A big office scheme in the middle of Shoreditch was recommended for refusal by Hackney’s own planners, and what happened next is a lesson in how these decisions are really made
Shoreditch Works and the Planning Committee
There is a block in the south-west corner of Shoreditch that most people walk past without a glance. Worship Street on one side, Curtain Road on another, Holywell Row and Scrutton Street behind. A group of plain post-war office buildings, the sort with metal windows and a lobby that smells of carpet tiles.
It has been the subject of the most interesting planning row in the neighbourhood this year, and almost nobody outside the council chamber has followed it.
What Was Proposed
A developer wants to clear the site and put up a new 19-storey office block with other commercial buildings around it. The scheme is called Shoreditch Works.
The local paper covered the committee meeting in February. Its report explains that the decision was postponed after councillors voted against the advice of the council’s own planning officers, who had recommended that the scheme be rejected.
That is unusual. It is worth understanding why.
How It Normally Works
When a planning application comes in, professional officers employed by the council assess it against policy. They write a report. For a big scheme the report runs to a hundred pages or more. At the end they make a recommendation: approve or refuse.
Elected councillors on the planning committee then vote. In the great majority of cases they follow the officers. The officers know the policies, and a decision that goes against professional advice is easier to overturn on appeal.
When councillors do depart from the recommendation, it is nearly always in one direction. Officers say approve, residents object, councillors refuse.
Here it went the other way. Officers said refuse. Councillors were not persuaded.
Why the Officers Objected
The paper’s report sets out their reasons.
The first was about what would be lost. The existing buildings on Curtain Road and Scrutton Street are cheaper post-war offices. The officers did not think they had architectural or historic interest in themselves. But they argued that demolishing them would erase a layer of the area’s industrial history and damage the local business and employment “ecosystem.”
The second was about housing. There was, the planners pointed out, only one family-sized home at social rent in the plans.
The third was about the council’s own quotas. The scheme failed to meet Hackney’s requirements for affordable housing, which is 50 per cent, and for affordable workspace, which is 10 per cent.
So the professional view was that the scheme took away cheap space, gave back very little that was affordable, and did not comply with policy.
Who Supported It
It was not without friends. The council received 61 letters backing the scheme. A local regeneration charity wrote in support. And the City of London Corporation, our large neighbour to the south, praised what it called a commendable plan, considering the height and density suitable for an inner city site.
The City’s enthusiasm is not surprising. From its side of the boundary, a tall office building on the edge of Shoreditch is simply the Square Mile extending north.
Why Might Councillors Disagree With Their Officers?
I was not in the room and the report does not give each member’s reasoning. But I can think of arguments they may have weighed.
Jobs. A large modern office building holds many more workers than the tired blocks it replaces. The council has since published an area plan that sets great store by employment growth.
Money. A scheme of this size brings substantial payments to the council for infrastructure and affordable housing elsewhere, even if little is provided on site.
Realism. The existing buildings are ageing. If they are not redeveloped they may need expensive refurbishment to meet energy standards, at which point the rents will rise anyway. Cheap space does not stay cheap for ever.
And location. If a tall office building is acceptable anywhere in Hackney, the corner nearest the City is the obvious place.
What Happened After
The February meeting did not approve the scheme. It postponed the decision, to be made at a future committee.
A month later the council unveiled its new plan for the whole area. The same paper noted that under that policy, the site where the tower would go is designated as appropriate for tall buildings.
I do not know whether the final decision has since been taken, and I shall update this when I do. But the direction of travel is plain enough. A scheme that officers judged contrary to policy sits on a site that the emerging policy says is suitable for height.
The Uncomfortable Question
Which came first? Did the council decide, as a matter of principle, that this corner should have tall buildings, with the scheme then happening to fit? Or did a particular scheme arrive, and the policy move to meet it?
I make no accusation. Area plans take years to prepare, and the designation may have been drafted long before the application. Planning is always a conversation between what a council wants and what developers will build.
But from the pavement it can look as though the rules bend toward whoever has the largest proposal.
What Is at Stake
Leave aside the tower for a moment. The officers’ most interesting word was “ecosystem.”
What they meant is that a neighbourhood’s economy depends on a range of space at a range of prices. The glass tower houses the firm that has already made it. The scruffy post-war block houses the firm of six people that might. Take away the second and you still have offices, but you have removed the rung below.
That is a real argument and it rarely wins, because the cheap building has no champion. Its tenants are small and busy. Its owner wants to redevelop. Nobody writes 61 letters on behalf of a lobby that smells of carpet tiles.
What Residents Can Do
Planning committee meetings are public. The agenda and the officers’ report are published about a week ahead. Anyone may register to speak for a few minutes.
It is a small thing. But councillors notice who turns up. A committee that sees only developers’ representatives and consultants will reasonably conclude that nobody else cares.
I shall be at the next one. I shall bring a flask.
The London Prat has sat through more planning committees than is healthy and reports on them in its English satirical news on planning committees and its UK satirical news about nineteen-storey towers. Bohiney Magazine covers a country where they would have built it already and argued afterwards.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
