Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Housing
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Construction proposals in the immediate vicinity of Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church that could have an adverse impact on the setting, related vistas and integrity of the property;
  • Lack of an in-depth visual impact study on possible impacts of development projects, as well as lack of an approved management plan;
  • Need for protection of the immediate surroundings of the property through an adequate buffer zone.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

November 2006: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission; December 2011: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

Over the last years, the World Heritage Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the actual or potential adverse impact of tall buildings on the setting of the property. Reactive monitoring missions to the property were carried out in 2006 and 2011 that focused on the need to strengthen the systems for protecting the immediate and wider setting of the property, which does not have a buffer zone.

On 29 October 2012 and 2 April 2013, the State Party provided updated information on the development projects in the vicinity of the World Heritage property that had been identified by the December 2011 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission as having potential negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property. These projects are Nine Elms Regeneration Development, Vauxhall Island Site, Heygate Estate and, in particular, Elizabeth House.

In response to the Committee’s request for a definition of the setting of the property (Decision 36 COM 7B.92), the State Party stated that discussions are underway between English Heritage, the Mayor, relevant local planning authorities and with key stakeholders in view of developing an agreed understanding of how to define the immediate and wider setting of the property in relation to its OUV.

The State Party informed that all four above-mentioned development projects were objected to by English Heritage, the State Party’s statutory advisor. Notwithstanding these objections, three out of four projects have already been granted planning consents by the respective Local Authorities and, despite the advice of English Heritage, they have not been called-in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Elizabeth House

The 2011 mission considered that tall buildings included in the redevelopment project of Elizabeth House at Waterloo Station, depending on the absolute heights, might have adverse impacts in the backdrop of the view that encompasses Westminster Palace and Big Ben. While the project area falls under the jurisdiction of the Borough of Lambeth, the key concern lies with the Borough of Westminster.

At the time of the 36th session of the Committee, a revised development project for Elizabeth House had been submitted proposing the construction of a tower structure with a reduced height of up to 29 storeys.

The State Party reported that English Heritage had raised strong objections to the proposal on the grounds that its impact, as result of its design and size, would cause a substantial and unacceptable degree of harm to the OUV, setting and views from the property. It further informed that English Heritage has maintained objections to the Elizabeth House proposals because the new building, from within the boundaries of the property, would be clearly visible across the gap between Westminster Palace and Portcullis House, appearing above County Hall on the South Bank. In some views, part of the development would appear to be visually attached to the north face of the Queen Elizabeth Tower (formerly known as St Stephen’s Tower, which houses Big Ben).

In its letter of 2 April 2013, the State Party reported that, because of the concerns of English Heritage, the proposal had been referred on 4 January 2013 to the Secretary of State for his consideration whether to call it in for decision at national level following a public inquiry. The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application but to leave it to the London Borough of Lambeth. He considered that the proposed development does not “involve a conflict with national policies, have significant effects beyond the immediate locality, give rise to substantial cross boundary or national controversy, or raise significant architectural or urban design issues”. Following this decision, consent can be granted in accordance with the previous intention of the Borough of Lambeth.

Other development projects in the vicinity of the property

Nine Elms Regeneration Development Market Towers: The State Party reported that this development proposal consists of the demolition of the existing buildings and structures, and the erection of two new towers of 58 storeys (up to 200 m above ground) and 43 storeys (up to 161 m above ground) as part of a mixed use development of residential units, including amenity and public open space. The project has been approved by the Local Authority, against the advice of English Heritage, and has not been called-in by the Secretary of State, therefore consent can be granted by the Borough Council.

Vauxhall Island:The State Party reported that this proposal concerns a mixed use development on “Vauxhall Island“ next to Vauxhall Bus Station, including two tall buildings of 41 storeys, approximately 140 m and 32 storeys, approximately 115 m. The project has been approved by the Local Authority, against advice of English Heritage, and has not been called-in by the Secretary of State; it can thus be approved by the Borough Council.

Heygate Estate:The State Party reported that this proposal for the redevelopment of the Heygate Estate and its surroundings was submitted to the London Borough of Southwark for consideration. It consists of a mixed use scheme, articulated in block form including nine tall buildings ranging in height from 55 m to 104 m. English Heritage stressed its concern about the potential cumulative impact of tall buildings on the property. The State Party informed that the applicants have amended the design of one of these tall buildings to English Heritage’s satisfaction but not the other, and that it has therefore written to Southwark Council objecting to the granting of outline planning permission for this proposal.

Planning Policy Framework

The State Party expressed its view that the planning systems in place in the United Kingdom provide robust processes based on law, policy guidance and development plans, for assessing the potential impact of proposals on heritage assets and dealing appropriately with them. In particular, it pointed to the revised London Views Management Framework (2010), the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance London’s World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings (March 2012), and policies for the protection of World Heritage properties in the Mayor’s Plan for London and in the local plans of the various boroughs. The State Party further underlined that the National Planning Policy Framework states that World Heritage properties should be treated as designations of the highest significance. It also admitted, however, that, on occasion, considerations other than those of heritage may take precedence, and English Heritage’s advice, based on heritage considerations, will be considered but may not always be accepted in order to come to a balanced conclusion on whether or not a development should be granted consent.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

While the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission in 2011 had recognized progress in strengthening guidance to protect the setting from negative impacts on views to and from the property, it should be recalled that the mission had also considered the development project of Elizabeth House a crucial case for testing the effectiveness of the strengthened policy framework in relation to further planning applications.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that most of the development projects have already been approved or are close to approval, given that the Secretary of State has decided not to call-in the development projects of Elizabeth House, Nine Elms and Vauxhall Island for decision at national level, and that these approvals can be granted despite objections from English Heritage.

They are of the view that there do not seem to be defined settings or overall agreed constraints in place to ensure that new tall buildings do not impact on important views and other attributes of the property. They also point out that, due to the advanced stage in the planning process, any recommendations on the projects are more difficult to be taken into account by the responsible authorities.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the World Heritage Committee request the State Party to halt the development projects Elizabeth House, Nine Elms and Vauxhall Island and to revise the projects in line with the concerns raised by English Heritage. They would also advise the Committee to request the State Party to consider reinforcing its legal provisions and planning framework to allow the national authorities to ensure their responsibilities for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention at the national level.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies would also recommend that the World Heritage Committee request the State Party, as a matter of urgency, to define the immediate and wider setting of the property in relation to its OUV and embed these in the policies of all the relevant planning authorities, as well as to define specific measures and ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place to protect the property and minimize its vulnerability to potential threats to its OUV.

They would further advise the Committee to consider placing the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2014, should the foreseen development projects be approved as currently planned.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.90
Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (C 426bis)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.92 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Expresses its concern about the proposed developments at Elizabeth House, Nine Elms Regeneration Development and Vauxhall Island Site and their potential adverse impact on the setting and views of the property and urges the State Party to ensure that these proposals are not approved in their current form and that they be revised in line with the concerns raised by English Heritage;

4.  Requests the State Party to strengthen its policy and planning frameworks to ensure the adequate protection of the setting of the property by defining the immediate and wider setting and view cones of the property in relation to its Outstanding Universal Value and by identifying adequate mechanisms within the respective policies of all relevant planning authorities to ensure that new constructions do not impact on views and other attributes of the property;

5.  Also urges the State Party to refrain from approving any large-scale development projects in the vicinity of the property until an adequate protection of its immediate and wider setting is in place;

6.  Also requests   the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by  1 February 2014 , an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014 .

37 COM 8B.7
Changes to names of properties inscribed on the world heritage list: Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/8B,

2.  Approves the name change to Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret’s Church as proposed by the English authorities. The name of the property becomes Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church in English and Palais de Westminster et l'abbaye de Westminster incluant l'église Sainte-Marguerite in French.

37 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8E and WHC-13/37.COM/8E.Add,

2.  Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3.  Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

  • Andorra: Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley;
  • Argentina: Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas; Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba; Quebrada de Humahuaca; Iguazu National Park;
  • Australia: Shark Bay, Western Australia; Greater Blue Mountains Area; Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens; Willandra Lakes Region; Kakadu National Park;
  • Austria / Hungary: Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape;
  • Bangladesh: The Sundarbans; Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at Paharpur;
  • Belgium : La Grand-Place, Brussels;
  • Belgium / France: Belfries of Belgium and France;
  • Bolivia: Fuerte de Samaipata; Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture; Historic City of Sucre; Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos;
  • Brazil: Serra da Capivara National Park;
  • Chile: Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works; Rapa Nui National Park; Churches of Chiloé; Sewell Mining Town; Historic quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaiso;
  • China: Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Mount Huangshan; Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde; Ancient City of Ping Yao; Classical Gardens of Suzhou; Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing; Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun; Longmen Grottoes; Yungang Grottoes; Yin Xu; Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Historic center of Macao; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor;
  • Colombia: Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena; Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox; San Agustín Archaeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro;
  • Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Guanacaste;
  • Cuba: Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios; Desembarco del Granma National Park; Alejandro de Humboldt National Park; Old Havana;
  • Cyprus: Choirokoitia; Painted Churches in the Troodos Region;
  • Denmark: Kronborg Castle;
  • Ecuador: City of Quito; Historic Centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca; Galápagos Islands;
  • El Salvador: Joya de Cerén Archaeological Site;
  • Ethiopia: Aksum; Fasil Ghebbi;
  • Finland / Sweden: High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago;
  • Guatemala: Archeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua; Antigua Guatemala;
  • Germany: Classical Weimar; Messel Pit Fossil Site; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Aachen Cathedral; Cologne Cathedral; Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar; Museumsinsel (Museum Island), Berlin; Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof; Speyer Cathedral; Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of Bremen; Town of Bamberg;
  • Greece: Mount Athos;
  • Honduras: Maya Site of Copan;
  • Hungary: Old Village of Hollókő and its Surroundings; Millenary Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma and its Natural Environment; Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Sopianae); Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape; Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta; Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue;
  • Hungary / Slovakia: Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst;
  • India: Sun Temple, Konârak; Group of Monuments at Hampi; Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya; Elephanta Caves; Great Living Chola Temples; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus); Mountain Railways of India;
  • Indonesia: Ujung Kulon National Park; Komodo National Park; Lorentz National Park; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra; Sangiran Early Man Site;
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Pasargadae; Takht-e Soleyman;
  • Ireland: Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne;
  • Italy: Venice and its Lagoon;
  • Japan: Yakushima; Shirakami-Sanchi; Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area; Shiretoko; Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities); Shrines and Temples of Nikko; Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range; Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; Himeji-jo;
  • Latvia: Historic Centre of Riga;
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Town of Luang Prabang;
  • Lithuania: Vilnius Historic Centre;
  • Luxembourg: City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications;
  • Malaysia: Kinabalu Park;
  • Mauritius: Aapravasi Ghat;
  • Mexico: Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan; Historic Centre of Morelia; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Historic Fortified Town of Campeche; Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Querétaro; Agave Landscape and the Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche; Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan; Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albán; Sian Ka’an; Luis Barragán House and Studio; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Pre-hispanic town of Uxmal; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; El Tajin, Pre-Hispanic City;
  • Netherlands: Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station); Schokland and Surroundings; Droogmakerij de Beemster (Beemster Polder); Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House);
  • Nicaragua: Ruins of León Viejo;
  • Nigeria: Sukur Cultural Landscape;
  • Norway: Rock Art of Alta; Urnes Stave Church; Bryggen;
  • Oman: Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn;
  • Pakistan: Taxila; Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta; Rohtas Fort; Buddhist Ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and Neighbouring City Remains at Sahr-i-Bahlol;
  • Panama: Darien National Park; Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Chavin (Archaeological Site); Historic Centre of Lima; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu;
  • Philippines: Historic town of Vigan;
  • South Africa: uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park;
  • Switzerland: Abbey of St Gall; Benedictine Convent of St John at Müstair; Old City of Berne; Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzona;
  • Thailand: Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex; Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries; Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site;
  • Turkey: Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia; Nemrut Dağ; Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği; Hierapolis-Pamukkale;
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Blaenavon Industrial Landscape; Blenheim Palace; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; City of Bath; Durham Castle and Cathedral; Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast; Heart of Neolithic Orkney; Ironbridge Gorge; Maritime Greenwich; New Lanark; Old and New Towns of Edinburgh; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey; Tower of London; St Kilda; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church;
  • Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento;
  • Uzbekistan: Itchan Kala;
  • Venezuela : Coro and its Port; Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas;

4.  Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;

5.  Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

  • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
  • World Heritage properties in Africa;
  • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
  • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;

6.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to harmonise all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value where appropriate and when resources and staff time allow to carry out this work;

7.  Also requests the State Parties, Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to ensure the use of gender-neutral language in the Statements proposed for adoption to the World Heritage Committee;

8.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to keep the adopted Statements in line with subsequent decisions by the World Heritage Committee concerning name changes of World Heritage properties, and to reflect them throughout the text of the Statements, in consultation with States Parties and Advisory Bodies;

9.  Finally requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload these onto its web-pages.

Draft Decision:   37 COM 7B.90

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.92, adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Expresses its concern about the proposed developments at Elizabeth House, Nine Elms Regeneration Development and Vauxhall Island Site and their potential adverse impact on the setting and views of the property and urges the State Party to ensure that these proposals are not approved in their current form and that they be revised in line with the concerns raised by English Heritage;

4.  Requests the State Party to strengthen its policy and planning frameworks to ensure the adequate protection of the setting of the property by defining the immediate and wider setting and view cones of the property in relation to its Outstanding Universal Value and by identifying adequate mechanisms within the respective policies of all relevant planning authorities to ensure that new constructions do not impact on views and other attributes of the property;

5.  Also urges the State Party to refrain from approving any large-scale development projects in the vicinity of the property until an adequate protection of its immediate and wider setting is in place;

6.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

 

Report year: 2013
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date of Inscription: 1987
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(ii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top