Land to Rear of 28 Amwell Street, Islington: North Stores

P l a n n i n g H e r i t a g e Specialist & Independent Advisors t o t he Proper t y Indust r y

Heritage Statement

Land To Rear of 28 Amwell Street, Islington: North Stores

Turnhold (Islington) Ltd

May 2014

CONTENTS

______

Authors: CONTENTS Pages Laurie Handcock 1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Legislative and Planning Policy Framework 2.1 Legislation, National and Strategic Planning Policy and Guidance 4

2.2 Local Planning Policy and Guidance 6 Approved by: 3.0 Architectural and Historic Appraisal Jason Clemons 3.1 New River Head: Historic Development 7 3.2 Historic Map Progression 8 3.3 Designated Heritage Assets: Engine House, Boiler House and South Stores 9 3.4 Designated Heritage Assets: North Stores (Curtilage Listed) 14 3.5 Designated Heritage Assets: Windmill Base 15 Report Status: 3.6 Designated Heritage Assets: New River Conservation Area 16 FINAL 4.0 Proposals and Assessment of Impact 4.1 Proposals 17 4.2 Inspector’s Decision: December 2013 Appeal 18 Issue Date: 4.3 Assessment of Impact 19 May 2014 5.0 Conclusions 24

CgMs Ref: Appendices LH/14159 Appendix A: Statutory Listing Descriptions

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.

Licence No: AL 100014723

LAND TO REAR OF 28 AMWELL STREET, ISLINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been produced on behalf of Turnhold (Islington) by CgMs The current schemes have taken on board the decision issued by the Planning Consulting, to support a group of applications for Planning Permission and Inspectorate following the Informal Hearing in December 2013; this was published on Listed Building Consent relating to the site known as ‘Land to the Rear of 28 28 February 2014. The presented schemes thus address the salient issues in order to Amwell Street’; these applications, while submitted separately, form an preserve and enhance the identified heritage assets and their settings. This report will effective masterplan for the site, which contains a number of designated demonstrate that these proposals have taken the significance of the listed buildings heritage assets. The current proposals are being brought forward following upon the site, and their setting, and the character and appearance of the New River the refusal of application references P2013/0370/FUL and P2013/0415/LBC, Conservation Area into consideration, and will preserve the significance of these and the subsequent grant of consent at appeal for applications P2013/0368/ heritage assets in the provision of a viable uses upon the site. This report meets the FUL and P2013/0401/LBC. requirements of Paragraph 128 of the NPPF by providing an account of the history and development of the site, including an assessment of the former Engine House The proposals relate to a part of the former site of New River Head, the and the attached ancillary buildings. springing point of the New River which was first opened in 1613 and provided much of the City of London’s fresh drinking water into the twentieth century. This Heritage Statement is intended to assist those involved in the determination of Over time, a substantial complex of buildings, pumps and reservoirs were these applications to make an informed assessment of the impact on the heritage developed, and these applications refer to a part of this former site which assets, based on the understanding of the application sites and their position within contains a number of the remaining structures. the New River Conservation Area, and should be read in conjunction with the relevant supporting documentation. The sites lie to the north east of Amwell Street and comprises two storehouse Figure 1: An aerial view of the area covered by the application sites as indicated by the blue line. ranges, the North Stores, and the South Stores, and the remains of a former The wider context is shown in the greenery and curving lines of the former New River Head site which is surrounded by Victorian and Georgian terraced housing. windmill which was originally used for pumping water and subsequently deconstructed to its current form at one storey. The remains of the Windmill are statutorily listed at Grade II, as is the group of buildings made up of the former Engine House, Boiler House and South Stores. The North Stores, while unlisted in their own right, are considered to form part of the curtilage of the Grade II listed Engine House by virtue of their geographical and functional association with the building. The development site also sits within the New 4 3 River Conservation Area. 2 Broadly speaking, the appeals identified above as having been refused related to works proposed to undertake some conversion works to the South Stores, 1 North Stores and Windmill Base, as well as proposing a change of use to the North and South stores. The allowed appeals referred to the change of use of the Windmill Base, and works to the first floor of the Engine House.

The site is now to be the subject of separate applications which are accompanied by separate Design and Access Statements prepared by Tasou Associates and Planning Statements prepared by CgMs Ltd. This Heritage Statement has been written in support of these applications which seek to undertake the following works: Figure 2: A more detailed view of the buildings which are the subject of the applications. Those Planning and listed building applications for the conversion of the redundant numbered in this view are as follows: 1. The ‘Round House’, 2. The Engine House with its attached north stores into one residential unit and two B1/D1 units with associated Pump House 3. The ‘South Stores’ 4. The ’North Stores’. hard/soft landscaping.

2.0 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 LEGISLATION, NATIONAL AND STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE ______The current policy regime identifies, through the National Planning Policy asset and its surroundings evolve.’ It is further stated that elements of an When determining applications, LPAs should require applicants to describe Framework (NPPF), that applications should consider the potential impact of asset’s setting may make a positive or negative contribution to its significance the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution made by development on Heritage Assets. This term includes both designated heritage or affect the ability to appreciate it. their setting. The level of detail provided should be proportionate to the assets, which possess a statutory designation (for example listed buildings, significance of the asset and sufficient to understand the impact of the When determining Planning Applications the NPPF directs LPAs to apply the conservation areas, and registered parks and gardens), as well as proposal on this significance. presumption in favour of sustainable development; the ‘golden thread’ which is undesignated heritage assets. expected to run through their plan-making and decision-making. LPAs are also obliged to identify and assess the significance of an heritage Legislation asset and its setting that may be affected by a proposal. This assessment Section 7, ‘Requiring Good Design’ reinforces the importance of good design in should be taken into account when considering the impact upon the heritage Legislation regarding buildings and areas of special architectural and historic achieving sustainable development, by ensuring the creation of inclusive and high asset. interest is contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) quality places. This section of the NPPF affirms, in paragraph 58, the need for new Act 1990. The relevant legislation in this case extends from Section 16 of the design to function well and add to the quality of the area in which it is built; establish Paragraphs 132 to 136 consider the impact of a proposed development upon 1990 Act which states that in considering applications for listed building a strong sense of place; and respond to local character and history, reflecting the built the significance of a heritage asset. Paragraph 132 emphasises that great consent, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the identity of the surrounding area. weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and that the desirability of preserving the Listed Building or its setting or any features of more important asset, the greater this weight should be. It is asserted that The guidance provided in Section 12, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 66 further harm or loss to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. It Environment’, Paragraphs 126-141, relates to developments that have an affect upon states that special regard must be given by the authority in the exercise of is further noted within this paragraph that significance can be harmed or lost the historic environment. This provides the framework to which local authorities planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing Listed through the alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or by need to refer when setting out a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the Buildings and their setting. development within its setting. historic environment in their Local Plans. This is to be a positive strategy which Furthermore, Section 72 of the 1990 Act states that in exercising all planning includes provisions for heritage assets which are ‘most at risk through neglect, decay The NPPF follows the philosophy of PPS5 in moving away from narrow or functions, local planning authorities must have special regard to the or other threats.’ In doing this, LPAs are encouraged to recognise that heritage assets prescriptive attitudes towards development within the historic environment, desirability of preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas and their setting. are an irreplaceable resource and to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their towards intelligent, imaginative and sustainable approaches to managing significance. change. English Heritage has defined this new approach, now reflected in the

NPPF, as 'constructive conservation', defined as 'a positive and collaborative The NPPF advises local authorities to take into account the following points when National Planning Policy approach to conservation that focuses on actively managing change...the aim drawing up strategies for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic is to recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places, while National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published March 2012 environment: accommodating the changes necessary to ensure their continued use and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March  The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets enjoyment.' (Constructive Conservation in Practice, English Heritage, 2009). 2012 and is the document which sets out the Government’s planning policies and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF should be Strategic Policy  The wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that the approached as a piece of guidance in drawing up these plans. The London Plan (July 2011) conservation of the historic environment can bring; The NPPF provides definitions of terms which relate to the historic The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an  The desirability of new development in making a positive contribution to local environment in order to clarify the policy guidance given. For the purposes of integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the character and distinctiveness; this report, the following are important to note: development of the capital to 2031. Strategic polices relevant to the historic  Opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment  Heritage asset. This is ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or built environment include: to the character of a place. landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting Policy 7.4 (Local Character), which states that new development should have consideration in planning decisions’. These include designated heritage It is further advised that these points are to be taken into account when determining due regard to the existing form, scale and massing of its surrounding assets and assets identified by the local planning authority. planning applications. In addition, the positive contribution that conservation of buildings, and that any such development should ‘build on positive elements heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic that can contribute to establishing an enhanced character for the future  Setting of a heritage asset. This is defined as the ‘surroundings in which vitality, should also be considered. a heritage asset is experienced. It is not fixed and may change as the

2.1 NATIONAL AND STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE ______function of the area’. Guide, issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government in others.’ Thus the significance of any view into a Conservation Area should be collaboration with English Heritage and DCMS in 2010, remains valid, and provides assessed, as well as the impact of a development upon it. Policy 7.8 (Heritage Assets and Archaeology), which states that, London’s important guidelines on the interpretation of policy and the management of the heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered Considering setting and urban design, the document notes the importance of historic environment. historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, protecting ‘conscious design or fortuitous beauty’ within the townscape, and conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled it is clear that any such instances of such visual attractiveness should be monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage, 2008) identified as part of the planning process (p.10). that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of Conservation Principles outlines English Heritage's approach to the sustainable utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. management of the historic environment. While primarily intended to ensure Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Policy 7.9 (Heritage-led regeneration) states that where possible, heritage consistency in English Heritage’s own advice and guidance through the planning Management (English Heritage, March 2011) process, the document is commended to local authorities to ensure that all decisions assets should be ‘repaired, restored and put to a suitable and viable use that This piece of English Heritage guidance regarding Conservation Areas is about change affecting the historic environment are informed and sustainable. is consistent with their conservation’. It also notes that such schemes should designed principally for local authorities, to aid the designation and take into consideration the significance of these assets, with schemes taking In line with PPS5, the document emphasises the importance of understanding protection of such areas. It is worth referring to here, as it reinforces the into consideration the ability of these buildings to act as catalysts to significance as a means to properly assess the effects of change to heritage assets. importance of setting in preserving or enhancing such areas. It notes that in regeneration. The English Heritage guidance describes a range of heritage values which enable the defining the boundary of a Conservation Area, it should be decided whether significance of assets to be established systematically, with the four main 'heritage those elements that appear to contribute to the ‘setting’ of such an Area Guidance Documents values' being: evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. The Principles should in fact be included within it. emphasise that ‘considered change offers the potential to enhance and add value to National Planning Policy Guidance (2014) places…it is the means by which each generation aspires to enrich the historic Guidance has recently been adopted in order to support the NPPF. This does environment.’ (para. 25) not supersede PPS 5: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG, DCMS, English Heritage, 2010). It reiterates that conservation of heritage The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, October 2011) assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. It also states, conservation is an active process of maintenance and English Heritage’s newly published guidance on setting seeks to provide a firm definition for the term itself, as well as guidance to allow councils and applicants to managing change, requiring a flexible and thoughtful approach. assess the impact of developments upon the settings of heritage assets. Key elements of the guidance relate to assessing harm. It states an important consideration should be whether the proposed works adversely affect a key The document, it should be noted, supports PPS5’s definition of setting, describing it element of the heritage asset’s special architectural or historic interest. as, ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed Adding, it is the degree of harm rather than the scale of development that is and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.’ (p. 2) Setting is also to be assessed. The level of ‘substantial harm’ is stated to be a high bar, that described as being a separate term to curtilage, character and context; while it is may not arise in many cases. Essentially, whether a proposal causes largely a visual term, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced, can substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to also be affected by noise, vibration, odour and other factors (p.4). the circumstances of the case and the NPPF. Importantly, it is stated harm The document follows the existing terminology of PPS5, and therefore considers may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting. ‘heritage assets’ to include Conservation Areas. Indeed, the document explicitly notes that townscapes, including such designated Areas ‘have a setting of their own’, PPS 5: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (Communities and despite their size and internal variation. Local Government, English Heritage, DCMS, March 2010) In terms of ‘views’, the document notes that while different views (including into and Guidance is currently being drafted in order to support the recently published out of a conservation area) may contribute to the significance of a heritage asset, NPPF. In the interim period, PPS 5: Historic Environment Planning Practice ‘some views may contribute more to the understanding of a heritage asset than

2.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE ______

Islington’s Local Development Framework (LDF) is currently under and distinctiveness’ will be encouraged. In terms of conservation areas, it states that development. While the Core Strategy has been adopted, other key new developments should preserve or enhance their special character and documentation, including the Development Policies document, has not yet appearance. For listed buildings, it is stated that there is a presumption in favour of been adopted, and as such, older policy, including the Unitary Development their retention, preservation and enhancement. It is stated that proposals to repair, Plan (2002) still remains in force. alter or extend a listed building which harm its significance will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) listed building will be strongly resisted.

Adopted on 17 February 2011, the Core Strategy forms a central part of the Policy DM2.5 (Landmarks) follows on from Policy D18 of the UDP, and notes the emerging Local Development Framework, providing strategic policies for the importance of preserving views of certain identified local landmarks, including the Borough for the period between 2011 and 2025. Prior to the adoption of the Engine House and Pump House at New River Head. other documents making up the LDF, certain policies from the Islington Unitary Development Plan have been saved to provide more specific policy CA2: Conservation Area Guidance for New River Conservation Area and guidance. Otherwise, the Core Strategy’s single, strategic historic Islington contains 40 Conservation Areas, all of which are provided with ‘Design environment policy covers the Borough’s policy approach to built heritage. Guidelines’. The New River Conservation Area, first approved in November 1968, and Policy CS9 (Protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic last amended in July 2005, is covered by Design Guidelines document CA2. environment) notes the importance of high quality architecture and urban The document provides a series of localised and specific sub-policies, to guide the design in enhancing and protecting the Borough’s historic environment. It council’s approach to the preservation of this specific Conservation Area. Most states that the preservation of historic fabric will be sought, with new importantly, it identifies the importance of retaining all the listed, locally listed, buildings meeting existing scales, designs, and layouts. There is a particular Victorian and Georgian properties within the Conservation Area; notes a presumption focus on ensuring the protection of designated and undesignated heritage in favour of the use of traditional or sympathetic materials in extensions or assets, including listed buildings and conservation areas. adaptations of existing buildings; states a preference for the retention of existing railings and boundary treatments, with new railings to be painted black and agreed as Development Management Policies (June 2013) being suitable for the area; and states that it will seek the enhancement of open Islington’s Development Management Policies DPD underwent final draft spaces and paving. consultation between October and December 2011, and was subsequently adopted in June 2013. It provides detailed development management New River Head and Claremont Square Planning Brief (2013) policies, to act alongside the strategic policies within the Core Strategy. Reference is made in the Conservation Area Design Guidelines document to a Policy DM2.1 (Design) states that all new developments should be of a high planning brief having been approved for the area comprising New River Head and quality, incorporate inclusive design principles and make a positive Claremont Square. The version of the brief referred to in within this documentation, contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area, based upon dating to 1999, has been readily accessible. A new Planning Brief was adopted by the an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. These London Borough of Islington in September 2013. contexts, particularly in terms of historic elements, should be laid out through The Brief provides an outline of the site and its significance, and seeks to guide future documentation accompanying applications. Particular care should be taken in development within the New River Head site by setting out the relevant planning sensitive locations, such as those incorporating heritage assets. policies relating to the site, as well as providing development guidelines for the site. Policy DM2.3 (Heritage) states that the Council will seek to preserve the While the London Borough of Islington had intended the Brief to be a material protection and enhancement of its historic environment; it states that consideration in the determination of future applications for the site, it was ‘development that makes a positive contribution to Islington’s local character subsequently determined by the Inspector at the 2014 hearing that only limited weight should be afforded to the document.

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC APPRAISAL 3.1 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT ______At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the provision of fresh water for drinking and cleaning in London was becoming an increasingly pressing issue, discussed in Parliament and at Court. The population of London had grown from 120,000 in 1550 to 250,000 in 1600, and this speed and scale of growth led, inevitably, to insanitary conditions. Hugh Myddelton, a London MP, offered to take control of a project to provide a new, clean watercourse into the metropolis, using sources from Ware, in Hertfordshire. It has been described by the Survey of London as ‘a civil engineering achievement vital to the development of the metropolis’. The work, undertaken over the course of over four years, involved the construction of a 40 mile long canal, three metres wide, and a metre deep, which took the water as far as Islington, then a small and fairly isolated community, in a hilly area north of London. From there, wooden pipes, of hollowed elm logs, carried the water into the city. The New River Head site was used, as a location higher than London itself, to provide a ‘head’, and thus pressurise the water flow. Figure 5: 1914 photograph, taken while the Engine House was still in use, and retained its As originally constructed, the site at New River Head consisted of a round chimney. The filtering beds of the New River Head pumping plant are in the foreground. ‘pond’ (based on an existing duck pond) for holding water prior to its Figure 3: Engraving after Hollar, made in 1665. Shows the 1612 Water House and Round Pond, with the still- distribution, and a ‘Water House’ built around 1612 to control the flow of extant, medieval St Paul’s Cathedral in the background. water; it was later converted into the residence of the New River Company’s engineer. Some new building followed later in the seventeenth century, but Wenceslas Hollar’s engraving of 1665 demonstrates that it remained a relatively sparse site for a long period. Indeed, it wasn’t until the early 1700s that building work began in earnest, with the construction of a new windmill and ‘Upper Pond’ to increase the pressure and flow of the water into London, in line with an increase in the city’s population. The windmill was quickly found to be inadequate, and was replaced by a horse gin; a 1730 painting (figure 4) shows the windmill and horse gin complex, standing opposite the extended and refurbished Water House of 1612. The industrial age came to the New River Head in 1768, with the introduction of a ‘fire engine’, an early type of steam engine, held in the Engine House. The complex developed further over the following century and a half, and saw incremental additions to the site to meet increasing demands, and technological developments.

Ultimately, the site was taken over by the Metropolitan Water Board in 1904, the ponds were covered over, and the works were finally electrified in 1950.

Figure 4: 1730 painting, showing the Windmill and horse gin complex in the foreground, with the Water Figure 6: 1970s photograph, showing the filled-in Outward Pond (later Filtering Beds), and the House to its left, and new St Paul’s Cathedral and the City of London in the background. Engine House with its chimney removed. Note that the complex of buildings connecting the Engine House to the remains of the Windmill still remain.

3.2 HISTORIC MAP PROGRESSION ______

Figure 7: Extract from John Rocque’s 1746 map, showing the New River Head site, prior to the Figure 9: Extract from Richard Horwood’s Third Edition map of 1813. It shows further development along Figure 11: 1900 plan of the site, produced by the New River Company, and providing detail of the erection of the Engine and Pump Houses of 1767, and still standing in fields north of London itself. the road to Islington (now Goswell Road). The New River Head site was still sparsely occupied at this point, whole New River Head site, including the development site, occupied by a small collection of but the Engine House, and some surrounding stores, are shown. connected stores surrounding the main Engine House, Pump House and Round House complex.

Figure 8: 1763 plan of the New River Head site, produced shortly before the construction of the Figure 10: 1874 Ordnance Survey map. It shows the density of development surrounding the site by this Figure 12: Ordnance Survey map of 1913-22. It can be seen that by this point, development to the Engine House. It thus marks the ’Mill’ as the main building in this part of the site; the windmill had point. The development site includes a group of buildings focused on the Engine House, connected to the south of the site had impinged upon the former site of the Round Pond, with the development been disused at this point, and was now horse-powered . Visible on this map is the ‘New’ or former windmill. site largely unchanged. Upper Pond, associated with the mill, and later the Engine House.

3.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: ENGINE HOUSE, BOILER HOUSE AND SOUTH STORES ______The Engine House, with its adjoining Pump House and Boiler House, and stores, is a building which provides evidence of the evolving demands of water provision in London. It was begun in 1768, and replaced a horse gin which, as discussed above, had provided the power necessary to pump water from the Round Pond to the Upper Pond since 1720. This was no longer sufficient to meet demand, however, and in 1766, the renowned civil engineer John Smeaton was asked by the New River Company to make proposals for improving the pumping system. He inspected the site in the same year to establish possible methods of improving the way water was pumped to the Upper Pond, comparing the current horse powered engine (powered by four horses) with three alternative power sources, water, wind and steam. He promptly recommended a ‘fire engine’, to more efficiently provide the same level of water flow as the current horse-powered system. A ‘fire engine’ was an atmospheric engine, a precursor to the steam engine, and Smeaton’s was based upon Thomas Newcomen’s engine of 1712.

The pumping system having been chosen, it was recognised that the engine required housing, and a sturdy, brick-built, heavily buttressed structure was Figure 13: The Engine House as it stands today, with visible elements from the eighteenth, nineteenth and constructed (figure 14), to the east of the existing windmill, under the twentieth centuries. The only major visible change from its complete, in-use form is the loss of the 110 feet tall, nineteenth century chimney stack, demolished in 1954. supervision of Robert Mylne, who had become joint engineer in 1767 with the existing engineer, Henry Mill. Smeaton and Milne’s design, externally, was simple, with minimal detailing, and round headed windows, while internally, it had two chambers: one, to the south, held the engine’s cylinder, while a smaller room to the north held the boilers.

By 1774, it was clear that the engine was not working as efficiently as expected, and this, coupled with the decision by the New River Company and company surveyor Robert Mylne to improve the water supply to the Upper Pond in 1776 led to the construction of an underground overshot waterwheel by 1779, south east of the former windmill and worked by water from the lower pond; this was used until c.1828-50.Nonetheless, the Engine House remained in use, and in 1782 The New River Company commissioned the Figure 15: Elevations, taken from the Survey of London for North Clerkenwell and Pentonville, Birmingham manufacturer Matthew Boulton (1728-1809) for a new engine to showing the 1768 Engine House (top left) as compared to the building as it appeared by 1849, work alongside the existing one. An engine designed to a patent of Boulton’s which the original building substantially extended. The extent, and previous location of the partner James Watt (1728-1809) was provided and installed in 1786, a double original Engine House is shown superimposed over the building’s 1849 appearance. This elevation, -acting parallel motion engine with a 32” cylinder and 8ft stroke. It proved to minus the chimney, gives a strong indication of how the building appears today. be three times as efficient as that designed by Smeaton, which became redundant by 1792.

Figure 14: Elevations of the original Engine House, as constructed in 1768. This building provides the core of the remaining structure, which is mostly nineteenth century in appearance. See figure 15 for a comparison.

3.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: ENGINE HOUSE, BOILER HOUSE AND SOUTH STORES ______The new Boulton and Watt engine was housed in a western extension of the engine house (1786), designed by Robert Mylne. Like the original building, the extension was also designed with buttresses which are still visible on the west side of the building. In 1792-3 correspondence with Watt and Boulton detailed requirements and estimates for a second, occasional parallel motion engine, with a 36” cylinder, 8ft stroke and wooden beam, to be annexed to the current building, to be housed in ‘an addition to the present building with a separate well and sewer.’ This extension (1793) was on the eastern side.

In 1794-5 Robert Mylne reworked and unified the engine house, adding symmetrical curved walls from the north. Smeaton’s central element was refitted with a high level cistern in the north chamber and a staircase in the south chamber, lit by a subsequently blocked south opening. The south wall of the engine house extensions supported two chimneys. Symmetrical curved walls were also added to the lower boiler house to the south, supplemented by a lean-to boiler house added to the east in 1796-7.

By the 1800s, increasing demand made even these additions and improvements obsolete, and between 1810 and 1817, both of the existing Figure 17: Engraving of Smeaton and Mylne’s Engine House, made in 1780, when the building engines were replaced by more powerful single acting parallel motion ones, was newly built. Compare to figures 14 and 15. Note also the former windmill, to the right, at the point in its life when it stood as a two-storey, castellated structure. also by Boulton and Watt. At the same time, the north wall, erected in 1785- 6, and the staircases of 1785 and 1794-6 were removed. The southern chamber of Smeaton and Mylne’s original building thus became the basis of a new, tapered brick chimney, 110 feet tall. Further works, including the removal of two existing chimney stacks, and the enlargement of the two boiler houses, can be ascribed to William Chadwell Mylne, who had taken over for his father as surveyor to the New River Company in 1811. Figure 16: Plan from the Survey of London showing the evolution of the Engine House, this plan illustrates that while the building retains the original fabric of Smeaton’s Engine House, it is thoroughly concealed within the predominantly nineteenth century structure visible today.

Figure 18: Engraving of Smeaton and Mylne’s Engine House, made in 1780, when the building was newly built. Compare to figures 14 and 15. Note also the former windmill, to the right, at the point in its life when it stood as a two-storey, castellated structure.

3.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: ENGINE HOUSE, BOILER HOUSE AND SOUTH STORES ______Further improvements were made to the engine house in the 1840s, when that substantial changes have taken place to this building since its the Boulton and Watt engines were reconfigured to work with new cylindrical construction. This is relevant, first and foremost, in that while the building boilers installed in 1845-7 and 1848-9, each providing 150hp. A new chimney clearly contains the remnants of Smeaton’s 1768 Engine House, these are (now largely demolished) was integrated into the building around this time, not easy to read within the structure as it currently stands. In essence, this on the site of a former stairwell (figure 17)Cast iron windows were installed building is appreciable as a mid-nineteenth century engine house, a large and both boiler houses were enlarged, incorporating earlier brick work to the utilitarian structure, relatively undistinguished architecturally, but with an south. Additions to the building of a north east porch, a staircase tower to the industrial aesthetic that provides it with some significance. A number of west and a 7-bay coal store wing (The South Stores) to the east completed alterations have taken place to the building since its construction which have the building phase. A cast iron staircase was supplied by Henry and Martin De subsumed the earlier, more significant stages of its development. Significant La Garde Grissell, Regents Canal Ironworks, leading manufacturers of losses include the demolition of its substantial brick chimney, in 1954, the structural ironwork from c.1841. insertion of a solid concrete floor into the House’s main space around 1957 and the total loss of its internal machinery, particularly its engines, boilers According to the Survey of London, elements from this phase survive and pumps, following the electrification of the site. Finally, the continuing relatively unaltered, including pocketed cast iron girders which carried the use of the site by Thames Water into the late twentieth century has resulted ends of floor beams in the west engine house, and I-section girders in the in continuous repainting and adaptation, further stripping out evidence of its north chamber of the 1768 building which supported cistern or condensation historic appearance and usage. tanks for preventing steam loss, under a tall iron cylinder on an octagonal brick base behind the chimney. It is accepted that this is a building of national importance, but it is vital to see that it does not possess any of its original machinery and internal fittings, The engines were replaced again in 1897-8 and 1901-3, with the eastern one Figure 19: Watercolour of the engine house from the early twentieth century, showing the building as it and lacks the completeness or architectural virtuosity that one might expect being replaced by a triple expansion engine of 65 hp by James Simpson & Co. stood at this point, still in use, and retaining its tall, tapered chimney. of a highly significant structure. Its historic importance is also recognised, but of London and the western by a 120hp model by Yates and Thom Ltd. of this should be tempered with a recognition of the fact that this building has Blackburn. Some of the windows were also renewed at this time with fixed been heavily altered, and therefore that the extent to which the earlier, wrought iron frames and the engine house’s outer bays may have been more significant stages of its development can therefore be appreciated is reroofed. By 1903 the engine house comprised an engine, boiler and store somewhat limited. rooms, and coal stores.

The replacement of steam power with electricity in 1950 led to the removal of the engines, and an insertion of a concrete floor c.1957. The chimney was removed in 1954. The east boiler house has since been used as a garage and to house generators, with alterations in 1983-5. Since 2003 the south boiler house has been used as a pump house, holding two Siemens pumps to serve the London Ring Main.

In the later nineteenth century a long low workshop range was built in phases just north of the engine house. The western section was completed by 1874, according to historic map evidence, with that to the east added at some point in the 1880s.

Engine House: Summary of Significance Figure 20: 1970s view of the site, following the demolition of the chimney, and showing the range of buildings between the Engine House and the Windmill Base that was demolished around this time. This summary of the development of the Engine House has demonstrated

3.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: ENGINE HOUSE, BOILER HOUSE AND SOUTH STORES ______Pump House (Or Boiler House)

The Boiler House was constructed around 1849, following alterations to the machinery in use within the Engine House. It appears to have been, from the beginning, a simple, open structure, largely top-lit through a set of skylights, visible on historic photographs, (for example figures 22 and 23), but now lost. Four large grilles were inserted into the southern façade of the building, probably in the twentieth century, while a number of insertions of a similar date can be found on the northern façade.

It is important to understand this building as forming a part of the site that was in constant use between its construction in 1849 and the late twentieth century, and this is particularly evident within the building’s interior. As figure 24 illustrates, the interior is subdivided by a number of later additions, large walls, racks for now-removed plant, and plant rooms of various types. It is difficult to read the building’s original appearance and function, while these later, ad hoc additions will have inevitably lead to the loss of original fabric. It Figure 21: 1914 View of the Round Pond, Boiler House and South Stores, with the lean to that once stood Figure 23: View of the interior of the Boiler House, showing the later additions to its internal is therefore considered to be a much-altered building of limited interest, along the southern side of the South Stores clearly visible. The skylights on the Boiler House and South Stores fabric; these give some sense of its changing use. are also visible here. lacking in completeness and architectural quality.

South Stores

The South Stores, developed in the 1840s alongside the Boiler House, were originally designed for the storage of coal for the neighbouring beam engines. This is a simple brick structure, originally constructed with large, arched openings, to allow access to the stores themselves. An extremely simple building type, with some aesthetic interest as a result of their simple, industrial design, this building has undergone a high level of alteration since its construction. In particular, these original arches have bricked in, with some windows inserted, and for much of the twentieth century, a lean-to was attached to their south façade, as can be seen in figure 21. Internally, the building has been subdivided below its roof trusses following the replacement of the site’s beam engines with electric pumps; these insertions (see figure 25), are rather ad hoc, and detract from the appearance, significance and legibility of the internal spaces.

It is considered that the contribution of this structure to the overall group is limited, and that while it does, to an extent, allow the development and evolution of the site to be read, this is undermined by the heavily altered state of the building.

Figure 22: 1954 view of the Boiler House and Engine House; heavily covered in vines, and with rooflights Figure 24: Internal view of the South Stores, with one of the new walls inserted in 1950 in again visible, its appearance has changed rather since this point. association with the building’s conversion t o garages.

3.3 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: ENGINE HOUSE, BOILER HOUSE AND SOUTH STORES ______Historic Development of Engine House, Boiler House and South Stores: Thames Water Drawings

It has been possible to better understand the development of the site in the twentieth century following access to detailed drawings from Thames Water’s archives. These drawings have made it possible to better understand the historic use and conversion of the Boiler House and South Stores in particular. As will be seen, it has been concluded that the boiler house, which historically contained two large boilers, was converted to a garage around 1950, while at the same time, the conversion of the site to electric pumping also resulted in the demolition of a lean-to to the south of the South Stores, the bricking in of the existing open arches, the insertion of a new raised floor and alterations to the internal plan form, in order to convert the building to use as garages.

Figure 26: 1950 drawing showing the proposed removal of the boilers and steam engines from this part of Figure 28: 1950 drawing associated with the conversion of the Coal Stores. This image shows the the site. Note the identification of ‘coal bays’ within the south stores. This image shows the arches on the proposed demolition of the southern lean-to and identifies that the ’semi circular openings’ on the southern side of the Coal Stores as being open to the lean-to to the south. southern façade of the Stores were bricked up at this point.

Figure 25: Drawing dated to 1851, and showing the ground floor of the Engine House and Boiler Figure 27: Later drawing showing that at some point after 1950, the Boiler House was in use as a garage, and Figure 29: Further 1950 drawing indicating that the bricking up of the southern arches (and the House shortly after the expansion of the site in the late 1840s. Note the use of the Boiler House to the current insertions into the structure are, therefore, a relatively recent addition. The Pump House, to the raising of the floor), was undertaken at this point., alongside the removal of the lean to on the hold two of four large boilers on the site. south of the Engine House, remains in use, with the Engine House's ground floor now largely redundant. building’s southern elevation, and the bricking up of its arches.

3.4 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: NORTH STORES (CURTILAGE LISTED) ______

The North Stores are a set of simple buildings of late nineteenth century date. As can be seen from a comparison between figures 32, 33 and 34, the first part of the Stores, that at the western end, was constructed around the middle of the nineteenth century, while the eastern section, marked by a crank in the building’s plan, was constructed between 1874 and 1900.

Historic photographs, particularly one from around 1900 (figure 26), indicates that historically, the building’s southern facade had a large number of garage- like doors, which provided easy access for vehicles carrying coal and other materials. The positions of these entrances are still discernible on this façade, but as figure 27 indicates, many of these have been filled in, and replaced by windows and doors, suggesting the evolution of the building from a set of stores to being used as workshops. There is some evidence, for example, that the narrow gauge tracks that ran through the site, and may have been for a small steam engine, or a tracked crane, ran into these stores. This presumably increased the efficiency with which these spaces could be used for storage; it is difficult to date this development.

The building has thus undergone a substantial degree of change since its Figure 30: View from around 1900, showing the North Stores with a number of large openings along their Figure 32: Interior of the eastern end of the North Stores. Note the rails within the floor, and southern sides. One gets a sense of the usage of the site from this image, with raw materials, coal and wood, original construction. The building, furthermore, fell into a parlous state over modern roof trusses and boarding. being scattered around. the course of the Twentieth Century, and therefore exhibit, internally, a number of relatively recent alterations to the fabric which further detract from its significance. Most notably, these can be discerned at roof level, where recent urgent works have resulted in the replacement of a number of relatively historic roof trusses and boarding with modern, softwood elements.

The significance of the North Stores therefore largely derives from its contribution to the wider group value of this group of buildings. This contribution is relatively limited given its plain appearance, high degree of alteration and extremely simple design. It serves an ancillary role, subservient to the Engine House, Boiler House and South Stores, and has thus historically been treated as curtilage listed. It is considered that this structure has very limited importance within the site, and contributes little to wider understandings of the operation and development of the New River Head site.

Figure 31: The North Stores today. When compared with figure 26, it is possible to see the extent to which Figure 33: Further internal view of the North Stores, looking west. the Stores have been altered since their construction.

3.5 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: REMAINS OF WINDMILL ______

Currently standing as a round, single storey, brick building, with a conical plain tiled roof topped with a central cupola, the building now frequently described as ‘The Round House’ is all that remains of one of the earliest extant buildings to be built on the New River Site, an example of the approach to water pumping just prior to the advent of steam power. It is the base of a large windmill, constructed in 1708, just four years before the first complete example of the ’Newcomen Engine’, the world’s first device to harness steam power for mechanical work, was constructed.

In 1704, a study had been undertaken by the Reverend John Lowthorp, a fellow of The Royal Society, who advised a waterwheel rather than a Figure 36: View of New River Head from the south, made in 1730-1 by Bernard Lens. Showing the windmill. In 1707, however, the water-supply engineer George Scorogold was recently disused windmill, with the square Horse Gin building which superseded it standing approached by the Company, who devised an experimental and ultimately adjacent. The elaborate building to the right is the Water House of 1612. expensive scheme. Scorogold’s scheme was for a windmill and Upper Pond, to provide a higher head of water, and enable the New River Company to improve supply to the expanding West End and also potentially to Islington. The windmill was thus erected alongside the Upper Pond in 1707-8, and was Figure 34: The Round House, the remains of a windmill first constructed in 1708, as it appears today. designed to pump water from the Round Pond uphill to the Upper Pond.

It was effectively an engineering experiment, being a tapering round brick tower, a rare form at the time, and was originally powered by six sails (four was the usual number), powering four pumps. An integral horse gin provided power when wind was scarce. However, this proved inefficient, especially as its base, at just under 23ft in diameter, was insufficient to support the horse gin. It was therefore supplemented by and then superseded by a horse mill, a low square structure (c.1720) adjoining the windmill to the south east; the windmill was abandoned in the same year when the sails were removed following storm damage.

Having been in use for just over a decade, the windmill was thus removed from service. Its tower was ultimately reduced to two storeys at some point around 1770, and was castellated, before it was further reduced to a relative stump in the mid-nineteenth century to function as a work yard store. Into the late twentieth century, the windmill was connected to the Engine House and Pump House by a low range of brick store buildings, but these were then demolished, leaving the building as a single, stand-alone structure.

Figure 37: The Round House as it appeared in the mid-twentieth century, prior to the demolition of Figure 35: Mid-eighteenth century view of the windmill and Horse Gin house, with the windmill’s sails the buildings attaching it to the Engine House. removed, but prior to the decision, in 1770, to lower its height, and castellate its parapet.

3.6 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: NEW RIVER CONSERVATION AREA ______

The New River Conservation Area was first designated in November 1968, and last amended in July 2005. It is noted by the Council, in Conservation Area Design Guidelines: CA2 New River Conservation Area as being one of the largest in the Borough, and ‘of outstanding importance’. It is focused, by and large, on the New River Head site, but also takes into account a number of other features, including Sadler’s Wells theatre, to the east of New River Head, and Claremont Square, which was developed on the site of the former ’Upper Pond’ reservoir; beyond this, the Conservation Area is largely noted as being made up of late eighteenth and nineteenth century housing, built by a combination of the New River Company, the Brewers’ Company, and the Lloyd Baker Estate. It should be noted that the current Council-authored documentation for the Conservation Area does not include a Character Appraisal, although Islington note, through their website, that they are, currently in the process of updating their records of each area in a general Conservation Area Review, and will then be writing a comprehensive Conservation Area Character Appraisal for each area over the next few years. Figure 39: River Street, a typical example of a street in the New River Conservation Area; broad, formal, with some tree cover, and Georgian or Regency houses of stucco and stock brick. The character of the area is largely determined by the presence of New River Head, which provides a central area of landmark buildings and open space, and also, historically, has a link to much of the Area’s housing. As noted above, the New River Company, who operated the Head, built a good deal of housing in the immediate area to house its employees. Indeed, most of the housing is fine, of the standard sort found across London; Classical proportions and terracing predominate, with the majority of the remaining buildings in the Conservation Area being of Stock Brick, detailed with stucco. Spatially, the generous streets of the Conservation Area are broken up by a succession of fine Regency and Victorian spaces, such as Percy Circus, Figure 38: The boundary of the New River Conservation Area, with the broad location of the development Myddelton Square, and Claremont Square, an unusual space as a result of the site indicated. raised reservoir, formerly Upper Pond, at its centre.

Around New River Head itself, the substantial demolition and redevelopment that has followed its modernisation in the middle of the twentieth century has led to the introduction of a number of new structures, for example the Nautilus Building. The character of this part of the Conservation Area is predominantly of modern structures and historic elements interspersed within landscaped grounds. Figure 40: The former New River Head site, including the early twentieth century Water Offices to

the left, the Engine House to the rear, and the modern Nautilus Building to the right, with informal garden, including lawns, planted areas and ponds, reflecting the historic layout of the site.

4.0 PROPOSALS AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT 4.1 PROPOSALS ______The following pages will assess together the impacts of proposals for the Again, common works are to be carried out within the west and east blocks which North Stores, a building which is considered to be curtilage listed by virtue of include the following: its operational connection to the Grade II listed building known as ’Former  Existing openings are to be retained and adapted through the insertion of Engine House, boiler houses and coal stores’, to the south. As noted above, new windows and doors, whilst new insertions will be sensitively the site of the New River Head contributes to an understanding of the introduced in appropriate materials; historical development of the area and the character of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, the listed buildings and curtilage listed buildings retain  New conservation skylights will be introduced to each of the north stores aesthetic and historic value upon the sites. Each proposal seeks to better buildings; reveal these heritage values and secure them in an appropriate use through a  Part of the north stores is to remain largely clear to enable access for scheme of works which have been drawn up with minimal intrusion to the Thames Water and will provide the necessary refuse and cycle storage fabric of the assets. area;

These proposals have been drawn up in response to those comments  The existing stone setts which currently provide landscaping around the contained within the Inspector’s letter dated 28 Februrary 2014 and seek to North stores are to be retained and made good where necessary, whilst provide a well-considered scheme with an emphasis on retaining the historic the cobbled areas currently obscured by concrete and tarmac are to be fabric of all the buildings whilst securing them in a viable use for their future. revealed and other areas laid in a manner to match the existing; The proposals are confined almost exclusively within the existing structures,  Access at the north of the site will be provided by a new metal gate from with minimal works proposed for the external network of yards and alleyways Myddleton Passage. which contribute to the setting of the listed and curtilage listed structures. The works have also considered the wider setting of the buildings and their historical, communal and evidential value beyond the sites in accordance with the relevant national and local policies.

While a full schedule of works is included within the Design and Access and Planning Statements included with the submissions, the proposed works can be summarised in the following paragraphs. There is some overlap between the works proposed as part of each application:

The ‘North Stores’ which run along the northern boundary of the site are to be renovated to provide a mixture of B1/D1 office/community space, and residential accommodation. The works for these buildings seeks to provide the following:

 Two units for B1/D1 office/community use within the eastern block. The alterations within this block are very minimal and will preserve the proportions of the existing space;

 One unit of residential accommodation in the form of a studio accompanied by a private garden enclosed by a timber fence within the west block.

4.2 INSPECTOR’S DECISION: DECEMBER 2013 APPEAL ______

As noted above, the current applications have been brought forward use terms related, therefore, to the Boiler House, Coal (or South) Stores, and part of Boiler House and South Stores. The Inspector concluded that the proposed following the receipt of a decision relating to four appeals, discussed as an the North Stores. This matter was addressed by the Inspector, with reference to both works would, as a whole, even when seen cumulatively, cause less than informal hearing in December 2013. While the following pages provide a the 2013 Planning Brief and the national and local policy context relating to historic substantial harm to the listed buildings within the site, and to the New River more detailed building-by-building assessment of the Inspector’s assessment buildings, and the importance of identifying ‘viable uses consistent with their Head Conservation Area. of the proposed works, this page provides an overall summary of the conservation’. It can be readily recognised that the original and historic uses of these Public Benefits Inspector’s decision, given that it should provide a baseline for the buildings (for, or in conjunction with, water pumping), are no longer viable, and that preparation and assessment of applications relating to the site. therefore an alternative use for these buildings should be identified. While it was One of the matters that could be considered to represent a public benefit noted that the Council had an ’aspiration’ that part of the site would be used as a was the provision of access to the site. It was noted that at present, access The Inspector’s approach can be summarised as being based on the balance heritage centre related to the site’s history as a water pumping site, it was noted by to the site by the general public, with this providing, in the Inspector’s view, to be made between the harm to the significance of the listed buildings on the Inspector that on the basis that this aspiration had no basis in the Development a relevant baseline for assessing the provision of public benefits. While it site and the surrounding Conservation Area that he considered would arise as Plan, there was no policy basis to support this use at the expense of others. was noted that the provision of public access by the scheme would have to a result of the applications, and the public and heritage benefits that would be considered in the light of potential privacy issues associated with the arise as a result of the scheme. He was in agreement with the previous The view taken by the Council and the Heritage of London Trust that the quantity of provision of residential dwellings within the site, it was equally noted that Inspector that the harm arising from the proposed works would, as a whole, space offered by the current scheme for heritage uses would preclude their viability alternative schemes, particularly that brought forward by the Heritage of be ‘less than substantial’, and that therefore paragraph 134 of the NPPF was dismissed by the Inspector, and it was therefore suggested that both heritage London Trust (HOLT) involved the provision of substantial tenanted studio would be invoked, and ‘less than substantial benefits’ would therefore need and residential uses could be accommodated on the site without harm to the viability space in an effort to make that scheme viable. As such, it was not to be demonstrated. It was identified by the Inspector that the previous or operation of either. He concluded that while the proposed residential and B1/D1 considered that public assess would be unacceptable or harmful in terms of scheme was refused at appeal ‘because of its effects on the southern uses proposed for the site may preclude a potential heritage use, this was not a private amenity, and could therefore be considered as part of the elevations of the Boiler House and what I have termed the Coal Store (but reason to refuse consent for the proposed scheme, given that the Planning Brief was consideration of public benefits. which is called the South Stores in those decisions). Had other matters not a material consideration of sufficient weight to be considered. Thus, while very limited weight was given to the offer, within the discussed in those decisions caused harm that was not outweighed by the Harm public benefits it is reasonable to assume they too would have been cited in undertaking, to provide some B1/D1 space in the Windmill Base or Engine that concluding paragraph.’ The Inspector’s ultimate approach to the determination of these appeals lay in the House to a heritage organisation, more weight was given to public access balance to be made between the harm to the significance of the listed buildings on that, in addition to heritage interpretation, promoted non-car use, and It should be noted that while recent appeal cases have reinforced the site and the surrounding Conservation Area that he considered would arise as a result integrated the proposed scheme into the wider community. ‘substantial weight’ that is required to be placed upon the conservation of of the applications, and the public and heritage benefits that would arise as a result heritage assets when undertaking this balancing exercise, the derivation of all of the scheme (discussed below). He was in agreement with the previous Inspector historic environment policy from section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings that the harm arising from the proposed works would, as a whole, be ‘less than and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ensures that this has always been the case. substantial’, and that therefore paragraph 135 of the NPPF would be invoked, and It is therefore considered that recent appeal decisions have not materially ‘less than substantial benefits’ would therefore need to be demonstrated. It was changed the nature of this assessment. identified by the Inspector that the previous scheme was refused at appeal ‘because The following summary of the Inspector’s decision should, in our view, of its effects on the southern elevations of the Boiler House and what I have termed provide the context for the Council’s consideration of the current scheme, the Coal Store (but which is called the South Stores in those decisions). Had other which, as a whole, takes a more sensitive approach to the buildings within the matters discussed in those decisions caused harm that was not outweighed by the site; where the inspector considered that the appeal scheme was acceptable, public benefits it is reasonable to assume they too would have been cited in that no changes have been made to these works. concluding paragraph.’

Use While the detailed impacts identified by the Inspector are discussed in more detail in the following section, he concluded, as a whole, that there would be no harm to the It should be noted that in relation to the first floor of the Engine House, North Stores and Windmill Base, and less than substantial harm to the Engine House, Windmill Base and part of the North Stores, no concern was raised by the Council over the acceptability of B1 and/or D1 uses. The Council’s concerns in

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ______

North Stores

The North Stores, having already been identified as the range which retains the least significance upon the site of the former New River Head, are nonetheless subject to curtilage listing owing to their historic, functional relationship to the Engine House. The mix of uses to be introduced within this store range and the ‘light touch’ treatment proposed by the previous application were considered in a favourable light by the Inspector, and these aspects remain as part of the current proposals.

The north stores are essentially of two parts, built at two separate points in the late nineteenth century. The western section will be converted to provide a new studio apartment, whilst the existing long, open space of the eastern part is proposed for conversion as B1/D1 office/community space. The division of this eastern block will be undertaken sympathetically through the insertion of a party wall. Other, minimal insertions are to be undertaken in order to improve the access and lighting provisions within the store range. Part of the north stores is to remain largely unaltered in order to enable Figure 45: The North Stores, as they currently appear, in a state of disrepair. Areas of the cobbled setts have access for Thames Water and will provide the necessary refuse and cycle been tarmacked or concreted over as evident in the foreground of this photograph. storage area for the mixed uses contained within this range.

Throughout these works, the focus remains on the retention of the rhythm and appearance of the existing architectural fabric in order to preserve its utilitarian character and contribution to views within and into the application sites along with the other identified listed buildings. The proposed interventions are felt to be justified by the need to return the building to use and will not cause significant harm to the historic value of the curtilage listed structure and will have no impact upon the historic group or character of the Conservation Area. These proposals thus ensure that the North Stores continue to contribute to the character of the immediate area whilst Figure 46: The proposed southern elevation of the North Stores. The existing openings are to be retained and refurbished in order to retain the aesthetic and character of this simple industrial range. providing viable and attractive spaces to live and work in accordance with Policies CS9, D4, DM1 and DM3.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

______

This Heritage Statement has been prepared by CgMs on behalf of Turnhold need to introduce any physical works that might lead to harm to these buildings. (Islington) Ltd in support of the applications for Listed Building Consent and Robust in form, and predominantly significant for their wider contribution to Planning Permission for the North Stores, within the site known as Land to understandings of the development of the New River Head, the North Stores are the rear of 28 Amwell Street. It has been prepared to support revised ultimately capable of withstanding some alteration without harm to their applications for the site, which have been brought forward following the significance. receipt of a decision from the Planning Inspectorate relating to the refusal of The proposals have been assessed against the relevant national, local and strategic application references P2013/0370/FUL and P2013/0415/LBC. planning policies concerning design, conservation and development affecting listed This report has outlined the relevant national, regional and local planning buildings and conservation areas. It has been found that these proposals will ensure policy framework concerning conservation, defined as 'the process of the preservation of the North Stores’ significance, while also ensuring their managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best preservation in use into the future; it will also ensure the continuing, positive sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or contribution of the building to the New River Conservation Area by ensuring the reinforce those values for present and future generations.' (Conservation retention of its current, utilitarian external form. We therefore invite the Council to Principles, 4.2). grant Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for these applications.

The application sites contain two listed buildings; The Engine House and its associated Pump House, Boiler House and Coal Stores, and the ’Round House’, whilst the North Stores are considered to be curtilage listed as a result of their historical association with these Industrial buildings. The sites also lie within the New River Conservation Area. All three proposals have been developed to respect the substantial, historic remains of New River Head, and enhance the New River Head’s contribution to the New River Conservation Area.

The application sites have been the subject of extensive discussion with officers at the London Borough of Islington as well as two rounds of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, most recently in December 2013. It has been found that the current proposals have addressed the comments provided by the Inspectors in a successful design response to the character and relative sensitivity of the North Stores. It has been identified that the North Stores, curtilage listed by virtue of their association with the Engine House to the south, have been identified as a later addition to the site, a simple range of utilitarian buildings of late nineteenth century date. The works, furthermore, are limited in their scope, focusing on using existing openings wherever possible in order to convert these spaces to a combination of residential and B1/D1 uses, without causing significant intrusion into the historic fabric.

Retaining the industrial feel of the North Stores, and their wider contribution to the New River site and New River Conservation Area, the proposed works will ensure the on-going preservation of these buildings in use without the

APPENDICES APPENDIX A ______New River Head Engine House with Pump House adjoining on the northeast single building known as the Water House containing the stop-cocks and -20 the Round Pond was filled in and the Water House demolished to make accommodation for the site supervisor; over time it expanded to some seven acres. way for the new MWB headquarters. In 1946 the waterworks became Grade: II redundant; at this time the New River, by now running underground through The engine house's complex evolution reflects the pace of technological advance and Date First Listed: 29 September 1972 north London, was terminated at Stoke Newington. The engine house the challenge of supplying water to the expanding metropolis in the face of strong chimney was removed in 1954 and the engines c1957 when a concrete floor Date Last Amended: 26 September 2013 competition. In 1708, the NRC built a new reservoir, the Upper Pond, some 350m to was inserted. Water supply resumed on the New River Head site with the the north-west in what is now Claremont Square, the higher ground providing a Summary of Building construction of the London Ring Main in 1986-94, served by a new pumping greater head of pressure to enable distribution to more distant areas in and around station. Pumping engine house with attached boiler houses and coal store. Engine the West End. Water was pumped here from the Round Pond by a windmill whose house built in 1768 under the supervision of Robert Mylne, Surveyor to the base still survives, but this proved ineffective and was superseded c1720 by a horse Details New River Company and extended by him in 1786. Remodelled and extended engine. The problem of supplying the Upper Pond continued however and in 1766 the MATERIALS: engine house in brown stock brick; 1840s additions in yellow 1794-5 under William Chadwell Mylne, with subsequent additions and NRC engaged John Smeaton, a prominent engineer, who designed a Newcomen-type stock brick, both with much C20 patching; stone cills and coping; slate roofs; alterations of 1811-18 and 1845-9. Boiler houses rebuilt and coal store added engine of unusually long stroke, his first steam engine, which was erected in 1768 1840s cast-iron frames to most windows. PLAN: the engine house has a D 1845-9. The late-C19 lean-to structure to the east end of the coal store is not under the supervision of Robert Mylne, Surveyor to the NRC. The engine house, a tall, plan. The internal compartments are essentially as existing in 1794-5, with of special interest. heavily buttressed brick slab with two octagonal turret stacks, comprised two some breaches in the walls, and comprise the 2-chamber engine house of chambers housing a pump and a cylinder to the north and south respectively, plus a Reasons for Designation 1763 at the core minus its north wall; flanking engine chambers of 1786 and lean-to boiler house to the south. The engine proved inadequate however and had to The former engine and attached boiler houses and coal store, New River 1794-5 to the south-west and south-east and a large curved pump room to be supplemented by a water wheel on the horse-engine site. In 1786 Mylne extended Head, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * Historic the north. Stair tower to west, conjoined single-storey boiler houses to south the engine house westwards to accommodate a new Boulton & Watt engine, plus a interest and rarity: as one of the principal structures of the New River Head and east, and a single-storey coal store range to the east, all dating from pump chamber and stair, located to the south-west and north-west respectively. complex, London’s first waterworks site, comprising at its core the remains of 1845-9. Further extensions were added to the east and north in 1794-5, when Mylne the earliest waterworks pumping engine house to survive nationally; the remodelled the entire structure to create a symmetrical D-plan with a curved north EXTERIOR: the engine house has plain brick banding between stages. The incrementally extended and remodelled engine house, as realised by 1818 elevation. A second Boulton & Watt engine (replacing Smeaton’s now-obsolete curved north elevation has a tall round-arched window with radial cast-iron under Mylne Senior and Junior, is also an early survival; * Architectural engine) was located in a chamber to the south east, and a pump to the north east, glazing bars, an 1840s insertion. Upper windows have segmental arches. The interest: while evidence of machinery has largely been erased, the building’s mirroring their 1786 counterparts, the pumps now housed in a unified curved east elevation has paired windows; round headed to the lower level and well-documented evolution from 1768-1849 remains legible within the fabric chamber to the north. The 1763 core now contained a high-level cistern and stair in segmental to the upper. The blind south elevation incorporates at its centre and plan, reflecting the rapid pace of technological advance and obsolescence the north and south chambers respectively. Two chimneys rose from the south walls the only outwardly visible element of the 1768 engine house; this has a in that period; the cast-iron stair of 1848-9 is a fine example of its type; * of the extensions and a second lean-to boiler house was added to the east shortly blocked window (inserted in 1786 to light a short-lived stair). The flanking Group value: with several listed buildings on the site built by the New after. Further improvements took place from 1811-18 under William Chadwell Mylne, walls have flat, much rebuilt buttresses and upswept parapets. River Company and its successor the Metropolitan Water Board, in particular who succeeded his father in 1811, including the replacement of both engines with the windmill base which marks the earliest phase of powered pumping on the improved Boulton & Watt models. The 1786 stair, chimneys and south chamber stair New River Head; such a grouping is unique in a waterworks site. were removed, the last making way for a 110’ tall chimney. The last major phase from History 1845-9, again under Mylne, followed the successful introduction by Thomas Wicksteed of a Cornish engine for the East London Waterworks in 1838, and The New River Head takes its name from the terminus of the New River, the inventions enabling the compounding of old engines to work with high-pressure 40-mile channel cut in 1604-3 to supply the City of London with water from steam on the Cornish system. Accordingly, the Boulton & Watt engines were adapted springs in Hertfordshire, a civil engineering achievement vital to the to work new cylindrical boilers, and the two boiler houses rebuilt and enlarged. A stair development of the metropolis. It was directed by the City magnate, Hugh tower was added to the west and a coal store to the north-east. Behind the chimney, Myddelton, who became the first Governor of the New River Company (NRC) above the north chamber which contained cisterns or condensation tanks, an when it received its royal charter in 1619. From the high ground of rural octagonal brick structure was added to support a tall iron cylinder. The engines were Clerkenwell a network of wooden mains conveyed water to the cisterns of replaced in 1897-8 and 1901-3. London. The site initially comprised a reservoir - the Round Pond - and a In 1902-4 the NRC became part of the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB), and in 1915

APPENDICES APPENDIX A ______The west elevation retains brickwork from the 1786 extension including a pair Date First Listed: 29 December 1950 of offset buttresses; the entrance was enlarged in the C20; above are Date Last Amended: Not applicable to this entry segmental-arched windows. The stair tower has a string-course to the parapet and round-arched windows; the upper blind. Ground-floor entrance Base of former windmill. At New River Head and formerly used as pumping house enlarged in the C20. The walls to all elevations have numerous curved iron tie supplying water to the Upper Pond in Claremont Square, later used as repository -rods. The roof is surmounted by the octagonal brick structure which once called the Round House, now storeroom for Thames Water at rear of New River Head supported a metal cylinder, now with a timber louvred cupola. Office Building. c.1708, upper stages removed mid C18. Red stock brick set in English bond; wood shingle conical roof with projecting eaves. Circular in plan. One storey; The boiler houses have low hipped roofs; that to the south-west with a glazed originally of 3 stages; no windows. Blocked segmental arched doorway in north face. ridge. The west elevation has two windows with cambered gauged-brick Entrance to west wall: iron strap hinges to pair of wood batten shutters. Metal plaque arches; the lower part has been remodelled in the C20 with inserted mounted above entrance inscribed: 'THE ROUND HOUSE/ REMAINS OF THE openings. The south elevation is blind with three offset buttresses. The south- WINDMILL USED/ C1709-1720 TO PUMP/ WATER FROM THE ROUND POND TO THE east boiler house has a series of inserted late-C20 louvred openings on the UPPER POND/ (NOW CLAREMONT SQUARE RESERVOIR)'. A 1760 engraving exists south side and a round-arched doorway on the east side. The north elevation showing the full-height windmill before the upper stages were removed. (Thames adjacent to the coal store has been rebuilt. The coal store has a hipped roof Water Plc with Sadler's Wells: New River Head (brochure): London: 1990-: with a glazed ridge. A brick lean-to structure along the south elevation was ENGRAVING OF MILL). removed in the 1950s. The elevation has seven arcaded bays, now blocked; three with cast-iron windows. The north elevation has been altered and has a large opening with a concrete lintel.

INTERIOR: the engine house’s elaborate cast-iron stair of 1848–9 was supplied by Henry and Martin De La Garde Grissell of Regent’s Canal Ironworks, leading manufacturers of structural ironwork from c1841. Remnants from the 1845-9 stage include some substantial cast-iron girders, pocketed to carry the ends of floor beams in the west engine-house, and of I- section in the north chamber of Smeaton’s building, to support cisterns or condensation tanks for preventing steam loss. The boiler houses and coal store have light wrought-iron roof trusses but retain no fittings of interest.

New River Head Remains of Mill Building in Grounds

Grade: II