Bishopsgate Goodsyard: controversy lingers

So what happens next at Bishopsgate Goodsyard? A mighty row? Perhaps a change of joint venture partners? Some compromises? Almost certainly a public inquiry.

Redeveloping the 10.4-acre Shoreditch site was never going to be short of challenges. Today, with developers Hammerson and Ballymore deep in talks with Hackney and Tower Hamlets councils, it looks tougher than ever.

Since a fire destroyed the station in 1964 the site – hidden behind a high wall, viaducts and much of it on an elevated plinth – has defied redevelopment. But as one of the largest single undeveloped areas in central London it was never going to be allowed to lie fallow forever.

This month discussions with planners ahead of decisions on the planning application submitted last October reach a head. After consultations in 2013 and 2014, the Terry Farrell masterplan, developed in collaboration with PLP Architecture, FaulknerBrowns Architects, Chris Dyson Architects and Spacehub + Friends, has been modified to include 1,464 homes, 594,000 sq ft of offices, and 215,000 sq ft of retail. There will also be 5.4-acres of public space, including a 2.4-acre elevated park.

The developers insist everything is going well on the £800m scheme. Once the sharp edges of their planning application have been smoothed to meet the needs of statutory consultees such as Transport for London, it will be all systems go. They hope for a decision by the summer.

But behind the optimism are some big questions about viability, tall buildings, social housing, Network Rail’s plans, and the long-term commitment of Hammerson to a predominantly residential and office property project that does not sit well in its retail portfolio.

There are also very vocal local opponents who claim the developers mishandled the consultation by using the 2010 interim planning guidance (IPG) to justify building tall, but ignored its requirement for affordable housing.

Rebecca Collings of local campaign group More Light More Power says: “The IPG was used as both a sword and a shield: where it suited the developer’s agenda it was invoked as a given; where it did not suit, it became a red herring.”

As the application edges through the planning process ahead of a summer decision, tempers are becoming frayed.

Is there scope for compromise with objectors? Maybe. Ballymore and Hammerson are expected to give ground on the extent of social or affordable housing and there is likely to be a modest reduction in the height of some of the towers. It is possible – but given site and cost constraints, not very likely – that some mid-rise space may be exchanged for the towers as part of a redistribution of floorspace that could increase overall totals but reduce densities in some locations.

This month, as behind-the-scenes talks with planners move towards conclusion, Hammerson and Ballymore will be deciding what to do next. It will be a long fight with a planning inquiry or call-in all but certain. The 50-year story of redeveloping Bishopsgate Goodsyard isn’t over yet – not by a long way.

Challenge #1
Social and affordable housing

Hackney and Tower Hamlets both have long council house waiting lists and high housing need. Tower Hamlets wants 35% affordable housing on qualifying sites; Hackney aims for 50%. The 2010 planning guidance for the site says 35%. Yet the Bishopsgate Goodsyard developers are offering just 10%, and only on the Tower Hamlets part of the site. Hackney will get a payment in lieu. The developers cite viability issues as their reason.

Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, has voiced objections, and she is not alone.
Jon Weston, senior development manager at Ballymore, says: “We’re at the start of a process and we are negotiating to move things forward, but we are clear on our starting point.”

If the protest campaign builds up a head of steam, Hammerson and Ballymore could follow the example of US private equity firm Westbrook Partners. Its plan to redevelop Hackney’s 96-unit New Era estate came to grief at the end of an 18-month battle. Protests from residents about loss of affordable housing – and a celebrity campaign backed by comedian Russell Brand – led to Westbrook selling the estate to the Dolphin Square Charitable Trust.

Challenge #2
Tall buildings

The prospect of tall buildings looming over low-rise Georgian and Victorian streetscapes has caused outrage.

Six towers are planned for the site, including ones of 46 and 42 storeys.

The developers have already cut their height from 54 and 52 storeys, and maybe more will be sliced off before the planning process is complete. Even so, objectors are unlikely to be placated, arguing that they are unsuitable in an area of predominantly historic low-rise buildings.

Christopher Costelloe, director of the Victorian Society, says: “Taking a few storeys off the top would not make much visual impact, and our objection is fundamental. Tall buildings should not be on a site overlooking Spitalfields.”

Meanwhile, the planning regime is beginning to harden on tall buildings, potentially threatening the developer’s political cover. New London Architecture’s claim that 230 skyscrapers are now in the pipeline helped to encourage the London Assembly to vote unanimously to call on mayor Boris Johnson to rethink his approach and appoint a “skyline commission” to get a grip on the issue.

The developers say they have to go up because only 30% of the site can take foundations – and they say the existing planning guidance gives them backing.

“Tower 42 is nearby, so there is obviously a context for tall buildings in the area, so we’ve gone for slim, elegant towers and we reckon we have the density right,” says Ballymore’s Jon Weston.

Objectors say the developers have got it wrong. Rebecca Collings from More Light More Power says: “An alternative medium-rise scheme has been tabled. While limited areas of the site are foundationable, a different engineering technique of rafting the railway lines could accommodate a medium-rise scheme.”

Challenge #3
Network Rail

The Bishopsgate Goodsyard site is criss-crossed by existing and defunct railway lines, both above and below ground. Part of the site is already reserved for widening tracks into Liverpool Street, but could it be the site of a new London terminus station? A Network Rail consultation, launched in November 2014 to examine options for the period 2019-2024, floats the idea.

Confronted with alternatives that seem unlikely to meet projected capacity need up to 2043, a new terminus on part of the site cannot be dismissed.

The Ballymore/Hammerson statement says: “While Network Rail is the landowner of the former Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Ballymore and Hammerson, through their joint venture, have the development rights to regenerate the site.”

Initial consultation on the Network Rail document ends this month.

Challenge #4
Hammerson bail-out?

The largely office and residential Bishopsgate Goodsyard scheme sticks out like a sore thumb in Hammerson’s retail portfolio.

Kate Renn, real estate analyst with city stockbrokers Peel Hunt, knows what she thinks will happen next. “It’s too early for them to say, but we’re expecting them to sell out of Bishopsgate Goodsyard once they’ve got planning permission, but keep an interest in the retail element,” she says.

Hammerson assistant development director Rob Allan declines to speculate on corporate decisions but points out: “We still have a good skill set for office development, and mixed-use is already part of our work at Brent Cross, Cricklewood and in the joint venture with Westfield at Croydon.”

And a statement by Hammerson says: “The jv remains absolutely committed to continuing to engage with all stakeholders to deliver a scheme that maximises benefits to the community and contributes to the important growth of London.”