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.