One London council wants Shell to help pay for climate protection. Another is inviting the oil giant to move its headquarters across the Thames. The extraordinary exchange has revived memories of historic Shell-Mex House on the Strand — a building with its own place in the history of the Donovan family’s dealings with Shell.

By John Donovan — 31 October 2026

Shell plc has found itself at the centre of an unusual disagreement between two London local authorities.

In Lambeth, where Shell maintains its London headquarters on the South Bank, the Green Party-led council has publicly challenged the oil giant to contribute towards the costs of protecting local residents from climate change.

Across the River Thames, Westminster City Council’s deputy leader has responded with a rather different proposition.

If Shell feels unwelcome in Lambeth, Westminster would be delighted to have it back.

The invitation comes from Councillor Timothy Barnes, Deputy Leader of Westminster City Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, in an open letter addressed to Shell chief executive Wael Sawan.

Published by The Critic on 30 October 2026, the letter offers to assist Shell with relocating to Westminster and argues that successful businesses should be welcomed for the employment, investment and economic activity they generate.

The exchange highlights contrasting approaches to corporate responsibility, local government finance and the treatment of major international businesses.

It also revives a fascinating chapter of Shell’s London history.

Lambeth challenges Shell over climate funding

As we reported on 24 October, Lambeth Council has been asking Shell to help finance measures to protect local communities against the effects of climate change.

Deputy council leader Ciara Alleyne featured in a public appeal outside Shell Centre, the company’s London headquarters near Waterloo.

The campaign included an attempted visit to Shell’s offices, although there was no evidence that a meeting had been arranged or that Shell’s senior management had refused a formal invitation to discuss the issue.

Lambeth’s argument is that companies associated with substantial greenhouse gas emissions should contribute to the costs of protecting communities from climate impacts.

Possible initiatives include measures addressing extreme heat and improving local climate resilience.

The council has highlighted Shell’s substantial profitability and its contribution to global emissions.

However, as our earlier investigation explained, the precise amount being requested, the proposed method of calculation and the legal or voluntary basis of any contribution remain important unanswered questions.

Lambeth’s appeal is a political and environmental initiative, not an established tax liability or binding financial obligation.

That distinction is central to the disagreement now emerging.

Westminster enters the argument

Councillor Barnes has taken issue with Lambeth’s approach.

In his open letter to Sawan, he suggests that Westminster would offer Shell a more welcoming business environment.

He argues that companies already contribute to their surrounding communities through employment, supply chains, local expenditure and existing taxation.

In his view, a council should not treat the worldwide commercial activities of a company as creating an additional financial obligation merely because its headquarters happen to be located within the borough.

Barnes acknowledges that businesses should meet their tax obligations and be held accountable for wrongdoing.

He also accepts that environmental costs should be addressed through appropriate legislation and regulation.

His objection concerns what he regards as public pressure for an additional voluntary payment tied to Shell’s geographical presence.

The letter presents Westminster as an attractive alternative location for an international company of Shell’s scale.

Barnes points to the borough’s concentration of major businesses, financial institutions and commercial headquarters.

He also refers to Westminster’s economic output and the substantial business-rate revenues collected within the borough.

His message is unmistakable.

Rather than encouraging Shell to contribute more money to local climate initiatives, Westminster is offering to discuss how the company might bring additional employment and investment into its jurisdiction.

The invitation appears to have been made publicly through The Critic. We have identified no evidence that Shell requested relocation assistance or that formal negotiations have begun.

The remarkable reference to Shell-Mex House

Perhaps the most interesting passage in Barnes’s letter concerns Shell’s historical association with Westminster.

He reminds Sawan of Shell-Mex House on the Strand, overlooking the Thames.

It is a particularly appropriate reference.

The immense Art Deco building, completed in 1932, became one of the most recognisable symbols of Shell’s corporate presence in London.

With its imposing façade and enormous clock overlooking the river, Shell-Mex House represented the wealth, commercial influence and prestige of the British petroleum industry.

The building was originally associated with Shell-Mex and BP, reflecting the historical relationship between the two companies’ British marketing operations.

It later remained associated with Shell before the company’s presence there came to an end.

Today, the property is known as Eighty Strand.

The building is Grade II listed, and its architectural significance remains recognised independently of the company’s corporate history.

For Westminster’s deputy leader, it provides an obvious reminder that Shell’s connection with the borough extends back generations.

For the present writer, however, Shell-Mex House has an additional personal significance.

A personal recollection: my visits to Shell-Mex House

Long before the present dispute between Lambeth and Westminster, I was a regular and welcome visitor to Shell-Mex House.

During the years when my father, Alfred Donovan, and I were involved in providing promotional ideas and services to Shell through our company, Don Marketing, we developed extensive commercial relationships with the oil group.

Our association with Shell began in the early 1980s and continued for many years.

The subsequent disputes and litigation arising from those relationships are extensively documented in the Donovan–Shell historical archive.

But it is worth remembering that the relationship did not begin in conflict.

For many years, we worked with Shell, presented promotional ideas and enjoyed access to people within its organisation.

My recollections of visiting Shell-Mex House belong to that earlier period.

It is therefore rather striking to see the building return to the headlines through an invitation to Shell to re-establish its presence in Westminster.

The corporate world represented by Shell-Mex House was very different from the Shell of today.

Yet the company’s historical identity remains inseparable from its buildings, commercial relationships and institutional memory.

Those connections deserve preservation alongside the later controversies.

From Shell-Mex House to Shell Centre

Shell’s London corporate history encompasses both sides of the Thames.

Shell-Mex House became a prominent landmark in Westminster, while Shell Centre established the company’s enduring association with the South Bank in Lambeth.

The two buildings reflect different periods in the development of Shell’s British operations.

They also illustrate the company’s substantial physical presence in London over many decades.

Shell Centre, close to the London Eye and Waterloo, became one of the capital’s most recognisable corporate headquarters.

The site has undergone considerable redevelopment, but its association with Shell remains central to its identity.

The present disagreement is therefore not simply about whether one council would welcome a new office tenant.

It concerns a company whose activities have helped shape London’s commercial geography for generations.

That history adds weight to Barnes’s invitation, even if the prospect of a move currently remains hypothetical.

Two councils, two different arguments

The competing positions deserve to be considered on their merits.

Lambeth’s approach emphasises climate responsibility.

Its argument is that local communities face increasingly expensive adaptation requirements and that major fossil-fuel businesses should help meet the associated costs.

Westminster’s approach emphasises investment, employment and the economic contribution of major companies.

Its argument is that councils should encourage successful businesses to establish and expand operations rather than expose them to additional financial demands based simply on where their offices are located.

Neither position automatically resolves the underlying questions.

A council’s request for a voluntary contribution is not necessarily equivalent to imposing a tax.

Equally, the presence of a profitable multinational business within a borough does not automatically establish a legal obligation to finance particular local programmes.

There is also a distinction between a company’s international responsibility for environmental impacts and its relationship with the local authority hosting its headquarters.

Those questions involve policy, taxation, public finance and corporate responsibility.

They cannot be settled solely through competing political statements.

Could Shell really move?

At present, there is no indication that Shell has decided to relocate its London headquarters.

Barnes has made an invitation, not announced an agreement.

A headquarters move by a company of Shell’s size would involve substantial practical and financial considerations.

These might include property arrangements, employee requirements, operational needs and the advantages or disadvantages of remaining at its existing location.

There is no evidence that Shell is undertaking such an assessment in response to Lambeth’s appeal.

Nor should Westminster’s expression of interest be confused with a formal corporate proposal.

For now, the story is principally about the competing messages being directed towards one of Britain’s largest companies.

Nevertheless, an actual response from Shell could turn the exchange into a more substantial development.

What should Shell say?

Shell may prefer not to become involved in a public disagreement between two London councils.

But several legitimate questions arise.

Has Lambeth submitted a formal request for a contribution to its climate resilience programme?

Has Shell responded, or does it intend to discuss the proposal?

Has Westminster approached the company through official channels beyond Barnes’s published letter?

Would Shell consider any change to its London property arrangements?

And what, if any, voluntary contributions does Shell already make towards community or environmental initiatives in the areas where it maintains major offices?

Answers would help distinguish political publicity from substantive commercial developments.

The value of the historical record

For readers of the Independent Shell Archive and The Shell Leaks Files, the story has an importance extending beyond local politics.

The archive documents Shell’s history through corporate records, correspondence, commercial disputes, litigation and contemporary reporting.

But corporate history also includes the people and places associated with a company over time.

Shell-Mex House is one such place.

My own recollection of being a regular visitor provides a small personal connection to that wider history.

The building represents an earlier era when the relationship between Don Marketing and Shell was cooperative, long before the disagreements that would eventually become the subject of extensive legal proceedings and public scrutiny.

Preserving that earlier history is just as important as documenting the disputes that followed.

An accurate historical record should encompass the full development of a relationship, not only its most contentious chapters.

An unexpected invitation across the Thames

The present controversy began with Lambeth asking Shell to contribute towards climate resilience.

It has now produced a public invitation from Westminster to consider moving its headquarters.

The two councils are approaching the same company from markedly different perspectives.

One emphasises environmental costs and corporate responsibility.

The other emphasises economic activity and the benefits of attracting international business.

Whether Shell will respond remains to be seen.

But Barnes’s reference to Shell-Mex House gives the exchange an unexpected historical dimension.

For someone who once visited that building regularly on friendly commercial business, the invitation brings back memories of an earlier Shell.

Half a century of corporate change has not erased Shell’s connection with the Strand.

And it is perhaps fitting that, at a moment when one London council is challenging Shell over its responsibilities, another is reminding the company that it would still be welcome on the opposite side of the river.

Principal sources and further reading

The Critic — 30 October 2026

Shell Would Be Welcome in Westminster — Councillor Timothy Barnes

The original open letter addressed to Shell chief executive Wael Sawan. This is the principal source for Westminster’s invitation and Councillor Barnes’s stated arguments.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com — 24 October 2026

Lambeth Puts Shell Under Pressure to Help Pay for Climate Protection

Our earlier report covering Lambeth Council’s climate-funding appeal and the questions surrounding its proposed financial contribution.

Lambeth Council — Official statement, 21 October 2026

Lambeth Council — Official news and announcements

Background on the council’s climate-resilience priorities, including its announced 2027 Climate Emergency Summit.

Historic England

National Heritage List for England — Shell-Mex House, List Entry 1236752

Official heritage record identifying Shell-Mex House as a Grade II listed historic building.

Independent Shell Archive

The Donovan–Shell Historical Archive

Extensive documentary record covering the commercial relationships between Don Marketing and Shell, subsequent disputes, litigation and associated correspondence.

Editorial note: Councillor Timothy Barnes’s invitation is a published political statement, not evidence that Shell intends to relocate. The arguments attributed to Lambeth and Westminster reflect their respective public positions. The personal recollection of visits to Shell-Mex House is the author’s firsthand account and should not be confused with an independently documented corporate record. Shell plc and both councils are invited to provide factual corrections or further comment.