Controversial Dalston scheme passed
Arup's controversial scheme for the area around the new Dalston station (the East London line extension) got passed last Thursday despite heavy local opposition.The scheme involves the construction of a highly dense residential development on Dalston Lane, including a 19-storey tower.
Locals object to it for two main reasons. The first is that it involves no affordable housing, a move accepted by the council because of the huge cost of building a slab over the new station. And secondly, the proposed plot is adjacent to the hugely contentious Dalston Theatre site, which is also proposed for redevelopment. The move to approve the station site proposals gives a clear indication that these theatre plans, by John McAslan, will also go through.
Jon Aldenton, chief executive of local charity the Bootstrap Company, said ‘Allowing Transport for London to get away with ignoring the standards Hackney usually sets for development creates a really dangerous precedent. The committee made a weak decision last night and it is the people of Dalston who will suffer in the long term. We are hugely disappointed that Ken Livingstone is allowing such a poor scheme to go ahead.' (via AJ, subs only)
Locals object to it for two main reasons. The first is that it involves no affordable housing, a move accepted by the council because of the huge cost of building a slab over the new station. And secondly, the proposed plot is adjacent to the hugely contentious Dalston Theatre site, which is also proposed for redevelopment. The move to approve the station site proposals gives a clear indication that these theatre plans, by John McAslan, will also go through.
Jon Aldenton, chief executive of local charity the Bootstrap Company, said ‘Allowing Transport for London to get away with ignoring the standards Hackney usually sets for development creates a really dangerous precedent. The committee made a weak decision last night and it is the people of Dalston who will suffer in the long term. We are hugely disappointed that Ken Livingstone is allowing such a poor scheme to go ahead.' (via AJ, subs only)
Comments