Stoke Newington CAAC March 2019

Planning Applications for Stoke Newington CAAC meeting for 11 March 2019

2019/0652 87 Queen Elizabeths Walk N16 5UG Proposed erection of a rear dormer roof extension and installation of two roof lights to the rear. (Alyce Jeffery 020 8356 1804)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2019/0638 40 Dumont Road N16 0NS The proposal is for the demolition of the existing single storey extension and the construction of a new single storey wrap-around extension. (Kim Aukett 020 8356 4740)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2019/0690 Woodberry Down Primary School Woodberry Grove N4 1SY Erection of canopy to rear of caretaker's building. [Retrospective] [Note for consultation: Listed Building Consent application 2019/0753 also received] (Gerard Livett 020 8356 8398)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2019/0753 Woodberry Down Primary School Woodberry Grove N4 1SY Erection of canopy to rear of caretaker's building. [Retrospective] [Note for consultation: planning application 2019/0690 also received] (Gerard Livett 020 8356 8398)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2019/0598 129 Stoke Newington High Street N16 0PH Change of Use from Use Class A3 (restaurant and cafes) to mixed use as A4 (drinking establishment) with A3 (restaurants and cafes). [Note for consultation: Proposed opening hours are 1000 to midnight Monday to Saturday, 1000 to 2330 on Sundays and Bank Holidays] (Gerard Livett 020 8356 8398)

We have no objection to the proposals provided weight is given to neighbours views on operating hours of the garden (if it is to be used).

2019/0396 Rear of 49 Stoke Newington Church Street N16 0AR Construction of dwellinghouse (following demolition of existing building) (Jeni Cowan 020 8356 1371)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2018/4599 210 Stoke Newington High Street N16 Retention of change of use from shop (A1 use class) to cafe/restaurant (A3 use class) at basement and ground floors; installation of extract/ventilation system and flue on rear elevation (Retrospective) (Louise Prew)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2018/4503 210 Stoke Newington High Street N16 7HU Single storey rear extension at ground floor (Retrospective) (Louise Prew)

We have no objection to the proposals.

2019/0664 Newington Green Church And Islington Unitarians Flat A 39 Newington Green N16 9PR Demolition and reconstruction of ground floor internal wall between meeting room and kitchen area. (Gerard Livett 020 8356 8398)

We have no objection to the proposals.

St Mary's Lodge

2019/0086 73 Lordship Road N16 0QX Redevelopment of site including erection of four storey building over basement, ground, first and second floor levels, linked to host building by a part single storey, part three storey extension over basement, ground and first floor levels, refurbishment/restoration of the existing building including erection of a new three-storey wing to the south of the building over basement, ground and first floor levels, demolition of outbuildings and lean-to to the north of the existing building and associated landscaping, drop off area and new crossovers on Lordship Road to provide a 6 year, two form entry school (use class D1). (Alix Hauser 020 8356 6377)

and

2019/0087 69-71 Lordship Road N16 0QX Erection of a three storey building, plus basement, to provide seven residential units (use class C3). (Alix Hauser 020 8356 6377)

The Stoke Newington CAAC and Hackney Society Planning Group (HSPG) make the following observations on both of the above schemes, collectively intended to restore "St Mary's Lodge" and bring it back into use.

Both groups have been involved in considerable pre-application discussion and have been involved in the development of the LPA's Planning Brief  for the site (December 2017) - specifically created in an attempt to encourage applicants to bring forward realistic, viable schemes. We thank both the applicant's agent and the Council for their candour to date.

The history of dereliction and inaction on the site is well recorded and need not be rehearsed here. It is sufficient to remind officers that para 191 of the NPPF (2018) makes it clear that the severe state of deterioration is no justification for a lesser quality application or one that more severely harms the setting of the heritage asset. We have long made it clear that the successive restrictive covenants (one of which was agreed with the borough) should no longer stand in the way of a good scheme to restore the Lodge and bring it back into use. The Planning Brief recognises that there is scope to amend the covenants and they should not be regarded as being a constraint that has any planning weight. That said the current application appears to satisfy the current covenants, though in doing so may be dictating some of the problems we now observe.

Fundamentally the scheme departs significantly from the Planning Brief and we see no justification for it doing so. The departure is not explained satisfactorily in the planning application.

The residential block design and flat facade are particularly unrefined and dreary and crucially detracts from the setting of the Lodge by overwhelming it. The failure to provided drawings showing both developments in plan and elevation make assessing the relationships difficult but it appears to come closer to the Lodge than the Planning Brief suggests it ought.

The school's massing exceeds the massing proposed in the Planning Brief and as a result brings incongruous, dominant and alien additions to both Lordship Road and, in particular, Lordship Park. It has has a negative effect on the streetscape and setting of the locally listed Lodge and significantly detracts from the cohesion of the Lordship Park townscape, recognised in the Planning Brief. The effect is undoubtedly exacerbated by the elevation treatment which seeks to create a 'civic scale' [sic] that we cannot accept is appropriate in this context. The architectural design of the Lordship Park facade is inherently discordant and fails to respond to its neighbours, further diminishing the significance of the Lodge and the established rhythm of the adjacent domestic buildings. In addition the proposed plant appears deceptively insignificant in the drawings - we expect the reality will be more evident than the drawings suggest. 

We are not convinced the monolithic nature of the school block would benefit from tinkering to articulate and break up its mass unless it were nearer to the envelope outlined in the Planning Brief (para 5.7) which anticipates a variation in height rising from two storeys nearest the Lodge to four storeys (subject to impact assessment) in the proposed play space to the rear of the proposed residential block. The proposed link between the Lodge and main school building has the potential to be a further distracting element and the application would benefit generally from CGIs and verified views that clearly demonstrate how the application will appear and how the elements will relate to each other visually.

Ultimately it is the intensity of use - the sheer size of the two-form entry school - that is dictating its mass. This intensity of use has a direct and detrimental effect on the very character of the conservation area.

The Planning Brief (para 5.6) considered a viable single form entry school as the sole use of the entire site within the other constraints of the Brief. Efficiency of scale and the addition of play space from the rear of the adjacent plot does not prevent the mass exceeding the Planning Brief by some margin and puts additional strain on the transport strategy on a site not best suited to multiple traffic movements. It sits at an important junction on a busy road and bus route. The junction is particularly sensitive to disruptions to the normal flow of traffic, and to parking up and downstream. The plan to bring vehicles in and out in the direction of westbound flow, right off the junction is unrealistic given local traffic flows. Vehicles will arrive at the site from four directions, compounding the impact on surrounding streets. It is not clear how drivers could be prevented from entering from the opposite carriageway (i.e. travelling east); it is unlikely they can be without roadway changes to physically prevent it.

The early design evolution was based on scenario 1 of the Planning Brief and has some design advantages over the scheme we now see. In acquiring (part of) the adjacent plot of land the applicant appears to be at pains to avoid engaging scenario 2/2a. This is disingenuous. We see no legitimate planning reasons for avoiding doing so and say that there will likely be a wholly better outcome for all parties if the applicant were honest about its ambitions and holistically explored a mixed use scheme across both plots that made best use of the existing Lodge and undeveloped land in line with para 5.9 of the Planning Brief.

The applicant may have to consider that the site, with its significant heritage constraint, is not suitable for a school of this size. Alternatively it should return with a more thoroughly considered application for both sites together.