In a letter dated 25 June 2026 and published on 16 July 2026, Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook directed the Planning Inspectorate to pause the City of London Corporation's Local Plan at report stage and revisit the plan's tall building contours. The intervention is tied to concerns raised during examination about effects on the Tower of London and its World Heritage status. (gov.uk) The direction is narrowly drawn rather than a full restart of the examination. It tells Inspectors J Bridgwater and A Phillips not to deal with any other part of the City Plan while they revisit one specified issue. (gov.uk)
Under section 20(6A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the minister has directed the inspectors not to issue their report, to compare Historic England's alternative tall buildings contours with the contours shown at Figure 15 of the City Plan, and to assess the heritage and economic effects of each option. The task set by the letter is to decide which approach strikes the more appropriate balance between protecting heritage assets and avoiding undue restriction on economic growth. (gov.uk) The inspectors must also hold further hearing sessions for parties that made representations on heritage and tall buildings policies, then set out their written findings in a post-hearings letter. The direction remains in force until it is withdrawn by the Secretary of State. (gov.uk)
The intervention arrives late in the examination cycle. The City submitted City Plan 2040 for examination on 29 August 2024, the inspectors were appointed on 18 September 2024, hearing sessions began on 25 March 2025, and the specific heritage and tall buildings sessions were held on 10 and 11 June 2025. (cityoflondon.gov.uk) After those hearings, the Corporation consulted on proposed main modifications between 15 December 2025 and 6 February 2026, and the consultation responses were sent to the inspectors on 20 February 2026. The City had been expecting adoption in summer 2026, so the direction has landed after the main hearings and after the main modifications consultation had already taken place. (cityoflondon.gov.uk)
In practical terms, the government has not rejected the whole plan. It has paused the examination at the point when a final report would ordinarily follow and narrowed the remaining work to one question: whether a different set of tall-building contours should be preferred because it would better protect the Tower of London without imposing unnecessary constraints on development. (gov.uk) That matters because a Local Plan examination is where inspectors decide whether a submitted plan is legally compliant and sound. National policy says soundness turns on whether a plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy, and examination procedure allows inspectors to recommend main modifications where they are needed to secure soundness and legal compliance. (gov.uk)
In the City of London, tall buildings are already managed through policies in the London Plan 2021 and the adopted Local Plan 2015. The Corporation's own planning guidance says proposals are suitable only where their effects on the skyline, surrounding character, heritage assets, historic skyline features and protected views can be properly managed, including views involving the Tower of London. (cityoflondon.gov.uk) For that reason, the dispute over contours is not a technical side issue. The mapped approach to height can shape where additional scale may be acceptable in future applications, and it sits alongside a plan that is still emerging rather than formally adopted. National policy says emerging plans may carry weight, but that weight depends on stage, unresolved objections and consistency with the Framework, while applications must still be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (gov.uk)
The next stage is procedural. Further hearings must now be held for those who previously made representations on heritage and tall buildings policies, after which the inspectors must issue a post-hearings letter setting out their findings on that discrete issue. (gov.uk) Only after that letter, and once the direction is withdrawn, can the examination move back towards a final inspectors' report. In practice, that makes the earlier summer 2026 adoption timetable shown by the Corporation harder to maintain, even though the minister's letter says the extra work should be carried out urgently to avoid undue delay. (gov.uk)