tall buildings

On February 16th the Strategic Development Committee unanimously rejected the application for "Benjy Towers" on the 562 Mile End Road night club site. Today the SDC will consider a slightly amended proposal which should also be rejected for the moment.

This building is still to tall for the Mile End area. It goes against the policy DM26.

It will set an unwelcome precedent for future developments in the area.

It should again be rejected until true benefit can be incorporated into the scheme for local businesses, visitors & residents.
How about an accessible tube entrance?

Reasons for rejection in Febuary - Reasons for rejection of this amended application:

1. Height, bulk and massing and impact on townscape
The revised application still features an unattractive building which contrary to LBTH Policy DM 26 and is not proportionate to its location within the town centre hierarchy or sensitive to the context of its surroundings. At over 8 floors high the building goes against planning policy explanatory note, agreed by the Mayor in Cabinet on 10 May 2016 which was intended to reiterate Tower Hamlets’ approach to tall buildings and ensure that the existing Local Plan policy was being interpreted accurately.
2. Density and overdevelopment of the site
The density of proposed building has been reduced but at 1,422 habitable room per hectare is still double the 200-700 hr/ha shown in Table 3.2 Sustainable residential quality (SRQ) density matrix in the London Plan
The 8 "affordable" rented homes would not be affordable starting at £202.85 for a 1 bed flat.
All collections & drop off on this narrow pavement
3. The servicing provision
One small bay exists for delivery to the proposed for four commercial units. The residential development will need up to 7.5 x 1100 litre land fill bins and 8.5 x
1100 litre recycle waste bins. The image right shows where bins will be wheeled to for collection and deliveries made. Can a suitable delivery and servicing plan be implemented and enforced to ensure the safety of other road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians?.
4. Loss of the community facility
The applicants have alluded to a re-provision strategy for the unique Nightclub including financial help for this up to £10,000. As of Sunday 23 April it seems no contact has been made with the Nightclub.
5. Design of the proposal
The design of the building is much as before with a few floors taken off. Of all the ideas expressed in the Design & Access statement the developers appear to have chosen the least interesting design to place on this landmark site in our neighbourhood centre. 
6. Air Quality issues
Air quality issues still exist as before. Reports show the the NO2 annual objective will be exceeded at the site up to the 4th floor. The play child play area is on the 5th floor so any mitigation measures will be conditions will have to take into account any future changes.

Mark Taylor
Mile End
E3 4TZ