The Tower Hamlets Council Development Committee met to discuss a planning application for the redevelopment of the Genesis Cinema site on Mile End Road. The committee voted to refuse the application, citing concerns over heritage, design, residential amenity, and failure to provide sufficient affordable housing and cycle parking.

Here's a breakdown of the key discussion points:

Planning Application: 93-97 Mile End Road (Genesis Cinema)

The committee considered planning application PA/25/00516 for the demolition of the existing building at 93-97 Mile End Road, home to the Genesis Cinema, and the construction of purpose-built student accommodation with a replacement cinema. The recommendation from planning officers was to refuse the application, and the committee voted to refuse it.

Key aspects of the proposal included:

• Demolition of the existing five-screen cinema (946 seats)
• Construction of a four-to-eight storey building with 291 student rooms
• A four-screen replacement cinema (447 seats) in the basement
• Associated amenity space, parking, and landscaping

Arguments for Refusal:

• Heritage Concerns: The existing Genesis Cinema is considered a non-designated heritage asset within the Stepney Green Conservation Area¹. The committee agreed with the planning officer's assessment that the demolition would cause harm to the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings, including the Grade II listed terraces at Bellevue Place² and 107-113 Mile End Road³. Councillor Marc Francis said the council was being asked to pay too high a price towards potentially safeguarding the future of the cinema. > I think the officers report on this is really excellent i think it is balanced but over and over again it comes down um making it very clear of an adverse impact particularly in relation to their heritage the local heritage conservation area and also the um other grade two listed buildings nearby > Councillor Marc Francis
• Design Issues: The proposed building's height, scale, and massing were deemed inappropriate for the context, failing to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. The committee felt the design did not follow a design-led approach to optimise the site's capacity.
• Residential Amenity: The development was considered an unneighbourly form that would negatively impact the amenity of nearby residents, causing an undue sense of enclosure, overbearing impact, and loss of daylight, particularly at 99 Mile End Road⁴.
• Affordable Housing: The proposal did not include any affordable student accommodation or a nominations agreement with a higher education provider, conflicting with local and London Plan policies.
• Cycle Parking: The committee found the proposed short-stay cycle parking provision inadequate, given the site's constraints and the potential for conflict between vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians.
• Equality Impact Assessment: The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) identified potential negative impacts on seven protected characteristic groups due to the loss of the Genesis Cinema in its current form, with no guarantee that the replacement cinema would maintain the same community-focused approach.

Arguments in Support:

• Cinema's Future: The applicant, Mr Walker Hebron, argued that the redevelopment was the only way to secure the cinema's future, citing financial struggles and the need to adapt to the changing entertainment industry. He stated that without the redevelopment, the cinema would likely close. > it's quite simple if we um i know the uh the the the people over there have said that um there's no other way to do this or there are other ways to do this well no one has come up to me in two years and told me how else to do this my mum and dad went to the cinema if i could save the cinema without knocking it down i would do > Mr Walker Hebron
• Economic Benefits: Supporters highlighted the potential for job creation, investment in the cinema, and new student housing.
• Improved Accessibility: The new cinema would offer improved accessibility with lift access to all levels and dedicated wheelchair spaces.

Public Speakers:

• Nick Neve and Louise Price spoke in objection, raising concerns about the demolition, the scale of the development, and the impact on local residents' amenity.
• Mr Walker Hebron, the applicant, spoke in support, emphasising the cinema's financial difficulties and the need for redevelopment to ensure its survival.

Committee Discussion:

• Councillor Iqbal Hossain, Chair of Development Committee, acknowledged the need to balance the importance of the cinema with the concerns of local residents.
• Councillor Mufeedah Bustin expressed empathy for the applicant's situation but found it difficult to go against the officer's recommendation.
• Councillor Shafi Ahmed supported the officer's recommendation, stating that the development would cause serious harm to the conservation area and neighbouring residents.

Decision:

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the application, aligning with the officer's recommendation.

Other Matters

• The minutes from the previous meeting on 16 October 2025 were not approved and will be approved at the next meeting.
• The committee noted the recommendations and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.
• There were no deferred items to consider.