Heritage Statement

MOLA

March 2020

Harrow Carparks Project Canons Park

HA8 6RN

Heritage Statement

www.mola.org.uk © MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 fax 0207 410 2201 email:[email protected] Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee Registered in England and Wales Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED

Harrow Carparks Project Canons Park

HA8 6RN

Heritage Statement

NGR 517 637:192 596

Sign-off history issue issue date prepared by reviewed by approved by reason for issue no. 1 01/08/2019 Alicia Vickers Samuel Abelman Chris Thomas Preliminary issue Assistant Project Project Manager— Director Heritage Manager—Built Heritage Built Heritage 4 02/12/2019 Alicia Vickers Samuel Abelman Samuel Abelman Revised Assistant Project Project Manager— Project Manager— Manager—Built Heritage Built Heritage Built Heritage 5 18/12/2019 Alicia Vickers Samuel Abelman Samuel Abelman Revised Assistant Project Project Manager— Project Manager— Manager—Built Heritage Built Heritage Built Heritage 6 27/02/2020 Alicia Vickers Samuel Abelman Samuel Abelman Final Assistant Project Project Manager— Project Manager— Manager—Built Heritage Built Heritage Built Heritage

PO code: P19-249

www.mola.org.uk © MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 fax 0207 410 2201 email:[email protected] Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee Registered in England and Wales Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED

Contents

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 5 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 5 1.2 Heritage assets 5 1.3 Aims and objectives 5

2 Methodology and sources consulted 6 2.1 Baseline 6 2.2 Significance 6 2.3 Impact 7 2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 7

3 Policy Baseline 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 Statutory Protection 8 3.3 National Planning Policy Framework 8 3.4 Greater London Regional Policy 10 3.5 Local Planning Policy (Harrow Council) 12

4 Built Heritage Baseline 15 4.1 History of the subject site 15 4.2 Site description 17 4.3 Description of setting under General Planning Advice 3 (GPA3) guidelines 20 4.4 Description of individual heritage assets within Canons Park 23

5 Statement of Significance 26 5.1 Introduction 26 5.2 Significance Criteria 26 5.3 The subject site 27 5.4 Conservation area 27 5.5 Registered Park & Garden 27

6 Proposed Development 28 6.1 Proposal 28

7 Heritage impact 29 7.1 Discussion of heritage impact 29 7.2 Discussion of relevant heritage views 30 7.3 Potential cumulative impact 33

8 Conclusions and Recommendations 34 8.1 Conclusions 34 8.2 Recommendations 34

9 Bibliography 35 9.1 Published and documentary sources 35 9.2 Other Sources 35

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 i

Figures

Cover: Proposal view (source: Karakusevic Carson Architects, February 2020)

Fig 1 Site location. Fig 2 Built heritage context. Fig 3 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25": mile map of 1866 (not to scale). Fig 4 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1935 (not to scale). Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1962 (not to scale). Fig 6 Significant elements of Canons Park Estate Conservation Area (shown in white on the map) (Source: Harrow Council). Fig 7 Final CGI showing proposed development and enhancements to Donnefield Avenue (Source: Karakusevic Carson Architects, February 2020). Fig 8 Viewpoint locations (Source: Landscape Visual). Fig 9 View 02–Canons Park near the southern entrance from Whitchurch Lane (Source: Landscape Visual). Fig 10 View 03–From Canons Park southern area (Source: Landscape Visual). Fig 11 View 05–View from Canons Park central amenity parkland area (Source: Landscape Visual). Fig 12 View 08–View from Canons Park near the walled garden (Source: Landscape Visual).

Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is approximate on early maps.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 ii

Executive summary

CBRE Ltd has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), on behalf of the applicant, to carry out a heritage statement in advance of proposed development for the Harrow Carparks Project (Canons Park), in the London Borough of Harrow. The scheme comprises redevelopment of the site for new residential development and public realm improvements. The site falls under the jurisdiction of Harrow Council. The subject site comprises a carpark adjacent to Canons Park Underground Station. The station is on the north side of Whitchurch Lane. The site runs along the east of the railway. A small portion (the northern edge) of the subject site sits within the Canons Park Conservation Area (CA). The majority of the site is not located within the conservation area. The site is located on the edge of Canons Park, a Grade II listed Registered Park and Garden (List entry: 1001394). There are a number of designated assets within the park, the closest designated asset is the Grade I listed Church of St Lawrence, approximately 360m east/south-east of the site boundary. The main building in the park is the Grade II former Canons House (now North London Collegiate School). The Canons Park Estate Conservation Area (CA) is an outstanding area for its landscaping, openness and high-quality architecture. This is due to the park and much of the wider area passing from medieval origins to the early 20th century as one estate. The Grade II listed manor house was built in 1747 on the foundations of the Jacobean mansion and formed the estate centrepiece. It is now owned by the North London Collegiate School (NLCS). The contemporary landscape covers much of the conservation area and includes remains of the landscape designed by William Kent, Humphrey Repton and Charles Mellows, now designated as a registered park and garden and includes numerous listed features such as the George V memorial garden and a garden temple. The proposal will comprise the construction of up to 118 residential units, across three apartment buildings of six storeys with a seventh storey set back. This desk-based study assesses the possible impacts of the proposed development on built heritage assets in and around the site. Although below ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, they have been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. A separate Archaeological Assessment has been undertaken by MOLA and accompanies this planning application. This report has the following findings: The subject site comprises a strip of land alongside the railway for proposed redevelopment. The site is presently car-parking. It makes no contribution to the setting of Canons Park or the Canons Park Conservation Area. The following is noted in terms of the proposed development: • The proposed development will provide a high quality and responsive development to the site’s heritage context. It is suitably distanced from key buildings, features and elements within the park (primarily the former Canons Park Mansion and key route from Canons Drive); whose individual significance and setting will be wholly conserved by the proposed development. • The proposed development will occur on one edge of Canons Park only, which has previously been subject to low-medium scale development. The proposed development on this one edge of the park will be set in the backdrop of intervening built and landscape form and screened by trees. The proposed development will therefore not affect the overall sense of ‘openness’ and areas of seclusion across the park. • The proposed development will have minor impact on an identified panorama view only, but this view is of ‘lesser significance’ in the park as it has previously been impacted by the identified existing fence, hedge and built form. Other more significant direct long and short distance views across the park will be unaffected. • The proposed development is responsive to the established character of the station and the surrounding conservation area. • The proposed development is considered likely to have ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of Canons Park (and the Canons Park Conservation Area), due to the scale of the

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 1

proposed development (with the present carpark currently contributing to openness); however, the harm is at the lower end of the threshold and outweighed by the significant public benefits of the proposal. The sympathetic and high-quality design response of the proposed development (as outlined within this report) should also be considered, together with the provision of significant public realm enhancements, including an improved entrance and access to the park from Donnefield Avenue, which assists to mitigate the level of harm. • There will be no heritage impact on the significance and setting of identified individually listed buildings and landscape elements within the park. The public benefits of the proposal have been summarised below and are further detailed in the accompanying planning documentation: • The delivery of 118 affordable housing unit at a policy compliant mix, providing London affordable rent and shared ownership properties; • The delivery of a circa 70 space cycle hub; • High quality public realm improvements through pocket parks and landscaping; and • Enhancement of the entrance to Canons Park along Donnefield Avenue (a key route to the Park) through an improved public realm.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 2

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 3

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 4

1 Introduction

1.1 Origin and scope of the report

1.1.1 CBRE Ltd has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out a heritage statement in advance of proposed development for the Harrow Carparks Project (Canons Park), in the London Borough of Harrow (National Grid Reference: 518 114:191 441) Fig 1. The scheme comprises redevelopment of the site for new residential development, public car park and public realm improvements. 1.1.2 This heritage statement assesses the impact of the scheme on built heritage assets (standing buildings). It provides an investigation of the area of proposed development (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’) and is required in relation to the planning process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact upon any known or possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. 1.1.3 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) (see section 10 of this report) and to standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA Dec 2014a, 2014b), Historic England (EH 2008, 2015), and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS 2014), and the City of London (CoL 2004). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA retains the copyright to this document. 1.1.4 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.

1.2 Heritage assets

1.2.1 A small portion (the northern edge) of the subject site sits within the Canons Park Conservation Area (CA). The majority of the site is not located within the conservation area. 1.2.2 The site is located on the edge of Canons Park, a Grade II listed Registered Park and Garden (List entry: 1001394). There are a number of designated assets within the park, the closest designated asset is the Grade I listed Church of St Lawrence, approximately 360m east/south- east of the site boundary. The main building in the park is the Grade II former Canons House (now North London Collegiate School).

1.3 Aims and objectives

1.3.1 The aim of the assessment is to: • assess the likely impacts upon the significance of the built heritage assets arising from the proposals; and • provide recommendations for further assessment where necessary of the built historic assets affected, and/or mitigation aimed at reducing or removing completely any adverse impacts upon heritage assets and/or their setting.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 5

2 Methodology and sources consulted

2.1 Baseline

2.1.1 The baseline for this assessment has been determined primarily through desk-based research into designated and undesignated heritage assets on and near the site of the proposed development. It has been confirmed and extended by a site visit by a MOLA Built Heritage Consultant. 2.1.2 The following are the principal sources consulted: • MOLA - in-house Geographical Information System (GIS) with statutory designations GIS data, the locations of all key indicators of known prehistoric and Roman activity across Greater London, past investigation locations, projected Roman roads and burial grounds from the Holmes burial ground survey of 1896; georeferenced published historic maps; Defence of Britain survey data, in-house archaeological deposit survival archive; and archaeological publications. • Historic England - information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings, along with identified Heritage at Risk. • The London Society Library - published histories and journals. • British National Copyright Library - historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860-70s) to the present day. • Groundsure Landmark - historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860-70s) to the present day, and Goad fire insurance maps. • British Geological Survey (BGS) - solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data. • Historic England Archive, Swindon - vertical and specialist (oblique) air photographs. • Internet - web-published material including LPA local plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings.

2.2 Significance

2.2.1 The assessment considers all structures on or near the site of a proposed development to have potential significance as heritage assets. From this start position, the values and significance of each asset will be determined using criteria set out in Historic England (formerly English Heritage)’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (EH 2008). All structures with a level of significance as heritage assets will be discussed in the report and included as material considerations in the assessment. Structures of negligible value and significance as heritage assets will not be assessed further and will generally be excluded from the report except where there is a need for explanation of their exclusion from the assessment, such as being part of the site. 2.2.2 For each built heritage asset to be considered, a description will be provided leading to a statement of significance for that asset. Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is based on four values set out in Historic England’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (EH 2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 2.2.3 The significance of the asset is derived from its historical, evidential, communal and aesthetic values, these in turn derived from the building’s fabric, design, landscape and history. 2.2.4 In the case of Conservation Areas, the significance will be primarily found in their character assessments and those aspects of the historic built environment that make positive contributions to them. 2.2.5 The methodology for assessing the setting of designated heritage assets follows best practice as covered in Historic England's Good Practice Advice (GPA) document 3 (HE 2017). The

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 6

basis for this methodology is set out below: All heritage assets have significance, some of which have particular significance and are designated. The contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies. Although many settings may be enhanced by development, not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate it. This capacity may vary between designated assets of the same grade or of the same type or according to the nature of the change. It can also depend on the location of the asset: an elevated or overlooked location; a riverbank, coastal or island location; or a location within an extensive tract of flat land may increase the sensitivity of the setting (i.e. the capacity of the setting to accommodate change without harm to the heritage asset's significance) or of views of the asset. This requires the implications of development affecting the setting of heritage assets to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2.2.6 GPA3 sets out this methodology in stages, or steps: Step 1 - identify the asset(s) likely to be affected and the extent of setting Step 2 - assess how and to what degree the setting makes a contribution to the significance of the assets Step 3 - assess the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset; Step 4 - seek to maximise enhancement and minimise harm; and Step 5 - document and monitor outcomes 2.2.7 Steps 1 and 2 are dealt with in section 4.5, step 3 in section 7.2 and step 4 in sections 8.2 and 8.3. Step 5 is the preserve of the LPA.

2.3 Impact

2.3.1 Impacts are those actions associated with the proposed development with potential to alter the significance of a heritage asset through affecting the values that contribute to it. 2.3.2 For each built heritage asset, the potential impacts of demolition and construction will be assessed in terms of how they may alter these values and, by extension, significance of each. 2.3.3 For Conservation Areas, the assessment will focus on the preservation and/or enhancement of their historic character.

2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

2.4.1 The built heritage assessment will conclude with a list of impacts on built heritage assets in the baseline. This list is primarily intended to inform mitigation.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 7

3 Policy Baseline

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 There is potential for the proposed development to impact on the significance of designated and undesignated built heritage assets and Conservation Areas. This includes new construction that may affect the character and setting of Conservation Areas. 3.1.2 The following lays out the general criteria upon which the proposed development will be assessed. The full policy framework can be found in Section 8.1.

3.2 Statutory Protection

Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 3.2.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the legal requirements for the control of development and alterations which affect buildings, including those which are listed or in conservation areas. Buildings which are listed or which lie within a Conservation Area are protected by law. Grade I are buildings of exceptional interest. Grade II* are particularly significant buildings of more than special interest. Grade II are buildings of special interest, which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

3.3.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). The 2012 NPPF was revised and a new NPPF published in July 2018, with minor revisions in February 2019 (MHCLG 2019).

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 3.3.2 The NPPF section concerning “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” (section 12 of the NPPF 2012) has been replaced by NPPF 2018 Section 16 (unchanged in February 2019), reproduced in full below: Para 184. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Para 185. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: • a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; • c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and • d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Para 186. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest. Para 187. Local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a historic environment record. This should contain up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area and be used to:

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 8

• a) assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment; and • b) predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future. Para 188. Local planning authorities should make information about the historic environment, gathered as part of policy-making or development management, publicly accessible. Proposals affecting heritage assets Para 189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require 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. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Para 190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Para 191. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Para 192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Considering potential impacts Para 193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Para 194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: • a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; • b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. Para 195. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Para 196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 9

Para 197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Para 198. Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. Para 199. Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. Para 200. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably. Para 201. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole. Para 202. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

3.4 Greater London Regional Policy

The London Plan 3.4.1 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA March 2016). The current 2016 consolidation Plan is still the adopted Development Plan. The GLA have published their ‘intend to publish’ version of the Draft London Plan (December 2019). This is now being attributed material weight in the planning process. A. London's heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. B. Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site's archaeology. C. Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D. Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. E. New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site. Where the archaeological asset or memorial cannot be preserved or managed on-site, provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset. F. Boroughs should, in LDF policies, seek to maintain and enhance the contribution of built, landscaped and buried heritage to London's environmental quality, cultural identity and economy as part of managing London's ability to accommodate change and regeneration. G. Boroughs, in consultation with English Heritage [now named Historic England], Natural

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 10

England and other relevant statutory organisations, should include appropriate policies in their LDFs for identifying, protecting, enhancing and improving access to the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings where appropriate, and to archaeological assets, memorials and historic and natural landscape character within their area. 3.4.2 Para. 7.31 A supporting Policy 7.8 notes that 'Substantial harm to or loss of a designated heritage asset should be exceptional, with substantial harm to or loss of those assets designated of the highest significance being wholly exceptional. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use. Enabling development that would otherwise not comply with planning policies, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset should be assessed to see of the benefits of departing from those policies outweigh the disbenefits.' 3.4.3 It further adds (para. 7.31B) 'Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal'. 3.4.4 Para. 7.32 recognises the value of London's heritage: '…where new development uncovers an archaeological site or memorial, these should be preserved and managed on-site. Where this is not possible provision should be made for the investigation, understanding, dissemination and archiving of that asset'.

The Draft New London Plan 3.4.5 The overarching strategies and policies for the whole of the Greater London area are contained within the London Plan of the Greater London Authority (GLA March 2016). The current 2016 consolidation Plan is still the adopted Development Plan. The GLA have published their ‘intend to publish’ version of the Draft London Plan (December 2019). This is now being attributed material weight in the planning process. 3.4.6 Policy HC1 “Heritage conservation and growth” of the Draft New London Plan (as set out here incorporating the minor changes published in July 2019) relates to London’s historic environment: A. Boroughs should, in consultation with Historic England, local communities and other statutory and relevant organisations, develop evidence that demonstrates a clear understanding of London’s historic environment. This evidence should be used for identifying, understanding, conserving, and enhancing the historic environment and heritage assets, and improving access to, and interpretation of, the heritage assets, landscapes and archaeology within their area. B. Development Plans and strategies should demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic environment and the heritage values of sites or areas and their relationship with their surroundings. This knowledge should be used to inform the effective integration of London’s heritage in regenerative change by: 1) setting out a clear vision that recognises and embeds the role of heritage in place- making 2) utilising the heritage significance of a site or area in the planning and design process 3) integrating the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their settings with innovative and creative contextual architectural responses that contribute to their significance and sense of place 4) delivering positive benefits that conserve and enhance the historic environment, as well as contributing to the economic viability, accessibility and environmental quality of a place, and to social wellbeing. C. Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings, should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process. D. Development proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and use this information to avoid harm or minimise it through design and appropriate mitigation.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 11

Where applicable, development should make provision for the protection of significant archaeological assets and landscapes. The protection of undesignated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent to a scheduled monument should be given equivalent weight to designated heritage assets. E. Where heritage assets have been identified as being At Risk, boroughs should identify specific opportunities for them to contribute to regeneration and place-making, and they should set out strategies for their repair and re-use. 3.4.7 Para. 7.1.8 adds ‘Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of and/or damage to a heritage asset to help justify a development proposal, the deteriorated state of that asset should not be taken into account when making a decision on a development proposal’. 3.4.8 Para 7.1.11 adds ‘Developments will be expected to avoid or minimise harm to significant archaeological assets. In some cases, remains can be incorporated into and/or interpreted in new development. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site and opportunities taken to actively present the site’s archaeology. Where the archaeological asset cannot be preserved or managed on-site, appropriate provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset, and must be undertaken by suitably-qualified individuals or organisations. 3.4.9 Policy HC2, “World Heritage Sites” is as follows: A. Boroughs with World Heritage Sites and those that are neighbours to authorities with World Heritage Sites should include policies in their Development Plans that conserve, promote, actively protect and interpret the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites, which includes the authenticity and integrity of their attributes and their management. Development proposals in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zones, should conserve, promote and enhance their Outstanding Universal Value, including the authenticity, integrity and significance of their attributes, and support their management and protection. In particular, they should not compromise the ability to appreciate their Outstanding Universal Value, or the authenticity and integrity of their attributes. C. Development Proposals with the potential to affect World Heritage Sites or their settings should be supported by Heritage Impact Assessments. Where development proposals may contribute to a cumulative impact on a World Heritage Site or its setting, this should be clearly illustrated and assessed in the Heritage Impact Assessment. D. Up-to-date World Heritage Site Management Plans should be used to inform the plan- making process, and when considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plan.

3.5 Local Planning Policy (Harrow Council)

Harrow Local Plan Core Strategy 3.5.1 The Harrow Local Plan currently comprises Core Strategy and Development Management Policies that contain strategic approach to managing growth and development to 2026. The Development Management Local Plan was adopted on 4th July 2013 while the Core Strategy was adopted on 12th February 2012. The relevant heritage policies of the Strategy is outlined below:

Core Policy 1 Overarching Policy Objectives 1. Manage growth in accordance with the spatial strategy. 2. Resist any loss of Green Belt. 3. Safeguard and enhance Metropolitan Open Land. 4. Resist any net loss of open space and where possible seek to increase provision. 5. Enhance residents’ access to open space, recreation, health care, education and community facilities. 6. Deliver a minimum of 6,050 net additional homes between 2009 and 2026.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 12

7. Deliver homes which are affordable, accessible and meet their occupiers’ needs including the elderly, the disabled, larger households, vulnerable adults and the Gypsy & Traveller community. 8. Protect the character of Harrow’s suburbs and town centres. 9. Resist development on gardens. 10. Safeguard identified views and viewpoints from inappropriate development. 11. Strengthen Harrow town centre and maintain or enhance the vitality and viability of all town centres and neighbourhood parades (identified in Appendix B). 12. Promote job creation and business growth. 13. Maintain an integrated, sustainable transport network which supports growth. 14. Contribute to a 60 per cent reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. 15. Manage and mitigate flood risk. 16. Increase the sustainable management of waste. 17. Deliver the infrastructure needed to support growth. 18. Conserve and enhance Harrow’s heritage assets, such as its conservation areas.

Core Policy CS: 1 Managing growth in Harrow A. Growth will be managed in accordance with the Spatial Strategy. The Harrow & Wealdstone Intensification Area will be the focus for regeneration, providing for a significant portion of new development in accordance with Policy CS 2, including almost half of all new homes over the plan period. Growth throughout the rest of the Borough will be directed to town centres and strategic previously developed sites and managed in accordance with sub-area policies. CS3-CS10. Local Character B. Proposals that would harm the character of suburban areas and garden development will be resisted. All development shall respond positively to the local and historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building. C. Proposals that would harm identified views or impede access to public viewpoints will be resisted. D. Proposals that would harm the significance of heritage assets including their setting will be resisted. The enhancement of heritage assets will be supported and encouraged. E. All new development must create and maintain accessible, safe and secure neighbourhoods in accordance with best practice standards. Where appropriate, development should also seek to Core Policy CS 1 promote and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the aims of the Harrow Biodiversity Action Plan and best practice.

Harrow Development Management Policies 3.5.2 The Development Management Local Plan sets out Harrows approach to managing development in Harrow through specific standards and policy criteria. The Development Management Policies were adopted on the 4th July 2013.

Section 3—Conservation & Heritage Policy DM7: Heritage Assets Managing Heritage Assets A. When assessing proposals affecting heritage assets, including non-designated heritage assets, priority over other policies in the DPD will be afforded to the conservation of the assets affected and their setting as appropriate to the significance of the assets. Proposals that secure the preservation, conservation or enhancement of a heritage asset and its setting, or which secure opportunities for sustainable enjoyment of the historic environment, will be approved. B. The impact of proposals affecting heritage assets will be assessed having regard to: a. emerging or adopted supplementary planning documents, including character appraisals and management plans or other relevant documents;

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 13

b. relevant issues of design, appearance and character including proportion, scale, height, massing, bulk, alignment, materials, historic fabric, use, features, location, relationship with adjacent assets, setting, layout, plan form and landscaping; c. the preference to be afforded to proposals that both conserve and sustain heritage assets and their setting; d. any sustainable economic benefits; e. the need to mitigate climate change and to ensure that heritage assets are resilient to the effects of climate change; and f. the desirability of increasing understanding and interpretation of heritage assets; and g. the reversibility of any change. C. The Council will use planning conditions and planning obligations where necessary to secure the exploitation of opportunities for sustainable public access to the historic environment. Conservation Areas D. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals within conservation areas, the Council will: a. support the redevelopment of sites that detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b. exploit opportunities to restore lost features or introduce new ones that would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Listed Buildings E. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals affecting listed buildings and their setting, the Council will: a. pay special attention to the building’s character and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and the role of the building’s setting in these regards; and b. exploit all opportunities to secure the future of listed buildings particularly those on the ‘heritage at risk’ register. Scheduled Ancient Monuments F. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals affecting scheduled ancient monuments, the Council will have regard to: a. the relationship of the monument with other archaeology and the wider landscape in which it should be interpreted; b. the condition and management of the monument; and c. the existing and future security of the monument. G. Major development and change of use proposals affecting a scheduled ancient monument will be required to provide and implement an action plan for the management of the monument. Archaeology H. In addition to (A) and (B) above, when considering proposals affecting an archaeological priority area, the Council will have regard to: a. the known or anticipated significance of the archaeology; b. the likely implications of the proposal upon the archaeology; and c. the need to preserve the archaeology in situ; or d. the adequacy of arrangements for the investigation, recording, archiving and (where appropriate) curation of archaeology not requiring preservation in situ.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 14

4 Built Heritage Baseline

4.1 History of the subject site

4.1.1 The site is situated within the locality of ‘Little Stanmore’ in the London borough of Harrow. Little Stanmore derives from the early medieval period (AD 410–1066) when Germanic (‘Saxon’) settlers arrived from mainland Europe. By the end of the 6th century a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had emerged, and as the ruling families adopted Christianity, endowments of land were made to the church. Landed estates (manors) can be identified from the 7th century onwards; some, as Christianity was widely adopted, with a main ‘minster’ church and other subsidiary churches or chapels. Little Stanmore was a parish within the Hundred of Gore, in the historic county of Middlesex. A ‘Hundred’ was a form of early medieval land division based upon ploughable acreage. The manor of Little Stanmore was mentioned in the Domesday Book (1086) as being comprised of 9 villagers, 3 smallholders and 2 slaves, land for seven plough teams and woodland for 800 pigs. Prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066 it was owned by Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex, who, for a brief period, became King of England in 1066. By 1086 Roger of Rames possessed ownership over Little Stanmore. Archaeological evidence of this period within the vicinity of the site is limited however it is likely that the site may have been pasture or arable land.

Fig 3 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25": mile map of 1866 (not to scale).

4.1.2 The 1st edition Ordnance Survey (OS) map of 1876 (Fig 2) provides the first detail of the site with a standardised scale, 25”:1mile. The site was characterised as an open field bordered to the south by a tree-lined path or road following a similar alignment to the present-day Whitchurch Lane. To the west of the site, a small lodge house fronted on to Whitchurch Lane and a small path adjacent to the lodge ran northward towards Canons Park Farm. Although later medieval records of this area are limited it is likely that the site continued to be used as

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 15

open agricultural land from the early medieval period to this time.

Fig 4 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1935 (not to scale).

4.1.3 The site and surrounding area appeared generally unaltered until the OS map of 1935 (Fig 4) detailed Canons Park Underground Station occupying the site. The station was comprised of a small passenger terminal and two platforms, two sets of track. A steel railway bridge ran over Whitchurch Lane to allow transit southwards. The lodge building and Canons Park Farm had been removed and replaced by detached and semi-detached suburban houses with private gardens that lined Whitchurch Lane and new residential roads to the west of the railway tracks. Donnefield Avenue had been constructed by this time. It ran from Whitchurch Lane northwards along the eastern boundary of the site. Flanking Donnefield Avenue to the east were two apartment blocks, marked ‘Canons Park Close’ with a sports pavilion and playing fields further east. OS mapping of 1962 (Fig 5) notes a small layby and parking space on the east side of the station, turning off Donnefield Avenue. The site remained unchanged until 1999 when the site appeared in its current configuration with an additional car park extending from the existing layby into the previously open land to the north. The car park extended northwards, along the west side of Donnefield Avenue, to the perimeter of Canon’s Park.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 16

Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 scale map of 1962 (not to scale).

4.2 Site description

4.2.1 The subject site comprises a linear surface carpark adjacent to Canons Park Underground Station and bordering Canons Park to the north and the east. The station is on the south side of London Road and the site runs along the east of the railway. There are no buildings on the subject site. The site is accessed from Donnefield Avenue runs alongside the carpark and is a quiet cul de sac providing an entrance to the park. 4.2.2 Surrounding residential areas are comprised of early 20th Century residential estates which are of largely cohesive as largely Metroland development. 4.2.3 A small portion (the northern part) of the subject site sits within the Canons Park Conservation Area (CA) as described below:

Canons Park Estate Conservation Area 4.2.4 The subject site forms part of the Canons Park Estate Conservation Area. The boundary of the conservation area is shown in Figure 3. Canons Park Estate Conservation Area is described within the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy as follows: The Canons Park Estate CA is an outstanding area given its special landscaping, openness, and good architecture. This is because it comprises a large part of the original Canons Park estate including the grade II listed mansion dating back to 1747 and surrounding landscaping. It has interesting histories attached to it, including associations with famous architects. The area includes a high quality formally planned Metroland estate in a largely 'Tudor revival' design and street layout within a green, sylvan setting that incorporates landscape features of the original estate, including two lakes, a historic avenue and abundant greenery. This landscaped setting lends a special soft, informal and in places, particularly along Canons Drive, a soft, verdant ambience. There is a good spacious and tranquil environment created by

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 17

public and private open spaces and greenery. Similarly, adding to the area’s importance is the range of key views towards landmark buildings, architectural qualities and across open greenery with tree avenues and picturesque ponds. It is the delicate balance of the above factors that achieves the area's special character.1

Canons Park 4.2.5 The site borders Canons Park to the north and the east as described below. Canons Park is described under its Historic England Database Listing Form as follows: LOCATION, AREA, BOUNDARIES, LANDFORM, SETTING Canons Park lies in the former county of Middlesex, between Edgware to the east and Stanmore to the west, on the east side of the former Stanmore railway line (now Jubilee Line). The registered site comprises c 50ha of formal gardens and parkland surrounded by housing and other suburban development. The avenues running west from the park towards Marsh Lane, across the railway line, and running east along Canons Drive to Edgware High Street, have been retained. ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES The principal approach to the North London Collegiate School is from Edgware High Street, via an entrance drive known as Canons Drive. The entrance is flanked by two gate piers and the drive, planted with Wellingtonia, runs westwards curving around an oval pond known as The Basin. The drive formed part of the early C18 park layout and used to be (OS 1863) a double avenue planted with Wellingtonia and oak. There are three other entrances to the public park: one to the south at Whitchurch Lane, one to the south-west at Donnefield Avenue (both mid to late C20), and one to the west at Marsh Lane, giving access to the remains of the C18 western avenue known as Canons Park, planted with oak. In the early C20 this avenue was adopted as the main approach to the house. PRINCIPAL BUILDING The North London Collegiate School, formerly Canons House (listed grade II), stands at the northern end of the park, forming the main focus of the landscape. The present three-storey building has an irregular elevation, with a smooth rusticated ground storey and Corinthian pilaster decoration. The building still retains the core of the mid C18 Canons House, which was built with some of the materials of the former house demolished in c 1750. The mid C18 villa was substantially rebuilt in the C19 and was recast in stone by Charles E Mallows (1864-1915) in c 1910 for the new owner, Sir Arthur Phillip Du Cros. To the north of the principal school building, new school buildings were added in 1939-40 by Sir Albert Richardson, who also designed the drawing school of 1957. The music school of 1971 and the Headmistress' house of 1977, at the end of Canons Drive, are both by John O' Neilly, a pupil of Richardson. Part of this late c20th century development is the swimming pool in the far north-west corner of the park. GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS The formal gardens lie within the grounds of the North London Collegiate School, on the south and east sides of the main building. They were designed by Charles E Mallows in c 1910. Mallows' garden to the north of the school was covered by additional school buildings in the mid to late c20th century development. The south-east front of the main building opens onto a rectangular balustraded garden (walls, terrace, and balustrades listed grade II), of symmetrical design and laid with crazy paving. In the middle is a square pond which at present (1998) is filled in and grassed. Central steps lead to the tennis court, laid out in the late C20 and partly covering Mallows' garden in this area. Beyond the tennis court, on an axis with the central steps, stands a circular temple (listed grade II as part of the balustraded garden) of c 1910 by Mallows, which serves to lead the eye towards the former south avenue. The balustraded garden continues around the north-east side of the school. Parallel and below this is an herbaceous border beyond which lie the playing fields. Looking north along the length of this level is a semicircular stone screen designed to hold a seat to look down the length of the herbaceous border. The irregular-shaped pond situated on the north-west side of the main school building dates from the early C18 layout of the gardens. On the west side of this pond stands a small summerhouse of the late C20, replacing an earlier garden building.

1 Canons Park Estate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (Harrow Council), December 2010, pp338-339

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 18

PARK The southern part of the registered parkland which includes allotment gardens and playing fields has a mid to late C20 functional path layout. Along the eastern park boundary is a woodland walk running through The Spinney, which dates back to Alexander Blackwell's early C18 layout of the park. The remains of the southern parkland such as the raised banks formerly flanking both sides of the avenue running towards the Church of Saint Lawrence, and along the woodland walk through the Spinney, are still visible. The avenue survived into the mid C20 but of the medieval church of Saint Lawrence (listed grade I), situated in the south- east corner of the park, only the west tower remains. The church was rebuilt by John in 1715 and dedicated in 1720, to become the Duke of Chandos' private estate chapel. In 1735-6 a mausoleum was erected to the north of the church to house a monument to the Duke of Chandos and his two wives. The parkland on the north-east side of the school is in use as sports grounds, with two tennis courts adjacent to the school buildings. A lime avenue planted in the mid to late C20 runs eastwards from the main school building in the direction of The Lake, formerly known as Seven Acres Pond. After the Duke of Chandos' house was demolished in c 1750, several external architectural features were removed from the park including a lead sculpture of George I, possibly standing in The Lake, which went to Leicester Square (now demolished); and a stone sculpture of George II which went to Golden Square (listed grade II). KITCHEN GARDEN Some 70m south of the school, situated in the public park area, is a rectangular walled area. The brick walls (listed grade II) are the remains of the early C18 kitchen garden which formed part of James Brydges' layout for the garden at Canons Park. There are three entrance gates to this walled garden, namely on the north, west, and south sides. Since the early to mid C20 the kitchen garden has been called the George V Memorial Garden, with a formal layout of 1938 featuring a central square pond surrounded by a raised terrace with steps, formal flower beds, and a pavilion on the east side of the garden. Some 65m north of the kitchen garden, surrounded by trees, some dating from the C19, stands an early C19 temple (listed grade II) with supporting walls and a raised paved area on the front. South of the kitchen garden lies an unusual rectangular area dating back to Alexander Blackwell's early C18 design for the park which shows a grove planted with hawthorn.2

Discussion of key views and landmarks within Canons Park 4.2.6 Key views and landmarks are shown on Fig 6 below. Significant views and elements within the park including panoramic views, long distance views and short distance views. The only identified view which will be affected by the proposed development is a single panoramic view from the south entrance to the park (from Whitchurch Avenue). There is an open view along the footpath travelling north and looking across the open site; however, a visual barrier (hedge and fence) interrupts the panoramic view to the proposed development site. 4.2.7 All the listed buildings within the Park (some which from local landmarks including the church and the former Canons Park Mansion) have secluded, screened and private settings and are not intended to be appreciated from the open. 4.2.8 There are no long-distance views to the proposed development site. Long distance views are directed towards the collection of individual heritage assets located in the northern portion of the Park. 4.2.9 There is a panoramic view from the George V Memorial Garden (looking south) but the proposed new development will not be visible beyond tree coverage in this view.

2 Historic England, National Heritage List, Canons Park Grade II Park and Garden, accessed: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1001394, accessed August 2019.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 19

4.3 Description of setting under General Planning Advice 3 (GPA3) guidelines

Introduction 4.3.1 General Planning Advice 3 (GPA3) The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015) sets out the broad methodology for assessing the impact of development on the significance of assets. This suggests a staged approach - Step 1 being the identification of assets potentially affected; Step 2 being to assess whether, how and to what degree the setting makes a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s); Step 3 is to assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Step 4 is to explore the ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm; and Step 5, which is the preserve of the LPA, is to make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.

Step 1 4.3.2 This report has identified that the key heritage assets which could potentially be affected is the Canons Park Estate Conservation Area and Canons Park, a Grade II listed Registered Park and Garden (Step 1).

Step 2 4.3.3 In detail, Step 2 considers: a) the physical surroundings of the asset, including its relationship with other heritage assets; b) the way the asset is appreciated; and c) the asset’s associations and patterns of use.

4.3.4 Commentary of the various facets of these factors is as follows: a) The asset’s physical surroundings • Physical location – Canons Park is between Edgware and Stanmore with entrances from Canons Drive, Donnefield Avenue, Howberry Road and Whitchurch Lane. • Topography – The conservation area is either flat or gently sloping. Importantly though some slopes in the land were formed as part of the formal landscaping to help create a sense of grandeur e.g. the mansion is slightly raised giving a short slope to the east of the mansion house so it dominates views from the east. Also, along the carriage drive (now Canons Drive) the wide grass verges raise upwards towards the back edges to ensure the avenue of trees towards the rear of these grass verges seems taller to impart a sense of splendour to this former carriage driveway. • Aspect – N/A. • Other heritage assets (including buildings, structures, landscapes, areas or archaeological remains) – the park is listed as Grade II on the Register of Parks and Gardens with the park containing several listed buildings. The King George V Memorial Garden is a walled garden in the park which was originally part of the duke’s kitchen gardens and was re-designed in the 1930s, once the park became open to the public. The majority of listed assets are located within the northern extent of the Park and heavily excluded by vegetation. • Definition, scale and ‘grain’ of surrounding streetscape, landscape and spaces – the conservation area has a formal landscaped setting. Buildings within the grounds of the mansion do not exceed 3 storeys (and usually do not exceed 2 storeys) and are sited well away from key views towards it i.e. not to the south or east. This respects the dominant scale and siting of the mansion and help retains its intended landmark quality. • Formal design e.g. hierarchy, layout – there is a formal garden design attributed to the development of the landscape, such as the location of entrances, pathways and plantings and the design of the formal gardens as part of the earlier estate. • Historic materials and surfaces – buildings which form part of the estate are a mix of traditional and more recent buildings, which sit comfortably together because, with the exception of the mansion, buildings are usually of a modest scale, with traditional materials and simple architectural style.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 20

• Green space, trees and vegetation - the conservation area has a feeling of greenery, openness and grandeur. Some areas (the northern extent of the park) are heavily secluded by mature trees and vegetation, which is characteristic to the setting of the park (which contains both secluded and open spaces) • Openness, enclosure and boundaries – the conservation area is characterised by a grand, historic planned landscaped park and gardens radiating out from the former Canons Park mansion (now the North London Collegiate School) and the formally laid out and planned Metroland estate of largely Kentish inspired black and white Tudor Revival style houses. The former imparts a sense of openness, grandeur and tranquillity via its carefully planned historic landscape of, often listed, buildings and structures, including St Lawrence Church, and ‘natural’ planned features such as lakes (Canons Lake and Basin, a circular pond) and avenues of trees. • Functional relationships and communications – there is no functional relationship between the heritage assets in the park. There are commonalities between these as they are largely public buildings associated with the function of the site as an urban park. • History and degree of change over time – the overall interpretation and significance of the area has been retained. There is evidence of the former estate and retained features of the earlier landscape, mature trees and lakes.

b) Experience of the asset • Surrounding landscape of townscape character – Canons Park covers much of the CA and includes remains of landscape designed by William Kent, Humphry Repton and Charles Mellows, and is designated as a registered park and garden with numerous listed features. • Views from, towards, though, across and including the asset – there are a range of key views towards landmark buildings, architectural qualities and across open greenery with tree avenues and picturesque ponds. • Intentional intervisibility with other historic or natural features – there is a formal garden design attributed to the development of the landscape and thus associated intentional intervisibility between for example the former Mansion, formal gardens and other landscape features. • Visual dominance, prominence or role as focal point – planned landscape features of the 18th century estate (such as the Basin and Seven Acres Lake) as well as other grassland and vegetation are the dominant visual features and an important part of the area's special interest. • Noise, vibration and other nuisances – the area is quiet. • Diurnal changes – the greenery of the landscape is subject to diurnal changes. • Sense of enclosure, seclusion, intimacy or privacy – the park has a sense of ‘openness’ but also more secluded areas; which contributes to its overall characteristics and setting. • Land use – the land use is public/recreational as an urban park with surrounding residential development. • Accessibility, permeability and patterns of movement – movement through the park is predominately from the main entrances to the park. The principal approach to the North London Collegiate School is from Edgware High Street, via an entrance drive known as Canons Drive. The entrance is flanked by two gate piers and the drive. The drive formed part of the early C18 park layout and there is a particularly splendid and special character to this spine route which follows the former carriage drive to the mansion house There are three other entrances to the public park: one to the south at Whitchurch Lane, one to the south-west at Donnefield Avenue (both mid to late C20), and one to the west at Marsh Lane, giving access to the remains of the C18 western avenue known as Canons Park. In the early C20 this avenue was adopted as the main approach to the house. • Degree of interpretation or promotion to the public – see ‘history and degree of landscape over time’. • Rarity of comparable survivals of setting – N/A

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 21

• Celebrated artistic representations – the design of the landscape is attributed to William Kent, Humphry Repton and Charles Mellows during the English landscape period and Arts and Crafts landscape Movement.

c) Associations • The assets associative attributes – there are no associative attributes other than a visual association as a collection of heritage assets within a park landscape. • Associative relationships between heritage assets – As above. There is no direct relationship between the subject development site and surrounding area. The site has a neutral contribution to the setting and views associated with the conservation area.

Step 3 4.3.5 This assessment reinforces the initial conclusion that the present wider setting of the site is varied and makes a negligible contribution to the significance of the conservation area (Step 3).

Step 4 4.3.6 The proposed redevelopment is designed to mitigate heritage impact through design development as further discussed in Section 7 (Step 4).

Step 5 4.3.7 Step 5 will be undertaken by LPA in due course.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 22

4.4 Description of individual heritage assets within Canons Park

Description of individual assets and their setting within Canons Park

Main building, formerly Canons House, North London Collegiate School (Grade II) (Historic England list entry number: 1286403) 4.4.1 The main building is a large former villa mansion located in the northern portion of the park, with main entrance via Canons Drive. The main building is a c18th century mansion (remodelled in the 20th century) and is now occupied by the North London Collegiate School (since c1929). The main building is screened from the surrounding park by heavy tree coverage and tall boundary hedges along Canons Drive. The setting is therefore private and screened. 4.4.2 The Historic England listing description for the former Canons Park Mansion is outlined below: The former Canons House, now the main building of North London Collegiate School, of C18 origin, remodelled in 1912 by C E Mallows, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: Architectural interest * a mid- to later C18th century mansion, on the site of the earlier C18th century Canons Palace, remodelled by Mallows, reflecting in its plan and details the revivalist traditions favoured in the early C20; * high quality, enriched, Portland stone façades of the C18 and early C20; * in the symmetrical C18 plan, and alterations to it, principally by Mallows, to create a new western approach, enlarged hall and internal sequence of rooms; * fixtures and fittings include C18 chimneypieces and joinery, a monumental staircase, early C20 joinery in Jacobean and classical traditions, and an almost complete set of early C20, richly moulded cast iron windows, doors and their furniture. Historic interest * an important historic site, which has seen a sequence of major houses and their landscapes, by leading architects and designers for eminent clients. Group value * with Mallows’ monumental terraced gardens (Grade II) and the registered landscape, Canons Park (Grade II).

Screen walls, terraces, retaining walls, balustrades, garden steps and rotunda to former Canons House Mansion (Grade II) 4.4.3 There are a number of landscape elements in close vicinity of and associated with the house which are is also heritage listed. The Historic England listing description for the former landscape elements is outlined below: 4.4.4 The Historic England listing description for the former landscape elements associated with the former Canons Park Mansion are outlined below: Screen walls, terraces, retaining walls, balustrades, garden steps and rotunda to former Canons House, now North London Collegiate School, about 1912 by C E Mallows are listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: Architectural interest: * graduated terraced gardens, reflecting Mallows' skill in integrating a house, gardens and park, using monumental architectural forms and a range of materials that are both historicist and forward looking. Historic interest: * an important historic site, which has seen a sequence of major houses and their landscapes, by leading architects and designers, for eminent clients. Group value: * with the mansion, Canons House (Grade II) and the registered landscape, Canons Park (Grade II).

Garden Temple, supporting walls and raised paved area in Canons Park (Grade II) (Historic England list entry number: 1079739) 4.4.5 The garden temple comprises an iconic C19th century tetrastyle portico with pediment and wing walls. The Historic England listing description for the garden temple is outlined below: Early C19th century. Red brick with stone dressing. Ionic tetrastyle portico with pediment. Wing walls. Rear has distyle portico in antis. Wing walls and raised paved area in front. Interior rendered.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 23

Wall enclosing George V Memorial Garden in Canons Park (Grade II) (Historic England list entry number: 1079738) and wall enclosing garden to north west of George V Memorial Garden (Grade II) (Historic England list entry number: 1192924) 4.4.6 Other built heritage elements within the Park comprise enclosure walls to the George V Memorial Garden. The garden comprises a pond at the centre of the garden, which was created inside the walls of the former kitchen garden of the estate when management of Canons Park passed to the local authority in c1937. The wall surrounding the King George V Memorial Gardens dates from the 18th century and once surrounded the kitchen gardens of the former Canons Mansion. The wall is approximately 3m high. C18th century. Red brick in panels. About 11 ft high. Basically, C18th century. Red brick. Much altered.

St Lawrence Church (Grade I) (Historic England list entry number: 1194471) 4.4.7 St Lawrence Church is located within the south east corner of Canons Park and comprises a masonry church building. It retains a stone tower dating from c 1360, but the main body of the building was constructed in the C18th century in Baroque style. 4.4.8 The Historic England listing description for St Lawrence Church is outlined below: Early C16. West tower. Flint rubble with dressed stone quoins. Brick crenellations. The main body of the church was rebuilt for the Duke of Chandos by John James 1714-16. Unassuming brick exterior with undecorated stone arched windows and broad Tuscan corner pilasters. The interior is lavishly painted in a continental Baroque manner. At the west end is a gallery built to seat the Duke and his family with a wide arched, semi-domed centre section. The nave has an elliptical barrel vault and opens without a break into the choir. At the east end is the retro-choir which is dominated by the curved wooden organ case and its flanking paintings. The opening, to the retro- choir is framed by finely carved pairs of columns and pilasters in antis surmounted by a broken cornice and segmental pediment. Both this woodwork and the organ case are attributed to Grinling Gibbons. The complete painting scheme is by Laguerre, with the exception of the Nativity and Pieta on the east wall and the transfiguration in the gallery which are attributed to Bellucci. The walls are painted with trompe l'oeil niches with figures of the Evangelists (north side) and Christian graces (south side). The nave ceiling has arches painted as if coffered dividing it into eight panels depicting the miracles and teaching of Christ. In the ceiling above the choir is an adoration of God represented by the name YAVEH in Hebrew, characters in the centre of a blaze of light. Other surviving original features include the box pews and decorative ironwork. Attached to the church on the north side is the Chandos Mausoleum decorated in a classical trompe l'oeil style by Brunetti. Sculptured monument to the 1st Duke on west wall (attributed to Grinling Gibbons) with a figure of the Duke bewigged and dressed as a Roman in centre separated by plain pilasters from his two wives, Mary and Cassandra who are kneeling on either side. Two monuments on south wall one a black sarcophagus placed against a white pyramid to Mary wife of the 1st Marquess of Carnarvon (died 1738) by Sir Henry Cheeve and the other a large white sarcophagus with curved fluted ends to Margaret, Marchioness of Carnarvon who died in 1760. Other C18 monuments in base of tower. 4.4.9 St Lawrence Church has a separate peaceful and enclosed character given surrounding trees dividing off the area. The Church is a listed landmark with a surrounding churchyard and cemetery (with tombs). The church tower is not generally a noticeable landmark from areas within the parkland as it is surrounded by mature trees.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 24

Fig 6 Significant elements of Canons Park Estate Conservation Area (shown in white on the map) (Source: Harrow Council).

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 25

5 Statement of Significance

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 A small portion (the northern part) of the subject site sits within the Canons Park Conservation Area (CA). Further, the site is within the setting of Canons Park, a Grade II listed Registered Park and Garden (List entry: 1001394). The main building in the park is the Grade II former Canons House (now North London Collegiate School).

5.2 Significance Criteria

5.2.1 ‘Significance’ lies in the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Archaeological interest includes an interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future into the evidence a heritage asset may hold of past human activity and may apply to standing buildings or structures as well as buried remains. Known and potential heritage assets within the site and its vicinity have been identified from national and local designations, HER data and expert opinion. The determination of the significance of these assets is based on statutory designation and/or professional judgement against four values (EH 2008): • Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. • Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written; • Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage asset to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative; • Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with educational, social or economic values. 5.2.2 Table 2 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Table 2: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance Historic England Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g. ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural appreciation Low Locally listed buildings. Heritage assets with a local (i.e. parish) value or interest for (Local) education or cultural appreciation

Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 26

Heritage asset description Significance Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is Uncertain insufficient to allow significance to be determined

5.3 The subject site

5.3.1 A small portion (the northern edge) of the subject site sits within the Canons Park Conservation Area (CA). The majority of the site is not located within the conservation area. 5.3.2 The site is located on the edge of Canons Park, a Grade II listed Registered Park and Garden (List entry: 1001394). There are a number of designated assets within the park, the closest designated asset is the Grade I listed Church of St Lawrence, approximately 360m east/south- east of the site boundary. The main building in the park is the Grade II former Canons House (now North London Collegiate School).

5.4 Conservation area

Canons Park Estate Conservation Area 5.4.1 The Conservation area has high significance as a baseline. 5.4.2 The significance of the Canons Park Conservation Area is outlined within its Conservation Area Appraisal below: The special interest of Kerry Avenue CA relates to its unusual concentration of the Modern or International Style idiom demonstrated in its collection of inter-war and post-war houses. It is recognised as the 'earliest domestic group in west London to adopt the principals of the modern movement' (Pevsner and Cherry, London 3: North West, 1991) and is, on the whole, well preserved in terms of the original fabric, details and layout. The continuity of building style, type and materials, while also maintaining individuality, is central to the area's character. The area's symmetrical layout based upon the axis of the station represents a very good example of the formal estate layout characteristic of the period. Given the property market's emphasis on retro driving value, these core principles of original Modernist design and formal estate layout undoubtedly bestow a premium to the area. While the CA includes part of the busy London Road, for the majority of the area there is little to suggest this hustle and bustle, giving a tranquil quality. There is a high level of open and enclosed space (usually soft landscaped) that complements the architecture, as well as a streetscape furnished with trees and grass verges, including an 'island' of trees and shrubs running down lower Kerry Avenue. The greenery is integral to the philosophy behind the construction of the estate which was that 'not a tree will be felled or alteration made in the land other than those that may in detail become absolutely unavoidable' (according to the National Builder, 1935). This was in line with the Garden Suburb ideal of the time. The semi-rurality is heightened by the close proximity to Stanmore Country Park. Along with the gently rising gradient which gives way to extensive views east and south, altogether, there is a high quality of area.

5.5 Registered Park & Garden

5.5.1 Canons Park has high significance as a baseline. The park is significant as the remaining part of an early C18th century landscape park with a number of significant associations and individually listed heritage buildings and landscape elements, which contribute to the collective significance of the Park.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 27

6 Proposed Development

6.1 Proposal

6.1.1 The scheme comprises redevelopment of the current carparking site for a new residential development and public realm improvements. 6.1.2 The proposal will comprise the construction of up to 118 residential units, across three apartment buildings of six storeys with a seventh storey set back. 6.1.3 The proposed development includes a series of simple and contemporary articulated brick buildings. The main elevations of the proposed development is responsive to Donnefield Avenue, with a well-considered side elevation (north elevation) responsive to Canons Park. An additional upper level (seventh level) will be set back from the street edge (and will comprise lighter colour brickwork), so that the building will appear as a predominately six storey building. The height of the proposed development has previously been reduced to respond to the heritage context and park. 6.1.4 The current proposal has street façade articulation through projecting balconies and an activated ground floor plan. The development will include landscaping which comprises a new greenspace within the development and public realm to the Donnefield Avenue frontage. The proposed development will significantly enhance the existing entrance to Canons Park from Donnefield Avenue through public realm improvements and landscaping. 6.1.5 A publicly accessible car park will provide car parking for the adjacent station. A TfL commuter cycle hub will also be provided.

Fig 7 Final CGI showing proposed development and enhacements to Donnefield Avenue (Source: Karakusevic Carson Architects, February 2020).

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 28

7 Heritage impact

7.1 Discussion of heritage impact

7.1.1 The subject site comprises a strip of land alongside the railway for proposed redevelopment. The site sits outside of the conservation area and is presently car-parking. It makes no contribution to the setting of the conservation area or the setting of the Park and conservation area. 7.1.2 The following potential heritage impact is considered in terms of the proposed development:

Potential impact on Canons Park • Canons Park flats are located immediately to the east of the subject site. The Canons Park flats will create an existing visual buffer between the park and the proposed development. • The proposed development creates a defined edge to the park along the railway. There is a transition in built form and scale between Canons Park Flats and the proposed development. • The main development within the park (the former Canons Park Mansion) is substantially distanced from the subject site, as are other significant historic structures which make up the park. The setting of King George V Memorial Gardens and the heritage assets comprising the individually listed former Canons Park House buildings (located in the northern extent of Canons Park) will remain secluded, with the proposed development unlikely to have any visibility from these areas. • The addition of higher scale development on a single edge of the park will not affect the overall ability to appreciate and experience the ‘openness’ and ‘seclusion’ of the larger park which extends to the north. • The upper storey of the proposed development is set back from the building edge and is a lighter colour brickwork to the bulk of the development, which greatly reduces the visibility of the upper storey; such that the proposed development will predominately appear as a six-storey building, which will mitigate the impact of the overall scale of the development. • The proposed building is designed as an overall simple, modern and high-quality form within the wider setting of the Park and the CA. It is a sympathetic design response to its setting. • The proposed development is considered likely to have a moderate heritage impact on some aspects/views within the park, due to the scale of the proposed development (which is presently openness), but the visibility of the site from the other surrounding areas of the park is generally limited to the immediate context due to the topography, surrounding buildings and vegetation.

Potential impact on Canons Park Conservation Area 7.1.3 The bulk of the conservation area comprises Canons Park, with the potential heritage impact on the Park outlined above. 7.1.4 The group of significant 1930s Metroland residential development to the east of the conservation area will be unaffected by the proposed development as there is no intervisibility between this cohesive residential area and the subject site.

Potential impact on identified individually listed heritage assets 7.1.5 Within the park, parkland trees or areas of vegetation would limit views to the subject site to great extent. 7.1.6 Individually listed buildings and landscape elements within the Park have visually screened, secluded and intimate settings which are located at a sufficient distance from the subject site for there to be no heritage impact on these assets. This includes the former Canons Park

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 29

Mansion, which is a key heritage asset in the Park. Both the former mansion and Canons Park Drive to the mansion are both sufficiently distanced from the subject site and heavily screened by tree coverage.

Public realm enhancements 7.1.7 There will be significant proposed public realm improvements to be undertaken on Donnefield Avenue. This would include the provision of landscaping and street improvements, which will provide a significant enhancement to the entrance to the Park from this point.

7.2 Discussion of relevant heritage views

Introduction 7.2.1 The following discussion of relevant heritage views should be read in conjunction with the Townscape and Visual Impact report prepared by Landscape Visual (February 2020), which accompanies this planning application. 7.2.2 The former Canons Park Mansion (Grade II listed), now part of the North London Collegiate School, forms the main focal point of the Park, which is sufficiently distanced from the subject site and shares no intervisibility with the subject site. Further, no other designed landscape elements or listed buildings within the park have intervisibility with the site. 7.2.3 The following views shows that the proposed development will be visible from the panorama view at the south end of the Park, at the entrance from Whitchurch Lane, but the visibility of the Site from the other surrounding areas of the park is generally limited to the immediate context due to the topography, surrounding buildings and vegetation. 7.2.4 The following heritage views discussed are identified as Views 2, 3, 5 and 8, as shown on the viewpoint location map prepared by Landscape Visual and presented within the TVIA.

Fig 8 Viewpoint locations (Source: Landscape Visual).

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 30

View 2 & View 3 7.2.5 View 2 and View 3 include a main entrance into the park from Whitchurch lane, which is identified as a panorama view. The panorama view already comprises a visual buffer of intervening built form and landscape form (in the form of the existing metal fence, hedge and buildings in the distance). The proposed development will be viewed in the backdrop of the existing low-medium scale development on the south western edge of the park only and it is considered that the panorama view from this aspect is not a more significant view of the park. The more significant direct long distance and short distance views to significant assets within the park will be conserved. 7.2.6 Elsewhere within the park, parkland trees or areas of vegetation would limit views to the subject site to great extent.

Fig 9 View 02–Canons Park near the southern entrance from Whitchurch Lane (Source: Landscape Visual).

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 31

Fig 10 View 03–From Canons Park southern area (Source: Landscape Visual).

View 5 7.2.7 In View 5, the proposed development will be visible from part of the open area of the park (looking towards the Donnefield Avenue park entrance/exit). The proposed development will be visible in the backdrop of existing vegetation and at a distance from this aspect. Further, the design of the northern elevation has been well considered, with sympathetic façade articulation, responsive to the edge of the park. Although the proposed development is visible from this aspect, the development will not impact upon the overall sense and atmosphere of ‘openness and greenery’ across the remainder of the views within the park.

Fig 11 View 05–View from Canons Park central amenity parkland area (Source: Landscape Visual).

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 32

View 8 7.2.8 The proposed development will not be visible from the George V Memorial Garden or from the northern portion of the park, where the group of individually listed heritage assets are located. The site is too far distanced from this aspect and is screened by intervening landscape and tree coverage. The tranquillity and seclusion of the memorial garden will therefore be unaffected by the proposed development.

Fig 12 View 08–View from Canons Park near the walled garden (Source: Landscape Visual).

7.3 Potential cumulative impact

7.3.1 Proposed development at Stanmore Station is too far distanced from the site for there to be any cumulative impact on Canons Park.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 33

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions

8.1.1 The proposed development will provide a high quality and responsive development to its heritage context. It is suitably distanced from key buildings, features and elements within the park (primarily the former Canons Park Mansion and key route from Canons Drive); whose individual significance and setting will be wholly conserved by the proposed development. 8.1.2 The proposed development will occur on one edge of Canons Park only, which has previously been subject to low-medium scale development. The proposed development on this one edge of the park will be set in the backdrop of intervening built and landscape form and screened by trees. The proposed development will therefore not affect the overall sense of ‘openness’ and areas of seclusion across the park. 8.1.3 The proposed development will have minor impact on an identified panorama view only, but this view is of ‘lesser significance’ in the park as it has previously been impacted by the identified existing fence, hedge and built form. Other more significant direct long and short distance views across the park will be unaffected. 8.1.4 The proposed development is responsive to the established character of the station and the surrounding conservation area. 8.1.5 The proposed development is considered likely to have ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of Canons Park (and the Canons Park Conservation Area), due to the scale of the proposed development (with the present carpark currently contributing to openness); however, the harm is at the lower end of the threshold and outweighed by the significant public benefits of the proposal. The sympathetic and high-quality design response of the proposed development (as outlined within this report) should also be considered, together with the provision of significant public realm enhancements, including an improved entrance and access to the park from Donnefield Avenue, which will mitigate the level of harm. 8.1.6 There will be no heritage impact on the significance and setting of identified individually listed buildings and landscape elements within the park. 8.1.7 The public benefits of the proposal have been summarised below and are further detailed in the accompanying planning documentation: • The delivery of 118 affordable housing unit at a policy compliant mix, providing London affordable rent and shared ownership properties; • The delivery of a circa 70 space cycle hub; • High quality public realm improvements through pocket parks and landscaping; and • Enhancement of the entrance to Canons Park along Donnefield Avenue (a key route to the Park) through an improved public realm.

8.2 Recommendations

8.2.1 There are no recommendations.

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 34

9 Bibliography

9.1 Published and documentary sources

CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Reading. CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] Dec 2014b, Standards and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Reading DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Framework DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2014 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment: Planning Practice Guide Domesday Book, A Complete Translation, eds Williams, A. and Martin, G.H. 1992, 2002. London: Penguin Books EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance. Swindon HE [Historic England] 2015a, The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3. Historic England in collaboration with the Historic Environment Forum, second edition, Historic England July 2015. HE [Historic England] 2015b Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment – Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2. Historic England in collaboration with the Historic Environment Forum, second edition, Historic England July 2015.

9.2 Other Sources

British Geological Survey online historic geology borehole data and digital drift and solid geology data Greater London Historic Environment Record Historic England designation data Internet – web-published sources: Groundsure historic Ordnance Survey mapping

Heritage Statement © MOLA 2020 35