Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


About turn … Prince Charles wins battle of Chelsea Barracks

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 June 2009
THE Prince of Wales has won his battle to get the developers of Chelsea Barracks to drop their modernist design for the project.
The Middle East owners of the 12.8-acre site announced yesterday they had withdrawn their application, less than a week before it was due to be considered by planning chiefs.

The decision follows a direct intervention by the Prince, who wrote to
the chairman of Qatari Diar, the real estate investment company behind the scheme, urging him to consider alternatives to the modernist design created by Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners, the architect firm headed by Lord Rogers.

It is believed the Prince asked for a classical scheme instead of the steel and glass proposal which has now been scrapped.

Lord Rogers, who designed the Millennium Dome and the Pompidou Centre in Paris, blamed the Prince for the project's collapse.

In a statement he said: "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from planning officers at Westminster City Council, it is extremely disappointing that this application has been withdrawn in response to Prince Charles's views less than a week before the council was due to consider it."

Lord Rogers has won numerous awards for his modernist creations. But his design views are at odds with those of the Prince, who has championed traditional approaches to architecture for decades.

Chelsea Barracks was sold for £959 million to PBGL, a company owned by Qatari Diar, the state of Qatar's property investment arm, in the UK's most expensive home property deal last year.

The original plans included 638 flats in a series of pavilions up to 10 storeys high, close to the site's original 1691 Christopher Wren-designed building.

A PBGL spokesman said it was now working with a range of stakeholders – including the Prince's planning and design charity the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment – to find a new design.

The spokesman said: "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 closely on this with Westminster City Council."

He added that it was hoped a "masterplan" would be submitted for planning consent by the end of the year.

London Assembly member Kit Malthouse, whose constituency includes the barracks site, said: "An act of large-scale vandalism has been averted.

"London should be grateful to the Qataris for their wisdom in turning away from yet another glass and steel disaster."

Westminster City Council leader Colin Barrow said the announcement would "provide a fresh opportunity to create a scheme which is more sympathetic to its surroundings".





The full article contains 486 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 June 2009 9:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Prince of Wales
 
 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.