A major residential scheme in Whitechapel, E1, recently granted planning permission by an inspector on appeal, could have far-reaching effects on housing densities in inner London.
In what has been greeted as a victory for developers, the planning inspectorate has ruled that increasing densities in inner London locations should come above issues around loss of daylight and sunlight.
The Cross Property Investment SARL scheme, on which Londonewcastle acts as development manager, will provide 511 new homes across 12 buildings ranging from three to 24 storeys. It lies around 300m south of Whitechapel station.
The 3.1-acre site was originally turned down by Tower Hamlets in 2016. At the time planning officers said the scheme “would cause harm to the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties with undue sense of enclosure and unacceptable losses of daylight and sunlight”.
“The design of the development would also result in poor residential amenity for future occupants,” planning officers went on to say.
However, the planning inspectorate determined that those who own property in the city should expect development to occur in their area.
Prepared for change
In the appeal decision, the inspector noted: “Inner London is an area where there should generally be a high expectation of development taking place. Existing residents would in my view be prepared for change and would not necessarily expect existing standards of daylight and sunlight to persist after development.”
He went on to say: “I conclude that the proposal would result in some significant individual reductions in daylight and sunlight levels, but that this is almost unavoidable in achieving the policy requirement for high-density development in a confined urban setting.”
The most commonly used guidance on sunlight is published by the Building Research Establishment and is conservative in its nature. The planning inspectorate’s appeal decision notes on the Whitechapel Estate clearly indicate that these guidelines are now not applicable in areas of particularly high density.
“I agree with the appellants that blanket application of the BRE guide optimum standards, which are best achieved in relatively low-rise, well-spaced layouts, is not appropriate in this instance,” it said.
“Inner city development is one of the examples where a different approach might be justified. This is specifically endorsed by the Housing Spatial Planning Guidance, which calls for guidelines to be applied sensitively to higher-density developments, especially in (among others) opportunity areas and accessible locations, taking into account local circumstances and the need to optimise housing capacity.”
Such a change has been long called for (see below).
“From a planner’s perspective, you can’t tackle the housing crisis if you have to abide by suburban daylight standards,” said Will Lingard, senior director, planning, CBRE.
Wider implications
However, the decision has not been greeted positively by all areas of the London community, including local councils that could see their own decisions overturned.
Speaking at the London Assembly’s Planning Committee on Tall Buildings last week, Sripriya Sudhakar, head of the place-shaping team at Tower Hamlets, said: “The new NPPF out for consultation is also going down the same line. We [Tower Hamlets] are then left with a situation where this case law could be taken on board by others. This is a real issue for us.”
Tower Hamlets has another five schemes set to go before public inquiry, including Meadow Residential’s Millharbour scheme, Sainsbury’s Whitechapel and Cubitt’s 225 Marsh Wall, all of which feature high-rise towers.
“Again, issues are centred on sunlight/daylight, overlooking, privacy and other aspects such as heritage,” said Sudhakar.
The recent draft London Plan proposed an ambitious 65,000 homes a year, up from an initial proposition of 42,000. In order to build them, issues such as daylight and over-development will need to be tackled.
Why a change of approach is needed on daylight and density
Consultancy GIA, a specialist in sunlight and daylight matters, called for a revision of the BRE approach to the issue (which is focused more on suburban development) for dense urban environments in a report published in May last year.
It said: “While it recommends a more contextual approach and setting alternative target values for city centres, urban environments and historic locations, it crucially does not set out what these are.
“In the absence of this guidance, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is taken by many local authorities, resulting in the same daylight/sunlight targets appropriate for a development in suburban locations being applied to developments in central London.
“This impedes London’s ability to make the most efficient use of its land, resulting in low site coverage and greater separation distances between buildings. Most importantly, it hinders London’s ability to deliver the volume of homes that its population needs.”
How the GLA’s approach to density is changing
Separate from the planning inspectorate’s verdict on the Whitechapel Estate, City Hall has also been making compromises on density in order to increase housing delivery. In the draft London Plan, it has proposed to remove the density matrix, which is the current guideline across the capital for determining a site’s capacity.
Instead of arbitrary densities set on location and Public Transport Accessibility Levels ratings – a threshold that was often breached – the GLA is now advocating a “design-led approach”.
Rather than the prescriptive matrix across a three-tiered system of central, urban or suburban, the design-led approach to determining a site’s capacity, puts the onus on to the developer to prove its potential.
According to planner Lichfields: “Developers can make the planning case for their chosen densities on the combined basis of good design quality reflecting a site’s characteristics and context, along with proximity to transport links. The ratio to remember is the higher the density, the greater the likely level of scrutiny.”
To send feedback e-mail paul.wellman@egi.co.uk or tweet @paulwellman eg or @estatesgazette
