Planning Committee Addendum Report 7.3.12: ITEM 6: 51-57 Kingsland High Street, London E8




ITEM 6: 51-57 Kingsland High Street, London E8

Corrections to the report:
  • The application address should include Dalston Kingsland Station.
  • The Site Location Plan at the beginning of this item is incorrect. This plan was amended to include the train station, see presentation.  
  • The analysis table should note that the existing building comprises 2844m2 of retail floorspace over two floors. 
  • 222 Cycle parking spaces are proposed as part of the development, and not 190 as previously indicated in the report.
  • 4.1: The first consultation period commenced on 22nd December and not January as stated in the report.
  • 6.1.1: The amount of retail floorspace has reduced to 1039sqm as a result of the revisions to the scheme.
  • Section 5.4 should include PPS4 ( Sustainable Economic Development)  and PPG24 ( Planning and Noise) .

Additional Consultation comments received:

Greater London Authority:
The principle of this generally well designed, mixed use development regenerating the retail provision and introducing more residential use in the town centre is in line with the London Plan. However further discussion and clarification is needed on viability, child play space, noise, climate change mitigation and transport. The proposals for food growing are strongly supported.

In terms of design the applicant has made a number of changes to the application following submission of the application. The design concept on the whole is supported and the accommodation proposed largely complies with the London Housing Design Guide. The height of the tower does not raise strategic concerns although the Council should ensure that its impact locally is acceptable.

The application proposes no affordable housing given the proposed contribution to transport improvements. This position is acceptable given the flexibility provided by policy 8.2D, which highlights the priority that can be given to transport contributions. The GLA has also commissioned an independent review of the applicant’s financial viability appraisal and the results of this are awaited. Hackney Council is proposing a clawback mechanism within the S106 requiring that a final review of the financial viability is undertaken at a later date. This approach is supported.

Sufficient play space is provided on site to meet the needs of children from the development who are under 12 years of age.  However the applicant should set out where over 12s can play. In addition the energy strategy is largely in accordance with London Plan policies although should confirm that all uses will be connected to the site heating infrastructure network, and provide details of the electricity sales strategy.

In terms of transport the Overground lines have sufficient capacity to cope with the demands of the development. However the station itself experiences congestion at peak times. The Improvements to the station including enhancements to the ticket hall and increased gateline capacity would significantly enhance the setting and approach to this development and are welcomed by London Plan policy 6.2. TfL requests a financial contribution of £350,000 for five years to meet the impact of the development upon capacity of bus routes which adjoin the site. 

Conservation  Urban Design and Sustainability team comments:
From an urban design perspective the principle of intensifying the site and increasing density to provide a mixed use development scheme are supported, including the public realm improvement at Dalston Kingsland Railway Station, as an important catalyst for the regeneration of Dalston town centre. The building design concept has been developed to a stage that Officers are now confident that the scheme demonstrates high design quality, a strong commitment to sustainability goals and a strong element of community benefits.

With regard to the Kingsland High Street elevation the architectural design approach is strongly contemporary with a white anodised aluminium grid, framing large areas of glazing and black aluminium cladding. The appearance of the building is softened by extensive planting both in troughs within the white grid, roof terraces and individual flat balconies and walls. The vertical columns reference the plot widths of the buildings to the south of the site whilst the storey height bands subtly line through the adjoining building the south.

The front elevation is now more transparent as new set backs have been introduced at top level with open pergolas, in line with the 'open' corner, also at roof level. Cut outs and open cornicing has also been introduced at the roof level of the front building and main tower in order to introduce an element of movement and create a more sculptural finish. The variations to the roof line are important and assist in reducing the scale and animating the elevation. The bold, contemporary materials provide a contrast to the brick faced buildings to the south. Also, the colour scheme has been revised and now appears subtle and coherent. The colour palette is appropriately in shades of green, which will complement the natural greening.

With regard to the rear taller element alongside Boleyn Road the massing has undergone a series of modelling exercises to provide a more sculptured and visually interesting form, which incorporates chamfered corners and an open lattice design at the roof level that will be softened by the natural greening of the roof terrace. The scale of the building and its striking appearance will provide an interesting contrast between the prevailing development along Kingsland High Street and surrounding streets. The development will mark the train station and the heart of the town centre.

The proposed tower will be visible in a number of short and long range views, including from Boleyn Road, Kingsland High Street, Ridley Road and Stoke Newington High Street. However, the setting back of the 18 storey element some distance back from Kingsland High Street will significantly reduce its dominance in views up and down the high street. In addition the tower element is set back at 5th floor level from the western elevation of the building where it adjoins Boleyn Road. This would ensure that this elevation to relates better to the Boleyn Road townscape in short range views.

A strong case has been made for additional height above 15 storeys and the buildings incorporate a highly detailed fa├žade system, which will be complemented by the natural greening of the building and be a unique and striking addition to the Dalston townscape. 

In terms of local heritage assets, the submitted views demonstrate that the tower will not adversely affect the setting of the nearby St Marks, De Beauvoir and Dalston Lane (West) conservation are, the Grade II* (star) listed St Mark’s Church and Grade II listed building at 41 Kingsland High Street. As such the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the relevant regional and local policies related to conservation and design.

London Borough of Islington (LBI):
The Kingsbury Road (Jewish Burial Ground) Conservation Area is situated to the west of the development site and is separated from the site by predominantly 4-storey development. There will be a view of the development from the north entrance to the cemetery and this will be a significant increase in scale of buildings which surrounds the Conservation Area. If approved this 18-storey building will set the scale for future development in the surrounding area, with potential further harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.

As such the proposals by reason of their height and scale would not be in keeping with the context of its immediate surroundings in Islington. Therefore it is considered to be an unacceptable form of development that is not supported by LBI. Should the proposals be granted planning permission then the development should provide financial contributions to the S106 agreement for community facilities in Islington. 

High Speed 1 / CTRL:
Recommend the following conditions are attached to any consent:
Foundation Design: “Prior to the start of construction, details of the design of the foundations and other works proposed below existing ground level shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with HS1.  Construction activity shall then be carried out in compliance with the approved details unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with HS1. Provide as-built drawings including foundations upon completion.
Reason: To ensure that loads on, and settlement of, HighSpeed1 tunnels, structures, track and other infrastructure do not prejudice the safety or operation of HighSpeed1”

Site investigations near to HighSpeed1 (in tunnel): “Prior to the start of site investigations involving a borehole or trial pit deeper than one metre, details of the location and depth of site investigations including a method statement shall be submitted in writing  to  the Local Planning Authority for their written consideration in consultation with HS1.  This activity shall then be carried out only in compliance with the approved details unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with HS1.

Reason:  This information has not been provided and is required in order that the borehole or trial pit is at an acceptable vertical and horizontal distance from the tunnel such that it does not compromise the integrity, safety or operation of HighSpeed1”.

Vibration: “Prior to the start of construction details of the plant and equipment proposed which are likely to give rise to vibration (such as pile driving, demolition and vibro-compaction of the ground) together with predicted vibration levels, shall be submitted in writing to  the Local Planning Authority for their written consideration in consultation with HS1.  Activities likely to cause vibration in the vicinity of HighSpeed1 infrastructure such that a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 5mm/s may be exceeded at the railway boundary will be subject to agreement in advance. Where activities could give rise to PPV of 5mm/s or greater, a vibration and settlement monitoring regime shall be submitted in writing to for approval by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with HS1.  It shall be put in place prior to the start of works.  HS1 shall be provided reasonable access to the results of monitoring.

Reason: No details of vibration have been provided. To ensure that vibration does not prejudice safety, operation and structural integrity of HighSpeed1”.

Network Rail:
Network Rail is working with our colleagues in Transport for London, Local Authorities and Train Operating Companies to improve London’s railway stations to the benefit of rail passengers and the wider community. We believe the developing proposals for the 51-57 Kingsland Road Scheme provide an opportunity to deliver such benefits and we look forward to supporting and assisting in taking the scheme forward.

London Borough of Hackney: Regeneration Team :
From an Inward Investment and Regeneration perspective the station improvements will provide considerable benefits for the Town Centre. From an Inward Investment and business perspective the station upgrade will help to keep Dalston competitive as a business base providing a station that can meet the demands of local business enhancing the station to a level that can provide improved access and flow for staff and business visitors to the town centre. It is critical that the first impression of the Town Centre for visitors is a pleasant experience. Currently with the lack of sufficient facilities especially Oyster validation points within the station, access and egress to the station at peak times can take several minutes. This does not start people’s experience of Dalston in a positive way.

Furthermore, the improved station facilities will have a major impact on providing sufficient capacity for retail and leisure users of the Town Centre. Dalston has several major attractions such as Ridley Road Market (over 750,000 visitors per annum), the new Library and Borough Archives, Gillett Square, the Arcola Theatre and a number of art galleries, restaurants, bars and leisure spaces. To service this key part of the local economy high quality and sufficient capacity within the local transport networks are critical.

Additional comments from Hackney Transportation with regard to LIP (Local Improvement Programme) funding for station improvement:
This development does provide a unique opportunity to fund the station improvements and accessibility which would add to the experience of the many people who use the station as a gateway to Dalston. It would be a shame to miss the opportunity and I would not see this coming along again in the near future. The development clear does not preclude delivery of the improvement at a future date.

Certainly in principle we could seek to use TfL LIP funding for delivery of this project. There are two types of funding available, Major projects (such as the works currently being implemented along the A10) and the more general neighbourhoods and corridor funding. The first is dependant upon the project and its justification and the second is about £2.2m. In general terms the station access scheme would appear to be consistent with the MfL Transport Strategy. However, TfL have already rejected a station access scheme for this station, based on that there are greater priorities on their network. Primarily this is based on there already being one station in the town centre that is step free, with a step free interchange to the NLL at Cannonbury Station, just one stop along the line. A greater priority for new station access schemes for the borough is likely to be Hackney Downs should we decide to invest money available to us into such a scheme.

As TfL have already rejected a funding bid for this station they are unlikely to agree to allocate major project funding towards such a scheme if we were to bid for it. In theory we could seek to allocation the Neighbourhood and Corridor funding towards the scheme and this may be possible. However, we would again need to seek TfL agreement to this and it would effectively use all the funding available to us from this source for a year. Further the Council has recently, last year been through a process to agree a LIP2 document as a statutory document setting out how we intend to deliver the MfL transport Strategy within the borough. This includes a list of priorities and schemes over the next three years. It both highlights major projects which we would seek to prioritise when making bids to TfL and also the types of schemes which we seek to fund from the neighbourhood and Corridor scheme funding. This has been agreed by cabinet and the MfL, following consultation. This station isn’t part of the agreed programme so funding for it is unlikely to come from this source and if it did the scheme would be at the expense of others which are deemed to better meet the transport objectives.

If the application is changed to incorporate the affordable housing it is clear that we would lose the funding for the station. It could be possible to, in future seek contributions towards this project from other developments although there is no clarity when the pot would be sufficient to enable delivery. A further option would be to await any major redevelopment of the shopping centre and seek a major contribution from them.

Dalston Lane West Conservation Area Advisory Committee:
Consider that the proposal for 51-57 Kingsland High Street would be a detrimental overdevelopment of the site, because of the bulk, height, and density of the proposal and the consequences associated with it. This is aggravated by a very poor contribution to the public realm in an area already lacking amenity. The bulk of the scheme comes at the expense of the immediate surrounding streetscape and buildings, and would be detrimental to the quality of the wider Kingsland / Dalston area.

Dalston Lane West CAAC considers that such an addition to the urban fabric would be detrimental to the environment, to the existing business community and shops and to the culture of the area rather than a positive contribution to the local regeneration. Planning Permission should be refused.

We also note that the Planning Department has recommended approval of this application. We strongly object to Planning's acceptance of and support for applications that contravene the Borough's own planning policies.

Design Review Panel Report:
The Design Review Panel report has been agreed with the Chair of the DRP panel. This report is available on request.

Hackney Society:
The building is completely over scaled and the site is over developed for the area in which it sits. We feel that the design is of low quality and overly dominant in the area, resulting in a building which is not in harmony with its context.

The CGI images show the building bathed in greenery. This is unrealistic. In reality experience shows that private balconies rarely have any greenery on. On the majority of views the building will appear very grey and not green as the CGI’s show. The building is predominantly residential but has an external appearance more akin to a city office building. There is no delineation between the change of use or varying block heights, which results in a large and apparently randomly shaped amorphous block, that makes no attempt to break its scale down in response to the scale of the local built environment. The Kingsland Road block is over scaled and thus overly dominant, next to the historic retail buildings of the street. The result is an incongruous addition to the street scape. Whilst this is sometimes possible to pull off if artistically handled, this building is not of sufficient quality to achieve this and appears to be the result of over development.

The side windows adjoining Dalston Kingsland Station appear to prevent any redevelopment or increase in height of the station. Is Network Rail comfortable with this?

Objections from Islington Councillors:
Objections have been received from Islington Councillors for Mildmay Ward and Executive Member for planning regeneration and parking. These concerns relate to the scale, bulk and massing of the proposals, impact upon visual amenity of Islington residents, lack of affordable housing and impact upon the setting of the Jewish Burial Ground Conservation Area.

Update on neighbour consultations:
To date a total of 267 objections, 116 comments and 8 letters of support have been received in relation to the application. A petition with 1328 signatures opposing the application has also been received. The additional comments received largely raise concerns which have already been addressed within the committee report. Further responses have also been received from OPEN Dalston which reiterate their previous concerns.

New issues raised as part of late consultation comments include concern that the address of the application is incorrect and that the station improvement works have not been adequately consulted on. In addition CABE who are a statutory consultee who have not been consulted. Officers consider that the station improvement works have been clearly indicated on the amended development description which was subject to a standard 21 day consultation period. As such it is considered that adequate notice has been given of these works. With regard to CABE it is noted that they are not included as a statutory consultee within the Councils Statement of Community Involvement. CABEs own guidance considers that Councils independent Design Review Panels are best placed to review locally significant proposals. This application has been the subject of extensive review by the Council’s Design Review Panel. 

In addition a comment has been received from Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North raising concern that residents from the Islington side of Boleyn Road have not been consulted. In addition Mr Corbyn is concerned that station improvements should be funded by Network Rail and Transport for London rather than S106 agreements as part of a planning application.

In response officers confirm that the following properties on the Islington side of Boleyn Road have been consulted at both stages of the consultation process: 1-16 Aztec Court, 41A Boleyn Road, 5-39 Boleyn Road, 43-47 Boleyn Road, 49-51 Boleyn Road, 48-58 St Jude Street and 35 St Jude Street. These properties range from 30-90m from the application site, which is in excess of the requirements of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).  

In addition local ward members, Councilors Sophie Linden, Michelle Gregory and Angus Mulready have issued a clarification. The application documentation contains the following statement that “The project team has met Ward councilors Sophie Linden, Michelle Gregory and Angus Mulready-Jones) on 10 January 2011 and 03 March 2011, and Michelle Gregory for a third time on 9 September 2011 where the proposals were outlined. Members were enthusiastic about the proposals and recognised how the scheme could bring significant opportunities to what everyone agreed was an underutilised site”.

The Dalston Ward members confirm that the above statement is not accurate and request that the following clarification is put to the committee: “Dalston councillors did meet the developers to discuss the proposal.  They were not enthusiastic as stated.  They did not indicate that they would support the application at committee. They sought to ensure the best benefit for Dalston if the application were to be submitted and that residents would be properly consulted”.

Amendments to conditions and S106 heads of terms:
There has been further consideration of the proposed heads of terms within the S106 agreement. It is now proposed that head of term 10 (lifetime homes) is included as the following planning condition: “Prior to the occupation of the development all the hereby approved residential units shall be completed to lifetime homes standards.

Reason: In order to ensure that the residential units are accessible and provide a good standard of amenity for future occupiers”.    

In addition it is proposed that Head of term 6 is amended so that it no longer refers to the local heat network. It is proposed that an additional condition is added which ensures the following: “Prior to occupation of the development the hereby approved renewable energy measures, shall be incorporated into a single energy centre with ability to connect to wider heat networks should this become feasible.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposals demonstrate an adequate response to climate change”

In addition it is proposed that condition 8.1.11 (streetlights on buildings) is omitted and included as a head of term within the S106 agreement.

Conditions 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 should be amended to take out the wording “prior to commencement of the development” avoid duplication of wording.

Condition 8.1.13 should be amended to state after point 4 that “the following details shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to occupation of the development”.

Conditions 8.1.14, 8.1.16 and 8.1.17 should be amended to read:-
8.1.14 Construction methodology
Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the design and construction methodology, particularly concerning foundations and superstructure shall be submitted to the London Borough of Hackney (LBH) and London Overground (LO)  for their written consideration  and thereafter implemented in accordance with the details as are so approved.  
 REASON: In order to safeguard the adjoining railway infrastructure.
8.1.16 Sound insulation
A noise assessment following the guidelines of PPG24 and a scheme for sound insulation and noise control measures shall be submitted to   the Local Planning Authority for their written consideration. Once approved, the details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the rooms hereby approved. The sound insulation and noise control measures shall achieve the following internal noise targets: Bedrooms (23.00-07.00 hrs) 30 dB LAeq, and 45 dB Lmax (fast); Living Rooms (07.00-23.00hrs) 35 dB LAeq; Kitchens, bathrooms, WC compartments and utility rooms (07.00 - 23.00 hrs) 45 dB LAeq.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of potential residential occupiers.
8.1.17 Vibration
A scheme for anti-vibration treatment of the foundations and services shall be submitted to the Council for their   written  consideration  prior to the commencement of the development . Once approved the details shall be  implemented to the satisfaction of the Council to achieve the following internal noise targets: Internal vibration levels shall not exceed the category of "low probability of adverse comment" in Table 7 of Appendix A of BS 6472:2008; Groundborne noise shall not exceed 40dB LAmax, Slow as measured in the centre of any residential room.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of potential residential occupiers

Affordable housing and financial viability:
Further discussions have taken place with regard to the financial viability of the proposals. A toolkit appraisal has been agreed with the Council’s surveyors, the GLA and the applicant including existing use values, construction costs and sales values. The appraisal shows that it would not be viable for the development to provide affordable housing in addition to the other secured financial contributions.

However the applicants have confirmed that they agree to the principle of re-assessment of the financial viability of the scheme at two points, on receipt of construction tenders and on the sale of the 65th unit.  

Additional information with regard to daylight / sunlight:
Additional information has been submitted with regard to daylight / sunlight following a visit to Bradbury Mews by the daylight / sunlight consultants. These amended results confirm that the proposals would not result in an undue impact upon 3 of the 4 properties in Bradbury Mews in terms of BRE guidelines for daylight (ADF and No sky line methods of assessment) and sunlight.

The reason why the single unit in Bradbury Mews fails these BRE guidelines is due to the siting of a high fence along its southern boundary. If this fence were removed then this unit would have similar levels of daylight to other properties in Bradbury Mews. 

Signed………………………………                       Date……………………………

Gifty Edila
Corporate Director
Legal, HR and Regulatory Services