Stoke Newington CAAC June 2018

Planning Applications for Stoke Newington CAAC Monday 11 June 2018

2018/1510 Land at Wilmer Place N16 0BJ Erection of a part 2, 3 and 4 storey building (plus lower ground floor) comprising 19 residential units (Use Class C3) at ground to third floors, commercial floorspace (Use Class B1) at ground and lower ground floors; associated development including a communal roof terrace, landscaped courtyard, living roofs, 3 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces and a car club space ) and cycle and refuse stores to be accessed from Wilmer Place [following demolition of existing bin store] (Nick Bovaird 0208 356 8291)

We object to this application. We object with some reluctance since in many ways this design is superior to previous applications for the site.

However this application increases the density of the development in such a way as to create several unacceptable results. The main objection is to the placing of a four-storey building right up against the boundary of Abney Park. The Stoke Newington Conservation Area Appraisal which is the relevant part of the Local Development Framework, states repeatedly (cf: 6.3 and 7.11 cited below) that building up to the boundary of the cemetery should not be permitted. “In future, new development should be kept as far as possible away from the walls of the Cemetery, to preserve the setting of the Cemetery, and its unique sense of privacy and peace”.

We note that this application places the highest point (four storeys) substantially closer to the boundary than the controversial 2013 “Sainsbury's” application.

We note that the application states that planning officers (rightly in our view) recognise that the development will damage the “sylvan” setting of the park but that this damage is acceptable. In our view it is unacceptable.

In addition, to avoid conflict with the “Cotton Exchange” the bulk of the windows have been placed on the Abney Park side of the building. This will create a considerable amount of both overlooking and light pollution into the park, especially in winter when lights are often put on all day. We would expect most large windows to be on the High Street side of the building and some additional measures taken to prevent the dissipation of light into the Park.

We note that the heritage statement asserts that the development “belongs” to the High Street part (derived from the Character Areas in the appraisal) of the Conservation Area and discusses the cemetery separately and only in terms of “heritage assets” all at some distance from the site. In our view this is disingenuous. The effect on the Park as a whole is the most important factor in allowing or rejecting this application. The area at the High Street entrance to the park is recognised as one of the most important parts of the Park itself.

In our opinion no more than two storeys should be permitted on this site and certainly not four.

Relevant excerpts from the Stoke Newington Conservation Area Appraisal

6.3 The Cemetery is surrounded by a brick wall which allows views into the back gardens of adjoining property, most of which dates to the 19th century. Historically, this has created a very intimate, quiet setting around the perimeters of the cemetery, and the back gardens continue the rural quality of the cemetery beyond its immediate confines. Some new development has recently been constructed to the north of the cemetery, off Manor Road, filling-in a gap which was previously occupied by low key uses. This has brought new buildings, and the resultant activities associated with such uses, much closer to the walls of the cemetery. In future, new development should be kept as far as possible away from the walls of the Cemetery, to preserve the setting of the Cemetery, and its unique sense of privacy and peace

7.11 Views out of the Cemetery are similarly important. The Cemetery is surrounded by its original 19th century brick boundary wall, over which views of the surrounding gardens and buildings can be seen. Historically, the Cemetery was surrounded by domestic properties, with rear gardens which backed up the boundary wall, such as still survive in Manor Road and Listria Park. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, new housing and other, larger commercial or educational buildings have been built, mainly to the west side of the Cemetery, some of which are located very close to the Cemetery boundary wall. This threatens the peaceful setting of the Cemetery and as some of the buildings are relatively tall and bulky, also affects the views from the winding footpaths within the Cemetery. The Council is keen to preserve the rural qualities of Abney Park Cemetery and the domestic scale of the residential streets which lead off Stoke Newington Church Street. Similarly, in the busy principal streets, views must be preserved by not allowing new development which is too dominant or obtrusive. This can only be provided by adhering to the guidelines in the previous paragraphs of Chapter 7 and by following the general principles set out below:

Principles: Abney Park Cemetery:

• New development should not encroach on the setting of Abney Park Cemetery by careful attention to scale, bulk and siting
• New development around Abney Park Cemetery should not generate noise or other disturbance to the Cemetery
• New development close to Abney Park Cemetery must preserve the existing domestic character of the surrounding buildings
• New development around Abney Park Cemetery must be carefully sited so as not to interrupt existing views and skylines

2018/1701 147 Stoke Newington High Street N16 0NY Erection of a rear extraction flue. (Saskia Wilson 020 8356 1804)

We object to this application. This is an application to install a commercial flue so that the property can be used as a restaurant. “The proposed extract flue will allow the installation of a kitchen to the rear of the building, permitting its conversion into a restaurant” Design and Access Statement.

In our opinion the correct procedure would be an application for change of use before or at the same time as that for a commercial flue. Otherwise the proper application for change of use might be thought to have been pre-empted by allowing the flue to be installed.