rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revisit the decision to give planning permission to the Vauxhall Tower.

My Lords, this short debate enables the House to consider an appalling planning decision to allow the erection of a very tall tower of residential flats on the south bank of the Thames almost next to Vauxhall Bridge. The decision has not yet been announced, but it is only a matter of days before it is confirmed.

The history of the site is that, for some time, the developers, Berkeley Homes, have been pressing to build a large tower on the site. The proposals that we are discussing tonight were first tabled by the company in January 2003. In June 2004, there was an inspector's inquiry, the findings of which were absolutely decisive and dismissive. Very rarely have I seen a report from an inspector that rules out completely, on every possible ground, a planning application.

We thought that that was the end of it, but in March of this year, Mr Prescott, the Deputy prime minister and Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment, rejected the inquiry's findings and said that he was minded to give approval for the building, provided there were more affordable housing units, which has now been agreed. So it is only a matter of days before it is confirmed.

Although I am very strongly opposed to the tower on this particular site, I am not opposed to high buildings. It fell to me as Secretary of State for the Environment in the mid-1980s to give approval for Canary Wharf. The Canary Wharf approval was for three cylindrical towers, but that changed. I remember going around London with my officials trying to imagine and envisage the skyline of that development.

Nor am I against modern architecture. I like the "Gherkin". I think that it adds to the skyline of London. Later this year, I shall certainly not oppose Bishopsgate Tower or the "Shard of Glass", both of which are much taller than the Vauxhall Tower. I shall not oppose them because they are clustered together. Very tall buildings in any urban environment should be clustered in one part of a town or city. That is the pattern over virtually the whole world, apart from some far-eastern cities.

My objection to this proposal is that it is a stand-alone development at Vauxhall. The inspector's report was devastating. I want to focus on three of his conclusions. The first states:

"The height and dominance of the proposed tower would adversely impact on the townscape and local parks and on the setting of the Vauxhall, Vauxhall Gardens, and Albert Embankment Conservation Areas and conservation areas in the City of Westminster, and have a detrimental effect on London's riverscape and locally important views from across the river, Lambeth Bridge, Westminster Bridge and other Thames bridges, and the river banks, contrary to policy CD2, CD16 and V17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan"— that is, the Lambeth plan; Lambeth oppose the this—

"and policy 37 of the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan".

The inspector was saying that the intrusion of this very large single tower at that point would have a damaging effect on the views of the riverscape and skyline of London. It is a World Heritage Site. It is absolutely extraordinary that a World Heritage Site should be treated in this way. UNESCO has already advised everyone in the world not to build tower blocks and large buildings near World Heritage Sites.

Extraordinarily enough, Mr Prescott, in his letter approving this development, recognises that there will be damage. He therefore considers that while the proposal would have a damaging effect on the setting of these conservation areas and the World Heritage Site, the effect would be minimal. He goes on to say that he,

"agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would act as a further distraction from the view of the Palace of Westminster from Westminster Bridge and would have damaging effect on the setting of the conservation area and view of the World Heritage Site. However, given that the tower would appear as a relatively small feature, the Secretary of State considers that the damage caused would be limited and although damage caused is afforded considerable weight, this is tempered by the limited extent of the damage".

Mr Prescott is saying that there would be only a little damage. It is like the housemaid's illegitimate baby which was only a little sin. Of course it is entirely judgmental, but it is damage, and the Secretary of State recognises that it is damage. I wonder whether he stood on Lambeth Bridge or Westminster Bridge and looked upriver to see the damaging effect. I very much doubt that he did. If he did, he could have stood on the same sight as Wordsworth in 1802 when he wrote,

"Earth has not anything to show more fair:

Dull would he be of soul who could pass by

A sight so touching in its majesty".

Wordsworth anticipated Mr Prescott:

"Dull would he be of soul".

Anyone standing on Westminster Bridge, looking up and seeing this monstrosity less than half a mile away would agree that it is damage. Here we have a Secretary of State who accepts the damage. It is quite remarkable that that is so clearly expressed in the letter.

The inspector's second condemnation is that,

"The scale and design character of the proposed development would be out of keeping with and discordant to the existing St George Wharf development, contrary to policies CD15", and all the other policies that I have just mentioned. That means that Mr Prescott has driven a bulldozer through London planning. The Lambeth plan says very specifically that it does not want large buildings. It states that Lambeth's,

"policies indicate that planning permission will not normally be granted for buildings which significantly exceed the height of their surroundings".

That is why Lambeth did not approve the plan. That is part of the planning process of London, which has been approved by the London Borough of Lambeth.

One of the jobs of the Secretary of State for the Environment, as I know because I once held that post, is to support the planning system of our country and not to drive through it, if it does not happen to suit one on a particular day. The Secretary of State has driven through not only the borough plan but also the other guidance in the London Plan on strategic and significant views. For that reason it is another very bad decision.

The inspector's third point was that,

"The design character and detail in the submitted drawings fail to demonstrate that the proposed tower would be of a sufficiently high quality and of the world class, iconic"— remember the word "iconic"—

"standard of architecture required in this location in view of the inevitable prominence of the proposed tower, contrary to the draft London Plan", and all the policies which Mr Prescott has driven through.

I asked your Lordships to remember the word "iconic" because, in Mr Prescott's letter, some poor civil servant has drafted the phrase:

"he does not recognise 'iconic status' as an appropriate test of the suitability of a proposal".

The civil servant who drafted that could not have been aware that Mr Prescott made a speech to the Prince's Foundation in which he asked for the "wow factor" in architecture. I looked up the word "wow" in the Oxford English Dictionary and found that it means "a sensational success". Mr Prescott may prefer the three-letter word "wow" to the six-letter word "iconic", but it means exactly the same. And yet on one occasion he is quite prepared to say that he wanted an outstanding building. He said to the Prince's Foundation—a friendly audience that will say, "We've got a very good Secretary of State who wants 'wow factors'"—that he wants to encourage architects. But when it comes to an application which does not have the "wow factor" about it at all, he nods it through.

When I say that it does not have a wow factor, I should add that it stands alongside the development of St George Wharf. Your Lordships might know this building. As one drives along the river just past Vauxhall Bridge, it is the building with the green-umbrella roof sticking out. Each year, the Architect's Journal has a competition for the least favourite building. It asks the 100 leading architectural practices in the country to designate their least favourite building in the world—not just in London and not just in England but in the world.

In 2003, St George Wharf won it by a mile—it was the least favourite. Not only that, it won it again in 2004. Not only that, it won it again in 2005. For three years it was the least favourite building; and the team that brought us the least favourite building, the developers and the architects, are now going to bring us the Vauxhall Tower. If only we had a Secretary of State who could recognise a wow factor.

One might ask why that has happened, because everyone apart from two people at the public inquiry—the developer, obviously; and I shall come to the other in a moment—were all against the development. The Covent Garden Authority, Riverside Maintenance, the Vauxhall Society, the West London River Group, the Crown Reach Residents' Association, St Marylebone Society, Waterloo Community Development Group, Thames Bank, the River Thames Society, and English Regions Network were all opposed to it.

The only person who turned up in person and spoke for the proposal was Mr Livingstone, because Mr Livingstone wants tall buildings anywhere. He took the trouble to go down, and I suspect that he took some other trouble, to which I shall come in a moment, to ensure that he got his way. A fortnight ago, Mr Livingstone attended a developers' conference in Cannes. That must be reassuring for the electors in London; that their Mayor can attend developers' conferences, particularly when they are held in Cannes.

Mr Livingstone said at that meeting that if the London boroughs did not support his housing plans, he would crush them. He used the phrase, "crush them". Immediately he did so the spin doctors went into rapid activity and said that it was only a joke. When Mr Livingstone says something like that it is not a joke. But he does not need to crush the London boroughs: he has got Mr Prescott to do it for him. Mr Prescott has ridden through the agreed plans of London to approve this development. It is a disgrace.

I find it particularly ironic that this development has an element of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Your Lordships will remember that in the brave new world the rich and the toffs were called alphas, and they were at the top. The gammas, the deltas and the epsilons—the proles—were down at the bottom. That is how the development is to be done. In that great tower there will be no social affordable housing. It is all for the alphas. It is all for the toffs. The affordable housing is down below, possibly even subterranean—I have no idea.

So we have a Labour Deputy Prime Minister, a man who I think would describe himself as a good old-fashioned socialist, giving approval for a tower for the toffs. The other irony is that half of those flats, which will sell for upwards of £1 million—probably, the higher one goes, more than £5 million—will be bought by foreigners. That is what happens when buildings are built alongside the river Thames. We have the extraordinary irony of the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, at Mr Livingstone's behest, giving approval for such a development. It is a disgrace.

I turn briefly to the consequence, which is very worrying. This establishes a precedent. Every developer in London will now be able to say, "It does not matter what an inquiry will say, we will put in for a very large tower block and the Secretary of State will support us". So we can have tower blocks in Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Enfield, Bromley—absolutely anywhere. That is of course Mr Livingstone's dream. It is extremely worrying.

I do not believe that the indiscriminate scattering of very tall buildings across the skyline can do anything other than cause visual harm. We as Londoners—or people who work and live in London—should all be concerned about the skyline of London, because once it is ruined it is gone forever. That could never happen in Paris, Rome, or Berlin. It just would not happen.

As I said, I am not against tall buildings, but there must be an overall design landscape/skyscape for London. I hope that the London boroughs will take the advice of English Heritage. English Heritage was against the proposal. CABE was not against it, but CABE is a developer-friendly body. Its chairman has just resigned because he was a developer. It should restore its reputation as an independent body.

English Heritage was against the proposal from the word go. English Heritage is rather like the House of Lords—it is a bit awkward; it goes against what the Government want. It strokes the cat the wrong way. I suppose that that is why about two months ago there was a rumour that the Government were going to fold up English Heritage. Did your Lordships see that in the Sunday Times? Within 24 hours the Government had to say that they had no intention whatever of doing so; that it was a rumour.

English Heritage has said that what is needed for London is an urban design landscape. I urge the Minister, who does not have direct responsibility for this decision—I absolve him from that horrendous position—to try to engender in London, possibly through the Mayor and possibly through the Greater London Assembly, which should try to control the Mayor in some way, a regime that will not allow the scattering of large skyscrapers anywhere across London. That is the danger of what has happened and I hope that the debate will focus on it.

This is the first debate in either House on a planning application before it has been made. It is a historic precedent. The Government did not want to have this debate because it opens the door to many other debates in both Houses, but the Clerks of the House rightly decided that it was not sub judice. So, in the future when proposals come forward at an early stage for such horrendous ruination of the skyline, I hope that both Houses will have a chance of alerting public opinion to that and to the grave damage that has been done at an early stage.

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for having introduced this important subject at this moment—not only a timely moment; but as he said, a historic moment, because it is taking place before the dread planning decision is issued in its final form. However, I fear with him that it is unlikely to be deflected even by his eloquence, which we heard this evening.

I was chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission for 15 years. In those 15 years I had 15 different Secretaries of State. That had a great advantage because as soon as the reigning Secretary of State had mastered his brief he left and was required to go and pester someone else. That meant that one had a measure of de facto freedom that was most welcome.

However, all the Secretaries of State, particularly my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, were extremely helpful and concerned with the aesthetic values that the Royal Fine Art Commission so coherently and courageously championed. I do not want to repeat my noble friend's points, but skylines and views are crucial in this argument. They are crucial in this case and will remain crucial in the future. We need to raise our voices at every possible opportunity.

The planners have learned nothing about views. Ministers have learned little; certainly the Ministers of the present Government. We still lack a coherent policy on high buildings. Eight years ago the Royal Fine Art Commission published a report on tall buildings in London. I will not ask the Minister whether he has read it; or perhaps I might. Or perhaps it has been kept from him by his civil servants. But this contains the basis of a policy of high buildings in London, which has been ignored by successive governments.

Views are all-important in this city. I am glad to say that the Royal Fine Art Commission of the day—when the then Conservative Government headed by Harold Macmillan was desperately searching for dollars and was pressing for the erection of the Hilton hotel—was the one body that opposed it. If you look at that building today, you can see that it ruins the proportions of the whole of Mayfair, which had one of the finest townscapes in the world. Wherever you go in Mayfair, if you raise your eyes from pavement level and are lucky enough not to fall into a pothole, and look—

My Lords, I hear thunder. Ominous!

My Lords, it is not ominous at all. It is a sign of heavenly support, and a signal that a telephone call is due—but I cannot delay your Lordships to make one at the moment. I shall make it immediately this discussion is finished.

The other principle that the Royal Fine Art Commission laid down was that no high buildings should be placed around Hyde Park, because once one was built, another would follow, and so on. That is exactly what has happened. Basil Spence's barracks in Hyde Park ruined that park; in fact, he has the distinction of having ruined two parks, because of his Home Office building, which towers above St James's Park.

If you go further round Hyde Park, what do you find—the Royal Lancaster Hotel, as it used to be known, a building of outstanding mediocrity, which is famous for only one thing. When the octogenarian Michael Foot, still happily and mercifully flourishing in Hampstead, arrived in a fainting condition at the door of that hotel, which should never have been built, they refused him entrance. It was shortly after then that they went out of business, which I regard as a very happy conclusion to a moralising tale.

Unfortunately, the buildings have gone on. Take the Regalian building overlooking Kensington Palace. That was opposed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but there it is—overshadowing another of London's most beautiful spots.

I shall not linger over the London Eye. I believe that my views on the London Eye are probably known by one or two people. It was unanimously opposed by the Royal Fine Art Commission because we thought that it was totally unsuitable to have it overshadowing a world heritage site. That was the very point that was made by my noble friend in his Opening Speech—that a world heritage site is one to be respected. I have nothing against a London Eye in another position—but not here, towering over this world heritage site and ruining the view from the Horseguards Parade, destroying the proportions of St James's Park. The dying wish of the late Mr Welsh, who was such a distinguished chairman of the Royal Parks Agency, was that it should be stopped. Alas, it has gone on—and now we have the Vauxhall Tower to match it.

Views and spaces are essential. We have still a low and medium skyline, punctuated by occasional high-rise buildings. I am pleased to say that thanks to the initiative of the governor of the Tower of London, a new space has been created so that for the first time for hundreds of years one is able to see the Tower of London as a whole, as it should be seen. The visitors' centre is tucked away quietly in the corner where it can do useful work and reduce queues and crowds, but the great achievement is the opening of that space. I am glad to say that the Royal Fine Art Commission Trust acknowledged that achievement in its "Buildings of the Year" awards this year.

The Royal Fine Art Commission was swept away by this Government, abolished by a press release. That is a way of behaving that makes even the deprivation of the orthodox Archbishop of London by Constantinople, by fax, for the offence of coveting thrones seem liberal.

The question that we must now ask, which my noble friend touched on, is how this monstrosity got to be built. Another point, besides views and spaces, is the quality of building. Nobody could look at that building for a moment, whether or not they had a tutored eye, without seeing what a horrible construction it is. Now I raise this question—and I want the Minister to reply to this question only, and ignore all the other things that I have said. The reason why that building got planning permission was that there is no independent body to pass judgment on it—and independence can get things done. The Royal Fine Art Commission put an end to the horrific proposal, supported by the big battalions, including the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time, and by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to put a kitsch statue of Sir Walter Ralegh right in front of St Margaret's Westminster—between St Margaret's and the Abbey. The only body to oppose it was the Royal Fine Art Commission.

My noble friend mentioned Mr Livingstone in another context. Mr Livingstone may or may not have crushed developers, but I think that my learned friend has certainly crushed Mr Livingstone tonight. However, he may arise yet again.

I said to the Commissioners, "I will go and give evidence", and I was given a classic Civil Service reply: "You, chairman, give evidence? That would be quite unsuitable". Unsuitable or not, I did. The Speaker sent the Chaplain of the House of Commons along. I am glad to say that, although the Fine Art Commission was abolished—in that extraordinary way—the posthumous triumph was there, because the appeal was allowed and that statue was swept away in potentia and, in Act II, swept away were all the notice boards that had been put up by the dean and chapter.

There has been nobody with an independent judgment here. The Secretary of State has supported this tower. The Deputy prime minister has supported this tower. It has been supported by the body set up to succeed the Royal Fine Art Commission as a watchdog.

I now come to my crucial question which I put to the Minister. When will CABE be given independent status? What is it? It is a creature of the department. It is a private company the shares of which are owned by the department, of which the Secretary of State has a golden share enabling him to determine the course of all its decisions. It is not independent. Having raised this matter on various occasions, we were promised that it would be given independence. The whole of the previous Parliament has gone by, and it is still not an independent body. When will it be so? When do the Government intend to take action on this matter?

Meanwhile, we repeat our deep gratitude to my noble friend for having raised this very important question and for having enabled it to be thoroughly discussed in this House.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for introducing this debate on an important point. It is an important point, but I will try to resist as far as I can responding to comments on the inspector's report and the detail of the Secretary of State's response to it.

It is important because it raises a point of principle: how far Parliament should respond, if at all, to a decision which in this case is not a decision of the Executive but a quasi-judicial decision. Although there is much in what the previous two speakers have said with which I agree, that is why I would ask the Minister to resist revisiting—I suppose that means revising or rescinding—the decision.

Criteria are published by the Government for the Secretary of State to "recover jurisdiction", as it is called, and there are criteria for calling in decisions. Those are less precisely defined. The Library found for me a statement of government policy in answer to a Parliamentary Question. It was that the Secretary of State would,

"not interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so."

I stress the word "necessary". What is necessary is clearly a matter of judgment.

I share in a great deal of what has been said, but in my view it is important that these decisions are taken at the right level. They are taken in a quasi-judicial manner, though by political bodies. The issue has been raised of whether there should be a separate independent body to look at planning applications. We have that to an extent, of course, in the planning inspectorate.

What we have now is an extra tier of government—a regional tier. Though I am no particular supporter of the current Mayor of London, I shall say a word or two about the importance of having a planning framework for decisions in London. I question whether it was right for Mr Livingstone to spend £96,000 on the appeal. When I, through the mechanism of a formal Question to the Mayor, asked about the cost of his attending MIPIM, the developers' conference in Cannes, the answer that I got back was that it was all right because the London Development Agency paid for it. That did not seem to be an answer.

As politicians, we all strive for accountability and transparency, and so it is right to spell out the criteria on which decisions should be based. That is what we find—maybe not perfectly and maybe we disagree with all or parts of it—in the London plan which, with the Lambeth UDP, is now part of the development plan. I share the regret that Lambeth's view of the design of the tower did not prevail. Its comments in the decision on the design were firmly rooted in the London plan. It quoted policies in the plan and in its own deposited draft unitary development plan and it commented on the proposed tower not being of sufficiently high quality and the world-class, iconic—there is that word again—standard of architecture required in the location, in view of its inevitable prominence. That is rooted in adopted, progressing, or emerging—as the planners always say—documents. In the case of the London plan, it went through the long and sometimes tedious public inquiry.

We may individually disagree with parts, but it is fair to say that in dealing with tall buildings the London plan included the issue of clusters. Much of what is being complained about is already in the planning framework, and it is often a matter of interpretation. The London Assembly, which I currently chair, would love to control the Mayor, as the invitation was issued earlier, but the legislation setting us up does not allow us to do that. The Mayor is currently consulting on the London view management framework.

I am well aware that the noble Lords who have spoken, and perhaps also other noble Lords, will regard me as a philistine. I am not commenting on the particular design of the building, but it is very much a matter of taste. I am well aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on the London Eye. I differ from him there. I have come to accept that there is often no single correct view on those matters. It is essential to articulate the reasons for the view—forgive the pun—based on agreed criteria.

I do not know on what technical basis the Government could revisit the decision, but I urge the Minister to decline the invitation, not just because of the merits but because the Secretary of State's decision was taken in a quasi-judicial manner. Although he is assisted in unscrambling some of the difficult issues of affordable housing, which we were left with, the matter is best left back with the local planning authority where it belongs. It looks like the outcome is the one that we all anticipate.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that Parliament should have a particular role regarding height. I agree that the height of buildings, the impact on views in London, and the impact on important areas of London are hugely important issues, but why only height? Many aspects of planning are hugely important, and one of those aspects is affordable housing. I am sorry that I have already taken slightly longer than I intended, but I will use this occasion to raise one related point, regarding the importance of so-called affordable, or social housing.

I understand that in a recent case a judge determined that the value of market housing is diminished by its proximity to social housing. I have not given the Minister notice of this point, but I hope that the Government will consider it seriously. Clearly, much depends on the detail of that case. It would be unfortunate to find ourselves as a society going down the road to accepting that there is something undesirable about social housing.

I cheer myself up by recalling that in the ward that I used to represent there was a wall between an area of private housing—blocks of flats quite tall for the area— and what at the time was a council estate. The private owners had insisted on the wall being erected at the time the council housing was built. They then decided it would be quite nice to have it down. It was the occupiers of the council housing who said they did not want to be in with "that lot", and that they would retain their own independence.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I assure her that I have never considered her to be a philistine. As a member of the Greater London Assembly, will she remind us of the debate that took place in that assembly on this development? Was it ever discussed? Did the assembly ever debate its consequential effects on the London skyline? Who is controlling this in London? When the noble Baroness says that she does not like Parliament getting involved, if there is not a debate in the Greater London Assembly, where can there be one? Is this all done behind closed doors at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

My Lords, to answer the noble Lord briefly within the ten minutes, I think the debate should be in Lambeth.

My Lords, the Lambeth view has been totally disregarded.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who has raised a specific and important issue. It is not about this planning proposal alone, but about the whole question of the planning decision making process, particularly on major infrastructure proposals.

I will be uninhibited—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, invited us to be—in discussing this application, although it falls within the parameters I want to address. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has said, in this instance the local planning authority decided to refuse an application. This is something that happens usually after studied consideration. As a serving member of a planning committee, I must declare that in Chelsea we also have a planning process on tower blocks being undertaken by the inspector. I had no part in that process, but it is another example of where towers are being proposed on the river.

I know that planning proposals are weighed carefully, particularly when they are major applications, or ones which affect the wider community. I have no reason to believe that Lambeth's councillors and officers who progress such proposals are any different from any other councillors or officers in similar committees up and down the country and particularly in London. This application clearly fell within the unusual category: it was a major structure of a height well in excess of any building within miles, on the river frontage, and one likely to set a precedent for future development not only in the boundaries of Lambeth but for other developments along the river, on either side. As with other Members of this House, I have no knowledge of the discussions or considerations that took place, but it is clear that this application was rejected for at least one of these reasons, and that it was unwelcome in planning and development terms. The councillors of Lambeth were backed up by a planning inspector who also thought that this scheme was inappropriate in its position. One does not want to comment on the process because one does not know about it, but the conclusion we can draw from the inspector's report is that it was not a satisfactory development.

However, the Secretary of State appears to be about to override both the borough and the inspector's decision, and to impose his own views. It is also well known, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, has said, that the Mayor of London has a penchant for high buildings. He seems to be impervious to their locations. It is rumoured that he rather hankers after a local Shanghai.

The process, whose outcome has led to this debate, was discussed at considerable length during the consideration of the then planning Bill last year. It is the unsatisfactory position in which either a regional planning body dictates to the local authority, or the Secretary of State can second guess it. Either can then ignore or override the local or unitary development plans—in the interests of what or whom does not seem relevant.

In passing, I remind the House that the application, if approved, does not necessarily guarantee that that developer will develop that land. There is no reason why it should. Many applications go forward by developers simply to state or lay down the dimensions of what will or will not be approved. The land then passes hands. That happens all the time in London and could happen in this case, although it may not.

The outcome is also the consequence of a presumption in favour of development. In this case, it seems one that must at the least have been very controversial. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the Secretary of State has indicated that he is minded to agree to the application in exchange for some more affordable housing. Affordable housing can and has to be negotiated whatever the development, and its provision is certainly an insufficient reason to justify the Government's blessing being given to a construction that had been opposed by the local authority and the planning inspector.

If that attitude to enormously high-rise buildings is to be the norm, the brave new world of London is of great concern. I cannot make any comment on the merits of the architecture, but the City of London is now a patchwork of high-rise development. Some of it is iconic but there would have been more that, without considerable protest, might have altered treasured views, particularly of St Paul's and other areas that sit uncomfortably with their neighbours. In the main at least, that development has been carried out in the context of the City of London's plan. The same is true for the development in Docklands.

Obviously Lambeth has no ambitions to follow suit but, if the Secretary of State gives approval to the development, Lambeth will have to absorb something that it considers alien to its environment. Localism is becoming the buzzword of local authorities having greater and wider discretion on many fronts. Perhaps it is time that that was extended to their having sole discretion over the developments that take place within their boundaries.

The proposed tower is taller than Canary Wharf. Let us imagine standing here on this side of the river, looking across and down to a tower of more than 50 floors. First, the tower will look utterly ridiculous where it is. Secondly, the pressure to replicate it elsewhere within the borough of Lambeth will be very strong. The precedent will have been set by the Secretary of State, who will not particularly have to look at it, live in it or deal with the local people who do not want it.

I am sure that the department's protocols will probably allow the Minister to say absolutely nothing about the matter, as the decision has not yet been made. However, I hope that he and officials, both in the Chamber and in the Office of the Deputy prime minister, will take careful note of what has been said and the concern expressed by most Members of the House who have spoken tonight. I hope that they will be less willing to endorse developments such as the one which has been raised tonight in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Baker.

I hope that this discussion will receive a wider audience. It deserves to. The Secretary of State's powers to set precedents such as this are very undesirable.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for raising this issue. Of course, I instantly add the caveat that, because of the delicate position of the application, there is little that I can say about this specific case. I am sure that noble Lords will understand why.

Noble Lords will have noticed that I am addressing the issue rather than the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who generally speaks as a Government Minister on planning matters in your Lordships' House. Given her role in deciding and determining cases, it was thought inappropriate for her to take part in a debate regarding a live case.

As I have no part in the decision-making process, I offered myself up to respond to the debate this evening. I must make it clear that I have not discussed this case with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, or any other planning Minister, and nor can I in future.

The reasons for the First Secretary of State being minded to grant planning permission for the development at Vauxhall Tower are set out in his letter of 31 March 2005, to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has referred. This states that the Secretary of State is minded to grant permission for the Vauxhall Tower proposal, but has asked for further information about the amount of affordable housing proposed before taking a final decision. Beyond saying that, I am afraid I cannot stray beyond the wording of the letter, or otherwise put a gloss on its content, as this might provide a ground of legal challenge to the validity of the decision when it is finally issued. I am sure that this is a point of propriety requirements related to planning matters that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, as a former Secretary of State, will be well aware of. However, I can say that no final decision on whether to grant planning permission has yet been taken.

I should point out that this case has been through extensive public scrutiny. This culminated in the public inquiry held between 15 June and 9 July last year, the report of which, and the evidence presented to which, formed the basis of the Secretary of State's letter. Since the issuing of that letter, further representations have been received. These have been circulated to all interested parties—there are over 50—for further comment. These representations, and responses to them, will also be taken into account, in so far as they are relevant, in the making of the final decision.

Without getting into the specifics of the case, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is concerned that, if this development goes ahead, it will lead to a rash of similar developments across London. I draw your attention to paragraph 17 of the Secretary of State's letter, where he endorses paragraph 11.32 of the inspector's report, in which the inspector states:

"Notwithstanding the points made in the previous paragraph, it is an important principle that each case is considered on its merits and, in this instance, I do not consider that there would be harm to the skyline from the distant viewpoints. Concern about the possibility of precedent would not be reason to reject the proposal".

The plan-led planning system should prevent inappropriate developments of all types in all locations. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in Greater London is the Mayor's spatial development strategy for Greater London—the London Plan—and the development plan documents that have been adopted or approved in relation to each area. Local planning authorities prepare local development documents, which, taken together with the London Plan, constitute the development plan for each area within Greater London.

An application for planning permission must be made to the appropriate local planning authority. The authority may grant planning permission, or refuse it. If the authority grants permission subject to conditions, or refuses to grant permission, or fails to make its decision within a prescribed period resulting in a deemed refusal, then the applicant for permission may appeal to the Secretary of State.

In considering any proposals for development, regard is to be had to the development plan, and decisions shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Each decision is made on its own merits and in the particular circumstances of the case.

Since April 2002, the First Secretary of State has made decisions regarding six tall building developments in London. He refused permission for four such buildings and permitted two of them: Heron Tower and London Bridge Tower, which is known as the Shard of Glass. To my knowledge, these have not led to a glut of similar applications.

The London Plan sets out a strategic planning policy framework for tall buildings and the protection of the built heritage in London.

The London Plan does not advocate the indiscriminate scattering of buildings. It promotes tall buildings in appropriate locations provided that they meet its criteria. These include that the development of tall buildings should create attractive landmarks enhancing London's character, help to develop a coherent location for economic clusters of related activities and/or act as a catalyst for regeneration, and also be acceptable in terms of design and impact on their surroundings. Further, the London Plan requires tall buildings to be of the highest quality design.

It is important to point out that there is also a broader national policy framework which is relevant to the consideration of proposals for tall buildings. Planning policy statement 1 (PPS1), Delivering Sustainable Development, already underlines the importance of securing high quality and inclusive design. The policy is clear. Design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted. This policy principle applies whether the development is a tall building or is low rise.

Similarly, government policy acts to protect existing buildings of historic significance. Planning policy guidance 15 (PPG15) Planning and the Historic Environment sets out the policy relating to this.

Government planning policy is to get the right development in the right place. Given their prominence, tall buildings should be of the highest quality of architecture and designed with full understanding of their likely impact on their immediate surroundings and the wider environment.

In addition to the Government's policy, English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (or CABE) have published Guidance on Tall Buildings which local planning authorities should take into account in the design and location of tall buildings. The guidance sets out a number of criteria against which individual proposals for tall buildings should be evaluated. These include the effect on the whole existing environment, the relationship to context and the effect on the local environment. The guidance, when read together with the Government's planning policies and accompanying practice guidance such as "By Design", provides a substantial body of policy and advice relevant to the consideration of proposals for tall buildings.

Much mention has been made of the Mayor of London. He is the strategic planning authority for London. It is for him to decide how he wishes to consider tall buildings. Each proposed development should be considered on its merits, with regard to the relevant policy framework. It is for local authorities to evaluate and respond to guidance locally. However, the planning system gives the recourse of appeal to the First Secretary of State, who may, in the individual circumstances of a case, form a different view to that of a local authority or any views expressed by the Mayor.

London has a great legacy of historic buildings and sites. Some of these were strongly opposed when they were first considered. I well remember the outcry that greeted the proposals for the building formally known as 30 St Mary Axe in the City—more colloquially referred to as "the erotic Gherkin". Now, many commentators, more qualified to express an opinion than I, regard it as a building of great innovation and beauty. In October of last year it won the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stirling Prize for the building making the greatest contribution to British architecture on a unanimous vote by the judges. It is widely considered to add greatly to the appearance of that part of the City.

Similarly controversial—possibly even more so, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would know more about that than I—was the approval of 1, Canada Square. Now few would argue that it should not have been built. It remains London's only entry in the 200 tallest buildings in the world 14 years after its construction.

London is not a high-rise city. In comparison with the major cities in the rest of the world, it has relatively few tall buildings. Again, and according to the most recent figures from Emporis, London has only six-tenths of the number of tall buildings of Istanbul in Turkey.

This is not to advocate a policy of approval for tall buildings, but merely to reflect that the application of planning policies in London, and the tenet that each case must be decided in accordance with the development plan—unless material considerations indicate otherwise—and on its own merits, have led to it having a different character to other major cities. It is a vibrant mix of high rise and low rise, ancient and ultra-modern. The granting of permission for the Shard of Glass, the site for which is—

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but would he kindly leave time to answer my question on CABE?

My Lords, to bring this back to the case at the centre of the debate, as I said earlier, the inspector in the Vauxhall Tower case wrote in his report that,

"it is an important principle that each case is considered on its merits . . . Concern about the possibility of precedent would not be a reason to reject the proposal".

I submit that the Vauxhall Tower decision, whatever it may be, whenever it is issued, will be made on the individual merits of the case, having proper regard to the development plan and other material considerations, including national, regional and planning body policies. On the matter that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, raised with regard to CABE, it is best that I write to him on that.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate the difficulty that he has been in. It is a difficult position, but it has given the House a chance to have a debate, which does not occur in the Greater London Assembly. I hope that this will be a precedent that we have an early debate on controversial planning matters well before they come to the final hour.