BQA had argued that alternatives to demolition of the western part of the Barbican Estate, parts of which are listed, were overlooked.<\/p>\n
Fordham found that the City had breached planning laws by failing to properly separate its roles as planning authority and developer and had withheld relevant documents explaining the separation to non-decision makers.<\/p>\n
However, the court still upheld the permission on the basis that approval would \u2018highly likely\u2019 have been reached anyway, even if the correct test had been applied.<\/p>\n
Responding to the decision, BQA said: \u2018We are disappointed by today\u2019s decision and while the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we respect the court\u2019s process and the with which the case was considered.\u2019<\/p>\n
The group added: \u2018This case has always been about ensuring transparency, accountability and fairness in planning decisions. Although the judgment does not go in our favour, we firmly believe that raising these issues was both necessary and justified. Legal action is only one part of a much broader effort to advocate for meaningful change, and that work continues.\u2019<\/p>\n
A spokesperson on behalf of the City of London Corporation as applicant said: \u2018We welcome the Court\u2019s judgment dismissing the challenge to the grant of permission for the London Wall West development\u00a0scheme.<\/p>\n
\u2018As the City prepares for significant employment growth in the years ahead, this scheme will play an important role in supporting that future. It will deliver around 56,000m\u00b2 of high\u2011quality, environmentally sustainable office space, creating capacity for nearly 3,100 jobs. Just as importantly, the development will bring major benefits to the public.<\/p>\n
\u2018It includes a 43 per cent increase in public space, a new flexible cultural area, an elevated terrace with impressive views of landmarks, including St Paul\u2019s, and improved public access to the Roman Wall and the high walk. The setting of the listed Ironmongers\u2019 Hall will also be enhanced.\u2019<\/p>\n
The defendant in the case, the City of London Corporation, had granted permission for the scheme in April 2024 as both the landowner behind the project and the planning authority.<\/p>\n
The proposals include demolishing the former Museum of London and 17-storey office block Bastion House and replacing them with three new office buildings, the tallest of which is 16 storeys.<\/p>\n
Both the Museum of London and Bastion House are landmark 1970s buildings, designed by Powell & Moya, on the edge of the Grade II-listed Barbican Estate.<\/p>\n
The legal case, according to the campaign group\u2019s legal team, was granted on three grounds relating to the absence of appropriate arrangements to ensure impartiality in the determination of the application, the failure to apply policy relating to avoiding demolition and the failure to consider alternative schemes, not least those involving less demolition.<\/p>\n
The plans for the site attracted more than 800 objections, according to Cornerstone Barristers, which have been instructed by Barbican Quarter Organisation\u2019s lawyers, Leigh Day.<\/p>\n
Arguments against the project have been on heritage grounds and the climate impact, including the high embodied carbon emissions of the redevelopment.<\/p>\n
The campaigners have argued that retrofitting was never properly considered by the City of London.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Musuem-of-London-Image-Robert-Evans-scaled-e1678356638724.jpg\")
<\/p>\n