Memorandum submitted by Mira Bar-Hillel
My name is Mira Bar-Hillel and I have been the
planning and property correspondent of the London Evening Standard
since 1982. I would like to make some points relevant to your
inquiry, specifically: is English Heritage doing its job, and
if it isn't—what is it there for?
In July 2000 the Baltic Exchange organisation
was considering suing English Heritage for breach of its statutory
duty over the bomb-damaged shipping brokerage's building at St
Mary Axe. The chairman, many of his members (and myself) were
outraged when, in March 1999, English Heritage supported a planning
application to demolish the Grade II* former Baltic Exchange Hall.
The building had been severely damaged by the IRA bombing of 1992,
but there was a consensus of expert opinion that it was capable
of economic restoration, which its listing status should have
more than ensured.
In spite of this, however, and in spite of its
earlier repeated insistence on such a restoration (which actually
forced the Baltic Exchange to sell its historic home to a property
developer), English Heritage simply changed its mind. It advised
the City that the proposed replacement building, a 40-storey
tower by architect Lord Foster (now generally known as the Gherkin),
was "of such remarkable quality" as to "outweigh
the limited adverse impact" of the loss of a Grade II* building.
This decision, which was totally at odds with PPG15 not to mention
the role of English Heritage, marked the beginning of the process
of English Heritage losing its way.
The National Heritage Act of 1983, which set
up English Heritage, is unequivocal on what it is for. It states
that its role is to "secure the preservation of historic
buildings" and "promote the preservation and enhancement
of the character and appearance of conservation areas." It
contains no reference to EH promoting new architecture: : that
was formerly the role of the RFAC and is now the role of CABE.
However, the English Heritage Commission, under
the forceful chairmanship of Sir Jocelyn Stevens, decided that
the "exceptional architectural interest" of the proposed
Gherkin should prevail over the listed building, although in the
words of the minutes of the meeting, "evidence had not yet
been presented to justify this demolition". This decision
was not only in breach of the National Heritage Act. It also flew
in the face of the clear requirements of government circular PPG15
concerning the demolition of any listed building, not to mention
Grade II*, which, it says, should be "wholly exceptional"
and require "the strongest justification".
Sir Jocelyn's Chairman's statement, published
in English Heritage's annual report for 2000, sheds some light
on the extraordinary decision. "I asked Richard Rogers and
Norman Foster why they were not working in England. They replied
that it was largely because of the planning procedures and English
Heritage. Now Lords Foster and Rogers have approximately 20 schemes
in London. English Heritage deserves some of the credit for this;
IT HAS HELPED THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THE CLAMPS OFF".
Ever since then, it has been my impression that
English Heritage still believes it is its role to "take the
clamps off" to ease the progress of new schemes by influential
architects. Its Baltic Exchange decision has also made it impossible
for EH to make and sustain a principled stand in defence of the
historic built environment.
When it forced a public inquiry into the Heron
Tower at Bishopsgate in 2002, its objections were effectively
dismissed by the planning inspector who pointed out that, given
its support for the Gherkin, opposition to Heron was "inconsistent".
It then lost the inquiry over the "Shard of Glass" at
London Bridge in late 2003, when the inspector cited the quality
of the Renzo Piano design as the overriding consideration. As
EH had used this very argument in support of its shameful decision
to allowing the loss of the Baltic Exchange in favour of the Gherkin,
it could not win.
It is now hard to see English Heritage ever
again risking an expensive public inquiry in a effort to save
an important historic building. When the 70-storey Minerva Tower
was approved by the City planners in January 2004, English Heritage
made hardly any objection. A cluster of oddly-shaped tall buildings
are now being proposed in the heart of the City which would impact
severely on cherished views of St Paul's and the Tower of London
(a World Heritage site) but, although they are in breach of the
little-known "Guidance on Tall Buildings" document,
allegedly agreed between EH and CABE in March 2003, it is unlikely
that EH will dare stand in their way.
The bottom line is that EH has lost its way,
its nerve and its purpose. If your Committee values the built
heritage, it should consider that the guardian of that heritage
can no longer protect it properly—and it should consider
what should be done about this potential crisis.
30 November 2005
| 
