[2024] UKUT 00146 (LC)

In support of its application to Newham, the appellant designed a notional development indicating one way in which the appeal site could be redeveloped at the valuation date.

As originally submitted to Newham, the notional development comprised a 58-metre tall, 18-storey tower on the corner of High Street and Sugar House Lane, a 3-storey terrace of housing extending along Sugar House Lane, and a stepped 5 to 8-storey building toward the south of the appeal site. During the exchange of evidence before the Tribunal, the notional scheme was modified to nullify any effect on the wider heritage assets beyond the Sugar House Lane Conservation Area by reducing the height of the taller building, increasing the 3-storey terrace to four storeys, with ground floor commercial space, and moving the residential three storeys out of flood risk. The development now comprises three elements:

The development would encompass 1,613 sqm of commercial floorspace within a flexible range of use classes on the ground and part first floors, and 82 residential units, of which 10% would be accessible and 35% would be affordable housing. There would be a residents’ communal open area. The total gross internal floor area is said to be 9,670 sqm. The respondent calculates 9,375 sqm but given our overall decision nothing turns on this.

As originally configured (with 18 storeys and only three storeys of residential in the middle block), the notional development would look something like this (with High Street along the top of the graphic and Sugar House Lane to the bottom right). The chimney of note has been relocated to the open area:

Before the Tribunal, the appellant also prepared five alternative options which can be summarised as:

The essential differences are that the ‘mid-rise’ and ‘lower-rise’ options have reduced the height of the tall tower at the northern end of the development to 13 and eight storeys respectively, whilst the ‘commercial uplift’ converts all of the southern five/eight-storey block to commercial use.

Despite issuing its “Nil” certificate, Newham now accepts there is a scheme of development which would be acceptable as Appropriate Alternative Development (“Newham’s version”) encompassing employment uses within three blocks, at a maximum height of six storeys (at 25.35m) on the part of the appeal site fronting Stratford High Street, and at no higher than three storeys (at a maximum of 13.20m) on the remainder of the site, encompassing in total 6,199 sqm gross internal area, and retaining the chimney of note in a relocated position.

Newham’s version looks like this (with High Street in the foreground and Sugar House Lane to the rear of the blocks):

Other than height, the essential differences are that the notional scheme and its variations are primarily residential in use, with an enclosed residents’ courtyard, surrounded by buildings, while Newham’s alternative is for wholly employment uses, in three separate blocks (one being six-storey and the other two being three-storey) with open areas between them.