The Queen (on the application of The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morris |
| Judgment Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2262 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4336/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
and
[2022] EWHC 2262 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morris
Case No: CO/4336/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Richard Harwood QC (instructed by Hodge, Jones and Allen) for the Claimant
Isabella Tafur (instructed by Legal Services, London Borough of Tower Hamlets) for the Defendant
Timothy Corner QC and Yaaser Vanderman (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 June 2022
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on Wednesday 31 st August 2022.
Introduction
By this application for judicial review, the Spitalfields Historic Building Trust (“the Claimant”) challenges the decision dated 10 November 2021 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Defendant”) to grant Old Truman Brewery Limited (“the Interested Party”) planning permission for the redevelopment of the Old Truman Brewery site at Brick Lane and Woodseer Street, London E1 (“the Decision”). Following a resolution of the Defendant's Development Committee (“the Development Committee”) at its meeting on 14 September 2021 (“the September Meeting”), the planning permission was granted on 10 November 2021.
The Claimant contends that the Decision was unlawful for three reasons, in summary: exclusion of Committee members from voting; prohibition of public speaking at the September Meeting; and failure to have regard to relevant policies in a draft neighbourhood plan. The grounds are set out in full at paragraph 84 below. The Defendant resists the application, supported by the Interested Party.
The Factual Background
The Development: the application for planning permission
In May 2020 the Interested Party applied for planning permission for the redevelopment of land at the junction of Woodseer Street and Brick Lane to deliver a mixed-use scheme comprising office, retail, gym and restaurant uses (“the Application”). The Application was in respect of the following:
“Redevelopment at 140, 146 Brick Lane and 25 Woodseer Street, London, E1 6RU to include erection of a part five storey office building (Class B1) plus rooftop plant with ground floor and first floor commercial units (Class A1/A3) and two storey basement for provision of plant, servicing, storage and a gym (Class D2) (140 Brick Lane – Plot S1), linked to the reconfigured ground floor of the adjacent building and provision for commercial units (Class A1) (146 Brick Lane — Plot H), refurbishment and two storey extension of the adjacent building (25 Woodseer Street — Plot S2) for office use (Class B1) with ground floor commercial unit (Class A3), plus rooftop plant and external landscaping”
There were 7,051 objections to the Application, including from the Claimant, in a letter dated 7 January 2021. The principal objections included concerns about the introduction of large companies to the development, creation of a shopping mall, effect on local businesses, gentrification, community cohesion, proposed land uses on the site, impact to local character and businesses, concerns of design and scale causing harm to heritage assets, obscuring of the views of the Truman's chimney, amenity impact to neighbouring residents including daylight and sunlight impact to Woodseer Street, and the lack of a development brief for the wider estate.
The Development Committee meeting on 27 April 2021
The Application was reported to the Development Committee meeting on 27 April 2021 (“the April Meeting”) with an officer recommendation for approval.
The April Report
The Officer's Report for the April Meeting (“the April Report”) ran to over 60 pages and explained that the site was part of a wider estate in the same ownership that had gradually regenerated into a creative and commercial hub, involving many small and independent businesses (paragraph 1.2). It described the area around the Application site to the south, west, north and east – in detail and in terms similar to Local Character Area B in the draft Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan (“the Draft Plan”) (see paragraphs 76 et seq below). It summarised the representations that had been received, including the Claimant's objection (at paragraphs 5.39 to 5.42). An objection from the East End Preservation Society was reported as an “objection on grounds of prematurity given lack of site-wide development brief and draft status of the Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan” (paragraph 5.26).
Section 6 of the April Report identified key development plan policies in the Tower Hamlets Local Plan and the London Plan, and in particular the policies relating to design and heritage, namely the Local Plan policies S.DH1, D.DH2, S.DH3 and London Plan policies D2–9 (see paragraphs 72 to 75 below)
As regards the Draft Plan, the April Report stated (at paragraph 6.7) as follows:
“The Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan is currently being prepared for the Spitalfields area; and includes the application site. Regulation 14 consultation was carried out from July to September 2020 which is the first stage of consultation. Regulation 16 consultation, the second stage of consultation, was held from January to February 2021. The neighbourhood plan was submitted for independent examination in early March 2021. The Neighbourhood Plan at this stage is considered to have low to moderate material weight in planning decisions.”
The April Report contained a very detailed appraisal of the design and impact on the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area. From paragraphs 7.26 to 7.58, it addressed the design. At paragraph 7.26 it noted that the development plan policies require high-quality design that reflected local context and character and provide attractive places that safeguard, and where possible, enhance the setting of heritage sites. At paragraph 7.58, the April Report stated its “design conclusion”:
“To conclude, the proposal would respond appropriately to the positive aspects of the local context; re-introducing and setting back the building line on Woodseer Street to repair the urban fabric; and significantly improving the attractiveness of the public realm in this location. The proposal development is well considered design of a high architectural quality, well proportioned and designs out opportunities for crime. As such, the proposal is compliant with the Development Plan in this regard.”
Paragraphs 7.59 to 7.84 addressed “Heritage”, stating, in particular:
“7.59 Development Plan policies require proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings to conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Policy S.DH3 requires development to protect and enhance the borough's conservation areas including their setting.
Heritage context
7.60 The site is situated within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; and there are statutory listed brewery buildings in close proximity to the site….
…
7.65 In terms of scale, the appraisal states: ‘ Brick Lane is made up of narrow frontage, 19th century shopfronts in buildings of 2, 3 and 4 storeys. The rest of the area is predominantly low-rise, of 3 to 4 storeys. This low-rise character emphasizes the landmark value of Christ Church Spitalfields… and of the chimney of Truman's Brewery. Both of these features act as focal points for views and important points of reference, making it easier for visitors to find their way around’.
Impact of the proposed development
7.69 As noted in the design section, the scale of the proposed Building S1 is of a scale in keeping with other brewery buildings to the north and west, namely Building H and Building F. The CA appraisal makes reference to the ‘larger scale’ of the brewery buildings in relation to the wider context; and as show in Figure 13 above, Building S1 is only visible from the setting of the listed brewery buildings to a minor extent.
…
7.71 In this regard, the stepping down of the proposal towards Woodseer Street, and in particular the lower scale of the properties on the southern side of Woodseer Street, is considered to provide an appropriate transition which successfully mitigates between the scale of Woodseer Street and the taller brewery buildings to the north.
7.72 While it is noted that the proposed built form on the corner of Brick Lane and Woodseer Street, is greater than that historically existing, namely the Black Eagle Tap PH, it is considered that the expression of the building form towards the corner is an appropriate response in townscape terms, matching the height of Building H and Building F to the north and west, and is therefore not unduly dominant for such a location.
7.73 The two storey extension to Building S2, to create a 5 storey building, is considered appropriate in the context of the set back ‘Block J’ industrial building, also part of the Truman's Estate, on the opposite side of Woodseer Street, as well as the adjacent 5 storey residential block on the corner of Woodseer Street and Spital Street.
7.74 Overall, the scheme would regenerate a vacant car-park site and high blank wall; and would introduce a strong corner feature building at the junction of Woodseer Street and Brick Lane. New active frontage, paving and street trees across the site would significantly improve the quality of the public realm in and around the site, which is currently degraded from the presence of the aforementioned wall.”
( emphasis added)
In relation to the views of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial