The granting of planning permission for James Stirling's design for No 1 Poultry has grave implications for conservation says Mary King. POULTRY THE END OF A FUTURE FOR THE PAST? For A CO members the Poultry decision comes like a slap in the face. In spite of overwhelming evidence in the inspector's report in favour of retaining the existing buildings, he finds zn favour of the appellant. How could he come to his extraordinary conclusion? In "Poultry" we have a decision which seems to break all the rules. Considermg the proposals m the light of Circular 8/87, the Inspector finds that he "concurs" with the judgement that the group of buildings under consideration is: One of the best, if not the best, groups of surviving Victorian commercial buildings in the City. He notes that the buildings have not been offered for sale on the open market and that These usual preconditions for the granting of consent for the demolition of listed buildings have not been met in this instance. He states that it was agreed by the appellants that A scheme of reconstruction along the lines put forward by English Heritage would be structurally and economically feasible, that its office and retail accommodation would be let and that it would have substantial capital value. He notes that efficient, modern office buildings could be accommodated CONTEXT23 elsewhere in the core of the City and that The proposed uses of the appeal site are not related to any public purpose. He further states that There is no evidence to suggest that other listed buildings in the area are not economically viable. The only obviously run down part of the area seems to be the appeal site itself, the present condition of which must result to a large extent from the lengthy period over which redevelopment has been contemplated by the appellants. Any conservation officer who had assembled a case like this would consider the facts unanswerable. The buildings have demonstrable ment, they have not been offered for sale on the open market, they could be economically repaired and re-used, and the proposed use of the site would not be of greater benefit to the public. But the Inspector chose to disregard all this in favour of considering the merits of the proposed building, in spite of the possibility that it might not be a material factor at all. He states that Whether or not there is a sufficiently strong case for granting consent, notwithstanding the presumption in favour of preservation, is in my opinion dependent mainly on the view which might be taken of the comparative contribution to the architectural heritage of the existing buildings on the one hand and of the proposed buildings on the other, and of the comparative possibilities of enhancing the environment. However, if these matters are held not to be material to the consideration of the proposals to demolish the listed buildings, there can to my mind be no question but that consent ought not to be granted and that both the appeals being inter dependent, should fail. On the way to reaching his decision he conveniently re-interprets conservation area and listed building law to suit himself. He dismisses the question of the listed buildings by saying that None are (sic) graded higher than II on the statutory lists. It follows to my mind that their relative importance is judged to be less than that of several grade I buildings and Grade A churches that surround them in the neighbourhood . . .. There 1s clearly no shortage of buildings of quality in the area. and as for their interiors notes that The timber and glass interior fittings of the Green Man Public House do not seem to be of particular importance, but doubtless they could be recovered for re-use in the proposed public house on this site, or elsewhere, if they are considered to be of value. 13
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=