Elizabeth House development (aka 'Three Sisters'), York Road

English Heritage are not part of the inquiry because they want to preserve Elizabeth House - their interest is the way that the new buildings affect the London skyline.

And having seen the way that the bulk of Bankside 123 (on the site of St Christopher's House) now blocks out any views of the City and the sky from a number of SE1 streets, I'm now very wary of any claims that a new Allies and Morrison building replacing an unfashionable 60s "eyesore" is necessarily a good thing.

I know full well English heritage don't give two hoots about what is going to replace Elizabeth house but who are they to tell Lambeth & Southwark what they can not approve.

Like it or not Bankside 123 & new office buildings here do contribute to the continuing redevelopment of the Southbank, it is central London after all.You say that views for some are obscured by Bankside. I presume you are also against the new Tate extension which is as tall as the Bankside building and would also block these same views?

These blocks next to Waterloo are hardly going to block local residents views as they abut Waterloo and it is obvious that larger office blocks would eventually replace the 60's buildings.

The problem with these new buildings is the massing which is awful and gives the impression of one wall.

Lambeth Lad - you seem much more at home on your Skyscrapper love-in websites rather than as part of a forum that is trying to have a measured debate about the scheme proposed. English Heritage can not 'tell' any borough what to do - they can only advise - it is the same with the SOS - only the SOS can decide is public inquiry is appropiate. EH agree and support the redevelopment of the site - the existing Liz Hs needs to go - but the replacement scheme is wrong - CABE has also agreed that the design is 'unresolved'. You are right - the scheme's massing is poor and the result is wall like - this means the scheme has not responded to its context - and its context is - highly listed buildings, protected views and the Westminster World Heritage site. The scheme is an example of trying to cram too much development on one site which is a wasted opportunity for Waterloo.

Yesterday's closing submissions:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3855

I'm presuming that we can read in to Boris Johnston's decision not to formally appose the development , that he may have been told that its not going to happen.UNESCO ect.

I hope Im right.

mickysalt wrote:

I'm presuming that we can read in to Boris Johnston's decision not to formally appose the development , that he may have been told that its not going to happen.UNESCO ect.
I hope Im right.

No, I dont really think you can read that into his decision.

The Mayor doesn't have his facts right about these towers:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3856

Did the UNESCO issue go away.
I also thought Boris Johnson wanted Westminster council to advise on planning across London.

marie1 wrote:

... the scheme's massing is poor and the result is wall like - this means the scheme has not responded to its context - and its context is - highly listed buildings, protected views and the Westminster World Heritage site.

ultimately its development context is the wall of the existing building. far from entriely blocking views it introduces additional views from south to north from lower levels.

Letter from the Planning Inspectorate this morning giving notice that "the Secretary of State will issue their decision on or before 14 October 2009".