RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 © Copyright 2020

HERITAGE STATEMENT RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 © Copyright 2020. All worldwide rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any other means whatsoever: i.e. photocopy, electronic, mechanical recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Any enquiries should be directed to: Montagu Evans 70 St Mary Axe Tower, London, EC3A 8BE Tel: +44 (0)20 7493 4002 All Ordnance Survey Plans are © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100007624 CONTENTS

APPENDICIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY �� 3 5.0 summaRY OF THE PROPOSALS �� 58 Summary of the Site RH London 01: PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY Summary of the Proposals Design Aspirations 02: LIST ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS Pre-Application Consultation The Main Parts of the Proposals Summary Assessment 03: PHASING PLANS 6.0 assessment OF THE PROPOSALS �� 62 04: PLANS FROM 2006 ALTERATIONS BY 1.0 intRODUCTION �� 8 Principle of Development ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, 06/02448/LBC Overview of the Heritage Considerations Assessment of the Proposals on Heritage Assets The Proposals Heritage and Other Public Benefits 05: PLANS FROM 2005 Pre-Application Consultation ALTERATIONS TO NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET, Purpose and Structure of this Report 7.0 concLUSION �� 86 05/07572/FULL AND 05/07575/LBC Public Benefits 06: PLANS FROM 2011 ALTERATIONS TO CREATE FLAT AT 2.0 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY �� 14 Summary of Planning History NOS. 1 AND 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET Legislation AND NO. 7 BURLINGTON GARDENS, Development Plan 11/08866/FULL AND 12/01477/LBC Material Considerations Other Material Considerations Emerging Policy Relevant Case Law

3.0 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT �� 20 Historical Development of the Site

4.0 statement OF SIGNIFICANCE �� 36 No. 7 Burlington Gardens (Uxbridge House), Grade II* No. 2 Old Burlington Street, Grade II Mayfair Conservation Area Other Heritage Assets 2

©Montagu Evans LLP 2020 3

In 1855, No. 7 Burlington Gardens, including No. 1 Old Burlington Street, In order to meet this challenge, the Applicant has engaged an experienced was purchased by the Bank of England. It was subject to alterations which project team including Foster and Partners who are well-known for EXECUTIVE included building over the remaining open space to the rear with a new delivering projects of the highest quality. Montagu Evans has assisted range to Savile Row in 1875-78. The Bank architect responsible for this work throughout the design development stage, providing listed building and other alterations was Philip Charles Hardwick (1822-1892). Hardwick’s consultancy services. Detailed research set out in this report has SUMMARY extension completed the built form on the Site which exists today. been undertaken to identify areas of sensitivity and opportunities for enhancement which has been supplemented by detailed fabric surveys The history of No. 2 Old Burlington Street, Grade II, is linked to No. 7 completed by Hutton + Rostron. Montagu Evans has been instructed by RH London Gallery Limited (hereby Burlington Gardens, although it was an entirely separate residential referred to as ‘the Applicant) to provide listed building consultancy services dwelling until it was acquired by the Bank of England in 1876. It was first built The integration of a sympathetic alterations together with striking new and produce this Heritage Statement in support of proposals for the in the mid-late 18th century but has been much altered. additions will ensure need to strike the balance of being mindful of the redevelopment of 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street, SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSALS sensitivities of the listed building , while providing an exciting future Mayfair, W1S (the ‘Site’). The Site lies within the administrative boundary of delivered by a world-renowned architectural practice. The Applicant has identified the Site for its flagship gallery in the United Westminster city Council (the “Council”). The principal parts of the proposed development comprise: Kingdom because of its location in the heart of Mayfair, which is a renowned The proposals are subject to applications for Full Planning Permission and • The partial reinstatement of floorspace via a mezzanine structure in the shopping district with a strong historical character and quality of buildings. Listed Building Consent. former townhouse, currently comprising the double-height 19th century The Applicant aspires to raise the cultural profile of this important building, Banking Hall; The description of development for both applications is as follows: capitalising on its history, destination status and location. • The use of the Banking Hall as a restaurant with ancillary kitchen to the Partial change of use to facilitate the use of the buildings as The Applicant’s design galleries blur the lines between residential and north and within No. 2 Old Burlington Street; a ‘retail gallery’ and restaurant (Class E), replacement roof retail, indoors and outdoors and home and hospitality. Products are • The reinstatement of historic roof form to No. 7 Burlington Gardens; structure at 7 Burlington Gardens and a series of associated displayed for sale in ‘room’ settings, which provide an opportunity to • Alterations to improve appearance to rear of No. 1 Old Burlington external and internal works to reconfigure and refurbish the reflect and celebrate the original residential use of 7 Burlington Gardens. Street; fabric of the buildings. Products are only displayed (not stored) on site. Customer fulfilment is • The use of the banking hall extension roof as habitable outdoor dealt with via a separate, centralised facility or partner. SUMMARY OF THE SITE floorspace; No. 7 Burlington Gardens, Grade II*, was originally built between 1721 and A critical part of the overall experience at an RH gallery is the provision of • Works to the interiors within No. 7 Burlington Gardens, No. 1 Old 1723 to the designs of the famous Italian architect Giacomo Leoni (1686- integrated hospitality and design services. Visitors are able to enjoy the Burlington Street and No. 2 Old Burlington Street; 1746). It was first known as Queensberry House. The original property was restaurant which is seamlessly integrated into the retail space and utilise • Two new lifts to improve accessibility within the Site; and seven bays wide to Burlington Gardens with a yard to the rear that was the dedicated design atelier services to customise furniture or furnishings • Renewal of mechanical and electrical services (‘M&E’) throughout the accessed from Old Burlington Street. or benefit from interior design advice. building.

The property was enlarged to the present extent (10 bays) between 1785 The Site has largely been occupied by Abercrombie & Fitch since the early This report will consider the heritage considerations, which are whether the and 1789 to the design of John Vardy Jnr (1718-1765) and was henceforth 2000s and in that time the building has been altered to meet the needs of proposals will: known as Uxbridge House. At this time, an extension was made to Old what is, principally, a clothes retailer. • Preserve the special historical and architectural interest of the listed Burlington Street and the main entrance was relocated to this new elevation. buildings within the Site and nearby; and Having undertaken a comprehensive review of the property, the Applicant This part of the Site is the area now known as No. 1 Old Burlington Street. • Preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Mayfair believes that a number of alterations are required to meet their aims Conservation Area. and aspirations. These are to provide a high quality retail experience in a modern gallery suitable for the 21st century, while also seeking to enhance the heritage significance of the listed building.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 4

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Under paragraphs 193-194 of the NPPF, great weight should be given to When considered overall (i.e. these impacts are considered together in the the conservation of designated heritage assets even where the harm context of the listed building as a whole), we consider that the harm would The proposals have been subject to extensive pre-application would be less that substantial, and any harm should require a clear and not come close to removing the significance of the building altogether, or consultation. There have been approximately 10 meetings with the Council, convincing justification. From the Courts’ interpretation of Section 16(1) very much reducing the significance (see definition of substantial harm in six of which have been focussed design workshops with the conservation of the 1990 Act, considerable importance and weight should be given to the Bedford judgement). and design officer. the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings in any The principal elevations would remain; the particularly fine Joseph Rose Historic England have also been consulted including via its extended balancing exercise with material considerations which do not have this interiors in the Leoni part of the building would survive, and so too would pre-application advice service. They are in important stakeholder in status. The corollary of this approach is that similar weight should be given the Hardwick interiors. this application not least due to their role in authorising a listed building to conservation area (Section 72 of the 1990 Act) and the setting and consent owing to the high grading of 7 Burlington Gardens. In their Rather, the impacts that are harmful have been minimised and are justified special interest of other listed buildings (Section 66 of the 1990 Act). consultation response Historic England confirmed: to avert redundancy and deliver a development of the highest design The considerable importance and weight to the desirability of • The removal of the mezzanine structure from within the Victorian quality by an architectural practice of international significance with a preservation, should tip the scales to produce an unequal balance in its Banking Hall and the insertion of a new mezzanine within the former track record of delivery world-class schemes. favour. However, the decision maker should still take account of the scale Georgian townhouse were supported in principle; Thus, we consider the weight to be afforded to the harm would be of change, and so the extent of impact, as well as the relevance to its • The restoration of the principal roof above 7 Burlington Gardens moderate. significance, and the importance of the asset. The overall weight to be was noted to have the potential to enhance the significance of the given to any harm should be a product of these factors. We have identified harm to 2 Old Burlington Street through: listed building; • Loss of 19th century fabric at basement level to incorporate the • A roof extension to the Savile Row banking hall would not be Section 6.0 provides a comprehensive assessment of the proposals and ancillary kitchen on the first floor (limited); supported; and we have concluded there would be harm to the significance of 7 Burlington • Widening of an existing opening on ground floor to front principal room • There was scope for sensitive interventions in the form of upper level Gardens/1 Old Burlington Street through: to provide an “enfilade” visual connection through the site (low); changes to the rear of the Old Burlington Street houses. • Removal of the 19th century staircase between ground and basement • Opening between front and rear principal rooms on ground floor to to incorporate a new lift that will improve access through the building SUMMARY ASSESSMENT improve the quality of the rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to (low to moderate); In order to function in the retail market, particularly in a challenging area allow the plan form to remain legible (low to moderate); • Creation of openings on ground floor in historic fabric to improve of the economy that is going through profound change, together with • Lowering floor on ground floor and new opening into rear of 7 circulation through the building (low); the importance of this location as part of the West End, the Site requires Burlington Street to create ancillary kitchen (low to moderate) • Creation of openings in party wall with 2 Old Burlington Street to create a comprehensive approach bringing two properties together, and more • Removal of partitions on second floor to improve the quality of the ancillary kitchen (low); of the current building into public retail use. Accessibility is similarly a key rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to allow the plan form to • Fixing of the mezzanine to decorative columns required for structural consideration in order to encourage footfall across all floors. remain legible (low to moderate); purposes with minimal intervention (very limited); • Removal of partitions and plan form at third floor to improve the quality The provision of these objectives is necessary to securing the future use • Change to plan form on second floor to improve the quality of the retail of the rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to allow the plan form of the building and sustaining and enhancing its cultural significance. accommodation, and impacting on fabric that is not original (low); to remain legible (low); and Consequently, the interventions that are necessary for the change of use • Change to plan form on third floor in a manner that would retain the • Removal of some 19th century fabric at fourth floor to create better are justified through a) the necessity to deliver the operational brief; and b) legibility of the late-18th century phase, and improve the quality of retail quality accommodation in an area of lesser sensitivity (limited). any harm has been minimised. accommodation (low to moderate); • Conversion of window to door on rear elevation to provide access onto Again, we do not consider that the harm comes close to vitiating This application therefore turns on the balance between any harm to the the Banking Hall roof (very limited); altogether the significance of the listed building, nor would the significance significance of 7 Burlington Gardens, 1 Old Burlington Street (Grade II*) • Removal of fabric (2.85 m x 2.85m) to create new high quality glazed lift be very much reduced. The works are the minimum required to meet and 2 Old Burlington Street (Grade II) and the public benefits that would be through all floors in a manner that will improve accessibility through the the operational brief while, ensuring the highly sensitive parts of 7 Old delivered by the proposals. building (low to moderate); and Burlington Street would be preserved. • Removal of secondary staircase on top floors to incorporate the lift (low).

On that basis we consider the weight to be afforded to the less than • There will be improvement of access through the building with two new We consider that the heritage benefits of the development are substantial substantial harm to 2 Old Burlington Street would be moderate. lifts which will improve the usability and long-term use in line with the and have been arrived at following a detailed and iterative design process, development plan policy which seeks improving accessibility to listed working together with the Council and Historic England. We find no harm to the significance of the CA or nearby listed buildings on buildings; account of the fact that the majority of works are internal. The remainder In our judgement, when the (moderately weighted) less than substantial • The re-integration of the third floor as part of No. 7 Burlington Gardens that are external are beneficial as we explain below. harm is weighed against the heritage public benefits of the scheme we (the existing residential use separates this part of the Site from the consider that the harm would be outweighed. PUBLIC BENEFITS remainder of the property); Nevertheless, if the Council consider there to be “net harm” then we also Paragraph 196 of the NPPF requires a balance in an instance of less than • The reinstatement of historic roof form to No. 7 Burlington Gardens reference additional land use planning benefits which associated with the substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. based on scholarly research and fabric analysis (bullet 3, paragraph 38 increase in employment on the site and improvement to the local economy of GPA3); DESIGN QUALITY (suppliers to the commercial kitchen and restaurant, and contractors), • The reinstatement of a chimney to No. 7 Burlington Gardens that was The first consideration must be that the quality of architecture prepared by as well as the contribution that RH London will make to the land-use removed in the 20th century (bullet 3, paragraph 38 of GPA3); Foster & Partners is of the very highest calibre. It would demonstrably uplift aspirations of the area. These are described by Savills in their Planning • The removal of roof clutter to improve the overall appearance in private the quality of the interior, particularly to 7 Burlington Street which currently Statement and draw weight in favour of the proposals. views from adjacent properties within the CA; suffers from an entirely unsympathetic decorative scheme. • The tidying and removal of clutter to rear of No. 1 Old Burlington Street POLICY COMPLIANCE The creative and expressive use of new materials in the mezzanine and which would improve the appearance of the listed building and its Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, roof (in particular) is subtle, yet effective in emphasising the historic forms contribution to the CA; development plan forms the starting point for determination of this and rich architectural detailing of the existing building. The fine attention • The removal of the existing late 20th century mezzanine to the Banking application. to detail is reflected in the submission, within the Design and Access Hall which currently detracts from the ability to appreciate the volume On account of finding less than substantial harm and undertaking the Statement and the CGIs that reflect the design before the Council. of the space; heritage balancing exercise we find that the proposals accord with • The reinstatement of full height windows in the Savile Row which in It is also material that the Applicant has established its reputation on the London Plan (2016) Policies 7.4 (local character) and 7.8 (heritage tandem with the restaurant use will improve the contribution that this delivering galleries that have become landmarks in the cities where they assets and archaeology); Policies S25 (heritage) and S28 (design) of the part of the Site makes to the significance of the CA; are located. That status has been achieved not only through the products, Council’s City Plan; Saved UDP Policies DES 1 (principles of urban design • The improvement to the legibility of the 18th century plan form at the but also inspiring architecture that works with the qualities of existing and conservation), DES 5 (alterations and extensions), DES 6 (Roof level upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; historic building. Although those galleries are in the United States, there alterations and extensions), DES 9 (conservation areas), and DES 10 (listed • The general refurbishment within No. 7 Burlington Gardens with a is every confidence that RH London would be delivered to a very high buildings; and Policies MSG: Sustainable Growth and MD: Design (MD2 and sensitive decoration strategy (sand timber floors, repainting etc.) which standard of craftsmanship, not least because of the calibre of the design MD3) of the Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan. will demonstrably improve the appearance of the interior in comparison team that has been assembled. to the existing; and We also consider that the proposals would be consistent with Policies HERITAGE BENEFITS • The scheme would not only preserve the character and appearance 39, 40 and 41 of the draft City Plan 2019-2040, noting particularly that We consider the broader heritage benefits of the proposed development of the area, but actively enhance its character by delivering retail the works would secure the conservation and beneficial use of the Site are as follows, and form part of the overall justification of the development: space that is exemplary in its outlook and would make a meaningful through retention and sensitive adaptation, minimising harm, while allowing • The development will secure the long-term future of the listed building contribution to the vitality of this part of the CA. the buildings to meet the changing needs of what is a challenging retail through sensitive refurbishment and upgrading of M&E to ensure that it environment. Consequently, we consider the development would comply Taking account of the considerable importance and weight that should be is fit for a modern occupier; with the heritage policies within the development plan. given to the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings, • Improving the level of public access to the building, in particular the we have found the overall weight to the harm to the significance of the two On that basis the decision maker is able to discharge their legal duties basement and upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; listed buildings that comprise the Site as being moderate (in both cases). under Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 6

©Montagu Evans LLP 2020 1.0 Introduction RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 8 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Montagu Evans has been instructed by RH London Gallery Limited (hereby referred to as ‘the Applicant) to provide listed building consultancy services and produce this Heritage Statement in support of proposals for the redevelopment of 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street, Mayfair, W1S (the ‘Site’).

1.2 The Applicant is seeking alterations to the Site in order to create a flagship retail gallery in the United Kingdom. The proposals will retain the existing buildings on the Site, and to deliver the store, internal alterations are proposed and extensions at roof level.

1.3 The proposals are subject to applications for Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent.

1.4 The description of development for both applications is as follows: Partial change of use to facilitate the use of the buildings as a ‘retail gallery’ and restaurant (Class E), replacement roof structure at 7 Burlington Gardens and a series of associated external and internal works to reconfigure and refurbish the fabric of the buildings.

1.5 The Site comprises three buildings, each of which are statutorily listed buildings. These are: • No. 7 Burlington Gardens, listed as ‘Uxbridge House’ at Grade II*. The listing includes the property at No. 1 Old Burlington Street; and • No. 2 Old Burlington Street, listed at Grade II.

1.6 The Site lies within the Mayfair Conservation Area and an assessment of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area (CA) also forms part of this assessment. Figure 1.1 Aerial view of the Site from the south-east indicating key parts of the Site and vicinity. 1.7 The local planning authority is Westminster City Council (‘WCC’ or the ‘Council’).

1.8 Figure 1.1 is an aerial view of the Site from the south-east which has been provided by the architects, Foster and Partners (‘F+P’). It indicates the boundaries of the Site and key areas. An aerial view of the Site from the south-west is provided at Figure 1.2.

OVERVIEW OF THE HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS 1.9 The proposals have been prepared with a full understanding of the significance of the listed buildings on the Site and the character and appearance of the CA. This has been informed by historical research, site inspections, structural analysis by Ramboll and investigative condition surveys by historic fabric specialists Hutton + Rostron (H+R). The investigations into the historic fabric have been undertaken in consultation and agreement with WCC.

1.10 The historical development and significance of the heritage assets affected by the proposals is described at Section 3.0 of this report, in line with the requirements of national and local planning policy (see Section 2.0).

1.11 A summary of the Site from a historical perspective is presented below.

1.12 No. 7 Burlington Gardens, Grade II*, was originally built between 1721 and 1723 to the designs of the famous Italian architect Giacomo Leoni (1686-1746). It was first known as Queensberry House. The original property was seven bays wide to Burlington Gardens with a yard to the rear that was accessed from Old Burlington Street.

1.13 The property was enlarged to the present extent (10 bays) between 1785 and 1789 to the design of John Vardy Junior (1718-1765) and was henceforth known as Uxbridge House. At this time, an extension was made to Old Burlington Street and the main entrance was relocated to this new elevation. This part of the Site is the area now known as No. 1 Old Burlington Street.

1.14 In 1855, No. 7 Burlington Gardens, including No. 1 Old Burlington Street, was purchased by the Bank of England. It was subject to alterations which included building over the remaining open space to the rear with a new range to Savile Row in 1875-78. The Bank architect responsible for this work and other alterations was Philip Charles Hardwick (1822-1892). Hardwick’s extension completed the built form on the Site which exists today. Figure 1.2 Aerial view of the Site from the south-west. 1.15 The history of No. 2 Old Burlington Street (Grade II) is linked to No. 7 Burlington Gardens, although it was an entirely separate residential dwelling until it was acquired by the Bank of England in 1876. It was first built in the mid-late 18th century but has been much altered.

1.16 The development of the Site can be summarised in nine phases, outlined below in Table 1.1 and described in detail at Section 3.0:

Heritage Statement | December 2020 10 Introduction

PHASE SUMMARY 1.17 Despite the many phases of alteration and development over the course of the last c.300 years, the Site has high heritage significance for its Phase I: 1721-23 Original house (known as Queensberry House) built in the Palladian style designed by Leoni for John Bligh, 1st Earl of Darnley, Lord Clifton (1687- 1728). It was Leoni’s first work in England. The property was sold to Charles Douglas 3rd Duke of Queensberry in 1722 and occupied by the Douglas’ survival as a Palladian mansion by Leoni which was later extended in a who gave it the original name. complementary way by Vardy and Bonomi.

Phase II: 1785-89 House extended by John Vardy Junior (1718-1765) assisted by Joseph Bonomi (1739-1808) for Field Marshal Henry William Paget, 1st Earl of Uxbridge 1.18 The Neo-Classical elevation to Burlington Gardens retains the character and later 1st Marquess of Anglesey, (1768-1854). and proportion associated with the fine town homes of the Georgian No. 2 Old Burlington Street was also built around this time. period. The interiors associated with those early phases have particular Phase III: 1855-70s No. 7 Burlington Gardens is sold to the Bank of England and converted for use as the Western Branch with minor alterations by Philip Charles Hardwick significance, notably the stone cantilevered staircase and decorative (1822-1892). plasterwork by the renowned Joseph Rose. Phase IV: 1875-78 More substantial alterations by Hardwick including an extension to the north by Hardwick within the former yard facing Savile Row to create the Banking Hall. 1.19 The later phases of the 19th century Bank of England conversion similarly Phase V: 1876 Bank of England purchases No. 2 Old Burlington Street. It remains in use as a separate residential dwelling. have significance derived from the internal banking hall and extension to Savile Row by Hardwick. Phase VI: 1934-35 The Site is purchased by the Royal Bank of Scotland (‘RBS’). They commissioned the architectural practice Mewes and Davis to undertake alterations which included the refurbishment of Nos. 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street for offices, and the second floor of No. 7 Burlington Gardens for their own office use. 1.20 The buildings have been subject to change over time and that has led to Phase VII: 1992 Redecoration of the Banking Hall and removal of desks to create an open plan space. the change in plan form in some areas, particularly in No. 2 Old Burlington Phase VIII: 1998-2006 The RBS left the Site in 1997 and in 1998 it was converted for retail use. Abercrombie & Fitch acquired the property as their flagship store in the United Street which extends southwards in the upper floor, and over No. 1 Old Kingdom in 2006 and alterations were made to the Banking Hall and other spaces. Burlington Street. Phase IX: 2005-2011 Alterations related to No. 2 Old Burlington Street including the creation of a flat in No. 1 Old Burlington Street.

Table 1.1 Summary of the nine main phases of the historical development of the Site.

THE PROPOSALS 1.26 The principal parts of the proposed development comprise: PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT • The partial reinstatement of floorspace via a mezzanine structure in 1.21 The Applicant has identified the Site for its flagship gallery in the United 1.29 Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the former townhouse, currently comprising the double-height C19 Kingdom because of its location in the heart of Mayfair, which is a renowned applicants for development proposals which have an effect upon the Banking Hall; shopping district with a strong historical character and quality of buildings. historic environment to describe the significance of any heritage assets • The use of the Banking Hall as a restaurant with ancillary kitchen to the The Applicant aspires to raise the cultural profile of this important building, affected, including any contribution made by their setting, to enable an north and within No. 2 Old Burlington Street; capitalising on its history, destination status and location. understanding of the impact of the proposals. • The reinstatement of historic roof form to No. 7 Burlington Gardens; 1.22 The Site has largely been occupied by Abercrombie & Fitch since the early 1.30 This report fulfils that requirement by presenting an historic and • Alterations to improve appearance to rear of No. 1 Old Burlington 2000s and in that time the building has been altered to meet the needs of architectural appraisal of the Site and its environs, as well as an Street; what is, principally, a ‘mass market’ clothes retailer. assessment of its significance and the effect of the proposals on that • The use of the banking hall extension roof as habitable outdoor significance. 1.23 Having undertaken a comprehensive review of the property, the Applicant floorspace; believes that a number of alterations are required to meet its aims and • Works to the interiors within No. 7 Burlington Gardens, No. 1 Old 1.31 The appraisal is proportionate to the nature of the proposals which aspirations. These are to provide a high quality retail experience in a Burlington Street and No. 2 Old Burlington Street; focuses mainly on the work within the listed buildings, and the modern gallery suitable for the 21st century, while also seeking to enhance • Two new lifts to improve accessibility within the Site; and improvements works to the exterior. We therefore focus our analysis on the heritage significance of the listed building. • Renewal of mechanical and electrical services (‘M&E’) throughout the the buildings that comprise the Site and the CA. building. 1.24 In order to meet this challenge, the Applicant has engaged an experienced 1.32 This report is structured as follows: project team including Foster + Partners who are well-known for delivering 1.27 The main heritage considerations area whether the proposals will: • Section 2.0 sets out the legislation, planning policy and guidance which projects of the highest quality. Montagu Evans has assisted throughout • Preserve the special historical and architectural interest of the listed is relevant to the consideration of effects on heritage assets; the design development stage, providing listed building consultancy buildings; and • Section 3.0 describes the historical development of the Site. This services. Detailed research set out in this report has been undertaken to • Preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Mayfair CA. is used to inform the understanding of significance for the heritage identify areas of sensitivity and opportunities for enhancement which has PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION assets which are likely to be affected by development proposals at been supplemented by detailed fabric surveys completed by H+R. Section 4.0; 1.28 The proposed development has been arrived at following detailed and • A summary of the proposals is provided at Section 5.0; 1.25 The integration of a sympathetic alterations together with striking new extensive pre-application consultation with WCC and Historic England • Section 6.0 provides an assessment of the proposals against planning additions, will ensure need to strike the balance of being mindful of (‘HE’). The proposals now before the Council have responded to officer policy and statute; and the sensitivities of the listed building , while providing an exciting future comments in a positive way and are the result of a productive iterative • The report is concluded at Section 7.0. delivered by a world-renowned architectural practice. design process. 1.33 This report should be read in conjunction with the full suite of application material, and in particular: • The drawings and Design and Access Statement (‘DAS’) prepared by Foster and Partners; and the • Planning Statement prepared by Savills

Heritage Statement | December 2020 12

©Montagu Evans LLP 2020 2.0 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 14 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

LEGISLATION 2.10 The approach to attributing weight to harm in cases involving listed 1 PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS ACT) 1990 buildings and their setting was recently clarified in the Citroen Garage 2.0 appeal decision which was agreed with by the Secretary of State. The LEGISLATION AND 2.6 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preservation, 1990 Act’) provides the statutory duties of the decision-maker when should tip the scales to produce an unequal balance in its favour. However, considering proposals which affect designated heritage assets. PLANNING POLICY the decision maker should take account of the scale of change, and so 2.7 The emerging proposals will affect listed buildings in a conservation area. the extent of impact, as well as the relevance to its significance, and the The relevant provisions of the 1990 Act are Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) importance of the asset. The overall weight to be given to any harm, 2.1 This section identifies the legislation, planning policy and guidance at which are cited below: and the conflict with policy, should be a product of these factors and national, regional and local level which is relevant to the assessment of • Section 16(2) In considering whether to grant listed building consent for determined by the decision maker. redevelopment proposals on the historic environment. any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall 2.2 The principal heritage consideration is whether the proposals will preserve DEVELOPMENT PLAN have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its the special historic or architectural interest of the Site, Grade II and II* 2.11 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which listed buildings. stipulates that where in making any determination under the Planning it possesses. Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination 2.3 The main considerations are whether the proposals: • Section 66(1) When determining applications, the local planning must be made in accordance with that plan unless material considerations Preserve the special historical and architectural interest of authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the indicate otherwise. The following documents form the statutory the listed buildings on the Site; desirability of preserving the building or its setting of any features of development plan: Preserve or enhance and the character and appearance of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. • London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016); the Mayfair CA; and • Section 72(1) With respect to any buildings or other land in a • Westminster City Plan consolidated with revisions (2016); Preserve the significance of listed buildings in the conservation area, of any [functions under or by virtue of] any of the • Saved policies of the 2007 Unitary Development Plan (2010); and surrounding area. provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to • Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan (2019) the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance 2.4 These requirements are set out in statute and reflected in national and of that area. local planning policy. Guidance documents prepared by HE and WCC are LONDON PLAN (2016) also relevant, setting out how assessments should be carried out and 2.8 In relation to Section 72 (1), ‘character’ relates to physical characteristics 2.12 The London Plan is: “the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an ensuring that design quality is appropriate but also to more general qualities such as uses or activity within an area. integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for ‘Appearance’ relates to the visible physical qualities of the area. The the development of London over the next 20-25 years” (p10). The policies 2.5 Below we set out a comprehensive review of the relevant legislation, meaning of ‘preservation’ in this context is the ‘avoidance of harm’. pertinent to the assessment of heritage are contained in Chapter 7 planning policy and guidance. (London’s Living Places and Spaces). 2.9 This is principally a Section 16(2) case involving works to the listed building, the majority of which are internal. It follows that if the works are 2.13 Policy 7.4 (Local Character) is concerned with local character and acceptable to the listed building (particularly in relation to the kitchen states that development “should have regard to the form, function and extension) then they would be acceptable in terms of the effect on the structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of conservation area. surrounding buildings”.

2.14 Policy 7.8 (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”.

1 Citroen Site, Capital Interchange Way, Brentford, TW8 0EX PINS File Reference:

WESTMINSTER CITY PLAN (2016) 2.23 Policy DES 5 (Alterations and Extensions) sets out the approach to 2.26 The Site is located in the Mayfair Conservation Area. The Council’s alterations and extensions for all development. The policy states that policy on development in a conservation area is set out at Policy DES 9 2.15 The Council adopted the current City Plan on the 13th July 2016. This development will be acceptable where “its design reflects the style and (Conservation Areas). The aim of the policy is to ensure the preservation version of the Plan includes minor revisions, and Basement Revisions and details of the existing building” and that “the use of materials is consistent or enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas Mixed Use Revisions. with that of the existing building”. and their setting. 2.16 Policy S25 (Heritage) states that Westminster’s heritage assets will be 2.24 Policy DES 6 (Roof Level Alterations and Extensions) states that 2.27 Policy DES 10 (Listed Buildings) sets out the Council’s approach to listed conserved, and includes inter alia its listed buildings and conservation areas. proposals for alterations at roof level may be refused in the following buildings. It states that applications involving the extension or alteration of 2.17 The Policy also considers development relating to historic buildings, and circumstances: listed buildings should: sets out that “Historic and other important buildings should be upgraded 1. “where any additional floors, installations or enclosures would adversely “Include full details of means of access, siting, design and sensitively, to improve their environmental performance and make them affect either the architectural character or unity of a building or group external appearance of the proposed development in order to easily accessible”. of buildings demonstrate that it would respect the listed building’s character 2.18 The Council sets out their requirement for high quality design in Policy S28 2. where buildings are completed compositions or include mansard or and appearance and serve to preserve, restore or complement (Design). It states that development will provide for an “extended life-time other existing forms of roof extension its features of special architectural or historic interest.” of the building itself through excellence in design quality, high quality 3. where the existing building’s form or profile makes a contribution to the 2.28 The Site is located adjacent to a number of designated heritage assets durable materials, efficient operation, and the provision of high quality local skyline or was originally designed to be seen in silhouette (see Section 4.0). Part D of Policy DES 10 states that proposals in the floorspace that can adapt to changing circumstances over time”. 4. where the extension would be visually intrusive or unsightly when seen in setting of listed buildings should not adversely affect the nearby listed longer public or private views from ground or upper levels SAVED POLICIES OF THE 2007 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2010) building or an ability to appreciate its special interest. This includes the 5. where unusual or historically significant or distinctive roof forms, “spatial integrity or historic unity of the curtilage of a listed building”. 2.19 Westminster’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on the 24th coverings, constructions or features would be lost by such extensions.” January 2007, and parts of it were ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State on MAYFAIR NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN (2019) 2.25 Policy DES 6 goes on to state that permission will be granted in the the 24th January 2010. We refer below only to those policies saved in 2010 2.29 The Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in 2019. following circumstances: that are relevant to the historic environment. The heritage policies are 6. “where the proposed development or form of alteration is in sympathy 2.30 Policy MSG: Sustainable Growth is encouraged within Mayfair which contained in Chapter 10, Urban Design and Conservation. with the existing building’s architectural character, storey heights and includes the type of intensity of retail use which is envisaged by the 2.20 Policy DES 1 (Principles of urban design and conservation) sets out general elevational proportions proposals now before the Council. detail on the Council’s expectations for the design of development. In 7. where the form and detailing of the extension either repeats or reflects 2.31 Policy MD: Design has the objective of achieving the highest quality summary, the Council seek the highest standards of architectural design the form, detailing or use of materials found in the existing building design. MD2 requires proposals to consider the impact on the Mayfair which is sustainable and inclusive. 8. where the proposed design accords with (or establishes an acceptable Conservation Area. MD3 states that proposals will be supported where 2.21 To achieve this, development should respond to the existing context in precedent for) similar extensions within the same group of buildings their design reflects the existing character of Mayfair in terms of heights, terms of scale, materials, character, urban grain and townscape hierarchy. 9. where the design of extension avoids any infringement of the amenity scales and uses. or reasonable visual privacy enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent or 2.22 Part B of Policy DES 1 has regard to amenity and accessibility and states nearby buildings.” that development should “provide safe and convenient access for all”.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 16 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS • Paragraph 194 – Mindful of the weight attached to any harm, the NPPF OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS advises that it may be allowed on the basis of what it calls a ‘clear and NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) (2019) 2.39 We have also had regard to the following documents which are material convincing justification’. This does not introduce a freestanding test considerations: 2.32 The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policy which is applicable requiring an options appraisal, for example. Rather, what comprises a • Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: at the national level. The relevant policies for design and heritage are clear and convincing justification is no more than the balance of public Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment contained at Chapters 12 and 16 respectively. benefits delivered by a scheme. The NPPF requires one to distinguish (Historic England, 2017); between two categories of harm, either ‘substantial’ or ‘less than CHAPTER 12 ACHIEVING WELL DESIGNED PLACES • Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The substantial’. 2.33 Paragraph 127 is a general urban design policy and its terms complement Setting of Heritage Assets (2017); • Paragraph 195 – This paragraph treats substantial harm. Where a those in Chapter 16 on the historic environment. This policy forms the basis • Design Matters in Westminster SPG (2001); development proposals will lead to substantial harm to the significance of ensuring that a development is well-designed. Thus, if the development • Development and Demolition in Conservation Areas SPG (1996) of a designated heritage asset, the local planning authority should meets the criteria, then it therefore forms the basis of an enhancement to • Inclusive Design and Access SPG (2007); refuse it, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm or total loss is a conservation area. • Repairs and Alterations SPG (1995); and necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the • Mayfair Conservation Area Directory (1998). CHAPTER 16 CONSERVING AND ENHANCING THE HISTORIC harm, or meet a series of other criteria set out in the policy. ENVIRONMENT • Paragraph 196 – This paragraph has regard to less than substantial EMERGING POLICY 2.34 Chapter 16 sets out the approach to the historic environment and its harm, and states that less than substantial harm must be weighed NEW LONDON PLAN – INTEND TO PUBLISH VERSION DECEMBER 2019 provisions will frame much of the approach to the assessment of the against public benefits, which include heritage benefits. 2.40 The draft New London Plan contains design and heritage policies at emerging development proposals for the Site on heritage assets. 2.37 The recent judgment known as Shimbles2 confirmed that there is no Chapters 3 and 7 respectively which are cognate with the existing London 2.35 If a proposal meets the terms of the national policy then it is highly likely to legal basis for distinguishing a spectrum of harm within the category Plan (2016). The draft New London Plan advocates the identification, comply with corresponding development plan policies. of less than substantial harm. It is, however, important for any planning understanding and protection of designated and non-designated judgment to grapple with the degree of harm when it comes to strike heritage assets, and the delivery of good growth through good design. 2.36 The relevant paragraphs of the NPPF are: the balance required by paragraph 196 (and as set out in the Planning • Paragraph 189 – This sets out the requirement to understand the 2.41 In particular, Policy HC1 (Heritage Conservation and Growth) states that Practice Guidance). significance of heritage assets affected by development proposals, new development should “seek to avoid harm and identify enhancement including the contribution of setting to significance. 2.38 Any harm is weighted (just as is any benefit) and it is important to know opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design • Paragraph 192 – In this paragraph the desirability of sustaining/ whether one is giving great weight to a small amount of harm or to a lot process.” enhancing significance of heritage assets is described. of harm. WESTMINSTER’S CITY PLAN 2019–2040 – REGULATION 19 DRAFT • Paragraph 193 – This states that great weight should be afforded to 2.42 The Council has undertaken a full review of its development plan and is in the objective of conserving the significance of heritage assets. Thus, the process of preparing a new City Plan 2019-2040. The council submitted it follows that any impact on significance, positive or negative, should the emerging City Plan to the Secretary of State on 19 November 2019. attract particular weight. This is sometimes known as the ‘great weight’ The ‘Examination in Public’ has now been completed and the Council provision and imports the statutory duties discussed above, in relation intends to adopt the emerging Plan in spring 2021. to Section 16(2) into national policy in respect of listed buildings. 2.43 We have had regard to the emerging policies (including the Revised Schedule of Modifications, dated September 2020) which relate to design and heritage which are set out at sections 39, 40 and 41 of the emerging local plan. They are consistent with national policy and the existing local plan. 2 R (Shimbles) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2018] EWHC 195 (Admin), Kerr J

RELEVANT CASE LAW CLEAR AND CONVINCING JUSTIFICATION WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE DESIRABILITY OF PRESERVING THE 2.47 Paragraph 194 of the NPPF allows that the strong presumption against SPECIAL INTEREST OF A LISTED BUILDING harm can be rebutted on the basis of a ‘clear and convincing justification’. This phrase is sometimes taken to signal the requirement for an options 2.44 In preparing our analysis we are mindful of the considerable weight analysis or explanation based in viability. attached to the preservation or enhancement of the setting of heritage assets, which was clarified by the Court of Appeal judgement in Barnwell 2.48 Paragraph 29 of the Bedford judgement confirms there is no freestanding Manor Wind Energy vs East Northamptonshire et al [2014]. The Court test relating to clear and convincing justification. To the extent there is held that in enacting section 66(1) of the 1990 Act Parliament intended a test, it is to be found in what was paragraph 134 of the NPPF, and now that the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings should paragraph 196. not simply be given careful consideration by the decision-maker for the 2.49 The judgment in Pugh v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3 (Admin) has clarified purpose of deciding whether there would be some harm, but should be that the clear and convincing justification is no more than the tests set given “considerable importance and weight” when the decision-maker out in paragraphs 133 and 134 (now 195 and 196 of the 2019 NPPF), thus carries out the balancing exercise. effectively the balance of benefits. It is only in cases of substantial harm THE LEVEL OF HARM (SUBSTANTIAL VS. LESS THAN SUBSTANTIAL) that one needs to show works are necessary to deliver public benefits. 2.45 The Bedford Judgement3 clarified how the decision maker should consider whether a development would lead to substantial or less than substantial harm. Of particular relevance to the approach to determining this application are the below paragraphs: “25. Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced.”

2.46 Thus, the courts have made clear that substantial harm is a very high test, such that the significance of an asset would have to be vitiated all together or very much reduced. We make clear in our assessment that the proposals do not meet this high test and accordingly cannot be considered to cause substantial harm. That being said, this judgement is helpful as a guide when assessing the degree of harm within the less than substantial category.

3 Bedford Borough Council vs Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2013] EWHC 2847

Heritage Statement | December 2020 18

©Montagu Evans LLP 2020 3.0 HISTORICAL Development RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 20 HISTORICAL Development

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 3.6 When the Estate was being developed, Lord Burlington’s tastes were PHASE I – THE ORIGINAL LEONI MANSION, 1721-23 moving from Baroque to a purer form of Palladianism. His own Burlington 3.0 House (now the site of the Royal Academy of Arts directly to the south HISTORICAL 3.3 We begin this account of the historical development of the Site in the early of the Site) was extensively remodelled in this style by Colen Campbell 18th century when John Bligh, Lord Clifton (and later 1st Earl of Darnley) (1676-1729) in 1717-1718. (1687-1728) commissioned Giacomo Leoni (1686-1746) to design a new DEVELOPMENT 3.7 Figure 3.1 provides an illustration of Burlington House seen from the residential property between Old Burlington Street and Savile Row on the south in the late 1690s, before the remodelling. The land to the north has site of No. 7 Burlington Gardens. 3.1 In this section we describe the historical development of the Site and the not yet been developed but urban expansion is visible to the east (right) 3.4 At this time, the land was part of the Burlington Estate which was being surrounding area. of the frame. developed by Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington (1694-1753). 3.2 This section begins with a timeline which identifies the nine main phases of 3.8 Lord Burlington was also an admirer of Inigo Jones (1573-1652). Jones’s 3.5 Lord Burlington was an ardent aesthete, talented architect and the Site’s development. The timeline is followed by a detailed description and Palladio’s statues stand either side of the portico of his villa at passionate advocate of the Palladian style. He was influenced as a young of the evolution of the Site. Chiswick (completed 1729). man by Leoni’s publication of Palladio’s works (published in instalments 3.9 Given Lord Burlington’s admiration for Leoni it is possible that he between 1716 and 1720) and by the works of Vincenzo Scamozzi recommended Leoni as the architect for the property which would face his (1548-1616). on the opposite side of Burlington Gardens.

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE V PHASE VI PHASE VII PHASE VIII PHASE IX 1721-23 1785-89 1855-70s 1875-78 1876 1934-35 1998-2006 1990s-2006 2005-2011

Original house (known as House extended by John No. 7 converted for use Extension to the north by Bank of England Alterations for the Royal Redecoration of the Conversion of No. 7 Refurbishment of Queensbury House in the Vardy jnr (1718-1765), as a branch of the Bank Hardwick within the former purchases No. 2 Old Bank of Scotland by Banking Hall and removal for retail use No. 2 Old Burlington Palladian style designed assisted by Joseph Bonomi of England with works by yard, and creation of the Burlington Street. the contemporary and of desks to create an open Street. and built by Giacomo Leoni (1739-1808) for Field Philip Charles Hardwick banking hall within No. 7. prominent architectural plan space (1686-1746) as his first work Marshal Henry William (1822-1892). practice Mewes and Davis, in England, and for John Paget, 1st Marquess of who also refurbished No. Bligh, 1st Earl of Darnley, Anglesey, (1768-1854). No. 2 1 Old Burlington Street Lord Clifton (1687-1728). Old Burlington Street built. including the second floor for their office.

3.10 This is supported by the fact that, in the context of Burlington’s own move 3.14 In 1722, the site of Lord Clifton’s house was bought by Lord Burlington’s 3.15 Queensberry House was Leoni’s first work in England. It was also the first from a taste in baroque to a more precise interpretation of Palladianism, cousin, Charles Douglas 3rd Duke of Queensberry (Figure 3.2). The Leoni London mansion to be built in a terrace with an antique temple front. that Leoni’s work has been described as a coupling of the two: of house was built for the Duke instead in 1721-23 and fitted out by 1727. It 3.16 Leoni is known to have received only seven commissions in the 1720s. ‘grandeur and naivity’. was originally known as Queensberry House. 3.17 The 3rd Duke of Queensberry lived at Queensberry House for over 50 3.11 It seems likely that this approach, combined with Leoni’s status as an years. He died in 1778 and the property passed to a distant cousin who arbiter of ‘correct’ style, would have recommended him as the perfect had a townhouse in Piccadilly and thus had no need for Queensberry choice of architect for what would be a significant addition to the nascent House. It remained unoccupied until 1785, when Henry Bayly (later Paget), development of the Burlington Estate. the 1st Earl of Uxbridge took up the lease. 3.12 The land was assigned to John Bligh with a conditional title to the site 3.18 The extract of Rocque’s map of London at Figure 3.3 shows the Site in in 1721. This included an agreement, made in the same year, between 1746 in the context of the dense development to the north of ‘Pickadilly’. Lord Burlington and builder-bricklayer John Witt. The notes which Burlington House and its gardens are legible. At this time, Burlington accompanying the agreement indicate an ‘active interest’ from Burlington Gardens is known as Vigo Lane. The ‘Old’ has not yet been attached to in the appearance of the house, unsurprisingly since it was being created Burlington Street, and Savile Row is extant running parallel. on the portion of the Estate nearest to his own house.

3.13 In fact, Lord Burlington so approved of the design that he gave permission for the front elevation to be directed towards his own garden.

Figure 3.1 A view of Burlington House in the 1690s before the remodelling by Colen Campbell. Figure 3.2 Charles Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry by Thomas Hudson (1701-1779) after Figure 3.3 An extract from Rocque’s Map of 1746, showing the physical relationship between Burlington House formed the centrepiece of the Burlington Estate. 1750. Queensbury House on the north side of Vigo Lane, with Burlington House to the south.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 22 HISTORICAL Development

THE ORIGINAL LEONI DESIGN 3.19 Leoni’s design was an early expression of Palladianism and it was influenced by Jones’s Lindsey House in Lincoln’s Inn Fields (Figure 3.4).

3.20 The storeyed façade in a restrained, strictly Palladian style, also carries a striking resemblance to a particular villa of Palladio’s that we know was admired by (and used a model by) Campbell for Burlington House – the Palazzo di Iseppo Porto in Venice (Figure 3.5). Except that in the case of Queensberry House the attic story has been retained – Campbell substituted it for a balustrade.

3.21 Queensberry House was seven bays wide, double pile in stone-dressed brick. A drawing of the original house can be seen at Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6 shows that the original design included six Classical statues on the balustrade and a hipped roof. Figure 3.4 Inspiration: Jones’s Lindsey House, Lincoln’s Inn Fields (1638-41). 3.22 The return facades were unlit, with blind recesses in the brickwork to Figure 3.5 Inspiration: Palladio’s Palazzo di Iseppo Porto in Venice. The façade bears a striking provide articulation. 3.27 Most of Leoni’s rooms featured architraves and coping, with plaster resemblance with Leoni’s south elevation at Queensbury House suggesting it was a major influence. 3.23 In 1725 payments were being made by the Duke of Queensberry to Corinthian architraves in the grander rooms. The rooms were panelled Burlington’s own architect, Henry Flitcroft, who may at least have had some throughout, and painted in typical Palladian tones. On the second floor, involvement with either the design or its rendering (he was also involved at there was a large Long Gallery extending the full eastern elevation, and this time with extensions to Duke’ house in Wiltshire, Amesbury Abbey). this room featured raised and fielded panelling, and two of the marble chimneypieces aforementioned. 3.24 A plan of the interior of the original Leoni house is reproduced from the Survey of London at Figure 3.7. 3.28 The influence of Jones extended to the chimneypieces. Leoni had requested marble chimneypieces costing ‘less than £15 each’, borrowing 3.25 The internal layout was simple. The raised ground floor contained six ornament from examples by Jones, and echoing the structure of spaces, with the main stairwell located centrally on the north side. Visitors chimneypieces by Colen Campbell. would have entered through the courtyard to the north, faced with two arched recesses opening in to the main stairwell hall.

3.26 Leoni’s staircase remains in situ, but the existing iron balustrade is understood to have been introduced by Vardy. The staircase extends to the first floor.

Figure 3.6 Drawing of the south elevation of Queensberry House, 1721.

PROFILE: GIACOMO (‘JAMES’) LEONI (C.1686-1746) Venetian-born Leoni worked in Germany before coming to England, where he is recorded from 1713 onwards and where he spent the rest of his life.

Leoni’s reputation rests on two things: the limited number of buildings he designed, and on his writings, in particular his translations of older writers on architecture.

His writings made his reputation: a translation of Andrea Palladio appeared in 1715-20, and was influential in encouraging a revival of interest in his designs, and in turning architecture away from the Baroque. An edition of the Renaissance writer Leon Battista Alberti followed in 1726-9. Leoni’s publication of Palladio brought him to notice, and his first notable commission was No 7 Old Burlington Gardens, originally commissioned by Lord Clifton in 1721 and subsequently called Queensberry House after its first occupant.

Argyll House on the King’s Road in Chelsea (1723) was another progressive London house design.

Country house work included Lyme Park in Cheshire (1725-35), now opened by the National Trust; Clandon Park (1730-3), another National Trust property and currently in the process of reconstruction following a major fire; and garden buildings at Stowe, Cliveden and elsewhere.

Leoni’s career did not flourish and he was dependent on charitable support in his last years. Nevertheless he was an important figure in early Georgian architecture, importing continental approaches to design and bringing a deeper awareness of classic texts to a wider audience.

Figure 3.7 Internal floor plans for Leoni’s Queensberry House, 1721. Reproduced from the Survey of London. Left: lower ground floor, centre: ground floor, bottom right: first floor and top right: second floor.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 24 HISTORICAL Development

PHASE II – THE VARDY EXTENSIONS FOR THE EARL OF 3.34 Vardy retained the Palladian character of Leoni’s building overall, UXBRIDGE, 1785-89 including the Composite pilasters, and the omission of these at each end of the south elevation. 3.29 In 1785 the lease of Queensberry House was taken up by the 1st Earl of Uxbridge who commissioned changes and enlargement to the building. He 3.35 In some ways, Vardy created an exterior closer to Jones’s Lindsey House was also responsible for the renaming of the building to Uxbridge House. than Leoni’s original building. The creation of a balustrade and the rustication of the ground floor in particular, perhaps enacting Leoni’s own 3.30 Between 1785 and 1789 the house was extended and altered by John frustrated intentions for the building. Vardy Junior (c.1745-c.1804) who was assisted by Joseph Bonomi on the re-facing of the south elevation. Vardy was a previously unknown 3.36 Internally, the floor plan created by Vardy is reproduced from the Survey architect who may have been recommended to Uxbridge through a family of London at Figure 3.10. connection. Vardy’s work before and after this commission is unknown.

3.31 Figure 3.8 is a painting by an unknown artist showing the front elevation of Queensberry House in c.1785 with scaffolding in the foreground, suggesting that preparations are underway for development.

3.32 Vardy’s alterations were extensive, not least to the south façade which Figure 3.8 A painting of the front elevation of Queensberry House in 1785 with what appears to be construction work taking place in the foreground. was covered in a new ashlar facing. His work to the southern elevation can be seen in Figure 3.9.

3.33 The Vardy alterations can be summarised as: • Three bays were added to the east to make a 10-bay façade; • The first floor windows were extended in tune with prevailing fashions; • An extension to Old Burlington Street on the north elevation was added (now regarded as No. 1 Old Burlington Street) which included the creation of the Music Room at first floor level; • A dome was added above the central staircase as well as wrought iron enrichments to the balustrade and a new narrow balcony with wrought iron railings; • A balustrade replaced Leoni’s six classical statue; and • The entrance was moved from Burlington Gardens to the Old Burlington Street elevation, where the three bay porch opened in to a new oblong hallway within.

Figure 3.9 South elevation of Uxbridge House by Vardy and Bonomi.

3.37 The 1st Earl of Uxbridge died in 1812 and he was succeeded by his eldest THE DEVELOPMENT OF NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET son, Henry William Paget, 2nd Earl of Uxbridge (Figure 3.11). 3.40 The construction of No. 2 Old Burlington Street is understood to be roughly 3.38 The 2nd Earl had a distinguished military career. He commanded the contemporary with the alterations by Vardy. The plot can be seen marked cavalry at the Retreat to Corunna (1808) and at the Battle of Waterloo on Horwood’s Map of 1792-99 (Figure 3.12). On the Horwood plan it is part (1815), in which he lost a leg. The Prince Regent promptly made him a of a row of terraces which may have been contemporary, but only No. 2 Marquess, declaring “that he loved him … that he was his best officer and Old Burlington Street now remains due to later redevelopment. his best subject”. At the Coronation, Anglesey acted as Lord High Steward.

3.39 The Marquess died of a stroke at Uxbridge House in 1854.

Figure 3.12 Horwood’s Map of 1792-99 showing the newly built No. 2 Old Burlington Street to the north of the western return of Uxbridge House. Vardy’s northeast extension to Uxbridge House is also marked.

Figure 3.11 Henry Paget, 2nd Earl of Uxbridge later the 1st Marquess of Anglesey by Thomas Lawrence (1796-1830), 1817.

Figure 3.10 Floor plan for 7 Burlington Gardens following the alterations by Vardy in the late 18th century.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 26 HISTORICAL Development

PROFILE: JOHN VARDY JUNIOR (C.1745-C.1804) Altering and enlarging No. 7 Old Burlington Gardens in the later 1780s was the only recorded project of John Vardy Junior, son of the much better-known John Vardy (1718-65), William Kent’s close colleague and a leading architect at the Office of Works, remembered for designing Spencer House and for completing Kent’s Horse Guards.

Vardy junior succeeded his father in one of his posts, becoming surveyor to the Royal Mint from 1763 to 1793. No sooner had he retired, than their premises were rebuilt: James Johnson designed a new building for the Royal Mint from 1794.

This suggests an at-best middling reputation for Vardy Junior as an architect. The date of his death is not recorded: a further indicator of a modest fame. JOSEPH BONOMI THE ELDER (1739-1808) Bonomi (Figure 3.13), a Rome-born architect of considerable distinction, assisted Vardy with the enlargement of No 7 in 1785-9. A fine draughtsman, he was encountered in Rome by Robert and James Adam, and came to London in 1767 to work in their office, remaining there until 1781.

Commissions in his own name were not numerous, but his projects include some of the most impressive Neoclassical commissions of his age, such as Great Packington church, Warwickshire (1789-92) and the pyramidal mausoleum at Blickling Hall in Norfolk for the Earls of Buckinghamshire (1794-6).

Bonomi appears to have ‘ghosted’ for other architects, such as Thomas Figure 3.13 Joseph Bonomi the Elder by John Francis Rigaud RA (1742-1810) in 1794. Leverton; his work at Old Burlington Street is another example of his bringing his Roman flair to bear on the projects of others.

PHASE III – THE BANK CONVERSION BY P.C. HARDWICK, 1855-70S 3.41 In 1855, after the death of the Marquess, Uxbridge House was sold to the Bank of England and converted for use as the Western Branch of the Bank by William Cubitt & Co to designs by Philip Charles Hardwick (1822-92).

3.42 A plan of the ground floor of the property at the time of the sale is reproduced at Figure 3.14.

3.43 Hardwick was one of the most influential and prolific bank architects of the 1860s.

3.44 At first, alterations were tentative due to cost. The main external alteration was the addition of a Roman Doric coupled-column portico on the Burlington Gardens elevation in Portland stone. This formed the new main entrance to the bank and reinstated an entrance to this frontage. The illustration from The Illustrated London News in 1855 at Figure 3.15 shows the portico and the character of the building at this time.

3.45 Internally, the building was converted into separate residential dwellings for the bank agent, sub-agent, and head messenger and their respective Figure 3.15 Illustration of the bank at No. 7 Burlington Gardens in The Illustrated London News in 1855. families. This required separate entrances and internal alterations. Generally, rooms were compartmentalised where formerly spaces were more open plan as befitting entertainment space.

3.46 The 1875 Ordnance Survey (OS) at Figure 3.16 shows the development on the Site shortly after its conversion to the bank.

3.47 The footprint of No. 7 Burlington Gardens is largely the same as the Vardy alterations, with an open area to the north-east side of the Site facing Savile Row. The central area of the Site has been more built over and there appears to be an enclosed area of open space, denoted by the Figure 3.14 Plan of the ground floor of Uxbridge House at the time of its sale to the Bank of cross-hatching. England in 1855.

Figure 3.16 The 1875 OS map showing the Site.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 28 HISTORICAL Development

PHASE IV – FURTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE BANK BY HARDWICK, 1875-78 PROFILE: PHILIP CHARLES HARDWICK (1822-1892) 3.48 Hardwick was responsible for more substantial changes to the bank in the Hardwick was the third in a line of distinguished architects, late 1870s. This involved the creation of a grand columned banking hall in a being the son of Philip Hardwick (1792-1870), architect of the new six-bay range on the north return to Savile Row. noted warehouse complex at St Katherine’s Dock (1827-9) and 3.49 The new range replaced the built form introduced by Vardy which projected of London’s first railway terminus at Euston (1836-40), and the from the main north elevation (identified as ‘L’ on Figure 3.10, the laundry) grandson of Thomas (1752-1829), remembered for numerous and infilled the open area to the adjacent properties on Savile Row. Neoclassical churches and the Millbank Penitentiary. 3.50 The extension was a single-storey and retains the original external After being articled to Edward Blore, Philip Charles took on much of appearance overall (Figure 3.17). It is of stone with unglazed sashes, a his father’s practice from a young age, following the latter’s declining dentil cornice and balustrade. Palladian elements were incorporated in health in the mid-1840s, and worked in a wide range of idioms. the design, evident in the rusticated arched doorway Normally regarded as a Gothic Revival architect (in which and rustication of the stonework. style he designed numerous churches and schools, particularly 3.51 Internally, the banking hall was created by amalgamating the new range Charterhouse, and some memorable country houses), he was with the front rooms in the Vardy range (marked ‘J’ on Figure 3.10 which Figure 3.17 A recent photograph of the Savile Row extension comprising the new banking hall. also a highly competent designer of commercial buildings in an was used as the dining room and where there was once also a stair). This Italianate manner. intervention removed the earlier plan form at ground and first floors of this He continued his father’s work at Euston Station and in 1849 part of the former domestic property. completed the booking hall, the first great hall built at any railway 3.52 A recent photograph of the banking hall is reproduced at Figure station. Equally innovative was his Paddington Hotel, the first 3.18. It was marked by Ionic columns arranged in 2x4 bays. The coved monumentally conceived hotel design and the grandest to be built compartment ceilings were decorated with circular wreath mouldings, and at a railway terminus at that point (1853). two skylights were added towards the centre of the Site. These skylights In 1855 he was appointed to succeed Charles Robert Cockerell as are visible on the Goad’s Insurance Map of 1889 at Figure 3.19. architect to the Bank of England. He built numerous banks for other 3.53 An undated photograph at Figure 3.20 shows the banking hall in the late firms which were to prove influential on subsequent bank designs, 19th or early 20th century. This is evidenced by the fact there are only establishing a solid Italianate look as the embodiment of financial two skylights. status and dependability. Hardwick’s output was extensive. 3.54 Structural and fabric surveys completed in the course of preparing Not counted among the leading ranks of Victorian architects, he this application have shown that the loading within the building was was nonetheless among the busiest. substantially altered when the double-height banking hall was created. To deal with those structural interventions the structural walls were reworked.

3.55 It would be logical that at this stage the previous double hipped roof to 7 Burlington Gardens (which was a typical construction of the period) would have been replaced with the flat roof that we find today. The phasing of the roof is included in the Design and Access Statement.

Figure 3.20 Undated photograph of the banking hall which will date to the late 19th century to the early 20th century.

Figure 3.19 Goad’s Insurance Map of 1889, which clearly shows the building following Hardwick’s alterations. The two original, circular skylights are shown to light the banking hall. This helps to demonstrate that the skylights have been replaced, and the existing two nearest to the Savile Row elevation are later additions.

Figure 3.18 A recent photograph looking eastwards through Hardwick’s grand and lofty banking hall, with its Ionic columns and Classical detailing

Heritage Statement | December 2020 30 HISTORICAL Development

PHASE V – NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET BECOMES PART OF THE PHASE VI – PURCHASE AND ALTERATIONS FOR THE ROYAL BANK OF BANK, 1876 SCOTLAND, 1934-5 3.56 In 1876, No. 2 Old Burlington Street was acquired by the Bank of England as 3.61 A photograph of No. 7 Burlington Gardens in 1922 is reproduced at a residence for the sub-agent at the bank but remained entirely separate. Figure 3.21.

3.57 The evidence suggests that No. 2 Old Burlington Street, along with the 3.62 In 1933 the property was sold to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The south-west return of No. 7 Burlington Gardens were substantially rebuilt at RBS commissioned alterations to the building by architectural firm Mewès this time. The reasons for this judgement are as follows. and Davis. These involved conversion of the residential accommodation to rentable office space at the second and third floors, where Mewès and 3.58 The facing brickwork of No. 2 Old Burlington Street and the west return Davis took up tenancy until the 1970s. of No. 7 Burlington Gardens of a very similar character. Furthermore, structural analysis in 1998 revealed that this section is constructed of brick 3.63 The hybrid use of the building meant that precautions had to be taken to or concrete jack arches on steel beams, a method of construction too ensure the complete separation of the bank vaults and the office space technical to relate to the Georgian phases of the building. in the building. Thus a new entrance was created for the tenants on Old Burlington Street, and in doing so the portico was moved eight feet to 3.59 Internally, the former Music Room on the first floor was subdivided to the north. The bank was under the impression this was the location of create a handsome suite of rooms for the Agent. The king post truss Vardy’s original portico, but this is incorrect and it was actually situated on the third floor is of a type that appears to pre-date the Victorian to the south. alterations, and likely dates to the late 18th century alterations by Vardy. 3.64 Internal changes included the addition of two further skylights in the 3.60 On the third floor, the space was divided in to 18 rooms and a bathroom banking hall, and also in the banking hall the demolition of the gallery, Figure 3.21 Photograph of No. 7 Burlington Gardens in 1922. Source: Collage (London and WC to provide residential accommodation for the bank’s staff and Metropolitan Archives) stairs and screen. servants. A description of the layout from 1932 reveals that the rooms were arranged around two principal corridors, running parallel to Old 3.65 A planning application submitted in 2005 (ref. 05/01030/LBC) provides 3.69 The third floor was also a cellular plan form for offices in the Burlington Burlington Street and Burlington Gardens respectively, but there is little information on the 1935 existing layout of the first, second and third floor Gardens range. There was a door opening connection to the more open evidence of the exact layout at this time. However, the corridor layout in plans prepared by Mewès and Davis. The plans are reproduced at ‘tenants studio’ at the third floor of No. 1 Old Burlington Street. described still remains in the building today. Figure 3.22. 3.70 The 1935 plans also show the plan form of No. 2 Old Burlington Street 3.66 In terms of No. 7 Burlington Gardens, the 1935 plans show Hardwick’s from first to third floors in the early 20th century. banking hall comprising the majority of the first floor area. The four 3.71 The plan form appears to be typical for a townhouse of the period, with skylights are shown in the Savile Row extension which have a circular form. a larger principal room at first floor which comprises the full three-bay 3.67 In the original (Leoni) part of the property, a partition has been removed extent of the property. There is a smaller room to the rear which is to create a larger front room for ‘bank correspondence’. The downstand of separated by solid partition, it would appear, with a single door opening. the original partition is shown on the plan. The rear room adjacent to the There is also small amount of accommodation in the closet wing. Leoni stairwell remain in the original configuration. 3.72 At second floor there is an arrangement of three rooms: two to the front 3.68 At second floor, a spine corridor connected a cellular arrangement and one to the rear. There is also accommodation in the closet wing. This of tenants offices across the Burlington Gardens range. These were layout is repeated at the third floor. accessed by a stair from No. 1 Old Burlington Street. The second floor included a stair in the Burlington Gardens range to the third floor.

Figure 3.22 Plans of the first, second and third floors of the Site in 1935 prepared by Mewès and Davis.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 32 HISTORICAL Development

3.73 We understand from the Survey of London, however, that the interior of No. 2 Old Burlington Street had been “completely altered” by 1963 when the Survey was written. We have not been able to locate any evidence of PROFILE: MEWÈS AND DAVIS the original plan form of the building and it is not therefore known if the The firm of Mewès and Davis consisted of Charles Mewès 1935 layout is original. (1860-1914) and Arthur Davis (1878-1951).

3.74 We provide some further analysis of the plan form of No. 2 Burlington Strasbourg-born Mewès developed particular expertise in designing Gardens at Section 4.0. in the 18th century styles of the three Louis: Louis XIV, XV and XVI. This stood him in good stead as an architect of luxury, including the 3.75 We have used the 1935 plans to inform the phasing plans at Figure 3.22. In commission to design the interior of the first Ritz hotel in Paris, in 1898. summary: • The existing plan of the first floor appears to be the same as 1935; Davis, having studied in Paris at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, entered • The existing plan form at second floor is a mix of the 1935 layout with his office in 1900 and worked with him on luxury hotel commissions. later partitions; This took the partnership to London, and they worked on the • At third floor, the 1935 layout has been largely lost as a result of the Carlton Hotel Haymarket; the Ritz (1906-9, claimed as London’s first conversion to residential in 2011 (planning refs. 11/08866/FULL and steel-framed building; and the Royal Automobile Club (1908-11). 12/01477/LBC). Davis was very much in the forefront of their British work, with 3.76 The character of the second floor, in terms of fittings and features, Mewès remaining largely in France. reflects the interwar alterations by Mewès and Davis. The uniformity of the The firm’s success stemmed from their ability to bring an accurate cornicing suggests that Mewès and Davis refitted the plasterwork. There and convincing version of French historicism to a range of luxurious are, however, some features of the central corridor which appear to date settings, ranging from banks and hotels to town and country to the 19th century history of the building. houses, the best known of which was their remodelling of Luton 3.77 A number of doors and a chimneypieces were transferred from Mewès and Hoo for Sir Julius Wernher. The firm also designed the interior of a Davis’s former tenancy at 22 Conduit Street, and other alterations mainly number of ocean liners. involved the repositioning of partition walls, and two glazed partitions Mewès died in 1914. Davis maintained the practice after the First were inserted between the banking hall and adjacent rooms. World War in partnership with Charles Gage and then undertook 3.78 The southern flat roof has been revealed to relate to the Vardy phase of numerous commercial and corporate projects in London. These construction, however skylights were inserted during the 1930s to provide include Leathersellers’ Hall, Cunard House and the Morgan Grenfell more light in to the poorly lit office rooms on the top floor. The original Bank in the City, and various office and shops in the West End, timber construction has also been bolstered by steel beams inserted such as the Hyde Park Hotel interior. His mastery of French styles below the ceiling, sometimes crudely. remained in demand in the 1920s, but by the 1930s the rise of Modernism was starting to make his approach seem old-fashioned.

The reputation of Mewès and Davis rests principally on The Ritz, which embodied their French sophistication and mastery of modern building techniques. Their Edwardian heyday came to an end in 1914. The practice’s post-war work was generally less memorable.

PHASE VII – THE LATER 20TH CENTURY, C.1935-1997 3.79 The Site remained in use as the bank and offices throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

3.80 We are still working to understand the development of the building in this period which depends partly upon access to archives which has not been possible due to restrictions on working put in place as a result of Covid-19.

3.81 The London Metropolitan Archive has a photograph of the Site in 1946 which is reproduced at Figure 3.23.

3.82 The bomb damage maps which were prepared by London County Council (LCC) in 1947 suggests that the Site was not subject to damage from aerial bombing during the Second World War (1939-1945) (Figure 3.24).

3.83 There is a further photograph of the Site from 1958 in the London Metropolitan Archives, see Figure 3.25.

Figure 3.25 Photograph of the Burlington Gardens and Old Burlington Street frontages in 1958. Source: Collage (London Metropolitan Archives)

Figure 3.24 The Site as shown on the Bomb Damage Map prepared by LCC in 1947.

Figure 3.23 Photograph of the Burlington Gardens and Old Burlington Street frontages, 1946. Source: Collage (London Metropolitan Archives)

Heritage Statement | December 2020 34 HISTORICAL Development

3.84 At No. 2 Old Burlington Street the planning history records (see below) PHASE VIII – CONVERSION TO RETAIL, 1998-2006 PHASE IX – ALTERATIONS RELATED TO NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON suggest that there was an extension at first floor in c.1978 to provide 3.88 In the late 1990s, the Site, including No. 7 Burlington Gardens and Nos. 1 and STREET, 2005-2011 additional office space. 2 Old Burlington Street, was acquired by Bramerton Developments Ltd. 3.94 At the same time as the conversion of No. 7 Burlington Gardens in 1998, 3.85 At No. 7 Burlington Gardens it is known that in the early 1990s McColl we understand that alterations were made to No. 2 Old Burlington Street. 3.89 In 1998 permission was granted for the conversion of No. 7 Burlington Associates were commissioned to convert the banking hall in to a more The details of these alterations are not known at present and we are Gardens to retail use (planning refs. 98/01215/FULL and 98/01216/LBC). open plan space and improve the basement facilities. The banking rooms undertaking further research. The plans are not available on Westminster’s website. We are seeking to were all redecorated, and the banking hall entirely refitted. A photograph review these when possible in the archives. 3.95 In 2005, No. 2 Old Burlington Street was refurbished and this achieved is reproduced at Figure 3.26. the present condition of the building. The refurbishment was permitted 3.90 Initially, the conversion involved mainly superficial alterations to the 3.86 At some point before 1993, the large first floor front room was subdivided under planning refs. 05/07572/FULL and 05/07575/LBC and the plans are banking hall to deliver the change of use including internal alterations and Regency style reeded surrounds were added to the windows, and a included at Appendix 5.0. and removal of banking equipment. The architects were Trehearne and new doorcase added. Norman. 3.96 In 2011, a flat was created in part of the second, third and fourth floors of No. 3.87 RBS moved out of the premises in 1997. 2 Burlington Gardens, across into No. 1 Old Burlington Street and into No. 7 3.91 In separate applications in 1998 the entrance to Savile Row was reopened Burlington Gardens. This was permitted under planning refs. 11/08866/FULL and there were further internal alterations (refs. 98/03216/FULL and and 12/01477/LBC and the plans are included at Appendix 6.0. 98/03218/LBC). It is understood that this included the installation of a gallery in the north-west corner of the banking hall, with a stair linking it to the ground floor. As before, the plans are not available on Westminster’s website and we are seeking to review these when possible in the archives. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, 2006 3.92 No. 7 Burlington Gardens was acquired by Abercrombie & Fitch in c.2006 and proposals were prepared by architects Househam Henderson to create the retailer’s flagship store in No. 7 Burlington Gardens.

3.93 In June 2006, Listed Building Consent was granted for the insertion of a painted steel mezzanine in the banking hall space with a spiral staircase linking it to the ground floor and a new doorway into the Leoni stairwell on the first floor (planning ref. 06/02448/LBC). The plans are included at Appendix 4.0.

Figure 3.26 The banking hall as redecorated and refitted by McColl Associates for RBS in the early 1990s to create a more open plan space.

© Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 4.0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 36 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.5 Significance (for heritage policy) is described at Annex 2 of the NPPF as: “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations 4.0 STATEMENT OF 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, SIGNIFICANCE but also from its setting.” 4.6 Setting is defined as: 4.1 In this section we describe the significance of the heritage assets which will “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. be affected by the proposed development. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a 4.2 The Site contains three designated heritage assets: positive or negative contribution to the significance of the • No. 7 Burlington Gardens, Grade II* (listed as ‘Uxbridge House’ and asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or includes No. 1 Old Burlington Street); may be neutral.” • No. 2 Old Burlington Street, Grade II; and • The Mayfair CA. 4.7 The list entry descriptions for each listed building are included at Appendix 2.0. 4.3 There are a number of designated heritage assets in the area surrounding the Site, and the proposals have the potential to affect their significance as a result of change to their setting. These heritage assets are: • 31 Old Burlington Street, Grade I – located on the west side of Old Burlington Street directly opposite the Site; • 32 Old Burlington Street, Grade II – located on the west side of Old Burlington Street directly opposite the Site; • 3 Savile Row, Grade II* – located on the east side of Savile Row directly opposite the Site; • Royal Academy of Arts, Grade II* - located on the south side of Burlington Gardens immediately opposite the Site; • Bodley House Chambers, Grade I – located opposite the Site on Burlington Gardens; • Three K6 Telephone Kiosks on Burlington Gardens, Grade II; • 24 Bond Street, Grade II – located to the south-west of the Site; • 1 Savile Row, Grade II – located to the north-east of the Site; and • Regent Street Conservation Area.

4.4 A plan of the heritage assets is included at Figure 4.1.

Conservation Areas

A. Regent Street CA B. Mayfair CA

Listed Buildings A B Grade I

1. 31, Old Burlington Street W1 2. Bodley House Chambers B1 to 6, C1 to 6, D1 to 6, E1 to 6, F1 to 3, G1 to 3, H1 to 6, I1 to 6, K1 to 6 and L1 to 6 Grade II*

3. Uxbridge House 4. 3, Savile Row W1 5. Royal Academy of Arts Grade II

6. 2, Old Burlington Street W1 7. 3 K6 Telephone Kiosks, Outside Museum of Mankind 8. 32, Old Burlington Street W1 9. 1, Savile Row W1 10. 24, Old Bond Street W1

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020

MONTAGU EVANS CHARTERED SURVEYORS LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FiguFIGURE:re 4.1 Map showing the location of heritage ▲ N OR T H 5 BOLTON STREET, Insert Address June 2020 1:750 @ A3 assets considered in this assessment. LONDON W1J 8BA T: 020 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK 38 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

NO. 7 BURLINGTON GARDENS (UXBRIDGE HOUSE), GRADE II* 4.16 The listed building also derives historical interest from its association with the evolution of the Burlington Estate and Lord Burlington himself. 4.8 No. 7 Burlington Gardens was listed Grade II* as Uxbridge House in It represents a significant addition to the Estate during its nascent THE BANK PHASE IN CONTEXT February 1958. The listing covers No. 7 Burlington Gardens and the building development. More widely, it represents a key moment in the application Banks as a distinct building type were starting to emerge in the that comprises No. 1 Old Burlington Street. and development of a ‘purer’ Palladian style within an urban environment late Georgian period: Hoare’s bank on The Strand (1829-30) is 4.9 In historical terms, therefore, the designation covers the original Leoni (of which Leoni was known as a leading practitioner). regarded as the earliest to survive, while Sir Robert Taylor’s Asgill’s house, the Vardy extension to Old Burlington Street and the Hardwick Bank on Lombard Street (1757) was perhaps the earliest. 4.17 Lord Burlington was a passionate advocate of Palladianism and thus extension to Savile Row. stylistic links can be drawn with Burlington House and other 18th century This was one facet of the emergence of a new kind of architectural 4.10 The significance of the listed building is primarily derived from its historical, houses in the vicinity. The listed building has group value with the remnants client, the commercial company (banking, insurance, retail and architectural and artistic interest which we describe below. of the contemporary 18th century townscape. wholesale, railways) which was to have such an impact on the face of cities. Right at the start of the wave of private bank building HISTORIC INTEREST 4.18 The property was sold to the Bank of England in 1875 and the commercial were the premises of the London and Westminster Bank designed 4.11 No. 7 Burlington Gardens has historical interest as an early example of a phase of its history began. This has historical interest as it represents the by Cockerell and Tite in Lothbury (1837-9; demolished). Palladian townhouse in England by a notable architect, Giacomo Leoni. The shift that was happening in Mayfair at the time, as residential uses moved original townhouse is not intact, however, and the listed building represents away from Mayfair. The finest early Victorian examples, each listed Grade I, were those a number of phases of alteration and change. The historical development of designed by Charles Robert Cockerell for the Bank of England, in 4.19 The alterations made to the building by Hardwick for the Bank of England the site is described at Section 3.0 and is not repeated here. Bristol (1844-7), Manchester (1845-6) and Liverpool (1845-8). have historical interest. The main intervention was the creation of the 4.12 The later alterations to the building by John Vardy Junior, in the 18th two-storey banking hall in the Vardy extension in combination with an Numerous financial reforms took place in the 1840s, particularly the century, and Philip Charles Hardwick, in the 19th century, also contribute extension to Savile Row. This removed the original domestic plan form and 1844 Bank Charter Act. Different banks competed with each other to the historical interest of the building, as well as some of the early 20th character of the property and introduced new built form to the formerly for custom, and outward appearance counted for much in the fight century works, though to a much lesser extent than the earlier phases. open yard which supported the residential function. for custom. The 19th century preference for Italianate Renaissance The later 20th century alterations (i.e. post-war to present day) are of no classicism lent itself perfectly, with 16th century palazzi providing a 4.20 The building was occupied as a bank until 1997 when the RBS vacated historical interest. ready source of inspiration. the site. There were various alterations in the 20th century, including the 4.13 The historical interest of the listed building can be summarised into three remodelling of the upper floors by the well-known architectural firm Mewès The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ascribes topics: context, notable residents, and historic fabric and plan form. and Davis. considerable importance to Hardwick in this area of architecture: “Philip Charles Hardwick was much employed in the City of London, CONTEXT 4.21 By this time, however, Mewès and Davis were past the peak of their career where he became the leading architect of grandiose banking and we ascribe limited historical interest to the alterations they undertook. 4.14 The original townhouse (1721-23) was the first project by Leoni in England, offices, mainly in an Italianate manner, setting the pattern for It is notable to a degree, however, that Mewès and Davis occupied the a reputable architect of the period. The design reflected other examples of suburban and provincial designs for almost three decades”. upper floors as their main offices between the 1930s and 1970s. the early Palladian tradition. Leoni’s design was the first London mansion to be built with an antique temple front, though this was removed as part 4.22 The modern retail use, which was introduced to the listed building in 1998 of the works to the property by Vardy in the 1780s. makes no contribution to its historical interest.

4.15 Vardy’s alterations skilfully redeployed the Palladian language of Leoni 4.23 To assist the understanding of significance we have conducted research in the extended 10-bay façade, and it is Vardy’s architecture which is now into Victorian banks, see below. mainly represented in the principal (south-east) elevation.

Hardwick’s chief bank buildings were for private firms. These included the Hardwick’s Work in Burlington Gardens There is something Wren-like about Hardwick’s design approach in its Bank of Australasia (1854); Jones, Lloyd & Co, Lothbury (1857); Robarts, adoption of a straightforward Palladian approach to the division of internal Hardwick’s work at No 7 Burlington Gardens extended over several Curtis and Lubbock, Lombard Street (1864); the Union Bank of London on space: the aisles of St James Garlickhythe for instance anticipate this. decades. Poultry (1865) and the Charing Cross branch of Drummond’s (1877-9). All, Originally the only pair of skylights were on the western side of the banking One of his first specific projects for the Bank on becoming its architect bar the last-named, appear to have been demolished. hall: the others, in the eastern bay, were added in the 1930s. All of the was to oversee the conversion of the former Uxbridge House into a West Other architects vie with Hardwick as the most renowned designers of original fixtures have long since gone; the acquisition of the building by the End branch. This had long been contemplated, and the Bank’s directors Victorian banks. Cockerell has been mentioned. Another key figure was John Royal Bank of Scotland in 1930 led to alterations but it was only in 1992 that entered into the plan nervously, sanctioning only limited alterations to the Gibson (1817-92), a pupil of (and assistant to) Sir Charles Barry: his branches the banking hall fittings were finally removed. former aristocratic house: these included in particular the creation of a new of the National Provincial Bank in Bishopsgate (1862-5) at Bennetts Hill, entrance on the south front. Given the grandeur of some High Victorian banking interiors, the prestige Birmingham (1868) are each testaments to his great skill in the field. The of the Bank of England, and the opulent heights Hardwick was capable of The house had been expensive to acquire, and its masonry exterior former, containing the largest banking hall in London, was listed Grade I as on occasion (such as the epic-scaled booking hall of Euston Station), it has possessed sufficient dignity for its new purpose to warrant retention. Work early as 1950: a clear indication of the high esteem it has always been held in. to be said that there is something rather modest overall about Hardwick’s was undertaken briskly and the new bank was opened just two months later. Hardwick’s Work for the Bank of England interventions at No 7 Burlington Gardens. It is known that the prolific church architect Arthur Blomfield (1829-99) Hardwick succeeded Charles Robert Cockerell as architect to the Bank of The building’s shift from aristocratic residence to commercial West was working in Hardwick’s office in 1852-5. It is possible he was engaged England in 1855, a post he retained until 1883. Little work was required of End counting house is an eloquent reflection of the changes seen by on Uxbridge House conversion; he subsequently became architect to him initially at the main Bank building on Threadneedle Street, or outside the the area during the course of the 19th century. The alterations to the the Bank of England himself, in 1887, and designed their branch on Fleet capital after the completion of the trio of major new buildings commissioned building encapsulate its changing use, but these came at a price, and Street (1886-8). from Cockerell, but he was straightaway called upon to convert the newly the loss of integrity suffered by Uxbridge House is only partly offset by Subsequent minor alterations took place to the building, which housed acquired Uxbridge House into bank use as a new branch in the West End. this historical reflection. three households in its upper areas, and only in the mid-1870s did more Elsewhere, Hardwick designed new regional branch offices for the Bank substantial works take place. at Hull (in 1856; closed 1938 and now gone) and at Leeds (1862-5, closed Between 1875 and 1878, around £25,500 (a considerable sum) was spent 1971 but extant), an Italianate building in sandstone with distinctive on the insertion of the double-height banking hall on the east side of the channelled pilasters and an urn-topped balustrade which deliberately building. An imposing entrance porch was added to the south front, and echoed Soane’s work at the Threadneedle Street headquarters. openings made into the former dining room on the east side of the ground It is the clearest indication of what Hardwick might have designed floor to create a new banking hall. This involved the loss of the first floor at Burlington Gardens, had he been given a freer hand and a more rooms on the east side of the house, and extended to the north. It gave extensive brief. Hardwick the opportunity to design a new interior of some opulence: this was in distinct contrast to the minor alterations he had hitherto been asked to oversee at this address. The banking hall is two bays wide by four deep, and its coffered roof is carried on three Ionic columns.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 40 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

NOTABLE RESIDENTS 4.30 In terms of plan form, the layout of the Leoni house is legible at ground 4.37 There is clear evidence of pit sawn timber conversions, carpenters and first floors at the south corner of the listed building and decorative markings and hewn surfaces, and little evidence of subsequent 4.24 By virtue of the high status of the building, early on it was linked with features appear to survive. The original plan form in the Vardy extension intervention work. notable and famous historic residents. The first of these was Charles at these floors has been fully eroded by the creation of the banking hall Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry, after whom the house was named. Flat Roof to south to the north-east corner of the property. In the return to Old Burlington Douglas was a Scottish nobleman, Privy Councillor and Vice Admiral of 4.38 There is widespread evidence of significant remedial intervention, with Street, the Vardy extensions survive better (i.e. the Music Room). Scotland, and was born in Queensberry House in Edinburgh (a Grade A the use of steel elements at regular intervals across the south flat roof listed building of 17th century origin). 4.31 At the upper floors, the plan form of the Leoni and Vardy phases were structure. These were initially seen using endoscope surveys where timber altered by Hardwick and later Mewès and Davis for the banking and 4.25 The second notable resident was Henry Paget, 2nd Earl of Uxbridge, later joists were visibly housed into steels, but also from all endoscope locations commercial uses. The historical interest of these alterations is relatively low. the 1st Marquess of Anglesey, for whom the building was altered by Vardy below the roof at third floor level, and after lifting of rooflights at roof level and renamed Uxbridge House. 4.32 The modern interventions to the listed building – post-war to present – above. In all locations steel elements were found to have been in-filled have no historical interest. This includes the works to convert the building with timber to provide a fixing point or false mortice for structural timbers 4.26 Paget was a British Army Officer and politician, and is perhaps most to retail use. spanning perpendicular. famous for his role in the Battle of Waterloo, at which he was cavalry commander and lost his leg during a charge against Comte d’Erlon. His 4.33 This analysis should be read alongside the phasing plans, which are 4.39 The timbers were assessed as most likely being of historic material lost leg later became a tourist attraction in the village of Waterloo, to reproduced at Figure 4.3 for reference and provided in full at Appendix salvaged for re-use during past refurbishments; there was evidence which it had been taken and was later deterred. 3.0. The phasing plans have been informed by detailed fabric surveys of bandsaw markings on the faces of timbers consistent with late 19th HISTORIC FABRIC AND PLAN FORM undertaken by Hutton + Rostron. century timber conversion techniques at the earliest, but mixed with use of THE ROOF modern chemically pre-treated softwood timbers. 4.27 The survival of historic fabric, both structural and decorative, and plan 4.34 Hutton + Rostron have prepared a report on the roof fabric. The roof has 4.40 Due to the use of modern timbers and general lack of significant form is also of considerable historic interest. been subject to alteration over time and the age, condition and quality of corrosion on the steel elements, it was suspected that the alterations 4.28 We have prepared the phasing plans at Appendix 3.0 demonstrate the the fabric varies. We provide a summary as follows. and adaptations of the flat roof structure were most likely conducted ages of the fabric comprising the building. The phasing plans have been during the 20th century. North Pitched Roof informed by the historical development at Section 3.0, archival research South Pitched Roof and review of available planning records. 4.35 There was very little evidence of significant structural intervention in the north trussed roof and are likely to date to the original construction phase 4.41 The hipped roof to the Burlington Gardens frontage retains some of 4.29 The fabric which survives from the 18th century phases of the building’s of the property in c1723 (as evidenced by hand conversion and carpenters’ the Victorian fabric dating to the Hardwick alterations for the Bank of development is of greatest interest, i.e. the original Leoni house and the markings. England. 3no. large steel elements were noted spanning between the east Vardy alterations including the work by Bonomi and Rose. This includes masonry gable end, and the central masonry chimney. the elevation to Burlington Gardens, and the cantilever stone stair and its 4.36 In the areas where the roof structure is original it has historic interest. This later stairwell box and dome. The elevation and the stair both represent a includes the King truss roof above 1 Old Burlington Street which dates to 4.42 Due to the degree of corrosion, these were suspected to be older than the combination of the work of Leoni and Vardy. the original construction of the building as part of the Vardy extension in steels visible in the flat roof, and most likely date from the end of the 19th 1785-89 (Figure 4.2). century.

4.43 The steel components supported timber joists with softwood timber boarding above, presumed to support tanks, since removed. Original timber elements presumed to span between the masonry walls to north and south, had been cut back, re-positioned, and resupported by housing into the steel.

4.44 Several historic (19th century) rafters remained, particularly on the west side of the pitched roof; however, the majority of common rafters had been replaced in the 21st century with modern chemically pre-treated softwood (most likely Spruce), although circular saw timber conversion and general deterioration of a number of other common rafters also indicated some localised mid-20th century remedial intervention. Roof coverings below the slate was a mixture of softwood sarking boards and plywood.

4.45 The evidence in this part of the roof is consistent with a listed building consent drafted in 2013 (LPA Reference: 06/05088/FUL).

Figure 4.2 The 18th century king post truss roof at No. 1 Burlington Gardens, which appears to be as originally constructed during the extension of the Queensbury House by Vardy.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 42 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE PHASING BASEMENT FLOOR c.1721-23 (Leoni) c.1785-89 (Vardy) 1850s (Hardwick) 1870s (Hardwick) c.1935 (Mewes and Davis) Modern fabric (late C20, early C21)

(vault missing in survey)

Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020 2 m 0 2 4 m

MONTAGU EVANS CHARTERED SURVEYORS LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FIGURE:Figure 4.3 Phasing plans for the Site, show in full ▲ NORTH 5 BOLTON STREET, 7 Burlington Gardens & 1+2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 NOT TO SCALE at Appendix 3.0. LONDON W1J 8BA T: 020 7493 4002 © Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK STATEMENTPHASING OF SIGNI FICANCE 43 GROUND FLOOR c.1721-23 (Leoni) c.1785-89 (Vardy) 1850s (Hardwick) 1870s (Hardwick) c.1935 (Mewes and Davis) Modern fabric (late C20, early C21) STREET ROW SAVILE BURLINGTON OLD

BURLINGTON GARDENS Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020 2 m 0 2 4 m

MONTAGU EVANS CHARTERED SURVEYORS LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FiguFIGURE:re 4.3 Phasing plans for the Site, show in full ▲ NORTH 5 BOLTON STREET, 7 Burlington Gardens & 1+2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 NOT TO SCALE at Appendix 4.0. LONDON W1J 8BA T: 020 7493 4002 © Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate attention of Foster + Partners. 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 09/10/20.

PHASING ROOF PLAN 1780s 1780s fabric with later and modern alterations Late 1870s with later alterations and modern fabric (see note) 1930s Modern fabric (late C20, early C21) The roof structure comprising exposed timbers within this part of 1 Old Burlington Street dates 00 04/12/20 Planning Submission MT to the 1870s. The roof covering Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk and skylight is modern fabric. PLANNING Key Plan. STREET

N ROW

Area outside demise

Area not surveyed SAVILE BURLINGTON OLD

This line and below (south) is where Hardwick originally introduced a ﬂat roof in the mid-late 19th century.

In the area of roof below this line, timbers have been preliminarily assessed as most likely being of historic material salvaged for re-use during past refurbishments. Riverside, 22 Hester Road There is evidence of band-saw markings on the faces of London SW11 4AN timbers consistent with late 19th century timber T +44(0)20 7738 0455 conversion techniques at the earliest, but mixed with use F +44(0)20 7738 1107 www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020 of modern chemically pre-treated softwood timbers. Due to the use of modern timbers and general lack of Client signiﬁ-cant corrosion on the steel elements, it was RH: London suspected that the alterations and adaptations of the ﬂat roof structure were most likely conducted during the 20th century

Project RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street

Title Site Plan, Level Roof Existing Site Plan

Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 BURLINGTON GARDENS 2983 04/12/20 As indicated Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020 2 m 0 2 4 m Drawing Number Revision A-SL-011-RF-03-PL 00 MONTAGU EVANS CHARTERED SURVEYORS LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FiguFIGURE:re 4.3 Phasing plans for the Site, show in full ▲ NORTH 5 BOLTON STREET, 7 Burlington Gardens & 1+2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 NOT TO SCALE at Appendix 4.0. LONDON W1J 8BA T: 020 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK 48 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

ARCHITECTURAL AND ARTISTIC INTEREST 4.51 The Vardy elevation has been altered, in particular you can identify the EXTERNAL ghosting in the brickwork of previous window openings in the left-hand bay. The Georgian character and proportions of the elevation is otherwise 4.46 Externally, the principal area of architectural and artistic interest is the relatively intact. south-eastern façade to Burlington Gardens (Figure 4.4). The architectural 4.52 The entrance door to the banking hall extension has been altered over character of the façade today primarily represents the second phase of time, but again the overall original appearance of the extension is intact. building’s development by Vardy (1785-89), though fabric from the Leoni construction is likely to survive, and the portico entrance was added in the 4.53 The rear of the upper parts of Nos. 1 Old Burlington Street and No. 7 mid-late 19th century. Burlington Gardens, facing onto the roof of the banking hall extension, have been subject to incremental change. These have gradually 4.47 Although much of Leoni’s original work has been removed, including the temple front and statues to the parapet, the façade retains the character of a Palladian townhouse, and Vardy’s alterations are considered to have architectural interest. Thomas Harrison, Lord Uxbridge’s Agent during the building work, commented on the alterations as follows: “the principal and main parts are executed in the most masterly stile both as to Substance and Beauty”. Figure 4.5 The return of No. 7 Burlington Gardens to Old Burlington Street, comprising No. 1 Old Burlington Street which is accessed through the doors in the central portico. 4.48 The south-west return to Old Burlington Street is of significance (Figure 4.5). It retains exposed brick and traditional proportions, but the fenestration and location of the entrance porch has been altered variously. The current character of the elevation is believed to date to Hardwick’s alterations to the Site in the late 19th century and the original appearance of Vardy’s elevation here is unknown.

4.49 There is an unattractive functional modern railing on the roof, recessed slightly from the elevation, which detracts from the significance of this return.

4.50 The north-east return to Savile Row is comprised of two parts (Figure 4.6). Firstly, the five bays associated with the Burlington Gardens range which originally date to Vardy’s extension of the property in the late 18th century. This rises to four storeys and has exposed brick with simple stucco dressings. The second part of the Savile Row frontage is the six bay, single-storey, stucco banking hall extension added by Hardwick in the 1870s.

Figure 4.4 A recent photograph of the principal façade of No. 7 Burlington Gardens, of which Figure 4.6 The return of No. 7 Burlington Gardens to Savile Row. most relates to the second major phase of the building; Vardy’s late 18th century alterations in a Palladian vain slightly removed from Leoni’s original design.

INTERNAL 4.54 We have already described the plan form with reference to the phasing plans at Figure 4.3 and Appendix 4.0.

4.55 The architectural interest of the plan form has been compromised by the alterations over time: the existing plan form does not represent a single composition, and whilst the phases are legible, the original hierarchy and circulation of the most important phases of the development of the building: the Leoni and Vardy houses have been diluted. Vardy diluted the Leoni layout through extension, and Hardwick diluted the Vardy layout by introducing the banking hall in particular, as well as other alterations.

4.56 The features which do survive from the early phase of the building’s domestic development do contribute to the architectural interest of the listed building. These include: • The inner hall to the left of the main entrance which was originally the main entrance hall (Leoni phase). This area features the original Figure 4.7 A detail of Leoni’s cantilever stone staircase showing the shallow and slightly Figure 4.9 Looking up to the ceiling in the Leoni stairwell hall. The panelled dome was an cantilever stone staircase by Leoni, with a wrought iron bannister overhanging steps. The iron bannister is of the Vardy phase alteration by Rose for Vardy installed during the Vardy phase (Figures 4.7-4.9). The staircase compartment spans two floors and features panelled niches and blind arches to the walls, with characteristically Palladian shallow arches at the top. The staircase and enclosed stairwell are of high architectural and artistic significance as an accomplished piece of Palladian design and present one of the most impressive elements of the building. • The majority of the surviving decorative fabric from the 18th century dates to the Vardy/Bonomi phase and is of high significance for its artistic interest. This includes the Classical décor by Vardy, Bonomi and Joseph Rose. Rose’s coffered plasterwork in the Leoni stairwell hall is notable, as well as the panelled niches to walls and domed ceiling. Rose also contributed plasterwork to the ceilings and is of considerable interest.

4.57 In terms of the building’s commercial history, we have already described the interest of the Victorian banking hall by Hardwick. It has historical, architectural and artistic interest notwithstanding the loss of the residential character and fabric it involved. A photograph of the banking Figure 4.8 A photograph of the Leoni stairwell from the first floor facing east. The attractive Figure 4.10 A recent photograph of the former banking hall in its current retail use. The symmetry of the space can be appreciated, as well as the decorative detailing such mezzanine of 2006 is visible to the rear of the image. hall today is included at Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11 provides more detail as panelled niches and the decorative iron bannister on the decoration on the columns.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 50 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.62 There is a positive setting relationship between No. 7 Burlington Gardens NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET, GRADE II at the Royal Academy of Arts to the south. The site of Royal Academy was 4.67 No. 2 Old Burlington Street was listed at Grade II in December 1987. The once Burlington House, and Lord Burlington was involved in the design of significance of the listed building is primarily derived from its historical and the original Queensberry House at No. 7 Burlington Gardens. This setting architectural interest which we describe below. relationship is mainly historic – the visibility between Queensberry House and Burlington House across the gardens of the latter has been lost as a HISTORICAL INTEREST result of the extension to the Royal Academy which now fronts Burlington 4.68 No. 2 Old Burlington Street has historical interest as a Georgian Gardens. The monumental and high architectural quality of the extension townhouse which represents the original development of this part of is nevertheless complementary to the scale and status of the listed the Burlington Estate. Overall, the character of the primary (south-west) building at No. 7 Burlington Gardens. elevation retains the original character and proportions, which are typical of the period. 4.63 The scale and grain of development becomes finer on Savile Row and Old Burlington Street with some of the scale and composition of the original 4.69 The historical interest of No. 2 is elevated by the extent of redevelopment development surviving. This preserves the historic character of these on Old Burlington Street, which means that No. 2 is one of only a few of the streets and complements the listed building. original buildings to survive in the townscape.

4.64 There has been later infill, however, including the modern development 4.70 It is not known who designed or constructed No. 2 Old Burlington Street, Figure 4.11 A photograph showing the detail of one of the columns in the banking hall. to the north-west on Savile Row where the south-east elevation is a nor the precise date of its construction. The plot is first defined on rather unattractive feature seen above the stucco Hardwick extension Horwood’s map in the 1790s. The building is therefore believed to date to 4.58 In 2011 a flat was created at the upper floor of No. 7 Burlington Gardens on Savile Row. the mid-late 18th century. which was associated with Nos. 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street. The flat includes the Vardy-period Music Room and this room retains its 4.65 The setting of the listed building is quite enclosed and there is limited 4.71 We have not identified records of who occupied No. 2 Burlington Gardens significance in being a large, open space with the original roof timbers. visibility away from the main street frontages (i.e. Burlington Gardens, until it was acquired by the Bank of England in 1875. The listed building has However, the character of the room has been altered by the fitted Savile Row and Old Burlington Street). The kink in the street layout to always had a relationship to the plot to the south (No. 7 Burlington Gardens). cabinetry which introduces an oval shape to the space. The plans are Vigo Street to the norht-east means that the primary elevation is only Horwood’s map shows how the rear elevation of No. 2 faced out onto the yard included at Appendix 6.0. revealed from this direction at the point where Vigo Street intersects of No. 7 (then Uxbridge House) which was different to the other properties in with Savile Row. the terrace which had long gardens that stretched back to Savile Row. 4.59 The modern residential fit out is of no historic or architectural interest. THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 4.66 The oblique views of the elevation from the south-west on Burlington 4.72 No. 2 Old Burlington Street derives some historical interest from the Gardens, Old Burlington Street and Savile Row means that the elevations association with Hardwick, who altered the building as part of his works 4.60 The setting of No. 7 Burlington Gardens is characterised by the tight grain and other architectural features make a limited contribution to the to No. 7 Burlington Gardens for the Bank of England. No. 2 remained an of development in this part of Mayfair which includes a mix of ages and streetscape, until you are up close. entirely separate residential dwelling until later in the bank’s history with styles. The townscape is varied and this represents the extent of change the property when it was amalgamated as offices. which has taken place to the original 18th century character of the area. 4.73 No. 2 derives some historic associative value from the links with No. 7 4.61 The primary setting is the three streets in which the elevations of the listed Burlington Gardens (Grade II*) and the shared architectural language of building are appreciated: Burlington Gardens, Old Burlington Street and both buildings on the Old Burlington Street elevations which arose from Savile Row. the alterations to No. 1 Old Burlington Street under Hardwick during the late 19th century.

ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST 4.74 The architectural interest of No. 2 Old Burlington Street is primarily derived from the Georgian character and appearance of the principal (south-east) elevation to Old Burlington Street (Figure 4.12).

4.75 It is five storeys set across three bays with full-height openings at first floor with a balcony and decorative iron railing and stucco brackets. The elevation retains the exposed London stock brick and has plain stucco courses separating the first and second floors. The elevation also features a square headed doorway with pilaster jambs and an attractive rectilinear fanlight and side lights to the original six panel door.

4.76 The cornice above the third floor and proportions of the windows suggests that the fourth floor is likely to have been a later addition. The continuation of the cornice across the elevation of No. Old Burlington Street means this alteration could date to the Hardwick phase of alterations. This analysis is reflected in what the Survey of London : No. 2 is a five-storeyed house built of yellow brick, the top two storeys being probably quite a modern addition. The front, which is three windows wide, has been painted red and much altered in other respects, probably to conform with the adjoining return front of Uxbridge House. Basically, however, the house appears to be of late eighteenth- or early nineteenth- century date. The interior has been completely altered.

4.77 The red painting has been reversed since the Survey was written in 1963.

4.78 The appearance of the elevation is somewhat diminished by the later windows in this elevation at the ground to second floors which do not represent what is likely to have been the original design: double hung sash windows with glazing bars. The windows at the upper floors appear to be more appropriate to the original character of the property.

4.79 Internally, the listed building appears to have been much altered over time and we have not identified source material on the original plan form.

4.80 The complete alteration of the interior is noted in the Survey of London description above. Figure 4.12 Recent photograph of the front elevation of No. 2 Old Burlington Street. Figure 4.13 The ground floor of No. 2 Old Burlington Street facing west towards the main 4.81 The typical configuration of a property of this type in the period would entrance. The photograph shows the original cantilever stair with bannister and geometric floor tiling. have comprised two rooms at the principal floors (ground and first) with greater subdivision at the upper floors to provide bedroom and servant accommodation. There would also, typically, have been a closet wing. No. 2 Old Burlington Street appears to conform to this layout roughly despite alteration.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 52 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.82 The closet wing appears to have been extended in the 19th century and 4.90 The contemporary listed buildings on the opposite side of Old Burlington 4.97 More recent development has included the construction of office and flat the Victorian sanitary-ware in this part of the building at ground floor is Street make a positive contribution to its setting as a result of their shared blocks, many of which were built on the sites of earlier buildings destroyed of some historic and artistic interest. The closet wing links to a room to historical development and architectural character. Together, they have during the Second World War. The later developments often jar against the rear which is likely to date to when Hardwick extended the bank into group value as representing the original phase of the Burlington Estate in the architectural finesse of the earlier building stock, but nonetheless the yard to the rear of the property. The rooms within have been heavily the early 18th century. represent the evolution of the area over time. There are some examples of refurbished in the last 20 years including the insertion of a sympathetic, high quality, post-war architecture by leading practices. 4.91 The modern buildings which now form Old Burlington Street to the but later fireplace on the ground floor. north-west do not contribute to the historical interest of the listed building. 4.98 An important feature of the street layout and character of the area are 4.83 Surveys by Hutton + Rostron have confirmed that the floor build up Architecturally, they are not unsympathetic to the scale of the listed building the open spaces. These comprise the high status landscaped squares (traditional timber joists construction) below the modern floor materials is and reflect aspects of traditional building design. The plots they occupy (Grosvenor Square, Berkeley Square and Hanover Square) as well as earliest late-19th century which would be consistent with the phasing we are much larger, however, and clearly later additions. The modern buildings Shepherd’s Market, the historic location of the May Fair. know from the Survey of London. make a neutral contribution to the significance of the listed building. 4.99 The conservation area accommodates a range of commercial uses, 4.84 The top floor of the closet wing was added in the 1970s. MAYFAIR CONSERVATION AREA including offices and retail outlets, though the historic domestic character is retained through the survival of townhouses, and range of residential 4.85 There is an internal courtyard which is now covered over by a glass roof to 4.92 The Mayfair Conservation Area was first designated by Westminster City accommodation still in its original use. provide additional office accommodation. Council in 1969 and it was extended in 1974, 1979 and 1990.

4.86 The cantilever stair is believed to be in the original location and original 4.93 The conservation area designation covers a large area between Oxford CONTRIBUTION OF THE SITE TO THE CONSERVATION AREA fabric; and the decorative iron bannister is either original or dating to the Street to the north and Piccadilly to the south. It is bound to the west by 4.100 The Site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance 19th century at the latest. Figure 4.13 shows the stair and the encaustic Hyde Park, and almost reaches Regent Street to the east. A map of the of the conservation area in the following ways: tiled floor in the hallway, believed to be Victorian. conservation area is reproduced at Figure 4.14. • The Site is an important building in the nascent development of the Burlington Estate; 4.87 The interiors have undergone alteration over time and there is limited 4.94 The current conservation area appraisal, the Conservation Area Directory, • The Site occupies an important townscape plot adjacent to the decorative fabric of interest. This includes the recent refurbishment in 2005. was published in 1998. Royal Academy of Arts and the two monumental scale buildings 4.95 The significance of the Mayfair Conservation Area is derived from the CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE complement each other and help to convey the status of this part of survival of the 18th and 19th century street layouts and the varied, high 4.88 The setting of No. 2 Old Burlington Street is tightly defined by Old the conservation area; quality architecture. The area developed according to land ownership, Burlington Street. It is only possible to appreciate the building in oblique • The more modestly detailed returns to Savile Row and Old Burlington which is reflected in the varied and interesting built form through the views along the street and in the context of the mixed streetscape. Street are consistent with the character of what would have been area. The rich variety of architecture contributes to the historical and secondary streets to the main thoroughfares; and 4.89 The listed building has a positive setting relationship with No. 7 Burlington architectural interest of the townscape – some 700 listed buildings fall • The retail use contributes to the character of the area around Savile Gardens and No. 1 Old Burlington Street which have historical links first within the conservation area. Row and Bond Street. formed by the Bank of England in the mid-19th century. The architectural 4.96 The contrast between the formal 18th century street layout and the character of the re-modelled elevation of 1 Old Burlington Street is narrower lanes behind contributes to the special interest and character of complementary to the listed building by virtue of the height, materials and the conservation area. proportions of the elevation.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 53

B E L Y T

R EE T STR

EE RE

A TR M O E S GE GM t ET RG RDIN WI E T S K EO A n AR RE AR G ZH o U GA T t Q M I t s S R T F S A E FALCMEONBERG a l s C M E P GU M J TR T COURT A 'S S EE WS NT R KE LE Pl STR MO MOU DU ST ET ORD W

E Y A F th SE h S C RK M OXB F O N C J rg S u T A a A R F O S b H d o T s. T A M r W A Al E S s ke N M E w E u R N

F M e E M R R r O O t t

I K G R L EH

C WIC N M OLD TT T E L T A E E S NS E M C L W U

W U E T D S E A N AM S E Mayfair Conservation Area R ' O

C R R L E E E B s T T AY E C P L H M l M S PO EE R S RN A T I LL

R Y U U E T E C O R P R G O T E T E H N N E T B TP H C R O S L St R S E ST T R T E B R S D S W I S K H ET U BU K A E K R ME R S D E E SL

S H R E U R A N L A A R I A E R O T S E Y E O

YT B E Q O E T OXFORD F L R A G O H VEN X Oxf W S M A R E R W G S P S O A M T T U E I R L P Q R E S Q W V EET P S T C t R ord l E S Y U M N E P E S P St

SW T

S T I R U K S O E E CIRCUS T N E Q W T l R E E G L M O E T C L R Cir S O I E Psg s M R D T T SL G E E P S P L L S I C U S R A D Y S A L R D T R A E E Ba t O L R E E I O cus I I O t ER S R BE A C T SH F l L E P AR U EB W E A H X L L L N E E C D L O I SH T C t T P L U E E t G L t e T F S Ave M S O M E S A W EE C m E Y H T O A S R N R A Ms C P T e O t R E T E R S L Y AR H a A B St P Pl W E S ST M R e nu T A A A n O R E L A C A B R T T T L P E B s L e t E B t D PO 's G M R W IT D R th I A L R E N R C R C D L O Bl L T S R t L R A S E N R E s. D C E T ' s E T M O S Y D U E' Pl d CorporA ate GL IS Team R o S G S D D N A E N D T D s E T P E A E O E E R u H RO A S M E Union C R t C R O TM S WTR A S G S .AN N E r l S N E IN T LAN F D U R D N D U T Ms St O O S t R L N Ms Y T 020 E 7641 2350 M A P T OR R Yd P Je O T S O K L O E C A E Y XF R R M S AL F E D E t O Se POR O X N R R H R S D t O W I rvi O EW T C M C T S N E B M t U I R s T R S S N d D L R ld Y Pl E t E S R A I O E le s R B R I T S L G G A T N C T Q S VIL y S B S A D E I W N T AN AN E N N H A Y T R Pl T O E R E M O E H R U R G S IM t D E T U T IV D M EM T B T a O ER V A M L A T E R T O c E N T O N H 'S T U E A E E RE E E e S C H EN N t E G T F BEE R O B S ST REL U N T A S R R T E D N E ST D t K E D T H T G E U NBE A O E C N T O B D U T L t E R L O C U R D T E G ST R H S E E E T R O E R T K D T N E FO A B R R P V S T F R E A E X B S ST A O I a W l U S O R W RY O M M G U N L BO St P S H K M R B T V l T Q A O T L r K e W L C A S o S H n . B R m E T A O b R ds H IC O a U s L I O R T R A e w U I p S E L e L c a L ' N ' I E R L D H M Ct R S W P s C R S E U T Y V E S E la b . A N E N D S O a a L rlb D G C T U T r e EE P G A K t K t O Y t d u E t E y M L S t S H N n E 's Ct H P O S T R ET O E E i n R t S N E I T E K S S so T T r S L R N S s D P P M ch M N l r' O TR S U S e t O B e T R t D E S R A T S yl A M T D A R E G O T O T n T b t S S T T S E H A R H o E S A ST u N R E O G O W t H St L R Y E R t T Ct E R AU XF O T T G f o A S T L R M R C BI R R S T N D O R R S E I T E d T t F K G E N M X R S E O H O W L S O E S . E r EE I A D S C T H N I M' E O I R ve K T N K G N il t E H L E CH R W N B SEL S T O S O X S E N Y C R O N O O N E l C O L A A N AN E IE H L A R R L R D G I P T P LE N E V S E T R L S B B o M I B R E A a ' C E N P R h r S S A AC T D se L U M U S s E R PL o O t M T ED d E S e s Y a T G l T O G W S T O 'S W Y R D t T E KE Y T E hi R r B R U t d T E Y R D M e MAD S n R R A T RD Li O E U E L H YA A on G T a B Pl S S V Y L G T E N W W E d a R b N E T E O E d E n E E U R Y t t c M y t P V H Y E E R a E K . E A T T C G Y sh I T P S E T A R R N C i t L in S T O T E R o re S S E Y Y O T R U U T R N EE S ID E E ur X L E N T g t E R N D R OV G E O t O T S E O ly EJ pr R T T T T R n A L S T U S R T S W D R W T R U P T S W D t R o C T E E MBAC TE EN R UR K E A E G is T M R N S A P E O O M M E T N N E n t E E N G N R C O N I e rt S E E I t E C ND A G E R 'S L C N T L A B K E S A T u KU St S B T W S ESF RL R O E R o W F E R E E T O L A R E l U C pr G A I t B C T P J E EL M A A R W T P St U L h B I B E O H e C T K O I Y R D K P S N B D R S Y re V S h r U H B E t S Y i E e O L W S S E h n e B L S U L E L p T D T N N e a h E W D E t d p g e A e E O E G St t S P r A h A N r r R N T D a d e N E d s T N I E S r r S N L R E r C W N d ELD O R R L E Q N Lw E e s T l FI a S O D R R H R G P C E E S N OM U T A J D l E U C E t EW a V T CE t S B S A r t T M ce S EN BLO S S N R A M R O R R O B PLA A TO C A T DS O R AD T O E EW G W R E s G S U S O EN G O L R L V N IN ' O V D BR IL YL L I E S h R T R E W S H E & I R Ms C T it d L T RO St R O D L Lw St E E R S E BLA G A O BU m Y IL E N E H B E H T K SE E S L R E V E R N S A e T R V T B GE J r M S UA S ON E AC R E E S O R H A T E T i K Q I O D E R ce O E R O SES U T R S C S R U C D E T H E H T RO G BO C R D O G AC S W B A R PL N R t K S l L O D R E r st ER P H AR t L W E St R W e BU C P Y S E I E PP O N E N e e U S t N D IN O A S T N T E W N St T t r T O E R S MA D R R N O G T E O DEN M R O T E t S M K N D F R D T L W R U R F C T ss O E EW O E U R I O T B I i E T E O RE O R O Jo BA L O S L w t T T E B B S C R S r R S ' N R n N G t u S N LA L B S S U TE es N R E SSHO o a S S O T S R A USE S ST C G O M PEN t O A K S E TREE S Y LR T P T LO I T TOR AR L U EE C C T t T . R t EN C S X R L U S d V W T St tN O R O O a C S A R W R T d S E h N S E G PICCADILLY i R B E I u t O S Pl K V N c C N W R T C o N W S Q O E E Arc D m V O O O St E s t S R E d A CIRCUS O b T T T T RO 'S E B F B .Ms E G G U AM RE E O C N T R D T U A T N W E T A S R R O K S A E P T N P S E P N K R T U H G A V W icc. I t R H S OU D G R W M E B L N I Y T I E I L A P L t S T M A L B S L L S S E R L L l S I N C E U E t D N EV Y U E L t SY 'S O E M B E A ES T O R D O IN C MT M P T S B C A S V IC R JA N M P L E A T T H A A Q O L T W t P Eag JE A S KE P T A E E R u S R R A S B R A U O B R Pla L A R r R L r U M Y E T Y c A D li E S E B IS S K K EE h T E L n R A le R M G T L O T c G R L B R i S R l D g N E A N T ST S b IL T e O A S A a E E S ya C N T A A T l M E H V o e to Y T E N E N N P L T d H T R B Y R T UR Y E hur N E R O F R R n Pla ' O E L R M A A R Arcd O A S R R M A T R T K E A O s Y H A R T S E F S E N c N C U T B S E E X 'S S St r D c h E S LTO E L E t D R E ca e T T E L T S a E A T P I T R CAR T T T M D n Prin S B T E H F R S d d T R EE l RE C E e R S T B T t I n B E T b e Arc M STR S T O ro N E D A S H W w E F R R Z o E c DY A E L F o E M E w FOR S M d R T A E k a es M L T F HW D T S s o T R U P E T K S L E S PLA de d L O U A K E C A E O W d R S JE KE P Y S FO A W S A T U n t A E U E T E T F X E E R a E E SU L S R V L L D L R M C Pi D OF R E P T I E R A E E C U N T F S E Y Arca cca T M l ET ' E K O S L E R IE Y E M YOR L TR S A R S D d E R S A T L D E S T O d i O P H O H T Y ll R L T O D e y U S R A V S A R U s Y SO H R E T d S K A N S E M R T Y t H T St IL E E D E R 'S C LL L S S E N H HI S L R E T T R E O T E S T A G R S A S A A H R M ' R N d T S U Q A U C A R Y Y E W K Y t T R C D L S ed E U B AI M E M I R D R t T A R D S B L C Y t A W t E E O O . JA R s E Yd C E S YF E R . S L ion R JE U JA t T A N L L P E Y T H N Y M S W E E N T MA L R E S A AC t E T L L U R S N C O S I S M E R E Y O Y L O S PL N R A q S Y ET R C Z L T E A H E D N L N E A L E T D H T A G S C S S R R L Y U M O C P E I l E R R S N EY U R S E T T P Q L E A G BEN A N T R t D EET s L IL S E G T R ' S O R A T A C E O S R ce S A T A R F R L R E H R in P R E E ST r E E T I T C N T E P K E T t A E A T E D R S E RE IC S E C T E L L JA R N D F E C E S E S S E T A D P S I F N T D R T E E E T T t Y L R U T S H R R yd E L rd M M EVEL E e R RR L O D E S h P E e T H O ep O E l E T O H T R t h P r S B S S O N E S N A E t O E S C E T R T O T t K E G S S rke T t Pa AN N N F a N R ' N & T E O C M S I A L D Z l AT R O A P K C G R U S n R G C K P L l D A R S l E S W T Q L g O Pl d W A C Ma W s C E D R B T R M ET H u e C ET CE E E R r N R A o l U K T I e U Y B R S R T L S A S E l E w C l d D R e B l PL R M R T P P s I E T Y E R N S d Z t ST H n E n t Pl E i P G T 'S c G E E AC O H T H T k L AN ' P D S T O R s S e L N N N O EA E r a A O E H HO E W i ss T 'S R M t n M L T RO E S g L IT PE S JA R P S T a t. 'S P L A W A W T E l S S l P C N ME E H k E O P RE UT M RZ A T MO .JA U L S YAR Pl Y St E C . TE A R D L Lt A R ET L E Lt.S N G N K E I M SE FO D STR D IN A R E T O K A t.JA A PE R RIC THER d N L E W B C Y RUSSELL R T L IN H C CA M ConservatEion Area I EE ES' L K N RO t P WH Ct W B A S S D R K S RO O C T St A I H R R ND R P A B G E O L AC R N LA L HI M E U LLE O AN W VE A Westminster boundary S O T G M I L D s LE W L D T .M C H E AY T H t H S T O P Pl AM R N A O SE N R RP O S A EN P ILT K D T P M S T INE L HA W L A R A ME OA A a B D R C L GREEN PARK Q K E E u Y L e 0 55 110 220 Meters e A A n R N 's D E W R a d Map produced by Corporate GIS Team PICCADILLY lk This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance E E DRIV HYDE For reprints or enquiries contact Survey with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's RRIAG TH CA PARK Stationery Office. © Crown copyright and/or database right 2007. SOU Eugene Brown ext. 2350 CORNER All rights reserved. Licence number LA 100019597 l Date: September 2007 / Map Reference: 2706 Apsley Way P CONSTITUTION HILL

W Figure 4.14 Map of the Mayfair Conservation Area. B I L U T C O K I N N

G P H L A A M C P E A L A C E

Heritage Statement | December 2020 54 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS BODLEY HOUSE CHAMBERS, GRADE I 4.115 The significance of the listed building is derived from its historical and architectural interest as a Georgian townhouse which survives from the 4.101 We have identified nine heritage assets in the vicinity of the Site which 4.108 Bodley House Chambers was listed at Grade I in February 1958. first phase of the development of the Burlington Estate. The original have the potentially to be affected by development proposals for the Site 4.109 The listed building comprises two parallel rows of Chambers of 1802-3 by external appearance survives well and there are internal features of note. as a result of change to their setting. The location of these heritage assets Henry Holland. The end of terraces are in brown brick, and the main ranges (all listed buildings) is shown on the map at Figure 4.1. are stucco. Between the ranges is a road covered with a cast iron roof THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 31 OLD BURLINGTON STREET, GRADE I supported by slender columns. 4.116 The setting of the listed building is defined by Savile Row, and despite later redevelopment and infill the character of the streetscape is 4.102 31 Old Burlington Street was listed at Grade I in February 1958. 4.110 The listed building is of considerable architectural and artistic interest. complementary to the historic character of the area and makes a positive No. 8 Burlington Gardens features a Robert Adam-esque radial glazed 4.103 It is a terraced townhouse which dates to 1718-24 by Colen Campbell, contribution to the experience of the listed building as a result. fanlight doorway, and shallow bay windows that are mirrored at No. 12. located on the west side of Old Burlington Street directly opposite the The stucco terraces are attractively proportioned and exhibit pleasing 4.117 The Site is located directly opposite the Site and forms part of this historic Site. It is four storeys, plus basement and dormered attic, and four bays symmetry. context. A grand house on the Site was part of the listed building’s original wide, in brown brick. context and so it was always the intention that there would be a contrasting 4.104 The listed building is of historic interest as an innovative terrace design by THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE style of development relative to No. 3 Savile Row. The existing buildings – an eminent architect with strong links to the Burlington Estate: Campbell 4.111 The listed building is enclosed by development and the only public area original and later additions – which comprise the Site add to the varied and remodelled Burlington House for Lord Burlington prior to this commission. in which the listed buildings can be appreciated is from the north at the historical and architectural character of the townscape setting. Campbell was one of the most important exponents of the Palladian style junction between Savile Row, Vigo Street and Burlington Gardens. The during the Georgian period. historic character of this townscape area and quality of the buildings therein ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS, GRADE II* makes a positive contribution to the understanding and appreciation of the 4.118 The Royal Academy of Arts was listed at Grade II* in January 1970. 4.105 The listed building is also of high architectural and artistic significance, listed building. The Site forms part of this historic context. particularly internally where many original decorative features remain in 4.119 The Royal Academy was originally built as the Headquarters of the situ. The interior is fully panelled, with elaborate carving and mouldings 3 SAVILE ROW, GRADE II* University of London, between 1866-9 by Sir James Pennethorne. It is built in the ground floor reception rooms. The chimney pieces have enriched in Portland Stone, with pink sandstone dressings, and is grand in scale 4.112 3 Savile Row was listed at Grade II* in February 1958. pilaster frames to over mantels. The principal main 18th century oak and decoration; of two large storeys and the ground floor is rusticated. 4.113 The listed building, a terraced townhouse, was built as part of the staircase is also highly decorative and of high significance. The first floor The asset is located on the south side of Burlington Gardens immediately Burlington Estate c.1733 and it is located on the east side of Savile Row rooms are pared back versions of the ground floor. opposite the Site. directly opposite the Site. It is of brown brick with a rusticated ground floor, 4.120 Its significance is predominantly found in its architectural and artistic THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE six panelled door with rectangular fanlight. interest. The principal façade features a number of freestanding 4.106 The setting of the listed building is defined by Old Burlington Street and the 4.114 Internally, the listed building retains many high quality original sculptures by a number of sculptors including J. Durham and P. MacDowell. setting analysis for No. 2 Old Burlington Street applies equally to No. 31. features which contribute to its architectural and historic interest, The whole is styled in Renaissance Classicism, with giant order Corinthian 4.107 In the case of No. 31, the listed building at No. 32 Old Burlington Street including panelling and plasterwork at first floor, and attractive columns and a balustrade adorned with figures of scientific worthies. makes a very important contribution to the significance of No. 32 because carved chimneypieces. The significance of the listed building has been Internally, it has been altered substantially but retains its grand central they were designed as a part of terrace. diminished as a result of insensitive late 20th century alterations at stairwell and clerestory, and a number of the first floor rooms retain lavish ground floor level, resulting in some loss of fabric including the original original plasterwork. stair, however the original octagonal moulded plaster drum at the top of the stairwell does remain.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE THREE K6 TELEPHONE KIOSKS ON BURLINGTON GARDENS, GRADE II 1 SAVILE ROW, GRADE II 4.121 The historic buildings and high quality of the architecture in the setting of the 4.128 The three K6 telephone kiosks on Burlington Gardens were Grade II listed 4.135 1 Savile Row was listed at Grade II in May 1986. It is located to the east of listed building makes a positive contribution to it significance, in particular in May 1993. the Site. Burlington House to the south which was the original home of the Royal 4.129 Type K6 telephone kiosks were designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott in 1935 4.136 The listed building occupies a prominent location on the corner of Savile Academy. Burlington Arcade and the main ranges of the Bodley House as the ‘Jubilee’ kiosk. The significance of the listed buildings is derived from Row and Vigo Street, and is visible in views along Burlington Gardens Chambers flank the asset on each side and form attractive elements in their historical and architectural interest arising from their iconic design by beyond the Site. It is of historic significance as a Georgian building its setting. The Site is also of a complementary form and architecture to a renowned architect. ascribed to one of the most successful architects of the time; William Kent, the listed building, and the two contribute to the monumental character of and built in 1731-3 as part of the Burlington Estate. It is also of historic Burlington Gardens which is experienced in this location. THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE interest in its links with the Royal Geographical Society, for whom the 4.130 The busy street setting of the telephone kiosks makes a positive 4.122 The north elevation of the listed building is best experienced in the long building was renovated c. 1870 and the ‘map room’ created. contribution to an understanding and appreciation of their original use. view provided by Old Burlington Street. The Site appears obliquely in this 4.137 It was extended between 1819 and 1836 and re-fronted in 1870 by They are a recognisable and iconic feature of the townscape and it is view and makes a neutral contribution to its significance. James Edmeston, with further alterations in 1881 and 1894 all for the possible to appreciate their original architectural character as objects in 4.123 The experience of the listed building includes modern architecture which Royal Geographical Society. The principal porch and façade date to the this context. makes a neutral contribution to its significance. alterations of 1870. It was converted for Hawkes and Co. as a tailoring 24 OLD BOND STREET, GRADE II 32 OLD BURLINGTON STREET, GRADE II premises in 1912. 4.131 24 Old Bond Street was listed at Grade II in December 1987. 4.138 Internally it retains some original and notable features including five 4.124 32 Old Burlington Street was listed at Grade II in February 1958. It lies 4.132 The listed building is a commercial premises which dates to 1926 and was original plaster ceilings, chimney pieces and a stair compartment on opposite the Site on the south-west side of Old Burlington Street. designed by Vincent Harris in a spare Gothic Revival style with Arts and the Vigo Street flank, with elaborate cornice and carvings. The Royal 4.125 It is a four storey townhouse originally designed by Colen Campbell Crafts detailing. Geographical Society’s map room of 1870 is a complete Victorian element, in 1718-24 but it has been substantially altered. The ground floor was with fluted Ionic columns and attractive ceiling glass. These elements 4.133 The building is of architectural and artistic interest as a grand and iconic converted for retail use in the early 20th century and the large front contribute to its architectural and artistic interest. building occupying a prominent corner site, with attractive and unusual window with engaged entablature and pilasters dates to this time. detailing. Oriel windows are linked by a Gothic balcony, and carved with Internally, little original fabric remains, although the service stair and rear THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE heraldic devices which also pierce the frieze below the parapet. A slender closet remain intact with original panelling. 4.139 The setting of the listed building is defined by the junction between Vigo fleche complete with bells surmounts the roof. Street, Savile Row and Burlington Gardens. The situation of the building on 4.126 The significance of the listed building is derived from its historical and the junction makes a positive contribution to its significance because the architectural interest as a Georgian townhouse which survives from THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE architecture of the building relates to the corner plot. The roads allow the the original development of the Burlington Estate. The association with 4.134 The setting of the building contributes positively to an appreciation of the elevations to be appreciated. Campbell also contributes to this significance: he was active on the Estate in building’s significance. Chaucer House, located on the opposite corner, the period and also redesigned elements of Lord Burlington’s house nearby. is of a similar tone and date to the listed building and the two form a 4.140 The Site forms part of the varied and historic context in which the listed THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE strong gateway on to Burlington Gardens from Old Bond Street. The Site building is appreciated and makes a positive contribution to its significance. is part of the listed building’s wider historic setting and makes a positive 4.127 The setting of the asset contributes to the appreciation of its significance; contribution to its significance insofar as it forms part of the historic the asset was built in conjunction with adjoining terraces including No. 31, character of the area. There is limited intervisibility between the two as part of the Burlington Estate. The extant buildings of the same period, buildings, and only the primary elevation of No. 7 Burlington Gardens has namely No. 31 and the Site, contribute a positive element to the asset’s any visual relationship at all. setting and reinforce the significance of the asset. However, the adjacent 5 Burlington Gardens, a 20th Century building immediately to its south, is a detracting element in its setting and its scale dwarfs that of the asset.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 56 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

REGENT STREET CONSERVATION AREA 4.141 The Regent Street Conservation Area was first designated in 1973 and lies to the east of the Site.

4.142 The significance of the conservation area is derived from its historical interest as one of the earliest and most important pieces of town planning in the country. Regent Street was created by John Nash in 1815 and it completely reinvented the status and fortunes of the area in a deliberate way. Its curving form is as a result of land ownership rights which prevented Nash from creating a straight, French style boulevard.

4.143 The character and appearance of the conservation area is defined by the high architectural quality of the buildings within it, many of which are listed. The primary built features are the buildings which form Regent Street, as well as Nash’s semi-circular All Souls church on Langham Place. The design strategy of the whole, which involved visually breaking up the street with grand circuses, is also of high architectural significance. THE CONTRIBUTION OF SETTING TO SIGNIFICANCE 4.144 The setting of Regent Street Conservation Area is mixed. The areas of historical development which contribute positively to understanding Regent Street in historic context are captured by conservation area designations. The later commercial developments along Oxford Street.

4.145 There is some intervisibility between the Site and the conservation area afforded by Vigo Street, however the narrowness of this approach and the intervening built form limits the contribution of the Site to the setting and significance of the conservation area.

© Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 5.0 Summary of the Proposals RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 58 Summary of the Proposals

DESIGN ASPIRATIONS 5.8 There have been three main design aspirations that Foster and Partners 5.0 SUMMARY OF THE have identified and which have influenced the proposals now before the Council: • Enhance the Historic Architecture PROPOSALS • The proposal shall sensitively respond to and enhance the Listed Buildings and shall reinforce the qualities that make them significant. 5.1 This section provides a summary of the proposals which have been New interventions will be delicately intertwined with the existing fabric prepared by Foster and Partners in collaboration with Montagu Evans and to create a new yet complimentary architectural language. the rest of the design team. • Provide a unique Guest experience • Providing the applicant with a series of elegant galleries in which they 5.2 The principles of sensitive restoration are fundamental to the design, can display their interior designs and furniture, thereby reinforcing and are discussed more fully in the accompanying Design and Access Uxbridge House as a grand residential building. Statement. • Support Mayfair as world-class shopping destination RH LONDON • Ensure that the development will be of an exceptional quality and will 5.3 The project aspirations are derived from a combination of the Applicant, positively resonate with the exclusive retail facilities of Savile Row and Figure 5.1 Illustrative view of an interior room their objectives, and the context of the site and its cultural richness. New Bond Street. 5.11 Access through the building would be provided via two new lifts. The first 5.4 RH has become one of the leading brands in luxury home furnishings, THE MAIN PARTS OF THE PROPOSALS will be within the area of the double height banking hall (infilled with a offering the most comprehensive and compelling collection of furniture, THE GALLERY mezzanine) inserted within one of the ceiling coffers. The second lift will lighting, textiles and décor in the world. be located at the northeast part of the planform of No. 1 Old Burlington 5.9 The principal part of the development is the creation of the retail gallery. It 5.5 RH create retail galleries that are filed with fresh air, natural light and often Street. will be accessed from Burlington Gardens through the existing portico. The have garden courtyards. Gallery will occupy every level through the building with the majority of the 5.6 This approach lends itself the existing historic building. The Gallery at RH associated back of house spaces in the basement. London (at the Site) would result in a retail environment but one that pays 5.10 The existing rooms will be laid out with furnishings, rather like a crafted homage to the original residential use of the building. home, using the layout and plan-form as it was intended. Some minor 5.7 The rooms would be laid out with furniture, akin to a private house similar changes are proposed to improve flow and legibility through the property to the original use as a single family dwelling. but these are generally located in areas of low sensitivity.

BANKING HALL MEZZANINE THE SAVILE ROW COURTYARD 5.12 New retail accommodation would be provided through the insertion of a 5.18 The intention is to make the roof above the banking hall extension into mezzanine within the part of the building that was formerly the Georgian habitable retail accommodation. The original lead roof would be retained house. This would symbolise the historic floor plate (pre-1870s) and free up with the new construction sitting above. the banking hall extension. 5.19 The modern (1980s) rooflights to the windows into the banking hall would 5.13 The mezzanine would then be defined by screens that create a sense be replaced with new units that would bounce natural daylight into the of enclosure needed to form a room. The screens would help define restaurant below. the former rear elevation of the Georgian house. The creation of some 5.20 This area will also benefit from tidying the rear of No. 1 Old Burlington openings would also provide the ability to appreciate the double height Street. Currently, it is cluttered with unattractive M&E, glazed enclosures volume of the banking hall. and hand rails to the upper parts.

THE RESTAURANT 5.21 The proposals would rationalise the pant placing it behind a new screen 5.14 A new restaurant would be housed within the Hardwick Banking Hall designed to be minimalist. Unsightly plant vents would be removed extension. The intention is that it would create a destination for guests to and replaced with a visually coherent and neat elevation that will be gravitate towards while also animating Savile Row. appropriate and suitable for visitors to the terrace area. Figure 5.2 Illustrative room within the new mezzanine showing the columns and capital that 5.15 The latter has been identified as a particular benefit of the proposals, would be expressed within the rooms. to reinvigorate what has become a neglected part of the site that has potential to provide a more meaningful contribution to this part of the CA.

5.16 The kitchen for the restaurant would be located in the area of the current changing rooms at the northeast area of the floor plan. This would give level access to the restaurant, and without the need for circuitous routes to bring food to diners.

5.17 To achieve the kitchen, it is proposed that it would provide level connection into the rear of No. 2 Old Burlington Street, requiring the lowered floor in that area.

Figure 5.3 Section drawing showing how the restaurant will animate Savile Row.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 60 Summary of the Proposals

THE ROOF 5.22 The final part of the development is the replacement of the roof above No. 7 Burlington Gardens.

5.23 The current roof has been significantly altered resulting in an inauthentic form and poor general condition and appearance.

5.24 Following historic analysis of the development of the roofscape, the proposals seek to reinstate the double hipped roof configuration installed by Vardy in the late 18th century. The parts seen from the street and nearby buildings would appear scholarly.

5.25 In the centre of the roof would be modern rooflights designed to the highest standards by Foster and Partners, who are known from the quality of such interventions and additions.

5.26 Internally, the historic brick spine walls from the 18th century would be retained. This approach allows the historic cellular planform to remain legible. The intention is to express the underside of the roof in timber to convey the complexity of the roof geometry, and also to provide a quality Figure 5.4 Illustration showing the geometric form of the new roof to provide rooflights to help light the interior spaces. to the interior. OTHER WORKS 5.27 There are other works that are proposed and these are illustrated on the submitted demolition drawings.

Figure 5.5 Illustrative view of the interior within the top floor showing the quality of the expressed underside of the roof.

© Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 6.0 Assessment of the Proposals RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 62 Assessment of the Proposals

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.13 This conservation-led approach is supported by the NPPG which promotes sensitive design that delivers public benefits in a sustainable 6.6 The best use of a listed building is one that preserves its significance in 6.0 and appropriate way, and paragraph 200 of the NPPF which states that ASSESSMENT OF a manner that is consistent with its conservation. This is consistent with local planning authorities should treat favourably those developments paragraph 192 of the NPPF which states heritage assets should be put to that better reveal the significance of a heritage asset. viable use consistent with their conservation. THE PROPOSALS 6.14 This is also consistent with paragraph 192 of the NPPF which states 6.7 The intention is to provide a retail experience that would improve public heritage assets should be put to viable use consistent with their access, and in a manner that would deliver more opportunities for people 6.1 This section of the report provides an assessment of the impact of the conservation and Westminster’s Part C of DES10 stating that change of to appreciate the significance of the building alongside other land use proposals on the significance of the heritage assets identified at Section use may be permitted where it would contribute economically towards the benefits (such as contributing to the local economy). 4.0 in light of national and local planning policy and the relevant statutory restoration, retention or maintenance of the listed building. 6.8 The approach to the internal layout of rooms for the retail gallery use provisions (see Section 2.0). 6.15 In order to function in the retail market, particularly in a challenging area lends itself to the character of the Site, with furnishing and so forth set 6.2 The DAS prepared by F+P provides a nuanced discussion on the design of the economy that is going through profound change, together with out in a manner consistent with the historic and original use as a single rationale and should be read alongside this assessment. the importance of this location as part of the West End, the Site requires residential dwelling. a comprehensive approach bringing two properties together, and more 6.3 In preparing the proposals, the desirability of conserving designated 6.9 The proposals before the Council have been developed through careful of the current building into public retail use. Accessibility is similarly a key heritage assets has been afforded great weight, (consistent paragraph consideration of the heritage sensitivities. The project team has been consideration in order to encourage footfall across all floors. 193-194 of the NPPF and with the approach commended by the Court of mindful that conservation is a process of managing change and not Appeal in Barnwell). Indeed, the overarching aim of these proposals has 6.16 The provision of these objectives is necessary to securing the future use simply preserving the status quo for its own sake. The emphasis is on been to identify the significance of the Site and identify opportunities in of the building and sustaining and enhancing its cultural significance. understanding what is special about a heritage asset and its setting and less sensitive areas, or which would enhance the significance of the asset. Consequently, the interventions that are necessary for the change of use ascertaining where certain elements are capable of accepting change are justified through a) the necessity to deliver the operational brief; and 6.4 We consider the following matters are the principal considerations: without harming the special values of a place. b) any harm has been minimised. • The impact of the proposed works on the special architectural or 6.10 The starting point has been to understand the history and significance of historical interest of the listed buildings; and 6.17 Based on our findings we see no objection in principle to the proposals the building which is set out in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. • The impact of the proposed works on the character and appearance of and we are pleased that the Council and Historic England have agreed as 6.11 The project team has developed the proposals in response to this the CA. set out in the consultation responses. understanding. We have sought opportunities to make enhancements 6.5 Our assessment of the proposals is structured in three parts: to the heritage significance, while making alterations in areas that have • First, we consider the principle of development; previously been altered and are therefore of far less sensitive. • Secondly, we assess the effect of specific aspects of the scheme which 6.12 That work has also benefitted from extensive consultation with the Council require particular analysis; and and Historic England, as well as detailed on-site survey work which has • Finally, we present the public benefits arising from proposals that we confirmed the age and construction of fabric. consider will make a demonstrable enhancement to the significance of designated heritage assets.

General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS ON HERITAGE ASSETS 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. LEGEND - PROPOSED WORKS 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 1. Existing floor demolished. New floor level lowered to match 7BG Ground Floor level 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 2. Existing vault level dropped 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate 6.18 We assess the effect of the proposals on 7 Burlington Street and 1 Old 3. Existing stairs to be extended to Basement and Level 03 KEY attention of Foster + Partners. 4. Demolition of stairs and building a new evacuation lift shaft 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 5. Reinstate wall opening 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 6. New wall opening 09/10/20. Burlington Street (Uxbridge House) (Grade II*) and 2 Old Burlington Street 7. New partitioning 8. New screens 9. New mezzanine floor Proposed gallery areas in 10. New panoramic lift (Grade II) separately, as they are separately listed buildings which are 11. Existing structural floor to be levelled 7 Burlington Gardens. 12. New brick wall and metal cladding spandrel for the new stairs enclosure. 13. New roof over new evacuation stairs 14. New dormer for the new evacuation lift overrun Back-of-house areas in designated at different grades. 15. New louvered roof over plant area 16. New accessible raised platform over existing roofing for service and extended rooflights 7 Burlington Gardens and 17. Demolition of roof and reinstate double pitched slate roofing and rooflight 18. Demolition of lift shaft and extending original roofing 1 Old Burlington Street. 19. Demolition of the roofing and building a new roofing over plant area Plant Room Plant Room 6.19 The overall assessment of the proposed development considers the 20. New internal rooflight above Leoni's stairs 1 Plant Room 21. Service zone A-053-X-13-PL Back-of-house in 22. Extent of structure unidentified in survey Plant Room effects identified on the individual listed buildings, and the Mayfair CA, as 23. Reinstated chimney at roof level Plant Room -2.335 2 Old Burlington Street 24. New structural slab 7 25. New / extended opening to access new acccessible platform Plant Room -3.50P8lant Room (see later part of 26. New chimney for kitchen extract Gallery Staff Store Store part of evaluating the effect of the proposed development as a whole. -3.095 -2.335 Breakroom assessment). Plant Room Lobby Courtyard Entrance Stair 2 -2.935 Stair 2 1 Lobby Lobby 6.20 The assessment is mainly organised on a floor-by-floor basis, with A-053-X-12-PL Kitchen Staff Kitchen Staff Cleaners Shower and Shower and Gallery Staff separate sections on certain aspects of the proposals such as access and Room Changing Changing Lockers -3.684 Female Male Gallery Staff 4 Plant Room Bin Store Prep 6 Areas Kitchen fire strategy which are applicable across the Site. (vault missing in survey) 7 00 04/12/20 Planning Submission MT 6 Lobby 7 7 Lobby Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk

Bin Store 6 PLANNING Key Plan. 7 BURLINGTON GARDENS AND 1 OLD BURLINGTON STREET -3.528 Gallery Staff Bin Store Plant Room Circulation Evac Lift Lobby Toilet, Lobby Circulation Shower and (UXBRIDGE HOUSE), GRADE II* Changing -3.475 Bin Store Prep Acc Staff Kitchen Toilet, 1 7 F&B Office Kitchen Staff Shower and BASEMENT A-053-X-11-PL Areas Changing -3.515 Bin Store -3.560 Bin Store Courtyard

-3.625 Bin Store 6.21 The proposals seek alterations to the basement in order to create gallery -3.588 Stair 1 FOH Toilets Plant Room Integral -3.545 Courtyard Prep 7 Substation areas and provide back-of-house uses such as preparation kitchens, staff Kitchen Prep N Kitchen Incoming Gas and LV Switch Plant Room UP -3.535 Water Booster 3 7 Room -3.457 facilities and plant rooms. (vault missing in survey) Area outside demise

Area not surveyed 6 -3.545 Stair 1 6.22 The gallery areas will be located in the part of the basement which lies Lobby -3.396

beneath 7 Burlington Gardens (i.e. the southern range which is two rooms Acc Staff Bike Store Gallery Areas Gallery Gallery 1 Gallery Areas 10 Areas deep and comprises both the Leoni and Vardy phases of development). A-053-X-10-PL Areas

These areas are currently used as stock rooms, so the proposals will -3.635 Gallery Areas 6 6 6 introduce public access to a part of the listed building which has not Plant Room 6 7 6

-3.625 before been possible. This is considered to represent a heritage benefit. 6 Riverside, 22 Hester Road -3.495 London SW11 4AN Plant Room T +44(0)20 7738 0455 F +44(0)20 7738 1107 Gallery Gallery Gallery Gallery 6.23 The location of the gallery areas is illustrated in purple on the plan at Areas Areas 5 Areas Areas www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020

Client Figure 6.1. RH: London 6 6.24 The gallery areas will be separated from the back-of-houses uses located

Courtyard -3.602 Project to the rear (north) parts of the basement, as shown in green on Figure 6.1. Courtyard -3.616 RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street

Plant Room Plant Room -3.610 2 Plant Room -3.543 -3.663 -3.673 -3.645 Title UKPN HV Staff Bike Staff Bike Switch GA Plan, Level b1 (-2.27) Store Store Plant Room Room Plant Room Plant Room Basement 1 -4.021

-3.571

Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 1 GA Plan, Level b1 1 1 1 1 : 100 A-053-X-01-PL 2983 04/12/20 As indicated 1 A-053-X-04-PL A-053-X-03-PL A-053-X-02-PL 2 m 0 2 4 m Drawing Number Revision A-031-B1-01-PL 00 Figure 6.1 Plan showing the division of uses at basement level. The proposed gallery areas in purple and the proposed back-of-house uses in green.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 64 Assessment of the Proposals

6.25 The new uses at basement level require works to: CIRCULATION/ACCESS • The plan form; 6.34 There are three main changes to the circulation and access to the • Introduce new means of circulation and access; and basement: • Changes to the appearance and fit-out of the spaces. • The new public lift which links the gallery areas from basement to third 6.26 We discuss each aspect in turn below. floor; PLAN FORM • The extension of the 18th century stair at the rear elevation of 1 Old Burlington Street from ground floor to basement level; and 6.27 The changes proposed to the basement plan form are limited to: • The removal of the C19 stair at the party wall between nos. 1 and 2 Old • A small number of new door openings; Burlington Street in order to introduce an evacuation lift. • The introduction of a small number of new partitions; and • The removal of later partitions. 6.35 In each case, these works are necessary in order to improve access and secure the new use for the listed building. 6.28 The new door openings will be created in areas where there have already been alterations to the historic fabric. This reduces the sensitivity of 6.36 Improving access is one of the key objectives of the Council’s saved the changes and, overall, the majority of the existing and original walls UDP Policy DES 1 which seeks “safe and convenient access for all” will remain and the legibility of the early and existing plan form will be including people with disabilities. There is currently no step-free access preserved. to the basement and upper floors of the building and it is not possible to navigate any of the floors in a wheelchair. 6.29 There are four gallery areas proposed along the south elevation. 18th century fabric and plan form survives and is legible in this part of the 6.37 At paragraph 10.25 of the reasoned justification to DES 1 it recognised building, though there have been later alterations. that listed buildings will often “require that particular attention is paid to design, but it is usually possible to effect some improvements even 6.30 In the central gallery area, the original Leoni layout will be reintroduced by where it is difficult in design terms, or impractical, to provide access for a new partition and the opening which is proposed between the central wheelchair users”. gallery area and the gallery area to the west. The original partition and opening are shown on the Leoni drawings at Figure 6.2, highlighted in red. 6.38 The opportunities to improve access in the listed building have been Our research has identified that the opening was infilled by Hardwick in the carefully considered in light of the sensitivity of the historic fabric and plan 19th century. form and have sought to achieve the improvements envisaged in policy.

6.31 Our research and the investigations by Hutton + Rostron have 6.39 The new stairs and lifts have been agreed in pre-application design demonstrated that the corridor partitions proposed to be removed in the discussions with the Council. We discuss the lift below in relation to the south east of the plan are modern fabric so the works would not result in ground floor because this is where it will be appreciated and experienced any harm to the special interest of the listed building. most clearly.

6.32 The dividing wall is a mix of Vardy and later fabric and is much altered. 6.40 The location of the new stair and lifts are shown in orange on the plan at That fabric will be retained within a new partition, preserving the historic Figure 6.3. fabric whilst also re-establishing the legibility of the original (Vardy, late 18th century) layout.

6.33 In the back-of-house areas the changes to plan form are minimal and are not considered to cause harm to the ability to appreciate the special interest of the listed building. Figure 6.2 The Leoni plan of the basement with the partition and opening that will be reintroduced by the proposals highlighted in red.

General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. LEGEND - PROPOSED WORKS 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 1. Existing floor demolished. New floor level lowered to match 7BG Ground Floor level 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 2. Existing vault level dropped 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate 3. Existing stairs to be extended to Basement and Level 03 attention of Foster + Partners. 4. Demolition of stairs and building a new evacuation lift shaft 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 5. Reinstate wall opening 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 6. New wall opening 09/10/20. 7. New partitioning 8. New screens 9. New mezzanine floor 10. New panoramic lift 11. Existing structural floor to be levelled 12. New brick wall and metal cladding spandrel for the new stairs enclosure. 13. New roof over new evacuation stairs 14. New dormer for the new evacuation lift overrun 15. New louvered roof over plant area 16. New accessible raised platform over existing roofing for service and extended rooflights 17. Demolition of roof and reinstate double pitched slate roofing and rooflight 18. Demolition of lift shaft and extending original roofing 19. Demolition of the roofing and building a new roofing over plant area Plant Room Plant Room 20. New internal rooflight above Leoni's stairs 1 Plant Room 21. Service zone A-053-X-13-PL 22. Extent of structure unidentified in survey Plant Room 23. Reinstated chimney at roof level Plant Room -2.335 24. New structural slab 7 25. New / extended opening to access new acccessible platform Plant Room -3.50P8lant Room 26. New chimney for kitchen extract Gallery Staff Store Store -3.095 -2.335 Breakroom Plant Room Lobby Courtyard Entrance Stair 2 -2.935 Stair 2 1 Lobby Lobby A-053-X-12-PL

Kitchen Staff Kitchen Staff Cleaners Shower and Shower and Gallery Staff Room Changing Changing Lockers -3.684 Female Male Gallery Staff 4 Plant Room Bin Store Prep 3 6 Areas Kitchen (vault missing in survey) 7 00 04/12/20 Planning Submission MT 6 Lobby 7 7 Lobby Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk

Bin Store 6 PLANNING Key Plan. -3.528 Gallery Staff Bin Store Plant Room Circulation Evac Lift Lobby Toilet, Lobby Circulation Shower and Changing -3.475 Bin Store Prep Acc Staff Kitchen Toilet, 1 7 F&B Office Kitchen Staff Shower and A-053-X-11-PL Areas Changing -3.515 Bin Store -3.560 Bin Store Courtyard

-3.625 Bin Store -3.588 Stair 1 FOH Toilets Plant Room 2 Integral -3.545 Courtyard Prep 7 Substation Kitchen Prep N Kitchen Incoming Gas and LV Switch Plant Room UP -3.535 Water Booster 3 7 Room -3.457 (vault missing in survey) Area outside demise

Area not surveyed 6 -3.545 Stair 1 Lobby -3.396

Acc Staff Bike Store Gallery Areas Gallery Gallery 1 Gallery Areas 10 Areas A-053-X-10-PL Areas 1

-3.635 Gallery Areas 6 6 Plant Room 6

6 7 6

-3.625 6 Riverside, 22 Hester Road -3.495 London SW11 4AN Plant Room T +44(0)20 7738 0455 F +44(0)20 7738 1107 Gallery Gallery Gallery Gallery Areas Areas 5 Areas Areas www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020

Client RH: London 6

Courtyard -3.602 Project Courtyard -3.616 RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street

-3.571

Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 1 GA Plan, Level b1 1 1 1 1 : 100 A-053-X-01-PL 2983 04/12/20 As indicated 1 A-053-X-04-PL A-053-X-03-PL A-053-X-02-PL 2 m 0 2 4 m Drawing Number Revision A-031-B1-01-PL 00 Figure 6.3 The locations of the new stair and lifts at proposed basement level.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 66 Assessment of the Proposals

Extension of Staircase

6.41 The area marked as ‘2’ on Figure 6.3 shows where the existing stair at the ground floor will be extended down to the basement. This part of the building was originally created by Hardwick in the late 19th century.

6.42 It will be possible to insert the stair within the corridor so there will be no major interventions to the original walls.

6.43 The detailing of the existing stair is simple, comprising plain metal spindles and a wooden handrail. The location and detailing of the stair demonstrates that it is a secondary staircase, especially relative to the grandeur and architectural quality of the primary Leoni staircase.

6.44 The design of the new stair will match the existing stair (see Figure 6.4) with cantilevered treads and simple detailing. This will mean that there is a continuity between the new and existing feature, and the design is considered to be appropriate to the appearance of this part of the listed building.

6.45 A stair will be removed at the rear part of the basement in order to introduce an evacuation lift (‘3’ on Figure 6.3). This stair also dates to the alterations to the property made for the Bank of England by Hardwick in the 1870s. A photograph of the stair is provided at Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.4 The late 19th century stair to the rear of 1 Old Burlington Street which will be Figure 6.5 The 19th century stair which will be removed in order to introduce an evacuation lift. extended in facsimile to the basement.

6.46 The removal of the 19th century stair has been discussed with the Council GROUND FLOOR 6.59 The initial design options considered the insertion of a staircase to and we identify some harm arising from the loss of fabric and the way improve vertical circulation in the way that is so often needed in retail units 6.52 The ground floor in 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 Old, Burlington Street will the building functioned when it was in use as a bank (this stair would set within historic buildings in the West End. be used for retail galleries, with the exception of the Banking Hall extension have been used by the bank clerks to access the vaults in this part of the to Savile Row, which will be used as a restaurant with ancillary kitchen to 6.60 However, a staircase needed to meet the operational requirements building from the banking hall above). the north. (ie be a certain size). That size was considered to have the potential to 6.47 The location of the lift has been arrived at through a detailed options compete with the primacy of the Leoni staircase and would impact on 6.53 The gallery areas will be located in the parts of the building which were analysis, and which was explored with the Council during pre-application original Leoni fabric. once domestic spaces, and the arrangement of smaller rooms works well consultation. Alternatives were identified in 2 Old Burlington Street but to deliver the new use. Similarly, the impressive appearance and volume 6.61 A lift was therefore considered to be the most appropriate option. It needed these were considered to cause unacceptable harm to the listed buildings. of the Banking Hall extension lends itself comfortably to the proposed to reach all levels to meet the accessibility objectives of the project, as well 6.48 The justification for the works is also delivered through the public benefit restaurant use. as policy aspirations. It also needed to be easily seen by customers entering of improving vertical access within the listed building (and the Gallery with the building, in order to encourage footfall to the upper floors. That main the 6.54 The use of the ground floor as gallery areas and restaurant will maintain a retail use). lift could only be located in a small-number of areas. and increase public access to the building. The areas in 1 Old Burlington 6.49 As guidance in this area recommends, the harm through the loss of historic Street are currently private, being used as stock rooms and lobby for the 6.62 The result is a glazed lift that offers panoramic views within the Gallery. fabric has been minimised through the options analysis and justified by offices in the building. Thus these areas would be brought into public use The dimensions have been specifically designed to lie within one part of a the objectives of improving the quality of vertical access within the listed for the first time and would therefore be heritage benefit. decorative ceiling panel by Hardwick. In doing so, that approach minimises building, and as part of a retail use. the impact on fabric (avoiding any of the most sensitive fabric in the 6.55 The works at ground floor involve: building) and detailing that is of importance. The lift shaft will be 2.85m x 6.50 In our judgement we consider that the loss of the stairs would result in • Insertion of the new lift; 2.85m, requiring a modest opening within the floorplate of each floor, and harm, and that harm would be less than substantial (it would not come • Minor alterations to the plan form involving new openings; no lift overrun to the roof. close to vitiating or very much reducing the significance of the building). • Removal of later features which detract from the appearance of the When considering the level of harm one must consider the sensitivity of listed building; 6.63 It also lies in the area where a former secondary staircase had been the fabric that would be removed and scale of change. • The creation of a restaurant in the Banking Hall and associated kitchen inserted by Vardy/Bonomi (albeit not the exact location because the area space; and immediately adjacent to the east of the Leoni staircase needs to remain 6.51 In this case the fabric is a later 19th century addition that was inserted • The main intervention at ground floor, which is the introduction of open in order to provide a visual link for customers to see the full depth of to assist with the functioning of the Banking Hall. It does have value as the mezzanine level in the Banking Hall to create additional retail the store as they enter from Burlington Gardens). part of that phase, though is not in the same level of sensitivity as the floorspace at first floor level, and also introduce a layout at the ground main Banking Hall decorative elements for example. It is secondary and 6.64 The design will ensure that it is appreciated as a modern intervention floor which reflects the original domestic use and suits the requirements functional in character. The scale of change would be moderate given the of exceptional quality. The glazing will ensure that it is transparent, of RH. total loss of the staircase – one that communicated between the banking permeable and therefore a slender addition that will not detract from the hall and vaults below – though low in the context of the building as a whole. 6.56 We assess each aspect in turn below. volumes within the former banking hall. On that basis, we therefore consider that the weight to be applied to the INSERTION OF THE NEW LIFT 6.65 The contrast in materiality and appearance between the glazing and fine harm would be low to moderate. 6.57 The new lift in 7 Burlington Gardens has formed part of the pre-application Hardwick interiors will ensure that the richness of the latter is emphasised, discussions with the Council and HE, who have accepted the principle and while the simplicity of the former is also appreciated as an important new design presented in the final proposals. addition that respects the existing context.

6.58 The location, size and design has been subject to close scrutiny before arriving at the proposals now before the Council.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 68 Assessment of the Proposals

6.66 In terms of visibility within the former Banking Hall space, the screens 6.71 In summary, the partition appears to have a historic core that has been positive and bring the ground floor of No. 2 Old Burlington Street into which separate the mezzanine areas from the Banking Hall Restaurant added to over time. Thus, the fabric is not pristine and so the sensitivity is public use. Again, we consider this to be a benefit. create a compartment for the lift. This approach will ensure that the lift will proportionately lower than if it was in an original state. 6.81 The Leoni staircase will be preserved and the modern lighting rig currently not appear to simply lie within the volume of the existing space on its own; 6.72 The opening labelled “2” will reinstate the original (Early 18th century) in place will be removed. This is a heritage benefit as it will improve the rather, it will have purpose and legibility. layout of the room with two doorways in the northern partition, as shown ability appreciate the significance of this highly sensitive (and important) 6.67 In terms of the overall impact, the creation of the lift shaft through the in the Leoni plan in Figure 3.7. The eastern room formerly gave access part of the listed building. building will require the removal of fabric dating to the Vardy/Bonomi to the secondary staircase (later removed by Vardy and Bonomi). While 6.82 In 1 Old Burlington Street, the opportunity will be taken to remove later phase which lies within the ground, second and third floor floorplates. historic fabric would be removed (Vardy and Bonomi blocked the opening modern (1990s) fabric including a partition in the entrance hall (the works The age results in a high sensitivity. A c2.5m lift pit will be required in the the Applicant wishes to re-open) there is historic precedent and we labelled ‘6’ on Figure 6.6). This will be beneficial to the listed building by basement which will remove c18th century foundations of low sensitivity consider this to be a heritage benefit to the listed building. reinstating the original appearance. given the type of fabric likely to be encountered (second rate brickwork 6.73 The same can be said for opening ‘4’, which reinstated an opening that is 6.83 The other partitions and features proposed for removal, labelled as ‘7’, most likely). We therefore find harm to the listed building through loss of shown on the Vardy and Bonomi phase. are modern fabric. Their removal and the restoration of the original room fabric, and change to plan form. However, we consider the scale of change 6.74 Opening ‘3’ is located where a former cupboard or niche was illustrated in volumes is a benefit to the listed building by reinstating original plan form. to be low in the context of the building as a whole, and that the fabric that the Vardy and Bonomi plan, most likely lying adjacent to the fireplace and would be impacted is not original and has been subject to change already 6.84 Overall, the change to plan form would result in some localised loss of flue that no longer survives. Thus, some late-19th century fabric would be (particularly in the 1870s, albeit the architectural phase within the banking sensitive historic fabric, and in others there would be reinstatement of lost. hall makes a discernible contribution to the significance of the listed historic layout as encouraged by Westminster’s guidance on alterations building). We therefore consider that the weight to be attributed to the 6.75 Finally, opening ‘5’ deserves particular consideration because it results in to listed buildings. Where there will be loss of sensitive historic fabric we harm would be low to moderate. an opening between No. 7 Burlington Gardens and No. 1 Old Burlington consider there to be no harm to plan form, but some harm resulting from PLAN FORM Street with No. 2 Old Burlington Street. the fabric. On that basis we conclude there would be less than substantial harm, and the weight to be attributed to it would be low. 6.68 In our judgement the changes to the plan form at ground floor in 7 6.76 The starting point to considering the impact of this opening must be that Burlington Gardens and 1 Old Burlington Street are minor. the two properties are already joined at the upper level, and so some 6.85 We note, here, the benefits that have been articulated and would also be communication between the two exists. delivered as part of the proposals. 6.69 There will be seven new openings created at ground floor in the south and west range, as shown on the demolition plan at Figure 6.6. The openings 6.77 The principal consideration is the impact on the hierarchy of space within are proposed to optimise circulation through the gallery areas and the both properties, and particularly No. 2 where the new opening would be proposed RH offices in 2 Old Burlington Street. formed in the hallway.

6.70 The opening labelled ‘1’ on Figure 6.6 will be made in a wall which retains 6.78 There are two benefits that result from this opening. The first is that the some mid-19th century fabric but which has already experienced concept to create a clean visual line (or link) through the west part of the interventions. This is evidenced by surveys by Hutton + Rostron which Site assist with the flow and articulation of spaces within the gallery. identified the east side of the partition comprises a gypsum-based plaster 6.79 Such an approach was not uncommon for buildings of this period. It gave over 20th century –masonry (suggesting a modern addition). Beneath that visitors the ability to read the progression of rooms through a house, and masonry, there some brickwork which appeared to date to the mid-19th allowed large numbers of people to move through the building. In fact, century, and a binder made of animal hair in a layer of plaster. The animal the “enfilade” approach to design is evident in both the Leoni and Vardy/ hair suggests a phase of refurbishment and covering in the past. The west Bonomi phases and so would not be alien to the current layout. side of the wall is modern plasterboard on modern timber studwork with 6.80 Some fabric would be lost through the opening in the party wall (and so plywood packers. there would also be change in plan form) but the overall effect would be

General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate attention of Foster + Partners. 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 09/10/20.

GL-002 GL-004

GL-008

GL-005 GL-006 GL-007 GL-021

GL-001 GL-003 5

GL-013

GL-012 00 18/12/20 Planning Submission MT

GL-011 Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk 7 GL-014 PLANNING 4 Key Plan.

GL-015

GL-010 6

N GL-009 GL-016

Existing walls

Area outside demise SAVILE ROW Area not surveyed

Demolition - Objects shown in section

Demolition - Objects shown in elevation OLD BURLINGTON STREET

GL-017 GL-019 GL-020

Riverside, 22 Hester Road London SW11 4AN T +44(0)20 7738 0455 F +44(0)20 7738 1107 www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020

GL-018 Client RH: London 1

Project RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street

Title Site Plan, Level 00 (+1.2) BURLINGTON GARDENS Demolition Ground Level

Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 Demolition Plan, Ground Level 2983 18/12/20 1:100 1 1 : 100 2 m 024 m Drawing Number Revision A-SL-011-00-04-PL 00 Figure 6.6 Ground floor demolition plan. Figure 6.7 Plan of the ground floor in the original early C18 house. The wall openings which will be reinstated are highlighted in orange.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 70 Assessment of the Proposals

THE BANKING HALL RESTAURANT AND KITCHEN 6.93 A number of options were tested, and the most suitable solution was to 6.101 As we have already described, the location of the restaurant in the place the kitchen at the rear, within the space currently occupied by the Banking Hall is beneficial in terms of reducing the potential impacts on 6.86 The Applicant is seeking to provide a restaurant as part of the retail fitting rooms. the listed building elsewhere, including more sensitive areas, as well as experience. The location of the restaurant within the building was providing the opportunity to provide a dramatic and compelling space subject to careful consideration in order to minimise the impact of a new 6.94 For the restaurant to function operationally and successfully a larger with a lot of potential. restaurant use on the significance of the listed building, and in terms of kitchen is required than could be provided only by the changing rooms operational requirements, whereby a new restaurant use would also space. The logical step is to utilise the room next door, which is at the rear 6.102 The kitchen proposals have been developed under careful consideration require the kitchen space and other servicing. of 2 Old Burlington Street. of the fabric and consultation with the Council and Historic England. The extension to 2 Old Burlington Street dates to the late 19th century with first Design Progression 6.95 At the ground floor, the rest of the floorspace is sensitive – comprising the floor believed to have been added later in the 1970s. The Hutton + Rostron most sensitive part of the listed building, the 18th century Leoni and Vardy/ 6.87 Initially, a restaurant was proposed at the third floor (US Level 4) of the surveys have confirmed that the floorplate is at earliest 19th century which Bonomi rooms, and also being valuable retail floorspace. Conversely, listed building in the Burlington Gardens range. However, this approach would be consistent with the phasing suggested by the Survey of London. the changing rooms have already lost their historic character through was considered to lead to unacceptable impacts to the listed building refurbishment and is less sensitive. 6.103 The decoration appears to be later and certainly with a reproduction due to servicing requirements. The alternative, which was to locate the fireplace – but one that is suitable and sympathetic to the room. The restaurant within the banking hall extension, would minimise the impacts. 6.96 Consequently, we consider that this is the type of ancillary use that is space has a secondary character to the main part of 2 Old Burlington consistent with paragraph 192 of the NPPF and Part (A) of Saved UDP 6.88 In addition the project team considered that a restaurant in the Banking Street and the modern fit-out is readily apparent in the photograph at Policy DES10. Hall would be a positive and exciting new use for the space, whose volume Figure 6.8. posed some inefficiencies in terms of the potential for use as retail gallery Ancillary Kitchens 6.104 Lowering the floor would also result in the change in floor to ceiling in the areas. 6.97 An opening will be created in the west wall of the proposed kitchen in the basement. This space is secondary and utilitarian and of limited interest to 6.89 The location of the restaurant in the Banking Hall meant that the third former changing rooms to connect it to 2 Old Burlington Street. In 2 Old the significance of the listed building. floor (US Level 4) could be used as gallery areas, a much more suitable use Burlington Street, the floor level will be lowered to create a single floor for the configuration of the spaces at that level. level throughout the kitchen. We understand that this is essential for the operation of the kitchen. 6.90 The Banking Hall restaurant has been discussed with the Council and HE in pre-application discussions. The use is acceptable in this location, as well 6.98 The lowering of the floor will affect the proportions of the room in the rear as the alterations which are proposed to support the use. extension of 2 Old Burlington Street as well as the fireplace in this room. The proportions and the fireplace (a later but sympathetic addition) are 6.91 The restaurant requires a kitchen of 80 square metres (sq m) at ground the only elements of any historical and architectural interest to remain floor and 150 sq m at basement, and therefore it is proposed to use the in this room, which has been subject to a modern fit-out including built in later 19th century rear extension at 2 Old Burlington Street which lies cabinetry. adjacent to the changing rooms to create the size of kitchen required. 6.99 The effect of the proposals on the significance of 2 Old Burlington Street is 6.92 The challenge of locating the restaurant in the Banking Hall was how assessed below, but the creation of the new kitchen is assessed here as it to accommodate the kitchen so that it was in close proximity to the is directly related to the creation of the Banking Hall Restaurant. restaurant whilst also meeting the operational requirements, including health and safety. 6.100 The creation of the kitchen in the rear of 7 Burlington Gardens and 2 Old Burlington Street will have impacts on historic fabric and the character of the listed buildings, which will become linked in this location.

Figure 6.8 The room at ground floor in the rear extension of 2 Old Burlington Street.

6.105 In our judgement this part of the scheme would lead to some loss of 6.114 In line with advice received from the Council and Historic England, the 6.115 The columns and decorative ceilings will remain exposed in the gallery historic fabric and change in character to this part of 2 Old Burlington mezzanine has been designed as a light weight installation which will area space provided by the mezzanine at first floor level. A computer Street. The scale of change would be low to moderate, given there would clearly identify the structure as a modern feature, and create a clear generated image (CGI) of the retail areas which will be provided by the also be a change to plan form linking to 7 Burlington Gardens. delineation between the mezzanine and the historic character and fabric mezzanine is included at Figure 6.9. This shows how the columns and of the Banking Hall. external walls will be exposed. 6.106 That being said, the weight to be attributed to that harm must be considered in light of this being a later phase of the building and has a secondary character defined by a step up into this part with a later, albeit sympathetic architectural decorative scheme. Therefore the weight to be attached to the less than substantial harm would be low.

6.107 Balanced against the harm caused by lowing the floors, works are proposed to convert the existing changing rooms in the ancillary room to the north of the Banking Hall (fronting Savile Row) to provide the kitchen. The works will remove the changing room fittings, which is considered to be a heritage benefit.

6.108 The removal of the changing room fittings will also reveal the window to Savile Row which will be reopened. This is also a heritage benefit as it will restore a feature of the façade. The opening between the Banking Hall and the changing room space will be preserved.

6.109 We also identify a benefit to 2 Old Burlington Street as the works to effectively separate the rear extension from the original closet wing will reinstate the original layout and form of the closet wing.

6.110 Care has been taken to ensure that the kitchen area will start beyond the original rear wall of the closet wing and this also has the added benefit of preserving part of the area in which the original stair in 2 Old Burlington is located, as well as preserving the Victorian toilet and floor tiling. NEW MEZZANINE IN THE BANKING HALL 6.111 The principle, location and design of the mezzanine has been subject to detailed discussions with the Council and HE, and the proposal presented in this application is the result of an iterative design process. The final proposal has been considered to be acceptable by both the Council and HE.

6.112 The proposals seek to remove the 1990s mezzanine and this is considered a heritage benefit.

6.113 The new mezzanine proposal will reintroduce a floorplate in the spirit and location of house and footprint established by Vardy and Bonomi in the late century. Figure 6.9 CGI of the gallery areas provided by the mezzanine.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 72 Assessment of the Proposals

6.116 Visual permeability between the north half of the Banking Hall and the south half, containing the mezzanine, will be maintained. The mezzanine first floor gallery areas will be contained within partial screens on the north side, which will allow views through from the Banking Hall restaurant into the retail areas. A number of options were tested, and this design was viewed by the design team and the Council as preferable to a full wall bisecting the Banking Hall with small window-like openings.

6.117 The screens will be positioned so that the column will stand proud and also the new lift will not feature in views from the Banking Hall.

6.118 A CGI which looks from the north-west corner of the Banking Hall restaurant towards the mezzanine has been prepared by Foster & Partners and it is reproduced at Figure 6.10. This shows the preservation of the columns and expression of the capitals in a way that will allow people to appreciate the detailing of the architecture in a way that is not currently possible.

6.119 The CGI also demonstrates the way in which the character and enjoyment of the space will be enhanced as a result of the high quality of the architectural design as well as the removal of the 1990s mezzanine. The result is a sophisticated and exciting space in the listed building which will preserve the ability to appreciate Hardwick’s alterations, whilst also introducing a new legibility of the original rear wall of the Leoni/Vardy house. MEZZANINE FIXINGS TO HISTORIC FABRIC 6.120 The mezzanine will primarily be supported by its own structure, i.e. the partitions which will be created as part of the installation at ground floor level to create the gallery areas. The mezzanine will require some fixing to the external masonry walls and 19th century columns.

6.121 The mezzanine will be fixed to the external walls using new concrete padstones cast into the walls with a maximum intrusion of 200mm, with beams either sat on top and bricked around or face-fixed via resin anchors to the concrete. The padstone sizes are to be designed using brick and mortar tests which will be carried out by Hutton + Rostron. We anticipate that the detail of the fixings will be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition. Figure 6.10 CGI prepared by F+P showing the way the mezzanine would appear from the north-west corner of the Banking Hall restaurant.

6.122 The amount of fabric to be removed is very minimal, localised and we FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR consider would not harm the special interest of the listed building. 6.126 At first floor the main change is the introduction of the mezzanine level in 6.131 The second floor will be used entirely as gallery areas. The works at this 6.123 The mezzanine structure will require securing to the columns and it is the Banking Hall which we have already assessed. The changes to the plan level comprise: necessary to enclose the area between the mezzanine floor and the form at first floor are otherwise very minor. • Alterations to the plan form as a result of removing 19th and early 20th columns for smoke management in the event of fire. century partitions; 6.127 A new opening is proposed to provide access between the mezzanine and • The creation of new openings in existing partitions; 6.124 This will be achieved by welding fin plates to the existing steel columns the existing room to the south of the Leoni staircase. This wall dates to the • The removal of the secondary staircase in the central rear room in the that were added by Hardwick in the 1870s. Hutton + Rostron surveys have late 19th century alterations made by Hardwick when the Banking Hall was Burlington Gardens range; confirmed that the outer layer of the columns is modern fibrous plaster created and which subdivided the former Drawing Room created by Vardy • The conversion of a window to a door on the north elevation to provide lying over a layer of lath and plaster. A sketch of how this will be achieved and Bonomi. The opening is central in the wall, and there will be generous access onto the Banking Hall roof. is included at Figure 6.11. nibs left and a down stand which will preserve the legibility of the earlier plan form. We consider this change would not harm to the special interest 6.132 The fabric on this floor is broadly encapsulated by the structure of the 6.125 In our judgement the attachment to the columns would require some limited of the listed building. Leoni party and spine walls. These would be kept as part of the proposals. openings. However, the vast majority of historic fabric (which has been altered) would remain, while the detailing would be celebrated in a way that 6.128 A new opening is also proposed in the existing partition in the large room 6.133 Later phases of additions have been gradually added (and removed) from is not possible. Thus, if the decision maker finds some harm, the harm must in the 1 Old Burlington Street west range. This partition is likely to date to Hardwick in the 1870s through to Mewès and Davis in the 1930s as part of be less than substantial with very limited weight attributed to that harm. the early 20th century and the fabric is therefore of limited interest. There their office refurbishment, and then more recently in the 1970s and 2000s.

COPYRIGHT RAMBOLL UK LIMITED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS DOCUMENT IS ISSUED FOR THE PARTY WHO COMMISSIONED IT AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH THE PROJECT ONLY. IT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PARTY OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. RAMBOLL ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY WHICH MAY ARISE FROM RELIANCE OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE DATA CONTAINED HEREIN BY ANY OTHER PARTYis OR FOR ANYalready OTHER an opening, which will be infilled. Overall, no harm is identified PURPOSE. 6.134 What is left is a palimpsest with the main significance attributed to the NOTES 1. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE MILLIMETRESbecause U.N.O there will remain one opening and the fabric is not of important 3. THIS SKETCH IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ARCHITECTS earliest 18th century phases, and proportionately lesser sensitivity as we AND ENGINEERS DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. IF IN DOUBT ASK historic interest. 5. SETTING OUT IS TO ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS get closer to the present. 6.129 To the north of the west range the fitting rooms will be removed. This is 6.135 Westminster’s SPG on repairs and alterations to listed building considered a heritage benefit as it will reveal the original volume of the encourages Applicants to understanding the significance of the fabric in space, which was the Music Room in the Vardy phase of the property (late order to form a judgement on acceptability of alterations – our analysis 02 STEEL BEAM TO PLATE DETAIL AT COLUMN HEAD SK-027 19th century). and site surveys have provided that understanding. 6.130 To the east of this room a small lift lobby will be created through minor FIN PLATES CONNECT TO NEW 6.136 This proposed use will be able to retain the character of the existing STEEL BEAM WEBS.

STEELWORK STOPS SHORT OF changes to the partitions in order to serve the evacuation lift. This is an COLUMN TO ACCOMMODATE GLASS compartmentalised layout. As discussed elsewhere, the way the rooms FLOOR AREA ancillary area of expedient quality and the proposals for the lift lobby will will be furnished will bring back the residential character that had existed not change this existing character. Again, we find no harm in this area. on this floor until the 1930s when the Royal Bank of Scotland flats were converted to offices for Mewès and Davis.

WH P01 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION TO ME 16/12 MB /2020 AB By Rev Description Date App 6.137 There are certain changes on this level which are proposed to improve Chk STEEL FIN PLATES WELDED STAGE 3 TO EXISTING STEEL COLUMN RH: LONDON legibility, flow and accessibility. 7 BURLINGTON GARDENS AND 1 AND 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET

240 Blackfriars Road, SE1 8NW tel 020 7631 5291 [email protected] www.ramboll.co.uk

MEZZANINE STEELWORK CONNECTION TO EXISTING COLUMN

Figure 6.11 Sketch showing how the mezzanine will be fixed to the C19 columns. Project No.: Scale: Date: Drawn: 1620010074 NTS DEC WH 2020 Sketch No.: Rev: 1620010074-RAM-XX-XX-SK-S-043 P01

Heritage Statement | December 2020 74 Assessment of the Proposals

REMOVAL OF PARTITIONS late 18th century as it is part of the Vardy and Bonomi extension, though 6.152 In our judgement the harm from the opening would less than substantial, there is already an opening here and the amount of fabric to be removed and the weight to be attributed would be low. 6.138 In the south range, the works involve removing all modern partitions and is very limited. the partitions which were introduced by Hardwick in the 19th century. This REMOVAL OF SECONDARY STAIRCASE will reinstate the plan form to reflect the Leoni/Vardy layout. 6.145 In the gallery area to the south in the 1 Old Burlington Street range the 6.153 The proposals will also remove the staircase between the second and early 20th century or later cupboard fittings, dumb waiter and lobby will third floors in the rear room of the Burlington Gardens range where the 6.139 There will be new partitions subdividing the central space on the be removed. This is a heritage benefit as it will restore the original south new lift will be introduced. A photograph of this feature is at Figure 6.12. Burlington Gardens frontage and the room in the Vardy extension to the elevation and volume of this room, and cornicing and other architectural east which will follow what is believed to be the earlier 18th century layouts. 6.154 A staircase is shown on the Vardy/Bonomi plan in the location this location details will be made good to match existing. from ground to first floor, and so it is unclear if it carried on up to the 6.140 We identify harm from the removal of the 19th century fabric. That harm 6.146 In the gallery area to the south in the 1 Old Burlington Street range the second floor. Nevertheless, Hardwick appears to have reworked this area must be less than substantial. In our judgement the majority of the fabric early 20th century or later cupboard fittings, dumb waiter and lobby will when the rear of No. 1 Old Burling Street was extended back, towards has a low sensitivity. Although some of it dates to the 1870s, it was altered be removed. This is a heritage benefit as it will restore the original south the Banking Hall extension in the 1870s. At that stage a link was created as part of the Mewès and Davis phase when the space was converted to elevation and volume of this room, and cornicing and other architectural between the new staircase to No. 1, and to the front part of the building at offices. Moreover, it is not an office interior of any particular significance details will be made good to match existing. No. 7. To create that connection it is likely that the Vardy/Bonomi staircase and certainly does not reflect the very high quality that the practice was replaced with the secondary stair that is found today. carried out for its clients. Indeed, by the 1930s Mewès and Davis was 6.147 A new opening will be created to connect 1 Old Burlington Street with past its heyday which really lay in the 1910s with the work at the Ritz and 2 Old Burlington Street. A short flight of steps will also be added to 6.155 The stair is functional with a back of house character. The handrail has elsewhere. Thus, we consider the loss of the fabric while moderate in terms manage the level change between the second floor of nos. 1 and 2 Old been replaced, and very likely the only fabric that survives would be the of scale of change, should attract low weight. Burlington Street. tread and risers. On that basis, the staircase is low quality and lacks particular interest. 6.141 We make this judgement mindful that the works offer the opportunity to 6.148 The opening is necessary to link the two buildings which will all form part deliver benefits in this part of the building which would be the return of the of the RH London store and experience. The opening will provide access 6.156 The loss of the staircase would result in some harm to the listed building, floor to its original quasi-residential use (in character if not legal use), as between the Design Atelier (located in no. 2) and the gallery areas. through loss of fabric and plan form. The fabric itself is low sensitivity, while well as optimising the space which helps to deliver the project as a whole. the scale of change would be high through the loss. 6.149 The opening is the minimum width required and will be centred on the That, in turn, is linked to securing the long-term use and conservation of left-hand niche to preserve the primacy of the chimneypiece on the north 6.157 Of course, the main justification for this change is the insertion of a the building. elevation. A downstand will remain to preserve the legibility of the original passenger lift from basement to third floor. The location of the lift, as 6.142 Finally, this floor would be open to the public for the first time in the wall separating the two properties. It is a reversible change in that the already described, has been carefully deliberated with Council and Historic buildings’ history and so improves the ability to appreciate the significance opening could be infilled to restore the original room volume in the future. England and this location minimises the harm through the building. of this part of the listed building. 6.150 It is acknowledged that there would be a degree of harm arising from 6.158 Moreover, this compartment has a precedent for being used for vertical NEW OPENINGS the loss of fabric through the link between the two properties in the party circulation. Although the type of circulation is different (staircase to a 6.143 In the two rooms comprising 1 Old Burlington Street at this level, the wall, which were originally separate. That said, 7 Burlington Gardens, 1 Old lift), the intention is the same. The difference here is that an addition of existing plan form will be preserved, including the central partition with Burlington Street and 2 Old Burlington Street have been in an associated particular quality would be inserted replacing what is a fairly standard door opening which is understood to date to the 1870s Hardwick phase. use since the mid-19th century when the site was acquired by the Bank example of a secondary staircase dating to the 1870s. A feature that is of England. Therefore, physical internal links between the two are not very common indeed. 6.144 The existing doorway on the east elevation, which leads out to the narrow unexpected or out of keeping with the history of both buildings. block facing out onto the Banking Hall roof added by Hardwick, will be 6.159 On that basis we consider that the harm would be less than substantial, increased slightly to provide a double-doorway and necessary width of 6.151 The second floor is an area which is of lesser status and sensitivity than and the weighted to be attributed to it would be low. access to the evacuation lift. The fabric which will be removed dates to the the primary entertaining floors at ground and first floors.

CONVERSION OF WINDOW TO DOOR ON THE NORTH ELEVATION THIRD FLOOR AND BURLINGTON GARDENS ROOF 6.160 On the north elevation adjacent to the stair it is proposed to convert a 6.163 At third floor the Burlington Gardens range will be used as gallery areas. window into a doorway to provide access to the Banking Hall roof. The room in the 1 Old Burlington Street range will be part of the design ateliers service. 6.161 The window is a timber sash and has a brick gauge with lintel that matches the historic windows to the left (east) (Figure 6.13). That said, the timber 6.164 The works at this level involve: frame has slightly different detailing so it is not considered contemporary • The creation of a new roof structure which will reinstate the 18th century to the other windows in this elevation. This is consistent with the historic roof form by introducing a double-hipped structure with modern glazed development, which suggests this part of the elevation was altered in the element along the crease between the two hips; and 1870s when the rear extension to 1 Old Burlington Street was introduced. • Alterations to the plan form comprising the removal of the 19th century and later partitions; 6.162 There will be some loss of historic fabric with the removal of the window • A new internal rooflight above the Leoni staircase replacing the 1980 and brickwork beneath the lintel. The window and brickwork is typical, rooflight; however, and the harm is considered to be less than substantial and the • The removal of the 20th and 21st centuries residential fit-out; and weight to be attributed would be very limited. • An extension which will replace the roof terrace to the rear elevation of 1 Old Burlington Street. THE NEW ROOF 6.165 Detailed research on the existing roof structure has identified its age, likely historic appearance and changes over time. The evolution of the roof is described at Section 4.0 and in the DAS. The phasing plan for the roof is reproduced at Figure 6.14.

6.166 In summary, the salient points are as follows: • The original Leoni roof would have comprised a double-hipped roof. • Vardy created the third floor in the late 18th century and introduced a double-pitched mansard roof form. Vardy’s alterations also included the creation of the oval rooflight to light the Leoni staircase. The existing oval rooflight is 1980s. • The flat section of roof addressing the Burlington Gardens frontage was created in the 19th century by Hardwick. The flat roof removed the front mansard roof which dated to the late 18th century. Figure 6.12 The stair between the second and third floor in the rear room of the south range. Figure 6.13 A photograph of the north elevation of 7 Burlington Gardens with the window • Two rooflights were created in the flat roof by Mewes and Davis in First introduced by Vardy and Bonomi in the late 18th century, the existing staircase proposed to be converted into a door identified in red. the 2930s. (at least the tread and risers) are likely to date to the 1870s. • One of the late 18th century chimney stacks was removed in the 20th century, potentially as a result of bomb damage during the Second World War. • Further rooflights were created in the early 21st century when the residential flat was created (see WCC planning application ref. 06/05088/FUL and 06/05089/LBC). Much of the existing roof structure is as a result of the 2006 consents.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. General Notes 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. attention of Foster + Partners. 76 Assessment of the Proposals 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate 09/10/20. attention of Foster + Partners. 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 09/10/20. PHASING 6.167ROOF It PLAN is proposed to reinstate a double-hipped mansard roof which will reflect PHASING Vardy’s original late 18th century design. This would be consistent with 1780s ROOF PLAN the Council’s SPG on Alterations and Extensions on Domestic Buildings 1780s fabric with later 1780s and(although modern alterations this building has a commercial use) and part 6.1 of the Council’s 1780s fabric with later LateSPG 1870s on with Repairs later alterations and Alterations to Listed Buildings. and modern alterations and modern fabric (see note) Late 1870s with later alterations 6.168 1930sThe reinstatement of the historic roof form will also include the and modern fabric (see note) Modernreinstatement fabric (late C20, of the south-east chimney stack which is evident on historic 1930s earlyphotographs. C21) The roof structure comprising Modern fabric (late C20, exposed timbers within this part early C21) 6.169 The roof will be a modern construction, and the Applicant is seeking to The roof structure comprising of 1 Old Burlington Street dates 00 04/12/20 Planning Submission MT exposed timbers within this part to the 1870s. The roof covering Rev. Darealisete anRea opportunityson For Issue toChk create an exciting and dynamic new space with a and skylight is modern fabric. of 1 Old Burlington Street dates 00 04/12/20 Planning Submission MT PLANNING to the 1870s. The roof covering Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk Key Plan. modern roof form in the crease between the two hipped roof forms. and skylight is modern fabric. PLANNING Key Plan. 6.170 The modern design is shown in the design material submitted with the application and Figures 6.15-6.16. It comprises geometric glazing which will provide light and interest to the gallery areas at this level.

6.171 The principle and design of the new roof structure has been discussed STREET and agreed with the Council and Historic England in pre-application

N STREET ROW discussions.

ROW 6.172 ArTheea outside modern demise glazed part of the new roof structure will not be visible from Arstreetea not surveye dlevel or change the reinstated 18th century appearance of the SAVILE Area outside demise

BURLINGTON listed building. The traditional design of the mansard elevations to the Area not surveyed SAVILE north, south, east and west has been carefully considered to comprise BURLINGTON OLD historically accurate pitch and dormer window details.

OLD This line and below (south) is where Hardwick originally 6.173 We therefore identify a heritage benefit of the proposed roof at third floor introduced a flat roof in the mid-late 19th century. as it will reinstate the late 18th century character of the building. This line and below (south) is where Hardwick originally introduced a flat roof in the mid-late 19th century.In the area of roof below this line, timbers have been preliminarily assessed as most likely being of historic 6.174 The reinstatement of the south-east chimney stack is also a heritage In the area of roof below this line, timbers havematerial been salvaged for re-use during past refurbishments. There is evidence of band-saw markings on the faces of Riverside, 22 Hebenefitster Road in its own right. preliminarily assessed as most likely being of historic London SW11 4AN material salvaged for re-use during past refurbishments.timbers consistent with late 19th century timber T +44(0)20 7738 0455 conversion techniques atRiv theerside, earliest,22 Hester Road but mixed with use 6.175F +44(0)20 7738The 1107 introduction of a modern rooflight along the valley of the hipped roofs There is evidence of band-saw markings on the faces of www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020 of modern chemically London pre-treated SW11 4AN softwood timbers. timbers consistent with late 19th century timber T +44(0)20 7738 0455 Client represents an attractive addition which will lift the enjoyment of this part conversion techniques at the earliest, but mixedDue with to use the use of modernF +44(0)20 timbers 7738 1107 and general lack of www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020 of modern chemically pre-treated softwoodsignifi-cant timbers. corrosion on the steel elements, it was RH: Londoof then listed building, introducing a positive contrast between old and new. Due to the use of modern timbers and generalsuspected lack of that the alterationsClient and adaptations of the signifi-cant corrosion on the steel elements,flat it roof was structure were mostRH: Londolikely conductedn during the suspected that the alterations and adaptations20th of century the flat roof structure were most likely conducted during the Project 20th century RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens

Project and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street

Title Site Plan, Level Roof Figure 6.14 Phasing plan for the roof. Title Existing Site Plan Site Plan, Level Roof Existing Site Plan Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 BURLINGTON GARDENS 2983 04/12/20 As indicated Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020 Project No Sheet Firs2t Imss ue Date 0 Scale at ISO2 A1 4 m Drawing Number Revision BURLINGTON GARDENS 2983 04/12/20 As indicated A-SL-011-RF-03-PL 00 © Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2020 MONTAGU EVANS 2 m 0 2 4 m Drawing Number Revision CHARTERED SURVEYORS LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FIGURE: ▲ NORTHA- SL-011-RF-03-PL 00 5 BOLTON STREET, 7 Burlington Gardens & 1+2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 NOT TO SCALE MONTAGU EVANS LONDON W1J 8BA CHARTERED SURVEYORS T: 020 7493 4002 LOCATION: DATE: SCALE: FIGURE: ▲ NORTH 5 BOLTON STREET, WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK 7 Burlington Gardens & 1+2 Old Burlington Street December 2020 NOT TO SCALE LONDON W1J 8BA T: 020 7493 4002 WWW.MONTAGU-EVANS.CO.UK Assessment of the Proposals 77

6.176 Internally, the historic brick spine walls from the 18th century would be retained. This approach allows the historic cellular plan form to remain legible. The intention is to express the underside of the roof in timber to convey the complexity of the roof geometry, and also to provide a quality to the interior.

6.177 The structural information prepared by Ramboll demonstrates that the historic brick walls will be retained during the removal of the existing roof and construction of the new roof.

6.178 Overall, the new roof will be an addition of real quality that is designed by Foster & Partners, an architectural practice of exceptional acclaim. This would be the sort of addition that will contribute to the special interest of the building – like the modern installations by Foster & Partners which are seen at the British Museum, Royal Academy and Aspreys, for example.

6.179 The addition would be in a manner that is sympathetic to the building’s architectural character; the detailing and form reflects form detailing a use of the existing building; accords with established historic precedent on the Site; and avoids any infringement on amenity. Moreover, the roof would not adversely affect the unity of the building, or be visually intrusive. On that basis, the proposals will be consistent with Saved UDP Policy DES 6.

1 Old Burlington Street roof

7 Burlington Gardens roof

Figure 6.16 CGI of a third floor gallery area with the new roof.

Figure 6.15 Axonometric model image showing the new roofscape.

Heritage Statement | December 2020

RH London | 7 Burlington Gardens, 1 - 2 Old Burlington Street | Design & Access Statement 99 78 Assessment of the Proposals

CHANGES TO THE PLAN FORM AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODERN FIT-OUT NEW INTERNAL ROOFLIGHT 6.193 In tandem the rear of 1 Old Burlington Street will be enhanced through rationalisation of plant, removal of clutter, repair works and general 6.180 As noted above, the replacement of the roof will also lead to the removal 6.185 The existing oval rooflight comprises modern fabric. The feature was alterations that will improve the appearance of the elevation. Given the of internal partitions. The aim has been to retain the general character of created by Vardy when he added the roof extension in the late C18 to light roof above the banking hall will become usable accommodation, these a cellular plan form, while also providing an opportunity to improve the the Leoni stair. improvements will enhance the ability to appreciate the significance quality of the internal accommodation. 6.186 The proposals will replace the modern fabric with a new internal rooflight. of the listed buildings, as well as the surroundings more general. These 6.181 The proposals therefore retain the 18th century spine walls and create The new internal rooflight will run flush to the floor level in order to create works would be consistent with Saved UDP Policies DES 5 (with particular central openings across the Burlington Gardens range. This will reflect the the space for a gallery area in this location. reference to part [A]). existing corridor (focussing movement down the central axis, while also 6.187 The detail of the new internal rooflight will be subject to condition, including improving the quality of the space. INTERIORS the means by which to introduce lighting as part of the installation to 6.194 It is the intention to preserve and refurbish existing interior architectural 6.182 Surveys by Hutton + Rostron have identified that the fabric ranged from preserve the impression of natural light to the Leoni staircase below. decorative features of historic interest such as cornices and plasterwork, early 19th century fabric that is encased in later fit out, to more recent 6.188 No historic fabric will be affected and the character of the Leoni stair will door frames and window joinery. This will mean that the special interest of work. Generally, there is fabric dating to the 19th centuries (with lath and be preserved. We therefore identify no harm arising from this alteration. the listed building is preserved. plaster) but that fabric appears to have been altered over the course of EXTENSION TO THE ROOF TERRACE TO THE REAR OF 1 OLD BURLINGTON STREET the different uses contained within this part of the building. 6.195 Modern features including cabinetry which have been installed by the 6.189 On the east elevation of 1 Old Burlington Street there will be roof extension recent retail users will be removed. 6.183 The removal of the partitions would result in harm to the listed building. to extend the Vardy secondary staircase to the third floor. The extension That harm would be less than substantial and in our judgement the weight 6.196 It is anticipated that any works to the interiors will be subject to condition. will replace the existing roof terrace which was created in 2006 (see to be afforded to that harm would be low to moderate. That is because the This will ensure the retention and preservation of important historic fabric 06/05089/LBC). This will result in the French doors onto the roof terrace sensitivity of the fabric on this level is low, given the secondary status within and the special interest of the listed building. being blocked up. The wall will be made good following the infill of the .the hierarchy of space within the building, and the scale of change would opening. The window to the north of the French doors will be preserved. M&E be moderate on the basis that the principal spine walls and partitions would 6.190 We not identify harm arising from the infill of the opening and making remain such that the cellular plan form would remain legible. UTILITIES good of the wall. 6.197 The proposals involve the modification and upgrade of the following 6.184 There are also heritage benefits arising from the works at this level. These services: can be summarised as follows: BANKING HALL ROOF AND IMPROVEMENT WORK TO REAR OF NO. 1 • Electrical supply; • The residential use also currently divorces this part of the listed building OLD BURLINGTON STREET • Gas supply; from the floors below, and it is an important heritage benefit of the 6.191 The existing roof covering and rooflights to the Banking Hall are modern. • Water supply; proposals that this floor will be once again read and experienced as a The rooflights will be replaced with new additions that will improve the • Foul drainage; proper part of 7 Burlington Gardens. quality of light into the proposed restaurant below. The build-up over the • Surface water drainage; and • The removal of the 19th century and later partitions will also have the Banking Hall will be increased in order to house plant and create level • Telecommunications. benefit of reinstating the original arrangement of walls surrounding the access from the second floor of 7 Burlington Gardens. oval rooflight. The existing rooflight is modern and it will be replaced 6.198 For each utility, the M&E design has sought to use the existing openings 6.192 The roof build up will be set back from the bottle balustrade parapet to with a new rooflight (see below.) and infrastructure within the building in order to avoid interventions Savile Row in order to preserve the character and appearance of this • In the west range (1 Old Burlington Street) the modern residential into the historic fabric. The new openings which are required have been original decorative feature. fittings will be removed to reveal the original room volume. This is a minimised as far as possible. heritage benefit. The existing access to 2 Old Burlington Street will be unchanged.

6.199 The detailed design of the M&E strategy will continue to develop and 6.205 A small substation will also be created in one of the small rooms at 6.211 We therefore identify no harm to the listed building as a result of the it is anticipated that there will be a suitably worded planning condition basement level on the Savile Row side of the Site, a location currently ventilation strategy: no historic fabric will be affected and the appearance requiring the details of any works to listed fabric which are identified. It is occupied as a boiler room. The substation use is therefore consistent with and appreciation of the listed building will be preserved. considered that the principle of new M&E openings is acceptable subject the existing character of this part of the building and therefore we identify FIRE STRATEGY to details, which can be controlled via Condition. no harm. 6.212 It is necessary to upgrade and install new fire safety systems in the 6.200 At this stage, we understand that the main vertical distribution of M&E 6.206 Overall, we consider that the M&E strategy is exemplary and would not building. In addition to fire escape routes and the introduction of an services (risers) will be located behind the staircase to the rear (north) of harm the special interest of the listed building. It has been prepared with evacuation lift (assessed earlier in this report) fire and smoke curtains the Leoni stair which was introduced by Hardwick in the 19th century. For particular reference to the sensitive historic fabric and in tandem with part are required in order to secure the escape routes from potential smoke the avoidance of doubt, there will be no effect on the Leoni staircase as 6.30 of the Council’s SPG on Repairs and Alterations to Listed Buildings. spread in the event of a fire. a result of the M&E strategy. There will be another riser to the rear of the We anticipate the detail will be secured through a suitably worded 6.213 Fire curtains will be installed at ground floor in the openings between the new kitchen in the Savile Row range. There is already a riser in this location. planning condition. Banking Hall gallery areas (within the new mezzanine area) and the Leoni 6.201 These parts of the building are already in use as back-of-house space LIGHTING stair hall and gallery area. and make no meaningful contribution to the appreciation of the special 6.207 The internal and external lighting strategy will be progressed through 6.214 The opening between the stair hall and the Banking Hall is not an original interest of the listed building. They are not in any of the primary rooms or detailed design. The general approach encouraged by Montagu Evans openings and there is no architectural detailing. The smoke curtain will be areas and the risers will be hidden from public view. It is our view that the is to reuse existing lighting outputs where possible, take opportunities to installed so it either sits within the wall or incorporated within the existing risers are sensitivity located in the listed building and will cause no harm. remove harmful or inappropriate lighting, and where necessary, minimise opening. It is anticipated this will be subject to condition. any new additions. Like M&E, we anticipate details to be secured via a 6.202 The majority of horizontal service distribution will be located within suitably worded planning condition. 6.215 The fire curtains in the two openings between the gallery area and the existing floor voids. The services that cannot be accommodated within Banking Hall will be installed carefully to ensure that there is the minimum existing voids will be designed to have the minimal possible impact on the VENTILATION necessary intervention to the historic decorative fabric, and decoration listed fabric. Again, it is anticipated that this would be controlled through 6.208 We understand that the basement to second floors of 7 Burlington which is removed is replaced in its original position like-for-like. This would a suitably worded planning condition when the final detailed design is Gardens and 1 Old Burlington Street have an existing mechanical preserve the character of the building. As above, it is anticipated this will available. ventilation system with intake and discharge located on the Savile Row be subject to condition. range. The top (third) floor of 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 Old Burlington 6.203 In terms of the electrical supply, we understand that a new connection to Street are naturally ventilated. 6.216 The works are necessary for the safe operation of the building and we the UKPN network is required to power the Site. It is not possible to locate consider the special interest of the building will be preserved. a UKPN substation on the Site because of the constraints associated with 6.209 The natural ventilation will be maintained at the third floor of the listed the level of intervention which would be required and the listed building, building and there will be no change to the listed fabric. so a UKPN HV Switchroom is proposed. The Switchroom is proposed to 6.210 In the remainder of the listed building, the existing ventilation system will be located in the vaults beneath Burlington Gardens. These vaults are be upgraded. We understand that the new ventilation system will be able believed to date to the early 18th century but appear to have been subject to utilise the existing ventilation runs thereby avoiding interventions to the to later alterations. listed fabric. The new kitchens will require new extract discharges at roof 6.204 The creation of the Switchroom will require the floor in the vault and the level, and these will be located within modern or new roof structures. The adjacent area in the lightwell to be lowered by 400mm. This has been extracts will not be visible from street level. agreed with the Council during pre-application consultation.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 80 Assessment of the Proposals

2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET, GRADE II 6.223 This space will be converted into a plant room. A door-width opening will 6.230 The corner fireplace will be preserved and a downstand will remain in be introduced in the original rear wall to provide access into this space. order to retain legibility of the front and rear rooms. 6.217 It is proposed to use no. 2 Old Burlington Street as part of RH London for offices at ground to second floors, and design ateliers at the third and 6.224 The volume of the room will change with the reduction in floor level from 6.231 The fabric to be removed has low sensitivity given the previous alterations. fourth floors. The basement and roof areas will be used as plant rooms. the creation of the kitchen above. Given, this is already a secondary space The scale of change is considered to be negligible and overall we consider with modern character, we find no harm to the significance of the listed the less than substantial harm would be afforded low to moderate weight. 6.218 The design ateliers are areas where customers will be able to work with building. professional designers. This service is key to the experience and service FIRST FLOOR offered by RH. 6.225 While historic brickwork will be affected, we do not consider that the 6.232 The alterations at the first floor includes the removal of the three existing creation of the opening would lead to any harm to the special interest of doors which are modern albeit in an appropriate design to the C18/19 6.219 At ground floor, the 19th century rear extension will be used as kitchens to the listed building. character. The door frames will be preserved in the openings. support the Banking Hall restaurant in 7 Burlington Gardens. The first floor of the rear extension will be used for plant and an extension at roof level GROUND FLOOR 6.233 An opening is also proposed between the front and rear principal rooms in will increase the height on this part of the site. 6.226 At ground floor, the proposals seek to create a new double-door opening a similar manner to many Applicants who occupy buildings of this age and in the partition wall between the hallway and the front principal room. The type. In 2005 the current door was moved from the centre of the partition. 6.220 The works can be summarised as: existing double-door opening in this partition will be infilled. The relocation Hutton + Rostron suggest the fabric is modern concrete blockwork. • Minor changes to the plan form at each floor; of an opening is proposed in order to mirror the proposed opening on the • Refurbishment of the interiors including the preservation of existing 6.234 Consequently, the fabric to be lost is modern and not sensitive. In order opposite wall, and improve connectivity between 1 Old Burlington Street features; to preserve the legibility of the historic plan form, the proposals will retain and 2 Old Burlington Street. • The conversion of the roof accommodation to plant space; and nibs and a downstand. Overall, we consider this change, together with the • Alterations and roof extension to the later rear extension in order to 6.227 The partition wall is 19th century fabric and it is therefore sensitive in terms quality of finish, will ensure there is no harm to the listed building. create kitchens for the Banking Hall restaurant and plant rooms. of the age of fabric and historic plan form. There will be harm from the loss SECOND FLOOR (FIRST FLOOR INTERMEDIATE ON PLANNING DRAWINGS) of fabric and change to layout. The scale of this harm is considered to be PLAN FORM 6.235 The second floor of 2 Old Burlington Street sits between the first and low as the loss of fabric is limited and there is already an opening between second floors of 1 Old Burlington Street. It is identified on the drawings 6.221 The alterations which are proposed to the plan form in no. 2 Old Burlington the hallway and front room so the connectivity between these spaces is submitted with the application as ‘First Floor Intermediate’. Street are minor. already established. The harm would be less than substantial and in our 6.236 At the second floor, the changes to the plan form in 2 Old Burlington Street BASEMENT judgement should be afforded low weight. partly comprise the removal of a modern door which provides access to 6.222 At basement level the plan form alterations are limited to the demolition 6.228 A new opening is also proposed between the front and rear rooms in the the stair which leads the closet wing. This door is modern fabric so there is of the structures which adjoin the original rear wall in the internal main part of the building at ground floor. The surveys by Hutton + Rostron no harm to the special interest of the listed building. courtyard. This is the part of the building which has the glazed roof. The identified clay brickwork in this partition which suggests original fabric and structures include some 19th century fabric which will be lost. This fabric 6.237 An opening is also proposed between the front and rear principal rooms this is linked to the corner fireplace. The majority of the partition comprises has limited sensitivity because is expedient in nature and has been altered. (like first floor) in a similar manner to many Applicants who occupy C19 fabric and there is some evidence that there was an opening in the The modern alterations have removed any legibility of an early 19th buildings of this age and type. Consequently, the fabric to be lost is likely location proposed which has been later infilled. century additions. Therefore, the scale of change is negligible and the to be historic. In order to preserve the legibility of the historic plan form, 6.229 An opening between the principal rooms at ground floor in properties harm from the loss of this fabric carries limited weight. the proposals will retain nibs and a downstand. of this period is not uncharacteristic and evidence suggests that communication has historically existed between the spaces.

6.238 Overall, we consider the works would result in harm than would be less FOURTH FLOOR 6.250 There will be an extension and alterations to the first floor room in the rear than substantial. The scale of change would be moderate given the extension to provide a double height space for plant. Within the double 6.244 The fourth floor (the third floor of 1 Old Burlington Street) is a later removal of partitions, and the fabric is likely to be low to moderate in terms height space there will be two levels, as shown on the section drawing at extension to the original three storey Georgian dwelling. The alterations at of sensitivity (most likely 19th century fabric and not original). The works Figure 6.17. this level include the removal of the stair which provides access to the roof would change the plan form, opening up the rooms, though such L-shaped accommodation and the central partition. This will create an open space 6.251 The fabric which will be affected by this aspect of the proposals is not plans were not uncommon for the 19th century London town house, albeit to be occupied by the design ateliers. sensitive and there will be no material change to the character and at this level one would anticipate some partitioning. Thus we consider the appearance of the listed building to result from the extension. 6.245 The fabric at this level has low sensitivity given it is a later addition to the weight to be attributed to the harm would be low to moderate. original building and in a low status part of the property. There will be harm 6.252 The extension will be created in appropriate materials (brickwork to match THIRD FLOOR arising from the loss of C19 fabric but this is negligible in scale and attracts existing) and the appearance of the roof in this location will be improved. 6.239 At the third floor (second floor of 1 Old Burlington Gardens) it is proposed limited weight. 6.253 We identify no harm from this element of the works. to remove the partitions in the main part of the listed building in order to INTERIORS create an open plan space for the design ateliers. There are two historic 6.246 It is the intention to preserve and refurbish existing interior architectural (19th century) partitions with minor alterations which have created a lobby decorative features of historic interest such as cornices and plasterwork, space from the hallway. door frames and window joinery. This will mean that the special interest of 6.240 The 19th century fabric is sensitive for their age and how the partitions the listed building is preserved. represent the historic cellular plan form associated with the hierarchy ROOF ACCOMMODATION within the building (this floor is likely to have originally been occupied by 6.247 The roof accommodation in no. 2 Old Burlington Street (referred to as the servants). As a consequence, the third floor is a less sensitive part of the fourth floor plant room on the planning drawings) will be used as a plant listed building relative to the principal ground and first floors. The loss room. The modern fit out, which provided residential accommodation, will of the fabric and plan form at this level is considered to cause less than be removed. The fabric and use is modern so no harm is identified to the substantial harm, low to moderate in scale. listed building as a result of these works. 6.241 In order to mitigate the harm arising from the loss of plan form 6.248 A new louvered roof will be introduced to replace the existing roof in this downstands will be retained which will preserve the legibility of the historic location. The new roof will not be visible and the front and rear pitches will plan form. be preserved. 6.242 In our judgement the weight to be afforded to that harm would be low. ALTERATIONS TO THE LATER REAR EXTENSION 6.243 There is also proposed an opening in the party wall with 1 Old Burlington 6.249 The planning history suggest that the first floor of the rear extension dates Street. We have assessed that above. to, or was altered in, the 1970s. This fabric and the interior fit-out, which is modern, is of limited sensitivity in terms of the special interest of the listed building.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 82 Assessment of the Proposals

General Notes 1. Do not scale drawings. Dimensions govern. 2. All dimensions are in millimeters unless noted otherwise. LEGEND - PROPOSED WORKS 3. All levels are in metres unless noted otherwise. 1. Existing floor demolished. New floor level lowered to match 7BG Ground Floor level 4. All dimensions shall be verified on site before proceeding with the work. 2. Existing vault level dropped 5. Any discrepancies on these drawings shall be brought to the immediate 3. Existing stairs to be extended to Basement and Level 03 attention of Foster + Partners. 4. Demolition of stairs and building a new evacuation lift shaft 6. Any areas indicated on this sheet are approximate and indicative only. 5. Reinstate wall opening 7. Drawings based on building survey issued by Plowman Craven on 6. New wall opening 09/10/20. 7. New partitioning 8. New screens 9. New mezzanine floor 10. New panoramic lift 11. Existing structural floor to be levelled 12. New brick wall and metal cladding spandrel for the new stairs enclosure. 13. New roof over new evacuation stairs 14. New dormer for the new evacuation lift overrun 15. New louvered roof over plant area 16. New accessible raised platform over existing roofing for service and extended rooflights 17. Demolition of roof and reinstate double pitched slate roofing and rooflight 18. Demolition of lift shaft and extending original roofing 19. Demolition of the roofing and building a new roofing over plant area 20. New internal rooflight above Leoni's stairs 21. Service zone 22. Extent of structure unidentified in survey 23. Reinstated chimney at roof level 24. New structural slab 25. New / extended opening to access new terrace 26. New chimney for kitchen extract 27. Enlarged wall opening 28. New DIS Toilet. Slab to be lowered and form a wall opening. 29. Remove fire place and remaining wall 30. Existing window to be blocked up and wall made good

00 11/12/20 Planning Submission MT Rev. Date Reason For Issue Chk PLANNING Key Plan.

+18.500

15 N Plant Room Level 04 16.080

Area outside demise Acc Toilet Stair 2 28 +13.843 Area not surveyed +13.350 Level 03 13.160 Design Stair 2 Gallery Staff Atelier Toilet

+10.125 +9.830 Level 02 16 Gallery Staff +9.265 9.830 Interior Stair 1 Toilet Design Office 03

Plant Room Level 01m 7.045 Stair 2 Gallery Staff Gallery Staff Plant Room 24 Interior Lobby Toilet Lobby Toilet Design Stair 2 Riverside, 22 Hester Road Office 02 Level 01 Plant Room London SW11 4AN 4.730 T +44(0)20 7738 0455 24 F +44(0)20 7738 1107 www.fosterandpartners.com © Foster + Partners 2020 Kitchen Client Kitchen 29 RH: London Entrance Stair 2 Kitchen SAVILE ROW OLD BURLINGTON STREET Lobby

Level 00 1 0.000

Entrance Stair 2 Lobby Plant Room Stair 2 Project Courtyard Lobby Lobby Gallery Staff Plant Room Breakroom Courtyard RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street Level B1 -3.520

Title Figure 6.17 Section drawing showing the works to the rear extension to 2 Burlington Gardens. GA Section 12, Level All Proposed Cross Section

Project No Sheet First Issue Date Scale at ISO A1 GA Section, Section 12 2983 11/12/20 1:100 1 1 : 100 2 m 024 m Drawing Number Revision © Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street A-053-X-12-PL 00 Assessment of the Proposals 83

MAYFAIR CA OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS (SETTING EFFECTS) • The reinstatement of full height windows in the Savile Row which in tandem with the restaurant use will improve the contribution that this 6.254 There are four areas that have the potential to affect the character and 6.261 The majority of the proposals relates to the interior of the Site. The part of the Site makes to the significance of the CA; appearance of the CA. external expression relates to the change of roof form, tidying of the rear • The improvement to the legibility of the 18th century plan form at the of 1 Old Burlington Street and bringing the roof above the Banking Hall 6.255 First, the scheme will reinstate the double pitch roof and chimney to No. upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; into occupiable space. Overall, we consider that the works would have no 7 Burlington Gardens. This will be completed with materials and a form • The general refurbishment within No. 7 Burlington Gardens with a material impact on the setting and significance of nearby listed buildings. that are entirely commensurate to the conservation area and which would sensitive decoration strategy (sand timber floors, repainting etc.) which reinstate a lost feature. On that basis, we consider that this part of the HERITAGE AND OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS will demonstrably improve the appearance of the interior in comparison proposal would enhance the appearance of the CA. 6.262 Having comprehensively reviewed the development we consider that the to the existing; and 6.256 Secondly, the rear of No. 1 Old Burlington Street including the roof line, heritage benefits of the proposals can be summarised as follows: • The scheme would not only preserve the character and appearance would be rationalised, cleared of clutter, and generally improved in terms • The development will secure the long-term future of the listed building of the area, but actively enhance its character by delivering retail of its appearance. through sensitive refurbishment and upgrading of M&E to ensure that it space that is exemplary in its outlook and would make a meaningful is fit for a modern occupier; contribution to the vitality of this part of the CA. 6.257 In tandem, the roof of the banking hall will be made fit for occupation for • Improving the level of public access to the building, in particular the retail use, which will necessarily improve the appearance of the space 6.263 We also reference additional land use planning benefits associated basement and upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; particularly in raised views from properties on the eastern side of Savile with the increase in employment on the Site and improvement to the • There will be improvement of access through the building with two new Row. Again, we identify a clear enhancement to the character and local economy (suppliers to the commercial kitchen and restaurant, lifts which will improve the usability and long-term use in line with the appearance of the CA. and contractors etc.). These are described in the Planning Statement development plan policy which seeks improving accessibility to listed prepared by Savills and submitted with the applications, and weigh in 6.258 Third, the Savile Row elevation of the banking hall extension will be buildings; favour of the proposals. enlivened through the restaurant use, and the re-use of the windows in • The re-integration of the third floor as part of No. 7 Burlington Gardens the area of the new kitchen. Here, the contribution that this part of the (the existing residential use separates this part of the Site from the building makes to the CA will be demonstrably improved. remainder of the property); 6.259 Finally, the retail gallery use together with a vibrant and high quality • The reinstatement of historic roof form to No. 7 Burlington Gardens restaurant will enliven Burlington Gardens and provide a suitable, and based on scholarly research and fabric analysis (bullet 3, paragraph 38 entirely complementary neighbour to the Royal Academy of Arts, the of GPA3); businesses on Savile Row. • The reinstatement of a chimney to No. 7 Burlington Gardens that was removed in the 20th century (bullet 3, paragraph 38 of GPA3); 6.260 It is therefore necessary to consider the contribution that viable, active • The removal of roof clutter to improve the overall appearance in private and successful retail operations make to the character and appearance of views from adjacent properties within the CA; the area, a factor which is consistently noted in the Mayfair Conservation • The tidying and removal of clutter to rear of No. 1 Old Burlington Street Area Directory. In reaching a decision in this case, weight must be afforded which would improve the appearance of the listed building and its to this consideration and the proper conclusion is that the scheme would contribution to the CA; not only preserve the character and appearance of the area, but actively • The removal of the existing late 20th century mezzanine to the Banking enhance its character by delivering retail space that is exemplary in its Hall which currently detracts from the ability to appreciate the volume outlook and would make a meaningful contribution to the vitality of this of the space; part of the CA.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 84 Assessment of the Proposals

• Fixing of the mezzanine to decorative columns required for structural • Lowering floor on ground floor and new opening into rear of 7 purposes with minimal intervention(very limited); Burlington Street to create ancillary kitchen (low to moderate) 7.0 CONCLUSION • Change to plan form on second floor to improve the quality of the retail • Removal of partitions on second floor to improve the quality of the accommodation, and impacting on fabric that is not original (low); rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to allow the plan form to • Change to plan form on third floor in a manner that would retain the remain legible (low to moderate); 7.1 This application turns on the balance between any harm to the legibility of the late-18th century phase, and improve the quality of retail • Removal of partitions and plan form at third floor to improve the quality significance of 7 Burlington Gardens, 1 Old Burlington Street (Grade II*) accommodation (low to moderate); of the rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to allow the plan form and 2 Old Burlington Street (Grade II) and the public benefits that would • Conversion of window to door on rear elevation to provide access onto to remain legible (low); and be delivered by the proposals. the banking hall roof (very limited); • Removal of some 19th century fabric at fourth floor to create better 7.2 Under paragraphs 193-194 of the NPPF, great weight should be given to • Removal of fabric (2.85 m x 2.85m) to create new high quality glazed lift quality accommodation in an area of lesser sensitivity (limited). the conservation of designated heritage assets even where the harm through all floors in a manner that will improve accessibility through the 7.10 Again, we do not consider that the harm comes close to vitiating would be less that substantial, and any harm should require a clear and building (low to moderate); and altogether the significance of the listed building, nor would the significance convincing justification. From the Courts’ interpretation of Section 16(1) • Removal of secondary staircase on top floors to incorporate the lift (low). be very much reduced. The works are the minimum required to meet of the 1990 Act, considerable importance and weight should be given to 7.5 When considered overall (i.e. these impacts are considered together in the the operational brief while, ensuring the highly sensitive parts of 7 Old the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings in any context of the listed building as a whole), we consider that the harm would Burlington Street would be preserved. balancing exercise with material considerations which do not have this not come close to removing the significance of the building altogether, or 7.11 On that basis we consider the weight to be afforded to the less than status. The corollary of that approach is that similar weight should be very much reducing the significance (see definition of substantial harm in substantial harm to 2 Old Burlington Street would be moderate. given to conservation area (Section 72 of the 1990 Act) and the setting Bedford). and special interest of other listed buildings (Section 66 of the 1990 Act). 7.12 We find no harm to the significance of the CA or nearby listed buildings on 7.6 The principal elevations would remain; the particularly fine Joseph Rose account of the fact that the majority of works are internal. The remainder 7.3 The considerable importance and weight to the desirability of interiors in the Leoni part of the building would survive, and so too would that are external are beneficial as we explain below. preservation, should tip the scales to produce an unequal balance in its the Hardwick interiors. favour. However, the decision maker should still take account of the scale PUBLIC BENEFITS 7.7 Rather, the impacts that are harmful have been minimised and are of change, and so the extent of impact, as well as the relevance to its 7.13 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF requires a balance in an instance of less than justified to avert redundancy and deliver a development of the highest significance, and the importance of the asset. The overall weight to be substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. design quality by a notable architectural practice. given to any harm should be a product of these factors. 7.8 Thus, we consider the weight to be afforded to the harm would be DESIGN QUALITY 7.4 Section 6.0 has provided a comprehensive assessment of the proposals moderate. 7.14 The first consideration must be that the quality of architecture prepared and we have concluded there would be harm to the significance of 7 by Foster & Partners is of the very highest calibre. It would demonstrably Burlington Gardens/1 Old Burlington Street through: 7.9 We have identified harm to 2 Old Burlington Street through: uplift the quality of the interior, particularly to 7 Burlington Street which • Removal of the 19th century staircase between ground and basement • Loss of 19th century fabric at basement level to incorporate the currently suffers from an entirely unsympathetic decorative scheme. to incorporate a new lift that will improve access through the building ancillary kitchen on the first floor (limited); (low to moderate); • Widening of an existing opening on ground floor to front principal room 7.15 The creative and expressive use of new materials in the mezzanine and • Creation of openings on ground floor in historic fabric to improve to provide an “enfilade” visual connection through the site (low); roof (in particular) is subtle, yet effective in emphasising the historic forms circulation through the building (low); • Opening between front and rear principal rooms on ground floor to and rich architectural detailing of the existing building. The fine attention • Creation of openings in party wall with 2 Old Burlington Street to create improve the quality of the rooms while retaining nibs and downstand to to detail is reflected in the submission, within the Design and Access ancillary kitchen (low); allow the plan form to remain legible (low to moderate); Statement and the CGIs that reflect the design before the Council.

7.16 It is also material that the Applicant has established its reputation on • The removal of the existing late 20th century mezzanine to the Banking POLICY COMPLIANCE delivering galleries that have become landmarks in the cities where they Hall which currently detracts from the ability to appreciate the volume 7.22 Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, are located. That status has been achieved not only through the products, of the space; development plan forms the starting point for determination of this but also inspiring architecture that works with the qualities of existing • The reinstatement of full height windows in the Savile Row which in application. historic building. Although those galleries are in the United States, there tandem with the restaurant use will improve the contribution that this 7.23 On account of finding less than substantial harm and undertaking the is every confidence that RH London would be delivered to a very high part of the Site makes to the significance of the CA; heritage balancing exercise we find that the proposals accord with standard of craftsmanship, not least because of the calibre of the design • The improvement to the legibility of the 18th century plan form at the the London Plan (2016) Policies 7.4 (local character) and 7.8 (heritage team that has been assembled. upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; assets and archaeology); Policies S25 (heritage) and S28 (design) of the • The general refurbishment within No. 7 Burlington Gardens with a HERITAGE BENEFITS Council’s City Plan; Saved UDP Policies DES 1 (principles of urban design sensitive decoration strategy (sand timber floors, repainting etc.) which 7.17 We consider that the heritage benefits of the proposed development are and conservation), DES 5 (alterations and extensions), DES 6 (Roof level will demonstrably improve the appearance of the interior in comparison as follows, and form part of the overall justification of the development: alterations and extensions), DES 9 (conservation areas), and DES 10 (listed to the existing; and • The development will secure the long-term future of the listed building buildings; and Policies MSG: Sustainable Growth and MD: Design (MD2 and • The scheme would not only preserve the character and appearance through sensitive refurbishment and upgrading of M&E to ensure that it MD3) of the Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan. of the area, but actively enhance its character by delivering retail is fit for a modern occupier; space that is exemplary in its outlook and would make a meaningful 7.24 We also consider that the proposals would be consistent with Policies • Improving the level of public access to the building, in particular the contribution to the vitality of this part of the CA. 39, 40 and 41 of the draft City Plan 2019-2040, noting particularly that basement and upper floors of No. 7 Burlington Gardens; the works would secure the conservation and beneficial use of the Site 7.18 Taking account of the considerable importance and weight that should • There will be improvement of access through the building with two new through retention and sensitive adaptation, minimising harm, while be given to the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed lifts which will improve the usability and long-term use in line with the allowing the buildings to meet the changing needs of what is a challenging buildings, we have found the overall weight to the harm to the significance development plan policy which seeks improving accessibility to listed retail environment. of the two listed buildings that comprise the Site as being moderate (in buildings; both cases). 7.25 Consequently, we consider the development would comply with the • The re-integration of the third floor as part of No. 7 Burlington Gardens heritage policies within the development plan. (the existing residential use separates this part of the Site from the 7.19 We consider that the heritage benefits of the development are substantial remainder of the property); and have been arrived at following a detailed and iterative design process, 7.26 On that basis the decision maker is able to discharge their legal duties • The reinstatement of historic roof form to No. 7 Burlington Gardens working together with the Council and Historic England. under Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and based on scholarly research and fabric analysis (bullet 3, paragraph 38 Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 7.20 In our judgement, when the (moderately weighted) less than substantial of GPA3); harm is weighed against the heritage public benefits of the scheme we • The reinstatement of a chimney to No. 7 Burlington Gardens that was consider that the harm would be outweighed. removed in the 20th century (bullet 3, paragraph 38 of GPA3); 7.21 Nevertheless, if the Council consider there to be ‘net harm’ then we also • The removal of roof clutter to improve the overall appearance in private reference additional land use planning benefits which associated with views from adjacent properties within the CA; the increase in employment on the site and improvement to the local • The tidying and removal of clutter to rear of No. 1 Old Burlington Street economy (suppliers to the commercial kitchen and restaurant, and which would improve the appearance of the listed building and its contractors), as well as the contribution that RH London will make to the contribution to the CA; land-use aspirations of the area. These are described by Savills in their Planning Statement and draw weight in favour of the proposals.

Heritage Statement | December 2020

APPENDIX 1: PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 90 PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF PLANNING HISTORY PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE The tables below summarise the planning history recorded for 92/02896/FULL ALTERATIONS DURING Permitted 07/08/1992 98/03216/FULL REOPENING OF ENTRANCE Permitted 26/11/1998 No. 7 Burlington Gardens, No. 2 Old Burlington Street and No. 1 Old THE COURSE OF TO SAVILE ROW;INTERNAL CONSTRUCTION:OPENING ALTERATIONS. Burlington Street. UP 2 FORMER WINDOW OPENINGS ON SAVILE 98/03218/LBC REOPENING OF ENTRANCE Permitted 26/11/1998 The planning history has been informed by historic records held by ROW IN SAVILE ROW;INTERNAL WCC and the recent planning records which are available online via the ALTERATIONS. 92/03344/LBC OPENING UP OF 2 Permitted 07/08/1992 Council’s website. FORMER GROUND LEVEL 99/11291/ADLBC Internal openings and the 13 Dec 13/12/1999 WINDOWS ON SAVILE relocation of two basement 1999 NO. 7 BURLINGTON GARDENS ROW level bank vault doors, Application pursuant to condition Refused PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 97/05055/FULL INSTALLATION OF 0.9m Refused 13/10/1997 4 (i) and 5 of the listed DIAMETER FLAT ROOF building consent dated 86/04432/LBC INSTALLATION OF LC 22/12/1986 MOUNTED SATELLITE 26th November 1998 (RN AUTOMATIC TELLER DISH ANTENNA 983218) MACHINE 97/05056/LBC INSTALLATION OF Refused 13/10/1997 99/11333/ADLBC Programme of building Permitted 13/12/1999 86/04431/FULL INSTALLATION OF GC 22/12/1986 0.9m DIAMETER WHITE recording and analysis, AUTOMATIC TELLER FLAT ROOF MOUNTED pursuant to condition 8 of MACHINE WITHIN PORCH SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA the listed building consent ATMAIN ENTRANCE dated 26th November 1998 98/01215/FULL INTERNAL ALTERATIONS Permitted 11/05/1998 (RN 983218) 86/05176/ADV ILLUMINATED LOGO GA 22/12/1986 INCLUDING REMOVAL OF PANEL ON AUTOMATIC FIXTURES AND FITTINGS 99/01568/FULL CHANGE OF USE 17 Jan 17/01/2000 TELLER MACHINE IN BANKING HALL AND OF BASEMENT 2000 ASSOCIATED INTERNAL TO INDEPENDENT 88/06044/ADV ILLUMINATED GA 29/12/1988 Application WORKS IN CONNECTION RESTAURANT (CLASS A3) ADVERTISEMENT ON Withdrawn WITH USE FOR CLASS A1 PURPOSES & ASSOCIATED AUTOMATIC TELLER RETAIL PURPOSES. INTERNAL ALTERATIONS. MACHINE 98/01216/LBC INTERNAL ALTERATIONS Permitted 11/05/1998 99/01569/LBC INTERNAL ALTERATIONS 17 Jan 17/01/2000 88/06046/LBC INSTALLATION OT AN LC 29/12/1988 INCLUDING REMOVAL OF AT BASEMENT LEVEL 2000 AUTOMATIC TELLER FIXTURES AND FITTINGS IN CONNECTION WITH MACHINE ON THE SAVILE Application IN BANKING HALL AND CHANGE OF USE TO ROW ELEVATION Withdrawn ASSOCIATED INTERNAL RESTAURANT 88/06045/FULL INSTALLATION OF AN GC 29/12/1988 WORKS IN CONNECTION 99/01571/FULL REINSTATEMENT OF 17 Jan 17/01/2000 AUTOMATIC TELLER WITH USE FOR CLASS A1 LIGHTWELL STAIR TO 2000 MACHINE ON THE SAVILE RETAIL PURPOSES. BASEMENT & BASEMENT ROW ELEVATION Application 98/04302/AD7 APPLICATION TO DISPLAY Refused 03/06/1998 ENTRANCE Withdrawn 89/01907/LBC REFURBISHMENT OF Permitted 25/07/1989 AN ESTATE AGENTS INTERIOR LETTING BOARD 99/01572/LBC REINSTATEMENT OF 17 Jan 17/01/2000 LIGHTWELL STAIR TO 2000 91/04611/FULL REFURBISHMENT OF BANK Permitted 10/01/1992 98/00728/LBC INSTALLATION OF A Permitted 30/06/1998 BASEMENT & BASEMENT Application PREMISES ON BASEMENT, WHITE 90M DIAMETER, ENTRANCE Withdrawn GROUND & 1ST FLOOR FLAT ROOF MOUNTED LEVELS WITH NEW ROOF SATELLITE DISH 99/04711/LBC INSTALLATION OF AIR Application 17/01/2000 PLANT. 98/00788/FULL INSTALLATION OF ONE Permitted 30/06/1998 CONDITIONING UNIT Withdrawn 91/04612/LBC MINOR INTERNAL Permitted 10/01/1992 90CM SATELLITE DISH ON 99/12390/LBC Creation of openings within Permitted 27/01/2000 ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE THE ROOF. basement. BASEMENT LEVEL

PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 99/12725/ADLBC Details of internal openings Permitted 27/01/2000 00/07733/LBC External and internal Permitted 10/08/2001 04/02279/LBC Additional air conditioning Permitted 07/07/2004 and the relocation of bank alterations including new units and pipework at vault doors, pursuant to plant on roof of former ground floor level and conditions 4(i) and 5 of banking hall on Savile new condenser unit and the listed building consent Row, new entrance doors pipework on existing plant dated 26th November 1998 to existing Savile Row deck on the rear roof of the (RN 983218) entrance, replacement ground floor. of staircase to basement 00/00251/LBC Internal alterations to Permitted 20/03/2000 level, new signs and internal 04/09049/LBC Display of Christmas Permitted 30/12/2004 entrance hall and adjoining shopfitting works. decoration and lights for a rooms at 1 Old Burlington temporary period between Street. 00/08749/FULL External alterations Permitted 10/08/2001 November 2004 and including the installation January 2005. 00/02696/ADLBC Details of new Ionic columns Permitted 25/06/2000 of plant on roof of former and new Ionic door cases banking hall on Savile 04/09069/ADV Display of Christmas Permitted 30/12/2004 pursuant to conditions Row, new entrance doors decoration and lighting for a 2a and b of listed building to existing Savile Row temporary period between consent dated 20 March entrance and replacement November 2004 and 2000 (RN 0000251) of staircase to basement January 2005. level. 00/03717/FULL Erection of a 42cm Permitted 15/08/2000 04/08726/LBC Installation of a flagpole at 07 Feb 07/02/2005 diameter satellite dish at 01/08310/LBC Removal of modern wall Permitted 10/12/2001 the first floor level above the 2005 roof level under lower flight of main main entrance on Burlington Application Gardens facade. Display of 00/08176/ADV Erection of two flagpoles 09 Nov 09/11/2000 staircase at ground floor Refused level. a non illuminated projecting and two flags on Burlington 2000 sign to Savile Row. Gardens and Savile Row Application 01/06114/FULL Replacement of existing 15 Feb 15/02/2002 facades, both externally Refused blind windows on Old 2002 04/08727/ADV Display of a non illuminated 07 Feb 07/02/2005 illuminated by uplighters. projecting sign and flag. 2005 Burlington Street and Savile Application 00/05541/FULL Use of room adjoining Permitted 12/12/2000 Row facades with sash Refused Application entrance lobby at 1 Old windows. Refused Burlington St for Class B1 01/09193/ADLBC Details of alterations to 23 Jan 23/01/2003 04/08724/FULL Installation of planting Permitted 11/02/2005 office purposes and use opening onto main stairwell 2003 boxes in the entrances of entrance lobby at 1 Old and fan coil units in window Application (Burlington Gardens and Burlington St in connection recesses pursuant to Savile Row) and in the with Class A1 retail and/ Deemed condition 4i and 4ii of listed Refused window coves on the or Class A2 financial/ building consent dated Burlington Gardens facade professional and/or Class 10.08.2001 (PT/007733) at ground floor level. B1 office use. 04/02278/FULL Installation of additional Permitted 07/07/2004 04/08725/LBC Installation of planting Permitted 11/02/2005 01/01111/ADV Erection of a hoarding to Permitted 26/02/2001 air conditioning units and boxes in the entrances the Burlington Gardens and pipework at ground floor (Burlington Gardens and Savile Row elevations for a level and new condenser Savile Row) and in the temporary period of twenty unit and pipework on window coves on the weeks. existing plant deck on the Burlington Gardens facade rear roof of the ground floor. at ground floor level.

05/10405/FULL Installation of new entrance 25 Jan 25/01/2006 doors and alterations to 2006 basement lightwell stairs. Application Withdrawn

Heritage Statement | December 2020 92 PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY

PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 05/10406/LBC Internal and external 25 Jan 25/01/2006 06/04641/ADLBC Details of the re-opened Permitted 14/07/2006 06/08319/ADLBC Details of the new lamps Permitted 07/11/2006 alterations including 2006 doorway from the principal finished in a Portland insertion of a mezzanine, Application staircase to new mezzanine, Stone colour to match the installation of fixed Withdrawn and new flooring, pursuant appearance of the building display and shelving units, to Conditions 3(4) and 3(6) pursuant to Condition 2 construction of new lift of listed building consent of listed building consent and lift shaft, replacement dated 31 May 2006 (RN dated 27 July 2006 (RN: of existing main entrance 06/02448). 06/03906). doors and alterations to basement lightwell stairs. 06/03905/FULL New external aluminium Permitted 27/07/2006 06/03908/FULL Installation of ducting Permitted 08/12/2006 fluorescent wall mounted and acoustic enclosure 06/00631/FULL Alterations to metal stairs Permitted 23/03/2006 lighting to replace existing; to existing steel frame in basement lightwell to Old new mirror glass above roof top plant platform Burlington Street frontage. doors to Burlington Gardens to accommodate plant and Savile Row. equipment. 06/00632/LBC Internal alterations. 23 Mar 23/03/2006 Alterations to metal stairs 2006 06/03906/LBC New external aluminium Permitted 27/07/2006 06/03909/LBC Installation of ducting Permitted 08/12/2006 in basement lightwell to Old Application fluorescent wall mounted and acoustic enclosure Burlington Street frontage. Refused lighting to replace existing; to existing steel frame new store signage pin roof top plant platform 06/01371/ADV Temporary display of a Permitted 23/03/2006 mounted to face of existing to accommodate plant non-illuminated advertising stone frontage and interior equipment. hoarding, measuring 91m of existing glass above total length x 3m high. doorway to Savile Row; new 06/08293/ADLBC Details of all new a/c Permitted 15/12/2006 mirror glass above doors unit casings and roller 06/06824/FULL New acoustic panel 12 Sep 12/06/2006 to Burlington Gardens and blinds/fittings pursuant mounted on ceiling of 2006 Savile Row. to Conditions 3(i) and (ii) ground floor rooms of the Not of listed building consent former Music Room. required 06/06547/FULL New acoustic panel 30 Aug 30/08/2006 dated 31 May 2006 (RN mounted on the ceiling. 2006 06/02448). 06/03064/LBC New lift shaft and lift from 15 Jun 15/06/2006 Not 06/08695/ADLBC Details of all new marketing Permitted 15/12/2006 basement to ground floor 2006 required level. frames/visual displays Application including their fixings to Refused 06/06548/LBC New acoustic panel 03 Oct 03/10/2006 mounted on the ceiling. 2006 walls and ceilings pursuant 06/02448/LBC Refit of interior to include Permitted 31/06/2006 to Condition 3 (3) of listed Application building consent dated 31 insertion of a mezzanine Withdrawn and installation of fixed May 2006 (RN: 06/02448/ display and units. 06/06825/LBC New acoustic panel 03 Oct 03/10/2006 LBC). mounted on ceiling of 2006 06/04628/ADLBC Details of mezzanine Permitted 14/07/2006 06/09113/ADV Display of an advertisement Application 15/12/2006 ground floor rooms to the Application on a hoarding. Deemed pursuant to Condition 3(5) former Music Room. of listed building consent Withdrawn Refused dated 31 May 2006 (RN 06/08318/ Details of the new lamps Permitted 07/11/2006 06/09396/ADLBC Details of schedule of Permitted 15/12/2006 06/02448). ADFULL finished in a Portland decorations including paint Stone colour to match the colours and floor finishes appearance of the building pursuant to Condition 5 pursuant to Condition 1 of listed building consent of planning permission dated 31 May 2006 (RN: dated 27 July 2006 (RN: 06/02448). 06/03905).

PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 06/09983/ADV Temporary display of a Permitted 03/01/2007 13/07169/LBC Installation of replacement 17 Oct 17/10/2013 non-illuminated advertising steel fixed safety access 2013 hoarding at ground floor ladders and associated Application level (Old Burlington Street, platforms extending from Refused Burlington Gardens and second to fourth floor level Savile Row frontages). to the rear.

06/09309/FULL New exterior wall mounted Permitted 07/02/2007 00/08966/LBC Removal of railings and 12 Jan 12/01/2015 CCTV equipment including windows grills to allow 2015 alarm sounder. for off site refurbishment No Further and decoration before Action 06/09310/LBC New exterior wall mounted Permitted 07/02/2007 reinstatement. CCTV equipment including alarm sounder. 15/09613/LBC Installation of illuminated 08 Sep 08/09/2016 lettering attached to the 2016 11/08866/FULL Use of part second, third Permitted 08/11/2011 fascia and vinyl advertising and fourth floor levels as Application to the windows on the Withdrawn 1x5 bedroom flat. (Site front elevation. Removal of includes 1 and 2 Old obscure film to the inside of Burlington Street). ground floor windows and internal screens on the side 12/01477/LBC Internal alterations at third Permitted 23/04/2012 elevation. Installation of a floor level (includes 2 Old new flagpole and flag above Burlington Street). the main entrance door. 13/05526/ADV Display of two internally Permitted 28/06/2013 15/09500/ADV Display of halo illuminated 09 Sep 09/09/2016 illuminated fascia signs letters attached to the 2016 measuring 0.43m x 092m fascia measuring 3.03m x and 0.74m x 0.95m; one Application 0.26m. non-illuminated projecting Withdrawn sign measuring 0.35m x 0.54m and two internally 16/08784/FULL Installation of shopfront 11 Oct 11/10/2016 illuminated menu boards signage (Linked application 2016 measuring 0.53 x 0.40m. 16/08785/LBC) Application Withdrawn 13/06413/LBC Installation of replacement Application 28/06/2013 steel fixed safety access Deemed 16/08780/ADV Non illuminated individually Permitted 03/11/2016 ladders and associated Refused fret cut lettering measuring platforms extending from 2.6m x 0.2m to portico on second to fourth floor level Burlington Gardens. at the rear of 7 Burlington Gardens (+ 1-2 Old 16/08785/LBC Installation of individual Permitted 09/11/2016 Burlington Street). bronze and aluminium letters to portico. 13/07168/FULL Installation of replacement 17 Oct 17/10/2013 steel fixed safety access 2013 Table 7.2 Summary of planning history for No. 7 Burlington Gardens. The planning ladders and associated Application records which are in italic relate to applications associated with temporary works, advertisements, signage or plant. platforms extending from Refused second to fourth floor level to the rear.

Heritage Statement | December 2020 94 PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY

NO. 1 OLD BURLINGTON STREET PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 01/06049/LBC Opening up of blind windows 15 Feb 15/02/2002 06/05088/FULL Installation of rooflights and 22 Sep 22/09/2006 on Old Burlington Street 2002 access ladder from second 2006 84/04150/FULL INTERNAL ALTERATIONS 12 Feb 12/02/1985 and Savile Row elevations. Application floor window; balustrade, Application AND CONSTRUCTION OF 1985 GC Refused door and creation of a roof Permitted LIFT MOTOR ROOM terrace at third floor level 01/06114/FULL Replacement of existing 15 Feb 15/02/2002 84/04151/LBC INTERNAL ALTERATIONS 12 Feb 12/02/1985 blind windows on Old 2002 06/05089/LBC Installation of rooflights and 22 Sep 22/09/2006 AND CONSTRUCTION OF 1985 LC Burlington Street and Savile Application access ladder from second 2006 LIFT MOTOR ROOM Row facades with sash Refused floor window; balustrade, Application windows. door and creation of a Permitted 99/12954/LBC Formation of single door 11 Feb 11/02/2000 roof terrace at third floor opening through party 2000 02/00101/LBC Maintenance and repair of 01 Mar 01/03/2002 level; and other internal wall to link 1 and 2 Old Application railings. 2002 alterations including Burlington Street Permitted Application refurbishment of the ground Permitted 00/00251/LBC Internal alterations to 20 March 20/03/2000 floor entrance hall, common entrance hall and adjoining 2000 05/01030/LBC Removal of post 1935 07 Apr 07/04/2005 parts and third floor offices. rooms at 1 Old Burlington Application partitions and suspended 2005 06/06157/FULL Installation of external air 26 Sep 26/09/2006 Street. permitted ceilings Application conditioning equipment. 2006 Permitted Application Withdrawn 00/03717/FULL Erection of a 42cm 15 Aug 15/08/2000 06/01228/FULL Change of use of the ground 13 Apr 13/04/2006 diameter satellite dish at 2000 and first floor area offices 2006 06/06158/LBC Installation of external air 26 Sep 26/09/2006 roof level Application (Class B1) to retail (Class Application conditioning equipment. 2006 Permitted A1) at first floor level and Permitted Application ancillary offices (Class B1) Withdrawn 00/04846/LBC Erection of a 42cm 15 Aug 15/08/2000 at ground floor level. diameter satellite dish at 2000 06/06285/LBC Internal alterations 28 Sep 28/09/2006 roof level Application 06/01229/LBC Change of use of the ground 13 Apr 13/04/2006 at second floor level 2006 Permitted and first floor area offices 2006 comprising restoration Application (Class B1) to retail (Class Application of decorative features, Permitted 00/05541/FULL Use of room adjoining 12 12/12/2000 A1) at first floor level and Permitted windows and floors. entrance lobby at 1 Old December ancillary offices (Class Burlington St for Class B1 2000 B1) at ground floor level 06/08402/ADLBC Details of all new skirtings, 09 Nov 09/11/2006 office purposes and use Application and internal alterations to dados and cornices to 2006 of entrance lobby at 1 Old Permitted ground and first floors. match the existing original Application Burlington St in connection designs pursuant to Permitted with Class A1 retail and/ 06/04640/ADLBC Details of layout of new 14 Jul 2006 14/07/2006 Condition 4 of listed building or Class A2 financial/ stone floor; shop fittings and Application consent dated 28 April professional and/or Class enclosure around retained Permitted 2006 (RN: 06/01229). B1 office use. chimneypiece in first floor former Music Room; and 06/08695/ADLBC Details of all new marketing 15 Dec 15/12/2006 00/05541/FULL Use of room adjoining 12 Dec 12/12/2000 method statement for frames/visual displays 2006 entrance lobby at 1 Old 2000 the conservation/repair including their fixings to Application Burlington St for Class B1 Application techniques for repairs to all walls and ceilings pursuant Permitted office purposes and use Permitted chimneypieces, woodwork, to Condition 3 (3) of listed of entrance lobby at 1 Old joinery and plasterwork building consent dated 31 Burlington St in connection pursuant to Conditions May 2006 (RN: 06/02448/ with Class A1 retail and/ 8 and 9 of listed building LBC). or Class A2 financial/ consent dated 28 April professional and/or Class 2006 (RN 06/01229). B1 office use.

PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 06/08116/LBC Removal of an external steel 31 Jan 31/01/2007 13/06413/LBC Installation of replacement Application 01/01/2013 platform and construction 2007 steel fixed safety access deemed of a new steel walkway Application ladders and associated Refused within the recess at the rear Permitted platforms extending from of the building. Installation second to fourth floor level of two air conditioning units at the rear of 7 Burlington and acoustic panel and Gardens (+ 1-2 Old maintaining fire exits. Burlington Street).

06/08353/FULL Removal of an external steel 31 Jan 31/01/2007 Table 7.3 Summary of planning history for No. 1 Old Burlington Street. The planning platform and construction 2007 records which are in italic relate to applications associated with temporary of a new steel walkway Application works, advertisements, signage or plant. within the recess at the rear Permitted of the building. Installation of two air conditioning units and acoustic panel.

06/09030/FULL Installation of external air 06 Feb 06/02/2007 conditioning unit within 2007 a third floor lightwell, Application including the raising of an Permitted existing parapet wall and construction of a steel platform and access ladder.

06/09031/LBC Installation of external air 06 Feb 06/02/2007 conditioning unit within 2007 a third floor lightwell, Application including the raising of an Permitted existing parapet wall and construction of a steel platform and access ladder.

07/02004/LBC Relocation of door openings 25 Apr 25/04/2007 and partitions on the third 2007 floor. Application Permitted

07/09398/LBC Installation of air- 21 Jan 21/01/2008 conditioning condenser 2008 within first floor lightwell. Application Permitted

11/08866/FULL Use of part second, third 08 Nov 08/11/2011 and fourth floor levels as 2011 1x5 bedroom flat. (Site Application includes 1 and 2 Old Permitted Burlington Street).

Heritage Statement | December 2020 96 PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY

NO. 2 OLD BURLINGTON STREET PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE PLANNING REF. DESCRIPTION DECISION DATE 06/00730/ADLBC Details of works affecting 27 Mar 27/03/2006 each bathroom and 2006 A/TP/4996 Erection of first floor 15 15/09/1978 WC facility and detailed Application addition for office use at 2 September drawings of second floor Withdrawn Old Burlington Street, W1 1978 bathroom pursuant to Application Conditions 2 and 3(2) Permitted respectively of listed building consent dated 99/12954/LBC Formation of single door 11 Feb 11/02/2000 19 December 2005 (RN opening through party 2000 05/07575) wall to link 1 and 2 Old Application Burlington Street Permitted 06/09309/FULL New exterior wall mounted 07 Feb 07/02/2007 CCTV equipment including 2007 01/06049/LBC Opening up of blind windows 15 Feb 15/02/2002 alarm sounder Application on Old Burlington Street 2002 Permitted and Savile Row elevations. Application Refused 07/01622/FULL Installation of one new wall 16 Apr 16/04/2007 mounted CCTV camera 2007 01/06114/FULL Replacement of existing 15 Feb 15/02/2002 and retention of one Application blind windows on Old 2002 existing camera above front Permitted Burlington Street and Savile Application entrance door. Row facades with sash Refused windows. 07/01625/LBC Installation of new exterior 16 Apr 16/04/2007 wall mounted CCTV 2007 05/01028/FULL Installation of external plant 16 Sep 16/09/2005 equipment and retention Application and plant enclosure at roof 2005 of existing camera on 2 Old Permitted level and demolition of an Application Burlington Street existing outhouse in rear Withdrawn lightwell. 11/08866/FULL Use of part second, third 08 08/11/2011 and fourth floor levels as November 05/01029/LBC Installation of external 16 Sep 16/09/2005 1x5 bedroom flat. (Site 2011 plant and plant enclosure 2005 includes 1 and 2 Old Application at roof level, demolition of Application Burlington Street). Permitted an existing outhouse in rear Withdrawn lightwell and associated 12/01477/LBC Internal alterations at third 23 Apr 23/04/2012 internal alterations floor level (includes 2 Old 2012 Burlington Street) Application 05/07572/FULL Enlargement of outhouse 19 Dec 19/12/2005 Permitted building at rear lower 2005 ground floor level to create Application 13/06413/LBC Installation of replacement Application 01/01/2013 plant room. Permitted steel fixed safety access Deemed ladders and associated Refused 05/07575/LBC Alterations to internal 19 Dec 19/12/2005 platforms extending from layout and enlargement of 2005 second to fourth floor level outhouse building at rear Application at the rear of 7 Burlington lower ground floor level to Permitted Gardens (+ 1-2 Old form a plant room. Burlington Street).

Table 7.4 Summary of planning history for No. 2 Old Burlington Street. The planning records which are in italic relate to applications associated with temporary works, advertisements, signage or plant.

© Montagu Evans LLP 2020 | RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street APPENDIX 2: LIST ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS RH: London – 7 Burlington Gardens and 1 and 2 Old Burlington Street 2/'%85/,1*721675((7:&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG 2/'%85/,1*721675((7:&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG + #

~ }

1 -1$ 2

-$/" / "*-4 $./ 0$' $)"

$./)/-40( - }~~

/ !$-./'$./ |} }

//0/*-4 - .. ~ }

¯-*2)*+4-$"#/) /. -$"#/~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 - )) 0-1 4 $ ) )0( - }|||~ || ¯-$/$.#-*2)) *) *'0/$*). $($/ ~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 $ ) )0( -}|~|||| . *!/#$. /$..0% //* -(. ) *) $/$*).

# *1 (+$.!*-,0$&- ! - ) +0-+*. .*)'4) (4)*/ /*.' *-*+4*!/# !0''.' (++' . . /# //# }~~ + !

# 2$'' " ) -/ !-*(*0-'$1 .4./ (.) (4/& ! 2($)0/ ./* *2)'* + ) $)"*)#*20.4*0-. -1 -. - +*'*"$. !*-/#$. '4

#$.*+4.#*2./# )/-4*)}} 0)~|~|/}}}

*/$*)

//0/*-4 - .. ~ }

# 0$' $)"*-.$/ $/. '!(4'$ 2$/#$)/# *0) -4*!(*- /#)*) 0/#*-$/4 *0)/4 - / - *) *)0/#*-$/4

$./-$/ $/4*! ./($)./ -¢ *) *)*-*0"#£

KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ 2/'%85/,1*721675((7:&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG .7(/(3+21(.,26.62876,'(086(802)0$1.,1'&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG

/$*)'-$ ! - ) ~ }| #

/$'.

~ | }|¨}*~ -- #*0. / }-$. 4*) //$ ./*- 4 -'4} ) -$&.'/ -**!./*- 4.) . ( )/2$) *2.2$ ,0- # **-24/*-$"#/2$/# +$'./ -%(.--4$)"*-)$ # !)'$"#/.$ '$"#/.) *-$"$)'+) ' **- .. ..#2$) *2.)*"'5$)"-. 0) -!'/"0" -# .}./!'**-./-$)"*0-. ($)*-)$ *1 -- !'**-+-+ /2$/#*+$)"./$-*)" *( /-$+// -) '*)4-*..}./!'**-0-1 4*! *) *)*' $./$)"~ }|

1 -1$ 2 "4 -$/" / "*-4 # *)/ )/.*!/#$.- *- #1 )" ) -/ !-*(' "4 /.4./ ( $./ 0$' $)" "44./ ()0( - ~}~ -

"44./ ( $./)/-40( - }~|||

/ !$-./'$./ *0- . |4} / *!(*./- )/( ) ( )/ **&.) %*0-)'. ~~*1} 0-1 4*! *) *)$)# -$.#*! ./($)./ --/~*-/#*!$ $''4*'0( .}) ~*'~¢} £ //0/*-4 - .. "'

#$.0$' $)"$.'$./ 0) -/# '))$)"¢ $./ 0$' $)".) *). -1/$*)- .£/} |.( ) !*-$/..+ $' -#$/ /0-'*-#$./*-$$)/ - ./

) *!*w$$''$./$)"

¯ $./*-$)"') ~|~|

KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ .7(/(3+21(.,26.62876,'(086(802)0$1.,1'&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG .7(/(3+21(.,26.62876,'(086(802)0$1.,1'&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG

/$*)'-$ ! - ) + ~ }|~

/$'.

~ |} ||¨}¨}||

¢.*0/#.$ £ ' +#*) &$*.&.*0/.$ 0. 0(*!)&$)

¢*-( -'4'$./ 0) - ¢.*0/#.$ ££

#- / ' +#*) &$*.&.4+ .$") 4$-$' .$' -/*//$)} ./# 0$' &$*.&( 41-$*0.*)/-/*-. ./$-*)2$/#/ & **-.,0- 2$/# *( -**!)+ -!*-/ -*2).¢ *-" £$)/*++) '.) (-"$)"'5$)"/*2$) *2. ) **-

$./$)"~ }|~

# *)/ )/.*!/#$.- *- #1 )" ) -/ !-*(' "4 /.4./ ( "44./ ()0( - }~

"44./ ( ¯-*2)*+4-$"#/) /. -$"#/~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 - )) 0-1 4 $ ) )0( - }|||~ || ¯-$/$.#-*2)) *) *'0/$*). $($/ ~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 $ ) )0( -}|~|||| . *!/#$. /$..0% //* -(. ) *) $/$*). "' #$.0$' $)"$.'$./ 0) -/# '))$)"¢ $./ 0$' $)".) *). -1/$*)- .£/} |.( ) !*-$/..+ $' # *1 (+$.!*-,0$&- ! - ) +0-+*. .*)'4) (4)*/ /*.' *-*+4*!/# !0''.' (++' . . /# -#$/ /0-'*-#$./*-$$)/ - ./ //# }~|||+ !

# 2$'' " ) -/ !-*(*0-'$1 .4./ (.) (4/& ! 2($)0/ ./* *2)'* + ) $)"*)#*20.4*0-. -1 -. ) *!*w$$''$./$)" - +*'*"$. !*-/#$. '4

#$.*+4.#*2./# )/-4*)}} 0)~|~|/}} ¯ $./*-$)"') ~|~|

*/$*)

//0/*-4 - ..

# 0$' $)"*-.$/ $/. '!(4'$ 2$/#$)/# *0) -4*!(*- /#)*) 0/#*-$/4 *0)/4 - / - *) *)0/#*-$/4

$./-$/ $/4*! ./($)./ -¢ *) *)*-*0"#£

KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ 6$9,/(52::&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG 6$9,/(52::&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG + #

}

1 -1$ 2

-$/" / "*-4 $./ 0$' $)"

- ¬

$./)/-40( - }~}|

/ !$-./'$./ ~ }

//0/*-4 - .. }

¯-*2)*+4-$"#/) /. -$"#/~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 - )) 0-1 4 $ ) )0( - }|||~ || ¯-$/$.#-*2)) *) *'0/$*). $($/ ~|~|''-$"#/.- . -1 $ ) )0( -}|~|||| . *!/#$. /$..0% //* -(. ) *) $/$*).

# *1 (+$.!*-,0$&- ! - ) +0-+*. .*)'4) (4)*/ /*.' *-*+4*!/# !0''.' (++' . . /# //# }~}|+ !

# 2$'' " ) -/ !-*(*0-'$1 .4./ (.) (4/& ! 2($)0/ ./* *2)'* + ) $)"*)#*20.4*0-. -1 -. - +*'*"$. !*-/#$. '4

#$.*+4.#*2./# )/-4*)}} 0)~|~|/}|

*/$*)

//0/*-4 - .. }

# 0$' $)"*-.$/ $/. '!(4'$ 2$/#$)/# *0) -4*!(*- /#)*) 0/#*-$/4 *0)/4 - / - *) *)0/#*-$/4

$./-$/ $/4*! ./($)./ -¢ *) *)*-*0"#£

KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ 6$9,/(52::&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG $9,*2675((7:6$9,/(52::&LW\RI:HVWPLQVWHU_+LVWRULF(QJODQG

/$*)'-$ ! - ) ~ } | #

/$'.

~ | '|¨}|~~* ¬ -- /*2)#*0. }2$/#$)/ -)' '/ -/$*).-*2)-$&) 2/$' -**!./*- 4.) . ( )/2$) *2.2$ /*) -#$/-1 **-24*w )/- -$"#/ 2$/#.-*'' -1 *).*' ..0++*-/$)"(*0' *-)$ +) ' **-) - /)"0'-+// -) !)'$"#/ .. - ) 2 }} "'5$)"-..# .0) -!'/"0" -# .)/'/0- *1 -~) !'**-) +-+ /2$/#*+$)"'/ ~|().- )/ -$*- - /$).!$) ,0'$/4!$ ' +) ''$)"+'./ -2*-&/*.*( $'$)". .+ $''4!-*)/}./!'**--**() -1 #$() 4+$ . 0/#.'*./$/.*-$"$)'./$-. ) 0) -"*) '/ ~|- (* ''$)"*)"-*0) !'**-/# *-$"$)'*/"*)' )-$# +'./ - } -0(/*/# ./$-.&4'$"#/ * .#*2 1 -- ($)-/*!/# 0-'$)"/*).// 0-1 4*! *) *)1*'

$./$)"~ } | 1 -1$ 2

-$/" / "*-4 "4 $./ 0$' $)"

# *)/ )/.*!/#$.- *- #1 )" ) -/ !-*(' "4 /.4./ ( - "44./ ()0( - ~|~ $./)/-40( - "44./ ( }~}|~ / !$-./'$./ |}4}

//0/*-4 - .. *0- . } }

**&.) %*0-)'. //0/*-4 - .. 0-1 4*! *) *)$)# -$.#*! ./($)./ --/~*-/#*!$ $''4*'0( .}) ~*'~¢} £ }

#$.0$' $)"$.'$./ 0) -/# '))$)"¢ $./ 0$' $)".) *). -1/$*)- .£/} |.( ) !*-$/..+ $' -#$/ /0-'*-#$./*-$$)/ - ./

) *!*w$$''$./$)"

¯ $./*-$)"') ~|~|

KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\ KWWSVKLVWRULFHQJODQGRUJXNOLVWLQJWKHOLVWOLVWHQWU\