By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Control of Chelsea Barracks shifts to local people - and Prince Charles

The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment is to work closely with the developer Qatari Diar to deliver a scheme more focused on local community

Hank Dittmar, chief executive of foundation said: ‘We have been invited by Qatari Diar to participate in a more open process. We will work with them to advise on masterplanning, from our core principle of involving the local community and local stakeholders in the design process.’

On 12 June, the developer Project Blue - of which Qatari Diar owns a majority stake - issued a statement that it had withdrawn its planning application for the controversial Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners £1bn residential scheme for central London. Prince Charles, president of the Foundation was a leading critic of the scheme.

The withdrawal was welcomed by the Traditional Architecture Group (TAG), which called for greater involvement by the stakeholders and local community from the outset. Alireza Sagharchi chairman of TAG said : ‘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.’

Readers' comments (3)

  • But that's far too sensible an approach, surely? What is normal is to ignore democracy and the desires of the local community and impose something which the developr wants, the architect wants, and the planners go along with because the planning system gives them that sort of power. All too often the planners involved are transient and temporary anyhow, or driven by a different agenda to that of those who have to live with the mistakes.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • This says it all, really:-

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • /The_Times_11.12.08_1.pdf

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters