Why this document has been produced?
Berkeley Homes have submitted a planning application to build phase five of the Woodberry Down regeneration.This summary of the application was produced primarily for the WDCO board.I hope it might be useful for anyone wishing to submit comments through the Hackney Planning Portal.You probably don’t need to be told, but this contains AI material.
Application: 2026/1916, Reserved Matters, Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd. Agent: Lichfields. Case officer: James Bellis, Hackney.
Received: 4 September 2026. Expiry date: 25 December 2026. Decision level: Delegated (an officer decides; it does not go to the planning committee). A Planning Performance Agreement is in place.
Prepared for: the WDCO board, as a first step towards agreeing a response on the Hackney Planning Portal.
How to read this
The Hackney Planning portal lists 233 documents. Roughly 160 of them are drawings; about 70 are reports and statements. This note covers the reports and statements in full, and the drawings by series. Where a report is split into several PDF parts (the Design and Access Statement runs to 12 parts, for instance), it is summarised once as a single document.
The Board interest column is my judgement of how likely the WDCO board is to want to comment, drawing on the topics residents have raised in the past (trees, density, affordable housing percentages) and on WDCO’s role as a partner in the regeneration:
- High: bears directly on trees, density or affordable housing, or on matters the Statement of Community Involvement records residents raising. Worth every member reading at least the summary.
- Medium: affects residents’ daily experience or the setting of the estate, but a comment would be a secondary point.
- Low: statutory, procedural or technical. The council’s specialist officers and statutory consultees will examine it.
How closely each document was read varies. The shorter statements were read through. The long technical reports (daylight, energy, flood, fire, EIA) were read through their summaries, conclusions and targeted searches for key figures, not line by line. Where something could not be established, the summary says so.
1. The scheme in figures
| Item | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Site area | 2.09 ha | Housing Mix Statement |
| Existing homes on site | 225: 187 social rent (including some temporary accommodation) and 38 leaseholders, in nine blocks of five to six storeys | Housing Mix Statement; FVA |
| Proposed homes | 785: 470 market sale (59.9%), 173 shared ownership (22.0%), 142 social rent (18.1%) | Accommodation Schedule |
| Affordable housing | 315 homes: 40.1% by unit, 42.7% by habitable room (social rent 22.1% by habitable room) | Covering letter; Housing Mix Statement |
| Outline S106 requirement | 35–45% affordable per phase, 43% overall across Phases 5–8 | Housing Mix Statement |
| Home sizes | 315 one-bed, 352 two-bed, 107 three-bed, 11 four-bed or larger | HIA; Accommodation Schedule |
| Heights | 2 to 20 storeys. Tallest: Plot 3 (ground + 19, about 59 m) and Plot 2C (ground + 18, about 60 m) | S106 note; Fire Strategy |
| Density (my arithmetic) | About 376 homes per hectare, against about 108 per hectare today (785 ÷ 2.09 ha, and 225 ÷ 2.09 ha) | Derived |
| Trees | 34 removed (27 for the scheme, 7 for poor condition), plus part of one hedge; 23 retained (2 category A, 3 category B, 18 category C); about 168 new | Tree Removal Schedule; covering letter |
| Biodiversity net gain | +8.12% for area-based habitats, leaving a 0.33-unit deficit to be made up in a later phase or off site | BNG Statement |
| Urban Greening Factor | 0.49 (policy requires 0.4) | DAS |
| Open space | 5,620 m² public open space; 1,335 m² podium gardens; 2,850 m² play space (the HIA gives 2,647 m²) | Covering letter; HIA |
| Parking | Car-free apart from 38 car spaces (mainly for existing social tenants with permit rights, plus Blue Badge). 1,153 cycle spaces | Transport Assessment |
| Consultation | About 880 people attended Phase 5 events across three stages (380, 296 and 203) | SCI |
| Developer’s viability case | Residual profit 16.86% of GDV against a 20% target (deficit £14.19m); concludes 40% affordable already exceeds the maximum viable | FVA |
2. Index of documents
Numbers follow the applicant’s own list (Annex 1 of the covering letter) so that members can match this note to the portal.
| No. | Document | Board interest | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Application Form (redacted) | Low | Statutory form |
| 2 | CIL Form and Letter | Low | Procedural |
| 3 | Covering Letter | High | The applicant’s own summary of the scheme and its claimed benefits |
| 4 | Planning Statement of Compliance | Medium | Policy case; 98.55% design-code compliance claim |
| 5 | Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Statement | High | Tenure, percentages, right of return |
| 6 | Accommodation Schedule | High | Unit counts, mix, floor areas, cycle spaces |
| 8 | Design and Access Statement (12 parts) | High | Heights, layout, landscape, trees, play, public realm |
| 9 | Internal Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report (7 parts) | Medium | Quality of the new homes and amenity spaces; a consequence of density |
| 12 | Biodiversity Net Gain Statement | High | Nature and trees; falls short of the 10% legal requirement |
| 14 | Statement of Community Involvement | High | Records what residents said and WDCO’s part in the process |
| 15 | Gateway 1 Fire Statement | Low | Specialist (statutory consultee) |
| 16 | Stage 2 Fire Strategy | Low | Specialist (statutory consultee) |
| 17 | Health Impact Assessment | Medium | Health services, open space, population |
| 18 | Air Quality Positive Statement (Appendix B to the EIA Statement) | Low | Technical |
| 19 | Circular Economy Statement (4 parts) | Low | Technical |
| 20 | Whole Life Carbon Statement | Low | Technical |
| 21 | Energy Statement, including overheating and active cooling | Medium | Residents’ running costs; overheating in tall blocks |
| 22 | Water Efficiency Report | Low | Technical |
| 23 | Refuse and Recycling Details | Medium | Day-to-day estate management |
| 24 | Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy | Low | Technical; whole site in Flood Zone 1 |
| 25 | Financial Viability Assessment (2 parts) | High | The evidence for stopping at 40% affordable |
| 26 | Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Condition 12 statement) | High | Trees |
| 27 | Tree Protection Plans: demolition, construction, landscape | Medium | Protection of the 23 retained trees |
| 28 | Tree Removal Plan and Schedule | High | Which trees go and why |
| 29 | EIA Statement of Conformity, with Appendices A to I (see below) | Medium | Confirms the 2024 environmental findings still hold |
| 30 | Transport Assessment, with parking, servicing and cycle plans | High | Car-free arrangements and the one outline non-compliance (cycle parking) |
| 31 | Framework Travel Plan | Low | Technical |
| 32 | Demolition Environmental Management Plan | Medium | Disruption to neighbours |
| 33 | Construction Environmental Management Plan | Medium | Disruption to neighbours |
| 34 | S106 Reconciliation Note | High | What the S106 delivers, including the tree and public art payments |
| 35 | Sustainability Statement | Low | Technical summary |
Appendices to the EIA Statement of Conformity (document 29)
| App. | Document | Board interest | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Transport Assessment appendices (2 parts) | Low | Technical drawings and trip data |
| B | Air Quality Positive Statement | Low | Technical |
| C | Daylight and sunlight results for neighbours (3 scenarios, plus sun-on-ground drawings) | Medium | Effect on existing homes nearby |
| D | Wind microclimate assessment | Medium | Usability of public realm and podium gardens beside tall blocks |
| E | Noise assessment | Low | Technical |
| F | Embodied carbon budget comparison | Low | Technical |
| G | Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (7 parts) | Medium | How the tall buildings look from around the area |
| H | Bat surveys | Medium | Two bat roosts to be lost |
| I | Preliminary Ecological Appraisal | Low | Technical |
Drawings (about 160, by series; titles only, see the note in section 5)
| Series | Count | Board interest |
|---|---|---|
| Site location plan, block plan, key plan, existing plans, illustrative render plan | 5 | Low |
| Masterplan floor plans, levels 0 to 19 and roof | 16 | Low |
| Masterplan sections and elevations (north, south, east, west) | 10 | Medium (the clearest view of height) |
| Plot 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 floor plans | 33 | Low |
| Plot sections and elevations | 27 | Medium |
| Public realm and podium general arrangement plans | 3 | Medium |
| Apartment layouts, market sale | 26 | Low |
| Apartment layouts, social rent | 20 | Medium (space standards for returning tenants) |
| Apartment layouts, shared ownership | 12 | Low |
| EIA appendix C drawings (daylight views, sun-on-ground, overshadowing) | 9 | Low |
3. Summaries
3. Covering Letter (Lichfields, 4 September 2026) — Board interest: High
The letter submits the Reserved Matters for Phase 5 under outline permission 2024/2817 (granted 21 October 2025 for Phases 5 to 8) and asks for 22 planning conditions to be discharged and two partly discharged. The application fee was calculated on 785 homes. The letter claims 98.55% compliance with the outline’s design codes and lists 18 “planning benefits”: 785 homes, 315 affordable (40.1%), replacement social rent homes built to Parker Morris plus 10%, a car-free scheme, 1,153 cycle spaces, 5,620 m² of public open space, biodiversity net gain of +8.12%, 23 trees retained and about 168 planted, and improved access to the New River. It states that the scheme complies with the parameter plans, the Development Specification and the 2024 Environmental Statement, except for cycle parking, which it says is still to be agreed in writing during determination. A non-material amendment (2026/1693) was approved before submission, adjusting the Plot 2 boundary and the maximum floorspace. Annex 1 lists the 35 application documents and Annex 2 the drawings.
4. Planning Statement of Compliance (Lichfields) — Board interest: Medium
Sets out how the Phase 5 proposals comply with the outline permission’s control documents (parameter plans, Development Specification and Design Principles Document) and with national, London and Hackney policy. It repeats the covering letter’s benefits list and records the pre-application process: officer meetings, a Design Review Panel on 17 March 2026, and the community engagement summarised in the Statement of Community Involvement. The 98.55% design-code figure comes from here, and the board may wish to ask which 1.45% of the codes is not met.
5. Housing Mix Statement and Affordable Housing Statement (Berkeley Homes) — Board interest: High
Describes the 785 homes by tenure and size and tests them against the ranges in the outline Development Specification. Market sale is 59.9% (target range 55–65%), shared ownership 22.0% (21.3–27.1%) and social rent 18.1% (14.6–20.4%), so all three sit inside the consented ranges. Affordable housing is 40.1% by unit and 42.7% by habitable room. The outline S106 requires 35–45% per phase and 43% across Phases 5 to 8, so Phase 5 sits below the overall figure and relies on later phases to bring it up. The 142 social rent homes (against 187 existing social rent homes in Phase 5) are said to give enough rehousing capacity for the 104 “right of return” secure tenancies across Phases 5 to 8, and the affordable floorspace is stated to rise. Social rent and shared ownership homes are built to Parker Morris plus 10%, in single-tenure cores where possible, and are described as “tenure blind”. Notting Hill Genesis will buy the affordable homes on a 999-year lease. The statement notes eight pre-application meetings, including with WDCO members.
6. Accommodation Schedule (Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands, revision H, 25 August 2026) — Board interest: High
A spreadsheet-style schedule giving areas and counts by plot. Totals: 785 homes, 2,221 habitable rooms, 76,868 m² gross internal area. By tenure: 470 market, 173 shared ownership, 142 social rent. It breaks down each tenure by bedroom count against the Development Specification targets, and records wheelchair-accessible homes (M4(3)) and cycle spaces: 1,153 in total, of which 67 are “large” spaces (5.8%). The social rent mix is 45 one-bed, 18 two-bed (three-person), 33 two-bed (four-person), 9 three-bed (four-person), 25 three-bed (five-person), 1 three-bed (six-person) and 11 four-bed or larger.
8. Design and Access Statement (Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands, with HTA for landscape; 12 parts) — Board interest: High
The main design document. It explains the four-plot layout (Plots 1A and 1B facing the reservoir at 6 to 12 storeys; Plot 2, a courtyard building rising to 19 storeys at its north-east corner; and Plot 3, a 20-storey tower with stepped crown), the podium gardens, the street and public realm network, and the landscape strategy for the New River Path. It sets out the Urban Greening Factor calculation (0.49), play provision, the planting palette, about 168 new trees, external lighting, the access statement and cycle and courier arrangements, and it shows each apartment type. Part 1 holds the introduction, benefits summary and design-code compliance. The landscape, tree and play material sits in parts 6 to 10. It also contains the Child Friendly Impact Assessment and the Urban Greening statement.
9. Internal Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report (DPR, 1 September 2026; 7 parts) — Board interest: Medium
Assesses light in the new homes and amenity spaces against the BRE guide. Under the existing baseline, 69% of habitable rooms meet the BRE daylight criteria (74% using the alternative target for living-kitchen-dining rooms). With the later phases built, those figures fall to 66% and 71%. For sunlight, 47% of rooms meet the guideline (76% for south-facing rooms). 68% of communal amenity space receives two hours of sun on 21 March, against a 50% target. The report concludes that this is a high standard of amenity, in line with comparable consented London schemes. Part 1 is the text; parts 2 to 7 are illuminance drawings. About a third of rooms miss the daylight criteria, which the board may wish to weigh against the density of the scheme.
12. Biodiversity Net Gain Statement (Ramboll) — Board interest: High
Calculates the change in biodiversity value for Phase 5 using the statutory metric. Area-based habitats show a gain of +8.12% (+1.43 units), against the 10% legal minimum. The 0.33-unit shortfall has to be made up either in a later phase of the regeneration or through an off-site solution. Hedgerow units rise by 0.17. The report counts the trees as an “urban tree” habitat with a poor target condition for podium trees. It describes a 19.95% uplift in Phase 5 compared with the 2024 masterplan assessment. The covering letter presents the +8.12% position as a strong one; the report itself is more guarded.
14. Statement of Community Involvement (Iceni) — Board interest: High
Records the Phase 5 consultation between November 2025 and July 2026: pop-ups, webinars, youth workshops, walking tours and leaflets to 11,101 addresses, with attendance of 380, 296 and 203 across the three stages. Residents were broadly positive (48% positive and 17% very positive at stage 2; 8% negative) and especially supported greenery and the use of brick. The recurring requests were for more play space, seating, tree planting, better lighting along the New River Path, and shops and cafés. The concerns that remained were building height and density, affordability, accessibility, and whether servicing, parking and waste are practical. WDCO appears as a partner; the S106 note counts five presentations to WDCO board meetings and 20 Design Committee meetings (over 64 hours). The board may wish to check that the account of its own involvement matches its records.
15. Gateway 1 Fire Statement (Rider Levett Bucknall) — Board interest: Low
The planning-stage fire statement required for tall residential buildings. It lists each block (heights from about 36 m to about 60 m), the use, the external wall classification (class A2-s1,d0 or better), the evacuation approach (“stay put” for the residential blocks, simultaneous evacuation for the podium amenity) and the provision of full residential sprinklers. All blocks are designed to BS 9991, with M4(2) and M4(3) accessible housing provided. The Health and Safety Executive’s Building Safety Regulator is the consultee.
16. Stage 2 Fire Strategy (Rider Levett Bucknall) — Board interest: Low
A 67-page fire engineering strategy covering means of escape, internal and external fire spread, fire service access, evacuation lifts, firefighting lifts, smoke control, emergency power and fire safety management. It confirms sprinklers throughout the residential areas and evacuation lifts in every building with a passenger lift, and gives storey counts and top-storey heights for each building (Plot 3 at about 59 m; Plot 2C at about 60 m). The board is unlikely to comment, but the “stay put” strategy in 60 m buildings is something some residents ask about.
17. Health Impact Assessment (Ramboll, August 2026) — Board interest: Medium
Applies the HUDU rapid assessment framework across eleven health topics. It estimates a gross population of 1,212 new residents, including 90 children aged 0–4, 94 of primary age and 49 of secondary age. It finds surplus primary school capacity and sufficient secondary capacity, and describes GP capacity as better than the London average (1,857 patients per full-time GP within 1.5 km), with any pressure to be mitigated through CIL. It rates the new housing, open space and active travel as moderately beneficial. It gives open space as 5,620 m² and play space as 2,647 m² against a requirement of 2,522 m², and cycle spaces as 1,137 and car spaces as 38 (including four Blue Badge); those last figures differ from other documents.
18. Air Quality Positive Statement (Ramboll; Appendix B to the EIA Statement) — Board interest: Low
Shows how the design reduces exposure to poor air quality and avoids adding to it. Measures include setting the facades back from Seven Sisters Road, a car-free layout with permits only for existing social rent tenants and Blue Badge holders, electric vehicle charging and air source heat pumps in place of gas boilers. Management of parking permits and cycle and charging facilities will pass to building management.
19. Circular Economy Statement (Buro Happold, 4 parts) — Board interest: Low
Condition 44 requires one for each phase. It reports a pre-demolition audit of the nine existing blocks and sets targets of at least 95% of demolition and excavation waste diverted from landfill and at least 20% of building materials with recycled or reused content. The measures include reusing reclaimed brick in feature banding and paths, crushing site arisings for sub-base and habitat features, and recycled aggregate in paving. Parts 2 to 4 are appendices (material-by-material pathways, workshop notes and a whole-life carbon summary).
20. Whole Life Carbon Statement (Buro Happold) — Board interest: Low
Assesses embodied carbon under the GLA method. Upfront carbon is 629 kgCO₂e/m² and whole-life embodied carbon 918 kgCO₂e/m², both including an uncertainty allowance. The facade is the largest contributor (about 45% of upfront carbon), followed by superstructure and services, and concrete, aluminium and reinforcement steel are the main hotspots. The absence of a basement keeps the substructure’s share low. A separate appendix (F to the EIA Statement) uses a different figure, 749 kgCO₂e/m² for the construction stage, so the two are worth reconciling.
21. Energy Statement, including Dynamic Overheating Analysis and Active Cooling (Buro Happold) — Board interest: Medium
Sets out the strategy against the London Plan energy hierarchy: a fabric-first design, exhaust air source heat pumps for heating and hot water, and rooftop solar panels, with an overall carbon saving of 73% against the 2021 Building Regulations baseline. The remaining emissions are offset by a payment to Hackney of about £532,765 for the homes and £2,642 for the non-residential space (at £95 a tonne). Overheating modelling shows the homes meeting the national and CIBSE criteria, but with some bedrooms failing the Part O night-time noise criteria when windows are closed, and the statement therefore proposes active cooling (as a last resort under Condition 47). Residents’ running costs and the effect of active cooling are the points most likely to matter to the board.
22. Water Efficiency Report (QuinnRoss) — Board interest: Low
Calculates water use for each tenure against the 105 litres per person per day required by the GLA and Hackney, and concludes the fittings specified meet it.
23. Refuse and Recycling Details (KaNect) — Board interest: Medium
Management plan for waste in the 785 homes across Buildings 1A, 1B, 2 and 3. It sets out storage areas, container numbers, collection arrangements and how bins are moved. Nine homes (the houses) have individual kerbside collection. Social rent homes are located where refuse stores have direct street access, so no managed waste solution is needed. No community-use waste provision is required. Waste collection is a frequent source of estate complaints, so the arrangements for who moves bins and how collections are enforced may merit a comment.
24. Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy (PTA) — Board interest: Low
The whole site lies in Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk). The strategy proposes a SuDS-based surface water scheme with attenuation and discharge to Thames Water sewers (the sustainability statement mentions attenuation tanks and permeable surfaces); it includes groundwater records, Thames Water’s pre-development enquiry and the Hackney SuDS proforma.
25. Financial Viability Assessment (DS2, September 2026; 2 parts) — Board interest: High
Tests the maximum affordable housing and obligations the scheme can support, using the inputs agreed in the Principal Development Agreement. Gross development value is £452.5m; the residual developer return at 40% affordable housing is 16.86% of value (£76.3m) against a 20% target in the PDA (£90.5m), a deficit of £14.19m. The report concludes that 40% affordable already exceeds the maximum viable amount. It records S106 payments of £2.05m and Mayoral CIL of £2.48m, and a re-provision of 142 social rent homes with 1,664 m² more floorspace than existing. It also cites a 50% Hackney target. Part 2 is a set of unit layout drawings with areas. This is the document that gives the figures behind any discussion of the affordable housing percentage; in part 1 the methodology is section 5, the benchmark land value section 10, and the results and sensitivity tests section 11.
26. Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Mayhew Consultancy, September 2026) — Board interest: High
Responds to Condition 12 point by point, as a statement pointing to the three phase-specific tree reports. Utilities cross a retained willow (T64) under an existing road, and drainage passes through the root protection areas of four retained trees (T18, T19, T23, T24) in the western part of the site, to be handled by trenchless methods under supervision. No-dig surfacing details, levels and sections are deferred to post-planning design. The statement says that the tree areas become public open space with no fixed boundaries.
27. Tree Protection Plans: demolition, construction and landscape phases (Mayhew Consultancy) — Board interest: Medium
Three method statements, one per phase, setting out root protection areas, protective fencing, exclusion zones, crown pruning, supervision and, for the landscape phase, no-dig surfaces. They apply to the 23 retained trees. They are the place to check how the two large London planes (T18 and T19) are to be safeguarded.
28. Tree Removal Plan and Schedule (Mayhew Consultancy) — Board interest: High
Lists every tree on site with its category and fate. 34 individual trees are removed (27 for the scheme and 7 for condition) plus part of an outgrown hedge; 23 are retained: two category A (London planes T18 and T19), three category B and 18 category C. Most of the scheme removals are silver birches, whitebeams and similar, beneath building footprints; two London planes (T27, T28) and two limes (T13, T26) are lost to buildings or the access road. The outline masterplan counted 12 trees plus six groups for removal, so the count has risen because groups were listed individually; one category B tree (T24) previously due for removal is now kept, and one category C tree (T42) is lost to the temporary road.
29. EIA Statement of Conformity (Ramboll, 54,000 words) — Board interest: Medium
Confirms chapter by chapter (socio-economics, transport, air quality, daylight and sunlight, wind, noise, ecology, townscape, climate) that the Phase 5 proposals do not give rise to new or materially different significant effects compared with the December 2024 Environmental Statement. The daylight chapter finds 79% of neighbouring windows within BRE guidelines for daylight (85% of rooms for no-sky-line); for Woodberry Down Phase 4 blocks, the moderate adverse effects are attributed mainly to the outline massing of Phase 6, with Phase 5’s own contribution negligible. The socio-economic chapter finds a moderate adverse effect on GP facilities before mitigation and negligible after. Its appendices are listed in the index above.
Appendix A. Transport Assessment appendices (2 parts) — Board interest: Low
Scoping, trip generation and junction analysis material supporting the Transport Assessment, and a swept-path drawing for fire tender access.
Appendix B. Air Quality Positive Statement — see document 18.
Appendix C. Daylight and sunlight results for neighbours (DPR; three scenarios, plus drawings) — Board interest: Medium
Room-by-room tables of vertical sky component, no-sky-line and sunlight hours for existing buildings around the site: the 2024 massing, the detailed Phase 5 scheme, and Phase 5 with other phases as they exist. The tables are very large and are the data behind the EIA chapter’s percentages. Drawings show sun-on-ground and overshadowing of amenity spaces.
Appendix D. Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate Assessment (RWDI, 15 June 2026) — Board interest: Medium
Wind-tunnel tests of the scheme with proposed landscaping, with localised mitigation developed during design, and with the existing landscaping. Conditions are graded against the Lawson comfort criteria, and strong-wind safety thresholds are set at 15 and 20 m/s. The results are shown on colour-coded plans, so I could not extract the conclusions from the text; the tall blocks beside the public realm and podium gardens make this worth a member looking at the plans.
Appendix E. Noise Assessment (Ramboll) — Board interest: Low
Sets internal noise targets (30 dB LAeq in bedrooms at night and living rooms by day, 45 dB Lmax) to satisfy Condition 42, and requires plant noise to be at least 10 dB below the lowest measured background level. It summarises the sound insulation and plant attenuation measures.
Appendix F. Embodied Carbon Budget Comparison (Ramboll, June 2026) — Board interest: Low
A workbook scaling the 2024 Environmental Statement’s embodied carbon estimate to the larger Phase 5 floor area (76,783 m² against 74,633 m²) and comparing the result with UK carbon budgets. It applies a preliminary 749 kgCO₂e/m² intensity figure supplied by the client, and the workbook itself says this was set before detailed modelling.
Appendix G. Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (7 parts) — Board interest: Medium
Updates the 2024 assessment for Phase 5, with verified views from many viewpoints (Seven Sisters Road, Manor House junction, the East Reservoir, Pulford Road, Avenue Road, Eastbourne Road and as far as Walthamstow High Street). It finds mostly minor neutral or no effect on listed buildings and conservation areas, and a moderate neutral effect on the Stoke Newington Reservoirs, Filter Beds and New River Conservation Area (the 2024 outline assessment had found moderate adverse). Parts 3 to 7 are the existing, proposed and cumulative view images.
Appendix H. Bat Surveys (Ramboll, 2026) — Board interest: Medium
Dusk emergence surveys of nine buildings between May and July 2026 found no bats in seven; single soprano pipistrelles emerged from buildings B10 and B13. The development would therefore destroy two single-bat day roosts, which needs a Natural England licence before any works start.
Appendix I. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal addendum (Ramboll) — Board interest: Low
Updates the habitat survey history of the site (2005 to 2025 surveys) with a further walkover.
30. Transport Assessment (Iceni) — Board interest: High
Assesses travel effects and sets out the parking, servicing and cycling arrangements. The scheme generates an estimated 432 two-way person trips in the morning peak and 378 in the evening peak, 12 and 8 fewer than in the masterplan assessment. It is car-free apart from 38 car spaces, including 14 Blue Badge bays; from day one 34 spaces go to social rent tenants. Condition 21 caps parking at 70 spaces for “right of return” residents across the phases. 1,153 cycle spaces are proposed, 99 more than the 1,054 used as the comparison, with 95% in two-tier racks and 5% larger spaces. Five loading bays serve an estimated 184 delivery and servicing trips a day. Cycle parking is the one item the covering letter says is not in line with the outline and “to be agreed”. The summary also quotes a total of 1,511 cycle spaces, which appears to refer to a wider area.
31. Framework Travel Plan (Iceni) — Board interest: Low
A framework for a residents’ travel plan with a coordinator, targets and monitoring, to be completed after occupation. It repeats the tenure split and the cycle parking design (95% two-tier racks) and notes the Blue Badge allocation.
32. Demolition Environmental Management Plan (Berkeley Homes) — Board interest: Medium
Controls for demolishing the nine existing blocks: working hours Monday to Friday 08:00–18:00, noisy works confined to those hours, dust and noise monitoring, separation of pedestrian and vehicle access, and a Phase 3 site office. It describes the neighbours on each side, including the recently occupied Phase 3 and Kick Start Site 4.
33. Construction Environmental Management Plan (Berkeley Homes) — Board interest: Medium
Controls for the build: working hours Monday to Friday 08:00–18:00 and Saturday 08:00–13:00, noise and dust monitoring, site welfare and access from Devan Grove, a temporary road along the north-eastern boundary (the EIA statement notes that Newnton Close will be temporarily closed), and a vehicle route split between the North Circular and the M25 side. Out-of-hours work needs prior agreement.
34. S106 Reconciliation Note (Berkeley Homes) — Board interest: High
Checks the detailed scheme against the 17 October 2025 S106 agreement. Affordable housing, play space, education, car-free and BNG obligations are said to be satisfied by the submitted documents. Financial sums: healthcare (up to £658,700, still to be confirmed with the NHS), employment and training £361,292, construction management £17,500, TfL bus £54,615, wayfinding £10,000, a tree (CAVAT) payment of £287,388 and public art of £37,711. The CAVAT sum is 50% of the surveyed value of the trees lost. No education or play space payment is due. The note gives the pre-BNG position as -9%, while the covering letter and planning statement say -11.83%.
35. Sustainability Statement (Buro Happold) — Board interest: Low
Brings the sustainability evidence together: a 73% carbon reduction against the Part L 2021 baseline, SuDS, urban greening, circular economy targets (95% diversion from landfill, 20% recycled content) and biodiversity measures.
Documents 1 and 2. Application Form and CIL papers — Board interest: Low
The statutory form (123 pages, mostly guidance text; I could not extract the completed answers from the file) and a CIL additional information form and letter from Quod, submitted for validation. The CIL letter says liability notices and social housing relief claims will follow before commencement; the FVA records Mayoral CIL of £2.48m.
4. Points the board may wish to test
These arose from reading across the documents. They are for discussion, not conclusions; each should be checked against the source before it goes into a submission.
- Biodiversity net gain is below the legal 10%. The statement’s own figure is +8.12%, with a 0.33-unit deficit to be met in a later phase or off site. The covering letter presents this as a strong position. The board could ask for the shortfall to be secured now.
- Affordable housing is 40.1% by unit against 43% overall for Phases 5 to 8. The viability assessment says even 40% exceeds what is viable. Questions: which assumptions drive the 16.86% profit figure, what is the benchmark land value, and how will the 3-point gap be made up in Phases 6 to 8.
- Social rent numbers. 142 social rent homes replace 187 existing social rent homes on the site (the existing figure includes some temporary accommodation), justified by 104 right-of-return tenancies across Phases 5 to 8. The board may want that arithmetic confirmed with Hackney and NHG.
- Density is about 3.5 times today’s (about 376 against about 108 homes per hectare, my arithmetic), with 2 to 20 storeys. Residents’ concerns about height and density are recorded in the consultation statement as still outstanding.
- Trees. 34 trees are lost against 23 kept, including two London planes for the access road; the masterplan counted fewer individual removals because it listed some as groups. Only two retained trees are category A. The replacement figure of about 168 new trees is stated but the species and sizes are in the DAS planting strategy. The CAVAT payment is £287,388.
- Figures that differ between documents: heights (2–20 storeys in the S106 note, “five to nineteen” in the FVA, “6 to 20” in the DAS); cycle spaces (1,153, 1,137 and 1,511); Blue Badge spaces (14 or 4); play space (2,850 m² or 2,647 m²); the pre-mitigation BNG position (-11.83% or -9%); and upfront carbon (629 or 749 kgCO₂e/m²). These suggest the documents were finalised at different times.
- Cycle parking is the one admitted non-compliance with the outline and is to be agreed during determination.
- Daylight. About a third of the new rooms miss the BRE daylight criteria, and overheating is dealt with partly by active cooling; both may bear on running costs and quality of life in the new homes.
- Bats. Two day roosts are lost; a Natural England licence is needed before works.
- Construction. Saturday working to 13:00, a temporary access road, and the closure of Newnton Close are the practical effects for neighbours.
- Decision route. The decision is delegated to an officer, so the board’s submission goes to the case officer. It may be worth asking Hackney whether, and on what terms, the application can be referred to committee.
5. Gaps and limitations
- Drawings. The roughly 160 drawings were not downloaded or opened, as they were outside the filters used for the bulk download. They are listed by series, with board interest judged from the titles alone. The sections and elevations (masterplan and plot) are the most useful ones for the board to look at.
- Application form. The file is a flattened 123-page PDF; the completed answers did not extract.
- Wind. The results are in colour-coded plans, not text.
- Reading depth. The long technical reports were read via summaries, conclusions and keyword searches, as stated above.
- Duplicates. Three files in the project folder are duplicates (marked “(1)”).
Leave a Reply