Report by David White - my personal opinion on the Hackney Council Planning Sub-committee meeting this evening, Monday 4th April 2011 at 6.30pm in the Town Hall but including comments from cllr Ian Rathbone
...there is:
• an outstanding English Heritage listing application, based on evidence previously omitted.
• a complete bat survey hasn't been done, neither has a summer roost survey (May to Sept) as the bat expert admitted.
• section 106 hasn't been agreed (and there are issues)
• a representative from the Hackney Society pointed out that since the last application the depot has been locally listed (Oct 2010) and PPS5 and the new Core Strategy place greater weight on protecting "Heritage Assets" than was considered for the last application. The council has a new Heritage Officer, who was unable to respond. Planners dismissed policy as if their opinion and not actual policy mattered - so the issue was just left hanging, unanswered, unaddressed.
• there are real problems with parking and no TFL report, even though the number and type of parking spaces has changed.
•
Hackney Town Hall Mon April 4th before the planning meeting PHOTO: David White
•
Cllr Ian Rathbone, on behalf of Leabridge councillors, said:
“The decision taken last night by the planning committee on the slimmest of majorities – one vote – shows how close the argument was to being won. We hope the developer will take this on board and be willing to work with the local community and the artists working in the depot to preserve it as a cultural hub.
“Objectors were given little time to raise important legal points, particularly on the need for a full survey for bats, job loss incompatible with the Council’s Core Strategy and the impending possible listing of the depot by English Heritage - all of which have been ignored.
“We will be pressing on with our attempts to buy or lease the tram depot as it is and seek its regeneration rather than destruction. This move is well supported by all sections of the Clapton community and could lead to a resurgence of community spirit and the flowering of the current arts community here.
“The Depot is Integral to the new “Clapton Cultural Quarter”, which is in step with the Government’s aim to build new media, IT and creative centres of excellence in the East End, generating jobs and wealth. The Tram Depot as it is now could have been purpose built – it just needs refurbishing and a little ingenious conversion.”
•
The council have not followed their own new policy as the Hackney Society strongly implied - and no-one did or said anything about it.
The closest we got an explanation that the heritage officer was new to the post, so wasn't aware of the issues.
A locally listed building(s) and "heritage asset" should be protected.
It was at times 'toy town", at other times farcical with howls of laughter from the packed council chamber audience
The occasional astute observation or question from councillors was just papered over or side tracked with no reasonable or logical response demanded or elicited by the chair, whose only bit of investigative questioning that actually led to something being resolved was to ensure that parking spaces weren't sold for £20k to those residents who could afford it - laudable in itself, but this was the only issue resolved and not one of the half dozen critical issues posed by objectors.
It may come back to bite them - I hope so!
Limiting objectors to 5 minutes with NO time given to allow questions to be asked is unbelievable.
Councillors were allowed to ask questions but were not given time to cover the issues either.
•
Some very biased and/or misleading statements were made by the developers experts and simply accepted by cllr. Stops and planners alike.
For example that the "equivalence of employment" was determined in a development that halves the commercial floorspace and changes it to a type empty elsewhere locally.
On paper correct, in practice the net job loss will be 50+
For example, the surveyor stated it would cost far too much to refurbish the buildings, which were crumbling and on their last legs.
That is simply not true.
Some of the rafters in a minority of units need replacing but virtually all of the main structures will be standing in another hundred years, given the chance.
On top of that, long term residents and businesses have already spent thousands of pounds refurbishing units.
There are dozens of examples of Victorian buildings, factories and Tram Depots in very similar condition that have been successfully converted and refurbished. I visited one on Kingsland Road with councillors last year.
The Depot buildings look far worse than they actually are.
It's nearly all superficial: plants growing on the top of walls or in the end of a drainpipe. There are one or two walls with minor passive or cyclic cracks that have not increased in size for many years and can be easily repaired.
Does this look like it's crumbling to you?
...does this?
...or this
The fact that the very much in-demand square footage of light industrial space was being reduced by half - to be replaced with modern office space similar to space that has sat empty for 4 years across the park also seemed to have escaped planners, officers and the 4 members of the committee that voted in favour of the development.
Perhaps they just don't care than well established local firms will go to the wall.
Perhaps they don't care that over 60 children in Hackney have to go to Waltham Forest to find a school place and that there are no new GP places (other than when people move out of the area or die)
Perhaps they just don't care the super-dense (563hrh - 2002 London average 360hrh) tiny 84 flats on a Priority Employment Area) has no usable green space or recreational facilities or even a hall, so their quality of life will be poor at best and will impact on the Beecholme Estate next door with it's open spaces and greens.
However, the 5 star national rating Beecholme has just been given was at the cost of years of Hackney Homes Environmental Improvement Budget, donation and external grant spending, not to mention the dozens of hours the TRA has put into it - for Beecholme freeholders, leaseholders, tenants and residents - NOT for neighbouring developments done on the cheap and as densely as possible, with none of their own facilities.
Why should we suffer the inevitable tripling of ASB, noise, vandalism, drunkenness, littering, dog dirt and abuse that comes with RSL dense developments of this type.
Housing developments this dense cause all sorts of social issues and end up costing society far more in the long run.
Just look at "Lathams", put into the Police "Dispersal Zone" not for the reason the zone was established (to disperse gangs from Tottenham and elsewhere) but to keep a lid on the ASB, drug taking and knife carrying.
It makes you want to cry that such incompetence can be the norm in Hackney planning at both dept and committee level, and the 660 petition signatures + 121 email objections + 60 objection letters all from locals just dismissed as if we, the people who live here, voted them in and pay their wages mean absolutely nothing.
Did I say cry, I mean laugh...
....or perhaps scream
It's just absolutely unbelievable - with an Area Action Plan this would not have happened
...as promised in 2005.
Lets hope the Localism Bill will give citizens a say in their own environment.
None of these developers or their retinue, or I warrant, the planners or councillors voting for these over-developments would ever dream of living in them themselves.
That should be the test.
Report by David White - my personal opinion.
=====================================
COMMENTS
Some brave citizen has commented:
I really wish one of these conservationist rants would address where London's rapidly increasing population are supposed to be housed. We have simultaneously some of the most expensive and smallest homes to be found anywhere in the world! Our population is expanding rapidly and they need to be housed somewhere. If you want London to retain its status as a world capital these issues need to be addressed. If you don't want London to remain a world capital please have the honesty to say so.
Response comment
I wouldnt be surpirised if that "anonymous" is the developer himself.
I am certainly not anti development and there have been some well designed residential buildings going up in the area which I approve of, but the tram depot is one of the few jewels in the crown of Clapton that provides not only employment to local people, but is a much loved, vibrant , industrious hub of the arts as well.
Having been at the council meeting I was aghast at how biased it seemed to be in favour of the develoment, and how embarrassing it was to see Councillor Stops blatantly fauning over the development team, whilst being quite dismissive and rude to the objectors.
A very compelling and convincing argument was presented by the residents and employees , but there was a feeling of faite a compli as the councillors chose to approve the planning anyway regardless of the destruction of something they should be seeing as an asset to the community and part of our heritage.
I feel very sad and disillusioned that the fate of so many has been decided by 4 rather short sighted councillors
CP
My response
You say yourself we have the smallest and most expensive flats in the world but you obviously do not know why - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with there being no land - it has to do with govt policy, vested interests, de-regulation and developers being allowed to get away with making the absolute maximum profit possible.
Until 2002 the size of new flats and density of suburban spaces was (mostly) civilized, then came Thatcher.
London wide density was 360 hrh with most London boroughs setting housing developments to 250-350hrh.
By the way, Hackney completed its target for housing months ago, new housing in Hackney and Clapton in particular is simply profligate.
The cost of housing is due to a variety of reasons (political, economic & sociological) and will take far to long to explain here, but believe me, it doesn't have to be the way it is - it never was and isn't in many other parts of the world.
I have lived on 3 continents and several cities around the world and can tell you there better ways.
Don't automatically believe the vested interests when they give glib answers like "lack of supply".
The idea that there is no land is patently UNTRUE, Talk about NIMBY, there's hundreds of square miles of unused, fallow land and brownfield sites adjacent to the corridors housing has been limited to by the big and powerful land owners (see figures at bottom of post).
Get your facts straight and do a bit of research - check CABE, check what land is actually perfectly suited to new towns before criticizing my wish to maintain and IMPROVE the quality of life for residents of Clapton.
Check why rooms are small and why they're expensive. There's masses of info out there.
I've given you a start with a couple of links below, just selected at random - there is more and better out there if you look for it.
As for London remaining a world capital - do you think that creating slums for the future and low quality super dense housing and suburban areas with as many people squeezed in as possible is a requisite for London to remain a "world capital" or in fact has anything to do with London remaining a "world class capital"?
What absolute rubbish.
London remaining a world class capital is not and never was dependent on some imagined race for the highest density of population.
It is (only just by the way) because of geo-political legacy (the empire) and the city, it's ever evolving city centre and culture, critically including its history and historic buildings.
What makes London great is exactly what's being lost here!!
David White
Sec B&C TRA, Sec. Clapton Residents Panel
When I first came to London many years ago I couldn't believe how far behind the rest of the western and technological world it was (ie Australia, Japan, United States, Holland, Germany, UAR etc) and the relative absence of night life and a lot more.
It still is.
Don't get me wrong, I love London.
=============================
Here's a start for you:
Have a look at
...then ask yourself if the rich getting richer (2010 London 30,000 earning over £1/2 mill, 2007 14,000) might have something to do with that, in the light of no regulation.
BTW I am NOT a labour party member or member of any other political party. My sentiments are left of centre, but being brought up primarily in Australia, and working in advertising I have a wide capitalist streak.
===========================
Some more research to give you a start
Land availability and use
Approximately 90 per cent of the population live on 9 per cent of the land in the UK.
Designated Green Belt land in England as at 31 March 2010 was estimated at
1,639,560 hectares, about 13 per cent of the land area of England.
Only 1.1 percent of England is taken up by housing.
...................................................................
http://www.propertyscam.org.uk/htdocs/fivemyths.htm
Myth #1 - Land is in short supply in England. Releasing land from special protection in green belt is the only answer. Therefore buying land in green belt locations is a good investment.
The truth - Affordable homes are in short supply in England, often in rural or semi-rural areas. However, where new building takes place in these rural areas it almost invariably has one or more of the following characteristics: It is not affordable (suitable for a first time buyer). It is not generally built on green belt land, released for the purpose, but on previously developed land like old farm buildings (farm houses, barns etc).
...................................................................
...................................................................
Around three quarters of Britain was ear-marked for farming after the war, which is pretty much as it is today, except that around a third of that is surplus to requirements.
Keeping all the "Green Belt" in the face of new housing demand has the perverse effect of recreating the conditions of the Victorian Slum. All over London, the policy of only building on already developed (or 'brownfield') land is leading to new overcrowding. Every spare scrap of land is being used to cram in more five-storey apartments.
...................................................................
http://www.buildinglanduk.co.uk/greenbelt-land-uk.htm
The beginning of the greenbelt was in 1935 and was established by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee. It was not until 1947, that the Town and Country Planning Act allowed greenbelts to be included in their development plans and it was not until 1955 that the whole idea was beginning to be used throughout the UK.
13% of England is covered by Green Belts. The largest Green Belt is the London Green Belt, at about 486,000 hectares. The smallest Green Belt is the Burton-Swadlincote Green Belt at just 700 hectares.
If you look around the UK, you will soon learn that the 100 richest people are landowners and property developers.
They understand that the need for housing developments is growing like never before and there is no end in site. There are very few plots of land for sale in prime locations around the UK, so they have invested well in land. They know they need to purchase land in the greenbelt areas and then just wait around for the planning permission to allow building and then they can sell this greenbelt land for a huge profit.
...................................................................
Another hint: Do a google search for "land banks +UK" and see what you get
you might be surprised
It's decades of govt mismanagement by all parties and bad policy, determined by the rich land owners (ie most senior MPs and virtually all the House of Lords through the decades) and influenced the big housing companies with very effective lobbying.
I suggest that a ludicrous reliance on the "market" (via de-regulation) to find its level while at the same time favouring a few on an uneven playing field (tax and planning law) has got us where we are today.
...................................................................
