Historic England Eviscerate City Of London Draft Local Plan

In recent days a leaked copy of a consultation response by Historic England to the City of London draft local plan has been circulating among interested parties.

The distribution of this document has resulted in headlines such as Tower of London Heritage Status Faces ‘Real Threat‘ (BBC), Tower Of London ‘Could Lose UNESCO World Heritage Status’ Over Council’s Skyscraper Plan (My London News) and Tower Of London’s Heritage Status Under Threat From City’s Tall Buildings Plan – Historic England Watchdog Believes Wider Heritage Impacts Make City Plan 2040 ‘Unsound In Its Current Form’ (Telegraph).

We reproduce below the Historic England letter already extensively quoted from in press coverage, since it is of considerable public interest. This is a summary of Historic England’s take on the matter – we are not reproducing the more detailed appendices. However, first we want to note that the City of London council is a uniquely undemocratic local authority since it is the only one in the UK to have retained the business vote – and that this impacts its planning policies.

One of the consequences of the unreformed rotten borough set up of the City of London council is that the politics of some small wards are entirely dominated by the votes of a single large business. In the case of Broad Street that big business is BlackRock, which has invested heavily in central London office space and favours more office building.

We explained BlackRock interests in a previous post and how they impact the positions adopted by both of the current City council leaders – Chair of Policy (=leader of council) Chris Hayward and Lord Mayor (=ceremonial leader) Michael Mainelli – who depend on this fund manager’s business votes for their local authority seats.

This is one factor driving City of London council policy on tall buildings – others include the desire to vertically expand the square mile in an attempt to justify this local authority’s existence. There are currently 125 City council seats but in any neighbouring local authority the residential voting base would necessitate only two councillors. From a rational and democratic perspective, the local authority in the square mile should be abolished and its wards transferred to one or more neighbouring boroughs.

It is also worth noting that competition for prestige and jobs between London boroughs is another factor driving irrational office development. A more sensible approach to office and tall building planning would result from transferring the City’s eastern cluster and the wards surrounding it to neighbouring Tower Hamlets, so that a single local authority was in charge of the clusters of tall office buildings at Canary Wharf and those in the square mile.

City of London Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation Response by Historic England – May 2024

Our ref: PL00509022
24 May 2024

Thank you for consulting Historic England about the Pre-Submission Draft of the City of London Local Plan. Given the sensitivity of the City’s historic environment, together with the central role of the Local Plan in ensuring its successful conservation, we have substantial comments to make on this version of the draft.

Summary

• We consider the draft Plan to be unsound in its present form.
• We are aware of both the important role of the City of London in terms of the regional and national economy and we support truly sustainable development and Good Growth, but this draft Plan would not deliver either as it is not in conformity with national and regional planning policy across a number of areas.
• Policies within the draft Plan would mean that successful conservation of the historic environment in the City and beyond would not be possible while delivering the quantum of office floorspace growth envisaged and new tall buildings in the form and locations identified. The Plan could not be effective as a result
• If adopted, the Plan would entail severe harm to the significance of St Paul’s Cathedral, to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, to the significance of many of the City’s finest buildings and to the City’s historic character.
• If the scale of growth identified in the Plan could be justified, alternative locations and distributions for the resultant developments must be explored at a broader scale across London’s Central Activities Zone.
• The evidence base and assessments of impacts in relation to the historic environment are flawed, inappropriate and non-comprehensive, and cannot justify the policies they currently underpin.
• A rebalancing of the relationship between the economic, social and environmental strategic objectives is required, together with a consequent revision of the Spatial Strategy to ensure the draft Plan aligns with Good Growth and sustainable development principles.

Historic England Advice

The City’s heritage is at the heart of its identity, and, to an almost unique extent, at the heart of our national identity. In its small geographic area, the City contains over 600 listed buildings, of which the National Heritage List for England records a wholly remarkable 86 at grade I and 84 at grade II*. It includes iconic sites such as St Paul’s Cathedral, the City Churches and Bevis Marks Synagogue; a rich and diverse group of conservation areas; and evidence of urban activity dating back around 2000 years in its archaeology. The City has been guarded for over 900 years by the Tower of London, now in a different administrative area but still closely bound to the City, both physically and symbolically. Many of London’s cherished views encompass elements of the City’s remarkable historic environment, the importance of which helps underpin the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the Square Mile.

Much of the content of the draft Plan sets out positive aspirations for the historic environment. We welcome the expanded archaeology policy and the recurrent theme in various sections of the Plan on the retrofit and refurbishment of existing buildings. We also note the extensive evidence gathering and assessment work that has been undertaken since the previous consultation on the Local Plan. This has enabled greater clarity over key elements of the Plan, not least the location and heights of tall buildings which is something that Historic England has previously asked for.

However, we consider that there is a very serious inherent conflict and incompatibility between the draft Plan’s general, high level aspirations for the historic environment and the intention to deliver the identified target of a minimum of 1.2 million square metres of new office floorspace in the form of tall buildings in the two tall buildings zones and at the heights set out in policy S12. These two objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously. The clarity enabled by the 3D modelling has exposed clear conflict between the level of growth envisaged and the outstanding heritage of the City and its surroundings. We strongly disagree with the conclusions of the various evidence base documents that assess the impacts of these tall buildings on the historic environment.

Importantly, there remains uncertainty as to the relationship between this 1.2m sqm minimum target and the amount of development either under construction or already in the formal planning process. We cannot currently know whether publicly quoted amounts of new floorspace in the pipeline are part of or additional to the 1.2m sqm. Similarly, despite our repeated requests, it is not clear how much development the two tall building zones could deliver if they were built out to their maximum parameters, or whether projections exist for the amount of additional floorspace that would be delivered through the emphasis in the draft Plan on retrofit and refurbishment proposals. Clarity on this data is highly important in ensuring an appropriate evidence base for the Plan.

We consider that the draft Plan’s policies for offices and tall buildings, in concentrating an ambitious level of new office floor space in such small geographic areas (and so entailing extremely tall buildings), would result in serious adverse effects on the City’s historic environment. The 3D modelling demonstrates these impacts, and although a substantial proportion of them have not been appropriately assessed and quantified, they would inevitably create severe harm, most notably to heritage of the greatest importance, including the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site (WHS), St Paul’s Cathedral, Bevis Marks Synagogue and other highly graded heritage assets. As well as being contrary to NPPF requirements, we consider that the policies the modelling underpins (principally S12 Tall Buildings and S21 the City Cluster) would conflict with London Plan policies D9 Tall Buildings, HC1 Heritage Conservation, HC2 World Heritage Sites, HC3 Strategic & Local Views and HC4 London View Management Framework.

Our concern is such that we believe that policies relating to tall buildings and the City Cluster in the draft Plan represent a real threat to the World Heritage Site status of the Tower of London. We would particularly point out that UNESCO has requested a State of Conservation report for the WHS following recent notifications about tall building proposals in the City affecting the Tower of London. To support the management of the WHS the State Party has notified UNESCO of the draft Plan and requested a Technical Review. We will share this with the Corporation once it is made available.

The current draft Plan consequently fails to strike an appropriate balance between conserving the City’s heritage and delivering growth. We do not consider the Plan to be sound in terms of the tests set out at para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We do not consider it to be justified in terms of its evidence, effective in terms of delivering its objectives or in conformity with national policy. Furthermore, we do not believe the Plan reflects other various requirements in the NPPF, including unambiguous policies (para 16d), being underpinned by a relevant and up to date evidence base (para 31) and providing a positive strategy for the historic environment (para 196). We are also deeply concerned that it would impede the ability to meet the statutory requirements and relevant international obligations (para 2), as well as the sustainable development principles (para 8) of the Framework.

In terms of delivering such significant growth within the City of London, we acknowledge the constraints that exist in terms of potentially appropriate locations. However, the level of growth envisaged represents a substantial proportion of the projected floorspace growth across the entire Central Activities Zone in the current London Plan. Given the severity of the heritage impacts if such an approach were to be taken forward, we consider that consideration and investigation of alternative spatial distributions of office development should be undertaken. London-wide solutions should be considered to avoid London-wide adverse impacts.

We consider that the amendment to the wording of policy S12 Tall Buildings to remove the statement that such development is inappropriate in conservation areas would significantly weaken the level of protection for the historic environment. While we would acknowledge that there are tall buildings within some conservation areas currently in the City, we cannot agree that these have all preserved or enhanced the special character or appearance of these areas. The logic for this change in policy wording is therefore highly questionable. If adopted this approach would fail to reflect the differing nature of the City’s conservation areas (many of which are of a lower-rise character) and would not set out a positive strategy for their conservation. As such it would be a retrograde step in terms of protection for the historic environment. The wording in the currently adopted local plan should therefore be reinstated.

We do not consider that the reference to the immediate setting of the Bevis Marks synagogue, listed at Grade I, in policies HE1 Managing Change to the Historic Environment and S21 City Cluster conforms to national policy. The NPPF defines setting as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve’. This NPPF definition does not distinguish between an immediate and wider setting. Making this distinction without also providing policies applicable to the wider surroundings provides only a partial policy framework for managing change in the setting of the synagogue, and infers, incorrectly, that its setting effectively includes only the six buildings that enclose the synagogue and its courtyard. This partial approach introduces ambiguity and confusion given the other content of HE1 and indeed regional and national policy on harm to heritage. This should be substantially reworked.

We do not consider the various assessment and appraisal documents that underpin the draft Plan to constitute an appropriate evidence base or to justify the draft policies. Our detailed comments are set out in Appendix B, but each report has specific shortcomings. Taken together they fail to adequately assess the effects of the two tall building zones on wider historic character, as well as the numerous important heritage assets that make a key contribution to City’s historic environment. There are flaws in some methodologies (for example in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal), gaps in the evidence base, as well as conclusions that cannot be supported by the evidence.

In particular, we fundamentally disagree with the conclusions in the Heritage Impact Assessments relating to St Paul’s Cathedral and the Tower of London World Heritage Site. We consider that the quantum of development proposed would result in severe harm to the significance of St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London. In the case of St. Paul’s, our conclusion is supported by the setting study which we and the Dean and Chapter have jointly commissioned. The final version of this will be forwarded to you in the next few days. The study makes clear the critical contribution that setting makes to the cathedral’s significance, and, therefore, its vulnerability to the effects of unsympathetic development. We consider that a number of elements of the evidence base should be revisited to ensure it is comprehensive, appropriate and better reflects the level of impacts and harm.

The further reasoning behind our position that the Plan is unsound is set out below and in Appendices A and B. We also append the Alan Baxter report City of London Statement of Heritage Significance which we commissioned in 2021 and previously shared with you, as this forms the basis of our understanding of the City’s significance. We have also suggested in Appendix A how a rebalancing of the Plan’s strategic priorities together with revisiting the manner in which the Spatial Strategy would deliver them could enable the Plan to align with both sustainable development objectives and Good Growth principles set out in the current London Plan. We would welcome further discussion to address these concerns before the Plan is submitted for examination.

Conclusions

Historic England considers the Regulation 19 consultation version of the City of London’s Local Plan to be unsound. As set out in this letter and appendices A and B, we do not consider it would be effective in its objectives, is not justified in terms of the evidence base and to an important degree is not in conformity with both national and regional planning policy.

The policies relating to offices and tall buildings would, if implemented, severely harm the significance of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London, harm the significance of many of the City’s finest buildings, and profoundly compromise the City’s rich historic character. They would, therefore, directly contradict the Plan’s generally welcome policies for the conservation of the historic environment. This contradiction flows from failings in the Plan’s evidence base.

Historic England is acutely aware of the important role the City of London plays in both the regional and national economy. We wish to work with the City to find ways to accommodate growth while conserving the historic environment. Both objectives are necessary ones, and both are fundamental objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Finding a way to reach an appropriate balance between the strategic objectives and to revise the Spatial Strategy will clearly require further work on the part of all stakeholders. However, we consider this is both important and necessary if both conservation of the City’s extraordinary historic environment and growth are to be successfully enabled.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the City’s Plan and its evidence base further in order to find consensus ahead of the examination process, including by way of a Statement of Common Ground with the City Corporation.

If it is not possible to reach agreement on any, or all, of the issues, we would wish to participate in the subsequent hearing session to explain and clarify our concerns, if necessary, and to answer any questions the Inspector may have.