Land Securities was last night told it will have to cut down the size of its buildings if it wants to develop a £2bn transport interchange at London’s Victoria train station with a planning committee pointing out that the view from Buckingham Palace gardens would be affected by their height.
Councillors told the UK’s largest property developer that it will not budge over the height and bulk of buildings when they obstruct views of a World Heritage Site.
The Queen’s view from her gardens at Buckingham Palace was among those that would be spoilt by the towers, the planning committee said.
‘This is the thing we can be most certain on,’ said committee chair councillor Alistair Moss. ‘There needs to be a substantial reduction on the views.
‘My view is that this is an over-development.’
Land Secs was hoping to build two 128-metre high buildings at the 13-acre site amongst other buildings totalling 2.9bn sq ft of office, retail and residential development.
Serious Problems
And this week Mike Hussey said it would cause ‘serious problems’ if the council insisted on fundamental changes at the scheme.
And responding to criticisms during the meeting he told Property Week that the site is a difficult one to develop,
‘They are criticising where we are putting the buildings,’ he said, ‘But you can only develop on about 30% of the site.
‘You have underground rail going through the site and you have to leave a corridor for Crossrail.’
Paying for the community
Hussey left the meeting early after hearing the council’s stern stance on the height of the buildings.
The scheme was also rejected for not providing more benefits to the local community .
Land Secs is saying that, because they are paying around £200m in transport infrastructure works for the District and Central line, they should pay less for community benefits.
But councillor Lee Rowley said: ‘It’s time for Land Securities to put its hand in its pocket and then we can sit down and have a sensible discussion.
‘This is a scheme of international, national and local significance - why should it be the local community that has to carry the burden of the scheme?’
