131 Lower Clapton Rd

Application no. 2011/0560Proposal: Construction of 4-storey building comprising A1 unit at ground floor and 6 self-contained flats (3 x 1-bed, 3 x 2-bed).


  1. I can’t work out where this is, somewhere near Rowhill Road?Proposed Land Use: Dwelling houses (whether or not as a sole or main residence), Estate Agent/Betting Office/Professional services other than medical

  2. Got it, it’s here:131 Lower Clapton Road

  3. I’ve just had a look at this planning application. It’s not good. The architect’s drawings are very basic, as is the standard of architecture. The design and access statement is unbelievable – to me, at least, given the amount of effort I’ve put into my own design and access statement for what is essentially a much smaller development at 19 Lower Clapton Road. Plus, it looks as though there’s a chance there may be another betting shop on the ground floor. I’m afraid to say I hope the application is refused. Clapton deserves better…

  4. Surely not yet another betting office? Is there some plan to turn Clapton into England’s answer to Las Vegas? As for the building – well it aint great (though the quality of the drawings dont exactly help visualise it), but its hardly the ugliest thing ive ever seen. Certainly it appears every bit as ‘good’ as the Tesco building.

  5. @nightboat Couldn’t agree more. But what worries me is if the council (and CPNAG for that matter) felt that the non-sensical pastiche at 150 LCR is approvable, why not this? Although having found the planning app for 150 LCR (2006/1628), I’m left wondering how both CPNAG and Head of Planning Sue Foster managed to approve a design that doesn’t even contain a proposed front elevation?!@gavinredknapp Personally, I find it infinitely worse than the building that houses Tesco.

  6. @Benjamin CPNAG are a group of local residents, they don’t approve planning applications

  7. @ewebber CPNAG send out emails encouraging members to object to proposals that their committee does not approve of. Their committee didn’t have any problem with the design, so didn’t send out an email encouraging comments. This is sadly why I didn’t know about it ’til after the event.

  8. @Benjamin I know if you raise concerns about any local issues they will help publicise it to their email list, as I understand it no one raised that particular application. You are also very welcome to the meetings, the more the better.

  9. @ewebber My understanding is that their committee looked at it and didn’t have any problem with the design.I’ve got to say that a committee that doesn’t see a problem with comedy-Victorian pastiche built on the side of a 1930s commercial building – and utilising its projection, height and angle of trajectory – is going to be incapable of fulfilling its aims and objectives to \educate the inhabitants of the area” in matters of “planning…and local history”!…a prospect I find simultanously chilling and hilarious.”

  10. @Benjamin I will raise your concerns at the next committee meeting. In the meantime let’s keep this thread on track of the planning application first mentioned

  11. I’m actually surprised the application even got validated, given the standard of the drawing and the design & access statement

  12. That’s quite a comical application – surely it’ll get rejected on the grounds of being incomplete?

    Proposed Land Use: Dwelling houses (whether or not as a sole or main residence), Estate Agent/Betting Office/Professional services other than medical

    He’s only applied for class A1, which is general retail – and would not allow it to be a betting office. Or possibly even an estate agent.

  13. @Martin really? I didn’t spot that – is that the council’s oversight?Although in general application types really are not specific enough, this is an issue for the council. I would add that even if it did have the planning permission to be a betting shop then it would also need a gambling licence.I believe there is a little while to submit feedback on this applicatiob to the council, I’m not at a computer right now to check the date

  14. application \refused”.”

Comments are now closed for this post.