application for Chelsea Barracks.
Prasad, who had previously spoken out against the prince's interference on the £1 billion scheme, said: "I am dismayed by the withdrawal of the Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners designs for Chelsea Barracks, and the colossal waste of effort, goodwill and expense.
"This decision clearly has more to with external pressure than the merits of the scheme and that is a sad turn of events in a painstakingly conducted planning process.
He added: “I am all for HRH The Prince of Wales setting out his principles as regards sustainability and an architecture that connects with nature, but for him to intervene in individual schemes going through the planning process is quite wrong."
Site owner Qatari Diar withdrew its application just a week before it was due to go before planners at Westminster City Council and despite yesterday’s revelation that the project was being backed by council officers.
Richard Rogers has said he is "extremely disappointed" at the decision.
However, the Traditional Architecture Group welcomed the decision and said the local community should now be consulted before new design work starts.
Chairman Alireza Sagharchi added: "The masterplan should be designed with a traditional pattern of streets and squares as well as maintaining the existing heritage and architectural character of this quarter of Chelsea."
The scheme attracted hostility from Prince Charles and local residents who were angered by the scale of the plans. The Prince had called for the developer to appoint classical architect Quinlan Terry instead.
In a statement, Project Blue, the company set up by Qatari Diar to revamp the site, said it would now launch a new competition for the west London project.
It said: “We will shortly be inviting a broad selection of renowned urban planning practices to explore a diversity of design responses for the site. This will include international firms as well as UK practices.”
The company said it would be discussing the plans with a number of stakeholders including the Prince’s Foundation.
It added "this will lead to the selection of a masterplan which we anticipate will be submitted to WCC for planning consent by the end of 2009".
Richard Rogers' statement
-
Commentary: David Rogers on why the scheme has been dropped
-
Today’s decision by Chelsea Barracks developer Qatari Diar to abandon Richard Rogers’ designs for the development has probably been taken with one eye on maintaining good relations with the British royal family.
Prince Charles was a high-profile critic of the £1 billion scheme and said he wanted the design – that was due to go before planners at Westminster City Council next Thursday – replaced with a traditional alternative picking out classicist Quinlan Terry as an appropriate architect.
QD, which is the main financial backer of Renzo Piano’s Shard of Glass building at London Bridge, is owned by the emirate’s sovereign wealth fund, the Qatar Investment Authority.
One insider said: “If it was a UK commercial developer behind Chelsea, they would have told Charles where to go.
“But because it’s a sovereign wealth fund, they care what other royals think. The Charles thing would have had an impact. There is a genuine will to be a bit more collaborative.”
It is understood that the possibility of withdrawing the planning application had been actively considered for the past two weeks among the hierarchy at QD which is headed by Ghanim bin Saad al-Saad and under whose leadership has seen a drive into the Americas and Europe over the past year.
But such is the sensitivity of this development and the reaction it has provoked – which has thrust the publicity shy QD into the spotlight – there is even a suggestion the decision could have been taken by Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Al-Thani.
The insider said: “It’s been an option to withdraw for about a fortnight. It became more realistic this week.”
Commercial considerations are likely to have also played a part in the decision. The steel-and-glass development was set to include 548 flats, a boutique hotel, two restaurants and a sports centre.
“They want Chelsea to be seen as a flagship and best in class,” the insider added. “For them there was the consideration that why bother doing something so controversial when there’s no hurry to build it out.”
The delay is set to be around 18 months but the setback means the scheme is more likely to be finished when the UK economy has fully come out of the recession.
But one impact of this morning’s decision is that thousands of construction jobs have been put on hold. Work was due to get underway later this year.
Full Project Blue statement
-
Project Blue (Guernsey) Limited (“PBGL”), the owner and developer of the Chelsea Barracks site, announced today that, after extensive and ongoing consultations with the stakeholders, it has withdrawn its current planning application for the site. PBGL also confirmed it will be conducting a comprehensive review of its plans and will be working very closely on this with Westminster City Council. This cooperative review will be carried out in the context of PBGL’s objective of aligning its vision for the site, stakeholder aspirations, site constraints and increasingly challenging market conditions.
A spokesman for PBGL said: “Our shareholder’s vision for this site is to deliver for London a best in class, sustainable residential development that includes community facilities and brings real benefits to this part of London. We will continue our extensive consultation process with all our stakeholders, where our focus will be on building a consensus for one of the most important sites in London.
We recognise the complexity of the planning process and we are pleased to have had the support of the planners and many consultees including the GLA, CABE, The Royal Hospital and some of our neighbours. We acknowledge however that there are differing views from various other quarters; we are very grateful to Westminster for the time and effort spent on the process to date and look forward to working very closely with them in the coming months. As part of the process to find the right solution we are already in discussion with The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment.
In order to achieve our vision, we will shortly be inviting a broad selection of renowned urban planning practices to explore a diversity of design responses for the site. This will include international firms as well as UK practices.
The urban planner’s ideas will be discussed with relevant stakeholders who in addition to WCC and the Prince’s Foundation will include Greater London Authority, CABE, English Heritage and the Belgravia Residents Association.
This will lead to the selection of a masterplan which we anticipate will be submitted to WCC for planning consent by the end of 2009. After the grant of initial consent we envisage that development will be undertaken on a phased basis with separate architectural practices competing for each phase. Variety in the architecture will be integrated with social amenities and landscaping to create a harmonious and distinguished community.
The redevelopment of the Chelsea Barracks site is one of a number of major investments by Qatari Diar in London and PBGL continues to remain committed in the face of all the current challenges, to delivering an architectural showcase and exemplar of our corporate vision.
Traditional Architecture Group statement from Chairman Alireza Sagharchi
-
A detailed consultation exercise should now take place via a community focused design and planning process with a new masterplan taking into account the local community’s desires.
The masterplan should be designed with a traditional pattern of streets and
squares as well as maintaining the existing heritage and architectural character of the this quarter of Chelsea.
Such an approach would imbue the development and its buildings with a sense of belonging to the existing urban grain and seamlessly integrate with the
surroundings. TAG believes the local community would then embrace the development as an enhancement of their environment.
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL LABOUR GROUP statement
-
Councillor Guthrie McKie, Labour’s Housing spokesperson said: “We look forward to being consulted on the new plans and insist that on site affordable housing and public open spaces, together with sports, health and other community benefits remain integral parts of the proposals.
"Important as design issues are, our concern is that this development makes a real contribution to meeting community needs in Pimlico. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to ensure that this key piece of land serves the whole community, not just the wealthy few.”
Postscript
:
Full coverage of the Chelsea Barracks saga
 Get the latest stories first with BD newsletters. Click to signup |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We want to hear from you
You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief and relevant. Remember this is for feedback and constructive discussion!
Comments may be edited if they do not meet these guidelines.
Readers' comments
It's not easy to get a building approved in this country, no wonder we have a housing shortage. At least Prince Charles, with his several palaces, doesn't have a housing shortage.
That’s it I’m never going to buy any of Charles pasties again!
Steve - is planning the reason we have a housing shortage, or is it the number of people with three, four or five second homes? Or people with 10 bedroom houses who live in just one of them? I'd be intrigued to learn how many bedrooms there are in the UK. I'm willing to hazard a guess that its well over 65 million. Maybe the problem lies in our apparent need for conspicuous consumption and craving for social status rather than at the feet of planners or Prince Charles?
Hooray. The planners failed to take note of the many objections; they recommended approval. So much for the 'democratic' plannig procedures. Even if the councillors had voted against the scheme, if there was a call-in, and the expense of a public inquiry, then the fact planners had recommended it go ahead would have been held up as a reason to allow it. Oh, the naivety of those who think planning is straightforward and 'democratic'! I wonder how many buildings gain approval as against those turned down? And remind me - how many sound buildings are being demolished in the name of 'Pathfinder'?
Excellent comment from Steve Green. This is precisely the type of development that will help solve the UK's housing shortage. I could already see the rush to buy these flats from your average middle income buyer!! :(
When he becomes our head of state, how are we going to deal with that as a profession?
Andre, this development included 274 affordable housing units for teachers and nurses! Millions of young people cannot afford to get a house of their own, in my view this is a much bigger problem than some esthetical issues people have raised.
From the little I've seen of the designs so far, this is excellent news. Lets face it, the Rogers design is the most discredited kind of eco-blinged up, unimaginative, early nineties modernism of the type that RSHP can't seem to shake themselves out of. The only argument against this probable truth is that the planners seemed set to strongly back the scheme, but that doesn't necessarliy mean anything. A competition for for this very important urban site should have been done the first time. The developer should be praised, afterall, it seemed as if it was going to get planning permission, it is not in it's interests to have a competition, it is only in the public's interest. I do feel sorry for RSHP, but this has got to be the right decision. To blame Charles is ridiculous. The developer is obviously free to make it's own decisions We need more action like this, not less. Quantity of housing is important, but so is quality if we are to avoid the problems of the past
nice to see the planning process usurped by wilful tastes of the rich and aimless. QD could have shown some spine and stood by its own project team. the mistake is if the successful scheme is 'Charlesized' Londoners will have lost the opportunity to see something built that looks to the future, is sustainable, robust, a precedent in the the built fabric on what is possibly the last big site in the city. notice to the architect: you have a big responsibility to not only satisfy the client but the rest of London, stay away from the pastiche, it will do you no favours!
off with 'is head!
In itself this is no great loss, but if Quinlan Terry's scheme is to be the alternative, I think I may resort to banging my head on the table. In many ways, it is a shame (though understandable) that modernists have felt shoe-horned into supporting Roger's undistinguished and overdeveloped scheme simply because the alternative was too awful to contemplate.
The real problem of the Chelsea Barracks site is the developer's desire to achieve a return on it's £1 billion investment. By attempting to fit too many luxury flats on a limited site the Rogers scheme is an over development of the site. The problems with the development will not be solved by a stylistic change. A new masterplan and blocks designed by Terry or Porphyrios will not solve these problems. Residents may even regret that the Rogers scheme has been scrapped when they see the neo-clasical scheme.
Rogers, Prasad etc. are clinging on blindly to the intervention of Prince Charles, desperate for it to be the fundamental reason for the change in decision. But it isn't. The scheme was awful, it alienated everyone nearby, it was completely out of context, it would have ruined the area, it would have been a colossal waste of this most valuable area of land. And you don't need to be Prince Charles to recognise or state this. Prasad is being spectacularly stupid and naive if he cannot see what has happened.
It appears the planning process has been reduced to gaining the approval of one man. The Prince. Nice going.....it appears to be a fair and democratic process to me.....Not. This is an absolute joke, regardless of what you think of the design or not, good or bad, the fact this one person can have such an impact on the planning process is a complete embarrassment to the system. The system now amounts to almost nothing, and that is very sad. Had the kind of pressure the Prince has applied to QD happened behind closed doors, it would appear to us all that some dodgy deal had taken place, yet by making this pressure public, its meant to make it ok, morally sound and ethical? I think not. It makes a complete mockery of the system and anyone involved with this new wave of disapproval with the scheme, that has ultimately led to its demise should be completely ashamed of themselves. Thanks to you few, this paves the way for fewer great buildings ever seeing the light of day in this great city. Besides, are they seriously suggesting that what is on the Chelsea barracks site at the moment is inspiring and quality design? I suspect the local residents are more concerned with the sound of a jack hammer and trucks than the design itself.
Unbelieveable- as someone who was squared up to inolved with the project, I am deeply upset that the Prince has affectively put the future of the company I work for and the jobs of the highly skilled staff that work for us in jeopardy. Perhaps, in his blinkered view of Britain, he fails to see that there are still many tradional arts that are involved in such projects. Just because it didn't look like a Wren, didn't mean that there wasn't an enormous amount of detail and beauty to be put into the facades of these buildings. It is a real lost opportunity for the capital and I cannot write here how I truly feel about the prince.
Me, I find both proposals much of a muchness. Everyone, get a grip, this argument isn't about the Royal Hospital, the soul of Chelsea, or even that of Architecture if anyone could even recognise the remnants of it. Sorry to state the obvious but if the driver is return on investment then the hardest task for any architect is to make sure each room has a window and, once they've done that, to make sure those windows are at least (I'm not sure what the rules of the game are in Westminster, but shall we say?) 16? 12? 10? metres away from each other and obliquely looking towards something that rates as a view. On basic geometry alone, it's obvious that RSHP's uninspired linear finger proposal looks like achieving that more easily than QT's does (with its equally uninspired and spatially inefficient corners, it's WASTING SELLABLE SPACE! It's all about the windows guys – the tax has been gone for a while now – do catch up!) None of this really matters though. We must face the fact that most projects conceived prior to September last year were ill-conceived. I should mention that I currently live and work in Dubai. Do get real. I think the Qatari's are right to withdraw. It's an altogether bad vibe you've got going over there. I sympathise with the Candy brothers for buying a lemon. But if they can afford to sit on it for a decade I'm sure they'll be fine because, even in Chelsea, it's the nature of brownfield land to just lie there, increasing in value until its development potential is realised. In the meantime, Nick and Christian, you have my full respect for staying out of this pettiness.
This is excellent news - it is a tribute to both the fortitude of the people of Chelsea who fought so hard to protect this site from a damaging and crass development project, to Prince Charles for sticking up for his people and to the Qataris for listening and being willing to ditch the Rogers scheme and seek a better solution. It is a slap in the face for the arrogant architectural elite who have no interest in what the people think because in their high handed patronizing manner they think they know what's best for us and it is a rebuke for the town planners of Westminster who were happy to ignore the will of the electors of the City with the same nauseating arrogance. I trust our elected Members are far more in tune with their voters and will seek answers as to why their officers acted in this ill-judged way demonstrating just how out of touch they are with what the people they are meant to serve really want.
Whilst the scheme would have worked elsewhere, I don't think it was right for this site. Good ridance to it.
The developer now says they are in consultation with the Prince's Foundation. Will they be making a payment for this? Does the Prince see nothing wrong in using priveledge to tout for work for his own people - or his favourites? Where else would someone be allowed to kill a scheme and then be commissioned to prepare or be part of drawing up a new master plan. Is this a case of double standards or just a sad example of retrogressive feudalism?
Personally, I do not think the dismissal of RSHP from this project is a good thing. Firstly, the idea that this is a victory for democracy is actually dubious. You can talk about involving “local people” but the reality is that the people who will live in the new buildings aren’t there yet. In this context, empowering locals is more about nimbyism than genuine democracy. All planning decisions should be seen in the context of a region and the country as a whole. I know that many have argued that RSHP were pressurised to squeeze too much onto a site. Architects often are. In terms of density, it was actually quite restrained, at any rate to some of the developments in Docklands. I recently went through Canary Wharf tube station at rush hour which was heaving. This cluster of very high density development set in the midst of dilapidated, underdeveloped East London is not a very inspiring template for urban design. The same approach seems to be about to be repeated at Greenwich Peninsula. The densities of the excellent Greenwich Millenium village, which mixes houses and apartments very successfully, will NOT be repeated but instead will sometimes approach the scale of 15 stories. I know there is the nearby Greenwich tube station, but why in Britain do sites with good public transport immediately become overdeveloped? Good urban design cannot happen without more investment in public transport infrastructure, a point the British Governments seem unable to grasp.
I think HRH Prince Charles should stick to his job related to royalty and leave the architecture to the architects. While I respect his view on Environment and Heritage- I totally disregard his intervention in the Chelsea Barracks Scheme by Lord Rogers. It is right time that Rogers hands back his Lordship title to the Royalty. There should be a wider debate and this debate should put an end to the Prince's interference. Leave Architecture to the Architects Mr Prince and we all know (The World Community of Architects) that Rogers is one of the finest architects we have today and I am sure he has a sensible schme in place. My advise is that Richard Rogers should fight on and we are with him in this.
Whilst I appreciate the pressure to squeeze as many "units" onto the site I feel that this is a long overdue message to RSHP that monuments to architects and formulaic architecture will no longer be endured by those of us who do not subscribe to the "KIngs new clothes syndrome" More power to Terry etc. who at least produce human scale/detailed "architecture" rather than the almost franchised RSHP approach