Project Skylines | Canary Wharf | 50fl | 40fl

[potto]

good to see EH making good use of scarce resources

[tsweaver]

surely the point about homes being uninhabitable because of the DLR is overblown? it will stop at night and can't be that loud can it, its not like they go that fast? not as bad as Elwood's apartment in blues bros surely? it would allow for the flats nearer the source of the disturbance to be cheaper, and besides, some may find it cool in a romantic urban kind way...i reckon i would, though im only used to distant underground tube rumblings where i live atm, i find the sound of trains comforting..

[london lad]

Considering there are a whole load of already built flats nearby that are as close to the dlr as this site it seems totally bizarre that TH have now used it as a reason for refusal.

To think TH actually wanted to achieve City status yet are one of the most hopeless and incompetent boroughs in London. Thank god that the original LDDC was originally in charge of planning at CW as it probably would never have been built had it been left to TH.

[potto]

London should be building for Londons needs, not boroughs building for boroughs

[Maxakoff]

I find it bizarre that LCA is complaining - I have not seen an airplane ever flying over this area - they are flying over Wood Wharf. Perhaps I am missing something. In any event, if it is an issue than LCA should just relocate to another place imho. Enough is enough - they are flying over the two high-rise areas of London - the City and Canary Wharf, it is unacceptable that because of them real high-rises can't be built.

As to Greenwich views complaints - one of the oddest arguments I have ever heard in my life.

I personally think that Skylines would fit the area so well, certainly better than what they have there at the moment.

[potto]

yep welcome to London borough level planning. Ready to fight off all that international competition!

[Maxakoff]

Nice one
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2013/01/contr...s-develop.html

[woodgnome]

This is up before the planning committee tonight.

http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/do...5Final%203.pdf

Once again, it has been recommended for approval by TH planning officers.

This time there are no objections from City Airport or TH environmental officers. EH are still being spoilsports, though.

English Heritage (from application)

7.11 The proposed development is located to the south of the main cluster, approximately 1.5km from the boundary of the World Heritage Site (WHS). The proposed development by virtue of its scale and distinctive massing form a noticeable part of the wider setting, particularly in the important view from the General Wolfe statue.

Whilst the view from the General Wolfe has been subject to much change, particularly in the last twenty years, it has to date retained some sense of order with the tallest towers located at the northern end of the Isle of Dogs and some lower towers located slightly further south in developments centred around the Millennium Quarter. The clear recessive planes, the impressive Palace complex, the trees of Island Gardens, followed by low rise buildings, beyond which rise the towers are important characteristics. The visual layers of development instil a degree of visual order and importantly, the distance serves to reduce the impact of the tall buildings.

(OFFICER COMMENT: The heritage impacts of the proposal are discussed in greater detail below, within the material planning considerations section of this report. In summary, it is considered that sufficient detail has been submitted and assessed through the applicant’s Environmental Statement, to allow full consideration of the visual and heritage impacts of the proposal).

If that's the best they can do, this has to have a good chance. Fingers-crossed.

[woodgnome]

Tower Hamlets rejects proposal for 50 storey tower

-- Link to Wharf article --

The proposed Skylines development at the Isle of Dogs was rejected by Tower Hamlets Council's planning committee on Thursday night. The development of two buildings, the tallest rising to 50 storeys, was queried by concerned planning committee members over a host of issues.

Ultimately they refused the application on grounds ranging from lack of play spaces for children on site to the reduction of daylight for nearby residents caused by height, to the population density of the scheme and its impact on health facilities.

The last time the application for the site in Limeharbour came to council was in November when planning officers withdrew it during the meeting following scrutiny from the committee. This time officers pushed the proposal ahead and recommended the committee approve the application. Councillors felt they had enough information to decide and voted against the plans by five to none, with two abstentions.

The proposal by ZBV (Skylines) Ltd and Skylines (Isle of Dogs) Ltd was for 764 units, of which 222 was affordable housing and, of that number, 154 was social rented.

Cllr Peter Golds, speaking on behalf of those against the development, urged the committee to reject the application on grounds of over-development in the area. "We've schools bursting at the seams, health centres with real problems seeking facilities, and transport problems," he said. "With the scale of this development there is the prospect of even more problems. It's just another ill thought-out development."

The planning officer revealed as part of the section 106 payments an extra £200,000 was offered by the developer to DLR to improve the nearby South Quay station and another £100,000 was put forward for works to Preston's Road roundabout. In total, over £6million was offered towards improving local infrastructure.

At the time of the November meeting worries had been raised by London City Airport over the height of cranes working on the development. However, for the latest meeting this was withdrawn by the airport. Tower Hamlets' own environmental health team also complained about the noise the new residents would be exposed to by DLR trains and aircraft but this was also withdrawn.

Concerns were also brought by National Grid and Thames Water over the proposals but the planning officer said he felt both groups acknowledged the issues could be ironed out. A further objection, meanwhile, came from English Heritage which complained the building would damage the view from Greenwich Park.

[Dreamer]

what a joke, I thought all councils had to give permission now, on grounds that the development was overall positive and that the negative had to be really bad for it to be turned down. Triple dip - no wonder - this would of kept and created construction jobs etc, stupid twats.

[gravesVpelli]

I’m assuming Tower Hamlets will also be the decision maker for the City Pride proposal, which, given their arguments (pressure on existing health facilities, schools, lack of sunlight etc etc), I cannot see gaining approval. And that is at 75 stories! It seems that the IOD is woefully inadequate to cope for much more in residential space in respect of the public facilities and infrastructure. Even the roads they built in the 80s are one-lane two-way traffic; hardly sufficient for any future increase in usage.

An enormous community of residentials such as this in an area that was never prepared for future expansion on this scale is bound to get the thumbs down. It was too ambitious.

[london lad]

Basically the ever useless TH are moaning because they have not put in any plans for growth , both here (and in London generally which is adding an extra million souls in the next decade) so if they want more schools and health surgeries they should do something about it. Its not as if they haven’t seen this coming the last couple of decades.

If this has been refused for overdevelopment on the increasingly strained Isle of Dogs then surely if they are going to be consistent they will now refused every high rise scheme on the Isle of Dogs from now on, so no City Pride, Cuba St towers, Wood Wharf or the half dozen or so towers being planned for the area.

[potto]

seems strange, as they would be able to fund more facilities by bringing more people into the borough in such high spec and attractive housing. They would also have more clout with the TFL budget if they can show more people using public transport. No need for more roads in this area either.

I personally feel its more to do with a tedious out-of-date us and them mentality and the councillors are merely hanging onto short term votes.

[JackoGunnerGoCrazy]

Any chance the London Mayor could step in on this and over turn the decision? Its been done with plenty of other developments?

[potto]

could be a win win, local council gets to shrug, mayor gets to show he is building homes

[mulattokid]

What is amazing is the amount of council tax such developments bring into the borough....can you imagine how much for each overpriced apartment that is built?

That would pay for improving the new infrastructure needs

[menganito]

I quite like this project. I don't understand why it has not been given permission, but I am sure it will get it. The arguments against put forward by the council are nonsense which will not hold in a judicial review.

Apart from all these things, what really surprises me, very positively, is the attitude of modern conservationist. The buildings on the site at the moment are very nice too. I mean, they are not spectacular examples of anything, but if they were from the victorian era we would have a load of demented defenders of who knows what. The author was once president of the RIBA. Being as it is an example of modern architecture we are lucky enough to not having none of that rubbish. Evidently modernism serves to impregnate the mind with the understanding that nothing is eternal except change.

[upthecreek]

This returns to the planning department next week...that was quick as it was only refused last month! The planners are recommending approval. Odd!

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2013/02/skyli...-pla.html#more

[woodgnome]

Not odd at all. Planning officers commended the two previous proposals. It's bone-headed Councillors who are the problem.

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

What is the point.?

How can they approve the same scheme they've just rejected, without looking like complete morons (which they are).?

Acting like morons and admitting it to the world are different things entirely.