Historic England Advice Report 14 October 2015 Case Name: No.1 Poultry, City of London Case Number: 1428179 Background We have been asked to assess No.1 Poultry, City of London, for listing. Asset(s) under Assessment Facts about the asset(s) can be found in the Annex(es) to this report. Annex List Entry Number Name Heritage Category HE Recommendation 1 1428881 No.1 Poultry Listing Add to List Visits Date Visit Type 09 July 2015 Full inspection Context THE APPLICATION Historic England has been asked to assess No.1 Poultry for listing on the grounds that a planning application to make alterations to the building constitutes a threat to the building and that it has the very high level of interest to merit listing at a high grade. Designed by James Stirling, Michael Wilford and Associates, No.1 Poultry was built by the practice after Stirling’s premature death in 1992. Constructed in 1994 to 1998, we are only able to recommend the building if it is under threat. To be listed at this relatively young age, a building would normally need to meet the criteria denoting a higher level of interest (Grade II* or I), although we could alternatively come to the view that the building will, in 2024, merit listing at Grade II. REPRESENTATIONS At the outset, Dp9, representing the owner and occupiers, noted (7 July 2015) that the proposed alterations to No. 1 Poultry are sympathetic and seek to ensure its long term viability and important contribution to the wider commercial success of the local Bank area. They noted that occupants have expressed concern at the limitations of the building such that renewal of long term leases of the office floors by Aviva and Regus (due in Sept and Oct 2015) and leases on some retail units are dependent on the successful outcome of the planning application. The supporting Heritage Assessment, prepared by the architectural historian and critic Ken Powell, concluded that since proposed changes are minor and do not constitute a fundamental threat, and the building is not manifestly of ‘more than special interest’, the application should be rejected. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, acting for the owners PW Real Estate, regrets (10 Aug 2015) that we have taken the decision to proceed with the listing assessment since the considerations should, more appropriately, be managed through the planning process, and believes that No.1 Poultry should be assessed for listing in a timely manner when thirty years old. HE RESPONSE We accept that opinions differ as to whether the changes constitute a threat. We do consider, however, that the proposed changes, if effected, would alter the character and structure of the original building. Most importantly, since the question has been posed, assessment of the building will provide clarity for future management. The value of this approach has been clearly demonstrated in our recent project on post-war Page 1 of 16 Historic England Advice Report 14 October 2015 commercial offices 1964-1994; No.1 Poultry was identified but was not taken forward because of its age and as there was, at that time, no potential threat to it. We agree that it is beyond our remit to comment on the planning application and we do not propose to do so in the assessment of special interest. For information, however, it is useful to summarise here the proposals set out in the Design and Access Statement, by Buckley Gray Yeoman, 17 June 2015. They address, first, the ground floor retail units and first and second floor offices, which are considered to be dark, under-utilised and unprofitable, and second, access to the upper floors and restaurant, to resolve a pinch point at the main street level entrance within the atrium. The proposals are as follows: * Remove the bowed shop front and structural first floor wall behind the eastern colonnaded bay of the Queen Victoria Street elevation, where first floor windows are offset behind the columns. Extend the floor and bring forward the façade, creating a recessed, outer glazed wall rising through two storeys on the line of the colonnade, thereby enclosing the colonnade and bringing the external space into the building; * Create a new entrance in the western colonnaded bay of the Queen Victoria Street elevation, similarly enclosing the colonnade with recessed, full-height glazed sliding doors and office floor windows above; * Enlarge windows in the Queen Victoria Street elevation of the retail unit occupied by the Green Man public house; * Drop cills and enlarge ground floor window openings within the central space. Insert first floor windows and doors in the currently blank atrium wall; drop cills to enlarge 2nd floor windows; * Re-position the escape doors on Queen Victoria Street on the outer facade, to provide direct access to the street; LETTERS OF SUPPORT We have received a substantial number of letters from architectural and cultural alumni and professionals, some of whom were involved in the building project, objecting to the proposed changes to a building that they consider to be of the highest merit, by an architect of international standing and stating their support for the Twentieth Century Society’s application for listing. Respondents include Lord Palumbo who commissioned No 1 Poultry; Lord Foster, Dame Zaha Hadid, Lord Rogers, Charles Jencks, Prof Charlie Hussey, Prof Mark Swenarton, Stephen Bayley, Ted Cullinan, Paul Koralek, Piers Gough, Sir Nicholas Serota, Sir Michael Snyder; Siggi Wernik, Chris Dyson, Andrew Pryke - former colleagues and associates; Mary Stirling - Stirling's widow; Stirling's partners Michael Wilford and Laurence Bain, and Arabella Lennox-Boyd, author of the roof garden. Commendations recognise No.1 Poultry 'as the work of a commission by one of the great patrons of modern architecture and one of the most outstanding and influential architects of his generation on the world stage'. (Lord Foster) The architect Ted Cullinan captures their sentiments in his summary of 'this unique, skilfully composed, brilliantly urbane, joyful, one off building'. Charles Jencks considers that the building and the debate surrounding it illustrate some core values of post-modern urbanism, contending that No.1 Poultry is a masterpiece, one of the British urban landmarks of its time. Along with the extension to the National Gallery and 30 St Mary Axe, it epitomises the iconic and communicational motives of the period....... and is easily among the best architecture of its type in the City. ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION As part of our assessment, Historic England has discussed the evolution of the design with the original project architect to establish how the scheme responded to the brief, to clarify the level of detail determined before Stirling's death and the extent of later amendments to his design. Assessment CONSULTATION Page 2 of 16 Historic England Advice Report 14 October 2015 We consulted the Twentieth Century Society as applicant; the owners, lessees and tenants through their consultant Dp9; the City of London as planning authority and the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER). APPLICANT The C20 Society’s detailed application set out a case for listing at Grade II*; the factual content had informed our Consultation Report. In response to consultation, the C20 Society firmly reiterated its view that the building should be designated at Grade II*. The Society had sought clarification on the Consultation Report from Laurence Bain, the project architect and, after Stirling’s death in 1992, the partner responsible for the project, and attached his comments. HE RESPONSE: we note the architect's comments, with whom we have also spoken, and where appropriate have amended the draft List entry to correct any errors and to provide clarification. OWNERS and TENANTS Dp9 confirmed the view expressed in the Heritage Assessment, submitted in early July, that the building was not of ‘more than special interest’; attached the Design and Access Statement (Buckley Gray Yeoman, 17 June 2015); attached the letter from Herbert Smith Freehills to PW Real Assets (10 Aug 2015) and their own letter of 7 July 2105 to Historic England, which sets out the practical failings of the building, the merits of the proposed alterations and their view that the building does not justify listing at a high grade. Dp9 strongly urge against listing at this stage. 1 The Heritage Assessment (Ken Powell, 2015) sets out a thorough summary and critique of the architect Sir James Stirling, of No.1 Poultry and its authorship and the wider context of the building. It acknowledges the very high regard in which Stirling is held, but concludes that No.1 Poultry is not of more than special interest and does not warrant listing at Grade II*, concluding: * It is not under threat; * The final design is not of Stirling’s hand, but is the simulacrum of a Stirling building, being completed some years after his death; * The design was frozen in time and lacks the development of ideas that Stirling would plausibly have brought to the building; * Compared with Stirling’s major works it is ‘second tier’ and received mixed reviews. 2 With regard to special interest, Herbert Smith Freehills considered: * The Consultation Report lacked rigorous objectivity, citing only positive quotations and awards, and referred to the Heritage Assessment for a more balanced view; * No. 1 Poultry is not of the outstanding quality or under a threat that merits listing at Grade II*; * Given its location within the Bank Conservation Area, and the acknowledged importance of the surrounding, highly graded heritage assets, it is already subject to close oversight and planning control; * Its functionality and adaptability, citing the High Court‘s decision on Pimlico School as comparison, noting that if 1 Poultry performed satisfactorily in today’s market, the planning application would not have been necessary; * Whilst generally considered to be undeniably interesting in its use of materials, it lacks technical innovation; * Unlike Stirling’s earlier works, it has never merited a high award, echoing the extent of divided opinion as to its success; * The difficult precedent created by listing a building of this date, where opinion is divided.