1. The Applicant ("SAVE") is a conservation group founded in 1975 with the intention of creating a wider public awareness of the many threats to the nation’s architectural heritage. It has devised schemes for the rescue and reuse of many important historic buildings as well as undertaking such work itself. It also publishes reports on the rescue and reuse of buildings.

2. Background. The Baltic Exchange at 24-28 St Mary Axe and 22-25 Bury Street, London EC3 is a building that is included on the First Respondent’s List of buildings of special architectural or historic interest with a Grade II* classification; it was built between 1901-3 and was designed by T H Smith and W Wimble. It was formerly part of group of buildings known as 1-6 Bury Court, 19-28 Bury Street and 14-34 (even) St Mary Axe EC3; these other buildings have been demolished and the principle of their redevelopment has long been accepted and is not in dispute. The Baltic Exchange was the last surviving exchange floor in the City when it was severely damaged by an IRA bomb in April 1992.

3. Prior to March 1996 proposals for the Baltic Exchange building had focused on its restoration and integration within a proposed development of the remainder of the block which surrounded it. The Corporation of London and English Heritage were concerned that the building be restored ‘at the earliest possible time’. Planning and listed building consents were granted for this purpose in December 1995. Prior to this permission, it had been recognised by the owners of the Exchange Building that its restoration would be expensive and that the involvement of a large development company was essential. In December 1994 the site was sold to Trafalgar House Properties Ltd.

4. In March 1996 the London Advisory Committee of English Heritage decided to accept the loss of the Baltic Exchange building and to support its replacement by a landmark tower building designed by a world-renowned architect (Lord Foster). This decision was confirmed by the English Heritage Commissioners. From March 1996 onwards there has been no attempt to progress any proposals for the sale and/or reinstatement of the listed building nor for its incorporation within other enabling development such as that permitted in December 1995.

5. In September 1996 plans for the London Millennium Tower were unveiled; applications for listed building consent for the demolition of the Exchange Building and for the erection of the Tower were made on 22^nd October 1996. These applications were withdrawn on 10^th February 1998; they have been replaced by the proposals that are the subject of this challenge.

6. The present proposal is for a 180m circular tapering tower of 41 floors that will be the third tallest building in London after Canary Wharf and Tower 42. It would provide 76,641 sq m of offices and 1052 sq m of retail space (at ground floor level). It is proposed that the building will be occupied by Swiss Re one of the largest, if not the largest, reinsurers in the world.

7. The First Respondent’s Policy on Listed Buildings. The Policy is set out in PPG 15 (September 1994). The crucial relevant paragraphs are 3.5-6 and 3.15-19 (to which reference will be made in full at the hearing). In paragraph 3.6 it is stated that

It is the case as mentioned above that the Baltic Exchange is Grade II* and it is close to (i.e. shares a setting with) four Grade I churches (St Helens Bishopsgate, St Andrew Undershaft, St Katherine Cree and St Botolph Aldgate) and the World Heritage Site of the Tower of London.

8. The policy contained in PPG15 is heavily weighted to the reinstatement and re-use of the listed building and is only in favour of sanctioning demolition as a last resort after all other avenues have been fully explored. Perhaps the approach is best summed up in the advice given in paragraph 3.17.

It is accepted that the First Respondent normally expects decisions on planning and listed building applications to be made by the local planning authority, to whom Parliament has entrusted the primary power in the relevant legislation. However the Secretary of State has reserve powers (s.77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) and has set out on a number of occasions how that reserve power will be exercised. In PPG 15 paras.3.20-21 the policy that is specific to listed building consent is set out. It is stated that:

On 16^th June 1999 in a written answer, the Minister (Mr Richard Caborn) set out the policy in respect of planning applications. The relevant part is as follows:

11. The Council’s Decision. It is clear from the 108 page Report on the planning and listed building consent applications that were made to the Planning and Transportation Committee of the City of London, that these proposals raised significant architectural and urban design issues and that they could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality. Indeed it would be impossible to contend that a building that was 180m high and was the third highest building in London could not qualify on both counts. The lack of marketing (e.g. Officer’s report para 9.15 quoting English Heritage " the consented scheme has only been marketed for a few months") and the lack of attempt to save the listed building and/or incorporate it in a new development (e.g. Officer’s Report para 9.30 "rebuilding could be achieved if there were a will and the funding ...") were also matters that were directly contrary to the First Respondent’s policy in PPG 15 and which appear from the report. The proposals were also opposed by the Victorian Society, the City Heritage Society, the Georgian Group, the SPAB, the Dean and Chapter of St Pauls and the City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

12. Accordingly, on the face of the Officer’s Report (which document was the primary source of information both for the City Council and for the First Respondent) the applications fell fairly and squarely within the latter’s criteria for call-in.

13. The First Respondent’s Decision - Background. Prior to the events set out in the previous two paragraphs, on 22^nd February 2000 the First Respondent, in exercise of his powers under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 directed the City of London as planning authority not to grant consent to the present applications without his specific authorisation. The direction was issued to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether he should make a screening direction under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and whether he should direct the applications be referred to him for his determination under the provisions mentioned above. The effect of this Direction was to prevent the planning authority from determining the relevant applications before the Respondent had decided whether or not an Environmental Impact Assessment was required and whether or not to call-in the same for his own determination.

14. On 29^th March 2000 the First Respondent wrote to the City Planning Officer stating that he was minded to make a screening direction requiring an environmental impact assessment. At paragraph 6 of his letter it was stated:

(a) The proposed building will be 180m in height and the proposed development would provide a gross floorspace of 76,600 sq.m…the proposed development is on a significantly greater scale than the previous one.

(b) The proposed development requires the demolition of a Grade II* listed Baltic Exchange building.

(c ) The Tower of London World Heritage Site ("the World Heritage Site"), other listed buildings and conservation areas are near to the site. The listed buildings are 38-40 St Mary Axe, 1-4 and 32 Bury Street (Holland House), St Helen’s Church, St Andrew Undershaft, St Botolph’s Hounsditch and the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in Bevis Marks. The conservation areas are St Helen’s, Bank and Tower Conservation Areas ... The Secretary of State considers that the proposed development may also affect the World Heritage Site and the settings of the listed buildings...and the character and appearance of the conservation areas identified above.

(d) The Secretary of State considers the proposed development is also likely to have an impact over an extensive area, on the City skyline, on views of the City generally and on St Paul’s Cathedral in particular. The area affected in this way would be both inside and outside the City Corporation’s boundary.

(e) The impacts identified above will be of long term duration and they will therefore be of limited reversibility ...

15. Representations were made to the First Respondent asking him to call in the application for his own determination by a number of persons including the Baltic Exchange (through its solicitors S J Berwin) and SAVE.

16. On 20 July 2000 the City Council as planning authority, resolved to approve the applications and referred the same to the First Respondent under the direction referred to above.

17. The Decision it is sought to challenge. On 23^rd August 2000 one Joyce Bridges wrote on behalf of the First Respondent to Mr J Buckley the Chief Executive of the Baltic Exchange with his decision not to call in the applications; the letter continued:

In reaching his decision, Mr Prescott took account of…the advice of English Heritage, his statutory advisors on heritage matters. English Heritage had looked closely at all the possible options and decided that the old Baltic Exchange could not be properly preserved, and that it could, in the unique circumstances of this case, be replaced by a new high quality building.

18. On 30^th and 31^st August 2000 SAVE wrote to the First Respondent requesting him to give reasons for his decision. On 4^th September 2000 the Respondent replied stating that the decision was taken "after careful consideration of all the relevant information" but declined to give any reasons.

19. This conclusion is in stark contrast to the opinion expressed on behalf of the First Respondent to the City of London in the letter dated 29^th March 2000 referred to above.

20. The First Respondent is not obliged to give reasons for his decision. However, the First Respondent does have a public law obligation to reach any particular decision in accordance with his published policy and to act with consistency.