High Court Hears City of London 'Failed to Consider Alternatives' to Museum Demolition
The City of London Corporation failed to properly evaluate alternative proposals before approving plans to demolish the former Museum of London and replace it with office blocks, the High Court heard this week. The governing body of London's Square Mile stands accused of breaching its own policies and environmental regulations in pushing forward the controversial London Wall West development scheme.
Controversial Development Scheme Under Scrutiny
At the center of the legal challenge is the London Wall West project, which received formal approval in December 2024 after initial indicative approval in April of that year. The scheme proposes demolishing both the former Museum of London and the adjacent Bastion House structure to make way for three new office buildings ranging from five to seventeen storeys tall. The City of London Corporation served as both the local planning authority and the applicant for this development, a dual role that has raised questions about impartiality.
Estelle Dehon KC, representing the campaign group Barbican Quarter Organisation (BQO), told the court that the Corporation pursued the option involving "the most demolition" despite having a stated "retrofit-first" approach to existing buildings. The site, located on the edge of the Barbican Estate, has drawn substantial local opposition with more than 800 objections filed against the proposals.
Legal Grounds of the Challenge
The judicial review focuses on three main grounds of challenge. First, campaigners allege the Corporation failed to abide by Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations regarding impartiality and objectivity. Second, they claim the authority misunderstood and failed to apply its own policy that presumes buildings will be reused rather than demolished. Third, they argue the Corporation failed to properly consider alternatives to the complete demolition approach.
In skeleton arguments filed with the court, Ms Dehon claimed the Corporation's policy regarding building reuse "amounts to an effective presumption against demolition, or an expectation that demolition will be avoided." She added that where demolition cannot be 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."
Impartiality Concerns Raised
Significant attention during the hearing focused on concerns about impartiality in the planning process. Ms Dehon told the court that pre-application documents were stored by the Corporation in a folder accessible to lawyers working on the proposal, potentially compromising the separation between the authority's roles as applicant and planning decision-maker.
"Simply articulating arrangements cannot be sufficient," Ms Dehon argued. "The handling notes stress both the arrangements and the basic requirements for their implementation and it does so, in my submission, because those basic implementation requirements are what the local authority claims it required to ensure there was functional separation."
She further contended that whether the documents were actually accessed or not, their storage in a shared location where they could have been viewed constituted a breach of proper procedure, adding there must be consideration of "the appearance of what took place within the process."
Corporation's Defense Arguments
Neil Cameron KC, representing the City of London Corporation as defendant, disputed the claims regarding policy interpretation. He argued that the Corporation's policy relating to building reuse does not explicitly state there should be a 'presumption' against demolition, but rather indicates that "avoiding demolition through the reuse of buildings" is one of several measures being progressed to improve sustainability in 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," Mr Cameron wrote in his arguments.
Regarding the consideration of alternatives, Mr Cameron stated that options other than full demolition were indeed reviewed, including those suggested by objectors to the plans. "The alternative(s) advanced by objectors was/were taken into account," he wrote. "The officers advised that little weight could be afforded to them and that it made no material difference to the planning balance. The weight to be afforded to a material consideration was a matter for the [defendant]."
Development Context and Corporation's Position
The London Wall West scheme forms part of the Corporation's broader strategy to contribute to its target of delivering a minimum of 1.2 million square metres of additional office floorspace by 2040. Alongside the three office blocks, the development includes a range of public realm improvements intended to enhance the surrounding area.
A City of London Corporation spokesperson stated prior to the hearing: "The grounds on which the claimant requested a judicial review for the Bastion House (AKA London Wall West) proposals has proceeded to consideration at a full hearing, which we are fully complying with. We have no further comment at this time."
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
The judicial review was granted permission to proceed to a full hearing last September, focusing specifically on the lawfulness of the Corporation's decision-making process. The hearing continues as both sides present their arguments regarding whether proper procedures were followed and whether the approval should stand or be quashed.
Ms Dehon highlighted what she described as inadequate consideration of demolition alternatives in the planning officers' report presented to the Corporation's planning committee. "This is the only point in the report where the policy is set out, [where] this part of the policy is set out," she noted. "It is the only occasion in the whole report where avoiding demolition is mentioned."
She argued that while other elements of the policy received attention in the documentation, the demolition aspect was not fully explained, adding: "It is not surprising that when the proposal came to the planning committee, there was a question about demolition."
