Stoke Newington CAAC January 2021

Planning Applications for Stoke Newington CAAC meeting for 11 January 2021

2020/3853 165 Stoke Newington High Street, N16 0NY Installation of 1 x internally illuminated fascia sign and 1 x internally illuminated projecting sign (Danny Huber)

The Stoke Newington CAAC object to internal illumination which is contrary to policy in the shopfront design guide, otherwise we have no objection.

2020/4007 165 Stoke Newington High Street, N16 0NY Change of use of the ground floor and basement from betting shop (sui generis) to casino/adult gaming centre (sui generis); shopfront alterations. (Danny Huber)

The Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/3679 73 Lordship Road, N16 0QX Minor Material Amendment to planning application 2019/0086 (Renovation of St Mary's Lodge and redevelopment of rear of site to provide a new school) in order to undertake the following amendments: - Amendment to red line boundary - Internal reconfiguration of St Mary's Lodge - Amendment to Entrance Foyer - Relocation of playspace to area in front of St Mary's lodge - Removal of basement accommodation and relocation of hall to ground floor - Internal reconfiguration of new build part of development - Elevational alterations on north and south elevations of new build. (Barry Coughlan)

The Stoke Newington CAAC reconfirms our objection on 2020/2268:

"Proposed is the same sized school as the extant permission but now on a substantially smaller site. Use of the front garden as playspace is unacceptable as it obliterates the formal garden plan on which the previous application and restoration of the house hinged. The revised layout and materials would be an alien landscape plan and would fail to respect the heritage asset. Furthermore it has little hope of being kept tidy."

2020/3840 2 Painsthorpe Road, N16 0RB Erection of single-storey bay window extension to side elevation of rear projection and new window on ground floor rear elevation. (Gerard Livett)

The Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/3289 117 Stoke Newington Church Street, N16 0UD Erection of a two-storey rear extension at first and second floor levels. [Retrospective] [Note for consultation: Listed Building Consent application 2020/3291 also received] (Gerard Livett)

The Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/3291 117 Stoke Newington Church Street, N16 0UD Erection of a two-storey rear extension at first and second floor levels. [Retrospective] [Note for consultation: Planning application 2020/3289 also received] (Gerard Livett)

The Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/3521 9 Allerton Road, N16 5UJ Erection of a single storey ground floor rear/side extension, refurbishment of party wall, replacement of rear door with window (Danny Huber)

The Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/3712 82 Finsbury Park Road, N4 2JX Construction of a new brick and trellis wall and side access gate, following the d emolition of the existing rendered boundary wall and gate. (Claire Moore)

As per our October 2020 submission on 2020/2786, the Stoke Newington CAAC have no objection to the proposals.

2020/2610 Alcock House Queens Drive, N4 2TB Erection of single-storey upward extension on existing building to provide six new residential dwellings, associated refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. [Note for consultation: Proposed dwelling mix is 5x1-bed and 1x2-bed.] (Gerard Livett)

The Stoke Newington CAAC reconfirms our objection on 2020/1610:

"The reason for refusal of the previous scheme is not substantially addressed. The mass is largely the same with some minor recesses and tinkering with materials. Ultimately the application has again failed to show the additional mass is not detrimental to both the host building and its important contribution to the character and setting of the Brownswood and Clissold Conservation Areas as outlined on p19 of the Brownswood Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Any future application must also address construction management and construction detail as, on the face of it, this substantial mass may be impossible or extraordinarily difficult to add to the existing structure without significant risk to its integrity. NB this is pre-1947 structure so will not benefit from new PD rights for upward extension.";

Furthermore we support the Hackney Society Planning Group comments on the scheme (27 July 2020):

"We concur with the statement of the planning department in the pre-application advice, namely

…the principle of a single storey contemporary roof extension is considered acceptable subject to a high quality detailed design.

Our issue with this project at present is that the design of the additional floor at roof level remains, as with all the previous design iterations, not of an acceptable detailed quality. Alcock, Barcham & Richard Fox House, although not in the best condition at present, is a decent piece of urban architecture with robust and consistent brick detailing giving an austere character with a rationale to the facades and a horizontal styling reminiscent of art deco. We are looking therefore for a recognition and understanding of the qualities of the host building in the design of the new addition, in particular the horizontal banding which could be reflected in a projected eaves detail that gives a lid to the roof. The choice of terracotta as the cladding material is, in our view, misjudged due to its heavy, earthbound character similar to the brick of the lower floors. The mix of window types between contemporary and copies of the existing appears inconsistent and a decision should be made to go one way or the other. The design would be better expressed as a lightweight attic level with a strong horizontal emphasis with careful attention paid to the junction between the new construction and the expressed brick stair towers so they remain prominent in the massing."