Five residential units at 25 Elsdale Street, Hackney, London E9

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey vertical extension creating five self-contained homes, with cycle parking, refuse storage and external works.

“PROPOSAL: Construction of a two-storey vertical extension to provide 5 No. self-contained residential units with cycle parking, refuse storage facilities alongside associated works to the external elevations. POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: The Applicant has provided amendments and additional information in response to requests from the LPA.”

Officer report

The site

The vacant site is a two-storey 1930s brick former printworks on a corner plot, in an area mainly containing residential blocks.

“The existing building at 25 Elsdale Street comprises a two-storey brick building with a pitched roof located on the north-eastern side of Elsdale Street at the junction with Milborne Street. The building dates from the 1930s and was formerly a light industrial printworks factory (Class E(g)(iii)). The building is currently vacant.”

“The site occupies a rectangular plot which is 402m2 in size and fronts both Elsdale Street and Milborne Street. It is located in a highly accessible area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 5. The local area is predominantly characterised by residential blocks of flats.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the homes, design, accommodation, neighbouring amenity, transport and environmental effects were considered acceptable, subject to controls.

“The design, form, and massing of the two-storey extension is considered acceptable, as the structure is setback and stepped to minimise its visual impact and aligns with neighbouring building heights. The material palette (ribbed tonal render and reconstituted stone detailing) is considered compatible with the existing brick-built context.”

“In relation to access, transport and environmental considerations, subject to the relevant recommended conditions, including details of cycle parking and refuse, and those recommended to meet sustainability objectives, the proposal is considered to be policy compliant and acceptable.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Internal consultees raised no objections, subject to conditions covering construction, drainage, waste storage and cycle parking details.

“1x1100l bin for waste ● 1x1100l bin and 1x660l for recycling ● 2x140 l food waste bin ● A small (2 square metre) area for the storage of bulky waste.”

“Transport Officers: Officers noted no objection in principle, subject to final cycle parking details being secured by condition.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

All eleven neighbour responses objected, citing overdevelopment, scale, loss of light and privacy, traffic, design, construction impacts and limited amenity space.

“Overdevelopment of the site. ● Excessive scale and massing ● Loss of daylight and sunlight and overshadowing. ● Loss of privacy / overlooking ● Traffic / congestion and car parking impacts. ● Negative impact due to the design quality on local character ● Loss of outlook and sense of enclosure ● Impact on infrastructure and local services ● Noise / disturbance and impact on pedestrian safety from construction works ● Inadequate amenity space provision.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer introduced the application, no objectors registered, and the applicant’s planning and architectural representatives attended in support.

The decision

The Sub-Committee granted planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

“To grant Planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.”

Minutes