Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

PLP off Bishopsgate Goodsyard job as scheme undergoes radical redesign


PLP Architecture is no longer involved in the controversial £900 million Bishopsgate Goodsyard development in east London, and its two towers scrapped, as part of a radical redesign 

Developers Hammerson and Ballymore are set to unveil new proposals for the 4.2ha City fringe site, including a dramatic reduction in its 38 and 48 storey residential high-rise blocks. FaulknerBrowns is now leading the masterplan. 

The drop in height is expected to be welcomed by campaigners, who fought tooth and nail against the scale of the proposals and the low levels of affordable housing. 

PLP is understood to have left the project two years ago. BuckleyGrayYeoman has been retained on the commercial buildings with Chris Dyson Architects, Spacehub and Studio Weave also continuing to work on the project.

The number of homes across the scheme has also been significantly reduced, from around 1,300 to around 350 homes according to those present at recent consultation groups.

The developer has been engaging with groups including civic group the Hackney Society on early proposals ahead of a public consultation in September. 

It then hopes to submit amendments to the Greater London Authority (GLA) by the end of the year. 

The contentious cross-boundary application, originally submitted to both Tower Hamlets and Hackney councils, has been under the control of the GLA since 2015, when then-mayor Boris Johnson called it in for his own determination

But Johnson left City Hall before taking a decision on the scheme. A redesign was later announced after a final decision was indefinitely postponed ‘to address the concerns’ raised by Greater London Authority planning officers.

FaulknerBrowns partner Paul Rigby said: ‘We are extremely pleased to be working with Hammerson, Ballymore and the teams at the GLA to explore a number of exciting options for the Bishopsgate Goodsyard site.

‘Through our creative collaboration with BuckleyGrayYeoman, Chris Dyson and Spacehub we look forward to delivering a destination of great value to Shoreditch and the surrounding areas.’


Readers' comments (4)

  • Interesting that such an apparently drastic reduction in scale can still leave a viable project in the eyes of Hammerson and Ballymore - leading to the inescapable conclusion that there was indeed an attempt to drastically over-stuff the site - in pursuit of a an obscene financial 'killing'?
    How much the scale of the original project was driven by the exploitation of London residential property as an internationally traded commodity is open to question.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So the size and shape of London is being decided by “campaigners” and the calls for dubious “affordable” housing, rather then maximising taxable profit or creating a great world city?

    Of course some sites will be more profitable than others, but only if it is attactractive to purchasers. If it’s not even built it is of no use to anyone; either now, or in the future. The users of buildings change over time. Look at the Victorian suburbs, and how the occupants have changed over the intervening century. But at least they got built!

    We need a city to live and work in, or the money goes away and the city dies! Here in Brentford it hasn’t even started living, due to a hopeless Council and pathetic residents, all with no vision. Ballymore are involved here too. They must be wondering if it’s worth getting out of bed, let alone going to work in this pathetic town.

    Fanny on Robert, you are not helping?! We have some of the best architects, builders and clients in the world, and the finances to match. Of course mistakes will be made, but they are rare, and won’t be spotted by the amateur observers like you. Sorry.

    And an appreciation of architecture and the environment should be more widely taught to young and old. Educate the old farts, they might enjoy life more?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PLP Architecture

    We were commissioned to design three residential buildings in a masterplan, not by us, but by Terry Farrell.

    We left the project nearly two years ago, by mutual agreement, when it was clear to us that the commercial aspirations for the development ran counter to the vision of the local authority. We have not worked on the project since then.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Clare Richards

    How about some form of ballot on controversial mixed schemes like this too? Naive, you might think, to suppose that major developments would ever get built that way. But think of the vast amount of money and energy that has been spent on all sides in the process of pushing and opposing this scheme. A more collaborative (and democratic) approach, that seeks consensus from the start, would bring much greater likelihood of success at a fraction of the cost. Thankfully public opinion has prevailed this time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.