Pic: Nico Hogg, Flickr
Local residents have a week to make comments about a proposed application for planning permission for an 18-story residential tower on Kingsland High Street, next to Dalston Kingsland overground station.
The tower would house 130 flats and a shop on the ground floor, and the developers propose to remodel the station entrance to make it more accessible.
Other features include a roof terrace and greenery on the sides of the building to improve its appearance and ecological traits.
However, some residents are opposed to the plans. Open Dalston blog, run by Dalston locals, expressed concerns with a number of aspects of the building.
The main objection is the height of the building, as there are no buildings higher than four storeys on the street and surrounding areas – it is thought the building could block light from other properties.
Other concerns raised include the issue of affordable housing. Of the 130 flats planned, only 17 flats are deemed to be “affordable” and the remainder are for private sale. This falls short of Hackney Council’s guidelines, which stipulates that 50 per cent of the flats on offer should be “affordable” to local people.
Four Communications, the PR company dealing with the development, were contacted for a comment but are yet to respond.
Details of the application can be found on Hackney Council’s website using application no: 2011/3439. The public consultation will close on January 30, with a decision expected on March 7.
Why would I want to oppose that? There is an extreme housing shortage. There is no space to build in width.
Dalston is ridiculously overpriced.
if it was a building built for commercial purposes, that would end up empty like the one in angel, ok.
but housing?
Well said Charlotte!
Of course, the greenest thing about this proposal isn’t the foliage and green roof, but the fact that the building is high-rise and facilitates a large number of people leading a lifestyle in which they can walk, cycle or get public transport to work. Compact, high-density cities are more environmentally sustainable than low-rise urban sprawl. Personally, I love the juxtaposition of Modernist architecture which addresses 21st century needs alongside the 19th century. The contrast in style and scale reflects the dynamic city we live in – rather than a stagnant provincial heritage town that some would like us to.
“This falls short of Hackney Council’s guidelines, which stipulates that 50 per cent of the flats on offer should be “affordable” to local people.”
Guidelines are guides, they do not “stipulate” anything, merely suggest a target of 50%. It is up to the council and the developer to look at the individual site and negotiate what is commercially feasible.
I’m in favour of a redevelopment of this site which is underused.
I’m in favour of a modern innovative design.
But the developer is trying to stack as many flats on the site as they can get away with to maximise their profit.
That’s why 30% of the flats won’t comply with official minimum space standards, why local homes and businesses and Ridley market will be overshadowed and why our high street will be dominated.
It’s called overdevelopment.
To add insult to injury this development includes only a tiny percentage of affordable family housing.
So I’m against this getting planning permission.
Surely there’s a better solution?
PS And I don’t buy the greenwash
“Last chance to oppose”?!
So ELL has now declared itself an anti-development campaigning group? Is this what passes as objective journalism at Goldsmiths these days? And why does ELL always quote the mysterious company the Organisation for Promotion of Environmental Needs Ltd? Surely any basic course in journalism would teach students to give a full picture rather than just repeatedly citing one campaigning opposition group?!