Save Our South Bank

WE ARE GOING TO COURT!

We’re delighted to let you know that the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE has granted Save Our South Bank permission to apply for planning statutory review.

Barristers for the Secretary of State and Mitsubishi stated that we didn’t have a case, but the Judge disagreed and ruled that we have an arguable case which should proceed to a full hearing.

This means our case for judicial review will be heard at the High Court!

First of all, thank you so much for your support and donations. None of this would be possible without you and all the people who have been tirelessly campaigning against “The Slab” for three years now.
 
But we need you and new supporters now more than ever.
 
It’s fantastic that we will have the case against 72 Upper Ground heard in court, but with that comes mounting legal fees. That’s why we have two asks of you:

1)   We would be incredibly grateful if you could continue to donate to help us reach our new £20,000 target to cover the cost of going to court.

2)    Share our CrowdJustice far and wide to help us drum up more support across all the people who care as passionately as us about the future of London’s South Bank.

________________________________________________________
A reminder of our challenge:

HERITAGE

From the outset, Historic England was concerned about the impact of “The Slab” on protected views of St Paul’s Cathedral.

In February, Michael Gove, Secretary of State, published his decision agreeing with the Inspector’s recommendations, but disagreeing with and expressing strong reservations about the scale, massing, materials, and townscape impact of the proposals.

He considered the development would dominate views and cause heritage harm to the South Bank conservation area, Roupell Conservation area, and to the setting and significance of 3 listed buildings - Somerset House, National Theatre, IBM.

However, he did not give his views or reasons as to the impact on protected views of St Paul's, Waterloo Bridge and five other Conservation Areas. This is the first ground of our legal challenge.

PLANNING

We believe the Secretary of State misinterpreted planning policy and failed to recognise the requirement to deliver housing as part of the development. The site is allocated for mixed use including housing, and the previous consent included 213 homes.

We also assert that the Secretary of State misinterpreted planning policy when it comes to the circular economy and the requirement to consider whether the existing building on site could be retained to deliver residential uses. The construction of the development would generate 103,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.

Thank you from the Save Our South Bank Action Group
saveoursouthbank22@gmail.com