TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 SECTION 79
AND TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) RULES 2000
PROOF OF EVIDENCE MICHAEL ALAN DUNN BA, MA, Dip UD, IHBC
Application by Starbones Ltd.
Land at Chiswick Roundabout, Great West Road, Chiswick, London W4 5QB
Local Planning Authority reference 00505/EY/P18
PINS reference APP/F5540/W/17/3180962
1
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 ROLE OF HISTORIC ENGLAND 5
3.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 6
4.0 THE PROPOSALS AND HISTORIC ENGLAND’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE APPLICATION SITE 7 5.0 DECISION-MAKING CONTEXT 11
5.1. Statutory duties ...... 11
5.2. National heritage policy context ...... 12
5.3. Development plan policy context ...... 18
5.4. Relevant guidance ...... 29
6.0 ASSESMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSALS AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSALS ON THAT SIGNIFICANCE 34 6.2 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew ...... 37
6.3 Gunnersbury Park and Kensington Cemetery ...... 51
6.4 Kew Green Conservation Area ...... 69
6.5 Strand on the Green Conservation Area ...... 80
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 94
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. My name is Michael Alan Dunn. I am a conservation specialist and I hold an
MA in Building Conservation from the University of York (1998) and a post-
graduate degree in Building Conservation from the Universität Bamberg,
Germany ( Das Aufbaustudium Denkmalpflege, 1993). I also have a BA in
History from the University of Minnesota (1990) and a post-graduate diploma
in Urban Design from the University of Westminster (2000). I have been a
Full Member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation since 2000.
1.2. I have been professionally involved with managing change to the historic
environment in England for 20 years. In summary, after working for several
years as an historic buildings analyst in Germany, I began my career in
England assessing historic buildings and areas and advising local authorities
on heritage issues in Hertfordshire before taking up the post as Conservation
Officer for the London Borough of Haringey, where I provided heritage input
to inform planning and listed building consent decisions in the Borough.
1.3. I joined Historic England in 2003 as an Inspector of Historic Buildings and
Areas and subsequently became a Team Leader in the London Region. My
role included advising on development affecting historic buildings and areas,
ranging from individual listed building proposals to major heritage-led
redevelopment schemes such as for the Crown Estate in London’s West End
and for Argent at King’s Cross. I played a central role in advising London
Underground Ltd. during their restoration and upgrading of their listed
Modernist stations, and the approach adopted helped shape elements of
3
Historic England’s Conservation Principles guidance. I was directly involved
in Historic England’s acquisition of Harmondsworth Barn (listed grade I) near
Heathrow Airport and its subsequent restoration.
1.4. Since 2012 I have been Historic England’s Principal Inspector of Historic
Buildings and Areas for London, leading a team of nine inspectors for
Greater London and accountable for their expert advice. This includes pre-
application negotiations with developers and considering applications for
planning permission, listed building consent and scheduled monument
consent. Many of the applications I deal with are highly complex and/or
politically sensitive and so referred to our London Advisory Committee 1 to
inform Historic England’s response. I regularly speak on behalf of Historic
England to the media and at conferences and training events and I have
been a registered lecturer at the Universität Viadrina in Germany since 2009.
1.5. The evidence in this proof is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I
confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
1 The purpose of the London Advisory Committee is: ‘To advise the Commission and staff of Historic England, on request, on those cases in London which are novel, contentious, of exceptional sensitivity or technical or academic complexity or which raise broader policy issues relating to: a) statutory consent applications or pre-application proposals; b) the preparation of conservation and management plans, and schemes for repair, development, management, interpretation or presentation; c) programmes and projects in London for the identification, recording, investigation and analysis of the historic environment and for the preparation of the resulting records, syntheses, reports and publications;
d) the referral to UNESCO of contentious development proposals within World Heritage Sites in London;
e) other relevant/appropriate matters as requested by Commission or staff’. 4
2.0 ROLE OF HISTORIC ENGLAND
2.1 Historic England is an independent grant-aided body governed by
Commissioners. It was established with effect from 1 April 1984 under
Section 32 of the National Heritage Act 1983. The general duty of Historic
England under Section 33 is as follows:
“…so far as is practicable:
(a) to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings
situated in England;
(b) to promote the preservation and enhancement of the character and
appearance of conservation areas situated in England; and
(c) to promote the public’s enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of,
ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England and their
preservation”.
2.2 Historic England’s sponsoring ministry is the Department for Digital, Culture,
Media & Sport, although its remit in conservation matters intersects with the
policy responsibilities of a number of other Government departments,
particularly the Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government, with its
responsibilities for land use planning matters.
2.3 Historic England is a statutory consultee on certain categories of applications
for planning permission and listed building consent. Similarly Historic England
advises the Secretary of State on those applications, subsequent appeals and
5
on other matters generally affecting the historic environment. It is the lead
body for the heritage sector and is the Government’s principal adviser on the
historic environment.
2.4 Historic England encourages pre-application discussions and early
engagement on projects to ensure informed consideration of heritage assets
and to ensure that the possible impacts of proposals on the historic
environment are taken into account.
2.5 The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England was known
as “English Heritage” between 1984 and 2015. In the interests of clarity and
for consistency all references in this proof are to Historic England, the name
adopted in 2015, whether or not the relevant organisation at the time was
English Heritage or Historic England.
3.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
3.1. In a letter of 17 October 2017 the Secretary of State notified the London
Borough of Hounslow (the Council) that he had decided to recover the
appeals for his own determination and he therefore made directions
accordingly.
3.2. The scope of my evidence will include a description of the proposals, a
summary of Historic England’s views upon past applications for the site, how
it has dealt with the current applications, a description of the heritage assets
affected and an assessment of their significance. I then assess the impact of
6
the proposals upon the significance of the heritage assets in turn, in the
context of the statutory duties relevant to applications that affect the historic
environment and Government policy in the National Planning Policy
Framework 2012 (‘NPPF’, CDC.01), together with the relevant advice
produced by Historic England.
4.0 THE PROPOSALS AND HISTORIC ENGLAND’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE APPLICATION SITE
4.1 The proposals are for the redevelopment of the site with a tall building of two
tower elements, one reaching 120m AOD (32 storeys) and the other reaching
109m AOD (25 storeys). A mix of uses is proposed including retail,
commercial and residential. The building will be of curvilinear form and clad
with a range of coloured fins of different design and orientation. Advertising,
targeting vehicular traffic on the M4, will be integrated into the design and is
subject to a separate application and appeal for advertisement consent .
Historic England’s involvement with previous applications
4.2 The site is located immediately north of Chiswick Roundabout and was
previously occupied by a 1920s building that for many years was a branch of
the NatWest Bank. That building was demolished in 1998. Historic England
began providing advice on proposals for the site’s redevelopment in 1999. In
that year, we objected strongly to a proposed 31 storey office building known
as “the Pinnacle’, which we considered would have a highly detrimental
impact on:
7
• The character and appearance of the River Thames, contrary to the
aims and policies of the Thames Landscape Strategy and regional
planning guidance;
• The character and appearance of sites included in the Register of
Parks and Gardens of special historic interest, including Kew Gardens,
Syon Park and Gunnersbury Park;
• The character, appearance and setting of conservation areas including
the Kew Green, Syon Park and Gunnersbury Park conservation areas;
and
• The setting of various listed buildings, including those at Strand on the
Green.
The proposal was subsequently reduced in height to 26 storeys, but our
objections were maintained. The ‘deleterious effect’ of the proposal on the
setting of the listed buildings and conservation area at Strand on the Green is
specifically mentioned in the Historic England advice letter dated 21
December 1999. Following LB Hounslow’s resolution to approve the amended
proposals in early 2000, we wrote to the Secretary of State to request call-in.
The Secretary of State did decide to call the application in, but it was
withdrawn in August, 2000 before the public inquiry began.
4.3 The proposals were re-designed in 2001 to a 13-storey office building known
as “the Citadel’. Historic England objected to the proposals due to its impact
on the setting of Gunnersbury Park, the Strand on the Green conservation
area and the River Thames. In our advice letter dated 20 July 2001, we noted
that Strand on the Green, the beau ideal of Thameside domestic
8
developments, is best appreciated from the opposite bank of the river, and the
proposed new building would be visible from here in ‘regrettable juxtaposition
with the important riverside buildings’. Despite our objections, planning
permission was granted in 2002 (00505/EY/P5). We understand that this
permission was implemented through the commencement of groundworks
and could be built out now.
Historic England involvement with the current application
4.4 Historic England became involved in the current proposals on 5 November
2015, when we were contacted by the developer and informed that detailed
proposals were emerging for the redevelopment of the site. Initial Historic
England pre-application advice was provided in a letter dated 1 December
2015 from the relevant Inspector at Historic England, Marek Drewicz
(Appendix 4). This letter expressed our very serious concerns as to the likely
impact of the proposals on the historic environment and also our concerns
about whether the developer had provided adequate information about that
impact. The letter explained the approach recommended for proposals
affecting the historic environment by reference to our Good Practice Advice
Note “The Setting of Heritage Assets” to which I return below. The letter also
explained the need for a Heritage Impact Assessment in line with ICOMOS
guidance due to the impact on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World
Heritage Site, and concluded by advising the developer that the serious
nature of Historic England’s concerns meant that the proposals would be
considered at the next meeting of our London Advisory Committee (LAC).
9
4.5 Before the LAC could consider the proposals at its meeting on 4 February
2016, they were formally submitted, substantially unchanged, in an application
for planning permission dated 11 December 2015. Following the formal
consultation by the Council on 7 January 2016, Historic England submitted a
written response by letter to the Council dated 17 February, 2016 (CDE.04).
This letter followed the consideration of the proposals by our London Advisory
Committee on 4 February 2016. Our letter of 17 February 2016 (which was
copied to the applicant’s planning consultants) explained that we had
consulted the London Advisory Committee and our strong objections to the
proposals as set out in our letter.
4.6 In particular, we advised that the harm arising from the proposal on the
significance of the Strand on the Green and Kew Green conservation areas
would be substantial and that the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World
Heritage Site (including some of its listed buildings) would be adversely
affected. We also identified harm to the significance of the Grade II*
registered landscape of Gunnersbury Park. We stated that the proposals
would fail to meet the requirements of statute and policy with regards to
heritage and conservation and therefore would not constitute sustainable
development. Our letter then went on to explain something of the significance
of the heritage assets affected and to summarise the impact of the scheme
upon them.
4.7 Our letter also referred to the relevant statutory provisions as regards
applications for development affecting the historic environment as well as
national and local policy and Historic England’s guidance notes upon the
10
setting of heritage assets and upon tall buildings. The letter explained in some
detail ways in which the applicants had not taken adequately into account
relevant guidance including that applicable to the World Heritage Site.
5.0 DECISION-MAKING CONTEXT
5.1. Statutory duties
5.1.1. Statutory duties relating to proposals affecting listed buildings and
conservation areas are contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
5.1.2. The relevant statutory duty relating to development affecting a listed building
is contained in Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This makes it a duty for a local planning
authority, in considering whether to grant planning permission for
development which affects a listed building or its setting, to “have special
regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any
features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” . As the
settings of a number of listed buildings will be affected by the appeal
proposals, the statutory duty under s66 (1) will be directly engaged in this
instance.
5.1.3. The relevant statutory provision relating to development affecting conservation
areas is contained in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This states that, in the exercise of planning
functions, ‘ with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area …
11
special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing
the character or appearance of that area .’
5.1.4. In the case of the appeal proposal, the proposed development does not fall
within a conservation area. Therefore the statutory duty under Section 72(1)
is not engaged in this instance. Nevertheless, both national and local policies
relating to of the settings of conservation areas are relevant in this instance
and are discussed below.
5.1.5. The courts have held that “ preserving means doing no harm” and have
established that, where a proposal would cause some harm, the desirability of
preserving a listed building or its setting, or the character of a conservation
area, should not simply be given careful consideration, but should be given
“considerable importance and weight” when the decision-maker carries out
the planning balance (Ref. Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v. East
Northamptonshire District Council, English Heritage, the National Trust and
the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA
Civ 137).
5.2. National heritage policy context
5.2.1. Central Government planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012. A number of the policies set
out in the NPPF are of direct relevance to the consideration of the appeal
proposals.
5.2.2. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development (NPPF, para 14). The NPPF at paragraphs 7 and 8 advises
12
that sustainable development has three dimensions: economic, social and
environmental. The pursuit of these gains should be achieved jointly and
simultaneously as they are mutually dependent. It advises, amongst other
things, that the environmental role involves protection and enhancement of
the built and historic environment.
‘Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so
that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and
future generations’ Paragraph 17).
5.2.3. The NPPF defines conservation (for heritage policy) as ‘the process of
maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains
and, where appropriate, enhances its significance’ (Annex 2: Glossary, page
51).
5.2.4. The NPPF defines designated heritage assets as ‘a world heritage site,
scheduled monument, listed building, protected wreck site, registered park
and garden, registered battlefield and conservation area, designated as such
under the relevant legislation ’ (Annex 2: Glossary, page 51).
5.2.5. Of particular relevance to the evidence are policies relating to the
conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. These matters
are referred to in Sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF.
5.2.6. As set out in paragraph 56 “The Government attaches great importance to
the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of
13
sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should
contribute positively to making places better for people.”
5.2.7. Paragraphs 61 and 65 build on this and state that:
“61. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings
are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes
beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions
should address the connections between people and places and the
integration of new development into the natural, built and historic
environment.
“65. Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for
buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability
because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if
those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern
relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material
harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s
economic, social and environmental benefits).”
5.2.8. In respect of heritage matters section 12 of the NPPF refers to the concept
of a heritage asset , which is defined as ‘ a building, monument, site, place,
area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting
consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’. (Annex
2: Glossary) .
5.2.9. The policies in section 12 of the Framework are predicated on the concept of
significance. The Annex 2: Glossary (page 56) defines the significance of a
14
heritage asset (for heritage policy) as: ‘the value of a heritage asset to this
and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be
archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only
from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’.
5.2.10. The NPPF (Annex 2: Glossary p.56) defines the setting of a heritage asset
as: “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is
not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.
Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance
or may be neutral”.
5.2.11. Paragraph 132 also makes it clear that significance can be harmed or lost
through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within
its setting. It goes on to state that ‘ as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any
harm or loss should require ‘clear and convincing justification’
5.2.12. The policies in Chapter 12 of the NPPF make provision for ‘substantial’ and
‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of heritage assets. Where a
development would cause ‘substantial harm’ to a heritage asset paragraph
132 states: ‘Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or
garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated
heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and
II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional’.
15
5.2.13. Paragraph 132 states that “When considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight
should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset,
the greater the weight should be.”
5.2.14. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF deals with the approach to be taken where a
development proposal is considered to result in substantial harm or total loss
of significance of a designated heritage asset. In such instances the NPPF
states that local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be
demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve
substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss.
5.2.15. Paragraph 134 states that in cases where there is less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, ‘ this harm should be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its
optimum viable use’ .
5.2.16. It should be noted that the Government has published a revised consultation
draft to the NPPF. Consultation on the draft commenced on 5 March 2018
and will close on 10 May 2018.
5.2.17. Interpretation of the policies in the NPPF is provided by the on-line National
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that was first published in March 2014.
The NPPG emphasises the need for a clear understanding of the
significance of a heritage asset and its setting in order to develop proposals
which avoid or minimise harm to significance (Paragraph: 019 Reference ID:
18a-019-20140306).
16
5.2.18. Amongst other things the NPPG provides the following comments regarding
setting:
• Setting is the surrounds in which a designated heritage asset is
experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage.
• The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage
asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access
or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to
circumstance.’
• When assessing any application for development which may affect the
setting of a heritage asset, LPAs may need to consider the implications of
cumulative change.
5.2.19. The NPPG advises that ‘what matters in assessing if a proposal causes
substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset’. It
reiterates the wording of the NPPF in stating that ‘ significance derives not
only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also its setting’
(Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 18a-017-20140306).
5.2.20. In stating the policy position for all heritage assets paragraph 017 of the
NPPG states that ‘ whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a
judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the
case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework’ . It goes on to
say that ‘In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise
in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed
building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be
17
whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special
architectural or historic interest’.
5.2.21. The NPPG clarifies that harm may arise from works within the setting of a
designated heritage asset, and that even minor works have the potential to
cause substantial harm.
5.2.22. A key element set out in Paragraph 009 of Section 12 of the NPPG is the
principle that, in the context of decision-taking, proper assessment of
significance is at the heart of understanding the potential impact and
acceptability of proposals. Paragraph 020 advises that a clear understanding
of significance is necessary to develop proposals which avoid or minimise
harm.
5.2.23. Paragraphs 26 and 32 are relevant to the protection of the Outstanding
Universal Value of World Heritage Sites.
5.3. Development plan policy context
The London Plan
5.3.1. The development plan policy context that is relevant to this appeal
comprises both the strategic polices set out the London Plan (2016) and the
local development plan policies set out in the London Borough of Hounslow
Local Plan (September 2015). The development plan policies that relate to
the heritage aspects appeal proposals are summarised below.
18
5.3.2. The London Plan is the spatial development strategy issued in March 2016
consolidated with alterations since 2011. The plan states that the Mayor of
London has carefully considered the extent to which the policies in the plan
are consistent with those in the NPPF and is satisfied on the basis of his
review that the plan reflects the intent of the NPPF and the presumption in
favour of sustainable development.
5.3.3. In the context and strategy for the London Plan, it is recognised that there is
a perceived tension between the demands for growth and the conditions for
a good, and improving, quality of life and a concern about the loss of things
that have made living in London and its neighbourhoods a distinctive
experience. Consultation on the proposals for the plan has shown a concern
with quality of life issues such as:
• Protecting and enhancing what is distinctive about the city and its
neighbourhoods, securing a sense of place and belonging through high
quality architecture and design that sits well with its surroundings.
5.3.4. The fundamental theme of quality of life runs through all of the chapters and
policies of the plan and in supporting a high quality living space, the policies
on high quality built environments (7.3-7.7) and the protection of London’s
heritage (7.8-7.12) are specifically cited.
5.3.5. In concluding that planning for growth is the prudent course of the plan, it is
recognised that improving quality of life for all Londoners and all of London is
required, enabling growth and change while also supporting the retention of
London’s heritage and distinctiveness; making living a London a better and
19
more enriching experience for all (p 30 paragraph 1.48). In support of this
overarching approach are detailed objectives at paragraph 1.53 which
embody the concept of sustainable development and include:
Objective 4:
“A city that delights the senses and takes care over its buildings and streets,
having the best of modern architecture whilst also making the most of
London’s built heritage…”
This is one of the objectives that local authorities in their borough DPD’s and
development decisions should aim to realise under Policy 1.1C of the
London Plan.
5.3.6. The policies in the London Plan that are particularly relevant to heritage
matters are Policy 7.4, 7.7, 7.8.and 7.10.
5.3.7. London Plan Policy 7.4: Local Character requires at strategic level (7.4A)
that development have regard to the form, function and structure of an area
and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. Planning
decisions (7.4B) should deliver buildings and streets in a high quality design
response that:
a. has regard to the pattern and grain of existing spaces and streets in
orientation, scale, proportion and mass;
b. allows existing buildings and structures that make a positive contribution
to the character of a place to influence the future character of the area;
and
c. is informed by the surrounding historic environment.
20
5.3.8. London Plan Policy 7.7 sets out a strategic aim that:
‘Tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on
their surroundings’.
5.3.9. In relation to planning decisions the policy goes on to state, amongst other
things, that tall and large buildings should:
‘Only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected
adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building;
‘Relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of
surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape
features), particularly at street level;
‘Individually or as a group, improve the legibility of an area, by emphasising
a point of civic or visual significance where appropriate, and enhance the
skyline and image of London’
5.3.10. The policy goes on to state, amongst other things, that:
‘The impact of tall buildings proposed in sensitive locations should be given
particular consideration. Such areas might include conservation areas, listed
buildings and their settings, registered historic parks and gardens, scheduled
monuments, battlefields, the edge of the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open
Land, World Heritage Sites or other areas designated by boroughs as being
sensitive or inappropriate for tall buildings’.
21
5.3.11. The supporting text to London Plan Policy 7.7 makes it clear that tall
buildings can have ‘ a significant detrimental impact on local character’ .
Consequently, it advises that ‘they should be resisted in areas that will be
particularly sensitive to their impacts and only be considered if they are the
most appropriate way to achieve the optimum density in highly accessible
locations, are able to enhance the qualities of their immediate and wider
settings, or if they make a significant contribution to local regeneration’.
5.3.12. London Plan Policy 7.8: Heritage Assets and Archaeology states, amongst
other things, in relation to planning decisions that:
‘Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve
their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and
architectural detail’.
5.3.13. Para 7.31, which supports Policy 7.8 states that “Development that affects
the setting of heritage assets should be of the highest quality of architecture
and design, and respond positively to local context and character outlined in
the policies above.”
5.3.14. London Plan Policy 7.10: World heritage sites sets out a strategic aim that:
‘Development in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer
zones, should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance
their authenticity, integrity and significance and Outstanding Universal
Value’.
22
5.3.15. In relation to planning decisions the policy goes on to state, amongst other
things, that:
‘Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or
their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not
compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value,
integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications,
appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the
World Heritage Site Management Plans’.
5.3.16. Paragraph 7.36 states that “ Development in the setting (including buffer
zones where appropriate) of these World Heritage Sites should provide
opportunities to enhance their setting through the highest quality architecture
and contributions to the improvement of the public realm consistent with the
principles of the World Heritage Site Management Plans. Development in the
setting of World Heritage Sites must contribute to the provision of an overall
amenity and ambience appropriate to their World Heritage status .”
5.3.17. Between December 2017 and March 2018, the Mayor of London consulted
on a new draft London Plan. This included updated policies on design,
heritage and tall buildings. The following draft policies are relevant: Policy D8
(B) requires that tall building should be part of a plan-led approach; Parts C1
(a) (i) of the same policy relate to visual impacts on important local or
strategic views; C1 (d) requires proposals to ‘take account of, and avoid
harm to, the significance of London’s heritage assets and their settings’; C1
(e) provides policy protection for the Outstanding Universal Value of World
23
Heritage Sites’ and C1 (f) gives protection against impacts of developments
on views from the River Thames.
5.3.18. Policy HC2 focuses on World Heritage Sites, and reinforces the protection
provided to them in the current London Plan, notably in part B, which states
‘development proposals in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including
any buffer zones, should conserve, promote and enhance their Outstanding
Universal Value, including the authenticity, integrity and significance of their
attributes, and support their management and protection.’ The draft Plan is
due to go to Examination in Public in autumn, 2018 and be adopted in 2019.
5.3.19. In March 2012 the GLA adopted ‘London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance
on Settings’ as Supplementary Planning Guidance. Aspects of note in the
SPG include:
5.3.20. Aspects of note in the SPG include:
• The identification of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and the
attendant attributes expressed in the WHS Management Plan as the basis
for the assessments of setting and impact on setting (see Section 3.0);
• The recognition that the setting of a WHS may extend beyond any buffer
zone (see Paragraph 3.19);
• The recognition that “ All of London’s World Heritage Sites have complex
and multi-layered settings ” (paragraph 4.1) and that “ Each of the London
World Heritage Sites is made up of many separate heritage assets, most
or all of which contribute to the attributes that make up the World Heritage
24
Site’s OUV. While the settings of individual assets within the World
Heritage Site may overlap or nest with each other; the World Heritage Site
itself has a wider setting of its own .” (paragraph 4.2);
• The identification of a series of elements of setting that may apply to
World Heritage Sites in London (see Section 4.0):
o Physical elements : 1. Context; 2. Character; 3. Landscape and
Topography; 4. Relationship with the River Thames; 5. Views in, out
and across World Heritage Sites; 6. Routes; 7. Public Realm
o User experience : 8. Diurnal and Seasonal Considerations; 9.
Accessibility and Inclusion; 10. Safety and Security
o Other considerations : 11. Historic and Cultural Associations; 12.
Environmental Factors; 13. Sustainability and Climate Change
• The establishment of a framework for assessing the potential impact of
development on the setting and OUV of World Heritage Sites and assets
within those sites (Section 5.0).
• The recognition in the methodology of the importance of assessing
cumulative impacts. As stated in Paragraph 5.31 “ The cumulative effect of
separate impacts should also be considered. These are impacts that
result from incremental changes caused by past, present or potential
developments with planning permission that cumulatively with the
proposed development can have a significant impact on the setting of a
World Heritage Site. The potential cumulative impact of the proposed
changes should therefore be assessed to consider whether proposed
developments will increase the likelihood of other similar developments
occurring and any consequences of that. There should also be recognition
25
that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily
represent acceptability of impacts on setting; as the cumulative effect is
different for each new proposal and there may be a tipping–point beyond
which further development would result in substantial harm to the OUV,
authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site. ”.
Hounslow Local Plan (2015-30)
5.3.21. The policies in the Hounslow Local Plan that are particularly relevant to
heritage matters are Policy CC1, CC3 and CC4.
5.3.22. Local Plan Policy CC1: Context and character states, amongst other things,
that that Council will expect developments to demonstrate how the proposal:
‘Responds to the wider context and history of the area, its communities, its
natural landscape and its urban structure, form and function.
5.3.23. Local plan Policy CC3: Tall Buildings states, amongst other things, that the
Council will expect tall building proposals to:
‘Be carefully designed and sensitively placed so as not to have a significant
adverse impact on the setting of, views from and between heritage assets
including Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, Syon Park and
the Thames foreshore landscape. They should also respect and respond to
the area’s special townscape and heritage value;
26
‘Not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of, or views from
heritage assets including Gunnersbury Park, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
World Heritage Site, Syon Park and Osterley Park;
‘Be sensitively located and be of a height and scale that is in proportion to its
location and setting, and carefully relate and respond to the character of the
surrounding area;
‘Be designed to give full consideration to its form, massing and silhouette,
including any cumulative impacts, and the potential impact of this on the
immediate and wider context;
‘Take opportunities to enhance the setting of surrounding heritage assets,
the overall skyline and views.’
5.3.24. Local Plan Policy CC4: Heritage states, amongst other things, that the
Council will expect development proposals to:
‘Conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its
setting in a manner appropriate to its significance’
‘Demonstrate that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset is avoided,
unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, consistent with the
NPPF’
‘Demonstrate that where a development proposal will lead to less than
substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (see
Glossary), this harm will be outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’
5.3.25. The policy goes on to state, amongst other things, that:
27
‘Any development within or affecting a Conservation Area must conserve
and take opportunities to enhance the character of the area, and respect the
grain, scale, form, proportions and materials of the surrounding area and
existing architecture’
5.3.26. And that developments should:
‘Conserve and enhance the internationally recognised Outstanding Universal
Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, its buffer zone
and its setting, including views to and from the site’.
Richmond Local Plan
5.3.27. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is nearing the point at
which it will adopt a new Local Plan. The Local Plan (Publication Version for
Consultation, January 2017) includes (LP 6) a policy specifically concerning
the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site. This policy was not
identified for discussion at the Local Plan examination hearings and there
have been no proposed modifications to it post-examination. The text of LP 6
is as follows:
‘The Council will protect, conserve, promote and where appropriate enhance
the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its
wider setting. In doing this, the Council will take into consideration that:
• The World Heritage Site inscription denotes the highest significance to the
site as an internationally important heritage asset.
28
• The appreciation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, its
integrity, authenticity and significance, including its setting (and the setting
of individual heritage assets within it) should be protected from harm.
• Appropriate weight should be given to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
World Heritage Site Management Plan and the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, Landscape Master Plan.’
5.3.28. The accompanying text goes on to state that LB Richmond upon Thames will
work closely with its partners to prevent any further harmful impacts ‘from
development proposals, particularly as a result of inappropriate and
unsympathetic tall buildings, in Brentford and Hounslow’s wider Great West
Corridor’ (4.6.4).
5.4. Relevant guidance
Historic England Publications
5.4.1. The following Historic England publications provide relevant guidance:
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Note #2: Managing Significance
in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment, July 2015 (GPA2, CDF.12).
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Note # 3: The Setting of Heritage
Assets, December 2017 (GPA3, CDF.13); and Historic England Advice Note
#4: Tall Buildings, December 2015 (HEAN 4, CDF.14).
5.4.2. The Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning (GPA2), entitled
‘Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ was
29
published by Historic England in July 2015 . This guidance forms part of a
suite of good practice advice documents that supersede the earlier PPS5
Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide . GPA2 reiterates earlier
guidance that the assessment of the significance of heritage assets is an
essential part of the planning process.
5.4.3. Of relevance in the context of the appeal proposals on land at the Chiswick
Roundabout is the Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice
Advice in Planning (GPA3) entitled The Setting of Heritage Assets , (second
edition published December 2017). The guidance advises that ‘ While setting
can be mapped in the context of an individual application or proposal, it does
not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently
described for all time as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set
distance of a heritage asset because what comprises a heritage asset’s
setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve ‘
5.4.4. GPA3 provides a framework for the assessment of proposed changes to the
setting of a heritage asset. It gives helpful and up to date advice that
provides clarity and detail to the understanding of the concept of the setting
of a heritage asset.
5.4.5. In order to assess the degree of potential harm to the significance of a
heritage asset, GPA3 advises a five-step approach:
• Step 1 : Identify which heritage assets and their setting are affected
• Step 2 : Assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a
contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s)
30
• Step 3 : Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether
beneficial or harmful, on that significance
• Step 4 : Explore the way of maximising enhancement and avoiding or
minimising harm
• Step 5 : Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes
5.4.6. HEAN 4 (CDF.14), published in December 2015, updates previous guidance
on tall buildings provided by Historic England and CABE in 2007. It seeks to
guide those involved in planning for and designing tall buildings so that they
are delivered in a sustainable and successful way through the development
plan and development management process. The advice is aimed at all
relevant parties, including developers, designers, local authorities and other
interested parties.
5.4.7. HEAN 4 points out, amongst other things, that ‘if the building is not in the
right place and well designed a tall building, by virtue of its size and
widespread visibility, can cause harm to the qualities that people value about
a place.’ The HEAN goes on to state that ‘ One of the principal failings in the
design of tall buildings was a lack of understanding of the nature of the areas
around them, and the impact they would have on both specific features of
the historic environment and its general character’.
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site Management Plan
2014
31
5.4.8. The primary purpose of the Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan is to
set out a framework for the management of the World Heritage Site to ensure
the conservation of its Outstanding Universal Value and continued sustainable
use, and the continued maintenance of its heritage whilst also introducing new
displays, facilities and interpretation representing the role of Kew Gardens in
the 21 st century.
5.4.9. Policy 3c of the Management Plan is directly relevant to the evidence and is
as follows:
‘The setting of the listed buildings and key landscape features within the
gardens and their interrelationships should be maintained and enhanced, with
particular attention to the gardens overall spatial cohesion and WHS River
Thames landscape settings.’
Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea
5.4.10. The Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea (TSKC) was conceived in 1999 in
response to a lack of comprehensive guidance recognising the distinct
characteristics of the individual stretches of the River Thames. It was also
established to create links between various river users, adjacent
communities on opposite banks of the river and river-related businesses and
organisations. The strategy document was finally launched in 2002 and has
subsequently become an integral part of the Mayor’s London Plan and Blue
Ribbon Network Policies (2004, 2008).
32
5.4.11. The TSKC has been made possible through the partnership commitment
and core funding provided by the Government Office for London (GoL) and
has been endorsed by members of the Thames Strategy Steering
Committee, made up of representatives of the West London River Group,
Greater London Authority (previously Government Office for London and
London Planning Advisory Committee), Environment Agency, English
Heritage, English Nature, Port of London Authority, and the London
Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow, and Richmond upon
Thames.
5.4.12. The Strategy has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by
the London Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow, and Richmond
upon Thames. The Strategy sets out strategic and local proposals for the
study area taking into account the current and emerging planning policy
context and opportunities identified during preparation of the strategy. The
objectives of the Strategy are to:
• Promote the increased use of the River and Riverside;
• Conserve and enhance historic buildings and landscapes;
• Improve the environment of the River and Riverside;
• Re-establish vital links between the River, the Riverside communities and
the rest of London;
• Promote a high and appropriate quality of design in all Riverside
development;
• Rediscover the Thames as a valuable component of London.
33
5.4.13. The TSKC identifies the importance of the Strand on the Green and the
desirability of preserving its skyline and backdrop. Section 4.10 describes
the area as follows: “The sequence of grand Georgian houses alongside
smaller cottages, many with Dutch gables and shutters, combine with the old
riverside pubs along the River at Strand on the Green to create one of the
most important historic and architectural waterfronts between Kew and
Chelsea.”
5.4.14. Under ‘key issues and opportunities’ for the Strand on the Green the strategy
identifies “The importance of considering the impact of development away
from the river on the A4/M4 corridor and Gunnersbury, which has had a
negative impact on the skyline and backdrop to the architectural waterfront.”
(4.13 and reiterated 3.38)
5.4.15. Thames Strategy 3.32 identifies as ‘important local views’ those to the
Strand on the Green from Kew Bridge, from Kew Railway Bridge, and from
Kew Tow Path.
6.0 ASSESMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSALS AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSALS ON THAT SIGNIFICANCE
6.1.1 I acknowledge that the proposals will not have any physical impacts on
designated or undesignated heritage assets, as the development site does
not contain any such assets. However, due to the height and scale of the
proposed new building, the development will have impacts on the
34
significance of heritage assets located nearby, and in some cases on the
significance of heritage assets located some distance away from the
development site, as it will be in the setting of those heritage assets.
6.1.2 The setting of a heritage asset is defined in the NPPF as:
“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not
fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of
a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of
an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be
neutral” (CDC.01).
6.1.3 Historic England Good Practice Advice #3 (Second Edition, December 2017:
CDF.13)2, provides advice on understanding of setting and how it may
contribute to the significance of heritage assets. It sets out a five-step staged
approach to taking decisions when a heritage asset is affected by
development proposals within its setting. The five steps are:
• Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their setting are affected.
• Step 2: Assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a
contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s)
• Step 3: Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether
beneficial or harmful, on that significance.
• Step 4: Explore the way of maximising enhancement and avoiding or
minimising harm.
• Step 5: Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
2 The Second Edition replaced the First Edition from 2015 with minor revisions and updating and also replaced an earlier Historic England guidance document from 2011, namely ‘Seeing History in the View: A Method for assessing Heritage Significance within Views’. 35
6.1.4 My assessment of the effects of the development as set out in this proof of
evidence follows the steps in the Good Practice Advice Note. I begin by
identifying which heritage assets and their settings are affected (Step 1),
before I assess the degree to which these settings make a contribution to the
significance of the heritage asset (Step 2). As part of my assessment of the
effects of the proposed development (Step 3) I incorporate the
comprehensive checklist of the potential attributes of a development
affecting setting, which is set out in the Good Practice Advice Note to help
the decision maker understand the implications of a development on the
significance of a heritage asset. Attributes in the checklist fall under four
headings: Location and siting of development; Form and appearance of
development; Wider effects of the development; and Permanence of the
development. I address Step 4 through my comments on the appellants’
approach, but Step 5 can only be addressed following the appeal decision.
6.1.5 I have identified the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site (and
Conservation Area) to the south, the Grade II* registered Gunnersbury Park
to the north, and Kew Green and Strand on the Green conservation areas to
the south-west as the heritage assets that are most seriously affected by the
proposals, and have assessed their significance (Step 1). I go on to assess
both the degree to which the settings of the designated heritage assets
identified above contribute to their significance, and how and to what degree
the proposals affect that significance or allow it to be appreciated (Steps 2-
3).
36
6.2 Assessment of Significance – Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
6.2.1 The most significant designated heritage asset affected by the proposed
development is Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is located south of the
development site within the London Borough of Richmond. The Botanic
Gardens are protected with a range of exceptional designations. In 2003
they were inscribed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, having already
been identified as a Grade I registered Park and Garden, a conservation
area, and the home of 44 listed buildings, two of which are also scheduled
monuments.3
6.2.2 It is no accident that this concentration of extraordinary buildings and
designed landscapes is found at Kew. It is the result of many centuries of the
highest quality patronage in the arts and sciences. Two factors in particular
have helped to sustain this: the site’s location on the River Thames and the
role of the royal household.
6.2.3 Kew is situated roughly seven miles from Westminster and London. Before
the expansion of those cities in the nineteenth century Kew and Richmond
were physically separate from the capital. Royal residence around this reach
of the Thames began in the fourteenth century and evolved to become the
Tudor place of Richmond. 4 As a consequence the area around Richmond
attracted several significant houses that benefited from their proximity to the
Crown. Grade I listed Syon House is perhaps the best and largest example,
3 Additional detail can be found in the World Heritage Site Management Plan (CDF.10), the Conservation Area Appraisal (CDF.05), relevant list descriptions in Appendices 2.1 and 2.2, to my proof and a full schedule of designated heritage assets within the World Heritage Site is given in Appendix 2.14. CDF.16, CDF.17 and CDF.19 are all relevant to understanding the significance of the World Heritage Site. 4 J. Cloake, Palaces and Parks of Richmond and Kew, vol. 1 (Chichester: Philmore, 1995), p.17. 37
and the Dutch House (now called Kew Palace) built 1631 for a City merchant
is another (also Grade I listed and a scheduled monument).5
6.2.4 By the seventeenth century, all along the Thames from Fulham to
Twickenham the houses and gardens of the social and political elite could be
found, built in a way to take advantage of the River both as a means of
access and communication, and as a landscape feature that evoked mental
images of ancient Arcadia. 6
6.2.5 When in 1718 the Prince and Princess of Wales (the future George II and
Queen Caroline) were excluded from the Royal Court they sought refuge in
the Lodge of the Deer Park of the former Palace of Richmond. 7 On their
coronation in 1727 Queen Caroline was gifted the lodge by parliament and
set about expanding her land holdings by acquiring the lease of several
buildings around the estate including some at Kew Green. In doing so,
Caroline established under royal occupation an estate of several hundred
acres stretching between Richmond and Kew. Her children would occupy the
Dutch House and the newly constructed ‘White House’ built for Frederick
Prince of Wales and Princess Augusta. 8
6.2.6 The King and Queen at Richmond Lodge lived on antagonistic terms with
their eldest son, Frederick, in Kew. They shared, however, an appreciation of
the informal atmosphere that thrived in these garden houses along the
Thames. Alexander Pope, Daniel Defoe, James Thompson, Horace Walpole
and so many other luminaries of the period valued the River for the same
5 See Appendix 2.2 for the List Description. 6 R. Desmond, Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens (London: Harvill Press, 1995), pp. 1-2. 7 Cloake, Palaces, vol. 1, p.31. 8 Desmond, Kew , Appendix II. 38
reason. Thompson called it ‘The matchless Vale of the Thames’, and Pope
wrote ‘No scenes of paradise, no happy bowers, [are] equal to those on the
banks of the Thames.’ 9
6.2.7 This is the origin of our notion of the Arcadian Thames. The ‘great and the
good’ living in peaceful, relaxed surroundings at one with nature and free to
be inspired with art and poetry. Willows along the Thames, water meadows,
a pleasing variety of broad vistas and secluded temples glimpsed through
trees. These were artfully cultivated by architects and landscape designers
of the highest quality: Bridgeman, Chambers, Kent, Nesfield and ‘Capability’
Brown chief amongst them. 10 The Arcadian Thames is still discussed and
valued today and is a major feature of the Thames Strategy Kew-Chelsea
(CDF.11), and Thames Strategy Hampton-Kew, guidance documents
referred to in the 2016 London Plan (policy 7.29, part B).
6.2.8 Frederick Prince of Wales used art and culture as a political tool in his
opposition to his father, George II.11 The result was a mode of living at Kew
which saw a great deal of investment in its grounds and buildings.
Frederick’s most conspicuous contribution was the construction of the White
House to the designs of William Kent, positioned immediately to the south of
the Dutch House (now called Kew Palace). The White House was
9 Desmond, Kew , pp.1-2. 10 For additional information and context on Bridgeman, Chambers, Kent, Nesfield and Brown see Appendices 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.4 respectively. 11 There are numerous sources delving further into the character of Prince Frederick, his patronage of the arts, and the politics of his relationship with his father. Desmond suggests the following sources further reading: Dictionary of National Biography; G. Young, Poor Fred: the People’s Prince, 1937; A. Edwards: Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, 1707-1751, 1947; S. Jones, ‘Frederick Prince of Wales: a Patron of the Rococo’ in C. Hind, ed. Rococo in England: a Symposium, 1986, pp.106-112; K. Rorschach, ‘Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707-51), as collector and Patron’ in Walpole Society, vol.55, 1989-90 pp.1-76; and K. Rorschach, ‘Frederick Prince of Wales: taste, politics and power’ in Apollo, vol.34, 1991, pp.239-245. 39
demolished in 1802, but its existence had catalysed the growth of Kew as a
significant royal retreat.
6.2.9 This legacy was continued after his death by Frederick’s widow, Princess
Augusta, who commissioned a great many buildings at Kew by the architect
William Chambers. 12 Chambers’ two most prominent survivals are the
Pagoda and the Orangery. 13 The latter (completed by 1761, Grade I listed) is
his only surviving plant house in the World Heritage Site, and originally stood
level with the south elevation of the White House. It retains its original stucco
and the coats of arms of Frederick and Augusta. The White House and the
Orangery stood next to each other facing south onto the Great Lawn
(Appendices 1.1 and 1.2). The verdant setting of the Orangery is Chambers’
lifetime is shown in an image from the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1768
(Appendix 1.3).
6.2.10 The Great Lawn survives today only in part, the large grassy area to the
west of the Broad Walk and south of the sundial outside Kew Palace. It was
one of the major features of the Georgian landscape at Kew and originally
covered 41 acres. The Great Lawn was laid out by Robert Greening (Head
Gardener from 1753) and the lawn itself ran all the way to a large man-made
lake beyond which could be seen the pagoda in the distance. Primary
sources from the 1750s and 1760s remark on the quality of the Great Lawn
and its role in the landscape at Kew. 14
12 More information on Sir William Chambers is given in Appendix 3.5. 13 Desmond, Kew, p.57. 14 Desmond, Kew, p.33. 40
6.2.11 The construction of the Broad Walk in 1845-6 enabled its designer, Decimus
Burton, to connect the new museum and Palm House to the principal route
into the Gardens from Kew Green 15 . In the process the Great Lawn was
separated from the Orangery, but views between the two remain and are the
furthest and most open views of the Orangery today. The designed visual
connection between the Orangery, the Great Lawn and the garden
landscape remains legible, despite the demolition of the White House over
200 years ago.
6.2.12 Kew’s scientific research began with the establishing of a botanical garden
during the lifetime of Princess Augusta. Investment in that role was
sustained by George III and quickly took on an international character. The
Gardens played a vital role in the collection and dissemination of new plant
species gathered from around Britain’s expanding empire and during the
expeditions of figures such as James Cook, Joseph Banks and William
Bligh.16 The extraordinary international reach of the collections and expertise
at Kew is addressed in the attributes of outstanding universal value,
continues to contribute exceptional value to Kew’s world-leading research.
Kew’s international significance is not a recent consequence of its World
Heritage status, but a major theme of its history.
6.2.13 Public interest in the gardens at Kew also has a long history. George III
admitted members of the public to visit the grounds, and as a fully public
garden in the nineteenth century visitor numbers frequently exceeded a
15 Desmond, Kew, p.176. 16 Desmond, Kew , pp.86-97. 41
million people on an annual basis. Victorian visitors even held
demonstrations to petition for extended opening hours.17
6.2.14 The setting of the gardens is intrinsic to their significance. The environmental
experience of the World Heritage Site is defined by the interrelationship of
exceptional architecture, highly considered landscape design, and the
Arcadian backdrop of the Thames rooting the site in relaxed surroundings
separate from the world of London beyond.
6.2.15 In Brasilia in 2010 the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO approved the
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV) which underpins the
management of the significance of Kew Gardens (CDF.16 and CDF.17). It
sets out the following five attributes of Outstanding Universal Value:
• A rich and diverse historic cultural landscape providing a palimpsest of
landscape design;
• An iconic architectural legacy;
• Globally important preserved and living plant collections;
• A horticultural heritage of keynote species and collections;
• Key contributes to developments in plant science and plant taxonomy.
6.2.16 Kew Gardens had an international impact within a generation of its
establishment both scientifically and culturally. The reasons for this
exceptional degree of influence can be readily understood by visitors to the
gardens today. They are made clear in the attributes set out above, and they
are tangible in the visitor experience of the site itself.
17 Desmond, Kew , Appendix IV. 42
6.2.17 The setting of the Gardens cannot be separated from the first three of the
attributes of Outstanding Universal Value. The experience of the designed
and historic cultural landscape at Kew, the iconic architectural legacy, and
the living plant collections is revealed and enhanced by the ability to
appreciate these qualities in a well preserved environment that still
resonates with the sense of an Arcadian escape from the world of intense
city living. Historic architecture, botanical planting, and designed landscape
are inextricably linked and key components of whole identity of the World
Heritage Site.
6.2.18 Occasionally modern buildings are visible in the setting of Kew Gardens and
its key historic buildings. The most prominent examples are the towers of the
Haverfield Estate 18 and the so-called ‘Kew Eye’ 19 , both situated north of the
river. These are immediately understandable as regrettable planning
decisions which seriously harm the quality of the otherwise well preserved
environment around the World Heritage Site described above 20 .
Applicant’s Assessment of Impact – Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
6.2.19 The Applicants’ Townscape, Heritage & Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA)
is contained within Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement submitted with
the applications in December 2015 (CDA.11) and the subsequent THVIA
Addendum submitted in October 2016 (CDA.15). The THVIA sets out the
development history of the site and assesses the impact of the proposed
18 The Haverfield Estate includes six towers arranged along Green Dragon Lane in Brentford and was built on the site of the former filter beds of the Brentford water works following their clearance, the first residents began occupation in 1972. 19 The Kew Eye tower on Ealing Road in Brentford’s Great West Quarter was completed in 2014. 20 Evaluations of Cultural Properties (Prepared by the International Council on Monument sand Sites for the 27 th ordinary session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Paris: 2003), p.109. 43
development on its surrounding context, including heritage assets, in the
context of national, regional and local planning policy and guidance. 34
viewpoints that are considered by the applicant to best illustrate the impact
of the proposals on the surrounding townscape and heritage are assessed in
detail. 12 further views were included in an addendum, bringing the total
number of views assessed to 47.
6.2.20 The views that show a demonstrable impact by the proposals on the Royal
Botanic Gardens Kew are View 16 and View 36. View 16 (CDA.11)
assesses the impact of the proposals on the Botanic Gardens looking north-
east towards the Grade I listed Orangery. The assessment identifies the
Grade I listed Orangery, and describes the view, but does not describe the
setting of the Orangery in detail. There is no assessment of the degree to
which the setting of, or the view towards the Grade I listed Orangery, make a
contribution to its significance as advised in the Good Practice Advice note
#3 (CDF.13). The sensitivity of the view is judged as ‘medium’, the
justification for which is that the view is ‘open and one of the less good views
of the Grade I listed Orangery’. The effect is judged to be ‘Minor; Beneficial’,
based on the Orangery being deemed to be a ‘minor part of the whole’, and
based on the high quality of the proposed new development, ‘which is
entirely worthy of being seen in conjunction with the Orangery’.
6.2.21 View 36 in the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) assesses a similar view taken
from a viewing position several metres to the west of that in View 16 . The
assessment again identifies the Great Lawn, the Grade I listed Orangery and
certain historic trees. It describes the view without analysing the degree to
44
which this setting might contribute to the significance of the Orangery as
advised in Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13). The sensitivity of the
view is described as ‘medium’ owing in part to the ‘obscuration of heritage
assets within it’ (though it should be noted that the entire Gardens are
registered Grade I). It is acknowledged that the presence of the proposed
development would be perceived through the branches of the Chestnut-
leaved Oak in winter and obscured by leaves in the summer. The
assessment claims that the ‘organic shape’ and ‘autumnal colouration’ of the
development will cause it to be difficult to discern among the branches, and
concludes that the effect of the proposal will be ‘Minor; Neutral’.
Historic England Assessment of Impact – Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
6.2.22 The development site is located approximately 1,450m north-west from View
16 and 1,200m north-west from the Grade I listed Orangery. The sites are
physically separated not just by distance, but also by the River Thames, the
railway and the M4.
6.2.23 The settings of most of the listed buildings within the Botanic Gardens are
largely unaffected by the proposals, but the position of the proposed
development appears in View 16 directly to the right hand side of the Grade
I listed Orangery, much closer than any other modern building that currently
features in the background setting of the Gardens.
6.2.24 The development will appear prominently within the view, greatly exceeding
the height of the Orangery and the treeline in front of the proposal. It will
match the conspicuousness of the towers of the Haverfield Estate in its
45
height, but with greater prominence through its dominating position within
this view close to, and facing, the principal elevation of the Orangery itself.
6.2.25 The close alignment of the long horizontally configured architecture of the
Orangery with the thrusting vertical form of the development creates an
antagonistic contrast, appearing to show the development competing for
attention amongst the carefully designed garden surroundings.
6.2.26 The proposal is immediately apparent as a large and out of scale feature
within the view, the scale and massing of which are at odds with the refined
landscape of the World Heritage Site.
6.2.27 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, though it is likely that the solidity of the structure will
be apparent, that it may reflect sunlight at particular times of day, and that at
evenings and night-time the building will remain unusually prominent.
6.2.28 The building will remain a dominant feature in the setting of the World
Heritage Site in the summer and winter.
6.2.29 The surroundings and skyline will be impacted upon by the introduction of
this new element within the view. The presiding character of the Orangery’s
setting is already very clear and (with the exception of the Haverfield Estate
in certain views) is well preserved and able to engage visitors with the
significance of the World Heritage Site. This new structure distracts from and
obscures that significance, altering the character of the gardens from an
historic royal retreat towards that of an urbanised park.
46
6.2.30 The impact of the proposal is permanent and unlikely to be reversed. It will
be present throughout all seasons and through the day and the night.
6.2.31 It would be possible to build on the development site without appearing
within this view, though this would require a significant reduction in height to
what is proposed. The proximity of the site to Kew Gardens is not an
obstacle per se to any development or even development of a substantial
size. In this instance, however, the substantial height of the proposal causes
adverse visual impacts within the heart of the World Heritage Site.
6.2.32 The new Brentford football stadium scheme is shown in View 16 as a
cumulative impact. This large scheme is predominantly screened by the
treeline of the Gardens but will appear slightly above the roofline of the
Orangery, especially in winter views. This is a valuable indicator of the
development pressure from the area of Brentford East and the need to
control the scale of development brought forward there. In my view the
football stadium scheme causes some harm to the significance of the
Orangery through development within its setting.
6.2.33 View 36 in the THVIA Addendum shows an additional view from the edge of
the Great Lawn. The viewing position is several metres to the west of View
16 and shows the proposed development aligned directly behind the
Orangery at the centre of the view. The Orangery is clearly visible despite
some tree coverage. The wireline of the proposed tower illustrates that in
summer the proposal would be obscured by leaves, but that its presence in
the view would be perceived from late Autumn to early Spring. As a result of
its scale and massing, and its solidity against the sky, the building is likely to
47
appear as a noticeable and unwelcome feature in direct contrast with the
architecture and setting of the Orangery.
6.2.34 The particular significance of the setting of the Orangery is made clear with
reference to the outstanding universal values (OUV) of the World Heritage
Site (5.16 above and CDF.17). These specifically include the landscape
design and iconic architectural legacy of the Royal Botanic Gardens. A
particularly important aspect of the many highly graded listed assets within
the WHS is their designed landscape setting. Similarly, much of the
significance of the Grade I registered park and garden comes from the
landscape design with its primary and secondary views, with formal and
informal elements overlapping.
6.2.35 The development will appear as an arbitrary new element on the skyline
from within the World Heritage Site from a number of viewpoints, the most
significant of which is the view towards the Grade I listed Orangery from the
Great Lawn (View 16 ). This view at present connects the two surviving
designed landscape features that defined the garden setting of the White
House built for Frederick Prince of Wales. The Orangery is seen across the
Lawn and through the avenue of trees that lines Decimus Burton’s 1846
Broad Walk. The foreground, middleground, and background are defined by
trees, plants, garden features, and Chambers’ great Orangery, the largest
classical building in the World Heritage Site. The interrelationship of this
exceptional building and the garden landscape around it is an important
element of the significance of the site and an attribute of Outstanding
Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.
48
6.2.36 On approach from the triangular conjunction of paths to the south west, the
Orangery emerges into view, framed in conjunction with the grand Chestnut
Leaved Oak in the foreground and an expansive and varied tree-lined
backdrop. This arboreal backdrop is currently intact to the north and east,
with the Haverfield Estate towers to the north-west being largely screened by
mature evergreen trees along the west edge of the path. The proposed tall
building would appear assertively above the treeline in juxtaposition with the
Orangery in this kinetic view. The landscape setting of the Orangery is a
particularly important part of its special interest, given its symbiotic
relationship with the Botanic Gardens.
6.2.37 I recognise that the skyline to the west of the Orangery has already been
partly compromised by the presence of the Haverfield Estate towers. In their
report to UNESCO, when the site was being considered for inscription,
ICOMOS International reported that the towers in the Haverfield Estate
seriously diminished the visual experience at Kew. I agree that the
Haverfield Estate towers detract from the visual experience at Kew and
believe the proposed scheme would add to that harm.
6.2.38 Kew’s position along the Thames allowed it to develop as an escape from
London. That was the catalyst that drew reigning monarchs and the greatest
talents of the arts and sciences for over a century. Their investment of
money, patronage, and skill caused the gardens to mature and evolve, and
eventually established the world class place of heritage, amenity, research
and tourism that still flourishes on an international level. The visibility of the
proposed tall building, a type of structure more at home at the centre of a
49
major city, invalidates that sense of escape. Its presence disengages the
viewer from the same environmental characteristics that appealed to the
royal court and inspired the architects and pioneers of the gardens. This
intrusion of a dense urban built form amongst the garden environment is
fundamentally at odds with the appeal and the significance of the World
Heritage Site.
6.2.39 The applicants have not assessed the impact of the proposals on the
significance of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site, its
Grade I registered landscape or its listed buildings in accordance with the
recommended approach in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note #3
(CDF.13). In my opinion the proposals cause serious harm to the
significance of the Grade I listed Orangery and the Grade I registered park
and garden through the impact on their settings. This harm, in turn, would
weaken the integrity of the Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value that are
key to the preservation and management of the World Heritage Site itself.
Although the harm is serious, I believe it is less than substantial when
considered against the policies of the NPPF. This is because the
development is partially obscured by trees, and would likely be entirely
obscured at other viewing points nearby. Nevertheless, the proposal will
appear prominently from a viewpoint from the Great Lawn that best
illustrates the historic relationship between classical architecture and
designed landscape, and will therefore cause serious harm as set out above.
50
6.3 Assessment of Significance – Gunnersbury Park and Kensington Cemetery
6.3.1 This park, positioned to the north of the M4, is bounded to the east by the
North Circular Road, and to the north and west by smaller suburban roads
(Popes Lane and Lionel Road North). The area is part of the Gunnersbury
Park Conservation Area (CDF.04), constitutes a Grade II* registered park
and garden (Appendix 2.3), and contains four Grade II* listed buildings: the
Large Mansion, the Temple, Orangery and East Stables (Appendices 2.5,
2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 respectively). 18 other Grade II listed heritage assets exist
within the 72 hectare park (Appendix 2.15).
6.3.2 The Park originated as a medieval estate in the Middlesex countryside. In
the seventeenth century it was acquired by John Maynard, a lawyer, MP and
judge with a gift for making money and surviving the turbulent English
political scene before and after the Restoration of the monarchy.
6.3.3 Maynard commissioned John Webb to design a house for him at
Gunnersbury and the result was a work of major architectural significance. 21
Webb was a follower of the Venetian architect Andrea Palladio and his
house at Gunnersbury was completed in a Palladian style, closely modelled
on the (still extant) Villa Badoer in Italy. For its strict employment of this
highly regarded style, Colen Campbell included the house in his influential
collection of architectural exemplars called Vitruvius Britannicus (Appendix
21 For a broader introduction to John Webb see Appendix 3.11. 51
1.4).22 Webb bridged a gap in English architectural history between his tutor,
Inigo Jones, and a younger generation led by Sir Christopher Wren. Despite
Webb’s major role in the development of architecture in this country he only
produced two houses from start to finish, one of which was Gunnersbury.
6.3.4 Webb’s house (1659-63) was one of the first major structures to be built in
the area west of London near to the Thames in a ‘villa’ style and predated
the arrival of the royal court at Richmond Lodge or Kew. 23 Nevertheless it
was clearly intended to respond to the river valley topography of the site and
to provide views to the Thames as the house was positioned on a raised
terrace that enabled views through a formal set of gardens and parterres to
the Thames below. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes
the house as ‘the fashionable suburban villa par excellence , recognized in
the eighteenth century as a house of archetypal importance’. 24
6.3.5 Though Maynard died in 1690 the architecture of the house and the
landscaping of the gardens appear to have remained largely intact well into
the eighteenth century. When in 1739 Henry Furnese bought the house and
park there followed a period in which certain changes were carried out
around the grounds, including the construction of the Round Pond to the
north west of the house, and possibly the Temple overlooking it. The pond is
22 C. Campbell, Vitruvius Britannicus or the British Architect , vol. 1 (published by the author, London: 1715) pp.4,17-18. 23 R. White, ‘“As Finely Finished as Anything” Gunnersbury Park, West London’ in Country Life , 11 November, 1982. 24 J. Bold, ‘Webb, John’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (see Appendix 3.12 for bibliographical reference). 52
likely to be the older of these two elements and has been attributed to
William Kent, while the Temple has variously been attributed to William Kent,
Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown, or William Chambers. 25
6.3.6 The heirs of Henry Furnese (who died in 1756) went on to sell the house and
park to Princess Amelia, daughter of King George II, in 1761. 26 Amelia’s own
father had died the previous year and her purchase of Gunnersbury with
some of the wealth that she had been bequeathed from the King
represented a new phase in her life. The Princess spent more than double
the amount she had paid for the property on improvements, especially to the
landscape and its garden buildings. 27
6.3.7 The Horseshoe Pond to the south of the terrace is likely to date from the
time of Princess Amelia, and the more picturesque quality of the landscape
as opposed to its formal Italian predecessor are the most enduring features
of Amelia’s patronage. Many ornamental garden buildings from the period of
her ownership are now lost, but the Horseshoe Pond was recently partially
reinstated as part of a multi-million pound restoration scheme of the historic
landscape largely funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.
6.3.8 Just over a decade after the death of the Princess in 1786 the house and
grounds entered the ownership of speculative developers who demolished
Webb’s villa and divided the estate into thirteen lots for sale. Those multiple
lots eventually ended up in the hands of two separate landholders. By 1835
25 R. White, ibid . 26 Historical information regarding Princess Amelia can be found in Appendix 3.2. 27 A History of Gunnersbury its park and museum (Gunnersbury Park Museum, Gunnersbury: 1970), pp.9-10. White, ‘As finely finished as anything’ sets out that the Princess spent £9,000 acquiring the estate and a further £20,000 or more on improvements. 53
they were Nathan Mayer Rothschild who owned the majority of the land and
the large mansion that had been built at the west end of the terrace; and
Thomas Farmer who retained a much smaller area at the north east of the
site contained the Small Mansion, expanded and embellished for Farmer by
the architects W. F. and W. W. Pocock. 28 A map of the Rothschild’s estate in
1847 shows both mansions and provides scenic views of the various
buildings and garden features around Gunnersbury in their designed
landscape. These are shown in Appendices 1.5-1.8 which demonstrate the
high quality of the environment around the house and gardens.
6.3.9 The Farmer family eventually sold their part of the estate to the Rothschilds
in 1889 and Gunnersbury returned to single ownership. By that time the
Rothschilds had expanded their farmland to the west, and introduced even
more buildings to the park including the boat house tower, extensions to the
Large Mansion by Sydney Smirke (see Appendix 3.9), the Orangery and
Stables (also by Smirke). The Orangery was a new ornamental garden
building designed to complement the older landscape formed by Kent and
Capability Brown. It was situated at the head of the old Horseshoe Pond in a
grove of trees (Appendices 1.6 and 1.7). Within Farmer’s land the gothic
ruins which hide the view of the stables from the small mansion had also
been constructed by W W Pocock. 29
6.3.10 Gunnersbury was eventually sold in its entirety to the borough councils of
Ealing and Acton in 1925 with covenants to ensure that the land and
28 See Appendic 3.8 for information on the Pococks. 29 A History of Gunnersbury, p.16. 54
properties would be set aside for public recreation. 30 Sadly, the park and its
buildings have since the 1960s been in decline which has resulted in the
inclusion of the Grade II* registered park itself and 11 of its listed buildings
(including the Grade II* Large Mansion, and East Stables) on Historic
England’s Heritage at Risk register.
6.3.11 Over the last decade a major period of investment of public funds has sought
to reverse the decline in the condition of these assets. The first phase has
recently been completed and has brought about the restoration and
reopening of the Large Mansion and its museum. Funding for these projects
has amounted to £18.6m in combined contributions from the London
Boroughs of Hounslow and Ealing and the Heritage Lottery Fund and
approximately £1m from Historic England since 2008. The investment in a
“Sports Hub” in Gunnersbury Park by both councils, the University of West
London, Sport England and a variety of national sports associations has
reached £13.8m (the Sports Hub is due to open in 2019). The total
commitment of public funds to date is around £33.5m. Further phases and
further funding are required to meet the full implementation of the 2012
masterplan (developed by the London Boroughs of Hounslow and Ealing),
and to secure additional public uses in the remaining buildings in the park.
6.3.12 The park is highly significant for its architectural history; the rich variety of
historic buildings around the park including ornamental garden structures,
estate buildings, and two great houses next to each other is unusual and
unique to this location. The association of the site to the architects John
30 A. and J. Collett-White, Gunnersbury Park and the Rothschilds (Heritage Publications and Hounslow Leisure Services, Hounslow: 1993), p. 57. 55
Webb, William Kent, William Chambers and Sydney Smirke is exceptional
and provides a catalogue of some of the greatest names in English
architecture.
6.3.13 The landscape of the park cannot be separated from the significance of the
buildings displayed within it. It is a designated heritage asset in its own right
and provides an immersive and seasonally variable environment which
contributes to its high quality setting.
6.3.14 Certain aspects of the landscape reveal fundamental features of the
significance of Gunnersbury Park. The terrace on which the Large and Small
Mansions are situated is a feature which dates back to the original terrace
constructed for the house of John Maynard by the architect John Webb.
Associated with it, perhaps by William Kent, are the surviving features of the
landscape that would have been familiar to the Princess Amelia. These
include the Round Pond, the Temple, and the (now partially reconstructed)
Horseshoe Pond. These are features designed to meet the highest
standards of their age, and provide valuable evidence of the role of female
patronage in the eighteenth century (especially when considered alongside
Princess Augusta’s own projects at Kew).
6.3.15 The view from the Grade II* listed Temple over the Round Pond is
particularly important as an example of the survival of this exceptional
historic landscape (see Appendix 1.8). The Round Pond is attributed to
William Kent, one of the greatest architects and designers of the first part of
56
the eighteenth century. 31 Kent’s contribution to the landscape here was one
of the first to break from the formality of John Webb’s original gardens. It is
likely that the Cedar groves visible to the south were planted as part of this
layout within the gardens. 32 They would have served to frame the Round
Pond and provide a natural vista, visually separating the landscape at
Gunnersbury from the world beyond.
6.3.16 The Temple itself is attributed to William Chambers, another major figure in
the canon of English architectural history though of a different generation to
Kent. 33 Chambers worked at Kew (the Orangery, the Pagoda) and is
renowned for many other major works including the design of Somerset
House. This ornamental garden temple is positioned at one of the highest
points in the landscape and is likely to have been used to entertain and to
impress visitors, providing a monument to the taste of Princess Amelia and a
feature which provided opportunities to appreciate the expansive views
available from that site. It is possible that the Temple when originally
constructed had a direct view to the Pagoda at Kew. If the building were to
have been designed by Chambers this design conceit would be of even
greater interest.
6.3.17 Another key viewpoint within Gunnersbury is the terrace and lawn running in
front of the Large and Small Mansions. This terrace is the major surviving
31 William Kent (1685-1748) collaborated with the Earl of Burlington on the designs of Burlington House and Chiswick House, produced many significant buildings in his own right including Holkham Hall and its landscape (Norfolk) and Horse Guards (Whitehall), as well as producing furniture and paintings. He was among the most significant proponents of the revival of Palladian architecture in England. 32 S. Fleming, ‘The Enduring Fragment: the 'Temple Garden' at Gunnersbury Park in the Nineteenth Century’, in The London Gardener , vol. 7, 2001-2, pp.54-66. 33 White, ‘As finely finished as anything’. 57
feature of Webb’s original house, and from the Grade II listed archway
standing between the two mansions it is possible to stand roughly at the
central point of Webb’s previous Gunnersbury House. One half of the historic
Horseshoe Pond has been recreated and the trees in front of the Grade II*
listed Orangery have been removed to help to reinstate the sense of the
highly considered aesthetic appeal of these garden views, which visually
separate Gunnersbury Park from suburban London beyond.
6.3.18 Gunnersbury is a site with many layers of significance, from the highest
architectural standards to the communal value of a public park approaching
its centenary year. Its unusual form combines the built legacies of great
houses by John Webb, Sydney Smirke and William Pocock, all set within
landscapes shaped by William Kent, William Chambers and ‘Capability’
Brown. Understanding these layers and the key points at which they are
properly revealed helps to understand the value of this highly significant site.
Major recent investment in the restoration of the buildings and landscape is
helping to reveal just how exceptional that value is.
6.3.19 Gunnersbury Cemetery (laid out in 1929) lies to the south of Gunnersbury
Park. It is outside the Grade II* Registered Park & Garden but part of
Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area. The land historically formed part of
the Gunnersbury Park estate and was purchased by the Royal Borough of
Kensington & Chelsea from the Rothschild family. It is laid out in a grid
pattern joined in a curve at the south-western end of the site. At the central
point of the grid is a simple brick chapel that forms an axial focus in the view.
The 1990 Conservation Area Appraisal explains that the definition of the
58
area itself was drawn to focus both on Gunnersbury Park and on the
Cemetery (CDF.04).
6.3.20 The most significant built element of the cemetery is the Katyn Memorial, a
black obelisk designed by Louis Fitzgibbon in 1976 that stands at the other
axial focus of the cemetery where the Roman Catholic chapel formerly stood
until damaged by bombing in the Second World War. 34 It is a striking
monument that commemorates a particularly terrible event during the
Second World War that affected the Polish community in this part of London.
6.3.21 In common with many other cemeteries the area has considerable
communal and historical value for its many memorials. For the Polish and
Eastern European communities of west London those values are especially
strong, not least because of the presence of the Katyn Memorial. Alongside
that are figures such as General Tadeusz Bòr-Komorowski (1895-1966), the
Commander of Polish resistance 1943-44 who had ordered the Warsaw
uprising in 1944. Other significant memorials include that of the Oscar-
winning director, Sir Carol Reed (1906-76), and the architect of the principal
facade of Buckingham Palace, Sir Aston Webb (1849-1930). 35
Applicant’s Assessment of Impact – Gunnersbury Park and Gunnersbury Cemetery
6.3.22 Views 1-4 and View 33 (CDA.11) assess the impact of the proposals on
Gunnersbury Park and Gunnersbury Cemetery. View 1 is looking south-east
towards the site from the park’s north-west entrance, which is in a part of the
34 H. Meller, London Cemeteries: an illustrated guide and gazetteer , 3 rd ed. (Scolar Press, Aldershot: 1994), p.139. 35 Ibid, pp.139-142. 59
park characterised by open fields rather than a designed landscape. The
effects are judged to be ‘Moderate; Beneficial’. The proposed development is
judged to add a new element to the skyline that, whilst being taller than its
neighbours, is ‘superior in its composition, materiality and colouration’.
6.3.23 View 2 assesses the impact of the proposals within Gunnersbury Park from
the north bank of the Round Pond near the Grade II* Temple looking south
towards the development site in summer with the trees in full leaf. The
assessment identifies the Round Pond as an historic element of the Grade
II* Registered Park, and describes the view, but does not describe the
setting of the registered park or its other historic elements of the designed
landscape. There is no assessment of the degree to which the setting of, or
the view within, the Grade II* Registered Gunnersbury Park makes a
contribution to its significance as advised in the Good Practice Advice note
#3 (CDF.13). The sensitivity is judged as ‘medium’, ‘given the existing
visibility of high buildings’. The effect is judged as ‘Moderate; Beneficial’, and
the new development is described as ‘complementary to the view, while the
coloured fins add texture and visual interest, making it an object of beauty
and a suitable marker for the urban context of the park’.
6.3.24 View 3 assesses the impact of the proposals in winter from within
Gunnersbury Park from the terrace of the Grade II* listed Gunnersbury
House (also known as the Large Mansion) looking south with the partially
obscured Grade II* listed Orangery in the foreground. The assessment
identifies the Grade II* listed Orangery, and describes the view, but does not
describe the setting of the Orangery or the registered park in detail. There is
60
no assessment of the degree to which the setting of, or view towards the
Grade II* listed Orangery makes a contribution to the significance of either
the listed building or the registered park as advised in the Good Practice
Advice note #3 (CDF.13). The sensitivity is assessed as ‘medium’, and the
change to the view resulting from the proposals is considered to be low
given the amount of occlusion by foreground trees. The assessment
acknowledges that the development will be partially visible in winter, but that
the qualitative aspects of the proposed development ‘will make it a
compatible addition to this view’.
6.3.25 View 33 assesses the impact of the proposals in summer from the lawn in
front of the Gunnersbury House terrace looking south towards the Grade II*
listed Orangery. The assessment identifies the Grade II* listed Orangery,
and describes the view, but does not describe the setting of the Orangery or
the registered park in detail. There is no assessment of the degree to which
the setting of, or view towards the Grade II* listed Orangery makes a
contribution to the significance of either the listed building or the registered
park as advised in the Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13). The
sensitivity is assessed as medium, and the text notes that the view is ‘not as
compositionally attractive’. The change to the view by the proposals is
considered low. The effect is judged as ‘Minor; Beneficial’, ‘owing to the
contribution that the proposed development will make to the landscape in
this view’. The proposed building, due to its proportions, articulation, texture
and detailed colouration, ‘allow it to sits [sic] comfortably amongst the trees,
in the background of the view. It will be a qualitative addition which will do no
harm to the setting of the heritage assets.’
61
6.3.26 View 4 assesses the impact of the proposals from within Gunnersbury
Cemetery looking south east towards the development site in winter. The
assessment describes the view but does not consider how the setting
contributes to the significance of the conservation area as advised in the
Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13). Sensitivity is judged as ‘medium-
high’. The effect of the proposed development is considered ‘Major;
Beneficial’, owing largely to the articulation of the proposed new tower, its
detailing, materials and colour palette, all of which ‘result in a building which
does not impede on the open quality of the view but uplifts it by introducing
an object of beauty into the view’
Historic England Assessment of Impact – Gunnersbury Park and Gunnersbury Cemetery
6.3.27 The development site is located approximately 975m from the Round Pond
of Gunnersbury Park and 840m from the terrace of the Large Mansion. The
site is separated from Gunnersbury Park by the Gunnersbury Cemetery and
the B & Q site along the North Circular Road.
6.3.28 The development would appear visible as a new urban element within
Gunnersbury Park in a number of views, which are assessed in detail below.
The impacts on Gunnersbury Park are set out in the applicants’ THVIA as
Views 1, 2, 3 and 33 (CDA.11). The impact on Gunnersbury Cemetery is
assessed in View 4 .
62
6.3.29 In View 1, which is taken from the north-west entrance looking south-east in
winter, the proposed development appears above the treeline as the tallest
built element in the view. Whilst this part of Gunnersbury Park does not
retain features of the designed landscape found elsewhere in the park, it is
of some significance as a remnant of the rural agricultural landscape that
once supported the estate. The proposed development would erode the
legibility of the landscape by introducing a large modern element to it.
6.3.30 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, however the solidity of the block as a whole will be
visually arresting. The building may reflect sunlight at particular times of day,
and in the evening and night time the building will appear unusually
prominent. It will permanently compound the existing visual intrusion to the
skyline resulting from existing modern buildings in the backdrop.
6.3.31 The consented new Brentford football stadium and other consented
developments appear to the right in the view, but the blocks are much lower
and less visually dominant compared to the proposed development.
6.3.32 In View 2 , which is taken directly in front of the Grade II* Temple and
overlooks the Round Pond with trees in nearly full leaf, the proposed
development appears to the south above the treeline as the tallest built
element of the view. The poor quality perimeter fence around the pond
shown in the applicants’ view has since been replaced by a higher quality
fence through recent public investment to improve the visual presentation of
the park.
63
6.3.33 The development will appear prominently within the view, introducing a pair
of dominant towers that disrupt the predominantly verdant and natural
backdrop to the designed parkland. The trees that separate the park from
suburban London beyond continue the 18 th century tradition of forming an
arboreal boundary between the landscape (which includes the Round Pond)
and the world beyond. The conspicuous height and form of the proposed
development visually encroaches into the designed landscape, breaking
down and undermining the purpose of the arboreal boundary, and visually
bringing the modern city into Gunnersbury Park.
6.3.34 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, however the solidity of the block as a whole will
visually arresting. This will be exacerbated in winter views without the leaves
which are shown screening the lower part of the development. The building
may reflect sunlight at particular times of day, and in the evening and night
time the building will appear unusually prominent.
6.3.35 The skyline, which is currently largely formed by the shape of the tree tops,
will be fundamentally and permanently altered.
6.3.36 The consented new Brentford football stadium scheme appears to the right
of the cedar groves mentioned above, but much lower than the top of the
treeline. It causes some harm to the significance of the Grade II* Registered
Park through development affecting its setting, but the degree of harm is less
than that of the current proposals.
64
6.3.37 View 3 is taken from the terrace immediately in front of the Grade II* Large
Mansion. It looks south over the lawn and is entirely enclosed by the trees of
the designed landscape. Beyond the mature cedar tree at the right hand side
of the view is the Grade II* listed Orangery designed by Sydney Smirke. The
existing context has changed since this image was created, as one half of
the historic Horseshoe Pond has now been recreated at the centre of the
image, and some of the foliage concealing the Orangery from view has been
trimmed or removed to reveal that important building. The relationship
between the Large Mansion and the Orangery in this view is now much more
apparent and the restoration of lost features of the designed landscape helps
to reveal and enhance the significance of the Grade II* registered park.
6.3.38 In this view the development will be visible through the branches of the cedar
tree directly to the south of the Large Mansion. The applicants have not
shown a rendered visualisation of the development. However, as no other
tall buildings are visible from the terrace in this view, a solid structure behind
the trees is likely to be prominent. The height of the development is such that
even from this relatively well-screened position it will still appear prominently
at the heart of the historic landscape.
6.3.39 It is not possible to assess in detail whether the colour, materials or
reflectiveness of the proposal will be especially conspicuous in this view as
the image provided gives only a wireline impression. However, in my opinion
the detailing, materiality and colouration will be difficult to perceive and it will
be the solidity of this new building looming behind the trees that will be
understood as an alien element in the designed landscape. This effect is
65
unlikely to change between summer and winter and the cedar which stands
in front of the development in View 3 is an evergreen.
6.3.40 View 3 demonstrates that the impact of the proposal would be noticeable at
a point of the highest significance within the setting of the Large and Small
Mansions, the Orangery, and the Registered Park as a whole. It will be
permanent, irreversible, and unmitigated by the presence of any cumulative
impacts.
6.3.41 View 33 looks south from the lawn in front of the terrace to Gunnersbury
House (the Large Mansion) towards the Grade II* listed Orangery with the
trees in full leaf. The proposed development appears above the varied
treeline, introducing modern development for the first time. The view has
since changed with the partial reinstatement of the historic Horseshoe Pond
and the removal of trees in front of the Orangery as previously described.
6.3.42 The development will appear prominently within the view, introducing a pair
of dominant towers that break the uninterrupted verdant and natural
backdrop to the designed parkland. The conspicuous height and form of the
development would appear above the trees that currently screen
Gunnersbury Park from wider suburban London beyond, undermining the
historic role of trees forming a backdrop to the landscape and visually
separating it from the wider world beyond. Suburban London, through the
visual impact of the proposed development, would merge with the historic
landscape for the first time from this important view.
66
6.3.43 The proposed development would visually compete with and distract from
the presence of the Grade II* listed Orangery, which was overlaid onto the
older designed landscape by Sydney Smirke, and remains the only building
in the view. Smirke’s carefully conceived relationship between the Orangery
and its parkland setting has been made more legible through the recent
restoration of the Horseshoe Pond, and this historic relationship would be
fundamentally and permanently altered by the proposed development.
6.3.44 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, however the solidity of the block as a whole will be
visually arresting. This will be exacerbated in winter views without the leaves
which are shown screening the lower part of the development. The building
may reflect sunlight at particular times of day, and in the evening and night
time the building will appear unusually prominent.
6.3.45 The skyline, which is currently largely formed by the shape of the tree tops,
will be fundamentally and permanently altered. There are no other
consented proposals that would affect the skyline in this view.
6.3.46 The applicants have not assessed the impact of the proposals on the
significance of Gunnersbury Park in accordance with the recommended
approach in Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note #3. In my opinion
the proposals cause serious harm to the significance of the Grade II*
registered landscape and the Grade II* listed Orangery through the impact
on their settings. Although the harm is serious, I believe it is less than
substantial when considered against the policies of the NPPF. This is
because the development is partially obscured by trees in the key views, and
67
would likely be entirely obscured at other viewing points nearby.
Nevertheless, the proposals will appear prominently in important views
illustrating the significance of the designed landscape and its important
features (including the Grade II* listed Orangery), and will therefore cause
serious harm as set out above.
6.3.47 The development site is located approximately 300 m from the cemetery
chapel at Gunnersbury Cemetery. The site is separated from the cemetery
by the B & Q site along the North Circular Road. The position of the
proposed development is on the axial line south, directly aligned with the
chapel itself.
6.3.48 View 4 looks south along the axis described above, taken from the northern
end of the path at nearly the furthest point within the cemetery from the
development. The proposed new towers appear especially prominent, as the
entire width of the development with its three tower elements is visible.
Given the proximity to the development site, the proposed towers will have a
highly dominant presence, and will appear conspicuous against the low-
lying, contemplative surroundings of this part of the conservation area.
6.3.49 The proposed towers visually compete with and distract from the sombre
character of the cemetery with its low monuments, discreetly unassuming
chapel and green spaces. The impact of the proposals is obvious. The
scale, massing and proportions of the proposed building, and its
juxtaposition with the cemetery result in an overwhelming presence that
detracts from the significance of the conservation area as set out above.
Although the harm is serious, I believe it is less than substantial when
68
considered against the policies of the NPPF. This is because modern
buildings currently form part of the setting of the conservation area, and the
proposed development would not affect the dominant character of the
conservation area as a purpose-built cemetery with its planned grid and low
lying monuments. Nevertheless, the overwhelming visual presence of the
proposed development would compete with these character elements,
thereby causing serious harm as set out above.
6.4 Assessment of Significance – Kew Green Conservation Area
6.4.1 Kew Green was designated as a conservation area in January 1969 and
extended twice in the 1980s (CDF.02). It forms part of the buffer zone of the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site, and contains 38 listed
sites, including four Grade II* listed structures (St Anne’s Church (Appendix
2.9), the tombs of Thomas Gainsborough and Johan Zoffany in St Anne’s
Churchyard (Appendices 2.10 and 2.11), and the Elizabeth Gate into Kew
Gardens (Appendix 2.12)).
6.4.2 Kew grew up as a village on the outskirts of the parish of Kingston and its
form was determined by historic transport routes, private estates, the river
Thames, and the common land of the Green at its centre. The polygonal
form of Kew Green once extended in a wedge shape past the present site of
the Elizabeth Gate all the way to the south elevation of Kew Palace (the
Dutch House). This is illustrated in Rocque’s 1741-45 map of the area, a
detail of which is shown in Appendix 1.9. From that western extremity the
principal ferry crossing from Brentford to Kew could be reached. The
69
cheaper horse ferry further down river at the site of the present Kew Bridge
provided more direct access to the road to Richmond and to the larger part
of the Green.
6.4.3 Almost every building bordering or contained within the Green is listed, and
most date from the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries, though some
are older still. Appendix 1.10 demonstrates some of the density of the
heritage designations along just one side of the Green. The common land is
a rare and well preserved example of a large green at the centre of a London
village, even including a cricket pitch and pavilion. The church at its south
was erected on the basis of a public subscription in the early eighteenth
century with a significant part of the costs paid for by Queen Anne, after
whom it is named.
6.4.4 Much like Strand on the Green across the Thames, Kew Green was an
attractive location for the high society of the seventeenth and eighteenth
century. Of particular note is the artist Peter Lely, and major figures
associated with the botanical gardens such as William Aiton, and William
and Joseph Hooker. 36
6.4.5 At Kew Green, however, the royal family itself were part of the community.
The original western extremity of the Green included the Dutch House, the
Queen’s House and the White House, of which today only the Dutch House
36 Desmond, Kew , Appendix XII. 70
survives. All three buildings at various times provided homes for reigning
monarchs and major figures of the Georgian royal family. Further along the
Green other members of the royal family were accommodated in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such as Cambridge House, at 37 The
Green, which was the home of the Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge,
son of George III (Appendix 3.1).37
6.4.6 Likewise, Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, lived
first at King’s Cottage and later at the building now called Herbarium. Ernest
Augustus was the fourth son of George III and at the death of his older
brother became King of Hanover. Even after moving to Hanover he retained
landed interests around Kew for many years though eventually relinquished
them to the botanical gardens. 38
6.4.7 All of this helps to illustrate the fact that Kew Green was at the heart of the
Hanoverian political and cultural establishment. It has been formed as much
by the Thames at its outer extremity as by the currents of fashion, society,
power and patronage. And yet, perhaps uniquely, it has maintained its
identity as a traditional village green alongside these major historical
associations.
6.4.8 As Kew Gardens were democratised through massively increased public
access by the end of the nineteenth century (visitor numbers in their millions
37 Desmond, Kew , pp.413-415. 38 Desmond, Kew , pp.413, 417. 71
are recorded throughout the later nineteenth and the whole of the twentieth
centuries) the Green beyond the Elizabeth Gate became a place of public
enjoyment surrounded by private homes, buildings serving the gardens
themselves, and public houses. That character has been preserved to the
present day. 39
6.4.9 The setting of the Green is integral to its significance. The character and
appearance of the Green is upheld by the sense of broad open space
bounded by historic buildings. As such it is immediately identifiable as a
traditional English village centre. This high quality local environment is given
a clear boundary and sense of enclosure by the line of well-preserved
historic buildings and trees at its edges. It is traditional, aesthetically
pleasing, and valuable for its immediately appreciable character as an
historic place largely set apart from the modern city beyond.
Applicant’s Assessment of Impact – Kew Green Conservation Area
6.4.10 Views 21, 21A, 21N, and 34 (CDA.11), and 40 and 42 (CDA.15) comprise
the applicant’s assessment of impact on Kew Green Conservation Area.
View 21 assesses the impact from Kew Green looking north in winter. The
assessment describes the view and identifies listed buildings and the
location within the WHS Buffer Zone, but does not consider how the setting
contributes to the significance of the conservation area and its many listed
buildings as advised in the Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13).
Sensitivity is judged at high. The effect of the new proposal is considered
39 Desmond, Kew , Appendix IV. 72
‘Major; Beneficial’. Its organic form is described as making it a ‘gentle
companion to the existing group of buildings’. It is suggested that the
sculptural form, surface texture and subtle colouration of the proposed
building enable its high quality to be appreciated, and that ‘this special form
and the ‘personality’ it expresses is appropriate in making a future important
place at a major traffic node. It provides, therefore, welcome urban legibility’.
A night-time (or twilight) version of the view (View 21N) is also provided, with
the proposed new building appearing ‘as in daylight, as a building of
considerable interest and sensitive design’.
6.4.11 View 21A is an additional summer view to illustrate the kinetic effect as the
viewer moves eastward across Kew Green. The view is stated to be included
for information rather than assessment, and notes that the proposed
development will be partially obscured by trees, and that the consented
Brentford football stadium scheme at Lionel Road will ‘provide a
considerable level of backdrop to Kew Green’.
6.4.12 View 34 assesses the impact from Kew Green East looking north in autumn
with the trees nearly in full leaf. The assessment describes the view and
notes the mature perimeter trees restricting views of the houses beyond, but
does not consider how the setting contributes to the significance of the
conservation area and the terrace of nine listed buildings along the north
side of the Green as advised in the Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13).
Sensitivity is judged as medium. The effect of the new proposal is
considered ‘Moderate; Beneficial’. The claimed high quality of the proposed
building is described as ‘successful in providing curvature, sculptural form,
73
texture and colour all of which is complementary with this context. It also
provides urban legibility to an area aspiring to achieve a high quality of
environment as is enjoyed here.’
6.4.13 View 40 (one of the additional views) assesses the impact from near the
Grade II* listed St. Anne’s Church in winter, with its entrance portico and
tower in full view. The assessment describes the view and identifies the
listed building, but does not consider how the setting of the church
contributes to its significance as advised in the Good Practice Advice note
#3 (CDF.13). Sensitivity is judged as medium. The effect of the new proposal
is considered ‘Minor; Beneficial’. It is conceded that ‘some viewers may not
appreciate the visibility of an additional tall building in the background setting
of Kew Green, or of the listed church’. Nevertheless, it is claimed that the
proposed architecture and its subordination to the church mitigate the
additional visibility and that ‘there is no harm done to the significance of the
listed church by way of the additional visible building in its wider setting.’
6.4.14 View 42 (also an additional view) assesses the impact from the north-east
corner of Kew Green in winter, looking north across the pond. The
assessment describes the view and identifies the five listed buildings at 52-
56 Kew Green and 62 and 64 Kew Green, but does not consider how the
setting contributes to the significance of the listed buildings or the
conservation area as advised in the Good Practice Advice note #3 (CDF.13).
Sensitivity is judged as medium. The effect of the new proposal is
considered ‘Minor; Beneficial’. It is conceded that ‘the 18 th century cottages
74
will, for the first time, receive a backdrop building’, and that some might
consider this to be a negative effect which could harm the significance of the
listed cottages. However, the ‘architectural quality of the proposed
development balances its visibility in the background’.
Historic England Assessment of Impact – Kew Green Conservation
Area
6.4.15 The development site is located approximately one kilometre from the
viewing positions of the main green at Kew Green, and slightly less than this
from the eastern part of the green. The site is separated from Kew Green by
the M4 Motorway, Brentford High Street and the River Thames.
6.4.16 The proposed development would appear visible as a new urban element in
the backdrop of Kew Green in the views provided by the applicants, which
are assessed in detail below. The impacts on Kew Green are set out in the
applicants’ THVIA as Views 21, 21A, 21N, 34, 40 and 42 .
6.4.17 In View 21 , which is taken in the south-west corner of the green towards the
buildings fronting the northern edge of the green (most of which are listed,
Appendix 1.10), the development appears above the treeline and height of
the existing buildings and would become the tallest element in the view.
6.4.18 The development will appear prominently within the view, introducing one
mass of two towers that disrupts the historic low scale of the skyline formed
by the 18 th , 19 th and early 20 th century buildings fronting the Green. The
currently harmonious combination of foreground open space and a
75
background of traditionally scaled buildings and trees that makes Kew Green
instantly recognisable as one of London’s best remaining village greens
would be encroached upon by the conspicuous height and form of modern
development.
6.4.19 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, and the solidity of the building as a whole will be
visually arresting. The building may reflect sunlight at particular times of day,
and in the evening and night the building will appear unusually prominent as
shown in View 21N . The skyline, which is currently formed by the shapes of
existing buildings and trees, will be fundamentally and permanently altered in
the same way the 1970s Haverfield Estate towers regrettably altered the
skyline in some views looking further west.
6.4.20 The consented Brentford football stadium scheme appears slightly above the
roofline of the Grade II listed building at 71 Kew Green, but remain below the
treeline and will be largely screened in summer by existing trees in full leaf.
The football stadium proposals cause a degree of harm to the Grade II listed
building at 71 Kew Green and the conservation area through development
within their settings, but the degree of harm is much less than that of the
current proposals. Historic England objected in 2013 to the Brentford football
stadium proposals, partly due to their impact on Kew Green Conservation
Area.
76
6.4.21 The impacts set out above are likely to apply to View 21A , particularly in
winter, although the proposed development will be partly obscured by trees
in summer.
6.4.22 In View 34 , taken from the east part of the green, the development appears
above the treeline and height of the existing buildings as the tallest element
in the view. It appears directly above the unlisted early 20 th century mock
Tudor Greyhound public house, and to the east of a terrace of Grade II listed
early 19 th century brick houses.
6.4.23 The development will appear extremely prominently within the view,
introducing a conspicuous mass of two towers that dominates the historic
low scale of the skyline formed by the 19 th and early 20 th century buildings
fronting this part of the Green. Like the western part of the Green, the
currently harmonious combination of foreground open space and a
background of traditionally scaled buildings and trees that makes Kew Green
instantly recognisable as one of London’s best remaining village greens
would be encroached upon by the conspicuous height and form of modern
development.
6.4.24 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, and the solidity of the building as a whole will be
visually arresting. The building may reflect sunlight at particular times of day,
and in the evening and night the building will appear unusually prominent.
The skyline, which is currently formed by the shapes of existing buildings
77
and trees, will be fundamentally and permanently disfigured in the same way
the 1970s Haverfield Estate towers regrettably disfigured the skyline in some
views looking further west. There are no consented proposals that affect this
view.
6.4.25 In View 42 , taken from the north end of the pond looking north over Kew
Green, the development appears above the group of two storey, Grade II
listed brick buildings at 52-62 Kew Green, which date from the 18 th and early
19 th centuries. The development appears directly above the roofline of the
early 19 th century Grade II listed houses at 60 and 62 Kew Green.
6.4.26 The development will appear extremely prominently within the view,
introducing a conspicuous mass of two towers that dominates the historic
low scale of the skyline formed by the two and three storey brick cottages
that front this part of the Green. Like the western part of the Green, the
currently harmonious combination of foreground open space (here with the
pond) and a background of traditionally scaled buildings that makes Kew
Green instantly recognisable as one of London’s best remaining village
greens would be encroached upon by the conspicuous height and form of
modern development.
6.4.27 The materials and detailing of the development are unlikely to be readily
appreciable in this view, and the solidity of the building as a whole will be
visually arresting. The building may reflect sunlight at particular times of day,
and in the evening and night the building will appear unusually prominent.
78
The skyline, which is currently formed by the shapes of existing buildings
and trees, will be fundamentally and permanently disfigured in the same way
the 1970s Haverfield Estate towers regrettably permanently altered the
skyline in some views looking further west. There are no consented
proposals that affect this view, and the current proposed development would
be the first to rise above the historic roofline.
6.4.28 The applicants have not assessed the impact of the proposals on the
significance of the Kew Green Conservation Area and its many listed
buildings in accordance with the recommended approach in Historic
England’s Good Practice Advice Note #3 (CDF.13). In my opinion the
proposals cause serious harm to the significance of the listed buildings
through the impact on their settings. The proposals cause substantial harm
to the significance of Kew Green Conservation Area when considered
against the policies of the NPPF (CDC.01). This is because the setting of the
conservation area, comprised by a large village green and framed by historic
buildings and trees with very little visual encroachment of the modern city
beyond, is integral to its significance. The prominent visual presence of a tall
building as proposed would fundamentally undermine this significance by
visually imposing the modern city onto a village green setting that has
remained largely unaffected by large scale modern development. Whilst I
accept that the proposals would not cause any physical harm to the
conservation area or its listed buildings, I believe that the impact on setting
of the conservation area is so great as to result in substantial harm to that
designated heritage asset’s significance.
79
6.5 Assessment of Significance – Strand on the Green Conservation Area
6.5.1 Strand on the Green was designated as a conservation area in 1968, a year
after the Civic Amenities Act which enabled such protections (CDF.01). It
was the very first conservation area to be designated in the London Borough
of Hounslow, and this is reflective of its very high levels of significance. 40 The
area contains 23 listed heritage assets, many of these covering several
addresses, and includes the Grade II* listed Zoffany House (Appendix 2.13).
6.5.2 The area originated as a fishing village on the edge of the parish of
Chiswick. It grew up along the river’s edge with gardens to the rear running
down to a back lane, now called Thames Road. Just beyond the western
termination of the Strand was a ferry crossing to Kew Green which, from
1759 was replaced by a bridge. The existing bridge is Grade II listed and
when completed in 1903 was the third to have been built. The area just prior
to the construction of the first bridge is illustrated in Rocque’s map of 1741-5,
Appendix 1.9.
6.5.3 The spread of London spurred the growth of settlement in this desirable
riverside area. In particular it allowed an escape from the business of
London and therefore appealed to the classically-inspired tastes of the late
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries that imposed upon it a vision of
Arcadia.
40 K. Judges, Strand on the Green, Chiswick, in the 18 th Century, 2nd ed., (LB Hounslow, Hounslow: 1969), p.2. 80
6.5.4 Strand on the Green was an unusual survival even in the eighteenth century.
It was bordered by great estates and the houses of the aristocracy. To its
east was Chiswick House, the spectacular home of the Earl of Burlington,
across the river was the Georgian royal court in one form or another at Kew,
Richmond, and in various parts of Kew Green itself. Past the town of
Brentford was Syon House and to the north was Gunnersbury Park.
6.5.5 Strand on the Green was less refined than those great estates and less built
up than Brentford. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it
maintained some of its population of fishermen, watermen, inn holders and
those working in the several malthouses that lined the river. 41 It was informal,
having grown up organically and not part of a planned development.
6.5.6 The maltings of up-river Middlesex were renowned for their quality, and in
the eighteenth century six malthouses were in operation along the Thames
around Strand on the Green. Of them one still survives in part (46-47 Strand
on the Green). 42 Those maltings helped to support another industry still
synonymous with the area: its public houses. At least four inns were in
operation in the eighteenth century at Strand on the Green, of which three
continue to serve the public from premises in the same location, some
incorporating remnants of their original fabric. 43
41 Judges, Strand on the Green , pp.7-10. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid; and J. R. Inglis and J. Sanders, Panorama of the Thames: a riverside view of Georgian London , (Thames and Hudson, London: 2015). 81
6.5.7 In addition to travellers heading to and from London, and the local
community, those inns catered for popular river parties made by members of
the public to enjoy the environment around Kew. Raucous groups on boats
holding musical parties on the Aits of the Thames help to identify this area as
one of relaxation and enjoyment. 44
6.5.8 Alongside the inns and maltings, and the bustle of the river, Strand on the
Green was home to many courtiers and figures from the arts and sciences
whose work required them to live in close proximity to the royal court and to
fashionable society. 45 Several of the major figures associated with the
development of the botanical gardens lived here, and of the artists who have
made it their home the most significant was Johan Zoffany.
6.5.9 Zoffany was born in Frankfurt in 1733 and worked in various German states,
the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Italian peninsular and India, but the best
part of his career was spent in Britain where he eventually retired. In his
lifetime Zoffany was a celebrated figure enjoying the patronage of the
Imperial Court at Vienna, and the Royal Family in Britain where George III,
Queen Charlotte and their children were all painted by Zoffany. He was
among the earliest members of the Royal Academy, and at the peak of his
career would have been considered on a par with Gainsborough and
Reynolds. 46
44 Desmond, Kew , Appendix XIII; Treadwell, Zoffany , p.320. 45 Judges, Strand on the Green , pp.11-26. 46 M. Postle, ed., Johan Zoffany RA: society observed (Yale University Press, New Haven and London: 2011); P. Treadwell, Johan Zoffany: artist and adventurer (Paul Holberton Publishing, London: 2009); M. Webster, Johan Zoffany 1733-1810 (2011: Yale University Press, New Haven and London). 82
6.5.10 Zoffany’s early career was greatly helped by the patronage of David Garrick,
the actor. Garrick’s performances as well as his family life and individual
portraits were painted by the artist. In particular Garrick commissioned four
scenes depicting his newly improved villa on the Thames at Hampton
(Appendix 1.14). Although Zoffany had not yet moved to Strand on the
Green, these pictures show an appreciation of the charms of the riverside
setting the Thames could afford to the rich and famous, the ‘Arcadian
Thames’. 47
6.5.11 Zoffany’s residence at Strand on the Green was interrupted between 1783
and 1789, during which time he was in India, accompanied by his next-door
neighbour and apprentice, a young painter called Thomas Longcroft
(d.1811). 48 During his absence ‘Mrs Zoffany’ continued to live at Strand on
the Green. Zoffany returned with new found wealth in 1789 and set about
buying up the copyhold of not only his rented house but four others along
Strand on the Green including the largest of them which is now called
Zoffany House. 49
6.5.12 One pleasing feature of the houses along Strand on the Green in the 1780s
and 90s was a string of lanterns that ran across the fronts of the houses.
According to an anecdote, Queen Charlotte stopped her carriage one
evening as it crossed Kew Bridge to take in the prettiness of these lanterns
47 Treadwell, Zoffany , p.438. 48 Webster, Zoffany , p.530. 49 Treadwell, Zoffany , p.398. 83
and the houses against the river. 50 This story helps to build an impression of
the kind of atmosphere that may have existed in this affluent community
along the Thames in the Middlesex countryside.
6.5.13 Whilst living at Zoffany House the artist built himself a studio in its rear
garden and we can assume that many of his later works were painted here.
Though difficult to substantiate, it is claimed that Zoffany used local residents
and fisherman as the models for individuals in his paintings, particularly two
versions of the Last Supper that he produced whilst living at Strand on the
Green (Appendix 1.15).51
6.5.14 No paintings by Zoffany of the Strand on the Green survive, but this is not
surprising. He was not a painter of Picturesque or Romantic landscapes. He
was, however, an individual conscious of fashion and status and his choice
of address should be seen to reflect this. Although sadly it did not result in
any visual sources, Zoffany’s time at Strand on the Green is illustrative none
the less. The area was depicted not long after Zoffany’s death in a
‘Panorama of the Thames’ (Appendix 1.12). The Panorama is striking not
only as an historical source, but also as a demonstration of how little the
waterfront and its setting has changed in 200 years.
6.5.15 Zoffany is only one example of the many cultural figures drawn to Strand on
the Green. It is clear from the numerous historic paintings and photographs
of the river scene at this point in the Thames that the picturesque quality of
50 Webster, Zoffany , p.552. 51 Webster and Treadwell differ in their accounts of this: Webster, Zoffany , pp.590-1; Treadwell, Zoffany , pp.398-399. 84
the area had great appeal. Strand on the Green is well represented in
painted works held in public collections, and a cursory glance at the records
of auction sales and private dealerships confirms that a great many more
exist in private hands. These include paintings from the eighteenth century to
the present day, with artists such as J M W Turner and F W Watts having
painted the scene. 52 Watts’ image of Strand on the Green is in the collection
of the Chequers Trust and is displayed at the Prime Minister’s country
residence.
6.5.16 One especially interesting set of images of the Strand on the Green was
produced by A S Hartrick and forms part of the collection of the Victoria and
Albert museum. Hartrick was part of the ‘Recording Britain’ programme
instituted by Sir Kenneth Clark during the Second World War. The scheme
sought to record for posterity traditional aspects of British life that would be
likely to undergo change due to the war or to the pace of change in the
twentieth century. Hartrick’s selection of the Strand on the Green as the
subject of several of his drawings is noteworthy as a sign of the area’s
perceived value even before listed building or conservation area designation
(Appendix 1.17).
6.5.17 Historic England’s own archive of historical photographs includes over 170
images of Strand on the Green, its buildings, the life on the river, and the
public at play. These photographs date from the nineteenth century
52 A small representative sample of such works is included in Appendices 1.16-1.19. Biographical information concerning F W Watts is given in Appendix 3.10. 85
(Appendix 1.13) through the 1970s and demonstrate the consistent appeal of
this riverside village to generations of different observers.
6.5.18 According to the Thames Strategy, a guidance document for managing
development along the Thames, Strand on the Green is one of only three
reaches of the River Thames within London that features a continual thread
of fine-grained traditional buildings with their faces towards the river (the
others being Barnes and Hammersmith/Chiswick). It is unique among these
to be unembanked, and has an entirely special character (CDF.11). This
separate identity has been a consistent strand of its history for more than
three hundred years and has survived despite the intensification of the city
around it.
6.5.19 From the south side of the Thames standing on the public towpath the
Strand on the Green is appreciated with the river in its foreground, the listed
buildings of the village’s historic core arranged along the riverfront, tightly
grained and varied in height and detail, and clear sky above (the consented
Citadel development, if built, would add a low, horizontal layer of built
development above the historic buildings). Oliver’s Island roots the view in
the Thames landscape, and the clear sense of a place of great historical
continuity and visual attractiveness can be understood. Appendix 1.11 gives
a sense of the dense grain of listed properties standing side by side against
the river.
86
6.5.20 To the west can be seen some of the taller buildings around the Great West
Road, undermining the quality of the backdrop to this high quality scene.
Despite their presence those buildings are visually separate from the
immediate skyline of the listed buildings in the best views from the opposite
bank of the river and as such the setting of the Strand on the Green has
been remarkably well preserved until the present day.
Applicant’s Assessment of Impact – Strand on the Green Conservation
Area
6.5.21 Views 12 and 12A (CDA.11 and CDA.15) are relevant to the applicant’s
assessment of the impact on the proposals on Strand on the Green
Conservation Area. View 12 assesses the impact of the proposals on the
setting of Strand on the Green from the south bank of the river in winter. The
assessment describes the view but does not consider how the setting of
Strand on the Green contributes to the significance of its many listed
buildings or the conservation area as advised in Good Practice Advice Note
#3 (CDF.13). Sensitivity is judged at medium high. The effect of the
proposals is considered ‘Moderate; Beneficial’. The assessment stresses the
existing modern buildings visible in the backdrop, and suggests that the very
high architectural quality of the proposed new building is beneficial to the
openness of the view ‘as a building of high quality with a landmark purpose’.
6.5.22 View 12A was initially included as a wireline illustration in the December
2015 THVIA ‘for information rather than assessment’. It shows the proposed
tower as a wire line above the white stucco Grade II listed buildings along
the river. Despite not being included for assessment the notes
87
accompanying the view state that the ‘residual effect is similar at ‘moderate’
and ‘beneficial’ given the large scale overall context and small scale detail, to
which it responds’.
6.5.23 View 12A was included with a fully rendered visualisation in the October
2016 THVIA Addendum. It is explained that View 12 in the original THVIA is
not the view in which the heritage asset is most appreciated from the
Thames Path, and that View 12A is more representative of the whole terrace
of buildings on the river. The assessment emphasises the kinetic experience
of the view, the physical distance of the proposed tower from the riverside
context of the Conservation Area, the quality of the architecture, and the
cumulative effect of consented schemes nearby.
6.5.24 The THVIA addendum does not conclude its assessment of the impact of
View 12A in the same way as elsewhere in the two THVIA documents, but it
does provide a combined position on the impact of both views and on the
Strand on the Green Conservation Area more generally (Paragraphs 4.4-
4.6). This acknowledges that the skyline would be altered and while it refers
to a ‘potential harm to significance’ it concludes that this is ameliorated by
design quality. It is explained that the building was ‘designed to be seen in
the context of the conservation area buildings’, and the indicators of its
design quality include ‘its sculptural form, its textured finished and its
colouration, which was specifically derived from the colouration of the
existing group of Strand on the Green buildings and their reflection in the
88
river’. The applicants identify no harm to the significance of the Conservation
Area.
Historic England Assessment of Impact – Strand on the Green
Conservation Area
6.5.25 The development site is located approximately 850m from viewing position
12 and c. 620m from the Thames-side listed buildings in the Strand on the
Green Conservation Area. The proposal is situated directly north of the
Conservation Area in View 12 , which places the viewer on the south bank of
the Thames looking across the river with Oliver’s Island to the east. At the
centre of the view is a band of listed buildings, including Grade II* Zoffany
House. Further to the west is the continuation of the Conservation Area, but
none of the buildings in the western area are listed (Appendix 1.11
demonstrates the cluster of listed buildings around the core of the
Conservation Area). In the backdrop of these unlisted buildings two taller
buildings are seen, both of low architectural quality and through their height
and bulk causing some harm to the setting of the Strand on the Green.
6.5.26 The proposal from View 12 has an extreme degree of prominence,
dominance and conspicuousness. It exceeds the height of any of the
buildings in the conservation area more than twice over. It is much higher,
too, than the existing tall buildings seen in the western part of the view. Its
form and materials lack any relationship with the low-lying listed buildings
which it appears against.
89
6.5.27 The result is a competitive built form which draws attention away from the
quality of the Conservation Area and distracts from the appreciation of the
area’s historic riverside setting. The dimensions, scale, and massing of the
proposed development are characterised by extreme height and by the
expression of contemporary architectural forms associated with high density
urban structures. This is completely at odds with scale and appearance of
the well-preserved row of mostly eighteenth and nineteenth-century buildings
gathered at the water’s edge.
6.5.28 The new building will form a dense mass of clustered vertical forms that will
attract the eye through their irregular geometry and coloured external
detailing. The glass which forms the predominant surface material is likely to
reflect sunlight at various times of day and will allow light to spill outwards at
evening and night-time. Regardless of the season or the time of day these
major impacts will be apparent to anyone hoping to appreciate a view of one
the best preserved and most historic riverside scenes in London.
6.5.29 The level of change to the skyline is very pronounced and immediately
noticeable. The silhouette of the Conservation Area, with the clear backdrop
above the roofline of the listed buildings is completely transformed. The
result is a totally different character to the setting of the Strand on the Green
than is currently experienced. The relaxed, village-like form of the settlement
has been encroached upon by a domineering, urbanising structure quite
alien to the riverine surroundings.
90
6.5.30 The cumulative impacts shown clearly in the THVIA are focused around the
western part of the view and while we do not welcome the impact they will
have on the background of the Conservation Area, they will not appear
directly behind any listed buildings in these views and will stand alongside
existing impacts. The proposed tower, however, through its massing and
proportion, will be completely out of scale even with these consent impacts,
and will directly impact upon the silhouette and skyline of the Conservation
Area’s most significant buildings.
6.5.31 View 12 clearly demonstrates in my opinion that the proposed development
will cause permanent and irreversible harm to the significance of the
Conservation Area.
6.5.32 View 12A is taken from a position a few metres to the west of View 12 . It
helps to illustrate the kinetic experience of the view of the Strand on the
Green from the Thames Path, and serves as a helpful reminder that further
listed buildings come in to view beyond Oliver’s Island, revealing and
enhancing layers of significance within the Conservation Area.
6.5.33 View 12A includes the harmful existing impact of the BSI tower close to
Gunnersbury Station. This is a much lower scale building than the proposal
for the ‘Chiswick Curve’ and yet the regrettable nature of its impact on the
significance of the Conservation Area is clear. The proposed tower would
protrude above the roofline of the Conservation Area roughly three times as
high as the BSI building.
91
6.5.34 Between View 12 and View 12A the proposed development moves through
the background setting of several listed buildings. Its impact is not isolated to
a single location, but instead harms the whole kinetic experience of the
Conservation Area and its constituent listed and unlisted buildings, including
Grade II* Zoffany House. The proposed tower will rise above the roofline of
every listed building along the river when from its opposite bank, depending
on where the viewer is positioned.
6.5.35 The listed buildings along the riverside at the Strand on the Green are all
noted in their respective list descriptions for their Group Value. This is an
indicator of the over-layering of significance which takes place in sites of
such high heritage value. The association between one site and the next, the
presence a key building such as Zoffany House and the functioning of the
wider conservation area form a multi-layered and complex historic place, the
significance of which is even greater than the sum of its constituent parts.
6.5.36 This historic place is best appreciated in the kinetic experience enjoyed the
by viewer travelling along the south bank of the Thames. Whether standing
or moving along the Thames Path, the value of the setting of the Strand on
the Green is abundantly clear. The River itself is on key element, changing
with the tides and enlivened by boats, birds, and the play of wind on the
water. The buildings along the Strand are a major element of significance
and also a feature of the setting of the Conservation Area. Seen in person
these appear much larger and much nearer than is suggested by the wide
92
angle photography used in the THVIA. The final key element of the setting is
the mostly clear backdrop found in the skyline of the listed buildings.
6.5.37 Not only does this mostly clear skyline help to emphasise the prominence of
the conservation area buildings in the view, it also presents the conservation
area in a context best suited to enable understanding of its historical
development. The Strand on the Green’s origins as a fishing village that was
transformed when it became a fashionable satellite for those associated with
the playgrounds of the Georgian royal court is still legible, largely
unencumbered by obvious elements of the modern city beyond.
6.5.38 The proposal will appear in the kinetic experience of the Strand on the
Green’s wider setting. It will bring into this rare survival of London’s
exceptional historic environment a stark and unavoidable clash of character.
The presence of this very tall building will magnify and exacerbate existing
smaller impacts already noted for their irreconcilable difference of scale,
material, form and massing. View 12 and View 12A demonstrate
conclusively that a serious, permanent and irreversible change of character
would occur in the setting of the Conservation Area should the proposal be
permitted. An integral element of the very high significance of the Strand on
the Green would be fundamentally and adversely altered.
6.5.39 The applicants have not assessed the impact of the proposals on the
significance of the Strand on the Green Conservation Area and its many
listed buildings in accordance with the recommended approach in Historic
93
England’s Good Practice Advice Note #3 (CDF.13). In my opinion the
proposals cause serious harm to the significance of the listed buildings in
Strand on the Green through the impact on their settings. The proposals
cause substantial harm to the significance of Strand on the Green
Conservation Area when considered against the policies of the NPPF
(CDC.01). This is because the setting of the conservation area, comprised of
a well-preserved group of historic buildings along an unembanked part of the
Thames with little modern encroachment upon its historic skyline, is integral
to its significance. The prominent visual presence of a tall building as
proposed, which is many times the height of the traditional buildings forming
the character of the conservation area, would fundamentally undermine this
significance by visually imposing itself on well-preserved historic riverside
town.
6.5.40 From the south bank of the Thames, which is the best place to appreciate
the qualities of Strand on the Green as previously described, there is nothing
to conceal the presence of the proposed tall building and thereby mitigate its
harm. It would dominate the view, looming above every listed historic
riverside building as the viewer moves from Oliver’s Island to the west.
Whilst I accept that the proposals would not cause any physical harm to the
conservation area or its listed buildings, I believe, for the reasons set out
above, that the impact on the setting of the conservation area is so great as
to result in substantial harm to that designated heritage asset’s significance.
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
94
7.1. Historic England is the lead body for the heritage sector and is the
Government’s principal advisor on the historic environment. It has a statutory
role in the planning process advising on assets of the highest significance. It
is appearing as a Rule 6 Party at this inquiry because of the number and
significance of heritage assets that will be harmed by the proposed
development.
7.2. The architectural, historical and communal significance of all of the
designated heritage assets affected by the proposals (Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew WHS and the listed buildings within it; Grade II* Registered
Gunnersbury Park and the listed buildings with it; Kew Green Conservation
Area and the listed buildings within it; Strand on the Green Conservation
Area and the listed buildings within it) is, to an extent, dependent on
contribution made by the individual settings of the assets. The settings of all
of the designated assets, are commonly characterised by being mostly
unencumbered by the encroachment of the modern city beyond. It is
therefore possible to experience these heritage assets in a way that has
broadly remained unchanged with the passage of time. A highly unusual
situation.
7.3. In my opinion, as set out previously, the appearance of the proposed tall
building within the settings of the designated heritage assets described
above will harm the significance of these assets through the imposition of
modern development of a scale largely absent from their current settings.
95
7.4. The application documents do not, in any meaningful way, assess the
contribution setting makes to the significance of the designated heritage
assets affected. The THVIA assessment (CDA.11 and CDA.15) on the
significance of the heritage assets affected by the proposals and the
contribution made by the setting to that significance, is cursory at best and
does not follow the guidance set out in Historic England Good Practice
Advice #3 (CDF.13).
7.5. Instead, the appellant’s methodology used to assess the impact of the
proposals on the significance of heritage assets draws upon the guidance
set out in ‘Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GVLIA),
Third Edition, 2013. This combines judgements (minor, moderate and major)
on the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the receptor, establishing
the nature of the effect. The assessment then considers whether the effect
on the significance of heritage assets is neutral, beneficial or adverse.
7.6. The GVLIA methodology, whilst not recommended by Historic England for
assessing how setting contributes to the significance of heritage assets, can
(if followed properly) inform proposals that respond positively to their
settings. In my opinion, however, the appellants’ assessment is flawed. The
THVIA states that the proposed development is designed to enhance the
character and appearance of nearby conservation areas and the setting of
listed buildings and to do no harm to the significance of these assets. In
addition, the THVIA claims that the proposals would do no harm to the
Outstanding Universal Value, integrity or authenticity of the Royal Botanic
96
Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site. It indicates that where the development
would be seen in conjunction with heritage assets its architectural qualities
would make it a positive addition to the background setting of those assets.
7.7. The appellants’ flawed assessment of the impact of the proposals on the
settings of designated heritage assets has resulted in a development
proposal that harms the significance of various heritage assets. The harm
ranges from less than substantial to substantial harm.
7.8. At a strategic level, the London Plan policies affecting heritage are clear in
their approach (CDC.04). Policy 7.8 on Heritage Assets and Archaeology
states that development affecting heritage assets and their settings should
conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale
materials and architectural detail. Policy 7.7 on tall buildings states that tall
buildings proposed in sensitive locations, which include conservation areas,
listed buildings and their settings, registered parks and gardens and World
Heritage Sites, should be given particular consideration, and should enhance
the qualities of their immediate and wider settings. Policy 7.10 states that
development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or
their settings (including any buffer zone).
7.9. Hounslow’s Local Plan policies on heritage and tall buildings (CC4 and CC3,
respectively, found in CDD.01) aim to enhance heritage assets and their
settings, and to ensure that tall buildings do not have a significant adverse
97
impact on the setting of or views from and between heritage assets,
including Royal Botanic Kew World Heritage Site.
7.10. The understanding of how setting contributes to the significance of affected
heritage assets by the applicants has been inadequate in my opinion. An
adequate assessment would in my opinion lead to a conclusion that the
proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon the settings of a
range of designated heritage assets set out previously. The Development
Plan, which includes the London Plan and Hounslow Local Plan, makes it
clear that successful growth has to be based on a good understanding of
local context and use successful or valued elements of existing identity to
inform new development. New development should integrate into the historic
environment, reinforcing local distinctiveness by responding to local
character and history – it should be heritage led. Legislation and
Government planning policy are clear on the considerations that are required
to be satisfied with regards to historic environment and sustainable
development.
7.11. As a matter of well-established policy, any harm to or loss of significance to
heritage assets requires clear and convincing justification with great weight
given to the asset’s conservation (NPPF 132, CDC.01). In this case the
decision maker must consider whether there is a clear and convincing
justification for the harm that will be caused
98
7.12. The approach taken by the appellants has resulted in a proposal which in my
view cannot be reasonably considered to be consistent with the heritage
policies in the NPPF. The decision maker will need to consider this when
considering whether the proposal would result in sustainable development
that would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits
simultaneously. On the contrary, my evidence is that the proposals would
cause serious, and for some heritage assets substantial harm to the
significance of important historic assets that have maintained their character
over centuries.
7.13. The proposal appears to have been conceived with a presumption of the
desirability of a tall building in this part of suburban West London, adjacent to
designated heritage assets of more than local significance. My evidence is
that, contrary to the advice set out in the Historic England Advice Note on
Tall Buildings (HEAN 4, CDF.14), the applicants have not properly taken into
account the nature of the area around the proposal site, and the impact the
proposed tall building would have on the surrounding historic environment.
7.14. Previous development such as the Haverfield Towers occurred at a time
when the significance of the historic environment affected was much less
understood, and planning policies for preventing harm to heritage much less
developed. The impact of the Haverfield Towers is acknowledged in the
Royal Botanic Kew World Heritage Management Plan as a regrettable
development that causes serious harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of
the World Heritage Site (CDF.10). The current proposals cause serious and
99
in some instances substantial harm to a variety of heritage assets, and
would, regardless of the claimed quality of their architecture, repeat the
mistakes of the past. They contradict the guidance in the Royal Botanic Kew
World Heritage Management Plan that seeks to avoid new development that
would impact adversely on the World Heritage Site, its Outstanding
Universal Value or its setting.
7.15. I conclude that the proposals would result in a range of harm to the
significance of several designated heritage assets. My evidence has
assessed the level of harm as ‘less than substantial’ to the OUV of the Royal
Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, the Grade I listed Orangery with
it, and to the Grade II* registered Gunnersbury Park, including some of the
listed buildings within the park, and the nearby Gunnersbury Cemetery
Conservation Area. My evidence has assessed the level of harm to the
significance of Kew Green Conservation Area and Strand on the Green
Conservation Area as ‘substantial’, given the level of impact of the proposals
on the significance of those assets arising from the development proposed in
their setting.
7.16. The conservation of these designated heritage assets must be given great
weight in accordance with the current Government planning policy
framework. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be,
and some of the assets affected by the current proposals are of the highest
importance. This decision is important to the overall management of the
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew WHS with its rich and diverse historic cultural
100
landscape, but also in sustaining the significance of area-based designated heritage assets such as registered parks and gardens and conservation areas. Given the significance of the assets affected, the harm caused by the development proposal and the permanent feature that this proposal would decisively result in, it should only be accepted if the decision maker is satisfied that there is clear and convincing justification that the public benefits outweigh that harm.
101