A group of residents who claim that a proposed 20-storey Bankside development will block their views must wait to hear whether their appeal has been successful.
Members of the Bankside Residents for Appropriate Development (BROAD), led by chairman David Lough, are seeking to halt the 20-storey “Tate Tower” in Hopton Street, London SE1.
They are challenging an inspector’s decision, backed by the High Court, that, taking into account the numerous advantages of the development, including the construction of a building of considerable design quality and the provision of affordable housing, any detrimental effects would be acceptable.
The Court of Appeal has now reserved judgment on the dispute, and is expected to give its decision in writing at a later date.
London Town Ltd, now Bankside Developments Ltd, purchased the 0.1ha former industrial site for £7.6m in 2001.
The developer had initially intended to erect a 32-storey apartment block, but withdrew the application after realising that it would be unlikely to receive approval. In June 2002, it submitted a proposal for a 63m high, 20-storey building, comprising accommodation above three floors of commercial use, with two underground levels for car parking.
The residents of two neighbouring blocks of flats, the nine-storey Falcon Point and Bankside Lofts, a 1990s development that includes a 16-storey tower, formed BROAD in opposition to the scheme.
The group claimed that the development would result in a loss of view, privacy and light to the surrounding buildings. It also alleged that the tower would interfere with television reception at Falcon Point, and would result in a diminution in the value of properties at Bankside Lofts.
However, after a public enquiry in May 2003, an inspector granted planning permission. The consent was subsequently upheld by the High Court.
On appeal, the residents maintained that the inspector had erred in failing to hold that the effects of the development constituted interferences within the scope of Article 8 of, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to, the European Convention on Human Rights.
They argued that, in balancing their rights against those of the developer, the inspector had been required specifically to refer to the Article 8 proportionality test.
Conversely, Mark Lowe QC, counsel for Bankside Developments, argued that the inspector had given “proper consideration” to the human rights issues involved.
He said: “The whole object of the planning system is to minimise the adverse consequences of development to prevent unjustified harm to others. Whether the harm is justified will be resolved by reference to the policies of the development plan and all other material considerations.
“Any fair and reasonable reading of the decision in point shows that the inspector had given careful decision as to the degree of impairment, and had balanced that against the undoubted human right of the third defendant to use its own land to its own economic advantage and to wider advantage by securing both open market and affordable housing in Central London.”
The parties await the Appeal Court’s decision.
Lough and others v First Secretary of State and others Court of Appeal (Pill, Keene and Scott Baker LJJ) 11 June 2004.
References: EGi Legal News 14/06/04
