Comments on: The Return Of British Land

By: Fred Phipps

Fred Phipps — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 18:15:06 +0000

Old buildings of heritage value must always be saved. Once gone they’ve gone forever

By: marcia hurst

marcia hurst — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:28:47 +0000

Yet again the greedy hand of developers is in action proposing ugliness and mediocrity in place of elegance and architectural variety. All over London we are subjected to boring lumpen cubes on cubes, lacking any architectural integrity, often replacing handsome pubs and other everyday buildings that are part of our everyday experience.

Please let me know how I can get involved in fighting the hand of mammon

By: Save the LFWE

Save the LFWE — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 19:06:06 +0000

British Land are also involved in the London Fruit & Wool Exchange demolition plan. They were the City of London Corporation’s first development partner (before Exemplar Properties) and it has always been a demolition plan. Never a scheme to reuse our historic Market area buildings and thus respect our heritage and our livelihoods. Only their agenda to extend and aggrandise their City and obliterate what stands in their way. They have already smashed down 60% of Spitalfields Market. As someone says above they never go away.
http://www.propertyweek.com/news/british-land-ripe-for-fruit-and-wool-exchange/3113056.article

By: Michael Walker

Michael Walker — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:35:46 +0000

“Sickening” as one commentator said, but for me there is a heartening element to this, namely to find that there are so many people who react in the same emotional way as I do to the whole sorry tale of much of so-called development over the last 60 years. Sometimes one thinks one is alone and “whakky” because nobody else feels the same way and one is a backwoodsman for not greeting the glass and concrete boxes of development with approbation or at least resignation (“you cant stop Progress”) . That is exactly what developers like the Orwelian sounding “British Land” wants people to think but it is wrong! We are many! The Internet provides an opportunity for more people to get to know each other and organize and take strength from one another. Fight, fight and fight.

By: MIRIAM DELORIE

MIRIAM DELORIE — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:25:10 +0000

I feel that all the area around Whitechapel where my father was born is ‘falling down’ in leaps and bounds – it’s so sad to see history disappearing even though I live far away in South Africa. Well done to all those who are doing their best to resist. And thank you to the Gentle Author who keeps all of us updated (and backdated!). Miriam

By: Phillip Lucas

Phillip Lucas — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:59:12 +0000

The worst aspects of the current British Land proposals can perhaps be summarised shortly:
i. To demolish 18th century town houses in Norton Folgate and to replace them with a modern building;
ii. To gut the interiors of the historic warehouses on Blossom Street;
iii. To demolish a large 1970s building on Elder Street which was designed as a Georgian pastiche in sympathy with the neighbouring 18th century buildings. British Land will replace the Georgian facsimile with a large modern building which makes no attempt to harmonise with the surrounding historic buildings and which is completely unsympathetic to the historic character of the area;
iv. To demolish an attractive derelict 19th century brick building at the end of Elder Street and to replace it with an additional footpath.
The plan involves the large scale demolition of historic structures which will be replaced with large, unsympathetic modern buildings.
The authors of this plan have apparently failed to acquaint themselves with the “Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines of the Elder Street Conservation Area” (Published 20 February 2007). It is a surprising omission. A conservation area is defined thus: “an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance” It is immediately obvious that the current proposals do not “preserve or enhance” the historic character of the area. The document notes that the architectural value of the Elder Street conservation area “comes from the consistent proportions of the street, the richness of the brick textures, the refinement of the architectural details, the harmonious relationship of the buildings and the prevailing residential character”. The British Land proposals are fundamentally inconsistent with the published management guidelines. The “consultation” was clearly a sham and constituted a public relations disaster for the company. It is apparent from the comments on social media and from discussions with local residents and interested groups that there is already groundswell of public opinion against these proposals. The architecture of Spitalfields ranks amongst the most beautiful in Britain. Visitors come from afar to admire the architecture and to enjoy the historic character of the area. It is vitally important that people register their views against these proposals before British Land is permitted to cause irreparable harm. The threat is sufficiently serious to justify national publicity. Interested parties should prepare themselves for Judicial Review. British Land has a long and expensive fight on its hands.

By: Juliet. Shipman

Juliet. Shipman — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:02:45 +0000

Slowly and surely, bit by bit the character of London with its skyline and hidden corners of historic houses and warehouses is being destroyed – through the greed of developers and the indifference of Boris who cares only for high rise skyscrapers to enhance his vision of a London like Dubai or Shanghai.

By: heather dyer

heather dyer — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:55:31 +0000

On line campaigning must be the way forward – e.g. Change.org.
Please keep your readers posted of any moves in this direction as I for one
would be signing any petition to curb British Land’s greed and ambitions
for Spitalfieds.

By: Grant McIntyre

Grant McIntyre — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:44:08 +0000

Obviously Spitalfields should be preserved as fully as possible. There’s plenty of room elsewhere for dull generic developments, and if British Land have to forgo some tiny percentage of profit – well, how terrible is that?

By: HHGeek

HHGeek — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:25:20 +0000

The problem this time is not British Land in particular, or any developer in general. We may not like their proposals or actions, but it’s the business that they run, they choose to run it that way, and that’s how it has been and will always be.

The problem this time is Boris. No matter how strong the opposition, no matter how destructive the proposal, he’s liable to overturn any Local Authority planning decision if the proposed development is high profile enough to him to get further political traction out of it. The man cares nothing for London except as a source of publicity for himself. Unfortunately London sees fit to vote him in as mayor because he comes across as a cuddly duffer rather than the acute politician that he is.

So someone, somehow, will need to get him onside. Else it’ll be Brushfield St all over again.