However, Greens have done well and now control three boroughs. Given the growing popularity of Reform UK, and the residual support in some areas for the LibDems, this makes London a patchwork quilt, rather than two-tone electoral city.

This is good news for built environment veteran Peter Murray, who held his first meeting of industry supporters in the RSHP City of London office (the ‘Cheesegrater’ designed by the practice). The more voting is split among many parties, the better it is for an independent. And when the mayoral election takes place in May 2027, it is now far more likely that no candidate will get a sufficient vote to win on the first ballot.

That raises the possibility of deals to be done promoting the interests of design, construction and regeneration in a capital that has lacked decisive action from the current mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has been in power for a decade and could still decide to run again. Let’s hope not: we don’t need another No-Khan-Do mayor, but someone who, for example, could get the closed Hammersmith Bridge sorted out, and get a grip on social housing procurement.

Off the rails

Talking about getting things done (or not), the mayor is being lobbied to step into the controversy about commercial development above Liverpool Street Station, needed to fund up to £500 million of infrastructure investment required to keep the station relevant for the next 50 years and beyond.

Following the rejection of designs by Herzog & de Meuron, Network Rail turned to Acme, a sophisticated and successful practice run by Friedrich Ludewig. His combination of commercial acumen and flamboyant design style has won fans in the world of property, but has upset opponents of the development even more than the previous architects – by actually obtaining planning permission from the City of London, following recommendations to approve by planning officers.

The same sort of critics also opposed the Renzo Piano office development which helped to fund much needed infrastructure improvements at Paddington Station, but it happened and has worked brilliantly. As sometimes happens in London, a heritage-inspired ‘rival’ proposal, in this case by John McAslan, has been promoted by opponents of Acme, and there has been much press discussion about the procurement process surrounding the permitted development.

We will wait and see what happens, but as is usual these days, the assumption is that it will take years to resolve, will therefore result in gigantic increases in costs, but get done in the end. ‘London can’t make it’ – at least without ten years of delay and unproductive abuse.

Any change must be for the worse – not

No sooner does someone propose improvements to under-performing commercial buildings, then along comes the 20th Century Society, led by its redoubtable director Catherine Croft, to demand that the buildings in question should be listed. The latest example of what sometimes seems like Pavolovian behaviour concerns Embankment Place, the office building above Charing Cross Station (what is it about stations?), and the large Post-Modern 10 Cabot Square at Canary Wharf, designed by SOM in the 1990s.

The basic argument is that they aren’t making them like that any more, and they deserve protection rather than willy-nilly demolition. Up to a point, Lord Copper. There is a problem about treating speculative commercial office development as though their commercial value is irrelevant compared to an assumed cultural value. Redundancy is verboten.

In any event, in the case of the two buildings cited, the architects commissioned to improve and modify are smart and principles – Hopkins at Embankment Place, and Glenn Howells in Canary Wharf. Why oppose them in advance?

The proof of the pudding . . .

It isn’t long since the same demands for listing and prevention of contemporary interventions were made in respect of the old IBM building on the South Bank, designed by Denys Lasdun as a sort of junior partner to his next-door National Theatre. In this case, architects AHMM have done a terrific job, improving the buildings in both architectural and commercial terms. No doubt some future 21st Century Society organization will oppose any change to AHMM’s work.

Another recent intemperate attack by the heritage brigade concerned the revitalisation of the former Coles department store in Sheffield, also by AHMM (Simon Allford’s father, David, was the original architect for the store, by YRM). Some of the criticisms were so off-the-wall that you wondered if these people are living on another planet where anything new is automatically suspect.

Unfortunately, as this column has noted before, that is exactly what is written into planning law. Anything new in a historic context, or something new in an existing building which is listed or in a conservation area, or these days next to an area which is just ‘characterful’, is assumed to be doing ‘harm’. The only question is how much harm – for which of course there is a ‘spectrum’ which keeps townscape consultants and planning barrister busy and well-rewarded.

It is time for this fiction to be consigned to the dustbin of history. There may are may not be ‘harm’, whatever that word may mean, but it should not be assumed automatically, any more than planned buildings should be regarded as automatically virtuous just because they are new.

Two-tier planning – a very British idea

There has been a broad welcome for a government proposal to give planning officers devolved powers to decide minor planning applications, and being strict about what should go to planning committees. The welcome assumes that planners basically get things right, and indeed evidence from the planning inspectorate shows that on appeal, if officers have recommended approval, it is invariably confirmed.

However, there must be occasions where the communal experience and possibly wisdom of a group of elected councillors might be considered more important than the views of officers. In Tower Hamlets, a mid-rise office building in the Whitechapel district, designed by Foster & Partners, was recommended for refusal by office, but after a site visit, supported by the planning committee. Opponents then went to the High Court, where the permission was cancelled.

That’s London. If planners, environmentalists, conservationists don’t get you, the courts will. Growth, anyone?