-
And while we're at it, this just in:
An absolutely astonishing application. The City's not exactly rich in sites where you could plonk a building like that, but as per two posts above, a different site should certainly be found.
To be clear, signing a change.org petition will make the sum total of sod all difference, but it's desperate times--the application has been approved and having Robert Jenrick, of all people, as the Secretary of State is about as hopeless as it gets.
It is one of the deepest absurdities of planning when the applicants and the determining authority are one and the same, and I think there should always automatically be a public inquiry or, preferably, some other mechanism for determination. In general, planning authorities approve their application in 99% of cases. I'm sure that's not the right figure, but it is a bit like that.
The building seems like simply the wrong use class for that part of Fleet Street, and too big--in our cities, we need to have smaller footprints, not larger ones. You only have to look at what's been happening to Soho as developers have unified footprints and put larger single buildings on them, whether disguised, as in Berwick Street, or not.
-
The Whitechapel Bell Foundry application that I've posted about before has been approved by the Secretary of State:
I don't think it's a very good application; the problem with sites like this is always that if the owners give up pursuing their trade there, the writing is on the wall, because another use will have to be found. Because this one is so unique and historic, you would really hope that someone would want to carry on the tradition there, but traditions aren't forever.
Because the front buildings, including the frontage to Whitechapel Road, are meant to be maintained, I don't think it's a terrible application, either, but I'm certainly not impressed with the use as a hotel. It's just boring business as usual.
I feel for the campaigners, who must be terribly disappointed, but I don't think they will have had a very strong case to start with.
-
A very large application in Wimbledon that has been expected for some time:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wimbledon-park-plan-all-england-lawn-tennis-club-b944546.html
-
This is still going on, seemingly enabled by corruption in the planning system, which as far as the Olympic/LLDC is concerned is nothing new.
We can only hope that Khan refuses this, if he's still in office by the time the decision comes to him.
-
A reprieve for the Latin Village in Tottenham. I doubt the site is now no longer under threat of development, but we'll see. It's positive for the time being.
-
Another one of those wheezes that come up from time to time. I'm no fan of golf, but there are millions of better sites to build on before you start building there. The main reason why this sort of thing comes up is because developers prefer to work on very large sites as opposed to the refurbishment of existing buildings or the relatively small-scale infill development on brownfield sites, informed by sound planning guidance, which are actually what London needs (and which are, naturally, much less profitable).
-
The main driver behind most things you hear on housing is speculation. Developers mainly want land values to increase, hence the seemingly never-ending paradox of 'we need more homes' repeated ad nauseam by all and sundry while actual house-building languishes. I've been following this for more than 20 years and it shows no signs of changing--a small enough number of houses are built that they don't threaten to reduce prices because of a sudden increase in supply, while planning permissions are secured as investment with the aim of selling and re-selling sites at higher prices. Rinse, repeat. Needless to say, for the most part the actual housing that gets built (often shoddily) is expensive/at market rates, and very little is social housing, with 'affordable' housing a joke (and it tends to occur only where a reasonably good council builds itself, with 'luxury' flats as 'enabling development').
-
The Brick Lane/Truman's Brewery scheme (previously posted about here) has been approved by the local planning authority.
Let's see if the Mayor of London calls it in.
The vote was taken by only three councillors, which is a bit odd.
-
Here's a longer article on Brick Lane, but it doesn't have all that much to do with the above application:
-
This is good news, but there's no way this is the end of the process, whether through yet another planning application, or through appeals.
Isleworth councillor Salman Shaheen who helped lead the campaign against redevelopment said the community would like to buy the land.
“I am so proud of my colleagues,” he said “They rightly stood up for the people and for the environment.
I hope they were backed by the authority's planning policies ...
-
Glad to see the councilors didn't take kindly to the dukes pleas of poverty and bullying of allotment holders.
I've heard theyve received letters reassuring them that they'll get replacement plot on the main estate and singing the virtues of the development.
So it's certainly not over but he's changing tactics. -
Ah yes, good news. Expected, but still good:
-
Echoing that, and very rare/a first to be agreeing with Gove! Not necessarily sure previous housing secretary Jenrick would have come to the same conclusion.
First Planning Application that I am aware of where the embodied carbon has had any real impact on the decision; hopefully a sign of things to come.
-
Unfortunately, officers have recommended approval for this building, which might even be acceptable in height and massing if not for the very bad façade design:
While the original building is hardly a thing of beauty, its design is far, far superior to the unimaginative crap that's proposed. See page 35 of this PDF:
What concerns me is that it's likely that this is one of a wave of new development in Oxford Street on the heels of Crossrail. As we know from the construction boom of the 00s, the associated lorry traffic causes considerable risk to cyclists, which one would hope would be mitigated now by the Direct Vision Standard, but I have yet to see much evidence of it working. If there is more development of this kind, we can expect more cyclist deaths again. There will always be large development sites in Central London, but it's the potential for a boom that's concerning.
The other thing I really don't like is the renewed amalgamation of several sites into one building footprint. Needless to say, the original building undoubtedly did the same, and this is not an extreme example of this tendency. There is also plenty of previous in Oxford Street and overall the effect won't be as debilitating as what's been happening in Soho, e.g. in Berwick Street Market or in Broadwick Street, but it's still not something that benefits the cityscape, which is at its best where there are many entrances and smaller buildings with a wide variety of uses. Obviously, some concentration is inevitable, but if done to excess, and Oxford Street is at a critical level, it can make streets exceedingly unattractive.
-
^ So, this was approved by Westminster last year:
There's a listing bid in the works (which I expect will fail), and the Mayor of London could overrule Westminster, but I think that, too, is unlikely.
-
It's hotting up in Wimbledon about the massive expansion of the All-England Lawn Tennis Club:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/02/councillors-vote-against-wimbledon-show-court
I'm not sure that development can be prevented. People often put their hope on covenants, but they're actually not very strong in the planning world. As far as I know, planning guidance will trump them most times (not that I'm any kind of expert in planning law, but I've seen it happen).
-
Looks to me as if some palms may have been greased:
As I've said before, UDCs are very bad news, a ridiculous way of overriding local authorities, especially Labour-governed ones. I consider every area where a UDC has operated a planning disaster.
-
I'm sure most people have heard of this nonsense by now:
Very worth opposing, an appalling plan. It may well be another one that's essentially caused by Crossrail (as people now think it's viable there).
wildwest
Backstop
mespilus
EstelleGetty-
Post a reply
About
Town planning in London, planning proposals and applications, and planning decisions
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
I haven't been paying attention to this one and I thought it had already been determined, but apparently not.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/old-truman-brewery-brick-lane-objections-shopping-centre-offices-b931439.html
I have little love for the buildings they're proposing to replace, but I certainly don't think that this is a good application.