Planning application · Hackney
2020/3702.
Units 1 And 2, DIGBY WORKS, 130 Homerton High Street, Hackney, London, E9 6JA
Full / Other Planning at Units 1 And 2, DIGBY WORKS, 130 Homerton High Street, Hackney, London, E9 6JA, received 29 Sep 2020 — refused on 28 Jun 2023 (delegated, Nick Bovaird).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
28 Jun 2023
143 wks
Decision time
135 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
29
Documents
29 linked
4
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Hackney planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a seven storey building, with part basement, comprising 39 dwellings and 992sqm of commercial floorspace, (use class E), with associated access, servicing, cycle parking and refuse/recycling space.
Reference
2020/3702
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
30 Jun 2023
Decision date
28 Jun 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Reference
2020/3702
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
30 Jun 2023
Decision date
28 Jun 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Hackney portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 28 Jun 2023, delegated decision by Nick Bovaird — 143 weeks from submission (135 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
29 Sep 2020
Application received
30 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
28 Jun 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Nick Bovaird
29 Sep 2020
Application received
30 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
28 Jun 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Nick Bovaird
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of a proposed layout that would
place habitable rooms and balconies directly and proximately facing an
adjacent site, would prejudice future development opportunities to the site to
the west. As such, the proposal is contrary to Hackney Local Plan 2033
policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local Character) and London Plan policy D3
(Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach).
2
The proposed accommodation would result in a cramped form of over
development of the site that would provide substandard living conditions for
future occupiers by virtue of direct and proximate overlooking between
proposed habitable rooms and proposed balconies. As such, the proposal is
contrary to Hackney Local Plan 2033 policy LP17 (Housing Design), London
Plan policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach), D6
(Housing Quality and Standards) and the Mayor’s Housing Design Standards
LPG (2023)
3
The proposed development by reason of its design, scale and positioning,
would result in an incompatible and obtrusive development that would fail to
respect the pattern of development in the area, to the detriment of the visual
amenity of the area and the setting of nearby statutory Listed Buildings. As
such the proposal is contrary to policies HC1 (Heritage, conservation, and
growth), D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) and
D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan 2021 and policies LP1
(Design Quality and Local Character) and LP3 (Designated Heritage Assets)
of the Hackney Local Plan 2020.
4
The proposed development, which does not maximise the provision of
industrial or employment floorspace in the Priority Industrial Area, does not
provide a workable level of Low Cost Employment floorspace or Affordable
Workspace, and proposes employment floorspace that is not of adequate
quality or flexibility, is considered unacceptable with regard to Hackney Local
Plan policies LP26 (Employment Land and Floorspace), LP28 (Protecting and
Promoting Industrial Land and Floorspace in the Borough) and LP29
(Affordable Workspace and Low Cost Employment Floorspace) and London
Plan policies E2 (Providing suitable business space), E3 (Affordable
Workspace) and E4 (Land for industry, logistics and services to support
London’s economic function)
5
The proposal, by reason of it resulting in the loss of four family sized units
and an overprovision of single bedroom units, would result in an inappropriate
mix of dwellings that would fail to provide accommodation suitable for the
needs of families and would not meet housing need in the borough. As such,
the proposal would be contrary to policy LP14 (Dwelling Size Mix) of the
Hackney Local Plan and policy H10 (Housing size mix ) of the London Plan.
6
The proposal does not adequately justify the embodied carbon cost of
demolition of the existing buildings, is inadequate in respect of overheating
and renewable energies, does not address BREEAM certification and does
not provide future proofed connections to any future Decentralised Energy
Network. As such, it is considered to be contrary to policies LP54
(Overheating), LP55 (Mitigating Climate Change) and LP56 (Decentralised
Energy Network) of Local Plan 2033, as well as the requirements of policies
SI 2 (Minimising greenhouse gas emissions), SI3 (Energy Infrastructure), SI 4
(Managing heat risk) and SI 7 (Reducing waste and supporting the circular
economy) of the London Plan.
7
The proposed development does not demonstrate that there would be a
Biodiversity Net Gain on the site or a policy compliant Urban Greening Factor
of 0.4 for this mixed use scheme. As such, the proposal is considered to be
contrary to policies G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature) of the London Plan
and LP47 (Biodiversity and Sites of Importance of Nature Conservation) of
the Hackney Local Plan.
8
The proposed waste storage, which fails to provide separate waste and
recycling stores for the residential and commercial uses, or bulky waste
storage proposed for future residents, is considered unacceptable with regard
to policies LP57 (Waste) of the Hackney Local Plan ; London Plan policy D6
(Housing Quality and Standards) and the Mayor’s Housing Design Standards
LPG (2023)
9
The proposed development, which is located in a Critical Drainage Area,
fails to demonstrate that it would not increase the risk of flooding on and
offsite. As such, it is contrary to Hackney’s Local Plan 2033 policy LP53
(Water and Flooding) and policies SI 12 (Flood risk management) and SI 13
(Sustainable drainage) of the London Plan.
10
The financial viability assessment is inadequate to demonstrate that the
maximum amount of employment space is provided or that the levels of
affordable workspace and affordable housing are acceptable, which is
contrary to policies LP26 (Employment land and floorspace), LP28 (Protecting
and promoting industrial land and floorspace in the borough), LP29
(affordable workspace) and LP13 (Affordable housing).
1
The proposed development, by reason of a proposed layout that would
place habitable rooms and balconies directly and proximately facing an
adjacent site, would prejudice future development opportunities to the site to
the west. As such, the proposal is contrary to Hackney Local Plan 2033
policies LP1 (Design Quality and Local Character) and London Plan policy D3
(Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach).
2
The proposed accommodation would result in a cramped form of over
development of the site that would provide substandard living conditions for
future occupiers by virtue of direct and proximate overlooking between
proposed habitable rooms and proposed balconies. As such, the proposal is
contrary to Hackney Local Plan 2033 policy LP17 (Housing Design), London
Plan policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach), D6
(Housing Quality and Standards) and the Mayor’s Housing Design Standards
LPG (2023)
3
The proposed development by reason of its design, scale and positioning,
would result in an incompatible and obtrusive development that would fail to
respect the pattern of development in the area, to the detriment of the visual
amenity of the area and the setting of nearby statutory Listed Buildings. As
such the proposal is contrary to policies HC1 (Heritage, conservation, and
growth), D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) and
D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan 2021 and policies LP1
(Design Quality and Local Character) and LP3 (Designated Heritage Assets)
of the Hackney Local Plan 2020.
Show all 10 rows
4
The proposed development, which does not maximise the provision of
industrial or employment floorspace in the Priority Industrial Area, does not
provide a workable level of Low Cost Employment floorspace or Affordable
Workspace, and proposes employment floorspace that is not of adequate
quality or flexibility, is considered unacceptable with regard to Hackney Local
Plan policies LP26 (Employment Land and Floorspace), LP28 (Protecting and
Promoting Industrial Land and Floorspace in the Borough) and LP29
(Affordable Workspace and Low Cost Employment Floorspace) and London
Plan policies E2 (Providing suitable business space), E3 (Affordable
Workspace) and E4 (Land for industry, logistics and services to support
London’s economic function)
5
The proposal, by reason of it resulting in the loss of four family sized units
and an overprovision of single bedroom units, would result in an inappropriate
mix of dwellings that would fail to provide accommodation suitable for the
needs of families and would not meet housing need in the borough. As such,
the proposal would be contrary to policy LP14 (Dwelling Size Mix) of the
Hackney Local Plan and policy H10 (Housing size mix ) of the London Plan.
6
The proposal does not adequately justify the embodied carbon cost of
demolition of the existing buildings, is inadequate in respect of overheating
and renewable energies, does not address BREEAM certification and does
not provide future proofed connections to any future Decentralised Energy
Network. As such, it is considered to be contrary to policies LP54
(Overheating), LP55 (Mitigating Climate Change) and LP56 (Decentralised
Energy Network) of Local Plan 2033, as well as the requirements of policies
SI 2 (Minimising greenhouse gas emissions), SI3 (Energy Infrastructure), SI 4
(Managing heat risk) and SI 7 (Reducing waste and supporting the circular
economy) of the London Plan.
7
The proposed development does not demonstrate that there would be a
Biodiversity Net Gain on the site or a policy compliant Urban Greening Factor
of 0.4 for this mixed use scheme. As such, the proposal is considered to be
contrary to policies G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature) of the London Plan
and LP47 (Biodiversity and Sites of Importance of Nature Conservation) of
the Hackney Local Plan.
8
The proposed waste storage, which fails to provide separate waste and
recycling stores for the residential and commercial uses, or bulky waste
storage proposed for future residents, is considered unacceptable with regard
to policies LP57 (Waste) of the Hackney Local Plan ; London Plan policy D6
(Housing Quality and Standards) and the Mayor’s Housing Design Standards
LPG (2023)
9
The proposed development, which is located in a Critical Drainage Area,
fails to demonstrate that it would not increase the risk of flooding on and
offsite. As such, it is contrary to Hackney’s Local Plan 2033 policy LP53
(Water and Flooding) and policies SI 12 (Flood risk management) and SI 13
(Sustainable drainage) of the London Plan.
10
The financial viability assessment is inadequate to demonstrate that the
maximum amount of employment space is provided or that the levels of
affordable workspace and affordable housing are acceptable, which is
contrary to policies LP26 (Employment land and floorspace), LP28 (Protecting
and promoting industrial land and floorspace in the borough), LP29
(affordable workspace) and LP13 (Affordable housing).
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
Objections
4
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.