SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thameside West
Silvertown
E16


Planning application:
Newham 18/03557/OUT

Official website:
http://keystone-london.co.uk/thameside-west


Development Facts

Address:
Land At Thameside West and Carlsberg Tetley, Dock Road, London E16

Architect: Foster + Partners | John McAlsan & Partners | Patel Taylor

Developer: Keystone London | GLA Land & Property

Site area: 18.79 hectares

Residential units: 5,000












 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,379 Posts
The scheme has been rejected.

Reasons for rejection

Reasons for Refusal;
1. Theproposeddevelopmenthasfailedtoadequatelyaddresstheprinciplesof masterplanning with particular attention to the successful integration of the scheme with the wider public area and the transition between, and neighbourliness of different uses both within the site and in relation to adjacent areas. The proposals also fail to provide adequate assurances for the delivery of the masterplan as a whole. This would likely fail to build and reinforce communities and places that work and to ensure that growth contributes to achieving convergence and personal and community resilience. This is
London Borough of Newham
[Thameside West]
contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019); and,
• Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP8, H1, H2, INF1, INF2 and INF9
of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
2. Theproposeddevelopmenthasfailedtodemonstrategoodgrowthand infrastructure sufficiency with particular regard to provisions for the new DLR Station and primary education. This would have a detrimental impact on the ability to build strong and inclusive communities, make the best use of land, create a healthy city, deliver the homes that Londoners need, grow a good economy and increase efficiency and resilience and would not ensure that identified infrastructure needs are met. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 1.1, 2.13, 3.16, 6.1 and 6.2 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations
since 2011 and published March 2016);
• Policies GG1, GG2, GG5, T1 and SD1 of the Draft London Plan: The
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
• Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP8, INF1, INF2, INF8 and INF9 of
the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
3. Theproposeddevelopmentintroducesresidentialusesintoadesignated Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and has failed to adequately demonstrate managed release and managed intensification. The proposals are therefore considered to erode the existing industrial quality of designated SIL and would be harmful to the supply of SIL and employment land across the Borough. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies E4, E5, E7 and GG5 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial
Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
• Policies S1, S3, S4, J1 and J2 of the Newham Local Plan (December
2018).
4. Theproposeddevelopmentintroducesresidentialuseswithinandadjacentto a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and adjacent to a nightclub and has failed to demonstrate adequate mitigation to protect the future occupants from the impact of existing lawful operations. This would likely fetter the ongoing operation and the potential to intensify the industrial and nightclub uses and thus the proposals have not demonstrated compliance with agent of change principles. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies D12, D13, E5 and E7 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
London Borough of Newham

[Thameside West]
• Policies S1, S3, S4, J1, SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
5. Theproposeddevelopmenthasnotgivendueregardtomasterplanningand infrastructure sufficiency in the potential scenario of Thames Wharf remaining safeguarded. The proposals therefore fail to demonstrate that they would account for existing needs as well as new needs arising from the development as well as deliver the appropriate amount of infrastructure alongside new housing. In this respect the proposals are considered to be premature in nature. This is contrary to:
• •


the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019); Policies 1.1 and 7.26 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);
Policies GG1, GG2, GG5, T1 and SD1 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP3, INF1 and INF9 of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
6. The proposed development fails to deliver the added value expected of all tall buildings because its design fails to integrate and positively contribute to its location and convergence objectives. The proposed height, scale and massing would appear overbearing, bulky and incongruous and so would negatively impact the character, appearance and townscape of the surrounding area and would create a hostile environment for pedestrians at ground floor level. This is contrary to:
the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019); Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);
Policies, D1, D2, D3, D7 and D8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
proposed development would unacceptably reduce the level of daylight sunlight to neighbouring residential properties. This would be detrimental to the living conditions of existing residents and would represent an
unneighbourly form of development. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.15 of The London Plan - The Spatial
Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations
since 2011 and published March 2016);
• Policy D1 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for
Greater London (Draft for Consultation December 2017 with minor
suggested changes July 2018); and,
• Policies SP2, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
7. The and
• •


London Borough of Newham

[Thameside West]
8. The proposed development has failed to demonstrate that it will achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’ as required by Policy SC1. The development’s failure to achieve sufficient Building Performance Standards would conflict with the clear objectives of the Development Plan Framework seeking to respond to climate change within developments. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 5.2 and 5.3 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies GG5 and SI2 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development
Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation December 2017 with
minor suggested changes July 2018); and,
• Policies SC1 and SC2 of the Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
9. The proposed development comprises a significant number of studio units and also fails to demonstrate that 19.8% 3 bed homes for families by unit is the maximum amount that can be provided when taking into account viability. The proposed development therefore prejudices the ability to stabilise the community and reduce population churn with implications for convergence and feelings of community cohesion and safety within the borough. The proposed housing mix is harmful to Newham’s strategic objective of sustaining mixed and balanced communities and would not sufficiently contribute to redressing the borough’s housing stock in terms of prioritising family sized units over small units. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policy 3.8 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published
March 2016);
• Policies H12, H15 and GG4 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial
Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, SP2 and H1 of the London Borough of Newham
Local Plan: (December 2018).
10.The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that 32.5% (based on units), on-site affordable housing represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that can be delivered on the site on a viable basis. The proposed development would therefore not accord with the Council’s overriding objectives to build mixed and balanced communities that work and ensure that growth contributes to achieving convergence. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 3.9, 3.11 and 3.12 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations
since 2011 and published March 2016);
• Policies GG4, H5, and H6 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial
Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for public consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, H1 and H2 of the Newham Local Plan (December
London Borough of Newham

[Thameside West]
2018).
11.The height, scale and massing of the proposal has resulted in an excessive density for this location, given its relatively poor access to public transport and amenities, which goes far beyond optimising the use of the site. The number of tall buildings and their scale detrimentally affects the legibility of the plan and the hierarchy of streets and spaces and there will be considerable impacts on the microclimate. The amount of sunlight reaching the streets, open spaces and lower level homes and private external amenity spaces is likely to be a significant issue caused by the overall density of the scheme and the height and number of tall buildings and their proximity to one another. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 3.4 and 7.7 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies D6, D7 and D8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial
Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP3, SP4 and H1 of The London Borough of
Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
12.The proposed development, by reason of the relationship with surrounding existing land uses, the layout, configuration and orientation of the proposed blocks and the distribution and position of the accessible units and their associated car parking spaces, would fail to provide an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupants in terms of safeguarding residential amenity including noise, nuisance and disturbance, air quality, outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight and accessibility. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policy 3.5 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for
London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published
March 2016);
• Policies GG4, D4, D5 and D13 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial
Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP8 and H1 of The London Borough
of Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
13.The proposed development has not been accompanied by sufficient information to enable evaluation of existing road conditions and to project future impact on the local road network, in particular the impact on junctions. The proposals have therefore failed to demonstrate that they are acceptable in terms of highway safety. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 6.1 and 6.3 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development
Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies GG3, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 of the Draft London Plan: The
London Borough of Newham

[Thameside West]
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, INF1, INF2, SP2 and SP8 of The London Borough of
Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
14.The proposed development relies on the use of existing surrounding transport infrastructure however insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate appropriate accessibility to these transport nodes. This would be detrimental to pedestrian and cyclist safety. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 6.1 and 6.3 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development
Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies GG3, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 of the Draft London Plan: The
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, INF1, INF2, SP2 and SP8 of The London Borough of
Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
15.The proposed development would be served by a road which fails to adopt a healthy street approach and thus would be detrimental to the pedestrian and cyclist experience as well as a successful integration of a new mixed-use neighbourhood in this location. This is contrary to:
• the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);
• Policies 6.1 and 6.3 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development
Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and
published March 2016);
• Policies GG3, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 of the Draft London Plan: The
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for Consultation
December 2017 with minor suggested changes July 2018);
• Policies S1, S3, S4, INF1, INF2 SP2 and SP8 of The London Borough
of Newham Local Plan (December 2018).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Assuming an occupancy rate of 2.4 persons per dwelling this would have had the equivalent of 200,000 people per square mile. That’s extremely densely populated
 

·
Modernist Glory Boy
Joined
·
511 Posts
Where on earth is there a nightclub in Silvertown? Wherever it is, I wouldn't go there without armed protection.
 

·
Modernist Glory Boy
Joined
·
511 Posts
"LA Lounge", apparently, formerly Guvnor (a great name for an east end nightclub). A converted pub on North Woolwich Road, under the DLR tracks.

Looks terrifying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,549 Posts
he height, scale and massing of the proposal has resulted in an excessive density for this location, given its relatively poor access to public transport and amenities, which goes far beyond optimising the use of the site.
It's 23 minutes from the location to Canary Wharf station walking to Canning Town and taking the jubilee line - that seems pretty good to me!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,296 Posts
Have to agree about density, for a location with no adjacent public transport, that's not really good enough especially for the population projected to live here.
The buildings look far to close to each other, more like Hong Kong and that's not something to aspire to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,692 Posts
Transport here can't cope, you've only got one tube line and a light rail network covering a fairly wide area. and both are bursting during the peaks. A week or so ago CW station (jubliee) was closed for a short period due to a fire alarm and it was impossible to jump on the DLR at Canning Town, never seen a station so crowed inside. Crossrail will obviously help, but it's not enough long-term if you want the IoD, NG and Royal Docks to be very dense districts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,831 Posts
Transport is an issue all over London. Canada water is rammed.

With another million people forecast by 2030 and the only transport improvements after crossrail is maybe a Bakerloo line extension by then things are going to get worse.

The development planned here is no more distant to public transport than say good luck hope.. At least canning Town is within walking distance and there is a new DLR stop planned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,692 Posts
The impacts are not the same everywhere though, plus Canada Water constitutes the same link of development in many ways. The level of development that the IoD, NG and the Royal Docklands have witnessed is enormous yet this area doesn't have the density of rail links and subsequent that, say, inner west and north London has (generally it's a problem across East London).

The problem is there is no long-term vision beyond a bit here and there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,831 Posts
Well exactly. East and SE London suffers and ny new infrastructure like a bridge or tunnel is then a pay to use unlike elsewhere in London and no brainers like cycle bridges over the Thames are cancelled.

All along the Jubliee line from London bridge has seen and will see massive developments all the way up to Stratford so its not just Canning town. Canada Water has a massive masterplan and it is a feeder from all the new developments along the East London Line.

Congestion will only get worse but its not going to stop these mega developments in East London. I don't know why they cant say put a 5% levy on all new development over say a dozen units to bank for infrastructure improvements.Instead things like the Bakerloo line extension is at the whim of central government to be gracious and give funding for it which inevitably leads to delays and voracious criticism from elsewhere in the country.

We just don't seem to do and plan infrastructure properly.

Anyway back on topic, as this is a TFL JV this will now be passed by the Mayor with perhaps an upwards tweak to the affordable housing element.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,133 Posts
Congestion will only get worse but its not going to stop these mega developments in East London.

No it won’t, but it should. If developers think that dumping too many people in too small an area already bursting at the seams with people on public transport is a good thing then someone really needs to have a word. I mean, I know all they care about is profit profit profit, but where’s the profit going to come from in the future if London is so overcrowded it is an unsafe and horrible place to live? Because no doubt by that point they will have shipped off to some other hapless city leaving ordinary people suffering once again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,831 Posts
No it won’t, but it should. If developers think that dumping too many people in too small an area already bursting at the seams with people on public transport is a good thing then someone really needs to have a word. I mean, I know all they care about is profit profit profit, but where’s the profit going to come from in the future if London is so overcrowded it is an unsafe and horrible place to live? Because no doubt by that point they will have shipped off to some other hapless city leaving ordinary people suffering once again.
Theses areas are designated by the local authorities and the GLA. This development for example to part sponsored by the GLA & TFL. Newham for example are dumping a large development on the other side of Silvertown Way.

Its them not developers who are demanding all these inner cities spots to be high density. How else is the GLA going to hit their 66,000 annual target ( which central government research says still wont be enough). We are at the end of the 2010's and London's population is hitting 9million, by the end of the 2030's that's forecast to be closer to 10million.

The problem, as was mentioned is the planned infrastructure, particularly transport isn't keeping up and again that's more to do with local and central government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,133 Posts
If London continues building these massive developments cramming more and more people into smaller and smaller apartments it won’t reach 10 million simply because it will be absolute hell to live and work here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
"LA Lounge", apparently, formerly Guvnor (a great name for an east end nightclub). A converted pub on North Woolwich Road, under the DLR tracks.

Looks terrifying.
I went in there once on the way home from a West Ham game. You go through airport style metal detectors (which also pick up any liquids/acid you might be carrying) on the way in.

Terrifying is probably a reasonable assessment of the place!
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top