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

Paul Finch: We should tell UNESCO where to stick it

  • 1 Comment

Letter from London: It’s time for French bully UNESCO to stop interfering with our heritage sites

The increasingly impertinent claims to authority by UNESCO, the unelected, Paris-based bureaucracy, should be firmly rejected by the government as soon as is possible. For as part of its Gauleiter operations to dictate to cities and nations what they should do with their built history, UNESCO has begun throwing its weight about in relation to the so-called ‘world heritage site’ that is our own Parliament Square.

You might think that this would involve expressing a concern about how the buildings on the site are being looked after, and how new buildings proposed within it are contributing to the ensemble. Not a bit of it. Perhaps realising that controls exercised by Westminster City Council, English Heritage, a myriad of amenity groups and various other statutory and non-statutory consultees might just be doing the trick, UNESCO has turned its spotlight on a quite different set of buildings and sites: those that can, shock horror, be seen from the ‘world heritage site’.

I would like to be able to say that I am making this up, but this is deadly serious. UNESCO is ‘warning’ Westminster and the government that proposals for Waterloo, designed by those enemies of history David Chipperfield Architects, Hopkins Architects, and Squire and Partners, will put the status of the ‘world heritage site’ at risk because views from the site, or at least some of them, will be fatally ruined by proposals now in the planning system. Of course, one major proposal for the site has already been rejected because of its impact on views, with no direction from UNESCO.

Before moving on to the specifics of the case, let’s remind ourselves how it is that UNESCO comes to be concerning itself with proposed developments in a highly regulated western city, which are not themselves in, or even close to, a ‘world heritage site’.

The answer is very simple: developing countries with world historical buildings and monuments, like Egypt and its pyramids, became fed up with the demands UNESCO kept making on them to do this or that. How come, they asked, UNESCO never made the same sort of demands of developed countries?

UNESCO began looking round for cities and sites in developed countries they could have a go at. One consequence of this was the last government’s crazy decision to call in Rafael Viñoly’s Walkie Talkie office development in the City. This had been given a full planning permission by the City of London Corporation, and although English Heritage had raised objections to the design, it had not gone so far as to ask for an inquiry.

Enter UNESCO, with some menacing noises about the Tower of London losing its ‘world heritage site’ designation. This, in addition to an impending international conference on heritage in New Zealand, made the Department for Culture, Media and Sport go weak at the knees and order a public inquiry.

The threat to remove ‘world heritage site’ status from the Tower of London had cropped up earlier in respect of Renzo Piano’s Shard scheme at London Bridge, which although can be seen from the tower, is on the other side of the Thames and not directly opposite. The planning inquiry inspector was having none of it.

Even earlier, at the Heron Tower inquiry, the inspector was clear in his report, which recommended allowing the development, that just because you could see a building from a conservation site did not mean that the site itself had become soiled goods.

The attempt by UNESCO to reverse this finding is now evident in Liverpool, where development on the Wirral is said to be jeopardising the city’s waterfront ‘world heritage site’ opposite. Now we have the same proposition in respect of Parliament Square. This needs a robust response. Perhaps this could be along the lines that we have built and looked after our heritage for centuries, without UNESCO telling us what to do or how to do it. We are going to tell our tourist boards to get off their knees, and our ministers to stop quaking when you call.

To use an old-fashioned London phrase: why don’t you stick it up your jumper? And remember Waterloo!

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Mr Finch is in fact once again incorrect in his analysis of Liverpool. This is indeed a result of doing no research into the subject and....well just spouting off really.
    It is he, who appears to be doing the bullying of Unesco here not the other way around.
    If he had read this fine publication the AJ he would have noted that several excellent articles had been done by Richard Waite on the subject of Unesco and Liverpool.
    It is not the Wirral development (Wirral Waters) that is proving a threat to Liverpools skyline it is Liverpool Waters by, the sinister (Quote "Piloti" of Private Eye, Peel Holdings.
    In that end he has not been able to make a fair judgement and although he may be nearer to London it would be most helpful if Mr Finch, if talking about the threat to Liverpools skyline in future got his facts correct.
    The fact of the matter is, English Heritage are against Liverpool Waters as is CABE, (was he not connected with them at one time) and Unesco have critisiced the development stating it would destroy the OUV of the WHS.
    It is we the public who need Unesco in Liverpool to help protect us from this poor quality throwback to the 60's style development.
    We in Liverpool have attempted to destroy the WHS and I can inform Mr Finch that we need Unesco's help, and the Citys record of 46 listed buildings destroyed in the last 6 years speaks more truth than Mr Finch could ever do on this subject.

    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.