The new Avigdor development
There is a current application to build the second part of the Avigdor development. The previous application was refused and an appeal failed. The new application while containing a number of changes is also similar in many respects.
Anyone wishing to object to the application should do so via the planning website website using the “Add Comments Here” button or cut and paste:
While today is the last day of the statutory objections period noted on the website, planning officers have said that this is being extended to the 15th September. Any objection should be made as quickly as possible but in any case,objections made after the statutory date will still be taken into account until the decision is actually made.
The conservation Committee objected to the development on a number of grounds relating to the setting of the site in a conservation area, but the inspector rejected most of them. The grounds most likely to succeed will be the effect on neighbouring properties and the principle that a development which was originally given outline permission on the basis of including a school should not be built unless such a school is included.
Here are two objections made by local residents:
The previous application was rejected as it would, ” Have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers. ” The density of residential units in the new proposal is broadly similar and so we feel it too should be rejected.
We feel that the school plans are severely compromised by the juxtaposition of residential units. We are not convinced that the research into the demographics and particular needs of the children, now and in the future, have been adequately researched. A brief mention is made re children with profound and multiple needs is made, a growing need due to medical advances. However, the current lack of parking and severely restricted vehicular access would prevent this group of children having access in wheelchairs, ambulance/school transport, and indeed seems inadequate for even the current pupil profile.
The lax and opaque requirements that Side by Side School Ltd only have to be “agreeable with a planning condition resulting in completion of the shell and core prior to the occupation of the residential units” is a very serious concern. This lack of clarity and looseness of contractual control is one of the reasons the neighbouring St Mary’s Lodge has been allowed to disintegrate: the Council continue to fail to ensure the new owners fulfil their commitments. This must make us fearful that this school will fail to materialise and another use found for the building…and no school!
We object to the positioning of the playgrounds which are too close to the gardens of Grazebrook Road and as the previous refusal noted the noise nuisance from the playgrounds would be “likely to result in disturbance to existing occupiers when relaxing in their gardens.” No mention is made of use of the playgrounds on Sundays, the day of rest for most Grazebrook residents. We have already suffered noise nuisance from the temporary school and had to complain about the use of leaf blowers and cleaning equipment on Sundays – and that temporary playground is further away than the current proposal.
The metal grating which links the classrooms to the upper playground will result in considerable noise nuisance; residents have already suffered noise nuisance from the metal balconies in phase one.
The Council’s own Policy EQ40 Noise Control in the Hackney Unitary Plan states, “The Council will not permit development proposals which could lead to an unacceptable increase in noise levels affecting existing or future occupiers or adjacent properties.” There is no doubt three school playgrounds – and a podium terrace – near the Grazebrook gardens boundary will lead to an unacceptable increase in noise levels.