Sir, The Prince of Wales’s continued meddling in public affairs — this time the design of the Chelsea Barracks site (report, June 13) — renders him unfit to become head of state. Not only has his belated intervention aborted two and a half years of design work and consultation in a democratic process, he abused a hereditary position of wealth and privilege in persuading princely Qatari clients to withdraw their approval.

Twenty-five years ago he did lasting damage to the entire British architectural profession by a damning speech about a well-designed extension to the National Gallery, replaced by a fake-Classical design of his choosing. Now, having subverted another democratic process, he has persuaded Qatar’s Project Blue (Guernsey) Ltd developers to work on design plans with his “Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment”. This is highly unethical. Were he a qualified architect, he would be struck off the register for unprofessional conduct.

Instead his sole qualification is a deep nostalgia for the external forms of the past, of limited relevance to current urban needs. And despite his plausible recent utterances on “placemaking”, his Italian Renaissance fire-station at Poundbury belies them, grandly bizarre.

As a private, though very rich, citizen he would be entitled to voice his opinions as forcefully as the next person — but not so as heir to the monarchy. His inappropriate behaviour makes his privileged position untenable. Either he should step down to act in a private capacity, and in a more timely and ethical fashion, or keep his opinions to himself

Gabriel Mills (ret’d architect)

Brighton

Sir, Nick Raynsford, the former Planning Minister, seems to suggest that Prince Charles’s intervention in the proposed Chelsea Barracks development undermines democracy. There is nothing democratic about the planning process. Properly elected councils have turned down countless planning applications for large-scale developments in recent years, only to have their decisions overturned by a government-level planning inspectorate with no connection to the borough. Furthermore, for a decade John Prescott reserved the right to overrule the lot of them, and frequently did, supported in his autocratic tendencies by the law lords. Prince Charles has probably spoken in this case for the vast voiceless majority. If he has at the same time irritated the egotistical architectural elite, then so much the better.

Catherine Crozier

Blisland, Cornwall

Sir, Prince Charles is simply exercising his right as a London resident to voice his opinion on an issue that concerns him.

Phil Willan

Blackburn

Explore Letters

• Feedback