113-home residential building at Royal Wharf Plot, Silvertown, London E16

What was proposed

The application proposed a part-two, part-eight and part-twelve-storey building containing 113 homes, an ancillary gym, parking, cycle spaces and landscaping.

“The purpose of this report is to set out the Officer recommendations to Strategic Development Committee regarding an application for planning permission relating to the following proposal.”

“Construction of a new building of part 2, part 8 and part 12 storeys comprising 113 residential units (Use Class C3); 99 sqm (GIA) of ancillary gym space; provision of blue badge parking spaces; cycle parking and associated hard and soft landscaping works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant, approximately 0.3-hectare plot forms part of the central Royal Wharf development and is currently used for ad hoc external storage.

“The application site is approximately 0.3 hectares and forms part of the central area of the Royal Wharf development. The plot is broadly square, level and fully remediated and is currently used for ad hoc external storage. The site forms part of Strategic Site S22 in the Local Plan.”

Officer report

Planning history

The wider scheme was approved in 2012, Plot 14B was separated from Plot 14A, and an earlier application was withdrawn after officer concerns.

“The wider Royal Wharf scheme was granted outline planning permission in March 2012 (refs: 11/00856/OUT and 11/00844/LTGOUT) for a residential-led mixed-use redevelopment of former industrial land. The masterplan is now substantially complete and largely occupied. The application site sits within the development parcel originally identified as Plot 14 in the masterplan.”

“Plot 14 was split into Plots 14a and 14b at Reserved Matters stage (ref. 15/01225/REM) to accelerate delivery of the ground‑floor leisure facility, with Plot 14a brought forward independently. Although Plot 14b formed part of the original masterplan, land assembly issues prevented its delivery at that time. As the Royal Wharf outline consent has now reached its maximum permitted housing numbers, Plot 14b must come forward through a new standalone planning application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement, because the proposal would provide housing and its adverse impacts would not outweigh its benefits.

“In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Officers have considered the planning application with regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to other material considerations including representations received from statutory and non-statutory consultees, and is satisfied that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions and compliance…”

“Applying the tilted balance, the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Statutory consultees generally raised no objection or requested conditions, while transport, education, flood risk, noise and design matters were addressed through conditions or obligations.

“Consultee: Environment Agency Date received: August 2025 & 12 February 2026 Summary of consultation response: No objection on flood risk grounds for the proposed clearance of the existing site and erection of a new mixed-used building. Satisfied that the developer has assessed the risk from a breach in the Thames tidal flood defences using the latest modelled tidal breach data.”

“Consultee: LBN Design & Conservation Date received: January 2026 Summary of consultation response: No objection subject to the following conditions and obligations. • Material Samples • Mock Ups • Detailed drawings • Windows and Doors Details • Items fixed to the façade • Rooftop Plant • Landscape Design • Play • Landscape Management Plan • Landscape Implementation • Lighting • Howells to be retained as architect/design certifier through the construction phase.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents objected to alleged misleading sales information, daylight and sunlight effects, overdevelopment, limited open space, infrastructure pressure, greening, separation distances and security.

“The Committee heard objections from local residents which included:”

“Mis selling concerns: Buyers advised that Plot 14B would remain green/open space and that the development of the area was complete • Sun/daylight Impact on primary school and nursery: Claims that daylight reduction could reach 47% and winter sunlight loss 70%.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The applicant’s team presented the scheme’s housing, affordable homes, transport, public realm, environmental benefits and relationship with the masterplan.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned affordable housing, family accommodation, green space and social housing, while the design review chair supported the revised separation and massing.

“The applicant explained the complexity of the scheme sold in phases and the transfer of school site. They advised that there was no intention of misleading • Committee raised strong concerns about low affordable housing vs. policy expectations. Applicant emphasised viability constraints due to rising construction costs and choosing to focus on delivering social rent to be genuinely affordable. Late-stage review proposed • Blue badge parking meeting London Plan obligations.”

“Members commented that many schemes rely on nearby parks rather than providing onsite provision, and expressed disappointment at insufficient social housing, limited family accommodation and inadequate green space proposed in the application.”

Minutes

The vote

Three members voted for approval and one voted against; two councillors did not vote because they were absent for the full discussion.

“There being no further discussion, the Chair moved to the recommendation.”

“Councillors Terry Paul and Shaban Mohammed did not vote on the application as they were not present for the entirety of the discussion.”

Minutes