Objectors criticise the scale of the proposed 74-metre tower

• RESIDENTS of Bloomsbury and Covent Garden are facing the threat of a gargantuan, monolithic 74-metre tower block looming over them and casting their homes into darkness, and severe damage to a number of listed buildings in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area.

I am shocked Camden Council’s planning department should have allowed, some might say encouraged, this monstrous development when it should have been killed off at birth and the developers told to go back to the drawing board and present something more acceptable for this wonderful part of London.

However it’s not too late. The decision has yet to be made and I would urge officers and politicians alike, when considering these applications, to reflect on their position as public servants.

Their role is to act in the best interests of the public. It should therefore carry great weight that a significant number of individuals, together with bodies such as Historic England, the Victorian Society the Georgian Group, and the Covent Garden Area Trust, have taken the time and trouble to write to the planning department, on two occasions, to object in the strongest possible terms to this development.

They object to the height and size of the tower and the effect it will have on the views across their city; and equally strongly to the effect it will have on the conservation areas of Covent Garden and Bloomsbury and the listed buildings nearby.

The constant refrain in objection after objection has been that the tower is too tall, and out of place because the whole texture of the nearby heritage areas is small-scale.

Camden planners and councillors work in an area which is of great significance. This central location means a lot, not only to the people of the capital but to the many visitors from across the UK and the world. It is what makes London a world-class city and it deserves protection. Their decision will affect the character of a great city for decades to come, it is a big responsibility.

Clearly there has to be a balance between the competing claims in relation to this site but please don’t be hoodwinked by the prospect of additional dwellings. Remember that 27 dwellings will be lost as a result of this development, and those provided will be in almost perpetual darkness caused by the malevolent shadow cast by this monstrosity.

If they are tempted by the prospect of £5million in CIL, community infrastructure levy, money – they must be because the development has no other conspicuous virtues – think carefully because destruction of the landscape here should not be bought so cheaply.

In fact the prospect should not be entertained at all.

KATHY DOYLE
Bury Place, WC1