The ARB is clearly a useless spineless organisation only interested in going after easy pickings that don't have politically powerful friends.
Gordon Gibb is correct, - from the point of view of someone who really laments the ongoing loss of Brutalist buildings I look at this place as something that could be amazing, but an amazing what? There must be a proper business case made and it will need to be exceptional,- just look at the problems there are retaining fully functioning, still utilised, world class concrete buildings in the middle of our most populous cities. Based on what I have seen recently the British government and its most listened to advisers are more likely to advocate spending 10 million on demolishing such a building out of spite than they are to spend 1 million on looking after it, and any business/organisation that could afford it isn't likely to think such an investment very clever unless there is going to be a whopping return for minimal outlay. Don't get me wrong, I want to see it saved, but I think a community centre or some kind of arts school just isn't going to do it.
For Paul Finch and Robert Wakeham, I don't give a dam if there is any shale under London. I want to see the Government and those who would profit from this be prepared to risk damaging the capital and all the money and wealth that sits within it to prove they are prepared to share the same risks as areas and populations being fracked. If it is very low risk then I can't see the problem in taking this step to prove it. Sorry if this isn't to your liking but I'm afraid its a case of if you wouldn't be prepared to do it under your own house you shouldn't expect to do it under someone elses.
I'll be prepared to consider welcoming fracking in the UK when a 12 month demonstration project has been completed under central London to prove how incredibly low risk it is.
Another good example of spurious claims being regurgitated without proper fact checking.