Ditch the tower, then make the rest of the development shine

Is it good to build a new Tube connection to Battersea? Or to build a low energy development? Or to rescue Battersea Power Station from decay? Yes, yes and yes.

Is it necessary to build a 250-metre tower to achieve these ends? No. As the developers Treasury Holdings explain, the restoration of the power station can be financed from other parts of their proposal, namely the substantial apartment blocks around the old building itself.

This is just as well, as it will be years before the market can pay for an idea as ambitious as their "eco-dome" and its great glass chimney.

You can also achieve low energy office buildings in other, albeit more prosaic, ways, such as covering the development's vast acreage of roof with photovoltaic cells.

So the question is: Is it right for London to have this tower on this site? The official policy on the matter, drawn up under the last mayor, seems to say no.

It states that, as seen from the "viewing place" along the full length of Hungerford footbridge, buildings "should not encroach on the World Heritage Site of the Palace of Westminster". The Battersea tower would indeed pop up behind the Houses of Parliament, and I agree with Ken Livingstone's policy.

Glamorous though the tower looks in the flattering computer images, I have a problem with a symbol of commercial ego obtruding on the centre of democracy.

I just wish the developers and their architect would forget about the tower, and apply their talents and energy to making the rest of the development, which is more likely to happen, outstanding.