Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Holl’s controversial Maggie’s plans face legal challenge


The leader of the group campaigning against Steven Holl’s planned Maggie’s Centre at St Bart’s has launched judicial review proceedings to block the contentious scheme

Marcus Setchell, the retired gynaecologist who delivered Prince George, claims the designs would have a massively detrimental impact on the Smithfield hospital’s Grade I*-listed Great Hall and has launched a legal action in the High Court against the recent approval for the project (see attached).

The doctor is challenging the City of London’s decision in July to back the Holl-designed cancer care centre (see AJ 17.07.14), arguing that the City had failed to take into account the ‘significant harm the development will cause to the 800 year old UNESCO listed site’.

Holl’s original proposals for the site were rejected by the City last June (AJ 04.06.13) - the first time in the charity’s 18-year history one of its schemes had been turned down.

In response, and in an attempt to appease the objectors, the American architect moved the ‘lantern-like lightweight building’ away from the listed Great Hall. Last month the amended scheme scraped through the planning committee meeting by 11 votes to 10.

But The Friends of the Great Hall, led by Setchell, argue that the planning committee ‘had failed to recognise its responsibilities’ towards the existing, historic structures and had not looked at viable alternatives - including a rival plan drawn up by Hopkins for the Friends which won approval in April this year.

Hopkins’ proposal included moving the Maggie’s centre further away from James Gibbs 1738 hall. However the Friends’ scheme has never received the support of the landowners, the Barts Health NHS Trust, which is also named on the court documents as an ‘interested party’.

A spokesperson for Maggie’s, said: ‘We are disappointed to learn that judicial review proceedings have been issued by Marcus Setchell in relation to the City of London Corporation’s decisions to grant planning permission and listed building consent for our new centre at Barts. We will support the Corporation and Barts Health NHS Trust to defend these proceedings. We remain committed to bringing a new centre to St Bartholomew’s hospital and enhancing the quality of support for cancer patients across North East London.’

Statement from Marcus Setchell

‘It is unfortunate that we have reached a point whereby it is necessary to file a claim for judicial review.

‘We have tried on numerous occasions, and indeed are still trying, to reach a compromise agreement with the Trust, and with Maggie’s, but time and again they have failed to recognise that placing their building in the proposed site will cause major harm both to the long-term future viability of the Great Hall, as well as to its unique architectural setting of the 18th century Barts Hospital Square.

‘The NHS Trust’s plans to include some of the essential support service improvements that the Hall needs are woefully inadequate, and are indeed harmful to both architecture and function.

It’s unfortunate we’ve reached a point where judicial review is necessary

‘As a doctor who has worked for the NHS for 42 years, I am fully supportive of the provision of cancer support services, but having trained at Barts and been a consultant there for 25 years, I understand deeply the heritage value of the historic listed buildings, and the need for their protection and conservation.

‘The City of London Corporation has a uniquely privileged duty of care to this ancient city. Its planning committee failed to recognise its responsibilities to ensure that the NHS and Maggie’s plans would not have severe detrimental effects on the historic buildings on this the oldest hospital in Europe to still occupy its original site. I, together with the Friends of Barts, can resolutely say that the decision to grant approval for this development, by one vote, shows that they have failed in this role.’

Postscript 01.09.14

Statement from Barts Health NHS Trust

‘The decision by the City of London’s Planning and Transportation Committee to approve the application by the Maggie’s charity to build a cancer caring facility at St Bartholomew’s, followed extensive public consultation, and was openly debated in great detail by the committee.

‘We are therefore surprised and disappointed that Sir Marcus Setchell has indicated his intention to challenge the committee’s decision. Cancer sufferers, their families and friends, across London have waited a very long time for this much needed facility, and any delays to its construction will be met with huge disappointment and much frustration.

‘As has been our commitment throughout this process, we will continue to work with the Friends of the Great Hall and Archives on our plans to maintain and develop the Great Hall for future generations to enjoy.’

Previous story (AJ 17.07.14)

Victory for Holl as Barts Maggie’s Centre approved

Steven Holl’s controversial Maggie’s Centre at London’s St Bartholomew’s Hospital has been narrowly approved

The contentious decision - 11 to 10 in favour of the scheme - was made this morning (17 July) at a packed-out meeting of the City of London’s planning committee.

The American architect’s original proposals for a cancer care centre on the site were rejected by the City last June (AJ 04.06.12) - the first time in the charity’s 18-year history one of its schemes had been turned down.

Revised proposals by Holl were met with fierce resistance by campaign group The Friends of the Great Hall – headed by Marcus Setchell, the retired gynaecologist who had delivered Prince George - who claimed the designs would have a massively detrimental impact on the hospital’s Grade I*-listed Great Hall by James Gibbs (1738).

Changes to the initial plans, which saw Holl’s cancer care centre ‘detach’ from the hospital’s Great Hall, did not appease the objectors who argued it was still too ‘bulky’ and ‘ultra-modern’.

Instead they asked Michael Hopkins to draw up alternative plans which they won planning for in April (AJ 29.04.14).

The Friends said its proposals were a viable, ‘non-destructive’ alternative for the Great Hall and earmarked a plot away from the building for the new centre.

Speaking at today’s meeting Holl described the building as a ‘lantern-like lightweight building’ which is ‘very much in the background’.

He added: ‘The James Gibbs building is a jewel. We’ve responded to the comments on our previous application and pulled the building facades back to further expose the North Wing. Our proposals have been shaped to expose the corner coins of the James Gibbs building.’

Commenting in support of the scheme committee member Reverend Martin Dudley said: ‘If we accept the value of Maggie’s then the question can only be about the building. I’m reminded if the louvre pyramid and the controversy surrounding it.

‘This committee is well known for embracing the modern - One New Change, the Gherkin, the Rothschild building. We should not show ourselves to be timid or reactionary but should embrace this proposal.’

While committee member Brian Mooney, who had flown back from his holiday in Spain to give his support for the scheme at the meeting, added: ‘This is adding an architectural gem to an architectural gem.’

The reworked scheme received 400 letters in support and 93 against.

With Barts NHS Trust remaining committed to building Maggie’s directly next to the Hall, replacing the hospital’s1960s finance building, the decision to award planning to Holl’s scheme, which is backed by the trust, could signal the end for Hopkins proposals.

But the campaign group has vowed to fight on and is considering pushing for a judicial review.

Setchell commented: ‘We are disappointed by the committee’s decision, particularly as the plan was only passed by one vote. We are frustrated that the Barts Trust has demonstrated little understanding of its heritage responsibilities. 

‘We are considering our options, including pushing for a judicial review. 

‘Without a sustainable future, this wonderful asset that is the Great Hall will deteriorate further and be a drain on the Trust’s finances, which are already in a parlous state.’

The committee also granted planning for an associated listed building application submitted by the hospital trust, which received a vote of 12 to 6 in favour of the changes.

The plans, drawn up by heritage and conservation architects Donald Insall Associates will restore and preserve the listed Great Hall which the Maggie’s Centre will sit alongside, and include improved access and toilet facilities.

Speaking at the meeting, Maggie’s chief executive Laura Lee said doors for the new centre could open as soon as 2015.

Further comments

Laura Lee, Maggie’s chief executive

‘I believe Steven Holl’s Maggie’s Centre will be a building the City can be proud of.

‘It is an important and sensitive site and its unique context requires a special building. The quality of the architecture is vital to the care we deliver. Holl has taken a contemporary approach while respecting the historic neighbouring building.

‘We very much welcome the committee’s decision and are truly thankful for all the support our scheme has received. We look forward to working closely with Barts Health NHS Trust to bring the highest quality cancer support to people across North East London and working in partnership with the hospital to support the long-term restoration and preservation of the historic North Wing.’

Peter Morris, chief executive at Barts Health NHS Trust

‘The building of a Maggie’s Centre at St Bartholomew’s Hospital marks an important step in our strategy to strengthen the position of Barts in the City as a world class cancer centre combining excellence in clinical care, research and patient experience. We welcome the resolution to grant planning for the Maggie’s Centre along with the approval of our own application [led by Donald Insall]. This will be an important first phase in our vision to restore the historic North Wing and establish a heritage quarter.’

David Selby of Hopkins architects

‘The hall is a great heritage asset which is currently spoilt by the hospital’s pathology block and finance block. The Holl scheme could undo the work of the Friends’ approved scheme. Maggie’s scheme is substantial in its harm. The proposals block the east corner of the square challenging the original principles of Gibbs’ design.’

Previous story (AJ 03.06.14)

Decision time for Barts Maggie’s in Holl versus Hopkins standoff

On 17 July Maggie’s will seek permission for its Steven Holl design for a centre at Barts in the teeth of vehement objections. Richard Waite reports

When Steven Holl’s proposed Maggie’s cancer care centre at Barts hospital in Smithfield was rejected by the City of London last June, it was the first time in its 18-year history that the charity had failed to win planning for one of its schemes.

The organisation, which has built 16 centres by leading architects, was understandably surprised. The scheme had been recommended for approval.  

Undeterred, the American star and the charity tried again with a modified design. The team responded to the planning committee’s concerns about how the three-storey building would affect the future setting and use of the Grade I*-listed Great Hall in the North Wing of Barts and how it would sit in the landscaping – detail of which was mostly absent in the original submission.

But earlier this year the game changed dramatically. The Friends of the Great Hall – a group of objectors to the plans, headed by Marcus Setchell, the retired gynaecologist who had delivered Prince George – became more vociferous in its opposition. Not only was Holl’s Modernist vision [replacing an unloved 1960s finance building] out of keeping with the surroundings, the campaigners claimed, it would have a hugely detrimental impact on James Gibb’s 1738 hall. The revisions to Maggie’s plans, which will be heard by the planning committee on 17 July, have been dismissed by the Friends as ‘minor modifications’.

Instead, the group came up with a viable, ‘non-destructive’ alternative for the Great Hall, drawn up by British architectural establishment figure Michael Hopkins, won planning for it, and took the campaign into hyperdrive (AJ 18.04.14). The spat was covered in newspapers, on the radio and on TV. Maggie’s – and its chief executive Laura Lee – had never known anything like it.

Celebrities including actor Edward Fox and TV historian David Starkey entered the fray, Save Britain’s Heritage backed Hopkins, and the planning battle became a polarised tug-of-war between the Maggie’s Modernists and the heritage protectors.

‘What was truly shocking was the implication that we were [planning to] pull the Great Hall down,’ says Lee. ‘We are not.’

She adds: ‘If people don’t look into what they are saying and it is taken at face value, the Friends’ campaigning will have influence.’

Unlike Holl’s previous scheme, the reworked, ‘hermetically sealed’ scheme no longer touches the Great Hall at all. A planned link to provide toilets for those using the hall within the Maggie’s centre was ditched.

Since the refusal, the NHS Trust has appointed heritage expert and project collaborator Donald Insall Associates to look at how the Great Hall can be made ‘self-sufficient’ and has come up with new plans to keep the toilets in the Great Hall, increase capacity in the west-end basement and allow disabled access. Lee says: ‘Our building enhances the hall, takes away the distracting [finance block] and replaces it with a piece of architecture which will improve the overall experience. Our scheme is thoughtful and respectful to it. [It] looks to the future heritage without demeaning the past.’

Holl agrees: ‘Of course I’m disappointed to read the comments of objection [but] would like to reassure those who have voiced concern. Our scheme will in no way jeopardise the future of the Great Hall and the design will breathe new life into Barts.’

The Friends disagree. The group has numerous complaints about the ‘ultra-modern’ and ‘bulky’ Holl scheme and the Donald Insall plans for the hall, which they claim will see its glory ‘fade away’.

At the same time campaigners dismiss accusations that they are perverting the planning process. Setchell says: ‘Protection of [listed buildings] by planning authorities is part of their statutory duties. The committee should not […] be intimidated by emotional arguments.’

Hopkins maintains his involve­ment began in 2009, when he carried out an options study for heritage buildings at Barts for the NHS Trust before Maggie’s was invited to create plans for a new centre in 2010. However, Hopkins didn’t start working with the Friends until 2012 – after much of the consultation for the proposed Maggie’s had taken place.

The Trust has said quite clearly it can’t support the scheme

Although Hopkins has come up with an alternative which would see the Maggie’s centre moved ‘just 20 yards’ away from its proposed site and two service cores added on either end of the historic hall, there is a problem: it is not what Barts wants and involves the demolition of an in-use pathology wing. The hospital’s carefully worked-out masterplan earmarks the site next to the hall for the Maggie’s as part of its wider redevelopment. 

As Lee says: ‘We looked long and hard at what the Friends wanted. [But] their scheme has to pull down a pathology block, which houses important imagery facilities. The Trust has said quite clearly it can’t support the scheme.’

Francis Maude of Donald Insall Associates agrees: ‘[Our] proposals for the Great Hall allow the North Wing to be self-sufficient within its existing footprint – which is not achieved by Hopkins – and allows the sites at both ends to be used for the developing purposes of the hospital, where Hopkins will encumber them with stair and lift towers. He adds: ‘[The City planners] should not be intimidated by the eminence of those opposing the application.’

Support for Maggie’s and Holl – whose Glasgow School of Art building recently picked up the AJ100 Building of the Year Award – appears to be growing.

Neil Gillespie of Reiach and Hall, which has just completed Maggie’s Airdrie centre, believes Holl has designed something that ‘will lift the spirits’ while Piers Gough, whose practice CZWG designed the Nottingham Maggie’s, says: ‘Holl’s scheme for Barts is subtle, really astute and lovely. He has done something really quite delicate and very appropriate for the place.’

Gough hopes Maggie’s will remain resolute in the face of the vehement objections.

He adds: ‘I believe the so-called Friends are honestly well-intentioned. But they have a rather Neanderthal view of what good, modern architecture is. Sometimes you have to put your foot down. Maggie’s shouldn’t be a pushover. They should support their architect to the hilt.’

Planning consultant Peter Stewart also backs the Holl plan. He says: ‘It is a reverse of the normal situation, where something mediocre is proposed but, because it’s saving babies, everybody rolls over and says “yes”. 

‘Here Maggie’s has done the right thing – employed a leading architect – and they are still getting into trouble.

‘Holl’s scheme is good. My feeling is that a few heads need to be knocked together – it seems a rather undignified stand-off.’


Hopkins asked by the NHS Trust to look at heritage buildings at Barts identifying ‘essential improvements’ to the Great Hall, in James Gibbs’ 1738 North Wing, next to the 1960s finance block.

April 2010
Maggie’s invited by NHS Trust to create plans for a centre at Barts. Site confirmed, consultation begins. Steven Holl appointed.

February 2011
Trust Board approves Maggie’s Centre at Barts.

Mid 2012
Hopkins appointed by Friends of the Great Hall to draw up alternative plans to Holl’s proposals. Holl reveals first sketches.

February 2013
Holl submits plans for centre, which includes access from hall for toilets. Scheme recommended for approval. The Friends object.

June 2013
Holl’s Maggie centre rejected by planners. Maggie’s withdraw application.

July 2013
Donald Insall Associates appointed directly by NHS Trust to look at how Great Hall can be ‘self-sufficient’ and sit alongside Holl scheme.

February 2014
Trust Board reconfirm support for Maggie’s Centre. Hopkins submits rival plans on behalf of Friends for new cores on ends of North Wing.

March 2014
As landowners the Trust writes in objection to the Hopkins application.

April 2014
Holl submits revised plans. Trust board supports revised scheme. Hopkins wins planning for rival plans.

June 2014
Trust outlines vision for the future of the Great Hall.

July 2014
City of London set to hear Holl’s new plans.

Model of Holl's plans

Interview with Steven Holl

Explain how your scheme will enhance the existing, historic environment.
It is also a serious challenge to build in a most sensitive and deeply historic site at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, the oldest continuous operating hospital in the UK. We began the project with a careful study of all aspects of the site and its surroundings. I was especially interested in the Hogarth Stair. I was introduced to Hogarth etchings by my godfather in Seattle, Washington in 1960.

The Great Hall Building [is] compromised by a pragmatic 1960s brick addition, which [will] be demolished for the Maggie’s Centre. We shaped our scheme to re-expose the corner quoins on the Gibbs Building and expose some of the historic window moldings, which are now covered. Our deep respect for the Chapel of St. Bartholomew the Less is reflected in the landscape plan by Christopher Bradley Hall.

We have also included a reference to the chapel’s stained glass in our design. In the spirit of Maggie’s mission and continuing successful realization, our scheme of a matt finished glass façade is light and inviting. Like a new type of stained glass, the play of color on the Maggie’s interior will be an amazing and joyful experience, changing with the light of the day and the seasons.

How do you handle criticism of your project?
I am of course disappointed to read the comments of objection and would like to reassure those who have voiced their concerns. Our scheme will in no way jeopardize the future of the Great Hall and the design will breathe new life into Barts.

How have you find the UK planning system?
The planning process is thorough and Maggie’s has worked very closely with the City of London to answer all of the queries and questions they have in detail.
I know the planners will consider this application properly and make the right decision to ensure St. Bartholomew’s hospital retains its role as a world-leading institution in health care and innovation as well as being a piece of inspirational architecture that the City of London can be proud of.

Are there similarities between your experiences with the Glasgow School of Art and here at Barts?
Both our project at the Glasgow School of Art and our scheme for the Maggie’s Centre at Barts are situated in very significant historic contexts in which the new architecture must enhance the historic. The strategy of ‘complementary contrast’ is the best way to address the importance of the site.
The site is the metaphysical beginning of a piece of architecture, and these projects really bring that home. To respect the authenticity of historic architecture, ou cannot mimic the old, but you must make an authentically new piece that doesn’t overwhelm it and that complements it. You can see that in several of our buildings, such as the Pratt Institute Higgins Hall, the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, and the Glasgow School of Art Reid Building.

Would you do anything differently in hindsight?
We’d we would not do anything differently. We worked very hard and carefully, and this is the best possible project, which if realized will lift spirits. This effort is difficult, but as Spinoza said, ‘good things are never easy; they are as difficult as they are rare.’  


Readers' comments (2)

  • The obvious conclusion to be reached from all this messing around is that they don't really need a care centre there at all, or that they don't have the money to build it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone who has experienced Steven Holl's Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki , a city rich with Architectural gems will concludeu up that he should not be permitted to build anything near St Barts !

    John Meagher , FRIAI. RIBA

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs