After a lot of preparation with our legal advisers, last week the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee continued to hear petitions from people and organisations directly affected by the proposal to build a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. The proceedings are recorded and can be watched on Parliament TV using the link, or the transcripts read.  

The petitioners’ main focus is to prevent the excavation of the Gardens and construction of a large underground Learning Centre.  On: 

Tuesday 23rd January 

• Brian Doctor KC, representing several of us including London Parks & Gardens requested amendments to the Bill, including that the Learning Centre should be built in another location. 
• Members of the Buxton family, descendants of the abolitionist Thomas Fowell Buxton, whose memorial is in the Gardens suggested an alternative design would be better enabling greater appreciation of the existing monument which marks the UK Parliamentarians endeavours to stop slavery.

Wednesday 24th January 

• 3 witnesses for London Parks & Gardens showed how the measurements for the proposals don't stack up with plans (go to the last slide to see the difference in measurements).  Were a Memorial of a suitable size to be agreed as a comprise then there would be no need to lift the 1900 Act which provides important environmental protection to the park. 
• Baroness Ruth Deech then presented amongst other things the generic designs that Sir David Adjaye had produced.  Her witnesses included Holocaust Survivors and Historians. As reported on the BBC Anita Lasker-Walfisch delivered a devastating critique of the proposals.  

In the previous week, the Committee heard from Lord Carlile, Lord Blancathra; and Mrs Nickie Aiken MP amongst others - led expertly by Sir Peter Bottomley.  All made impassioned pleas about how the current Bill will deliver an inappropriate project and destroy future enjoyment of the Park, not to mention cost and security risks.

At present the Government insists that no compromise is possible and that all requests for amendments are out of scope or inappropriate to deliver their proposals.

The Hearings will continue with, The Thorney Island Society anticipated to present on 6th February.  You can watch all proceedings live or on catch-up recordings on parliament.tv.

We really appreciate your support and we won't give up until we've tried every avenue to protect the park.

The Government confirmed via the King's Speech that it will pursue the Holocaust Memorial Bill which it introduced into Parliament in January. This Bill will overturn legal protections for a public park in order to build a Memorial and Learning Centre on Victoria Tower Gardens, next to Parliament. 

Our consistent position has been to support a fitting National Holocaust Memorial, but in line with our core purpose, to continue to defend protected public parks from being built on. The proposal to erect a Learning Centre on this park has therefore been a particular concern. Since May, we have been busy as follows:

• Along with our fellow campaigners and others we have submitted Petitions  - documents that set out reasoned requests for amendments to the Bill. This is the London Parks & Gardens Petition 
• Waited for the announcement of the Membership of the Select Committee, following our successful challenge that the Bill should be regarded as Hybrid to receive the scrutiny it deserves.  You can keep up with the process of the Bill and read the associated Petitions here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3421#timeline
• Exchanged communications with the Promoter of the Bill - the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation sponsored by Mr Gove and the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

The Promoter of the Bill wrote to us in October, accepting our right along with other Petitioners to be heard. This was in itself a small victory in that the government had initially indicated they might challenge our right to be heard. The Promoter also invited us to suggest assurances that he might consider to assuage our concerns and remove any controversy from the Bill. 

We, LPG, and leading campaigners, Baroness Deech and the Thorney Island Society responded to that invite, noting that in addition to the issues of physical intrusion into the park, disruption of the enjoyment of the park, and the on-going security issues surrounding it, demand a profound reconsideration of the location and nature of the Learning Centre proposals. Further, the announcement over the summer, of the closure of the London Jewish Museum for lack of funds suggests there is a need for a greater linking up of ideas around documenting Jewish heritage within the UK. 

In trying to work with the Government, and recognising the strong cross party support for this Bill we have asked that the Promoter agrees to a revised proposal for a suitable Memorial without building a Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. This would involve providing for interpretation of Jewish heritage elsewhere which does justice to the full narrative and research required. 

Conscious that the current context risks arguments around this issue becoming dangerously inflamed, LPG has decided to focus on private, rather than public campaigning at this time, working with those who will have the final say over the Bill. But please be assured that our careful, sensitive and considerate work to protect parks is going on, if appropriately beyond the headlines on this, most sensitive of issues. 

As LPG makes its careful but passionate case for this and other London parks, we are immensely grateful for all ongoing support - whatever the outcome of this Parliamentary process. If at any time you would like more information or to do more with LPG, please contact our office, visit our website London Parks & Gardens or come back to this crowdfunding page. Supporters through this page are emailed directly with updates on a regular basis too.  For those who have yet to join LPG, our membership offers a range of benefits, as well as the best way of staying informed about our work for parks, and we should be delighted to welcome you. 

Today marks a technical but important stage of London Parks and Gardens' action to protect public parks, and specifically Victoria Tower Gardens from development. We are opposing the Government’s attempt to override historic protections for a London park and build a national memorial on it without a meaningful debate in Parliament. 

It is right that only Parliament can be asked to override its own century-old protections for a public park, and to carefully consider the precedents which this could set. 

With our partners including Westminster Council, Holocaust Survivors and local campaigners, we challenged the Government’s attempt to limit debate on its proposals to build on a public park and have them go through ‘on the nod’. We believe that the essential national effort to tackle Anti-Semitism and the principle of protecting of parks from development deserve full debate, and that when that debate ends, public scrutiny will have enhanced whatever Parliament decides. For those interested in reading about the process used - details are available here.

Regrettable delays in delivering the noble aims of the Holocaust Memorial Commission are due to the Government’s 2016 decision to build illegally by overriding a law which protects this park. We share the cross-party aspirations for a fitting Memorial and abhorrence of Anti-Semitism but continue to believe that this scheme is in the wrong place.  We await the decision of the Examiners about the legislative process.  Any help and support you can give to assist us with the costs of our Parliamentary Agents and other fees is always appreciated.

The Government is persisting in mis-representing the damage to Victoria Tower Gardens to deliver the UK Holocaust Memorial & Learning Centre despite losing in the High Court.  London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust (LPG) and fellow campaigners including The Thorney Island Society (representing local residents) and Baroness Deech (supported by some Holocaust Survivors) intend to contest the latest Bill within parliament and need your support.  Campaigners are hoping that the Local Authority, Westminster City Council, who also opposed this scheme, will join with our next steps.

In January 2023, the Prime Minister declared that his Government intends to introduce a new Bill to enable the building of the UK Holocaust Memorial & Learning Centre.  In February 2023 they introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill 2023 to parliament. The Bill as drafted has been presented as a Public Bill, meaning that it is likely to go through parliamentary proceedings swiftly.  At the same time as introducing the Bill, Government Ministers despatched to MPs and members of the House of Lords a letter and pamphlet containing a number of factual errors and inconsistencies.  The Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley with support from LPG submitted a response signed by Baroness Deech, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, Lady Fleet, Lord Carlile and others accompanied by information to alert MPs to the mistakes in the Governmental briefing materials.

The Government is now seeking to use parliamentary process to avoid scrutiny by claiming that this bill is handled as a Public Bill. The Bill is drafted so that construction of the UKHMLC can ignore protections the 1900 London County Council Act. LPG and fellow campaigners are preparing statements (known as Memorials) to demonstrate to parliamentary officials that this Bill should be considered Hybrid. It is vital we get through this process, to be allowed to petition and seek proper scrutiny of the new legislation.  We need funds to pay for Parliamentary Agents to assist us with this complex area of work - please donate if you can to help us ensure that Government is required to follow proper scrutiny before it builds on a rare Grade 2 public park in inner London.

LPG and all campaigners wholly support the creation of a fitting national Holocaust Memorial with improved Holocaust Education to tackle the rise in antisemitism. However, the determination to build this Memorial and associated Learning Centre on this unique public green space is a mistake which is avoidable when Government chooses to reach out for an appropriate compromise.

Legislative uncertainty

In late May, both the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up and Communities (DLUCH) and the Minister for Housing launched separate appeals - seeking to overturn the High Court decision at the Court of Appeal.  In July, the Court of Appeal refused a hearing on the basis that the Government case was groundless.  On the final day before the summer recess, MPs held an urgent debate in Parliament, where Mr Robert Jenrick MP (a previous Secretary of State at DLUCH) demanded legislation to overturn the Courts and deliver the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (UKHMLC).  The next steps within Parliament are unclear but anticipated imminently.

Cost Increases

A recent National Audit Office (NAO) report has found major flaws in the project procurement; governance; and future delivery with significant cost increases.  The  construction costs originally anticipated at £50m, by March of 2022 had risen to £102m (plus contingencies) and are continuing to increase with inflation pressures.  In addition, the forecast for running the project every year is now likely to be between £6m and £8m - of which at least £5m a year of public money will be required to keep it open.  That assumes all the necessary private money is forthcoming but to date the Government has spent £15.3m and failed to raise any private contributions. 

Compromise

The Trust and campaigners including the Thorney Island Society and ‘Save Victoria Tower Gardens’ have always stated they support a fitting Holocaust Memorial and continue to do so. Campaigners have repeatedly tried to approach the Government and Lord Pickles and Mr Ed Balls to seek a compromise.  A number of options were presented to the local MP for Westminster and the Cities, Nickie Aiken for her to speak to colleagues.  

Options suggested (in compliance of the original desires of the Holocaust Commission which did not require a Learning Centre as part of the Memorial complex) have included:

1. Outside London. 

The Govt’s levelling-up agenda might mean that sites outside London with a strong Jewish connection, e.g. York or Lincoln might provide a more appropriate location. 

2. Central London. 

The sites identified in the CBRE search have never been properly evaluated. Possible choices include the IWM, the current Museum of London, and next to the Wiener Holocaust Library in Bloomsbury. 

3 “Close to Parliament”. There are the following alternatives for a Memorial: 

1. Richmond House. The forecourt of Richmond House would be very suitable for a Memorial, with a Learning Centre in part of the building itself if required. 
2. College Green. A Memorial on College Green (thought to belong to the Palace of Westminster/Parliament) would be more “iconic” than VTG. The Green has no recreational use, but consideration needs to be given to the Henry Moore sculpture. 
3. Within the park itself where the Parliamentary Education Centre site is. This building has temporary planning permission for only ten years (granted in 2014).  The adjacent north-eastern corner might provide scope for a modest memorial, also without infringing the 1900 Act. 

If it were thought that a Learning Centre is necessary next to the Memorial, the car park beneath College Green could be used with either (b) or (c), at much less expense than excavating in VTG and far reduced risk of flooding.

All of these options would respect the park and the Buxton Memorial.  Despite many approaches, the Government has refused to answer or meet with any of the campaigners to discuss these or any other compromise.

Articles, letters, a play and a public debate coming up

Several articles have been published recently urging a rethink.  These have included: Charles Moore in The Spectator; Baroness Deech in Prospect Magazine; Melanie Phillips in The Jewish Chronicle; and Dr Tanya Gold also in The Jewish Chronicle.  

A play inspired by this campaign has been performed online by Riverside Studios called Tikkun Olam. There have also been some excellent letters showing that opinion amongst the UK Jewish community is divided.  Many, including some Holocaust Survivors, do not agree with the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  

On 11 September at 1030am the National Jewish Assembly (NJA) is hosting a debate "Should a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre be built near Parliament?".  Anyone can register to observe the debate here.

What next?

The way forward is unclear.  It has been an uneven struggle seeking to stop this proposal which will ruin a historic public park for future generations to enjoy and purposefully disrupt the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site.  The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust campaigns all the time to protect parks for the benefit of everyone.  We rely on the support of ordinary people.  If you can please consider a donation direct to the Trust here.

If there is legislation agreed in Parliament, to repeal the 1900 Act, we may need to challenge a new planning application. 

On 8th April the High Court, found in favour of our campaign to protect Westminster’s Victoria Tower Gardens public park from development.   The Court’s full decision and press notice are available through the links. 

Mrs Justice Thornton heard the claim of London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust [The Trust] against the Government’s decision to grant planning permission for the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to Parliament [the decision]. Mrs Justice Thornton found that the claim succeeds on the grounds that the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 [the 1900 Act] imposes statutory protection of the park; 

“The appropriate remedy is to quash the decision, so as to enable further consideration of the implications of the 1900 Act.   It is an Act of Parliament which specifically regulates Victoria Tower Gardens and specifies that the land must be retained for use as a public garden.“ 

Planning permission had been granted following a 2020 Planning Inquiry which heard detailed opposition to the proposed scheme from the Trust, the Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign, Westminster City Council, and The Thorney Island Society. 

Although supportive of Holocaust Memorial and Learning, the Trust joined many prominent people, including those from the Jewish community, who raised concerns about the Government’s plan. The Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign believe that this proposal is the right idea in the wrong place, and with the Trust, hopes that the High Court’s decision will lead to a new approach and protection for historic landscapes.    

The Trust and our amazing team of lawyers (Richard Buxton, Meyric Lewis and Richard Drabble QC) have all been congratulated in the last few weeks after 'winning' our case, but we remain fearful of the next steps.

Ed Balls co-chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was interviewed on LBC Radio on 12th April indicating that the Government intended to go to the Court of Appeal or alternatively issue new primary legislation overruling the judgment.  End of April is the final date that the government can apply to the Court of Appeal. We hope they won't.

Below, in no particular order, are some of the many links to the press write ups of the case.  Private Eye, Nooks and Corners reported on the case and there have also been many letters that have been published including on 14th April one in The Times organised by Dr Irene Lancaster with a number of Holocaust survivors and their descendants urging a rethink.

Saving this lovely historic park is just a drop in the ocean compared to what is going on in the rest of the world right now, but it's important for the legal precedents this case might set for parks across the UK and their protection. 

On the 22nd and 23rd February, the London Gardens Trust (LGT) appeared in the High Court in front of Mrs Justice Thornton to appeal against the planning decision. 

22nd February

At 9am a group of us met on the steps with placards explaining the many reasons why objectors are so concerned with this proposal including:

* building on a public park

* putting the health of historic trees at risk

* reducing the size of a children's playground

* risks from flooding and more

This was followed by a number of press interviews and a feature on ITN London news. A selection of press coverage is at the bottom of this update for you.

However the focus of our case was on our Grounds and was presented by our QC.

23rd February

On Day 2 - the court proceedings gave the opportunity for the legal counsel representing the Minister for Housing, the Secretary of State and an organisation called Learning for the Righteous to put arguments against us. 

During the proceedings, the following new insights emerged:

1. At the heart of our challenge is how should harm to a heritage asset be considered.  In this instance the focus is on the Buxton Memorial - a grade 2* monument marking the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833 and a major feature of the park. The Inspector in weighing in the balance the heritage significance and impact of the proposals tried to synthesise different pieces of legislation and/or guidance (in particular, the Bedford Judgment and PPG 18) to create a new test.  Westminster City Council and objectors had provided evidence at the Planning Inquiry, of the likely harm to the Buxton Memorial on the basis of the NPPF's guidance.  Whereas the Secretary of State's Counsel had suggested to the Inspector and in Court that a far higher and more difficult threshold to assess the likely harm, based on the Bedford Judgment.  

2. 1900 LCC Act  In its' statement of significance prepared by the Chair of our Planning and Conservation Working Group, the Trust highlighted that the Act of Parliament creating the park intended it to be used as a public garden.  Further research during the campaign, uncovered new garden history evidence about the debates that led up to the Act and the subsequent repealing of a number of sections of the 1900 Act, leaving the sections about Victoria Tower Gardens intact.  The Trust believes that the 1900 Act envisaged the gardens being maintained 'for ever' and keeping a 'uniformity of design' across the site.  Any major construction that alters that use would be against this Act.  

3. Alternative sites. Objectors have long sought to understand why Victoria Tower Gardens was selected above all other sites and why, in particular, the Imperial War Museum proposals were ruled out.  The Trust maintains that the Inspector did not have sufficient material to decide on whether any alternative site was viable and that the Secretary of State failed to produce sufficient material to evidence their choice.

The Judge will now deliberate. 

The Trust is aware that it may need to undertake further legal action.  Please keep donating. 

A SINCERE THANK YOU 

The Trust is hugely indebted to its legal team:

* Richard Drabble QC who presented the case brilliantly

* Meyric Lewis, our barrister who has seen the case through from our initial Judicial Review. His closing remarks at the planning inquiry stood up magnificently to the scrutiny in court

* Richard Buxton, our solicitor, who has been incredibly generous in his time and support and unfailingly committed to the case.

The Trust is also extremely grateful to the many supporters at The Thorney Island Society, Save Victoria Tower Gardens, members of the London Gardens Trust and others.  

The Trust's purpose is to protect parks and greenspaces of horticultural significance.   The Trust is a very small charity reliant on volunteers and fundraising efforts to keep itself going.  To raise money the Trust is currently selling tickets to its open gardens event in June - Tickets are available here 

PRESS COVERAGE

February 2022 Update 

All the High Court papers are now in.

From 9am-10am there’ll be a ‘gentle’ demonstration outside the Law Courts (“the Royal Courts of Justice”) on the Strand.  The emphasis is on a respectful gathering and all are welcome to come along to show support. Those without children and dogs will have the option of heading inside to watch the hearing in the public gallery for themselves. 

A reminder about why we are at the Law Courts

The Trust seeks to protect London's historic green spaces for the enjoyment of everyone now and in future generations.  Building the proposed monument and learning centre jeopardises the public park's historic integrity forever.

Following last year’s Planning Inquiry, the Trust brought a claim to overturn the Inspector’s decision to grant permission for the project and the subsequent approval of same by the then Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher MP).  The Inspector recognised that his recommendation was “finely balanced”. 

LGT believes, and has been advised by Counsel, that the decision included several errors of law, including:

· not giving appropriate consideration to alternative sites such as the Imperial War Museum (which was originally keen to host the project and has excellent Holocaust galleries)

· not properly evaluating the harm to the Grade ll* Buxton Memorial commemorating those who brought about the 1834 Abolition of Slavery Act.

and 

· the Trust is also hoping that the judge will consider the unlawfulness of building in a garden created by the 1900 LCC Act.

Garden history and research, lies at the heart of the London Gardens Trust ethos, and it is gratifying to see it play such a pivotal role in our evidence for this case. For those interested in the 1900 Act you can read more on the Trust’s website here.  The evidence shows that those promoting the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in the 1890s intended it to remain a site for future generations to enjoy, giving access to the Thames.

We are grateful to all those who have written to the Secretary of State and elsewhere to try and persuade Government to withdraw this project and avoid further unnecessary public expenditure.

Media interest

On 13th February 2022, the Observer published an article by Rowan Moore interviewing Martin Stern, a Holocaust survivor who was an early backer of the memorial idea and has bravely explained his change of heart having seen the full extent of the plans.  On 17th February the Times published an open letter with numerous signatories including amongst others the Right Reverend Lord Williams of Oystermouth (former Archbishop of Canterbury); Anita Lasker-Wallfisch (a Holocaust survivor); Dr Irene Lancaster; all objecting to the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.

Your continued support

Our High Court case is scheduled to continue on 23rd February, but the decision may take a few weeks. We’ll update further when we have news.

We are grateful to all our supporters for making it possible for us to reach this stage - we may yet need further backing depending on next steps so do please continue to donate if you can.

January 2022 Update

Despite the break for the festive period, the campaign continues with vigour as it is clear that the HMLC intend to break ground the moment they can. 

On 3^rd January (Bank Holiday Monday) the workmen were spotted by local residents out doing cable tracing to prepare for the building works.

In late December, the Trust and fellow campaigners met with Westminster City Council to request that applications submitted by the HMLC to dispense with special conditions should be paused until the court case. Due to procedural requirements the Councillors and their officers did not think this was possible but are sympathetic to the concerns raised. In particular, the Trust stressed that no works that were irreversible such as trimming branches or digging tree roots should be allowed to take place until after the point at which the court processes had concluded, but we remain vigilant.

As regards the legal process, Westminster City Council are seeking to play a more active role by making written submissions, but the Secretary of State’s lawyers have objected to this stance.

Meanwhile campaigners have continued to research the importance of the original intent of the Act that set up the gardens in 1900 and what was intended when the legislation sought to ‘maintain’ the park. We are satisfied that Parliament clearly saw the gardens being maintained as a public recreation ground. The HMLC, whilst potentially very worthwhile as an educational endeavour, will be a ticketed centre for sombre reflection and that will alter the amenity value of the park forever. We sincerely hope that the court will be sympathetic to our pursuit of this line.

We remain optimistic but only thanks to your help. As ever, please spread the word about this inappropriate proposal and seek others to join with us and protect this historic space for everyone’s future public enjoyment.

The Trust and fellow campaigners have been busy during November and December in anticipation of the High Court hearing against the Government on the 22nd and 23rd February 2022. 

Despite the impending Court Case, the UKHMF submitted a number of documents to Westminster City Council seeking approval for enabling works.  These works include trimming tree roots and starting to remove elements of the park before the end of February and the High Court's judgment. We have therefore written to Westminster Council (currently listed as fellow defendants alongside the Minister and the Secretary of State) and the Royal Parks to stop these works from progressing. We have now had some reassurance that non-reversible work will not take place until the result of the court case is known.  We have also raised additional matters of concern relating to flooding.

The Trust has also received a copy of the Grounds for Resistance from both the Secretary of State and the Minister.  You can read all the documents as always on our website where we provide a Record of Events.  You'll note that the Secretary of State in Paragraph 39 of his submission persists in implying that only 7% of the park will be taken up by the new building despite the Inspector accepting in his report (15.204) that it is likely to be greater and a junior minister has told Parliament that 15% of the green space would go (See Footnote 1).   

The Minister emphasises at paragraph 6 that he is maintaining a functional separation in accordance with the Handling Arrangements published previously.  This was only made transparent after the Trust went to Court prior to the Planning Inquiry.  This is consistent with a lack of transparency throughout the delivery of this project - the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) previously the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has consistently withheld information on how the selection of Victoria Tower Gardens was made and why other alternatives were ruled out.

The nub of the case focusses on:

• whether the harm to the setting of the Grade 2* Buxton Memorial has been assessed lawfully
• whether the Government's presentation of alternative sites to tip the planning balance in favour of Victoria Tower Gardens as the chosen location was lawful

The Trust is also concerned that the Minister in reaching his decision did not consider the requirements of a 1900 Act of Parliament, which mandated that the gardens should be maintained as a public park, when pressing ahead with the project.

This case continues to throw surprises, and we are grateful for the sustained support of donors, but we have a long way to go to raise much needed funding to challenge the Government.  Please do share the information with others and encourage their involvement no matter how small - every penny will count.  

Footnote (1) We say 26% of the greenspace in the park will be replaced with additional hard standing and buildings - see our evidence including the Statement of Significance presented to the Planning Inquiry with supported plan (p67).

November 2021 update

The High Court has just given the LGT leave to pursue its appeal against the Minister of Housing’s decision to allow the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. This is a major advance for our case.

Mrs Justice Lieven has agreed with LGT that two issues in the case – about the correct legal way of evaluating harm to heritage assets, and whether the approach to looking at alternative locations (expecting objectors to come up with detailed proposals, which she says put them into “an almost impossible position”) – are arguable, and merit consideration by the Court.

The Judge has disagreed with the LGT’s other points, about recognition of the heritage status of Victoria Tower Gardens; about the decision-making in relation to possible harm to the magnificent plane trees; and the application of an Act of Parliament that we believe prohibits what is proposed. We are considering, as is quite normal in these cases, whether to ask for those aspects of the ruling to be reconsidered.

Meanwhile the Government is pressing for an urgent decision but is still withholding vital information that LGT and others have requested repeatedly. This relates to the issue of alternative options on which we have been granted permission to proceed. The Government claims to have carefully considered several alternatives, including the Imperial War Museum, but has refused to divulge how it came to choose Victoria Tower Gardens. All it has said, separately in answer to Parliamentary Questions, is that 'The sites shortlisted … were not assessed by the Foundation as suitable and no detailed cost estimates were made.'

The harm to heritage issue is about the treatment of the Buxton Memorial - a Grade 2* Victorian monument - which commemorates the abolition of slavery in the British empire. At a time when the Government and society wants to take into account all of the impacts of the British empire, including the effects of slavery, it seems quite wrong to ruin the setting of such an important memorial by ignoring its careful siting within this public park. The seemingly arcane legal issue, one of great importance for this and other heritage-affected cases, is what “substantial” or “less than substantial” harm means when making planning judgments.

So: battle is joined! We need funds to pursue this to a hearing via, no doubt, skirmishes on the way relating to disclosure and the other grounds.

Please do spread the word and give as generously as you can – all contributions are welcomed to support our small charity with its costs for this significant and complex case.

Here is a copy of Mrs Justice Lieven’s order.

October 2021 Update

Your support is needed now so the LGT can meet all its likely legal costs.  Read below to see what has been happening.

Summary of Legal Exchanges

Back in August, prior to the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust (LGT) going to court, we wrote a Pre-Application Protocol letter asking for information about how the Government looked at alternative sites.  LGT did not have to do this, as it was undertaking a s.288 Appeal, but wanted to give the Secretary of State and the Minister every chance to explain and justify their approach to this project and ideally persuade them to see sense and withdraw the scheme!  Instead of responding in good time, the Government delayed and continued to withhold information. LGT submitted its appeal anyway so as not to be timed out.  

The Government then complained that the papers submitted by the Trust to the Courts had not addressed their legal points and continued to withhold the information requested.  Objectors have repeatedly asked to see critical papers about how Victoria Tower Gardens was selected over any other location in Central London - until these are revealed the conclusion that this is the only viable site for such a monument is not justifiable.  

You may remember that in LGT's previous action, the Government failed to publish their handling arrangements until the Trust went to Court. If there is nothing to hide, then why not disclose the information? and why not now?

The Government often say that they are pushing for an urgent decision because they want to build this before the last of the survivors die.  Whilst this is an entirely laudable aim, the Government has taken over 70 years to determine the need for such a monument and has chosen a controversial approach which has in itself delayed the project. In their apparent haste they have failed to subject the project to proper parliamentary scrutiny which should have included repealing the 1900 act which set up the Gardens.  

We have issued a response to the Government and the Learning for the Righteous's presentations to the Court.  The matter now rests with the High Court and we'll update you when we hear more. To read the full history and documentation please visit the Trust's website recording the timeline for all the events of this case.

Planning Conditions with Westminster City Council

Westminster Council imposed 36 Conditions on the granting of Planning Permission as part of an agreement recommended by the Planning Inspector.  Some of these are routine, such as restrictions on construction time, but others should be more difficult to fulfill, such as the requirement to prepare an evacuation plan in the case of flooding from the river.  Unless the Conditions are fulfilled the work cannot start.  Initially, the Government submitted an outline construction timetable indicating preparatory works starting in the park very soon but these have now been withdrawn pending this legal case.

Fundraising

LGT is hugely grateful to all the existing supporters who have helped us reach our minimum target of £10k - thank you so much. Unfortunately we have a lot more to do yet - please continue to give money to support our legal costs and spread the word.

We will have more news very soon.