Tonight:
8°c
Doon Street tower plans attacked in High Court
15.06.09
Plans for a controversial 43-storey tower block on London's South Bank came under attack at the High Court today.
Hazel Blears gave the go-ahead for the controversial Doon Street tower behind the Royal National Theatre while she was Communities Secretary.
Today Westminster City Council joined forces with English Heritage in a bid to quash the planning permission.
Ms Blears called in the scheme and gave approval against the advice of a planning inspector in August 2008.
Rosemarie MacQueen, head of planning at Westminster, described it at the time as "an act of architectural vandalism".
In court today Neil King QC, appearing for Westminster and English Heritage, showed a judge photographs to support his claim that the new residential tower would cause irreparable harm to some of the most famous views of London.
The QC said the building was too tall for its site and would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the setting of the Royal National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall and harm views across the Thames from Somerset House and St James's Park.
Mr King told Judge Mole, sitting at the High Court in London, Ms Blears' decision to grant planning permission was so legally flawed it should be quashed.
When the project was first approved, Ms MacQueen said on behalf of Westminster council, which has planning responsibility for famous conservation areas and listed buildings including St James's Park and Somerset House: "If this development is allowed to go ahead it will be an act of architectural vandalism which will ruin our skyline for generations to come."
Both the current Communities Secretary, John Denham, and Lambeth Council, the local planning authority for the South Bank, are defending the Blears decision in a hearing expected to last two days.
Ms Blears went against the advice of planning inspector Philip Wilson, who recommended the scheme be refused following a three-week public inquiry.
Mr Wilson said the harm the development would cause would outweigh the benefits.
In particular he expressed concern over the tower's impact on famous London views and the settings of conservation areas and listed buildings.
Ms Blears acknowledged the settings of the Strand and Roupell Street conservation areas and Somerset House would be harmed by the scheme, but concluded the "substantial" benefits to the local community outweighed the drawbacks.
English Heritage labelled hern reasoning "incomprehensible" and criticised her for disregarding Mr Wilson's advice.
A spokeswoman said: "We are appalled to learn that the secretary of state has not only overturned the advice of English Heritage as her expert advisers, but she has also chosen to ignore the learned opinion of an independent inspector.
"English Heritage finds it incomprehensible that her reason for doing so was because she considered that community benefits outweigh harm to the historic environment as though one must be at the sacrifice of the other."
The tower proposal includes permission for 329 residential units, a community sports centre and swimming pool and floorspace for shops, restaurants and bars and underground parking for 56 cars.
Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB) are the developers proposing to erect the Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands tower.
William Ashton, another objector to the scheme, argues permission should be quashed because Ms Blears fell into error by basing her decision on leisure facilities being provided at no public cost, when in fact the scheme did require public funding.
Reader views (4)
Well Done Rosemary MacQueen for speaking out so eloquently against this monstrous tower proposal. This case should never have got to the High Court. If Lambeth Council hadn't been so greedy and pathetic in approving this application we wouldn't be in this situation. So much for their Labour Council. These grasping politicians approved a residential tower of luxury flats - not one single affordable unit. Lambeth Labour are a disgrace and should be ejected from office at the next election, they are as corrupt and past their sell-buy date as the government who rubber stamped their appalling decision. If this tower is ever built it will be a monument to their administration just like the Nuremburg stadium.
- Thomas, London
Poor people live in tower blocks. And they want to build one on the south bank, where tourists come to enjoy London? They won't anymore when they get mugged walking past this ugly monstrosity!
- Kathryn, Westminster, London
Hazel Blears, Hazel Blear, the name rings a bell, what does she do again? Oh, yes, possible fraudulent expense claims and not paying capital gains tax on property, sounds like she's the perfect person to have made this decision, incorruptible. Right Honourable my…..eye.
- Bob, Cheam
I am pleased this application has gone to appeal, as I think all new build in the Capital should be sensitive to the area and land line, and this building certainly does not, cities up and down the country have been demolishing similar buildings, citing them as a blot on the landscape, they even have demolishing parties in some places,I really do not think the person or people who passed this has any qualification to do so,and I do hope in the end a wise decision ensues.
- David Crocket, Bradford, UK
