MARCH 2025 UPDATE

Supreme Court decision regarding the Truman Brewery announced:

“The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Sales gives the judgment, with which the other members of the Court agree.” We now await a response from Tower Hamlets Council to the JD challenge.

2024 UPDATE

The council has agreed that this case will rest on the outcome of another Judicial Review, Spitalfields Trust vs Truman Brewery, so will not respond until that case has been decided. That case reached the Supreme Court in July 2024. 

JULY 2023 UPDATE

The decision notice approving the development has at last been published following last year’s planning meeting. Concerned residents and businesses are issued a legal challenge to the decision by way of Judicial Review. 

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS
THE LEGAL COSTS ON OUR
CROWDJUSTICE PAGE

UPDATE - following the March 21 2022 Meeting

Links

Development Committee, 21 March 2022

 [ meeting web page ] [ video link ] [ youtube ] [ transcript ] 

Development Committee, 3 February 2022

 [ meeting web page ] [ video link ] [ youtube ] [ transcript ]

See also: potential issues to challenge via JR

Council decision at 21 March meeting: to approve the development with conditions. The vote was 3 in favour, 2 against. One member - Cllr Kabir Ahmed - was not allowed to vote as, although he was present in the room, he had only been present at the previous meeting via video link. 

Votes in favour: Cllr Dan Tomlinson, Cllr David Edgar, Cllr Kevin Brady

Votes against: Cllr Abdul Mukit (Chair), Cllr Leema Qureshi

Present but denied a vote: Cllr Kabir Ahmed

Cllr Kabir Ahmed would have voted against if allowed a vote. As the Chair voted against, and has the casting vote, the decision would have been reversed had Cllr Kabir Ahmed been allowed to vote.

MARCH 2022 UPDATE

DEFERRED APPLICATION
NEW OBJECTIONS
BY FRIDAY 18 MARCH

At the February planning meeting the committee voted to  DEFER making a decision pending a site visit. The application will now return to the planning committee on Monday March 21. We need to KEEP UP THE PRESSURE so that the committee makes the right decision.

In response to some of our objections, the developers have provided an update report with suggestions of mitigating measures. These attempts only go to show how ill-conceived this application is.

Please follow these links for the update report and associated material:

• Update Report - 21 March meeting

• Landscape Strategy Note

• Sonasky electric blinds catalogue

Write to the Committee NOW and attend the meeting on MONDAY 

For help with an email, FOLLOW THIS LINK

The Ivy Wall

What the update report says

 “...should there be any reason the existing Ivy fails or needs to be replaced” a “natural screen” is proposed along the east wall of the scheme. This is required to conceal the building when viewed from the Shiplake courtyard. The implication being that the exposed building view is unacceptable and harmful to the setting of the listed buildings.

What we say

A scheme that requires vegetation to hide it is an unacceptable scheme. No planning condition can be realistically enforceable to keep the vegetation growth “in perpetuity”, to the height required to conceal the building. Users of the office building will have an incentive to lose the concealing ivy to improve their light. This planning application needs to be considered based on how the building would look should the ivy “fail or need to be replaced”. We have produced images to show how the building will be seen:

Light Pollution from windows

What the update report says:

The applicant has provided an example automated blind system which can be installed which is available with blackout fabric and can be programmed to provide automated timed closing of the blinds as required.

What we say

A scheme that relies on electric blinds, under control of the office occupants, to be closed at agreed times as a planning condition, is not enforceable in practice. If such measures are required to reduce light pollution and increase privacy between occupants of the residential buildings and the office, the proposal is fundamentally misconceived.

Windows looking on to Wargrave House to the south

What the update report says:

….the distance between the existing ground floor windows of Wargrave House and the windows of the new building will range between approximately 18.7m to a minimum of 12.1m. 

What we say

Distances of less than 18m are contrary to Local Plan policy D.DH8 and there is nothing in this scheme to justify reducing this guideline by 33%. Using the developers own distance diagram we have shaded the area across which the office windows are less than 18m distance from the windows of Wargrave House homes. This will particularly affect flats on the ground floor and first floors, whose habitable rooms including kitchens and living rooms are affected. 

 The developers are now proposing to ‘obscure glaze’ these windows. This only goes to show again how ill-conceived this scheme is. The ‘obscure glazed’ windows are also openable , thus facilitating the overlooking that this glazing is proposed to prevent. 

Conflict between commercial use and residential use

The scale and size of this commercial office building in a confined and shared space with residents should not be permitted as office culture will impact negatively on the lives of residents and their families. 

• The noise and disturbance of through the day and night activities

• After-office gatherings and parties

• Office workers taking smoke breaks and/or chatting

This is made worse as the proposed building is in very close proximity to residents’ windows, as close as 10-12 metres from some flats

We are also concerned of the potential risks to children and the vulnerable as there will be people coming and going

In conclusion

Nothing in the update report provides any reassurance that the scheme can be improved sufficiently to warrant approval. The scheme should be rejected as argued at the previous planning meeting.

WRITE TO THE COMMITTEE AND COME TO THE MEETING!

Follow the above link or email  boundary.tra@gmail.com for more help

FEBRUARY 2022 UPDATE

Background

The freeholder of Walker House applied (in 2020) for permission to build this modern commercial building (on stilts) in the courtyard car park behind Wargrave / Shiplake House. The carpark is separated from the courtyard by a wall. The proposed building will be 1.5 metres higher than the wall. The applicant claims the majority of it will be obscured from street level by ivy growing over the wall.   

Our biggest concern, amongst others, is the protection of the Boundary Conservation Area.  The building is likely to be seen from street level. And from residents’ windows in the four buildings looking directly onto it: Shiplake House, Wargrave House, Leyton House and Walker House. 

The outcome will be decided by Tower Hamlets Planning Committee this Thursday, 3 Feb, at 18:30. 

[update: at the meeting on 3 Feb the decision was DEFERRED until the next committee meeting 21 March]

Object Now

If you are interested in protecting the Boundary Conservation Area, write to the Planning officer and Planning Committee members at the following email addresses by this Monday. (include your full name, address and postcode for objections to be considered): 

development.control@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Cllr.AbdulC.Mukit@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Kevin.Brady@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Kyrsten.Perry@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Leema.Qureshi@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Dan.Tomlinson@towerhamlets.gov.uk, kabir.ahmed2@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Sufia.Alam@towerhamlets.gov.uk, sabina.akhtar@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Cllr.David.Edgar@towerhamlets.gov.uk, Tarik.Khan@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Cc: mayor@towerhamlets.gov.uk

bcc:boundary.tra@gmail.com

Re: OBJECT - Walker House Planning Application: PA/20/01442/A1

Possible reasons for objection (disturbance from construction will NOT be considered):

• The uncompromisingly modern building design does not respect the character of the conservation area.

• The building will be visible from the courtyards and from the street - it rises 1.5m above the enclosing wall.

• The building will be a prominent feature of all views from above ground level, affecting the view of the courtyards and listed buildings from four different 5-storey residential blocks. It is harmful to the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area.

• The developers claim that the building will be concealed by the ivy growth on the surrounding wall, but there can be no guarantee that this ivy will be retained. Occupiers will have an incentive to remove the ivy to improve their access to light.

• Commercial office use in the middle of a residential courtyard will result in conflict and stress for residents. This is already evidenced in the much smaller ‘bunker’ building at another Boundary Estate courtyard, Marlow Workshops.

• No public benefit, and great harm to the conservation area, the setting of listed buildings and the amenity of local residents.

In more detail…

The planning officer is recommending approval of this application, yet it is the Committee’s core responsibly to ensure the protection of the Boundary Conservation Area

The Development Committees 3 Feb planning officers report includes many reasons for rejection. As well as several incorrect assumptions. 

• 7.67 of the report  specifically identifies this construction as, quote: ‘a new, modern (contemporary) building within the conservation area’.  It describes the materials chosen for the building would make a clear distinction between old and new. 

•  It says it will have ‘limited visibility from the street’, due to the wall surrounding the site. And significant growth of ivy on it.

• 7.28 of the report  states the scheme will rise 1.5m above the height of the wall surrounding the site. 

• 7.64 of the report admits visibility of the modern building from street level. And goes onto say, quote: ‘When viewed from the entrance to Wargrave House, it's unlikely ‘much’ of the building would be visible, given the soft landscaping already in place’.

• Given the protected status of the Conservation Area, we believe it's the planning committee's responsibility to ensure NONE of the modern building would EVER be visible. 

• If ‘much’ of the modern building is obscured by landscaping / ivy, is there any way the council can legally ensure the ivy can’t be removed to increase light and views for the new building?  If so, who would enforce this? Additionally, what happens if it dies?

• (clearance of the ivy is specifically noted as being possible in 7.135. And refers to suggested bird and bee nesting boxes as replacements)

•  There’s nothing that can be done to obscure it from direct view from the windows of four different, 5-storey residential blocks which will surround it: including Grade 2 listed Shiplake House, Wargrave House as well as Leyton House and Walker House. 

• ALL current buildings surrounding this courtyard are ‘Grade II Listed’, dating to the 1890s. The Boundary Estate is a landmarked ‘Conservation Area’ with special notice given to its unique period architecture, open spaces, views and light.  The prevailing character of the area is ‘residential’. 

•  Is their ‘view, open space and light’ not protected by the conservation area? 

• Same questions the protecting wall of ivy raises, apply to the ‘green roof’ that residents will look directly onto.  What happens if the green roof dies and if rubbish ends up there? Can regular maintenance be enforced? If so, how and by who? 

• What are the penalties if either the protected wall of ivy and green roof are not looked after?

•  Behind the windows looking to the building are residents' bedrooms. The structure of the courtyard creates an acoustic canyon effect. Ricocheting and amplifying any noise created in this entirely residential courtyard.

• Creation of a plant for this commercial building is certain to create noise and air pollution (7.104).

• How can it be ensured this commercial building is not used after traditional working hours (7.103)? Light from the skylights coming into bedroom windows (7.105) And with deliveries, employees, clients coming and going at all hours.  Smoking, having conversations outside, etc? 

• What prevents this commercial building from lending itself for use by the night-time economy, something residents of our community significantly suffer from?

• In addition to the commercial building, there are two new residential terraces (7.102) as part of the alterations proposed to Walker House. For the reasons stated above, new residential balconies should not be allowed in this courtyard. 

•  There are already two balconies in the courtyard in Leyton House; they have repeatedly been problematic for surrounding residents over the past year due to late night parties. 

• Loss of daylight (7.97) and blocking up (7.91) of windows in Leyton House and Walker House. 

• The commercial value extracted from this development will share no benefit to the community: No affordable housing. No affordable / flexible workspace. No amenities.

• The report states, quote ‘the proposal is considered to preserve the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed Buildings. Introducing only a negligible level of less than substantial harm, outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.’

• This proposed development does none of this. The application must be rejected. 

Further Background Links:

• Update Planning Assessment - 21 March meeting

• Officers Report - 4 February meeting

• Development Committee meeting – Thursday, 4 February, 6:30pm

• Planning portal documents

• 2020 objection flyer

• Previous REFUSED application 

TH Councillors Twitter Handles

@Kevin_J_Brady, @leemaqureshi, @Dan_Bromley_N, @CllrKabirAhmed, @SufiaAlam1, @Tarikahmedkhan