Chelsea Barracks - who's right, Rogers or the Prince?

Now the dust has settled a bit on the Chelsea Barracks debate – you’ll remember that Prince Charles is said to have written  to the Qatari owners of the development site to express his concern over Richard Rogers’ design - I’d like to add something.  The result of Prince Charles’s intervention was that the owners withdrew the design before it went to Westminster City Council’s planning committee.

 

I should say that I am a great fan of Rogers’ work, ever since the Pompidou Centre, and no supporter of the Prince’s taste in or views on architecture, ever since the “monstrous carbuncle” speech.

 

The criticism made by Rogers is that the Prince interfered with the democratic process of planning. He suggests that the planning process chooses and moulds the buildings we get.  Whilst it’s true that the process can reject and influence design, it does not choose the buildings. The owner or developer initiates the process and it is their privilege to decide which architect to use and which design to submit.  The planning system is also enjoined (slightly less strongly now than in the late 1980s) to stay out of matters of taste.  It’s a hard dictum, but if your neighbour’s taste doesn’t agree with yours and he paints the brickwork of his London terrace house brick red when you’d prefer the natural colour of the London Stock bricks (cream, fading to grey as it weathers) then unless it’s listed or in a conservation area that’s just tough.  The owner/developer is in the driving seat and at Chelsea Barracks Prince Charles hasn’t interfered with the planning process.  He has simply persuaded the owner to abandon the design.

 

Rogers second point is that the Prince is being “unconstitutional” by what he does.  It is rumoured that

landowners and developers seek his view before submitting their schemes. (Even the Dean of Westminster Abbey on his “Corona” proposal was forced to admit when asked on the Today programme last month about how they’d deal with the Prince that they’d “got that one covered”.)  Rogers wants a commission to look at the powers of the Prince and how to restrain them.

This one is more problematical.  The Prince is undoubtedly influential. And many people agree with his views. So he can be a rallying point, a substantial support to those who want to influence the taste of their neighbours, or even prevent their neighbours from expressing their taste.  Is it right that he should use his influence in this way?  After all we have a constitutional convention that the monarch does not make public political or controversial statements.  Shouldn’t the next in line to the throne also observe that convention?

The convention works well, and I suspect that it actually enables the Queen to have more influence over her Prime Ministers in the weekly audiences than would otherwise be the case.  It certainly keeps her above politics and able to perform her head of state functions with huge authority. At the moment Prince Charles is not the monarch and whilst if I were in his shoes I would keep my own counsel (or at least not express it so publicly), I am inclined to the view that he can express these views. Indeed I might even go as far as to say like Edmund Burke that whilst I do not agree with what he says I will fight for his right to say it (until he becomes the monarch).

But with that right comes also a responsibility, to engage in debate, to be prepared to defend publicly expressed views in public discussion. When Burke wrote his famous words, he was I think expecting that those who express a view will be happy to discuss it and engage with those who disagree.  Rogers says that the Prince will not do this, and certainly his views come over as pronouncements. There is no forum to discuss them with him openly, only opposing public speeches, articles and letters to the editor which have all the nuance of megaphone diplomacy.

I do hope the Prince and all of us will also remember that after his criticisms of the design for the British Library, the practice of its architect, Colin St John Wilson, received no commissions for years.  I doubt that Rogers will suffer the same fate, but the Prince should be aware of the power and effect of his views.

So whilst I disagree with Prince Charles’ view on Chelsea Barracks and regret the power he wields, I also have to say that Rogers got it wrong this time. The owner has the right to choose the architect.  And if an owner ditches architect X in favour of Rogers Stirk Harbour I would support him utterly.

Comments

[David Brock]

The longlist of architects chosen to redesign the Chelsea Barracks Scheme was announced yesterday and this article in the Guardian today www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/aug/12/chelsea-architecture-qatar-london makes interesting reading. Five of the ten firms are said to be closely allied to the Prince's approach, and they include the designers of Seaside, the town which was the setting for The Truman Show movie and two firms which have worked on the Princes's development at Poundbury.

This is the problem with the Prince's public statements on architecture. Who can blame a developer for seeking firms who are less likely to cause the Prince to criticise the development and prejudice the grant of planning permission? After all a developer is quite properly trying to make a profit. So why make your life more difficult with a scheme which is being criticised by the Prince?

It will be interesting to see what sort of architects make it to the short list. Two allied to the Prince's approach and one of the rest? Any other suggestions?

[Caroline Bywater]

I see from the BBC news website that the Prince is being criticised again for making comments on architecture - this time in relation to the private letter he sent to Land Securities in 2005 relating to the One New Change development near St Paul's. Seems others are also concerned with his influence (whether it is successful or not).

[David Brock]

I see that this controversy is still alive and that the Prince may be called upon to give evidence in a lawsuit being brought by the Candy brothers against the Qatari Royal family over it. Here's an extract from the Planning daily blog:

"Prince Charles could appear as a witness in a legal action over the collapse of plans to redevelop the Chelsea Barracks site in London.
Property developers the Candy brothers have launched a High Court action against the Qatari royal family over the collapse of the deal to redevelop the site.

According to weekend media reports, Nick and Christian Candy claim that the decision of the Qatari royal family to withdraw their planning application was as a result of a direct intervention by Prince Charles, who criticised the £3 billion scheme designed by Lord Rogers and backed by the Candys.

The brothers, through Christian Candy’s CPC Group, are accusing Qatari Diar, the state’s property investment company, of breaching a contract with them when it withdrew from the scheme last June - a week before the application was due to go before Westminster council’s planning committee.

A spokesperson from Clarence House said it was not commenting other than to say there was no contractual relationship between Prince Charles and his office with anyone else and therefore they were not party to any legal dispute. CPC declined to comment.

If the Prince does appear, he would be the first royal witness in court since 1890, when the future Edward VII gave evidence in a gambling case."