London Southbank supporters challenge ITV decision

The Claimant is a local opposition group and was a Rule 6 party to the Inquiry. They lodged a section 288 claim to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to grant redevelopment of a sensitive Thames waterfront site to Mitsubishi’s property development company. There are 4 grounds relating to heritage, failure to provide housing and a breach of London Borough of Lambeth’s tall buildings policy.

The former ITV Tower site on the banks of the River Thames (“the Site”) is in the Southbank Conservation Area and in the vicinity of many other designated heritage assets, namely the IBM Building (Grade II listed), the Royal National Theatre (Grade II* listed), Somerset House (Grade I listed), Waterloo Bridge (Grade II* listed), London Pride Sculpture (Grade II listed), the Royal Festival Hall (RFH) (Grade I listed), St Paul’s (Grade I listed), as well as several Conservation Areas.

The controversial development would comprise the redevelopment of the Site to provide a building of 14 storeys fronting Queen’s Walk and 25 storeys fronting Upper Ground, linked by a six-storey podium. The development would include office use, flexible retail/restaurant/café/drinking use and affordable workspace for cultural production, cultural consumption and related skills and training. Very controversially there would be no residential dwellings in the development.

On 31 August 2022, the application was called in by the Secretary of State pursuant to s.77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and a public inquiry was held between 6 December 2022 and 25 January 2023 before a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State (“the Inspector”). At the Inquiry, the Council was supportive of the Developer’s appeal. The Claimant and the Fourth Defendant opposed the appeal. Following the decision in February 2024, the Claimant brought proceedings on 4 grounds. On 7 May the Planning Court granted permission on all grounds and granted the Claimant a Protective Costs Order in the amount of £10,000. The four grounds in summary are:

• Failure to provide any or any adequate reasons as to whether the Development would preserve the heritage significance of St Paul’s Cathedral, Waterloo Bridge and five Conservation Areas (the Old Barge House Alley CA, Whitefriars CA, the Waterloo CA, the Temple CA and the Strand CA)
• Misinterpretation of planning policy: failure to understand the policy requirement to deliver housing as part of the Development
• Misinterpretation of planning policy: failure to understand the policy requirement to consider whether the existing building on site could be retained to deliver residential uses as part of the Circular Economy
• Errors in in respect of compliance with Policy Q26 (Tall buildings) of the Lambeth Local Plan

The Claimant’s Crowd Justice site is here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-our-south-bank/