Tower Hamlets Council's Development Committee has granted planning permission for a two-storey roof extension to the Theatre Building at 1 Paton Close, which will add nine new homes to the borough. The decision, made by a majority of four votes to one, followed a discussion that highlighted concerns from objectors regarding waste storage, cycle parking, and the lack of affordable housing provision.
Despite these concerns, planning officers recommended approval, citing the proposal's optimisation of development potential on a sustainable site and its contribution to housing delivery targets. The design was deemed acceptable in terms of height, scale, and appearance, with minimal impact on heritage assets. Assessments indicated compliance with residential amenity, daylight, and sunlight guidelines.
Objectors, including leaseholders Owen Fox and Stuart Robinson, raised significant issues. Fox described the current bin store as full and inaccessible, and argued the proposed new bins would be difficult to empty. He also questioned the practicality of the proposed cycle ramp, stating it did not comply with Transport for London (TfL) standards. Robinson echoed concerns about bin storage and cycle parking, adding worries about the building's structural integrity and potential amenity impacts during construction.
Regarding the cycle ramp, objectors stated it was impractical and did not meet TfL standards. TfL's primary concerns were potential impacts during construction on Fairfield Road's bus stop and operations, and the route to the new podium cycle parking. They did not consider a wheeling channel on an existing staircase
satisfactory for access. However, the council's highways officers were satisfied with the proposed solution, which included a ramp alongside a staircase. The applicant's agent clarified that TfL typically does not comment on such applications unless there are strategic impacts, and that their detailed comments were likely prompted by concerns about the bus stop. The assessment was ultimately left to the council's highways team.
Councillor Iqbal Hossain expressed concern about the absence of listed building consent for façade restoration in this application, compared to a previous one, and questioned the preservation of the building's frontage. The officer responded that listed building consent was not required as the proposed works did not necessitate it. The applicant's agent further clarified that separate listed building consent had been granted earlier in the year for changes to the fenestration of the Bow House building, and those works were underway. The proposed façade restoration includes re-rendering, painting existing window frames and balustrades, repointing brickwork, and replacing the existing render system with Class A1 or A2 fire-rated material.
Councillor Shenaly Miah raised concerns about the impact of the new residential use on existing tenants, including noise and servicing disruptions. Officers acknowledged that construction activities would inevitably cause short-term noise and disturbance, but stated that safeguards like a construction management plan and code of construction practice were in place. For the operational phase, the council's assessment concluded that the impacts on highways, overlooking, daylight, sunlight, and waste management were acceptable in planning terms and would not unduly affect the amenity of existing or surrounding occupiers. Mitigation strategies include a Construction Environmental Management & Logistics Plan
and S61 Restrictions on Demolition and Construction Activities
secured by condition, along with a pre-commencement condition requiring a waste management plan.
Councillor Hossain also voiced her objection due to the lack of affordable housing, noting that the nine units did not trigger the requirement for on-site affordable housing, which she felt did not align with the Local Plan's prioritization of genuinely affordable housing. In response, the development will include a financial contribution of £622,337.34 towards affordable housing, to be secured via a Section 106 agreement. This sum, calculated using the council's small sites calculator, will be used by the council to deliver its own affordable housing initiatives.
Objectors also raised concerns about the structural integrity of the building to support two additional floors, with one stating that the building's capability was unknown. The report clarifies that Building Control Regulations, which cover structural integrity and safety, would be required prior to construction. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was consulted and is content with the proposal in relation to fire safety, although detailed fire safety measures, including the final specification and design of the sprinkler system and associated infrastructure, will be developed and confirmed through the subsequent detailed design and BSR Gateway 2 process. The BSR is responsible for approving these measures. Concerns about space for future water tanks and pumps associated with the sprinkler system were also noted, with the arrangement to be confirmed during the detailed design phase.
Furthermore, a condition was proposed to ensure that cladding remediation works would be completed before the development commenced, addressing concerns about fire safety and the building's existing cladding issues. Councillor Hossain noted that a separate lawful development certificate application had been approved, allowing for the cladding to be replaced without needing planning permission. The condition ensures that the extension development will not proceed until these cladding works are finished.
The applicant's agent, Andrew Mills, stated that the number of units was a design consideration and that the development would make effective use of existing buildings.
For further details on the development, refer to the Public reports pack for the Development Committee meeting on 1st September 2026.
