A terrace of Georgian houses in Dalston is to be demolished despite protests from hundreds of local residents, Hackney council planners decided last night
At the planning committee meeting, the chair Vincent Stops cast the deciding vote in favour of demolition after the committee vote was deadlocked.
Hackney Council started the demolition in early 2014 before being forced to stop
due to lack of legal permission.
The council has received 785 objection letters. Campaigners from groups
including OPEN Dalston, Hackney Society and the East End Preservation Society
attended to voice their objections to the demolition.
They argued that the retention of the facade would be possible using sustainable
techniques and that further inspection is required to find a solution.
A council spokesperson said: “The quality of the bricks is very poor. We have recommended that the facade should be taken down and then rebuilt. There are bricks that can be reused for the new facade.”
Lisa Shell, one of the objectors who argued against the demolition at the meeting, explained that taking down the facade and rebuilding it would not count as preservation. She said: “This is not a conservation, this is an offence.”
The council sold the buildings at an auction in 2002 before repurchasing them in
2010 with plans to carry out a preservation project.
The council is working in partnership with engineering company Murphy to
create 44 new flats in the historical houses.
“The council is working in partnership with engineering company Murphy to
create 44 new flats in the historical houses.”
Except they won’t be flats in historical houses, they will be non-affordable flats in new builds with shops in a Georgian pastiche style at the front elevation. There will be nothing historical about this development.
Hi there, Just wanted to point out that in your news piece above you’ve failed to mention (I suspect NOT deliberately) that demolition of the Georgian houses on Dalston Lane would represent destroying 50% of the conservation area on the lane (the other half being the buildings opposite, including the Victorian houses and the factory buildings). Second, you haven’t mentioned the fact that the architects appointed by the council to oversee the redevelopment of this site, have no conservation credentials and are therefore not qualified to take a view on whether those houses could be saved or not. (They were asked this question directly in the meeting and the engineer who responded admitted that they didn’t have any conservation credentials).
Third, one councillor asked why the Council had not stipulated that there should be 40% social housing included in the new build plans. The developer and the Chair appeared to shrug this off and said that there would be NO social housing in the new development – not even 10%, which is astonishing when you consider that the council’s own stipulated target of 40% is not being met here. They have heavily contradicted themselves with this decision.
I think it’s very important that these points are conveyed in your article so that other people reading it get the full picture.
Thanks.
Jemima Broadbridge