An In-Depth Statement of Objection to the Current Planning Application on Gillett Square

STATEMENT OF OBJECTION TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATION for the HACKNEY CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENTS’ BRADBURY STREET WORKS PROJECT

Reference no 2018/0792

This statement of objection sets out to evidence that this application suffers from many pertinent errors of fact, abuses and contraventions of planning rules/guidelines, crucial omissions and generally unsound professional opinions that are dismissive and insensitive to those who know this site well and to the express wishes and needs of the local community and wider public.

This has resulted in a scheme that would, if implemented have overriding long lasting negative impact upon the fragile ecology of this neighbourhood, its public and private realm, its people, businesses, culture and social cohesion. There are no credible mitigating factors that can reverse this conclusion.

Moreover a much simpler , non damaging, scheme is readily available that would meet the core objectives of increasing affordable workspace provision and environment improvements on this site, which is widely supported by many of the objectors to the present application, including the Vortex Foundation.

These objectors are not by any means the “vexatious individuals” referred to in the applicant’s agent JMS Julian Sutton’s letter to LBH planning dated 6^th June 2018. On the contrary, the underlying and consistent thrust of many of the current objections is the constructive desire to replace the applicants’ plan with a simpler more elegant scheme that works well for all, without any of the current plans’ major downsides.

ERRORS OF FACT

1.1 The heritage appraisal states (see P19 sections 2.31 and 2.32) that Gillett Square was developed to “rehabilitate housing on Bradbury Street and insert elements of new build in order to provide offices, workshops and retail facilities for local businesses”

This is untrue and misleading: all these works (1996-2005) by HCD, including the Bradbury Street Workspace’s overlooking open walkways, the prize winning Market Pods and the much lauded Dalston Culture House- preceded, enabled and drove the creation of Gillett Square in 2006. . It is the quality of the curtilage buildings and its diverse inhabitants that what makes the square the most remarkable and highly valued, much studied place that it is.

The present scheme’s failure to recognize or understand this order of events, and the value and attributes of the status quo, reflects one of its basic flaws.

The JMS Planning & Development letter from Jeremy Sutton 6^th June to LBH Planning (doc ref 00433574) argues (P1) in support of the removal of the existing market pods that :”The pod structures were always intended as temporary trading units”….

This is to wrongly conflate the fact that, although these pods were, as he states “not designed for permanent use”, the structures themselves were very much designed, and publically funded as permanent structures. Moreover their use has de facto and of necessity become more one of permanent tenancy for many of their occupants rather than temporary trading positions as even a cursory inspection of HCD’s records would attest.

As HCD’s project author, fundraiser, business planner, co-designer with Hawkins\Brown , client end manager for the Bradbury Street Area Regeneration Project Phase 2 I can state categorically and with due authourity that this JMS above statement is profoundly mistaken.

The fact is that these market pods were always intended to work as permanent installations and additions to this site. The evidence to support this is widespread and includes the copy of the of the attached funding ERDF/EP successful application made by HCD in 1998, as well as the fact that they were awarded The Design Week Award for 2001 prize (in competition, amongst others with the Tate Modern) and were shortlisted by LBH for its Design Award in 2004.

The JMS Planning & Development letter from Jeremy Sutton 6^th June to LBH Planning (doc ref 00433574) states, with respect to the replacement of the market pods:

“The design of the new spaces will build directly on the character of the current pods, and this is something that has come from the extensive consultation undertaken by HCD with its tenants”

This is substantially untrue: the design of the new spaces was set out prior to any consultation with HCD’s tenants in Hawkins\Brown’s Design Idea proposals dated July 2017 (documentation attached). There have been only very minor amendments made several months later in a gesture of consultation with tenants and concerned members of the community.

Moreover I have been repeatedly informed by existing market pod tenants that they are now no position to object despite their actual disapproval of the scheme’s plans to remove and replace these prize winning units (e.g see article in Hackney Gazette Oct 26^th 2017 and Gillett Square Stakeholder letter 5^th October 2017 to HCD’s chair). Evidence for this position being an outcome of intimidation is corroborated by the March 2018 report to HCD’s General Council of Directors, that states (P.2) “for those not decanting to Woodberry Down notice will be served to vacate Bradbury Street in order for works to commence on time”

The JMS Planning & Development letter from Jeremy Sutton 6^th June to LBH Planning (doc ref 00433574) states

“As such, this petition (and the overwhelming majority of signatories to it) does not relate to the application proposal and its repurposing to oppose the application is reflective of the misrepresentation and deliberate subterfuge, which is being used to try and motivate to motivate objections to the application”

The suggestion that this the updated Change .org petition to Save Gillett Square has been illegitimately repurposed, is substantially untrue, pejorative and demonstrates a profound ignorance and/ or disrespect for the intelligence, standing and understanding of many of the petition’s signatories and of the well informed clearly expressed views in the discussion pages of this petition.

This petition concerns the continued threat to Gillett Square in the current application, posed by building in the current car park and also concerns the damage to the square’s character and social- economic inclusiveness through the design changes now proposed for its southern curtilage.

The ACV submission to LBH in August 2017 was formally put on hold in the context of the need for it to be extended include the whole of the square, pending the publication of HCD’s current project here, which has led to the clearly stated current updating of this petition, that has now attracted an additional 1500 signatories in the last month.

For LBH officers and members to be advised in this manner by JMS that this petition can be ignored is in itself evidence that JMS itself –not the objectors- is well open to its own charge of being “vexatious”.

The JMS Planning & Development letter from Jeremy Sutton 6^th June to LBH Planning (doc ref 00433574) states “ there is no basis of truth in this comment” i.e .that The Application is unnecessary and would overstretch HCD, an under-resourced organisation at many levels and result in community-owned buildings being lost to the private sector

On the contrary there are now no in house HCD staff with the experience or qualifications necessary to undertake property development projects in line with its mission as Community Interest Company, such as pertained throughout all its earlier project work from 1996 to 2005.

HCD has still failed to honour its commitment to evidence the Dalston Works project’s viability made in the course of its community consultation in 2017.

HCD and its funders claims to due diligence were made long before the full costs, include those of decant and mitigation , could possibly have been established .This is clear evidence of the emptiness lack of credibility of HCD’s current claims to competence or viability in this matter.

The Downham Road development , of which I was the originator , business planner and partnership broker is still at risk and will remain off the HCD balance sheet until the current joint venture with London and Chelsea Ltd is concluded. In the current falling market conditions the claims made here are highly speculative and heavily risk laden for HCD.

The unfounded claims made here by JMS of actual success at this stage for HCD are only further evidence of HCD’s current inadequate capacity.

The worst case scenario, for HCD’s current high risk property development portfolio, is that the accrued debts will force the sale of its key assets.

CONTRAVENTION OF PLANNING RULES/GUIDANCE

2.1 The applicants design and access document states

“At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking(paragraph 14)”

The current plan fails this test, not only The UK Government support of the concept of sustainable development that includes Social progress which recognizes the needs of everyone but in particular the UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future (paras 6-17 of the NPPF) second and third guiding principles of sustainable development:

ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;

The current scheme entails an increased enclosure and separation off the Bradbury street workspace offices and their inhabitants from the square and its users, and a severe reduction in the creative interaction and socially cohesive relationship between public and private domains. At a time of rising inequality this sends is a socially unhealthy and unjust message , in practice and symbolism, that is only increased by the proposed ingestion of the market pod units into the fabric of the building, rather than remaining on the terrace as part of the square. This scheme also thereby fails to observe the Hackney Local Plan Development and Management Local Plan stipulation (DM1) that plans should “Optimise the distinctive character of the existing buildings, landscape and topography” and “integrate(s) with adjoining development and public space from the outset”

achieving a sustainable economy

The current scheme is unnecessarily large and expensive to meet the projects core objectives and on the applicants own admission will lead to significant rises (initially 10%) above inflation rental levels for existing tenants who are- as beneficiaries of HCD’s basic mission to assist – disadvantaged in the market. The economic sustainability of these tenant businesses, and of those that are future target HCD beneficiaries, will thereby be negatively impacted by this scheme. HCD’s own sustainability if it is to stay on mission as a not-for-private profit social enterprise, is similarly threatened. As a recently branded Social Enterprise Borough this consideration should be taken fully into account by LBH members at this juncture.

By eradication of the walkways that regularly function as theatre balconies, stages and projection sites integrated with Gillett square it will also lead to a reduction in the scale and quality of the cultural events in the square, that are key drivers for growth of and sustainability of Dalston wider economy, as well as the popularity of the Bradbury Street workspace for HCD’s target beneficiaries.

The scheme fails the NPPF directives paras 61/3/4

Para 61:Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles, or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Para 63: great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.

Para 64: Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions

The prize winning market pods (design week award for 2001, LBH design award shortlisting 2004) and the exceptional character of Gillett square as generated by the distinctive design and functions of HCD’s existing curtilage buildings around the square have been widely studied , visited and lauded by expert writers , architects and urbanists from all over the world ( for a recent review see attached paper by Sendra, Pablo (2015) ‘Rethinking urban public space: assemblage thinking and the uses of disorder’ )

These design and character attributes are well recognized in LBH’s current DAAP and its Dalston Conservation Appraisal . In this respect and also in the light of the extensive ongoing community and social media conversations about the future of Gillett square this scheme, with its imposition of a bland “contemporary” overlay design that obliterates all the most distinctive and valued aspects of the exiting design and character of this site , this application fails to meet the above NPPF directives

The scheme fails the following directives :in the Hackney Local Plan Development and Management Local Plan)

Policy DM1 (High Quality Design) confirms the Council will require all developments including alterations and extensions to be of a high-quality design.:

Reinforce and compliment local distinctness and vernacular to create a positive sense of place

It does the opposite: the market pods are important part of the cultural and social and economic life of the square . The walkways are important performance, projection and staff/artists spectator areas for live events in the square (see 2006 launch photos etc) and have generated the sense of place underpinning the vision and proposals for the turning of the Gillett St car park into the creation of Gillett square. The argument that the applicants make that the market pods will be replaced by trading units that will retain and improve upon all their existing current attributes is faulty and mistaken on several counts:

The proposed replacement units would ill not have the exceptional value of being “in” or “part of” the square but will rather form part of the existing building-like any normal secondary retail façade below offices found all over the UK.

The replacements fail to replicate the way in which entrance doors to the existing pods are indented so that the collective integrity and conviviality of the terrace is maintained at all times, especially when trading from inside to outside over the counter.

On the contrary, in the proposed design , when the doors are open(as they need to be for any trading) they would make for the fragmentation and walling off of each unit from the other. This destroys the co-operative vision and intentions of the original design that reflects the mission /clientage of HCD and its public funders.

The proposed replacement units fail to maintain the flexibility inherent in the design of the existing pods which allow, especially in bad weather for the units to be an interior only trading space, into which customers can be invited into and to close the door behind them.

Respect the visual integrity and established scale, massing and rhythm of the building frontages, group of buildings or street scene

It does not because the pitched roof overbuilding on 4 floors and blank planar cladding Northern frontage are totally out of character with the existing Victorian elevation

Retain, enhance and a bleak or create open spaces, views, landmarks characteristic roof lines and other townscape features which make a positive contribution to the character of the area;

It destroys this London Victorian existing butterfly roof lines

In the wider context, be of a height and massing which responds to and is compatible with the townscape, landscape, urban setting and adjacent building, has regard the heritage assets and to the particular circumstances of the site;

The height is substantially incompatible with adjacent buildings and much of Dalston’s townscape

Optimise the distinctive character of the existing buildings, landscape and topography;

It substantially destroys key design features and character of the ground, Ist and 2^nd floor northern elevation

Provide and ensure adequate sunlight, daylight and open aspects to all parts of the development adjacent buildings and land, and ensure that proposals are not obtrusive in relation to adjacent buildings.

The applicants sunlight study shows that the square will be significantly overshadowed and entirely omits results for overshadowing of the Dalston Culture House eastern frontage that will certainly be massively overshadowed and fails to meet BRE standards. This infringement alone should lead to planning permission being refused by LBH.

2.4 DM requirements are that plans should

Include waste and recycling storage facilities on-site;
Are well laid–out internally, ensuring that proposals would not lead to cramped layouts
Policy DM46 (Walking and Cycling) confirms inter alia, development proposals should provide generous levels of secure cycle parking

The are no waste or recycling storage facilities on the applicants site as designated in the drawings submitted The Design and Access statement proposals to extend the existing waste bin area , along with a public WC are not included as part of this application. Rather than being appended as a condition, a separate but associated viable planning application is required

The following chart is significant evidence that apart from all the exterior aspects of overbearing out of character height issues and cramping of workspace area defects, far from producing a net improvement in basic WC and Kitchen facilities this scheme significantly diminishes the average provision per tenant. The only gain is are the showers on the first and second floors, promised to existing tenants, but presumably open to use by all the additional 75 tenants that would be inhabiting this workspace, as shown in the floor plans. To make matters worse two of the proposed showers are designed as dual use spaces that each include a WC. These have been included in the overall ratios but if there if somebody else is using these showers then these WC’s would not normally be available for use by others.

This chart establishes the undeniable cramping and an overall reduction in access ratios to wcs and kitchen facilities across the whole work-place as set out below :

		average tenants no.s
gfloor		10		exc dalston Jazz bar
Ist foor UNITS		30
2nd floor UNITS		30
dch		10
3RD FLOOR		64
4TH FLOOR		11
tital		155
		tenants	wc	dwc	shower	kitchen
exisitng		80	8	1	0	3

proposed		155	12	3	3	5


ratios
WCS
exisiting		tenants to wcs of any sort			9
proposed					10

exisiting	s	tenants to single use wc			10
proposed					13

exisiting		tenants to DWCS			80
proposed					52

KITCHENS		tenants to kitchens
exisitng					27
proposed					31

The scheme also fails, by a wide margin to provide remotely adequate or generous levels of cycle storage (in one 2.5 x 2.5M square room accessed down a narrow corridor on the first floor|) , even when some of the Gillett Square cycle spaces are taken into account, that are not for the exclusive use of Bradbury Street workspace tenants . Whilst the Design and Access statement (which overlooks the fact that the Dalston Culture House 3^rd and 4^th floor tenants are a part of the Bradbury street workspace ) implies a non compliance gap of some14 spaces , the full and extent of unacceptable failure is revealed in the following analysis chart that shows a gap of some 20 cycle spaces , (on the reasonable assumption that the interior and exterior cycles spaces available is a maximum of 16):


			dch 3RD AND 4TH FLS
TOTAL b1 SPACE	1408		250	1658
CYCLE ALLOC 1 PER 50	28.16			33.16
VISITORS 1 500	2.816			3.316
TOTALS	30.976			36.476

31 SPACES NEEDED	WITH dch	36-37 SPACE S actually required
nb
d AND a STATEMENT	Figures do not include the Culture House or the Ground Floor retail units on Bradbury Street.

CRUCIAL OMISSIONS

This scheme is peppered with glaring omissions that just cannot be not simple matters of oversight by HCD, Hawkins Brown or associates to this scheme, but function to wrongly legitimize some of the schemes worst aspects :

These include:

Justifying the proposed demolition of the market pods by complete omission of their purpose, funding, design vale ,durability, fitness for function and contribution to the building and life of Gillett square

The market pods costing c. £250,000 were procured by HCD with ERDF Objective 2 funds with English Partnership match funding in 1998/9 (see attached completed ERDF form ) as high specification, permanent buildings onto the then Gillett Street Car Park, inspired by the architect Glen Murcott and clearly well fit for small trading purposes for HCD target beneficiaries in this gritty urban setting.

They remain much loved by tenants and public alike in remarkably good condition and have featured in major publications (e.g Building DesignMarch2000, and at length in Hawkins\Brown’s own promotional publications &\Also 2003 and the Collaborative Studio of Hawkins Brown 2010 -see attached documents). They also gained several design accolades awards for Hawkins Brown especially of note are the Design Week Award for 2001 and LBH’s own Design Awards short listing in 2004(see attached).

None of this is mentioned by the Applicants, nor by Hawkins\Brown Planning and Access Statement nor in the historical account of this area’s recent development by KMHeritage, nor in the JMS Planning and Development advisory letters.

Yet these perceptions and accolades play a major role in the development and character of this area and in Hawkins\Browns own historical development from a small young group of architects in the1990’s to its present UK ranking as a large architectural business .

3.2 Omission of any reference to the role of the walkways to function as part of Gillett Cultural events, as widely published (including in LBH’s own guides to Hackney).

3.3 Omission of the overridingly negative feedback from the community consultation event in 2017 and unmet undertakings made there by HCD. Also no reference to the extensive community based objections lodged by the Gillett Square Stakeholder Group in its 5^th Oct 2017 letter to HCD, copied to the GLA

3.4 The failure to mention or deploy the 3 sector Gillett Square Partnership (GSP) as the well established and proper means for community based development planning proposals affecting the future and completion of Gillett square, as detailed and committed to by LBH for ratification and formalization of the GSP in its 2006 management and maintenance plan for Gillett square that form part of the planning permission conditions for its construction

Complete disregard for the clearly stated DAAP’s framework and directives for the completion of Gillett square with its originally planned extension to a new active frontage on the south side of Stamford

Adam Hart MPhil, FRSA

Director Vortex Foundation

Adam Hart was CEO 1996-2012 of Hackney Co-operative Developments CIC (HCD), responsible –inter alia- for the planning, procurement and client end management of all 4 phases of its Bradbury Street Area Regeneration projects 1996-2005, including the Market Pods and the Dalston Culture House. He remains an active member of HCD, fully committed to its mission and values.

As CEO HCD staff member, Adam Hart’s office from 1997-2012 was located in the existing Bradbury St Workspace the workings of which he is highly cognisant.

He was also HCD’s representative on the 3 sector Gillett Square Partnership (see attached JRLP 2003 publication) that worked together from 1999-2006 to create Gillett Square, and until 2017 was the named Public Entertainment License Holder for Gillett Square with principle responsibility for all the many successful cultural events that have taken place since its spectacular launch in 2006.

He has many years of experience in the construction industry as builder and developer and in architectural world as well as a social researcher in London for the Medical Research Council and Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

He has served until 2009 as a founding member, treasurer and chair on the board of Hackney Council for Voluntary Service and also as deputy chair of the LBH LSP Jobs and Economy Partnership. He is a long-term Hackney resident and parent, since 1982.

In view of all the above, Adam Hart is highly qualified to provide LBH Officers and Members with the particularly reliable information and well grounded views as set out below, in response to the initial application and supplementary documents sent to LBH planning on 07/06/2018, in addition to those that have already been submitted (30/04/2108) in response to the original planning application documents (registered 21/03/2018).