Community news and investigative journalism for Wapping E1W and Tower Hamlets London

New Wapping school requirement forces St. George into London Dock re-think

By on January 3, 2013 in London Dock, London Dock school, News

Property development company St. George have been forced into re-thinking the development plans for the London Dock site by a possible requirement for a new Wapping secondary school on the site.

The requirement for the school may also mean that the development of the old News International site may now include higher buildings packed more densely.

Another secondary school for Wapping?

You have probably heard about that new school in Shadwell which for some crazy reason has the ‘Wapping’ word in it? Well apparently there might be another new Wapping secondary school which will actually be in Wapping!

You wait ages for one school to come along then two arrive at once

How wild and crazy is that? A Wapping school in Wapping? Whatever next?

But another new school does not come along without a catch.

A very big catch. Possible quite a few storeys high.

Long story short, it seems that as a preliminary step before the possible development of the old News International site by St. George , aka London Dock,  the proposal has to be considered within various development plans for our beloved borough of Tower Hamlets.

And one of the outcomes of this is that the Powers That Be think the London Dock development site might be a good place for a Wapping secondary school!

Titter ye not

Now obviously at this point you may want to burst out laughing at the thought of the poor St. George people’s nice models and profit and loss projections being absolutely stuffed by the need to accomodate a school, but this would be very rude.

So don’t laugh! No! No! Titter ye not!

According to the report there is ‘overwhelming demand for school places in the borough which is the fastest growing in the country’ and makes it clear that schools come before anything else.

Which seems cool to me.

Higher buildings packed in more densely?

In a press release St. George said that ‘the contents of this long awaited report have fundamental implications for the development proposals’ and they are postponing the meet they were going to have with our Community Liaison Group on the 17th of January.

The release also states that: ‘the Inspector recognises the significant impact it [ the school recommendation] will have on the development viability of the site and has noted that development density and height might have to be higher than envisaged.’

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Not laughing anymore are we?

So what this might mean is that Wapping gets a secondary school but at the price of the London Dock development being more high rise and more dense than any of those nice models we have seen.

External links (warning – Tower Hamlets site may generate jargon when read)

You can read the full report on the Tower Hamlets planning website here. But be warned, it is almost incomprehensible due to the use of jargon. And where is Fish Island?

London Dock Consultation website

 

 

 

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

There Are 9 Brilliant Comments

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Zoe says:

    When we went to the consultation St George / Taylor Patel were asked what their target number of homes were. They explicitly said that there was no target number of homes and their proposed structures (including their height) was purely the aesthetic design they thought was best for the site. They were pushed on this and they were adamant that there was no target number of units/homes.
    I am therefore confused as to why they are now suggesting that by adding a school they have to make the development higher/denser. If there was really no target number of homes surely they would just add the school and leave the rest the same as per the optimal aesthetic design they previously told us they were presenting to us.
    This makes me feel we were lied to at the consultation.

  2. Mummy Penguin says:

    I recall being told that the reaction to high rise was mixed depending on how near to the high rise people were. Obviously if the sunlight entering your property is going to be lessened you won’t be keen.

    The other thing that people said they appreciated about Wapping was that it was a “quiet” neighbourhood. The introduction of a new secondary school will impact on that as will increasing the number of residents. If you don’t have school age children you may be less likely to support the provision of a new school. A new school that provided facilities for the whole community and allowed people of all ages to mix with one another could help break down some of the stereotypes we all have about other people.

    My l hope is that St George will keep the proposals for open spaces and accessible through routes because that is what matters to me. I recognise that it is unlikely to happen because there are so many factors that need to be taken into account.

    The important thing is that we take the opportunities offered to express our views and to listen to those of others.

  3. Susshmm says:

    Wapping getting a secondary school in that location isn’t something to be applauded either IMO. The last thing those of us who live bang-slap next door need is hordes of teenagers roaming around the canal in their break times.

    • Mark Baynes says:

      So you would be happy with a school next to someone else’s property then? And where did you go to school? Somewhere out in the country miles from civilisation? Or were you tutored at home?

      • Susshmm says:

        Charming – are you always this sarky with respondents who don’t agree with you?
        I went to school in a country where they didn’t allow children off the premises at lunchtime, thereby ensuring the placement of a school in the middle of a residential area didn’t cause a problem for locals. I’ve lived close to secondary schools more than once and have had real problems with teens at lunchtimes.
        I would prefer that children were properly regulated during the school day, but in lieu of that I’d prefer that a secondary school was placed in a less densly populated residential area.

        • Mark Baynes says:

          Well if I feel like it I am. That’s the beauty of having full editorial control 🙂 If I really don’t like a comment I just delete it.

          It just baffles me when people who live in the middle of one of the biggest cities on the planet complain about it not being nice and peaceful. It’s like having a problem with traffic noise or people walking along the pavement.

  4. Jo Mitchell says:

    Knew it!! When I went to the 1st consultation I felt it in me waters that they’d find a way to make it more high-rise, coz that was the one over-riding concerns of us residents, and the blokey was going to great lengths to state that “no, it won’t be high-rise!” It was therefore obvious that it would be 🙁 (am I getting too cynical in my old age??)

    • Mark Baynes says:

      I don’t think you are being too cynical but I don’t think St. George want a secondary school there, think they would be happier without the school and less high rise. Who knows?

    • TJStamp says:

      strange… my memory of the process was that people overwhelmingly didn’t care about the proposed heights so long as the taller elements were suitable positioned within the site… ie along the boundry towards the highway.

Top