Commentary: English Heritage is taking on its paymasters

The rise of tall building applications in recent years has led to an equal rise in these cross-border skirmishes, although there has not previously been a challenge at this level, following a ministerial decision. It is usually Westminster - generally low-rise and possessing a large number of historic buildings - which makes these challenges.

It has expressed itself forcefully on proposed towers in Blackfriars Road, which would appear in views from St James's Park, and on the "three sisters" proposed next to Waterloo Station, which would pop up in views from Parliament Square. The park and the square are inside Westminster, even though the towers are not.

It might seem like unwarranted meddling in the affairs of others, but it is more a reflection on the failure of higher authorities - the last Mayor and central government - to establish a coherent plan for tall buildings in London. If they had done their job of giving more clarity on what is and is not the "right place" for towers, there would be less occasion for Westminster to butt in.

Instead ministers, first John Prescott and now Hazel Blears, have delighted in overturning the advice of planning inquiries, reached at great expense of time, money and expertise.

If ministers show such contempt for the processes under them, it is hardly surprising if the likes of Westminster should try to take matters into their own hands.

Their point about Doon Street - that its community benefits do not require a tower of such height - - is entirely accurate.

It is also striking that English Heritage is taking on its paymasters in central government. It is obviously betting that a different administration will be deciding on its funding allocation after the next election.