Core Document CD7.2 Proof of Evidence of Professor Robert Tavernor (Heritage) 68-86 Farringdon Road Appeal ref: APP/V5570/W/17/3173346

12 December 2017

Townscape and Heritage Proof of Evidence Professor Robert Tavernor, BA, DipArch, PhD, RIBA

68-86 Farringdon Road, EC1R 0BD

Appeal against the refusal of planning permission by London Borough of Islington in connection with the refusal of planning permission on 12 May 2015 for the proposed development at 68-86 Farringdon Road, EC1R 0BD. LPA Application Ref: P2015/1958/FUL

On Behalf of Endurance Land (Farringdon) Ltd

PINs Ref: APP/V5570/W/17/3173346

Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Townscape and Heritage Proof of Evidence, Professor Robert Tavernor 68-86 Farringdon Road, EC1R 0BD

Contents Page

1.0 Appointment and Scope of Evidence 2

2.0 Relevant Legislation, Planning Policy and Guidance 9

3.0 The Appeal Site in context 22

4.0 Design and Visual Characteristics of the Appeal Scheme 70

5.0 Views Assessment 81

6.0 Context and Heritage Assessment 98

7.0 Conclusions in relation to the relevant Reason for Refusal 110

8.0 Final Conclusions 114

References 114

Appendix RT1: Background and Experience 115

Separate Documents: Appendix RT2: Townscape Views by Cityscape (December 2017)

1 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

1.0 Appointment and Scope of Evidence

Introduction

1.1 My name is Professor Robert Tavernor, BA, DipArch, PhD, RIBA. My qualifications and experience are set out at the end of this proof (Appendix RT1). I am principal of the Professor Robert Tavernor Consultancy Limited (“Tavernor Consultancy”), which I founded in London in 2001, and which provides consultancy advice on architecture, urban design and built heritage. Much of our work has related to large- scale masterplanning and building design submissions (including in London, Greenwich Peninsula, Croydon Gateway, New Wembley, Battersea Power Station and Earls Court) and the design of individual buildings, some tall and often located in or visible in relation to sensitive historic settings. Our advice always focusses on achieving the highest architectural quality outcome from the design teams we advise as a specific response to the significance and visual sensitivities of the historic environment to which a site relates. I appear at this Inquiry in support of the design of the Appeal Scheme (APP/V5570/W/17/3173346). I am responding to Reason for Refusal 2 [CD 4.6], which is relevant to my expertise.

1.2 My consultancy was appointed to prepare a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) [CD1.2.16] of designs for the site at 68-86 Farringdon Road in January 2015. The 2015 THVIA [CD1.2.16] included verified views prepared by the visualisation firm cityscape and an assessment by the Tavernor Consultancy. The THVIA related to the scheme submitted in May 2015 and formed part of that planning application (LPA ref: P2015/1958/FUL) [CD 1.1-3].

1.3 Changes were made to the design and mass was reduced, following consultation with LB Islington Officers, subsequent to the 2015 planning application, leading to an amended planning application in March 2016. The verified views of the THVIA were updated by Cityscape and included in the Design and Access Statement Addendum submitted as part of the March 2016 planning application [CD 1.3.2]. It was agreed with Officers that the assessment text in the THVIA would not be updated for the 2016 application due to the minor degree of change proposed.

1.4 The Appeal Scheme is the amended proposal submitted for planning in March 2016. It is for the demolition of an existing multi-storey car park and redevelopment to provide a part 5 (plus basement)/ part 6-storey building comprising 3647sqm (GEA) office floorspace (Class B1 use), 180 bedroom hotel (Class C1 use) and 407sqm

2 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

(GEA) retail/restaurant floorspace (Class A1/A3 use) with associated facilities, plant, landscaping and servicing.

The Appeal Site

1.5 The Appeal Site is located within the London Borough of Islington (LBI) and is bounded by Farringdon Road to the west, Bowling Green Lane to the south, Vineyard Walk to the north and Catherine Griffiths Court to the east. It comprises one four storey building (with five levels of car parking), which is in use as a public car parking facility operated by NCP. The car park consists of 294 parking spaces, with the south eastern end of the building incorporating a small ancillary office unit at lower ground floor level.

1.6 It is subject to the following site-specific allocations:

• Bunhill and Clerkenwell Core Strategy Key Area;

• Finsbury Local Plan (FLP) Area;

• Finsbury Local Plan (FLP) Site Allocation BC46: 68-86 Farringdon Road (NCP Car Park);

• Exmouth Market Employment Priority Area;

• Central Activities Zone; and

• Intensification Area (Figure 16 of the Finsbury Local Plan, as elaborated in paragraphs 4.38 and 5.16 in the Proof of Evidence of Elizabeth Milimuka)

1.7 The existing building on site has no architectural merit. There are no listed buildings on the appeal site or directly adjacent to the appeal site. There are however listed buildings nearby, including:

• Former Board school at 10 Bowling Green Lane (Grade II);

• Former Clerkenwell Fire Station, 42-44 Roseberry Avenue (Grade II);

• 94 Farringdon Road (Grade II);

• Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works at 16-17 16A Bowling Green Lane (Grade II);

• Grade I Listed Finsbury Heath Centre; and

3 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

• Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, Clergy House, Campanile and Parish Hall – Grade II*

1.8 In addition to the statutory listed buildings identified, there are locally listed buildings nearby, identified by the LBI as:

• 2 Exmouth Market/102 Farringdon Road;

• 17 Bowling Green Lane;

• 159 Farringdon Road;

• 60 Farringdon Road;

• 58 Farringdon Road/4-6 Pear Tree Court;

• 56 Farringdon Road; and

• 54 Farringdon Road.

1.9 LBI also identifies ‘features of local importance’ (Finsbury Local Plan Appendix 3), three of which are in the vicinity of the Appeal Site:

• 20 Bowling Green Lane;

• 143-157 Farringdon Road

• 159 Farringdon Road (also locally listed)

1.10 The Appeal Site is not located within a Conservation Area, however there are Conservation Areas in close proximity. The Appeal Site is located adjacent to the north of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and adjacent to the south of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area.

1.11 The Appeal Site is within the assessment area for London Plan Designated View 3A (Kenwood Gazebo to St Paul’s Cathedral) as defined within the London View Management Framework [CD 9.17]). It is also adjacent to the Islington Development Management Policies viewing corridor for Local View LV7 (Dartmouth Park Hill to St. Paul’s Cathedral).

The Appeal Scheme

4 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

1.12 As I will describe in more detail in my proof below, the Appellant has adopted a design-led approach to redevelopment in direct response to the opportunities and constraints of the Site. This site-specific response would – I believe – result in a skilfully composed and architecturally coherent development, which would complement the specific character of its setting and would leave unharmed the existing built heritage.

1.13 The design of the Appeal Scheme – its response to the two relevant conservation areas, detailed design and materials – has resulted from a long period of consultation with LBI design and conservation officers, which started before the appointment of my Consultancy, and which continued to inform the design development following the initial planning application, resulting in the amended scheme submitted in March 2016.

1.14 In their letter of 12 January 2015, the Islington Design Review Panel (DRP) was generally supportive, raising “No concerns […] in relation to the proposed heights particularly fronting Farringdon Road in terms of townscape impact.” They “acknowledged the references to the 19th Century buildings that previously occupied the site and commended the coherence, articulation and rhythm of those elevations with a limited pallet of materials which made a positive contribution to the streetscape.” They emphasised the need to treat the exposed rear elevation “as a front elevation in terms of architectural refinement” and requested “Further detailing to demonstrate the quality of the elevations” [CD3.1].

1.15 In their Report to the Planning Committee dated 13 September 2016 [CD3.1], Council Officers stated that (para 4.2): “The proposed building respect [sic] the heights of buildings in the immediate context would result in a successful townscape in this location. Further, the high quality design would be sensitive to surrounding heritage assets and complementary to local identity. No part of the proposed development would block, detract from or have an adverse effect on any significant strategic or local protected views.” They observed (at para 6.3) that: “Conservation/design and planning officers expressed concerns in relation to the proposal with regard to the overall built form and impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and as a result the applicant amended the application to reduce the volume and massing of the proposed building.” Also, (at para 8.11) that the: “Design and Conservation Officer […] feel there is still some impact, to a certain degree undesirable, but on balance, and accepting that the site is situated in a

5 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

heavily built urban area, they are of the view that the proposed massing, bulk and heights are generally acceptable.”

1.16 Accordingly, Council Officers concluded in the Committee Report [CD3.1] that: “the proposal has been designed in a manner to ensure that it would sit comfortably and harmoniously integrate with the site and within the streetscene and not detract from or compete with the significance of the streetscene character of adjoining or nearby buildings” (paragraph 10.71, Committee Report).

1.17 Officers also considered that the proposal: “would be respectful of its immediate context and the wider adjoining Conservation Areas in terms of its scale, massing and height, and generally reflects the prevailing streetscene scale and does not dominate the streetscene or public realm” (paragraph 10.72, Committee Report [CD3.1]). Council Officers recommended the proposal for approval.

Reasons for Refusal

1.18 Members overturned Officers’ recommendation for approval, citing the buildings’: “failure to relate to the surrounding context and adjoining conservation area and its inappropriate detailed design and choice of materials”. The planning application was refused on 19 October 2016 and three Reasons for Refusal were given by the Council [CD 4.6]. One of these, Reason for Refusal 2, is of particular relevance to my expertise as an architect and townscape and heritage consultant, and provides the focus for my evidence. It is cited as follows:

“2. The proposed building is not appropriate in this location by reason of its failure to relate to the surrounding context and adjoining conservation areas and its inappropriate detailed design and choice of materials which result in an incongruous visual appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 58 of the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2015, Policy CS13 of the Islington Core Strategy, Policy DM 2.1 of Islington's Development Management Policies, and site allocation BC46 of the Finsbury Local Plan, which seek to ensure development is appropriately sited and designed and is appropriate to its surrounding context.

1.19 This is expanded in paragraphs 4.90-4.95 of the LBI Statement of Case [CD 5.1]:

“4.90 The site is within an area where the prevailing building design comprises masonry buildings with consistent, regular fenestration patterns. Generally, the 6 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof buildings have larger openings at ground level, with smaller fenestration above; and rich detailing provided by various decoration and relief to their façades.

4.91 The proposed building would not be built using the prevailing contextual materials, but instead would have metal clad elevations at first floor and above. Instead of drawing on the pattern of fenestration or modelling apparent within the more positive aspects of its context, it would have an unusual saw-tooth front elevation with floor to ceiling fenestration. The folds of the metal cladding when viewed from the approaches to the building, would hide the fenestration and would present the building as un-fenestrated blank upper floor elevations above a mostly glazed ground floor. The upper floors would also project over the ground floor resulting in a blocky, top heavy appearance.

4.92 The proposed metal cladding would result in a harsh, non-contextual appearance which due to its sharp, bulky detailed design, would detract from the delicate and refined detailing of the surrounding buildings, including the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Areas and the surrounding designated and undesignated heritage assets. The elevational treatment would be bold and attention grabbing, and would detract from the character of the surrounding heritage assets and the positive aspects of the townscape.

4.93 The design of the external elevations is such that the building would result in the repetition of large scale blocks along a very long frontage, and the scale of these is only considered acceptable on the basis of appropriate detailed design and materials to address the richness of detail exhibited by the surrounding buildings. There would be almost no reference to the materials or detailing of the surrounding buildings, and as a result the proposal would have an anonymous, alien appearance.

4.94 However, due to the strong design language presented by the elevations, and the design of the saw tooth cladding, the materials and detailing are not readily separated from the other aspects of the design. It would not be possible to make the materials and detailed design acceptable through refinements which could be secured by planning conditions.

7 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

4.95 At the inquiry, the Council will show that the proposed building would not relate sufficiently to the surrounding historic context and adjoining conservation areas, and its inappropriate detailed design and materials would result in an incongruous visual appearance.”

1.20 My evidence will respond to Reason for Refusal 2 in Sections 3-6, through an examination of: the existing context of the site and adjacent conservation areas (Section 3); the character of the proposed design and its materials (section 4); the visual relationship of the proposal with its surroundings through an assessment of selected key views (section 5); and potential effects on the settings of heritage assets and the character of the surrounding context (section 6). I note however that the reason for refusal does not raise explicit objections to the bulk, mass or scale of the Appeal Scheme, nor its impact on views.

1.21 My evidence has been written independently of the other Appellants’ witnesses, whose evidence I have read. I am a townscape and built heritage consultant: consequently, I will provide independent evidence at this inquiry on architectural design and heritage matters. Appendix RT2 attached to my proof includes additional verified views and CGIs of the scheme prepared by Cityscape and selected to respond to the Reasons for Refusal and Third Party Representations relating to the Appeal.

1.22 The evidence that I have prepared and provide for this Appeal is true and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution (Royal Institute of British Architects, RIBA). I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.

8 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

2.0 Relevant Legislation, Planning Policy and Guidance

2.1 The key pieces of legislation and policies that have informed my evidence are listed below and will be referred to in relation to the Appeal Scheme in the concluding sections of my proof.

LEGISLATION

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

2.2 With regard to applications for planning permission, which may affect a statutory listed building or its setting, section 66(1) of the Act requires that:

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

NB. Section 72 of the Act is not formally engaged as the Appeal Site is not located within a conservation area.

2.3 In Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v ENDC, EH and NT [2014] (EWCA Civ 137 /Case No: C1/2013/0843, 2014), the Court of Appeal emphasised the statutory duty of decision-makers in relation to section 66(1) of the Act:

"the statutory duty imposed by section 66(1) […] requires considerable weight to be given by decision-makers to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings, including Grade II listed buildings."

2.4 I have considered this judicial guidance in my evaluation. I understand that the interpretation of ‘harm’ is the same as that already established by the early 1990s case, South Lakeland DC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141 (House of Lords), namely that:

• The concept of ‘preserving’ (in the section 72(1) duty) does not mean ‘positively preserving’, it merely means doing no harm;

• The decision-maker must give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to a finding of heritage harm – and, it follows, to preservation and enhancement; and

9 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

• In judging whether there is net heritage harm, the decision-maker should assess and balance the harmful heritage impacts of a proposal (if any) against any heritage benefits before concluding whether there is harm or not (as clarified in the recent case, R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council & Anor, [2016]) EWCA Civ 1061(Case No: C1/2015/3383).

2.5 I will consider section 66(1) the Act in the light of these decisions and my summary above when determining whether any harm to the settings of heritage assets should be attributed to the Appeal Scheme if built, and – if necessary – whether the proposed benefits would outweigh the harm that may be caused by it. Ms Milimuka will present the overall planning balance in her planning proof.

2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) [CD 8.18] at paragraphs 132-135, sets out the policy on heritage decision making, to which I will now turn.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) [CD 8.18]

2.7 The NPPF provides a full statement of the Government’s planning policies. It replaces almost all Planning Policy Statements and Guidance. It identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (paragraph 7). It notes the key role of planning in the creation of sustainable communities: communities that will stand the test of time, where people want to live, and which will enable people to meet their aspirations and potential. It identifies "a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking" (paragraph 14). This presumption entails "seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life" (paragraph 9). Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but also over the lifetime of the development.

2.8 Policy and guidance relating to conservation and enhancement of the historic environment is set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF. It condenses, and is broadly consistent with, the policies in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) which it replaces.

2.9 The NPPF sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies put in place to conserve the historic environment and its heritage assets so that they may be enjoyed by future generations. It is a material consideration in all planning decisions. 10 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

2.10 In order to assess the nature and degree of potential effects on the significance of heritage assets when determining applications, the NPPF requires "an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance" (NPPF paragraph 128).

2.11 As the Glossary (Annex 2 to the NPPF) defines it, 'significance' in terms of heritage policy is "the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset's physical presence, but also from its setting" (p. 56). More detailed advice in relation to these special interests is given in the publication Conservation Principles (English Heritage, 2008) and in the DCMS Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings (March 2010). The significance of relevant heritage assets is described in Section 3 below.

2.12 When determining applications, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to take account of:

• "the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

• The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness." (NPPF paragraph 131).

2.13 Paragraphs 132-135 deal with the approach to weighing any harm against the benefits of the proposals. The term ‘harm’ is not defined in the NPPF or elsewhere. It therefore remains a matter of professional judgment, and experience, whether or not a proposed design will cause overall harm and, if so, the degree of harm that will be caused.

2.14 Where the loss of a building or element which makes a positive contribution to significance is proposed, it should be treated as either; substantial harm under paragraph 133, or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134. It is the impact of the proposal (as a whole) upon the significance of the relevant asset (as a whole) which falls to be considered. Where there is less than substantial harm to the relevant asset or its significance after a consideration of the ‘net’ effect, then the public benefit must outweigh it. Where there is substantial harm, the NPPF lists more

11 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

onerous tests that a proposal will need to pass, or the alternative single criterion is met that the harm is necessary in order to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the substantial harm to, or total loss of significance.

2.15 Where harm to a designated asset is found, it should be given considerable weight and importance in the planning balance. Where preservation or enhancement is achieved, considerable weight and importance should also be given to this conclusion in the planning balance.

DCLG, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (March 2014) [CD 8.19]

2.16 The PPG is an online resource providing guidance on implementing the policies of the NPPF. The web resource replaces various guidance documents, including By Design (2000), the Circular on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (Circular 07/2009) and Historic England’s Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (2010). There are two sections of the PPG that are of particular relevance to this assessment:

• Design; and

• Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.17 The PPG on Design, which supports section 7 of the NPPF, states that local planning authorities are required to take design into consideration and should give great weight to outstanding or innovative designs which help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area (NPPF Ref 1-3, para 004).

2.18 The guidance states (para 015) that new or changing places should have the following qualities commonly exhibited by successful, well-designed places:

• be functional;

• support mixed uses and tenures;

• include successful public spaces;

• be adaptable and resilient;

• have a distinctive character;

• be attractive; and

• encourage ease of movement.

2.19 The PPG on ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ supports Section 12 of the NPPF. Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by 12 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential effect and acceptability of development proposals. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Therefore, a thorough assessment of the effect on setting needs to take into account. The assessment should be proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset under consideration, and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.

2.20 In considering assessment of substantial harm, paragraph 017 of the guidance states: “In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases”. This reflects and is consistent with the position of the High Court, which has judged that “for harm to be substantial, the impact on significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away”. [Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Nuon UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin)]

NATIONAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (GLVIA) (2013) produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (Ref 1-1)

2.21 The GLVIA provides advice on good practice and is applicable to all forms of landscape: it is also applicable to townscape. However, the guidance states that its methodology is not prescriptive (Ref 1-1, para 1.20), and that assessment should be tailored to the particular circumstances in each case with an approach that is in proportion to the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature of its potential impacts. The guidance recognises that much of the assessment must rely on professional judgement (Ref 1-1, paras. 2.23-2.26).

Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) [CD 9.13]; and Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015) [CD 9.16]

2.22 Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment [CD 9.13] emphasises that the information required in support of applications for planning

13 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

permission and listed building consent should be no more than is necessary to reach an informed decision. Also, that activities to conserve or investigate the asset need to be proportionate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact on that significance.

2.23 It states (at page 2, para 10) that understanding the level of significance is important as it provides the essential guide to how relevant policies should be applied, which is intrinsic to decision-taking where there is unavoidable conflict with other planning objectives.

2.24 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets [CD 9.16] advises on the management of change within the surroundings of heritage assets. It sets out a number of steps to be followed when assessing potential impacts on the significance of heritage assets through changes to their setting. Historic England Advice Note 1 Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management [CD 9.14] and Understanding Place [CD 9.19] provide advice on the appraisal of conservation areas and historic areas.

2.25 The sensitivity of a view is determined by a range of factors identified in detail in Historic England's earlier guidance, Seeing the History in the View (2011) [CD 9.15], and The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015) [CD 9.16], which may be summarised as follows:

• the degree of heritage significance of the structures and spaces in view (both how important they are and how much they contribute to the view);

• the nature of the significance of the structures and spaces in view (for example the robustness of their character, their degree of visibility and/or the importance of retaining a clear sky backdrop in order to enable their recognition and appreciation);

• the degree of importance attached to the view (whether of local or strategic importance or within the setting of a designated heritage asset and/or whether potential for enhancement has been identified); and

• the nature of the view (whether it is glimpsed, kinetic, formally composed).

2.26 Paragraph 28 notes that good design may reduce or remove any potential harm caused by development proposals or provide enhancement and that “design quality may be the main consideration in determining the balance of harm and benefit.”

2.27 The assessment of the potential impacts of the Appeal Scheme on the setting, and therefore significance, of designated heritage assets near the Site is made through 14 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

the assessment of key views, provided in the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16] and amended in March 2016 [CD 1.3.2], and additional views prepared specifically for this Inquiry which are appended to my Proof at Appendix RT2. I will cross-refer to these views in my evidence.

2.28 My evidence will consider potential impacts on the significance of designated heritage assets in the locality of the Site and in relation to townscape and heritage effects on the views which arise from the nature and sensitivity of existing conditions and the design of the Appeal Scheme.

REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 (March 2016) [CD8.1]

2.29 The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London was adopted by the Mayor of London in July 2011. Minor amendments were made to the Plan in October 2013 and further alterations were published in March 2015 and March 2016. The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, which sets out the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for development over the next 25 years. The Plan continues the Mayor of London’s support of high quality design which relates successfully to its context. The London Plan contains policies that must be considered in relation to the Development, these are outlined below. Policies 4.5, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2016 are cited in the Council’s Reasons for Refusal relevant to my evidence, and I will address these in my evidence.

2.30 Chapter 4 addresses ‘London’s Economy’ and the need to ensure London is:

• A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth; and

• An internationally competitive and successful city.

Policy 4.5 is concerned with London’s visitor infrastructure and requires the stimulation of London’s visitor economy and support for new visitor accommodation in appropriate locations.

2.31 Chapter 7 focuses on policies relating to the built environment, both the historic built environment and new development. These polices have been taken into careful consideration in the formation and assessment of these proposals. Policy 7.1 Lifetime Neighbourhoods requires good quality environments in active and supportive local communities. Policies 7.4 and 7.5 relate to the protection of local 15 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

character and public realm. Policy 7.6 makes provision for the highest architectural quality (7.6Ba) and requires that architecture should make a positive contribution to the city (7.6A). Policies 7.8 to 7.10 consider the Historic Environment, 7.8C states that “Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail” (The London Plan, p.287).

London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance (LVMF SPG) (March 2012) [CD 9.17]

2.32 The London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance (LVMF SPG) (March 2012) has been updated in line with the new version of The London Plan (2016).

2.33 The Site is located within the Wider Setting Consultation Area of LVMF View 3A. However, it is below the Threshold Plane and would not be visible in the view due to other development in the foreground.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

LBI Core Strategy (adopted 2011) [CD8.6]

2.34 Core Strategy 13 is cited in the Council’s Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2, which I am addressing. However, Core Strategy 13 is concerned with Employment Spaces, which is not relevant to my Townscape and Heritage evidence.

LBI Development Management Policies Document (adopted 2013) [CD8.8]

2.35 Policy DM 4.11 is cited in RfR 1, but addresses Hotels and visitor accommodation, which is not relevant to my Townscape and Heritage evidence

2.36 DM 2.1 is cited in RfR 1 and is relevant to my evidence as it is concerned with Design, as follows:

“A. All forms of development are required to be of high quality, incorporate inclusive design principles and make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area, based upon an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. Permission will be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Further details on design requirements in Islington are set out in the Islington Urban Design Guide, Streetbook, Inclusive Landscape Design and other Supplementary Planning Documents. This policy

16 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof applies to all new developments including alterations and extensions to existing buildings. For a development proposal to be acceptable it is required to: i) be sustainable, durable and adaptable; ii) be safe and inclusive;

iii) efficiently use the site and/or building;

iv) improve the quality, clarity and sense of spaces around or between buildings;

v) enhance legibility and have clear distinction between public and private spaces;

vi) improve movement through areas, and repair fragmented urban form;

vii) respect and respond positively to existing buildings, the streetscape and the wider context, including local architectural language and character, surrounding heritage assets, and locally distinctive patterns of development and landscape;

viii) reinforce and complement local distinctiveness and create a positive sense of place;

ix) sustain and reinforce a variety and mix of uses;

x) provide a good level of amenity including consideration of noise and the impact of disturbance, hours of operation, vibration, pollution, fumes between and within developments, overshadowing, overlooking, privacy, direct sunlight and daylight, over-dominance, sense of enclosure and outlook;

xi) not unduly prejudice the satisfactory development or operation of adjoining land and/or the development of the surrounding area as a whole;

xii) consider landscape design holistically as part of the whole development. Landscape design should be set out in a landscape plan at an appropriate level of detail to the scale of development and address the considerations outlined in Appendix 12 of this document; and

xiii) not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on views of local landmarks.

B. Development proposals are required to demonstrate, through the use of detailed, clear and accurate drawings and a written statement (Design and Access Statements where appropriate) how they have successfully addressed the elements of the site and its surroundings listed below. Greater onus for demonstrating this will be placed on major developments, and smaller developments on sites in prominent or sensitive locations:

17 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

i) historic context, such as distinctive local built form, significance and character of any heritage assets, scale and details that contribute to its character as a place;

ii) urban form, such as building lines, frontages, plot sizes and patterns, building heights, storey heights and massing;

iii) architectural and design quality and detailing, such as colour, type, source and texture of detailing and materials used;

iv) movement and spatial patterns, such as definition, scale, use, detailing and surface treatment of routes and spaces;

v) natural features, such as topography, trees, boundary treatments, planting and biodiversity;

vi) visual context, such as location and scale of landmarks, strategic and local and other site specific views, skylines and silhouettes, and scale and form of townscape set pieces or urban compositions;

vii) an understanding of the significance of heritage assets that may be affected; and

viii) safety in design, such as access, materials and site management strategies.

C. The only locations in Islington where tall buildings may be suitable are set out in the Finsbury Local Plan (Area Action Plan for Bunhill and Clerkenwell). Any proposal for tall buildings must meet other design policies and have regard for the criteria set out in English Heritage/CABE's Guidance on tall buildings (2007).

2.37 I will consider the relevant points above in my evidence. However, the reference to Appendix 12 in DM2.1 above relates to Landscape plans, and is not relevant to my evidence, as the Appeal Scheme does not incorporate any planting schemes. The Streetbook SPD (October 2012) [CD 9.18] primarily relates to development of the public realm. The LBI Urban Design Guide (January 2017) [CD 8.13] provides supplementary urban design guidance and I will make reference to this document where relevant in my assessment.

LBI Finsbury Local Plan (Adopted 2013) [CD8.7]

2.38 Policies BC6 and site allocation BC46 of the Finsbury Local Plan are cited in the Council’s Reasons for Refusal relevant to my evidence, and I will address these in my evidence. Policy BC8 is also cited in the RfR: it is concerned with achieving a balance of mixed uses in London’s Central Activities Zone (CAZ), and is not relevant to my evidence.

2.39 Policy BC6 relates to North Clerkenwell and Mount Pleasant. It is an area-wide policy which covers the North Clerkenwell and Mount Pleasant area, which the 18 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Appeal Site falls within. The policy states that the area will be “enhanced as a focal point for the wider community” including “a mix of employment uses, including offices, small and affordable workspaces, shops, cafes and restaurants.” The glossary includes hotel within employment uses.

2.40 Site Allocation BC46 relates directly to the Appeal Site as follows:

19 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

20 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Farringdon Urban Design Study (2010) [CD8.15]

2.41 The Farringdon Urban Design Study (2010) forms part of the evidence base for the Finsbury Local Plan.

2.42 It provides specific design guidance for the Appeal Site as follows:

“A brick building is recommended with a pitched roof that reflects the changing topography as well as ties in with the heights of neighbouring buildings. Active ground floor uses (retail/A3) are recommended with residential above” (p.112).

2.43 An image of a model of the area includes a block on the Appeal Site with asymmetric pitched upper levels and the following caption: “Options for redeveloping the NPC car park building on Farringdon Road to support the strategic objectives for this as a street with active frontages and high quality design of both buildings and the public realm.” (p.112)

Fig 2-1 Model of mass on Appeal Site in Farringdon Urban Design Study (p.112)

2.44 The requirement for the Appeal Scheme to mediate between the different heights of adjacent buildings, in accordance with good urban design practice, is successfully achieved in the composition of the Appeal Scheme. The design of the Appeal Scheme is described in Section 4 of my proof and is considered in relation to local views in Section 5.

21 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.0 The Appeal Site in context Introduction

3.1 This section of my proof includes and expands on the description of the site history and context provided in Section 4 of the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16], and will refer in more detail to the changing urban context locally, including the Guardian Building (currently under construction) and Mount Pleasant sites nearby. It also includes and expands on the description of the significance of relevant designated heritage assets set out in the 2015 THVIA – listed buildings and conservation areas – by referring in more detail to locally listed assets.

History and character of the Site and surrounding area

3.2 The area around the Site remained as open fields between the cities of London and Westminster until the 17th century: “fields for pasture and a delightful meadowland interspersed with flowing streams” (Pevsner and Cherry, The Buildings of England: London 4: North (2002) (Ref 1-2). The Fleet River flowed through these fields to the west of the Site from Hampstead Heath along the line of, what is now, King’s Cross Road, Calthorpe Street, Phoenix Place, south of Warner Street and Ray Street, where it then followed the line of Farringdon Road. The old parish and property boundaries largely followed its course. The Fleet, a major river in Roman times and the largest of London’s, now subterranean, rivers was known as the River of Wells because of the number of wells associated with it. Springs on higher ground provided the City’s water supply. Although all trace of it has now disappeared, Black Mary’s Well was located at the junction of Lloyd Baker Street and Margery Street to the north of the Site. Clerk’s Well in Farringdon Lane south of the Site, well- established by 1174, gave its name to Clerkenwell. Rocque’s map of 1746 (Fig 3-1) shows clearly the course of the Fleet River to the west of the Site, with a number of ponds shown to its north-west. Farringdon Road is named Coppice Row and King’s Cross Road to the north is named Black Mary’s Hole.

22 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-1: Rocque Map of 1746

3.3 Chalybeate springs, said to have health-giving properties, were discovered in the area in the 17th century. Coldbath Square on the south side of Mount Pleasant derives its name from the spring at which Coldbath Spa was established in 1697. The bathhouse is shown in the centre of Coldbath Square in the Rocque’s map of 1746 (Fig 3-1). Another spa, the London Spaw, is shown on Rocque’s map in the vicinity of the present day Exmouth Market, close to the north of the Site. Bagnigge Wells further north became a very fashionable spa in the 18th century and is marked on Horwood’s map of 1799 (Fig 3-2). At first visited purely for medical reasons, the new spas soon became places of amusement, popular for ‘taking the waters’ and for tea drinking – some of them doubling as brothels – but fell out of fashion and went into decline during the 19th century.

23 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-2: Horwood Map 1799

3.4 The streets to the south of Mount Pleasant were developed from 1719 onwards with terraces of small and medium sized houses centred on the Coldbath Spa. The neighbourhood was known as Cold Bath or Coldbath Fields. A short row of houses at Nos. 47-57 Mount Pleasant is the last substantial remnant of this development to survive. By the mid-19th century Coldbath Fields had lost its primarily residential character and most of the houses were being used as workshops, warehouses or shops. The land to the north of Mount Pleasant remained largely undeveloped until the early 19th century. The ground was uneven and badly drained, and had for many years been used for rubbish disposal because of its location on the fringes of the City of London. The name, Mount Pleasant, is thought to refer (sarcastically) to a large rubbish heap, located on the west side of what is now Farringdon Road.

3.5 The rubbish tip was cleared in the late 18th century to allow the construction of the Middlesex House of Correction (also known as Clerkenwell Gaol and later as Coldbath Fields Prison). The original House of Correction is shown on Horwood’s map of 1799 (Fig 3-2) and was rebuilt several times over the decades, finally closing in 1885. Horwood’s map shows that the Site, to the east of Farringdon Road, remains undeveloped exception for a pair of terraced houses.

24 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.6 The site of the London Spaw became known as Spa Fields, it was a popular location for the sport of setting dogs on ducks. Following the establishment of the spa, the fields became one of Clerkenwell’s pleasure gardens in the 18th century, as shown on Rocque’s map (Fig 3-1). In the later 18th century, residential development began to take place on the Spa Fields, the land was owned by the Earl of Northampton. Development on what was known as the Spa Field Estate extended only as far as what is now Exmouth Market, formerly Exmouth Street and originally Braynes Row. A part of the former pleasure gardens was left undeveloped and is marked as a burial ground on Horwood’s map (Fig 3-2) and became public open space at the end of the 19th century.

3.7 North of Exmouth Market, open common land remained and was the scene of mass assemblies of up to 100,000 people in 1816 and 1817. The street became a local shopping centre with purpose-built shops on the north side from 1819. Development on the Earl of Northampton’s estate then began to extend further north, eventually to Baker Street (now Lloyd Baker Street). Wilmington Square, 1818-1830, was the centrepiece. It was originally designed as a larger square extending to Margery Street (formerly Margaret Street) but the size of the square and the intended scale and quality of the houses that surrounded it were downgraded in response to an over-supply of homes in the area due to the rapid development of a number of adjacent estates at this time. Once the Square had been completed, the remaining land parcels were backfilled “with streets of a most mean and narrow character” (Survey of London Volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (2008)/ http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol47/pp239-26 (Ref 1-4)).

3.8 In the second half of the 19th century, Clerkenwell was radically altered by a new road layout – beginning with the Holborn Viaduct and Farringdon Road, followed by Clerkenwell Road and finally Rosebery Avenue – which sliced through existing residential areas. These new roads brought about wholesale redevelopment of the building fabric alongside their routes, providing opportunities for elimination of residential slums and the erection of municipal and commercial buildings on a large scale, which helped to transform the economic and architectural character of Clerkenwell. Farringdon Road was constructed between 1841 and 1868 as a rationalisation of the existing tortuous route from Blackfriars Bridge to King’s Cross. Its final phase adjacent to the Site was built between 1860 and 1868 in tandem with the Metropolitan Line, which follows its alignment below ground. The terrace of houses on the Site was cleared as part of these works. North of the junction with

25 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Rosebery Avenue, Farringdon Road was edged on the east side by a long terrace of houses, mostly residential, but some were also used for various small businesses, such as engraving, jewellery and printing. The House of Correction remained on the west side until the site was taken over by the Post Office. The scale of the redevelopment of this part of Farringdon Road contrasts with the large terraced commercial buildings which line the route to the south including the Quality Chop House, listed Grade II, designed by Rowland Plumb and completed in 1873.

Fig 3-3: OS Map 1871

3.9 Beginning in 1887, parts of Coldbath Fields and some of the poorer housing on the Northampton Estate to the south of Wilmington Square were cleared for the construction of Rosebery Avenue. Some cleared parcels of land along the new street were developed for municipal uses such as the Clerkenwell Fire Station (replaced by the current fire station in 1917). Large scale tenement blocks for those displaced by clearance along the route of Rosebery Avenue was planned where taller development could be integrated alongside the new street where it was carried on a viaduct over Warner Street. Several social housing blocks were also constructed along Farringdon Road in the second half of the 19th century: the Corporation Buildings were erected in the mid-1860s on the current Guardian site (Fig 3-13 below); Farringdon Road Buildings on the Site, followed on the Appeal Site 26 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

in the 1870s (Fig 3-14); and the Peabody Trust Estate (which survives, Fig 3-15) and Victoria Dwellings (formerly at the junction of Clerkenwell Road and Farringdon Road) were both built in the 1880s. The Farringdon Road Buildings on the Appeal Site, comprising shops and model dwellings, were constructed in 1872-4 to designs by Frederic Chancellor for Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrious Classes. They consisted of five parallel tenement blocks at right angles to the road, with 20ft courtyards or playgrounds between. Each was six storeys plus basements with shops facing onto Farringdon Road. Each high-density block contained fifty-two tenements, the whole development housing well over a thousand people (see Fig 3-4 and 3-14 below).

Fig 3-4: OS Map of 1894

3.10 Slum clearance continued through the 1930s, including the replacement of many of the terraces between Wilmington Square and Lloyd Baker Street with the tenement blocks of the Margery Street Estate. Finsbury Health Centre by Tecton was completed in 1938 and is now Grade I listed. It was part of an ambitious plan for the redevelopment of the entire area around Rosebery Avenue but was interrupted by WWII. The plan for the area was superseded by post-war piecemeal redevelopment on scattered sites including south of Spa Fields. The area around the Site suffered some bomb damage during the war, however this was largely minor and repairable

27 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

in nature. The tenement blocks on the Site survived unscathed. However, they were declared unfit for human habitation in 1968 by the GLC and demolished in 1976.

Fig 3-5: WWII Bomb Damage Map (1945)

3.11 The Farringdon Road NCP multi-storey car park currently on the Site was constructed in 1989-90. It is a utilitarian building – essentially a box containing car decks and ramps – faced in yellow brick with simple red brick dressings. It is articulated by over scaled arches with mock-classical pediments. The NCP car park has a very broad elevation on Farringdon Road, the length of which is slightly relieved in appearance by a series of giant vertical arched openings which span the full building height, and three stair towers (only one of which is genuine and with a single vertical strip of glazing, all three have simple concrete, pointed gables at the roofline and crude postmodern columns and pediments at ground level) positioned at regular intervals. The large openings provide partly screened views through to the concrete structure of the car park internally and the parked cars.

3.12 The minimal physical articulation, utilitarian function and character of the NCP Car Park results in a dead frontage at street level and little visual activity. Whilst it is substantially lower than neighbouring buildings to the south, its mass appears large due to the giant scale of the round arched openings and the lack of clear storey delineation or finer level of detail to counter its apparent size, resulting in a building 28 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

which looks out of scale with its context, whilst at the same time being considerably lower than its neighbours to the south and southwest on Farringdon Road. It has a monolithic and inelegant presence on the street.

3.13 The NCP car park lacks the urban dignity and presence of the tenements it replaced, and detracts from the potential vitality of the street experience: it does not contribute to the street level activity which is characteristic of the area. Its architectural and townscape character is surely negative in relation to such an important urban thoroughfare.

Site Context

3.14 The long and particular history of the area around the site informs its present day character. The site context is characterised by a tight knit streetscape established in the 17th and 18th century around important medieval places and cut through with linear primary road and rail routes in the Victorian period. Buildings survive from all key phases of development and retain the juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses which occurred in the area historically.

3.15 Many of the alleys and yard spaces around Clerkenwell Green, St John’s Square and Saffron Hill, labelled with the same names on Rocque’s map of 1747 (Fig. 3-1 above), survived the substantial redevelopment of the area in the Victorian period. The buildings in those historic places are varied in character, quality and period but retain a smaller grain and intimate and informal spatial quality set off from the main Victorian thoroughfares. There are also large single sites in the locality which are as historic as those small spaces. Northwest of the Appeal Site, the huge Mount Pleasant Sorting Office site occupies the Coldbath Fields Prison site (also called Clerkenwell Gaol) which was established there in the 17th century and rebuilt with a substantial building and grounds in the 18th century, well before the Victorian redevelopment of the area. Further south, the Victorian market buildings at Smithfield were erected on a site which housed a livestock market on the site since the Middle Ages.

29 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-6: Coldbath Fields prison, from north-west, c. 1810, with part of the Fleet river in foreground (Survey of London: Volume 47, Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol47/pp22-51 (Ref 1-4))

3.16 A tight co-existence of housing and commerce has characterised both the main and side streets in the area since before the road and rail insertions in the 19th century brought further industry. Networks of alleys, some of which survive, led to yards with workshops at the heart of urban plots enclosed by terraced housing. This is evident on Horwood’s Map of 1799. The reputation of the area around the Appeal Site has also been very mixed historically due to its edge of city location, with spas, a prison and a rubbish dump existing close together at Mount Pleasant in the 18th century. Notoriously, the gentry and slums of Saffron Hill and Hatton Garden formed the setting for many of Charles Dicken’s novels in the early 19th century.

3.17 A mixed scale of development in the area at the turn of the 18th century is also apparent on Horwood’s 1799 map (Fig 2). Terraced houses form the main building type, especially to the northeast of Coppice Row (which became Farringdon Road), but to the southwest of that route, the workshops set within the yard spaces have a larger building footprint than the terraced housing. On Coppice Row itself, opposite the Site, there is a large building marked ‘Clerkenwell Workhouse’ and other large building forms indicated on Baker’s Row. The Clerkenwell Workhouse was a broad fronted, 4-5 storey brick building erected before the end of the 18th century.

30 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-7: Clerkenwell Workhouse 1790-1883 (Survey of London: Volume 47, Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey- london/vol47/pp22-51 (Ref 1-4))

3.18 The substantial redevelopment of the area in the Victorian period increased the scale of development along the primary routes and brought a contrast of character between the new thoroughfares and the historic side streets. The Victorian interventions remain the most evident period of change within the area. Whilst Farringdon Road loosely followed the line of an existing main route (Coppice Row) and had some large buildings fronting the route, Clerkenwell Road and Rosebery Avenue were cut across the historic streetscape and large areas of terraced housing were replaced with new main routes fronted by new commercial and civic buildings of an appropriately Metropolitan scale. The Metropolitan Railway was inserted at the same time and opened new broad views along its route and a new urban scale and character of development appropriate to the breadth of its course and the significant commercial opportunity arising from the improved transport connections.

31 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-8: Farringdon Road and the Metropolitan Railway, Looking north from Turnmill Street, 1868 (Survey of London: Volume 47, Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384 (Ref 1-4))

3.19 Victorian commercial showroom and warehouse buildings remain a key positive characteristic of Farringdon Road and are similar to other buildings of this type and period elsewhere in Clerkenwell. Warehouses, showrooms, offices and factories were erected on Farringdon Road in the late 19th century, many to do with the printing trade and other specific purposes, and some speculative commercial buildings anticipating demand resulting from the improved transportation links in the area. These Victorian commercial buildings are characterised by a vertical emphasis, either forming a terrace or comprising a series of bays, with large glazed fronts for shops or show rooms at ground and ornamented street elevations above. A distinctive group of these appears prominently above the rail cutting close to Farringdon Station on Farringdon Road, including 109-111 Farringdon Road. A single development comprising a terrace of uniform units exists opposite the site at 143-157 Farringdon Road (Alfred Waterman, 1894-7).

32 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-9: Farringdon Road beside rail cutting, 2017

Fig 3-10: Nos 143–157 Farringdon Road, 2017. Alfred Waterman, 1894–7

3.20 Also during the late 19th century period, and following the insertion of the railway line, smaller scale terraced houses and shops were erected on long leases on

33 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof railway land, some of which survive (at 96–104 Farringdon Road, just north of the Site, and 116–152 Farringdon Road, further north). However, the main Victorian routes remained characterised by industry into the early 20th century. The Survey of London notes that: “By the First World War, Farringdon Road was well established as a centre of specialized trades and industries, including printing and engraving, jewellery, scientific and technical manufacturing, engineering and other metal trades, chemicals and medicine. […] The mixed character of the road, similar to that of other main roads through Clerkenwell such as Clerkenwell Road and Pentonville Road, remained until recent years, since when a number of buildings have been converted or redeveloped for office or residential use.” (http://www.british- history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384 (Ref 1-3)).

Fig 3-11: Nos 96–104 Farringdon Road, 2017. Rowland Plumbe, architect, 1872–3

34 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-12: Nos 116–152 Farringdon Road, 2017. Walter William Wheeler, 1874–5.

3.21 Social housing blocks were also a significant aspect of the area in the 18th and 19th century, but these were largely demolished and replaced with commercial development in the late 19th century and 20th century. The 18th century Clerkenwell Workhouse opposite the Appeal Site was replaced by the Alfred Waterman commercial buildings erected in 1894-7. To its south, the ‘Corporation Buildings (Industrial Dwellings)’ marked on the OS map of 1871 and illustrated below were replaced by the Guardian Headquarters in the late 20th century (a building originally designed by EPR as a warehouse) and is now under development again. Nos 68- 86 Farringdon Road Buildings, the series of five six storey blocks formerly on the Appeal Site, were erected in the same period, in 1872-4 by the Metropolitan Association for Improving Dwellings of the Industrious Classes. The Victorian Peabody Clerkenwell Estate of apartment blocks on Pear Tree Court survive today.

35 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-13: Corporation Buildings, Farringdon Road (1865, Alfred Allen and Horace Jones) (Survey of London Volume 46 (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey- london/vol46/pp358-384 (Ref 1-3))

Fig 3-14: Nos 68-86 Farringdon Road Buildings in the 1970s. Frederic Chancellor, architect, 1872–4. Demolished (Survey of London Volume 47 (http://www.british- history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384, Fig 518 (Ref 1-4))

36 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-15: Clerkenwell Estate, Peabody Estate in Pear Tree Court, 2017. Henry Darbishire, 1884.

3.22 The scale of residential buildings in the area generally increased in the 19th and 20th centuries through different social improvement programmes entailing the replacement of terraced housing with apartment blocks. In that respect the 1980s terrace of houses to the east of the site, at Catherine Griffiths Court, is unusual, although with no heritage or aesthetic value. In the 1930s the terraced streets east of the Appeal Site were cleared and the Finsbury Health Centre, now Grade I Listed, inserted. In plan, design character and materials, it formed a significant departure from the built form around it. Only part of the gardens envisaged for the Grade I listed building’s setting were realised and the rest of the area developed with 37 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof warehouses, commercial buildings and residential blocks over the course of the 20th century. None of these buildings have special architectural or historic interest.

Fig 3-16 Aerial view of the Finsbury Health Centre, looking east and including terraced houses to its east before their demolition (The Architects Journal, 12 January 1939, p.48)

38 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-17: Catherine Griffiths Court, west side, 2017. LBI Department of Architecture, 1987.

3.23 A number of high quality civic and residential buildings were erected along Rosebery Avenue, constructed slightly later than Farringdon Road and Clerkenwell Road, however due to the route of that road and the substantial scale of development along it, there is very little visual relationship with the Appeal Site except at the main junction at the brow of the hill next to the Mount Pleasant site. The distinctive red brick fire station with tall chimneys at the junction of Rosebery Avenue and Farringdon Road was rebuilt in 1912-17 and is now Grade II Listed.

3.24 Apart from the Clerkenwell Fire Station and Finsbury Health Centre, 20th century development in the area has been largely commercial and of a more mixed design character and quality than in the Victorian period. The substantial new complex of buildings on the Mount Pleasant Sorting Office Site (labelled Postal Telegraph Factory on the OS Map of 1894), formerly the Clerkenwell Gaol site, have no design merit and will be fully redeveloped as part of a residential led development comprising ten blocks of up to 15 storeys designed by world class architects AHMM, Allies and Morrison, Feilden Clegg Bradley and Wilkinson Eyre consented in 2014.

Fig. 3-18: The boundary of the Mount Pleasant Development in relation to surrounding conservation areas, with the Appeal Site circled

39 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-19: Aerial view of consented scheme at Mount Pleasant, with the Appeal Site ringed

3.25 To the south of the car park on the Appeal Site, and within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, is Kamen House (62-66 Farringdon Road) (2000, Campbell Conroy Hickey architects) (Fig. 3-21): it has a dichotomous form, neither half of which sits comfortably in the streetscape.

3.26 Opposite Kamen House, and also within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, the Guardian Headquarters (119 Farringdon Road) is presently being redeveloped with a 5-7 storey building which contains offices, affordable workspace, hospitality and retail. It will be a modern reinterpretation of the Victorian showroom building by award winning architects AHMM (Figs. 3-19-20). The Officer’s Report to the Planning Committee (19 January 2015) for that scheme (application number P2015/4143/FUL) notes that “Farringdon Road has a rich context of Victorian warehouse buildings with varying degrees of scale, height and ornamentation” (para 11.25) and that the AHMM “design concept has a rich aesthetic and is considered to successfully reference the existing context” (paragraph 11.25).

3.27 Further north and outside of the Conservation Area, the award winning (RIBA Design Award 2005) Gazzano House (167-169 Farringdon Road) is by Amin Taha (2005), and faced in rich red Cor-Ten steel (Fig. 3-22).

40 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-20: Farringdon Road view of site of former Guardian Headquarters (119 Farringdon Road) by AHMM, located in the Clerkenwell Green CA, diametrically opposite the Appeal Site further down the street on the right (not visible): https://www.ahmm.co.uk/projectDetails/178/119-Farringdon-Road

41 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-21: Rear view of 119 Farringdon Road by AHMM, located in the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, with Farringdon Road beyond: https://www.ahmm.co.uk/projectDetails/178/119-Farringdon-Road

Fig 3-22: 62-66 Farringdon Road (Kamen House), 2017. Campbell Conroy Hickey, 2000, located south of the Appeal Site (just visible to left).

42 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-23: 167-169 Farringdon Road (Gazzano House), 2017. Amin Taha, 2005.

3.28 Due to the rising topography of the area, the scale of development along the main routes and the enclosed character of the historic alleys and spaces set off the main roads, the Appeal Site and Appeal Scheme have little visibility within its context. The Appeal Scheme will largely be experienced on Farringdon Road and near to the Finsbury Health Centre and Spa Fields to the east.

Designated Heritage Assets

Conservation Areas

3.29 The Appeal Site is adjacent to two Islington Conservation Areas and much of the context described above is within those areas. The following paragraphs describe the character and appearance of each Conservation Area in order to establish the key aspects of significance and which parts may be affected by the Appeal Scheme.

43 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-24: Map of Conservation Areas

Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area

3.30 The Site is located adjacent to the north of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area (Fig 23), which was first designated by LBI in November 1968 and extended twice in 1977 and 1996. A brief summary of the significance of the Area is included in the Conservation Area Leaflet (LBI, November 2006) [CD 8.14.1] and in the Design Guidelines for Clerkenwell Green, Charterhouse Square and Hat and Feathers Conservation Areas (LBI, undated) [CD 8.14.1]. The Design Guidelines for the Area state that “the fabric of the area derives from incremental development from Norman times to the present day, with surviving examples of buildings from nine centuries. The character of the area also depends on its great variety of uses including specialist manufacturing, workshops, wholesaling and retailing activities. The juxtaposition of different activities, cheek by jowl, sets Clerkenwell and Smithfield apart from more homogenous business and residential areas” (CD 8.14.1, para 1.3).

44 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.31 Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area has a rich history, with many listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. As a result of its close proximity to the City of London, Clerkenwell was occupied as early as the Norman Conquest. Two religious houses, the Priory of St John of Jerusalem, known as the Knights Hospitallers, and a Benedictine nunnery dedicated to St Mary, were both founded in 1144. The land for the nunnery and priory were granted by the Lord of Clerkenwell Manor and remained in the hands of the Church until the dissolution in the 16th century. Following the Dissolution many of the precinct buildings were converted into mansions and state apartments and new houses were constructed. The area remained largely residential throughout the 17th and early 18th centuries, with the older buildings gradually extended or replaced. A trend towards light industrial and commercial use intensified through the 19th century with the replacement of many of the terraced houses with larger workshops and small factories.

3.32 The Victorian era brought substantial change to the area with the insertion of new rail and road routes. Farringdon Road and the Metropolitan Rail Line were inserted just west of Clerkenwell Green in the mid 19th century. In 1874-78, Clerkenwell Road was laid out as part of a new arterial route, bisecting St Johns Square, and the new road became lined with Victorian buildings, many of which were warehouses and factories. Parts of these Victorian routes are included in the Conservation Area and substantially influenced the evolution of building types and uses in the area.

3.33 The core of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area’s significance lies in these aspects:

• yard and court spaces, alleys and buildings which predate the Victorian era – around the Green, St John’s Square and Britton Street, where some former 18th century houses and workshops survive; • a range of building periods evidencing nine centuries of development; • structures with particular historic interest, including the Grade II* listed St James Church (1792), the Scheduled Ancient Monument of the Benedictine nunnery of St Mary Clerkenwell and the Grade I Priory Church of St John of Jerusalem; and • a mix of commercial, light industrial and residential uses.

3.34 Although the area survived relatively unscathed by bomb damage, the changing economy of Britain saw the inner city area in decline through the 1960s and by the 1970s there were many vacant or derelict plots. Following the conservation area 45 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

designation in 1968, regeneration began to take place and – as in previous centuries – new industries have moved into the area and residences and business continue to exist side by side. In recent decades, a community of media, design and architectural businesses has established itself in the area. This has brought further change in character and also the opportunity to enhance the parts of special interest through sensitive redevelopment and refurbishment.

3.35 The Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area Leaflet [CD 8.14.1] sets out a number of design policies including the encouragement of redevelopment of poorly design post-war buildings and resistance to large scale redevelopment. It states that “the Council will normally require the use of traditional materials, but the Council will also encourage good modern design and the sensitive use of high quality modern materials where appropriate” (LBI, November 2006). This accords with NPPF [CD 8.18] and PPG [CD 8.19] advice relating to new development and heritage assets.

3.36 The sensitivity of the small scale parts of the area are high due to their significant historic value. Where the small yards spaces survive but much of the development around them is modern (around Eagle Court for example), the sensitivity to change is also high.

3.37 The main routes of Farringdon Road and Clerkenwell Road have a larger urban grain and a more mixed quality of character which is less sensitive to change. The Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area includes the former Guardian building which is now being redeveloped with a scheme which takes its design cues from the Victorian warehouse and showroom buildings distinctive to the main routes in Clerkenwell.

3.38 The Appeal Site is not visible on and around Clerkenwell Green itself or any of the streets east of Farringdon Road and the rail lines. It is only visible from the western part of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, on Farringdon Road and Bowling Green Lane, where there is a larger scale of buildings than elsewhere in the Area and predominantly 19th and 20th century development following the cutting through of the railway line and slum clearance initiatives.

Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area

3.39 The Appeal Site is also located adjacent to the south of the Rosebery Conservation Area. The Rosebery Conservation Area was designated much later than the

46 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Clerkenwell Conservation Area, in 1992, and is centred on the south-western end of Rosebery Avenue at the junction with Farringdon Road.

3.40 The Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area consists of two key aspects of significance: Rosebery Avenue and Exmouth Market.

3.41 Rosebery Avenue was cut diagonally across the much older pre-existing street pattern in 1896 and has a particular character today deriving from the sweeping route of the road, the mature Plane trees which heavily obscure views along it and a number of high quality, large, red brick late Victorian and Edwardian residential and civic buildings which line it. The streetscape of Rosebery Avenue is large scale, robust and well-defined, with activity at street level and a roof line articulated by pinnacles and gables. The prevailing material along Rosebery Avenue is brick, generally red, with stone or terracotta dressings. The buildings are substantial, predominantly four to six-storey public buildings and municipal housing developments, including Finsbury Square Buildings (1891), Barnstaple Mansions (1892), Clerkenwell Fire Station (1917) and Finsbury Town Hall (1895). The Design Guidelines refer to the impressive rooflines of the residential blocks and their “fine metropolitan scale” (CD 8.14.2, para 34.2, LBI, 2010).

3.42 Exmouth Market is older, established in 1840, and remains lined with narrow fronted, terraced, three storey 18th and 19th century houses with shops at ground level. It also includes the notably larger Church of the Holy Redeemer (1887-1895, Grade II* Listed). In contrast to Rosebery Avenue, it is a narrow street lined with finer grain, much smaller scale, late 18th and early 19th century narrow fronted terraces with shops and restaurants at ground level. Where Rosebery Avenue crosses the western end of the much narrower Exmouth Market, an open space has been created.

3.43 Exceptions to these two sub-areas are the Finsbury Health Centre (Grade I Listed) and the Mount Pleasant Sorting Office Site (which alone comprises a substantial part of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area).

3.44 LBI Design Guidelines for the Area [CD 8.14.2] note that the Mount Pleasant site is “a major feature” of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area but also that none of the structures on it merit retention and that appropriate redevelopment would be acceptable (CD 8.14.2, para 34.8, LBI, 2010); redevelopment plans were approved in 2014 (described and pictured above at paragraph 3.24 and Figures 3.18-19).

47 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.45 The Design Guidelines [CD 8.14.2] do not describe the Grade I Listed Finsbury Health Centre. In plan form and materials, this building is almost as radical as the local Victorian interventions, although the adjacent routes of Pine Street and Northampton Road were respected. Whilst the architecture of the Health Centre is unique to the Area, the building’s key role in a local history of social improvement programmes contributes to the Area’s significance and its exceptional design quality and materiality are in acute contrast to the 1980s brick car park on the Appeal Site and adjacent terrace, both which were are excluded from the Conservation Area.

3.46 The significance of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area overall lies mainly in the two areas of Rosebery Avenue and Exmouth Market and in the distinct contrast between those sub-areas. While late 18th and early 19th century buildings survive on Exmouth Market, the buildings lining Farringdon Road and Rosebery Avenue date mainly from the period following construction of those roads from 1868 onwards, with some later rebuilding and infilling.

3.47 The townscape quality of the conservation area is generally good. It has a recognisable townscape structure, features and buildings worthy of conservation, and a distinct sense of place. The sub-area of Exmouth Market is considered to be most sensitive to change due to the small scale and intact character of the street. Rosebery Avenue and the adjacent vast Mount Pleasant Site are less sensitive to change due to the scale and mixed quality of development there.

3.48 The diagonal route of Rosebery Avenue and rising topography of the area means that the Appeal Site is only visible along Farringdon Road and its junction with Rosebery Avenue and from the immediate context close to the Finsbury Health Centre. It is not seen from the rest of Rosebery Avenue or Exmouth Market, which are the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area’s core significance.

Listed Buildings

3.49 Nine listed buildings in the area surrounding the Appeal Site were selected for assessment in the 2015 THVIA due to their proximity to the Appeal Site and possible effects on their significance as a result. The descriptions of the listed buildings and their significance in the following paragraphs is based on the assessment in the 2015 THVIA. It should be noted that the Reasons for Refusal [CD 4.6] do not make reference to any effects on the significance of listed buildings.

48 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-25: Map of Listed and Locally Listed Buildings

1. Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works (16-16A Bowling Green Lane) – Grade II 2. 34 Farringdon Lane – Grade II 3. Cattle Trough – Grade II 4. 109 and 111 Farringdon Road – Grade II 5. Nos. 113-117 Farringdon Road and attached railings – Grade II 6. Clerkenwell Fire Station (42-44 Rosebery Avenue)– Grade II 7. Quality Chop House (94 Farringdon Road)– Grade II 8. Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, Clergy House, Campanile and Parish Hall – Grade II* 9. Finsbury Health Centre – Grade I 10. Former Bowling Green Lane Board School (10 Bowling Green Lane) – Grade II 11. 2 Exmouth Market/102 Farringdon Road 12. 17 Bowling Green Lane 13. 159 Farringdon Road (The Eagle) 14. 60 Farringdon Road 15. 58 Farringdon Road/4-6 Pear Tree Court 16. 54 Farringdon Road 17. 56 Farringdon Road

49 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-26: Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works (16-16A Bowling Green Lane) – Grade II 3.50 This former warehouse and factory for the Enterprise Printing Machine Works dates from 1877 and was built by Edward Walker for William Notting, type-founder and printing engineer. The building is constructed in buff stock brick, red brick decorative banding and terracotta dressings. It is four storeys high and the principal elevation to Bowling Green Lane is seven windows wide. The elevation is symmetrical with segmental arched openings and central carriage-way which formerly led to stables. The simple iron columns and timber floors are also of interest.

3.51 The significance of the Former Notting Warehouse lies in its special architectural and historic interest. It has special architectural interest due to the high design quality of its street elevation. It has historic interest as an example of the industrial and commercial building types which followed the substantial Victorian development of transport routes in the area. It also has historic value for its association with Notting, a prominent member of the London printing trade. He bought this site in 1877 to build a warehouse with stabling, cart house and meeting house.

3.52 Its close setting has always been mixed in character and quality. Victorian social housing blocks and terraced slums existing to the north originally and the tenements on the Appeal Site were contemporary with this warehouse. The car park now on Site and late 20th century terrace on Catherine Griffiths Court are situated close to the Former Notting Warehouse and make no contribution to its special interest; they detract from its setting through the low quality of their design. Warehouse and 50 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

commercial buildings from the same late 19th century period in the locality make a small contribution to the building’s significance.

Fig 3-27: 34 Farringdon Lane – Grade II

3.53 This former warehouse and showroom, now offices, date from 1875 and designed in an elaborate Gothic Revival style by Rowland Plumbe for John Greenwood, a watch and clock manufacturer and importer. It is constructed in beige stock brick with rubbed red brick, stucco and painted Bath and Portland stone dressings. It is four storeys with basement and attic and five windows wide to Farringdon Lane. The principal elevation is richly decorated with pointed arched windows, a tall central gable, roundel clock and carvings of hour glasses and sundials.

3.54 The building has significance as one of few Gothic warehouses in the Farringdon Road area and an important survival of the local clock-making and watch-making industry, of which there are few extant examples. It has a very highly decorated street elevation including a clock set within its central gable which have special architectural interest. It also has historic interest for its association with Plumb, a well-known architect also responsible for housing work at Noel Park.

51 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.55 The primary setting of 34 Farringdon Lane is the rail cutting and Farringdon Road which it addresses, both of which are contemporary with the warehouse. Commercial buildings dating to the same period and with embellished street elevations are notable on the opposite (west) side of Farringdon Road and there are further examples of this building type elsewhere in Clerkenwell, although the Gothic style and detail of the ornamentation on this building is unusual. These other Victorian commercial buildings nearby contribute to the significance of this former warehouse at 34 Farringdon Lane due to their group and townscape value as a distinct phase of development in the area, contemporary with the prestigious new route which they addressed. The Appeal Site is not visible from within its setting and makes no contribution to its significance.

Fig 3-28: Cattle Trough – Grade II

3.56 This drinking fountain and horse trough date from 1886 and are made from granite. The inscription reads 'Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association'. The trough is significant for its special historic interest as surviving Victorian street furniture created for Farringdon Road, a major infrastructure project of the period.

3.57 The primary setting of the trough is Farringdon Road and the rail route. However, their designs are not site specific or related to the character and materials of other development from this period. The Appeal Site is not seen from within its close context and makes no contribution to its significance.

52 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-29: 109 and 111 Farringdon Road – Grade II

3.58 This former printing warehouse was constructed by Henry Jarvis for William Dickes, a chromolithographer, in 1864-1865. It is designed in a fine Venetian Gothic Style and is five storeys and six bays wide. It is clad in red brick with painted stone dressings and extensive glazing. The pointed-arched windows diminish in size up the elevation and are variously two and three lights separated by colonnettes.

3.59 The main aspect of the building’s significance is the high quality design of its street elevation on Farringdon Road. It also has historic interest as one of a distinctive type of Victorian development which followed the insertion of the Metropolitan rail line, Farringdon Road and Clerkenwell Road.

3.60 The primary setting of 109-111 Farringdon Road is the rail cutting and Farringdon Road which it addresses. It was built soon after the construction of these new Victorian routes and they contribute to the listed building’s significance. The Gothic style of 34 Farringdon Lane, on the opposite side of the rail line, and other commercial buildings from this period in the area contribute to its significance. The Appeal Site is seen obliquely in views looking past this listed building on parts of

53 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Farringdon Road. It is a distant element of the broader mixed quality townscape and does not contribute to the significance of 109-111 Farringdon Road.

Fig 3-30: 113-117 Farringdon Road and attached railings – Grade II

3.61 113-117 Farringdon Road was constructed in two separate phases, the front block to Farringdon Road in 1864-1865 and the rear block to Ray Street in c.1875-1876. They were designed in an Italianate style by Arding and Bond for J and R M Wood (front block) and for V and J Figgins (rear block), both type-founders. Both blocks are six storeys high and constructed in buff brick with spare use of stone dressings. Wood closed in 1872 and was bought out by Figgins, who commissioned the later rear block.

3.62 The front block is one of the earliest surviving buildings on the Farringdon Road. Both blocks survive almost intact. Their significance derives from their special architectural and historic interest. They have special architectural interest due to the high quality design of their street elevations. They have special historic interest as buildings designed for the typefounding industry.

3.63 The primary context of Farringdon Road and the rail route contribute to the listed building’s significance. It is contemporary with these routes and their breadth allows long views of the building fronts on this part of the road. Buildings in the locality from the same Victorian period also make a contribution to its significance through its setting. As for the adjacent listed building, the Appeal Site is seen obliquely in views looking past 113-117 Farringdon Road on parts of Farringdon Road. It is a distant element of the broader mixed quality townscape and does not contribute to the significance of 113-117 Farringdon Road.

54 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-31: Clerkenwell Fire Station (42-44 Rosebery Avenue) – Grade II

3.64 The first Clerkenwell fire station, which stood on the same corner site, was built in 1871-3. From the 1890s, Clerkenwell became the superintendent's station for the central district, one of the most important in London. Although the fire station was extended in 1912-14 it soon became inadequate and reconstruction of the older parts in a unified design was completed in 1917, designed by HFT Cooper of the Fire Brigade Branch of the London County Council Architects' Department. The fire station is at the lower floors with quarters for the superintendent on the second floor and flats for married men on the upper floors. HFT Cooper used a restrained Arts and Crafts style for the building, which is four storeys plus two attic storeys in the steep pitched roof. It is constructed in red brick and Portland stone.

3.65 The listing citation for Clerkenwell Fire Station identifies the following key aspects of the building’s significance as follows:

• “It ranks among some of the best examples of a remarkable group of fire stations built by the LCC between 1900-1914, which are widely admired as being the among the most accomplished civic buildings produced by the renowned LCC Architects' Division in this rich and prolific period; • The elevations and massing are well-composed, responding well to the prominent corner site;

55 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

• It exhibits the quality of materials and attention to detail which are the hallmarks of LCC design, and is virtually intact externally.” (https://historicengland.org.uk/ listing/the-list/)

3.66 The Fire Station is situated at a junction which has an open character and set on higher ground, providing a visually prominent position. The scale and design of the building responds to that corner position and its siting therefore contributes to its significance. The other large, red brick buildings on Rosebery Avenue, several of which serve public functions, contribute to the Fire Station’s significance through its setting. The Appeal Site forms part of the mixed townscape of its wider setting and makes no contribution to its significance.

Fig 3-32: 88-94 Farringdon Road (Quality Chop House) – Grade II

3.67 This terraced house dates from the 1890s and was designed by Roland Plumber. The ground floor restaurant dates from the early 20th century. The building is constructed in buff brick with red brick decoration and Corinthian pilasters between the windows. The shop front has a central mahogany door and large windows either side sub-divided by glazing bars and signs reading 'Quick Service' 'London's noted cup of Tea', 'civility', 'snacks', 'Progressive Working Class Caterers' and 'Best Quality'. The interiors are well preserved and include oak benches and tables, timber panelling and decorative tin panels.

3.68 The primary significance of the Quality Chop House lies in its ground floor restaurant frontage and internal fittings. The upper levels are of the same design as the adjacent, unlisted, buildings, all of which were built together in the late 19th century and have which positive townscape character. However, the core of the listed 56 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

building’s significance is formed by the design features relating to the former Chop House use.

3.69 The setting of the Quality Chop House contributes to its significance insofar as other buildings of the same period also serve as reminders of the light industry and working class population which characterised the area in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Appeal Site makes no contribution to the significance of this building.

Fig 3-33 Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, Clergy House, Campanile and Parish Hall – Grade II*

3.70 The Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer was designed and built by church architect John Dando Sedding in 1887-1888 and completed by his assistant Henry Wilson in 1892-1895, following Sedding’s death in 1891. The clergy house, parish hall, campanile and Lady Chapel were built in 1894-1906 and the Chapel of All Souls added in 1921, also by Wilson. The church is distinctive for its Italian Renaissance style, ornamentation and polychrome brickwork. The subsidiary buildings are Italian Romanesque. They are in the same buff stock brick as the Church and cut rubbed red brick and tiled dressings and round arched openings. The main frontage of the Church is on Exmouth Market. It has a round arched doorway at ground level, a 57 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

stone cornice at mid-level with frieze in giant letters beneath, a level with brick banding above with wheel window at centre and giant pediment above with wide projecting eaves and relief carving. More detail on the external and internal features of the group are provided in the listing citation.

3.71 The listing citation sets out the following key aspects of the buildings’ significance: “This church is of outstanding importance as an example of the late C19 reaction against High Victorian Gothic. Sedding accomplished this by using the pure Italian Renaissance style. In doing so, he not only created a ‘monument to the Aestheticism of the late Victorian Anglo-Catholics’, but made the church look Roman Catholic. Wilson’s work to the church is particularly fine; and his interesting subsidiary buildings (parish -hall, clergy-house, and especially the campanile) flanking the front façade are extremely clever and idiosyncratic. This complex was built in the heart of a significant Italian community. These buildings form a remarkable group.”

3.72 The primary setting of the Church group is Exmouth Market, where the giant aspects of the design of the main frontage of the Church accentuate its dominance within the small scale streetscape and the small windows and slender masses of the adjacent Clergy House and campanile respond to the proportions and modest character of the narrow-fronted brick terraces lining the street. The body of the Church extends substantially south into Spa Fields. The banded brickwork of the south elevation and giant eaves of the pitched roof are prominent in views within Spa Fields, however it is very much a rear elevation with no fenestration or decoration other than the brick banding. The long east elevation, also prominent in the park, has a more jumbled mass, with the large wheel windows and long pitched roof at the top of the Church visible above the adjacent building. The OS Map of 1894 (Fig 3-4) shows that this adjacent space was much smaller when the church was built and is labelled as ‘Spa Fields Play Ground’. The open space contributes to the visual prominence of the Church locally and allows appreciation of its form in much longer views than are available on Exmouth Market. However, the streetscape of Exmouth Market forms the primary aspect of its setting and contributes to the architectural and historic significance of the group. The existing building on the Appeal Site is not visible in relation to the Church group and makes no contribution to its significance.

58 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-34: Finsbury Health Centre – Grade I (partial view of entrance elevation and south wing)

3.73 The Finsbury Health Centre was designed by Berthold Lubetkin and the Tecton group in 1935-1938. It is constructed in reinforced concrete partially clad with faience tiles and asbestos panels, glass brick screens, brass and copper detailing and metal windows. The building has an ‘H’ shaped plan, with splayed shanks, and is two storeys tall with basement and roof terrace. The central entrance is approached by straight ceremonial ramp. The interior is also of interest and includes several murals. The Health Centre was designed to be the centrepiece of the 'Finsbury Plan', which was overtaken by other redevelopment plans after WWII.

3.74 The listing citation sets out the following key aspects of the building’s significance:

• The centre was meant to centralise and improve various healthcare projects that had evolved piecemeal in the borough; it is a vestigial element of this pioneering scheme. • It was designed by Lubetkin and Tecton after the practice had already established a reputation for carefully thought-out responses to social needs. • The building clearly displays Lubetkin's rational thought, constructivist and classical training, deeply social beliefs and the role he believed architecture could play in the creation of a new society. • It marks the culmination of the firm's most creative period of work. • Finsbury Health Centre is the finest monument to nascent clinical provision in Britain and a brilliant piece of planning; it is very important for its break with the

59 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

tradition of municipal architecture, its flexible plan and up-to-date construction techniques. • It was viewed as the prototype on a national level for modern construction and communal architecture such as NHS clinics, and health and treatment centres.” (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/) 3.75 The setting originally envisaged for the Finsbury Health Centre was never realised due to issues relating to land ownership and the outbreak of WWII soon after the building’s construction. Spa Fields forms one part of the gardens which were intended to surround the building. The park is situated partly on the former burial ground of the Church of the Holy Redeemer and partly on land occupied by terraced houses prior to the insertion of Health Centre. The cleared open landscaped space of the park formed part of the setting originally conceived for the Health Centre and thereby contributes to its significance. Other parts of the Health Centre’s setting make no evident contribution to its significance: the buildings on Northampton Road, Catherine Griffiths Court and Pine Street were largely erected over the course of the 20th century and are of a mixed character of design and scale with no heritage value or evident visual or other relationship to the Health Centre. The Appeal Site is little seen within its setting due to the intervening 1980s terrace of houses on Catherine Griffiths Court. The 1980s terrace is stylistically divergent form the Health Centre and contributes negatively to the Grade I Listed building’s setting through its low design quality. The Health Centre was a radical architectural intervention at its conception – built on land cleared of slums and, in plan and materials, like no other building in its context or even of its functional type in the wider area. A key part of its exceptional significance is its unique and pioneering design. None of the historic and modern buildings within its setting contribute to its significance.

60 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-35: Former Bowling Green Lane Board School (10 Bowling Green Lane) – Grade II

3.76 This former London Board School dates from 1874 and was designed in a Queen Anne style by E. R. Robson of the Architects Department of the London School Board probably in collaboration with J. J. Stevenson. The school is roughly ‘H’- shaped in plan with the longer wings parallel to Bowling Green Lane forming a symmetrical front. It is two storeys and constructed in brown stock brick with red brick and stone dressings. The elevation to Bowling Green Lane is seven windows wide and has twin gables over the second and sixth bays and stone tablets reading 'Bowling Green Lane School 1874'. The interior is also of interest and has undergone only minor alterations.

3.77 The significance of the listed building lies in the high quality of its design, particularly in relation to other London Board Schools, and its association with notable architects. It is an example of a London Board School from E R Robson's famous early period. Architect J J Stevenson was also reportedly involved in the designs.

3.78 The London Board School was built just after the insertion of Farringdon Road and is contemporary with a number of surviving commercial buildings in the area, some of which have similar design details and materials and make a small contribution to its significance. The apartment blocks and terraces in the area which housed the local population when the school was built have been almost entirely replaced. The buildings within its close setting are now largely commercial and 20th century and make no contribution to its significance. The south end of the Appeal Site is seen 61 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

obliquely from close to the School, it has little visible presence and makes no contribution to the School’s significance.

Locally Listed Buildings

3.79 In addition to the listed buildings in the area surrounding the Appeal Site, there are a number of locally listed buildings which are described in the following paragraphs. They are undesignated heritage assets and none would be directly affected by the proposals. They have therefore been considered briefly and in proportion to their value and the impacts of the proposals, in accordance with the NPPF [CD 8.18]. It should be noted that the Reasons for Refusal [CD 4.6] do not make reference to effects on the significance of locally listed buildings.

Fig 3-36: 2 Exmouth Market/102 Farringdon Road

3.80 This locally listed building turns the corner of Farringdon Road at Exmouth Market. It has an attractive design – with a curved elevation, arched window headers and brick banding at upper levels and Corinthian columns with tiled base at ground level. It occupies a prominent corner site and relates in design and materials to the terrace adjacent on Farringdon Road. It has aesthetic and townscape value for its design and complementary relationship with its immediate neighbours. It also has historic interest for its contemporary association with the Farringdon Road which forms its primary address. The Appeal Site is seen obliquely from within its setting. It makes

62 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

no contribution to the locally listed building’s significance.

Fig 3-37: 17 Bowling Green Lane

3.81 17 Bowling Green Lane is situated within the courtyard space east of the Grade II Listed 16 Bowling Green Lane. Historically, the surviving large central carriageway of the listed building led to a covered yard with coach houses and stabling. Architects Campbell Zogolovitch Wilkinson Gough (CZWG) bought the site in the late 1980s and adapted the courtyard structure with a new north rooflight and postmodern façade including giant twisted columns either side of the main entrance. The building has some architectural and historic interest for the original association with the adjacent listed building and the postmodern frontage which is characteristic of the period and style of world-renowned architectural practice CZWG. The wider setting of the building has some historic interest due to its association with broader phases of development within the area – the construction of warehouses in the late 19th century and the conversion of those types of buildings to design and architectural studios in the late 20th century. The Appeal Site makes no contribution to the building’s significance.

63 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-38: 159 Farringdon Road (The Eagle)

3.82 159 Farringdon Road is three storeys, with two storeys of simply ornamented red and stock brick above and a painted timber shop front at ground. It has a chamfered corner addressing Baker’s Row and a small painted stone balcony below the upper level window. It was built on the site of the former Golden Anchor pub on Coppice Row before Farringdon Road was cut through, in 1889-90. It has some aesthetic value for the design of its street elevations and historic value for the continued siting of a pub in this location since the early 19th century. 3.83 The adjacent building to the north has the same parapet height but is of low design quality and detracts from its immediate setting. Opposite, the car park on the Appeal Site has similar coloured brickwork but it is crudely applied and also detracts from the setting of the pub through its low quality and over-scaled design features. The chamfered corner and stock brickwork of the late Victorian commercial building at No.155, on the south side of Baker’s Row, forms a more positive aspect of its setting, although that building is much taller. The primary positive aspect of the locally listed building’s setting is the Farringdon Road which it addresses.

64 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-39: 60 Farringdon Road 3.84 60 Farringdon Road is described in the Survey of London as a Georgian styled building erected in 1875 as a wheel and coach works and remained in manufacturing use until the late 20th century (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey- london/vol46/pp358-384, (Ref 1-3)). It was converted to a visitor centre and offices for the Guardian in 2002. It has a broad and symmetrical frontage on Farringdon Road, predominantly stock brick, and has been remodelled. The building has some limited aesthetic value for its main frontage and historic value for its former manufacturing purpose and period of construction, contemporary with the adjacent rail lines and insertion of Farringdon Road. 60 Farringdon Road is visible in relation to the Appeal Site in views along Farringdon Road, however its immediate context is dominated by the 7 storey Kamen House, situated between it and the Appeal Site. The Appeal Site does not contribute to the significance of this locally listed building.

65 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-40: 58 Farringdon Road/4-6 Pear Tree Court

3.85 58 Farringdon Road is described in the Survey of London as “white brick, in a round- arched, Italianate style, was erected 1883-4 as an ice factory for the short-lived Vacuum Pump and Ice Machine Co. Ltd. The builder was John Grover of Wilton Works” (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384 (Ref 1-3)). Like the adjacent building at No.60, No.58 has some limited aesthetic value for its street elevations and historic value for its former manufacturing purpose and period of construction, contemporary with the adjacent rail lines and insertion of Farringdon Road. 58 Farringdon Road is visible in relation to the Appeal Site in oblique views along Farringdon Road. The Appeal Site does not contribute to the significance of this locally listed building.

66 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 3-41: 54 and 56 Farringdon Road

3.86 54 and 56 Farringdon Road are two separate buildings designed and built together in 1874-5 as a warehouse and pub. The Survey of London notes that the pub was originally called the Butchers’ Arms. Now it is the Betsey Trotwood. They were built for John Earley Cook of Knowle Hill, Cobham (http://www.british- history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384(Ref 1-3)). The buildings are prominently sited above the rail line and on an island site between Farringdon Road and Farringdon Lane, however they are modest in scale (3-4 storeys) and character. The storey and parapet levels are consistent across the two buildings. At ground are pub and shop frontages. Two levels above have large window openings with simple stone dressings and are defined by a heavy cornice line. No 54 is brick. No 56 (Betsey Trotwood) has been painted at upper levels and has a dormered roof level with tall brick chimney stacks, the south flank of which is prominent above No.54 in views looking north along Farringdon Road. 3.87 54 and 56 Farringdon Road have some limited aesthetic value for their street elevations and group value for their similar appearance and the definition they bring to the road routes at this junction. They have historic value for their former warehouse purpose and period of construction, contemporary with the adjacent rail lines and insertion of Farringdon Road. They are visible in relation to the Appeal Site in oblique views along Farringdon Road. The Appeal Site does not contribute to their significance.

67 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

3.88 As described in the preceding paragraphs, the existing NCP Car Park on the Appeal Site does not contribute to the significance of any listed or locally listed buildings in the area. Where visible in relation to these heritage assets, the low quality of the design of the car park on the Appeal Site contributes negatively to their setting. The following sections of my proof will consider the appearance of the Appeal Scheme and how its high quality design and materials will enhance the settings of local heritage assets.

Features of Local Importance 3.89 In addition to the listed and locally listed buildings in the area surrounding the Appeal Site, there are buildings identified as ‘features of local importance’ in Appendix 3 (Heritage Assets in Historic Clerkenwell) to the Finsbury Local Plan. Like the locally listed buildings, they are undesignated heritage assets, and none would be directly affected by the proposals. They have therefore been considered briefly and in proportion to their value and the impacts of the proposals, in accordance with the NPPF [CD 8.18]. It should be noted that the Reasons for Refusal [CD 4.6] do not make reference to effects on ‘features of local importance’.

20 Bowling Green Lane

3.90 18-20 Bowling Green Lane was built in 1877-79 and both buildings (18-19 and 20) are likely to be by the same architect. The eastern range (18-19) was fully refaced in the 1960s. No 20 remains largely red and stock brick at upper levels, with broad warehouse window openings; at ground it has been rendered. It was called ‘Enterprise Buildings’ and was first occupied by wholesale stationers in the 1880s (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp54-71). It has limited historic and aesthetic value because of its surviving polychrome brickwork and warehouse style. The pedimented stock and red brick patterning are very similar to the Grade II Listed 16 Bowling Green Lane and there is some limited group value with that listed building. The Appeal Site is opposite the south end of 20 Bowling Green Lane. The car park existing on Site has similar coloured brickwork but does not relate to 20 Bowling Green Lane in any other respect. It does not contribute to the local significance of 20 Bowling Green Lane.

143-157 Farringdon Road

3.91 143-157 Farringdon Road forms a 6 storey terrace of warehouses and was built in 1894-7 by Alfred Waterman. The first occupants included card publishers, ink makers, engravers, cycle manufacturers, stationers and clock importers 68 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp358-384). Each warehouse appears as a bay within a single building, with the same materials and detailed design across its elevations. There are strongly projecting cornices at ground and roof level and vertical divisions of windows within broad openings. The attic level is a later addition. 143-157 Farringdon Road has some historic interest, as part of a broader phase of Victorian development which followed the creation of Farringdon Road, and aesthetic merit for its attractive elevation on Farringdon Road. It has a much plainer return to Baker’s Row. The Appeal Site presently detracts from its setting through its low quality design and does not contribute to its local significance.

159 Farringdon Road

3.92 159 Farringdon Road (The Eagle) is also locally listed and its heritage value is considered at paragraphs 3.80-81 above.

69 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

4.0 Design and Visual Characteristics of the Appeal Scheme

Introduction

4.1 A principal part of my assessment of the visual aspects of the Appeal Scheme is how it appears in the townscape views, which is considered in section 5 of my proof.

4.2 In this section, I will set out briefly the relevant aspects of the design of the Appeal Scheme. The description is based on section 5 of the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16] and on the evidence of Mr Dan Burr [CD 7.1], who describes the evolution of the design in more detail.

Massing

4.3 The Appeal Scheme will fully replace the existing car park building on Site and will comprise six adjoining blocks, arranged as three pairs. The northernmost pair will be five storeys and the southerly two pairs will be six storeys. Each pair will gradually step up in height towards the south and there will be a narrow, vertical element recessed between each block, providing a continuous link and street frontage whilst visually separating each block. The breadth of the overall Site and development will be countered by the vertical character of each block and by the slender vertical folds of the concertina treatment to the elevations above ground.

4.4 The pair of buildings furthest south will accommodate office space and will be visibly differentiated through taller storey levels and greater height overall, and through different, zinc coloured materials. The two pairs of buildings to the north will accommodate hotel space and at ground level, at the north and south ends of the Site, there will be retail space.

4.5 To the rear, each block will step down in height towards the east, allowing sufficient light to enter the building interiors, and gesturing down towards the 2-4 storey terrace set on the parallel street to the east, Catherine Griffiths Court.

4.6 The views assessment shows that the heights of the Appeal Scheme buildings have been conceived to correspond with the heights of the adjacent buildings on Farringdon Road – to the north and south – and to provide a transition between the 3-4 storey Victorian terrace to the north and the 6-7 storey Kamen House to the south. The stepped heights of the hotel and office buildings will respond to the rising level of the street and will help to define the different uses of the buildings and the vertical expression of the individual elements within the overall mass. The views 70 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

show that the massing of the Appeal Scheme will sit comfortably within the existing streetscape, looking north and south along Farringdon Road, and will have little noticeable visibility along side streets and from the open space of Spa Fields.

Detailed design

4.7 As noted in the introduction of my Proof, the LBI Statement of Case [CD 5.1] explains the concern underlying Reason for Refusal 2 [CD 4.6] and makes clear that it relates solely to the detailed design of the Appeal Scheme. It states that:

“4.90 The site is within an area where the prevailing building design comprises masonry buildings with consistent, regular fenestration patterns. Generally, the buildings have larger openings at ground level, with smaller fenestration above; and rich detailing provided by various decoration and relief to their façades.

4.91 The proposed building would not be built using the prevailing contextual materials, but instead would have metal clad elevations at first floor and above. Instead of drawing on the pattern of fenestration or modelling apparent within the more positive aspects of its context, it would have an unusual saw-tooth front elevation with floor to ceiling fenestration. The folds of the metal cladding when viewed from the approaches to the building, would hide the fenestration and would present the building as un-fenestrated blank upper floor elevations above a mostly glazed ground floor. The upper floors would also project over the ground floor resulting in a blocky, top heavy appearance.

4.92 The proposed metal cladding would result in a harsh, non-contextual appearance which due to its sharp, bulky detailed design, would detract from the delicate and refined detailing of the surrounding buildings, including the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Areas and the surrounding designated and undesignated heritage assets. The elevational treatment would be bold and attention grabbing, and would detract from the character of the surrounding heritage assets and the positive aspects of the townscape.

4.93 The design of the external elevations is such that the building would result in the repetition of large scale blocks along a very long frontage, and the scale

71 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

of these is only considered acceptable on the basis of appropriate detailed design and materials to address the richness of detail exhibited by the surrounding buildings. There would be almost no reference to the materials or detailing of the surrounding buildings, and as a result the proposal would have an anonymous, alien appearance.

4.94 However, due to the strong design language presented by the elevations, and the design of the saw tooth cladding, the materials and detailing are not readily separated from the other aspects of the design. It would not be possible to make the materials and detailed design acceptable through refinements which could be secured by planning conditions.

4.95 At the inquiry, the Council will show that the proposed building would not relate sufficiently to the surrounding historic context and adjoining conservation areas, and its inappropriate detailed design and materials would result in an incongruous visual appearance.”

4.8 In summary, LBI claim that the Appeal Scheme “would not relate sufficiently to the surrounding historic context and conservation areas” and would be “inappropriate” and “incongruous” in detailed design and appearance by differing from the character of its context in the following ways:

• Materials (use of metal rather than masonry) • Saw tooth design and fenestration • Projection of upper floors over ground level • Repetition of blocks • Lack of rich detailing

4.9 I will address these points in the following description of the detailed design of the Appeal Scheme.

Materials

4.10 The architects have selected lightweight metal – rather than masonry – for the elevations, which is not the prevailing material locally. Studies of the Site context undertaken by the design team at the start of the project identified a predominance of brick buildings locally and this was the material selected for initial designs. Indeed, it was discovered that a series of six storey brick buildings formerly occupied 72 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

the Site. However, through further Site investigations it became apparent that, due to the rail tunnel beneath the Site, the existing foundations would need to be reused and the new building would need to be steel framed.

4.11 The intention to respond to the particular design character of the Victorian commercial buildings locally remained and the design team initially explored how brickwork might be attached to the steel frame. The steel frame resulted in a high degree of modelling and use of brick slips, or similar brick effect, appeared likely to diminish the quality of the final design. Consequently, acknowledging that the Site is not in a Conservation Area – albeit adjacent to two - and that a variety of architecture from different periods exists locally, and wishing to express a more honest architectural response to the particularity of the Site as well as the context, the design team explored how the use of metal at the upper levels might achieve the same desired visual effects as the local Victorian buildings whilst forming an appropriate and modern response to the particular conditions of the Site.

4.12 The design team have thought carefully about which types of metal to use, their colours and appearance, how the panels will join and how to achieve visual depth and interest to the elevations and roofline through its folded arrangement. In this way, deep window reveals have been achieved and a subtle patterning and enrichment of the elevations, and balance of vertical and horizontal expression – of bays, cornices, parapet lines – which evokes the manner in which brickwork is employed on similarly scaled Victorian buildings locally. This is in line with Islington’s Urban Design Guide SPD [CD 8.13] which requires consideration to be given to the “innate qualities” of materials, as well as “their relationship with the surrounding built environment, the articulation of the façade, and their durability” (para 5.111). It goes on to note that “Care needs to be taken to ensure that the new material is sympathetic with the local vernacular. Any new building should have a harmonious visual relationship with its neighbours; consistency and continuity are important” (para 5.112). In this instance, taking the particular constraints of the Site into account, metal was selected in order to achieve this desired harmonious visual relationship with the local context.

4.13 The proposed metals will be high quality and will have subtle variations of colour which will provide visual texture and interest to the elevations. The hotel element will be clad in metal of a warm copper/brass colour which will complement the warm tones of the brick buildings which predominate locally. The office element will be distinguished by a cooler, zinc, colour which will mark the corner junction with

73 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Bowling Green Lane. The joins of the shingles will introduce a finer grain to the elevations like the brickwork of neighbouring buildings and the shingles will have slight variations of colour across their surfaces. This will be a high quality building with a high degree of visual depth and interest to its elevations which will enhance the existing positive characteristics of the streetscape.

4.14 A building close to the Appeal Site (Gazzano House (167-169 Farringdon Road), which received an RIBA Design Award in 2005) is clad in Cor Ten steel, but otherwise there is little metal materiality on buildings in the area; the predominant material is brick of varied colours. This is largely due to standard building practices and the periods in which the buildings in the surrounding area were predominantly built (18th and 19th centuries). 20th century buildings are fewer and are generally constructed in concrete and steel. The rendered representations of the Appeal Scheme in local views in Appendix RT2 show how the colours and folds of the metal exterior will relate to the design features and tones of the positive elements of its context.

4.15 This approach of using modern materials and idioms sensitively to respond in innovative ways to historic settings is widely understood as good design practice. Specifically, in relation to material selection, the PPG states that “Materials should be practical, durable, affordable and attractive. Choosing the right materials can greatly help new development to fit harmoniously with its surroundings. They may not have to match, but colour, texture, grain and reflectivity can all support harmony.” (Paragraph: 028 Reference ID: 26-028-20140306).

Saw tooth design and fenestration

4.16 All of the blocks will have a distinctive ‘concertina’ form to the metalwork above ground level. It will appear folded across its elevations, adding to their visual depth and interest, rather than ‘sawtooth’. Tall windows will be regularly arranged within the folds, providing angled views up and down Farringdon Road as well as solar protection. To the rear, their orientation will increase privacy and restrict overlooking of the residences nearby. The visual effect of these concertina folds will be to introduce texture and depth to the metal elevations and to accentuate the vertical character of each building block. Like the local commercial Victorian buildings, the windows will be generous in size, larger at ground level and will be largely hidden by brick reveals when viewed obliquely (see Fig 4-1-4-4). At roof level, the folds of the office buildings will extend to the top, providing a delicate crenulated edge

74 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof against the sky, like the chimney stacks of neighbouring buildings when viewed obliquely (see the oblique view of the Grade II Listed Former Notting Warehouse in Fig 4-1). The finer folds of the hotel buildings will be capped with a slender cornice, and the joins of the folds to the cornice, and the play of light and shadow there, will have a similar visual effect to a traditional dentilled cornice (see Fig 4-5 of the Quality Chop House and its neighbours).

Fig 4-1: Oblique view of the Grade II Listed Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works (16-16A Bowling Green Lane)

75 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 4-2 (Fig 3-26 repeated: direct view of the Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works (16-16A Bowling Green Lane)

Fig 4-3: Oblique view of Grade II Listed 109 and 111 Farringdon Road and neighbours (see Fig 3-29 for direct view above)

76 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 4-4: Oblique view of Nos 143–157 Farringdon Road (see Fig 3-10 above for a more direct view)

Fig 4-5 (Fig 3-32 repeated) 88-94 Farringdon Road (Quality Chop House) – Grade II, showing dentilled cornice line and party walls at roof level

Repetition of blocks

4.17 On Farringdon Road, vertical recesses will separate the six building elements. Between the hotel buildings the recesses will be defined by panels of perforated anodised aluminium which will have a more subdued character than the main elevations adjacent. Between the office buildings, large full height windows will 77 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

provide a light and active visual interval. The repetition of building blocks across a broad frontage is characteristic of local development, such as the terrace which includes the Quality Chop House (Fig 4-5) and the Victorian warehouse at 143–157 Farringdon Road (Fig 4-4). It also takes its cue from the tenement blocks which were formerly on the Appeal Site and other Victorian social housing developments formerly in the area.

Projection of upper floors

4.18 The ground level is defined by a projecting cornice and includes generous, inset windows but the concertina folds of the upper levels are aligned with the columns at ground and do not project beyond them. Large windows at ground level will be consistent with local fenestration patterns (as noted in para 4.91 of the LBI Statement of Case) [CD 5.1] and will provide the main road with a permeable edge and will be set within a simple light coloured concrete frame which will provide a continuous and visually strong base to the buildings. The masonry frame and larger fenestration at ground level, and its clear distinction from the levels above, has been conceived in relation to the arrangement of local Victorian development, particularly on the thoroughfare of Farringdon Road. A similar distinction of the ground level is evident in 143–157 Farringdon Road (Fig 4-4) and the terrace which includes the Quality Chop House (Fig 4-5). The upper levels will appear in line with the base and well-grounded in views up and down Farringdon Road, particularly in views from the south where the cantilevered upper levels and small ground level windows of Kamen House are prominently out of context on the right (Views 1 and 9 in Appendix RT2).

Rich detailing

4.19 In relation to “elevational treatment”, the LBI Urban Design Guide [CD 8.13] notes that it “can contribute to an appropriate sense of rhythm, scale and proportion. The elevation must work in terms of its relationship to its neighbours, to the public realms and its own architectural integrity” (para 5.89). The Design Guide identifies a number of pertinent aspects, most notably that “older buildings are often characterised by deep reveals as well as decorative detailing that helps enliven their façade through contrasts of light and shade” (para 5.92.1) and that “contemporary architecture, building technologies, materials and detailing present new opportunities to deliver a 3-dimensional façade, introducing colour, texture, depth and interest at a human scale” (para 5.93).

78 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

4.20 The elevations of the Appeal Scheme will be enriched by the use of metal, its varied colouration, the play of light across its folds, the fine grain of the panel joins and the subtle patterning created where the folds meet the slender string course at each storey level. It will have a strongly 3-dimensional appearance and detailed to introduce a human scale and visual interest. Like the Victorian buildings nearby, the corner elements will be chamfered and defined by oriel windows. Also like those older buildings, it will have enlivened elevations and an appropriate sense of rhythm, scale and proportion achieved through the size and positioning of the windows and repetition of the detailed design across the six building elements.

Rear elevation

4.21 To the rear, the building mass will step down towards the 2-3 storey terrace at Catherine Griffiths Court and parts of the Appeal Scheme will be visible beside and above the terrace. The Islington DRP (Minutes dated 12 January 2015 [CD 3.1]) noted that “given that the rear elevation is also very exposed, it should be treated as a front elevation in terms of architectural refinement” (p.2). The rendered views along adjacent side streets (views 5/ Vineyard Walk and 8/ Bowling Green Lane) and from the entrance to the Finsbury Health Centre (views 13 and 14) in Appendix RT2 show that the side and rear elevations will have the same high quality design character as the main frontage and, at the rear, the red and grey metals of the Appeal Scheme will relate positively to the lively red and cream brick houses on Catherine Griffiths Court, and the concertina folds will enable windows to be orientated in a manner to avoid overlooking these residences. It is also evident from these verified views that there will be little visibility of the Appeal Scheme when on Catherine Griffiths Court (view 14).

Visual appearance

4.22 The Appeal Scheme will mainly be viewed from close positions around the Site – where it will be seen partially - and in longer views up and down Farringdon Road, where its main frontage will be seen obliquely. In such oblique street views, the concertina folds will partly conceal the windows and will have a regular geometric pattern where they meet the slender string courses. The joins of the metal shingles will add a finer level of detail and the colours of the metals will have a varied and textured visual quality. In all of these respects, the character of the late 19th century commercial buildings which form the primary positive aspect of the built form on and close to Farringdon Road will be reflected – the use of two primary material colours,

79 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

simple masonry mouldings, varied material tones and fine joins, projecting cornices and a careful balance of horizontal and vertical elements overall.

4.23 Like the best examples of Victorian commercial development locally (such as 16- 16A Bowling Green Lane and 109 and 111 Farringdon Road), the elevations of the Appeal Scheme will have a distinctive and rich character, but the building’s visual prominence in street views will be subdued by the regular arrangement of its elevations which display repeated motifs, restrained ornament and a careful balance of colour and vertical and horizontal expression. The detailed design of the Appeal Scheme will be clearly rooted in the architectural language of the listed and unlisted Victorian commercial buildings nearby. Its broad mass will be separated into regular vertical elements. The vertical building ‘bays’ will be balanced by simply defined storey levels. There will be large glazing at ground level and generous glazing above which will be partly and fully hidden by the deep reveals of the concertina folds when viewed obliquely. The folds will enrich the elevations through their patterning and visual depth and will introduce subtle variation and interest to the roofline seen against the sky. All of these aspects of the detailed design can be seen in the main elevations of Victorian buildings in the area.

80 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

5.0 Views Assessment

Introduction

5.1 This section considers the likely effects of the Appeal Scheme in the eight verified views which formed part of the March 2016 application [CD 1.3.2] and the seven verified views prepared specifically for this Appeal and which are included at Appendix RT2.

5.2 The methodology for my assessment of the views is provided in the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16]. The Cityscape methodology for the preparation of the verified views is provided at the back of Appendix RT2. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with industry best practice and current guidelines.

5.3 Two versions of every view are assessed: existing (as it is today) and proposed (with the Appeal Scheme inserted in rendered form and the scheme under construction on the Guardian site (119 Farringdon Road) in rendered or chalk rendered form).

5.4 For clarity, the viewing numbers of the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16] have been retained. The following Tables 1 and 2 set out the view numbers and descriptions to follow. The 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16] views were selected to provide a 360-degree perspective of the Appeal Scheme and to enable consideration of potential impacts on key heritage assets in the area. Table 2 includes an extra column setting out the purpose of providing each extra view for the Appeal.

Table 1: Views updated from the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16]

View Viewing position No.

1 Farringdon Road, south

2 Baker's Row

3 Topham Street

4 Farringdon Road, at south side of junction with Rosebery Avenue

5 Vineyard Walk, at junction with Pine Street

6 Spa Fields

7 Northampton Road

8 Bowling Green Lane

81 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Table 2: New views prepared for the Appeal in 2017

View Notes: purpose of new view Viewing position No. In response to Reason for Refusal 2. To provide longer 9 Farringdon Road, south views on Farringdon Road, from the adjacent Conservation Areas. In response to Reason for Farringdon Road, at north side Refusal 2. To provide longer 10 of junction with Rosebery views on Farringdon Road, from Avenue the adjacent Conservation Areas. To aid discussion of the detailed design and materials by Farringdon Road/ Rosebery 11 providing an example night view Avenue at night (view 4 at night) to consider likely effects of night lighting. To provide a second view from Spa Fields in response to the 12 Spa Fields, south objection letter from the 20th Century Society (1 August 2017). Provided in response to the Finsbury Health Centre Main objection letter from the 20th 13 Entrance (up steps) Century Society (1 August 2017). Provided in response to the Finsbury Health Centre Entrance objection letter from the 20th 14 Gate Century Society (1 August 2017).

Views Assessment

View 1 Farringdon Road, south

Existing

5.5 This view is from the west pavement of Farringdon Road, adjacent to Guardian House, and looks north towards the Site. The photograph was taken in 2015 and Guardian House is now under redevelopment. The viewing position and much of the view are within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area. The Site itself is excluded from the Conservation Area. Beyond the Guardian site on the left is a five storey, brick and render Victorian warehouse with chamfered corner element. The buildings further north are seen obliquely and include a brick commercial building and a modern copper-coloured residential building. To the right is Kamen House, a seven storey late 20th century building with four storey red-brick base and striking 82 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

parabolic-arched concrete frame to three upper, cantilevered concrete floors. Beyond, the existing building on Site appears much lower and is essentially a brick box with large, vertical blank and screened openings to the car park inside and a simply articulated roofline which helps to counter the breadth of its largely impermeable elevation along Farringdon Road. The buildings beyond are barely discernible and there is no clear termination to the street vista.

Proposed

5.6 The full breadth of the Appeal Scheme is only visible from such oblique positions looking south and north along Farringdon Road. The staggered ground levels of the proposed hotel and office elements clearly indicate the rising ground ahead and help to define the separate building blocks which are also separated by the recessed elements between them. The slender concrete cills wrapping the buildings at storey levels will counter the scale of the proposed buildings and will add to the lightness of their appearance. The concertina form of the elevations will provide depth to the building surfaces and a subtle vertical articulation, and will lightly ornament the roofline against the sky. The office building closest to this viewpoint will be distinguished by a grey, zinc colour, which will break down the appearance of the overall development and visually connect it to the more mixed and large scale character of commercial development at this part of Farringdon Road. Further north, the rich copper or brass colour of the hotel elevations will relate to the predominance of brick buildings in the locality. The ground level will be clearly defined by a light coloured concrete frame and will have large and legible openings to the retail units and entrances within, drawing activity further along this part of the street. The character and vibrancy of the local streetscape will be enhanced.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 2 Baker’s Row

Existing

5.7 This view is from Baker’s Row, adjacent to No. 5, and looks north-east towards Farringdon Road and the Site. The viewing position is just outside the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, however the buildings in the middle-ground are included in it. To the left, is the front brick elevation of No. 5 Baker’s Row, a three storey

83 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

commercial building with a large recessed service entrance on the immediate left. Beyond and seen obliquely are a modern, grey-clad residential building and a brick, Victorian pub. To the right, is a plain, three storey commercial brick building set at an angle to the pavement edge, which allows a clearer view to the north end of the five storey brick and render Victorian warehouse beyond on Farringdon Road. The buildings on either side of the end of the street are set at the back of pavement edge and create a narrow channelled vista to part of the existing brick car park on the Site.

Proposed

5.8 This channelled view looks towards the centre of the Site and a sliver of the Appeal Scheme. The warm copper or brass tones of the upper levels of the main elevations will visually relate to the brick buildings which predominate in the area and the concertina folds will add depth to its surfaces and provide the building with a distinctive identity appropriate to the main Farringdon Road ahead. Slender concrete cills will subtly counter the verticality of the concertina folds and add to the light appearance of the building. Recessed elements of matt anodised aluminium between each of the six building blocks will break down the breadth of the building’s overall mass. At six storeys, the part of the Appeal Scheme seen in this view will appear to be of a similar height to the buildings opposite on Farringdon Road. It will appear in keeping with the character of the area and will be elegantly and distinctively detailed to add positively to the local streetscape. At ground level, large areas of glazing will provide a visually permeable and active frontage to the main road.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 3 Topham Street

Existing

5.9 This view is from Topham Street, which is parallel with Baker’s Row. The position is at the south-west end of Topham Street at the northern boundary of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and looks towards Farringdon Road and the Site. The buildings on both sides of the street date from the late 20th and early 21st centuries. To the left is a two storey car park of a highly utilitarian character associated with

84 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

the nearby Clerkenwell Green Fire Station. Beyond it, a six storey residential building with copper-coloured cladding rises to front Farringdon Road. Its flank wall above the car park has a dominant presence in the view. On the right are two modern brick and stone commercial buildings of four storeys. The vista is terminated by the northern end of the existing building on the Site, a late 1980s NCP car park, on the east side of Farringdon Road.

Proposed

5.10 Like View 2, this is a channelled view to a small portion of the main Farringdon Road elevation of the proposal. The north part of the Appeal Scheme, at the corner of Vineyard Walk, would be visible from here. It will be of a height which will appear similar to the buildings opposite on Farringdon Road and the breadth of its overall mass will be broken down visually by recessed vertical elements separating each of the six building blocks. The warm copper or brass tones of the upper levels will visually relate to the richly coloured brick buildings which predominate in the area, and the concertina folds will add depth to its surfaces and provide the building with a distinctive identity appropriate to the main Farringdon Road ahead. Slender concrete cills will subtly counter the verticality of the concertina folds and add to the light appearance of the building. It will appear in keeping with the character of the area and will be elegantly and distinctively detailed to add positively to the local streetscape. At ground level, large areas of glazing will provide a visually permeable and active frontage to the main road.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 4 Farringdon Road, at junction with Rosebery Avenue

Existing

5.11 This view is from Farringdon Road, at its junction with Rosebery Avenue, and looks south-east along the road to the Site. The viewing position and the foreground of the view are within the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. In the foreground to the right is the Clerkenwell Green Fire Station, dating from 1917 and Grade II listed. Further along on this side and seen obliquely is a five storey brick and render Victorian warehouse. On the left is a Victorian terrace of brick houses with shops at 85 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

ground floor. They have distinctive pointed arched windows and decorative stonework at upper levels and form a well composed group with a balanced vertical rhythm along the street. The fourth house along is Grade II listed for its surviving restaurant at its ground floor. Further south is the existing building on the Site, a late 1980s NCP car park clad in brick. It is set lower than its neighbours and the breadth of its brick elevation on Farringdon Road is countered by large vertical, round-headed openings and gables at roof level. Beyond, the projecting upper levels of Kamen House are visible where the road slightly bends. Farringdon Road descends in this view and the buildings further south are therefore set much lower and indistinct.

Proposed

5.12 The full breadth of the Appeal Scheme is only visible from such oblique positions looking south and north along Farringdon Road. These views are further limited by the lowering topography of the area and the bend in the road. The staggered ground levels of the proposed buildings will clearly indicate the falling ground ahead and will help to define the separate building blocks, also separated by the recessed elements between them. The elevations above ground will be of a visibly related character and grouped into three pairs of buildings gradually stepping up in height to the south. The slender concrete cills wrapping the buildings at storey levels will counter the scale of the proposed buildings and will add to the lightness of their appearance. The concertina form of the elevations will provide depth to the building surfaces and a subtle vertical articulation, and will lightly ornament the roofline against the sky. The regular rhythm of the building blocks, and their simple articulation and balance of vertical and linear characteristics, will strongly echo that of the characterful Victorian terrace on the left of the view, whilst being of an idiom and materials clearly of its time. At ground level, large openings for retail units and entrances will extend the activity of the streetscape on the left further along the road. The settings of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area and Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area will be enhanced.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 5 Vineyard Walk, at junction with Pine Street

Existing 86 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

5.13 This view is from Vineyard Walk, at its junction with Pine Street, and looks south- west along the street to the Site. The viewing position is at the boundary of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area, which includes the buildings on the right side of the frame. Out of frame to the left is the Grade I listed Finsbury Health Centre. In the foreground on the left is the end building of Catharine Griffiths Court, a late 20th century brick residential terrace with distinctive stepped and tiled gables. A wall encloses gardens and a car parking area between the rear of the terrace and the NCP car park on the Site. The car park has a blank brick rear (easterly) elevation and large vertical, round-headed openings on the north edge. The buildings on the right are seen obliquely and are of a plain character and built to the back of pavement edge. Buildings on the west side of Farringdon Road terminate the vista along Vineyard Walk: to the left is a six storey residential building with copper-coloured cladding and to the right a three storey brick building with mansard level. Rising beyond, off Coldbath Square, is the drill tower of the nearby Clerkenwell Green Fire Station.

Proposed

5.14 This view looks to the north part of the Appeal Scheme which turns the corner from Farringdon Road to Vineyard Walk. The copper or brass hues of this part of the building will have a rich colour, accentuated by the different ways the light will catch its concertina folds. It will strongly complement the red and yellow brick residential buildings in the foreground of the view. The lightweight metal material and distinctive concertina form will also have a highly contemporary idiom and individual character appropriate to the main route of Farringdon Road ahead. The vertical articulation of the concertina folds will be countered by slender concrete cills at storey levels, breaking down the appearance of the building’s mass and reflecting the balance of vertical and linear characteristics evident on the surrounding buildings. The serrated roofline will have a light and playful character which will enhance the setting of the postmodern residences on Catherine Griffiths Court. The ground level will be strongly and simply defined and will add to the legibility and activity of the street frontage along Vineyard Walk. The Appeal Scheme will be a positive new addition to the local streetscape.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

87 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

View 6 Spa Fields

Existing

5.15 This view is from Spa Fields and looks southwest towards the Site. The viewing position is within the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. The public park is lawned in the foreground and has planting and seating areas and sports courts at its south end, and trees marking its perimeter. It also contains a small pavilion with steeply pitched roof, visible on the left side. Further left, outside of the park, is the London Metropolitan Archives building. On the far right of the frame, the Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, which is Grade II* listed, is prominent in this part of the park and fronts onto Exmouth Market. In the centre of the frame, parts of the white Grade I listed Finsbury Health Centre are visible through the trees. The tops of other residential buildings, towards Farringdon Road, and the drill tower beyond are also visible above the treeline.

Proposed

5.16 The top of the rear (east) elevation of the Appeal Scheme will be visible from the open space of Spa Fields. The breadth of its mass will be countered by the stepped heights and separate building blocks, with recessed components in between, which will provide a gently undulating roofline. The different coloured materials of the office and hotel buildings will further distinguish the building elements on the horizon. The zinc coloured office building will be seen beyond the metal-clad park pavilion and white Health Centre buildings (Grade I) to the left, whilst the warm coloured hotel buildings will relate to the brick rooftops seen on the right of the frame. The Appeal Scheme will add a further layer to the existing urban setting of the park and will display a horizontal and subtly articulated character which will add to the existing character of the skyline. The open character of the park in the foreground and the dominance of the foreground structures, including the Grade II* Listed Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, would be left unharmed.

Significance of likely impact: minor, beneficial

View 7 Northampton Road

Existing

88 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

5.17 This view is from the north pavement of Northampton Road, adjacent to the southwest entrance to Spa Fields and looks south-west. The viewing position is at the southern boundary of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area, with the right side of the street included within it. On the right side of the view is part of the Grade I listed Finsbury Health Centre. It has a simple linear form and is clad in white tiles and was designed by Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton in the 1930s. On the left, a new, commercial brick building is under construction, which has an angled upper level and mansard above. The late 20th century brick terrace with gabled roofline on Catherine Griffiths Court terminates the view ahead. In summer, this view is filtered by the street trees.

Proposed

5.18 The top of the south east part of the Appeal Scheme will be seen above the residential buildings on Catherine Griffiths Court, marking the route of Farringdon Road ahead. It will have a stepped roofline with clearly defined, separate building elements, accentuated in this view by the different colours of the office and hotel buildings. The zinc-coloured office building will be seen on the left and part of the copper or brass coloured hotel building will appear to the right, although it will be largely obscured by the tree at the end of the road and Finsbury Health Centre (Grade I) on the right. Due to its distance, the overall height of the Appeal Scheme will appear at a similar level as the buildings in the foreground of this view. It will be a high quality new building which will add depth and interest to this existing urban street view. The setting of the Grade I Listed Finsbury Health Centre and the building’s historic and architectural significance will not be harmed.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 8 Bowling Green Lane

Existing

5.19 This view is from the southern pavement of Bowling Green Lane, adjacent to No. 15, and looks west towards the Site. The viewing position is at the northern boundary of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, with the left side of the street included within it. The buildings on the south side of the street, to the left, are seen obliquely and form a strong edge to the view. On the right is The Bowler

89 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

pub, partly in red brick and with large chimney stacks rising above. Beyond, the end building of Catherine Griffiths Court is set back from the junction with Northampton Road, allowing clearer views to the brick NCP car park on Site. The rear (east) elevation of the car park is blank brick. The south elevation on Bowling Green Lane has large vertical, round-headed openings with green screening. A broad, brick and render, five storey Victorian warehouse on Farringdon Road, subdivided into a number of vertical bays, terminates the view ahead.

Proposed

5.20 This view looks towards the south end of the Appeal Scheme. The height and scale of the office element of the proposals will be appropriate to this corner junction and to the greater height of commercial development visible here. It will be distinguished by a grey zinc colour and will display a greater amount of glazing than the hotel element to the north. The concertina folds will have a more solid character in oblique views and will provide a distinctive serrated roofline against the sky. An adjoining lower element will mediate between the greater height of the office building and the residences on Catherine Griffiths Court and the pub on the right of this view, as will the warm tones of its copper or brass elevations. At ground level, there will be large window openings to a retail space which will draw activity along the street. The Appeal Scheme will be a positive new addition to the local streetscape.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 9 Farringdon Road, south Existing

5.21 This view is slightly south of View 1 on the west pavement of Farringdon Road, adjacent to the south end of the site at 119 Farringdon Road (formerly the Guardian), looking north towards the Appeal Site. The Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area includes the Guardian site and buildings to its north on the left as well as the building south of the Appeal Site on the right. The NCP car park on the Appeal Site is excluded from the Conservation Area. The Guardian site is presently being redeveloped with a 5-7 storey building containing offices, affordable workspace, hospitality and retail uses to designs by award winning local architects AHMM. To its north is a late 19th century, brick warehouse, the breadth

90 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

of which is not evident in this oblique view. The buildings further north are also seen obliquely and only the warm tones of their materials – buff to red bricks and cor-ten steel - are discernible. On the far right is the edge of the locally listed former coach works building at 60 Farringdon Road. Much taller and more striking in style and materials is the adjacent Kamen House, a seven storey, late 20th century building with four storey red-brick base and parabolic-arched concrete frame to three upper floors dramatically cantilevered above it. Beyond, the car park on Site appears much lower and is essentially a brick box with large, vertical blank and screened openings to the car park inside and a simply articulated roofline which helps to counter the breath of its largely impermeable elevation along Farringdon Road. The buildings beyond are barely discernible and there is no clear termination to the rising street vista.

Proposed

5.22 The full breadth of the Appeal Scheme is only visible from such oblique positions looking south and north along Farringdon Road. The staggered ground levels of the proposed office and hotel buildings clearly indicate the rising ground ahead and help to break down the breadth of the Appeal Scheme overall. The height of the proposed office building will relate well to the adjacent Kamen House in this view and will help to better embed that striking building within the townscape. The proposed buildings will have a more refined and coherent architectural character than their foreground neighbour. Slender concrete cills wrapping the buildings at storey levels will counter the scale of the proposed buildings and will add to the lightness of their appearance. The concertina form of the elevations will provide depth to the building surfaces and a subtle vertical articulation, and will lightly ornament the roofline against the sky. The office building closest to this viewpoint will be distinguished by a grey, zinc colour, which will break down the appearance of the overall development and visually connect it to the more mixed and large scale character of commercial development at this part of Farringdon Road. Further north, the red colour of the hotel elevations will relate to the predominance of brick buildings in the locality. The ground level will be clearly defined by a lighter concrete frame and will have large and legible openings to the retail units and entrances within, drawing activity further along this part of the street. The character and vibrancy of the local streetscape will be enhanced.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

91 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

View 10 Farringdon Road, at north side of junction with Rosebery Avenue

Existing

5.23 This view is just north of view 4, from the north side of the junction with Rosebery Avenue, looking south-east to the Site. The Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area includes all the foreground buildings on the left up to the Appeal Site and the Grade II Listed Clerkenwell Green Fire Station, dating from 1917, on the right. It has tall attic dormers and chimneys which accentuate the vertical expression of its mass and its corner prominence. Further along on this side and seen obliquely is a five storey brick and render warehouse built towards the end of the 19th century. It is a broad building comprising a series of strongly expressed vertical bays, just discernible obliquely. On the left, a Victorian terrace of brick houses with shops at ground floor includes the locally listed building turning the corner to Exmouth Market on the far left and the Grade II Listed Quality Chop House within the terrace. The buildings within the terrace have the same pointed arched windows and decorative stonework at upper levels, reading as a single townscape element with a clear vertical expression. Further south, the 1980s car park on the Appeal Site steps down in height and is of a continuous colour and datum, with two gable elements thinly projecting into the skyline. The upper levels of Kamen House (62- 66 Farringdon Road) cantilever into the road bend beyond. is set lower than its neighbours and the breadth of its brick elevation on Farringdon Road is countered by large vertical, round-headed openings and gables at roof level. Beyond, the projecting upper levels of Kamen House are visible where the road slightly bends. Traffic lights at the junction obscure the distant horizon.

Proposed

5.24 The full breadth of the Appeal Scheme is only visible from such oblique positions looking south and north along Farringdon Road. The different materials of the proposed hotel and office elements and staggered ground levels and heights of the two elements helps to break down the breadth of the building mass and to accentuate the vertical rhythm of the building blocks. The elevations above ground will be of a visibly related character and grouped into three pairs of buildings gradually stepping up in height to the south. The slender concrete cills wrapping the buildings at storey levels will counter the scale of the proposed buildings and

92 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

will be read with the cornices and cill lines which also characterise the late 19th century buildings in view. The concertina form of the elevations will provide depth to the building surfaces and a solid character in oblique views which will be similar to the brick buildings in the foreground. The regular rhythm of the building blocks, and their simple articulation and balance of vertical and linear characteristics, will strongly echo that of the characterful Victorian terrace on the left of the view, whilst being of an idiom and materials clearly of its time. At roof level, the concertina folds will subtly articulate the buildings’ skyline profile. At ground level, large openings for retail units and entrances will extend the activity of the streetscape on the left further along the road. The settings of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area and Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area will be enhanced.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 11 Farringdon Road, at junction with Rosebery Avenue - night

Existing

5.25 This is the same as view 4 at night. The street lighting draws the focus to the main road ahead. And the pavements on both sides are well lit. The internal lights of the shops and restaurants at the ground level of the terrace on the left also draw the eye. The upper level windows of those buildings are more sporadically lit and the attic levels brickwork at rooflevel has an opaque and angular skyline profile. The oblique viewing angle and solid materials of the other buildings limit views to their interiors. The central distance is obscured by the combined glare of bright vehicular and street lighting.

Proposed

5.26 As in View 4 by day, the height of the Appeal Scheme will relate positively to the foreground terrace on the left and the breadth of its mass will also be articulated vertically. Like the brick buildings which predominate in the view, the windows of the Appeal Scheme will be largely hidden from view by the concertina folds of the metal exterior. The windows at the northwest corner of the Appeal Scheme will be more visible at night and will mark the junction with Vineyard Walk and echo the rounded and chamfered corners which celebrate the corner elements of Victorian 93 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

buildings locally. The folds of the elevations and staggered rooflines will have a subtly articulated skyline profile, like the adjacent Victorian terrace. Also, like its neighbours, the ground level will have large openings for retail units and entrances which will extend the activity of the streetscape further along the road. The settings of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area and Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area will be enhanced.

Significance of likely impact: moderate, beneficial

View 12 Spa Fields, south

Existing

5.27 This view is from a more southerly position than View 6 on the pathway in Spa Fields, looking west towards the Site. The viewing position is within the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. The public park is lawned in the foreground and has planting and seating areas and sports courts at its south end, and trees marking its perimeter. It also contains a small metal-clad pavilion with steeply pitched roof, visible at centre. On the far right of the frame, the Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, which is Grade II* listed, is prominent in this part of the park and fronts onto Exmouth Market. A red brick warehouse building is visible beyond the Church. Left of the Park pavilion, a small part of the white rear (east) elevation of the Grade I listed Finsbury Health Centre is visible through the trees. More distant rooftops beyond are just visible above the Health Centre and between the trees.

Proposed

5.28 Small parts of the tops of the Appeal Scheme would appear with the existing distant rooftops seen beyond the Grade I Listed Health Centre. Due to their darker colour, greater distance and the small amount visible, the white Health Centre building would remain legible in the foreground and its association with the park would be left unharmed. As in View 6, the open character of the park in the foreground and the dominance of the foreground structures, including the Grade II* Listed Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, would be left unharmed.

Significance of likely impact: minor, beneficial

94 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

View 13 Finsbury Health Centre Main Entrance

Existing

5.29 This view looks westwards along the path from the (elevated) main entrance of the Grade I Listed Finsbury Health Centre. As described in the section of my proof relating to designated heritage assets, the exceptional significance of the Grade I Listed Building lies chiefly in its particular design and history and is best appreciated looking towards the building. When it was designed, a landscaped setting was envisaged stretching between the Health Centre and Farringdon Road to the west, however that was never realised due to land ownerships and the interruption of WWII. When first built, the Health Centre faced a terrace of houses and beyond it a series of six storey tenement blocks which were formerly on the Appeal Site. These were destroyed later in the 20th century and the existing 2-3 storey brick terrace at Catherine Griffiths Court built in the 1980s. Like the car park on the Appeal Site, the different brick colours do little to disguise the simple design character of the terraced houses and their arrangement, materials and design detail make no reference at all to the unique Health Centre building opposite. Beyond the terrace, the tops of taller parts of the car park on the Appeal Site and other buildings on and near Farringdon Road, including the Fire Drill tower, have a jumbled character typical of an incrementally developed urban streetscape. Above the sky dominates and sunlight reaches the front gardens of the Health Centre.

Proposed

5.30 The top of the Appeal Scheme will be visible beyond the 1980s terrace on Catherine Griffiths Court. The terrace follows the historic street line in this location, set at a slight angle to Farringdon Road, and this is legible in the slightly different orientation of the proposed roofline; this would also have been the case for the terraced houses and tenement blocks which occupied the two sites when the Health Centre was first built. The Appeal Scheme will replace the existing jumbled urban roofline with a more coherent and singular element in view. The breadth of its mass will be articulated with more finely articulated elements set at intervals. The rich colour of its metal work at the centre and north end and its concertina folds will have a warmth and variation of tone which will complement the brickwork of the terrace. Only parts of the uppermost level of the Appeal Scheme will be visible above the foreground terrace, which will remain the dominant built form in view.

95 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

The sky will continue to be clearly visible above and sunlight will still reach the Health Centre and its grounds.

Significance of likely impact: minor, beneficial

View 14 Finsbury Health Centre Entrance Gate

Existing

5.31 This view moves forward from View 14, to the entrance gate of the Grade I Listed Health Centre. As noted in relation to View 14 and described in the section of my proof relating to designated heritage assets, the exceptional significance of the Grade I Listed Building lies chiefly in its particular design and history, best appreciated looking towards the building. When it was designed, a landscaped setting was envisaged stretching between the Health Centre and Farringdon Road to the west, however that was never realised due to land ownerships and the interruption of WWII. When first built, the Health Centre faced a terrace of houses and beyond it a series of six storey tenement blocks which were formerly on the Appeal Site. These were destroyed later in the 20th century and the existing 2-3 storey brick terrace at Catherine Griffiths Court built in the 1980s. Like the car park on the Appeal Site, the different brick colours do little to disguise the simple design character of the terraced houses and their arrangement, materials and design detail make no reference at all to the unique Health Centre building opposite. Beyond the terrace roofline, nothing is visible except for the tip of the aerial which tops of the Fire Drill tower just off Farringdon Road.

Proposed

5.32 At the entrance gate to the Health Centre very little of the roof of the Appeal Scheme will be visible and it is unlikely to be noticed, fully disappearing from view as the visitor moves forward from this point. The small parts which will be visible will be of high quality materials, largely in a warm colour and with folds which will richly articulate its surfaces and complement the different tones of brickwork of the foreground terrace. The foreground terrace will remain fully visible and will draw the viewer’s attention at this close proximity. The sky will continue to be clearly visible above.

Significance of likely impact: negligible 96 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Views Assessment Conclusion 5.33 The fourteen views assessed above provide a comprehensive assessment of the Appeal Scheme within its context and in relation to relevant heritage assets. They show that the Appeal Scheme will have limited visibility within the area. Where visible, it will relate positively to all parts of its context in mass, detailed design and materials, as will be set out in the following Section 6 of my proof. The significance of likely impact on the selected views will range from negligible to moderate, and all impacts will be beneficial and will constitute an improvement to local views.

97 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

6.0 Context and Heritage Assessment 6.1 This assessment of potential effects on the character of the context around the Appeal Site and the significance of relevant heritage assets is made with reference to the views assessment set out in Section 5. It is also based on the conclusions set out in Section 7 of the 2015 THVIA [CD 1.2.16], which have been expanded where relevant.

6.2 The following paragraphs will consider potential effects on the context, conservation areas, listed buildings and locally listed buildings. The relevant heritage assets are described in Section 3 above and their locations are indicated on Figures 3-24 and 3-25.

Surrounding Context

6.3 As described in Section 3, the character of the context of the Site is informed by the particular history of the area. It includes large scale commercial and civic development on the main Victorian routes; large Victorian residential buildings also once located there are now mainly lost. The context also includes more historic street patterns and spaces surviving off the main routes and some sites and buildings within the context which have a more unique character, such as Mount Pleasant and the Finsbury Health Centre. The context surrounding the Appeal Site includes the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area and the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, and both Conservation Areas – in different ways – are characterised by historic street patterns and a tight urban grain with Victorian infrastructure and large scale development cutting across the areas.

6.4 Due to the gradual bend of Farringdon Road, the Appeal Scheme will not be visible when moving north along it until a point just south of the junction of Clerkenwell Road, just before the west part of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area begins. In that distant view, the proposed mass and light coloured materials of the Appeal Scheme will help to embed the more prominent Kamen House to its south within the distant streetscape, but the Appeal Scheme is likely to be very little noticed. Approaching from the north along Farringdon Road, moving south along the west pavement, the Appeal Scheme will become visible in the central distance when beside the main entrance to the (soon to be redeveloped) Mount Pleasant Sorting Office site, within the northwestern edge of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. As is described in more detail in relation to the adjacent Conservation Areas below and the views on Farringdon Road in Section 5 (views 1, 4, 9, 10 and 12), the 98 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Appeal Scheme has been conceived in mass, detailed design and material colour and character to relate positively to the streetscape, particularly in views along Farringdon Road.

Fig 6-1: Existing view to Appeal Site looking north along Farringdon Road from just south of Clerkenwell Road junction

99 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Fig 6-2: Existing view to Appeal Site looking south along Farringdon Road from beside entrance to Mount Pleasant Sorting Office

6.5 In addition to views along Farringdon Road, the Appeal Scheme will be partly visible along the side streets directed towards the Appeal Site and positioned beside it: to the west, Topham Street (view 3) and Baker’s Row (view 4); to the east, Vineyard Walk (view 5), Northampton Road (view 7) and Bowling Green Lane (view 8). In addition, parts of the roofscape of the Appeal Scheme will be visible in longer views from Spa Fields (views 6 and 12). There would be some visibility of the top of the Appeal Scheme from the elevated main entrance of the Finsbury Health Centre (view 13), however very little visibility from its entrance gate (view 14) and the part of Catherine Griffiths Court adjacent. These views are considered in Section 5 and no adverse effects on the townscape character of the surrounding context were found.

6.6 The Views Assessment shows that the Appeal Scheme will have very limited visibility within its wider context and will therefore have very little impact on the character of the wider context. Where visible, the mass and detailed design will have a positive visual impact, as explained in relation to the relevant views in Section 5 and the two adjacent Conservation Areas (to follow).

Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area

6.7 The Site is located adjacent to the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area (Fig 4-8). Views 1, 2, 8 and 9 in Section 5 above are from within the northern edge of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area.

6.8 The Appeal Scheme would be seen from parts of the northern part of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area only. Views 1, 2 and 8 show that its overall mass will be broken down into a series of elements which have a clear visual rhythm along Farringdon Road. It will relate well to the dense grain of the area and the pattern of development along Farringdon Road in particular. The different material colours will contribute to the existing rich variety of the streetscape and will reflect the different internal uses, which also contribute to the surviving mix of building uses in the area. The concertina form of its elevations and roofline will have a distinctive character which will add positively to the streetscape.

6.9 The significance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area is set out within the description of the Conservation Area at paragraphs 3.28-36 above. The historic 100 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

alleys and small spaces in the area would be unaffected by the Appeal Scheme which would only be visible from the northwestern fringe, on Farringdon Road and Bowling Green Lane. The range of building types and periods and the setting of key structures in the area would also be unaffected. The proposed mix of uses would add to the character of juxtaposed use which contributes to the Area’s significance. Overall, the Appeal Scheme would have little visibility from the edge of the Conservation Area and would not impact on its key aspects of significance – the pre-mid 19th century buildings and spaces, the range of building types and periods and close mix of residential and commercial uses.

6.10 The Appeal Scheme will have a minor impact on the setting of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area which will be entirely positive. The mass and height of the Appeal Scheme would relate to the nearby buildings – Kamen House, Guardian House (under redevelopment with a 5-7 storey building) – within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area. Whilst brick is the predominant building material in the Area, its type and appearance is varied and the LBI Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area Leaflet encourages “sensitive use of high quality modern materials where appropriate” within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area (LBI, 2007, page 2 [CD 8.14.1]). The proposed metals will be of a high quality and detailed to respond to the finer grain and texture of the brickwork which predominates in the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area. The high quality design and materials proposed will improve the small part of the setting of the Conservation Area within which the Appeal Scheme will be visible.

6.11 There would be no harm caused to the significance or setting of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area.

Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area

6.12 The Site is located adjacent to the south side of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area (Fig 4-8). Views 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in Section 5 above are from within the southern edge of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area.

6.13 On Farringdon Road (views 4, 10 and 11), the Appeal Scheme will relate well to the Victorian buildings in the conservation area: its breadth of mass will be articulated into a series of six building elements of a clearly related character, and the concertina form of its elevations will have a distinctive identity which will introduce a new, explicitly contemporary layer of development to the street.

101 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

6.14 On the side streets (Views 5 and 7), the Appeal Scheme will be of a mass and height which will relate to the other building tops seen along Farringdon Road, and its colouration and articulation has been conceived to knit in with the red brick housing and lighter coloured civic and commercial buildings within the close context.

6.15 From the open space of Spa Fields (views 6 and 12), the top of the east elevation of the Appeal Scheme will be seen adding a new, well-articulated layer to the existing wider urban setting of the park.

6.16 The Appeal Scheme will not be seen from within the enclosed and more historic character area of Exmouth Market or from the Victorian thoroughfare of Rosebery Avenue, except at its junction with Farringdon Road. As a result, the Appeal Scheme will not affect the two core sub-areas of significance. It will also not affect the vast Mount Pleasant site, which is itself soon to undergo full and substantial redevelopment. It will also have limited visibility from within the setting of the Grade I Listed Finsbury Health Centre (views 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14), which is a minor part of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area’s significance overall.

6.17 The most significant aspects of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area – Exmouth Market and Rosebery Avenue, and the contrast experienced between these two areas – will not be affected. Where visible from the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area, the massing, composition, design detail and material colouration will respond to aspects of the adjacent buildings in the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. The proposed metal materials are not typical of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area but the reddish colour at the north end of the Appeal Scheme in particular will relate to the red brick which dominates on Rosebery Avenue. The interlocking character of the metal shingles and the varied colour of their surfaces will respond to the grain and visual texture of the brickwork on the adjacent Victorian terrace. The high quality design and materials of the Appeal Scheme will improve the setting of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area.

6.18 There would be no harm caused to the significance or setting of the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area.

Listed Buildings

Former Notting Warehouse/Enterprise Printing Machine Works – Grade II

102 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

6.19 This former warehouse and factory for the Enterprise Printing Machine Works dates from 1877 and is situated southeast of the Site. It is on the left side of the frame in view 8, looking southwest along Bowling Green Lane. Although very little of the building can be discerned in this oblique view, it is situated just southeast of the Site and will be seen in relation to the south part of the Appeal Scheme on Bowling Green Lane.

6.20 The light colouration of the office element of the Appeal Scheme at the southern end, and its slightly greater scale than the hotel element, will relate positively to the buff brick and large-scaled openings to this former warehouse building. The lower brass or copper coloured element to the rear (east) of the Appeal Scheme will step down to the adjacent houses on Catherine Griffiths Court, repairing the streetscape opposite the listed building. The setting of the listed building will be enhanced.

6.21 The special architectural interest of its street elevation will not be affected by the Appeal Scheme, which will be complementary in appearance and high design quality. The historic special interest of the listed former warehouse, as a surviving example of late Victorian industrial development in the area and for its association with Notting, would also be unaffected. There would be no effect on the significance of the listed building.

34 Farringdon Lane – Grade II

6.22 This Victorian former warehouse and showroom is located well to the south of the Site and the Appeal Scheme will not therefore be seen directly together with the listed building. The Appeal Site may be partially visible in winter in long views north along Farringdon Road which include the listed building at 34 Farringdon Road. Due to the distance, scale and detailed design of the Appeal Scheme, it would be little noticed in these views. The special architectural interest of the listed building, which lies in its elaborate Gothic frontage to Farringdon Lane, and its special historic interest as a survivor of the local clock-making industry and its association with the architect Plumb, would be unaffected by the Appeal Scheme. The significance of the listed building would be preserved.

Cattle Trough – Grade II

6.23 Due to its distance from the Appeal Site, small size and siting, set back from Farringdon Road on the Ray Street Bridge, the listed drinking fountain and cattle trough will not be seen in relation to the Appeal Scheme. Its significance as a

103 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

surviving example of Victorian street furniture, contemporary with the adjacent Farringdon Road, would be unaffected by the Appeal Scheme.

109 and 111 Farringdon Road – Grade II

6.24 Due to distance of the Appeal Site from the listed building, and the intervening scale of development and street trees, there would be no direct visual relationship between the Appeal Scheme and the listed building. The Appeal Scheme may be seen partially in some long views along Farringdon Road in winter in which the listed building would also be seen. However the high quality design of the street elevation of the listed building and its historic association with the construction of the adjacent Farringdon Road and rail line would not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. The significance of the listed building would be preserved.

113-117 Farringdon Road and attached railings – Grade II

6.25 As for the adjacent listed building at 109-111, the special architectural interest of its Italianate street elevations and its special historic interest for its associations with the typefounding industry and with the insertion of the adjacent road and rail routes would be unaffected by the Appeal Scheme. If partially visible in limited long views within the setting of the listed building, the Appeal Scheme will be of a scale and design detail which will complement its wider setting and will be little noticed. The significance of the listed building will be preserved.

Clerkenwell Fire Station – Grade II

6.26 View 10 from the junction of Rosebery Avenue and Farringdon Road shows the street view in which the listed former Fire Station will be seen most clearly in relation to the Appeal Scheme. The Appeal Scheme will be seen within the setting of the Fire Station, further south and on the opposite side of the Farringdon Road. The Fire Station will be clearly taller in that view and its prominent corner character will be undiminished. The Appeal Scheme will appear to extend the roofline of the adjacent Victorian buildings further south and its reddish colour at the north end will visually connect to the red brick upper levels of the former Fire Station. The Appeal Scheme will complement the restrained design, six storey mass and red brick and Portland Stone materials of the Fire Station. The metal concertina folds of its elevations will also have a distinctive identity which will add positively to the richness and variety which characterises the streetscape and setting of the Fire Station.

104 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

6.27 The key aspects of the listed building’s significance, as one of the best surviving LCC fire stations from the period and its high quality design and materials and their intactness, would not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. The prominent corner character of the listed building would be unaffected. The positive relationship of the Appeal Scheme with its immediate context in the local streetscape will have a positive impact on the setting of the listed building. Its significance would be preserved.

Quality Chop House – Grade II

6.28 This four storey house dates from the 1890s and is one building set within a terrace of very similarly designed buildings. The others in the terrace are not listed but contribute positively to the streetscape. Almost all are three bays wide, in buff or painted brick, with pointed arched windows on the third storey and Corinthian pilasters between the windows on the third and second levels. The Quality Chop House is listed because it also has a timber restaurant front at ground level and fittings internally which make it a unique surviving example of an early 20th century working class restaurant.

6.29 Views 4 and 10 show that the Appeal Scheme will appear south of the Victorian terrace which the listed Quality Chop House is situated within. The regular rhythm of the Appeal Scheme buildings, and their simple articulation and balance of vertical and linear characteristics, will strongly echo that of the characterful Victorian terrace adjacent, whilst being of an idiom and materials clearly of its time. The visual delineation of the ground level and the retail uses proposed at ground level will also complement the character of the adjacent terrace and the historic ground floor use and fittings of the Quality Chop House. The restaurant fittings, which form the main aspect of the listed building’s significance, will not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. The positive townscape character of the terrace which forms its primary setting will be complemented by the appearance and composition of the Appeal Scheme.

Church of Our Most Holy Redeemer, Clergy House, Campanile and Parish Hall – Grade II*

6.30 As noted in paragraphs 3.68-3.70 above in my proof, the main frontages of this group of remarkable Church buildings on Exmouth Market form a key aspect of their significance and the Appeal Scheme will not be visible from within that part of their setting. Views 6 and 12 from Spa Fields show that small parts of the top of the 105 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Appeal Scheme will be visible above and beyond the perimeter of the park to the west. A mixture of built form and trees are already visible at the west edge of the park and the Appeal Scheme will be little noticed in these views (views 6 and 12). The south end of the Grade II* Listed Church will remain substantially more visible and dominant in these views and will continue to draw the eye. There would be no effect on the significance of the listed building group.

Finsbury Health Centre – Grade I

6.31 The Grade I listed Finsbury Health Centre is very embedded within the townscape, with views of its H-shape mass largely restricted to views along its southern edge on Northampton Road (view 7 in section 6 above), glimpsed views through the tree tops from Spa Fields (view 6 and 12) and views to and from its main entrance on Catherine Griffiths Court (view 13 (elevated) and 14 (ground level)). Its existing setting is mixed in character, with a lively red brick, postmodern terrace of houses opposite the main entrance on Catherin Griffiths Court, larger office buildings to the south on Northampton Road and a large former warehouse building (Exmouth House) between it and Exmouth Market to the north. The existing setting of the Health Centre contributes very little to the exceptional importance of its architecture and history.

6.32 The top of the rear (east) of the Appeal Scheme will be seen above the 2-3 storey terrace on Catherine Griffiths Court in views from the main, recessed entrance of the Health Centre (view 13 (elevated) and view 14 (ground level)) and in views along the south elevation on Northampton Road (view 7) and beyond the tops of the Health Centre buildings in views across Spa Fields (view 6 and 12). As the assessment of these views shows, the Appeal Scheme will not have a visually dominant presence locally and the breadth of its mass will be broken down into six elements which will be further articulated by the concertina folds of the building elevations, the different colouration of the building blocks and the stepped mass to the rear (east). It will add to the existing varied, urban context of the Health Centre and will not diminish either its existing visibility locally or its exceptional architectural and historic significance. The significance of the listed building will be preserved.

Former Bowling Green Lane Board School – Grade II

6.33 This listed building is located northeast of the Appeal Scheme, on Bowling Green Lane (northeast of view 8). The top of the south end of the Appeal Scheme would be seen obliquely from views within the immediate setting of this listed school, 106 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

however the buildings will not be seen in direct relation to each other because of their distance. The mass of the Appeal Scheme and the colouration and articulation of its different elements will knit it into the existing townscape which forms the wider setting of this listed building. The listed building’s internal and external significance, as one example of few surviving London Board Schools from architect E R Robson's early period, will not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. The significance of the listed building will be preserved.

Locally Listed Buildings

2 Exmouth Market/102 Farringdon Road

6.34 View 10 from the junction of Farringdon Road and Rosebery Avenue shows the attractive curved elevation of the locally listed building, turning the corner into Exmouth Market, and its clear relationship in scale, style and materials to the terrace of shops and houses adjacent form the same period. The Appeal Scheme will be set just south of that terrace. Its heights, vertical expression of mass and warm colour at the north end will complement the appearance of the adjacent terrace. The setting of the locally listed building will be enhanced and its local significance will be preserved.

17 Bowling Green Lane

6.35 This locally listed building is situated within a courtyard and would not be seen or experienced within the context of the Appeal Scheme. Its local significance will be preserved.

159 Farringdon Road (The Eagle) 6.36 This locally listed building is situated opposite the Appeal Site on Farringdon Road. The attractive street elevations of this building are stock brick with red brick dressings. The existing car park on the Appeal Site has a similar patterning of brickwork colours, however it is much simpler and has no aesthetic merit. The significance of this locally listed building lies in the aesthetic merit of its street elevations and historic value of its pub use, being based on the site of a pub since the early 19th and possibly late 18th century. These aspects of significance are particular to the building and will not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. The high design quality and positive visual relationship with its neighbours on Farringdon Road will contribute positively to the setting of the locally listed building. Its local significance will be preserved.

107 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

60 Farringdon Road

6.37 View 9 includes the north side of 60 Farringdon Road on the right of the frame. It shows that the building’s existing immediate context to the north is formed by Kamen House. It shows how the Appeal Scheme will help to embed Kamen House better into the streetscape, thereby improving the setting of the locally listed building. The limited aesthetic value of its street frontage and historic value for its former manufacturing purpose and period of construction will not be affected by the Appeal Scheme. Its local significance will be preserved.

58 Farringdon Road/4-6 Pear Tree Court

6.38 Like the adjacent building at No.60, 58 Farringdon Road has some limited aesthetic value for its street elevations and historic value for its former manufacturing purpose and period of construction, contemporary with the adjacent rail lines and insertion of Farringdon Road. 58 Farringdon Road is visible in relation to the Appeal Site in oblique views north along Farringdon Road from beside the rail cutting. The views assessment shows that the Appeal Scheme will relate positively to its context in views up and down Farringdon Road and, if noticed within the setting of this locally listed building, it will be an enhancement. The local significance of 58 Farringdon Road will not be affected.

54 and 56 Farringdon Road 6.39 These two locally listed buildings have clear group value and an important townscape role, positioned over the rail cutting and defining the junction of Farringdon Road and Farringdon Lane. The Appeal Scheme will not alter the aesthetic value of their street elevations or the historic value of their warehouse typology, nor will it alter their association with the insertion of the adjacent Farringdon Road and the rail line. The Appeal Scheme will be seen partially in long views north along Farringdon Road which include these locally listed buildings. The views assessment shows that the Appeal Scheme will relate positively to their context in views up and down Farringdon Road and, if noticed within the setting of these locally listed buildings, it will be an enhancement. The local significance of 54 and 56 Farringdon Road will not be affected.

Features of Local Importance

20 Bowling Green Lane

108 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

6.40 20 Bowling Green has some limited aesthetic value for its street elevation and historic value for its former manufacturing purpose and period of construction, contemporary with the insertion of Farringdon Road. It is situated opposite the south end of the Appeal Site and view 8 shows that the proposed office element will be positioned opposite 20 Bowling Green Lane. The high design quality of the proposal will contribute positively to the setting of this building of local importance and will not affect its historic and aesthetic value.

143-157 Farringdon Road

6.41 143-157 Farringdon Road has some historic value and its main elevation on Farringdon Road has notable aesthetic value and contributes positively to the streetscape. It is typical of the commercial Victorian architecture which followed the creation of Farringdon Road and is located opposite the Appeal Site. Its height, composition of mass, design details and proportions have been informed by the design of the Appeal Scheme. The views assessment (Appendix RT2) shows that the Appeal Scheme will substantially improve the setting of this locally important building, balancing its height on the opposite side of the road and responding to its composition and rich design character. Its historic interest and aesthetic merit would be unaffected.

159 Farringdon Road

6.42 159 Farringdon Road (The Eagle) is also locally listed and the likely effects on its local importance are considered at paragraph 6.36 above.

109 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

7.0 Conclusions in relation to the relevant Reason for Refusal

Introduction

7.1 Having placed the Appeal Scheme in its policy and physical context, described its design character, and considered its impact on the character of the surrounding context, views within the area and the settings of heritage assets, I will now consider the Reason for Refusal [CD 4.6] relevant to my evidence:

Reason for Refusal 2:

The proposed building is not appropriate in this location by reason of its failure to relate to the surrounding context and adjoining conservation areas and its inappropriate detailed design and choice of materials which result in an incongruous visual appearance. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 58 of the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2015, Policy CS13 of the Islington Core Strategy, Policy DM 2.1 of Islington's Development Management Policies, and site allocation BC46 of the Finsbury Local Plan, which seek to ensure development is appropriately sited and designed and is appropriate to its surrounding context.

7.2 LBI expand on this reason for refusal at paragraphs 4.90-4.95 of their Statement of Case [CD 5.1]. As noted in Section 4 of my proof and examined at greater length there, the main concerns raised by LBI relate to:

• Materials (use of metal rather than masonry) • Saw tooth design and fenestration • Projection of upper floors over ground level • Repetition of blocks • Lack of rich detailing

7.3 My proof has examined the relationship of the Appeal Scheme to the surrounding context and adjoining conservation areas and the visual appearance of its detailed design and materials and has concluded that it will make a positive contribution to views, townscape character and the settings of heritage assets.

7.4 In relation to the aspects of the detailed design raised by LBI in their Statement of Case [CD 5.1], I have the following response (summarised from my analysis at section 4):

• Metal forms an appropriate response to the particular conditions of the Site and enables greater richness and 3-dimensionailty to the elevations, in response to the local building character and in line with local and national design guidance; 110 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

• The metal is folded across its elevations (rather than ‘saw tooth’) and the folds will have a similar visual effect to the deep masonry reveals of the local Victorian buildings, hiding the windows in oblique views, and displaying a similar rhythm and depth of skyline profile at roof level as the brick chimney pots on those older buildings; • The upper levels do not project beyond the ground level and the definition and robust character of the ground level is in keeping with other high quality buildings on the main route of Farringdon Road; • The separation of the building breadth into six building elements, all of which share the same design principles (with variations reflecting the different uses within) is similar to the separate buildings and bays of the broad warehouse buildings and terraces locally and evokes the series of six storey blocks which formerly occupied the Site; • The rich detailing of the local Victorian buildings is most evident in the brickwork colours and grain; the proportions, scale and patterning of the window openings; and a delicate balance of vertical and horizontal elements – of cornices and columns, bays and storey levels – all aspects of which have been carefully considered in the detailed design of the Appeal Scheme.

7.5 In relation to the surrounding context (described at paragraphs 3.14-3.25 and in relation to views of the Appeal Scheme at 6.3-6.6), the Appeal Scheme will have very little visibility in the wider area. It will sit comfortably with the primary context on Farringdon Road and will be seen partially and positively in views along side streets and to the rear / east. The character of the surrounding context - which is largely defined by Victorian infrastructure and large scale development imposed on a more historic finer grain, and a tight mix of different building uses – will remain the same. The Appeal Scheme will comprise a mix of uses and a building mass appropriate to its site beside the Victorian thoroughfare of Farringdon Road. It will have a limited palette of colour, visual depth to its elevations and high quality materials which will successfully relate to positive aspects of the local context, in particular the surviving Victorian commercial development in the locality.

7.6 In relation to the adjoining conservation areas, the Appeal Scheme will also have a positive appearance within their close setting. The surrounding context of the Appeal Site is largely formed by the two adjoining conservation areas and they are both – in different ways and comprising different, particular places and buildings – characterised by the contrast of character between the main Victorian routes with development along them, and the more historic spaces and alleys which survive 111 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

away from them (they are described at paragraphs 3.27-3.46 and considered in relation to the views at 6.7-6.18). The Appeal Scheme would only be seen from the edge of both Conservation Areas and would not be seen from the core places of significance within either Conservation Area – Exmouth Market, Rosebery Avenue, Clerkenwell Green. The Appeal Scheme will mainly be seen from the parts of Farringdon Road in these two Conservation Areas and it will relate positively to that primary streetscape, as examined in my proof. The significance of both Conservation Areas will be preserved.

7.7 In relation to the visual appearance of the detailed design and choice of materials, the Appeal Scheme will be of an appropriately high quality and will form a clear contextual response to the Appeal Site. Whilst the metal materials may not be typical of buildings within the close area, they are appropriate to the constraints of the particular site and will be of a high quality, a richness of colour, and will be detailed to respond to characteristics of buildings which contribute positively to adjoining Conservation Areas. My assessment in sections 5 and 6 concludes that the materials and detailed design of the Appeal Scheme will complement the materials and detailed design of Victorian development locally whilst being clearly of its own time. The settings of local heritage assets will be enhanced by the massing and detailed design of the Appeal Scheme and their significance will be preserved.

7.8 In relation to Paragraph 58 of the NPPF, the Appeal Scheme will “function well and add to the overall quality of the area […]” through all aspects of its design. It will “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation” (my emphasis). It will be “visually attractive” and will fully accord with all points set out in paragraph 58 and all other paragraphs relating to good design and conservation in the NPPF.

7.9 Likewise, and as addressed in detail in the evidence of Ms Elizabeth Milimuka, the Appeal Scheme will accord with London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 and LBI policies CS13 of the Islington Core Strategy, Policy DM 2.1 of LBI Development Management Policies, and site allocation BC46 of the Finsbury Local Plan.

7.10 The Reasons for Refusal [CD 4.6] make no reference to the settings or significance of listed buildings and locally listed buildings; however, I have considered the significance of local heritage assets and potential impacts on their settings in my proof (they are described at paragraphs 3.47 – 3.82 and considered in relation to

112 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

views of the Appeals Scheme at 6.19-38). I have concluded that the significance of all heritage assets will be preserved.

7.11 Potential harm to the setting of the Grade I Listed Finsbury Health Centre has been raised by 3rd party objectors. My analysis demonstrates that there will be little visual impact on the setting of the Health Centre, the exceptional architectural and historical significance of which will be fully preserved (paragraphs 6.30-31).

113 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

8.0 Final Conclusions

8.1 I conclude therefore that the Appeal Scheme has been designed to respond positively, in scale and mass, to the existing townscape, including local conservation areas, listed buildings and undesignated heritage assets close to the Site.

8.2 The Appeal Site is not located within a Conservation Area, nor are any of the buildings on the Site statutorily or locally listed. My assessment of the views confirms that the character of the surrounding townscape and the significance and setting of all nearby designated heritage assets would be left unharmed.

8.3 Consequently, I conclude – contrary to the Reasons for Refusal relevant to my expertise and proof of evidence – that the Appeal Scheme will satisfy National, Regional and Local Plan policy and guidance. I therefore agree with the professional judgment of LBI Council Officers who recommended the Appeal Scheme for approval.

8.4 In relation to my specific expertise as set out in this proof, I therefore commend the Appeal Scheme to the Inspector unequivocally.

RT 12 December 2017

References

1-1 Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA) (2013) 1-2 Pevsner and Cherry, The Buildings of England: London 4: North (2002) 1-3 Survey of London Volume 46: South and East Clerkenwell (LCC, 2008) 1-4 Survey of London Volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (LCC, 2008)

114 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

Appendix RT1: Background and Experience

A.1 My name is Robert William Tavernor. I am a registered architect and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects (since 1985). I studied architecture in London (BA and Dip. Arch with Distinction, 1973-79), Rome (Scholar in Architecture at the British School at Rome, 1979-80), and at the University of Cambridge (St John’s College, 1980-83, PhD awarded 1985).

A.2 I am Emeritus Professor of Architecture and Urban Design at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). I have been Forbes Professor of Architecture at the University of Edinburgh (1992-5), Professor of Architecture and Head of the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the University of Bath (1995-2005); and Professor and Director of the LSE Cities Programme (2005- 8). I have held various visiting academic posts internationally, including Visiting Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA, 1998), European Union Visiting Scholar in planning and conservation at the University of Texas A&M (2002); and Visiting Professor in Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, Brazil (2004). I continue to lecture internationally, and I am currently a Visiting Professor of Architecture at the University of Bath and on the Faculty of the Arts at the British School at Rome (both since 2009).

A.3 As an architectural historian and theorist I am an expert in the foundations of Italian Renaissance architecture and the transmission of associated ideas and forms to England and America. I am the author of books on Palladio and Palladianism (Thames & Hudson, 1991 – subsequently translated into Italian, Chinese and Korean) and On Alberti and the Art of Building (Yale University Press, 1998). I am co-translator of two English translations of architectural treatises: Leon Battista Alberti’s 16th century De re aedificatoria, as On the Art of Building in Ten Books (The MIT Press, 1988); and Andrea Palladio’s 17th century I quattro libri dell’architettura, as The Four Books on Architecture (The MIT Press, 1997). I wrote the introduction to a new edition of Vitruvius’ treatise, On Architecture, for Penguin Classics, which was published in September 2009. Other books include Smoot’s Ear: the Measure of Humanity (Yale UP, 2007; paperback version 2008) and I was co-editor (with G. Dodds) of Body and Building: Essays on the changing relation of Body to Architecture (The MIT Press, 2002; paperback edition 2005).

A.4 As an architectural practitioner I received the 1992 and 1993 Environmental Design Awards for designs in the World Heritage City of Bath, I have won prizes in 115 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

international architectural competitions and exhibited work internationally. I have been a juror and chair for national and international architectural design competitions. The Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland commissioned me to report on Masterplans in Scotland (1994), which was developed into a book I edited, Edinburgh (in Rassegna, 1996: separate English and Italian editions). More recent essays focus on urban design issues in London and include: ‘Composing London Visually’ (a chapter in the book, Visualising the City, 2008) and ‘Absorbing the Shock of the New’ (a chapter in the book, Kaleidoscope City, 2014) and I guest edited a special issue on ‘The London Plan 2000-2010: A Decade of Transformation’ in City, Culture and Society (Vol. 1 Issue 2, 2011).

A.5 As an architectural and urban design consultant I provide – with my colleagues in the Tavernor Consultancy – architectural, heritage and urban planning advice to institutions, developers and architects. Most our work has related to large-scale masterplanning and building design submissions (including in London: Greenwich Peninsula, Croydon Gateway, New Wembley, Battersea Power Station and Earls Court) and the design of individual buildings, some tall and often located in or visible in relation to sensitive historic settings. We have advised on the townscape and heritage impacts of the tallest buildings in central London during the last 15 years, including in the City of London: Heron Tower, 100 Bishopsgate, 22 Bishopsgate (and its predecessor, The Pinnacle), 6-8 Bishopsgate, 1 Undershaft (formerly the Aviva Tower) and the so-called ‘Scalpel’.

A.6 Developments for which my consultancy has provided Townscape and Heritage advice and assessments in LBI include the following (arranged chronologically by planning consent):

• Highbury Gardens, 52 Holloway Road, London N7 8JL – Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/A/07/2057438. (Appeal allowed 15 May 2008, development complete); • The Bower, 207-211 Old Street, London EC1 (consented 2013, and under construction with completion in 2018); • National Youth Theatre, and housing at 443-449 Holloway Road, London N7 6LJ (consented 2013); • Mount Pleasant – recovered and approved by the Mayor of London (Decision 13 Aug 2014); and

116 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof

• Monmouth House (58-64 City Rd and 24-28 Feathersone St and 19-23 Featherstone St), London EC1Y 8RN – recovered and approved by the Mayor of London (Decision 4 Nov 2015).

A.7 Internationally, I established the masterplanning team and provided the visual and heritage assessment principles for the Russian city of Perm (the first application of such principles in the Russian Federation), a new urban planning concept that won the Grand Prix at the Moscow Architecture Biennale 2010. My expertise in the urban development of London led to the DCMS asking me to provide evidence to the UNESCO and ICOMOS World Heritage Committee in the autumn of 2006 regarding the impact of modern architecture in the City on the Tower of London WHS. I advised the US Government in 2013 regarding a strategy for tall buildings in Washington DC.

A.8 I am frequently engaged by clients at the very outset of the project to advise on the architect appropriate for a specific site and design task, and to work with the design and planning team throughout the pre-application period helping to arrive at a design that is of the highest quality design, and which – in my judgement – will have a positive relationship with existing heritage assets. I have also provided evidence in support of appellants at more than 45 planning inquiries – many of them for major projects – mainly in London.

117 Tavernor Townscape and Heritage Proof