好色先生TV

Campaigners are considering launching a judicial review of Michael Gove鈥檚 鈥渃owardly鈥� decision to approve Make鈥檚 controversial 拢700m ITV Studios scheme on London鈥檚 South Bank.

Michael Ball, who spoke on behalf of Save Our South Bank (SOSB) at last year鈥檚 inquiry into the 72 Upper Ground scheme, told 好色先生TV that he was 鈥渁mazed鈥� by Gove鈥檚 final sign off considering the communities secretary鈥檚 previous positions on carbon and heritage.

Members of SOSB, a collective of campaign groups which joined with Coin Street Community Builders in forming the opposing side of the inquiry, are currently combing through the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities鈥� 340-page report on the scheme and will hold a meeting this evening to discuss next steps.

Campaigners have six weeks from yesterday to launch a judicial review, which normally takes around three to six months but can last up to a year for larger cases.

Unlike planning appeals, judicial reviews depend on factual errors within the report to be considered worthy of being taken forward, which is usually decided by a judge either on paper or at a preliminary hearing.

The scheme, designed for developers CO-RE and Mitsubishi Estate, would replace the site鈥檚 24-storey riverside tower with two office blocks of 26 and 13 storeys with space for around 4,000 workers.

One of the biggest construction jobs in the capital, it was due to break ground two years ago with Lendlease appointed to the main construction contract and McGee poised to start demolition work before it was put on ice by Gove and later called in by Greg Clark.

The proposals have provoked the ire of locals and campaigners due to their scale and proximity to the site鈥檚 listed neighbours on the South Bank, including the grade II*-listed National Theatre and the grade II-listed IBM 好色先生TV.

Labour MP Florence Eshalomi was among hundreds of objectors to the application, which also received fire from heritage groups including Historic England.

In yesterday鈥檚 report, Gove is said to have had 鈥渞eservations鈥� about the inspector鈥檚 conclusion that the scale of the building is an appropriate response to the site, but agreed with the inspector that it did not conflict with the local development plan.

Overall, Gove is said to disagree with the inspector that the scheme would provide a positive contribution to the townscape of the riverside site given the prominence of the location, but that this only carries moderate weight against the proposal.

Gove is also said to have disagreed that the proposed palette of materials and aesthetic appearance of the building is appropriate, and 鈥渄isagrees with the inspector that an attractive development would be delivered鈥�.

But he concluded that the public benefits of the scheme, including the generation of new jobs for Lambeth and improved public realm, carry substantial weight and outweigh the less than substantial harm which the scheme is expected to cause to the listed buildings.

Ball, who also led a judicial review against the aborted Garden Bridge plans which contributed to the downfall of the Thomas Heatherwick-designed scheme, described Gove鈥檚 positions in the report as 鈥渙dd鈥�.

鈥淸Gove] is saying it would cause heritage harms to the national theatre, the IBM, Somerset House, which he says carries great weight, and it wouldn鈥檛 be a positive contribution to the South Bank.

鈥淏ut this huge harm is outweighed simply by the fact that there鈥檚 economic benefits. That鈥檚 what鈥檚 so strange. And the economic benefits are simply this hugeness. It鈥檚 very odd鈥�.

Ball also suggested Gove had downplayed the environmental impact of the scheme, contrasting the secretary of state鈥檚 decision with his previous ruling rejecting Marks and Spencer鈥檚 proposed redevelopment of its flagship Oxford Street store on the grounds of its impact on carbon and nearby heritage assets.

鈥淚t would be very strange from anybody, but from him, it鈥檚 weird because he presents himself as someone who sticks his neck out and says the unsayable and does the undoable,鈥� Ball said. 

鈥淭his is a very cowardly response. He obviously doesn鈥檛 like it but he can鈥檛 bring himself to refuse it.鈥�

David Hopkins, director of community at Coin Street Community Builders added that Gove鈥檚 decision was 鈥渉ard to understand鈥�.

鈥淚t is extremely disappointing that the secretary of state has decided to approve the Mitsubishi Estate building on 72 Upper Ground, disparagingly known as the 鈥淪lab鈥�

鈥淕iven the reservations Mr Gove clearly has about this development, particularly the way its design will impact on the iconic skyline of London鈥檚 South Bank, it is hard to understand why he has chosen to let it go ahead.

鈥淭his decision seems to fly in the face of the secretary of state鈥檚 own position that new housing should be built on brownfield sites like this, in cities like London.

鈥淔or three years, our community campaign, led by dedicated residents, volunteers, and allies, has passionately opposed these misguided plans because of the vast bulk of the scheme and the lack of any much-needed housing. We all care deeply about our neighbourhood. 

鈥淭his monstrosity of an office development will change what it feels like to live around and visit the South Bank, robbing natural daylight from local people鈥檚 homes and casting the South Bank riverside walk into shadow.

鈥淲e will work to make sure the wellbeing of our community is considered as this development progresses and continue to fight for the soul of our neighbourhood.鈥�

Make lead architect Frank Filskow yesterday said the scheme would be a 鈥渇antastic addition to the character of the South Bank鈥�.

鈥漈he two buildings will bring extensive amenity in the form of a high-quality commercial and arts-led development, and give back 40% of the site to create new biodiverse public spaces, including a new route to the riverfront, and two new garden squares,鈥� he said in his response to Gove鈥檚 ruling.

Mitsubishi Estate London chief executive Shinichi Kagitomi and CO-RE director Stephen Black added that the plans had been backed by Lambeth council, the mayor of London and local creative groups and would be 鈥渢ransformational鈥� for the site.