Tuesday, 17 April 2012

6 storey block for 130 Kingsland High street rejected by Hackney

Hackney Council's Planning Department has today refused an outline application for permission to develop a 6-storey block on the corner of Kingsland High Street and Sandringham Road (the Tesco site at 130 Kingsland High Street) opposite Dalston's Rio Cinema. The planning application was refused using Council officers' delegated powers without being considered by its Planning Committee.The application was for a basement car park, ground floor retail, four floors of offices and 4 x 2-bed flats on the top floor. The decision follows the rejection last month of an 18-storey tower by nearby Kingsland Station.

The application was strongly opposed by local residents affected by the development who lodged a petition and well argued written objections.The grounds of refusal included the absence of family housing; the obtrusive scale of the development which failed to respect local character and its detrimental impact on the Grade II listed Rio Cinema and the St. Marks Conservation Area; the overbearing impact and the loss of light and amenity to local homes; the poor quality living accommodation proposed; the excessive provision of car parking and the failure to provide an adequately eco-sustainable form of development.


  1. Sadly recently every new project for Dalston seems to be rejected.
    It's a real shame that these sites (the Teso site, the Peacock site) are not allowed to be improved and modernised.
    Dalston is now a 'central London' location, and I'm afraid we'll never see this site modernised for family/affordable housing.

  2. Three guesses why London has such a large housing shortage? Ever seen a capital city commit suicide before?

  3. Maybe developers will now realise that Hackney and its community is no longer a push-over for exploitation and so they will have to come up with schemes that are appropriate for the area and consistent with local planning policies.

  4. This site is rediculously bias, Makes me wonder if they view any changes to the developement within Dalston positively. Prehaps we should consider living in Tents as an option. I love hearing about the community I have lived in, it would be nice to hear a balanced view from OpenDalston from time to time

  5. I looked at the detail of this poorly designed scheme. It's quite understandable why people objected and it was rejected. When you look at Dalston Square, where another 18-storey tower and other blocks are now under construction, and Kinetica & the other blocks on Ramsgate Street, I don't think anyone can accuse Dalston of not bearing its share of dense new housing. Hackney is well ahead of its overall London Plan housing targets and there are several new schemes coming forward in Dalston and elsewhere.

  6. God only knows why this blog is called 'open' dalston, as it is anything but. It is so down and biased about any kind of change in the area. I have been visiting this site for a year now, but i think it is maybe time that i stopped. It terms of negativity only the Daily Mail is worse. Everyone I know who has lived in the area for 20+ years things the changes that are happening here are fantastic. But this site would just as soon as see us back living next door to squalid squats and crack dens, as opposed to nice new developments, were the people who live there go to work everyday to pay their rent or mortgage, and then come home and spend their money locally.

  7. It is easy to typecast people in opposition as negative and against change. In fact it's a cheap shot because it fails to address the merit of what is being opposed. The 1,300 people who signed the petition against the Dalston Kingsland tower did so not because they are against all development but because they positively value what we have in Dalston and didn't want it damaged by an inappropriate scheme. Shared values in a local community is a positive thing and it is rewarding that the Planning Committee obviously agreed by rejecting the scheme unanimously. Perhaps the "bias" Anon refers to is in fact that of the developer and its supporters being blinded by self-interest.


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.