Hackney Council rejects London Fields ‘tower block’ plan
Council says no to the London Lane proposal. Image: PRP Architects
A plan to build a ‘high-rise’ building near London Fields has been turned down by Hackney Council, following a campaign by nearby residents to oppose it.
The proposal for a ten-storey housing block at 22-44 London Lane was turned down by the council after it decided the building would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
Southern Housing Group, which has owned the plot for over three years, submitted the proposal on 31 January this year, and planned to incorporate 58 residential units.
However, Hackney Council officers last week (Wednesday 18 April) judged that the development would not provide a high enough proportion of affordable housing and would have detrimental impact on Hackney’s housing needs.
They also deemed that the building would not suit the character of the area and would block sunlight from neighbouring buildings.
The proposal was rejected even before the council’s planning committee stage.
Campaign group No Hackney High-Rise had been opposing Southern Housing Group’s ten-storey proposal since it was first unveiled in May 2009.
After hearing news of the council’s rejection for the proposal, campaigner Maz Hayes said: “We’re elated by the news that the proposal has been rejected.”
She said the group have received a great deal of support from a number of residents living between Mare Street and Hackney Fields, and described the council’s decision as a “big success”.
“We’ve had a very strong response from the beginning,” she said. “Generally, when people have seen the proposals for the first time, the overwhelming response has been – ‘what a terrible idea.’”
After fundraising for nearly three years, the group were able to hire a planning consultant from LMPC to challenge the proposal in January this year.
Ms Hayes, who has been involved in the campaign from the start, said: “We’ve been thorough in our objections and have had to take emotion out of it and be pragmatic.”
She said members of No Hackney High-Rise now want to see Southern Housing Group make a proposal that will better suit the wants and needs of the area’s residents.
A spokesperson from Southern Housing Group said: “We are disappointed by Hackney’s decision on our application for the London Lane site.
“We are confident we have a high quality mixed-use commercial and residential scheme which includes providing affordable three and four bedroom houses for the borough. We are awaiting clarification on the reasons for refusal which will enable us to consider options for re-developing this disused site.”
Government spokesperson on recent changes to planning law;
“People don’t want to see high-rise flats being built….so, unfortunately there is little choice other than building on greenfield sites”.
So here’s another example of a Nimby self-interest group exacerbating the environmental “worst-case scenario” (as the European Environment Agency deems it) of low-rise urban sprawl on greenfield with the increase in road use and carbon emissions that comes with it.
If a modestly tall building built on a brownfield site next to a train station a short distance from central London isn’t viable then where is?
Alex Steffen is the environmentalist responsible for persuading Seattle to adopt its goal of carbon-neutrality. Here’s some excerpts from a short interview;
“If we’re talking about transportation, the best thing a city can do is densify as quickly as it can. That needs to be said every time this issue comes up, because it’s the only universal strategy that works.”
He goes on;
“In quite a few cities, most civic engagement is mostly a matter of fighting development, people saying, “not in my backyard.”……One of the most unfortunate side effects of the urban activism of the ’60s and ’70s is the belief that development is wrong and that fighting it makes you an environmentalist….what happens in cities that don’t grow is that they gentrify and poor people are pushed out. Trying to fight change makes you less sustainable and more unfair.”
This article states; “No Hackney High-Rise now want to see Southern Housing Group make a proposal that will better suit the wants and needs of the area’s residents.”
Surely the design would be better informed by the wants and needs of those in housing need rather than the desires of the already comfortably housed who have a vested interest in stunting housing supply?
@Benjamin – Ask a family on the waiting list where they want to live and they rarely say “on the 9th floor of a tower block with high service charges and no personal space”.
@Andrew – Ask a Londoner in housing need where they want to live; on the 9th floor with fab views over London or in Stoke-on-Trent and I suspect all will opt for the former. Housing demand in London cannot be met by low-rise family houses with gardens (and even if it were it would be environmentally catastrophic).
As I’ve said to you before Andrew; you’d rather lie to Nimbys than address London’s housing crisis. What you’re advocating is, in effect, the social cleansing of London.
“What you’re advocating is, in effect, the social cleansing of London.”
But then I suspect most of your vote base would view that as a good thing.
Newham will be the new Shoreditch/Hoxton if this happens
luv social cleansing … better than tramp losers bugging me for cash
i wanna be left alone when buying my overpriced oversized cupcakes
@Benjamin – just for the record, are you saying I am lying?
@Andrew – Since you ask, I’m torn between believing you’re a liar or an idiot, but I suspect the former.
@Benjamin – your level of debate is now understood and I sure am certainly an idiot for not realising it sooner. It also explains why you call people you’ve never met (despite repeated invitations to do so) abusive names. Thank you for the clarification. Hope you have a happy insular little life.
@Andrew – I note that you keep ducking addressing important issues on public fora by leaving your phone number. You shouldn’t delude yourself that that is sufficient. My opinions of you (you did ask) are formed by our sometimes lengthy online arguments – I have no reason, desire or need to meet you in person.
But back to the matter in hand – are you still advocating solving London’s housing crisis with low-rise houses with gardens?
@benjamin – It’s always a good principal not to have extended intercourse with those who are unapologetically abusive. You have refused to meet with No hackney High rise and yet abuse them. Let’s not waste peoples’ time. If you want to caricature this as me being caught out by your superior arguments, that’s up to you.
@Andrew – As I’ve explained to you before, No Hackney High-Rise expressed their positions via an extensive website and public comments they’ve made to the media. Exposing their duplicity via accurate citations and highlighting the environmental and social ramifications of their actions is not “abuse”.
(Anyone interested in reading the article to which Boff is referring to can read it on the Hackney Hive site “‘No Hackney High-rise’?.. So where is everyone going to live?” – HC doesn’t like links to competitors).
Leaving phone numbers and/or diving on the ground screaming “abuse” isn’t going to fool anyone into thinking that you’re not ducking the issues.
Well done Hackney Planning – definitely the way forward in solving London’s housing crisis.
the victorian terraces are reaching thier physical sell by date and starting to fall apart – the inherent value will soon fall away and rational urban planning will have a chance
@stephen – I doubt it. Buildings tend to last as long as people are willing to maintain them, and there’s no evidence that people aren’t willing to spend large sums maintaining period property.
The way forward would be to utilise inner-city infill and brownfield sites, such as London Lane, to their maximum potential density to help address the shortage.