Never in my history as an observer in Tower Hamlets politics have I witnessed a planning committee that ignored the unanimous objections of its planning department, at the cost of potential millions to the Council. This also affects the health and well-being of school children.
Tower Hamlet’s Night of Infamy: 15th of January, The 101 Whitechapel Planning Application
Just before I flew to Italy for my Christmas break, I received a phone call from a concerned resident. They asked me to attend the planning committee meeting scheduled for January 15th, which was set to decide on the deferred application for 101 Whitechapel Road. The resident expressed serious concerns, having overheard conversations suggesting the committee may have been “compromised.”
Before I relay the substance of these allegations, I must stress that these are claims, not confirmed facts. According to the resident, agents of the offshore company that owns the site allegedly contacted Labour Councillor Abdal Ullah (Wapping), who then reached out to committee member Councillor Shubo Hussain (Bromley South). During the December committee meeting, Councillor Abdal Ullah reportedly attended and coordinated with Councillor Shubo Hussain and Aspire Councillor Amin Rahman (Bethnal Green West), a long-time acquaintance, to push for a deferral under the pretext of arranging a site visit. The resident concluded, “You can fill in the blanks from there.”
I assured the resident I would attend the January 15th meeting to observe the proceedings and determine whether there was any merit to his allegations. I attended alongside a local mother, who has a primary school-aged child in the area and was equally concerned about the potential negative impacts of the proposed office development.
In all my years observing Tower Hamlets Council, I have never witnessed such a farcical display. Each time committee members asked questions, the planning officer’s responses only underscored how deeply flawed this application was. To the astonishment of residents—more than 300 of whom had submitted objection letters—the Strategic Development Committee unanimously approved the application, with a ‘ceremonial’ abstention from the Chair.
This sequence of events lends circumstantial weight to the allegations made to me, raising serious questions about the integrity of the decision-making process.
A Planning Application that is bad for the Tower Hamlets Residents, Potentially Costing Millions
The planning application disregards all of Tower Hamlets’ planning policies, from the Local Plan to the Tall Building Policies, while also having a detrimental impact on a registered conservation area. It has received formal objections from Historic England and the Victorian Society. In essence, none of the policies established by Tower Hamlets Council were considered relevant. For example, the application previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council had a lower building height to the approved.
This decision did not take into account the monetary costs including the opportunity costs. The development could potentially cost the Council millions. There was no detailed Section 106 agreement, only vague “heads of terms” submitted by the developer. Additionally, the business continuity costs for Canon Barnett Primary School, which will face severe disruption, appear to be ignored. Once again, it seems the Council would bear these costs, amounting to millions.
Therefore the committee waived through costs of potential millions, with no meaningful planning gain to show for it. A community hall of 1,100 square feet was proposed by the developer and supported by Labour-supporting Independent Councillor Kabir Hussain (Spitalfields and Banglatown). However, as the planning officer pointed out, no specifics were provided regarding the intended tenant, tenure, rent, or planned activities. This lack of detail renders the ‘community’ aspect virtually meaningless.
Detriment to the Wellbeing of Children at Canon Barnett Primary School
In his summary, the planning officer emphasised the harmful impact on the primary school adjacent to the development. No special restrictions can be imposed on the development beyond the standard construction regulations, thereby highlighting the risks of noise pollution to their education and construction-related pollution to the children who play in the playground. Concluding, the development will pose greater risks to children’s health and will also penalise them with a smaller, like-for-like replacement playground.
Tower Hamlets for Sale?
What the planning decision for 101 Whitechapel reveals is a troubling reality. Like all residents, I was under the impression that in 2022, the electorate voted out a Labour administration and brought in an Aspire one. From this decision, however, it appears that, in reality, we have ended up with a toxic combination of the unsavoury elements within the local Labour Party and the controversial elements of the Aspire Party, creating the worst of both worlds (including a recipient of Private Eyes Rotten Borough 2024 Award).
As the planning decision regarding 101 Whitechapel demonstrates, potentially millions will be added to the costs borne by Tower Hamlets residents, while harmful risks will be inflicted upon local children in the Brick Lane area. It seems developers from across the globe can rest easy tonight, knowing that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is up for sale.
Recent Comments