A political scandal that got away | thearticle

The development of Docklands in east London in the past 35 years is an outstanding example of urban renewal. Yet this area, comprising 8.5 square miles along the banks of the River Thames

spreading eastwards from Tower Bridge, was never so derelict that it could be treated as a greenfield site and be developed with a single planning blueprint. The docks in the four peninsulas

at Wapping, Rotherhithe, the Isle of Dogs and North Woolwich were never an integrated system to start with, and warehouses, wharfs and housing occupied a large area. Redevelopment was

always envisaged as a series of building projects, which needed to be in keeping with the history of the area and the interests of existing residents. One particular recent proposal has been

mired in controversy and delay. It affords the extraordinary spectacle of a cabinet minister formally acknowledging that he showed “apparent bias” in making an unlawful intervention to

approve the proposal. These are not normal political times, as an embattled government is contending not very successfully with the greatest peacetime public health crisis for at least a

generation and arguably for more than a century. But it’s vital that the issue not be regarded as a mere passing squall. The behaviour of Robert Jenrick, the housing, communities and local

government secretary, strikes at the very notion of public service. What he has admitted, never mind what is suspected, is a political scandal. The proposed scheme is a £1 billion

development on a 15-acre site, Westferry Printworks, on the Isle of Dogs. Its story is a little convoluted. The developer is Northern & Shell, which is owned by Richard Desmond, the

media and property magnate. The site was formerly the printing works for the _Daily Express_, then owned by Northern & Shell, and the_ Daily Telegraph_. The company originally sought and

acquired planning permission in 2016 to build 722 homes on the site. Who approved the application? None other than Boris Johnson, when he was mayor of London. The scheme was controversial.

Major developments often are. Local residents and campaigners complained that the plan was out of keeping with the surrounding area, being a high-rise development, and that there was

inadequate provision for social housing. The scheme was not shelved but delayed, while a far more ambitious plan was developed. It included 1,500 homes, along with shops, offices,

restaurants and a secondary school. The local authority, Tower Hamlets, failed to reach a decision on the application before the legal deadline was up. Northern & Shell appealed and its

application was referred to a government planning inspector. The appeal did not go Northern & Shell’s way. The inspector concluded that the proposed development would be “harmful to the

character and appearance of the area”, and advised against the development being approved. But approved it was, even so. The minister responsible was Mr Jenrick. Tower Hamlets council and

the Greater London Authority (GLA) claimed that he had intervened in order to materially benefit the developer. They noted the coincidence that the minister approved the application a day

before the council was due to approve a new levy that would be payable by property developers to support local infrastructure. By not being liable for the levy, Northern & Shell would

save around £40 million. And the council and the GLA believed that documents concerning the development would show that the minister was swayed by a desire to help the developer avoid that

liability. You would have thought that a cabinet minister would be eager to avoid any such suspicion and imputation, but Mr Jenrick took a rather surprising course. Instead of disclosing the

documentation, he accepted there was “apparent bias” in his decision and agreed that the decision should be reviewed and taken again by another minister. This is, on the face of it,

simultaneously an extraordinary admission by the minister and a way of obfuscating what happened. The council’s objections to the scheme were that it was too tall for the area, did not

include enough affordable homes and would disrupt the life of the community (specifically, a nearby sailing club would be unable to operate for several months of the year). If the minister

has genuine grounds for disagreeing, from his vantage point in Whitehall, he would surely wish to say what they are. Yet all we know for certain about the background for his decision is that

he was seated next to Mr Desmond at a political fundraiser at the Carlton Club two months before he gave the approval, and that it is not disputed that Mr Desmond raised the issue with him.

Mr Desmond is a donor to the Conservative Party. I’ve watched politics for a long time but I recall no case like this. To admit to “apparent bias” in favour of a commercial organisation is

flatly incompatible with the ethos of public service. The time for recusing himself and referring the matter to another minister was before Mr Jenrick took the decision, not after. And even

then, the onus is on the minister to be transparent rather than to adopt a manoeuvre that allows him to withhold the documentation. In normal times, and with normal politics, this would be a

resigning matter. It should not become a political footnote in a far more severe crisis.