Camdcen New Journal - Letters: comment

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Camden New Journal - COMMENT
Published: 31 May 2007

Ask not for whom the alarm bell tolls – for it tolls for thee, London

BE prepared: that incomparable view from the Thames of St Paul’s Cathedral may soon become part of a lost world. Those superb grand views from Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill may be erased from our cherished London landscape.
Far fetched? The powers-that-be would never allow such vandalism on such an unimaginable scale?
More than a year ago the warning bell sounded once the London mayor Ken Livingstone began to demonstrate a predilection for skyscrapers.
Worried conservationists have tried to fly the flag of resistance.
The public has showed little interest.
But now the beast is upon us. It has been given its licence to roam across central London by Environment Minister Ruth Kelly, who has handed over the keys to Ken Livingstone and the Greater London Authority (See centre pages).
Once, the Mayor would have gladly formed an alliance with conservationists – even though they may have been of a different political colour – against the spread of ugly skyscrapers and the loss of London’s beauty.
Now, quite inexplicably, he wants London, effectively, to mimic New York, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
A great many reasons will be given for this vision of tomorrow’s London.
Better concise planning. Greater density to provide more housing.
Indeed, the Livingstone camp will argue, how can London’s housing crisis be solved without the density of skyscrapers.
And don’t worry. The famous skylines will be protected.
But once the skyscrapers are allowed to march across central London, all will be lost.
The alarm sounded by the Hampstead and Heath Society is timely.
Their call to people to resist planning applications for high-rise buildings should be heeded.
A skyline that has been hallowed by time is at stake.
Though Livingstone has clearly brought many benefits to London, he has got it wrong – palpably wrong – this time.

Intriguing tale of two judges

FROM time to time the law fails to travel along a straight line.
A few weeks ago a High Court judge heard the outline of the case by campaigners against the plan by the developers Argent to demolish two stylish Victorian buildings – and hinted strongly that it merited testing.
This is law-speak to suggest you may have a winnable case.
Yet, after a hearing of just over a day, a second judge dismissed the case as if it had been made of the most flimsy material.
Now it’s up to Argent to prove that the fears of those who feel unhappy with the scheme are groundless.

Send your letters to: The Letters Editor, Camden New Journal, 40 Camden Road, London, NW1 9DR or email to letters@camdennewjournal.co.uk. The deadline for letters is midday Tuesday. The editor regrets that anonymous letters cannot be published, although names and addresses can be withheld. Please include a full name, postal address and telephone number. Letters may be edited for reasons of space.

Comment on this article.
(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)

Name:

Email:

Comment: