Commonwealth Institute in danger?
Anger at secret plot to demolish the Commonwealth Institute
A leaked letter revealed last week that Government ministers were plotting to demolish the Grade II* Commonwealth Institute (CI) in London by means of a short bill to be pushed through Parliament delisting what is considered to be one of London’s finest post-war buildings.
The letter, which was leaked to the Twentieth Century Society, said that the CI’s trustees believed ‘substantially greater value could be realised if it were possible to alter the building substantially or demolish it altogether’, but that trustees were ‘unwilling to rely exclusively on [listed buildings consent for demolition] because the unique conditions that arise in this case cannot be taken into account by the local planning authority’.
The letter was signed by Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, and Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and sent to Ruth Kelly, the new Communities and Local Government Secretary, responsible for planning and housing. It concluded that ‘We would wish to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity … we are today writing in similar terms to Jack Straw, Leader of the House, to advise him of how we would like to proceed. This letter is copied to the Prime Minister.’
At stake here are numerous issues: not just Government honesty and transparency, nor its failure to involve English Heritage, the Government’s statutory advisers on the historic environment, but also the questions of whether such an Act of Parliament would set a precedent (the Government argues not, saying this would be a unique piece of legislation designed to address the particular circumstances of the Commonwealth Institute, which is the only asset of an organisation that is owned in common by the fifty members of the Commonwealth) and whether the Government is right to believe that current planning law is incapable of dealing with the special circumstances of the Commonwealth Institute ─ or whether this is just a cynical ploy to guarantee the ‘right’ outcome.
Simon Thurley, FSA, MIFA, Chief Executive of English Heritage, was in no doubt on any of these points: he issued an immediate and angry press release describing the proposed legislation as ‘a demolishers’ charter’ and saying that it ‘undermines the fundamental principle that the country’s best and most culturally valuable architecture is worth keeping’.
He went on to say: ‘This proposal to alter the law in order to make de-listing the Commonwealth Institute possible is not only muddled and dangerous but completely unnecessary. Listing does not stop a building being altered or demolished, re-used or sold for a profit. Wembley Stadium was listed but demolished within the law, and in line with our advice. There is already a constructive and democratic way of resolving cases like this. Forcing through a bill in the face of opposition would be an unacceptably rash destabilisation of the planning system. The future of this building should lie in expert consideration of how to get the best from the site through the normal planning process.’
Catherine Croft, Director of the Twentieth Century Society, to whom the leaked letter was sent, condemned what she described as the Government’s ‘betrayal’ of an architectural masterpiece and said: ‘If a Bill is allowed to de-list the Commonwealth Institute then no listed building will be safe. If the Commonwealth Institute trustees are allowed to demolish a listed building because their potential good works are perceived as being more important … then what is to stop other charitable owners of buildings asking to be given special treatment too? For instance, we could see every almshouse in the country demolished to make way for big developments on the grounds that raising money in this way would allow their trustees to house more people.’
Catherine’s point was echoed by Simon Thurley who said that: ‘Historically priceless buildings occupying valuable sites everywhere would be put at risk from demolition if it could be shown that maximum profit could be achieved for any good cause. Listed buildings like London Zoo, the Royal Festival Hall, the National Theatre or the British Museum could be at risk’, and he warned that: ‘To engage in a fundamental change to the law undermines the whole system of protection in England.’
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: ‘DCMS ministers are looking forward to discussing the issues fully with English Heritage.’
SALON-IFA: from the Society of Antiquaries and the Institute of Field Archaeologists Salon-IFA 141: 22 May 2006
SALON-IFA Editor: Christopher Catling
A leaked letter revealed last week that Government ministers were plotting to demolish the Grade II* Commonwealth Institute (CI) in London by means of a short bill to be pushed through Parliament delisting what is considered to be one of London’s finest post-war buildings.
The letter, which was leaked to the Twentieth Century Society, said that the CI’s trustees believed ‘substantially greater value could be realised if it were possible to alter the building substantially or demolish it altogether’, but that trustees were ‘unwilling to rely exclusively on [listed buildings consent for demolition] because the unique conditions that arise in this case cannot be taken into account by the local planning authority’.
The letter was signed by Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, and Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and sent to Ruth Kelly, the new Communities and Local Government Secretary, responsible for planning and housing. It concluded that ‘We would wish to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity … we are today writing in similar terms to Jack Straw, Leader of the House, to advise him of how we would like to proceed. This letter is copied to the Prime Minister.’
At stake here are numerous issues: not just Government honesty and transparency, nor its failure to involve English Heritage, the Government’s statutory advisers on the historic environment, but also the questions of whether such an Act of Parliament would set a precedent (the Government argues not, saying this would be a unique piece of legislation designed to address the particular circumstances of the Commonwealth Institute, which is the only asset of an organisation that is owned in common by the fifty members of the Commonwealth) and whether the Government is right to believe that current planning law is incapable of dealing with the special circumstances of the Commonwealth Institute ─ or whether this is just a cynical ploy to guarantee the ‘right’ outcome.
Simon Thurley, FSA, MIFA, Chief Executive of English Heritage, was in no doubt on any of these points: he issued an immediate and angry press release describing the proposed legislation as ‘a demolishers’ charter’ and saying that it ‘undermines the fundamental principle that the country’s best and most culturally valuable architecture is worth keeping’.
He went on to say: ‘This proposal to alter the law in order to make de-listing the Commonwealth Institute possible is not only muddled and dangerous but completely unnecessary. Listing does not stop a building being altered or demolished, re-used or sold for a profit. Wembley Stadium was listed but demolished within the law, and in line with our advice. There is already a constructive and democratic way of resolving cases like this. Forcing through a bill in the face of opposition would be an unacceptably rash destabilisation of the planning system. The future of this building should lie in expert consideration of how to get the best from the site through the normal planning process.’
Catherine Croft, Director of the Twentieth Century Society, to whom the leaked letter was sent, condemned what she described as the Government’s ‘betrayal’ of an architectural masterpiece and said: ‘If a Bill is allowed to de-list the Commonwealth Institute then no listed building will be safe. If the Commonwealth Institute trustees are allowed to demolish a listed building because their potential good works are perceived as being more important … then what is to stop other charitable owners of buildings asking to be given special treatment too? For instance, we could see every almshouse in the country demolished to make way for big developments on the grounds that raising money in this way would allow their trustees to house more people.’
Catherine’s point was echoed by Simon Thurley who said that: ‘Historically priceless buildings occupying valuable sites everywhere would be put at risk from demolition if it could be shown that maximum profit could be achieved for any good cause. Listed buildings like London Zoo, the Royal Festival Hall, the National Theatre or the British Museum could be at risk’, and he warned that: ‘To engage in a fundamental change to the law undermines the whole system of protection in England.’
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: ‘DCMS ministers are looking forward to discussing the issues fully with English Heritage.’
SALON-IFA: from the Society of Antiquaries and the Institute of Field Archaeologists Salon-IFA 141: 22 May 2006
SALON-IFA Editor: Christopher Catling
Comments