Mixed-use building at 24 Orsman Road, London N1

The site and its history

The site contains industrial buildings beside Regent’s Canal, and an earlier similar application was withdrawn after its legal agreement was not completed.

“The application site comprises a parcel of land located on the northern side of Orsman Road. The northern boundary of the site borders Regents Canal.”

“The site is approximately 902 square metres and contains existing twentieth century industrial buildings of between one and three storeys in use for light industrial / office purposes (Use Class E).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement because the scheme would optimise the site and provide good-quality homes and commercial floorspace.

“The proposal is considered to successfully optimise the use of the site, providing a sustainable and high quality mixed use building whilst taking into account the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and residents and all other relevant considerations.”

“Section 38 (6) of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires proposals to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is deemed to comply with the relevant policies in the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) and the London Plan (2021) and the granting of planning permission is recommended subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The assessment considered land use, housing, design, heritage, accommodation quality, neighbour amenity, transport, sustainability, waste, ecology, drainage and planning obligations.

“Principle of Development (Land Use) ● Housing Matters ● Urban Design, Conservation and Heritage Impacts ● Quality of Accommodation ● Amenity Impacts ● Highway Safety and Transportation ● Sustainability, Climate Change and Energy ● Waste Storage Management ● Air Quality ● Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure…”

“Contaminated Land ● Crime ● Drainage & Flood Risk ● Fire Strategy ● Infrastructure Impact / Planning Obligations…”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Eleven individuals objected over scale, light, privacy, biodiversity, noise, construction, highways and affordable housing, while one letter supported the scheme.

“Overbearing scale and massing would appear dominant and oppressive when viewed from neighbouring residential properties. ● The cumulative height and bulk represent an overdevelopment of the site and fail to respect the prevailing scale and rhythm of surrounding buildings. ● The proposed height, continuous massing, and roof-level activity would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.”

“Impacts on highway safety and congestion during the period of construction. ● No provision of affordable housing. ● Security concerns as a result of opening up the canal to the public. ● Heights of surrounding buildings in the Design & Access Statement are open to misinterpretation. ● The level of engagement with the local community was low and the community’s responses were misrepresented. ● Dust and noise pollution during the period of construction.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard an objector and two supporters from the applicant’s design team.

What members discussed

Members discussed reduced massing, wildlife lighting, contextual scale, heritage, viability, affordable housing, employment space, sustainability and the courtyard layout.

“During the course of a discussion on the application a number of points were raised including the following: • The applicant had reduced the building massing, from previous iterations, to mitigate light impact; • The lighting design of the proposals had been minimised to protect wildlife, incorporating warm, set-back lighting, and that all recommendations from the bat emergence report and the planning application process had been addressed; • The scale of the proposals…”

“The proposed development utilised 1,483 square metres of floor space designated for employment, meeting the policy requirement that 50% of commercial floor space be utilised for employment generation; • The 10% affordable workspace would be secured through a Section 106 agreement at 60% of market rates. The total area for the affordable workspace was approximately 148 square metres.”

Minutes

The vote

Four members voted for and four against, with no abstentions; the chair used the casting vote for the officer recommendation.

“Vote*: For: Cllr Mihai Chereji, Cllr Jas Crowe, Cllr Benzion Papier and Cllr Brenda Puech (Chair). Against: Cllr Anntoinette Bramble, Rachel Maguire, Cllr Kwame Otiende and Cllr Reiner Tegtmeyer. Abstained: None.”

“* Where an equal number of votes is cast for and against a recommendation, the Chair has a casting vote; the Chair voted for the planning officer’s recommendation. The application was granted.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“To grant planning permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement.”

Minutes