Case Reference: 3290473

Our refs: APP/A5840/W/22/3290473
David Shiels APP/A5840/Y/22/3290477
DP9 Ltd APP/A5840/W/22/3290483
100 Pall Mall APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
London SW1Y 5NQ
21 September 2023
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 –
SECTION 20
APPEALS MADE BY [APPELLANT]
NEW CITY COURT, 4-26 ST THOMAS STREET, LONDON SE1 9RS
APPLICATION REFS: 18/APP/4039; 18/AP/4040; 21/AP/1361; 21/AP/1364
These decisions were made by Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Housing and
Planning, on behalf of the Secretary of State
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of Claire Searson MSc PGDip BSc (Hons) MRTPI IHBC who held a public local
inquiry which opened on 19 July 2022 and closed on 10 August 2022 into your client’s
appeals against the failure of the Council of the London Borough of Southwark to give
notice within the prescribed period of a decision on your client’s applications for planning
permission for:
2. Appeal A: redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office buildings and erection
of a 37 storey building (plus two basement levels) of a maximum height of 144m (AOD),
restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street) and
change of use of lower floors to Class A1 retail, and redevelopment of Keats House (nos.
24-26 St Thomas Street) with removal, relocation and reinstatement of the historic façade
on a proposed building, to provide a total of 46,374sqm of Class B1 office floorspace,
765sqm of Class A1 retail floorspace, 1,139sqm of Class A3 retail floorspace, 615sqm of
leisure floorspace (Class D2), 719sqm hub space (Class B1/D2) and a 825sqm elevated
public garden within the 37-storey building, associated public realm and highways
improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street entrance to the
Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and plant areas, and
all ancillary or associated works, in accordance with application Ref 18/AP/4039 dated 10
December 2018.
3. Appeal C: redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office buildings and erection
of a 26-storey building (plus mezzanine and two basement levels) of a maximum height
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Email: PCC@levellingup.gov.uk
Phil Barber, Decision Officer
Planning Casework Unit
of 108.0m AOD, restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St Thomas
Street), and redevelopment of Keats House (nos. 24-26 St Thomas Street) with removal,
relocation and reinstatement of the historic façade on a proposed building, to provide
46,851sqm GEA of Class E(g)(i) office floorspace, 360sqm GEA flexible office
E(g)(i)/retail E(a) floorspace, 592sqm GEA Class E(b) restaurant/café floorspace and a
public rooftop garden, and 5,190sqm GEA of affordable workspace within the Georgian
terrace, Keats House and part of the tower, associated public realm and highways
improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street entrance to the
Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and plant areas, and
all ancillary or associated works, in accordance with application Ref 21/AP/1361 dated 16
April 2021.
and your client’s applications for listed building consent for:
4. Appeal B: restoration, rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St
Thomas Street) including: Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear elevation and
demolition of the attached 1980s office building, and reinstatement of the rear elevation
of the terrace and provision of shopfronts. Rebuild the second floor, roof and chimneys of
no. 16, reskin the side façade and creation of ground floor entrances. Rebuild the roof
and chimneys of no. 14. Removal and replacement of roof slates with natural slate to
nos. 4-12. Opening up the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 by removing
1930s door and reinstate two adjacent door openings on front elevation. Replacement of
two second floor windows on front elevation. Replacement of secondary glazing to front
elevation. Alterations to the front elevation of the lower ground level and vaults beneath
the pavement. Internal alterations within the terrace to rearrange the ground and lower
ground levels for retail units (with new stairs between) and upper levels for office units,
reinstate the plan form, internal features and providing a staircase in no.12. Cleaning the
brickwork, works to repair sash windows, restore the railings and first floor balconettes, in
accordance with application Ref 18/AP/4040 dated 10 December 2018.
5. Appeal D: restoration, rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St
Thomas Street) including: Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear elevation and
demolition of the attached 1980s office building, reinstatement of the rear elevation of the
terrace, and recladding and partial rebuilding of rear walls. Rebuild roof and chimneys,
reskin the side façade and front façade at top floor level of 1980s extension. Rebuild the
roof and chimneys of no. 14. Removal and replacement of roof slates with natural slate to
nos. 4-16. Opening up the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 by removing
1930s door and reinstate two adjacent door openings on front elevation. Replacement of
two second floor windows on front elevation. Replacement of secondary glazing to front
elevation. Alterations to the front elevation of the lower ground level and vaults beneath
the pavement. Internal alterations within the terrace to reinstate the plan form and the
internal features, rearrange the circulation between the lower ground and upper levels
(with reinstated stairs in between) for office use. Cleaning the brickwork, repointing,
works to repair sash windows, restore the railings and first floor balconettes of the north
façade. In accordance with application ref 21/AP/1364 dated 16 April 2021.
6. On 31 March 2022, these appeals were 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 (TCPA) 1990, and paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (LBCA) 1990.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decisions
7. The Inspector recommended that:
Appeal A: The appeal be dismissed.
Appeal B: The appeal be allowed.
Appeal C: The appeal be dismissed.
Appeal D: The appeal be allowed.
8. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, and agrees with her recommendations. He has decided to:
Appeal A: Dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.
Appeal B: Allow the appeal and grant listed building consent, subject to conditions.
Appeal C: Dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.
Appeal D: Allow the appeal and grant listed building consent, subject to conditions.
9. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers,
unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Environmental Statement
10. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statements as supplemented by additional documentation to reflect post submission
updates and amendments, which were submitted under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Having taken account of the
Inspector’s comments at IR1.11, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental
Statements comply with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been
provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposals.
Policy and statutory considerations
11. In reaching his decisions on Appeals A and C, the Secretary of State has had regard to
section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 which requires
that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
12. In this case the development plan consists of the London Plan March 2021 (LP) and the
Southwark Plan 2019-2026 (SP), adopted in February 2022. The Secretary of State
considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR3.3-3.18,
IR3.23-3.24, and IR3.28-3.38.
13. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the documents referred to at IR3.20, IR3,27 and
IR3.32. A new version of the Framework was issued on 5 September 2023; however as
the changes relate solely to onshore wind development, and are not relevant to these
appeals, the Secretary of State has not taken them into account in reaching his decision.
14. In accordance with section 66(1) of the LBCA 1990, 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.
15. In accordance with section 72(1) of the LBCA 1990, the Secretary of State has paid
special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of conservation areas.
Main issues
16. Paragraphs 17-53, and 55-68 below deal with Appeal A (‘the 2018 scheme’) and Appeal
C (‘the 2021 scheme’). Appeal B (‘the 2018 application for listed building consent’) and
Appeal D (‘the 2021 application for listed building consent’) are addressed in paragraphs
54-55, and 69-72.
Townscape character and appearance
17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s comments and approach at IR13.6-
13.11.
Architectural design and quality
18. For the reasons given at IR13.12-13.14, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that in both schemes there is a distinct quality in the proposed architectural language and
in the treatment of the facades, and that the materials used would be high quality. He
further agrees with the Inspector’s comments on the 2018 scheme at IR13.13 and the
2021 scheme at IR13.14.
Public realm
19. For the reasons given at IR13.15-13.21 and IR13.189-13.192, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector that the upper floor public gardens would be a positive element
of the schemes, however the success of the ground floor space is more limited due to
size and light issues. He agrees with the Inspector that the public realm benefits of the
2018 scheme should be afforded limited weight, and the public realm benefits of the 2021
scheme would be afforded very limited weight (IR13.189). He further agrees that the free-
to-access public gardens should be afforded significant weight for each scheme
(IR13.192).
Context and character
20. For the reasons given at IR13.22-13.33 and IR13.204, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector’s assessment of each scheme, and agrees that the careful balance of the
contrast in the townscape from the current Shard cluster and the townscape of Borough
High Street would be eroded by either of the schemes (IR13.33).
Conclusion on townscape character and appearance
21. Overall, for the reasons given above and at IR13.204, the Secretary of State agrees that
the site would be broadly acceptable in principle for tall buildings in policy terms (IR13.23-
24 and IR13.34). However, he further agrees that while there would be commendable
gardens, there would also be significant harms caused (IR13.34), and that both schemes
would fail to respond positively to local character and townscape (IR13.35). As such he
agrees (IR13.204) that while there are some commendable elements, as in architectural
terms the designs are interesting and are of good quality, these are undermined by
identified shortfalls in public realm, and scale and massings of the schemes and its
contextual relationship with its surroundings. He agrees at IR13.198 and IR13.204 that
the design of either scheme cannot be said to be exemplar and that both schemes
conflict with dedicated design policies at LP Policy D3 and SP Policies P13 and P14.
Heritage assets
22. For the reasons given at IR13.36-13.48 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
approach to heritage assets.
23. For the reasons given at IR13.49-13.76 the Secretary of State agrees that both schemes
would cause harm to the Borough High Street Conservation Area, and that this would be
at a high level within the less than substantial scale (IR13.76).
24. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at IR13.77-13.88 that there would
be harm to significance to the listed terrace at 4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street through
the effect of the development upon the setting of the terrace from both schemes
(IR13.84). He further agrees that both schemes would have an overpowering influence,
diminishing the visual presence of the terrace and its appreciation, causing harm
(IR13.85). He also agrees, for the reasons given, that that effect would be particularly
apparent in the 2021 scheme (IR13.86). He considers that for both schemes there would
be clear harm to the settings, and thereby the significance of the listed terrace, and that
this harm would be at a moderate level in the less than substantial scale (IR13.88).
25. For the reasons given at IR13.81-13.83, IR13.88 and IR13.173, the Secretary of State
agrees that the restoration and improvement of the Grade II listed Georgian terrace at St
Thomas Street would be a clear benefit of both of the schemes which attracts significant
weight (IR13.173).
26. For the reasons given at IR13.89-13.93 the Secretary of State agrees that the other listed
buildings along St Thomas Street at IR13.89 would experience a moderate level of less
than substantial harm from both schemes (IR13.93).
27. With regard to Guy’s Hospital, the Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at
RI13.94-13.107 that the combination of harms to setting behind Conybeare House and
the west inner quadrangle, plus the impact upon the Chapel and the ability to appreciate
it, both schemes would cause a high level of less than substantial harm (IR13.107).
28. For the reasons given at IR13.108-13.110 the Secretary of State agrees that the loss of
enclosure gained from the yard through the creation of Kings Head Square would cause
harm to its significance. He further agrees that the scale and intimacy as a building in a
back alley would be lost due to the scale of the proposed buildings. As such he agrees
that the scale would be at the low end of the less than substantial harm scale for both
schemes (IR13.110).
29. For the reasons given at IR13.111-115 the Secretary of State agrees that for both
schemes there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of the George Inn,
to the low end of the scale (IR13.115).
30. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons set out at IR13.115-124 that both
schemes would cause a moderate level of less than substantial harm to the setting of
Southwark Cathedral (IR13.124). He further agrees for the reasons given at IR13.122
that in views from London Bridge, the right-hand side would be eroded slightly with the
introduction of the schemes roughly located in line with the end of London Bridge. He
agrees that the 2018 scheme would give a greater sense of space but due to its width
and mass, the 2021 scheme would reduce that to a greater degree.
31. For the reasons given at IR13.125-136 the Secretary of State agrees that the 2018
scheme would cause ‘less than substantial’ harm at the low end of the scale to the Tower
of London World Heritage Site, and to the setting and significance of the Conservation
Area and Listed Buildings listed at IR13.125. He further agrees, for the reasons given
that the 2021 scheme would cause less than substantial harm at the very low end of the
scale to the Tower of London World Heritage Site, and to the setting and significance of
the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings listed at IR13.125 (IR13.136).
32. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at IR13.137-144 that there would be
no harm to the significance of St Paul’s Cathedral as derived from its setting from either
scheme (IR13.144). He further finds no harm from either scheme to the setting of the
Church of St George the Martyr, for the reasons set out at IR13.145.
33. For the reasons given at IR 13.146-147 the Secretary of State agrees that any harm to
the setting of the Monument and the Church of St Magnus the Martyr would be very low
in terms of the 2018 scheme; and that there would be no harm from the 2021 scheme
(IR13.147).
34. For the reasons given at IR13.148 the Secretary of State finds that the schemes would
not compromise the appreciation and understanding of the buildings and their
relationship in the Bank Conservation Area.
35. The Secretary of State further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the impact of
the removal of the existing buildings at New City Court (IR13.175).
36. For the reasons given at IR13.149-152, the Secretary of State agrees that such harmful
effects attract considerable and importance and weight. He further agrees, for the
reasons given, that great weight is given to any harm, and the more important the asset,
the greater the weight should be (IR13.151). Overall, he agrees with the Inspector at
IR13.198 that the harm relates to a wide number of assets within Southwark and across
London, including those of the highest significance, and that the heritage harm carries
considerable weight. The Secretary of State has carried out the heritage balance at
paragraph 202 of the Framework at paragraph 52 below.
37. He further agrees at IR13.203 that the schemes would be in conflict with dedicated
heritage policies LP HC1 and HC2, and SP Policies P19, P20 and P24.
Servicing
38. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons set out at IR13.153-163 that overall, each
scheme would accord with LP Policies T2 and T7 and SP Policy P50 (IR13.163).
Other matters
39. For the reasons given at IR13.164 the Secretary of State agrees that, subject to control
by condition and /obligation, those matters set out at 9.4-9.39 of the Statement of
Common Ground are acceptable.
40. For the reasons set out at IR13.165-166 the Secretary of State agrees that limited weight
should be attributed to the harm by way of the reductions in daylight and sunlight to
Orchard Lisle House and Brook House (IR13.166).
41. For the reasons set out at IR13.167 the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed
buildings would be BREEAM outstanding, subject to conditions. He further agrees, for the
reasons given, that it would be appropriate for the listed terrace to achieve the ‘very good’
BREEAM standard. He further agrees that other matters such as wind and solar gain
have been assessed and would meet the necessary standards.
42. He further agrees that for the 2018 scheme, policy compliance for carbon emissions can
be secured by condition.
43. For the reasons given at IR13.169, the Inspector agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions
on local concerns relating to financial segregation, community sterilisation and loss of
vibrancy.
Other benefits
44. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s approach to benefits, as set out in
IR13.170-172.
45. For the reasons given at IR13.176-13.177 the Secretary of State agrees that the
provision of office floorspace would be a significant benefit for both schemes. He further
agrees, for the reasons set out at IR13.178, that the provision of affordable workspace
should be afforded significant weight for each scheme.
46. The Secretary of State agrees that in respect of the 2018 scheme, the provision of
affordable retail floorspace attracts limited weight, for the reasons given at IR13.179. He
further agrees that the provision of the hub space should attract moderate weight in
favour of the proposal (IR13.179).
47. For the reasons given at IR13.180, the Secretary of State agrees that the provision of
retail/food and drink/leisure floorspace carries moderate weight for both schemes.
48. He further agrees, for the reasons given at IR13.181-13.183 that the contribution of jobs
during the construction and operational phases attracts significant weight in favour of
both schemes (IR13.183).
49. For the reasons given at IR13.184-187 the Secretary of State attributed substantial
weight to the sustainable transport benefits for both schemes (IR13.187). He affords
further moderate weight to the highway works and associated transport and accessibility
improvements for pedestrians and cyclists for both schemes (IR13.188).
50. For the reasons given at IR13.193-194 the Secretary of State agrees that the 2018
scheme would attract very limited weight, and the 2021 scheme would attract limited
weight in respect of carbon saving reductions (IR13.194),
51. He further finds that the Mayoral and Southwark Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
contributions attract moderate weight for both schemes, for the reasons given at
IR13.195.
Planning and heritage balance
52. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the heritage balance set out in paragraph
202 of the Framework. In keeping with that paragraph, he has weighed up the harm to
the significance of the designated heritage assets caused by each proposal against the
public benefits of that proposal. Overall, he considers that the public benefits arising from
each of the 2018 and 2021 schemes do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the
designated heritage assets caused by each scheme. The Framework’s heritage balance
is therefore not favourable to either scheme.
53. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.205-206 that each scheme
would clearly have in-principle support from the raft of LP and SP policies which seek to
provide office developments in the Central Activities Zone, the Opportunity Area (as both
defined in the LP and SP) and Town Centre designation. He further agrees there would
also be clear conflict with many of the same policies seeking good design and protection
of the historic environment and crucially, those which seek the respect and integration of
the local and historic context. Overall, he agrees, for the reasons given at IR13.207-209
that there is overall conflict with SP Policy AV11, SP Policy P17, LP Policies GG2, SD1,
SD4, SD6 and D9 and SP Policies ST1 and ST2.
Appeals B and D
54. The Secretary of State has proceeded on the basis set out by the Inspector in IR1.8-1.9.
He has addressed the benefits of restoring the listed terrace in paragraph 25 above. He
agrees with the Inspector that the physical works to the listed terrace would be beneficial,
and that sensitive reinstatement of the plan-form and repairs would be achieved by both
schemes. The use of appropriate materials would also be beneficial, for example the
replacement of asbestos rooftiles with slate, and the works would also restore the rears
of the buildings and the floorplans and the historic passageway between Nos 8 and 10
Thomas St (IR13.81). Like the Inspector, he is satisfied that in this regard there would be
no harm arising from either scheme and that the special interest of the listed buildings
would be preserved, and indeed enhanced (IR13.83). He further agrees that the direct
physical works subject to this specific type of consent would not be harmful, and as such
there would be no justifiable reason to restrict listed building consent for Appeal B and
Appeal D, albeit he acknowledges that without securing the associated planning
permissions, these schemes would not be likely to be brought forward (IR13.211).
Planning conditions
55. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR11.1-11.4,
the recommended conditions set out in Annexes D-G 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. With regard to the
conditions relating to Appeals A and C, set out at annexes D and F of the IR, he does not
consider that the imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for
dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission. With regard to the conditions
relating to Appeals B and D (set out in Annexes E and G of the IR), he considers that the
conditions set out at Annexes A and B of this letter should form part of his decision.
Planning obligations
56. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR1.10 and IR12.1-12.4, the planning
obligations dated 8 September 2022, 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 IR12.4 that the
obligations comply 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
obligations overcome his reasons for dismissing Appeals A and C and refusing planning
permission.
Appeal A – Planning balance and overall conclusion
57. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the Appeal A scheme
is not in accordance with SP Policies AV11, P13, P14, P17, P19, P20, P24, ST1 and
ST2; and is not in accordance with LP Policies GG2, SD1, SD4, SD6, D3, D9, HC1 and
HC2. He considers that the Appeal A scheme is in conflict 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 line with the development
plan.
58. In favour of the proposal the Secretary of State gives significant weight to the provision of
office floor space, significant weight to the provision of affordable workspace, limited
weight to the provision of affordable retail floorspace, moderate weight to the provision of
the hub space, moderate weight to the provision of retail/food and drink/leisure
floorspace, significant weight to the provision of jobs, and substantial weight to the
sustainable transport benefits. The highway works and associated transport and
accessibility improvements for pedestrians and cyclists attract moderate weight, and the
public realm improvements at ground level attract limited weight, and the public garden
attracts significant weight. The sustainability of the proposal by way of carbon saving
reductions attracts very limited weight, the CIL contributions attract moderate weight, and
the restoration of the Georgian terrace attracts significant weight.
59. Weighing against the proposal the Secretary of State gives considerable weight to the
harm to heritage assets, significant weight to the harms to townscape character and
appearance, and limited weight to the loss of daylight and sunlight to adjacent blocks.
The Secretary of State has further found that the balancing exercise under paragraph
202 of the Framework is not favourable to the proposal.
60. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the
conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate
that permission should be refused.
61. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that Appeal A should be dismissed and
planning permission refused.
Formal decision on Appeal A
62. 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 redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office buildings
and erection of a 37 storey building (plus two basement levels) of a maximum height of
144m (AOD), restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St Thomas
Street) and change of use of lower floors to Class A1 retail, and redevelopment of Keats
House (nos. 24-26 St Thomas Street) with removal, relocation and reinstatement of the
historic façade on a proposed building, to provide a total of 46,374sqm of Class B1 office
floorspace, 765sqm of Class A1 retail floorspace, 1,139sqm of Class A3 retail floorspace,
615sqm of leisure floorspace (Class D2), 719sqm hub space (Class B1/D2) and a
825sqm elevated public garden within the 37-storey building, associated public realm and
highways improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street entrance
to the Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and plant areas,
and all ancillary or associated works, in accordance with application Ref 18/AP/4039,
dated 10 December 2018.
Appeal C – Planning balance and overall conclusion
63. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the Appeal C scheme
is not in accordance with SP Policies AV11, P13, P14, P17, P19, P20, P24, ST1 and
ST2; and is not in accordance with LP Policies GG2, SD1, SD4, SD6, D3, D9, HC1 and
HC2. He considers that the Appeal C scheme is in conflict 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 line with the development
plan.
64. In favour of the proposal the Secretary of State gives significant weight to the provision of
office floor space, significant weight to the provision of affordable workspace, moderate
weight to the provision of retail/food and drink/leisure floorspace, significant weight to the
provision of jobs, and substantial weight to the sustainable transport benefits. The
highway works and associated transport and accessibility improvements for pedestrians
and cyclists attract moderate weight, the public realm improvements at ground level
attract very limited weight, and the public garden attracts significant weight. The
sustainability of the proposal by way of carbon saving reductions attracts limited weight,
the CIL contributions attract moderate weight, and the restoration of the Georgian terrace
attracts significant weight.
65. Weighing against the proposal the Secretary of States gives considerable weight to the
harm to heritage assets, significant weight to the harms to townscape character and
appearance, and limited weight to the loss of daylight and sunlight to adjacent blocks.
The Secretary of State has further found that the balancing exercise under paragraph
202 of the Framework is not favourable to the proposal.
66. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the
conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate
that permission should be refused.
67. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that Appeal C should be dismissed and
planning permission refused.
Formal decision on Appeal C
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 redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office buildings
and erection of a 26-storey building (plus mezzanine and two basement levels) of a
maximum height of 108.0m AOD, restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos.
4-16 St Thomas Street), and redevelopment of Keats House (nos. 24-26 St Thomas
Street) with removal, relocation and reinstatement of the historic façade on a proposed
building, to provide 46,851sqm GEA of Class E(g)(i) office floorspace, 360sqm GEA
flexible office E(g)(i)/retail E(a) floorspace, 592sqm GEA Class E(b) restaurant/café
floorspace and a public rooftop garden, and 5,190sqm GEA of affordable workspace
within the Georgian terrace, Keats House and part of the tower, associated public realm
and highways improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street
entrance to the Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and
plant areas, and all ancillary or associated works, in accordance with application Ref
21/AP/1361, dated 16 April 2021.
Appeal B – Conclusions
69. For the reasons given at paragraphs 54-55 above, the Secretary of State has concluded
that Appeal B should be allowed and listed building consent granted, subject to
conditions.
Formal decision on Appeal B
70. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants listed
building consent, subject to the conditions set out at Annex A of this letter, for restoration,
rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street) including:
Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear elevation and demolition of the attached 1980s
office building, and reinstatement of the rear elevation of the terrace and provision of
shopfronts. Rebuild the second floor, roof and chimneys of no. 16, reskin the side façade
and creation of ground floor entrances. Rebuild the roof and chimneys of no. 14.
Removal and replacement of roof slates with natural slate to nos. 4-12. Opening up the
ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 by removing 1930s door and reinstate
two adjacent door openings on front elevation. Replacement of two second floor windows
on front elevation. Replacement of secondary glazing to front elevation. Alterations to the
front elevation of the lower ground level and vaults beneath the pavement. Internal
alterations within the terrace to rearrange the ground and lower ground levels for retail
units (with new stairs between) and upper levels for office units, reinstate the plan form,
internal features and providing a staircase in no.12. Cleaning the brickwork, works to
repair sash windows, restore the railings and first floor balconettes. in accordance with
application Ref 18/AP/4040, dated 10 December 2018.
Appeal D – Conclusions
71. For the reasons given at paragraphs 54-55 above, the Secretary of State has concluded
that Appeal D should be allowed and listed building consent granted, subject to
conditions.
Formal decision on Appeal D
72. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants listed
building consent, subject to the conditions set out at Annex B of this letter, for restoration,
rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street) including:
Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear elevation and demolition of the attached 1980s
office building, reinstatement of the rear elevation of the terrace, and recladding and
partial rebuilding of rear walls. Rebuild roof and chimneys, reskin the side façade and
front façade at top floor level of 1980s extension. Rebuild the roof and chimneys of no.
14. Removal and replacement of roof slates with natural slate to nos. 4-16. Opening up
the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 by removing 1930s door and
reinstate two adjacent door openings on front elevation. Replacement of two second floor
windows on front elevation. Replacement of secondary glazing to front elevation.
Alterations to the front elevation of the lower ground level and vaults beneath the
pavement. Internal alterations within the terrace to reinstate the plan form and the internal
features, rearrange the circulation between the lower ground and upper levels (with
reinstated stairs in between) for office use. Cleaning the brickwork, repointing, works to
repair sash windows, restore the railings and first floor balconettes of the north façade, in
accordance with application ref 21/AP/1364, dated 16 April 2021.
73. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 8 of the LBCA 1990.
Right to challenge these decisions
74. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decisions 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 TCPA 1990. A challenge to the
grant of listed building consent may be made under section 63 of the LBCA 1990.
75. A copy of this letter has been sent to the London Borough of Southwark and Historic
England, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the
decisions.
Yours faithfully
Phil Barber
Decision officer
These decisions were made by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Rachel
Maclean MP, on behalf of the Secretary of State, and signed on her behalf
ANNEX A LIST OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL B (2018 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years from
the date of this permission.
2. Prior to commencement of any of the following works on site, a Method Statement(s)
and Schedule of Works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
i. Demolition of the modern rear extensions; removal of the second floor, roof
and chimneys of no. 16 St Thomas Street and making openings to the side
façade; removal of the roof and chimneys of no. 14; removal of the roof
slates to nos. 4-12; removing the ground floor door between nos. 8 and 10;
removal of the vault front wall;
ii. The underpinning of the terrace for the adjoining basement excavation;
iii. Support, protection and repair of the retained façades, floors and roof;
iv. Cleaning of the brickwork;
v. Repairs to the sash windows, railings and first floor balconettes.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any such
approval given.
3. Prior to the commencement of any of the following works, drawings (scale 1:10,1:20)
shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show
the elevations, sections, materials and finishes for:
i. All new fenestration (including lintel, arch, cills) and doors.
ii. The new and replacement dormer windows.
iii. The shopfronts to the rear elevation and the railings above.
iv. Rainwater goods.
v. Chimney pots.
vi. The replacement secondary glazing.
vii. The gates to the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 St Thomas
Street.
viii. All new staircases (internal and external).
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
4. Prior to the commencement of any external works to the Georgian terrace (excluding
demolition, site clearance and site investigations), the following details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the approved
extensions.
b. Samples of the brick, slate and other materials for the external repairs.
c. Samples of the material of the gates and passageway surfaces between nos.
8 and 10 St Thomas Street.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
5. Prior to commencement of works to the Georgian terrace one or more construction
contract(s) for those works (under which one of the parties is obliged to carry out and
complete works to the Georgian terrace for which listed building consent has been
granted) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction contract shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of any external demolition works to
external demolition works and redevelopment of the site shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
6. Unless agreed pursuant to a condition on this permission, the approved window
openings to the Georgian terrace building hereby approved shall be clear glass and
shall not be painted, covered or otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
7. Prior to the commencement of the works, a Listed Building Consent Application
Management Plan setting out the policies and guidance for ongoing maintenance,
repair and minor alterations to the listed buildings on the Site shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Listed Building Consent
Application Management Plan shall be prepared by an accredited conservation
architect (as approved by the Local Planning Authority) and shall include (but not be
limited to):
i. the listed status of the site including the details of the special architectural
and historical interest of the site;
ii. the details of the works to the listed buildings on the site;
iii. key objectives and actions in the refurbishment of the listed buildings on the
site;
iv. fixtures of significance; and
v. policies for maintenance, repair and minor alterations including what work
requires listed building consent or planning permission other than that already
granted.
The works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved Listed
Building Consent Application Management Plan for the duration that the listed
buildings remain occupied.
ANNEX B LIST OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL D (2021 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years from
the date of this permission.
2. Prior to commencement of any of the following works on site, a Method Statement(s)
and Schedule of Works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
i. Demolition of the modern rear extensions; removal of the second floor, roof
and chimneys of no. 16 St Thomas Street and making openings to the side
façade; removal of the roof and chimneys of no. 14; removal of the roof
slates to nos. 4-12; removing the ground floor door between nos. 8 and 10;
removal of the vault front wall;
ii. The underpinning of the terrace for the adjoining basement excavation;
iii. Support, protection and repair of the retained façades, floors and roof;
iv. Cleaning of the brickwork;
v. Repairs to the sash windows, railings and first floor balconettes.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any such
approval given.
3. Prior to the commencement of any of the following works, drawings (scale 1:10,1:20)
shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show
the elevations, sections, materials and finishes for:
i. All new fenestration (including lintel, arch, cills) and doors.
ii. The new and replacement dormer windows.
iii. Rainwater goods.
iv. Chimney pots.
v. The replacement secondary glazing.
vi. The gates to the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 St Thomas
Street.
vii. All new staircases (internal and external).
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
4. Prior to the commencement of any external works to the Georgian terrace (excluding
demolition, site clearance and site investigations), the following details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the approved
extensions.
b. Samples of the brick, slate and other materials for the external repairs.
c. Samples of the material of the gates and passageway surfaces between nos.
8 and 10 St Thomas Street.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
5. Prior to commencement of works to the Georgian terrace one or more construction
contract(s) for those works (under which one of the parties is obliged to carry out and
complete works to the Georgian terrace for which listed building consent has been
granted) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction contract shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of any external demolition works to
external demolition works and redevelopment of the site shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
6. Unless agreed pursuant to a condition on this permission, the approved window
openings to the Georgian terrace building hereby approved shall be clear glass and
shall not be painted, covered or otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
7. Prior to the commencement of the works, a Listed Building Consent Application
Management Plan setting out the policies and guidance for ongoing maintenance,
repair and minor alterations to the listed buildings on the Site shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Listed Building Consent
Application Management Plan shall be prepared by an accredited conservation
architect (as approved by the Local Planning Authority) and shall include (but not be
limited to):
i. the listed status of the site including the details of the special architectural
and historical interest of the site;
ii. the details of the works to the listed buildings on the site;
iii. key objectives and actions in the refurbishment of the listed buildings on the
site;
iv. fixtures of significance; and
v. policies for maintenance, repair and minor alterations including what work
requires listed building consent or planning permission other than that
already granted.
The works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved Listed
Building Consent Application Management Plan for the duration that the listed
buildings remain occupied.
Report to the Secretary of State
by Claire Searson MSc PGDip BSc (Hons) MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date 16 January 2023
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
APPEALS BY [APPELLANT]
Inquiry opened on 19 July 2022. Site visits on 20 July, 5, 8, 9 and 10 August 2022
New City Court, 4-26 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS
File Refs: APP/A5840/W/22/3290473, APP/A5840/Y/22/3290477, APP/A5840/W/22/3290483 and
APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
CONTENTS
Cover1
List of Abbreviations 2
1 Procedural Matters 5
2 Site and Surrounding Area 7
3 Planning Policy 9
4 The Proposals 16
5 Planning History 19
6 The case for the Appellant 20
7 The case for London Borough of Southwark 44
8 The case for Historic England 80
9 The case for Interested Parties appearing at the Inquiry 108
10 Written representations 118
11 Conditions 120
12 Planning Obligations 121
13 Inspector’s Conclusions 122
14 Recommendations 154
Annexes:
A Appearances 155
B Core Documents 156
C Inquiry Documents 156
D Conditions (2018 Planning) 158
E Conditions (2018 Listed Building) 182
F Conditions (2021 Planning) 184
G Conditions (2021 Listed Building) 206
1 Cover photomontage from CD-A-12.1 (VP24) and CD-B-14.1 (VP18)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
List of Abbreviations
BHA Built Heritage Assessment
BHSCA Borough High Street Conservation Area
CA Conservation Area
CAZ Central Activity Zone
CAA Conservation Area Appraisal
DAS Design and Access Statement
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
GLA Greater London Authority
GPA Good Practice Advice
GSST Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
HE Historic England
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HSOCG Heritage Statement of Common Ground
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
KCL Kings College London
LBS London Borough of Southwark
LGV Light Goods Vehicle
LP London Plan (March 2021)
LVMF London View Management Framework
LUL London Underground Limited
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
OUV Outstanding Universal Value
PCPA 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
PH Public House
PLBCAA 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
PoE Proof of Evidence
PPG Planning Practice Guidance
RX Re-Examination
S106 Section 106 (of the T&CP Act)
SOCG Statement of Common Ground
SOUV Outstanding Universal Value
SoS Secretary of State
SP Southwark Plan 2019-2026 (February 2022)
TfL Transport for London
ToL Tower of London
TVIBHA Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment
WHC World Heritage Committee
WHS World Heritage Site
WHSMP World Heritage Site Management Plan
XIC Examination in Chief
XX Cross Examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
APPEAL A Ref: APP/A5840/W/22/3290473
New City Court, 4-26 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for
planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London
Borough of Southwark.
• The application Ref 18/AP/4039 is dated 10 December 2018.
• The development proposed is redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office
buildings and erection of a 37 storey building (plus two basement levels) of a maximum
height of 144m (AOD), restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace (nos. 4-16 St
Thomas Street) and change of use of lower floors to Class A1 retail, and redevelopment of
Keats House (nos. 24-26 St Thomas Street) with removal, relocation and reinstatement of
the historic façade on a proposed building, to provide a total of 46,374sqm of Class B1
office floorspace, 765sqm of Class A1 retail floorspace, 1,139sqm of Class A3 retail
floorspace, 615sqm of leisure floorspace (Class D2), 719sqm hub space (Class B1/D2) and
a 825sqm elevated public garden within the 37-storey building, associated public realm
and highways improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street
entrance to the Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and
plant areas, and all ancillary or associated works.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.
APPEAL B Ref: APP/A5840/Y/22/3290477
New City Court, 4-26 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS
• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision
on an application for listed building consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London
Borough of Southwark.
• The application Ref 18/AP/4040 is dated 10 December 2018.
• The works proposed are restoration, rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace
(nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street) including: Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear
elevation and demolition of the attached 1980s office building, and reinstatement of the
rear elevation of the terrace and provision of shopfronts. Rebuild the second floor, roof
and chimneys of no. 16, reskin the side façade and creation of ground floor entrances.
Rebuild the roof and chimneys of no. 14. Removal and replacement of roof slates with
natural slate to nos. 4-12. Opening up the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and
10 by removing 1930s door and reinstate two adjacent door openings on front elevation.
Replacement of two second floor windows on front elevation. Replacement of secondary
glazing to front elevation. Alterations to the front elevation of the lower ground level and
vaults beneath the pavement. Internal alterations within the terrace to rearrange the
ground and lower ground levels for retail units (with new stairs between) and upper levels
for office units, reinstate the plan form, internal features and providing a staircase in
no.12. Cleaning the brickwork, works to repair sash windows, restore the railings and first
floor balconettes.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be allowed.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
APPEAL C Ref: APP/A5840/W/22/3290483
New City Court, 4-26 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for
planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London
Borough of Southwark.
• The application Ref 21/AP/1361 is dated 16 April 2021.
• The development proposed is redevelopment to include demolition of the 1980s office
buildings and erection of a 26-storey building (plus mezzanine and two basement levels)
of a maximum height of 108.0m AOD, restoration and refurbishment of the listed terrace
(nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street), and redevelopment of Keats House (nos. 24-26 St Thomas
Street) with removal, relocation and reinstatement of the historic façade on a proposed
building, to provide 46,851sqm GEA of Class E(g)(i) office floorspace, 360sqm GEA flexible
office E(g)(i)/retail E(a) floorspace, 592sqm GEA Class E(b) restaurant/café floorspace and
a public rooftop garden, and 5,190sqm GEA of affordable workspace within the Georgian
terrace, Keats House and part of the tower, associated public realm and highways
improvements, provision for a new access to the Borough High Street entrance to the
Underground Station, cycling parking, car parking, service, refuse and plant areas, and all
ancillary or associated works.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.
APPEAL D Ref: APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
New City Court, 4-26 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS
• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision
on an application for listed building consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London
Borough of Southwark.
• The application Ref 21/AP/1364 is dated 16 April 2021.
• The works proposed are restoration, rebuilding and refurbishment of the listed terrace
(nos. 4-16 St Thomas Street) including: Demolition of 1980s fabric across the rear
elevation and demolition of the attached 1980s office building, reinstatement of the rear
elevation of the terrace, and recladding and partial rebuilding of rear walls. Rebuild roof
and chimneys, reskin the side façade and front façade at top floor level of 1980s
extension. Rebuild the roof and chimneys of no. 14. Removal and replacement of roof
slates with natural slate to nos. 4-16. Opening up the ground floor passageway between
nos. 8 and 10 by removing 1930s door and reinstate two adjacent door openings on front
elevation. Replacement of two second floor windows on front elevation. Replacement of
secondary glazing to front elevation. Alterations to the front elevation of the lower ground
level and vaults beneath the pavement. Internal alterations within the terrace to reinstate
the plan form and the internal features, rearrange the circulation between the lower
ground and upper levels (with reinstated stairs in between) for office use. Cleaning the
brickwork, repointing, works to repair sash windows, restore the railings and first floor
balconettes of the north façade.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be allowed.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
1 Procedural Matters
1.1 The Inquiry relates to 2 separate appeal schemes for the same site. Planning
permission and Listed Building Consent (LBC) were first sought in 2018 (herein
referenced as the 2018 scheme). A revised scheme for both Planning and LBC
was also later submitted in 2021 (the 2021 scheme). In all cases, the appeals
are made against the non-determination of the applications. Putative reasons
for refusal were, however, provided by the Council in their Statement of Case.2
These were later reported to, and ratified by, Southwark Planning Committee
on 19 April 2022.3
1.2 The appeals were recovered for a decision by the Secretary of State (SoS) by a
direction dated 31 March 2022. This was in respect of the impacts on the
outstanding universal value (OUV), integrity, authenticity and significance of
the Tower of London World Heritage Site.
1.3 The Inquiry opened on 19 July 2022 and closed on 10 August 2022 after a
total of 14 sitting days.4 Historic England (HE) appeared as a Rule 6 party who
participated in proceedings in respect of heritage matters and public (heritage)
benefits. Transport for London (TfL) also participated in ‘Round Table Sessions’
relating to servicing impacts and conditions and obligations. A representative
for the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust also appeared. Other written
submissions were also made to the Inquiry by interested parties.
1.4 A ‘Core Documents’ library was established in advance of the Inquiry.
Documents were submitted during the course of the Inquiry (‘Inquiry
Documents’). Details of these and how to access them are annexed to this
report. Thanks is given to Joanna Vincent, the Programme Officer, for her
assistance with the running of the Inquiry and the documents website.
1.5 Prior to the formal evidence being examined, a factual presentation was made
by the architect for each of the schemes by way of ‘setting the scene’.5 This
included videos of VR walkthroughs of the proposed public realm. Models of
the proposed schemes and the wider areas were also present at the venue
throughout the duration of the Inquiry.
1.6 Site visits were undertaken on an unaccompanied and accompanied basis. On
20 July an accompanied site visit was made to 4-16 St Thomas Street (the
listed terrace) as well as the 1980’s New City Court building. An accompanied
site visit was also held following an itinerary agreed by all parties on 5 August
around the surrounding area.6 On 8 August I visited Parliament Hill and
Kenwood Gazebo unaccompanied to aid my understanding of the effects on St
Paul’s Cathedral. I visited The Shard on 9 August to view the site and
surroundings from the upper viewing platforms. In respect of transport and
servicing matters, I viewed the local highways of St Thomas Street, Borough
2 CD-I-03 and CD-I-04 submitted on 16 March 2022.
3 CD-I-06 and CD-I-07 (Committee Reports) and CD-I-08 (Committee Minutes).
4 Including scheduled breaks/overspill days. A copy of the Inquiry Programme can be found
at: https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/new-city-court/inquiry-programme/
5 INQ-07 The contents of this was the subject of prior agreement with all main parties.
6 INQ-28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
High Street, White Hart Yard and Kings Head Yard on 10 August.7 I also
walked the area surrounding the appeal site at various dates over the course
of the Inquiry to familiarise myself with the area at different times of the day.
1.7 A Planning Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) was agreed between the
Council and Appellant. Separate topic based SOCG were also submitted and
agreed between the Council and Appellant on Character and Appearance,
Heritage and Servicing Matters.8 The latter two were also agreed with HE and
TfL as per their respective interests. A public benefits comparison schedule
between the Council and Appellant was also submitted.9
1.8 In terms of the listed building (LB) appeals, these were given putative reasons
for refusal by the Council as they were considered ‘parasitic’ to the planning
appeals. The putative reasons for refusal referred to harm to their setting,
however no case was advanced by the Council at the Inquiry, either within the
proofs, or in oral evidence in respect of harm to the listed buildings arising
from physical works to their fabric. Moreover, heritage benefits were also
identified in terms of the proposed works to the listed buildings.
1.9 In light of this and given that LBC is only required for direct physical works, as
per section 7 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation areas) Act
1990 (PLBCAA 1990), I asked the Council to consider whether listed building
consent for the physical works only could be recommended for approval, even
in the event that the planning appeals were recommended for dismissal. The
Council produced a detailed note on this10 and confirmed that this could be
possible, subject to the imposition of conditions. Accordingly, I have not
considered the putative reasons for refusal in terms of the listed building
consent appeals in this report. I have, however, considered the works and the
effects on the setting of these buildings as I am duty bound to do.
1.10 Planning Obligations for each scheme were submitted in draft form, discussed
at the Inquiry and subsequently finalised.11 I deal with these below.
1.11 Environmental Statements (ES) accompanied the planning applications. The
original submissions were also supplemented by additional documentation to
reflect post submission updates and amendments, which together comprise
the composite ES. I am satisfied that these documents meet the requirements
of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2017, and I have taken them into account in my consideration of
the appeals.
1.12 This report contains a description of the site and its surroundings, an
explanation of the proposals, identification of relevant planning policies, and
the gist of the submissions made at the Inquiry and in writing, followed by my
conclusions and recommendation. Lists of appearances are annexed.
7 As per the details set out in INQ-21 and INQ-22.
8 SOCG-01-04 can be found at: https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/new-city-court/inquiry-
documents/proofs-evidence/statements-common-ground/
9 INQ-32.
10 INQ-11.
11 INQ-29.3 and INQ29.4.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
2 Site and Surrounding Area
2.1 The site and its surroundings are described in detail in the Planning SOCG.12 In
summary, the site comprises 3 different components:
i) Nos 4-16 St Thomas Street which is an early 19th Century terrace
(Grade II listed).
ii) No 20 St Thomas Street which comprises a 1980’s office block ‘New
City Court’ which is 4-5-storeys in height with glazing and panelled
exterior and flat roofs.
iii) Nos 24-26 St Thomas Street which is a retained red brick and stone
ornate façade plus basement and railings, dating from the 19th
Century, with a 1980’s 4-storey building behind. This building is
known as Keats House.
2.2 Nos 4-16 St Thomas Street are 19th century townhouses built as private
residences for the physicians of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital. These are
yellow brick with stucco and are 3-4 storey in height with basement vaults and
cast-iron railings to the pavement edge. Originally the properties were two
separate terraces, however they were infilled in the 1930’s in buff brick and a
double doorway with stucco pilasters and entablature surround. They were
heavily altered; in the 1980s with the development of New City Court with
replacement glazing bar sash windows, asbestos roof tiles, concrete slabs to
doorways over basement, loss of internal floorplan, chimney breasts and
detailing and the rebuilding or overcladding of the rear facades.
2.3 The 1980’s New City Court extends behind Keats House and the Georgian
terrace and all three are physically attached. To the rear it forms the northern
edge of Kings Head Yard (taking in a retained façade from former hop sample
rooms). This yard extends to Guy’s Hospital to the eastern site boundary, and
links into White Hart Yard.
2.4 To the west, the site is bounded by the rear of properties which front Borough
High Street, including London Bridge Underground entrance/exit. The site as a
whole is currently in use as offices.
2.5 The site is within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), the London Bridge Borough
and Bankside Opportunity Area, and the London Bridge District Town Centre.
London Bridge Station is located to the west, accessed from St Thomas Street
along with The Shard and newly constructed Shard Place. Guy’s and St
Thomas Hospital (including Guy’s Tower) and Kings College London (Guy’s
Campus) are located to the south and east of the site.
2.6 The site is located within the Borough High Street Conservation Area (BHSCA)
and the North Southwark and Roman Roads Archaeological Priority Area. The
Tooley Street Conservation Area (CA) is located to the north. Other CA’s in the
wider area include Trinity Church Square CA, Bank CA and Tower CA.
2.7 The area is rich in heritage and there are a number of LBs in the vicinity of the
site. The relevant heritage assets considered to be affected by the proposal are
set out below:
12 SOCG-01.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
World Heritage Site
• The Tower of London World Heritage Site (also a scheduled monument
and within a conservation area)
Grade I listed buildings
• Tower of London (Inner curtain wall with mural towers, the New
Armouries, the Queen’s House and Tower Green)
• Cathedral Church of St Saviour and St Mary Overie (Southwark
Cathedral)
• Cathedral Church of St Paul (St Paul’s Cathedral)
• The George Inn
• The Monument (also a scheduled monument)
• Church of St Magnus the Martyr
Grade II* listed buildings
• Guy’s Hospital main building including wings and chapel
• 9, 9A, 11, 13 and 15 St Thomas Street
• Church of St George the Martyr
Grade II listed buildings
• 4 – 8 and 12 – 16 St Thomas Street
• Kings Head Public House (PH)
• Bunch of Grapes Public House
Conservation Areas
• Borough High Street
• Tower
• Bank
2.8 The Heritage SOCG13 sets out detailed summaries of significance for these
assets including the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Tower of London
World Heritage Site (ToLWHS), the historic, architectural, artistic and
archaeological interest of the listed buildings and broad summaries for the
CA’s. These summaries are agreed between parties but they do not set out
the contribution of setting to significance, as these were not agreed.
2.9 Helpfully, summary tables for the impact on significance are covered by the
heritage SOCG, setting out which assets each party consider to be harmed and
to what level in the less than substantial harm (LTSH) range.
2.10 The site is also within the wider setting consultation areas of two London View
Management framework views; Parliament Hill and Kenwood. The submitted
Townscape and Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessments for each scheme
(TVIBHA)14 assessed these, along with the abovementioned heritage assets.
13 SOCG-03
14 CD-A-12.1 & 2 and CD-A-57 (2018 Scheme) and CD-B-14.1 & 2 and CD-B-58 (2021
Scheme)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
3 Planning Policy
3.1 Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with
the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Here, the development plan comprises the London Plan March 2021 (LP)15 and
the Southwark Plan 2019-202616 (SP) which was recently adopted in February
2022. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning
Practice Guidance (NPPG) are material considerations.
3.2 A significant number of relevant policies from both the LP and SP are identified
in the SOCG, along with the relevant parts of the NPPF and PPG, and a number
of other documents also deemed to be material. 17 I set out below the details
of those which are most pertinent to these appeals, grouped into themes.
Good Growth
3.3 The concept of ‘Good Growth’ underpins the LP and its policies. This is growth
that is socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable. LP
Policy GG2 sets criteria for making the best use of land including applying a
design-led approach to determine optimum development capacity,
understanding what is valued about existing places and using this as a catalyst
for growth, renewal and place-making, strengthening London’s distinct and
varied character. Use of brownfield land and promoting higher density
development in well-connected locations is also specified.
3.4 Growing a good economy is a central theme and the LP recognises that
London’s rich cultural and historic assets, the quality of its streets and public
places, its spirit of creativity and entrepreneurialism attract businesses of all
sizes and allow them to develop and thrive.18 Policy GG5 seeks to conserve
and enhance London’s global economic competitiveness and ensure that
economic success is shared amongst all Londoners. This is achieved by
planning for sufficient employment and industrial space in the right locations to
support economic development and regeneration; ensuring that London
continues to provide leadership in innovation, research, policy and ideas;
supporting its role as an international incubator and centre for learning;
promoting and supporting London’s rich heritage and cultural assets and its
role as a 24-hour city; and by making the fullest use of London’s existing and
future public transport, walking and cycling network, as well as its network of
town centres, to support agglomeration and economic activity.
3.5 LP Policy SD1 seeks to ensure that identified Opportunity Areas fully realise
their growth and regeneration potential through supporting development which
creates employment opportunities and recognising the role of heritage in place
making. SD4 notes the national and international significance of the CAZ as
the vibrant heart and globally-iconic core of London, seeking to support and
enhance office functions including the intensification and provision of sufficient
space to meet demand. This policy also seeks to sustain and enhance the
distinct environment and heritage of the CAZ and supports and promotes the
15 CD-D-21
16 CD-E-01
17 SOCG-01 pages 23-28
18 Para 1.5.2, page 23 of the LP.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
CAZ as a centre of excellence and specialist clusters including functions of
state, health, law, education, creative and cultural activities.
3.6 Policy SD5 requires that residential development should not compromise the
strategic functions of the CAZ and gives greater weight within the CAZ to office
development over residential development. Policy SD6 also seeks to promote
and enhance the vitality and viability of London’s town centres.
3.7 Drilling down further under the strategic concept of ‘Good Growth’, LP Policy
E1 supports increases in business and office developments in the CAZ. Policy
E3 requires the provision of affordable workspace, secured by planning
obligations, in areas defined by development plans.
3.8 These themes are carried into the SP which sets Area Vision policies that
provide the strategic vision for Southwark’s distinct places and identify the
character of these areas to be renewed, retained and enhanced.
3.9 Policy AV11 recognises that London Bridge is a globally significant central
London business district which is home to international business headquarters,
centres of academic and health excellence at King’s College London and Guy’s
Hospital as well as being a local destination and town centre. It identifies that
London Bridge is internationally renowned for its prominent riverfront location
providing cultural spaces and retail, including Borough Market, and riverside
access, an area with a rich heritage preserved in historic monuments,
buildings, yards, public spaces, vistas, cityscapes and archaeology, is one of
the UK’s busiest and fastest growing transport hubs, that has increased rail
and river capacity and improved walking and cycling provision and the quality
of the public realm and is of great archaeological interest, containing nationally
significant sites and scheduled monuments of Roman, medieval and post-
medieval date.
3.10 AV11 sets out criteria for future development in London Bridge which seeks to:
• “attract global commerce with headquarter and local offices and build on
its reputation for arts and crafts, food and trade while serving local needs
through its town centre role;
• Support the creation of a distinctive and inspiring world class
environment through a mix of inspiring new architecture, restored and
reactivated warehouses and other heritage revealed with ‘placemarks’,
public art and quality public realm that provides openness, connectivity
and a ‘green grid’. Greenery and innovations in environmental resilience
should be incorporated into buildings;
• Build on the fabric of local alleyways and yards to create quiet, green
routes with clean air;
• Strengthen the cultural offer of the area and diversify activities and
shops;
• Make sure the new standard of London Bridge Station is upheld and the
Shard remains significantly taller and more visible than surrounding
buildings as the station’s landmark;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
• Improve local accessibility and interchange at the station with enhanced
walking, cycling, tube, bus and boat routes;
• Contribute towards the development of the Low Line, a new public realm
corridor adjacent to historic railway arches, with lively accessible spaces
for creativity, new jobs and retail;
• Harness the expertise and infrastructure from Kings College London,
Guy’s Hospital and other medical and science facilities to develop a
strong, dynamic and specialised local economy that will attract new
specialised services and research and promote heath and wellbeing in the
local environment;
• Enhance the sense of place and visitor and cultural activities along the
Thames riverfront, and encourage use of riverboat services, waterborne
freight and the Thames Path in a safe and sustainable way;
• Support the development of vibrant new high streets on St Thomas
Street, Crucifix Lane and Tooley Street, complementing the distinct
character of nearby Bermondsey Street.”
3.11 Policy AV11 also recognises that London Bridge has experienced significant
transformation with the delivery of the London Bridge Shard Quarter, more
London riverside development, the Shard tower and News Building along with
the 2018 redevelopment of London Bridge station which includes access
to/from St Thomas Street.
3.12 SP Policy ST1 is a strategic policy which sets out development targets for
Southwark, including 10,000 jobs in the Borough, Bankside and London Bridge
Opportunity Area and 460,000 sqm of office space, 80% of which to be
delivered in the CAZ. This is also reflected in Policy SP4 (a green and inclusive
economy). Policy AV11 (referenced above) also reflects the jobs targets
identified in ST1 and SP4. Policy ST2 is also a strategic policy which recognises
complex place making and the drive for development within Opportunity Areas.
3.13 Policy P30 requires retention or increasing of employment floorspaces within
the CAZ, town centres and opportunity areas. P31 requires the delivery of
affordable workspace for developments of over 500sqm GIA.
3.14 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out the overarching economic, social and
environmental objectives to achieve sustainable development, which should be
pursued in mutually supportive ways. Paragraph 81 gives significant weight to
the need to support economic growth and productivity.
Historic Environment
3.15 The LP recognises that London’s historic environment provides a depth of
character that benefits the city’s economy, culture and quality of life. London’s
heritage assets and historic environment are irreplaceable and an essential
part of what makes London a vibrant and successful city, and their effective
management is a fundamental component of achieving good growth. The
general theme of the LP and SP Policies is that proposals should conserve and
enhance the significance of heritage assets (and their settings), including SP
Policy P19 (Listed Buildings and Structures) and P20 (Conservation Areas).
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
3.16 In particular, LP policy HC1 deals with heritage conservation and growth and
seeks the effective integration of London’s heritage in regenerative change by
recognising and embedding the role of heritage in place making, utilising the
heritage significance of a site or area in the planning and design process,
integrating the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their
settings with innovative and creative contextual architectural responses that
contribute to their significance and sense of place and delivering positive
benefits that conserve and enhance the historic environment, as well as
contributing to the economic viability, accessibility and environmental quality
of a place, and to social wellbeing. Cumulative impacts should also be actively
managed. The integration of heritage considerations early on in the design
process to avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities is also required.
3.17 LP Policy HC2 and SP Policy P24 relate to WHSs. Development proposals in a
WHS and their settings should conserve, promote and enhance their OUV, and
they should not compromise the ability to appreciate their OUV, or the
authenticity and integrity of their attributes and support their management
and protection. This should include views into, out of and across WHSs.
3.18 LP Policy HC3 deals with designated strategic views of which development
proposals must be assessed for their impact within the fore-, middle- or
background of that view. Parliament Hill to Central London and Kenwood to
Central London are two such identified views. HC4 deals with London View
Management Framework requiring that proposals should not harm, and should
seek to make a positive contribution to, the characteristics and composition of
Strategic Views and their landmark elements. Development in the fore-,
middle- and background of a designated view should not be intrusive,
unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view.
3.19 Statutory duties are also laid down by the PLBCAA 1990 in sections 16, 66 and
72. Special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving a LB or its
setting and special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of a CA.
3.20 Other material considerations related to heritage include:
• Borough High Street Conservation Area Appraisal (June 2006)19
• HE Good Practice Advice (GPA) 2 - Managing Significance in Decision-
Taking in the Historic Environment, July 201520
• HE GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets (2nd Edition), December
201721
• Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan (WHSMP),
Historic Royal Palaces, 201622
19 CD-E-06
20 CD-F-06
21 CD-F-04
22 CD-F-09
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
• London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance
(LVMF) Mayor of London, 201223
3.21 Paragraph 199 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to the
conservation of a heritage asset and the more important the asset, the greater
the weight should be. Paragraph 200 states that any harm to the significance
of designated heritage assets (including from development within its setting)
should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 202 states that
where a development proposal will lead to LTSH this harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal. The glossary of the NPPF defines
significance and setting.
3.22 Finally, paragraph 18 of the PPG24 gives guidance on how harm to heritage
assets should be assessed. It states that harm may arise from works to the
asset or from development within its setting. Noting that substantial harm is a
high test, within each category of harm (which category applies should be
explicitly identified), the extent of the harm may vary and should be clearly
articulated.
Design Quality
3.23 LP Policy D3 requires that all development must make the best use of land by
following a design-led approach that optimises the capacity of sites. The
design-led approach requires consideration of design options to determine the
most appropriate form of development that responds to a site’s context and
capacity for growth. Higher densities are supported in locations well connected
to jobs, services, infrastructure with good accessibility. Detailed criteria are set
out in terms of form and layout, experience and quality and character, the
latter of which requires development to:
• “respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special
and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality
and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural
features that contribute towards the local character
• be of high quality, with architecture that pays attention to detail, and
gives thorough consideration to the practicality of use, flexibility, safety
and building lifespan through appropriate construction methods and the
use of attractive, robust materials which weather and mature well
• aim for high sustainability standards (with reference to the policies
within London Plan Chapters 8 and 9) and take into account the
principles of the circular economy
• provide spaces and buildings that maximise opportunities for urban
greening to create attractive resilient places that can also help the
management of surface water.”
3.24 SP Policies P13 and P14 relate to design of places and design quality, again
setting out detailed criteria requiring high standards of design, fitting to the
23 CD-D-24 (1-3)
24 CD-D-11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
location, context, scale and type of development. Policies also set out design
principles in respect of high quality public realm.
3.25 The NPPF seeks to achieve well-designed places, stating that the creation of
high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to
what the planning and development process should achieve (paragraph 126).
Paragraph 130 sets out criteria, including ensuring that developments are
visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and effective
landscaping and are sympathetic to local character and history, including the
surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or
discouraging appropriate innovation or change.
3.26 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF is clear that development that is not well designed
should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and
government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance
and supplementary planning documents.
3.27 As set out in the National Design Guide (January 2021),25 the fundamental
principles for good design are that it is: fit for purpose; durable; and brings
delight. It outlines and illustrates the Government’s priorities for well-
designed places in the form of ten characteristics: context, identity, built form,
movement, nature, public spaces, uses, homes and buildings, resources and
lifespan.
Tall Buildings
3.28 LP Policy D9 requires that Boroughs should define what is considered a tall
building for specific localities and identify within Development Plans suitable
locations where such buildings may be appropriate, subject to meeting specific
requirements. The policy also sets out detailed criteria in terms of addressing
specific visual, functional, environmental and cumulative impacts.
3.29 Under visual impacts, Policy D9 requires that proposals address a range of
possible effects, including on long- and mid-range views, and immediate views
from the surrounding streets. Architectural quality and materials should be of
an exemplary standard to ensure that the appearance and architectural
integrity of buildings is maintained throughout their lifetime. Proposals should
also take account of and avoid harm to the significance of heritage assets and
their settings noting that proposals resulting in harm to heritage assets will
require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that alternatives have
been explored, and that there are clear and convincing public benefits that
outweigh that harm. Buildings in the setting of a WHS must preserve and not
harm the OUV of the WHS, and its ability to appreciate it.
3.30 The functional impacts in policy D9 relate to the need to ensure safety,
appropriate servicing and maintenance, appropriate and safe access to the
building and wider transport network, maximise benefits and regeneration
potential through the design. Environmental impacts relate to the need to
consider wind, daylight and sunlight and not compromise the enjoyment of
open spaces. Cumulative impacts in respect of proposed, consented and
25 CD-D-20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
planned tall buildings must also be considered. Finally, free to enter public
access should be incorporated.
3.31 As required by LP Policy D9, SP Policy P17, identifies broad areas where tall
buildings are expected, noting that these are typically in opportunity areas and
the CAZ. Individual site allocations for tall buildings have also been identified.
Specific criteria are similar to those in D9, although these are more specific in
requiring that such buildings must be located at a point of landmark
significance, have a height that is proportionate to the significance of the
proposed location and the size of the site, make a positive contribution to the
London skyline, respond positively to local character and townscape; and
provide a functional public space that is appropriate to the height and size of
the proposed building (amongst other things). Detailed design criteria are also
specified, again making reference to the need to conserve and enhance the
significance of designated heritage assets, and giving clear and convincing
justification for harm. In addition to the supporting text for P17, a ‘Fact Box’
accompanies the policy and sets out definitions for tall buildings and points of
landmark significance.
3.32 Historic England Advice Note 2: Tall Buildings (March 2022)26 is also relevant
as a material consideration.
Residential Amenity
3.33 SP Policy P56 seeks to protect amenity, including daylight and sunlight.
Previously referenced policies P14, P17 in the SP and policies D3 and D9 in the
LP also make reference to such amenity issues. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF
makes reference to securing high standards of amenity.
Servicing
3.34 LP Policy T2 sets criteria to deliver a healthy streets approach with an
emphasis on improved walking, cycling and public transport opportunities and
improving street safety, comfort, convenience and amenity. In growth areas
and opportunity areas, this should be planned at an early stage. Policy T7
deals with deliveries, servicing and construction. It requires safe, clean, and
efficient deliveries and servicing. Provision of adequate space for servicing,
storage and deliveries should be made off-street, with on-street loading bays
only used where this is not possible. Construction Logistics Plans and Delivery
and Servicing Plans will be required and should be developed in accordance
with Transport for London guidance and in a way which reflects the scale and
complexities of developments. Developments should be designed and managed
so that deliveries can be received outside of peak hours and in the evening or
night time. Appropriate facilities are required to minimise additional freight
trips arising from missed deliveries and thus facilitate efficient online retailing.
3.35 SP Policy P50 relating to highway impacts also seeks to ensure safe and
efficient delivery and servicing that minimises the number of motor vehicle
journeys, and incorporate delivery and servicing within major development
sites and not on the public highway.
26 CD-F-07
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
3.36 Servicing and deliveries are also covered in design policies in the LP Policy
SD6, D3, D9 and SP Policy P14. The servicing SOCG27 gives a precis of the
relevant policies.
3.37 NPPF paragraph 112 also makes reference to the need for the efficient delivery
of goods and minimising conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles,
avoiding unnecessary street clutter and responding to local character and
design standards.
Other
3.38 The above section highlights the most relevant policies to these cases. There
is a raft of other development plan policies which are also relevant, for
example those relating to climate change, noise, fire safety etc. Those policies
are listed in paragraph 8.4.1 of the Planning SOCG28 for the LP, and para 8.4.2
for the SP.
4 The Proposals
4.1 The schemes are described in broad terms in the Planning SoCG. The Design
and Access Statements for each scheme also give detailed analysis and
evolution of the schemes.29 The TVIBHA30 also includes photographic
visualisations which, while only an impression, do give a helpful idea of what
the developments would look like in context.
4.2 All schemes would involve the demolition and removal of the 1980’s
components of the site and the restoration, refurbishment and alterations to
the listed Georgian terrace. Keats House would also be redeveloped and the
proposals would involve the creation of new public realms, service and
ancillary spaces, a new entrance to London Bridge London Underground
Station and elevated garden space accessible to the public.
2018 Scheme
4.3 This would comprise a 37-storey tower (144m AOD) which would be positioned
in the south-eastern corner of the site. The broadly rectangular tower would
comprise an exposed structural steel frame with glazed walls. The northern
elevation incorporates a vertical curve with cut back corners. The widest point
would be at floors 21 and 22. The eastern and western sides would have an
exoskeleton bracing structure. In order to minimise solar gain, the southern
elevation would incorporate core features such as stairwells, vents, lifts and lift
lobbys and plant, all designed to be seen. A lower level 4 storey office block
would be located to the south-eastern corner at the site boundary with Kings
Head Yard.
4.4 The development would create around 54,501sqm of floorspace, the vast
majority of which would be office use. Publicly accessible elevated gardens
would be at levels 5 and 6 to give ‘Mary Poppins’ roof level views out across
27 SOCG-02
28 SOCG-01
29 CD-A-06 (2018 scheme) and CS-B-08 (2021 Scheme)
30 CD-A-12.2 (2018 Scheme) and CD-B-14.2 (2021 Scheme)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
London and include a cafe. The Hub would be located at levels 21 and 22 with
an auditorium spanning 2 floors, reception space and outdoor terrace.
4.5 The rear of the existing London Underground Station building would be opened
up to create a new entrance/exit point onto a new landscaped public square. A
gap in the frontage to St Thomas Street would be created between Keats
House and the listed Georgian terrace and a new yard area would link the
public square to this area, lined with the shopfronts to the rear of the terrace.
Areas behind Keats House would also be opened up and a passage (‘East
Yard’) created between the tower block and the rear of Guy’s and St Thomas
Hospital linking to Kings Head Yard to the south. The Kings Head PH would
have an open setting to the new public square with a stepped and ramped
access from this yard into the square due to level differences.
4.6 The Georgian terrace would be restored and refurbished with the creation of
affordable retail units to the ground floor and basements. The heavily altered
rear elevations would be restored and new shopfronts to the rear of the
terrace would be installed, looking out onto the newly created public square.
Upper floors would be converted to affordable office space and historic
floorplans would be reinstated. The 1930’s infill would be altered to remove the
doorway and create a through passage to the rear.
4.7 Keats House façade would be retained and relocated 2.7m west along St
Thomas Street and the west, south and east facades would be recreated to
provide further office and food and drink floorspace. A pair of pitched roofs
would be created to emulate the original form. The newly created gap
between Keats House and Conybeare House would be infilled with a perforated
brick screen with glass behind.31 This would facilitate service access onto the
Site from a loading bay on St Thomas Street for HGVs and refuse vehicles.
4.8 The development would be car free, with provision of two accessible parking
spaces. LGVs and cars would access an on-site loading bay at basement level
via White Hart Yard. Two vehicle lifts would also be provided to access the
lower basement level. Cycle facilities (including parking, lockers and showers)
would also be provided for employees and visitors.
2021 Scheme
4.9 The 2021 scheme presents a different design response to the 2018 scheme in
height, massing and architectural approach as well as servicing, public realm
and public garden.
4.10 It would comprise of the construction of a 26-storey building (108m AOD)
which would create 55,461 sqm of floorspace for office, affordable workspace
and some flexible office and retail provision. It would be a parallelogram shape
with rounded corners. It would broadly fill the width of the site behind the
Georgian Terrace and Kings Head Yard. It would have framed facades.
31 The works to Coneybeare House, as a Grade II* listed building would be subject to
separate planning and listed building consent which do not form part of these appeals. More
detail is set out in INQ-34. The SoS may wish to approach parties if more information on
these separate applications is required.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 17
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
4.11 The tower would be framed with pale coloured V shaped vertical and horizontal
structural glass reinforced concrete piers, the width of which would reduce
higher up the building, punctuated with aluminium ‘Chicago Windows’.32 The
northern façade would incorporate curved balcony areas with planting. The
southern elevation would incorporate solid inverted V pillars to minimise solar
gain. These would mask stairwells, vents, lifts and limit glazing to the lift
lobby areas.
4.12 At its base, there would be a 4-storey gallery area behind the Georgian terrace
which is covered above by the upper floors and supported by textured/profiled
concrete hexagonal piers. The set back area of the building would have double
order Chicago windows. The upper floors would oversail part of the rear roofs
to the Georgian terrace, supported by pillars which would be located close, but
not attached to, the rear facades of the terrace.
4.13 There would also be a 4-storey projecting area to the south-eastern corner to
follow the footprint of the edge to Kings Head Yard. This would have a flat roof
and would incorporate a garden terrace area above.
4.14 Similar to the 2018 scheme, the Georgian terrace would be restored and
refurbished, however this would be for affordable office (rather than any retail
provision) and the rear facades would be restored with the creation of new
sash window openings at ground floor level looking out onto the newly covered
gallery area. Historic floorplans would be reinstated and the 1930’s infill would
be altered to remove the doorway and create a through passage to the rear
from St Thomas Street.
4.15 Keats House façade would be retained. It would again be relocated, but in this
case 6m west of its current position in order to create a segregated service
entrance between Keats House and Conybeare House leading to a dedicated
service yard.33 The western façade would be recreated, while the eastern
façade would be curved to allow safe access to the service yard area. A crown
roof with skylights would be created behind the parapet to give additional
floorspace. To the rear would be a glazed access stairway and lift shafts which
would be under the tower block. The service yard area would also be
underneath the upper floors of the tower block with offices above from first
floor level and there would be no requirement for on-street servicing.
4.16 The main entrance to the site would be from St Thomas Street through a 10m
wide landscaped access area between the relocated Keats House and the
Georgian terrace, leading to the covered gallery.
4.17 The rear of the existing London Underground Station building would again be
opened up to create a new entrance/exit point onto a smaller public square
area with planting. The Kings Head PH would have a partially open setting to
the new public square, again with landscaped stepped access between these
areas.
32 Typically comprising of a large central pane of glass, flanked symmetrically by a pair of
opening vents
33 Again these works would require consent – see INQ-34.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
4.18 A publicly accessible roof garden would be created at the top of the building,
with panoramic café/restaurant, educational pavilion, and wildlife track around
the perimeter. A further a private garden terrace above the café/restaurant
would also serve the offices.
4.19 Again, the development would be car free, with provision for 2 accessible
spaces and cycle facilities (including parking bays, lockers and showers).
5 Planning History
5.1 This is set out in detail in the Planning SoCG. An analysis of the pre-application
discussions and consultations is also set out in the Appellant’s Design Proof of
Evidence (PoE).34
5.2 In short, since the redevelopment of the site in the 1980’s, planning and listed
building applications have only related to minor works. The schemes subject to
these appeals represent the first comprehensive redevelopment proposals for
the site.
5.3 Relevant to these appeals are consented and pending schemes for tall
buildings in the vicinity of the site. These have been assessed as part of the
TVIBHA’s (with an updated TVIBHA addendum for the 2018 scheme to reflect
the passage of time since the first one was undertaken).35
5.4 The Shard, which was granted permission following a call-in by the then
Secretary of State in 2003, is a 306m high tower, replacing Southwark
Towers.36 This is located on St Thomas Street, to the south-east of the appeal
site. The replacement of New London Bridge House was granted in 2010.
Known as London Bridge Place or more commonly, the News Building, this is a
17-storey mixed use building, designed by the same architect as the Shard.
This is located to the north-east of the appeal site, located off London Bridge
Street.
5.5 In 2014 consent was granted to demolish Fielden House and erect a part 26
and part 16 storey mixed use building. This is newly constructed and known
as Shard Place.37 It is located on St Thomas Street broadly opposite the gates
of Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital and was designed by the same architects as
The Shard.
5.6 In 2018 the redevelopment of London Bridge Station was completed with
extensive reconfiguration of tracks, new platforms, shops, cafes, bars and
restaurants, with entrances to St Thomas Street, Tooley Street and direct
access to the Shard and Shard Place.
5.7 Together The Shard, Shard Place and the News Building form a group known
as the London Bridge Shard Quarter. In particular, The Shard is recognised in
the SP as a new pinnacle within the existing cluster of tall buildings around the
station and Guy’s Hospital. The SP also seeks to protect this as a landmark.
34 Sections 5 and 8 of Mr Alford PoE (APP-1-A and APP-1-B). Further commentary is also
provided from the Council in a rebuttal Statement (LBS-W4).
35 2018 Scheme: CD-A-12.2 and CD-A-57 (addendum) and 2021 Scheme: CD-B-14.2
36 CD-H-17
37 CD-H-15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 19
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The 1970’s Guy’s Tower, at 154m AOD, is also part of the existing cluster of
tall buildings.
5.8 In terms of planning permissions which have not yet been completed, the
demolition and replacement of Capital House with a 39-storey building was
granted in 2020. This is located at 42-46 Weston Street (off St Thomas
Street), to the east of the site. Adjacent to this on St Thomas Street, the
replacement of Becket House was granted in 2021 for a 27 storey mixed-use
building.
5.9 The Mayor of London has also resolved to grant planning permission (subject
to a s106 agreement) at the Vinegar Yard, which is further east along St
Thomas Street for an 18 storey building.38 There is also a pending application
submitted in 2019 for buildings at 40-44 Bermondsey Street (adjacent to the
above site) for 3 buildings, ranging from 5- 17 storeys in height. An
application for the demolition of Colechurch House located at the end of
London Bridge, and replacement with a mixed-use development of up to 22
storeys in height was also submitted in 2020.39
6 The Case for the Appellant
Introduction
6.1 In a few words: even were it to be concluded that the 2018 and 2021
proposals would cause the extent and degree of LTSH to heritage the Council
and Historic England contend would be the case, the public benefits each
scheme would bring are so compelling both planning appeals should be
allowed.
6.2 The associated listed building consent appeals are uncontroversial and subject
to the imposition of suitably worded conditions should be allowed.
Overall development plan strategy relevant to the appeal site and proposals
6.3 It is important to understand the overall development plan strategy relevant to
the appeal site and proposals in order to set the proposals within their full and
proper context. The strategy is set by the LP and the SP, both of which are up-
to-date, although the SP was adopted after the LP40 such that, to the extent
that there is any conflict between policies in the respective plans, the conflict
is to be resolved in favour of the policy in the SP.41
6.4 The appeal site is within the CAZ, an Opportunity Area and a town centre.
There is a clear message of facilitating economic growth which is consistent in
policy underpinning these designations. The sites’ use for office-led
38 CD-G-04-01
39 It is understood that this was determined post the close of the Inquiry. The SoS may wish
to seek the details of this scheme. The SoS may wish to approach parties for the details on
this, is required.
40 The LP was adopted in March 2021 and the SP in February 2022
41 See section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 20
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
redevelopment would simultaneously contribute to meeting what are described
by the development plan as international, national and London-wide roles.42
There are also specific local roles.
6.5 The starting point for understanding the overall strategy is Policy GG5 of the
LP, the opening words of which aim “to conserve and enhance London’s global
economic competitiveness” by a series of imperatives (“must”) amongst which
are to “promote the strength and potential of the wider city region” and
planning for “sufficient employment... space in the right locations to support
economic development and regeneration.”
6.6 Part A of LP Policy SD4 for the CAZ states “The unique international, national
and London-wide roles of the CAZ .. should be promoted and enhanced”. Part
B is hugely significant to these appeals as it provides, with emphasis added:
“The nationally and internationally significant office functions of the CAZ should
be supported and enhanced .. including the intensification and provision of
sufficient space to meet demand for a range of types and sizes of occupier and
rental values.”
The demand-led approach i.e. not simply to fulfil economic projections, is
important and the significance of the CAZ in economic terms as “one of the
world’s most attractive and competitive business locations.” is
reiterated over and over in the LP.43
6.7 This international and national importance is crystal clear not just in Policy SD4
but throughout the LP. Policy SD5 specifically prioritises offices (by giving
office development greater weight relative to residential development) while
paragraph 2.5.1 of the supporting text to the policy reiterates “The CAZ is an
internationally and nationally significant office location”. In all these
examples, the boldened emphasis is in the LP itself.
6.8 The specific policy of the LP dealing with offices, Policy E1, makes it clear
(Parts B and C) that increases in the current stock of offices “should be
supported” in the CAZ. The same policy also provides (Part A) that
improvements to the quality of office space “should be supported”. Policy E1
thus lends supports to both quantitative and qualitative improvements in office
floorspace.
6.9 Moving from the CAZ to the Opportunity Area, Policy SD1 (Part A) of the LP
aims “To ensure that Opportunity Areas fully realise their growth and
regeneration potential”. Part B of the policy aims to “deliver the growth
potential of Opportunity Areas” (B1) and “support development which creates
employment opportunities” (B2). Opportunity areas are stated in paragraph
2.1.1 of the supporting text to the policy to be “significant locations with
development capacity to accommodate new … commercial development”.
42 Policy SD4 A of the London Plan
43 Paras 2.4.1 and 2.4.8 of the supporting text to Policy SD4.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 21
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.10 It is a strategic requirement under LP Policy GG2 to “enable the development
of brownfield land, particularly in Opportunity Areas .. and sites within .. town
centres..” (Part A), while prioritising sites which are well-connected by public
transport (Part B), promoting higher density development particularly in well-
connected locations (Part C) and optimising the development capacity of sites
(Part D). LP Policy SD6 also encourages offices in town centres as a way of
promoting their vitality and viability.
6.11 Alongside and interwoven with this, the LP also seeks to protect London’s
heritage.44 The key point in applying section 38(6) of the 2004 Act and
working out what determination (whether to allow or dismiss the appeals)
would be in accordance with the development plan (when read as a whole):
i) the LP has a demand-led approach to facilitate office redevelopment
proposals such as ours and it does so because it sees increasing the
supply and improving the quality of office floorspace in the various
designated areas within which the appeal site sits as being of global,
national and London-wide significance;
ii) the LP seeks to protect heritage, some of which (the WHS) is of
international significance; and
iii) to the extent these (i.e. i and ii) pull in opposite directions in cases
like the appeal proposals, as discussed later on in these submissions
the development plan reconciles any tension by recognising that
public benefits can outweigh harm to heritage.
6.12 The strategic policies of the LP are carried forward at a local level in the
Southwark Plan. Accordingly, SP Policy ST1 sets a development target of
10,000 jobs between 2019 and 2036 in the Opportunity Area (out of a target
of 58,000 jobs across Southwark). It also sets a Southwark target of 460,000
sqm of office floorspace in the same period and provides that around 80% of
this figure is to be delivered in that part of the CAZ in Southwark. Policy SP4
repeats these targets but makes it plain the 460,000 sqm of office floorspace
is a minimum. This policy also treats the Southwark jobs target as a minimum
figure. Policy ST2 explains that “Most new development will happen in the
Opportunity Areas..” Policy P30 of the SP specifically provides that in the CAZ,
town centres and opportunity areas development “must retain or increase the
amount of employment floorspace on site”.
6.13 Policy in the SP is then further refined by way of area sub-division, with the
area vision policy relevant to the site being AV.11”. The appeal site is within
the designated area as shown by the blue line on the “Vision Map” on page 92
of the SP. It is literally irrelevant that an evidence base document dating back
to 2013, the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study45,
may not at that stage have included the appeal site in London Bridge. What
counts is the adopted SP itself. Policy AV.11 variously provides that, as well as
London Bridge being an area with a rich heritage and one of the UK’s busiest
and fastest growing transport hubs it is “A globally significant central London
business district” where development should “Attract global commerce with
44 Including at 1.2.7, GG5 F, SD1 B4, SD4 C, 2.4.4 O, 2.4.9. These are just examples, there
are several others quite apart from the bespoke heritage policies themselves.
45 CD-E-13
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 22
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
headquarter and local offices” and support “inspiring new architecture”.
Growth of the area’s “strategic office provision” is a specifically identified
opportunity.
6.14 A specific facet of AV.1146 provides that development in London Bridge should
“Harness the expertise and infrastructure from Kings College London, Guy’s
Hospital and other medical and science facilities to develop a strong, dynamic
and specialised local economy that will attract new specialised services and
research and promote health and wellbeing in the local environment.” The
excellent fit of the two proposals with this objective was clear from the
evidence from Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust.47
6.15 Just as the LP, the SP also seeks to protect heritage not least via its bespoke
heritage policies. To the extent the drive for economic growth in the globally
significant London Bridge Area might give rise to tensions with heritage
protection policies one needs to look to see how the development plan seeks
to balance any tensions.
Approach to competing strands or tensions in the development plan strategy
6.16 Each proposal derives strong and emphatic support in principle from the LP
and SP policies concerning the global, national and London-wide significance of
office development in the four designated areas within all of which the appeal
site lies. However, to the extent the proposals would cause harm to heritage
they would be inconsistent with policies in the plans which seek to protect
heritage.
6.17 It is not unusual to find policies in a development plan pulling in opposite
directions. However, both schemes are in accordance with the development
plan when read as a whole when undertaking the planning balance.
6.18 Fortunately, the most recent part of the development plan, the SP, explicitly
explains how to reconcile matters. SP Policy AV.11 which supports “a mix of
inspiring new architecture .. and .. heritage..” in the London Bridge Area. Part
3.2 of SP Policy P17, as an important policy to the determination of the
appeals, specifically incorporates of a balancing exercise. This balance
amalgamates the point made in the first sentence of paragraph 200 with
paragraph 202 of the NPPF.48
6.19 The inclusion of such a balancing exercise in Policy P17 as the tall buildings
policy is noteworthy. Rather than just leaving things to other parts of the plan,
its specific reference can only be a recognition that tall buildings are inherently
likely to give rise to some or other harm to heritage. This is especially so were
one to adopt the Council’s and Historic England’s approach of treating a tall
building in the setting of a heritage asset as a “distraction” from and thus
harmful to the asset’s significance.
46 Ibid (8th of the 2nd set of bullets)
47 See also INQ-018
48 CD-D-01
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 23
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.20 The SP explicitly encourages more tall buildings “around London Bridge Station
and Guy’s Hospital”49 where it must surely be obvious it is impossible to build
a tall building without causing such “distraction”. The clue is in the word “tall”
and were there any doubt about it, the “Fact Box” on page 135 of the SP tells
us that a “point of landmark significance” is somewhere “which is or will be the
focus of views from several directions”. One can hardly be a focus of views and
yet not be seen in the setting of heritage assets in a heritage rich50 area like
London Bridge.
6.21 The Appellant’s case remains as put in opening51: “the cumulative, extensive
and very real public benefits either proposal would bring would comfortably
outweigh whatever LTSH to heritage you find either of them would cause; and
the same would go for any other harm you conclude would arise.” It is wrong
to suggest that the Appellant’s approach is to “sacrifice” heritage in favour of
growth. Instead, the Appellant relies on the way the development plan itself
seeks to make overall sense of those of its objectives which pull in opposite
directions.
Tall buildings
Broad area
6.22 In accordance with Part 1 of Policy P17 of the SP the appeal site falls within
the area where tall buildings are expected, as shown on the adopted Policies
Map and on Figure 4 of the Plan. Of course, the area shown is broad and it is
clearly not the case that any site within it is to be considered, without more
analysis, as suitable for a tall building. The fact that the appeal site falls within
the identified area is, however, the correct starting point. Little is to be gained
from reflecting that Southwark Cathedral is within the area in question. One
would not expect individual sites (although a more unlikely development site
than the Cathedral is hard to imagine) to be excluded from a broad area.
Perhaps more to the point is that the Council could have chosen to make it
clear that conservation areas were excluded from the area but, on the
contrary, they are included in it and part of allocation NSP52 “London Bridge
Health Cluster” (which includes the principle of a tall building) is in fact also
within the Borough High Street Conservation Area.
The relevance of allocation
6.23 It is not a pre-requisite of SP Policy P17 that tall buildings must be on a site
which has been allocated as one where they may be appropriate. The policy
does not say that tall buildings can only come forward on sites so allocated.
The correct approach is clearly (as is common ground) to consider the appeal
proposals against the detailed criteria of Policy D9 of the LP and Policy P17 of
the SP. Should there be a conflict between the criteria in the one plan
compared to the other, this is to be resolved in favour of the most recently
adopted plan.52
49 SP Policy P17 see Reasons para. 7
50 Policy AV.11 3rd bullet
51 INQ-03
52 Section 38(5) of the 2004 Act
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 24
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.24 The non-allocation of the site in the SP related to an inaccurate record of the
site’s supposed ‘fragmented ownership’.53 There is no suggestion that the site
was unsuitable for redevelopment for any other reason for a tall building in the
Council’s Site Allocations Methodology Report Update 2021 or in INQ-19 which
was the Council’s response.
6.25 Equally, nothing in the evidence base material for the SP carries any force in
deciding what is to be made of the non-allocation of the appeal site in the
Plan.54 The adopted SP does not say that tall buildings are confined to
allocated sites, and allows for their development on other sites in the broad
area identified in the plan, including sites in conservation areas.55 Rather than
banning tall buildings in conservation areas SP Policy P17 adopts the approach
of requiring any harm to heritage to be weighed against public benefits.
A cluster
6.26 The SP recognises the existence of a tall buildings cluster in the vicinity of
London Bridge Station and Guy’s Hospital. This is made unequivocally clear in
the reasons for Policy P17. These state at paragraph 7 that “The riverfront
areas of Blackfriars Road, Bankside and London Bridge provide an established
height for tall building clusters set back from the river with a number of
prominent buildings visible on the skyline including … Guy’s Hospital Tower,
London Bridge Place56, and the Shard. The Shard which stands at 309.6m, has
formed a new pinnacle within the existing cluster of tall buildings around
London Bridge Station and Guy’s Hospital. This tall building has redefined the
skyline of the area, making London Bridge a focus for new tall building
development.”
6.27 In respect of the proposition made by the Council that there are two distinct
clusters or families of tall buildings, one around the Shard and the other
farther to the east along St Thomas Street, the evidence57 clearly shows that
there is a cluster of tall buildings here and that it is one cluster.
6.28 There is also no evidence to support a further, related, claim made by the
Council that that the St Thomas Street allocations were intended to curate the
cluster by locating it as far away as possible from heritage assets. In this
regard we note that the notion in paragraph 7.3.28 of the TOLWHSMP58 that
“the area to the east of the Shard can accommodate substantially tall buildings
without their being visible from the Inner Ward” has proven to be wrong, as
demonstrated by photographic evidence.59 Each of the consented tall buildings
on allocation NSP53 (Capital House and Edge London Bridge) and the tall
building on allocation NSP54 approved by the Mayor (Vinegar Yard) would be
visible from the Inner Ward. Further, each of the allocations for tall buildings in
53 CD-E-09
54 For example in CD-E-08, CD-E-20, CD-E-18
55 It would be odd were it otherwise given the Council’s decision to approve Shard Place which
is in the same conservation area as the appeal site; nor was Shard Place identified in the draft
SPD as a suitable site for a tall building.
56 The News Building
57 Mr Allford PoE p34 – 36, 112, 128, 129, 179, 196 – 198.
58 CD-F-09
59 Mr Stewart PoE App 2, cumulative view 27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 25
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
the SP explicitly draws attention to heritage constraints which is hardly
surprising as one of the allocated sites is Guy’s Hospital itself.
6.29 The SP clearly promotes a cluster of tall buildings in the London Bridge Area. It
is important to appreciate that the approach of the SP has been developed in
the context of the increased protection to WHS (including the TOLWHS)
embodied in Policy HC2 of the LP.60 The present case is very different from the
Tulip decision61 in this respect.
6.30 Either proposal would form part of the cluster of tall buildings recognised in
Policy P17 to exist around London Bridge Station and Guy’s Hospital and
promoted in the SP. The proximity of the proposals to the Shard, Shard Place62
and Guy’s Hospital Tower makes it unrealistic to suggest otherwise. The appeal
site is diagonally across the street from Shard Place, the walk between them
being some 30 seconds. The approved tall buildings which would form the
foothills of the cluster to the east along St Thomas Street extend considerably
further from the Shard than would the proposed tall building on the appeal
site63. The schemes would be 118 metres from the centre of the Shard,
whereas the Vinegar Yard tower approved by the Mayor would be 238 metres.
Were the cluster to be left as it is, or as it would be with the approved
schemes, it would be pretty lop-sided. As CABE suggested,64 a tall building on
the appeal site could be regarded as the western stop of the cluster.
The cluster conundrum
6.31 The same issue of how to reconcile the development plan pulling in opposite
directions also arises when considering how the promotion of a cluster of tall
buildings at London Bridge fits with heritage considerations in the light of a
battery of policies, expressed in varying degrees of strictness, concerned with
protection of the historic environment. As said, tall buildings will almost
inevitably give rise to some adverse heritage impacts, particularly if one
accepts that distraction amounts to harm equation.
6.32 Again, this would be resolved in the planning balance. Policy P17 of the SP
provides as much. In so providing it not only acknowledges the likely risk of
some conflict between the development of tall buildings and heritage interests
but also puts forward its solution in incorporating a planning balance test
expressed by way of a requirement for clear and convincing justification for
harm to heritage significance in the form of public benefits.
6.33 A similar approach is taken in the LP which, in the tall buildings Policy D9, Part
C 1)d) provides “Proposals resulting in harm [to the significance of heritage
assets] will require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that
alternatives have been explored and that there are clear public benefits that
outweigh that harm.” The approach is similar but not identical to Policy P17
60 And also now found in Policy P24 of the SP.
61 CD-H-10
62 The eastern edge of the appeal site is only 86m from the western edge of the base of the
Shard (Mr Allford’s PoE, figure 102), 118m from its centre and 30m from Shard Place (Mr
Goddard’s RPoE, paragraph 4.9).
63 Mr Allford’s PoE, figure 115
64 CD-C-05
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 26
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
because this criterion refers to demonstrating that alternatives have been
explored in addition to the public benefits outweighing the harm. The
Appellant’s case is not only is the balance of harm and benefit to be struck
favourably but also that alternatives have been explored.
6.34 It is acknowledged that LP Policies HC1 and HC2 and SP Policy P24 do not
contain a criterion which would allow public benefits to be weighed against
harm to heritage. However, the tall buildings policy, D9, does in respect of
heritage generally (D9 Part C 1 d) albeit in D9 Part C 1) e) there is a criterion
that tall buildings “must preserve, and not harm, the OUV of the WHS, and the
ability to appreciate it” with no acknowledgment that public benefits can
outweigh harm. SP Policies P19 and P20 would also allow for public benefits to
be weighed against harm.
6.35 However, the approach in the most recently adopted plan, the SP, must prevail
and the bespoke tall buildings policy in the SP, Policy P17 Part 3 (2) explicitly
provides for the balancing exercise between harm to heritage and public
benefits. In so doing it does not exclude WHS.
6.36 Even had it done so, the decision-maker would be required under the “material
considerations” part of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act to apply paragraph 202
of the NPPF which necessitates the weighing of harm to heritage (any
designated heritage, including WHS) against public benefits. In other words,
whatever the route taken, all roads lead to the balancing exercise.
6.37 An example of the approach we describe is found in the Mayor’s approval of
the Vinegar Yard proposal. The Greater London Authority (GLA) report on this
proposal itemises occurrences of LTSH to several heritage assets (including the
Tower of London WHS)65 which it considered were “at the low to moderate end
of the scale”66 but concluded that the public benefits delivered by the scheme
would clearly and convincingly outweigh the heritage harm. The report also
concluded that, despite the breach of a number of heritage protection policies
in the development plan67, and thereby partial conflict with it, the proposal
was adjudged to accord with the development plan overall.68
A point of landmark significance
6.38 SP Policy P17 (Part 2 at indent 1) provides that tall buildings must be located
at “a point of landmark significance”. The “Fact Box” at the end of the policy
states that a point of landmark significance is “where a number of important
routes converge, where there is a concentration of activity and which is or will
be the focus of views from several directions.” Judged sensibly against this, a
tall building on the appeal site would be at a point of landmark significance.
6.39 The Fact Box is not to be read as if it was a statute. An overall planning
judgment is required. The microscopic location of a point of a convergence of
routes at Barclay’s Bank on the corner of St Thomas Street and Borough High
Street illustrates the overly prescriptive and artificial nature of the line of
65 CD-G-04 para 579
66 Ibid para 586
67 Ibid para 578
68 Ibid para 589
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 27
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
reasoning employed by the Council. The wider area of this junction (including
the appeal site) sensibly represents the convergence of a number of important
routes for the purposes of the Fact Box, especially when direct access to the
London Underground station (separated from the appeal site by the thickness
of only a wall – which it is proposed to remove) is taken into account. St
Thomas Street itself is also such a convergence not least in the sense of routes
by rail and tube. The concentration of activity around the area of the junction
and along St Thomas Street is not seriously to be doubted. And it is hardly
consistent with the Council’s case complaining about the visibility of the
proposed tall buildings to imply that either tall building will not be the focus of
views from several directions when their objection appears to rest on the
proposition that they will be.
6.40 If that strand of the Council’s reasoning which considered Fielden House
(Shard Place) to be a point of landmark significance because it was “located at
a significant river crossing”69 i.e. London Bridge itself, were to be applied to
the present case the appeal site is a point of landmark significance too.
6.41 It would be wrong to conclude that whereas all the tall buildings along St
Thomas Street from Vinegar Yard to the east to Shard Place to the west have
been considered to be located at a point (or points) of landmark significance,
the appeal site (which is that much closer to the junction of St Thomas Street
and Borough High Street, and London Bridge itself, and is the other side of a
wall from a tube station) is not.
Townscape and design
6.42 The townscape in the vicinity of the appeal site has undergone, and continues
to undergo, huge transformation in which taller buildings are an ever-
increasing characteristic, bringing with them contrasts in scale and
architectural style, which are all part of the area becoming a globally
significant business district. Each of the proposals constitutes exemplary
architectural and design quality. Either would enhance the character and
appearance of the area in townscape terms with any adverse effects greatly
outweighed by the beneficial effects. Striking new buildings would replace the
poor quality and dated 1980s office building; generous new and inviting public
realm would be created and the historic Georgian terrace would be
sympathetically restored.
6.43 The extensive tall building development which has already taken place and
been approved in the London Bridge area has led to an intermingling of the old
and new. The contrast that would be produced by juxtaposition of each of the
proposed tall buildings and their lower-scale immediate context would be
appropriate in accordance with SP Policies P17 and AV11.
6.44 The Appellant’s opening referred to “the contrasts in scale and style” where tall
buildings here in Southwark “are found cheek by jowl with and in the closer
and wider settings of heritage buildings and areas” and described these
contrasts as “threads in a rich tapestry woven by us in our era.” Paragraph 49
of the National Design Guide,70 under the heading of “context” very much
69 CD-H-15 para 105
70 CD-D-20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 28
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
encapsulates the same idea: “today’s new developments extend the history of
the context. The best of them will become valued as tomorrow’s heritage,
representing the architecture and placemaking of the early 21st century.”
6.45 The Council’s townscape and design objection to the present proposals suffers
from a number of significant problems. First, it is advanced in a way which
lacks any proper balance. It was asserted that that, save for the restoration of
the Georgian Terrace, there were no good things to be said about either of the
proposals. This is an untenable view which calls into question the objectivity of
the evidence. It does not even reflect the Council’s own pre-application
position in respect of the 2018 Scheme71 where (amongst a range of
criticisms) it was at least recognised that benefits flowed from “the generous
and well-proportioned square to the rear of the tube station and the new
public space on St Thomas Street” and that the proposal “also improves the
setting of the grade II listed Kings Head Public House, improving views of its
frontage and making it a feature of the new square.”
6.46 Secondly, critique was made regarding the absence of any “design story” for
the schemes and the related claim that it appeared that the design journey
had started with a tower rather than this resulting from the consideration of
alternative forms of development.
6.47 The design story is narrated in the Appellant’s evidence.72 The absence of any
such story was not made as a criticism until the Inquiry whereby (e.g. as set
out in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) for each scheme) the oral
evidence provided a superabundance of additional narration of the design
story.
6.48 Nor did the design process start with a tower as a given. A ‘do minimum’
option in terms of adapting the 1980s building was considered extensively over
a number of months but concluded to be an unviable proposition. There was
no “independent” report before the inquiry demonstrating this – nor is there
any need to do so. Informed views on that issue, from an architect expert in
the development of office buildings, is more than sufficient. It is also important
to remember that the Council have never previously challenged this position.
6.49 A further option considered before the idea of developing a tower was
generated was the ‘ocean liner’ concept (an 8-10 storey redevelopment filling
the site). This was rejected on the basis that it would not deliver public
benefits and a tall building solution was settled on after about nine months to
release space on the site for public realm and associated public benefits.
6.50 Accordingly, the consideration of the ‘do minimum’ and the ‘ocean liner’
options constitute, for the purposes of Policy D9 of the LP exploration of two
further alternatives in addition to the two schemes before the inquiry.
6.51 Thirdly, another main theme of the Council’s case was that the design process
for the schemes has been inadequately informed by context lacks any merit
and is refuted. Enormous attention has been given to context, including study
through map regression of how the appeal site and its context have changed
71 CDC-02
72 Mr Allford PoE
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 29
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
over time, detailed consideration of the historical evolution of Kings Head Yard
and exhaustive analysis of the changes that have brought about the Georgian
terrace as it now appears and how it relates to the earlier development of the
buildings on the north side of St Thomas Street. Consideration of context has
gone far beyond looking at the architectural language of surrounding buildings
and structures although this exercise has also been carried out with
thoroughness. New buildings in the area have also been appropriately
considered as part of the context.
6.52 Turning to the case of HE, this raises a point of principle in relation to design
insofar as it includes the proposition “design cannot be regarded as ‘good’ if it
causes unacceptable heritage harm”. This is misconceived. It is premised on a
non-existent free-standing notion of “unacceptable” heritage harm whereas
the true position is that, certainly in the case of LTSH caused by a proposal,
the proposal only becomes unacceptable if the conclusion is reached that the
heritage harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The
acceptability or unacceptability of heritage harm resides not in the harm itself
(as the proposition would mistakenly have it) but is the product of the
necessary balancing exercise. It plainly cannot be the case that “unacceptable
heritage harm” could mean, as suggested by HE, heritage harm which is
unacceptable to that organisation.
6.53 As it is, it is submitted that the requirements of the relevant design policies
have been met in this case.
6.54 Each scheme represents optimisation of the appeal site’s capacity by following
a design led approach in accordance with Policy D3 of the LP. The generous
public realm provided by each scheme and their relatively modest area uplifts
(x 3.97 for the 2018 Scheme and x 4.08 for the 2021 Scheme73 seen against
the generally much larger uplifts of the other modern tower schemes in the
vicinity) belie any suggestion of maximisation rather than optimisation. The
same is also true of the evidence given that the quantum of new office
floorspace, which had become fixed under the 2018 Scheme through the
evolving design process over some four years, was on the cusp of viable.
6.55 The design requirements of Policy P17 of the SP are met. Without itemising
each and every one of these requirements, each of the schemes have heights
that are proportionate to the significance of their location (at a point of
landmark significance) and the size of the site, make the necessary positive
contributions to local character and townscape, manifest exemplary
architectural design, provide generous public realm including elevated
gardens, avoid harmful environmental impacts, maximise energy
efficiency/prioritise the use of sustainable materials To the extent that there is
harm to designated heritage assets, these provide clear and convincing
justification in the form of public benefits.
6.56 Each proposal represents the inspiring new architecture demanded by SP
Policy AV.11 and neither infringes the requirement of that policy that the
Shard remains significantly taller and more visible than surrounding buildings.
The contention that the proposals would challenge the dominance of the Shard
73 INQ-17 slides 2B and 2C
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 30
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
should not be accepted. Any new tall building in the near vicinity of the Shard
would inevitably obstruct its visibility to some degree when viewed from a
particular angle at a particular point (e.g. the effect of the News Building when
seen from London Bridge). The requirement cannot be read to proscribe that
which would be impossible to achieve. The Shard would remain both
significantly taller and more visible than either of the proposals and the Shard
is particularly prominent in mid and more distant views.
6.57 Influences in relation to railway infrastructure and warehouses drawn from
outside sub-area 4 of the Conservation Area (in relation to the former) and
from a different conservation area (Tooley Street in relation to the latter) have
been appropriately relied on to influence the architectural language of the
proposals. The wider area is appreciated by those within it as a continuous
urban experience rather than entry into and exit from distinct conservation
sub-areas, with a series of relationships and views. The railway infrastructure
can be seen from sub-area 4 in any event. Each proposal would be seen from
outside the Conservation Area in any event. The approach taken by the appeal
schemes is not to dilute the distinctive character and appearance of sub-area 4
but to enrich it (just as Shard Place has done).
6.58 The assertion by the Council that there was a shortcoming in the design
process in respect of the 2021 Scheme in that it was not taken to CABE for
design review, resulting in a breach of Part 4 of Policy D3 “Delivering good
design”, is a bad point. The Council did not suggest that the 2021 proposal
should go to CABE, instead a local design review panel was suggested for a
date which was not convenient and the Council never returned with an
alternative date but later made it clear in an email to the Appellant that the
2021 Scheme would not be supported in any event. Importantly, the 2021
scheme arose from the many years of extensive consultation which preceded it
in respect of the 2018 scheme (both before and after the submission of the
2018 application) and was primarily directed at addressing the criticism of the
relationship between the 2018 scheme and Southwark Cathedral. The 2021
scheme achieved at least some success in that regard as whereas the
Cathedral object to the 2018 scheme, they support the 2021 scheme.
6.59 Finally on the subject of townscape and design it is worth remembering that
the Council’s statements of case in respect of each scheme74 contend “the
scale and design of the proposed development is not appropriate for this site
and its surrounding context, resulting in harm to the townscape and local
character.” The Appellant strongly disagree but if the conclusion is reached
that there would be harm of the nature alleged then, along with any harm to
heritage, it would need to be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposals. The Appellant’s case is that the public benefits of the proposals are
so compelling they would outweigh not only harm to heritage but also, if any is
added to the weighing scales, harm to townscape and local character. The
reality is that much of the case made against the proposals in terms of harm
to townscape is based on the same or similar points to those made in relation
to harm to heritage (they certainly morph into each other) and if the public
benefits are sufficient to outweigh harm to heritage, bearing in mind the
74 CD-I-03 and CD-I-04 -para 8.20 in both
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 31
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
particular weight which is to be given to any such harm, it is hard to see how
the benefits would not also outweigh harm to townscape.
Heritage
Matters of Approach
6.60 The uncontentious starting point in approaching heritage issues is that the
question of whether there is harm to a designated heritage asset is to be
answered by asking whether there is harm to the significance of the asset.
6.61 Neither the Council nor Historic England contend that there is substantial harm
to any heritage asset. It is important to understand where the boundary lies
between substantial and LTSH in order that the magnitude of harm can be
more clearly understood. It is common ground with both the Council and HE
that substantial harm is a high test, as provided in paragraph 18 of the
Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) on Historic Environment.75
6.62 Taking the example of works to a listed building as a proxy for impacts on
heritage assets in general, it can be inferred from paragraph 18 of the PPG
that LTSH is generally to be understood as harm which does not seriously
affect a key element of the asset’s special architectural or historic interest,
that is, its significance.
6.63 An essentially similar point emerges from the way in which matters were put
by the court in the Holocaust Memorial case76 where the judge concluded that
the inspector in that case had interpreted “the relevant test for substantial
harm” as being “the serious degree of harm to the asset’s significance”. This
formulation, equating as it does “substantial” with “serious”, was (correctly)
accepted by counsel for the claimant on the basis that it “reflects the wording
of the Planning Practice Guidance and is an expression of Government policy”
and it was adopted by the court.77
6.64 HE was not able to say whether the harm was LTSH either because it did have
a serious effect but not on a key element of the asset’s significance or because
it did have an effect on a key element of the asset’s significance but that effect
was not a serious one.
6.65 HE agreed with the formulation in the Holocaust Memorial case that substantial
harm involves serious harm to significance (with its inevitable corollary that
LTSH does not involve serious harm) yet was unable to explain how the
heritage harm is serious notwithstanding that it is LTSH. This is a contradiction
in terms as it involves this proposition: substantial harm means serious harm,
the harm here is not substantial but it is serious.
6.66 Turning next to the question of calibration of the degree of harm arising in a
case of LTSH, that calibration must be against the whole heritage interest of
the asset. It is therefore contextually relevant in this regard, where impacts
75 CD-D-11
76 CD-H-07 The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v The Minister of State for Housing
[2022] EWHC 829 (Admin)
77 Ibid para 35
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 32
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
are indirect (affecting setting only), to keep in mind there are no direct
impacts.
6.67 This leads us to the Edith Summerskill House decision78 which contains a clear
analysis of how setting impacts can be approached. The analysis is of
particular relevance in this case in that all the heritage impacts here apart
from the (beneficial) interventions in respect of the Georgian Terrace and the
direct impacts on the Conservation Area are impacts on setting. The Inspector
reasoned “in cases where the impact is on the setting of a designated heritage
asset, it is only the significance that asset derives from its setting that is
affected. All the significance embodied in the asset itself would remain intact.
In such a case, unless the asset concerned derives a major proportion of its
significance from its setting, then it is very difficult to see how an impact on its
setting can advance a long way along the scale towards substantial harm to
significance.”79
6.68 That Inspector rounded the analysis off as follows: "it is often argued that such
an approach leads to harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset
being underestimated. However, what is under consideration is the impact of
change on the significance of a designated heritage asset. If that change would
come about as a result of development in the setting of that asset, then it is
only the component of significance that the asset derives from its setting that
would be affected. That is the outcome of the approach the Framework
takes.”80
6.69 The SoS agreed with the Inspector’s reasoning in the above paragraphs81. It is
submitted that the Inspector’s analysis is clear and compelling in its logic.
6.70 In the Council’s opening it was suggested that the approach taken in the Edith
Summerskill House decision was different from the approach taken in the Tulip
decision and it was indicated that the Council preferred the latter (although it
was recognised that it was a matter of judgment). In the latter the Inspector
said 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.”82 The Appellant submit that there is in fact little difference
between the approaches in that the essential focus of each is on the
contribution made to significance by setting. Thus it is considered that that the
Tulip approach has been followed but that, not inconsistently, the question of
‘what was left untouched’ had figured also been consideration as relevant. The
Appellant’s are not saying that harm to setting was always less significant than
harm to historic fabric but that it was less with the proposals presently under
consideration.
6.71 Next, based on the Glossary definition of the conservation of a heritage asset
in the NPPF and paragraph 199 of the NPPF provides that great weight should
be given to the asset’s conservation it is necessarily the case not just that
78 CD-H-20
79 Ibid para 12.50
80 Ibid para 12.54
81 Ibid para 13
82Ibid para 14.2 and para 16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 33
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
great weight should be given to harm to an asset’s significance but also that
heritage benefits arising through enhancement of significance should carry
great weight.
6.72 As for paragraph 202 of the NPPF, we add that satisfaction of the balancing
test it contains supplies the necessary clear and convincing justification
required by paragraph 200 of the NPPF for harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset; there is but one test, not two.
6.73 Finally in respect of matters of approach, assessment of the effect of a
proposal on a CA is to be undertaken by reference to the area as a whole
rather than by reference to the particular sub-area (4) in which the appeal site
lies. This is now disputed by HE.83 However, paragraph 207 of the NPPF
explicitly refers to assessing the conservation area (and indeed, WHS) as a
whole.
The role of photographs and visualisations
6.74 Photographs and visualisations are a tool to provide assistance but are no
more than that and do not provide a substitute for going out on site. They
cannot capture the human viewing experience and the points from which the
photographs are taken and the visualisations provided are not, in the majority
of cases, ‘views’ proper but simply photos taken from places where you would
or might see the proposed tall building in either scheme. And, of course, views
change and evolve in a dynamic sequence as the viewer proceeds on whatever
may be his or her way.
6.75 Some caution is therefore to be exercised in considering the photographs and
visualisations. For example, the photographs from London Bridge do not
convey the true on-site experience in which tall buildings behind Southwark
Cathedral are, as things presently stand, readily apparent to the viewer
(walking from north to south across the bridge).
The environmental assessment process
6.76 Both the Council and HE that contend that, where the TVIBHA84 identified
major adverse effects in relation to heritage assets, that was not to be
equated with major adverse harm to the significance of the heritage assets.
However, the extent of the harm to the heritage significance of the assets
(harm being encompassed in the finding of an adverse effect) is to be found in
the narrative part of the assessment which follows on after the “mechanical”
assessment of the significance of the change to the asset has been completed.
The main heritage assets
6.77 Turning to the consideration of the main heritage assets (as identified below)
where harm could potentially arise, the evidence is clear in relation to the
main and all other heritage assets. The restoration of the Georgian Terrace at
4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street is also a heritage benefit which should,
accordingly, be afforded great weight.
83 INQ-38 paras 117 – 121
84 CD-A-12.2 and CD-B-14.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 34
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.78 The Heritage SOCG very helpfully sets out a comparison of the presence or
absence of harm and the extent of any LTSH as concluded by each of the
parties on heritage for each scheme. Even if HE’s and / or the Council’s
assessments of the presence and extent of LTSH to be preferred across the
board, the Appellant submits the public benefits individually and cumulatively
of each scheme are so compelling that they would outweigh all such harm,
acknowledging of course that the presence of heritage harm creates a strong
presumption against the grant of permission (the presumption is rebuttable by
public benefits) and that considerable importance and weight, indeed great
weight, is to be given to heritage harm (just as it is to heritage benefits).
Borough High Street Conservation Area
6.79 It is considered that, in the round, the effect of the 2018 Scheme on the
character and appearance of the BHSCA would be positive. There are some
minor losses of heritage significance as a result of adverse effects on the
appearance of the BHSCA as seen from a limited number of locations but that
these are outweighed by the substantial public benefits in terms of urban
design and townscape improvements to the site and wider area delivered by
the 2018 Scheme, which include significant improvements to the character and
appearance of the BHSCA. The conclusion is the same for the 2021 scheme.
6.80 The overall enhancement stems not least from the opening up of the site to
public access for people to enjoy. In the case of either the 2018 or 2021
Scheme there would be a tall building in the BHSCA to join Shard Place just
across the street, and the other tall buildings – not least the Shard – a few
paces away from the CA but, as the CAA says: “Borough High Street has
throughout its history had to accommodate change, and part of its character is
due to the immense variety that change has brought.”85 That was written in
2006 since when there has been more change and greater variety added to
the continuum.
6.81 The Council and HE have repeatedly referred to Shard Place as being at the
edge/the very edge of the Conservation Area while the appeal site has been
characterised as being located at its heart. The fact remains though that the
two sites are diagonally opposite each other, a few metres apart – even were
one to accept the characterisation the result would be that Shard Place is 30
seconds walk from the heart of the Conservation Area and the appeal site 30
seconds walk from its edge/the very edge.
6.82 The approach of the Council and HE in relation to the enclosure of King’s Head
Yard (and the part opening-up of this enclosure by the appeal schemes) in
particular is in stark contrast to the views of others and our own. The GLA
Stage 1 Report86 demonstrates the point as it recognises the alleyway being
characteristic of the historic street pattern and the significance of BHSCA but
details the unattractive nature of the route and its negative effect on the
setting of the grade II listed Kings Head PH. GLA Officers considered that the
public square, while a significant change, would be positive and not give rise to
harm.
85 CD-E-06 para 5.2.8
86 CD-G-02
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 35
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Guy’s Hospital
6.83 The harm to Guy’s Hospital from each of the 2018 and 2021 Schemes would
be considerably less than substantial. The impact of seeing the tower in the
2018 Scheme rising behind the central pedimented bay of the western wing of
the forecourt87 would have a minor effect on the ability to appreciate the
building’s significance.
6.84 This is a realistic calibration of the harm and to be preferred to that of the
Council and HE who are over-attached to notions of visual competition and
distraction and the like. We appreciate that concepts like these feature in
Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 3 “The Setting of Heritage
Assets”88 but they are not the conclusion of the analysis required by the NPPF.
If it is concluded that there would be visual competition / distraction / drawing
the eye away / harm to the ability to appreciate the significance of the asset or
any such, whether in relation to Guy’s or any of the other heritage assets
within the setting of which the proposals would stand, one must still go on to
work out whether this effect would cause harm to the significance of the asset.
The Framework repeatedly and exclusively refers to impact on / harm to the
significance of a heritage asset.89 It is acknowledged that visual distraction etc,
if found, is a material consideration. However, the point is that it is simply a
step in the analysis but not its conclusion. One must be careful not to assume
that visual distraction (or similar) would harm the heritage significance of the
asset in question. One must ask and answer the questions – does it, and if so,
how?
6.85 However much one were to write about the significance of Guy’s Hospital, it
would be unlikely that the ability to view its western forecourt wing against a
clear sky would be identified as a contributor. And visual competition (one
might just as well substitute for competition the word variety) between old and
new or low and tall buildings, often without the ability to appreciate the
historic against clear sky, is an inescapable feature of central London including
the close vicinity of the appeal site.
Southwark Cathedral
6.86 The assessment of the impact of the 2018 Scheme in relation to Southwark
Cathedral is careful and balanced. These are summarised for the 2018 scheme
as follows90. There are positive and negative aspects of the effects of the 2018
Scheme on the Cathedral’s setting. Most aspects of the Cathedral’s setting are
unaffected by the 2018 Scheme, but considered in the round, the 2018
Scheme would cause some harm to the heritage significance of this listed
building. The degree of harm would be minor, arising from the unsatisfactory
visual relationship between the two towers (the 2018 Scheme tower and the
87 See view 49 in the 2018 TVIBHA CD-A-12.1
88 CD.F.04
89 NPPF paras 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, and 207
90 Mr Stewart PoE para 5.64 and 10.45 (for 2021 scheme)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 36
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Cathedral Tower) as seen from certain points, which would have a small effect
on the viewer’s ability to appreciate the Cathedral seen clearly against the sky.
When one considers that most of the Cathedral’s significance subsists in its
fabric, that its setting is varied and takes in many large commercial buildings,
and that most of its immediate setting is modern, it is apparent that any harm
to its significance is minor and, in NPPF terms, considerably LTSH.
6.87 The Cathedral’s setting was not an historic one, unlike Canterbury, York or
Lincoln and that, while the asset was grade I, its setting was not of grade I
quality. The setting has also been far from static over time and, as the CAA
says, the Cathedral is “set within the ever-changing environment of its modern
setting.” 91
Tower of London World Heritage Site
6.88 The assessment of no harm is sensible and measured. Again to summarise the
2018 Scheme92 it would be visible from only limited points within the ToL
WHS, which is about 750m [and across the River] from the appeal site.
Looking out from the WHS, one would see, from those points in it where the
2018 Scheme could be seen, the development appearing as part of the
grouping of late twentieth century modern and tall large scale buildings at
London Bridge, providing balance to the composition. The 2018 Scheme would
not harm any elements of setting that contribute to the heritage significance or
OUV of the WHS and there would be no effect on any of the attributes of the
OUV, leading to the conclusion of no harm to heritage significance.
6.89 A similar analysis applies in the case of the 2021 Scheme93 where the evidence
to the position of the Council and HE who describe in this case harm at the low
end of the range for LTSH (the Council) or as a low / very low level of LTSH
(HE)).
6.90 That any degree of harm is identified in the case of the 2021 Scheme is
indicative of an unduly demanding approach to harm which would appear to
equate any visibility, however limited, of a tall building above the Inner Ward
as harmful.94 That approach seems to reflect the views of the UNESCO-
ICOMOS Reactive Mission Monitoring Report of 2011 considered by the World
Heritage Committee at its meeting in June 2012. The extract states, in the
context of considering the Shard, that “if any tall buildings are planned, these
should not exceed the height by which they would become visible above the
on-site historic buildings that are part of the Tower complex.” The extract
continues by opining that “any additional tall buildings in the area would
destroy the visual integrity of the property and severely compromise its
Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), possibly beyond repair.” 95
6.91 The extreme nature of this latter view does not deserve to be taken seriously.
The postulates of destruction of visual integrity and severe compromise of OUV
would clearly amount to substantial harm in NPPF terms. But no one suggests
91 CD-E-06 para 3.4.3
92 Mr Stewart PoE para 5.70
93 Ibid para 10.47
94 Mr Young PoE paras 10.33 and 10.34.
95 Extracts cited in Dr Barker-Mills PoE para 4.15 and Mr Young PoE para 10.19
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 37
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
in the present case that the visibility of the tall buildings proposed by either
appeal scheme would (despite visibility from the ToL) come anywhere close to
occasioning substantial harm. It would therefore be wrong to equate visibility
of tall buildings above the Inner Ward of the ToL with harm to its OUV on the
basis of a document which is patently laden with an inflated conception of
harm.
St Paul’s Cathedral
6.92 Neither the 2018 Scheme nor the 2021 Scheme would affect one’s ability to
appreciate the significance of St Paul’s Cathedral from either of the London
View Management Framework views 2A.1 (Parliament Hill) or 3A.1 (Kenwood)
or, indeed, in any other views, whether of borough significance or not96.
Other issues
Servicing (2018 Scheme)97
6.93 In respect of the 2018 scheme, even if one were to take TfLs case at its
highest, the Council (adopting that case) does not advance it as a reason for
refusal but simply says that there would be some harm, attracting moderate
weight, which should be factored into the planning balance.98 This in itself
really tells you all you need to know about whether the Council considers that
the servicing proposals would pose an unacceptable impact on road safety or
would lead to a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network
because, in either of those eventualities, they would be required to suggest
refusal in accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF.
6.94 TfL initially accepted the servicing proposals for the 2018 Scheme as their
written representations confirm99 and the GLA Stage 1 Report reflected this
position by describing the servicing strategy to be acceptable in principle100
with details to be further addressed by condition101. Whether or not TfL
accepted the position reluctantly102 or not on the basis that there was no
viable on-site solution is neither here nor there. The fact is that they accepted
the strategy in principle. They would hardly have reached that position if the
strategy was genuinely flawed to an unacceptable degree.
6.95 TfL’s change of position cannot be justified by reference to policy. Policy T7 of
the LP requires that with on-street loading bays only used where it is not
possible to provide them off site. TfL appear to argue that the fact that the
2021 Scheme has come forward with on-site servicing supersedes their earlier
view of the 2018 scheme based on acceptance that on-site servicing was not
possible, when the 2021 scheme now shows that it is.
6.96 The schemes are completely different and each requires to be judged on its
own merits. TfL’s representatives never answered the question posed at the
96 Mr Stewarts PoE paras 5.74-5.76 (2018 Scheme) and paras 10.50-10.52 (2021 Scheme)
97 No issue arises in respect of serving proposals for the 2021 Scheme.
98 Mr Glasgow PoE para 11.9
99 CD-C-24 para 35
100 CD-G-02 para 86
101 Ibid para 78
102 Ibid para 35
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 38
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
round table session whether on-site servicing is possible with the 2018
scheme. It is not. The possibility is to be judged by reference to the scheme in
question considered on its merits. To suggest otherwise is wrong as a matter
of interpretation. Policy T7, Part G is satisfied in the case of the 2018 Scheme.
6.97 Any suggestion that TfL’s change of position might be justified in the light of
the Mayor’s Vision Zero Policy objectives is not correct. Vision Zero had
already been around for a year by time of the GLA Stage 1 Report and the
Mayor’s Healthy Streets and Vision Zero objectives were taken into account in
that response.103
6.98 As for the on-street servicing bay proposals, the evidence104 shows this
arrangement would work satisfactorily and, with the combination of the
consolidation strategy proposed and the introduction of control over the timing
of vehicle deliveries (with only two during the working day as opposed to
seven at present), would represent an improvement over the existing
situation. The loading bay could be designed not to interfere unacceptably with
pedestrian movement on a widened footway or any cycle lane. The
experimental footway widening scheme presently out for consultation could,
with minor alterations, accommodate the 2018 Scheme (and the 2021
Scheme).105
6.99 The use of White Hart Yard for smaller vehicle deliveries would not create
unacceptable risks. Following consolidation there would be 23 such vehicles
over a 24-hour period. None of these deliveries would take place during peak
pedestrian periods and there would be a maximum of four vehicles an hour
outside such periods. The narrowness of the exit to White Hart Yard and the
reduced visibility at that point encourages drivers to pull out slowly and
carefully. There have been no recorded accidents involving pedestrians and
vehicles at this junction.
6.100 Seen in the round with the removal of vehicular traffic from King’s Head Yard
using the present service yard of the existing building as a car park and, more
importantly, the reduction in pedestrian flows on the crowded footways at the
junction of Borough High Street and St Thomas Street (brought about by the
new routes through the site), the servicing arrangements in the 2018 Scheme
would meet Policy T2 “Healthy Streets” of the LP.
6.101 The servicing strategy for the 2018 Scheme is underpinned by detailed
controls in the section 106 agreement requiring, inter alia, a delivery and
service management plan and a delivery and service monitoring plan backed
up with a delivery and service cash deposit to ensure compliance.
BREEAM
6.102 The Council now accepts that the BREEAM “very good” standard is appropriate
for the Georgian Terrace.
Climate change and sustainability
103 CD-G-02 para 78
104 Mr Vaughan PoE
105 INQ-27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 39
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.103 The Council now accepts that, in respect of the 2018 Scheme, compliance with
the necessary policy requirements can be achieved by condition.
Daylight and sunlight
6.104 SP Policy P56 lists daylight and sunlight as one of a number of considerations
to be taken into account in coming to a conclusion whether development would
cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to present or future occupiers. In
respect of the schemes’ impact on daylight and sunlight at the student
accommodation at Orchard Lisle House and Iris Brook House to be carried into
the planning balance as moderate harm, the Council conceded that there was
no breach of the policy, rather than the alleged tension with the policy. In the
absence of a policy breach, it is difficult to see how moderate harm can arise
to be carried into the balance. Policy is the arbiter of harm. If the policy is not
breached there is no unacceptable loss of amenity and any loss of amenity
below that threshold is, by definition, acceptable. The Appellant takes the
position that the daylight and sunlight losses had no material part to play in
the overall decisions.
Public benefits
6.105 The public benefits either scheme would bring, cumulatively, are enormous.
The range of benefits is substantially agreed (as set out in the Planning SOCG)
and the real point of departure between the Appellant’s and the Council is the
weight to be given to each benefit in turn and then to their accumulation
overall. Some of the more important differences are singled out below.
Helpfully, there is an agreed statement that sets out side by side for easy
comparison the weight given to the benefits by the Appellant and the
Council.106 The Appellant’s case is that the Council has talked down the
benefits.
6.106 Also, it is important to include the considerable public benefits secured by the
s106 planning obligations, and the CIL payments.
Quantity and quality of office space
6.107 Either proposal would bring about a major improvement in the quantity and
quality of office space on the site. In the 2018 Scheme there would be 46,374
sqm of Grade A office accommodation, resulting in an uplift of 33,611 sqm of
office floorspace across the site. The 2021 Scheme would provide 49,049 sqm
of Grade A office accommodation, resulting in an uplift of 36,286 sqm of office
floorspace across the site. Either scheme would thus make a significant
quantitative contribution (7.2% and 7.7% respectively of Southwark’s net
minimum additional office floorspace target) of new office floorspace in a
policy-compliant location. Coupled with the high quality of the new floorspace
to be provided, substantial weight is attached to this benefit. This is especially
so given the strong policy support for more and better quality office floorspace
in the globally, nationally and London-wide significant location within which the
appeal site lies.
106 INQ-32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 40
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.108 The Council’s attribution of only moderate weight to this benefit on the basis
that strategic targets can comfortably be achieved without the uplift in
floorspace that the schemes would deliver107 is wrong in principle. Providing
more floorspace in circumstances where there is no cap on its delivery (the
target is a minimum) is not a reason to reduce the weight to be attached to it.
That is especially so in circumstances where uncontested market overview and
demand analysis108 points to the difficulty of meeting demand for new build
grade A office space in the SE1 market with only 4% of the potential future
supply having minimal entry barriers. Planned allocations do not necessarily
translate into deliverable consents. The appeal site is owned by GPE, a hugely
experienced and well-funded developer of office floorspace in central London.
Once again, one must keep firmly in mind the importance (global, national and
London-wide) attached by the development plan to more and better quality
office space in the 4 designated areas in which the appeal site sits, and that
the approach in the LP is to meet demand for office floorspace. In the light of
points like these it really is hard to fathom how only moderate (middling)
weight should be given. It is self-evidently a matter of substantial weight.
Employment and the contribution to the local economy
6.109 Either scheme would generate significant job creation at construction and
operational stages, accompanied by worker spend in the local economy and an
increase in GVA. The net additional FTE jobs in the operational phase, more
than 2,000 and 3,000 in the 2018 and 2021 Schemes respectively should in
any sensible analysis be seen as very important indeed.109 Substantial weight
is given to the benefits of employment and the contribution to the economy.110
6.110 The Council relies on the Appellant’s ES scoping report for the 2018 Scheme to
attach only moderate weight to the job benefits on the basis that the scoping
report stated that the jobs were unlikely to be materially significant in the
wider London area. 111 However, the proposals would deliver on a single site
22% (2018) or 30% (2021) of the target of 10,000 jobs for the Opportunity
Area. This is a sizeable contribution to an important SP policy target. Whatever
may have been the views of the environmental assessors, a London-wide jobs
perspective is a poor basis for a comparative judgment when specific
development plan targets are set for the more immediate area of the site.
Indeed, the Council themselves rely on local Southwark policy considerations
in giving significant weight to the schemes’ provision of affordable
workspace112 as is correct to do.
6.111 Returning to the London-wide comparison, given that London supports 5.7m
jobs,113 any scheme would struggle to make a significant quantitative jobs
contribution measured against this yardstick. The schemes could also be
107 Mr Glasgow PoE para 8.4
108 Mr Goddard PoE app 2 -Cushman & Wakefield market overview and demand analysis
109 Chris Goddard Proof paras 9.6 and 9.7 and as extracted from the Volterra report in
appendix 6 to this proof.
110 Chris Goddard Proof para 9.20.
111 Mr Glasgow PoE para 8.9
112 Ibid para 8.6
113 Paragraph 2.2.2 of the LP.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 41
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
significant for jobs at a London-wide level in qualitative, if not quantitative
terms, for their potential to attract occupation as a global headquarters.
6.112 There is no reason to reduce the weight given to job creation on the basis that
the schemes would do no more than comparable schemes. The obverse is the
case. A comparable scheme should also attract the same substantial weight. It
is not to be forgotten that paragraph 81 of the NPPF provides that significant
weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and
productivity taking into account, inter alia, local business needs (as evidenced
in this case in the Cushman & Wakefield market overview and demand
analysis).
Public realm
6.113 The same theme of devaluation of the public benefits of the schemes is
apparent in the Council’s attribution of only limited weight to the public realm
that they provide, in contrast to very substantial weight that should be
attached to this dimension of the schemes as part of an assessment of the
wider topic of design quality and public realm. The GLA Stage 1 Report was
also strongly supportive of the public realm in the 2018 Scheme114.
6.114 The public realm is generous. 1,355 sqm of new public realm is provided at
ground level in the 2018 Scheme. To be added to this is the 700 sqm of the
new elevated public garden (excluding the café). This makes a total of 2,055
sqm of new (multi-level) public realm overall which amounts to 73% of the
available site area (the Georgian Terrace and Keats House not being
available). As it stands, the existing site provides purely theoretical public
realm (taking the most generous but wholly fanciful view) of 211 sqm. 1,136
sqm of new public realm is provided at ground level in the 2021 Scheme. To
be added to this is the 780 sqm of new elevated public garden. This makes a
total of 1,916 sqm overall. In both schemes, public realm outside the appeal
site boundary would also be enhanced.
6.115 The elevated free to access public gardens in the schemes are a unique feature
of the developments. None of the existing tall buildings in the area has such a
facility nor are any of the other proposals coming forward on St Thomas Street
delivering one.
6.116 The criticism that the public realm would be too busy with people passing
through to enable space to dwell is misplaced. Appropriate areas to dwell are
illustrated on the Space Syntax diagrams in respect of both the 2018 and the
2021 schemes.115 The provision of shade which has also featured as a quibble
about the external public realm (although there will be plenty of daylight and
reasonable sunlight) is not a bad thing but a good thing. The fact that 54% of
the public realm would be enclosed is by no means an unsatisfactory feature of
the 2021 Scheme but, on the contrary, represents an entirely appropriate
design response in the provision of an elegant side lit gallery 17m tall with
echoes of the highest part of the concourse reaching up to the elevated
platforms at London Bridge Station.
114 CDG.02 paras 28-30.
115 INQ-17 slides 18-13 and 21-11 (Space Syntax diagrams)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 42
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.117 If any implications were being suggested for the success of the public realm in
the 2018 Scheme in the light of the decision in respect of the 2021 Scheme to
remove from the latter much of the retail provision proposed in the former,
there is no concern in that regard. A good developer might well decide to
address any resulting issue by cross subsidy of uses so that public space was
activated; and it would realistically be expected that activity and engagement
would be curated over time by the management of the building. In addition,
there is affordable retail space in the 2018 scheme.
Sustainable transport benefits
6.118 The nadir of the Council’s approach to valuing the public benefits of the
schemes comes in its attribution of only limited weight to the creation of a new
entrance to the underground station, the permeability provided by the new
routes through the site and the relief provided to crowded footways on
Borough High Street – all in contrast to the very substantial weighting which
should be attached. The new access to the underground station is another
unique and exceptional public benefit of our proposals. The GLA Stage 1
Report in respect of the 2018 Scheme “strongly supported”116 the new station
entrance and improved pedestrian access between Borough High Street and St
Thomas Street. In CABE’s response of 1st June 2018 it was observed that “the
panel was impressed by the proposed creation of a new entrance to the
underground station together with the new public space to activate Kings Head
Yard and integrate it into the public realm. The proposed development
promises to seize a unique opportunity to enhance connectivity and public
realm in the area.”117
6.119 What is to explain the Council’s reluctance to acknowledge the true worth of
the benefit we are providing here? It seems to come down to the view that
“the principal beneficiaries of the new access would likely be those employed
within the development.” 118 This is not the case: see INQ-24. Some 70% of
the users of the new public realm would not be users of the new buildings.119
The Council’s note120 on the subject attempts to cast doubt on this although
the queried input was agreed with TfL modellers121 and importantly, puts
forward no alternative figure of his own. On the evidence, the only conclusion
open to be reached is that most of the users of the new public realm would not
be people working in the buildings on the appeal site. The entrance / exit isn’t
as busy as others at London Bridge but this mustn’t be allowed to distract from
the absolute numbers – we are talking about thousands of people using this
entrance / exit in the busier hours. Quite apart from the fact that the large
majority of the users of the new public realm would not be users of the new
buildings, it is to be noted that the TfL recognise this as a public benefit.122
Heritage benefits
116 CD-G-02 para 86
117 CD-C-09
118 Mr Glasgow PoE para 8.15
119 INQ-24
120 INQ-33
121 Ibid para 12
122 CD-C-24 para 23
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 43
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
6.120 The restoration of the Georgian Terrace represents a heritage benefit, and is
agreed to be such in the Planning SOCG.123 It is another benefit which is
unique to the proposals in comparison to the other tall buildings built or
permitted along St Thomas Street. The ascription of only limited weight to it
by the Council in the face of a requirement to give it great weight under
paragraph 199 of the NPPF is not only surprising but simply wrong. This is
another example of talking down the benefits as referenced in opening.
Cumulative weighting of benefits and overall balance
6.121 The Council provides with no cumulative weighting of the benefits of our
proposals and was not prepared to do so, whereas the Appellant attaches very
substantial weight to the cumulative set of public benefits.
6.122 The Appellant reiterate that the combined benefits would comfortably outweigh
any LTSH that either of the proposals are found to cause; and that the same
also goes for any other harm if it is concluded would arise.
6.123 For the avoidance of doubt, if any LTSH is found to either of the proposals, the
balance should still be struck in the Appellant’s favour not just it is found that
the Appellant’s assessment of the LTSH is correct but also if it is found that the
assessment of the Council and/or HE is to be preferred (or if the assessment is
in between).
6.124 The striking of the balance in this way would be in line with the conclusion
expressed in the GLA Stage 1 Report124 in respect of the 2018 Scheme where
the conclusion was reached, notwithstanding an assessment of LTSH to a
number of heritage assets, that this harm would be outweighed by the wider
public benefits associated with the scheme.
Accordance with the development plan
6.125 The issue of accordance with development plan policy is rehearsed in various
places. The determination in respect of each of the schemes would be in
accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole, would be to
allow the appeals.
6.126 Should a different conclusion be reached, it is submitted that material
considerations, namely the compelling package of public benefits, would (in
the language of the second part of s.38(6) of the 2004 Act) indicate otherwise
such that the appeals should be allowed.
Overall conclusion
6.127 Accordingly, we ask that the SoS is recommended to allow both appeals. The
Appellant’s ask to be allowed to add a layer of history to this globally
significant business district.
7 The Case for the Council
123 Paras 10.1.12 and 10.1.24.
124 CD-G-02
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 44
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Introduction
Overview
7.1 Neither of the two schemes can properly be said to constitute sustainable
development or good design.
7.2 The height and scale of both proposed towers are driven by commercial
imperatives, seeking to maximise the delivery of office floorspace rather than
following a design-led approach to find the most appropriate form of
development that responds to the site’s capacity for growth.
7.3 Both schemes represent overdevelopment of what is agreed to be a highly
challenging site in a sensitive and complex historic environment. The site is in
a tight space in which to try and accommodate such a large building, and in
close proximity to a number of listed buildings.
7.4 The Appellant has consistently failed to grapple with the implications of those
constraints for the appropriate scale and design of any redevelopment.
7.5 That failure manifests itself in the approach taken to context. The site lies in
the heart of one of London’s oldest and most important CAs, and within a sub-
area agreed to have a particularly distinguished historic character, with
characteristics of restrained quality and consistency.125 It was agreed to be
one of Southwark’s most significant historic streets, with a highly significant
cluster of nationally important historic buildings126. And yet for the purposes
of considering context and seeking to justify height and scale the Appellant
effectively ignores the CA boundary and the highly sensitive historic site and
surroundings and looks only to the tall buildings which (with the exception of
Shard Place, which we address below) all lie outside it.
7.6 Both schemes have no meaningful relationship to their historic context, and
either tower would become a dominating and overbearing presence within the
CA and the setting of numerous LBs both in the immediate vicinity and further
afield. Both would destroy the currently successful clear demarcation between
the coherent and consistent historic environment and the tall buildings around
London Bridge Station, and set a damaging precedent for further such
development within the rest of the CA.
7.7 The symptoms of this being too much development in the wrong place127 are
also apparent in the distinctly uncomfortable and harmful relationship the
towers would have with the Shard in a number of important viewpoints where
they are seen either in alignment or in close proximity to one another. As
explained below, there are many important viewpoints from which the Shard is
either obscured or largely obscured as the station’s landmark by the new
towers, or in which the relationship between them is “visually uneasy” as the
Appellant describes it.128
125 CD-E-06 para 3.5.1
126 CD-H-15 para 96
127 Or not “proportionate to the significance of the proposed location and the size of the site”
to use the words of SP Policy P17 Part 2.2
128 CD-A-12-1 para 5.5.39
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 45
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.8 The harm would be wide ranging and significant, both in design/townscape and
heritage terms. It is telling that, with limited exceptions, the harm is the same
for both schemes.
7.9 The 2018 scheme met widespread and consistent objections from a range of
important stakeholders consulted both before and after the application was
submitted.
7.10 At the pre-application stage CABE/Design Council advised the Appellant that
the height of the proposed tower required further justification, and that its
isolation from other tall buildings in the area and its proximity to the historic
buildings within the CA clearly lead to a significant impact on the CA and on
historic views, both locally and within the LVMF.129 HE advised that if the
application was submitted in the form consulted upon it would strongly object
due to the serious harm that would result to the historic environment.130 The
LPA’s pre-application advice was that the height and level of harm to
surrounding heritage assets was the “key reason why the scheme cannot be
supported by officers”131. After submission the objections received reflected
those same themes in strong and unequivocal terms.
7.11 The Appellant’s attempt to overcome the objections to the 2018 scheme with a
new and markedly different design has proved to be unsuccessful. For all its
myriad flaws, the Appellant’s own TVIBHA continued to identify the same
fundamental problems of visual dominance of the sensitive historic
environment and uncomfortable relationship to the townscape context. That
was partly a result of the still very considerable height of the tower, but also
because the only way that the architects were able to accommodate the
client’s requirement to deliver the same quantum of commercial floorspace
was by substantially increasing the width and massing of the tower so that it
would extend along most of the site’s frontage to St Thomas Street, with the
bulk at floor 3 and above bulging out over the rooves of the listed Georgian
Terrace. All of this has served to exacerbate the harmful and oppressive
relationship between the tower and the designated heritage assets surrounding
it.
7.12 In the circumstances, the LPA’s discouraging pre-application response to what
became the 2021 scheme should have come as no surprise. Nor should the
strong objection subsequently received from HE, or the GLA’s conclusion in its
Stage 1 Report that “the significant width proposed (over 60m) does not feel
proportionate or comfortable in this low rise historic context with many
designated heritage assets” and that the “design choice overall does not seem
to be successful.”132
7.13 Indeed, all the signals should have alerted the Appellant to the fact that this
was simply not a suitable site to accommodate its desired quantum of
commercial floorspace, and that it was necessary to take a step back and look
at alternative options.
129 CD-C-09 p 1-2
130 CD-C-04 Summary
131 CD-C-02 p 3
132 CD-G-03 para 41 & 44
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 46
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.14 Those clear and consistent signals were ignored, and the Appellant pressed
ahead with the scheme regardless. This time it did so without bothering to
engage with the independent design review process. The subsequent belated
attempt by the Appellant to excuse this failure by reference to receipt of a
discouraging pre-application response from the LPA is fundamentally
misconceived for two reasons:
a. If the application was therefore submitted on the assumption that it
would probably need to be appealed to the SoS, that has no bearing
whatsoever on whether it would have been appropriate to comply with
the policy obligation to undergo design review “early on” in the process.
That policy obligation, and the important public interest objectives that
underlie it, are no less important or applicable when a scheme is being
considered on appeal.
b. If anything, a discouraging pre-application response from the LPA on
(inter alia) design grounds should underline the importance of going
through the design review process before submission. If that process
produces a response from CABE which is more positive than the LPA’s
initial view, it could be prayed in aid as part of the case for persuading
the LPA that its initial response was wrong. If the response is negative,
that would be important when deciding whether it was in fact
appropriate to proceed to the stage of making an application for the
emerging proposal.
7.15 The upshot is that the LPA has raised objections to both schemes on
essentially similar grounds. The first of the putative reasons for refusal has
consistently been supported by HE, the Government’s principal heritage
advisor, in relation to those assets which are most significantly affected. It
has taken the unusual step of appearing at this Inquiry as a Rule 6 party,
reflecting its view as to the seriousness of the harm to the historic
environment in this case.
7.16 It is agreed that there is a strong statutory presumption in favour of refusal of
both appeals. That is reinforced by the wide ranging and extensive conflict
with up-to-date development plan and national policy, and conflict with the
development plan when considered as a whole. The policies which are
infringed are policies of the highest level of importance for the purposes of the
determination of these appeals, the extent and significance of the breaches are
considerable, and the conflict goes to the overall thrust of the development
plan. All of those are agreed to be relevant factors in forming a judgment as
to whether there is compliance or not with the plan overall.
7.17 Southwark is a borough that is supportive of economic growth and
consequential change through appropriate development, and the development
plan reflects that. In accordance with the NPPF and LP, and as developed
through the SP, however, the LPA is seeking to achieve good growth that is
environmentally sustainable. Neither scheme warrants that description.
7.18 The presumption in favour of the development plan therefore creates a further
statutory presumption against the grant of planning permission in this case.
7.19 It is acknowledged that there would be public benefits associated with either
scheme, but the extent and level of harm and of policy conflict is nowhere
close to being offset by those benefits.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 47
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The approach to new tall buildings
7.20 The SP identifies a broad area where tall buildings are expected, which
includes the CAZ, Major Town Centres, Opportunity Area Cores and Action
Area Cores133. This broad area includes the appeal site. The SP also identifies
specific sites that may be suitable for tall buildings in site allocations, four of
which are in the London Bridge area134. Both the LP (Policy D9) and the SP
(Policy P17) have detailed and stringent policy criteria for the assessment of
new tall building proposals, reflecting the significant adverse impacts that can
be caused at both a local and London-wide level from a poorly designed tall
building in the wrong place. In providing a far more detailed set of criteria to
guide the assessment of impacts, LP policy D9 marks a significant change in
the policy framework for the assessment of the acceptability of proposed tall
buildings when compared to the approach of the London Plan 2016.
7.21 It is apparent from the size and nature of the area identified by the SP that tall
buildings would not be considered suitable on every site in that area. The
inclusion of the Grade I Southwark Cathedral within the broad area exemplifies
this. The SP does not attempt a fine grain approach to tall building site
suitability (beyond the specific site allocations) and the fact that the broad
area includes sites that are obviously inappropriate needs to be borne in mind
when applying the policy. A common sense approach is required and inclusion
within the broad area is very far from representing a green light for a tall
building proposal. In fact, the studies and evidence base that informed the
approach taken to tall buildings in the SP did not identify the appeal site or the
wider BHSCA as a suitable location for tall building development. Indeed,
when a more fine-grained analysis was undertaken the site was excluded from
the area marked as “Appropriate location for tall buildings” and CAs, (including
specifically the BHSCA) were described as generally unsuitable for tall building
development in all relevant studies that informed the SP.135
7.22 The position of the Shard as the pinnacle of the London Bridge cluster also
plays an important role in Southwark’s approach to new tall buildings. The
Area Vision in the SP for London Bridge explains that development should
make sure that “the Shard remains significantly taller and more visible than
surrounding buildings as the station’s landmark” 136. This approach is not
simply concerned with height but also with relative visibility as the station’s
landmark, which requires the impact on the Shard’s landmark qualities to be
assessed from different locations around the area.
7.23 The ‘cluster’ concept itself is relevant when considering new tall buildings in
the London Bridge area in the context of their potential impact on the setting
of the ToL. On the assumption that further tall building development is
133 CD-E-01 Fig 4 p 137
134 Ibid NSP52-55 p381-393
135 Mr Glasgow PoE para 5.73-5.82. See specifically CD-E-08 Fig 9 p15, p32, Fig 20 p33, CD-
E-18, paras 4.4.7, 5.1, 5.2, CD-E-19 Fig 8 p5, p52, CD-E-20 p69
136 CD-E-01 p385, 388
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 48
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
inevitable, clustering of tall buildings to a contained area provides a means of
avoiding a spread of towers and thereby limiting adverse impact on the
WHS.137 The same underlying principle ought sensibly to apply to the London
Bridge area as it applies to the City of London’s eastern cluster. The same
issues and impacts arise in both cases. Thus the existence of a cluster does
not mean that its continued expansion in any and all directions should be
regarded as acceptable. The shape, direction and extent of growth, and the
overall curation of the cluster, all require careful consideration having regard
to townscape and in particular heritage impacts. A tower that appears to be
separated from the London Bridge cluster in important views risks both
increasing harm to the ToLWHS and introducing a spread of towers across a
wider area, failing to safeguard the remaining openness of the ToL setting and
undermining the public interest benefits of clustering.
7.24 The Appellant’s perspective on the approach to new tall buildings in the
London Bridge area has proven to be remarkably and inappropriately
simplistic. Its witnesses have appeared to view the presence of the Shard, the
News Building and, in particular, Shard Place as giving rise to a presumption
that tall buildings would be suitable anywhere in the London Bridge area
generally and within the BHSCA specifically. The logic of their position, if
correct, would mean that it could never be said that the cluster has gone far
enough in any direction because one tall building, for example, Shard Place
begets another one – the appeal site – on the basis that it is just 30 seconds
or 30 metres away. It is a recipe for the incremental erosion of the area’s
special and distinctive character and heritage interest, and for additional
cumulative harm to the OUV of the WHS.
7.25 The refrain from the Appellant’s team throughout the inquiry was that London
Bridge is, and always has been, a place of change, with the implication that
the LPA’s resistance to these particular towers pushes inappropriately against
this ‘inevitable’ tide of change. However, change in the form of a new tall
building in a particular location in the London Bridge area is neither inevitable
nor inevitably good.
7.26 There has been an over-reliance on decisions made in respect of other sites, in
particular Vinegar Yard and Shard Place. The over-reliance on previous
decisions in cases with materially different facts, and emphasis on the
suggested inevitability of adding another ‘layer of history’ to London Bridge
through further tall building development reflects a highly simplistic and crude
approach. It effectively seeks to side-step the detailed, and recently
enhanced, scrutiny that the development plan rightly expects of buildings that
have the potential to give rise to significant and wide-reaching impacts.
7.27 The first criterion of Policy P17 of the SP is the locational requirement that tall
buildings must be “located at a point of landmark significance”138 defined as
being “where a number of important routes converge, where there is a
concentration of activity and which is or will be the focus of views from several
directions.”139 These factors are concerned with the site and its existing status
137 Dr Barker-Mills PoE para 4.18, CD-H-10 Tulip Inspector’s Report paras 14.7-14.8
138 CD-E-01 p133
139 Ibid p135
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 49
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
rather than on the nature or impacts of the tall building that is proposed. It is
common ground that not every site within the broad designated area can be of
‘landmark significance’.
7.28 The Appellant has long been aware that compliance with this policy
requirement is problematic here. That much is plain from its decision to
instruct DP9 to argue for its removal from the draft SP tall buildings policy.
DP9 argued that this criterion did not “recognise the role that tall buildings can
play in creating new areas of townscape significance and stimulating
regeneration”140, but those arguments did not prove persuasive and the
requirement has become part of the development plan. If the Appellant and
its team of advisors had thought the application of this criterion would tend to
support the suitability of the site for a tall building they would not have sought
its removal.
7.29 In terms of the application of the SP’s definition of landmark significance.
a. The site is not located “where a number of important routes converge.”
Whereas Borough High St is an important route, in the context of
surrounding major streets including Tooley Street, St Thomas St is a
more local route. In any event, and importantly, the appeal site is not
located at a point at which important routes converge as the point of
convergence is between Borough High St and St Thomas St is Barclays
Bank. Instead, the point of convergence was said to extend so far
along St Thomas St that a person standing outside Keats House was
still at a point where important routes converge. That was an absurd
position to adopt. It was also claimed that the new entrance to London
Bridge underground station would result in the site being at the point
at which important routes converge, entirely missing the point that the
focus of the policy is on the existing position. Further, even if it is
accepted that a large run of St Thomas St is located at a point at which
important routes converge, the location of the towers would not be on
St Thomas St but rather in a backland location with no street frontage.
b. The site plainly is not “where there is a concentration of activity”.
i. The position that the site qualifies as such because people walk
past the site to access major attractors of footfall such as the
Shard or London Bridge station, would make every building along
Borough High Street and the western end of St Thomas St a
location where there is a concentration of activity. That, again, is
an absurd approach to the policy requirement.
ii. It is the destination to which people are moving that represents
the concentration of activity, and not the places they pass on their
way to it. The site generates a modest level of footfall from its
existing use, but it cannot properly be described as representing a
concentration of activity in any meaningful sense.
iii. The status of the appeal site can usefully be contrasted with that
of the Shard, Shard Place and the News Building, all of which sit
140 INQ-19 2.43
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 50
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
on top of or immediately adjacent to major access points to
London Bridge underground and rail station, and in the case of the
News Building, the bus station, and all of which are hives of
activity associated with the use of the station. There is no tension
between these three buildings being located at a point of
landmark significance and the appeal site not.
c. As for the final aspect of the definition, the appeal site is not currently
the focus of views. If you put a big enough building on any site it is
likely to become a focus of views to some extent, but that this does not
tell you anything about whether the site itself is located at a point of
landmark significance. The absence of a tall building in the location of
the appeal site provides important openness between the London
Bridge cluster and the historic area around Southwark Cathedral in
views from London Bridge. The absence of landmark status of the
appeal site allows focus to appropriately be placed on views of true
landmark locations such as the Shard and Southwark Cathedral.
7.30 The upshot of the Appellant’s approach to the landmark significance
requirement is that any site along St Thomas St or Borough High St could be
said to be located at a point of landmark significance. That is not a realistic
approach to the clear policy criteria and serves only to emphasise the inability
of the site, on a proper analysis, to meet any of the aspects of the definition.
The Appellant’s concerns about meeting this criterion back in 2018 were well
founded: the proposed towers would clearly not be located at a point of
landmark significance and thus conflict with the first criterion of Policy P17.
The effect on the significance of designated heritage assets
Introduction
7.31 The Council does not seek to address the impact on each of the designated
heritage assets covered by the written evidence, but instead focuses attention
on those which were addressed in the oral evidence of the parties, namely:
a. Borough High St CA
b. Guy’s Hospital
c. The St Thomas St LBs
d. Southwark Cathedral
e. ToL WHS
f. St Paul’s Cathedral
7.32 The impact on the other designated heritage assets that would be harmed
should not, however, be treated as an unimportant or peripheral issue. Where
harm occurs, it is to be given great weight, with the specific level of weight
reflecting both the extent of harm and the significance of the asset in each
case.
7.33 In these appeals it is not only the weight ascribed to the harm to individual
assets that matters, it is also the extent of and weight to be given to the
collective harm. Many of the designated heritage assets that will be adversely
affected in this case are not only important in their own right, they are also
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 51
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
important in the role they play as part of the special character and appearance
of the BHSCA. The number of individual designated heritage assets within the
CA that are adversely affected therefore reflects and is consistent with the
widespread nature of the adverse impact on its special qualities.
General approach and policy points
7.34 The Appellant’s flawed and incomplete approach to the assessment of heritage
impacts has been problematic from the outset. Significant concerns about the
methodology and transparency of the assessments used in the BHA were
raised during the review of the ES by the LPA’s EIA Consultants LUC in respect
of both applications.141 These are not new points. The Appellant has had
notice of them for years, and yet the same errors and omissions were reflected
in its evidence to the Inquiry.
7.35 In respect of the errors in approach, the Council’s evidence was clear,
compelling, and obviously right. The substantial gaps and methodological
errors in the analysis have given rise to some of the more surprising
conclusions reached in the Appellant’s assessment.
7.36 Fortunately a good deal of helpful common ground on approach has been
established.
Setting
7.37 The following matters are common ground in relation to setting:
a. The statutory duty in s.66 arises where a proposed development affects
a LB or its setting. Where that is the case, special regard must be had
to the desirability of preserving the LB or its setting. There is no issue
between the parties as to the importance of setting: it is not a
secondary consideration, but rather something which is itself given a
special statutory protection in decision-making.
b. The concept of setting is defined in the NPPF Glossary. As the NPPF
makes clear, there are two reasons why setting is important. The first is
that elements within the setting of a heritage asset may make a
contribution to its significance. The second reason is that setting may
affect the ability to appreciate significance.
c. HE GPA 3142 reflects those twin roles, and any assessment needs to
consider both aspects. That is reflected in the steps and how they are
described throughout the guidance.
d. The same position is reflected in up to date development plan policy.
Policy HC1 Part C143 is concerned with protecting not only significance
but also appreciation of significance within the surroundings of heritage
assets.
e. The Appellant has sought to assess both aspects, recognising that both
roles are important. It is expected that the Inspector and SoS to
141 See CD-A-42 (2018) at p36+ and CD-B-67 (2021)
142 CD-F-04 para 3 p2 (Box) and p10-13 (steps 2 and 3)
143 CD-D-21 p279
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 52
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
consider both, and to treat both as important, consistently with the
statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the
setting of the LBs affected in this case.
Calibration of harm
7.38 The following matters are common ground in respect of the approach to
calibrating harm to heritage assets:
a. Assessing where harm sits on the spectrum of LTSH is a matter of
judgment for the decision-maker.
b. The courts have made clear that the NPPF does not direct the decision-
maker to adopt any specific approach to identifying harm or gauging its
extent.144
c. ‘Substantial’ in the NPPF means what it says, and any attempt to put a
gloss on the meaning of the term has no justification in the context of
the NPPF. The policy framework and guidance provide a steer that
relevant factors include the degree of impact, the significance of the
heritage asset under scrutiny and its setting.145
d. Whilst an example has been given in the PPG to assist in considering
whether harm is substantial in relation to works to a LB, it does not
purport to be a definition of the word ‘substantial’. That is unsurprising
given that the PPG is guidance and not policy.
e. The example that is given in the PPG contemplates that substantial harm
could occur if an adverse impact seriously affects a key element of a
LB’s special architectural or historic interest, even if other key elements
are unaffected. That is consistent with what the SoS concluded in the
Tulip decision146 where it was found that the key point is not whether
some aspects are left untouched, but the importance of what would be
affected (in this case setting) to the asset’s significance.
f. There is nothing in the Appellant’s evidence that seeks to take issue with
the approach taken by the SoS in the Tulip DL or to give reasons to
justify a different approach being taken in this case.
g. If in this context it is appropriate to treat the word “serious” as
synonymous with “substantial”, concluding that harm below the
threshold is not “serious” in that narrow technical sense does not mean
that it is unimportant. Treating LTSH as a less than substantial
objection involves an error of law, and does not reflect the statutory
duties.
Cumulative harm and precedent
7.39 The following matters are common ground in respect of the approach to
cumulative harm and precedent:
144 CD-H-07 para 47
145 Ibid para 53
146 CD-H-10 para 16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 53
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
a. The PPG makes clear that when assessing any application which may
affect the setting of a heritage asset, decision-makers may need to
consider the implications of cumulative change.147
b. That guidance must be understood in the light of the NPPF’s definition of
‘setting’, which recognises that there may be elements of the setting of
a heritage asset which make a negative contribution to significance or
the ability to appreciate it. Where that is the case, and a proposed
development would exacerbate that negative contribution, that is a
material consideration in judging whether the additional harm is
acceptable or not. That is consistent with HE’s advice in GPA3 that
where the significance of an asset has been compromised in the past by
unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF
policies consideration needs to be given to whether additional damage
will further detract from the significance of the asset.148
c. A setting which suffers from elements making a negative contribution
may therefore have a particular sensitivity to further change as a result.
To treat such a setting as being ‘less sensitive’ as a result would mean
that on each occasion an additional element of harm was permitted its
sensitivity would be said to reduce again. On that approach, it would
never be possible to prevent the gradual cumulative erosion of the
remaining contribution that setting makes to significance or the ability to
appreciate it.
d. The LP specifically calls for the contribution to cumulative impact to the
setting of London’s WHS to be clearly illustrated and assessed where a
development may contribute to such an impact149, which reflects a
recognition that the setting of those WHS has already suffered harm
from past development.
e. LP Policy HC1 also requires cumulative impacts on heritage assets and
their settings from incremental change to be actively managed.
Effective implementation of that policy requirement requires the
decision-maker to consider:
i. the impacts of previous change on significance and ability to
appreciate significance;
ii. the extent to which the impacts of proposed development may
have a cumulative effect together with existing impacts; and
iii. the potential for significance and ability to appreciate significance
to be eroded by incremental change.
Juxtaposition of old and new
7.40 It is agreed that it is not automatically positive to have modern skyscrapers
standing near historic buildings. Just because that 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. It will need to be assessed and
its appropriateness or otherwise considered on a case by case basis.
147 CD-D-11 para 13
148 CD-F-04 p4
149 CD-D-21 Policy HC2 Pt. C
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 54
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Development plan policy approach to protecting the WHS
7.41 The most recent iteration of the LP includes crucial policy changes to respond
to the World Heritage Committee’s concerns arising from the decision to
consent the Shard and other tall buildings. This most recent iteration is
agreed to mark a shift in policy on heritage in general and WHSs in particular.
These important differences in planning policy provide another reason why
little or no weight should be given to previous permissions, or their
justifications, as setting a binding precedent.
7.42 The changes in planning policy are agreed to reinforce the greater weight that
should now be given to heritage protection on account of the revised wording.
7.43 LP Policy HC2 Pt. B is agreed to be an important part of the strengthened
policy framework to address the problems that had arisen from previous
decisions. It is common ground that there is no scope for compliance with the
policy if harm is caused to the OUV of the WHS – there is no scope for
compliance on the basis of harm being outweighed by benefits. The same
approach appears in Policy D9 Pt. C (e). The supporting text makes clear that
making good on the Government’s commitment to protecting the WHS150
requires effective implementation of policies for conserving and enhancing the
historic environment. In other words, it is not enough just to have these
policies, making good on the commitment requires them to be implemented
effectively in development control decision-making.
7.44 Finally, it was suggested that because Policy P17 of the SP does not have an
equivalent to Policy D9 Pt. C (e) of the LP, there is a conflict between the
policies which should be resolved in favour of P17 pursuant to s.38(5) of the
PCPA 2004. That is a hopeless argument, because Policy P24 of the SP also
applies, where relevant, to any tall building proposal and sets exactly the same
test for development affecting the OUV of WHS and their settings as LP Policy
HC2 and D9151. Policy P17 does not set a different approach to impact on
WHS. The simple fact that the specific test for impact on WHS in SP Policy P24
is not duplicated in SP Policy P17 cannot properly be argued to mean that
there is a conflict between the policies in the two parts of the development
plan.
Architectural Quality as a factor potentially reducing heritage harm
7.45 “Good design is inherently informed by its surroundings, including the historic
context.”152 Where a proposed building would be a poor and unsympathetic
response to its historical context that will weigh heavily against the quality of
the design.153 Those concepts are reflected in the extent to which the
development plan and national policy and guidance emphasise the importance
150 See emboldened text in para 7.2.1
151 CD-E-01 p149
152 CD-H-10 IR para 14.84, endorsed by the SoS at DL para 38
153 Ibid DL para 38
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 55
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
of context when assessing whether a proposal can properly be considered to
represent good design154.
7.46 It is accepted that, in principle, the quality of a design might reduce heritage
harm, it does not do so here. Indeed, the detailed design of each scheme
serves to exacerbate rather than reduce the harm caused.
7.47 By way of example, for Guy’s Hospital in TVIBHA 2018 view 49, the design of
the scheme does not reduce or negate harm as the girders and railway bridge
themes are nothing to do with this part of the CA and the architectural
expression of the 2018 tower has nothing to do with the neoclassical
architectural approach which is of such importance to the heritage significance
of Guy’s North Quad.
7.48 There is also confusion in the Appellant’s own evidence about the intended
relationship between the detailed design and the closest designated heritage
assets with the 2018 scheme being described as providing a “dramatic
contrast”155 and “dramatic and striking juxtaposition” with those assets, and
refers to a relationship of dominance of the proposed tower over the existing
streetscene. Yet other evidence states that the design would provide a “calm
neutral backdrop.”156 The same inconsistency arises in respect of descriptions
of the 2021 scheme.157
7.49 Reliance on design quality in the abstract cannot be an excuse for the fact that
the design of a development has not been properly informed by its context,
including the historic environment.
Assets of focus
7.50 There are two preliminary points to be made about the evidence relating to the
impacts on the heritage assets in this case.
7.51 First relates to the images of the proposed towers as there is a notable lacuna
in the suite of images (both still and moving) produced by the Appellant.
7.52 The Appellant has produced a full height image of the 2021 scheme as seen
from St Thomas St outside the Shard looking west, but no equivalent full
height image for the 2018 scheme. There was no technical reason why such
an image was not (or could not have been) produced, the Appellant just chose
not to do so.
7.53 The image for the 2018 scheme only extends as far as about level 16 (approx.
65m AOD), some 40m or more below what is shown for the 2021 scheme and
almost 80m less than its full height of 144m AOD. The Appellant has not
provided any illustrative material to show what the full height of the 2018
154 See Ms Adams PoE section 2.2.2
155 See e.g. Stewart PoE paras 4.10, 5.43-5.44, 7.12, 7.32
156 Mr Allford PoE para 7.1.5.3
157 See Mr Stewart PoE para 9.9 and 10.35 and Mr Allford PoE para 9.19.12, Figure 486 and
para 10.1.5.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 56
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
tower would look like from ground level looking west on St Thomas St. The
Council has sought to fill the gap, and it is agreed that the Appellant’s
amended Figure 32158 is the best image that the Inspector has for this
purpose.
7.54 That is a remarkable state of affairs, having regard to the technology available
to the Appellant and to the following points:
a. the proposal is to erect a 144m high tower in the middle of a low rise CA
and very close to many LBs;
b. harm is acknowledged in the view from St Thomas St, and to Guy’s
Hospital through development in its setting; and
c. in correspondence the LPA asked the Appellant to provide a fully
rendered version if it did not consider the amended image to be
sufficiently accurate or representative to be relied upon by the
Inspector.
7.55 It is compounded by the fact that in neither of the ‘walk through’ videos
produced for the purposes of the Inquiry does the viewer on St Thomas St look
up to take in the building as a whole (for either scheme) and therefore enable
the effect of the scale of the building to be appreciated.
7.56 In the circumstances the most likely explanation would seem to be a
reluctance to allow the full magnitude of an acknowledged adverse impact of
major significance to be appreciated by the decision-maker, for fear of what
that might lead to.
7.57 Second, care has been taken in our assessments to follow the approach
espoused in HE guidance, and to be transparent. That is important, because it
allows others to understand what informs each stage of the assessment, where
professional judgment has been exercised and the basis for those judgments.
It is robust, credible and reliable. Surprisingly the detail of that was not
challenged.
Borough High Street Conservation Area
7.58 Consistent with the views of HE, it is considered that there would be LTSH to
the CA, above the middle and towards the upper end of the range.159 The
Appellant’s stance that the impact on the BHSCA would be to enhance it does
not withstand scrutiny. The purported (unspecified) harm, “offset” by “the
many positive qualities of the development” has nothing to do with the special
qualities for which the CA had been designated. The outcome of the
assessment is simply not credible, as even a cursory glance through the
TVIBHA images of the proposed towers taken from important viewpoints within
the CA would reveal. It is simply not accurate to present this as a reasonable
difference of professional judgment about effects. The assessment is
methodologically flawed and incorporates irrelevant considerations which are
critical to the conclusions reached. No reliance can be placed on it as a result.
158 INQ-08
159 Dr Barker-Mills POE para 9.79-9.82
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 57
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.59 It can also be noted that there was no dispute that the CAA160 represented a
fair encapsulation of the special qualities that justified designation and that the
Inspector and SoS should use it for the purposes described in its paragraph
1.1.1.
7.60 There are three further points about the approach to the assessment of harm
to the BHSCA:
a. As with the approach to heritage assets generally, the key point is not
whether some aspects of the CA are left untouched, but the importance of
what would be affected to the CA’s significance. In this case it is agreed
that when assessing impact on the CA it is important to have in mind the
distinct character of the sub-areas, as well as the overall identity of the CA
as a whole. In any event, it is agreed that whilst the towers would be
situated in the heart of sub-area 4, they will also be very apparent in views
from the other three sub-areas. That reflects the relatively low heights of
buildings in the CA, the position of the appeal site within it, and the height
of the proposed towers.
b. Sub-area 4 is agreed to have its own distinct character, with the quality
and consistency of the buildings and the formality of the hospital buildings
clearly being key to the character and appearance of this sub-area. It is
also agreed to represent a marked change in character from the High St,
to already possess a listed landmark feature161 which is consistent in
character and appearance with the other LBs in this part of the CA, and to
have a special identity in which the completeness and coherence of the
elements in this part of St Thomas St is of special note.
c. The Appellant’s evidence and approach is remarkably and inappropriately
dismissive of this very important and historic CA.
i. The variety within the CA as a whole - arising from its unusual and
highly valuable time-depth – is treated as somehow making it less
sensitive to the impact of tall buildings. Why that is believed to be
the case is never properly explained, presumably because there is no
proper basis for it. The CAA162 makes clear that the overall identity
of the BHSCA is as much to do with scale and form as other factors.
These special qualities make it more rather than less sensitive to the
impact of new development which is entirely (indeed dramatically) out
of keeping in both scale and form.
ii. The yards leading off BHS – features of obvious and acknowledged
importance to its character and appearance – are treated by the
architect designing the scheme as places of misery, a problem to be
addressed, rather than an essential and valuable feature of the
historic grain of the townscape recognised both in the CAA and the
SP’s Area Vision.163
160 CD-E-06
161 The former Parish Church of St Thomas on the northern side of the street
162 CD-E-06 para 3.1.6
163 CD-E-01 Policy AV.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 58
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
iii. The Appellant has focussed relentlessly on the ability to see tall
buildings from within the CA, and, as already explained, the LPA’s
decision in 2014 to approve Shard Place on the very edge of the CA,
right next to the Shard itself, as effectively allowing for ‘open season’
in terms of erecting towers further into the CA. The first of those
matters fails to recognise the importance and implications of the CA
Boundary. Reference has been made above to this and is not
repeated.
7.61 Having regard to the importance of the asset, and the extent of harm, very
significant weight should attach to the harm to the BHSCA.
Guy’s Hospital (Grade II*)
7.62 It is considered that there would be LTSH to this Grade II* listed building
above the middle and towards the upper end of the range.164 Again this is
consistent with the assessment made by HE.
7.63 In acknowledging that LTSH would be caused, the Appellant has seriously
under-estimated the level of that harm by identifying it as “minor”. The
calibration of harm is unreliable, as illustrated by the following points:
a. The assessment plainly relies on the existence of other tall buildings
within the setting of the LB as serving to limit the extent of harm, rather
than giving rise to existing harm to which the proposed tower would add
cumulatively. Whether the impact of these modern elements is positive,
neutral or negative has not been assessed.
b. It was confirmed that Guy’s Hospital Tower was a negative element in the
setting, but concluded that it too had a “minor” effect. This is helpful,
because:
i. it establishes common ground that there is a need to consider
cumulative harm from tall buildings in this instance; and
ii. it allows a sense on site of quite what Mr Stewart regards as a
“minor” effect.
c. In XX it became apparent that the level of harm to this particular LB was
regarded by Mr Stewart as being ameliorated by what he had described
as “tangible long term benefits to the setting” of this LB165 but which he
ultimately accepted not to be relevant either to its heritage significance
nor the ability to appreciate its significance. To say the least, that is a
surprising and elementary error to make when assessing the extent of
harm to a Grade II* LB, and symptomatic of the general lack of rigour,
robustness and transparency in the Appellant’s assessment.
7.64 Having regard to the importance of the asset, and the extent of harm, very
significant weight should attach to the harm to Guy’s Hospital.
164 Dr Barker-Mills POE paras 9.47-9.55.
165 CD-A-12-2 para 12.103
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 59
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The St Thomas Street LBs (Grade II and II*)
7.65 The impact to 9, 9a, 11-13 and 15 St Thomas Street is LTSH below the middle
of the range.166 To the Bunch of Grapes PH, 4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street
the LTSH is considered to be at around the middle of the range.167
7.66 The Appellant has failed to follow key parts of the HE recommended ‘stepped’
approach and their position cannot be relied upon. Having regard to the
importance of the assets, and the extent of harm, significant weight should
attach to the harm to these LBs.
Southwark Cathedral (Grade I)
7.67 The LTSH to this Grade I listed building would be above the middle and
towards the upper end of the scale.168 That assessment is broadly consistent
with that of HE, which characterises the level of LTSH as ‘High’.
7.68 The Appellant acknowledges that LTSH would be caused, though it has
seriously under-estimated the level of that harm by identifying it (belatedly169)
as minor. The calibration of harm is unreliable, as exemplified by the following
points:
a. The issue of cumulative harm has failed to be adequately considered.
i. There was no assessment in the BHA of whether the presence of
tall buildings such as Guy’s Hospital Tower in the setting of the
cathedral where it can be seen is positive, negative or neutral.
Guy’s Hospital Tower plainly is a negative element of setting.
ii. The Shard has an unsatisfactory relationship with the cathedral.
iii. Where the setting already features negative distracting elements in
the form of tall buildings, adding the appeal proposals is agreed to
give rise to cumulative harm.
iv. The Appellant has not assessed cumulative harm, and indeed
appears positively to rely on the presence of tall buildings in the
existing view as justification for adding more.170
b. A related flaw in the assessment is that it does not sufficiently
acknowledge the importance and value either of the view of the
cathedral from the north across London Bridge or the views immediately
in front of the cathedral where it is currently seen against clear sky
without tall buildings in the background.
166 Dr Barker-Mills PoE paras 9.56-9.59
167 Ibid paras 9.60-9.71
168 Ibid paras 9.38-9.46.
169 Until his XIC on Day 9, Mr Stewart had gone no further in calibrating harm to any heritage
asset than to say it was “Considerably less than substantial harm”. This was the phrase used
in the BHA, his PoE and the Heritage SoCG. It is of very limited (if any) utility for the
purposes of the exercise required by the PPG, because the phrase is broad enough to
encapsulate harm from above the middle of the range right down to the very bottom of the
range.
170 e.g Mr Stewart PoE paras 5.53-5.56 and 5.58-5.59
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 60
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
c. So far as the latter views are concerned, that these are views which at
present offer a particularly good opportunity to appreciate the form,
silhouette and external architecture of the cathedral. The effect of the
development would be to introduce a tall building behind the cathedral
in views where it is currently seen against clear sky. That is agreed to
be harmful. Where the assessment goes wrong, however, is to treat as
harmful only those instances where the proposed tower would be seen
directly behind the Cathedral’s tower. Where the two are seen alongside
one another it is assumed that there is no longer any adverse impact
either on the significance of the cathedral as derived from its setting, or
on the ability to appreciate that significance. That is an inappropriately
narrow and restrictive approach, taking no account of the existence and
extent of distraction and visual competition where the two towers are
seen alongside one another.
7.69 Having regard to the importance of the asset, and the extent of harm, very
significant weight should attach to the harm to Southwark Cathedral.
Tower of London World Heritage Site
7.70 The level of LTSH to the ToLWHS would be just below the middle of the range
for the 2018 scheme and at the low end of the range for the 2021 scheme.171
This assessment is broadly consistent with that of HE, albeit a notch higher in
the case of the 2018 scheme. HE concludes that there would be LTSH in both
cases, characterising the level of LTSH as ‘Low’ in both instances.
7.71 The Appellant concludes that there would be no harm at all for either scheme.
Whilst this is wrong in respect of both schemes, the conclusion in respect of
the 2018 scheme is simply not credible. The following points are of particular
relevance when forming a view on this point:
a. the extent to which the relevant attributes rely on setting is
uncontroversial.
b. the Appellant’s assessment notes that the tower would be visible as one
of a number of tall buildings and would add to the grouping, but gives no
consideration of whether that existing grouping gave rise to harm.
c. It was accepted that the approach taken in the assessment was to refer
to and endorse the findings of the Inspector who held the inquiry into the
Shard, incorporating those findings wholesale into the assessment.
d. It is plain from the subsequent events recorded in the Tulip decision (and
the decision itself) that:
i. those findings cannot be relied upon as a guide to what is now to
be considered acceptable;
ii. the Government has acknowledged harm was caused by the
Shard172; and that
iii. policy has subsequently been significantly tightened in order to
address the evident ineffectiveness of the previous policies to
protect the OUV of London’s WHS.
171 Dr Barker-Mills POE para 9.10-9.25
172 See e.g. CD-F-15 p2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 61
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
e. If the Inspector and SoS conclude that the visibility of the 2018 scheme,
cumulatively with other tall buildings, would mean that attention would be
distracted from the buildings within the Inner Ward, or the proposals
would compete for attention with those buildings, that would constitute
harm173.
7.72 The ToL WHS is a heritage asset of universal and international importance,
among the most important cultural heritage sites in the world and a key
feature of London’s identity as a world city. It is agreed (and the Government
has made clear174) that harm to its OUV should be given the maximum weight
possible in decision-making. It is also agreed that if the Inspector and SoS
were to find that there would be LTSH to this asset it would be appropriate to
attach the maximum possible weight to this harm and to conclude that it gives
rise to a conflict with development plan policy.
7.73 Having regard to the importance of the asset, and the extent of harm, very
significant weight should attach to the harm to the ToL caused by the 2018
scheme, and significant weight should attach to the harm caused by the 2021
scheme.
St Paul’s Cathedral (Grade I)
7.74 There would be LTSH towards the lower end of the range for both schemes.175
Having regard to the importance of the asset, and the extent of harm,
significant weight should attach to the harm to St Paul’s Cathedral.
Heritage Benefits
7.75 There are acknowledged to be some heritage benefits that would arise from
the proposed works to the Grade II listed terrace as the effective reversal of
the previous opening up of the interiors and restoration of the plan form would
be a heritage benefit.
7.76 In just the same way as any harm (no matter how modest) to the heritage
significance of a designated heritage asset should be given considerable
importance and weight, it is accepted that works which provide a benefit to
that heritage significance (no matter how modest) should also be given
considerable importance and weight.
7.77 That is the appropriate starting point, but as the Court of Appeal has made
clear in Bramshill176 that “does not predetermine the appropriate amount of
weight to be given to the “conservation” of the heritage asset in a particular
case. Resolving that question is left to the decision-maker as a matter of
planning judgment on the facts of the case, bearing in mind the relevant case
law, including Sullivan L.J.’s observations about “considerable importance and
173 See also CD-F-10 Local Setting Study p. 10 View 1 and related objectives and guidance
174 See CD-H-11 para 21
175 Dr Barker-Mills PoE paras 9.26-9.32
176 CD-H-06 para 73
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 62
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
weight” in Barnwell Manor.” Adopting that approach, plainly not all benefits
(just as not all harms) will have the same weight in planning balance.
7.78 In the context of the schemes as a whole, the benefits are not considered to
be particularly significant, and this view and reasoning was echoed in the
views of HE. These are benefits, but their relative importance in the overall
planning balance should inevitably reflect the relatively modest level of
heritage benefit that they will deliver.
7.79 On the evidence the Inquiry has heard it is plain that the other claimed
heritage benefits177 are nothing of the kind.
Listed Building Consent Applications
7.80 For the reasons set out in INQ-11, the LPA is now content that the LBCs could
be approved if permission is refused for planning applications subject to the
imposition of an appropriate condition ensuring that work is not carried out in
respect of particular aspects without planning permission being in place for
appropriate corresponding works. As the Appellant has pointed out, the reality
is that the relevant works would almost certainly not be carried out in those
circumstances.
Heritage Conclusions
7.81 When the adverse effects on heritage assets are considered as a whole, their
collective weight must be very substantial indeed. Those effects give rise to a
strong statutory presumption in favour of dismissing the appeals, and to
significant direct conflict with development plan policies of the highest
importance for the determination of these appeals.
7.82 The benefits that the schemes deliver (including the modest heritage benefits)
would come nowhere near outweighing that harm and overcoming the
resulting statutory and policy presumptions.
The effect on the character and appearance of the area with regard to urban design,
townscape, architectural quality and public realm
Introduction
7.83 There are inevitable overlaps between these issues178 and the heritage
impacts, not least because so much of the surrounding townscape is of
heritage significance. These issues are also addressed under the headings “The
Approach to New Tall Buildings” and “A Point of Landmark Significance” in the
introductory section to the Council’s case, above.
Approach
177 See Mr Goddard PoE para9.35 a., c. and d
178 See Ms Adams PoE Sections 2.2, 4 & 5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 63
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.84 The quantum of deliverable commercial floorspace that would be achievable
through a tall building proposal was a key driver of the brief. This driver
applied to both the 2018 and 2021 schemes, rather than reducing ambitions in
the 2021 scheme to overcome the drawbacks of the 2018 scheme. This was
said to be due to viability.
7.85 The brief for the 2021 scheme thus encompassed the same broad overall level
of floorspace with a reduction of mass in the sky and increase within the city
along with the removal of retail space and the introduction of a fully on-site
servicing arrangement.
7.86 The substantial increase in mass within the city was said to be directed
towards appeasing Southwark Cathedral’s Fabric Advisory Committee and
removing one of the barriers to the LPA making a favourable decision in
respect of the project. It was not a meaningful attempt to respond to and
resolve the much wider concerns raised by the LPA and many others about the
impact of a tall building on the site in the more immediate context of Guy’s
Hospital, sub-area 4 of the CA and the listed buildings on St Thomas Street, or
in respect of any of the other local heritage assets impacted. The Appellant’s
commercial imperative has led to a blinkered approach to the design process
and to substantial adverse impacts on the design outcomes for both schemes.
7.87 The Appellant’s views as to the success of the design of each Scheme must be
approached with caution. The inability of the architects practice to be
impartial or independent when giving evidence on the schemes that the
practice has designed means that the weight that should be attached to this
evidence is diminished. On this matter, the Council’s witness was independent
and impartial with no prior involvement in the schemes. The written and oral
evidenced given analysed and explained the existing context at and in the
vicinity of the appeal site and the design and townscape impacts of each
scheme in a clear and methodical manner and by reference to the general
design policies and, notably, the detailed criteria set by the LP and SP tall
buildings policies. This evidence was credible, balanced and fair, and it is to be
commended to the Inspector and SoS.
7.88 The decision by the Appellant’s to proceed with a tall building was made in
2014/2015, before any engagement with stakeholders or, notably, any input
from Mr Stewart, their witness on townscape and heritage matters. When the
Appellant’s team did engage with stakeholders in respect of the schemes and
their impact, the general approach was not to pay heed to and seek to respond
to concerns raised. The yardstick for a successful design was whether he
considered the Schemes to be ‘delightful’ and there was disinterest in the
views of others, including HE and CABE. The quality of CABE’s advice was
viewed as being insufficient to justify a design review of the 2021 scheme and
HE was considered not to be sufficiently ‘progressive’ to warrant taking proper
account of, and responding to, their clearly expressed concerns.
7.89 This dismissive approach to the considered views of stakeholders reflected a
striking lack of humility in relation to the development of this plainly sensitive
site.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 64
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.90 The dismissive approach did not stop there. It was instructive and somewhat
surprising to hear the internal disagreements between the Appellant’s own
architect and own heritage and townscape witness as to the townscape and
heritage impacts of his proposed towers. No attempt was made to respond to
and address the adverse impacts in the TVIBHA. Given the nature and scale of
the impacts, the findings should have set alarm bells ringing. The TVIBHA
identified a number of problematic relationships between the towers, the
Shard, the BHSCA and the immediate streetscene, from a range of viewpoints
within the CA. In respect of the 2018 scheme, to name but a few, the TVIBHA
identifies a “visually uneasy” conjunction with Shard in the view from St
Saviour’s war memorial and a “noticeable shift in the balance between historic
foreground and modern background”, a “noticeably greater” domination of the
historic foreground by modern background than is the case with the view as
existing from Southwark St/Stoney St, a considerable domination by the
development of the existing street scene and disruption to the coherent quality
of the view from St Thomas St/London Bridge St, and a greater distraction to
the viewer than the Shard from Guy’s West Wing Quad Panorama.179
7.91 It is striking that the same conclusions were reached in respect of townscape
impacts for the same set of views for the 2021 scheme.180 This, rather
suggests that the site is fundamentally unsuitable for a tall building, either at
all or certainly with the quantum of floorspace sought by the Appellant.
7.92 As for heritage input, there is no dispute that reliable and robust input
regarding the effects of particular design options on heritage assets is a very
important design input for a highly sensitive site such as the appeal site. That
is consistent with the development plan, which expects design to respond to a
site’s historic context.181 As the Inspector in the Tulip appeal recognised, an
unsympathetic response to the historical context is relevant to whether a
scheme is of good, or, as is required here exemplary, design. It appears that
thorough and careful assessment of the historic context did not inform the
main elements of the design in any meaningful way. The outcome is a design
that does not positively respond to the site’s historic context, and this not only
leads to a conflict with heritage policies of the development plan but also with
those applying specifically to design.
Height, scale and massing
7.93 The LPA has assessed the adverse impacts of the design of the schemes in
terms of their height, scale and massing.182
7.94 Good design does not exist in a vacuum when it comes to place-making and
planning. The Appellant accepted that a proposal that fails to respond
179 CD-A-12-1 2018 TVIBHA p. 229 & para 5.5.39, p. 233 & para 5.554, p. 257 and para
5.624, p. 245 and para 5.588.
180 CD-B-14-2 p. 203 7 para 5.436, p. 207 & para 5.451, p. 219 & para 5.485, p. 231 and
para 5.524, p. 243 & para 5.561 and p. 247 & para 5.574
181 CD.D.21 LP Policy D3 D(11), Policy D9 C(d), CD.E.01 SP Policy P13, Policy P14, Policy
P17.
182 Ms Adams PoE para 5.3.1 and 5.5.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 65
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
positively to local context and the wider London landscape would fail to accord
with the development plan. Yet what was designed, even after two attempts,
is entirely at odds with the immediate context and would be harmful to the
wider London landscape.
7.95 As became clear at the inquiry, the height, scale and massing of both schemes
are driven not by context but by client requirements, commercial
considerations and by a process that has eschewed the input of assessment
regarding heritage and townscape impact and the advice of many
stakeholders. The result is two disruptive and discordant towers that are
disproportionate to the size and significance of the site and the scale and
character of the surrounding townscape.
Architectural quality
7.96 The LP and SP require tall building design to be exemplary.183 Neither scheme
meets this standard.184
7.97 Good design is about much more than the architectural expression of a
building. Architectural quality is not a simple phenomenon confined to form
making or composition and instead requires success on a number of levels
including achieving high quality place-making and being responsive and
sensitive to context. Design quality should not be assessed in isolation from a
building’s setting or its impact on adjacent or associated existing buildings.185
7.98 The Appellant’s approach has sought to focus on the quality of the appearance
of the building divorced from its context. The view from Guy’s Hospital looking
west from the north quad186 exemplifies the folly of the Appellant’s approach.
However ‘good’ or ‘exemplary’ one might find the architectural expression of
either or both of the schemes to be in isolation, the view of the towers from
this location demonstrates why scale, siting, height and massing are highly
relevant factors when judging the quality of a design in context. The result of
the juxtaposition of Guy’s Hospital north quad and the schemes, with the leap
in scale of the towers and their very awkward relationship with the classical
formality of the historic building in the foreground, is extremely unfortunate.
The same concerns arise in respect of the relationship between the towers and
the Georgian terrace on St Thomas St. The terrace would become subservient
to the tower and would consequently reduce the terrace to a base for the
modern towers, or a ‘footnote.’
7.99 Moreover, leaving to one side the incongruous juxtapositions created by the
towers’ scale, height and mass, the appearance of the towers would serve to
exacerbate that harm when considered in context. The warehouse and large
scale infrastructure references borrowed by the Appellant from locations
183 LP Policy D9 C 1(c), SP Policy P17 para. 3.1
184 Ms Adams PoE para 5.3.2 and 5.5.3 where each buildings bas, middle and top has been
assessed in accordance with the approach set by LP Policy DP.
185 Ibid para 6.22
186 CD.A.12-1 p. 253 and CD.B.14 p. 227
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 66
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
outside of sub-area 4 of the CA (and for the 2021 scheme from an entirely
different CA187) bear no relationship to the materiality of the existing London
Bridge cluster that the Appellant is seeking to align their schemes with but
they also jar significantly with the consistent formal Georgian architecture of
St Thomas St and the neoclassical approach taken to Guy’s Hospital.
7.100 It was suggested that using brick, the predominant material in sub-area 4,
would have been a peculiar choice for tall buildings on the appeal site because
it would have undermined the differentiation between old and new. However,
even the National Design Guide cites a good practice example of a tall building
that sits well in its context, which is in fact located in Southwark, using
brick.188 It is not suggested that brick is the only acceptable solution for a tall
building on the appeal site or in Southwark but rather that a necessary
component of good design is an architectural expression that is an appropriate
response to the specific context of the appeal site, something which cannot be
properly said of either scheme.
Public realm
7.101 The quality of the public realm for each scheme at ground level has been
significantly compromised by the commercial imperative to maintain a
particular quantum of floorspace. For each scheme, the public realm is
ungenerous, lacking a sense of openness, overshadowed and dominated by tall
buildings, and unlikely to be attractive to users as a place to dwell. The public
realm is inadequate.189
7.102 The public realm will receive little sunlight for most of the year. The mainly
sunlit images produced to illustrate it190 belied the written evidence that is
before the decision-maker. The 2018 scheme’s Landscape Strategy describes
most of the public realm as being in light-to-deep shade during most of the
day for most of the year.191 A large proportion of the public realm would be
non-compliant with BRE Guidelines.192 The entrance from St Thomas St is not
considered to have a specific requirement for sunlight because rather than
being an amenity space it is instead simply a point of entry.”193 This is despite
of a reliance on it as providing a pocket park of amenity space.
7.103 The 2021 scheme fares worse. The increase in massing of the 2021 scheme
results in a decrease in public realm from approximately 1305 sqm in the 2018
scheme to 1136 sqm, of which 54% would be under cover. It was accepted
that this would result in reduced daylight, sunlight and views of the sky in the
2021 scheme. This is reflected in the 2021 Landscape Strategy, which
187 The Tooley St CA (see INQ7, p. 23)
188 CD.D.20 p. 17
189 Ms Adams PoE para 5.3.8 and 5.5.8
190 See e.g. INQ-07 pp. 64 (18-6A), 66 (18-6C), 69 (18-8B), 74 (18-9D), 99 (18-14B), 109
(18-17B), 110 (18-18A), 114 (18-19B), 136 (21-6A), 141 (21-8B), 147 (21-9E), 149 (21-
9G), 150 (21-9H), 177 (21-17B), 195 (21-23)
191 CD-A-20 p16
192 Mr Goddard RPoE APP-3-B-5.
193 Ibid p9 para 4.2 & 4.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 67
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
describes most of the outdoor areas that are not covered being in part shade
for most of the day during most of the year. The GIA appendix to Mr
Goddard’s rebuttal, also shows most of the courtyard outside the new London
Bridge underground station entrance as failing to comply with BRE
Guidelines194.
7.104 It is not simply the increased mass of the tower that has an adverse impact on
the public realm in the 2021 scheme. It is also compromised by the
arrangement for on-site servicing. This is due to a number of factors:
a. The 2021 scheme does not include a link from the entrance square to the
tower on St Thomas St through Beak Alley to King’s Head Yard due to the
presence of the servicing yard. This means that pedestrians wishing to
access Beak Alley need to use an access that is shared with the servicing
yard, which will be used by HGVs and refuse vehicles.
b. It means that there will be two substantial gaps in the building line and
the active frontage on St Thomas St, one for the entrance to the tower
and another for the servicing yard and access to Beak Alley, resulting in a
greater loss of active frontage on St Thomas St.
c. The 2018 scheme has active frontages on Beak Alley with retail units and
a gym entrance as well as a shop at the back of Keats House. Those
important features are absent in the 2021 scheme, which therefore has
no passive surveillance down Beak Alley. Instead, it becomes an
alleyway with dead frontages, shielding the loading bay behind. There is
no dispute between the parties that the 2021 public realm would be
materially less attractive and appealing to pedestrians when compared to
the 2018 scheme.
7.105 Finally, there is a distinct reason to be concerned about the success of the
2018 public realm. It emerged during the inquiry that the substantial
reduction in retail provision in the 2021 scheme was a change to the brief
made by the client to reflect concerns about the likely success of retail in the
current climate, linked to the rise in online retail and decline in the bricks and
mortar version. It was suggested that the Appellant could cross-subsidise the
retail, and it is envisaged that GPE would curate the units’ occupancy so that it
would be successful. However, there is no guarantee that the Appellant would
deliver the schemes themselves (we say more about this in relation to the
benefits below). The identity of the Appellant is irrelevant to the decision that
must be made now as to the likely success or otherwise of the public realm.
The lack of confidence in the retail provision in the 2018 scheme casts
significant doubt on the likely success of the public realm, even leaving aside
its physical inadequacies.
Impact on townscape and views
194 Ibid p 14 & CD-B-19 p. 31
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 68
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.106 The adverse impacts of the schemes on townscape and in respect of local,
borough and strategic and LVMF views are explained in the Council’s PoE.195
7.107 The requirement in AV.11 of the SP for the Shard to remain significantly taller
and more visible than surrounding buildings was a further policy criterion that
the Appellant sought to have excised from the SP plan through its
representations.196 Again, the only credible explanation for seeking to remove
this criterion is that the Appellant and its professional advisors were concerned
about the impact, if adopted, on its ambitions for the site.
7.108 The Appellant was plainly right to be concerned, in a context in which the
townscape input an uncomfortable and uneasy relationship with the Shard and
one in which views of it would be obscured and the proposed tower would
become the new focal point from a number of important viewpoints (as
previously explained).
7.109 Only one image was used by the Appellant to represent the relationship
between the schemes and the Shard, that of the view over London Bridge
looking south.197 None of the images that show the two buildings in close
alignment or proximity (for example the view from Southwark St east of the
railway bridge, Southwark St/Stoney St or the War Memorial on Borough High
St) even though it was agreed that these images are plainly relevant for the
Inspector and SoS to consider.
7.110 The impact in these viewpoints is stark, and quite clearly runs contrary to the
objectives of the SP in terms of the role and status of the Shard within the
townscape. Why choose to avoid them when dealing with this point? No
independent and impartial assessment or presentation in relation to this issue
would do so. The only explanation would seem to be a desire to avoid
acknowledging and dealing with the harmful impact and policy conflict that
they reveal.
Character and appearance conclusion
7.111 The schemes would conflict with policies SD4, D1, D3, D4, D8, D9 and HC4 of
the LP and policies P13, P14, P17, P18 and P21 of the SP as well as the good
design requirements of the NPPF and National Design Guide.
7.112 Very significant weight should attach to this policy conflict and the harms that
flow from it. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a tall
building that fails to accord with these centrally important policies could be
judged to be acceptable, let alone to accord with the development plan overall.
2018 Servicing
195 Ms Adams PoE para 5.3.9 and 5.5.9 and Dr Barker-Mills PoE paras 9.91-9.93 (for LVMF
views)
196 INQ-19 para 7.3
197 INQ-17 p36-37
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 69
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.113 The servicing arrangements proposed for both schemes, the relevant policy
framework applicable to the consideration of these matters, and the areas of
disagreement in respect of the 2018 scheme are explained in detail in the
Servicing SoCG.198 Notwithstanding the Appellant’s proposed measures199 the
2018 scheme arrangements would introduce highways impacts that result in
harm and fail to comply with relevant LP and SP policies.200
7.114 The first principal matter of concern is the use of St Thomas Street by HGVs,
vehicles servicing the Georgian Terrace and Keats House, refuse collection
vehicles and motorcycles for loading and unloading. This would be
incompatible with the expected increase in the already considerable pedestrian
use of St Thomas Street and TfL’s proposals associated with the Healthy
Streets approach. That approach and the specific measures that TfL are taking
on St Thomas St (including through the consultation that opened during the
inquiry whereby further temporary works are proposed such to install semi-
permanent materials to replace the blue barriers) are directed towards giving
pedestrians greater priority and more space to move.
7.115 As TfL explained, the introduction of a loading bay outside the 2018 scheme
would require the removal of 14m of the extended pedestrian footway and
would also involve the trolleying of goods across the footway, neither of which
would accord with the Healthy Streets approach. The introduction of bollards
to ensure that vehicles remained within a fixed boundary would also directly
reduce the space available for pedestrians and run contrary to the objectives
of policy. The loading bay would not be for the exclusive use of the appeal
proposals, and if it is full when a particular delivery vehicle arrives, that vehicle
may seek to mount the pavement, again causing pedestrian conflict.
7.116 In addition to pedestrian conflict, this arrangement would provide less road
space to TfL to enact future measures on St Thomas St, such as a bi-
directional cycle lane.
7.117 A common principle for other schemes on St Thomas St is the diversion of
servicing activity away from St Thomas St (e.g. Shard Place with its fully
internalised servicing yard). By not delivering this for the 2018 scheme, the
Appellant’s proposal is an outlier. Both the SP and the LP expect servicing to
be undertaken on-site.201 LP policy T7 G requires servicing to be undertaken
off-street with on-street loading bays only used where this is not possible. In
order to comply with Policy T7, the Appellant’s must demonstrate that it is not
possible to service the development off-street, it is not a question of
preference or whether it would be more straightforward to do so, and that this
is a high bar to overcome.
198 SOCG-02
199 Ibid, p 10-12 including a consolidation strategy for White Hart Yard and St Thomas St, and
the proposed restriction of the use of the St Thomas St loading bay to hours outside the AM,
PM and lunchtime peak
200 CD-D-21 Policies D3, D9, T2, T5 and T7 and CD-E-01 Policies P14, P18 and P50
201 SP Policy P50
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 70
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.118 The Appellant’s approach to the interpretation of Policy T7 was that the
judgement about whether it is possible to incorporate off-street servicing was
to be exercised by reference to what was possible within the particular scheme
in front of the planning authority, rather than whether this would be possible
with a reconfigured scheme. This led the Appellant to consider that there was
no conflict with Policy T7, but the underlying premise is false.
a. If that approach was correct, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in
which an applicant could fail to comply with the policy because they
would always be able to claim that the particular design that they had
opted for in respect of a specific scheme precluded on-site servicing.
That is not only a self-serving approach to take to policy interpretation
but it also defies common sense.
b. In order for the policy to have any practical purpose, it must require an
assessment as to whether it would be possible to introduce on-site
servicing with a reconfigured scheme.
c. Given that it has proven possible for the Appellant to include on-site
servicing for the 2021 scheme, it is plainly possible for servicing to be
undertaken on-site on this site with a similar level of commercial office
floorspace, and so the high bar set by Policy T7 is not met.
7.119 The other principal cause for concern is the increased use of White Hart Yard
by servicing vehicles which would result in an increased risk of collision
between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists both within the Yard and where the
Yard meets Borough High Street. It is agreed that White Hart Yard already
has limited visibility for vehicles. The fact that servicing vehicles currently use
the Yard is not a good reason to increase the reliance on what is already an
undesirable arrangement. Increasing the number of occasions when this risk
occurs brings with it additional harm.
7.120 Moderate weight should be attributed to this harm in the planning balance.
Daylight
7.121 The Appellant’s daylight and sunlight consultants, GIA, identify that both
schemes will cause a noticeable reduction to the daylight amenity within the
student housing blocks located to the south of the appeal site,202 namely
Orchard Lisle House and Iris Brook House. There is no dispute between the
parties as to the conclusions of GIA’s technical assessment. The following
matters are agreed:
a. The impact on the amount of daylight reaching student accommodation
is a negative impact of the schemes. When assessing the weight to be
attached to this negative impact in the planning balance, the Inspector
and SoS will need to consider both the nature (i.e. the magnitude of the
202 Mr Goddard RPoE App 3-B-5 para 3.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 71
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
reduction) and the extent (how much of the student accommodation is
affected) of the impacts.
b. The ES concludes that the effects are either moderate adverse or
moderate to major adverse for the two schemes i.e. significant adverse
environmental effects.
c. Protection of the amenity of young people is important and good levels
of daylight in student rooms are relevant to health and wellbeing and
therefore student welfare.
d. The loss of daylight means that more energy consumption is needed to
ensure that rooms are adequately lit and this has both adverse
sustainability and cost implications.
7.122 In spite of this, the Appellant’s view was that the daylight impacts on the
amenity of Orchard Lisle House and Iris Brook House should attract “very, very
very little weight” in the planning balance. This casually dismissive approach
to what will be a noticeable and significant reduction in amenity for those
affected is consistent with the Appellant’s wider reluctance properly to face up
to and take account of the negative impacts of the schemes. It is also not a
credible assessment of the weight that should fairly be given to this adverse
effect.
7.123 Given the nature and extent of the impact on the student accommodation, and
the importance of protecting the amenity of young people, the LPA is right in
concluding that this should attract moderate weight.
Benefits
7.124 As explained in opening,203 the principal differences between the parties in
terms of the identification of public benefits flow from the LPA’s heritage and
design and townscape likely reasons for refusal. Beyond the modest heritage
benefit of restoring the Georgian terrace, the LPA does not accept that either
scheme delivers heritage benefits. Further, the design of the schemes is far
from exemplary and is instead harmful, and there is consequently no public
benefit associated with the quality of the design of either scheme.
7.125 The differences between the parties with regard to the weight to be attached
to public benefits and the calibration scales of each of the respective witnesses
is set out in the public benefits comparison note.204 We do not address each
and every difference of opinion but instead focus on the main points.
Economic
Employment floorspace
7.126 One of the key differences between the parties is the significance of the fact
that the LPA can comfortably achieve the SP’s strategic targets for the delivery
of employment floorspace and economic growth over the plan period without
203 INQ-01 para 57
204 INQ-32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 72
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
the additional ‘windfall’ floorspace that would be contributed by one or other of
the appeal schemes.
7.127 It is the LPA’s case that this necessarily bears on the weight to be attached to
this benefit.
a. In generating figures for how growth should be distributed within the
Borough in the SP, the LPA has had regard to a variety of different
sensitivities and considerations.
b. In that context, the addition of substantially increased levels of
employment floorspace in any one location (particularly within a relatively
‘mature’ area such as London Bridge) cannot simply be assumed to
represent an unalloyed benefit. In short, if one keeps introducing further
substantial levels of growth beyond what has been planned for in the SP,
the risk is that harms are introduced that go beyond those reflected in the
balance struck in the development plan.
c. That is the context in which to consider the significance of the additional
benefit generated by surpassing the levels of growth identified in the
development plan, alongside consideration of the impact that might have
on the delivery of sustainable development more generally. The LP
expects the special features that Londoners value about a place, such as
historic elements, should be used positively to guide and stimulate
growth.205 In some cases that will mean guiding particular forms of
development away from valued heritage assets. That may help to
stimulate growth in less sensitive locations. This approach is consistent
with the concept of good growth (rather than simply growth at any cost)
that underpins the development plan as a whole. In circumstances in
which the LPA has a clear pipeline of delivery of employment floorspace in
the London Bridge area, the weight that should attach to the benefit of
further floorspace is fairly characterised as moderate.
7.128 The identity of the Appellant has been treated as a factor that justified the
application of additional weight to the provision of office floorspace given the
Appellant’s “track record, and ability and commitment to deliver the Scheme, if
permitted within a short timescale.”206 That approach is misconceived in
circumstances where it is common ground between the parties that:
a. There is no proposal to make a grant of permission for either scheme
personal to the Appellant.
b. There is nothing to prevent the Appellant from selling the site to another
developer with the grant of planning permission.
c. There is nothing to stop the Appellant from changing their corporate
approach for commercial reasons at some future date and e.g. not
delivering the scheme themselves or coming back with a different
scheme.
d. If planning permission is granted and material weight is accorded to the
Appellant “track record”, there is no comeback if the Appellant does not in
the event deliver the scheme.
205 CD-D-21 para 1.2.7
206 Goddard Rebuttal para 5.12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 73
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
e. Aside from the standard condition regarding the implementation period
for a permission, there is nothing proposed to secure the timing of
delivery.
f. The Appellant have not explained their intended delivery timescales for
the schemes should permission be granted.
7.129 There is another significant practical hurdle to be overcome before the
development could be implemented, namely the need to enter into a
Development Agreement with TfL and/or LUL for the delivery of the station
works.207 The matters to be covered by the Development Agreement are set
out in Sch. 5 clause 1.2, and include a range of technical design, protective,
commercial, consenting and licensing matters which will necessarily take some
time to complete. Whilst the parties are obliged to use reasonable endeavours
to reach agreement, the history of negotiations with LUL just to establish
agreement to the principle of a new access point suggests that agreement on
all points of detail for the design and implementation of the station works will
not be straightforward.
7.130 In the light of these factors, the identity of the Appellant is irrelevant to the
weight to be attached to this benefit.
Jobs
7.131 The Appellant has also overvalued the scale of the benefit arising from the
provision of new jobs associated with the schemes. It is agreed that in judging
the weight to be attributed to this benefit, it is relevant to compare the
number of jobs provided by the schemes with the jobs delivered by other
comparable office led development in Southwark, as well as a London-wide
comparison.
7.132 So far as the local Southwark context is concerned:
a. No challenge was made to the LPAs evidence that the number of jobs
delivered by the schemes is commensurate with similar developments in
the area such as Becket House and Vinegar Yard.208
b. Further, no challenge was made to his assessment that if the delivery of
one of the schemes was combined with Vinegar Yard and Becket House,
together they would make up approximately the 10,000 jobs total
required in the entire Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Opportunity
Area for the whole plan period.209
c. The substantial contribution made by those schemes towards the target in
this part of the Opportunity Area is relevant to the weight that should be
attributed to the windfall benefit provided by this scheme.
7.133 On a London-wide scale, it is agreed that the delivery of the additional jobs
associated with the scheme is not significant. This is reflected in the ES
Scoping Report for the 2018 scheme, which treats the provision of new jobs as
an insignificant socio-economic issue and states that “whilst [this] job creation
207 INQ-29.3 & INQ29.4
208 Mr Glasgow PoE para 7.13
209 See CD-E-01 SP Policy ST1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 74
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
is large in number, will contribute towards job creation targets and is clearly
an economic benefit, these jobs are unlikely to be materially significant in the
context of the wider London area.”210
7.134 That conclusion is significant. There was a subsequent attempt to distance the
Appellant’s case from what was said on its behalf during the EIA Scoping
process by emphasising that this was considering significance on a London-
wide basis. That attempt was misguided, for two reasons.
a. As with all environmental topics, it is a matter of judgment for the
appropriately qualified experts to determine the most appropriate basis to
judge significance having regard to the proposed development and the
nature of the effect under consideration. In this case the relevant experts
have judged that the most appropriate basis for assessing significance is
to look at what would be delivered in the London context. It is not an
arbitrary choice, but one informed by expert judgment on the facts of the
particular case. Any ex post facto attempt to disown that choice to suit
the Appellant’s arguments in an inquiry should be given short shrift.
b. In this case the adverse townscape and heritage impacts of the proposed
development will be felt far beyond the local context. They also adversely
affect heritage assets which are significant at a London, national and (in
the case of the ToL WHS) international level. If the scale of employment
benefits are such as to be material only at a local level, that is itself a
strong indicator that they are unlikely to attract the sort of weight needed
to outweigh those adverse impacts in the balance.
Affordable workspace
7.135 The LPA has acknowledged the provision of 10% affordable workspace to be a
benefit to which significant weight should attach. Whilst the level provided is
the minimum needed to comply with policy, the provision of such floorspace is
a strategic priority.
7.136 It is notable that the Appellant only ascribes moderate weight to this benefit,
and the contrast with the LPAs more generous position makes it hard to
understand the Appellant’s accusation that the LPA is talking the down the
benefits, or that the LPA appears to attach reduced weight to benefits which do
not extend beyond the policy requirement. Neither accusation is accurate or
fair. A clear, considered and eminently reasonable explanation for the weight
accorded to each benefit in this case has been given.
7.137 In evidence the Appellant has sought to rely on the potential for King’s College
London (KCL) to take space in the affordable elements of the scheme, either
alone or as a joint venture with Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Trust (GST), as
being relevant to the weight that attaches to the affordable workspace. That
reliance was misplaced, as became apparent during the section 106 round
table session. On behalf of the Appellant it was explained that no reliance was
210 Glasgow PoE para 8.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 75
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
in fact placed on any particular occupier for the purposes of the planning
balance. That is sensible. There can be no guarantee that either KCL or GST
will take space in the development, and indeed the space has not been
specifically designed for their purposes. It is possible that KCL and/or GST
may take space in the building, but it is equally possible that they do not. No
weight can therefore be attached to that factor in the planning balance.
Environmental and social
7.138 The new London Bridge underground station access is acknowledged to be a
public benefit, but the parties differ substantially regarding the appropriate
weight that attaches to it.
7.139 There is no evidence that London Underground Ltd (LUL) has ever identified a
need for change to or enhancement of the existing access on the east side of
BHS. Nor is there evidence that LUL considers the existing access is not
functioning satisfactorily. Absent the proposed redevelopment of the appeal
site, all indications are that the existing access would not be likely to change
(or need to change) any time soon.
7.140 TfL is consulting on separate proposals to increase the space available to
pedestrians on this side of BHS and into St Thomas St, which would serve to
reduce congestion on the pavements including the pavement outside the
station access.
7.141 The view of TfL is that the new access is required to meet an acceptable
pedestrian comfort level211 and so it is necessary mitigation to address what
would otherwise be a potential obstacle to the grant of planning permission,
rather than representing a pure enhancement.
7.142 Further, beyond providing a convenient access into the development for those
employed in the retail and workspace, the extent to which the new access will
represent a significant benefit to other underground users is limited. This is
due to the following factors:
a. The existing entrance and exit on the east side of BHS is a secondary
access, used by about 12% of those using the station, in comparison to
the far busier access points on St Thomas St and Duke St Hill212.
b. The fact that there is already an entrance and exit for those who wish to
come out of the station and go one way or another along the east side
of BHS means that for those seeking to go north and south on BHS, the
new access is simply a further means of entering and exiting the same
existing secondary point of access to the station.
c. As the Space Syntax studies show, most of the existing pedestrian
traffic exiting the station on the east side of BHS heads north, south or
west and only a limited proportion presently heads east along St
211 CD-C-24 p4
212 Mr Allford PoE Fig 143 p41
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 76
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Thomas St or into King’s Head Yard.213 So, a relatively small proportion
of total users of the station use the existing BHS east access point and
of that relatively small proportion, only approximately 1 in 5 current
users of this access would benefit from a new access point that allows
for a more direct route east.
7.143 Taken together, these contextual factors mean that this benefit is not properly
characterised as exceptional and the LPA are right to accord moderate weight
to it.
7.144 At a very late stage, the Appellant introduced a new analysis214 seeking to
show that 70% of those using the new access to the station would be
travelling to somewhere other than the development. Even when committed
to writing, the basis for these figures was somewhat opaque. As the
subsequent note215 explains, clarification of the underlying figures with the
assistance of AHMM suggests that the percentage figure relies on a number of
unstated and in places questionable assumptions. In particular, it is assumed
that a large number of those who currently exit onto BHS to travel south along
that street will henceforth eschew that option and would instead exit to the
east before doubling back along King’s Head Yard to BHS and continuing their
journey as before. Even assuming that is likely (and it seems counter-
intuitive), the actual level of benefit, if any, to those commuters compared to
the existing position must be very limited indeed.
7.145 In relation to the weight to be attached to the public realm, the shortcomings
of the public realm at ground floor level in terms of its quality, size, and
function justifies the application of limited weight to this benefit. Further,
whereas the Appellant sought to present the elevated public gardens that
would be delivered by the schemes as an out of the ordinary public realm
benefit, the provision of elevated public space is expected by both the LP and
SP216 for tall building proposals and there is therefore nothing unusual or
exceptional about its provision in these schemes.
7.146 The Appellant attaches substantial weight to the delivery of zero carbon
measures secured by condition. The LPA’s view is that very limited (2018) and
limited weight (2021) should attach to these sustainability measures.
7.147 When judging the overall sustainability credentials of the appeal proposals it is
relevant to consider the wider context. The demolition of the existing building,
which appears to be fully occupied, and its replacement with a wholly new
building is an inherently resource intensive approach. There is very limited
evidence of any serious consideration being given to alternative approaches
which are less carbon intensive and more sympathetic to the site’s context.
213 The relevant Space Syntax figure is reproduced in Allford PoE Fig 146 p. 41. It shows that
in the morning peak, only 21% of the users of the Borough High St east entrance/exit go east
along St Thomas St or into King’s Head Yard
214 INQ-24
215 INQ-33
216 CD-D-21 LP D9 and CD-E-01 SP P17
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 77
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.148 Further, neither scheme can fairly be characterised as an exemplar in terms of
delivering sustainability benefits. Rather than providing detailed information
as to compliance with a range of sustainability measures up front,
demonstrating that these matters have been driving factors throughout the
design process, both schemes defer compliance in respect of a number of
measures to conditions, with the 2018 scheme deferring a greater number of
matters than the 2021 scheme.
Whether the public benefits outweigh the harm within the heritage balance
7.149 The modest public benefits do not outweigh the significant harm to the BHSCA,
Guy’s Hospital, the St Thomas St LBs, Southwark Cathedral, the ToL WHS, St
Paul’s Cathedral and the considerable number of other heritage assets217.
Whether the appeal proposals are in accordance with the development plan taken as
a whole
7.150 It is common ground between the parties that relevant factors in considering
whether the appeal proposals are in accordance with the development plan as
a whole include the importance of the policies complied with or infringed, the
extent of compliance or breach and the overall thrust of the development plan
policies.
7.151 Reference has already been made to the strategy of the development plan to
deliver good growth. The concept of good growth that is said to “underpin” the
LP is defined as growth that is socially and economically inclusive and
environmentally sustainable. In accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 NPPF, the
development plan seeks to achieve sustainable development in precisely the
manner that national policy requires, through the delivery of the
interdependent economic, social and environmental objectives, which are to be
pursued in mutually supportive ways. It was accepted that the good growth
concept is relevant to an understanding of the overall thrust of the
development plan policies.
7.152 High quality design that is appropriate to its context and respect for, and the
conservation and enhancement of, heritage assets are essential as component
parts of delivering good growth and must be achieved alongside and in concert
with the delivery of economic objectives. The development plan does not view
these as objectives pulling in different directions. London’s heritage is rightly
viewed by the LP as of strategic importance to ensuring the city’s success and
it is clear that this strategic role should not be sacrificed when seeking to
achieve economic growth. Further, a design-led approach to development and
understanding what is valued about a specific place is seen by the LP as being
of strategic importance to the delivery of sustainable development and growth.
These strategic objectives and the interrelationship between delivering
economic benefits and a high quality design that promotes and respects local
distinctiveness and heritage permeate throughout the LP.
217 Mr Glasgow PoE section 9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 78
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.153 The same interrelated objectives also underpin the SP’s approach, the spatial
strategy for which is to continue with “regeneration and preservation to create
destinations, town centres and residential communities that preserve and
enhance the history of places particularly historical buildings and open spaces.”
7.154 Where a proposal gives rise to significant harms in relation to heritage and
design matters, the strategy for good growth is undermined even where
economic benefits are delivered, and it is appropriate to conclude that there
has not been compliance with the development plan as a whole.
7.155 To deliver growth that is good, the growth must not just deliver economic
benefits but must also deliver a high quality design that promotes and respects
local distinctiveness and heritage. However, the Appellant considers that
eroding the distinctiveness of an area and failing to preserve the historic
character of London’s unique places through development would be consistent
with the broad thrust of the development plan. That position is untenable. The
view was that the overall thrust of the development plan’s strategy was to
drive business growth and change. That is not what either part of the
development plan actually says. Furthermore, this is fundamentally
inconsistent with the remit of the good growth strategy (and the plain wording
of that strategy articulated throughout the LP and SP), this misunderstanding
of the overall thrust of the plan helps to explain the Appellant’s distinctly
unbalanced view of the relative importance of protecting the historic
environment and promoting economic growth, and the way in which those two
objectives are expected to be pursued.
7.156 The schemes conflict with development plan policies relating to tall buildings,
design and architectural quality, the protection of WHSs and other heritage
assets, strategic views, public realm and servicing. These policies are not only
amongst the most important in the development plan, they are necessarily of
central importance to any determination in this case. The schemes also
conflict with the overall thrust of the development plan and its strategy of
seeking to achieve good growth. The nature and extent of the conflict is
substantial. As such, the proposal is in conflict with the development plan
when considered as a whole.
Overall planning balance
7.157 In accordance with s. 38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the appeals must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
7.158 In this case both schemes conflict with the plan as a whole. The plan is agreed
to be up to date, and there is common ground that this will tend to increase
the weight that attaches to policy conflict.
7.159 The presumption in favour of refusal arising from the development plan is
supported in this case by the strong statutory presumption in favour of refusal
that arises because of the harm caused to designated heritage assets.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 79
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
7.160 None of the other material considerations in this case would justify the grant of
permission. The most important ‘other material consideration’ in this case is
the harm that would be caused to interests of acknowledged importance, and
which has given rise to the policy conflicts. Very substantial weight should be
given to that negative factor in the planning balance. There are benefits of the
schemes but the collective weight that they attract is relatively modest in
comparison, and very far from capable of tipping the balance in favour of
granting permission.
Conclusion
7.161 For the reasons summarised above, the section 78 appeals should be
dismissed and planning permission refused for both schemes.
8 The Case for Historic England
8.1 HE does not routinely appear as a Rule 6 party at planning inquiries. This step
is not taken lightly and is reserved for the most serious cases, where HE
considers the heritage impacts of a scheme would be particularly harmful.
8.2 HE’s advice on GPE’s tall building proposals has remained utterly consistent,
from the pre-application response right up to the Inquiry. Precisely the same
concerns were raised about the effect of a tall building on this site, in terms of
the heritage assets that would be harmed, the way the harm would arise, and
how serious it would be in the pre-application response letter dated 9 July
2018.218
8.3 In line with HE’s role as the Government’s expert advisor on the historic
environment, these submissions focus on heritage matters. HE does not
advance a case on the weight to be given to non-heritage related public
benefits and has not attempted to strike the overall planning balance as it is
outside HE’s specialist area of expertise. That said, having heard and reflected
on the evidence of all parties, HE remains convinced that the proposed
buildings would be very damaging to some of London’s most special historic
places. Bearing in mind the weight that must be accorded to the harm (given
its extent and the importance of the assets), weighty public benefits will
necessarily be needed to clearly and convincingly justify a grant of permission.
Matters of law and policy
Decision making framework
8.4 The starting point, and the most important consideration in any case where
LBs and CAs are concerned, is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (‘LBA 1990’). This contains four sections which are relevant to
these appeals, s16, 66, 69 and 72.
218 CD-C-04
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 80
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.5 It is well established that, in both s. 66 and s. 72, “preserving” means avoiding
harm, and that any harm to a LB or its setting, or a CA, must be given
“considerable importance and weight” and gives rise to a “strong presumption
against granting planning permission”.219
8.6 HE has not objected to the grant of LBC in these cases (considered in
isolation), and supports the approach taken by the other main parties as to the
prospect of granting standalone LBCs.
8.7 Two further points which flow from the statute, and which are relevant to
points made later are emphasised:
a. Section 66 gives equal treatment to both a LB and its setting. It therefore
follows that harm to the setting of a LB must be given considerable
importance and weight and engages the same presumption as harm to the
building itself. Any approach to assessment which has the effect of
relegating setting to a secondary or less important consideration would be
inconsistent with s. 66 and wrong in law.
b. Section 69 makes clear that the “character and appearance” of a CA which
is to be preserved or enhanced is that which embodies or reflects the
special architectural or historic interest which justified the designation.220
The LBA 1990 is plainly not intended to protect aspects of character which
do not sustain, or which detract from, that special interest. It is common
ground that, when considering whether a building would preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the CA, the question is how it
relates to the special interest of the CA – not how it fits with the character
of the area in a general, or in a townscape sense.
8.8 The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation221 of
designated heritage assets, and notes that the more important the asset, the
greater the weight should be. Para 200(b) describes WHSs and Grade I and II*
LBs as assets of the highest significance.
8.9 The Court of Appeal has described the NPPF as “laying lay down an approach
which corresponds with the duty in section 66(1)”.222 The NPPF adopts a
unified approach to all designated heritage assets, creating a single framework
to cover the discharge of several different statutory provisions (and, in the
case of WHSs, international obligations). As a result, NPPF goes further than
the law requires in some cases. One example is that harm to a CA caused by
development in its setting attracts great weight under the NPPF, whereas s.72
of the LBA 1990 does not refer to setting. Another example is the approach to
heritage benefits, which is discussed later. It can sometimes be relevant to
219 CD-H-04 - East Northamptonshire DC v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 137 p. 8-9 paras 20, 22-
24 and 28.
220 CDF.05 see in particular paras 11, 17 and 34 (pages 5, 8 and 15; pdf 9, 12 and 19).
221 See glossary p. 66: “Conservation (for heritage policy): The process of maintaining and
managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances
its significance.”
222 CDH.13 Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243 p.11, para 28. Although the Court was
considering the original (2012) version of the NPPF, there has been no material change to the
content of the paragraphs the Court was referring to.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 81
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
make a distinction between the way policy is framed and the way the statutory
duties are drafted.
Significance and setting
8.10 The concept of significance within the NPPF is equivalent to the special interest
for which LBs and CAs are designated. The NPPF further confirms that (i)
significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but
also from its setting,223 and that (ii) the cultural value described within the
SOUV for a WHS forms part of its significance.
8.11 The importance of considering how significance is experienced and appreciated
is reflected in the PPG. This confirms that “environmental factors such as
noise, dust, smell and vibration” and “our understanding of the historic
relationship between places” can affect the way an asset is experienced in its
setting.224 Clearly such factors relate to experience and appreciation, not the
special architectural or historic interest of a LB or CA. And they are regarded
as relevant by the Government. Further support for this point can be found in
various pieces of HE guidance.225
Approach to assessing harm
Edith Summerskill House v Tulip
8.12 These were both cases involving development in the settings of heritage
assets. The decisions reveal two different approaches to determining the
degree of LTSH caused by a proposed development taken by Inspectors (and
endorsed by the Secretary of State).
8.13 In Edith Summerskill House, the Inspector sought to gauge the proportion or
component of the significance of a listed church and a CA which could be
attributed to their settings and would therefore be affected, in order to decide
the extent of LTSH caused by the proposed tall building. Because the
“overwhelming proportion” of the church’s significance was “locked into its
form and fabric”, and impacts on significance would “only occur from a few
places in the churchyard or cemetery”, the Inspector found that the harm
would be “very much at the lower end of the scale”.226 A similar approach was
taken to the CA.
8.14 In the Tulip appeal the SoS endorsed the Inspector’s approach that, when
assessing harm, “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”.227
223 See also references to setting in paras 194 and 195 NPPF
224 CDD.11 para 013 (pdf 7)
225 For example, CD-F-04 GPA 3 “The Setting of Heritage Assets”: para 9, 19 (steps 2 and 3)
and para 30, CD-F-07 HEAN 4 “Tall Buildings”: para 5.3, 6th bullet and CD-F-05 HEAN 1
“Conservation Area Appraisal, Designation and Management”: para 58.
226 CDH.20 IR p. 78 (pdf 96) paras 12.50 – 12.54, endorsed by the SoS at DL p. 3 para 13
227 CDH.10 IR p. 136 (pdf 150) para 14.2, endorsed by the SoS at DL p. 3 para 16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 82
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.15 The difference between these two approaches is best encapsulated as a
quantitative vs qualitative assessment of harm. Both HE and the Council’s
witnesses have taken a qualitative approach which most closely aligns with the
Tulip decision. They sought to identify the aspects of significance which were
particularly relevant (given the nature of development proposed), and then
considered the extent to which those aspects would be affected. This is most
easily illustrated by the assessments of the Tower of London WHS, where the
attributes which were relevant were identified and then considered how far the
proposals would affect those attributes. The Appellant’s approach was harder
to discern but seems to be more aligned with Edith Summerskill House than
the Tulip.
8.16 HE’s position is that, of these two approaches, that taken in the Tulip appeal is
clearly to be preferred. It is a simpler, straightforward approach which looks at
what is being affected and why it is important. It avoids a mechanical or
mathematical exercise, which might otherwise be felt necessary in order to
determine what ‘proportion’ of significance would be affected. The Tulip
decision is recent and concerned the same WHS which is at issue in this case;
it would seem to be appropriate to take consistent approach to assessing harm
in this case.
8.17 Edith Summerskill House does not sit very comfortably with the equal
treatment of LBs and their settings under s. 66 LBA 1990. The Inspector’s view
was that “unless the asset concerned derives a major proportion of its
significance from its setting, then it is very difficult to see how an impact on its
setting can advance a long way along the scale towards substantial harm”.
Since it is hard to imagine any LB which would derive a “major proportion” of
its significance from its setting (bearing in mind the designation is for the
special interest of the building itself), this approach appears to make findings
of high levels of harm less likely in setting cases. On the face of it this would
make such harm easier to justify. This point is illustrated by the Appellant’s
evidence that this decision at paragraph 12.50 was consistent with the “big
difference” between direct effects (on the fabric of a LB) and indirect effects
(from development in the setting). Yet there is no difference in how these
effects are treated in s. 66.
8.18 For similar reasons, the Edith Summerskill House decision also sits uneasily
with the PPG, which states that substantial harm “may arise from works to the
asset or from development in its setting”, and that “even minor works have
the potential to cause substantial harm, depending on the nature of their
impact on the asset and its setting.”228 The Government clearly recognises that
development in the setting of a heritage asset can cause a high level of harm,
whereas this would seem unlikely adopting the approach in Edith Summerskill
House.
8.19 The legal position is clear. There is nothing in the LBA 1990 or the NPPF (or
anywhere else) which mandates a single approach to determining the extent of
228 CD-D.11 para 018
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 83
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
harm. This is left to the judgment and expertise of planning inspectors (or, in
this case, the SoS). The approach you take to determining the degree of LTSH
to any heritage asset in this case is a matter for the decision maker, provided
it is a reasonable one. If a choice has to be made between the two approaches
just discussed, then HE invites the decision maker to adopt the Tulip approach.
However, there may be other approaches entirely which would be equally
acceptable.
Substantial harm
8.20 Another topic which probably occupied more time than it warranted during the
oral evidence was the definition of substantial harm. None of the heritage
witnesses identified any substantial harm arising from either scheme,
however, it would appear that the Appellant was seemingly trying set up an
evidential basis for arguing that, because none of the identified harm is
‘substantial’, it should therefore be regarded as either “not serious” or as
affecting some element of the heritage asset which is not “key” to its
significance.
8.21 There is no prescribed “definition” or “test” for substantial harm. This has been
explored in the London Historic Parks and Gardens case and the Bedford
case.229 The bottom line is found in the Bramshill judgment: “Whether there
will be such “harm”, and, if so, whether it will be “substantial”, are matters of
fact and planning judgment. The NPPF does not direct the decision-maker to
adopt any specific approach to identifying “harm” or gauging its extent”.230 It
is clear that substantial harm is intended to be a high test, leaving a very wide
range of LTSH falling below the threshold.
8.22 It must always be remembered that LTSH still carries considerable importance
and weight and does not amount to a less than substantial objection.231 The
fact harm is not ‘substantial’ within the meaning of the NPPF does not mean
that it is not to be regarded as a serious matter.
The range of less than substantial harm
8.23 The PPG advises that the category of harm needs to be identified and then
“within each category of harm … the extent of the harm may vary and should
be clearly articulated”.232 It is settled law that there is no legal or policy
obligation to place harm on a ‘spectrum’ or within a ‘range’ of LTSH. It is
however an obvious way of following the advice in the PPG, and is something
both HE and LBS have done with a view to identifying how serious the harm is
considered to be.
8.24 The Appellant has not attempted to place harm within a range or spectrum in
their assessment. That would not be objectionable if it was obvious how
extensive the harm was considered to be. The written evidence and
229 CD-H-07 p 12 para 52.
230 CD-H.06 p22 para 74
231 CD-H.04 p9 para 29
232 CD-D-11 para 08
https://www.gov.uk/plann ing-inspectorate 84
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
assessments do not go beyond identifying the harm – insofar as it is accepted
– as “considerably less than substantial.” There is limited explanation of
exactly why and how this harm arises, and there is a further problem about
the offsetting of harm against benefits which further muddies the waters.
Weight to be given to heritage benefits
8.25 There is a legal distinction to be made in this regard between CAs and LBs. In
the case of CAs, s. 72 LBA 1990 requires special attention to be paid to
conserving and enhancing the character and appearance of a CA. This puts
enhancement (heritage benefits), on an equivalent statutory footing to
preservation (avoiding harm). Given the approach taken by the Courts to s. 66
and s. 72, it is probably correct to say that enhancements to the character and
appearance of a CA should carry great weight. So far as LBs are concerned, s.
66 requires special regard to be had to preservation, but there is no mention
of enhancement. The considerable importance and weight that must be given
to harm as a result of s. 66 does not necessarily apply to enhancement of a LB
or its setting.
8.26 From a policy perspective no distinction is made between CAs and LBs and
para 199 NPPF requires great weight to be given to conservation, which
includes enhancing significance. HE therefore accepts that, as a matter of
policy, interventions which are regarded as enhancing the significance of a LB
should be given great weight.
8.27 That is not the end of the matter. The weight to be given to harm is not
uniform. Even though all harm carries great weight, it is uncontentious that a
low level of harm will carry less weight (and therefore be easier to outweigh
with public benefits) than a high level of harm. The approach to benefits must
logically be the same and a small amount of benefit should be accorded less
weight that a large amount of benefit. It also logically follows that benefits to
highly graded heritage assets will carry greater weight than benefits to less
important heritage assets. It is therefore necessary to consider the level of
benefit which will occur and the relative importance of the heritage asset which
is receiving the benefit to reach a concluded view on weight.
Other overarching issues
Extent to which heritage has informed the design
8.28 The DAS contains a good amount of detail about the heritage assets within the
site itself, and there is some discussion of the history of St Thomas Street and
Kings Head Yard and the setting of the Kings Head PH. On the other hand,
analysis of the character and appearance of the BHSCA is seriously lacking.
The only explanation of how the schemes respond to the special architectural
and historic character of the CA is in discussion of design references233 and
233 CD-A-06 p88
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 85
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
palette.234 Consideration of how the form and scale of the building and the
layout of spaces relates to the CA context is entirely lacking – although
tellingly the 2018 DAS notes that the building should be “set back as far as
possible from the High Street”.235
8.29 Unsurprisingly (given the responses of consultees to the 2018 scheme) the
2021 DAS shows a greater level of awareness of the negative effects of a tall
building on heritage assets. For example there is reference to heritage settings
as constraints in ‘height definition’ leading to what is described (inaccurately)
as a “mid-rise tall building proposal”;236 and an acknowledgement that
attempts should be made to provide “greater distance away from ... the rear
of the listed Guy’s Hospital”.237 Notwithstanding this, analysis of the BHSCA is
no more advanced in the 2021 DAS compared to the 2018 version, and
although the CAA contains clear guidelines for development, there has been no
analysis in either DAS (or elsewhere) of how the schemes perform against
them.
8.30 Further doubt arises as to the relevance of heritage considerations to the
overall design when one considers the following:
a. It is clear that the design has sought to respond and relate to the tall
buildings at London Bridge Station. There was a conscious choice to
develop a building with a form and appearance which responds to the
collection existing tall buildings, rather than the BHSCA.
b. This design intention is clearly reflected in the earliest iterations of tall
building design which were roughly ¾ the height of the Shard. It is a
demonstration of GPE’s intent to respond to the existing tall buildings,
and their failure to pay any serious attention to the constraints imposed
by the CA.
c. All design iterations were tested against the 7 key benchmark views238
which produced the same adverse effects upon heritage assets. These
effects flowed from the principle of a tall building in this location rather
than any matters of detailed design. It is therefore unsurprising that the
2018 and 2021 TVIBHAs find the same level of adverse effect for both
appeal schemes. At no point was it ever suggested that GPE should
consider a different form of development by their own consultants.
8.31 The evidence has demonstrated that the buildings’ designs have not been
adequately informed by their heritage context; in particular the character and
appearance of the BHSCA which forms the immediate context of the appeal
site. GPE are clearly an experienced developer and have had heritage advice
throughout the proposals, so it is unlikely that they have been unaware of the
inherent tension between the schemes and their historic context. Rather they
have treated this as something that will need to be accepted if redevelopment
234 Ibid p71
235 CD-A-12 p70
236 CD-B-08 p 72
237 CD-B-08 p73
238 Agreed with LBS in 2005
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 86
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
is to occur and that LTSH is inevitable and effectively ‘priced in’ to any tall
building development. GPE have been unwilling to consider the possibility
that, despite the inclusion of the site within a very broad area where LBS
expects tall buildings, it may not actually be suitable for such development.
Design quality
8.32 GPE have advanced the proposition that good quality design could (in
principle) reduce the level of harm caused by a tall building. HE’s position, is
expressed through GPA 3 ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ which states “For
some developments affecting setting, the design of a development may not be
capable of sufficient adjustment to avoid or significantly reduce the harm, for
example where impacts are caused by fundamental issues such as the
proximity, location, scale, prominence or noisiness of a development. In other
cases, good design may reduce or remove the harm, or provide
enhancement.”239
8.33 The heritage harm identified in this case results from the principle of
introducing a tall building in this location. The form and scale of this type of
development produces specific types of effect which will not change whatever
variation on design is chosen – as confirmed by the fact that none of the
iterations tested produced any different results.
8.34 A related point which was explored in the evidence was the extent to which a
building could properly be considered to represent good design if it did not
appropriately respond to its context (historical or otherwise).
8.35 The approach taken by GPA of first reaching a conclusion on the inherent
design quality of the building and carrying that forward into and informing the
heritage assessment is not consistent with the National Design Guide.240 This
document is part of the PPG241 and serves as recent confirmation that, so far
as the Government is concerned, the relationship between a proposed building
and its heritage context is fundamental to the question of whether it can be
considered ‘good’ design. This same point is echoed in the approach of the
Inspector in the Chiswick Curve decision.242
8.36 The failure of the schemes to respond appropriately to their historic context
prevents them from being regarded as “well-designed”. Regardless of the
perceived architectural quality of the buildings ‘in their own right’, the evidence
has demonstrated that any tall building proposal will cause an equivalent level
of harm to heritage – including to a Grade I and II* LB.
239 CD-F-04 p14 para 39
240 CD-D-20 see p10 para 40, p11 para 41 2nd bullet and p11 para 43
241 Ibid p2 para 3
242 CD-H-16 p122 paras 12.8 and 12.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 87
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.37 The appeal site is undoubtedly a location which falls squarely within the HE Tall
Buildings Guidance.243 The existing qualities of the BHSCA are highly
distinctive and the proposals would affect heritage assets of the highest
significance. A tall building on this site will be too harmful, regardless of
design. The appeal site is simply not an appropriate location for a tall building.
Treatment of existing tall buildings
8.38 There has been a heavy reliance by GPE in the existence of tall buildings at
and near London Bridge Station to justify the adverse visual and heritage
effects they accept would occur, including that the juxtaposition between tall
buildings and low-level historic buildings were already a part of the character
of the BHSCA. Similar themes are also apparent for Guy’s Hospital and
Southwark Cathedral. From a heritage perspective, there are two fundamental
problems with this.
8.39 First, as per s72 of the PLBCAA 1990, and whatever the position is in terms of
townscape, the existing tall buildings near London Bridge Station are not part
of the special architectural and historic interest of the BHSCA, as summarised
in the CAA.244 Whilst the CAA dates from 2006 and thus predates the modern
development around London Bridge, earlier incarnations of tall buildings at
London Bridge station already existed at the time the CAA was published. With
the exception of Shard Place, the tall buildings and resulting juxtapositions
relied on – past and present – have been outside the CA boundary. The
character and appearance of the CA itself has remained unaffected and the
consistent range of building heights and scales within its boundary remains.
Nothing has materially changed in this respect since 2006. The failure to
appreciate the distinction between ‘character’ in a general sense and the
‘character’ which is relevant under s. 72 LBA 1990 is a glaring error and has
led to the suggestion that the proposed schemes are essentially ‘in keeping’
with the character of this part of the CA – when in fact they would be
fundamentally at odds with it.
8.40 Second, there is an assumption that existing tall buildings have a positive
effect upon the character and appearance of the CA. Essentially the existing
tall buildings have been treated as part of the baseline and there has been no
attempt to consider whether they have a positive, negative or neutral effect on
the significance of any of the assets. They are just ‘there’.
8.41 This is all the more puzzling bearing in mind that whether the existing
buildings on the appeal site contribute positively, negatively or neutrally to the
character and appearance of the CA has been considered.245 There has been
no attempt to explain the difference of approach between existing buildings on
site and existing buildings in the surrounding area. It cannot be justified.
243 CD-F-07 p 6 para 3.2
244 CD-E-06
245 CD-A-18 p 70 section 6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 88
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.42 HEAN 4 reinforces this point in the specific context of tall buildings, stating
that the issue of cumulative impact needs to be considered to ensure that
(among other things) “where harm already exists, it is not compounded”.246 In
other words, existing harmful development should not be used to justify
further harm which is what has happened here.
8.43 As accepted by the Appellant in cross-examination, Guy’s Hospital Tower and
the Shard are two examples of how the existing tall buildings have
compromised the significance of heritage assets in the CA (and therefore
harmed the CA itself). If the existing buildings are in fact harmful, then the
introduction of “comparable” effects is plainly adding further cumulative harm.
Cumulative harm itself has not been considered and this represents a major
error in approach.
8.44 In respect of Shard Place, which has been seen as particularly significant
because of its location at the edge of, but within, the boundary of the BHSCA.
For the reasons already discussed, the fact that Shard Place is within the
BHSCA boundary does not mean that it must be assumed to be consistent with
the character and appearance of the CA. There needs to be an assessment of
whether it makes a positive, negative or neutral contribution. The same goes
for its effect on the settings of other heritage assets.
8.45 It is fair to say that the committee report is very ‘light’ on heritage matters
and the analysis of heritage effects is lacking.247 HE’s position is that Shard
Place has caused harm to the CA and to the setting of Guy’s Hospital. Shard
Place cannot be regarded as having preserved or enhanced the character and
appearance of the CA. The tall modern building is fundamentally at odds with
the special architectural and historic interest of the area, and particularly sub-
area 4 – for essentially the same reasons as apply to the buildings proposed
by GPE. The decision to permit Shard Place should not be regarded as a
justification for further tall building development in the BHSCA.
Judgements about the ‘quality’ of the CA and settings of other heritage assets
8.46 A theme of the written and oral evidence by GPE is a focus on a notion of
‘quality’ or attractiveness as a relevant consideration when assessing heritage
significance and therefore impact. The idea being that less attractive CAs or
settings, or those otherwise considered to be of lower ‘quality’, are less
sensitive to the introduction of new development.
8.47 First, the methodology of the built heritage assessment (‘BHA’) identifies that
the assessment of sensitivity of an asset “may be moderated to take into
account a judgement about its quality in the round”.248 That cannot be
regarded as a legitimate approach.
246 CD-F-07 p 35 para 6.5
247 CD-H-15
248 CD.A.12-2 p. 341 para 10.17
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 89
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.48 Second, along similar lines, when discussing Southwark Cathedral, reference
was made to the fact that it was not within a “historic setting” and was not a
place where one could “film a historic drama.” The so called ‘Dickens test’ as
set out in the Heritage Statement.”249 However, this has no basis whatsoever
in any law, policy or guidance. The idea that less historically ‘intact’ places are
less sensitive to new development is problematic in light of guidance on
cumulative harm, as it can potentially create a situation where the more harm
that occurs, the more further harm can be justified, and so on until there is
little of heritage value remaining.
8.49 Third, by seeking to contrast the BHSCA with Bloomsbury as a more coherent
CA, there has been an apparent ‘ranking’ or ‘grading’ of CAs. This has no
basis in statute or policy and is not the result of any systematic analysis. This
downgrading of CAs in this way risks relegating other important aspects of
character and appearance as somehow less valuable or sensitive.
8.50 An example of how this has actually happened can be seen in the approach
taken to Kings Head Yard and other historic yards off Borough High Street.
Kings Head Yard has been described variously as an “unwelcome backwater”,
an “unsightly alley”, having a “gritty quality” a “road to nowhere” and “a very,
very difficult place to be”, leading to arguments that the appeal schemes
would relieve the “misery of the yards”. Yet these yards are highly significant
remnants of a medieval street pattern which is unique in London. GPA appear
to place much greater weight on perceived visual quality and architectural
design than other factors which may be relevant to the special interest of a
heritage asset or the contribution made by its setting. The importance of these
other factors is underestimated as a result.
8.51 Fourth, novel ‘test’ or ‘tool’ for assessing heritage effects through taking
account of whether a particular view was one which a visitor would want to
photograph has been presented. It suggests a confusion between pictorial
quality or the attractiveness of a composition on one hand and the way the
view relates to special interest of a heritage asset on the other. The ability to
see a nicely composed view is not the same thing as the ability to understand
an aspect of heritage significance or appreciate that significance.
8.52 This preoccupation with views and visual effects permeates the heritage
assessment more generally as where adverse visual effects were found in the
TVIA, those were to be read across to the adverse effects identified within the
BHA. The assessment of heritage impact starts and ends with the assessment
of visual effects. Again, the risk is that other aspects of significance which are
affected may be missed or given insufficient attention in the assessment. The
further danger of basing the heritage assessment so heavily on the analysis of
views is that the assessment will then miss out any adverse effects which have
not been expressly identified through the views analysis. An example of
heritage harm not picked up in the visual assessment was on St Thomas
Street, where the assessed visual effect went from ‘adverse’ (from London
249 CD.A.18 p. 68 para 5.47
https://www.gov.uk/planning-insp e ctorate 90
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Bridge Street250) to ‘beneficial’ (from opposite Guy’s Hospital251) within the
width of Guy’s forecourt and attempts to justify that conclusion were not
credible.
Treatment of benefits in reaching conclusions on harm
8.53 The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the identification and assessment of
benefits to be weighed against harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter
for the decision maker. A sensible approach must be adopted but there is not
one particular way in which this must be done.252 It may be appropriate to
apply an internal heritage balance, weighing harmful and beneficial heritage
effects together to reach an overall ‘net’ view. In other cases it may be
appropriate to identify all the harms on one side of the equation and balance
them against all the benefits on the other side.
8.54 HE has not sought to undertake an internal heritage balance, save in the case
of the listed terrace where there are accepted to be both positive and negative
effects from development. We have identified the harms that would arise
without at that stage considering beneficial effects.
8.55 However, GPA have reached conclusions about the effects on the BHSCA, the
listed terrace, Southwark Cathedral and Guy’s Hospital “in the round”, by
taking account of positive and negative effects253 and there is not always a
clear articulation of the precise benefits being taken into account. For example,
it is stated that that the schemes would have “positive and negative aspects”
on the setting of Southwark Cathedral254, but the nature of these “positive
aspects” (and how they might relate to the significance of the Cathedral or the
ability to appreciate it) is nowhere explained. Combined with the failure to
articulate where the assessed harm sits within the range of LTSH, this
produces considerable uncertainty as to what level of harm has been
identified, either before or after the perceived benefits have been ‘netted off.’
8.56 There is a further issue regarding the nature of the benefits that are being
taken into account in these “in the round” assessments as in the case of Guy’s
Hospital, harmful effects against “tangible long term benefits to the setting for
the hospital”, consisting of enhanced local connections and high quality public
realm.255 This purports to be an ‘internal heritage balance’, but it was
conceded that these benefits did not relate either to the significance of the
Grade II* LB or the ability to appreciate it. It follows that these were not
‘heritage’ benefits and therefore could not ‘net off’ any heritage harm in an
internal balance. Similarly for the BHSCA, the assessment has gone well
250 CD-A-12-1 p257 and CD-B-14-1 p231
251 CD-A-12-1 p257 and CD-B-14-1 p237
252 CD-H-06 p22-23 paras. 76 and 80
253 Eg. Mr Stewart PoE paras 5.38, 5.47, 5 .64, 5.68
254 Ibid para 5.64
255 Ibid para 5.68
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 91
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
beyond an internal heritage balance to conclude that the overall effect on the
BHSCA is beneficial. Again, the approach to balancing benefits, together with
the failure to identify the extent of any ‘un-netted’ harm, leaves the decision
maker with no clear evidence as to the degree of LTSH to the CA.
Conclusions on law and policy and other overarching issues
8.57 The legal and policy context establishes the following as a correct approach to
identifying and assessing the impacts of new development on heritage assets:
a. Identify the heritage assets potentially affected.
b. Gain a proper understanding of the significance of the heritage assets
potentially affected, using available sources of information such as
Conservation Area Appraisals and other studies as well as list descriptions
and professional assessment. For CAs this means having a clear
understanding of the special architectural and historic interest of the area,
the character and appearance of which is sought to be protected by the
designation.
c. Within the consideration of significance, consider (i) the setting of the
heritage asset and how it contributes to significance, or how it allows that
significance to be appreciated; and (ii) any issues of cumulative harm
arising from the presence of development which is detracting from
significance or the ability to appreciate it (this should have been identified
through consideration of existing significance and setting).
d. Assess how the proposed development will affect the significance of the
heritage asset – whether that is an effect on the fabric of the heritage
asset, or on the relationship between the setting and the significance of
the building. Whatever approach is adopted, it must not undermine the
equivalent statutory protection given to LBs and their settings.
e. Harm needs to be identified as either substantial or LTSH, and the extent
of harm within those categories should be clearly articulated. Identifying
where the harm sits within a range or spectrum is one obvious way of
doing this.
f. Any harm to a designated heritage asset must be given considerable
importance and weight and creates a strong presumption against granting
planning permission. The weight given to harm will increase depending on
the importance of the asset and the extent of harm.
g. Heritage benefits should be given great weight; again the precise amount
of weight depends on the importance of the asset being enhanced and the
extent of the benefit.
h. In a case of LTSH, harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal to determine whether it has been clearly and convincingly
justified. This stage goes beyond consideration of purely heritage issues.
8.58 GPA’s assessment of heritage effects is undermined by several serious errors
which affect most stages of the assessment. This means that the conclusions
on heritage effects must be regarded as fatally flawed. The assessment has
not been robust and cannot be relied on to inform the determination of these
appeals.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 92
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.59 HE has a really thorough understanding of the BHSCA and heritage assets
within it and what gives them their special interest and value. This makes our
assessment reliable and credible. Our conclusions should be accepted.
Borough High Street Conservation Area
Significance
8.60 BHSCA has long been recognised as an area of special architectural and
historic interest. It was designated in 1968, just one year after the Civic
Amenities Act 1967 first introduced the CA designation and it has
extraordinary ‘time depth’ of the area including the recent discovery of an
incredible and largely intact Roman mosaic at the Landmark Court site on
Southwark Street.
Urban Grain
8.61 This long history of occupation has resulted in an area with a very rich history,
with each period of history building on the one before and leaving its mark.
This has led to a CA with quite distinct character areas, representing different
stages of its development. The High Street is one of the oldest roads in London
and still forms the spine of the area and is its most powerful influence.256 The
distinctive medieval grain of the High Street and land adjacent still survives
and is clearly legible. There is nothing else comparable in London.
8.62 GPE are dismissive of the yards and see them as an opportunity to deliver
places and spaces for people to provide an important and delightful addition to
pedestrian movement. But the yards are a remarkable survival. They illustrate
the way the High Street developed from long and narrow burgage plots, where
frontage buildings were serviced by the long plots behind.257 The yards always
had a backland and subservient character.
8.63 Kings Head Yard provides a good illustration of the different layers of history of
the yards. The narrow enclosed space accessed through an opening in the High
Street is a visual reminder of the burgage plots, which have informed the
rhythm and scale of the High Street frontage buildings.258 The Kings Head PH
(Grade II listed) replaced one of the medieval coaching inns and thus provides
a reminder of how the yards were used in their ‘heyday’ before the arrival of
the railways. The façade of the former hop sample rooms illustrates a later
layer of history, the Victorian repurposing of the yards for commercial activity.
The yards may not be the most visually attractive places, but focussing unduly
on that aspect misses the point about what makes them so significant. The
CAA records that “the street forms and layout of the Conservation Area
contribute fundamentally to its character”,259 and the yards are referenced
several times within the appraisal of the CA’s character and appearance.
256 CD-E-06 p 15 para 2.21
257 Ibid p16 para 2.24
258 Ibid p 27 para 3.2.11.
259 Ibid p15 para 2.2.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 93
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.64 It is acknowledged that the 1980s NCC development has not been particularly
sympathetic, with facadism becoming very clear in certain views and the
service yard in particular noted as detracting from the special character of the
yard. Nevertheless, the 1980s development did respect the fundamental urban
grain. The yard remains narrow and enclosed, with the hop sample rooms
façade providing a complementary setting to the Grade II listed pub and
serving as a reminder of the historical development of Kings Head Yard and
the wider area, where the hop trade flourished during the Victorian period. The
hop sample rooms façade is noted in the CAA as making a positive contribution
to the character and appearance of the CA.
Form and scale of development: High Street
8.65 The CAA notes that, given the “eclectic mix of materials and details, reflecting
its evolution over a long period” (contrasting with the “Georgian world” of
Bloomsbury), the overall identity of the CA “is to do as much with scale and
form as with materials and detail”.260 The CAA contains numerous references
to the 3-4 storey scale of existing development on Borough High Street.261 It
conveys a clear message that this scale and form of development is important
to the character and appearance of the CA, and is part of what makes it
distinctive. This is shown to be true when one considers the dramatic
difference in form and scale between the area within the CA boundary and the
area immediately outside it, where s. 72 LBA 1990 does not apply.
8.66 The Shard, Shard Place, the News Building and Guy’s Hospital Tower can all be
seen to rise up well above the consistent 3-4 storey buildings of the High
Street from various locations, albeit they are seen at an appreciable distance.
These buildings create a conspicuous visual distraction and have harmed the
character and appearance of the CA. Existing development in the backlands of
the CA does not protrude above the High Street frontages. This point applies
to the NCC office building as well – whilst it has a variety of negative features,
it remains recessive in most views and does not disrupt the appreciation of the
consistent scale of the High Street.
Form and scale of development: St Thomas Street
8.67 A consistent scale of approximately 4 storeys is also a key feature of the St
Thomas Street sub-area of the BHSCA. This part of the CA is very different
from the High Street. The CAA notes the “restrained quality and consistency”
of its architecture and the “conservative, established tone”.262 St Thomas
Street is much more of a ‘set piece’, with all of the buildings being associated
with the development of St Thomas’ Hospital to the north and then Guy’s
Hospital opposite, built to receive the ‘incurables’. All of the buildings are
based on classical principles and have a civic or domestic (and not
commercial) character. There is uniformity of scale and massing, with the
exception of the former St Thomas’ church at 9A St Thomas Street which
derives and retains significance from its prominence and landmark siting.
260 Ibid p 22 para 3.1.6
261 See e.g. pp. 25-26 paras 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.6
262 CD-E-06 para 3.5.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 94
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.68 Keats House, on the south side of St Thomas Street, is identified in the CAA as
an unlisted building which makes a positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the CA.263 It has a highly attractive and characterful
appearance. Whilst only the frontage survived the 1980s development, this
fact is not immediately obvious. It has always been attached to Conybeare
House (the west wing of Guy’s Hospital), reflecting its history as a building
erected by Guy’s Hospital to provide accommodation for medical staff.264 Its
location thus illustrates the historic association between these buildings.
8.69 The special qualities of this part of the CA as experienced from its eastern end,
immediately after arrival at London Bridge station as one of the key points of
arrival into the CA is emphasised. The visitor leaves a very modern high
density character area and suddenly enters a completely different character
area that is incredibly historic and very consistent in terms of scale of building.
8.70 From the west end of St Thomas Street the tall buildings at London Bridge
station appear highly prominent. The extreme juxtaposition between them and
the adjacent listed buildings is clearly harmful in heritage terms. They are alien
to the special architectural and historic interest of the CA which underpins its
designation, and they draw attention away from the restrained consistency of
this part of the CA. They also deprive the Grade II* listed former church of its
landmark status.
8.71 HE has no objection to the principle of redevelopment as the existing NCC
building has harmed the character of the CA by introducing a building that
bears no relation to its historic context, with very unsympathetic junctions with
the historic buildings it incorporates. However, it is not all bad as it maintains
the consistent building line on the south side of the street and it adheres to the
scale and proportions of the surrounding historic buildings. Once again, the
bulk of the office building behind remains recessive and does not disrupt the
street scene.
Impacts
Kings Head Yard
8.72 It is common ground that the sense of enclosure provided by Kings Head Yard
is of historical significance. It illustrates the unique urban grain of this area
which is hugely important, even if the current presentation of the yard is not
as attractive as it might be. Both appeal schemes would open out the narrow
enclosed yard to provide public realm, turning Kings Head Yard into Kings
Head Square. The loss of this narrow street pattern and sense of enclosure is
clearly harmful. Although the 2021 scheme tries to do more to recognise the
enclosed nature of the yard, it is not successful. The yard would still open
directly into an area of open space, and the very large and imposing entrance
263 Ibid p 49
264 See extract from ‘The Builder’ in CD-A-19 p.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 95
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
to the proposed tall building detracts from the sense of narrowness and
enclosure.
8.73 Whilst Kings Head Yard itself changed width and alignment at certain points
over the years, it has never been experienced as part of a public square and
has never led onto an area of public open space. There is no historical
precedent for what GPE proposes to do.
8.74 The yards have not been the site of principal commercial buildings and activity,
and the secondary and subservient nature is an important aspect of their
character and appearance. The proposals would invert the hierarchy of the
High Street and its yards by introducing a radically taller commercial building
in the backlands, further damaging the special interest of Kings Head Yard.
8.75 The appeal schemes would also involve the demolition of the hop sample
rooms façade. Given that this is accepted as an element which makes a
positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, its loss should
be regarded as causing LTSH in accordance with para 207 NPPF.
8.76 The appeal schemes would not enhance the setting of the Grade II listed Kings
Head PH. The heritage statement concludes that “the significance of this public
house derives in large part from its location on Kings Head Yard”.265 The yards
were the location of the original coaching inns, and the position of the current
pub within an enclosed yard is illustrative of that history. Opening out the yard
to create Kings Head Square will undoubtedly make it easier to view the whole
of the pub’s façade,266 but it will no longer be seen within a historically
appropriate setting. This is another harmful effect.
High Street
8.77 The key impact on the High Street and its range of LBs would be the
juxtaposition of a very tall modern building in the backland against the low
level historic frontage buildings. The schemes would introduce a jarring and
incongruous form of development into the heart of the CA. The proposed
towers would be highly conspicuous and would appear to rise very close
behind the historic buildings. This would affect the ability to appreciate the
individual and collective architectural quality of the High Street buildings. The
breathing space currently provided between the heart of the BHSCA and the
tall buildings at London Bridge station would be lost, reducing the ability to
appreciate the depth of the long narrow plots deriving from the medieval
pattern of development.
8.78 The TVIA concludes that, seen from the War Memorial or the junction between
Southwark Street and Stoney Street, the proposed buildings would produce
major and adverse effects.267 These adverse effects led to findings of harm in
the BHA. It is therefore common ground that the juxtaposition that would be
265 CD-A-18 p 135
266 CD-A.06 p 119
267
htt pCsD:/A/w.1w2-w1. gpo.2v.2u9k /apnladn pn.i n2g3-3in; sCpDeBct.o1r4a-t1e p . 2 0 3 a n d p 9. 260 7.
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
experienced on the High Street would harm the character and appearance of
the BHSCA.
St Thomas Street
8.79 The same type of effect would occur in the St Thomas Street part of the
BHSCA. The eye would be drawn away from the historic buildings and towards
a large modern building which is designed to respond to the tall buildings at
London Bridge station and is fundamentally at odds with the special
architectural and historic interest of the CA. It is clear that the same type of
harm will result from the relationship between the proposal and the historic
buildings from other points along St Thomas Street (including from closer to
the base of the building). At all times the viewer would be aware of the vast
height of the proposed schemes towering over the restrained consistency of
the Georgian architecture, even when they were not looking directly at it.
8.80 In views of St Thomas Street from the west the schemes would produce the
same sort of effects, which would be exacerbated in the 2021 scheme by the
increased proximity between the tall building and the listed terrace and the
increased width of the northern elevation. From this perspective the
cumulative impact of the appeal schemes together with the consented
schemes to the east of London Bridge station would produce the appearance of
a wall of tall modern development along St Thomas Street, eroding any sense
of depth behind what would become a historic façade.
8.81 The proposal to relocate the frontage of Keats House is advanced not for the
benefit of Keats House itself, but to allow access to the interior of the appeal
site for servicing. The current preference is for façade relocation instead of
dismantling and rebuilding, but both methods pose risks to the historic fabric.
These risks are being taken purely because of the inherent difficulties in
servicing a large development within a backland site. Although the DAS
presented the separation of Keats House from Conybeare House as a benefit of
the scheme,268 once one appreciates that it was always attached to the
hospital and that this relationship has historical associations it becomes
obvious that the proposed intervention is harmful.
8.82 The 2021 scheme is more harmful so far as Keats House is concerned because
of the introduction of a curve on the new eastern flank wall which would not be
historically authentic. It is clear from the swept paths in the appendix to the
Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan269 that the curve is needed to
accommodate refuse vehicles and HGVs. The curved wall leading into the
servicing entrance will make it blindingly obvious that the frontage of Keats
house is merely a façade – something which is not obvious at present. It is
extremely hard to see how the works to Keats House could be constituted as
an improvement and an enhancement to the character and appearance of the
building. The works are plainly harmful.
268 CD-A-06 p50, CD-B-08 p48
269 CD-B-07
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 97
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
CAA Guidelines
8.83 The CAA contains a series of guidelines in section 5, drawing on “those themes
that are essential to the Conservation Area’s historical character, which new
development and improvement should pay heed to”.270 It is common ground
that these guidelines should be a key consideration in the design development
of any new building in the CA and that the overall message of the guidelines
was that, whilst modern architecture is welcomed in the CA, it needs to
respect the prevailing heights of the surrounding area and “buildings should
remain within the range of heights of the block of buildings in which they are
sited.”271 It was conceded that the proposed tall buildings breached the CAA
guidelines, that this was something that should be taken into account, and
that the breaches are not acknowledged in any of GPE’s documents.
Conclusions on harm to the BHSCA
8.84 There is little difference between the 2018 and 2021 schemes in terms of the
degree of harm that would occur. In both cases it would be at the upper end of
LTSH. Because of the various errors in the heritage assessment, you are left
with no clear understanding of the extent of the accepted harm.
8.85 It was implied that if harm was only found to arise due to effects on certain
views or in particular sub-areas, that might be characterised as being of a
lower level in the context of the CA as a whole.
8.86 In response to this, first, the harms are widespread within the CA, arising
within sub-areas 1 and 4 and within sub-area 2 as a continuation of the High
Street character, even though the proposals would be seen at more of a
distance, the same type of effects would occur. The proposals would also harm
Southwark Cathedral (the key building in sub-area 3) and Guy’s Hospital (the
key building in sub-area 4) as LBs; this also constitutes harm to the character
and appearance of the CA.
8.87 Second, in the case of Irving the planning officer had identified a harmful
effect on the character and appearance of the CA but had sought to look at it
in the context of the CA as a whole and found that the special character of the
CA as a whole would be preserved. The Court found that this approach could
not be supported: “If there is harm to the character and appearance of one
part of the conservation area, the fact that the whole will still have a special
character does not overcome the fact of that harm. It follows that the
character and appearance will be harmed.”272 This is also consistent with the
approach taken in the Tulip case, where the focus should be on what is
affected rather than what is left untouched. In this case there may be parts of
the CA where the proposed schemes would not be visible or, if visible, would
not cause harm. That does not in any way diminish the harmful effects which
would occur elsewhere.
270 CD-E-06 p54 para 5.1.1
271 CD-E-06 p57 para 5.2.7
272 CD-H-19 p1388 paras 56-58
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 98
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.88 Third, it is instructive to consider the approach adopted to CA impacts in the
Vinegar Yard decision.273 Like the BHSCA, Bermondsey Street CA covers a
large area and is split into four distinct sub-areas.274 Notwithstanding the
edge-of-CA location, the fact that the tall building itself will be outside the CA
boundary, and that no impacts were identified to two of the four sub-areas, it
was still concluded that there would be a moderate level of LTSH to the CA.275
It is hard to see how the proposed buildings in this case, which occupy a much
more central position within the BHSCA and affect all of the 4 sub-areas -
including two of the most highly graded buildings - can reasonably be found to
cause a lower level of harm than the Vinegar Yard scheme did to Bermondsey
Street CA.
8.89 The BHSCA is not the right fabric on which to stitch the ambitious modern
office designs of global businesses as another layer of history. It was
designated in 1968 in recognition of the special architectural and historic
interest which could be appreciated through its character and appearance at
the point of designation. That does not mean that the CA is to be preserved in
aspic. Modern development has and will continue to take place within the
BHSCA boundary. Parliament has decreed that, when an area is designated as
a CA, those who are responsible for managing development must give great
weight to preserving and enhancing the special qualities which warranted its
designation in the first place. If this is not done, then those special qualities
will over time be lost. And as the NPPF reminds us, heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource. They should be conserved so that they can continue to
be enjoyed and appreciated into the future.
The listed terrace
Development in the setting
8.90 The effects of inserting either of the proposed tall buildings within the backland
behind the listed terrace have already been discussed in the context of the
BHSCA. However there are additional effects on the terrace which derive from
the close physical proximity of the towers and the way the relationship
between the buildings has been addressed.
8.91 In the 2018 scheme the St Thomas Street elevation of the tall building has
been curved to ‘pull away’ from the rear of the listed terrace and provide
breathing space. The need to maintain the same level of floorspace in the
2021 scheme resulted in a wider building, which takes up much more space
within the site. The relationship between the building and the terrace is
significantly different as a result.
LBC Works
273 CD-G-04
274 Ibid see plan p 90
275 Ibid p 93 paras 376-377
https://www.gov.uk/planning-insp ectorate 99
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.92 HE did not object to the LBC application and recognises that there are benefits
arising from the interventions to the fabric of the listed terrace. The key
interventions are as follows.
Rear elevations
8.93 The only historic fabric remaining on the rear elevations of the listed terrace is
at number 14, and that is overclad with a 1980s skin. Therefore, the proposed
works would not be revealing historic fabric.
8.94 HE disagree with the suggestion that revealing the rear elevations of the
terrace would better reveal the heritage significance of the listed terrace
because:
a. The significance of the terrace lies primarily in the elevation to St Thomas
Street (in particular the fenestration, the consistent roof line and the use
of yellowy buff London bricks), where it makes a strong contribution to
the street scene;
b. Unlike the street frontage, the rear elevations were not designed to be
seen as the terrace would have backed on to private land; and
c. The ability to appreciate any significance which would be considered to
reside in the reconstructed rear elevations would be compromised in both
schemes, but in different ways:
i. It is common ground that the provision of shopfronts in the 2018
scheme is not historically authentic. It has the effect of inverting
the hierarchy of the terrace.
ii. In the 2021 scheme the rear elevations would be seen almost (but
not quite) abutting the large columns supporting the tower, which
would extend out over and above the rear building line and largely
enclose the rear of the terrace within a poorly lit covered walkway.
Plan form
8.95 The reinstatement of plan form is recognised as beneficial, however this is
limited bearing in mind that (i) as already mentioned, the significance of the
LBs lies mainly in their street frontage and (ii) the restoration would not be
scholarly in several respects.276
Passageway
276 See plans at CD-A-060 – CD-A-062 (2018) and CD-B-090 – CD-B-092 (2021), which show
that (i) in both schemes number 16 would remain open plan at ground floor level and (ii) on
first and second floor level the reinstatement of the front and rear ‘rooms’ which is seen on the
ground floor is abandoned in favour of an open plan form. In addition, the ‘houses’ share a
reduced number of staircases, which provide access through openings in the party walls to
office space and shared bathrooms.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 100
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
8.96 There is no legal requirement to give ‘great weight’ to enhancements to the
LB, although they would attract that weight as a matter of policy. Even with
that great weight, overall the benefits are limited in extent, and therefore
limited in terms of their ability to outweigh or justify the heritage harms these
schemes would cause.
8.97 The reinstatement of the vaulted passage between numbers 8 and 10 St
Thomas Street, which is shown on historic mapping, is agreed to be beneficial
in heritage terms.
Overall impact
8.98 GPA conclude that the “overall impact” will be positive.277 Whereas HE
consider that the limited enhancements proposed would be negated by the
harm caused by the wider proposals. In other words, the proposals have a
harmful effect on the terrace overall. The decision maker is invited to accept
that assessment is more realistic.
8.99 In both assessments the heritage benefits associated with the LBC works have
been taken into account and go towards reducing the harm. There is a
difference of opinion as to whether the result of the weighing exercise is net
benefit or net harm. Whichever view you take, it will be important to
remember when you get to the para 202 NPPF balance that this element of the
claimed heritage benefits will have already been taken into account as part of
an ‘internal heritage balance’ on the listed terrace. The same benefits ought
not to be taken into account again as public benefits in the para 202 balance,
as that would amount to double counting.
Guy’s Hospital
Significance
8.100 Guy’s Hospital is listed at Grade II*. It is a rare survival of a purpose-built
institution associated with the emergence of healthcare provision in the 18th
Century and, after St Barts, it is the most important Georgian hospital complex
in London. It was one of first public healthcare facilities in capital and it is still
largely in use today for the same purpose.
8.101 The LB derives a large part of its architectural significance from its formal
composition, with the large forecourt leading into quiet courtyards in a
sequence described in the CAA as quite exceptional.278 There is a strong sense
of symmetry and hierarchy. From within the forecourt the neoclassical
architecture can be well appreciated, and the crowning pediments on each of
the three building ranges provide focal points which are deliberately aligned
277 Mr Stewart PoE p 32 para 5.47
278 CD-E-06 p38 para 3.5.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 101
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
with the central statue of Sir Thomas Guy. The forecourt provides a real sense
of calm and seclusion, which belies its location close to points of entry/exit to
London Bridge station. This experience of arriving into the space and
experiencing the ensemble of buildings is very important to an appreciation of
the significance of the LB. It has recently been enhanced by the public realm
improvements associated with the conversion of Boland House.
8.102 Tall buildings nearby have affected the ability to appreciate the architectural
significance of the hospital, primarily by appearing above the roofline of the
rebuilt east wing, although this is less apparent when entering the forecourt on
axis. At present, important views of the original central and western ranges
from the entrance gates and within the forecourt can still be seen against a
clear sky, free from the distracting presence of modern development. This
clear sky setting is important to an appreciation of the order, hierarchy and
symmetry of the composition, it allows the architectural details to be
understood without visual distraction.
8.103 Moving through the forecourt and the colonnade, you find the inner quads.
These provided open spaces for the wellbeing of patients, but were at the
same time enclosed to provide a secure environment. Whilst there is room for
improvement in their presentation, the quads provide an even greater sense of
seclusion from the modern world than the forecourt. Contrary to what the
panorama photograph suggests,279 the existing tall buildings nearby are only
really apparent if you stand in the southwestern corner of the west quad.
Elsewhere they do not intrude.
Impacts
Harm from development in setting
8.104 This is one of those situations where a picture is worth a thousand words. You
only need to look at the assessed view towards the west range of Guy’s
Hospital as proposed280 to understand the incredibly damaging effect of both
the appeal proposals. These are such a stark images, they hardly require any
explanation of how the harm arises. This is of course the case even without
having an impression of the full height of the buildings from this position, due
to the camera’s field of view. The added sense of the full height of towers
looming over you could only exacerbate their utterly dominating presence. The
proposals would see the Grade II* LB flanked on three sides by tall buildings in
close proximity. There is clear cumulative harm.
8.105 Again the effects of the two alternative proposals are similar despite their quite
different designs. The increased width and greater solidity of the 2021 scheme
makes it marginally more harmful here than the 2018 scheme. But both
proposals would cause harm at the upper end of the range of LTSH. This is a
serious degree of harm. It is harm to the setting of the LB, but also another
source of harm to the CA.
279 CD-A-12-1 p 244
280 CD-A-12-1 p253, CD-B-14-1 p227
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 102
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Light to the chapel
8.106 The west range of Guy’s Hospital houses the hospital chapel, which is a place
for quiet reflection and contemplation. Light coming through the three stained
glass windows, which are mentioned in the list description,281 makes an
important contribution to the intangible qualities of the chapel.
8.107 GPE’s evidence confirms a 43% (2018) or 46% (2021) loss of overall light
levels inside the chapel, assessed using climate-based daylight modelling.282
Alternative methods of assessment predict major reductions in vertical sky
component and, for the 2021 scheme, major adverse impacts on daylight
distribution.283 However the effect is measured, it is clear that there will be an
appreciable loss of light through the stained glass windows, which are an
aspect of significance. This will cause harm to the intangible aspects of
significance that relate to the communal value of the LB.
8.108 In the reports on this issue284 it was concluded that a very low level of LTSH
might be found, but only if two questionable assumptions were accepted. One
such assumption was that “in respect of stained glass windows generally the
measure of acceptability of effect should be ‘the more light the better.”285 It is
submitted that this is indeed the thrust of HE’s guidance on the point.
8.109 In addition, it is held that because chapel is so close to existing development,
it would only be possible to add a single storey on top before breaching VSC
guidelines. That may well be the case. This is of course an area in which there
are numerous low level historic buildings, where the consistent scale is
approximately 4 storeys, and where CAA guidelines seek to maintain the
existing building heights. If these guidelines are followed and the character
and appearance of the area is preserved so far as building form and scales are
concerned, then there should not be any greater impact on light through the
stained glass windows than exists at present.
8.110 The reduction in light to the stained glass windows is an additional element of
LSTH to the significance of the Grade II* LB.
Southwark Cathedral
Significance
8.111 Southwark Cathedral is one of only three monastic churches to survive in
London (alongside Westminster Abbey and St Bartholomew the Great). It is
one of only four Grade I buildings in Southwark. It has been a religious
landmark and focal point since medieval times. The large square tower with its
281 CD-F-02-3 p2/5
282 CD-A-47 appx B and CD-B-51 appx B
283 Mr Goddard PoE appx 5 p16
284 CD-A-47 and CD-B-51
285 CD-A-47 p8 para 26
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 103
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
gothic finials was intended as a striking architectural and religious statement
and a visual spectacle.
8.112 It is common ground that the Cathedral’s status as a prominent historic
landmark is an aspect of its special architectural interest,286 and that views of
the Cathedral from its setting where the tower is appreciated as a landmark
contribute to the significance of the LB. Those locations include Montague
Close to the north west287 and the views from Minerva Square. In these views
the silhouette of the imposing tower (and, in closer views, the detail of its
impressive architecture) is seen unchallenged by visual distraction.
8.113 Existing tall buildings have harmed the contribution setting makes to the
significance of the Cathedral as a prominent historic landmark. This is seen
most obviously from locations where the Shard appears directly behind the
Cathedral tower, causing harm in these views. The issue of cumulative harm is
again in play here.
Impacts
8.114 It is common ground that the appeal proposals cause harm to the significance
of the Cathedral where it appears directly behind the tower. However, the
heritage assessment finds overall no heritage harm.288 Concessions were
however made during examination through the undermining of the
commanding presence of the Cathedral.
8.115 The failure to properly understand the way setting contributes to the
significance of the Cathedral, together with other errors of approach already
discussed, has again led to an underestimation the extent of harm that would
be caused by the appeal schemes. The harm would be at the upper end of the
spectrum of less than substantial harm in the case of the 2018 scheme.
8.116 The 2021 scheme is lower and therefore less assertive and challenging in
views, although still visually distracting. It would cause LTSH towards the
middle of the range. The harm is to a Grade I listed building and so should be
given very great weight. Again, it should be remembered that Southwark
Cathedral is the key listed building in sub-area 3 of the BHSCA.
Tower of London World Heritage Site
Significance
8.117 The Tower of London World Heritage Site is of exceptional historic and
architectural importance, both nationally and internationally. Within the Tower
complex are a variety of designated heritage assets, including several listed
buildings, a conservation area and a scheduled monument. However, the focus
of HE’s evidence has been the effect of the proposals on the OUV of the WHS.
286 Heritage SoCG p 9 last bullet
287 CD-A-12 p288
288 CD-A-12-1 p293, CD-B-14-1 p 267
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 104
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The tall building proposals would have broadly the same type of impact on the
other heritage assets, such that a separate assessment was not felt necessary.
8.118 The WHSMP contains the SOUV and then goes on to introduce the ‘attributes’,
which are “the features or relationships that express its OUV”.289 It states that
the attributes will be “the focus of protection and management policies and
institutional arrangements aimed at sustaining and, where appropriate,
enhancing the property’s OUV”. In the UK these policies and arrangements are
contained in the planning system.290 The ability of the attributes to convey the
OUV allows a judgment to be formed as to the ‘authenticity’ of the WHS. If
attributes are weakened or eroded, this can compromise authenticity,291
resulting in harm. An analysis of the WHS’ attributes and the extent to which
they are affected is therefore important to a robust assessment.
8.119 The exercise of identifying relevant attributes and considering the effect of
proposals on them was adopted by the Inspector in the Tulip decision,292 and
is the approach followed here. Analysis of the attributes provides a structured
and transparent framework for assessment, however this has not been carried
out by GPE.
8.120 Although in 2003 it was decided that the Shard would cause “no material harm
to the setting of the Tower of London”293, much has changed since then. It has
since been accepted that the Shard did have an impact on the visual integrity
of the WHS, and that planning policies had to be strengthened to “lessen the
risk of inappropriate development with an adverse impact on the Tower’s
visual integrity”.294
8.121 Notwithstanding the strengthening of policy, it is the case that tall buildings
continue to be permitted in locations where they are visible from within the
Inner Ward. The Vinegar Yard scheme is the most recent example of this.
Again, this raises the issue of cumulative harm. The argument put forward that
the 2018 scheme can be an enhancement is revealing. It indicates either a
lack of understanding, or a willingness to disregard, the history of dialogue
between the UK Government and ICOMOS and the resulting policy
developments. It is also a position which is at odds with the recent Vinegar
Yard decision, where it was found that the tall building in that scheme would
negatively affect the attributes of landmark siting and concentric defences.295
Impacts
8.122 The 2018 scheme would be clearly visible above the roofline of the Queen’s
House in the Inner Ward, where it would exacerbate the visual distraction
caused by the existing (and consented) tall buildings. It would further
289 CD-F-09 p40 para 3.3.1
290 CD-F-07 p52 para 4.1.1
291 Ibid p40 para 3.3.2
292 CD-H-10 p 141 para 14.25
293 CD-H-17 para 16.86
294 CD-F-15 p2 of appendix to letter
295 CD-G-04 p89 para 358
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 105
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
undermine the sense of enclosure and separation felt in the Inner Ward and
the protective function of the concentric defences. By appearing directly above
the roofline, the tower in the 2018 scheme would affect the ability to
appreciate the domestic scale architecture of the Queen’s House, which is part
of the surviving medieval remains. The tower would also be seen above the
Waterloo Block when seen from the Royal Mint, further undermining the
physical dominance of the White Tower from this view.
8.123 Because of its reduced height, the 2021 scheme would be less visible in views
from the Inner Ward and would not be seen from the Royal Mint. A very low
level of harm would be caused to the concentric defences and surviving
medieval remains.
8.124 The Appellant’s claim that the appeal proposals would cause “no harm” is
unsustainable, given the content of the WHSMP and the approach taken in
recent decisions including the Tulip and Vinegar Yard. Harm would occur. It
would be towards the lower end of the range of LTSH in the case of the 2018
scheme, and at a very low level in the 2021 scheme. However, this harm is to
a heritage asset of the highest possible significance and even a very low level
of harm must therefore be given the greatest weight in the balance.
St Paul’s Cathedral
8.125 Sir Christopher Wren’s architectural masterpiece was designed to be seen and
appreciated over considerable distances. It is listed at Grade I. It is iconic and
remains a defining feature of London’s built environment. Whilst the dome is
the most recognisable feature, the architectural contrast and relationship
between the dome and the west towers is highly important.
8.126 St Paul’s has a very large setting which has been heavily influenced by modern
development. The LVMF confirms that development behind the dome of St
Pauls Cathedral currently compromises the ability to appreciate the
landmark.296
8.127 It is not accepted that the construction of a tall building directly behind St
Paul’s Cathedral can be regarded as enhancing its setting. Either of the
proposed towers would appear directly behind the north-western tower of St
Paul’s and would add to the sense of mass behind the Cathedral, as well as
adding to the visual severance of the west towers from the dome. The 2018
scheme would break the horizon, which would further draw the eye away from
St Paul’s. Again, there is an obvious element of cumulative harm.
8.128 Rather than providing a clearer backdrop, it is HE’s position that it is more
difficult to see the outline of the north-western tower with the proposed
building behind it than is the case in the existing view. Although the harm is
of a low level, it is to one of the nation’s most cherished and highly graded
historic places and must therefore carry very great weight.
CD-D-24-1 p55 para 117
296
htt ps://www.gov.uk/planning-insp ectorate 106
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Heritage benefits
8.129 As previously discussed, HE acknowledges a low level of benefit from the listed
terrace works, but maintains that neither scheme would deliver heritage
benefits to Keats House or the setting of the pub.
8.130 HE recognises that the site does present an opportunity for enhancement.
However, the demolition of the 1980s building is just one aspect of the
scheme; it is highly artificial to hive it off and assess the effects in isolation
from the development as a whole. The benefits which are to be weighed in the
para 202 NPPF balance must be those which would arise from the grant of
planning permission. In this case, the grant of planning permission would
authorise demolition of the NCC building and its replacement with a tall
building. These two elements of development taken together (as they must
be) would not be beneficial in heritage terms. GPE accepts that the tall building
would cause LTSH to two highly graded LBs.
Implications of harm
Development plan policy
8.131 Findings of harm to the significance of heritage assets are relevant to the
application of several policies of the London Plan and Southwark Plan, most
notably D9 and P17 on tall buildings and HC1, HC2, P19 and P20 on heritage.
HE has not expressed a view on overall compliance with these or other policies
in the development plan, but notes that findings of harm which cannot be
outweighed will inevitably lead to non-compliance with a range of relevant
policies.
Statutory duties and NPPF
8.132 Neither ss. 66 or 72 of the PLBCA 1990 or chapter 16 of the NPPF compel a
particular outcome where a proposal would cause harm to the significance of
designated heritage assets. Legislation, policy, and guidance instead lay down
a decision-making framework to ensure that any identified heritage harm is
given the correct amount of importance and weight in the overall balance. HE
has set out the fundamental features of this decision-making framework
earlier.
8.133 As previously indicated, HE does not express a view as to how the overall
balance should be struck in this case. However, it has been demonstrated that
the appeal schemes would cause harm to designated heritage assets of the
highest importance. In the case of Southwark Cathedral and Guy’s Hospital
(Grades I and II* respectively) the harm would be at a high level. The BHSCA
would also be profoundly affected and the harm would again be at a high level.
8.134 GPE has consistently underestimated the harm that their proposals would
cause. The harm would be very serious (albeit not ‘substantial’ within the
meaning of the NPPF) and must be given very great weight indeed in the
balance. Very weighty public benefits will be need to clearly and convincingly
justify the high degree of harm caused.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 107
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Conclusions
8.135 The Courts have confirmed that, given HE’s status as a statutory consultee and
principal advisor to the Government on matters relating to the historic
environment, its views should be given ‘great’ or ‘considerable’ weight by
decision makers. Cogent and compelling reasons are needed before departing
from HE’s considered views.297
8.136 Here there are no such cogent or compelling reasons. HE has presented full
and clear evidence on how the proposed schemes would harm five key
designated heritage assets. Testing of the evidence has not undermined our
assessment as to the nature and extent of that harm, which has remained
consistent from his first formal response on GPE’s proposals for this site. By
contrast, GPE’s conclusions of low or no harm have been shown to be
unreliable, having been arrived at through an assessment process containing a
series of errors of approach and understanding and there has been
concessions made in oral evidence to this effect.
8.137 As stated in opening, between 2004-2017 HE only raised serious concerns in
7% of cases involving tall buildings in London. Participation in a public inquiry
is even more unusual. The fact that HE has felt it necessary to attend the
Inquiry underscores how serious the concerns are, and how harmful these
proposals are considered to be.
8.138 Growth is inevitable and necessary, but it must be sustainable. Protection and
enhancement of the historic environment is a key part of that. The historic
environment should not be seen as a barrier to growth, but as a necessary
component of growth that is genuinely sustainable: growth should not come at
the expense of highly valued heritage. HE’s guidance on tall buildings reflects
these points.298
8.139 Whilst the appeal site is identified as within the very broad area in which tall
buildings are expected in the Southwark Plan, the evidence has shown that a
tall building simply cannot be accommodated on this site without causing a
high level of harm to important heritage assets. The harm would occur
because of the height of the proposed towers and their consequent visibility
over a wide area and stark juxtaposition of scale locally. In other words it
arises from the principle of this form of development in this location. Whilst
any harm to heritage is in principle capable of justification, the harm to Grade
I LBs and the WHS should be given the greatest possible weight and harm to
Grade II* LBs and the CA should attract very substantial weight in the
balance. It will only be capable of being outweighed by even more substantial
public benefits. You will need to consider carefully whether you have seen
evidence of such benefits to clearly and convincingly justify the grant of
planning permission.
9 The Case for Interested Parties appearing at the Inquiry
297 CD-H-18 p 21 para 52
298 CD-F-07 p 4 para 2.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-i nspectorate 108
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Transport for London
The gist of the case is reproduced below, taken from their consultation response for
the appeals.299 This was further discussed in detail during the round table session on
servicing, and in the obligations session. A further written update was also provided
in respect of a TfL consultation on changes to Borough High Street, St Thomas Street
and London Bridge.300 Details of this are also summarised below.
9.1 Transport for London (TfL) is the integrated transport authority responsible for
meeting Mayor of London’s strategy and commitments on transport in London.
TfL runs the day-to-day operation of much of the Capital's public transport
network including London Underground (LU) services and manage London's
main road network (TLRN).
9.2 TfLs interest in the planning applications subject to these appeals is as follows:
• Interface with LU infrastructure, most notably the London Bridge LU
station entrance that is included in the applications, and potential
impact on sub-surface railway assets.
• Impact on the TLRN, including upon pedestrians, cyclists, and bus
operations, adjacent to the site, namely St Thomas Street and Borough
High Street, for which TfL is the highway authority.
• Impact on TfL-controlled strategic transport capacity – buses, LU
services, Santander Cycles cycle hire.
• Impact on projects which TfL is delivering in the area, notably that for
St Thomas Street.
• Compliance with, and delivery of London Plan and Mayor’s Transport
Strategy policies related to transport.
9.3 TfL’s landholdings and property interests and infrastructure are shown on the
plan TfLD1.301 This plan also shows the boundaries of the TLRN. We
understand from the applicant’s that TfL property does not lie within the red
line, but directly adjacent to it.
9.4 The Inquiry was provided with GLA and TfL comments on the following
planning applications: 18/AP/4039 and 21/AP/1361. These comments were
submitted to Southwark Council as the Local Planning Authority and formed
the basis of transport advice to the GLA and Mayor, reflected in the respective
Mayor’s decision letters.
9.5 If permission is granted for either application with an obligation to deliver the
new entrance and other works to London Bridge LU station, then there will
need to be a development agreement between the Appellant and TfL. The
Appellant has been in contact with LU in this respect, to draft the heads of
terms of the development agreement. An infrastructure protection agreement
will also be required to safeguard operational assets.
299 CD-C-24
300 INQ-23
301 CD-C-24 p10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 109
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
9.6 A s278 agreement with TfL as highway authority will also be required for works
to St Thomas Street and/or Borough High Street consequent upon the
development. Therefore, TfL would wish to be party to a section 106
agreement to secure the obligations related to TfL assets and services.
9.7 Note these comments are limited to highways and transport as they relate to
London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy policy, and in respect of our
assets and landholdings, and form TfL’s opinion only. TfL does not seek to
address the overall planning balance.
Policy Context
9.8 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) 2018 and the adopted LP (2021) set out
an overarching strategic policy that developments must contribute towards the
delivery of high quality sustainable and accessible travel options for all
Londoners. This includes reducing car-dominance, improving accessibility,
improving safety (Vision Zero) and delivering Healthy Streets.
9.9 LP Policy T1 states that development should ensure that any impacts on
London’s transport networks and supporting infrastructure are mitigated.
9.10 Policy T2 states that development proposals should demonstrate how they will
deliver improvements that support the ten Healthy Streets Indicators and
reduce the dominance of vehicles on London’s streets, whether stationary or
moving.
9.11 Policy T4 states that mitigation, either through direct provision of public
transport, walking and cycling facilities and highways improvements or
through financial contributions, will be required to address adverse transport
impacts that are identified with development proposals, and that they should
not increase road danger.
9.12 Policy T7 states that development proposals should facilitate safe, clean, and
efficient deliveries and servicing. Provision of adequate space for servicing,
storage and deliveries should be made off-street, with on-street loading bays
only used where this is not possible.
9.13 Paragraph 110 of the NPPF sets out a requirement for developments to
facilitate access to high quality public transport and to address the needs of
people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of
transport.
9.14 Paragraph 111 states that development should be refused on highways
grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or
the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
9.15 Paragraph 112 states that development should give priority to pedestrian and
cycle movements, both within the scheme and neighbouring areas and
facilitate access to high quality public transport.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 110
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
9.16 Paragraph 112 also states that development should create places that are
safe, secure, and attractive which minimise the scope for conflicts between
pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and allow
for the efficient delivery of goods.
Direct access to London Bridge London Underground Station
9.17 In both planning applications the applicant proposes to provide a new entrance
into the existing entrance building to London Bridge LU station on Borough
High Street. TfL owns the freehold of the station building and the tunnels and
other infrastructure below, that at ticket hall level and the offices above as
shown in TfLD1.
9.18 The proposal is to remove the south-east-facing façade at the ground floor
level of the station building, so that the development can be accessed,
stepfree, directly from the escalators and lift linking to the Borough High
Street ticket hall/gateline area. Between the two buildings a public square, a
new area of public realm, is proposed to be delivered as part of the
developments.
9.19 TfL is supportive of this subject to all costs being covered by the Appellant and
an agreement on commercial terms. As explained above, a development
agreement with TfL will be required to deliver this entrance.
9.20 The new additional entrance would have the following public and development
benefits:
• The new public realm/ground floor entrances in the development will
be directly visible from the top of the escalators.
• The station entrance will be directly visible from the new public
realm/ground floor entrances in the development.
• There will be a seamless, level transition from the top of the escalators
to the public realm, and more direct, step-free access from the
platforms to the entrance of the new development.
• The direct access will also reduce pedestrian movement on Borough
High Street adjacent to the current station entrance (which will remain)
and along St Thomas Street – these are areas of extremely high
footfall where footways have been temporarily widened as part of the
London Streetscape programme initiated during the pandemic to
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 111
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
facilitate social distancing (see photograph TfLP2 for current narrow
footway adjacent to the LU entrance).
• Improved accessibility of a lift (step free) entrance of the LU network
from a number of locations around New City Court and to the east,
with reduced journey times.
• The travelling public will have more pleasant journeys to and from
London Bridge station to the east of Borough High Street.
• The journey time between the station and the development and St
Thomas Street more generally is reduced
• The additional entrance would be required to meet an acceptable
Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) on footways surrounding the site, as
concluded in the respective transport assessments.
9.21 Given these benefits, we consider the new entrance to be in line with the three
requirements for planning obligations, in particular necessary for the
development to mitigate its impact on the surrounding footways (London Plan
policy T2 and T4), so it should be required to be delivered prior to first
occupation of the development. A development agreement will be required to
be entered into with TfL, prior to commencement.
Impact on the TLRN - 2018 scheme
9.22 The 2018 application proposes servicing from two directions. Light goods
vehicles (LGVs) would use a vehicle lift accessed from White Hart Yard and
Borough High Street. Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), unable to access White
Hart Yard, would utilise a loading bay on St Thomas Street, with goods
trolleyed across and along the footway.
9.23 As the highway authority for Borough High Street and St Thomas Street, and
in terms of Healthy Streets and Vision Zero policies, TfL has serious concerns
over both these arrangements.
9.24 White Hart Yard is very narrow, and the access off Borough High Street is
through a gap in the façade of the terrace. The buildings severely reduce the
visibility splays for exiting vehicles, requiring drivers to ‘nudge’ their vehicles
out onto the footway before they can see.
9.25 This stretch of Borough High Street is very busy with pedestrians and cyclists,
hence the introduction of the London Streetspace scheme of widening the
footway made under a Temporary (Covid) Traffic Regulation Order. TfL intends
to reinforce this footway widening using an Experimental Traffic Regulation
Order in the very near future, with barriers replaced by tarmac. The eventual
goal is to secure via a Permanent Traffic Order.
9.26 It is acknowledged that some vehicles already use this access, but the
development will introduce an additional 28 vehicle movements per day (with
consolidation) which will increase the risk of collisions. The pedestrian amenity
and safety of White Hart Yard itself will be reduced, and this is a pedestrian
route to the Guy’s Hospital complex, via Beak Alley.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 112
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
9.27 The proposed arrangement for HGVs using an on-street servicing bay on St
Thomas Street is also considered contrary to Policy T2 (Healthy Streets) and
London Plan policy T7 (Delivery and Servicing) for the following reasons:
• Trolleying goods along (the bay may not be directly outside the service
entrance) and across the footway will reduce pedestrian amenity and
space, and create obstacles for visually and mobility impaired
pedestrians.
• The loading bay could not be dedicated to one user, so may not be
available at the time required. This scenario would result in unlawful
waiting and potentially blocking on St Thomas Street and/or additional
HGV movements in an area of London that has a very restricted road
network for HGV ‘U’ turns and high cycle and pedestrian movement.
• The loading bay would be on the south side of St Thomas Street, which
would reduce footway space and width; this is a location of temporary
footway widening for social distancing as part of the London Streetspace
plan, due to current narrow footway and high footfall. (see photograph
TfLP7)
• The 2021 scheme shows that off-street servicing is possible for this site.
• The taxi rank will need to be relocated, putting further pressure on the
kerbside in St Thomas Street.
9.28 Furthermore, as with Borough High Street, we are soon to reinforce this
temporary London Streetspace scheme along the southern footway of St
Thomas Street via an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order, allowing removal
of the barriers and replacement with tarmac. The addition of a loading bay in
the 2018 application (and potential relocation of the taxi rank) would reduce
footway width in a crucial location and undermine this.
9.29 TfL also has a longer term proposal to deliver a ‘Healthy Streets’-based
scheme in St Thomas Street (subject to funding and consultation) that will
introduce one-way working and a contraflow cycle track to allow two-way
cycling; currently cyclists can only travel one-way (westbound). More should
be known about the status of this project when there is a long term funding
settlement from the government in place. Delivery of this long-term scheme
would improve cycle access to and from the development. The cycle track
would be on the south side of St Thomas Street, i.e. adjacent to the
development, and a loading bay to support the latter and associated relocation
of the taxi rank could preclude this project due to lack of width.
9.30 Alternatively, if space was made available by reducing footway width -
contrary to the aims of the Healthy Streets scheme and the existing
Streetspace scheme - then goods would have to be trolleyed across the cycle
track as well as footway, creating an additional safety and amenity hazard.
9.31 At the time of the 2018 application, the Appellant undertook further studies, at
the request of TfL and the Council, to see if off-street servicing could be
achieved, and how service vehicle numbers could be reduced through
consolidation. At the time, following conclusion of the studies and negotiations
with the GLA, and reflected in the Stage 1 report for that application, TfL
reluctantly agreed that there was not a viable alternative to on-street
servicing. However, the submission of the 2021 planning application with
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 113
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
entirely off-street servicing demonstrates that there is a viable scheme for the
redevelopment of this site, one that accords better with Healthy Streets, Vision
Zero and London Plan (and local) servicing policy, and this is explored further
below.
Impact on the TLRN – 2021 Scheme
9.32 The concerns about on-street servicing were communicated to the Appellant
both before and after the 2018 application, and an alternative off-street
arrangement urged, for example at a TfL pre-application meeting on 29 August
2018 (TfLD5). As mentioned above, the Appellant undertook further work on
an off-street servicing arrangement but concluded negatively.
9.33 We were therefore pleased and surprised that the 2021 application included an
off-street service area accessed via a new crossover on St Thomas Street.
Although any new crossover on the TLRN is not ideal, it can be designed as ‘fit
for purpose’ via a s278 agreement with TfL (unlike the exising White Hart Yard
access which cannot be improved other than by demolition of buildings owned
and occupied by third parties) and would allow for the development being
entirely serviced off-street.
9.34 It would still however be important to impose restrictions on allowable times of
access and numbers of daily service vehicle movements to reflect the high
level of pedestrian movement on this footway and in the vicinity more
generally. This is common with other large developments in busy areas, for
example the approved Elephant and Castle shopping centre redevelopment
(planning application reference 16/AP/4458).
Conclusion on servicing
9.35 For the reasons outlined in the previous section, we respectfully request that
that the 2018 application is refused as we consider it is contrary to London
Plan policies T1, T2, T4 and T7 and the NPPF, and that the 2021 proposal
better accords with these policies. We would not object to the 2021 application
appeal being allowed, subject to mitigation.
Other transport matters relating to both the 2018 and 2021 schemes
Trip generation
9.36 The site is very well served in capacity and connectivity terms by public
transport and as such is suitable for high trip generating uses. It is considered
that the additional trips can, in capacity terms and, subject to the LU station
improvements and those to the TLRN, be accommodated on the public
transport network. As such both applications comply with London Plan policy
T4 and the NPPF in this respect. There will be additional demand for Santander
Cycles cycle hire, which will require mitigation, and this is discussed further
below.
Car parking
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 114
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
9.37 London Plan policy T6 requires that developments in locations such as this
should be car-free with the exception of Blue Badge (BB) provision, so both
applications accord with this. We consider any on-site BB car parking should
be provided with electric vehicle charging and would encourage the provision
of such facilities for any on street BB parking.
Cycle parking
9.38 The cycle parking for both applications accord with London Plan standards.
Pedestrian environment
9.39 Both proposals include the provision of a public square at the centre of the
site, linked to the LU station as covered above. This would provide a new route
through the site and is welcomed in terms of improving permeability and
reducing footway crowding on the TLRN, as reflected in the pedestrian comfort
assessment summarised in the respective transport assessments. If not to be
adopted as public highway, 24/7 public access and suitable maintenance and
management arrangements should be secured in any consent to ensure the
full benefit of this space, in line with the Public London Charter.
Mitigation
9.40 In the event that either or both of the appeal/s is allowed, TfL requests that
the mitigation in the appended table TfLM1302 is secured, in accordance with
London Plan policies T4 (mitigating transport impacts) and T9 (Funding
transport infrastructure through planning). TfL is not seeking any contributions
towards mitigating the impact of the development upon bus service capacity
and infrastructure or that of LU trains, passenger provision and other
infrastructure except for the new station entrance.
Summary
9.41 The proposed redevelopment of New City Court, when coupled with the
requested mitigation above, would deliver substantial transport benefits as
mitigation of the development. These include a new step-free entrance to the
London Bridge LU station building on Borough High Street, Healthy Streets
improvements to St Thomas Street and Borough High Street, additional
Santander Cycles cycle hire capacity and a new public square and walking
route, supporting strategic and national policy objectives to increase public
transport accessibility and active travel.
9.42 The site is very well served by sustainable transport and is well suited to high
density and taller development in this regard and the additional trips would not
lead to an adverse impact on the strategic transport network, subject to the
aforementioned mitigations.
302 CD-F-24 p80-88
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 115
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
9.43 However, due to inadequate servicing arrangements, we respectfully request
that the 2018 application is refused, due to conflicts with London Plan policies
T1, T2, T4 and T7, Healthy Streets, Vision Zero and the NPPF.
9.44 Subject to the satisfactory completion of the s106 agreement and taking
account of the site and development constraints, the 2021 application
conforms with the relevant London Plan and MTS policies and aims.
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT)
Other than minor alterations, the statement is reproduced in full.303
Introduction
9.45 GSTT covers four of London’s best known teaching hospitals, including Guy’s
Hospital which is located to the east of the appeal site. In addition, Francis
House is located to the south of the appeal site on the opposite side of King’s
Head Yard. It is occupied by GSTT for administrative purposes and is about to
be opened as a Covid vaccination centre.
9.46 Given the appeal site’s proximity to Guy’s Hospital, GSTT are an interested
party at this inquiry who, whilst not objecting to the principle of the
redevelopment of the New City Court site, wish to safeguard their operations,
particularly through the construction phase and secure appropriate public
benefit for the hospital from what is a significant and important development.
We ask that the points raised here are taken into account by the Inspector and
SoS in reaching a decision and through appropriate conditions to be attached
to any consent.
Original representations by DAC Beechcroft
9.47 Representations were submitted by DAC Beechcroft on behalf of GSTT on 1
March 2019 to the 2018 Scheme in respect of the 2018 Scheme (application
refs 18/AP/4039 and LBC18/AP/4040) to ensure that Guy’s Hospital’s
operations are not unduly harmed by the construction of the development, in
terms of noise, dust, vibration and traffic, as well as post construction benefits,
through the relocation of the Florence Nightingale Museum.
Subsequent engagement between GSTT/KCL and the Appellant
9.48 Following the submitted representations by DAC Beechcroft, discussions took
place between GSTT and the applicant, and this included further consideration
of whether part of the site could accommodate the relocation of the Florence
Nightingale Museum (FNM), currently located at St Thomas’ Hospital, within
the ‘restored’ Keats House building. A meeting also took place with the Council
and local councillors to discuss this in July 2019. There was general support for
the idea although it didn’t result in any changes to the planning application.
303 Full statement can be read at INQ-18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 116
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
We understand that a decision from the Council in respect of the application
wasn’t forthcoming.
9.49 More recently during 2021, and in respect of the applications, discussions
continued between GSTT/KCL and GPE regarding the enhanced affordable
workspace (see letter dated 17 September 2021) demonstrating a willingness
of both to work together, with Southwark Council, to support the idea of an
Innovation District and to secure such affordable space for use by the
University and/or hospital and related SMEs. Recent conversations between
GSTT and GPE have also recognised that the space could be used to
accommodate the FNM and that these conversations could continue post a
planning decision.
9.50 We request that the Inspector and SoS considers securing this opportunity for
enhanced affordable workspace within the planning balance when determining
the appeals.
Construction and servicing
9.51 One of the most important issues for the Hospital, and it’s proper and efficient
functioning, bearing in mind the site’s proximity, is the construction stage of
the proposed development. Safe and accessible pedestrian, vehicular and
disabled access for all users needs to be maintained at all times, to and from
the Hospital and in the vicinity of the site. Safe access for cyclists should be
considered as cycling is encouraged as a mode of transport to the hospital to
promote sustainable transport and has become increasingly popular.
9.52 Furthermore, the construction works will also implicate the operations at
Francis House. Francis House has a lease agreement in place to operate as an
administrative centre, with the ground floor to be used as a vaccination centre
for staff and members of the public.
9.53 Consideration is therefore required for clear and straightforward routes that
are signposted for users to be able to navigate to and from GSTT’s sites. To
the east of the appeal site is Old Guy’s House and courtyard. The wing on the
west side incorporates a chapel in the middle of the block and on either side
clinical administration. This includes consultations with patients via phone and
other more routine calls with patients to diarise appointments. There is
sleeping accommodation of approximately 50 beds on each floor (second and
third) for doctors and nurses and for patient overnight stays before operations
take place. Doctor and nurse accommodation can be utilised during the day or
night depending on shift duties.
9.54 The decision to amend the proposals in the 2021 scheme, so that servicing
post completion is to an off-street facility from St Thomas Street rather than
Kings Head Yard is welcomed in principle subject to appropriate conditions to
keep deliveries and other vehicle movements to a minimum.
9.55 In addition, the care provided at the Hospital is highly sensitive to external
environmental conditions, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic. For
example, the filters from the air handling units and filtration systems at Guy’s
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 117
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Hospital may likely need to be changed more often. Recognition of these
impacts and mitigation through a suitable Construction Management Plan
(CMP) secured by condition is vital.
9.56 Traffic management is an important factor in this area of St Thomas Street.
Capacity on the local bus services are already a concern, with lengthy queues
regularly occurring at the bus stops that serve the hospital, resulting in delays
and congestion.
9.57 Capital House at 40-46 Weston Street was granted planning permission in
2020 for the erection of a 39-storey student accommodation-led building. A
27-storey office building at 60-68 St Thomas Street, known as Edge London
Bridge was also granted in 2021. If New City Court is also granted, then there
would potentially be three major developments being constructed
simultaneously/at a similar time on St Thomas Street, increasing the likelihood
of dust, noise, vibration and traffic in the area.
9.58 Therefore, we request that engagement with GSTT is required to ensure that
there are no negative impacts on the Hospital’s and Francis House’s own
arrangements and operations, and this can be secured through a condition in
relation to the preparation of the Construction and Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP).
Concluding remarks
9.59 In conclusion, GSTT is supportive of the principle of the redevelopment of the
NCC site, but regard has to be had to the Hospital which is a particularly
sensitive receptor and its operation and proper functioning needs to be fully
taken into account as part of the consideration of the appeal.
9.60 We request that appropriately worded conditions are attached to the
permission, if granted, to safeguard the safe and efficient operation of Guy’s
Hospital, and that the affordable workspace is delivered in a way that can
benefit the local area as well as life sciences associated with the hospital and
University.
10 Written Representations
There were a number of representations made in respect of each of the appeals.
Many reiterate comments made at pre-application and application stage304 and
repeat points made by the main parties. A brief summary of the appeal
representations are given below.
10.1 The National Trust305 are freehold owner of the Grade I listed George Inn,
which is around 60m from the appeal site. Built in 1676-7, the George Inn is
the only surviving galleried inn in London and is of exceptional significance.
Historically, Southwark was characterised by its many coaching inns. The
304 See CD-C Correspondence for more details
305 INQ-10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 118
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
George Inn is the only one to survive, and moreover the building has
maintained its continuity of purpose, still a popular PH today. It is also
purported that William Shakespeare performed within the original Inn
courtyard. Charles Dickens also often visited and it features in his novels.306
10.2 The development would cause substantial harm to The George Inn through
having a material adverse impact upon its setting. The views from the inn’s
historic upstairs galleries towards the courtyard and beyond would be radically
altered in an undesirable way. This overbearing and distracting development
would intrude on the relationship between the galleries and courtyard as a
sensitive space, harming the unique heritage experience.
10.3 The supposedly mitigating factors put forward are unconvincing. For example,
on the development’s appearance, the elevations acknowledged as being
‘long’, would tower over The George Inn. From The George Inn, the planting
will be very far away and so small that it would, in fact, have virtually no effect
on the appearance of the building, which it is implicitly acknowledged would
benefit from softening. The visualisations of the development demonstrate the
harm.307 Given the substantial harm, the National Trust considers that
planning permission should be refused for all the schemes.
10.4 Teighmore Limited; LBQ Six Limited; The Place London Bridge Limited
and LBQ Fielden Limited308 are the owners of various buildings at the Shard
Quarter. Objections to the respective applications were made to LBS on a
number of grounds. Having followed the Inquiry proceedings and having
regard to the SOCG on servicing, the proposed servicing solutions in each case
remain unacceptable for the reasons set out in the respective objection letters
and are unsuitable and inappropriate solutions for the schemes of this size
with the number of movements envisaged.
10.5 ICOMOS309 gave a technical review of the proposals in terms of the ToLWHS.
With regard to the 2018 application, it is noted that the height of the proposed
tower means that it would be visible from within the Inner Ward of the Tower
of London, above the roofline of the Grade I listed Queen’s House. Moreover,
as expressed by Historic England within their March 2019 comments, “whilst
various tall buildings […] are visible, the proposed development would create a
significant cumulative effect that would further encroach on the Tower of
London”, harming the setting of the Queen’s House and the Outstanding
Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage property. The cumulative impact
of high-rise buildings on the OUV of this World Heritage property has been
discussed in previous ICOMOS Technical Reviews and in Reactive Monitoring
mission reports.
10.6 ICOMOS therefore considers that, given the direct visual impact of the
proposed development, which goes against the preservation of the OUV of the
306 Our Mutual Friend (1865) and Little Dorrit (1857)
307 CD-A-12-1 & 12-2 (2018) and CD-B-14-1 & 14-2 (2021)
308 INQ-14
309 CD-F-22
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 119
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
World Heritage property, and the contribution that the planned tall building
would make to cumulative impact, the proposed 2018 scheme would generate
an unacceptable impact on OUV.
10.7 It is understood that the 2021 application, which was submitted by the same
applicant, sought to address concerns regarding the first scheme raised by the
local planning authority and others. The letter from the State Party notes that
the applicant perceived these concerns “as relating principally to height”. As
such, the new proposals include a tower of reduced height which, as indicated
in Historic England’s 2021 comments, would “no longer be visually prominent”
above the roofline of Queen’s House in views from the Inner Ward of the
Tower of London, only rising above it to a small extent.
10.8 However, ICOMOS notes that the scheme would nevertheless have
considerable adverse impacts on assets of national importance and, overall, on
the urban neighbourhood within which it is to be constructed.
10.9 The Advisory Body is concerned that the proposals appear not to have taken
national and local policy into account, with both applications proposing a high-
rise building in an area that is not designated for such development in the
council’s draft Local Plan. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that neither
application was subject to a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) following the
2011 ICOMOS Guidance on HIAs for Cultural World Heritage Properties,
although the 2021 New London Plan indicates that “development proposals
with the potential to affect World Heritage Sites or their settings should be
supported by Heritage Impact Assessments.”
10.10 ICOMOS fully supports the concerns that Historic England has already
expressed on the unacceptable impacts on OUV that the first scheme would
generate. It therefore advises that the proposed 2018 scheme should not be
approved. Although the Advisory Body agrees that the 2021 scheme reduces
these impacts on OUV, the proposals would nevertheless have considerable
adverse impacts on assets of national importance and, overall, on the urban
neighbourhood within which it is to be constructed. Finally, ICOMOS shares
Historic England’s concerns regarding the lack of compliance with national and
local policy, including with the Local Plan, which does not include New City
Court as an area designated for high-rise buildings.
10.11 The Victorian Society maintained their objections to both schemes due to the
harm cause to heritage assets including the BHSCA and King’s Head PH.
Concern is raised in respect of the heights of the schemes and the loss of
urban form.
10.12 SAVE continues to object to both the 2018 and 2021 schemes in respect of
impacts on heritage grounds including substantial and irreversible harm to the
BHSCA, the listed Georgian terrace, Guy’s Hospital main building, St Thomas
Church and the Old King’s Head PH. Concern about setting a precedent for tall
buildings in the BHSCA is also raised.
10.13 The Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England (CFCE) object to both the
2018 and 2021 schemes in respect of the impacts on views of the Southwark
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 120
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Cathedral and its tower, particularly from London Bridge, and its setting in the
wider BHSCA; and (2) potential wind damage to the Cathedral.
10.14 H Sun, a local resident, expressed concerns in respect of the height of the
development and its effects upon LB’s and BHSCA. Loss of light, and
generation of light pollution at night, wind tunnel effects and resource
consumption were also raised. Concern about community sterilization,
segregation and loss of vibrancy in the street life are also highlighted.
10.15 None of these parties appeared at the Inquiry. There were also other
representations made, which are not replicated here for brevity. These include
from the London Fire Brigade, Environment Agency and Heathrow
Airport, where no objection was made, subject to conditions.
11 Conditions
11.1 Conditions for each application were discussed at the Inquiry, including with
HE, TfL and GSTT, and finalised based on those discussions.310 While there are
a large number of conditions, the schemes are large and complex and efforts
were made by the parties to rationalise these where possible.
11.2 Helpfully, there were no outstanding points of dispute between the parties in
respect of the contents of the conditions.
11.3 Overall, the conditions are necessary, relevant to planning and to the
development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other regards. Pre-
commencement conditions were kept to a minimum, but where they exist, that
is with the agreement of the Appellant. The conditions, where necessary, are
drawn on below.
11.4 The conditions are set out in Annexes E & F for the 2018 scheme and Annexes
G & H for the 2021 scheme. Should the SoS be minded to allow, it is
recommended that they be imposed.
12 Planning Obligations
12.1 Two obligations have been submitted, one for each scheme.311 The
agreements contain obligations on the Owner (GPE St Thomas Street Ltd), TfL
and the LPA. Associated Compliance Statements for each scheme were also
submitted by the Council312 which set out how the obligations would comply
with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the Regulations).
12.2 In summary these cover: administration and monitoring charge; affordable
retail (2018 scheme only); affordable workspace; archaeological monitoring
and advice contribution; community use strategy (2018 scheme only);
construction phase jobs and training; cycle docking station contribution; cycle
310 INQ-35-1 (2018 scheme) and INQ-36-1 (2021 scheme).
311 INQ-29.3 (2018 scheme) and INQ-29.4 (2021 scheme)
312 INQ-30 and INQ-31
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 121
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
hire scheme contribution; employment and training in the end use of the
development; energy: be seen monitoring; energy: carbon green fund
contribution and compliance with an approved energy strategy; energy:
connection to a future district CHP; healthy streets contribution; Legible
London contribution; listed building management; local procurement; delivery,
management and public access to the ground floor reception space, roof
garden and public realm (2018 scheme); delivery, management and public
access to the roof garden and public realm (2021 scheme), section 278
highways works (borough roads), section 278 highways works (TfL), servicing
and deliveries, station works and underground protection, travel plan and wind
mitigation post construction.
12.3 As with conditions, these were discussed during the Inquiry, amended and
completed after the Inquiry closed. Again, there was no dispute between
parties over the contents of the obligations.
12.4 Both obligations are extremely comprehensive. These meet the 3 tests in
terms of being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related
in scale and kind to the development. Following discussion, the obligations
comply with the Regulations and the NPPF and can be given appropriate
weight.
13 Inspector’s Considerations
13.1 I set out my considerations below based upon the evidence before the Inquiry,
the written representations and the visits to the site and wider area, using [x]
to cross-refer to earlier paragraphs in this report.
Introduction
13.2 In the lead up to, and in opening the Inquiry, and mindful of what the SoS
particularly wished to be informed about, I set out the main matters to be
considered as the effect on designated heritage assets and the effect on the
character and appearance of the area. Related to the latter, the written and
oral evidence was focussed on townscape and design and the matters reflect
this.
13.3 Accordingly, and combined with other matters raised, the main considerations
in these appeals are:
i) The effects of the development and works upon the significance of
heritage assets (all appeals);
ii) The effect of the development upon townscape character and
appearance (appeals A and C);
iii) The effects upon highway safety with specific regard to servicing
matters (appeal A);
The analysis will also consider other matters raised and the planning and
heritage balance for all appeals.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 122
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.4 Due to the nature of the main issues, there is considerable overlap between
heritage and townscape/design. It should be noted that the evidence in the
Design and Access Statements313 and in the TVIBHA’s, as well as the
architect’s presentation to the Inquiry and the schemes models were
extensively referenced/used by all the parties for both of the topics.
13.5 This report is therefore structured with townscape character and appearance
first, and then an assessment in respect of heritage. This is the most logical
format in light of the significant overlap between the topics.
Townscape character and appearance
Introduction
13.6 There is a very strong policy presumption requiring high quality design evident
throughout the SP and the LP. Significant weight is to be given to outstanding
design which reflects local design policies and conversely, the NPPF is explicit
that poor design should be refused. This is supported and underpinned by the
detailed guidance in the PPG and the NDG. It is also firmly embedded into
policy that the very process of building design should be an iterative one,
which seeks active engagement with specific stakeholders as a scheme
evolves. [3.23-3.27].
13.7 For tall buildings in particular, the policy emphasis on design is amplified,
reflective of the potential effects in the immediate, local and city-wide area
[3.28-3.32].
13.8 As clear from the DASs314, as well as the proofs and presentations given at the
Inquiry, the schemes have long been in the making and there is clear evidence
of the evolution of the schemes. The proposed developments evolved into a
specified quantum of floorspace, said to be due to viability and the need for
optimisation. This has led to two very different schemes before the Inquiry.
Indeed, the 2021 scheme represents a radical design rethink based on
concerns raised by stakeholders in terms of effects of the 2018 scheme. The
floorspace proposed also reflects the commercial realities of development.
13.9 That is not to say that the design process undertaken for the schemes has
been perfect or exemplary. For example, the circumstances involved in not
taking the 2021 scheme to CABE or any design review panel, represents a
missed opportunity in my view, particularly given the level of ongoing concern
from many key stakeholders.
13.10 In spite of the dispute at the Inquiry, I am also satisfied that both the
witnesses315 had the necessary credentials, qualifications and experience to
give useful and detailed evidence on design.
313 CD-A-06 (2018 scheme) and CD-B-08 & CD-B-43 (2021 scheme)
314 CD-A-06 (2018 and CD-B-08 (2021)
315 Simon Alford (Scheme Architect) and Elizabeth Adams (for the Council)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 123
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.11 An assessment of design is generally based on basic, well-established
principles. However, what constitutes good design is perhaps one of the most
debated areas in planning – what represents beauty and delight to some is
also considered a monstrosity to others. The development of The Shard is a
case in point, as today this is still the focus of debate as to whether it is a
positive influence on the London skyline or is negative.316 The fundamental
issue in play in these cases relates to differences of opinion and in judgement
and parties were so far apart in their views on the success of the schemes in
design terms, it is of no surprise it is now before myself to consider and the
SoS to adjudicate.
Architectural design and quality
13.12 In both schemes, there is a distinct quality in the proposed architectural
language and in the treatments of the façades. The materials used would also
be high quality.317
13.13 Starting with the 2018 scheme, this would be a tall 37 storey tower block.
Inspiration for the design has been taken from railway engineered structures
and warehousing found in the wider area. I consider that the building would
have an elegant composition. The distinct components would work well
together with the elegant glazed curve to the outwards façade sandwiched
between the external steel structural girders (the exoskeleton bridge) giving
contrast and interest. The public garden and Hub space located roughly 1/3
and 2/3’s up the tower respectively would also help to break up the vertical
mass and give visual interest.
13.14 For different reasons, the 2021 scheme would also have an elegance in its
design. Lower in height, the 27-storey building would adopt soft curves and ‘V’
shaped piers framing regular Chicago windows, reminiscent of 1930’s
architectural practices. It would have a visually pleasing façade.
Public realm
13.15 The need for developments to secure high quality public realm is also a firm
policy requirement.318 New City Court at present is accessible to the rear by a
myriad of the yards, alleys and footpaths. As an experience, some of the
areas are used for antisocial behaviour and the general environment is not one
of a friendly and accessible space.
13.16 Both schemes would involve the creation of a new public realm area ‘Kings
Head Square.’ This would open out the enclosed Kings Head Yard and would
also involve the current London Underground station entrance being directly
opened up into this space.
316 As evidenced by the submissions made at the Inquiry between the main parties.
317 For a detailed overview, I would commend sections 4 of each DAS to the SoS (CD-A-06 for
the 2018 scheme and CD-B-08 for the 2021 scheme).
318 LP Policies D5, D8, D9, and SD4 and SP Policies P13, P17.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 124
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.17 In the 2018 scheme,319 this space would be serviced by active frontages from
the proposed retail units, as well as frontages to New Yard. Linkages would be
created from Borough High Street and Kings Head Alley, through to St Thomas
Street via the reinstated Georgian Passage and St Thomas Street Square and
to Beak Alley. Thus a more pleasant environment would be created, assisted
by the use of quality hard and soft landscaping.
13.18 Due to the larger floorplate required, the ground floor public realm for the
2021 scheme320 would be less successful, the area of public realm in this
location would be a covered gallery, and compromised in size. Kings Head
Square would be more of a through route than an open area in which to linger.
There would also be no active frontages here and due to servicing a loss of
through connectivity to Beak Alley.
13.19 Due to the respective heights, both schemes would also mean that the light
levels would be compromised to these public spaces, outside of the BRE
guidelines.321 Due to the over-sail of the 2021 scheme over the roofs of the
listed terrace, this space would feel somewhat enclosed and gloomy, in spite of
the height of the gallery and use of light materials. The loss of active
frontages to the rear of the listed terrace would also augment this effect.
13.20 There would be relief, however, in both schemes through the creation of the
garden areas. The 2018 scheme garden would be on the 5th and 6th floors and
would give ‘Mary Poppins’ views of the Georgian and Victorian roofscape to St
Thomas Street and Borough High Street and beyond. A roof garden would be
created for the 2021 scheme with café, woodland and wildlife track offering
high level 360degree views across the City. Office balconies and a terrace
would also provide space for occupants of the building, although this would not
be public.
13.21 As explained, the site is constrained in size and its location behind a number of
buildings, which presents a challenge for public open space. Each scheme has
attempted to address this in different ways. The upper floor public gardens
would be a positive element of the schemes, however the success of the
ground floor space is more limited due to size and light issues.
Context and character
13.22 I now turn to the wider considerations on townscape character. While the
schemes themselves have many positive attributes, as outlined above, none of
these can be judged in isolation. Context is key and the fundamental
difference between parties is whether the proposed schemes would
successfully integrate into the wider area or whether that juxtaposition would
be a cause of harm.
319 See Cd-A-06 DAS p116-121
320 See CD-B-08 DAS p102-111
321 See APP-3-B-5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 125
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.23 In policy terms, the site is in the broad area identified in the SP for tall building
developments. That is not a site-specific allocation, but the general principle of
a tall building, subject to the policy criteria in SP Policy P17, is established
here.
13.24 On landmark significance, this is a policy requirement of SP Policy P17 (2) (1)
and is defined as where a number of important routes converge, where there
is a concentration of activity which is or will be the focus of views from several
directions. The site is located behind existing buildings fronting major routes.
St Thomas Street is also not a local route; it is an important access point for
The Shard, London Bridge Station, and Guy’s Hospital and Kings College
Campus. The site is not a focus of views currently, however in light of the
presence of The Shard as a focus of views and I consider that the site would
be the focus of views from several directions in the future. The site would thus
meet this definition.
13.25 The Shard would also remain as the pinnacle, even with the 2018 scheme.
The proposals would obscure The Shard in some specific views, but as one
moves around the area, and in longer distance views, The Shard would
continue to draw the eye as a significant landmark in the skyline.322 The
majority of the LVMF views would also be unaffected.323
13.26 From what I have seen, I consider that the appeal site is located in an area of
transition between the more domestic scale buildings and traditional
architecture along Borough High Street and St Thomas Street which then
transforms into a more contemporary area created by the developments at the
Shard Quarter and the cluster of tall buildings which has, and continues to,
develop around that area [5.8-5.9].
13.27 Due to the proximity of the site near to the Shard cluster there is a logic to
having a tall building in this location and both schemes would complement
existing and consented schemes when viewed in mid-longer distance views.324
13.28 The height of the 2018 scheme would represent an increase in height in
comparison to other adjacent developments, rather than a tapering to the
right as you look south. In contrast, the 2021 scheme would be similar height
to Shard Place and Colechurch House and would better fit the pattern of
gradual reduction.325
13.29 However, the appeal site is somewhat constrained in size by the listed terrace
along St Thomas Street and buildings along Borough High Street as well as
Kings Head Yard and Guy’s Chapel.
322 See VP 24, 25 & 57 in CD-A-12.1 and CD-A-57 for the 2018 scheme and VP 18, 19 & 54 in
CD-B-14 and CD-B-58
323 I come to an assessment of impacts from some LVMF views in respect of heritage assets,
below.
324 Ibid
325 This is illustrated in each DAS but is most easily referenced at p 9-11 of INQ-17 looking
south
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 126
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.30 As experienced in and around the local area the development would have
somewhat of an abrupt effect and rather than an intermingling between the
two areas. The transition along St Thomas Street towards the Shard cluster
would be lost. The immediacy of the contrast would be striking and I consider
it would be uncomfortable and would have a jarring effect in the townscape at
St Thomas Street, Borough High Street and the surrounding area.
13.31 For the 2018 scheme this effect can be seen at VPs 42-44, 50-54326 whereby
the height of the tower juxtaposed against the lower-level townscape in the
area would be stark.
13.32 For the 2021 scheme, such effects can be seen at VPs 33, and 35-36 and
42.327 In particular this scheme would have a significant visual presence when
viewed from pavement level due to the lower and broader design and the
positioning on the site with the over-sail of the listed terrace as demonstrated
in VP43-46.328 The development would appear to have an extremely tight-fit
behind the existing building in this context.
13.33 The ‘cheek by jowl’ character of this area is apparent but the careful balance of
the contrast in the townscape from the current Shard cluster and the
townscape of Borough High Street and St Thomas Street would be eroded by
either of the schemes as presented.
Conclusion
13.34 My analysis has broken down both of the schemes into different elements and
I have found there would be commendable attributes in architectural, and
public realm terms with specific regard to the public access gardens. However,
good design cannot exist in a vacuum, and in spite of the site being broadly
acceptable in principle for tall buildings in policy terms, there would also be
significant harms caused.
13.35 Such effects are due to the scale and massing of the scheme and the poor
relationship that the developments would have in the local street and
townscape. This is also reflected by some of the harms identified in the public
realm, particularly in the 2021 scheme in terms of the size and light issues at
ground floor level. Context is a key aspect of good design and in these cases
both schemes would fail to respond positively to local character and
townscape.
Heritage assets
Approach
13.36 The decision-making framework for the assessment of heritage assets is well
established including the legal duties imposed by the PLBCAA 1990, the
326 CD-A-12.1
327 CD-B-14.1
328 Ibid
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 127
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
corresponding approach in the NPPF and associated policy and other
documents [3.15-3.22].
13.37 The TVIBHA’s formed part of each ES produced for each scheme.329 The EIA
process follows a legislative framework in order to consider the potential
environmental effects of developments. Specifically, assessed against a
baseline, this looks at the potential beneficial and adverse significant effects of
the developments during the works, and once the development is completed
and operational. It does have somewhat of a mechanistic approach which
looks at magnitude and sensitivity metrics to derive the significance of an
effect.
13.38 This is not the same as the NPPF terminology of heritage significance and the
assessment of harm in NPPF terms, which itself has been held to be consistent
with the legislative requirements of the PLBCAA 1990 (see above). The
stepped approach to the assessment of setting is identified in HE’s GPA3 and
this document also recognises the differences between EIA assessment
procedures.330
13.39 The TVIBHA’s do contain narrative and this is supplemented by analysis
contained within the Appellant’s proofs and the oral evidence given at the
Inquiry which was couched in NPPF terms. It is thus considered that the
general approach in the ES, when combined with the written and oral evidence
is sufficient for the purposes of decision making, the results of which are
further analysed below.
13.40 Similarly, in respect of the visualisations contained within the TVIBHA, in the
main these are a helpful tool, but they are illustrative only. They cannot
replicate the experience of visiting the area and heritage assets and assessing
the impacts the developments would be likely to have. In any case, all parties
used these visualisations to support points made in the various proofs of
evidence and presentations.331
13.41 Drilling down further into matters of approach, the concepts of setting and
significance and the level of harm are set out in the NPPF. These are carried
through into LP and SP Policies and are supported by PPG and other guidance
including HE GPA3. Any harm is to be given great weight, but it is helpful to
calibrate it carefully in order to assist with the heritage balance. In applying
the above, other Inspectors332 have expressed their reasoning in different
ways in similar cases in London. The Tulip decision was said to take a more
qualitative approach in the assessment of the importance of the setting to
significance, as opposed to the quantitive analysis taken in the Edith
Summerskill House report which looked at a proportional approach.
329 CD-A-12 (2018) and CD-B-14 (2021)
330 CD-F-04 p8 (including ref to EIA in the green box)
331 See INQ-07, INQ-08, INQ9.1 & 9.2, INQ16.1 & 16.2, INQ17.
332 As endorsed by the SoS
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 128
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.42 There was also a not insignificant amount of case law relating to heritage
before the Inquiry, much of it involving the assessment of setting against
policy and legislative requirements and the calibration of harm. [6.60-
6.73,7.37-7.39, 8.4-8.27]
13.43 This all serves to confirm the complexities of heritage cases and neither
Inspector in the abovementioned cases can be said to be incorrect. The bottom
line is that the assessment of significance, the contribution of setting to that,
and the assessment of effects of harm on specific heritage assets are a matter
of judgement for the decision maker having regard to the circumstances of the
case. Use of clear language so that the reader can follow the approach and
reasoning is, of course, key.
13.44 I also note that in coming to a positive conclusion in terms of the assessment
of effects upon some of the heritage assets, the Appellant has sought to
incorporate benefits such as relieving congestion, improvements to experience
and public realm. 333 However, that assessment comes later in my decision,
following my appraisal of the significance of the heritage assets and the effects
of each scheme upon that significance.
13.45 In spite of any debated shortcomings in terms of approach, or use of specific
terminology, in general I am content that the evidence presented,
supplemented by my own thorough site inspections, is sufficient for me to a)
understand the parties’ respective positions and how that has been arrived at,
b) come to a reasoned view, and c) recommend to the SoS to make the overall
decisions on these appeals.
13.46 To that end, helpfully the parties have agreed a Heritage SOCG334 which sets
out the main affected assets [2.7], and agreement as to the special interest
and significance of assets (with some specific key points of difference
highlighted).335 The main parties agree that the schemes would cause LSTH, as
opposed to substantial harm.336 That harm would not arise from any direct
impacts on the fabric of heritage assets. Rather, any harm would be from the
impact of the development on the significance derived from their settings.
There is also broad agreement that the physical works to the listed terrace
would be beneficial [7.75-7.76, 8.92, 8.95, 8.129].
13.47 The key difference between parties was the relevant degree of harm. The
SOCG also usefully summarises the parties’ respective positions in terms of the
level of harm within the LTSH range at Table 1 (for the 2018 scheme) and
Table 2 (for the 2021 scheme). This was the main focus of the dispute at the
Inquiry. Different terminology was used to define the scale of LTSH by the
parties. For ease of reference, I have used the following scale: high, moderate,
low, very low and none for LTSH.
333 For example the BHSCA and Guy’s Hospital in App-2-A Peter Stewart PoE
334 SOCG-03
335 It should be noted that there is a broad number of designated assets in the vicinity of the
site. These have been identified and assessed by the TVIBHAs, however the Inquiry focussed
on the main assets, as agreed between parties. I have followed a similar approach.
336 I will deal with the concern from the National Trust over substantial harm, further below.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 129
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.48 I now turn to my assessment of the effects upon the heritage assets. In light
of the vast number of designated assets within and surrounding the site, there
is a considerable degree of overlap. I begin with the BHSCA which contains a
considerable number of listed buildings.
Borough High Street Conservation Area
13.49 First designated in 1968, BHSCA has a rich history which has evolved over a
significant time period. Acting as a primary route from the south into the City,
via London Bridge, the layout of the Borough was established in Roman times.
The CA is divided into 4 sub-areas within the BSHCAA337, including Borough
High Street today with its predominantly 18th and 19th century commercial
buildings developed on historic burgage plots with narrow frontages and long
rears, yards and coaching inns. The Riverside sub-area, with its narrow
streets, warehousing, Southwark Cathedral and the remains of Winchester
Palace, intermingled with modern 20th century developments. St Thomas
Street is also a defined sub-area with a distinct 18th Century classical character
from properties along St Thomas Street and Guy’s Hospital complex.
13.50 The importance of the CA is not disputed. Its history, complexity, diversity
and very essence is difficult to summarise and capture in a report such as this
and I commend the summery of significance at paragraphs 3.1-3.6 of the
heritage SOCG to the SoS.338 However, in short, the urban grain, and
townscape quality of Borough High Street, including the distinguishable
burgage plots and yards and the formality of the predominantly Georgian
townscape along St Thomas Street form an intrinsic part of the significance of
the CA. The CA is also influenced by modern developments, both within its
boundary and adjacent to it (thus in its setting). That includes the Shard
Quarter.
13.51 The appeal site is occupied by a modern 1980’s development which largely
respects the scale and the restrained quality and character of St Thomas
Street and the CA. While its architecture and quality of design is somewhat
poor, it is recessive in form and I consider that it has a generally neutral
impact in terms of the BHSCA. The broad principle of the redevelopment of the
site is accepted.
13.52 In terms of the assessment of impacts from the proposed schemes, this was
the heritage asset with the most divergence between parties. The Appellant
considering that there would be a positive effect and the Council and HE
considering that there would be LTSH to a high level/towards the upper end of
the range.
St Thomas Street
337 CD-E-06
338 Along with the evidence in the proofs, and the in BHSCAA (CD-E-06)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 130
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.53 The relatively complete 18th and 19th century setting to St Thomas Street and
its restrained qualities of its buildings are readily apparent and has a marked
change from the character of BHS. The buildings here were all developed as
part of St Thomas Hospital complex to house various staff members and while
there is an architectural hierarchy to the buildings, there is coherence and
balance to the north and south of the street. There is a gradual opening out
along the street and to the north side, there is a steady increase in scale from
the entrance of St Thomas Street towards the grander buildings at Keats
House, Conybeare House and to the Guy’s Hospital entrance with its formal
gates and railings leading into a forecourt to the complex. The 26-storey
Shard Place located at the end of the BHSCA boundary, marks a distinct
change in the character and scale, with Guy’s Hospital Tower, and the Shard
beyond. Guy’s Hospital complex itself also marks an entry point into the CA
when leaving London Bridge Station.
13.54 Against these qualities, the proposed developments, as tall buildings, would be
particularly incongruous and would significantly undermine the qualities of
scale. This can be particularly seen at VP 50 and 51 for the 2018 scheme339
where the tall building would loom behind the buildings. Although shorter,
the effect would be similar for the 2021 scheme due to its solidity and bulk,
and the overhang over the rear roof pitches of the listed terrace, as
demonstrated at VP 42 and 43.340
13.55 The effect would be experienced as a ‘bleeding in’ to the CA of the modern
skyscraper developments of the Shard Quarter as viewed along St Thomas
Street and the sense of separation of the two which is currently achieved,
would be lost.341
Borough High Street/Southwark Street
13.56 The incongruous presence of the developments would also be felt along
Borough High Street and Southwark Street. Both schemes would loom over
and distract from the 3-4 storey buildings and, as major through routes into
the city, those effects would be visible to users of the highway from many
vantage points along these important routes.342
13.57 In some specific points, the developments would be seen in the context with
the Shard343 and the ‘bleeding in’ effect of the cluster into the CA identified at
St Thomas Street would be less distinguishable. Nonetheless, the stark
juxtaposition and the immediacy of the proposed buildings behind the more
human scale historic buildings would dominate in the views.
13.58 It is important to note here that while the main focus is around the streets and
roads highlighted above, either of the proposals would be visible across the
339 CD-A-12.1 p257 and 261
340 CD-B-14.1 p 231 and 235
341 See VP 45 in CD-A-12.1 for 2018 scheme and VP 45 in CD-B-14.1 for 2021 scheme
342 See VP 42-44 for the 2018 scheme in CD-A-12.1 and VP 33-36 for the 2021 scheme in
CD-B-14.1
343 For example VP42 & 43 (2018) and VP 34 & 35 (2021)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 131
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
majority of the CA and from within each of the identified character areas with
the abovementioned impacts visible at different vantage points, to differing
degrees. For example, Southwark Cathedral in the Riverside sub area (I
discuss this specific asset in terms of LB effects, further below).
Kings Head Yard
13.59 I have assessed the creation of Kings Head Yard in terms of public realm,
above. However, it is also necessary to consider this in terms of impacts upon
the BHSCA.
13.60 Formally housing a galleried timber framed coaching inn, this area today
contains the Kings Head PH and façade of former Victorian hop sample rooms,
which was later incorporated into the New City Court development. Parts of
this also appear to have been rebuilt following bomb damage sustained during
the Second World War.344
13.61 The number of yards leading off BHS are an important part of the character of
the CA and the townscape. The Kings Head Yard area is particularly important
given the presence of the Kings Head PH as an active draw, allowing visitors to
experience the repurposed burgage plots and the historic uses of these areas,
away from the hustle and bustle of BHS. The framing of the yard by these
buildings, and the scale and intimacy are important reminders of the evolution
of the area from its medieval origins and its commercial importance. While
parts of the yard are not particularly pleasant due to antisocial behaviour, that
itself does not take away from its character.
13.62 The repurposing of Kings Head Yard to an open area of public realm through
the removal of the hop sample rooms would erode the important character of
the yard and the tight urban grain experienced here would be lost.
13.63 This erosion would be more greatly caused by the 2018 scheme which would
incorporate a greater open area.345 The enclosure would be regained by the 4-
storey wedge, further along Kings Head Yard, but the overall experience
walking through the archway from BHS into the enclosed yard would be lost at
its most crucial point.
13.64 The sense of enclosure would be better retained in the 2021 scheme due to
the smaller scale of public realm created in this area, in combination with the
stepped access from the alley surface, up to the newly created square and the
4 -storey podium entrance.346
344 There was some debate between the main parties as to the extent of the damage and
rebuild. At the site visit, I saw that parts of the façade were clearly a reasonably faithful
reconstruction and other parts appeared historic. In any case, its retention and the classical
architecture through the incorporation of piers, pediments and pilasters curving around the
alleyway are positive features.
345 See visualisations at CD-A-06(DAS) p119 and 129
346 See visualisations at CD-B-08 (DAS) p13 and 111
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 132
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.65 While I have found positives, in general townscape terms, my analysis here is
that the sense of scale and intimacy from the yard would be lost, due to the
scale of the proposed buildings in both schemes and through the opening up of
the yard to create public realm.
Keats House
13.66 Dating from c1860, Keats House is an ornate red brick and stone Italianate
façade, behind which New City Court is attached. To the untrained eye, this
has the appearance of a complete historic building from St Thomas Street, and
only when one looks closely can it be realised that it is a simple façade
retention, due to the loss of the side return where the modern curved part of
New City Court is attached. Accordingly, Keats House is a positive attribute to
the character and appearance of the CA.
13.67 In both schemes, the façade is proposed to be relocated to create a standalone
building to allow for servicing from St Thomas Street. In the 2018 scheme, this
would be moved by c2.7m, extended to the rear, including the introduction of
pitched roofs and a faithful rebuilding of the western side return with
stonework stringcourse detailing, which would face the St Thomas Square
public realm. It would be attached to the adjacent Conybeare House by a glass
façade hidden by a perforated brick wall.
13.68 In the 2021 scheme, this would be moved c6m as a standalone building. It
would have a single pitch roof. The building would be extended to the rear with
the flank elevations incorporating stone banding. The eastern elevation,
exposed for the first time, would have a shorter flank return which would then
become curved to facilitate vehicular access between Keats and Conybeare
Houses, into a rear service yard and loading bay area.
13.69 The retention of the façade in both schemes is to be welcomed. However, this
building has already been somewhat compromised due to the loss of the whole
building. The moving of this structure to facilitate servicing would further
erode its historic character and its legibility in the streetscape.
13.70 That effect would be less obvious in the 2018 scheme given that there would
be some attachment to Conybeare House, subject to appropriate detailing. The
reinstatement of the western return, and the doubled pitched roof would also
be positive. However, the 2021 scheme would highlight the building as a
retained façade due to the separation and the curved eastern flank with would
be incongruous to the ‘squared’ Georgian architectural form. Moreover, the
gap created along St Thomas Street would further erode the rhythm and intact
nature of the townscape. Overall there would be harm to the character and
appearance of the BHSCA from the moving of Keats House, particularly from
the 2021 scheme.
Conclusions
13.71 I have found adverse effects in terms of the scale and juxtaposition of the
schemes on the character of the CA, through the transformation of Kings Head
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 133
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Yard into Kings Head Square. There are also concerns in respect of Keats
House, particularly for the 2021 scheme.
13.72 It was also put to me that architectural quality is a factor that can reduce
heritage harm. This concept is nothing new, and indeed LP and SP policies
require exemplarity architectural design, which undoubtably can assist in
achieving successful intermingling of old and new for tall buildings. I have
found that there are positive elements in terms of the design quality. However,
I have already found overall harm in townscape character and appearance
terms.
13.73 Both designs have sought to reflect some of the architectural character found
in the CA, but the success of this is limited in light of the overriding impacts
identified above.
13.74 Fairly, the Appellant has never shied away from the striking contrast in scale
and character of the schemes in the context of the CA. This is apparent
throughout the various proofs, the DASs and the TVIBHAs, and as there are
references to adding drama and interest into the view and as conjunction of
the historic and modern.
13.75 In such cases, a balance needs to be struck. As a general principle modern
design and differences in scale and form can be accommodated in historic
areas and be a positive and welcome addition. However, in these specific cases
and in light of the adverse effects I have identified for each scheme, I am not
persuaded that either scheme would represent a successful contrast. Instead,
the drama and interest would be for the wrong reasons, for the reasons
explained in more detail above.
13.76 Overall, both the 2018 and 2021 schemes would cause harm to BHSCA. In
light of the harms to several of the key characteristics of the BHSCA, I
consider that this would be at a high level within the LTSH scale.
4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street
13.77 These are a group of grade II listed buildings which were built in 1819
specifically for St Thomas’s Hospital, which was sited across the road, as living
accommodation for surgeons and physicians. As a terrace, they have a
coherent architectural character through the use of London buff brick,
fenestration and consistent roof line, and a clear presence in the street with
railings and stepped accesses bridging across the visible basement level.
13.78 An extremely thorough study of these buildings has been undertaken and is
commended to the SoS.347 This analyses the evolution of the site and
alterations to the historic fabric which have taken place, through desk-top
study and intrusive site investigations. This demonstrates the listed buildings
have largely been rebuilt behind the main façade to St Thomas Street. The
rear façade to no.14 is the only survival to the rear, but this was overclad in
347 See section 2 and Appendix in CD-A-21 B (2018 scheme) and CD-B-20 (2021 scheme)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 134
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
the 1980s redevelopment. Roofs have been rebuilt and altered and the original
slates replaced with asbestos tiles. Internally, there are no remaining
fireplaces or chimney breasts and the floorplans have been heavily altered so
that the buildings have been combined into one premises. There are,
however, historic staircases at Nos 4, 8 and 14.
13.79 While the architectural significance has therefore been compromised, the listed
terrace still has special architectural interest, primarily in terms of the façade
facing St Thomas Street and its historic significance is also important.
13.80 As discussed in my analysis on the BHSCA, the refined composition of St
Thomas Street, distinguishable as a relatively complete example of late
18th/early 19th century streetscape is an important attribute. The shared
setting of St Thomas Street, which includes a number of other grade II and I*
listed buildings, thus forms part of its special interest, as indeed the terrace
itself contributes to the BHSCA and compliments the setting of the other listed
buildings.
13.81 As previously explained, there was broad agreement that the physical works to
the listed terrace would be beneficial. I agree with that stance. Sensitive
reinstatement of the plan-form and repairs would also be achieved by both
schemes. Use of appropriate materials would also be beneficial, for example
the replacement of asbestos rooftiles with slate. The works would also restore
the rears of the buildings and the floorplans and the historic passageway
between Nos 8 & 10 (which were merged during the 1930s).
13.82 I accept that the concern raised by HE regarding the introduction of shopfronts
to the rear of the terrace in the 2018 (in order to face onto Kings Head
Square) would give a prominence to the rear which would never have been the
case historically. However, given the extensive changes to the buildings, and
given that the access to the terrace via the front doors would be reinstated
thus enlivening the terrace (and CA),348 I do not consider the addition of these
units would represent a harmful inversion of the hierarchy, nor would it take
away from the significance of the listed terrace as a whole.
13.83 Appeals B and D for listed building consent made under the PLBCAA1990
specifically relate to the works for its alteration or extension in any manner
which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic
interest. In this regard, I am satisfied that there would be no harm arising
from either scheme and that the special interest of the listed building would be
preserved, and indeed enhanced.
13.84 However, I consider that there would be harm to significance through the
effect of the development upon the setting of this terrace arising from both
schemes.
13.85 The visual coherence of the terrace would be significantly eroded by the
proposed schemes, particular in light of its proximity to these assets and scale.
348 The doorways remain but are not in use at present.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 135
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The jump in mass between the terrace and each of the schemes would have
no regard for the scale and restrained formality of these buildings, which are
appreciable in their largely original setting. Both schemes would have an
overpowering influence, diminishing the visual presence of the terrace and its
appreciation, causing harm.
13.86 That effect would be particularly apparent in the 2021 scheme where the
proposed building would fill the whole space behind the terrace, overhanging
the rear roofs of the buildings.
13.87 Such impacts caused by both schemes would be experienced when in
proximity of the terrace, and when looking along St Thomas Street (as
previously discussed in the context of the BHSCA).
13.88 Overall the works to the listed buildings would be beneficial, and a heritage
benefit. However, there would be clear harm to their settings, and thereby
their significance. In light of my analysis, I consider that to be a moderate
level in the LTSH scale.
Other Listed Buildings along St Thomas Street
13.89 St Thomas Street includes a great number of other heritage assets including
Bunch of Grapes PH (II), 9 (II*), 9a (II*), 11-13 (II*) ,15 (II).
13.90 The PH is annexed to the listed terrace, discussed above. Again, it was built in
1819 as two houses for St Thomas hospital workers and has similar
architectural restraint in terms of its materials and detailing. The Victorian
commercial frontage was inserted when the building was converted for use as
a PH and is a good example of its kind. It forms a clear group with the listed
terrace.
13.91 St Thomas Church at no 9a is located on the other side of St Thomas Street,
on the site of the original St Thomas Hospital which was associated with the
priory. It is a former parish Church built in the Queen Anne style with a
square 4-storey tower. Collectively, Nos 9-15 form a fine brick terrace set
back in the street, with a forecourt and railings to the boundary with the
pavement. No 9 forms the former Treasurers House and is a grand 3-storey
property with 7 bays. It is more distinguished in architectural detail, being
larger and grander than nos 11-15 and the buildings opposite, while still
retaining architectural restraint as found elsewhere. It is also built in a Queen
Anne style. Nos 11-13 were also built for the hospital as houses for the
receiver and minister and No 15 as the house of the Apothecary to the
hospital. All are polite in architectural terms and illustrate the social hierarchy
of the time as well as the evolution of the hospital and having a functional
relationship. Individually, all these assets have architectural and historic
interest, as identified above.
13.92 In all of the above assets, the settings effectively ‘nest’ with each other. The
significance derived from setting, is as I have explained above for the listed
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 136
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
terrace. In that regard, the impacts of each of the schemes would also be
similar in terms of the towering juxtaposition and harm to the composition of
the 18th/19th assets. In the case of No 9a, the scale and proximity of both of
the proposed schemes would compete for attention in the skyline with the
Church Tower, distracting from this as a focal point.
13.93 Overall, I again find there would be a moderate level of LTSH to these assets,
consistent with my findings to the listed terrace. This would be the same for
both the 2018 and 202 schemes.
Guy’s Hospital
13.94 Founded in 1721, Guy’s Hospital is located on the former burial ground of St
Thomas Hospital and was developed by Thomas Guy, Governor and benefactor
of St Thomas Hospital who purchased the land for the treatment of
‘incurables.’ It is II* listed and today forms part of the Kings College London’s
medical and science campus, under the custodianship of the NHS.
13.95 The first part of the complex comprised two symmetrical four-sided ranges of
wards with arcaded courtyards separated by a central range. It was designed
to be airy and spacious yet form a secure environment for its long-term
patients. The forecourt to St Thomas Street was created by the development
of ranges, with the east wing built in 1738-41 and the west wing in 1774-7.
The original range was also re-faced at that time and although different
architects were involved in the development of the wings, the composition was
clearly designed to be unified with pedimented classical designs.
13.96 The west wing (Conybeare House) includes what is today the only surviving
18th century hospital chapel in England. This incorporates 3 stained glass
windows which are directly adjacent to the appeal site. The east wing was
heavily damaged during WW2 but was faithfully reconstructed during the
1960s.
13.97 To the centre is a statue of Thomas Guy, aligned with the pediments to the
surrounding buildings, and to St Thomas Street are elaborate iron gates and
piers and railings. These are both listed in their own right.
13.98 The complex is a rare survival of a purpose-built institution associated with the
emergence of healthcare provision in the 18th century. All of the above gives it
significant historic and architectural interest.
13.99 The sequence of spaces in the forecourt and courtyards are all an intrinsic
part of the design ethos of the site and thus significance is derived from that
setting. The forecourt at St Thomas Street acts as a controlled entry point
into the calmer, more secluded courtyards beyond.
13.100 The dominating effect I have found from both schemes in relation to the
BSHCA and the listed buildings along St Thomas Street is also stark here. The
developments would be located behind the west wing. The proximity and
juxtaposition would also be particularly incongruous as the flank elevations of
the developments would be located behind its central pediment, but at a
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 137
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
slight offset and angle. This is illustrated in VP 49 of the TVIBHA349 for the
2018 scheme where the exoskeleton is offset from the top of the pediment
and the curved front and flat rear are offset from the chimneys.
13.101 Similarly, the offset and the parallelogram form of the 2021 scheme would
have a very uncomfortable relationship with the pediment and would be
discordant and distracting as clearly seen in VP41.350
13.102 The proximity and scale would also have a looming impact from within the
western quadrangle area, again in both schemes.351
13.103 Again, the point is made by the Appellant that visual competition or
distraction is not always necessarily adverse and that the assessment must
be rooted in whether that effect would cause harm to the significance. As
with other assets, including the BHSCA, the contrast between old and new, in
the forms as proposed, would clearly have a discordant effect which would
erode the qualities identified. In light of the significance drawn upon by Guy’s
Hospital from its setting, that impact is harmful to significance.
13.104 Guy’s Hospital already has a number of tall buildings surrounding it, in light
of its proximity to the Shard Quarter. This has been established for a number
of years, following the arrival of the railways and through 20th century
additions, including the Guy’s Hospital tower and the (now demolished)
Fielden House. The effects of the current tall developments are apparent from
within the forecourt, when looking east, and from the quadrangles. The
vastness of the Shard is particularly apparent and as a whole the
juxtaposition and scale of these tall buildings has an uncomfortable
relationship with Guy’s Hospital, harming its setting. I consider that the
proposed schemes would have a greater effect given their proximity to the
west wing and the interaction with the pediment.
13.105 Moreover, the area behind the western wing remains unaffected by tall
developments due to the historic scale of the townscape behind it remaining
intact. This area gives some relief when in the forecourt which would be
eroded by both schemes which would have a flanking and tunnelling
cumulative effect.
13.106 As a place of worship, quiet contemplation and reflection, the Chapel interior
is not a brightly lit space, but the ambience, particularly from the light cast
through the stained-glass windows, is important and it is an inherent design
intention which forms part of the significance of the Chapel. Given that both
schemes would be positioned immediately adjacent to these windows, there
would be a significant loss of light (43% and 46% reduction respectively).352
This would curtail the light qualities inside the Chapel, filtered through the
349 CD-A-12.1 p255
350 CD-B014.1 p229
351 See TVBHA VP 47 (2018) and 39 (2021)
352 CD-A-38 and CD-B-47
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 138
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
stained-glass windows and the experience this brings, causing harm to
significance.
13.107 In light of the nature and grading of these assets, and the combination of
harms to setting behind Conybeare House and the west inner quadrangle,
plus the impact upon the Chapel and the ability to appreciate it, both
schemes would cause a high level of LTSH.
Kings Head Public House
13.108 This is a grade II listed building, dating from 1881 and built in a Tudor
Revival style but with a 16th century bust of King Henry VII fixed to the
centre of the upper floor. It represents a good and typical example of
Victorian architecture. It also replaced an earlier timber framed building.
13.109 The significance of this asset derives in a large part from its location on Kings
Head Yard, characteristic of the distinctive urban grain of BHS. I saw at my
visit that the open space afforded by the yard was in active use by customers
of the PH.
13.110 Consistent with my findings on this area for the BHSCA, the loss of enclosure
gained from the yard through the creation of Kings Head Square would cause
harm to its significance. Again the scale and intimacy as a building in a back
alley would be lost due to the scale of the proposed buildings. The harm
would be at the low end of the LTSH scale for both schemes.
The George Inn
13.111 Built after the Southwark fire in 1676, The George Inn is a fine example of a
3 storey brick and galleried timber framed building. It is a unique survival in
the area and in London, albeit its north wing and centre were demolished in
the 19th century. It has historic associations with Guy’s Hospital, Great
Northern Railway and is now in the stewardship of the National Trust. It also
has literary associations, including with Shakespeare and Dickens. Its historic
and architectural interest is reflected in its grade I listed status.
13.112 Its setting comprises a courtyard area, although today it is contained by late
20th century office developments (akin to the scale and design of the 1980s
extensions at New City Court) which detracts from that setting. Guy’s Tower,
the Shard, and Shard Place are also visible behind this building. This area is
lively, used as a beer garden allowing visitors to experience a historic
semblance of an ancient, backland coaching inn. Visitors are able to also view
this area from the galleries of the building. While the setting has been
affected, the courtyard area still positively contributes to significance.
13.113 The schemes would both be prominent above the roofline of the modern
office building, as demonstrated by VP 46 (2018) and VP 38 (2021).353 In
353 CD-A-12.1 and CD-B-14.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 139
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
combination with the other tall buildings, the developments would dominate
and distract from the backland yard character.
13.114 I accept that best views of The George are at close range, looking away from
the direction of the appeal site within the courtyard, but setting is more than
simple views. In any case, views out from the galleries are also important
and would be further eroded by the proposed developments. In addition, the
experience of accessing the PH from BHS with the building to the right, and
the courtyard area in front would also be altered and the looming presence of
the developments in this area would be very apparent.
13.115 In this regard, there would be harm to significance. The harm would not be
substantial, as that is a high test and the developments could not be said to
seriously affect a key element of the special interest of the building. I
consider the harm to be less than substantial, to the low end of the scale.
Southwark Cathedral
13.116 Originally founded in the 12th century as the Priory of St. Mary Overie, this
grade I listed building is a gothic church, rebuilt between 1220 and 1420,
following a fire. Following dissolution, it became a parish Church until 1905
when it became the St. Saviour and St. Mary Overie, serving the new diocese
of Southwark and preserving both its former names.
13.117 It has had several phases of development including the square tower dating
from 14th century and extended in the later 14th and 15th centuries. The
pinnacles were added in the 19th Century when the church was restored. It
has a gothic architectural character.
13.118 In terms of setting, that is encapsulated by the description contained within
the BHSCAA.354 This states that “the significance of the Cathedral in its wider
historical context is not to be underestimated as it is an extant relict of
medieval townscape, set within the everchanging environment of its modern
setting. Once dominant over small lanes and buildings packed around it, it is
now crowded by modern structures - the office buildings, railway viaduct and
London Bridge approach that surround it.”
13.119 The surroundings of the Cathedral are crowded but its immediate setting
allows viewers to appreciate its architecture against a clear sky. The Shard
does encroach into this at various points as one travels around the building
and care would be needed when photographing the asset in order to ensure
that the tower could be seen in its full glory against that clear sky. In spite of
an urbanised setting, this asset is also visually prominent in some wider
views, including from London Bridge across Montague Square. The tower and
pinnacles in particular are also distinguishable from several parts in the wider
area and in this regard, the building has a landmark quality, as a reminder of
the growth of ancient Southwark.
354 CD-E-06 para 3.4.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 140
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.120 All parties agreed that there would be LTSH from the proposed schemes,
although the level of that is disputed. Turning now to my analysis, the scale
and juxtaposition of both schemes would be experienced in several view
points around the Cathedral and kinetically, moving around it.
13.121 In the sequence of six views at VP56 for the 2018 scheme to the north, the
proposed tower would be seen as an isolated structure, away from the tall
buildings of the Shard Quarter which form a group in these visualisations. In
this context it would be incongruous and intrusive into the backdrop of the
tower. The effect would be similar for the 2021 scheme, as demonstrated in
VP 48-53. For both, the impressive presence of the Cathedral would be
undermined.
13.122 In views from London Bridge, the left side of this is characterised by tall
buildings at The Shard, whereas the righthand side is distinctly lower, with
the tower and pinnacles acting as a focus and a clue to the historic nature of
the area. This would be eroded slightly with the introduction of the schemes
roughly located in line with the end of London Bridge. The 2018 scheme355
would give a greater sense of space but due to its width and mass, the 2021
scheme would reduce that to a greater degree.356
13.123 In terms of local concern raised about wind damage to the Cathedral [10.13],
there is no evidence before me that this would occur here.
13.124 Overall, my conclusions depart from the opinions of each party on this asset
but based on the above analysis and in light of the setting and contribution
that makes to significance, I consider that both schemes would cause a
moderate level of LTSH.
Tower of London World Heritage Site
13.125 This WHS contains multiple highly graded designated heritage assets within
it, including the White Tower (Grade I) and the Inner Curtain Wall (Grade I),
which includes the Queens House, a scheduled monument and CA. The
nature of the impacts for all these assets would be the same and therefore
while I draw specific attention to certain assets, my analysis is set out in
terms of the impact upon the WHS, in order to avoid repetition.
13.126 As set out in the heritage SOCG, the ToL is an internationally famous
monument and one of England’s most iconic structures. William the
Conqueror built the White Tower as a demonstration of Norman power, siting
it strategically on the River Thames to act as both fortress and gateway to
the capital: it is the most complete example of an 11th century fortress
palace remaining in Europe. A rare survival of a continuously developing
ensemble of royal buildings, from the 11th to 16th centuries, the Tower of
London has become one of the symbols of royalty. It also fostered the
development of several of England’s major State institutions, incorporating
355 CD-A-12.1 VP24
356 CD-B-14.1 VP18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 141
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
such fundamental roles as the nation’s defence, its recordkeeping and its
coinage. It has been the setting for key historical events in European history,
including the execution of three English queens.
13.127 Of the seven attributes that express the outstanding universal value (OUV) of
the ToL, those attributes of its significance which rely on its setting are key in
the determination of these appeals. These relate to the physical location as
appreciated through visibility and symbolic attributes which rely on how the
ToL relates to its setting. To summarise these are; internationally famous
monument, landmark siting, symbol of Norman power, the concentric
defences (around the White Tower), and physical dominance (of the White
Tower).
13.128 Specifically, the landmark White Tower is the focus of the Inner Ward,
dominating an intimate space, framed, particularly to the north, east and
west, by historic buildings of diverse materials and styles. There is a mixed
character of military fortress, civic buildings and residential domestic
buildings dating from 16-18th Century, reflective of the long and complex
history of the Tower. Areas around the White Tower are a mix of cobbled
streets and paved areas, and lawned spaces including The Green. Movement
through the ToL from the public entrance gives a sense of separation as one
journeys through the concentric defences into the sanctuary afforded by the
inner ward. A clear sky and sense of breakaway from the City, with the
dominance of the White Tower is evocative and a fundamental part of the
attributes of OUV.
13.129 The relationship of the ToL with the River Thames is important. Views from
the Inner Ward, over and between its enclosing buildings and walls, illustrate
the relationship of the Tower to the evolving modern cityscape beyond.
Particularly from the northern parts of the Inner Ward, there are extensive
prospects over the Thames to the south bank.
13.130 The OUV of the WHS and special interest of the buildings are vulnerable to
development in their setting distracting from its dominance and by
undermining the symbolic expression of power and landmark attributes, as
well as the enclosure and intimacy created in the inner ward.
13.131 Such vulnerabilities were recognised back in 2011/2012 by a joint UNESCO-
ICOMOS mission with specific regard to development in South London stating
that the visual integrity and OUV would be destroyed/severely compromised
by additional tall buildings visible above the buildings in the Tower complex
[6.90, 10.5].
13.132 The SoS decision for the Shard357 concluded that there would be no harm to
the WHS, however, following its construction, the Management Plan for the
WHS, along with other policy documents358 all recognise a harmful effect.
357 CD-H-17
358 See CD-F-09, CD-F-10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 142
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Development Plan policy359 has also evolved and been strengthened in
response to the potential for such effects, although nowhere does it seek to
limit the height where developments would be visible above the ToL buildings
as suggested by the World Heritage Committee.360
13.133 The 2018 scheme would be visible from various vantage points from the ToL,
including above the inner curtain wall and roofline of the Queens House,
when viewed from within the inner ward.361 That would be seen as part of the
cluster of tall buildings which has developed around the Shard, and continues
to develop with the approval of other schemes, as yet not built out [5.8-5.9].
From the inner ward, the White Tower would continue to dominate, but the
development would result in a further loss of open sky and loss to the sense
of separation from the ToL and the City beyond. It would also provide a stark
contrast between the domestic buildings here and visually distract.
13.134 The lower level of the 2021 scheme would be less visible from the Inner
Ward, nonetheless, it would appear over the roofline of the Queens House
and would contribute to a further urbanisation of the skyline.
13.135 Views of the ToL complex are gained from the Royal Mint and here the Shard
dominates behind the White Tower. A very small part of the proposed 2018
scheme would be visible in this view362, however, I do not consider that this
would be a visual distraction, merely a minor accretion into the backdrop,
visible only from certain fixed parts in front of this Grade II* listed building.
Due to its lower height the 2021 scheme would not be visible from here.
13.136 Overall, I consider that the development would cause LTSH to the ToL WHS.
This would be at the low end of the scale for the 2018 scheme and would be
very low in the 2021 scheme. As the ToL also contains other designated
assets, the schemes would also be detrimental to the setting and thereby the
significance of the LBs and the CA.
St Paul’s Cathedral
13.137 Designed by Wren and dating from 1675-1710, this Grade I listed cathedral is
in a classical style, built out of Portland stone. Located and designed to be
visually dominant, it has a distinctive dome and elegant Baroque west towers.
It is a remarkable heritage asset, and it is impossible to capture its
significance in a few lines in this report. The Heritage SOCG sets this out in
more detail363 and I agree with that analysis.
13.138 As one of London’s most historic landmarks, it has an extensive setting. The
iconic silhouette created by the combination of the dome and towers is
359 LP Policy HC2 and SP Policy P24
360 CD-F-17
361 CD-A-57 VP 27
362 Ibid VP29
363 Paras 3.20-3.24
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 143
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
recognised and is incorporated into a great many protected views as set out
in the LVMF. Setting is clearly an integral part of its significance.
13.139 Of the LVMF views, views 2A.1: Parliament Hill: the summit and view 3A.1:
Kenwood: the viewing gazebo. I visited these on a clear day with good
visibility. In both views, the Cathedral is visible in the foreground with tall
buildings behind it, including the Shard, Shard Place and Guy’s Tower and
other buildings in the townscape of South London.
13.140 In respect of the view from Kenwood, both schemes would appear to the
right of the western towers of the Cathedral.364 The LVMF is clear that the
form and materials of development in the background of St Paul’s Cathedral
should preserve or enhance the clarity with which the silhouette of the
Cathedral can be distinguished from its background.
13.141 While I do not consider there to be an enhancement through the creation of a
clearer backdrop as claimed by the Appellant, I do not consider that either
scheme would cause harm. It is clear from the visualisations that, although
the schemes would be visible, they would sit comfortably in this backdrop as
part of the townscape south of the river. The materials used would allow for
each scheme to be visually distinct against the Portland stone of the western
towers.
13.142 Guy’s Tower already appears in the backdrop in between the dome and the
western towers and the addition of another tower, in the form of either of the
scheme designs, would not result in any visual severing of these two
elements. They would remain clearly legible as a composition, and I consider
that the Cathedral would retain its silhouette.
13.143 I draw similar conclusions in respect of the view from Parliament Hill. The
developments would appear to the right of the Cathedral, beyond the
silhouette. The 2018 scheme would break the horizon, but that in itself
would not reduce the ability to appreciate the landmark quality of this asset,
particularly given its positioning to the side.
13.144 Overall there would be no harm to the significance of St Paul’s Cathedral, as
derived from its setting.
Other heritage assets
13.145 Located in the middle of a busy intersection of BHS, Marshalsea Road, Gt
Dover Street and Tabard Street the Church of St George the Martyr (Grade
II*) a Queen Anne church dating from 1734-6 with a Portland stone tower
and polygonal spire. Given its island location, it enjoys a relatively open
setting in the urban context of BHS. Both schemes would be visible as one
moved around the area however, in its open setting, the tower would remain
364 CD-A-12.1 and CD-B-14.1 - VP 5 for each scheme. Note also the Telepoto VP at 5.1 which
is helpful in providing a closer up version of the view.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 144
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
a focal point and landmark, with the developments appearing further
removed. I therefore find no harm to this asset.
13.146 The Monument (Grade I and scheduled monument) and St Magnus the Martyr
(Grade I) are designated for their age, rarity and architectural design. Both
assets were designed by Wren as part of the redevelopment of the city after
the Great Fire in 1666 and were positioned and designed to be seen as part
of the London skyline. The setting evolved through 19th century
developments in the city and post war redevelopment. These assets are seen
together along Gracechurch Street and this is recognised in the Protected
views SPD.365 Both schemes would be located in an area of clear sky behind
the tower of St Magnus and between the space between that and the
Monument.366 The 2018 would be clearly visible behind the tower, whereas
the 2021 scheme, at its lower level would be less prominent, peaking above
the roofline, but leaving the spire visible in the skyline.
13.147 However, the views down Gracechurch Street are narrow or slotted and form
a single aspect of assets which have a broad setting in the city scape. Any
harm here would thus be very low in terms of the 2018 scheme and there
would be no harm from the 2021 scheme.
13.148 Similarly, the Bank CA, within which the above assets sit, would not be
harmed. Covering a large area in the commercial heart of London and the
redevelopment after the Great Fire, and today contains a huge variety of
building types. The schemes would be visible from the CA at certain vantage
points, but that would not compromise the appreciation and understanding of
the buildings and their relationship in this CA.
Conclusions on heritage
13.149 Based on an understanding of the significance of the above assets, and the
contribution that setting makes to that, I have found LTSH of varying degrees
to a number of assets.
13.150 For ease, I have summarised my overall findings below:
Heritage Assets Level of LTSH
2018 Scheme 2021 Scheme
Borough High Street CA High High
4-8 &12-16 St Thomas Street Moderate Moderate
Bunch of Grapes Public Moderate Moderate
House, 9, A, 11, 13 & 15 St
Thomas Street
Guy’s Hospital High High
Kings Head PH Low Low
The George Inn Low Low
365 CD-E-17
366 CD-A-12.1 VP 23 and CD-B-14.1 VP 17
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 145
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Southwark Cathedral Moderate Moderate
Tower of London WHS Low Very Low
St Paul’s Cathedral No harm No harm
Church of St George the No harm No harm
Martyr
The Monument and Church of Very Low No harm
St Magnus the Martyr
Bank CA No harm No harm
Tower CA Low Very Low
13.151 Such harmful effects to the BHSCA and the various listed buildings and their
settings attract considerable importance and weight under the PLBCAA1990.
There is no formal statutory protection for WHSs, however there is the
statutory underpinning of the development plans and the relevant policies
which give high level of protection to the WHS, as well as the policy emphasis
in the NPPF. For this and other types of asset, great weight is given to any
harm, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
WHSs are included as assets of the highest significance.
13.152 The NPPF requires a balancing exercise where LTSH to significance has been
identified. This balance is also encapsulated in the various policies of the LP
and SP. I will go on to consider whether this harm is outweighed by public
benefits in due course.
Servicing
13.153 A detailed Servicing SOCG sets out the arrangements for both schemes.367
Objections were made by TfL only in respect of the 2018 serving proposals,
as the 2021 scheme incorporates off street service arrangements. The
Council did not cite this as a reason for refusal, but consider that it should
factor in as a harm into the planning balance.
13.154 Effective servicing proposals for developments are necessary as part of
ensuring efficient and safe use of the local highway network and for
environmental and amenity reasons.
13.155 The New City Court development is currently served by loading bays on St
Thomas Street. Due to social distancing requirements arising from the Covid-
19 pandemic, an emergency scheme along St Thomas Street is in place which
widens the footpath into the road. It is not clear how New City Court is
currently serviced given that this has removed existing parking, loading and
taxi bays along this stretch of St Thomas Street through this scheme. No one
was able to clarify this at the Inquiry. During the Inquiry, TfL launched a
further consultation whereby further temporary works are proposed giving
greater pedestrian access.368 This would affect the proposed loading bay
area. A decision would be made in 2023 as to whether to make any such
scheme permanent.
367 SOCG-02
368 INQ23
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 146
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.156 The proposed arrangements are summarised in section 2 of the servicing
SOCG, but in brief, a basement service area would be incorporated in the
2018 development and would be accessed by light goods vehicles (LGVs) via
BHS, White Hart Yard and Kings Head Yard. Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs)
including refuse collections would use a relocated on-street loading bay
adjacent to Keats House at St Thomas Street. A goods lift would be provided
within Keats House to basement level. Waste and deliveries would be
restricted to off-peak times to avoid conflicts with the local highway network
and a consolidation strategy would be in place to limit the number of
deliveries. These would be secured by planning obligation.
13.157 The use of a loading bay at St Thomas Street by HGVs would conflict with
pedestrian movements in this area between BHS and London Bridge. I saw
that the area is busy with pedestrian, cycling and vehicular activities.
However, it would be mitigated in part by the consolidation strategy.
13.158 The continued use of the narrow yard areas for LGVs would also cause
conflict with other road users, due to the narrow nature of these rear routes.
Vehicles use these at present, however such movements would also be
subject to a cap. The predominant use of White Hart Yard and a prohibition
on the use of the entrance of Kings Head Yard via BHS would also help
reduce conflicts.369
13.159 It is clear that the design of the development was not able to incorporate full
on-site servicing for the building. The fact that Keats House façade is to be
moved to facilitate access is indicative in itself as to the challenge of
incorporating servicing into the site, as a radical intervention.
13.160 The 2021 scheme is a wholesale redesign which would secure on-site
servicing and would be acceptable. However, each scheme must be judged on
its own merits and I do not consider that the 2021 scheme can be used to
‘infect’ previous conclusions made in relation to the 2018 scheme in the way
suggested by TfL.
13.161 In terms of the 2018 scheme, I am satisfied that this has been fully tested
and that there would be no alternative within the design parameters and
constraints of that specific scheme. If the scheme design could have
incorporated it, it would. That is not to say that the strategy does not have
drawbacks, as it clearly does, however I am satisfied that the 2018 proposal
would secure the best possible strategy that it is able to do.
13.162 Finally, TfL are clearly analysing future options for this area, as well as along
BHS as part of Healthy Streets and Vision Zero. The impacts on current
service arrangements are ambiguous. Any future TfL scheme would need to
take account of servicing for New City Court at present, the 2018 scheme and
the 2021 scheme. That would not be insurmountable and would not preclude
the acceptability of the servicing strategy for the 2018 scheme specifically.
369 Kings Head Yard would only be accessed from the other side, via White Hart Yard
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 147
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.163 Overall, each scheme would accord with LP Policies T2, and T7 and SP Policy
P50.
Other matters
13.164 The Planning SOCG370 sets out a number of areas of agreement in terms of
other planning matters at 9.4-9.39. This includes of the acceptability of both
of the schemes in terms of transport, noise, basement extension, flood risk,
drainage and water, contamination, microclimate, fire safety and security,
solar glare, air quality, telecommunications and TV/radio reception and
aviation safety. Based on my review of the relevant written evidence, and
subject to control by condition and/or obligation, I consider these matters to
be acceptable.
13.165 The SOCG summarises the reductions in daylight and sunlight to Orchard
Lisle House and Iris Brook House which are student accommodation blocks at
the adjacent university hospital site.371 The cumulative impact of harm from
this development, with other tall building schemes has also been raised as a
concern by GSTT [9.58]. The evidence372 clearly demonstrates an adverse
effect to a small number of units to varying degrees (ranging from minor-
major). The weight to be given to that harm is debated.
13.166 I ascribe limited weight to the harm, between the Council’s moderate
weighting and the Appellant’s very very little weighting. The living conditions
of the students would be adversely affected however, the number of overall
units which would be affected would be minimal. No detailed evidence was
presented in terms of the cumulative impacts from other schemes with
specific regard to the units at Orchard Lisle and Iris Brook Houses, but those
other schemes as referenced are located at a greater distance from the site,
to the east and would be unlikely to affect these specific blocks.
13.167 On energy and sustainability, the credentials of the proposed buildings have
also been fully considered as part of the architectural design and would be
BREEAM outstanding, subject to condition. The Council accepted during the
Inquiry that it was acceptable for the listed terrace to achieve the ‘very good’
standard, as proposed to outstanding. I consider that is appropriate and the
works would strike a balance in achieving sustainability targets, while
preserving the integrity of the heritage asset. Other matters such as wind and
solar gain have been assessed and would meet the necessary standards.
13.168 For the 2018 scheme, policy compliance for a reduction of the 40% minimum
for carbon emissions can be secured by condition.
13.169 In respect of the local concern relating to financial segregation, community
sterilization and loss of vibrancy [10.14], the area is designated as a CAZ and
an opportunity area. The public realm, accessibility through the site and
370 SOCG-01
371 At 9.12
372 APP-3-B-5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 148
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
provision of affordable floorspace, retail, food offerings would all help to
preserve these.
Benefits
13.170 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF requires the weighing of LTSH against the public
benefits of the proposals. Such benefits can include heritage benefits, and
wider benefits, which are also material to the planning balance. The benefits
were debated at the Inquiry for each scheme, albeit different weighting
terminology was used by each witness. Helpfully, the Council and Appellant
have produced a table setting out the weight to be attached to each benefit,
and a calibration of the terminology used to describe this.373
13.171 For the avoidance of doubt, in ascribing weight to the benefits I have used
the following scale: very limited, limited, moderate, significant and
substantial. This provides the best fit with the 5-point scale of weighting of
each party.
13.172 As a general point on benefits, much of the debate over the weight to be
assigned related to if something that is a policy requirement could be also
considered as a benefit. The function of development plan policy is to avoid a
specific and tangible harm. However, many policies are also proactive in
their requirements, striving for better. Typically, this underpinned by
evidence and the reasoning for which is usually set out in the supporting text.
It is my view that where something is policy compliant, that would not
automatically mean that it could not be judged as a significant benefit. I
come to this for specific benefits, below.
Heritage
13.173 Beginning with heritage, there was broad agreement that great weight should
be given not only to harm to heritage assets, but to benefits, as per
paragraph 199 of the NPPF. In light of this, I consider the restoration and
improvement to the Grade II listed Georgian terrace at St Thomas Street, to
be a clear benefit of both of the schemes which attracts significant weight.
13.174 While the Appellant cites other heritage benefits374 I have found harm in
respect of the relocation/reconstruction of Keats House and the setting of the
Kings Head PH. Those harms would be balanced against the benefits in my
heritage balance later.
13.175 I have also found the impact of the existing buildings at New City Court to be
neutral in terms of the BHSCAA, and thus their removal would not be a
specific benefit of the scheme but nor would it be a harm.
Employment Floorspace
373 INQ-32
374 APP-3-A-0 para 9.35
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 149
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.176 The 2018 scheme would result in an uplift of 7.2% of Southwark’s new
additional office floorspace target as set out in the SP. The 2021 scheme
would result in an 7.7% uplift. The concept of good growth underpins the LP
and the SP and both seek to balance growth with other considerations in
identifying strategic targets in the plan.
13.177 Office developments on allocated sites are clearly coming forward in order to
meet these targets, however the SP does allow for windfall development, and
I am mindful that the site is within the CAZ and the reasons which underpins
the identification of this. In this regard, I consider the benefit to be
significant for each scheme as opposed to moderate, as suggested by the
Council.
13.178 The provision of around 10% affordable workspace is a clear benefit for each
scheme. While no specific occupier can be guaranteed, there is clear interest
from Kings College London and GSTT375 and SP policy seeks to harness their
presence in the locality. Overall I give this significant weight for each
scheme.
13.179 Specifically for the 2018 scheme, affordable retail floorspace is offered. This
is a proactive offer, particularly given the current challenges faced by retail
properties. However, as a small part of the scheme at 181sqm, this attracts
limited weight. The proposed hub space in the 2018 scheme would not be
limited to use by occupants of the offices themselves. This is a creative area
occupying two floors of the building. I consider that this would be a benefit of
this scheme in its own right and to which I attach moderate weight
13.180 Other retail/food and drink/leisure floorspace would also compliment the
office floorspace within the buildings and I give this moderate weight for
both the schemes, as a stand-alone benefit.
Jobs
13.181 Each scheme would create jobs at the construction and operational stages,
the latter being around 2000 for the 2018 scheme and 3000 for the 2021
scheme. That would make a sizable contribution to the LP and SP target of
providing 10,000 jobs in the Opportunity Area [3.12].
13.182 The Council has attributed moderate weight only as a result of the ES scoping
which states that the jobs are unlikely to be materially significant in the
context of the wider London area. However, the ES scoping has an entirely
separate purpose from a detailed analysis of public benefits undertaken as
part of a planning/heritage balance. I am also required to judge each scheme
on their own merits. An exercise in comparing the figures created in nearby
developments takes me nowhere and cannot reasonably be used to
downgrade the weight given here.
375 Heard in oral evidence and see also INQ-18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 150
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.183 Overall, the contribution of jobs at these levels must be ascribed significant
weight. The NPPF also recognises such at paragraph 61.
Sustainable transport
13.184 The sites proximity to one of the access points to London Bridge London
Underground Station has been fully exploited in the schemes design and
would be secured by the planning obligation. This element of the schemes
would help to address pedestrian comfort, but it would do more than simply
mitigate. There would be a number of combined benefits which have been
aptly captured by TfL [9.20].
13.185 The Council consider that there is no evidence to support the need for change
or enhancement to this access, however, to not have incorporated this into a
scheme design would have been a significant missed opportunity.
13.186 Doubts have also been raised about how many visitors would realistically use
this. However, even if the Council were correct in their conservatism relating
to movement patterns,376 this would still provide a significant opportunity to
enhance connectivity in an area where there is known to be significant
pedestrian congestion.
13.187 Finally, concern is raised regarding its implementation and the need for a
Development Agreement with TfL [7.129]. While a range of agreements are
needed for the delivery of this benefit, given TfL’s support and the details in
the obligations, I see no reason why this would be a barrier or a prohibitive
factor. I therefore attribute substantial weight to this benefit.
13.188 Other highway works and associated transport and accessibility
improvements would be secured for pedestrians and cyclists. There is no
dispute between parties as to the moderate weight to be attached and I
concur with that assessment for both schemes.
Public Realm
13.189 I have assessed the public realm offer as part of my deliberations in the
scheme design, above, concluding that the success of the ground floor space
is limited due to size and light issues [13.21]. The 2018 scheme would be
more generous with active retail frontages and retain connectivity with the
rear yard network. The 2021 scheme would provide smaller and more gloomy
area with more limited access to the yards and lack of active frontages to the
rear of the listed Terrace. Both schemes would, however, reinstate the route
through the listed terrace to St Thomas Street. I thus consider that the 2018
should be afforded limited wight as a benefit and for the 2021 scheme this
would be very limited.
376 INQ-33
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 151
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.190 Both schemes would provide a free-to-access public garden. This is a policy
requirement of LP policy D9 for tall buildings. However, I consider the offers
to be highly imaginative design response to that policy requirement.
13.191 Specifically for the 2018 scheme, this would be at 5th and 6th floor level,
giving a unique experience of a ‘Mary Poppins’ views across the historic
townscape. I know of no other schemes in London which have designed in
such a space in this way. The rooftop garden to the 2021 scheme would be
more conventional in its location, but the scheme design has still strived to
give a different offer with a café, woodland and wildlife track and accessible
360degree views. There is also no such free offer elsewhere in the locality.
13.192 These are commendable elements of the schemes and should thus be
afforded significant weight – greater even than that claimed by the
Appellant.
Sustainability
13.193 SP Policy P70 seeks to secure a minimum of 40% of carbon saving
reductions. The policy bar as been set high as part of recognition of clime
change impacts, the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency and the
ambition to be a net zero borough by 2050. The schemes would incorporate a
number of zero carbon measures to deliver onsite regulated carbon emissions
and also targeting the policy compliant BREEAM outstanding level for the
office buildings.
13.194 A high policy bar is set and therefore neither scheme can be said to attract
significant weight as a benefit in this regard. The 2018 scheme would meet
this target, but only as secured by condition for a revised energy strategy.
The weight to this is thus very limited. The 2021 scheme would achieve
over and above that figure at 49% and thus I consider this would be a
limited benefit.
Other benefits
13.195 Many of the above would be secured by planning obligation, and thus the
agreement would not be a benefit in its own right. However Mayoral and
Southwark CIL contributions from the developments would go towards
strategic infrastructure projects across the Borough and other major projects
such as Crossrail 2. Accordingly, I attach moderate weight to this as a
benefit.
Planning and heritage balance
13.196 London is its heritage. It is a fundamental part of its intrinsic character. It is
world renowned. However, its 21st Century developments also form a
significant part of its character and are also world renowned; The Shard is
one such development. Even if there is debate around the design quality of
the modern developments, they are now part of the city and cannot be
ignored.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 152
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
13.197 Here are two schemes before the SoS, which due to the location of the appeal
site, fall squarely in between old and new.
13.198 Both schemes have much to commend them. However, the extent of the
harm caused to a number of designated heritage assets is significant. Plus
there would be harm related to a number of aspects of the design and
because of this, the schemes cannot be said to be exceptional, or exemplary.
The heritage harm is set within the range of LTSH, however considerable
weight is to be given to that harm. I am particularly mindful that the harm
relates to a wide number of assets within Southwark and across London,
including those of the highest significance.
13.199 Set against these, both schemes would bring about a great number of real
benefits, heritage and public, which should be given moderate to substantial
weight and collectively as a package, would be substantial.
13.200 In the balance, while I do not underestimate the benefits of the schemes, it is
clear to me that the heritage harm and harm to townscape character and
design are not outweighed by the public benefits, including heritage benefits.
13.201 The relevant development plan policies are set out above. As a general point,
the LP and SP policies seek to pursue the individual strands of economic,
social and environmental objectives of sustainable development in a mutually
beneficial way. Therefore, in supporting significant economic growth, they do
so by requiring the achievement of good design and the protection of heritage
assets to be achieved alongside that growth. That is the good growth
concept [3.3-3.14].
13.202 That being said, the policy matrix is a complex one and policies do pull in
different directions. As matters of judgement, there is scope for different
interpretations to be placed on fundamental elements of policy.
13.203 I have found harm from both schemes to a number of heritage assets
including the BHSCA, 4-8 & 12-16 St Thomas Street, Bunch of Grapes Public
House, 9, A, 11, 13 & 15 St Thomas Street, Guy’s Hospital, Southwark
Cathedral, the ToLWHS, the George Inn, Kings Head PH, The Monument and
Church of St Magnus the Martyr (2018 scheme only) and Tower CA (2018
only). The schemes would thus be in conflict with dedicated heritage policies -
LP HC1 and HC2, and SP Policies P19, P20 and P24.
13.204 I have also found harm in respect of townscape character and appearance. I
consider that while there are some commendable elements, as in
architectural terms the designs are interesting and are of a good quality,
these are undermined by identified shortfalls in public realm, and scale and
massing of the schemes and its contextual relationship with its surroundings.
The design cannot therefore be said to be exemplar and I find conflict with
dedicated design policies at LP Policy D3 and SP Policies P13 and P14.
13.205 Each scheme would clearly have in-principle support from the raft of LP and
SP policies which seek to promote office developments in the CAZ, the
Opportunity Area, and Town Centre designation. However, there would also
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 153
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
be clear conflict with many of the same policies seeking good design and
protection of the historic environment and crucially, those which seek the
respect and integration with the local and historic context.
13.206 Specifically, LP policies GG2, SD1, SD4, SD6, D9 and SP policies ST1, ST2,
AV11 and P17 all seek to secure economic growth, office developments, and
development of tall buildings while providing criteria for positive placemaking
and in respect of context.
13.207 In particular, some criteria in SP Policy AV11, relating to the principle of
development, improving accessibility with the tube, the retention of the
Shard as a landmark, and harnessing the expertise and infrastructure from
Kings College London and Guy’s Hospital would be met. However, both
schemes would conflict with other criteria of SP Policy AV11 in terms of the
creation of inspiring new architecture, quality public realm, building on the
fabric of local alleyways and yards and enhancing the sense of place. Overall,
I find conflict with that policy.
13.208 Similarly, criteria within SP Policy P17 requiring the location of a tall building
at a point of landmark significance, not harming strategic views, avoiding
harmful environmental impacts would be met. However, requirements
relating to a proportionate height and scale for the site, responding positively
to local character and town scape, conserving or enhancing the significance of
heritage assets would not be met. Again, overall I find conflict with that
policy.
13.209 The same conclusions are also drawn in respect of LP Policies GG2, SD1, SD4,
SD6, D9 and SP Policies ST1, ST2.
13.210 Accordingly, when reading the development plan as a whole, I consider that
Appeal A (2018 scheme) and Appeal C (2021 Scheme) would be in conflict to
it. None of the material considerations would indicate that a positive decision
should be reached in each instance.
13.211 However, in spite of these findings, and as previously explained, there would
be no reason to refuse listed building consent for each scheme (Appeal B and
Appeal D). This appears odd, but the direct physical works subject to this
specific type of consent would not be harmful and as such there would be no
justifiable reason to restrict consent. Without securing the associated
planning permission, it is acknowledged that these schemes would not be
likely to be brought forward in any case.
14 Recommendations
14.1 For the reasons set out above, I conclude that appeals A and C should be
dismissed and planning permission should not be granted for the proposals.
14.2 Should the Secretary of State reach a different conclusion, then planning
permission should be granted subject to the conditions in Annexes D & E for
the 2018 scheme and Annexes F & G for the 2021 Scheme and the associated
planning obligations.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 154
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
14.3 I also conclude that appeals B and D should be allowed, and listed building
consent granted for the works, subject to conditions.
C Searson
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 155
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
FOR LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK:
Hereward Phillpot KC and Caroline Daly of Counsel (Francis Taylor Building)
instructed by Doreen Forrester-Brown, Director of Law and Governance, LBS
They called:
Dr Nigel Barker-Mills Barker-Mills Conservation
BA(Hons), PDH, DIP CONS
AA, IHBC, FSA
Elizabeth Adams Director, Adams & Sutherland Ltd
AADIP, RIBA, ARB
Michael Glasgow Principal Strategic Planner, Atkins (Planning)
BA(Hons), MPLAN, MRTPI
Additional participants at the Conditions and Obligations Round Table Session:
Margaret Foley Senior Planning Lawyer
Sophie Chapman Solicitor
FOR THE APPELLANT, [APPELLANT]:
Christopher Katkowski KC and Alan Evans of Counsel (Kings Chambers) instructed
by Town Legal LLP
They called:
Simon Alford Executive Director, AHMM
BA, Dip Arch, RIBA, ARB
Peter Stewart Board Director, The Townscape Consultancy
MA (Cantab), Dip Arch,
RIBA
Chris Goddard Board Director, DP9
BA (Hons) BPL, MRTPI,
MRICS
Additional participant at the Servicing Round Table Session:
Russell Vaughan Director, Transport Planning Practice
Additional participants at the Conditions and Obligations Round Table Session:
Louise Samuel Partner, Town Legal LLP
Haydn Thomas Associate Director, AHMM
David Shiels Director, DP9
FOR HISTORIC ENGLAND (RULE 6 PARTY):
Emma Dring of Counsel (Cornerstone Barristers) instructed by Beth Harries,
Solicitor
She called:
Alasdair Young Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas
MA MSc
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 156
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
FOR TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (NON- RULE 6):
Participants at the Servicing Round Table Session:
Andrew Hiley Principal Planner (Spatial Planning)
John Birch Principal Network Sponsor (Southwark Area)
Steen Smedegaard LARTPI Principal Lawyer (Property and Planning)
Additional participants at the Conditions and Obligations Round Table Session:
Anne Crane Area Manager (Spatial Planning)
Matthew White Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
INTERESTED PERSON:
Philip Villars MRTPI Director PMV Planning on behalf of Guy’s and St
Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
ANNEX B: CORE DOCUMENTS
Core Documents can be accessed at:
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/new-city-court/inquiry-documents/core-
documents/
For ease of reference, these have been split into the following sections:
CD-A Application Documents – 2018 Scheme
CD-B Application Documents – 2021 Scheme
CD-C Correspondence
CD-D National and Regional Planning Policy and Guidance
CD-E Council and Other Local Planning Policy and Documents
CD-F Heritage Policy and Documents
CD-G Greater London Authority Documents
CD-H Legislation and Case Law/Appeal Decisions
CD-I Statements of Case
CD-J S106 Agreements
CD-K Miscellaneous
Proofs of Evidence and the agreed SOCG can be accessed at:
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/new-city-court/inquiry-documents/proofs-
evidence/
ANNEX C: INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
These can be accessed at:
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/new-city-court/inquiry-documents/documents-
submitted-during-inquiry/
INQ-01 Opening Statement on behalf of the London Borough of Southwark
INQ-02 Opening Statement on behalf of Historic England
INQ-03 Opening Statement on behalf on the Appellant
INQ-04 Letter of Objection sent to the Planning Inspectorate - Haijun Sun
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 157
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
INQ-05 APP response to SJ Platts Statement on behalf of LSB
INQ-06 Wind Note Produced by Wirth in response to the objection received from
the Cathedrals Fabric Commission
INQ-07 Simon Allford - Overview Presentation
INQ-08 Appellant overlay of 2018 Scheme
INQ-09.1 Presentation of Images to Evidence in Chief of Elizabeth Adams
INQ-09.2 Figure Reference Table to Image Presentation
INQ-10 National Trust Written Statement, New City Court proposal on George
Inn
INQ-11 LBS Note on Building Consent Application
INQ-12 Listed Building Consent BREEAM Upgrades to Existing Fabric
INQ-13 Letter from JLL clarifying position raised in Chris Goddard's Evidence
dated 26.07.22
INQ-14 Letter dated 27 July 2022 from RPS on behalf of owners of various
buildings at the Shard Quarter
INQ-15 Plan showing boundaries of the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge
Opportunity Area
INQ-16.1 Alasdair Young Presentation to Inquiry on behalf of Historic England
INQ-16.2 Associated Reference Sheet to INQ-16.1
INQ-17 Simon Allford Presentation of Evidence in Chief
INQ-18 Statement by WSP on behalf of Guy’s and St Thomas' Trust
INQ-19 EIP07 Representations to Proposed Submission Version (DP9s letter)
INQ-20 Pages from AV010 PSV CS London Bridge
INQ-21 Servicing Review Route
INQ-22 Existing Road Markings and Signage July 2022
INQ-23 TfL consultation on changes to Borough High Street, St Thomas Street
and London Bridge
INQ-24 Pedestrian Movement Space Syntax Analysis referred to by Simon
Allford
INQ-25 New City Court Development Guy's Hospital Occupation
INQ-26 Statement following Cross Examination of Peter Stewart
INQ-27 TPP Note in response to TfL Consultation (INQ 23)
INQ-28 Details of Site Visit on 05.08.22.
INQ-29.1 S106 dated 08.08.22 between LBS and Applicant (Clean)
INQ-29.2 S106 tracked changes from 05.08.22 to 08.08.22
INQ-29.3 Completed S 106 (18.AP.4039) - 08.09.22
INQ-29.4 Completed S 106 (21.AP.1361) - 08.09.22
INQ-30 Updated CIL Compliance Statement (2018 Scheme)
INQ-31 Updated CIL Compliance Statement (2021 Scheme)
INQ-32 Public Benefits Comparison Schedule
INQ-33 Note on Pedestrian Interactions with the Proposed New Station Access
INQ-34 Conybeare House Planning Note 10.08.22
INQ-35.1 Agreed Conditions as at 10.08.22 (2018 Scheme)
INQ-35.2 Conditions tracked changes from 04.08.22 to 10.08.22 (2018 Scheme)
INQ-36.1 Agreed Conditions as at 10.08.22 (2021 Scheme)
INQ-36.2 Conditions tracked changes from 04.08.22 to 10.08.22 (2021 Scheme)
INQ-37 Closing Statement on behalf of the London Borough of Southwark
INQ-38 Closing Statement on behalf of Historic England
INQ-39 Closing Statement on behalf of the Appellant
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 158
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
ANNEXE D: LIST OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 2018 PLANNING SCHEME
(APPEAL A)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years
from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans:
14032_G_(00)_P119 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P120 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P121 Georgian Townhouses Proposed First Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P122 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Second Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P123 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Third Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P125 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Roof Floor Plan P01
14032_G_(00)_P201 Georgian Townhouses Proposed North Elevation P01
14032_G_(00)_P202 Georgian Townhouses Proposed East Elevation P01
14032_G_(00)_P203 Georgian Townhouses Proposed South Elevation P01
14032_G_(00)_P301 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section A-A P01
14032_G_(00)_P302 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section B-B P01
14032_G_(00)_P304 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section DD - no.16 P01
14032_G_(00)_P305 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section EE - no.14 P01
14032_G_(00)_P306 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section FF - no.10 P01
14032_G_(00)_P307 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section GG - no.4 P01
14032_G_(00)_P308 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section HH - no.4 P01
14032_G_(00)_P309 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section JJ - no.12 P01
14032_G_(00)_P401 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Vault P01
14032_G_(12)_P119 Georgian Townhouses Lower Ground Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P120 Georgian Townhouses Ground Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P121 Georgian Townhouses First Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P122 Georgian Townhouses Second Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P123 Georgian Townhouses Third Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P125 Georgian Townhouses Roof Floor Demolition Plan P01
14032_G_(12)_P201 Georgian Townhouses North Elevation Demolition P01
14032_G_(12)_P202 Georgian Townhouses East Elevation Demolition P01
14032_G_(12)_P203 Georgian Townhouses South Elevation Demolition P01
14032_G_(12)_P401 Georgian Townhouses Vaults Demolition P01
14032_K_(00)_P119 Keats House - GA Plan Level B1 - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P120 Keats House - GA Plan Level 00 - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P121 Keats House - GA Plan Level 01 - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P122 Keats House - GA Plan Level 02 - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P123 Keats House - GA Plan Level 03 - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P124 Keats House - GA Plan Roof - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P201 Keats House - GA Elevation North Elevation - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P202 Keats House - GA Elevation West Elevation - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P203 Keats House - GA Elevation South Elevation - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P204 Keats House - GA Elevation East Elevation - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P205 North Elevation Full Tower Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P301 Keats House - GA Section AA - Proposed P01
14032_K_(00)_P302 Keats House - GA Section BB P01
14032_K_(00)_P303 Keats House - GA Section CC P01
14032_X_(00)_P118 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level B2 P01
14032_X_(00)_P119 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level B1 P01
14032_X_(00)_P120 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level G P01
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 159
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
14032_X_(00)_P120M Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level GM P01
14032_X_(00)_P121 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 01 P01
14032_X_(00)_P122 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 02 P01
14032_X_(00)_P123 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 03 P01
14032_X_(00)_P124 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 04 P01
14032_X_(00)_P125 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 05 P01
14032_X_(00)_P126 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 06 P01
14032_X_(00)_P127 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 07 P01
14032_X_(00)_P128 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 08 P01
14032_X_(00)_P129 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 09 P01
14032_X_(00)_P130 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 10 P01
14032_X_(00)_P131 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 11 P01
14032_X_(00)_P132 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 12 P01
14032_X_(00)_P133 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 13 P01
14032_X_(00)_P134 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 14 P01
14032_X_(00)_P135 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 15 P01
14032_X_(00)_P136 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 16 P01
14032_X_(00)_P137 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 17 P01
14032_X_(00)_P138 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 18 P01
14032_X_(00)_P139 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 19 P01
14032_X_(00)_P140 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 20 P01
14032_X_(00)_P141 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 21 P01
14032_X_(00)_P142 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 22 P01
14032_X_(00)_P143 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 23 P01
14032_X_(00)_P144 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 24 P01
14032_X_(00)_P145 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 25 P01
14032_X_(00)_P146 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 26 P01
14032_X_(00)_P147 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 27 P01
14032_X_(00)_P148 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 28 P01
14032_X_(00)_P149 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 29 P01
14032_X_(00)_P150 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 30 P01
14032_X_(00)_P151 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 31 P01
14032_X_(00)_P152 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 32 P01
14032_X_(00)_P153 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 33 P01
14032_X_(00)_P154 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 34 P02
14032_X_(00)_P155 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 35 P02
14032_X_(00)_P156 Tower TN03 GA Plans - Level 36 P02
14032_X_(00)_P201 North Elevation Proposed P01
14032_X_(00)_P202 South Elevation Proposed P01
14032_X_(00)_P203 East Elevation Proposed P01
14032_X_(00)_P204 West Elevation Proposed P01
14032_X_(00)_P301 Section AA Proposed P01
14032_X_(00)_P302 Section BB Proposed P01
14032_X_(12)_P119 Demolition Scope of Existing Level LG Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P120 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 00 Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P121 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 01 Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P122 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 02 Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P123 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 03 Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P124 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 04 Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P125 Demolition Scope of Existing Lower Roof Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P126 Demolition Scope of Existing Upper Roof Plan P01
14032_X_(12)_P201 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 01 P01
14032_X_(12)_P202 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 02 P01
14032_X_(12)_P203 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 03 P01
14032_X_(12)_P205 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 05 P01
14032_X_(12)_P206 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 06 P01
14032_X_(12)_P207 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 07 P01
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 160
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
14032_X_(12)_P301 Demolition Scope of Existing Section A-A P01
14032_X_(12)_P302 Demolition Scope of Existing Section B-B P01
14032_X_(12)_P303 Demolition Scope of Existing Section C-C P01
14032_X_(12)_P304 Demolition Scope of Existing Section D-D P01
14032_X_(12)_P305 Demolition Scope of Existing Section E-E P01
14032_X_(00) P401 Ventilation air intake Bunch of Grapes Party Wall P01
14032 (K) 0916 Tower TN03 – Future Tenant Lift GA Plans – Level 34 P01
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. The quantum of built floorspace for the development shall be as specified below.
The uses within the tower building hereby permitted are limited to the following
maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Office (Class B1) – basement to level 33 – 45,682sqm GEA
 Retail (Class A1) – basement and ground – 136sqm GEA
 Retail (Class A3) – ground, mezzanine, level 05 and level 06 – 948sqm GEA
 Raised garden (Class D2) – ground, lift shaft and level 05 – 851sqm GEA
 Gym (Class D2) – basement and ground – 640sqm GEA
 Business hub (Class B1/D2) – levels 21 and 22 – 734sqm GEA
 Ancillary plant and servicing space at basement and ground levels, and roof
levels 34 to 36.
The uses within the Keats House building hereby approved are limited to the
following maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Retail (Class A3) – ground and mezzanine – 252sqm GEA
 Office (Class B1) – ground to level 02 – 480sqm GEA
The uses within the Georgian terrace hereby approved are limited to the following
maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Retail (Class A1) – lower ground and ground– 729sqm GEA
 Office (Class B1) – ground to level 03 – 1,204sqm GEA
No more than 2 car parking space and 3 loading bays shall be provided in the
development. The 2 car parking spaces suitable for use by people with disabilities
shall be provided 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. The development must be undertaken in accordance with this description
of development and quantum of built floorspace.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved drawings, documents and the Environmental Statement.
Pre-commencement conditions (site wide)
4. Prior to any works commencing, including demolition, a Works Element Plan shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Works Element Plan shall confirm by reference to a drawing or drawings the
extent of the works to be undertaken within each element of the approved
development: the demolition element; the Georgian terrace element; the Keats
House element; the tower building element; the public realm element; the
basement element; and the intended duration and completion of each element.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 161
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the approved
Works Element Plan. The Works Element Plan may be amended from time to time,
subject to obtaining the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
The works within the basement element, Georgian terrace element and Keats
House element shall be completed and made ready for occupation, and the public
realm element completed and made available for public use prior to the first
occupation of the tower building element, unless otherwise agreed by the Local
Planning Authority in an approved Works Element Plan.
Reason: To ensure each element of the approved development is delivered prior
to the occupation of the tower building with its associated basement servicing and
cycle parking facilities to prevent a gap in the streetscene, by requiring the
reprovision of Keats House and ensuring the replacement walls and roof are
constructed to the listed buildings to protect their historic fabric.
5. Demolition works shall not begin until a Demolition Logistics Plan to manage all
freight vehicle movements to and from the site during demolition of the existing
building(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London and Guy’s and St Thomas’
Hospital). The Demolition Logistics Plan shall include:
a. the management of all freight vehicle movements to and from the site
during demolition of the existing buildings;
b. loading and unloading of plant and materials including vehicle turning areas;
c. storage of plant and materials;
d. programme of works (including measures for traffic management and cyclist
and pedestrian comfort and safety);
e. provision of boundary hoarding, behind any visibility zones of construction
traffic routing;
f. hours of operation;
g. means to prevent deposition of mud on the highway;
h. location and height of any crane(s) and scaffolding;
i. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the Local
Planning Authority and Transport for London), in order to identify and
address potential cumulative highway effects during the demolition phase.
j. relevant measures from the Mayor of London's Construction Logistics Plan
Guidance (2017), and specifically address the comfort and safety of
vulnerable road users through compliance with the Construction Logistics
and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) Standard for Construction Logistics, Managing
Work Related Road Risk;
k. as a minimum, all haulage contractors should be FORS Silver (or equivalent)
registered and use the highest rated Direct Vision Standard lorries as
possible.
Demolition works shall not begin until a Demolition Environmental Management
Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London). The Plan shall detail a
scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers (including
without limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital) from noise, dust and other
environmental effects, a site waste management plan to detail how waste will be
reused, recycled and/or disposed of and managed (the burning of waste on the
site at any time is specifically precluded). The scheme shall be based on the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 162
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Southwark's Code of Construction Practice, the Mayoral Control of Dust and
Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG and the Mayor of London’s
emissions standards for NRMM (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 Local Planning Authority.
The demolition shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved Demolition Logistics Plan and approved Demolition Environmental
Management Plan. The approved Plans shall be implemented as approved and
periodically reviewed following audits of its implementation. Results of these
audits will be made available to the Local Planning Authority and Transport for
London upon request. The approved Plans shall be retained for the duration of the
demolition and site clearance of the development.
Reason: To ensure that demolition works do not have an adverse impact on public
safety, transport network or neighbour amenity by securing the mitigation
identified in the Environmental Statement.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition, site
clearance and/or site investigations), a Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London and Guy’s and St Thomas’
Hospital). The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) details relating to:
a. any 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. a scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers
(including without limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital) and pedestrians
and cyclists from noise, dust and other environmental effects during
construction
g. road cleaning including wheel washing
h. 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
i. details of vibro-compaction machinery and a method statement
j. a site waste management plan to detail how waste will be reused, recycled
and/or disposed of and managed (the burning of waste on the site at any
time is specifically precluded)
k. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the Local
Planning Authority and Transport for London), in order to identify and
address potential cumulative environmental effects during the construction
phase.
The CEMP shall be based on Southwark's Code of Construction Practice, GLA's
Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Control of Dust and Emissions during
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 163
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Demolition and Construction' SPG and the Mayor of London’s emissions standards
for NRMM (or any subsequent replacement code of practice) and arrangements for
liaison and monitoring set out therein. The detailed design and method
statements (AIP) for any proposed foundations and basements structures
(temporary and/or permanent) retaining the highway shall demonstrate
accordance with CG 300 'Technical Approval of Highway Structures'. 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 Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London).
The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the
approved CEMP. The CEMP shall be retained and complied with for the duration of
the groundworks and construction process for the development.
Reason: In the interests of public safety, to protect the amenities of neighbouring
premises and the transport network, to promote waste reduction, and to protect
the structural integrity of the pavements and roadways. These details are
required prior to construction in order that the impact on amenities is minimised
from the time that the construction starts.
7. No construction works (excluding demolition, site clearance and site
investigations) shall commence until a Construction Logistics Plan(s) (CLP) has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London). The CLP shall include details of:
a. the management of all freight vehicle movements to and from the site
during 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 and cyclist
and pedestrian comfort and safety);
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 crane(s) and scaffolding, including crane aircraft
safety lighting;
j. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites including without
limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital (through the Local Planning
Authority and Transport for London), 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, add further detail to the submitted outline construction management
plan and shall specifically address the safety of vulnerable road users through
compliance with the CLOCS Standard.
As a minimum, all haulage contractors should be FORS Silver (or equivalent)
registered and use the highest rated Direct Vision Standard lorries as possible.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 164
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
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 Local Planning Authority and
Transport for London upon request. The CLP shall be retained for the duration of
the construction process for the development.
Reason: To ensure the development does not raise highway safety or aircraft
safety matters by securing the mitigation identified in the Environmental
Statement.
8. Prior to commencement of demolition works to the Georgian terrace, Keats House
or the existing office building, one or more construction contract(s) (under which
one of the parties is obliged to carry out and complete works of redevelopment of
the site for which planning permission has been granted (or the relevant element
of the redevelopment) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction
contract shall be submitted to for approval in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To prevent a partial implementation that would leave a gap in the
streetscene, to require the reprovision of Keats House and ensuring the
replacement walls and roof are constructed to the listed buildings to protect their
historic fabric and to maintain the character and appearance of the BHSCA.
9.
A. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, Method Statement(s) for the
protection of the elements of the Georgian terrace that are to be retained,
for the protection of the Keats House façades to be retained, and for the
protection of the Conybeare House façade during the Keats House removal
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any
impact on the Transport for London road network).
B. Prior to the commencement of any construction (excluding demolition, site
clearance and site investigations), Method Statement(s) for the protection
of the elements of the Georgian terrace that are to be retained, for the
protection of the Keats House façades to be relocated, and for the
protection of the Conybeare House façade after the Keats House removal
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any
impact on the Transport for London road network).
The Method Statement(s) submitted under (A) and (B) of this condition shall
detail how these heritage assets are to be protected and supported during the
works, and include the design of any internal and external scaffolding and any
temporary roof (including details of all fixings into historic fabric and protection at
building interfaces). The works shall not be undertaken otherwise than in
accordance with the approved Method Statements.
Reason: In order to ensure the special historic qualities of the listed buildings and
Keats House façades are protected.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 165
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
10.
A. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition works
above ground level, site clearance and site investigations) a written scheme
of investigation (WSI) for those parts of the site which have archaeological
interest shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The WSI shall be prepared and implemented by a suitably
qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice.
B. For land that is included within the WSI, no below ground demolition/
development/ excavation shall take place other than in accordance with the
approved WSI which shall include:
i. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
and
ii. The programme for post-excavation assessment.
C. The archaeological works shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved details.
D. Prior to commencement of the development (excluding demolition above
ground level, site clearance and site investigation works) a Public
Engagement Programme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The Public Engagement Programme shall set out:
i. How the archaeology fieldwork areas will be hoarded to provide
opportunities for passers-by to safely view the excavations;
ii. Drawings (artwork, design, text and materials, including their location
and a full specification of the construction) for the public
interpretation and presentation display celebrating the historic setting
of the site, to be located on suitably visible public parts of the
temporary site hoarding;
iii. Details of at least one event, such as a heritage trail, that will be held
during the fieldwork phase (as a minimum this should state the
date/time, duration, individuals involved and advance promotional
measures for the event, and provide an outline of the content of the
event).
E. Prior to the commencement of the archaeology fieldwork, the hoarding
shall be installed in full accordance with the approved details referred to in
parts D.i) and D.ii) of this condition, and the hoarding shall remain as such
and in place throughout the archaeology fieldwork phase. During the
archaeology fieldwork, the event (referred to in part D.iii) shall be carried
out.
Reason: In order that the details of the programme of works for the
archaeological mitigation (as identified in the Environmental Statement) are
suitable with regard to the impacts of the proposed development and the nature
and extent of archaeological remains on site.
11.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding above ground level
demolition, site clearance and site investigation works), a Basement Impact
Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The Basement Impact Assessment shall be based upon the topics considered in
the submitted Basement Impact Assessment by AKT II dated October 2018, be
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 166
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
informed by the site specific geotechnical and fabric investigations undertaken. It
shall include groundwater mitigation measures to protect the underlying aquifer
and to minimise the risk of ground water flooding, and details of the underpinning
of foundations of the buildings within and adjoining the site as required.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Basement
Impact Assessment.
Reason: To minimise the potential for the development to contribute to changes
in groundwater conditions, the risk to the underlying aquifer and groundwater
flooding in accordance with the Environmental Statement mitigation.
12.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding site investigation works),
detailed design and method statements shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with London Underground
Limited) which:
 provide demolition and construction details of all structures, details of all of
the foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other
structures below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent)
for each stage of the development;
 accommodate the location of the existing London Underground structures
and tunnels;
 accommodate ground movement arising from the construction thereof;
 and mitigate the effects of noise and vibration arising from the adjoining
operations within the structures and tunnels.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in all respects in accordance with
the approved design and method statements, and all structures and works
comprised within the development hereby permitted which are required by the
approved design statements in order to procure the matters mentioned in this
condition shall be completed in their entirety, before any part of the building
hereby permitted is occupied.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on existing London
Underground transport infrastructure.
13.No piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall take
place until a piling method statement has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water, and
the Environment Agency). The method statement must include details of:
a. the depth and type of piling to be undertaken
b. the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including monitoring
systems
c. measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface
water infrastructure, demonstrating there is no resultant unacceptable risk to
groundwater
d. measures to prevent and minimise potential damage to listed buildings within
and adjoining the site (including without limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’
Hospital)
e. the programme for the works Any piling must be undertaken in accordance
with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not harm groundwater resources or
heritage assets in accordance with the Environmental Statement mitigation.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 167
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
14.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding above ground level
demolition and site clearance) the following components of a scheme to deal with
the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the
Environment Agency):
1) A site investigation scheme, based on the Preliminary Environmental Risk
Assessment' (PERA) by Waterman (reference WIE11375-100-R-2-1-6-RJM
dated October 2016), to provide information for a detailed assessment of
the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
2) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred
to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation
strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how
they are to be undertaken.
3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in
(2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The site is located over a Secondary Aquifer and it is understood that the
site may be affected by historic contamination.
15.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, site clearance
and site investigations), details of the proposed surface water drainage system
incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport
for London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge
underground station or the Transport for London road network), including detailed
design, size and location of attenuation units and details of flow control measures.
The strategy should achieve rates limited to the greenfield rate (unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority) and a reduction in surface water runoff
rates during the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event plus climate
change allowance. The applicant must demonstrate that the site is safe in the
event of blockage/failure of the system, including consideration of exceedance
flows, and set out the maintenance responsibilities of the site owner. The site
drainage must be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To minimise the potential for the development to add to surface water
flooding, as identified in the Environmental Statement.
16.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), details of the
proposed hostile vehicle mitigation within the site boundary adjacent to St
Thomas Street between the Georgian terrace and Keats House and along the site
boundary with Kings Head Yard are to be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
No hostile vehicle mitigation measures shall be installed within the public highway
on St Thomas Street or Borough High Street.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 168
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The specification of the accredited vehicle security barriers shall be informed by a
vehicle dynamics assessment by a suitably qualified specialist listed on the
Register of Security Engineers and Specialists and shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the
Metropolitan Police). The development shall then be implemented in accordance
with the approved details and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
17.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance and site investigations), a Blast Mitigation Impact
Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on
the entrance to London Bridge underground station and the Metropolitan Police).
The development shall incorporate such measures as are necessary within the site
to mitigate the blast impact, details of which shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge underground
station and the Metropolitan Police) before any construction works thereby
affected are begun.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
and shall be retained in place for the life of the building unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge underground
station).
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
18.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance, site investigation works, excavation and piling), detailed
plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority demonstrating the provision of sufficient ducting space for full fibre
connectivity infrastructure within the development.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with these plans.
Reason: To provide high quality digital connectivity infrastructure to contribute to
London's global competitiveness.
19.Prior to the commencement of development (except demolition, site clearance
and site investigations), a fire statement prepared by an independent qualified
assessor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any interaction
with evacuation procedures or routes at London Bridge underground station).
The fire statement will set out how the buildings will each function in terms of the
building's construction, means of escape, features that reduce the risk to life,
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 169
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
access to the premises by fire service personnel and equipment, and how
provision will be made to enable fire appliances to gain access to the buildings
and shall demonstrate that a minimum of at least one lift per core (or more
subject to capacity assessments) within the tower building and Keats House will
be a suitably sized fire evacuation lift suitable to be used to evacuate people who
require level access from the buildings.
The development shall not proceed other than in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To ensure fire safety considerations are incorporated into the design and
layout of the proposed development.
20.Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) a Whole Life-
Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating compliance with Part F of Policy SI 2
“Minimising greenhouse gas emissions” of the London Plan (2021), shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
assessment shall develop a strategy for the implementation of whole life cycle
carbon principles in both the approved buildings’ and the site's construction,
operational and demolition phases. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Within 12 months of first occupation of the development, an updated Whole Life-
Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating compliance with Part F of policy SI 2
"Minimising greenhouse gas emissions" of the London Plan (2021), shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
assessment should calculate updated whole life-cycle carbon emissions through a
nationally recognised Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment based on actual
emissions. The updated assessment should evidence what actions have been
taken in implementing the development to reduce whole life-cycle carbon
emissions, including assessment and evidencing of the recommendations set out
in the approved pre-commencement Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment.
Reason: To maximise the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and to minimise
peak and annual energy demand.
21.Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) a Circular
Economy Statement demonstrating compliance with Part B of Policy SI 7
‘Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy’ of the London Plan (2021)
and including measures for monitoring and reporting against the targets within
the Circular Economy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall develop a strategy for
implementing the London Plan’s circular economy principles in the approved
building structures and the site’s operational phase, in addition to developing an
end-of-life strategy for the development according to circular economy principles,
including disassembly and deconstruction. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
No later than three months following substantial completion of the development
hereby consented, a Post Completion Circular Economy Report setting out the
predicted and actual performance against all numerical targets in the relevant
Planning Stage Circular Economy Statement shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 170
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: To promote resource conservation, waste reduction, material re-use,
recycling and reduction in material being sent to landfill.
22.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition works, site
clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), landscaping details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to areas adjacent to the new
entrance to London Bridge underground station or the Transport for London road
network). The details shall include:
i. Detailed drawings of a hard and soft landscaping scheme showing
the treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings
(including cross sections, surfacing materials and edge details)
and including the roof terraces.
ii. The proposed tree planting, tree pit cross sections, soil volumes,
planting and maintenance specifications, use of guards or other
protective measures and confirmation of location, species, sizes,
nursery stock type, supplier and defect period, and programme
for the timing of the planting.
iii. The measures shall be set out in an updated urban greening
factor calculation to achieve a score of at least 0.3.
iv. Details of the water fountain(s) to be provided for free public use.
v. Details of bird nesting boxes/bricks. No fewer than four nesting
boxes/bricks shall be provided (two with unobstructed entrances
for swifts, and two for starlings placed at least 3m apart to reduce
aggression in starling pairs) and the details shall include the exact
location, specification and design of the habitats.
The landscaping shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
such approval given and shall be retained for the duration of the use. The
planting, seeding and/or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting season
following completion of building works (or as approved for the tree planting) and
prior to first occupation of the development.
Any trees or shrubs that is found to be dead, dying, severely damaged or
diseased within five years of the completion of the building works OR five years of
the carrying out of the landscaping scheme (whichever is later), shall be replaced
by specimens of the same size and species in the first suitable planting season. If
within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or
any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies,
or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or
defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted
shall be planted at the same place in the first suitable planting season, unless the
Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.
Planting shall comply to BS: 4428 Code of practice for general landscaping
operations, BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and
construction and BS 7370-4:1993 Grounds maintenance recommendations for
maintenance of soft landscape.
The bird boxes/bricks shall be installed within the development prior to the first
occupation of the building to which they form part or the first use of the space in
which they are contained. The nesting boxes/bricks shall be installed strictly in
accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 171
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
thereafter. A post completion assessment confirming the nest/roost features have
been installed to the agreed specification shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority within three months of first occupation of the building of which they
form part.
Reason: To ensure the proposed development will preserve and enhance the
visual amenities of the locality and is designed for the maximum benefit of local
biodiversity and contributes towards creation of habitats. Tree planting and
landscaping are necessary to mitigate the anticipated wind conditions detailed in
the Environmental Statement, and need to be in place prior to first occupation of
the development.
23.
A. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, site
clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), details (1:50 scale
drawings) of the facilities to be provided for the secure and covered storage
of cycles, and staff facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show the type of cycle stands,
the provision for larger accessible cycles, along with the shower facilities, the
cycle lift access, and cycle ramp. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, changing facilities and showers, including no fewer
than 70 showers and 447 lockers, shall be provided for staff in accordance
with the drawings hereby approved.
B. Prior to construction works above the ground floor slab of the tower building,
and notwithstanding the cycle parking indicated on the approved ground floor
drawings, details (1:50 scale drawings) of the cycle parking facilities to be
provided for visitors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in 21
4153-2316-3452, v. 2 relation to any such facilities to be provided on the
Transport for London road network). The details shall show the type of cycle
stands, their locations (so as not to block pedestrian routes), provision for
larger accessible cycles, and arrangement for accessing any visitor parking
proposed within the basement of the tower building.
The cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved
details prior to first occupation of the development, be retained and the space
used for no other purpose and the development shall not be carried out otherwise
in accordance with any such approval given.
Reason: To ensure sustainable travel choice.
Above grade conditions (site wide)
24.The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to
minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the
development, in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by
Design Commercial 2015 (or any replacements thereof). Details of these
measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to areas in the
vicinity of the new entrance to London Bridge underground station and the
Metropolitan Police) prior to commencement of construction above the ground
floor slab of the tower building and shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details prior to occupation of the relevant element.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 172
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
25.Before any work after installation of the 15th floor slab of the tower building
begins, a landscape management plan, including longterm design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules (for all landscaped
areas, trees, biodiverse roof, terrace planting, ecological features and water
fountain(s)), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent
variations shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the management of the public realm and to secure
opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site. It
is also a mandatory criterion of BREEAM (LE5).
Prior to occupation conditions (site wide)
26.Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy (approved
pursuant to condition 15) and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with the Environment Agency).
The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in
accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met.
It shall also include any plan (a 'long-term monitoring and maintenance plan') for
longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, if appropriate, and for the
reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Any long-term monitoring and
maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not pose any further risk to human
health or the water environment.
27.No development shall be occupied until documentary evidence has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that Thames
Water has provided confirmation that either:
1. all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows to
serve the development have been completed;
Or:
2. a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames
Water to allow the development to be occupied.
Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation
shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed infrastructure phasing
plan.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate
additional demand anticipated from the new development.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 173
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
28.Prior to the occupation of the development, a flood risk management plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on the entrance
to London Bridge underground station).
The plan shall confirm that the site will be registered for the flood warning
system, and how the site’s facilities management would deploy the temporary
flood protection measures in the event of an expected flood.
The site shall be operated in accordance with the approved flood risk
management plan.
Reason: To reduce the flood risk for future occupiers.
Compliance conditions (site wide)
29.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987 and any associated provisions of the Town and Country Planning
General Permitted Development Order (including any future amendment of
enactment of those Orders), and notwithstanding the uses within Class E, the
development shall be used only for the following purposes:
i. the office floorspace hereby approved shall be used for Use Class B1 office
purposes only;
ii. the leisure floorspace hereby approved shall be used for Use Class D2 gym
purposes only;
iii. the retail floorspace in the Georgian terrace building shall be used for Use
Class A1 retail purposes only;
iv. the retail floorspace in the Keats House building shall be used for Use Class
A3 restaurant or café purposes only;
v. the retail floorspace in the tower building at basement level and at ground
level 122sqm shall be used for Use Class A1 retail purposes only, and at
ground level (110sqm), the first, fifth and sixth floor levels be used for Use
Class A3 restaurant or café purposes only;
vi. the raised garden (and its associated ground floor entrance and lift access)
shall be used for Use Class D2 public garden use only;
vii. the business hub floorspace at levels 21 and 22 of the tower hereby
approved shall be used for Class B1 and/or Class D2 use as an auditorium
and ancillary facilities only; - the ancillary floorspace within the basement
and at roof levels shall be used for ancillary purposes to the above listed
uses only;
unless otherwise agreed by way of a formal application for planning permission.
Reason: In order to ensure that the site provides the proposed office, retail,
leisure and combined office and community space for this site within the Central
Activities Zone, Opportunity Area and town centre in line with the submitted
application, its Environmental Statement and its assessment.
30.The refuse stores (including holding areas) shall be provided in accordance with
the approved plans and be made available for use prior to the occupation of the
development and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the refuse will be appropriately stored within the site
thereby protecting the amenity of the development and the area in general.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 174
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
31.If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer
has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority
for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be
dealt with.
The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved, verified and reported
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at
unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water
pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development
site.
32.No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground
are permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority in advance of the system's installation, which may be given for those
parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant
unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approval details.
Reason: To prevent the pollution of groundwater.
33.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the approved Flood Risk Assessment 06/12/2018; 3948 New
City Court, unless a revised flood risk assessment is submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the relevant works being carried
out.
Reason: To ensure the development is designed safely in reference to flood risk.
34.The retail, business hub and raised garden uses of the development hereby
permitted shall not be open to customers or visitors between the hours of 23:00
on one day and 07:00 on the following day.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
35.Other than for maintenance purposes, repair purposes or means of escape, the
terraces and balconies of the tower building (excluding the terrace associated with
the public garden) hereby approved shall not be used outside of the following
hours: 07:00 - 22:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 10:00 – 17:00 on Saturdays.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
36.The approved window openings to the tower building, Keats House building and
Georgian terrace building hereby approved shall be clear glass and shall not be
painted, covered or otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design of these buildings, in the interest of their appearance and the frontages
remain active and retaining a relationship with the public realm and streets.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 175
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
37.No retail unit in the Georgian terrace shall be merged, combined or consolidated
with any other retail unit to form a larger retail unit, without having first obtained
express written consent from the Local Planning Authority.
A retail unit is defined as one which has been displayed on the lower ground and
ground floor plans hereby approved.
Reason: To ensure the provision of small retail units as proposed by the
application.
38.No roof plant, building maintenance unit, equipment or other structures, other
than as shown on the plans hereby approved or approved pursuant to a condition
of this permission, shall be placed on the roof(s) or be permitted to project above
the roofline of any part of the buildings as shown on elevational drawings or shall
be permitted to extend outside of the roof plant enclosures of any buildings
hereby permitted.
Reason: In order to ensure that no additional plant is placed on the roof of the
building in the interest of the appearance and design of the building, the visual
amenity of the area and LVMF view.
39.Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 16 The Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended or re-
enacted) no external telecommunications equipment or structures shall be placed
on the roof or any other part of a building hereby approved.
Reason: In order to ensure that no additional telecommunications plant or
equipment is placed on the roof of the building in the interest of the appearance
and design of the building, the visual amenity of the area and LVMF view.
Other trigger conditions (site wide)
40.Within six months of the completion of archaeological site works, an assessment
report detailing the proposals for post-excavation works, publication of the site
findings and preparation of an archive for the archaeological findings shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The works detailed in this assessment report shall be carried out in accordance
with any such approval given, and publication of the site findings shall be
undertaken prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: In order that the archaeological interests of the site are secured.
41.The Rated sound level from any plant, together with any associated ducting shall
not exceed the Background sound level (LA90 15min) at the nearest noise
sensitive premises. Furthermore, the Specific plant sound level shall be 10dB(A)
or more below the background sound level in this location. For the purposes of
this condition the Background, Rating and Specific Sound levels shall be
calculated fully in accordance with the methodology of BS 4142:2014.
Prior to the plant being commissioned a validation test shall be carried out
following completion of the development. The results along with details of any
acoustic mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The plant and equipment shall be installed, constructed
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 176
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
and operated in accordance with the approval given and shall be permanently
maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
42.Details of the lighting (including: design; power and position of luminaries; light
intensity contours) of external areas and security surveillance equipment shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the installation
of any such equipment.
Prior to the external lighting being commissioned for use, a validation report to
confirm the lighting levels are in accordance with the approved details shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
The development shall not be carried out or operated otherwise than in
accordance with any such approval given. Any external lighting system installed
at the development shall comply with the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILE)
Guidance Note 1 for the reduction of obtrusive light (2020).
Reason: In the interest of the security of the development, the visual amenity of
the area, the amenity and privacy of adjoining occupiers, and their protection
from light nuisance.
43.Before any fit out works to the tower building begin, an independently verified
BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category, overall score, BREEAM
rating and a BREEAM interim design certificate of building performance) to
achieve an 'outstanding' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before any fit out works to the Keats House building begin, an independently
verified BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category, overall score,
BREEAM rating and a BREEAM interim design certificate of building performance)
to achieve an 'outstanding' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before the first occupation of the tower building or Keats House hereby permitted,
a certified Post Construction Review (or other verification process agreed with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, confirming that the agreed standards have been met for
that building.
Reason: To ensure the tower proposal achieves the exemplary sustainability
standards included in the proposed scheme.
Tower building specific conditions
44.Prior to the commencement of the tower building (except for demolition, site
clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), details of:
a. the specification of the construction to mitigate the noise and vibration
from the gym use of the basement level to the rest of the tower building
and neighbouring properties;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 177
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
b. the mechanical ventilation for the basement gym, including the associated
extraction point(s); and
c. details of the step free access between ground level and the basement gym
level, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to
first occupation of the gym.
Reason: To ensure the proposed basement use does not raise amenity issues for
the other occupiers of the tower building and neighbouring properties. The stair
and lifts are shown “to be confirmed” on the submitted drawings, so the condition
is necessary to ensure the facilities are accessible.
45.Prior to the commencement of any construction works above grade for the tower
building, samples of all facing materials for the tower building shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design, details and to minimise solar glare from the façades.
46.Prior to the commencement of any construction works of the tower building, the
following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
a. 1:200 contextual drawings of the tower’s elevations showing the locations
of the relevant features listed in part b); and
b. 1:10 or 1:5 scale elevation, plans and cross-sections of:
1. the frame of the eastern and western elevations,
2. windows,
3. doors,
4. terrace screens,
5. roof level building maintenance unit,
6. the façade corner housing the public garden lift,
7. rear service yard entrance,
8. louvres,
9. roof plant screening,
10. level 05 and 06 raised garden façade,
11. level 21 and 22 business hub façade, and
12. the rooftop plant and building maintenance unit at levels 34, 35 and
36.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and to allow consideration of any changes to the roof top plant as part of
the energy strategy revision.
47.Before any above grade construction work for the tower building hereby
authorised begins, details of the biodiverse (green/brown) roof at level 35 shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 178
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The biodiverse roof shall be:
 biodiversity based with extensive substrate base (depth 80-150mm); and
 planted/seeded with an agreed mix of species within the first planting
season following the practical completion of the building works (focused on
wildflower planting, and no more than a maximum of 25% sedum
coverage).
The biodiverse roof shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
prior to first occupation, and shall be maintained as such thereafter. A post
completion assessment will be required to confirm the roof has been constructed
to the agreed specification.
The biodiverse roof shall not be used as an amenity or sitting out space of any
kind whatsoever and shall only be used in the case of essential maintenance or
repair, or escape in case of emergency.
Reason: To ensure the development contributes towards creation of habitats and
valuable areas for biodiversity.
48.Sample section façade visual “mock ups” as representative bays of the tower
building’s façade(s) constructed to 1:1 scale shall be presented on site and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any construction work
above grade of the approved tower building.
The visual “mock ups” shall be constructed in the proposed materials and finishes
and shall include:
i. a representative bay of the tower building approximately 7m wide by 5m
high showing the floors and typical window;
ii. a representative bay approximately 7m wide by 5m high showing the
raised garden façade at levels 05 and 06; and
iii. a representative bay approximately 7m wide by 5m high showing the
business hub façade at levels 21 and 22.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
such approval given.
Reason: In order to secure high standards of design.
49.Before any above grade work for the tower building begins, details of how the
impact of the tower on television, radio and other telecommunications services in
the vicinity of the development will be assessed, the method and results of
surveys carried out, and the measures to be taken to rectify any problems
identified due to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in
relation to any transport communications equipment affected). The premises shall
not be occupied until any such mitigation measures as may have been approved
have been implemented.
Reason: In order to ensure that any adverse impacts of the development on
reception of properties in the area is identified and resolved satisfactorily.
50.Before any above grade work for the tower building begins, details of the wind
mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for London to the extent
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 179
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
measures are required to mitigate wind conditions within the entrance to London
Bridge underground station or on the Transport for London road network).
Such wind mitigation measures shall include: tree planting within the ground floor
public realm; screening to the southern edge of the hub terraces and balconies (to
be 2.5 above finished terrace floor level); screening across the southern edge of
the level 5 terrace (1.5m wide and angled); restricted access to the edge of the
level 3 terrace (e.g. by means of a handrail).
The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved wind
mitigation measures prior to first occupation of the tower building, and the
mitigation measures retained as such.
Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the mitigation
for wind conditions detailed in the Environmental Statement which needs to be in
place prior to first occupation.
51.Prior to the commencement of any works above grade of the approved tower
building, full particulars and details of a scheme for the extraction and venting of
odours, fats and particulate matter from the cooking activities of the commercial
kitchen(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
approval given.
Reason: In the interests of amenity will not cause amenity impacts such as odour,
fume or noise nuisance and will not detract from the appearance of the building.
52.Prior to the first occupation of the office floorspace in the tower building, a
Parking Management Plan detailing access arrangements for the two accessible
car parking spaces, the provision of electric vehicle charging facilities to both
spaces, how the accessible parking spaces are to be allocated (if at all) for
occupiers and visitors of the development, and the routes for people from the
parking spaces up to ground level shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be operated in accordance
with the approved Plan. No other car parking shall be provided on site unless
agreed in advance by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To ensure adequate provision for wheelchair accessible parking spaces
and convenient access.
Keats House specific conditions
53.No demolition of Keats House shall commence until a Façade Relocation Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on the Transport
for London road network).
The Façade Relocation Plan shall detail the methodology and specification for how
the historic façades are to be moved over, repaired and restored, or how they are
to be dismantled, reconstructed, repaired and restored. If the façades are to be
dismantled high level recording of the existing facades is to be included, as well
as the specification for how the structure will be dismantled, stored, and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 180
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
reassembled in its restored and repaired state shall be included in the Façade
Relocation Plan.
The works to Keats House shall be carried out only accordance with the approved
Façade Relocation Plan.
Reason: To retain the historic fabric of the Keats House heritage asset, to ensure
its reprovision and restoration as a key feature of the streetscene which adds to
the character of the BHSCA, and to protect the historic fabric of Conybeare House
54.Prior to the commencement of any works above grade for the Keats House
building (except demolition, site clearance, site investigations and works to
secure, protect and relocate the retained façade), full particulars and details of a
scheme for the extraction and venting of odours, fats and particulate matter from
the cooking activities of the commercial kitchen(s) shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
approval given.
Reason: To ensure that the development will not cause amenity impacts such as
odour, fume or noise nuisance.
55.Prior to the commencement of any works for Keats House above grade (excluding
demolition, site clearance, site investigations and works to secure, protect and
relocate the retained façade), the following details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. samples of all facing materials including the roof, parapets, brick, window
frames and doors
b. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the western and
southern elevations.
c. 1sqm sample panel of feature brickwork to the northern elevation (above
the servicing entrance) and southern elevation.
d. Samples of the brick, stone and other materials for the external repairs to
the relocated historic façades.
The development of Keats House shall not be carried out otherwise than in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and details, and how they relate to the historic façades.
56.Prior to the commencement of any works for Keats House (except for demolition,
site clearance, site investigations and works to secure, protect and relocate the
retained façade), the following details shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of all fenestration;
b. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of all doors including the service entrance door;
and
c. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of the parapet to the new elevations.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 181
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and details, and how they relate to the historic façades.
Georgian Terrace specific conditions
57.Before any fit out works to the Georgian terrace hereby authorised begins, an
independently verified BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category,
overall score, BREEAM rating and a BREEAM certificate of building performance)
to achieve a 'very good' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before the first occupation of the Georgian terrace building hereby permitted, a
certified Post Construction Review (or other verification process agreed with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, confirming that the agreed standards have been met.
Reason: To ensure the proposal achieves the exemplary sustainability standards
included in the proposed scheme
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 182
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
ANNEXE E: LIST OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 2018 LISTED BUILDING
CONSENT (APPEAL B)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years
from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required under Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended.
2. Prior to commencement of any of the following works on site, a Method
Statement(s) and Schedule of Works shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority:
i. Demolition of the modern rear extensions; removal of the second floor,
roof and chimneys of no. 16 St Thomas Street and making openings to
the side façade; removal of the roof and chimneys of no. 14; removal of
the roof slates to nos. 4-12; removing the ground floor door between nos.
8 and 10; removal of the vault front wall;
ii. The underpinning of the terrace for the adjoining basement excavation;
iii. Support, protection and repair of the retained façades, floors and roof;
iv. Cleaning of the brickwork;
v. Repairs to the sash windows, railings and first floor balconettes.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
such approval given.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed works are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
3. Prior to the commencement of any of the following works, drawings (scale
1:10,1:20) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in
writing to show the elevations, sections, materials and finishes for:
i. All new fenestration (including lintel, arch, cills) and doors.
ii. The new and replacement dormer windows.
iii. The shopfronts to the rear elevation and the railings above.
iv. Rainwater goods.
v. Chimney pots.
vi. The replacement secondary glazing.
vii. The gates to the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 St
Thomas Street.
viii. All new staircases (internal and external).
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
4. Prior to the commencement of any external works to the Georgian terrace
(excluding demolition, site clearance and site investigations), the following details
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the approved
extensions.
b. Samples of the brick, slate and other materials for the external repairs.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 183
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
c. Samples of the material of the gates and passageway surfaces between
nos. 8 and 10 St Thomas Street.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
5. Prior to commencement of works to the Georgian terrace one or more construction
contract(s) for those works (under which one of the parties is obliged to carry out
and complete works to the Georgian terrace for which listed building consent has
been granted) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction contract shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of any external demolition works
to the Georgian terrace evidence of a suitable planning permission being in place
for the external demolition works and redevelopment of the site shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
Reason: To prevent a partial implementation of the works, to ensure the
replacement walls, roof and windows are installed to the listed buildings to protect
their historic fabric and to maintain the character and appearance of the BHSCA.
6. Unless agreed pursuant to a condition on this permission, the approved window
openings to the Georgian terrace building hereby approved shall be clear glass and
shall not be painted, covered or otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
7. Prior to the commencement of the works, a Listed Building Consent Application
Management Plan setting out the policies and guidance for ongoing maintenance,
repair and minor alterations to the listed buildings on the Site shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Listed Building
Consent Application Management Plan shall be prepared by an accredited
conservation architect (as approved by the Local Planning Authority) and shall
include (but not be limited to):
i. the listed status of the site including the details of the special architectural
and historical interest of the site;
ii. the details of the works to the listed buildings on the site;
iii. key objectives and actions in the refurbishment of the listed buildings on
the site;
iv. fixtures of significance; and
v. policies for maintenance, repair and minor alterations including what work
requires listed building consent or planning permission other than that
already granted.
The works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved
Listed Building Consent Application Management Plan for the duration that the
listed buildings remain occupied.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 184
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
ANNEXE F: LIST OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 2021 PLANNING SCHEME
(APPEAL C)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years
from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans:
20065_G_(00)_P119 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan P02
20065_G_(00)_P120 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01
20065_G_(00)_P121 Georgian Townhouses Proposed First Floor Plan P01
20065_G_(00)_P122 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Second Floor Plan P01
20065_G_(00)_P123 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Third Floor Plan P01
20065_G_(00)_P125 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Roof Floor Plan P01
20065_G_(00)_P201 Georgian Townhouses Proposed North Elevation P01
20065_G_(00)_P202 Georgian Townhouses Proposed East Elevation P01
20065_G_(00)_P203 Georgian Townhouses Proposed South Elevation P01
20065_G_(00)_P301 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section A-A P01
20065_G_(00)_P302 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section B-B P01
20065_G_(00)_P304 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section DD - no.16 P02
20065_G_(00)_P305 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section EE - no.14 P02
20065_G_(00)_P306 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section FF - no.10 P02
20065_G_(00)_P307 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section GG - no.4 P02
20065_G_(00)_P308 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section HH - no.4 P02
20065_G_(00)_P309 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Section JJ - no.12 P02
20065_G_(00)_P401 Georgian Townhouses Proposed Vault P01
20065_G_(12)_P119 Georgian Townhouses Lower Ground Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P120 Georgian Townhouses Ground Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P121 Georgian Townhouses First Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P122 Georgian Townhouses Second Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P123 Georgian Townhouses Third Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P125 Georgian Townhouses Roof Floor Demolition Plan P01
20065_G_(12)_P201 Georgian Townhouses North Elevation Demolition P01
20065_G_(12)_P202 Georgian Townhouses East Elevation Demolition P01
20065_G_(12)_P203 Georgian Townhouses South Elevation Demolition P01
20065_G_(12)_P401 Georgian Townhouses Vaults Demolition P01
20065_X_(00)_P118 Tower Plans - Level B2 P02
20065_X_(00)_P119 Tower Plans - Level B1 P02
20065_X_(00)_P120 Tower Plans - Level G P02
20065_X_(00)_P120M Tower Plans - Level GM P02
20065_X_(00)_P121 Tower Plans - Level 01 P02
20065_X_(00)_P122 Tower Plans - Level 02 P02
20065_X_(00)_P123 Tower Plans - Level 03 P02
20065_X_(00)_P124 Tower Plans - Levels 04-09 P02
20065_X_(00)_P130 Tower Plans - Levels 10-13 P02
20065_X_(00)_P134 Tower Plans - Level 14 P02
20065_X_(00)_P135 Tower Plans - Level 15 P02
20065_X_(00)_P136 Tower Plans - Level 16 P02
20065_X_(00)_P137 Tower Plans - Levels 17-22 P02
20065_X_(00)_P143 Tower Plans - Level 23 P02
20065_X_(00)_P144 Tower Plans - Level 24 P03
20065_X_(00)_P145 Tower Plans - Level 25 P03
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 185
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
20065_X_(00)_P146 Tower Plans - Level 26 (Roof) P03
20065_X_(00)_P201 North Elevation Proposed P02
20065_X_(00)_P202 South Elevation Proposed P02
20065_X_(00)_P203 East Elevation Proposed P02
20065_X_(00)_P204 West Elevation Proposed P02
20065_X_(00)_P205 LUL Tube Station Proposed Plan and Elevation P02
20065_X_(00)_P301 Section AA Proposed P02
20065_X_(00)_P302 Section BB Proposed P02
20065_X_(12)_P119 Demolition Scope of Existing Level LG Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P120 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 00 Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P121 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 01 Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P122 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 02 Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P123 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 03 Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P124 Demolition Scope of Existing Level 04 Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P125 Demolition Scope of Existing Lower Roof Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P126 Demolition Scope of Existing Upper Roof Plan P01
20065_X_(12)_P201 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 01 P01
20065_X_(12)_P202 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 02 P01
20065_X_(12)_P203 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 03 P01
20065_X_(12)_P205 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 05 P01
20065_X_(12)_P206 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 06 P01
20065_X_(12)_P207 Demolition Scope of Existing Elevation 07 P01
20065_X_(12)_P301 Demolition Scope of Existing Section A-A P01
20065_X_(12)_P302 Demolition Scope of Existing Section B-B P01
20065_X_(12)_P303 Demolition Scope of Existing Section C-C P01
20065_X_(12)_P304 Demolition Scope of Existing Section D-D P01
20065_X_(12)_P305 Demolition Scope of Existing Section E-E P01
166-NCC2-GA01 General Arrangement Ground Floor 01
166-NCC2-GA02 General Arrangement Level 03 Terrace, Balconies and Level 01 Green
Roof 01
166-NCC2-GA03 General Arrangement Level 24 Terrace 01
166-NCC2-GA04 General Arrangement Level 26 Terrace 01
166-NCC2-GS01 General Sections Ground Floor 01
166-NCC2-GS02 General Sections Level 03 & Balconies 01
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. The quantum of built floorspace for the development shall be as specified below.
The uses within the tower building hereby permitted are limited to the following
maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Office (Class E(g)(i)) – basement to level 23 – 49,139sqm GEA
 Retail (Class E(a)) or office (Class E(g)(i) – ground and mezzanine –
358sqm GEA
 Restaurant and café (Class E(b)) – level 24 – 450sqm GEA
 Ancillary plant and servicing space at basement and ground levels, and roof
levels 24 to 26.
The uses within the Keats House building hereby approved are limited to the
following maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Office (Class E(g)(i)) – lower ground to level 02 – 487sqm GEA
The uses within the Georgian terrace hereby approved are limited to the following
maximum floor areas and at the identified floor levels:
 Office (Class E(g)(i)) – lower ground to level 02 – 1,847sqm GEA
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 186
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
No more than 2 car parking space and 3 loading bays shall be provided in the
development. The 2 car parking spaces suitable for use by people with disabilities
shall be provided 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. The development must be undertaken in accordance with this description
of development and quantum of built floorspace.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved drawings, documents and the Environmental Statement.
Pre-commencement conditions (site wide)
4. Prior to any works commencing, including demolition, a Works Element Plan shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
Works Element Plan shall confirm by reference to a drawing or drawings the
extent of the works to be undertaken within each element of the approved
development: the demolition element; the Georgian terrace element; the Keats
House element; the tower building element; the public realm element; the
basement element; and the intended duration and completion of each element.
The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the approved
Works Element Plan. The Works Element Plan may be amended from time to time,
subject to obtaining the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
The works within the basement element, Georgian terrace element and Keats
House element shall be completed and made ready for occupation, and the public
realm element completed and made available for public use prior to the first
occupation of the tower building element, unless otherwise agreed by the Local
Planning Authority in an approved Works Element Plan.
Reason: To ensure each element of the approved development is delivered prior
to the occupation of the tower building with its associated basement servicing and
cycle parking facilities to prevent a gap in the streetscene, by requiring the
reprovision of Keats House and ensuring the replacement walls and roof are
constructed to the listed buildings to protect their historic fabric.
5. Demolition works shall not begin until a Demolition Logistics Plan to manage all
freight vehicle movements to and from the site during demolition of the existing
building(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London and Guy’s and St Thomas’
Hospital). The Demolition Logistics Plan shall include:
a. the management of all freight vehicle movements to and from the site
during demolition of the existing buildings;
b. loading and unloading of plant and materials including vehicle turning areas;
c. storage of plant and materials;
d. programme of works (including measures for traffic management and cyclist
and pedestrian comfort and safety);
e. provision of boundary hoarding, behind any visibility zones of construction
traffic routing;
f. hours of operation;
g. means to prevent deposition of mud on the highway;
h. location and height of any crane(s) and scaffolding;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 187
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
i. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the Local
Planning Authority and Transport for London), in order to identify and
address potential cumulative highway effects during the demolition phase.
j. relevant measures from the Mayor of London's Construction Logistics Plan
Guidance (2017), and specifically address the comfort and safety of
vulnerable road users through compliance with the Construction Logistics
and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) Standard for Construction Logistics, Managing
Work Related Road Risk;
k. as a minimum, all haulage contractors should be FORS Silver (or equivalent)
registered and use the highest rated Direct Vision Standard lorries as
possible.
Demolition works shall not begin until a Demolition Environmental Management
Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London). The Plan shall detail a
scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers (including
without limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital) from noise, dust and other
environmental effects, a site waste management plan to detail how waste will be
reused, recycled and/or disposed of and managed (the burning of waste on the
site at any time is specifically precluded). The scheme shall be based on the
Southwark's Code of Construction Practice, the Mayoral Control of Dust and
Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG and the Mayor of London’s
emissions standards for NRMM (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 Local Planning Authority.
The demolition shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved Demolition Logistics Plan and approved Demolition Environmental
Management Plan. The approved Plans shall be implemented as approved and
periodically reviewed following audits of its implementation. Results of these
audits will be made available to the Local Planning Authority and Transport for
London upon request. The approved Plans shall be retained for the duration of the
demolition and site clearance of the development.
Reason: To ensure that demolition works do not have an adverse impact on public
safety, transport network or neighbour amenity by securing the mitigation
identified in the Environmental Statement.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition, site
clearance and/or site investigations), a Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London and Guy’s and St Thomas’
Hospital). The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) details relating to:
a. any 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
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 188
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
e. predicted levels of, means to control / minimise the impact of, and
monitoring of noise, odour dust, vibration and smoke
f. a scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers
(including without limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital) and pedestrians
and cyclists from noise, dust and other environmental effects during
construction
g. road cleaning including wheel washing
h. 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
i. details of vibro-compaction machinery and a method statement
j. a site waste management plan to detail how waste will be reused, recycled
and/or disposed of and managed (the burning of waste on the site at any
time is specifically precluded)
k. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites (through the Local
Planning Authority and Transport for London), in order to identify and
address potential cumulative environmental effects during the construction
phase.
The CEMP shall be based on Southwark's Code of Construction Practice, GLA's
Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Control of Dust and Emissions during
Demolition and Construction' SPG and the Mayor of London’s emissions standards
for NRMM (or any subsequent replacement code of practice) and arrangements for
liaison and monitoring set out therein. The detailed design and method
statements (AIP) for any proposed foundations and basements structures
(temporary and/or permanent) retaining the highway shall demonstrate
accordance with CG 300 'Technical Approval of Highway Structures'. 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 Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London).
The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the
approved CEMP. The CEMP shall be retained and complied with for the duration of
the groundworks and construction process for the development.
Reason: In the interests of public safety, to protect the amenities of neighbouring
premises and the transport network, to promote waste reduction, and to protect
the structural integrity of the pavements and roadways. These details are
required prior to construction in order that the impact on amenities is minimised
from the time that the construction starts.
7. No construction works (excluding demolition, site clearance and site
investigations) shall commence until a Construction Logistics Plan(s) (CLP) has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London). The CLP shall include details of:
a. the management of all freight vehicle movements to and from the site
during 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;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 189
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
e. programme of works (including measures for traffic management and cyclist
and pedestrian comfort and safety);
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 crane(s) and scaffolding, including crane aircraft
safety lighting;
j. any other matters relevant to this particular site including liaising with
developers and construction teams of neighbouring sites including without
limitation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital (through the Local Planning
Authority and Transport for London), 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, add further detail to the submitted outline construction management
plan and shall specifically address the safety of vulnerable road users through
compliance with the CLOCS Standard.
As a minimum, all haulage contractors should be FORS Silver (or equivalent)
registered and use the highest rated Direct Vision Standard lorries as possible.
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 Local Planning Authority and
Transport for London upon request. The CLP shall be retained for the duration of
the construction process for the development.
Reason: To ensure the development does not raise highway safety or aircraft
safety matters by securing the mitigation identified in the Environmental
Statement.
8. Prior to commencement of demolition works to the Georgian terrace, Keats House
or the existing office building, one or more construction contract(s) (under which
one of the parties is obliged to carry out and complete works of redevelopment of
the site for which planning permission has been granted (or the relevant element
of the redevelopment) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction
contract shall be submitted to for approval in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To prevent a partial implementation that would leave a gap in the
streetscene, to require the reprovision of Keats House and ensuring the
replacement walls and roof are constructed to the listed buildings to protect their
historic fabric and to maintain the character and appearance of the BHSCA.
9.
A. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, Method Statement(s) for the
protection of the elements of the Georgian terrace that are to be retained,
for the protection of the Keats House façades to be retained, and for the
protection of the Conybeare House façade during the Keats House removal
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 190
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any
impact on the Transport for London road network).
B. Prior to the commencement of any construction (excluding demolition, site
clearance and site investigations), Method Statement(s) for the protection
of the elements of the Georgian terrace that are to be retained, for the
protection of the Keats House façades to be relocated, and for the
protection of the Conybeare House façade after the Keats House removal
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any
impact on the Transport for London road network).
The Method Statement(s) submitted under (A) and (B) of this condition shall
detail how these heritage assets are to be protected and supported during the
works, and include the design of any internal and external scaffolding and any
temporary roof (including details of all fixings into historic fabric and protection at
building interfaces). The works shall not be undertaken otherwise than in
accordance with the approved Method Statements.
Reason: In order to ensure the special historic qualities of the listed buildings and
Keats House façades are protected.
10.
A. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition works
above ground level, site clearance and site investigations) a written scheme
of investigation (WSI) for those parts of the site which have archaeological
interest shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The WSI shall be prepared and implemented by a suitably
qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice.
B. For land that is included within the WSI, no below ground demolition/
development/ excavation shall take place other than in accordance with the
approved WSI which shall include:
i. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;
and
ii. The programme for post-excavation assessment.
C. The archaeological works shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved details.
D. Prior to commencement of the development (excluding demolition above
ground level, site clearance and site investigation works) a Public
Engagement Programme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The Public Engagement Programme shall set out:
iv. How the archaeology fieldwork areas will be hoarded to provide
opportunities for passers-by to safely view the excavations;
v. Drawings (artwork, design, text and materials, including their location
and a full specification of the construction) for the public
interpretation and presentation display celebrating the historic setting
of the site, to be located on suitably visible public parts of the
temporary site hoarding;
vi. Details of at least one event, such as a heritage trail, that will be held
during the fieldwork phase (as a minimum this should state the
date/time, duration, individuals involved and advance promotional
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 191
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
measures for the event, and provide an outline of the content of the
event).
E. Prior to the commencement of the archaeology fieldwork, the hoarding
shall be installed in full accordance with the approved details referred to in
parts D.i) and D.ii) of this condition, and the hoarding shall remain as such
and in place throughout the archaeology fieldwork phase. During the
archaeology fieldwork, the event (referred to in part D.iii) shall be carried
out.
Reason: In order that the details of the programme of works for the
archaeological mitigation (as identified in the Environmental Statement) are
suitable with regard to the impacts of the proposed development and the nature
and extent of archaeological remains on site.
11.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding above ground level
demolition, site clearance and site investigation works), a Basement Impact
Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The Basement Impact Assessment shall be based upon the topics considered in
the submitted Basement Impact Assessment by AKT II dated July 2021, be
informed by the site specific geotechnical and fabric investigations undertaken. It
shall include groundwater mitigation measures to protect the underlying aquifer
and to minimise the risk of ground water flooding, and details of the underpinning
of foundations of the buildings within and adjoining the site as required.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Basement
Impact Assessment.
Reason: To minimise the potential for the site to contribute to changes in
groundwater conditions, the risk to the underlying aquifer and groundwater
flooding in accordance with the Environmental Statement mitigation.
12.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding site investigation works),
detailed design and method statements shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with London Underground
Limited) which:
 provide demolition and construction details of all structures, details of all of
the foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other
structures below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent)
for each stage of the development;
 accommodate the location of the existing London Underground structures
and tunnels;
 accommodate ground movement arising from the construction thereof;
 and mitigate the effects of noise and vibration arising from the adjoining
operations within the structures and tunnels.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in all respects in accordance with
the approved design and method statements, and all structures and works
comprised within the development hereby permitted which are required by the
approved design statements in order to procure the matters mentioned in this
condition shall be completed in their entirety, before any part of the building
hereby permitted is occupied.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 192
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on existing London
Underground transport infrastructure.
13.No piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall take
place until a piling method statement has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water, and
the Environment Agency). The method statement must include details of:
a. the depth and type of piling to be undertaken
b. the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including
monitoring systems
c. measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface
water infrastructure, demonstrating there is no resultant unacceptable risk
to groundwater
d. measures to prevent and minimise potential damage to listed buildings
within and adjoining the site (including without limitation Guy’s and St
Thomas’ Hospital)
e. the programme for the works Any piling must be undertaken in accordance
with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not harm groundwater resources or
heritage assets.
14.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding above ground level
demolition and site clearance) the following components of a scheme to deal with
the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the
Environment Agency):
1) A site investigation scheme, based on the Preliminary Environmental Risk
Assessment' (PERA) by Waterman (WIE11375-103-R-3.1.4-RJM dated April
2021) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all
receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
2) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred
to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation
strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how
they are to be undertaken.
3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in
(2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The site is located over a Secondary Aquifer and it is understood that the
site may be affected by historic contamination.
15.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, site clearance
and site investigations), details of the proposed surface water drainage system
incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport
for London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge
underground station or the Transport for London road network), including detailed
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 193
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
design, size and location of attenuation units and details of flow control measures.
The strategy should achieve rates limited to the greenfield rate (unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority) and a reduction in surface water runoff
rates during the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event plus climate
change allowance. The applicant must demonstrate that the site is safe in the
event of blockage/failure of the system, including consideration of exceedance
flows, and set out the maintenance responsibilities of the site owner. The site
drainage must be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To minimise the potential for the development to add to surface water
flooding, as identified in the Environmental Statement.
16.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), details of the
proposed hostile vehicle mitigation within the site boundary adjacent to St
Thomas Street between the Georgian terrace and Keats House and along the site
boundary with Kings Head Yard are to be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
No hostile vehicle mitigation measures shall be installed within the public highway
on St Thomas Street or Borough High Street.
The specification of the accredited vehicle security barriers shall be informed by a
vehicle dynamics assessment by a suitably qualified specialist listed on the
Register of Security Engineers and Specialists and shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the
Metropolitan Police). The development shall then be implemented in accordance
with the approved details and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
17.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance and site investigations), a Blast Mitigation Impact
Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on
the entrance to London Bridge underground station and the Metropolitan Police).
The development shall incorporate such measures as are necessary within the site
to mitigate the blast impact, details of which shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge underground
station and the Metropolitan Police) before any construction works thereby
affected are begun.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
and shall be retained in place for the life of the building unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London in relation to any impact on the entrance to London Bridge underground
station).
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 194
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
18.Prior to the commencement of development (with the exception of demolition
works, site clearance, site investigation works, excavation and piling), detailed
plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority demonstrating the provision of sufficient ducting space for full fibre
connectivity infrastructure within the development.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with these plans.
Reason: To provide high quality digital connectivity infrastructure to contribute to
London's global competitiveness.
19.Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) a Whole Life-
Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating compliance with Part F of Policy SI 2
“Minimising greenhouse gas emissions” of the London Plan (2021), shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
assessment shall develop a strategy for the implementation of whole life cycle
carbon principles in both the approved buildings’ and the site's construction,
operational and demolition phases. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Within 12 months of first occupation of the development, an updated Whole Life-
Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating compliance with Part F of policy SI 2
"Minimising greenhouse gas emissions" of the London Plan (2021), shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
assessment should calculate updated whole life-cycle carbon emissions through a
nationally recognised Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment based on actual
emissions. The updated assessment should evidence what actions have been
taken in implementing the development to reduce whole life-cycle carbon
emissions, including assessment and evidencing of the recommendations set out
in the approved pre-commencement Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment.
Reason: To maximise the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and to minimise
peak and annual energy demand.
20.Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) a Circular
Economy Statement demonstrating compliance with Part B of Policy SI 7
‘Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy’ of the London Plan (2021)
and including measures for monitoring and reporting against the targets within
the Circular Economy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall develop a strategy for
implementing the London Plan’s circular economy principles in the approved
building structures and the site’s operational phase, in addition to developing an
end-of-life strategy for the development according to circular economy principles,
including disassembly and deconstruction. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
No later than three months following substantial completion of the development
hereby consented, a Post Completion Circular Economy Report setting out the
predicted and actual performance against all numerical targets in the relevant
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 195
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Planning Stage Circular Economy Statement shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To promote resource conservation, waste reduction, material re-use,
recycling and reduction in material being sent to landfill.
21.Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition works, site
clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), landscaping details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to areas adjacent to the new
entrance to London Bridge underground station or the Transport for London road
network). The details shall include:
i. Detailed drawings of a hard and soft landscaping scheme showing
the treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings
(including cross sections, surfacing materials and edge details)
and including the roof terraces.
ii. The proposed tree planting, tree pit cross sections, soil volumes,
planting and maintenance specifications, use of guards or other
protective measures and confirmation of location, species, sizes,
nursery stock type, supplier and defect period, and programme
for the timing of the planting.
iii. The measures shall be set out in an updated urban greening
factor calculation to achieve a score of at least 0.3.
iv. Details of the water fountain(s) to be provided for free public use.
v. Details of bird nesting boxes/bricks. No fewer than four nesting
boxes/bricks shall be provided (two with unobstructed entrances
for swifts, and two for starlings placed at least 3m apart to reduce
aggression in starling pairs) and the details shall include the exact
location, specification and design of the habitats.
The landscaping shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
such approval given and shall be retained for the duration of the use. The
planting, seeding and/or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting season
following completion of building works (or as approved for the tree planting) and
prior to first occupation of the development.
Any trees or shrubs that is found to be dead, dying, severely damaged or
diseased within five years of the completion of the building works OR five years of
the carrying out of the landscaping scheme (whichever is later), shall be replaced
by specimens of the same size and species in the first suitable planting season. If
within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or
any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies,
or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or
defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted
shall be planted at the same place in the first suitable planting season, unless the
Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.
Planting shall comply to BS: 4428 Code of practice for general landscaping
operations, BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and
construction and BS 7370-4:1993 Grounds maintenance recommendations for
maintenance of soft landscape.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 196
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
The bird boxes/bricks shall be installed within the development prior to the first
occupation of the building to which they form part or the first use of the space in
which they are contained. The nesting boxes/bricks shall be installed strictly in
accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such
thereafter. A post completion assessment confirming the nest/roost features have
been installed to the agreed specification shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority within three months of first occupation of the building of which they
form part.
Reason: To ensure the proposed development will preserve and enhance the
visual amenities of the locality and is designed for the maximum benefit of local
biodiversity and contributes towards creation of habitats. Tree planting and
landscaping are necessary to mitigate the anticipated wind conditions detailed in
the Environmental Statement, and need to be in place prior to first occupation of
the development.
22.
A. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, site
clearance, site investigations, excavation and piling), details (1:50 scale
drawings) of the facilities to be provided for the secure and covered storage
of cycles, and staff facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show the type of cycle
stands, the provision for larger accessible cycles, along with the shower
facilities, the cycle lift access, and cycle ramp. Unless otherwise approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority, changing facilities and showers,
including no fewer than 70 showers and 447 lockers, shall be provided for
staff in accordance with the drawings hereby approved.
B. Prior to construction works above the ground floor slab of the tower
building, and notwithstanding the cycle parking indicated on the approved
ground floor drawings, details (1:50 scale drawings) of the cycle parking
facilities to be provided for visitors shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for
London in 21 4153-2316-3452, v. 2 relation to any such facilities to be
provided on the Transport for London road network). The details shall show
the type of cycle stands, their locations (so as not to block pedestrian
routes), provision for larger accessible cycles, and arrangement for
accessing any visitor parking proposed within the basement of the tower
building.
The cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved
details prior to first occupation of the development, be retained and the space
used for no other purpose and the development shall not be carried out otherwise
in accordance with any such approval given.
Reason: To ensure sustainable travel choice.
23.Prior to commencement of the development (except demolition, site clearance,
site investigations and works to secure, protect and relocate the retained façade),
details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority demonstrating that a minimum of at least one lift per core (or more
subject to capacity assessments) in a) the tower building and b) Keats House will
be a suitably sized fire evacuation lift suitable to be used to evacuate people who
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 197
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
require level access from the building. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with these details and maintained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of fire safety and inclusive design.
Above grade conditions (site wide)
24.The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to
minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the
development, in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by
Design Commercial 2015 (or any replacements thereof). Details of these
measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in relation to areas in the
vicinity of the new entrance to London Bridge underground station and the
Metropolitan Police) prior to commencement of construction above the ground
floor slab of the tower building and shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details prior to occupation of the relevant element.
Reason: In pursuance of the Local Planning Authority's duty under section 17 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in
exercising its planning functions and to improve community safety and crime
prevention.
25.Before any work after installation of the 15th floor slab of the tower building
begins, a landscape management plan, including longterm design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules (for all landscaped
areas, trees, biodiverse roof, terrace planting, ecological features and water
fountain(s)), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent
variations shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the management of the public realm and to secure
opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site. It
is also a mandatory criterion of BREEAM (LE5).
Prior to occupation conditions (site wide)
26.Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy (approved
pursuant to condition 15) and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with the Environment Agency).
The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in
accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met.
It shall also include any plan (a 'long-term monitoring and maintenance plan') for
longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, if appropriate, and for the
reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Any long-term monitoring and
maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 198
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: To ensure that the development does not pose any further risk to human
health or the water environment.
27.No development shall be occupied until documentary evidence has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that Thames
Water has provided confirmation that either:
1. all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows to
serve the development have been completed;
Or:
2. a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames
Water to allow the development to be occupied.
Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation
shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed infrastructure phasing
plan.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate
additional demand anticipated from the new development.
28.Prior to the occupation of the development, a flood risk management plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on the entrance
to London Bridge underground station).
The plan shall confirm that the site will be registered for the flood warning
system, and how the site’s facilities management would deploy the temporary
flood protection measures in the event of an expected flood.
The site shall be operated in accordance with the approved flood risk
management plan.
Reason: To reduce the flood risk for future occupiers.
Compliance conditions (site wide)
29.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987 and any associated provisions of the Town and Country Planning
General Permitted Development Order (including any future amendment of
enactment of those Orders), and notwithstanding the uses within Class E, the
development shall be used only for the following purposes:
i. the office floorspace hereby approved shall be used for Use Class E(g) (i)
office purposes only;
ii. the flexible office/retail floorspace at ground and mezzanine levels of the
tower building shall be used for Use Class E(g)(i) office or E(a) retail
purposes only;
iii. the restaurant floorspace in the tower building at levels 24 and 25 shall be
used for Use Class E(b) restaurant and café purposes only;
iv. the public rooftop garden (and its associated ground floor entrance and lift
access) shall be used as a public garden only;
v. the ancillary floorspace within the basement and at roof levels shall be used
for ancillary purposes to the above listed uses only;
unless otherwise agreed by way of a formal application for planning permission.
Reason: In order to ensure that the site provides the proposed office, retail,
leisure and combined office and community space for this site within the Central
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 199
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Activities Zone, Opportunity Area and town centre in line with the submitted
application, its Environmental Statement and its assessment.
30.The refuse stores (including holding areas) shall be provided in accordance with
the approved plans and be made available for use prior to the occupation of the
development and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the refuse will be appropriately stored within the site
thereby protecting the amenity of the development and the area in general.
31.If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer
has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority
for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be
dealt with.
The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved, verified and reported
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at
unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water
pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development
site.
32.No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground
are permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority in advance of the system's installation, which may be given for those
parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant
unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approval details.
Reason: To prevent the pollution of groundwater.
33.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the approved New City Court Flood Risk Assessment
09/07/2021, unless a revised flood risk assessment is submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the relevant works being carried
out.
Reason: To ensure the development is designed safely in reference to flood risk.
34.The retail, café, and restaurant uses of the development hereby permitted shall
not be open to customers or visitors between the hours of 23:00 on one day and
07:00 on the following day.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
35.Other than for maintenance purposes, repair purposes or means of escape, the
terraces and balconies of the tower building (excluding the terrace associated with
the public garden) hereby approved shall not be used outside of the following
hours: 07:00 - 22:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 10:00 – 17:00 on Saturdays.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 200
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
36.Unless agreed pursuant to condition 46 of this permission, the approved window
openings to the tower building, Keats House building and Georgian terrace
building hereby approved shall be clear glass and shall not be painted, covered or
otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior written consent of the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design of these buildings, in the interest of their appearance and the frontages
remain active and retaining a relationship with the public realm and streets.
37.No roof plant, building maintenance unit, equipment or other structures, other
than as shown on the plans hereby approved or approved pursuant to a condition
of this permission, shall be placed on the roof(s) or be permitted to project above
the roofline of any part of the buildings as shown on elevational drawings or shall
be permitted to extend outside of the roof plant enclosures of any buildings
hereby permitted.
Reason: In order to ensure that no additional plant is placed on the roof of the
building in the interest of the appearance and design of the building, the visual
amenity of the area and LVMF view.
38.Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 16 The Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended or re-
enacted) no external telecommunications equipment or structures shall be placed
on the roof or any other part of a building hereby approved.
Reason: In order to ensure that no additional telecommunications plant or
equipment is placed on the roof of the building in the interest of the appearance
and design of the building, the visual amenity of the area and LVMF view.
39.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
Fire Statement by CBDSP dated April 2021, unless a revised fire statement is
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to any interaction with
evacuation procedures or routes at London Bridge underground station) prior to
the relevant works being carried out.
Reason: In order to ensure that the fire safety of the proposed development has
been duly considered
Other trigger conditions (site wide)
40.Within six months of the completion of archaeological site works, an assessment
report detailing the proposals for post-excavation works, publication of the site
findings and preparation of an archive for the archaeological findings shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The works detailed in this assessment report shall be carried out in accordance
with any such approval given, and publication of the site findings shall be
undertaken prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: In order that the archaeological interests of the site are secured.
41.The Rated sound level from any plant, together with any associated ducting shall
not exceed the Background sound level (LA90 15min) at the nearest noise
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 201
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
sensitive premises. Furthermore, the Specific plant sound level shall be 10dB(A)
or more below the background sound level in this location. For the purposes of
this condition the Background, Rating and Specific Sound levels shall be
calculated fully in accordance with the methodology of BS 4142:2014.
Prior to the plant being commissioned a validation test shall be carried out
following completion of the development. The results along with details of any
acoustic mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The plant and equipment shall be installed, constructed
and operated in accordance with the approval given and shall be permanently
maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of
amenity by reason of noise nuisance.
42.Details of the lighting (including: design; power and position of luminaries; light
intensity contours) of external areas and security surveillance equipment shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the installation
of any such equipment.
Prior to the external lighting being commissioned for use, a validation report to
confirm the lighting levels are in accordance with the approved details shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
The development shall not be carried out or operated otherwise than in
accordance with any such approval given. Any external lighting system installed
at the development shall comply with the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILE)
Guidance Note 1 for the reduction of obtrusive light (2020).
Reason: In the interest of the security of the development, the visual amenity of
the area, the amenity and privacy of adjoining occupiers, and their protection
from light nuisance.
43.Before any fit out works to the tower building begin, an independently verified
BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category, overall score, BREEAM
rating and a BREEAM interim design certificate of building performance) to
achieve an 'outstanding' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before any fit out works to the Keats House building begin, an independently
verified BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category, overall score,
BREEAM rating and a BREEAM interim design certificate of building performance)
to achieve an 'outstanding' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before the first occupation of the tower building or Keats House hereby permitted,
a certified Post Construction Review (or other verification process agreed with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, confirming that the agreed standards have been met for
that building.
Reason: To ensure the tower proposal achieves the exemplary sustainability
standards included in the proposed scheme.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 202
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Tower building specific conditions
44.Prior to the commencement of any construction works above grade for the tower
building, details of how the windows in the south-western corner of the tower
(facing to the south, south-west and west) at mezzanine, first, second and third
floors of the tower building are to be designed with obscured glazing, screens or
some other means to maintain the privacy of the neighbouring residential
properties, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details
and maintained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interest of neighbour amenity.
45.Prior to the commencement of any construction works above grade for the tower
building, samples of all facing materials for the tower building shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design, details and to minimise solar glare from the façades.
46.Prior to the commencement of any construction works of the tower building, the
following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
a. 1:200 contextual drawings of the tower’s elevations showing the locations
of the relevant features listed in part b); and
b. 1:10 or 1:5 scale elevation, plans and cross-sections of:
1. windows,
2. doors,
3. terrace screens and balustrades,
4. louvres,
5. roof plant screening,
6. roof garden level restaurant façade,
7. roof garden level pavilion,
8. roof plant screening,
9. circular pavilion to level 24,
10. colonnade columns, fenestration and doors, and
11. the rooftop plant and building maintenance unit.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and to allow consideration of any changes to the roof top plant as part of
the energy strategy revision.
47.Sample section façade visual “mock ups” as representative bays of the tower
building’s façade(s) constructed to 1:1 scale shall be presented on site and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any construction work
above grade of the approved tower building. The visual “mock ups” shall be
constructed in the proposed materials and finishes and shall include a
representative bay of the tower building approximately 7m wide by 5m high
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 203
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
showing the floors and typical window. The development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given.
Reason: In order to secure high standards of design.
48.Before any above grade work for the tower building begins, details of how the
impact of the tower on television, radio and other telecommunications services in
the vicinity of the development will be assessed, the method and results of
surveys carried out, and the measures to be taken to rectify any problems
identified due to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for London in
relation to any transport communications equipment affected). The premises shall
not be occupied until any such mitigation measures as may have been approved
have been implemented.
Reason: In order to ensure that any adverse impacts of the development on
reception of properties in the area is identified and resolved satisfactorily.
49.Before any above grade work for the tower building begins, details of the wind
mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority (in consultation with Transport for London to the extent
measures are required to mitigate wind conditions within the entrance to London
Bridge underground station or on the Transport for London road network). Such
wind mitigation measures shall include: tree planting within the ground floor
public realm; raised landscaping; porous screening attached to the tower. The
development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved wind
mitigation measures prior to first occupation of the tower building, and the
mitigation measures retained as such.
Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the mitigation
for wind conditions detailed in the Environmental Statement which needs to be in
place prior to first occupation.
50.Prior to the commencement of any works above grade of the approved tower
building, full particulars and details of a scheme for the extraction and venting of
odours, fats and particulate matter from the cooking activities of the commercial
kitchen(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
approval given.
Reason: In the interests of amenity will not cause amenity impacts such as odour,
fume or noise nuisance and will not detract from the appearance of the building.
51.Prior to the first occupation of the office floorspace in the tower building, a
Parking Management Plan detailing access arrangements for the two accessible
car parking spaces, the provision of electric vehicle charging facilities to both
spaces, how the accessible parking spaces are to be allocated (if at all) for
occupiers and visitors of the development, and the routes for people from the
parking spaces up to ground level shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be operated in accordance
with the approved Plan. No other car parking shall be provided on site unless
agreed in advance by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 204
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: To ensure adequate provision for wheelchair accessible parking spaces
and convenient access.
Keats House specific conditions
52.No demolition of Keats House shall commence until a Façade Relocation Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in
consultation with Transport for London in relation to any impact on the Transport
for London road network).
The Façade Relocation Plan shall detail the methodology and specification for how
the historic façades are to be moved over, repaired and restored, or how they are
to be dismantled, reconstructed, repaired and restored. If the façades are to be
dismantled high level recording of the existing facades is to be included, as well
as the specification for how the structure will be dismantled, stored, and
reassembled in its restored and repaired state shall be included in the Façade
Relocation Plan.
The works to Keats House shall be carried out only accordance with the approved
Façade Relocation Plan.
Reason: To retain the historic fabric of the Keats House heritage asset, to ensure
its reprovision and restoration as a key feature of the streetscene.
53.Prior to the commencement of any works for Keats House above grade (excluding
demolition, site clearance, site investigations and works to secure, protect and
relocate the retained façade), the following details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. samples of all facing materials including the roof, parapets, brick, window
frames and doors
b. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the western and
southern elevations.
c. Samples of the brick, stone and other materials for the external repairs to
the relocated historic façades.
The development of Keats House shall not be carried out otherwise than in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and details, and how they relate to the historic façades.
54.Prior to the commencement of any works for Keats House (except for demolition,
site clearance, site investigations and works to secure, protect and relocate the
retained façade), the following details shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of all fenestration;
b. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of all doors;
c. 1:10 and 1:20 scale details of the parapet to the new elevations; and
d. 1:20 and 1:50 scale details of the servicing yard entrance and associated
gate/barrier.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 205
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
design and details, and how they relate to the historic façades.
Georgian Terrace specific conditions
55.Before any fit out works to the Georgian terrace hereby authorised begins, an
independently verified BREEAM report (detailing performance in each category,
overall score, BREEAM rating and a BREEAM certificate of building performance)
to achieve a 'very good' rating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be carried out
otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given;
Before the first occupation of the Georgian terrace building hereby permitted, a
certified Post Construction Review (or other verification process agreed with the
Local Planning Authority) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, confirming that the agreed standards have been met.
Reason: To ensure the proposal achieves the exemplary sustainability standards
included in the proposed scheme
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 206
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
ANNEXE G: LIST OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 2021 LISTED BUILDING
CONSENT (APPEAL D)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of three years
from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required under Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended.
2. Prior to commencement of any of the following works on site, a Method
Statement(s) and Schedule of Works shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority:
i. Demolition of the modern rear extensions; removal of the second floor,
roof and chimneys of no. 16 St Thomas Street and making openings to
the side façade; removal of the roof and chimneys of no. 14; removal of
the roof slates to nos. 4-12; removing the ground floor door between nos.
8 and 10; removal of the vault front wall;
ii. The underpinning of the terrace for the adjoining basement excavation;
iii. Support, protection and repair of the retained façades, floors and roof;
iv. Cleaning of the brickwork;
v. Repairs to the sash windows, railings and first floor balconettes.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any
such approval given.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed works are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
3. Prior to the commencement of any of the following works, drawings (scale
1:10,1:20) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in
writing to show the elevations, sections, materials and finishes for:
i. All new fenestration (including lintel, arch, cills) and doors.
ii. The new and replacement dormer windows.
iii. Rainwater goods.
iv. Chimney pots.
v. The replacement secondary glazing.
vi. The gates to the ground floor passageway between nos. 8 and 10 St
Thomas Street.
vii. All new staircases (internal and external).
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
4. Prior to the commencement of any external works to the Georgian terrace
(excluding demolition, site clearance and site investigations), the following details
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a. 1sqm sample panel of brickwork, mortar and pointing for the approved
extensions.
b. Samples of the brick, slate and other materials for the external repairs.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 207
and APP/A5840/Y/22/3290490
c. Samples of the material of the gates and passageway surfaces between
nos. 8 and 10 St Thomas Street.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
5. Prior to commencement of works to the Georgian terrace one or more construction
contract(s) for those works (under which one of the parties is obliged to carry out
and complete works to the Georgian terrace for which listed building consent has
been granted) shall be entered into and evidence of the construction contract shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of any external demolition works
to the Georgian terrace evidence of a suitable planning permission being in place
for the external demolition works and redevelopment of the site shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
Reason: To prevent a partial implementation of the works, to ensure the
replacement walls, roof and windows are installed to the listed buildings to protect
their historic fabric and to maintain the character and appearance of the BHSCA.
6. Unless agreed pursuant to a condition on this permission, the approved window
openings to the Georgian terrace building hereby approved shall be clear glass and
shall not be painted, covered or otherwise obscured or obstructed without prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure that the design and details are in the interest of the
special architectural or historic qualities of the listed building.
7. Prior to the commencement of the works, a Listed Building Consent Application
Management Plan setting out the policies and guidance for ongoing maintenance,
repair and minor alterations to the listed buildings on the Site shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Listed Building
Consent Application Management Plan shall be prepared by an accredited
conservation architect (as approved by the Local Planning Authority) and shall
include (but not be limited to):
i. the listed status of the site including the details of the special
architectural and historical interest of the site;
ii. the details of the works to the listed buildings on the site;
iii. key objectives and actions in the refurbishment of the listed buildings on
the site;
iv. fixtures of significance; and
v. policies for maintenance, repair and minor alterations including what work
requires listed building consent or planning permission other than that
already granted.
The works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved
Listed Building Consent Application Management Plan for the duration that the
listed buildings remain occupied.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 208
www.gov.uk/dluhc
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.