Case Reference: 3244984

Peter Twemlow Our ref: APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
DP9 Limited Your ref: 18/01213/FULEIA
100 Pall Mall
London
SW1Y 5NQ
11 November 2021
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
APPEAL MADE BY [APPELLANT].
LAND ADJACENT TO 20 BURY STREET, LONDON EC3A 5AX
APPLICATION REF: 18/01213/FULEIA
This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing on behalf of the Secretary of
State, and signed on his behalf.
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry which began on 3
November and closed in writing on 26 April 2020 into your client’s appeal against the
decision of the City of London Corporation (on Direction of the Mayor of London) to
refuse your client’s application for planning permission for demolition of existing building
and structures and construction of a building to a height of 305.3m AOD for a mixed-use
visitor attraction, including viewing areas [2,597sq.m GEA], an education/community
facility [567sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) and restaurant/bar use (Class A3/A4) [1,535sq.m
GEA]; together with a retail unit at ground floor (Class A1); a new two- storey pavilion
building [1,093sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) comprising the principal visitor attraction
entrance with retail at ground floor level (Class A1/A3) [11sq.m GEA] and a public roof
garden; provision of ancillary cycle parking, servicing and plant and alterations to the
public realm [Total Scheme Area: 17,441sq.m GEA] in accordance with application Ref
18/01213/FULEIA, dated 13 November 2018.
2. On 28 January 2020, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's
determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Tel: 0303 444 8050
Planning Casework Unit Email: PCC@communities.gov.uk
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal should be dismissed.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided
to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report
(IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to
that report.
Environmental Statement
5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Having taken account of the Inspector’s
comments at IR1.7, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement
complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for
him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal.
Matters arising since the close of the inquiry
6. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A.
Copies of these letters may be obtained on request to the email address at the foot of the
first page of this letter. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not
affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to
warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties.
7. On 10 August, the Secretary of State wrote to the main parties to afford them an
opportunity to comment on the revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘the
Framework’), which came into force on 20 July 2021. A list of representations received in
response to this letter is at Annex A. These representations were circulated to the main
parties on 31 August and 8 September and have been taken into account by the
Secretary of State in reaching this decision.
8. The Secretary of State is satisfied that no other new issues were raised in this
correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to
parties.
Policy and statutory considerations
9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
10. In this case the development plan consists of the New London Plan (NLP) (2021) and the
City of London Local Plan (LP) (2015). At the time of the inquiry, the previous London
Plan was part of the Development Plan. The Secretary of State notes at IR 1.9 that the
parties were invited to comment when the New London Plan was published. The
Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out
at IR 3.3 to 3.24.
11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
published in July 2021, and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as
Supplementary Planning Guidance and other materials listed at IR3.31 to 3.57. The
Framework references within this letter have been amended from those in the IR to the
revised Framework numbering where necessary.
12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
Emerging plan
13. The emerging plan comprises the Emerging City Plan (emerging LP), “City Plan 2036”.
The Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies of most relevance to this
case include those set out at IR3.28 to 3.30.
14. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant
policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan;
(2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the
emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the
Framework. The City Corporation consulted on the Proposed Submission Draft of the
City Plan 2036 (Regulation 19 consultation) between 19 March 2021 and 10 May 2021.
As at the date of this decision, the City Corporation had not published its response to the
comments received, and there was no date set for the formal Examination of the Plan.
Accordingly, like the Inspector at IR3.27, the Secretary of State affords limited weight to
the policies of the emerging plan.
Main issues
15. The Secretary of State agrees that the main issues are those set out by the Inspector at
IR14.1.
The effect of the proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets
Heritage assets
16. The Secretary of State agrees at IR14.2 that the scheme would not cause any direct
physical harm to any heritage asset, rather the disputes concern their settings. He
further agrees at IR14.2 that the starting point for understanding the significance of the
Tower of London (ToL) World Heritage Site (WHS) is the Statement of Outstanding
Universal Value (SOUV), and that the key point is not whether some aspects would be
left untouched, but the importance of what would be affected, that is the setting, to its
significance. He further agrees with the Inspector’s approach to ToL as outlined in
IR14.3.
17. Regarding the individual Listed Buildings (LBs) within the WHS, for the reasons given at
IR14.3, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s approach of considering some
buildings separately.
Approach to considering the setting of the ToL
18. For the reasons set out in IR14.4-14.23, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s analysis and conclusions on juxtaposition, future development of the Cluster
and setting, and has adopted his approach on these matters.
ToL WHS
19. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR14.24-14.25 that of the seven
attributes that express the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the ToL, those which
are key for this appeal include those listed at IR14.25. He further agrees for the reasons
given at IR14.26 that the OUV of the WHS, and the special interest of the White Tower
are vulnerable to development that would overshadow or distract from its dominance.
View 10A
20. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of View 10A
at IR14.27-14.32. For the reasons given there, he agrees with the Inspector at IR14.28
that on the walk across Tower Bridge, the Tulip would appear to move right the way
through the airspace behind the White Tower and this would be highly apparent and
intrusive to the viewer. He further agrees at IR14.29 that the open sky around the White
Tower would be severely affected by the Tulip; the extent to which its height and location
would detract from the ToL would be significant; and it would disrupt the sensitive
balance between the City and the WHS. He further agrees at IR14.31 that the Tulip
would seriously detract from the OUV of the WHS, and the significance of the White
Tower in particular, and result in more than moderate impact; and that in the context of
the enormous importance of the ToL WHS, its significance as a whole would not be
drained away but the contribution provided by its setting would be much reduced. For the
reasons given in IR14.32, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the weight
that should be given to this level of harm in View 10A.1 alone should be very
considerable. In the representation of 24 August submitted on behalf of the appellant, the
argument is made that the scheme’s public benefits demonstrably outweigh any specific
alleged heritage harm. The Secretary of State addresses this issue in paragraph 58 of
this letter.
Views 25A.1-3
21. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of Views
25A.1-3 at IR14.33-14.43. For the reasons given there, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector that the Tulip would appear different and separate from the rest of the
Cluster (IR14.35), that it would amount to a much greater distraction than any or possibly
all of the existing Cluster and that it would bring the apex of the Cluster much closer to
the White Tower (IR14.36). He agrees that the Tulip would appear to challenge for the
dominance of the Cluster rather than seek to merge into it, and further agrees it would
have a significant impact on the setting of the ToL when viewed from the South Bank
(IR14.39). For the reasons given at IR14.38 and IR14.41 the Secretary of State, like the
Inspector, does not agree with the Appellant’s argument that due to the design quality of
the Tulip, consolidating the Cluster in views from the South Bank would amount to a
heritage benefit, but considers that the important differences in height, position, form and
materials of the Tulip mean that it would not appear as a consistent part of the Cluster.
The Secretary of State considers that the degree of harm would be less than substantial
in Framework terms, but much more than negligible, and of a lower order than the more
than moderate impact on View 10A he has identified in paragraph 20 above.
Cumulative harm
22. For the reasons given at IR14.44, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that in
the absence of evidence that the existing and permitted schemes have or would cause
harm, there is none to add to that which would be caused by the Tulip. He further agrees
that there is therefore no assessment of cumulative harm to make, and that the harm that
the Tulip would cause precludes any cumulative benefit.
23. For the reasons given at IR14.45-14.47, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s approach and assessments regarding the White Tower, Ramparts to the
Inner and Outer Wards, the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula, Tower Green, and the
Waterloo Block.
24. For the reasons given in IR18.48, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
approach in dealing with the six heritage assets referred to in the reasons for refusal.
Approach
25. For the reasons given at IR14.49-14.56, in respect of other heritage assets the Secretary
of State agrees with the Inspector’s findings with regard to the articulation and scale of
the harm to the settings of the church of St Botolph without Aldgate (Grade I), 10 Trinity
Square (Grade II*), and Trinity House. He similarly agrees that there would be no change
to the contribution that setting makes to the significance of 38 St Mary Axe (Grade II) or
the Church of St Helen’s Bishopgate (Grade I), and that it would be unlikely that there
would be any impact on the significance of Bevis Marks Synagogue (Grade I). He further
agrees that the Tulip would either do little to impact their surroundings or do nothing to
alter the contribution that their respective settings make to the significance of the heritage
assets listed at IR14.56.
26. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR14.57-14.59 with the Inspector’s
findings with regard to the articulation and scale of the harm that there would be to the
ToL Conservation Area (CA) including St Katharine’s Dock and Trinity Square Gardens,
and to the character and appearance of the Trinity Square CA. He further agrees that St
Helen's Place CA would be unharmed and there would be no harm to the Lloyds Avenue
CA. He agrees for the reasons given at IR14.59 that there would be no heritage benefits
to the settings of Holland House, Bury Court and Dixon House, nor from the ability to look
down on the ToL.
Conclusions on heritage
27. For the reasons given at IR14.60-14.63, IR14.120-14.121 and in paragraph 20 above, the
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that very considerable weight should be
given to the less than substantial harm the scheme would cause to the contribution which
setting makes to the attributes of OUV of the ToL WHS when seen from View 10A.1, and
more widely when crossing Tower Bridge. He agrees that the Tulip would cause further
harm to the OUV of the WHS in Views 25A.1-3 and to the setting of individual LBs within
the ToL; there would be additional harm to the settings of other designated heritage
assets, notably the church of St Botolph without Aldgate, the ToL CA, and 10 Trinity
Square, Trinity House and the Trinity Square CA (IR14.120). He further agrees that the
harm in each instance would be less than substantial and that the weight in each case
should be of a lower order than that related to View 10A, but should then be combined in
the overall planning balance and assessment against the development plan as a whole
(IR14.60). For the reasons set out in IR14.61, he further agrees that the protection of the
WHS should be given the highest level of weight for any heritage asset. He agrees with
the Inspector’s conclusions on recently consented schemes at IR14.63.
28. For the reasons given at IR14.129-14.132, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the proposal would conflict with Policies D9 Criterion C1)d) & Criterion
C1)e), HC1 and HC2 of the New London Plan. He similarly agrees and for the reasons
given at IR14.135-14.136 the proposal conflicts with Policies CS7.3, CS12 and DM12.1
of the LP.
Other harms
Strategic views
29. For the reasons given at IR14.64-14.65, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the harm to the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site would also cause
considerable harm to Strategic Views 10A.1 and 25A.1-3. For the reasons given at
IR.14.129 and IR14.133 the Secretary of State agrees the proposal would be in conflict
with Policies D9 Criterion C1)a)i, HC3 and HC4 of the NLP and for the reasons given at
IR14.136 fail to accord with Criteria 1 and 5 of Policy DM12.1 and Policy CS13 of the
Local Plan.
Plaza
30. In respect of the plaza, for the reasons given at IR14.66-14.69, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector that both visually and functionally, there would be harm and
benefit compared with the current arrangement. He agrees that the loss of public open
space at ground level, and the intrusions into the plaza as a plinth to the Gherkin, would
outweigh the increased public open space on the roof of the Pavilion, and additional
seating in the Pocket Park, as well as the removal of the ramp and its retaining wall. For
the reasons given at IR14.128, he agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be
contrary to Policy D8 of the NLP and for the reasons given at IR14.135 contrary to Policy
CS7.3 of the LP and that overall, that the proposals for the plaza count against the
scheme. He attaches limited weight to this harm.
Office floorspace
31. Like the Inspector, for the reasons given in IR14.70 and IR14.135, the Secretary of State
concludes that the loss of office space conflicts with the requirement to protect office
floorspace in Policy CS7.1 and therefore should be given negligible weight.
Design
32. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s findings in terms of the
design of the scheme at IR14.71-14.106. Like the Inspector, he has considered the
proposal against the six criteria set out in paragraph 130 of the Framework (paragraph
into account the representations which were made following the reference back exercise
in paragraph 7 above.
Function
33. For the reasons given in IR14.72, the Secretary of State agrees that the scheme would
function properly with regard to delivering a very high level viewing experience together
with some exciting fairground-style additions. He further agrees with the Inspector’s
comments about the level of skill and effort which has been put into resolving the
entrance and exit requirements in such a tight space and the quality of the detailing.
However, he agrees with the Inspector’s concerns that the number of visitors would need
to be limited to prevent overcrowding at ground level. Overall, he agrees with the
Inspector that the extent to which the design would overcome the constraints (of the site)
and function well is a matter which should be given moderate weight (IR14.72).
34. For the reasons given in IR14.73, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
little if any thought has been given to how the building would function over its extended
lifetime. He notes that there are no plans for its re-use when it has served its purpose as
a viewing tower, or for its demolition. He agrees that if the owner were disinclined with
little incentive, it would leave either an unmaintained eyesore or a large public liability,
and this counts heavily against its design quality.
Visually attractive
35. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR14.74, that
while the quality of the presentation materials is of an exceptional standard, achieving the
highest architectural quality goes well beyond the level of detailing and presentation.
While he recognises that the quality of the presentation materials has made it easier to
appreciate how the scheme is designed and how it impacts on its surroundings, he
considers that the quality of the presentation materials is not directly relevant to the
quality of the design and does not carry weight in this matter.
36. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is some comfort that the
attention to detail would be followed through into the finished article (IR14.83). For the
reasons given at IR14.75-14.83, he agrees with the Inspector that however carefully
detailed, in terms of aesthetics the result would be visually compromised, being neither a
continuous flowing object, as with the Gherkin, nor a structure of three distinct parts, as
with the Monument (IR14.77). He also shares the Inspector’s reservations about the
finish to the concrete of the Tulip (IR14.78-14.79). In terms of symmetry, the Secretary
of State agrees with the Inspector that while there have obviously been considerable
effort and architectural dexterity employed in modelling the top of the building, the way
the gondolas, slide and skywalk have been incorporated into the viewing areas has
produced a compromised design that is neither a flamboyant expression nor a consistent
elegance (IR14.81).
37. In terms of overall appearance, the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, finds too many
compromises to amount to world class architecture. He considers that taking into
account his conclusions in paragraphs 35-36 above and paragraph 46 below, the
proposal does not draw support from paragraph 126 of the Framework, which promotes
the creation of ‘high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places’.
Sympathetic to local character and history
38. For the reasons given at IR14.84 to 14.87, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the form and materials of the Tulip at its proposed height and location
would be a poor and unsympathetic response to the historical context. He considers that
this weighs very heavily against the quality of the design, and has reflected this in the
very considerable weight attributed to the heritage harm.
Strong sense of place
39. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR14.88 to
14.90, that the base of the Tulip and the Pavilion would create distinctive spaces and the
double height arches between the buttresses would be attractive and welcoming
alongside the green wall. He further agrees that the sense of drama and expression of
structural forces at the base of the Tulip would be striking, and that the Pavilion would be
a bright new building with an exciting roof garden at high level. However, he also agrees
that the space around the entrances might feel uncomfortable and shares the Inspector’s
reservations about the treatment of the Pavilion’s street elevation and how the ground
level functions would be achieved. Overall, he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions
that while the scheme would enhance detailed elements of the existing context it would
do so at a cost to openness (IR14.90).
Optimise the potential of the site
40. For the reasons given at IR14.91, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
while the scheme would develop this windfall site to the full, and considerable skill has
gone into overcoming the functional requirements within such a tight site and turning
these into attractively detailed elements, nevertheless, this would not overcome the loss
of open space and part of the backdrop to the Gherkin.
Inclusive and accessible
41. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspectors analysis at IR14.92, and with his
conclusion at IR14.104 that while the scheme would be generally accessible to all, its
inclusivity would be limited by the cost of the main attractions.
The Brief
42. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments regarding the brief for
the proposal at IR14.93 to 14.94. He agrees that the extent of heritage harm, and other
shortcomings as a result of conforming to the brief, should preclude it being described as
outstanding (IR14.94).
Engagement and the London Review Panel (LRP)
43. The Secretary of State notes that there is little evidence of how internal design reviews
had shaped the outcome, that there was no independent review until after the application
was reported to committee, and there is no information on the way heritage concerns
played a part in choosing the location, materials, height, or shape and form of the Tulip
(IR14.95-14.96). For the reasons given at IR14.97, the Secretary of State agrees with the
the fact that these were largely ignored during the design process weighs against the
scheme. The Secretary of State concludes that the proposal does not draw support from
paragraphs 132-133 of the Framework (formerly paragraphs 128-129), and that this
matter carries significant weight against the scheme.
Sustainability
44. The Secretary of State has taken into account that the schemes would achieve a
BREEAM rating of outstanding and acknowledges the enormous lengths to which F+P
have gone to make the construction and operation of the scheme as environmentally
responsible as possible (IR14.98). However, overall the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector, for the reasons given at IR14.99 to 14.102, that the extensive measures that
would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the
highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the
foundations and lift shaft to transport visitors to as high a level as possible to enjoy a view.
Design – other issues
45. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions in IR14.103.
Conclusions on Design
46. For the reasons given at IR14.104-14.106, overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the approach would be a muddle of architectural ideas and would be
compromised, and that the unresolved principles behind the design would mean that in
many regards it would fall between two stools. He further agrees that the development
would not amount to a design of outstanding quality, and that the quality of design would
not be nearly high enough as to negate its harm to the settings of heritage assets
(IR14.106).
47. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider these findings against the revised design
policies in the Framework. He concludes that those design elements set out above which
weigh against the scheme, both in terms of design process and outcome, have greater
weight than the positive elements which have been identified. Overall, the Secretary of
State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.106 that the proposal would not amount to a
design of outstanding quality.
48. The Secretary of State, having also taken into account the revisions to the Framework
and the parties’ representations, further agrees with the Inspector that many aspects of
the scheme would not amount to good design as expected by paragraphs 126 and 130 a)
and c) of the Framework (formerly paragraphs 124 and 127), nor would it be the product
of effective engagement throughout the process as envisaged by paragraphs 132-133 of
the Framework (formerly paragraphs 128-129). The Secretary of State recognises that
these findings are contrary to the representations made on 24 August on behalf of the
appellant, however, for the reasons given above he agrees with the Inspector’s
assessment of the merits of the proposal. In particular, The Secretary of State considers
that the revisions to the Framework make clear that the creation of high quality, beautiful
and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and
development process should achieve (Framework paragraph 126) and he considers this
emphasis on design quality to be an important material consideration in this case.
Overall the Secretary of State agrees that the appeal scheme should not gain support
from paragraph 134(b) of the Framework (formerly paragraph 131) (IR14.126). He
further agrees for the reasons given at IR14.128, 14.129 and 14.134 that the proposals
would be contrary to Policies D4 Criterion D, D9 Criterion C1)c), and SI2 Criterion A. He
further agrees that they should not gain support from SI2 Criterion F and would not
promote a circular economy which is one of the aims of Policy SI 7 of the NLP. For the
reasons given at IR14.135, the Secretary of State agrees with the inspector that there is
conflict with Policies CS7.3, CS10 and DM10.1 of the LP, and that the proposals do not
therefore gain support from paragraph 134(a) of the Framework.
49. The Secretary of State has further considered whether there is conflict with government
guidance on design. In the light of his conclusions above, and for the same reasons, he
considers that the proposal is not in accordance with aspects of the National Design
Guide, in particular those elements of the Guide dealing with context and resources. He
has taken into account the representation of 7 September made on behalf of the
appellant which refers to the National Design Guide and the evidence submitted to the
inquiry. However, as above, because of significance of the areas of conflict, and the
resultant degree of harm, overall he considers that that the proposal does not reflect
government guidance on design. He considers that design as a whole carries significant
weight against the proposal.
Benefits
Economic
50. The Secretary of State has taken in account the economic benefits of the scheme and
agrees with the Inspector at IR14.107 that the economic value of the scheme, in terms of
investment and employment would be substantial.
51. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR14.108,
IR14.109 and IR14.146 that the economic benefits would be modest in relation to the
City, and by comparison with the very tall office towers which fulfil the primary function of,
and justification for, the Cluster.
52. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR14.109 that the economic
benefits, direct and indirect, are an important material consideration and that moderate
weight should be given to these.
Tourism
53. The Secretary of State has taken into account the tourism benefits of the scheme and
agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR14.110 that the scheme would be
consistent with policy concerning London’s visitor infrastructure and the City’s aspirations
to enhance, add to, and diversify London’s visitor attractions.
54. For the reasons given at IR14.111, IR14.114 and IR14.146, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector that in the context of the many other attractions in London and within
the Cluster, weight to be attributed to any tourism benefits should be significantly
reduced. As such, the Secretary of State considers the weight given to the tourism
benefits is moderate.
Education
55. The Secretary of State has taken into account the education benefits of the scheme and
agrees for the reasons given at IR14.115 that the education offer of enhanced school
trips would be a further advantage of the scheme. He further agrees with the Inspector for
visits and community groups, and the uncertainty of whether visits would be at the
expense of other school trips, mean that the weight to the benefit should be significantly
reduced (IR14.119).
56. Overall, for the reasons given at IR14.117 the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the harm caused by the availability of adequate storage space within the
education space is given negligible weight. Furthermore, agrees with the Inspector at
IR14.119 that the benefits of the education facility should be given no more than
moderate weight in the overall balance.
Conclusions on benefits
57. For the reasons given at IR14.127, 14.129, 14.130 and 14.133, the proposals would gain
support from Policies SD4, D9 Criterion C2f) & Criterion D, S3, E10, HC5, and HC6 of the
NLP. Overall, for the reasons given in IR14.107 to 14.119, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector at IR14.122 and 14.146 that taken together the economic, tourism and
educational benefits should be given no more than moderate weight given the context of
the considerable weight to the harm to the OUV of the ToL.
Heritage balance
58. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s approach to the heritage balance as
set out in IR14.120-14.125 and IR14.147. For the reasons given in these paragraphs, as
well as paragraph 27 above, he agrees that the heritage harm would not be outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal, individually or together, and that the scheme would
not provide the clear and convincing justification required by paragraph 200 of the
Framework (formerly paragraph 194) (IR14.124). He therefore agrees that the heritage
balance is firmly against the scheme (IR14.125).
Other matters
59. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on whether the proposal
is in accordance with other policies, as set out at IR14.138-14.143.
Planning conditions
60. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR12.1 to
12.6, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them,
and to national policy in paragraph 56 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is
satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test set
out at paragraph 56 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the imposition
of these conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing this appeal and refusing
planning permission.
Planning obligations
61. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR13.1 to 13.4, the planning obligation
dated 17 December 2020, paragraph 57 of the Framework, the Guidance and the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given in IR13.3 that the obligation
complies with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 57 of the
Framework. However, the Secretary of State does not consider that the obligation
overcomes his reasons for dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
62. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is
not in accordance with Policies D4 Criterion D, D8, DB9 Criterion C1)a)i, Criterion C1)c),
Criterion C1)d), Criterion C1)e), HC1, HC2, HC3, HC4.C, SI2 Criteria A and F and SI 7 of
the New London Plan nor in accordance with Policies CS7.3, CS10, DM10.1, CS12,
DM12.1 Criterion 1 and 5, CS13.1 and 2, CS13 of the Local Plan and is not in accordance
with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material
considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in
accordance with the development plan.
63. The material considerations weighing against the proposal include the less than
substantial harm the scheme would cause to the contribution setting makes to the
attributes of OUV of the ToL WHS, when seen from View 10A.1 and more widely when
crossing Tower Bridge, and this carries very considerable weight. The further harm to the
OUV of the WHS in Views 25A.1-3 and to the settings of individual Listed Buildings within
the Tower of London adds further weight, as does harm to the settings of the church of St
Botolph without Aldgate, the Tower of London Conservation Area, and to 10 Trinity
Square, Trinity House and the Trinity Square Conservation Area. Overall, the design of
the scheme does not draw support from the revised Framework and carries significant
weight against the scheme.
64. Weighing in favour of the proposal are the economic, tourism and educational benefits of
the proposal which each attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.
65. In line with paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of State has considered
whether the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of designated
heritage assets is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. He has concluded
that the heritage balance is firmly against the proposal.
66. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that the material considerations in this case
indicate a decision in line with the development plan – i.e. a refusal of permission.
67. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that the appeal should be dismissed and
planning permission refused.
Formal decision
68. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses
planning permission for demolition of existing building and structures and construction of a
building to a height of 305.3m AOD for a mixed-use visitor attraction, including viewing
areas [2,597sq.m GEA], an education/community facility [567sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis)
and restaurant/bar use (Class A3/A4) [1,535sq.m GEA]; together with a retail unit at
ground floor (Class A1); a new two- storey pavilion building [1,093sq.m GEA] (Sui
Generis) comprising the principal visitor attraction entrance with retail at ground floor level
(Class A1/A3) [11sq.m GEA] and a public roof garden; provision of ancillary cycle parking,
servicing and plant and alterations to the public realm [Total Scheme Area: 17,441sq.m
GEA] in accordance with application Ref 18/01213/FULEIA, dated 13 November 2018.
Right to challenge the decision
69. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
70. A copy of this letter has been sent to The City of London Corporation and Rule 6 parties,
and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision.
Yours faithfully
Planning Casework Unit
This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing on behalf of the Secretary of
State, and signed on his behalf
ANNEX A – SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS
General representations
Party Date
J Ross 28 July
C Fine 26 September
N Horder 18 October
R Brackstone 19 October
A Mitchell 19 October
Representations received in response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 10 August
Party Date
Historic England 23 August 2021
[APPELLANT]. 24 August 2021
City of London Corporation 24 August 2021
Greater London Authority 3 September 2021
Representations received in response to the re-circulation of responses received to the
Secretary of State’s letter of 10 August
Party Date
Greater London Authority 3 September 2021
[APPELLANT]. 7 September 2021
Report to the Secretary of State for Housing,
Communities and Local Government
by David Nicholson RIBA IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date: 24 June 2021
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78)
CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION (on Direction of THE MAYOR OF LONDON)
APPEAL BY [APPELLANT].
Inquiry opened on 3 November 2020. Site visits on 20 September 2020, 24 March and 8 April 2021
Land adjacent to 20 Bury Street, London EC3A 5AX
File Ref: APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CONTENTS Page
Cover1
1 Procedural matters 4
2 The site and surroundings 5
3 Planning policy 11
4 Planning history 25
5 The proposals 32
6 The case for the Appellant, [APPELLANT]. 39
7 The case for the City of London Corporation (the City) 62
8 The case for the Mayor of London (the GLA) 85
9 The case for Historic England (HE) 111
10 The case for the Sheriff of the City of London 127
11 Written representations 129
12 Conditions 133
13 Obligations 134
14 Inspector’s conclusions 136
15 Recommendation 167
Appendices
1. Appearances 168
2. Documents 169
3. Suggested conditions 179
1 Cover photomontage from Mr Harrison’s proof of evidence
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
List of abbreviations used in this Report
3D Three dimensional
AOD Above Ordnance Datum (i.e. above mean sea level)
C Century
CA Conservation Area
CAZ Central Activity Zone
(the) City The City of London Corporation
LP Local Plan
DAS Design and access statement
DCMS Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
F+P Foster and Partners
GLA Greater London Authority (the Mayor of London)
GPA Good Practice Advice
HE Historic England
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
HRP Historic Royal Palaces
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
IQs Inspector’s Questions
LPA Local Planning Authority
LRP London Review Panel
LVMF London View Management Framework
(the) Mayor The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority)
NLP New London Plan
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2019
OR Officer Report
OUV Outstanding Universal Value
PoE Proof of evidence
PPG Planning Practice Guidance
PTAL Public transport accessibility level
RfR Reason for Refusal
RX Re-Examination
s106 Section 106 (of the T&CP Act)
SoCG Statement of Common Ground
SoS Secretary of State (for Housing, Communities and Local Government)
SOUV Statement of OUV
SPD Supplementary Planning Document
SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance
T&CP Act Town and Country Planning Act 1990
ToL Tower of London
TVBHA Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WHC World Heritage Committee (cf WH Centre, or WH Convention)
WHS World Heritage Site
WHSMP World Heritage Site Management Plan (for the Tower of London)
XiC Examination in Chief
XX Cross Examination
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Appeal Ref: APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Land adjacent to 20 Bury Street, London EC3A 5AX
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning (T&CP) Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT]. against the decision of
the City of London Corporation.
• The application Ref 18/01213/FULEIA, dated 13 November 2018, was refused by notice
dated 19 July 2019.
• The agreed description2 of the development proposed is:
Demolition of existing building and structures and construction of a building to a height of
305.3m AOD for a mixed-use visitor attraction, including viewing areas [2,597sq.m GEA], an
education/community facility [567sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) and restaurant/bar use (Class
A3/A4) [1,535sq.m GEA]; together with a retail unit at ground floor (Class A1); a new two-
storey pavilion building [1,093sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) comprising the principal visitor
attraction entrance with retail at ground floor level (Class A1/A3) [11sq.m GEA] and a public
roof garden; provision of ancillary cycle parking, servicing and plant and alterations to the
public realm. [Total Scheme Area: 17,441sq.m GEA].
Summary of Recommendation: that the appeal should be dismissed.
1. Procedural matters
1.1 The application was made to the City of London Corporation (the City) as local
planning authority (LPA). This followed a Direction by the Mayor of London (the
Mayor)3. The appeal was made to the Secretary of State (SoS)4 who decided that he
would determine it himself5. The reason given was that the appeal relates to proposals
for development of major importance having more than local significance.
1.2 A virtual pre-inquiry meeting was held on 15 September 20206. The Inquiry sat
virtually from 3 November to 18 December 2020. I held it open for accompanied site
visits and written representations regarding late evidence7. The Inquiry was then closed
in writing on 26 April 2021. As well as conducting accompanied site visits8 on 24 March
and 8 April 2021, I made an unaccompanied visit before the Inquiry on Sunday
20 September 2020, including to Butler’s Wharf, to the east of Tower Bridge on the
South Bank. On my March visit, I stayed on the South Bank until after dark in order to
see the aircraft navigation lights on the existing towers.
1.3 A signed and dated Legal Agreement under Section 106 (s106) of the T&CP Act was
submitted9; I deal with its contents and justification below.
1.4 A combined general Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) was agreed between the
Appellant, the City, the Mayor (GLA) and Historic England (HE) appearing as a Rule 6
party10. A separate Heritage SoCG and a Benefits SoCG were agreed between these
parties11.
2 Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) para 4.1 but see also Condition 2
3 CD4-4. Under Article 6 of the T&CP (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The Mayor was subsequently a Rule 6 party at the
Inquiry. I was told that this was very unusual: Green XiC and Hampson IC, who could think of no other examples
4 Appeal form CD13-1
5 By letter dated 28 January 2020
6 CD12-5
7 Including representations on the New London Plan
8 See Site Visit Brochure at CD19B-48 for full details
9 CDB19-43 made under s106 (as amended) and all enabling powers
10 CD19B-26
11 CD19B-27 and CD19B-28
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
1.5 One drawing was amended during the application process and it was subsequently
agreed between the Appellant and the City that the documents listed in suggested
Condition No.70 are those for which planning permission is sought12. The Appellant has
named the tower the Tulip and referred to its shaft and head as the stem and flower.
I have adopted this terminology.
1.6 Following the Mayor’s Direction13, the application was refused for 6 reasons which
became the Reasons for Refusal (RfR)14. They came under 6 headings: 1. Urban
Design; 2. Historic Environment - Tower of London World Heritage Site (ToL WHS);
3. Historic Environment - Other heritage assets; 4. Strategic Views; 5. Pedestrian
movement; and 6. Cycle parking. Following agreement to the terms and provisions in
the s106 Agreement (see below), RfR 5 and RfR 6 were not pursued.
1.7 An Environmental Statement (ES)15 was submitted dated November 2018 and taken
into account by the City in reaching its resolution to approve the scheme16. There was
no dispute at the Inquiry that this is adequate for determining the appeal and I am
satisfied that it meets the information requirements of the relevant policy.
1.8 By the start of the Inquiry, an objection by the Sephardi Community was withdrawn17.
Matters arising since the last sitting day of the Inquiry
1.9 The New London Plan (NLP) was published on 2 March 2021. This was after all the
evidence was heard and I invited the parties to comment. Their replies are listed as
Core Documents (CDs)18 and I have taken the NLP and the replies into account in
reaching my recommendations19.
1.10 Further representations were received from R J Hoefling with regard to Meteorological
Office data (see 11.7 below). The main parties were given an opportunity to comment
on these, which they did by means of short email messages20.
2. The site and surroundings21
2.1 The SoCG agreed by all four main parties22 confirms the appeal site area as roughly
0.29 hectares covering 20 Bury Street and the area to the north and east of 30 St Mary
Axe (affectionately known as the Gherkin). 20 Bury Street is a six storey building which
provides 428m2 of office space (in use as the management suite for the Gherkin),
352m2 of retail floorspace (currently vacant) and plant. The appeal site includes part of
the existing basement below the Gherkin and the servicing ramp to it from St Mary Axe
running alongside Bury Court. The site has the highest possible Public Transport Access
Level (PTAL) of 6b, with many bus stops, train and tube stations23 located within
walking distance. It is within London's Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and an Airport
Safeguarding Area.
12 Condition 70 CD19B-26 and attached schedule below
13 CD4-4 pp1-2.
14 CD3-9
15 CD1-10 to CD1-15
16 CD14-2 para 1.3
17 CD19C-18
18 CD19B-46 CD19C-24 CD19D23-28 and 30 CD19E-10
19 Bearing in mind the Judgment in CD10-15 Nottingham County Council and Broxtowe Borough Council v The Secretary
of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Rjb Mining (UK) Limited [1999] P.L.C.R. 340
20 Received 26 April 2021: no comment from the Mayor, the City or Historic England. The Appellant made a short reply
to the effect that it would not be filing any detailed review, its witnesses had not had a chance to comment, that this
would be no different to other tall buildings, and that it does not undermine the purpose or public benefit.
21 See CD1-9 ES non-technical summary Fig2 p2
22 CD19B-26
23 including Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street, London Bridge Bank, Monument and Aldgate
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
2.2 The built history of the area dates back to the Roman era24. In medieval times, the
annual Maypole festival gave rise to the name of Shaft Alley and hence the church of St
Andrew Undershaft. The Alley has now disappeared but the Maypole survives25. A 16th
century (C16) manor house on the appeal site was replaced in the 1700’s by a square
with 18 houses which gradually began to be used as offices and banks. In the C20, the
square up to Bury Street was developed with the Baltic and London Shipping
Exchanges. Following an IRA bomb attack in 1992, the Baltic Exchange was eventually
cleared and the site developed with the Gherkin.
Public realm
26 27
2.3 The circular plan of the Gherkin leaves four roughly triangular areas in each corner of
the square which connect as public open space28. This area, referred to as a plaza,
contains bench seating, tree planters, ramps and steps29. Prior to the pandemic, these
were used for sculpture exhibitions, a weekly food market30, consuming food from the
Gherkin and other cafes, wandering about, or just quiet reflection. A slimmer base to
the Gherkin allowed a bigger public realm31. It has been identified as one of only a few
civic spaces in the Cluster 32, a group of tall buildings with the greatest density of
businesses and jobs (see s4 below)33. There are a number of existing and permitted
viewing galleries34 within the Cluster and the wider City.
24 Harrison Proof of evidence (PoE) CD13-8 paras 3.4.1-3.5.12 and TVBHA CD1-11 paras 5.1-5.10
25 As I saw on the far side of The Leadenhall building adjoining No.140 Leadenhall Street
26 Site location plan ES Vol 3 CD1-10 p8
27 Harrison p107. Also at Adams Fig 1 CD19D-11
28 See sketch plan in Harrison CD13-8 p107
29 See plan in SoCG CD19B-26 Appendix D which usefully illustrates the existing features
30 permitted in 2004. Green para 10.14 and 10.90
31 CD 19B-18 Appendix B and sketch (above): the base slims to allow a bigger public realm
32 CD8-7 p22-23 and p42
33 See CD1-9 ES non-technical summary Fig4 p8, planning history below and full list in CD1-10 Table 2.2 p2.7-2.11
34 See e.g. [CD11-64] (22 Bishopsgate OR at paras 102, 104, 119 and 124); [CD11-59] (1 Undershaft OR at paras 101,
104 and 117-118) and [CD11-62] (100 Leadenhall OR at paras 106-107 and 110) and the images and descriptions in
[CD19C-14].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Heritage
Tower of London World Heritage Site (ToL WHS)
2.4 First and foremost amongst the built heritage relevant to this appeal is the ToL WHS.
This is with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH). The oldest and most
important building within the ToL WHS is the C11 Norman keep, known as the White
Tower (so called as it was painted white in 124035). Its distinctive silhouette, with its
towers capped by ogee-shaped roofs (added in 1532 to replace pyramidal or conical
roofs36) are prominent in many views. Pevsner considered the White Tower itself is the
most important work of military architecture in England, equally important for the two
great periods of improved defence, the ages of William the Conqueror and of Henry III
and Edward I37. The White Tower epitomises the consequences of the last military
conquest of England while the concentric defences, of walls punctuated by towers
around the Inner and Outer Wards, including the famous Traitor’s Gate from the River,
date mostly from the late C13 to early C1438. Encircling these is a moat, now dry, with
a stone bridge replacing what was once a drawbridge between the Byward and Middle
Towers39. The Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula dates from c.1520 with substantial
restoration in 1876-740. The Grade II listed C19 Waterloo Block (or Barracks) was built
to house soldiers41. Each year the ToL receives 60,000 school visits, 20,000 of them on
specially designed taught sessions42.
2.5 The ToL was inscribed as a WHS in 1988 having been found to meet two of the
selection criteria43 namely:
(ii) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within
a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology,
monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
(iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological
ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
2.6 The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the ToL WHS is set out in the Statement of
OUV (SOUV) as agreed by the World Heritage Committee (WHC) in 201344.
35 CD16-6 p6 The White Tower internal p140
36 Ibid p8/internal p163
37 CD16-6 p9 The Buildings of England. London. Vol One. Nicholas Pevsner
38 See list descriptions at CD11-20 to CD11-28
39 CD8-23 para 2.1.3 and illustration at p xliv
40 CD11-20. Its significance lies in its rarity as an early 16th century chapel, its development over time, its associations
with Royalty and aristocracy, and the intimacy of its immediate surroundings.
41 CD11-28. Its significance lies in its castellated Gothic Revival style with Domestic Tudor details, its purpose to
accommodate nearly 1,000 soldiers and its imposing silhouette.
42 2005/6 figure CD15-6A para 7
43 CD8-18 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2008, paragraph 77. CD8-33
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2019, paragraph 77
44 At CD11-39, CD8-23 pp35-39 and CD11-38 s2. The Brief Synthesis, worth studying in full, reads:
The Tower of London, founded by William the Conqueror in 1066 has Outstanding Universal Value for the following
cultural qualities:
Its landmark siting, for both protection and control of the City of London: As the gateway to the capital, the Tower was
in effect the gateway to the new Norman kingdom. Sited strategically at a bend in the River Thames, it has been a
crucial demarcation point between the power of the developing City of London, and the power of the monarchy. It had
the dual role of providing protection for the City through its defensive structure and the provision of a garrison, and of
also controlling the citizens by the same means. The Tower literally ‘towered’ over its surroundings until the 19th
century.
As a symbol of Norman power: The Tower of London was built as a demonstration of Norman power. The Tower
represents more than any other structure the far-reaching significance of the mid 11th-century Norman Conquest of
England, for the impact it had on fostering closer ties with Europe, on English language and culture and in creating one
of the most powerful monarchies in Europe. The Tower has an iconic role as reflecting the last military conquest of
England.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
International recognition of WHSs, and their OUV, is enshrined in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF)45. The historical development of the ToL is set out in the WHS
Management Plan (WHSMP)46, as are its attributes of OUV47. These are:
• An internationally famous monument, whose key components are: the iconic White
Tower; its distinctive silhouette as seen from the south bank; the concentric defences;
its close relationship with the Thames; the Wharf and Traitor’s Gate; its historic
traditions, including the Yeomen and the ravens;
• Landmark siting, including its strategic relationship with, and key views of the Tower
up, down, across and from the river, its skyline (silhouette) as seen from the river and
from across the river;
• Symbol of Norman power, including the fabric of the White Tower;
• Physical dominance [of the White Tower], towering over its surroundings until the
19th century, and its silhouette against clear sky;
• Concentric defences including its gates, towers and bulwarks, earthworks, the moat
and its retaining walls;
• Surviving medieval remains including the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula; and
• Physical [historical] associative evidence from its remains.
2.7 As explained in the World Heritage Centre Resource Manual on Preparing World
Heritage Nominations, attributes are aspects of a property which are associated with or
express the OUV. A range of types of attribute which might convey OUV are identified;
that range of types includes location and setting48. The ICOMOS Guidance advises that
any heritage impact assessment should focus on OUV and the attributes that convey
As an outstanding example of late 11th-century innovative Norman military architecture: As the most complete survival
of an 11th-century fortress palace remaining in Europe, the White Tower, and its later 13th and 14th century additions,
belong to a series of edifices which were at the cutting edge of military building technology internationally. They
represent the apogee of a type of sophisticated castle design, which originated in Normandy and spread through
Norman lands to England and Wales.
As a model example of a Medieval fortress palace which evolved from the 11th to 16th centuries: The additions of Henry
III and Edward I, and particularly the highly innovative development of the palace within the fortress, made the Tower
into one of the most innovative and influential castle sites in Europe in the 13th and early 14th centuries, and much of
their work survives. Palace buildings were added to the royal complex right up until the 16th century, although few now
stand above ground. The survival of palace buildings at the Tower allows a rare glimpse into the life of a medieval
monarch within their fortress walls. The Tower of London is a rare survival of a continuously developing ensemble of
royal buildings, evolving from the 11th to the 16th centuries, and as such has great significance nationally and
internationally.
For its association with State institutions: The continuous use of the Tower by successive monarchs fostered the
development of several major State Institutions. These incorporated such fundamental roles as the nation’s defence, its
records, and its coinage. From the late 13th century, the Tower was a major repository for official documents, and
precious goods owned by the Crown. The presence of the Crown Jewels, kept at the Tower since the 17th century, are a
reminder of the fortress’s role as a repository for the Royal Wardrobe.
As the setting for key historical events in European history: The Tower has been the setting for some of the most
momentous events in European and British History. Its role as a stage upon which history is enacted is one of the key
elements which have contributed towards the Tower’s status as an iconic structure. Arguably the most important
building of the Norman Conquest, the White Tower symbolised the might and longevity of the new order. The
imprisonments in the Tower, of Edward V and his younger brother in the 15th century, and then in the 16th century of
four English queens, three of them executed on Tower Green – Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and Jane Grey – with
only Elizabeth I escaping, shaped English history. The Tower also helped shape the Reformation in England, as both
Catholic and Protestant prisoners (those that survived) recorded their experiences and helped define the Tower as a
place of torture and execution.
Criterion (ii): A monument symbolic of royal power since the time of William the Conqueror, the Tower of London served
as an outstanding model throughout the kingdom from the end of the 11th century. Like it, many keeps were built in
stone: e.g. Colchester, Rochester, Hedingham, Norwich, or Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight.
Criterion (iv): The White Tower is the example par excellence of the royal Norman castle in the late 11th century. The
ensemble of the Tower of London is a major reference for the history of medieval military architecture.
45 CD6-1 para 184
46 CD8-23 Appendix A p i-xx
47 Ibid p41-51 Section 3.4
48 CD11-47 pp31-32, and Operational Guidelines 2019 CD8-33 para 82 - list of attributes by which authenticity may be
conveyed
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
OUV49, and a conclusion reached on the overall impact of the proposals on individual
attributes and on the whole WH property50.
2.8 The justification for Inscription reads: The [ToL] was first built by William the
Conqueror for the purpose of protecting and controlling the city. Of the present
buildings the White Tower survives largely intact from the Norman period, and
architecture of almost all the styles which have flourished in England since may be
found within the walls.
The Tower has in the past been a fortress, a palaces [sic] and a prison, and has housed
the Royal Mint, the Public Records and (for a short time) the Royal Observatory. It was
for centuries the arsenal for small arms, the predecessor of the existing Royal
Armouries, and, as one of the strongest fortresses in the land, has from early times
guarded the Crown Jewels.
The Tower today is the key to British history for many thousands of visitors who come
every year from all over the world to see the buildings, the Royal Armouries and the
Crown Jewels and the museum collections, to relive the past and enjoy the pageantry
of the present. But at the same time it is still a fortress, a royal palace, and the home
of a community of some 150 hardworking people. As such it epitomises all that is best
in World Heritage. UNESCO criteria: 5a) II, IV, VI51.
2.9 The appeal site itself is not within a conservation area (CA). There are several CAs
nearby notably the LBTH’s ToL CA and the Trinity Square CA, also the St Helen's Place,
Bishopsgate, Lloyds Avenue, and Trinity Square CAs52.
2.10 The ToL CA53 covers the WHS, St Katherine’s Dock, Trinity Square Gardens, the
forecourt to the old Royal Mint, and the northern half of Tower Bridge54.
St Katherine’s Dock was one of the first sets of enclosed docks to be built at the
beginning of the C19. Trinity Square Gardens, also designated as a London Square
and protected by the Act of 193155, was laid out as open space at the end of the C18.
It is an exception to the busy spaces between the City and the fortress, where the
peaceful sunken memorial garden offers a valuable refuge from the surroundings56.
Overall, the ToL CA has a complex pattern of overlapping developments over two
thousand years. The [ToL] itself is by far the most significant site, due to its symbolic,
historic and architectural value. The White Tower remains the focal point of the
western part of the CA. The eastern part of the CA around St. Katharine’s Dock has
undergone significant changes since the closure of the docks and the character of
buildings and spaces are more varied57.
2.11 The small Trinity Square CA58 includes Trinity House, 10 Trinity Square, the Grade I
listed St Olave’s Church, Seething Gardens and unlisted buildings to the south of
Muscovy Street. Its heritage significance is mainly derived from the intact group of
mostly early C20 buildings with a distinctive Imperial character unified by the use of
Portland stone with many decorated and Classical details59, including the maritime
group of 10 Trinity Square and Trinity House. Trinity Square, which is within The ToL
49 CD8-13 paragraph 2-1-7, and Appendix 4 paragraph 7
50 CD8-13 Appendix 4 paragraph 7
51 See Justification for Inscription – CD8-23 Appendix E p xxxviii
52 CD11-40, CD8-28, CD8-30 and CD11-5
53 CD11-44 LBTH’s ToL CA Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines (2008) map on p3
54 See CD11-44 pp3-4
55 London Squares Preservation Act 1931. See CD11-44 p18
56 CD11-44 p13 and 18
57 Ibid p7
58 CD19B-28 para 2.10
59 CD11-5 p6
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CA in LBTH, is excluded from the CA but is a complementary element of its immediate
setting60. Other nearby CAs include those of St Helen's Place and Lloyds Avenue.
Other heritage assets
2.12 The history and significance of other relevant heritage assets was not agreed. As well
as the ToL (covered by RfR2), RfR3 alleges harm to five listed buildings (LBs). These
are: St Boltoph’s Church without Aldgate (Grade I); Bevis Marks Synagogue
(Grade I); Church of St Helen’s Bishopsgate (Grade I); 10 Trinity Square (Grade II*);
and 38 St Mary Axe (Grade II)61. There are a number of other LBs within the vicinity62
including the nearby Holland House, listed at Grade II*, with its attractive faience63.
The Mayor and HE considered that there were additional relevant assets which should
also be considered64. These are all listed in the Heritage SoCG including summary
assessments of significance65, contribution of setting, impact on setting, and areas of
disagreement66. The existing buildings on the appeal site are not listed.
2.13 The present church of St Botolph without Aldgate, listed at Grade I, stands some
way to the east of the appeal site. It was built in 1741-44, to the designs of George
Dance the Elder (1695-1768). It has exceptional historic and architectural interest for
its association with this notable C18 architect, who also designed the Mansion House
and was City of London Surveyor from 1735-1768. The layout of the church is
orientated north-south to face down Minories, with its West Tower to the south, and
illustrates the decline in the importance attached to church orientation after the C15.
Views looking north, terminated by the south elevation of the church and its tower
from Minories, and from the east towards the Gherkin are particularly significant67.
2.14 Immediately north of the site, Bevis Marks Synagogue, also Grade I, is the oldest
surviving English synagogue which has been in continuous use since 1701. It has
significant associative and historic interest, and communal value to the Jewish
community. It survived both world wars unscathed; it was badly damaged by the IRA
bomb of 1992 but is otherwise largely as originally built. The list description notes
that the little altered state is of exceptional historic interest. The wider setting
includes a number of office towers, visible from the courtyard. My site visit did not
include access to within it or the courtyard.
2.15 Just to the west of the Gherkin, the Church of St Helen’s Bishopsgate, Grade I,
dates from the C13 with alterations and additions from the C14-20. It is notable for
having survived both the Great Fire and the Blitz; however, it was seriously damaged
in the IRA bombing, and subsequently repaired. The church has exceptional historic
and architectural interest as one of the few medieval buildings in the City of London to
have survived. To the north are a collection of fine grained Victorian, Edwardian and
more recent buildings near the church and within the St Helen’s Place CA, which were
typical of the church’s wider setting until the later C2068. The setting is otherwise
characterised by the tall buildings of the City’s Eastern Cluster.
2.16 The former Port of London Authority Building at 10 Trinity Square is listed at
Grade II*. Designed in 1912, it is built in a heavy classical Beaux-Arts style but rebuilt
after the war. It is now a designated a City Landmark in the Protected Views
60 CD19B-28 Appendix B
61 CD19B-28 Supplementary SoCG on Heritage and Views p4 para 2.7.
62 Ibid Appendix A Parts 1 and 2
63 CD19B-35 para 5.2
64 Ibid. See table identifying other potentially relevant assets in Appendix X
65 The following summaries are based on CD19B-28 Appendix B, agreed between the Appellant and the City only
66 CD19B-28 paras 2.7 to 2.11 and Appendices X and Y
67 See View 54 in Site Visit Guide CD19B-48
68 CD19B-28 Appendix B
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)69. With Trinity House it forms a pair of
maritime headquarters buildings seen together in significant views across Trinity
Square. The Grade I listed WWI memorial by Lutyens added to by a Grade II* listed
WII memorial, also contribute to the historic significance of the mercantile group70.
The close setting of 10 Trinity Square to the north, east and west is generally mid-rise
and commercial but varied in age and quality. The City’s Eastern Cluster forms part of
the wider setting.
2.17 As above, the former Grade II* listed Baltic Exchange at 24-28 St Mary Axe was
damaged by the 1992 bomb and what remained was demolished in 1998 for the
construction of the Gherkin. The Baltic Exchange subsequently moved next door to
the Grade II listed No.38 St Mary Axe. This 1922 design, by the RIBA Gold Medal
awarded architect Sir Edwin Cooper, is a fine inter-war example of a simple classical
revival style. It is now part of a contrasting modern setting of mid-rise to very tall
commercial buildings including the Gherkin.
2.18 Also considered relevant by the Mayor and HE, the Grade I listed two storey Trinity
House dates from 1793-6. This is the headquarters of its venerable Corporation,
responsible for the safety of shipping from 1566, and later for all lighthouses and
navigation buoys in England. The neo-classical style building was designed by English
architect and engineer Samuel Wyatt (1737-1807), brother of James Wyatt. It faces
Trinity Square Gardens which was laid out by Samuel Wyatt in 1797 as a setting for
Trinity House. The most significant views are those looking at Trinity House from the
edge of Trinity Square71.
2.19 Several other LBs were considered relevant by the Mayor but not HE, including St
Andrew Undershaft church, Tower Bridge, Holland House and St. Ethelburga's
church. Assessments of their significance is provided in the Heritage SoCG and the
Mayor’s evidence72.
2.20 The Townscape and Visual and Built Heritage Impact Assessment73 (TVBHA) identified
and assessed all of the relevant Strategic Views74. The Mayor and HE considered that
additional views are relevant75. All parties agreed on the strategic views that should
be considered76.
3. Planning policy
3.1 Relevant policy and guidance, including the development plan at the time of the
Inquiry, emerging policy, supplementary planning guidance (SPG) planning advice,
frameworks, strategies and guidance notes is listed in the SoCG77.
The Development Plan
3.2 The New London Plan (NLP) was published on 2 March 202178 and so the development
plan now includes the NLP and the City of London Local Plan (LP)79. Statute requires
69 CD8-26. See below
70 CD19B-28 Appendix B
71 CD19B-28 Appendix Y p26
72 Ibid. See also Barker-Mills CD15-5 pp46-47 and photographs in CD15-6
73 CD1-11 ES vol 2
74 As defined in the London View Management Framework (LVMF) – see also s3: Policy - The full list of those assessed is
at Part 1 of Appendix C to the SoCG heritage
75 See Appendix 3 of Prof. Tavernor’s Proof of Evidence, Appendix RT3A, CD 13-19
76 CD19B-28 Heritage SoCG Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.20 and Appendix C
77 SoCG CD19B-26 pp12-21
78 CD19D-27
79 CD6-4 adopted in January 2015
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
that, in the event of conflict within the development plan, the conflict must be resolved
in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the
development plan80. Although the NLP replaces the previous London Plan, most of the
relevant policies of the Intend to Publish version81 referred to at the Inquiry are largely
unchanged. In a few areas the changes are significant, but for this appeal, the main
difference is the weight that can now be given to these policies.
The New London Plan (NLP) policies
3.3 Criterion A to Policy SD482 for the CAZ aims to promote and enhance its unique
international, national and London-wide roles, based on an agglomeration and rich mix
of strategic functions and local uses, while B aims to support and enhance the
nationally and internationally significant office functions of the CAZ. Criteria E, G and H
support tourism, cultural activities and attractiveness to visitors. Policy D1 considers
London’s character areas and how to plan for growth. Policy D3 expects all
development to make the best use of land by following a design led approach that
optimises the capacity of sites. Supporting paragraph 3.3.10 expects circular
economy principles to be taken into account at the start of the design process,
including: designing for longevity, adaptability or flexibility, disassembly, and using
systems, elements or materials that can be re-used and recycled.
3.4 In delivering good design, Criterion D to NLP Policy D483 expects the design of
proposals, especially tall buildings, to be thoroughly scrutinised including the use of the
design review process to assess and inform design options early in the planning
process. The public realm expectations in Policy D884 include: A encourage and explore
opportunities to create new public realm where appropriate; D an understanding of
how the public realm in an area functions and creates a sense of place during different
times … and demonstrate an understanding of how people use the public realm, and
the types, location and relationship between public spaces in an area; F ensure … that
there is a mutually supportive relationship between the space, surrounding buildings
and their uses, so the public realm enhances the amenity and function of buildings and
the design of buildings contributes to a vibrant public realm; and at criterion I
incorporate green infrastructure.
3.5 Policy D985 for Tall Buildings expects, at B1-3), that Boroughs should determine if
there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate form of development, …;
that these should be identified on maps …; and that Tall buildings should only be
developed in locations that are identified as suitable in Development Plans. Criterion
C1)a) addresses the visual impacts of views from different distances, with C1)a)i
requiring attention to be paid to the design of the top of the building; and C1)a)iii that
the base should have a direct relationship with the street, maintaining the pedestrian
scale, character and vitality of the street. C1)c) expects that architectural quality and
materials should be of an exemplary standard to ensure that the appearance and
architectural integrity of the building is maintained through its lifespan. C1)d) reads
that: proposals should take account of, and avoid harm to, the significance of London’s
heritage assets and their settings. Proposals resulting in harm will require clear and
convincing justification demonstrating that alternatives have been explored and that
there are clear public benefits that outweigh that harm. The buildings should positively
contribute to the character of the area; and at C1)e) that buildings in the setting of a
80 PCPA 2004 s.38(5) as amended
81 CD7-1
82 CD19D-27 p72
83 Ibid p123
84 Ibid p143-5
85 Ibid p148
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
[WHS] must preserve, and not harm, the [OUV] of the [WHS], and the ability to
appreciate it.
3.6 Criterion D9.C2) looks at functional impact and notes at f) that: jobs, services,
facilities and economic activity that will be provided by the development and the
regeneration potential this might provide should inform the design so it maximises the
benefits these could bring to the area, and maximises the role of the development as a
catalyst for further change in the area. Policy D9.C4) requires cumulative impacts to
be considered; D9.D expects: Free to enter publicly-accessible areas to be
incorporated into tall buildings where appropriate ….
3.7 Policy S386 deals with Education and childcare facilities. While referring to the
allocation of sufficient sites for schools, colleges and universities, supporting paragraph
5.3.1 also makes the general observation that good quality education and training are
vital for supporting people into sustainable employment, which is also essential to
London’s continued economic success.
3.8 Policy for Visitor infrastructure is in E1087. Criterion A aims to strengthen London’s
visitor economy and associated employment by enhancing and extending its
attractions; E10B adds that the special characteristics of major clusters of visitor
attractions and heritage assets and the diversity of cultural infrastructure in all parts of
London should be conserved, enhanced and promoted.
3.9 Heritage conservation and growth Policy HC1.C88 expects: Development proposals
affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by
being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their
surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on
heritage assets and their settings should also be actively managed. Development
proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating
heritage considerations early on in the design process.
3.10 Policy HC289 deals exclusively with WHSs. HC2.A expects that Boroughs with [WHS]s,
and those that are neighbours to authorities with [WHS]s, should include policies …
that conserve, promote, actively protect and interpret the [OUV] of [WHS]s, which
includes the authenticity and integrity of their attributes and their management.
HC2.B reads: Development proposals in [WHS]s and their settings, … should
conserve, promote and enhance their [OUV], including the authenticity, integrity and
significance of their attributes, and support their management and protection. In
particular, they should not compromise the ability to appreciate their [OUV], or the
authenticity and integrity of their attributes. HC2.C requires Heritage Impact
Assessments where the settings of WHSs might be affected, while Policy HC2.D adds
that … when considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to
implementing the provisions of the [WHSMP].
3.11 Supporting paragraph 7.2.1 explains that: In ratifying the World Heritage Convention,
the UK Government has made a commitment to protecting, conserving,
presenting and transmitting to future generations the Outstanding Universal
Value of World Heritage Sites and to protecting and conserving their settings (note
that the bold type appears in the NLP). With regard to their settings, paragraph 7.2.3
adds that: The consideration of views is part of understanding potential impacts on
86 Ibid p246
87 Ibid p306
88 Ibid p312
89 Ibid p320
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the setting of the [WHS]s. Many views to and from [WHS]s are covered, in part, by
the London Views Management Framework.
3.12 The draft Panel Report90 highlights the extent to which the NLP marks a shift in policy
on heritage in general and WHSs in particular. By reference to the requirement in
Policy HC1 for a clear understanding of London’s historic environment, the Report
notes that: Policy HC1 builds on the design-led approach … to ensure that the
significance of heritage assets informs change. The panel specifically referred to the
fact that Policy HC2 actively responds to the findings of the [ICOMOS] Mission
Report91 (see below). For these reasons, the Panel found that a bespoke policy in this
Plan is justified. As a result, Policy HC2 for WHSs now refers to the authenticity and
integrity of their attributes and requires that WHSMPs should not just be used to
inform plan making, but that appropriate weight should be given to implementing
[their] provisions.
3.13 Strategic and Local Views are covered by Policy HC392 with Protected Vistas covered
by Criterion C. HC3D aims to identify and protect aspects of views that contribute to
a viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate a [WHS]’s authenticity, integrity, and
attributes of [OUV]. This includes the identification of Protected Silhouettes of key
features in a [WHS].
3.14 Policy HC493 addresses the London View Management Framework (LVMF).
The preceding Table 7.1 lists Designated Strategic views including View 10: Tower
Bridge and View 25: The Queen’s Walk to the ToL. Policy HC4.A expects that
proposals should preserve and, where possible, enhance viewers’ ability to recognise
and to appreciate Strategically-Important Landmarks in these views and, … protect
the silhouette of landmark elements of [WHS]s as seen from designated viewing
places. Criterion B expects that Development in the … background of a designated
view should not be intrusive, unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view.
HC4.C adds protection from external illumination and adds that Where a silhouette of
a [WHS] is identified … as prominent in a designated view, and well-preserved within
its setting with clear sky behind, it should not be altered by new development
appearing in its background. Criteria D1-3) expect that London Panoramas, River
Prospects, and Townscape and Linear Views should be managed so that development
fits with the prevailing pattern, juxtaposition can be appreciated, and the ability to
see specific buildings is preserved.
3.15 Policy HC5: Supporting London’s culture and creative industries supports the
continued growth and evolution of London’s diverse cultural facilities and creative
industries. It expects this to be done through development plans and proposals, and
Creative Enterprise Zones in Local Plans. Policy HC6 extends this support to the
night-time economy through development plans, town centre strategies and planning
decisions.
3.16 Sustainable Infrastructure Policy SI 2A94 expects major development to be net
zero-carbon by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in operation and minimising both
annual and peak energy demand in accordance with an energy hierarchy. 2B expects
a detailed energy strategy to demonstrate how the zero-carbon target will be met … .
2C requires a minimum of 35% on-site reduction beyond the Building Regulations
and 2D that Boroughs establish a carbon offset fund. 2E expects major development
90 CD7-4 p71 para 327
91 Ibid para 330 referring to the International Council on Monuments and Sites/International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property Mission Report
92 CD19D-27 p323
93 Ibid p330
94 Ibid p380
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
proposals to calculate and minimise carbon emissions from any other part of the
development, including plant or equipment, that are not covered by Building
Regulations, i.e. unregulated emissions. SI 2F expects schemes referable to the
Mayor to calculate whole life-cycle carbon emissions through a nationally recognised
Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment and demonstrate actions taken to reduce life-
cycle carbon emissions. Supporting paragraph 9.2.1 expects a whole life-cycle
approach to carbon impact, including unregulated emissions, embodied emissions
and those associated with dismantling, demolition and eventual material disposal.
3.17 The aims of Policy SI 7A include to reduce waste, increase re-use and recycling by
promoting a circular economy, encouraging reuse of materials, achieve 95%
reuse/recycling/recovery of construction and demolition. Criterion B requires referable
applications to submit a Circular Economy Statement to demonstrate: 1) how all
materials arising from demolition and remediation works will be re-used and/or
recycled 2) how the proposal’s design and construction will reduce material demands
and enable building materials, components and products to be disassembled and
re-used at the end of their useful life …. Supporting paragraph 9.7.1 explains that
Waste is defined as anything that is discarded. A circular economy is one where
materials are retained in use at their highest value for as long as possible and are
then re-used or recycled, leaving a minimum of residual waste.
City of London Local Plan (LP)95
3.18 The City of London LP dates from January 2015. Its focus, through policies CS1 and
DM1.1 is to supply and protect office floorspace. Of particular relevance, LP Core
Strategic Policy CS7 sets 7 criteria to ensure that the Eastern Cluster can
accommodate a significant growth in office floorspace and employment. These
include: 1. Increasing the provision of sustainable, energy-efficient, attractive, high
quality office floorspace; 2. Promoting the Eastern Cluster as a location for inward
investment; 3. Delivering tall buildings on appropriate sites that enhance the overall
appearance of the cluster on the skyline, and the relationship with the space around
them at ground level, while adhering to the principles of sustainable design,
conservation of heritage assets and their settings and taking account of their effect on
the wider London skyline and protected views; 5. Enhancing streets, spaces, and the
public realm for pedestrians, providing new open and public spaces where feasible.
Figure G96 broadly illustrates the area of the Eastern Cluster, which includes the
appeal site, while paragraph 3.7.1 and Table 2.3 expect that the majority of new
office space will be built here.
3.19 Design Policy CS10 promotes a high standard of design and sustainable buildings,
streets and spaces, having regard to their surroundings and the historic and local
character of the City and creating an inclusive and attractive environment, by
amongst other things: 1. Ensuring that the bulk, height, scale, massing, quality of
materials and detailed design of buildings are appropriate to the character of the City
and the setting; 2. Encouraging design solutions that make effective use of limited
land resources; 6. Delivering improvement in the environment, amenities and
enjoyment of open spaces … in accordance with public realm enhancement strategies.
3.20 Development Management Policy DM 10.1 requires all developments to be of a high
standard of design and to avoid harm to the townscape and public realm, by ensuring
criteria are met including that:
• the bulk and massing of schemes are appropriate in relation to their surroundings
and have due regard to the general scale, height, building lines, character, historic
95 Full version at CD19H-2
96 CD19H-2 p72
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
interest and significance, urban grain and materials of the locality;
• all development is of a high standard of design and architectural detail.
3.21 Policy CS12 aims to conserve or enhance the significance of the City’s heritage assets
and their settings, and provide an attractive environment for the City’s communities
and visitors, by: 1. Safeguarding the City’s LBs and their settings, while allowing
appropriate adaptation and new uses; 2. Preserving and enhancing the distinctive
character and appearance of the City’s conservation areas, while allowing sympathetic
development within them; 5. Preserving and, where appropriate, seeking to enhance
the OUV, architectural and historic significance, authenticity and integrity of the ToL
WHS and its local setting.
3.22 Criterion 1 in Policy DM 12.1, on managing change affecting all heritage assets and
spaces, is: To sustain and enhance heritage assets, their settings and significance. It
also resists the loss of routes and spaces that contribute to the character and historic
interest of the City, and requires development to respect the significance, character,
scale and amenities of surrounding heritage assets and spaces and their settings.
Criterion 4 requires development to respect the significance, character, scale and
amenities of surrounding heritage assets and spaces and their settings.
3.23 Policy CS13 sets criteria to protect and enhance significant City and London views of
important buildings, townscape and skylines, making a substantial contribution to
protecting the overall heritage of the City’s landmarks, by: 1. Implementing the
Mayor’s [LVMF] SPG to manage designated views of strategically important landmarks
… the [ToL], river prospects, townscape views and linear views. 3. Securing an
appropriate setting of and backdrop to the [ToL WHS], which adjoins the City, so
ensuring its OUV, taking account of the [ToL WHSMP] (2007).
3.24 Tall Buildings Policy CS14 allows tall buildings of world class architecture and
sustainable and accessible design in suitable locations and to ensure that they take
full account of the character of their surroundings, enhance the skyline and provide a
high quality public realm at ground level, by: 1. Permitting tall buildings on suitable
sites within the City’s Eastern Cluster; 3. Elsewhere in the City, permitting proposals
for tall buildings only on those sites which are considered suitable having regard to:
the potential effect on the City skyline; the character and amenity of their
surroundings, including the relationship with existing tall buildings; the significance of
heritage assets and their settings; and the effect on historic skyline features; and
4. Ensuring that tall building proposals do not adversely affect the operation of
London’s airports.
Other Statutory duties
3.25 Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (LBs and CAs) Act 1990 place duties on the
decision maker with regard to LBs and their settings and to CAs. The Courts have
found that considerable importance and weight should be given to the desirability of
preserving the setting of [LBs] in any balancing exercise with material considerations
which do not have this status97. See also Mordue below.
Government policy
3.26 The NPPF was first published on 27 March 2012 and updated on 24 July 2018 and 19
February 2019. This sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how
these are expected to be applied. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)98 is published
97 As interpreted by the Courts in CD J02 East Northamptonshire District Council and others v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2014] EWCACiv 137
98 CDC 02
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
online and regularly updated. The latest relevant update was on 1 October 2019. The
PPG99 indicates that applicants for planning permission may find it helpful to use the
approach set out in the 2011 ICOMOS Guidance100 and in the HE advice101.
Emerging policy
3.27 With the publication of the NLP, the most significant emerging policy is now the
Emerging City Plan (emerging LP)102. On 24 November 2020 the City’s Planning &
Transportation Committee reported that it had considered and agreed a schedule of
further changes to the LP103. It anticipated that the LP will be formally submitted for
examination prior to the summer recess, with formal examination hearings expected
in autumn 2021 and adoption programmed for early 2022. Accordingly, its policies
should be given limited weight at this stage.
3.28 Section 3 of the emerging LP sets out the Vision, Strategic Objectives and Spatial
Strategy104. Of particular relevance to the Vision, paragraph 3.4.4105 expects Office
and employment growth will be successfully accommodated by a cluster of dynamic,
attractive, sustainably designed and appropriately scaled tall buildings, providing an
iconic view of the City and enhancing its role as a global hub for innovation in finance,
professional services, commerce and culture. Complementary retail, leisure, cultural
and educational facilities will support the City’s primary business function, principally
through animating ground floor spaces. Table 1106 shows the scale of the projected
growth in the main land uses in the City over the period 2016 to 2036, of which the
majority, some 2m m2, would be offices, other uses being retailing, housing and
hotels.
3.29 The aim of Policy S6107 for Culture, Visitors and the Night-Time Economy is that the
City’s communities will be able to access a range of arts, heritage and cultural
experiences. The City’s cultural offer is an integral element of the Square Mile,
alongside the business City108. The City Corporation has prepared Visitor and Cultural
Strategies that promote the City as a high-quality visitor destination with an emphasis
on world-class cultural facilities. It is estimated there are approximately 21.5m
business and leisure visits a year to the City and this is expected to grow109.
3.30 Policy S12(2) encourages Tall buildings of world class architecture and sustainable
and accessible design …, having regard to:
• the potential effect on the City skyline, the wider London skyline and historic skyline
features
• the character and amenity of their surroundings, including the relationship with
existing tall buildings
• the impact on the significance of heritage assets and their immediate and wider
settings
• the provision of a high-quality public realm at street level ….
Under S12(4) New tall buildings will be required to enhance permeability and provide
the maximum feasible amount of open space at street level and incorporate areas of
publicly accessible open space or other facilities within the building and its curtilage,
99 CD19B-5 para 35 Reference ID: 18a-035-20190723
100 CD8-13: Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties January 2011
101 CD8-4 The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition)
102 CD19H-3
103 CD19C-13
104 Ibid p13
105 Ibid p17
106 Ibid para 3.5.3 to the Spatial Strategy
107 Ibid p75
108 Ibid para 5.3.2
109 Ibid para 5.3.3
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
including at upper levels, available at no charge. Paragraph 6.5.11 expects that The
City Corporation will use 3D digital modelling technology to visually assess the impact
of tall buildings on the local, City-wide and London-wide townscape and skyscape.
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
3.31 Relevant SPG is listed in the SoCG110. The Mayor’s London’s World Heritage Sites –
Guidance on Settings SPG, 2012 (the Settings SPG)111 advises that: [t]he setting of
a [WHS] is recognised as fundamentally contributing to the appreciation of a [WHS]’s
[OUV] and changes to it can impact greatly, both adversely and beneficially, on the
ability to appreciate its [OUV]112. It notes that: UNESCO guidance and advice from
[HE] encourage the definition of attributes which give a more detailed expression of
the [WHS]s’ [OUV]113. It continues: The magnitude of impact on an attribute of OUV
or on other heritage assets is a function of the significance of the attribute of OUV or
other heritage asset and the scale of change. Attributes of OUV of [WHS]s have a
very high significance value, therefore even minor changes can have a significant
effect and their impacts will require close scrutiny114. With regard to cumulative
impacts, it advises that these should be considered, noting that they can have a
significant impact on the setting of a [WHS] and that: There should also be
recognition that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily
represent acceptability of impacts on setting.
3.32 The LVMF SPG 2012115 refers to key views including those from Tower Bridge – View
10A, and from Queen’s Walk on the South Bank – Views 25A.1-3. It notes for
View 10A that the character of the upstream views is derived from the significant
depth and width of the view, that the location enables the fine detail and the layers of
history of the [ToL] to be readily understood. This understanding and appreciation is
enhanced by the free sky space around the White Tower. Where it has been
compromised its visual dominance has been devalued, and [The] middle ground
includes the varied elements of the City, rising behind the Tower116. The SPG
specifically refers to the WHS, its OUV and the WHSMP. From The Queen’s Walk, it
finds that Views 25A.1-3 provide good views of the [ToL], and the relatively clear
background setting of the White Tower, in particular. It notes that the juxtaposition of
the [WHS] with the modern city is the central characteristic of this view adding that
The White Tower generally stands free of background development, but other
elements of the Tower complex have a backdrop of development117.
Other Documents
3.33 The Protected Views SPD (2012) addresses a number of such views. Those
concerning the ToL WHS and its setting tend to duplicate those referred to in the
settings and LVMF SPG, including the characteristic juxtaposition of the WHS and the
modern City in Views 25A.1-3. It also identifies a number of City Landmarks118
including 10 Trinity Square and St Botolph Aldgate.
3.34 The ToL Local Settings Study119 2010 looked at the context and inscription, OUV and
setting. To the extent that it is relevant to proposals outside its immediate
110 CD19B-26 s7 pp20-21
111 CD8-16
112 Ibid para. 1.3
113 Ibid para 2.21
114 Ibid 5.34
115 CD8-14
116 Ibid para 181-2 p99
117 Ibid para 413 p215
118 CD8-26 Fig10
119 CD8-22
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
environment, it has been largely overtaken by the WHSMP. Its views include several
which I saw within the ToL.
Conservation Areas
3.35 The significance of the two most relevant CAs is set out above. The ToL CA Character
Appraisals and Management Guidelines120, which help to identify that significance,
note that the ToL WHSMP provides a detailed account of the Tower’s history and
significance and refers readers to it for more information. The 2014 Character
Summary & Management Strategy SPD for Trinity Square CA121 is similarly helpful
but also relies on policy at that time which has been largely updated, albeit
incorporating much of the same content.
Best practice documents
3.36 HE has published extensive guidance on the historic environment including Good
Practice Advice (GPA) in Planning Notes. GPA2 Managing Significance in Decision-
Taking in the Historic Environment122 notes that: The cumulative impact of
incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the significance of a
heritage asset as a larger scale change. Where the significance … has been
compromised in the past by unsympathetic development to the asset itself or its
setting, consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further
detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset in order to accord with
NPPF policies123.
3.37 HE’s GPA3: The Setting of Heritage Assets124 states: When assessing any application
for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning
authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. It continues:
Setting is not itself a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, … . Its importance
lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or to the ability to
appreciate that significance. …
Settings of heritage assets change over time. Understanding this history of change
will help to determine how further development within the asset’s setting is likely to
affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset.
Settings of heritage assets which closely resemble the setting at the time the asset
was constructed or formed are likely to contribute particularly strongly to significance
but settings which have changed may also themselves enhance significance, for
instance where townscape character has been shaped by cycles of change over the
long term. Settings may also have suffered negative impact from inappropriate past
developments and may be enhanced by the removal of the inappropriate
structure(s)125.
3.38 Its GPA4 Tall Buildings says: Each building will need to be considered on its merits,
and its cumulative impact assessed126, and that [c]areful assessment of any
cumulative impacts in relation to other existing tall buildings and concurrent proposals
will also be needed …. The existence of a built or permitted tall building does not of
itself justify a cluster or additions to a cluster. It states that Where a proposal is
promoted as part of a cluster a successful design will have a positive relationship
within the cluster; the altered impact of a cluster itself needs to be considered. The
120 CD11-44
121 CD11-5 p27
122 CD8-3
123 Ibid par 28
124 CD8-4 Part 1 p2 & 4
125 Ibid para 9 p4
126 CD 8-6 para 3.8 p6. See also the checklist on p8 and para 5.5
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
use of modelling and visual aids is recommended to fully assess a proposal’s impact
on the surrounding area127.
WHS Management Plan (WHSMP)128
3.39 The WHSMP was prepared through relevant consultation and submitted to the World
Heritage Centre by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on
26 April 2016129. It superseded that of 2007130. As above, taking account of a WHSMP
is enshrined in policy and it should be given weight accordingly. The significance of
the WHS is the ToL SOUV which was adopted in 2013 by the WHC131. The Foreword
identifies the greatest challenge to the [WHS], however, remains the impact on its
setting of development and tall buildings. Relevant policy includes that: The most
significant challenges to the property lie in managing the environs of the [ToL] so as
to protect its [OUV] and setting. At a strategic level, these challenges are recognised
in the London Plan and … emerging Local Plans. These documents set out a strategic
framework of policies aimed at conserving, protecting and enhancing the [OUV] of the
Tower and its setting. The challenges are also identified in the [WHSMP], which
defines the local setting of the Tower and key views within and from it. Objectives in
the Plan to address the challenges are being implemented … , although pressures
remain significant, particularly in the wider setting. It also sets out an explanation of
attributes of OUV132.
3.40 It was common ground between all the main parties that the starting point133 for
understanding the significance of the ToL WHS is the SOUV, agreed at the 37th
session of the WHC in June 2013134, and its seven attributes135. The United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Operational Guidelines136
refer to attributes, which are the features or relationships that convey the OUV of a
WHS, as identified in the SOUV. The brief synthesis137 comprises (i) a summary of
factual information and (ii) a summary of qualities. The first sets out the geographical
and historical context and the main features; the second should present to decision-
makers and the general public the potential OUV that needs to be sustained, and
should also include a summary of the attributes that convey its potential OUV, and
need to be protected, managed and monitored. Protection and management138 should
include the necessary mechanisms, management systems and/or management plans
that will protect and conserve the attributes that carry OUV.
3.41 With regard to the wider setting, the WHSMP notes that: A relationship between the
Tower and the ‘eastern cluster’ of tall buildings … has been established for almost half
a century. The proposed intensification of the City’s ‘eastern cluster’ is established
planning policy. In long views … from the south and east, the Tower and the eastern
cluster are seen … as separate elements …, but the distinguishing sky-space between
them is diminishing139. It continues: … ‘The Shard’, nearly 1 km to the south-west of
the Tower, was approved following a public inquiry in 2003. The reasons for approval
included distance from the Tower, the (generally accepted) quality of the design, and
127 Ibid para 4.6
128 CD 8-23
129 CD16-5 App. 26 and CD8-23 p4 and App. C
130 CD8-23 p10 para 1.3.5
131 CD8-23 p35-39
132 Ibid p40 Section 3.3
133 Heritage SoCG CD12-2 para 1.2 (c) and 2.12
134 CD8-23 p35.
135 Listed in WHSMP CD8-23 pp41-45 para 3.4. See also CD8-16 Guidance on Settings SPG p.19, paras 3.8-9
136 UNESCO Operational Guidelines (2019) paras 1-3 (CD8-33)
137 CD8-33 Annex 5 para 3.1a
138 Ibid para 3.1.e
139 CD8-23 para 7.3.18
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the prior existence of a group of undistinguished tall buildings on the site140. It can be
judged in 2016 as a completed building; a slender form, drawing the eye upwards,
whose elegance and reflective surface goes some way to mitigating the effects of its
size and proximity to the WHS. Nevertheless, it creates a visual distraction in many
important views of the Tower, especially from Tower Green and the White Tower.
Policy regarding the Eastern or City Cluster
3.42 The evolution of policy towards London’s WHSs and its reference to juxtaposition had
begun by the first London Plan in 2004141. This was strengthened following concern142
that led to a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Tower in
2006143. Following receipt of the 2006 Mission Report144 the WHC noted: concern that
proposed new developments around the [ToL] … appeared not to respect the
significance of the World Heritage properties, their settings, and related vistas145. It
continued: the planned construction of the 216m Minerva Tower could be considered
a direct threat, as the building site was located in the eastern side of the City and
therefore with a significant impact on the visual background of the [ToL]146.
3.43 To remedy this concern, and avoid contemplating eventual deletion from the list147,
The mission concluded that the property would meet criteria for Danger Listing
(according to Paragraphs 178-182 of the Operational Guidelines) if either a statutory
protection for the iconic view from the South Bank towards the Tower, which is key to
the conservation of the visual integrity of the Tower, has not been established by the
time the [WHC] meets for its 31st session, or the [WHSMP], … has not been finalized
by the time the [WHC] meets for its 31st session.
3.44 While there is no direct statutory protection for WHSs, or the view from the South
Bank, a WHSMP for the ToL was adopted in 2007 and the 2008 version of the London
Plan made reference to the WHSMP. Policy on this was further strengthened in 2011
by the Mayor148. WHSs and Views in the LVMF are now both protected by the NLP (see
above). The NPPF, amended in July 2018, now includes explicit reference to the
importance of the OUV of WHSs and that this classification forms part of their
significance and should be taken into account in all relevant decision-making.
3.45 The WHC recommended that the GLA should adopt a policy of concentration of tall
buildings in the City, thereby limiting the impact on the [ToL]’s surrounding urban
landscape and statutory protection for the iconic view from the South Bank149. It:
urge[d] the State Party to vigorously apply the concept of clustering of tall buildings
so that they do not impact adversely on the [OUV] of London [WHS]s150. While noting
recent policy improvements, the 2017 Mission recommended that policy and guidance
materials should be written in as concrete a manner as possible151. The Panel Report
into the NLP also took the Mission Report into account152. It explains that Policy HC2
140 Ibid para 7.3.19 quoting the conclusions of Inspector Gray (paras 16.59-87), supported by the SoS
141 CD16-4 English appendix B1/05 p38 and Appendix B2/51: The supporting text to the heritage policies emphasised
that the Mayor wished to promote modern architecture and urban design, stressing the juxtaposition of building types
as an underlying guide to managing London’s historic environment, while tall buildings were encouraged elsewhere in
the Plan.
142 CD16-5 p59: two proposed projects, the Minerva Tower and London Bridge Tower (the Shards of Glass)
143 See WHSMP CD8-23 p74 para 6.3.7 and English, Appendices Part 2, pdf p.65 [CD16-5].
144 CD16-5 App B2/35 State of Conservation Report 2007
145 Ibid p67
146 Ibid p68 second para 2
147 Ibid p69
148 Now Prime Minister, Boris Johnson
149 Ibid p68 recommendation b)
150 CD16-5 App 35 page 69 Point 4.
151 CD16-4 p40 para5 and f/n 73 referring to CD11-19
152 CD7-4 para 330 p72
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
actively responds to the findings of the Mission Report, concluding that the current
Plan had not been totally effective in preventing negative impacts on the [OUV] of
London’s WHS …153.
3.46 The City of London Corporation Committee Report on Eastern Cluster 3-D Computer
Modelling154 advised Members that the Dept of the Built Environment [was]
undertaking three-dimensional (3D) computer modelling of the City’s eastern cluster
to understand better the effect of existing planning policies for that area and its
relationship to its environs and other parts of the City. The work was in its early
stages and was not intended to make new policy but to provide insights upon the
effect of current planning policy and to provide confidence that the cluster can evolve
while taking full account of key protected views and the wider setting of the ToL WHS.
The City confirmed155 that 1 Undershaft was envisaged to be the tallest in the Cluster
and that if the Tulip was permitted, the aspiration to step up to 1 Undershaft would
fall away156.
157
3.47 Although referred to as a jelly mould model, the currently curated form of the Cluster
was not available to the Inquiry158 but is commented on in the Officer’s Report159.
Others did put forward indications of how the model might work, either at 45o as
indicated by the Mayor160, or with a slightly more curved profile stepping down from
1 Undershaft to the White Tower as the Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) representations
153 CD16-6A - 2011
154 CD19E-4, dated 24 April 2016
155 Richards IC, by reference to the Report at CD3-4 para 91
156 Richards in XX Phillpot
157 Adams Figure 55 p85
158 Confirmed by the City to Inspector’s Questions (IQs)
159 CD3-4 para 91: Through this 3D modelling initiative, the City is aspiring to develop a cluster of towers that step up in
height from all directions towards 1 Undershaft, which was envisaged to be the tallest tower in the future cluster. This
was informed by the complex amalgamation of key views of the Tower of London, … . The Tulip’s substantial height at
this location in the cluster is at odds with this aspirational future shape and form of the City cluster.
160 Adams CD15-3 Figure 55, para 5.5.10 – this form was not refuted by the Mayor
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
to the 100 Leadenhall application161. A further description in the Officer’s Report162
refers to LVMF View 10A.1 (from Tower Bridge). The City explained that this is not
policy, but a tool for assessment and to help understand the way that the Cluster
might evolve if proposals were permitted, although compliance with the model would
be an indication that a scheme might comply with policy.
Other relevant documents
3.48 The plaza around the Gherkin is one of very few open spaces in the Cluster and one of
two identified as a Principal public space in the City Cluster Vision163. At the
moment, it is relatively uncluttered, in line with Aim 3: Simpler, more spacious and
less cluttered streets and spaces to the City Public Realm SPD164.
3.49 The attraction of additional visitors is consistent with the Mayor’s documents: A
Tourism Vision for London165, Take A Closer Look: Cultural Tourism In
London166, From good night to great night: A Vision For London As A 24-Hour
City167, and with the City’s Visitor Destination Strategy to develop the City as a
vibrant, attractive and welcoming destination for all168.
3.50 The City’s London Recharged: Our Vision for London in 2025169 accepts that the
COVID-19 outbreak has proven a huge test to the City and is part of work ongoing
across London to make sure we emerge from this period better than before. It focuses
on financial and professional services and the fast-growing technical (tech) sector and
examines how the City of London, … can evolve and remain one of the best places in
the world to do business170. It notes that COVID-19 lockdowns turbo-charged the
widespread transition to digital, as tech became essential to helping people stay
connected and work remotely. The significant increase in home working has
accelerated adoption of teleworking, … and e-commerce. Zoom reached 13 million
users in April, up from 659 thousand in January 2020171. … Attitudes towards the use
of tech and artificial intelligence (AI) in city services has also changed, with 30% of
UK residents feeling more positive about these applications since the pandemic
began172. It notes that: While it remains uncertain what the long-term impacts will be,
a few takeaways are clear. The era of flexible working that was ushered in with
COVID-19 is likely here to stay. Nearly 47% of employed UK adults [in London] were
working from home at the height of the first wave of the pandemic173, and many
expect this will not change. 86% of respondents in one survey expected that their
businesses would adopt at least a partial work from home policy in the long term174.
161 CD11-66 HRP response February 2018 Appendices C and D p1213-4 (internal p165-6)
162 CD3-4 para 116: From [View 10A], the consented cluster of towers gradually step downwards from the centre at
1 Undershaft in a deferential manner towards the Tower. This profile has been carefully negotiated through numerous
planning decisions to mediate between the significant height of the City towers and the more modest height and setting
of the [ToL] thereby avoiding an abrupt vertical cliff edge to the Tower. In addition, there is an aspiration for the cluster
of towers to read as a single coherent group to ensure a legible and clear relationship between the City cluster as an
entity and the Tower of London as a separate landmark to the east.
163 CD8-7 p42: the other space being St Helens Square, see also pp25, 41 and 43. Note also p9 which illustrates the
proposed Pavilion
164 CD8-8 p18
165 CD11-1, 2017 by London and Partners, the Mayor’s official promotional agency. Also Hampson CD14-3 para 8.8
166 CD8-1
167 CD8-2
168 2019-2023 CD8-9 para 2.4 and page 33
169 CD11-85
170 Ibid p4
171 Ibid p15: Ofcom, “Online Nation” Report
172 Ibid p15: Oliver Wyman Forum City Mobility Survey June 2020
173 Ibid p23: ONS, April 2020
174 Ibid: TFL, “Office and Workspace Survey,” July 2020
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Case law
3.51 Judgments of particular relevance are listed in the Heritage SoCG175. Notably:
Barnwell176 established that decision-makers should give “considerable importance
and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when
carrying out the balancing exercise; Bedford established that substantial harm (as
referred to in NPPF§195) requires that: very much if not all of the significance of the
asset was drained away so that the significance of a heritage asset would be vitiated
or very much reduced177. Mordue determined178 that working through NPPF§134 (as
was – now NPPF§§192-196) corresponds with the duty in s66(1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LB&CA Act). In Hall it was
concluded that there are only three categories of harm, substantial harm, less than
substantial harm and no harm, and that even harm which may be limited or negligible
goes to weight under NPPF§193179.
3.52 Shimbles180 concluded that the NPPFs division of harm into substantial or less than
substantial was adequate for the weighted balancing exercise and that decision-
makers were not obliged to place harm to the significance of a heritage asset, or its
setting, somewhere on a spectrum in order to give the necessary great weight to its
conservation. Nevertheless, the PPG181 advises that: Within each category of harm
(which category applies should be explicitly identified), the extent of the harm may
vary and should be clearly articulated. Palmer established that where proposed
development would affect a listed building or its settings in different ways, some
positive and some negative, the decision maker may legitimately conclude that
although each of the effects has an impact, taken together there is no overall adverse
effect on the listed building or its setting182. The Judge in Forge Field183 found that a
finding of harm to the setting of a listed building or to a conservation area gives rise
to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted. The presumption
is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable.
3.53 Most recently, Bramshill184 confirmed that giving considerable weight to harm to the
significance of a LB, as one must185, does not mean that (in the heritage balance) the
weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting is
uniform; it will depend, among other things, on the extent of the assessed harm and
the heritage value of the asset in question. That is, the amount of weight to be given
to the conservation of the asset in a particular case is left to the decision maker as a
matter of planning judgement on the facts of the case bearing in mind the
observations about considerable importance and weight in Barnwell Manor.
Relevant previous decisions
3.54 Following the Chiswick Curve Inquiry, the SoS dismissed the 32 storey 120m above
ordnance datum (AOD) scheme. He disagreed with the Inspector’s finding that the
public benefits of the proposal were sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage
175 CD19B-28 para 6.1 (a)-(l)
176 CD10-1 Barnwell v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137 para 29
177 CD10-2 Bedford BC v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin) at [25]
178 CD10-5 Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243; [2016] 1 WLR 2682 para 28
179 CD10-9 R (J Hall & Company Limited) v City of Bradford Metropolitan DC and Co-Operative Group Ltd [2019] para 34
180 CD10-11 R (Shimbles) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2018] EWHC195 (Admin)
181 CD6-2 PPG ID: 18a-018-20190723 - How can the possibility of harm to a heritage asset be assessed?
182 CD10-10 R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061 at para 29
183 CD10-8 para 49. See also para 23 in Barnwell
184 CD10-4 City and Country Bramshill v. Secretary of State [2021] EWCA Civ 320 at paragraph 73-75
185 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy v. Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 137 at paragraph 29: CD10-1, R (Forge Field) v.
Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin) at paragraph 55 (CD10-8), and Palmer (CD10-10) at paragraph 5.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
assets and overruled his recommendation. In Court186, the Judge upheld the SoS’s
decision and found that Whilst he should give due consideration to the Inspector’s
planning judgments, because of the Inspector’s knowledge of the issues raised during
the Inquiry, and his planning expertise, the [SoS] is not required to follow them,
especially when, as in this appeal, the Inspector has expressed subjective opinions
about a proposal’s design and appearance which he himself recognised others may
disagree with.
3.55 In the Citroen appeal, the Inspector187 found that: The harm to the settings of
designated heritage assets also counts against the quality of the design. … the
distinction between the brief and the architects’ input is of little relevance and what
matters is the quality of the final design, including its impact on the settings of
designated heritage assets.
3.56 In the 97 Cromwell Road decision188, the Mayor found that less than substantial harm
at the lower end of the scale would be outweighed by the public benefits …, namely
improved and modern visitor accommodation that would deliver London-wide
economic benefits, but also: genuinely affordable rented housing units and a public
garden square and replace … an ‘eyesore’ … with a building of high quality
architecture ….
3.57 The SoS’s decision in Anglia Square in Norwich189 went against the Inspector’s
recommendation and found that harm to settings at the upper end of less than
substantial would outweigh public benefits.
4 Planning history
4.1 The site’s planning history is as set out in the Planning Statement, submitted with the
Application, which in turn refers to the TVBHA190. In 1992 the Baltic Exchange was
heavily damaged by an IRA bomb. After early thoughts of restoration were abandoned,
the empty plot became available. Early proposals for a Millennium Tower were dropped
and, after the site was purchased by Swiss Re, designs started on what is now the
Gherkin (see below). The plaza area around the Gherkin has accommodated several
temporary installations of sculptures over the years and there are planning permissions
for these and for the use of the plaza for a weekly open-air market.
4.2 Nearby, St Paul’s Cathedral dominated the London skyline until after WWII. City
commerce began to exert itself in the 1960s with the 28 storey CGU Tower (later
renamed the Aviva Tower) in 1969. The 27 storey London Stock Exchange Building at
125 Old Broad Street followed in 1970. The 47-storey Tower 42 was completed in 1980
and was the tallest building in London for a decade. Since then, the City has grown
with tall late C20 and early C21 buildings between St Paul’s and the ToL191. There was
no dispute that, under the guidance of the City planners192 the Cluster has transformed
the City’s fortunes, together with its skyline.
4.3 Within the City, there has been longstanding support for an iconic high profile cluster of
tall buildings in this part of the city including the Heron Tower and later
developments193. The list of consented schemes which was included in the TVBHA’s
186 CD10-14 Starbones Ltd v SoS HCLG & Ors [2020] EWHC 526
187 Me. See CD9-3 and CD9-4 particularly para 15.57
188 CD19C-17 Report para 302
189 CD19E-5
190 CD1-19 p12: See Volume 2 of the ES (CD1-11) and in the DAS (CD1-6).
191 TVBHA CD1-11 para 5.9
192 Including the City’s two witnesses
193 CD9-9 & CD9-10; and CD 11-66 generally
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
cumulative assessment were agreed with the City at the application stage194. These
were also considered as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on the OUV of
the Tower of London195. Of the 13 potentially relevant cumulative schemes, it was
common ground that there are six that warrant particular further consideration given
their height, proximity to the application site and the greater visual interaction with the
proposals196.
4.4 The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was consulted on
14 December 2018197. Its Advisory Body commented, amongst other matters, that:
4.4.1 Greater London is unique, with its four World Heritage properties, which face
significant and gradually stronger challenges to the protection and maintenance of
their integrity, especially in terms of visual impact;
4.4.2 the SOUV of the ToL already mention threats and challenges created by massive
urban development in the very close vicinity of the World Heritage property and the
possible negative visual impact of this process, if continued, on the property’s
integrity;
4.4.3 not only would the development be an additional element, but it would go beyond
the already-stretched boundaries, with a height of more than 305m, with its
extremely strong and extravagant shaping that is diametrically opposite to the
traditional-historic appearance of the Tower ensemble. These qualities would the
make Tulip more predominant, diminishing the Tower’s landmark siting and visual
dominance on the edge of the River Thames;
4.4.4 the organic form of the Tulip would not help as: it strengthens the accent of the new
from one side and, in spite of its “floral character”, it is not only a “high-tech”
building but also has a rather strong industrial architecture appearance.
4.5 While not classifying its architectural values, it concluded that: the proposed
development project … is not compatible with the preservation of the integrity of the
World Heritage property of the [ToL], and advised:
4.5.1 abandoning the Tulip development project;
4.5.2 adopting a stricter and more appropriate evaluation of proposed constructions that
could have an impact on World Heritage properties, giving priority to the
preservation of OUV, in line with previous mission recommendations.
4.6 The Inquiry was told that the scheme was subject to considerable peer review within
Foster and Partners (F+P) although no details were provided. It was considered by the
London Review Panel (LRP)198 which made unfavourable comments and concluded
that: The panel is unable to support The Tulip because it does not think it represents
world class architecture, it lacks sufficient quality and quantity of public open space,
and its social and environmental sustainability do not match the ambition of its height
and impact on London’s skyline.
4.7 The LRP noted what it described as a mute concrete shaft, the assessment that the
Tulip would cause less than substantial harm to the ToL WHS, and that this creates a
requirement that the Tulip should demonstrate benefits that outweigh this harm. The
Panel did not assess the proposed benefits but suggested a funded education and social
value programme and commented that all other visitors to the Tulip would pay for
194 CD1-11 These are set out at page 28 of the TVBHA and total 13 schemes.
195 CD19B-28 Heritage SoCG 8.15, to which 50 Fenchurch Street was added since the application stage
196 Ibid para 8.17-8.18
197 CD11-18
198 CD4-2 Reviewed on 16 April 2019
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
access to the viewing platforms, which undermines the social value argument for such
a tall building.
4.8 The LRP thought a building of this height should be at least carbon neutral and that the
demolition of the existing building completed in 2003 represented a significant cost in
terms of embodied carbon. It acknowledged that it may be a successful response to the
functions of its brief. The panel also felt that a building of this size and impact should
be carbon neutral, and that the education strategy should be more ambitious, if this is
a core justification for the height of the building. Overall, panel members felt that
whilst the building may be a successful response to the functions of its brief – this has
not resulted in the world class architecture that would be required to justify its
prominence.
History of applications for tall towers in London199
The Gherkin
4.9 The history of the site200 for the 180m tall Gherkin records much of the including that
the IRA bomb explosion made the previous Baltic Exchange building structurally
unsafe. Proposals incorporating the reinstated Exchange Hall were permitted but not
progressed as its integration into a new development has proven to be unviable and a
tenant could not be found201. English Heritage (EH) as was, did not favour a scheme
that might be more replication than reconstruction and would be no more than
acceptable. It felt that it would be reasonable to encourage a whole new building202.
This was followed by the Millennium Tower, an ambitious F+P proposal in 1996 for a
self-contained vertical town on the site. However, this proved too radical and was
abandoned in 1998. The Gherkin Report made reference to the WHS, and that the close
location merited careful assessment, but focussed far more on the remains of the
previous LB, adding that the site was considered to be free of normal planning and
conservation restrictions … This was an important consideration …203. It referred to
policy on the historic environment in PPG15, superseded in 2010. The Gherkin was
permitted in 2000, completed in 2004, has proved be a building of extraordinarily high
quality and was awarded the Stirling Prize204.
Heron Tower
4.10 The application for Heron Tower (106-126 Bishopsgate, or 110 Bishopsgate) was
called-in by the SoS and an Inquiry held in 2001205. In his Report, the Inspector
identified the London skyline as diverse and dynamic, compared with other certain
European cities where the central areas have effectively become museums206. He
noted that in views from the South Bank, Potters Field (now behind City Hall) and
Tower Bridge the tower would be largely screened by Swiss Re (the Gherkin)207. He
found it very significant that neither EH (as was) nor HRP objected.
199 Images of many of these are at Richards pp49-52
200 See Planning Report CD19B-34
201 In 1999. Ibid para 4.12
202 Ibid para 5.17 p11
203 Ibid para 4.11 p7
204 CD3-4 para 226
205 At which Mr Russell Harris of Counsel, Mr Neil Cameron of Counsel, and Professor Robert Tavernor appeared
206 CD9-10 para 15.10
207 Ibid paras 15.54-15.58
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Shards of Glass
4.11 In his 2003 Report on the Shards of Glass208, the Inspector accepted that a potentially
harmful impact can be mitigated by good design. While acknowledging that setting of
a listed building is a concept that requires consideration irrespective of the availability
or popularity of views, he looked at five areas in and around the ToL looking in a
generally southern direction (towards the site for the Shards). He concluded that no
material harm to the setting of the [ToL] would arise if the proposed [Shards] were
built. He identified that the Southwark UDP had no specific policy to protect the ToL or
its setting, and the ToL WHSMP was still in draft209. The Decision predated the
Settings and LVMF SPGs and, as the Shards of Glass stands on the South Bank, the
Inspector’s focus was in the opposite direction for which there are far fewer public
views of the ToL with the Shards in the background, and certainly none to compare
with that from the South Bank.
Walkie-Talkie
4.12 No.20 Fenchurch Street was subject to an Inquiry in 2007210 and later became known
as the Walkie-Talkie. It is outside the Cluster. HRP considered that the additional
impact on the [ToL] would be limited while EH found that the impacts on the ToL
acceptable with no impact on the iconic view from the south-west. Amongst other
considerations, was the removal of a particularly unsightly building211 and the
provision of a skygarden, in consultation with Kew Gardens, as well as vast areas of
new office floors.
The Scalpel
4.13 The 38 storey, 206m AOD tower at Nos.52-54 Lime Street (the Scalpel) stands to the
southwest of the appeal site, tapers to a point and, from the South Bank, is closely
aligned with 1 Undershaft. The GLA concluded that the scheme would be of a high
design quality that will make a positive addition to London's skyline212. EH
acknowledged that the Eastern Cluster is, in principal, an appropriate location for tall
buildings in the City but raised concerns in relation to the setting of the ToL WHS
identifying an impact on the setting of … the [ToL] and the contribution that a clear
sky makes to the appreciation of [its] significance. Our main concern is the
relationship with the [ToL] WHS, as the … Tower will be seen from within the Inner
Ward. Acknowledging that the City's Eastern Cluster can already be seen beyond the
walls of the Tower it found that adding additional bulk and scale to the consented
tower at Nos. 22-24 Bishopsgate, will cause an additional degree of harm to the
setting of the Tower. This harm may be exacerbated in future as the Eastern Cluster
expands and develops unless particular care is taken.
4.14 The City’s Report concluded that it would support the City’s objectives as the leading
international financial and business centre, with an increase in high quality floorspace.
On Public Realm, it found that a new triangular open space … will result in a
significant enhancement to the townscape, … The GLA found that: The setting of the
Grade I listed Lloyd's building will be improved … and the sloping profile of the
proposal will reveal more of its form than is currently visible …. With regard to St
Andrew Undershaft church213, the Report continues: However, the relationship of
208 IR at CD9-5
209 Ibid pp119-120 paras 16.61 and 16.63
210 CD9-8
211 See image at Appellant’s closing CD19B-45 p38
212 2012 Stage 1 Report CD11-66 pp 442-452 especially p451 para 60
213 CD11-66 p385 para 73
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
modestly scaled LBs and churches when seen against the backdrop of the City's
prominent tall buildings is characteristic of this part of the City. This contrast in scale
already exists in its relationship with 30 St Mary Axe, 122 Leadenhall Street and the
Aviva Tower. Regarding Queen’s Walk, it found: From these assessment points the
proposal would relate satisfactorily with the Eastern Cluster of tall buildings. The
proposed tower would appear sufficiently separated from the [ToL WHS] so as not to
harm its setting.
Twentytwo
4.15 Known as Twentytwo, the 61 storey office scheme at 22 Bishopsgate stands on the
site of the previously approved, and implemented, 10m taller Pinnacle to the west of
1 Undershaft (see below). The 2015 City Report214 noted that it would be the tallest in
the City and the focal point of the Eastern Cluster, and would provide a significant
increase in flexible office accommodation, supporting the strategic objective … to
promote the City as the leading international financial and business centre. The Mayor
supported the scheme in strategic planning terms. With regard to the ToL, the Report
noted that: The principal focus of [Views 25A 1-3] is the strategic landmark of the
[ToL] on the eastern side of the view. The proposed building would appear as a
prominent feature on the skyline on the western periphery of the cluster of towers
[where it] would reinforce and consolidate the profile of the cluster. This is an
appropriate and sympathetic relationship to the Tower of London. At no point in the
three Assessment viewpoints would the proposed tower appear directly over the
Tower of London and its curtain walls.
4.16 The GLA215 found that: Guidance within the Mayor’s LVMF SPG and the [ToL WHSMP]
acknowledges that the juxtaposition between the Tower and the City cluster is a key
characteristic of these views, and a relationship that may be seen as positive.
Accordingly, GLA officers conclude that the proposal would reinforce the positive
characteristics of the existing setting to the [ToL], and would not compromise the
ability to appreciate the [OUV] of this [WHS] … . This exciting juxtaposition between
old and new (a defining and positive characteristic of the City of London) is
representative of the response of the scheme to designated heritage assets more
generally.
1 Undershaft
4.17 The 72 storey, 304.9m AOD proposal for 1 Undershaft was permitted in 2019 but has
yet to commence. When completed, it will become the tallest tower in the City’s
Eastern Cluster replacing the 28 storey Aviva Tower216. The 2016 GLA Stage 1
report217, refers to the Mayor LVMF SPG and the WHSMP and repeats the phraseology
used for Twentytwo referring to the characteristic juxtaposition and how this may be
seen as positive218. The word exciting, previously used, was dropped. It adds that:
The surrounding area is characterised by a juxtaposition of modern tall buildings and
low rise historic buildings219. With regard to the ToL WHS, its assessment found no
impact on the clear sky space around the White Tower of the Tower of London, with
the proposed building featuring amongst various other tall buildings within the eastern
cluster. When viewed from outside City Hall (Views 25A.1-3) the City Report found
214 CD11-64 Planning and Transportation Committee Summary
215 2015 Stage 1 report CD11-64 Appendix p6 para 28-29
216 CD11-66 pp603-605
217 Ibid pp785-802, 22 March 2016
218 Ibid paras 38-41
219 Ibid para 8
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
that: At no point in the three Assessment viewpoints would the proposed tower
appear directly over the Tower of London and its curtain walls220.
4.18 HE was consulted at pre-application stage221, noted that the City intended the tower
to be the apex of the Cluster and felt that There is townscape merit in … shaping the
Eastern Cluster so that it has a visible apex from which other tall buildings recede. Of
the nearby churches, it accepted that … their settings have long been characterised by
the contrast in scale between the low medieval churches and the very tall modern
buildings behind and around them. It noted that At ground floor level, in contrast to
the impermeable footprint of the existing building, the new design … will … increase
permeability and create sight lines between the medieval churches of St Helen and St
Andrew Undershaft. All of this will have a significant positive impact on the settings of
these grade I LBs …, and could clearly result in a heritage benefit.
100 Leadenhall
4.19 The 56 storey (263.4m AOD) building for 100 Leadenhall was permitted in March
2019. This will have daily access to a 892m2 viewing gallery at 247m AOD222. The GLA
Report repeats 1 Undershaft reference to the surrounding area223. It again refers to
juxtaposition using almost identical wording to that in the Twentytwo and
1 Undershaft Reports224. It noted that the proposal would not impact on the clear sky
space around the White Tower …. HE commented that Any harm caused to London’s
heritage by the existing Eastern Cluster will not be increased by the proposal and
urged the City to ensure that the impact of the proposals on the [ToL] is in line with
ICOMOS guidance. If built, 100 Leadenhall would largely conceal views of the Gherkin
and Heron Tower from the South Bank. The Report to the City noted The height and
massing of the proposed tower is not considered to fundamentally conflict and is
largely in line with the initial findings of the 3D model in terms of the relationship with
the [ToL WHS]225.
Gotham City
4.20 At 170m AOD, the 34 storey proposals for 40 Leadenhall Street would be due south of
the appeal site. HE had reservations regarding the impact above the Chapel within the
ToL, but acknowledged that the Eastern Cluster is, in principle, an appropriate area
for tall buildings in the City, and that therefore the proposed location … within the
cluster accords with policy, and that Its location within the Eastern Cluster and its
height relative to existing and consented nearby towers means that, … it does not
have a detrimental impact on the Mayor's strategic views set out in the [LVMF] 226.
The City found that: … the proposed tower would be seen as an integral part of the
Eastern Cluster … which is a distinctive and accepted townscape feature in the wider
setting of the [WHS]. The proposed tower would not appear as an incongruous or
isolated feature on the skyline.
220 Ibid p628 para 138
221 Ibid pp809-813
222 between 10am - 6pm Mon – Sun. CD19B-41, Table p1: School visits, charities and community groups allowed to visit
viewing gallery free of charge (CD11-50 - Viewing gallery management plan, para 4.4)
223 2018 GLA Stage 1 report CD11-55 para 7
224 Ibid 40-41
225 Committee Report CD11-66 p1087 para 185
226 CD11-66 p524 EH pre-application advice
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6-8 Bishopsgate
4.21 The 51 storeys 6-8 Bishopsgate will rise to 220 metres AOD227. The GLA found that
from LVMF Point 25A.1 - The Queen's Walk to City Hall shows the building appearing
to the left of the Leadenhall building obscuring Tower 42, located well to the left
(west) of the WHS and has a minor impact as it consolidates the distinctive and
evolving tall building cluster with a new high quality addition228.
50 Fenchurch Street
4.22 At 35 storeys, 50 Fenchurch Street will reach 149.6m AOD. Here, HE balanced some
harm to the ToL with heritage benefits to the tower of All Hallows Staining and
Lambe’s Chapel Crypt. It found in the most important views for understanding and
appreciating the OUV, notably from the Queen’s Walk (LVMF view 25A.1-3) and from
the North Bastion of Tower Bridge (LVMF view 10A.1), the impacts will be neutral.
This is because the new tall building will be seen as part of, and against the backdrop
of, the established City Cluster, and will not act as either a distracting presence or
affect the relative status of the Tower and the City229.
Other towers
4.23 122 Leadenhall Street (aka the Cheesegrater) opened in 2014230 having replaced an
unattractive 1960s development. Although tall and very nearby, it stands well to the
left of the Gherkin, in front of Twentytwo and the site for 1 Undershaft in key views. It
was not identified in evidence as particularly relevant. Other towers in the Cluster
include 40 Leadenhall Street, The Willis Building, 100 Bishopsgate 150 B/gate,
1 Heron Plaza and 55 Gracechurch but are of limited relevance.
Unbuilt schemes
4.24 As above, the proposals for Millennium Tower did not proceed.
4.25 The abortive 204m high Minerva Tower was proposed for a site to the east of the
appeal site, behind the church of St Botolph. In assessing the impact on this church,
the 2004 Committee Report231 noted that The proposed building, which is greatly
higher than the existing buildings, is intended to provide a neutral back-drop to this
view, effectively blocking existing views of Petticoat Tower which currently intrudes
into this view. The 1999 consented proposal whilst significantly lower, in a similar way
sought to provide a back-drop to this view. [EH] are of the view that this scheme
provides a more suitable scheme than the consented scheme because of its greater
architectural qualities and because the setting of the Church will be enhanced greatly
by the proposed works to be undertaken, as part of the Section 106 Agreement, to
the realignment of the Churchyard, its repaving and new railings232.
4.26 However, together with HRP, ICOMOS and other bodies, EH still objected to the
scheme. It’s concern was the impact it would have on the setting of the [ToL WHS].
The proposed new 50 storey building would be clearly visible behind the White Tower
in views from the middle of Tower Bridge and from the plaque on the north bastions.
Also that if approved, this development would move the focal point of the cluster of
227 CD11-66 p931
228 CD11-66 p1041 paras 39-40
229 CD11-66 p1240
230 Harrison CD13-8 s3.5 p110
231 CD11-51
232 Ibid para 7.60-7.61
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
existing tall buildings significantly eastwards, and enlarge the cluster which is
currently undefined233.
4.27 The Pinnacle scheme was implemented but then halted. Its site is now being
developed for Twentytwo.
4.28 The City submitted a summary of Development Schemes in the Eastern/City cluster
Oct 2018 – Nov 2020 - Approved, Under Consideration and Under Construction
including several between the Gherkin and the Walkie-Talkie234. Also a scheme for a
48 storey 198m AOD office development for 31 Bury Street, just east of the Gherkin.
Viewing galleries/Education facilities
4.29 It has been City policy for some time to require tall buildings to provide viewing
galleries and, more recently, associated educational facilities. The City submitted
details, with images, of those provided or planned since 2006, including235:
• Walkie-Talkie - Viewing gallery, enclosed roof garden and south facing terrace (the
Skygarden),
• Twentytwo - Elevated viewing gallery (yet to open) with views to the south, east
and west,
• 1 Undershaft - 360º viewing gallery/exhibition space. The scheme would include
educational facilities with access 7 days a week236, potentially curated by the Museum
of London with school rooms and auditorium,
• 6-8 Bishopsgate & 150 Leadenhall Street - Elevated viewing gallery in a cantilevered
box with views to the west and south (Under Construction)
• 100 Leadenhall Street - 360º viewing gallery looking at the Tower of London, the
City cluster and views eastwards.
5 The proposals237
To fully assess the scheme and the quality of presentation, I particularly commend to
the SoS the architects’ visual evidence238, the models239, the VR goggles, the file of
moving images240, and the 3D printed model in its Perspex case (noting that this is all
one colour).
Description
5.1 The site clearance would include No.20 Bury Street, the ramp and retaining wall, with
the three column Swiss Re symbol at its entrance, and various planters and other
street furniture on the north-eastern side of the Gherkin plaza241. The scheme would
divide in 3 main elements: the Tulip itself, with its base, stem and flower242, partly on
the site of 20 Bury Street and adjoining areas of the plaza alongside Bury Street; the
233 CD11-51 paras 5.6-5.19
234 See CD19C-11
235 CD19C-14
236 CD19B-41, Table p1: 1,300m2 Free publicly accessible enclosed space available for school/community visits within
wider public offer; 203m2 dedicated classroom/learning space; classroom at 293.5m AOD; Access to the learning space
(2 classrooms) to be open between 10am - 6pm (Mon - Wed); 10am - 8pm (Thurs and Fri); 10am - 5pm (Sat) and
10am - 4pm (Sun) (CD11-69 - S106, Schedule 8 paragraph 1); Booking arrangements for the Learning Space also be
made to fulfil the aim of ensuring the learning floorspace can be used as fully as reasonable possible. At least 35 spaces
at any one time shall be available exclusively for advance booking by schools and educational community groups
(CD11-69)
237 View from the south shown on the front cover
238 Illustrated in s5 p246 onwards of Harrison’s PoE CD13-8
239 Ibid and oral evidence with the models 5 November 2020
240 MP4 file containing CD13-9, CD13-11, CD13-12, CD13-13, CD13-17 and CD13-18
241 See Demolition site plan at CD1-66, DAS at CD1-6 p8 and plan of bench removal at CD19B-18
242 See elevations at CD1-29 to 1-32 and CD1-53 to 1-57
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Pavilion of curved glazing fronting onto St Mary Axe243; and an area of formalised
seating, referred to as a Pocket Park, between the two. The Tulip would rise to a height
of 305.3m AOD (over 1,000 feet), roughly the same height as the Shards of Glass and
the proposals for 1 Undershaft. Its stem would be over 14m in diameter and in places
its 12 storey top would expand to over double the width of its stem.
244
5.2 The visitor attractions at the top of the Tulip would include gondola rides, spiral stairs
and slides and a sky walk with a view directly down through a glass floor, as well as a
bar and restaurant. The gondolas would be in three groups at the top of the structural
spoons, one slightly smaller than the other two, which would hold the top floors in
place and support oriel widows containing different functions. As a result, the Tulip
would not share the near radial symmetry of the Gherkin, but have a broadly circular
but directional plan form, and there would be axial symmetry towards the Gherkin and
Whitechapel Road. From other angles, the top would appear asymmetrical due to the
effect of the spoons and gondola rides245. I was able to gain some sense of the
proposed experience by moving around the models. I also saw the spectacular views of
London from the top of the Gherkin. Those from the Tulip would be significantly higher.
5.3 The Pavilion246 would be the main arrival point with escalators down to the basement
mezzanine where it would connect to the lifts to go up the Tulip. Following negotiations
with the City, visitor numbers at any one time would be limited by ticketing. The
Pavilion would embrace several uses, including the entrance turnstiles to the escalators
and service vehicle lifts on the ground floor; cycle storage, plant and security on the
first floor; and a roof garden on the top. It would also include a roof terrace from which
one could see the Gherkin, the Tulip, and St Mary Axe and beyond. The entrance to the
243 CD1-63
244 See Environmental Statement (ES) - Non-Technical Summary CD1-9 p15 and 17
245 Ibid p15 and 17
246 CD1-9 ES p13
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
ramp would be replaced by that of the vehicle lifts while the ramp itself would be
replaced by the Pocket Park and elements of the Tulip and Pavilion either side247. To a
degree, the scheme would restore the street line along Bury Court. The Pocket Park
would provide an area of seating and a new setting for the memorial to those who died
in the IRA bombing. It would also reinstate the hostile vehicle mitigation.
5.4 At ground level, the plaza would be extended by the removal of the vehicular ramp and
20 Bury Street, but reduced again to the north and east by the footprints of the Tulip
and Pavilion. The Mayor calculated the difference248 as a net reduction of 88m2 out of
an existing area of 2,102m2. The sculpture exhibitions, and weekly food market would
cease. The drawings at the end of the SoCG249 usefully illustrate the relative positions
of the existing and proposed features on the site including the extent of bench seating
and planters before and after.
250
5.5 The lowest occupied level within the flower at the top of the Tulip, Level 3 at a height of
255.25m AOD251, would be a floor given over to a facility for education and community
uses. This would compare with the top of the 100 Leadenhall proposals at
263.4m AOD252. The details of this facility were negotiated with the City (see s13
below) including a dedicated floor and specified times when school parties and certain
community groups would get priority. The s106 Agreement would offer a guarantee
that at least 40,000 London school children would be able to enjoy a free educational
experience every year, albeit at a lower height than for paying visitors. The Appellant’s
witness253 gave a detailed explanation of what might be possible. Further information
was provided during the Inquiry regarding the extent of Level 3 storage to facilitate
flexible use of the space254. Contrary to early assertions, the guarantee of 40,000 visits
247 Compare CD1-34 with CD1-65 – see also Adams s5
248 Adams Figs 33-35 pp50-51
249 CD19B-26
250 Adams Figs 33 and 34
251 East elevation CD1-54
252 ES CD1-9 p17; CD11-61.
253 Wright, a Doctor in Education with a research interest in the relationship between schools and their communities, a
Senior Associate at an education consultancy, and an Affiliate member of the RIBA, recognising her professional interest
in architecture and its place in education. She was appointed after the original start date for the Inquiry and not
amongst the 30+ consultants listed – see CD1-6 para 1.3 p9
254 See CD19B-31 and CD19D-15
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
would not be enough for every London school child255. The Appellant canvassed the
extent of interest from London teachers and education stakeholders256. When asked
whether or not such school visits would be in addition to, or in lieu of, other visits she
could only say that with the proposal in place the selection of where to visit was
complicated and would be a matter for, and up to, individual schools257.
Design
5.6 The design has been led by F+P, with a team of consultants258, and steps would be put
in place to ensure all reasonable efforts were made to retain their services up to
completion (see s106 below). F+P has a formidable international reputation259. A
wealth of high quality visual material was provided260 with the Inquiry documents
including the scheme drawings (by which the construction could be controlled) and
other illustrative material. Full details were included to show, as far as possible, the
efforts that were made to ensure accuracy. I saw no fewer than four models on my site
visits plus a 3D print of the scheme261 in the context of this part of London. I was told
that the model of the base and stem was F+P’s largest ever scale model and this is
F+P’s most important project this year.
5.7 The stem of the new construction would be made of reinforced concrete (as would
underground works). This would be extended into the concrete spoons supporting the
flower. These would be largely covered by the steel mechanisms to the three sets of
gondolas while the rest of the flower would be mostly glazed. The presentation material
highlights the proposed quality of fair-faced concrete to the stem262, the reflective
nature of the glazing and the lower level green finishes (planting on the roof of the
Pavilion, in the Pocket Park and to the green walls to the Pavilion and adjoining Bury
Street which could be controlled by the conditions).
5.8 The TVBHA looked at the LVMF views. For View 10A.1 it found Existing: Sensitivity to
change: generally high; very high for the view of the White Tower. Proposed:
Magnitude of change: major. Significance of Likely Effect: very major, adverse.
Cumulative: Significance of Likely Cumulative Effect: very major, adverse.
For each of the views from Queen’s Walk (25A.1-3) it found Magnitude of change:
major. Significance of Likely Effect: major beneficial effects263.
The impact of the Tulip on the airspace behind the White Tower can be seen in the
video264 between 2:28 and 2:47 minutes. Note that due to the height of the camera,
the braced steel girders of the suspension structure obscure some of this even though
I saw that the girders are generally above eye level265.
5.9 The Heritage SoCG sets out areas of agreement and disagreement, including tables of
what the four main parties saw as relevant assets266 and identification of impact and
255 See Hampson’s PoE CD14-3 para 8.51, corrected in her oral evidence IC. She accepted, in XX by Phillpot, that this
might be less than half and that this was a prominent claim to members in the original report to committee
256 In February 2019 the Applicant organised a roundtable discussion with London schools to seek their views on the
education facilities and its operational management. 74 schools within 3 miles of the site were contacted; 12 teachers
or representatives attended. See CD 2-2
257 In answer to IQs
258 CD1-6 para 1.3 p9
259 See Harrison proof CD13-8 s2 pp19-63
260 As I saw. Also described by Richards to IQs as the most accomplished presentation package he’d ever dealt with
261 Forwarded to the SoS
262 See also replies to IQs at CD19B-22 and CD19B-44
263 CD1-11 p90 and pp111-117
264 CD13-18 Tavernor - 10A_Tower_Bridge-2020
265 See also sequence of photos in CD19D-9 especially 8-12
266 CD19B-28 Appendix X
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
harm267. The Committee Report268 assessed the two views within the [LVMF] which are
key in assessing the Tulip’s impact on the [WHS], Tower Bridge (10A) and City Hall
(25A). It noted that from 10A.1, the proposal will appear as a highly prominent
landmark on the skyline because it appears removed from the compact cluster of tall
buildings and due to its substantial height and distinct form269. From 25A.1-3, it found
The proposal by virtue of its height and eye-catching appearance would appear as a
prominent and striking feature on the skyline on the eastern side of the cluster of
towers. It went on to find harm in one view but not the other.
5.10 Earlier concerns from the City’s Public Realm Group Manager, around the capacity for
pedestrian movement270, how this would be managed, and public access to the roof
garden, were resolved prior to the Inquiry and would be controlled through the s106
Agreement271. The City therefore stated that its criticisms have now been addressed
and RfR5272 was not defended. Objections with regard to cycle parking, set out in
RfR6, were also agreed together with benefits to long stay cycle parking, with removal
of 16 parking spaces and consolidation of deliveries.
Sustainability
5.11 The Appellant submitted a raft of documents with evidence on sustainability273,
including the Design and access statement (DAS), an Energy Statement274, the ES,
and a Sustainability Statement275. The SoCG confirms agreement that the proposed
development has been designed to achieve a 42.04% reduction in carbon emissions
over Part L (2013) of the Building Regulations which would exceed the policy
requirement for a 35% reduction276. A s106 obligation would secure carbon offsetting
if a minimum 35% reduction is not achieved, a payment that would increase now that
the NLP has been published. The architect advised that F+P had tried to be the most
environmentally responsible that it could be277.
5.12 The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
pre-assessment indicates that the scheme would achieve an Excellent rating. The
Appellant subsequently agreed to amend this to achieve a rating of 89.0% or
Outstanding278, and this could be required by a condition. This would be much higher
than for most developments, but lower than the score of 99.1% for F+P’s award
winning design for Bloomberg.
Concrete
5.13 The Appellant’s Sustainability Statement279 explains that its intention would be a
holistic approach to a number of key sustainability themes, including energy and
carbon280. It sets out its Sustainability aspiration such that its environmentally
sensitive design and its small physical footprint are reflected in its minimised resource
267 Ibid Appendix Y
268 CD3-4 para 113 dated 2 April 2019committee
269 Ibid paras 115-116
270 Paragraph 1 of CD11-52
271 Section 106 agreement Schedule 9: CD19B-24. The s106 would limit the number of visitors to 1.2m, an estimated
100,000 of which would not otherwise visit London
272 CD3-9
273 Benefits SoCG CD19B-17 para 1.4(e)
274 CD1-8
275 CD1-20
276 SoCG CD19B-26 p27 para 10.17 and CD19B-27 p7 para 2.6
277 Harrison to IQs Tuesday 10 November 2020
278 CD19B-17 p2. As is apparent from the list at, few buildings are designed to achieve such a high target ranking
279 CD1-20
280 Ibid p16 para 1.4
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
use281. Further evidence282 explained that the material choice was a key part of the
design process and that concrete would reduce embodied energy by 31% compared
with steel. F+P is a member of the Low Carbon Concrete Group of the Green
Construction Board. This group establishes guidance to achieve low carbon concrete
through the industry283. The details of how the 31% reduction was calculated, or
indeed whether steel construction was feasible, was not submitted as these would be
subject to further design stages and optimisation284.
5.14 Information on the life-cycle assessment for the building285 was limited. The Appellant
explained that Potential disassembly of the Tulip has been considered, in particular for
the purposes of our BREEAM assessment. However, there are no proposals to
disassemble the building after it has been constructed. The Tulip can be taken down in
the reverse manner to how it was constructed, with components being recycled. The
concrete stem can be cut down either by diamond saw-cutting or wire saw-cutting to
reduce dust and vibration286.
5.15 Further information on the use of concrete, the quality of its finish, and potential for
cleaning, was provided. The finish to the concrete would be in two tones, one for the
bulk of the stem, another for the buttresses. The Appellant gave examples287 of
concrete in its work and submitted a Further note on Concrete288 with more detail on
the external examples and to explain that the stem would be designed to minimise
staining and that there would be regular cleaning with a stiff brush using a mild
alkaline detergent289. A suggested cleaning condition290 would ensure its ongoing
cleaning and maintenance.
5.16 Finally, the further note explained that: The work at Battersea Power Station
illustrates the use of concrete with a pronounced vertical rib. It is not of direct
relevance to this case in terms of the cleaning regime because the stacks are painted
with a fully opaque pigment that completely masks the concrete surface with a colour
to match its previous form. As a coal fired electricity station, the concrete towers
(which have been replaced) would have been very regularly painted because of the
nature of the particulates from the smoke they gave off 291 thus making it clear that
the previous use of the photograph of the power station in a note regarding the
cleaning of fair-faced concrete292 was not intended to mislead the Inquiry.
Public benefits
5.17 The extent of public benefit put forward by the Appellant is listed in the SoCG,
amplified in the Benefits SoCG 293. However, the significance of those benefits, and
the weight to be attached to them, was not agreed. Socio-economics was scoped into
the Environmental Statement (ES) and found to be Minor Beneficial294. The
operational economic benefits would flow from the estimates of visitor numbers.
281 Ibid p17 para 1.5
282 CD13-8 Harrison s5.17 p256
283 CD19B-17 p5
284 Ibid p5
285 In response to IQs
286 CD19B-17 p6
287 CDB-22
288 CD19B-44 dated 18 December 2020, the final sitting day of the Inquiry, following my query a week earlier
289 Ibid para 22
290 CD19C-22 Condition 46 Draft conditions schedule – 17 December 2020
291 CD19B-44 para 36
292 Photo in CDB-22 p19
293 CD19B-7 p30-32 and CD19B-27
294 ES non-technical para 76 p21 CD1-9
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Tourism
5.18 The tourism benefits would be proportional to the number of visitors. These would be
capped by controlling the number of ticket sales and so could be agreed at 1.2m,
subject to the provisions of the s106 Agreement295. Nor was it contested that over
100,000 of these would not have otherwise visited London296. There are no alternative
locations for the scheme or other proposals for the site. If the appeal is dismissed, the
opportunity will be lost but it was not suggested that London would decline as a
result. Some of the benefits of increased tourism are reflected in its contribution to
the economy.
Economic
5.19 Evidence on the economic benefits was provided from three sources: an Economic and
Social Benefits Statement297; the ES298; and a Deloitte Economic Impact
Assessment299. Current indications, based on 2 estimates, were that the proposed
development would cost more than £260m to construct, with £477m a realistic upper
figure300. The construction cost was estimated to peak in year 6 of a 7 year
programme301. It was common ground302 that the construction phase would create
760 jobs and contribute approximately £30m to Gross Added Value (GVA) per annum
(pa). The operational phase would create 46-64 direct on-site jobs. The off-site
expenditure was anticipated to be around £80-160m303. There would be further
advantages to the evening and weekend economy. These benefits would be achieved
on what is partly a windfall site (that is, it has little other development potential) and,
other than the loss of 27 jobs at 20 Bury Street, the GVA would not be achieved at
the expense of office development.
5.20 By contrast, in 2016 the City contributed £49.2 billion to the UK economy which
represented around 12% of Greater London’s total contribution (i.e. £408.5 billion)
that year. There are around 8 million m2 of employment floorspace in the City of
London, which in total generate around £1.54 billion in business rates revenue each
year. In the Walkie-Talkie Report, the Inspector found that even an addition of over
90,000m2 of office space would only be a slight benefit and would not over-ride harm
to heritage assets304.
5.21 The architect told me the order in which he saw the benefits: the enhancement of the
image of London, the City itself, and the public realm, including architectural benefits;
the setting from along Queen's Walk and appearance in relation to the WHS;
economic benefits - but they would be lower down the list; and then the education
and community benefit305.
Education
5.22 The education, community and social benefits were also agreed306. They are set out
under Planning Obligations (below). The position in the s106 agreement followed
295 It would attract a similar number of visitors as the Royal Academy and a greater number than London Zoo, or the
Houses of Parliament - See Hampson Ap.1 CD14-3
296 Benefits SOCG para 2.4(a) and (b): CD19B-15
297 November 2018 CD1-7
298 CD1-10 Chapter 6
299 CD2-1
300 CD19B-30. 11 December 2020
301 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) CD2-1 p16
302 Benefits Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) CD19B-27 para 2.2. See also EIA CD2-1
303CD1-7 p23
304 CD9-8 para 9.6.2
305 Harrison to IQs. Answers reported verbatim in Annex 2 to the Appellant’s closings
306 CD19B-27 refs at 1.4(b) and para 2.3
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
detailed negotiations: the City would have liked more, the Appellant would have
preferred to have provided less307. In short, there would be flexible space on level 3 of
the 12 levels for three classrooms to be available, free of charge, to no fewer than
40,000 state school children pa during school hours. It would be available for free at
some other times for education and community groups and as part of Open House
London. The extent to which schools would be likely to take advantage of this offer, in
addition to other trips or in lieu of them, was uncertain308.
5.23 The original images of the view from the education resource on Level 03, showing
areas of London including the Shards of Glass, were queried by HE who argued that
this would probably be obscured by 100 Leadenhall. This was re-examined outside the
Inquiry and further views that were agreed to be more accurate were submitted309.
6 The case for the Applicant310
The gist of its case was as follows. See the full closings for all details, references, images
and video links.
6.1 We said in opening that rarely, perhaps only once or twice in a generation, does any
City have the opportunity, in the form of a piece of architecture, truly to make a
statement about itself, about its people, and about the future it plans. The Tulip now
provides such an opportunity. It would bring a new and exciting use to the heart of the
City in a way which would strengthen and diversify its economy, enhance its cultural
offer, and open up the City to others in a way not seen before.
6.2 It would do all of these things in a deliberate and profoundly sustainable way. Located
on a brownfield, windfall site at one of the most accessible parts of the capital: a site
which is presently used essentially as an outdated HGV ramp and for back of house
offices and plant, the Tulip has had sustainability and the efficient use of resources
(including more efficient use of the estate) at its core from its inception.
6.3 Its ambition, quality, scale, and form would appropriately symbolise and epitomise a
new start, a new spring for the City of London: more diverse, more inclusive, more
democratic, and less mysterious. A City still open for business but now also visibly and
demonstrably open to all.
6.4 Development Plans are not the places ordinarily to look for poetry. But sometimes it is
there. The original London Plan urged its designers where appropriate to inspire, excite
and delight. The present Plan loses some of the poetry but still urges designers to
ensure that London is a city that produces modern architecture that delights the
senses311. The Plan also reminds decision-makers that new development should help
residents and visitors understand where a place has come from, where it is now and
where it is going312.
6.5 Both references could have been written specifically with the Tulip in mind. For the
Tulip will engage and delight the senses more than any other Cluster building. It will
also represent another layer of the rich history of London: this time saying much more
307 See the reluctance to consider longer hours and the difficulty over bookings, both of which seem to me to be geared
towards maximising private bookings where allowable within the letter of the Agreement
308 Wright to IQs
309 Compare images in Harrison p204 with English Fig70 CD16-3 and later submission at CD19B-25
310 During the course of the adjournment, J Safra Esq very sadly passed away. The retired founder of the Company, he
led a remarkable and philanthropic life and he will be greatly missed. The conduct of this project remains with his eldest
son and members of the management team.
311 Para 7.1, London Plan CD 19H-1
312 Para 7.13 London Plan CD 19H-1
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
than here lies financial power and strength. It will tell of a new widened role for the
City, a role which is inclusive, diverse and sustainable. A City which is prepared to
make the most of its brownfield spaces and hugely efficient public transport provisions
to invite the world in.
6.6 Further, the Tulip represents, at a difficult and risk laden time, an opportunity to
establish in the eyes of the world and those who would invest here, the confidence
which the Government and the planning system has in the City of London as part of a
thriving mercantile Global City.
6.7 The F+P building would be bold, elegant and have a gentle gracefulness of form: high,
exciting and exuberant of use, but which also maintains its essential architectural
calmness, authority and authenticity. It would speak the same language as its Stirling
prize-winning sibling313 and as a result, and for anyone that has an eye to see, would
say unambiguously I am of London. That shouldn’t be a surprise: it has been created
by a practice and a process which understands this special part of the City, its needs
and constraints better than any other. 30 St Mary Axe speaks for itself. It is a work of
genius.
6.8 Foster’s is also the eye, the hand and the practice which has delivered Wembley
stadium, the British Museum Great Court and the Millennium Bridge. Like many of us in
this great city, Lord Foster was born elsewhere but has brought his talents and practice
to London and made it his home. His buildings, including this one, are Londoners too.
6.9 The narrative which has driven the support for this proposal can be crystallised into
8 simple propositions which we set out in Opening and which we now revisit.
One: The City of London’s economic and spatial importance to London’s role as a Global
City and to the UK as a whole is now profound.
6.10 This proposition cannot be gainsaid. That does not mean that it is not important: it is
fundamental. The modern spatial evolution of the City is the driver of London’s World
City status. Its contribution to the UK economy is unique. The role of the Cluster in
transforming the City’s fortunes is now well understood. It, and its individual
elements, especially 30 St Mary Axe, are symbols of the wider City and icons of its
success. The skyline also symbolises the City’s openness to change and to business in
a more philosophical sense. The newness and dynamism of the architecture reflects
the ability of the City and the place to move quickly and to drive change where
necessary. Things happen here. And we all in the UK benefit mightily from that. Also
now well understood are the threats to the City’s pre-eminence as the world’s
financial capital city. The City needs to remain dynamic and healthy or the economy
as a whole will suffer. Those with Ministerial responsibility for this decision won’t need
reminding of the importance of the City or of the national need to ensure its continued
success.
6.11 Overseeing the growth of the Cluster and the spatial expression of the City as the
World’s foremost financial hub up until now has been the City planning department.
Its constancy and the skills it has employed means that it is the most experienced
planning department in Europe at dealing with tall buildings and their impacts on
context and heritage assets. It has worked closely, critically and constructively with
the best architectural houses in the world. The suggestion that it simply and
mechanistically supports any tall building proposal is demonstrably ludicrous. It turns
away scores of potential tall buildings at pre-application stage when it considers them
inappropriate.
313 The Gherkin
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.12 As a result, the Department has delivered architectural quality of the highest order. It
has been driven by talented officers with experience and knowledge. The SoS should
bear its expertise, consistency and track record of delivery in mind when weighing
evidence on the image of the City as a place and on the quality of architecture in this
case. The City is, for now, a profound contributor to London, its image and our
mercantile place in the world. It contributes economically in a prodigious way. And
mirroring that contribution it has also produced an international quality financial
skyline of dynamism and authenticity. The spatial imperative is to ensure that that
skyline now remains relevant in difficult and changing times.
Two: There is a pressing need to maintain the City’s position as the world’s leading
international financial and professional services centre by ensuring it operates more flexibly
and diversely, is more resilient to change and meets the needs of its employees and
population.
6.13 The CoL recognises that it cannot sustain itself solely as a place for offices. The City’s
workers no longer finish work and commute home. They place value on out of work
experience, culture and a 24/7 way of existing. They are the lifeblood of a commercial
city. The City wants to transform its public realm and physical infrastructure to make
it more open, distinct, welcoming and culturally vibrant314. It must do so to ensure
that the most talented workers want to work in the City, and not in its rival centres
around the world.
6.14 In addition, the City needs to broaden its economic base, to contribute more to the
rich mix that puts the centre of London at the centre of the UK and makes it a World
City. The City, and in particular the Cluster, offers little at the weekends and in
holiday periods. It is an obvious and unsustainable waste of potential economic and
cultural activity and of the most impressive public transport in the whole of western
Europe. The inevitable past focus of the City on the delivery of world class office
functions has resulted in something of an unbalanced, wasteful and, overall, less
resilient economic profile.
6.15 And the Corporation is onto this, now seeking to make the most of its position in the
CAZ, to increase massively the number of non-office visits to the City and to increase
its cultural and tourist offer overall, including the creation of a strategic cultural area
of international standing315. The aim is to alter the reality and the perception of the
City as a closed financial district. The need to do this has never been greater: Brexit
and COVID-19 present new challenges to the City’s world leading status, with the
prospect of structural economic change creating uncertainty and risk.
Three: The City needs to become more open, diverse, accessible and democratic.
6.16 For many within London, and the wider world, the City’s contribution to the wealth of
all of us is not properly appreciated. Neither is the City seen as truly accessible as a
place of employment to many of London’s diverse communities316. The emerging City
Plan recognises this. Consistent with the national policy to encourage diversity and
equality of opportunity, it is now a strategic aim to foster a flourishing and fair
society. Part of that aim is to educate Londoners about the City but also to develop
the skills of its residents and those of other boroughs who might otherwise not
consider a career here. There is no doubt that such interventions are needed to
support the City and London as a whole.
314 City of London Cultural Strategy 2018-22 p 11 [CD 19B-20]
315 See Emerging Plan CD 19H-3: 3.4.4; 3.5.1; 5.3.2-3; 5.3.5-6; Strategic Policy S6
316 See Cultural Strategy CD 19B-20 at p 4 et seq
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.17 The City is committed to securing equality of opportunity, accessibility and
involvement so that people from across London’s diverse communities will have the
chance to benefit from the many facilities and opportunities the City offers. As a
result, the role of education is enhanced in the new City spatial strategy with
encouragement for new high quality places for learning and a recognition that the City
needs to speak to a wider, younger and more diverse audience. Similarly, the City
needs to do more to be a place where tourists and visitors come. London’s role as a
global visitor destination is well established but, as the Mayor recognises, it cannot
stand still. London’s pre-eminent status as a global tourism destination is under
pressure317.
6.18 The City itself contributes to that globally significant tourism market, but in isolated
ways. It boasts one of London’s top attractions (St Paul’s) and is adjacent to another
(the ToL). But it lacks the destinations of the West End and Southbank that draw
visitors in to stay in the area. The need for more and better attractions, for London as
a whole, is not in fact in dispute at this Inquiry318. The Mayor’s real gripe – why here?
– is answered by the need to diversify the City, and by the scheme’s sustainable,
windfall nature.
Four: The Tulip self-evidently meets these functional needs at an appropriate location. It is
common ground that (1) the uses proposed and (2) a very tall building are both in principle
appropriate in the Cluster.
6.19 The Tulip lies on a windfall site in the Cluster where it is agreed that a very tall
building is appropriate in principle. It is common ground that a tourist attraction and
cultural facility is an acceptable use here too: an important point particularly when
considering the character case319. In assessing compliance with the development plan
as a whole, much weight must be given to the fact that the proposed use and form
are both in principle acceptable, and encouraged, in this location. The Tulip would be
a busy, and unique world class tourist attraction. Nothing has seriously challenged
that. There is no dispute on its draw, a result of careful market analysis320. 1.2 million
people each year will come to the Tulip.
6.20 The viewing gallery proposed is unique; the gondolas particularly so. The kinetic
viewing experience, so well-loved at the London Eye, would be delivered at twice the
height. The 360º views, and the multiple levels connected by spiral stairs and slides
will make this a truly special place to visit. And there will be spaces to drink and eat
through a high-quality restaurant and bar offer reminiscent of the dome of the
Gherkin but far higher and in a place of leisure rather than a place of work321.
6.21 Of the more than a million people who will come to St Mary Axe because of the Tulip,
over 100,000 of them will be coming to London as a whole solely because of the Tulip.
They will come to London rather than New York, or Paris. The dismissiveness of the
Mayor towards that remarkable additionality is myopic and flat contrary to his existing
and emerging development plan.
6.22 Through these visitors, the Tulip will have a significant economic impact in its own
right and will substantially enhance the prospects for ancillary and service industries
in the City which, at the moment, are obviously too dependent on office monoculture.
The figures for economic benefit are not in dispute322. Like any economic modelling
317 Mr Rusby’s evidence
318 as Mr Green accepted
319 Of Ms Adams
320 Confirmed by Mr Rusby and made good by a comprehensive market testing exercise
321 Mr Rusby is expertly qualified and experienced to speak to the quality of the offer.
322 CD 19B-15
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
they depend upon forecasts, but on any view the Tulip can deliver tens of millions of
pounds of economic benefits each year. As a tourist attraction, the proposal would
bring animation, life and vitality to the days when the City is silent. It would make
better use of the incredible levels of public transport which are chronically underused.
In very basic planning terms this is an ideal proposition: making best use of the most
sustainable of sites.
6.23 In addition, it would enhance and form a central part of the City’s new aim to make
itself a more rounded space for its hundreds of thousands of employees. Compared
with the benefits of the food stalls323, as a place for workers to socialise and for new
connections to be made, but in a different and far more meaningful form, the Tulip
will deliver much more both at ground level and high in the sky.
6.24 The Pavilion, the restaurants and bars, the new public area all speak to a change in
the way the City sees its spaces. The proposal would invite people to linger after work
and at other times, to socialise, to cluster and to produce the interaction that is the
lifeblood of a dynamic creative city life. There would be areas of compression and
release, animated places to sit in and share. A busy, active place will be created, and
the Appellant does not shy away from that proposition.
6.25 In addition, the building will welcome into the heart of the City tens of thousands of
London’s children and students. The Inspector and the SoS will find no difficulty in
dismissing the disparaging approach adopted by the Mayor to this provision. It will
give young Londoners a place which has the capacity to inspire and engage. There is
always one school trip we remember. This would be it324.
6.26 The education provision is the product of good engagement in the planning system. It
has emerged through discussions with the Mayor’s team and the City’s planners. It
has been carefully designed as a self-contained storey of the building. The Appellant
has started to articulate how best it can be used325. The result is a proposition326, that
will be truly special. It will be facilitated by teachers paid for by the owner, making
best use of technology and grounding the visit in the school curriculum with learning
323 1 day a week for 2 hours
324 The evidence of Dr Sharon Wright
325 By engaging Dr Wright. She is exceptionally well qualified to assist the Inquiry on this issue. She is an educationalist
with a long pedigree in advising on the design of learning spaces (including the DfE). She has explained that there is no
metric for measuring the educative potential of a space, and that comparisons of floor areas are unlikely to assist. The
real question is how the space can and will be used. And her evidence on that is that the Tulip will provide a unique
learning experience, delivering benefits at a London-wide level. Her view is corroborated by every teacher and
educationalist who has commented on the proposals, from the initial roundtable event through to the expert
endorsements before this Inquiry. See also CD 13-22 p1ff.
326 Outlined in the Education and Community Management Plan (see s106) and explained in Dr Wright’s evidence
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
before and after. Most of all it will have a brilliant view of London, including the
excitement of the Cluster.
6.27 Whilst the Mayor makes the arguments on the education space as a means to an end,
he cannot genuinely seek to cast shade on the benefits of this space. The Mayor in
truth strongly supports measures to improve educational attainment and social
mobility327, and the undisputed expert evidence is that this space will serve that
function. And wonderfully. The benefits from the third floor will not stop at the end of
the school day but continue through a commitment to make the space available, free
of charge, to older schoolchildren and wider community groups. It will be a lasting
legacy for London. As such it will be the literal and functional window into the work of
the City and its place in London. It will invite people into the heart of the financial
district’s cluster in a new and deliberate way, demystifying and democratising the City
and meeting the functional needs identified above and encapsulated in the adopted
and emerging plans.
Five: And it meets those needs in the form of a building which in and of itself encapsulates,
symbolises and embodies the new more diverse open and democratic nature of the City.
6.28 The proposal would not look like an office building and nor should it. It would be a
visitor attraction, cultural and learning space, community facility and place for City
workers to relax and enjoy, which in principle is accepted as appropriate and
beneficial in the Cluster. Its physical nature and scale would reflect its use and more.
It would signal that the City is changing and becoming more open, diverse and
welcoming. Just as the Cluster signalled the willingness of the City to react to the
office needs of the markets. Not only would the building meet the functional needs of
the City: it would express them clearly and understandably in architectural form. Its
function would be immediately understood and appreciated. It would again symbolise
that City has the wherewithal to act, achieve and to deliver on those ambitions even
in difficult times.
6.29 At this Inquiry the Mayor recognises the ability of a building to be a symbol,
describing the Gherkin as a defiant and symbolic response to the impact of Irish
nationalist terrorism in 1992. The Gherkin is of course that - and now very much more
than that too. This F+P work is also a symbolic response. The Tulip is a visible
response to the need for the City to shift its economic base, its ethos and its approach
to its people. It symbolises a new start, a spring, and it does so with a Tulip: a symbol
of hope, of renewal. And it is a response which simply cannot be provided elsewhere
in the same way328. No one is seriously suggesting that it can. But the symbolism now
goes further and deeper.
6.30 First, sustainability is at the core of the planning system and of the proposal. Its
essence is the revitalisation and re-use of the Gherkin Estate. Its visible presence at
the heart of the capital’s underused transport network329 would be a symbol that the
City is open and accessible in a functional way but also in a transport way and
sustainability way. The very materiality of the building reflects careful and correct
choices about sustainability. Concrete was deliberately chosen for the stem specifically
because of its sustainability credentials and embodied carbon advantages over other
327 Accepted by Mr Green in XX Turney. See for example Skills for Londoners [CD 13-22] pdf p 99ff
328 The economics of the City mean that there will be no other City site forthcoming for such a powerfully symbolic but
less profitable leisure/cultural use. This application represents a one-off opportunity to open the Cluster, to democratise
the City by allowing new uses and people into its inner sanctum. The City rightly saw it that way.
329 In the City at weekends
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
materials330. It also reflects the different, public and more civic use of the building
(see below). The concrete stem houses lifts331 to a bespoke public viewing and
educational experience. In architectural, sustainability and in engineering and
transport terms this is the only sensible choice at this location.
6.31 As a bespoke viewing/cultural and educational facility the choice of low energy glass is
a proper material for the flower. Its clarity will be evident, the animation within too.
But it will also be state of the art glass, from a sustainability point of view332.
Therefore, in place of a street scale HGV ramp and a back of house building for
outdated plant, a different and fundamentally important series of new uses would be
added. Its form is a sustainable embodiment of its use, its location and the fact that it
sustainably brings hundreds of thousands of people a year to the Gherkin Estate. Here
is a site and an estate which truly gives more bang for its buck than any other simple
office development.
6.32 Second, we now know that the UK is entering its deepest recession for generations. Of
course, this case stands or falls on its merits and the grim facts of the pandemic and
its aftermath shouldn’t alter that fact. The economic impacts are an important
material consideration in this case and the SoS has specifically been asked to be
advised about them. It is therefore appropriate to note that the powerful economic
and symbolic impact of this proposal, and the message of confidence in the City and
its more rounded future, are bound to be given more weight in the likely
circumstances of recession and the need for economic but also social and educational
recovery.
Six: It meets those needs in a F+P building which is also of the highest architectural
quality.
Introduction
6.33 The written word alone is not adequate to describe this building’s quality. We have
therefore sought to explain and explore its architectural quality through larger scale
models, highly accurate visual representations and moving images, including images
from within the top of the building itself. We have ensured that this proposal has been
submitted to a form and depth of scrutiny never before seen at a public inquiry of this
nature333. And we are confident that the City’s considered view of this building as of
internationally high quality is an accurate one. That is not a surprising conclusion.
6.34 As above, this building has been produced by the same hand and process as the
Gherkin whose site it shares. The Mayor asserts that the Gherkin is a building which
shows clarity and technical dexterity, that it is a building of great architectural
integrity; rigorous and lyrical334. These are correct assertions. The Gherkin is F+P’s
greatest achievement. He would do nothing to harm its importance or beauty or the
strength of its legacy. And whenever a city or a nation has called upon F+P to produce
330 See Harrison Proof [CD 13-8] section 5.17; Sustainability Statement [CD 1-20]; and Appellant’s notes on BREEAM
[CD 19B-17] and Sustainability [CD 19B-32] and XX Green by Turney. This proposal should not be turned away as a
result of the evidence of two witnesses who prefaced every answer they gave on the issue with the caveat I'm no expert
on sustainability!
331 Themselves in this context a form of public transport. Most other Cluster buildings hide a concrete core also
containing lifts.
332 The final specification to be adjusted to be compatible with the highest and most sustainable technology available at
the time of construction and with further building-integrated transparent PVs. It would be optimised to reduce the
internal solar gains and thermal conduction, without compromising the daylighting and external views. Photovoltaic
panels (PVs) are incorporated in the south facing glazing of the upper parts of the dome.
333 And we have done so with the help of all parties at a time when physical presence at an inquiry has been impossible.
334 CD 15-3 para 3.3.8
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
architecture of the highest order, symbolic of its ambitions and hopes, it has
delivered.
6.35 Of course, neither of these facts removes the need for this proposal to undergo the
most rigorous of scrutiny. And when close scrutiny is applied to F+P’s body of work
and then also to this building, it is immediately apparent the same very high quality
and rigour that marks its best and most iconic work is at play here335. And that, in the
circumstances of this case, the F+P process has resulted in a building of very high
quality: a profoundly bold building which still maintains an underlying gracefulness.
6.36 The Inspector was careful to ask each of the relevant witnesses to identify what about
the buildings underpinned their assessment of quality. The evidence336 in support of
the quality of the building was careful, considered, based in academic and practical
architectural learning and was internally consistent. Their conclusions were not mealy
mouthed or on balance but clear that this was architecture of the highest calibre. The
Inspector took a careful note of their answers to his questions on this point. We rely
on those answers337. On the other hand, neither the Mayor nor HE analyse the quality
of the proposal in terms of its architecture in any systematic or policy driven way at
all338.
6.37 The Mayor’s analysis of the architectural quality of the building in context was shown
to be not balanced, fair or accurate339. That means it ought to be treated with
extreme caution. Further, in a unique context, where judgments on scale, appearance
and juxtaposition on the skyline are likely to need expertise that reflects that context:
his witness was in truth a novice. The suggestion that the building would better suit
Nevada or an Eastern European totalitarian state was ill-judged, and cringeworthy340.
6.38 Aside from these assessments, the Inquiry has also had the benefit of others with
profound expertise of development in the unique context of the City of London. There
are carefully argued letters of support341.
6.39 The London Review Panel assessment of the proposal on the other hand was
undertaken by a selected panel with no experience of the City or the City context at
all. It is not a thorough or coherent piece of work. It is not evidence based. It is truly
extraordinary that not a single member of that Panel was chosen to have their
evidence tested in this forum by the Mayor. It is also notable that there is not even a
single representation or letter from any one of the chosen Panel seeking to support
their view at this inquiry. The Mayor deliberately chose to go outside the ranks of that
Panel to support the reason for refusal based on their assessment.
335 But as Inspector Gray used to remark a good architect doesn’t guarantee you a good building, but a bad architect
will never give you a good building. So, having a good architect whose completed buildings you can go and see and
touch and appreciate is a good start.
336 of Harrison, Tavernor and Miele. Mr Richards also identified the building as being of World Class and then he
explained why from the position of one who knows the Cluster better than any.
337 Those relevant answers are transcribed in full in Annex 2
338 Dr Barker-Mills and Mr English who rely instead on the evidence of Ms Adams, whose evidence was neither fair nor
balanced
339 As Ms Adams was driven to accept in XX
340 CD 15-3, para 5.3.3.5
341 CD 19F-3, CD 19F-4 and 19F-4A from Paul Finch (formerly head of CABE and editor of the Architectural Journal) who
has given expert evidence in support of many of the exemplary tall buildings in the Cluster including at inquiry and
whose assessment of the quality of the architecture is compelling, and from Peter Murray (founder director and curator
of New London Architecture and its annual London Tall Building Survey) whose expertise and knowledge of the City and
of tall buildings is clear, who is not an uncritical supporter of all tall buildings by any means, and who has visited the
model space at the Gherkin and produced a visually annotated video in support of the proposals from his independent
standpoint. His analysis of the beauty of the creation of city streets at the base of the building is especially insightful.
See also full closing p20 for a link to the video.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
The Buildings, their elements and their context
Introduction
6.40 The proposal would add two fine buildings and two open spaces of great quality to the
City. In architectural terms, although the proposal is exuberant in terms of its use, it
would be simple and elegant. The Tulip itself has an understandable tripartite
structure, a clear base, middle and top. It has elegant proportions and a rational
organisation of function with the viewing/cultural and learning space at the top held
up and fed by the stem and grounded by the base which has a grandeur, but which
actually touches the ground lightly. These are not complex or difficult relationships.
Indeed, they are not novel concepts342; though the way they have been addressed
here is innovative, sustainable and elegant.
6.41 The Pavilion building is a quiet masterpiece. The public realm is self-evidently
enhanced. Of course, we murder to dissect343 when examining buildings and building
forms.
The Flower
6.42 The building’s form reflects its function but does not do so in a brash or naïve way.
That is so of the building as a whole but is particularly evident in relation to the top of
the building. It is as understandably F+P as Lord Foster’s handwriting. And what he
has produced is a building which derives from the City and its ambitions for itself. The
flower element of the building is gently curvilinear and picks up the form and detailing
of the upper parts of the Gherkin. The family resemblance is clear; both buildings
speak the same language344. Also clear is the skill and dexterity employed in the
modelling of the top of the building.
6.43 The flower is axially symmetrical as was explained carefully to the inspector345. Its
main viewing gallery provides the axial frame to the west with the oriel windows
placed on and around this axis in the other directions. This is a deliberate and
important part of the entire parti. One can see it evolving organically through Lord
Foster’s early and more developed sketches of the proposal. It is a functional and
structural move which as the contextual models make clear will, when seen, be
immediately understandable and rational. The building (like the Gherkin) is designed
in all dimensions and in all parts as a deliberately directional building.
6.44 Thus, the Gherkin has a circular plan form, but is in all other respects a profoundly
directional and asymmetric building. Although circular in plan by floor, on its vertical
axis there is no symmetry and in its all-important articulation and materiality, its
visible form is wholly and deliberately asymmetric to reflect the different weather
forces faced by the different parts of the structure.
6.45 This axial symmetry also allows the viewing gallery to address the main part of the
Cluster to the west and in particular to give close up views of the Stirling Award-
winning Gherkin from above. The view of the fine tracery of the roof structure of the
top of that special building seen in combination with the Cluster (even virtually)
alongside the balance of the Cluster can be seen to be breath-taking. This will be a
view and a part of the City that will delight the senses.
342 They differ little from the ones Wren would have understood
343 Wordsworth, The Tables Turned
344 But as in many families: they do a different job
345 By Mr Harrison
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.46 From the ground, where the main viewing gallery can be seen and appreciated, it will
be well understood that it addresses the powerful body and mass of the Cluster to its
West. It is of a scale and form and clarity that appropriately reflects this function. The
oriel widows contain different functions and serve other purposes, and their location is
on a viewing gallery also logical and understandable. In longer distant views, as the
models and accurate visual representations make clear, the resultant form of the
flower is not one that ever reads as uncomfortable or as irrational. The moving
images are particularly relevant in this regard because movement allows the human
brain to see and appreciate shape in 3D. That experience can also be replicated to a
degree by moving around the context models346.
6.47 The absence of symmetry on all axes for a building experienced in the round (rather
than only frontally) is in this context not disturbing or even potentially harmful in the
real world, as the video of the model shows. Its top is a place to be experienced
three-dimensionally as a celebration of the buildings and panorama that surround and
define it347.
The stem as architecture
6.48 The stem of the building again reflects its function. It does not follow an office
typology or materiality. It reflects in this respect the need to diversify uses and the
symbolising of that change. The choice of material was (like the project as a whole)
driven in the first instance by sustainability: concrete represents a fundamentally
more sustainable material for the stem than any other.
6.49 The material also reflects the more public use of the building and picks up on the use
of stone and cement in many of London and some of F+P’s great public or quasi-
public buildings. Cement is after all an ancient stone-based building material, used for
public buildings since ancient times and more recently put to great effect by F+P in
the Millennium Bridge, Duxford (listed as Grade II* in the adjournment) and in the
Jubilee Line stations at Canary Wharf.
6.50 Suggestions that the stem is not architecture or is mute are wildly wide of the mark.
The stem speaks F+P. This is architecture of great quality and execution. F+P has
produced their largest ever scale model to illustrate both the base and the stem of
this building in detail which allows no hiding. It discloses that the criticism that the
stem of this Tulip is bland, neutral non-architecture to be wholly and fundamentally
mistaken. It is elegant and when read with the rest of the building or in part,
proportional, purposeful, carefully articulated and honest.
Impact on the Image of London and the Cluster
6.51 The height of the proposal means that it will be seen across London. The London
skyline is deliberately diverse and varied. As such it does not have one character
which falls to be protected and is different from many European capitals348. That
doesn’t mean that the London skyline as a whole is insensitive to change. Hence the
LVMF. This inquiry has been exploring it in a particularly narrow compass. That that is
so is instructive in itself. The Tulip will be seen in and will engage the visual
management Guidelines in many of the 27 LVMF images. No harm is alleged of any of
these beyond V10A, and (more latterly) V25. And that is not surprising when that
impact is explored in the round.
346 See also full closing p24 for a link to the video
347 More than any other single issue, the assessment of the quality of the architecture of the top of the building in 3D
across the City and beyond, requires an expert understanding of them in 3D and then also the locus in quo.
348 See Neil Holt in Heron Tower [CD 9-10] para 15.10 p 101
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.52 Four things are very clear from such an exercise:
a) The Tulip sits at the heart of the Cluster when explored in a three dimensional
sense.
b) It qualitatively adds to the Cluster in the views in which it appears.
c) This constitutes a clear enhancement overall to the Image of London which is
sought to be preserved by the LVMF.
d) This ought to be a powerful material consideration when seen in the round.
6.53 The City has addressed in full the suggestions of an inconsistency with a curation of
the Cluster. The reality is that the Mayor and HE’s cases on the jelly mould is vastly
overstated. That the City maps constraints in 3D to guide its analysis of tall building
proposals is entirely appropriate. But to elevate a tool for assessment to the status of
policy or akin to policy is misconceived. The modelling can only ever serve a purpose
of an initial steer. It cannot dictate the outcome of an application which must be
assessed on its merit and in detail - as this proposal has been. The modelling has not
been consulted upon or formally adopted, because it is not policy or close to it. It
cannot drive the outcome that the Mayor and HE suggest it should.
The Base
6.54 The base of the building is gently splayed to reflect its function and to house the entry
to the restaurants and bars. It is transparent, articulated and adds great interest. The
building touches the ground lightly. It is smaller in area than the Gherkin or the
Pavilion and is very light in feel. The structural buttresses add a touch of drama and
strength but the feel overall is not of a building that is in any way oppressive and the
gentle curves of the building not only reflect and answer the curves of the Gherkin but
they are welcoming and open in gesture. The building and the space around it are a
powerfully better solution to the leftover corner than the existing 20 Bury Street and
its place to park street cleaners349. The entire structure has a haptic, powerful but
want to go in character about it, which is self-evident on the photograph.
The Pavilion
6.55 This is a building which repays attention. It masquerades as a background building.
But it’s much better than that. All of its responses to context are simple but when
these responses are seen in the round, the building does many things very well
indeed:
a) It completes and restores the street line along Bury Court and St Mary Axe: a
criticism of the impact of the Gherkin when first granted permission.
b) It reflects and responds to the circular nature of the Gherkin in the way that the
existing space/ street of ramp do not: it encloses the Gherkin where appropriate
and then releases it, creating intimate moments and streets as opposed to
spaces that bleed away.
c) It provides a very well-designed large piece of public realm at roof level, easily
accessed from the pocket park.
d) It is visually very permeable and creates a light high quality enclosure to the
area but also a marker to the wider area by the way it turns the corner onto St
Mary Axe adjacent to the new Undershaft open space.
349 See Peter Murray’s analysis of the creation of a City Street.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
e) It subtly functions as the service entrance to the whole estate and public
entrance to the Tulip.
f) It is also written in Foster’s handwriting, self-evidently and self-assuredly.
Public realm
6.56 The one oft stated and unmissable criticism of the Gherkin Estate relates to its public
realm at ground level. The creation of its, then required, large street of vehicle ramp
and associated ill-defined space onto St Mary Axe, its separating and hiding wall and
the general lack of structure of its wider open space mean that its immediate setting
is not as attractive as other City buildings such as F+P’s Willis Building or as attractive
or as animated as originally intended350.
6.57 The proposal allows this to be addressed. The very ugly, visually and physically
disruptive ramp and wall along the entirety of the eastern facade are removed. Their
loss is a clear and obvious structural benefit of the proposal which unaccountably has
been mislaid by critics of the scheme351.
6.58 In its place will be provided a Pavilion of high quality and permeability which will be a
much better companion to the Gherkin than Ramp Street. Its entire rooftop will be
given over to public realm, again of high quality with unrivalled views of the Gherkin,
the Tulip and the Cluster beyond and around.
6.59 Providing public realm flexibly and innovatively in this way is now recognised as
sensible and appropriate. Suggestions that the space so provided in this case should
not count towards public realm provision are both incorrect and inconsistent with
up-to-date policy. The proposals also allow for the public realm as a whole to be
better defined, for a pocket park to be created which provides a much more fitting
place for the plaque remembering those who perished in the IRA bomb.
6.60 Overall, the public realm is quantitatively enlarged and qualitatively transformed for
the better as a result of these proposals. And yes, there will be more people in the
plaza, many more. It will be a vital and vibrant place 7 days a week, 365 days a year:
a lively place, a place for all.
6.61 Against this clear and demonstrable enhancement, the unbalanced criticisms of the
scheme’s public realm appeared small minded and embarrassing352. When these
criticisms are set against the deliberate failure of the Mayor to even consider the
benefits of the loss of the ramp, its walls, 20 Bury Street and the underused areas of
the square space that surround it, the Mayor’s analysis is shown to be a partial and
unreliable critique.
Conclusion
6.62 This is world class sustainable architecture born of context.
350 See Proof of Evidence of Mr Harrison re the proposed pavilion [CD 13-8] p 286
351 Especially Ms Adams who could give no reason at all for such an unfair approach
352 Loss of restaurant seating: no evidence of insufficiency and areas secured in new s106.
Loss of 6 or so seats outside the coffee shop: replaced by capacity for scores of benches in a well maintained and close
by park, or the upper floor area of the Pavilion.
Loss of the 8 stall max, 2 hour food market: a consequence of the redesign of the public realm, but perfectly capable of
being replicated elsewhere.
Too busy, too vibrant: but not enough to sustain even a pedestrian comfort reason for refusal. The model shows the
square with the maximum number of potential visitors at the peak of the peak as opposed to the remarkably
unscientific and unturned to Figures in Ms Adams' proof.
Ability to house sculpture: unaffected for the entire southern half of the estate and decisively outweighed by the
creation of a new cultural draw for over a million visitors.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Seven: Concerns about the nature and extent of heritage harm in this case have been
significantly overstated. Applying the correct approach to assessment of harm, there is no
harm which is substantial, which is close to substantial harm or which comes anywhere
close to substantial harm.
Introduction and approach in summary
6.63 The planning system protects heritage assets. The nature of that protection is now
encapsulated in the NPPF and a decision maker who covers the relevant paragraphs
will have accurately and appropriately discharged the duties placed on them by
statute, convention and policy. Annex 3 sets out a route map of the steps while our
opening353 contained a summary of the correct approach to the issue of where on the
spectrum of less than substantial harm an impact lies.
6.64 Suffice it to say that in order to judge whether there is substantial harm in any case,
Bedford must be applied. But also, to understand whether harm alleged is close to, or
anywhere close to or approaching the upper end of less than substantial harm, the
Bedford meaning of substantial harm, adopted by the SoS, is still the only relevant
benchmark. Otherwise the decision-maker cannot properly calibrate where on the
spectrum of potential harm impact lies. Any harm to heritage assets must be given
considerable weight and importance, but that cannot and does not mean that all harm
must be weighed equally. There is a need for discernment, realism and proportion.
Otherwise, the balance in NPPF§196 cannot properly be operated.
That approach applied in the present case. The nature of impact
6.65 In this case, there is no allegation of direct impact on any heritage asset. The site
does not sit within any Conservation Area. The proposal would not harm the fabric or
huge intrinsic significance of any designated asset. All relevant impacts are setting
impacts and are experienced in views (and often distant views). A correct
understanding of the unique context of the City of London and relevant policy is
necessary to identify the nature of the impact.
6.66 A series of sub-propositions was canvassed354 on behalf of the Mayor. They are the
building blocks of any reasonable assessment of the impact of a tall building in the
Eastern Cluster of the City of London. The accuracy of each of them was rightly
accepted. They reflect the unique physical, functional and policy position of the City.
These sub-propositions are not novel or controversial. They reflect the way that the
planning system has operated in the Capital in the last 20 years355.
The Sub-Propositions
I In principle support for a dynamic and growing cluster of tall buildings in an identified
part of the City of London is a formal and longstanding element of Development Planning in
London.
6.67 This is an agreed position. The appropriateness of that plan-led approach of local
authorities to identify areas suitable in principle for tall buildings has been
underscored by the SoS’s most recent direction in relation to the emerging London
Plan356. The Development Plan reflects not only the appropriateness of the cluster of
very tall buildings but indicates that that they should be attractive and sustainably
designed, that they should contribute to the City’s iconic image and ensure that the
353 Annex 1, para 108-116
354 with Dr Barker-Mills
355 See CD 1-66
356 See the most recent direction re Tall Buildings
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
City retains its position as a place with an image which is attractive to significant high
profile global investment 357.
6.68 The emerging plan maintains that support identifying the planned cluster as iconic
attractive dynamic moving and changing358. And the planned scale of the growing tall
buildings Cluster needs also to be understood. The Cluster is planned to grow
significantly during the period of the extant plan and beyond. The Cluster has not
come close to reaching its final form359.
6.69 The support for an iconic high profile cluster of tall buildings is longstanding having
been supported by successive plans and EiP Inspectors since before 2002 and
reflected in many City, Mayoral and SoS decisions including very recent ones360.59
II The location of the planned Cluster gives rise to an inevitable intervisibility between
very tall buildings, an iconic and growing cluster and the WHS.
6.70 This is an inevitable spatial consequence of the first proposition. It is best understood
by looking at the scale model of the area. From that model, two things become
immediately apparent in a way which 2-dimensional photography does not allow. The
first is that the Cluster sits a significant distance beyond the main vantage points of
the WHS. One immediately understands the position adopted by previous
inspectors361 as to the importance of the space around the Tower and also the ability
of the human eye to appreciate the distance to the Cluster buildings beyond.
6.71 The second is that the spatial geography of the area means that the iconic, high
profile and growing Cluster will inevitably be seen (and has been planned to be seen)
in the setting of the WHS when seen from the south east and from within the WHS
itself. From the Queen’s Walk, Tower Bridge, the Inner Ward and the ramparts of the
Tower, there will be views of an iconic high profile City Cluster. Without such views,
there can be no Cluster much-less a quickly growing and dynamic Cluster. The
intervisibility of the Cluster in the setting is therefore as much planned as the Cluster
itself.
III The visibility of an iconic high profile City Cluster and its components is not therefore in
principle unacceptable and can take place without harm to the WHS.
6.72 This is reflected in the development plan and the grants of planning permission for
many of the City Cluster buildings. Policy CS7 of the City Plan and its reasoned
justification at 3.7.3 acknowledge that the Cluster will be visible from, inter alia, the
WHS and proceeds on the basis that such visibility does not as a matter of principle
cause harm to heritage significance. This is entirely consistent with the position of the
WHC’s insistence that the City and the UK should vigorously apply the concept of
clustering of tall buildings so that they do not impact adversely on the OUV of London
World Heritage sites362.
6.73 At the time of this encouragement (2007), the Cluster policy was in place and being
acted upon, and the intervisibility between the planned Cluster and parts of the
setting of the WHS would have been obvious. The conclusion drawn by the World
Heritage Committee, by the development plan system and the development control
decisions was and remains that the visible intervisibility or juxtaposition of the Cluster
357 Adopted City Plan CD19 H-2 para 1 p9 para 2.1, 2.3 and 2.7 p22 and p34
358 Emerging Plan CD 19 H-3 para 2.4.4
359 See Adopted Plan CD 19 H-2 at p33 et seq. especially para 3.7.1 and emerging plan CD 19-H3 at paras 3.5.3
360 See Heron Tower CD 9-9 and CD 9-10; and CD 11-66 generally
361 e.g. Inspector Gray in the Shard at CD 9-5 at para 16.68-78
362 See CD 16.5 Tab 35 page 69 Point 4
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
and the setting of the world heritage site including views from within was not in
principle unacceptable or harmful.
IV Indeed such visibility and juxtaposition with the iconic Cluster are in principle, in
heritage and townscape terms, seen by the planning system and planning policy as
beneficial because of the unique nature of the City and its relationship to the Tower.
6.74 This sub-proposition is also now an agreed one as on the undisputed facts it must be.
However, there is an in-principle difference of approach between the two sides on the
issue of impact and harm in this case363. The fact is that positive juxtaposition had
been (and now remained) the policy of the planning system and of the Mayor for
more than a decade364.
6.75 The Mayor365 confirmed that the juxtaposition of the Cluster and the WHS were to be
seen in principle as positives in heritage and townscape terms, as reported in the
many Mayoral reports, and that this position had not changed. It was also accepted
for HE that this sub-proposition represented the true position and it was not
suggested that HE formally took a contrary view.
6.76 HE was a little less clear about the ability of modern city buildings to play a role in
enhancing the significance of the WHS as an asset. HE did not understand how that
would be possible arguing that You have to look to the asset and protect what it has.
That position of looking solely to the asset and failing to appreciate the benefits of the
juxtaposition with the iconic Cluster explains very much of HE’s analysis which
stepped significantly beyond the consistent position of HE throughout in this case.
6.77 That position is wrong, and the planning system is right. The WHS has a setting. It is
wide and unique. It is mostly appreciated in views of, over and from the Tower as a
whole. In most respects it is not a setting that resembles that when the asset was
constructed. Rather, in terms of the HE setting guidance, it represents a setting which
has changed. The document recognises in terms that settings which have changed
may also enhance significance for example where townscape character has been
shaped by cycles of change…. The building of Tower Bridge is a good example of such
change: change which has the ability to impact on significance outside of the asset
itself but in its setting.
6.78 The relationship between the City and the WHS in views of and from the Tower is also
relevant to and forms part of its significance. Historically the Tower both protected
and threatened the proximate City. It was a political, spatial and visual relationship
which ebbed and flowed over time. That ebb and flow366 and an understanding of it
forms an important part of the way setting contributes to the character of the asset.
6.79 In the post war period, the City struggled to remove itself from the consequences of
austerity. It grew but in a mediocre way and its townscape was bland, ugly and
uninspiring. There can be no doubt but that this harmed the setting of the great
Norman Tower. It, the pinnacle of Norman power, was juxtaposed with mediocrity and
drabness.
363 It was not expected that a different position would be taken in closing, but in reality it has been advanced at para 70
[of the Mayor’s closing]. That is not the Mayor’s position. HPQC is in effect asking you to say that the Mayor was wrong
to find benefit in heritage terms to the relevant assets from the consented Cluster. HPQC is now replaying the error that
his witness fell into, as to which there was not a shred of evidence.
364 Mr Green was invited to, and then obliged formally to, withdraw that suggestion (following the intervention of the
Inspector and a cooling off) and to concede that any view to the contrary was not formal policy. Rather, it was instead
his own non-expert and confused position
365 HPQC with the Deputy Head of Planning at the GLA
366 HE Guidance on setting CD 8-4 page 4
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.80 The historic significance of the relationship between the Tower as a symbol of Norman
Power and a once great mercantile City as expressed in the key views of the Tower
was affected. The planning system saw the opportunity to improve the status of the
City and to create in place of the drabness a dynamic iconic and expanding Cluster of
extremely well-designed tall buildings in the setting of the WHS. This represents a
deliberate planning of a new cycle of change. A change of the type which HE’s
documents say can enhance significance.
6.81 The potential for juxtaposition of historic importance by enhancement specifically in
relation to the Cluster was recognised by the Inspector for the Shards of Glass367: In
my opinion the Tower’s historic character and importance are enhanced by the visitor
being able to recognise that the City has evolved and expanded and no longer needs
the protection once provided (or the control once exerted) by the Tower. In other
words, the vibrant 21st Century nature of the City adds to rather than detracts from
an appreciation of the historic character of the Tower.
6.82 That is how the planning system has and now still correctly and formally views the
impact of the growing cluster on the WHS: as a positive in heritage and in townscape
terms. We have already seen that the City Plan identifies the Cluster as iconic,
attractive and distinctive and that it can coexist without causing harm to the Tower.
6.83 In the guidance on the remaining axial iconic view (see below) the juxtaposition of the
WHS with the modern city is identified as the central characteristic of this view. The
relevant elements are described as landmark elements and include Heron Tower and
the Gherkin. It is clear beyond chance that in this important view which embodies
most of the OUV of the Tower the juxtaposition of the best of the old and the best of
the new is seen as a positive and the main characteristic of the protected view. This
concept of the positive nature of the juxtaposition of the WHS and Cluster is also
recognised in almost all of the City and Mayoral decisions on the relevant Cluster
buildings368.
6.84 This is important because such decisions almost all post-date the Mayoral SPG which
includes the most up-to-date (2012) policy on cumulative impact. Thus, the planning
system has formally identified the individual and the cumulative impacts of the cluster
on the WHS as in principle and in practice to be positives.
V The proposal lies within the Cluster, indeed the Mayor asserts it lies within its heart
where the support in principle for tall buildings is not limited to office buildings.
6.85 This proposition was also agreed. Planning policy puts the application site within the
Cluster. Its position should be judged by reference to the viewing point. From the
south, the building appears towards the eastern edge of the Cluster. But, as the
model shows, the Cluster is about spatial disposition, function and distance as well as
two-dimensional analysis from one view.
VI There is no policy constraint at all requiring the consolidation of the existing Cluster
only to take place by way of new office buildings. Indeed, the reverse is true369.
VII The existence of the planned and growing Cluster within the setting of the WHS has
resulted in a framework of policies better to manage the relationship between the two to
avoid or to limit harm.
367 As referred to in the Report by Inspector Gray CD 9.6. Now more usually described in the singular.
368 CD 11-66 e.g. at p.175 (para 40); p. 185 (para 28); p.446 (para 25)
369 See CD 19-H2 page 24 and Objective 3; and accepted by Dr B-M in XX Harris QC
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.86 This too was not a controversial proposition. It was further agreed that the suite of
policies now in place represented the full and appropriate response to the previously
expressed concerns of the WHC, and that if the proposal was judged against this suite
of policies and material considerations then that would represent a stern test of
acceptability in accordance with the requirements of national government and
convention duties370.
VIII Protection of the significance embodied in LVMF View 25 is a particular and essential
part of that Guidance.
6.87 When the WHC urged the UK and the City of London to vigorously apply the concept
of clustering tall buildings371 it also considered the advice of the Joint Mission to
London which recommended the statutory protection of the iconic view from the
Queen’s Walk. This view was identified as iconic because it represented the last
unobstructed visual axis and was key to the conservation of the visual integrity
of the Tower. Indeed, the Mission had urged that in the absence of the protection of
this view and the OUV that was embodied in it, then the Tower might qualify for
Danger Listing but that statutory protection of the iconic view and the provision of a
management plan could be considered the benchmarks for a potential removal of the
property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The importance of the view to
OUV is now reflected in the suite of documents which provide appropriate and
adequate protection and reflect the duties of the Convention.
6.88 This view is protected by the London Plan and its LVMF by a geometric cone of
protection and qualitative management guidelines (see below). It is the only view so
protected and the only one ever identified as needing such protection by the WHC. It
is also where the full width of the gap between the Cluster and the [White] Tower is
most readily apparent. Elsewhere the inevitable intervisibility and visual overlap is
more at play. This is the only LVMF view referred to in the WHSMP372.
6.89 The ToL Setting Study makes it clear that the View 25 views exemplify many of the
cultural qualities that give the Tower its OUV 373. It too sets tests for its protection.
The Queen’s Walk view is rightly identified as iconic, of central importance and as
being the home for much of the setting significance of the WHS. Of course, the
significance of the [White] Tower ranges much wider than its setting or even this part
of its setting and all of that intrinsic setting is untouched by the proposal, 730m away.
IX If the significance embodied in view 25 is left unharmed or enhanced as a result of the
proposal that is a very powerful material consideration.
370 XX English the matrix of policies includes the NPPF, the PPG, the London Plan, the NLP, the SPG on WHS, The
Management Plan, the Setting Guidance. Critical given the WHC concerns have all now been met.
371 CD 16-5 tab 35 p69
372 CD 8-23
373 CD 8-22 Including its landmark siting on the River Thames, its role as a symbol of Norman power (represented in
this view by the dominance of the White Tower) as an outstanding survival of Norman keep architecture in England and
as the model example of a medieval fortress palace.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.90 HE struggled with this proposition but on reflection accepted that it would be
significant. As the proof374, the LVMF guidance has been framed to illustrate and to
protect the OUV in each view375. If View 25, the iconic view invested with or
embodying much of the OUV is left unharmed, then it follows that a key part of the
significance attributable to the setting of the Tower is simply not in scope to be
drained away376 in determining whether harm (if any) is at the upper end of less
than substantial or towards substantial harm.
6.91 If View 25, the iconic view central to the visual integrity of the OUV is left unharmed,
then the assertions that we are close to very much if not all of the significance of the
asset being drained away do not stand up. It is that realisation which has led to a
fundamental shift in HE’s stance. The evidence is clear and not contested. Prior to its
Rule 6 Statement, HE did not claim or allege any harm at all to View 25. That includes
a series of pre-application meetings, the consideration by case officers and the LAC,
and the HE CEO at the City committee in April 2019.
6.92 It is inconceivable that if there had been a hint of meaningful harm to the iconic view
that such an allegation would not be voiced. If there was thought to have been harm
to the significance achieved via the iconic view, then that would have been raised. The
importance of View 25 was clearly understood and stated in the documents but no
harm to it is alleged at all. The Mayor’s finding of harm377 in this view was inevitably
coloured by his inability to notice the difference between his own private view as a
non-heritage expert and the Mayor’s clear (and continued) policy.
6.93 If the setting and significance of the ToL in View 25 is enhanced as a result of this
proposal, then that too would be a powerful material consideration. It would be
entirely consistent with the in-principle policy position, as applied in the many cluster
buildings to date; and would need, as a matter of law, to be given significant weight
and importance in the overall balance. An enhancement of the iconic view of the WHS
would be of profound importance.
X. The significance embodied in View 25 is on a proper consideration of the tests and
the evidence left unharmed: in fact, it would be enhanced.
6.94 View 25 is a townscape view. Its operative policy is in the NLP which has been
strengthened in the protection it gives WHS consistent with WHC guidance. NLP
Policy HC4 requires that Townscape Views should be managed so that the ability to
see specific buildings or groups of buildings in conjunction with the surrounding
environment…is preserved. That generic test would be met by the proposal. The
ability to see and understand the specific buildings protected would be unimpaired.
6.95 The LVMF guidance would also be met. This provides that development in the
background should relate positively to the ToL. For the reasons set out above the
relationship created on the skyline and with the cluster would be positive. From all
assessment points, [25A1-3] the [WHS] should continue to dominate its
surroundings378. There are two clues to the meaning of this guidance. First the LVMF
requirement to continue to dominate; second that it should dominate its
surroundings. The proposal would pass that test as it would not affect the WHS
dominance but be read as a distant Cluster building of great quality.
374 Dr Barker-Mills Para 9.19 and 9.44
375 Dr Miele who drafted the guidance also gave evidence that the views and particularly this one had been amended
specifically to address the WHC concerns expressed back in 2009
376 Using the phrase from Bedford
377 By Mr Green
378 CD8-14 p24
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.96 The Settings Guidance test379 which requires the Tower to be seen to lie on the edge
of the City, not lost in the City, would also be passed. This underscores the LVMF test
as its overall aim is ensuring that the Tower is the dominant building from within the
local setting (which does not include the Cluster at all). When the View 25 triptych is
looked at overall, none of the tests set for its protection would be breached.
6.97 Instead, the addition of a powerfully accomplished building would consolidate the
iconic Cluster. As the distance from viewer to object is fairly constant in all 3 View 25
views, parallax is less obvious and the proposal would never come close to reducing
the continuing dominance of the Tower over its surroundings (see video of dynamic
views from View 25). In principle, this addition is capable of enhancing the setting,
adding another positive layer to both the townscape and the relationship between the
City and the Tower, enhancing the Cluster, and contributing to the juxtaposition of the
best of the old and the new which is the key feature of this part of the view. This
enhancement would be a significant and historical benefit of the proposal.
XI. Impact on the significance embodied in View 10A1 falls to be seen in context and in the
context of Bedford. There is no realistic prospect of anywhere close to substantial harm in
this particular context.
6.98 Views 10A1 and View 10 in the Setting Study are both bridge views, not LVMF
Townscape views, of a much wider River Prospect. They are not iconic in the same
sense as the Queens Walk view, are not protected geometrically nor identified by
WHC as requiring such protection. They are kinetically experienced and, unlike other
LVMF views, can ONLY be experienced by someone who has reached them kinetically
and on foot. This is important as, for those travelling from the south, the relationship
between the Cluster and the ToL in general, and the White Tower in particular, will be
clear and understandable. Because the viewer is walking towards both the asset and
the proposal at an angle, then the great distance between the asset and the Cluster
will be apparent due to parallax380.
6.99 The human eye and brain have evolved to see and understand distance in this precise
context: it is a hugely sophisticated tool. The way in which the Cluster and the White
Tower alter their position across the bridge has two consequences. The Cluster will be
seen and understood as the distant object it is, considerably beyond the multi-layered
WHS in the foreground. The relationship between the City and the WHS will alter
quickly and the Cluster will move behind the Tower: a relationship which is planned,
accepted, appropriate and beneficial in context. That gradual relationship is a function
of the location of the bridge, the route taken over it, and the positions of the Cluster
and the Tower. It means that small adjustments in where you stand would allow you
to experience and understand the relationships in different ways, but there would be
no confusion as to the relative positions of the main elements.
6.100 Travelling south, away from the City, those who choose to turn around will
understand as they move onto the bridge that the City sits right behind the Tower
creating a juxtaposition of the old and the new that no party identifies as harmful. It
is an inevitable intervisibility and the effect of parallax means that the planned Cluster
removes itself from the White Tower and long before the end of the bridge the full
separation of the City and the Tower is seen.
6.101 This is the context for the Management Guidance for this view. This advises that
proposals should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate the OUV of the WHS.
It then considers how such compromise might occur. Development should not breach
379 CD8-22
380 For link to dynamic videos of views see full closing
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or its castellations. Some visual
separation should be retained between the upper parts of the White Tower and the
emerging cluster of tall buildings in the background.
6.102 Those detailed examples of how harm might be caused do not apply here. The skyline
of the four towers is not breached or close to it. In addition, some visual separation
between the upper parts of the White Tower would be retained. The proposal lies on
the same line as the Heron Tower and would not close the width of the gap between
the Cluster and the White Tower. The harmful interventions envisaged by the LVMF do
not arise.
6.103 The Appellant has acknowledged381 some limited harm to the OUV and the
significance of the WHS in View 10A1 from the building’s height and form. The harm is
slight however because looking at the relevant tests to be applied:
a. Some visual separation is maintained;
b. There is no breach of the skyline of the 4 towers;
c. The separation will be seen and understood in 3 dimensions and it will be apparent
that the Cluster is nearly 1 km away;
d. Visual separation can be extended simply by moving a very short distance to the
south if coming from the north and cannot be unseen if coming from the south;
e. Further, the iconic view will at least be left unharmed, and in their clear opinion
enhanced resulting overall in a beneficial position.
Overall conclusion on harm
6.104 Neither the position of the Mayor, that harm to the WHS lies at the upper end of less
than substantial harm from setting impacts to the Tower of London, nor the HE view
that the setting impacts on WHS and would be approaching, (but not at), the
upper end of less than substantial harm are credible. Both rely on mistaken,
unsubstantiated and, in the case of HE, new allegations to this high level of harm. The
positions taken by the City and the Appellant are more proportionate and in line with
the NPPF.
The issue of cumulative harm
6.105 The approach taken to cumulative harm by the Mayor and HE was elusive. That is
because they recognised the truth of the proposition that the juxtaposition of the
growing cluster of tall buildings AND its consequent impacts were seen in principle as
benefits by the planning system. Eventually, HE revealed that its position was that in
views to the south, the WHS was vulnerable to further impact and that in the inner
ward there was risk of cumulative harm.
6.106 The approach to be taken to cumulative harm to heritage assets and WHSs in London
taken in Citroen is correct. That is, to make the assessment of the impact of the
proposal on relevant assets and their existing settings first, then that existing harmful
buildings should not be used as justifications for further harm, and finally a
consideration of whether there is any additional harm from accumulation, especially
with other harmful buildings. Regarding vulnerability of views from the south, that can
be dealt with entirely by the statutory assessment. The relationship between the
Cluster and the WHS is accepted in principle to be beneficial and in fact none of the
cluster buildings individually has been found by the planning system to cause any
such harm.
381 Miele Proof CD 13-7 at 8.18-19 and 18.9 at Tavernor proof CD 13-15 at 5.23
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
6.107 Further, that the SOUV indicates that tall buildings to the east of the City have caused
erosion to the OUV of the WHS cannot be relied on as part of a cumulative harm case.
That cannot and does not indicate buildings in the Cluster. First, WHC were actively
and vigorously promoting the Cluster at the time. It was seen as a good for the WHS.
Second, the only cluster buildings then were the Gherkin, Heron and T42. They are
not identified as causing harm and were the beginnings of the suggested Cluster. The
tall buildings referred to in the MP are One America Square and the Leonardo Hotel to
the East of the City and hugely conspicuous within the four turrets of the White
Tower. The only other hints of any harm from tall buildings in the MP relate to non-
cluster buildings.
6.108 From the Inner Ward, the planning system has not identified any harm in principle
from the Cluster. Indeed, it has almost always been identified as positive in heritage
terms including to the inner ward and St Peter ad Vincula.
6.109 HE identified three buildings which it thought caused harm382 both to views of the
Inner Ward and to the setting of St Peter ad Vincula: Heron Plaza, the Scalpel, and
unfinished 50 Fenchurch Street. However, the planning system has NOT found harm
from these buildings, but rather benefit, and one of them has not even been built. The
SoS should only find a harmful impact from these buildings if there is clear and
convincing evidence that the planning system is incorrect. There is no such evidence
and no analysis or evidence to suggest that the Mayor has altered his position, or any
development plan or other relevant document identifying existing detractors383.
6.110 The SoS cannot and should not find that the planned Cluster buildings cause harm
where the development plan and individual decisions have overwhelmingly found
benefit. The proper question is: does the proposal cause harm to significance of any
asset by reason of its impact on its existing Cluster setting? For the above reasons,
including the careful evidence of the City, it would not. Even if the SoS found existing
harm from the planned Cluster, any additional impact, given the visibility, scope size
and presence of the Cluster would only be limited.
The spectre of Danger Listing
6.111 The threat of Danger status being imposed was raised and it was said that the body
that makes that decision is threatening it here. That was wrong. The true position is
no such threat384.
382 Mr English
383 This is not a Haverfield Towers case where the development plan, the management plan and other documents
specifically identified specific buildings as detractors – see Citroen CD 9-4
384 The key points are:
a. ICOMOS, not the executive body, has objected to almost all of the tall buildings near WHS sites over the last
20 years. This includes Heron and the Gherkin. It has objected here too [CD11.18].
b. Recent objections are based on the ICOMOS guidance note (reflected in the Mayoral SPG) which does not allow
for design quality to be taken into account and pre-dates Bedford (accepted by Dr B-M in XX RHQC; also
accepted by HE in Holocaust Inquiry). Its matrix doesn’t work in an NPPF framework of harm. Design quality
wasn’t taken into account in this case either: though it was said to be very high.
c. The WHC did warn the UK government about in danger status back in 2012 because it did not have a MP, hadn’t
protected the iconic view and did not have a buffer (see Mr English Appendix 2, Tab 35).
d. The UK government, HRP, HE and all other stakeholders take the view that the WHC concerns have been met by
the existing policy matrix and protection. So does the WHC and it doesn’t press for a buffer given the contents of
the Settings Guidance note (accepted Mr English XX RHQC).
e. The WHC has not even considered it necessary to consider the WHS at all since 2012, and it is NOT saying that it
is at threat (again accepted Mr English XX RHQC).
Which is why Dr Barker-Mills was so guarded in his response to you.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Other heritage assets
6.112 The main points on other heritage assets raised in evidence are addressed in detailed
responses in the table in Annex 4385. The approach that we have adopted to the
impact of a tall building at the heart of the Cluster reflects that of the SoS, the
Inspectorate and the City for decades. It reflects the fact that the City and the Cluster
in particular necessarily presents juxtaposition between new (and tall) buildings and
heritage assets. There would be no harm to any of these assets; there would be an
improvement to Holland House, as a result of improving the experience of the public
realm and opening up more views from the west; to Bury Court386, by removing the
existing barrier and underground car park and opening up the courtyard to a new
publicly accessible building; and to Dixon House387 from an enhanced distant view.
6.113 While other cities in the UK have juxtapositions within them, nothing comes close to
the nature, scale and number found in the City. Those juxtapositions are recognised
as an essential part of its character and an existing element of the cityscape. National
policy must be applied with this context in mind. There can be no in principle harm
occasioned from mere juxtaposition: indeed, there is a major and planned benefit.
Eight: On any realistic view of the nature and extent of harm in this case, the public
benefits significantly outweigh any harm. Planning permission should be granted.
6.114 The public benefits of the proposal are self-evident, weighty, and largely agreed in
nature and quantum. They go to the heart of how the City seeks to see itself in spatial
terms, and in defining its function.
6.115 First, the proposals deliver very substantial economic benefits. From a small windfall
site, over a million visitors would be drawn to the City, bringing direct and indirect
expenditure to a component of the capital’s GDP which is under threat. These benefits
must weigh heavily. That the Mayor gives these benefits limited weight goes to the
credibility of his case. At no other planning appeal would the Mayor seek to reject a
contribution of over £30m per year of value added from construction and operation
alone.
6.116 Second, further economic benefits would be derived from the diversification of the
City that will be caused directly and further stimulated by the Tulip. New places for
the existing working population to enjoy, but also a draw for new visitors to come to
the City.
6.117 Third, there would be profound social benefits. The proposals would contribute to the
rich mix that defines central London, and then projects an image of openness and
inclusivity. And through the education and community provision, the Tulip will speak
directly to London’s children, drawing them into the City. Such a benefit is hard to
measure but must weigh heavily in any planning balance. The Mayor does not
challenge the scale of the educational and economic benefits. He calls no expert
evidence on them. His evidential silence discloses its hollowness. Worse still, the
Mayor fails to recognise that the benefits of this proposal chime directly with his
planning and wider policies: a point which weighs heavily in favour of the proposal.
6.118 Fourth, this proposal delivers a piece of world class architecture. That is a direct
environmental benefit in itself. It is a building of the highest level of sustainability;
taking up the smallest portion of previously developed land; greening and enlivening
that parcel of land; building upwards honestly and with the smallest carbon footprint
385 To Appellant’s closing CD19B-45
386 38 St Mary Axe CD19B-28 Heritage SoCG p4 para 2.7
387 At 72-5 Fenchurch Street/1 Lloyds Avenue
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
possible; and delivering a building which through its lifetime will perform, by its
BREEAM assessment, in an Outstanding way environmentally. This is all delivered in
the heart of the City. It is the definition of sustainable development. The architecture
is far more than sustainable design. It is beautiful in its own right, carefully conceived
and would be brilliantly executed. It would create a symbol: of openness, inclusion
and confidence in the City. The uses that this symbol contains bring economic,
educational and community benefits that range beyond their direct functional impacts.
6.119 Fifth, the proposal will enhance the townscape including from LVMF View 25.A. That
would be a benefit to London’s townscape and a benefit in heritage terms, capable of
outweighing such harm as is found to exist in View 10.A. Even if the Inspector finds
that the Tulip would not bring about benefits in that view, the preservation of that
iconic townscape view is a benefit of the proposal. On any realistic view of the
potential for harm, such benefits comprehensively and overwhelmingly prevail.
6.120 The Mayor’s balancing exercise is fundamentally wrong and was exposed as a
personal view that the Eastern Cluster is harmful. But the difficulty is that he does not
identify any existing or consented harm. The growth of the Cluster has the approval of
his existing and emerging plan and so the personal opinion leads to too much weight
to the harm side of the scales; his disparaging approach to the benefits
disproportionately lightens the other side of the scales. His planning balance is
fundamentally unreliable.
6.121 On the s 38(6) test, the proposed uses are not just consistent with but actively
supported by relevant policies. The principle of a tall building is acceptable. There are
no other development control objections. The only issue which arises is whether the
proposal accords with the development plan by virtue of the limited harm identified to
the Tower.
6.122 For the above reasons, that limited harm is decisively outweighed under NPPF
paragraph 196 in discharging the heritage statutory duties. Once this has been
resolved in favour of the public benefits, there is no realistic way in which a decision
should frustrate that conclusion. There are three possible conclusions, all of which
lead to a grant of permission.
6.123 First, that benefit to the setting of the Tower in View 25 would outweigh the limited
harm to View 10, complying with the heritage policies of the development plan388.
6.124 Second, even if the heritage policies are breached, the proposal accords with the
development as a whole because the breach is minor (at the lower end of less than
substantial harm) and because everything else in the development plan points firmly
towards a grant389.
6.125 Third, even if a breach of heritage policies is found and given such importance that
the proposals do not accord with the development plan taken as a whole, then the
positive resolution of the paragraph 196 balance, and the public benefits of the
scheme, strongly and convincingly point towards a grant other than in accordance
with the Plan390.
6.126 By contrast, there is no credible route to refusal.
388 See Palmer CD 10-10 and Safe Rottingdean CD 10-13 in Annex 3
389 See Goddard Proof [CD 13-4], Part 7, not repeated in full here but the list is very long
390 i.e., Mrs Hampson’s and the City’s analysis
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7 The case for the City of London as Local Planning Authority (LPA)
Its closing submissions, with minor adjustments, are as follows.
A. INTRODUCTION
7.1 Over the centuries the City of London has made a major contribution to national life, as
an economic powerhouse and as a centre of excellence in culture and heritage. The City
has been able to make and continues to make such a significant contribution because it
faces new challenges and opportunities with confidence, flexibility and forward thinking.
7.2 Over the last twenty years or so the City has acted as the guiding hand in the
development of a Cluster of tall buildings at the forefront of architectural design which
has created a dramatic and iconic symbol of London in the 21st century whilst delivering
the floorspace necessary to maintain London as a World Financial and Business Centre.
At the same time the City has conserved its cultural heritage and made it more
accessible to a greater number of people.
7.3 The City is developing its cultural offer and seeks to make better use of the wide range
of facilities available. To this end it is seeking to grow and develop a range of uses
which encourage a diverse range of people to make use of the City, particularly at
weekends and in evenings.
7.4 The City, with its combination of tradition and forward thinking has an excellent track
record of seizing on good opportunities when they arise. Although the site for the
Gherkin was created in tragic circumstances, after reflection, the City was able to seize
the opportunity presented and to permit the Gherkin - now an acknowledged
architectural masterpiece and icon for all London. Then, the City’s approach was
supported by English Heritage (as was). That was a bold move; the Gherkin’s success
has shown it to have been the right one.
7.5 The City391 wishes to work with the Mayor to improve the quality of the environment
and opportunities for all Londoners. The Mayor and the City have shared a common
purpose in promoting the Cluster as a centre for business, supporting facilities and for
architectural excellence. The development of the Cluster has enabled significant growth
in office floorspace in a location which is highly accessible by public transport, whilst
protecting strategic views and heritage assets. The Eastern Cluster area was identified
with great care to ensure that LVMF strategic views, St Paul’s Heights, views of the
Monument and the settings of heritage assets were respected392.
7.6 In this case the City and the Mayor take different views on the application. As a result,
the decision now falls to the SoS. The City requests that the SoS should pay particular
attention to its views as local planning authority when considering the balancing
exercise which is to be undertaken in this case.
7.7 The City’s position in this case is different from the other parties. Unlike the Appellant,
the City is not promoting a scheme with all the financial risk that brings. Unlike the
Mayor the City is not defending reasons for refusal. Unlike HE, the City is not focussed
on one issue. Once the Mayor had intervened the City could have bowed out and left it
to other parties to fight their respective corners. The City decided to participate in the
Inquiry so that the SoS would have the benefit of its considered view.
7.8 The City is in a position to make, and has made, a balanced judgement as to what is
right in the public interest. It has taken great care in reaching that judgement, as is
391 As Mrs Hampson said in evidence
392 See City Local Plan Figure L (Protected views) CD 19H-3 page 117
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
reflected in the Chief Planning Officer’s report393. The City did not diminish the
importance of heritage impacts - it gave great weight to them. Through its evidence394,
it has carried out the most thorough analysis before the Inquiry, shared the
unparalleled experience of considering planning applications in the Cluster and wider
City, and carried out the balancing exercise. The attribution of weight to each factor is
careful and measured. With those thoughts in mind, the submissions that follow should
assist you and the SoS in deciding whether a new and exciting stage in the
development of the City of London should be allowed to proceed.
7.9 The pre-Inquiry directions identified seven main issues. We adopt those as headings
for these submissions but, following withdrawal of two reasons for refusal and the
focus of discussion at the Inquiry, the central disputes that fall to be determined in
this case are:
a. The extent of harm to the significance of the ToL as a heritage asset (comprising
the WHS, conservation area, scheduled monument and LBs);
b. Whether harm would be caused to the significance of other LBs, conservation
areas or non-designated heritage assets;
c. Whether the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the less than substantial
harm to the significance of designated heritage assets;
d. Whether the planning balance comes down in favour of the scheme.
7.10 We come back to these issues at the end of these submissions.
B. CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
The effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area with
regard to urban design, townscape and architectural quality
7.11 As the Mayor points out, the appeal site lies at the heart of the Eastern Cluster395. It
is in a location which has been identified as being appropriate for tall buildings as part
of an emerging Cluster. The Cluster has been curated by the City as a collection of
dynamic, sometimes contrasting, and interesting buildings. The fact that the Cluster
is now often used in images of London is a tribute to how effective that curation has
been. Given the role played by the City’s planning department in creating the Cluster,
their views on the current proposal should command respect396.
7.12 The Tulip has been designed as a visitor attraction within a tall building Cluster. In
that respect it is different to many examples of elevated viewing platform visitor
attractions elsewhere in the world. To achieve its purpose, it has to be eye-catching
and yet be seen as part of, and enhancing, the Cluster. The Tulip achieves those
objectives by adopting a form for the top which has a close relationship with The
Gherkin, using fluted concrete for the stem, and touching the ground with a structure
which responds to the curve of the Gherkin. To state the obvious, The Tulip is not an
office building, and does not adopt the same materials or form as adjacent office
developments. The use of concrete reflects construction and function whilst
expressing an organic elegance397. The concrete can be maintained as explained by
the Appellant398.
393 to the Planning and Transportation Committee CD3-4
394 Of Mr Richards and Mrs Hampson
395 Adams PoE 5.5.1, CD15-3
396 in particular Mr Richards’ view that the proposal would enhance the cluster
397 Richards PoE 7.9: CD14-4
398 See note produced on 18th December 2020
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.13 The buttresses and glazed vaults at the base address the curve of the Gherkin. The
glazing would provide visual vibrancy at ground level. The stem, comprised of three
smooth ribs and the fluted recessed strakes, has a strong and dynamic vertical
emphasis399. The asymmetrical nature of the top or flower held in place by the
spoons adds interest to400 the quality of the architecture. The delicate glass gondolas
add another layer of interest.
7.14 In making their attack on the design, the Mayor relies on evidence401 which takes a
different view from his own on the issue of whether the juxtaposition of the Cluster
and the Tower is positive, and on evidence402 of someone who has no experience of
working in the unique townscape403 environment of the City of London. In contrast,
the design has been drawn up by those who have great experience and
understanding of the City and the Cluster and by the same hand (or team of hands)
as the Gherkin which has been the subject of so much praise404. The design evolved
in discussion with the City’s equally experienced design team in a way which is
consistent with NLP policy D4D405, which contemplates either design review or a local
borough process of design review.
7.15 It is acknowledged that the quality of presentation has been exemplary with a high
resolution of detail406. Much of the criticism of the design rests, in large part, on the
argument that the Tulip fails, appropriately, to respond to context. These criticism
and conclusions are based on a failure to appreciate the nature of the scheme, which
to achieve its purpose, must be seen as part of the Cluster, and yet be different and
distinctive from the office buildings. To take an example407 the relationship with the
area to the east of the City would be uncomfortable as a result of the Tulip appearing
to be an observation tower.408 The Tulip is a visitor attraction providing elevated
views and would appear as such – that is not a legitimate criticism of the design. It
would be a beacon welcoming people to the City.
7.16 Much Inquiry time has been spent on considering impact on public realm and
examining the relevant policies and strategies. Those policies must be applied to the
facts and judgements reached - in undertaking that process it is essential that you
have a good understanding of the existing environment, and of the proposals.
Whatever view is formed of the existing plaza, it is rather bleak, and the ramp giving
access to the underground parking and servicing (and the walls associated with it) is
a significant detracting feature.
7.17 As recognised in the City’s OR on the Gherkin planning application the proposed
square around the tower would have little or no visual cohesion in contrast with the
circular tower409 - the round peg in a square hole point. The arrangement also led to
the loss of definition of the building line on St Mary Axe410, and the exposure of the
south side of Bury Court411. The proposal addresses a number of those deficiencies in
the existing arrangements. The pavilion would provide definition on St Mary Axe and
in Bury Court whilst providing a curved response to the Gherkin. A similar
399 Richards PoE 7.10: CD14-4
400 Tavernor XX by Inspector
401 of Mr Green
402 of Ms Adams
403 CD19H-2 (Local Plan) paragraph 3.12.1
404 See CD19B-23 for list of awards
405 CD19D-27 page 123 (pdf page 137)
406 Adams – to IQs
407 Adams PoE 5.6.9 CD15-3
408 Echoing an observation made by the London Review Panel – CD4-2 page 4
409 CD11-84 paragraph 10.24
410 CD11-84 paragraph 10.25
411 CD11-84 10.50
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
relationship has been achieved at the foot of Tower 42 and is worth visiting to
appreciate. In recognition of the benefits the scheme would deliver it is included in
the City Cluster Vision412 as one of the examples of enhanced public realm.
7.18 The Mayor sought to make much of the fact that there would be a loss of some 88m2
of public realm at ground level. It is the totality of the proposal which must be
considered and 529m2 would be gained in the roof garden413. The Mayor’s own
policies contemplate that public realm may be provided at an elevated level and yet
the Mayor does not appear to give credit for it in this case. Although a great deal of
time was spent considering public realm, unfortunately414 the evidence was
incomplete. Not only did it fail to take account of the benefits arising from removal of
the existing ramp and associated walls, but also failed to take account of the benefits
arising from restoration of the street frontage in St Mary Axe. In the circumstances
the conclusions that she reached cannot be relied upon.
7.19 The Mayor sought to seize on the comments made by the City’s Public Realm Group
Manager in a consultation response submitted in February 2019415. It is right to say
that the response contains criticisms of the scheme, but it is important to understand
the basis for those criticisms and to appreciate that they were based on lack of
information or lack of clarity, and that those deficiencies have now been addressed.
a. The concern about capacity416 and lack of visitor management strategy417 has
been addressed by the production of such a strategy which deals with capacity
management418.
b. The concerns about pedestrian movement419 have been addressed by the visitor
management strategy and reason for refusal 5 has been withdrawn.
c. Clarity has now been provided on provision for public access to the roof garden.
The system set out in the Section 106 agreement would ensure good access and
proper management and a high quality environment420.
d. The routes would not be restricted to 3m width421.
e. A greater quantity of public seating would be provided than exists at present422.
f. The concern about clutter423 in the public realm is addressed by the Section 106
agreement which allows for approval of areas for tables and chairs to serve the
café and restaurant424.
g. There would be no coach drop off425.
7.20 The Tulip, with its familial relationship with the Gherkin, and set within the existing
and evolving Cluster of distinctive towers would reinforce the character and legibility
of the City Cluster as a distinct neighbourhood, and would enhance the appearance of
the Cluster on the skyline. The Tulip would be part of the Cluster and yet sufficiently
412 CD8-7 page 9
413 SoCG paragraph 4.6: CD19B-7
414 As Ms Adams accepted in XX by RHQC
415 CD11-52
416 Paragraph 1 of CD11-52
417 CD11-52 paragraph 3
418 Section 106 agreement Schedule 9: CD19B-24
419 CD11-52 paragraphs 2-4
420 CD19B-24 Schedule 8
421 As suggested in paragraph 6 of CD11-52
422 CD11-52 paragraph 10 expresses the concern. At present there is 210.5m of seating in the plaza. The development
will result in a combined total of 246m of bench seating in the plaza and roof garden combined – CD19B-7 para 4.8
423 CD11-52 paragraph 10
424 CD19B-24 Schedule 2 paragraph 13.3
425 CD11-52 paragraph 9. Section 106 Agreement Schedule 2 paragraph 15.6
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
distinctive in its design to signal a new phase in the development of the City, bringing
in visitors and creating a new icon for the 21st century. The Tulip would be a potent
expression of London’s creative energy, constant change, architectural innovation,
dynamism, and openness to new ideas426.
HERITAGE
The effect of the proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets
derived from their settings
7.21 In order to come to a conclusion on this main issue it is necessary to:
a. Consider the approach to be taken when assessing the extent of harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset when applying the policy set out in
paragraph NPPF§196.
b. Consider the approach to be taken when assessing impact on the significance of a
world heritage site.
c. Assess the extent of harm to the significance of the ToL WHS.
d. Consider whether harm would be caused to the significance of other heritage
assets (i.e. heritage assets other than the ToL).
Issues (a) and (b) are addressed in the Appendix to these submissions.
The extent of the harm to the significance of the ToL
7.22 All parties are agreed that harm to the significance of the WHS would be caused as a
result of impact arising in the view from the North Bastion of Tower Bridge (LVMF
View 10A).
7.23 The main matters in dispute relate to:
a. Whether the proposal would cause harm to significance of the WHS and associated
LBs and to the ToL CA as a result of impact arising in views other than LVMF View
10A, in particular, the Inner Ward, The Queen’s Walk (LVMF View 25A), and
locations on Tower Bridge.
b. The extent of the harm to the significance of the WHS, and where it lies on the
range of less than substantial harm.
7.24 Before addressing those essential questions, there are preliminary issues.
Preliminary Issues
The Mayor’s Position
7.25 When considering the Mayor’s case on these issues it must be borne in mind that,
when considering previous planning applications for tall buildings in the City Cluster,
he has consistently expressed the view that the juxtaposition between the Tower and
the City Cluster is a key characteristic of the views from The Queen’s Walk and Tower
Bridge, and a relationship that may be seen as positive427. Although the Mayor’s
426 Richards Poe 7.48: CD14-4
427 See for example GLA Stage 1 Report on 1, Undershaft CD11-54 paragraph 40. GLA Stage 1 Report on 100,
Leadenhall Street CD11-55 paragraph 40
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
witness428 disagrees with that view, it has been confirmed that it remains the view of
the Mayor that the relationship between the Cluster and the Tower is positive429.
HE’s Position
7.26 HE, when responding to recent applications for tall buildings in the Cluster, such as 6-
8 Bishopsgate430, and 1 Undershaft431 have stated that they have no in principle
objection to tall buildings in the Cluster and have expressed no objection on the basis
of impact on the significance of the ToL WHS.
The Position of ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee
7.27 The ICOMOS mission report of 2007 considered whether the ToL would meet the
criteria for Danger Listing, and concluded that it would if, either statutory protection
for the iconic view from the South Bank towards the Tower was not established, or a
management plan had not been finalised432. Both those steps were taken, in the form
of the LVMF433 and associated London Plan policy, and the Management Plan434. Since
those steps were taken there has been no indication that the Tower has been
considered by the WHC for Danger Listing.
3D Modelling
7.28 During the course of the Inquiry reference has been made to the evolving 3D
modelling work carried out by the City. The Mayor’s witnesses sought to contend that
the 3D modelling was a critical requirement of the plan-led approach set out in policy
7.7 (as was) of the London Plan435. The 3D modelling is a useful tool which can
inform plan making and decision-taking, but its output does not form part of, or set,
a policy requirement, in either the development plan or emerging development plan.
Inconsistency with a modelled aspiration does not constitute inconsistency or non-
compliance with the development plan or any other planning policy or emerging
planning policy.
7.29 Evidence in chief436 explained that:
a. HE’s draft Advice Note 4437 gives 3D modelling as an example of a type of
evidence that could be used to support plan-making. The City has used 3D
modelling for that purpose, namely as evidence for plan-making.
b. The report to the City’s Planning and Transportation Committee in April 2016
states that 3D modelling work is not intended to make new policy but provides
insights upon the effect of current planning policy and to inform future policy
review438.
c. When making representations on the draft London Plan the City explained to the
Mayor that 3D modelling is used to inform local plan development proposals and
to assess development proposals439.
428 Mr Green
429 The position of the Mayor was confirmed by H Philpott QC on 3rd December 2020
430 CD11-66 page 1047 (1049 in the pdf)
431 CD11-66 page 809 (811 in the pdf)
432 CD1-5 Appendix B2/35 page 69
433 CD8-14
434 CD8-23
435 Green PoE 9.16 CD15-8, Adams PoE 5.5.4 CD15-3
436 Mr Richards
437 CD8-32 paragraph 3.3. Tall Buildings Historic England Advice Note 4 Second Edition: CONSULTATION DRAFT
438 CD19E-4 Summary and paragraph 2
439 CD7-8 paragraph 6(a)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.30 As was made plain in evidence440, the evolving 3D modelling is used as a tool. The
model and its outputs do not form part of the development plan and inconsistency
with any particular form arrived at by a particular run of a model (the jelly mould)
does not constitute or indicate a breach of planning policy. As Mr Richards explained
such inconsistency acts as an amber light.
7.31 The suggestion that a breach of a modelled aspiration is inconsistent with the plan led
approach is unfounded.
a. The plan led approach for tall buildings is set out in NLP Policy D9B441.
b. Policy D9B sets out how to achieve the plan-led approach, namely Boroughs
should determine if there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate
form of development, subject to meeting the other requirements of the Plan.
c. The City (in local plan policy CS14442) has identified which areas are appropriate
and which parts of its area fall into the three categories. The Eastern Cluster, in
which the application site lies, falls into the first category, where tall buildings on
suitable sites are to be permitted.
7.32 The plan-led system relates to areas not three dimensional forms. The appeal site lies
in the heart443 of the area identified as being suitable for tall buildings, the Eastern
Cluster. The proposal is entirely consistent with the plan-led approach contemplated
by NLP policy D9B444.
7.33 The use of the modelling in this case demonstrates the amber light point made by Mr
Richards. The City used the 3D modelling as a tool. The use of that tool indicated an
inconsistency with the aspirational future shape of the Cluster445. That indication drew
attention to the need for a detailed analysis of the effects of the proposed
development. That detailed analysis led to the conclusion that (unlike in other recent
applications for tall buildings in the Cluster) The Tulip would result in harm to the
significance of the WHS. As a result, the public benefits of the proposal were weighed
against that harm. That approach shows how the model is used as a tool. That use of
the tool sets no adverse precedent446, it assists in ensuring that relevant policy is
applied, and where appropriate a balancing exercise is undertaken. The outcome of
any balancing exercise which is carried out depends on the particular facts of any
given case and can set no precedent which would bind those undertaking such
exercises in the future.
The City’s consideration of the extent of harm at the application stage
7.34 At the application stage the City’s officers advised members that the extent of harm
was at the upper limits of less than substantial harm447. As explained in opening, that
assessment has been reviewed and the conclusion reached that the less than
substantial harm to the significance of the ToL WHS should properly be categorised
as falling at the lower end of the spectrum448.
440 by Mr Richards
441 CD19D-27 policy D9B on page 149 (160 in pdf), and paragraph 3.9.2 (on page 153, page 164 in pdf). Directions
made on 10th December 2020 CD19D-20
442 CD19H-3 page 120
443 Adams PoE 5.5.1 CD15-3
444 The reference in the supporting text to policy D9 (at paragraph 3.9.5) indicates that the Mayor will use 3D modelling
to (inter alia) assess tall building proposals. The supporting text does not set out a requirement that a scheme should
comply with any particular model.
445 OR paragraph 91, CD3-4
446 As suggested at paragraph 39 of the GLA closing
447 CD3-4 paragraph 122
448 CD19C-1 paragraphs 23-26 inclusive and by Mr Richards in evidence
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.35 The evidence449 explained that the OR had placed reliance upon the matrix contained
in the ICOMOS guidance450. That guidance makes plain that the matrix is an aid451,
and that proposals should be tested against existing policy frameworks and the
management plan452. The written and oral evidence tested the proposals against
existing policy frameworks and the management plan. The approach is neither
mathematical nor mechanical. A thorough assessment has been undertaken of the
effect of the proposals on the attributes that convey OUV, on the components of each
attribute, on integrity and authenticity, and assessed overall impact on significance.
The approach follows the recommendations in the ICOMOS guidance. The assessment
is more thorough and more complete than that undertaken by any other expert at
this Inquiry and should be both commended and relied upon.
Taking account of change in settings over time
7.36 HE’s guidance on settings includes a recognition that these change over time453. The
relationship between the Tower and its setting is an example par excellence of such
change over time. The architects of the White Tower and the military fortifications are
unlikely even to have dreamed of the tall buildings of the Cluster. The changes have
been substantial and spectacular. The City has seen dramatic change over the
centuries, and especially over the last twenty years or so. That dramatic change is
seen in the Cluster and its relationship with the Tower. That relationship is best
appreciated in the views from the South Bank. The view was not available to the
public in the early 20th century as warehouses lined the wharf454. It is now described
in the management plan as the most iconic view455, an indication that the
juxtaposition between the modern business City and the Tower is seen as positive.
The approach to be taken when considering a multiplicity of designations
7.37 The approach to the multiplicity of designations relating to the ToL when making a
decision on the application should be456:
a. it was not necessary to consider the scheduled monument separately;
b. the CA appraisal did not provide any additional information;
c. it was necessary to consider the LBs, e.g. the Waterloo Block.
7.38 The City457 takes a similar approach. It has assessed impact on the OUV of the WHS,
considered the local setting study, and then considered impact on the significance of
individual LBs.
Cumulative impact
7.39 HE’s Advice Note 4 gives specific advice on assessment of cumulative impacts. The
impact of the proposal in the existing setting must first be considered; this would
include any effects arising as a result of the relationship between existing and
proposed, and the combined effects of existing and proposed458. Cumulative effects of
the proposal and consented, but unbuilt, schemes must also be considered.
449 Of Mr Richards
450 CD8-13 pages 9-10 (pp 15-16 in the pdf)
451 CD8-13 paragraph 5-10
452 CD8-13 paragraph 5-11
453 CD8-4 page 4
454 English PoE footnote 127 on page 43: CD16-3
455 CD8-23 paragraph 7.3.22
456 Dr Barker-Mills to IQs
457 Through Mr Richards
458 CD8-6 paragraph 4.6
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.40 As pointed out in the Citroen decision, existing harm should never be used to justify
additional harm459. However, in this case, absent some wholly new assessment, the
existing Cluster cannot be considered to cause harm. The Cluster has not been
identified in any development plan or other policy document as causing harm. Indeed,
the buildings consented over the last twenty years or so have (in almost all cases)
been granted planning permission on the basis that they would cause no harm to the
significance of heritage assets and that the juxtaposition between new and old is
positive. In this case the cumulative impact with existing and consented buildings in
the Cluster results in enhancement to the appearance of the Cluster460.
Impact on View 10A
7.41 A distinction must be drawn between proposals which breach the skyline behind the
four towers of the White Tower and those which do not. That is a distinction
considered by the Mayor in their response to the Heron Plaza application461 and is also
made in the LVMF462. The Tulip does not breach the skyline behind the White Tower.
Although visual separation is reduced, it is maintained. As a result, the extent of harm
does not lie anywhere near the top of the range.
Impact on other views from Tower Bridge
7.42 The City Cluster appears in the backdrop of the Tower as the viewer walks across the
bridge, but does not do so in a way which diminishes the appreciation of the Tower or
its OUV463. The Tulip would contribute to the diversity of forms and shapes in the
Cluster and be read as part of it, and as such, would not cause harm to the ability to
appreciate OUV or otherwise cause harm to significance.
Whether harm to the WHS would be caused as a result of impact in views from the ToL
7.43 The modern city is very apparent in views from within the Tower. When responding to
previous applications the Mayor has taken the view that the ability to see buildings
from the Inner Ward as part of the Cluster does not diminish the viewer’s ability to
appreciate OUV464. In relation to St Peter ad Vincula, the Mayor has taken the view
that seeing buildings over the parapet as a distant and secondary component of the
view does not diminish ability to appreciate OUV465. Similarly, HE did not raise an
objection to 1 Undershaft466 proposal. When responding to the 100 Leadenhall Street
application, HE said that they considered that OUV would be marginally affected467.
7.44 The view taken for the City468 is consistent with the approach taken by both the Mayor
and HE in relation to previous applications. From the Inner Ward the visual impact
would be minor and that such minor distraction would not in any material way
undermine the viewer’s appreciation of the living tradition of the Tower469. The sense
of history dominates in the Inner Ward. The fact that the viewer is aware of the
modern city beyond, does not undermine appreciation of that history and the rich
459 CD9-4 IR 15.29
460 Richards PoE 7.95: CD14-4
461 CD11-66 page 337 (pdf page 339) paragraph 47 of the GLA Stage 1 Report and in
462 CD8-14 paragraph 186
463 Richards PoE 9.207: CD14-4
464 CD11-54 Stage 1 Report on 1, Undershaft paragraph 39, CD11-55 Stage 1 Report on 100, Leadenhall Street
paragraph 39
465 CD11-54 Stage 1 Report on 1, Undershaft paragraph 39
466 CD11-66 page 809 (811 in pdf) this letter states that impact on views from the Inner Ward had not been considered.
In the letter dated 17th February 2016 (CD11-66 page 816 (818 in pdf)) by which time images were available no further
point is taken
467 CD11-66 page 1241 (1243 in the pdf)
468 by Mr Richards
469 Richards PoE 9.235: CD14-4
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
urban grain of historic masonry470. As a result, no harm to significance would be
caused and this analysis should be adopted.
Whether harm to the WHS would be caused as a result of impact in views from The
Queen’s Walk
7.45 In September 2018, when HE’s London Advisory Committee considered the application
and raised an objection, they did not do so on the ground that adverse impact would
arise in View 25A471. HE submitted a consultation response in December 2018 – again
they did not raise an objection based on impact in View 25A472. Similarly, when the
Chief Executive of HE took the unusual step of appearing at the meeting of the City’s
Planning and Transportation Committee when they considered the Tulip planning
application, he did not raise a concern relating to View 25A473.
7.46 In the iconic view from the South Bank the attributes and components of OUV would be
left intact and undiminished474. The Tulip would be sited a generous distance away
from the Tower. The protected silhouette and protected vista are unaffected. The Tulip
would be seen as part of, and would add interest to, the Cluster of tall buildings. The
Tower would remain centre stage and continue to dominate its immediate
surroundings as it does at present.
The extent of the less than substantial harm to the significance of the WHS
7.47 The proponents’ witnesses475 all place the extent of harm at the lower end of the
spectrum of less than substantial harm. HE puts the harm at between moderate and
the upper end of the range476. The Mayor477 places the harm to the significance of the
WHS at the upper end of less than substantial478. Those assessments are based upon a
consideration of the impacts globally479. Both objecting parties consider that harm
would be caused to significance as a result of impact in views from The Queen’s Walk
and from within the Tower (in particular The Inner Ward) and in the case of HE, from
Tower Wharf480.
7.48 It may be thought that the differences between the opposing witnesses can be
explained by the fact that the Mayor and HE consider that harm to the significance of
the Tower arises as a result of impact in views from a number of different viewpoints
in which different aspects of the attributes of OUV are affected. A significant difference
between the parties arises in relation to the effect on significance arising as a result of
impact in the view from The Queen’s Walk. This is the view which ICOMOS481 describes
as iconic482, and the Management Plan as the most iconic view483. If the City’s
evidence and submissions are accepted, that no harm to significance arises as a result
of impact in the view from The Queen’s Walk, the conclusions reached by the Mayor
and HE cannot be upheld as to the extent of harm arrived at in their global
assessment, as a significant contributor to the extent of harm would have to be
omitted.
470 See Richards PoE 9.245: CD14-4
471 CD5-3
472 CD5-4
473 English XX
474 Richards PoE 8.350 CD14-4
475 Mr Richards, Professor Tavernor and Dr Miele
476 English XX 4th December 2020
477 Through Dr Barker-Mills
478 Barker-Mills PoE 9.41: CD 15-5
479 English PoE paragraph 7.78: CD16-3
480 English PoE paragraphs 7.37, 7.43, 7.54. CD16-3
481 CD16-5 Appendix B/35 page 68
482 CD8-23 paragraph 3.4.3, 4th bullet point, and 7.3.22
483 CD8-23 paragraph 7.3.22
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.49 Another explanation for a difference in conclusion between the opposing witnesses
would be a difference in the approach to the assessment. As an example, the City484
follows the ICOMOS Guidance and assesses impact on each attribute which conveys
OUV and on the components which contribute to each attribute, and on integrity and
authenticity. In contrast the Mayor by-passes these and considers a basket of selected
components relating to different attributes, as opposed to considering an attribute and
the components which contribute to it. When asked why485, it was said that a
reference to a document to support his position would be provided – none has been
forthcoming486. It is important to consider each attribute in turn in a systematic way
as the WHSMP sets out the way in which each attribute is expressed. For example,
when an attribute is expressed in location and setting it is so stated in the WHSMP. As
might be expected, the attributes landmark siting487 and physical dominance488 are
expressed in location and setting, whereas other attributes are not so expressed.
7.50 If a different view is taken on impact in a particular view, for example on the view
from The Queen’s Walk, the assessment of extent of harm to the significance of the
WHS would change. It cannot be said the harm caused by the presence of The Tulip in
views from Tower Bridge is approaching substantial. Although three attributes which
convey OUV would be adversely affected489, the internationally famous monument
would still be seen as separate from the Cluster, its landmark siting appreciated and
enjoyed, and physical dominance maintained (if diminished in one view). Those effects
do not destroy or very much reduce significance, or drain it way. Far from it.
7.51 Even if it was concluded that there was some additional adverse impact arising in
views from within the ToL, from Tower Wharf, or when viewed on a walk across Tower
Bridge, any harm to significance could not begin to be said to very much reduce or
vitiate significance. Any harm is far away from being substantial. Any assessment
must place the extent of harm at the lower end of the spectrum of less than
substantial harm.
Other heritage assets
7.52 The City relies upon careful analysis of the impact on setting and significance of all the
relevant LBs, conservation areas, and non-designated heritage assets490. The
juxtaposition between old and new has long been recognised as a characteristic of the
City and is embedded in the approach taken in the Local Plan. That relationship has
been recognised as one of the City’s strengths by inspectors and the SoS491. As noted
by the Inspector at 20 Fenchurch Street, English Heritage generally shared that view.
HE confirmed that continued to be its view subject to consideration of the facts of each
case492. The consistent view taken by the Mayor when considering planning
applications in the City is that the juxtaposition of old and new is a defining and
positive characteristic and that no harm to heritage significance is caused as a result
of such juxtaposition493.
484 Mr Richards
485 Dr Barker-Mills in cross-examination
486 By email dated 10th December 2020 sent to the programme officer, the GLA stated that Dr Barker-Mills was unable
to find such a reference: CD19D-21
487 CD8-23 paragraph 3.4.5
488 CD8-23 paragraph 3.4.11
489 Richards PoE 9.160: CD14-4
490 Richards PoE pages 226-284: CD14-4
491 CD9-8 IR on 20 Fenchurch Street, paragraph 9.4.6, the Secretary of Statement agreed with the inspector at DL15
CD9-7. Heron Tower – IR 15.70-71 CD9-10; the Secretary of State agreed with IR 15.71 at DL15,CD9-9
492 English XX
493 E.g. Stage 1 report on 100 Leadenhall Street paragraph 41: CD11-55
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.53 Given that background, and given the position taken by both the Mayor and HE on
other applications in the Cluster, it is somewhat surprising that both the Mayor and HE
take points in relation to individual LBs based upon the juxtaposition between new and
old. HE’s witness494 made plain that he, personally, takes a different view to the Mayor
– that difference is illustrated by his consideration of the impact on the setting and
significance of St Andrew, Undershaft:
a. the Mayor considered that no harm to significance would arise as a result of
development of 100 Leadenhall Street - that building would prevent the upper
parts of the tower of the church (the pinnacles) from being seen against clear sky
in views from the west on Leadenhall Street495;
b. the Mayor’s officers did not express the view that The Tulip would cause harm to
the significance of St Andrew, Undershaft496;
c. the Mayor497 relies on its view that The Tulip would cause harm to the significance
of St Andrew, Undershaft.
7.54 HE498 departs from their general acceptance of the principle that the juxtaposition
between old and new is one of the City’s strengths. HE’s case on this issue is limited to
two buildings (St Botolph, Aldgate and Trinity House). Take Trinity House as an
example:
a. in views from Trinity Square the modern city appears behind LBs including 10
Trinity Square and Trinity House499;
b. HE did not object to the 100 Leadenhall Street500 and 1 Undershaft501 planning
applications on the ground that the buildings proposed would appear in the
background in views from Trinity Square including in views of Trinity House502;
c. HE now argue that a building in the background (The Tulip) would distract from
heritage values503;
d. It must be appreciated that the image relied upon504 shows a 2-dimensional view
from Trinity Square Gardens. The viewer would see the image for a moment as
s/he walks along and would appreciate that the top of the Tulip is seen at a
distance. It is difficult to see how the impact in that view can be said to harm
significance;
e. Such fleeting, glimpsed and oblique views would cause no harm to the significance
of Trinity House505.
7.55 Both the Mayor and HE argue that harm would be caused to the significance of St
Botolph, Aldgate:
a. The setting of the church is heavily influenced by the presence of modern tall
buildings;
494 English
495 For an image see CD1-11 page 195
496 CD4-1 Stage 1 Report paragraphs 61-63
497 Dr Barker-Mills
498 Mr English
499 For a cumulative image see CD16-4 page 101
500 CD11-66 page 1059 (1061 in pdf), City OR summary of HE’s consultation response at paragraph 26
501 HE response on 1, Undershaft CD11-66 pp 809-816 (pdf 811-818)
502 For view see RT3A page 170: CD13-19
503 English PoE 7.82: CD16-3
504 Tavernor Appendix RT3A: CD13-19 page 166
505 Richards PoE 10.177-178 (CD14-4)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
b. The main contributor to significance, being the views of the church on the approach
along Minories, would remain, on the whole, unaffected. Similarly, the views in the
approach from the west and north would be unaffected506;
c. The relationship between the church and the stem of The Tulip as shown in the
image in the TVBHA507 would be transient and fleeting in a view where the modern
city is very much in view. It would be another example of a positive relationship or
exciting frisson as put by Mr Richards508. As a result no harm to significance or
setting would be caused.
7.56 The conclusion to be reached in relation to other heritage assets is that as with many
existing buildings in the Cluster, in the case of The Tulip the relationship between new
and old would be positive. Such a conclusion would be consistent with the approach
taken by the SoS when called upon to decide other cases for tall buildings in the
City509.
D. Strategic Views
The effect of the proposals on strategic views
7.57 There are two strategic views to be considered: View 10A (the River Prospect from the
upstream side of Tower Bridge at the North Bastion) and View 25A (Townscape View:
the Queen’s Walk to ToL). Guidance on the management of those views is found in the
LVMF. This advises that development in the background of the views should not
compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate the OUV of the WHS510. Impact on ability
to appreciate OUV is considered in section C above and not repeated here.
View 10A
7.58 From viewpoint 10A the Cluster of modern towers is seen to the left of the White
Tower. The relationship between the City and the Tower is recognised as being a
feature of this view, as is the fact that the Cluster of tall buildings in the City would be
consolidated over time511. The Tulip would add another dynamic quality to that
evolving Cluster512 and would sit comfortably with the other existing and consented
towers513.
7.59 Specific guidance in relation to development in the background514 is as follows:
a. Development should not breach the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or
its castellations;
b. Some visual separation should be retained between the upper parts of the White
Tower and the emerging Cluster.
7.60 The Tulip would not rise behind, or appear to touch, the White Tower and the express
guidance in the LVMF SPG paragraph 184 would be adhered to. However, the proposal
506 Richards PoE 10.59: CD14-4
507 CD1-11 page 189
508 Richards PoE 10.61: CD14-4
509 20, Fenchurch Street CD9-7, and Heron Tower CD9-9
510 View 10A – paragraph 186 of CD8-14 on page 101 (page 109 in the pdf). View 25A paragraph 414 of the LVMF CD8-
14 page 215 (page 223 in the pdf)
511 CD8-14 paragraph 187 page 101 (page 109 in the pdf).
512 Richards PoE 8.258 CD14-4
513 Richards PoE 8.353: CD14-4
514 CD8-14 page 101 (page 109 in the pdf)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
would to a degree appear to dominate the White Tower contrary to the guidance given
in the LVMF SPG paragraph 183515. The extent of the breach of the guidance is limited.
View 25A
7.61 There is a significant dispute between the parties as to whether the visual
management guidance for View 25A is adhered to. The juxtaposition of the WHS with
the modern city is said to be a central characteristic of this view516. The guidance in
paragraph 418 of the LVMF must be read as relating to existing dominance and
therefore to the particular views in which the Tower does at present dominate - i.e.
the immediate surroundings517. The Tulip would not affect the protected silhouette and
the guidance in paragraph 420 of the LVMF is complied with518. The protected vista
would be unaffected519. The Tulip’s design quality lives up to the expectations set out
in LVMF paragraph 414.
7.62 As is abundantly clear from the triptych image520, the Tulip, whether considered
against the existing Cluster or considered cumulatively with the consented schemes,
would read as part of the City Cluster set apart from the Tower. It is seen well to the
left of 10 Trinity Square521, seen as the marker of the transition in scale between the
existing Cluster and the western edge of the WHS 522. The concrete stem is read
alongside the Cluster and the flower is an exciting addition to it. It would not dominate
the WHS - paragraph 415 of the LVMF is complied with. There would be no breach of
the LVMF visual management guidelines for View 25A. In this iconic view the image of
London would be improved523.
E. Other Harm
Any other harms which might affect the overall balance with particular regard to
pedestrian movement and safety
7.63 Reasons for refusal 5 and 6 are no longer in dispute. As far as transport issues are
concerned, it is now agreed that the following transport benefits arise524:
a. An increase in long-stay cycle parking spaces for the Gherkin, together with
associated shower and locker facilities.
b. The removal of 16 existing general car parking spaces at the Gherkin.
c. Consolidation of deliveries, and time restrictions on servicing trips, to The Tulip and
the Gherkin
7.64 To the extent that it is said that the loss of 428 m2 of office floorspace is harmful, that
loss must be considered to be negligible in relation to the total office floorspace in the
City’s area525. In any event as there are no strong economic reasons why the loss
would be inappropriate there is no breach of the policy which seeks to protect office
accommodation (DM1.1 in the Local Plan526). There is no material any other harm to
515 CD8-14 page 100, Richards PoE 8.262
516 LVMF paragraph 411, CD8-14
517 Richards PoE 8.21 and 8.22 CD14-4
518 Richards PoE 8.47 CD14-4
519 Richards PoE 8.56 CD14-4
520 Harrison PoE pp 296-297 CD13-8
521 Also known as the Port of London Authority Building
522 Barker-Mills PoE paragraph 9.7: CD15-5 – referring in turn to TVBHA photos 08; 08N;18;19;20;24; 30;33. NPBM
Appendix 2 Photos 1;2;3;5;8;9;12;24
523 Richards PoE 8.387 CD14-4
524 Benefits SOCG paragraph 2.6(c) to (e): CD19B-15
525 Hampson PoE 9.3- 9,305,000m2 gross as of 31.03.20 CD14-3
526 CD6-4 page 34
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
consider.
F. Benefits
The benefits of the scheme, including but not limited to its quality, attractiveness
to visitors, educational and community opportunities, investment and
employment
7.65 The City considers that the proposal would bring forward very significant benefits.
Although those benefits can and should be listed, analysed and weight attributed to
them, it is important to step back and consider the overall beneficial impact of the
scheme. To a large extent the benefits are the product of the design. By introducing an
innovative, sustainable and outstanding building of iconic value, London’s visitor
attractions and economic base would be enhanced. By encouraging 1.2m visitors to
come into the heart of the Cluster each year, many more people would be introduced
to the delights of the City, and would make effective use of its facilities particularly at
times when much of the office City has gone home. The City’s aspirations to provide a
7 day a week offer encouraging a diverse range of people to benefit from all the City
has to offer would be advanced.
7.66 The agreed benefits are set out in the Benefits SoCG527. The dispute turns in large part
on the weight to be attributed to those benefits. This section not only refers to the
benefits but the weight to be given to them. It may be said that the weight to be given
to benefits is better dealt with under the next main issue, on heritage balance,
however, in order to avoid duplication, the benefits and the weight to be attributed to
them are dealt with in the same section.
The City’s Analysis
7.67 The City is uniquely well placed to attribute weight to the benefit of locating a major
visitor attraction in the heart of the Square Mile. Given the City’s long record in guiding
the evolution of its area as a global hub for innovation in financial and professional
services, commerce and culture528 its views on the weight to be given to benefits of
the visitor attraction should command respect.
7.68 A model approach has been taken to the balancing exercise529. This identifies the
benefits, and explains the basis upon which weight is attributed to each of them. These
submissions rely on, but do not repeat this evidence. They draw attention to the
following points.
7.69 Design:
a. As demonstrated by the way that its progenitor, the Gherkin, has become a symbol
of London, the provision of a new iconic building of accomplished design would bring
similar benefit;
b. The SoS has indicated (at NPPF§131) that substantial weight should be given to
outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability or help
raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the
overall form and layout of their surroundings;
i. The proposal is both outstanding and innovative (it would only have to fall within
one of those two categories for the purposes of applying the policy). It introduces
527 CD19B-15 section 2
528 Draft local plan paragraph 3.2.7, 3.4.4, 3.4.8: CD19H-3
529 Mrs Hampson’s proof of evidence CD14-3 section 8
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
a new design to the Cluster in terms both of use and of form, whilst maintaining a
familial relationship with the Gherkin;
ii. It promotes a high level of sustainability – a target rating of BREEAM
outstanding530 would be secured by condition531;
iii. By enhancing the Cluster (for the reasons explained by Mr Richards in his
written532 and oral evidence) it would both help raise the standard of design and
fit in with the overall form and layout of the surroundings.
c. There can be no doubt that the great weight referred to in NPPF paragraph 131
applies to this scheme.
7.70 Tourism: The essential figures are agreed, namely the estimate that 1.2 million people
would visit The Tulip each year, of which 101,000 would not otherwise have visited
London533.
a. At 1.2m visitors a year The Tulip would attract a similar number of visitors as the
Royal Academy and a greater number than London Zoo, or the Houses of
Parliament534;
b. The attraction of additional visitors is fully consistent with the London and Partners
vision535 and with the City’s own Visitor Destination Strategy to develop the City as a
vibrant, attractive and welcoming destination for all536;
c. Given the number of visitors attracted and consistency with the relevant strategies,
to give the tourism benefits anything other than substantial weight would be
bordering on irrational.
7.71 The economic benefits flow from the estimates of visitor numbers. Those numbers are
agreed, and the following economic benefits are also agreed:
a. GVA: Construction phase: £30m p.a.537; Operational Phase £32.55m p.a.538
b. Jobs: Construction: an average of 760 FTE jobs per annum539; Operation: 463540-
609541 jobs p.a.
c. Deloitte also estimate the additional economic value which can be attributed to icon
value, increased green space/public realm, education and agglomeration, at £110m
GVA over a twenty year period542.
d. Those economic benefits can be achieved by using a site which is not suitable for
other purposes such as the provision of offices – it has been described as a windfall.
As a result, those jobs and that GVA is not achieved at the expense of an office or
similar development.
530 As is apparent from the list at CD19B-17 page 2, few buildings are designed to achieve such a target ranking
531 Benefits SOCG 2.6(f): CD19B-15, Conditions Schedule CD19C-21 conditions 28 and 44
532 Richards PoE paragraph 7.95: CD14-4
533 Benefits SOCG 2.4(a) and (b): CD19B-15
534 See Hampson Ap.1 CD14-3
535 CD11-1, and Hampson PoE paragraph 8.8: CD14-3
536 CD8-9 page 33
537 Benefits SOCG 2.2(b): CD19B-15, total construction cost is estimated at between £260m-£477m – CD19B-30
538 Benefits SOCG 2.2(j): CD19B-15
539 Benefits SOCG 2.2(a): CD19B-15
540 Benefits SOCG 2.2(c) + 2.2(e) + 2.2(h) CD19B-15. (46+385+32)
541 Benefits SOCG 2.2(c) + 2.2(e) + 2.2(h) CD19B-15. (64+385+160)
542 Hampson PoE 8.32: CD14-3, Deloitte CD2-1 section 7
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
e. The numbers themselves and the fact that this gain is not achieved at any material
cost (the small quantum of office floorspace in Bury House is not material in this
context) indicate that these benefits should be given substantial weight.
7.72 Education and community (as secured by the section 106 agreement):
a. A 523m2 flexible learning space would be provided.
b. That facility would be available free of charge to no fewer than 40,000 children at
state schools in London annually543. The 40,000 figure would not allow every child in
London to visit once in their school lifetime544, however 40,000 visits p.a. is a very
significant number. Each one represents a school trip to remember and to inspire.
Each child would have an opportunity to come to the heart of a global financial
centre and look out over their city, whilst learning about London’s geography and
history, along with the focus on STEAM545 subjects.
c. Each child would benefit from a school trip of which memories would be made, when
they would travel into the heart of the Square Mile. It is to be hoped that their eyes
would be opened to the opportunities that the City offers and may consider it is a
place where if they wish, one day, they too would work546.
d. The space would be available for community use between 3pm and 7pm on
weekdays throughout the year with priority booking slots for groups of young adults
in Key Stages 4 and 5 in London schools between 3pm and 5pm547. The space can
be used for a range of uses including careers fairs, taster events, skills development
workshops, mentor and mentee groups, and celebration events548.
7.73 The educational and community offer is wide ranging and very many London school
children would derive benefit from it. It should be accorded substantial weight549.
7.74 The parties agree that the consolidated delivery arrangements, by reducing the
number and time of movements, would improve upon the current arrangements550.
Those arrangements would benefit the public at large by removing movements at peak
times. That is a clear benefit of the scheme and the City takes the view that it should
be given moderate weight551. Similarly, the provision of additional long-stay cycle
parking spaces for the Gherkin along with associated facilities (showers and lockers)
should attract moderate weight552.
7.75 The roof top garden would not only provide an increase in the amount of public space,
but would provide it in the form of a place of respite allowing workers and visitors to
spend a few moments away from the busy City environment and enjoy the green
space. The roof garden along with other improvements such as the pocket park, and
removal of the ramp and associated walls, result in an overall benefit to the public
realm which should attract moderate weight553.
7.76 The contribution towards affordable housing and the CIL payments are also benefits to
be taken into account. The sustainability benefits are agreed554. The sustainability
543 Paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the section 106 agreement: CD19B-24
544 As stated in Mrs Hampson’s PoE at paragraph 8.51 CD14-3, but corrected in her oral evidence in chief
545 Science, technology, engineering, arts and maths.
546 Hampson PoE 8.51: CD14-3
547 Section 106 agreement, Schedule 2 paragraph 16.5, and Schedule 7 paragraph 3.2: CD19B-24
548 Section 106 agreement Schedule 7, paragraph 3.2: CD19B-24
549 Hampson PoE 8.67: CD14-3
550 Transport SOCG 3.13: CD19B-6
551 Hampson PoE 8.68 CD14-3
552 Hampson PoE 8.69: CD14-3
553 Hampson PoE 8.70: CD14-3
554 Benefits SOCG CD19B-15 paragraph 2.6
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
credentials of the Tulip are reflected in the target BREEAM score of 89% which would
achieve a rating of outstanding555. The relevant policies, including SI 2 in the NLP are
complied with556. Overall, the cumulative benefits are significant and wide-ranging557.
The Mayor’s Analysis
7.77 The Mayor seeks to attribute weight to benefits558. Little reliance can be placed upon
the Mayor’s attribution of weight. They have not undertaken their own analysis of the
main economic and tourism benefits, and their approach lacks consistency.
7.78 The following are examples of that inconsistency of approach in relation to the Mayor’s
consideration of this case:
a. In the Stage 1 report it was said that the benefits of the scheme were restricted to
the educational floorspace559;
b. By stage 2 it was acknowledged that the proposal would deliver economic benefits
arising from increased visitor numbers, and contributions to affordable housing and
local skills and job training560;
c. The evidence expressed the view that a paid for viewing gallery was not a public
benefit and should be given no weight561;
d. The Mayor then agreed a benefits statement of common ground in which it was
agreed that the extensive benefits set out at section 2 would be delivered562. The
agreed list includes economic, education community and social, tourism public
realm, sustainability, and other benefits;
e. The position changed again in oral evidence563. It was said that although previously
thought that a paid for viewing gallery was not a public benefit, some limited
weight had been given to the economic benefits flowing from it, and that some
limited weight should be given to tourism benefits;
f. The loss of a one day a week lunchtime street market of up to 8 stalls564 was
regarded as giving rise to an important adverse economic effect565 whereas a
visitor attraction which would give rise to 1.2 million visits and 463-609 jobs p.a.
gives rise to negligible economic impacts566.
7.79 The Mayor’s approach is also inconsistent with the approach taken in his policy
statements and when dealing with other planning applications. As examples:
a. NLP Policy E10A states that London’s visitor economy and associated employment
should be strengthened by enhancing and extending its attractions. Its attribution
of weight does not reflect that statement of support;
b. In the Foreword to A Tourism Vision for London the Mayor describes the benefits
that visitors bring to London as huge567. Despite the fact that the Mayor agrees
555 CD19B-17 page 2
556 CD19B-32 paragraphs 1-4
557 Hampson PoE 10.26 CD14-3
558 Mr Green
559 CD4-1 paragraph 68
560 CD4-3 paragraphs 149 and 150
561 Mr Green CD15-8 paragraph 10.136
562 CD19B-15, see also the Main SOCG CD19B-7 paragraph 10.32
563 Of Mr Green
564 CD11-75 paragraph 2 of the OR
565 Green PoE 10.95: CD15-8. In Mr Green’s world (informed by his visits to street markets when taking a lunch break
from his work at City Hall)
566 Green PoE 10.80: CD15-8
567 CD11-1 page 5 (page 3 in the pdf)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
that the scheme would attract an estimated 1.2m visitors year of which 101,000
would not otherwise have come to London, no weight is attributed to tourism
benefits directly, and only very minor568 weight to the economic benefits;
c. The Mayor issued a direction that he should determine the 97 Cromwell Road
planning application because a hotel and serviced accommodation scheme would
have a significant effect on London Plan policy relating to visitor infrastructure569.
In that case he weighed public benefits against heritage harm. In doing so he gave
significant weight to the provision (inter alia) of improved and modern visitor
accommodation570.
7.80 The Mayor sought to justify his position by arguing that planning policies direct cultural
facilities in the City to the Culture Mile and not to the Eastern Cluster. This
contention571 is misplaced:
a. As accepted in evidence, the definition of culture and cultural facilities in the City’s
policies is broad and inclusive572;
b. Draft LP Policy S6 sets out the City’s policy on culture, visitors and the night-time
economy. The City plans to enhance its contribution to London’s world-class
cultural offer by (inter alia) providing, supporting, encouraging access to, and
further developing a wide range of cultural facilities across the City. A vibrant
night-time economy is to be enabled573;
c. The specific policy for the City Cluster (S21) contemplates improving access to
leisure and cultural facilities574;
d. As stated in the draft local plan575 the City’s Cultural Strategy highlights that
commerce and culture thrive side by side - this scheme is a visible demonstration
of that with the Tulip and the Gherkin sitting together;
e. The Cultural Strategy makes plain that the Culture Mile is to act as a catalyst for
change across the rest of the Square Mile576 and that it would activate a similar
cultural transformation for the entire Square Mile577.
7.81 The City’s most recent policy statements in response to the pandemic, in London
Recharged, place even greater emphasis on the need to encourage more visitors to
the City. The aspiration is to achieve a 50% increase in weekend and evening
visitors578. The Tulip can make a significant contribution to meeting that aspiration. In
addition, the Mayor579 considers the provision of a visitor attraction in this location
would be complementary to the promotion of the City as a nationally important
location for globally-oriented financial and business services, and to accord with the
wider policy aspirations for the CAZ580. It is clear that, based as it is on inconsistency
568 Green PoE 10.105: CD15-8
569 CD19C-17 paragraph 28
570 CD19C-17 paragraph 302
571 Of Mr Green
572 Emerging Local Plan paragraph 5.3.6 makes reference to the Cultural Strategy and states The Strategy embraces a
definition of culture that is broad and inclusive; it recognises that culture exists both in the buildings and heritage of the
City’s institutions and in the streets and informal spaces in between. CD19H-3
573 Policy S6 1st bullet point on page 75 and 6th bullet point on page 76 of CD19H-3
574 CD19H-3 page 180, policy S21(8)
575 CD19H-3 paragraph 5.3.6
576 CD19B-20 page 9
577 CD19B-20 page 14
578 CD11-85 section 5.3 on page 57 (page 29 in the pdf)
579 if not Mr Green
580 CD4-1 paragraph 19. GLA Stage 1 Report. In XX Mr Green said he disagreed with the Mayor on that point.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
and misunderstanding of the policy approach, the approach581 to attribution of weight
to the tourism benefits cannot be accepted.
7.82 The Mayor sought to reduce the weight to be attributed to economic benefits by
referring to the assessment in the Socio-Economics chapter of the ES582. If one
compares the economic activity generated by a single visitor attraction development
with total output for a city the size of London, one is bound to come up with a small
percentage, and therefore (for the purposes of an ES) no significant effect. Although
such an approach is appropriate when undertaking an ES, the descriptors of effect
used in an ES do not reflect the very real economic advantage derived by each of the
people benefiting from the creation of a new job, and do not reflect the benefits to be
gained by diversifying the City’s economic base. In the Cromwell Road case, the
Mayor’s officers583 considered the delivery of an additional 243 full-time jobs as one of
the significant public benefits of the scheme584. To say585 that the economic benefits
(including 463-605 jobs) can be considered negligible – it is a wholly inconsistent
approach.
7.83 The Mayor586 attributes moderate weight to the education facilities provided. His
justification for reducing weight to moderate is, in part, that other facilities are
available. He also seeks to reduce the weight to be given to the education facilities on
the ground that the planning policies do not identify a need for such a facility. If one
could only attribute weight to a facility when need for it was identified in a plan drawn
up some time ago before the concept now proposed was even conceived, society
would lose out on many innovative schemes such as this, which bring obvious benefits
to which substantial weight should be given. The fact that there are other existing and
proposed elevated viewing opportunities nearby should not be relied upon to diminish
the weight given to the educational and community benefits.
7.84 In addition, the education offer can be distinguished from that available in other
buildings. Indeed, in almost all those other cases (1 Undershaft is an exception) no
dedicated educational provision is proposed587. An educational visit to the Tulip is not
limited to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to, and views from, an iconic building, there
would be pre- and post-visit educational provision provided by dedicated educational
facilitators588. A full explanation of the educational benefits on offer was given589. A
similar approach was taken about storage space in the educational area590.
7.85 In any event, the argument is rather like telling a child that s/he should move on from
the shop selling the best quality, most delicious and eye catching ice cream as that ice
cream is of only moderate value as you can get an ice lolly next door. The child
visiting the Tulip would truly experience something to write home about or, in the
modern age, to post on social media. When the visiting child gets back home s/he
would be able to look out of the window, or go to the top of the hill in the park, and
point out the Tulip – that’s where I went on my school trip. Not quite the same as
trying to point out an upper floor of an office block amongst a group of office blocks.
7.86 In the same vein the argument that heritage assets are best appreciated by visiting
the site and experiencing historic buildings and architecture may be correct, but it
581 Mr Green’s
582 Mr Green by reference to CD1-10 chapter 6
583 including Mr Green
584 CD19C-17 paragraphs 444 and 445
585 Mr Green
586 Through Mr Green
587 Viewing Gallery and Educational Provision Table: CD19B-41
588 Section 106 agreement Schedule 7 paragraph 3.1: CD19B-24 page 62
589 By Dr Wright, only for XX on matters such as opportunities for children living outside London
590 When Mrs Hampson gave evidence - that issue is addressed in CD19B-31
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
does not diminish the weight to be given to the different form of educational
experience offered by the Tulip. The space would also be available for other education
and community activities between 3pm and 7pm on working days throughout the
year591; this is a significant additional benefit.
7.87 The Mayor also questioned the sustainability benefits of the scheme. This was
unjustified when the relevant policies in the extant and NLP are complied with592. An
example of the approach593 was to argue that little weight should be given to
increasing the urban greening factor from 0.01 to 0.31594. The figures speak for
themselves - that is a very significant proportionate increase reflecting the changes
proposed to the existing public area where rather bleak granite surfacing
predominates. The sustainability benefits of the scheme as agreed in the Benefits
SoCG595 should be recognised as contributing to the cumulative benefits of the
schemes.
7.88 The Mayor’s characterisation of the proposal as socially exclusive596 is unjustified. The
visitor attraction is no different to the London Eye or ToL - those who use it would pay.
The difference (in this respect) between this proposal and an attraction such as the
London Eye is positive and inclusive – the s106 agreement (the terms of which were
negotiated by the City and the Mayor’s officers) would secure an education and
community facility which would be available without charge to school children and
community groups from all over London. It would be a socially inclusive and welcoming
facility inviting people from all over London and the world into the City.
Conclusion
7.89 It is clear that attempts597 to downplay the benefits of a new visitor attraction which
would attract 1.2m visitors p.a. (101,000 of whom would not otherwise have come to
London) and which would provide innovative education and community space, should
be rejected. Weight should be attributed to the various benefits in accordance with the
evidence of the witness598 most experienced in dealing with planning cases in the City.
G. Heritage Balance
Whether the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm identified
in the heritage balance
7.90 The balancing exercise contemplated by NPPF§196 may be thought to be at the heart
of the decision making approach in this case. The approach to be taken when fulfilling
the duty imposed by s66(1) of the LB&CA Act 1990 is as above. As HE recognise, this
is not an issue on which they are able to assist. Save for views on heritage benefits599,
in accordance with their normal practice they leave this issue to the planning authority
– on appeal the SoS. For the reasons I have already given, the City is the party best
placed to assist the SoS on this judgement.
7.91 Although considerable importance and weight (or in the words of the NPPF great
weight) should be given to each asset’s conservation (and therefore to any harm to
significance which is found to occur) (and the more important the asset the greater
591 Section 106 agreement Schedule 2 paragraph 16.5: CD19B-24
592 Appellant’s Further Sustainability Note 10th December 2020: CD19B-32
593 Mr Green’s
594 See CD19B-17 page 4. Appellant’s note on sustainability
595 CD19B-15 paragraph 2.6
596 H Philpott QC closing paragraph 5
597 Mr Green’s
598 Mrs Hampson
599 English PoE section 8: CD16-3
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the weight should be) it is also important to consider the extent or degree of harm to
each asset. The overall weight given to the desirability of preserving the setting of the
LBs depends on the extent of the harm assessed and the heritage value of the asset in
question600 – those are two different factors. The decision maker must decide on the
matters to be placed on the negative side of the scales.
7.92 On the basis of the evidence, the negative factor is the less than substantial harm to
the significance of the ToL arising as a result of the impact which would occur in the
view from the north bastion of Tower Bridge. The extent of that harm is at the lower
end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm. On the positive side you have the
benefits considered above. Great weight should be given to the scheme’s outstanding
and innovative design.
7.93 The essence of the question is whether, giving great weight and considerable
importance to the assessed extent of harm, and taking account of the fact that the
heritage value of WHS is high, the degree of harm to the WHS’s significance is
sufficient to turn away a scheme of outstanding architecture which would signal a new
stage in the City’s development, and enhance the appearance of the Cluster with a
world class design likely to become a significant and powerful icon for London in the
21st century. The City’s judgement is that the benefits outweigh the assessed harm.
H. Planning Balance
The balance when assessed against the NPPF, the scheme’s consistency or
otherwise with the development plan and any other material considerations, and
the overall planning balance.
7.94 All main parties agree that the proposal would cause some harm to the significance of
the WHS. As a consequence, the planning policies which provide that heritage assets
should be conserved are not adhered to.
7.95 Many of the development plan policies seek to protect the significance of heritage
assets by adopting an approach which results in proposals which cause any harm to
significance of assets to conflict with the policy. Those policies include the old London
Plan (7.8 and 7.10) and the Local Plan heritage policies (CS12 and DM12.1). Those
policies do not incorporate the balancing exercise found in NPPF§196. As a
consequence, a single cause (such as impact in one view) of less than substantial
harm to significance can result in multiple policy conflicts to heritage and view
protection policies. If those policies had incorporated the balancing exercise, there
would be no breach.
7.96 Consideration must be given to whether the conflict with multiple policies arising as a
result of harm arising in one or more views is sufficient to cause the proposal to
conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The City take the view
that such breaches do cause the proposal to fail to comply with the development plan
as a whole, but only as a result of a single cause, and because of the absence of a
policy provision which would allow public benefits to be weighed against less than
substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets.
7.97 An alternative view601 is that compliance with the policies which support enhanced
cultural and visitor attractions, educational and community provision and design
quality outweigh the conflict with the heritage policies and cause the proposal to
comply with the development plan when considered as whole.
600 Palmer at paragraph 5: CD10-10
601 See Goddard PoE 11.15 CD13-4
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.98 The NLP has now been published. It contains policies HC1 and HC2, and policy
D9C(1)(d), which do not incorporate the balancing exercise. The SoS will have to
consider whether, notwithstanding breaches of policies HC1 and HC2, compliance with
D9C(1)(d), and with other supporting policies, causes the proposal to comply with the
development plan when considered as a whole602.
7.99 Whether one takes the view that the development plan is complied with or not, the
essential question to be asked is whether the assessed degree of harm to the
significance of designated heritage assets of high value is sufficient reason to turn
away the benefits of the scheme. That is the question which application of the
NPPF§196 balancing exercise allows to be answered. In this case, for the above
reasons, the application of that NPPF balancing exercise comes down strongly in
favour of granting planning permission. As a result, other material considerations
indicate that planning permission should be granted.
7.100 The reason that application of the development plan policies and the NPPF cause
different conclusions to be reached based upon the same degree of harm to the same
designated heritage assets is that the development plan policies do not incorporate
the balancing exercise. That balancing exercise is incorporated in national policy and
is contemplated by the ICOMOS guidance603.
7.101 To make a decision in accordance with the development plan heritage policies would
frustrate national policy in relation to heritage assets on the basis of development
plan policies which are not consistent with that national policy. For that, amongst
other reasons, this is just the type of case which the unless in section 38(6) of the
PCPA 2004 contemplates, being one where the other material considerations clearly
outweigh the indication given by the development plan.
7.102 Turning to the main issues identified in my introduction;
a. The harm to the significance of the ToL as a heritage asset (comprising the WHS,
conservation area, scheduled monument and LBs) is at the lower end of less than
substantial.
b. No harm would be caused to the significance of other LBs, conservation areas or
non-designated heritage assets.
c. The public benefits of the proposal outweigh the less than substantial harm to the
significance of designated heritage assets and any additional harm to strategic
views.
7.103 Once it is decided that public benefits outweigh heritage harm and any impact on
strategic views, the answer becomes clear, planning permission should be granted.
Conclusion
7.104 This innovative and very high quality scheme, which can properly be described as
world class architecture, offers an opportunity to London to develop its international
image and its visitor economy whilst offering significant educational and community
benefits and public realm improvements. The scheme would also advance the City’s
ambition to enhance the Square Mile’s cultural attractions and extend an invitation to
a wider range of people to enjoy the wonder of the Cluster and a view over all London
has to offer.
602 The City anticipates that if the new London Plan is published before the decision is made on this case, parties will be
offered the opportunity to make further submissions.
603 CD8-13 paragraph 2-1-5
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
7.105 After careful deliberation the City decided to seize the opportunity presented by this
proposal and the City urges you to do likewise and to recommend to the SoS that
planning permission be granted.
8 The case for the Mayor of London
Its closing submissions, with minor adjustments, are as follows.
Introduction
8.1 The Mayor’s power to direct refusal is used sparingly. It has never before been felt
necessary to use it in relation to a proposed tall building in the Cluster. This case is
exceptional. The level of harm the proposed tower would cause is exceptional. It
includes significant harm to heritage assets of international and national significance,
strategically important views, the townscape and skyline of the City, and a primary
civic space in the heart of the Cluster - an area whose successful development is vital
to London’s prosperity, and which depends on protecting, enhancing and animating its
already limited areas of public realm.
8.2 The proposal is neither world class architectural quality604 nor high quality design605,
prioritising self-regarding ambition for visibility and prominence to the detriment of the
Cluster’s coherence, both in terms of shape and materiality. Its incongruous nature
would be readily apparent on the skyline in long range views, as well as in the local
townscape. It would appear as a significant and uncharacteristic intervention in one of
London’s most important and highly sensitive locations.
8.3 There is a strong statutory presumption in favour of refusal, and extensive conflict with
development plan and national policy. The harm and policy conflict is nowhere near
offset by the comparatively limited public benefits that this inherently unsustainable
and socially exclusive scheme would deliver.
Effect of the appeal proposals on the character and appearance of the area, urban
design, townscape and architectural quality
Introduction
8.4 The Mayor’s case on these issues is in the proofs of evidence606, supplemented by
examination in chief607 and the policy context608. There was no process of testing,
exploring and stretching the client’s brief, which was the approach that made F+P a
world class architectural office.609 The key design decisions were driven by the client’s
desire to achieve a tower that was as tall as possible610 and the highly constrained
nature of the site611. The decision to maximise its height was driven entirely by its
function as an observation tower and the competition posed by other tall buildings612.
Such decisions were not taken with the benefit of any proper understanding of potential
604 As required by NLP policy D3 D 12) [CD19D-27] LP policy CS14 [CD19H-2]
605 As required by NLP policy D3 D(12) [CD19H-3] LP policy CS10, CoL LP policy DM10.1 [CD19H-2]
606 Ms Adams Sections 5.3 (Design Quality and Architecture), 5.4 (Public Realm), 5.5 (Relationship with the Eastern
Cluster) and 5.6 (Height and Impact on the Skyline) [CD15-3]. Dr Barker Mills para 10.31: good design should be based
on an understanding of impact on and relationship to the historic environment, also XIC [CD15-5].
607 The note of Ms Adams’ XIC evidence is at CD194D-14.
608 Ms Adams’ PoE Section 2.2 CD15-3].
609 Prof Tavernor explained, XIC.
610 Mr Harrison, PoE, para 6.1.5 [CD13-8] and confirmed by Mr Harrison in XX by HE.
611 DAS, p.7 (CD1-6).
612 Harrison, Re-examination (RX).
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
impact613. Of the 32 consultants instructed during the design process, not one provided
expert heritage input prior to the point at which the fundamental design concept was
established614. There was no formal independent design review615 until after the
application had been reported to committee616, which meant it could play no part in the
evolution of the scheme617. When it was put before the London Review Panel, their
conclusions were strongly negative618.
Public realm
Existing
8.5 The existing plaza provides a highly valuable large, high quality open space619 at the
heart of the Cluster, an area where the scarcity of such space is identified as posing a
challenge for achieving the policy ambitions for growth620. The important spatial
contribution that it makes relies upon its generous size, simplicity, openness and
absence of clutter621. It functions both as an area of transition for pedestrians and as a
destination,622 where the movement of people is not programmed or managed, and as
the intended setting for the Gherkin623.
8.6 Importantly, these characteristics allow opportunities for activation, which has been
recognised as essential for the area to remain competitive as a world class
destination624. They also underpin its identification as one of only two primary civic
spaces in the Cluster625. Those opportunities have been readily taken up, through the
popular food market, cafe seating and the exhibition of sculpture626. These uses are
fully aligned with public realm policy and meet the needs of the City’s workers627. They
are only examples of how the space can be used, and are not determinative of its
potential. In addition, the plaza has significant public value as an uncluttered space for
quiet reflection and relief from the densely developed and busy city. It is therefore a
civic space of strategic importance within the Cluster, accessible to thousands of
workers and able to accommodate precisely the activities that the City Cluster Vision
identifies as essential for its success628.
613 The DAS is silent on whether the proposals were designed with regard to the heritage context, particularly the
setting of the ToL WHS. Mr Harrison sought to rely on the TVIA, but this is not an input into the design process.
614 Prof Tavernor was instructed in August 2018. The milestone in the design process was reached in November 2017.
615 The CoL’s pre-application meetings are not a substitute for an independent design review panel, and no records were
apparently kept of these meetings. It is neither transparent nor rigorous.
616 The review took place on 16 April [CD4-2], the committee having considered it two weeks before [CD3-8].
617 This is contrary to advice on the use of design review panels in NPPF 129 [CD6-1], they are of most benefit if used
as early as possible. This is also reflected in Design Review Principles and Practice [CD11-53], design review is intended
to offer feedback that will lead to the improvement of schemes (p. 6), that it is Timely. (p.7).
618 They concluded their report: The panel is unable to support The Tulip because it does not think it represents world
class architecture, it lacks sufficient quality and quantity of public open space, and its social and environmental
sustainability do not match the ambition of its height and impact on London’s skyline. The NPPF 129 [CD6-1] makes
clear that decision-makers should have regard to the outcome of these processes.
619 City Cluster Vision, p.25 [CD8-7]. Agreed as an accurate description by Mr Harrison in XX by GLA.
620 City Cluster Vision, p. 17 [CD8-7].
621 In the Architectural Design Report for the Gherkin [CD19B-33] it was explained that the circular plan allowed the
existing pedestrian routes to be combined into dynamic public domain, making access across the site visibly available
and inviting (p. 7).
622 Ms Adams, PoE, para 3.4.4 and 4.2.5 [CD15-3]. See also the Gherkin Townscape Report [CD19B-35] at p. 8, which
described how the plaza was designed to provide, inter alia, quiet spots for outside restaurant use, and p. 10 (paras.
10.6-10.7) on how the public realm is properly to be regarded as exemplifying architectural excellence.
623 The Architectural Design Report [CD19B-33] explained how the Gherkin was conceived as a building in a space (p. 8,
para. 8.3).
624 City Cluster Vision, p.15 [CD8-7].
625 City of London Audit Report, Open spaces and recreation, p.16 [CD11.2]. Note that the Gherkin Architectural Design
Report [CD19B-33] described this as the new public square, consistent with its subsequent identification by CoL as a
primary civic space.
626 As part of the popular ‘Sculpture in the City’ programme.
627 City Cluster Vision, pp.15 and 34 [CD8-7]. These forms of activation were strongly supported by those consulted.
628 City Cluster Vision, p.17 [CD8-7].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.7 Evidence failed to demonstrate that the development has been based on an
understanding of how the existing public realm functions and creates a sense of place,
or an understanding of how people use it, as required by policy and guidance629. It
provided a wholly negative account of its existing condition630, and thus the Appellant’s
analysis of the impact rests on an inadequate understanding of the existing public
realm and its importance631.
Impact
8.8 Whereas new tall building proposals are normally expected to include net gains in
street level public realm632, the scheme would result in a net loss of 88sqm at street
level, and 35.5m of street level benches633. The impact would be disproportionately
greater because of the harm caused to the function and character of the plaza. The
removal of scope for activation is mandated by the s106634, but in any event is
inevitable because of the loss of space and the pressures to which the residual space
would be subjected. The proposed public realm would comprise a series of physically
constrained spaces in which movement and activity are highly programmed both by
design and through legal restraints. The spacious character of the northern part of the
plaza, crucial in allowing for activation, would be lost. As was accepted, the narrow
corridors of public realm remaining around the proposed buildings would no longer
have the character of a plaza635.
8.9 The CoL seeks to diminish the loss of the market by reference to its modest scale, and
by suggesting that it could be accommodated elsewhere. That misunderstands the
harm. The prohibition of the market use exemplifies the loss of functionality and
change of character of this key area of public realm. Moving the market elsewhere
(even if that was secured, which it is not) is no answer, because it does nothing to
mitigate the harm to this area of public realm. It also under-estimates its value as
currently permitted. It is popular, serving 60,000 workers a year636, and is a significant
and valuable amenity.
8.10 The quality and experience of the proposed public realm, which must take account of
the many competing types and patterns of use that it must accommodate, will be
poor and highly constrained637. Indeed, the areas of greatest pressure would be those
that are the most physically constrained638. The proposed pattern was described as
compression and release639, but as was explained640, the experience of compression
and release relies not just on physical layout but what is required of the spaces
programmatically. The main entrances and exits of important buildings641 should be at
629 NLP Policy D8 D [CD19D-27]. Mr Harrison also confirmed in XX by GLA that he had not taken into account the City
Cluster Vision, which is extremely useful in understanding those things.
630 Mr Harrison, PoE, s 3.2 [CD13-8]. Mr Harrison accepted that this account is wholly negative in XX by GLA.
631 NLP Policy D8 D [CD19D-27] requires that development proposals area based on an understanding of how the
existing public realm functions and creates a sense of place, demonstrating an understanding of how people use the
existing public realm.
632 CoL Public Realm SPD p. 41 Guideline 8.1 and para 8.2.2 [CD8-8].
633 SOCG, para 4.8 [CD12-1]. The benches were highlighted in the Gherkin application materials as being of high quality
materials, and described as street furniture at an ideal height for sitting on [CD19B-33] at p. 13.
634 [CD12-6].
635 Mr Harrison, XX by GLA.
636 Mr Green, XIC.
637 It is agreed that the success of the proposed public realm requires consideration of how areas are likely to operate
and be experienced, having regard to the type and patterns of activity likely to occur (Mr Harrison, XX by GLA).
638 Points 2, 3 and 4 on the plan at p.193 of the PoE of Mr Harrison [CD13-8].
639 Mr Harrison, XIC.
640 By Ms Adams
641 As Mr Harrison in XX. PoE p192 [CD13-8], point 2 is for all visitors to the viewing gallery, restaurant/bar, and the
educational and community space and where groups of up to 100 schoolchildren would emerge at lunchtimes. It is near
the restaurant and bar entrance and that for the Gherkin restaurant. The space would be used by those going to and
from the pocket park and pavilion roof, and others walking through. See XX of Mrs Hampson on patterns of behaviour.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
points of release, whereas here it is the compressed spaces that would accommodate
the main exit as well as a variety of other uses.
8.11 A similar problem arises at the entrance to the roof terrace, where conflicting
demands would be made on a constrained part of the site. The issues to which this
would inevitably give rise manifest themselves in the need for security staff to
disperse visitors waiting for access642. Overall, the important role that the plaza
currently plays, and which will only become increasingly important as the City
becomes more densely developed, would effectively be lost643.
Mitigation
8.12 The proposed mitigation is limited and inadequate. The remaining ground level public
realm is a product of what remains when the two northern corners are built upon. The
small pocket park would be highly programmed, lacking any sense of openness and
simplicity644 and unable to fulfil many of the key functions of the existing plaza. Its
attractiveness would be limited by the lack of sunlight for much of the day and its
proximity to the busy entrances to both buildings, removing any sense of tranquillity
and respite.
8.13 The existing ramp, the removal of which was emphasised as a significant benefit,645
lies outside the plaza and has no significant effect on its current quality or use646. It
would be replaced by the blank façade of the pavilion building facing onto St Mary Axe
and a new void for vehicles, which would still therefore have to cross the pedestrian
realm. The lack of animation along the street level façade fails to meet the ambitions
of policy, which emphasise the delivery of complementary land uses through
animation of ground floor spaces647 and using active frontages to create positive
reciprocal relationships between the inside and outside of buildings648.
8.14 The proposed roof top space is an inadequate substitute for the functional loss of the
street level plaza. This was recognised by the CoL Public Realm officer in his
objection649, in addition to other concerns650. It was identified as a concern by the
LRP, which observed that the roof terrace was not equivalent to fully public open
space at street level651. The difference between public realm at ground level and other
levels is reflected in policy652, in particular the more demanding requirement for its
provision in emerging CoL policy653. The roof terrace would not form part of the
642 As required by section 4, Sch 8 of the s.106 agreement [CD19B-24].
643 In RX, Mr Harrison drew attention to a photograph of the proposed public realm associated with the Tulip in the City
Cluster Vision p.9. Mr Green explained in XIC that this document represented the corporate view of the CoL as at April
2019 and must be considered in light of the concerns of the public realm officer in respect of this scheme.
644 CoL Public Realm SPD seeks public realm that is spacious and uncluttered (p.17) [CD8-8].
645 Mr Harrison, XIC.
646 Ms Adams XIC and RX. This was a carefully considered feature of the original design. In the Gherkin Townscape
Report [CD19B-35] it was explained that the wall along the northern edge of the plaza (described as a pure form)
creates an enclosure, whilst shielding from view the delivery vehicles entering the basement (p. 8, para. 8.5).
647 Draft CoL LP, para 3.4.4 [CD19H-2].
648 NLP, policy D3 6 [CD19D-27].
649 Para 6 [CD11-52].
650 Mr Richards in RX suggested that the concerns expressed were subsequently resolved by further information on
pedestrian movement, however it is evident that many of the points raised are about matters that are not directly
dependent on pedestrian movement. He accepted in XX by GLA that there had been no physical change to the proposed
public realm between 1 Feb 2019 when the Public Realm Officer gave his comments and the OR date.
651 [CD4-2].
652 CoL LP policy CS14 Tall Buildings [CD19H-2] requires the provision of high quality public realm at ground level. CoL
Public Realm SPD supports the provision of more public space for pedestrians, and preserving and expanding existing
areas of public space (Aim 3, p.18) [CD8-8]. See also, Draft CoL Plan policy S12 (4) [CD19H-3].
653 Draft CoL Plan policy S12 (4) places a more demanding requirement on the provision of ground level open space,
requiring developments to provide the maximum feasible amount of open space at street level, in contrast to the
requirement to incorporate publicly accessible other open space, including that at upper levels.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
pattern of street level spaces identified by the Vision654 as crucial to a well-functioning
environment and would make no contribution to the permeability of the site. Like the
pocket park, it would be highly programmed and lack the flexibility of the existing
plaza.
8.15 Whereas the existing plaza was designed to be both visible and legible to pedestrians
on St Mary Axe655, the entrance to the roof terrace would be tucked away at the back
of the building posing the question: where is the front door? Access would be
regulated, restricted, and managed by security staff656. It would be another heavily
programmed space. The proposals would conflict with NLP policy D5, D8 and D9,
LP policies CS7, CS10 and DM 10.1, the aims of the CoL Public Realm SPD, and the
objectives of the City Cluster Vision 2019. This should be given very substantial
weight657.
The proposed tower
Policy and approach
8.16 The CoL LP supports tall buildings on suitable sites within the Eastern Cluster.658 This
does not mean that all sites within the Cluster are suitable, and all proposals must
satisfy the requirements of NLP and LP policy659. All tall buildings should be of an
exemplary standard of architectural design quality660. The plan-led approach is
underpinned by the CoL’s use of 3D modelling661, which is used both to inform policy
and massing scenarios and assess individual proposals662. Its use has allowed the CoL
to move from a reactive approach to a proactive and positive approach to tall
buildings663. The CoL’s use of its model to assess applications is now included within
the Draft CoL Plan664 and is linked to compliance with other development plan
policies665.
8.17 It is agreed that the use of the 3D model to curate the Cluster in this way serves the
important public interest objectives of successfully planning the Cluster and protecting
the WHS666. To achieve this, the CoL has sought to mediate between the significant
height of the Cluster and the lesser height of the WHS. Development has been
managed in order to avoid an abrupt vertical cliff edge and ensure the legibility of the
654 [CD8-7].
655 The Gherkin Townscape Report (July 1999), p. 35 St Mary Axe [CD19B-35] explains how the landscape features
visible from the north along St Mary Axe will indicate the existence of a special place, available for public use.
656 The CoL public realm officer identified that the roof terrace should not be considered as truly accessible public space
at para 6 of his memorandum [CD11-52].
657 Mr Green, PoE, paras 10.14 to 10.21 [CD15-8].
658 Policy CS14 [CD19H-2].
659 Para 6.5.4 [CD19H-2].
660 NLP policy D9 C(c) [CD19D-27].
661 In XX by GLA, Mr Richards agreed that the basis and purpose of the CoL modelling shows it is a very important tool
for the successful planning of tall buildings in the City and for the plan-led approach.
662 CoL’s response to the EiP into tall buildings policy within the emerging LP, para 6 [CD7-8]. Mr Richards accepted in
XX by GLA that the NLP advocates the use of 3D modelling. Indeed, he said the CoL had been instrumental in
persuading the GLA of the importance of 3D modelling for assessing the impact of tall building proposals in the context
of the NLP (XX by GLA). Support for the use of 3D modelling as part of delivering good design is incorporated into policy
D4 D of the NLP [CD19D-27].
663 Para 7 [CD7-8]. In XIC Mr Richards explained one of the reasons for establishing the 3D model was that the CoL
were very concerned that it was operating in a very reactive way to tall buildings.
664 Accepted by Mr Richards in XX by GLA.
665 See the supporting text to policy S12 (Tall Buildings), para 6.5.11 [CD19H-3]. NLP policy D4 (Delivering Good
Design) [CD19D-27] and policy CS7 (Eastern Cluster) of the CoL LP [CD19H-2]. It is surprising that the CoL sought to
distance itself from the use of 3D modelling and the emerging shape of the Cluster in their opening in circumstances
where it is now embedded within its emerging plan and has been relied on by CoL in response to the EiP into the tall
buildings policy in the emerging LP [CD19C-1].
666 Mr Richards, XX GLA, and para 116, OR [CD3-4]. In XX by GLA, Mr Richards agreed that both objectives were of
significant strategic importance to the successful planning of the cluster, and the protection of the ToL.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Cluster as a single coherent entity on the skyline, with the WHS as a separate
landmark to the east667. This has produced a carefully negotiated profile668 whereby
the Cluster steps up in height towards 1 Undershaft from all directions669. It has been
made possible only by the consistent application of the CoL’s approach.
8.18 The use of 3D modelling in this way, and the strong emphasis placed upon it by the
NLP as a means of protecting the setting of WHSs, have been relied on by the UK
Government in correspondence with the WHC670. A comparison of the impact of the
Tulip with the shape that emerged as a result of the 3D modelling was rightly treated
by the City as an important material consideration in its own decision-making671. The
Inspector/SoS now stand in the shoes of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as
decision-maker, and there is no reason it should be treated any differently now672.
The base
8.19 Tall buildings and the surrounding public realm should always be considered as one
whole673. The base of the tower would be disproportionate in scale within the
constrained nature of the site it occupies, splaying as it meets the ground. The large
concrete buttresses and glass panelling would create a significant and overbearing
built presence within the local townscape674, relate poorly to the surrounding
streets675 and reduce the spaciousness within the plaza within which the Gherkin is
deliberately set676. The effect would lack any sense of lightness as the structure meets
the ground677. The concrete buttresses would contrast starkly with the glazed
materiality of the Gherkin, harming the ability to appreciate its architectural form and
disrupting its relationship with the surrounding buildings. The entirely different scale
of the buttresses within the relatively delicate local streetscape is largely unmitigated
by street level activity678.
The shaft
8.20 The 186m concrete shaft has been intentionally designed to be non-contextual and to
contrast with the Gherkin and the other tall buildings in the Cluster679. It would have
most impact on the immediate space and neighbourhood680, dominating views from
the middle distance681. It is agreed that concrete is uncharacteristic as a main
material for tall buildings within the Cluster682, and that its use here would draw the
667 OR, para 116 [CD3-4]. Mr Richards accepted in XX by GLA that the basis and purpose of the modelling shows that it
is a very important tool for the successful planning of tall buildings in the CoL and has been promoted in this manner.
668 OR, para 116 [CD3-4]. As confirmed by Mr Richards in XX by GLA and as set out in the CoL’s SOC [CD14-2] at para
3.1, the CoL’s position remains as set out in the OR, save for where on the spectrum the harm to the WHS sits.
669 OR, para 91 [CD3-4]. Mr English explained in XIC that from the perspective of HE, the curation of the Cluster in this
manner is essential for the protection of the WHS.
670 DCMS Report on ‘Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey Including Saint Margaret’s Church (United Kingdom)
(C426 bis), p.2 and Annex A [CD11-36].
671 [CD3-4] at e.g. paras 90 to 91 and 139.
672 Mr Richards, XX by GLA.
673 CoL City Public Realm SPD p. 42, para 8.2.7 [CD8-8]; and see also NLP policy D8 F [CD19D-27]. The impacts
described here must therefore be considered together with the points about public realm summarised above.
674 Ms Adams, PoE, para 5.2.13 [CD15-3].
675 A point supported by findings of the LRP [CD4-2] and contrary to NLP policy D9 C(1) a) iii [CD19D-27].
676 Ms Adams, XIC, Figure 1. [CD19D-11].
677 In contrast to a number of other notable visitor attractions, in particular the Eiffel Tower and the London Eye (see Ms
Adams XIC [CD19D-14]).
678 Ms Adams, XIC. See note at [CD19D-14], explaining the relationship with Bury St in particular.
679 Mr Harrison, XX by GLA.
680 Ms Adams, XIC. See XIC Note at [CD19D-14].
681 Ms Adams, PoE, para 5.2.18 [CD15-3].
682 Mr Harrison, XX by GLA and HE. He agreed that the existing and approved towers in the cluster share a number of
common architectural features which this tower would not, particularly the shaft. These include that they are all framed
structures, sometimes overtly expressed; they are all glass clad and reflective; the glazing allows patterns of occupation
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
eye upwards683. As identified by the LRP, the shaft would be mute in appearance,
imposing itself on the area and wider skyline. The lack of any visible openings to
provide a sense of human scale would contrast starkly to the visible activity within the
surrounding office buildings and the complexity of the Gherkin684. It would present as
a 14.3m wide concrete face to the Gherkin at a distance of merely 4.3m away.
8.21 Its materiality and form reflect its function, containing no usable space but merely a
means of getting visitors to as high a level as possible. In this sense, it is first and
foremost a product of engineering. The concrete exterior would lack any noticeable
response to shifting light and weather conditions, in stark contrast to the reflective
appearance of the other tall buildings nearby685. As explained, the shift of light across
the shaft would only be appreciable over the period of a whole day, which is not a
human timeframe686.
The top
8.22 The bulbous top of the Tulip would appear as a widening and extension of the
concrete shaft687, drawing the eye upwards towards the narrowing sky gap between it
and the Gherkin in views from ground level. Unlike other tall buildings, which taper as
they get higher and become less detailed towards the top688, the glazed bulb is
significantly wider and more detailed than the stem. The effect is that of a twelve
storey building elevated disconcertingly into the air, amplifying the eye-catching
prominence of the tower and its overbearing presence.
8.23 This is exacerbated by the asymmetrical design, contrasting with the axial symmetry
of the Gherkin, which results directly from the internal function. As explained, the
effect as a viewer moves around the building would be jarring689. The visual impact is
heightened by the presence of shiny moving gondolas. Mr Harrison accepted that
these would appear as highly visible and eye-catching moving features on three sides
of the top of the building, appearing to sparkle in the light690. Both the asymmetry of
the bulb and the presence of the protruding jewel-like691 gondolas would be visible in
long range views692. The familial relationship between the Gherkin and the bulb of the
Tulip, which is central to the Appellant’s case, is tenuous at best693.
The building as a whole
8.24 The Tulip would be a confusion of architectural ideas, producing an ultimately
unsatisfactory result694. The evidence was compelling. The Inspector has a full note of
to be visible, and gives a strong impression of the character of the cluster as working district; the other towers are
consistent in architectural language from base to top, and concrete does not appear as a prominent architectural
element; they are not top heavy, their elevations are generally sleek and uncomplicated by protrusions, and do not
feature any visible moving elements.
683 Mr Harrison, XX by HE.
684 Mr Harrison agreed in XX by GLA that unlike the other tall buildings in the cluster, there is nothing in the shaft to
give it human scale or to show activity within it.
685 Ms Adams, PoE, para 6.1.8 [CD15-3].
686 Ms Adams, XIC.
687 Ms Adams, PoE, para 5.3.5.2 [CD15-3].
688 Ms Adams, PoE, para 5.6.13 [CD15-3].
689 And quite unlike a tulip (Ms Adams, XIC)
690 Mr Harrison, XX by GLA. BRE Report, para 5.2.1 [CD3-1].
691 DAS, p.153 [CD1-6].
692 In respect of the visibility of the asymmetry, this was explained by Prof Tavernor in response to IQ. In respect of the
visibility of the gondolas, this was accepted by Mr Harrison in XX by GLA.
693 As explained at para 5.3.5.1 of the PoE of Ms Adams [CD15-3]. Nor was it an element of the original design, which
explored a number of forms for the top of the building which had no apparent relationship with the Gherkin (see DAS
[CD1-6], section 3.5; the Tulip is described as an ‘alternative approach’ at p. 48). The top of the building is only seen
together with the Gherkin in views from the east in any event.
694 Ms Adams, XIC, see also para 1.66 onwards in the note of Ms Adams’ XIC evidence [CD14D-14].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the oral evidence695, and we do not repeat it here. The tower seeks to be a landmark,
but within a Cluster of tall buildings with which it would compete rather than cohere.
There is an inconsistency between the Appellant’s position that the great merit of the
Tulip lies in its singularity, dissociated and visually separate696 from the
homogenous697 backdrop of other tall buildings, and the notion that the Tulip could
somehow form part of the coherent whole or complete698 it. Its overall design and
appearance are likened to a Tulip, yet it lacks the proportions or symmetry that would
justify the comparison. This is an example of repeated overblown attempts to instil
meaning in a tower which, unlike many of the buildings and monuments referred to in
evidence, lacks any significant meaning or celebration that would underpin its
symbolism699. The result is a tower that would be starkly and intentionally different to
the other tall buildings within the Cluster, both through its uncharacteristic use of
concrete for much of its height, and its contrasting form.
Impact on the skyline
8.25 The impact on the skyline would be significant. It is reflected in the inconsistency with
the carefully curated shape of the emerging cluster, developed through use of the
CoL’s 3D model. The height of the tower would not simply conflict with that model and
that carefully curated shape, it falls outside the concept700. It would introduce an
abrupt vertical edge to the Cluster, the very effect the CoL has worked so hard to
avoid701. The eastward descent from 1 Undershaft that the CoL has consistently
sought to achieve702 would be entirely lost. Whereas previously some minor conflicts
with the 3D model have been judged acceptable703, this would exceed the jelly mould
by at least a third of its 305m height704.
8.26 As Mr Richards accepted, the inevitable impact of allowing this proposal is that the
carefully curated emerging profile would simply fall away705, and with it the key
means of achieving the significant public interest objectives that underpin it706. The
CoL has no alternative approach to achieving those objectives707. The implication for
future decision-making on any proposals for tall buildings to the east of the Tulip
would inevitably be significant: it would be considerably harder to prevent the further
erosion of the WHS’s setting in circumstances where the carefully curated shape of
the Cluster and the use of the 3D model had not been defended by the CoL. The
precedent effect for future decision-making (agreed to be clearly a material
consideration)708 would be detrimental to the future protection of the setting of the
695 [CD19D-14].
696 Dr Miele, PoE, [CD13-7].
697 Mr Harrison, PoE, para 3.6.1 [CD13-8].
698 Dr Miele, PoE, para [CD13-7].
699 See also Appellant’s Opening Submissions suggesting the new tower would be an opportunity [for the City] to make
a statement about itself, about its people, and about the future it sees for itself (para 1), symbolic of a new start, a new
spring for the City of London: more diverse, more inclusive, more democratic, and less mysterious (para 4), symbolic of
the fact that the City has the wherewithal to act, achieve and deliver on these ambitions even in difficult times (para
67), symbolising a new start, a spring … a symbol of hope, of renewal (para 70) and a symbol of openness, inclusion
and confidence (para 143) [CD19B-1].
700 OR, para 508 [CD3-4] and paras 117-118. In XX by GLA, Mr Richards confirmed what is said there remains the CoL’s
view, and agreed this was plainly relevant to the judgment that must be reached on the impact of the proposed
development on the WHS and on the successful development of the cluster and the skyline of London.
701 OR, para 116 [CD3-4].
702 OR, para 508 [CD3-4].
703 See 100 Leadenhall [CD11-62].
704 Richards in XX GLA that the jelly mould proceeds in a 45 degree line from 1 Undershaft to the ToL. This is broadly
consistent with the image at Figure 55, para 5.5.10 of Ms Adams’ PoE [CD15-3].
705 Mr Richards, XX by GLA. This is despite Mr Richards denial in XIC that the CoL had not sacrificed the achievements in
planning the Cluster.
706 OR, para 129 [CD3-4].
707 As accepted by Mr Richards in XX by GLA.
708 Mr Richards, XX by GLA.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
WHS709. Proposals for more tall buildings further to the east are already coming
forward710. It is unclear how they will be managed in a way that would protect the
WHS, if the CoL has abandoned its long-standing approach.
8.27 The Appellant argues that the approach to a visitor attraction must be different to that
of office buildings, and the CoL justifies the proposal on the basis that it is unique and
unprecedented711, seemingly willing to depart from the 3D model of the Cluster on
this basis712. However, the policy requirements for tall buildings within the Cluster
apply regardless of the proposed use, and the acceptability of the cluster’s impact
depends upon its coherence713. It is no answer to the significant impact of the Tulip to
rely on the difference in its use. The policy context provides no presumption or
expectation that a tall building housing a visitor attraction is necessarily suitable on
this site.714 If such a proposal cannot be designed in a manner that does not
undermine the coherence of the Cluster and its appearance on the skyline, it may be
that it is simply not a suitable site for it.
Policy conflicts
8.28 The proposal would conflict with NLP policies D1, D4, D5, D8 and D9 and CoL LP
Policies CS7, CS10, CS14 and DM10.1 and, in particular, would fail to comply with
criteria D8 B, C, D, E, F, G, M, D9 C(1) a) (i), (ii), (iii), b), c), d), e), 2) c), CS7(3),
CS10 (1, 3) and DM10.1 (points 1, 2, 3). Very significant weight should be attached
to this.
Effect of the appeal proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets
Introduction
8.29 The proposal has generated strong and consistent opposition from those responsible
for preserving the heritage interest of the WHS in the public interest, most notably
ICOMOS715, HRP716 and HE717. The strength of HE’s concern is highlighted by the very
unusual direct involvement of its Chief Executive at the committee meeting718, and its
participation as a Rule 6 party at this Inquiry. It is common ground that significant
709 See Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.18 [CD15-5]. Whilst the OR describes the effect of the Tulip as creating a visual
bookend to the Cluster - the same wording used to describe the impact of 100 Leadenhall (OR, para 118 [CD11-62]),
Mr Richards explained in XX GLA that bookends are designed to be moved across as more books are added, highlighting
the lack of protection that this offers. Similarly, his suggestion that future development might mediate between the cliff
edge and the WHS (RX) would inevitably come at a cost of further encroachment into the visual separation between the
cluster and the WHS and the remaining clear sky around the ToL.
710 See [CD19C-11] p.4 application (Ref 20/00848/FULEIA) at Bury House, 31 Bury Street to demolish the existing
building and erect a new tower of approximately 198m AOD, validated 28 October 2020 and under consideration. Dr
Miele confirmed in XX by GLA that there is an active market for new towers in the Cluster, and that the SoS cannot
assume there will be no new tall buildings proposed to the east of the appeal site. Note also Mrs Hampson’s concession
in XX by GLA that no significant reliance can be placed on proposed changes to the shape of the Cluster in the emerging
CoL LP because of the stage reached and likely controversy.
711 Mr Richards, XIC. The same description of a proposal being unique was put forward by developers of 1 Undershaft.
Para 1.1 of the DAS [CD11-68].
712 Dr Miele too explained in XX by GLA that the concept of encroachment by Cluster on the WHS was not relevant to
this proposal because it is not an office building, but unique.
713 Note that the CoL considers the current Cluster to define a coherent single dynamic and convincing urban form on
the skyline (1 Undershaft OR, paras 111-112 [CD11-59]).
714 As Mr Green explained in XIC, the correct interpretation of para 3.4.4 of the Draft CoL LP [CD19H-3] is that office
and employment growth will be successfully accommodated by a cluster of tall buildings, which will provide an iconic
view of the City and enhance its (the City’s) ole as a global hub for innovation in finance, professional services,
commerce and culture. Emerging policy does not envisage tall buildings for cultural uses.
715 [CD11-18].
716 [CD17-9].
717 CD5-3, CD5-4 and PoE of Mr English [CD16-3].
718 The only time this has happened (Mr English, XX by CoL).
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
weight must be given to the views of HE and ICOMOS719. The Mayor’s written
evidence on these issues is to be found in its PoE720.
The WHS
Issues of approach
8.30 The ICOMOS guidance721 provides that a global approach must be taken to assessing
the impact of development on OUV. It is necessary to apply the lens of OUV to the
overall ensemble of attributes. Impacts on the attributes of OUV must be considered
both individually and collectively, rather than disaggregating all the possible cultural
heritage attributes and [assessing] impact on these separately through discrete
receptors such as protected buildings … and specified view-points with their view
cones722. The WHS must be seen as a single entity that manifests the OUV for which it
is designated. This includes assessing the impact on integrity723 and authenticity724.
8.31 Despite purporting to apply this guidance, the Appellant’s assessment does exactly
what it warns against, disaggregating the attributes and treating as relevant only
those that expressly refer to setting725, and focussing unduly on discrete receptors
such as specified viewpoints. This results in a reduction of the number of attributes
considered and therefore a narrowed consideration of OUV, and a failure to appreciate
how the attributes relate to each other and overlap. It produces an underestimation of
overall impact726, with the Appellant concluding that harm would be caused only to a
single view, in the way that it contributes to the appreciation of only one of seven
relevant attributes of the OUV727.
8.32 Furthermore, the Appellant’s approach fails to analyse the importance of setting to
the attributes of OUV, and the impact of the proposal on the authenticity and integrity
of the WHS as a whole728. If an assessment does not start from an understanding of
significance and the contribution setting makes to it, any conclusions will underplay
the impact of that proposal729.
8.33 The Appellant also conflates the impact on the LVMF views’ composition in townscape
terms with the impact on the OUV of the WHS and the ability to appreciate it. This is
readily apparent from the reasoning on the level of harm to the ToL, which is couched
in terms of the impact on LVMF views by reference to the LVMF guidance730. Whilst
the LVMF views containing the ToL contribute to the appreciation of OUV, an
719 Prof Tavernor, XX by GLA. Dr Miele explained that of course the views of ICOMOS were relevant to the SoS’s
consideration of heritage impact.
720of Dr Barker-Mills. s7 (Heritage Assets Affected by Proposed Development), s8 (Contribution of Setting to Significance
of Heritage Assets) and s9 (Heritage Impacts of the Proposals) [CD15-5].
721 [CD8-13]. It is common ground that the ICOMOS guidance should be applied (Prof Tavernor, XX by GLA) and the
Appellant’s HIA methodology purports to do so.
722 P.1 [CD8-13].
723 Whether all attributes that convey OUV are extant and not eroded or under threat.
724 The way that attributes convey OUV. Para 5-12 [CD8-13].
725 As explained by Dr Barker-Mills XIC. E.g., Prof Tavernor (PoE, para 5.75 [CD13-15]) has not treated as relevant
concentric defences on the basis that it is not explicitly referred to as being expressed through setting. This is despite
the fact that the concentric defences are described as appreciated particularly in the semi-aerial view of the Tower from
Tower Bridge and now from the Shard (para 3.4.2 of the ToL Management Plan [CD8-23]).
726 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
727 HIA, p.65 [CD1-17]. Prof Tavernor, PoE, para 5.87[CD13-15]. Dr Miele concludes that there would be harm to two
attributes of OUV in views from Tower Bridge including LVMF View 10A.1. Dr Miele conceded in XX by HE that there
would also be harm to a third attribute, that of the ToL’s landmark siting.
728 Prof Tavernor sought in XX by HE to deny that nothing in his PoE explained the contribution of setting to significance
by referring to the HIA and TVBHA.
729 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
730 Prof Tavernor, PoE, para 5.65 [CD13-15].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
assessment of impact on those views cannot be treated as a proxy for impact on
OUV731. Any assessment of impact must be informed by reference to the full range of
views in which the proposed tower would appear, including those in the WHS
Management Plan, to inform a global assessment732. It is common ground that what is
important for assessing harm to OUV and the ability to appreciate it is the extent to
which a view contributes to the significance of the WHS or the ability to appreciate
it733. Despite this, the Appellant’s approach contains no analysis as to whether
neutrally described aspects of the view make any contribution to the significance of
the OUV of the ToL or the ability to appreciate it734.
8.34 The Appellant’s methodology in the HIA introduces an additional input to the
assessment of significance of effect identified as quality of effect735, which assesses
whether an effect harms, preserves or enhances the quality of the environment.736 As
was accepted, this assessment does not reflect anything in the ICOMOS guidance, but
rather, provides a qualitative judgment feeding into effect.737 The practical effect is to
introduce a significant element of subjectivity into the methodology which has nothing
to do with heritage significance or OUV, thereby conflating impact on the distinct
receptors of townscape and heritage. This subjective judgment on the quality of the
environment directly informs the Appellant’s conclusion on the significance of effect
making it inherently unreliable as an assessment of heritage impact.
8.35 In order to seek to negate the impact on heritage, the Appellant places great
emphasis on the design quality of the tower. This is contrary to the approach,
recognised by policy738 and reflected in the Citroen decision that good design is
inherently informed by context, including historic context739. The proper approach to
design quality within the assessment of heritage impact must have regard to what can
be appreciated about the design and appearance of the tower within the particular
context in which it is seen in relation to the heritage asset740. The Appellant’s flawed
approach741 renders unsound any conclusion relying upon it.
Harm
Existing harm
8.36 The progressive tightening of policy to protect London’s WHS includes the introduction
of an explicit requirement to consider cumulative harm742, reflecting an
acknowledgment that harm has occurred already and should be taken into account in
assessment. The decision-maker must consider which elements of the ToL’s existing
and consented wider setting make a negative contribution to its OUV or the ability to
appreciate it743. It is agreed that adding to harm that already exists from negative
731 As explained by Dr Barker-Mills in his PoE at para 10.30 [CD15-5].
732 NLP para 7.2.3 [CD19D-27]. Prof Tavernor accepted that RfR 4 is a consequence of conclusions as to impacts on
LVMF views, and not a limitation on the views from which the concerns in RfR2 are to be assessed.
733 Agreed by Prof Tavernor in XX by GLA.
734 This is despite Prof. Tavernor’s acceptance in XX by HE that juxtaposition within LVMF View 25A cannot mean that
anything that contributes to it avoids harm. He was right, as such a crude approach would nullify policies which seeks to
protect the wider setting of the WHS. Whilst the GLA acknowledged that juxtaposition in LVMF views may be positive
(emphasis added), that does not – and could not– mean that any and every proposal which contrasts with the WHS will
itself be beneficial (or even acceptable). It will all depend on a case-by-case appraisal.
735 Table 4.4, p.11 [CD1-17].
736 Table 4-4, p.11 [CD1-17].
737 Prof Tavernor, XX by HE. The HIA describes the source for this input as Developed by Tavernor Consultancy based on
GLVIA (Ref V3-16). Table 4-4, p.11 [CD1-17].
738 NLP, policy D3 D(11) [CD19D-27], CoL LP policy DM10.1 [CD19H-2].
739 Para 15.57 [CD9-4].
740 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
741 Which has been criticised by ICOMOS [CD11-18].
742 The relevant references are to be found in section 8 of the Heritage SoCG [CD19B-28].
743 NPPF definition of setting p. 71 [CD6-1].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
contributors to setting would constitute cumulative harm, and this would be a material
consideration in judging whether any additional harm is acceptable744. It is also
common ground that past harm shouldn’t be used to justify additional harm745.
8.37 The harmful impact of tall buildings on the ToL’s setting, and the fundamental
contribution that setting makes to the significance of the OUV and its integrity, have
consistently been identified by ICOMOS and the WHC746.
a. ICOMOS and the WHC consider that development within the setting of the WHS,
but not affecting its physical fabric, is capable of leading to in-danger listing. This
is highly relevant to the importance of setting to significance, and the ability to
appreciate it, and when considering the extent to which setting harm can cause
serious harm to significance747.
b. It is agreed the decision-maker should attach significant weight to the views of
ICOMOS and the WHC748 and to HE’s advice on the impact of proposals on OUV749.
c. The 2006 Mission Report concluded new urban development had (by then) had
considerable impact on the WHS’s visual integrity, the proposed Minerva Tower
was a major threat and in danger listing was contemplated as a result of
development within the setting750.
d. In 2011 the Mission Report identified harm from the visual distraction from the
Shard, attracting the gaze of visitors away from the ToL, and from 20 Fenchurch
Street. Both schemes had been found acceptable by the UK planning system751.
The UK Government accepted these findings752, and this is reflected in the
Mayor’s WHS Settings SPG753 and the SOUV itself754.
e. ICOMOS’s concerns about the appeal scheme755 are agreed to be consistent with
the previous pattern of concerns. Its view is that the integrity of the WHS has
already reached its limits in terms of visual impact and there is no room for
additional challenges to it756.
8.38 The Government has acknowledged ongoing concerns about the adequacy of the
existing urban planning framework in London and is relying on the tougher policies of
the NLP757 to prevent exacerbating the existing harm, as agreed to be necessary by
the report of the EiP into the emerging LP758.
744 Dr Miele, XX by GLA.
745 Dr Miele, XX by GLA.
746 2006 Mission Report [CD15-6A]. The impact was dealt with in XX of Prof. Tavernor by GLA who accepted in XX by HE
that the Government recognised that the surroundings make a fundamental contribution to significance.
747 Prof. Tavernor, XX by GLA.
748 Prof. Tavernor, XX by GLA – this is agreed to be because of their role in identifying what gives the WHS its OUV, and
in determining whether it should be on the ‘in danger’ list.
749 Prof. Tavernor, XX by GLA. Agreed to be in part because if HE objects to a proposed development for potential
negative impact on OUV, it is likely that the WHC it too will express concerns (see p. 24, para 3.1.5 [CD11-19]).
750 Prof. Tavernor, XX by GLA and pp3 (background to the Mission), 4 (WHC Resolution, item 6) and s8 [CD15-6A].
751 See pp. 7-8, [CD16-6A]. Prof. Tavernor agreed in XX by GLA that the fact the UK’s planning system had approved
individual tall buildings did not mean they had not resulted in harm (and see also para 5.31, [CD8-16]). Indeed,
concerns about the Shard were so significant that more tall buildings visible above the on-site historic buildings would
destroy the visual integrity, and seriously damage the ToL’s OUV, possibly beyond repair (p. 12).
752 p. 2, [CD11-13].
753 p. 22, [CD8-16].
754 p. 37, [CD11-39]. The SOUV states that key aspects of significance have been eroded by tall buildings and continue
to be threatened by proposals for new development.
755 Technical Review, [CD11-18].
756 Prof Tavernor agreed in XX by GLA that significant weight should be given to this.
757 Policies HC2 and D8 of the NLP [CD19D-27]. The policy HC2 B test should not compromise an appreciation of it or
authenticity and integrity of attributes.
758 Para 7.2.3 [CD19D-27].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Proposed harm
8.39 The proposals would result in permanent and significant harm to six components that
contribute to the attributes of OUV of the ToL, and the authenticity and integrity they
express759. There is no dispute that setting makes a fundamental contribution to OUV
and underpins many of its attributes760. The ToL’s siting on the main approach to the
capital goes to the heart of its historic role as a fortification and protector of the City,
exerting influence beyond its walls761. The skyline silhouette of the WHS within its
local and wider setting, in particular from the river and south bank, contribute to an
understanding of the WHS’s landmark siting and its role as a symbol of Norman
power762. The scale and dominance of the White Tower convey its historic role as a
military deterrent, the centre point of the concentric defences, and the last element of
the fortress to be breached763. This is appreciated not just from its silhouette against
the sky but from within and around the site764.
8.40 The form and visual dominance of the White Tower765 would be diminished by the
prominence and singular form of the Tulip, which would intentionally draw the eye
upwards and compete for attention. Its presence would reduce the visual separation
between the White Tower and the City in views from Tower Wharf766 and LVMF View
10A.1767. From Tower Bridge768, the Tulip would rise immediately above and between
the turrets of the White Tower, tracking behind it as an inescapable presence as the
viewer moves north769. From the Innermost Ward770, the Tulip would intrude into the
space behind the White Tower and its prominence would diminish the White Tower’s
dominance of the intimate space. The Tulip’s eye-catching presence would draw
attention away from the more modestly scaled buildings of the Inner Ward771,
diminishing the sense of separation from the modern City and appearing to bring the
City significantly closer772.
759 As explained by Dr Barker-Mills para 9.1 [CD15-5], the appropriate way to assess the impact of the proposals on the
OUV is using the components of the identified attributes for the ToL. These are identified in bold, see PoE of Dr Barker-
Mills para 7.18 [15-5]. This accords with Dr Miele in XX by HE considering the role that the dominance of the White
Tower had in relation to multiple attributes that some concepts run across the attributes.
760 Accepted by Prof Tavernor in XX by HE.
761 Fortifications were identified by Inspector in the Chiswick Curve decision as a type of heritage asset where a good
deal of the significance may be contained in setting, para 12.145 [CD9-1].
762 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.7 [CD15-5]. Dr Miele conceded in XX by HE that the ToL’s landmark siting was harmed
by the impact of the proposal on the dominance of the White Tower, which is a key aspect of this attribute.
763 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
764 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
765 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE,
766 Dr Barker Mills paras 9.2–9.5 [CD15-5]. The White Tower is individually listed Grade I, and Ax 2 photo 12 [CD15-6].
767 Acknowledged by Dr Miele para 8.98 [CD13-7]; Prof Tavernor para 5.84 [CD13-15] in XX by GLA, Prof Tavernor
acknowledged that views from this location allow the fine details and layers of history to be understood, and that
attributes which are expressed in the detail and layers of history can be appreciated from here. This would include the
concentric defences (visible structure and 3D form) and surviving medieval remains. Also that if the proposed
development would compete with or distract attention from these aspects of significance, that would constitute harm.
768 Dr Barker Mills, PoE, para 9.5 [CD15-5]; Appendix 2, photograph 5 [CD15-6].
769 As explained by Dr Barker-Mills in XIC.
770 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.3 [CD15-5]; Appendix 2, photographs 22 and 23 [CD15-6].
771 Dr Miele agreed that the ‘Objectives and guidance’ for View 1, Scaffold Site, Inner Ward in [CD8-22], namely that
buildings outside the curtain wall should respect the sense of place of the Inner Ward and ensure the buildings
surrounding the Inner Ward remain the focus of the view is not limited to any individual view, but is a general objective.
772 Dr Miele accepted in XX by GLA that the test that he had applied was whether the proposal overwhelmed the
individual buildings, which introduced a concept that was not in the Local Setting Study (PoE, para 8.116 [CD13-7]). Dr
Miele also accepted that if the Inspector or SoS concluded that the eye catching nature of the proposals, and their
prominence, mean that attention would distracted from the buildings within the Inner Ward, or the proposals would
compete for attention with them, that would constitute harm. He agreed that the reference in the SOUV to an existing
adverse impact on views out from the WHS must refer to those views out from the Inner Ward identified at pp. 20-21,
para 2.4.2 in [CD8-23].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.41 The Tulip would harm the ability to appreciate the WHS’s iconic silhouette in its
local773 and wider setting774. The Tulip’s prominence would cause visual distraction in
the key views up, down, across and from the river that allow an appreciation of the
ToL’s strategic siting and relationship with the river775. In views across the river,
including LVMF View 10A.1, the Tulip would appear contrary to the stepped profile of
the Cluster776, harming the relationship between it and the WHS777. The space
between the Cluster and the WHS would be diminished and the visual dominance of
the WHS eroded.
8.42 In views from the south bank, including LVMF View 25A778, the Tulip’s appearance as
a major and immediately apparent new element on the skyline779 would relate poorly
to the WHS780, drawing the eye away from it781 and harming the visual integrity of the
view. It is not enough that the characteristic of juxtaposition between the City and the
WHS in this view is maintained782. The extent to which juxtaposition is positive
depends upon whether the attributes of OUV remain legible. In contrast, even if it was
accepted – and it should not be – it would not therefore be a heritage benefit.
8.43 The Tulip would harm the ability to appreciate the visible structure and 3D form of the
concentric defences783 and the visual linkage with the river and surrounding cityscape
in views from the south and east. The Tulip would form a new sheer edge to the
Cluster, drawing the eye upwards as it rises directly behind the Broad Arrow Tower
and the Constable Tower in views along Tower Bridge. From Tower Wharf, the ability
to appreciate the layers of concentric defences and their dominance would be harmed
by the visual prominence of the Tulip and its relationship with the south-west bastion
of the Byward Tower. In views from the Inner Ward the Tulip would rise directly
above the parapets of the Grade I listed Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula, part of the
ToL’s surviving medieval remains784, and the Grade II listed Waterloo Barracks. In
respect of both of these individually LBs within the WHS, the Tulip would provide a
prominent visual intrusion, causing less than substantial harm which is at the upper
end in the case of St Peter Ad Vincula785.
8.44 The visual impact of the Tulip is exacerbated by the highly visible shiny786 gondolas on
the bulb by day, and the illumination of the shaft and cluster of aviation lights by
night787. The nature of this lighting contrasts with the uniform illumination of the
surrounding tall buildings, creating an effect similar to the lighting of the ToL’s solid
773 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.7 [CD15-5].
774 Including LVMF 25A.1–3. Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.6 [CD15-5].
775 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, paras 9.14 to 9.18 [CD15-5].
776 Ms Adams, PoE, paras 6.1.6 and 6.1.7 [CD15-3].
777 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, paras 9.11 to 9.13 [CD15-5]. It was agreed by Prof Tavernor in XX by GLA that the existing tall
buildings already appear close in this view (see also his PoE at p. 7, para 1.15 [CD13-15]).
778 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, paras 9.6 and 8.20 [CD15-5].
779 As accepted by Prof Tavernor, PoE para 5.23, 5.29, 5.35 [CD 13-15] and in XX by GLA, that if the Inspector
concludes that the proposed development would compete with and distract attention from the WHS in this view, that
would amount to harm, even if the juxtaposition in the view remained.
780 In XX by GLA, Prof Tavernor agreed that the requirement in the SPG to avoid dominance (para 415, [CD8-14])
extends to the whole WHS and not just the White Tower.
781 An effect that Prof Tavernor accepted in XX by HE is relevant in this view to the effect on OUV.
782 Dr Barker Mills, XIC. Also explained by Mr English in XIC, the approach to ‘juxtaposition’ is far more nuanced than
that adopted by Appellant.
783 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.8 to 9.11 [CD15-5].
784 Prof Tavernor and Mr Richards have wrongly treated this attribute of OUV as not relating to setting by inserting the
words [fabric of] into their quotation. (Richards, para 9.138 [CD14-4]. Prof Tavernor, para 5.75 [CD13-15]).
785 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.41 [CD15-5].
786 A description accepted by Mr Harrison in XX by GLA.
787 The shaft would be illuminated by linear and up-lighting. For details, see pp. 27-29 of [CD1-3] and p162 of [CD1-6].
There is no visual imagery that allows for the lighting effects to be adequately understood, and the Inspector should
consider the existing view on site during the hours of darkness, and use his judgment to consider the likely impact of
the proposals by reference to the prominence of e.g. the aviation lights on existing buildings.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
masonry (and in much closer proximity). The overall effect is one that is significantly
more distracting than the existing office buildings. As explained in detail788, the
attributes of OUV that would be adversely affected are the ToL’s landmark siting, the
physical dominance of the White Tower, the concentric defences, the surviving
medieval remains, and the ToL as a symbol of Norman Power.
Cumulative harm
8.45 The Appellant’s approach to assessing cumulative harm is fundamentally flawed
because it assumes no harm has been caused by existing and consented tall
buildings789. Thus the concern about moving from a position of no harm to high level
less than substantial harm proceeds from a false premise790. Its approach was that
existing harm reduces the potential for this proposal to cause harm, because on each
occasion that harm is caused the comparative contribution that the same level of
harm makes reduces791. It is misconceived, and would leave no means of preventing
the incremental erosion of the contribution of setting to the significance of the
WHS792.
8.46 The Appellant emphasises the lack of objection by the Mayor to individual tall building
proposals. The Inspector and the SoS must, however, assess the position as it stands,
based on the evidence available now. They are not constrained in the conclusions they
reach on that evidence by any views the Mayor may have formed on proposals in the
past, based on the material available at that time. The Mayor has presented evidence
at this Inquiry on the basis of an assessment of the proposal within the context that
now exists and with the benefit of expert advice. That evidence indicates that earlier
proposals have caused harm, a conclusion supported by the SOUV. Insofar as
inconsistency arises therefore, it is explained on the basis of the changes in
circumstances. In any event, the Inspector and the SoS are considering these matters
afresh793.
8.47 Nor does the advent of the concept or designation of the Cluster remove the scope for
harm from tall buildings within its limits794. The Appellant has sought to characterise
UNESCO’s support for clustering of tall buildings following the 2006 Mission Report795
as a positive encouragement for the development of more tall buildings within the
Cluster796. As Mr English explained, the Cluster was proposed as a means of managing
the identified harm of tall buildings within the setting of the WHS. This is reflected in
the wording of the WHC’s document, which spoke of a policy of concentration as a
means of limiting the impact on the WHS, not removing the possibility of further
harm. It cannot properly be characterised as a suggestion that tall buildings within the
WHS’s wider setting would cause no harm so long as they were within the Cluster797.
Policy makes clear that the impact of tall buildings on heritage assets, and the WHS in
788 in the PoE of Dr Barker-Mills
789 See paras 53 – 56 above.
790 Accepted by Dr Miele in XX by GLA. It is agreed that this issue does not arise where existing harm is identified.
791 Dr Miele, PoE, para 8.48 [CD13-7]. Dr Miele accepted in XX by GLA that this was the implication of adopting his
approach as a general principle for assessing cumulative harm.
792 Dr Miele accepted in XX by GLA that this is one outcome that could arise, but did not consider that to be the case on
the facts.
793 HE did not identify harm caused by Heron Tower at the time of the application. It has since been recognised in the
SOUV in 2011 that the existing towers (incl. Heron Tower) had harmed the integrity of the WHS [CD11-39].
794 As seemed to be suggested to Dr Barker-Mills in XX by Appellant.
795 Mr English, Appendices Part 2, pdf p.65 [CD16-5].
796 However, Dr Miele acknowledged in XX by GLA that the identification of the Eastern Cluster did not mean that every
site within the Cluster was suitable.
797 Not only because the physical extent of the cluster was neither know nor fixed at the time, but also because any
such inference would be incompatible with the language used by WHC.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
particular, is a key consideration in deciding whether a particular scheme or site
within the Cluster is acceptable.
8.48 The existing and consented Cluster has diminished the dominance of the WHS and the
White Tower in particular, weighting the relationship in favour of the City in key views
from which the OUV of the WHS can be appreciated798. The Cluster’s presence in key
views from within and outside the WHS has eroded the sense of separation between
the modern City and the WHS, causing a degree of visual competition. The Tulip
would exacerbate this existing harm. However it would do so in a manner that would
clearly go far beyond what has gone before, as a result of its deliberately distinctive
form and materiality, its incorporation of moving gondolas and its sentinel799 location
on the eastern edge of the Cluster, separated from the existing and consented towers
in key views.
Where does this harm sit on the spectrum?
8.49 It is agreed that the only policy or guidance on the approach to determining where on
the spectrum of less than substantial harm the proposals sit is that contained in PPG
paragraph 018800. This guidance postdates Bedford, takes it into account and does not
misunderstand the law801. It is agreed that a judgment that the significance of the
asset is very much reduced would equate to a finding of substantial harm802. For such
a finding, the decision-maker must look for whether there has been an adverse
impact on a key element of significance, which is seriously affected by the proposal.803
8.50 It is first necessary to identify which aspects of significance (or ability to appreciate it)
are affected by the proposals, and the importance of those aspects. The key question
is not which elements of significance remain unaffected804. This is consistent with the
approach in the Citroen appeal805. In the context of this appeal, this concerns the
contribution made by setting to the OUV and integrity of the WHS and the ability to
appreciate it. Having done that, it is then necessary to consider the extent to which
this would be adversely affected by the proposal.
8.51 Having thereby identified where the harm should sit on the spectrum, it is then
necessary to take account of the importance of the asset in determining the weight
that should be attached to the harm. As explained above806, setting goes to the heart
of the ToL’s OUV (and the ability to appreciate it), and makes a fundamental
contribution to the attributes that express it. The evidence807 demonstrates that the
Tulip would cause significant harm to six components that contribute to these
attributes. The harm is rightly identified as at the upper end of less than
substantial808.
798 Including LVMF Views 10A.1 and 25A 1 – 3.
799 Prof Tavernor, XIC.
800 Prof Tavernor, XX by GLA. [CD19B-5].
801 Prof Tavernor, XX by GLA.
802 Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin),
at para 25 [CD10-2].
803 As set out in the PPG at [018] [CD6-2] in respect of whether there has been substantial harm in the context of works
to a listed building. As set out in Bedford, it is agreed that the yardstick for determining impacts on the setting of a
listed building is essentially the same one (Prof Tavernor, XX by GLA). Prof Tavernor accepted in XX by GLA that there is
no law or guidance that requires for substantial harm that the designation of the asset would be removed despite this
assertion in his PoE at para 5.66 [CD13-15].
804 Consistently with the approach adopted by Inspector in the Citroen appeal at para 15.15 [CD9-4].
805 Para 15.15 [CD9-4]. The Inspector explained that the key point is how important the aspect that would be affected,
that is the setting, is to its significance.
806 See para 58 above.
807 Dr Barker-Mills
808 Significantly exacerbating the existing harm caused by other tall buildings in the wider setting of the WHS.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.52 The CoL reached the same view in its carefully considered Officer’s Report (OR).809 It
was accepted that neither the assessment of impact nor the importance of setting to
the WHS have changed since that conclusion was reached810. The reasons given to
explain the change in position have been inconsistent811 and unconvincing. The
analysis of the issue by experienced officers in the OR is clear and orthodox, revealing
no inconsistency with law or PINS’ decision-making.
Weight
8.53 Great weight must attach to any harm to a designated heritage asset812. Beyond this
starting point, the further weight to be attributed to the harm is a product of the
extent of assessed harm and the heritage value of the asset813. The more important
the asset, the greater the weight should be814. Very significant weight must attach to
the harm to the WHS on the basis that the harm would be at the upper end of less
than substantial, and to an asset of the very highest, and international significance815.
Other heritage assets
Approach
8.54 The methodology used to assess impact on other heritage assets in the TVBHA is
neither transparent nor robust. In many respects, it is extremely difficult if not
impossible to follow. The peer review of the TVBHA816, struggled to explain how
conclusions on impact were reached by reference to the explanations provided. It
was, for example, unable to explain how the impact on St Botolph’s Church had been
assessed as neutral on the basis of a balance of benefit and harm, when the impact817
was said to be not explicitly beneficial818. The witness simply [could] not identify a
benefit from the explanation provided that could be weighed against the harm819.
8.55 As was accepted, there is no analysis of the elements of each asset’s setting that
make a positive, negative or neutral contribution to its significance820. Instead, the
methodology effectively assumes that the existence of tall buildings immunises any
heritage assets from impact from further tall buildings, no matter what the nature of
the adverse effect that would otherwise arise.
8.56 Holland House is a good example. Both the OR and the TVBHA acknowledge that the
impact would be significant or major and would obscure or block views of the LB821.
However both assessments conclude that there would be no setting harm whatsoever,
the TVBHA even characterising the impact as beneficial. Both dismiss the impact on
views of the building from the north-west on the basis that they are modern views
809 OR, para 122 [CD3-4].
810 Mr Richards, XX by GLA.
811 The most recent offered for the first time only in XIC in November 2020.
812 Palmer v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 106 at para 5 [CD10-10].
813 Palmer at para 5. [CD10-10].
814 Para 193 of the NPPF [CD6-1].
815 Mr Goddard did not consider the weight to be attributed to the harm in the overall planning balance a matter for his
evidence and accepted that he had provided no analysis of weight within his PoE (XX by HE).
816 By Dr Miele. In response to XX by GLA.
817 Dr Miele expressed this as being an impact on the view.
818 TVBHA, p.189 [CD1-11].
819 Dr Miele, XX by GLA.
820 Dr Miele accepted that the TVBHA at p.39 [CD1-11] provided no analysis of the presence of tall buildings as positive,
negative or neutral in the setting of St Andrew Undershaft, the example he was asked about by GLA in XX. The same
omission applies to the assessment of all heritage assets with existing tall buildings in their setting.
821 OR, para 179 [CD3-4]. TVBHA, p.196 and 198 [CD1-11].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
that were not originally available822. As was accepted823 and reflected in guidance824,
new views of a LBs can contribute to its significance and the ability to appreciate it. In
this case, the opening up of these new views by the creation of the plaza was
identified at the time as enhancing the setting and ability to appreciate the
building825.
8.57 Another good example is the Church of St Andrew, Undershaft826. The TVBHA finds
that the impact on the close setting of the church would be major, but because there
is already an established presence of tall buildings, the conclusion is that the effect is
negligible827. In the view from Leadenhall Street, which is recognised in the
assessment as having heritage value in the existing position, the major change to the
skyline composition from the proposal rising above the Church is considered to be
beneficial on the basis that it would preserve the dramatic contrasting setting828. In
respect of the cumulative impact, the loss of the Church’s skyline presence, and the
prominence of the three consented tall buildings in its close setting, is also assessed
as having no adverse heritage impact whatsoever829. It was accepted that these
assessments contain no analysis of whether the existing contrast between tall
buildings and the Church is positive, negative or neutral in relation to the significance
of the asset or ability to appreciate it830. Instead, it expresses what is preserved by
reference to existing townscape character, a distinct receptor to that of heritage
significance831. Such an assessment therefore cannot be relied upon. The CoL has
adopted the same flaws832.
8.58 The Appellant’s case is that the juxtaposition between the old and new is a uniformly
positive feature wherever it occurs in the City. Juxtaposition per se is not, of course
unique to the CoL. It is commonplace in the UK. The extent of juxtaposition may be
particularly marked here, and represented to a greater degree by modern tall
buildings than elsewhere, but that is:
a. a difference of degree, not principle; and
b. not an excuse or licence to skip an essential step in assessment, which is to
consider whether any juxtaposition (existing or proposed) would be positive,
negative or neutral in terms of the significance of any asset or the ability to
appreciate it.
8.59 The effect of the Appellant’s and CoL’s approach is to avoid any proper structured
analysis of a development proposal which maintains or contributes to this
juxtaposition, consistently producing conclusions that such developments are not
harmful. As was explained, juxtaposition between the old and the new cannot be
822 Mr Richards, PoE, para 10.105 [CD14-4]. TVBHA, p.55 [CD1-11].
823 Mr Richards, XX by GLA.
824 HE Advice Note 3 on Settings [CD8-4].
825 Gherkin Townscape Report [CD19B-35]. p 6 para. 5.2.2 and p. 37]. In XX by GLA, Mr Richards agreed that the plaza
provided good opportunities to appreciate the façade of Holland House, a building whose significance lies in part in the
fact it is a striking landmark and from the very high quality of the materials and detailing of the façade (see Mr
Richards, PoE p. 239, para 10.102 [CD14-4]). He agreed this was an example of the phenomenon described in HE’s
Advice Note 3 (Settings) at p. 11, para 30 [CD8-3], whereby fortuitous views can allow significance to be appreciated.
826 TVBHA, p.195 [CD1-11].
827 TVBHA, p.53 [CD1-11].
828 TVBHA, p.94 [CD1-11].
829 TVBHA, p.94 [CD1-11].
830 Dr Miele, XX by GLA. Dr Miele attempted to distance himself from the conclusions in the TVBHA stating that he did
not write the assessment and had not carried out the full assessment himself.
831 Dr Miele, XX by GLA.
832 See, for example, the analysis of the impact on Bevis Marks Synagogue at para 10.83 of the PoE of Mr Richards
[CD14-4].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
treated as automatically positive833. If followed, their approach would ultimately result
in a failure to apply the statutory duty in section 66(1), which depends upon a proper
assessment of whether heritage harm has been caused.
Harm
8.60 The appeal proposals would result in less than substantial harm to nine Grade I, four
Grade II* and nine Grade II LBs834 and four conservation areas, by virtue of the
impact of the proposals on their setting and the contribution of setting to the
significance of these assets. Neither the Appellant nor the CoL have accounted for any
harm to any of these heritage assets when striking the planning balance.
8.61 The prominent and eye-catching form of the Tulip at such close proximity to the
Grade I listed Church of St Andrew Undershaft, St Helen’s Bishopsgate and Bevis
Marks Synagogue, the Grade II* listed Holland House, the Grade II listed Bury Court
and St Helen’s Place Conservation Area835 would cause a marked exacerbation in the
existing harm from tall buildings to the setting of the assets and the ability to
appreciate their architectural or historic significance. The effect would be variously to
create an overbearing presence from within the curtilage of the heritage asset,836
visually dominate the asset837, or visually isolate and obstruct important views of the
asset838.
8.62 The distinctive form and appearance of the Tulip, including its significant height,
would make it an assertive feature within the setting of the Grade I listed Tower
Bridge839, Guild Church of St Ethelburga, the Churches of St Katherine Cree840, St
Botolph Aldgate, and All Hallows, the Grade II* listed 10 Trinity Square841, Lloyds
Register, Sir John Cass School, the Grade II listed Dixon House and the Lloyds Avenue
conservation area842. In these instances, the Tulip’s form and appearance would cause
visual competition and distraction and erode the dominance of the asset in important
views that contribute to the significance of the asset and the ability to appreciate it.
The level of harm to each of these heritage assets is set out843.
Weight
8.63 Considerable weight must be attached to the adverse impact on these other
designated heritage assets. Even if it was concluded that only one additional LB was
going to be subject to harm, it would necessarily have a very significant effect on the
overall planning balance because it engages a strong statutory presumption in favour
of refusal, and must attract considerable weight. The reality is that the adverse effects
arising in this case are clearly more extensive than that.
Claimed heritage benefits
833 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC. Dr Barker-Mills provided the example of the juxtaposition between the 20 Fenchurch St and
Tower Bridge, an image of which is on the cover page of the HE Advice Note 4 [CD8-6].
834 Not including those within the WHS itself
835 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.25-9.29 and 9.32 [CD15-5].
836 In the case of Bevis Marks Synagogue.
837 In the case of St Helen’s Bishopsgate and St Andrew Undershaft.
838 In the case of Bury Court and Holland House.
839 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.33 [CD15-5].
840 See the Guild Church of St Ethelburga and that of St Katherine Cree are at Dr Barker-Mills para 9.36 [CD15-5].
841 Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.35-9.37 [CD15-5].
842 All discussed at Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, para 9.36 [CD15-5].
843 In the PoE of Dr Barker-Mills, PoE, paras 9.41 – 9.43 [CD15-5].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.64 The Appellant is the only party to assert that heritage benefits would be delivered844.
The claimed benefits comprise an enhancement of View 25A, a potential increase in
visits to the ToL, a new elevated view of the ToL and a better ability to appreciate the
significance of London’s heritage assets and the interrelationship between the old and
the new845. The Appellant additionally claims a heritage benefit to the setting of the
Grade I listed Church of St Helen’s, the Grade II* listed Holland House and Grade II
listed 38 St Mary Axe846.
8.65 These claimed benefits have not been substantiated. As explained, the proposals
would harm View 25A847 and the setting of the heritage assets identified848. As was
accepted, there is no evidence at all before the Inquiry that the proposals would bring
additional visitors to the ToL849. It was also accepted that an understanding of
London’s heritage is better gained from visits to the assets themselves850. Moreover,
elevated views of London’s heritage is plainly something offered by all consented and
existing viewing galleries.
8.66 On this basis, the Mayor does not consider there to be any material heritage benefits
of the proposal.
8.67 If, notwithstanding those points, it is considered that some heritage benefits would
arise, these should be afforded limited weight for the same reasons851.
The effect of the appeal proposal on strategic views, including the LVMF Views
10A and 25A.1-3
Introduction
8.68 The Mayor’s evidence on these is explained in detail in the PoEs852. The NLP and LP
require that tall buildings enhance the skyline and image of London and make a
positive contribution to the existing and emerging skyline853. Both NLP and local
policies implement the LVMF, supported by the LVMF SPG, requiring that development
proposals do not adversely affect, and seek to make a positive contribution to, the
characteristics and composition of strategic views and their landmark elements854.
Harm to LVMF views results in a distinct conflict with the development plan. Both
views in issue here are afforded the same protection in policy and guidance.
View 10.A
8.69 The extent of dispute in respect of this view is narrow. The Appellant’s assessment of
the impact accepts that it is major in magnitude and the significance of the effect is
very major and adverse in both the proposed and cumulative condition855. The
singular form of the Tulip in a sentinel location856 at the eastern edge of the Cluster
844 Mrs Hampson in XIC confirmed that it was not part of the CoL’s case that heritage benefits would be delivered.
845 Mr Goddard, PoE, para 10.33 [CD13-4], as supplemented and expanded upon by Mr Goddard in XIC.
846 Prof Tavernor, PoE, para 3.34 [CD13-15] and Dr Miele, PoE, para 18.5 [CD13-7]. These heritage benefits are not in
the Mr Goddard’s PoE and it is unclear whether they are considered to be material benefits.
847 By Mr Barker Mills and Ms Adams who analyse the harm to LVMF View 25A at para 9.45 and section 6.1 of their
PoEs, respectively [CD15-5] [CD15-3].
848 Dr Barker-Mills identifies mid-range harm to the setting of 38 St Mary Axe (Bury Court), Holland House and the
Church of St Helen’s Bishopsgate at para 9.42 of his PoE [CD15-5].
849 Mr Goddard XX by HE.
850 Dr Wright, XX by HE. Mr Goddard, XX by HE.
851 Unlike heritage harm, which must be given considerable weight in order to reflect the s.66(1) duty regarding
preservation, no such legal mandate applies to heritage benefits.
852 of Ms Adams Section 6.1 [CD15-3] and Dr Barker-Mills Paras 9.44 to 9.51 [CD15-5].
853 NLP policy D9 C 1) a) (i) [CD19D-27]. CoL LP policies CS7 (3) and CS14 [CD19H-2].
854 NLP policy HC4 A [CD19D-27].
855 Pp.90 and 92, TVBHA [CD1.11].
856 Language of Prof Tavernor in respect of this view in XIC.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
and visually separated from the rest of the Cluster would be a dominant presence
within the central portion of the view. The effect of its form would draw the eye away
from the more subtle forms of the WHS, disrupt the sensitive balance between the
City and the WHS, reducing the separation between them contrary to the LVMF
guidance857.
8.70 The Appellant seeks to minimise the significance of the impact on the basis that it
forms part of a kinetic sequence of experience as the viewer crosses Tower Bridge.
This ignores the fact that View 10A.1 as defined and protected by the LVMF is a static
view, the impact on which is not negated by the ability to appreciate views from
elsewhere. Moreover, the reality would be that once the Tulip is noticed by the viewer,
it would be a constant presence when travelling north along Tower Bridge, at times
tracking behind the White Tower on the approach to Tower Wharf858. The extent and
significance of its influence on the viewer both to the south and the north of the static
viewing point would serve to exacerbate and not diminish the extent of the harm.
View 25A.1-3
8.71 There is no dispute that the Tulip would appear as an immediately apparent, eye-
catching, and instantly recognisable landmark feature on the skyline in this view859.
Nor is there any dispute that the Tulip is distinct in form and materiality from the
other consented tall buildings in the Cluster. This lack of affinity with other tall
buildings would disrupt the central characteristic of the view, namely the relationship
and delicate balance between the City and the WHS, introducing a prominent third
aesthetic and architectural language into the highly sensitive space between the two
landmark features860. This is identified in the OR to create an assertive vertical edge
to the cluster, which appears abrupt861.
8.72 Neither the Appellant nor the CoL identify any harm to View 25A.1-3, despite the
Appellant’s identification of the impact in this view as major in scale. The basis for this
is no more sophisticated than a claimed reinforcement of juxtaposition, which is
already identified as existing within the view862. In essence, as long as there is
juxtaposition in the view, it is said that not only can there be no harm, but anything
modern added to the City is a positive benefit. The reliance on juxtaposition alone
would mean no new tall building could cause harm within the view, as long as it
provided a contrast with the ToL. This negates any assessment of the nature and
quality of the juxtaposition created and its impact on the contribution that the view
makes to the setting of the WHS by reference to its OUV or the ability to appreciate it.
Such an approach would also be inconsistent with adopted development plan policies
which make clear that much more is required in terms of design and impact than
simply maintaining a juxtaposition. This includes having an acceptable relationship
with heritage assets, including the WHS.
8.73 The Appellant asserts that the Tulip’s addition would be beneficial on the basis of
claimed design quality, although it was unable to explain why the same high quality of
design was not capable of negating the universally acknowledged harm to
857 [CD8.14].
858 Dr Barker-Mills, XIC.
859 Mr Richards, PoE, paras 8.67, 8.69, 8.92, 8.116, 8.117, 8.141, 8.164, 8.165, 8.189 (in respect of LVMF View 25A 1,
2 and 3, proposed and cumulative) [CD14-4]. Prof Tavernor, PoE, paras 5.23, 5.29, 5.31, 5.35, 5.37 (in respect of
LVMF View 25A 1, 2 and 3, proposed and cumulative).
860 Ms Adams, PoE, para 6.1.4 [CD15-3].
861 Para 125 [CD3-4].
862 As was identified in the GLA Stage 1 report for 22 Bishopsgate (and Stage 1 reports in respect of other tall buildings)
the LVMF guidance acknowledges that the juxtaposition between the Tower and the City Cluster is a key characteristic
of [this view and View 10A.1,] and a relationship that may be seen as positive.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
View 10A863. The approach is flawed in any event, because properly assessed this is
not a high quality of design for the reasons set out above.
Conclusions on views
8.74 Significant harm would be caused to both views, resulting in conflict with NLP policies
HC4A and D9 C 1)a)(i) and CoL LP policy HC4A, CS7(3) and CS14. The weight that
should be attached to this harm is very significant having regard to their
acknowledged importance and to the number of people who experience them. That
conclusion applies to both views, individually and collectively, and the acknowledged
harm to view 10A alone is enough to create development plan policy conflict and a
weighty material consideration in the negative side of the balance.
8.75 The Appellant seeks to net off this harm with a claimed benefit to an entirely separate
view864. Such an approach is wrong in principle. Policy requires tall buildings to make
a positive contribution to the skyline and enhance protected views. Delivering such a
benefit (if accepted) would simply represent compliance with policy in respect of that
view and cannot be used to diminish the conflict arising from the impact on another.
Public benefits
8.76 The public benefits of the proposal are discussed in detail in the PoE865.
Economic
8.77 The scale of economic benefit is largely agreed866. The identified benefits arising from
the construction process are inherently short term, and not significant in either a local
or regional context. The overall significance of the economic benefits (including the
direct and indirect benefits from the operational phase) would be very minor, when
considered in the local and regional context. This is reflected in the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA), which identified the benefit as minor beneficial and not
significant, taking into account the sensitivity of the receptor by reference to priority
in local, regional and national economic and regeneration policies867.
8.78 The economic benefits are not comparable to those from office development of
equivalent height, which is the priority land use for the Cluster and generates
substantially greater economic benefits868. This is not an area within the City in which
the priority land use is proposed to change869. Other uses are expected to be
complementary to the priority land use rather than effecting a shift in the land use
balance. This is relevant to weight, because there is no strategic need for greater
diversification in this part of the CAZ.
863 Prof Tavernor XX by HE.
864 LVMF View 25A.
865 of Mr Green Paras 10.56 to 10.148 [CD15-8].
866 Benefits SoCG Paras 2.1 to 2.2 [CD19B-27].
867 CD1-10, ES Ch.6, p.6.3, Tables 6.1 and 6.2. In XX by GLA, Mr Goddard agreed that the production and content of
ESs are subject to the EIA Regs and guidance, which are intended to ensure that the assessment is objective,
systematic and transparent, and undertaken by appropriately qualified experts. This was agreed to be important
because of the role the ES is intended to play in informing decision-making on substantial proposals, and facilitating
public involvement in decision-making. The assessments of significance are to be undertaken with the intention that
they can be relied upon by decision-maker for the purpose of weighing both negative and positive impacts when
deciding whether to grant planning permission or not. There was no suggestion the assessment in the ES socio-
economic chapter should not be relied upon for the purposes of decision-making.
868 See, for example 22 Bishopsgate ES Addendum [CD19D-7], Table 5, para 4.8. 1 Undershaft ES, Ch.6, Table 6-11
[CD19D-5]. See CoL Local Plan, p.20 (The Vision and Strategic Objective 1), p.21, p.31 paras 3.1.3 to 3.1.4. See also
policy CS7 (Eastern Cluster) [CD19-H2]. and also CoL Draft Local Plan para 3.4.4 and 3.5 ‘The Spatial Strategy’ and
Policy S21 [CD19H-3].
869 In XX by GLA, Mr Goddard accepted that the cluster is not one of those areas where the emerging plan is seeking to
change the focus so far as land use is concerned.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.79 The weight to be attributed to the economic benefits must also reflect the
dis-benefits. In addition to direct economic losses870, the significant harm to the public
realm and the opportunities for activation that it offers is also relevant here. High
quality active public realm has been identified as essential to the delivery of the
ambitions for strategic growth for the Cluster (see above)871. New visitor attractions
have not. For the reasons explained in detail872, the economic benefits should be
given very limited weight873.
Tourism
8.80 In considering the claimed tourism benefits, it is important not to double count the
indirect economic benefits of additional visitors. The Appellant’s only metrics to
quantify these benefit are the annual visitor numbers and their impact on the local
economy. These benefits have already been accounted for874, and the Appellant
acknowledges the claimed tourism benefits and the economic benefits are allied to
and go hand in hand875.
8.81 Moreover, it is agreed that there is no identified need or shortfall in tourist attractions
within London either in policy, guidance or in any independent study876. The evidence
of Mr Rusby was clear, what he was identifying was not a need but what he
characterised as an opportunity877. In any event, there is no evidence that a scheme
of this type could not go elsewhere within the CoL or London, if there was such a
need878.
8.82 If a paid for visitor attraction is considered a benefit, it should be given very limited
weight. This benefit must also be weighed against the significant and permanent harm
caused to the WHS, and two strategic views, which are of considerable importance to
the image of London879. The existence of a number of other well-designed880 free to
access viewing galleries within the City and the Cluster, the popularity of which is not
disputed881, further reduces the weight to be attributed to any tourism benefits.
870 For example, the loss of existing office space and the loss of the market use.
871 As accepted by Mr Harrison in XX by GLA.
872 By Mr Green para 10.106 [CD15-8].
873 The weight to be given to these benefits is not materially affected by COVID-19 or possible Brexit disruption. It is
agreed that current UK Govt. predictions are that economy will be back to pre-Covid levels by at least the end of 2023,
and that any operational benefits of this scheme would not be realised until 2027 at the earliest (XX Rusby). Mr
Goddard accepted in XX by GLA that he was not suggesting to the SoS that the decision on whether to approve a
permanent and prominent addition to London’s skyline within the setting of a WHS should be swayed by short term
factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic or Brexit disruption. That was consistent with Mr Rusby’s earlier concessions in
XX by GLA in the context of tourism. It is also clear from CD19C-12 and 12A, and Mr Richards’ oral evidence that the
CoL does not consider COVID-19 likely to affect the spatial planning of the Cluster.
874 See above at paras 112 to 115.
875 Mr Goddard, XIC.
876 Mr Rusby, XX by GLA. He agreed in XX by GLA that the Mayor’s Tourism Vision [CD11-1] identifies areas for action to
maintain competitiveness, but contains no suggestion that a lack of elevated viewing galleries, restaurants and bars
needs to be addressed to make London more competitive, or indeed a lack of major visitor attractions in Central London
more generally. Mr Goddard agreed in XX by GLA that it is relevant to consider the weight to attach to the benefits of a
scheme by reference to whether there is an existing or likely future shortfall (see e.g. p. 47, para 9.6.2 [CD9-8]). He
also agreed that if the Inspector/SoS were to conclude that there is no shortfall in visitor attractions in the CAZ, that
would be relevant to the weight to be attached to the benefit of providing a further visitor attraction.
877 XX by GLA.
878 In XX by GLA Mr Goddard confirmed it was not his case to suggest that there was no other site in the City or the CAZ
which could provide a dedicated commercial viewing platform with bar and restaurant.
879 Mr Rusby accepted in XX by GLA that one of the distinctive attractions of London for tourists is its outstanding built
heritage, including its WHS and great array of listed buildings. He agreed that this distinguishes it from many new
competing destinations. In seeking to compete with those emerging markets, London must be careful not to cause harm
to that which makes it unique.
880 See e.g. [CD11-64] (22 Bishopsgate OR at paras 102, 104, 119 and 124); [CD11-59] (1 Undershaft OR at paras
101, 104 and 117-118) and [CD11-62] (100 Leadenhall OR at paras 106-107 and 110) and the images and descriptions
in [CD19C-14].
881 Mrs Hampson, PoE, 8.38 [CD14-3].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Education
8.83 The education offer is limited, poorly conceived and was quite clearly a low priority
during the design process. The thirty two consultants882 the Appellant instructed
during the development of the design did not include an educational consultant883.
The limitations on its space and use indicate that the Appellant has provided what it
considers to be the minimum necessary to secure permission. As originally submitted
the proposal was for a single 88m2 classroom. This was increased to three much
smaller classrooms in an attempt to overcome one of the planning objections raised
by the Mayor884.
8.84 Even as increased, the space is constrained, in particular in light of the need to
accommodate 100 children, plus teachers and educational facilitators at any one time.
Its location at the lowest level of usable space within the bulb reflects the building’s
socially stratified nature885. It provides the most restricted views886.
8.85 Nor would the visiting children have access to the most exciting elements of the
building, including the glass slides and gondolas. It was accepted that potentially it
would be something of a disappointment for the children to be allowed in, but not to
have the chance to experience these things887. That would inevitably reinforce the
sense that the experience for the schoolchildren and community groups at the bottom
of the bulb is an inferior one compared to those who can afford to pay to use the
areas above. To that extent, it was acknowledged that it would be socially
exclusive888.
8.86 The ability to deliver the tailored experience for each school in practice remains
unclear. The management of groups of children from different schools within the
space, the ability to reconfigure the layout between sessions, and the storage of
furniture and partition walls889 remain substantially unresolved890. These very real
practical issues, all of which must be overcome in a constrained space, do not appear
to have been fully thought through as part of the late change to increase the quantum
of education space.
8.87 The roundtable event for those that would supposedly benefit from the facility891
shows a strikingly low uptake, with only three of the 74 schools invited892 sending
representatives893. Not only does this provide limited evidence as to how well the
educational facility would work in practice, it also raises questions as to why there
882 When the Inspector questioned Mr Harrison on this matter, he identified 34 consultants listed at p.9 of the DAS
[CD1-1]. One of the companies listed is the Appellant and one is the Appellant’s legal advisers, Taylor Wessing LLP.
883 Harrison, response to IQ. The roundtable event held by Appellant post-dated the application and therefore could not
have informed the design.
884 The covering letter makes clear that it was in response to the GLA Stage 1 report [CD2-3].
885 Ms Adams, XIC.
886 Although the Appellant’s witnesses praised the glimpsed views between neighbouring towers that would be provided
(Dr Wright and Mr Harrison), these are not the views that provide the raison d’etre of the proposal. Mr Harrison
explained that a visitor attraction that did not provide the uninterrupted 360 degree views available at the higher levels,
but instead simply [sat] within the existing cluster would sit as a different category and would not get built (Harrison
PoE, para 6.1.6). It is apparent from the Appellant’s note at [CD19B-25] on the images available through the 3D
goggles that the representation of other tall buildings cannot be relied on to assess the landmarks that would be
available from level 3. There remains serious doubt as to whether all the landmarks listed in Mr Harrison’s PoE at p.222
will be visible.
887 Mrs Hampson, XX by GLA.
888 Mrs Hampson, XX by GLA and note Mr Rusby’s confirmation in XX by GLA that the target audience for the Tulip is
disproportionately drawn from the highest (AB) social class (see his Appx. 1).
889 Despite this being identified as a good element of the proposal in Mrs Hampson’s PoE, para 8.53 [CD14-3].
890 See GLA Note 15.12.20, CD [19D-15].
891 An event only organised after the application was submitted.
892 Para 2.1, p. 6 [CD2-2].
893 Dr Wright confirmed in XX by GLA that no education authorities were approached to ascertain their views about
need, either before or after the roundtable event.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
was a marked lack of enthusiasm and the implications for the likely future uptake of
the facility894.
8.88 The weight to be given to the facility must also reflect the agreed position that there
is no shortfall in existing high quality locations for school trips895, let alone a shortfall
in elevated viewing platforms providing educational facilities or access for schools896.
There are several such facilities within the City itself, some of which provide views at
a higher level than level 3 of the Tulip and for more generous hours897. In particular,
as recorded in the roundtable report, the value of this space from the teachers’
perspective lies in the views, not the technology offer898, something already available
elsewhere899. It is also unclear the extent to which this educational facility would
compete with other facilities for the number of schools trips that schools can
provide900. It is no longer asserted that every school child in London will be able to
visit once in their school lifetime, despite that misleading claim featuring heavily in
the OR901, and in evidence902.
8.89 The Appellant has chosen to frame its offer so as to restrict access for those school
children who happen to live outside London903, despite the absence of any evidence
demonstrating a justifiable basis for such differential treatment904. On the contrary,
the evidence demonstrates that London’s pupils already benefit from better
opportunities for horizon-broadening trips than their peers outside the capital905, and
that they have the benefit of a rich history and culture that is already easily accessible
to them906. It is agreed that there is no evidence of a shortage of existing high quality
locations for school trips for London’s schoolchildren, but that there is evidence of a
relative disadvantage for schoolchildren in other regions and that there are many
disadvantaged areas outside London and within day trip range907. There is simply no
justification for limiting access for children outside London in this way, compounding
that existing imbalance908.
8.90 In respect of the community use of the facility, it is notable that the Appellant has
called no witness to speak specifically to this use909. There has been almost no
evidence about how the space would function as a community facility, and no
demonstration that the limited hours, which finish at 7pm and exclude weekends,
894 Mrs Hampson accepted in XX by GLA: the extent to which London schools would take up the offer is unknown.
895 Dr Wright, XX by GLA.
896 In XX by GLA Dr Wright confirmed that no-one attending the roundtable identified elevated classrooms as a gap in
the curriculum or thought such trips/visits was something missing in London (Appx. 2, Agenda [CD2-2]). She agreed
that if they had identified this, it would have been recorded. She confirmed that she had not attempted to compare the
educational benefits of a visit here with the benefits offered by other facilities that a school might visit instead.
897 1 Undershaft (see [CD19B-41]).
898 Para 3.5 [CD2-2].
899 Dr Wright accepted in XX by GLA that the consensus that the experience of being at such great height would likely
outweigh the technological offer is relevant when the Inspector comes to consider what weight to attach to that offer,
and the comparative benefits of other elevated facilities that are available to book for school visits.
900 Mrs Hampson explained in response to IQ that it is not necessarily the case that every school entitled to use the
Tulip would do so, in light of the other facilities that would compete with it.
901 OR, paras 468, 520, 524, OR summary [CD3-4].
902 Mrs Hampson’s PoE Paras 8.51, 10.19 and 12.9 [CD 14-3].
903 Indeed, the Appellant’s evidence inaccurately describes the facility as exclusively for London’s schoolchildren (Dr
Wright, rebuttal PoE, para 3.1 [CD13-29]).
904 As raised by GLA in discussions on the s106 agreement and in Dr Wright’s rebuttal PoE [CD13-29]. Dr Wright was
asked in XX by GLA about this restriction and was unable to provide a satisfactory response.
905 Dr Wright, XX by GLA and see p. 13 [CD11-37].
906 Dr Wright, XX by GLA and see Dr Wright’s PoE, p. 19, para 3.67 [CD13-21].
907 Dr Wright, XX by GLA.
908 In XX by GLA, Dr Wright agreed there was no evidence that the proposed differential treatment depending on where
they lived was appropriate.
909 Dr Wright confirmed in XX by GLA that she only knew the basic facts about this use.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
would cater to the needs of the targeted community groups910. The CoL would have
preferred more generous hours911.
8.91 Outside the delimited times for education and community use, level 3 would be used
in a manner just like the rest of the building: as commercial, income generating
floorspace912.
Sustainability
8.92 By its nature as an observation tower, the Tulip is extravagant in its building typology.
The ratio of accommodation to servicing and circulation is the inverse of what an
economic and sustainable design would usually seek to achieve913. As a result, it
compares very unfavourably with other recent tall buildings in the cluster whose
intensive use of resources is justified by their delivery of vast quantities of highly
valuable employment floorspace in a location where that is the strategic priority land
use and brings with it significant economic benefits914. The Mayor915 accepted that the
scheme would not be contrary to Policy SI 2, since this relates to the operational
phase, but did not agree that it would reach the highest sustainability levels of tall
buildings in the City of London. Rather, he explained that the priority, … is to achieve
zero-carbon on site. It is only in cases where the zero-carbon target is not achieved
on site that a contribution towards a carbon offset fund is to be provided. The appeal
proposal does not meet the policy priority of achieving zero-carbon on site916. The
Mayor917 also advised that BREEAM has weaknesses, particularly in well-located sites.
8.93 The sustainability benefits agreed in the benefits SoCG are minor, and must be
considered in the context of the proposal’s overall performance in sustainability
terms918. Whilst the proposal achieves a 42.04% reduction in carbon, this falls short
of the net zero target in the NLP919. The proposal also performs poorly in respect of
the requirements in the NLP to aim for high sustainability standards and take into
account the principles of the circular economy920, which includes designing for
adaptability or flexibility, disassembly and using materials that can be used or
recycled921. It is apparent that the Tulip could serve no other purpose than that of an
observation tower, in contrast to the flexibility of tall office buildings. Its
deconstruction would require a reversal of the construction process, using a diamond
saw or wire saw. The only reuse that could take place of the vast quantity of
reinforced concrete would be as aggregate.
Whether the public benefits outweigh the harm in the heritage balance
910 Which remain unidentified. In XX by GLA, Dr Wright agreed that the 3-7pm community use slot embraces both
school pick-up and the latter part of the working day, and that the inability to use the facility at evenings and weekends
would place significant constraints on its practical utility for many community groups.
911 Mrs Hampson, response to IQ.
912 Dr Wright agreed in XX by GLA that there will be more days when the facility can be used for private commercial hire
than for education/community use, and that it would be more accurately described as a mixed education/community
and private hire venue.
913 Ms Adams, PoE, para 5.3.4.1 [CD15-3].
914 Note also Mrs Hampson’s evidence in XX by GLA that it is necessary to constrain the building to operating at less
than its full design capacity in order to avoid unacceptable adverse effects, and that none of the other recent tall
buildings in the cluster are prevented from being used to their full designed capacity by similar conditions or obligations.
That is not only inherently unsustainable, it also indicates that this is not the right place for this scheme.
915 Through Mr Green CD19D-16
916 Ibid para 4
917 Adams to IQs
918 Mr Green, response to IQ.
919 NLP policy SI2 [CD19D-27]. The previous requirement under the London Plan 2016 was 35% onsite saving.
920 NLP policy D3 D(13) [CD19D-27].
921 NLP, para 3.3.10 [CD19D-27].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
8.94 The Mayor’s evidence on the heritage balance is provided in the PoE922. The limited
public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the significant harm to the ToL WHS
and the considerable number of other heritage assets923.
Whether the appeal proposals are in accordance with the development plan taken
as a whole
8.95 The proposal conflicts with development plan policies relating to design and
architectural quality, public realm, tall buildings, strategic views, WHSs and other
heritage assets. These policies are amongst the most important in the development
plan. The nature and extent of that conflict is substantial. As such, the proposal is in
conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.
Whether the public benefits would outweigh any other harm resulting from the
appeal proposals
8.96 In accordance with s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the appeal must be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The harm caused would be substantial, and weighs heavily against the
grant of consent. The proposals also conflict with the NPPF The benefits, which have
been shown to be very limited, are incapable of tipping the balance in favour of
granting permission.
Conclusions
8.97 For the reasons summarised above924, the appeal should be dismissed, and planning
permission refused.
The case for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England:
Historic England (HE)
The gist of its case is as follows.
Introduction
9.1 The proposals ask for considerable, permanent harm to the significance of heritage
assets which are special to our national culture and recognised throughout the world.
The Appellant has underplayed that harm and misjudged the weight it should be given
in the planning balance and invests it with meaning and merit that is does not deserve.
In this location, with its attention-seeking aspirations, need for prominence and
landmark status, it cannot be described as causing limited harm to the setting of the
ToL, one of the world’s great historic monuments.
9.2 HE is the lead body for the heritage sector and the Government’s principal advisor on
the historic environment. As a statutory consultee and with its specialist role, its views
should be given considerable weight and only departed from for good reason925. It does
not often become involved in public inquiries but here its Chief Executive addressed the
City’s planning committee in person to express serious disquiet about the potential
922 of Mr Green Paras 11.29 to 11.33 [CD15-8].
923 To which considerable weight must be given in accordance with the duty in s.66(1) and para 193 of the NPPF.
924 The limitation on the length of closing submissions (Inspector’s note of PIM, para 17 [CD12-5]) inevitably means
they cannot be comprehensive, and are necessarily only a summary of the Mayor’s case, the full nature and extent of
which is to be understood from the proofs submitted, the oral evidence of its witnesses and the points put in XX
(themselves necessarily selective to meet the requirement identified in PIM Note, para 16).
925 See R (Hayes) v. York City Council [2017] PTSR 1587 at [92].
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
harm. It’s advice concerns the effect on the ToL as a WHS, a similar effect on the ToL
CA, and to a lesser degree on the Grade I listed Trinity House and St Botolph’s, treated
separately.
9.3 The ToL is a heritage asset of the highest significance, and its setting as affected by
these proposals makes a fundamental contribution to that significance. It’s easy to say
that the ToL is of the utmost heritage significance but more difficult to understand and
act on this in planning decisions. It is a monument of truly exceptional historic and
architectural importance with the highest protection in policy and guidance926. As a
fortress and palace, a prison, execution site and barracks, it is one of only a handful of
structures that has played an active role in nearly a millennium of our national story.
Its inscription by UNESCO as a WHS confirms its status as the rarest and most valuable
of heritage assets, at the top of the tree globally, and of significance that is so
exceptional as to transcend national boundaries927 and of the highest importance to the
international community as a whole928. The UK has voluntarily entered into important
and emphatic duties929 to protect the appreciation of its heritage significance. These
duties should be reflected in the weight given to its conservation through the planning
system.
9.4 The SOUV is the key reference for its protection930. It succinctly emphasises the
function of the Tower, one of England’s most iconic structures, as a fortress and
outstanding model of monumental Royal power, and an example par excellence of a
late 11th Century Norman castle931. The WHSMP is an essential tool932 for conserving
and managing the site. It was sent by the UK933 to UNESCO in 2016 and should be
treated as a government-approved plan934. It expresses significance through attributes
which are critical to understanding impact935.
9.5 Both the SOUV and the attributes convey how setting is fundamental to understanding
the Tower’s significance: its protection and control of the City; its landmark siting, and
gateway to the capital. Its integrity is defined by reference to its landmark siting and
visual dominance as key aspects of its significance and confirm how setting is
fundamental to how the Tower can demonstrate OUV936. These attributes are
expressed in its location and setting. Setting is therefore key to these attributes. The
attribute of internationally famous monument also refers to the visual dominance of the
White Tower including LVMF protected View 25A.1-3.
9.6 It is important to establish the degree to which setting contributes to significance
because guidance advises us to do so and because this is a crucial judgement. As at
Citroen, the key point is not how some aspects would be left untouched, but the
importance of the aspect that would be affected, that is the setting, to significance.
This is vital to subsequent judgements, yet the Appellant has made no concerted
attempt to assess the contribution made by setting to significance. It does not deal
with this stage of analysis in any discernible or coherent way, and nor does the HIA
which ICOMOS roundly criticised. Symptomatic of this failure is a reliance on this
926 NPPF CD6-1, paras 184, 194b; PPG CD6-2, para. 26.
927 PPG CD6-2 para. 28
928 Operational Guidelines, CD8-33 para. 49.
929 Tavernor xx. See CD11-45 Article 4.
930 CD8-33 para. 51
931 CD8-23 pp. 36-7 Tavernor’s evidence makes no references to the site as a fortress, castle, a place of military
architecture, despite these features of the site being mentioned over 20 times in the SOUV alone.
932 CD8-16, para. 2.21; Tavernor xx
933 as a State Party to the Convention
934 As agreed by Tavernor in xx
935 Richards in xx
936 Tavernor xx
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
scheme adding to a juxtaposition between the Tower and the Eastern Cluster when the
reality is more complicated and nuanced as the SOUV and WHSMP confirm.
9.7 The SOUV records how the Tower’s significance had to some extent been eroded by tall
new buildings in the eastern part of the City of London (i.e. the Eastern Cluster) and
how some of these have had an adverse impact on views into, within and out of the
Property and the Tower’s relationship with the City will continue to be threatened by
proposals for new development that is inappropriate to the context937. The description
of authenticity warns that the ability of the Tower to reflect its strategic siting and
historic relationship to the City of London is vulnerable to proposals for development
that do not respect its context and setting938. The protection and management
requirements caution that the most significant challenges to the property lie in the
protection of its setting, given that pressures remain significant, particularly in the
wider setting939. The WHSMP also recognises that the dominance of the White Tower
has been eroded and cautions that, although there has been a relationship with the
Eastern Cluster for almost half a century and its intensification is part of planning
policy, the distinguishing sky space between them is diminishing. The WHSMP
understands that views from the Inner Ward illustrate the evolving relationship, but
records that the view over the Chapel Royal is increasingly dominated by the growing
eastern cluster in the city940.
9.8 So, this juxtaposition with the Eastern Cluster is not regarded as an unqualified positive
or expressed in wholly favourable terms. This is not so much about an evolving city as
the ability to appreciate the OUV through the attributes, including preserving the
remaining dominance of the Tower and its landmark siting. Considering any
development in the Cluster must refer not just to the juxtaposition but to the SOUV
and the attributes in the WHSMP. These identify how development has eroded
fundamental aspects of significance and made it vulnerable to further harm,
highlighting how great the contribution of setting is to significance.
9.9 The LVMF records that View 10A.1 enables the fine detail and layers of the history of
the Tower to be readily understood, enhanced by the free sky space around the White
Tower. Where that has been compromised, its visual dominance has been devalued941.
While part of a wider River prospect rather than an iconic view, it was the original
picture postcard view, is the closest to the ToL and has set piece qualities. With View
25A, it provides the best understanding of the detail of the ToL. This is identified by the
Local Setting Study as enabling a significant appreciation of the many aspects of OUV
along the route942. View 9943 from the north bastion allows views which exemplify many
of the cultural qualities that give the Tower its OUV, including its landmark siting. On
approaching the north bastion, the City skyline, including the Gherkin and Tower 42,
appear to move closer to the White Tower where they tower over it, reducing its
apparent prominence and scale944. From View 9, additional tall buildings in its backdrop
could further diminish its perceived scale.
9.10 LVMF view 25A.1-3 provides the greatest understanding of the WHS ensemble945. The
LSS notes that views from its similar View 10 exemplify many of the cultural qualities
that give the Tower its OUV, the aim being to create views in which the White Tower
937 CD8-23 p. 37
938 CD8-23 p 38.
939 Ibid p 39
940 Para 7.3. p18/99 and 2.4.2/21
941 CD8-14 para182 p99
942 including the landmark siting, the White Tower and the concentric defences
943 CD8-22, p. 101
944 Ibid pp. 58 and 101
945 CD8-14 para412 p214
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
appears dominant in its setting … and as an outstanding example of concentric castle
design946. The range of views in LSS View 1947 illustrate the unique sense of place set
apart from the modern City illustrating that the setting is at the front and centre of the
OUV and so the significant contribution that setting makes to significance.
9.11 The Mayor’s SPG recognises that the setting of each WHS fundamentally contributes to
OUV948 as does the 2012 Government Report in noting that there had already been
impacts on the visual integrity of the Tower949 and recognising how its surroundings
are central to its OUV. The 2014 Report950 accepted that there were significant
negative factors, both current and potential, outside the property, which had
compromised its integrity and authenticity. ICOMOS and the WHC have similarly
recognised the critical contribution made by setting to OUV to the extent of
contemplating putting the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger951. The
extent to which ICOMOS and the WHC have emphasised the importance of setting and
its important link with the OUV of the Tower are important material considerations.
The ICOMOS recommendation, regarding the concentration of tall buildings in the City
and statutory protection for the iconic view from the south bank refers to limiting
impact in conjunction with a buffer zone extending up to 1km over the eastern part of
the City into Tower Hamlets, does not negate concern regarding development in the
Cluster. This is confirmed by the technical review by ICOMOS of the current scheme952
which underscores that setting as expressed through the SOUV and attributes makes a
highly important contribution to significance; and that adding to the juxtaposition
through development in the cluster should not simply be treated as consistent with
that contribution.
9.12 Some of the relevant views highlight the importance of setting. From The Queen’s
Walk, the Tower ensemble is at the centre with the curated form of the Cluster to the
west. The geometric protection in the strategic view is centred on the White Tower, but
applies to the whole of the ToL and its setting which is enhanced by the extensive clear
sky. From a walk across Tower Bridge, the strategic setting remains legible due to the
gap between the Tower and the Cluster with the clear sky being fundamental to
understanding its position: why the fortress was built here, as a controller and
gatehouse, but set apart from the City. While the Cluster defers sufficiently to allow
these qualities to remain intelligible, the substantial contribution made by setting is
increasingly susceptible to harm from development which does not allow the White
Tower to appear more prominent than the buildings which surround it.
9.13 From the Wharf, views allow an appreciation of the White Tower’s dominance with
limited distraction allowing a ready understanding of it and the linked defences,
including the curtain walls. Inside the ToL, the White Tower dominates, and its setting
is enclosed by the curtain walls. Beside the Chapel Royal and the Royal Execution site,
the more intimate atmosphere confirms the sense of being apart from the City but the
tall buildings visible over the roof have intruded953. In all these ways, the significance
946 CD8-22, p. 104
947 Ibid p 80
948 CD8-16 para1.3 p4
949 DCMS State of conservation Report (SoCR) 2012, CD11-13, p. 2
950 Periodic Report 2014, CD11-38 p. 3
951 See references in Closing at f/ns 52, 53 and 54
952 The scheme would be in a very delicate context, as a new additional element to the already over-dominating urban
development pressure and already-stretched boundaries, where the property has already reached its limit in terms of
visual impact such that there is no room for additional challenges to it.
953 Moving close to St Peter ad Vincula may allow its history and architecture to be understood without the tall buildings,
but it becomes more difficult to understand the relationships within the wider space. Visitors can best experience the
qualities of the Inner Ward from the restricted locations where the modern city is not visible and does not interrupt the
sense of intimacy. The Royal Execution Site, a stage for European history, is key to the symbolic value of the Tower.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
of the ToL as a Royal Palace and ensemble of fortifications is inextricably linked with its
setting, the qualities of which are now highly vulnerable to insensitive development.
The building would not exhibit the “highest” or “exemplary” architectural quality required
by policy.
9.14 Adopted and emerging policy requires the architectural quality of tall buildings to be of
the highest and of exemplary quality. The scheme is being promoted as of world class
quality, of international significance and recognition, but this doesn’t bear scrutiny.
There is no dispute that the proposals are from a highly successful practice led by a
designer of global renown. But lauded practices do not always produce acclaimed
buildings. Each building should be judged individually, on its own merits, in response
to its context. Looking behind the gloss of the promotional imagery954, there are
important aspects of the architecture and design which undermine the claims that this
scheme would achieve the outstanding quality, and response to context, of the best
buildings. There are design implications from the location and function of the building.
It has an immutable purpose for a constrained site. To succeed as a viewing gallery, it
needs height and prominence. These factors would have inescapable impacts beyond
the immediate surroundings.
9.15 The misplaced assumption that the site within the eastern cluster was acceptable in
principle is a false premise which does not warrant this architecture in this location.
Policy does not espouse tall buildings anywhere in the Cluster but only if they adhere
to criteria including the conservation of heritage assets.
9.16 The apparent desire for a building which recovered and enhanced the Gherkin’s pre-
eminence on the skyline, and an avowedly eye-catching one, do not obviate the need
to respond to context. For all the declarations that the effects on heritage assets,
including the ToL, were considered and discussed, there is little evidence that they
informed the basic question of whether it would be appropriate to build this scheme on
this site, in such a sensitive setting955. Rather, the primary aim of the scheme was to
build as tall as possible, putting the visitor first rather than the wider context. Nothing
in the key design principles recognised the City’s planning objective of curating the
cluster by stepping down from an apex at 1 Undershaft. Massing studies focussed on
the Gherkin not the wider context956. The architecture was compelled to catch and
draw the eye of the viewer over as wide a distance as possible.
9.17 The aspiration to stand out has resulted in a scheme which would assert itself in the
critically important setting between two significant landmarks, the Cluster and the ToL.
These discordant effects are exacerbated by the inevitably conflicting form of the
scheme. The different elements of the building have an awkward relationship with one
another, with the design relying on an overwrought visual analogy to give it
substance957. The bulging top would create an uncomfortable sense of scale,
exacerbated by an asymmetry (created by a pure focus on views to the Gherkin) in
many views. The configuration of column and top would intimate continuing symmetry,
but this would break down and be apparent and unsettling. The inverted spoons of the
tip would improve the space for the viewing floors, but would house a fairground
954 Several of the images in Mr Harrison’s proof are aerial views which would not be seen and/or do not include
cumulative schemes, in particular 1 Undershaft and 100 Leadenhall: see pp. 136,154, 226, 228 and 232. Apart from the
fully rendered images in the HIA (CD1-17) and in RT2A and RT3A, other visuals including the 3D images in the VR
headsets are not verified and should not be treated as such: see CD19B-25, which is agreed.
955 By November 2017, and the key milestone in the design, when the single pod of the viewing platform turned
90 degrees to its current form, there is scant evidence from the DAS that a genuine appraisal and understanding of
context had been undertaken or had influenced the key design principles: see CD1-6 pp. 10-40.
956 DAS at CD1-6 pp. 46, 47, 52, Harrison proof CD13-8 5.3.3/158, 5.3.6/162.
957 English, CD16-3, para 7.9 p88: settling on a seemingly arbitrary species of flower
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
element in gondolas, a slow-motion rollercoaster ride958 which at its widest points
would expand the building to around double the width of the shaft below. The eye-
catching jewels959 in the form of gondolas would separate it visually from anything else
in the cluster.
9.18 The claimed familial relationship with the Gherkin, over only the very top of the
building, would ignore the striking disparity between the rest of the proposal and
everything around it. The massing would respond to the Gherkin in only a limited way,
employing a utilitarian concrete shaft of c.230m in height and 14.3m in width that
would be both uncharacteristic and incongruous. Its blank monolithic appearance
would be the antithesis of the human scale drawing the eye upwards in views both
near and far and hindering any reconciliation of the different elements. The engineering
where the shaft joins the tip would fall short of the structural lightness the name
invites the viewer to see. The concrete fluting would bring limited relief to what is in
reality a huge monolithic expanse of concrete expressed at height.
9.19 Despite the architectural detailing, the resulting form would be an uneasy, strained
relationship of parts which would lack the Gherkin’s refinement and sculptural form.
The intention to create a distinctive landmark, dissociated from the Cluster960, would
create an unsatisfactory tension with claims that it would benefit from a Cluster
location. Given the degree of divergence, that tension is not resolved by relying on the
collection of individual forms of other buildings within the Cluster. Overall, its
overwhelming rejection of context is a major impediment to the scheme being able to
achieve good design.
The harm caused by the scheme to the significance of the Tower of London is properly
described as towards the upper end of less than substantial; harm which has been seriously
understated by the unreliable assessments of the appellant and the City
9.20 First, there is no dispute that Bedford represents the current law on substantial
harm961 where the significance of a heritage asset would be vitiated or very much
reduced962. This finding is relevant when considering the spectrum of less than
substantial harm. Second, care is required as, even when considering substantial
harm, very much reduced means something different, below vitiated, and is flexible963,
capable of covering a wide range of circumstances requiring a planning judgement.
This is not a substantial harm case and less than substantial harm must be treated as
lying below substantial harm, where a different judgement is called for.
9.21 Third, care is needed on that judgement, particularly where there would be no physical
impact. The important point is not to look at what is undrained away, such as historic
fabric, as this should not dictate judgements on harm. The correct approach is to reach
a judgement based on the importance to significance of what would be affected, and
what that effect would be, not counting up the components of attributes that would be
affected. Even where only some attributes are affected, this does not mean that harm
would not apply to something central to significance964. Here, the proper course is to
958 Harrison proof CD 13-8 5.12.4/233
959 CD1-6 p. 153
960 Miele proof 6.84/26
961 By reference to NPPF paras 194-196
962 CD10-2 at [25]
963 The Chiswick Curve decision confirmed that substantial harm can be found in setting cases: see CD9-1 paras
12.143-5 p145, referring to the Razor’s Farm case.
964 Richards xx, accepted that whereas the WHS was inscribed by reference to two criteria for designation (CD8-33 pp.
36-7) the Operational Guidelines confirm that OUV may be sufficient for inscription where it is reflected in only
one (CD8-33 77/25). The fact that harm is not caused by reference to all of the criteria under which OUV has been
identified for any site does not mean that the harm should be qualified. The 2015 Periodic Report confirms at s 5.3 p. 10
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
identify the fundamental importance of setting, by specific reference to OUV and the
attributes, and assess how the scheme would impact upon it. Fourth, any assessment
of harm will depend not on the proportion of setting affected, but on the importance of
the views affected with regard to the contribution of setting to OUV.
9.22 Fifth, when identifying impacts, these may arise where a proposal would lift the eye,
so reducing the appreciation of buildings which contribute to OUV, or where a scheme
would compete with such buildings. Sixth, policy requires a judgement on whether
harm would be caused to significance, regardless of architectural quality. The highest
architectural quality is not the same as no harm. Even well-designed tall buildings
need to be in the right place965. The highest design quality is not just a thing in itself
but involves a careful response to context, both immediate location and further afield.
Harm to heritage interests must affect design quality966.
9.23 Seventh, the LVMF does not define the heritage significance of the ToL or how harm
might arise. It is directed at views. Elements which relate to OUV are not the same as
those dealing with townscape, hence the separate RfRs. Any anticipation in the LVMF
of tall development in the Cluster adding to character and stature967, does not relate
directly to the OUV of the ToL. Nor does avoiding domination by nearby development
as what matters is whether development would affect the ToL’s domination, or any
other aspect of OUV. The important point is not the emergence of the Cluster, but the
separation between it and the White Tower and how it would be affected with regard to
the attributes of OUV. Development that would add to a consolidated cluster would not
automatically be positive, the touchstone is the ability to appreciate the OUV of the
WHS. Views 25A.1-3 identify the juxtaposition of the WHS with the modern city as a
central characteristic of the view968 but this does not mean any development forming
part of that juxtaposition avoids harm. It also says that the City has grown to
encompass the WHS, the latter retaining only its essential historical relationship with
the river and a clear backdrop silhouette to the White Tower from the south west, but
this does not circumscribe what is relevant in the SOUV or the WHSMP. Advice that the
WHS should continue to dominate its surroundings does not limit the concept of
dominance to a restricted area divorced from the site or the Cluster. It applies to new
development in the entire setting to the WHS, viewed from all assessment points, not
only the geometrically protected view. The key remains the impact on the ability to
appreciate OUV969. The requirement that development in the setting of the WHS should
be of appropriate height, scale, massing and materials reflects this broad approach.
9.24 Unlike the promoters of the scheme, HE has properly understood the approach,
assessed harm in accordance with the ICOMOS adopted methodology promoted by the
planning system970 and used previously at appeal971 to more clearly articulate where
on the spectrum of less than substantial harm a proposal may lie. The appellant’s
assessment has been denigrated by ICOMOS, which says that the scheme should be
abandoned, and the SoS should give significant weight to its views. Pitching
judgements at the low level of less than substantial plainly underplays the true harm
that would be caused by this scheme.
that both the integrity and authenticity of the WHS had been compromised, without distinguishing between the criteria
for inscription: CD11-38.
965 CD8-6 para 1.1-2 p2
966 Miele xx; Goddard xx and Citroen at CD9-4 15.57-8
967 CD8-14 para 187 p101
968 Ibid para 411 p213
969 Ibid para 414 p215
970 GLA SPG at CD8-16 5.1-5.8/64-5 and Appendix 4; PPG CD6-2 Reference ID 18a-035-20190723
971 CD8-13 and Hayle Harbour at CD16-5 para 29-37 pp 53-5
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
The assessment of harm
The Appellant’s Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
9.25 The Appellant’s evidence revealed a lack of confidence in its HIA. It purported to: take
account of ICOMOS guidance972, focus on identifying changes to the relevant aspects of
significance, be a response to OUV when dealing with the sensitivity of the asset, and
to take in effects on OUV973. But the HIA methodology goes on to identify beneficial,
adverse or neutral effects on the quality of the environment, which has nothing to do
with HIA. A neutral finding is inconsistent with ICOMOS guidance974.
9.26 The narratives are based on this methodology and so confirm the problem. For
example, View 25A975 refers to a beneficial effect which is not based on OUV and says
nothing of attributes. No wonder ICOMOS found that the HIA was not consistent with
the information in the available documents, assessments and opinions and had internal
contradictions: determining that the intervention is significant in nature, while at the
same time minimising its expected impacts, and even evaluating them as slightly
positive, implying that aspects related to heritage values have been understated976.
Other points on attributes, integrity and authenticity
9.27 The potential impacts on the concentric defences and surviving medieval remains of the
Tower, were dismissed on the grounds that the WHSMP did not explicitly state that
these attributes were expressed through location and setting. The attribute of
concentric defences is explained by reference to their visible structure and their visual
linkage with the surrounding cityscape, which allude to the importance of setting977.
The surviving medieval remains include St Peter ad Vincula and the appreciation of the
Inner Ward, including the Chapel Royal, is strongly influenced by the sense of being in
a place apart from the City. There is no good reason to exclude this attribute from
being affected by setting development. The failure to conduct a robust and transparent
analysis against these attributes tends to underestimate the harm caused by the
scheme. The proponent’s evidence also omits the erosion of integrity and the
vulnerability of authenticity and so is based on a partial understanding of OUV.
The curation of the Eastern Cluster
9.28 The concept of a cone sloping down from a centre is not new978. Through a series of
planning decisions, the City has sought to develop the Cluster as a: coherent single
urban form, managed to enhance the visual compactness of the cluster, with a central
focal point on the skyline and an apex to the cluster, where 1 Undershaft is now
permitted, with other towers diminishing in height eastwards towards the Tower of
972 CD1-6, Tables 4.1-3 p. 10: this requires judgements on the sensitivity of the heritage resource, magnitude of change
and significance of effect (as a combination of these factors) to be directed at the attributes which convey the OUV of
the WHS. See e.g. CD8-13 para 5-1 p8 and para 5-8 p9
973 See CD1-6, Tables 4-1 and 4-2
974 which only provides scope for a neutral finding where there is no magnitude of change to the significance
of the asset in question - see CD8-13 para5-7 p9
975 Views 18-20 in the HIA CD1-17
976 CD11-18, p3
977 The defences were designed to complement the White Tower to deter those outside and potential setting impacts
should not be excluded from consideration. The LSS identifies them as relevant in setting out the aims for views from
the south bank: CD8-22 View 10 p. 104 “an outstanding example of concentric castle design”.; and see View 9 p. 101
“views in which the military architecture of the Tower and its defences can be appreciated”.
978 As Mr English explained. CD16-6 p. 81 also refers to the concept by the City’s former chief planner, Peter Rees.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
London979 and a lower tier of buildings forming foothills to the east of the Cluster
mediating the height difference between the taller Undershaft tower and the lower
scale of 30 St Mary Axe to the east.
9.29 The Cluster is980 a pressure valve to allow for the City’s office needs while preserving
heritage assets. The careful negotiation of this form over successive decisions has
tried to avoid harmful encroachment on the ToL and this is a legitimate planning
objective981. The City’s 3D modelling is not adopted policy but has produced a jelly
mould to allow a proactive approach to assessing proposals, as confirmed by the
emerging City Plan982. It has provided confidence that the cluster can evolve whilst
taking account of key protected views and the wider setting of the Tower of London
WHS983, an approach in line with policy CD7 of the Local Plan984. The model did
suggest certain parameters, certain aspirations which we have been developing,
including an idea of the cluster that we view as the future, as a dynamic profile that
leaves St Paul’s with a breathing space and similarly from the North Bastion of Tower
Bridge985.
9.30 The committee report for this scheme linked the evolution of the Cluster with
protecting the wider setting of the WHS986. It confirmed the conflict caused by this
proposal with the relationship to the WHS and the aspiration for the emerging cluster
to step upwards gradually in height away from the Tower in a deferential manner.987
It would introduce an abrupt vertical edge to the cluster in the view from the North
Bastion.988 The scheme would be at odds with this aspiration for the future shape and
form of the city cluster,989 such that its profile would be severely compromised. The
form of the Cluster may not be set in stone, but these findings are important material
considerations, which show how the scheme would conflict with a material and
legitimate planning objective to provide clarity on the skyline, by deferring and
avoiding harm to the WHS.
9.31 As much as a third of the building would project beyond the jelly mould990. This extent
of conflict does not sit easily with the suggestion that there would be only a low level
of less than substantial harm caused to the ToL. At 305m AOD, this would be the
tallest building in the Cluster, apart from and extending the height of the eastern
edge, identified as the most vulnerable for conserving the significance of the ToL. It
would create a cliff-edge to the ToL below, something the curation was supposed to
avoid. Still less would this building resolve the Cluster in views from the south bank,
but create a jarring edge. Alternatively, there would be pressure for more tall
buildings to solve this problem. This potential would risk further harm to the ToL. The
fact that the City has never refused permission for a tall building in the Cluster991
reinforces this concern.
The proper assessment of harm to the Tower of London
979 CD16-3 p27 decisions for 1 Undershaft, 100-107 Leadenhall, Leadenhall Triangle and Bevis Marks House
980 As described by Richards
981 Accepted by Harrison xx, Richards xx
982 CD7-3 6.5.11/135. See too the UK government response to the 2017 reactive monitoring mission by ICOMOS
regarding Westminster WHS, CD11-36, that 3D models should be used “to inform decision-making”: p. 3.
983 1 Undershaft committee report CD11-59 para. 181, 100 Leadenhall report CD11-62 para 185.
984 See CD3-4 para. 139.
985 As explained by Richards. CD16-3 5.39/31-2, referring to CD15-4 App. B1/98 at 1.09.
986 CD3-4 para. 139.
987 CD3-4 para. 139.
988 Ibid.
989 Para. 91.
990 Richards in response to xx and questions from the Inspector.
991 Hampson xx and to IQs.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Introduction
9.32 The most serious impacts would be on the WHS. The harm would be to the substantial
contribution made by setting to its OUV, seen in views from Tower Bridge, and to a
lesser degree from the Wharf, the Inner Ward of the Tower, and the South Bank. HE’s
concerns from the South Bank have been developed since its original objection to the
scheme992. This harm would arise from proposals which would dominate, compete
with, or draw the eye from, these historic buildings and places, wilfully imposing
themselves onto their context and ignoring the warning in the SOUV of threats to
integrity and authenticity.
South Bank (HIA Views 18-20, LVMF 25A.1-3; LSS View 10)993
9.33 From the South Bank, the height, form and materials of the building would be
accentuated by clear sky, creating a new focal point. The distance between the
building and the ToL is greater than from Tower Bridge, but the sheer height and
vertical emphasis, with the mutely contrasting concrete stem, would give a sharp
edge to the Cluster, disrupting its composition in views and detracting from the
dominance of the White Tower, the walls and mural towers of the concentric defences,
and the landmark siting. The scheme would impose its conspicuous profile, competing
with the ToL as a whole, dominating the western elements of the concentric defences
and distracting from the White Tower. The curation of the Cluster was influenced by
potential impacts on the WHS in this view, albeit not as much as views from Tower
Bridge994, and the deferentially shaped aspiration of the Cluster would be lost by the
cliff edge of an eye-catching landmark, whose height, massing and singular design
would reduce the prominence and appreciation of the WHS.
9.34 A simplistic reliance on the scheme adding to the existing juxtaposition995 has been
relied on as already weighted in favour of the City996. But relying on the dominance of
the City to gauge impact subverts the need to consider the effect on the remaining
dominance of the White Tower. If it were found to compete harmfully, that would
remain the case even with the juxtaposition. The Views are intended to deter schemes
that would not respect the WHS, regardless of the presence of the Cluster. The reality
is that, read within the composition as closer to the ToL than Tower Bridge, its sheer
size and form would vie for attention and compete with the Tower, causing some
harm. There would be the same features which would be harmful in the view from
Tower Bridge: the height of the building, the contrast in form and materials and the
distinct typology setting it apart and dissociating itself from the other buildings in the
Cluster997. Notwithstanding the separation, the height of the scheme, and its sheer,
then bulging form at a stark eastern edge of the Cluster, would draw the eye, thereby
reducing the appreciation of the ToL.
Tower Bridge: HIA Views 8, 8N; LVMF 10A; LSS Approach Route 14, View 9
9.35 There would be greater harm in views from Tower Bridge. The scheme would
introduce a brutal juxtaposition above the westernmost turret and compete for
dominance with the White Tower. It would be highly conspicuous and assertive,
undermining the visual space between the City and the ToL and the attributes of the
White Tower’s dominance. The viewer would also be drawn from the concentric
defences by a strident vertical landmark.
992 by Mr English
993 CD1-17, pp. 32-37. Also images in the presentation of Mr English for his evidence in chief: CD19E-7
994 Richards xx.
995 HIA CD1-6 p. 32; and para7.8 p60, 7.9/60, 7.14/61
996 Tavernor CD 13-5, 5,65/79
997 As Dr Miele accepted
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
9.36 The scheme would not only harm the dominance of the White Tower but its attributes
of landmark siting and as an internationally famous monument. The same effects
would detract from an understanding of the visible concentric defences here998 as part
of what the LVMF recognises as the layers of history in the view. The HIA concedes
that there would be a major change to the view, but this is not adequately reflected in
any judgments on the significance of the harmful effect and the fundamental role and
vulnerability of setting in understanding the Tower as a fortification have not been
recognised. The scheme may not fully close the gap to the Cluster, but its prominence
and profile would make it harder to appreciate the significance of the distance
between the City and the White Tower. The sentinel999 quality of the building would
compete with the WHS and undercut its fundamental characteristics. The
acknowledgements in the City’s Report1000 sit uneasily with the overall assessment of
harm to significance at the lower end of the spectrum.
9.37 The HIA refers to the composition of the Cluster already being weighted in favour of
the City1001 but this fails to admit that the OUV and the attributes are based on
maintaining the dominance and landmark siting of the WHS itself1002. The kinetic
experience of walking across Tower Bridge does not qualify the harm and the view
from the North Bastion has been selected as of strategic importance in its own right.
The suggestion that viewers will maintain in the mind’s eye views of the proposal that
do not affect the appreciation of the Tower cuts both ways: any walk would involve
harm to the appreciation of significance in the view that would not somehow be
forgotten.
Tower Wharf and the Inner Ward: HIA View 26, 26N, 301003; RT3A Views GLA 8CC, GLA4A,
GLA1D, HE1A and HE51004; and HE Views B1/07 3i-iii and B1/07 4ci-iii)1005
9.38 From Tower Wharf,1006 the height of the solid shaft and bulging upper form would
appear as a disruptive feature above the curtain walls, diminishing the dominance of
the White Tower over the foreground and the river, and detracting from the ability to
appreciate the complexity of the defences and the Norman keep. The distracting effect
would be greater due to the mixture of materials, including the concrete shaft which
would more closely resemble the masonry walls. From the southern wall walks, the
proposal would draw the viewer’s attention away from the historic buildings. Where
views are experienced on the move, such as mounting the steps beside Coldharbour
Gate or moving outside the New Armouries, the proposal would be the first, building
to assert itself, competing with the Chapel Royal and Waterloo Block in particular1007.
9.39 Tall buildings can be seen in these views and so some cumulative harm would
arise1008. From the South Bank and Tower Bridge, HE is concerned about the
vulnerability of the setting. Within the ToL, especially views over the Chapel Royal,
the relationships are different. From here, the urban context is lost behind the ToL’s
walls. Some significance has been eroded by existing buildings and HE advised that
998 Tavernor accepted (xx) that if the proposal competed with or distracted attention from the defences this would
constitute harm
999 Tavernor xx.
1000 CD3-4 paras 117-8
1001 CD1-17 p. 28.
1002 Professor Tavernor xx. Dr Miele proof 5.57-8/18 and CD 8-22 p. 101-102
1003 CD1-17 pp. 42-5.
1004 CD13-19.
1005 See further the images of Mr English: CD19E-7 and the appendices to his proof CD16-4 Appendix B1/07. See C11-
83 1.4.2, 4.5.3, 4.5.18-20, Appendix 1 and 13, as well as the Heritage SoCG CD19B-28 p. 10.
1006 See RT3A CD 13-19 View GLA8CC; HE View B1/07 3i-iii
1007 See HIA (CD1-17) View 30, RT3A Views GLA4A, GLA1D, HE Views B1/07 4ci-iii; and then RT3A CD 13-1 Views HE1A
and HE5.
1008 Accepted to be as summarised in Citroen
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
there might be harm at 40 Leadenhall,1009 50 Fenchurch Street,1010 the Scalpel,1011
1 Undershaft,1012 22 Bishopsgate1013 and 100 Leadenhall.1014 Each was granted
permission but that does not preclude finding that there was harm to the intimacy of
the Inner Ward as a world apart. Judgements on buildings can change after they are
built, and unbuilt schemes can be part of a cumulative assessment.
9.40 Impact in this case would come from the greater stridency of the scheme compared
with other office buildings. This building would be, and be seen as, markedly different
with a perceptible gap between. The contrasting form, with moving jewels in the form
of gondolas, would draw attention to itself and its bulbous top would emphasise a
sense of overlooking. It would intrude into the intimate setting including Beauchamp
Tower (concentric defences) and Chapel Royal as a focus for attention (surviving
medieval remains).
9.41 Although it concedes that the setting is of a high, or very high sensitivity, with
intrusions by the modern City1015, the HIA relies on the preservation of the existing
commercial character to explain why significance would be preserved. These
references cannot be reconciled1016. The implication seems to be that this scheme
would not cause harm because further tall buildings in the Cluster are inevitable.
However, Local Plan Policy CS7 for tall buildings in the Cluster accepts that not all
sites are appropriate and requires the application of criteria, including conserving
heritage assets and their settings1017. Again in these views, the HIA fails to translate
major change into an assessment against the attributes other than the White Tower.
The juxtaposition between the memorial context of an execution site and a
fairground-type ride would be jarring. If the scheme would draw the eye from Tower
Bridge, it would also do so here.
Conclusions on harm to the WHS
9.42 In these various ways the scheme would undermine the attributes at the core of the
OUV. Its location, height, prominence and eye-catching form, with its top silhouetted
against the sky, would undermine the landmark setting of the ToL as a fortress
separate from the City, as shown in View 10A.1 and to a lesser degree in View
25A.1-3. The profile would challenge the White Tower, competing with what persists
of its pre-eminence on the skyline. The sharp edge to the Cluster would be
unfortunate against the ogee-shaped turrets. It would detract from the concentric
defences, particularly in Views 25A.1-3 and 10A.1. From the Wharf, one of the best
locations to see the defences, the scheme would divert attention, the strong vertical
emphasis hampering the strong sense of horizontal scale. There would be an
unsettling effect from Tower Green.
9.43 Following the ICOMOS guidance1018, there would be moderate adverse impacts on the
attributes of landmark siting, dominance of the White Tower and internationally
1009 CD11-66 22/pdf p. 463.
1010 CD11-66 pdf p. 1242-3.
1011 CD11-66 18/pdf p. 379.
1012 CD11-59 para. 43; objection letter for this scheme at CD5-2.
1013 CD11-66 3.1(e) p.113 (Pinnacle); see too CD5-2.
1014 CD11-66 pdf p. 1061, where its position was put in terms of not increasing existing harm caused by the eastern
cluster.
1015 CD1-17 p. 42.
1016 Miele xx.
1017 CD6-4 p. 74.
1018 See the guidance at CD8-13 p. 9 and Appendix 3B on p. 16; and CD16-3: 7.35/103 (landmark siting); 7.48/108
(dominance of the White Tower); 7.57/113 (concentric defences); and 7.63/117 (surviving medieval remains);
7.66/118 (internationally famous monument); see too 7.27/98 and 7.29/100, as well as the conclusion at 7.74-6/122-3
where the markedly more harmful influence of the appeal scheme relative to existing or consented schemes, in
particular from views within the WHS, is summarised.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
famous monument, with minor adverse impacts to the concentric defences and
medieval remains. These would cause impacts between large/very large and
moderate/large significance having regard to the very high sensitivity of the heritage
significance in question, translating into a NPPF-based finding of harm towards, but
not at, the upper end of the less than substantial harm spectrum. For the above
reasons, the suggestion that there would be any heritage benefit in views from the
South Bank, was incoherent in terms of heritage significance.
9.44 The Appellant and the City rely on Bedford to claim that the upper end of the less
than substantial harm overstates it. But they have misjudged it. Citroen does not help
as even there the SoS found moderate harm where the proposals lacked the strident
profile of this scheme. The SoS found recently in a setting case at Anglia Square1019
that harm should be pitched at the upper end of less than substantial. Here there
would be major changes to a setting which makes a fundamental contribution to
significance, by an eye-catching, attention seeking proposal which has made no
attempt to respect its wider heritage context. The OUV of the Tower would be much
reduced and the HE assessment is sound.
Further harm to other important heritage assets
Tower of London Conservation Area, Trinity House (see RTA3 Views HE2B, HE3C,
HE4A and HE View B1/07 8i-ii)
9.45 These can be addressed briefly1020. As the Conservation Area covers the Tower and
the north bastion on Tower Bridge,1021 the appraisal is covered by the assessment
against the OUV of the WHS. St Katherine’s Dock, an early 19th Century extension of
the London Docks, and Trinity Square Gardens, laid out as open space at the end of
the 18th Century, are other character areas that would be harmed. The former has an
enclosed, relatively peaceful character from being set apart from the rest of the City,
although this has been reduced by tall buildings above the roofline. The latter is an
exception to the experience of the busy roads elsewhere in this part of the Area. The
setting is also defined by historic buildings, the most significant of which is Grade I
Trinity House, which was designed with the Gardens and is an exemplar of late C18
neo-classical style. The ability to appreciate their intended relationship with and from
the Gardens is an important contribution made by setting here, with minimal visual
distraction above the roofline. The proposals would be alien and prominent on the
skyline distracting from the buildings and gardens as elsewhere. The harm to the CA
would overlap with, and mirror, that to the WHS, elsewhere, at the lower end.
St Botolph without Aldgate (see TVBHA View 54)
9.46 This Grade I church from the mid-18th Century has retained its landmark qualities
from Aldgate High Street1022. Its square brick tower signposts its main entrance,
surmounted by an elegant octagonal spire which draws the eye upwards where
currently development does not interfere with the setting against the open sky1023.
Setting makes an important contribution to significance by supporting its prominence
as an historical landmark. The height and bulbous massing at the top of the scheme,
1019 CD 19E-5 (see e.g. DL 44/8-9); see CD19E-6 for relevant extracts from the TVBHA in that case.
1020 Mr English’s evidence. See 6.68/75-6.76/83 and 7.79/124-7.84-129 dealing with 1 and 2 Tower Green and the
Waterloo Block as listed buildings within the ToL in their own right, but subject to similar harm to that set out above in
relation to the Inner Ward: see CD16-3, respectively 7.67/119-7.7.68/120 and 7.69/120-7.70/121.
1021 See CD11-44 p.3.
1022 The TVBHA refers to the equally significant close views from Minories or those looking east from Aldgate High
Street: p. 54.
1023 CD8-26, p. 36. The City identifies it as a church with a skyline presence in its Protected Views SPD.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
with its moving gondolas, would compete in closest proximity with the slender,
tapering spire, unlike other buildings further away that would not be as conspicuous.
9.47 The appellant accepted1024 that the TVBHA1025 does not follow the relevant HE
guidance by assessing the contribution of setting in heritage terms, while the City
accepted that in some of the transient views there would be an uneasy relationship
between the eye-catching upper storeys and the tower, which would be visually
challenged1026. This should be treated as the development competing with or
distracting from the heritage asset1027. While in other locations of the City a
juxtaposition between old and new may be viewed as successful, that is not the case
here where harm would be between moderate and low on the less than substantial
spectrum.
The weight to be accorded to the less than substantial harm should be very significant; and
the approach of the appellant and City to weighing heritage harm has been equivocal and
insecure
9.48 In cases involving LBs and their settings, whilst the degree of harm is a matter of
judgement, if harm is found, the decision maker is not entitled to give it such weight
as they think fit but must go on to give it considerable weight1028. Harm to a LB or its
setting gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission1029. While not
uniform, any harm must be given considerable weight and the more valuable the
heritage asset in question the greater the weight it must be given1030. Here, the
importance of the asset is reflected in the weighing exercise, not in assessing the
extent of harm that would be caused1031. This is reflected in the NPPF1032. Great
weight should be accorded to any harm1033, recognising that the final judgement will
depend on factors including the value of the asset. Where less than substantial harm
is weighed against public benefits1034, this does not amount to a less than substantial
objection to a development1035.
9.49 The Tower has designations of the greatest heritage importance. Inscription
articulates its status as the rarest of designations, nationally and globally. Here, the
proposals would cause harm towards the upper end of the less than substantial
spectrum, to heritage significance of a national and international register, which
should be accorded very substantial weight. Neither the Appellant nor the City were
convincing in how this should be placed in the planning balance1036. The City found
the case remained very finely balanced but in doing so ignored the further heritage
harm identified by HE.
Permission should only be granted if the very significant weight to be accorded to heritage
harm is outweighed by even greater public benefits
1024 Miele xx that consideration of the view did not deal with the criteria for development in the setting of heritage assets
in GPA3 (CD8-4).
1025 See pp. 188-9 and p. 54.
1026 CD 14-4 10.61/228.
1027 as the appellant also accepted Miele xx.
1028 Giving considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving does not mean that the assessment of
weight to be accorded to harm is a matter for the decision-maker: cf Citroen IR CD15.23/107.
1029 Barnwell Manor, CD 10-1 at [23].
1030 See Palmer, CD10-10 at [5].
1031 Cf the Citroen IR CD 9-4 15.23/107.
1032 which requires that when considering the impact of development on significance, great weight should be given to
the asset’s conservation; and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. CD6-1, para. 193
1033 Cf the Citroen IR CD9-4 15.23/107.
1034 NPPF, CD6-1, para. 193.
1035 Barnwell Manor, CD 10-1 at [29].
1036 Goddard, Hampson and Richards xx
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
9.50 HE leaves the balancing exercise benefits to others but makes the following points.
9.51 It is necessary to reach a view on compliance with the development plan. The
Appellant accepted some conflict with former London Plan policies on heritage, WHSs
and strategic views. The NLP has corresponding policies1037. The City accepted conflict
with LP policies CS7, CS10, DM10.1 and CS14. The City concluded overall that the
scheme would not accord with the plan1038.
9.52 The heritage policies of the NLP were prepared to actively respond to concerns in the
2017 ICOMOS Mission Report that current policies had not been totally effective in
preventing negative impacts on London’s WHSs1039. The draft policy emphasises the
importance of properly prepared HIAs and so criticisms by ICOMOS of the HIA here,
and harm to this WHS which conflicts with this policy, should carry particular force. So
too should conflict with the WHSMP1040, which promotes the protection of the wider
setting from development that could harm OUV1041.
9.53 The same factors apply to the NPPF balance. From a heritage perspective, HE does
not accept that any coherent case has been made for the proposals delivering the
benefits that appear to be claimed by the appellant1042.
9.54 Views to the west and south appear liable to be obscured1043 by neighbouring
developments (1 Undershaft, 100 Leadenhall and Twentytwo). These and several
other1044 buildings would be offering free viewing facilities with enclosed space
available for school and community visits, with an education programme in dedicated
classroom space at 1 Undershaft, (with curation initially agreed with the Museum of
London)1045 which could be seen, at greater height1046, in views from the proposed
facility1047.
1037 NLP HC1 C, HC2 B-C, HC3 D and HC4 A-D. Also conflict with policies D9 c1a, c, d and e and D3(11). Further conflict
would arise with the emerging City Plan, albeit that its draft policies can only be given limited weight.
1038 Confirmed by Hampson xx.
1039 in the Panel’s words, CD7-4 330/72.
1040 Ss the government approved document designed to explain why the tower is so significant.
1041 See CD8-23, Objective 11, p. 96, and guidance which requires proposals to consider their effect on the established
eastern cluster, the space between it and the Tower and the effect on the ability to recognise, understand and
appreciate the OUV of the Tower”: 7.3.27/101.
1042 It has oversold the education facility, promoting it as world class when nearly as much of the third floor was
occupied by plant, there was a single classroom, and this was not sufficiently important to merit an education specialist
within the 32-expert team: CD1-6 pp. 9 and 115. The increase in floorspace only came in response to concerns
expressed by the Mayor/the City; from the plans and 3D images, the overall space is not generous, or thought through,
including corridors of not much more than 3m, on the lowest floor of the building, with little consideration to storage.
Further, the main slot during the school day (10-3) would be available for 210 days of the year, leaving 155 days when
it would be available for other use; the afternoon slot (3-7) would be available on weekdays throughout the year but
trips for school groups in KAS4-5 would extend beyond the school day with less demand during exams and school
holidays. Availability between 3-7 for community groups in weekdays would not cater for evening meetings. There
would be more days when time was available for commercial compared with education or community use: Wright xx.
Priority booking is to London schoolchildren: see CD19B-24 Sch. 7 paras 3.2 and 6. If a slot time remains unbooked 3
months before any date, it is offered to other education/community groups and if not then filled within a month of the
date it can be used for other purposes: see CD 19B-24, Schedule 7, para. 8.1.
1043 See images at CD19B-25. Note that these visuals, including the 3D images in the VR headsets, are not verified and
should not be treated as such; rather they are aide memoires to assist with the Inspector’s site visit and an overall
appreciation of the nature of identified views.
1044 The latest agreed document on Viewing Gallery and Education Provision Table – 15 December 2020 lists 7
constructed or consented viewing galleries elsewhere: 1 Undershaft, 100 Leadenhall Street, 22 Bishopsgate,
120 Fenchurch Street, 6-8 Bishopsgate, 20 Fenchurch Street and the Shard (paid for).
1045 See CD19C-14, which refers at pdf p. 19 to “an initial agreement with the Museum of London to curate the space as
an annexe to the Museum, with a central lecture/display area and displays focussing on the past and future city ,
utilising digital technology”. The space at 1 Undershaft (203 sqm NIA) would compares favourably with the 172 sqm
NIA of dedicated space on the latest drawing; even allowing for a flexible layout up to 352 sqm, this is against 1307
sqm NIA of free publicly accessible enclosed space for school/community visits at 1 Undershaft.
1046 See latest agreed document on “Viewing Gallery and Education Provision Table – 15 December 2020”.
1047 Indeed as Mr English explained (EiC), this proposal would interfere with views from this consented scheme.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
9.55 The interest shown by schools has been relatively limited1048. Availability of places to
visit for school trips, from elevated viewpoints or otherwise, was not an issue for
attendees and there is no evidence of any deficit in high quality opportunities1049.
9.56 The best way to gain an appreciation of heritage from an educational perspective is to
visit the places themselves, because there is a direct and immersive connection to
what they are seeing1050. There is a broad range of educational and cultural
attractions in and around the City that already offer pupils direct and potent learning
experiences1051.
9.57 The value of history and heritage at height would be less compared with visiting the
places themselves, particularly the ToL1052. There is no evidence that this proposal
would generate more trips to the ToL whereas schools will have finite time and
resources to arrange school trips1053.
9.58 There is an extensive and growing number of viewing galleries1054 and the experience
provided by these spaces and the proposal would be similar.
Conclusion
9.59 HE concludes that:
• the proposals would not exhibit exemplary architectural quality;
• they would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of designated
heritage assets, not only but in particular the WHS;
• they would conflict with policy on strategic views, with respect to view 10A.1 and
25A.1-3;
• any benefits of the scheme from a heritage perspective would at best be very minor
and come nowhere near the level of harm that would be caused).
• HE respectfully asks that great care and rigour is applied to the wider balancing
exercise. This building signals conspicuous and pronounced harm to heritage assets of
1048 An Educational Roundtable set up by the Appellant did not identify gaps in enhancing the curriculum through trips to
other institutions. It involved invitations to 72 schools. Only 12 school representatives attended. 8 of these 12 were
inexperienced trainees on the Teach First graduate programme: see CD2-2 2.3/7. No education authorities were
invited: see CD19B-14. The Statement of Community Involvement (CD2-14) shows that 2812 London state schools
were contacted to inform them of the proposals and explore their requirements for the facility. Only 27 responses were
received to the questionnaire: 3.1. It appears that 4 schools attended the exhibition space at 20 Bury St and that a
presentation was made to a further 14 schools in the same schools’ partnership: see 2.7-2.12. Priority is given to
London schools when there is no dispute that they have the greatest access to educational school visits and are making
use of this already: See DfE Research Report “School cultures and practices” Wright proof 3.68/19.
1049 Wright xx. see too CD11-37 p. 13 where the DfE found in London “a greater depth and strength to schools’
networks, both in terms of the opportunities for ‘horizon broadening trips’ and visits that schools were able to offer
pupils, and in relation to teachers’ own professional networks”; see too p. 91. The issue of addressing social mobility is
a far wider question than this scheme can meaningfully address: see CD11-7, “Cracking the Code”, where the key
findings place greater emphasis on other components of school teaching: see pp iii, iv, vi, vii-viii). See too 109/43 and
114/45 which confirm that preparing students for all aspects of school life involves direct experiences outside the
classroom, and not the experience of visiting a facility such as this proposal.
1050 It is the importance of engaging authentically with the world as it is experienced, and the importance of place, that
is emphasised in Ms Wright’s appendices: see PoE 3.40/13, 3.45.3 and Appendix 2 pp. 2, 4 and 8 (Council for Learning
Outside the Classroom Manifesto); App. 2 p. 11 (Ofsted Learning Outside the Classroom: how far should we go?).
1051 See English proof CD16-3 8.13/137 and f/n 344, referring to the Museum of London, St Paul’s Cathedral, the
Monument, the Tower Bridge Experience, the V&A Museum of Childhood, Docklands Museum, Globe Theatre. Many are
free and the City offers grant to cover the cost of locations that charge.
1052 which welcomes around 130,000 school children, including Key Stage 1.
1053 Dr Wright could only say that with the proposal in place the selection of where to visit would be a matter for
individual schools: In response to questions by the Inspector.
1054offering an experience of seeing the history of London in the view to those who seek it, images of many of which the
City has helpfully provided - See CD19C-14. The suggestion that these are “undemocratic” or “superficial, secondary”
(Harrison proof 3.6.4/114) because the buildings in which they are accommodated are largely offices spaces is
misplaced. The experience of arriving at a discrete ticketed entrance and being taken by lift to a viewing platform is
similar to what is proposed here.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the utmost importance. Planning permission should only be recommended or granted
if the countervailing benefits can clearly and convincingly be justified as greater.
10 The case for Sheriff Chris Hayward
Other than minor alterations for brevity, the statement is reproduced in full.
10.1 I am Chris Hayward. I am the Deputy Chairman of the Policy and Resources
Committee and was the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee, both of
the Corporation of the City of London when the Tulip was considered on 2 April 2019.
10.2 The Committee received a full presentation by the Chief Planning Officer and the
Assistant Director - Design as well as a full report and copies of representations and a
late paper setting out additional comments received since the main report was
prepared. HE, HRP and the Appellant addressed the Committee. Committee Members
were able to ask questions of their representatives. The debate was lengthy, thorough
and the Committee considered all aspects of the application carefully.
10.3 The Committee resolved by a substantial majority of 18 to 7 to grant planning
permission subject to the Mayor being given 14 days to consider the application and
the conditions and obligations being applied. I voted in favour of the proposal.
10.4 Every so often a scheme emerges that is exceptional and challenges convention either
because of its use or its design. I believe the Tulip epitomises both. It would be a
beacon for the energy, creativity, innovation, and the ever-evolving nature of the City
of London.
10.5 In my view the Tulip is World Class and would be a wonderful and exciting addition to
the London skyline which will resonate internationally and provide a new iconic
building for the City.
10.6 To object to the Tulip because it is eye catching and different fails to recognise the
role of radical new architecture in London’s rich historic fabric. St Paul’s was a radical
intervention in its time and London’s evolution includes many others. To name a few,
the BT Tower, the Millennium Wheel and here in the City, the Barbican, the Lloyds
Building and the Gherkin.
10.7 Officers made clear in their report to the Planning and Transportation Committee and
re-iterated this in their presentation to the Committee that they considered the
scheme resulted in less than substantial harm to the significance of the [ToL WHS]
arising as a result of impact in one view of the [ToL] from Tower Bridge.
10.8 I and the Committee take very seriously the impact of any proposal on the [ToL
WHS]. We recognise the significance of the City sitting alongside this nationally and
internationally significant monument and that the setting of the [WHS] is a key
consideration.
10.9 I believe the City placed very considerable weight on heritage interests when -
striking the balance between the City’s need to grow to deliver the World’s leading
international and professional services centre and safeguarding the City and
surrounding areas’ wonderful heritage.
10.10 In the light of the identified less than substantial harm to the [ToL WHS] it was
essential that the public benefits of the scheme clearly outweighed that harm.
Negotiations with the Appellant secured additional Public Benefits and I am of the
view that the Public Benefits are very significant.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
10.11 The Tulip is an iconic new building for the City and its skyline, enhancing London’s
status and attraction for visitors, residents and workers.
10.12 The Tulip provides an amazing visitor attraction for 1.2 million visitors in a highly
accessible location and would help to boost and diversify London’s tourist offer and
economy supporting the wider UK’s visitor offer.
10.13 It would draw people into the City and add to and diversify the City’s visitor offer
both directly and indirectly contributing to the City’s aspirations to be a 24/7 City. It
would act as a catalyst for the evening and weekend economy which would enhance
inter-relationships between established and emerging attractions in this part of
London and which would reinforce London’s position as a leading world city. It would
be particularly busy at weekends, opening this underused part of the City. Anyone
visiting the area at the weekend will attest to an area, largely devoid of activity and
vibrancy with the office buildings, cafes and shops closed. I believe the Tulip could
transform this area, introducing a substantial boost, creating a vibrant, bustling and
exciting place for Londoners and visitors, encouraging them to explore the City and
the surrounding area, including the nearby Petticoat Lane Market. This footfall will
encourage cafés, pubs and retailers to open their doors at the weekend.
10.14 The Tulip diversifies uses within the City making it more inclusive and more resilient
to change.
10.15 The provision of an educational facility for at least 40,000 of London's state school
children, free of charge, each year is a significant benefit. It would be an inspirational
space and a significant resource for key subjects in the school curriculum. It has the
potential to introduce the City to many children who may not otherwise visit the City
or consider it as a place that they may one day wish to work.
10.16 The Level 3 educational and community space would be a motivational, inspiring and
inclusive space that would be available for young Londoners as a priority and
available to London communities.
10.17 The roof top garden and pocket park which increase greening will provide improved
areas for resting and dwelling for the benefit of workers, visitors and residents.
10.18 The planning obligations and conditions would ensure that the impact of the proposal
is acceptable and that the wider benefits of the scheme are realised including
consolidation and timing of servicing vehicles.
10.19 The Covid Recovery Commission, just before the Inquiry opened, published a report
Levelling up Communities, which advocates measures to create the conditions for
communities to recover from the devastating impact of COVID-19, especially those
from more deprived communities who have been disproportionally affected. The
report advocates a focus on delivering educational opportunities, more resilient
communities, strengthening economic growth, creating jobs and a more resilient
economy. The Tulip is located cheek by jowl with some of London’s most
economically deprived areas. The economic and planning case for the Tulip is ever
stronger in supporting the recovery of the City post COVID-19 and in particular our
SMEs, retailers and hospitality outlets, all of which have suffered horrendously during
the pandemic.
10.20 I believe the Tulip is precisely what the City and London needs at this challenging
time. It will become an enduring symbol of resurgence and I am keen to make clear
my fullest possible support for it.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
11 Written Representations1055
There was a mixture of representations in support and opposition. Many of these repeat
those already made by the main parties. Novel points are set out below.
11.1 The ToL is owned by the Crown, but is the responsibility of the SoS for DCMS.
Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) is an independent charitable trust which is vested by
the SoS for DCMS with responsibility for the care and maintenance of the ToL on
behalf of the Crown. Its aim is to conserve the palaces and to educate and inform the
understanding of the public about their history and the skills required to maintain
them. A key objective of the revised and updated ToL WHSMP is to ensure that the
Tower can meet steadily rising visitor numbers (nearly 3m people now visit the site
annually) without harming its significance as a WHS. As guardians of the ToL WHS,
HRP considers that the proposed development would have a seriously harmful effect
on the setting of the ToL WHS and on aspects, or attributes of the WHS’s OUV. It
therefore wrote to set out its strong objections1056.
11.2 The proposal is to create a spectacular, world class new visitor attraction in the heart
of the City of London, as a high-level viewing gallery and for leisure/bar/restaurant
purposes, little more than 600m to the north-west of the ToL WHS. If constructed, it
would form a tall, vertical edge to the City’s Eastern Cluster of tall buildings. From the
first informal notification in October 2018, HRP has continually and consistently
objected directly to DCMS, the City, by reference to ICOMOS1057 or through HE.
11.3 In its summary of relevant policy, HRP drew attention to s66 of the LB&CA Act,
NPPF§§184, 193, 194(b) and 196, PPG reference ID: 18a-018-20190723, 026-038;
and various London Plan Policies.
11.4 UNESCO’s WHC and its cultural heritage advisor, ICOMOS, interpret the World
Heritage Convention in a way that places great weight on the need to avoid harm to
the OUV of a WHS. Only if proposed development is essential and cannot occur
without harm to OUV does ICOMOS concede in its Guidance on Heritage Impacts
Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties 2011 that balancing harm against
public benefit is acceptable.
11.5 Given the recommendations of the UNESCO Reactive Monitoring Mission to the ToL in
December 2011, and warnings by the World Heritage Centre relating to the increasing
impact of tall buildings on the setting of the WHS, HRP is concerned that the proposed
Tulip would pose a very serious risk to the continuing status of the ToL as a WHS. We
believe that, if built, the proposal could result in the WHS being placed on UNESCO’s
World Heritage In-Danger list of properties that might be deleted from the list.
11.6 William Upton QC CC, Member of the Court of Common Council, Ward of Farringdon
Without, City of London, emphasised that this is not a proposal that was ever
envisaged for this part of the City and that the Culture Mile at the Barbican is
unrelated to this important commercial area of the City. There would be adverse
impacts on so many heritage assets, as well as the other adverse impacts identified
by the Mayor. Furthermore, this appeal is seeking to ask the Inquiry to re-evaluate
how we develop the London skyline, even though that has been subject to the Local
Plan process.
11.7 He noted the ICOMOS letter regarding the impact on the UNESCO WHS. This was not
presented to the committee as part of the officers report. The committee was
1055 See CD17-1 to CD17-19
1056 Most of these are covered in detail in the closing submission of HE, I summarise but a few of these.
1057 Para 23 CD17-9
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
provided with a copy as part of a number of documents that were sent on the Friday
before the Tuesday April 2019 committee. When the representatives of HE and HRP
made their presentation to the committee, they had not seen the letter (as the
Minutes record). I do not consider it was given full consideration. Given the timing,
the officer’s report has to be read in the light of this as well.
11.8 The main purpose, as an observatory, is now hardly novel – the City is already served
by many public viewing platforms, in addition to those outside the City (most
obviously, the Shard). The education point has the potential to be important; a
classroom in the sky could be iconic. In the current proposal, the actual education
contribution is a very small part of this scheme, on only 1 of the 12 levels.
11.9 We are seeking world class architecture. It is a very difficult brief. The client has a
very constrained site at ground level, right next door to an existing iconic building. He
has turned to very eminent architects, who command great respect. The SoS is being
asked to approve what wants to be the tallest building in the City. The impact of this
project will be very public. Whilst I know we are dealing with a serious project, we
cannot ignore how Londoners view the tall buildings that have been erected. Their
nicknames show how outstanding architecture can gain public notoriety. The
designers have tried to label it a Tulip. HE has referred to a lift shaft. Some have
referred to Las Vegas. I would note that the press has already picked up on the rather
raunchier interpretations. The SoS cannot ignore this risk on this project. We want an
outstanding project, and should expect nothing less.
11.10 Six Councillors of the City of London Corporation and members of its Planning
Committee1058 wrote to set out their minority view. They felt that the design and
external appearance of the Tulip is of a concrete shaft with a glass bulb on top which
would be self-evidently out of keeping with the City’s skyline. It would not be
innovative as it bears more than a passing resemblance to the Stratosphere
Tower1059, an existing structure in Las Vegas which was built in the early nineties.
11.11 They argued that the increase in pedestrian movement would be significant and that
the problem of increased pedestrian congestion at the base of the Tulip would only
be mitigated by its attracting fewer visitors than expected. But that would create
another problem, which is the economic sustainability of the project. If the project
turned out not to be sustainable, the City skyline would be topped with an enduring
symbol of failure.
11.12 With regard to the educational facility for 40,000 of London’s state school children
free of charge each year, offering a schoolchild virtual learning which could be done
anywhere in a classroom with a view of part of London is not a valuable contribution
to education. Instead of children being taught about the ToL by virtual means, they
would learn much more by visiting the Tower itself, and many of the other historical
sites and museums in the City. Panoramic views are already freely available for
school parties in a number of existing buildings in the City, including the Walkie-
Talkie at 20 Fenchurch Street, the Monument and Tower Bridge, and will be available
in a number of other buildings for which planning permission has been given.
11.13 The structure would fail aesthetically, increase pedestrian congestion on already
congested pavements, be at high risk of ceasing to be economically sustainable,
leaving the City skyline topped with an enduring symbol of failure; and offend the
City’s heritage policies.
1058 Marianne Fredericks, Graeme Harrower, Sue Pearson, Barbara Newman, Natasha Lloyd-Owen and Mark Bostock
1059 See illustration in Miele p118
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
11.14 The fact that the City’s Planning Committee nevertheless reached that conclusion (by
a vote of 18 to 7) is no surprise, given its reputation for never refusing permission
for a major development, however many planning policies it infringes. This
predictable pattern of decision making reflects the City’s conflicted nature as a body
that primarily promotes private commercial interests while also exercising the
functions of a local authority. This conflict is evident in the annual dinner of the
Planning Committee, which entertains, at the City’s expense, guests drawn almost
entirely from the property development industry.
11.15 R J Hoefling, for The Honourable Company of Master Mariners (HCMM), set out its
background which compels him to register its objection to seeing The Tulip overlook
Tower Hill and its environs. There are 23 Grade l listed sites between The Tulip and
the Thames, 9 having maritime associations and one also being an UNESCO
WHS1060. The HCMM is concerned that construction of The Tulip would lead to
increasing development east of the City's Eastern Tall Building Cluster of which The
Gherkin is the current eastern limit.
11.16 He highlighted an extract from the LBTH report which notes that: LBTH officers
attended a pre-application EIA scoping meeting with the applicant's team on
30 November 2018 at the Council's Offices. The scheme was presented before LBTH
officers, with the submission to [the City] a couple of weeks after. The applicant
team explained that one of the drivers for developing this proposal was to give
greater prominence to the existing office building at 30 St Mary Axe ("the Gherkin")
and preserve the site of the Gherkin from being lost amongst the emerging and
permitted developments surrounding the site.
11.17 He also submitted a detailed map of the significant sites1061 followed by detailed
notes on each of these.
11.18 After the sitting days1062, he added the objection that adverse weather might limit
the primary purpose and viability for the Tulip and so the public benefits, drawing
comparisons with helicopter sightseeing operations, and the View Guarantee offered
for the Shards in case of poor visibility. He supported this argument with 3 sets of
data from the Met Office.
11.19 He also raised the concern that, unlike the Shards and the London Eye, which are on
the South Bank mostly looking north, the Tulip views would mostly look south into
the sun.
11.20 Dr Mary Dengler, a local resident, expressed doubts about how the proposed
development would negatively impact light and air in her property and, in an area of
the City with small roads and pavement, about the nuisance from noise and
overcrowding in the area.
11.21 Yvonne Courtney added her concern about the prospect of 1m+ annual visitors
descending on the tiny lane which leads into Bury St. Invited to a preview of The
Tulip it seemed clear to her that the freeholder wants a beacon to signal his
neighbouring Gherkin which is now rendered invisible by newer towers. The
educational element is disingenuous given the forthcoming Trellis tower (replacing
the Aviva) on the other side of the Gherkin plaza will feature an educational facility
run by the Museum of London. Nor is it environmental given most of the structure is
a lift shaft. In assessing the points raised here - please also strongly consider the
1060 the London Wall; All Hallows by the Tower church; Tower of London; St Olave's church; Custom House; Trinity
House; Tower Bridge; the Merchant Navy Memorial's First World War section and Lloyd's Building.
1061 CD17-1 p10
1062 In a letter dated 16 December 2020, CD19F-6 and CD19F-7
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
fact that the location for this structure also happens to be home to a little-known,
much loved residential enclave.
11.22 Andy Quinn referred to the Minerva tower which at 200m was approved in 2002
directly behind the ToL. The Mayor at the time then introduced a new protected view
from City Hall for views to the North and North East of the White Tower. This
proposal is not in that view. He invited me to walk along Tower Bridge and see the
queue of tourists taking a picture of the Tower of London in the foreground and the
ever growing cluster of skyscrapers in the background. Rather than harm, this
juxtaposition enhances the prominence of the ToL, a C10 skyscraper juxtaposed
against the C21 towers. He argued that more harm is done to the setting of the ToL
from the urban motorway that surrounds the site rather than a view of this proposal
which would be impossible to view with the naked eye without seeing perhaps
another dozen towers (with more to come that have been approved but not yet
built) in the same view.
11.23 Saghir Ahmed raised concerns that there is always too much dirt pollution in air
around this area and he is already sick of sneezing so often due to pollution. There is
also construction work noise every day that’s not acceptable.
11.24 Douglas Ford thought that the project is a striking and innovative structure which
will fit well with the other tall buildings in this cluster, be a substantial investment in
London which will create jobs and incomes, become a symbol of London, as has the
Shards, and would raise the morale of the capital.
11.25 Peter Murray Hon FRIBA FRSA AoU is Founder and Curator-in-Chief of New London
Architecture (NLA), a director of The London Festival of Architecture, Chairman of
The London Society, Past Master of the Worshipful Company of Chartered Architects,
Chairman of The Temple Bar Trust and assessor of The City of London Building of the
Year Award. He has acted as communications consultant on many major
developments in the Square Mile including Broadgate, City Point, Heron Tower,
Plantation Place and The Leadenhall Building. He has written a book on the
Leadenhall Building which details the changing skyline of the City of London and the
Corporation’s planning policies. He expressed support for the scheme which he also
submitted in video evidence1063.
11.26 Paul Finch Hon FRIBA has a host of qualifications as an architectural critic, notably
as Editor of The Architectural Review and Architects’ Journal and as a founder
Commissioner and subsequent Chair at the Commission for Architecture & the Built
Environment (CABE), now Design Council Cabe1064. He declared that he is currently
deputy chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission Trust, of which Lord Norman
Foster is president (though he does not attend trustee meetings). The proposal has
not been considered by the Trust, which does not carry out design review activities.
His reasons for supporting the scheme were that:
• The City of London has recently pursued a policy of introducing variety to the
Square Mile in the form of residential, retail and cultural buildings
• This has been seen as complementary to the ongoing commercial activities
conducted mainly in large-scale office buildings
• The Tulip would continue and enhance that policy, making an educational and
cultural contribution to an area of intense commercial development
1063 Letter at CD19F-4A. In addition, he submitted a video to the Appellant which is included in its closing CD19B-45
p20. There was no opportunity for cross-examination of his evidence.
1064 See CD19F-3 for full details. His letter is also referenced by the Appellant. He also appeared for CABE, in support of
the scheme, at the Inquiry into the Walkie-Talkie
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
• It is as welcome as it is unusual for a world-class architectural practice to design
adjacent buildings of a quite distinct character and with entirely different uses
• The design is both a stimulating piece of form-making, distinctive on the skyline,
and a functional response to a rich programme which contrasts with the
mono-cultural office developments to be seen in much of the City
• While distinctive, the design does not attempt to be the tallest structure in the
area – it is as tall as it needs to be but no more
• Some of the criticism of the design is arbitrary and based on the crudest of
analyses – personal taste
• The track record of the architect in the City of London is first-class, and there is
no reason to conclude that the Tulip proposal would be anything other than
another significant contribution to the amenity of its location
• There is extraordinary demand on the part of the public (of all ages) to access the
Gherkin whenever it is made available for public visits. That desire to see London
from the heart of the city will be met on a daily basis by this proposal
• The design meets the standards, aspirations and requirements of the NPPF
• Just as importantly, it would add to the variety and life of the City of London, and
indeed London as a whole.
11.27 While I chose not to overload the Inquiry, or the SoS, with each and every
commentary on the scheme, it is worth noting that there were informed
representations from interested parties against the scheme1065 as well as those
highlighted by the Appellant in its favour (above). None of these commentators
appeared at the Inquiry.
11.28 An objection on the basis of heritage impact on Bevis Marks Synagogue was
submitted by the S&P Sephardi Community1066. A subsequent letter advised that,
following agreement by the Appellant to make a contribution proportional to mitigate
the impacts of the development on the Synagogue, and educational benefits, the
S&P Sephardi Community and the London Sephardi Trust were able to support the
Application1067.
12 Conditions
12.1 The suggested conditions were discussed at the Inquiry reaching a final agreed draft
version1068. The City submitted an Explanatory Note1069. These must be necessary,
relevant to planning and to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in
all other respects1070. Following these discussions, I am satisfied that, for the reasons
stated, all these conditions meet the tests and, in the event that permission is
granted, they should be imposed as set out in the attached Appendix 3. Apart from
minor adjustments, and as below, should the SoS allow the appeal, I recommend that
they are attached. I have adjusted the reasons to refer to the NLP.
12.2 Under section 100ZA(5) of the T&CP Act 1990: Planning permission for the
development of the land may not be granted subject to a pre-commencement
condition without the written agreement of the applicant. Accordingly, agreement to
these conditions1071, which were appended to a letter, was confirmed1072 together with
1065 CD18-1 to CD18-3: the client’s project director for the Gherkin, the Guardian and Building magazine
1066 Dated 7 March 2019, supported by a paper from Caroe Architecture dated 9 January 2019
1067 CD19C-18, dated 28 March 2019
1068 CD19C-22
1069 CD19C-9
1070 NPPF§206
1071 Submitted on 17 December 2020 CD19C-22
1072 Letter from Taylor Wessing dated 17 December 2020 sent by email by Senior Counsel Emma Tait
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
any amendments or additions arising during or as a result of the Inquiry. Some
conditions originally suggested that they must be fulfilled in consultation with parties
other than the LPA. This would be unenforceable and so I have removed or altered
this to after consultation. Of course, it is likely that the LPA would consult anyway.
12.3 It was common ground that the proposals would have no unacceptable impact on
aviation routes, subject to an acceptable crane operation plan and construction
management strategy1073. The conditions suggested to safeguard aircraft come from
Heathrow Airport, London City Airport, and NATS (En-route) plc (formerly the National
Air Traffic Services). NATS had no objection to the building itself subject to the
imposition of a single condition requiring a Crane Operation Plan1074. The City of
London Airport added further suggested conditions1075. As I highlighted during the
Inquiry, these are somewhat repetitive. In the Schedule, I recommend simplified
versions but if the SoS prefers the full versions of the earlier draft conditions 18-22
then there would be little harm other than to brevity in attaching them.
12.4 I queried the conditions which refer to superseded Use Classes. Although the revised
Order allows for this, where the application pre-dates the revisions, it struck me as
retrograde. Therefore, to control the uses more precisely, which is necessary to justify
some of the benefits put forward, I recommend that the conditions stipulate the
precise uses as in the attached Schedule.
12.5 The Appellant was at pains to emphasise the sustainability credentials for the scheme
and put forward Condition 44 requiring a post-construction BREEAM assessment
rating of Outstanding. There could be difficulties in enforcing this after it has been
built, and few of the details of the construction phase would remain relevant after
practical completion. Nevertheless, as with the s106 requirement to endeavour to
retain the architects, it would be sufficiently enforceable to meet the tests.
12.6 I queried the efficacy of condition 46 on façade cleaning for concrete. Following the
Appellant’s Further Note on Concrete1076, I accept that careful detailing could reduce
the level of staining and that the specification could make stains easier to remove. I
retain some doubt as to whether the condition would be enforceable after the use has
ceased, but that does not negate its necessity.
13 Planning Obligations
13.1 The Agreement under s1061077 contains obligations on the Owner1078, both the limited
company and its chargee, and the City as LPA. A Summary and explanation for the
various elements of the Legal Agreement was submitted to the Inquiry, as was a
Compliance Note covering how the Agreement would comply with the Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 20101079. As with the suggested conditions,
these were discussed more than once during the Inquiry with written queries,
responses and comments, made Inquiry Documents1080 and minor amendments were
made during the course of the Inquiry.
1073 CD19B-26 para 10.16
1074 Set out on p7 of CD17-2
1075 See original list in CD12-7
1076 CD19B-44
1077 A copy of the Engrossment s106, dated 17 December 2020 is at CD19B-43
1078 The names on the Agreement do not precisely match the name of the Appellant. Should the SoS be minded to allow
the appeal, I recommend that he should ensure that the City has done checked the ownership details as set out in
CD19B-4 item 1.
1079 CD19C-20
1080 Inspector’s queries and responses CD19B-4; Mayor’s comments CD19D-3
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
13.2 A summary of the obligations is set out in the SoCG1081. These cover: Affordable
Housing; Carbon Offset Contribution; Construction; Cycle Parking; Deliveries and
Servicing; Development Programme; Education and Community Use; Legible London
Contribution; Local Employment, Training, and Procurement; Monitoring Costs; Open
House; Pavilion Roof Top Garden; Public Realm (including the Pocket Park); Section
278 Works1082; Security; Solar Glare and Convergence; Television Interference;
Travel Plan; Visitor Management; and Wind. The number of visitors would be limited
by controlling the number of ticket sales.
13.3 My conclusions (below) are based on an assessment in the light of the CIL Regulations
and of NPPF§204, which set 3 tests1083 for such obligations. It was agreed that the
planning obligations, including the costs of monitoring1084, meet the 3 tests and,
following discussions and amendments at the Inquiry, I am satisfied that the
obligations in the Agreement all comply with the Regulations and the NPPF and I have
given weight to them in my conclusions.
13.4 The Education and Community obligations set out space requirements, fitting out,
opening hours, capacity, staffing and booking arrangements. It would require an
Education and Community Use Management Plan prior to completion which would
need to be approved before occupation. It would control the details to the satisfaction
of the City with arrangements for monitoring and review1085. It is reasonable to
suppose that this would include enforcement provisions. It would detail the
accommodation, location on Level 3, size, uses, equipment, degree of flexibility,
fitting out, storage, arrangements for free access to school and community groups,
provision of materials, staffing, timings, resources, publicity, dedicated website,
security, entry and exit requirements and booking system. It would allow for changes
by agreement.
1081 CD19B-26 p23-25
1082 Under the Highways Act 1980
1083 CIL Regulation 122:(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the
development if the obligation is —
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
1084 CD19B-26 para 10.31 p30
1085 It now includes a floor plan with alternative layouts for the Education space CD19B-43 End of Sch7 p89
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14 Conclusions
From the evidence before the Inquiry, the written representations, and my inspection of the
application site, its neighbourhood and its wider surroundings, I have reached the following
conclusions. The references in square brackets [] are to earlier paragraphs in this report.
Main considerations
14.1 As above, the Secretary of State (SoS) considers that the appeal relates to proposals
for development of major importance having more than local significance. Combined
with the extant Reasons for Refusal (RfR), and other matters raised, I find that the
main considerations in this appeal are:
i. the effect of the proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets derived
from their settings with particular regard to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)
of the Tower of London (ToL) World Heritage Site (WHS), the Tower and Trinity
Square Conservation Areas (CAs), and various listed buildings (LBs) within the ToL
and within the City;
ii. any other harms which might affect the overall balance, including loss of ground
level public open space;
iii. whether the design would be of the highest architectural quality, including the
sustainability credentials of the scheme;
iv. the public benefits of the proposals with particular regard to the economy,
provision of visitor attractions, educational facilities and any other benefits which
might affect the overall balance;
v. whether the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh any harm identified in
the heritage balance of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and any
other material considerations, the consistency or otherwise of the scheme with the
development plan as a whole, and the overall planning balance.
Heritage assets
14.2 The relevant heritage assets are set out above. The scheme would not cause any
direct physical harm to any heritage asset, rather the disputes concerned their
settings. The parties set out their opinions on heritage assets whose heritage
significance might be affected by the proposals, including areas of disagreement. HE
and the Mayor considered that it was not possible to agree a statement of significance
without having a shared understanding of the contribution that setting makes to
significance. It was common ground that the starting point for understanding the
significance of the ToL WHS is the SOUV, as agreed by the WHC in 2013, and its
7 attributes. The WHSMP sets out the way in which each attribute is expressed and
each should be considered in turn. As at Citroen, the key point is not whether some
aspects would be left untouched, but the importance of what would be affected, that
is the setting, to its significance. [2.5][2.6][2.13][3.9][3.10][3.12][3.23][3.39][3.40]
14.3 The ToL has many designations, most notably that of WHS. As there would be no
physical harm to the ToL, I consider that its status as a scheduled ancient monument
is of limited relevance but, in any event, I agree with the Mayor and HE that the
important elements of the monument are covered by the WHS Management Plan
(WHSMP) and need not be considered separately. Similarly, the importance of the
setting of the ToL to the significance of the ToL CA is more than covered by the SOUV
to the WHS, although there would also be impact on views from St Katherine’s Dock
and Trinity Square Gardens. With regard to the individual LBs within the WHS, the
impact of the proposals on the contribution that setting makes to the special interest
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
of the White Tower and Ramparts as LBs is also central to the OUV of the WHS. For
other LBs within the ToL, such as the Waterloo Block/Barracks, each has its own
significance and, to some degree, its own setting. While in many ways they overlap
with OUV, they are not all the same and so I have considered some buildings
separately. [2.5][2.11][4.4][6.107][7.23][7.37][8.43][9.38][9.45]
Approach to considering the setting of the ToL
14.4 Following the ruling in the Bedford case on the meaning of substantial harm in the
NPPF, it was common ground that there would be less than substantial harm to the
OUV of the WHS when viewed from Tower Bridge (LVMF View 10A). Elsewhere, the
Appellant argued that there would be no harm, or even a benefit, while objectors
found less than substantial harm with regard to a number of assets. The PPG confirms
that the category of harm should be explicitly recognised but also, notwithstanding
Shimbles, that the extent of harm should be clearly articulated. The parameters for
substantial harm to arise in Bedford are relevant in expressing the degree of less than
substantial harm and in turn the weight to be balanced against public benefits.
[3.51][3.52][6.64][9.20][9.44]
14.5 There was limited agreement on cumulative harm, but the method of assessing it was
agreed to be that set out in Citroen. Advice on cumulative harm in the Settings SPG is
that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily represent
acceptability of impacts on setting. A major difference between the parties was
whether the Tulip would be seen as a part of the Cluster, and whether that would
negate any potential harm, or even turn it into a benefit.
[3.6][3.9][3.36-3.38][3.55][6.106][7.40][8.35][8.50][9.6][9.44]
Juxtaposition
14.6 Central to the Appellant’s case, that there would be limited harm in View 10A only,
was the past consideration of the juxtaposition of new buildings in the Cluster with
their historic context, including the ToL. From the examples summarised above, it was
argued that the juxtaposition of the Cluster and the setting of the WHS was not, in
principle, unacceptable or harmful, and that its unique nature has been seen by the
planning system as beneficial. Moreover, that this is a longstanding element of
development planning in London which has been underscored by the NLP. I saw for
myself, as set out in the LVMF SPG, that the juxtaposition of the WHS with the
modern city is a central characteristic, notably in the views from the South Bank. In
Reports on at least 3 permissions, the Mayor has repeated the phrase: the
juxtaposition between the Tower and the City cluster is a key characteristic of these
views, and a relationship that may be seen as positive. To understand this stance
involves consideration of some of the history of applications for tall towers.
[3.14][3.32-3.42][4.16-4.19][6.73-6.76][6.81-6.83][6.97][6.100][7.52-7.54][8.58-8.59][9.6-9.11][11.22]
14.7 Following the ICOMOS Mission, the WHC confirmed that it favoured the clustering of
tall buildings in the City. It did not say it favoured tall buildings. Rather, it saw
confining them to a small area as a way of avoiding the spread of towers and limiting
any adverse impact on WHSs. This is not the same thing. When concerned by the
significant impact that would result from the Minerva Tower, the WHC recommended
further protection including a policy of concentration of tall buildings in the City,
thereby limiting the impact on the [ToL]’s surrounding urban landscape. It follows
that reducing pressure for tall office development outside the Cluster could of itself
amount to a heritage benefit, particularly with regard to the contribution that setting
makes to the OUV of the ToL WHS in Views 10A and 25A.1-3. The WHC therefore
encouraged the City to curate the Cluster in order to limit the harm to WHSs. It did
not advocate more tall buildings on the basis that they would, of themselves, be
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
beneficial. Rather, it saw corralling the towers together as a way of safeguarding what
remains of the openness of the setting to the White Tower. To the extent that any
proposal would be part of a consolidated group of offices, and so relieve pressure for
office development elsewhere that might cause greater harm to the setting of the
WHS, then it could then be positive. [3.12][3.42][3.45][4.25][6.87][7.27][8.37][8.47][9.50][11.22]
14.8 This does not automatically negate concern regarding development in the Cluster. It
does not mean that it is necessarily positive to have modern skyscrapers standing
near historic buildings. What it means is that if new office towers are inevitable, which
they have been seen to be, at least until recently, it would be better to put them all
together. Accepting the need to balance heritage harm against public benefits,
especially those from substantial office developments in the City, the Cluster was seen
as a means of managing the identified potential for harm to the settings of WHSs
from an almost inevitable increase in tall office buildings.
[3.39][4.16-4.18][6.74][6.82][6.108][7.55][8.16][8.42][8.72][9.8]
14.9 Following the Minerva proposal, the Report on the 2006 Mission raised the possibility
of Danger Listing. The WHC was content not to consider this if there was either
statutory protection for the iconic view from the South Bank or a management plan
was finalised. With the LVMF Views enshrined in the London Plan, and the 2016
WHSMP in place, both have happened. As the WHC should now be content, the
concern about Danger Listing should generally be given limited weight.
[3.43][6.87][6.112][7.27][8.37][11.5]
14.10 Added to this has been the past opportunities for localised heritage benefits as
reflected in HE guidance that: Settings which have changed may also enhance
significance. In a period of austerity, much of the post-war growth of the City was
bland and uninspiring and had harmed the setting of the White Tower. Some
developments in the Cluster have replaced an unsightly environment, of unattractive
buildings and spaces, such as the precursor to the Walkie-Talkie. The Gherkin
resolved the problem of a bombed out site. More recently, the Scalpel and
1 Undershaft provided the opportunity for other heritage benefits, and I saw that
opening up the ground floors could amount to significant improvements to the
settings of St Andrew Undershaft and St Helens. Where heritage enhancement has
already taken place, there may be less scope for such benefits to be weighed in the
balance in the future. [3.38][4.9][4.12][4.13-4.14][4.17-4.18]
14.11 It is worth noting from the GLA Reports that these found a relationship that may be
seen as positive (my underlining). Just because the new and historic juxtaposition
has been identified as positive in previous reports does not mean that it will always
be positive for every proposal or for every asset, particularly when in some cases that
was an assessment reached on balance. Although the Deputy Head of Planning
confirmed that the Mayor’s position in previous Reports had not changed, this does
not amount to a policy statement that any such juxtaposition would be viewed
favourably in the future, as demonstrated by its position in this appeal.
[3.24][3.38][4.13-4.16][4.19][6.74][6.86][6.95][6.106][7.25][8.64][9.7]
Juxtaposition in this appeal
14.12 There are also important differences between the consented towers within the Cluster
and the proposals for the Tulip. First, the examples cited were essentially for office
space. This is the purpose of the Cluster as borne out by the innumerable refences to
office in the Local Plan (LP) and its policies to increase office floorspace, resist any
losses and concentrate this in the Eastern Cluster. Although support in principle for
tall buildings in the Cluster is not limited to office buildings, and the proposed use
gains general support from some policies, office space remains its focus and was the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
assumption by the WHC, ICOMOS and HE in accepting that the Eastern Cluster is an
appropriate location for tall office buildings in the City. Indeed, there is little to
suggest that the WHC even considered the merits of tall towers for other uses.
Consequently, the scheme should not automatically benefit from the presumption in
favour of clustering tall office buildings in order to reduce impact on the settings of
WHSs. [3.3][3.18][3.28][4.12][4.15][6.14][7.5][8.78][9.29]
14.13 Second, its relatively slender form, with a broader top, would be quite at odds with,
and stand out from, its office neighbours, all of which are vertical or tapering from
much larger bases. This would have two effects: first, from a distance, only the stem
and flower of the Tulip would be visible above other buildings in the Cluster, making
it appear less grounded; second, it would stand out as different and less cohesive,
reducing its association with the overall Cluster. Other than its lower portions, in key
views it would not be concealed by, or stand in front of, other Cluster buildings as at
Heron Tower or 100 Leadenhall. These effects would diminish its sense of being part
of the developing Cluster. [5.1-5.3][6.42][6.46][7.13][8.2][8.22][8.24][11.10]
14.14 Third, even with carefully selected aggregates and regular cleaning, the choice of
fair-faced concrete rather than curtain walling for the stem would be likely to give it a
much duller finish than that of glazing and this would probably increase over time as
cleaning would erode the finer aggregates. This would also make it stand out as
different to the Cluster where the glazing gives a consistent feel and emphasises the
office character. In views where the stem of the building would come very close to
the turrets of the White Tower, its appearance would be much less contrasting with
masonry than the shiny steel and glass of other tall buildings. Both against the White
Tower and more locally, this would further reduce the contrast that gives rise to any
beneficial frisson from the juxtaposition. The concrete spoons surrounding the flower
would support three series of glass gondolas, not seen at high level in other towers,
and add to the differences, and lack of cohesion, between the Tulip and the Cluster.
[4.7][5.7][5.15][6.30][6.48][7.12][8.19-8.21][9.18][9.33][9.38][11.10]
14.15 Fourth, there would be no significant localised heritage benefits such as replacing
existing eyesores or opening up views, against which to balance any possible heritage
harm, as at the Scalpel, or at 1 Undershaft. The appeal scheme would not remove or
avoid harmful buildings, such as the precursor to the Walkie-Talkie or the poor replica
previously proposed for the site of the Gherkin. There would be no heritage or public
benefit from demolishing the recent office block at 20 Bury Street. While the merit or
otherwise of the use of the plaza was not agreed, and nor was the weight to the
benefit of removing the ramp, there was no persuasive evidence that the changes in
the immediate area would amount to any significant heritage benefit.
[3.38][4.9][4.12][4.13-4.14][4.17-4.18]
14.16 A fifth difference is that while the Tulip would stand within the Eastern Cluster
diagram in the 2015 LP, it would stand slightly further east than any of the other of
the tallest towers, including the Gherkin, Heron Tower, Twentytwo and the permitted
100 Leadenhall. From key views, notably from View 25A.3, it would be separated
from other towers and seen against open sky and stand slightly apart from its
neighbours in the Cluster. If completed now, it would be the tallest building in the
City, at the accepted maximum height of both the Shards and the permitted
1 Undershaft. Assuming that the latter is built, there would then be two buildings at
that height, shifting the apex of the Cluster to a mid-point further towards the White
Tower rather than stepping down, as was the aspiration of the City’s 3D modelling
initiative. It would be likely to be used to justify further development at height
between it and the White Tower, even if this were to step down. If 1 Undershaft is
not built, the effect would be accentuated. [3.30][4.18][6.53][7.28][8.17][9.31][9.33]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.17 Sixth, the Government has relied on implementing heritage policy to demonstrate to
the WHC that it is protecting the setting of WHSs. It is critical to WHC acceptability
that this is implemented, including that in the ToL WHSMP. Since previous
permissions, this has now been strengthened in the New London Plan (NLP) with
WHS policy which includes the authenticity and integrity of attributes and reference
to the Government’s commitment, set out in bold in the supporting text, to
protecting, conserving, presenting and transmitting to future generations
the [OUV] of [WHS]s and to protecting and conserving their settings. The Panel
Report identified that this should mark a shift in policy on heritage in general and
WHSs in particular. This should also be taken into account in identifying the
significance of the WHS when applying the NPPF§196 balance. These important
differences in planning policy provide another reason why little or no weight should
be given to the previous permissions, or their justifications, as setting a binding
precedent. [3.10][3.11-3.12][3.21][3.39]
14.18 With regard to Danger Listing, I was not persuaded that the Tulip alone might result
in this extreme measure. However, the stance of the WHC is predicated on policies
being in place, including what is now the NLP and the WHSMP, and presumably on
these being effective. Given the ICOMOS response, and advice that the Tulip should
be abandoned, allowing it might begin to undermine that perception. The degree to
which that might happen, and justify the suggestion that it might amount to a serious
embarrassment to the Government, is one for speculation and should be given
limited weight. Nevertheless, the changes in planning policy, at least partly in
response to the concerns of the WHC, reinforce the greater weight that should now
be given to heritage protection on account of the revised wording.
[3.43][6.87][6.112][7.27][8.37][11.5]
Conclusion on juxtaposition
14.19 My purpose in explaining the history of previous permissions is not to prejudice the
SoS’s view on the impact that the scheme would have on heritage assets, and on the
ToL WHS in particular. It is to avoid him having any preconceived notion that
juxtaposition is necessarily a good thing, rather than that it may be a good thing,
subject to circumstances. The Appellant presented the WHC’s support for clustering
tall buildings as encouragement for more of them. I prefer the City’s analogy of a
pressure valve and see it as an attempt to round them up into as small an area as
possible, ideally with an apex and some modelling at the edges, in order to limit the
likely harm to the settings of WHSs. Moreover, there are important differences, set
out above, between the Tulip proposals and previous permissions in the Cluster.
These reinforce the point that the juxtaposition of the Cluster as a whole should have
little bearing on this appeal. Again, this is not to prejudge the outcome, rather the
reverse, leaving the SoS free to determine this appeal on its own merits.
[3.45][6.72][6.87][8.47]
14.20 In any event, and acknowledging that precedent can be a material consideration, it
was common ground that for understanding the significance of the ToL, the starting
point is the SOUV, and that is what I consider now. Moreover, for the LBs within the
ToL and the City, any general proposition does not, and cannot negate the obligation,
both in the NPPF and the statutory duty, to assess the impact on setting of the
scheme on each asset. [3.40][8.53]
Future development of the Cluster
14.21 London Recharged: Our Vision for London in 2025 is no more than a report at a
particular moment, but its surveys confirm that many expect a permanent shift from
daily office attendance to home working. A downturn in the economy as a result of
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
COVID-19, and/or the movement of some financial employment to Europe following
the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, could also affect the demand for office space.
However, even if it does, I heard evidence that current Government predictions are
that the economy will recover within a couple of years and that demand for tall
buildings in the City is unabated. By comparison, the benefits from the operation of
the Tulip proposals would not arise for several years. [3.50][6.15][7.81][10.19]
14.22 The City’s summary of Development Schemes suggests that it is more likely that
there will be no effect on the Cluster as a result of increased working from home or
from short-term effects on the economy, that the permitted towers will be built and
that the Cluster will continue to grow. In this scenario, permission for the Tulip would
move the apex further towards the ToL, encourage other tall development in
between, and further reduce the airspace around it. As illustrated above,
100 Leadenhall has already nudged the line from 1 Undershaft to the White Tower
higher and further east and it must be likely that the Tulip would encourage yet
another push to the east, instead or as well as, the area between 1 Undershaft and
the Walkie-Talkie as set out in the City’s summary. [3.28][3.47][f/n158][3.50][4.28]
Setting
14.23 Setting is experienced through views and the evidence was directed to those which
can be readily seen, especially by large numbers of people. It also focussed on those
identified as strategic in the LVMF SPG, which refers to the need to protect the
settings of heritage assets, and is in turn given status by the NLP. The most relevant
views towards the site for the Tulip from outside the ToL are from Tower Bridge and
from The Queen’s Walk on the South Bank. These incorporate the LVMF Views: 10A
from Tower Bridge and 25A.1-3 from The Queen’s Walk. I deal with these in turn. The
setting when seen from Butler’s Wharf is also relevant although from here the views
of the Tulip would be filtered, if not obscured, by Tower Bridge.
[3.14][3.23][3.32][3.44][5.8-5.9][6.51][6.88][6.95-6.96][7.5][8.33][8.68][9.5][9.23]
ToL WHS
14.24 The White Tower, at the centre of the ToL, is an outstanding example of innovative
Norman architecture and the most complete survival of a late 11th century (C11)
fortress palace in Europe. With its later concentric walls, it was at the cutting edge of
military design and a model example of a concentric medieval fortress from the C13
and early C14. Although altered, this degree of survival means that little in its
physical appearance diminishes the importance of its symbolic siting. Its later use as
a Royal palace, and its extraordinary importance as the location of events in English
history, are of great interest but of less relevance to development within its setting.
[2.5][3.22][3.32][6.89][6.98-6.102][7.36][8.40][9.5]
14.25 Of the seven attributes that express the OUV of the ToL, those which are key for this
appeal include:
• that of internationally famous monument, one of England’s most iconic structures
and emblematic of the effect of the Norman conquest;
• its landmark siting as the gateway to the capital, the new Norman kingdom, and its
strategic site and demarcation point between the City and the monarchy, both
protecting and controlling;
• that of a symbol of Norman power;
• that for centuries it expressed its physical dominance through the White Tower
soaring over its surroundings set against a clear sky.
All these attributes of its significance rely to a great extent on its setting, and this is
recognised in both the Settings and LVMF SPGs. [2.6][f/n43][3.31-3.32]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
How WHS assets would be affected
14.26 The OUV of the WHS, and the special interest of the White Tower and concentric
defences as derived from their settings, are vulnerable to development that would
overshadow or distract from its dominance or from the reasons why that expression
of power is so important. As above, there was common ground that there would be
harm in LVMF View 10A.1, where the scheme would interfere directly with views of
the airspace above the White Tower, but no agreement elsewhere. [3.47][5.8-5.9]
View 10A
14.27 As above, the LVMF SPG identifies that this is a view of significant depth and width
from where the understanding and appreciation of the ToL is enhanced by the free
sky space around the White Tower. Where it has been compromised its visual
dominance has been devalued. It was an early picture postcard view and, outside the
paying perimeter, is one of the closest public views which takes in the White Tower,
the ramparts and the sea entrance. The relevant attributes of OUV include that of an
internationally famous monument, and its components of iconic White Tower and
visual dominance; its landmark siting, including its strategic relationship with, and
key views of the Tower and its skyline, up, down, across and from the River; and the
physical dominance [of the White Tower], especially where its silhouette can be seen
against clear sky. As identified in the SPG, and I experienced walking north over the
Bridge, View 10A.1 is not a blinkered one of just the ToL, but part of the wider River
prospect and frontages as the City comes steadily closer into view. This means that
the White Tower is not the only point of interest. Equally, as I saw physically and
virtually, just as there is a wide panorama, views of the White Tower are not limited
to one location and the relationship between the ToL and its setting can be
appreciated continuously.
[3.32][3.47][5.8][6.98][6.103][7.22-7.23][7.41][7.58][8.40-8.41][8.70][9.9][9.42]
14.28 The Tulip would be very tall. It would stand above Twentytwo and be the same height
as the Shards of Glass and the proposed apex to the Cluster at 1 Undershaft. If the
Tulip is built first, it would be the tallest structure in the City. Although narrower than
the 12-storey flower at the top, and much thinner than any nearby tower, the stem,
at more than 14m in diameter, would still be substantial. Together with the 12-storey
flower, lifted to the top of the building, the Tulip would be a very sizeable structure.
In the panorama from the precise point of View 10A, the Tulip would not be directly
behind the White Tower, but slightly off to the left. However, the experience from
Tower Bridge is part of what was referred to as a kinetic one, and I saw that within a
very few metres north of View 10A, indeed while still standing on the masonry pier,
the Tulip would appear against the open sky directly behind the first of the turrets to
the White Tower. Moreover, while this panorama may encourage the viewer to stop
and enjoy it all, that does not necessarily mean that less attention would be paid to
the ToL, or dilute the impact of the City on it, and the potential impact of the Tulip on
the White Tower in particular. Rather, this impact would be apparent for much of the
walk across the Bridge. From here to the abutment tower on the north bank, the
Tulip would appear to move right the way through the airspace behind the White
Tower and this would be highly apparent and intrusive to the viewer. From the third
or fourth stanchion north of View 10A, the Gherkin already impinges on the airspace,
appearing a little higher than the top of the tallest turret, as will 100 Leadenhall.
However, the Gherkin is much lower, and 100 Leadenhall would be off to the left, so
the impact from these is/will be much less than from the Tulip.
[4.11][5.1][6.20][7.53][8.70][9.7][9.9][9.12]
14.29 Of its attributes, from View 10A.1 its landmark siting as the gateway to the capital
and a symbol of Norman power, and the extent to which the White Tower can still
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
express its physical dominance over the City, are particularly noteworthy. The sky
space component of these attributes is central to its OUV. So is the extent to which
the location, height and use of materials of the Tulip, together with the upper section
of the stem expanding into the much wider flower, raised very high into the air,
would distract from these critically important aspects of the ToL’s OUV. From
View 10A.1, the open sky around the White Tower would be severely affected by the
Tulip. The extent to which its height and location would detract from the ToL would
be significant. It would be a dominant presence within the central portion of the view
and would draw the eye away from both the White Tower and the lower level
Ramparts of the WHS. In my judgement, it would disrupt the sensitive balance
between the City and the WHS, reducing the separation between them and doing so
high into the sky. [4.4.3][5.9][7.50][8.39][9.5][9.36-9.37]
14.30 The choice of concrete for the stem would provide a contrast with the curtain walling
in the Cluster. On a dull day, both the concrete to the stem and the glazing to the
office buildings might look dull. However, on a sunny day, the concrete finish would
be significantly closer in appearance to the masonry of the White Tower and the
Ramparts1086. The Appellant described this as complementary. While that might be
arguable in a townscape assessment, in terms of heritage, I find it would be a greater
distraction than the more consistent glazing to the rest of the Cluster and so harmful.
[5.1][6.30][6.48-6.50][8.19-8.21]
14.31 The City argued that in other Tower Bridge views the Tulip would contribute to the
diversity of forms and shapes in the Cluster and be read as part of it, and as such,
would not cause harm to the OUV or significance of the ToL. The diversity would
certainly be true, but this also highlights the tension between the aim of blending in
with the rest of the Cluster and being an iconic landmark that would want to compete
with the other very tall buildings. While from elsewhere on the Bridge than View 10A
the scheme would not be directly above the White Tower, so that there would be a
lesser effect, it would still be significant. Indeed, the fact that the scheme would have
an impact on the setting of the ToL right across the Bridge should add weight to the
harm. Taken together, I find that the Tulip would seriously detract from the OUV of
the WHS, and the significance of the White Tower in particular, and result in more
than moderate impact. In the context of the enormous importance of the ToL WHS,
its significance as a whole would not be drained away but the contribution provided
by its setting would be much reduced. [5.9][6.77][7.23][7.50][7.57][8.74][9.37][11.22]
14.32 NPPF§193 requires great weight to be given to the conservation of any designated
heritage asset and the more important the asset, the greater the weight. Given the
considerable importance of the asset in question, reflected in the host of designations
and the emphasis in the SOUV on the way the White Tower dominates its setting, the
weight that should be given to this level of harm in View 10A.1 alone should be very
considerable. Although unlikely, if 1 Undershaft and/or 100 Leadenhall are not built,
the Tulip would appear even more exposed and have an even greater separation from
the rest of the Cluster, adding to the harm. [3.25][3.51][7.91][7.93][8.53][9.48]
Views 25A.1-3
14.33 The views from The Queen’s Walk on the South Bank reveal a fabulous image of
London. It is a popular location (as I saw even during periods of travel restrictions).
The views from moving along the promenade allow an understanding of the ToL as a
whole and its dominance of a key point in the River at the entrance to the historic
parts of London and the edge of the City. They provide a good view not only of the
White Tower, but also the concentric defences, and the relationship with the River,
1086 Compare images in Site Visit Booklet from View 10A at 3.11 and 3.12
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the Middle Tower and other entrances. The latter are relevant to its attribute of
landmark siting as the gateway to the capital, and its strategic demarcation point
between the City and the monarchy, both protecting and controlling. From the South
Bank it is easy to see why the White Tower was built here, both as a gatehouse
controlling the River and the City, and set apart from it.
[3.14][3.32][3.43][5.8-5.9][6.89][6.95][7.23][8.42][9.11][9.33]
14.34 The Cluster stands off to one side of the White Tower, just as Tower Bridge does on
the other. All 3 are highly visible elements in all the LVMF Views from the South
Bank. On the other hand, even from View 25A.3, at the Tower Bridge end of The
Queen’s Walk, the Cluster does appear relatively separate from the White Tower, if
not the ramparts, and the latter already have lower buildings in their backdrop
(although this wouldn’t preclude a cumulative impact on significance). As above, the
LVMF SPG notes that the juxtaposition of the [WHS] with the modern city is the
central characteristic of this view. Due to perspective, I saw that there is a sense of
balance between the Cluster and Tower Bridge which frame both the White Tower
and the airspace around it. [5.8-5.9][6.95][7.23][7.45-7.47][7.61][8.64][8.71-8.72][9.5][9.39]
14.35 Between roughly mid-way along The Queen’s Walk and the start of Tower Bridge, the
Tulip would stand above the Middle Tower, the Byward Tower and the concentric
defences. It would appear different and separate from the rest of the Cluster due to
its height, form, materials and position. While each tower is different, they have a
certain communality. Due to the differences that I have set out above, the Tulip
would not appear as part of this family of towers. Without 1 Undershaft and 100
Leadenhall the appearance of separation would be greater. To the extent that the
open sky above and around the White Tower extends to the Cluster, this would be
reduced. 1 Undershaft would form an apex to the Cluster. If built, it would be the
same height as the Tulip. If the suggested interpretations of the jelly mould model
are close to accurate, around a third of the Tulip would fall outside it.
[3.47][6.53][7.28-7.30][8.25][9.5][9.29][9.42]
14.36 Compared with existing towers, the Tulip would stand out in these views. It would be
as tall as the Shards of Glass and equal tallest tower in the Cluster. When looking at
the ToL, it would be more likely to raise the eye higher and further than any existing
tower, and so be more diverting. This would amount to a much greater distraction
than any or possibly all of the existing Cluster. It would also bring the apex of the
Cluster much closer to the White Tower. The effect on Views 25A.1-3 would be both
to add another object of interest to the existing wide River panorama and to draw the
eye to the tall, thin stem and much wider flower of the Tulip. With 1 Undershaft
and/or 100 Leadenhall, it would still stand out noticeably with less interaction, or
overlap, between it and the other towers than between each of them. It would not
only move the apex but also the curve of the jelly mould further east towards the ToL
and alter its current profile. It was suggested that further development, to avoid a
cliff edge, would soften an otherwise abrupt profile to the Tulip when viewed from
this angle. If it did so, that would result in further encroachment into the clear sky
between the Cluster and the White Tower. If 1 Undershaft is not built, the Tulip would
be particularly prominent as the tallest structure in the Cluster. Indeed, even if both
are built, the Tulip would appear to challenge for the dominance of the Cluster rather
than seek to merge into it. [3.47][4.18][6.53][7.30][8.25][9.16-9.17][9.29-9.30]
14.37 An attribute of OUV which would be particularly affected in Views 25A.1-3 would be
that of internationally famous monument, given the White Tower is an iconic and
emblematic structure with visual dominance in this iconic view. Also its landmark
siting, including its strategic relationship with the Tower and its skyline from across
the river; its symbol of Norman power; and the physical dominance [of the White
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Tower], again, especially where its silhouette can be seen against clear sky.
[2.6][7.50][9.5][9.36][9.43][10.8]
14.38 The Appellant accepted that there would be a gap between the Tulip and the nearest
building of comparable height, and that the top would be eye-catching, but argued
that the very different form, materials and character to the office buildings would
provide a lighter counterpoint to the Walkie-Talkie, and put forward this contribution
to the Cluster as a benefit of the scheme. From my consideration of the heritage
impact during the site visits, I disagree. Against the existing skyline, I consider that it
would be at least as visible as any of the other towers, as indeed is its purpose, but
in a position that would draw the viewer’s eye to a greater extent. Without the
proposals for 100 Leadenhall and 1 Undershaft, it would be even more obvious and
distracting. It follows that the Appellant’s argument that consolidating the Cluster in
views from the South Bank would amount to a heritage benefit does not stand up.
[4.15][4.21][6.97][7.58][8.22][8.64][9.23][9.40][9.43]
14.39 The Gherkin is the closest of the taller tower blocks in the airspace to the left of the
ToL in View 25A.3. Although other towers have now been permitted on roughly the
same alignment as the Gherkin, as the illustrations show, none would come
significantly closer to the White Tower in this view. The Tulip would be the first
substantial proposal since the Gherkin to intrude further into that airspace and do so
at the greatest possible height (within aviation constraints). In my judgement, it
would have a significant impact on the setting of the ToL when viewed from the
South Bank. I saw on my evening visit that the aviation lights would maintain this
distraction into the evening. [8.44][9.9][9.46]
14.40 I find that the degree of harm in Views 25A.1-3, and View 25A.3 in particular, would
be much less than substantial, but much more than negligible, and of a lower order
than the moderate impact on View 10A. As with the impact from Tower Bridge, given
the ToL’s designations and the important attribute of the White Tower dominating its
setting, the overall weight from combining the negligible to moderate impact and the
importance of the asset, in accordance with NPPF§193, should be significant. Once
again, there would be a difference in impact with or without 100 Leadenhall and/or
1 Undershaft. If these are not built, as the tallest structure in the City, the Tulip
would be a far more pronounced intrusion as its greater height, bulging top and
contrasting materials would be even more obvious and distracting. Although a low
probability, this higher risk to the setting should add weight to the harm.
[3.32][4.17][4.22][5.8-5.9][8.44][8.71-8.72][9.5][9.23][9.33][9.42]
14.41 The Appellant put great emphasis on the design quality of the Tulip and argued that
this would reduce any potential harm and could have heritage benefits from this
angle, as a result of further consolidating the Cluster. I find that the important
differences in height, position, form and materials of the Tulip mean that it would not
appear as a consistent part of the Cluster and so this consideration would not apply.
[4.13][7.61][7.97][8.35][9.22]
14.42 The City saw No.10 Trinity Square (the Port of London Authority building) as marking
the transition in scale between the existing Cluster and the western edge of the WHS.
It argued that as the location of the Tulip would be well to the left of this from The
Queen’s Walk, it would read as part of the Cluster and set apart from the White
Tower. While this might be a suitable rule of thumb for the lower edges of its 3D jelly
mould model (something I cannot fully assess), pushing the apex of the Cluster much
closer towards 10 Trinity Square would leave little room for further development
without either breaching this marker or creating a sudden change in height at this
point. It is therefore an unsuitable guide for assessing the impact in this appeal. [7.54]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.43 I note that prior to its Rule 6 Statement, HE did not claim or allege any harm at all to
Views 25A. While I read HE’s pre-application advice as tending to focus its limited
resources on the aspects where the greatest harm would be done, I accept that this
was unhelpful to the Appellant. However, I have considered it afresh and on its own
merits, as will the SoS. Moreover, while the weight to be attributed to the relatively
minor harmful impact from this angle should be significant, given the considerable
weight to the harm to View 10A.1, it would do little to alter the overall balance.
[6.91][8.29]
Cumulative harm
14.44 The parties agreed that the correct approach to cumulative harm is as set out in the
Citroen Inspector’s Report. Of the three steps, the first is that the proposal should be
assessed initially, followed by a cumulative assessment. In this case, reports into
previous towers have concluded that there would be no overall harm to the OUV of
the WHS. I acknowledge that these were made before construction, and that one is
entitled to re-evaluate an assessment afterwards. Also that in some cases the
conclusion was reached on balance, where there was a heritage enhancement, but
that this does not exclude a harmful ingredient that could have a cumulative effect on
setting. However, to re-evaluate or re-assess the balances in previous schemes would
be a lengthy exercise. I have not attempted this and was not asked to do so. In the
absence of evidence that the existing and permitted schemes have or would cause
harm, there is none to add to that which would be caused by the Tulip. There is
therefore no assessment of cumulative harm to make. Indeed, the differences
between this and other towers goes to the heart of the weight that should be given to
the harm that would be caused by the current proposals. Conversely, the harm that
the Tulip would cause precludes any cumulative benefit.
[3.6][3.9][3.31][3.36-3.38][4.3][5.8][6.84][6.105-6.107][7.39-7.40][8.36][8.45][8.57][8.69][9.39]
Individual heritage assets within the ToL
14.45 The White Tower is the oldest, tallest and foremost element of the ToL. Its special
interest as a LB, and the effects of the scheme on its setting, closely align with its
contribution to the C11 significance of the WHS, including all the attributes related to
its Norman origins, and I have not considered them separately. The Ramparts to the
Inner and Outer Wards, punctuated at regular intervals with towers, are also Grade I
listed and belong to the later C13 and C14 additions. Their significance as LBs is
reflected in the SOUV by reference to the concentric medieval fortress. Parts of these
would be directly below the Tulip in views from Tower Bridge and the eastern end of
The Queen’s Walk, including the Middle Gatehouse and Byward Tower, and so their
significance would be more affected. They are in the highest tier of LBs and the
weight to the harm to them should be approaching considerable.
[2.5-2.11][6.107][7.36][8.40][9.7][9.45]
14.46 From the North Walls, much of the City and the Cluster can be seen very readily.
While the Tulip would add to this intrusion, from here it would appear slightly more a
part of the Cluster and, with most of the ToL behind the viewer, the City has already
become the local character in views out rather than just the backdrop to the ToL. The
mostly C16 Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula is more important for its intimate setting in
the Inner Ward than other parts of the ToL. Close to, I saw that this would be
unaffected by the scheme, but in certain views from Tower Green, and the more
constrained setting of the Inner Ward, only a small amount of the Cluster is visible.
Moreover, in a few views only the Tulip would be visible. This would increase the
extent to which the viewer might be distracted by the Cluster, and in a different way.
Given the many layers of important English history enshrined in this intimate
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
courtyard, the impact is a separate consideration and this adds to the overall harm.
[2.5][6.108-6.109][7.43][8.43][9.27]
14.47 The proposals would also have an impact on the setting of the Waterloo Block when
seen from the Inner Ward. Its significance, as a Barracks, harks back to when it
would have stood silhouetted against a clear sky. As a Grade II LB, it derives less
weight in NPPF§193 terms than other assets, but is nevertheless listed and part of
the WHS. The weight to how the Tulip would distract from an appreciation of its
significance would be slight compared with some of the other assets. There would be
effects on other assets within the ToL, but the totality of any other harm to these
would be insignificant compared with those set out above. [2.5][7.37][8.43][9.38]
Other heritage assets
14.48 The RfRs identify six heritage assets that would be affected, including the ToL. The
Mayor refers to less than substantial harm to 9 Grade I, 4 Grade II* and 9 Grade II
LBs (plus those in the ToL) and 4 CAs. Following my site visits, I recommend that
while there might be harm to the settings of other heritage assets, by comparison
with the harm to the ToL from View 10A.1, the weight would be so slight that the
balance would be unaffected. This does not mean that harm to their settings might
not be crucial to deciding a different case. Should the SoS consider that the Decision
might turn on these, the evidence is set out in detail by the parties. I therefore
address the 6 assets and summarise only a few others. [1.6][2.13]
Approach
14.49 As above, the relationship of modestly scaled listed buildings and churches when
seen against the backdrop of the City's prominent tall buildings is characteristic of
this part of the City. I saw that the interplay between the charm of weathered historic
masonry and the elegance and sheen of modern curtain walling in the now well-
established, contrasting modern setting provides a certain frisson which may have
been what was referred to by the Mayor in his Twentytwo Report, where he added
the word exciting to his repeated phrases. The extent to which the differences
between the scheme and other towers are important varies with each.
[2.12-2.14][2.16][2.19][7.55]
14.50 The church of St Botolph without Aldgate (Grade I) stands opposite the junction
with the Minories. From here, George Dance’s C18 brick tower is seen against the
backdrop of the Cluster but its stone spire generally reads against the open sky while
the Gherkin is more or less concealed by lower buildings in between. The Tulip would
not only be much taller, and so more visible, but its monolithic concrete stem would
be much more akin to the masonry of the spire than curtain wall glazing, reducing
the contrast. This would be distracting to the contribution that the setting makes to
its significance and so harm its special interest. While of an order of magnitude below
the less than substantial harm to the OUV of the ToL, as with any harm to the setting
of a LB, this should still be given considerable importance and weight.
[2.14][3.33][8.62][9.46]
14.51 10 Trinity Square (Grade II*) was designed to stand out. Indeed, it was identified
by the City as a landmark on the skyline, a transition point in views of the Cluster
and the ToL, and a feature in the CA. The Tulip would impinge on those views, from
across the River, from the North Walls of the ToL, and from one or two points along
the road between it and Trinity Square Gardens. It would draw the eye differently
and to a greater extent than the rest of the Cluster and so harm its significance,
albeit at the lower end of less than substantial. [2.12-2.13][2.17][3.33][7.54][7.62][8.62]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.52 Bevis Marks Synagogue (Grade I) is listed largely for its age, rarity and internal
features. This does not mean that its setting is necessarily unimportant, but in this
case it is largely limited to what can be experienced from within its courtyard. The
occupants had previously objected, but withdrew this and I did not enter.
Notwithstanding the Mayor’s objections with regard to the atmospheric qualities of
the courtyard, from the information before me, I find it unlikely that there would be
any impact on its significance from the scheme. [1.8][2.15][8.61][11.28]
14.53 The inter-war office building at 38 St Mary Axe (Grade II), now the Baltic Exchange,
stands adjacent to the Gherkin. Its significance lies in its simple classical revival style
and its awarded architect. Given the contrasting modern buildings surrounding it, the
contribution that setting makes to its significance is limited and even with the loss of
the ramp and the introduction of the Pavilion, I find that this would be unaltered.
[2.18][8.64]
14.54 The Church of St Helen’s Bishopsgate (Grade I) faces west such that views of its
front façade include the Gherkin in the background. The Tulip would stand roughly
behind it. With regard to any cumulative effect, the setting has already reached a
tipping point whereby it is overwhelmingly dominated by the curtain glazing of the
Gherkin. This has added a beneficial contrast as well as a distraction. I find that there
would be no change to the contribution its setting makes to its significance and so no
harm. I note that HE did not either. [2.16][8.61]
14.55 HE identified harm to Trinity House. I noted that although now surrounded by taller
development on three sides, and partly screened by trees on the fourth, it is still a
prestigious building and that there are glimpses of the full glory of its main façade
from Trinity Square and its Gardens in which there is little of the Cluster visible.
While the relationships with 10 Trinity Square, the Gardens and its memorials would
be unaltered, to the extent that the Tulip would be seen and would distract from this,
there would be some slight harm. [2.12][2.17][2.19][7.54][9.2][9.45]
14.56 Regarding other heritage assets, including Tower Bridge, Holland House, Lloyd’s of
London, Sir John Cass School, Dixon House and the Guild Church of St Ethelburga
and the churches of St Andrew Undershaft, St Katherine Cree and of All Hallows, but
also others referred to, I find that the Tulip would either do little to impact their
surroundings or do nothing to alter the contribution that setting makes to their
significance. [2.13][2.20][4.22][6.13][6.113][8.56][8.62]
14.57 Much of the harm to the ToL CA would overlap with that to the WHS. Other areas
identified in the CA appraisal that would also be affected are St Katharine’s Dock and
Trinity Square Gardens, but at the lower end of less than substantial for this appeal.
[2.11-2.12][2.19][7.23][7.54][9.45]
14.58 To the extent that there would be harm to the significance of 10 Trinity Square and
Trinity House as a result of the development within their settings, there would be
harm to the character and appearance of the Trinity Square CA. For similar reasons
to those regarding St Helen's Church, I find that the St Helen's Place CA would be
unharmed and I found no harm to the Lloyds Avenue CA. [2.10][2.12][3.35][8.62]
14.59 I have noted the Appellant’s claim that there might be a slight heritage benefit to the
settings of Holland House, Bury Court and Dixon House. While the scheme might
add more interest to some views, enhancing a view is not the same as enhancing the
aspects of a setting that contribute to the significance, or special interest, of a listed
building. In any event, I found no heritage benefits would arise. I have considered
the claim that looking down on the ToL would also be a heritage benefit, but not even
the City thought that and nor do I. [2.1][5.3][6.55][6.113][7.7][8.61][8.64][9.43]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Conclusions on heritage
14.60 Starting, as agreed, with an understanding of the significance of the WHS, its SOUV
and its attributes, I find that there would be harm to the setting of the ToL and other
heritage assets. Notwithstanding that the harm would be less than substantial, in
each instance, the desirability of preserving the setting should be given considerable
importance and weight and this finding gives rise to a strong presumption against
planning permission being granted. On account of the exceptional status of the ToL,
I find that the harm as perceived from LVMF View 10A should be given considerable
weight in the heritage and planning balances. Harm in Views 25A.1-3, and in views
from within the ToL set out above, would add to this, as would harm to the settings
of other assets. The weight in each case should be of a lower order than that related
to View 10A, but then combined in the overall planning balance and assessment
against the development plan as a whole. [3.25][3.39][3.51][4.4.2][6.107][7.91][8.37][9.4-9.8]
14.61 While for similar reasons, the scheme would also be detrimental to the special
interest of the LBs and CAs derived from their settings, I have not conducted a
separate exercise for this duty to that required by the NPPF. Unlike LBs and CAs,
there is currently no statutory protection for WHSs. However, given the statutory
underpinning of development plans, and the inclusion of policies on WHSs in both the
LP and the very recent NLP, their protection should be given the highest level of
weight for any heritage asset. On top of this, the ToL includes many Grade I listed
structures and is central to the ToL CA. [3.43-3.45][6.87][6.123][7.27][8.59][9.11]
14.62 I acknowledge that in principle it would be possible for an especially high quality
design to negate the universally acknowledged harm to View 10A, but for the reasons
set out below, I do not find that this is the case here. My findings on heritage harm,
and on the impact on the ToL WHS in particular, are also broadly in line with those of
HE, whose views the Courts have found should be given considerable weight and only
departed from for good reason. [9.2]
14.63 Finally, it is not inevitable that the more recently consented schemes will be built. Not
all previous permissions for towers in the City have proceeded, notably the Minerva
and Pinnacle towers. There are new threats to the demand for office space from the
movement of some investment in the City, following the UK’s withdrawal from the
EU, and the trend towards home working, accelerated by COVID-19. The long term
effects from these, if any, are uncertain but they could affect the viability of
1 Undershaft and other office development which then might not be built. The City’s
evidence suggested that there is still high demand for offices in the City and that
even if there is a fall overall, the Cluster is still likely to be very popular.
Nevertheless, they represent more than a possibility and the impact of the Tulip on
the setting of the WHS, especially in the LVMF Views, would be far more pronounced
without 1 Undershaft and 100 Leadenhall. Taken with the general uncertainty that
any consented scheme will proceed, this possibility should add a little to the potential
harm to the setting of the ToL (as well as a slight increase in the weight to the
benefit to improved views from the Tulip).
[3.42][3.50][4.15][4.25][4.27][6.15][8.37][8.79-f/n 864][10.19][11.22]
Other harms
Strategic views
14.64 RfR4 alleges harm to strategic LVMF views 10A.1 and 25A.1-3 by reference to the
juxtaposition with the ToL WHS and so echoes the harm to heritage assets in these
views. By noting in View 10A that an understanding of the fine detail and the layers
of history of the [ToL] … is enhanced by the free sky space around the White Tower,
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the LVMF SPG specifically refers to the WHS, its OUV and the WHSMP. In other
words, harm to this view is closely aligned to harm to the OUV of the ToL and the
conflict with the guidance mirrors that with heritage policies.
[1.6][3.13-3.14][3.32][4.16-4.17][7.57][7.60][9.9]
14.65 For Views 25A.1-3, the SPG describes the background setting of the White Tower and
the juxtaposition … with the modern city. The SPG advises that new development
should not dominate the [WHS] – especially the White Tower – and refers to all the
constituent parts of the ToL from View 25A, and how: From all Assessment Points,
the [WHS] should continue to dominate its surroundings. It follows that the
importance of this strategic view is also closely aligned with the setting of the WHS.
At the same height as the Shards, the Tulip would be very tall and prominent in both
Views. Given the importance of the setting of the WHS to these Views, the harm to
its setting would also cause considerable harm to the Strategic Views.
[3.32][6.76][6.83][7.61][9.23]
Plaza
14.66 The plaza around the Gherkin is one of very few open spaces in the Cluster and
identified as a Principal public space in the City Cluster Vision. This aligns with Aim 3
of the City Public Realm SPD for less cluttered spaces. The plaza includes benches,
several trees, and steps and low walls against No.20 Bury Street. Adjoining Bury
Court, a wall sections off the basement ramp. Other than the three columns which
echo the Swiss Re logo, the ramp is substantial, intrusive and bland. While its formal
uses, such as for sculpture and food stalls, are few and limited, until the pandemic
the space within the plaza was well used during weekdays, if much less so at
weekends. An identified benefit of the Gherkin was a slimmed down base, allowing
greater public realm. 1 Undershaft would remove the ramp on the other side of St.
Mary Axe and provide better pedestrian connections. On my visits, the plaza was in
limited use, with many nearby retail and catering outlets closed. With few people
around, the hard materials stood out. I saw that it provides an open space in the
route along St Mary Axe and a 360o setting to the elegantly articulated junction
where the Gherkin meets the ground. [2.3][3.48][4.1][5.1][6.56][7.4][7.17]
14.67 The functional aspects of the proposals have been skilfully resolved and exquisitely
illustrated. The scheme would occupy most of the north-eastern half of the plaza,
including its ramp, associated walls, and benches. It would replace these with the
base of the Tulip tower, the Pocket Park and the Pavilion. The latter would have a
green wall and rooftop terrace while the Pocket Park would provide a formal
arrangement of ground level seating and a home for the IRA bombing memorial. The
roof garden would have slightly limited opening times. Being on the north side of the
Gherkin, both would frequently be in shade. The Pavilion would restore the built
street frontage along St Mary Axe and follow the curve of the Gherkin. Visitors would
make the scheme busy, or very busy, but earlier concerns around capacity were
resolved prior to the Inquiry, and the s106 Agreement would limit the number of
visitors so that it would function satisfactorily. There would be increased long stay
cycle parking, the removal of 16 parking spaces, and consolidation of deliveries. The
entrances would have limited space around them for pedestrians, unlike attractions
such as the London Eye. Overall, the scheme would provide a greater quantity of
public seating, on the roof of the Pavilion and in the fixed seating in the Pocket Park,
than there is at present. [2.2][4.1][5.4][6.60][7.16][8.5]
14.68 As much of the scheme would be built on areas currently occupied by the ramp or the
offices at 20 Bury Street, the effective loss of open space would be limited to two
triangles of the plaza between the Gherkin and the roads on either side. Most of the
proposals would stand on space that is not currently available to pedestrians. On the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
other hand, the buildings would occupy some useful areas around the Gherkin and
half of its 360o setting would be lost. Functionally, there would be less space at
ground level for public use or circulation, and the whole arrangement would be more
complicated, while there would be more demand for open space. In restoring the
street frontage, and reflecting the Gherkin’s glazing, the Pavilion would also further
enclose St. Mary’s Axe and reduce the sense of openness along the street. Shrinking
the ground level open space would also harm the character of the plaza as a plinth to
the Gherkin. Although the unattractive entrance to the ramp would be removed, it
would be replaced with the double width entrance to the lorry lifts facing the street
and large vehicles would still cross pedestrian areas. The sculpture exhibitions and
food market would be lost. The Pocket Park would, as its name suggests, be small.
On the other hand, a decent amount of the plaza would survive and much of the new
greenery would replace the ramp.
[2.1][5.1][5.3-5.4][6.2][6.31][6.57][7.16-7.18][7.75][8.13][11.11]
14.69 In conclusion, I consider that, both visually and functionally, there would be harm
and benefit compared with the current arrangement. While finely balanced, I find that
the loss of public open space at ground level, and the intrusions into the plaza as a
plinth to the Gherkin, would outweigh the increased public open space on the roof of
the Pavilion, and additional seating in the Pocket Park, as well as the removal of the
ramp and its retaining wall. Overall, the proposals for the plaza count against the
scheme.
Office floorspace
14.70 There would be a loss of some 428m2 of office floorspace at 20 Bury Street. This
would conflict with policy and weighs against the scheme. On the other hand,
compared with other factors in this appeal, the loss would be trivial and should be
given negligible weight. [2.1][3.18][5.20]
Design
14.71 Design was argued by one side as a benefit and by the other as a source of harm. As
well as being an iterative process, good design embraces all elements of a scheme,
such as form, function, aesthetic, detailing, durability, sustainability, local and wider
context, an appreciation of the environment and heritage, and many other factors,
and tries to satisfy all these requirements in the same space. As part of an
overarching aim to achieve well-designed places, NPPF§127 sets 6 criteria for
developments. [3.19][5.11]
Function
14.72 It was accepted that the scheme would function properly with regard to delivering a
very high level viewing experience together with some exciting fairground-style
additions. Enormous skill and effort has been put into resolving the difficulties of
providing all the entrance and exit requirements in such a tight space. The same
architectural practice as the Gherkin would be likely to deliver a matching standard of
detailing as is apparent from the unusual degree of work carried out already. The
elegance of the resulting arched buttresses to the base, particularly as seen in the
large scale model, is especially noteworthy, as is the detailing to F+P’s curved glazing
design to the Pavilion, reminiscent of its Willis building in Ipswich and other schemes.
On the other hand, the number of visitors would need to be limited to prevent
overcrowding at ground level. Overall, the extent to which the design would
overcome the constraints and function well is a matter which should be given
significant weight. [3.4][3.31][6.28][6.40][6.42][6.54][7.12][8.4][8.8][8.90][9.4][9.14]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.73 In truth, little if any thought has been given to how the building would function over
its extended lifetime. However skilfully finished, the function of the stem of the tower
would still be a concrete lift shaft with the sole purpose of transporting visitors to the
upper levels. There are no plans for its re-use when it has served its purpose as a
viewing tower, whether because its views might be curtailed by other towers, its
advantages eclipsed by other viewing opportunities or other attractions, or that it
might simply fall out of favour. Whether this might happen in 20 or 200 years’ time is
academic to the principle that its life cycle has not been properly considered. The
intention is that it would be permanent with no plans for its demolition. The only
option then would be for its expensive, problematic and lengthy demolition. The City
advised that it was used to demolishing buildings but, if the owner was disinclined
with little incentive, it would leave either an unmaintained eyesore or a large public
liability. This counts heavily against its design quality.
[3.16-3.17][5.14][6.30][6.119][8.93][11.9][11.21]
Visually attractive
14.74 The scheme has been designed by one of the world’s greatest architectural practices,
and it shows in its highly polished presentation. This written report is not adequate to
describe the quality of evidence put forward. From the flair of the initial sketches to
the almost poetic eloquence of its advocates, the quality of sketches and drawings in
architect’s evidence, the information in the DAS, several models plus a 3D print, the
virtual reality goggles, including state of the art moving images, and the expertise of
witnesses who are at the very top of their field, it is undoubtedly the best presented
scheme that I have ever seen in my career or am likely to see. This was echoed by
the City. If design was judged on models alone, this is certainly world class. To the
limited extent that these matters are aspects of design, they should be given
considerable weight. Nevertheless, presentation should not be confused with
architectural quality and even hiring the finest architects in the world will not always
guarantee quality let alone that all the problems with a brief can be overcome.
Achieving the highest architectural quality goes well beyond the level of detailing and
presentation, regardless of its technical dexterity.
[3.10][3.21][5][5.6-5.7][6.67][6.82][7.15][7.70]
Aesthetic
14.75 Perhaps along with whether the skywalk and gondola rides would be the ultimate in
exhilaration, or likely to trigger a terrifying attack of vertigo, one of the most
subjective elements of the scheme may be its aesthetic. Nevertheless, there are
some objective indicators that are worth examining. First, the Appellant explained
why the scheme should not, and would not, look like an office building. Following the
architectural maxim that form follows function, that must be right.
[4.4.4][5.2][6.3][6.33][6.42][6.46][7.12][7.69][8.19][8.21][8.61][9.17][9.19]
14.76 Next, parallels were drawn with classical columns. I am familiar with these and on my
visits I saw those at St. Paul’s and the Monument. The Tulip would also have a
tripartite structure with a base, middle and top. The fluting to the stem, other than
the buttresses, would add texture and be reminiscent of a classical column (even if
the jump-form construction means that it would lack entasis). The Tulip would not be
typical of classical architecture as Wren knew it, as the buttresses and spoons at the
base and the top would flow into the stem rather than provide clear breaks. These
would be integral parts of the engineering of the concrete structure that would hold
the glazed floors to the flower and transfer the various loads. To my mind, an
attempt to echo classicism without mimicry, and so go beyond pastiche, should not
be criticised for differences in approach. The designers were entitled to be inspired by
classical columns without the need to try and copy them precisely. [5.1][6.40][6.48-
6.50][7.62][8.22][9.17-9.18]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.77 I was told that the structure would be tamed and refined, with the spoons and
gondolas turned into engineering detail as part of the architectural expression.
However, where the concrete stem would extend into the spoons would be largely
concealed behind the stainless steel structure supporting the gondolas. Consequently,
rather than reading a bit like three-pronged forceps cradling the glazed flower, from a
distance there would simply be an uneven break between the concrete finish of the
stem and the steel and glazing of the flower. The way that this change would be
articulated isn’t readily apparent in the bird’s eye images but would be seen in views
from the ground. Whatever the reason, and however carefully detailed, I find that the
result would be visually compromised, being neither a continuous flowing object, as
with the Gherkin, nor a structure of three distinct parts, as with the Monument.
[5.7][6.42][6.46][7.62][9.17-9.18]
14.78 Many of the images indicate a sheen to the concrete blending gently into the glazing.
While not a criticism, the smaller scale models, notably the 3D print, are of uniform
colour and so do not reflect the difference in finish between the curtain glazing of the
office towers and the proposed concrete for the Tulip. Having studied the various
images and the examples of structures elsewhere, I am not persuaded that the
finishes would be comparable. I consider that in dull weather the concrete surface
would appear unreflective compared with glazing, while sunshine would draw out its
similarity with masonry, losing the contrast between the curtain walling of the Cluster
and the stonework of the White Tower. [5][5.15-5.16][5.13][6.48-6.49][8.20][8.44][9.38]
14.79 Subject to conditions, the concrete would be regularly cleaned and adequately
maintained, at least while the Tulip is operating. In the longer term, I am less
confident. Notwithstanding the smooth finish, I find it likely that years of cleaning the
concrete would erode the finer material and that over time it would appear even
more dull. It would then be more susceptible to staining such as I saw on the
Millennium Bridge (albeit that there it suffers from accelerated weathering due to the
tide). From a distance, the fluting would be less apparent. All this would be in stark
contrast with the reflective surface of steel and glass, the latter which I saw at the
Gherkin may require replacing every 20 or 30 years. There would be no easy option
to replace the concrete finish to the stem of the Tulip. [4.7][5.15-5.16][7.13][12.16]
Symmetry
14.80 The three concrete buttresses would extend into spoons which would support oriel
windows and, with the circulating gondolas, create three bulges in the glazing of the
flower. The asymmetry of the stem would therefore extend into the flower. There
would be axial symmetry to the west, towards Gherkin and the centre of the Cluster,
which would also be roughly the view of the Tulip from Whitechapel Road. From some
views this asymmetry would be appreciated kinetically while in others it would not.
[5.2][6.44-6.45][8.23-8.24][9.17]
14.81 There was no attempt at symmetry in the early sketches. Instead these showed a
more dramatic exuberance and sculptural energy. To my mind, the final design has
lost much of the drama of these sketches but not quite grasped the greater simplicity
and refinement usually found in classical architecture and, indeed, in most of F+P’s
work including the Gherkin. While there has obviously been considerable effort and
architectural dexterity employed in modelling the top of the building, I find that the
way the gondolas, slide and skywalk have been incorporated into the viewing areas
has produced a compromised design that is neither a flamboyant expression nor a
consistent elegance.
[3.4][3.20][3.38][5.2][5.21][6.7][6.12][6.28][6.33-6.34][6.43][7.20][8.2][8.19][8.24][8.71][9.14]
14.82 I did not pursue the notion of beautiful found in the draft NPPF. It is evident, for all
the reasons that they set out, that the Appellant and its supporters consider that the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
scheme would be beautiful while objectors think it would not. While I certainly accept
that innovative designs can be beautiful, in other regards I consider that the concept
of beauty or otherwise for this appeal is in the eye of the beholder and that any
further discussion is unlikely to be helpful. [6.19][6.34]
Overall appearance
14.83 The quality of presentation is second to none. Subject only to the few limitations in
the s106 Agreement, F+P would be retained as architects offering some comfort that
the attention to detail would be followed through into the finished article. The
aesthetic and symmetry are more subjective matters but ones in which I find too
many compromises to amount to world class architecture.
Sympathetic to local character and history
14.84 The Gherkin set a marked change in character for the immediate area which now
includes the old and the new. At low level, the scheme would demonstrate an
understanding of the local context by following historic building and street lines, as
well as echoing the footprint of the Gherkin. At high level, the local character extends
much wider. As repeated in the Citroen decision, and recognised by policy, good
design is inherently informed by its surroundings, including the historic context. Here,
the proposed tower would have an adverse impact on the history of the area and on
the setting to the ToL in particular. [6.56][7.46][8.20][9.14]
14.85 The Appellant argued that the quality of a design, including its innovative nature, can
reduce or negate what might otherwise cause harm to a setting. I agree. The ToL
WHSMP refers to the permission for the Shards and that: The reasons for approval
included … quality of the design and noted its slender form, drawing the eye upwards,
whose elegance and reflective surface goes some way to mitigating the effects of its
size and proximity to the WHS. In my judgement, the Tulip would not share the
qualities of elegance and reflective surface, unlike much of the Cluster where the
contrast with historic buildings has been more effective. Nor would a high level
viewing tower be particularly innovative, and so the quality of design would not
mitigate against the visual distraction it would cause.
[3.41][4.11][6.81][7.69][7.83][7.92][11.10]
14.86 From Whitechapel Road the stem of the Tulip would obscure much of the Gherkin,
cutting across its elegant curved form and diagonal highlighting. The large flower
above would appear relatively top-heavy while the way in which the glazing would
echo the Gherkin would be lost as a result of the stem cutting across it. While from
here it would achieve the goal of reinstating the dominance of the Gherkin as the
tallest structure in the view, it would do so at the cost of seeing much of the grace
and charm of the original. [2.3][3.46][4.9][5.2][9.31][11.9][11.26]
14.87 For the reasons set out above, the form and materials of the Tulip at its proposed
height and location would be a poor and unsympathetic response to the historical
context and this weighs very heavily against the quality of the design.
Strong sense of place
14.88 The Appellant’s architect also led the Tulip project for F+P, was at the forefront of the
project team for the Gherkin, which undoubtedly created a strong sense of place, and
is very familiar with the site’s context. It is evident that this was analysed with
extreme care and considerable detail. I saw that the narrow passages proposed
between the buildings and areas of open space, referred to as compression and
release, would draw comparisons with the historic alleyways elsewhere in the City.
Within the immediate surroundings, the base of the Tulip and the Pavilion would
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
create distinctive spaces, wrapping around half of the Gherkin, and achieve this by
replacing the ramp and using a rather poorly articulated corner of the site along Bury
Street, currently next to a vacant unit and appearing unloved. The design for the
double height arches between the buttresses has been skilfully handled and would be
attractive and welcoming alongside the green wall. This quality of detailing would be
carried through to the Pocket Park and the Pavilion. [3.4][5.6][6.24][6.54][8.7][8.10][9.10]
14.89 I accept that the sense of drama and the expression of structural forces at the base
of the Tulip would be striking and would echo the sharks’ teeth of the Gherkin
cleverly making the most of the tight constraints of the site. However, compression
would occur at the entrances where one would ordinarily want space to congregate
ahead of a visit and to linger before choosing to disperse. While agreed to be
functionally satisfactory, it might still feel uncomfortable. Even with the adjoining
green wall, the elevation along Bury Street would be largely concrete, with glimpses
of the bar/restaurant gathering point and security at the base of the Tulip, replacing
a retail unit. The Pavilion would be a bright new building with an exciting roof garden
at high level, but the street elevation would substitute the lorry lift entrance doors for
the start of the ramp. [2.1][5.1][5.3][5.40][6.54][7.75][8.5-8.6][8.12]
14.90 Consequently, the ground level functions would be achieved only by reducing the
open spaces on two sides of the Plaza that provide not only a rare release from the
narrow streets of the City, but also a delightful platform from which to enjoy the
elegance of the Gherkin. On balance, I find that while the scheme would enhance
detailed elements of the existing context it would do so at a cost to openness.
Optimise the potential of the site
14.91 There was no dispute that the scheme would develop this windfall site to the full.
Relatively little office space would be lost to a large scheme that would occupy a
small area of land with little prospect of use for other built development. As above,
considerable skill has gone into overcoming the functional requirements within such a
tight site and turning these into attractively detailed elements. Nevertheless, this
would not overcome the loss of open space and part of the backdrop to the Gherkin.
[5.19][6.2][6.18-6.19][6.116]
Inclusive and accessible
14.92 There was no dispute that the scheme would be accessible and encouraging visits by
disadvantaged children (see below) would be inclusive. To the extent that other parts
of the galleries, restaurant and bars would be at a price, it would be less so.
[3.6][3.24][3.30][4.7][6.16][6.30][6.113][7.5][10.12]
The Brief
14.93 No detailed brief was presented to the Inquiry but it was evident that its aim was to
provide views from as high as possible, subject to aviation limits, on a very small
site. This resulted in the narrow stem and wider top to take advantage of the space
at that level. There was little information on other priorities, other than how the
scheme architect saw the benefits, and little reference at early stages to studying its
high level impact on the WHS. What information there is centres around Lord Foster’s
early sketches. These looked at an offset flower, and have a rather avant-garde and
sculptural quality to them, perhaps appearing more as a Daffodil does than the
current association with a Tulip. They might have required unprecedented
construction technologies, though this would not be unusual for F+P. Whether these
were unworkable, or rejected for financial or other reasons, is unclear, but the
resulting scheme retains much of the top-heavy emphasis of these ideas but without
the exuberance. Although a wealth of impressive models have been produced for the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
scheme, it was not evident how these might have played a part in reviewing the
overall design concept as opposed to the finer detail. No information was presented
as to what other options were considered for the Pavilion’s functions that might have
reduced or eliminated the need to develop so much of the plaza or whether the space
was so limited that this was not an option. [3.55][4.8][6.8][6.42-6.43]
14.94 More importantly, the design’s response to the brief has placed the wish to be seen,
and for visitors to see out, well above those of heritage. I accept that it is usually
incorrect to say that a scheme is wrong in principle without knowing what might be
achieved in the hands of a more competent designer. The Gherkin is a case in point
where F+P achieved an enormous amount of office floorspace on a fairly small site,
but also produced an extraordinarily beautiful building. If, despite the best efforts of
some of the finest architects in the country, the height, form and material
requirements cannot be met in a way that would avoid undue harm to the setting of
the ToL, then it may be that the fault lies with the expectations of the brief. Either
way, the extent of heritage harm, and other shortcomings as a result of conforming
to the brief, should preclude it being described as outstanding.
[3.49][4.8][6.116-6.117][7.20][7.65][7.69][8.89][9.14]
Engagement and the London Review Panel (LRP)
14.95 NPPF§§128-9 advocate early discussions about design and the use of design reviews.
LPAs are expected to have regard to the outcome from these processes, including
any recommendations made by design review panels. In this case, while there had
been many internal reviews and that F+P believed that it excelled at this, there was
little evidence of how these had shaped the outcome. There was no independent
review until after the application was reported to committee. [3.4][4.6-4.8][8.4][8.14][8.20]
14.96 Heritage input only came after the initial concept and there was little to suggest that
the design had been adequately influenced by consideration of the setting of the ToL.
In particular, I have no information on the way that heritage concerns played a part
in choosing:
• the location of the Tulip within the site. It would be at the closest corner to the ToL
where it would have the greatest impact on its setting and create a vertical edge to
the Cluster when viewed from the South Bank;
• the choice of material for the stem. Concrete would be at odds with the rest of the
Cluster. I was told that this was chosen for cost and reduced embedded energy, but I
have little information on how these were balanced against heritage concerns;
• the height. This would be simply the maximum allowable. Having been
overshadowed by other towers, it is as if the Gherkin is stretching its arm up and
saying: look, I’m still here;
• the shape and form of the flower. With a much wider diameter to the top, this
would be likely to draw the eye to a greater extent than a tapered form.
[4.6][4.8][4.19][5.1][6.20][6.51][8.4][8.17][8.24][9.14][9.18][11.26•6]
14.97 By contrast, the LRP did publish its independent view and articulated its many
criticisms. It acknowledged that it may be a successful response to the functions of
its brief, providing an indication of where, in its view, the problems with the scheme
arose. It concluded that it does not think it represents world class architecture. The
Panel was not approached again. I note the Appellant’s criticisms of the Panel itself,
including that it may well have spent less time considering the scheme than did the
Inquiry, and that the Appellant’s own witnesses, and those of the City, have more
experience of working there and in the Cluster in particular. This criticism was also
applied to the Mayor’s witnesses. However, this cuts both ways, as those less caught
up in the minutiae of working in and around the Cluster may also have fewer
preconceptions than those who have developed a strong empathy for the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
juxtaposition of new and old. Regardless of the experience of its members, I find that
many of the criticisms of the Panel are valid and the fact that these were largely
ignored during the design process weighs against the scheme.
[4.6-4.8][4.19][6.39][8.14][8.20]
Sustainability
14.98 Subject to a condition, the scheme would achieve a BREEAM rating of outstanding
with a target score of 89%. It would be located on a brownfield, windfall site at one
of the most accessible parts of the capital, with the highest possible PTAL level, a site
that is presently used for back of house offices and plant together with an HGV ramp.
The City, and in particular the Cluster, offers little cultural activity at the weekends
and in holiday periods which is a waste of its accessible location. The scheme would
achieve a high score for Urban Greening and take steps to improve air quality, reduce
water and encourage cycling. Overall, F+P has gone to enormous lengths to make
the construction and operation of the scheme as environmentally responsible as
possible. [5.12][5.14][6.119][7.69][7.76][8.92][12.5]
14.99 The BREEAM rating would certainly be commendable and an objective indicator that
the environmental quality of the design might be high. On the other hand, F+P’s
recent award-winning scheme for Bloomberg achieved a BREEAM score of nearly
100%. I also heard that BREEAM has its limitations, particularly around public
transport accessibility which can boost its score. Moreover, while the project might be
made as sustainable as possible given its brief, BREEAM focusses on construction and
gives less consideration to life-cycle effects. The scheme would demolish an office
building which is less than 20 years old. In operation there would be a reduction in
carbon emissions compared with the Building Regulations requirements, with a s106
obligation to secure carbon offsetting if the minimum reduction is not met, but the
scheme as a whole would not be carbon neutral, and would not achieve zero-carbon
on site. While energy use in the lifts would be minimised, these are unregulated
emissions which would consume a large quantity of electricity not counted in other
ways. [3.16] [4.8][5.11-5.13][6.30][6.119][8.92-8.93]
Life-cycle
14.100 One of the main considerations when assessing the life-cycle sustainability of a
building is the extent to which it could be reused or its materials easily demolished
and recycled. The floor areas would be very small compared with those of the
adjacent offices and no suggestions were put forward for other uses. The bulk of the
Tulip would be built of reinforced concrete. This is one of the least sustainable
materials due to its high embedded energy and difficulty in recycling. The claim that
it would have less embedded carbon than a steel alternative was not supported by
detailed calculations, or evidence that other options were feasible, and ignores the
comparative ease with which steel can be recycled. There were no plans for it to
ever be dismantled and, if undertaken, the stem would have to be disassembled by
diamond or wire cutting in stages amounting to its construction in reverse and it
could only be recycled as aggregate. It would therefore be a slow process and the
aggregate could not easily be crushed on site. [3.3][3.17][5.14][8.93]
14.101 While the scheme might have decades of profitable use, the Cluster is evolving and
may do so relatively quickly. The Tulip would set a new apex, or joint apex, which is
likely to spur other developers to match its height. If so, the Tulip might lose more
of its potential views and its attraction. Even if the Tulip were to be viable for many
decades, the cost of dismantling it would be likely to mean that there might never be
any incentive to remove it. While the conditions controlling cleaning could operate
during its lifetime, there would be no way to enforce this if the use ceased and the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
owner, currently a limited company based overseas, was dissolved. While the City
advised that it is used to buildings being demolished, this generally occurs to allow
for larger buildings that make replacement economic and where the predominant
use of steel and glass makes them more readily recycled and viable to do so. The
very small footprint for the Tulip would make cost-effective replacement unlikely.
[5.13][5.15-5.16][12.6][13.1]
14.102 Concrete is also used in the lift and service shafts of other tower blocks. However,
elsewhere these occupy only a tiny proportion of much larger floor plates which are
given over to the chief planning purpose of the area, that is to say offices, and the
lifts are primarily for that purpose. At 1 Undershaft there would be more than
130,000m2 of highly valuable employment floorspace to justify the servicing. At the
Tulip, the extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions
during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using
vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft to transport
visitors to as high a level as possible to enjoy a view. [4.17][11.21]
Other
14.103 There are many examples of where high quality designs have become cherished
parts of the wider context and I was reminded that there were strong objections in
its day to the Eiffel Tower and other iconic structures. Be that as it may, and while
there is a subjective element to this, I find that the top heavy appearance, unduly
contrasting stem material, and the generally asymmetrical design would not combine
to produce a building that would be likely to be cherished as much as, say, the Eiffel
Tower, the London Eye, Tower Bridge or indeed the Gherkin. Moreover, unless
1 Undershaft and 100 Leadenhall are abandoned, the Tulip would never have the
opportunity to stand apart in the same way that many icons have done. While other
examples may have been criticised in their time so were proposals which are now
reviled or never saw the light of day. I note the concern of interested parties that,
unlike the attractive soubriquet the Tulip, or the affectionate monikers given to the
Gherkin and other towers, the scheme might acquire a less appealing nickname
which might denigrate the City and depreciate its value as a tourist destination.
However, I consider that this is all conjecture and should be given no weight.
[5.2][f/n677][6.20][7.13][7.88][8.23][11.9]
Conclusions on Design
14.104 As above, the scheme would probably function well as a visitor attraction albeit with
no certainty as to how long or what would become of the structure as and when the
use ceases. Its better than outstanding presentation and technical resolution suggest
that the details of its appearance would amount to the highest quality architecture
but aspects of its broader aesthetic and asymmetry when viewed more widely would
count against it being universally visually attractive. In the immediate vicinity, the
Pavilion would follow historic building lines but from a distance the Tulip would cause
considerable harm to one of London’s most important historic assets, and further
harm to several others. While there was certainly innovation in the way that the
scheme was presented, the design itself is more of a synthesis of established ideas
into a new form and would have some resemblance to other viewing towers. Any
improvement to the sense of place at ground level would be more than offset by the
loss of public open space. The scheme would certainly optimise the potential of the
site, and would be generally accessible to all, but its inclusivity would be limited by
the cost of the main attractions. With regard to its evolution, whether because the
constraints were insurmountable or otherwise, its design team did not take the
opportunity to respond to the criticisms of the LRP and many of the flaws it
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
identified, whether in the brief or the design, have persisted.
[3.16][3.24][4.8][5.14][6.12][6.36][7.15][7.93][9.14][10.6]
14.105 As above, while the architects may have taken all possible steps to fulfil its brief in
the most environmentally sympathetic way, its long term sustainability would be
sadly lacking. Evidence that it would be likely to become a cherished landmark was
far from persuasive. I have noted the statements of various learned supporters of
the scheme, as well as detractors, but I have little information on how well they
studied the proposals, compared with the testimonies of witnesses at the Inquiry,
and in the absence of a chance for cross-examination, give these limited weight.
[3.16][3.18][5.11-5.13][6.2][6.18][6.30][7.69][7.76][8.3][8.92-8.93][11.11]
14.106 In too many ways, the scheme would be neither one thing nor another. It would
attempt to be an eye-catching iconic landmark, with a different form and facing
materials, yet also to blend into the Cluster. It would aim to advertise its gondolas
and still strive for a restrained classicism leading to something that would be neither
wild nor refined but a muddle of architectural ideas. This approach was described as
restrained but to my mind it should be viewed as compromised. Its stem would
reveal a functional approach to the lift shaft while its surface fluting would be almost
decorative. It would echo the radial symmetry of the Gherkin but only achieve it in
one direction. Overall, I find that the unresolved principles behind the design would
mean that in many regards it would fall between two stools and fail to comfortably
settle on either. Taken together, I find that the development would not amount to a
design of outstanding quality. Although it would be outstanding in terms of its
detailing and presentation, on account of its confused approach and broad disregard
for the historic environment in particular, the quality of design would not be nearly
high enough as to negate its harm to the settings of heritage assets. [14.71-14.103]
Benefits
Economic
14.107 The first of the propositions in the Appellant’s closing submissions relate to the
economy. It put forward the benefits of investment, by strengthening the City -
through increasing diversification and accessibility, making it more flexible, vibrant
and attractive - particularly at weekends, and by increasing its tourist offer. The
Appellant submitted the only economic data. It flows from the estimates of visitor
numbers which would be restricted by the s106 Agreement and should therefore be
taken as reasonably accurate. The economic value of the scheme, in terms of
investment and employment, would be substantial. It would arise on a site which is
essentially a windfall (in the sense that it was not planned for development) and,
apart from the existing Bury Street offices, the sculpture exhibitions and food
market, as part of the public realm, has little other direct economic use, and the
losses from these would be trifling by comparison. With these minor caveats, the
new jobs and economic benefits would not be at the expense of other development.
The two estimates of construction costs differ widely, but either would be a
considerable sum. Nevertheless, it would be small in the context of the City.
Although the construction investment in the Tulip would be short-term, it would take
around 5 years from the grant of permission before most of the construction benefits
would take hold. The City advised that interest in tall towers had never been greater,
suggesting that lack of investment in construction in the Cluster should not be a
concern. [3.8][3.15-3.17][5.17-5.21][6.1][6.10][6.14-6.15][6.22][7.79-7.80][8.77][8.80][10.12-10.13]
14.108 While a grant of permission might be an expression of confidence in the City at a
time of deep recession, the full benefits would only arise after the scheme is built
and operational in around 7 years’ time. The benefits would not be particularly
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
significant at a local level let alone regional context. Unless it is thought that the
damage to the economy by the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, or by the
pandemic, are likely to be particularly damaging to the financial sector and especially
long-lived, the vast majority of the economic benefits would have negligible impact
on helping the country recover from these economic ills. To try and read across from
97 Cromwell Road and say that the economic benefits should outweigh the heritage
harm is to ignore the other benefits in that case.
[3.50][5.18-5.19][6.15][6.32][7.81][8.77][f/n873][10.19]
14.109 Measured against planning policy relevant to the economy, the benefits of the
proposals would not be comparable to those of the priority land use in the Cluster of
an office development of comparable cost or equivalent height. Although tourism is
supported in general by policy (see below), the priority in this part of the CAZ is for
employment floorspace and there is no strategic need for greater diversification
here. Nevertheless, economic benefits, direct and indirect, are an important material
consideration. For all these reasons, while it would be wrong to give limited weight
to this amount of investment, in my judgement at the most moderate weight should
be given to the economic benefits in the context of City as a whole and the timescale
for construction. Allowing harmful development for the sake of economic investment
alone would set a questionable precedent.
[3.3][3.18][4.12][5.20][6.31][6.85][7.71][ 8.79][9.29][14.108-14.109]
Tourism
14.110 It was accepted that 1.2 million people would be likely to visit the Tulip each year,
limited by the s106 Agreement, of which over 100,000 would not have otherwise
visited London. This compares favourably with some of the capital’s top attractions.
London’s visitor infrastructure is promoted by policy, as is enhancing its visitor
attractions. Adding to, and diversifying these would contribute to the City’s
aspirations and this is consistent with its overall strategy to develop as a vibrant,
attractive and welcoming destination for all, particularly at weekends. As well as the
viewing galleries, a bar and restaurant, the scheme would offer the excitement of
gondola rides outside the main body of the building, spiral stairs and slides, and a
skywalk with a view directly down through a glass floor.
[5.2][5.18][6.19-6.21][7.70][7.78][10.12]
14.111 On the other hand, there are a huge number of existing visitor attractions in London
and a growing number of viewing galleries. These include those at the Shards of
Glass and the Walkie-Talkie but also the more recent towers within the Cluster and
those permitted at 1 Undershaft and 100 Leadenhall. However great an opportunity
this might be, there is no significant gap in London’s visitor attractions. The fact that
there are already free-to-access viewing galleries and education facilities within the
Cluster should reduce the weight to the benefits from tourism. Moreover, the
probability is that the quality of the views out would to some extent be compromised
by the erection of the latest permissions even if the sight of other towers was an
opportunity to view them up close at a height. [2.3][4.29][5.23][8.65][8.82][9.58]
14.112 I have studied the Met Office data submitted illustrating the number of days the
viewing areas are likely to be compromised by bad weather. However, while this
could well reduce the desirability of the visitor attraction during poor weather, this
also applies to other tall attractions, and the s106 Agreement would still secure the
same minimum number of school visits. Consequently, the weather data makes little
difference to the weight to the benefit to tourism. [11.18]
14.113 While a view down onto the top of the Gherkin might delight the senses, as the
Appellant put it, it is also likely to be available from 1 Undershaft and elsewhere. On
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
the other hand, if they are not built, the views to the west and south would be
appreciably better and this should slightly increase the weight to the benefits of the
viewing galleries and associated experiences, at least for a time. [5.2]
14.114 In principle, it would be wrong to give the scheme’s potential tourism benefits
anything other than substantial weight. However, in the context of the many other
visitor attractions, viewing galleries, and proposals for more, some of which would
obscure views out, weight to be attributed to any tourism benefits should be
significantly reduced. For the Cluster, tourism would be more of an opportunity than
a need. The advantages for the area of more tourists are also closely aligned with
the economic benefits and should not be counted twice in the overall balance. Again,
noting the primary policies for the area promote offices, on balance the weight
should be no more than moderate. [14.110-14.113]
Education
14.115 The education offer of enhanced school trips negotiated with the City would be a
further advantage of the scheme. It would be hard to fault the enthusiasm of the
Appellant’s education witness, who is doubtless looking forward (albeit several years
in the future) to this fantastic opportunity to demonstrate her relevant skills. She
was appointed late on the process and, of the 32 original consultants, none was an
education specialist. The appointment appeared to be a low priority during the
design process, below that of a visitor attraction and the economy. Nevertheless, in
reality what matters is not the genesis of this offer, or her evidence, enthusiastic
though it was, but what might actually be provided.
[5.5][5.22][6.25-6.27][7.72][7.85][8.4][13.4]
14.116 The reasonable expectation, rather confirmed by the extent of negotiations, must be
that the Appellant would provide what would be required by the details in the s106
Agreement, and no more. The guarantee of visits for at least 40,000 school children
would compare with the 60,000 school visits to the ToL. While the Appellant
canvassed London teachers and education stakeholders for their views, they had a
pretty limited response leaving some doubt as to whether the offer would be fully
embraced. I was told that whether or not a visit would be in lieu of another school
trip would be up to individual schools, casting further doubt on the full extent of the
potential benefits. The claim that it would enable each London school child to visit
once during their time at school had to be withdrawn as inaccurate, possibly by a
factor of two. While of itself not altering the scheme, I note that this claim was
prominent in the case put to members in the original report to committee, which
found this part of the education offer to be a significant benefit yet the overall case
to be very finely balanced. [2.4][5.5][6.26][7.72][8.84][9.49][10.1513.4]
14.117 The Education space would be at the lowest glazed floor in the flower with the most
restricted views. While only a small point, it should be noted that from this floor the
Shards of Glass is likely to be obscured by 100 Leadenhall. Visiting school parties
would not benefit from the most exciting elements, including the glass slides and
gondolas, and this could be socially divisive by leaving them either disappointed or
pressuring their parents and guardians into repeat, paid for, visits. The arguments
over storage, and whether it could be adequately provided within the space
available, was a rare unresolved detail in the overall proposals. It is a matter that
would need to be overcome in order to comply with the overall requirements but is
trivial compared with other matters and should be given negligible weight.
[5.5][6.25-6.27][7.84-7.85][8.13][8.86][13.4]
14.118 There was limited evidence as to how the space would be used for community
groups other than that this would end at 19:00 hours and exclude weekends, when
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
it would be available only for private functions. Other tall towers also have publicly
accessible elevated viewing galleries, some with much larger areas, especially those
more recently built and permitted. While few of these have dedicated education
spaces, one will now be required for the recently permitted 1 Undershaft, and this
will be at a higher level than at the Tulip.
[5.5][5.21-5.22][6.27-6.28][6.118-6.119][7.65][7.72][8.85][8.90-8.91][9.54]
14.119 In my judgement, when compared with the weighty matter of harm to heritage
assets, the benefits of this facility should be given no more than moderate weight in
the overall balance. It would comply with relevant policy and in some ways go
beyond the minimum requirement offered in adjacent towers. The limitations to both
school visits and community groups, and the uncertainty of whether visits would be
at the expense of other school trips, mean that the weight to the benefit should be
significantly reduced. [5.22][8.8-8.9][9.55][9.57][14.115-14-118]
Balances
Heritage balance
14.120 For the above reasons, considerable weight should be given to the less than
substantial harm the scheme would cause to the contribution setting makes to the
attributes of OUV of the ToL WHS when seen from View 10A.1 and more widely
when crossing Tower Bridge. It would cause further harm to the OUV of the WHS in
Views 25A.1-3 and to the settings of individual LBs within the ToL. There would be
additional harm to the settings of each of other designated heritage assets, notably
the church of St Botolph without Aldgate, the ToL CA, and to 10 Trinity Square,
Trinity House and the Trinity Square CA. The latter would not be insignificant, but in
this appeal each would be of a much lower order than that to the OUV of the WHS in
View 10A.1. Taken together, the other heritage harm would still be important and, if
it is judged that the harm arising from View 10A.1 would be less than I have found,
there would still be a very high level of other heritage harm.
[2.6-2.7][3.10][3.31][7.35][7.48-7.50][8.30-8.32][8.41-8.42][9.4-9.5][9.35-9.37][11.1]
14.121 Turning to cumulative harm, and following the approach in Citroen, if it is accepted
that there is no existing harm to the OUV of the ToL from any of the towers within
the Cluster, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude otherwise, then there
could not be cumulative harm.
[3.6][3.9][3.36-3.38][4.3][5.8][6.84][6.105-6.107][7.39-7.40][8.45][8.57][9.39]
14.122 Set against these harms would be the three main public benefits to the economy,
tourism and education. Each should be given fair to moderate weight but for the
reasons set out above I find that they warrant rather less weight than was claimed
for them. Even collectively they should not warrant more than moderate weight in
the context of the considerable weight to the harm to the OUV of the ToL.
[14.109][14.114][14.119]
14.123 When weighing up harm to designated heritage assets, as well as the requirement to
distinguish between substantial and less than substantial harm, it may be helpful to
look at a spectrum. However, the Shimbles case does not require this and, while PPG
(para 018 of 18a) expects harm to be articulated, it does not ask for a spectrum.
Given that weight should usually be relative to the factors at play in any decision, to
read across from one case to another by way of a spectrum may be unhelpful,
although reference to how close to substantial harm a scheme would come is
relevant. This is true of the appeal proposals which are for development of major
importance, having more than local significance, and where both the harms and the
benefits are weighty matters.
[3.51-3.52][3.56-3.57][6.63.6.64][6.90][6.104][7.47][8.43][8.49][9.20]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
14.124 Under NPPF§196, considerable weight should be given to the less than substantial
harm to the significance of designated heritage assets. This applies particularly to
the WHS and Grade I LBs of the ToL whose conservation should be given greater
weight under NPPF§193 due to their importance. I find that this harm would not be
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, individually or together. The
scheme would not provide the clear and convincing justification required by
NPPF§194 for the harm to significance that would be caused as a result of the
proposed development within their settings. [3.516.64][6.126][7.90][7.95][8.53][11.3]
14.125 Following the Mordue Judgment, working through the relevant parts of the NPPF also
deals with the statutory duty for LBs and, by extension, for CAs. Against all relevant
tests, I find that the heritage balance is therefore firmly against the scheme.
[3.25][3.51][8.59][14.120-14.124]
Other material considerations and overall NPPF balance
14.126 For the reasons set out above, the balance between harm to heritage assets and all
the public benefits weighs heavily against the scheme. The harm to strategic views
would be additional but, as much of this also relates to the heritage harm, to add
any significant weight to this could amount to double counting. On balance, there
would be some additional harm through the loss of open space to the plaza. The
poor overall sustainability and other flawed aspects to the design add to the
conclusion that the quality of design would not be outstanding. On balance, many
aspects would not amount to good design as expected by NPPF§124 and NPPF§127;
nor would it be the product of effective engagement throughout the process as
envisaged by NPPF§128. Overall, it would be neither outstanding, nor sufficiently
innovative, nor promote high levels of sustainability, and should not gain support
from NPPF§131. [14.69][14.105-14.106]
Development plan, other policy and overall Planning balance
NLP
14.127 The NLP is very recent and its policies should be afforded full weight. The proposals
for a mixed-use visitor attraction would gain support from NLP Policy SD4,
particularly with regard to supporting tourism and attracting visitors. Insofar as the
scheme would erect a substantial structure on a vacant area, it would accord with
the expectation to make the best use of land in Policy D3, but it is a moot point as to
whether this is a better use of land than sought-after public open space. It would not
reflect the circular economy principles, in supporting paragraph 3.3.10, including:
designing for longevity, adaptability or flexibility, disassembly, and using systems,
elements or materials that can be re-used and recycled. [3.3][9.51]
14.128 The proposals would conflict with the expectation in Criterion D to Policy D4 that the
use of the design review process should inform design options early in the planning
process. The loss of public realm would be contrary to Policy D8, offset slightly by
the additional green infrastructure. [3.4][8.15][8.28][9.51]
14.129 The location of the Tulip would be within the Cluster in accordance with Tall Buildings
Policy D9.B1-3. However, the scheme would fail against Criterion C1)a)i due to its
appearance in distant views, and would fall below the high bar of exemplary in
Criterion C1)c), including the use of materials of an exemplary standard to ensure
that the appearance of the building is maintained through its lifespan. Its harm to
heritage, limited exploration of alternatives and relatively limited public benefits
would be contrary to Criterion C1)d). It would fail against the stipulation in
Criterion C1)e) that buildings in the setting of a [WHS] must preserve, and not
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
harm, the [OUV] of the [WHS], and the ability to appreciate it. There would be some
support for the scheme from Policy D9.C2f) through jobs and economic activity and
Criterion D to the extent that there would be free public access to some groups.
Nevertheless, overall, there would be considerable conflict with Policy D9. Unlike
policies HC1 and HC2 (below) Policy C1)d) does include the heritage balance
required by NPPF§196. [3.5-3.6][7.31-7.32][7.98][8.15][8.28][8.74]
14.130 The proposals would self-evidently gain support from Policy S3 on Education, and
from Policy E10 for Visitor infrastructure. [3.7-3.8][7.79]
14.131 The greatest conflict, and the matter to which most weight should be given, is with
the heritage chapter, notably policies HC1 and HC2. Harm to heritage, and the
failure to conserve significance, would conflict with the general protection in Policy
HC1 and the expectation that the scheme should avoid harm by integrating heritage
considerations early on in the design process. Harm to the settings of heritage
assets in general would be contrary to Policy HC1.C. [3.9-3.10][3.12][3.45][7.98]
14.132 The considerable harm to the OUV of the ToL would be in direct conflict with
Policy HC2, specifically for WHSs, notably its criteria B and D, as the scheme would
compromise both the ability to appreciate their [OUV], and the authenticity and
integrity of their attributes; it would also be contrary to the WHSMP referred to in
Criterion D. I note that the expanded Policy HC2 on WHSs actively responds to the …
Mission Report and its conclusion that the current Plan had not been totally effective
in preventing negative impacts on the [OUV] of London’s WHS, … justifying a
bespoke policy. The scheme would run counter to the UK Government commitment,
in supporting paragraph 7.2.1 to Policy HC2, to protecting, conserving,
presenting and transmitting to future generations the [OUV] of [WHS]s
[bold type as the NLP]. Although not policy, the draft Panel Report commented that
Policy HC2 actively responds to the findings of the [ICOMOS] Mission Report and its
conclusion that the current Plan had not been totally effective in preventing negative
impacts on the [OUV] of London’s WHS, … While not part of the development plan,
this is helpful in deciding the weight that should now be given to conflict with Policy
HC2 of the NLP. It should be noted that Policies HC1 and HC2 do not include the
NPPF balancing exercise.
[3.10-3.12][3.42-3.43][3.45][4.5][6.87][7.27][8.37][8.47][9.52][11.5]
14.133 There would be harm to Strategic Views, which are generally covered by Policy HC3,
particularly Criterion D which is concerned with the OUV of WHSs. Policy HC4
expands on this with specific reference to the LVMF. While Criterion A echoes aspects
of HC2, there would be specific conflict with HC4.C which adds consideration of
illumination and specific reference to the silhouette of a WHS against a clear sky and
development in its background. Policies HC5 and HC6 add general support for the
scheme to the extent that tourism is part of diverse cultural facilities, and add to the
night-time economy. [3.13-3.15][6.94][8.74]
14.134 There would be mitigation measures in the s106 Agreement, but the scheme is not
expected to be fully net zero-carbon, as the objective in Policy SI 2A; it would
comply with Criterion 2C, through an on-site reduction beyond the Building
Regulations, and with 2E through its efforts to minimise carbon emissions, as
demonstrated by its BREEAM score, and efforts to reduce the unregulated emissions
from the lifts. There is no requirement in Criterion 2F to achieve net zero-carbon for
the entire life-cycle of the scheme, and I recognise the Appellant’s efforts to reduce
the carbon footprint, including the element contained in its BREEAM target and the
details in its Sustainability Statement. Nevertheless, it would be inevitable that, on
balance, such a tall reinforced concrete building would perform poorly against a
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment and be contrary to the aspirations of this policy
and its supporting paragraphs. Overall, the scheme would not conflict with the letter
of this policy but nor should it gain support from it. For similar reasons, it would not
promote a circular economy which is one of the aims of Policy SI 7.
[3.16-3.17][7.76][8.92]
LP
14.135 The 2015 LP is now over 6 years old and a replacement is in hand. In the event of
differences, its policies may be afforded less weight than those of the NLP. It should
be noted that not all of its relevant policies incorporate the NPPF balancing exercise.
Its principle focus is on office floorspace as demonstrated through policies CS1 and
DM1.1, particularly in the Cluster through Policy CS7.1. The scheme would be within
the area identified for investment in tall buildings, but would conflict with the
requirement to protect office floorspace, through the loss of 20 Bury Street, although
this should be given limited weight in the context of this appeal. The scheme would
conflict with Policy CS7.3 as a result of harm to the skyline, ground level,
sustainability, and heritage assets. It would be contrary to Design Policy CS10,
notwithstanding Criterion 2 which encourages design solutions that make effective
use of limited land resources. It would fall below the design requirements of Policy
DM10.1 for new development. [3.18-3.20]
14.136 There would be conflict with Policy CS12, and Criteria 1, 2 and 5 in particular, which
aim to conserve or enhance the significance of the City’s heritage assets and their
settings. Similarly, the scheme would be contrary to the equivalent provisions in
Criteria 1 and 5 of Policy DM12.1. With regard to Protected Views, the Tulip would
fail to accord with Policy CS13.1.: to implement and manage the LVMF for the ToL,
and 2.: To secure an appropriate setting of and backdrop to the ToL WHS. It would
fail to accord with Policy CS13 to protect and enhance significant views of important
buildings although it would comply with the locational requirements of Tall Buildings
Policy CS14. [3.21-3.24][7.31][8.28][9.51]
Emerging policy
14.137 The NLP has been adopted and the parties updated their cases to take account of
this. The Replacement City of London Local Plan has yet to be formally submitted for
examination, with adoption programmed no sooner than early 2022. Accordingly, its
policies should be given limited weight at this stage and should have little bearing on
the planning balance. [3.27-3.30]
SPG
14.138 The Settings SPG is of some age but still relevant. The NLP now has similar adopted
policies to those addressing the attributes of OUV and so the conflict is comparable.
Its advice that: [t]here should also be recognition that previous permissions for
similar developments do not necessarily represent acceptability of impacts on setting
could be relevant, but for the reasons given above, I have not pursued this.
[3.31][8.37]
14.139 There would also be conflict with the contemporaneous LVMF SPG, on account of
harm to LVMF Views 10A.1 and 25A.1-3, which emphasises the ToL in general, and
the White Tower in particular. Again, the harm to the view identified through the
LVMF SPG would roughly coincide with the harm to the OUV of the ToL and so in this
case the conflict with the guidance mirrors that with heritage policies. [3.32][7.60][8.68]
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Other policy and documents
14.140 The HE guidance in GPA3 helps to ensure that the correct approach is adopted to the
consideration of setting. That in GPA4 extends this to considering tall buildings. Both
are useful in interpreting development plan policies. [3.37-3.38][f/n1024]
14.141 The WHSMP is given additional weight through NLP Policy HC2.D and the PPG. As
well as providing a very full explanation of OUV, the WHSMP sets out an explanation
of the attributes of OUV which are the starting point for understanding the
significance of the ToL. It identifies that The most significant challenges to the
property lie in managing the environs of the [ToL] so as to protect its [OUV] and
setting. The harm to the attributes would conflict with the aims of the WHSMP.
[3.10][3.12][3.23][3.32][3.39-3.41][6.88][7.49][9.4]
14.142 London Recharged: Our Vision for London in 2025 gives some insight into the extent
to which working from home may continue after the pandemic. It is helpful to the
extent that it informs the likelihood that 1 Undershaft and 100 Leadenhall will be
completed and so the extent to which the Tulip would stand out, above and away,
from the rest of the Cluster. [3.50][7.81]
14.143 Insofar as the scheme would reduce ground level public open space, and make
the plaza more complicated and cluttered, it would be contrary to aspects of the
City Cluster Vision and the City Public Realm SPD. [3.48][8.15]
Overall planning balance
14.144 The Tulip proposals exude extremes. The honed detailing and exquisite presentation
are quite exceptional for this stage of any scheme. Conversely, the chosen purpose,
form, materials and location have resulted in a design that would cause considerable
harm to the significance of the ToL, and further harm to other designated heritage
assets. It would do so for the gains that a new visitor attraction would provide to the
economy, tourism and education which are relatively modest by comparison with the
City as a whole and with other nearby provisions. [14.60-14.63][14.109][14.114][14.119]
14.145 Achieving the functional requirements at low level in such a constrained space has
been done with consummate skill but would not quite outweigh the harm through
loss of highly valued public open space and substantial intrusions into half of the
setting to the Gherkin. Although considerable efforts have been made to adopt all
available sustainability techniques to make the construction and operation of the
scheme as sustainable as possible, fulfilling the brief with a tall, reinforced concrete
lift shaft, would result in a scheme with very high embodied energy and an
unsustainable whole life-cycle. Based on planning criteria, the design would not be of
the highest architectural quality, particularly due to its lack of heritage consideration
but also due to its poor lifetime sustainability. [14.69][14.104-14.106][14.120-14.125]
14.146 The sizeable economic benefits would be modest in relation to the City and by
comparison with the very tall office towers which fulfil the primary function of, and
justification for, the Cluster. The tourism benefits should be seen in the context of
the very many other attractions in London and while the predicted number of visitors
to the City is significant, those that would not come anyway would be far fewer. The
education offer would also be welcome, but would achieve rather less than originally
claimed, the uptake would be uncertain and vistis might be at the expense of trips
elsewhere. The extent of benefit to community groups would be uncertain and time
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
limited. Taken together, these benefits should be given no more than moderate
weight in the context of this appeal. [14.109][14.114][14.119]
14.147 Adopting the heritage balance set out in NPPF§196, the benefits of the proposals
would fall well short of outweighing the considerable weight to the moderate harm to
the OUV of the ToL WHS and other identified heritage harm. For similar reasons, the
scheme would not be consistent with the development plan as a whole. In any
event, I agree with parties who felt that the NPPF and the development plan are
inextricably mixed and that there is nothing materially different between the balance
required by the NPPF and the development plan. For all the above reasons, I find
that the appeal should fail. [14.144-14.146]
15. Recommendation
15.1 I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
David Nicholson
INSPECTOR
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Appendix 1: Appearances
FOR THE APPELLANT, BURY STREET PROPERTIES:
Russell Harris Q.C. Instructed by Alistair Watson
Richard Turney of Counsel Partner, Taylor Wessing LLP
(Landmark Chambers)
He called
Robert Harrison BSc, MA, RIBA Foster + Partners
Professor Robert Tavernor BA, Dip Arch, Tavernor Consultancy
PhD, RIBA
Dr Sharon Wright BSc, MSc, EdD the-learning-crowd
Tim Rusby BSc, FRSA The Visitor Attraction Company
Dr Chris Miele PhD, IHBC, MRTPI Montagu Evans
Chris Goddard BA(Hons), Bpl, MRTPI, DP9
MRICS
FOR THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION (THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY):
Neil Cameron Q.C. Instructed by Fleur Francis
(Landmark Chambers) The Comptroller and City Solicitor
He called
Gwyn Richards BA(Hons), DIP TP, Interim Chief Planning Officer and
MRTPI Development Director
Annie Hampson OBE, BA(Hons), DIP TP, Former Chief Planning Officer and
MRTPI Development Director
FOR THE MAYOR OF LONDON (GLA):
Hereward Phillpot QC Instructed by Esther Thornton,
Daisy Noble of Counsel Principal Solicitor, TfL for the Mayor
(Francis Taylor Building)
He called
Dr Nigel Barker-Mills BA (Hons), PHD, Conservation Consultant at Barker-Mills
Dip Cons AA, IHBC, FSA Conservation Conservation
Elizabeth Adams AA Dip, RIBA, ARB
Richard Green BSc (Hons) MA Director at Adams & Sutherland
Special Projects Manager at the GLA
FOR HISTORIC ENGLAND:
Scott Lyness QC Instructed by Beth Harries
(Landmark Chambers) Historic England
He called Assisted by
Daniel Whittle, Burges Salmon LLP
David English BS(Hons), MA, MSc, Historic England
IHBC, FRSA
INTERESTED PERSON:
Chris Hayward Sheriff of the City of London
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Appendix 2: Core Documents (CDs)
Application documents and plans
Ref Document
CD1-1 Application Form
CD1-2 Additional Information for Application Form
CD1-3 Aviation Safeguarding Assessment
CD1-4 CIL Form
CD1-5 Cover Letter
CD1-6 Design and Access Statement
CD1-7 Economic and Social Benefits Statement
CD1-8 Energy Statement
CD1-9 Environmental Statement – Non Technical Summary
CD1-10 Environmental Statement – Volume 1
CD1-11 Environmental Statement – Volume 2 – TVBHA
CD1-12 Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Part 1
CD1-13 Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Part 2
CD1-14 Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Part 3
CD1-15 Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – FRA
CD1-16 Fire Strategy
CD1-17 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Tower of London WHS
CD1-18 Pedestrian Movement Assessment
CD1-19 Planning Statement
CD1-20 Sustainability Statement
CD1-21 Transport Assessment
CD1-22 Utilities Statement
CD1-23 Waste Management Strategy
CD1-24 A-000- XX-21-Diagram_Level All Project Symbols
CD1-25 A-000-XX-01_Cover_Sheet
CD1-26 A-000-XX-11_Drawing_list
CD1-27 A-EXB10-XX-01_Existing_20_Bury_Street_Plans
CD1-28 A-EXB10-XX-02_Existing_20_Bury_Street_Elv_Sec
CD1-29 A-EXSL-014-01-01_Context_Elevation_South Existing
CD1-30 A-EXSL-014-02-01_Context_Elevation_West Existing
CD1-31 A-EXSL-014-03-01_Context_Elevation_North Existing
CD1-32 A-EXSL-014-04-01_Context_Elevation_East Existing
CD1-33 A-LO-011-EX-01-Location Site Plan
CD1-34 A-PT-031-00-01_Ground_Floor_Plan
CD1-35 A-PT-031-01-01_Floor_01_Plan
CD1-36 A-PT-031-02-01_Floor_02_Plan
CD1-37 A-PT-031-03-01_Floor_03_Plan
CD1-38 A-PT-031-04-01_Floor_04_Plan
CD1-39 A-PT-031-05-01_Floor_05_Plan
CD1-40 A-PT-031-06-01_Floor_06_Plan
CD1-41 A-PT-031-07-01_Floor_07_Plan
CD1-42 A-PT-031-08-01_Floor_08_Plan
CD1-43 A-PT-031-09-01_Floor_09_Plan
CD1-44 A-PT-031-10-01_Floor_10_Plan
CD1-45 A-PT-031-11-01_Floor_11_Plan
CD1-46 A-PT-031-12-01_Floor_12_Plan
CD1-47 A-PT-031-B1-01_Basement
CD1-48 A-PT-031-BM-01_Basement Mezzanine
CD1-49 A-PT-031-RF-01_Roof Plan
CD1-50 A-PT-053-01-01_North_South_Section
CD1-51 A-PT-053-02-01_East_West_Section
CD1-52 A-PT-059-XX-01_Section_through_The_Tulip_Base_and_Pavilion
CD1-53 A-PT-064-01-01_West_Elevation
CD1-54 A-PT-064-02-01_East_Elevation
CD1-55 A-PT-064-03-01_South_Elevation
CD1-56 A-PT-064-04-01_North_Elevation
CD1-57 A-PT-194-XX-01_West_Elevation
CD1-58 A-PT-199-01-01_Cladding_Details_Levels_01-04
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD1-59 A-PT-199-02-01_Cladding_Details_Levels_05-08
CD1-60 A-PT-199-03-01_Cladding_Details_Levels_09-10
CD1-61 A-PT-199-04-01_Cladding_Details_Levels_11-12
CD1-62 A-PT-199-05-01_Cladding_Details_GF Entrance
CD1-63 A-PV-039-XX-01_Pavilion_General_Arrangement
CD1-64 A-PV-199-01-01_Cladding_Details_Pavilion_Entrance
CD1-65 A-SL-011-EX-01-Existing Site Plan
CD1-66 A-SL-011-EX-02-Demo Site Plan
CD1-67 A-SL-011-XX-01-Proposed Site Plan
CD1-68 A-SL-014-01-01 - Context Elevation South Proposed
CD1-69 A-SL-014-02-01 - Context Elevation West Proposed
CD1-70 A-SL-014-03-01 - Context Elevation North Proposed
CD1-71 A-SL-014-04-01 - Context Elevation East Proposed
CD1-72 A-SL-014-EX-01_Existing_Site_Elevation_South
CD1-73 A-SL-014-EX-02_Demolition_Site_Elevation_South
CD1-74 A-SL-014-XX-01_Proposed_Site_Elevation_South
Additional application documents and plans submitted after validation
CD2-1 Economic Impact Assessment
CD2-2 Education Roundtable Report
CD2-3 Educational Offer – Amendments – DP9 Letter 8 February 2019
CD2-4 Energy – Response to GLA Stage 1 Report
CD2-5 Energy and Sustainability – Response to CoL comments
CD2-6 HIA – Response to GLA, HE, and HRP comments
CD2-7 Pedestrian Movement Assessment – Clarification – February 2019
CD2-8 Pedestrian Movement Assessment – Clarification – March 2019
CD2-9 Public Open Space Comparison at Grade
CD2-10 Solar Convergence Assessment – Additional Note
CD2-11 Statement of Community Involvement – December 2018
CD2-12 Statement of Community Involvement – February 2019
CD2-13 Statement of Community Involvement – March 2019
CD2-14 Statement of Community Involvement – July 2019
CD2-15 Technical Note – Proposed Cycle Parking and Facilities
CD2-16 Memo – Response to CoL Public Realm Coach Strategy Comments
CD2-17 Memo – Retail Servicing Trip Rate
CD2-18 Technical Note – Velominck Cycle Parking System
CD2-19 Transport – Response to GLA Stage 1 Report
CD2-20 Transport – Response to London Borough of Tower Hamlet's comments
CD2-21 TVBHA – Additional Winter View
CD2-22 A-000-XX-11_Drawing_list
CD2-23 A-PT-031-00-01_Ground_Floor_Plan
CD2-24 A-PT-031-03-01_Level_03_Plan
CD2-25 A-PT-031-B1-01_Basement_Plan
CD2-26 A-PT-031-BM-01_Basement_Mezzanine_Plan
CD2-27 A-PV-039-XX-01_Pavilion_Plans_and_Elevations
CD2-28 Transport – Response Schedule to Transport for London Comments
City of London Corporation (CoL) application stage documents
CD3-1 Independent Review of the Daylight, Sunlight, and Solar Glare Assessment
CD3-2 Independent Review of the Pedestrian Movement Assessment
CD3-3 Not used – duplicate of CD3-1
CD3-4 Report to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee - 2 April 2019
CD3-5 Report to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee – Background Papers
CD3-6 Report to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee - Late Items Addendum
CD3-7 Presentation to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee
CD3-8 Printed Minutes of the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee
CD3-9 Decision notice – 19 July 2019
Greater London Authority (GLA) application stage documents (Rule 6 party)
CD4-1 GLA Stage 1 Report – 14 January 2019
CD4-2 Report of the London Review Panel – 7 May 2019
CD4-3 GLA Stage 2 Report – 15 July 2019
CD4-4 Mayor of London Direction – 15 July 2019
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Historic England (HE) application stage documents (Rule 6 party)
CD5-1 Pre-application advice letter – 2 August 2018
CD5-2 Pre-application advice letter – 11 October 2018
CD5-3 Advice from the London Advisory Committee
CD5-4 Consultation response – 6 December 2018
National policy and development plan documents
CD6-1 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
CD6-2 Planning Practice Guidance (extracts)
CD6-3 London Plan (March 2016) (extracts)
CD6-4 City of London Local Plan (January 2015) (extracts)
Emerging development plan documents
CD7-1 Intend to Publish Draft London Plan (December 2019) (extracts)
CD7-2 Secretary of State letter to Mayor of London (13 March 2020)
CD7-3 Proposed Submission Draft City Local Plan (August 2020) (extracts)
CD7-4 Draft London Plan Panel Report to the Mayor of London (October 2019) (extracts)
CD7-5 Local Plan Issues and Options Draft City Local Plan (September 2016) (extracts)
CD7-6 City of London Local Plan Issues and Options Evidence Summary (September 2016)
CD7-7 City of London Draft New London Plan Response (December 2017)
CD7-8 City of London Representation into the Draft London Plan EiP (extracts)
Supplementary planning documents, guidance, and strategies
CD8-1 A Cultural Tourism Vision for London 2015-2017 (GLA)
CD8-2 A Vision for London as a 24-Hour City (GLA, July 2017)
CD8-3 Advice Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment
(Historic England, March 2015)
CD8-4 Advice Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets: Good Practice Advice in Planning 2nd
Edition (Historic England, December 2017)
CD8-5 Advice Note 12 – Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage
Assets (Historic England, 2019)
CD8-6 Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings (Historic England, December 2015)
CD8-7 City of London City Cluster Vision (April 2019)
CD8-8 CoL Public Realm – People Places Projects Supplementary Planning Document (July 2016)
CD8-9 City of London Visitor Destination Strategy 2019-2023 (CoL, 2018)
CD8-10 City Streets – the City of London Transport Strategy (May 2019)
CD8-11 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage, April 2008)
CD8-12 DCMS Policy Statement on Scheduled Monuments (October 2013)
CD8-13 Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties
(ICOMOS, January 2011)
CD8-14 London View Management Framework SPG (GLA, March 2012)
CD8-15 London's Image and Identity: Revisiting London's Cherished Views (HE, 2018)
CD8-16 London’s World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings SPG (GLA, March 2012)
CD8-17 National Design Guide – PPG for beautiful, enduring and successful places (October 2019)
CD8-18 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(ICOMOS, January 2008)
CD8-19 The Protection and Management of WHSs in England (Historic England, July 2009)
CD8-20 Culture and Night-time Economy Supplementary Planning Guidance (GLA, April 2017)
CD8-21 The Mayor's Economic Development Strategy for London – Consultation Report (GLA,
December 2018)
CD8-22 ToL Local Setting Study – An Assessment of the Local Setting of the ToL and Guidelines
for its Management (ToL WHS Consultative Committee, August 2010)
CD8-23 Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan (Historic Royal Palaces, 2016)
CD8-24 Mayor's Transport Strategy (GLA, March 2018)
CD8-25 Tower of London Tree Strategy (prepared for Historic Royal Palaces, July 2009)
CD8-26 Protected Views Supplementary Planning Document (CoL, January 2012)
CD8-27 Bank CA, CA Character Summary and Management Strategy SPD (CoL, 2012)
CD8-28 Bishopsgate CA, CA Character Summary and Management Strategy SPD (CoL, 2014)
CD8-29 Fenchurch Street Station CA, CA Character Summary and Management Strategy SPD
(CoL, 2013)
CD8-30 Lloyds Avenue CA, CA Character Summary and Management Strategy SPD (CoL, 2014)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD8-31 Interim Strategic Planning Guidance on Tall Buildings, Strategic Views and the Skyline in
London (GLA, October 2001)
CD8-32 Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings: 2nd Edition Consultation DRAFT (HE, March 2020)
CD8-33 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(ICOMOS, July 2019)
CD8-34 Planning Obligations SPD (CoL, July 2014)
CD8-35 Open Space Strategy SPD (CoL, January 2015)
CD8-36 Planning Obligations SPD – consultation draft (CoL, October 2020)
Relevant appeal decisions
CD9-1 SoS for HCLG decision for appeals made by Starbones Limited relating to land at Chiswick
Roundabout (19 July 2019) (APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 and APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208)
CD9-2 Inspector's Report to the SoS for HCLG relating to appeals made by Starbones Limited (10
December 2018) (APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 and APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208)
CD9-3 SoS for HCLG decision for application made by L&Q relating to land at Citroen Site, Capital
Interchange Way, Brentford TW8 0EX (10 September 2020) (APP/G6100/V/19/3226914)
CD9-4 Inspector's Report to the SoS for HCLG relating to an application made by L&Q relating to
land at Citroen Site, Capital Interchange Way, Brentford TW8 0EX (11 June 2020)
(APP/G6100/V/19/3226914)
CD9-5 Inspector's Report to the First SoS relating to an application made by Teighmore Limited
relating to land adjoining London Bridge Station, at St Thomas Street/Joiner Street,
London SE1 (23 July 2003) (APP/A5840/V/02/1095887)
CD9-6 First SoS decision for application made by Teighmore Limited relating to land adjoining
London Bridge Station, at St Thomas Street/Joiner Street, London SE1 (18 November
2003) (APP/A5840/V/02/1095887)
CD9-7 SoS for HCLG decision for application made by The City of London Real Property Company
Limited relating to the site at 20 Fenchurch Street, 14-15 Philpot Lane, 10 Rood Lane,
33-35 Eastcheap and part of basement at 37-39 Eastcheap, London (9 July 2007)
(APP/K5030/V/06/1200476)
CD9-8 Inspector's Report to the SoS for HCLG relating to an application made by The City of
London Real Property Company Limited relating to the site at 20 Fenchurch Street, 14-15
Philpot Lane, 10 Rood Lane, 33-35 Eastcheap and part of basement at 37-39 Eastcheap,
London (11 May 2007) (APP/K5030/V/06/1200476)
CD9-9 SoS for Transport, Local Government and the Regions decision for application made by
Heron (London) Properties Ltd relating to the site at 106-126 Bishopsgate and 35-37
Camomoile Street, London (22 July 2002) (APP/K5030/U/01/000252)
CD9-10 Inspector's Report to the SoS for Transport, Local Government and the Regions relating to
an application made by Heron (London) Properties Ltd relating to the site at 106-126
Bishopsgate and 35-37 Camomoile Street, London (30 April 2002)
(APP/K5030/U/01/000252)
CD9-11 Inspector's Decision on an appeal made by Putney High Street Development LLP relating
to 45-53 Putney High Street and 327-339 Putney Bridge Road, London (29 July 2019)
(APP/H5960/W/18/3209376)
Relevant judgments
CD10-1 Barnwell v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137
CD10-2 Bedford Borough Council v SoS for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC2847
(Admin)
CD10-3 Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697
CD10-4 City & Country Bramshill Limited v SoS for Housing Communities and Local Government
[2019] EWHC 3437 (Admin)
CD10-5 Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243; [2016] 1 WLR 2682
CD10-6 R (Kay) v SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 2292
(Admin)
CD10-7 R (Corbett) v Cornwall Council [2020] EWCA Civ 508
CD10-8 R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
CD10-9 R (James Hall and Company Limited) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and
Co-Operative Group Limited [2019] EWHC 2899 (Admin)
CD10-10 R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061
CD10-11 R (Shimbles) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2018] EWHC 195 (Admin)
CD10-12 R (Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427
CD10-13 Safe Rottingdean Ltd v Brighton and Hove City Council [2019] EWHC 2632 (Admin)
CD10-14 Starbones Ltd v SoS MHCLG & Ors [2020] EWHC
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD10-15 Nottingham County Council and Broxtowe Borough Council v The SoS for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions and Rjb Mining (UK) Limited [1999] P.L.C.R. 340
Other core documents
CD11-1 A Tourism Vision for London (London & Partners, 2017)
CD11-2 City of London Audit Report on Open Spaces (April 2020)
CD11-3 City of London Evidence Base for Tall Building Policy (December 2010)
CD11-4 City of London Local Plan Monitoring Report - Tall Buildings (July 2019)
CD11-5 City of London, Trinity Square Conservation Area Character Summary and Management
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (September 2014)
CD11-6 Not used
CD11-7 Cracking the Code: how schools can improve social mobility (The Social Mobility & Child
Poverty Commission, 2014)
CD11-8 Creative Industries Economic Estimates Methodology, DCMS (2016)
CD11-9 Creative Industries Economic Estimates, DCMS (January 2016)
CD11-10 Cultural Capital Quantitative Survey (A New Direction, November 2014)
CD11-11 Cultural Education Challenge (2015-2018): Action Research Reflections (A New Direction,
June 2018)
CD11-12 Cultural Education in England, DCMS & DfE (March 2012)
CD11-13 DCMS State of Conservation Report for Tower of London, Westminster Palace,
Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church (March 2012)
CD11-14 Disadvantage and cultural engagement – a study in to the lives of young Londoners (A
New Direction, February 2015)
CD11-15 Not used – duplicate of CD7-4
CD11-16 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (Landscape Institute
and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, 2013)
CD11-17 Historic England: Designation: Listing Selection Guide: Places of Worship
CD11-18 ICOMOS Technical Review of the Appeal Scheme (March 2019)
CD11-19 ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission Report (June 2017)
CD11-20 List Entry: Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula – NHLE number 1357540
CD11-21 List Entry: Middle Tower – NHLE number 1065766
CD11-22 List Entry: Outer curtain wall with casements and mural towers – NHLE number 1242026
CD11-23 List Entry: Revetment Wall to South Side of Moat – NHLE number 1065765
CD11-24 List Entry: Revetment Wall to West and North Side of Moat, from outwork attached to
Middle Tower (qv) to Tower Hill Postern – NHLE number 1065764
CD11-25 List Entry: The Tower of London, 256m ESE of All Hallows church – NHLE number
1002061
CD11-26 List Entry: The White Tower – NHLE number 1260258
CD11-27 List Entry: Tower of London (Inner curtain wall with mural towers, the New Armouries, the
Queen's House and Tower Green) – NHLE number 1242062
CD11-28 List Entry: Waterloo Block – NHLE number 1242210
CD11-29 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Consultation Response – 8 February 2019
CD11-30 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Consultation Response - 12 March 2020
CD11-31 London's Cultural Tourists (London & Partners)
CD11-32 London Education Report: Primary Education (GLA, September 2019)
CD11-33 London Education Report: Secondary Education (GLA, September 2019)
CD11-34 London Visitor Survey (London & Partners, 2016) (extract)
CD11-35 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (extract – section 66)
CD11-36 Report of the Department for DCMS in response to the WHC Decision (41 COM 7B.55) into
the ‘Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church’
CD11-37 School cultures and practices: supporting the attainment of disadvantaged pupils DfE
Research Report (May 2018)
CD11-38 State Party’s Periodic Report to the World Heritage Centre (Cycle II 2013)
CD11-39 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value: Tower of London (2013)
CD11-40 St Helen’s Place Conservation Area Character Summary (City of London)
CD11-41 The Tower Access Guide 2019
CD11-42 Tall buildings in the City of London (November 2019)
CD11-43 Not used – duplicate of CD11-1
CD11-44 Tower Hamlets, Tower of London Conservation Area Appraisal (2008)
CD11-45 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(1972)
CD11-46 UNESCO Mission Report on the WHS of the Middle Rhine Valley (June 2008)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD11-47 World Heritage Centre Preparing World Heritage Nominations, 2nd edition (UNESCO,
2011)
CD11-48 WHC Decision (41 COM 7B.55) into the ‘Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey
including Saint Margaret’s Church’ (July 2017)
CD11-49 WHC Decision on the Tower of London: 35 COM 7B.114 (July 2011)
CD11-50 100 Leadenhall Street Viewing Gallery Visitor Management Plan (Headlines) (May 2018)
CD11-51 City of London Committee Report for the Minerva Tower (extracts) (January 2004)
CD11-52 Consultation Response by Mr Noble, Group Manager (City Public Realm) for the CoL
(1 February 2019)
CD11-53 Design Review Principles and Practice (Design Council, 2019)
CD11-54 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) GLA Stage 1 Report (22 March 2016)
CD11-55 100 Leadenhall Street (18/00152/FULEIA) GLA Stage 1 Report (16 April 2018)
CD11-56 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017
CD11-57 Living with Beauty: Promoting Health, Well-being and Sustainable Growth: Report of the
Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (January 2020)
CD11-58 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Decision Notice (8 November 2019)
CD11-59 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Committee Report (28 November 2016)
CD11-60 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Top Floor Layout Drawing (L67-72)
CD11-61 100 Leadenhall Street (18/00152/FULEIA) Decision Notice (27 March 2019)
CD11-62 100 Leadenhall Street (18/00152/FULEIA) Committee Report (10 July 2018)
CD11-63 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) Decision Notice (16 June 2016)
CD11-64 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) Committee Report (17 November 2015)
CD11-65 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) Section 106 Agreement (16 June 2016)
CD11-66 Reports and consultation responses in relation to other tall building developments in the
City cluster
CD11-67 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Planning Statement (extracts) (January 2016)
CD11-68 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Design and Access Statement (extracts) (January 2016)
CD11-69 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) s106 Agreement (extracts) (November 2019)
CD11-70 20 Fenchurch Street (the Walkie Talkie) Planning Statement (extracts) (November 2008)
CD11-71 20 Fenchurch Street (the Walkie Talkie) DAS (extracts) (November 2008)
CD11-72 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) Planning Statement (extracts) (July 2015)
CD11-73 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) Design and Access Statement (extracts) (July 2015)
CD11-74 30 St Mary Axe (13/01150/FULL) Decision Notice (January 2014)
CD11-75 30 St Mary Axe (13/01150/FULL) Delegated Report (January 2014)
CD11-76 30 St Mary Axe (13/01150/FULL) Gherkin Market – Operation Management Plan
CD11-77 Advice Note 01/11 - Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact
assessment (Landscape Institute, March 2011)
CD11-78 'Box sized DIE featuring…' (artwork) by Joᾶo Onofre, Design and Access Statement for
temporary installation
CD11-79 Presentation of the artwork and site for 'Box sized DIE featuring…' by Joᾶo Onofre
CD11-80 'Laura' (sculpture) by Jaume Plensa, DAS for temporary installation
CD11-81 Presentation of the artwork and site for 'Laura' by Jaume Plensa
CD11-82 Levelling Up Communities – Paper One (Covid Recovery Commission)
CD11-83 Technical Guidance Note 06/19 – Visual Representation of Development Proposals
(Landscape Institute, September 2019)
CD11-84 1-6 Bury Court, 19-28 Bury Street, 14-34 (even) St Mary Axe (the Gherkin)
(CPO/520/2000) Planning and Transportation Committee Report (4 July 2000)
CD11-85 London Recharged: Our Vision for London in 2025 (City of London, 2020)
CD11-86 2020 tourism forecast (Visit Britain, October 2020)
CD11-87 Mayor reveals tourist spending in central London to plummet by £10.9bn (Mayor of
London, 23 October 2020)
CD11-88 City of London Planning Applications Tracker (Appellant, 30 October 2020)
Inquiry documents
CD12-1 Statement of Common Ground – duplicate of CD19B-7
CD12-2 Heritage Statement of Common Ground – duplicate of CD19C-7
CD12-3 Transport Statement of Common Ground – duplicate of CD19B-6
CD12-4 Benefits Statement of Common Ground – duplicate of CD19B-15
CD12-5 Inspector's Note of Pre-Inquiry Meeting
CD12-6 Draft section 106 obligations – updated version at CD19B-12
CD12-6A Draft section 106 obligations – Site Plan
CD12-6B Draft section 106 obligations - Education and Community Floorspace Plan
CD12-6C Draft section 106 obligations – Statement of Compliance
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD12-7 Draft planning conditions – updated version at CD19C-6
CD12-8 Inspector's preliminary comments on the Draft Section 106 Conditions – 30 October 2020
Appellant's Inquiry Documents
CD13-1 Appeal form
CD13-2 Statement of case
CD13-3 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Chris Goddard - 6 October 2020
CD13-4 Proof of Evidence of Chris Goddard - 6 October 2020
CD13-5 Appendix to the Proof of Evidence of Chris Goddard - 6 October 2020
CD13-6 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele - 6 October 2020
CD13-7 Proof of Evidence of Dr Chris Miele - 6 October 2020
CD13-8 Proof of Evidence of Robert Harrison - 6 October 2020
CD13-8A Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Robert Harrison – 27 October 2020
CD13-9 Robert Harrison - VR_Walkthrough_2020
CD13-10 Robert Harrison - Keyframes_from_WIP_EducationVideo_2020
CD13-11 Robert Harrison - ConstructionSequence_2018
CD13-12 Robert Harrison - GondolaDiagram_2018
CD13-13 Robert Harrison - TulipIntro_2018
CD13-14 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor - 6 October 2020
CD13-15 Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor - 6 October 2020
CD13-16 Appendix RT2A to the Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor - 20 October 2020
CD13-17 Robert Tavernor - 25A_Queens_Walk-2020
CD13-18 Robert Tavernor - 10A_Tower_Bridge-2020
CD13-19 Appendix RT3A to the Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor - 20 October 2020
CD13-19A Appendix RT4 to the Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor - 20 October 2020
CD13-20 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Dr Sharon Wright - 6 October 2020
CD13-21 Proof of Evidence of Dr Sharon Wright - 6 October 2020
CD13-22 Appendix to the Proof of Evidence of Dr Sharon Wright - 6 October 2020
CD13-23 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Tim Rusby - 6 October 2020
CD13-24 Proof of Evidence of Tim Rusby - 6 October 2020
CD13-25 Appendix to the Proof of Evidence of Tim Rusby - 6 October 2020
CD13-26 Rebuttal Proof of Chris Goddard – 20 October 2020
CD13-27 Rebuttal Proof of Chris Miele – 20 October 2020
CD13-28 Rebuttal Proof of Robert Tavernor – 20 October 2020
CD13-29 Rebuttal Proof of Dr Sharon Wright – 20 October 2020
CoL's Inquiry Documents
CD14-1 Appeal Questionnaire
CD14-2 Statement of case
CD14-3 Proof of Evidence of Annie Hampson – 6 October 2020
CD14-4 Proof of Evidence of David Gwyn Richards – 6 October 2020
GLA's Inquiry Documents
CD15-1 Statement of case – 10 March 2020
CD15-2 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Elizabeth Adams - 6 October 2020
CD15-3 Proof of Evidence of Elizabeth Adams - 6 October 2020
CD15-4 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Nigel Barker-Mills - 6 October 2020
CD15-5 Proof of Evidence of Nigel Barker-Mills - 6 October 2020
CD15-6 Appendices to the Proof of Evidence of Nigel Barker-Mills - 6 October 2020
CD15-6A Report of the Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to The Tower of London
& Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margret's Church (May 2007)
CD15-7 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of Richard Green - 6 October 2020
CD15-8 Proof of Evidence of Richard Green - 6 October 2020
HE's Inquiry Documents
CD16-1 Statement of case
CD16-2 Summary of the Proof of Evidence of David English - 6 October 2020 (HE_1_C)
CD16-3 Proof of Evidence of David English - 6 October 2020 (HE_1_A)
CD16-4 Appendices Part 1 of the PoE of David English - 28 October 2020 (HE_1_B1) (v3)
CD16-5 Appendices Part 2 of the PoE of David English - 28 October 2020 (HE_1_B2) (v3)
CD16-6 Appendices Part 3 of the PoE of David English - 28 October 2020 (HE_1_B3) (v3)
CD16-6A Report of the Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to The Tower of London
& Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church (June 2012)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Third party representations
CD17-1 The Honourable Company of Master Mariners - undated
CD17-2 NATS Safeguarding – 11 February 2020
CD17-3 Dr Mary Dangler – 13 March 2020
CD17-4 Oliver Mitchell – 17 February 2020
CD17-5 Nick Llewellin – 19 February 2020
CD17-6 Andy Quinn – 19 February 2020
CD17-7 Alberico de Chiara – 20 February 2020
CD17-8 Yvonne Courtney – 27 February 2020
CD17-9 Historic Royal Palaces – 10 March 2020
CD17-10 Not used – duplicate of CD11-30
CD17-11 Peter Sainsbury - 20 August 2020
CD17-12 Ronnie James – 22 August 2020
CD17-13 William Upton QC – 3 September 2020
CD17-14 Mark Bostock, Marianne Fredericks, Graeme Harrower, Natasha Lloyd-Owen, Barbara
Newman, and Sue Pearson (CoL Councillors) – 3 September 2020
CD17-15 Julian Ross – 30 September 2020
CD17-16 Alberico de Chiara – 6 October 2020
CD17-17 Saghir Ahmed – 20 October 2020
CD17-18 Douglas Ford – 4 October 2020 and 5 October 2020
CD17-19 Chris Hayward (Sheriff of London) - undated
Additional documents submitted during the Inquiry
19B: Appellant's Documents
CD19B-1 Appellant's Opening Submissions
CD19B-2 Note on the Education and Community Floorspace – level 3 plans – 3 November 2020
CD19B-3 Plaza Images – 5 November 2020
CD19B-4 Section 106 Obligations – GLA Queries and Appellant Responses – 3 November 2020
CD19B-5 Planning Practice Guidance on the Historic Environment (extracts)
CD19B-6 Transport Statement of Common Ground - updated version at CD19B-21
CD19B-7 Statement of Common Ground – 6 November 2020 - updated version at CD19B-26
CD19B-8 Statement of Michael Alan Dunn re Application by the SoS for HCLG in relation to the
Holocaust Memorial, at Victoria Gardens, London (APP/X5990/V/19/3240661)
CD19B-9 Figures taken from the Evidence-in-Chief of Robert Tavernor – 10 November 2020
CD19B-10 1-6 Bury Court, 19-28 Bury Street, 14-34 (even) St Mary Axe (the Gherkin)
(CPO/520/2000) Decision Notice (25 August 2000)
CD19B-11 Guide map of the Tower of London (Historic Royal Palaces) – 13 November 2020
CD19B-12 Draft section 106 obligations – 13 November 2020
CD19B-12A Education and Community Management Plan – updated indicative layouts – 20 Nov 2020
CD19B-13 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) s106 Agreement (November 2019)
CD19B-14 Appellant's note on the Education and Community Floorspace – 20 November 2020
CD19B-15 Benefits Statement of Common Ground – see updated version at CD19B-27
CD19B-16 Draft section 106 obligations – Appellant's amendments – 23 November 2020
CD19B-17 Appellant's note on sustainability matters – 23 November 2020
CD19B-18 Appellant's note in response to information requests – 23 November 2020
CD19B-19 Chris Miele – Errata to Proof of Evidence and the Rebuttal PoE – 24 November 2020
CD19B-20 City of London Cultural Strategy 2018-2022
CD19B-21 Signed Transport Statement of Common Ground – 30 November 2020
CD19B-22 Appellant's note on buildings with in-situ concrete – 2 December 2020
CD19B-23 Appellant's note on award winning buildings in the cluster – 2 December 2020
CD19B-24 Draft section 106 obligations – Appellant's amendments to CD19B-16 – 2 December 2020
CD19B-25 Appellant's note on the 360 Nodes – 3 December 2020
CD19B-26 Signed Statement of Common Ground – 8 December 2020
CD19B-27 Signed Benefits Statement of Common Ground – 8 December 2020
CD19B-28 Signed Heritage Statement of Common Ground – 8 December 2020
CD19B-29 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) Design and Access Statement (full) (January 2016)
CD19B-30 Appellant's note on construction costs - 11 December 2020
CD19B-31 Appellant's note on storage for level 3 - 11 December 2020
CD19B-32 Appellant's note on sustainability - 11 December 2020
CD19B-33 The Gherkin Architectural Design Report – Volume 1, Section 2 (Swiss Re, July 1999)
CD19B-34 The Gherkin Planning Report – Volume 1, Section 1 (Swiss Re, July 1999)
CD19B-35 The Gherkin Townscape Report – Volume 1, Section 3 (Swiss Re, July 1999)
CD19B-36 The Gherkin ES – Part I, Main Text (Sections 1.0 – 7.0) (Swiss Re, May 2000)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD19B-37 The Gherkin ES – Part I, Main Text (Sections 8.0 – 17.0) (Swiss Re, May 2000)
CD19B-38 The Gherkin ES – Part II, The Context of the Development and its Visual Impacts (Swiss
Re, May 2000)
CD19B-39 The Gherkin ES – Part III, Planning Application Drawings (Swiss Re, May 2000)
CD19B-40 The Gherkin ES – Part IV, Non-Technical Summary (Swiss Re, May 2000)
CD19B-41 Viewing Gallery and Education Provisional Table – 15 December 2020
CD19B-42 Letter from the Appellant confirming its agreement to the pre-commencement conditions
– 17 December 2020
CD19B-43 Engrossment section 106 agreement – 17 December 2020
CD19B-44 Appellant's Further Note on Concrete – 18 December 2020
CD19B-45 Appellant's Closing Submissions – 18 December 2020
CD19B-46 Appellant's Submissions re NLP – 18 March 2021
CD19B-47 Appellant's Submissions on Bramshill
CD19B-48 Site visit booklet
19C: CoL's Documents
CD19C-1 CoL's Opening Submissions
CD19C-2 Comments on the draft planning conditions schedule – 3 November 2020
CD19C-3 Comments on the Inspector's Preliminary Questions on the Planning Conditions –
3 November 2020
CD19C-4 GLA's suggested planning conditions – circulated by the CoL – 3 November 2020
CD19C-5 Foster + Partners comments on the Inspector's Preliminary Queries on the Planning
Conditions – circulated by the CoL – 3 November 2020
CD19C-6 Draft conditions schedule – 12 November 2020
CD19C-7 Heritage Statement of Common Ground – 19 November 2020 updated version at CD19B-
28
CD19C-8 Draft conditions schedule – 20 November 2020
CD19C-9 Explanatory note to support the draft conditions schedule – 20 November 2020
CD19C-10 Draft list of Informatives – 20 November 2020
CD19C-11 CoL's note on all Major and EIA applications received by the City Corporation since
October 2018 – 24 November 2020
CD19C-12 Report to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee regarding revisions to the
Proposed Submission Draft of the City Plan 2036 (17 November 2020)
CD19C- Appendix 1 to the report to the CoL Planning and Transportation Committee regarding
12A revisions to the Proposed Submission Draft of the City Plan 2036 (17 November 2020)
CD19C-13 CoL's note on the update on the progress of the Replacement City of London Local Plan –
24 November 2020
CD19C-14 CoL's note on free to visit elevated public spaces in developments in the City of London –
24 November 2020
CD19C-15 City of London job fact sheet (CoL, January 2020)
CD19C-16 Hotels Land Use Report (CoL, September 2020)
CD19C-17 97-109 Cromwell Road (PP/18/03461) GLA Final Stage III Report (22 October 2020)
CD19C-18 Withdrawal letter in relation to objections made by the S&P Sephardi Community and the
London Sephardi Trust (28 March 2019)
CD19C-19 Tesco Stored Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13
CD19C-20 Regulation 122 (Community Infrastructure Levy) – section 106 agreement: Statement of
Compliance - originally submitted 30 October 2020
CD19C-21 Draft conditions schedule – 10 December 2020
CD19C-22 Draft conditions schedule – 17 December 2020
CD19C-23 CoL's Closing Submissions – 18 December 2020
CD19C-24 CoL's Updated Submissions re NLP – 18 March 2021
19D: GLA's Documents
CD19D-1 GLA's Opening Submissions
CD19D-2 Comments on the draft planning conditions schedule – 3 November 2020
CD19D-3 Note on the draft section 106 obligations – 3 November 2020
CD19D-4 Email from Dr Sharon Wright inviting an endorsement from an educational professional
(20 August 2020) – 11 November 2020
CD19D-4A The Tulip briefing pack for possible endorsers (2020) – 11 November 2020
CD19D-5 Environmental Statement for 1 Undershaft (16/00075/FULEIA) (extract)
CD19D-6 Environmental Statement for 22 Bishopsgate (15/00764/FULEIA) (extract)
CD19D-7 Environmental Statement Addendum for 22 Bishopsgate (16/00849/FULEIA) (extract)
CD19D-8 Nigel Barker-Mills – Errata to Proof of Evidence – 30 November 2020
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
CD19D-9 Photographs along approach route 14 moving S-N across Tower Bridge – 30 Nov 2020
CD19D-10 Ms Adams – Errata to Proof of Evidence – 2 December 2020
CD19D-11 Ms Adams - Index and accompanying images for Evidence in Chief – 2 December 2020
CD19D-12 Level 3 Floor Plan – 2 December 2020
CD19D-13 Level 6 Floor Plan – 2 December 2020
CD19D-14 Elizabeth Adams - Evidence in Chief notes - 2 December 2020
CD19D-15 GLA's response to the Appellant's note on Level 3 Storage - 15 December 2020
CD19D-16 GLA's response to the Appellant's further sustainability note - 15 December 2020
CD19D-17 Letter from the Mayor of London to Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (9 December 2020)
CD19D-18 Letter from RT Hon Jenrick MP to Sadiq Khan the Mayor of London (10 December 2020)
CD19D-19 Annex A– Updated Changes to London Plan as a result of Directions (10 December 2020)
CD19D-20 Annex B to CD19D-18 – Further Directions (10 December 2020)
CD19D-21 GLA confirmation in relation to Dr Barker-Mills' evidence on 1 December 2020 (unable to
find reference) - 10 December 2020
CD19D-22 GLA's Closing Submissions – 18 December 2020
CD19D-23 Letter from the Mayor of London to Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (21 December 2020)
CD19D-24 Annex A to CD19D-27 – Publication London Plan (December 2020)
CD19D-25 Letter from RT Hon Jenrick MP to Sadiq Khan the Mayor of London (24 December 2020)
CD19D-26 Letter from RT Hon Jenrick MP to Sadiq Khan the Mayor of London (29 January2021)
CD19D-27 The London Plan (March 2021) (full version)
CD19D-28 GLA's Updated Closing Submissions – 18 December 2020
CD19D-29 GLA's Closing Submissions, covering letter and tracked changes - 10 March 2021
CD19D-30 GLA's Supplementary Submissions on the NLP – 10 March 2021, Submissions in Reply
CD19D-31 GLA's Submissions in Reply on the NLP – 18 March 2021
19E: HE's Documents
CD19E-1 HE's Opening Submissions
CD19E-2 Slides from the City of London’s presentation to the World Heritage UK Conference 2018
CD19E-3 New London Architecture Tall Buildings Report 2017 (Extract – pages 1 and 18)
CD19E-4 CoL Committee Report on Eastern Cluster 3-D Computer Modelling (24 April 2016)
CD19E-5 SoS Decision Letter and Inspector’s Report for Anglia Square, Norwich
(PINS Ref: APP/G2625/V/19/3225505) (12 November 2020)
CD19E-6 Anglia Square Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (Iceni Projects,
August 2018) (Extract – pages 79-80)
CD19E-7 David English - Images for Evidence in Chief – 4 December 2020
CD19E-8 HE's Closing Submissions – 18 December 2020
CD19E-9 UNESCO letter dated 22 December 2020 re Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew
CD19E-10 HE’s Updated Closing Submissions – 10 March 2021
19F: Interested Parties
CD19F-1 William Upton QC – 2 November 2020
CD19F-2 The Honourable Company of Master Mariners – resubmitted 5 November 2020
CD19F-3 Paul Finch – 27 November 2020
CD19F-4 Peter Murray - 2 December 2020
CD19F-4A 'Why the City of London needs The Tulip' – a video by Peter Murray (3 November 2020)
CD19F-4B Embedded link to 'Why the City of London needs The Tulip' on YouTube – Peter Murray
(3 November 2020)
CD19F-5 Submission by Roger Hoefling – 16 December 2020
CD19F-6 Further Submission by Roger Hoefling – 18 January 2021
CD19F-7 Met Office data attachments to CD19F-6
19G: Media Not used
19H: Miscellaneous
CD19H-1 London Plan (March 2016) (full version)
CD19H-2 City of London Local Plan (January 2015) (full version)
CD19H-3 Intend to Publish Draft London Plan (December 2019) (full version)
CD19H-4 Proposed Submission Draft City Local Plan (August 2020) (full version)
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Appendix 3: LIST OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To ensure compliance with the terms of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2 The quantum of built floorspace for the detailed development shall be as specified in
the table below:
Use Quantum/Area(GEA)m2 Quantum/Area(GIA)m2
Visitor Attraction
4,817 4,468
(including Education / Community)
Restaurant 1,018 974
Bar 517 480
Retail (Base of the Pavilion Building) 11 9
Retail (Base of the Tulip) 62 44
Back of House (including basement,
11,016 8,910
parking, circulation space)
The development must be undertaken in accordance with this description of
development and quantum of built floorspace.
REASON: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved
drawings, documents and the Environmental Statement.
3 Prior to the commencement of the development including demolition, site clearance
and/or construction works, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) details relating to all structures:
(a) any demolition, ground works, (including decontamination)
(b) scheme for security fencing / hoardings, depicting a readily visible 24-hour contact
number for queries or emergencies
(c) construction and access to the site
(d) hours of operation
(e) predicted levels of, means to control / minimise the impact of, and monitoring of
noise, odour dust, vibration and smoke
(f) road cleaning including wheel washing
(g) suitable pollution prevention measures for the safe storage of fuels, oils and
chemicals and the control of sediment laden site discharge to protect water quality
including into the Thames during the construction phase
(h) details of vibro-compaction machinery and a method statement
(i) details of disposal of waste arising from the construction programme, including final
disposal points (the burning of waste on the site at any time is specifically
precluded)
(j) any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with developers
and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the LPA), in order to identify
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
and address potential cumulative environmental effects during the demolition and
construction phase.
The CEMP should be in accordance with the GLA's Supplementary Planning Guidance
'Control of Dust and Emissions during Demolition and Construction'. The development
shall be constructed in accordance with the approved management plan. The CEMP
shall be implemented as approved and periodically reviewed following environmental
audits of its implementation. Results of these audits will be made available to the
Council upon request. The CEMP shall be retained and complied with for the duration of
the demolition, site clearance and construction process for the relevant phase. The
CEMP shall be based on the City of London Department of Markets and Consumer
Protection's Code of Practice for Deconstruction and Construction Sites (or any
subsequent, replacement code of practice).
REASON: In the interests of public safety and to ensure a minimal effect on the amenities
of neighbouring premises and the transport network in accordance with Local Plan (LP)
policies: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3. These details are required prior to demolition in
order that the impact on amenities is minimised from the time that the construction
starts.
4 Demolition works shall not begin until a Deconstruction Logistics Plan to manage all
freight vehicle movements to and from the site during deconstruction of the existing
building(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The
Deconstruction Logistics Plan shall include relevant measures from Section 3 of the
Mayor of London's Construction Logistics Plan Guidance for Developers issued in April
2013, and specifically address the safety of vulnerable road users through compliance
with the Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) Standard for Construction
Logistics, Managing Work Related Road Risk. The demolition shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with the approved Deconstruction Logistics Plan.
REASON: To ensure that demolition works do not have an adverse impact on public safety
and the transport network in accordance with NLP Policy T7 and LP policies: DM15.6,
DM16.1. These details are required prior to demolition work commencing in order that
the impact on the transport network is minimised from the time that demolition starts.
5 Archaeology
(a) Stage 1 WSI - Prior to the commencement of each phase of development hereby
permitted (exception for demolition works above ground level) a stage 1 written
scheme of investigation (WSI) shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA in
writing. No demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance
with the agreed WSI, and the programme and methodology of site evaluation and
the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed
works. Written schemes of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented
by a suitably qualified, professionally accredited archaeological practice
(b) Stage 2 WSI - If heritage assets of archaeological interest are identified by the
stage 1 written scheme of investigation (WSI) undertaken prior to each phase of
the development, then for those parts of the site which have archaeological interest
a stage 2 WSI shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the
commencement of the relevant phase. For land that is included within the stage 2
WSI, no demolition/development/excavation shall take place other than in
accordance with the approved stage 2 WSI which shall include:
(i) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
(ii) The programme for post investigation assessment
(iii) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
(iv) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation
(v) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the
site investigation
(vi) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation
Written schemes of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a
suitably qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice.
REASON: To ensure the preservation of archaeological remains following archaeological
investigation in accordance with LP policy: DM12.4.
6 There shall be no demolition on the site until a scheme for protecting nearby residents
and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme shall be based on the
Department of Markets and Consumer Protection's Code of Practice for Deconstruction
and Construction Sites (or any subsequent, replacement code of practice) and
arrangements for liaison and monitoring set out therein. A staged scheme of protective
works may be submitted in respect of individual stages of the demolition process but
no works in any individual stage shall be commenced until the related scheme of
protective works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The
demolition shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme.
REASON: In the interests of public safety and to ensure a minimal effect on the amenities
of neighbouring premises and the transport network in accordance with LP policies:
DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3. These details are required prior to demolition in order that
the impact on amenities is minimised from the time that development starts.
7 There shall be no construction on the site until a scheme for protecting nearby
residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects
during construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The
scheme shall be based on the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection's Code
of Practice for Deconstruction and Construction Sites (or any subsequent, replacement
code of practice) and arrangements for liaison and monitoring set out therein. A staged
scheme of protective works may be submitted in respect of individual stages of the
construction process but no works in any individual stage shall be commenced until the
related scheme of protective works has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the LPA. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the
approved scheme.
REASON: In the interests of public safety and to ensure a minimal effect on the amenities
of neighbouring premises and the transport network in accordance with LP policies:
DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3. These details are required prior to demolition in order that
the impact on amenities is minimised from the time that the construction starts.
8 Within five working days of any site contamination being found when carrying out the
development hereby approved the contamination must be reported in writing to the
LPA and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with
the requirements of DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a
condition suitable for the intended use must be submitted to and approved in writing
by the LPA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA the remediation scheme
must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after
remediation.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a
verification report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and works
shall not re-commence until approval is obtained. Remediation works shall not be
carried out other than in accordance with the approved remediation scheme.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property
and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely
without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in
accordance with the LP DM15.8. These details are required prior to commencement in
order that any changes to satisfy this condition are incorporated into the development
before the design is too advanced to make changes.
9 Before the development hereby permitted is begun a detailed site investigation shall be
carried out to establish if the site is contaminated and to determine the potential for
pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation
shall be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement of the work. Details of
measures to prevent pollution of ground and surface water, including provisions for
monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before the
development commences. The development shall proceed in strict accordance with the
measures approved.
REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with LP policy:
DM15.8. These details are required prior to commencement in order that any changes
to satisfy this condition are incorporated into the development before the design is too
advanced to make changes.
10 Before any works including demolition are begun a site survey and survey of highway
and other land at the perimeter of the site shall be carried out and details must be
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA indicating the proposed finished floor
levels at basement and ground floor levels as well as the public realm in relation to the
existing Ordnance Datum levels of the adjoining streets. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details (as set out in the survey) and
retained thereafter.
REASON: To ensure continuity between the level of existing streets and the finished floor
levels in the proposed building and to ensure a satisfactory treatment at ground level in
accordance with LP policies: DM10.8, DM16.2. These details are required prior to
commencement in order that a record is made of the conditions prior to changes
caused by the development and that any changes to satisfy this condition are
incorporated into the development before the design is too advanced to make changes.
11 No piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type
of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out,
including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface
water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA after consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must
be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
REASON: The proposed works will be in close proximity to local underground utility
infrastructure and piling has the potential to impact on this. The applicant is advised to
contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0800 009 3921 to discuss the details of
the piling method statement.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
12 Demolition and Construction works shall not begin until a Construction Logistics Plan
(CLP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA after consultation with
TfL. The CLP shall include details of:
(a) the management of all freight vehicle movements to and from the site during
deconstruction and construction of the development;
(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials including vehicle turning areas;
(c) storage of plant and materials;
(d) sourcing of materials;
(e) programme of works (including measures for traffic management);
(f) provision of boundary hoarding, behind any visibility zones of construction traffic
routing;
(g) hours of operation;
(h) means to prevent deposition of mud on the highway;
(i) location and height of cranes and scaffolding;
(j) a Construction workers’ Sustainable Travel Plan including details of strategies to
promote sustainable travel by construction staff and details of Blue Badge holder
accessible parking shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. Subsequently these
approved parking areas shall be marked out and visible for use. There shall be no use
of such areas for general parking including by staff wishing to travel to/from work by
car unless they are holders of Blue Badges. The approved construction staff travel plan
measures shall be put in place prior to commencement of the works, retained and
continually monitored for the duration of these works;
(k) any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with developers
and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the LPA), in order to identify and
address potential cumulative highway effects during the demolition and construction
phase.
The CLP shall be prepared in accordance with the Mayor’s CLP Guidance dated
July 2017, and shall specifically address the safety of vulnerable road users through
compliance with the CLOCS Standard.
The development shall be constructed in accordance with the relevant approved CLP.
The CLP shall be implemented as approved and periodically reviewed following audits of
its implementation. Results of these audits will be made available to the Council upon
request. The CLP shall be retained for the duration of the demolition, site clearance and
construction process for the relevant phase.
REASON: To ensure that construction works do not have an adverse impact on public
safety and the transport network in accordance with NLP Policy T7 and LP policies:
DM15.6, DM16.1. These details are required prior to construction work commencing in
order that the impact on the transport network is minimised from the time that
construction starts.
13 Terrestrial Television and Radio Interference
a. No development including demolition shall take place until the developer has secured
the completion of a Base-Line Terrestrial Television and Radio Interference Study
(Base-Line Study) to assess terrestrial television and radio reception to residential
properties in the vicinity of the site. The Base-Line Study shall be carried out in
accordance with a Scheme first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA,
and which shall include details of the residential properties to be surveyed.
b. No occupation of the development shall take place until the developer has secured:
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
(i) the completion of a Post Construction Terrestrial Television and Radio Study (the
Post-Construction Study) to assess any significant deterioration to terrestrial
television and radio reception attributable to the development. The Study shall
be carried out in accordance with a Scheme, including details of the residential
properties to be surveyed, first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
(ii) the implementation of a Scheme of Mitigation Works for the purpose of
remedying significant interference to terrestrial television and radio reception in
the vicinity of the site attributable to the development identified by the Post-
Construction Study. Such Scheme of Mitigation Works shall be first submitted to
and approved in writing by the LPA and thereafter retained. The mitigation works
shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved Scheme of
Mitigation Works.
REASON: The details in (a) are required prior to commencement in order to create a record
of the conditions prior to changes caused by the development and (b) is required to
ensure that the existing television reception at other premises is not significantly
affected by the proposed development.
14 Before any construction works hereby permitted are begun the following details shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA in conjunction with the Lead Local
Flood Authority and all development pursuant to this permission shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter:
Fully detailed design and layout drawings for the proposed SuDS components including
but not limited to: attenuation systems, rainwater pipework, pumps, design for system
exceedance, design for ongoing maintenance; surface water flow rates shall be
restricted to no greater than 5 l/s from each outfall and from no more than three
distinct outfalls, provision should be made for an attenuation volume capacity capable
of achieving this as outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage
Strategy:
a. Full details of measures to be taken to prevent flooding (of the site or caused by the
site) during the course of the construction works;
b. Evidence that Thames Water have been consulted and consider the proposed
discharge rate to be satisfactory.
REASON: To improve sustainability, reduce flood risk and reduce water runoff rates in
accordance with LP policy: DM18.1, DM18.2 and DM18.3.
15 Before any piling or construction of basements is commenced a scheme for the
provision of sewer vents within the building shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA. The agreed scheme for the provision of sewer vents shall be
implemented as approved and brought into operation before the development is
occupied and shall be so retained and maintained for the life of the building.
REASON: To vent sewerage odour from (or substantially from) the development hereby
permitted and mitigate any adverse air pollution or environmental conditions in order
to protect the amenity of the area in accordance with LP policy: DM10.1. These details
are required prior to piling or construction work commencing in order that any changes
to satisfy this condition are incorporated into the development before the design is too
advanced to make changes.
16 No excavation of basements shall take place until it has been demonstrated that there
would be no unacceptable risk to below ground utilities infrastructure, details of which
shall be approved in writing by the LPA in liaison with Thames Water before such works
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
commence and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
REASON: To ensure that below ground utilities infrastructure is protected in accordance
with LP policy: DM2.1.
17 Development shall not commence until a construction management strategy has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA covering the application site and any
adjoining land which will be used during the construction period. Such a strategy shall
include details of cranes and other tall construction equipment (including the details of
obstacle lighting). Such schemes shall comply with the AOA Advice Note 4 Cranes and
Other Construction Issues1087. Construction shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved construction management strategy to the satisfaction of the LPA.
REASON: To ensure that construction work and construction equipment on the site and
adjoining land does not contravene the regulation set out in the London Tall Buildings
Policy, and endanger aircraft movements and the safe operation of Heathrow Airport.
18 No cranes or scaffolding shall be erected on the site unless and until construction
methodology and diagrams clearly presenting the location, maximum operating height,
radius and start/finish dates for the use of cranes during the development, in the form
of a "Crane Operation Plan", has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved "Crane Operation
Plan".
REASON: In the interests of the safe operation of Heathrow Airport, London City Airport
and of NATS En-route PLC.
19 No part of this development including demolition and site clearance shall commence
before the completed building and its construction methodologies are assessed against
London City Airport's instrument flight procedures (IFPs) and approved by a CAA
approved procedure designer.
REASON: In the interests of the safe operation of Heathrow Airport, London City Airport
and of NATS En-route PLC.
20 No Building or structure to permanently form part of the Development shall exceed
London City Airport's Obstacle Limitation Surfaces dated August 2004, and no
temporary infringements of London City Airport protected surfaces (305.3m AOD) shall
occur while LCY is open or closed unless explicitly authorised in writing by the LPA.
REASON: In the interests of the safe operation of Heathrow Airport, London City Airport
and of NATS En-route PLC
21 Before any mechanical plant is used on the development site it shall be mounted in a
way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound or vibration to any other
part of the building in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full and thereafter
retained.
REASON: In order to protect the amenities of commercial occupiers in the building in
accordance following policy of the Local Plan: CS15.
22 Not used.
23 Not used.
1087 Currently at https://www.aoa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Advice-Note-4-Cranes-2016.pdf
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
24 New plant noise
(a) The level of noise emitted from any new plant shall be lower than the existing
background level by at least 10 dBA. Noise levels shall be determined at one metre
from the window of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and
assessments shall be made in accordance with B.S. 4142. The background noise
level shall be expressed as the lowest LA90 (10 minutes) during which plant is or
may be in operation. Following installation but before the new plant comes into
operation measurements of noise from the new plant must be taken and a report
demonstrating that the plant as installed meets the design requirements shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
(b) All constituent parts of the new plant shall be maintained and replaced in whole or
in part as often is required to ensure compliance with the noise levels approved by
the LPA.
REASON: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential/commercial occupiers in
accordance with LP policies: CS15, CS21.
25 Prior to any plant being commissioned and installed in or on the building an Air Quality
Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The report shall detail
how the finished development will minimise emissions and exposure to air pollution
during its operational phase and will comply with the City of London Air Quality
Supplementary Planning Document and any submitted and approved Air Quality
Assessment. The measures detailed in the report shall thereafter be implemented,
maintained and retained in accordance with the approved report(s) for the life of the
installation on the building.
REASONS: In order to ensure the proposed development does not have a detrimental
impact on air quality, reduces exposure to poor air quality and in accordance with the
following policies: LP policy DM15.6 and NLP Policy IS 1.
26 No part of this development including demolition and site clearance shall commence
until additional details and information in respect of the following shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the LPA and all development pursuant to this permission
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter:
(a) particulars and samples of the materials to be used on all external faces of the
building including external ground and upper level surfaces;
(b) details of the proposed elevations including typical details of the fenestration and
entrances;
(c) details of the elevations of the development (elevations, plans and cross-sections
at scale 1:20 with 1: 1 details of joints and junctions);
(d) details of the concrete stem including surface colour, texture, draining channels
and daily pour sequence;
(e) details of the ground floor entrances;
(f) details of soffits, handrails, balustrades and boundary walls around St Mary Axe
Plaza;
(g) details of the integration of window cleaning equipment and the garaging thereof,
plant, flues, fire escapes and other excrescences at roof level;
(h) details of the integration of cleaning equipment, cradles and their garaging;
(i) details of plant and ductwork to serve any of the shop, restaurant and bar use(s)
(as set out in Condition 2 of this decision notice);
(j) details of signage and other displays;
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
(k) details of ventilation and air-conditioning for any of the shop, restaurant and bar
use(s) (as set out in Condition 2 of this decision notice);
(l) details of all ground level surfaces including materials to be used;
(m) details of the re-instatement of the Baltic Exchange memorial;
(n) details of external surfaces within the site boundary including hard and soft
landscaping;
(o) details of the arrangements for the provision of refuse storage and collection
facilities within the curtilage of the site to serve each part of the development.
REASON: To ensure that the LPA may be satisfied with the detail of the proposed
development and to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with LP
policies: DM3.2, DM10.1, DM10.5, DM12.2.
27 Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA showing the means of protection of any trees including
their root system and the approved details shall be implemented prior to and during
the course of the building works as appropriate.
REASON: To ensure the protection of the adjacent trees in accordance with LP policies:
DM10.4, DM19.2. These details are required prior to commencement in order that any
changes to satisfy this condition are incorporated before the design is too advanced to
make changes.
28 Prior to implementation, a BREEAM pre-assessment demonstrating that a target rating
of ‘Outstanding’ can be achieved shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA.
REASON: To demonstrate that carbon emissions have been minimised and that the
development is sustainable in accordance with LP policies: CS15, DM15.1, DM15.2
29 Prior to implementation, a report demonstrating that the entire development is able to
achieve an urban greening factor of at least 0.31 shall be submitted to and approved
by the LPA.
REASON: To demonstrate that carbon emissions have been minimised and that the
development is sustainable in accordance with LP policy: CS15, DM15.1, DM15.2
30 All unbuilt surfaces (including podium terraces at level 4) shall be treated in accordance
with a landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA
before any landscaping works are commenced. This shall include details of the locations
and design of short stay cycle parking spaces at ground floor level (as shown in plan A-
PT-031-00-01). All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details not later than the end of the first planting season following
completion of the development. Trees and shrubs which die or are removed, uprooted
or destroyed or become in the opinion of the LPA seriously damaged or defective within
5 years of completion of the development shall be replaced with trees and shrubs of
similar size and species to those originally approved, or such alternatives as may be
agreed in writing by the LPA. All hard and soft landscaping and tree planting shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a reasonable standard in
accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards
(in particular, BS 3882: Specifications for Topsoil, Recommendations (2015) and
BS 8545: Trees from Nursery to Independence in the Landscape, Recommendations
(2014) or other recognised codes of good practice). The landscaping scheme shall
incorporate a maintenance plan which shall be agreed with the LPA. The landscaping
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, details and maintenance
plan and be maintained for the life of the building.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
REASON: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with LP policies: DM10.1,
DM16.3, DM19.2.
31 No part of the building shall be occupied until the details of wind mitigation measures
on the rooftop terrace of the Pavilion building and within the St Mary Axe Plaza have
been submitted, approved by the LPA and implemented to the satisfaction of the LPA.
The said wind mitigation measures shall be retained in place for the life of the building
unless otherwise agreed by the LPA.
REASON: In order to ensure public safety and that the proposed development does not
have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area in accordance with LP policies:
DM10.1, DM16.1, DM16.2.
32 The development shall incorporate such measures as are necessary within the site to
resist structural damage arising from an attack with a road vehicle or road vehicle
borne explosive device (including deflection measures for the entrance to the vehicle
lifts), details of which must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before
any construction works thereby affected are begun. The said measures shall be carried
out as approved and shall be retained in place for the life of the building unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure that the premises are protected from road vehicle borne damage
within the site in accordance with LP policy: DM3.2.
33 Before any works thereby affected are begun details of all the entrances at ground floor
shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA (after consultation with Transport for
London). The approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the
building and thereafter retained.
REASON: To ensure that the LPA may be satisfied with the detail of the proposed
development and to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with LP
policy DM10.1.
34 There shall be no promoted events on the site. A promoted event for this purpose, is
an event involving music and dancing where the musical entertainment is provided at
any time between 22:00 and 07:00 by a disc jockey or disc jockeys one or some of
whom are not employees of the premises licence holder and the event is promoted to
the general public.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area in general in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
35 The development hereby permitted shall not be open to customers between the hours
of (23:00) on one day and (07:00) on the following day.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
36 Self-closing mechanisms must be fitted on the doors of all the retail units at ground
floor level before the retail uses commence and shall be retained for the life of the
premises. The doors must not be left open except in an emergency or for maintenance
purposes.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
37 The rooftop terraces on the Pavilion building hereby permitted shall not be used or
accessed between the hours of 22:00 on one day and 07:00 on the following day other
than in the case of emergency.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
38 No amplified or other music shall be played on the roof terrace.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
39 No live or recorded music (including public address (PA) systems) shall be played such
that it can be heard outside the development site unless prior approval is given by the
LPA.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM21.3.
40 Extraction and ventilation
(a) Before any works thereby affected are begun, a scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA which specifies the fume extraction arrangements,
materials and construction methods to be used to avoid noise and/or odour
penetration from the shop, restaurant and bar use(s) hereby approved, and as set
out in Condition 2 of this decision notice (should cooking be proposed).
(b) No cooking shall take place within any of the shop, restaurant and bar use(s)
floorspace hereby approved, and as set out in Condition 2 of this decision notice,
until fume extraction arrangements and ventilation have been installed to serve
that unit in accordance with a scheme approved by the LPA. The development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
REASON: In order to protect the amenity of the area in accordance with LP policies:
DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3.
41 Before any works thereby affected are begun, a scheme in the form of an acoustic
report compiled by a qualified specialist shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the LPA specifying the materials and constructional methods to be used
demonstrating that there is adequate sound proofing to both airborne and structure
borne noise transmission between the visitor attraction; the shop, restaurant and bar
use(s) hereby approved (and as set out in Condition 2 of this decision notice); and the
education and community space at Level 3. The development pursuant to this
permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and so
maintained and retained thereafter.
REASON: To protect the amenities of the education and community floor in the building in
accordance with LP policy: DM15.7.
42 Details of the acoustic properties of the loading bay door shall be submitted to and
approved by the LPA before any works thereby affected are begun and shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained and retained for
the life of the building.
REASON: To minimise disruption to nearby occupiers in accordance with LP policies:
DM10.1 and DM21.3.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
43 Before the shell and core is complete, details of a Lifetime Maintenance Plan for the
SuDS system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA in conjunction
with the Lead Local Flood Authority and all development pursuant to this permission
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, to include:
a. A full description of how the system would work, it's aims and objectives and the
flow control arrangements;
b. A Maintenance Inspection Checklist/Log;
c. A Maintenance Schedule of Work itemising the tasks to be undertaken, such as the
frequency required, and the costs incurred to maintain the system.
REASON: To improve sustainability, reduce flood risk and reduce water runoff rates in
accordance with LP policies: DM18.1, DM18.2 and DM18.3.
44 A post construction BREEAM assessment demonstrating that a target rating of
‘Outstanding’ has been achieved shall be submitted to the LPA as soon as practicable
after practical completion. The details submitted in the BREEAM assessment shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To demonstrate that carbon emissions have been minimised and that the
development is sustainable in accordance with LP policies: CS15, DM15.1, DM15.2.
45 Prior to occupation of the development, evidence must be submitted to and approved
by the LPA to demonstrate that the entire development has achieved an urban
greening factor average of at least 0.31 and the measures set out in that evidence for
achieving a factor of at least 0.31 shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To demonstrate that carbon emissions have been minimised and that the
development is sustainable in accordance with LP policies: CS15, DM15.1, DM15.2.
46 A detailed facade maintenance plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the LPA after consultation with the Local Highway Authority prior to the occupation of
the building hereby permitted. The development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved maintenance plan for the lifetime of the building.
REASON: To ensure that the LPA may be satisfied with the detail of the development to
ensure that there is no obstruction on the streets and in the interests of public safety in
accordance with LP policy: CS16
47 Prior to implementation, a plan showing that the development has been designed to
allow for the retro-fit of heat exchanger rooms to connect into a district heating
network (if this becomes available during the lifetime of the development), shall be
submitted to and approved by the LPA. As soon as practicable after a connection
becomes available, it shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan (or
any variation as approved by the LPA), unless it can be demonstrated that the heating
system then operational is more sustainable than would result from the district heating
network.
REASON: To minimise carbon emissions by enabling the building to be connected to a
district heating and cooling network if one becomes available during the life of the
building in accordance with LP policies: DM15.1, DM15.2, DM15.3, DM15.3, DM15.4.
48 Details of the position and size of both green walls (on the Pavilion building and the
north east of the site on the flank of the exposed wall) and the green roof on the
Pavilion building, the type of planting and the contribution to biodiversity and rainwater
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
attenuation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any work
to the green walls and roofs are begun. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with those approved details and retained as approved for the life of the
development unless otherwise approved by the LPA.
REASON: To assist the environmental sustainability of the development and provide a
habitat that will encourage biodiversity in accordance with LP policies: DM18.2,
DM19.2.
49 Details of the construction, planting irrigation and maintenance regime for the
proposed green wall(s)/roof(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
LPA prior to any work to the green walls and roofs are begun. The development shall
be carried out in accordance with those approved details and maintained as approved
for the life of the development unless otherwise approved by the LPA.
REASON: To assist the environmental sustainability of the development and provide a
habitat that will encourage biodiversity in accordance with LP policies: DM18.2,
DM19.2.
50 No more than 81 motor vehicles (not including motorcycles) shall be permitted access
to the servicing area per day within the building which shall apply for the life of the
building (for both the Gherkin and the Tulip combined).
REASON: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential and commercial occupiers in
accordance with LP policies: DM21.3, DM21.5.
51 No Servicing vehicles are permitted into/ out of the development site between the
hours 0700-1000 hours, 1200-1400 hours and between 1600-1900 hours on Mondays
to Fridays (including bank holidays and public holidays). Servicing includes the loading
and unloading of goods from vehicles and putting rubbish outside the building. This
shall apply for the life of the building.
REASON: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenity of
the occupiers of adjacent premises, in accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM16.2,
DM21.3.
52 The refuse collection and storage facilities shown on the drawings hereby approved
shall be provided, retained and maintained throughout the life of the building for the
use of all the occupiers.
REASON: To ensure the satisfactory servicing of the building in accordance with LP policy:
DM17.1.
53 A clear unobstructed minimum headroom of 5m must be maintained for the life of the
building in the refuse skip collection area as shown on the approved drawings and a
clear unobstructed minimum headroom of 4.75m must be provided and maintained
over the remaining areas and access ways.
REASON: To ensure that satisfactory servicing facilities are provided and maintained in
accordance with LP policy: DM16.5.
54 At all times when not being used for cleaning or maintenance the window cleaning
gantries, cradles and other similar equipment shall be garaged within the enclosure(s)
shown on the approved drawings.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with LP policy:
DM10.1.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
55 The loading and unloading areas must remain ancillary to the use of the building and
shall be available at all times for that purpose for its occupiers and its visitors.
REASON: To ensure that satisfactory servicing is maintained in accordance with LP policy:
DM16.5.
56 Goods, including fuel, delivered or collected by vehicles arriving at or departing from
the building shall not be accepted or dispatched unless the vehicles are unloaded or
loaded within the curtilage of the building.
REASON: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenity of
the occupiers of adjacent premises, in accordance with LP policies: DM16.1, DM16.5,
DM21.3.
57 A level clear standing area shall be provided and maintained entirely within the
curtilage of the site at street level in front of any vehicle lift sufficient to accommodate
the largest size of vehicle able to use the lift cage.
REASON: To prevent waiting vehicles obstructing the public highway in accordance with LP
policy: DM16.5.
58 2 car parking spaces suitable for use by people with disabilities shall be provided on the
development site in accordance with the drawings hereby approved and shall be
retained throughout the life of the building and be readily available for use by disabled
occupiers and visitors without charge to the individual end users of the parking.
REASON: To ensure provision of suitable parking for people with disabilities in accordance
with LP policy: DM16.5.
59 Provision shall be made for disabled people to obtain access to the visitor attraction,
rooftop terrace, the pocket park and to each retail unit via their respective principal
entrances without the need to negotiate steps and shall be maintained and retained for
the life of the building.
REASON: To ensure that disabled people are able to use the building in accordance with LP
policy: DM10.8.
60 The pass door shown adjacent to or near to the entrances on the drawings hereby
approved shall remain unlocked and available for use at all times when the adjacent
revolving doors are unlocked.
REASON: In order to ensure that people with mobility disabilities are not discriminated
against and to comply with LP policy: DM10.8.
61 (a) The total minimum quantum of cycle parking across the development shall not be
less than the figures specified in the table below:
Location Short Stay Long Stay Total
Pavilion Building (Velominck 63 221 284
Cycle Parking System)
Shared Basement 0 114 114
St Mary Axe Plaza 64 0 64
TOTAL 127 335 462
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
(b) The 114 (minimum) long-stay parking spaces within the Shared Basement and a
minimum of 200 long-stay parking spaces within the Pavilion Building shall be
allocated for the use of the Gherkin (314 spaces minimum)
(c) The remainder of the cycle parking spaces shall be allocated for the use of the Tulip
(148 spaces minimum)
(d) A minimum of 12 long stay cycle spaces and their accesses shall be designed to be
large enough to accommodate adapted cycles.
The cycle parking provided on the site must remain ancillary to the use of the Tulip and
the Gherkin building and must be available at all times throughout the life of the
building for the sole use of the occupiers thereof and their visitors without charge to
the individual end users of the parking.
REASON: To ensure provision is made for cycle parking and that the cycle parking remains
ancillary to the use of the building and to assist in reducing demand for public cycle
parking in accordance with LP policy: DM16.3.
62 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA, changing facilities and showers,
including no less than 40 showers and 398 lockers, shall be provided in accordance
with the drawings hereby approved and retained throughout the life of the building for
the use of occupiers of the building.
REASON: To make travel by bicycle more convenient in order to encourage greater use of
bicycles by commuters in accordance with LP policy: DM16.4.
63 Submission of details of a Fire and Emergency Escape Strategy for all building users
(including people with disabilities) with details of the means of escape (including the
Gondolas), areas of refuge and fire evacuation lifts and stairs shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA (after consultation with the London Fire Brigade,
Building Control Health and Safety Team) prior to first occupation of the building and
the strategy shall remain in place thereafter. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved Fire and Emergency Escape Strategy details.
REASON: In the interests of the safety of occupants of the buildings in the event of a fire or
emergency in accordance with LP policy CS3.
64 The generator(s) shall be used solely on brief intermittent and exceptional occasions
when required in response to a life threatening emergency or an event requiring critical
operational use and for the testing necessary to meet those purposes and shall not be
used at any other time. At all times the generator(s) shall be operated to minimise its
noise impacts and emissions of air pollutants and a log of its use shall be maintained
and be available for inspection by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure that the generator(s), which does not meet City of London noise
standards, and would have a negative impact on local air quality, is used only in
response to a life threatening emergency or exceptional business continuity situation in
accordance with LP policies: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3.
65 Development shall not be commenced until Impact studies of the existing water supply
infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA (after
consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any
new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with
the/this additional demand in accordance with LP policy: DM18.1, DM18.2 and DM18.3.
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
66 Unless otherwise approved by the LPA no part of the Tulip or Pavilion Building shall be
used for the purposes of any advertisement (other than advertisements requiring
express consent provided that such express consent has been granted).
REASON: To ensure the development is not used for general advertising purposes whilst
allowing appropriate signage of the attraction itself in order to ensure that there is a
satisfactory external appearance in accordance with LP policies: DM10.1, DM10.5.
67 The development shall not be implemented until an Illumination Strategy for the
internal and external lighting of the Tulip (including aviation lights) and the Pavilion
Building has been submitted to and approved by the LPA and shall be maintained
throughout the life of the building. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved Illumination Strategy details.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and minimise disruption to nearby
occupiers in accordance with LP policies: DM10.1, DM15.7.
68 Notwithstanding the details shown on plan A-PT-031-00-01, A-PV-039-XX-01, before
any works hereby permitted are begun additional details and information in respect of
the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA (after
consultation with Transport for London) and all development pursuant to this
permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:
a) Details of the access / egress to the basement servicing area including surfacing
materials;
b) Details of road markings; visibility splays; and landscape features.
REASON: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenity of
the occupiers of adjacent premises, in accordance with LP policies: DM15.7, DM16.2,
DM21.3.
69 The areas shown on the approved drawings as restaurant and shop uses, and as set
out in Condition 2 of this decision notice, shall be used for those purposes only and for
no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E) of the Schedule to the Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes)(Amendment)(England) Regulations 2020).
REASON: To safeguard the retail uses in order to ensure that public access is provided to
these parts of the premises such that these elements of the public benefits within the
development are secured for the life of the development.
70 The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the following
approved drawings and particulars or as approved under conditions of this planning
permission:
A-000-XX-01 Rev 01, A-SL-014-02-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-RF-01 Rev 01,
A-000-XX-11 Rev 05, A-SL-014-03-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-04-01 Rev 01,
A-000-XX-21 Rev 01, A-SL-014-04-01 Rev 01, A-PV-039-XX-01Rev 03,
A-LO-011-EX-01 Rev 01 A-PT-031-00-01 Rev 02, A-PT-053-01-01 Rev 01,
A-SL-011-EX-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-BM-01 Rev 01, A-PT-053-02-01 Rev 01,
A-SL-011-EX-02 Rev 01, A-PT-031-B1-01 Rev 02, A-PT-059-XX-01 Rev 01,
A-EXB1-010-XX-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-01-01 Rev 01, A-PT-064-01-01 Rev 02,
A-EXB1-010-XX-02 Rev 01, A-PT-031-02-01 Rev 01, A-PT-064-02-01 Rev 02,
A-SL-011-XX-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-03-01 Rev 03, A-PT-064-03-01 Rev 01,
A-SL-014-EX-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-05-01 Rev 01, A-PT-064-04-01 Rev 01,
A-SL-014-EX-02 Rev 01, A-PT-031-06-01 Rev 01, A-PT-194-XX-01 Rev 01,
Appeal Report APP/K5030/W/20/3244984
A-SL-014-XX-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-07-01 Rev 01, A-PT-199-01-01 Rev 01,
A-EXSL-014-03-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-08-01 Rev 01, A-PT-199-02-01 Rev 01,
A-EXSL-014-01-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-09-01 Rev 01, A-PT-199-03-01 Rev 01,
A-EXSL-014-02-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-10-01 Rev 01, A-PT-199-04-01 Rev 01,
A-EXSL-014-04-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-11-01 Rev 01, A-PT-199-05-01 Rev 01,
A-SL-014-01-01 Rev 01, A-PT-031-12-01 Rev 01, A-PV-199-01-01 Rev 01.
REASON: To ensure that the development of this site is in compliance with details and
particulars which have been approved by the LPA.
Ends
www.gov.uk/mhclg
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.