‘Unacceptable’ plans for Bishopsgate Goodsyard hit setback
‘Unacceptable’: planning officers found the height and scale of the plans to be inappropriate for the site. Photograph: Hammerson plc
The Mayor of London Boris Johnson has been urged by his own planning officers to reject the “unacceptable” plans for Bishopsgate Goodsyard, in a boost to the long-running campaign against the development.
In a new report published last Friday, the London Mayor’s staff at the Greater London Authority (GLA) found the “density, height, massing and layout” of the £800m high-rise project were “not appropriate” for the site, which straddles Shoreditch and Spitalfields.
“The cumulative harm to heritage assets, the unacceptable daylight-sunlight impact, density, height, massing and layout of the scheme are considered to significantly outweigh the potential public benefits of the scheme,” the report states.
The mix-use scheme has faced fierce local opposition due to its scale – it would include seven tower blocks of up to 38 and 46 storeys – and because originally only 10 per cent of the homes were ‘affordable’.
A spokesperson for heritage activist group More Light More Power “welcomed” the recommended refusal of the “brutal and damaging scheme”. But certain requirements, including those relating to heritage issues and the loss of light, have still been negotiated down, the group warned.
“Developments of this scale that have such a significant impact on their surrounding environment should be designed to the highest standards, not the lowest, so while we welcome the officers’ recommendation we are aware that such negotiations continue, and remain wary of the final outcome.”
Following negotiations with City Hall, the developers agreed to up the proportion of affordable housing from 10 to 15.8 per cent.
However, GLA officers recommended that if Mayor Johnson were to approve the scheme then 25 per cent of the housing within Tower Hamlets should be affordable. They also suggested the developers make another £21.8m payment in lieu of further affordable housing.
Joint developers Hammerson and Ballymore say the scheme will include 1,356 new homes, 700,000 square feet of office space, five and a half acres of ‘public realm’ and create 7,000 jobs.
A spokesperson for the developers said: “We are disappointed that the GLA’s report has recommended the scheme for refusal. The Goodsyard is one of central London’s most important strategic sites which we believe will contribute to the long term growth and success of London.”
‘Extraordinary move’
Mayor Johnson bypassed the local authorities of Hackney and Tower Hamlets last year by ‘calling in’ the planning application, which gives him the final say on the outcome.
He is due to decide whether to approve the Bishopsgate Goodsyard plans at a public hearing on Monday 18 April.
London Assembly members have weighed in on the issue, urging Mayor Johnson to reject the proposals.
Sian Berry, Green candidate for London Mayor and the party’s lead candidate for the London Assembly, said: “Boris Johnson called in this planning application for tower blocks of luxury apartments after both Tower Hamlets and neighbouring Hackney local authorities rejected the scheme.
“It has little or no apparent benefit to the local community, which will instead be forced to put up with construction-related air pollution and congestion. It was an extraordinary move on the Mayor’s part to bypass local accountability in this way and he should now follow his own planning officer’s recommendation and cancel it immediately.”
London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon, who is the Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor, said Mayor Johnson should “never have called in this application in the first place”.
She added: “Instead he should have listened to the legitimate concerns that existed about this development, especially relating to its lack of affordable housing. At this late stage I hope the Mayor finally listens to reason and accepts the sensible advice now before him.”
Jennette Arnold, Labour London Assembly Member for Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest, was approached for comment and had not responded at time of publication.
A spokesperson for Hackney Council, which last year publicly rejected the proposals, said: “We’re pleased that the GLA’s planning officers have recognised the many problems with the current application and the negative impact it would have on the character of Shoreditch, and the hundreds of residents and businesses nearby.
“We intend to make representation at Monday’s hearing and will reiterate the many reasons why we believe the London Mayor should follow his planning experts’ advice and refuse the application.”
The London Mayor declined to comment until after he has made the decision.
Once again you carry a positive, unqualified promo for the concept
of “affordable housing”.
This is not the same thing as Social Housing.
Affordability is not Sociability.
The two are very different.
You positively refer to the “GLA officers” :-
“ GLA officers recommended that if Mayor Johnson were to approve the scheme then 25 per cent of the housing within Tower Hamlets should be affordable”
The overall role of the employed personal paid by the Public via the GLA needs to be factually put in context.
What is, has been the GLA “officers’” record?
Over the past 15 years!
For the 15 years since the GLA became operational in 2000.
The gigantic Tall Buildings Takeover that has happened within
hundred yards of the Bishopsgate Goodsyard in the last 15 years
has happened with the active complicity of both Hackney and Tower Hamlets Council.
So far more by Tower Hamlets than by Hackney.
But that is physical difference only, not a political one since both Councils are
shackled in antidemocratic “Executive” Mayor frontages
This is why the DEMOCRATIC VOICES of the two most immediately relevant local East London Councils need to be raised to stop the Agenda getting any worse against the local Communities in Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
Why are the elected Councillors on Hackney and Tower Hamlets Councils silent on the Bishopsgate Goodsyard as well as on all the rest of the similar Big Biz, High Rise Agenda Assaults on the East End Communities as a whole?
Why are the “MPs” containing Hackney South and Bethnal Green and Bow Constituencies silent?
There will not be any materially significant difference in the role of the Councillors of the the MPs.
Nor indeed in the role of any GLA member linked with Hackney or Tower Hamlets.
Indeed, for all these years that the GLA has existed, John Biggs has enjoyed getting “voted” to “represent” Tower Hamlets on the GLA at all three of the elections!
In facts Biggs has also been feted as a “leading” “front bencher” on The Assembly (GLA or London Assembly whichever title is mentioned, temporally) during the past 15 years.
Has Hackney Citizen looked at the actual evidence of Biggs’ role on the GLA
in the 14 years before he got into Tower Hamlets “Mayor” career?
I have and there is nothing Biggs has said or proposed or supported that amounts to backing the local Community in the context of ACTUALLY STOPPING what BoJo is set to do or is threatening to do.
Additionally, Biggs has had no Community Plan for the East End.
I organised the Future of the Community in the East End of London Action Seminar on 06 July 2013.
I interviewed Biggs 2 weeks before then.
Biggs did not turn up.
What he said on video on 22 June 2013 did NOT amount to Biggs realising the magnitude of the threat that thew East End faces nor indeed the depth of the failures by the whole GLA and or London Assembly over the Bishopsgate Goodsyard and related locations symbolising the onward takeover of the East End by Big Biz foisting Big Buildings
The East End cannot afford to have these attacks any more.
The East End Community, in any of the Boroughs, e.g. Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham cannot exist unless the attacks are stopped.
It is not the paid career post-holding politics who can make the defining difference.
None of the “Political Parties (that have had a platform on the GLA/London Assembly since 2000) ” on the GLA/London Assembly has made the significant milestone statement at all.
Platitude is a Propaganda tool for the pretentious careerist.
Only the mobilised Community in each Borough can.
Mobilise and Organise!
2018 GMT London Monday 11 April 2016
There are 2 possibilities (actually 3 if you want to go subterranean); one is to go up the the other is to spread out. The most sort after buildings and I might add are in no way blight the landscape in places like Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, New York, Seattle, Vancouver… are the new high rise developments, high density developments. Having a few Islands of of rise structures does not in anyway debase the city as a whole unless ascetics have not given due consideration. Though the “affordable” aspect needs much revisiting.
Here is my test:
Ask two Questions:
Who are the “Spitalfields People”?
Answer is very hard to find.
I am WAITING for an answer to this one, “in person”.
Ask the Question:
Who are the people in Brick Lane?
The answer is very very readily available.
And that is why the Campaign against the Crossrail Hole
has made that difference