Plans For Tower Near Historic London Synagogue Rejected In Dramatic Friday Afternoon Vote

But the turning down of the proposal for a 43-storey building went to the wire. Bevis Marks supporters told Jewish News that the committee was asked not to consider the bid on a Friday, because of how early Shabbat began on December 13; and, when that was refused, a request that the Bevis Marks bid should be first on the agenda, for the same reason, was also turned down.

So the more than two-hour long debate at Guildhall did not begin until just after 12 noon, with Shabbat due to begin at 3.36 pm. The case officer for the City of London, Anna Tastoglou, presented the bid on behalf of the developers — the same developers whose proposal for a 47-storey building was previously turned down by the powerful planning committee.

The proposal — which it was claimed would provide 2,400 office jobs — also contained a variety of community “sweeteners” such as two “multi-faith centres” and an external climbing wall at the tower, sited over three buildings, which would be demolished, next to the synagogue. One of the buildings is a Grade 2 Heritage building, Holland House.

Bevis Marks supporters repeatedly told the City authorities that the project would effectively cut out both daylight and sunlight to the synagogue and its courtyard, and make it difficult to see the moon on occasions when special prayers had to be recited. The developers insisted that their surveys found that the impact of the tower on the synagogue would be “negligible” or “minor”, a conclusion which was successfully challenged by the synagogue.

In 2021, the City of London reneged on its permit for a skyscraper building at 31 Bury Street next to Bevis Marks, after more than 1000 objections were sent to the planning website and the opposition presented its case to the municipal authorities.

In particular, Sir Michael Bear, a former Lord Mayor of the City of London and himself a developer, distinguished himself with an impassioned presentation of the possible damage both to the synagogue, the oldest in Britain, and to the nearby Tower of London. Bear described the synagogue as a “unique piece of architecture”, a living centre of Jewish worship and the only such non-Christian place in the City, and criticized the City for disregarding its own regulations regarding heritage sites.

Solicitor Henrietta Gordon, who is not Jewish, has worked in the City for many years. She compared the synagogue, opened in 1701, with St Paul’s Cathedral, opened in 1710, and asked why Bevis Marks could not be afforded the same level of planning protection as St Paul’s. She also, to the anger of some committee members, suggested that granting planning permission could be a breach of human rights and equality laws, and that an element of antisemitism might be involved. This was furiously rejected by planning officers.

It was left to the synagogue’s Rabbi Shalom Morris to spell out exactly what the impact would be on his congregation’s ability to worship — the tower, he said, would effectively block out the night sky for six months of the year, “leaving us in a perpetual winter morning”. Rabbi Morris also said that Bevis Marks’ own studies had indicated that the light available to the synagogue would “plummet” — a word with which the developers profoundly disagreed.

The developers, whose spokesman was Alexander Morris, tried to show how the community could benefit from allocated spaces in the tower, but they failed to show how they had addressed the synagogue’s concerns and why they needed to build in a way which affected the synagogue so negatively.

Finally, just an hour before Shabbat was due to begin, chairman Shriven Joshi — who announced he would vote in support of the tower proposal — put the bid to the vote. The developers’ plan was rejected by 14 votes to eight, and some of the Bevis Marks campaigners burst into tears of relief.

Rabbi Morris said: “We are very pleased that the City of London Planning Committee has refused planning permission for a speculative 43-storey office tower at 31 Bury Street and rejected the flawed and inaccurate advice presented by the City Planning Officer to grant permission for a tall building in a Conservation Area, contrary to the adopted Local Plan.

“Now that this totally inappropriate tower proposal has been rejected for the second time in two years, we urge the applicant to abandon this project in its current form and not to lodge an appeal, which, we are advised by Lord Banner KC, has little chance of succeeding.”