Parents in shock as council approves flats that will ‘overshadow’ playground
Colvestone Primary School on Colvestone Crescent. Photograph: Google Images
Parents have hit out over Hackney Council’s approval of a luxury development they claim will overshadow a local nursery and deprive its young pupils of sunlight.
Seventy objections were lodged against proposals by developers Chan & Eayrs to turn a disused corner of land on Colvestone Crescent, off Ridley Road, into two luxury one-bed flats and a cafe.
Teachers and parents at the Grade II-listed Colvestone Primary School warned that the three-storey building would overshadow the nursery’s playground.
Local groups, including the Dalston Conservation Area Advisory Committee, the Hackney Society and OPEN Dalston, all voiced objections to the proposals and rasied concerns about the impact on both the school and the St Mark’s Conservation Area.
But the chair of the council’s planning sub-committee Vincent Stops, who had the casting vote on the proposals, said concern at the loss of light “would not be enough to warrant a refusal”.
The overshadowing assessment submitted by the developers was based on guidance from the British Research Establishment (BRE), a world leading multi-disciplinary building science centre.
Under the scheme put forward by the developers, the playground will receive two hours of sunlight across 76.6 per cent of its area, down from 87.6 per cent, which council planning officers say “comfortably” meets daylight guidelines.
‘Disbelief’
But Mami McKeran, Chair of Colvestone Family and Staff Association and mother of two children at the school, said the school was “in a state of disbelief” at the decision.
She said: “The sheer bulk of the building will significantly overshadow the nursery’s outdoor space and completely block the surrounding view.
“The outdoor space, where the nursery children combine learning and play everyday, will be reduced to an unattractive, and possibly, an unusable space.
“The use of its land should not come at such a heavy price to the future children of Colvestone Primary School.”
Land Registry records show that the triangular plot of land, owned by Hackney Council until 2001, includes a covenant designed to protect “the right of uninterrupted and unheeded access of light and air to the retained land over the property”.
But there is little indication that Hackney Learning Trust will enforce the covenant, leading local campaigners to accuse the council of “selling” the school’s sunlight.
Bill Parry-Davies, founder and secretary of local campaign group OPEN Dalston said: “This private development offers virtually no public benefit and there is considerable concern locally that Hackney may be selling, or simply giving away, the sunlight which was safeguarded for the school land and which is so important to children’s health, wellbeing and education.”
Cllr Vincent Stops, chair of the planning sub-committee, said: “The committee noted that the school, parents and residents were concerned about loss of light to the play area/outside learning space.
“Whilst this concern was valid, to a degree, the committee accepted it would not be enough to warrant a refusal.”
Councillors Katie Hanson, Barry Buitekant, Chris Kennedy and Vincent Stops voted in support of the proposal, while councillors Will Brett, Rebecca Rennison, Susan Fajana-Thomas and Ian Sharer voted against.
Chan & Eayrs did not respond to the Hackney Citizen’s request for comment.
sunlight is essential to well being full stop
The developers day light consultants report unsurprisingly stated the three storey would have no major effect. However analysis of the report detail that the majority of the 2 hour sunlight would be in the morning before the school opens. That from 12.45 onwards for eight months of the year the majority of the nursery outdoor learning space would be in shade or in the dark. The Committee dismissed and ignored the Head Teacher advice and report. A planner officer and developer misunderstood that the outdoor space is a learning zone? The planning committee report failed to detail that two previous planning applications refusing development on the site. Though it took me minuted to find them on line? It now appears that the Planners had not consulted the Learning Trust in sufficient time – a note to the Learning Trust was sent on the day of the Committee? No discussion was ever with the Learning Trust had on a development that has a major detrimental impact on a school. The proposed development included a cafe but no extractor system in place. The Developers stated at Committee that their development would benefit from natural light throughout the development – whilst of course school kids get taught deprived of light. The developers stated they were local whilst their web pages have them leaving in New Cross. And frankly its actually a poor development with the bedrooms only 3.5 m2 bigger than the minimum standard for a prison cell.
I’m shocked – this is a tiny plot and any development will be very unpleasant for the school, for the children and for the suckers paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for a cramped piece of so called trendy Dalston. The developer is the only beneficiary of such a crazy project
The planning sub-committee conveniently chose to overlook local and national planning policy when determining this application. They even had the audacity to ignore the warnings of the school’s headteacher on the harm caused to her nursery class. Why, one asks, as there is no public benefit from the scheme, just a vast financial profit for the architect-developer who falsely claims to be a local resident investing in the area. Instead, she glories in self-publicity, no doubt at the expense of the less fortunate. Her latest project threatens children as young as 3, who will be subjected to months of building work creating noise, dust and falling debris. The end product will be an unsightly building which will forever block sunlight through the school day.
Chan and Eayrs, we urge you to look for a development opportunity elsewhere, in an environment which will truly benefit from your architectural aspirations.
This is my daughter’s school. A property-developer-and-architect owns a plot of land right next to the outdoor learning space adjoining the nursery classroom, and the proposed building has a 3 storey blank wall towering over it and overshadowing it. Hackney planning committee gave planning permission a couple of weeks ago before term started, without an consultation with Hackney learning trust that controls the school, and flouting the evidence given by the head teacher, and other highly qualified individuals who spoke at the meeting, not to mention 70 written objections from parents and local residents.
The developer is selling off the sunlight currently enjoyed by the nursery children, to whoever will pay their price for two tiny, private, one bedroom flats with massive windows looking S W and E overlooking Ridley Rd market, in their own so called “signature” design.
hilarious if it wasnt tragic to see the fake brick sheets being bolted onto the “luxury” flatsat Dalston Curve, how long before these panels begin to succumb to the elements revealing the shabby build and the idiocy of those forking out 500k for a one bed ‘built to the highest specification”?