Planning application · Hackney
2020/3864.
Rochel D Satmar Charitable Trust, 27 Warwick Grove, Hackney, London, E5 9HX
Full / Other Planning at Rochel D Satmar Charitable Trust, 27 Warwick Grove, Hackney, London, E5 9HX, received 3 Dec 2020 — refused on 24 May 2024 (delegated, Clive Theobald).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
24 May 2024
181 wks
Decision time
173 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 linked
—
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?
Retrospective permission for the conversion of the residential dwellinghouse (C3) into a school (F.1).
Reference
2020/3864
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
3 Dec 2020
Validated
18 Jan 2021
Target date
15 Mar 2021
Decision date
24 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Premises record
Council register
Reference
2020/3864
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
3 Dec 2020
Validated
18 Jan 2021
Target date
15 Mar 2021
Decision date
24 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Hackney portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 24 May 2024, delegated decision by Clive Theobald — 181 weeks from submission (173 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Dec 2020
Application received
18 Jan 2021
Application validated
15 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
24 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Clive Theobald
3 Dec 2020
Application received
18 Jan 2021
Application validated
15 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
24 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Clive Theobald
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The outbuilding, by reason of its position, massing, scale, and detailed
design, would result in an incongruous, unneighbourly, and unsympathetic
addition that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
application site and wider area. As such, the proposal is considered contrary
to policies D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) and
D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP1 (Design
Quality and Local Character) of Hackney’s Local Plan 2033 (2020) and the
relevant sections of Hackney Borough Council's Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD (2009).
2
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to allow the
local planning authority to undertake a full and proper assessment of whether
the identified noise mitigation measures are achievable and feasible, to the
detriment of the amenity and living conditions of adjoining residents, contrary
to policies D13 (Agent of Change) and D14 (Noise) of the London Plan (2021)
and LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
3
The outbuilding development would, by reason of its siting, massing,
location, and fenestration placement adversely impact the daylight, sunlight,
privacy, and outlook of properties at 43-49 Moresby Road and 21-25 Warwick
Grove, detrimental to the residential amenities and enjoyment of these
properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy D3 (Optimising site
capacity through the design-led approach) of The London Plan (2021), policy
LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020), and
the relevant sections of Hackney Borough Council's Residential Extensions
and Alterations SPD (2009).
4
In the absence of a sufficiently detailed Transport Statement, it is not
possible for the local planning authority to undertake a full and proper
assessment of the implications of the proposed school in order to mitigate any
detrimental impact on the local highway network. As such, the proposal is
contrary to policy T4 (Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of The
London Plan (2021) and policies LP41 (Liveable Neighbourhoods), LP42
(Walking and Cycling), and LP43 (Transport and Development) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
5
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to allow the
local planning authority to undertake a full and proper assessment of the
sustainability measures incorporated, such as the overheating impacts of the
development and whether the maximum feasible reduction in carbon
emissions can be achieved, contrary to policy S1 4 (Managing Heat Risk) of
the London Plan (2021) and policies LP54 (Overheating and Adapting to
Climate Change) and LP55 (Mitigating Climate Change) of the Hackney Local
Plan 2033 (2020).
6
In the absence of any biodiversity enhancements, the scheme fails to
deliver a biodiversity net gain at the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to
policies G1 (Green infrastructure) and G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature)
of the London Plan (2021) and policies LP46 (Protection and Enhancement of
Green Infrastructure) and LP47 (Biodiversity and Sites of Importance of
Nature Conservation) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020).
7
The standard of classroom accommodation is not sufficient, by reason of
substandard outlook and light received, along with cramped room sizes to
accommodate the number of children required, so as to provide high quality
education facilities at this site. As such the proposal is contrary to policy S3
(Education and childcare facilities) of the London Plan (2021) and policy LP8
(Social and Community Infrastructure) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033
(2020).
1
The outbuilding, by reason of its position, massing, scale, and detailed
design, would result in an incongruous, unneighbourly, and unsympathetic
addition that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
application site and wider area. As such, the proposal is considered contrary
to policies D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) and
D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP1 (Design
Quality and Local Character) of Hackney’s Local Plan 2033 (2020) and the
relevant sections of Hackney Borough Council's Residential Extensions and
Alterations SPD (2009).
2
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to allow the
local planning authority to undertake a full and proper assessment of whether
the identified noise mitigation measures are achievable and feasible, to the
detriment of the amenity and living conditions of adjoining residents, contrary
to policies D13 (Agent of Change) and D14 (Noise) of the London Plan (2021)
and LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
3
The outbuilding development would, by reason of its siting, massing,
location, and fenestration placement adversely impact the daylight, sunlight,
privacy, and outlook of properties at 43-49 Moresby Road and 21-25 Warwick
Grove, detrimental to the residential amenities and enjoyment of these
properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy D3 (Optimising site
capacity through the design-led approach) of The London Plan (2021), policy
LP2 (Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020), and
the relevant sections of Hackney Borough Council's Residential Extensions
and Alterations SPD (2009).
Show all 7 rows
4
In the absence of a sufficiently detailed Transport Statement, it is not
possible for the local planning authority to undertake a full and proper
assessment of the implications of the proposed school in order to mitigate any
detrimental impact on the local highway network. As such, the proposal is
contrary to policy T4 (Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of The
London Plan (2021) and policies LP41 (Liveable Neighbourhoods), LP42
(Walking and Cycling), and LP43 (Transport and Development) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
5
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to allow the
local planning authority to undertake a full and proper assessment of the
sustainability measures incorporated, such as the overheating impacts of the
development and whether the maximum feasible reduction in carbon
emissions can be achieved, contrary to policy S1 4 (Managing Heat Risk) of
the London Plan (2021) and policies LP54 (Overheating and Adapting to
Climate Change) and LP55 (Mitigating Climate Change) of the Hackney Local
Plan 2033 (2020).
6
In the absence of any biodiversity enhancements, the scheme fails to
deliver a biodiversity net gain at the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to
policies G1 (Green infrastructure) and G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature)
of the London Plan (2021) and policies LP46 (Protection and Enhancement of
Green Infrastructure) and LP47 (Biodiversity and Sites of Importance of
Nature Conservation) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020).
7
The standard of classroom accommodation is not sufficient, by reason of
substandard outlook and light received, along with cramped room sizes to
accommodate the number of children required, so as to provide high quality
education facilities at this site. As such the proposal is contrary to policy S3
(Education and childcare facilities) of the London Plan (2021) and policy LP8
(Social and Community Infrastructure) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033
(2020).
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.