Heritage objections ‘single biggest risk to the City’, says planning director

The City of London Corporation’s planning and development director has said heritage body opposition to major projects in the Square Mile is “the single biggest risk to the City”. Gwyn Richards was asked on a panel to launch the City Property Association’s Supporting the City’s Economic Growth report for his views on objections from Historic England. He replied: “It’s probably the most significant threat affecting the City in my entire time at the City [Corporation] – the last 15 years plus.” He described a perceived increase in opposition from heritage body Historic England as “a new dynamic that has probably emerged because of a culture change in Historic England”, noting the organisation’s objections over Axa IM and YardNine’s 50 Fenchurch Street.  “If you looked at the traffic light system of the City, 22 [Bishopsgate] and all these buildings generally had green lights, since that point they have either been red or amber. Mainly red. So, virtually every tower in the cluster has had objections or major concerns raised by Historic England.” Responsible for advising the government on the historic environment, Historic England is an independent statutory public body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Recent schemes it has opposed include Welput’s proposals to build a 43-storey tower at 31-34 Bury Street, Stanhope’s 1 Undershaft and Schroders Capital Real Estate’s plans for 55 Bishopsgate, among others. This, Richards said, has “taken us [the City Corporation] by surprise because we don’t understand how the logic has changed so radically”. He added: “The idea of clustering to minimise the impact on heritage, which Historic England historically always supported, certainly is unravelling. The idea of the role of the cluster to economic growth doesn’t seem to register on their radar – you can probably expect that, they are a heritage body. It is the single biggest risk to the City at the moment.” Richards continued: “The last thing that we want is a call-in on a major strategic site, which would send shockwaves across the industry. What worries us more is this constant criticism and objections from Historic England that is undermining developer and investor confidence to be able to go to an investment board and say we’re in a good place.” Responding to the comments, a spokesperson for Historic England told EG: “Clustering tall buildings to minimise their impacts is a principle that Historic England supports, but any group of tall buildings can only expand so far before the benefits of clustering are lost.” The spokesperson said the City Cluster is at risk of becoming too big and damaging some of the country’s most important heritage – including the Tower of London World Heritage Site, St Paul’s Cathedral and Bevis Marks Synagogue. They added: “Historic England is not alone in objecting to a series of very damaging schemes that are coming forward across the City… Strong opposition can be heard from local faith leaders and their worshiping communities, local residents and neighbouring businesses, as well as local, national and international heritage organisations. Like all these other objectors, we would much rather have a positive role in helping to shape good growth for the City of London that benefits everyone.” Image © Stiff + Trevillion Architects