Small Sites:

Demystifying
Development
2
Contents

Contents.........................................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................4
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)...............................................................................................7
Draft New London Plan..........................................................................................................................................13
Case Studies...............................................................................................................................................................19
About RCKa................................................................................................................................................................46

3
Introduction
Background
Small sites provide an excellent opportunity
to deliver high-quality housing, yet the
barriers to successful development
can often seem overwhelming.
Planning, community engagement,
buildability and risk are all significant
factors which can at first appear
offputting for small housing associations
and developers with limited experience
of commissioning new development.
However, with the right approach,
professional team and contractor, the
opportunities to deliver much-needed
new homes are significant, particularly if
working on sites already under their control.
Recent amendments to planning policy
makes the delivery of new homes on small
sites less risky, and in several cases, new
clauses have been introduced which
specifically address smaller sites as this
is recognised as one of the key routes to
deliver the homes we desperately need.
In this short booklet we describe
some of the recent changes in policy
and how RCKa has helped a number
of small housing associations and
developers unlock vital new homes
across their existing land portfolios.
4
Our Approach
RCKa is an expert in unlocking small sites
for housing, and has evolved a specific
approach to maximising their potential.
This involves working closely with our clients
to prepare design briefs appropriate
to the restrictions of the site, assessing
inherent planning risks and preparing
proposals which maximise development
potential while remaining compliant
with local and national policy and the
particular sensitivities of each location.
We work with our clients to understand
their priorities and concerns and their
appetite for risk to ensure that our
proposals meet requirements in terms
of the number of units delivered, but
also timescale and cost constraints.
We understand that development can
be a daunting prospect and this drives
our ambition to demystify development.
We hope that this publication sheds a
little light on how this can be achieved.
Strategy
Our strategy is a simple one: to approach
each site through investigating the
opportunities it presents, rather than
being limited by its constraints. We have
often inherited schemes where a previous
architect has failed to achieve optimum
development because they have been
overwhelmed by the challenges rather
than starting with the assumption that
a high level of development is possible
and consequently working backwards
to respond to the specific conditions
of the site. Using this approach we
have been able to increase density
by significant amounts. Examples are
included later in this document.
Many local planning authorities recommend
undertaking a pre-application submission
and where appropriate this is often an
opportunity to establish a relationship
with the planning officers and to ensure
that proposals have support prior to
making a full planning submission. We have
experience in applying for permission in
most of the London Boroughs and so are
able to advise on the best pre-application
strategy as well as the effectiveness and
timeliness of individual submissions.
RCKa is one of London’s leading public
participation specialists, having recently
been appointed to the Greater London
Authority’s Architecture, Design and
Urbanism Panel (ADUP) specifically to
assist public bodies with community
engagement and design advice.
Early engagement with local residents
helps us to understand issues which
have the potential to build opposition
to new development. In most cases
involving the community prior to detailed
designs being prepared can improve
the chances of a scheme receiving
planning permission first time.
For all of our completed schemes, we carry
out a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
to test the success of the design with
residents and clients. Through this process
we are able to learn from each project and
apply this knowledge and experience to
our future homes, thus ensuring continuous
improvement in the service we provide.
This document illustrates a number
of our recent schemes where we
have worked with experienced and
inexperienced clients, small and large
housing associations, professional and
one-off developers and local authorities.
Example 1: Shian
Housing Association
RCKa is currently developing proposals
for three sites within Hackney having been
commissioned by Shian, a local housing
association, to undertake a review of its
existing property portfolio and to identify
opportunities for the delivery of new homes.
Although Shian owns a number of properties
in high-value areas, it has not previously
directly delivered its own homes so RCKa
was appointed to investigate ways in
which existing assets could be “sweated”
5
to extract maximum value. Shian had
previously engaged a different practice
to undertake a similar exercise, but its
constraint-led design approach only
delivered a very small number of new
homes, rendering new development
financially unviable. We adopted a
completely different, opportunity-led
approach which has allowed us to truly
maximise the potential of each site.
A key challenge is to find the right density
for new developments rather than trying
to impose a requirement for a set number
of new homes. We have tested different
development strategies for (and the
impacts of) height, configuration, daylighting
and the clustering of new homes as well
as different housing typologies, mixes
and approaches to infill densification.
All three sites are now at various stages
within the planning process with the
first due to start on site early in 2019.
Example 2: L&Q
Housing Association
RCKa was appointed to L&Q’s architectural
framework in 2011 and again in 2015,
and has since undertaken a number
of projects in and around London
and the south-east on its behalf.
6
The majority of our work has involved new-
build residential projects on challenging infill
sites, although we have also undertaken a
number of community projects and a broad
range of initial design audits on several of its
existing estates to identify opportunities for
adding value and potential development.
We prepared high-level design
options to establish site capacity and
provided strategic advice over-and-
above our standard appointment.
This initiative, which is provided to our
clients as a “value-added” service,
demonstrates our commitment to
working closely with our regular clients.
This included assessing adjacent land
values and recommending how best to
connect and realise these, including
land assembly opportunities and direct
introductions to opportunities through
similarly close working relationships with
numerous local authority clients.
Our knowledge of L&Q’s own design
brief, local market requirements and
development pipeline has allowed
us to identify appropriate sites
worthy of further investigation.
From page 19 we have included
a handful of case studies from
current projects which illustrate
our unique approach.
National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF)
2018 has seen the publication of two key
policy documents which should specifically
make the development of new homes
on small sites more straightforward.
Adopted in July 2018 the new National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) includes
several clauses which encourage the use
of small sites for the delivery of housing and
should, ideally, make this easier for small
developers and applies across England
(Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have
their own national planning policies which
are beyond the scope of this document).
Extracts from this policy are included on
the following pages, with the pertinent
sentences highlighted for ease of reference.
Policy 5: Delivering a sufficient
supply of homes
Paragraph 68 of the NPPF makes it explicit
that small sites have an important part
to play in the delivery of new homes and
that local planning authorities should
make the development of land more
straightforward through the introduction
of policy which enables this.
The preparation of area-wide
assessments will help define the design
parameters for small sites, removing
68. Small and medium sized sites can
make an important contribution to
meeting the housing requirement
of an area, and are often built-out
relatively quickly. To promote the
development of a good mix of sites
local planning authorities should:
a) identify, through the development
plan and brownfield registers, land
to accommodate at least 10% of
their housing requirement on sites no
larger than one hectare; unless it can
be shown, through the preparation
of relevant plan policies, that there
are strong reasons why this 10%
target cannot be achieved;
b) use tools such as area-wide
design assessments and Local
Development Orders to help bring
small and medium sized sites forward;
c) support the development of
windfall sites through their policies and
decisions – giving great weight to the
benefits of using suitable sites within
existing settlements for homes; and
d) work with developers to
encourage the sub-division of
large sites where this could help to
speed up the delivery of homes.
7
much of the uncertainty andtherefore
minimising planning risk. Some Local
Planning Authorities, or LPAs, such as
Croydon Council1 have already begun to
produce specific design guidance which
sets out how they anticipate smaller
sites to be developed for housing.
In determining applications LPAs must now
apply “great weight” to applications for
the development of sites which provide
new housing within existing settlements.
In many cases this “great weight” could
be used to justify the higher densities at
the expense of other considerations (eg.
heritage) where these carry a lesser weight.
Policy 11: Making effective use
of land
Paragraph 123 marks a significant change
to previous policy in that it acknowledges
that overly restrictive requirements have
limited the capacity of smaller sites. It
states that homes should not be built at low
densities and that planning applications
should make “optimal use” of available land.
1 Draft Suburban Design Guide Supplementary
Planning Document (SPD2), Croydon Council, 2018 - see
https://www.croydon.gov.uk/planningandregeneration/
framework/localplan/spdandoapf
8
123. Where there is an existing or
anticipated shortage of land for
meeting identified housing needs, it
is especially important that planning
policies and decisions avoid homes
being built at low densities, and
ensure that developments make
optimal use of the potential of each
site. In these circumstances:
a) plans should contain policies to
optimise the use of land in their area
and meet as much of the identified
need for housing as possible. This will
be tested robustly at examination, and
should include the use of minimum
density standards for city and town
centres and other locations that
are well served by public transport.
These standards should seek a
significant uplift in the average
density of residential development
within these areas, unless it can be
shown that there are strong reasons
why this would be inappropriate;
b) the use of minimum density
standards should also be considered
for other parts of the plan area. It may
be appropriate to set out a range of
densities that reflect the accessibility
and potential of different areas, rather
than one broad density range; and
This approach is further enhanced by
paragraph 123a which specifically states
that plans (that is, local planning policy, as
codified through the “Local Plan”) should
require a “significant uplift” in density (ie.
the concentration of new homes on a
particular site) within city and town centres
compared to the existing densities.
While numerical density standards are
often difficult to apply to small sites,
this paragraph demonstrates a general
attitude to housing provision which
is supportive of greater numbers.
c) local planning authorities should
refuse applications which they
consider fail to make efficient use of
land, taking into account the policies
in this Framework. In this context,
when considering applications for
housing, authorities should take a
flexible approach in applying policies
or guidance relating to daylight and
sunlight, where they would otherwise
inhibit making efficient use of a site
(as long as the resulting scheme would
provide acceptable living standards).

In paragraph 123c the NPPF makes it clear

that the provision of new homes should
take precedence over requirements for
achieving prescriptive levels of daylight and
sunlight. Previously, planning applications
could be refused if it was determined that
internal light levels would fall below certain
predetermined standards (despite the fact
that many of the older homes cherished by
people today, such as Victorian terraced
houses, would likely fail these assessments).
The NPPF requires planning authorities to
adopt a more flexible approach, potentially
allowing some constrained sites to become
developable when previously they were not.

9
Policy 12: Achieving well-
designed places
Paragraph 127 simply sets out ambitions
for the design of homes on small sites.
Although the general requirement is for
designs which are “visually attractive”,
“appropriate” and “sympathetic to local
character and history”, in reality this will
always be a subjective assessment which
is difficult to demonstrate definitively; the
use of local Design Review Panels could
help demonstrate that a particular scheme
achieves a high level of design quality.
Although the design capability of many
planning departments is increasing, it can
often be difficult to come to an consensus
on what constitutes “good architecture”.
Independent review can be a useful tool
to demonstrate high quality design.
Note the requirement under paragraph
127d which requires Local Plans to support
applications which create “attractive,
welcoming and distinctive” developments.
Small sites will almost always require a
highly site-specific response, and a good
architect will be able to maximise the
potential of a challenging site through
innovation and creativity. The NPPF makes
it clear that distinctive schemes which
balance local character with design
quality should be supported. Paragraph
127e goes further, requiring planning
10
127. Planning policies and decisions
should ensure that developments:
a) will function well and add to the
overall quality of the area, not just
for the short term but over the
lifetime of the development;
b) are visually attractive as a result
of good architecture, layout and
appropriate and effective landscaping;
c) are sympathetic to local character
and history, including the surrounding
built environment and landscape
setting, while not preventing or
discouraging appropriate innovation or
change (such as increased densities);
d) establish or maintain a strong sense
of place, using the arrangement
of streets, spaces, building types
and materials to create attractive,
welcoming and distinctive
places to live, work and visit;
e) optimise the potential of the
site to accommodate and sustain
an appropriate amount and mix of
development (including green and
other public space) and support local
facilities and transport networks; and
approvals to ensure that the sites are
optimised in terms of density; that is, f) create places that are safe, inclusive
that schemes which fail to achieve the and accessible and which promote
highest number of homes possible within health and well-being, with a high
planning constraints should be refused. standard of amenity for existing and
future users; and where crime and
Paragraph 128 requests that applicants disorder, and the fear of crime, do
undertake some form of engagement with not undermine the quality of life or
the LPA and the local community prior to community cohesion and resilience.
submitting an application. Both exercises
can be useful, depending upon local
circumstances, but be aware that a formal
128. Design quality should be
pre-application process can lengthen
considered throughout the evolution
the design programme considerably.
and assessment of individual proposals.
Pre-application advice is not a statutory
Early discussion between applicants,
mechanism and while LPAs may declare
the local planning authority and local
a target period for dealing with requests
community about the design and style
they are under no legal obligation to
of emerging schemes is important for
respond within a set time. While the advice
clarifying expectations and reconciling
can be extremely useful, in some cases it
local and commercial interests.
unnecessarily prolongs what should be an
Applicants should work closely with
efficient design programme. Before deciding
those affected by their proposals to
on whether to pursue a pre-application
evolve designs that take account of the
process it is worth checking with the
views of the community. Applications
architect or planning consultant on how well
that can demonstrate early, proactive
the authority is performing in this regard.
and effective engagement with the
Likewise, early engagement with community should be looked on more
neighbours can help break down many favourably than those that cannot.
barriers to development. People are
often understandably apprehensive
about new development taking place
close to their homes - and small sites will
invariably be located close to existing

11
dwellings. Involving the community from
the outset can minimise objections once
a scheme reaches the planning stage.
Although the planning department will
perform a statutory duty of informing
neighboursof new development, early
engagement with neighbours - potentially
before any significant design work has
taken place - can help build support for
new housing and mitigate the impact of
objections once the scheme is being
considered for approval. The NPPF makes
it clear that those applications which are
able to demonstrate early engagement
should receive more support than those
where no consultation has taken place.
Paragraph 131 of the NPPF requires that
architectural proposals achieving high
standards of design quality should be
looked upon favourably when determining
planning applications. This should go
without saying, but this clause makes
12
131. In determining applications, great
weight should be given to outstanding
or innovative designs which promote
high levels of sustainability, or help
raise the standard of design more
generally in an area, so long as
they fit in with the overall form and
layout of their surroundings.
it clear that simply repeating existing
patterns or styles of development is not
always the most appropriate response.
Given that innovative or outstanding design
carries “great weight” this can be used
as a method of overcoming other policy
restrictions which may otherwise limit
the development of small sites. Because
smaller schemes generally require a
highly specific design response it can
be easier to demonstrate “innovative”
designs which will satisfy this requirement.
Draft New London Plan
In 2017 the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,
published the draft New London Plan1
which sets out the over-arching planning
policy for all of the London boroughs
and development agencies that fall
under his control. The London Plan sits
above local planning policies, and all
Local Plans should be compliant with it.
A key principle of the Plan is the
ambitious intensification of the outer
London Boroughs. Compared to the
previous version of this document,
housing targets for many of the inner-
London boroughs were reduced whilst
those for the suburban boroughs were
increased - in some cases, dramatically.
1 New London Plan, Mayor of London, 2018 - see https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-
plan/new-london-plan
A further change compared to previous
versions of the Plan is an emphasis on the
need for small sites to make a significant
contribution to delivering housing targets.
On the following pages we have included a
selection of extracts which are relevant to
the development of small sites for housing.
At the time of writing the New London
Plan has yet to be adopted; it is
expected that this will occur some
time in 2019, at which point all London
LPAs will be obliged to consider its
policies when assessing applications.
The London Plan obviously only applies
to sites within the 32 boroughs or
on Corporation of London land—
readers from outside the capital can
safely skip the next few pages.
13
Policy D4 Housing quality and
standards
As with the previous London Plan, there
are minimum space standards which must
be achieved for all new dwellings. These
are included below for reference:

Minimum gross internal floor areas and storage (square metres)

Bedrooms Bed Spaces 1 Storey Dwelling 2 Storey Dwelling 3 Storey Dwelling Built-In Storage

1 1 39 (37 w/ shower) 1
2 50 58 1.5
2 3 61 70 2
4 70 79
3 4 74 84 90 2.5
5 86 93 99
6 95 102 107
4 5 90 97 103 3
6 99 106 112
7 108 115 121
8 117 124 130
5 6 103 110 116 3.5
7 112 119 125
8 121 128 134
6 7 116 123 129 4
8 125 132 138

14
In addition to the minimum space
standards, the New London Plan establishes
a minimum floor-to-ceiling height for new
dwellings of 2.5m. In effect this means that
new flat developments will require floor-
to-floor heights of no less than 3m - in fact,
when taking current Building Regulations
requirements for acoustic separation into
account, the figure is likely to be slightly
greater than this. Bear in mind that this
is likely also to be greater than adjacent
existing homes so, for example, a new three-
storey development would likely be taller
than an existing three-storey building next to
it. This can have implications for planning.
Policy D5 Accessible housing
The previous London Plan (as amended
by subsequent Supplementary Planning
Guidance) led to some uncertainty as
to whether lift access to all dwellings
was required - this needed to be
argued on a case-by-case basis.
The New London Plan clarifies that
lift access is not required to “minor
developments” (ie. those capable of
accommodating 25 homes or fewer
- note that this definition applies to
schemes of fewer than 10 homes outside
London). In the case of small sites the
New London Plan determines that only
3.4.3 To address the impacts of the
urban heat island effect and the
fact that the majority of residential
housing developments in London
are made up of flats, a minimum
ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75
per cent of the gross internal area
is required so that new housing is of
adequate quality, especially in terms
of daylight penetration, ventilation
and cooling, and sense of space.
3.5.6 In exceptional circumstances,
the provision of a lift to dwelling
entrances may not be achievable. In
the following circumstances and only
in blocks of four storeys or less, it may
be necessary to apply some flexibility
in the application of this policy:
»» Specific small-scale
infill developments (see
Policy H2 Small sites)
»» Flats above existing
shops or garages
»» Stacked maisonettes where
the potential for decked
access to lifts is restricted
15
dwellings on the ground floor of new
development must be fully accessible (ie.
with level thresholds), and that lifts are
not required to reach the upper floors.
Policy D6 Optimising housing
density
As with the NPPF (previous chapter) the
New London Plan requires LPAs to ensure
optimum use of available land for housing.
Thus, schemes which do not achieve the
highest level of housing possible within other
policy constraints should be resisted.
Conversely, this clause is useful to justify
a higher number of homes on a particular
site than was previously possible, provided
that other policy objectives are achieved.
Policy H2 Small sites and small
housing developments
The New London Plan here defines
“small sites” as those with an area of
less than 0.25 hectares (2,500 sqm),
and later, also those which comprise
developments of no more thatn 25 homes.
16
A. Development must make the
most efficient use of land and be
designed at the optimum density.
EA. Proposed development that
does not demonstrably optimise the
density of the site in accordance
with this policy should be refused.
A. Small sites (below 0.25 hectares
in size) should play a much greater
role in housing delivery to achieve
the ten-year housing targets set
out in Policy H1 Increasing housing
supply. Boroughs should pro-actively
support well designed new homes
on small sites through both planning
decisions and planmaking in order to:
1) significantly increase the
contribution of small sites to
meeting London’s housing needs
2) diversify the sources, locations,
type and mix of housing supply
3) support small and medium-
sized housebuilders
4) support those wishing to bring
forward custom, self-build and
community-led housing
This section of the Plan is of significance
to those developers with an interest in
small sites: policy H2 makes it clear that
there should be a presumption in favour
of development on such sites, and an
excplicit acknowledgement that the
character of some areas might need
to change to achieve the increase in
density required to meet housing need.
E For the purposes of part D, the
presumption in favour of small housing
developments means approving small
housing developments unless it can be
demonstrated that the development
would give rise to an unacceptable
level of harm that outweighs the
benefits of additional housing
provision; or where development
does not comply with a design code
prepared in accordance with part B.
4.2.1 For London to meet its housing
needs, small sites below 0.25 hectares
in size must make a substantially
greater contribution to new supply
across the city. Therefore, increasing
the rate of housing delivery from small
housing sites is a strategic priority.
Achieving this objective will require
positive and proactive planning by
boroughs both in terms of planning
decisions and plan-making.
17
D. To deliver the small sites targets
in Table 4.2, boroughs should apply
a presumption in favour of the
following types of small housing
development which provide
between one and 25 homes:
1) infill development on vacant
or underused brownfield sites
2) proposals to increase the density
of existing residential houses within
PTALs 3-6 or within 800m of a station
or town centre boundary through:
a) residential conversions
(subdivision of houses into flats)
b) residential extensions
(upward, rear and side)
c) the demolition and/or
redevelopment of existing houses
and/or ancillary buildings
d) infill development within
the curtilage of a house
3) the redevelopment or upward
extension of flats, non-residential
buildings and residential garages
to provide additional housing.
18
4.2.5 Incremental intensification of
existing residential areas within PTALs
3-6 or within 800m of a station or town
centre boundary is expected to play an
important role in meeting the housing
targets for small sites, particularly in
outer London. This can take a number
of forms including new build, infill
development, conversions, demolition
and redevelopment or extension of
existing buildings, where this results
in net additional housing provision,
subject to the location of heritage
assets and their settings. Outside the
exempted areas there is a need for the
character of some neighbourhoods
to evolve to accommodate additional
housing. Therefore, in these locations,
the emphasis of decision-making
should change from preserving what
is there at the moment towards
encouraging and facilitating the
delivery of well designed additional
housing to meet London’s needs.
Case Studies

19
Pitfield Street, Hackney
Background
Located within the borough of Hackney
this is one of a suite of sites that were
identified as part of RCKa’s review of
Shian Housing Association’s existing
property portfolio. Its location close to
Old Street makes it an ideal location for
the provision of much-needed housing.
It occupies an area of 0.25 hectares
and sits within the centre of an urban
block bounded by low- and mid-rise
housing as well as a listed building.
The site is currently undeveloped
and designated as amenity space,
however, it suffers from frequent
incidents of anti-social behaviour.
Brief
Our brief was to provide as many new
homes as could be accommodated
on the site whilst minimising the
impact of development on the
existing surrounding residents.
Challenges
Although the land we identified for potential
development is currently unoccupied, it
abuts an existing Grade II-listed building
which required a specific heritage response.
20
In addition, the proximity of nearby homes
meant that any new development should
not compromise access to daylight.
Approach
The footprint has been developed
to utilise the full potential of the site,
whilst maintaining the integrity of the
listed structure. Historical analysis has
demonstrated that this building was
always enclosed to the rear and that our
proposals do not therefore diminish it.
The proposed development has been
carefully designed to avoid overshadowing
neighbouring homes and to allow light
into adjacent windows. A pre-application
submission helped establish design
parameters and to obtain officer
support for emerging proposals.
Outcome
Working with the opportunties identified
above we have developed a simple,
affordable proposal which delivers
six new homes within an attractive
development. Providing 3 two-bedroom
flats and 3 three-bedroom apartments,
every home enjoys a triple-aspect
outlook and a private balcony.
The scheme is currently in planning with
a decision expected in late 2018.
Key Facts

Client Shian Housing Association

Planning Authority London Borough of Hackney

Homes 3 x 2 bedroom, 4 person

flats
3 x 3 bedroom, 5 person
flats

Status Currently in planning

21
Bonsey Lane, Woking
Background
Thameswey is an independent limited
company with a single shareholder - Woking
Borough Council. It was set up in 1999 to
deliver on the council’s strategic objectives
which, at the time, were mainly focused on
tackling climate change through carbon
reduction. Thameswey has now taken on
responsibility for delivering new homes
across the council’s extensive land portfolio.
Brief
To explore opportunities for providing
high-quality, new-build social
housing on an under-utilised garage
site in a suburb of the town.
Challenges
Part of the site lies within the greenbelt.
There are a number of mature trees on
the site and a flood defence wall runs
along the north-east boundary of the site.
The north-east corner of the site lies
within Flood Zone 3a ‘High Probability’,
whilst the remainder of the site lies within
Flood Zone 2 ‘Medium Probability’ with
flood defences already in place.
22
Approach
Our proposal positively addresses the
greenbelt; we have pulled the building
away from the sensitive boundary so
that it sits solely within the designated
brownfield zone. We designed two
independent apartment blocks with active
elevations on all four sides. These are
joined together to share a central core.
The building is four metres away
from the flood defence wall to
enable maintenance access.
Outcome
The development utilises the rather
neglected greenbelt to the north,
providing its residents with a high quality,
secure amenity space that benefits from
natural passive surveillance provided by
the apartments that face it. Long views
are provided across the landscape.
The design is of a gentle contemporary
nature which is appropriate for its location
and which provides a range of high-quality,
carefully considered homes for social rent.
Key Project Information

Client Thameswey

Planning Authority Woking Borough Council

No. of homes 7 x 1 bedroom, 2 person flats

7 x 2 bedroom, 4 person flats

Status Currently in planning

23
24
Typical upper-floor plan of Bonsey Lane. This scheme
provides four apartments per floor, all of which are
dual aspect with a simple, practical arrangement.

25
King Edward’s Road, Hackney
Background
This site is currently occupied by
a single-storey building attached
to Shian Housing Association’s
offices in the heart of Hackney.
Brief
Our brief was to maximise the development
of a highly-constrained urban site to
provide new homes and the reprovision of
existing workspace and meeting rooms.
Challenges
The site is adjacent to a church and on
the edge of a conservation area. The
pre-application meeting concluded that
the proposed residential development
was acceptable in principle, however,
the scale, height, massing and visual
prominence of the scheme should be
carefully considered to minimise visual
impact on the conservation area.
Approach
We have developed a striking proposal
which uses local references to achieve
a high level of density. This planning-led
approach justifies a building which is
26
slightly taller than its neighbour through
a careful study of the streetscape and
daylight modelling to ensure negligible
impact on adjacent homes.
The use of a clever split-plan arrangement
provides a civic quality to the ground
floor, while also providing privacy to
occupants of the home at this level. This
helps to create a “civic” quality to the
ground floor which aligns with the non-
residential building it sits alongside.
Following a pre-application meeting we
took care to address the planning officer’s
concerns about visual impact by reducing
the height of the building and setting back
the top two storeys to reduce the impact
of the flank wall on the adjacent church.
On the following page we have provided
a step-by-step illustration of how we
arrived at this height and form.
Outcome
An opportunity-led approach to this
difficult site has achieved an ingenious
arrangement of four high-quality homes
and the reprovision of existing office
space, delivering significant value for
the client with only limited investment.
Key Project Information

Client Shian Housing Association

Planning Authority London Borough of Hackney

No. of homes 3 x 2 bedroom, 3 person

flats
1 x 3 bedroom, 5 person flat
Workspace

Status Currently in planning

27
 132 sqm

1
Maximise footprint of site.

18m

5
4
3
2
+ 1
B
D

4
3 2
2 Utilise existing pattern of gaps
1 in the streetscape to establish
B separation from existing building.

18m

5
4
3
2
1
B

3
Create lower-ground floor to re-
accommodate existing office
space and vary height from existing
building to emphasise separation.

28
 18m

5
4
3
2
+ 1
B
D

4
3
2
1

4
Use a split plan to provide interest to
internal flats, elevated base for privacy to
ground floor units and taller ground floor
18m to create civic presence on the street.
5
4
3
2
1
B

5
Sculpt the development volume to
reduce visual mass from key viewpoints,
emphasise separation and maintain
views of the corner of 78 Mare Street.

6
Chamfer top floors to emphasise top
floor duplex unit, introduce hierarchy
to massing and reduce further the
visual mass from Mare Street and
further along King Edward’s Road.

29
Mildmay Road, Chelmsford
Background
This site in the centre of Chelmsford
has been in the same family for many
years, and the current owner asked
RCKa to prepare a planning application
to replace the existing workshops and
industrial buildings with housing.
Brief
The client’s principal requirement was for
a high-quality residential development
which maximised the financial return
but also created a lasting legacy of
which the family can be proud.
Challenges
This site is typical of many backland plots
with existing Victorian terraced houses on
three sides and a 1970’s block of flats on
the fourth. Distances between windows
in the rear of these properties to the
boundary were less than planning policy
would ordinarily allow, and rear gardens
were at risk of overshadowing. Access to the
site was via a single narrow road to the east.
Practical considerations such as access
for waste and recycling vehicles and
fire engines were integrated into the
30
scheme from an early stage to ensure
that the scheme met all of the local
authority’s technical requirements.
Approach
We engaged with the planning officers at
Chelmsford through two pre-application
submissions for the site. This established
the principle of residential development
on the site and development parameters
including height, massing and form. A clear
preference for family homes was expressed.
On this basis we developed a mews
arrangement of houses clustered around a
shared courtyard. Restrictions on privacy
distances meant that a careful approach
to window positions and private amenity
was needed. With the exception of a larger
townhouse at the end of the courtyard
all homes are identical, ensuring they are
efficient and cost-effective to build.
Outcome
We have successfully integrated the
advice and feedback received from
the pre-application meetings to
create a contemporary, yet respectful
proposal which sits comfortably within
its surroundings but which has a clear
and distinct character of its own.
Key Project Information

Client Private developer

Planning Authority Chelmsford City Council

No. of homes 11 x 3 bedroom, 5 person houses

Status Currently in planning

31
 Above: Site plan showing
proposed new homes

Top right: Elevation study showing

different house types

Bottom right: Sketch view showing

overall development from the south

32
33
Halcot Avenue, Bexley
Background
RCKa was appointed to L&Q’s architectural
framework in 2011, and again in 2015,
and has since undertaken a number of
projects in and around London and the
south-east on its behalf. This site was
one of several we assessed as part of a
portfolio review of its suburban sites.
This particular site is typical of backland
plots within suburban housing estates
where redundant garages have become
a magnet for anti-social behaviour.
Brief
RCKa was tasked with obtaining planning
permission for as many new homes as
possible bearing in mind the significant
constraints typical of these locations.
All homes had to comply with L&Q’s own
housing standards as well as those imposed
by local and regional planning policy.
Challenges
Although the site suffered many problems
associated with anti-social behaviour
there was still significant resistance from
34
neighbours who were concerned about
the potential loss of access to the rear of
their gardens and by the prospect of new
homes being built at the end of the garden.
In addition, local planning policy required
significant distances between existing
and new homes which placed a major
constraint on where new development was
possible. Car parking and access for waste
and recycling and fire fighting vehicles
were also challenging to incorporate.
Approach
Following an initial pre-application meeting
with planning officers we were able to
establish a set of key principals for the
development that responded directly
to their concerns and to understand
which aspects of policy were flexible.
We then developed a bespoke design for
a simple terraced house which was simple
to build but which successfully reconciled
the myriad challenges of the site.
Outcome
Planning approval was granted in 2016.
Key Project Information

Client L&Q

Planning London Borough of Bexley

Authority

No. of homes 4 x 3 bedroom, 5 person houses

Status Planning approval July 2016

35
Kay Street, Bexley
Background
Our second scheme for L&Q in Bexley
was even more challenging than the first.
Many of the issues we encountered were
identical to those at Halcot Avenue, but the
site boundary was far more complicated,
with several rights of way enjoyed by
residents from adjoining properties.
Brief
Once again our challenge was to achieve
as many homes as possible within the
contraints on the site. All homes were to
meet L&Q’s own standard design guide.
Challenges
A significant number of residents would
be affected by any development so we
were required to undertake extensive
community engagement to minimise
objections to a planning application.
The site was highly constrained; narrow,
with limited access for vehicles and
bounded on both sides by rear gardens.
Approach
We defined a maximum development
envelope through a careful examination
of planning policy, transport and highways
constraints and rights of way. This identified
limited zones within the boundary on which
36
we could locate new houses. It was then
a case of designing a series of simple
house types which were efficient in plan,
cost-effective and simple to construct.
Simultaneously we worked closely
with neighbours to involve them in the
design process through a series of
workshops, helping them to understand
planning policy constraints and
responding to their concerns regarding
overlooking, car parking and access.
Outcome
This inclusive co-design process helped
mitigate objections when the scheme
went to planning; approval was granted
first time at committee. The resulting
scheme, which will shortly be commencing
on site, will provide a series of attractive,
spacious homes arranged around a series
of shared courtyards, encouraging social
interaction and ensuring the development
quickly embeds into the local community.
Through the replacement of unused
and problematic garages we also
ensured a modest uplift in the price
of adjacent homes, providing a
benefit to local people too.
Key Project Information

Client L&Q

Planning London Borough of Bexley

Authority

No. of homes 3 x 2 bedroom, 4 person houses

3 x 3 bedroom, 5 person houses

Status Planning approval Jan 2016

37
 Narrow house
plan with private
gardens to side

Access to existing
gardens must be
maintained

Narrow entrance
for waste collection
and fire engines

38
 Angled windows
mitigate privacy
distances between
habitable rooms

Proximity to
Shared surface neighbouring
creates a low-speed gardens disallows
“homezone” with overlooking windows
varying finishes to
define different zones

Site layout plan of Kay Street showing how the new homes are
carefully inserted into a space previously occupied by garages
39
Foundry Mews, Walthamstow
Background
RCKa was appointed by East Thames
Housing Association (now L&Q) through its
consultant framework to develop a scheme
for an existing car park in Walthamstow. The
site was owned by Waltham Forest Council
so the proposals were developed as part of
a joint venture between both organisations.
Brief
The scheme had to provide a broad mix of
housing types and tenures, including four
family mews houses, two family duplexes,
and six flats - all for sale under shared
ownership - plus a further nine single-
occupancy assisted living apartments
for adults with learning difficulties on a
very tightly constrained car park site.
Challenges
Reconciling the myriad site constraints
was a particular challenge, but despite
these the completed scheme manages
to achieve both a viable quantum of
development whilst maintaining a layout
which encourages a sense of ownership
and community; a satisfying combination
of private, semi-private and public space
40
centred around a south-facing courtyard.
This supports neighbourly interaction with
security through passive surveillance.
Approach
With a very tight deadline to achieve
completion of the scheme - due to
funding obligations from the Greater
London Authority - East Thames appointed
RCKa in the knowledge that we had
considerable experience in unlocking
complex urban sites and would be able to
progress a scheme quickly and efficiently
to meet their and Waltham Forest’s joint
development objectives. We were able
to achieve a viable planning scheme in
ten weeks - which was then approved
within a further eight weeks - well within
the programme set by the funding body.
Outcome
Working closely with the planning
department we were able to achieve a
range of attractive, flexible, high-quality
homes on a constrained urban site.
Immediately adjacent to a locally-listed
library and bounded by a school, a
nursery and a busy road, the completed
scheme is an exemplar of urban infill
development and sets a fine precedent
for future development on adjacent site.
Key Project Information

Client East Thames Housing (L&Q)

Planning Authority London Borough of Waltham

Forest

No. of homes 9 x 1 bedroom, 2 person flats

6 x 2 bedroom, 4 person flats
7 x 3 & 4 bedroom houses

Status Completed November 2016

41
42
43
Chandos Way & Britten Close, Golders Green
Background
The development of existing rooftop space
has the potential to deliver many thousands
of new homes across London. The technical
and planning hurdles are, however,
significant as this project demonstrates.
This 2.3 hectare site lies within the
London Borough of Barnet. It is a high-
density residential site in a suburban
setting, comprising nine 4-storey
blocks arranged in two U-shaped
clusters with 220 existing homes.
Brief
Our client for this project is a private
developer who purchased the air rights and
head lease, recognising the development
potential of the extensive flat roofs across
the existing buildings. He challenged us to
maximise development across the site.
Challenges
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the existing
residents were opposed to the prospect
of new homes built above them but our
proposals were developed with their
concerns in mind and the wider benefits
of the development will include upgrades
to the existing building fabric, landscape
improvements and estate facilities. Sitting
44
in a prominent location between two
conservation areas, impact on heritage
assets was also a key consideration.
Approach
Two previous planning applications for
rooftop extensions by a different architect
had been refused, but working with
officers we were able to demonstrate
that our approach was an improvement
on previous attempts as we had taken
into account the wider implications of
the proposals. A careful examination
of daylight and sunlight, car parking,
form, materials and massing were all
instrumental in gaining officer support.
Our proposals comprise a series of part
one, part two-storey rooftop extensions on
seven of the nine existing residential blocks,
delivering a mixture of one, two and three
bedroom dwellings that exceed the rigorous
minimum internal space standards for new
homes as set out in the current London Plan.
Outcome
The planning application is currently
being considered by Barnet Council
with a decision due in January 2019. The
application will go before committee
with a recommendation for approval.
Key Project Information

Client Private Developer

Planning Authority London Borough of Barnet

No. of homes 19 x duplex apartments of

varying size

Status Currently in planning

45
About RCKa
RCKa was founded in 2008 after
winning the prestigious Europan 9
housing competition for a pathfinder
site in the heart of Stoke-on-Trent.
The practice went on to win an RIBA
international design competition for a
scheme in Preston. Both competitions
required an innovative masterplanning
response to difficult sites, and our success
was in part due to the way in which
we were able to reconcile a range of
challenges whilst arriving at an elegant,
site-specific and contextual response.
We have followed these early successes
with a range of award-winning public
and private buildings across the UK,
including two Housing Design Awards.
At the core of all our work is an interest in
how the buildings we design can promote
community cohesion, encourage social
interaction and support adoption by
those who live in, work in and use them.
46
We work extensively with local communities
to ensure that the schemes we design
balance the needs of clients with the
desires and concerns of the people
who will be affected by them.
The practice has no “house style”;
every project is unique, responding to
the needs of the community and the
wider physical, social and environmental
context. What is common to every
scheme, however, is a passion for how our
buildings can remain relevant to users,
stakeholders and beneficiaries through
designing for flexibility and longevity.
RCKa benefits from a wide range of skills
and expertise that expands the traditional
role of an architect. Several members
of the team sit on local authority design
review panels, which we believe stands as a
testament to the practice’s collaborative,
inclusive and design-led approach.
Contact
Russell Curtis, Director
Email russell@rcka.co.uk
Telephone 020 7831 7002
Version 0.4 - January 2019
©2019 RCKa Limited

47
RCKa architects
29-31 Cowper Street
London EC2A 4AT
020 7831 7002
www.rcka.co.uk