Barbican Association Proposals for Management of Planning Issues affecting the
Barbican Estate.
1.1 The objective of the following
proposal is to secure a fair balance in the assessment of planning applications
between the needs of business and the needs of residents of the Barbican Estate.
Although prepared with the Barbican Estate in mind, the principles would apply
in any area in which there are significant residential populations, such as the
1.2 The key elements of the proposals
are as follows:
●
Planning matters affecting residential areas within the City should be
handled with particular sensitivity.
●
The existing Policy gives insufficient guidance to Officers of the
Planning Department in assessing planning proposals affecting residential areas.
As a result, it can appear that there is an “institutional bias” favouring
development in Planning Officers’ assessment of planning proposals.
●
The Grade II Listing for the buildings of the Barbican Estate and Grade
II* Listing of its gardens require that planning proposals have due regard to
the effect of development on the setting of the Estate. As noted at para. 4.21
of the Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines:
‘The spaces between buildings were
as important to the design as the buildings themselves. The use of brick to
surface the walkways, flower beds and minor structures ensures that the minimal
palette of materials used at the Barbican is further emphasised. Other important
planned features of the landscaping include the lakes and gardens - designed to
give aspect to every flat on the Estate.’
● The Highwalk access into
the Barbican Estate at Podium level is an integral element of the design of the
Estate. Proposals involving further removal of Highwalk-level access onto the
Barbican Estate are incompatible with the Listing and must not be permitted. As
noted at para. 5.5 of the Barbican Listed Building Management Guidelines:
‘It [the Barbican]
also combined the key planning themes of highwalks and megastructure, both
favoured planning solutions of their time.’
See also the booklet ‘Barbican Estate A Listed Building Guide for
Residents’ which states in the section headed “The Vision”:
“Chamberlin, Powell and Bon rejected traditional planning ideas and
sought to create an urban centre with high density housing and a clear
definition of planned spaces: private, public, transport, pedestrian, retail and
community facilities. The elevated walkway system, designed to separate
pedestrians from vehicles, was an important part of the planned rebuilding of
the City in the post-war era.”
Why Present these Proposals Now?
1.3
Over the last 18 months planning issues in and around the Barbican Estate
have been very much to the fore. The proposals have included:
the car
park issues associated with
the
proposed St Alphage redevelopment;
the
Lauderdale car park redevelopment;
the
Commenting
on the proposals for a new Local Development Framework (“LDF”).
1.4 All of the above are continuing
issues of relevance to residents, either because planning permission has yet to
be applied for, or because (where permission has been granted), demolition
and/or reconstruction has yet to take place. The consultation regarding the LDF
will continue into 2008.
1.5 One very obvious point that has
arisen in dealing with all this development activity is the absence from the
formal planning requirements of adequate guidance to address the consequences of
development affecting the predominantly residential Barbican Estate. This
problematic and potentially dangerous lacuna needs to be filled by appropriate
guidance for future development in and around the Barbican Estate.
Assessing Development around the Periphery of the Barbican Estate
1.6 It is through an accident of
history that the Barbican Estate (one of the largest residential estates in the
country comprising over 2,000 homes) is located on the edge of what is now
acknowledged to be the world’s financial centre. The grand vision underpinning
the Barbican’s development now finds many more admirers than detractors. Formal
recognition of the architects’ and the City’s achievement is now accorded
through the Grade II listing of the buildings and Grade II* listing of the
gardens. The City has been rightly proud of what it helped to create, but now
seems to be pursuing policies that threaten this architectural heritage.
1.7 Now that the Barbican Estate is
home to several thousand people, it is reasonable to expect that fact to have
due bearing on how development in the immediate vicinity is pursued. Residents
in the main rightly accept that since they live in the midst of a global
financial centre, development that might be totally unacceptable in the context
of a suburban location cannot be dismissed out of hand in the City of London.
Conversely, however, the mere presence of large buildings in the vicinity ought
not support any expectation that it is either right or inevitable that in future
there will be yet more similarly large, or even larger buildings.
1.8 This observation naturally leads
to a discussion of “balance” and “reasonableness”. These worthy and commendable
concepts require explanation if they are to have meaning in the planning
context. That follows not least because developers and residents are likely to
have very different ideas concerning what, as a practical matter, is balanced
and reasonable. It is suggested that the most effective manner of addressing
“balance” and “reasonableness” is to have regard to the impact that a proposed
development will have on those living close by. If a development is proposed
that will have detrimental effects upon a residential area following completion
of construction, the developer will need to address:
A. why the
development could not have been pursued in some alternative location;
B. the
improvements to flow from the development, firstly to the residential community,
secondly to the business community and thirdly to the City;
C. what
measures are proposed to mitigate (and to remove where possible) the detrimental
effects to local residents;
D. what
compensatory arrangements are proposed, including payments to local residents
and, in the most severe cases, purchasing homes affected, in the event that
permission for the development is granted.
1.9 Defining a “residential area”
should be capable of resolution through discussion with the City Planning
Department. In advance of such discussion, what can confidently be stated is
that the Wards of Aldersgate and Cripplegate, at least, are predominantly
residential in character. These Wards contain the Barbican Estate and the Golden
Lane Estate. Approaching two-thirds of the City’s residential electors are to be
found in the Wards of Aldersgate and Cripplegate. The other significant
concentration of residences is at the
1.10 Defining “detrimental effects” in an exhaustive
manner is difficult to do. It would be unwise to proceed as if these are somehow
fixed categories. Examples of detrimental effects include:
●
Overall bulk and mass causing overshadowing, overlooking and loss of
sightlines;
●
Overall bulk and mass causing loss of light, including sunlight to flats
and common areas including gardens;
● Overall bulk
and mass causing a loss of public amenity space;
●
Overall bulk and mass causing excessive movements of people and vehicles,
creating excessive noise or other nuisance;
●
Loss of connection to the city. The Barbican Estate is intended to be
accessed via Highwalks, not the street level.
1.11 It is important to note that there is no objection
to development as such; indeed, development on the periphery of the Barbican
Estate (as opposed to within its curtilage) is to be welcomed, so long as it is
appropriate. As the references to overall bulk and mass indicate, more very
large or very tall buildings are certainly not appropriate around the periphery
of the Barbican Estate.
1.12 What amounts to “appropriate” development around
the periphery of the Estate? Quite simply, new buildings which in overall scale
are equivalent to the buildings they replace. Development based on such an
approach is unlikely to cause the problems associated with overdevelopment
outlined above.
1.13 In cases of proposed development involving
detrimental effects, the expectation should be that permission for the
development is refused. The onus would be upon the developer to demonstrate why
permission for the development ought nevertheless to be granted, notwithstanding
the detrimental effects involved. In such a case, the developer should address
in particular the factors at 1.8 above.
Assessing Development within the Curtilage of the Barbican Estate
1.14 In relation to development within the curtilage of
the Barbican Estate, it is suggested that the following principles apply:
“Development enlarging the built environment within the Barbican Estate, or the
uses to which existing space is put, is not to be encouraged. If such proposals
are put forward, a clear justification and rationale must be presented that is
consistent with the context of the Estate as a collection of largely coherent
residential
Difficulties with
the existing Policy/Process
1.15 The proposals make
explicit what should be implicit in any balanced approach to development in and
around predominantly residential areas. Members of the City’s Planning and
Transportation Committee are clearly alive to the dangers of overdevelopment in
“sensitive” areas, as demonstrated by the referral back of the initial
application for the redevelopment of the
1.16 By way of example,
the Officer’s report on the initial proposal for
“179. The commercial blocks in the City,
including City Point and those in London Wall,
180. In views across the Estate the proposed
tower would appear as a dominant element alongside other existing tall buildings
and towers, in particular City Point and the commercial blocks in
181. It is therefore considered that the
proposed tower would not affect the setting of the listed estate as it will be
seen in the context of other tall buildings.”
1.17 If this “analysis”
is followed, any building no matter how large or how tall may be built abutting
the Barbican Estate since any such building “will be seen in the context of
other tall buildings”. The rationale deployed in an attempt to dismiss the
objection that the development would have an adverse effect on the setting of
the Barbican Estate is self-defeating. It is the
equivalent of saying “this building will not affect the setting of
the listed Estate because other tall buildings already do so.” Such a
rationale is nonsense.
1.18 The tortured
intellectual process continued as follows in relation to the objection that the
proposal would contribute to an unacceptable walling-in of the Barbican Estate
(sometimes called “canyonisation”):
“182. In views along the edge of the Estate,
such as from level 7 of the west end of Speed House and from Gilbert House, the
proposed tower would be a very dominant element with its verticality contrasting
and merging with the slab-like form of City Point.
183. A number of consultees have commented that
the proposal would ‘wall in’ the Barbican Estate to an unacceptable degree. The
design of the Estate is characterized partly by the way in which it backs onto
the surrounding streets as a fortified and elevated structure, linked to the
surrounding area at a limited number of points. The lower parts of many of the
street frontages, including
1.19 Translated, this
amounts to saying 1) that the Barbican has walled itself in, 2) the flats look
inwards into the gardens and 3) the relationship with surrounding buildings has
changed, so change is intrinsically acceptable. The first point is not relevant,
as the material consideration is not the Barbican’s design but the effect of
development on the Estate. The second point is incorrect, since many flats on
the south of the Estate look outwards from their living rooms, while all flats
above podium level also look outward to the surrounding streets from some
windows. There is almost an insinuation that the Estate has a windowless outward
face, as if residents would not notice being walled in. The third point repeats
the flaw in paragraph 181 of the report, and is the equivalent of saying “this
building will not affect the setting of the listed Estate because other tall
buildings already do so.”
1.20 While one may always
hope that Members will strike a fair balance, the above example clearly
demonstrates that Officers need more explicit guidance in addressing planning
issues in “sensitive” areas such as the periphery of large residential estates.
1.21 There are further
issues relating to Officers’ involvement. Firstly, the risk that certain “bread
and butter” issues of concern to residents in connection with proposed
development affecting the Estate will be classified by Officers as planning
issues that are inappropriate for discussion by the BRC, but are in turn
dismissed by the Planning and Transportation Committee as “landlord and tenant”
matters for the BRC to address. Secondly, a concern that Officers may seek to
discourage development by expressing opinions regarding “appropriate” use even
though proposals thus discouraged may make perfect commercial sense and may also
be supported by residents of the Barbican Estate.
1.22 The observations
made in the above paragraph ought to concern anyone wishing to ensure that local
democracy works in an effective manner.