• The new Local Plan and tall buildings
• Bow Wharf redevelopment – Information Commissioner’s decision over Canal and River Trust’s refusal to share key heritage report.
• Update on proposals for Donnybrook Quarter
Draft New Local Plan and Tall Buildings
The current Local Plan adopted in 2020 identifies five zones (A–E) suitable for tall buildings.
• The new draft Local Plan proposes a sixth zone (Zone F), covering all other areas deemed suitable for tall buildings. This zone would allow buildings up to 70m tall, significantly expanding the scope for high-rise development.
• The definition of a tall building has also changed—from being relative to surrounding structures to a fixed height of 30m or more, aligning with the London Plan
Following a review of the Draft New Local Plan the Council prepared new evidence and made some minor changes to address objections raised by the Greater London Authority and Historic England. Some of these objections related to the policy for tall buildings and the proposed new, extensive zone F.
The proposed Zone F is the mauve areas in the figure below.
The draft New Local Plan for the borough will be considered at the full Council meeting on 19th November. A decision will be made whether or not to submit the plan to the Secretary of State to appoint an independent examiner. The examiner’s job will be to assess the submitted plan to determine if it is sound and complies with legal and procedural requirements.
A petition to the Council opposing the introduction of the extensive zone F for tall building is being set up and we will share details when live.
You can find out more about the subject of tall buildings and the new Local Plan in the article here.
Bow Wharf: Information Commissioner’s Office issues decision notice.
In January 2025 the Forum requested the Canal and River Trust (CRT) to provide a copy of the heritage report they said was the basis for their current proposals for Bow Wharf.The request was made under under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
The Trust responded on 25 February, stating that it did not hold the report requested. Following a request for an internal review, the CRT upheld its original response, writing on 11th March:
‘In response I can confirm that there was a Heritage Assessment undertaken by H2O Urban and is held by H2O Urban. It is not held by, on behalf of, the Trust. Therefore the Trust:
(a) Does not hold the document, and
(b) Is not obliged to make arrangements for H2O Urban to disclose it. H2O Urban is a separate legal entity not subject to the EIR.’
The Trust has a 50% stake in the partnership H20 Urban, the other partner being a property development company called bloc. H20 Urban carried out the previous phase of development at Bow Wharf.
The Forum then complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who investigated the matter and issued a decision notice on 23rd October.This stated that after further searches the Canal and River Trust had ‘advised that, contrary to what it had twice told the complainant, it did hold a copy of the requested information.’
The Commissioner’s position was: ‘The information in question is a report which provides information and details of the heritage significance of Bow Wharf. It confirms that the area falls within the Regent’s Canal conservation area, and lays out a number of heritage assets which may be affected by the proposed development.’
The decision notice went on to say: ‘Given the content of the requested information, that it provides details of the heritage significance of Bow Wharf in relation to its development, the Commissioner’s view is that it is held by the Trust for the purposes of the EIR because it is related to the Trust’s statutory functions to promote sustainable development and protection and conservation of sites of historic interest.
The Commissioner accepts that the Trust may not be expected, or required, to take any action based on the report. However, he is of the view that there is a clear link between the requested information and the functions of the Trust.
This is because the Trust has confirmed that it has a financial interest in the project linked to the report and that it expects to receive income from this project. It can be assumed that this income will be used to support the Trust, including its statutory functions.
Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by the Trust for the purposes of the EIR.
He requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a fresh response to the request, on the basis that the requested information is held by the Trust for the purposes of the EIR. That response should either disclose the requested information, or else state why that information will not be disclosed.’
The Forum has contacted the Trust, reminding them that a new response is required within 30 days from 23rd October.
Reminder of the Canal and River Trust’s Proposals
The planning application was validated on 14th May and the Council’s internal target for a decision was 13th August. Details of the proposals can be read here.
The application will be considered by the Council’s Development Committee, but the project planning officer wrote to the Forum on 18th August saying: ‘No date has been set for committee as yet, however I will let you know once it has been confirmed.’
We will keep you updated. The planning application number is: PA/25/00557/A1
Donnybrook Quarter
In October we publicised the proposals from Clarion to replace existing double-glazed timber-framed windows and fully glazed external doors with high-specification double glazed uPVC units. One of the main reasons for Clarion wanting to use uPVC instead of timber is to reduce cyclical maintenance.
To date, no decision has been made over the proposals.
In response to a request for a building preservation notice (BPN) to be made (a temporary listing for 6 months), the Council responded by saying:
‘’We do agree that the estate has architectural merit. Constructed in 2006, it is of innovative design and has been influential in shaping thinking around using low rise high-density housing to create successful mixed neighbourhoods.
But in our view the estate does not meet the criteria applicable to buildings of special interest. In relation to paragraph 19 of the ‘Principles of Selection for Listed Building’, the building is less than 30 years old. It has yet to stand the test of time and does not demonstrate ‘outstanding quality’ (generally interpreted as being equivalent to Grade I or II*). As such we would not seek to serve a BPN in this instance.’
Pete Barber, the architect of Donnybrook has recently written: ‘If it does go further to be considered for listing, we would encourage decision makers to focus the protection on the project’s urban design, form and external appearance, but to be very very careful the protections do not do anything that makes it harder for Clarion to
maintain the buildings properly, and/or to address any workmanship or technical detailed design issues.’
The 20th Century Society has taken the matter up with the Council, and have requested an on-site meeting to discuss the idea of listing.
We will keep you updated
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can join the Forum on our website below, and contact us on the following email address:
Email: romanroadandbowndp@gmail.com