Planning Housing and Regeneration 

Tower Hamlets Town Hall 

160 Whitechapel Road 

London, E1 1BJ

OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION PA/25/01729 (77 MARSH WALL)

We, the 200+ undersigned residents of Hampton Tower and Harcourt Gardens (South Quay Plaza), One Park Drive, Pan Peninsula, Wardian, and other surrounding buildings within the Marsh Wall cluster who will be directly affected by the proposed scheme, strongly urge the authorities to reject the planning application PA/25/01729 for the proposed development at 77 Marsh Wall.

This application raises several important material considerations that will adversely affect the local area. It is crucial that decision-makers are fully aware of the negative consequences this development would bring to the community.

Our objections are as follows:

1. Overdevelopment, Building Density and Cumulative Impact
The proposal (54 storeys), located adjacent to Hampton Tower (68 storeys, Berkeley Group) and planned Berwick Tower (41 storeys, Berkeley Group), would result in a cluster of three super-tall residential buildings situated on an extremely narrow site area (approx. 90m x 50m) with severe development density, undermining the local area’s capacity to function effectively. There is no known precedent in London for three high-rise residential towers of comparable scale being located within a 20-metre radius of one another. The proposed arrangement constitutes an unprecedented level of density and overdevelopment. It is inconsistent with the principles of the London Plan (Policy D3 – Optimising site capacity through a design-led approach) and Tower Hamlets Local Plan Policies S.DH1 and D.DH7. The Council is urged to assess the cumulative impact of all nearby developments in this area rather than evaluating this particular proposal in isolation. 

The proposal is also inconsistent with the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 for Sub-Area 4 (Isle of Dogs), specifically section 4.6 for Marsh Wall West. The Local Plan requires new development in this area to: “Create a series of building scales with a well-articulated built form and skyline”, and “Avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, including overshadowing of adjacent sites either within the area or outside, particularly along the main routes of Marsh Wall.” This application fails on both counts. The clustering of three towers of near-identical height and massing does not deliver the varied building scale or articulated skyline required by the Local Plan. Instead, it results in a monolithic and visually oppressive wall of development that is entirely out of character with the intended hierarchy of building heights for Marsh Wall West.

2. Wind Tunnel Effect
Given the clustering of multiple tall buildings in such close proximity, this proposal will exacerbate the wind tunnel effect, creating uncomfortable conditions at street level. Similar issues have already been observed in nearby developments such as Aspen, Wardian, and Newfoundland, where tall building placement has intensified down-drafts and horizontal wind acceleration.

Moreover, the positioning of this tower directly alongside and at minimal distance from Hampton Tower will significantly alter local airflow patterns. The prevailing south-westerly wind will be channelled through the narrow gap between the buildings, effectively creating a funnel effect that increases wind velocity and pressure on one side of Hampton Tower. It is well established that a doubling of wind speed can increase pressure by a factor of four, meaning even small geometric misalignments can produce disproportionate wind loading effects.

This could result not only in severe pedestrian-level discomfort but also asymmetric wind loading on Hampton Tower, potentially amplifying its existing sway and vibration levels — an issue already reported by residents.

Under London Plan Policy D9 (Tall Buildings) and Tower Hamlets Local Plan Policy D.DH6, the developer must demonstrate through independent, wind-tunnel testing and microclimate assessment that the proposal will not cause adverse wind or structural effects on neighbouring properties or public spaces. In its current form, no such assurance has been provided.

3. Disability and Emergency Services Access
The extremely limited shared ground-level space between the three towers creates severe access constraints for residents, deliveries, and—most critically—emergency vehicles. The site is highly constrained, being bordered by water on two sides, which restricts vehicle movement and severely limits the space available for fire appliances to position, operate, and turn.

Under Approved Document B (ADB) Volume 1, Section B5 and Appendix D, fire appliances require:

a minimum 3.7-metre clear access route,
vehicle access to within 18 metres of every residential entrance,
sufficient hardstanding that supports high-reach appliances,
and clear manoeuvring space (including turning circles) to allow multiple vehicles to attend simultaneously.
Based on the extremely tight layout and limited hardstanding between the towers, it appears physically impossible for the London Fire Brigade to achieve compliant access to all three buildings at once. At best, only one tower could be serviced by large appliances at any given time. This represents a failure to meet basic fire appliance access requirements and places future residents at unacceptable risk.

This issue directly conflicts with:

London Plan Policy D5 (Inclusive Design) – requiring safe, inclusive access and evacuation for all users, including disabled residents.
London Plan Policy D12 (Fire Safety) – requiring developments to provide suitable and convenient emergency access and robust evacuation strategies.
London Fire Brigade’s 2023 Fire Safety Guidance for Planning – which emphasises that developments must not rely on single, constrained access points or create bottlenecks for emergency vehicles.
Moreover, the cumulative massing of the three towers exacerbates these risks. The close clustering may obstruct appliance positioning, restrict hose deployment, and compromise evacuation routes—outcomes that disproportionately affect disabled and vulnerable residents who depend on reliable, unobstructed access.

This configuration is incompatible with established London fire safety standards, inclusive design principles, and the safe operation of emergency services.

4. Loss of Light & Overshadowing
The height and proximity of the towers will cause major daylight and sunlight loss to lower and mid-level floors of surrounding residential buildings. Independent assessment should be undertaken in line with the BRE Guidelines (Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight), as referenced in London Plan Policy D6 (Housing quality and standards).

5. Overlooking & Loss of Privacy
At a separation of just 20 metres, this proposal would result in direct overlooking between neighbouring apartments, compromising residential privacy. This fails to meet the amenity expectations of Tower Hamlets Local Plan Policy D.DH8 (Amenity) and London Plan standards. This is also inconsistent with the local plan 2031 design principles 

6. Pedestrian Capacity
The proposed development will increase population density in an area where pedestrian and transport infrastructure are already at capacity. Tower Hamlets Council itself recognises that in the South Dock Bridge proposal:

“Significant new developments on the Isle of Dogs will generate crossing demand. The new Elizabeth line station (Crossrail) will attract more pedestrians from the area and there is a need to improve access to South Quay DLR station. The existing bridge (known as the Wilkinson Eyre Bridge) is approaching its capacity at peak times in terms of comfort levels.”

Given this, further high-density residential development without improved pedestrian crossings or additional bridge capacity is contrary to Policy D.TR4 (Sustainable travel) and D.TR2 (Improvements to public transport capacity) of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan.

7. Failure to Notify All Affected Residents
We would also like to note that a number of residents at 75 Marsh Wall did not receive any formal notification letter regarding this application, despite being directly affected as a neighbouring resident. This is contrary to Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, which requires local planning authorities to notify adjoining owners or occupiers of planning applications. We were only made aware of this proposal through a neighbour facing this tower, which raises procedural concerns about proper public consultation.

For all the reasons set out above — from overdevelopment and unsafe access constraints to daylight loss, compromised privacy, adverse wind conditions, and improper notification — we strongly urge the Council to refuse this application in its current form. This proposal must be revised to ensure full compliance with all applicable regulations and planning policies.