Dr Mervyn Miller
CHARTERED ARCHITECT AND TOWN PLANNER
11 Silver Street, Ashwell, Baldock, Herts SG7 5QJ
(01462) 742685
E mail mervarch@aol.com
113 LADBROKE ROAD, LONDON W11,
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
HERITAGE APPRAISAL REPORT
July 2012
Mervyn Miller PhD BA BArch (Hons) MUP M Arch RIBA FRTPI IoHBC
VAT Registration No. 476 1152 49
1.0
PREAMBLE
1.1
I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, (1963) and Bachelor of Architecture
(1966) (Class I Honours) from the University of Durham; Master of Urban
Planning and Master of Architecture from the University of Illinois (1970);
and PhD in Urban and Regional Studies from the University of Birmingham
(1981).
1.2
I am a Chartered Architect, Member of the Royal Institute of British
Architects (1968); Registered Architect (1968); Member of the Royal
Town Planning Institute (1973), Fellow (1980); Member of the Institute of
Historic Building Conservation, IoHBC (1985).
1.3
I have 40 years’ experience of planning and the historic built environment,
having held Principal Conservation Area Officer posts with Hertfordshire
County Council (1972-74) and North Hertfordshire District Council (19741987).
Since January 1988 I have been a sole-practitioner principal in
private practice, undertaking consultancy work for English Heritage, local
authorities, corporate, institutional and private clients. I have extensive
experience of appeals, hearings and public inquiries, and have also
contributed many listing reviews, conservation area appraisals, and
identification of local list buildings.
1.4
I was appointed by Christopher Bodker in May 2012 to undertake an
independent review of an application to develop the property (Refused by
Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, refused under delegated powers
16 March 2012, RBK&C Ref: PP/12/00266/Q21).
The Reasons for Refusal
were as follows:
1. The proposed front rooflight and side lightwell by virtue of their
size and location would harm the character and appearance of
the building, the group it forms part and this part of the
conservation area contrary to policies of the Core Strategy
adopted 8 December 2010 in particular policies CL1, CL2 and
CL3 and the Subterranean Development SPD adopted May 2009.
2. The proposed roof extensions and side bay extension would
unbalance the symmetry of this pair of properties contrary to
policies of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 in
particular policies CL1, CL2 and CL3 and policies of the UDP in
particular saved policies CD44, CD 45 and CD 49.
3. The
proposed
rear
extension
combined
with
the
side
conservatory and rear and side lightwells would result in
excessive site coverage contrary to policies of the Core Strategy
adopted 8 December 2010 in particular policies CL1, CL2 and
CL3 and policies of the UDP in particular saved policy CD 47.
4. The proposed rear extension by virtue of its width, height, depth
and bulk, would not be subordinate to the main building and
would harm the character and appearance of the building and
this part of the conservation area contrary to policies of the Core
Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 in particular policies CL1,
CL2 and CL3 and policies of the UDP in particular saved policy
CD47.
5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed rear
extension and its roof terrace would not result in a significant
loss of amenity to neighbouring residents, in particular those at
111 Ladbroke Road by way of a loss of light or privacy, contrary
to policies of the Core Strategy adopted 8 December 2010 in
particular policy CL5 and policies of the UDP in particular saved
policies CD46 and CD 47.
6. The proposed development would result in the loss of off-street
residential car parking which would increase the demand for onstreet car parking and increase traffic congestion, contrary to
policy CT1 of the Core Strategy and the Transport SPD adopted
December 2008.
1.5
I have reviewed the original application documents including the drawings
and Design and Access Statement by Goldstein Ween Architects; the
daylighting report by Behan Partnership Ltd; the Report by the Executive
Director, Planning and Borough Development; the Cited policies from the
Decision notice including the Core Strategy from the emergent LDF, saved
policies from the UDP and supplementary guidance. The Plan for London
forms the broad overarching strategic framework.
With respect to all
planning policies cited, the publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework on 27 March 2012 has resulted in the cancellation of national
planning policy statements PPS1 and PPS5, and planning policies are now
required to by interpreted in the light of NPPF.
1.6
I have visited the site to assess the context within which the development
is proposed.
I have undertaken historical research on line and in the
London Metropolitan Archives and the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea Local Studies Library.
1.7
The applicants have decided to submit two new applications, each dealing
with matters relating to the cited aspects of the refused proposals under
PP/12/00266/Q21. These are discussed and analysed below.
1.8
Unless otherwise shown, the opinions expressed in this statement are my
own professional views.
2.0
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The Ladbroke Estate
2.1
The site of no 113 Ladbroke Road lies in the area covered by the Ladbroke
Estate, between Portobello Road on the east, Holland Park on the south,
Clarendon Road on the west and the modern Westway on the north.
Suburban development along the Uxbidge Road (now Holland Park), north
of Hyde Park began in earnest in the early 19th century.
A substantial
area to the north was owned by the Ladbroke family. Richard Ladbroke,
of Tadworth Court, Surrey died childless and his land passed to his
nephew James Weller (who assumed the name Ladbroke) in 1821, as a
condition of the inheritance. He required Parliamentary legislation to be
able to dispose of parcels of land on 99 year leases, as his uncle’s will had
specified 21 years. James Weller Ladbroke held the estate until his death
in 1847.
Leases were granted by the City solicitors, Smith and Bayley.
Development began in 1821 and was virtually completed by the 1870s.
Six architects and many individual builder-lessees were involved in
developing and building the estate.
2.2
The dominant figure in layout and design was Thomas Allason (17901852) architect, surveyor and landscape designer, articled pupil of William
Atkinson, Royal Academy Schools 1808, Silver Medallist 1809, and
traveller in Greece 1814. In addition to work for the Ladbroke Estate, he
designed Connaught Square, oversaw development of the Pitt Estate in
Kensington and was Surveyor to the Stock Exchange and to the Alliance
Fire Office. His son, Thomas George Dickson Allason (died 1868) was also
an architect.
2.3
Allason’s Plan for the Ladbroke Estate was drawn up in 1823 and featured
a large double crescent, with a central communal garden, within the two
semi-circular blocks of development divided by the north-south road that
is now named Ladbroke Grove.
Parallel to Uxbridge Road was an east-
west road along the line of what is now Ladbroke Road. Little of this plan
came to fruition as the building boom fizzled out by a financial crisis in
1825 and development proceeded slowly until the mid-1830s, when the
bulk of the inner 145 acres was let as The Hippodrome, a short-lived
horseracing course, open only from 1837-41.
The bulk of development
occurred from the 1840s and proceeded north from Uxbridge Road.
Allason’s original plan was reworked, with the central Lansdowne and
Stanley Crescents being a vestige of the original proposals and parallel
crescents west of Ladbroke Grove.
The communal gardens behind the
backs are a unique feature of the estate.
2.4
Many of the spacious houses in the south-west of the estate were
designed by Thomas Allason and built by W. J. Drew in 1841-5.
The
designs characteristically feature full-height pilaster strips and semicircular bow windows.
These include nos. 12-14 and 23-29 Clarendon
Road; nos. 66-68, nos. 80-86 and nos. 109-119 (originally with nos. 121123) Ladbroke Road.
The latter took the form of semi-detached pairs,
with bows on the side elevations facing each other, and with the service
side backing on to Boyne Terrace Mews.
At the east was a larger
asymmetrical pair, nos. 105 and 107, replaced in the 1960s by Bonham
House flats. The west end pair at the corner with Lansdowne Road was
demolished in 1904 for construction of Lansdowne House – see below. It
should be noted that I have followed the present numbering of the houses
for convenience: this dates from the early 20th century
The Ladbroke Road group
2.5
Despite alterations, these remain distinctive designs. The stucco dressings
stood out well against a background of brown London Stock brick.
However, through the years profound change occurred in all pairs, with
the result that none retain the original appearance of their front
elevations.
Alteration of facades is not detectable on historic maps but
the pilasters appear to have been vulnerable, and the present situation is
incongruous and asymmetrical, both on the facades and at roof level,
where a variety of attic extensions has been constructed, different for
each house in the original paired villas. Pilasters have been suppressed in
part on no. 111, completely from no. 113 (where the fenestration has
been entirely re-ordered), and all five remain only on nos. 117-119. Here,
however, their architectural effect has been all but lost due to the forward
projecting bay-windowed side extension, which fills the side garden and
buts up almost to Lansdowne House.
2.6
If the hipped margin roof at no. 109 is at the original level, then all attic
storeys in the group have been raised and reconstructed. Even if this is
not the case, there is little consistency, with mansard treatments at no.
109 and no. 119, and unembellished brick attics at no. 111, no. 113 and
no. 117. The attic at no. 115 appears slightly set back from that at no.
113. No. 117 boasts a prominent north-facing studio window, which cuts
into the low-pitched Welsh slated roof above, and was probably early 20th
century date, when the studio was occupied by the French (later
naturalised English) illustrator, Edmund Dulac (1882-1953).
As a 1971
photograph sows, this was originally flat-topped: the more elegant arched
head appears to date from 1988 alteration, which also included the setback full height flat-roofed attic dormer behind. Double hip roofs with a
central valley above the party wall (which has the customary low firebreak
parapet wall in the valley) appear on nos. 113 and 115; no. 109 has a
set-back large flat-roofed attic, with a frontal mansard slope, while no.
119 has a full width mansard attic, rising from cornice level with dormers
unrelated to the fenestration pattern below.
2.7
Semicircular curved side bay windows were a distinctive feature of the
original footprints. They are now of varied heights. That on no. 115 is
single storey, which is possibly the original height; no. 109 is two storey
without a railing, as is no. 113, no. 111 has a railing; no. 117 is raised to
three storeys, with a stucco cornice and parapet, providing a small terrace
(part of the 1988 alterations). The bay at no. 111 soon elided into a rear
projection on the ground floor which distorted its appearance and
footprint. Map evidence shows that this had been done by 1895 (possibly
as early as 1869-70).
However, comprehensive alterations in 1984
restored the original footprint of the bay and also built the garage over to
the boundary line with no. 113.
Irregular rear outshoots appeared on
most of these houses in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
2.8
There was originally a further pair of houses on the corner with Ladbroke
Grove.
In 1904 the existing houses were demolished and the site was
redeveloped for Lansdowne House, a tall brick studio building designed by
William Flockhart, with assertive detailing and overbearing presence. No.
119, adjoining was extended in 1903, over towards the boundary with the
Lansdowne House plot, leaving a minimal gap, so that the building pattern
coalesces along the frontage and around the block, returning along Boyne
Terrace mews. The front is now no 119 while the rear is numbered as 21
Boyne Terrace Mews.
2.9
In terms of conservation area contribution the group of surviving
Allason/Drew houses on the south side of Ladbroke Road has already been
significantly compromised by alteration, particularly of the front facades,
and the unity of the concept of the modular pilasters of the front
elevations has been virtually lost, either by removal as on no. 113, where
the ‘half and half’ effect alongside no. 115 is particularly damaging,
compounded on no. 113 by the refenestration without regard to the
original alignment.
The ‘half and half’ effect is created on nos. 109-111
by the insensitive front projection on the latter, which smothers the
pilasters. On nos. 117-119 the pilasters, and, presumably the original
eaves remains, with a projecting soffit, beneath which paired modillions,
above the pilaster heads provide symbolic support.
2.10 In the street picture the front facades set the aesthetic effect, with linear
views along the frontages.
By comparison, the bay windows are more
recessed due to their set-back position, when viewed as pairs in the gaps
between the houses, but can be seen singly in oblique views along the
street frontage.
Nos 113 and 115
2.11 Source material showing the original appearance of these houses appears
elusive (see Appendix). The historical maps provide a record of how the
footprint of the building has evolved, particularly extensions, but cannot
provide reference to the remodelling of the building envelope. The only
photographs located date from 1971 (London Metropolitan Archives),
showing that the group from nos. 111-119 had already been altered
virtually to their present external appearance.
Historical records of
changes to individual properties from the late 19th century onwards are
held in the Royal Borough of Kensington Local Studies Library, but only
deal with drainage alterations, and details of internal planning are often
sketchy, with few external elevations. The most significant evidence for
alterations at no. 113 (where there were minor drainage alterations in
1898 and 1901) occurred in 1923, involving installation of washbasins in
bedrooms on first floor and top floor. The plans appear to indicate that
the refenestration, which on the first floor cut across one of the pilasters,
had already occurred. However the plans (Kensington Ref: 25086 by G.
W. Clarke, 1 Uxbridge Road) gave no indication that major building
alterations were under way at the same time.
A sale prospectus by
Chesterton and Sons from 1950 described the house, but did not include
plans, although it stated that an outbuilding was readily convertible to a
garage. The latter was certainly present when further drainage alterations
occurred in 1966 (Ref: 31003).
Turning to no. 115, apart from minor
drainage work in 1888 and 1898, the only detailed plans refer to a
conversion to flats in 1961.
These show that this house had a full
basement. No. 111 also has a full basement. No. 113 was described as
without basement in the 1950 sales prospectus.
It appears that the
original basement, which would have contained kitchen, larders, cellars
and servants’ room, lit by an area lightwell, was infilled, possibly in the
makeover that occurred when the front was altered.
Heritage Assets and Significance
2.12 The existing house with no. 115 and the other similar pairs on the south
side of Ladbroke Road are undesignated heritage assets within the
designated heritage asset of the Ladbroke Conservation Area.
The
significance of the building arises from the design and disposition along
the road representing high quality early Victorian development, carried
out following a master plan, which although amended according to
circumstance was realised in Ladbroke Road under the design of Thomas
Allason, a well-known architect of the period, who made extensive
contributions to suburban development of the period.
The system of
leasing tranches of land and control of development by ground landlords
ensured the preservation of amenities and property values for many years
predating the introduction of statutory town planning in the mid-20th
century, and the concept of the conservation area, under the Civic
Amenities Act 1967.
2.13
Given the strong powers of ground landlord control through leasehold
covenants, it is perhaps surprising that the houses along this part of
Ladbroke Road have been so extensively altered, impairing their group
significance, as my analysis above has shown. This has lowered their
significance, a concept under the National Planning Policy Framework
which is defined as:
The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because
of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological,
architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from
a heritage asset’s physical worth, but also from its setting (the
surroundings in which a heritage asset in experienced).
2.14 No. 113 is quite prominently sited in the centre of three surviving pairs,
which tends to emphasise the loss of significance, caused at least 80 years
ago by the removal of the pilasters and the insensitive re-fenestration.
The rear has also been compromised by the garage and the ‘ad hoc’
alterations to the rear of the building. No. 115 adjoining has also suffered
from a poorly designed reworking of the attic storey, but retains its
pilasters.
Some alterations can provide historical testament to the
adaptation of the building under different leaseholds or ownership, but
that is not the case here.
interloper,
The façade of no. 113 is an incongruous
but much of the
significance
of its characteristic
and
sophisticated ‘stripped classical’ composition can be restored under the
new applications. This would bring a major benefit to the building, and to
the street scene of the conservation area context, as I shall demonstrate
below.
3.0
3.1
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND IMPACT
Following Refusal of the first application, as noted in the preamble, the
applicant, architects and herniate consultant have analysed the
Delegated Report, particularly noting the fundamental aspects relating
to the proposed roof alterations and central dormer; third floor terrace
above
the
raised
bay;
elimination
of
the
existing
garage
and
consequent loss of parking; and potential light pollution from the
proposed area lightwells of the extended basement.
The proposals
have been revised accordingly, as will be described below.
3.2
However, the applicant has decided to pursue a modified form of the
proposed rear extension, while retaining the garage.
The existing
building has a variety of ‘ad hoc’ rear appendages, which are of no
intrinsic merit and detract from the building, while the fenestration of
the main rear wall includes awkwardly proportioned windows, which
appear to correspond to the types insensitively inserted into the front
elevation. The rationalised rear will relate to that at no 115, but will be
more authentically and appropriately detailed.
3.3
The applicant has decided to present two schemes as separate
applications, with a minor difference, which will be explained below.
Full details of both are shown on the application drawings and both are
described fully and illustrated in context by the architects in the Design
and Access Statement.
‘Options 3 and 4’
3.4
The Basement contains, from Boyne Terrace Mews forward, Staff
bedroom suite and utility room – the former lit by a pavement light in
the garden and from the side light well though a 1.2 metre width
lightwell, with a metal grille. The study is lit through windows into the
side lightwell. Below the curved bay is the wine vault. Two thirds of
the basement in occupied by the studio room, lit through a further
lightwell forward of the bay, and a 1.2 metre wide front lightwell, which
also lights the gym under the front garden. The Ground Floor retains
the garage, apx 900mm below the ground floor level, with internal
access to a study library at the same level between the boundary wall
of the garage at no. 111 and the garage of no 113. Glazed back and
front it will be invisible from the mews, as it would be screened by the
boundary wall, and virtually in visible from the front, set back and
largely concealed by the projecting bay window.
(N.B. This room
appears only on Option 3: Option 4 is otherwise identical). The living
room is at the rear of the ground floor behind the garage, with full
width glazing above the lightwell. The dining room is in the centre, in
the curved bay, with the kitchen at the front. The linear entrance hall
and stairs are against the party wall.
3.5
The First Floor and above are identical on both options.
The
master bedroom suite is at the rear, in line with the rear of no. 15 and
set back above the retained garage. There are two more bedroom
suites on this floor, that at the front benefitting from the restored
fenestration. The second floor involves no extension and contains two
near identical bedroom suites, each accessing a small terrace atop the
curved bay, which will have a metal railing installed akin to that
existing on no. 111. These bedrooms would be open to the roof, with
galleries over the bathrooms.
Two small conservation area type
rooflights would be installed either side of the roof ridge; those on the
inner slope would be invisible.
3.6
Externally, the main feature is the restored front elevation, reinstating
the distinctive pilasters, which subdivide the façade into four bays. The
detail would be repeated from the survivors on no. 115.
In fact,
despite the length of time since their removal the ‘ghosts’ of the
pilasters can be perceived across the brickwork of the front elevation of
No. 113.
It is also proposed to reinstate the roof margin above the
fascia, and the modillions. The fascia and margin will be carried round
to meet the bay window. The band to no. 115 does this, without the
margin. The frontage will sustain its continuity by erection of a stock
brick boundary wall of similar height and character to that in front of
no.111. This represents a great gain in significance, of public interest
in enhancing the building in its group value conservation area context.
3.7
The basement has been reconsidered, particularly the area lightwells,
which have been reduced and located in the traditional position against
the building.
As noted, no. 115 retained its full basement, while no.
117, as the council acknowledges has a side lightwell, which extends
around the full perimeter of the building.
It could be seen on 1910
drawings for drainage alterations (ref. 21095).
I consider that the
proposed lightwells at no. 113 are now congruent with what would
traditionally have been expected from such a feature.
3.8
The bay window has been left at its existing height with railings to
provide a small terrace, as occurs on no. 111.
The Council officer
discussed symmetry in relation to nos. 113 and 115 as a pair.
It is
difficult to view any of the pairs so that the bay windows at either side
register: much more immediate is the comparison of bays facing each
other across the intervening space between the blocks.
The minor
alteration now proposed would produce a harmonious pairing. Whether
or not the single storey bay on no. 115 is the original height is an
academic point, not relevant to consideration of what is now proposed.
The Council officer’s discussion of symmetry did not acknowledge the
striking gain in significance that would follow from reinstatement of the
pilasters and original fenestration.
3.9
Finally, the distinctive double hipped roofs above the second floor have
been left unaltered as far as no. 113 is concerned, save for the
proposed installation of four small conservation area type rooflights in
unobtrusive locations. Those on the inner slope will be invisible from
ground level.
It is uncertain when the attic second floor was added,
and this was probably at different times on no. 113 and no. 115, as
there is a central vertical joint in the brickwork, which is different in
colour tone between the two. Nevertheless the low hipped roof at this
level is common to nos. 111, 113, 115 and 117 (albeit with the recent
box dormer in the centre of the last). Retention of the roof of no. 113
externally unaltered maintains its significance.
The roof of the
extension will be a low pitched metal finish with standing seams, behind
the brick parapet.
Impact
3.7
I consider that the impact of the proposals will be beneficial to the
building and to the conservation area context. The restoration of the
pilasters and fenestration will have a significant positive impact.
The
contentious issues which were cited in the Reasons for Refusal have
either been removed or have been ameliorated to the point where they
have no or little adverse impact.
The modification of the proposed
alteration to the bay window is a key example of this, as also is the
modification of the area lightwells. The roof profile has been retained
intact.
The garage has been retained together with the additional
outdoor parking space inside the front gates, thus redressing the
Reason for Refusal based on lack of parking occasioned by the removal
of the garage in the Refused application. The proposed rear extension
has been totally redesigned, eliminating the contentious second floor
terrace, bringing a much-needed improvement over the ramshackle mix
of uncoordinated rear projections.
It is considered that these
extensions are not excessive and that if harmful impact were to be
perceived by the Council, this is more than compensated for by the
positive gains described and summarised above.
A proportionate
approach to evaluating conservation area impact is at the heart of
decisionmaking under the National Planning Policy Framework, and its
principles apply to the application of policies from the Plan for London,
and the emergent LDF and Saved Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea UDP policies.
4.0
POLICY
National Legislation
Planning (listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990
4.1
- s.66 (1) In considering whether to grant planning permission
for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the
local planning authority … or the Secretary of State shall have
special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest
which it possesses.
-
s.72 (1) In the exercise of any [planning functions in a
conservation area] (2) special attention shall be paid to the
desirability
of
preserving
or
enhancing
the
character
or
appearance of the area.
The Historic Environment Practice Guide [HEPG] to PPS 5 makes it plain
that the publication of PPS 5 does not alter the interpretation of prime
legislation quoted above (para. 20 HEPG).
When s.72 is involved, the
current legal interpretation, avoidance of harm, as contained in paras.
4.19 and 4.20 of the superseded PPG 15 still stands.
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)
4.2
PPS 5 was cancelled by publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework on 27 March 2012. The Refused application was determined
under this superseded document. Please refer below.
PPS1: Planning for sustainable development (2005)
4.3
PPS1 was cancelled by publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework on 27 March 2012. The Refused application was determined
under this superseded document. Please refer below.
Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2011)
4.4
The DNPPF was cancelled by publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework on 27 March 2012. Please refer below.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
4.5
The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] was published on 27
March 2012. It cancelled a large number of planning policy statements,
guidance and other documents.
The NPPF is predicated upon achieving
sustainable development. The Ministerial foreword states that its purpose
is to ensure that the historic environment thrives rather than withers.
Design standards can be so much higher but confidence in development
itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity.
Sustainable development is about positive growth.
4.6
The three dimensions of sustainable development are economic, social
and environmental.
A ‘high quality built environment’ is integral to the
social role, supporting the community’s well-being.
The environmental
role will be ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and
historic environment’ (para. 7). The NPPF does not change the statutory
status of development plan as the starting point for decision making. The
presumption in favour of sustainable development (para. 14) is to be
exercised in context of an up-to-date local plan (para. 12), in which
policies follow that presumption (para. 15).
For the decision-taker this
means
-approving
development
proposals
that
accord
with
the
development plan without delay; and
-where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies
are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
-any
adverse
impacts
of
doing
so
would
significantly
and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the
policies in this framework taken as a whole; or
-specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted [a footnote indicates that this could include heritage
policies].
4.7
Core planning principles underpin both plan-making and decision-taking.
Planning should (inter alia)
-
Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard
of amenity for all existing and future occupants of buildings;
-
Take account of the different roles and character of different
areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting
thriving rural communities within it.
-
Conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance, so that can be enjoyed for their contribution to the
quality of life of this and future generations.
4.8
Section 7 of NPPF requires high quality sustainable design, which is
indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making
places better for people (para. 56). It is important to plan positively for
the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development
(para. 57).
4.9
Planning policies of Local and Neighbourhood plans should be robust and
comprehensive about the expectation of quality of development, meeting
a set of principles summarised below to ensure that developments (para.
50)
-
Will function well adding long term to the overall quality of the
area;
-
Establish a strong sense of place;
-
Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development
(including incorporation of green and other public space;
-
Respond to local character and history, and reflect identity of
local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or
discouraging innovation;
-
Create safe and accessible environment; and
-
Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and
appropriate landscaping.
4.10
Paras. 59-68 develop these themes in greater detail.
Design policies
should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height,
landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to
neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally (para. 59).
4.11
Under para. 60
Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose
architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle
innovation,
originally
or
initiative
through
unsubstantiated
requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It
is however proper to reinforce local distinctiveness.
4.12
Although architectural quality is very important planning policies should
address the connections between people and places and integration of
development into the natural, built and historic environment (para. 61).
There should be local design review arrangements in place (para. 62).
Great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs (para.
63); however, poor designs that fail to take the opportunities for
improving the character and quality of an area should be refused (para.
64).
Buildings which promote a high level sustainability should not be
refused for incompatibility with an existing townscape, if mitigated by
good design, unless concern is for material harm to a designated heritage
asset or its setting, which is not outweighed by economic and social
benefits (para. 65). Applicants will be expected to work closely with those
directly affected by their proposals to take account of community opinion,
and proposals able to demonstrate this should be looked on more
favourably (para. 66).
4.13
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment are dealt with in
Section 12, paras. 126-41. A strategic approach to this recognises that
heritage assets are irreplaceable and should be conserved in a manner
appropriate to their significance, taking into account (para. 126)
-
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and
putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
-
The wider social, economic and environmental benefits that
conservation of the historic environment can bring;
-
The
desirability
of
new
development
making
a
positive
contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and
-
Opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic
environment to the character of the place.
4.14
Designation of conservation areas requires justification because of an
area’s special architectural or historic interest, and should not be devalued
through designation of areas that lack special interest (para. 127). Local
planning authorities should require submission of a statement to describe
and access the impact of proposals on the heritage assets affected,
including on the setting (para. 128).
Local planning authorities should
also identify and assess the significance of any heritage asset affected by
the proposal, including the setting, to avoid or minimise conflict between
conservation and any aspect of the proposal (para. 129).
Evidence of
deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset should not be taken into
account in any decision (para. 130).
4.15
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should
take account of (criteria below paraphrased):
-
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of
heritage assets and putting them to viable use consistent with
their conservation;
-
The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets
can make to sustainable communities including their economic
viability; and
-
The
desirability
of
new
development
making
a
positive
contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
4.16
When considering the impact of a proposal on a designated heritage
asset, great weight should be given to its conservation, in proportion to its
importance. Significance can be harmed through alteration, destruction of
the heritage asset or development within its setting, and requires clear
and convincing justification.
Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II
building, park or garden should be exceptional.
4.17
Under para. 132, where proposed development will lead to substantial
harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local
planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated
that the loss is necessary to attain substantial public benefits that
outweigh the loss, or all of four criteria apply.
-
The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable use of
the site; and
-
No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the
medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its
conservation; and
-
Conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable
ownership is not possible; and
-
The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the
site back into use.
4.18
Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use
(para. 134).
The effect of an application on the significance of a non-
designated heritage asset should be taken into account in weighing
applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage
assets, and a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the
scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (para.
135). Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole
or part of a heritage asset without taking reasonable steps to ensure that
the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred (para. 136).
4.19
Local planning authorities should seek opportunities for new development
in conservation areas, or within the setting of heritage assets, and should
treat favourably those that preserve those elements of the setting that
make a positive contribution or better reveal the significance of the assets
(para. 137).
4.20
Not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its
significance.
Loss of a building which positively contributes should be
treated either as substantial harm (para. 133) or less than substantial
harm (para. 134) taking into account the relative significance of the
element affected and its contribution to the Conservation Areas as a whole
(para. 138).
4.21
Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of enabling
development which would otherwise conflict with planning policies, but
which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset would
outweigh the disbenefits departure from policies (para. 140).
4.22
Local planning authorities should make information about the significance
of
the
historic
environment
gathered
as
part
development management publicly accessible.
of
plan-making
or
They should also require
developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any
heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to
their importance and impact, also to be publicly available (para. 141).
4.23
A
detailed
section
about
the
scope
of
Local
Plans
Neighbourhood Plans) is contained in paras. 150-85.
(including
The Historic
Environment (paras. 169-70) states that local planning authorities should
have up-to-date evidence about the historic environment and use it to
assess the significance of heritage assets in their area, and either
maintain or have access to a historic environment record (para. 169).
Where appropriate landscape character assessments should also be
prepared (para. 170).
The London Plan 2011
4.24 The London Plan deals with the strategic development and growth of
Greater London.
Following a review of the 2008 Plan, consultation and
examination in public, the Mayor formally published the new plan in July
2011.
Together with the Core Strategy and saved policies of the
Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan this comprises the
Development Plan.
4.25 Policy 7.6 Architecture has the strategic aim that
Architecture should make a positive contribution to a coherent,
public
realm,
streetscape
and
wider
cityscape.
It
should
incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to
its context.
4.26 Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology has the strategic aim that
A. London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including
listed buildings … and … conservation areas … should be
identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing
their significance and of utilising their positive role in place
shaping can be taken into account.
D. Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should
conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form,
scale, materials and architectural detail.
4.27 Para. 7.31 of the narrative states that
… Heritage assets such as conservation areas make a significant
contribution
local
character
and
should
be
protected
from
inappropriate development that is not sympathetic in terms of
scale, materials, details and form.
Development that affects the
setting of listed buildings or conservation areas should be of the
highest quality and design, and respond positively to local context
and character outlined in the policies above.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy, adopted
December 2010
4.28 The adopted RBK&C Core Strategy is a major element of the emergent
Local Development Framework (LDF). Chapter 34 is devoted to Heritage
and Design matters, with a strategic commitment in CO5 to renewing the
legacy of the historic environment. The following are the major policies
relevant to the proposed development. Policy CL1 deals with Context and
Character, under which development will be expected to respect and
contribute positively and in scale with its context and setting.
CL2
Extensions includes criteria to ensure that additions to existing buildings
are functional, robust, attractive, locally distinctive, sustainable and
accessible to all; respecting site context, visually subordinate and allowing
original form of the host building to be seen, and any locally distinctive
features.
CL3 deals with heritage assets – conservation areas.
CL5
Amenity raises the importance of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy.
4.29 The Council cited a range of saved UDP policies in their Reasons for
Refusal.
These are detailed policies referring to alterations and
extensions. CD 44 and 45 are mutually exclusive, with the former stating
criteria which would lead to refusal, and the latter permitting extensions
where they may help to resolve a mix of different forms, and where they
are sympathetic in form and would not harm the appearance of the
original building.
CD 46 states that roof terraces will be resisted if
significant overlooking occurs or roof alterations would be visibly intrusive.
CD 47 introduces further criteria where extensions would be resisted,
including projection beyond the general rear line, or rising above the
general height of neighbouring extensions, or impairing daylight and
sunlight to adjoining or nearby properties, or full width extensions. D 48
constrains conservatories, while CD 49 resists side extensions where
architectural symmetry would be impaired.
5.0
ANALYSIS
5.1
In
determining
planning
applications
the
NPPF
has
introduced
a
presumption in favour of approving sustainable development (NPPF para
14) by approving those which accord with the development plan without
delay and where no relevant policies exist or are out-of-date, granting
permission
unless
any
adverse
impacts
would
significantly
and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies
as a whole or specific policies of NPPF indicate that development should be
restricted.
I consider and will demonstrate that the proposals in both
options accord with the NPPFR policies and those in the Plan for London
and the emergent LDF and saved policies of the RBK&D UDP, where
heritage and design matters are concerned.
5.2
Where development in conservation areas is involved the provisions of s72
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,
quoted above remains the legal benchmark requirement, under which the
imperative special attention to be paid to the desirability of preservation
or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas is
met by development which avoids harmful impact.
5.3
As I have stated above the present proposals arose out of careful
consideration and weighting of the matters which were cited as negative
factors in the Reasons for Refusal of the previous application, and
redressing them by redesign. Not only has this systematically eliminated
matters which were previously weighted against approval, but has
heightened the benefit and public interest of the restoration of the longremoved
pilasters
and
original
fenestration
of
no
113
(seriously
undervalued when officers assessed the previous scheme), so that the
significance of the pair, and much of its symmetry will be restored
together with much-needed reinstatement of coherence to this group of
properties, and thus to the conservation area.
5.4
Design parameters of NPPF para 59 – scale, density, massing, height,
materials, access and relation to existing buildings are met in a high
quality and harmonious aesthetic which will reinforce local distinctiveness
(para 60) and integrate the development into the historic environment
(para 61), all integral to the cardinal principle of requiring good design
(NPPF Section 7).
This will also meet key precepts of the London Plan
(Architecture policy 7.6) – by making ‘a positive contribution to a
coherent, public realm and streetscape’, incorporating the ‘highest quality
materials and design appropriate to its context’.
This also accords with
the requirements of RBK&C design policies, as incorporated into Chapter
34 of the Adopted Core Strategy, which see below.
5.5
Under the heritage matters raised in section 12 of NPPF ‘Conserving and
enhancing the historic environment’, it is apparent that the pairing of
these terms is a broader concept than the alternatives of preserve or
enhance,
and
the
benchmark
interpretation
which
still
stands.
Conservation is a more positive term, which includes a greater degree of
intervention than merely maintaining the status quo. This is evident from
the range of specific policies under this heading including the desirability
of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting
them to viable uses consistent with their conservation (paras. 126 and
131).
To sustain the undesignated heritage asset of no 113 it is
necessary to improve the configuration and extent of its accommodation
in relation to the extent of the work necessary to achieve the restoration
of its significance which will benefit the public interest of the character and
appearance of the conservation area to be taken account of under para
131.
I have in section 2 analysed the evolution and significance of the
building and in section 3 have described the proposals and their impact on
the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, as required under
para 128.
5.6
It is accepted that the work will impact upon the conservation area, but as
I have stated above the impact will be beneficial.
NPPF takes a
proportionate approach if harmful impact is perceived, stating that any
loss should require clear and convincing justification, assessed on the
basis that the more important the heritage asset, the greater the weight
to be given to the asset’s conservation (para 132). It is evident that the
degree of harm is low (frankly I do not consider that there is any) and
that the impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset in
question, the conservation area, will be less than substantial.
In this
case, para 134 of NPPF comes into play, and the harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum
viable use.
I have itemised the significant public benefits of the design
and heritage aspects of the proposal, and I consider that the proposals in
both forms secure optimum viable use, thereby meeting the balancing
required under para 134.
5.7
Under subsection D of London Plan Policy 7.8, ‘Heritage Assets and
Archaeology’, Development affecting heritage assets and their settings
should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form,
scale, materials and architectural detail. I consider that the proposals
meet this requirement. Likewise, under the requirements of the RBK&C
policies in the Core Strategy adopted December 2010, the proposals
respect the character of their context, with which they are in scale and
harmony, as required under CL1 Context and Character.
The more
specific criteria of CL2 Extensions are fulfilled, particularly with respect to
local distinctiveness, with the rear extension subordinate to the original
building, whose form can be seen, and nor projecting beyond the
neighbouring property. The missing distinctive features and the congruity
of the original fenestration are restored.
Overall the proposals are
appropriate development as befitting the conservation area, a designated
heritage asset under CL3.
The redesign has respected amenity as
required under CL5, and the details of this are to be found in the
architect’s Design and Access Statement.
5.8
The Council cited a range of saved UDP policies in their Reasons for
Refusal.
extensions.
These are detailed policies referring to alterations and
With the deletion of the roof terrace I consider that the
proposals are compliant with CD 46. I consider that the constraints under
CD44 are not applicable and that under CD 45 the character and integrity
of the rear of the properties has already been severe.
It is not agreed
that there remains any lack of subsidiarity, as the Council maintained
under CD 47, as the redesigned rear extension is set back above the
retained garage and does not protrude beyond the neighbouring extension
at no 115.
The original rear wall and roof remain visible, and the new
extension would in fact bring a degree of symmetry to the rear of the
compromised building, eliminating the existing ill-designed extensions and
flank wall of the extension at no 115, replacing these with a more
appropriate detailed design. The small low level side extension (option 3
only) does not impair architectural symmetry or obscure any formal
original architectural features under CD49. Moreover, assessment of the
proposed rear extension in context is not a matter of absolutes as the
NPPF requires a proportionate approach to evaluate any perceived harm
against the demonstrable overall benefits of the proposals, which I
consider to be significantly greater.
Dr Mervyn Miller
5 July 2012