Objections

Objections to Planning Application

49-50 Eagle Wharf Road, London, N1 7ED

Planning Portal Reference 02337902

The application and supporting documents have been divided like this for ease of reference:

Page 1. Preliminary objections dated 9 January 2013.

Pages 2 to 8 are the specific objections dated 19 January 2013.

Appendices 1 to 4 are attached in separate files

Section 1	The planning Application from Mavenplan Ltd. 1 pg letter - 1pg Notice - 2pg Application letter - Application paras 1 to 26.
Section 2	Heritage Statement - David Lewis Associates. Big document paras 1 to 12 - Appendices 1 & 2 - Photographs 92 to 134.
Section 3	Statement of Community Involvement by Polity. Pgs 1 to 19 + 7 appendices.
Section 4	Design & Access Statement from the Manser Practice. Paragraphs 1 to 4 + Appendix 1 & 2.
Section 5	Schedule of Areas by Manser. 5 pages - 5 pgs existing drawings - 20 pgs proposed drawings.
Section 6	Transport Planning by TPP Consulting. a) Travel Plan paras 1 to 7 - 1 pg plan - 1 pg appendix. b) Transport Statement paras 1 to 7 - 1pg plan - 6 appendices.
Section 7	Heritage Asset Impact by Archaeological Services & Consulting. cover and 30 pages.
Section 8	Financial Viability Appraisal by Affordable 106. Paras 1 to 16 + 7 appendices.
Section 9	Sustainability Statement by Blue Sky Unlimited. Paras 1 to 14 - 2 appendices.
Section 10	Ecological & Breeam Report by Lloydbore Ltd. Paras 1 to 9- 6 appendices.
Section 11	Daylight report by EB7. Paras 1 to 8 - 4 appendices.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

A copy of the planning application was sent to us after the 24th December 2012 and delivered to our offices on 2 January 2013 and we have therefore had very little opportunity to consider the application or the extensive documentation which supports it in any great detail. We must however register our objections to such planning application in the strongest possible terms.

Our objections include, but are not limited to the following:-

1. The site is within one of Hackney's priority employment areas and Holborn Studios, the current lessees of the site, provide a dynamic thriving and creative employment hub of international importance with over 120 people working for Holborn Studios or the resident companies within the Studio complex. In addition up to 200 visitors a day attend the Studios to record still and moving images and there are a further 30 full time employees in other parts of the premises. The total of existing jobs is over 350 and the application only proposes 320 jobs - a reduction of 10%.

2. The site is within the Regents Canal Conservation Area - demolition would go against established conservation policy with the proposals having an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

3. The Holborn Studios buildings are recognised as 'buildings of townscape merit' with the expectation that they should be retained - demolition would go against this policy and result in the loss of such important buildings.

4. The current buildings are considered by the Council to be as 'heritage assets' and therefore ought to be retained - demolition would go against this policy and result in the loss of such important assets.

5. It is perfectly possible to redevelop the site without the need to demolish the historic buildings and we have made attempts to agree proposals with the site owner to facilitate such a development without response.

We would welcome the opportunity to have a full and meaningful discussion with the planning authority as regards to the nature and extent of our objections to the planning application and expand more fully upon them. In addition, we have up to twenty sub-tenants including Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, Open Fundraising Ltd and DTV Ltd whose staff will be directly affected by this proposal who know nothing about it There are over 500 pages in the application.

In view of the dubious timing of the delivery of the application, the sheer amount of documentation and the potential impact to the wellbeing of citizens and people employed within Hackney Borough, I request that this application process be suspended for a further 21 days until the documents can be studied in a forensic manner and responded to appropriately.

Vincent McCartney for Holborn Studios Ltd

Overview

My name is Vincent McCartney and I started Holborn Studios in Roger Street, WC1 in 1979. I have personally designed six photographic and moving image studio complexes and consulted on the design of 12 others both in the UK and abroad. The present Holborn Studios complex at 49-50 Eagle Wharf Road is a unique inner city studio grouping which has taken 23 years of organic growth to achieve. I think that we have made excellent use of an interesting collection of London industrial buildings. Because I have a full repairing lease it has been my responsibility to maintain the buildings, with the exception of the chimney which is the sole responsibility of my landlord and it is the only part of the premises that has fallen into a state of disrepair. Over the years I have spent over £3million on the upkeep of the building and fixtures, together with rent of over £10 million at today's prices. I am thrilled to have made such a hub of creativity and delighted that there are 150 people in full time employment and 250 studio users daily at the premises. The firm is presently run by my two sons, Bill and Mikey and the other directors are my wife and daughter. Between them they hold virtually all the shares in the company.

I have read the application and supporting documentation carefully and I have concluded that it is an attempt to demolish the existing buildings, remove the existing tenant and sub-tenants from the premises and put up a block of flats with some fairly low grade quasi-office premises that eventually might attract tenants. There is one fact that the applicants have carefully hidden from sight and I will deal with throughout this response to the application, but so that the application can be properly understood I must just enlighten the reader. Because 49-50 Eagle Wharf Road is in a defined employment zone, there is a requirement for developers to provide the same number of jobs as existing in the same commercial space, which the applicant has chosen to express in square metres. I had prepared drawings for the studio parts of a new complex with the Manser Practice which featured photographic and film studios with ceiling heights of between 4 metres to 7metres. Offices have ceiling heights of 3metres. After the applicants original plans were rejected at the pre-application stage, it was decided to reduce the commercial space within the new development, so photo/film studios were out and the "silicon canal" was in. We were not told of this massive change until the required consultation process had started.

There are about 5000 m2 of offices in this proposal (about 37% in the basement) and this would multiply up to 15,000 cubic metres. My original drawings with Manser would have used about 25,000 cubic metres which we have at the moment. Obviously our scheme would have cost more and the applicants would have only been able to fit 45 flats into the acceptable site dimensions.

Now on to the application proper.

Section One. Planning application from Mavenplan Ltd.

1 pg letter - 1pg notice - 2 pg application letter - Application paras 1 to 26.

11. Existing parking. 10 cars. 2 vans. 5 motorcycles and 50 bicycles.

14. Biodiversity
a) There are protected and priority species adjacent to site (canal).
b) There are features of geological conservation importance on site and adjacent to the site.

15. The existing use is still and moving image studios, offices, workshops and a restaurant/bar.

19. The existing restaurant and bar occupies over 565 m2, including kitchens, private dining and some external seating.

20. There are 150 full time employees in the complex and between 200 to 300 daily studio users (photographers, directors, producers, camera operators, set builders, models, stylists, assistants and so on)

25. The site can be seen from the canal towpath, from Holborn Studios pontoon, from Packington Bridge and from Eagle Wharf Road courtyard.

Section Two. Heritage Statement by David Lewis Associates.

To fully understand this large document written by a respected conservationist, and prolific expert witness, one must read the document following the way it was written, that is, starting with the conclusion found in paragraph 12 and backfilling facts and opinions to achieve the objective. Two pictures are painted - one bright, light, modern and successful and the other is dull decrepit, ancient and failing.

There are two viable options to this proposal, firstly to retain the existing buildings and to restore and improve them at lease renewal in 2014 and secondly to retain the chimney and two adjacent buildings to the west allowing a water inlet to the south of the "island" created, with a new development to the south of the water inlet.

At some point it will be necessary to seek the opinion of another expert witness who has specific expertise in central London industrial buildings combined with particular knowledge of the canals.

In the meantime I will attempt to review the Statement with my limited layman's local knowledge.

Para 1 1.2 The chimney and three adjacent buildings could fit comfortably into a development.
Para 3 1.5 Holborn Studios have sustained the heritage assets and put them to viable uses for 23 years.
Para 3 1.8 "Original Building" 49-50 Eagle Wharf Road was built before 1 July 1948.
Para 3 2.2 The character of the area has been formed by Holborn Studios presence. In 1989 all buildings on the south side of the canal from City Road basin to Kingsland basin were derelict.
Para 4 2.2 In 1989 Gainsborough Studios was a derelict former carpet warehouse. The re-development provided no viable studios, no water park and no long term blue chip commercial tenants as promised by developers.
Para 5 1.2 See appendix 1
Para 5 1.3 See appendix 1
Para 6 2.0 The Holborn Studio building is a building of townscape merit. Is DLA qualified to make this statement without central London experience?
Para 6 7.0 As outlined in 3 2.2 the Eagle Wharf complex is a crucial part of the conservation area.
Para 7 Is for Canals and Rivers Trust.
Para 7 1.12 The Royle card factory was built in the '30s, it was a derelict building when Holborn Studios started in 1989. Most of its initial tenants came from Holborn Studios.
Para 7 24&25 There have been no substantial changes to the site since 1896.
Para 8 1.14 This is the best argument to leave the buildings undisturbed.
Para 8 1.19 This is The Museum of London Archaeology Department, Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road: two buildings to the east of Holborn Studios.
Para 8 1.20 This was a "turning point" for canal barges. It was derelict until the mid '90s and was sold in two sections using only the views of Eagle Wharf plus floor plans.
Para 8 2.4 The Shepherdess Road foot bridge is in fact Packington Bridge in Shepherdess Walk.
Para 8 2.8 There are no photographs with this document, they start at photograph number 92.
Para 9 1.0 It is simply Holborn Studios not Holborn Film Studios. Again there are no photos attached.
Para 9 1.9 The external wall was not removed at ground floor level, it was a landing stage to the canal from early 20th century. The two storey conservatory extension was built onto this flat landing stage.
Para 9 3.2 No photographs
Para 9 3.3 No photographs
Para 9 3.5 No photographs
Para 9 9.4 No photographs
Para 9 6.4 The hundred plus year old chimney and adjacent buildings will result in the loss of a meaningful heritage asset to the conservation area as a whole.
Para10 5 Line 24 The chimney could pre-date the Royle factory by forty years, which makes it post industrial and it is not in a northern town or city.
Para 10 11 The chimney has eventually been made safe by the applicants but 250 to 300 bricks that used form the detail at the top have been removed. Chimney could be used to safely vent from new single boiler system. NB The chimney has not had any money expended on it for thirty years.
Para 10 12 This is a poor effort to prove the existing buildings don't work.
Question 1: Why convert to B1 when you have a good tenant of twenty three years standing already.
Question 2: We have on file a scheme to put a glass atrium over the court yard creating ten thousand feet of extra space. We have already created two thousand square feet of space since the Manser drawings.
Para 11- 11 14 None of the areas described will be suitable for photo/film studios.
Para 11 1.6 The canal boardwalk is not part of this scheme.
Para 11 2.2 No photographs
Para 11 2.16 This analysis has been careful but not independent.
Para 11 1.1 - 11 3.17 Where is the independent analysis here. Did Brian Sewell write this section?
Para 12 1.0 This "good design" involves 36% basement offices and the destruction of an existing company, important buildings and jobs.
Para 12 3.0 Holborn Studios and the Eagle Wharf development are largely responsible for recreational activities in a safe environment. In 1989 the immediate area was the biggest drugs related crime area in the UK. Three hundred windows including a £10,000 conservatory were smashed in the first year. Holborn Studios policies gentrified the area.
Para 12 4.0 David Lewis Associates are not qualified to differentiate between "pleasing as a whole" or "a material positive contribution". The "considerable numbers of people" will not have access to the canal frontage.
Para 12 6.0 As outlined in the overview the provided B1 accommodation is a volumetric loss and if viable photo/film studios were included in the available site plan only 45 residential units could be provided. The 371 square metres of class A3 restaurant is in fact a reduction of the present 565 square metres. Generally the conclusion was targeted and agreed between parties and then the document was produced to fit the bill.

Section 3 Statement of Community Involvement by Polity

Para 2 3.0 We cannot find evidence that the invitation letter was delivered to residents of Arlington Avenue (north of the canal) or to 46 Eagle Wharf Road.
Page 7 section 3 There are already twenty companies employing 150 full time staff plus 200 to 300 a day studio users. The restaurant presently employs seven full time staff plus freelancers for events.
Page 8 section 2 Premises has 350 visitors per day plus bar/restaurant. Premises is licensed for public entertainment, wedding and civil partnership ceremonies of which we have five booked for 2013. There are about seven large exhibitions held each year. A permanent photo exhibition and a snooker club. How much more "buzz" can one expect from a premises.
Page 8 section 4 As noted in overview Vincent McCartney has a high level of expertise in studio design, if the proposal were re-configured within boundaries of design envelope only 45 apartments could be in scheme, therefore not viable. See appendix 2
Page 8 section 5 This is an outright lie. Polity asked how many staff HS and commercial residents employed. They did not take account of other employees in the premises and studio visitors and there are 350 in all. During the meeting the representatives from Mavenplan and Polity stated that whilst they fully expected to lose on the initial application they were confident of winning a subsequent appeal. This was witnessed by third parties.
Page 8 section 6 See appendix 1. The lack of a viable solution to the site was added later.
Page 9 section 1 Untruthful response. There was no discussion on the subject. We have a tape of the meeting.
Page 9 section 2 It is viable.
Page 9 section 4 There is no direct access to the canal for this scheme.
Page 9 section 5 Holborn Studios has 24 hour security to waterfront and 32 video surveillance cameras with recording.
Page 10 section 1 HS own access to the pontoons outside of the Gold title. The Gold title is landlocked with no permission for canal usage. The applicant does not own the pontoons so cannot influence the current arrangements.
Page 10 section 7 The pontoons are leased by Canal and Rivers Trust to Holborn Studios. They are not the property of the applicant.
Page 11 section 1 Directly untruthful response.
Page 11 section 2 Nonsense , see Holborn Studios history of last 23 years.
Page 11 section 3 Is there a history of applicants previous developments.
Page 11 section 4 See response to Heritage Statement.
Page 11 section 5 The moorings are not connected to this application. Holborn Studios provide regular security from 8 am to 10 pm then permanent observation and telephone response for 15 years.
Page 11 section 6 We have been managing Eagle Wharf for 23 years.
Page 12 section 2 No. 36% of these offices are in a basement. There are many commercial developments already serving digital industry in local area. The company identified in the response has a net worth of £34,000 and qualified credit rating.
Page 12 section 3 See response to Section Two.
4.1 The meeting with the shareholders of Holborn Studios was confrontational and aggressive from the outset, witnessed by third parties.
4.2 There was not adequate publicity which was reflected in the turnout. Since an article appeared in The Hackney Gazette there have been over 5,000,000 Tweets, 5,000 Face Book entries, 2,500 entries to www.friendsofholbornstudios.com website and 1,000 sign ups to petition.
4.3 The Holborn Studios has not been reflected in a true manner.
4.4 Why was sharp practise employed with the timing of the application?
Appendix D They have used Holborn Studios trade mark without permission. Notice was served and there are still two contraventions. Many "facts" on the exhibition panels are incorrect or misleading.

Section 4 Design & Access Statement from the Manser Practice.

Page 2 They are buildings of Townscape Merit. See appendix 3.
Pages 7 - 11 Chimney has had 250 to 300 bricks removed since these elevations were drawn.
Page 12 - 16 Recent historical note: had Holborn Studios not expended money and resources since 1989 regenerating Eagle Wharf and constructing with British Waterways a sixth of a mile of pontoons, none of the buildings in the photographs would have been built or totally refurbished. (eg The Royle and Canal Buildings were derelict). Eagle Wharf is the authentic heart and original soul of the area.
Page 18 Access for pedestrians to pontoons comes also via Packington Bridge.
Page 19 Existing massing line 4. The uses for photograph/film studios, offices, design studios, garment storage/display.
Line 16 incorrect information. The former buildings were three cheap curtain wall buildings erected in the 1960's.
Page 20 line 7. Nothing remotely like Eagle Wharf. See appendix 4
Page 23 Illustrates change of heart by applicant. See remarks in overview with regard to costs and viability of fitting studio complex into this proposal.
Page 24 Original proposal by Mansers and Vincent McCartney had studios of 5 and 7 metres high. See ground floor plan and appendix 2.
Page 25 Looking at the plan we have a scheme on file that puts a structure over the courtyard (the left side of plan). We presently have people working on the mezzanine on right side on drawing.
Page 29 bullet point 4 How does this block replicate the effect of the chimney? There is no public access onto the canal frontage in this scheme.
Bullet point 5 The pontoons and moorings are not owned by applicants and there is no permission for use.
Final paragraph The original buildings 164 - 168 Shepherdess Walk were not the same as Eagle Wharf. See appendix 4.
Pages 31 - 32 Clearly demonstrates cost driven development. No awards for this one then.

Section 5. Schedule of Areas by Manser

No comment as this is all theoretical but to note:
1 bedroom flats 600 ft2 average GIA ( e.g.24'6" x 24'6").
2 bedroom flats 796 ft2 average GIA ( e.g.28'3" x 28'3").
3 bedroom flats 1022 ft2 average GIA (e.g.32' x 32').
4 bedroom flats 1278 ft2 average GIA (e.g.35' x 36'6").
All very small compared to others in the area.

Section 6 Transport Planning by TPP Consulting

A) Travel Plan .
Paragraph 2.3 continue with "but there is a cycle lane from New North Road and full two way traffic from Cropley Street to Shepherdess Walk".
Paragraph 5.8 & 5.9 Vintage car club delivers vehicles to Eagle Wharf at the moment and HS has reserved valet parking off site.
NB There is no provision for electric vehicle recharging. Holborn Studios have 2 x regular, 2 x fast and 1 x rapid EV chargers onsite now.

B) Transport Statement.
2.4 The courtyard area has parking space for ten cars, two vans, five motorcycles and fifty bicycles. Other two crossovers have space for two commercial vehicles.
2.5 See section A 2.3.
2.8 See section A 5.8 & 5.9.
2.9 Barclays Cycle Hire was obtained by present tenants.
3.4 There is no access to canal in this scheme.
3.5 We have a valet parking plan existing and unlimited cycle rack sites on our moorings.
3.13 All existing permits are commercial and they would remain. There are no improvements.
3.15 There are fifty cycle spaces at the moment as needed, we have unlimited expansion on our moorings.
6.11 Nonsense. There is a good turning circle within the car park and other two crossovers are banksman attended so there is no risk to the public.
6.12 There is no access from this proposal to the Regents Canal.
7.8 Again, the conclusion has been written first and inserted last.

Section 7 Heritage Asset Impact by Archaeological Services & Consulting

2.4 Our diary shows that while Mavenplan requested entry for a walkover survey, none took place (see paragraph 3: walkover survey).
3.1 49 EWR is currently occupied by photo/film studios, offices and restaurant/bar. 50 EWR is currently occupied by offices, garment display and storage, photo studios and snooker club.
3.2 As noted this survey was external only and depended on the Lewis assessment.
6.1 Noted - post medieval - potential for the presence of heritage assets is high.
6.2 Noted - regional or local significance.
7.2 This is the first mention of sound studios in this application.
7.1 (should be 7.3) Noted - likely high impact of development.
Paragraph 8 Significant impact on buried heritage.
Appendix 3 Page 30 Corrections:
Year Address User Business
1984 49 EWR Camden Graphics Card Makers
1989 49 EWR Holborn Studios Photograph Studios & offices
1991 50 EWR Moor Harness Ltd Sado-masochistic Magazines & ancillaries
1992 49&50 EWR Holborn Studios Photo/Film Studios & offices

Section 7 Heritage Asset Impact by Archaeological Services & Consulting

Year	Address	User	Business
1984	49 EWR	Camden Graphics	Card Makers
1988	49 EWR	Holborn Studios	Photograph Studios & offices
1991	50 EWR	Moor Harness Ltd	Sado-masochistic Magazines & ancillaries
1992	49&50 EWR	Holborn Studios	Photo/Film Studios & offices

Sections 8 9 & 10

No Comment

Section 11 Daylight report by EB7

7.2 Overshadowing. The reduction to Regent Canal is noted which applied to canal at water level. None of the windows to barges and narrow boats have been assessed at all.