planning report PDU/0861b/01 30 November 2010 Athlone House,

in the Borough of Camden planning application no. 2009/3413/P

Strategic planning application, referral post Council decision Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Demolition of Athlone House and erection of a substantial single family dwelling with ancillary staff and guest accommodation. The applicant The applicant is Athlone House Limited, and the architect is Robert Adam

Strategic issues The construction of a substantial replacement dwelling in Metropolitan Open Land and its impact on the conservation area is unacceptable. No affordable housing has been provided. Biodiversity issues could be dealt with by condition or agreement. Green roofs have not been provided and the carbon savings from renewable energy is unclear.

Recommendation

That Camden Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 59 of this report.

Context

1 Camden Council received an application to develop the above site for the above uses in July 2009 and resolved to refuse permission on 12 April 2010. Unfortunately the Council did not refer the application before this decision was made. The applicant has appealed against this decision and a public inquiry is due to be held in early February 2011. In light of this the Council sought the Mayor’s view on this application on 27 October 2010.

2 The application was refused for seven reasons – harm to conservation area and street scene, harm to character, appearance and setting of surrounding open spaces, inappropriate development on MOL, harmful impact on protected species, failure to contribute to supply of affordable housing and absence of legal agreement to secure level 3 Code for Sustainable Homes (although it is understood that the sixth reason, impact on bats, has now been resolved).

page 1 3 The application is referable under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ” Development on Metropolitan Open Land which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres”

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is located near to Highgate Village, on the northern edge of . It is approximately half a mile from the village high street, on the southern side of Hampstead Lane. The Heath stretches southwards and westwards, whilst a private residence lies adjacent to the eastern boundary. The grounds of Highgate School are directly opposite the northern boundary, across Hampstead Lane.

6 The site was originally developed in 1870 as Caenwood Towers – a substantial mansion built in red brick in a Victorian style, combined with Jacobean gables. It is accompanied by three smaller buildings, Caen Cottages, The Gate House and The Coach House, all two-storey buildings located along the northern edge of the site. The building was used from 1951 by the NHS providing care for elderly and mentally infirm patients. The 1960’s and 70’s saw the addition of prefabricated wards, followed by two-storey nurses’ residence buildings. Athlone house itself has had a number of additions and extensions through the 20th Century.

7 The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and forms part of an extensive area of MOL covering Hampstead Heath, Kenwood, Parliament Hill and Highgate playing fields. There are no listed buildings on site or adjacent, although Kenwood House to the west is Grade I listed. The Kenwood Estate is also a Grade 2* registered landscape. The site and surrounds are located within the Highgate Conservation Area; Athlone House and the three associated buildings are identified in the Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan as making a positive contribution to the conservation area. The site is also designated as Private Open Space, a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and a Proposals Site. These designations have carried through from the UDP to the recently adopted Core Strategy and Development Management DPDs (apart from the Proposals Site which remains part of the saved UDP pending adoption of the Site Allocations DPD). It should be noted that the site is not included in the draft Site Allocations DPD as it is now partly constructed.

8 Three blocks of flats have recently been built in the grounds of Athlone House (see case history below), these together with the three smaller buildings referred to above are excluded from this application site.

Details of the proposal

page 2 9 The application proposes demolition of Athlone House and construction of a three storey (plus basement) single-family dwelling plus three separate staff cottages and two separate guest cottages. A connected application for conservation area consent has also been submitted. Case history

10 In 2005 planning permission and conservation area consent was granted for the alteration, extension and conversion of Athlone House back to a single dwelling house, alteration extension and conversion of Caen Cottages, The Gate House and The Coach House, demolition of all remaining post war buildings and erection of three buildings of three, four and five storeys respectively to provide 22 flats. The application also involved donation of land as an extension of Hampstead Heath and delivery of off-site affordable housing. The associated Section 106 agreement required restoration of Athlone House within 42 months of commencement.

11 The former Mayor initially considered that application in November 2004, he supported the principle of the redevelopment subject to resolution of issues relating to affordable housing, biodiversity and transport (PDU/0861/01). In February 2005 he informed the Council he was satisfied that all the outstanding issues had been resolved and did not wish to direct refusal (PDU/0861/01).

12 The three blocks of flats have been built and the land has been donated as an extension to Hampstead Heath. The off-site affordable housing has also been provided. The requirement to complete restoration of Athlone House within 42 months expires this month. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 MOL London Plan; PPG2  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Historic Environment London Plan; PPS5  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM)  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

14 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2010 Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Documents, the 2006 Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

15 The following is/are also (a) relevant material consideration(s):  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.  The draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

page 3  Athlone House planning brief February 1999.

Metropolitan Open Land

16 London Plan policy 3D.10 (Metropolitan Open Land) gives statutory effect to the protection of MOL on principles similar to those accorded to the Green Belt (policy 3D.9). The essential features of both are their open character and permanence; and the principles that underpin their protection are well established and clearly affirmed by Central Government guidance issued in PPG2 (Green Belts). These principles are reinforced in policies 7.16 (Green Belt) and 7.17 (Metropolitan Open Land) of the Mayor’s consultation draft replacement London Plan.

17 Although never formally designated as such in a development plan the site was previously treated as if it were a major developed site and the guidance set out in Annex C of PPG2 was applied both in the planning brief and the assessment of the previous application. Paragraph C4 of PPG2 sets out that redevelopment of major developed sites should;

(a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; (b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts (paragraph 1.6 - see also paragraph 3.13); (c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and (d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).

18 The applicant considers this application to be a variation of the existing permission and has sought to apply the guidance set out in paragraphs C4 to C10 of PPG2, as required by the Proposals Site designation in the UDP. With regard to criteria (d) the applicant states that there will be a reduction in footprint from 4,962 sq.m. (as existed prior to the previous application) to 4,099 sq.m. (the net effect of the previous application and this application). Under the previous application there was a reduction in footprint of 1,486 sq.m. from 4,962 sq.m. to 3,476 sq.m.

19 However, it is important to consider the change in footprint in the context of the total change in floorspace, since replacement of single storey buildings with taller buildings may well result in a reduction in footprint but could have a more harmful impact on the openness of the MOL. In this instance the previous application resulted in the removal of mostly single storey ward buildings with three blocks of the flats of between three and five storeys, as a result the floorspace increased from 6,932 sq.m. to 7,811 sq.m. (an increase of 12%). This application would add a further 1,251 sq.m. of development, taking the total to 9,062 sq.m. (an increase of 2,130 sq.m. or 30.7%). Such a substantial increase in the cumulative amount of built development on this site would have a greater impact than the original development and therefore would conflict with the first criteria of paragraph C4, resulting in inappropriate development for which very special circumstances have not been identified.

20 The Council has taken a different approach to the MOL policy assessment, concluding that as the site has now been developed for residential use it therefore should no longer be considered a major developed site and instead be treated as a replacement dwelling. This approach is not unreasonable, particularly given that it is not registered as an amendment to the permitted scheme. The fact that the site is not included in the draft Site Allocations DPD adds weight to this view. Guidance in PPG2 is that replacement dwellings need not be inappropriate development providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. Neither the London Plan nor Camden’s development plan defines ‘materially larger’ or sets out a locally derived replacement dwellings policy. However, Camden recently had a planning permission for a replacement dwelling

page 4 on MOL quashed because the courts ruled that it was materially larger (being three – four times the original floorspace). The court concluded that floorspace, footprint, volume, height, width could all be relevant dimensions to give an indication of size, but that floorspace will undoubtedly be the starting point, if indeed it is not the most important criterion. Camden subsequently refused an application for a replacement dwelling on that site because it considered that a 10% increase in floorspace was materially larger.

21 The footprint of the permitted scheme is 853 sq.m. whereas the proposed footprint is 1,307 sq.m. (an increase of 53%). The floorspace of the permitted scheme is 2,543 sq.m. compared to a proposed footprint of 4,131 sq.m. an increase of 83% compared to the existing house or 62.4% compared to the permitted scheme. By its nature London’s Green Belt and MOL tends to be highly visible from surrounding built up areas. Given that preserving openness is a key objective being it is appropriate to apply a cautious interpretation of ‘materially larger’. It is officers opinion that this would result in a materially larger dwelling that would therefore constitute inappropriate development for which very special circumstances have not been identified.

22 Whichever interpretation of PPG2 is applied the development fails to meet the relevant tests and therefore results in inappropriate development. The application fails to comply with policy 3D.10 of the London Plan. It is also relevant to note that the scale of the permitted scheme, in particular the three blocks of flats, was only considered acceptable because it was necessary to deliver the restoration of the Athlone House, without that it is questioned whether blocks of flats up to five storeys would have been considered acceptable.

Affordable housing

23 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements.

24 Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified

25 The recently adopted Core Strategy sets a 50% borough wide affordable housing target and maximum reasonable amount on individual sites having regard to that target.

26 The applicant has argued that the affordable housing requirements for this site have already been delivered through the permitted scheme. However, as Camden Council point out the additional floorspace exceeds the 1,000 sq.m. threshold, which the, now adopted, Development Management DPD identifies as being the equivalent of 10 units (the 10 unit threshold in the DPD being derived from the threshold in the published London Plan). Therefore an affordable housing contribution is required, subject to viability. In the absence of any viability information it cannot be determined whether the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided and therefore the application fails to comply with policy 3A.10 of the London Plan.

page 5 Heritage and design

27 The application involves the demolition of a building in Highgate Conservation Area that is considered by the Council to make a positive contribution. English Heritage and other organisations such as the Hampstead and Highgate Conservation Area Advisory Committees, the Athlone House Working Group, SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society, support this view. The applicant’s assessment concludes that it makes no more than a marginal positive contribution. With regard to the justification for demolition the applicant claims that refurbishment would require virtual rebuilding that would be both unviable and result in a pastiche of the original.

28 The Government has published PPS5, which replaces PPG15 on heritage matters, since the application was submitted and determined by the Council. PPS5 introduces the concept of heritage assets, which includes designated heritage assts such as registered gardens and conservation areas. Policy HE9 sets out a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets, with the more significant the designated assets the greater the presumption. In this instance Kenwood House, Kenwood Place and Highgate Conservation Area are relevant designated heritage assets. GLA officers support the view of Camden Council and others that the loss of a building that positively contributes to the Conservation Area and can been seen from Kenwood Estate is harmful and inadequately justified (this applicant’s view is clearly at odds with the previous applicant who was of the view that refurbishment was technically and financially feasible). The application therefore fails to comply with policies 4B.11 and 4B.14 of the London Plan.

29 The applicant states that the design is the combination of a traditional or classical vocabulary with a design that could only have existed in the later twentieth or early twenty first century. The design consists of a series of interlocking classical orders, which while following the tradition of the Orders is not copied from any previous building. The resultant three-storey building is a broadly symmetrical square centred around an enclosed courtyard/atrium, with domed cubes on each corner and a taller four-storey tower on the northern elevation. The building is clad in bath stone, adorned with pilasters, carved capitals and balustrades. The domes are finished with copper scales and finials.

page 6 30 Camden Council has concluded that the building with its palatial scale and grandiose symmetry would be significantly more visually intrusive from areas within the Conservation Area and from the Heath and Kenwood. GLA officers support this view and in that regard the proposal fails to comply with policy 4B.1 Biodiversity

31 The site is designated in part as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, in which the most important habitat is acid grassland. It also supports legally protected grass snakes and bats. Other habitats present include grassland, trees, scrub, ponds, and ‘garden habitat’.

32 The London Plan seeks to ensure strong protection for Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, by avoiding adverse impact on the nature conservation value of the site, minimising any such impact and mitigating any residual impacts. Where, exceptionally the harm to nature conservation interests is outweighed by other planning concerns, appropriate compensation should be sought (Policy 3D.14).

33 Concern was expressed with the previous scheme about the potential destruction of the acid grassland as was to become in effect the garden of a private house. This was resolved through the proposal to form a management agreement with future owners of the site to ensure appropriate management in perpetuity. The ecological survey submitted with this application notes that a management plan was approved in October 2007, and proposes further refinement. If this application is allowed on appeal the requirement for submission of and implementation of a new management plan will be necessary to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site and therefore comply with policy 3D.14. Climate change

34 The applicant has submitted an energy strategy and has proposed the use of a biomass boiler, which would provide 13% of the development’s energy requirements. This renewable component is not expressed in carbon dioxide savings, therefore it is not possible to state whether it meets the requirement set out in policy 4A.7 for developments to reduction carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from on-site renewable energy generation. In this regard the proposal fails to comply with policies 4A.4 and 4A.7 of the London Plan.

35 The Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment notes that water use will be less than 105/litres/person/day, which complies with the minimum requirement of policy 4A.15 and identifies the use of soakaways which would contribute to the objectives of policy 4A.14. However, green roofs are not proposed, conflicting with policy 4A.11.

Transport

36 The proposal does not raise any strategic transport concerns. Response to consultation

37 Consultation responses were received from the following statutory consultees and organisations:

page 7 Statutory Consultees and organisations

38 English Heritage - a) existing house with its well-modulated elevations and mellow-toned materials help blend the building into the landscape; its interior contributes to its historic value; thus it both preserves and enhances Highgate conservation area. Insufficient information has been provided to address criteria for demolition set out in PPG15. Proposals neither preserve nor enhance character of this conservation area (CA) in terms of its significant larger massing, monolithic character and light stone materials which increase its visual prominence, especially when viewed in context of Kenwood House. EH thus recommends refusal. Also notes that in commenting on previous proposal, EH concluded that restoration of house balanced their concerns over potential harm to historic environment from 3 new blocks of flats, and reiterated importance of programme of timetable of works to restore house and expressed concerns over proposal to ‘mothball’ house prior to restoration. b) Proposed development may affect remains of archaeological importance and recommend a condition to be attached requiring a programme of archaeological work.

39 Hampstead CAAC - agree with all points raised by AHWG (see below) and wish to emphasise the detrimental effect the new house will have on views from the heath.

40 Highgate CAAC - proposal is invalid as it would flout the S106 agreement to fully restore the House; contrary to criteria of PPG15 and seriously damages character of CA; proposed new building is jarring in newness, bulkier and more dominant from heath; contrary to criteria in PPG2 for development on MOL; economics of restoration irrelevant in planning terms; less sustainable contrary to applicant’s assertions; no submission of hydrology study, construction management plan or environmental impact study. Also dispute accuracy of record of meeting between developer and AHWG in 2007.

41 Athlone House Working Group (AHWG) (representing Highgate Society, Hampstead CAAC, Highgate CAAC, Heath and Hampstead Society) - applicant was signatory to S106 agreement on previous permission which allowed erection of 3 blocks of flats in return for maintaining Athlone House and restoring it plus 3 cottages within 42 months. Applicant has benefited from agreement in completing new blocks but has not carried out any restoration. Urges Camden to ensure full compliance with terms of this S106. House makes positive contribution to character of CA and there are no grounds under PPG15 that would permit demolition. House is eminently restorable and saleable, and indeed they know an individual who is prepared to do so. Disagree with interpretation that this application is an amendment to previous permission for whole site- application site is now solely for House (noting red line around site) and is no longer a “major developed site”, thus PPG2 para 3.4 cannot apply; instead para 3.6 applies and the proposed mansion is materially (240%) larger in floorspace than the existing house and thus represents ‘inappropriate development’ on MOL (reference made also to Garden House judgement in relation to replacement dwellings on MOL). Nevertheless it also does not comply with PPG2 Annex C as the scheme has a materially greater impact on openness of MOL nor does it accord with terms of planning brief for this site or with other UDP policies. No special circumstances exist to justify inappropriate development- larger bulk, higher roofline, greater footprint and ostentatious architectural style does not enhance CA and makes it visually intrusive over Heath and Kenwood; intrusiveness would increase with loss of existing tree screening. Other issues raised include impact on hydrology from basement and poor sustainability. Also dispute accuracy of record of meeting between developer and AHWG in 2007.

42 Heath and Hampstead Society -S106 obligations exist which require restoration of Athlone House and explicitly seeks to prevent its demolition; condition has been allowed to deteriorate due to neglect of above obligations. Economic cost of satisfying this obligation is irrelevant; restoration costs are questioned and it is suggested that such a restored house would be equally viable. Loss

page 8 of house would damage character of heath and conservation area; it has significant historical and architectural interest. New house is 2.5 times size of existing house, an excessive increase, and contrary to criteria for development on MOL. Disagree with interpretation that this application is an amendment to previous permission for whole site- application site is now solely for House and is no longer a “major developed site”; in any case it also does not comply with PPG2 Annex C criteria as the scheme has a materially greater impact on character and openness of MOL. Size, scale, architecture, setting, detail and materials proposed for new house have negative impact on landscape of Heath and it will be more intrusive and conspicuous than existing house. No justification given for excessive car parking and no evidence to show impact on hydrology.

43 Highgate Society refer to AHWG comments (summarised above) of which this Society is signatory; also they comment in detail how the scheme does not address the various criteria in PPG15 on demolition and how it conflicts with criteria in PPG2; consider “Statement of Community Involvement” to be worthless as a reflection of any meaningful “community involvement”; request that Camden insists now upon immediate action to ensure house is maintained in secure and sound condition until it is restored, as they are concerned at absence of security personnel and fire detection system.

44 Save Britain’s Heritage- regret that building is not listed as it is a major landmark and a vigorous composition and contributes to CA character; unfortunate precedent to agree demolition when applicants have enjoyed major planning gain. If application is approved, it should be on basis that substantial sum is made available for benefit of heath and local people.

45 Victorian Society- existing house is local landmark and makes strong positive contribution to character of CA due to its position on edge of heath and its architectural and historic interest; also played important role in Second World War. Consider building should be reassessed for listing. Concerned that applicant has allowed building to fall into neglect as a precursor to justification for demolition on grounds that restoration is not economically viable. Building is at risk and visibly deteriorating for several reasons, and they recommend that an Urgent Works Notice is served to require remedial action.

46 Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association views and amenities of heath will be adversely affected by proposals; conditions of permission and associated S106 would be blatantly flaunted if permission were granted as it requires restoration of house; floorspace of new house is more than twice area of existing house in contravention of MOL policy; new house would be highly intrusive to heath in size, scale and detail.

47 Grove Terrace Association yet another example of developers trying to flaunt planning regulations, in this case on particularly sensitive land visible from many vantage points across heath; House must be restored in accordance with planning conditions; new house would increase footprint by 250% in contravention of regulations; new house would be appallingly intrusive and visible, its scale inappropriate and detrimental to rural surroundings.

48 Better Archway Forum disturbed that undertaking to refurbish house has not been enforced and that social housing was provided off site. Concerned that much larger building is proposed which will dominate open space; totally inappropriate that such a building should be permitted.

49 Hornsey Historical Society existing building, although altered, makes important contribution to character of area and replacement modern building will detract from appearance and character of heath and result in loss of MOL.

page 9 50 (Superintendent of Heath)

 Refer to the Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and its reference to the importance of Athlone House in contributing to the character of this CA and to the pressure for replacement of dwellings by larger luxury ones of potentially inappropriate scale and design. Demolition thus should accord with criteria in PPG15 for demolition in conservation areas and consider insufficient information has been provided to justify demolition. No evidence provided to show how circumstances have changed since the last scheme whereby costs of refurbishment were deemed acceptable. No evidence to determine validity of Dr Miller’s argument, or to show how existing house can be adapted to overcome shortcomings identified in Market report.

 Refer to current visibility of House from heath in autumn and winter months. Concern that views in visual impact assessment have NOT been agreed with City of London despite claims by consultants nor with local authority; concerns with methodology used in this assessment and disagree that heath is an area of low sensitivity to change. Consider the new house will have a negative impact on heath in views 1 and 2 from west and will be more prominent due to form, massing and materials, detracting from openness of heath.

 Refer to need to protect MOL in accordance with advice in PPG2. Consider that the new house is materially larger in floorspace from existing house and that massing is greater than existing due to bulkier roofline and grand elevations, hence more prominent from heath.

 No reference to how proposed basement will affect hydrology of heath- need groundwater modelling and trial pits to ascertain impact of development. Concern that proposed large basement might potentially have an impact on the hydrological functioning of water on the Heath and its ponds.

51 Haringey Council- objects on basis that house makes positive contribution to character of conservation area and adjoining locality and its demolition would be contrary to PPG15.

52 National Heritage Nature and Environmental Preservation Society- House does make positive contribution to character of conservation area and heath and demolition would be harmful to this. Dr Miller’s report needs to be viewed highly sceptically; house has attractive architectural composition with many original features. Replacement scheme is Stalinist in conception and appearance and is of uninspired design as a classical pastiche; scale bulk and massing is harmful to conservation area and heath setting; design confused and contrived; in breach of requirement for development on heath (ref Garden House judgement). Thus permission and CA consent should be refused.

53 Thames Water- comments on drainage impact; no objection to sewerage infrastructure.

54 CABE- comments that they are unable to review scheme due to lack of resources.

Local residents

55 In addition 543 objections were received from local residents, all object on similar grounds as above (the first five issues being the most quoted).

 Existing building is well-known feature in views from heath, landmark building rich in architectural detail and history, makes positive contribution to conservation area; capable of restoration and needs to be kept for future generations to enjoy.

page 10  Proposed building is excessively large and prominent, intrusive and visible from heath; “hideous palace”, “eyesore”; inappropriate size, scale, detail, style and colours.

 Camden must enforce S106 requirements for restoration of House- this must be honoured despite house and part of grounds sold off; salami-slicing technique by developer and deliberate flouting of legal responsibilities unacceptable.

 Disregard of conditions, abuse of planning process to ignore them, having benefited from previous permission by building luxury flats; owner should have known about conditions when purchasing property.

 Contravenes rules for development on MOL/POS, exceeds footprint and floorspace of existing house by 2.5 times; reference to Garden House judgement; rules exist to protect majority of people who wish to retain character of heath from minority of developers.

56 Other issues raised were, heavy traffic and construction nuisance, affect on underground water and natural habitats, unsustainable to demolish sound building and rebuild huge energy- wasteful structure, costly and wasteful in material, energy and pollution, permitted luxury blocks of flats are already ugly and blot on landscape, 8 bedroom mansion totally inappropriate in current circumstances, precedent set for other developers to flout conditions and build billionaire homes around heath, out of character with setting of Kenwood and Heath, urge Camden to disregard Dr Miller’s advice which downplays importance of house and brings into question his professional judgement, concern at lack of security and safety of House, despite obligation to keep it secure, circumstances unchanged since 2007, concern that Camden are not enforcing original conditions to restore property and are giving into developers by accepting submission of planning application, “Robert Adam project displays all the hallmarks of self-indulgent grandiloquence and reckless megalomania…whereas the old villa...shows considerable restraint and nobility”, new construction will be blot on landscape of heath and demolition will be travesty, to be compared in future with demolition of Euston Arch. Legal considerations

57 The Council has already resolved to refuse permission. Therefore in this instance the Mayor does not have a power of Direction under Article 6, but may provide a statement of compliance under Article 4. Financial considerations

58 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

59 London Plan policies on MOL, affordable housing, heritage, urban design and climate change mitigation and adaptation are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  The scale of the proposed development fails to meet the relevant criteria of PPG2 and therefore represents inappropriate development in MOL for which no very special circumstances have been provided, thus conflicting with policy 3D.10.

 The applicant has not provided any affordable housing or a viability appraisal to determine what the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing would be, thus conflicting with policy 3A.10.

page 11  The development result in the loss of a building that makes a positive contribution to Highgate Conservation area and a replacement that is visually intrusive, thus conflicting with policies 4B.11, 4B.14 and 4B.1.

 The nature conservation value of the acid grassland in the grounds of Athlone House should be protected through a management agreement secured by condition or Section 106 agreement in order to comply with policy 3D.14.

 The carbon savings from the renewable energy provision have not been specified thus conflicting with policies 4A.4 and 4A.7.

 The development does incorporate any green roofs, thus conflicting with policy 4A.11.

21 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected]

page 12