®Planning appeal decision
Land at the East of Hancock Road and West of the River Lea Navigation, Hancock Road, Bromley-by-Bow, London, E3 3DA
the third phase of development within Bow River Village, including three buildings ranging in height from 2 to 26 storeys plus a basement; to provide 435 residential dwellings comprising a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms, 2,750 sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class B1), 901 sqm (GIA) flexible commercial/community floorspace (Use Class B1, D1) and 106 sqm (GIA) flexible retail (A1/A3). Landscaped public realm, play provision access, servicing, car parking and cycle parking were part of the proposed development, as well as provision for the landing of a pedestrian and cycle bridge connecting to Sugar House Island
- Authority
- London Legacy Development Corporation
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Jackson P
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
- Whether the proposed dwelling mix and mix of affordable housing would be acceptable
- The effect on the heritage significance of the Three Mills Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings within it; and the effect on the setting of the How Memorial Gateway, which is listed Grade II
- The effect on the living conditions of local occupiers in terms of outlook, privacy and natural light
- Whether the quality of private and public amenity space would be acceptable
- Whether the proportion of green space would be in accordance with development plan policy
- Whether the servicing, access, waste storage and collection arrangements would be adequate, taking into account the adjacent operational wharf
What decided it
The harmful effect on character and appearance combined with the impracticality and unsafe design of the triangle play area were the most important factors outweighing the scheme's benefits.
The public benefits (substantial housing and affordable housing delivery, brownfield redevelopment, the Lea bridge link and other S106 benefits) were outweighed by the substantial harm to character and appearance, less-than-substantial heritage harm, deficiencies in play space and amenity, and uncertainties over servicing and access, leading to dismissal.
Framework references: 123
Plan policies cited: BN.1, BN.5, D9, H10, H.1, H.2, SP.2, H6, HC1, BN.17, D6, BN.4, D3, S4, BN.9, S.1, G5, T6, T6.1, T7, T.8
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.