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.