{"id":8001,"date":"2014-07-09T10:10:36","date_gmt":"2014-07-09T09:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=8001"},"modified":"2014-07-12T16:56:13","modified_gmt":"2014-07-12T15:56:13","slug":"smithfield-market-call-in-redevelopment-refused","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=8001","title":{"rendered":"Smithfield Market call in: redevelopment refused"},"content":{"rendered":"

A call in on the proposed partial demolition of Smithfield Market has resulted in refusal , as the Communities secretary accuses City Corporation of \u2018deliberate neglect\u2019 over buildings\u2019 condition and endorses the Inspector’s findings in the following words:<\/span><\/p>\n

‘…[the Secretary of State] finds that the proposal to demolish important parts of significant market buildings, to the great detriment to the surrounding area, to be wholly unacceptable. He also concurs with the Inspector that the shared setting of several listed buildings would not be preserved and the character and appearance of the Smithfield Conservation area would be diminished.’<\/span><\/p>\n

He also goes on to note that ‘while the proposal would be consistent with some local development plan policies promoting intensification, rejuvenation and regeneration, it would not be consistent with those policies intended to protect the historic environment from harmful development and he attaches greater weight to the latter policies. He also sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector (IR464) that the threat of vacancy does not weigh heavily in favour of the proposal.’<\/p>\n

‘… Overall the Secretary of State concludes that the extent of damage that the application would cause to the important heritage assets at Smithfield runs entirely counter to national and policy objectives intended to protect such assets from harm and that this would seriously undermine any economic, social or environmental benefits otherwise arising from the development, such that the proposal would not represent sustainable development.<\/p>\n

SAVE writes<\/span>:
\nFollowing a public inquiry both the Inspector and the Secretary of State have rejected proposals by Henderson Global Investors which would have gutted almost all of the market interiors which SAVE considers to be the most important feature of the building.<\/p>\n

In his decision letter the Secretary of State said that he considers \u201cthe Western Market Buildings are an integral part of the group of market buildings that is a key characteristic of the Smithfield Conservation Area.\u201d He goes on to say that, \u201cit is important that they are repaired and put into a beneficial use.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like the Inspector he finds that the Henderson Global Investors\u2019 proposals to demolish important parts of the buildings are \u201cto the great detriment of the surrounding area\u201d and \u201cwholly unacceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also states the Henderson proposals \u201cwould not be consistent with policies intended to protect the historic environment from harmful development.\u201d He concludes overall \u201cthat the extent of damage the application would cause to the important heritage asset of Smithfield runs entirely counter to national and policy objectives intended to protect such assets from harm.\u201d He adds that the proposal \u201cwould not represent sustainable development.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Inspector in his report gives \u201cgreat importance and weight to the substantial harm the proposed development would cause to the significance of the conservation area,\u201d including \u201csubstantial harm to the market buildings themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

He concludes that on balance \u201cthe public benefits of the scheme would not be anything like substantial enough to provide a clear and convincing justification for the extensive harm it would cause to Smithfield\u2019s historic environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The inspector also considered that the SAVE\/Victorian Society funding proposals \u201care sufficiently convincing to indicate that such a regeneration scheme would be possible, viable, and deliverable.\u201d The Henderson scheme therefore he says \u201cwould not be the only viable scheme.\u201d<\/p>\n

He continues the SAVE\/Victorian Society scheme could \u201csecure a long term future for the buildings through economically sustainable uses, provide public access to all parts of the buildings through their original gates, and provide a mix of small scale uses that would maintain the diversity and character of the conservation area.\u201d In light of the SAVE alternative the Inspector concludes the Henderson scheme would not represent the \u201coptimum viable use for the buildings.\u201d<\/p>\n

SAVE has led the campaign to save the General Market and Fish Market for over ten years and published its first report \u2013 Don\u2019t Butcher Smithfield \u2013 in 2004. SAVE won the 2007-8 public inquiry into a proposal for total demolition and has continued to oppose the more recent Henderson proposals to preserve some of the frontages but gut the interiors.<\/p>\n

SAVE believes that Smithfield Market can be regenerated on the lines of other highly successful restored and adapted historic markets such as Borough, Spitalfields and Greenwich. SAVE\u2019s proposals were developed with Eric Reynolds of Urban Space Management, London\u2019s most successful market promoter, whose energies lie behind these successful ventures. The SAVE scheme has also attracted strong interest and support from Cathedral Group who are potential investors in the scheme.<\/p>\n

SAVE\u2019s costs in fighting the inquiry have amounted to over \u00a340,000. More than \u00a325,000 has been raised from supporters and well wishers, but the fundraising continues.<\/p>\n

Marcus Binney, SAVE Executive President said: \u201cOur energies will now focus on implementing a scheme on the lines proposed. Such a scheme could be undertaken by Henderson, or by a group such as Cathedral, working with Urban Space Management. To leave the buildings to rot, as Hendersons suggested they would do if they did not win the inquiry, will be an outrage and an insult to London. We very much hope that the senior directors of Henderson will take a fresh look at the possibilities with a view to securing rapid investment, repair, reuse and reopening of these historic markets.\u201d<\/p>\n

David Cooper SAVE\u2019s solicitor said: \u201cThis is an overwhelming victory for common sense. The decision follows SAVE\u2019s argument to the letter. It places importance and significance of the Smithfield General Market interiors in their correct context and accepts SAVE\u2019s argument that the right way of dealing with the neglected buildings is to conserve the existing fabric. The Inspector and the Secretary of State confirm that SAVE\u2019s proposals are both deliverable and viable. We wait to see what becomes of Henderson Global Investors\u2019 threats to let the buildings continue to decay if the decision went against them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clem Cecil, SAVE Director said: \u201cSAVE launched the campaign for the General Market buildings ten years ago with our report \u2018Don\u2019t Butcher Smithfield\u2019. This is the second public inquiry we have won. The decision is all the more important as both the Secretary of State and the Inspector accept the high importance of the market buildings and their interiors. They agree that the SAVE proposals are viable. They describe the heritage assets as irreplaceable. They also conclude that the harm done by the Henderson proposals is so substantial that any benefits do not outweigh the damage done.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mike Fox, SAVE Caseworker said: \u201cWe are utterly delighted that the both the Secretary of State and the Inspector at the inquiry have recognised the value of Smithfield General Market, Fish Market, and Annex buildings, and rejected the planning application by Henderson Global Investors. That the inspector\u2019s report does so in such clear terms, recognising all the arguments presented by SAVE, is an even greater delight. This is a great victory for heritage and conservation, and certainly one of SAVE\u2019s greatest saves to date, of which there have been a great many! We look forward to seeing a true conservation led scheme brought forward, befitting of these splendid buildings at the heart of this thriving area.\u201d<\/p>\n

See the decision letter and inspector\u2019s report\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

UK Gov publications<\/a><\/p>\n

UK Gov Article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A call in on the proposed partial demolition of Smithfield Market has resulted in refusal , as the Communities secretary accuses City Corporation of \u2018deliberate neglect\u2019 over buildings\u2019 condition and endorses the Inspector’s findings in the following words: ‘…[the Secretary … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8001"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8001\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8052,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8001\/revisions\/8052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}