Peabody ready to backtrack under pressure?

ELN: Peabody’s public consultation meeting on 7th November saw Councillors Rabina Khan and Alibor Choudhury helped campaigners hand a 600-signature petition to Peabody Housing Association. The petition asked Peabody not to demolish the two cottages on the Underwood Road site which they are developing. Campaigners will hand a copy of the petition to the Council at its meeting on 29th November.

The plea arises because Peabody Housing Association intends to demolish buildings in Underwood Road which are the last Jewish maternity hospital remaining in East London. Peabody wants to use the site for housing, which is welcome, but rather than convert the existing building sympathetically for residential use, it wants to demolish it and erect one of those modernistic buildings we now have so many of in the East End. Campaigners are opposing demolition, but are arguing in particular that even if the main building is destroyed, Peabody should keep two robust cottages on the edge of the site which are the oldest part of the hospital complex.

Perhaps the worst part of the Peabody plan is the fact that Tower Hamlets residents in the greatest housing need will gain little from the development.  Peabody’s new building will contain (if planning permission is granted) nine flats for private sale and eleven flats in the “intermediate” (aka, “expensive, unaffordable”) category.  Only 13 flats will be for social rent. The size of these flats is not yet known, but any one bedroom flats will be let at 70% of market rents and two bedroom flats will be let at 60% of market rents. This conforms to the Con-Dem Coalition’s plan to bring Council and Housing Association rents up to close to market levels. Only three bedroom flats, if the plans include any, will be let at “target” (i.e., “normal”) rents.

The Peabody development has proceeded with the sneakiness typical of developers in the East End. Although planning permission has not yet been granted, its contractors apparently decided to start demolition.  A representative from Squibb Group said:
“Due to an internal error on the part of Squibb Group, demolition works began on the Underwood Road site without Peabody’s knowledge and without consent from Tower Hamlets Building Control. Squibb Group take full responsibility for this and apologise unreservedly. Peabody have always clearly outlined the sensitivity of this project. We can confirm that all works on the site have been suspended until the necessary approval has been gained.” Before falling on their swords, Squibb managed to remove part of the roof and the external stepped gable to the cottages.

On 4th November, the demolition was temporarily halted when local campaigner and historian Tom Ridge pointed out to Council planning officer Owen Whalley that the contractors had not served notice of demolition on the Council, as they are required to do under Section 80 of the Building Act. Mr Whalley informed the contractors of their error and also wrote to Peabody, urging them to instruct the contractors to stop the demolition work before the public consultation meeting on 7th November. The Council does not have the power to order demolition be halted on account of this breach, but the breach could render those responsible liable to a criminal prosecution.

On 7th November Peabody held a consultation event. It is not clear how they publicised the event: certainly there were no posters or leaflet drops round nearby estates. Campaigners put round their own leaflet, and several of those who attended on the day said that they had only heard about the consultation event because of the campaigners’ publicity.

Peabody certainly wrote to some objectors: but their letter said the consultation event was just a general update on their plans, following on from the initial consultation back in July. Their letter did not indicate there was any sense of urgency: certainly it did not mention that they had already begun demolition, or that planning consent had not yet been given.

Peabody’s event was a “drop-in” session, at which its staff and the architects will be present to answer questions. Developers (and Social Landlords) often hold drop in sessions when they want to consult: it means that individual protestors come in in ones and twos and get no sense of how many other people object. It also means that residents are very likely only to hear the developers’ answers to any questions they may have: they do not hear other residents’ objections or counterarguments. It really is time the Mayor stepped in and insisted that all public consultation events in Tower Hamlets must at least include a communal session in the form of a public meeting.

In any event, campaigners made sure the strength of feeling was put across to Peabody. Dr. Sharman Kadish, the Director of Jewish Heritage UK, came all the way from Manchester to attend, and 86-year-old Stanley Fox, who was born in the Jewish Maternity Hospital, came over from Wembley.  Mr Fox and local residents Brenda Daley and Melissa Parker, in the presence of Cllrs. Khan and Choudhury Cllr Rabina Khan (Lead Member for Housing) and Cllr Alibor Choudhury, presented the campaigners’ petition to Matthew Bird of Peabody. Labour Group Leader Josh Peck came along later with Cllr Bill Turner (who appeared not to have a dossier on this occasion).

Best of all, campaigners Brenda Daley and Melissa Parker were able to have a long chat with Angela Brady of Brady Mallalieu Architects (who designed the scheme). It is understood that Ms Brady was surprised to hear about the historic significance of the buildings her firm plans to demolish. Ms Brady, who is also the current President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, went on to say that she would look into the possibility of retaining the two cottages in their residential scheme.

There is no doubt that the campaigners are making Peabody think again. The Council’s Planning Statement for the area recognised that the buildings “represent a non-designated heritage asset in accordance with PPS5”. Will the Mayor be able to reassure campaigners that the Council has made Peabody fully aware of the Planning Statement?

_________________________________________

The following statement has been issued by SAVE Britain’s Heritage.

SAVE is shocked that Peabody Housing, a community housing association with a good track record of caring for its historic housing stock, should have embarked on such a destructive project – opting to demolish this group of good and important Edwardian buildings without even submitting an application for their replacement. Not only did Peabody secure consent for demolition prior to the planned community consultation event on 7 November, but their contractor began demolition (illegally) before a demolition notice had been served. In this way Peabody has managed to sidestep any meaningly dialogue with the local community over the merits of the existing buildings.
William Palin says “This is Peabody’s darkest hour. This is a part of London which has suffered badly from clearance and insensitive new development over the past few decades. The physical and social cohesion of the eighbourhood – its sense of character and identity – depends on the retention of the few fragments which are left, and now Peabody will be sending in the bulldozers to flatten even these. The Jewish Maternity Hospital buildings on Underwood Road represent one of the East End’s most interesting and important philanthropic institutions. In pursuing this misguided scheme Peabody is behaving like a ruthless commercial developer and its reputation and credibility will undoubtedly suffer as a result.
“Clearly, the Underwood Road buildings could and should have been converted, adapted and integrated into the new scheme – in fact this was the recommendation of the Local Authority. Buildings of this date and type lend themselves well to adaptation and remodelling – and there are countless successful examples of this across London and the UK.
“Sadly, the replacement scheme by Brady Mallalieu is oversized, unimaginative and shows no contextual understanding – completely failing to respond to the character, meaning and identity of the site. It represents a huge lost opportunity.”

______________________