Clapton CAAC February 2021

Planning Applications for Clapton CAAC meeting for 18 February 2021

2020/3811 Flat A, 194 Brooke Road, E5 8AP Proposed single storey, ground floor, side and rear 'wrap-around' extension Full Planning Permission (Claire Moore)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2021/0030 Land to the rear of 104 Nightingale Road, E5 8AP Proposed two-bedroom dwelling on land at the rear of 104 Nightingale Road. The proposed building is a single storey volume with bedrooms located on raised mezzanine and lower-ground floor split levels. Full Planning Permission (Kim Aukett)

The Clapton CAAC recognises this is a potential development site, but this proposal is neither distinguished enough to be interesting nor integrated enough to blend in. The elevations fail to engage with either the street or immediate context and the result is mundane verging on the miserable. The CGI may not be doing the corrugated steel material justice, but in any event samples must be secured before agreeing to the form as materiality may well be the only thing going for it.

2021/0143 First Floor Flat, 73 Northwold Road, E5 8RN Erection of a rear dormer window and roof lights within the front roof slope. Householder Planning (Alix Hauser)

The Clapton CAAC objects to the proposal unless the dormer is set back from the party walls and, if necessary, lowered from the ridge in order to conform with the Residential Extensions SPG.

2020/4064 54 Clapton Common, E5 9AL Variation of condition application under (under S73 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to amend condition 2 (approved plans), 3 (Construction logistics plan), 4 (construction management plan), 5 (tree protection), 6 (tree protection), 7 (design of car parking), 8 (removal of invasive species), 11 (piling method statement) and 28 (green / brown roof) of planning permission 2018/0494 dated 25/09/19 for demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 7 storey building comprising a study centre and 16 residential units. Amendments include: change to entrance strategy to the lower ground floor; adjustment to building height; change of apartment floor plan layout. Removal/Variation of Condition(s) (Steve Fraser-Lim)

The Clapton CAAC notes the drawing and Planning Statement refer heavily to a 'Statement of Amendment' which is not supplied, making evaluation impossible.

2021/0036 5 Clapton Terrace, E5 9BW Internal and external works of repair to walls, floors and ceilings Listed Building Consent (Gerard Livett)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2020/3781 5 Clapton Terrace, E5 9BW Erection of single-storey extension to existing outbuilding in rear garden. Listed Building Consent (Gerard Livett)

As per our submission on 2020/2504: The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2020/3978 390 Mare Street, E8 1HP Erection of a roof extension in order to facilitate the creation of 1 self-contained flat Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal but feel it would better address Mare Street with minor layout changes to facilitate four symmetrical windows on that elevation.

2020/3932 Clarks Shoes, 374 Mare Street, E8 1HS New externally illuminated heritage style fascia sign and projecting sign. New internally illuminated ATM Sign. Advertisement Consent (Claire Moore)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2020/3841 Cedra Court Cazenove Road, N16 6AT Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) attached to planning permission 2015/3838 dated 24/02/2016. Effect of variation would be internal modifications; elevational changes; omission of solar panels; changes to window / door specifications; addition of substation at the rear with modification to cycle stores Removal/Variation of Condition(s) (Gerard Livett)

The Clapton CAAC can find no 'as approved' drawings which make comparison of the magnitude of the changes impossible to assess. In addition no statement is available to justify the omission of solar panels.

2020/3445 63 Forburg Road, N16 6HR Erection of ground floor rear extensions with sukkah rooflights to both Nos. 63 and 65 Forburg Road. Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

As per our Sep 2020 submission on 2020/2337: The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal in principle but the detailed design is crude and rudimentary and would benefit from further detailing to retain some quality and relationship to the host building.

2021/0109 92 Osbaldeston Road, N16 6NL erection of a rear roof extension and the insertion of roof lights to the front and a side hipped roof with roof light Householder Planning (Erin Glancy)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection generally, but note true flush conservation rooflights are shown. We think it highly unlikely they will be specified and recommend more detailed drawings are secured by condition. Additionally the UPVC windows stand out as anachronistic and should be resisted.

2021/0192 92 Osbaldeston Road, N16 6NL Erection of a basement and ground floor rear extension Householder Planning (Erin Glancy)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2021/0232 45 Fountayne Road, N16 7ED Excavation and extension of the existing basement, erection of a glazed lightwell enclosure to the rear Householder Planning (Danny Huber)

Reason 1 for refusal of 2020/2228 is not addressed and seems to have been conflated with reason 2 by the applicant. Furthermore the additional reporting on reason 2 - tree protection - is apparently addressed by a planner, not an arboricultural specialist. The excavations must be well below ground with adequate top soil above to be acceptable and remedy reason 1. As it stands our September 2020 comments on the refused scheme still stand: The Clapton CAAC objects to the proposal. We note there is no details of water runoff from the underground extension, but in any event it creates an unpleasant living space and harms the amenity of the garden which will no longer support any growth above it. This is also harmful to biodiversity. In reality this application introduces a awkward 'patio' in the garden with an extended lightwell disconnecting the remaining part of the garden.

2020/3446 New Regents College, The Former New Regents College, 28 Ickburgh Road, E5 8AD Establishment of a specialist school within the existing two buildings with the associated refurbishment of the two existing (school) buildings on Ickburgh Road. Works include the insertion of new openings and replacement of existing openings in elevations, insertion of rooflights, alterations to the roofscape, alterations to cladding, removal of existing temporary 'porta-cabin' structures and sheds, construction of a new glazed lobby, general refurbishment of internal areas and landscaping and the creation of a cycle store and the reprovision of 2 accessible parking bays. Full Planning Permission (Claire Moore)

The Clapton CAAC makes the following further observations:

We welcome the additional heritage assessment - though note the applicant's heritage assessment, dated November 2020, was not available on the Council's website (and this remains the case at the time of writing), which begs the question as to why. Had we seen it, we might well have been able to make a more informed representation first time around.  The Council's own Conservation Officer makes a new detailed assessment on the basis of this and we welcome confirmation this is an undesignated heritage asset, and the commitment to seeking further restoration in the future. It is regrettable that the Council's planning and conservation officers of the time did not take the observations of the CAAC and Hackney Society on this point seriously in previous applications nor at the 2012 local listing review (albeit we were under the impression it was listed). It is evident that the failure to do so has led to further erosion of the historic fabric. In the face of a fuller assessment we are content with the proposed conditions though continue to resist the choice of stained or treated timber for Block A. Having acknowledged in the Heritage Statement that block B "has been altered almost beyond recognition and that is greatly to its detriment" it seems perverse to now introduce the beige neutrality of timber and full height glass. We urge the applicant to reconsider design and appearance more in line with the primary colour elements which were introduced across the site after Foster's Block B pioneered them. We are not suggesting they are aped - merely there are more nods to them and less neutrality. Provided this design observation is addressed in the Officer's Report we are happy this decision should be a delegated one. Furthermore we would suggest an informative point be added to the formal decision notice to reflect the Conservation Officer's concerns, the non-designated heritage asset status and to record the commitment of the applicant to seek to reverse some of the damage done in the past and for planners to seek this in any future applications. For reference, our comments submitted in January were: The locally listed building is an undesignated heritage asset and as such the application should include a Heritage Assessment, but it does not. Such research would have revealed to the applicant that this very early work by Norman Foster sports the original high contrast colour scheme which was an extra-sensory enrichment, and helped give the buildings their unique signature. Their apparent loss is to be resisted. In addition there is insufficient details of some of the new elements and repairs. The choice of timber is not supported without further justification, details and samples as timber weathers poorly and will detract from the appearance. Overall we suggest a decorative rethink. Otherwise the proposal is acceptable.