The former London base of a Magic Circle law firm opposite the Barbican Centre is to be demolished with a new 20-storey block to take its place.
The approved One Silk Street scheme will also see changes made to the public realm, with a new square and retail and cultural spaces among the plans.
The application, proposed by Lipton Rogers Developments and LaSalle Investment Management, had received more than 1,000 objections during consultation.
Concerns included the height of the new blocks and the impacts on the nearby Grade II-listed Barbican Estate, even after the scale was reduced following an outcry earlier this year.
At a City of London Corporation Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting on Thursday members voted to green-light the proposal.
The decision drew sharp criticism from residents in attendance, with one describing the outcome as “not defendable”.
Formerly home to high-end law firm Linklaters, One Silk Street had been earmarked as in-need of redevelopment to ensure its attractiveness to future tenants.
The original proposal for the 1980s block would have seen the existing structure knocked down and replaced with a new building composed of two towers.
Each standing at 20 storeys, they would have been constructed by the entrance to the Barbican Centre and just off the renowned Brutalist estate.
Other upgrades were also proposed, including a new public space and amenities such as restaurants.
The backlash however meant the designs were watered down with one of the blocks reduced to 16 storeys plus ground, still three taller than the current building.
The realignment of the western end of the site will create 2,282 square metres of “enhanced public space”, with a new plaza to be introduced at the Barbican Centre’s entrance and a pedestrian route linking Moorgate and Liverpool Street with the estate.
The amount of office space was also cut, though it will still see an increase of around 43 per cent based on the existing structure.
Objections, which constitute the vast majority of the 1,850 responses received, began flooding in soon after the application went live.
Barbican residents have expressed their displeasure over the proposal, with a spokesperson for the Barbican Quarter Action (BQA) group previously telling the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) the amendments were ‘lopsided’ and “remain out of context, out of scale and grain”.
In a 571-page report Corporation officers recommended the scheme be approved, claiming there would be a “less than substantial” harm to heritage assets with benefits including the additional office floorspace.
Before moving to the relevant item at today’s committee meeting Deputy Marianne Fredericks noted concerns with some of the data included in the officers’ report, and proposed a motion that a decision be deferred to review the information provided.
The proposal was seconded by Alderwoman Liz King though was refused when put to a vote.
Robin Pembrooke, Co-ordinator at the BQA, described the application as “unnecessarily harmful”.
“The balance of harms outweighs the benefits,” he said. “It’s a design that has been widely condemned by leading professionals. There is irreparable damage to many residents’ lives in the Barbican and the Heron, and there’re so many flaws in the data, so many flaws in the images and the process that’s been followed here.”
Mr Pembrooke said the benefits of the proposed scheme could be delivered with a smaller building, warning that if constructed as planned it would be an “unruly neighbour”.
The “severe” impact on the daylight and sunlight for residents living in nearby blocks was also raised, with Mr Pembrooke noting the proposal fails to meet industry guidelines.
His Hon Judge Philip Katz KC, who spoke against the application, claimed he had been told by Policy Chairman Deputy Chris Hayward at an earlier stage in proceedings that he hoped the scheme would not be built due to concerns over massing.
Planning Chair Deputy Tom Sleigh clarified that while referencing the alleged comment is Mr Katz’s prerogative it is not relevant to the decision, adding Deputy Hayward does not sit on the committee.
Mr Katz attempted to respond though was denied by Deputy Sleigh, leading to the judge complaining about being “[shut] out”, drawing an extended applause from the public gallery.
A Corporation spokesperson said following the meeting that claims Deputy Hayward had said he wished the scheme would not be built “are simply wrong”, adding he “supports the revised proposal”.
Gary Moore, Fund Manager at LaSalle Investments, assured members the firm were not intending to be “short-term owners” of the site and praised the proposed public realm upgrades, which he said would deliver “a new front door for the Barbican”.
The application was also endorsed by Sir Stuart Lipton, Founding Partner and Chairman at Lipton Rogers, and Professor Jonathan Vaughan of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, which is the preferred cultural operator for the site.
Mr Vaughan said opportunities for additional space in the City are rare, and that the proposal would enable the school to showcase teaching and performances and “provide competitive-edge, 21st century performing arts training in an ever-demanding marketplace”.
Cripplegate ward councillor Jacqueline Webster, who owns a flat in the Barbican, said residents had shown a willingness to work with the applicants to develop the plans.
“There has been consultation and residents have engaged for this in good faith, attending meetings and providing feedback,” she said. “But the key question is not whether consultation took place, but what difference it has made. From what residents have shared it is not clear how their inputs contributed to this outcome. Months of participation without impact.”
Several members spoke to say they wished to defer the scheme. Alderwoman King, also a Cripplegate member, said she remained concerned about the “significant and interrelated harms” which would arise if approval was granted.
Former planning Chair Cllr Shravan Joshi rose to back the proposal, telling members it had been established the process followed in developing the application was thorough and that the designs represented a “good compromise” for the site.
Deputy Fredericks queried this sentiment in particular given the expected impacts on residents and heritage.
“I truly believe that Stuart [Lipton] can work with the Barbican residents to produce a far better compromise scheme,” she said.
Committee members voted 16 to 11 in-favour of the proposal, resulting in shouts of “shame” and “resign” from some of those in attendance.
Following the meeting Jan-Marc Petroschka, Chair of the Barbican Association, told the LDRS the outcome was “very disappointing”.
He said: “It was very clear that the presentation of the information was very misleading and the impact was very misleading on daylight and sunlight, on how the building encroaches on the public realm. This is needlessly harmful.”
Mr Petroschka reiterated the residents’ belief that the benefits could have been delivered with a smaller building. “This is not defendable,” he said.
Deputy Sleigh told the LDRS the proposal, as outlined by officers, was compliant with planning policy, and that it was on that basis that members made a determination.
He added that with the City’s workers expected to rise from 675,000 to 900,000 by 2050 more office space and densification is necessary.
“[This is] a prime site for good quality offices,” he said, “and the committee felt that on balance, some of the harms were outweighed by that, and other benefits.”
Sir Stuart said: “We are delighted with the Planning Application Sub-Committee’s resolution to grant planning permission for One Silk Street – a decision that reflects the scheme’s exceptional commercial and cultural ambition.
“Located steps from two Elizabeth line stations, on one of the few remaining sites in the Square Mile capable of delivering larger floorplates, it provides the exact quality and scale of commercial space the market demands in the City, while giving the Guildhall School a new, expanded home and opening the whole site to the wider community.”
