Hi Sam, I'm one of the councillors who voted against the plans.
I'm normally the first to disagree with NIMBYs but, In short, I didn't like how there was no actual representation from the TRA in the report. The hall the planning team suggested they could use - as large as it is - doesn't provide the same intimate, ad hoc space as their current community flat. The current flat exists within the community, and more importantly is accessible to it when they need it. Hackney's Community Hall booking since 2020 is either a logistical headache for TRAs/TMOs, who have to navigate an opaque system which doesn't even show availability, or costly for individuals (£39/hour for this space!).
The head of the TRA came over to us after the meeting and said that they weren't consulted on whether the other space would be appropriate for their needs - the planners just assumed. They were also told about it too late to make a representation in-person.
There is a thirty flat development in my ward where the regeneration team are properly consulting residents on the creation of a functional community space, because they know the community hall they're demolishing to build flats it isn't currently accessible to those on the estate. There is a recognition within the council that different functions of it aren't serving their purpose.
Hackney has a massive need for new housing, but converting an in-use community flat back into a one-bedroom flat isn't going to solve our crisis. Without well considered community space, we fall into the same anti-social pitfalls architects and urban planners were in from the 30s through to the 70s.
When the planning team bring this back to committee, I'm happy to have my opinion changed on this - but they must properly consult the group who represent the forty flats this application will actually effect.
Thanks for replying. The way I see it is there is clearly a very big benefit to adding one extra bedroom to the housing stock (particularly when so many can’t afford stay in the borough - and councils are spending huge amounts on temporary accommodation) that the costs that one block won’t have an ad hoc intimate meeting space (but will have access to a big community hall nearby) that this strikes me as a no-brainer. On the booking system, I’ve never used it, but given the number of techy people in the borough have you considered running a hack-a-thon or something to get it fixed? It feels like the sort of thing you could vibecode in a few hours.
If you’re swayed to blocking housing for reasons as comically trivial as this, it seems like the chances of you voting in favour of actual physical construction, with all its inherent disruption, are practically nonexistent.
Unfortunately this is exactly what I expected from the Greens.
The Lib Dems are also in love with state built housing.
What they and the Greens don't factor is that NIMBYs will object to state built housing using the exactly the same reasons they use to object to private built. Just replace, "A greedy developer is making a profit building these houses, how dare they, we can't be having that" with "It will attract the wrong kind of people"
The fundamental problem is that the Planning Act gives too much power to objectors and too many reasons for councils to use when they cave.
Hackney resident here. Thanks for a fascinating article and good tp have a reply from one of the decision-makers. But I'm confused about the calculations here.
re the new 30 flat development (and the 40 existing ones): do all developments of 30/40 flats require a dedicated community space?
What is the minimum number that would require one?
How many hours per use in a typical week of such a place is considered reasonable for the loss of a flat? Are there any alternative spaces (eg pubs?) with function rooms available? If the council is forgoing £2000 per month that would pay for a lot of function room time in a cash-strapped local business.
Jas, if you just get on with building the homes your claim to be 'the first to disagree with NIMBY's' will no longer look silly.
This reads as mud-slinging at a legitimate, local democratic process, in the standard critique-until-something-sticks style: question the infrastructure, question the politicians, question the process itself, and if the community still flourishes, question the residents for organising.
As someone who was a member of a TRA in a council block in Homerton, meeting space mattered a great deal. We were lucky to have a purpose-built community space in a modern extension of the block; losing it would have made organising much harder.
For anyone picturing TRAs as quasi-communist procedural time-sinks: I remember one meeting where we discussed replacing the estate's roof at a cost of £10,000 per leaseholder. I was working in renewable energy at the time, and I challenged their assumption that solar panels weren't viable. That's the kind of scrutiny these meetings actually provide.
Where I'd concede a point: any such space shouldn't be reserved solely for the TRA. If it's for the community, it should be open to other community uses too.
When I was a Councillor in Clissold ward I was surprised to learn about the existence of these community use flats - this has prompted me to enquire if they are being converted back to residential use now as I believe they should be.
Wow. I live around the corner and would normally be entirely in favour of sacking the entire planning department. But for once they’ve actually been sensible. The proposed building is literally a purpose built community centre. There cannot be many errands anyone does near Lovell House that wouldn’t take you past it. What is this flat even used for? RA meetings cannot take up much of the calendar.
The major problem with all things planning are 'residents', ask 350 and you get 350 ill-informed and contradictory opinions, best to leave them out of discussions all together, because the more and more people are involved the more complex, contradictory and expensive in terms of cost and time Planning becomes.
Hi Sam, I'm one of the councillors who voted against the plans.
I'm normally the first to disagree with NIMBYs but, In short, I didn't like how there was no actual representation from the TRA in the report. The hall the planning team suggested they could use - as large as it is - doesn't provide the same intimate, ad hoc space as their current community flat. The current flat exists within the community, and more importantly is accessible to it when they need it. Hackney's Community Hall booking since 2020 is either a logistical headache for TRAs/TMOs, who have to navigate an opaque system which doesn't even show availability, or costly for individuals (£39/hour for this space!).
The head of the TRA came over to us after the meeting and said that they weren't consulted on whether the other space would be appropriate for their needs - the planners just assumed. They were also told about it too late to make a representation in-person.
There is a thirty flat development in my ward where the regeneration team are properly consulting residents on the creation of a functional community space, because they know the community hall they're demolishing to build flats it isn't currently accessible to those on the estate. There is a recognition within the council that different functions of it aren't serving their purpose.
Hackney has a massive need for new housing, but converting an in-use community flat back into a one-bedroom flat isn't going to solve our crisis. Without well considered community space, we fall into the same anti-social pitfalls architects and urban planners were in from the 30s through to the 70s.
When the planning team bring this back to committee, I'm happy to have my opinion changed on this - but they must properly consult the group who represent the forty flats this application will actually effect.
Thanks for replying. The way I see it is there is clearly a very big benefit to adding one extra bedroom to the housing stock (particularly when so many can’t afford stay in the borough - and councils are spending huge amounts on temporary accommodation) that the costs that one block won’t have an ad hoc intimate meeting space (but will have access to a big community hall nearby) that this strikes me as a no-brainer. On the booking system, I’ve never used it, but given the number of techy people in the borough have you considered running a hack-a-thon or something to get it fixed? It feels like the sort of thing you could vibecode in a few hours.
If you’re swayed to blocking housing for reasons as comically trivial as this, it seems like the chances of you voting in favour of actual physical construction, with all its inherent disruption, are practically nonexistent.
Unfortunately this is exactly what I expected from the Greens.
Jas £40 is considered cheap compared to other rip off spaces!!!!!!!!!!!
The Lib Dems are also in love with state built housing.
What they and the Greens don't factor is that NIMBYs will object to state built housing using the exactly the same reasons they use to object to private built. Just replace, "A greedy developer is making a profit building these houses, how dare they, we can't be having that" with "It will attract the wrong kind of people"
The fundamental problem is that the Planning Act gives too much power to objectors and too many reasons for councils to use when they cave.
We need to blow up the Planning Act
When I was on the residents association we did the meetings in my living room.
What a depressing read. I’ve sent it to a few Hackney publications in the hope they would pick up your article. Needs a wider reach.
Madness. Utter madness
Hackney resident here. Thanks for a fascinating article and good tp have a reply from one of the decision-makers. But I'm confused about the calculations here.
re the new 30 flat development (and the 40 existing ones): do all developments of 30/40 flats require a dedicated community space?
What is the minimum number that would require one?
How many hours per use in a typical week of such a place is considered reasonable for the loss of a flat? Are there any alternative spaces (eg pubs?) with function rooms available? If the council is forgoing £2000 per month that would pay for a lot of function room time in a cash-strapped local business.
Jas, if you just get on with building the homes your claim to be 'the first to disagree with NIMBY's' will no longer look silly.
This reads as mud-slinging at a legitimate, local democratic process, in the standard critique-until-something-sticks style: question the infrastructure, question the politicians, question the process itself, and if the community still flourishes, question the residents for organising.
As someone who was a member of a TRA in a council block in Homerton, meeting space mattered a great deal. We were lucky to have a purpose-built community space in a modern extension of the block; losing it would have made organising much harder.
For anyone picturing TRAs as quasi-communist procedural time-sinks: I remember one meeting where we discussed replacing the estate's roof at a cost of £10,000 per leaseholder. I was working in renewable energy at the time, and I challenged their assumption that solar panels weren't viable. That's the kind of scrutiny these meetings actually provide.
Where I'd concede a point: any such space shouldn't be reserved solely for the TRA. If it's for the community, it should be open to other community uses too.
When I was a Councillor in Clissold ward I was surprised to learn about the existence of these community use flats - this has prompted me to enquire if they are being converted back to residential use now as I believe they should be.
Wow. I live around the corner and would normally be entirely in favour of sacking the entire planning department. But for once they’ve actually been sensible. The proposed building is literally a purpose built community centre. There cannot be many errands anyone does near Lovell House that wouldn’t take you past it. What is this flat even used for? RA meetings cannot take up much of the calendar.
The major problem with all things planning are 'residents', ask 350 and you get 350 ill-informed and contradictory opinions, best to leave them out of discussions all together, because the more and more people are involved the more complex, contradictory and expensive in terms of cost and time Planning becomes.
I wonder how much all this cost, spending the money on education would probably be a better idea.