Sadiq Khan faces backlash against plans to move City Hall to the East End

Sadiq Khan is facing a backlash against his plans to move City Hall to the East End, the Standard can reveal.

The Mayor has proposed relocating the Greater London Authority to The Crystal, a small exhibition centre in the Royal Docks, by December next year to save £55m over five years.

But the cross-party London Assembly has demanded that other locations be considered – including the possibility of restoring County Hall, the former home of the Greater London Council, as the home of London government.

There are also concerns from GLA staff that relocating City Hall to The Crystal – outside heavily-policed zones in central London - could make it an easier target for terrorists.

Some critics of Mr Khan suspect the London Assembly, the 25-member elected scrutiny body, and its staff, is being shunted east to limit oversight of his activities.

Last week the Standard revealed that Mr Khan planned to have two offices under the plans – one at The Crystal and another at Transport for London’s headquarters at the Palestra building in Southwark, to allow him to retain a base in central London.

The Crystal is owned by the GLA but has space for only 150 to 200 of the GLA’s 1,190 staff – meaning most would have to work from home three days a week and desk-share at the Palestra or the nearby London Fire Brigade headquarters.

Susan Hall, leader of the GLA Conservatives, said: “There is cross-party opposition [to The Crystal] and some people are very against it, for all sorts of different reasons.

“It doesn’t wash its face financially. The Mayor has got an £18.6 billion budget that needs to be properly scrutinised. I think it’s an attempt to stop scrutiny by putting us out of sight, out of mind.”

Navin Shah, the Labour chairman of the London Assembly and an architect by profession, said: “We still have a long way to go before we can say ‘Yes, this all stacks up’ or ‘It doesn’t stack up’.

“It’s important to think about the profile and status of the GLA. We need to ensure the seat of London government doesn’t diminish. However, there a horrendous £500m savings bill the Mayor is having to look at.”

County Hall, opposite Parliament on the South Bank of the Thames, was previously home to the London County Council and the GLC, until the GLC’s abolition by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. It now houses the London Aquarium and two hotels.

Mr Shah said: “We appreciate it’s in private ownership, and it’s now more of a leisure complex, with the aquarium and hotels, but we also believe that large areas of the building are vacant.

“As it’s Grade II-listed, there may be public spaces which lend themselves perfectly to our needs, such as the chamber and committee rooms. There are other alternatives. We have said: let’s put County Hall in the melting pot as well.”

The relocation would save £63m in rent for City Hall but cost an estimated £8 million in relocation costs.

The GLA’s chief officer, Mary Harpley, has been asked by the assembly to provide an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of moving, and to look into County Hall and buildings owned by TfL, such as Pier Walk in North Greenwich, as possible alternatives.

Mr Shah, in a letter on behalf of the assembly to Ms Harpley, said: “The current venue has a symbolic status, and it is generally felt that the Greater London Authority should be in/around central London.

“There are genuine worries that the GLA, and the Assembly in particular, will see a further diminution in its status.

“The Mayoralty may not suffer from this given the nature of the system under which it operates but other parts of the GLA run the risk of further marginalisation, such as school/community groups visits and events in City Hall, which help in so many ways in fostering a positive image of the Authority as a London-wide, national - and indeed international - body.

“Does the Mayor accept that these unquantifiable factors will not be achieved elsewhere, particularly outside central London?”

Asked when the proposal to move to The Crystal might become financially unviable, Ms Harpley replied: “If the landlord were to reduce the rent on City Hall so that one-off costs of relocation were not repaid within three years, then that would merit serious reappraisal of the financial viability of the proposal.

“Given the significant level of business rates payable on City Hall, this feels unlikely.”

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

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