黑洞社区

The City of London鈥檚 plans to redevelop the former Museum of London site are 鈥渃ompletely at odds鈥� with the local authority鈥檚 own sustainability policy, according to heritage group the Twentieth Century Society.

This morning the City voted in favour of proposals designed by Diller Scofidio & Renfro and Sheppard Robson to replace the site鈥檚 1970s buildings with an office scheme including two towers.

But the decision has been upstaged by Michael Gove鈥檚 intervention yesterday to issue an Article 31 Holding Direction, preventing the council from approving the scheme to allow the secretary of state time to decide whether or not to call it in.

>> See also: Gove puts Museum of London demolition plans on ice hours before committee hearing

The move is a major setback for the plans, which were recommended for approval by the City鈥檚 planning officers but have received nearly 1,000 objections from locals and campaigners raising concerns about the embodied carbon impact of demolishing the existing buildings, which also include the Bastion House tower.

It comes just weeks after the Square Mile in schemes instead of demolishing and replacing existing buildings.

A spokesperson for the Twentieth Century Society said the group welcomed Gove鈥檚 intervention and criticised the council鈥檚 vote to back the plans, which came in at 16 votes in favour and eight against with one abstention after a debate lasting more than three hours.

鈥淭he decision today by the City of London Corporation鈥檚 Planning and Transport Committee to green-light the development is completely at odds with their own new sustainability policy, launched in December 2023, that commits to 鈥榯he reuse of existing buildings鈥�,鈥� C20 said.

鈥淭he former Museum of London and Bastion House are buildings that are well suited to adaptive retrofit, and provide the City with a perfect opportunity to lead by example. 

鈥淐20 Society now urges Michael Gove to call in the application and fully review it at a public inquiry. Refuse it, then reuse it!鈥�

Other major schemes called in by Gove in recent years on carbon and heritage grounds include Make鈥檚 72 Upper Ground and Pilbrow & Partners鈥� plans to redevelop Marks & Spencer鈥檚 Marble Arch store.

While the former was approved following a public inquiry, the latter was rejected by the communities secretary in a decision which was later overturned by the High Court, which found that Gove had misinterpreted the national planning policy framework (NPPF). 

But Estelle Dahon KC, speaking in this morning鈥檚 planning committee meeting on behalf of the Barbican Quarter Action Group, said Gove would be less likely to face the same 鈥渟tumbling blocks鈥� if he rejected the plans for the former Museum of London site.

鈥淭he key problem the secretary of state had in the M&S decision is that he hung the whole embodied carbon assessment on the NPPF and on the carbon policy in the framework that says there needs to be radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,鈥� Dahon said.

Gove had argued that the NPPF implied that there was a strong presumption against demolition in planning decisions, an interpretation which the High Court said went too far

But Dahon suggested the approach could hold in the event of a High Court appeal of a rejection of the Museum of London scheme because of the City鈥檚 retrofit policy.

鈥淭his situation is very different because this committee is dealing with a local plan that has in policy terms a presumption against demolition,鈥� she said.

鈥淎nd this committee is dealing with a policy situation where there鈥檚 the planning advice note put in place under that policy that requires the applicant to do the option analysis and to consider alternatives. 

鈥淪o the two big stumbling blocks that brought down Gove over M&S simply don鈥檛 arise here.鈥�

The City said an assessment of whole life carbon emissions per square metre had found that demolition and redevelopment of the site 鈥渁chieved the most sustainable outcome when taking into account potential floorspace uplift, wider environmental and public benefits, public realm provision and the ability to deliver new and leading-edge sustainable buildings for the site.鈥�

However, the assessment found that this approach had the highest whole life carbon emissions of all options considered because of the overall size of the development.

Planning officers argued that the scheme should still be approved because the new buildings would be more efficient in terms of operational energy and would 鈥渇uture-proof鈥� the site with high levels of urban greening, climate resilience and connectivity with surrounding areas.

A City of London Corporation spokesperson said the City 鈥渁cknowledges the Section 31 Holding Direction issued by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and will await the Secretary of State鈥檚 final decision鈥�.