X
    Categories DensificationEric & TrebyPlanning Application

Objections to Eric & Treby revised building plans

Dear Sir/Madam

1. I am pleased to note the REFUSAL of the planning application for infill development of the above Estates.

2. I note that within days of this REFUSAL, East End Homes had submitted a revised Application for the same, purportedly answering the reasons given by the Planning Department for the Refusal.

3. Having studied the resubmission in some depth, I am concerned that the revisions they have submitted do not materially answer your reasons for Refusal, and are at best cosmetic revisions. An example is the proposal to paint various external walls white as a solution to your objection that the design of the proposed buildings is unacceptable and out of character with the surrounding occupiers etc. Also the answer to your objection of inadequate parking provision is to reduce further the number of general parking places in order to increase the number of disabled parking places, again a solution involving a tin of paint and a brush!

In short,the scheme proposed is essentially the same, and the result, if approved and implemented, will be a marked reduction in the quality of the local environment for existing residents, and leave these two estates very much the poorer, with far less open space (whether publicly accessible or otherwise) than that currently enjoyed, and a feeling of being ‘hemmed in’.

4. The demolition of the two storey studio flats on Hamlets Way, within months of the management of these estates having passed from LBTH to East End Homes, and within a year or so of their having been comprehensively upgraded, seems to have pre-empted and assumed permission would be granted to develop the land on which they stood.

I urge you to REFUSE this resubmission.

Sincerely
an Eric/Treby resident


Your ref PA/09/02065

Dear Sirs

Re: Eric Street & Treby Estates

This application still constitutes an over-development of the area, without adequate provision for supporting services, or regard for environmentally sensitive sites adjacent to the area.

Although offers were made to meet with East End Homes to discuss the redevelopment of these estates after the appropriate failure of their previous application, these have been ignored.

The planning application should be rejected in its entirety.

Yours faithfully


London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Planning Department

Your ref PA/09/02066

Dear Sirs

Re: proposed demolition of nos. 1-14 Brokesley Street

Should this planning application be granted conditions must be placed that there be no loss of pavement at all in the execution of the work. The ultimate developer, East End Homes, have shown no regard for the needs of residents of the Bede estate, nor others passing through Joseph Street, which happens to be a main route to a number of schools for residents north of Bow Common Lane E3.

The maximum height of any new development on the site, should planning consent be granted should be limited to the height of the houses on the opposite side of Brokesley Street, though a two-storey terrace would probably be more appropriate in terms of daylight and also acceptable density of population. Any new development permitted should also match the houses on the other side of Brokesley Street architecturally in all exterior details in keeping with the conservation area status of the street.

Yours faithfully

admin :

View Comments (3)

  • Objection to planning application for Eric & Treby

    To Richard Murrell and colleagues.

    I must repeat what I stated in my objection to the plans, dated 25 June 2009, that I am saddened by the proposals for infill development on the estate that is my home. I am trying to visualise the extent of the plans - and the whole thing just becomes absurd.

    Lack of consultation and lack of respect from our landlord

    The new plans were submitted without any attempt from EastendHomes to consult residents, in particular the Mile End Residents Association who have repeatedly appealed for communication with EastendHomes. Consultation is what we, the residents, and members of the Strategic Development Committee have been pushing for in the last many months but it has all fallen on deaf ears.

    The document ‘Statement of community involvement’ refers to comments and events in 2008 - not a single resident comment from 2009 - because they did not ask us!

    Addressing the reasons for refusal

    There are not many changes in these ‘new’ plans; it is still one big application. It now comprises 14 different sites, before it was 13.

    Open space and amenity

    An extra building, a community centre, has been added next to the East London Tabernacle on Burdett Road where there is now a recycling centre (site 6). The Tabernacle had negotiated with developers to drop site 6 but now this…

    The way EastendHomes address the loss of open space is by ‘giving’ us areas which are now land described as ‘hard-standing’ and strips of land we currently actually use to walk on i.e. space not built on - I think we all agree this is already open space, no…? The open space issue is being dealt with in an utmost con-way to make the sums look good, but how about concentrating on what would look good on the estate?

    On the subject of amenity space, the play space proposed in the plans is still only 3sqm per child - the London Plan is asking for 10sqm per child. 3sqm may be the minimum requirement for Tower Hamlets but can we be served by this? Even if 3sqm may be adequate for an able-bodied child, disabled children may require more. Is this being considered by the developers?

    Lack of social housing

    One other change is that four social housing units have been added - by changing site 12 into social housing (the 4-storey block proposed for outside Beckley House on the English Street side). This was previously planned as flats for sale. The four units are 3-bedroomed units (5 persons). I know it bumps up the habitable rooms figures. But are four units enough to address the lack of social housing in the previous plans?? EastendHomes are a so-called social landlord but their interests lie more in the private sector and not in providing for some of the 23,000 people on the Council’s housing waiting list it seems.

    The application combines regeneration of the existing estate with the wish for new build development.

    These are two separate things; decent homes were promised to tenants pre-transfer and are part of government policy and must be done by 2010. Bringing social housing homes up to decent standard is the JOB of the RSL regardless of any building ambitions the RSL may have.

    Also it is not in line with the offer document or the promises the Council and EastendHomes made before transfer; there was no mention of upgrade on the condition of new build. This is totally unacceptable.
    The building plans have been held up by the SDC - and rightly so (due to the many shortfalls in the plans) - but is it fair/ reasonable / permissible / to hold up the decent homes programme? Neighbours are wondering why part of the estate has new front doors etc and the rest of the estate seems to have been ignored.

    This is another reason why the plans should be refused again; the application needs to be split to deal with the two separate issues - and decent homes works should commence at once.

    These plans have been refused already in the form they took a few months ago - by rights the so-called ‘new’ plans must be refused as well as they are so minimally different from the previous ones. The decision to refuse has already been made!

    Submission by MERA

    Finally, please note that I fully support the objection on behalf of Mile End Residents Association also submitted today.

    In anticipation of a positive outcome for all my neighbours, my daughter and myself.
    tenant of eeh

  • Dear Sir, I am saddened to see that, EastendHomes, despite our previous objections, continue forward in getting their plans passed. These plans will lead to a loss of space leading to overcrowding, parking problems, problems to a place in local schools, loss of daylight and open space for many tenants and leaseholders. Who will pay for all this work? no doubt, leaseholders will probably be subjected to charges? I wholly object to these new plans as I think they are very similar to the previous plans, just slightly altered cosmetically. I fully support the objection by the Mile End Residents Association.

  • 1) The plans are substantially the same as those previously rejected by the council - there has not been any consultation with local residents and the same arguments for previously rejecting the plans still apply.

    2) The plans represent a massive overdevelopment of the area, resulting in significant loss of open space.

    3) The new buildings would cause a loss of daylight to many of the existing flats.

    4) The current infrastructure cannot support the number of new residents that the proposed new buildings would bring into the area such as school places / doctors / dentists etc.

    5) It is already difficult to park in the area, in the evenings and weekends and additional people would make this worse. New homes should have - free - allocated parking or the additional people will park on the roads, as many of the existing residents do.

    6) All existing openspace should be preserved. EEH appears to be putting their own definition on open space, which seems out of line with residents’ views - it is impossible to erect this many new buildings and for there not to be a massive loss of open space and amenity land.

    7) A significant amount of further accommodation could be achieved by converting garages, and adding Apex roofs and dormers to the existing blocks of flats, thus improving the roofline and providing additional accommodation without the loss of open space. Better and more imaginative planning could achieve more accommodation without losing the open space.

    8) The open space on the corner of Southern Grove / Loweswater House is enjoyed by residents in Loweswater and the other local blocks. The green space at the corner / open sight lines also helps to prevent vandalism as residents can see some distance - removing the sight lines / reducing visibility by building right up to corners will increase the probability of vandalism and residents fear of crime.

    9) Any new building should be limited to the existing build lines of existing buildings

    10) The fire brigade have recently issued a notice to local residents advising that the cause of the fire in the council block in South London is still unknown. One of the major problems in that block was that access was via central staircases. Any new buildings adjacent / abutting existing buildings should include additional stairways / access for the original block, if only as a means of escape in the event of a fire.

    11) The colours proposed for the new buildings are not in keeping with existing buildings and are depressive - any building should be in a similar yellow stock as existing buildings. I also think that the render finish will discolour and external decoration costs will be prohibited for residents. Other buildings in the area where individual balconies have been included have resulted in these areas being used for storage and drying washing, and as a result many look unsightly. None of the new builds should included individual balconies.

    12) Part of the plans include areas of open space being allocated to individual ground floor flats as gardens and making this land private - again I would say open space should be kept as such. Additionally where ground floor properties have been provided with gardens, noticeably where these front a road, the fences that have been erected do not match, are poorly constructed / maintained and many are an eyesore and do not enhance the area.

This website uses cookies.