{"id":770758,"date":"2025-01-16T10:05:01","date_gmt":"2025-01-16T10:05:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=770758"},"modified":"2025-01-16T14:17:18","modified_gmt":"2025-01-16T14:17:18","slug":"shock-approval-for-foster-partners-reworked-whitechapel-tower","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/shock-approval-for-foster-partners-reworked-whitechapel-tower","title":{"rendered":"Shock approval for Foster + Partners\u2019 reworked Whitechapel tower"},"content":{"rendered":"

Planners at the east London authority had recommended refusal for the 17-storey office-led scheme on the City fringe site between Whitechapel High Street and Commercial Road. The proposal was a redesign of an earlier, lower scheme for the same 0.67ha plot in the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area, which was rejected in 2022.<\/p>\n

The borough\u2019s officers had said that the latest application\u2019s benefits would not \u2018outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets\u2019, adding that it did \u2018not represent high quality or place-sensitive design by virtue of its layout, scale, bulk and height, appearance and architectural features\u2019.<\/p>\n

They also feared the 82.5m-tall scheme \u2013 which went against the council\u2019s development plan \u2013 would not \u2018respect or integrate positively with the finer-grained, low to medium-rise context of the site\u2019 and would have \u2018adverse effects on existing residents and the learning environment at Canon Barnett Primary School\u2019.<\/p>\n

However, following a site visit, members of the council\u2019s strategic development committee<\/a> unanimously voted last night (15 January) that they were minded to approve the application, subject to agreed conditions.<\/p>\n

Councillors said that the scheme would \u2018more effectively\u2019 use the site in an area which already \u2018has a lot of tall buildings around it\u2019 and would remove an existing car park, in turn reducing anti-social behaviour.<\/p>\n

In 2022 councillors had turned down a previous application featuring a 14-storey block because they had concerns over the scheme\u2019s height, the demolition of heritage assets, its daylight and sunlight effects on neighbours, and the \u2018harm to the setting\u2019 of the nearby Charles Harrison Townsend-designed Grade II*-listed Whitechapel Gallery.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Refused 2022 scheme (left); latest ‘minded to approve’ scheme (right)<\/p>\n\t

<\/p><\/p><\/div>\n

Foster + Partners returned last year with a fresh application for the same developer, South Street Asset Management, working with architect Haverstock, which is overseeing the rejig of Canon Barnett Primary School within the development plot.<\/p>\n

Although the latest scheme is now three storeys taller and has a larger footprint, it involves less demolition, steps back at its edges and would retain, rather than remove, the frontage at <\/span>2-4 Commercial Street. The Edwardian fa\u00e7ade at 102-105 Whitechapel High Street would be kept, as before.<\/span><\/p>\n

The 2024 scheme promises to create 3,260 jobs, provide incubator spaces for small and medium-sized businesses and includes a relocated and expanded playground for the primary school<\/span>.<\/p>\n

But the changes did not allay the fears of either heritage campaigners or Historic England, and Tower Hamlets\u2019 planning officers are also unconvinced.<\/p>\n

The scheme has also prompted 294 objections.<\/p>\n

Speaking before last night’s meeting SAVE Britain\u2019s Heritage conservation officer Lydia Franklin said that an \u2018office block towering 17 storeys above its neighbours is not what this area needs\u2019 adding that \u2018a building of this scale would tear through the conservation area, which was created to draw a clear line between the bristling towers of the City fringe and the very different character of the historic East End\u2019.<\/p>\n

Franklin decribed the councillor’s decision as\u00a0 ‘a blow to the local community who have consistently and strongly pushed back against these controversial plans which are oversized and unnecessarily destructive’.<\/p>\n

A tall building here would make a mockery of conservation area protection<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She told the AJ: \u2018<\/em>Conservation areas are created to protect our historic environment and guide development in a particular context. A tall building in this location would make a mockery of these protections and erode this area\u2019s unique character.\u2019<\/p>\n

Historic England had said it could not support the plans, claiming the height and massing \u2018would starkly contrast with the human scale\u2019 of the surrounding buildings. It said the \u2018robust Victorian commercial character\u2019 of the retained fa\u00e7ade of 2-4 Commercial Street \u2018would be significantly undermined by the overbearing presence of the 18-storey building immediately behind and partly cantilevering over\u2019 the frontage.<\/p>\n

Foster + Partners, Haverstock and South Street Asset Management have been contacted for comment.<\/span><\/p>\n