More about Beecholme

Beecholme is also the first postwar "mixed development" housing scheme in Hackney, with a mixture of houses and flats with the taller block having five storeys and containing one-bedroom and bedsit accommodation. It is featured in Volume 15 of Hackney History and was the site of Beecholme House, the family home of Maj. John André (d. 1780), who was executed as a British spy in the American War of Independence.

Saturday, 21 April 2012

Ship Aground - 4 days to object

Tue 24th - update
In an email from Hackney Planning and Regulation Services, Head of Development Management Femi Nwanze notes:  "...the Planning Service are required to accept and consider all  comments received up until the time the application is formally determined. In this regard the earliest date on which this application will be reported to the Sub Committee is June 7th. 
 Letters of objection or support received after the 21 day period mentioned in our letters or on site notices will be given exactly the same consideration as those received within that period."
So you have until June 7th to help moderate yet another planning application wishing to change a named "building of townscape merit" in a "conservation area" - the "Ship Aground" pub at 144 Lea Bridge Road in Clapton - to such an extent as to make it valueless in heritage terms, by objecting either online or by email

links to object online further below
however, after 26 April you may have to email
your objection to:

Picture above: Ship Aground with the Schoolhouse on the left and cobbled lane between as it is now.
Once restored, the Schoolhouse on the left currently surrounded by a green hoarding will be surrounded by the original 3'6" low wall, so views from and across the schoolhouse yard would take in the side and front of the pub.
Imagine the view if instead of people sitting at benches, there was a full car park at the front, a modern roof line and external stairs - the view would have no heritage value at all.

Picture above: the proposed additions with changes to roof and side wall. This model cleverly doesn't show the full length parking area at the front.

Please help stop further historic & visual dilution of the enclave within in the conservation area that includes several early, English Heritage and council grade II listed Victorian buildings at the river crossing at Lea bridge and demand that planning law and rules for heritage buildings are adhered to

The planning application does propose the facade will be saved, as required, but in contravention of heritage rules, the roof line and chimneys would go and in their place would be a modern structure

In addition, a modern externally visible stairway on the east wall and a car park in place of the front beer garden is proposed

Please object to/comment on

1. the loss of the Victorian roof line and chimneys

2. the loss of the integrity of the Victorian east wall with the stairs addition

3. the use of the frontage as a car park, which would so detract from the frontage and affect the integrity of the cobbled lane and schoolhouse to make it valueless as a heritage site, creating noise and with safety implications

Standard objection to copy and paste further below
(with 17 points)

The planning application is in two parts:

• The first is 2012/0380
which is for the partial demolition of the building.

• The second part: 2012/0325
is for the erection of a part single storey and part two storey rear extensions and roof extension in connection with the use of the building as a place of worship and community centre.

This "two part" process means there is a possibility of the applicants getting consent for the partial demolition but not the new scheme,
so it is important you "comment" on both:

Links to object online:

erection of new extensions

partial demolition

Deadline for comments is 26 April 2012. 


email your objection
to planning officer Caroline Ozor at:

Include your name & contact details
or your objection won't be counted

Ph Caroline Ozor: 020 8356 8093

Standard objection to copy and paste further below

• • • 

On the 18th April a "section 215" enforcement notice was issued to the owners of the Ship Aground, requiring them to make good damage to the building (partial demolition) and a whole lot more, as listed below.

Section 215 NOTICE for Ship Aground
To be completed within 3 months from 18th April 2012
Steps required:

1. Removal of timber boarding from the ground floor windows and door opening on front elevation and ground floor windows on both side elevations of the building and repair of ground floor window and door frames on front and side elevations of the building where fabric is rotten or broken with materials to match existing in terms of pattern, detail and design.

2. Reinstatement of glazing where necessary on front and side elevations of the building with all repairs to be undertaken to match existing in terms of material and design.

3. Removal of timber boarding from rear elevation of premises and repair or reinstate rear elevation of the property using suitable materials to match those on the existing property.

4. Removal of temporary canopy type structure from roof level and repair or replace original roof materials using suitable materials to match those on the existing property.

5. Refit the drainpipe to the roof of the building on the rear elevation of the property.

6. Removal of timber hoarding from boundary of outdoor area to front of the building.

7. removal of the advertisement canopy from the central first floor window on the front elevation of the building together with the removal of associated brackets from the first floor level on the front elevation of the building.

8. Clear the area of land to the front and rear of the building of building materials/ rubbish and other items.

All work should be undertaken in materials, techniques, pointing and style of those on the property.

• • • 

For more details see previous post

• • • 

Standard objection letter
to copy and paste
You can also download the objection as a text file



I object to the above planning and conservation area consent application for the following reasons:

1. Status of the application
The status of this application is in doubt and it may be invalid. There are a series of errors or misleading statements in the application forms, in drawings, and in the supporting statements. The application form states the works have not commenced – work has commenced, so the application form may be invalid. It is misleading, and possibly unlawful, for the Authority to accept ‘existing’ drawings in a planning application that do not show the building in its present state.
2. Extent of demolition
The extent of demolition of the historic fabric is unjustified and unacceptable. The fact that this has already been carried out should be entirely set aside in determining this application, as the recently published National Planning Policy Framework states.
3. Change of use
The principle of the change has not been established, nor it justified in this application.
4. Relationship to the previously consented but unimplemented scheme
The application is entirely different to the previous consented scheme in terms of land use mix, extent of demolition, scale of development and intensity of use so that scheme cannot be allowed to set any precedent whatsoever.
5. Archaeology
Archaeological impact has not been assessed and this may be significant, requiring further investigation or monitoring.
6. Designated Heritage Asset
Insufficient regard has been given to the status of this building as a designated heritage asset. The applicant and their advisors have sought to denigrate and diminish the building’s status rather than to apply proper building conservation best practice. The advisors assess the former state of the building whilst failing to mention that a substantial proportion of the fabric has been demolished.
We object to the loss of the roof-line and chimneys, the addition of a stairwell on the east wall and strongly object to the use of the front beer garden as a car park.
7. Ground contamination has not been assessed
An assessment of ground contamination has not been submitted. The excavation of the proposed extensive basement area may require decontamination or mitigation measures. The site is within a former industrial area known to be contaminated.  Adjacent sites have required de-contamination prior to development.
8. Pre-application advice
The applicant relies upon officer level pre-application advice, which is not relevant to this application because the proposed scheme is materially and significantly different to the earlier proposals.
9. Flood risk has not been assessed
The application fails to take account of flood risk and proposes a extensive basement level public assembly area in a flood risk area without any apparent evacuation strategy.
10. Other environmental impacts have not been assessed
The building has remained empty, partly demolished and boarded up for a considerable period of time. There is a possibility that habitats have become established, such as bat roosts. A stage 1 habitat survey should therefore be undertaken and submitted and, if necessary, followed up with a stage II habitat survey.
11. There are many errors in the detail of plans which obscure the extent of the many harmful changes proposed to the building
The plans and elevation are poorly drawn and contradict one another. The effect, if not the intention, is to lessen the apparent scale of the changes and the further loss of original fabric.
12. Loss of the original roof form
The loss of historic valley roof form, clearly visible from the riverside path and the Lea Bridge Road, is deeply harmful to the character and integrity of the building and the conservation area. Hackney guidance on extensions specifically opposes the loss of historic roof forms.
13. Harm to the Conservation area
The proposal will materially harm the character and appearance of the Lea Bridge Conservation Area. The proposed height in relation to the mostly single storey schoolhouse is excessive and overbearing and will diminish the historic setting. Views from the riverside path, south of the Princess Diana, will be harmed with a further overbearing volume damaging the view of the silhouette of the schoolhouse roof.
14. Harm to the setting of the adjacent listed building
The proposal will harm the setting of the adjacent listed schoolhouse building, eroding its value as a heritage asset. The schoolhouse is Grade II listed and identified as "at risk". Hoardings currently obscure views along the row of buildings. Views from the bridge and the river will be revealed when these are removed, taking in the east side and front of the Ship Aground. It is critical that the Victorian setting is preserved in these views. The applicant’s advisors fail to even identify these views and potential impacts.
15.  Harm to the viability of future plans to restore the adjacent listed building
Plans to restore the schoolhouse are advancing with considerable progress expected in the next year. The proposal will materially affect the future functioning and setting of the schoolhouse and the plans to bring the schoolhouse back into viable economic use as an education and interpretation centre. A ‘tipping point’ has been reached and the survival of the building is in doubt if a scheme does not come forward in time to save it. The proposed car park serving 100 guests would obviously be a visual eyesore, create noise and have potential safety implications for school parties attending the schoolhouse. It may even require modern signage and yellow lines in the cobbled lane or adjacent roads, which would detract from the listed schoolhouse and may jeopardize the chance to secure Heritage Lottery Funding.
16. Basement impact
The proposed extensive basement is an unjustified overdevelopment of the plot and will create a very poor quality environment for users and neighbours. A full assessment impact assessment (BIA) is needed.
17. Fenestration
The applicant has misrepresented the proposed loss of the original fenestration, glazing and external doors. Misleading errors in the plans and elevations demonstrate that most if not all windows and decorative glazing is to be removed, bringing further destruction of the historic fabric and a further diminution of the designated heritage asset.
18. Overdevelopment
The scale of the development and intensity of the use represents a gross overdevelopment of the plot with serious consequences for both the functioning of the property and potentially significant effects upon neighbours and the highway and side streets. The application should be refused because it is overdevelopment.
19. Capacity
The proposed layout and the mix of use uses will clearly exceed the capacity of the property to accommodate the significant numbers of visitors and users anticipated (but not fully detailed in the application). The plot, the proposed scheme and layout and the neighbourhood as a whole cannot accommodate the intensity of use proposed.
It is a great mystery why such as a substantial increase in volume and floorspace is needed, and so much historic fabric must be sacrificed, in order to serve so few users and visitors; only a few more than the applicant suggested could be accommodated in their first scheme, which involved no demolition and no increase in volume or floorspace.
20. Traffic and transport impacts
Serious errors and oversights in the transport assessment appear to follow from the earlier misleading statements in relation to capacity and the pattern and intensity of use of the site. If the data inputs are wrong then the assessment is flawed and the conclusions cannot be relied upon. The application should be refused on the ground that a proper assessment of the transport impacts of the development has not been undertaken.
21. Parking
The loose proposal to negotiate a ‘Pay and park’ deal with Paradise Park is deeply problematic. These spaces are not owned or controlled by the applicant; they serve an established residential and commercial community; they are outside the ‘red line’; and they are to be secured at some future date so that they cannot be controlled through this application or a S106.
Most importantly, this indicates that the applicant anticipates the need to provide for significant numbers of additional car-bound visitors, contrary to their assertion  (and the submitted studies) that visitors will be few.
22. Fire and Emergency strategy
A fire/emergency strategy has not been submitted and this may have serious consequences for both the every-day safe operation of the property and when it is used intensively for festivals etc. as well as the safety implications for neighbouring properties and their shared access paths and roads.

If you're emailing the above objection in, don't forget to give your full name and contact details

No comments: