Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

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

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

RSHP’s Hammersmith hotel gets the go-ahead despite objections


Councillors have approved controversial plans by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP) for an 800-bed hotel in west London, despite objections from local residents, heritage groups and politicians

Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s planning and development control committee voted to grant consent for the scheme on the site of the former Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court on Talgarth Road in line with officer recommendation.

Backed by developer Dominvs, the hotel will feature four blocks arranged around an internal courtyard, with a North Hotel stepping from seven to 23 storeys and a South Hotel ranging from five to 10 floors.

Labour MP for Hammersmith Andy Slaughter urged the council to refuse the scheme, as he said it would be a ‘significant imposition for residents’ and an ‘oppressive structure’. The Fulham Society raised concerns of over ‘development of the site to the detriment of the surrounding residential areas’.

The Hammersmith Society said it was ‘dismayed’ that the proposals ‘overload the site’, while the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group warned that the hotel would ‘badly affect’ the setting of Barons Court Conservation Area.

The Friends of Margravine Cemetery said the hotel would loom over the 19th century burial site and feature ‘starkly’ in views of three of its Grade II-listed structures.

But planning officers advised that the scheme would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting and significance of The Mall Conservation Area and Barons Court Conservation Area and to the settings of some important buildings within those areas.

They added that the ‘configuration, design and materiality’ of the hotel would ‘enhance the town centre’s legibility; the definition of historic urban spaces; [and] the townscape character and identity’.

Officers said that the scheme would have an ‘acceptable’ impact on the amenities and living conditions of surrounding properties. They concluded that it ‘delivers substantial design, heritage and public benefits that are considered to outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets’.

The approval marks the latest chapter in a long saga for the site. Dominvs last year withdrew an earlier application drawn up by Dexter Moren Associates (pictured below) for the same plot.

Officers had recommended councillors approve this previous scheme – which also reached 23 storeys – saying it would ‘deliver good-quality architecture, which optimises the capacity of the site’.

But amid a flurry of local opposition, the scheme was withdrawn and Richard Rogers’ practice was appointed just before Christmas ‘to take a fresh look at the site’. Fresh plans were then submitted in April, featuring 842 rooms, down marginally from the 858 proposed by Dexter Moren.

Now approved by councillors, the RSHP proposals have been passed to the Mayor of London, who has two weeks to decide whether to call it in or wave it through.

Dexter moren ma hmc garden square visual

Dexter Moren’s previous proposal for the site featuring a new south facing public square, lined by existing listed trees

Dexter Moren’s previous proposal for the site featuring a new south facing public square, lined by existing listed trees


Readers' comments (3)

  • Another example of how the new is assumed to be doing harm -- guilty, unless it can prove mitigating circumstances. Pathetic.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The proposals might just have come in for more than warranted criticism due to unfavourable comparison with the strong individuality of Ralph Erskine's 'Ark' built next door nearly thirty years ago.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The massing works well with the existing residential houses adjacent to the site - don't know what the fuss is about.

    There's nothing wrong with local residents or groups raising their concerns, but if they do, they ought to be more specific rather than just saying the schemes are 'oppressive' or 'detrimental' - if you can't articulate your concerns specifically it just comes across as unfounded nimbyism - something that is a bit of a disease in this borough.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.