CHAPTER XI. The Future of County Hall
In April 1986, under the legislation abolishing the Greater
London Council, the ownership of County Hall passed
to the London Residuary Body (LRB), an organization
created expressly to oversee the transfer of functions and
property to successor bodies, such as the London
Boroughs, and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Like other assets not officially needed or transferred,
County Hall was to be sold. Not surprisingly, the disposal
and future use of so prominent a building attracted a good
deal of interest, both in the press and among members of
the public.
Proposals for retaining the building as the offices of a
public body, thereby reducing the need for substantial
alterations, received considerable attention, even though
they were unlikely to find favour with a government which
had abolished the GLC. Political opponents of abolition
were especially keen to see as little change as possible, in
the hope that a future government might reinstate the
building as the headquarters of a new London-wide authority. The Inner London Education Authority (ILEA),
the Association of London Authorities, and the London
Charitable Trust – a group formed especially for the
purpose – all considered making offers to purchase County
Hall. One local government use proposed was a combined
base for the ILEA, the London Fire and Civil Defence
Authority and the London Waste Regulation Authority. (fn. 1)
The ILEA, which was originally intended to survive its
parent body, was a serious contender for at least part of
the complex. The possibility of using County Hall for
government offices was also canvassed. Lord St John of
Fawsley favoured the relocation there of the Department
of the Environment, as this would allow the demolition of
its Marsham Street offices, which he described as 'one of
the most hideous structures in London and indeed in the
kingdom'. (fn. 2) One proposal would have turned County Hall
into a headquarters for the Metropolitan Police; another
recommended its conversion to a prison. (fn. 3) Envious eyes
were cast on the building from across the river, at least
one M.P. suggesting to the government that it might be
used for Members' accommodation. (fn. 4) A grander and more
appropriate role was envisaged by those who felt that
the building would make a fitting meeting-place for the
European Parliament, or a headquarters for the European
Community. (fn. 5)
The County Hall complex, whose future was being so
hotly discussed, comprised some areas of open space used
by the public, as well as a variety of buildings, not all of
which were of architectural importance (fig. 51). Those of
interest included Knott's 'riverside building', the ScottHiorns North and South Blocks, and, from the townplanning point of view, the riverside terrace, and Jubilee
Gardens. The Gardens occupied the site of the LCC's
first purchase on the South Bank, and in 1951 the area
had been used for part of the Festival of Britain site.
The press foresaw considerable difficulties in finding a
suitable buyer for what the Financial Times described as
both 'the jewel in the property portfolio' and 'the most
vexatious asset to sell'. (fn. 6) The London Evening Standard
was making the same point when it half-jokingly suggested
that a sale notice might read:
Very important property covering 6½ acres, premier position,
nine floors, 900 rooms, 12 miles of corridor, marble council
chamber, pillared conference hall, kitchens, bars, cafeterias,
restaurants, car parks, mod cons at every turn. Suit goodness
knows who. (fn. 7)
To the usual difficulties of dealing with a large and famous
building in a prominent position had to be added the extra
dimension of opposition to the sale, both in Parliament and
from the London Borough of Lambeth, and the planning
problems thrown up by the proposal to use Waterloo
Station as a London terminus for Eurotunnel traffic.
In order to establish possible alternative uses for the
building, in the hope of enhancing its marketability, the
LRB submitted more than a dozen applications to the local
planning authority, the London Borough of Lambeth, in
October 1986. These included requests for a decision as
to whether the use as offices of any of the buildings
involved 'development' and therefore required planning
permission; planning applications for office use for them
all; and applications for a change of use for the listed
1922 Main Building to hotel use, and to mixed hotel and
residential use. (fn. 8) No decision having been made during the
statutory period by the reluctant Borough Council, the
LRB appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who called a Public Inquiry. (fn. 9)
At this Inquiry, which opened in April 1987, particular
attention was paid to the fact that the Main Building
is listed Grade II*, and that County Hall is within a
conservation area. The question of whether the existing
use of the Main Building should be preserved was also
addressed. Citing the Department of the Environment's
own general guidelines – that the 'best use for a historic
building is obviously the use for which it was designed' (fn. 10) –
the spokesman for English Heritage urged the desirability
of keeping the Main Building as the headquarters of a
public or quasi-public authority, 'the nature of whose
activities would be likely to ensure the preservation and
continued use of such important features as the Council
Chamber and ambulatories, the Conference Hall, the Education Library and the principal committee rooms'. Conversion to hotel or residential use would require the
introduction of domestic services and other changes
threatening the fabric of this 'great civic monument'. In
any case, no decision should be taken over the future of the
Main Building until detailed plans had been submitted. (fn. 11)
Lambeth Council was concerned that the proposed
development would conflict with existing planning guidelines, as laid down in the Greater London Development
Plan and the Waterloo District Plan, by increasing private
office development, thereby putting strain on local transport and car-parking arrangements, and by threatening
public access to the riverside. (fn. 12)
The Inspector, David Keene Q.C., allowed the office
applications for the subsidiary buildings, but rejected all
four planning applications seeking a change of use for
the Main Building. Any office use other than by a local
authority would constitute 'development' requiring a
planning permission. He also took the view that the main
purpose of County Hall 'had been a governmental one
albeit confined to London, but with the distinct characteristics of an elected government use', and that in 'balancing the competing need to retain County Hall for
London governmental use against the need for office use'
he thought that the Main Building ought to continue in
local government use. The Inspector concluded that the
outline applications for change to residential and hotel use
could not be granted without the submission of detailed
information to allow the implications for the listed building to be assessed. The problem of inadequate parking
space also had to be resolved before consent could be
granted for conversion for residential purposes. (fn. 13)
The Inquiry's findings and the Secretary of State's
decisions were made public on 20 October 1987. The
Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley, accepted that a change
to general office use needed a planning application, but he
did not agree with his Inspector's finding that there was
'an overriding need' for local government use to continue.
Ridley therefore granted outline planning permission for
County Hall to be used for general offices, and he also
stated that with the submission of proper detailed plans,
neither hotel nor residential use would be unacceptable.
Although concerned about the lack of parking space, he
was more worried that the application was not detailed
enough to allow a proper assessment of its likely impact
on an important listed building. He therefore refused
consent for residential and hotel use. (fn. 14)
The Secretary of State's decision was challenged in the
courts by Lambeth, the ILEA and others on the one hand,
and the LRB on the other. The point ultimately to be
resolved was whether the Secretary of State was legally
bound by his Inspector's 'competing need test' – the
desirability of preserving an existing use weighed on its
planning merits against the need and desirability of the
proposed new use – and although the House of Lords
eventually decided, in July 1990, that he was not so bound,
the delay caused by these legal actions proved embarrassing. (fn. 15)
The implication of the Secretary of State's decision was
that hotel and residential use were not ruled out. Soon after
the original announcement of the results of the Inquiry the
LRB asked the well-known estate agents, Richard Ellis
and Partners, to find a purchaser. In the prevailing favourable economic climate, they were able to attract over
300 inquiries, from which some twenty serious applicants
emerged. Potential developers had to be assessed not only
on their size and viability, and the amount of money
bid, but also on the likelihood of their schemes receiving
planning approval. (fn. 16)
Twelve developers finally submitted proposals for the
building, and four were selected for further consideration.
From these the scheme prepared by the American architectural practice of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill for the
County Hall Development Group, was chosen by the
LRB in June 1988. (fn. 17) The underbidders' names were not
officially released, but a few of the other schemes were
discussed in the architectural press. One was by the Building Design Partnership (BDP) in association with the
Heery Group, another by Aukett Limited for the
Thamesside Development Corporation. (fn. 18)
The Heery-BDP scheme proposed considerable
environmental improvement for the whole South Bank
area. This included the creation of a public park between
County Hall and the National Theatre to provide a landscaped setting for the major buildings on the South Bank,
the relocation of Charing Cross Station across the river at
Waterloo East, and the building of a new square in front
of Waterloo Station. County Hall itself was to be split
vertically into lettable units, though the Principal Floor
would be retained intact. The Conference Hall and Education Library were to house a National School of Contemporary Dance. The Island Block and the Addington
Street Annexe would be demolished and several local
roads re-routed underground. North and South Blocks
were to be replaced by new offices. (fn. 19)
The Thamesside Development Corporation also proposed to demolish the North and South Blocks, but
planned to retain the Island Block, refurbished as highquality commercial offices. Public open space was to be
enhanced by the landscaping of Jubilee Gardens, while
County Hall itself was to be given as public a use as
possible, as a hotel and arts centre. The arts centre would
include a Saatchi Gallery, housing the private collection
of over 700 works of modern art, built up by Charles
Saatchi and his wife. (fn. 20)
The County Hall Development Group found strong
Anglo-Japanese backing to fund the costs of development,
which the Property Correspondent of The Times estimated
at £950 million in February 1989. British investors were
said to have put up half the capital for the development
and the Japanese the other half. (fn. a) (fn. 21)
The Group's architects, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill,
had proposed the retention of most of Knott's Main Building and the conversion of its southern end into a 400
bedroom hotel and business centre, incorporating conference and exhibition facilities. The Members' Courtyard
would form the main entrance to the hotel, with additional
entrances in new stone-faced blocks with which it was
intended to replace the 1970's glass infill walls. The northern end, from Block 2 northwards, would be converted to
over 300 residential units arranged around a new enlarged
courtyard reminiscent of an Oxford college quadrangle,
the intervening range (Block 12) being demolished (Plate
48a). To provide a clear garden space it was proposed to
dismantle the Education Library and reassemble it below
the Conference Hall, and to floor over the whole courtyard
at third-floor level with a raised terrace above the Conference Hall.
All other County Hall buildings were to be demolished.
A new office building, the Belvedere Centre, including a
shopping mall, would be erected on the sites of North and
South Blocks, between Belvedere and York Roads. The
Addington Street Annexe was to be replaced by the octagonal Addington Centre, a considerably larger and more
magnificent building, and the Island Block by a great
traffic circus (Plate 48b). The centre of this circus would
be graced by a circular island with a central column,
similar in scale to Nelson's Column, surmounted by a
statue, representing, it was suggested by the Daily Telegraph, either Florence Nightingale or the Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher. (fn. 22)
The scale of the proposed development inspired some
hostile criticism, Gavin Stamp describing the Belvedere
Centre as 'one of the most cynical and greedy overdevelopments of a sensitive central London site I have
seen'. (fn. 23) The Royal Fine Art Commission, too, was
unhappy with the size of the Belvedere Centre, which the
Chairman, Lord St John of Fawsley, called a 'monstrous
white elephant of an office building' whose bulk and height
would dominate Knott's riverside building and 'cast a
giant shadow in front of it'. (fn. 24) Marcus Binney, on the other
hand, thought the Group's scheme for restoring and reusing Knott's 'Edwardian baroque masterpiece' could
'hardly be bettered', and he welcomed the demolition of
the 'hideous' Island Block, 'resembling nothing so much
as an overblown three-pin plug'. But the architecture of
the Belvedere and Addington Centres disappointed him,
the former being likened to a giant slab of shiny gelatine
'partially wrapped in those paper cutouts which open up
to provide an endless repetition of a single motif, and the
latter to the 'largest pill box ever constructed'. (fn. 25)
The successful consortium applied to Lambeth
Borough Council for planning permission in February
1989, before the appeal from the original Public Inquiry
was concluded. When Lambeth again failed to decide the
application within the prescribed statutory period of eight
weeks, the County Hall Group and the LRB applied to
the Secretary of State, who called a second Public Inquiry,
under John Taylor, Q.C., which opened in September
1989. (fn. 26) The Inspector reported in March 1990, expressing
dissatisfaction with the bulk of the Belvedere Centre, as
well as with some lesser matters, such as pedestrian access
to the traffic island, and he recommended that the applications should be rejected. But in July 1990, the then
Secretary of State, Chris Patten, gave the Group three
months to produce acceptable revisions which would meet
the Inspector's criticisms. (fn. 27)
A revised scheme had been expected in early autumn,
at which time the Group should have completed the contract for the purchase of County Hall – scheduled for 1
October 1990. But the Inspector's call for a reduction in
the size – and therefore lettable space – of the Belvedere
Centre had effectively threatened the profitability of the
whole scheme at a time when the property market was
severely depressed and finance difficult to raise. In the
circumstances the consortium was unable to proceed with
the completion of the purchase on time. It tried unsuccessfully to persuade the LRB to agree to defer the completion date, and it attempted to renegotiate the selling
price, offering to buy County Hall for around half the
sum originally agreed. The LRB, under an obligation to
maximise the return from County Hall, refused the new
offer, and on 8 October 1990 the County Hall Development
Group called in the receivers. (fn. 28)
At the time of writing (December 1990) the LRB is
looking for a new buyer for County Hall, but it has
decided to continue with the planning application for the
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill scheme, subject to some
modifications. (fn. 29) The new Secretary of State, Michael
Heseltine, has announced the re-convening of the Public
Inquiry under John Taylor in January 1991 to consider
how the Inspector's criticisms have been resolved. This
Inquiry is still in progress at the time of going to press.
The LRB moved out of County Hall in August 1990,
having occupied the building for just over four years,
during which time they also acted as landlords to a variety
of successor bodies. Another more unusual role was as
location agents for various film and television companies,
and County Hall has been captured in a number of different guises, providing a recognisable background in everything from feature films to television commercials. The
cognoscenti will have recognised the building as KGB
headquarters, a Parisian night club, a British court-room,
and even viceregal Delhi. (fn. b) Not all the roles were worthy
of County Hall, but these glimpses will serve to amplify
public knowledge of a great London interior. (fn. 30)
Hôtel de Ville into Hotel Proper?
The idea of turning the building into a hotel was not a
new one. Indeed, the possibility was raised in 1892 – long
before the present complex had even been conceived – in
a pamphlet entitled The Doom of the County Council of
London. Though satirical in tone, the writer reflects a
very clear concern among Moderate (Conservative) public
opinion about the threat posed by the LCC, pointing out
how much the Council had achieved in its first three years
of office, 'on what it has attempted and declared its wish
to accomplish'. Written from an extreme Moderate
position, the fantasy imagines an LCC which, by 1911, had
achieved its various objectives, including that of building a
new County Hall – in Trafalgar Square. Amongst other
powers, it had been given that of policing London and as
a result had built up an army of 30,000 men. With this
force in hand the Council had taken over Parliament
and the House of Lords, where the ineffectual 'Lord
Tulipstalk' – Rosebery – was in their thrall. The Progressives ruled from an Hôtel de Ville built on the site of
the National Gallery, gathering about them the powers of
a centralized state and taking over all public services. The
end result was a triumphant revolution by the Moderates,
after which:
the tramways and omnibuses, and the docks were sold to private
companies, and the proceeds applied to the reduction of the
municipal debt... while the Hôtel de Ville became the property
of a Limited Liability Company, and was transformed into an
hotel proper, which was largely patronised by wealthy American
visitors. (fn. 31)