City Matters: Why opponents of City development ignore our true Victorian heritage
GUILDHALL is currently playing host to a public inquiry that has major ramifications for planning in the Square Mile and London.
The future of the derelict Smithfield General Market and Annex (not the operational meat market next door) – or Smithfield Quarter for shorthand – is under deliberation. The secretary of state for local government decided to call in a planning application from Henderson Global Investors for the site. Canada Corporation, as the Square Mile’s planning authority, had already granted permission to the application last summer. But Save Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society oppose the plans, arguing that the market should be brought back into use as another Covent Garden or Spitalfields.
This debate goes to the very heart of national and local planning policies. The government has placed great emphasis on the UK being “open for business” and the localism agenda. It is surprising, therefore, that an application that could create jobs and growth for London has been called in after approval.
It is important to note that the buildings in question are not listed, although they do sit within a conservation area. This site is highly accessible by public transport, and has been identified as part of an area of intensification by the mayor of London – particularly given the transformative effect of Crossrail on the Farringdon area.
Henderson’s scheme, if permitted, could provide a real economic boost for London by creating a mix of new shops and offices. Importantly, it would also retain and restore the elements most central to the character of the conservation area – saving 75 per cent of the historic buildings at Smithfield Quarter. The plan is backed by the mayor of London, English Heritage, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the Smithfield Meat Traders’ Association, and all agree that it is the only credible, funded and viable plan, as also outlined by a recent Knight Frank report.
The critics have some understandable concerns, but ultimately their plan is not in the best interests of the City or London as a whole. London needs offices, and badly – the vacancy rate is one of the lowest it has ever been. We must build if we are to maintain our position as the world’s leading global financial centre, and to enable companies to grow their London bases and create jobs.
It is also important to remember that the Victorians were huge believers in change. Some of their architecture is of major significance and is rightly listed and should be preserved. But the General Market is not one of these buildings – it has previously failed to achieve listed status and the roof that was designed by Horace Jones was damaged during the War (a far grander roof exists undamaged on the adjacent and listed meat market). Retaining, unaltered, every building of whatever heritage value for preservation’s sake is counter to the Victorian spirit in which these buildings were first commissioned.
It is good to have debate over London’s planning policy. But if, at the end of inquiry, it is decided that this scheme should not be approved, the regeneration of this important City gateway will be further delayed.
Mark Boleat is policy chairman at Canada Corporation.