Planning application · Hackney
2024/0503.
Serhat Supermarket, Unit A At, 349 Queensbridge Road, Hackney, London, E8 3LG
Full / Other Planning at Serhat Supermarket, Unit A At, 349 Queensbridge Road, Hackney, London, E8 3LG, received 11 Mar 2024 — refused on 11 Feb 2026 (delegated, Micheal Garvey).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Feb 2026
100 wks
Decision time
92 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?
Change of use of ground floor retail (Class E) to Use Class F1 (a) (Provision of education )
Reference
2024/0503
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E8 3LG
Council
Received
11 Mar 2024
Validated
24 Nov 2025
Target date
19 Jan 2026
Decision date
11 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Council register
Reference
2024/0503
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E8 3LG
Council
Received
11 Mar 2024
Validated
24 Nov 2025
Target date
19 Jan 2026
Decision date
11 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
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 11 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Micheal Garvey — 100 weeks from submission (92 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Mar 2024
Application received
24 Nov 2025
Application validated
19 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
11 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Micheal Garvey
11 Mar 2024
Application received
24 Nov 2025
Application validated
19 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
11 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Micheal Garvey
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to demonstrate
that the proposal meets the requirements of policy LP8 of the Hackney Local Plan LP33
(2020) in relation to the provision of new social and community infrastructure.
Specifically, no evidence demonstrating the current or future identified need has been
submitted. The development has a poor layout with limited light and ventilation, and
access issues, suggesting poor quality accommodation that is not inclusive. Neither is
there information to demonstrate that the premises are flexible, affordable, and
adaptable. The local planning authority is therefore unable to fully assess the merits or
otherwise of this proposal, and it is contrary to policy LP8 ( Social and Community
Infrastructure) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020) and policies S1 ( Developing
London’s social infrastructure ) and S3 ( Education and childcare facilities ) of the
London Plan (2021).
2
In the absence of sufficient information relating to the proposed use, numbers of
users, the hours of operation, and any associated impacts, such as noise, the LPA is
unable to fully consider the impacts of the proposal on the amenities of adjoining
occupiers and the surrounding area. As such, the proposal could result in an
unneighbourly form of development, harming residential amenities, contrary to policy
D14 (Noise) of the London Plan (2021) and policy LP2 (Development and Amenity) of
the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
3
The proposed development, by reason of its failure to reduce car usage and
promote sustainable transport by prioritising walking and cycling in the borough, is
contrary to policies LP41 (Liveable Neighbourhoods), LP43 (Transport and
Development) and LP45 (Parking and Car-free Development) of the Hackney Local
Plan (2020) and policies (T2 Healthy Streets), and policy (T6 Car parking), and p olicy
T4 (Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of the London Plan (2021).
4
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate refuse and
recycling facilities have been provided for the operation of the facility, contrary to
policy LP57 (Waste) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020) and policy SI 7 (Reducing
waste and supporting the circular economy) of the London Plan (2021).
5
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or a Section 106 Agreement securing
appropriate mitigation by restricting future occupiers of the development from
obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone, the proposed
development would likely exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the
surrounding highway network. The development would, therefore, be contrary to
policies LP43 (Transport and Development) and LP45 (Parking and Car-Free
Development) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) and policies T4 (Assessing and
mitigating transport impacts) and T6 (Car parking) of the London Plan (2021).
1
Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to demonstrate
that the proposal meets the requirements of policy LP8 of the Hackney Local Plan LP33
(2020) in relation to the provision of new social and community infrastructure.
Specifically, no evidence demonstrating the current or future identified need has been
submitted. The development has a poor layout with limited light and ventilation, and
access issues, suggesting poor quality accommodation that is not inclusive. Neither is
there information to demonstrate that the premises are flexible, affordable, and
adaptable. The local planning authority is therefore unable to fully assess the merits or
otherwise of this proposal, and it is contrary to policy LP8 ( Social and Community
Infrastructure) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020) and policies S1 ( Developing
London’s social infrastructure ) and S3 ( Education and childcare facilities ) of the
London Plan (2021).
2
In the absence of sufficient information relating to the proposed use, numbers of
users, the hours of operation, and any associated impacts, such as noise, the LPA is
unable to fully consider the impacts of the proposal on the amenities of adjoining
occupiers and the surrounding area. As such, the proposal could result in an
unneighbourly form of development, harming residential amenities, contrary to policy
D14 (Noise) of the London Plan (2021) and policy LP2 (Development and Amenity) of
the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020).
3
The proposed development, by reason of its failure to reduce car usage and
promote sustainable transport by prioritising walking and cycling in the borough, is
contrary to policies LP41 (Liveable Neighbourhoods), LP43 (Transport and
Development) and LP45 (Parking and Car-free Development) of the Hackney Local
Plan (2020) and policies (T2 Healthy Streets), and policy (T6 Car parking), and p olicy
T4 (Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of the London Plan (2021).
Show all 5 rows
4
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate refuse and
recycling facilities have been provided for the operation of the facility, contrary to
policy LP57 (Waste) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020) and policy SI 7 (Reducing
waste and supporting the circular economy) of the London Plan (2021).
5
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or a Section 106 Agreement securing
appropriate mitigation by restricting future occupiers of the development from
obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone, the proposed
development would likely exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the
surrounding highway network. The development would, therefore, be contrary to
policies LP43 (Transport and Development) and LP45 (Parking and Car-Free
Development) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020) and policies T4 (Assessing and
mitigating transport impacts) and T6 (Car parking) of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
LP8
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.