Officers, heritage bodies and Islington on one side; Create Streets, the Shoreditch Trust and 61 letter writers on the other
Who Objected to Shoreditch Works, Who Backed It, and What the Numbers Claim
Officers, heritage bodies and Islington on one side; Create Streets, the Shoreditch Trust and 61 letter writers on the other
By Cyndi Himmelstiere, Shoreditch correspondent
The Objectors
The planning fight over Shoreditch Works drew objections from several bodies. The Hackney Citizen reported that three members of the public, the Victorian Society, Historic England and the Hackney Society objected to the scheme. The Hackney Society raised concerns about scale, density and carbon emissions. Islington Council objected over the effect on Bunhill Fields cemetery, which lies across the border.
Planning officers at Hackney recommended refusal. They said the tower was too tall and obtrusive and the scheme incompatible with the character of the area, and that demolishing the offices would erase industrial history and harm local businesses.
The Supporters
The same article said the council received 61 letters backing the scheme, including one from the Shoreditch Trust. City Hall supported the scheme in principle but said it did not comply with the London Plan at that stage. The City of London praised the plan and called its height and density suitable. A scheme on the edge of two boroughs and the City’s own territory inevitably collects opinions from all three.
Nicholas Boys Smith, writing in City AM as an advocate, claimed that the scheme would create 6,000 jobs and 150 million pounds in social value, and bring 10 million pounds in business rates and 20 million in community infrastructure levy, and that Create Streets’ Visual Preference Surveys found that 76 to 78 percent of respondents preferred Shoreditch Works. He added that Hackney’s planners loathe it and that Hackney was offered a pearl. These are the claims of an advocate, and the survey method and sample are not described in the column.
The Affordability Argument
Affordable housing and workspace were at the centre. Hackney’s targets, as the Hackney Citizen reported, are 50 percent affordable housing and 10 percent workspace. The scheme at the February meeting had only one family-sized social rent home. The developer said it could not afford the council’s quotas, and the council’s independent consultants disagreed, finding what the article called a small surplus.
The later approval described by ianVisits says that a third of the new homes will be offered at affordable rates. That is below Hackney’s target and is the sort of figure that planning inspectors and mayors weigh against other benefits.
The Heritage Argument
The Hackney Citizen account notes the Grade II* listed low-rise terraces on Worship Street designed by Philip Webb, which the developer pledged to refurbish, with the work scheduled for the end of the project. Officers worried it could be dropped. The developer argued that the impact on heritage buildings would be very minor.
Heritage bodies tend to object on the principle of a precedent. If one tall building is allowed next to a conservation area, the next applicant will cite it. Supporters argue that conservation areas exist alongside living neighbourhoods, which have to change.
What a Good Decision Looks Like
I do not think anyone outside the room can say whether the decision was right. I can say what a good process would produce: a clear statement of the benefits and harms, a legally binding schedule of what the developer must deliver and when, and a monitoring plan. Those documents will exist, and they are public.
The people most affected are the existing businesses on the site, who will have to move. The reports I have seen do not describe what help they will receive.
Reading the Evidence
Four kinds of source appear in this story: official reports, news accounts, trade press and an advocate’s column. They agree on the broad outline and differ on emphasis. A reader should weigh each by what it can know. A news report can say what was said in the room. An advocate can say what the supporters believe. Neither can say whether the building will be good.
I have tried to attribute each claim to its source and to avoid adding my own. The final judgement will be made by the people who walk past it in ten years.
Next Steps
The practical steps are the usual ones. The developer will submit details for approval, the council will be asked to discharge conditions, and the first demolition notices will appear on hoardings. If you live nearby, ask the council to put you on the consultation list and read the construction management plan, which sets out hours, routes and noise limits.
Property Nerves, Seen From Elsewhere
Fear of a market travels fast. The same jitters turn up in the comic dispatches on the Cebu condominium story: a Manila News report on a Mactan broker with three brochures, a London Prat account of the references demanded of British retirees (direct link: https://prat.uk/cebu-estate-agents-demand-character-references/) and a Bohiney piece on two-hour open houses. Read them for the human detail a market report leaves out. The wider network is at prat.uk and bohiney.com.
Note: Philippine authorities are examining unproven allegations about Thomas Markle Sr., who lived in Cebu until earlier this year, as GMA News and the Guardian have reported. No charges have been filed. Child protection is a serious matter; the jokes here are about a property market and the paperwork.
For the lighter side of the news, there is always NewsThump.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/cebu-realtor-cant-sell-beachfront-listings/