The Government has lifted the City Plan intervention affecting the City of London’s emerging City Plan 2040 after Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook said further work by the Inspectors had given him the heritage safeguards he was seeking.
The move removes the ministerial hold which had prevented Inspectors J Bridgwater and A Phillips from issuing their examination report while they carried out further scrutiny of the City Cluster tall-building contours and their potential effect on the Tower of London World Heritage Site.
In his letter dated 23rd September 2026, Pennycook said the City Plan’s heritage policies and requirements for site-specific Heritage Impact Assessments would, if the plan is adopted, “provide substantial safeguards to protect the Tower of London World Heritage Site”.
What the intervention stopped
The Minister first intervened on 25th June 2026 under section 20(6A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The direction told the Inspectors not to issue their report until they had carried out further work on a tightly defined heritage and tall-buildings question.
The Inspectors were asked to compare Historic England’s alternative City Cluster tall-building contours with the City Corporation’s approach and assess the heritage and economic implications. On 16th July 2026, Pennycook replaced the original directions with narrower wording focused on the potential effect of the contours on the Tower of London World Heritage Site.
The additional hearing was held on 2nd September 2026. The Inspectors then sent their post-hearings letter on 10th September, which the Minister has now considered.
Why the City Plan intervention was lifted
Pennycook said the Inspectors had carried out a thorough assessment of the balance between facilitating economic growth and reducing the risk of harm to heritage assets.
Crucially, he accepted their conclusion that the City Plan’s heritage policies, together with site-specific Heritage Impact Assessments, would provide substantial safeguards for the Tower and mitigate the risk of harm to the attributes which make up its Outstanding Universal Value.
The letter also points to recent national policy changes and the Government’s intention to implement the additional special regard duties in section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Taken together, Pennycook said this “provides the reassurance I was seeking”.
The direction has been lifted, but the wording needs care
The new letter expressly says Pennycook is withdrawing the directions from his 25th June letter. GOV.UK describes the 23rd September letter as lifting the direction issued on 25th June.
Procedurally, however, the 16th July letter had already withdrawn and replaced the June directions. The practical position is nevertheless clear: the ministerial restriction preventing the Inspectors from completing the examination has now been removed.
That distinction matters because the intervention was not simply varied again. The hold has ended and the examination can move towards its conclusion.
What happens next?
Pennycook says he looks forward to seeing the examination “conclude in the near future”. That does not itself adopt City Plan 2040 or predetermine the Inspectors’ final report.
The Inspectors can now progress their report, including any conclusions on soundness and Main Modifications, before the City Corporation decides whether to adopt the plan. Our guide explains the wider Local Plan examination process.
For the arguments heard on 2nd September, see our earlier report: Tower of London danger-list risk sharpens City skyscraper battle.
Why this matters beyond the City
The intervention was unusual because it stopped an examination report at a late stage and required the Inspectors to revisit one strategic issue. Its removal shows ministers are now satisfied that the concern can be handled through the plan’s heritage policies and site-specific assessment.
For tall-building policy, the City Cluster contours remain important but they are not planning permissions. Individual schemes will still need to show how their height, massing and cumulative effects respond to the Tower’s significance and setting. The episode also illustrates the reach of section 20(6A), which allows ministers to direct Inspectors and hold back an examination report while a specified issue is reconsidered.
Sources and documents
0 Comments