97-137 Hackney Road E2 8ET (Regal Homes)

2015/3455 - 20 November 2015

2015/3455 - Full Planning Permission - Demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of three replacement buildings ranging in height from ground plus four storeys to ground plus eight storeys, above shared basement. Proposed mix of uses to include a maximum of 183 residential units (Use Class C3), 15,178sqm (GIA) of emloyment floorspace (Use Class B1), and 4,570 sqm (GIA) of flexible commercial / retail space at basement and ground floor levels (falling within Use Classes A1 - A4 and B1) which can comprise of no more than 1,500sqm (GIA) of A1 floorspace, no more than 500sqm (GIA) of A2 floorspace, no more than 1,500 sqm (GIA) of A3 floorspace, no more than 1,000sqm (GIA) of A4 floorspace, and no more than 2,000sqm (GIA) of B1 floorspace, along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, parking provision, plant and storage, and other works incidental to the proposed development.

The Hackney Society Planning Group raises the following concerns

Design

Initial contact with LB of Hackney identified the Cremer Street building as having townscape merit but noted that high quality design can make redevelopment an appropriate option - this proposal does not currently merit the demolition of the Cremer Street building.

The articulation of the façades, particularly fronting Hackney Road, is arbitrary and does not appear to reflect any proposed uses or rhythms of the existing street. The scale doesn't appear to take in to consideration the historical patterns of the street, a more vertical rhythm would be welcomed. The existing properties in the vicinity, particularly the terraced properties which front much of Hackney Road, and the way these meet the ground does not appear to have been considered.

We are aware that the alternative massing options (which provided better amenity space than the proposed option) have been compromised by the views over the Geffrye Museum. Many of these options had a better filling out of the site - particularly along Hackney Rd - and with exemplar design, might not have been significantly injurious to the views of the Geffrye Museum.

Amenity

The external space around the built spaces is tight and overshadowed by the proposed buildings, the daylight and sunlight study for 21 March highlights this. The residential courtyards within the U’shaped block (block B) has potential to be dingy and overshadowed. Triangular planned terraces, such as those overlooking Hackney Road, are impractical and hard to justify as acceptable amenity areas. The pedestrianised streets between the blocks could enhance the scheme but the benefits of this are eroded by the lack of daylight. The uses of commercial activity facing this shared area are welcomed and should help improve activity through the articulation of the entrances throughout this shared space.

Layout and accommodation

23 units allocated for social rent units or intermediate units of a total of 183 is 12.5% ‘affordable’. This seems unjustifiably low for an area in need of affordable homes. There are a large number of single-aspect flats, many of which look out over an overshadowed courtyard space. There are also privacy issues associated with some flats at the courtyard level. The first-floor residential accommodation in the U-block (block B) appears to have little definition between the private flat spaces and the more public courtyard space, due in part to the proximity of the walkways around the courtyard.

Office Space

The quantity of allocated B1 office space is too low. The included Market Report prepared by BNP Paribas Real Estate asserts that demand is low and any office space would remain vacant. This is patently implausible. The area suffers from constant under-supply and high-demand for accommodation for small start-up as well a more established businesses. What the development must re-provide is low-cost, flexible and affordable workspace which are in high demand.

Information Provided

We have found it difficult to evaluate this proposal given the lack of a physical model and absence of the full context of the proposals on the Tower Hamlets side of the road for context and a complete picture. The developer has a duty of candour to ensure his interests in the adjacent site across borough boundary are considered holistically.

Summary

The massing and the bulk of the proposal causes it to overshadow itself and needs further consideration, particularly in terms of the quality and quantity of the proposed residential accommodation. The location demands more B1 spaces and more affordable homes. Additionally, the arbitrary filling out of the Hackney Road elevation and the poor quality external spaces mean that we cannot support this proposal.

We have found it difficult to evaluate this proposal given the lack of a physical model and absence of the full context of the proposals on the Tower Hamlets side of the road for context and a complete picture. The developer has a duty of candour to ensure his interests in the adjacent site across borough boundary are considered holistically.