Government appeals court decision to quash Holocaust memorial planning permission

The government has lodged an appeal against the decision by the High Court to quash planning permission for the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.

Campaigners won a stunning High Court battle earlier this month to scupper plans for the project, with Mrs Justice Thornton concluding there is “an enduring obligation” to retain land “as a public garden and integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Gardens”.

In response the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities filed its appeal on Friday, the deadline day for such a move, stating it “remains completely committed to constructing the memorial at this location, which was carefully selected to reflect its national significance – next to Parliament and close to other important memorials including the Cenotaph”.

A spokesperson added: “We owe a lasting memorial not just to Holocaust survivors, but to the British people now and for generations to come.”

The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust brought the High Court case against the Government, arguing the project is the “right idea, wrong place” and that the planning permission decision-making process was flawed.

Olivia Marks-Woldman, chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, called the court’s decision “deeply regrettable”. She added: “A permanent physical Holocaust Memorial for generations to come is vital.”

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said in response to the court’s decision: “Holocaust survivors are elderly, and their numbers are dwindling – time is of the essence.  Many hope to see the opening of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre standing proudly next to Parliament, serving as a warning from history of what can happen when antisemitism and hate is left unchecked. This Memorial will stand as a reminder for generations to come.”

Campaigners also claim the memorial’s proposed location risks affecting the park “irrevocably” and have previously raised concerns over the alleged impact on local trees, potential flooding, and heritage monuments.

Lawyers for the Government argued that there was “no error of law” in the decision-making process and that policy had not been “misinterpreted or misapplied”.