Hackney Rejects Shoreditch Works Despite 78% Support, 6,000 Jobs

Key Points

• On 4th February 2026, Hackney Council’s planning department rejected the Shoreditch Works urban regeneration scheme despite its widespread public support.
• Shoreditch Works is described as one of the country’s best urban regeneration projects, promising 6,000 jobs and £150 million in social value.
• The scheme would generate £10 million in business rates and £20 million in community infrastructure levy for Hackney Council.
• Local charities and ward councillors back the project, which has received “elephantine public approval.”
• Create Streets conducted three Visual Preference Surveys showing 76 to 78 per cent preference for Shoreditch Works across all demographics, including income, politics, age, race, region, and sex; Labour voters and the young supported it most.
• The project is praised for its attractive design, with a prior City A.M. article titled “If the government is serious about growth, it should approve Shoreditch Works” highlighting its merits.
• Hackney’s 130-page planners’ report is criticised as unconvincing, containing mutually contradictory complaints that defy common sense and natural justice.
• During a 2-hour-34-minute planning meeting on Wednesday night (likely 4th February 2026), at least six “impossible or downright silly” demands were noted, likened to the White Queen in Alice Through the Looking-Glass believing “six impossible things before breakfast.”
• The decision portrays a parallel reality where the building is deemed simultaneously too big and too small, too prominent and too obscure, too high and too short.
• Critics view this as grimly significant, resembling comic opera rather than competent governance, with London’s future growth and prosperity as the greatest victim.

Hackney, London (East London News) February 6, 2026 – Hackney Council’s planning department delivered a stunning rejection of the Shoreditch Works urban regeneration scheme on 4th February 2026, plunging one of the nation’s most acclaimed development projects into a bizarre parallel universe of contradictory critiques. Despite overwhelming public backing and promises of 6,000 jobs alongside £150 million in social value, planners lambasted the proposal as simultaneously too large and too diminutive, too prominent and too hidden, too tall and too squat. This Alice-in-Wonderland ruling, hashed out over a tragi-comic 2-hour-34-minute meeting, has sparked outrage over its implications for London’s growth.

What Made Shoreditch Works a Regeneration Success Story?

Shoreditch Works emerged as a beacon of exemplary urban renewal, lauded for its potential to transform the area while delivering tangible economic and social benefits. As detailed in a City A.M. article linked within the coverage, titled “If the government is serious about growth, it should approve Shoreditch Works,” the scheme stood to support 6,000 jobs and generate £150 million in social value. It promised Hackney Council £10 million in business rates and £20 million in community infrastructure levy, funds critical for local services.

Local charities and ward councillors threw their weight behind the project, underscoring its community-driven ethos. The design itself drew universal praise, described as “lovely” and poised to enhance the urban fabric. This broad endorsement extended far beyond developers, forming a rare consensus in contentious planning debates.

Why Did Surveys Show Unprecedented Public Support?

Create Streets, a prominent urban design consultancy, played a pivotal role in validating the scheme’s appeal through rigorous public consultation. They ran three Visual Preference Surveys comparing existing streets to the proposed Shoreditch Works future, as documented on their project page at www.createstreets.com/projects/will-shoreditch-works-make-london-better/. Results revealed 76 to 78 per cent preference rates, a figure described as “dream levels of approval.”

This support cut across every demographic line: income, politics, age, race, region, or sex. Notably, Labour voters and younger respondents liked it most, dispelling notions of elite-driven development. Nicholas Boys Smith, founder of Create Streets, has long advocated for such evidence-based planning, and these surveys exemplified his methodology’s strength.

How Did Hackney Planners’ Report Contradict Itself?

The linchpin of the rejection was Hackney’s 130-page planners’ report, decried as the “most unconvincing planning assessment” encountered by critics. It comprised a litany of mutually contradictory complaints, flouting common sense and natural justice. In one surreal dimension, the building was faulted for being too big yet too small; too prominent yet too obscure; too high yet too short.

As reported by the original commentator in the story’s source material, this echoed the White Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking-Glass, who could believe “six impossible things before breakfast.” The report’s internal inconsistencies formed the intellectual bedrock of the decision, leaving observers baffled at its defiance of logic.

What Happened During the Planning Meeting?

The drama peaked during Wednesday night’s planning committee meeting, lasting 2 hours and 34 minutes, which the coverage brands a “tragi-comic” affair. Attendees witnessed at least six “impossible, or downright silly, demands” aired by planners, mirroring the report’s absurdities. No specific quotes from individual councillors are detailed in the provided account, but the collective tone suggested a detachment from the project’s evidenced merits.

This session sealed Shoreditch Works’ fate, propelling it into a “parallel world” as per the narrative. The meeting’s length and content underscored a process more akin to comic opera than the competent governance London requires.

Who Supports Shoreditch Works and Why?

Endorsements spanned a wide spectrum, fortifying the scheme’s credentials. Ward councillors, representing local electoral interests, aligned with charities serving vulnerable populations. Create Streets’ surveys provided empirical backbone, with their full methodology accessible via www.createstreets.com.

Public approval was “elephantine,” transcending divides. Even in a politically charged borough like Hackney, Labour-leaning demographics championed it most fervently. This unity highlighted Shoreditch Works as a rare unifier in urban planning’s fractious landscape.

What Are the Broader Implications for London?

The rejection’s “grimly significant” fallout threatens London’s future growth and prosperity, positioning the capital as the “joke’s greatest victim.” In an era demanding housing and economic expansion, such decisions stifle momentum. The City A.M. piece implicitly urges government intervention, arguing that if authorities are serious about growth, Shoreditch Works warrants approval.

This episode exemplifies flawed local governance, where satire-worthy logic supplants evidence. Developers now face an uphill battle, potentially deterring similar ventures. Londoners, craving regeneration, watch as bureaucratic whims override consensus.

Why Is This Decision Compared to Alice in Wonderland?

The analogy to Alice Through the Looking-Glass permeates the critique, capturing the rejection’s absurdity. Planners’ ability to hold contradictory views—much like the White Queen’s pre-breakfast impossibilities—defines the saga. During the meeting, six such demands emerged, each as perplexing as the last.

This literary parallel elevates the story from mere planning dispute to cautionary tale. It warns of a system unmoored from reality, where competent administration yields to farce.

Could Government Override the Decision?

While not explicitly detailed, the City A.M. article’s title—”If the government is serious about growth, it should approve Shoreditch Works”—hints at higher intervention. National policy prioritises development, and ministerial call-ins remain possible. However, Hackney’s stance complicates this path.

Observers decry the loss of £10 million in rates and £20 million in levy, fiscal blows amid council strains. Advocacy from Create Streets and others may pressure Whitehall.

What Do Critics Say About the Planners’ Logic?

The planners’ report stands accused of defying “common sense and natural justice.” Its 130 pages overflow with complaints that cancel each other out, per the source account. No named planners are quoted, but the collective output invites scorn.

This nadir in planning assessments, as labelled, erodes trust in local authorities. Journalists and analysts, drawing from the coverage, portray it as a masterclass in self-sabotage.

How Does This Affect Local Jobs and Economy?

Shoreditch Works’ 6,000 jobs evaporate with rejection, a devastating hit to employment prospects. The £150 million social value encompassed community enhancements, now unrealised. Hackney forfeits £30 million total in rates and levy, straining budgets.

Local charities, once poised for support, face setbacks. Ward councillors’ backing underscores the parochial pain, amplifying calls for reversal.