UPDATE: RESPONSE TO REVISED PROPOSALS TOWN HALL MEETING: Wednesday 11 March @ 7 pm | St Giles
28 FEBRUARY 2026
Dear Neighbours and Friends,
If you submitted an objection to the scheme proposed for 1 Silk Street you may have by now received notification that revisions to the scheme have now been submitted. You may also have received highly misleading communications from the developer, Lipton Rogers, investors La Salle, or their publicity consultants, Kanda, or read stories in the press, implying that significant concessions have been made in the light of objections.
It is the strong view of Barbican Quarter Action’s Silk Street campaign that:
The amendments submitted are marginal
The scheme remains a hugely missed opportunity for the City of London
Just three floors have been removed from one of the twin towers – but this remains the equivalent of five floors higher than the existing building, due to the increased floor to ceiling height
The space ‘lost’ has been largely recovered by beefed-up volume elsewhere, including an extra floor next to the Jugged Hare and more bulking along the Silk Street side
While taking off some height opposite Cromwell Tower and removing a few balconies may lessen the impact for a few flats there, significant harms remain for Speed House, affecting hundreds of rooms
Concrete and dark green fins add a crushing visual weight too
The proposed scheme continues to loom large over the Eastern part of the Estate, impacting Willoughby, Andrewes and Gilbert Houses, as well as the backdrop to the Lakeside Terrace and Arts Centre Conservatory and entrance
For the vast majority of homes, and in terms of the negative impact on the listed Barbican complex and surrounding heritage and conservation areas, the revisions are token gestures that bring no relief: the building keeps leaping forwards and shooting upwards.
BQA is re-engaging its specialist consultants to assess the revised scheme, and we will write with further details of key points for renewed objections. A large number of additional documents have been added to the original application however we will attempt to guide you through the relevant items at our next meeting to be held on Wednesday 11 March, 7pm, St Giles Cripplegate and in a follow-up note.
But the consultation around the new proposals is live NOW and the first deadline runs only to March 26. If you continue to share the deep concerns that we do, then please take time to write again saying that your objections still stand. There is no limit to the number of objections that you can lodge. You can object HERE(but please note that the City’s Planning Portal is at times not operative and particularly at weekends) or write to 1SilkStreet@cityoflondon.gov.ukreferencing 25/00829/FULEIA and 25/00830/LBC
WE NEED YOUR HELP
We need volunteers for each block to help with doorknocking to raise awareness of the meeting, the impact of the scheme and the issues
Please write to us at silkstreetcampaign@gmail.com and we will forward your details to the organisers (all fellow Barbican neighbours)
YOUR VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD AND NOT BEEN ADDRESSED
While the developer claims to have carefully listened to feedback received, there is little evidence of this. The revised proposals are just as “joyless, lumpen and looming” as the Observer described the original as being, “… only a radically different scheme, less aggressive and more generous (…) would be worthy of the location. If One Silk Street is the harbinger of the bigger, better future promised by the City’s planners, it needs to be a genuinely outstanding work of architecture.”
And it’s not just residents objecting; criticism has been expressed at the highest level.
“This speculative office building is too big and of average quality. The Barbican and the City deserve a building of real quality here …” wrote Stirling Prize-winning architect Amanda Levete. Historian and critic Kenneth Frampton concurred: “This kind of gratuitous “jukebox” aesthetic does little in terms of mediating the size, let alone of improving the overall architectural quality.”
For the conservation areas, the listed buildings of the Brewery and Barbican, this lazy response to our objections is hugely disappointing. These lopsided amendments remain out of context, out of scale and grain. Oblivious of their world-famous celebrated neighbour, they continue to oppress, to diminish. No, the developer has not listened. Consultation fell on deaf ears, as these revisions demonstrate. A few pizza boxes may have been taken away from the pile, but their contents have been tipped further down the street.
Other local schemes have shown that profitability and respectful, proud and civic architecture can go hand in hand. Look at southern edge of the Barbican Estate: Schroders’ London Wall Place by MAKE or 88 Wood Street by Richard Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners.
It is our deep hope that planners and decision makers will know that with mediocre buildings the City of London will not retain its competitive edge and therefore send the design team back to the drawing board.
THE BARBICAN – AND LONDON – DESERVES BETTER THAN THIS
