Gillett Square Community Asset

The Developer, 1 June 2019

When it was announced that the market pods in Gillett Square would be demolished as part of a major redevelopment, thousands of people came out to protest their removal. What is it about this square that caused such a strong reaction?

Placetest Gillett Square is a film by Simon Mercer that unpicks the story behind the place as it stands at a crossroad, poised for further redevelopment.

Anthropologist and social researcher Nitasha Kapoor analyses the design of the pods and how they foster community, HCD’s former managing director Adam Hart tells the history of the square’s becoming, while Russell Brown, co-founder of architects Hawkins\Brown, explains how luck and opportunism combined in the shaping of this “almost historic” regeneration project in Dalston, Hackney, London.

Film by Simon Mercer

Hackney Council has decided to grant planning permission for the development of the south side of Gillett Square, jeopardising the livelihood of small independent businesses.

The application was granted with the following conditions:

• enlarged bin store and public w.c. facility must be installed on Gillett Square
• temporary retail pods shall be installed and fitted out prior to the demolition of the existing retail pods. They shall be removed within 18 months of their first use or prior to the use of the permanent retail pods hereby approved, whichever is earlier.
• must comply strictly with submitted plans and conditions
• all materials and design details, and in particular the cladding material, must be approved
• cycle parking will be provided, and the type, design and location of bike racks will be submitted and approved before works commence
• the roof terrace on the ‘drum building’ shall be used only between the hours of 09:00 and 18:30 on weekdays, and not at all on weekends and public holidays
• the development shall not be occupied until a detailed Delivery and Servicing Management Plan has been submitted and approved
• no development shall take place until a detailed Demolition and Construction Management Plan has been submitted and approved
• bird and bat boxes shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development
  so as to provide potential habitat for local wildlife
• Gillett Square shall be made good to its previous condition as recorded in the condition survey
• principles and practices of the ‘Secured by Design’ scheme shall be submitted to and approved prior to works

Full conditions and details bellow:

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. SCB1 – Commencement Within Five Years

2. The Development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent approval of details.
REASON: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out in full accordance with the plans hereby approved.SCB0 – Development only in accordance with Submitted Plans

3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans and documents hereby approved, full particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. -On site mock up-panel of all external cladding material and window details that demonstrate how the proposed materials visually appear together as a composition along with the interface between different materials -Material samples of all external details, including cladding and details of internal framing -1:20 Typical Wall Sections -1:20 details of main entrances -1:20 of glazed façade and roof lights to the office accommodation
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area. [Note that the Planning Sub-Committee has requested that these details be referred to them for decision.]SCM2 – Materials to be Approved

4. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved document ‘Design and Access Statement February 2018’ full details of the enlarged bin store/public w.c. facility shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to the first use of the development hereby approved. The Bin Store/W.C. shall be built in strict accordance with the details as approved and shall be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: In order to secure a facility of an adequate quality and functionality. [Note that the Planning Sub-Committee has requested that these details be referred to them for decision.]

5. Prior to the demolition of the existing retail pods, full details of the temporary retail pods/seating structure to be located on the northern side of the square shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The retail pods shall be installed and fitted out prior to the demolition of the existing retail pods. The retail pods shall be removed within 18 months of their first use or prior to the use of the permanent retail pods hereby approved, whichever is earlier.
REASON: In order to facilitate the long term redevelopment of Gillett Square. [Note that the Planning Sub-Committee has requested that these details be referred to them for decision.]

6. The roof terrace hereby approved on the ‘drum building’ shown on the approved plan DWG_00_203_p1 shall be used only between the hours of 09:00 and 18:30 on weekdays, and not at all on weekends and public holidays.
REASON: In order to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.

7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a detailed Delivery and Servicing Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Delivery and Servicing to the site shall only be carried out in accordance with the details thus approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety and amenity.

8. No development shall take place until a detailed Demolition and Construction Management Plan covering the matters set out below has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Transport for London. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the details and measures approved as part of the demolition and construction management plan, which shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. a) A demolition and construction method statement covering all phases of the development to include details of all noise and vibration (including noise from ancillary or temporary power supplies, details and locations of noisy activities including mobile plant machinery) and details of the best practicable means of mitigation employed against noise and vibration in accordance with British Standard Code of Practice BS5228 and measures to preserve air quality (including a risk assessment of the demolition and construction phase); b) A detailed demolition and construction logistics plan to include the following: the construction programme/ timescales; the number/frequency and size of construction vehicles; construction traffic route; location of deliveries.
REASON: In order to mitigate against construction impacts on neighbouring properties, Gillett Square and the public highway.

9. Details, including justification of proposed quantum, of bird and bat, specifically swift and house sparrow, boxes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved birds and bat box details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, prior to occupation of the development hereby approved
REASON: To provide potential habitat for local wildlife, in line with the recommendations of the submitted habitat survey.

10. Prior to the commencement of above ground works for the temporary retail pods, full details of temporary line markings, signage and other measures necessary to mitigate against impacts on the function of the retained car park spaces shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The scheme shall be carried out prior to the first use of the temporary retail pods and shall be retained until the removal of the temporary retail pods.
REASON: In order to mitigate against impacts on the function of the adjacent car park.

11. Prior to the commencement of development a full condition survey of Gillet Square shall be carried out and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first use of the permanent development hereby approved Gillet Square shall be made good to its previous condition as recorded in the condition survey.
REASON: In order to mitigate against impacts on the quality of the public realm during the construction phase.

12. Prior to the First use of the permanent development hereby approved, full details of the internal cycle parking proposed, including the type, design and location of bike racks, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for Approval. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details as approved and shall be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: In order to make proper provision for cycle parking.

13. Prior to the commencement of above ground works details of the measures to be incorporated into the development demonstrating how the principles and practices of the ‘Secured by Design’ scheme have been included shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Officers, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.
REASON: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities.

If you wish to view all documentation (including full decision notice) for this application and the case officers’ report, please visit www.hackney.gov.uk/planning, and search using application number 2018/0792 .

Adam Hart, HCD CEO from 1996-2005, representative for the Objectors to the HCD Planning Application, gave a speech at the Council Chamber in front of the Planning Sub-Committee detailing some of the key reasons why the development on the south side of Gillett Square is risky and a bad use of public funds, and how the Planning Application is full of omissions, inaccuracies and half-truths.

Here is the transcript:

Along with the many others who have commented, written in some 120 letters and the over 1,500 people who passionately petitioned LBH on this matter, I am objecting to this application.

I do this as long term Hackney resident and parent and somebody who has been closely been involved for over 30 years in the all the developments and its people and groups, in and around Gillett Square. I have worked for many years as the CEO of the applicant Hackney Co-operative Developments (HCD) and as the named Public Entertainment license holder for Gillett square. I was full time occupant of the Bradbury Street workspace for over 15 years. I remain a committed and active member of HCD, despite its recent repurposing, and a director of the Vortex Foundation charity that funds cultural events here in and around Gillett square.

I therefore ask you as LBH members to give due respect and open minded consideration to what I have to say in the very short time I have here now. There is much else that can be said, as detailed in the written submissions to LBH Planning dept, partially summarised in the officer’s report that you have before you, to which I will confine our objections, here and now.

Given the general dictum that officers advise and inform, and that members decide and instruct, I will show that in this case you have been crucially misinformed – by errors and omissions of fact, and very poorly advised on matters of architectural urbanism and aesthetic and opinion – all of which is subject to relevant national and local planning regulations, guidelines and strategies as well as particular decision planning decision precedents.

On that basis alone you can safely reject the current recommendation to approve this application.

There are also other considerations that can be argued to be material which have bearing here against approval such as the active restrictions on demolition placed by public funders including the EC on parts of this site.

There are three main areas of objection to this report upon which the officer’s recommendation turns. They concern issues of Scope, Design and Sustainability.

1. Scope

The context of this application and the site area is narrowly and wrongly identified in this report. This leads to the omission and exclusion of any consideration of the negative impact of this proposal upon the whole of Gillett Square as defined in the 2004 master plan and planning permission documentation for Gillett Square, which has yet to be completed, as recognised in the current DAAP which explicitly describes the need for an active frontage on Stamford Works as part of the completion of Gillett Square. In that context the existing car park is a temporary measure, and indeed functions on many occasions as part of the square now for larger cultural events.

This omission has several consequences –the principal one being that the application should be treated as a major development proposal that affects the future of the whole of Gillett Square and the Bradbury Street area neighbourhood and the surrounding buildings on both sides of the square. As such issues of economic, environmental and social sustainability and attendant equalities issues cannot be overlooked, disregarded or lightly dismissed as they are in this officer’s report.

Beyond this, and looking to a brighter future and completion for Gillett Square-as advocated by the LDA AAUU head Richard Rogers who oversaw the first phase of design and works for Gillett Square in 2006, the proper vehicle for strategic planning is the reconvening of the truly innovative and successful Gillett Square Partnership, involving all key stakeholders in and around the whole Square. LBH has committed itself to this in its 2006 planning documentation and subsequent specific actions in 2008-10.

This is the best way forward to promote and not destroy the remarkable social cohesion, social and rich cultural energies in and around Gillett square. There is much opportunity to work together for all of us to do this in context, rather than pressing ahead with this narrow, destructive contentious plan. HCD’s and its current LDA funders’ objectives for increased workspace provisions and environmental improvements in and around Gillett Square can be achieved in a much less damaging and much less costly manner.

2. Design

The officer’s argument hinges again and again on this report on the mitigating balance of the purported high quality of the design, against the many various defects that he concedes and partially addresses although not without some crucial total omissions. These omissions include the verified view of Bradbury Street from the West, i.e. from Kingsland High Street where the majority of people entering Bradbury Street and Gillett Square arrive. Other omissions include the damaging impact on the existing north facing Bradbury Street offices which will be deprived of light and will have to contend with users placed right outside their windows in the proposed double height “shared terrace and meeting places areas” on the first and second floors.

This is an “ad hoc” scheme that neither understands nor respects nor improves the existing character of this remarkable, interactive and creative engaged setting.

Various words are to justify this opinion of high design quality, such as “creative”, “expressive”, “varied”, “contemporary”. Most of these are either empty of meaning or so promiscuous in meaning that they can be attached to any development plan – in the name of anything goes here. NOT SO! If we are to make anything of these words they actually imply quite the opposite of good design here, destroying the existing Design week 2000 and LBH shortlisting design awards for the market pods, ruining the functionality and connectedness of the deck access walkways, creating cramped new spaces, damaging the existing offices natural lighting, spoiling and hiding the heritage elevation, streetscape and roof lines, encasing the workspace in a façade that (even the planning officer is unsure can work) to create an overbearing plastic shed that amounts little more than a folly or a sham, at best a pale imitation of and cursory nod to what is of value here, but speaks most of separation, and yes social cleansing and economic exclusion.

3. Sustainability and Equality

Contrary to the officer’s assertions, whether or not this scheme is classed as a major development, sustainability is the golden here that runs through all national regional and local planning considerations that cannot and should not be ignored here, nor can they be overridden by the supposed design quality of this scheme as this report attempts, but fails to do. We cannot get away from the following universal sustainability criteria for this plan:

1. The Economics of its negative implications for local business and livelihood, in the short and long terms, through inevitable disruptions and unserviceable rental increases (that will be generated by development debt)
2. Environmental: the negative environmental impact and wastage of material and financial resources in unnecessarily demolishing the market pods and in building their replacements.
3. Social and equalities issues: this project is clearly economically dependent on a higher paying demographic of mainly white businesses people and corporate satellites moving to work or live in this borough, and will threaten the existing good balance of this site’s BEM beneficiary profile and the boroughs commitment to promoting and preserving equality and other valuable social characteristics of this remarkable and valuable creative and diverse space.

In sum: in its current form this application represents a poisoned chalice for the applicant, and in balance fails to meet planning requirements.

It should and can be refused and sent back by you today for major rethinking and further consultation with stakeholders to produce a simpler, non-damaging scheme that can meet the basic objectives of increasing workspace provision and environmental improvements in around Gillett Square. In doing so you will have reinforced the borough’s core values -to work for the many not the few – and avoided bringing the name of social enterprise into disrepute, as a disguised form of social cleansing. I urge you to be brave and unprejudiced in this matter.

Change.org petition update

LBH Planning Officer has recommended that Planning Permission be Granted for the Gillett Square/Bradbury Street developoment, with 121 letters of objection versus 36 supporting the proposed development. The following objections were raised (extract from the Planning Sub-Committee report):

– Design of the proposed extension, and impact on the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.
– Inappropriate materiality (polycarbonate) of the extension which
would not be appropriate for an affordable workspace, excessive
size and bulk relative to the existing buildings.
– Loss of the existing retail pods, which are prize winning and
should be retained
– Loss of existing access balconies which would reduce natural
surveillance and connection between existing workspace and the
square
– The proposed retail pods in the north of the square would preclude
the full completion of Gillet Square as envisaged in the Dalston
Area Action Plan with an active frontage.
– The proposal would be disruptive to the existing tenant of
Bradbury Street, retail pods, tenants neighbours and users of the
Square itself
– Overshadowing to the square
– The development poses financial risks to Hackney Co-operative
Developments who do not have the resources to complete the
development. The proposal would therefore risk HCD’s existing
assets being transferred to the private sector.
– Impact on nature and function of Gillet Square and ability of the
square to hold large scale events.
– Fire Risk from the proposed polycarbonate cladding system.

Planning Sub-Committee hearing to be held at 6.30pm on 25th July at:
Council Chamber, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, E8 1EA.

Full report can be found here.

Hackney Gazette, 23 June 2018
 
The drama surrounding the threat to Gillett Square continues apace with over 1,500 new signatories in the past month to the Change.org petition to Save Gillett Square.

This is all completely untrue, but further reveals the disrespect and ignorance that permeates this current planning application.

The current plan is against LB Hackney’s own planning principles and its commitment of accountability to the views and needs of the local community.

This plan can easily be replaced by a much simpler non-damaging scheme that meets the LDA and HCD’s objectives for some increased affordable workspace and environmental improvements on this site. There is still time to object to LB Hackney as the committee hearing will not be before July 4.

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.

1. 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.:

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

5. 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 

6. 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

7. 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).

Change.org petition update

Obviously rattled by the gathering outcry against the current proposals the applicant has submitted additional documentation urging L.B.Hackney to ignore the Change.org petition. The petitionvhas gathered over 1,500 additional signatures since the renewed threat this year to Gilllett Square that includes the demolition of the prize winning market pods that form a vital part of Gillett Square, as well as many other damaging proposals.

Time to write again to the planners before the probable committee hearing on July 25th!

Hackney Gazette, 10 May 2018, Emma Bartholomew

Hackney Co-Operative Developments (HCD) has applied for planning permission to put a clear polycarbonate façade and an extra two floors on the terrace in Bradbury Street, which overlooks the square.

But opponents fear it could force out businesses and lead to gentrification, and that its plastic design could be a risky move in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster.

Police are investigating an arson attack last week that saw furniture destroyed on Kaffa Coffee’s stall.

Architects and heritage experts from the Dalston Conservation Area Advisory Committee have complained the proposals are “too large and too high”, and the “dominant pitched form of the roof extension is inappropriate in the predominantly Victorian context and would damage the quality and character of the conservation area”.

HCD chief exec Edward Quigley said the petition was misleading and had just been “repurposed” from one about a car park.

But HCD’s former managing director from 1996 to 2012, Adam Hart, said both plans were “profoundly destructive”.

“The HCD plans involve a building in the middle of the square,” he said. “They are arguing this might be temporary, but it could be a permanent placement. It comes down to the same thing: that the square is under threat.”

Mr Hart told the Gazette tenants’ security of tenure is the “most notable and worrying human aspect” of the scheme, and the threat of eviction was not aligned with the core values of HCD.

But as the Gazette went to press, Mr Quigley revealed HCD’s stance had since changed.

“Bradbury Street leases will not be terminated for any tenant that wishes to be decanted to Woodberry Down or another HCD site,” he said.

The leaked document also indicated the project could be running precariously behind schedule.

City Hall has handed out more than a million pounds to HCD to fund the project in Bradbury Street and transfer its tenants to workspace in Woodberry Down while the works are completed.

The City Hall money was meant to be spent by the end of March, but by that point HCD had still not secured planning permission or a bank loan, according to the leaked report.

A six-month extension has been granted until September 30, and Unity Trust Bank has since offered funding.

The public money had originally been earmarked to provide affordable workspace at the six-storey “Dalston Bunker” in Ashwin Street, which would have been delivered by Dalston Works – a collaboration between HCD and the Bootstrap Company.

It was one of 69 submissions for a slice of the £20m London Regeneration Fund (LRF) to “help businesses and community groups in the capital” in 2015, 24 of which were successful.

City Hall, Bootstrap and HCD have been unable to tell the Gazette exactly why or when that project fell through – but it is thought it was deemed “unviable”, and at some point the money was transferred over to the Gillett Square project.

“Bootstrap couldn’t go ahead with its project, but was already far down the line, and in what seems to be low due diligence of the GLA, they committed funding to this other project before they even knew where they were going,” said Mr Hart.

“They didn’t make an announcement or push it open to public competition again, and frankly that’s not a proper procedure.”

HCD was required to matchfund £825,000 grant from the Greater London Authority – but now the project is expected to need as much as £2m to pull off.

HCD has refused to publish financial viability projections, and some fear that rents could rise to pay for it. Mr Quigley dismissed those concerns.

This objection is not about blocking developments on Gillett Square, it is about developing the square harmoniously and intelligently, with a sensible understanding of how it works, as a conversation between its different parts: a thoughtful, caring and carefully crafted development, not a brutal parachute scheme with no understanding of the local ecosystem.

There needs to be a sensible open conversation about alternatives so as to develop a positive sustainable vision. This development needs to be stopped in its current form. Here is a detailed article explaining the proposed development and including a sensible alternative proposal. http://opendalston.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/gillett-square-plans-co-operative.html

Gillett Square does need improving, but it has to be developed responsibly, with a common vision, crafted in coordination with the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Why the proposed HCD scheme needs to change / a few points to consider:

1. The current plans submitted by HCD have many avoidable negative impacts (significant loss of business, expensive, risky). The stated benefits (increasing affordable workspace) could be achieved by a much simpler, cheaper and less disruptive development.

2. The existing iconic and highly successful market pods (which were 100% public funded at a cost of £250,000 of tax payer’s money), as well as the exterior walkways, are key to Gillett Square as they enable small businesses to be directly part of the life of the square. If HCD’s current proposal goes through, they will be buried under corporate glass and plastic cladding. Gillett Square would lose this very successful and distinctive active frontage as well as its connection to the building.

3. Market pod traders have been told they will be trading from containers in the middle of the square during the proposed building works. They will however have no clients to trade with as the square will be a noisy and dusty building site, empty of users and surrounding businesses for at least 12 months. It will be very difficult for them to survive the scheme.

4. Many businesses in the buildings surrounding Gillett Square will suffer loss of business and be affected by the lengthy and unnecessary proposed development.

5. HCD tenants are unable to voice their concerns about the development for fear of their tenancies not being renewed.

6. The public funding and consultation process has been obscure, especially as HCD is a Community Interest Company. HCD refuses to publish its figures and the viability of the proposed development plan, the failure of which could see the South side of the square sold on the open market. A “public” consultation (invite only) was carried out at the end of last year. The proposed plan was badly received. Complaints and objections have not been addressed.

7. The aesthetics of the scheme do not fit with Gillett Square or Bradbury Street (as assessed by Dalston Conservation Area Committee), and will reduce sunlight by 18%.

Thanks for your support!
#SaveGillettSquare