Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Swiss Re faces City struggle

Planning controls may frustrate the reinsurer's plans for a new headquarters

Marc Lopatin
Sunday 21 June 1998 00:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

CITY CORPORATION planners are threatening to block another big Square Mile development by opposing Swiss Re's proposals for a headquarters building.

Swiss Re, the second largest reinsurer in the world, is on a collision course with planners over draft proposals to develop the largest-ever building in the Square Mile. It is hoping to secure planning consent for 800,000 sq ft of offices on the site of the former Baltic Exchange, bombed by the IRA in 1992. Last year, architect Norman Foster proposed an even larger structure - Europe's tallest building - for the same site. English Heritage vetoed it.

The same planning restrictions may prevent Swiss Re from putting its expanding financial operations under one roof. The insurance company has agreed to pay pounds 100m to the Norwegian construction company Kvaerner if it wins planning approval. Mr Foster would remain the architect.

At a meeting in April to discuss a new building, Swiss Re told Corporation planners it required 600,000 sq ft net space to house its operation. This is twice the amount of space it presently occupies, but sources say Swiss Re is in acquisitive mood. Last year it bought Mercantile & General and in the coming years it plans to add asset management and banking divisions to its core business.

However, it is understood that Peter Rees, the Corporation's chief planning officer, opposed a building of this scale as it would break planning criteria.

Opposition is rooted in the fear that English Heritage will veto Swiss Re's plans. The preservation body has agreed to the demolition of the listed exchange but has warned against putting a huge building on the site. This could mean cutting Swiss Re's space requirement by a third.

Sheree Whatley, chief financial officer at Swiss Re, said: "We will not compromise to that extent. We have set our hearts on this site and hope to submit an application by October."

Sources say this is typical of the City Corporation's failure to cater for the very largest occupational requirements in the Square Mile. Mergers across the financial markets are spawning a generation of mega-property requirements approaching a million square feet. But identifying a site, negotiating planning and developing a building of this size has proved impossible in the Square Mile.

This is in contrast to Canary Wharf, where a major scheme can be delivered in less than three years. In April, HSBC announced it was quitting the Square Mile for Docklands to develop a pounds 500m world headquarters at Canary Wharf.

Leading property adviser Jonathan Edwards, who owns a niche City surveying practice, believes the Corporation and the property industry have yet to come to terms with the needs of modern business occupiers. "If a company wants a huge amount of space within the next three-to-five years it will have to look outside the City. The property industry has yet to wake up to the needs of the largest occupiers while the planners should be more sensitive to commercial justification for space."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in