FRIDAY 3 APRIL
Objection to the 1 Silk Street applications; 25/00829/FULEIA and 25/00830/LBC
Please log and acknowledge this as an objection to both applications to demolish and develop 1 Silk Street London EC2Y 8AL.
We continue to object to both applications as, despite the changes made by the applicant, the building is still over 60% larger than the existing building. It is not in accordance with the Development Plan and the harms (heritage and other) are not outweighed by public benefits, which, to the residents and walking public, are minimal. The scheme’s height and mass, although redistributed, are still inappropriate for its setting and cause undue damage to heritage. It harms amenity for neighbouring residents and offers no balancing public benefit for either. Material considerations apply and a full assessment of planning balance is necessary, with further consideration to reduce harm to the existing heritage assets and their setting.
Residential amenity is severely damaged by this scheme. Sunlight and daylight will be restricted to an unacceptable level for neighbouring homes, schools and open spaces. By overhanging the street, the proposed facades are far too close to neighbouring bedrooms and living rooms.
The site is in an area that the City has ruled out for tall buildings (defined as 75 metres AOD and above). Its own City Plan 2040 Character Study says that the site is in an area “sensitive to tall buildings” where adding further tall buildings “which fall outside the post-war idiom are likely to have a disruptive quality.”
All the City’s applicable Plans see this site as not suitable for tall buildings.
The City acknowledges that the site is of great heritage significance. It sits between the Barbican (Grade II-listed), its Grade II*Park and Garden, the Brewery’s Grade II* and Grade II buildings, the Barbican and Golden Lane Estate Conservation Area and the Brewery Conservation Area. This immediate heritage and setting has not been given thorough and appropriate consideration in this scheme. The Barbican is a rare treasure that attracts visitors from around the world; it should be enriched, not overshadowed.
By continuing to ignore the immediate context, the revised scheme still does not meet national design code standards. It is not in accordance with London Plan Policies SD4 (Part C), D3, D4 and D9 [design and tall buildings]; the current Local Plan Core Strategic Policy CS5, and Policies CS10, CS12, CS14, DM10.7, DM12.1, DM12.5 and DM21.3 [design, heritage, tall buildings, protecting residential amenity]. The so-called ‘public benefits’ do not stack up to a balance for the many harms of this scheme. The huge carbon footprint is a massive dis-benefit. Retrofit should be the approach here, in line with the NPPF, the London Plan, the Local Plan, the emerging City Plan 2040, and the City’s own Climate Action Strategy 2020-2027.
There is no “clear and convincing justification” (NPPF 213) for the many identifiable harms to all the views and heritage caused by this overbearing scheme, even though the applicant admits it adversely affects listed buildings, conservation areas and daylight levels for neighbouring residents.
Sue Pearson
GLERA Chair, 2024/26
