Local architect to present grounds to overturn decision to approve 19-storey scheme in September
A proposed judicial review of the decision to approve DSDHA鈥檚 controversial plans for a 19-storey office tower in Bloomsbury has moved a step closer.
The High Court has allowed architect and veteran campaigner James Monahan to present grounds for the judicial review in an oral appeal on 10 September.
Monahan, of local practice Monahan Blythen Hopkins Architects, announced his plans for the judicial review in May.
He is arguing that Camden council has failed in its duty to protect heritage assets in approving the 74m-high tower on Museum Street, a historic part of Bloomsbury characterised by its Georgian terraces.
The mixed-use scheme would replace the 1960s Selkirk House, a 17-storey former Travelodge hotel, with 44 homes and 22,650 sq m of office space. It would also include three six-storey buildings and one five-storey block containing housing and retail space.
The scheme for client BC Partners was signed off in November last year despite objections from Historic England, the Georgian Group, Save Britain鈥檚 Heritage and the London School of Economics.
More than 500 letters objecting to the planning application were also sent in by locals, including film-maker Mike Leigh and Victorian Society president Griff Rhys Jones.
The approval could be overturned if the High Court decides to proceed with the judicial review and rules in favour of Monahan鈥檚 case.
Monahan said Camden had not adhered to key requirements in national planning policies, the London plan and the borough鈥檚 own local planning policies in its decision to green light the application.
He said: 鈥淭he decision to grant permission for a monstrous speculative office tower in Museum Street is one of the worst examples of a fawning attitude by the planners towards developers,鈥� he said.
He added: 鈥淪enior Camden politicians give every indication that they do not care, and are far too busy eyeing up parliamentary seats, and senior planners just move on to pastures new and leave their mistakes behind.
鈥淚t all sounds like a very familiar story but this time Camden council鈥檚 planning committee and planning officers are being held to account. I have asked the High Court to review the lawfulness of Camden鈥檚 decision. This means that Camden will have to justify their actions.鈥�
The judicial review is the latest bid launched by Monahan, who was part of a campaign to stop plans to redevelop parts of Covent Garden in the 1970s and 1980s.
Prior to last year鈥檚 decision to approve the scheme, Monahan proposed an alternative approach for the site which would see the existing Selkirk House refurbished and neighbouring buildings restored, which was not taken into consideration by the council.
The approved scheme is the third incarnation of the proposals, following earlier plans by DSDHA for a 21-storey tower on the site which were revised.
Historic England said the latest plans would still exacerbate the 鈥渧isual discordance鈥� caused by the existing building in views of the nearby historic buildings due to the proposed tower鈥檚 height and bulk.
Save Britain鈥檚 Heritage objected to the proposals because of the impact of the tower element, which is 20m higher than the existing tower, and also what it described as the scheme鈥檚 鈥渟ubstantially harmful and disproportionate鈥� carbon cost.
No comments yet