How-To: OBJECT:::

Objections can still be sent direct to the Borough of Hackney.

You can make your comments either by going online or writing a letter.

Online go here:

http://apps.hackney.gov.uk/servapps/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/generalsearch.aspx 
and search the application number 2013/0053 then click on the application number underlined with dots in the ‘Planning Application Search Results’ box to view the application details. Then, in the ‘Application Progress Summary’ box click ‘add comments here’ and fill out the form.

Or…

Send a written objection quoting application number 2013/0053 to:

Planning Duty Desk, Hackney Service Centre, 1 Hillman Street, E8 1DY

Chipperfield's proposed replacement

Outlines for what grounds you can object by are here on page 3:

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/how_to_have_your_say_on_planning_applications.pdf

and finally,

Below is a comment I found on the BDonline article showing CAMRA’s objection letter to the planning dept:

Objection 2013/0053 Conservation Area Consent from Jane Jephcote, Chair of CAMRA’s London Pubs Group, Flat 10, Ravenet Court, Ravenet Street, London SW11 5HE

Demolition of the Marquis of Lansdowne public house

Dear Hackney Planning

On behalf of CAMRA’s London Pubs Group, I should like to object to the demolition of the Marquis of Lansdowne at 32 Cremer Street E2 on the following grounds:

1. As evidence of the area’s previous late Georgian/ early Victorian antecedents, the Marquis of Lansdowne constitutes a heritage asset, in much the same way as the Wenlock Arms does in the Regent’s Canal Conservation Area also in the borough. In the second case consent for demolition was refused on this ground in October 2011, although it is noted that at the time the Wenlock Arms was not in a conservation area.

2. Loss of the building leading to a permanent removal of any possibility that the Marquis might one day be repaired and reopened as a pub. NPPF Para 70 protects against the loss of pubs. P70 has been used by inspectors to defend a pub use even where that use ceased some years before. The planning appeal decision for the Plough Shepreth which established this principle is attached.

3. The ‘redundancy’ of the building is challenged. Historic buildings which are ‘mothballed’ or given low impact ‘meantime’ uses such as the Marquis has under its ownership by the Geffrye Museum can survive long enough for their context to change sufficiently to enable a sustainable repair and reinstatement. The Marquis, which has been in use as offices upstairs in the ancillary living accommodation (and not also on the ground floor in the pub’s trade area) would, with the arrival of Hoxton Station and the nearby Museum itself, find many buyers if it were offered on the open market. As much was admitted by David Dewing, the Museum’s Director to a member of the London Pubs Group at the consultation event in December.

4. The loss of pubs from conservation areas has been identified by planning inspectors in four recent dismissed appeals cases as detrimental to the character of the conservation area. This can be caused either from the loss of the building itself and its associated use, or from the loss of the use through a scheme of conversion affecting the character of the conservation area, and being considered to constitute ‘substantial harm’. The relevant appeal decision on the Cross Keys is attached for your reference. the other cases followed the Cross Keys case both in time and reasoning. Other planning decisions including the Fairfield PH in RB Kingston recorded refusals at delegated level following the Cross Keys case.

5. The dating of the Marquis of Lansdowne has not been firmly established. However, I attach a photograph of the Queens Head E14, a Grade II listed building and its list description which identifies it as late C18th or early C19th, and invite you to note the similarities between them including the recessed arches and 1950s mottled beige tiling. It must be said that the Marquis, even in its delapidated state, is a more elegant building, ’rounding’ its corner and presenting a more considered design for its prominent site than the Queens Head.

6. The loss of the Marquis’ built context, i.e. its flanking terraces, is a shame, but there is consequently an opportunity to create a new and harmonious context for the pub within a new scheme for the Geffrye, ‘fitting new to old, rather than old to new’, or in this case demolishing the entire building completely. Public houses in this ‘orphan’ form survive in a great many urban areas after the slum clearances of the interwar and post war periods as the singular reminders of their role in servicing residential streets. They are to be cherished (as above) and not to be disregarded.

7. I have been shown a photograph of the Marquis taken in 1951 or possibly earlier, showing it after an InterWar timber panelled refit and refronting of some distinction and quality. The present tiled treatment is absolutely typical of Charrington’s post WWII austerity repair programme and a significant number of these survive still. However, while the surface decoration is of little merit, it would appear that the present building is little altered in its roof, window apertures and the disposition of doors and so on.

8. The applicants are defending their application on the grounds that the loss of the present building is justified on the grounds that the new proposed extension is of greater public benefit. This seems a regrettable approach by a museum of the Geffrye’s standing. Furthermore, previous proposals, funded as I understand it by Heritage Lottery Fund grant, showed retention of the Marquis and its incorporation into a considered scheme.

In summary: the Marquis of Lansdowne is a purpose-built public house absolutely of its time and place. It is a survivor from Hoxton’s Georgian history, of which precious little now survives. The context around it has greatly improved during its time in the Geffrye’s ownership and it is easy to see that it could with some care and attention, be refitted and returned to its original use and there is evidence that there would be appropriate owners interested in a purchase. The loss of this pub from the conservation area, both in its built form and use, constitutes ‘substantial harm’ and should be resisted.

Please refuse consent.

Jane Jephcote
Chair, CAMRA London Pubs Group

The London Pubs Group is formed of CAMRA’s London region pubs officers and pub protection officers as well as historic pubs enthusiasts and planning/historic buildings professionals with a particular interest and knowledge of the subject.
Jane Jephcote is co-author with Geoff Brandwood of “London Heritage Pubs” 2008, CAMRA.

About these ads

One response to “How-To: OBJECT:::

  1. Hi: just wondering if anyone has thought about getting the pub registered as a community asset, under the new Localism Act?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s