Sadiq restates his concerns over design quality and harm to world-famous Tower of London
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has urged Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Robert Jenrick to support his decision to reject plans for the development known as the Tulip.
Sadiq rejected the plans – described by Government heritage advisor Historic England as “a tall lift shaft with a bulge on top” – for the site last July, after they were approved by the City of London Corporation.
The developer has since made an appeal over his decision to the Secretary of State, due to be heard in the coming months.
In his letter, the Mayor outlines serious concerns that the proposed building “would not constitute the high standard of design” needed for the site on Bury Street in the City of London, his belief that the development would harm London’s skyline and affect views of the nearby Tower of London World Heritage Site.
The Mayor also makes clear that he has been supportive of developments which add important office space to the heart of the City, but that the proposed development is ”an inappropriately sited visitor attraction” which would make no “economic nor positive social contribution to London”.
Notes to editors
- For more information, see: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/planning-application-search/land-adjacent-20-bury-street.
Full text of the letter from the Mayor of London to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:
Re: The Tulip (Land adjacent to 20 Bury Street) Planning Appeal
You will be very aware of the considerable interest in Norman Foster’s ‘Tulip’ proposal for the City of London and that an appeal has been lodged against the decision to refuse planning permission. I had a number of serious concerns with the application and having studied it in detail I used my planning powers to instruct the City to refuse planning permission despite their support. I have set out the reasons for my decision below.
The proposal would not constitute the high standard of design required for a tall building in this location. It would compromise the ability to appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London UNESCO World Heritage Site and would cause harm to the historic environment, the wider skyline and image of London, strategic views, as well as the public space surrounding the site. The public benefits of the scheme are limited and would not outweigh this harm. The proposals would also result in a poor quality, unwelcoming, unnecessarily confined pedestrian environment and would provide inadequate cycle parking.
My decision is supported by the Government heritage advisor Historic England. Their Chief Executive Duncan Wilson has said ‘We advised that its height and design – essentially a tall lift shaft with a bulge on top – would cause permanent and irreversible damage to the setting of the Tower of London and, in turn, the image and identity of the capital. This building did not justify harming London’s precious and irreplaceable heritage.’
London, over many decades, has evolved and the built environment we see today, the legacy of previous generations has not just shaped the way our city looks but has had a profound impact on how and where we live, work, study and socialise with one another. My London Plan seeks to ensure that the city meets the challenges of economic and population growth whilst protecting heritage assets and ensuring a high quality of design.
Good design and good planning are intrinsically linked. I am not against tall buildings provided they are in the right place and are of a good design and have in fact given approval for tall buildings since I was elected. The London Plan provides a policy framework for delivering well-designed tall buildings in the right places and requires tall buildings over 30m to be thoroughly scrutinised by an independent design review panel.
The proposal for the Tulip has been subject to a design review by the London Review Panel who concluded they were unable to support the proposal because it does not represent world-class architecture befitting of its location, 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.
There is also considerable opposition to the proposal on heritage grounds from Historic Royal Palaces who manage the Tower of London. International organisations UNESCO and ICOMOS have also stated their opposition to the proposal. All of which strongly support the view this is the wrong building in the wrong place.
The importance of the City to London’s economic prosperity is unquestionable and my London Plan sets out my commitment to conserve and enhance London’s global economic competitiveness, ensuring that economic success is shared amongst all Londoners. I have been very supportive of suitable office development in the City that will support and enhance the economic prosperity of London.
The Tulip, however, is an inappropriately sited visitor attraction, which would make no such economic nor positive social contribution to London that would outweigh its harm to a World Heritage Site, the City’s skyline, and the public realm at ground level. I would urge you therefore to reject the appeal by the developer. I can think of many other projects that would bring far greater benefit to London and to Londoners for the same £500 million price tag of the Tulip.