max oppenheim 0

Petition against Application 2013/0130 130 Kingsland High St / Tescos site

35 people have signed this petition. Add your name now!
max oppenheim 0 Comments
35 people have signed. Add your voice!
Maxine K. signed just now
Adam B. signed just now

Scroll down to sign, please put your address in comments box and sign only if you live in the area. Remember a direct objection to the council is the most effective option.

I am writing to advise you of a planning application which could adversely affect residents and businesses in Dalston. This is the third application from the same developer for this site. You may be familiar with these notices.

Application No: 2013 / 0130

Morris House 130 Kingsland High Street Hackney London E8 2NS / Tescos site

Development: Erection of a part single, part 5 storey building providing retail use on the ground floor, offices on upper floors with associated car parking, cycle parking and waste storage

You can see all the details on the planning section of the Hackney council website. This is a huge proposal with no architectural merit that will dominate the junction of Kingsland high street, Sandringham road, and John Campbell Road.

The plans can be accessed by going to the following link

and typing in the planning reference 2013/0130

The case officer at Hackney is Steve Fraser-Lim. He can be contacted on 020 8356 6377. Objections can be made by post or by email to

The last 2 planning applications have been rejected, and an appeal upheld the councils’ decision against the development. However, the planning inspectorate who conducted the appeal did support aspects of the scheme, and the applicant has adjusted his new application accordingly

We have sought advice from a planning advisor who has come up with a list of relevant points against this new application. These could be a useful guide in objecting (though its best to object in your own words). The key points are that building is too big and creates to much loss of light. Also the application shows no evidence of any architectural merit, or consideration for the surrounding environment – especially the Rio Cinema.

List of objections

- Previous applications for the redevelopment of the site have been refused and dismissed at appeal because, primarily, the proposed buildings were too big, specifically too tall.

- The Inspector who dismissed the appeal last year stated that“It is the height of the respective buildings that is important rather than the number of storeys.”The applicants have now removed the set-back, top floor, apartments but this has made very little difference to the perceived height of the proposed building. It is still too big.

- The proposed roof plan bears no relationship to the elevations. It is very worrying that the architects/applicants can’t even be bothered to change their plans properly and it speaks volumes for the quality of their submission.

- The notional elevations are a work of fiction. Five commercial floors do not fit into the height of building they show. There is no space for air con, IT trunking etc.

- To illustrate this, they would have you believe that they can squeeze a retail floor and an office floor (the ground and first floor) into a height equivalent to the sill level of the building next door. The ceiling of the retail unit appears to be only half way up the shop window next door. Even if this is physically possible (by sinking the floor well below pavement level?), it would look peculiar.

- The height of the proposed building will be way above the parapet level of the adjacent building. If you grant a planning permission with the words “five storey building” in it – this is how tall it will be. Not the height in the fictitious drawings currently in front of you. An Inspector has said that this height is unacceptable.

- The applicants will say that this is an outline application and that the elevations will form part of the reserved matters submissions but the Council still have to be content that their proposals will work in a practical sense and they plainly do not.

- The sheer bulk and mass of built form will dominate and detract from the setting of the Listed Cinema on the opposite corner – as with the previous application. The notion of a landmark building as alluded to in the Design and Access Statement may have some merit but it doesn’t follow that a landmark building has to be so brutal and monolithic. The proposal will tower above adjacent building making the surrounding public realm feel tight and claustrophobic

- There might be broad policy support for the redevelopment of the sitein principle,but there remains a critical need to respect detailed policies which are designed to ensure the delivery of good quality development in the interests of all. In that regard, the Hackney Core Strategy Development Plan Document at Policy 24, Design states that:“All development should seek to enrich and enhance Hackney’s built environment and create a sense of place and local distinctiveness that is attractive and accessible”The means by which that is to beachieved include“adopting a rigorous design and impact approach to assessing the heights and bulk of buildings in relation to existing surroundings and views, which may involve a detailed local area analysis.”and“identifying with and respecting the architectural, historic quality and character of the surrounding environment.”The application plainly fails to meet these requirements.

- There are clearly sound planning reasons for refusing permission and I respectfully request that the Council does so. The applicants have not addressed the reasons for the previous schemes being rejected. They have not even amended it properly.

- This is (again) a poor and lazy application that is an insult to those who live and work locally and have more concern for their environment.

If you need any more information on this issue I can be contacted as

If you are interested in joining the Rio Cross residents association please go to


Max Oppenheim


Share for Success