The Development Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Thursday 14 November 2019, with the meeting being filmed for broadcast. The committee considered two major planning applications. The first, for the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, was approved after a lengthy debate and a casting vote from the Chair. The second, for the William Brinson Centre on Arnold Road, was unanimously approved.

Whitechapel Bell Foundry Redevelopment

The committee approved plans for the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry site at 32-34 Whitechapel Road, 2 Philgate Street, and land to the rear. The approved scheme includes the retention of parts of the historic foundry for B2 and B1 land uses, including workshops and workspaces, alongside the construction of a 103-bed hotel with a restaurant and bar. The decision was made following extensive discussion and debate, with the Chair using their casting vote to break a 3-3 tie.

Objectors argued that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the heritage asset and that the site's optimum viable use should remain as a working foundry. They presented an alternative scheme by the UK Historic Building Preservation Trust and Factum Foundation, which aimed to revitalise bell-making with new technologies and traditional craftsmanship, alongside educational and research initiatives. Concerns were raised about the loss of a significant heritage asset and the potential for the site to become a Soho House or Groucho-style club.

Supporters of the application, including the applicant Raycliffe Capital and their architects, highlighted that the proposals were conservation-led, with light-touch works to the historic foundry. They emphasised the public benefits, including the provision of affordable workspace, public access to parts of the foundry, and the creation of approximately 185 jobs. They also pointed out that the site had permitted development rights that could lead to less sensitive uses if this application were not approved. Historic England supported the proposals, agreeing with the council's assessment that the harm to the heritage asset would be less than substantial.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion about the definition of harm to heritage assets and the concept of optimum viable use. Officers explained that the alternative scheme lacked sufficient detail regarding its deliverability and financial viability. The decision to approve was based on the assessment that the proposed development would provide significant public benefits and secure the long-term future of the listed building, with less than substantial harm to its heritage significance.

William Brinson Centre Redevelopment

The committee unanimously approved plans for the demolition of the William Brinson Centre at 3-5 Arnold Road and the construction of a new eight-storey and six-storey building. The development will provide 62 affordable dwellings and 398 square metres of B1 floor space, along with amenity space, parking, and landscaping. This application was identical to one previously approved in 2017, which was subsequently quashed by a judicial review.

Objectors raised concerns about the impact of the proposed buildings on daylight and sunlight for existing residents on Tomlins Grove, arguing that the development would cause unacceptable material deterioration. They also highlighted issues with the height and density of the development, stating it was out of character with the surrounding area, and criticised the lack of dedicated play space for older children.

The applicants and council officers presented detailed daylight and sunlight assessments, explaining that while some properties would experience reductions, these were considered within acceptable limits and not a major adverse effect. They argued that the development would optimise the site's housing potential and provide significant public benefits, including 100% affordable housing, with a mix of social rent and Tower Hamlets rents, and employment spaces. The design was considered to be of high quality and appropriate for the context, with materials that fit with the surrounding buildings. Conditions were to be attached to mitigate noise from the nearby railway lines and improve the public realm on Arnold Road.

The committee discussed the history of the judicial review and the steps taken to address the concerns raised. They also debated the definition of unacceptable material deterioration in relation to daylight and sunlight, and the balance between development benefits and impacts on existing residents. Ultimately, the committee found that the public benefits of the scheme, particularly the provision of much-needed affordable housing, outweighed the identified impacts.