黑洞社区

A judicial review challenge to Qatari Diar and Canary Wharf Group鈥檚 planned 拢1.2bn Shell Centre development on London鈥檚 South Bank could be heading to the Court of Appeal, after local objector George Turner filed papers to the Court of Appeal to hear his case.

Turner has taken his campaign to halt the controversial development to the Court of Appeal after it was rejected by the High Court earlier this year.

Turner argues communities secretary Eric Pickles鈥� decision to allow the development would cause 鈥渟erious harm鈥� to the nation鈥檚 culture and heritage.

But in February High Court judge Justice Collins dismissed the legal challenge, saying he did not accept there was a strong enough case to reject the decision by the communities secretary, even though he said he was 鈥渟eriously concerned鈥� by the conduct of the planning inspector.

In a statement on his website Turner said: 鈥淚 have not taken this decision lightly, but after much thought I am convinced that it is the right thing to do.

鈥淭he entire purpose of judicial review is to allow the public to hold politicians and officials to account for their decisions. It is there to ensure that decisions are made following due process and that the views of the public are properly taken into account.

鈥淯nfortunately, the judgement of the High Court does little to reinforce public confidence in the planning process. The judgement accepts that a key part of the planning application can be kept secret, unseen even by decision makers.

鈥淭he judgement accepts that major decisions that will shape the future of our city can be made by officials who are openly hostile to the views of the public. The judgement allows serious harm to our nation鈥檚 culture and heritage without that harm being justified.鈥�

Braeburn Estates, a joint venture between Qatari Diar and Canary Wharf Group, is planning to build eight buildings which from range in height from five to 37 storeys. It will comprise offices, retail, leisure and close to 900 homes.

In his judgement in February Justice Collins took planning inspector Braithwaite to task over the way he handled the inquiry which ran in November and December 2013.

Justice Collins said: 鈥淚 have no doubt that the inspector鈥檚 conduct was such as to give rise to a real concern that he was unfair to the objectors. He seriously mismanaged his conduct of the inquiry. It may be well that the individual decisions he made were justifiable but the way in which he made them was unacceptable.

鈥淭he inspector鈥檚 attitude is said to have given rise to an appearance of bias. It is not now suggested nor could it be that he was in fact biased. No doubt, he had formed preliminary views on some matters which were in issue in the inquiry, but of course he should not have said anything which suggested a closed mind or prejudgement.

But in dismissing Turner鈥檚 claim, he added: 鈥淚t must, however, be obvious that I have been seriously concerned at the inspector鈥檚 conduct at the inquiry and I hope that steps are taken to ensure that lessons are learnt.鈥�

Of the latest developments Turner added: 鈥淭he reality is that the Shell decision will affect millions of people, and will set a precedent for many other buildings throughout the country. The public interest in having a well functioning planning system is much greater than any private interest on an individual development, no matter how large.

鈥淭he planning process was designed precisely to prevent speculators from destroying our environment. It is there to make sure that buildings stand the test of time and meet the real needs of society rather than simply maximising the short term profits of developers.

鈥淚f Shell and their partners had instead proposed a building that followed the development plan for the local area, they would be well on the way to building. I have no doubt that a plan compliant scheme would have provided ample profit for Shell 鈥� a company which some might argue makes plenty of profit already.鈥�