Kingsland CAAC October 2021

Planning Applications for Kingsland CAAC meeting for October 2021

2021/2150 Trade Price Catering, 325 Kingsland Road, E8 4DL 2 storey rear extension Full Planning Permission [Application Refuse] (Raymond Okot)

We have serious concerns about this application. The existing rear extension together with the proposed addition above constitutes overdevelopment and would, if approved, set a precedent for similar proposals elsewhere in the Conservation Area. The rear of this terrace can be seen from Downham Road and the proposed rear extension will affect the light values of the adjacent property. The applicant still proposes to install uPVC windows and door which are not appropriate in the Conservation Area.

2021/2524 95 Tottenham Road, N1 4EA Retrospective permission for painting of window frames and stucco to front elevation. Householder Planning (Danny Huber)

We object to this application. We appreciate that there are a few examples of relatively recently painted houses using a dark colour scheme in De Beauvoir. However the uniformity of the terraces which is crucial to De Beauvoir is maintained by the continuity of colour. This colour scheme adversely affects the setting of the properties in this part of the street. We also object to the paving of the front garden and the introduction of the large bike shed.

2021/2763 39 Stamford Road, N1 4JP Replacement of existing single glazed timber windows with new double glazed timber units on front and rear elevations. Full Planning Permission (James Clark)

The Design and Access statement would appear to have been cut and pasted from one for another property. This property is not locally listed, nor is it in Islington and we would question the stated date of construction. We are pleased that the applicant proposes to replace the doors with panelled doors more in keeping with the style of the house. However we think that they should also replace the casement window Wo3 with a traditional sash window with 6 over 6 panes. We note that the glazing bars on the proposed casement windows are to be attached with double sided tape, although there is no mention whether this method will be employed for the sash windows. We hope that the double sided tape is of suitable strength to withstand the torrential rain that seems to be more prevalent now.

2021/2687 Arthurs Cafe, 495 Kingsland Road, E8 4AU RETENTION OF EXTRACTOR SYSTEM Full Planning Permission (Micheal Garvey)

We have no objection provided that the extraction unit does not adversely affect adjacent properties with low level background noise or vibration.

2021/2733 43 Balls Pond Road, N1 4BW Erection of a 1m front boundary fence and side boundary fence; Painting ground floor front doors; Removal of metal security grille from ground floor front window. Householder Planning (Micheal Garvey)

We would still prefer to see traditional railings with a maintained hedge behind which should alleviate the litter problem. This would complement the locally listed building.

2021/2694 The Hangar Unit 3, Perseverance Works, 38 Kingsland Road, E2 8DD Advertisement Consent for installation of two wall mounted non-illuminated billboards. Advertisement Consent (Erin Glancy)

No objection.

2021/2759 9 Stamford Road, N1 4JP Replacement of all existing single glazed timber windows with new double glazed timber units on front and rear elevations. Full Planning Permission (Erin Glancy)

This property is locally listed but not by the London Borough of Islington. It is a Victorian house probably built circa 1850 rather than 1920 as noted in the Design and Access statement. The applicant is proposing to install windows on a like for like basis. However W9 and W11 should be replaced with sash windows in keeping with the style of the house. If not to be replaced with sash windows W5 and W10 should be in matching style. It is stated that the proposed front windows will be slimline to accommodate the Conservation teams requirements but that the rear windows will be standard sash box. Why is this, the Conservation Area is not restricted to the front of the property? We note that it is proposed to attach the glazing bars on the casement windows with double sided tape, however there is no mention whether this method will be employed for the sash windows. We hope that the double sided tape is of suitable strength to withstand the torrential rain that seems to be more prevalent now.

2021/2783 17 Stamford Road, N1 4JP To erect a new garden room to the rear of no. 17 Stamford Road to replace the existing garden room located in the rear of the garden. Householder Planning (Erin Glancy)

No objection.

2021/2546 74 Ufton Road, N1 4HH Creation of a new front boundary wall and the insertion of a rooflight in the existing rear extension together with the replacement of existing sliding sash windows, sliding doors on the rear extension and the lower ground floor door. The proposal will also repave the front steps and lightwell redecorate the door. and install new lights to the front of the dwelling. Householder Planning (James Clark)

We object to the size of the proposed roof light which will be a major source of light pollution and have a profound effect on the neighbouring property. There is no detailed drawing of the proposed front railings or information on the style of the finials. This application should have included contextural drawings or photographs of the adjacent property.

2021/2746 2 Englefield Road, N1 4LN Replacement of the existing house entrance door with a new panel styled timber door. Householder Planning (Raymond Okot)

This Victorian property was certainly built prior to 1975 contrary to the assertion in the Design and Access statement. The existing and proposed drawings of the door shows the fanlight above with a central mullion which does not exist. We would prefer that the door be refurbished if possible.

2021/2745 58 Mortimer Road, N1 5AP Replacement of all existing timber entranced doors with new panelled styled timber doors, finished in the same colour to match the existing style and design. Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

The Design and Access statement incorrectly records the property as being built in 1900. It also states that there are three doors on the front elevation, one at the top of the stairs and the other two either side at basement level. However the door to the right belongs to the neighbouring house number 56 and there is no door at basement level of No 58.. The proposed door schedule shows only the main door is to be replaced. This has a very nice fan light window above which has not been correctly reproduced in the drawings. We trust the fanlight is to remain.

2021/2765 Flat 1, 81 Hertford Road, N1 5AG Demolition and replacement of existing garden shed with a single storey ground floor rear outbuilding comprising office and storage spaces. Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

We are concerned that with a location so close to the boundary wall there will be no room to maintain the cladding on the rear wall of the proposed garden office.

2021/2757 41 Stamford Road, N1 4JP Replacement of all existing single glazed timber windows with new double glazed timber units on front and rear elevations. Replacement of all existing front entrance doors with new timber units. Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

This is not a locally listed building nor is it in the London Borough of Islington as suggested in the Heritage statement. We also question the age of the building , 1920 as quoted in the Design and Access statement. Both documents have been cut and pasted from those compiled for another property without sufficient attention to detail. Window W3 should be replaced with a traditional sash window, 6 over 6 panes, matching the one to the left. Slatted panes above a plain glass window are not in keeping with the style of the house. We note that it is proposed to attach the glazing bars on the casement windows with double sided tape, however there is no mention whether this method will be employed for the sash windows. We hope that the double sided tape is of suitable strength to withstand the torrential rain that seems to be more prevalent now. It is stated that the front windows will be slimline to accommodate the Conservation Team's requirements but the rear windows will be standard sashbox. What is the reason for this, the Conservation area is not restricted to the front of the property?

2021/2744 83 Mortimer Road, N1 5AR Replacement of existing timber entranced door with new panelled styled timber door. Full Planning Permission (Raymond Okot)

We object to this application which is one of several submitted this month on behalf of the Clarion Housing Group. All of the applications have contained mistakes in the Design and Access statements which appear to have been cut and pasted from one for another property in another Borough. This application contains the D&A for a different house in the same street. The agent needs to review the application, correct the mistakes and learn from them before resubmitting this and future applications.

2020/4054 Canalside Studios, 2 - 4 Orsman Road, N1 5FB Creation of a permanent residential mooring with associated timber decking and service bollards. [Note for consultation: This is a new application submitted due to I.T. issues experienced by the council. Comments submitted on previous application/s cannot be taken into consideration.] *Reconsultation with Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and the peer review of the PEA available online* Full Planning Permission (Louise Prew)

The peer review of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal recommends that until five additional documents are provided to the Planning Authority the application should remain undetermined. We concur with this conclusion. We also reiterate the concern in our earlier comments on this application that a boat leaving the KIngsland Basin will pass very close to a boat in the proposed mooring and if a boat is travelling westwards along the canal under the narrow Kingsland bridge there is also the potential for collision.

2021/1906 De Beauvoir Estate (phase 1) Downham Road, N1 All works associated with site clearance of six sites and erection of five buildings of six storeys and a four storey row of ten terraced houses, to provide 189 mixed tenure residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and 693m2 of non-residential space (Use Class E); landscaping to include residential courtyards, public realm, tree planting, the provision of play space, cycle parking, reorganisation of existing car parking and all associated infrastructure. Full Planning Permission (Nick Bovaird)

We appreciate the need for more properties in Hackney to alleviate the Council’s large waiting list and making use of space on the De Beauvoir Estate is a reasonable option.  However we do have some reservations about how the proposed buildings along Downham Road will affect the setting of the De Beauvoir and the Kingsland Conservation Areas. 

We seriously regret the decision not to follow the established building line along Downham Road but to set the four buildings (Hertford Road, Downham Road East, 81 Downham Road and Downham Road West) closer to the pavement edge.  Given the bulk of the six storey blocks and the proposed use of the dark Ibstock brick to match the existing buildings on the estate, siting the new buildings so close to the road will appear oppressive and have a detrimental effect on the streetscape.  The views along Downham Road from Viewpoint 01, at the junction of Southgate Road, and Viewpoint 8, at the junction with Kingsland Road, demonstrate how overbearing the new six storey buildings will be. 

In the Heritage statement a study of the visual impact and significance of effect concludes that ‘none of the sites should have an adverse effect on the Conservation Areas as they represent an improvement to the existing baseline environment’.  However as the sites currently comprise hoardings and shipping crates, recycling bins, derelict concrete structures and a parking podium it is quite hard not to make a positive difference.  Even so of the 12+1 viewpoints two have a neutral impact/effect, eight are low beneficial/slight enhancement and only three show medium beneficial/moderate enhancement which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposals.

Downham Road West at the junction of Southgate Road and Downham Road is a very visible corner stone to this development particularly as it is located on the borders of Hackney and Islington.  The proposed design fails to enhance this site. It should hold and visually help 'turn the corner'.  Merely having a token amendment at ground floor level fails to give this facade refinement. 

The entrances on these buildings appear too narrow given the amount of use they will receive. Double width doors would seem a better solution and be more in keeping with the large entrance lobby areas.  The suitable provision of furniture and plants should make these places attractive for residents rather than just spaces to traverse before reaching the lifts and stairs.   It is unfortunate that at the Downham Road West and 81 Downham Road buildings the flats on the ground floor, most of which are designated for wheelchair access, are served by the much smaller entrances adjacent to plant rooms.  We are also concerned about the outside central spaces in these buildings which are uninspired with a single tree, hard landscaping and surrounded by the rear of the plant and switch rooms, the waste stores and the retail units.  A touch of beauty would not go amiss! 

We hope that the accommodation will be as good and spacious as possible given the many constraints.  We note that all of the flats and houses exceed the minimum space standards set out in the London Plan and elsewhere.  However we are disappointed that the living areas in the flats for five persons could not be more generous.  The two houses at either end of the new terrace overlook the waste storage facilities for St Lawrence Court.  Not only is this an uninspiring view but it could be quite noisy when the bins are being moved or someone is dumping heavy items or bottles.  Similarly we hope that the two ground floor flats at the Balmes Road site have suitable acoustic treatment for the walls separating them from the cycle store, plant rooms and waste storage.  These flats are lower than the upper section of public walkway beside the canal.  Not only will their view from the outside terrace/balcony be limited but there may be loss of privacy issues resulting from the walkway.

Many of the properties on the north side of Downham Road opposite the proposed new buildings will suffer some loss of light.  It would seem that, because this is an urban area, reductions in daylight no greater than 30% are deemed minor transgressions from targets laid out in the BREE guidelines. There are some properties where several windows will suffer a 30-39.9% reduction and a few where the reduction in daylight will be greater than 40%.  All 16 of the windows at 32a-34 Hertford Road will be substantially affected by the Hertford Road building and it is argued that some of the windows have been partially or entirely blocked from within for the last ten years, but the use of the building may change in future. 

However it is on the estate itself where the greatest reductions are observed, most notably at St Lawrence Court, St Aubins Court and St Brelades.   Many of these windows do not meet the BREE criteria and nearly a half face a reduction in daylight of greater than 40%.  These values are explained as primarily the result of the architecture of the buildings or that the windows serve circulation spaces or non-habitable rooms.   According to the Daylight and Sunlight report ‘numerical targets within BREE guidelines are purely advisory and may be viewed flexibly where it is appropriate to do so within the confines of the development site’.  We wonder the value of commissioning these reports if all the anomalies can be explained away with impunity.  However the report does point out that, with respect to Trafalgar Point on the corner of Southgate Road, ‘it should be noted that were the ground floor windows required to be respected to no greater than 20% reductions in daylight it is likely that the development site at Downham Road West would be restricted to a much lower massing across the site, likely as low as one or two stories’. 

The architects have provided drawings showing the constraints and opportunities of each site.   Those for the proposed buildings along Downham Road and Hertford Road show orange hatched lines in front of the Victorian buildings which are not explained in the key to the diagrams.  However the explanation of ‘possible rights to light issues with existing dwellings’ is provided on the diagram for the Balmes Road site where there aren’t any such issues.  It is noted that the other major constraint of residential windows and amenity close to the boundary will require measures to address privacy, overlooking and overshadowing concerns.  But the issue of possible rights to light issue does not appear to be addressed.

The De Beauvoir Estate will be made far more appealing with the provision of plenty of greenery such as trees and shrubs.  We would like to see some variation from the dark Ibstock brick referred to in our second paragraph. This material strikes a rather stark and sombre stance and the intermingling of a lighter and possibly a multi-colour brick could brighten and enliven the estate panoramas.  We appreciate the desire to provide new hard landscaping which matches that already on the estate.  However when the estate was built fifty years ago the need for more permeable materials was not recognised and we hope that the wish to replicate the existing paving does not prevent the use of more sustainable materials which will also permit better drainage.