Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Could West End Green set precedent for high-rise projects?

Is the decision to grant planning approval to Berkeley Homes’ West End Green scheme likely to set a precedent for other high-rise developers?

Last month Westminster City Council approved Berkeley Homes’ controversial West End Green development next to the Paddington Green police station after eight storeys were lopped off the scheme’s tower.

Berkeley first submitted its application to redevelop the 1.1 ha site on Edgware Road in December last year. A revised application followed in February that included a reduction in the height of the main tower in the Squire & Partners’ scheme to 30 floors.

In April Westminster granted consent to the mixed-use development and Berkeley is hoping to start work on it in the summer.

Sky’s the limit?

The height reduction seems to have been crucial to shoe-horning the proposal into the underlying planning policy.

Westminster’s policy, against which all planning applications have to be assessed, is clear that there is limited scope for ‘tall’ buildings anywhere in the borough.

This is with the exception of a single tower identified in the Westminster City Plan to anchor the Paddington Opportunity Area – the already-consented 1 Merchant Square scheme, nicknamed the ‘Cucumber’.

Most people would consider a 30-storey tower to be a tall building. However, the High Buildings Study Westminster undertook in 2000, which informed its subsequently emerging policy, described tall buildings as those above 25-30 storeys.

“It is clear that there is no policy basis for anything above 30 storeys and if Berkeley had proceeded with its original application it would have been difficult for Westminster to agree to it”

While there have been applications for towers that exceed that (notably Irvine Sellar’s 72-storey headline-grabbing ‘Paddington Pole’) no consents have been granted in Westminster for anything above 30 storeys other than the Cucumber.

It is clear that there is no policy basis for anything above 30 storeys and if Berkeley had proceeded with its original application it would have been difficult for Westminster to agree to it.

While cited in Berkeley’s application, the Paddington Pole scheme was withdrawn in February and it seems likely that a significantly revised scheme will be put forward that comprises a much lower and wider tower.

New precedent

A height of 30 storeys seems fairly arbitrary and West End Green has been met with strong opposition despite the height reduction.

The Skyline Campaign led by architect Barbara Weiss lobbied for a height reduction to 25 storeys. While this seems equally arbitrary, their claim that the grant of permission will set a precedent for further towers in Westminster is more significant.

“There are existing high buildings in the Paddington area which may justify others in design terms, although nothing apart from the Cucumber currently gets close to 30 storeys”

Westminster’s policy acknowledges that there may be the potential for further development in Paddington that is characterised by taller and large-scale buildings. This development would need to be justified in a number of different contexts – not least that it must fit into the local townscape.

There are existing high buildings in the Paddington area which may justify others in design terms, although nothing apart from the Cucumber currently gets close to 30 storeys.

While each scheme is assessed on its own merits, it does follow that the higher the existing buildings the higher the new development can go. A new 30-storey tower can only add a significant amount of fuel to that fire.

Some negative environmental impact with tall buildings – overshadowing and daylight reduction, as well as aesthetic consideration – is inevitable. These are taken into account by local authorities and weighed up against the benefits of the proposed development.

Clustered together

In the case of West End Green, taking a vacant site that has been considered an eyesore for 30 years and replacing it with a scheme providing jobs and much-needed housing (including affordable housing), together with a significant package of other public benefits, will have made the case for refusal that much harder.

It is not lost on local authorities that the test for affordable housing provision is based on viability and the more money that can be made from a scheme the more affordable housing the developer can be expected to provide. High-rise, high-density residential development can directly translate into more affordable housing.

Of course there is a balance to strike between the benefits and disadvantages that follow from high-rise development and it is the job of the planners to make sure they get that balance right.

The precedent emerging in Paddington could see a clustering of high buildings that might eventually lead to the policy boundaries being pushed beyond 30 storeys.

This is not the case in the remainder of the borough, however, and given the race to the clouds taking place in other parts of London, Westminster’s position overall seems to be conservative in comparison.

Jason Tann is head of commercial real estate at Pemberton Greenish

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.