Commonwealth Institute plan hits snag over offices
A PLAN to rescue the former Commonwealth Institute building has been thrown into confusion after English Heritage called for the entire site to be preserved.
Developers want to retain the Parabola - the distinctive tent-like pavilion - but demolish the office buildings, as part of a scheme to relocate the Design Museum. But in the confidential letter, English Heritage says the administration space is "an integral part of the listed building" and should be saved.
The letter to Kensington and Chelsea council argues that the borough's planning brief fails to treat the site in Kensington High Street "as a place of cultural heritage", and this "negatively impacts on social inclusion, equity, the promotion of equality and a respect for diversity".
It adds that the landscaping "requires consideration appropriate to its significance and its historic relationship with the exhibition building", while criticising the borough's approach on grounds of sustainability and biodiversity. If the council enforced all of English Heritage's recommendations, it would make current plans for the site impossible.
The Institute, listed at Grade II*, was opened in 1962. English Heritage say it is "one of London's most important post-war public buildings". It has been closed for more than a decade, and has been the subject of 15 studies and proposals.
Current plans, by developer Chelsfield and Dutch architects OMA, would see the demolition of the administration building and major changes to the original landscaping. The Design Museum, currently in Shad Thames in Southwark, would be relocated to the Parabola, and there would be three blocks of flats. The proposals followed lengthy consultation, including with English Heritage.
The building was designed by Roger Cunliffe, then a 26-year-old architect working for Robert Matthew, Johnson-Marshall and Partners. He would not comment on English Heritage's position. but said the design approach to the original building was "user-oriented; people first and building second".
English Heritage later appeared to be moving away from its position in the letter, which it called "fairly fierce". A spokesman said: "We understand it's a tricky issue ... for the greater good the administrative building might have to go." Chelsfield declined to comment.
