Islington Tribune - News: Vomit up for debate at inquiry

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Islington Tribune - by PAUL KEILTHY
Published: 14 December 2007

Vomit up for debate at inquiry

“URINATION and vomiting in the streets” was just one of the “perverse” reasons given by a senior City of London official why residents shouldn’t move into his own borough, as a public inquiry into the future of Smithfield market took a bizarre twist.
Questioned by lawyers fighting English Heritage’s case that the City of London broke planning rules to push through a lucrative office development, planning chief Peter Wynne Rees was yesterday (Thursday) forced to list reasons why Farringdon was unsuitable for new residents.
“It is far from an ideal site for housing because of the busy road and night-time economy,” he said. “There is large-scale urination and vomiting in the streets outside, which is already a problem for the market and is threatening the viability of the meat market.”
With only 9,000 residents, schools and libraries were scarce and would be stretched further by new housing, he said, countering the accusation by Robert McCracken QC that his office had ignored planning laws laid down by London mayor Ken Livingstone requiring affordable homes.
Vivid night-life of the kind seen in Covent Garden, Mr Rees said, “is not something we are used to in the City. We’ve lived sheltered existences.”
Mr McCracken called his statements “nonsense” and “perverse”, but Mr Rees said: housing was just one point in the plan. “…we need to do lots of other things to keep the City of London going as a world financial centre. Without jobs and incomes, (Londoners) won’t be able to enjoy the vibrant economy, because there won’t be one”.
The public inquiry is into plans by Thornfield plc to demolish currently empty parts of the Victorian market and replace them with a complex of shops and offices.
The City approved the plans, which they say will bring them a profit from the sale of the land as well as bring jobs.
The decision was challenged by English Heritage, which says the Victorian buildings should be preserved and that the City did a secret deal with developers.
The inquiry, overseen by a government planning inspector, is due to finish in the new year.

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

Name:

Email:

Comment:

Your Comments: