Finn House, 34 Bevenden Street, Hackney, London, N1 6BL

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• the possible need for lift access in relation to Scheme A (and, by implication, whether any possible similar issue may arise for Scheme B and where lift access is also absent)
• the effect of each scheme upon local living conditions arising from proposed arrangements for refuse storage and waste management, and with particular regard to the amenity of adjoining ground floor residents
• whether or not the schemes would make adequate provision for cycle storage
• whether or not a review mechanism is appropriate in relation to affordable housing

What decided it

Scheme A's absence of lift access serving family-sized units caused harm to living conditions that, combined with the affordable housing shortfall, significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits, whereas the lesser or absent equivalent harm in Schemes B and C did not.

Under the tilted balance, Scheme A's harms (lack of lift access for family units and moderate conflict over the affordable housing review) significantly and demonstrably outweighed its benefits (modest housing contribution, refuse/cycle improvements, economic benefits), leading to dismissal; for Schemes B and C the lesser harms were outweighed by the benefits, particularly housing delivery, leading to allowance.