Tower Hamlets Council's Strategic Development Committee has refused planning permission for a proposed purpose-built student accommodation development at 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, citing significant concerns over its impact on the local community and environment.
The committee unanimously voted against the plan, which proposed 520 bedspaces of student accommodation, with 50% designated as affordable. Key reasons for refusal included an over-concentration of student housing in the area, potential harm to community balance, and a lack of clear demonstration of need for the scale of development proposed. Councillors also expressed reservations about the affordability of the student accommodation and the absence of concrete agreements with universities for nominations.
Concerns were raised about the unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents,
specifically regarding the height and massing of the proposed building. Objectors highlighted that the development could lead to significant harm due to the loss of daylight and sunlight for existing residents, with projections indicating that 552 windows of Hampton Tower, that is 40%, will breach BRE guidelines.
The decision to refuse permission was deferred to allow officers to prepare a report detailing the reasons for refusal. These include a misused opportunity to deliver permanent homes,
unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents, and potential non-compliance with net-zero policies.
While the meeting information does not provide specific criteria for defining an 'over-concentration' of student housing, it was noted that there is existing student accommodation nearby, including Blythe Hill Court to the left of the photograph which is an 11 storey student accommodation building
and further student accommodation also to the west.
The officer's response to concerns about over-concentration stated that the assessment focused on whether the site was appropriate for student accommodation, noting that the site is designated as an opportunity area where such development is considered appropriate and that the local plan does not allocate the site for residential housing. The applicant noted that they had spent probably over ten years trying to achieve a housing scheme on the site
without success, suggesting a policy allowance for student accommodation on sites not allocated for permanent residential housing when other housing attempts have not come to fruition.
Regarding the scale of the development, the proposal was for 520 bedspaces. The applicant provided a letter from Queen Mary's University stating a demand for student accommodation and a commitment to taking on the affordable bedspaces, with plans for a nominations agreement. However, a councillor questioned the sufficiency of this letter and the timing of the nomination agreement, with officers clarifying that such an agreement would need to be in place before a decision was issued.
The council's affordability criteria for student accommodation involved providing 50% affordable bedspaces. The S106 agreement would need to secure these at a rental cost for the academic year equal to or below 55% of the maximum income a new full-time student studying in London could receive from the Government's maintenance loan. While the applicant stated they would provide 50% affordable rooms, a councillor raised concerns about the high rental costs in the commercial E1 postcode area, which can reach up to £1,600 to £2,000 in student accommodations.
Potential non-compliance with net-zero policies was also cited. The proposed development would deliver a 23% reduction beyond the Building Regulations baseline, falling short of the London Plan's 35% target and the Local Plan's 45% target. Compliance would require a greater on-site reduction or a higher carbon offset contribution. For comparison, the Energy Statement for the Standon House development indicated a Total CO2 emission reduction of 36%
and a carbon offset contribution of £253,650
to achieve net zero carbon development.
The committee voted unanimously not to accept the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission. The next steps involve awaiting a formal report from officers detailing the reasons for refusal, which will then be ratified at a further meeting. This process suggests the developer may have the option to revise the plan based on the formal reasons or consider an appeal.
Further details on the meeting agenda and public reports can be found in the Agenda frontsheet and Public reports pack for the Strategic Development Committee meeting.
