Planning
Her it age
Specialist & Independent A dv isor s t o t he Pr oper t y Indust r y
Heritage Statement
12 Thurloe Square
Kensington
London
SW7 2TA
Mr Henry Anderson
June 2014
Author:
Celia Wignall BA (Hons) Oxon
Approved by:
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Henry Ryde BA (Hons), MSc
4.0
Report Status:
FINAL
5.0
Issue Date:
Introduction
Legislative and Planning Policy Framework
2.1 Legislation and National Planning Policy
2.2 National Guidance and Strategic Policy
2.3 Local Planning Policy and Guidance
Architectural and Historical Appraisal
3.1 Historic Map Regression
3.2 Historic Development and Map Analysis
3.3 Architectural and Historical Appraisal: Architect & Builder
3.4 Architectural and Historical Appraisal: Thurloe Square
Site Appraisal
4.1 Setting: Conservation Area
4.2 Built Form: Bay Projection
4.3 Built Form: Closet Wing
Planning History
5.1 Planning History and Details of Application Granted January 2013
5.2 Details of Appeal Refused September 2013
Proposals and Impact Assessment
Conclusion
June 2014
6.0
7.0
CgMs Ref:
Appendices
Appendix A: Letters Regarding Glass Extension
Appendix B: Original Outline Messuage Plans
Appendix C: Statutory List Description
Appendix D: Conservation Area Map
Appendix E: Statement from Mr Richard Breton
HBC/CW/JC/16400
© CgMs Limited
No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written
consent.
Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies
within this report.
© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller
of HM Stationery Office.
Licence No: AL 100014723
Pages
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
22
23
24
25
26
27
12 Thurloe Square, London, SW7 2TA
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This Pre-Application Heritage Assessment has been prepared by CgMs on behalf of Mr
Henry Anderson, to inform and support proposals for 12 Thurloe Square, Kensington.
The property is located approximately 300m east of South Kensington Underground
Station and 200m south of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The view of the Museum
from the subject property forms one of the notable views of the Thurloe Estate and
Smith’s Charity Conservation Area. The property backs onto the exposed Underground
cutting and the boundary of the Conservation Area follows the rear boundary of the
property.
The Grade II listed property was built in 1842 as part of the 1839-46 development of
Thurloe Square, designed by architect George Basevi for the Thurloe Estate. The
square was at the forefront of a new era of ‘Kensington Italianate’ townhouse design,
and comprises five non-identical ranges of terraced townhouses with varying classical
architectural detailing, on three sides of a planted central garden.
Thurloe Square is in the Brompton Quarter of the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea. The south side of Thurloe Square directly adjoins South Terrace and though
architecturally forming the end to its range, as Numbers 11 and 12 are set forward in
the southern terrace and additionally detailed with stucco quoins, Number 12 appears
as a mid terrace. However Thurloe Square and South Terrace are quite distinct
entities.
Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were granted in December 2012 for a
basement extension under the garden area, a single storey lower ground floor
conservatory extension, extension at upper and lower ground floor levels to the rear
closet wing, repair works to the front façade and internal alterations. Simultaneous
proposals for a two storey lower and upper ground floor rear extension, and an
additional storey to the rear closet wing were refused, and the appeal dismissed in
September 2013.
Figure 1: 2012 OS Map showing the location of the subject property at 12 Thurloe Square. Source: GroundSure
Environmental Insight; Production date 12/12/13
Figure 3: Façade of 12 Thurloe Square SW7. Source: http://
www.hathawaysperiodhouses.co.uk; accessed 18/12/13
This report presents a summary of the relevant legislative framework and planning
policy at national, strategic and local levels, with special regard to that which relates to
development within conservation areas and development affecting listed buildings.
This report provides an assessment of the history and the significance of the site and
its surroundings, with regard to new evidence, as well as providing an assessment of
the impacts of the proposals, in order to assist those involved in considering this
application for full planning permission and listed building consent.
Figure 2: Aerial map showing the location of the subject property at 12 Thurloe Square in relation to South Kensington
Underground Station to the west and the Victoria and Albert Museum to the north. Source: Google Maps, 2013, http://
maps.google.co.uk, Accessed 12/12/13
Figure 4: View from the property towards Victoria and Albert
Museum, flanked by central garden to left and east ranges to
right.
3
2.O
2.1
LEGISLATIVE & PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), adopted March 2012
Primary legislation concerning buildings and areas of special architectural or historic
interest is contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990. Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act require planning authorities to have
special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing listed buildings and
Conservation Areas in the exercise of planning functions.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted on 27 March 2012 and is the
principal document which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how
these are expected to be applied.
Section 16 states that in considering applications for listed building consent, the local
planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Listed
Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which
it possesses.
Section 66 further states that special regard must be given by the authority in the
exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing Listed
Buildings and their setting.
Section 72 of the 1990 Act states that in exercising all planning functions, local
planning authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing Conservation Areas and their setting.
Section 7, ‘Requiring Good Design’ reinforces the importance of good design in achieving
sustainable development, by ensuring the creation of inclusive and high quality places. This
section of the NPPF affirms, in paragraph 58, the need for new design to function well and add
to the quality of the area in which it is built.
The policies contained within Section 12, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’,
Paragraphs 126-141, relate to developments that have an effect upon the historic
environment. These policies provide the framework to which local authorities need to refer
when setting out a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in
their Local Plans.
The NPPF advises local authorities to take into account the following points when drawing up
strategies for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment:

The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and
preserving them in a viable use consistent with their conservation;

The wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that the conservation
of the historic environment can bring;

The desirability of new development in making a positive contribution to local
character and distinctiveness;

Opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the
character of a place.
and that harm or loss to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. It
is noted within this paragraph that significance can be harmed or lost through the
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or by development within its setting.
Paragraph 134 states that where less than substantial harm is proposed to a
designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal, which include securing the asset’s viable optimum use.
Paragraph 137 encourages LPAs to look for new development opportunities within
Conservation Areas, and states that developments which better reveal or enhance the
significance of a designated heritage asset and its setting will be looked upon
favourably.
The NPPF follows the philosophy of PPS5 in moving away from narrower or
prescriptive attitudes towards development within the historic environment, towards
intelligent, imaginative and sustainable approaches to managing change. English
Heritage has defined this new approach, now reflected in the NPPF, as 'constructive
conservation': defined as 'a positive and collaborative approach to conservation that
focuses on actively managing change...the aim is to recognise and reinforce the
historic significance of places, while accommodating the changes necessary to ensure
their continued use and enjoyment.' (Constructive Conservation in Practice, English
Heritage, 2009).
These considerations should be taken into account when determining planning applications, as
should the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to
sustainable communities, including their economic vitality.
As stated in Paragraph 128, when determining applications, LPAs should require applicants to
describe the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution made by their
setting. The level of detail provided should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and
sufficient to understand the impact of the proposal on this significance.
According to Paragraph 129, LPAs are also obliged to identify and assess the significance of a
heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal and should take this assessment into account
when considering the impact upon the heritage asset.
Paragraphs 132 to 136 consider the impact of a proposed development upon the significance
of a heritage asset. Paragraph 132 emphasises the importance of conserving heritage assets
4
2.2
NATIONAL GUIDANCE AND STRATEGIC POLICY
National Guidance
National Planning Practice Guidance, adopted 2014
Guidance has recently been adopted in order to support the NPPF. The National
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) reiterates that conservation of heritage assets
in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle.
The guidance also states that conservation is an active process of maintenance
and managing change, requiring a flexible and thoughtful approach. It highlights
that neglect and decay of heritage assets is best addressed through ensuring they
remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Importantly, the
guidance states that if complete or partial loss of a heritage asset is justified, the
aim should then be to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance,
and make the interpretation publically available.
Key elements of the guidance relate to assessing harm. It states that an important
consideration should be whether the proposed works adversely affect a key
element of the heritage asset’s special architectural or historic interest. It is the
degree of harm, rather than the scale of development, that is to be assessed. The
level of ‘substantial harm’ is stated to be a high bar, that may not arise in many
cases. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the
decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the NPPF.
Setting is defined as the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may
be more extensive than the curtilage. It is stated that harm may arise from works
to the asset or from development within its setting. An assessment of the impact
of proposals upon setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to,
the significance of the heritage asset and the degree to which proposed changes
enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.
PPS 5: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide, adopted 2010
The aforementioned NPPG does not supersede PPS 5: Historic Environment
Planning Practice Guide, issued by the Department of Communities and Local
Government in collaboration with English Heritage and DCMS in 2010. Until the
Good Practice Advice document is published by English Heritage (in conjunction
with the Historic Environment Forum) sometime in the second half of 2014, the
PPS5 Practice Guide will remain valid and therefore provides important guidelines
on the interpretation of policy and the management of the historic environment.
In particular, the Practice Guide identifies the issues which ought be considered to
achieve successful good design with new development in sensitive areas:
· The significance of nearby assets and the contribution of their setting;
· The general character and distinctiveness of the local buildings, spaces, public
realm and landscape;
Heritage values are subject to further considerations such as understanding the fabric
and evolution of the place, consideration of the relative importance of the values that
have been identified, and by matters such as setting, context and comparative studies.
· Landmarks and other features that are key to a sense of place;
The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, 2011)
· The diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration
and period of existing buildings and spaces;
· The topography;
· Views into and from the site and its surroundings;
· The current and historic uses in the area and the urban grain.
English Heritage’s guidance on setting seeks to provide a firm definition for the
term itself, as well guidance to allow councils and applicants to assess the impact
of developments upon the settings of heritage assets. The document defines
setting as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is
not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.’ Setting is also
described as being a separate term to curtilage, character and context; while it is
largely a visual term, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced,
can also be affected by noise, vibration, odour and other factors.
Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage, 2008)
Conservation Principles outlines English Heritage's approach to the sustainable management of
the historic environment. The document is intended to ensure consistency in English Heritage’s
own advice and guidance through the planning process, as well as providing guidance to local
authorities to ensure that decisions about change affecting the historic environment are
informed, sustainable and constructive.
In line with the NPPF, the document emphasises the importance of understanding significance
as a means to properly assess the effects of change to heritage assets. The Principles
emphasise that
‘considered change offers the potential to enhance and add value to places…it is the
means by which each generation aspires to enrich the historic environment’ (paragraph
25).
Four key values are ascribed to heritage assets (pages 27 to 32 of the document), and
understanding these values is fundamental to understanding the significance of a place. The
four values are:
Evidential value - the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
Historical value - ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected
through a place to the present.
Aesthetic value - deriving from the way in which people draw sensory and intellectual
stimulation from a place.
Communal value - deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for
whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.
Strategic Policy
London Plan (July 2011)
The London Plan, as adopted July 2011, is the Mayor of London's strategic
Development Plan for London. Relevant policies include:
Policy 7.6 states 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.
Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology requires local authorities, in their LDF
policies, to seek to maintain and enhance the contribution of built, landscaped and
buried heritage to London’s environmental quality, cultural identity and economy, as
part of managing London’s ability to accommodate change and regeneration.
Policy 7.9, Heritage Led Regeneration, advises that regeneration schemes should
‘identify and make use of heritage assets and reinforce the qualities that make them
significant’. It is recognised that heritage assets should be put to a use suitable for
their conservation and role within sustainable communities and that successful
schemes can help stimulate environmental, economic and community regeneration.
The London Plan therefore encourages the enhancement of the historic environment
and looks favourably upon developments which seek to maintain the setting of
heritage assets.
5
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
2.3
Local Policy
The Local Development Framework is the collection of local development documents
produced by the Council which collectively delivers the spatial planning strategy for
the Borough. The Core Strategy is the key plan within the Local Development
Framework. Adopted on the 8 December 2010, it sets out the vision, objectives and
detailed strategy for future development in the Borough up to 2028. Relevant
strategic and development policies contained with the Core Strategy include:
ground and first floor principal rooms, original staircases and such other areas of
the building as may be identified as being of special interest should be preserved;


CO 5 Strategic Objective for Renewing the Legacy
‘Our strategic objective to renew the legacy is not simply to ensure no diminution in
the excellence we have inherited, but to pass to the next generation a Borough that is
better than today, of the highest quality and inclusive for all. This will be achieved by
taking great care to maintain, conserve and enhance the glorious built heritage we
have inherited and to ensure that where new development takes place it enhances
the Borough.’
Policy CL 1 Context and Character
‘The Council will require all development to respect the existing context, character,
and appearance, taking opportunities available to improve the quality and character of
buildings and the area and the way it functions, including being inclusive for all.’

require internal or external architectural features of listed buildings or scheduled
ancient monuments, commensurate with the scale of the development, to be
reinstated where the missing features are considered important to their special
interest; removed where the additions to or modifications are considered
inappropriate or detract from their special character;
strongly encourage any works to a listed building to be carried out in a correct,
scholarly manner by appropriate specialists.’
Relevant Saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Polices are as follows:
Policy CD47 (extracts): To resist proposals for extensions if the extension would:
(a)
extend rearward beyond the existing general rear building line of any neighbouring
extensions;
(b)
significantly reduce garden space of amenity value or spoil the sense of garden
openness when viewed from properties around;
(c)
rise to or above the original main eaves or parapet;
(d)
not be visually subordinate to the parent building;
(e)
cause undue sense of enclosure to neighbouring property.
Policy CL 2 New Buildings, Extensions and Modifications to Existing Buildings
‘The Council will require new buildings, extensions and modifications to existing
buildings to be of the highest architectural and urban design quality, taking
opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings and the area and the
way it functions.’
require the preservation of the original architectural features, and later features of
interest, both internal and external;
Policy CL 3 Heritage Assets - Conservation Areas and Historic Spaces
Policy CD48: To resist proposals for conservatories if:
‘The Council will require development to preserve and take opportunities to enhance
the character or appearance of conservation areas, historic places, spaces and
townscapes, and their settings.’
(a)
located at roof level;
(b)
located significantly above garden level;
Policy CL 4 Heritage Assets - Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and
Archaeology
(c)
covering the whole width of the property;
(d)
located on a corner site.
‘The Council will require development to preserve or enhance the special architectural
or historic interest of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments and their
settings, and the conservation and protection of sites of archaeological interest. As
part of this policy, the Council will:

Local Guidance
Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area Proposals Statement, Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, adopted 1980.
The Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area was the first to be
designated in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in July 1968. It is also one
of the Borough’s largest, and has an usually high number of listed buildings. The
Conservation Area consists of two discrete areas separated by the District line cutting
but unified by their character. Maps of the Conservation Area are included in
Appendix B.
The boundaries of the conservation area were last revised in 1980, the year it was the
subject of a Proposal Statement. The purpose of the Proposal Statement is to set out
the elements which make the area distinctive, to provide an indication of the Council’s
likely response to planning applications and to indicate where there is opportunity for
improvement. The document states ‘conservation is as much concerned with ensuring
that changes are compatible with their surroundings as with retaining the exact
appearance of the buildings’.
Whilst dated, the document provides a comprehensive history of the area and
townscape analysis.
The area was mainly developed between 1830 and 1880 by two large estates, the
Alexander (Thurloe) Estate and the Henry Smith’s Charity Estate. Enabling Acts of 1864
allowed for the compulsory purchase of land required by the Metropolitan and District
Railway Company. This caused significant physical change to the area through which
they ran.
There was and still remains a unity of design throughout the estates. The buildings are
broadly similar in many respects, although a clear progression in styles from the
beginning to the end of the period is evident. The earliest, late Georgian, buildings are
ordered and symmetrical with very simple detailing; later the larger, more ornate and
richly detailed ‘Kensington Italianate’ style developed as tastes became more
elaborate. This style is typical of much of South Kensington and is particularly well
preserved in the conservation area. The layout of terraces, square and crescents has
remained remarkably consistent.
Policy CD63: To consider the effect of proposals on views identified in the Council’s
Conservation Area Proposals Statements, and generally within, into, and out of
conservation areas, and the effect of development on sites adjacent to such areas.
require the preservation of the special architectural and historic interest of
listed buildings, scheduled monuments or other buildings or places of interest.
In particular the integrity, plan form and structure of the building including the
6
3.O
3.1
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL APPRAISAL
HISTORICAL MAP REGRESSION
Figure 5: 1672, Brompton is sparsely populated and agricultural. The red circle indicates the
approximate location of the subject property at 12 Thurloe Square.
Figure 6: 1795, Cary’s New and Accurate Plan of London and Westminster. The area remains
rural and agricultural, but some ribbon development is evident to the east.
Figure 7: 1817, Darton’s New Plan of London and Westminster. The urban
boom of the 1820s has not yet taken hold of Brompton.
Figure 8: 1837, Cary’s New Plan of London. Development has begun on the Alexander Estate, but Thurloe Square is
not yet underway. The two eastern sections of South Terrace are now complete.
Figure 9: 1844, Cross’s London Guide. This is the first appearance of the southern range, completed
by 1842. The full five ranges of Thurloe Square were not complete until 1846.
Figure 10: 1864, Weller’s Map of London Showing all proposed Railways and Improvements. Enabling Acts of 1864
allowed compulsory purchase of recently developed Estate land for the District line.
Figure 11: 1871, OS Map. From the southern terrace, Numbers 1-11 were purchased and lost all or
some land. Numbers 1-5 were demolished, as shown. Number 12 was alone untouched.
Figure 12: 1895, OS Map. The western end of the south range was infilled 1885-7 as Number 5
Thurloe Square. This was the last significant development in Thurloe Square.
Figure 13: 1940-45, Bomb Census Survey. As shown, the subject property and surrounding buildings
were ‘seriously damaged, but capable of repair’, probably as consequence of the direct hit, and ‘total
destruction’ just to the east.
7
3.2
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAP ANALYSIS
The previous page contains extracts from maps dating from 1672, showing the
progress of development in and around Thurloe Square.
gardens to the meet the demand for fresh produce to feed London’s growing population. 17661780 saw ribbon development along the Brompton Road
The land to the west of the City of London comprised open fields with a few isolated
dwellings until the eighteenth century. The land which Thurloe Square now occupies
was once part of the parish of Kensington and the manor of Earl’s Court. The ancient
road from London linking the once isolated villages of Knightsbridge, Brompton and
Earl’s Court is preserved today as the Old/Brompton Road. This road was a principal
turnpike, or toll road, from London, as shown in Figure 14. The early maps define the
road pattern which survives today. Bell Lane from Knightsbridge divides just to the
east of Brompton, the right fork leading onto the village as Brompton Lane, and the
left fork turning south as Fulham Lane.
on copyhold land from the manor of Earl’s Court. Numerous villa residences were built, set in
well-planted groves, nurseries and market gardens. In 1772 an Act of Parliament was passed,
enabling the granting of building leases on the Smith’s Charity Estate; the Thurloe Estate soon
followed suit. Development on Hans Town began in 1777. However the first major wave of
speculative building did not occur until the 1820s.
By the end of the 17th century much of the area was owned by two estates. The
largest, Henry Smith’s Charity Estate, was split by a wedge of land owned by the
descendants of Sir William Blake (d.1630), which would become the Alexander (or
Thurloe) Estate. John Thurloe was Oliver Cromwell’s spymaster, and his name rather
tenuously became attached to the estate through marriage (see Figure 16).
Kensington began to grow following the establishment of Kensington Palace by
William and Mary in 1689, though the area remained rural in character for another
century. Henry Wise, celebrated gardener to Queen Anne, occupied Brompton Park,
where the Victoria and Albert Museum now stands. During the 17th and 18th
centuries the village of Brompton was renowned for its salubrious air and nursery
gardens surrounded by open fields, as shown in maps of 1672 and 1795. With the start
of the Industrial Revolution the open pasture land increasingly gave way to market
Figure 14: 1790 Map of Turnpikes, showing the main thoroughfares in around London.
The population in England and Wales increased from 9million in 1801 to 18million in 1851 and
over 32.5million in 1901. The population of London more than quadrupled in the 19th century
and saw rapid urbanisation as the city expanded.
The Alexander Estate at the beginning of this period was leased by John Harrison and William
Bristow for market gardens and fruit trees. In 1826 John Alexander (d.1831) had the right to
repossess part of the land, which allowed him to construct Alexander Square, North and South
Terrace. The rest of the land was due to fall into his possession in 1842 but following Harrison’s
bankruptcy in 1832, the estate brought forward the second stage of their development plans.
Under the guidance of estate surveyor George Basevi, Alexander entered into contracts with
several builders, most notably James Bonnin. Thurloe Square was laid out for building in 1840.
By 1840 both Omnibus and market garden carriages were part of the traffic on the old turnpike
road, indicative of urbanisation. The Great Exhibition of 1851 gave a strong impetus to the
area. The construction of new roads, museums and institutions of art and science to create
‘Albertopolis’ - the cultural capital of the world— attracted wealthy residents and developers
to the whole area. The Cromwell Road was constructed in 1855, and further widened in 1906
to accommodate traffic to the area.
Figure 15: Original estate boundaries within the Conservation Area. Source: RBKC Proposals Statement 1980
The construction of the District line by the Metropolitan Railway Company in the
1860s wrought significant changes on the area of the Alexander estate, which it
crossed, but brought easy access to central London and encouraged further
expansion. The contrast between the maps of 1817, or even 1837, and 1871
demonstrates the speed at which the area became densely built-up. Subsequently
there was some infill in the 1870s and some redevelopment by heir to the Alexander
estate Lady George Campbell in the early 20th century. There was some
redevelopment following the Blitz. However, the plan form of the area around Thurloe
Square has remained essentially static since the end of the 18th century.
The practice of development
Owners wishing to develop their land leased plots at low ground rents to speculative
builders who would put up houses conforming with an architect’s design and sell them
off on long leases. The builder would construct houses at his own expense and to
finance these various developments, he entered into arrangements with lenders.
John Alexander began the process of development on his estate in the 1820s, which
was continued by his son Henry Browne Alexander after the former’s death in 1831.
Henry oversaw the second wave of building from 1840.
Bonnin’s main financial backer was one Stephen Phillips, timber merchant. Messuage
inclusive of 11 and 12 Thurloe Square was leased to Phillips by Alexander on 8th June
1842 for 83 years at the sum of £10 per annum. On 9th June 1842 an indenture of
underlease was then made between Phillips and Bonnin for 83 years at the sum of £15
per annum. Bonnin then further sub-let Number 11 to Henry Thomas Adams, another
builder involved in the development of Brompton.
Figure 16: The hereditary ownership of the Alexander estate. Key figures circled.
8
3.3
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL APPRAISAL: ARCHITECT AND BUILDER
George Basevi: Architect (1794-1845)
George Basevi was a gifted, meticulous, and intransigent architect, who was a cousin
of Benjamin Disraeli. His best-known work consists mainly of classical London terraces,
including Belgrave Square, Pelham Crescent and Thurloe Square. His most important
single building is the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, in Italianate style. He was
almost the last and one of the best of the school that sought inspiration in the architecture of imperial Rome, before the influence of Pugin turned the fashion in favour of
Gothic. He lost out to Pugin in an 1841 competition to redesign the main front of Balliol College, Oxford.
Aged 16, Basevi became a pupil of Sir John Soane, the architect and antiquary. He also
studied at the Royal Academy Schools where Soane had recently become professor of
architecture. He visited Paris in 1815 and a year later embarked on a three-year study
tour of Italy, Greece and Constantinople. On return to London he set up his own practice and undertook work for the commissioners of the Church Building Act 1818. However he ceased this line of work due to his unhappiness with design modifications
imposed upon him. The Guardian Assurance Company appointed him surveyor in
1822, inspecting buildings which were to be insured for large amounts.
Beside Disraeli, the Earl of Beaconsfield, Basevi was related to William and George
Haldimand, financiers whose syndicate took over the development of Belgrave Square
in 1825, and commissioned him as architect. The financial success of this speculative
development was attributed in large part to Basevi’s precise and scholarly attention to
detail, not just in the design of the individual houses but also in the paving, street furniture, and composition of the square as a whole. This led to other opportunities, and
he became surveyor to the Smith’s Charity Estate in 1828 and the Alexander Estate in
1829. There was thus thereafter a unity of design throughout these estates.
Figure 17: The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
During the first decades of the 19th century the Greek Revival flourished and the 1840s saw a
final Graeco-Roman phase of great magnificence. The Fitzwilliam Museum (1837-47, opening
to the public in 1848) was modelled on the Capitolium at Brescia which had only recently been
excavated, and was described as ’in many ways realising Soane’s ideal of a public architecture
based on the fullest interpretation of the ruins of imperial Rome’. The giant Corinthian portico
and heavily pilastered wings make a brash but impressive front, which is in marked contrast to
the plain side elevations. It was completed after Basevi’s death by C. R. Cockerell, and it is revealing to compare the character of their work, Basevi’s being far more florid and ornamental.
James Bonnin: Builder (d.1850)
Bonnin was a meticulous builder who produced high-quality buildings. ‘The builder who more
effectively than any other left his stamp on present-day Brompton’, Bonnin was responsible for
building more than three hundred houses in Brompton, Kensington and Chelsea. From 1806 he
became involved in developments in the Hans Town area and by 1820 he was involved in building in Knightsbridge. In 1821 he undertook the initial development of Brompton Square, and
was briefly the first occupant of No.1. Living in the earlier houses he built no doubt gave him a
detailed understanding of any shortcomings, additionally informing later work.
His work here commended him to the trustees of Smith’s Charity and to the Alexander Estate.
His first of many contracts with these estates were in 1822 and 1826 respectively. The latter
involved the development of Alexander Square, including the eastern terraces of South Terrace
in 1827. As builder, he worked with the surveyor to handle contracts and approve designs. The
Smith’s Charity surveyor, Booth, was deemed not up to the job and was replaced in 1828 by
Basevi, who also replaced surveyor Godwin on the Alexander Estate in 1829. From then on,
Basevi designed, or approved designs for, the houses, squares and crescents, and Bonnin built
them.
Figure 18: Belgrave Square
Figure 18: Basevi’s Elevations and Details.
Bonnin was admitted to the Freedom of the City of London in 1836. Following Basevi’s
death in 1845, Bonnin fell on hard times and was declared bankrupt in 1846. He emigrated to Australia in 1849. Though simultaneous with a period of falling house prices,
the bankruptcy indicates the importance and extent of the professional partnership
between Basevi and Bonnin.
12 Thurloe Square
Thurloe Square is the only development on the Alexander estate for which Basevi is
definitely known to have been the architect, which contributes to its significance. The
significance of the simplest, south, range has much to do with its association with the
gifted architect, in addition to its actual design and its meticulous construction by Bonnin.
Basevi’s uncompromising nature and attention to detail, combined with Bonnin’s skill
for translating design into high-quality buildings further reinforces the significance of
the original design.
It is also important to note that while Bonnin ensured the entire building was well
constructed, Basevi concerned himself above all with the ensemble composition of the
range and the ornamentation of the façade. As at the Fitzwilliam Museum, the plainness of the rear was and is in marked contrast to the façade.
Figure 18: George Basevi
Figure 20: James Bonnin
9
3.4
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL APPRAISAL: THURLOE SQUARE
It is instructive to compare a description of Belgrave Square with a description of the
south range of Thurloe Square. The subject terrace was erected to far smaller and less
grand specifications, however there are still marked similarities.
Belgrave Square is described as four ranges of grand terraced houses in stucco, in the
Graeco-Roman style. The centre and end houses are set forward slightly with Corinthian fluted columns to first and second floors. The houses are mainly 3 bays wide with
projecting Doric porches and a continuous balcony to the first floor in cast iron. The
ground floor is rusticated and has round-headed windows. There is a dentil cornice
above the second floor. The centre house has cartouche to the parapet and sculpted
pediments to windows; otherwise windows are square-headed with architraves.
In Thurloe Square, the south terrace was the first to be built, in 1840-2. The end houses are set forward slightly, ornamented with stucco quoins to the first and second
floor, rather than fluted columns. The centre houses (Numbers 6 and 7) are not set
forward, but the terrace was symmetrical about the centre, which was articulated
with adjoining porches . Each house is only 2 bays wide, but features projecting Doric
porches and a continuous balcony to the first floor in cast iron. The ground floor is
rusticated in stucco, though the upper floors are in undressed grey gault brick. This
use of brick emphasised the rectangularity of the design, contrasted with the decorative ironwork, and was a sign of both the simpler specification and the development of
architectural fashion. There is a dentil cornice above the second floor, though the
parapet is quite plain. The window to the ground floor features margin-light glazing,
and the windows to the upper floors are squared headed with eared architraves.
The southern terrace of Thurloe Square is the range that is most noticeably different,
though the other ranges are not identical. Articulation with pilasters indicates their
intermediary specification between the quoins of the south range and the fluted columns of Belgrave Square. They are larger and feature dormer windows. The northeastern range is articulated by the slight projection of the centre houses, defined by
pilasters.
The nature of the occupation of the houses in the square when they were still recently
built is shown by the census of 1851. Only four of the fifty-six houses were uninhabited
or in the care of servants, suggesting they were the primary dwellings of the majority of
residents. On average each house contained six or seven occupants, of whom two or
three were servants.
Over half of the householders were pursuing careers in the professions or in trade and
business. Banking, medicine, insurance and accounting all had representatives. At No. 49
the householder was the Inspector-General of Inland Revenue, William Garnett, author
of A Guide to Property and Income Tax, and at No. 50 lived the Principal Committee Clerk
of the House of Commons, Robert Chalmers. At No.4 lived David Murray, bookseller and
brewer. From 1854 the architect Edward Charles Hakewill lived at No. 8.
This pattern was continued through 1898-9 when Charles Booth’s survey identified the
east the west ranges of Thurloe Square as the domiciles of ‘Upper-middle and Upper
classes. Wealthy’, and the south range as that of persons who were ‘Middle class. Wellto-do.’
Figure 24: Charles Booth’s 1898-9 Survey of Living Conditions in London. The approximate location of the subject property is marked with a blue circle. Key below left.
However when compared with the houses of South Terrace, which No.12 adjoins, the
south range is clearly included within the grandeur, character and design aesthetic of
Thurloe Square, and is a quite separate entity to South Terrace.
South Terrace is a plain range with no articulation; the doorways are marked with pilasters and not projecting porches. The façade has a rusticated ground floor, but the windows have plain gauged brick heads and there is no such ornamentation as a dentil cornice. South Terrace and the south range of Thurloe Square are further contrasted in relation to the potential impact of any works on the setting in Section 4.1.
Figure 25: South range
Figure 21: South range.
Figure 22: South-east range
Figure 23: South-west range
Figure 26: South Terrace from Thurloe Square.
10
4.0
4.1
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL SITE APPRAISAL
SETTING
Historic Urban Grain
The southern range of Thurloe Square and the south side of South Terrace appear as a
contiguously terraced street. However this street comprises four distinct elements,
both historically and architecturally.
In the aerial photograph, right, these stages are identified and their differences are
immediately obvious. The earliest stage (1827-8) was planned in conjunction with
Alexander Square, and was among the earliest developments on the Alexander Estate.
The houses are in the style of their time, plainer and shorter than their neighbours,
consisting of three floors over a basement. Some fourteen years later the second
stage was built (1840-1) to connect South Terrace with the planned Thurloe Square; in
many ways it is a stylistic ’bridge’ between its neighbouring terraces. It comprises
larger properties of four floors over a basement, but the façade remains quite plain.
The Survey of London comments that, although as surveyor George Basevi may have
approved the design, he was certainly not the architect.
The third contiguous element, the southern range of Thurloe Square, was the first of
the Square’s five range to be built (in 1941-2), and the least grand of its ranges (see
section 3.4). It may be that a variety of residential development was required and the
southern range, which would inescapably have to adjoin an existing street, thus
disrupting composition, was the most appropriate for the least grand range. However
the front elevation of this range is significantly more elaborate than that which it
adjoins in South Terrace; it is also subtly higher, though also consisting of four floors
over a basement. Basevi’s work, which tended to the flamboyant (see section 3.3 and
3.4), is readily detectable .
The fourth element is an incongruous infill of 1885-7, on the site of Numbers 1-5.
These properties would originally have completed the composition of the southern
range, which was symmetrical around the boundary between Numbers 6 and 7.
Indeed, in plan form, the elements can also be detected (with the exception of the
infill, which is obvious from its wedge shape). The elements are delineated in plan
form most clearly where they front the street, as the second range is set slightly
further back from the street than either the first or third.
The front-to-back length of the buildings increases with chronological development,
remaining roughly uniform within the separate stages of development, and the
delineation and chronology of development can thus be observed from the plan form
of the rear. The earliest range is shortest; the second is slightly longer though the rear
building line is additionally pushed back by the range’s recessed form. The third, the
south terrace of Thurloe Square, comprises buildings of significantly greater length.
The rear plan form’s lack of clarity has two main causes. Although most of the
buildings have been extended at some point, the works have not affected the overall
grain outlined above. The exception to this is first the extensive development that
N
Figure 27: Stages of development of South Terrace and Thurloe Square. Source: Bing Maps 2014
Figure 28: Street level view of Figure27
took place between 1920 and 1940 at 29 and 23 South Terrace; this is at a low level and does
obscures the grain but not the original building.
The second cause centres on the subject property. In plan form Number 12 Thurloe Square has
a stronger association with its neighbouring range in South Terrace than to the range to which
it actually belongs, due to its uncharacteristic short length front-to-back. As the 1920 OS Map
shows, this is not due to recent surrounding extensions, but is a long-standing irregularity. All
the buildings have been extended or altered, including the subject property which has actually
been shortened (see section 4.2.4), but in a fashion that reflects and retains the original
ensemble character and genus loci of the range as a individual composition of Basevi within
the design context of Thurloe Square — distinct from and grander than its adjoining terrace.
N
However the plan form of Number 12 is anomalous and disrupts the otherwise coherent
southern range.
Figure 29: Stages of development: plan form. Source: English Heritage
The relevant Proposals Statement is just as concerned with ensuring that changes are
compatible with their surroundings, as with retaining the exact appearance of the buildings. It
is important to retain significant historic fabric, and it is a legitimate concern that the original
built form should not be obscured. An extension need compromise neither, and there is in fact
scope here to restore coherence to both the southern range and the wider urban grain.
There is scope for considerable extension to the property. The property should, as outlined
above, project further than its neighbour 33 South Terrace, in line with 11-6 South Terrace. A
brick extension to the closet wing combined with a recessed glass conservatory would be most
appropriate in order to retain the character and reveal the original fabric and form of the
building.
N
Figure 30: 1920 OS Map. 12 Thurloe Square outlined in red.
11
4.1
SETTING
Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area
The rear elevation of the subject property has a very low degree of visibility from
surrounding residential properties, and is almost entirely hidden from public view. It is
not visible from any public point within a conservation area. The bridge from which
the photograph, right, is taken lies outside the conservation area, as shown in the
boundary map below.
The seclusion of the rear elevation is due both to the position of the subject property
adjoining South Terrace, and thus in the centre of the contiguous terraces of Thurloe
Square and South Terrace, and to the wide railway cutting behind the property. The
rear elevation is further screened at upper and lower ground floor level by the London
Underground building between the property’s rear boundary and the railway cutting.
A mature tree in a neighbouring garden provides additional screening of the entire
rear elevation when in leaf, as shown below right.
Although the building is not listed it is in the conservation area. Planning permission was
granted, with the Officer’s Report stating:
In visual terms the proposed side extension is acceptable. It would result in what would
read as an over wide back addition that would extend beyond the width of the original
property. In most circumstances this would not be acceptable, however, in this instance
it is acceptable as it would back directly onto the Underground Line, and therefore,
would only be visible from long views at the rear.
As a part of reaching this conclusion, the officer assessed the private view towards 61
Pelham Street from 12 Thurloe Square.
It is therefore judged that any extensions to the upper or lower ground floor of the rear
of the property would have a negligible visual impact on its setting and conservation
area.
A precedent is provided in application PP/12/05224/Q21 dated 21/03/2013 and
concerned 61 Pelham Street, which is opposite the subject property across the railway
cutting. The proposals concerning the rear of the property were as follows: Erection of
side extension at rear at first floor level, extension to depth of existing half width rear
extension at first and second floor levels, erection of conservatory at rear at ground
floor level.
Figure 31: Subject property is largely concealed
N
Figure 32: View of the subject property from the public domain:
the property is entirely concealed.
Figure 33 (Inset): Position from which figure 32 was photographed. Source: RBKC Proposals Statement 1980
Figure 34: Overhead rear view. Subject property marked with blue triangle. Source: Bing Maps 2014
12
4.2
BUILT FORM: BAY PROJECTION
The property conforms to a standard terrace plan, as laid out in the 1774 Building Act.
The principal room of the house was the drawing room. Its position on the first floor
both allowed it to occupy the full width of the property, and evoked the piano nobile,
which was emphasised by full length French windows leading onto a full width balcony.
To further create space, to impress and for entertainment, it was usual to have an
opening of nearly full width into the first floor rear room. The double doors allowed for
flexibility of use, allowing the rear space, usually in use as an office, to become an
extension to the drawing room. This connection is further emphasised by the identical
decorative wrought iron balustrading to the rear balcony as to the front full width
balcony, and the full length, large paned French windows. The cracks in the wall at the
subject property are corroborated exactly by multiple depictions of the standard plan,
including the 1774 Building Act and English Heritage guidance.
At ground floor, the entrance hall runs down one side of the house to allow a single
room to occupy the remaining width. To allow room for both the staircase and access
through the house, the back room is narrower than the front. The change is made in a
short curved or diagonal section of wall at the level of the stairs.
Bay Projection
On every floor the hierarchy and formality of the rooms decreased from front-to-back,
and the rooms became accordingly narrower. The dining room occupied the principle
ground floor space. This was the largest space close to the kitchens in the basement.
The parlour, the ground floor rear room, in contrast, was a smaller, narrower family room not
meant for entertaining guests. Therefore, it would be very odd to design a feature window in
this room.
Basevi focused on the façade of buildings, with the rear often markedly plainer (see
section 3.3). This is the case at the subject property: the rear is totally subservient,
with the significant exception of the French window and balcony.
The plan included in the original lease of 1842 (figure 36 and Appendix B) shows the canted
projection is an original feature. However it was not and is not a bay window. Only one face
(parallel to the rear elevation) contains a light. The purpose of a bay window is to increase light
and views, and to make the room appear larger. The canted projection in the subject property
provides none of these.
The original purpose, and therefore significance, of the canted projection at ground
floor level is to support the rear balcony to the first floor principal space. This
projection is part of Basevi’s original design, and is therefore significant. However this
significance lies conclusively at first floor level, in the plan form of the balcony and
structural form of the support. not in a ground floor bay window, as previously
assumed.
From an internal perspective, the window and surround are not distinguished from the usual
form found in the house, where the thick external wall is externally flush, but internally canted
in order to both increase the amount of light entering the house from windows set within a
deep wall, and to create space to store the folding shutters. To all intents and purposes, the
panelled sash window is normal late Georgian window with folding panelled shutters to either
side and a spandrel panel below. It is not unusual or special within the context of the building,
the area or the period.
Bay windows do not feature in Basevi’s work. They only became popular in Britain from the
1870s, and were not used in any but the very grandest houses until the 1845 relaxation of glass
tax. The subject property was built 1841-2. A ‘bay window’ in the parlour would therefore be
out of character for the architect, incorrectly placed within the building, ahead of its time in
relation to both tax and fashion, and crucially, concealed internally.
From the rear, the eye is drawn to the balcony on the first floor. A full length French window
opens onto it, from the office/drawing room, and the ornate balustrade is of cast iron to
Basevi’s design; it is an exact match and compliment to the balcony running along the front of
the house.
Figure 36: Original plan form. Source: Lease dated
8/6/1842 See Appendix B.
Figure 37: Canted projection supporting balcony
Figure 38: French window to first floor rear
Figure 39: French window to first floor front
Figure 35: Standard floor plan for early 19th century terraced houses
Figure 40: Window to ground floor rear
Figure 41: Window to ground floor front.
13
4.3
BUILT FORM: CLOSET WING
The closet wing, or ‘back building’ was originally present at basement and ground floor
level only. It was later narrowed, and two additional storeys were added. The original
plan (Figure 36) on the leases of 1842, show that the closet wing was originally much
wider, stopping just short of the bay projection supporting the first floor balcony.
The construction of the original building designed by Basevi was completed in 1842,
and the messuage plan included in the original lease is shown at Appendix B. Notably,
the closet wing at lower ground and upper ground floor was very large, with a greater
width and far greater depth projecting into the garden than currently exists. It was
symmetrical with that found at Number 11 Thurloe Square. Access to the garden was
from the side of the closet wing and not from the rear face as it is currently. A window
occupied the rear face.
A letter dated 1843 outlines proposals to extend the closet wing, which was originally
15’9’’, by an additional 6’ (see Appendix A). No.11 was a symmetrical match for No.12
in 1842, and this extension was granted permission less than a year after the buildings
were erected, by those closely associated with the architectural and historic significance of the building. Therefore there is precedent for extending the closet wing (at
least at ground floor level) 21’9’’ (6.6m) from the main building, and for reinstating its
original width.
In the same correspondence with the architect, builder and estate owner, permission
was granted to erect an additional storey extension, of glass, to the closet wing at
Number 11 (see Appendix A). The drawings enclosed confirm that there was no brick
projection from the rear of the main house above upper ground floor level. As the
properties were symmetrical this must also have been the case at the subject property, Number 12.
Drainage plans of 1923 show a ‘New Rear Extension’, with the closet wing projecting
from the rear of the property from the lower ground to upper first floor level. The
plans show that the upper floors of the closet wing contain bathrooms, including a
Figure 42: Rear porch from closet wing
Figure 43: First floor to closet wing
bath across the width of the closet wing. It is likely that this was the first installation of indoor
plumbing into the property, and raising the closet wing provided the space for these bathrooms.
The walls of the mezzanine and upper first storeys of the closet wing are shown as significantly
thinner in construction than the original walls to the main property. In 1909 Building Regulations were altered, and before this date the thinness of the closet wing walls would have been
illegal. Figure 53 shows the internally canted walls that would originally have surrounded a
window. The newer openings lack the segmentally arched gauged brick, and are instead horizontal .
Therefore between 1910 and 1923 the original lower and upper ground floor closet wing was
extended upwards by two storeys. The 4-panel window above the closet wing is also clearly of
a non-original date, and is detrimental to the composition of the rear façade.
The exit to the garden in the original messuage plan is shown to the side of the closet wing.
There were a number of steps leading down to the garden from the ground floor level. The
1923 plans also show that access to the garden has moved from the 1842 lateral position to
the current face position. Comparison of the 1923 plan and the existing door between the
upper ground floor closet wing and the small porch extension prove that the existing door,
which does not match that shown in 1923, cannot be the original door, or even a particularly
historic element.
The porch which now conceals this door is of utilitarian 1940s design and the windows especially jar with the character and design of the 19th century building. It is also not the full width
of the closet wing, which further detracts from the form of the building. The narrower width is
to allow a light to the ground floor lavatory. This light appears to have been inserted at the
same time as the porch and is likewise an out of character addition of no significance. The only
positive attribute of the porch lies in its construction in matching brick, and laid in Flemish
bond matching the parent building.
Figure 44: Sketch in letter to H. B. Alexander dated January 1843
Figure 47: Rear façade
Figure 45: Original opening to garden infilled.
Figure 46: Close up, above closet wing. Lower-window is
not original or in-keeping.
14
4.3
BUILT FORM: CLOSET WING
The rear of the property was significantly damaged during the Second World War. In
the post-war period, likely 1947 (Appendix E), and on a post-war budget, the rear face
and side wall of the closet wing were largely rebuilt. The closet wing became significantly narrower and with a reduced depth. It would no longer be possible to fit the
bath shown in 1923 in the width of the closet wing. The windows were also replaced
at this time. This is confirmed by a comparison of the elevations included in the drainage plans of 1923 and 1971, which show the extant narrower windows with a 9-over-9
glazing pattern rather than the earlier 16-over-16 glazing pattern.
The current owner, Mr Henry Anderson, purchased the property in 2011. Prior to this
the property last changed hands in the mid-twentieth century when the lease was
purchased by the parents of the previous owner, Mr Richard Breton. Mr Breton has
provided a statement in email form, included at Appendix E of this report. In this statement he recalls the wholesale replacement of windows in the closet wing.
Mr Breton also recalls works to the kitchen window—that is the window within the
bay projection at the rear upper ground floor. He states that his father himself replaced damage window frames and surrounds throughout the house, and including
the kitchen window. Therefore the window and its internal surround conclusively date
to the mid-twentieth century, and are not original to the property.
Figure 48: 1920 OS Map Extract
Figure 49: 1951-3 OS Map Extract
Figure 50: 1923 ‘New Back Addition’ drainage plans. Note door design, and 16-over-16
window form. Compare with Figure 51 below, 9-over-9 form, and windows out of
alignment with door.
Figure 52: ’Ex-door’ shown in side of closet wing as recently as 1971.
Figure 51: Garden and rear of property. Closet wing of 33 South Terrace shown to right.
Figure 53: Plans of existing Ground and First floors. Source: Planning application LB/12/03911
15
5.O
5.1
PLANNING HISTORY
PLANNING SUMMARY AND DETAILS OF APPLICATION GRANTED JANUARY 2013
Planning History 1948 - 2009, 2009-2014
Details of Approved Applications LB/12/03911 and PP/12/03910
Comments
The official planning records held by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
indicate that between 1948 - 2009 the planning history of 12 Thurloe Square is limited
to two items. Listed Building Consent was granted in January 1971 for unspecified
internal alterations, and in September 1972 for unspecified basement alterations.
However there is considerable evidence of earlier 20th century major alterations to
the property, some of which are shown in drainage plans and evident from the built
fabric, as discussed throughout this report.
In January 2013, Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were granted for a single
storey lower ground floor conservatory extension, extension at upper and lower ground floor
levels to the rear closet wing, a basement extension under the garden area, repair works to the
front façade and internal alterations.
The proposals for the basement extension under the garden area, repair works to the
front façade and internal alterations will not be altered for the present application.
These proposals have all been deemed to be either acceptable or an improvement,
and granted under LB/12/03911 .
The following numbered paragraphs are from the Officers Report to PP/12/03910. Pertinent
comments are underlined.
In June 2012 Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were refused for a single
storey lower ground floor extension, extension at upper ground floor level to rear
closet wing including an additional storey closet wing extension, upper ground floor
rear conservatory extension, excavation and construction of basement level extension
under rear garden area, erection of an open arbour to rear garden and internal
alteration.
Repair Works to Façade, including Porch
Regarding Paragraph 4.8, it has been shown (Section 4.2.3-4) that this side wall of the
closet wing is not original, and is almost certainly a 20th century patch-job or remodel
of negligible significance. Therefore a potentially large opening here would not harm
the special interest of the listed building.
4.37 A number of tidying up works are proposed to the front elevation involving the removal of
redundant pipework and the reinstatement of the front porch which will improve the
appearance of the listed building and the terrace in which it forms a part.
The Officer’s Report does not refer to the extension at upper and lower ground floor to
the rear closet wing, but it should be noted that this has also been granted under
LB/12/03911.
In January 2013, Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were granted for a
single storey lower ground floor conservatory extension, extension at upper and lower
ground floor levels to the rear closet wing, a basement extension under the garden
area, repair works to the front façade and internal alterations.
On 5th December 2012, application LB/12/01339 was refused by the Council. The
development and works were for a rear two storey lower ground and ground floor
conservatory extension, an extension at upper and lower ground floor level to the rear
closet wing, an additional storey extension to the rear closet wing, a basement
extension under the garden area, repair works t the front façade and internal
alterations. The appeal was dismissed on 25th September 2013.
On 17th February 2014 Pre-Application Advice was received from the Council. This
advice has underpinned the development of the current proposals, in conjunction with
new evidence which has come to light as a result of thorough research.
Internal Alterations
4.34 The amended drawings now show that the joinery fittings such as cupboards, doors and
chimney-pieces are to be retained…. Other internal alterations are minor in nature involving
the reinstatement of an opening between the front and rear principal rooms on the first floor,
correcting the alignment of the spine wall to the upper ground floor and the creation of a walk
in wardrobe to the second floor all of which are acceptable with minimal alteration to the
original fabric of the listed building.
Basement Extension
4.35 The proposed subterranean extension under the rear garden will be a discreet addition
that will not be noticeable from above ground level nor undermine the original footprint of the
house being accessed from a ‘pinch point’ within the new conservatory and is acceptable.
Conservatory Extension
4.7 The design of the lower ground floor extension has been greatly improved [from the
refused June 2012 application]. This is now set back from the closet wing of the property and
proposed a more lightweight design. This therefore appears subordinate to the main building
allowing the form of the original building to be seen.
4.8 The only remaining concern with this part of the development is the loss of such a large
portion of the side wall of the closet wing. This opening continues to harm the special interest
of the listed building. [Controlled through Condition].
Summary
4.38 The proposals will preserve the special architectural and historic interest of this listed
property and will not harm the significance of this heritage asset subject to compliance with
the recommended conditions.
16
5.2
DETAILS OF APPEAL REFUSED SEPTEMBER 2013
On 5th December 2012, application LB/12/01339 was refused by the Council. The
development and works were for a rear two storey lower ground and ground floor
conservatory extension, an extension at upper and lower ground floor level to the rear
closet wing, an additional storey extension to the rear closet wing, a basement
extension under the garden area, repair works t the front façade and internal
alterations. The appeal was dismissed on 25th September 2013. This section considers
the Inspector’s numbered comments.
in different terraces. This is most apparent on the front elevations where the buildings
in South Terrace are plainer than their counterparts in Thurloe Square which have
more ornamentation. However, whilst the rear elevations of the two terraces are very
similar there are subtle differences. There are a variety of extensions to the rear
elevations of the houses on the south side of Thurloe Square whereas the closet wings
on the South Terrace properties, including the neighbouring No 33, are predominantly
higher than that at No 12 and more prominent in views.
Extension to Closet Wing at upper and lower ground floor level
The proposal would extend the rear closet wing at No 12 to the same height as the
adjoining closet wing at No 33. This would erode the subtle delineation between the
terraces to the detriment of the listed building and the character and appearance of
the wider Conservation Area.
3. The proposal would involve two main elements. Firstly, there would be some
alteration to the basement and ground floor levels of the closet wing but similar
alterations are included in a scheme subsequently approved by the council
(PP/12/03910 and LB/12/03911). Indeed there are a variety of extensions and
alterations at these lower levels in the surrounding area and this part of the proposal
would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
Comment
The newly formulated proposals address this issue, detailed in section 6.1, and below.
The additional storey should not bring the closet wing to the same height as its
adjoining neighbour as this would break the irregular rhythm of the rear elevations
and erode the delineation between the terraces.
Comment
The extension to the closet wing is deemed to preserve the special architectural and
historic interest of the building and should not be controversial.
The concern here is with the delineation and not with the height of the proposal per
se. Many, if not most, of the properties in the contiguous ranges have rear extensions
and closet wings that are significantly greater in height that that at No 12, as the
Inspector states. This is despite No 12 being part of the grander Thurloe Square range.
Conservatory Extension
4. The approved scheme has a single storey ‘conservatory’ type structure at basement
level which predominantly remains below the level of the canted bay. In contrast, the
proposal subject of this appeal includes a two storey ‘conservatory’ type structure at
basement and ground floor levels, set slightly back from the rear elevation of the closet
wing.
The problems of rhythm and delineation (and hierarchy) could therefore be addressed
by raising the closet wing to the sill of the 4th floor window, which would allow the
closet wing to be both above the height of the neighbouring closet wing and still
retain a clear storey between the parapet of the main building and that of the closet
wing. This would allow for delineation, thus addressing the concerns of the Inspector,
and additionally restore the correct hierarchy of delineation.
5. Part II. The structure would obscure the important canted bay feature … Although it
would be three storeys lower than the main rear elevation it would be a significant
feature and would mask an important original architectural element. In that respect it
would compete with the original building rather than be subordinate to it.
Comment
The newly formulated proposals address this issue, detailed in section 6.1.
Figure 54: Refused rear elevation.
th
The original 19 century builder, Bonnin, and ground-owner, Alexander, of the
property gave their approval to a proposal to erect a greenhouse at first floor level
(p16), on the condition that the brick footings were no more than 2ft high over the
ground floor. Therefore a lightweight glass conservatory, whose roofline does not
extend at all over the ground floor has historic precedent, and no objection from the
architect Basevi himself.
removal of the sash window and spandrel panel below it would lead to the unacceptable loss of
an important feature and historic fabric. This proposal would be contrary to the aims of CS
Policy CL4.
The Rear Window/Access
The newly formulated proposals address this issue, detailed in section 6.1.
9. Whilst both the proposed and the approved schemes would involved the removal of
some fabric from the closet wing to form a full width garden room at basement level,
at ground floor level the proposal would be significantly different to the approved
scheme. The provision of a breakfast room in front of the canted bay, together with the
Additional Storey Extension to rear Closet Wing
Comment
If it is considered that the closet wing’s height should remain less than that at No 33
(maintaining the current built hierarchy rather than reinstating the historic
architectural hierarchy of the terraces). There would still certainly be scope to raise
the closet wing to the base of the 3rd floor window sill. This would allow for
delineation, addressing the concerns of the Inspector, and retain the existing
hierarchy.
The window on the 3rd floor that would be lost is of very limited value. Is it not an
original window and does not conform to the 3-over-3 or 9-over-9 panel pattern of
the late Georgian fenestration. It’s proportions are also not consistent with the rest of
the façade. As per CS Policy CL4 section d. ii. ‘internal or external architectural
features of listed buildings are to be removed where the additions to or modifications
are considered inappropriate or detract from their special character’, the rear
elevation would be improved with the removal of this window.
6. The second main element which did not form part of the approved scheme, is an additional
storey on the rear closet wing. 12 Thurloe Square and 33 South Terrace, despite adjoining, are
17
6.O
6.1
PROPOSALS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PROPOSALS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
It is proposed to:

Extend the rear closet wing at upper ground floor;

Erect an additional storey extension to the closet wing;

Erect a glass infill extension at upper ground floor.
The proposed drawings are also submitted separately as part of this application. Here
the proposed rear elevation is shown next to the rear elevation granted consent in
January 2013. The proposals are informed by the detailed assessment in this report of
the history and architectural development of this building. Detailed regard has also
been had to the Inspector’s and Officer’s comments on previous applications and
appeal decisions, and to the Pre-Application advice received this year.
Drawing on the advice received, the proposals have been substantially reduced and
revised. It is considered that the current proposals are highly sympathetic to the
building, and fully adhere to all relevant sections of Policy CL4 (Heritage Assets: Listed
Buildings). Additionally, it is considered that the current proposals take opportunities
presented to improve the quality of the building, as per Policy CL1 (Context and
Character), which states:
The Council will require all development to respect the existing context, character, and
appearance, taking opportunities available to improve the quality and character of
buildings and the area.
Additional storey extension to rear closet wing.
It is further a of key importance, as highlighted by the Inspector, that Thurloe Square
and South Terrace remain clearly delineated. As has been explained in this report,
there is no reason why Thurloe Square closet wings should remain lower than those in
South Terrace (see p11). It is purely a matter of retaining the rhythm and
differentiation of the closet wings. Pre-Application advice suggested that the height
difference then proposed was ‘to a minimal amount and would still erode the
delineation between the two terraces’. This has been addressed in the current
proposals, where a clear difference in parapet height has been designed.
The closet wing at the subject property is far narrower than the closet wing at 33
South Terrace. It is not proposed to widen the closet wing. Thus a pleasing rhythm will
be maintained, of a tall narrow closet wing adjacent to a lower, wider closet wing, as
shown in the proposed elevation, right. Additionally, the extra height will help to
differentiate the listed, grander Thurloe Square terrace from the lesser properties
adjacent in South Terrace, as originally intended (see Appendix B and p.11).
The additional storey further allows the incongruous mid-twentieth century four
panelled window to be removed, improving the quality, appearance and character of
the building as per Policy CL1.
Figure 55: Accepted Rear elevation, LB/12/03911
Figure 56: Proposed Rear Elevation, Drawing Reference: 1000_SK2A_Proposed _Elevs_A3
18
6.1
PROPOSALS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Additional storey extension to rear closet wing (continued).
The closet wing will terminate well below the parapet of the main building. As is
shown is the drawings, right, the third floor will remain untouched. As shown in the
red circle, the closet wing will terminate below this floor.
As shown circled in black, the additional storey will be formed at upper second level,
where a new WC will be created. Access will be created from the opening currently
occupied by a low quality mid-twentieth century window (see previous page for
elevations).
It has been highlighted as a key issue by the Council that the closet wing should
terminate a least one storey below the parapet of the main building. The current
proposals have heeded this advice.
Upper ground floor closet wing extension.
The existing, consented, and proposed plans of the basement/lower ground floor and
the ground/upper ground floor are shown overleaf. There are no changes proposed to
the consented plan at basement/lower ground floor—as can be seen, the plans
presented are identical.
The proposals are limited to the rear upper ground floor, indicated by the rectangle.
The line running across the plans indicates the existing rear extent of the porch, not
including the steps to the garden. The extension proposed does not project further
than that consented, which is to a point slightly beyond the current rear porch wall,
but no further than the steps.
The external dimensions of the upper ground floor closet wing remain identical to that
consented, and it is proposed to retain the existing WC, the removal of which had
previously been consented.
Extending the closet wing is entirely in-keeping with the original property (see
Appendix B), which featured a significantly larger closet wing than is proposed. Preapplication comments from the Council indicated that restoring the closet wing to its
original size may infringe on the amenity of the neighbouring property. Therefore the
current proposals strike a balance between reinstating a larger, more appropriate,
closet wing at lower and upper ground floor, and limiting the size of the extension to
that previously consented by the Council.
Glass infill extension at upper ground floor.
It should be noted that the change of the approved lower ground floor extension to a
more lightweight glass construction was not considered controversial by the Council.
Pre-Application advice stated ‘There would be no objection to the design of the lower
ground floor portion of the conservatory being to a more frameless glass design should
the applicant prefer a more contemporary addition rather than the timber framed
conservatory as previously approved’. Continued overleaf.
Figure 57: Existing plans
Figure 58: Proposed plans
19
6.1
PROPOSALS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Figure 59: Existing plans
Figure 60: Plans granted PP and LBC 12/03910
Figure 61: Proposed plans
20
6.1
PROPOSALS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Glass infill extension at upper ground floor (continued).
Concerns were however raised about the glass infill extension at upper ground floor.
The key issues were considered to be that:

The bay projection would be obscured.

The conservatory would necessitate the removal of the sash window to allow
access.
It has been argued in this report that the significance of the bay projection lies in the
balcony it supports at first floor level, and not in the projection itself at upper ground
floor level. Further evidence has come to light showing that the window and its
surrounds date from the mid-twentieth century and are not original to the proprerty
(see Appendix E). However it is accepted that even if it is not of prime significance, the
projection itself is still valued as an original feature.
Therefore steps have been taken to design an extension which does not obscure, but
highlights this feature.
Access will be from the closet wing only, as shown below right. The sash window will
remain untouched. There will be a glass floor panel around the projection to further
highlight its shape, and to allow appreciate from the lower ground floor extension that
would not be possible under the consented scheme; the projection will be the main
feature of the ‘breakfast room’ which will occupy the glass infill extension at upper ground
floor.
The extension will be constructed using non-reflective glass, as provided by specialist
companies such as Glasspace or IQ Glass.
The following is an extract from the brochure of IQ Glass:
“Non-Reflective Glass is used on numerous architectural glazing projects where the glass
elements need to be as invisible and unobtrusive to the design aesthetic as possible.
This is usually more frequently the case on listed and heritage buildings. Glass is used in these
scenarios due to its highly transparent nature and its ability to unobtrusively block in spaces
without changing or damaging the original design intent of a building.
Low Iron glass is generally used in these areas but the use of a non-reflective coating is an
additional option to further reduce the visibility of the glass units. Non-Reflective Coatings are
applied by dipping the glass panel numerous times into metal oxide solutions; these are cooked
onto the glass at 400 – 500 degrees Celsius. It the resulting light wave transmission between
the oxide layers that creates a non-reflective result.
Figure 62: ABOVE, explanatory diagram of anti/non-reflective glass. BELOW,
Blenheim Palace, grade I listed, with non-reflective glass by IQ Glass.
The use of non-reflective glass at the subject property will ensure the bay projection is
not obscured. Figure 63 B, C, and D, all demonstrate this clearly. C, in particular shows
that even without frameless construction, previously external features and historic
forms are not obscured.
This is a hard coating on the glass unit which means that is incredibly durable against scratches
and is maintained as a standard glass unit would be. When a non-reflective coating is applied
to glass units it can reduce the residual reflection to less than 1% and can offer a light
transmission value of 98%.”
B
A
C
A range of images have been provided below, as examples of different forms of nonreflective and normal glass, and frameless construction. Among the images are St
Pancras Station, Blenheim Palace, and Hanover Terrace, all listed at grade I. Also
shown is Wellington College, a grade II* listed building. The property at Hanover
Terrace, below, does not use non-reflective glass, and the difference in clarity is clear
when compared to any other image on this page, which all show non-reflective glass.
The Hanover Terrace property is a private dwelling house, and has been included to
show that the two storey glass extension does not negatively impact on the character
or appearance of the historic building. Further, access is from the closet wing, as is
proposed at the subject property, and this again does not have a negative impact on
the grade I listed building.
D
Figure 63: A, Wellington College, grade II* listed, with non-reflective glass; B, Edge House, non-reflective glass link with frameless construction. Both IQ Glass.
C, non-reflective glass by Glasspace; even without frameless construction, the historic forms and features are not obscured. D, St. Pancras non-reflective glass.
Figure 64: Hanover Terrace, grade I listed, by Belsize Architects. LEFT: Lightweight glass construction, but not
using non-reflective glass. The form of the building is not compromised. RIGHT: Access is through the side of the
closet wing, as is proposed at 12 Thurloe Square. The opening has no impact on the appreciable form.
21
7.O
CONCLUSION
This Heritage Statement has been prepared by CgMs Consulting on behalf of Mr
Henry Anderson in order to inform and support the application for planning
permission and listed building consent for works to the rear of 12 Thurloe Square,
a townhouse in the ‘Kensington Italianate’ style by Basevi and listed as part of the
terrace Numbers 6-12 at grade II.
CS Policy CL4 Heritage Assets: Listed Buildings
For ease of reference, the key sections of CS Policy CL4 are as follows:
The Council will require:
a.
A history of the development of Thurloe Square, and a full study of property and
its history and development have informed the assessment of these proposals. It
is evident from the planning history, and historic documents and plans, together
with the current presentation of the property, that much work has been done to
the property since its construction in 1842.
This report has presented a review of pertinent planning policy and guidance at
national, strategic, and local levels. Particular consideration has been paid to policies
and guidance which concern works affecting listed buildings and conservation areas.
The NPPF advises local authorities to take into account the desirability of
sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and preserving them
in a viable use consistent with their conservation. The NPPF further advises
intelligent, imaginative and sustainable approaches to managing change. English
Heritage (Construction Conservation in Practice) states that ‘The aim is to
recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places, while accommodating
the changes necessary to ensure their continued use and enjoyment.’
The NPPG reiterates that conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate
to their significance is a core planning principle. English Heritage (Conservation
Principles, Policies and Guidance) emphasises that ‘considered change offers the
potential to enhance and add value to places… it is the means by which each
generation aspires to enrich the historic environment’. The London Plan policy 7.9
advises that schemes should ‘reinforce the qualities [of heritage assets] that make
them significant.’
The proposals have been carefully designed, taking account of all feedback, to respect
the context, character and appearance of the property, and opportunities to enhance
the quality of the building, for example removing incongruous low quality midtwentieth century additions, have been taken. These are therefore in accordance with
Policy CL1 and Policy CL3. It has further been demonstrated that the proposals will
have no impact on the conservation area.
It has been demonstrated that the extensions will be of the highest architectural and
urban design quality, taking inspiration from grade I and grade II* listed buildings and
utilising contemporary material technology. Therefore the propels are in accordance
with Policy CL2.
In accordance with Policy CL4, the proposals have been carefully designed to preserve
the significance of the building, and, crucially, any features of special architectural or
c.
d.
all development and any works for alterations and extensions related to listed
buildings ... to preserve the significance of the building, monument or site or their
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest;
the preservation of the original architectural features, and later features of interest,
both internal and external, in particular the integrity, plan form, the original hierarchy
of historic floor levels and structure of the building including the ground and first floor
principal rooms, original staircases and such other areas of the building as may be
identified as being of special interest;
internal or external architectural features of listed buildings … are to be:
i. reinstated where the missing features are considered important to their special
interest;
ii. removed where the additions to or modifications are considered Inappropriate or
detract from their special character.
historic interest’. Further the hierarchy and form of the building will not be negatively affected
by the proposals. As stated above, where additions or modifications detract from the special
character, they are to be removed. Therefore the proposals are in accordance with Policy CL4.
The proposals also entirely satisfy the relevant saved UPD policies set out in section 2.3 of this
report. Regarding Policy CD47, the extensions do not extend beyond the general rear building
line or significantly reduce garden space. They do not rise above the main parapet or cause a
sense of enclosure to the neighbouring properties. They are clearly visually subordinate to the
parent building. Regarding Policy CD48, the glass ‘conservatory’ element is not located at roof
level or significantly above garden level, it is not a full width extension, and the property is
certainly not located on a corner site. In fact visibility from both public and private realm has
been demonstrated to be extremely low, satisfying Policy CD63.
The proposed scheme is grounded in a thorough and detailed understanding of the
architectural and historical evolution and significance of the property, and is highly
sympathetic to the listed building. This report has provided a full assessment of the
relevant policy, guidance, heritage assets and an appraisal of the property in order to
inform and facilitate discussions surrounding the proposals, which fully satisfy local and
national policy, guidance and legislation. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is
urged to grant planning permission and listed building consent for this considered and
sympathetic scheme.
22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: HISTORIC LETTERS REGARDING GLASS EXTENSION
Appendix A comprises transcripts of three notes exchanged on 26th Jan 1843, between James Bonnin, builder, H. B. Alexander, of the Alexander Estate, and Henry
Thomas Adams, lessee of 11 Thurloe Square, who wished to extend the closet wing
(‘back building’) and erect a conservatory (‘glass house’) over the closet wing at first
floor level.
(1)
Sir [H.T.Adams],
In answer to your requesting permission to extend the back building six feet, of N.11
Thurloe Square, and to erect a green house on the top of the same, not exceeding 2ft
above the height excepting glass, you have my consent,
Yours Truly,
James Bonnin
(2)
Sir [H.B. Alexander],
Wishing to make an addition to the back building of the house belonging to me at and being
N.11 Thurloe Square, Brompton, and having obtained permission of Mr James Bonnin Senior
for the same, whose letter I send to you, I beg to submit a small sketch of the same for your
approval.
(3)
[H.T. Adams]
I remain you obedient servant,
I consent to the addition you propose to the back of 11 Thurloe Square provided that
the same shall not in any way injure the general construction of the house. And that
the work of the same shall be done in a sound workmanlike manner and the whole
completed within 2 months from this time.
H.T. Adams
I understand Mr Bonnin is aware of what is intended and consents to it.
On occasions of this kind I refer faster to Mr Basevi (as my Surveyor) but as he is now
too ill to attend to business, I will go out of the usual course that you may not be
delayed.
H. B. Alexander
Figure 65: Letter from James Bonnin
Figure 66: Letter from H.T. Adams, showing closet wing at No11 with no projection above upper ground floor.
Figure 67: Letter form Henry Browne Alexander
23
APPENDIX B: ORIGINAL OUTLINE PLANS
Appendix B comprises the official plans of messuage and dwelling house accompanying the original leases following the construction of the buildings.
Figure 69: The original lease for Numbers 11 and 12 Thurloe Square (leased together
as two separate dwellings) was dated 8th June 1842. It was between Henry Browne
Alexander, Esquire, and Stephen Philips, Esquire.
Figure 68: The original lease for Number 28 (now Number 33) South Street (now
South Terrace) was dated 24th December 1841. It was between Henry Browne Alexander, Esquire, and Stephen Phillips, Esquire. The property was further leased from Stephen Phillips, Esquire, to Mr James Bonnin on 27th December 1841.
South Terrace is clearly the subordinate property. It is important to note the relative
size of the closet wings originally present. H. T. Adams granted application to extend
the closet wing of Number 11, outlined in Appendix A, details the exact dimensions of
the original closet wing.
Figure 68: 33 South Terrace, original plan.
Figure 69: 12 Thurloe Square (left), original plan.
24
APPENDIX C: STATUTORY LIST DESCRIPTION
6-12 Thurloe Square
Grade: II*
Date first Listed: 15 April 1969
List entry Number: 1265587
Terrace of houses. 1839-43. By George Basevi. Brick. Three storeys and basement
and attic. Ground floor rusticated stucco. Doric porches. Continuous balcony with
iron railings. Eared stucco architraves to 1st floor windows. End house (Nos 11
and 12) set forward with stucco quoins. Continuous modillion cornice above 2nd
floor. Attic storey also has plain cornice. Forecourts have cast iron railings.
List Entry NGR: TQ 27055 78833
Figure 70: 12 Thurloe Square is indicated with a blue triangle.. Source: English Heritage http://list.english-heritage.org.uk,
Accessed 6/1/14.
25
APPENDIX D: THURLOE SQUARE AND SMITH’S CHARITY CONSERVATION AREA MAP
Figure 71: Conservation Areas of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. (Source: Proposal Statement for
the Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area 1980).
Figure 72: Map of the Thurloe Square and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area with listed buildings (grey). The
subject property at 12 Thurloe Square is marked by the red circle. (Source: Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea Proposal Statement for the Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area 1980).
26
APPENDIX E: STATEMENT OF MR RICHARD BRETON
From: Richard Breton
Sent: 23 June 2014 17:32
To: Henry Anderson
Subject: RE: 12 Thurloe Square
Henry,
Regarding the work to the property, the house was purchased by my parents in a
terrible state. A Polish family were living there and I recall my parents bought it with
the Polish family as tenants and moved in about two years later. My father did a lot of
work to the house with my sisters. I recall some of the stories.
The closet wing was damaged and largely knocked down. It was rebuilt in about 1947
by the owners but on a post war budget. It was always my parents intentions to
rebuild it. I am not sure what their plans were but they certainly wanted it to be
larger and grander.
I do know that my father replaced some of the damaged window frames and
surrounds. The windows in the closet wing had been replaced just before my parents
bought the house but the window in the kitchen was done by my father. I remember
this as it took him longer than expected due to his refusal to pay a tradesman. I am
not sure if the wooden sash window was new but the wood below it and around it
was built by my father. For a long time that panel could be removed and I used to hive
my books behind it.
There was also a lift that went from the corner of the dining room down into the
cupboard in the basement old kitchen. If you look on the floor then the parquet is
different. I think my father removed this as my mother thought it was dangerous.
Best Regards
Richard
27
www.cgms.co.uk