Local Opinions

LOCAL COMPANY OPINIONS:

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea - David Prout
"This would be harmful to views out of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area."
"The proposed hotel building would be harmful to the amenities of the residents of Holbein House."

Westminster NHS Primary Care Trust - Paul Jenkins
"None of these practice premises would be able to accommodate the needs of the residents moving to Chelsea Barracks."

Housing Partnerships - Fergus Coleman
"No Housing Association(s) has been formally appointed by the applicant to partner this scheme - before any legal agreement is completed in relation to a planning permission for this site, the Housing Association partner / partners must be formally appointed by the developer."

ITV - Dr & Mrs Michael Archer
"[It] appears to be a totally inappropriate building complex."

Sport England
"The provision of a high density development on the site is at the cost of open space needs... The Council will need to consider provision of such needs in view of high density and the potential impact this has on community amenities in order to avoid creating circumstances that promote anti-social activity."

English Heritage - Brenda Daly
"The [1990 Planning] Act, requires that your authority have special regards to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when considering a planning application."

"The proposals will...impact upon several listed buildings and conservation areas surrounding the development site... In the case of the 19th Century terrace on Ebury Road, the development will loom above the domestic scale of the terrace."

"See 2006 planning brief for this site. Para 7.2 states the requirements that the design scheme for this area 'integrates sensitively into the surrounding areas'. Areas with listed buildings require 'special consideration'.

"The brief also encourages the retention of the barracks chapel which is currently the subject of consideration for listing."

"English Heritage strongly urges your authority to consider the proposals and the harm to the historic environment."

Belgravia Residents' Association - Randa Hanna
"It is...extremely disappointing to see that this submission is no more than a mere drawing exercise and that the chance to create a neighbourhood rather than a standard development resulting in an artificial [and] sterile environment has been so missed. This is a very rare chance to celebrate the best of what has been learnt to date in a beautiful corner of the city. The proposal clearly does not fulfil the potential of this opportunity."

The Westminster Society - Owen Rowlands
"The Society regards the proposal presented as a great disappointment given the strategic location of the site on a major 'gateway' thoroughfare. We recommend the application be rejected in its present form."

Grosvenor Investments - Nigel Hughes (On behalf of the Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster and Grosvenor Estate, Belgravia)
"The appearance of the buildings betrays the commercial background of the architects when what was required was...an understanding of the history and sensitivities of the site."

"The separation of the market and affordable residential uses is too clearly defined in both geographical and design terms. It would appear the the separation has been driven purely by commercial, rather than social reasons, and is too marked for a cohesive community."

South Westminster Renewal Partnership Co-ordinator - Sue Hannah
"There did not appear to be an extensive consultation programme...the public exhibitions of September 2007 and April 2008 were not very well publicised...some of the residents that were able to attend said that the models were not very clear or helpful. There is a need for a more comprehensive community consultation and engagement process, both during the planning stage, and in the lead up to the development of the site"

Sarah Anderson
"I understand the need for economy etc. when providing social housing, but the way it is being built at the moment is patronising / insulting depending on your point fo view. Not all people in need of social housing are thick, scroungers etc. This obvious divide I feel could cause far more problems, and rather than mix communities, which I believe was its intention originally, the 'haves' and 'have nots' put shoulder to shoulder like this, I think, could well cause massive friction."

Environmental Enforcement Officer - Amelia Haskell (On behalf of the Environmental Sciences Team)
"The installation of a biomass boiler is proposed as part of the Combined Heating and Power (CPH) system. I am concerned about this because these are known to cause emissions of smoke and fine particles including PM10 which have a detrimental effect on human health."

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Architects Appraisal Panel Report)
"The panel expressed discomfort at the strong sense of a gated community on the Chelsea Bridge Road frontage."

Bernard Kelly & Associates - Bernard Kelly
"I am all in favour of a proper commercial return, but not on an inflated price and on a disregard for the traditional life qualities in the area."

" The area would be better suited to a more traditional development, perhaps along the lines of the Duke of York area, and certainly with houses intermingled with shopping and garden squares open to the public."

English Heritage - Diana Walls
"Important archaeological remains may exist on this site. Accordingly, the planning authority wishes to secure the provision of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with the guidance and model conditions set out in PPG16."

Greater London Authority - Giles Dolphin
"The energy strategy needs substantial further work, particularly consideration of connection to Pimlico district heating system and single energy network, and this needs to be undertaken before the application comes back to the Mayor at Stage II. Further work is also needed on the transport assessment."

LFEPA - Station Officer
"The [fire] brigade is not satisfied with the proposal. Water supplies are to conform to the Brigade's requirements, to be confirmed when detailed plans are available showing inlets for risers and fire fighting access."

AKG Group - Time Boles
"It provides too much high density housing in an area of local beauty and significance."

Director of Transportation - Ian Morrison
"This indicates that overall parking provision is below the maximum allowable by the UDP standards for the proposed development."

Director of Environment and Leisure - Barbara Milne
"Eight protected trees are proposed to be removed... Objection to removal of three protected trees:
- London plane corner Pimlico Road and Chelsea Bridge Road
- Sycamore on Ebury Bridge Road frontage
- London plane adjacent to the chapel"
On incorporated green spaces: "It does not appear that this would be a particularly welcoming or comfortable space for public recreation."

Department of Environment and Leisure - David Kerrigan MS, FCMI
"We still have concerns about the provision and operation of a Leisure Centre up to four floors below ground level and that will place a number of challenges in design and access to deal with the significant number of users (able bodied and disabled users and young people and schools) that are likely to use the facilities. Many issues remain unclear, not least the transfer of toddler buggies and pushchairs for classes (is two lifts sufficient to cater for demand) and similar concerns for multiple disabled users."

Crime and Disorder - David Fisher PC
"...concerned the car park could be used as a 'short-cut' for vehicles, between Chelsea Bridge Road and Ebury Bridge Road, particularly during peak rush hour periods which could greatly increase the anonymity of individuals on the premises with unlawful intent."

Ross Hamilton Limited Antiques - Mark Boyce
"There have been far too many high rise developments, especially along the river, which I fear is detrimental to the city space."

Ravama Venture Limited
"The scale of the proposed development does not relate to the grain and scale of Belgravia."

Fletchdar Limited
"The existing character of the buildings in the immediate areas of Bloomfield Terrace, Ranelagh Grove and St. Barnabas Street will suffer from the immense contrast of these high, massed buildings.

Paul Davis and Partners
"Our primary concern is to see a fine development of the site that adds to this part of Westminster in its contribution to community, housing need, architecture, sustainability and place. In our view, the proposal fails on all of these fundamental aspects."

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS

*Quotes left anonymous to protect identities

"Clearly the planning authority cannot insist on traditional design or local patronage; but at least it can ensure plenty of open space and access for the local community."

"I feel they do very little to enhance the style of the area."

"I object to the density of the proposed construction with no recreation space."

"I voice my objection to this plan on the grounds that there are too many buildings within the area of the site."

"The segregation and differentiation between the private housing and the affordable housing is a recipe for social disharmony."

"There will be no community infrastructure."

"To accord with the amenity surrounding the area, the density should be far lower."

"Not only will they contradict the present buildings in the surrounding area and offend everything and everyone by their glass and concrete design, but they will take light and air."

"The architects have shown a complete indifference of the character in the area."

"Represents just about the greatest missed opportunity of any major site in London."

"Extremely depressing."

"The Lord Rogers design bears no resemblance to any local architecture; the tallest building would be 5-6 stories higher than any building in close proximity."

"Where are the green spaces?"

"Total disregard for the indigenous residents and the colourful and historic memories attached to this area."

"Loss of sunlight, daylight, and privacy to adjacent and nearby properties."

"It would be a disaster for Chelsea."

"Will ruin a lovely part of London."

"There is no recreation space and the buildings are too tall."

"The blocks are too close, too large, and too dominant for the location and are radically out of character with the surrounding areas."

"The proposed building completely dwarf the existing buildings in the neighbourhood; they will deprive these homes of sunlight, daylight, and privacy."

"I consider that they completely fail to respect the scale and pattern of the neighbouring streets and townscape."

"The erection of these tower blocks would be visually disfiguring."

"The added pressure on local traffic and civic facilities would be considerable during and after construction."

"...would be completely out of character and scale with the surrounding area and fly in the face of all Westminster City Council's guidelines."

"The density of the housing will significantly add to the congestion and put significant strain on the areas of Pimlico, Belgravia and Chelsea."

"I find the current design terrible and completely unsuitable for the area."

"...would fundamentally change the neighbourhood forever."

"GREED seems to be the prime motivation. How many tower blocks can one squeeze into the space provided?"

"I am concerned that the proposed new building to replace Chelsea Barracks will cause loss of light to my house."

"The proposed new buildings are in the 1960's modernist style and therefore are very stark and unpleasant to look at - this style of building is being demolished all over the country, so why build new ones?"

"We are presented with a development created by people with no sensitivity for the character and heritage of the area."

"The website states that it is all in the spirit of the area, which is laughable nonsense given the size and ruthlessness of the blocks so near a leafy, Georgian-Victorian area, the Royal Hospital and other landmarks."

"We are going to be deprived of light, the already congested parking is going to become impossible, and the almost non-existent services around here which are already deteriorating, risk collapse."

"We fear this is a brash plan which will not enhance the area, but will indeed place additional strains on the local services. We encourage the council to use its authority to insist that the developer takes account of the location by reducing the density and height of the buildings, and by softening their appearance."

"I think it is sad that future generations will inherit a city of glass blocks. [The development] will cause huge detrimental impact on the area, with both increased population and horrendous flats."

"I am worried that the height of the proposed hotel on the corner of Pimlico Road and Chelsea Bridge Road is going to reduce the amount of daylight I will receive and will be very oppressive."

"Surely you have responsibilities to all council tax payers to ensure that there is a reasonable quantity of parking."

"I object to the proposal because the scale of it is too large for the site and because it proposes to cut down a number of large existing trees on the site that are preserved by preservation orders."

"The concerns are: height of buildings, sunlight / daylight and scale, and loss of amenity."

"Our small community neighbourhood is one in which very little has changed architecturally over the last couple of centuries. The consents process has quite correctly made it difficult for us even now to make modest extensions to our houses. We hope and expect that this large development will be treated with the same cautious approach, in spite of the large amounts of money at stake for all concerned."

"I feel the height, mass and scale of the development proposed would still overwhelm the majority of adjoining and neighbouring properties."

"The effects are greatly detrimental to our area: the sky will be blocked, our privcy will be invaded as tenants and owners in the new buildings will have unimpeded views into our garden and our upper windows, and we will be forced to have unimpeded views into theirs, plus our sunlight will be completely blocked for about a quarter of the year if not more."

GUEST REGISTER COMMENTS

"Save this beautiful church. It is a part of our heritage and shouldn't be torn down for the sake of a few apartments!!"

"This church should be kept as a memorial to the men who have fought for our country! Please save this building!"

"Save the church!"

"The apartments are hideous. How could anyone consider building such monstrosities on such a historic site. Visitors come to london to see our historic beautiful architecture, and Londoners love being surrounded by our wonderful history. Save our church."

"Please save this beautiful Church. It should not be pulled down to allow extra flats and extra profit for the developers"

"Please save this historic building from the greed of the developers."

"London does NOT need more flats; it needs more family homes with gardens and off street parking.This historic building should be preserved for the future; it should have been listed years ago.MC Black"

"I feel that the Chapel at the Chelsea Barracks site should be retained and made us of. The site has an interesting history. I was stationed in the Barracks. Other relations of mine including my father and Great grandfather along with two great uncles served in the Foot Guards I therfore beleive that the Chapel should be retained Gough"

"Please save this historic building, it would be tragic to demolish it just for the sake of building even more apartments."

"This church has exceptional historical, military, and emotional importance and should be preserved."

"I am opposed to the destruction of this church, and the current development plan for Chelse BarracksAnthony O'Carroll"

"Please, please save this historic church!"

"The beautiful church must be saved at all costs. The proposed flats are appalling. How could the Council even consider allowing planning permission for such such an abomination and on such a historic site."

"The church should be saved. What would the soldiers who have attended that church have thought if they had been told on the eve of their departure for war, that one day, their church would be torn down at the behest of commercial property interests.If it goes, those responsible should be eternally shamed."

"This fine building should not be bulldozed simply to increase the convenience or profit of the developers. It should be retained as the last vestige of an important historical complex."

"The church should be protected it is part of the local and national heritage."

"Garrison Church is a heritage building that should be saved at all cost. The church needs to be restored and preserved and respected."

"This church is of historic importance and it would be an act of sheer vandalism to destroy such a building. Why is the council permitting this?"

"The whole development is far too large, too dense and totally out of keeping with the surrounding area. The church should certainly not be destroyed and the Planners must not be allowed to approve this truly dreadful development."

"The entire development shows total lack of imagination, vision or care for the area. It would be an appalling legacy. I am amazed that any of the professionals involved are prepared to put their name to it."

"it looks like a cheap campus:It's as if because they already have the terrible estate-like buildings on there now, it'll be ok to build some new estate-like buildings and sell them for a mint. Lets find the smallest marginal improvement for the highest possible pricetag.Grrr... typical minimum spend for maximum profit at work again, a London tradition it seems....and if this 'affordable' side of the development isn't an estate with all the cut corners of the Sixties, I don't know what is. Cheap, nasty, misanthropic.And the cherry to it all, their axing the chapel too, the one feature of the archiectural plain."

"Architecture hideous and totally out of character with the local area. Get new architects, please. Perhaps Quinlan Terry!"

"Was just again close to the site today; The project is a total disaster."

"Nick & Christian Candy,please save the old church - it will be a unique plus point in your development, as we increasingly seek peaceful communal spaces. I understand times are tough for you guys and your partners, but destroying the church would be a dreadful mistake, and forever linked to the Candy name (Chelsea, Candy, Church...)"

MORE COMMENTS AND OPINIONS

Sir David and Lady Kelly
" We are West Eaton Place residents and ask you to register our strong support for BOG."

Lynne Lawton
"I visited the exhibition on Saturday and was not impressed with what I saw."

David Humphrey
"I find it extraordinary that such a proposed commercial development could be considered for such an important site in a conservation area in the heart of central London.An opportunity to celebrate 21st century English architectural design and construction at its very best or classic architecture such as the magnificent development at the Royal Hospital, will, if we are not careful, be missed.In pursuit of profit, the developer will leave us with another, bland, run of the mill, glass, metal and faux-brick tower block ghetto, unsympathetic to the surrounding area and soulless, like so many other developments that have blighted the London architectural and historical skyline in the past ten years.Have we learned nothing from the 1970's tower block building boom?Do we really have to try to fit so much into one space, compromising natural daylight for the local community and putting such a huge strain on the local infrastructure such as parking, congestion and public transport?The development should be focusing more on quality rather than quantity, sympathetic to the surrounding area, at a height that does not dominate, but harmonizes with its environment.Instead this bland, commercially driven proposal, could if we are not careful, spoil an area of central London that many of us have come to love!"

Sir John Nott
"I think that the design is disastrous for the area. The planners must ask the Qatari’s to withdraw it - now that Candy & Candy are out - and replace it with a scheme that gives space and environmental protection to the site. Also remove gated community so that locals can enjoy the site beside the Royal Hospital. Currently the design ensures maximum economic return to the developers without any regard to modern planning principles. It is an abomination."

Vicki Sarge
"I would like to confirm that I am writing to BOG. I visited the site today and I am socked at the changes in the plans as they have gone away and made things far worse as far as I can see. They had no copy of the old plans. I live at Cheylesmore House on Ebury Bridge Road and I would feel this will lessen the value of my house. I felt swamped by Housing Estates."

Bruce Heyhoe
"I share your concern over this crass, insensitive and crudely commercial plan. It would be a crime against London if such a site was allowed to be developed in this way. Any unbiased person in a position of influence must surely share these concerns on both environmental and aesthetic grounds.Regards,"

Mr.M Duffield
"I was appalled to see large scale of building that is being proposed even at the ‘reduced’ plans presentation. The proposed blocks are much too high and will dominate the area.I recommend that 50 feet be the maximum height. I am very concerned about the proposed “social & affordable” block that Candy & Candy are suggesting. This is a very ugly design that will certainly dominate the area and not be in harmony with the present surroundings.
"
" I would also question Qatari Diar and Candy & Candy’s right to divide housing in such an obvious manner and blatantly isolate the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’. I urge Westminster Council and Grosvenor Estates not to give consent to buildings over 50 feet (15 meters) and to seriously review the “social & affordable” block and have an overall building reduction of 50%."

Howard Charman
"We saw the above "hard sell" by Candy and Candy last night and were horrified by bulk, inappropriate materials and total lack of sensitivity and relationship to existing buildings at this absolutely prime site."

Stephen J Borton
"I attended the exhibition at the Royal Hospital last night. The presentation was clear and I now have a much clearer idea of what is proposed. I was appalled by what I saw and am totally opposed to the development in this form. My objections are two-fold. I object to the style of the development. First, it is reminiscent of the worst of the 1960s/70s fashion for 'boxes'. Surely we have moved on from that? It is completely inappropriate in the townscape of this area, given the style of the existing housing, the proximity of the Royal Hospital and the fact that it is a Conservation Area.Secondly, the sheer mass of this development is inappropriate and unsustainable in this area. The existing (and proposed) infrastructure is inadequate. There is insufficient access and the provision of shopping facilities is totally inadequate for the population anticipated. I heard it stated last night that only a shop of the size of a Tesco Local is proposed. This is ludicrous when there is already no supermarket closer than Waitrose (a considerable way down Kings Road) or Sainsburys in Wilton Road.In addition the open space ratio is far too little. It is clear that the amendments made to the scheme in response to earlier objections are minimal and cosmetic. It seems to me that the developers' architects are on completely the wrong track and should be replaced by others who appreciate the locality and who would work with it and not against it.I very much hope that Westminster planning officers and the City Council will refuse planning permission and insist that Candy & Candy think again.I have lived here for thirty years and am horrified by what is proposed. This is a wonderful opportunity for a sensitive, evolved scheme that would enhance the area, not wreck it. I hope everyone concerned will think again - and I hope start again."

Susan Hay
"The amended version makes no difference to the fact that the plans are hideous – the view from my flat in Ebury Bridge Road makes me want to cry. Maybe OK for Canary Wharf but they must have something more classical to fit in with Royal Hospital and Duke of York Barracks."

Frank Villaz
"I just want to say that I strongly oppose the current design of the proposed development on the old site of the Chelsea Barracks. It is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Too high, too much glass, not enough trees, too impersonal."

Anthea Lock
"I am writing regarding the proposed development of the Chelsea Barracks site. As a resident of Sloane Court East, with my apartment on the corner of Lower Sloane Street and Chelsea Hospital Road, I look directly over the site and have deep misgivings as to the effect the proposed development will have on my home and life. The local area is steeped in history and has a tradition of staying in keeping with the neighbourhood ~ I cannot see any evidence that care and notice has been taken of the local environment and inhabitants, some of us have lived in the area for many years and chose to live there because it has retained its character and important village atmosphere as most of London tends to do. From what I can see from the proposed plans, our environment and the character of this part of London would change radically, bringing commerce, heavy traffic and high rise buildings into an otherwise envied backwater of Chelsea/Westminster which so far as been noted for its local feel and very singular character. I am aware of and understand that the barrack site needs to be redeveloped, but I would hope that this be done with sensitivity and attention to the surrounding area, not just with a view to achieve the best possible financial gain disregarding those of us who love and have long chosen this part of town in which to live. I fear the effect of more traffic, parking problems, loss of light and privacy, as well as a significant and unwelcome change to the character and personality of the immediate area in which I have always chosen to live. The Royal Hospital has managed to develop in keeping with the immediate area and although I quite understand that the barrack site would not lend itself to a similar style of building surely a new development could at least have a nod at the surrounding style and character. My apartment is my home, not just a London base, and as with many other local residents, I value and very much love the area."