W11P147

Henry Mellen

Hackney Central

Masterplanning through a multivariable density approach

Plan Making Studio 1

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Introduction

Site

In light of significant population growth in the UK, especially within urban areas, updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2019 included specific reference to ‘[m]aking effective use of land’ through ‘achieving appropriate densities’ (MCHLG, 2019, pp. 3, 36).

In order to develop the means to do this, the NPPF recommends that plans should include ‘the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport’ and that ‘these standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development ... unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate’ (MCHLG, 2019, p. 37). This rhetoric is reinforcing of existing policies within the current London Plan which state that ‘London’s varied town centres and their vitality and viability should be promoted and enhanced as locations for mixed-use housing-led intensification and high-density renewal’ (GLA, 2017, p. 78). As we will further explore later in this document, this approach to development has had a significant impact on the local plans and policies of the London Borough of Hackney (LBH).

Trelawney Estate

St John at Hackney Gardens

St John at Hackney Gardens Narrow Way

Dens ity

The purpose of this study is to first examine (qualitatively and quantitatively) how ‘appropriate’ the existing plan for a site in Hackney Central (see right) is in relation to its local context through a multivariable density approach. In light of this examination an alternative masterplan will be proposed for the site that is more sensitive to both the local context and the design principles set out in local policy.

Trelawney Estate

Narrow Way

Hackney Central

Aerial view of the site

Approach to density Whilst the London Plan frequently refers to density, the only metric it uses to assess density is habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha). The sustainable residential quality (SRQ) density matrix proposes density ranges for each Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) by setting.

These density ranges are also translated into values for units per hectare (u/ha) for differing ranges of habitable rooms per unit (hr/unit) (GLA, 2017).

There are a number of limitations to a unitary approach to density. These include, but are not limited to; a single metric does not take into account the mixture of building uses or consider the shape of the built form, both of which can vary significantly at the same residential density (measured in u/ha or hr/ha).

Hackney Downs

Hackney Central

Density measures for three 25ha case study areas in Melbourne (Pafka, 2013, p. 7)

Elek Pafka introduced a multivariable approach to density in Nothing Gained by only Counting Dwellings per Hectare: A hundred years of confusing densities (see above) (Pafka, 2013, p. 7). Considering the limitations to a unitary approach to measuring density, a variation of this approach will be used to assess density in this study. Population density and pedestrian flow metrics will not be included in our investigation due to time and data collection restrictions during the time of the study.

Hackney

Adjacent boroughs

Hackney Central

Other boroughs

Hackney Central

Underground stations

Opportunity sites

Page 2

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Site Context •

Site

[2]

ane

gL

Mare Street

in or n

M

[4]

[3]

250m New residential development

Listed buildings

Conservation area

Other buildings

Viewing corridor

Viewing corridor Hackney Other boroughs

Hackney Central White Tower (Tower of London)

(B) Landmark L1

Closest point from S on projection of line AB (S) Site

L2

•

ane

M

•

Broadly, the centre of Hackney Central is dominated by ground floor retail units whilst residential, office and community uses are situated on its periphery.

The majority of ground floor retail is situated along Mare Street/The Narrow Way though there also exists an epicentre of retail uses to the west of the area.

To the north-east of the site there exists residential and community uses only.

Office uses are clustered towards to south-west of the site.

250m Residential

Community

Retail

Office

Industrial/Warehousing

Green space

Building heights

Findings: • •

Site

According to the LVMF (GLA, 2012) the Threshold Height (Tz) of a building behind a Landmark (B) is equivalent to:

Az and Bz are equal to the height of the assessment point and the height of the landmark.

We calculated Tz using a slightly more complicated formula that takes into account the curvature of the Earth.

•

gL

in or n

Tz = Az + L1/L2*(Bz-Az)

(A) Assessment Point

•

•

Way

Adjacent boroughs

Findings:

Site

Narrow

Protected Vista 25A.1

The site sits within the extension of the Protected Vista 25A.1 (City Hall to the White Tower).

Calculations in accordance with the London View Management Framework (GLA) suggest that buildings up to a height of 46 metres would be accepted on the site (15 storeys, assuming 3 metres per storey).

Way Narrow

Way Narrow

[1]

The north of Hackney Central and Mare Street are protected conservation areas. There are a great number of listed buildings in these locations (GLA, 2020).

• There are a number of ‘Medium Residential (10-150)’ and ‘Major Residential (>150 units)’ schemes in the area that are either in progress of have been recently completed (GLA, 2020): • [1] 58 residential units, community facilities and a semi-public square.

• [2] 194 residential units and 104sqm commercial floorspace.

• [3] 18 new residential units.

• [4] 18 residential units and 114sqm retail/business/ community floorspace

Ground floor uses

Mare Street

Findings:

Mare Street

Planning restrictions

•

ane

gL

in or n

M

The most common building height in Hackney Central is 3-4 storeys.

The vast majority of buildings are between 1 and 4 storeys in height.

Few buildings are 7 storeys or above and only three buildings are greater than 10 storeys (three 15 storey towers preside in Trelawney Estate).

Although there are only a few buildings greater than 6 storeys in the local area, most of these buildings are clustered close to the south-east boundary of the site.

250m 1-2 storeys

3-4 storeys

7-10 storeys

10+ storeys

5-6 storeys

Page 3

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Local Density (Pafka analysis) In this piece of analysis the density of the existing site has been compared to nearby urban blocks using various density metrics. The urban blocks have been defined using the OpenStreetMap road classification. ‘Unclassified’ roads have been used as the boundaries of the blocks; edges of public green spaces may also operate as boundaries. The blocks may include ‘residential’ roads and pedestrian through-routes.

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Mixed-use block containing buildings of up to 6 storeys with some pedestrian through-routes and parking space. This block is situated on Mare Street, a retail thoroughfare that follows onto the Narrow Way. Hackney Empire, a large wellknown theatre, is based on this block.

Disparate block dominated by Trelawney Estate, a post-war residential housing development containing three 15 storey towers and 5 story maisonettes. This area contains residential roads, parking space, pedestrian through routes and green spaces.

Closely packed urban block with no through-routes containing former industrial buildings. These buildings rise up to 8 storeys and have been converted into mixed-use buildings with retail uses on the ground floor and residential units above.

MAX

61%

3.71

191

30

252

29

Block 3

55% 54%

152

191

Site

2.49 106

Average

1.06 18

MIN

22% Coverage

0.67

7 FAR

Residential density (dw/hectare)

11 Buildings density (buildings/hectare)

54 34

Block 1 Block 2

•

• •

Block 3

Block 1 N.B. The maximum and minimum values for each density metric on the graph are treated as the maximum and minimum values recorded by the blocks under review.

The numeric density values for each urban block are displayed in black text.

Block 2 250m

Block 1

Site

Jobs density (FTE/hectare)

This piece of analysis presented some incredibly interesting findings.

•

Site

Very limited level of proportionality between the density metrics. Order of the metrics was consistent for FAR and residential density only.

Given that Block 1 has performed highest against all density metrics, it is fair to claim that this block is the ‘most dense’ out of all those surveyed. Its high coverage - enabled by a lack of ‘residential’ roads or through routes - and FAR combine to provide a large quantum of floor space which is shared by residential and commercial uses. Despite including some very large buildings, its building density is high giving to the inclusion of finer grain development and the use of leftover spaces for additional buildings or high residential density infill.

The metrics for the Site challenge the conception that this area is of low density given its high coverage and jobs density.

High coverage of this block is owing to the large scale footprints of the Tesco building and Clapton Bus Garage. Unlike more residential areas, its leftover spaces are dominated by car parking, bus parking and space for delivery vehicles.

In spite of housing the tallest building elements within Hackney Central, Block 2 is one of the lowest performers across all density metrics. It is clear that it’s residential and jobs density are stunted by its very low coverage.

1.37 hectares Block 2

3.95 hectares

3.30 hectares Block 3

3.71 hectares Page 4

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Planning policy On the right hand side of the page we have depicted the complex array of policies published by LBH. The borough’s Core Strategy (CS), Development Management Local Plan (DMLP), Site allocations Plan (SAP) and Area Action Plans are a group of interdependent documents that make up the Local Plan. Each of these independent documents is backed by evidence. The Local Plan itself is supported by a number of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs).

a

(S P D s)

•

7-10 storeys

Opportunity for Taller Building elements

ng

Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan

4-6 storeys

Other Area Specific SPDs

nn i

•

Hackney Central AAP Buildings Heights Strategy (LBH, 2012, p. 30)

Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan

e m e nta r y Pl

•

Non Area Specific SPDs

p pl

Tall Buildings Strategy

LBH’s AAP reiterates the comments made above indicating that ‘Hackney Central has a high ... []PTAL[] of between 5 and 6’ and that ‘planning policy requires that high density development that optimises this public transport accessibility’ (LBH, 2012, p.33).

The ‘Hackney Tall Buildings Strategy’, published in 2005, determined that the site was suitable for ‘Taller Building elements’ defined as buildings in the approximate range of 30-45 metres (10-15 storeys) (LBH, 2005).

The AAP uses this strategy to support its own ‘Building Heights Strategy’ (see right). Two ‘opportunities’ for taller building elements are positioned on the site.

Hackney Central AAP

Other AAPs

ents

•

Area Action Plans (AAPs)

Su

Hackney Central AAP

Site Allocations Plan (SAP)

um

•

Tall Buildings Strategy

oc

•

DMLP Evidence Base

D

•

Development Management Local Plan (DMLP)

P la n

•

LBH define density as ‘the number of dwellings which can be accommodated on a site or in an area’ (LBH, 2010, p. 114).

In LBH’s ‘vision for 2025’ it is stated that ‘[p]opulation growth is mainly accommodated in appropriate location around the town centres, new stations and renewed housing estates’. In alignment with this Hackney Central, currently designated as a ‘District Town Centre’, is highlighted as a ‘place for growth’ i.e. economic and housing development (LBH, 2010, p. 24, 30).

Good design is considered as ‘vital when intensifying land use and increasing density’ (LBH, 2010, p. 28).

It’s important to note that the Local Plan (in its present, multi-faceted form) will soon be replaced by a single document that is currently under consultation. In LBH’s forthcoming ‘Local Plan 2033’ Hackney Central has been upgraded a ‘Major Town Centre’ indicating a higher projected rate of such growth (LBH, 2018, p. 19).

The London Plan’s density matrix is referenced in the CS. Given that the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 5-6 and is located ‘within 800 metres of District centre’. The density matrix recommends that the density of any new development should be equivalent to 45-185 dw/hectare. This will increase to between 140290 dw/hectare with it’s pending designation as a ‘Major Town Centre’ (GLA, 2017).

Core Strategy (CS)

c al

•

CS Evidence Base

Lo

Core Strategy (CS)

LBH Local Development Framework (LDF)

As referred to in the Introduction on Page 2, national and metropolitan policy promotes high density development in town centres that are well-served by public transport. Below, we explore how this rhetoric has been absorbed and re-transmitted by the London Borough of Hackney (LBH).

We will explore how this policies have been adopted in the current masterplan for the site in the following section.

Page 5

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

On the right-hand side of the page LBH’s existing plans for the site in Hackney Central (itself made up of two independent opportunity sites) have been stitched together and presented as one. The raw material that makes up these plans has been sourced from the Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan (HCSMP) (LBH, 2017).

Some of the urban design principles considered important by the HCSMP are as follows: • Create an active commercial frontages along Morning Lane, Bohemia Place and the pedestrian routes bisecting the portion of the site south of the railway.

• Increase north-south permeability by introducing new routes between Morning Lane and St John at Hackney Gardens.

• Create new and protect existing views of St Augustine’s Tower and St John at Hackney Church.

Below we have assessed the existing plans for the site against the results from our Pafka analysis of nearby urban blocks on Page 4. As in our previous analysis, the terraces on Mare Street and the units within the railway arch extensions that face onto Bohemia Place have been included in our calculations as they fall within the site boundary. In these calculations potential jobs were determined using the Homes & Communities Agency Employment Densities Guide (HCA, 2010). Our analysis shows that the jobs density of the existing plans for the site is considerably higher than that of any of the urban blocks in the local vicinity. Currently, the urban block with the highest jobs density in Hackney Central is Block 3, with 250 FTE/hectare. Additionally, it is clear that the buildings density of the proposed plans is uncharacteristically low. Whilst it is comparable to that of Block 2 (11 buildings/hectare), the plans perform much higher than Block 2 against all other density metrics. In this case the higher jobs and residential density of the existing plans has not been accompanied by an increase in the number of buildings per unit area.

The addition of the units proposed by the plans detailed in the HCSMP would push the residential density of the site to the upper limit of what is deemed acceptable by the London density matrix (45-185 dw/hectare).

Once designated a ‘Major Town Centre’, this level of residential development will be considered appropriate (see Page 5 for further detail). Back calculations using the figures of additional residential floor space and units included in the HCSMP plans for the site suggest an average unit size of 57sqm when assuming 20% internal movement space. The quantum of residential and non-residential space that would result on the site following the implementation of existing plans is shown below:

Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan

St John at Hackney Church

Narrow Way

Site Plan

St John at Hackney Gardens

St Augustine’s Tower

Mare Street

Existing Plans

Basement Car Park Access

ng r ni

e

Lan

Mo

Views

Residential Entrance

Commercial Entrance

Major routes

sqm

Site Massing

MAX

67%

189

Existing plans

MAX

Average

2.09

Coverage

FAR

Residential density (dw/hectare)

Buildings density (buildings/hectare)

Jobs density (FTE/hectare)

15 storeys

4 storeys

8 storeys

4 storeys

ar

MIN

8 storeys 4 storeys

M

14

MIN

St John at Hackney Gardens

ne

372

The HCSMP proposes a site massing that adheres to the following: • Building heights step down towards Mare Street, the Conservation Areas and the railway viaduct.

• Taller building elements should be located so as to minimise overshadowing and create a visual connection with existing taller buildings.

• Complete a perimeter block to the rear of the Mare Street terraces.

La

46,635

ng

Residential

ni

22,464

eS

or

Non-Resi.

M

69,100

Total

tre

Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan

Commercial

et

Residential

Major routes

Page 6

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Site

hi gh

ig h

Ve ry

H

50%

Q:What is your evaluation of the plot coverage of the proposed buildings in comparison to the other buildings in their local context (grey buildings)? hi gh y

ig h H

100%

Ve r

he

sa m

e

Lo w Ab ou tt

lo w y Ve r

Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan

sa m e

Ab ou t

100%

0%

View 2

0% th e

Q: How would you consider the heights of the proposed buildings in comparison to the other buildings in their local context (grey buildings)?

lo w

Respondents were shown the 2D plan below as well as three 3D views of the masterplan, pitched against its local context. The 3D views - created by taking snapshots from a SketchUp massing model - allowed respondents to conceptualise the interplay between the existing plans and the buildings in its immediate vicinity. This privilege was not afforded to the public in LBH’s publication of the HCSMP. The questions that were included in the questionnaire as well as a summary of the responses and our conclusions can be found on the right-hand side of this page.

50%

Ve ry

Following our Pafka analysis that reviewed how the implementation of existing plans would impact various density metrics of the site, we endeavoured to elicit public opinion on the plans using a questionnaire. There were 29 responses to the questionnaire, of which 45% had at least some experience in urban design, planning or related fields.

100%

Lo w

Qualitative analysis

Responses

50%

5-9 storeys 3-4 storeys

View 3

1-2 storeys

View 1 Other buildings

250m View 1

gh hi y

Ve r

H

ig

e m

ou

tt

he

sa

y Ve r

Conclusions

Ab

10+ storeys

h

0% lo w

Proposed buildings

Lo w

What is your evaluation of the size of the individual buildings footprints of the proposed buildings in relation to the other buildings in their local context (grey buildings)?

Comparison against our quantitative analysis (Page 6) shows that respondents were able to correctly assess that the buildings density of the site was low in comparison to its local vicinity (nearby urban blocks). N.B. Assuming a comparable plot coverage, buildings density is inversely proportional to the size of the buildings (i.e. buildings density ∞ [coverage/average building size]). Resultantly a comparable coverage paired with a high building size will result in a low buildings density (as assessed).

Interestingly, respondents thought that the proposed buildings were about the same height as the buildings in the local context. This is in spite of the fact that buildings in Hackney Central are typically between 3-4 storeys, as we concluded in our site context analysis. It appears as though the tall buildings in their immediate vicinity on Trelawney Estate and the former industrial buildings in Block 3 affected the judgement of respondents.

View 2

View 3

Proposed buildings

Proposed buildings

Proposed buildings

Other buildings

Other buildings

Other buildings

Page 7

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Objectives & Design Principles DP2 - Connection with existing routes Given the conclusions of our quantitative and qualitative analyses that has been undertaken on the existing plans for the site, we wish to meet the following objectives in the design of our alternate masterplan:

% Reduce plot coverage

FAR Reduce floor area ratio

Buildings

Jobs

hectare

hectare

Increase buildings density

Reduce jobs density

On top of these objectives, the alternate masterplan will attempt to deliver a similar quantum of development to the existing plans, whilst ensuring that the heights of the buildings are sensitive to their surrounding context. All LBH policies will be adhered to, excluding the HCSMP which our alternate masterplan is intended to replace.

Moreover, the plan will incorporate the three design principles (DPs) that are discussed on the remainder of this page. The first of these design principles will contribute to the reduction of plot coverage and FAR, the second has been incorporated for placemaking purposes and the third is intended to protect existing uses on the site.

DP1 - Railway arch intensification

The alternate masterplan should not only create new routes between Morning Lane and Bohemia Place as has been required by the HCSMP (Page 6), it should endeavour to create ties with existing routes in adjacent blocks. This should contribute to the development of a plan that fits in seamlessly with its surroundings.

Mehetabel Road St John at Hackney Gardens

There exist four locations where such ties could be made.

Three of these could link the site to the Trelawney Estate to the south and another could join up the site with Mehetabel Road to the east.

Trelawney Estate

M

ar

Such development - in tandem with the creation of new routes and public spaces either side of the railway (see DP2) - will help to turn what is currently a barrier to movement into a place of interaction.

et

New connections

DP3 - Bus garage relocation Clapton Bus Garage

Bohemia Place

Potential for new development

2m

Residential Commercial

10m

LBH has disclosed that it wishes to relocate Clapton Bus Garage which is currently positioned on a ‘key Town Centre site’ so that the land may be used for mixed-use development (LBH, 2017, p. 8). Despite this, the bus garage currently provides jobs for local residents and resides in an important strategic location of the London bus network, at the intersection of several routes (LSPHOTOGRAPHY, 2020).

The garage is currently set back from Mare Street, meaning there is a large area of underused space in front of it.

Relocating the garage closer to Mare Street will free up land behind it for development. Potentially satisfying all parties.

St Augustine’s Tower

Way

2m

tre

Narrow

The section below exhibits how this development could take place. In this instance, upper floors have been set back from the railway to minimise noise and vibrations. Units should also be insulated to minimise these disruptions.

eS

Existing buildings

Building above existing (and new) railway arch extensions provides an opportunity to deliver new floor space without increasing the plot coverage of existing buildings.

These railway arches could support retail and office space in the units that are north facing. This will create an active commercial frontage along Bohemia Place as required by the HCSMP (Page 6). Meanwhile, the south facing units offer an opportunity for residential development given that they receive sunlight throughout the day.

e

ac

Pl

m

he

Bo

ia

Bohemia Place

Bus garage

Underused space

New space

Page 8

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

On this page the alternate masterplan is presented in the same fashion as LBH’s existing plans to allow for direct comparison. A site plan and site massing diagram are shown on the right hand side of the page, whilst below we have re-exhibited the Pafka analysis that we carried out on Page 6, with the addition of the figures associated with our alternate masterplan.

The site plan for the alternate masterplan clearly exhibits finer grain development to that included in the existing plans.

In addition to the inclusion of a greater number of routes through the site, there are a higher number of building divisions also.

The analysis shows that the alternate masterplan successfully meets the objectives we set out of the previous page. The coverage of the alternate masterplan is 57%, comparable to the plot coverage of Block 1, Block 3 and the Site in its current form (61%; 55%; 54%). Additionally, the FAR and buildings density have been lowered and increased respectively to values close to the average for the local area. The jobs density, whilst considerably lower than that which would result from the implementation of the HCSMP, is higher than any of the urban blocks analysed on Page 3. This results from two factors. Firstly, the necessity to provide active commercial frontages on Morning Lane and Bohemia Place and secondly, the orientation of the site. Were some of the existing commercial space in the alternate masterplan to be allocated to residential units, it would result in the inclusion of north facing, single aspect dwellings that would not surpass planning regulations. One potential location to reallocate commercial space as residential is above the bus garage, facing onto Bohemia Place. It was determined that this could result in significant complications during construction and so was not incorporated into the plan.

The plans detailed in the HCSMP assume a unit size of 57sqm (accounting for 20% internal movement space) for new residential buildings. In order to carry out an accurate comparison, we chose to use the same average unit size in our alternate masterplan. The quantum of residential and non-residential space that would result on the site following the development of the HCSMP and alternate masterplan is compared below:

Alternate

22,464

17,141

Residential

46,635

45,688

HCSMP 300 189

57%

Alternate Masterplan

MAX

185

21

2.09

Average 2.02 14

MIN

MIN Coverage

FAR

Residential density (dw/hectare)

Buildings density (buildings/hectare)

Residential Entrance

Commercial Entrance

Major routes

In accordance with LBH policy, building heights are limited to 3-4 storeys near Mare Street and adjacent to St John at Hackney Gardens. Moreover, the only tall building element in the plan is located in a position that has been identified as appropriate by LBH policy (likely a result of the location of taller buildings to the south of the site on Trelawney Estate and south-east in Block 3).

St John at Hackney Gardens 3 storeys

4 storeys

15 storeys

3 storeys

3 storeys

6 storeys

ng

67%

Views

Site Massing 372

MAX

Mo

ne

Non-Resi.

e

Lan

La

62,828

ng r ni

Jobs density (FTE/hectare)

Finally, the perimeter block to the rear of the Mare Street terraces has been completed and, notably, the average height of the buildings in the alternate masterplan is significantly lower than in existing plans.

ni

69,100

Total

St Augustine’s Tower

4 storeys M

ar

eS

or

Existing

St John at Hackney Gardens

M

sqm

This plan meets the requirements of the HCSMP by incorporating new routes between Morning Lane and Bohemia Place, creating new and protecting existing views to heritage monuments and ensuring frontages on Bohemia Place and Morning Lane are active.

Additionally, new public realm has been created at either end of Bohemia Place and the plan has successfully delivered against all design principles (see Page 8).

St John at Hackney Church

Narrow Way

Site Plan

Mare Street

Alternate Masterplan

tre

Commercial

et

Residential

Major routes

Page 9

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

Key interventions To help meet the policy requirements of the site detailed in the HCSMP (Page 6) and achieve the objectives set out for the development on Page 7, the following design interventions were incorporated into our alternate plan. Without these two interventions, it would have proved difficult to design a plan that delivers a similar quantity of development as proposed in the HCSMP, only with lower coverage, FAR and building heights.

1

Tower-podium block

2

Although the average building height in Hackney Central is between 3 and 4 storeys, Morning Lane is considered an opportunity site for taller buildings elements in LBH policy (Page 5). Moreover, the results of our qualitative analysis supported the assertion that the positioning of tall building elements in this location was not inappropriate. As a result, we have proposed the inclusion of this tower as it has made it possible to restrict the heights of other buildings in more sensitive locations to 6 storeys or below.

1

The proposed tower is of the same form as those situated on Trelawney Estate and its positioning reflects their spacing also. Consequently, the building fits in with its local surroundings. Further still, in tandem with the creation of new connections between the site and Trelawney Estate, it gives the sense that the estate is ‘overspilling’ into its neighbouring blocks.

10m

The podium includes a double-height ground floor which is set to occupy the Tesco’s that currently resides on the site as well as residential, office and community space. The top of the podium is due to be converted into a public roof garden.

2

Residential

Community

At the beginning of this report we explained how current national and metropolitan policy is driving dense development (dwellings/hectare) in the London Borough of Hackney, particularly in town centre locations like that of the site of interest for this study. The result of this has been the proposal of buildings whose form, both individually and collectively, does not reference its surrounding context (Page 6). We sought to investigate how masterplanning through a multivariable approach to density could inform an alternate proposal for the site that does a better job of this.

Commercial

Mixed-use bus garage

In acknowledgement of the bus garage’s relocation to allow for new development, bus garages can still be considered a relatively low intensity use of space when evaluated by the number of jobs or homes they provide per unit area. Our second key intervention proposes the construction of one floor of office space above the new bus garage (in addition to an annex that meets the ground floor) to increase the intensity of the use of the space.

This action alone could provide 446 jobs (341 office; 105 bus garage), accounting for 36% of the total that are provided by existing plans. Resultantly, less commercial development is required elsewhere in the plan.

10m Commercial

Project conclusions

Industrial

Our Pafka analysis of nearby urban blocks emphasised that even in a very tight locale, building form and use can vary considerably (Page 4). This in itself challenges the idea that new development should reflect its surroundings, given that a norm doesn’t exist. However, what this analysis did do was give us a number of density profiles and building-use metrics to consider that together built up a rough picture of the form of development in Hackney Central. Our hypothesis was that if any proposal: (i) records density metrics of a different order, well outside the ranges of metrics that have been determined for nearby urban blocks; or (ii) proposes a profile with a radically different shape to those of the blocks analysed, it will likely be inappropriate for the area. Indeed, this was what was discovered of LBH’s proposals for the site whereby the buildings and jobs density metrics were incoherent with local trends for coverage, FAR and residential density. Interestingly, our qualitative analysis delivered accurate results for the plot coverage and buildings density of the proposed plans, perhaps indicating that this type of multivariable density analysis can be carried out in this manner for those that do not have the time to do it quantitatively. The oversight afforded to us by this approach both forced and encouraged creative thinking into how to produce an alternate proposal that delivered a similar quantum of development with a more sympathetic density profile. It is our belief that the alternate masterplan proposed is far more appropriate for the local area.

Page 10

Henry Mellen

Plan Making Studio 1

References GLA. (2012). London View Management Framework.

GLA. (2017). The London Plan.

GLA. (2020). Planning Permission. Retrieved from https://maps.london.gov.uk/ldd/ HCA. (2010). Employment Densities Guide. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378203/employ-den.pdf LBH. (2005). Hackney Tall Buildings Strategy.

LBH. (2010). Core Strategy.

LBH. (2012). Hackney Central Area Action Plan.

LBH. (2017). Hackney Central and Surrounds Masterplan.

LBH. (2018). Hackney A Place for Everyone.

LSPHOTOGRAPHY.(2020).Arriva London Bus Garage.Retrieved from https://blog.lessavine.co.uk/2019/01/15/ arriva-london-clapton-bus-garage/ MCHLG. (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MCHLG) Pafka, E. (2013). Nothing Gained by only Counting Dwellings per Hectare: A hundred years of confusing urban densities.

Page 11