Shoreditch CAAC April 2023

Planning Applications for Shoreditch CAAC meeting for April 2023


2023/0362 4 Christopher Street, 56 And 58 Wilson Street And, 1, 3 And 5 Earl Street, EC2A Demolition of the existing buildings, and redevelopment of the site with a mixed-use development ranging in height from 5-20 storeys above ground level, an upper ground floor mezzanine, and 2 full basement floors and 3rd part basement floor, to accommodate office (Class E), flexible retail, cafe (Class E), ancillary space, back of house areas, cycle storage, plant, landscaping, and all associated works. Full Planning Permission (Louise Prew)

The Shoreditch Conservation Area Advisory Committee supports well designed new developments and sympathetic renovation of existing buildings, particularly with regard to nearby or apurtenant listed buildings or buildings of townscape merit. This particular site could have been ideal because of the location but sadly none of these features have been applied. The subject proposal is gross, overscale and without any genuine architectural skill or merit. Therefore we OBJECT to this application in the strongest possible terms. Here are some of our reasons for the objection. 1. Whilst the application site is not in a Conservation Area it is in fact wedged between the South Shoreditch CA and the Sun Street CA, adversely affecting both of them. The South Shoreditch CA is located approximately 100 metres to the north of the Site. The Sun Street Conservation Area begins at the southern side of Earl Street, ie across from 1-5 Earl Street. These buildings, proposed here for demolition, are on Hackney's local list of non designated heritage assets. Similarly, the documents show that Council planning officers identified the retained facades at 56 and 58 Wilson Street as non-designated heritage assets in pre-application correspondence. This site forms a significant proportion of the Wilson St / Dysart St Area of Townscape Character Interest and faces the Sun Street Conservation Area. The Sun Street Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the building as one of Townscape Merit, making a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. It contributes to the cohesive historic townscape within the townscape and conservation areas. The massing and height of the development overall has a substantial harmful impact on the Sun Street Conservation Area and the Wilson St - Clifton St stretch between the SSCA and the Sun Street CA, which is an “Area of Townscape Interest” and the building on the corner of Earl St / Wilson St as a “Building of Townscape Merit". We note that the existing facades will not be retained - conservation is not just about preserving buildings but it is also about traces and memories of heritage in cases when existing whole buildings cannot be retained. The idea of leaving the old facade in place , even to the detriment of the proposal's integrity is very appealing within that logic and especially due to the scale of the proposed development. Addressing scale and massing: the applicant quotes the 'South Shoreditch Conservation Appraisal (page 11 of their report entitled 'The Townscape Consultancy') as follows: ' The relationship between the SSCA and areas of outside is important to note, particularly the contrast in scale of developments at the Southern fringe of the SSCA where heights of buildings increase at the boundary. This clear distinction in building heights between those building between the Conservation Area and those outside is an important characteristic of Shoreditch'. By quoting this they appear to justify the bulky mass and scale of the proposal. But defining a characteristic is not in itself a direction to follow. This characteristic does not mean it is setting a desired precedent. Would we really want the Conservation Area to be boxed in by ever more massive buildings thus losing its sense of scale, heritage, and its skyline? We object to the massive proportionsand scale of the proposal on the edge of the South Shoreditch Conservation Area. This creates streetscapes that are canyon like, and overpowers streets and heritage townscape in the CA (e.g., view from Paul Street). There are ways of designing tall buildings which would avoid the overwhelming massive presence of this proposal in the townscape. In terms of sustainable conservation and public realm issues, we would want buildings to be flexible enough to provide for future use. The scale and deep plans of this building type seem to preclude such future. Surely buildings concepts of the future in these areas should be re-configured with narrower plans that can be given more natural light and ventilation on lower rise urban blocks. It is not clear whether the 'internal street'/passage way is really publicly accessible. It should not be named 'internal street'. It has nothing of the urban permeability of a true street and is not even as public as a shopping centre. Its broader social benefit is dubious.


2022/3097 Holywell Lane Yard, EC2A 3PQ Temporary change of use for a period of three years from open site car park (sui generis) to food market (Class E); erection of part single, part two storey buildings and boundary treatments at ground floor level; reconfiguration of access points; Landscaping to include raised seating areas; erection of advertisements. Full Planning Permission (Nick Bovaird)

OBJECTION. There is no advertising consent application to address the erection of advertisements. There is no Design and access statement with the application.Overall we consider the proposal to be detrimental to the Conservation area.


2022/1165 Telephone House, 69 - 77 Paul Street, EC2A 4NW Demolition to ground floor level of existing building; erection of building to maximum height of ten storeys around a central courtyard to provide office accommodation (Use Class E(g), ground floor retail space (Use Class E), a basement event space (Sui Generis) and associated facilities, landscaping to include visitor cycle spaces. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION ONLY: Reconsultation to reflect a reduced massing and updated documents, including the Daylight/Sunlight Report. Full Planning Permission (Nick Bovaird)

No objection


2023/0472 Lion And The Lamb, The Lion And Lamb, 46 Fanshaw Street, N1 6LG Alterations to the roof of the rear extension. Full Planning Permission (James Clark)

No objection. A thoughtful proposal


2022/2630 The Frog Hoxton, 45 - 47 Hoxton Square, N1 6PB Retrospective application for minor works to the ground floor shopfront including the repainting of the shopfront, relocation of heaters, adjustments to the lighting, alterations to the awning and additions of LED lighting as well associated works. Full Planning Permission (James Clark)

OBJECTION to the garish nature of the external decoration and signage and to the LED colour shift window fittings, all of which are in direct opposition to the Hoxton Square Character Area Opportunities for Enhancement as specified in Section 13.6 of the South Shoreditch Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, namely: "Limit the extent of clutter in relation to adverts, awnings, lighting and heaters." In addition, we note that the changes have been in place for many months without planning approval; we deplore the increasing tendency to turn to retrospective applications to regularise changes already in place.


2023/0491 Sushi Box, 86 Murray Grove, N1 7QJ Change of use from existing to restaurant & takeaway (Class Use: Suis Generis) and installation of extraction ducting system. Full Planning Permission (Alishba Emanuel)

No objection


2023/0706 Barrio East Limited, 141 - 143 Shoreditch High Street, E1 6JE Redevelopment and relocation of telecommunications equipment including the replacement of nine antennae on new pole mounts, together with associated equipment housing and new louvered plant screen. Full Planning Permission (Gerard Livett)

OBJECTION. This great unsightly lump added to the top of the subject building will effectively add approximately two stories to the height of the structure.

This page was added on 18/08/2023.