He said the demolition of important parts of significant market buildings would be “wholly unacceptable.”
The poor state of the buildings, he noted, was partly due to deliberate neglect.

Reasoning

In his ruling, Eric Pickles said:

"I consider that the proposed development would not be consistent with government policies requiring good design or in planning for conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

While the proposal would be consistent with some local development plan policies promoting intensification, rejuvenation and regeneration, it would not be consistent with those policies intended to protect the historic environment from harmful development, to which I give more weight."

One of the arguments for redevelopment was that the buildings had fallen into a sorry state of repair. But in his decision, Pickles says the reason for the disrepair is at least in part due to “the history of deliberate neglect and that, in assessing the planning balance, less weight should therefore be given to the current condition of the buildings and the consequent benefit of their repair.”

He gave considerable weight to heritage against other material considerations in line with the appeal court decision at Barnwell Manor.

Smithfield reaction 

SAVE said: “This is an overwhelming victory for common sense. The decision places importance and significance of the Smithfield General Market interiors in their correct context and accepts that the right way of dealing with the neglected buildings is to conserve the existing fabric.”.

In The Times, SAVE president Marcus Binney said the decision has “brought back sense and balance to planning decisions in historic areas” .

Developer Henderson has threatened to leave the buildings empty and said: “This decision will condemn these disused historic buildings to continued decay and yet further uncertainty”.