Plans to redevelop an office block opposite the Barbican Centre have been criticised for the likely impact on nearby flats and the proposed demolition of the existing structure.
Accusations have also been levied at the developer behind the One Silk Street scheme, Lipton Rogers, regarding its consultation process, with invitations claimed not to have reached many residents.
Lipton Rogers and investment management company LaSalle earlier this year launched their first public consultation on the proposed redevelopment of the 1980s office building. It is to become vacant in 2026 due to its current tenant, the Magic Circle law firm Linklaters, relocating to offices in Ropemaker Street.
A planning submission has yet to be filed with the City of London Corporation, though the consultation webpage detailed how the scheme is intended to deliver works including new eating and drinking areas and a new public space at the entrance to the Barbican Centre.
The webpage stated the offices will become ‘unlettable’ from 2025 due to the site failing to achieve a Band C Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
While both refurbishing and retrofitting the site were considered, these options were rejected due to issues including its inflexible floorplates.
These claims are however refuted by a group of residents living in the Barbican who have cast doubts on some of the redevelopment’s proposed benefits, the accuracy of the concerns raised about the current building, and the impact it will have on those living nearby.
They state refurbishment is viable, as evidenced by other schemes in the city such as the work to the former BT headquarters by St Paul’s Cathedral.
Jan-Marc Petroschka, Deputy Chair at the Barbican Association who has lived on the estate for more than 20 years, said two meetings were held between Lipton Rogers and a select group of residents in the summer and winter of last year. The first of these presented several options for the redevelopment, including a retrofit scheme with an extension, and the second focusing on a high-level carbon analysis.
Mr Petroschka, who is a trained architect, said the position of those who attended the meetings was clear; that retrofit should be favoured over demolition, that the site is already overdeveloped and overhangs the existing public space, and that a new public square, which was featured in one of the potential options, would not be to the benefit of locals.
Alan Budgen, House Group Chair at Cromwell Tower, said when representatives of the scheme were given a tour of the Barbican they were ‘quite surprised’ by the visibility from the estate into One Silk Street, and vice versa.
From one flat in Cromwell Tower, he said: “You could see a lawyer with his back to us working. With binoculars, you could actually read what was on the screen. It was that close.”
Mr Petroschka however said that at a third meeting in May, things had taken an unexpected turn. He said despite the feedback from residents, Lipton Rogers presented a proposal involving two new large towers, 17 and 22 storeys tall, which would require the demolition of most of the existing structure.
“Basically, what this option did is it combined options two and three of the initial [meeting], building on the entire site, and two towers,” he said.
“This was just basically saying okay, we’ve done this consultation, we’ve listened to you, and we’ve done exactly what you didn’t want.”
One ‘interesting move’ was the addition of a route from Ropemaker Street to the Barbican Centre through The Brewery. That, however, is as far as Mr Petroschka’s praise extends.
He said following the meeting, Lipton Rogers was asked to share sectional drawings to provide a better idea of the height of the towers.
Despite initially promising to set up a meeting to discuss, Mr Petroschka said nothing was forthcoming from the developer. Graham Spickett-Jones, a resident in Speed House, said he chased Lipton Rogers on several occasions requesting more information, with no success.
Another point of contention raised by residents is the manner in which Lipton Rogers has consulted on the scheme. They say that when invitations were distributed for public consultation sessions held over the summer, many Barbican residents did not receive them, with the letters ‘dumped’ with reception on at least one occasion.
“That’s not proper visibility for public consultation,” said Mr Spickett-Jones. “It’s a way of saying there was a possibility people could have picked them up.”
Mr Budgen added while the distribution of the consultation documents may have qualified as ‘slightly useful’, it would have been preferable had the invites been put through people’s doors.
Mr Petroschka said: “It’s all a game, I think. We sort of believe that what they’re actually after is a very tall building on the site.”
The viability of elements of the scheme, in particular the new eating and drinking areas planned, are doubted by the residents the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) spoke to. The increased noise likely to emanate from their addition is also a cause for concern.
A primary fear among residents however is of the impact a taller structure would have on nearby flats.
Mr Budgen said the distance between Cromwell Tower, one of the Barbican blocks facing One Silk Street, and the offices is about 18 metres. There are already issues of privacy due to the visibility into some of the flats, though he warned this will only get worse if the building gets taller.
“Going any higher or just keeping it that close but going higher will affect more flats. At the moment they do have views,” he said.
“That’s very sensitive if it became more of a wall and higher, it would just affect many, many more flats. It would be really quite devastating.”
A spokesperson for Lipton Rogers said its public consultation events over the summer included the team’s assessment of the existing building, why they consider it appropriate to replace it, and how they are looking to respond to the Corporation’s emerging City Plan, which includes a target of more than 1.2 million square metres of office space added by 2040.
“We were delighted that so many stakeholders and members of the community attended our exhibitions to provide their thoughts and feedback on this important site.
“We are currently reviewing the feedback from our initial consultation and will be bringing forward further information for discussion later in the autumn in a further round of consultation, as we progress towards submitting a planning application to the City in Q1 2025.”
