Called-In Decision: the Bell Foundry, 32-34 Whitechapel Road, 2 Fieldgate Street, London
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/E5900/V/20/3245430 & Ms Kelly Ryder APP/E5900/V/20/3245432 The Planning Lab Somerset House South Wing London WC2R 1LA 13 May 2021 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 – SECTION 12 APPLICATIONS MADE BY RAYCLIFF WHITECHAPEL LLP THE BELL FOUNDRY, 32-34 WHITECHAPEL ROAD, 2 FIELDGATE STREET, AND LAND TO THE REAR, LONDON E1 1EW APPLICATION REFS: PA/19/00008 & PA/19/00009 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC, who held a public local inquiry between 6 and 28 October 2020 into your client’s applications for planning permission and for listed building consent for the part retention of B2 land use (foundry) and internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building to provide new workshops/workspaces (B1 land use) and café (A3 land use) at ground floor; external alterations to listed building to raised roof of hayloft building and create a new link building; and demolition of unlisted 1980s building and wall to rear; erection of building along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street with hotel (C1 use) with ancillary members and guest uses in part 5, 6 and 7 storeys with 2 storeys of basement, with restaurant/bar (A3/4 uses) at ground and mezzanine level and additional workspace (B1 use) on ground and first floors; roof plant, pool, photovoltaics, waste storage, cycle parking, public realm improvements and associated works, in accordance with application ref: PA/19/00008 & PA/19/00009, dated 22 December 2018. 2. On 22 January 2020, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that your client’s applications be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the applications should be approved and that planning permission and listed building consent be granted. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 43594 Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 5. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons set out at IR1.9 and 12.2-12.9 that any grant of listed building consent should be on the basis of “Internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building and external alterations to listed building including roof replacement works and provision of new rainwater disposal system, insertion of new windows to blocked openings; raising roof of hayloft building; creation of new link building; demolition of vaulted chamber below the ‘1980s building’; and erection of hotel along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street.” Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 6. At the time of the Inquiry, the development plan included the 2016 version of the London Plan. The 2021 London Plan was adopted on 2 March. Relevant policies of the (then) emerging Plan were considered by the Inspector at the Inquiry. He concluded that Policy HC1: Heritage Conservation and Growth, the now current policy, did not pull in an identifiably different direction from the corresponding policies 7.4, 7.8, and 7.9 of the 2016 London Plan (IR5.25). The Secretary of State does not consider that the adoption of the new London Plan raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on the applications, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. 7. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex B. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 8. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9. In this case the development plan consists of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031: Managing Growth and Sharing Benefits; the Tower Hamlets 2031: Adopted Policies Map, both adopted in January 2020; and the London Plan (March 2021). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR5.8, and also London Plan Policy HC1: Heritage Conservation and Growth. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the documents referred to at IR5.26. 11. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or 2 their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 12. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Main issues Harmful elements of the proposals for the Listed Building The Question of Use 13. For the reasons given at IR12.20-12.23, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the baseline for consideration of the proposals is a largely vacant Grade II* listed building that formerly housed traditional bell founding and associated operations (IR12.23). He further agrees, for the reasons given in IR12.24-12.29, that while the end of traditional bell making on the site has certainly caused some harm, that harm is very clearly less than substantial, and nothing whatsoever to do with the proposals at issue (12.26); and that there is no harmful impact as a result of the proposals in use terms (IR12.29). Physical works to the listed building 14. For the reasons given at IR12.30-12.44, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the physical changes in the listed building, through the removal of historic fabric, and the introduction of contemporary features, will cause a degree of harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, and its significance (IR12.42). He further agrees that viewed in isolation, the harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset would be very much at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial (IR12.44). The Conservation Area and the Setting of the Listed Building The1980s building and the Hotel 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR12.45-12.48 that the removal of the 1980s building would cause no harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed building, provided of course that what replaces it is appropriate in terms of its scale form and design (IR12.48). 16. In that regard, for the reasons given at IR12.49-12.53, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed hotel would have an appropriate form that despite its height would sit comfortably against the Bell Foundry, that it would address the street in an appropriate manner, and that its detailed design is subtle and pleasingly understated (IR12.52). He further agrees that the inclusion of a gantry and a bell on the roof of the part of the hotel nearest to the junction with the Bell Foundry, seems an appropriate reference to the former use of the site (IR12.52) and that, overall, the proposed hotel would enhance 3 both the character and the appearance of the conservation area, and the setting of the Bell Foundry as a listed building (IR12.53). Reinstating a Use in the Bell Foundry 17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.54 that bringing back activity to the building would enhance the character of the conservation area, and thereby its significance. Heritage Benefits 18. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.55 that the enhancement the proposals would bring to the character and the appearance of the conservation area, and the setting of the listed building, are significant heritage benefits. He concludes that this is a matter that attracts considerable importance and weight. 19. In respect of the listed building, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR12.56-12.65 that the proposals would result in a series of benefits, including extensive repair and maintenance work which would go a long way towards securing the long-term future of the listed building (IR12.56-57). The proposal would reintroduce foundry operations into the building in areas where traditional bell founding used to take place(IR12.58-12.62), and the provision of free public access to large parts of the ground floor of the building would reveal the significance of the building to a much wider audience (IR12.63).