• AS a resident of Bloomsbury, I am appalled at the 74-metre high, monstrous, skyscraper speculative office block proposed by developer Simten to tower over the beautiful Bloomsbury Conservation Area.

My reasons include a lack of sustainability, harm to our heritage, overshadowing, blighting the views from all around, low-quality and minimal associated housing and a 54-month demolition and construction programme.

The Greater London Authority has now commented on the One Museum Street planning application, calling for more thorough consideration of alternatives.

In particular questions are raised about sustainability including the developer’s whole life carbon calculations and the need for more thorough consideration of the possible reuse of existing buildings. This is welcome news to the 250 objectors who have written to Camden Council calling for a halt to this scheme.

As a civil engineer, I wholeheartedly support the recently unveiled alternative scheme, prepared by local architects, which retrofits Selkirk House to serve a further 50 years instead of being demolished.

Quite apart from the waste of building materials by demolishing the existing structure, and the cost to the planet of manufacturing and erecting the building components of the new tower and other buildings planned for the site, there would be a huge and hidden cost underground if the new-build tower is permitted.

Post Office railway tunnels run in a loop under the site. At present Selkirk House stands on a raft of concrete and the ground is stable. Were Selkirk House to be retrofitted, that is how matters would stay. However if Selkirk House were to be demolished the removal of the weight of the building would cause the ground to heave upwards, potentially breaking the tunnels.

In order to protect the tunnels from such damage, the ground must be stabilised, and this would need the installation of 15 large diameter bored piles, each 25 metres long. This needs to be done before most of the demolition occurs, which in itself is quite an intricate operation as the piling rig will have limited headroom operating under the present tower.

Furthermore before the new massive skyscraper could be built, more ground stabilisation would be needed to protect the tunnels from potential downward movement due to the new heavy load of the tower.

This would entail 44 large diameter bored piles of 20 metres depth. The total additional concrete needed for the piling is some 1,890 tonnes equivalent to 1,700 tonnes of CO2.

There is a climate emergency. This planning application symbolises developers’ greed versus responsible use of resources directed towards “net-zero” targets, a respect for existing planning policies protecting our heritage, and a common sense approach to planning for needs such as housing as opposed to adding to the 30million sq ft of empty offices in London.

HELEN STONE, WC2