Friday, 20 May 2011

Redevelopment proposed for 67A-76 Dalston Lane

This is the image presented for a redevelopment proposal which is now out for public consultation. It will shortly be considered for planning permission. The site is at 67A-76 Dalston Lane next to Martel Place mini-roundabout leading to the car park at the back of Matalan and the Kingsland Shopping Centre.

This view is facing south from the Dalston Lane bridge over the North London Line

The high density development, promoted by a private developer, will consist of 2 blocks - the block facing Dalston Lane is for rented flats and is between 5 - 7 storeys and, behind it, the second block for private flats ranges from 7 - 10 storeys. The development will include 119 new flats in all - 66% of the flats are one and two bedrooms and 5 flats are 4 bedrooms. 40% of the habitable rooms are to be in the 44 "affordable" flats of which 26 are for social renting. No 'key worker' accommodation is identified in the scheme. The development will be "car free" but there will be 8 "disability spaces" and 130 bike spaces.

The site is within a Priority Employment Area (PEA)) where the Council’s policies seek employment-led mixed-use development. The development also comprises "modern, flexible business space suited for office, studio and light-industrial activities and capable of supporting in the region of 90 jobs." Presently, the developers say, there are a range of light industrial "dilapidated and unremarkable" buildings which accommodate a second-hand car parts dealer, a car and van hire business, a paper supplier and "20 studio spaces used by artists and designers". In fact there are over 40 artists and designers using the studios at present. All the existing buildings will be demolished and transformed into a "coherent piece of townscape" - in which affordable studio space for artists will be absent.

Although the development comprises two blocks the mix of black and gray cladding "in different densities creates the actual visual effect of the scheme is that of a number of much smaller blocks of varying height" which, it is said,"responds to the varied character and form of the townscape around the site" ( the area is predominantly 2 -4 storey houses) and which "won’t dominate the skyline or views from the conservation areas" (of which the 4-storey Victorian terrace directly over the road in Dalston Lane is part).

"Sustainability" features prominently in the promotional material - the development will achieve "an overall reduction in CO2 emissions of 21.2% when compared with a comparable baseline building".

If you want to learn more about the scheme follow this link by clicking here

The consultation officially closes on 30.5.11 but the Council will usually consider comments received up to the date of the Planning Committee hearing. If you want to comment on the scheme follow this link by clicking here.


  1. Good. Some new decent social housing. In the interest of accuracy though, perhaps you should point out that the proposal is sited alongside 8 storey and 14 storey apartment blocks rather than stating "the area is predominantly 2-4 storey houses". Personally, I would have gone taller; we need all the housing we can get.

  2. Anonymous says we “need all the housing we can get”. True – but not at any price. If you take a single issue approach to the built environment ie cram in as many units onto wherever, you end up with the misery of the old high rise slums of Holly Street, Kingshold and Trowbridge estates and tenants spent years campaigning for their demolition. High density low rise works so much better for family housing.
    And, incidentally, the existing buildings are 2 storeys and the conservation area terraced houses opposite are 2-3 storeys. You can't ignore these just because developers have started building a high rise cluster nearby.

  3. OK I'll try again to post a comment. Last time I went to 67 Dalston Lane they were flats. Surely they are not going to be pulled down they've only just bin put up?

  4. Downdalston is right. The new development is next door to 67 Dalston Lane, at 67A -76. We've amended the post to make that clear. Thanks for pointing it out.

  5. Anonymous(10:28) says of my post that "You can't ignore these just because developers have started building a high rise cluster nearby." I wasn't ignoring anything, merely pointing out that OpenDalston had ignored the fact that the site is adjacent to a high-rise cluster.
    Also, I do wish people would stop exploiting the social problems of poverty in order to oppose high-rise living. We don't see these problems in Barbican or Canary Wharf but we do see them on low-rise council estates all over the country. The cause is poverty not high-rise. Furthermore, this isn't a single issue approach. High-rise living addresses demand, affordability, economics, and the issue of catastrophic climate-change. Low-rise planning in a world capital with an increasing population, a chronic housing shortage, smallest room sizes, and some of the most expensive accomodation in the world, isn't so much a "plan" but more an economic and environmental suicide note.

  6. I supported OPEN's opposition to Barratt's Dalston Junction, but not because it is high rise. I was opposed to the new development's failure to retain our historic buildings, the unsustainable financial and environmental cost of the monumental slab, its overbearing presence and disregard of the surroundngs, the loss of sunlight and its wind tunnel effect and the almost total lack of affordable housing. The Council supported it for all the reasons which Anonymous 7:59 gives whilst ignoring a viable alternative scheme.


Please leave comments that will add to the debate! We will not publish comments which are abusive or repetitive.

If we do not publish your comment and you are unhappy, please email with your contact details.