LAC overturns officers recommendations
Following this volte face, EH opposed the 1996 Millennium Tower scheme (an earlier Foster's tower that would have been the tallest building in Europe) because of its impact on the skyline, views of St Paul's, the Tower of London, and surrounding listed buildings and conservation areas. The scheme was withdrawn, and later replaced with the Gherkin proposal, which the LAC considered on 26 February 1999, before an application had been submitted. The officers report to the committee recommended refusal, saying that the Corporation should be informed that EH:
"considers that the proposed building is unduly dominant and assertive by reason of its height, form, bulk, massing and relationship to nearby high buildings and would be damaging to:
"the general skyline of the City of London, especially as perceived from the River Thames, the south bank of the river and Tower Bridge;
"the setting of St Paul's Cathedral, the dominance of whose dome would be challenged in long views, for instance seen from Waterloo Bridge;
"the setting of nearby listed buildings, including Holland House (Grade II*), . . . the church of St Andrew Undershaft (grade I) and, in particular, the church of St Helen's Bishopsgate (grade I);
"the character, appearance and setting of the nearby St Helen's Place Conservation Area, the setting of the Tower of London, which is a Royal Palace, a listed building (grade I), a scheduled Ancient Monument, and which comprised part of a World Heritage Site; and
"b) would, in the event of receiving an application for listed building consent for demolition related to the present scheme for replacement development, be prepared to direct the Corporation of London to refuse consent, given the absence of a sound and convincing justification and an appropriate scheme for the replacement development; and
"c) wishes to encourage exploration once again, within the criteria of PPG15, a scheme for a wholly new development on the site, but of significantly reduced bulk and height to that previously approved."
This was followed by a detailed examination of the history of high buildings in London and EH policy towards them. The committee was reminded that EH's input to the 1998 LPAC draft strategic planning advice on high buildings in London recommended policies to resist development of buildings that are significantly higher than their immediate surroundings (defined as falling within an area within a 50m radius of the proposed new development) and that exceptions should only be allowed in specific zones along the east Thames corridor, "well to the east of the City", and possibly Croydon and in exceptional cases where it could be demonstrated that the development would not have an adverse impact on the setting of World Heritage Sites, conservation areas, listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, the landscape of the Thames and strategic views.
The officers concluded that the new "development would not only be unduly assertive architecturally, but would fail to relate satisfactorily to its immediate and broader context, and would have a disastrous effect on near, medium and distant views . . .
"It is quite clear that a headquarters building providing the requisite level of office floorspace, but a significantly lower profile, could be provided on the site without undue difficulty." They also noted that if EH was firmly against the Gherkin, "it would appear that the prospective applicants might consider adapting a substantially different strategy if significant concerns are raised at this preliminary stage".
After what was described as "considerable debate" and a number of recorded dissentions, the LAC overturned this recommendation, concluding that the "proposed building to be of such exceptional architectural interest that it would be a justifiable replacement for the Baltic Exchange".
It is worth noting that this decision overturned earlier EH policy on the "bulk" of the replacement building on the site (as the officers reminded Committee) and PPG15 explicitly states that "the subjective claims for the architectural merits of proposed replacement buildings should not in themselves be held to justify the demolition of any listed building". Not only did the LAC overturn the unequivocal recommendation of experienced officers, but as those officers made clear, they were doing so in the knowledge that the applicants had indicated that if EH opposed the Gherkin at that early stage they would consider a radically different - presumably much lower - solution.
On March 22nd following, Philip Davies, head of London Region at EH wrote to Ken Shuttleworth at Foster & Partners with the good news. Despite what the officers had said to the LAC the month before the Gherkin was now described as contributing "positively" to the London skyline. Concluding, and clearly conscious of the sensitivity of the issue, Davies wrote that, "This is a case where it is essential that any publicity is properly managed. Once you have a clear idea when you wish to go public, would you please ensure that we are briefed fully in advance so that our Public Affairs staff can liaise with you beforehand on any press comments. It is vital that our views are properly represented in a balanced and considered way."
The impact of the 40 storey Gherkin on surrounding historic buildings, areas and views has been gradually downplayed by EH. In the report to the LAC of February 1999 the Gherkin was described as having "a disastrous effect on near, medium and distant views". However, when Philip Davies wrote his formal comments to the City on the application on 3rd November 1999, he said only that EH had considered the potential impact on surrounding historic areas, buildings and views, without going on to say what the organisation's conclusions on this crucial subject were, only that on balance "the proposed building is of such exceptional interest that it would be a justifiable replacement for the listed Baltic Exchange".
By the time EH Commissioners considered the application again (and finally) on 13 June 2000 the advise to the City and Government Office for London was that the "remarkable quality" of the Gherkin outweighed "the limited adverse impact of the proposal on the setting of a number of surrounding buildings and areas". This was despite the fact that since February 1999 the design had actually grown taller!