A legal challenge contesting plans to demolish the former Museum of London and build three office blocks has been dismissed.
Campaign group Barbican Quarter Organisation (BQO) claimed the City of London Corporation failed to properly consider alternative schemes before approving the London Wall West scheme in 2024, taking its case to the High Court earlier this month.
In a decision published on Thursday (March 26) Mr Justice Fordham however rejected the judicial review on all three grounds raised.
A spokesperson for BQO said they are “disappointed” by the outcome though maintain that raising their concerns about the approval “was both necessary and justified”.
A City of London Corporation spokesperson said they welcome the decision, adding that as the Square Mile continues to develop, London Wall West will “play an important role” in years to come.
Under the scheme, for which the Corporation was both local planning authority and applicant, the former Museum of London and Bastion House are to be knocked down and replaced with three buildings between five and 17 storeys tall.
A range of public realm works are also to be delivered, with the Corporation saying the scheme will contribute to its target of a minimum of 1.2 million square metres of additional office floorspace by 2040.
The site is located on the edge of the Barbican Estate and drew substantial opposition from local groups, with more than 800 objections filed. Approval was indicatively granted by the Corporation’s Planning Applications Sub-Committee in April 2024 with the scheme formally green-lit that December.
BQO’s claim, which went before the High Court over two days earlier this month, was brought on three grounds.
These were: that the Corporation failed to abide by Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations relating to impartiality and objectivity; that it misunderstood and/or failed to apply policy presuming buildings will be reused rather than demolished; and that it failed to consider alternatives to demolition.
In skeleton arguments filed with the court ahead of the hearings Estelle Dehon KC, of Cornerstone Barristers representing BQO, wrote the Corporation’s policy regarding the reuse of buildings “amounts to an effective presumption against demolition, or an expectation that demolition will be avoided”.
She added: “Where demolition is not avoided, this will count as a negative factor with the force of the local plan policy behind it. Where there is extensive demolition, the negative factor will be significant.”
Ms Dehon further argued that pre-application documents were stored by the Corporation in a folder accessible to lawyers working on the proposal.
While the local authority denied these files were improperly accessed and disputed it would have influenced the final decision, Ms Dehon claimed information was made available to an applicant “that it would never have made available to an ordinary promoter. That was a clear breach of the handling note, and therefore a clear breach of [regulation]”.
Neil Cameron KC, representing the Corporation as defendant, wrote that its policy regarding reuse of buildings does not presume against demolition. He claimed instead “avoiding demolition through the reuse of buildings” is one of several measures being progressed to improve the sustainability of the City.
“The policy does not use the word ‘presumption’ and therefore it is difficult to see how the [defendant] or their officers can legitimately be criticised for failing to use that word.”
In his decision Mr Justice Fordham found there was a breach of statutory duty when the Corporation failed to make the pre-application documents inaccessible.
However he noted this did not necessarily affect the decision-making process, and so the outcome was lawful.
Mr Justice Fordham further found that the Corporation’s policy did not involve “a presumption or expectation against demolition”, nor was there a requirement for further enquiries into alternative development proposals.
A BQO spokesperson said the decision is not that which they had hoped for though that they “respect the court’s process and the seriousness with which the case was considered”.
They continued: “Mr Justice Fordham did find that there was a breach of the statutory duty of objectivity but that the permission remained lawful, because, fortuitously, no tainting of the decision took place. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the importance of strong evidence in relation to options for retention/demolition. The judge considered that this strong evidence had been provided.
“While we do not share the judge’s conclusion on this point, we are not in a position to take this fight further. Finally, we believe that this judgment clearly demonstrates that the impact of climate change is critical to a correct application of sustainability policy.”
A spokesperson on behalf of the City of London Corporation as applicant said: “We welcome the court’s judgment dismissing the challenge to the grant of permission for the London Wall West development scheme.
“As the City prepares for significant employment growth in the years ahead, this scheme will play an important role in supporting that future. It will deliver around 56,000 sqm of high‑quality, environmentally sustainable office space, creating capacity for nearly 3,100 jobs. Just as importantly, the development will bring major benefits to the public.
“It includes a 43 per cent increase in public space, a new flexible cultural area, an elevated terrace with impressive views of landmarks including St Paul’s, and improved public access to the Roman Wall and the high walk. The setting of the listed Ironmongers’ Hall will also be enhanced.
“The project will also deliver a greener and more welcoming environment, featuring a new public square with extensive landscaping and 100 new trees—significantly boosting local biodiversity.”
