Essex Wharf tower blocks decision looms large
A controversial development that would see four residential tower blocks built at Essex Wharf, across the canal from Hackney’s Millfields Park, has met with strident opposition from both sides of the River Lea.
Residents, environmental groups, Hackney Council and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority all opposed the development, which would build 124 flats in four seven-storey blocks on the Waltham Forest side of the Lee Navigation canal.
The application was approved at a meeting of Waltham Forest Council’s planning committee on 4 January but Lee Valley Regional Park Authority has now written to the council to request that the decision be referred to Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles. The council is obliged to make the referral.
Kriss Lee, who lives near Millfields Park, said he was concerned that the high density development would put pressure on Hackney’s services, with residents of the new flats coming to Hackney for doctors, schools and transport.
He described the “vociferous” dispute at the council planning meeting and his shock that the committee approved the development.
A spokesperson for Lee Valley Park said the authority has consistently opposed the development, which would be entirely surrounded by park land and is very close to the Walthamstow Marshes and the Middlesex Filter Beds nature reserves.
“We think it will have major adverse impact on a large area of the park. Residential development does not fit within the remit of the park,” the spokesperson said.
While the Hackney side of the River Lea has seen rapid development in recent years, the Waltham Forest side is mostly open park land.
The Essex Wharf development is expected to be a hot topic at the upcoming annual general meeting of the Millfields Park User Group on 10 February.
I hope it gets approved.
House and rent prices in London are ridiculous.
The more home building the better to keep rents and house prices from hiking up again.
nd are these council housing then?
@Steve – does it matter if they are?
No not really.Just get some more people into the area who after a while start complaining about the noise etc from the night life.
@Steve: the developers will be required by law to provide a certain percentage (usually at least 10%) of social housing. But point taken about importing more NIMBYs.
gsob they are supposed to.But all the developements i have seen lately just say affordable housing.
I’m torn between wanting to see more affordable housing and not wanting to despoil the natural environment. Plus, many of these housing developments are just dire. There’s that massive new one on the river in Upper Clapton that is ugly and has no character whatsoever. It could be out of any suburban development in the USA.
adam you had best not come to hoxton then.The buildings that have been slung up are ugly and not affordable.
Thing is, at the moment the site is a load of concrete plus a derelict building, so anything else is an improvement…
See:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danrkelly/sets/72157613056029334/
Thank you for publishing an article on the impending widely-acknowledged environmental disaster at Essex Wharf – the only hope of stopping this now is if the Secretary of State overturns the Waltham Forest planning decision.
There is one inaccuracy in your report. This development would contain not 179 but 124 housing units, with 33% for “affordable” homes. Waltham Forest’s Labour councillors supported the scheme on January 4th entirely on the grounds than any development should be accepted that enables them to reduce their housing waitng list of 16,000. It has been suggested additionally that many of the low number of affordable units wouldlbe let on an equity shared basis and therefore out of the reach of the poorest. So this development would make only the tiniest inroad into the social housing need. Against thisthe council completely ignored all the environmental arguments for preserving the open space within the land covered by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, the body set up by law to preserve and where possible extend the great green wedge formed locally by Walthamstow, Leyton and Hackney Marshes and extending also to Low Hall playing fields and Walthamstow Reservoirs. In fact the park authority’s most recent development plan proposes on the waterfront “An attractive and sensitively designed waterside leisure facility at Essex…Wharf to be developed as a new focal point and visitor attraction with the decontamination and opening up of the infilled oxbow immediately to the north to create a new waterside location for recreational use.” Funds may not be available immediately to create this, but why should it be made impossible for ever by allowing these high rise residential buildings on the east side of the river, an open area since time immemorial, where the development would ruin the open views from all directionsand endanger the future of the whole green wedge which means so much to residents and visitors?
The park authority has exercised its right to have the decision re-examined by the secretary of state precisely
because the Act which set it up allows it to do this when there is a difference of opinion between it and a local authority planning decision. All those in both Hackney and Waltham Forest who see the destructiveness of the scheme should do all in their power to insist on a fair procedure by the secretary of state to re-evaluate this, and to state their views strongly at this time.
the developers will be required by law to provide a certain percentage (usually at least 10%) of social housing. Oh yes just like Dalston Square
How is it that if the council want to do something the law goes out of the window.A letter will arrive saying the council given permission for so and so to be built.You,the individual,want to put up a garden shed say and you will have a pile of paperwork to contend with and will then probably be quoted some by law saying the shed is illegal.
Oliver – very nice but at the moment the site is a former industrial wasteland. Cabe reviewed the development:
http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/essex-wharf-2
Basically I think we need to do whatever to provide housing on all levels to stop rents and house prices from inflating again.
I will also be very happy for the builders, workmen and surveyors who will be employed during the construction of this development.
If NoopyDoopy had his way every crap scheme that a developer proposed would automatically be given the go ahead. Brilliant!
No Barry – when housing waiting lists have doubled in last decade and the average age of a first time buyer has risen is now 37, then we shouldn’t just reject any development blindly, like developers are all automatically evil.
We have to speed up house building.
Are you saying the crumbling Victorian terraces and abandoned warehouses nearby are that pretty?
The current site is a wasteland ….
Also if you had be near homeless a few times because of screwed up flatshare contracts you might have another view…
We shouldent just accept any development blindly
Oliver – many thanks, we’ve now updated the story.
As you say, the current application with Waltham Forest Council is for 124 flats, whereas previously the developer stated 179 on its website – Ed.
Along Whiston Road council flats were demolished and the new site there says that it’s for affordable homes and homes for sale. Can someone tell me that if all these type of developements have to have 10% social housing this one doesn’t, especially that it’s built on what must be council land.
We shouldn’t reject all development blindly but the lea valley has been subject to massive development in the past five years not least the nearby James Latham site across the river and of course the Olympic site,
The point here is that this development will blight one of inner London’s major green spaces – development at all costs will result in us living in concrete canyons – if that is living,,,
“crumbling Victorian terraces and abandoned warehouses nearby” ??
Perhaps NoopyDoopy’s comment on crumbling Victorian terraces and abandonded warehouses refers to the area around the Princess of Wales pub and the former Ship Aground. If so his information is out of date as there has been a redevelopment of the former commercial buildings plus new housing. And the nearby terraces aren’t crumbling.
If he doesn’t mean this area I cant imagine where he is referring to.
In response to Steve the Whiston Road development is part of the Haggerston West and Kingsland Estates development. IIRC there is 33% social rented provision. Its not a council development. Its London & Quadrant housing association development.