24 August 2016 / revised 19 September 2016
Environment and Planning
City of London
PO Box 270
London, EC2P 2EJ
Environment and Planning
City of London
PO Box 270
London, EC2P 2EJ
RE: Consideration of Bernard Morgan Section House, Golden Lane, as a non-designated heritage asset
Dear Mr Eley and Ms Hampson,
I am writing in further clarification of my request that the City of London Corporation recognise Bernard Morgan Section House, Golden Lane, as a ‘non-designated heritage asset’. The section building and its landscapes are of particular ‘special interest’ to the local and wider communities. The urgency of this request is associated with the commencement of preliminary works for the demolition of Bernard Morgan House and the pending application to demolish the building and erect a new residential housing scheme as detailed in Planning Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Prior to considering the points below I want to remind you of the NPPF requirement that any proposed scheme act in ‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, with local authorities being required to give ‘great weight‘ to the impact on ‘the significance of a designated heritage asset’, such as Golden Lane Estate and Barbican Estate. The City of London’s own Golden Lane Estates Listed Building Management Guidelines acknowledges the ‘holistic significance’ of Golden Lane Estate and its ‘surrounding urban fabric’, including the site of Bernard Morgan House, which is in immediate proximity to Bowater House, the southernmost building of the estate. Finally, I also remind you of Core Strategic Policy CS12 of the City of London’s Local Plan, which seeks to conserve or enhance the significance of the City’s heritage assets.
Bernard Morgan House merits recognition as a non-designated historical asset as it satisfies the definition of such assets on the basis of its contribution to communal heritage. This is both historical, in terms of its cultural resonance, and architectural, in terms of the building’s sympathetic visual and contextual relationship – evident in the massing, scale and modernist architectural design - to the immediate townscape, including the Grade II-listed Golden Lane Estate and Barbican Estate, Jewin Welsh Church, Cripplegate Institute and Fortune Street Park.
Bernard Morgan House is an integral part of a unique, balanced urban composition that illustrates both the best of the principles of post-war modernist architectural and urban design (light, function, communality), exemplified in the neighbouring works of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, together with the influential contemporaneous theories of townscape advocated by such figures as Gordon Cullen (which culminated in his Concise Townscape, 1961). Bernard Morgan House is also acknowledged as a noted example of a modernist interpretation of the Police Section House typology. The destruction of this commendable building would both destroy the coherence of this urban assemblage and undermine the architectural presence of the adjacent buildings – a great loss given the internationally-recognised reputation of Golden Lane Estate and the Barbican, two enormously significant post-war works by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon.
The significance of Bernard Morgan House and the larger townscape to which it contributes is detailed below:
1. Architectural Context
1.1 Golden Lane Estate
Bernard Morgan House is directly opposite Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, an internationally significant urban and architectural design the Journal Building noted ‘set the model for high-density urban villages, which was rarely if ever emulated’. (The scheme received Housing Awards from Building in 1961 and 1965.)
From its inception, the significance of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s design for Golden Lane Estate was widely acknowledged. The competition-winning scheme by Geoffrey Powell in 1952 was published in the architectural and general press from that year onward, with the scheme featuring in the public exhibition of the competition held at Guildhall and opened by the Lord Mayor of London in March 1952. The scheme was rightly praised by the City of London for its urban reinvention of a blighted bombed site and provision of high-density residential accommodation – accommodating 200 people per acre on a 4.7 acre site – through a sympathetic and carefully designed combination of sequential open spaces, in the form of courtyards and sunken gardens, and built architectural forms.
The Golden Lane Estate project was selected by the Modern Architectural Research Group (MARS Group) as an essential part of the British presentation to the Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne (CIAM) conference in 1953, at which prominent modern architects – including le Corbusier – assembled to discuss the urgent problem of post-war housing. As early as 1957 – while still under construction – Golden Lane Estate was already a ‘landmark in London’ the ‘best known housing scheme in London’ and an acclaimed ‘pioneering work of its kind’. In particular, Bowater House and Cuthbert Harrowing House on the southern boundary of Golden Lane Estate were praised for the ‘ingenious modelling’ and ‘appropriate sense of scale’ these buildings provided in relation to the immediate urban context. Golden Lane Estate, the Architects’ Journal (the leading trade publication) concluded, is ‘an estate which is, and ought to remain, one of the show places of the City of London’. This significance must be acknowledged by following the NPPF requirement that any proposed scheme act in ‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, with local authorities being required to give ‘great weight‘ to the impact on ‘the significance of a designated heritage asset’.
In particular, the precedence and design relevance of Golden Lane Estate to the adjacent townscape, including Bernard Morgan House, can be summarized in three interconnected points: 1. the importance of the collective urban assemblage, vital to ‘place-making’; 2. the importance of visual connectivity, in which buildings, open spaces and adjacent surroundings are related to one another; and 3. the prevalence of open spaces.
1.1.1. Collective Assemblage
As Peter Chamberlin noted, the practice of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon were ‘concerned with the design of a group of buildings in close proximity to each other as if they were a single problem in design’. In this way, the design of Golden Lane Estate was intended to integrate buildings and the spaces between buildings in a resonant single collective assemblage, illustrating how ‘One of our principal interests has been the creation of places’. The design for this scheme ‘succeeded in giving character’ to the project site, the City of London noted in their 1952 award of the competition, which praised the ‘great variety of views through the site’. For Elain Harwood - the leading expert on Chamberlin, Powell and Bon and senior architectural investigator for Historic England (and former head of postwar listings for English Heritage) – the whole of Golden Lane Estate is ‘a single piece of architecture’, a collective assemblage that suggests ‘the possibility of modifying the surrounding area’.
This attention to urban composition reflected the influence of the architect Frederick Gibbard’s notions of mid-century urban and residential planning, together with the influence of Gordon Cullen, who was then publishing his ideas on townscape in a series of articles in Architectural Review, which would later be collated in his Concise Townscape (1961). Cullen specifically refers to Golden Lane Estate in Concise Townscape and he worked for Chamberlin, Powell and Bon during 1956, producing illustrations of their scheme for the Barbican Estate, which extended the urban and architectural principles established in the design of Golden Lane Estate.
1.1.2 Visual Connectivity
Key to Cullen’s notion of townscape was the idea of visual permeability and the termination of vistas. The design for Golden Lane Estate recognizes the importance of visual connections, which form the means of producing architectonic relationships between built forms and open spaces, such as the courtyards and sunken gardens, together with providing a means of way-finding for pedestrians transiting the site.
The perspective rendering of the competition design for Golden Lane Estate, prepared for the Guildhall exhibition and widely published in the press, illustrates the interconnectivity of these spaces and buildings. The intention for openness and permeability through and across the estate is clearly illustrated - pedestrians are shown transversing the site and surrounding townscape, accessing the sunken gardens, and navigating into and through the estate using the visual connections established by the architectural design. The buildings on the estate are sympathetically scaled to anticipated development on its boundaries, relating in height and massing to a larger urban grain of 4-6 storey buildings.
The visual permeability and relation of built forms and open spaces is evident in the completed Golden Lane Estate, as illustrated in the lavish photographic documentation published by the City of London in their ‘The Golden Lane Estate. Corporation of London’ (1961) brochure celebrating the conclusion of the project.
Finally, the importance of views into and through the estate is recognized in the City of London ‘Golden Lane Estates Listed Building Management Guidelines’, which states:
‘The estate should be appreciated in its entirety: not only its various components – residential, community, recreational, commercial and the external spaces between buildings – but also its setting within the surrounding urban fabric. The views from and into the estate have become important, and part of its special architectural interest lies in its relationship to adjacent buildings. Any developments on the immediate boundaries of the listed area should take into account the significance of the estate’s setting. No new buildings, infilling, removals or extensions should be introduced which would be detrimental to the integrity of the estate as a whole’.
1.1.3 Open Space
The high-density occupation of Golden Lane Estate was offset by the desire to free up as much as possible of the ground level to open pedestrian access. If covered pedestrian ways and footpaths are considered as open space, as the architects intended, 79% of the site area occupied by Golden Lane Estate is open space. ‘The whole site is laid out as a pedestrian precinct’, the journal Builder explained in 1957,
‘The various blocks are so disposed as to divide the site into a series of interrelated courts, differing both in character and use. The ground level within these courts is strongly modulated; the main pedestrian circulation is at ground level while the more secluded courts, largely excavated to basement level, are finished with decorative planting and paving.’
Special attention was paid to the design and construction of these external courtyards and sunken gardens, which the architects envisaged would ‘be read as a picture from the upper storeys of the flats’. Chamberlin, Powell and Bon considered the courtyards and landscaped areas of Golden Lane Estate as ‘outdoor living spaces’ that were ‘accessible to everyone’. For Powell, explaining the scheme in a public lecture held at the Architectural Association and sponsored by the RIBA in 1957, the transition between the residential accommodation, which had been designed to ‘be flooded with light’, and the urban open spaces of the surrounding townscape meant these open spaces are considered ‘an extension of living space’.
In particular, the original exhibition drawings of the Golden Lane Estate scheme gave prominence to the sunken garden along Fann Street, in front of Bowater House, which marked the southern boundary of the estate and was originally intended to accommodate a children’s playground and swimming pool - a functionality that illustrates the architect’s recognition of this particular communal open space.
The importance of the Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s evolving ideas on townscape, urban planning and place-making – as expressed in Golden Lane Estate - were further recognized when the practice were named ‘Men of the Year 1952’ by the Architects’ Journal, with Chamberlin further receiving the 1963 RIBA Award for Distinction in Town Planning. The modernist ambitions of their work were tempered by an acknowledgment of the historical relevance of the urban realm, drawn from their shared love of Italian civic architecture, and a desire, as Powell and Bon later explained, to always ‘make the work fit it’.
1.2 Barbican Estate
The architectural and urban design ideas developed in the design and execution of Golden Lane Estate were extended in the commission of the Barbican Estate in 1957. As Powell’s widow, Phillipa Cooper, noted, ‘The [City of London] Corporation was very satisfied with the Golden Lane development and when it was nearly finished they commissioned the partnership [of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon] to design and supervise the building of the Barbican on thirty-three acres of Bombed sites to the south, and virtually adjoining Golden Lane’. The evolution in urban and architectural design principles from Golden Lane Estate to the Barbican Estate is obvious.
In particular, the Barbican development extended Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s consideration of the townscape, as a collective assemblage of interrelated and sympathetic built forms and open spaces. Continuity and sensitivity were key design parameters and the urban scheme was designed ‘as a sequence of open spaces leading from one to another’, which fostered an interconnectivity between the Barbican Estate and surrounding townscape. The architectural scale of buildings, as Chamberlin, Powell and Bon acknowledged in 1959 - as they developed a scheme for the Barbican that included Bernard Morgan House – progressed from an intimate and modest level, evident at ground level and the scale of the Golden Lane Estate, Bernard Morgan House and Jewin Welsh Church, to the northern podium level of the Barbican, and finally terminating in the highpoint of the Barbican towers.
The cumulative significance of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s design for the Barbican Estate is internationally acknowledged. The Barbican, Harwood succinctly notes, is ‘the greatest piece of combined urban planning and architecture in Britain in the twentieth century’.
Given this context, the sympathetic alignment and relational design of Bernard Morgan House to the surrounding townscape, in general, and Bowater House of Golden Lane Estate, in particular, is self-evident and indisputable.
2.1 An article on Bernard Morgan House published in Architecture and Planning Journal (July 1962) confirms the design intentions of J. Innes Elliott, the Chief Architect and Surveyor of the London Metropolitan Police Force. The article states:
‘One of the town-planning requirements was that the Golden Lane frontage and building height should be complimentary to a neighbouring six-story block of maisonettes. Another requirement was that the main entrance should not be on Golden Lane itself. Bearing in mind the position and the purpose of the Section House, the architects attempted to create a building which would harmonise with the adjoining housing schemes but also would have an added ‘civic’ feeling in keep with its use’.
The visual connectivity and references between these buildings is evident and documented in precedent. Height relationships, set-backs from the street, and landscaping shown in the archive drawings of Elliot’s design for Bernard Morgan House all illustrate the deliberate reference to Golden Lane Estate. For example, the site survey and set-out plan align to the southern boundary of Golden Lane Estate, delineated by the sunken courtyard in front of Bowater House. In section, the height of Bernard Morgan House is clearly related to Bowater House, which in turn rises from Stanley Cohen House in height along the Golden Lane elevation, with the sunken courtyards to Bernard Morgan House employing the same design logic as those of Golden Lane Estate.
The success of this relationship is one that the local community, including long-term residents who appreciate the communal heritage of this adjacency, together with a number of architectural historians, including the Twentieth Century Society (whose letter of May 2015 and subsequent report recommend listing Bernard Morgan House), can attest.
2.2 Open Spaces
The reference of Bernard Morgan House to Golden Lane Estate is also evident in the landscape design and generous provision of external open space on the site of the police section house. The sunken courtyards provide amenity space and important visual connections between the communal interior spaces of the section house and the streetscape. As Architecture and Planning Journal specifically noted of this intention: ‘although these gardens are private they can be seen by passers-by and make a contribution to the townscape’. The sectional adjacency of the sunken gardens of Bernard Morgan House and Bowater House are obvious while passing along Golden Lane and Fann Street. In particular, the surface treatments of these gardens compliment one another and the planting of trees align to Golden Lane Estate along the Golden Lane elevation and create strong visual connections across Fann Street. The deliberateness and importance of the overall landscape design to the Bernard Morgan House scheme is evident in the richly detailed landscaping plan, in which the planting, hard landscaping (in terms of precast concrete slabs and brick) share a similar attention to detail as Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s scheme.
In this regard, Bernard Morgan House is aligned to Golden Lane Estate, exemplifying a sensitivity to townscape that acknowledges the prevailing urban and architectural ideas of the period and the precedent work of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon. It also must be noted Elliot and Chamberlin’s professional familiarity with one another extended to their membership of numerous professional associations, culminating in the architects both being awarded a CBE during the same awards ceremony in 1974.
3. Recognition of Bernard Morgan House
Chamberlin, Powell and Bon specifically recognized the contribution of Bernard Morgan House to the townscape in their design proposals for the Barbican Redevelopment, undertaken from 1956 onward. This scheme was commissioned and funded by the City of London and, the architects contended, was intended to provide residential and cultural accommodation north of Beech Street, including Golden Lane Estate and the current sites of Bernard Morgan House and the Jewin Welsh Church. The design drawings show an especially considered relationship – in terms of massing, bulk and height – between the proposed extension of the Barbican Estate and the immediate townscape within this northern precinct.
In an elaborate report of their ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’, presented to and published by the City of London in 1959, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon describe how the ‘elements in this urban group’, which includes the schemes for Bernard Morgan House and the Jewin Welsh Church, ‘are cumulative in their social value’, noting how ‘it is important that this area be developed sympathetically’ because of its architectural value as an assemblage. In this regard, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon specifically include Bernard Morgan House and the Jewin Welsh Church within their plans for the Barbican Estate development because of their contribution toward a coherent collective urban assemblage, sensitivity of scale and design, and presence within a streetscape in which ‘the disposition of the space between buildings and its detailed treatment are of vital importance’.
This sense of inclusion is indicated in the proposed boundary change of the development to include Bernard Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate, together with the elaborate illustrations of the built forms and open green spaces of Bernard Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate within the representations of the larger Barbican North Redevelopment. In this way, Bernard Morgan House is an important component in the larger collective assemblage.
Moreover, in this report Chamberlin, Powell and Bon specifically caution against overdevelopment within the townscape comprising Golden Lane Estate, Bernard Morgan House, the Jewin Welsh Church and Barbican Estate. Stressing the need for continuity, sensitive urban grain and sympathetic height, bulk and massing relationships between buildings and open spaces, the architects caution against an overly ‘high density scheme of development’ on any of these these sites, which they conclude would result in ‘blunt and oppressive enclosure by buildings foreboding in scale’.
4. Prior Assessment of Bernard Morgan House
In reference to the above points I content the assessments of the historical, architectural and communal heritage of Bernard Morgan House by Historic England and CgMs Consulting in June 2015 are flawed and do not provide a cogent or effective appraisal of Bernard Morgan House, particularly in terms of its contribution to townscape. Moreover the flaws in assessment by Historic England and CgMs Consulting are reiterated and compounded in the assessment compiled in the applicant’s ‘Design and Access Statement’ for Planning Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Despite these obvious relationships, the contribution of Bernard Morgan House as a heritage asset and component of the immediate townscape is largely ignored in the reports prepared by Historic England and CgMs Consulting in June 2015. I note that these evaluations were commissioned by the City of London prior to the sale of Bernard Morgan House by the City of London – in that regard it was expedient that the impending sale was not compromised by the City of London recognizing Bernard Morgan House as of historical significance. By contrast, the contemporaneous letter and report by the Twentieth Century Society rightly recommended that Bernard Morgan should be recognised as a Grade II listed building.
4.1 Historic England Report
Although it acknowledges Bernard Morgan House is a ‘noteworthy example of the application of Modern Movement thinking to this particular building type’, the Historic England report wrongly concludes Bernard Morgan House ‘does not enjoy a strong visual or functional interrelationship’ with Golden Lane Estate.’ This conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons:
4.1.1. The Historic England report does not effectively consider the contribution of Bernard Morgan House to the immediate townscape. As I have noted above, Elliot was keenly aware of the impact of Bernard Morgan House on the townscape and regulated the design of this building and the gardens contained on site to augment and contribute to this larger townscape. The success of Elliot’s design and contribution of Bernard Morgan House to this townscape was acknowledged by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in their plans to include the building in the larger Barbican Estate development – a scheme Historic England’s own senior architectural investigator has rightly described as ‘the greatest piece of combined urban planning and architecture in Britain in the twentieth century’.
The design of Bernard Morgan House evidences the influence of Golden Lane Estate, which the scheme directly faces, and the wider cultural context associated with Cullen’s notion of townscape, the prevailing urban theory during the period both Golden Lane Estate, which is specifically referenced in Cullen’s Concise Townscape (1961), and Bernard Morgan House were designed. The massing and visual relationships between Bernard Morgan House and Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, including views through and into the estate, are architecturally considered and obvious. This is a matter of height relationships, set-backs from the street, and landscaping illustrated in the drawings for Elliot’s section house and the specific project description in Official Architecture & Planning (1962).
4.1.2. The ‘visual comparison’ Historic England makes between Bernard Morgan House and Bowater House, Golden Lane Estate, makes sole reference to the external detailing of the buildings, rather than the deliberately sympathetic massing and scaling of Elliot’s section house. In this regard, it fails to appreciate the scalar and massed relationship between Bernard Morgan House, Golden Lane Estate, the Jewin Welsh Church and townscape that was recognized by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in their designs for the Barbican Estate.
In this regard to the detailing of Bernard Morgan House, the report by Historic England is largely based on the material description of the building supplied to Historic England by the City of London. This description by the City’s surveyors makes several omissions, such as failing to recognise the significance of the elevational use of flint and the landscape treatment of the site.
4.1.3. The Historic England report is incorrect in asserting Bernard Morgan House - in its function as a police section house - did not enjoy a functional or communal relationship with Golden Lane Estate.
Bernard Morgan House was designed as a hostel for single police officers. Married officers were accommodated as key workers on Golden Lane Estate. A City of London brochure on Golden Lane Estate, published after the completion of Bernard Morgan House, notes original tenants of Golden Lane Estate included ‘members of the City Police Force’. As colleagues and neighbours, these police officers and residents of Bernard Morgan House and Golden Lane Estate were immediately adjacent and to one another in both their professional and social lives.
This synergistic relationship is an example of the interconnected communality deliberately fostered by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in their designs for Golden Lane Estate and Barbican Estate. This is further evident in the importance they afforded to the social aspects of both schemes, with, for example, the Community Centre of Golden Lane Estate forming the stated communal and visual focus - together with Great Arthur House – of the entire scheme. (The full plans for Barbican North Redevelopment further augmented this social cohesion by including a City Residents Association building that was visually connected to the Golden Lane Community Centre, Jewin Welsh Church and Bernard Morgan House.)
As the history of urban section houses also illustrates, the accommodation of law enforcement officers in these facilities was deliberately intended to contribute to the immediate community. This civic and communal function of section houses is recognised in Historic England’s own ‘Principles for the Selection of Listed Buildings’. The architect’s specific intention with Bernard Morgan House is indicated in the desire to foster the ‘civic feeling’ and sense of harmonious inclusion described in the Architecture and Planning Journal article on the building. Finally, oral histories of life on the estate by longtime residents of Golden Lane Estate refer to the sense of safety and communality afforded by the presence of Bernard Morgan House and its occupants.
4.2 CgMs Consulting Report
The report by CgMs Consulting (June 2015) similarly recognises the modernist architectural principles employed in Elliot’s design of Bernard Morgan House, before wrongly concluding ‘in terms of scale and quality of detail, [the building] fails to match’ the quality of Golden Lane Estate. This conclusion forms the basis for recommending Bernard Morgan House does not meet the requirements for listing.
Despite this reference to the ‘scale’ of the building in relation to Golden Lane Estate and, by inference, the surrounding townscape is left entirely unsubstantiated in the CgMs Consulting report, which concentrates exclusively on the materiality of the building, rather than the scale and massed relationships to Golden Lane Estate, Jewin Welsh Church, Barbican, Fortune Street Park and the surrounding townscape. To reiterate, despite this single reference to ‘scale’ there is no further mention - or explanation - of how the scale of Bernard Morgan House, in the opinion of CgMs Consulting, does not relate to Golden Lane Estate. This is a critical error in this report, which concludes ‘Bernard Morgan House is not considered architecturally to complement the Golden Lane Estate’. As the information above asserts, the conclusion of CgMs Consulting is erroneous given Elliot’s stated intention to relate the design of Bernard Morgan House to Golden Lane Estate.
On the basis of the information outlined above, I urge the City of London to recognise Bernard Morgan Section House as a ‘non-designated heritage asset’. The failure to acknowledge the importance of Bernard Morgan House by the City of London will result in the irrecoverable loss of a townscape that is unique, coherent and of international significance.
I suggest the reports submitted by Historic England and CgMs Consulting fail to recognise the value and contribution of Bernard Morgan House to the larger townscape. Neither report provides a substantive discussion of the massed and scalar relationships of Bernard Morgan House to the hugely significant local context, which includes Golden Lane Estate and the Barbican - two of the finest works of modernist architecture in the United Kingdom. The errors and misjudgments of these reports have been referenced and compounded in the materials assembled for Planning Application Ref. 16/00590/FULL.
Finally, in light of the preceding information and the considered contribution of Bernard Morgan House to the adjacent townscape I trust the utmost attention is given to this request for the City of London Corporation to recognise Bernard Morgan Section House as a ‘non-designated heritage asset’.
Dr. Mark Campbell
PhD (Princeton University), MA, B.Arch (Hons.)
Fulbright Scholar, Princeton Honorific Scholar
Director, MPhil in Media Practices / AA Research Cluster
36 Bedford Square
London, WC1B 3ES
Editor, The Journal of Architecture (Routledge & RIBA)
Royal Institute of British Architects
66 Portland Place
London, W1B 1NT
School of Architecture
 The Times, 11 March, 1952. Geoffrey Powell, Biographic File, RIBA Archive.
 ‘Housing at Golden Lane’, Architectural Design, July 1953; 190-192.
 ‘Golden Lane, Finsbury; Architects: Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’, Architecture and Building, 29 August, 1957; 271-289.
 Peter Chamberlin, ‘Architect’s Approach to Architecture’, RIBA Journal, June 1969; 229-235.
 Elain Hardwood, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon (London: RIBA Publishing, 2011), 34-35.
 ‘Golden Lane Housing Scheme, Finsbury EC1’, Architectural Review (January 1954); 52.
 ‘Housing at Golden Lane’, Architectural Design, July 1953; 190-192.
 Geoffrey Powell, ‘Golden Lane Housing Scheme, Finsbury; Architects: Chamberlin, Powell & Bon’. Lecture, published in AA Journal, April 1957; 214-223.
 ‘Men of the Year 1952’, Architects’ Journal, 15 January, 1953; 72.
 Peter Hugh Girard Chamberlin, Biographic File, RIBA Archive.
 Kenneth Powell, ‘Pioneering Urbanism’, Architects’ Journal, 4 March, 1999; 24-25.
 Phillipa Cooper, letter to the RIBA, November 26, 2000. RIBA Archive.
 See Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, ‘Conclusion’, ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959), 47.
 Harwood, Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, 1.
 See Drawings 1-9, NW2/58008. Finsbury Section House. London Metropolitan Archive.
 Official Architecture & Planning; 370.
 See Drawing 3, NW2/58008. Finsbury Section House. London Metropolitan Archive.
 Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s design proposals for the ‘North Barbican Residential Development’ are first explained in their ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959) and then expanded upon in a series of drawings held in the London Metropolitan Archive.
 Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’ (City of London Corporation, 1959), 1, 17, 54.
 ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’, 5.
 ‘Barbican Redevelopment 1959’, 3.
 Twentieth Century Society letter (22 May 2015).
 Official Architecture and Planning, 370.
 ‘The Golden Lane Estate. Corporation of London’ (City of London, c. 1961), 4.