There’s a depressing trend emerging in London. Early signs are that Labour’s policy of 1.5 million new houses is going to lead to a free-for-all for developers where the promise of more housing is used a decoy for bad projects. Brace yourselves for a rash of poorly designed and detrimental developments.
Last week, Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government, approved the demolition of Marks and Spencer’s Oxford Street outlet – a decision that has faced widespread criticism from civic groups.
Rayner overturned her predecessor Michael Gove’s decision, who had blocked the proposal in July 2023. Gove’s earlier intervention had followed a three-week public inquiry into the scheme, which he had called in after London Mayor Sadiq Khan stated in April 2022 that there were no grounds for him to halt the project.
As a consequence, an attractive 1930’s ‘neo-grec’ building will be taken down to make way for a something nondescript and soulless, and a part of Oxford Street’s historic character will be lost forever.
The story of how the scheme finally came to be approved is somewhat convoluted, and the details are well described here, but the short of it is that with this development, M&S followed a similar pattern:
- Propose something ugly / inappropriate in order to make as much money legally possible regardless of public opinion.
- Incite widespread opposition and a public backlash.
- Run a ‘consultation’ where you pretend to listen to people’s concerns but press ahead anyway and reject all alternative approaches.
- Eventually get a final planning decision made after multiple rounds of appeals and referrals to different planning bodies.
- Losing side launches legal challenge.
- Project eventually goes ahead or gets shelved. £millions wasted.
The amount of time, money and heartache expended by this process is draining for everyone involved. And it’s not as if alternative approaches aren’t available. In the M&S case, CreateStreets put together a design that expanded and upgraded the existing building without knocking it down. This plan would have gained mass approval; M&S could have got work underway quickly and easily with millions saved on legal fees. Even if they were hell-bent on demolition, they could have gained far more support for a more attractive design. It’s strange this didn’t occur to them.
In the eye of the beholder?
According to the housing secretary Angela Rayner, when it comes to buildings, beauty is ‘subjective’, meaningless and ‘means nothing really’. The fact that nearly 80% of people prefer something — and are repeatedly shown to do so — is somehow irrelevant to Rayner. In our impoverished times it’s unfashionable to care about the quality of our surroundings when the only thing that matters is the quantity of new units.
A parallel drama is being played out with Network Rail’s persistent attempts to ruin Liverpool Street station in the name of profit. They are currently on step 3 of 6, with the public backlash well underway. A broad coalition fronted by Gryff Rhys-Jones is raising money for the inevitable legal challenge that will follow if they get through planning, which in today’s climate is an increasing possibility.
The glass skyscrapers replace the station’s existing neo-Victorian entrances, and overwhelm the listed Great Eastern Hotel (front). View details on the proposal here.
What makes the Liverpool Street case even more egregious is that Network Rail is a public body that has a duty to steward public assets — i.e. our railways and stations. An alternative approach would still allow for significant new development and revenue raising — and in the process could enhance the site and the surrounding area. We’ll find out early next year whether Network Rail will listen, or whether it will be another case of ‘spreadsheet says no’.
The only way is up
Closer to home, there is a similar battle ongoing over the Glassmill site next to Battersea Bridge. This 34+ storey scheme brazenly flouts planning regulations, appeared to involve hundreds of ‘phoney’ letters of support on the planning portal, and seeks to permanently change the character of the Battersea Bridge area for the advantage of one company’s bottom line. A decision is expected in early 2025.
Under normal circumstances this would be rejected out of hand, but the carrot of fifty affordable homes has been dangled by the developer. The danger is that if Wandsworth Council says no this will be passed to the Mayor’s office, who might say yes.
That was the outcome in the Springfield Village development, where 449 additional homes are now to be squeezed onto a site where permission was only given for 839. The council said no, citing overdevelopment concerns, but the deputy mayor’s spreadsheet had the final say, rendering local decision making irrelevant.
What next?
The next four and a half years promise to be increasingly rancorous, with developers realising they can push the boundaries further than anyone previously thought possible. Civic societies are doing their best to raise awareness, and you can stay up to date with local groups and campaigns on Locus. If this is something you care about, it’s more important than ever to speak out and demand better. Planning should be more than just a numbers game.
A current application by the Earl’s Court Development company for 4,000 new homes crammed into a single site, with multiple towers of 40 storeys+, twice as dense as recommended by the London plan.
Links
- You can register on Locus to stay up to date with local planning issues and local societies.
- This article is also available on Medium.
