Tower @ 562 Mile End Road – Back again… No …and its gone away again! 10


On February 16th the Strategic Development Committee unanimously rejected the application for "Benjy Towers"
Then April 25th it came back with a little trim and the Strategic Development Committee sent it away again with 6 against & 2 abstentions

Work in progress - update to follow

On February 16th the Strategic Development Committee unanimously rejected the application for "Benjy Towers" on the 562 Mile End Road night club site.

On 25th April the SDC considered a slightly amended proposal which residents believe should also be rejected...... and it was 6 votes against and 2 abstentions

This building is still to tall for the Mile End area. It goes against LBTH DM26 policy on tall buildings.

It will set an unwelcome precedent for future developments in the area.

Reasons for refusal

  1. Height, bulk and massing and impact on townscape
  2. Density and overdevelopment of the site
  3. The servicing provision
  4. Loss of the community facility
  5. Design of the proposal
  6. Air Quality issues

The servicing provision

One small bay exists for delivery to the proposed for four commercial units. The residential development will need up to 7.5 x 1100 litre land fill bins and 8.5 x 1100 litre recycle waste bins. The image right shows where bins will be wheeled to for collection and deliveries made. Add a few Amazon and Tesco deliveries and we end up with a nightmare - up the junction at Mile End!

Can a suitable delivery and servicing plan be implemented and enforced to ensure the safety of other road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians?.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 thoughts on “Tower @ 562 Mile End Road – Back again… No …and its gone away again!

  • Alan Widdison

    Just another part of old London going for the sake of profit. No matter what Galliard are saying it’s for profit, end of. That facade is the one of the only remaining part of of Mile End, once it’s gone, it’s gone. It’s totally out of kilter with the area. I for one have opposed it on the grounds of the impact on the area. The whole idea of the Green Bridge is to have a nice walk without having to look at just another pile of overpriced rabbit hutches and hideous shop fronts. How about something for the community? Youth Club, Community Centre, something for older people, place of worship, indoor sports?? No…..let’s destroy Mile End for the sake of profit. Not only that Galliard/Bestzone Ltd have been a little liberal with the truth. The club on Wentworth Mews has been there for well over 30 years without any problem, this will be another part of history gone. (They forget to mention that!)

    Please don’t let them get away with it.

    • admin Post author

      Looks to be setting a dangerous precedent for the Mile End Road. CiL or 106 contribution towards an accessible underground entrance from a 7 storey building would be something I could go with – and adequate number of real affordable homes too.

    • Charles

      The regeneration will certainly modernise and lift mile end instead of destroying it. Mile end is traditionally known as an ugly, unsafe east London spot, with old and dirty council blocks and low income residents, an eyesore for many. The regeneration will bring the area back to life. If the “heritage” is old and filthy to the extent that it becomes an eyesore, it should be replaced by modern structure, which will become a greater heritage for future generations.

      • Mile End Resident

        I take it from your comment that you are obviously not somebody who lives in the area, does not know it well in recent times and have absolutely no idea how many blocks have been built in Mile End of in recent years purely for the private sector and purely for profit. Many are bought up by investors who then let them out to people who are ‘passing through’ and have no intention of building any real home in Mile End.

  • joe king

    What an eyesore and totally incongruent with the local area. It looks like one of the 1970’s carbuncles that they’re pulling down in the rest of the country. A brilliant piece of architecture that sweeps away local character for the sake of profit. Awful.

  • John Saxon Jones

    It is a great shame that the re-development would see the loss of one of the few remaining gay venues in East London. Well run and well attended venues such as Backstreet are valuable local assets.

  • Mark Aylward

    Yet another proposed ugly, faceless towerblock which demonstrates the total lack of respect for the surrounding green space and architectural heritage.

    • Charles

      If the current “heritage” is old and filthy to the extent that it becomes an eyesore and restricting future development, it should certainly be replaced by modern structure, which will become a greater heritage for future generations.