CHISWICK CURVE

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ADDENDUM - VOLUME A3: TOWNSCAPE, HERITAGE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS

OCTOBER 2016

CHISWICK CURVE, BOROUGH OF THVIA ADDENDUM

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction...... 1

2.0 Royal Botanic , ...... 2

3.0 ...... 17

4.0 Strand on the Green...... 18

5.0 Park...... 25

6.0 and Gardens...... 27

7.0 Other Heritage Assets...... 29

8.0 Additional Accurate Visual Representations for Assessment (views 35 to 47)...... 34

9.0 Original AVRs updated in response to post-submission design changes...... 72

10.0 Conclusion...... 93

11.0 References...... 94

Appendix 1: Original AVRs shown in winter conditions ...... 95

Appendix 2: Clarifications and minor corrections to the original THVIA...... 98

Important Note: Images in this document have fine detail and high resolution photographs and are always printed by Richard Coleman Citydesigner to the highest standards. Original copies are identified by Citydesigner’s dichroic hologram. Original printed copies may be available to view at the relevant Local Planning Authority offices. Photocopies or electronic file printouts should not be relied upon. ELECTRONIC COPY

OCTOBER 2016

CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Environmental Statement (ES) for the proposed development at Chiswick Roundabout was submitted to the London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) in December 2015. It included a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) at Volume 3. This addendum provides additional material in response to post-submission discussion with LBH and representations received from consultees. It should be read in parallel with the December 2015 THVIA as the original material submitted is not repeated. Readers should refer to the method of assessment set out in the December 2015 THVIA, in particular, the significance of the high quality of the design, its beneficial attributes and its resulting positive impacts.

1.2 The addendum is intended to provide a more explicit assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the significance of heritage assets, including any significance arising from their settings. Specifically, the addendum sets out whether any harm would arise from the proposed development appearing in the setting of heritage assets. In undertaking this assessment the addendum provides, in Section 2.0, additional information on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site. It goes on, in the sections that follow, to provide additional information on Kew Green (Section 3.0), Strand on the Green (Section 4.0), (Section 5.0), Chiswick House and Gardens (Section 6.0). In Section 7.0 it considers other heritage assets.

1.3 In Section 8.0, thirteen additional Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed development are presented and assessed in accordance with the methodology set out in Section 2.0 of the December 2015 THVIA. These AVRs were agreed in advance with LBH. Historic (HE) have since confirmed at a post-application consultation meeting that, alongside the original AVRs provided in the December 2015 THVIA, the additional AVRs are sufficient to fully assess the effects of the proposed development.

1.4 In Section 9.0, the rendered AVRs from the December 2015 THVIA are updated following design alterations undertaken by Studio Egret West Architects (SEW). A commentary is included in each case to explain the effects of the alterations where they are visible in the view.

1.5 Section 10.0 sets out the conclusions arising, again with particular regard to the potential effects of the proposed development on the significance of heritage assets, owing to changes in their setting.

1.6 Appendix 1 of this addendum includes additional wireline AVRs showing the proposed development in winter photographs from those view positions originally included in the December 2015 THVIA where there was substantial summer tree cover.

1.7 Appendix 2 includes clarifications and minor corrections related to the original December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 1 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW

Consideration in original December 2015 THVIA

2.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site was assessed in sections 8A, 8B and 8D of the original December 2015 THVIA, as a conservation area, a place which includes a number of statutorily listed buildings and as a Grade I Registered Park & . The attributes of OUV of the WHS were also considered in detail in section 8C of the December 2015 THVIA using the assessment framework set out in London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings SPG. Ten Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed development were produced from within the boundary of the WHS and assessed in the December 2015 THVIA, namely View 14, View 15, View 16, View 16A, View 17, View 18, View 19, View 20, View 31 and View 32. In addition, a further five AVRs were produced from within the buffer zone of the WHS. These views were all agreed with LBH at the scoping stage, as described in the December 2015 THVIA.

2.2 Following submission of the planning application, suggested that additional information on, amongst other matters, the impact on Fig 2.1: 1760s circa illustration of the White House after William Woollett (Regency the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site would be useful in Society). The White House was demolished in 1802. understanding the effect of the proposed development on the viewer’s ability to appreciate its outstanding universal values.

2.3 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2014) notes that the OUV of the WHS arises from the architectural and historical interest of its iconic buildings set within a designed landscape, as well as its historical contributions to botanical and environmental science. This section of the addendum provides additional information on those attributes, with a particular emphasis on the potential effects of the proposed development on the historic landscape attributes. It is considered helpful to provide, as a starting point, a historical overview of the development of the gardens, their and designed landscape features.

Historical Overview

2.4 was historically formed by three main areas: the north portion close to Kew Green made up of royal residences and the original Botanic Gardens; the south east portion designed as Pleasure Grounds; and the Fig 2.2: Circa1830s circa illustration of Kew from Samuel Leigh’s Panorama of the western portion originally comprising the Estate. Thames (Regency Society)

2.5 In c1721 the Richmond Lodge Estate was acquired by the Prince of Wales. From c1730 it was laid out in a mix of formal and natural landscaping, aimed at creating irregularity and variety, by the gardener Charles Bridgeman and the architect William Kent who designed and grottoes. Later, Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown, was appointed royal gardener and the estate was planted as woodland with open glades, and the ground was contoured to give the groupings of trees a sense of rhythm.

2.6 From c.1730 two properties, located in the north portion of today’s Kew Gardens, became royal residences. The first, (fig.2.2) was built in 1631 as a merchant’s riverside villa. Members of the royal family occupied it from c.1734 and George III bought its freehold in 1781. The second, directly to the south of Kew Palace, was the White House (fig.2.1) of possible Tudor origin, which was leased by Fredrick and Augusta, Prince and Princess of Wales, from c.1732 and demolished in 1802. Fig 2.3: Extract from 1754 John Rocque’s New Plan for Richmond Fig 2.4: 1754 John Rocque’s New Plan for Richmond Gardens. Gardens. (Key above)

OCTOBER 2016 2 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

Fig 2.8: 1763 view of the Pagoda looking south from the after William Woollett Fig 2.10: 1763 view of the White House from the Lake after William Woollett (folio of (Grosvenor Prints) litographs printed by Richmond Libraries Department, Curwen Press, 1982)

Fig 2.9: 1774c view of Great Lawn seen from White House after W Woollett (Regency Fig 2.11: 1763 view of the White House from the Lake after William Woollett (folio of Society) litographs printed by Richmond Libraries Department, Curwen Press, 1982)

2.7 From c.1750 the land south of Kew Palace and the White House began to be landscaped. A ‘Great Lawn’ of 41 acres was formed in front of the White House and south of this a lake, with a mound to its east. Part of the lake survives today as the Palm House pond, providing a setting to the Grade I listed glasshouse, though it is cut off from the area that was once the lawn by trees and later landscaping. South of the lawn and the lake were two pastures confining sheep and cattle within ha-has and then a ‘wilderness’ of naturally planted trees and shrubs.

Fig 2.5: 1763 Plan of Princess Augusta’s Fig 2.6: The 1763 plan with an OS map overlaid, to 2.8 The original Botanic Garden was started by Princess Augusta as an garden at Kew. show a comparison with existing layout today. and medicinal garden, opening in c.1759 in the north-east portion of today’s Kew Gardens. The location of the original arboretum, to the east of the White House, is marked as No. 1 on the 1763 plan at fig.2.6 and a series of small exotic gardens, including a circular flower garden and an oval menagerie, are also shown to the south of the arboretum (numbers 3-9). By the 1780s Fig 2.12: 1763 view of the from the Lake after William Woollett (folio of litographs the menagerie had been converted to . printed by Richmond Libraries Department, Curwen Press, 1982)

Fig 2.7: 1763 key. The White House is numbered 1, the Orangery is numbered 2 and the old Botanic Garden is the area numbered 3-9. The Pagoda is numbered 18.

OCTOBER 2016 3 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.9 From c.1757 ‘Pleasure Grounds’ of 120 acres were laid out by the architect William Chambers to the south of the Great Lawn. Chambers designed a number of ancillary buildings for the gardens, including various classical temples, the ten-storey octagonal Pagoda (1762), and the Orangery to the east of the White House (1761). The 1771 plan at fig.2.13 shows the Pleasure Grounds as a ‘Chinoiserie’ style landscape designed with a fairly open character with strong formal plantings and a naturalistic edge, intertwined with pathways and plantings of trees, various temples and the lake. The main view was focused on the Pagoda, to the south of the grounds (fig.2.8).

Fig 2.13: Extract from 1771 Peter Burrell plan (Kew, Ray Desmond, 2007). It is noteworthy that the Fig 2.14: The 1771 plan with an OS map overlaid, to show a comparison with the existing layout. Orangery, at the north end of the site, was shielded by trees in views from the Great Lawn.

OCTOBER 2016 4 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.10 By 1785 (see fig.2.17) a ‘Great Stove’ was constructed below the arboretum, to warm glass frames and allow bulbs and tender annuals to bloom. South of the stove lay the Physic or Exotic garden arranged in long rows and grasses enclosed by low clipped . To the west of this was an ice house, used as far back as the 1760s, which survives to this day.

2.11 A ‘Castellated Palace’ (fig.2.16) was built from c.1802, directly to the west of Kew Palace, but was demolished in 1827.

2.12 By the early 1820s the gardens had incorporated the western tip of Kew Green, including Hunter House (now the Herbarium) and the adjacent Meyer House (now Hanover House).

2.13 A 1760s view (fig. 2.19) shows Kew Palace was visible from the Green and, therefore, the many large houses established around its perimeter were visible from the Palace. A focus of the Green is the parish church of St Anne, established in 1714, greatly enlarged in 1770 and remodelled in 1837. Today Kew Green is surrounded by large 18th and 19th century houses, often with high boundary walls containing mature gardens.

Fig 2.18: 1785 Etching of Kew Green by Prince Edward, later Duke of Kent (Regency Society). The Parish Church of St Anne is prominent in the view.

Fig 2.15: 1813 aquatint of the White House and its lawn from F I Mannskirsch’s Coloured Views of Parks and Gardens (Regency Society). The Orangery is shielded by trees on the right of the view, in views from the lawn.

Fig 2.19: 1760s Kew Green with a road along its centre leading to Kew Palace, drawn by George Bickham (Regency Society).

Fig 2.20: The two lodges and gates erected in 1825 enclosing the western tip of Kew Green by John Fig 2.16: 1820s view of Kew Palace and its lawn, with the Castellated Palace to its left (Regency Society) Buckler (Kew, Ray Desmond, 2007). These no longer exist. Fig 2.17 : 1785 Plan of Princess Augusta’s garden at Kew (Kew, Ray Desmond, 2007)

OCTOBER 2016 5 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.14 The 1840 plan at fig.2.21 illustrates Kew Gardens after the demolition of the White House in 1802. At that time, Kew Palace had a west wing and a yard and outbuildings further west, and a kitchen range and stabling complex to its east. There was a carriage turn directly to its front but little apparent formal landscaping associated to its front facade. The great lawn close to the Orangery was segmented diagonally by a path which continued westwards towards the riverside or ‘Terrace’ walk. The lawn also included trees planted to the south-west of the Orangery, which obscured it in views from further to the south-west.

2.15 The public had access to the gardens from at least the late 18th century and by 1840 Kew Gardens were semi-public with visitors admitted daily except for Sundays with no admission charges. By 1841 Kew Gardens was taken over by the State to become the National Botanic Garden under the directorship of Sir William Hooker.

2.16 During the 1840s the architect and landscape gardener William Nesfield, working with the architect Decimus Burton, overlaid the earlier landscape of the gardens with a new plan centred on the two main glasshouses, the Palm House and . The plan included an extensive new arboretum (see plan at fig.2.23). The taxonomic grouping (or classification) of tree species dictated the pattern of the new arboretum, facilitating the study of related species. By 1849 more than 2,000 species and over 1,000 varieties and hybrids had been planted.

Fig 2.22: The 1840 plan with an OS map overlaid, to show a comparison with Fig 2.21: Extract from 1840 E and G N Green Plan (Kew, Ray Desmond, 2007). This is the the existing layout. last known plan before Nesfield, Burton and Hooker implemented the new design which unified the gardens. By 1840 the White House had been demolished and the lake had been reduced in size.

OCTOBER 2016 6 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.17 The National Arboretum was to be created by broad masses and detached groups of trees producing an ‘irregularity of outline’, on Hooker’s clear instruction, to preserve a park like character. The original design for the arboretum was a careful adaptation of the original Brown / Bridgeman plantations of the former Richmond Lodge Gardens.

2.18 Three major walkways were laid out: the Broad Walk, Syon Vista and Pagoda Vista. Five major features dominated the gardens: the Palm House (listed grade I), to the east; the Temperate House (listed grade I) and the existing Pagoda by Sir William Chambers, (listed grade I) to the south; the lake excavated c 1845 to the west; and Kew Palace, (listed grade I), to the north. The main approach to Kew Gardens was from Kew Green through iron gates (listed grade II*) designed in 1848 by Decimus Burton.

2.19 The new character of Kew Gardens was the combination of the ‘old’ botanic garden, including the original arboretum and palace grounds, the new arboretum and woodland. The approach of Sir William Hooker, William Nesfield and Decimus Burton was to attempt to unify all these areas under one coherent landscape scheme.

Fig 2.24: 1867 Ordnance Survey (National Library of Scotland). The map shows how planting had become more extensive even by the mid-Victorian era.

Fig 2.23: 1845 Nesfield’s revised plan of the Arboretum - Hooker insisted on a taxonomic grouping of trees and shrubs (Kew, Ray Desmond, 2007). The plan shows that although the Pagoda and Syon vistas were defined at this time, the tree planting in the gardens was much less extensive than it is today.

OCTOBER 2016 7 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

Fig 2.25: 1894 Ordnance Survey (Godfrey Edition). Fig 2.26: 1911 Ordnance Survey (National Library of Scotland). Fig 2.27: 1933 Ordnance Survey (National Library of Scotland).

Fig 2.28: 1921 view of the urban environment alongside the gardens. The areas around the Palm House remain relatively open in this image (Britain from Above).

Fig 2.29: 1947 view of Kew Palace, the Old Arboretum and the rest of the gardens (Britain from Above). Fig 2.30: 1951 view of Kew Gardens showing the increasing density of the planting in the Arboretum (Britain from Above).

OCTOBER 2016 8 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

Overview of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan 2.24 It should be noted that other important attributes of the OUV of the WHS The relationship with the and wider arcadian landscape (2014) and Landscape Master Plan (2010) include: its globally important preserved and living plant collections; and key contributions to developments in plant science and plant taxonomy. 2.26 Section 3.6 of the WHS Management Plan notes that ‘between Hampton 2.20 It is the intention of the WHS Management Plan (2014) to ‘protect the Royal These attributes of the WHS are not likely to be affected by development at and Kew, there is a remarkable number of connected open spaces…a Botanic Gardens and their setting for future generations’. It is designed to Chiswick Roundabout and are not considered further in this addendum. unique landscape of historic, natural and cultural significance that has been be implemented in parallel with the Landscape Master Plan (2010) produced celebrated for over 300 years as the ‘Arcadian’ Thames. This ‘’ is by Gross Max Landscape Architects, which is the first landscape master plan Rich and diverse historic cultural landscape: made up of natural landscapes, rural pastures, flood meadows, formally for Kew Gardens since William Nesfield’s landscape vision was implemented designed landscapes and vistas’. in the 1840s. The Gross Max Landscape Master Plan has also allowed a new 2.25 The key attributes of Kew’s historic landscape are broken down further in understanding of the gardens as a designed landscape to be developed (see the WHS Management Plan to include: 2.27 The Thames Landscape Strategy (TLS) was published in 1994, its aim being figures 2.37-2.39 on the following pages). to ‘celebrate and understand the exceptional landscape character of the • The relationship with the River Thames and wider arcadian Arcadian Thames’, as well as to create a 100-year strategic vision for the 2.21 The WHS Management Plan includes a series of policies for the protection of landscape beyond; river corridor running from Hampton to Kew and beyond. The TLS is ‘an Kew WHS, although these are not adopted by London Borough of Richmond- analysis of the character of the river landscape providing a vision for the • The Victorian garden lay-out designed as a collaboration between upon-Thames and exist as an ‘advisory planning framework for guiding or natural and man-made elements of the landscape – an evidence base which Sir William Hooker, William Nesfield and Decimus Burton; influencing’. Policies of the WHS Management Plan state that ‘development draws together the history, topography, culture, politics and wildlife of the which would impact adversely on the WHS, its OUV or its setting should not river corridor to form the basis for and shape future policy, management, • The remaining aspects of William Chambers ‘Anglo-Chinese’ garden be permitted’ (policy 1d) and that ‘the setting of listed buildings and key projects and design’. The TLS was reviewed in 2012, in order, amongst other style; landscape features within the gardens and their interrelationships should be aims, to cross-reference to current planning policy; identify opportunities for maintained and enhanced, with particular attention to the gardens overall • The remaining aspects of the Capability Brown landscape including environmental and urban design improvements; and update the evidence spatial cohesion and WHS River Thames landscape setting’ (policy 3c). The plantations, landform and ha-ha connection to the river; base that underpins the strategy. WHS Management Plan also notes that ‘besides conservation of the key attributes of Kew’s Outstanding Universal Value, there is also the need for • Archaeological remains of former Charles Bridgeman and William 2.28 The TLS considers a series of landscape character reaches of the Thames, the successful management of change.’ Kent landscape structures; including reach 11, Syon, and reach 12, /Kew. It notes that the Syon reach includes some of the most significant designed landscapes in 2.22 The Kew Landscape Master Plan seeks to create a spatial strategy and • A series of key vistas. Britain, with influential works by Bridgeman, Kent, Chambers, Capability framework to conserve, enhance and develop the historic fabric of the Brown and Nesfield represented on both sides of the river, not least those gardens for future generations. It divides the gardens into three character at Kew Gardens. The TLS emphasises the importance of visual links across zones roughly from east to west to help inform its management, namely: the river, particularly between the historic landscapes of Syon Park, Kew the original botanic garden; the main arboretum; and the woodland Gardens and the to its south. Nesfield’s triangle of vistas still conservation area. The Landscape Master Plan points out that during the forms the basic landscape structure of Kew Gardens, despite the extensive 20th century there has been loss in layout and spatial definition between the infilling with trees, and the TLS recommends opening up ‘lost vistas’ such three zones. The vision of the master plan ‘is based upon reinforcing the as the Vista, marked on the 1920 OS Map between the Pagoda historic landscape framework, articulating the Gardens’ different landscape at Kew and All Saints’ Church, Isleworth, which has been blocked by golf characters and introducing a new 21st century layer to express the changing course planting and river edge scrub. Views of , from the west role of Kew Gardens.’ end of the Syon Vista, were themselves opened up during the 1990s by the removal of tree growth on the Syon bank of the river. Evaluation of Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value 2.29 The different characters of the riverside at Brentford and opposite at 2.23 The Management Plan evaluates the attributes of OUV of the WHS at Kew Gardens, are emphasised in the Brentford/Kew reach assessment of section 3.9. Those identified as being of relevance to a development at landscape character. The former is still partly an industrial and dockland area some distance to the north east include: the potential effect on the setting associated with the junction of the Grand Union Canal and River Thames, of ‘the rich and diverse historic cultural landscape providing a palimpsest although since the 1990s there has been considerable redevelopment of landscape design’ and; the potential effect on the setting of its ‘iconic of industrial sites to provide alongside both waterways. In architectural legacy, including the Palm House, the Temperate House and contrast, the history of royal patronage has allowed the safeguarding of the modern additions such as the Princess of Wales Conservatory’. Given green spaces of Kew Green and the Botanic Gardens. Tree cover, including concerns raised by Historic England about the setting of certain trees within on and Lot’s Ait, visually separates the two banks, some of it Kew Gardens, this addendum also considers the attributes of the WHS’s specifically planted to block views of industry at Brentford from the riverside ‘horticultural heritage of keynote species and collections’ where relevant to edge of Kew Gardens. the wider landscape.

OCTOBER 2016 9 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.30 The proposed development is too far north-east to affect the distinct views more prominently in the value of its horticulture and its tree collections, SITE across the river between Syon and Kew, which are a key part of the arcadian rather than its designed layout, which has been compromised. The WHS landscape and contribute to the OUV of the WHS. None of the other views Management Plan calls for further research into what earlier patterns of and vistas identified within the TLS as being important to the arcadian development were and what additional views may have existed. Good landscape are views within which the proposed development would fall as a conservation of such landscape environments would consider the potential distant background element, as illustrated in fig 2.31. re-establishment of lost views.

The Victorian garden lay-out 2.34 The proposed development will have a visual effect on the setting of what is defined in the WHS Management Plan as the ‘entrance zone’ of 2.31 The achievement of Hooker, Nesfield and Burton, was in bringing distinct the WHS, namely the area at the north of the gardens which includes the eighteenth century gardens together in the 1840s, unifying them in a Orangery, Aroid House and the Elizabeth Gate. The area is described in the coherent way with both architectural additions and a cohesive landscape Management Plan as of a ‘relatively mixed’ character, ‘consisting of open plan that overlaid the earlier garden layouts. The centre piece of the 1840s lawn areas interspersed with trees and planting’ and crossed by formal arrangement was the Palm House, from which the two great vistas – the pathways, including the Broad Walk (running between the Orangery and Pagoda and Syon Vistas – radiate from the west side. The axis of this Palm House) and Little Broad Walk (between the Orangery and the Elizabeth geometric composition runs through Museum No. 1 to the east, across the Gate onto Kew Green). The proposed development will not be seen from Palm House pond, bisecting the Palm House and travelling onward to Syon these formal pathways, but will be visible from the informal pathway to the House west along the Syon Vista. south-west of the Orangery at the furthest point of what was the Great Lawn of the White House. The extent of the visibility of the proposed development 2.32 The incorporation of a National Arboretum based upon the latest taxonomic from this point is shown in AVR views 16 and 16A (in the December 2015 classification into the grounds was achieved by ‘creating broad masses and THVIA). The additional views in Section 8.0 of this addendum, show that detached groups of trees in families with attention placed upon ‘irregularity the proposed development would be almost completely obscured from of outline’ in order to preserve a park-like character which combines positions 36 and 37 behind trees, even in winter. Views 38 and 39 show botanical garden, arboretum and woodland and a historic layering of styles’. that the proposed development is completely obscured in views from close to Aroid House and from the Elizabeth Gate. There will be some visibility of 2.33 Both the WHS Management Plan and The Landscape Master Plan (2010) the proposed development from within the ‘riverside zone’ of Kew Gardens, acknowledge the partial loss of the 1840s layout and spatial definition within including from the upper storey of Kew Palace (in winter only) and from the the gardens over time. This is owing principally to ambitious tree planting ground level in oblique views looking across the front of the building, as well and natural growth, which has led to the obscuration of certain views and as from the on the river itself, which marks the boundary of the reduction in designed spaces. This leaves the OUV of Kew invested the WHS.

Fig 2.31: Sight lines and vistas identified as part of the ‘Arcadian’ landscape in the Thames Landscape Strategy.

Fig 2.32: Samuel Leigh’s 1829 panorama of the Thames looking towards Brentford from Kew.

OCTOBER 2016 10 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.35 Section 3.6 of the WHS Management Plan acknowledges that ‘Kew is The remaining aspects of William Chambers ‘Anglo-Chinese’ garden Archaeological remains of former Charles Bridgeman and William surrounded by a predominantly urban environment’. This is clearer on the style Kent landscape structures; northern and eastern edges of Kew Gardens, where the rear of properties at Kew Green and fronts of properties on Kew Road are visible, especially 2.39 The WHS Management Plan acknowledges that most of the intent of William 2.43 There is little evidence remaining of the early Bridgeman and Kent from raised positions, such as from the Temple of Aeolus mound, close to Chambers’ pleasure garden circuit, including the sequence of discrete landscape structures, which are located within the south-west corner of the the Palm House pond (additional View 35 in Section 8.0 of this addendum). landscape compositions, has been lost. A limited number of the temples gardens. Given their location and limited remaining features, the proposed This area is the site of the first botanical garden established in 1759. It and follies of the William Chambers layout and their geometric relationships development cannot be considered to affect their setting. has always been closely associated with Kew Green and there have always survive, the principal built element remaining being the Pagoda of 1762. Its been visual connections with the surrounding urban environment. Some setting, however, is formed by the Pagoda Vista of trees added by Nesfield, A series of key vistas of these are considered to be beneficial, such as the visibility of Grade I rather than its original ‘wilderness setting’. Other follies remaining include 2.44 The key vistas at Kew include the formal vistas related to the Nesfield layout Metropolitan Waterworks Tower on Road, for example, while the ruined arch of 1759 and the Temple of Aeolus, just north of the Palm of the 1840s: the Pagoda vista, the Syon vista, and the Cedar vista. In others are acknowledged to be detrimental to the setting, such as the six House pond. At least thirteen of the follies of Chamber’s layout have been addition, there are important vistas from the Broad Walk and little Board Haverfield Estate tower in Brentford and the Great West Quarter tower. It lost, including the Temple of Victory and the Temple of Sun. The lake, which Walk. Secondary vistas also occur within the gardens, as shown in figure is not the visibility of these elements in the surrounding urban environment was a significant feature of Chambers’ design to the south of the Great 2.39. The proposed developed does not fall into any of these recognised per se that gives rise to negative visual effects, but rather the poor quality Lawn, was truncated by 1840 and later became the Palm House pond. primary or secondary vistas and would not therefore affect this attribute of of the design of each particular element. 2.40 The only manner in which the proposed development at Chiswick Roundabout the OUV in any demonstrable way. 2.36 The Palm House zone is the acknowledged heart of the 1840s Hooker, has any effect on the underlying, partially remaining landscape of Chambers 2.45 Most visitors utilise the formal route, set out by Decimus Burton as part of Nesfield & Burton design of the gardens. The character of the zoneis and its built elements, is its visibility from the Temple of Aeolus mound, as the 1840s development of the site, which links the Orangery with the Palm stated, in the WHS Management Plan, to be varied, ranging ‘from small plots illustrated in View 35 of this addendum. The proposed development will House via the Broad Walk. There is, however, also a desire line from the of open lawn to formal flowerbeds, terraces with seats, an ornamental lake, also be visible from the upper levels of the Pagoda, since this structure is Elizabeth Gate, west on the Little Broad Walk to the rear of the Orangery, then clumps of mature trees and open vistas’. The zone is said to represent ‘an taller than the trees in the gardens. This view is currently unavailable as the turning right onto the Broad Walk, and immediately left on to the Queen’s unusual mix of high Victorian design, 18th century formality and 20th century pagoda is closed to members of the public. It is anticipated that such a view Ride path, which takes the visitor across the ‘Great Lawn’ open space and intervention’. The proposed development will not affect this zone in any would show the proposed development within a wide view of London, which deep into the heart of the arboretum, eventually arriving at the west side of significant way, since it will be obscured as illustrated in AVR views 17, 18 apparently extends as far as to Windsor Castle. The proposed development the Temperate House. Those visitors walking north towards the Elizabeth and 19 in the December 2015 THVIA. would be unlikely to do harm to such a wide and open view of London’s urban environment. Gate on this path would not generally see the proposed development when they reach the ‘Great Lawn’ open space, because in many views it will be 2.37 The Pagoda was the centre-piece of the original 18th Century Kew Garden, behind trees and hidden (as illustrated in Views 36 and 37 in Section 8.0 where it was set within a wilderness design. It later became the focus of The remaining aspects of the Capability Brown landscape including of this addendum). As previously acknowledged, it would be visible if the one of the keys vistas of Nesfield’s landscape, as the 1845 plan at fig. 2.23 plantations, landform and ha-ha connection to the river viewer moves anti-clockwise around the ‘Great Lawn’ open space towards illustrates, although at that time it was not the ‘pistol-shot’ vista between 2.41 Capability Brown’s 18th viewpoints 16 and 16A, illustrated in the original December 2015 THVIA. an of trees that it is today, owing to extensive tree planting in the century naturalistic landscape to the west has, like late 19th and 20th centuries. The proposed development would not affect Chambers’ more geometric arrangement to the east, largely been lost by 2.46 Historic England consider this and other kinetic experiences within the the setting of the Pagoda within the vista to the Palm House, as illustrated the imposition of the later 1840s landscape design, including planting within WHS to be of particular importance. They state that ‘on approach from the in AVR view 30 of the original December 2015 THVIA. the arboretum. There is some evidence of Brown’s landscape on either side of the Syon Vista, within the contours of the Rhododendron Dell and the triangular conjunction of paths to the south west, the Orangery emerges into view; framed in conjunction with the grand Chestnut Leaved Oak in the 2.38 The proposed development will not affect other landscape zones within the riverside Ha-ha. Brown also designed the landscape at Syon House on the foreground and an expansive and varied tree-lined backdrop. This arboreal WHS boundary, all of which are further away and include heavy planting opposite side of the Thames, as a separate commission, with the Thames backdrop is currently intact to the north and east, with the Haverfield which obscures visibility. These include the naturalistic woodland including itself becoming the centre-piece. Towers to the North West being largely screened by mature evergreen Queen Charlotte’s cottage to the south-west which is considered the heart trees along the west edge of the path. The proposed tall building would of the arboretum; the Syon Vista zone, which was originally part of the 18th 2.42 The proposed development does not affect the remaining elements of the appear assertively above the treeline in juxtaposition with the Orangery century Richmond Gardens and includes the lake to the west of the Palm Capability Brown designed landscape, owing to their obscuration by the planting of trees that that occurred after 1840 and their location and focus House; and the western zone, also originally part of Richmond Gardens and in this kinetic view. The landscape setting of the Orangery is a particularly towards the west side of the gardens. including some historical landscape features and strong links to the Thames, important part of its special interest, given its symbiotic relationship with th th although 19 and 20 century tree planting has obscured some of these the Botanic Gardens. As noted earlier, the mature tree seen in juxtaposition relationships. with the Orangery and development scheme (and as shown in View 16 of the December 2015 THVIA) is a Chestnut Leaved Oak planted in 1846 and has been described as the “biggest, finest and unrivalled specimen of its type in the world.”

OCTOBER 2016 11 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

Fig 2.33: Looking across the Great Lawn in the summer towards the Orangery and Kew Palace. The Fig 2.34: View of the Orangery lawn looking north-west across the face of the listed building Fig 2.35: Clumps of evergreen trees provide enclosure of spaces within the arboretum on the west side Haverfield estate towers produce an excessive scale in the background. towards the historic Oriental lane tree, dating from the 1760s. of the Palm House.

2.47 Historic England are mistaken in their belief that the Chestnut-leaved Oak a path close to the Broad Walk and again it is best appreciated in relatively close to the Orangery is the historic tree of 1846. That tree is located close close views which will be unaffected by the proposed development, over 1km to the Water Lilly House and is prominently marked with a plaque. Its setting away. The Black Locust tree (Robinia pseudoacacia) is best appreciated in will not be affected by the proposed development and it is experienced at its views looking south, away from the location of the proposed development. best looking south from the lawn as the location of its plaque acknowledges. The Caucasian Elm (Zelkova carpinifolia) is located in the Herbarium The tree close to the Orangery is a much younger tree of the same variety, paddock, an area within Kew not open to the public, and is part of a group of one of five examples located within Kew Gardens. Fig. 2.37 illustrates the trees behind which the proposed development would be obscured in views position of the 1846 tree in relation to the Oriental Plane (Platanus orientalis) from the upper floors of Kew Palace, as illustrated in the December 2015 immediately to the west of the Orangery, which is one of the five ‘old Lions’ THVIA view 31. It is not considered that the proposed development would, of Kew, the oldest dated trees within the gardens, planted in the 1760s. however, do any appreciable harm to the setting of this Elm tree, which is There is a view of the historic Oriental Plane from the ‘Great Lawn’ where it likely to be best appreciated at relatively close quarters. is seen in relation to the flank elevation of the Orangery. An AVR has been produced of this view (View 37 in section 8.0 of this addendum), which 2.49 A series of thematic gardens and glasshouses create distinct atmospheres also includes the Chestnut-leaved oak erroneously identified by Historic and sequences of experiences in the old Botanic Gardens, as they have England as the historic 1846 tree. The proposed development is shown not done since the site was founded in 1759. The tree collection in this area, to ‘appear assertively above the treeline’ as HE believe, but actually to be also known as the old arboretum, is not based on taxonomic organisation beneath the treeline, even in winter views. In addition, the Oriental Plane but ad-random by species. Many of the trees in the old arboretum, in is best appreciated in relation to the Orangery in views from the Orangery addition to the ‘Old Lions’, are also historic trees, as shown on the plan at lawn looking north-west across the face of the listed building towards the fig. 2.37. The experience of these trees is generally at close quarters as historic tree, as illustrated here in fig. 2.34. It can also be appreciated in there is relatively close planting and few longer views across open space views looking north towards it. The proposed development will not affect its in this area, other than the views across the Great Lawn assessed in the setting in these views. December 2015 THVIA (views 16 and 16A) and this Addendum (views 36 and 37). It is unlikely, therefore, that the ability to experience historic trees 2.48 The remaining ‘Old Lions’ include the Pagoda Tree (Styphnolobium in the old Botanic Garden would be reduced by the proposed development japonicum) which is held up by numerous props just off the Broad Walk. It at significant distance away. is best appreciated from close up and its setting will not be affected by the proposed development. The Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) is located on Fig 2.36: The Chestnut-leaved Oak of 1846, close to the Water Lilly House, with prominent explanatory plaque.

OCTOBER 2016 12 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

SITE SITE SITE

R O Y A L B O T A N I C G A R D E N S , K E W - L A N D S C A P E M A S T E R P L A N

1. Castanea sativa, early 1700 *2. Ginkgo biloba, 1762 *3. Styphnolobium japonicum, 1762 *4. Platanus orientalis, 1762 Flowering ribbon *5. Robinia pseudoacacia. 1762 Flowering ribbon *6. Zelkova carpinifolia, 1762 7. Quercus x hispanica, 1773 8. Quercus x turneri, 1798 9. Pinus nigra subsp. Laricio, 1814 *10. Liriodendron tulipifera, 1770 GREAT LAWN GREAT LAWN ORANGERY LAWN 11. Quercus castaneifolia, 1846 ORANGERY LAWN 12. Aesculus indica ‘Sydney pearce’, 1935 13. Pinus pinea, 1846 14. Platanus x hispanica 22 *15. Cedrus libani 16. Cedrus libani 17. Quercus robur 18. Castanea sativa 19. Castanea sativa *20. Robinia pseudoacacia *21. Juglans nigra, c.1740 *22. Fagus sylvatica ‘Purpurea’, 1760

* ‘Old / Lion’ trees

Wilson conservationWilson conservation trail / programmetrail / programme

Cherry walkCherry walk

SPATIAL STRUCTURE VISTAS / SUB VISTAS / OPEN SPACES BOTANICAL TRAILS TAXONOMIC SHRUB COLLECTION HERITAGE TREES - A SELECTION SPATIAL STRUCTURE VISTAS / SUB VISTAS / OPEN SPACES BOTANICAL TRAILS

APPENDIX - A G R O S S . M A X . L A N DAPPENDIX S C A P E APPENDIX A R C H I T E- CA T S - A 123 Fig 2.37: Diagram from appendix A of the Landscape Masterplan produced by Gross Max Landscape Fig 2.38: Diagram from appendix A of the Landscape Masterplan produced by Gross Max Landscape Fig 2.39: Diagram from appendix A of the Landscape Masterplan produced by Gross Max Landscape Architects (2010), showing the location of heritage trees. It is noteworthy that they are concentrated in Architects (2010), showing how extreme planting within the site has given rise to the existing spatial Architects (2010), showing the major and sub vistas within Kew Gardens. None of these more formal 124 the northern most part of the gardens, where the original Botanic Gardens (begun C1759) was located. structure. views are orientated towards the Chiswick Roundabout site. 124 Contrary to Historic England belief, the historic Chestnut-leaved Oak of 1846 (Querus Castaneifolia) is located close to the Water Lilly House (position 11), not the Orangery.

OCTOBER 2016 13 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.)

2.50 The more recent National Arboretum, further west, is organised on a Royal patronage and occupancy of the gardens as evidenced in Kew 2.60 As a historic landscape Kew Gardens has been compromised by the planting taxonomic grouping of trees and shrubs by family and was planted from Palace, Queen Charlotte’s cottage and archaeological remains of the of trees as part of its horticultural and arboricultural collection. The planting the 1840s onwards. Nesfield’s original drawings from the 1840s show a White House and Castellated Palace of the arboretum over time has led to a diminution of the original historic careful integration of the taxonomic collection ‘without materially altering landscape intent and illustrates a tension between the horticultural and the general features’, though over the years the extent of planting and 2.55 The historical section of this addendum illustrates the importance of Kew as arboricultural value of Kew Gardens and its historic landscape value. There maturity of the specimens has reduced the openness and changed the a Royal retreat and the role of Royal patronage in the development of the may be opportunities to open up historic views in the future, but there is no general features of the landscape significantly. The national arboretum is gardens. The remaining structures associated with Royal Patronage include reason for this ambition to preclude a new building in the distant setting. heavily planted and at greater distance from the development site than the Kew Palace, The Orangery and Aroid House, the archaeological remains of old Botanic Garden. Any significant visual effect is, therefore, less likely. the White House and the elements of the earlier landscapes which remain 2.61 On site and desk-top research indicates that the settings of historic trees and beneath the Victorian layout. groups of trees in the Old Botanic Garden and further west in the national 2.51 Historic England have pointed out that the WHS Management Plan refers, in arboretum, will not be significantly affected by the proposed development. relation to the Victorian garden lay-out, that the ‘arboretum is occasionally 2.56 The role of Royal patronage in the development of the Royal Botanic Gardens Visitors to the World Heritage Site will still be able to recognise and appreciate punctuated by clumps of evergreens which contain views and provide a sense is well represented in the historical record and in the remaining structures the Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, if the of spatial layering and enclosure’ and raise concern that the ‘historically and landscapes at Kew. The development of a tall building at Chiswick proposed development is built. The proposal is in accordance with advisory desired sense of enclosure’ could be harmed by the introduction of visible Roundabout will not affect this attribute of Outstanding Universal Value in policies Policy 1d and 3c of the WHS Management Plan, in that it would not elements beyond the site boundaries. It should be noted however, that the any demonstrable way. impact adversely on the WHS, its OUV or its setting and would maintain the clumps of evergreens occur mainly within the arboretum, to the west of setting of listed buildings and key landscape features within the gardens and the Palm House, where they provide enclosure of particular spaces within Conclusion: The effects of the proposed development the OUV of the their interrelationships. the gardens. There is no evidence that the relatively piecemeal evergreen Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS tree planting close to the northern edge of the garden, where the proposed 2.62 The outstanding quality of the proposed development, which has been 2.57 The key features of the historic landscape, as acknowledged in paragraphs development would be seen in longer views across the Great Lawn area, consciously designed to be in harmony with the landscape of Kew Gardens, 3.9.5 – 3.9.6 of the WHS Management Plan, are its triangular layout of vistas fulfils an enclosure purpose. As noted elsewhere, the North and East edge as well as its distance away, ensure that the limited views of it from the juxtaposed with the Broad Walk, which provides access to the Elizabeth of the garden has always had a visual relationship with surrounding urban Great Lawn, will not be harmful to the OUV of the WHS or its significance as Gate, formerly the main entrance, and; the positioning of key buildings environment at Kew Green. a heritage asset. within the landscape framework, including the Palm House as its focal point Iconic architectural legacy located on the central axis of the ensemble and the pagoda to the south. Additional photographs provided in this section of the addendum The use of the term ‘palimpsest of landscape design’ in the description of 2.52 Most of the structures within the gardens are listed, many at the elite the attributes of the OUV, is appropriate because the landscape includes a 2.63 The additional photographs at the end of this section (Figs. 2.40-2.48) grades of Grade II* and Grade I. The iconic glass houses, notably the Palm complex layering of later design on earlier gardens of different character. illustrate the existing condition, with views out towards the surrounding House and Temperate House, but also the earlier Aroid House and to a The proposed development at Chiswick Roundabout would not be seen in townscape possible at various positions, particularly in the north part of lesser degree the Orangery, illustrate important developments in the design combination with these key features of the 1840s landscape layout or its gardens close to the former Great Lawn. and construction of glasshouses throughout history. These have been antecedents and therefore has no demonstrable effect on the key attributes supplemented by more modern examples, including the Princess of Wales of the designed landscape or its setting. Additional AVRs Provided in Section 8.0 of the addendum Conservatory and the Davies Alpine House, both of which are located in the 2.64 Section 8.0 of this addendum provides additional AVRs looking towards the Old Botanic Garden area where historically glass houses and other buildings 2.58 The urban environment is visible on the north, north-west and east edges of proposed development from within Kew gardens. associated with the gardens have been located. There have always been the site. The existence of the surrounding urban environment is part of the historical character of this part of the gardens. The AVRs provided over the buildings visible both within the gardens themselves, and beyond at Kew View 35: Temple of Aeolus Mound, Royal Botanic Gardens Green and Kew Road, from the oldest and most historic parts of the garden, course of this project, illustrate that the proposed development will only be visible from a limited number of positions within the entrance and riverside as historic maps indicate. View 36: Path One from the south west of the Orangery to the Broad Walk ‘zones’ of the WHS. It will be most visible from the perimeter of the former 2.53 In addition, Kew includes a collection of garden structures such as temples, ‘Great Lawn’ open space. From this limited area it will be seen in relation to View 37: Path Two from the south west of the Orangery to the Broad Walk follies, gates, boundary wall and riverside ha-ha which are an integral part the secondary west elevation of the Orangery and the historic Oriental Plane of the designed landscape, though often part of earlier designs that were tree. Elsewhere the proposal will be obscured by trees. The Chestnut- View 38: Aroid House, from Little Broad Walk superseded. leaved Oak close to the Orangery is not the historic 1846 tree that Historic England believe it to be. View 39: Elizabeth Gate 2.54 The architectural legacy represented at Kew Gardens was considered in detail in the THVIA (December 2015). It is not considered that the setting 2.59 There is no evidence that the views on the paths to the south and west of any of the listed buildings which form part of the landscape layout of the side of this space were ever formal views, indeed the original location of gardens will be harmed by the development of the proposed development the White House and the remaining position of the Orangery suggest they at Chiswick Roundabout. This addendum provides more evidence in the were not. Views towards the Orangery from the triangle of paths that meet form of additional AVRs 35, 36, 37 and 38, to complement the AVRs already to its south-west are incidental in nature, although they lie on a secondary included in the December 2015 THVIA. In the majority of these views the desire line within the gardens. Historically these views of the Orangery proposed development will be completely obscured in the background. were obscured by trees, as maps included in this Addendum indicate. The additional AVRs 37 and 38 included in this addendum show, in any event, that the proposed development would be obscured in the background of these views by tree cover.

OCTOBER 2016 14 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.) VIEWS DEPICTING BACKDROPS TO THE WHS

Fig 2.40-2.41: The Haverfield Estate towers, seen from the south end of Decimus Burton’s formal Broad Walk, where they rise up behind the principal elevation of the Orangery. Their Fig 2.42:Vantage West is seen in combination with the Palm House at the termination of the Pagoda Vista, one of the detrimental effect arises from their poor architectural quality, as acknowledged in the WHS management plan, which refers to them as ‘an infrastructural eyesore’. primary views within the WHS.

Fig 2.43: The Metropolitan Waterworks tower, seen beyond the ridgeline of the principal elevation of the Grade I Fig 2.44-2.45: The Great West Quarter Tower and one of the Haverfield Estate towers interacting with the Palm House. listed Orangery. The tower is considered to be important to the character and setting of Kew Gardens, as noted in the WHS Management Plan.

OCTOBER 2016 15 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

2.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (CONTD.) VIEWS DEPICTING PROMINENT URBAN BACKDROPS TO THE WHS

Fig 2.46-2.48: Kew Palace is seen in combination with development at Brentford from the former Great Lawn of the White House, including the Haverfield Estate Towers and the Great West Quarter Tower. The proposed development will only interact with Kew Palace in much more oblique views across its front elevation (view 32 in the December 2015 THVIA). It is of exceptional architectural quality, in contrast to the Haverfield Estate Towers and the Great West Quarter To w e r.

OCTOBER 2016 16 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

3.0 KEW GREEN

Consideration in December 2015 THVIA styles and eras, a high proportion of which are either statutorily or locally setting. The NPPG also makes clear that ‘it is the degree of harm to the listed, with a significant setting of the World Heritage Site to the south and asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development’ that isto 3.1 Kew Green was assessed in sections 8A and 8B of the original December west and the Thames to the north. But Kew Green also has a demonstrably be assessed. Additionally, the architectural qualities of the design, which 2015 THVIA both as a conservation area and as a place which includes urban wider setting, as illustrated in fig. 3.1, with a number of buildings on Historic England do not consider, would reduce any potential harm further a number of statutorily listed and locally listed buildings. Three Accurate the north bank of the Thames seen beyond the perimeter. The proposed by adding a modern high quality element in the background which, owing to Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed development were produced development is of exemplary architectural quality, in contrast to other the distance away, will be perceived as part of its evolving urban setting. and assessed in the THVIA, namely View 21, View 21A and View 34. background buildings. It will serve to improve the wider setting of the heritage asset. The volumes and proportions of the proposed development 3.5 Visibility of a development in conjunction with a heritage asset does not Summary of significance have been carefully designed to relate to the volumes and proportions of the automatically mean that the significance of that heritage asset is harmed. houses at Kew Green in views across the space towards the north. In this case, the building has been specifically designed to relate, in terms 3.2 Kew Green has a long historical relationship with the development of Kew of scale, proportion and colouration, to this and other important settings. Gardens to its west and south and also forms part of the buffer zone of the 3.4 Historic England’s concern that the proposed development would intrude It will demonstrably increase the quality of buildings in the wider setting of World Heritage Site. The Grade II* listed Church of St Anne is the most into key views across Kew Green as ‘an incongruous disruptive feature Kew Green, of which there are a significant number. There will be no residual prominent building on Kew Green. The green was designated because of its on the skyline resulting in substantial harm to the special character and harm done to the significance of either the conservation area, the listed ‘exceptional character as an historic open space, the associated high quality appearance of this conservation area’ is not plausible. The assessment buildings within it or its setting. The spatial relationship between St Anne’s of the mostly C18th development and its superior riverside environment’. It of ‘substantial harm’ has been considered in recent legal judgments and Church, the village green that surrounds it and the variety of houses on the is considered to be a fine example of a historic village green with a visual reflected in planning inspectors’ decisions. It is described to be a ‘high test’ perimeter, beyond trees, will be unaffected by the proposed development. cohesion and ‘a clearly identifiable sense of place and distinctive character’. in paragraph 17 of the NPPG and is considered to be when there is a serious adverse impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset. Clearly, Additional AVRs Provided in Section 8.0 of the addendum Assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the in the case of a conservation area this would constitute a considerable loss significance of Kew Green Conservation Area to the physical fabric of the conservation area or to a setting on which its 3.6 LBH agreed the location of additional AVRs from Kew Green, and these significance relies, such as the foreground village green. This is notthe are provided in section 8.0 of this addendum, and form the basis of the 3.3 Historic England have stated that ‘the distinctive village green setting of case here as the proposed development lies in its wider setting and will additional assessment above. They are: Kew Green lies at the very heart of the special character and appearance of be seen, along with other existing tall buildings, as part of its wider urban the area’. Kew Green includes a group of buildings of varying architectural View 40: St Anne’s Church, Kew Green

View 41: Island outside the Coach & Horses Public House, Kew Green

View 42: Kew Green Pond, from Priory Road

Fig 3.1: In views from close to St Anne’s Church looking across the square at Kew Green, the middle ground Fig 3.2-3.3: The entrance portico of St Anne’s Church is designed to be approached directly from the west, along the path, or through what is now the car park to its south. The proposed houses are already experienced with significant backdrop elements, including all of the six Haverfield Estate towers, the development will not interact with the church in these views. Great West Quarter tower and the recent Kew Bridge West development.

OCTOBER 2016 17 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

4.0 STRAND ON THE GREEN

Consideration in original December 2015 THVIA

4.1 Strand on the Green was assessed in sections 8A and 8B of the December 2015 THVIA, both as a conservation area and as a place which includes a number of statutorily listed buildings. Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed development were produced from three positions and assessed in the December 2015 THVIA, namely View 9, View 12 and View 12A.

Summary of signifiance

4.2 The significance of Strand on the Green lies in its tight knit group of houses, public houses, fisherman’s cottages, boat builders’ and maltings on the banks of the River Thames. Historic England note that the settlement ‘remains legible as a small riverside ribbon development of a village from the 18th and early 19th centuries. Much of its special interest lies in its tranquil riverine setting and the advantageous views from the south side of the river’. They note that the ‘largely consistent scale of the buildings and the tranquil river setting are unifying features’. The foreground setting of the conservation area, which consists largely of the river and the riverbank, makes an important contribution to the significance of the heritage asset and the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate it. The boundary of the conservation area extends northward from the riverbank into the hinterland, Fig 4.1: Tall buildings are already visible in the background of the Strand on the Green Conservation taking in the modest but attractively detailed Victorian and Edwardian Area houses, including the BSI tower and commercial buildings at Chiswick Park. terraced streets which are roughly orientated south-west to north-east. The character and appearance is also derived from the narrow alleyways and paths between the riverside path, the rear road, the pub and restaurant uses, and the kinetic experience of all these elements as experienced at close quarters from the north bank. In views from the south bank of the Thames the partially clear skyline of the conservation area buildings on the riverfront also contributes to the significance of the conservation area, but to a lesser degree than the expansive foreground setting provided by the river.

Assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the Strand on the Green Conservation Area

4.3 The site of the proposed development is not part of the setting of the conservation area and makes no contribution to its significance; it is approximately 600m to the north of the riverbank and separated from the Fig 4.2: The significance of the conservation area arises partly from its direct relationship with the river conservation area boundary by infrastructure including a railway line and bank. the raised M4. A tall building on the site will, however, give rise to a new element in the wider setting of the conservation area which will change the background skyline when viewed from the south of the river. Given that the skyline contributes to the significance of the heritage asset, though to a lesser degree than the foreground river setting, there is the potential for this change to be harmful to significance. Historic England raise concerns that ‘the development would also appear as a prominent and incongruous new element on the skyline’ in such views and that it would be ‘distinct’, ‘dominant’ and a ‘harmful addition to what are largely unspoilt views’. They go so far as to state that ‘substantial harm’ to the significance of the heritage asset would occur.

OCTOBER 2016 18 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

4.0 STRAND ON THE GREEN (CONTD)

4.4 HE’s concern that the proposed development would cause harm to the 4.6 Further, as established by recent legal judgements, the proposed 4.9 The opportunity has been taken, in the course of the preparation of this significance of the conservation area, substantial or otherwise, deserves development cannot be said to cause substantial harm to the significance addendum, to re-photograph views 12A and 12 of the original THVIA, and scrutiny. The fabric of the conservation area and its foreground riverside of the heritage asset, as the key elements contributing to its significance they are included in this section for reference. An AVR showing a wireline setting would be unaffected. The skyline would be altered, at some distance, would remain, including all of its buildings (whether listed or not), narrow depiction of the implemented Citadel scheme, as well as the consented by a new building of exemplary design quality which has been designed to alleyways and attractive uses. Indeed, these elements would be completely Brentford Football Club scheme at Lionel Road, is also included for comparative be seen in the context of the conservation area buildings. The potential unchanged by the proposed development some distance away, which will be purposes. Having received planning consent, these developments have been harm to significance is ameliorated by the qualities embodied in the design experienced as a high quality element in its wider urban setting, along with deemed acceptable to the local authority. of the proposed development. These include its sculptural form, its textured other existing tall buildings. finish and its colouration, which was specifically derived from the colouration of the existing group of Strand on the Green buildings and their reflection 4.7 The view from the south side of the Thames looking north from AVR View 12, in the river. These qualities mean that no residual harm to the significance where the proposed development would be directly behind the conservation of the heritage asset arises, in contrast to the implemented Citadel scheme, area buildings, is not the view in which the heritage asset is most appreciated whose bulky and squat form, large scale ‘planar’ facades and poor detailing from the Thames Path. AVR View 12A is a more representative view of the would harm the significance of the conservation area that derives from its whole of the terrace of buildings on the river. In this view the proposed skyline setting. development is further to the left, while the BSI tower also comes into the background of the view. 4.5 The belief that any harm arising could be ‘substantial’ is incorrect. First, the effect relates to the background skyline, which contributes considerably less 4.8 Views 12 and 12A are part of the kinetic experience as the viewer walks to the significance of the asset than the fabric of the conservation area itself east to west and experiences the urban environment on the river edge, as and its foreground setting. These elements are unchanged by the proposed illustrated in figs. 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 on the following page. The viewer is development, while the skyline already includes larger scale and later always aware of the wider London context in these views. Views looking buildings, including the BSI tower at Gunnersbury Station and Rivers House downstream from Kew Bridge and from the river edge close to the buildings to the north west of Kew Bridge. The viewer, as he or she experiences the themselves, are more representative of the character and appearance of the kinetic view from the Thames path on the south side of the river, is aware conservation area in isolation, as illustrated in figs. 4.2 and 4.3. that the Strand on the Green Conservation Area is set within the wider city. Indeed, part of the interest of the conservation area can be said to derive from its juxtaposition with a more contemporary built environment to its north and west.

Kinetic Experience: walking east to west.

Fig 4.3-4.5: Walking west on the Thames Path, from in the direction of Strand on the Green, the viewer is occasionally able to catch glimpses of the north side of the river between trees. The viewer is aware of the urban environment behind the riverfront development in those views, owing to prominent background buildings such as the BSI tower at Gunnersbury Park station, as Strand on the Green is approached, beyond .

OCTOBER 2016 19 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW View 12 : Cumulative Emerging Cumulative 12 : View

Fig 4.6: Continuing west under Kew Railway Bridge, the viewer comes to Oliver’s Island, beyond which views towards Strand on the Green are possible. This view (View 12) was included in the December 2015 THVIA and is included here again to illustrate the kinetic nature of the views. The proposed development would be visible in the background as are other buildings including Vantage West and Rivers House. OCTOBER 2016 20 THVIA ADDENDUM View 12 : Implemented Scheme ‘The Citadel’ Implemented Scheme 12 : View

Fig 4.7: Seen from the same point, the ‘Citadel’ scheme (shown in green outline) would be a less elegant form seen within the wider setting of the Strand on the Green Conservation Area. The ‘Citadel’ is implemented and therefore could be built. The consented development to the left (in red outline) is the Brentford F.C. scheme at Lionel Road. It will also be prominent in this view towards the conservation area when built. OCTOBER 2016 21 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW View 12A : Cumulative Emerging Cumulative 12A : View

Fig 4.8: Moving further west still, the viewer would experience the full range of buildings on the riverside at Strand on the Green. This is view 12A, included in the December 2015 THVIA. The BSI tower is seen in the background on the right, while the proposed development would be experienced to the left. OCTOBER 2016 22 THVIA ADDENDUM View 12A : Implemented Scheme ‘The Citadel‘ Implemented Scheme 12A : View

Fig 4.9: For completeness, the same view is shown with the implemented Citadel scheme, which is implemented and could be built on the site. To its left the lower consented schemes are Wheatstone House and West London Volkswagon, close to the application site.

OCTOBER 2016 23 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

Fig 4.10: The significance of Strand on the Green is best experienced from Kew Bridge.

OCTOBER 2016 24 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

5.0 GUNNERSBURY PARK

Consideration in original December 2015 THVIA 5.3 While the interest of Gunnersbury Park lies in the aesthetic value of its picturesque buildings set within a designed landscape, the open nature of 5.1 Gunnersbury Park was assessed in sections 8A, 8B and 8D of the original much of the park allows views out which include both suburban development December 2015 THVIA, as a conservation area, a place which includes to the north and views of larger scale development at Brentford and along a number of statutorily listed buildings and as a Grade II* Registered the M4 corridor, to the west and south. The open nature of the park Park & Garden. Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed extends into the cemetery to the south, from where tall buildings can also development from four different positions within the boundaries of the park be seen. The Gunnersbury Park estate conservation management plan were assessed in the December 2015 THVIA, namely View 1, View 2, View 3 acknowledges the views from Gunnersbury Park House, Gunnersbury House and View 33. Two further AVRs were produced from within the boundaries and the Temple, which were included in the original THVIA. It also notes of the conservation area, though outside of the boundaries of the park, the broad open views and wide panoramas within the park which can appear namely View 4 and View 5. bleak and windswept, particularly in winter.

Summary of significance Assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the significance of Gunnersbury Park 5.2 The conservation area management plan for Gunnersbury Park states that the landscape is ‘perhaps its most significant asset’, complemented by 5.4 The proposed development would be seen from within Gunnersbury Park its ornamental and picturesque buildings, lakes and follies. Some of the and its associated conservation area, including the cemetery to the south, landscaping of the park may date from the early years of Princess Amelia’s as many tall structures beyond the confines of the park are already. The occupation, with the terrace, south lawn, orangery and walls south of the visibility of such buildings is part of the character and appearance of the th house laid out in the 17 century. Funding by both the Heritage Lottery park and conservation area. The proposed development would be the Fund and Historic England has been committed to restore the buildings and first tall building to be visible from the lawn south of Gunnersbury Park landscape under the Gunnersbury 2026 masterplan project. House and also from certain positions on the terrace, although it would be partially screened by trees. The visibility of a tall building in this area has the potential to affect the contribution made to the conservation area’s significance by its setting. A poorly designed building certainly hasthe potential to detract from the view of the landscape experienced from the terrace and the lawn, which includes the Grade II* listed Orangery. The proposed development has been carefully designed, however, to ensure that any potential harm arising from this visibility is ameliorated. The north elevation of the proposed development is broken in to two slender elements, whose texture is provided by coloured fins which reflect the colours of the park itself. The quality of the design, including recent amendments described in section 8.0 of this addendum, means that no residual harm will be done to the significance of either the conservation area or listed building located within it by way of a change in their setting. Contrary to HE’s view, there will be no ‘appreciable adverse harm’.

Fig 5.1-5.3: The Grade II* Registered Gunnersbury Park includes numerous views of the urban environment on its perimeter, including tall development to the south. Views of tall development are available both from the open space to the west of the park and between trees closer to its centre.

OCTOBER 2016 25 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

5.0 GUNNERSBURY PARK (CONTD)

Fig 5.6:There are also views from the lawn of the Grade II* listed Gunnersbury Park House, towards the Great West Quarter tower further west.

Fig 5.4-5.5: The Grade II* Registered Gunnersbury Park includes numerous views of the urban environment on its perimeter, including tall development to the south. Views of tall development are available both from the open space to the west of the park and between trees closer to its centre.

OCTOBER 2016 26 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

6.0 CHISWICK HOUSE & GARDENS

Consideration in original December 2015 THVIA Additional AVRs Provided in Section 8.0 of the addendum

6.1 Chiswick House and Gardens were assessed in sections 8A, 8B and 8D 6.6 LBH agreed additional AVRs from Chiswick House and Gardens and these of the original December 2015 THVIA, as a conservation area, a place are provided in section 8.0 of this addendum, and form the basis of the which includes a number of statutorily listed buildings and as a Grade II* additional assessment above. They are: Registered Park & Garden. Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the proposed development from two different positions within the boundaries of View 43: Chiswick House, top of steps to the rear of the house the registered garden were assessed in the December 2015 THVIA, namely View 27 and View 28. View 44: Chiswick House, south lawn

6.2 The viewpoints included in the THVIA were two of the many considered in View 45: Chiswick Garden, crown of Classic Bridge a garden where there is much obscuration by trees. View 27 was chosen

as representative point where a visual conjunction between heritage assets and the proposed development was most likely. This is because it includes a near alignment between the proposed development and the Grade I listed house, with the Grade I listed temple and obelisk in the middle ground (though themselves obscured by trees in the summer view), where there is a low point in the tree line. View 28 was chosen as a point on the popular walking route around the garden where the Grade I listed Classic Bridge is experienced at the western side of the gardens.

Summary of significance

6.3 Chiswick Park is a Grade I registered park & garden and includes a number of heritage assets of the highest significance, as described in detail in the December 2015 THVIA. The designed landscape is of particular importance in the development of the English Landscape Movement, and was influenced by William Kent and his early ideas on informal landscaping.

Assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the significance of Chiswick House and Gardens

6.4 Following further consultation, three additional viewpoints were agreed with LBH to ensure that the effects on the heritage assets in this location were fully demonstrated and tested. The additional views are included in section 8.0 as Views 43, 44 and 45.

6.5 These additional views, like the views include in the original THVIA, illustrate that there will be very little effect of the proposed development on the landscape setting of the Grade I registered landscape or on the historic buildings located within it, whether in summer or winter views. There is very limited visibility in all of the views chosen, including the view from the crown of the Grade I listed Classic Bridge which is on the west side of the garden where tree coverage is at it least dense. The views demonstrate that whilst there is a very minor visible change in the wider urban setting of the Grade I registered landscape and historic buildings within it, this does not result in harm to its landscape setting in either summer or winter views or harm to the significance of the heritage assets therein.

OCTOBER 2016 27 This page is intentionally left blank a b LB c

n

CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

7.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS

l 7.1 In addition to the Royal Botanic Gardens WHS, Kew Green, Strand on k LB HOUNSLOW the Green, Gunnersbury Park and Chiswick House and Garden, there are other heritage assets whose wider setting will be affected by the proposed development. The significance of these heritage assets and the contribution m made by their setting in each case was considered in chapter 8.0 of the d December 2015 THVIA. Consideration of Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ to understand the aesthetic, historic, evidential and communal value of assets, illustrates that significance arises principally from the asset’s k architectural and historic interest embodied in its fabric, with, in some cases, the immediate setting contributing to that significance. Where there e is a conjunction between a heritage asset and the proposed development in g j a particular view, it is appropriately illustrated in the 47 representative AVRs f included in the December 2015 THVIA and section 8.0 of this addendum. h

7.2 In addition to requiring applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting, paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that ‘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’. For completeness, the following heritage assets are now considered in relation to any harm to their i significance resulting from the proposed development within their wider setting. This assessment is proportionate in that it considers only those assets of particular importance, those likely to be particularly affected by the proposed development and those that have not already been explicitly considered in the preceding sections of this addendum. The analysis already included in the December 2015 THVIA is not repeated and that document should be read in conjunction with this section of the addendum.

a) Temple in Gunnersbury Park (Grade II*) b) Gunnersbury Park House (Grade II*) LB RICHMOND UPON THAMES c) Conservatory in Gunnersbury Park (Orangery) (Grade II*)

d) Kew Bridge Pumping Station (Grade I) and Metropolitan Water Board Pump-house Tower (Grade I)

e) Aroid House (Nash Conservatory) (Grade II*)

f) Principal Entrance Gates and Railings Fronting Kew Green (Grade II*)

g) Kew Palace, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Grade I)

h) Orangery, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Grade I)

i) The Palm House, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Grade I)

j) Parish Church of St. Anne (Grade II*)

k) Wellesley Road Conservation Area

l) Conservation Area

m) Kew Bridge Conservation Area

n) Bedford Park Conservation Area LB

Fig 7.1: Map identifying the location of the Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in the surrounding area; the site is outlined in red.

OCTOBER 2016 29 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

7.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS (CONTD)

a) TEMPLE IN GUNNERSBURY PARK (Grade II*) b) GUNNERSBURY PARK HOUSE (Grade II*) c) CONSERVATORY (ORANGERY) IN GUNNERSBURY PARK (Grade II*)

Fig 7.3: Gunnersbury Park House

7.4 The terrace and open lawn to the south of the Gunnersbury Park House was acknowledged in the December 2015 THVIA to make a Fig 7.4: Conservatory in Gunnersbury Park contribution to the significance of the listed building. The trees at the southern end of the lawn represent the extent of the immediate setting. The proposed development will be visible in the background of these trees, as illustrated in views 3 and 33 of the December 2015 THVIA. The proposed development will not affect the fabric of the 7.5 The early 19th century orangery in Gunnersbury Park derives its Fig 7.2: Temple in Gunnersbury Park listed house, where its significance principally lies, nor will it be significance from its aesthetic value and its historical connections to visible in views of the asset, but it will be visible in the distant wider the development of the park, as set out in the December 2015 THVIA, setting, as appreciated from the asset. As the December 2015 THVIA as well as the landscaped lawn to the south of Gunnersbury Park notes, the architectural qualities of the development will ameliorate House, within which it is located. There is the potential for the visibility 7.3 The significance of the Temple in Gunnersbury Park was considered in any perceived harm owing to a new element becoming visible from of additional elements in the wider setting of the listed building to appropriate detail in the December 2015 THVIA, as well as the contribution within the designed landscape. It is concluded that there will be no be harmful to its significance. In this case, however, the proposed made by its setting, particularly the circular pond, and the wider setting residual harm to the significance of the listed house owing to the development is only seen in the longer views where the orangery is of the park. It was acknowledged that the wider setting does have some visibility of the proposed development. sensitivity to change, but it was also considered that the two elements of the partly obscured. It will not be visible in the closer more informative proposed development becoming visible would be beneficial owing to their views as shown above. The development has been successfully elegance and detailed design quality, including their textured elevations and designed to contribute positively by way of its elegant profile, colouration. It is concluded that the visibility of these elements in the wider sculptural form, organic relation to the landscape and textured and setting would not harm the significance of the listed building. coloured north elevations. These attributes of design will ameliorate any perceived harm arising from its visibility in the wider setting of the heritage asset. It is concluded that no residual harm will be done to the significance of the listed building.

OCTOBER 2016 30 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

7.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS (CONTD)

d) KEW BRIDGE PUMPING STATION (Grade I) AND METROPOLITAN e) AROID HOUSE (NASH CONSERVATORY) (grade II*) g) KEW PALACE, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (Grade I) WATER BOARD PUMP-HOUSE TOWER KEW BRIDGE (Grade I) 7.7 In the course of post-submission discussions an additional AVR was produced to illustrate the effect of the proposed development on Aroid House. The proposed development is confirmed to be completely obscured in the background, whether in winter or summer, and would therefore do no harm to the significance of the heritage asset (see Section 9.0, AVR 38).

f) PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE GATES AND RAILINGS FRONTING KEW GREEN (Grade II*)

Fig 7.7: Kew Palace, see from the north.

7.9 The significance of the listed building is considered in detail in the December 2015 THVIA, including the contribution made by its Fig 7.5: Metropolitan Water Board Pump-house Tower, Kew Bridge Road. immediate and wider setting. It is not considered that the proposed development, seen in accurate views across the face of the listed building, would do any harm to the significance of the heritage asset 7.6 The significance of these buildings arises from their aesthetic and by way of its visibility at considerable distance. Any perceived harm is historic values intrinsic in their fabric and immediate group setting ameliorated by the architectural qualities of the building, including its as set out in the December 2015 THVIA. The wider setting of the curvilinear form, texture facades and colouration. No residual harm buildings does not contribute to their significance. In the course of arises. The proposed development has been carefully designed to post-submission discussions, LBH requested an additional AVR from Fig 7.6: Entrance Gates and Railings onto Kew Green. respond to its wider environment. A winter version of AVR view 32 the entrance gate to the pumping station, on the north side of Kew was commissioned and is included in Appendix 1 of this addendum. Bridge Road. The purpose was to test to what extent the proposed development would fill the sky gap to the left of the pump house tower. The outcome is illustrated in AVR 47 in Section 8.0 of this addendum. 7.8 An additional AVR was also commissioned from the entrance gates to The visibility of the proposed development from this position will do Kew Gardens. Again it was confirmed that the proposed development no harm to the significance of the heritage asset and in any case it will would be completely obscured by intervening townscape and that be obscured by the Brentford F.C. consented scheme at Lionel Road, therefore no harm to the significance of the heritage asset could arise once constructed, as illustrated in the cumulative version of AVR 47. (see Section 9.0, AVR 39).

OCTOBER 2016 31 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

7.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS (CONTD)

h) ORANGERY, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (Grade I) i) THE PALM HOUSE, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (Grade I) j) PARISH CHURCH OF ST. ANNE, KEW GREEN (Grade II*)

Fig 7.9: The Palm House

Fig 7.8: Orangery at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

7.10 The significance of the listed building and the contribution made by 7.11 The significance of the Palm House derives from its aesthetic and its immediate setting within Kew Gardens is set out in the December historic value as one of the world’s most important surviving 19th 2015 THVIA. Although the proposed development would be seen in century glass houses and its central position with the designed Fig 7.10: Parish Church of St. Anne conjunction with the Orangery in a limited number of views from landscape at Kew Gardens, as set out in the December 2015 THVIA. the east-west path on the south side of the Great Lawn, it would be The proposed development was carefully designed to ensure that it hidden behind trees in views further west, as shown in the additional would be largely hidden behind trees to the north of the Palm House. AVRs produced in Section 9.0 (AVRs 36 and 37) of this addendum. The presence of the proposed development will, therefore, do no harm The visible conjunction between the orangery and the proposed to the significance of the heritage asset. 7.12 The significance of the church lies both in its aesthetic qualities, and development does not occur from a principal path or at a point its historical connection to the development of Kew Village and the where the principal elevation of the heritage asset is experienced. Royal Court. Its setting makes a contribution to that significance, In additional, the form of the proposed development and its detailing with the church taking a prominent position on Kew Green, indeed has been designed to ameliorate any perceived harm arising from its forming its centre piece. In the course of post-submission discussions, visibility in these informal views. It is concluded, therefore, that no an additional AVR was produced to illustrate the greatest possible residual harm will be done to the significance of the heritage asset by conjunction between the listed church and the proposed development. the proposed development. This is included in Section 9.0 of this addendum (AVR 40), and is assessed in detail there. It is concluded, from this additional evidence, that no harm would be done to the significance of the church by the visibility of the proposed development within its wider setting.

OCTOBER 2016 32 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

7.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS (CONTD)

k) WELLESLEY ROAD CONSERVATION AREA Summary Conclusion

7.13 The significance of the conservation area was set out in the December 7.17 The December 2015 THVIA identified the designated and non-designated 2015 THVIA. It derives from its cohesive Victorian architectural heritage assets within the study area and assessed their significance, character and its historical value as one of the earliest estates in including any contribution made to that significance by their setting. It went the area. The visibility of the proposed development in the wider on to consider the effects of the proposed development on those heritage setting of the conservation area will not harm its internal character assets. This addendum has explicitly considered whether any residual harm and appearance, and any perceived dominance in particular views would arise to the significance by way of the construction of the proposed will be ameliorated by the qualitative aspects of the development’s development in the wider setting of the heritage assets identified. It is architecture. acknowledged that the visibility of a new building affecting the setting of a heritage asset can cause harm, but it is also noted that high quality design l) TURNHAM GREEN CONSERVATION AREA can ameliorate otherwise harmful effects and that there is the potential for visual conjunction between contemporary and existing architecture to be beneficial. The qualities of the proposed development are such that no 7.14 The significance of Turnham Green conservation area is associated residual harm will be done to the significance of heritage assets in the study with the green itself and its surrounding historic townscape. The area. appearance of the proposed development, a sculptural form of high quality, in the background in some westward views from within the open space will not do harm to the significance of the conservation area or its character or appearance. m) KEW BRIDGE CONSERVATION AREA

7.15 The significance of the Kew Bridge Conservation Area derives from the architectural and historical value of the Pumping Station and associated buildings. The setting of the conservation area does not contribute to its significance in any demonstrable way. It is not considered that an additional building of high quality in the townscape, seen in views out across the conservation area, will do any harm to its significance as a heritage asset. n) BEDFORD PARK CONSERVATION AREA

7.16 The significance of the Bedford Park Conservation Area arises from the architectural value of its houses, associated buildings, open spaces and planned character. It is historically significant as a proto-type for the ‘garden suburb’, which it preceded and influenced. Few clear views towards the site are available from within the boundary of the conservation area. Following post-submission discussion with LBH an additional AVR view was commissioned from Bath Road, close to the listed Tabard Inn and the listed Church of St Michael and All Angels. This view (AVR 46 in section 8.0 of this addendum) indicates that the effect on the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area, as a whole, is negligible. There would be no harm done to the significance of the heritage assets.

OCTOBER 2016 33 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47)

8.1 There are 13 additional viewpoints provided in this addendum, following discussion and agreement with LBH. The view numbering follows on from the numbering in the original December 2015 THVIA:

View 35: Temple of Aeolus Mound, Royal Botanic Gardens

View 36: Path One from south-west of the Orangery to the Broad Walk

View 37: Path Two from south-west of the Orangery to the Broad Walk

View 38: Aroid house from Little Broad Walk

View 39: Elizabeth Gate, Royal Botanic Gardens

View 40: St. Anne’s Church, Kew Green

View 41: Island outside the Coach & Horses, Kew Green

View 42: Kew Green Pond, Priory Road

View 43: Chiswick House Balcony

View 44: Chiswick House – south lawn

View 45: Chiswick House – Crown of Classic Bridge

View 46: Bath Road, south side at Flanders Road

View 47: Kew Bridge Road at entrance to Kew Pumping Station

8.2 The assessments of the visual effect in each case are undertaken in accordance with the methodology set out in the December 2015 THVIA, and readers should refer back to that document. Please note that where cumulative schemes are visible from a viewpoint they are included in an additional AVR. Where they are not visible, however, no additional AVR is included.

OCTOBER 2016 34 a b LB EALING c

n

l k LB HOUNSLOW

m d

CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

k 8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) e g j f h

i

LB RICHMOND UPON THAMES

Site

Grade I

Grade II*

Grade II

Locally Listed

London Borough of Hounslow Conservation Area

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Conservation Area

London Borough of Ealing Conservation Area

Registered Parks and Gardens World Heritage SiteLB Boundary WANDSWORTH World Heritage Site Buffer Zone

Borough Boundary

Viewpoint Position Fig. 8.1: Map showing additional viewpoint positions included in this addendum. The site is shaded in red.

OCTOBER 2016 35 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 35 - TEMPLE OF AEOLUS MOUND, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

The Temple of Aeolus is one of the remaining follies from the eighteenth century There is a low level of change in the view as a whole. pleasure gardens designed by William Chambers. The mound provides a raised Qualitative Change viewing location, from which visitors can enjoy views out across the east edge of the gardens to housing in Kew, to the right of the photograph, and north towards buildings The proposed development is expressed as several forms, which will be discernible within Kew Gardens in the middle ground. In the background, tall development at in this view as the wireline indicates. The building will have a texture and colour Chiswick, including the BSI tower at Gunnersbury Station and the Chiswick Park that varies across its surface and will contribute to variety and interest in the view. development, are visible. Views of the Haverfield Estate towers and other urban elements at Brentford, are obscured by trees in the foreground on the left of the view. Residual Effect

Sensitivity of the View The proposed development, in this view, is considered to give rise to a minor and beneficial effect.Minor; Beneficial. This is considered to be a view of medium sensitivity.

Quantitative Change

The proposed development rises behind the evergreen tree in the centre of the view. It will be taller than other background elements.

OCTOBER 2016 36 View 35: Proposed 35: View

37 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 35 - TEMPLE OF AEOLUS MOUND, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS

Cumulative Effect

The consented Brentford F.C. scheme at Lionel Road may just be perceivable in the left background of this view, as the red line indicates. On balance, however, the cumulative effect is Negligible.

OCTOBER 2016 38 View 35: Cumulative 35: View

39 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 36 - PATH ONE FROM SOUTHWEST OF THE ORANGERY TO THE BROAD WALK

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view is from the path leading to the Grade I listed Orangery from the south-west, There would be some perception of the presence of the proposed development across the Great Lawn. There are mature trees behind the viewer and to the left, but through the branches of the Chestnut-leaved Oak in the winter. In the summer it the view is more open directly ahead and to the right. The Orangery is behind the would be completely obscured by foliage. large Chestnut-leaved Oak (though this is not the historic tree of 1846, located close to the Water Lilly House). The historic Oriental Plane tree dating from the 1760s is Qualitative Change to the left of both the larger Chestnut-leaved Oak and the Orangery.

There would be very little qualitative change to the view and it would be difficult Sensitivity of the View to discern the form of the development owing to its organic shape and autumnal colouration. It will not be possible to determine other, specific qualities of the The view is within the World Heritage Site but, owing to the composition of the view, proposed development because of the heavy filtering by tree branches. its openness and the obscuration of heritage assets within it, it is considered to be of medium sensitivity. Residual Effect

Quantitative Change On balance this is a minor effect, and one which is considered neutral, Minor; Neutral. There is no material quantitative change. The proposed development is directly behind the Orangery in this view but both are obscured by the Chestnut-leaved Oak.

OCTOBER 2016 40 View 36: Proposed 36: View

41 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 36 - PATH ONE FROM SOUTH WEST OF THE ORANGERY TO THE BROAD WALK

Cumulative Effect

The consented Brentford F.C. scheme at Lionel Road may just be perceivable beyond the trees at a point where the path appears to pass to the rear of the Orangery but is also filtered by the leafless tree-scape. The cumulative effect remains Minor; Neutral.

OCTOBER 2016 42 View 36: Cumulative 36: View

43 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 37 - PATH TWO FROM SOUTH WEST OF THE ORANGERY TO THE BROAD WALK

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This is a view from the path further west, closer to the White Peaks Café, which is The magnitude of change is low in this view. seen on the left of the view. This path includes a better view of the west elevation of the Orangery than the previous view, with the Chestnut-leaved Oak on the right and Qualitative Change the Oriental Plane on the left. It should be noted that the Chestnut-leaved Oak is not the historic tree of 1846, which is elsewhere in the gardens. There is little qualitative change, and it would be difficult to perceive the qualities of the proposed development because of heavy filtering by trees, both in summer and Sensitivity of the View winter.

This is considered to be a view of medium sensitivity. Residual Effect

Quantitative Change There is a minor change in this view and one that is considered neutral. Minor; Neutral. There is a small change in this view, because although the proposed development is largely hidden behind trees it would just be perceivable. In summer it is likely to Cumulative Effect be completely hidden and will diminish further behind the treescape as the viewer moves forward. Other consented schemes would be completely hidden. There is no cumulative effect.

OCTOBER 2016 44 View 37: Proposed 37: View

45 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 38 - AROID HOUSE FROM LITTLE BROADWALK

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This is the most open view of the Grade II* listed Aroid House on the Little Broad The magnitude of change is nil. Walk, approaching the Elizabeth Gate, in the background of the view. The listed building is set amongst trees. The attention of the viewer is drawn towards the Qualitative Change Elizabeth gate on the right side of the photograph, and Kew Green beyond. There is no qualitative change. The building is completely hidden. Sensitivity of the View Residual Effect This is considered to be a view of high sensitivity, given the heritage receptors in the view and the popularity of this historic route into and out of the gardens. There is No Change in this view.

Quantitative Change Cumulative Effect

There is no cumulative effect in this view. There is no quantitative change, the proposed development is completely hidden by Aroid House and its backdrop of trees.

OCTOBER 2016 46 View 38: Proposed 38: View

47 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 39 - ELIZABETH GATE, ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

The view is from the east side of the grade II* Elizabeth Gate to Kew Gardens. It is The magnitude of change is nil. the historic entry point, though it is now less well used than the Victoria Gate, further south on Kew Road. Although outside the gate, it is still within the boundary of the Qualitative Change World Heritage Site, which extends to the line of trees on the right of the photograph. Kew Green proper, visible behind this line of trees to the east, is within the buffer zone. There is no qualitative change. On the left of the view there is a group of 18th and 19th century buildings, including Kew’s Herbarium and Library, which has a skyline free of background development. Residual Effect

Sensitivity of the View There is No Change in this view owing to the proposed development.

This is a view of high sensitivity. It is a view highlighted within the WHS Management Cumulative Effect Plan. There is no cumulative change in this view. Quantitative Change

There is no quantitative change in this view, the building is completely obscured by buildings in the foreground.

OCTOBER 2016 48 View 39: Proposed 39: View

49 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 40 – ST ANNE’S CHURCH, KEW GREEN

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

St Anne’s Church is listed at Grade II* and is located prominently on Kew Green itself. The magnitude of change in the view is low. The green provides the heritage asset with an open immediate setting, with 18th and 19th century houses marking the perimeter of the space and taller 20th century Qualitative Change development in the background. This is a good view of the church, its entrance portico and tower, though it is from the kerb on the north side of the perimeter road. The curvilinear forms of the building, expressed in several volumes, will be appreciated There is no path on this side of the road and it is not a natural place for the viewer by the viewer. Each volume has a unique surface texture and colouration arising to stop and enjoy the view. from the pattern of fins and panels that has been applied to it artistically bythe architects. The volumes of the building overlap, providing it with a depth and three- Sensitivity of the View dimensionality through shadow that will be perceived and appreciated by the human eye, even at this distance. Each of the volumes are in scale with the houses in the This is considered a view of medium sensitivity. middle-ground.

Quantitative Change Residual Effect

The upper parts of the proposed development are visible above the trees on the Taking into account the sensitivity of the view and magnitude of change, this is perimeter of Kew Green. The building rises to just beneath the cornice line of the a minor effect. Some viewers may not appreciate the visibility of an additional entrance portico of St Anne’s Church, thus remaining subordinate to the heritage tall building in the background setting of Kew Green, or of the listed church. This asset as a whole. additional visibility is mitigated, however, by the quality of the proposed architecture and its subordination to the church. The effect is considered, therefore, to be Minor; Beneficial. There is no harm done to the significance of the listed church by way of the additional visible building in its wider setting.

OCTOBER 2016 50 View 40: Proposed 40: View

51 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 40 – ST ANNE’S CHURCH, KEW GREEN

Cumulative Effect

The consented Brentford F.C. scheme at Lionel Road will give rise to additional development rising in the background of the perimeter buildings to Kew Green. The cumulative effect is increased to Moderate; Beneficial.

OCTOBER 2016 52 View 40: Cumulative 40: View

53 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 41 – ISLAND OUTSIDE THE COACH & HORSES, KEW GREEN

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view is from the traffic island outside the Coach and Horses Public House, looking The magnitude of change in this view is nil. north towards Kew Green East. A line of fine, mature trees marks the edge of Kew Green, and separates the green space from the three storey shops and houses on the Qualitative Change east side of the perimeter road. A separate line of mature trees provides a buffer to the busy A406 South Circular Road, which crosses Kew Green to the left of the viewer. The terrace of houses at the north end of Kew Green East, with River House in their There is no qualitative change. backdrop, appears isolated from the viewer owing to the separation provided by the trees. This terrace is seen more clearly in View 34 in the original THVIA. Residual Effect

Sensitivity of the View There is No Change in this view.

This is a view of medium sensitivity, given its location within a conservation area.

Quantitative Change

The proposed development will be completely concealed in this view by heavy tree coverage, in both summer and winter.

OCTOBER 2016 54 View 41: Proposed 41: View

55 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 41 – ISLAND OUTSIDE THE COACH & HORSES, KEW GREEN

Cumulative Effect

There may be some limited visibility of the Brentford F.C. scheme through the trees in the background, but there is no cumulative effect as the proposed development is not visible in combination with it.

Note

There is a further traffic island to the west where conceivably more of the proposed development would be seen on the inside of the line of trees on the east side of Kew Green, but it is not a pleasant place for the viewer to stand owing to the proximity to the A406 and in any event was cordoned off for roadworks when this photograph was taken. View 34 in the December 2015 THVIA is in close alignment with this alternative view position and should be cross referred to by the reader.

OCTOBER 2016 56 View 41: Cumulative 41: View

57 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 42 – KEW GREEN POND, PRIORY ROAD

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view looks north, across the pond in the north east corner of Kew Green, towards The magnitude of change in the view as a whole is considered to be low. two separate terraces of houses. The lower terrace, on the left, includes five Grade th II listed buildings, namely numbers 52-56 Kew Green, which are three 18 century Qualitative Change cottages on the left, and the 19th Century Nos. 62 and 64 Kew Green, which are set between the central white house and the brick end of terrace house on the right. The five house terrace on the right is from the 20th century. The view is framed in the The proposed development adds to the currently clear ridge line of the terrace on the left and will be a new backdrop element. It will not, however, be dominant as the form of the building is foreground by trees. The pond, which is a valued local community resource, forms an open middle ground. The terraces form the background and provide a varied skyline, broken down into volumes in scale with the foreground. Each volume is broken down further by with chimneys and varied ridge levels. way of coloured fins which provide texture and respond to the predominant colours in the local environment.

Sensitivity of the View Residual Effect

This is a view of medium sensitivity. This is considered to be a moderate effect. The 18th Century cottages in the view will, for the first time, receive a backdrop building. Though this might be considered, by some, a negative effect Quantitative Change which could harm the significance of the listed cottages, the architectural quality of the proposed development balances its visibility in the background. On balance the effect can be considered The proposed development will rise behind the listed Nos. 62 and 64 Kew Green, Minor; Beneficial. There is no residual harm to the significance of the heritage assets. to the equivalent of slightly more than a further storey. If the viewer were to move across the road to where the pond can be fully appreciated, the visibility of the Cumulative Effect development would reduce.

There will be no cumulative effect in this view, other consented developments being obscured.

OCTOBER 2016 58 View 42: Proposed 42: View

59 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 43 – CHISWICK HOUSE BALCONY

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view is taken from the top of the steps on the rear elevation of the Grade I The magnitude of change is nil. listed Chiswick House. The steps are generally closed to the public but visitors can experience this view from within the building or on occasions when the steps are Qualitative Change used. The principal view looks axially between the principal trees towards the exedra and statuary which terminate the formal part of the vista. The Ionic temple can just There is no qualitative change. The proposed development is completely hidden. be seen in the left middle ground. The photograph is orientated to the left of the axial position towards the development site. The background of the view is made up of Residual Effect more informal ‘picturesque’ planting in the north-west of the gardens. There is No Change in this view owing to the proposed development. No harm will Sensitivity of the View be done to the significance of Chiswick House or other heritage assets in the view.

Owing to the position, looking out from a Grade I listed building into a Grade I Cumulative Effect registered landscape, this is considered to be a view of high sensitivity. There is no cumulative effect in this view, consented developments in the Quantitative Change background being completely invisible.

There is no quantitative change in the view. The proposed development is hidden by one of the two substantial trees in the middle ground of the view as well as by other trees behind it.

OCTOBER 2016 60 View 43: Proposed 43: View

61 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 44 – CHISWICK HOUSE - SOUTH LAWN

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view was taken from the lawn south of Chiswick House, looking north-west. The The magnitude of change is nil. lake is to the left of the viewer with the Cascades waterfall behind the viewer to the left. The obelisk close to the Ionic temple is just visible to the right of the Oak tree Qualitative Change in the foreground. The temple itself is hidden by the Oak tree and the middle-ground trees in the gardens. There is no qualitative change, the proposed development will not be visible.

Sensitivity of the View Residual Effect

This view is within a Grade I registered landscape, although it is not the most There is No Change in this view. important view within it. For the purposes of this assessment the sensitivity of the view is considered to be medium. Cumulative Effect

Quantitative Change There is no cumulative effect in this view, consented developments in the background being completely invisible. There is no quantitative change in the view. The proposed development is completely obscured, even in winter.

OCTOBER 2016 62 View 44: Proposed 44: View

63 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 45 – CHISWICK HOUSE - CROWN OF CLASSIC BRIDGE

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

The view is taken from the parapet of the Grade I listed Classic Bridge, looking The magnitude of change is low. north-west towards the island that terminates the lake. The path to the left of the lake leads to the Park Road gate, providing an access point for people to enjoy the Qualitative Change gardens. Between the winter trees, suburban interwar detached houses, generally of two or three storeys in height, can be seen. Many are painted white, increasing their Although higher than the suburban houses just visible between the trees, the visibility. The presence of suburban Chiswick, to the west of the gardens, is part of proposed development would be no more perceivable than they are owing to the the character of views experienced from this part of the gardens. additional distance away and the varied colouration that it includes, which respond to colour in the environment. This colouration would tend to disguise the proposed Sensitivity of the View development in the background, rather than be appreciated in the qualitative sense.

This is not the most important view within the registered landscape. Views looking Residual Effect south-east from the Classic Bridge along the length of the lake and into the gardens, for example, are of greater value. On balance this is considered to be a view of This is a very minor, even negligible effect. It is also considered neutral in nature. medium sensitivity. Negligible; Neutral. There will be no harm done to the significance of the heritage asset. Quantitative Change Cumulative Effect The presence of the building would just be perceivable beyond the winter trees, There is no cumulative effect in this view, consented developments in the though it would be completely hidden in summer. Even in winter it would be heavily background being completely invisible. filtered by the trees.

OCTOBER 2016 64 View 45: Proposed 45: View

65 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL ACCURATE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT - (VIEWS 35 TO 47) (CONTD) VIEW 46 – BATH ROAD, SOUTH SIDE AT FLANDERS ROAD

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing Magnitude of Change

This view is taken from a point on Bath Road, close to the junction with Flanders The magnitude of change is very low, the proposed development only just being visible Road. Both the Grade II* listed Church of St Michael & All Angels and the Grade II* between the leafless tree branches. In summer it would be completely obscured. Tabard Inn are visible on either side of the road from this point in the townscape. These buildings were the social focal point of the Bedford Estate, and therefore have Qualitative Change significant historical, as well as aesthetic, value. Bath Road terminates withthe treescape of Acton Green Common. Bath Road is not axial to the development site Although the proposed development would be very heavily filtered behind trees, its and therefore the photograph is orientated to the right. upper levels would just be perceivable. At this distance and through trees it would be difficult to detect the detail of the proposed development. When the trees are in Sensitivity of the View leaf the proposed development would be completely invisible.

This is considered to be view of medium sensitivity. Residual Effect

Quantitative Change The effect in this view is very minor, indeed negligible given that for at least half of the year it will not be visible at all. It is also considered to be a neutral effect. The proposed development appears close to the centre of the view, below the tree Negligible; Neutral. There is no material effect on the significance of either listed line on Acton Green Common. building in the view owing to the very small change in setting during the winter months.

Cumulative Effect

There is no cumulative effect in this view, consented developments in the background being completely invisible.

OCTOBER 2016 66 View 46: Proposed 46: View View 34: Proposed 34: View

67 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL AVRS (CONTD) VIEW 47 – KEW BRIDGE ROAD AT ENTRANCE TO KEW PUMPING STATION

EXISTING PROPOSED

Existing viewer walks past the gate pier it will be obscured by the pier, before being revealed again once the viewer is within the grounds of the museum. It will appear in the sky The view is from the north side of Kew Bridge Road, close to the entrance of the space between the listed buildings. It will appear lower than both the cornice line of London Water and Steam Museum. Both the Metropolitan Waterboard Pump House the engine house and the base of the tower. tower, to the right, and the Great Engine House of the Pumping Station, to the left, are Grade I listed. An alternative position on the south side of the road was included Magnitude of Change in the THVIA (View 11), giving a better view of the composition of the group of buildings. From close to the entrance, the gate pier in the foreground obscures the The magnitude of change in this view is low. building on the left, although the tower remains centre-piece. This view position was chosen in discussion with LBH to investigate the possibility of the proposed Qualitative Change development filling the gap between the listed buildings as the viewer enters the grounds of the museum. The proposed development would be experienced as a background element. Because it is lower than the base of the tower and the cornice line of the engine house, it Sensitivity of the View is not dominant. Its curvilinear, sculpted form and coloured fins will form a worthy background counterpoint to the nineteenth century industrial architecture in the This is a view of high sensitivity, owing to the presence of the Grade I listed buildings foreground. and the fact that the entrance to the museum is a place through which many viewers will pass. The significance of the listed buildings, however, does not depend on their Residual Effect setting on Kew Bridge Road, which is generally poor. This is a moderate effect, and one which can also be considered beneficial because of Quantitative Change the juxtaposition between high quality architecture of two different eras, Moderate; Beneficial. The significance of the Grade I listed buildings does not depend on the The AVR shows that the proposed development will appear to the left of the tower sky gap experienced between them close to the entrance gate, and the proposed and will become more visible as the viewer moves towards the entrance. As the development falling within the gap in the distance will do no harm.

OCTOBER 2016 68 View 47: Proposed 47: View

69 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

8.0 ADDITIONAL AVRS (CONTD) VIEW 47 – KEW BRIDGE ROAD AT ENTRANCE TO KEW PUMPING STATION

Cumulative Effect

The buildings that form part of the Brentford F.C. scheme at Lionel Road are consented and will be located between the listed buildings in the foreground and the proposed development in the background. They will almost completely obscure the proposed development. The cumulative effect can still be considered to be moderate and the contribution of the proposed development to it will be neutral.

OCTOBER 2016 70 View 47 Cumulative View

71 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES

9.1 In response to post-submission consultation, revisions to the proposed development are proposed, leading to an increase in the quantum of affordable housing on the site as well as internal and external alterations. The height and massing of the proposed development has not been changed.

9.2 The alterations are described in full in the Design & Access Statement Addendum produced by SEW. Only the external alterations are considered here, as only these changes have the potential to affect townscape, heritage and visual receptors. They include:

• A reduction in the number and scale of digital advertising screens;

• Design alterations to the commercial levels of the proposed development to improve their relationship with the upper levels;

• Design amendments to the north elevation, including the introduction of more fins.

9.3 The external alterations and the parallel rationalisation of the colour palette proposed by the architects, led to the decision to update the rendered AVRs submitted in the December 2015 THVIA. The updated AVRs follow below. Each is accompanied by a commentary considering any visible alteration in the proposed development and any change in the effect arising.

OCTOBER 2016 72 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 1: Gunnersbury Park, north-west entrance

Commentary: In this long distance view the commercial levels of the façade (i.e. the first six levels) have been simplified and unified with the upper levels, so that the building has a unified and coherent façade design from pavement level to its parapets. The addition of more fins to the north elevation will create greater texture and depth in this view and will help to differentiate between the three visible volumes. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 80 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 73 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 2: Gunnersbury Park, the Round Pond

Commentary: In this mid distance view, the changes to the commercial levels of the proposed development will not be visible, but the viewer will see more fins on the north elevation, producing greater texture and depth in the façade as well as additional colouration. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 84 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 74 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 4: Gunnersbury Cemetery (Wintertime)

Commentary: In this relatively close view, the changes to the commercial levels of the proposed development will not be visible, owing to the trees and buildings in the foreground, but the viewer will see more fins on the north elevation, producing greater texture and depth in the façade as well as additional colouration. These additional elements will help to differentiate between the three visible volumes. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 90 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 75 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 4: Gunnersbury Cemetery (Summertime)

Commentary: This is a new view photograph, taken in summertime from the same view position. The AVR shows how the additional fins produce more texture, depth and contrast in the north elevation of the building, giving the east and west volumes of the building more definition in relation to the bridge element. This is an improvement to the architectural approach, although the assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 90 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 76 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 6: Chiswick High Road, opposite Chiswick Park Estate

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 96 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 77 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 7: Clarence Road, from Wellesley Road

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 98 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 78 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 10: Kew Bridge Road, junction with Kew Road

Commentary: In this view the commercial levels of the façade have been revised, though they are not quite visible. There are no changes to the upper levels of the elevation in this view, other than the rationalisation of the colour palette. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 108 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 79 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 12: Riverbank, looking towards Strand on the Green

Commentary: This AVR has been updated with a new photograph taken post-submission, showing the Thames at high tide. The only other change is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 116 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 80 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 12A: Riverbank, looking towards Strand on the Green

Commentary: This AVR has been updated with a new photograph and the proposed development shown rendered rather than as a more illustrative ‘wireline’. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 121 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 81 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 13: Kew Bridge, south end

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 122 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 82 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 14: Riverbank north of Kew Gardens

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 126 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 83 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 16: Kew Gardens, looking towards the Grade I Orangery

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 134 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 84 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 18: Kew Gardens, at Grade I Palm House, location 2

Commentary: This rendered AVR is included for completeness. It has not changed as the proposed development is hardly visible between the tree-tops. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p.144 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 85 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 21: Kew Green

Commentary: An error in the December 2015 THVIA led to the fins on the west volume of the proposed development being shown as green. They are corrected in this image to red/orange. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 154 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 86 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 24: Mouth of River Brent

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 166 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 87 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 29: Chiswick Bridge

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 178 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 88 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 32: Kew Palace, front elevation

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 188 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 89 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 33: Gunnersbury Park, Gunnersbury Park House lawn

Commentary: In this mid distance view, the changes to the commercial levels of the proposed development will not be visible, but the viewer will see more fins on the north elevation, producing greater texture and depth in the façade as well as additional colouration. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 190 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 90 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Updated AVR View 34: Kew Green east

Commentary: The only change in this view is that the colouration of the proposed development has been rationalised; the alterations to the lower six commercial floors will not be visible. The assessment of the significance of the effect remains as set out on p. 192 of the December 2015 THVIA.

OCTOBER 2016 91 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

9.0 ORIGINAL AVRS UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO POST-SUBMISSION DESIGN CHANGES (CONTD)

Summary Conclusion:

9.4 The alterations proposed by SEW to the external envelope of the proposed development, including the additional fins and colouration to the north elevation, are judged to be an enhancement to the design, and therefore constitute a beneficial effect when visible.

OCTOBER 2016 92 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 This addendum provides further considerations in regard to the potential 10.8 The addition of new buildings into the wider setting of heritage assets which harm to heritage assets arising from the proposed development. The exist within an urban environment and the juxtaposition this relationship application site is not located within a conservation area and it is not located creates is part of the character of the evolving city. adjacent to listed buildings. The proposed development cannot, therefore, affect the fabric of any heritage asset, but may affect their settings. 10.9 Concerns that the proposed development could cause ‘substantial’ harm in relation to conservation areas or other heritage assets some distance 10.2 The additional 13 AVRs included in section 8.0 provide further information from it are unfounded. Both case law and the NPPG indicate that for harm on the visibility of the proposed development from view positions within to be ‘substantial’ the impact on significance is required to be so serious Kew Gardens, Chiswick Park and from Kew Green, amongst others. In that the ‘adverse impact seriously affects a key element’ of the heritage combination with the 34 AVRs included in the December 2015 THVIA, they asset. The construction of the proposed development, outside the boundary comprehensively illustrate the effects of the proposed development on the of conservation areas and only within the wider setting of these heritage setting of heritage assets. assets, would not harm any of the key elements which are integral to their significance. It follows, therefore, that a claim of substantial harm in relation 10.3 The additional AVRs from within the WHS indicate that the proposed to these heritage assets is not justified. development will largely be hidden behind trees. Readers should refer back to the View 16 in the original December 2015 THVIA, which shows the 10.10 Since the proposed development was submitted in December 2015, some proposed development at its most visible across the former Great Lawn and alterations have occurred as set out in detail in the Design & Access Statement in conjunction with the Orangery. It is noteworthy that Historic England are Addendum. These are considered in section 9.0 of this addendum and show mistaken in believing that the Chestnut-leaved Oak close to the Orangery is that the design of the building is further enhanced by the densification of the historic tree of 1846. coloured fins in various areas of the facades. The written assessments in section 9.0 of the December 2015 THVIA remain valid. 10.4 The additional AVRs from Chiswick Park and close to Chiswick House confirm that the proposed development will be heavily obscured by trees in both winter and summer views.

10.5 The visibility of a new building in the wider setting of a heritage asset does not automatically constitute harm to the significance of that asset. It is well established, as set out in paragraph 132 of the NPPF, that the significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost by development within its setting. It is also well established, and accepted by Historic England, amongst others,

that high quality design should be taken into account when considering the effect of new development on the significance of heritage assets. Indeed, high quality architecture is demanded in Historic England’s own publications and across the planning system as an essential component of sustainable development.

10.6 The proposed development is an example of how design quality has been applied, by way of sculptural form, texture and colouration, amongst other merits, such that it ameliorates any harm to the significance of heritage assets that might have arisen owing to the visibility of a less well designed building in their setting. This approach was taken by the Inspector of the London Bridge Tower Public Inquiry, who stated that ‘it must be possible, depending on the particular circumstances, that a potentially harmful impact can be mitigated by a good design’.

10.7 It is the consultancy’s considered opinion that there will be no residual harm to the significance of the heritage assets in question arising from the visibility of this exceptionally high quality new building in their wider setting, as examined in a series of views both in this addendum and in the December 2015 THVIA. There will be no adverse impact on the WHS’s attributes of Outstanding Universal Value or viewers’ ability to recognise and appreciate it, owing to the visibility of the proposed development from only a small number of positions within the gardens and at considerable distance away.

OCTOBER 2016 93 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

11 .0 REFERENCES

References

• London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Kew Green Conservation Area Policy and Guidance Audit, 1994

• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 • London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Views of the Gardens and Buildings at Kew in , Curwen Press, 1982 • Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 • Nairn, I and Pevsner, N, The Buildings of England, Surrey, Bridget Cherry edition, Yale University Press, 2002 • DCMS, Planning Practice Guidance, On-line Resource, 2014

• Turrill, W.B, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Past and Present, 1959 • Historic England, Seeing the History in the View, 2011

• Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, ed. H E • Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note Malden, 1911 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, 2015

• Historic England, Planning Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings, 2015

Archives and Databases • Authority (GLA), The , Spatial Development Strategy for London, Consolidated with Alterations since 2011, 2015 • British History Online (www.british-history.ac.uk)

• GLA, Draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework, 2008; and City • Historic England, The National Heritage list for England (www.historicen- Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework Consultation Draft, 2014 gland.org.uk/listing/the-list)

• London Library online catalogue

Publications • Royal Institute of British Architects online catalogue

• Cloake, John, Richmond Past, Historical Publications Ltd, 1991

• Cloake, John, and Parks of Richmond and Kew. Volume II: Richmond Lodge and the Kew

• Desmond, Ray, The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Kew Publishing, 2007

• Gross Max Royal Botanic Gardens Landscape Management Plan, November 2010

• Hibbert, C et all, The London Encyclopaedia (3rd Edition), Macmillan; 2010

• Historic England, Kew Gardens Grade I Listing Citation (Parks and Gardens) 1 October 1987

• London County Council Bomb Damage Maps 1939-45, London Topographical Society, 2005

OCTOBER 2016 94 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 1 ORIGINAL AVRS SHOWN IN WINTER CONDITIONS

A1.1 The following AVRs have been updated with new photography during winter conditions to illustrate the likely effects of the proposed development when there are no leaves on the trees. It was not necessary to update all of the AVRs in the original THVIA on this basis as some had been taken during the winter of 2015. Some, however, were taken later when there was more significant leaf coverage. The following have been updated:

View 2: Gunnersbury Park, The Round Pond

View 5: Princess Avenue, East of Gunnersbury Park

View 27: Chiswick Park, at Grade I Chiswick House

View 30: Kew Gardens, Pagoda Vista

View 32: Kew Palace, Front Elevation

View 33: Gunnersbury Park, Gunnersbury Park House Lawn

View 34: Kew Green East

All updates show the proposed development in wireline rather than as a VIEW 2 rendered AVR.

Please note that an adequate winter version of View 31: Kew Palace, Second Floor could not be produced, because the windows in the historic building could not be opened to take a photograph at that time. A test photograph taken through the glass was considered to be too blurred to be useful.

VIEW 5

OCTOBER 2016 95 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX I ORIGINAL AVRS SHOWN IN WINTER CONDITIONS (CONTD)

VIEW 27 VIEW 30

OCTOBER 2016 96 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX I ORIGINAL AVRS SHOWN IN WINTER CONDITIONS (CONTD)

VIEW 32 VIEW 33

VIEW 34

OCTOBER 2016 97 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 2015 THVIA

A2.1 This section of the addendum includes clarifications and corrections to minor typographical errors identified in the original THVIA (December 215), for the benefit of readers. None of the clarifications or corrections included in this section are considered significant in EIA terms and the conclusions of the original THVIA are not altered by them.

Clarification 1: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site boundary position

A2.2 The position of the boundary of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site (WHS) at Kew Green is incorrect at figures 4.4, 8.1, 8.31, 8.32, 8.46, 8.49, 8.51, 9.1 of the THVIA and in the thumbnail view position maps for views 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, 31, 32 and 34. This error was owing to the use of the draft Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2011) in the production of the THVIA. The consultancy was advised to use the 2011 management plan by LBH in their Scoping Response of 12 October 2015 and the consultancy duly confirmed that this was the most up to date document with Kew Gardens Estates Department. This understanding has since changed with a more up to date version (2014) of the management plan being provided to the consultancy by Max Gross Landscape Architects, the authors of the management plan, following a query raised on the depiction of the boundary by Historic England. Having informed Kew Gardens Estates Department of this new understanding, they have confirmed that the 2014 version of the management plan is now adopted internally, though it is not publically available online. In the 2014 management plan the WHS boundary at Kew Green is consistent with the UNESCO boundary adopted in 2002. Figure 2.1 of this addendum, illustrates the boundary used in the submitted THVIA and the corrected version.

Key Site

World Heritage Site Boundary used in submitted THVIA as in Royal Botanic Gardens Kew WHS Management Plan 2011 Updated World Heritage Site Boundary as in Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan 2014 World Heritage Site Buffer Zone

Borough Boundary

Fig A.2.1: Map identifying Grade II listed buildings within 1km from the site. The red dashed line shows the corrected WHS boundary. The purple dashed line shows the boundary as it appears in the WHS Management Plan 2011.

OCTOBER 2016 98 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 2015 THVIA (CONTD)

Clarification 2: Reference to Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan 2011.

A2.3 The draft ‘Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2011)’ is referenced in the THVIA for the reasons set out at 2.1 above, most specifically at paragraphs 6.51-6.53 on page 20 and in Section 8.C of the submitted THVIA. The earlier 2011 draft has been considered against the 2014 internally adopted version. Correct reference to the 2014 version leads to no change to the conclusions of the THVIA.

Clarification 3: Map showing location of heritage assets in LBof Ealing

A2.4 This clarification acknowledges that conservation areas and listed buildings in LB Ealing are present further north, generally between 1.5 and 2.5 km from the site, beyond the ridgeline of to the River Thames. Figures 8.1, 8.31, 8.32, 8.46, 8.51 and 9.1 of the submitted THVIA extend 1.5 km north from the site. An updated map has been provided at fig. 12.2, which has been extended to acknowledge the presence of these heritage assets. The potential effects of the proposed development on the settings of these heritage assets within the LB Ealing were considered as part of the assessment process. It was considered that owing to their distance from the site, the lack of axial views directly towards the site and heavy tree cover, significant visual conjunctions and therefore effects were unlikely. The map has also been updated to correctly re-label four Grade II* listed buildings, which were originally labelled at Grade II and add one Grade II* listed building which was not acknowledged on the original map. Effects on these Grade II* listed buildings are considered under clarification 9, which follows below.

Fig A.2.2: Updated map showing the heritage assets surrounding the site.

OCTOBER 2016 99 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 2015 THVIA (CONTD)

Clarification 4: The size of the circle indicating a 1km radius from 1. ZOFFANY HOUSE Significance of the building and the contribution made by the setting the site to that significance: Grade: II* A2.5 This clarification refers to figure 8.46, on page 61 of the submitted THVIA. Date listed: 11 Jul 1951 A2.12 At grade II* Zoffany House is recognised as ‘a particularly important Figure 8.46 is a map that identifies the location of the Grade II listed buildings of more than special interest’. Its interest includes its aesthetic buildings in the surroundings of the site. It was considered reasonable to qualities, but it is also significant owing to its historic interest, including assess the potential effects of the proposed development on the settings its status as a house built at the very beginning of the Georgian period of Grade II listed buildings within a 1km radius. The circle used in figure and its association with its well know occupant from 1790-1810. Like other 8.46 of the original THVIA to show the Grade II listed buildings assessed is listed houses at Strand on the Green, a contribution to the significance and labelled as a 1km radius, when in fact it is slightly larger at 1.1km to fully understanding of the heritage asset is derived from its relationship with the encompass relevant listed buildings, including those on the south side of river, which provides a broad foreground setting. Tall development already Kew Green. appears in the background of the listed buildings at Strand-on-the-Green, including the BSI tower at Gunnersbury Station, River House on Kew Bridge Clarification 5: Townscape effects methodology Road and Vantage West on the Great West Road. As the viewer walks along the Thames Path on the south side of the river these tall buildings variously A2.6 This clarification refers to paragraphs 2.16, 2.21 and 2.22 on page 3 of the come into background alignment with the listed buildings at Strand-on-the- original THVIA. These paragraphs refer to the methodology for assessing Green. townscape effects. In the submitted THVIA the townscape effects were assessed using the categories established within Hounslow’s ‘Urban Context and Character Study’, which are considered to encompass the usual townscape receptors considered by the consultancy, such as urban Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in grain, building heights, scale, permeability, sense of place, and architectural isolation: / urban design characteristics. The use of Hounslow’s categories in the assessment for the purposes of continuity with the ‘Urban Context and A2.13 The proposed development will effect the background setting of the group of Character Study’ should have been made explicit at an appropriate point in listed building at Strand on the Green, including Zoffany House, as illustrated these paragraphs. in views 12 and 12A of the THVIA. The design of the proposed development has been influenced by the colouration of the Strand on the Green listed Clarification 6: Detail on judgment methodology buildings and their reflection in the water of the Thames. It hasbeen designed, therefore, to be complementary to their setting and is considered A2.7 This amendment refers to the last sentence of paragraph 2.42 on page 4 Fig. A.2.3: Zoffany House from the River Thames. to give rise to a Moderate; Beneficial effect, including on Zoffany House, of the submitted THVIA. The sentence should state that both major and which is of high sensitivity. It is not considered that any harm will arise to moderate effects are considered significant in the THVIA. the significance of the listed building by way of the proposed development Description: appearing in its wider setting in views from the south. Clarification 7: Summary of effects on Thorney Conservation A2.11 The development of Zoffany House began circa 1704, becoming the Area home of the German neo-classical painter John Zoffany between 1790- Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in 1810. It is a 3 storey brown brick building with red brick dressings. combination with other consented schemes: A2.8 The last sentence of paragraph 8A.13 (page 31 of the THVIA) should be The structure is topped by a parapet and on the first and second floors amended to state that …’the proposed development gives rise to a minor but there are 5 double hung sash windows. At the centre of the ground A2.14 There will be a cumulative effect in the views looking towards beneficial effect’, in accordance with the overall significance rating, which floor façade is the doorway, with fluted Roman Doric pilasters and an Zoffany House from the south side of the river, with the Brentford remains Minor; Beneficial. entablature with triglyphs. At the top of the door there is a fanlight FC consented development at Lionel Road rising in the background frieze and a terracotta Lion. Wrought iron railings and a gate outline further west and Wheatstone House seen closer to the site. There is a Clarification 8: Summary of effects on Chiswick House Conservation the house. substantial gap between the proposed development and the Brentford Area FC scheme to the west, which reduces any combined effect. The proposed development’s contribution to the cumulative effect remains A2.9 The last sentence of paragraph 8A.37 (page 35 of the THVIA) should be a Moderate; Beneficial one, again owing to the high quality of its amended to state that ‘the effect is considered to be minor and beneficial design. where visible’, in accordance with the overall significance rating, which remains Minor; Beneficial. AVR Cross Reference: View 12 and 12A

Clarification 9: Mapping and assessment of listed buildings

A2.10 This amendment refers to listed buildings which were mislabelled on the original map. They are described below and the potential effect of the proposed development upon them is considered.

OCTOBER 2016 100 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 2015THVIA (CONTD)

2. VOYSEY HOUSE Significance of the building and the contribution made by the setting 3. THE TABARD HOTEL to that significance: Grade: II* Grade: II* Date listed: 21 May 1973 A2.16 Listed at Grade II*, Voysey House is of more than special interest because Date listed: 11 Jul 1951 Date of most recent amendment: 29 Oct 1990 of its aesthetic qualities and because of its status as Voysey’s only factory Date of most recent amendment: 15 May 2001 building. Its setting is tight and urban, set behind Chiswick High Road and the larger Sanderson factory building on the south side of Barley Mow Passage. Its relationship with the backs of the buildings on the High Road is detrimental to its setting on its north side, though it has a more appropriate relationship with the Sanderson building on its south side and other historic industrial buildings on Barley Mow Passage. The setting of the building makes only a minor contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.

Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in isolation:

A2.17 Voysey House is shielded from any meaningful relationship with the proposed development by buildings to its immediate west, an extensive treescape across Turnham Green, Christ Church and other intervening townscape elements. The proposed development is 1.4km away from the listed building and will not give rise to any meaningful change in the setting of the listed building or affect its significance,No Change.

Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in combination with other consented schemes:

A2.18 There will, in addition, be no meaningful effect on the setting of the listed Fig. A.2.5: View of Tabard Hotel. building in combination with other committed development, No Change.

AVR Cross Reference: View 26 (interpolation) Fig. A.2.4: Voysey House seen along Barley Mow Passage. Description: A2.19 This Grade II* listing refers to the Tabard Public House and No. 2 Bath Road. Originally the group comprised a public house, private house and store, though today it is home to public house and offices. The Description: building, inspired by the Staples Inn in , was developed in 1880 A2.15 Developed by Voysey for Messrs Sanderson in 1902. The structure by Richard Norman Shaw, as part of Jonathan Carr’s development of was home to the Sanderson’s wallpaper factory, but is now an office Bedford Park. The exterior is a combination of exposed red-brick and building. Originally its exterior was of glazed white brick in English rough-cast with tiled roofs. The row is three storeys high and its width bond with Staffordshire blue brick, though this has now been painted is divided into seven gabled bays. The Tabard public house is located at black to plinth, bands and opening surrounds. The structure is the western end, its entrance has a porch that is supported by Tuscan composed of 4 storeys and is topped with a 1987 flat roof. It is 4 and a columns and flanked by windows. The first floor has two projecting half bays wide and 2 bays deep, each bay defined by giant buttresses. bowed windows which are flanked by two small circular windows. The Originally, the building had small-pane steel framed windows to the façade of the central bays is bricked up to the second floor, while the east side, which have been replaced in the early-mid C20 with metal upper floor is jet tied and rough-cast. The remaining bays have a casement windows. On the third floor windows are circular and the glazed ground floor, as they were originally shops. The first floor has second floor has a stone cornice. The south elevation has a rounded three eight-light leaded oriel ‘Ipswich’ windows projecting from the arched entrance at the 4th bay. North elevation has 2 ground floor main structure. windows blocked and an inserted door.

OCTOBER 2016 101 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE DECEMBER 2015 THVIA (CONTD)

Significance of the building and the contribution made by the setting 4. CHURCH OF ST. MICHAEL AND ALL ANGELS Significance of the building and the contribution made by the setting to that significance: to that significance: Grade: II* A2.20 The Tabard Hotel, together with St Michael’s and All Angels Church, Date listed: 11 Jul 1951 A2.24 In conjunction with the Tabard Public House, the listed church is the was designed as the social centre of Bedford Park. Its interest lies in its social focal point of the Bedford Estate, providing it with significant historical role in this regard, as well as the architectural approach taken historical, as well as aesthetic, value. Listed at Grade II* it is of more by its designer. Its setting depends in part on the church opposite, though than special interest. The church’s aesthetic value lies in both its fine unlike the church its does not have such an immediate relationship with external architecture and its internal elements, including fine stained glass the tree lined Acton Green Common further west, being further back on in Arts & Crafts style. It is set back from the junction between Bath Road and Bath Road. Otherwise its immediate background setting includes some non- The Avenue and is partially enclosed by trees within its own boundary. In descript modern development, as well as the houses of the Bedford Estate the summer time these restrict views of the church, and even in winter the on Bath Road. shielding effect is considerable as the photograph included here illustrates. The church’s setting is also provided by the tree lined open space to its west Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in and the historic Bedford Estate development to its north and east. In views isolation: from further west on Bath Road there is an oblique view of the church in which the BSI Tower at Gunnersbury Station is visible, approximately 1.5km A2.21 In winter views there may be an oblique view of the proposed away. development looking west from the south side of Bath Road, though its visibility would be filtered through the trees which line Acton Green Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in Common and which are located in the ground of the church opposite. isolation: In summer there will be a higher level of obscuration owing to trees. Taking into account seasonal changes to obscuration, and the limited A2.25 The proposed development site is just under 2 km away from the junction effect of the proposed development at a distance of just under 2km, where the Grade II* listed church is located. In views from the junction it is considered that the overall effect on the setting of the heritage trees are prominent in views towards the proposed development, especially asset would be Negligible; Neutral. There would be no harm arising in summer. It is in these close views that the church and its setting is most to the significance of the heritage asset. appreciated by the viewer. There are longer views towards the church from the east on Bath Road but these are oblique to the building and it is quickly Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in Fig. A.2.6 Church of St. Michael invisible behind trees and other townscape, owing to being set back from the combination with other consented schemes: pavement. This is illustrated in Fig.8.21 on page 43 of the main THVIA. It is not considered that the proposed development would do harm to the setting A2.22 There is unlikely to be any additional cumulative effect with other committed Description: of the listed building in either shorter or longer views, especially when development further west of the development site, as this is lower than the A2.23 The Church of St Michael & All Angels was built in 1880, to the designs obscuration by trees, particularly in summer, is taken into account. Some proposed development. The consented increase in height of Empire House of Richard Norman Shaw for Jonathan Carr and Hamilton Fulton as limited visibility of the proposed development in the distant background in on Chiswick High Road by two storeys would likely be visible in some views a central element in the Bedford Park development. Later Maurice winter views gives rise to, on balance, an effect of Negligible; Neutral. close to the listed building from Bath Road, but the proposed development’s Adams altered the north aisle (1882), public hall (1887) and south- The significance of the listed building will not be harmed. contribution to this effect would remain Negligible; Neutral. east chapel (1919). The building’s exterior is of red brick with some stone dressings with machine tiled roofs. The nave is composed of Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in AVR Cross Reference: View 46 (in Section 8.0 of this addendum) 5-bay arcades of octagonal piers that have timber paneling skirts. combination with other consented schemes: Similar paneling is used along the aisles. The roof is supported by a combination of 10 king post and queen post trusses and the clerestory A2.26 There is unlikely to be any additional cumulative effect with other committed windows have internal timber balustrades. There is a timber chancel development further west of the development site, as this is lower than the screen with 3 bays of segmental arches that support 3 rood figures. proposed development. The consented increase in height of Empire House An organ is located on a raised chamber on the north side of the on Chiswick High Road by two storeys would likely be visible in some views structure. close to the listed building from Bath Road, but the proposed development’s contribution to this effect would remain Negligible; Neutral.

AVR Cross Reference: View 46 (in Section 8.0 of this addendum)

OCTOBER 2016 102 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL THVIA (CONTD)

5. NO. 14 SOUTH PARADE Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in isolation: isolation: Grade: II* Date listed: 02 Feb 1970 A2.29 The proposed development will be part of the distant townscape seen A2.33 The proposed development will be visible as an addition in the only obliquely in relation to the Grade II* listed house. It is just over background of the listed cottages, when viewed from the south on 1.6km away and likely to be obscured in summer by tree foliage in the the east side of Kew Green. It will be clear to the viewer that it is west part of Acton Common, but would be more visible in winter. Its a building at some distance away. As the viewer approaches the effect on the setting of the listed building on balance, however, would pond the proposed development will become relatively lower and be Negligible; Neutral. It would not affect the significance of the heritage will eventually disappear behind the ridgeline of the cottages. The asset. proposed development will not affect the significance of the heritage assets in any demonstrable way. The will be no visible conjunction Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in between the proposed development and the heritage assets except in combination with other consented schemes: these specific views.

A2.30 The effects of the proposed development on the setting of the listed Assessment of the likely effect of the proposed development in house, and its significance, would continue to be Negligible; Neutral combination with other consented schemes: and it is unlikely to combine, in this view, with other significant consented development, which is further away still in the background at Brentford. A2.34 There will be no cumulative effect on the listed cottages.

AVR Cross Reference: N/A AVR Cross Reference: AVR View 42 in section 8.0 of this addendum

6. Nos. 52-56 KEW GREEN & Nos. 62 and 64 KEW GREEN Clarification 10: Maximum height of the proposed development

Grade: II A2.35 The reference to the maximum height of the building being 109m AOD is Date listed: 5-Jun-1983 (Nos. 52-56 KEW GREEN & NOS) and 13-Dec- incorrect in paragraph 8C.40 on page 69. For clarity, the first sentence of 1974 (Nos. 62 and 64 KEW GREEN) the paragraph should read ‘the proposed development rises to a maximum height of 109.29m from ground level or 120.29m AOD, ground level datum Fig. A.2.7: No. 14 South Parade Description: being +11m AOD. A2.31 Nos. 52-56 is a row of three yellow brick, two storey cottages from the 18th century. Each cottage is two windows wide, with sash boxes Clarification 11: Assessment text for View 24 th Description: slightly recessed. Nos. 62 and 64 are early 19 century brick A2.36 The first sentence of the qualitative change assessment text on page 166 A2.27 Built in 1889-91 for artist J W Forster, this Grade II* listed building faced cottages. They are also of two storeys and are two windows should be amended to state that ‘on balance this is a moderate effect’, in is one of CFA Voysey first houses. It was originally designed in wide. No 64 is recessed with a first floor balcony. Originally No. accordance with the overall significance rating, which remains Moderate; opposition to the red brick surroundings. It has since been altered 66 was part of the cottage group but it has recently been completely Beneficial. twice, the first alteration made by Voysey in 1894 added a lower wing rebuilt. and later garage doors have also been inserted. The main structure is composed of 3 storeys with a later 2 storey wing to the left. The main building has a two storeyed bay with a tented roof. The exterior is Significance of the buildings and the contribution made by the roughcast, showing its bare grey walls in combination with the robust setting to that significance: stone dressings of the horizontal windows. At the top, the roof eaves A2.32 The significance of these cottages arises principally from their aesthetic are supported by thin iron brackets. value, in combination with the village pond in their foreground setting Significance of the building and the contribution made by the setting and their historic value as buildings representing an early phase of the to that significance: development of Kew.

A2.28 The significance of No. 14 South Parade arises principally from its aesthetic qualities and association with an architect of note. It is set amongst large townhouses on a tree lined street and is experienced principally in views from the south side of the street looking north. These elements of immediate setting make a limited contribution to its significance overall. Distant background elements, which are only visible obliquely along South Parade to the west, make no meaningful contribution to the setting or significance of the heritage asset.

OCTOBER 2016 103 CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

APPENDIX 2 CLARIFICATIONS AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL THVIA

A2.37 The following minor grammatical and spelling corrections are also made:

Minor Corrections:

Page Paragraph/Figure/View Minor Typographical Corrections No. Number 1. 15 Para. 6.1 ‘THVA’ should read as ‘THVIA’ 2. 16 Para 6.17 ‘full’ should read as ‘fully’ 3. 23 Para 7.10 ‘lesser entend’ should read as ‘lesser extent’ 4. 23 Para 7.11 ‘set back from street’ should read as ‘set back from the street’ 5. 25 Para 7.21 ‘Chiswick roundabout is benefited from this’ should read as ‘Chiswick roundabout benefits from this’ 6. 26 Para 7.24 ‘existing use site’ should read as ‘existing use on site’ 7. 39 Para. 8A.62 ‘conservation area that’ should read as ‘conservation area than’ 8. 43 Para 8A.85 ‘Negligible Neutral’ should read as ‘Negligible; Neutral’ 9. 48 Para 8A.115 ‘Old Dear Park’ should read as ‘Old Deer Park’ 10. 54 Para. 8B.38 ‘its exceptional arises’ should read as ‘its exceptional interest arises’ 11. 56 Para 8B.51 ‘Negligible and neutral’ should read as ‘Negligible; Neutral’ 12. 67 Para. 8C.5 ‘developme’ should read as ‘development’ 13. 96 View 6 ‘will be evidence’ should read as ‘will be evident’ 14. 164 View 23 ‘west-eat’ should read as ‘west-east’ 15. 178 View 29 ‘One balance’ should read as ‘On balance’ 16. 184 View 31 ‘and a green houses’ should read as ‘and a ’ 17. 190 View 33 ‘allows it to sits’ should read as ‘allows it to sit’

OCTOBER 2016 104

CHISWICK CURVE, LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW THVIA ADDENDUM

CHISWICK

CURVE OCTOBER 2016 106