Colvestone Primary School: developers deny daylight report is ‘misleading’
Colvestone primary school
Developers accused of building flats that will “overshadow” a Dalston nursery’s playground have denied accusations their daylight report is “misleading”.
Chan & Eayrs’ proposal to build luxury flats and a café on a brownfield plot of land off Ridley Road was approved by Hackney Council, to the dismay of scores of parents and teachers who had opposed it.
At the time, Mami McKeran, Chair of Colvestone Family and Staff Association and mother of two children at the school, said the “sheer bulk” of the building would “significantly overshadow the nursery’s outdoor space and completely block the surrounding view”.
In September, planning officers said the development “comfortably” met daylight guidelines but a new report by independent surveyors Anstey Horne published on blog site OPEN Dalston describes Chan & Eayrs’ report as “simplistic” and says it “would potentially provide a misleading impression”.
Anstey Horne’s report states the development will result in “an increase of three to four times the existing levels of overshadowing” and that it will leave “around half of the (playground) space in the proposed scheme’s shadow for a significant amount of the day for much of the year.”
But Zoe Chan, of Chan and Eayrs, has defended the daylight study included in the planning application.
Ms Chan told the Hackney Citizen: “Tests were carried out by third party professional light consultants to comply and exceed BRE (Building Research Establishment) national guidelines and others were carried out in relation to the small nursery playground area.
“These tests were run and re-run many times and were verified and approved by the council.”
Ms Chan added that there had previously been a tall building on site, and that the plot had been “earmarked for regeneration” by the council.
“We are Hackney residents (we do not live in Lewisham as the parents are claiming), and care about our borough and contributing to its streetscape,” she said.
The site was once owned by Hackney Council and it is subject to a restrictive covenant protecting sunlight to the school’s land.
When asked if the council would be enforcing the covenant, a spokesman said: “Hackney Council are considering the issue and this may include obtaining legal advice as to the enforceability of the right to light benefiting the school land. The Council will continue to keep all parties informed of progress.”
Ms Chan. There has never, never, been a tall building on this site, ever, since 1870. Please back up your claims. Don’t tell lies.
http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/st_mark_s_caa_a.pdf
See page 22 of St Marks Conservation Area Appraisal on Hackney Council website.
In addition to the daylight issues, there are important heritage issues. This is not just any old school building. It dates from before the school boards were set up under the 1870 Education Act and is designed in a vigorous Gothic style known as High Victorian. The historian Stefan Muthesius pointed out that this is among the most misunderstood and underappreciated phases of our heritage. It is a powerful building but much of its power will be robbed with a thumping tower looming over it. As a listed building its ‘setting’ is a key part of its significance, which must be carefully considered in planning decisions.
Zoe Chan’s reference to a tall building previously being on her site wishful thinkings on her part. The historic building appearing in an archive photograph in the St Mark’ s Conservation Appraisal was actually next to the school on the site where the playgroung now is, not on her site. Her building will severely overshadow the nursery school playground
Ms Chan’s claims that she is a local resident with a genuine interest in Dalston are spurious. That she plastered her showpiece Herringbone House all over the design press, but sold it within months for hundreds of thousands of pounds profit is proof that her interest is the wealth of the individual rather than the local environment. Whether her current residence is in Maida Vale, Shoreditch or Lewisham, it clearly isn’t in Dalston…
Praise goes to Citizen who addresses the setting of the grade II listed building spot on. But why didn’t the Council’s planning officers and members of the planning committee do so? They have clearly ignored the law by failing to consider the setting of the school building as a heritage asset as required by section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
That a taller Victorian building once stood on or next to the site is not a planning precedent for Ms Chan’s latest project. For a start, there was no nursery outdoor learning space to build around and so no daylight or sunlight issues to consider. Certainly the school building had not yet been listed and there was no St Mark’s Conservation Area, meaning there were no heritage issues to consider.
Officers and Members blatantly ignored the planning history of the site, which includes two planning refusals for a lower building, thrown out because the size of the building was too big and would block natural light to the school. One cannot think nothing has changed, other than Ms Chan’s arrival on the scene (?). Why was the committee chair so keen to overlook these issues?