The City of London has refused plans by Stiff & Trevillion for a highly controversial 43-storey office tower due to concerns over the impact it would have on Britain’s oldest synagogue.

Councillors voted 14 against and eight in favour of the Bury House scheme at a planning committee meeting on Friday despite a recommendation for approval from planning officers.

It comes three weeks after communities secretary Angela Rayner intervened in the decision by issuing an Article 31 order preventing councillors from granting permission while the communities secretary considered whether or not to call in the application.

The City’s refusal now means Rayner will not need to call in the scheme, although its developer Welput could launch an appeal.

Stiff & Trevillion’s plans for Bury House

Friday’s vote was the second time the tower has been turned down following an initial refusal in 2021, which prompted a series of design revisions including a height reduction of five storeys unveiled in March.

The site neighbours the grade I-listed Bevis Marks Synagogue, built in 1701 and the oldest synagogue in Britain in continuous use and the only non-Christian place of worship in the City.

The proposals have sparked a row at the City over the balance between promoting new development and protecting heritage sites and provoked 1,300 objections from members of the public.

Planning officers argued in a 574-page report last week that the scheme would preserve the setting of the synagogue and the Creechurch conservation area within which the site is located.

But this was challenged in the meeting by several planning committee members and former Lord mayor of the City of London Michael Bear, who described claims that the scheme would enhance the conservation area as “Orwellian doublethink”.

Bear said: “It is quite unprecedented for a pro-growth former lord mayor of the City of London to address you as an objector but this audacious application leaves me with no choice.”

He said the synagogue was a “living centre of an important minority community and something to be celebrated in our multicultural city,” adding: “It sounds like the officer’s recommendation completely disregards the City traditions I have mentioned as well as the importance of multiculturalism and religious tolerance.”

Bear also said the height reduction of the proposals made no significance change from the previous refused application.

Much of the controversy stemmed from concerns the tower would obscure the passage of the moon through the sky when viewed from the synagogue grounds, which would impact the ability of the Sephardi community to practice the Kiddush Levana ritual

Councillor Natasha Lloyd-Owen said that chipping away access to sunlight for the building “does not justify the continued chipping away”.

“For me it is a beautiful example of why all of those really stringent St Paul’s requirements that sometimes feel a bit heavy handed are the only way we can prevent this taking place,” she said.

But councillor Tom Sleigh, who voted in favour of the proposals, said: “This is a part of town that does need a revamp. This is a part of town where we do need to see development, we do need to yield the economic benefit that this site would bring, so recognising that public benefit, I think that trading that off against what I think is indeed a concern from a very valuable minority community here in the City who we desperately want to protect and look after. In my view, this is an application that I will support because I think officers have made a very difficult and correct decision.”

Historic England praised the decision to refuse, which it said would have also harmed the setting of the Tower of London and of the grade II*-listed Holland House, a 1910s building on the site which would be refurbished and extended under Welput’s plans.

But the government’s heritage advisor criticised the City’s vote to approve 1 Undershaft, which was taken at the same committee meeting, saying “the people of London deserve better”.

The 74-storey tower, designed by Eric Parry for developers Stanhope and Aroland, is set to be the apex of the City’s main cluster of towers and the joint tallest in the UK with the Shard.

A Historic England spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that this scheme has been approved because the people of London deserve better. 

“The proposed building will have a harmful impact on precious public space, as well as on the important listed buildings beside the development site and the Tower of London World Heritage Site. 

“We asked for minor amendments to the revised scheme which, if implemented, would still have allowed significant commercial development while also keeping what makes the City of London so special.”