School Re-Build and New Flats - Issues to Consider

[emilybl]

Holy Trinity multi-storey residential development: Telford Planning application 2013/0457

Issues to Consider in Drafting your Letters

This is not a complete list of issues related to the proposed plans to rebuild Holy Trinity School and build 101 private flats above it. In addition, not all of these issues will resonate with you and your circumstances. The purpose of this document is to collate in one document many of the issues raised in discussions thus far. Hopefully it is of use in preparing your letters. In writing your letter you are encouraged to explain how you personally will be impacted by this development.

Impact on Dalston Square residents in nearby towers
• Severe loss of sunlight/daylight for several flats. If you would like an independent daylight/sunlight assessment, contact Ewa Evans at [e-mail]. She has been in communication with Ian McKenna of the specialist firms Malcolm Hollis.
• Loss of privacy.

Impact on Square – issue for all Dalston Square residents and the wider community
• Potential shadow on the square from the new building;
• Potential worsening of wind tunnel effect in square.
• Noise pollution (from new residents and rooftop playground).
• A further two years of construction.
• Entrance to the school is on Roseberry Place – no planning evident to address increased traffic on the access road to Dalston Square.
• The lack of public park space in the immediate area will be exacerbated by the increased population from the school and flats. The Telford planning application includes the Eastern Curve Garden as part of its provision for outdoor space for older children (also the Dalston Roof Garden), despite the fact that the future of the Eastern Curve Garden is still not secure. The Council threat to turn it into an access point for the proposed new shopping centre in Kingsland Road is very much alive.

Relationship with Dalston Square
• The building effectively joins Dalston Square but is not part of the same management. For example:
• It is unclear who would be responsible for keeping certain laneways clean, safe and secure (i.e. proposed lane between Labyrinth Tower and the school is a potential safety and security concern).
• Without the same builders and management there is no guarantee of the same quality, maintenance and visual symmetry.

The School itself
• Doubling of pedestrian traffic for drop off/pick up.
• The need for more schools in Hackney is well-known, but this school is faith-based and therefore will only serve a specific subset of the community. It will not reflect the diverse character of Hackney. Colvestone, a nearby one-form primary school would be a better candidate for re-build as it would cater to the wider community.
• The design offers little outdoor space for the pupils. They propose a covered space on the roof of the school, with very little greenery or natural surfaces.

Further Issues
• Many of the properties directly impacted by this development have not been moved into yet and the owners therefore might not be aware of this proposal in order to voice their views.

[Mark]

Those coming to this issue for the first time should note that this thread is a continuation of the thread titled '9-storey block on school site' (which I have now locked). The older thread was a discussion of the pros and cons of possible objections to the proposed development, whereas this one will focus on the ways forward for those that have organised themselves into an objection group. That said, this thread is of course still open to all and everyone to comment on this topic if they wish.

[anna]

It might be useful to have a look at the Dalston Area Action Plan (ratified January 2013) in relation to objections. You can find it here:
www.hackney.gov.uk/ep-policy-aap-dalston.htm

In particular see 18.2 regarding height (suggested maximum 10 storeys) and requirement to step down the building (18.2 in which the new buildings are required to ‘provide a stepped down building height interface with the surrounding area.’ )

Also the section on Dalston Public Realm (DTC 11 part c) which requires developers to 'respect public open spaces and streets by ensuring that building forms are appropriately scaled to their context and do not provide excessive overshadowing'.

FInally in relation to congestion - Roseberry Place is identified in the Dalston Area Action Plan as a 'pedestrian priority street link' (DAAP - Public Realm Strategy – Figure 12 p.55).

May be useful in your responses to the plans.
Anna

[dionysus1]

Sorry, I could not make the meeting as I was away on vacation. I hope everyone concerns were listened to and hopefully be acted on. Maybe it was a good thing I could not attend as I would have been like a rabid dog in response to a certain persons racist points of view. Mark with your diligence, diplomacy and eloquence you would be a perfect candidate to fill David Milliband old job!!

[ewaevans]

Hi all

A volunteer from Planning Aid has agreed to come and meet with us on Sunday at 2pm.

Please attend if you can as it will be really helpful to get her insights.

She will comment on all of our objectives and give us advice in regard to how the planning team will have to respond to them.

She will also advise us on how to make our objection stronger as a community.

For instance if we start a petition, it only needs 20 names and then the application has to go to committee.

I'm going to book a table at Route.

Sorry for the late notice, I only spoke to her this evening.

Hopefully see a few of you on Sunday.

All the best, Ewa

[ted]

Hi Ewa, I will be there in Emily's place. See you then.

Ted

[ted]

I attended the meeting at Route this afternoon with the volunteer from Planning Aid. It was great to see so many people turn up at such short notice!
I have written down some notes that I took regarding our challenge of these plans to Hackney Council:
We are encouraged to gather signatures on a petition to object to these plans. Our petition is made stronger by including signatures for those affected by the proposal. More than one person per flat can sign the petition, but we are not encouraged to gather signatures from people who won't be directly affected.
We have begun plans to write the petition, and are seeking volunteers to canvass for signatures in each of the buildings. Let us know if you can help canvass!
By gathering signatures and submitting a petition, the objection MUST be heard in open committee, so it is important that we gather these signatures quickly and submit them in time.
The volunteer from Planning Aid mentioned that these arguments were particularly strong:
- The increased traffic congestion and noise surrounding the school
- The height of the building
- The affect on daylight/sunlight in the surrounding tower blocks
There was also mention that those affected may have a claim for compensation for the lost daylight/sunlight in their flats.
We are also encouraged to contact our councillors regarding this proposal and ask them to pressure the case officer to commission new daylight reports rather than rely on those made by Telford Homes, and ensure that all buildings and flats that could be affected are included in a new report to be commissioned by the Council. It was mentioned that Labyrinth Tower was not included in the daylight/sunlight reports.
We are encouraged to show how this proposal contravenes the Dalston Area Action Plan by explicitly quoting the sections of the plan that the proposal in opposition to (i.e. height of building, not stepped down, etc.)
The volunteer made mention that the Council will likely look for a way to compromise between the affected parties.
If you were at the meeting and want to add anything, please do so below – we don’t have a lot of time to get this petition in to the Council, so your help is appreciated if you want to have your objections to these plans heard!

[argayu]

Apr 7, 2013 14:57:36 GMT ted said:

We are also encouraged to contact our councillors regarding this proposal and ask them to pressure the case officer to commission new daylight reports rather than rely on those made by Telford Homes, and ensure that all buildings and flats that could be affected are included in a new report to be commissioned by the Council. It was mentioned that Labyrinth Tower was not included in the daylight/sunlight reports.

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your post, I reckon it sums up what it what was discussed in the meeting

Just to add that apart of Labyrinth, the assessment provided with the application is not accurate for most of the flats and exclude partially or totally some of the considerably affected flats (like Ground Floor flats at Roseberry place) or buildings (the whole of Thomas Tower).

Thank you

[silvia1]

Dear all
We just completed on a flat just opposite the school in Abraham House and have seen the planning notice and your posts.
When we exchanged on the flat we chequed the Unitary Development Plan, which envisaged a possible development of up to six floors - NOT 10 FLOORS, which would destroy a lot of the qualities of the Barratt Development as you already pointed out.

We are disappointed that we come to the table to late and have not been consulted and were wondering whether the consultation period has ended or might have been extended.

It would be great if one you could let us know.
Thank you.
Silvia

[argayu]

Hi all,

On this, I have received a follow-up letter from our MP Diane Abbott, where she forwarded a copy the reply sent to her from the Planning & Regulatory Services (P&RS)– Hackney Council.

In such letter, P&RS states: “…in relation to the daylight/sunlight assessment, further information has been provided by the applicants in attempt to address these matters. The Planning Service will assess this (and other submitted) information in due course and, if the planning application is to be recommended for approval, the claimant and all other parties that have provided observations will be notified of the relevant date of the Planning Sub- Committee meeting. Similarly, if the application was to be refused, letters will be sent to all correspondents advising of this.”

On the other hand, I have no received any correspondence at all (not even an acknowledgement receipt) from any of our three Dalston councillors, which to say the least it is very disappointing.

Has any of you got any further correspondence from the MP/councillors/etc you contacted?

Cheers

[jamespenfold]

I see the planning application has been recommended by Mary Joseph.
From my cursory read whilst the design and height don't meet the 6-10 storey planning requirement it would seem that unfortunately the school requirement outweighs the net effect upon all neighbouring developments.

I was personally hoping that planning permission would only be granted with design amends re height and capacity.

Does anyone have an view on an appeals policy?

Best

James

[argayu]

I also got the letter where it states that Hackney Council is recommending to grant the proposed plan for the school.

Next Thursday 5th of June the Planning Committee will meet to either approve or reject the plan. If approved there, I believe the only way to stop the plan would be through some more complex legal procedures.

[ted]

All - we attended the Hackney Council planning session last night, and I'm pleased to report that the Council rejected Telford's planning application with a vote of 6 against, 3 in favour.

This was a very good result and big thanks to everyone who helped us with the petition and the forming of the arguments that we put forward to the council.

I do expect that Telford/Holy Trinity will appeal the ruling or will redesign the proposed building and try again.

We can expect a new design application to go some ways to alleviate concerns that were raised at the meeting - notably the size and 'quantum' of the build, daylight/overshadowing concerns, traffic concerns for the dropoff area of the school (which was not presented as the 'main entrance' to the councillor's chagrin).

The council also had problems with the design of the new residential units themselves - in particular the depth of the flats which may not allow enough light into them, the long corridors connecting the flats, and the removal of some of the large trees on the site itself.

For the time being, let's enjoy this (unexpected) victory, keeping in mind that the process is not over yet.

Ted

[ted]

In case anyone is interested, here are the decisions taken at the planning committee meetign last night: mginternet.hackney.gov.uk/documents/g2573/Decisions%2005th-Jun-2013%2018.30%20Planning%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=2

[dan1420]

Hi all,

My partner and i have been following this planning application with interest since we're considering buying a property in Dalston Sq and i wondered if any active members of this forum had an update on the situation? We're particularly interested to learn:

What the current status is now that the developer's plans have been rejected?
&
If they're resubmitting a revised proposal, do we know what the amendments will be and what the time scales in terms of an approval process would be?

All feedback greatly received and congratulation on succeeding in having the first application rejected!

thanks.