Project Skylines | Canary Wharf | 50fl | 40fl

[skybaby]

Originally Posted by london lad

You had best choose an accompanying sauce then as all the person above is referring to is a general mayoral planning report. They will always highlight were the application doesn't conform to the London plan, mostly minor issues that are sorted out by the time they go to planning committee.

If you read the Major's response, it is particularly opposed to the scale of the development in relation in adjacent residential buildings and the external design quality of the development;

"Whilst the site could be suitable for tall buildings these will need to form part of a robust masterplan that considers the wider site context and, in particular, fully and satisfactorily addresses the spatial relationship and integration with the residential area to the south. The Council and the applicant should pursue this in collaboration with neighbouring landowners in order to bring about a more comprehensive design solution for the area."
...
"The material submitted does not demonstrate that the proposed buildings would attain the level of design quality expected of tall buildings in London. The supporting townscape assessment illustrates that, whilst the proposal would not harm the protected view from Greenwich Park where it would be viewed against the Canary Wharf cluster, it would be unattractive some in middle distance and local views. The appearance of the buildings should be reviewed and refined to enhance their appearance to comply with the London Plan."

Hardly "minor issues"!

[london lad]

Most Mayors reports conclude an application doesn't conform to the London plan for whatever reason. What has been highlighted in the report is not a major scuppering of the scheme, it actually concludes the proposal generally acceptable . The developer will go off with the architect & TH and address these, whether it means a slight redesign who knows. There has been very little mention of this proposal either for or against so I'm not sure what your trying to say.

Theres been far worse written by the planning department in the Mayors office for applications that have gone and got planning permission without a hitch.

[gothicform]

exactly. often they say it doesn't comply with the london plan simply because the application wasn't detailed enough and they want to see more information on something. there are many examples where a redesign isn't even required, just additional documentation.

[ibiza]

Originally Posted by skybaby

"The material submitted does not demonstrate that the proposed buildings would attain the level of design quality expected of tall buildings in London. The supporting townscape assessment illustrates that, whilst the proposal would not harm the protected view from Greenwich Park where it would be viewed against the Canary Wharf cluster, it would be unattractive some in middle distance and local views. The appearance of the buildings should be reviewed and refined to enhance their appearance to comply with the London Plan."

All this could mean is eg. that they don't like the bright red painting on the earlier renders of the southern tower part - which was also the most expressed view on here. But exactly this problem doesn't even seem to exist in reality as it was confirmed from multiple sources to be a terracotta colour they are going for - something far less aggressive and more pleasing on the eye than on that render..

But even if they have to change something more substantial about the design - what's the big deal, doesn't mean this cannot go ahead at all as was concluded after your post..

[Turbosnail]

This application was refused on the 16th for excessive height, poor design, unacceptable amount of affordable housing etc.

http://194.201.98.213/WAM/doc/Decisi...df&pageCount=4

[london lad]

Boy you really have to question TH planners and planning committee. First refusing the Columbus tower and now this.

They say this development is to tall etc yet they approved a tower almost as big across the road at Baltimore Quay and if this was refused for bad design the mind boggles as to what they think is considering some of the poor designs they have approved in the area.

Just what is the point of all the pre-panning meetings with TH over the last year.

[london lad]

225 Marsh Wall also refused at the same meeting.

http://194.201.98.213/WAM/doc/Decisi...df&pageCount=4

Lol and some people think the Isle of dogs will eventually become like Manhattan, running along the length and breath of TH. Me thinks not with that idea.

[potto]

shocking!

[AUTOTHRILL]

Whatever happened to the Columbus tower people? Last I heard Borris saved it... Any news on it since?

[Rational Plan]

I think the problem with this as far as the Council was concerned was this and Marshwall proposal were East of Limeharbour road. These buildings do loom over the low rise homes along East Ferry road. For them to ignore all those voters they need a very good reason. One, is of course lots of community benefits or social rented housing. But they maybe to close for the height they want.

I also suspect they would prefer the West Bank of the Dock to develop first before they will consider high rises in the East.

[potto]

London needs to juxtapose somewhere along the line and councillors need some balls. Again this is where the Mayor should step in. How about councillors worry about important issues such as the housing crises rather than fetishising over the people living in a city of 10 million concerned only about seeing other buildings near them.

[kerouac1848]

There are fewer than 8 million people in London.....

My beef is there is too much reactivity like below rather than pro-action. By the latter I mean councillors and the Mayor actively promoting a site for tall buildings and having some kind of real intervention to make it happen. At the moment they only raise their heads to block something.

London doesn't have zoning polices like NYC, Madrid, etc, does it?

[dutchsnookerfan]

the city alone has only 8 million but the metropolis 12 to 14 its a bit difficult to say where it ends.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

There are fewer than 8 million people in London.....

My beef is there is too much reactivity like below rather than pro-action. By the latter I mean councillors and the Mayor actively promoting a site for tall buildings and having some kind of real intervention to make it happen. At the moment they only raise their heads to block something.

London doesn't have zoning polices like NYC, Madrid, etc, does it?

Yes it does, look at any local councils local plan designating land use and they use FAR as well or sometimes inhabitable rooms per hectare. But there are other considerations as well. Besides land use was effectively nationalised in the UK under the 1947 town and country planning act. There is no presumption of a private landowners right to develop like there is in the US. While Teardowns for example do happen in the UK there are strict limits on how much larger the replacement property may be. In large parts of the US as long as it meats the building code and is a certain number of feet from the street then away you go. There are few grounds to reject a proposal in the US based on how it looks. But looking at my local councils planning applications list many proposals are rejected because they are out of character for other properties in the street or it will unbalance the design of the terrace, and these are in 1930's suburbs not some conservation area(historical district).

Local councillors have ultimate power over planning applications and if it draws ro much local ire they can overide the plannig advice from their planning officers. Though that can go the other way when a council is desperate for a big project to regenerate somewhere and they can approve when their plannig officers disagree. These days this is more open to judicial review but only really affect big projects as local house owners rarely have the money for that.

[kerouac1848]

the city alone has only 8 million but the metropolis 12 to 14 its a bit difficult to say where it ends.

Yes, but places like Watford, Slough, etc have their own councillors whose needs aren't related to London and don't interact with the Mayor, that is what I meant.

Eurostat's calculation is the about the nearest you'll get to an official count of what London's metro area is and they put it at around 12m iirc. However, they are more conservative compared to the US on this, where metro areas can extend for 10s of miles beyond the core city. If London used the liberal measurement like is done for NYC you'd be looking at city's like Luton, Oxford and Brighton being included and probably a population of over 16m (basically the entire SE of England).

@Rational Plan

I guess a big difference also is that in NYC or Madrid's case you have a city council dealing with the issue of land-use, rather than local district authorities (i.e. boroughs). They then consider the effect of the entire urbanity rather than their locality. If the Docklands were left Tower Hamlets we'd never have gotten what we did.

[siberian dreamer]

i could imagine luton being a part of it, but oxford? Hah.

[woodgnome]

http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/W...er=PA/11/03617













The Proposed Development has been designed by Terry Farrells architects. The Proposed Development will redevelop the whole of the current site. All of the existing buildings on site will be demolished and replaced with a number of modern structures.

These new buildings will comprise a number of standalone and interlinked buildings that will vary in both height and massing and are arranged in 4 buildings comprising of 5 blocks A, B, B1, C, D. The proposal will include a maximum 2 storey basement and tallest structure within the Proposed Development (Block B1) will be up to 152.7 metres above ordnance datum (m AOD) in height.

The Proposed Development will be residential led (providing 749 private units of which 242 (38% of rooms) are affordable, but also providing offices, retail units and community infrastructure. A double level basement is also proposed for car parking and 0.96 hectares of open space will be created.

The overall proposed massing is higher to the north of the Site (Building B1) with the height of the buildings stepping down to the south (Building A). This design creates a gentle transition from the office district heights to the north and the residential areas to the south of the Site. At the core of the architectural concept is the creation of two building groups (Buildings A and B and Buildings B1 and C) on the Site which define an active open space at the heart of the Site. The space between the two building groups consists of a sequence of spaces that run northsouth through the Site and allow for pedestrian movement and different uses and activities within the Site and act as transitional spaces between the urban environment on the junction of Limeharbour and Marsh Wall and the residential areas to the south.

The Proposed Development is comprised of four separate buildings. These are summarised as follows:

• Building A – A mixture of one to five bedroom affordable social rental accommodation. Building A is made up of two blocks, ranging from 13 (Building A2, northern building, 51.2m AOD) to 19 storeys (Building A1, southern building, 70m AOD). There are a number of retail units at ground floor level;

• Building B – A mixture of studio to penthouse private residential units, with commercial units on the ground and first floor. The building is 25 storeys (up to 92.8 m AOD) high.

• Building B1 – A mixture of studio to penthouse private residential units, with retail units from ground level to the fourth floor, in a multi-tiered single block with a single 45 storey tower (152.7 m AOD). There is a five storey annex to the tower (27.4 m AOD), separating it from Building C, containing commercial units and community usage on the ground floor.

• Building C – Building C is set in a number of blocks (C1 to C3), losing height from west to east. The highest element is 24 storeys (87.9 m AOD) and the lowest element 11 storeys (30.5 m AOD). The building contains a mixture of one bedroom to three bedroom private, affordable and intermediate residential units, with a commercial units at ground floor level; and Skylines ES Non-Technical Summary NTS-7

• Pavilion D (part of Building B) – A community/retail pavilion, 2 storeys (up to 16m AOD) high. A two level basement will cover the majority of the Site and will include parking level -2 (to a depth of -0.4 m AOD) and parking level -1 (to a depth of +2.25 m AOD) 189 car parking spaces, 32 motorcycle spaces, 1060 bicycle spaces, the plant and waste storage rooms. Access to the basement car park will be via the south west corner of the Site.

[Rational Plan]

Very Funky. Better than the last one. Still be a huge stink as these are very tall on the edge of Enterprise district and close to those council low rise units. I wish it well. But I expect 10 to 15 storey is the limit here.

[annamaria4711]

I wondered how long it would be before this area was focused on....like the proposal, I find it fresh and light, yeap its good.... it will add some vitality on that side of the island too....good

On another subject
...why can't they knock down and start again on the big fat ugly black glass building opposite the SkyLines...its UrrrrGLY they've tried to spruss it up, but its like proposing mutton for lamb.....

[flare]

Over a thousand bike parking spaces is ridiculous, and TfL will still ask for more!

TfL will ask try to reduce the parking I'd imagine, even though the site has a low PTAL I think there are aspirations for future IoD developments to be car-free.