The Proposed Development

The appeal concerned proposals for a part 12, part 34-storey building (reaching 114m AOD) comprising 700 student rooms, workspace, a new public house, and associated public realm improvements (para 12).

Key Findings

Height, Scale and Massing

The Inspector found that there were distinct differences in character around the appeal site and the Metropolitan Centre (where policy directs that tall buildings should be located) (para 22). Though the appeal site was located on the boundary of the Metropolitan Centre, he concluded that the development would "fail to follow this hierarchy, but interpose one of the tallest towers outside the boundary [of the Centre], upsetting the existing and emerging character on both sides" (para 23). This would "spread, and dilute, the influence of the Metropolitan Centre into that of the High Street" (para 23).

Impact on Townscape

The proposed tower was found to create "an unwelcome jolt in the townscape" (para 20). From key viewpoints, "instead of seeing a receding line of tall buildings along the north side of the High Street, the eye would jump to that of the apparently much taller, brighter and more forcefully expressed form of the proposed tower" (para 17).
The Inspector noted that "the combined height, forward position and lack of tapering of the tower would dominate the outlook" (para 17) and from some angles, would "present a monolithic slab" (para 18).

Design Quality

The Quality Review Panel had expressed concerns about the scheme, particularly its height (para 13), and the Inspector concluded the design would "fall well short of exceptional” design (para 29) required by policy for tall buildings outside designated centre boundaries. The Inspector also criticized the proposed red cladding, noting that while in theory this could be "a perfectly valid approach in the appropriate place," the site was "not at such a major junction that it would be appropriate to establish a new sense of place" (para 26).

Heritage Impacts

The scheme would cause "less than substantial harm" to the St John's Conservation Area (para 38). The Inspector gave "great weight" to the Conservation Area's conservation (para 42) and found that the scheme would be contrary to London Plan Policy D9 and Local Plan Policies BN.1, BN.5, and BN.17 regarding heritage protection (paras 40-41).

Public Realm, Active Frontage, and Amenity

The scheme would increase public space but the introduction of 700 students would "put significant additional pressure on what would still be a relatively small area" (para 45). This would cause "harm to the reasonable expectations for public realm provision" (para 46).

Regarding active frontages, the Inspector noted while the proposed community pub would create "a lively street scene at the junction" (para 48), for the remainder of the frontage "the level of activity would be much lower than might be expected of a high standard of design" (para 48). The Inspector concluded that the scheme would be contrary to Local Plan Policy 3.2, which "expects proposals to function as a lively main street, contributing to active lower levels facing onto the street to create active street frontage" (para 49).

Privacy concerns were also noted, with direct views from student rooms into windows of the adjacent Edge Apartments (para 52).

The Planning Balance

Despite the application of the "tilted balance" in paragraph 11d(ii) of the NPPF due to Newham's housing land supply shortfall (only 2.14 years), the Inspector found that:

• The collective harm, particularly from excessive height, "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the tilted balance and cause substantial harm with regard to NPPF§125" (para 67)
• Both the Appellant’s architect and planning witness "acknowledged... that there was a limit to the height at which the tower would be acceptable" and the Inspector determined that "the 35 storeys proposed would cause considerable harm" (para 63)
• While there would be benefits from providing student accommodation (equivalent to 280 homes, with 35% affordable), and redeveloping a vacant brownfield site with excellent public transport accessibility, these did not outweigh the identified harms (paras 55-56)

The appeal decision may be of interest to other cases concerning tall building policies in the London Plan, as well as the application of recently modified policies, such as paragraph 11(d) and 125(c), in the NPPF.

Isabella Tafur and Gabriel Nelson, instructed by the London Borough of Newham, appeared for the successful local planning authority.