New hotel in Walthamstow is one of the ugliest buildings ever

New hotel is one of the ugliest buildings ever

New hotel is one of the ugliest buildings ever

First published in Your Views

How on earth did our 'planning' decision-makers allow the development of the new hotel at Station Parade/Hoe St, Walthamstow?

This has to be one of the ugliest new buildings ever erected anywhere. Looking at it from Hoe Street, it looks as if a pile of blue shipping containers have been stacked upon each other. In addition, this part of the development is about six storeys too high for the area.

I mean, what so-called 'architect' designed it in the first place and thought it would look great in Walthamstow and who, in the planning committee, agreed with it?

It's almost as if someone said, 'hey - I've just designed the ugliest building ever, lets stick it up in Walthamstow and make the place look even uglier'!

I have no problem with the rest of the development which doesn't look too bad at all, but the hotel complex section is a blot on the landscape.

What is clear to me is that the planning decision-makers have no idea when it comes to good design, impact on the environment, etc. I'm led to believe that there is a special bespoke course for councillors on the planning committee but there is no compulsion for them to attend as its entirely voluntary. I'd like to know how many councillors on the planning committee have attended this course, to begin with.

We have to stop this kind of inappropriate development taking place in Walthamstow. Its an already tired old streetscape with dirty uncared for buildings, dirty uncared for shop window shutters, ugly signage, dirty and littered pavements - why make it worse?

Millions of pounds are currently being spent using TfL money to regenerate Hoe Street, but adding this kind of blot on the landscape undoes all the good works.

James Phillips, Litter Action, Waltham Forest

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:49am Mon 19 May 14

VillageIdiot69 says...

Exactly my opinion James, I drove past it yesterday as I was dropping my visitors back at the station.

Both myself and they were quite horrified by how ugly it looks, a total disgrace that our planning committee allowed this to go through.
Exactly my opinion James, I drove past it yesterday as I was dropping my visitors back at the station. Both myself and they were quite horrified by how ugly it looks, a total disgrace that our planning committee allowed this to go through. VillageIdiot69
  • Score: 5

12:11pm Mon 19 May 14

mdj says...

I suspect that if you put this point of view to Cllr Pye, she will recommend that you go and live in Surrey.
The bricklaying on the flats opposite the bus station must be some of the worst in recent years, which is saying something.
The fact that the developer has a name that is so easily modified to 'S..lum' is rather telling. Creating an access and over-development nightmare bodes ill for the future history of this development.

In planning and regeneration terms, having a cluster of hotel (and I would also strongly argue office) space near outer Zone stations makes good sense, in attracting a share of London's business and tourism overnight market.
But it is typical of this council to take a sound idea and implement it in the tackiest way possible.
What this building screams is,'It's only Waltham Forest, it'll do'.

Understandable for a low-rent developer seeing what they can get away with but, for a council to permit it, outrageous.

Bear in mind that the cash for revamping local shop frontages came from the GLA, not from any aspiration within this council.
I suspect that if you put this point of view to Cllr Pye, she will recommend that you go and live in Surrey. The bricklaying on the flats opposite the bus station must be some of the worst in recent years, which is saying something. The fact that the developer has a name that is so easily modified to 'S..lum' is rather telling. Creating an access and over-development nightmare bodes ill for the future history of this development. In planning and regeneration terms, having a cluster of hotel (and I would also strongly argue office) space near outer Zone stations makes good sense, in attracting a share of London's business and tourism overnight market. But it is typical of this council to take a sound idea and implement it in the tackiest way possible. What this building screams is,'It's only Waltham Forest, it'll do'. Understandable for a low-rent developer seeing what they can get away with but, for a council to permit it, outrageous. Bear in mind that the cash for revamping local shop frontages came from the GLA, not from any aspiration within this council. mdj
  • Score: 9

1:13pm Mon 19 May 14

G_Whiz says...

A building like this easily proves the developers have the planning teams in their pocket. Things need to change, as we need to see our authorities are in control.
A building like this easily proves the developers have the planning teams in their pocket. Things need to change, as we need to see our authorities are in control. G_Whiz
  • Score: 6

1:30pm Mon 19 May 14

Villagelife says...

Totally agree. Whilst not expecting too much I was amazed just how shockingly poor it looks. It seems, as ever, that out esteemed local authority has no cohesive agenda to improve the outlook of our local area. Such a missed opportunity.
Totally agree. Whilst not expecting too much I was amazed just how shockingly poor it looks. It seems, as ever, that out esteemed local authority has no cohesive agenda to improve the outlook of our local area. Such a missed opportunity. Villagelife
  • Score: 5

1:40pm Mon 19 May 14

RichieA70 says...

I was at the planning committee meeting that approved this. Seemed to be the result of a combination of long-serving, inadequate and uninspired council officers and Labour councillors following a 'let's prove we're doing something' agenda.
The chief culprits were Ian Ansell (planning officer with the council 25+ years who said it didn't matter if an extra storey was added to the flats - try telling that to those living on Priory Avenue) and David Scourfield (development manager).

Then the 4 Labour cllrs on the commitee that voted it through:
Jenny Gray (Leytonstone ward) who said 'I like tall buildings and there's got to be a first one somewhere in Walthamstow)
Ebony Vincent (Markhouse ward) who claimed the flats were necessary at reducing overcrowding & the council waiting list - despite the fact none of these flats appear to have done that - some seem to have been bought by buy-to-let landlords, renting at £1,300 pcm for a 1-bed!;
Asim Mahmood (Markhouse ward) who declined to say anything and Peter Barnett (Wood St ward) who said it was good having a hotel there, there was previously a power station - ie, it's better than an ugly great industrial building belching fumes.

Those that voted against were LB Liz Phillips, & Torys Alan Siggars (who hated the hotel block colour) and Laurie Braham - who said he'd been involved with the council for 40 years during which time tower blocks had been built and subsequently demolished by the council.

just remember if you see Peter Barnett, Asim Mahmood, Ebony Vincent and Jenny Gray's names on the council election ballot papers on 22 May that THEY are responsible.
I was at the planning committee meeting that approved this. Seemed to be the result of a combination of long-serving, inadequate and uninspired council officers and Labour councillors following a 'let's prove we're doing something' agenda. The chief culprits were Ian Ansell (planning officer with the council 25+ years who said it didn't matter if an extra storey was added to the flats - try telling that to those living on Priory Avenue) and David Scourfield (development manager). Then the 4 Labour cllrs on the commitee that voted it through: Jenny Gray (Leytonstone ward) who said 'I like tall buildings and there's got to be a first one somewhere in Walthamstow) Ebony Vincent (Markhouse ward) who claimed the flats were necessary at reducing overcrowding & the council waiting list - despite the fact none of these flats appear to have done that - some seem to have been bought by buy-to-let landlords, renting at £1,300 pcm for a 1-bed!; Asim Mahmood (Markhouse ward) who declined to say anything and Peter Barnett (Wood St ward) who said it was good having a hotel there, there was previously a power station - ie, it's better than an ugly great industrial building belching fumes. Those that voted against were LB Liz Phillips, & Torys Alan Siggars (who hated the hotel block colour) and Laurie Braham - who said he'd been involved with the council for 40 years during which time tower blocks had been built and subsequently demolished by the council. just remember if you see Peter Barnett, Asim Mahmood, Ebony Vincent and Jenny Gray's names on the council election ballot papers on 22 May that THEY are responsible. RichieA70
  • Score: 13

3:28pm Mon 19 May 14

mdj says...

'Peter Barnett (Wood St ward) who said it was good having a hotel there, there was previously a power station...'
When? Not in the last thirty years, at least. Everyone knows it was a tiny cab office.
And did Cllr Barnett declare his interest as a landlord?
'Peter Barnett (Wood St ward) who said it was good having a hotel there, there was previously a power station...' When? Not in the last thirty years, at least. Everyone knows it was a tiny cab office. And did Cllr Barnett declare his interest as a landlord? mdj
  • Score: 7

3:44pm Mon 19 May 14

RichieA70 says...

Yes the power station was further down the site towards St James St stn. But it's typical of Barnett to make negative references during lazy attempts at rubber stamping pre-determined plans. He started his speech at the Dog track decision meeting by stating 'let's be clear, the dog track has closed'. A few years earlier his only comment to me about the closure was that it was a business transaction between buyer & seller and nothing for the council to concern itself with. How many properties does he own? Not as many as Liaquat Ali I assume?
Yes the power station was further down the site towards St James St stn. But it's typical of Barnett to make negative references during lazy attempts at rubber stamping pre-determined plans. He started his speech at the Dog track decision meeting by stating 'let's be clear, the dog track has closed'. A few years earlier his only comment to me about the closure was that it was a business transaction between buyer & seller and nothing for the council to concern itself with. How many properties does he own? Not as many as Liaquat Ali I assume? RichieA70
  • Score: 6

8:10pm Tue 20 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

'This has to be one of the ugliest new buildings ever erected anywhere. Looking at it from Hoe Street, it looks as if a pile of blue shipping containers have been stacked upon each other. In addition, this part of the development is about six storeys too high for the area.'

But shipping containers are the 'in' thing in Walthamstow? They are making these containers into flats for the homeless at the YMCA
'This has to be one of the ugliest new buildings ever erected anywhere. Looking at it from Hoe Street, it looks as if a pile of blue shipping containers have been stacked upon each other. In addition, this part of the development is about six storeys too high for the area.' But shipping containers are the 'in' thing in Walthamstow? They are making these containers into flats for the homeless at the YMCA Villagecranberry
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Paul Skinner says...

You should probably try looking at the diabolical blot on the landscape that is Centurion Court in South Woodford. I don't think it's quite finished, still. But it's totally in keeping with the area, and not at all hideous. It certainly doesn't have tiny windows, and doesn't at all manage to look like it's made entirely out of plastic...
You should probably try looking at the diabolical blot on the landscape that is Centurion Court in South Woodford. I don't think it's quite finished, still. But it's totally in keeping with the area, and not at all hideous. It certainly doesn't have tiny windows, and doesn't at all manage to look like it's made entirely out of plastic... Paul Skinner
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Tue 3 Jun 14

bigcrackers says...

The whole redevelopment is an eyesore. The height of the buildings completely dwarfs the Victorian Station building. Developers and planners always seem to be in cahoots and exploit public apathy.
The whole redevelopment is an eyesore. The height of the buildings completely dwarfs the Victorian Station building. Developers and planners always seem to be in cahoots and exploit public apathy. bigcrackers
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree