Newcombe House & Kensington Church Street Townscape, Heritage

Newcombe House & Kensington Church Street

Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment

September 2017

Miller Hare Limited Mappin House 4 Winsley Street London W1W 8HF

+44 20 7691 1000 [email protected] 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017

Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Legislation and Planning Policy Context 6

3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 14

4 Baseline Conditions 18

5 Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects 22

6 Visual Assessment 27 Millerhare’s technical notes on the Views 28 The Views 30 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate 36 1 | view 1(38) | Kensington Church Street – South of Dukes Lane 36 2 | view 2(1) | Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk | Spring 38 3 | view 3(2) | Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street 40 4 | view 4(L4) | Kensington Church Street – Opposite Edge Street 42 5 | view 5(L2) | Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall 44 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street 46 6 | view 6(15.1) | Holland Park Avenue – West of Ladbroke Terrace | Winter 46 7 | view 7(16) | Notting Hill Gate – Opposite junction with Campden Hill Road | Spring 48 8 | view 8(L9) | Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant 50 9 | view 9(L6) | Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road 52 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate 54 Client 10 | view 10(30) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens 54 Notting Hill Gate KCS Ltd 11 | view 11(31) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 56 Architect 11n | view 11n(32) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 58 Urban Sense Consultant Architects Ltd 12 | view 12(29) | Notting Hill Gate – by junction with Linden Gardens 60 Planning Consultant 13 | view 13(L3) | Notting Hill Gate – Looking south along Kensington Church Street 62 Quod View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road 64 Townscape Consultant 14 | view 14(21) | Westbourne Grove – Junction with Ladbroke Gardens | Winter 64 Tavernor Consultancy 15 | view 15(K) | Outside toilets at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road 66 Visualisation 16 | view 16(20) | Kensington Park Road – Opposite junction with Ladbroke Square | Winter 68 Millerhare

2 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Contents (continued) 43 | view 43(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Winter 138 43n | view 43n(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Night 140 44 | view 44(B) | Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace 142 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster 144 A1 | view A1(A1) | Hallfield Estate, entrance to Exeter House 144 A2 | view A2(A2) | Talbot Road, looking south along Moorhouse Road 146 A3 | view A3(A3) | Talbot Road, looking south along Courtnell Street 148 A4 | view A4(A4) | Talbot Road, looking south along Sutherland Place 150 A5 | view A5(35) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond 152 Townscape and Conservation Area Assessment 154 Overall Conclusion regarding the visual impact of the Proposed Development on relevant Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens 156

7 Mitigation and Residual Effects 158

8 Summary and Conclusions 160 References 161

Appendices 162 A1 View Locations 162 A2 Details of schemes 172 A3 Accurate Visual Representations 174 A4 Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations 176

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 3 4 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 1 Introduction

1.1 This Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment of evidence. An additional methodology section has been (TVIA) has been prepared by the Tavernor Consultancy Limited included in the THVIA, which wasn’t included in the proof, on behalf of Notting Hill Gate KCS Limited (‘the Applicant’) and the text restructured to ensure that the THVIA is appro- in relation to proposals designed by Urban Sense Consultant priately robust within the context of a planning application: Architects (USCA). Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) Donald Insall Associates (DIA) had provided the townscape prepared by Millerhare London are included within this and heritage assessment for the previous planning applica- document, and their methodology is set out at Appendix A. tion of 30 November 2015.

1.2 It relates to a new planning application for Newcombe House, 1.5 DIAs’ role in the original application was to assess the impact 43-45 Notting Hill Gate, 39-41 Notting Hill Gate and 161-237 of the Proposed Development on the heritage assets which (odd) Kensington Church Street, London (hereafter referred surround the site, including a number of conservation areas to as the Application Site’), for the: and listed buildings. DIA’s original Report, Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas Assessment, has been updated for Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelop- the revised planning application 2017, to reflect changes to ment to provide office, residential, and retail uses, and policy and minor changes to the scheme. It omits the analysis a flexible surgery/office use, across six buildings (ranging DIA provided regarding the impact on the wider townscape from ground plus two storeys to ground plus 17 storeys), and views within it as this is provided in the current THVIA by together with landscaping to provide a new public the Tavernor Consultancy. The Tavernor Consultancy THVIA square, ancillary parking and associated works. should be read in conjunction with DIA’s Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas Assessment (2017) to which the 1.3 This planning application follows a previous application for THVIA cross-refers. the Application Site [Ref PP/15/07602], dated 30 November 2015, which was refused by notice dated 29 April 2016, and a subsequent appeal made by the Applicant, refused on 12 June 2017 [Appeal Decision: APP/K5600/W/16/3149585]. The refusal specifically relates to the loss of 20 bedsit units used to house rough sleepers. The Inspector’s conclusions on the character and appearance, and design of the Proposed Development were wholly positive, and that the relevant planning policies would be satisfied. The current planning application now incorporates the additional social housing units (see Quod’s planning statement and the architects’ DAS) without having any material effect on the design and appearance of the Proposed Development, and none of the views of the Proposed Development assessed in this THVIA have been changed by Millerhare, since they were reviewed by the Inspector at the Inquiry in February this year.

1.4 This Volume provides a summary of relevant planning policy and a description of the methods used in the assessment. This is followed by a description of the relevant baseline conditions of the Site, and the surrounding area, and an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the surrounding townscape character, the settings of designated above ground built heritage assets and on strategic and local views, during the demolition and construction works and once the Proposed Development is completed and operational. The likely effects of the Proposed Development are assessed in isolation and cumulatively in combination with other reasonably foreseeable developments. Mitigation measures are identified where appropriate to avoid, reduce or offset any negative effects identified, together with the nature and significance of any likely significant residual effects. This Volume incorporates text, tables and diagrams presented by Professor Tavernor, a Director of the Tavernor Consultancy, to the Inspector at the Inquiry. The assessment and conclusions remain the same as presented in Professor Tavernor’s proof

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 5 2 Legislation and Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy and Guidance 2.6 When determining applications, the NPPF requires Local National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (March 2014) the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract Planning Authorities to take account of: (Ref 1-4) from that significance and the ability to appreciate it. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) (Ref 1-1) 2.11 The NPPG is an online resource providing guidance on 2.1 The NPPF provides a full statement of the Government’s • “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the signifi- implementing the policies of the National Planning Policy 2.15 In considering assessment of substantial harm, paragraph planning policies. It replaces almost all Planning Policy cance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses Framework (NPPF). The web resource replaces various 017 of the guidance states: “In general terms, substan- Statements and Guidance. It identifies three dimensions consistent with their conservation; guidance documents, including By Design (2000). There are tial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases”. to sustainable development: economic, social and environ- two sections of the NPPG that are of particular relevance to This reflects and is consistent with the position of the High mental (paragraph 7). It notes the key role of planning in the • The positive contribution that conservation of heritage this assessment: Court, which has judged that “for harm to be substantial, creation of sustainable communities: communities that will assets can make to sustainable communities including the impact on significance was required to be serious such stand the test of time, where people want to live, and which their economic vitality; and • Design; and that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained will enable people to meet their aspirations and potential. away”. [Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for It identifies“a presumption in favour of sustainable devel- • The desirability of new development making a positive • Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Communities and Local Government, Nuon UK Ltd [2013] opment, which should be seen as a golden thread running contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” EWHC 2847 (Admin)] through both plan making and decision taking” (paragraph (NPPF paragraph 131). 2.12 The NPPG on Design, which supports section 7 of the NPPF, 14). This presumption entails “seeking positive improvements states that local planning authorities are required to take DCMS, Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings (2010) in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, 2.7 Paragraphs 132-135 deal with the approach to weighing any design into consideration and should give great weight to (Ref 1-3) as well as in people’s quality of life” (paragraph 9). Planning harm against the benefits of the proposals. The term ‘harm’ is outstanding or innovative designs which help to raise the 2.16 The Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings sets out the policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the not defined in the NPPF or elsewhere. It therefore remains a standard of design more generally in the area: “Planning criteria used to decide whether a building has sufficient layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms matter of professional judgment, and experience, whether or permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastruc- “special architectural or historic interest” to warrant protec- of function and impact, not just for the short term but also not a proposed design will cause overall harm and, if so, the ture that promote high levels of sustainability because of tion through listing. Since the NPPG relates the ‘special over the lifetime of the development. degree of harm that will be caused. concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if interest’ of a building to all or part of its significance (Ref 1-4, those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless paragraph 008), these Principles of Selection are also useful 2.2 Policy and guidance relating to conservation and enhance- 2.8 When considering proposals for development within a the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the when determining the nature and degree of the significance ment of the historic environment is set out in Chapter 12 of the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site or setting of a heritage impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting of a building. NPPF. It condenses, and is broadly consistent with, the policies asset, Local Planning Authorities are required to seek oppor- which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) which it replaces. tunities for enhancement and to treat favourably proposals and environmental benefits)” (Ref 1-4, paragraph 004). 2.17 The Principles of Selection defines special architectural and which “preserve those elements of the setting that make a historical interest at paragraph 9 as: 2.3 The NPPF sets out the Government’s overarching planning positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the 2.13 The Guidance states (Ref 1-4, paragraph 015) that new policies put in place to conserve the historic environment asset” (NPPF paragraph 137). or changing places should have the following qualities • “Architectural Interest. To be of special architectural and its heritage assets so that they may be enjoyed by future commonly exhibited by successful, well-designed places: interest a building must be of importance in its archi- generations. It gives guidance relating to designated heritage 2.9 Paragraph 138 notes that not all elements of a Conservation tectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special assets – listed buildings, conservation areas, World Heritage Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Where the • be functional; interest may also apply to nationally important Sites and Registered Parks and Gardens – and undesignated loss of a building or element which makes a positive contri- examples of particular building types and techniques heritage assets, buildings positively identified as having a bution to significance is proposed, it should be treated as • support mixed uses and tenures; (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or degree of heritage significance meriting consideration during either; substantial harm under paragraph 133, or less than virtuosity) and significant plan forms; the planning process. substantial harm under paragraph 134. This judgment should • include successful public spaces; be based on taking into account the relative significance of • Historic Interest. To be of special historic interest 2.4 In order to assess the nature and degree of potential effects the element affected and its contribution to the significance • be adaptable and resilient; a building must illustrate important aspects of the on the significance of heritage assets when determining of the Conservation Area as a whole. It is the impact of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history applications, the NPPF requires “an applicant to describe the proposal (as a whole) upon the significance of the relevant • have a distinctive character; and/or have close historical associations with nation- significance of any heritage assets affected, including any asset (as a whole) which falls to be considered. Where there is ally important people. There should normally be some contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should less than substantial harm to the relevant asset or its signifi- • be attractive; and quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more cance after a consideration of the ‘net’ effect, then the public itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the benefit must outweigh it. Where there is substantial harm, • encourage ease of movement. listing”. (Ref 1-3) proposal on their significance” (NPPF paragraph 128). the NPPF lists more onerous tests that a proposal will need to pass, or the alternative single criterion is met that the harm is 2.14 The NPPG on ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic 2.18 Group value is identified as a factor for consideration. Listing 2.5 As the Glossary (Annex 2 to the NPPF) defines it, ‘significance’ necessary in order to achieve substantial public benefits that Environment’ supports Section 12 of the NPPF. Heritage assets due to ‘group value’ is described as follows at paragraph 10: in terms of heritage policy is “the value of a heritage asset to outweigh the substantial harm to, or total loss of significance. may be affected by direct physical change or by change in “the Secretary of State may take into account the extent to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent which the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or 2.10 Where harm to a designated asset is found, it should be given and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part. This historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s considerable weight and importance in the planning balance. the contribution of its setting, is very important to under- is generally known as group value. The Secretary of State will physical presence, but also from its setting” (p. 56). More Where preservation or enhancement is achieved, consider- standing the potential effect and acceptability of develop- take this into account particularly where buildings comprise detailed advice in relation to these special interests is given able weight and importance should also be given to this ment proposals. Significance derives not only from a heritage an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example in the publication Conservation Principles (English Heritage, conclusion in the planning balance. asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Therefore, of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or model villages) or where 2008) (Ref. 1-2) and in the DCMS Principles of Selection for a thorough assessment of the effect on setting needs to take there is a historical functional relationship between a group Listing Buildings (March 2010) (Ref. 1-3). The significance of into account. The assessment should be proportionate to the of buildings. If a building is designated because of its group relevant heritage assets is described in Section 4 below. significance of the heritage asset under consideration, and

6 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 value, protection applies to the whole of the property, not just accepting its established legal definition of ‘to do no harm’, 2.30 Aesthetic value derives from the attractive qualities of a Step 4: explore the way to maximise enhancement and the exterior.” (Ref 1-3) is only one aspect of what is needed to sustain heritage building or place, whether designed or not. The Guidance avoid or minimise harm; values. The concept of conservation area designation, with notes that “Aesthetic values tend to be specific to a time and 2.19 The key principles of consideration for listing are identified at its requirement ‘to preserve or enhance’, also recognises the cultural context, but appreciation of them is not culturally Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor paragraphs 12-15 as: potential for beneficial change to significant places, to reveal exclusive” (Ref 1-5, paragraph 47). It identifies a subcategory outcomes.” and reinforce value. ‘To sustain’ embraces both preservation of “design value” which accounts for aesthetic value evidently • Age and rarity and enhancement to the extent that the values of a place derived from conscious intent (Ref 1-5, paragraphs 46-53). 2.35 The Guidance notes that “Each of the stages may involve allow. Considered change offers the potential to enhance and detailed assessment procedures and complex forms of • Aesthetic merits add value to places, as well as generating the need to protect 2.31 The Guidance states that “Communal value derives from the analysis such as viewshed analyses, sensitivity matrices and their established heritage values. It is the means by which meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom scoring systems. Whilst these may assist analysis to some • Selectivity each generation aspires to enrich the historic environment.” it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal degree, as setting is a matter of qualitative and expert judge- (Ref 1-5, paragraph 25). values are closely bound up with historical (particularly asso- ment, they cannot provide a systematic answer. English • National interest ciative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and Heritage [now Historic England] recommends that […] 2.26 The Guidance identifies a number of principles, including that specific aspects” (Ref 1-5, paragraph 54). It also identifies the technical analyses of this type should be seen primarily as 2.20 In relation to ‘age and rarity’, the document advises that “understanding the significance of places is vital. […] In order subcategory of “social value” which “is associated with places material supporting a clearly expressed and non-technical greater selectivity is required when considering buildings to identify the significance of a place, it is necessary first to that people perceive as a source of identity, distinctiveness, narrative argument that sets out ‘what matters and why’ in erected after 1840 due to the significant increase in number understand its fabric, and how and why it has changed over social interaction and coherence” and may not be appreci- terms of the heritage significance and setting of the assets of buildings built following that time. Buildings built before time; and then to consider: ated or recognised by the community at the time. A further affected, together with the effects of the development upon 1840 are largely listed and careful selection is required in subcategory of “spiritual value” is attached to religious and them.” This narrative is provided in relation to the heritage relation to buildings from after 1945 and less than 30 years • who values the place, and why they do so spiritual places (Ref 1-5, paragraphs 54-60). assets in the views in Section 6 and in relation to each relevant old (paragraph 12). heritage asset in Table 5-1. • how those values relate to its fabric Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice 2.21 In relation to ‘aesthetic merits’, it is noted that a building in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (March Historic England, Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice is often listed for the attractive qualities of its exterior. The • their relative importance 2015) (Ref 1-6) Note 4 (December 2015) (Ref 1-7) document states that “The appearance of a building – both 2.32 The Setting of Heritage Assets is a guidance document 2.36 This guidance supersedes Guidance on Tall Buildings its intrinsic architectural merit and any group value – is a key • whether associated objects contribute to them published by HE in March 2015. It supersedes the previous published by CABE (now Design Council CABE) and English consideration in judging listing proposals, but the special HE Guidance publication The Setting of Heritage Assets Heritage (now Historic England) in 2007. Historic England’s interest of a building will not always be reflected in obvious • the contribution made by the setting and context of the published in October 2011. It condenses that document and advice “focuses on how the value of heritage assets may be external visual quality” (Ref 1-3, paragraph 13). place updates it to relate to the terminology and objectives of the affected and how the heritage conservation objectives within NPPF. It identifies the ways in which the setting of a heritage legislation and national policy can best be achieved” (p 1). 2.22 In relation to ‘selectivity’, the document notes that “the fact • how the place compares with others sharing similar asset can contribute to its significance and sets out means This document provides guidance on the assessment of the that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is values.” (Ref 1-5, paragraph 3.3). of assessing the effects of a development on the setting of a potential effects of tall buildings on the historic environment. not likely to be a major consideration”. The exception to this heritage asset. It recognises that “Towns and cities evolve, as do their skylines is when buildings have been listed because they are repre- 2.27 The Guidance goes on to identify four key heritage values [...]. In the right place well-designed tall buildings can make sentative of a type of building, in which case it is necessary which might inform the significance of place and which are 2.33 The Guidance notes that “The contribution of setting to the a positive contribution to urban life” […]. It also notes that “if to consider the building in relation to others of that type to briefly described here. These four values are: significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by refer- the building is not in the right place and well designed a tall establish which are the most typical or exceptional and there- ence to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place building, by virtue of its size and widespread visibility, can also fore worthy of preservation (paragraph 14). • Evidential which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of views seriously harm the qualities that people value about a place of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surround- […]. One of the principal failings in the design of certain tall 2.23 The criteria of ‘national interest’ is qualified to include“the • Historical (illustrative, associative) ings from or through the asset, and may intersect with, and buildings was a lack of understanding of the nature of the most significant or distinctive regional buildings” which might incorporate the settings of numerous heritage assets.” (Ref area around them, and the impact they would have on both be representative of localised industries or particular places • Aesthetic (design, artistic) 1-6, para 5) specific features of the historic environment and its general (Ref 1-3, paragraph 15). character.” (Ref 1-7, p.2) • Communal (commemorative, symbolic, spiritual) 2.34 Paragraph 12 sets out a number of key steps which form a Historic England, Conservation Principles Policies and broad approach to assessment of potential effects on settings: 2.37 Submitting a detailed planning application will require the Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic 2.28 Evidential value relates to physical remains or reminders of applicant to provide sufficient information to enable the local Environment (2008) (Ref 1-5) previous human activity in a place. This will often relate to “Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings planning authority to assess the impact and planning merits 2.24 Conservation Principles was published by English Heritage archaeological heritage but could also relate to buildings are affected; in taking a decision. “Outline applications are only likely to be (now Historic England) in 2008 to give guidance applicable and places with evidence, for example, of previous activity or justified in exceptional cases where the impact on the char- to all aspects of the historic environment and its protection. buildings (Ref 1-5, paragraphs 35-38). Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these acter and distinctiveness of local areas and on heritage assets This document sets out the terms and principles which would settings make a contribution to the significance of the can be assessed without knowing the detailed form and later inform the NPPF and NPPG and subsequent guidance 2.29 Historical value is attached to buildings which illustrate certain heritage asset(s); finishes of the building. This is likely to be rare. If an outline publications by Historic England. periods or types of building or buildings which have associa- application is sought in these circumstances it is important to tions with important historical figures, events or other cultural Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, ensure that the parameters for development are derived from 2.25 At the outset, the document notes that “Our definition of affiliation (Ref 1-5, paragraphs 39-45). whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; a thorough urban design analysis that clearly demonstrates conservation includes the objective of sustaining heritage impact.” (Ref 1-7, para 4.2) values. In managing significant places, ‘to preserve’, even

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 7 2.38 Planning applications for tall buildings would need to address g. Rivers and waterways and inclusive design, and Policies 7.4 and 7.5, which protect should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the likely effects of a tall building in isolation and cumula- local character and public realm. Policy 7.6 which makes provi- their form, scale, materials and architectural detail” (Ref 1-8, tively with concurrent proposals. An application including a h. Important views including prospects and panoramas sion for the highest architectural quality (7.6Ba) and requires p. 219). Paragraph 7.30 expands on Policy 7.8, stating that: tall building would be expected to include: that architecture should make a positive contribution to the i. The impact on the skyline” (Ref 1-7, para 4.5) city (7.6A). “Heritage assets such as conservation areas make a “a. Accurate and realistic representations of the proposal significant contribution to local character and should “Delivering architectural quality involves a consideration, 2.43 Policy 7.7 relates to the location and design of tall and large be protected from inappropriate development that is b. Consideration of the character of surrounding areas and amongst other things, of the building’s: buildings. 7.7B states that applications for tall buildings should not sympathetic in terms of scale, materials, details and the settings of heritage assets include urban design analysis and 7.7D that tall buildings form. Development that affects the setting of heritage a. Scale “should not impact on local or strategic views adversely” (Ref assets should be of the highest quality of architecture c. Consideration of impact on significant views 1-8, p.285). Particular consideration of these effects should and design, and respond positively to local context and b. Form and massing be given when the proposed development may affect listed character.” d. Consideration of impact on townscape and public realm buildings and their setting, conservation areas, Registered c. Proportion and silhouette Parks and Gardens and WHSs (7.7E). In general, the policy 2.45 Policy 7.10 on World Heritage Sites requires that “Development e. Other relevant environmental issues, particularly emphasises the necessity for large scale development to be of should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites sustainability and environmental performance, e.g. the d. Facing materials the highest architectural quality, that tall buildings will only be or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it street level wind environment” (Ref 1-7, para 4.7) considered in areas whose character would not be adversely should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its e. Detailed surface design affected by their scale or massing and that they must relate Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or signifi- 2.39 The guidance states that tall buildings should set exemplary to the context and character of the surrounding built environ- cance” (7.10B). standards of urban design and architecture: f. Relationship to other structures ment. Urban design analysis should demonstrate that the proposal is part of a strategy that will meet the criteria below: 2.46 Policy 7.11 and 7.12 acknowledge the London View “Good design will take the opportunities available for g. Impact on streetscape and near views Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance improving the character and quality of an area and a. Generally be limited to Sites in the Central Activity (LVMF SPG) (Ref 1-9) and the requirement that any devel- respond to local character and history” (Ref 1-13, para h. Impact on cityscape and distant views Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town opment must be considered against the list of designated 4.9). “Consideration needs to be given to a tall building’s centres that have good access to public transport; strategic views to assess the level of effect the Proposed contribution to public space and facilities. This applies i. Impact on the skyline” (Ref 1-7, para 4.8) Development would have on these views. No LVMF views will both internally and externally, including the provision of b. Only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected by the Proposed Development. a mix of uses (especially on the ground floor of towers), 2.40 In paragraph 5.5 the guidance states that, when considering be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall as part of a well-designed public realm. Consideration any proposal that has an adverse effect on a designated or large building; London View Management Framework Supplementary of the impact on the local environment is also impor- heritage asset through development within its setting, ‘great Planning Guidance (LVMF SPG) (March 2012) (Ref 1-9) tant, including microclimate, overshadowing, night-time weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’, with any c. Relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale 2.47 The London View Management Framework SPG (LVMF SPG) appearance, light pollution, vehicle movements, the harm requiring a ‘clear and convincing justification’ in accord- and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and was created to provide additional clarity and detail to the environment and amenity of those in the vicinity of the ance with NPPF paragraph 132. public realm (including landscape features), particularly sections of The London Plan that deal with management of building, and the impact on the pedestrian experience. at street level; important London views. The LVMF SPG includes 27 desig- Well-designed tall buildings provide an inclusive environ- Regional Planning Policy nated views identified in the LVMF SPG under the categories ment, both internally and externally, taking opportuni- d. Individually or as a group, improve the legibility of an ‘London Panoramas’, ‘River Prospects’, ‘Townscape Views’ and ties to offer improved permeability, accessibility and, The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater area, by emphasising a point of civic or visual signifi- ‘Linear Views’. The LVMF SPG requires that each view desig- where appropriate, the opening up or effective closure of London: Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 (March cance where appropriate, and enhance the skyline and nated within the LVMF SPG that could be affected by devel- views to improve the legibility of the wider townscape.” 2016) (Ref 1-8) image of London; opment proposals should be accompanied by analysis that (para 4.10) 2.41 The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater explains, evaluates and justifies any visual effect on that view London was adopted by the GLA in July 2011. Minor amend- e. Incorporate the highest standards of architecture and and demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the “A high quality scheme will have a positive relationship ments were made to the Plan in October 2013 and further materials, including sustainable design and construction relevant London Plan policies in accordance with section 3 of with: alterations were published in March 2016. The London Plan practices; the SPG. The Site is in not within any Protected Vistas nor does is the overall strategic plan for London, which sets out the it appear in the Wider Setting Consultation Area of any LVMF a. Topography economic, environmental, transport and social framework for f. Have ground floor activities that provide a positive rela- views. None of London’s World Heritage Sites will be affected development over the next 25 years. The Plan continues the tionship to the surrounding streets; by the Proposed Development. b. Character of place GLA’s support of high quality design which relates successfully to its context. The London Plan contains policies that must g. Contribute to improving the permeability of the Site and Local Planning Policy c. Heritage assets and their settings be considered in relation to the Proposed Development, these wider area, where possible; are outlined below. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Consolidated d. Height and scale of development (immediate, interme- h. Incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors, Local Plan (July 2015) (Ref. 1-10) diate and town-or city-wide) 2.42 Chapter 7 focuses on policies relating to the built environ- where appropriate; and 2.48 The adopted Local Plan sets out the vision, objectives and ment, both the historic built environment and new develop- detailed spatial strategy for future development in the Royal e. Urban grain and streetscape ment. These polices have been taken into careful considera- i. Make a significant contribution to local regeneration. Borough up to 2028 along with specific strategic policies and tion in the formation and assessment of these proposals. Of targets, development management policies and site alloca- f. Open spaces particular relevance are Policy 7.1 Lifetime neighbourhoods, 2.44 Policy 7.8 considers the Historic Environment, 7.8C states that tions. The Consolidated Local Plan (July 2015) combines alter- Policy 7.2 which promotes the highest standards of accessible “Development affecting heritage assets and their settings ations since the Core Strategy adoption (December 2010)

8 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 incorporating the Conservation & Design Review (December ii. provide, for larger developments, a roofscape that 16.1.6 The area around the junction of Notting Hill Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Supplementary 2014). The following policies are relevant to this Volume: reflects that of the context of the site; Gate and Kensington Church Street is designated as a Planning Guidance Site of Archaeological Importance.” 2.61 In addition to the above policy documents, RBKC have CL1 – Context and character; iii. seldom use height to express local landmarks so the published two specific relevant Supplementary Planning prevailing building height is maintained; 2.57 Furthermore, Policy CV 16, regarding the long-term vision for Documents: the Building Height in the Royal Borough SPD CL2 – New buildings, extensions and modifications to the area, Vision for Notting Hill Gate in 2028, states that: (September 2010) (Ref. 1-12); and the Notting Hill Gate SPD existing buildings; b. resist buildings significantly taller than the surrounding (July 2014) (Ref. 1-13). townscape other than in exceptionally rare circum- “All development will be of the most exceptional design CL3 – Heritage assets – conservation areas and historic stances, where the development has a wholly positive and architectural quality, creating a ‘wow factor’ that Building Height in the Royal Borough SPD (September spaces; impact on the character and quality of the townscape excites and delights residents and visitors.” Also, 2010) (Ref. 1-12) […]”. 2.62 The SPD is supplementary to Strategic Objectives CO5 and CL4 – Heritage Assets – Listed Buildings, Scheduled “16.3.8 Exceptional architectural and design quality will CL2 of the Core Strategy and to policies Strat10, CD1-2, Ancient Monuments and Archaeology; 2.54 The narrative accompanying the policy states: complement a significantly strengthened revitalised retail CD8-11, CD13-15, CD17, CD27-28, CD57 and CD61-63 of offer, drawing on innovative and modern approaches to the adopted UDP. However, this SPD does not reflect current CL11 – Views; and “Buildings that rise above the prevailing building height create ‘iconic’ buildings and open space. Iconic does policy and practice in relation to building heights, particularly are successful where, depending on their impact, they not necessarily mean tall, as Barkers in Kensington High in relation to the Application Site where it is contradicted by CL12 – Building Heights. give meaning to the local or borough townscape, high- Street demonstrates. Building heights will need to respect the subsequent Notting Hill Gate SPD (May 2015). lighting locations or activities of public importance” the character and appearance of adjoining conservation 2.49 Policy CL 1 Context and Character requires all development (page 202, para 34.3.101); and areas (note 10). The Council will work closely with land 2.63 However, in relation to the existing and potential impact to respect the existing context, character and appearance, owners to bring this about (note 11). on Strategic and Local Views, the SPD does identify key taking opportunities available to improve the quality and “District landmarks are significantly taller than the views within the Royal Borough and – in relation to views character of buildings and the area and the way it functions. surrounding townscape. They are visible over a wider 16.3.9 As an eyesore, the Council will adopt flexible of the Grade I listed Kensington Palace, views immediately area and tend to highlight major public functions. These planning standards to bring about the redevelopment of outside in Westminster, which carries some weight – not 2.50 Policy CL 2 Design Quality requires all development to be of are characteristically up to four times higher than the Newcombe House as a catalyst for the regeneration of least in that similar views across the Round Pond towards the highest architectural and urban design quality, taking surrounding buildings and are not typical of the borough. the wider area”. Kensington Palace are also identified by Westminster (see opportunities to improve the quality and character of build- They are exceptionally rare in the borough’s townscape below: Metropolitan Views Draft SPD (October 2007) (Ref. ings and the area and the way it functions. of predominantly low to medium rise development, and 2.58 In relation to para 16.3.8 of CV 16, and note 10 and 11 1-14) and Heritage, Views and Tall Buildings, Booklet No. 15 will remain very occasional features. Because of their visi- referred to therein, note 10 refers the reader to Policy CL1, Westminster City Plan Revision (January 2015) (Ref. 1-15). 2.51 Policies CL3 and CL4 look to protect Conservation areas, bility, the location and use of district landmarks must be Context and Character and Policy CL2, Design Quality, in the historic spaces and listed buildings in the borough. CL3 iden- significant to the borough as a whole.” (page 202, para Renewing the Legacy, Chapter 34 and the Building Heights 2.64 In relation to Strategic and Local Views: “Tall buildings should tifies Kensington Palace as one of two Scheduled Ancient 34.3.103). SPD and the Notting Hill Gate District Centre Framework, not compromise important views in the Royal Borough. They Monuments in the Borough. 2009. Note 11 refers the reader to the Corporate and should not block or dominate a landmark or view, or create 2.55 Also in relation to policies CL11/C12 see the Building Height Partnership Actions No.1 and 9, in the Renewing the Legacy, an intrusive element in its foreground, middle ground or back- 2.52 Policy CL11 states that the Council will require all develop- in the Royal Borough SPD described below. Chapter 34. ground”. (para 4.11) A map is provided at Figure 06 of the ment to protect and enhance views, vistas, gaps and the SPD, which identifies key ‘townscape views’ along the River skyline that contribute to the character and quality of the 2.56 Chapter 16 of the Consolidated Local Plan specifically 2.59 In the same chapter, Policy CP 16 Notting Hill Gate states Thames from Chelsea Bridge, and across the Round Pond in area. Relevant key views for assessment were agreed with addresses Notting Hill Gate and its future, and has the that: WCC towards Kensington Palace, and which identifies ‘key RBKC and WCC during the pre-application process and in following relevant advice and policies: landmarks’ beyond the Palace in that view, which are part of advance of the Public Inquiry held in February 2017 [APP/ “The Council will require development to strengthen tall building cluster 4, identified in Figure 01 of the SPD: Figure K5600/W/16/3149585] relating to the original planning “16.1.5 Many of the buildings that received planning Notting Hill Gate’s role as a District Centre by supporting 06 is reproduced below, along with a 360-degree panorama application by the Applicant for this Site. permission in 1957-58 are tired and unattractive. Other high trip generating uses; improving retail and restaurant from the Round Pond, which includes the townscape view buildings like the Coronet Cinema are of a noticeable provision including some anchor retail to serve the local towards Kensington Palace. 2.53 Policy CL12 – Building Heights states that: architectural quality, but have not been well main- catchment; and deliver new distinctive identity through tained. There is a variety of architectural styles, building high quality architecture and design of the public realm. NB. Contrary to the shaded cone of the ‘townscape view’ and “The Council will require new buildings to respect the heights and no consistency to the street frontage with The Council will also resist development which prejudices the centre of the panoramic view identified in plan on Figure setting of the borough’s valued townscapes and land- many blank walls along the street. There are two tower opportunities for wider regeneration of the area and 06 of the SPD as located on the east side of the Round Pond, scapes, through appropriate building heights. blocks: Newcombe House, a 12 storey office block, and compromises delivery of the vision”. the panoramic view illustrated on page 31 of the SPD appears Campden Hill Tower, an 18 storey residential block. Their to be taken from the west side of the Round Pond. To deliver this the Council will: architectural form, together with that of United House, 2.60 The GLA confirm in their Stage II response that the Proposed Hobson House, Astley House and David Game House, Development is: “considered to accord with London Plan Notting Hill Gate SPD (May 2015) (Ref. 1-13) a. require proposals to strengthen our traditional town- negatively impact on the character of Notting Hill Gate policies in respect of tall buildings, design, housing, afford- 2.65 This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is supplemen- scape in terms of building heights and roofscape by and the wider area. Newcombe House is identified as able housing and transport. It is a high quality scheme that tary to the Council’s Local Plan. Its purpose is to (para 1.3): requiring developments to: an ‘eyesore’ in the Local Plan1. The shopfronts are also would deliver a number of public benefits” (Ref. 1-11, para- generally of poor quality, with few helping to create a graph 47). • Promote high quality development i. reflect the prevailing building heights within the distinctive identity. context; • Ensure a coordinated approach to building form, land use and public realm proposals

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 9 • Provide certainty in the planning and development 2.69 The relevant key ‘verified views’ are identified at Figure 11 of process and facilitate redevelopment of key sites the SPD. These are illustrated below, though only views 3-4 are directed towards the Application Site. Figure 11 also identifies • Identify a number of public benefits that the develop- more generalised ‘sight lines’ along the main thoroughfares. ment could deliver for the area that would be paid for by As set out in Section 6 below, the Proposed Development will developer contributions. not have a harmful impact on any views.

This an aspirational document which has three key objectives to:

• Improve the streets and public spaces;

• Improve the buildings and architecture; and

• Strengthen the identity of Notting Hill Gate.

2.66 The Saturday Farmers’ Market at Newcombe House is identified as an important local attraction:

“2.19 The Saturday Farmers’ Market is extremely popular (footfall averages 1500 per Saturday) as a source of food shopping and contact with food producers. It also offers a community meeting place, and the market’s customers provide extra business for local shops and cafés. Its current location in the car park of Newcombe House may be required for redevelopment. Opportunities to relocate the market have been investigated but at the time of adoption of this document no suitable alternative site has been identified.” (Ref. 1-13)

2.67 The SPD includes a proposal for the Newcombe House site, Figure 11 which it is stated (para 4.11): “has an important part to play in the future of Notting Hill Gate. However, there are significant constraints. Rights to light place a constraint on increasing the height along Kensington Church Street. The connecting interchange tunnel between the District and Circle, and Central lines has the effect of setting back any substantial Panorama from Round Pond (SPD, page 31) structure from the Notting Hill Gate frontage on the corner of Kensington Church Street, although cantilevering or a light- weight structure are possibilities.”

2.68 The report proposes that the existing office block could be 2.70 The SPD does not identify specific view locations by which the refurbished and reclad, or redeveloped: “a redevelopment to height of a taller building should be tested beyond those in a different plan form might be acceptable. In such a case the illustrations above, nor what is meant by a ‘modest’ height the Council will seek a building with a less bulky profile than increase. The Proposed Development has a layout and formal the current block. There may be an opportunity to move spatial hierarchy that relates closely to the ‘Development the building towards Notting Hill Gate slightly although the Principles’ illustrated above. The well-proportioned, more underground structures are recognised as a constraint.” (para slender Corner Building of the Proposed Development will Panorama from Round Pond (SPD, page 31) 4.16). Also, represent a modest height increase in the visual and urban context of the nearby Campden Hill Tower, its ‘twin’ on Notting “The Council may entertain a modest increase in height Hill Gate; something that will be considered in more detail in over the existing building where a scheme is proposing the Views Assessment in section 6 below. However, as set out significant benefits to Notting Hill Gate and delivers an in Quod’s Planning Statement, it is evident that the specific architecturally excellent building, provided this does not proposals contained in the SPD would be neither workable, have a harmful impact on the views mentioned above.” nor acceptable under the Royal Borough’s own policies. (para 4.17)

Extract from Panorama above illustrating townscape view (Ref.1-12, page 31)

10 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Relevant Westminster City Council (WCC) Planning Policy Description WCC City Plan and Saved UDP Policies (Ref. 1-16) Kensington Gardens Management Plan 2007 (Ref. 1-17) 2.74 Policy S11 of the Westminster City Plan relates to Royal Parks 2.79 The Kensington Gardens Management Plan describes and 2.71 The Proposed Development will be visible in views from Kensington Palace was once favoured as the home of and states the Royal Parks, their setting, views and tranquil- evaluates the whole landscape resource of the Gardens, Westminster. Relevant policy and guidance relating to views Britain’s monarchs. Originally a private country house, lity will be protected from inappropriate development and defines aims and objectives and develops a suite of policies is referred to below. the building was acquired by William III and Mary II in activity. Policy S26 (Views) states local views (including those to guide long-term management. It is primarily intended 1689 and was adapted for use as a royal residence by Sir of metropolitan significance) will be protected from intrusive as a tool to be used by the park management team. While Metropolitan Views Draft SPD (October 2007) and Heritage, Christopher Wren. In the 19th century, Kensington was or insensitive development. Kensington Palace is located within Kensington Gardens, the Views and Tall Buildings, Booklet No. 15 Westminster City the birthplace and childhood home of Princess Victoria Gardens are within WCC and the Palace located across the Plan Revision (January 2015) (Ref. 1-14) (later Queen Victoria) and more recently achieved promi- 2.75 There is a series of saved UDP policies (Ref. 1-16), which relate Borough boundary in RBKC. 2.72 Westminster prepared the Draft Views SPD (2007) identi- nence as the home of Diana, Princess of Wales between to Royal Parks, tall buildings and views in general. The most fying a series of key metropolitan views, which are defined 1981 and 1997. Seen across the lake, the low skyline is relevant policies are summarised below: 2.80 CON4: Views (page 72 and para 9.2). It is stated that key (on page 2) as: only interrupted by the Royal Kensington Hotel block. The views from and into Kensington Gardens are critical to the char- outline of the Palace is softened by the backdrop of a Policy DES3 (High Buildings) – this policy states high build- acter of the Gardens. Three views towards Kensington Palace “Familiar views held in affection by both Londoners continuous tree canopy. These Trees help to screen the ings (buildings significantly higher than its surroundings) will that are potentially relevant to the Proposed Development and visitors, enjoyed from well-known public spaces upper stories of apartment blocks to the west. On the not be permitted where: are identified as views 2, 3 and 4, from Buck Hill, Mount Walk and featuring an exceptional townscape or landscape, western side of the Lake, the outline of the Palace can be and Great Bayswater Walk: see Figure 9.1 illustrating the key including visually prominent landmarks; they demonstrate enjoyed set against the sky. [Tavernor emphasis] 1. The development would impede upon strategic views views in the Management Plan, which is extracted below. The the outstanding qualities of Westminster’s environment.” (defined in Policy DES14) or upon the setting of the Proposed Development would not be visible in any of these Composition Palace of Westminster or Westminster Abbey World views, as indicated in the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) study 2.73 These same view locations (excluding the detailed descrip- Heritage site; prepared by Millerhare which also illustrates the locations of tions) were subsequently incorporated into the Heritage, This focus is the east front of the Palace, which appears the views selected: Views and Tall Buildings, Booklet No. 15 (2015) (Ref. 1-15). Of to be set in a semi-rural location. Trees frame the view 2. The development would have an adverse impact upon the 49 views identified, only view 12, Kensington Palace from and the Round Pond provides an attractive foreground. the character and appearance of designated conser- Hyde Park, is relevant to the Proposed Development. As identi- vation areas (DES9), or upon listed buildings and their fied in detail in the Draft SPD (2007), this is a focussed view of Extent and Viewing Area settings (DES10) or upon views (DES15) obtained from Kensington Palace taken from a footpath approaching the NE various areas including Royal Parks. part of the Round Pond, as follows. This position is also similar This view is very open and extensive and the viewing to that selected for RBKC’s subsequent townscape view from area includes the paths adjacent to the Pond. 2.76 Policy DES15 (Metropolitan and Local Views) – this policy the Round Pond, in their Building Height in the Royal Borough states permission will not be granted for developments which SPD (September 2010) (Ref. 1-12). View protection would have an adverse effect upon important views of listed buildings, landmark buildings, important groups of buildings, Foregound monuments and statues, parks, squares and gardens, the Grand Union and Regent’s canal, and the River Thames. This is formed by the Round Pond which provides a tranquil setting for the Palace. The park is maintained to 2.77 Policy ENV14 (Metropolitan Open Land) – the City Council a very high standard and no measures are required. will support the protection and enhancement of Metropolitan Open Land (the Royal Parks), their settings, including views Middleground from them. Permission will not be granted for developments that will harm views into or out of Metropolitan Open Land. Whilst the trees enhance the view and help screen unsympathetic development in the background, it will 2.78 Policy DES12 (Parks, Gardens and Open Spaces) – part A be important to ensure that their future management of this policy relates to development adjacent to Royal Parks avoids views of the Palace being blocked. [Tavernor and states that permission will only be granted for proposals emphasis] adjacent to parks, public and private squares which:

Background 1. Safeguard their appearance, wider setting and ecolog- ical value; The background to the Palace is potentially vulnerable to further development in the residential area between 2. Preserve their historic integrity; Hyde Park and Holland Park and any proposals will need careful assessment to ensure that this view is not 3. Protect views into and out of these spaces; compromised. 4. Will not project above the existing tree or building lines. Enhancement NB. Newcombe House is not ‘adjacent’ to the Royal Park, and No measures are proposed. this policy is not relevant to the Proposed Development. Fig. 1-1: Metropolitan Views Draft SPD (October 2007; Ref. 1-14), view 12: Kensington Palace from Hyde Park

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 11 Fig. 1-2: Zone of Visual Influence Map Please note that although trees have been factored into the analysis, they do not necessarily produce reliable results. The models used by Millerhare are supplied by Zmapping and while they are broadly accurate in terms of location, their height and profile is approximate. As such the results of the analysis where it is affected by trees should be treated indicatively.

12 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Conclusions regarding relevant views from RBKC and WCC

2.81 Townscape views carry different weight:

• Key views are identified in RBKC and WCC policy and guidance and carry most weight; and

• Incidental and kinetic views are those that have not been specifically identified as significant or worthy of protection, but which assist in understanding the visual impact of proposals on heritage assets and the townscape in the round.

There is potentially any number of incidental and kinetic views. Those views that were regarded as relevant were selected through consultation with the statutory consultees.

2.82 It should be noted that RBKC policies DES3, DES15 and ENV14 (Ref. 1-10) seek to ensure that development should not harm key views from various locations, including to and from Royal Parks. The Proposed Development would not be visible in any of the key views identified by RBKC and WCC. However, the Corner Building of the Proposed Development would be partially visible in incidental views, and would come into and out of view when moving kinetically through Kensington Gardens – as do many other taller buildings in Central London that surround this urban space. The visual impact of the Proposed Development will be assessed in those incidental views selected in Section 6. Figure 9.1: Key views

2.83 In relation to visibility and harm, it is inappropriate to assume automatically that a view changed is a view harmed. Landscape and urban views evolve over time. London is a rapidly growing global city that needs to accommodate change, which will inevitably affect cherished and incidental views: that change should be managed. The WCC key view across the Round Pond (Ref. 1-17) is a good example of how a view can be managed locally; the GLA’s London View Management Framework provides a more detailed management approach at the strategic level. Incidental and kinetic views rely on professional judgment and balance. Fundamental to this balance is the character and quality of what is being introduced to the view, and – in the case of the Proposed Development – what is being replaced. It is reasonable to contend, therefore, that the introduction of a well designed appropriately located modern building – into an incidental or even a key view – has the potential to enhance the settings and/or leave unharmed the settings of even the most significant of heritage assets.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 13 3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

Introduction the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature 3.11 The earlier Conservation Principles, Polices and Guidance rise to a significant effect in line with the classification of levels of its likely significant effects. The guidance recognises that (Ref 1-2) provides guidance on the assessment and manage- of significance set out in Table 3-1. 3.1 This assessment has taken into account the existing physical much of the assessment must rely on professional judgement ment of heritage significance. It uses the term ‘heritage value’ fabric of the area, the character and settings of conservation (Ref 1-18, paras. 2.23-2.26). in place of ‘heritage interest’ when defining significance. areas and listed buildings in the vicinity, the appropriateness of Conservation Principles sets out four categories of “heritage the Site for the Proposed Development, and the character of the 3.5 The LVMF SPG (Ref 1-9) identifies and protects a number of value” – “evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal” – proposed design. The assessment of likely townscape effects strategic views within London and provides guidance on the which are similar but not identical to the four categories of describes how the Proposed Development would affect the qualitative visual assessment of the designated views, which heritage asset “interest” – or “significance” – set out in the elements that make up the aesthetic and perceptual aspects is also applicable to assessing the likely significant effects on NPPF. Conservation Principles is often used by HE to compose of the townscape and its distinctive character. The assessment undesignated views within London more generally. Seeing Listed Building citations and to provide feedback on develop- of likely visual effects describes changes to the content and the History in the View (Ref 1-19) provides a methodology for ment schemes. It is also used by LPA Officers when reporting character of views. The assessment of likely significant effects identifying heritage significance within views and assessing on development schemes. on built heritage describes the effects on the settings of desig- how development may impact on heritage significance in nated heritage assets outside the Site boundary. views. The Setting of Heritage Assets (Ref 1-20) advises on 3.12 Elements of the advice contained in all these documents has the management of change within the surroundings of been used to supplement the GLVIA-based methodology 3.2 Structured, informed and reasoned professional judgement heritage assets. Elements of the advice, contained in these used for this assessment, where appropriate. has been used to take account of quantitative and qualita- documents, have been used to supplement the GLVIA-based tive factors. This is widely accepted as best practice and was methodology used for this assessment where appropriate. 3.13 The methodology of this assessment of effects on townscape, based on an analysis of desk research and field assessment. It views and heritage draws on relevant aspects of the guidance is recognised that the character of London is one of contrasts, 3.6 The LVMF SPG (Ref 1-9) identifies and protects a number of identified in the preceding paragraphs and is also based on a of historic and modern buildings, and that modern buildings strategic views within London and provides guidance on the broad methodology that would have been adopted had this of high design quality do not necessarily harm the settings of qualitative visual assessment of the designated views, which assessment been part of an ES. Therefore, the likely significant historic assets. is also applicable to assessing the likely significant effects on effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed undesignated views within London more generally. taking into account the sensitivity of the resource affected, 3.3 The available guidance for assessing the effects on town- the magnitude of the effect or change and whether the effect scape, heritage assets and visual amenity of a development 3.7 Seeing the History in the View (Ref 1-19) provides a meth- is considered to be positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse). is as follows: odology for identifying heritage significance within views and assessing how development may affect heritage significance 3.14 The rationale for judgements of existing sensitivity and • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in views. It considers the views and the heritage assets to be magnitude of effect, and how they combine to inform a Third Edition (GLVIA) (2013) (Ref 1-18) produced the subjects of the analysis, rather than the human observers judgement of overall significance of effect, is explained in jointly by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of or ‘receptors’, and in this respect differs from the GLVIA. narrative descriptions of likely significant effects relating to Environmental Management and Assessment; each view, heritage asset and townscape character area, and 3.8 The Setting of Heritage Assets (Ref 1-20) advises on the is categorised according to the levels of significance set out in • London View Management Framework Supplementary management of change within the surroundings of heritage Table 3-1. It is not considered appropriate to the subject areas Planning Guidance (LVMF SPG) (2012) (Ref 1-9); assets. of townscape, heritage and views to tabulate that information or to standardise a way of ‘adding up’ degrees of sensi- • Seeing the History in the View (2011) (Ref 1-19), 3.9 The key guidance relevant specifically to assessing heritage tivity and magnitude due to the potential possible variants produced by Historic England (HE), formerly English significance and impacts on heritage significance arising from of sensitivity and magnitude and their potential to combine Heritage; and the Development have been prepared by Historic England: differently in different situations. This assessment has been made in a narrative format and as clearly as possible, and is • The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015) (Ref 1-20), also • Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and supported by classifications of effects made on a word scale produced by HE. Management: Historic England Advice Note 1 (2016) (as set out in Table 3-1) that is “not overly complex”, as recom- (Ref 1-21) mended in para 5.49 of the GLVIA (Ref 1-18) and the HE 3.4 The GLVIA (Ref 1-18) provides advice on good practice Advice Note 3 on Settings (Ref 1-20, p.10). applicable to all forms of ‘landscape’, including urban town- • Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance (2008) scape. The GLVIA states that an assessment should in most (Ref 1-2) 3.15 The word scale set out in Table 3-1 is based on the guidance cases clearly address both how the proposal would affect and assessment methodology set out in the GLVIA and has the elements that make up the aesthetic and perceptual 3.10 Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: been developed from the Tavernor Consultancy’s experi- aspects of the landscape and its distinctive character, and Historic England Advice Note 1 (2016) (Ref 1-21) was ence of more than 15 years of townscape and visual impact how the content and character of views would be affected. published to give guidance to Local Planning Authorities on assessment on more than 500 projects, many of them major The methodology employed for this assessment is based the designation and management of Conservation Areas. It schemes within central London, and at public inquiries. It is on approaches recommended in the GLVIA. However, the describes the different types and factors of special interest applicable to townscape, visual and heritage effects. guidance states that its methodology is not prescriptive in which lead to designation of an area. It defines key unlisted that it does not provide a detailed universal methodology buildings that make an important contribution to the char- 3.16 Any effect which is described as having ‘no impact’ or ‘negli- that can be followed in every situation (Ref 1-18, para 1.20); acter of a conservation area as “positive contributors” and gible’ would not give rise to a significant effect. Any effect the assessment should be tailored to the particular circum- sets out a checklist of twelve questions by which such build- which is described as being of minor, moderate or major stances in each case with an approach that is in proportion to ings can be identified (page 16). significance (either beneficial, neutral or adverse) would give

14 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Table 3-1: Significance description Townscape Assessment Table 3-2: Table of existing townscape sensitivity Impact Significance Sensitivity 3.19 The baseline assessment of the existing townscape forms the Value Criteria to change No Impact Where the proposed change would not be visible in relation to a view, townscape basis from which the assessment has been made. Townscape character or designated heritage asset and would not affect the interest or significance of Exceptional Exceptionally strong townscape or Very high the view, townscape or designated heritage asset. character areas have been identified within a study area of landscape structure, distinctive features approximately 500m from the Site (as defined by the ZVI and buildings worthy of conservation, Negligible Where the proposed change would be imperceptible to a casual observer in a view or exhibiting unity, richness and harmony, would cause an imperceptible change to the character and quality of a view or townscape map prepared by Millerhare), this is an area within which it is no detracting features, and a strong or would have an imperceptible impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset. judged that, based on the scale and massing of the Proposed Development and the scale and layout of the existing town- sense of place. Likely to be internationally Major adverse Where the proposed change would form a major and immediately apparent part of or nationally recognised, e.g. a WHS, a a view, townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset that would substantially scape context, there may be significant townscape effects. group of Grade I Listed Buildings or a adversely affect the character and quality of a view or townscape or the significance of a Townscape character in relation to the Proposed Development Grade I registered historic park or garden. designated heritage asset. is inextricably tied to the characters of the conservation areas High Strong townscape structure, distinctive High Moderate adverse Where the proposed change would form a recognisable new element within a view, that surround the Site, which are described – mostly in consid- features and buildings worthy of townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset that would cause a noticeable erable detail – in the relevant conservation area character conservation, strong sense of place, deterioration in the character and quality of a view or townscape noticeable harm to the appraisals. Therefore, no difference has been drawn between only occasional detracting features. The significance of a designated heritage asset. the characters of the conservation areas and their townscape. townscape is likely to be of importance at the county, borough or district level and Minor adverse Where the proposed change would form a minor component of a view, townscape or The character and significance of existing conservation areas setting of a designated heritage asset that would cause a slight deterioration in the view contain features of national importance, that might be missed by a casual observer or would cause a slight adverse change to the and listed buildings are described in Section 4 where it is e.g. a Grade II* or Grade II Registered character and quality of a townscape or significance of a designated heritage asset. judged that, through their location or setting, the townscape historic park or garden, a Conservation in these conservation areas will be highly sensitive to the Area containing a high proportion of Major neutral Where the proposed change would form a major and immediately apparent part of a Listed Buildings. view, townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset but would not affect the positive likely significant effects from the Proposed Development: see characteristics and quality of a townscape or view, or the significance of a designated Tables 4-1 and 4-2 in section 4 below. However, the Site itself Good Recognisable townscape structure, Medium heritage asset. is not located in a conservation area, nor are the sites to its some features and buildings worthy of conservation, some detracting features, Moderate neutral Where the proposed change would form a recognisable new element within a view, immediate east and west. This area – extending west along recognisable sense of place. May be a townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset but would not affect the positive Notting Hill Gate to Campden Hill Tower – which is modern locally valued townscape, Conservation characteristics and quality of a townscape or view, or the significance of a designated in conception and occupied entirely by post-WWII buildings Area or contain groups of Grade II listed heritage asset. earmarked for redevelopment, as set out in the Notting Hill or locally Listed Buildings. Minor neutral Where the proposed change would form a minor component of a view, townscape or Gate SPD (May 2015) (Ref 1-13). Planning consent has been Ordinary Distinguishable townscape structure, Low setting of a designated heritage asset but would not affect the positive characteristics and some features and buildings worthy quality of a townscape or view, or the significance of a designated heritage asset. granted for new development on these sites, except for the Application Site. This area therefore has its own townscape of conservation, prominent detracting Major beneficial Where the proposed change would form a major and immediately apparent part of a features. character, which his in a state of flux. view, townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset and that would enhance the Poor Weak or disjointed townscape structure, Very low quality and character of a view or would improve the character and quality of a highly frequent discordant and detracting sensitive townscape or would enhance the significance of a designated heritage asset. 3.20 The contribution that setting makes to the character of the features. townscape will vary over time as the asset and its surround- Moderate beneficial Where the proposed change would form a recognisable new element within a view, Source: Developed by the Tavernor Consultancy based on GLVIA (Ref townscape or setting of a designated heritage asset that would noticeably enhance the ings evolve. Not all settings have the same capacity to accom- 1-18) quality and character of the existing view or would improve the character and quality of modate change without harm to the quality and character of the townscape or enhance the significance of a designated heritage asset. the townscape. Some aspects of the setting contribute more Minor beneficial Where the proposed change would form a minor component of a view, townscape or than others to the quality and character of the townscape 3.22 In accordance with the GLVIA (para 5.49) judgements setting of a designated heritage asset that would slightly enhance the view or would and therefore there may be variation across the setting in its of magnitude of townscape change take account of the cause a slight improvement to the character and quality of the townscape or enhance the capacity to accommodate change. following: significance of a designated heritage asset. Source: Developed by the Tavernor Consultancy based on GLVIA (Ref 1-18) 3.21 Factors of townscape sensitivity are complicated and not • the extent of the existing townscape elements that strictly quantifiable, however classification of the level of would be lost, the proportion of the total extent that this 3.17 The assessment considers ‘the receptors’ or subjects of the extensive experience in the field and knowledge of relevant townscape sensitivity is generally accepted to be a useful represents and the contribution of those elements to the assessment to be the townscape, built heritage and views, guidance and planning policy. tool for making the assessment process more transparent. existing townscape character: rather than individuals or types of people. This methodology It should also be acknowledged that value is usually the follows the assessment approach set out in the LVMF SPG 3.18 Whilst the key issues considered within this assessment – dominant factor in the discernment of townscape sensitivity. • the degree to which the aesthetic or perceptual aspects (Ref 1-9) and the HE Guidance Seeing History in the View townscape, heritage and views – are closely inter-related, it Consequently, this assessment includes consideration of of the townscape would be altered by the removal of (Ref 1-19), which are particularly relevant to the assessment can also aid clarity to make distinctions between them within townscape sensitivity according to the five categories listed existing townscape elements or the addition of new of townscapes within London. It is not considered possible or the assessment. The following methodology and assessment in Table 3-2. This word scale has been developed by the ones; and desirable to consider likely significant effects on individuals distinguishes between these three issues whilst including Tavernor Consultancy based on the various guidance docu- (be they residents, workers or tourists). The authors of this cross-references where relevant. ments available. It is used as a guide to inform consideration • Whether the changes would alter key characteristics report are specialist townscape and heritage consultants, of the value and sensitivity of TCAs in the baseline assess- of the townscape which are critical to its distinctive appointed in order to provide an expert interpretation of likely ment which follows in Section 4. character. significant effects – on the quality, composition and character of views for example – which forms the assessment and its 3.23 The final assessment of significance of the townscape effect conclusions. This expert opinion has been formed through is based on the combination of existing sensitivity and

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 15 magnitude of change using professional judgement and is the Development: see Figures 4-1 and 4-2 in section 4 below. setting, how intact or uniform it is for example. Some aspects magnitude to the judgment on overall significance of effect, carefully considered in relation to the unique constraints of This assessment considers how the potential effect on each of the setting contribute more than others to the significance the magnitude of the effect is not classified but is described the specific Site and its context and the nature of the Proposed heritage asset’s setting might affect its heritage signifi- of the asset and therefore there may be variation across the in the assessment narrative. The overall significance of effect Development. The rationale for assessments of significance is cance. DIAs’ Report, Historic Buildings and Conservation setting in its capacity to accommodate change. In accord- is judged using the categories set out above in Table 3-1 and explained and justified in the assessment narrative. Areas Assessment (HBCAA, September 2017), should be ance with the NPPF’s requirement for a proportionate assess- explained in the assessment narrative provided in section 6. read in conjunction with the Built Heritage Assessment in ment, the baseline assessment considers each asset in turn 3.24 Judgement on the significance of the likely overall effect on the THVIA as it provides detail regarding the heritage assets and focuses on “those elements of the setting that make a Visual Assessment each TCA (and heritage asset and view) is based on consid- not repeated here, as well as a comprehensive account of the positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the eration of both the sensitivity of the TCA and the magnitude existing buildings on Site. asset” (Ref 1-1, para 137). 3.33 Townscape, built heritage and visual assessments are of change, as described above. This consideration is set out separate, though linked, procedures. The townscape and built in the assessment relating to each TCA, heritage asset and 3.28 The Zone of Visual Influence mapping of the Proposed 3.31 The sensitivity of a heritage asset to change is closely related heritage baseline analysis contributes to the scope of the view. This professional judgement is carefully made in relation Development (Fig. 1-2 above) was determined through the to its value. Designated heritage assets all hold some degree baseline for the Visual Assessment and the Visual Assessment to the unique constraints of the site and its context and the initial visual impact testing. The area of existing context likely of sensitivity and the higher the grade, the more likely it will be of change to the content and character of views in turn nature of the development. The rationale for assessments of to be influenced by the Proposed Development varies with more sensitive to change. In this methodology, all listed build- contributes to the understanding of likely significant effects significance of effect are based on the categories set out in the scale and alignment of the existing context. For example, ings and conservation areas are considered to be of high or on townscape and built heritage assets. Table 3-1 and is explained in the assessment narrative. where streets align with the Site or across open space it is very high sensitivity due to their designated status. Aspects of possible to see further extending the zone of influence in value and sensitivity are considered where relevant in relation 3.34 The views for assessment were selected in consultation with 3.25 As set out in Table 3-1 – which relates to the assessment of certain areas. The character, significance and setting of desig- to each heritage asset in the baseline assessment in section 4 RBKC and WCC through scoping. The resulting verified views TCAs, heritage assets and views – the significance of likely nated conservation areas within 500m of the Site, the likely and assessment of effects in section 6. Criteria for judging the are a selection of representative, specific and illustrative views effects on TCAs has been categorised. Where negligible or no zone of visual influence of the Proposed Development, where sensitivity of heritage assets is identified at Table 3-3. from publicly accessible locations around the Site. Public views effect, the Development has been deemed likely to cause little significant effects might be expected given the height and are generally attributed greater value than views from private or no change to the townscape quality. For effects judged to the scale of the Proposed Development, have been described 3.32 Consideration of the likely significant effects of the property because they are experienced by a greater number be minor, moderate or major, the significance of that effect in Section 4. The character, significance and setting of listed Development on above ground designated heritage assets of people and can be more accurately assessed through the has been further categorised as beneficial, adverse or neutral. buildings within approximately 250m of the Site where signif- is informed by national policy set out in the NPPF (Ref 1-1) use of surveyed viewing points. All verified views have there- Adverse effects are those that detract from the value of the icant effects might be expected on individual structures or and related PPG (Ref 1-4), as described above at para- fore been taken from publicly accessible land. The likely visual townscape. This may be through a reduction in, or disrup- small groups of listed structures might be anticipated given graphs 2.1-2.11. The NPPF requires an assessment of effects effects on views from inside buildings that are not publicly tion of, valuable characterising components or patterns. the height and the scale of the Proposed Development on heritage assets that is in proportion to the likely level of accessible or from private land have not been considered Beneficial effects are those that contribute to the value of and the local street alignment, are described in Table 4-1. effects and that distinguishes between levels of likely harm in this assessment. The views selected allow a methodical the townscape. This may be through the introduction of new, Undesignated heritage assets and listed buildings further only (substantial harm or less than substantial harm). In this 360-degree view analysis of near, middle and distant views positive attributes; for example, through improved legibility or from the Site, where effects on their settings are likely to be assessment, the terms of the NPPF are deployed. As for TCAs, of the Proposed Development. The detailed location of the setting. Where the effect is minor, moderate or substantial, less significant, are described and assessed in relation to their the magnitude of impact on each heritage asset is considered viewpoint has been carefully considered to be typical or repre- good design may reduce or remove potential harm or provide contribution to the relevant Conservation Area, Townscape in relation to the scale, geographic, permanence and revers- sentative of the view likely to be experienced there. enhancement, and design quality may be the main consider- Character Area, or view. ibility of effect on the significance of each heritage asset and ation in determining the balance of harm and benefit. Neutral to its sensitivity. Due to the close relation of this judgment on effects are where the proposed Development would have no 3.29 The heritage significance of relevant heritage assets is deter- impact, maintaining existing positive and negative quali- mined with reference to guidance on listing building selec- Table 3-3: Table of existing sensitivity of heritage assets ties of the townscape area, or where negative and positive tion and conservation area designation (primarily, Principles Value Criteria Sensitivity impacts were found to be in equal measure of Selection for Listed Buildings (March 2010) (Ref 1-3), and to change Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: Exceptional Likely to be internationally recognised or of the highest national grade e.g. a WHS, Grade I Very high 3.26 The selected views in the views assessment have been ordered Historic England Advice Note 1 (2016) (Ref 1-21). It is also Listed Building or a Grade I registered historic park or garden. Distinctive features such as a to follow linear routes and successive views that would made with reference to the four heritage values (evidential skyline silhouette, or particular uniformity or consistency of character, or delicacy of scale or design detail might also result in a very high level of sensitivity to change for a Grade II or be experienced by pedestrians when moving towards the value, historic value, communal value and aesthetic value) II* listed building or Registered historic park or garden or Conservation Area. A particularly Proposed Development, as well as areas between these linear and sub-values defined in the HE Guidance, Conservation important and positive relationship to the existing setting could also result in a very high level routes. The views are presented in nine sequential groups. Principles: Policies and Guidance (Ref 1-5), which sets out of sensitivity to change. Each successive view in the group is positioned closer to the an approach to assessing heritage value and significance High The structure or space is likely to be of national importance, e.g. a Grade II* or Grade II High Proposed Development to represent stages in a pedestrian’s and managing change within the historic environment. This Registered historic park or garden or Conservation Area. All such designated heritage assets visual experience when moving towards the Site. In relation assessment is also based on HE Advice Note 3 (Ref 1-20), are considered to be of high sensitivity to change regardless of the character and quality of to Table 3-2 above, the townscape within the surrounding which describes how setting can partly inform or detract from their existing setting. Particularly distinctive or fine design features and/or an important and positive relationship to the existing setting might also result in an undesignated heritage conservation areas is judged to be high, and poor in relation the significance of a heritage asset. asset having a high level of sensitivity to change. to the Site and the other sites earmarked for redevelopment Good The structure or space might be an unlisted building of note within a conservation area, a Medium in the Notting Hill Gate SPD (May 2015) (Ref 1-13). 3.30 Understanding the sensitivity of a heritage asset and its locally listed building or other building recognised by the Local Planning Authority as having setting to change is also important to predicting the likely dome degree of heritage value. It is also likely to have a positive relationship to some aspects Built Heritage Assessment extent and severity of effects on the asset’s significance. As of its setting. noted in relation to TCAs above, not all heritage assets or their Good The structure or space might be an unlisted building of note within a conservation area, Low 3.27 There are no heritage assets on site. There are a number settings have the same capacity to accommodate change, a locally listed building or other building recognised by the Local Planning Authority as of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings within the whatever their designation status. This capacity for change having dome degree of heritage value. If situated within an ordinary or poor quality existing surrounding area, the settings of which may be affected by will depend on the character of the existing building and its townscape or landscape, it is likely to have a reduced sensitivity to change. Source: Developed by the Tavernor Consultancy based on GLVIA (Ref 1-10)

16 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 3.35 The baseline characteristics of each view, including the • The type and relative numbers of people likely to be 3.40 The final assessment of significance of the likely visual effect Cumulative assessment attributes described in the GLVIA (Ref 1-18, para 6.24) and affected; is based on the combination of existing sensitivity and magni- the LVMF SPG (Ref 1-9, p.8), and the contributions of any tude of change using professional judgement and is care- 3.43 The townscape, built heritage and visual assessments place heritage assets to the view (considered in accordance with • The composition and characteristics of the view, fully considered in relation to the unique constraints of the the Proposed Development in its emerging urban context. The the guidance contained in the HE Guidance, Seeing the including the nature and extent of the skyline, distinc- specific Site and its context and the nature of the Proposed cumulative views include ‘reasonably foreseeable’ schemes in History in the View (Ref 1-19)) have been described where tiveness or characteristic qualities, elements of aesthetic Development. The rationale for assessments of significance the local and wider area that are likely to have a perceptible relevant. Views have generally been assessed using photos or cultural importance including the contribution made based on the broad categories set out in Table 3-1 is explained effect on views of the Proposed Development. These cumu- taken during the winter. The assessment describes how likely by any key features or designated heritage assets visible; and justified in the accompanying assessment text. lative schemes are listed in Table 3-4 and an aerial diagram significant effects would vary with seasonal change and showing the locations of the cumulative schemes in relation to changes in atmospheric conditions where applicable. Seven • Elements that contribute to or detract from the char- 3.41 Visual effects have been categorised as causing no change the Site is provided by Millerhare. The cumulative assessment rendered dusk views have been included to allow an assess- acter and quality of the view; (neutral), having a negligible effect or a minor, moderate is an assessment of their likely combined effect is considered ment of the likely significant effects of the illumination of the or substantial effect. Where negligible, the Proposed in combination with the Proposed Development and is based Proposed Development. Views are often kinetic, therefore • Elements which interrupt, filter or otherwise influence Development has been deemed likely to cause little or no on an assumption of high quality design for each individual where appropriate, consideration and explanation of how a the view; change to the visual quality. For effects judged to be minor, cumulative development on the basis that each has been view may change as the observer moves around the viewing moderate or substantial, the significance of that effect has consented, or submitted following pre-application consulta- position is included in the assessment of views in Section 6. • Conditions relevant to the assessment of the view been further categorised as positive or negative. Negative tion and may be considered ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Sensitivity to change is ascribed to each view based on the including the effect of atmospheric conditions, distance, effects are those that detract from the value of the view. This recognition of value attached to particular views through weather, seasonal change, temporary building works may be through a removal of valuable characterising elements 3.44 The assessment of cumulative effects considers the combined planning designations or the contribution made by existing and night time appearance; and or addition of new intrusive or discordant features. Positive effect of the cumulative schemes, which are each individually townscape quality, composition and character, and by desig- effects are those that contribute to the value of the view. This assumed to be of high design quality, in combination with the nated heritage assets. The nature of the observers expected • The contributions heritage assets make to a view may be through the introduction of new, positive attributes; Proposed Development. The assessment of the cumulative at a particular viewing position is referenced only where this including: for example, through improved legibility or setting. Where effects on each townscape character area and view is based is of particular relevance to the sensitivity to change of a the effect is minor, moderate or substantial, good design can on professional judgment and the townscape and visual particular view. • their designation or importance in a local context; reduce or remove potential harm or provide enhancement, assessment criteria set out in the methodology. The cumula- and design quality may be the main consideration in deter- tive schemes modelled and included in this assessment are 3.36 In order to assess the full range of likely significant visual • the degree to which their heritage significance can be mining the balance of harm and benefit. as agreed with RBKC officers. They are described and named effects of the Proposed Development, three separate images appreciated from the viewing position selected; only where relevant to the assessment. In distant views, addi- have been prepared from each viewing location selected: 3.42 Additional views were tested during the design process but tional significant – but not all – consented schemes that are • whether this may be the best (or only) place to view the have not been included in the visual assessment in Section 6 more distant from the Site have also been included; these are 1. Baseline – the view as it exists currently; historic significance of the heritage asset; because the Proposed Development would not be visible, its described in the text where relevant to the cumulative assess- effect would be negligible or an alternative viewpoint from a ment of the Proposed Development. 2. Proposed– with the Proposed Development inserted in • whether their significance is enhanced or diminished as comparable nearby location has been selected in preference render or wireline form; and a result of being seen in combination with other heritage in consultation with RBKC officers. assets in the view. 3. Proposed, Cumulative – with the Proposed Development Table 3-4: Cumulative Schemes inserted in render or wireline form together with other The sensitivity of the view in relation to the quality and ID Site Name Address Application Ref Number Status significant ‘reasonably foreseeable’ schemes inserted (as character of the townscape in the view is then accorded a 1 145 King Street 145 Kensington Church Street, London, W8 7LP RBKC PP/16/00301 Legal consent granted renders or wirelines). value based on Table 3-3. Designated heritage assets are all 2 Queensway Development Site At 117 – 125 Bayswater Road, 2 – 6 WCC 15/10671/FULL Legal consent granted considered to be of high (or very high in the case of Grade Queensway, Consort House And 7 Fosbury Mews London 3.37 The Proposed Development has been shown in a blue wireline I listed buildings and WHSs) value. However, the capacity of 3 66-74 Notting Hill Gate 66-70 and 72-74 Notting Hill Gate, LONDON, W11 3HT RBKC PP/15/05730 Legal consent granted where visible, and white dotted line where concealed, cumu- their settings to accommodate change may vary and each is 4 92-120 Notting Hill Gate 92-120 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3QB RBKC PP/16/05299 Legal consent granted latives with an orange wireline and dotted where concealed. considered individually. The methodology employed by the visualisation firm 5 47-69 Notting Hill Gate 47-69 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3JS RBKC PP/16/05236 Legal consent granted Millerhare to create the verified views is provided in Appendix 3.39 In accordance with the GLVIA (Ref 1-18, para 6.39) judge- 6 15-35 Notting Hill Gate 15-35 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3JQ RBKC PP/16/05212 Legal consent granted A. The Visual Assessment, in Section 6 of this Volume is based ments of the magnitude of change take account of the 7 45 Notting Hill Gate 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ RBKC n/a Proposed on the images prepared by Millerhare based on the computer following: generated 3D model of the Proposed Development prepared by architects USCA. USCA have confirmed the accuracy of the • The scale of the change in the view with respect to the Millerhare visualisations in relation to their design proposals loss of existing features and changes to its composition before the Tavernor Consultancy have assessed them. including the proportion of the view occupied by the Proposed Development; 3.38 The baseline sensitivity of each view has been considered based on the following criteria (based on GLVIA para 6.24 • The degree of contrast or integration of any new features (Ref 1-18), LVMF SPG p.8 (Ref 1-9), and Seeing the History in with the existing townscape character of the view; and the View p.12 (Ref 1-19): • The nature of the view.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 17 4 Baseline Conditions

Introduction described this District Centre as separate from the four large conservation areas that surround it. However, the existing tall 4.1 The urban development of London has resulted from a combi- buildings have a visual impact on the setting and character nation of careful foresight and planning, and a pragmatic, of the surrounding conservation areas (as acknowledged, sometimes expedient response to opportunities and events. for example, in relation to the Kensington CA: see the Draft Through complex interactions London’s fabric has become Kensington CAA 2016, para 3.296; Ref 1-22). In relation to highly stratified and is represented by a great variety of archi- the more detailed DIA HBCAA 2017, the relevant aspects of tectural styles and building types. These have been built over the designated heritage assets will be summarised below, many centuries in response to changing opportunities, and to before describing the Proposed Development in Section the expectations and demands of London’s citizens. 5, and its visual impact on the selected views and heritage assets in Section 6. 4.2 London has not been defined physically by any single over- riding architectural idea or stylistic era. It represents a Designated Heritage Assets relevant to the Site in RBKC blend of many architectural periods – Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian and Modern – which have all added to its building Listed Buildings stock within an existing or altered framework of streets 4.5 There are a large number of significant and historic listed and public spaces. The juxtaposition of building types and buildings situated in RBKC. None of the existing buildings on styles, and a great range of competing visual landmarks, all the Site are listed. However, there are a number of listed build- contribute to London’s rich and varied townscape and skyline. ings in close proximity (see DIA HBCAA 2017), including the Acknowledging this variety is key to appreciating the qualities following: and richness of London’s urban character. • Notting Hill Gate Underground Station – Grade II Listed 4.3 The development of the Site and its urban context in Kensington and Chelsea has been described comprehen- • Former Coronet Cinema – Grade II Listed sively by DIA (Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas Assessment (HBCCA), 2017), and will not be repeated in the • The Gate Cinema – Grade II Listed THVIA: the appraisal of the selected views in Section 6 of the THVIA springs from this baseline information. Significant to • Mall Chambers – Grade II Listed understanding the evolution of the Proposed Development is that – within the broader historical and urban context of the • 1-34 Pembridge Gardens – Grade II Listed Royal Borough – the Site is located on an ‘isolated’ strip of land, extending west along Notting Hill Gate to Campden Hill 4.6 The listed buildings and the other listed buildings that maybe Tower, which is modern in conception and occupied entirely be affected visually by the Proposed Development will be by post-WWII buildings. Plans were made to widen the road addressed in the relevant view descriptions in Section 6 below. Figure 4.1: Listed Buildings here as early as 1937, but were interrupted by the outbreak of However, being largely underground, with only its station roof Ref Name of listed structure Grade The Setting of the Listed Underground Station war and approval was only given by the Ministry of Transport visible, the Grade II listed Notting Hill Gate Underground 1 Notting Hill Gate Underground Station II 4.7 The most significant element of the listed underground station in 1957. Three urban blocks on this strip of land remain from Station is not visible in any of the street views around the Site. is its roof. This is on the western boundary of the site adjacent 2 The Gate Cinema II this time (completed c.1962) on either side of Notting Hill See the Listed Buildings Map, Figure 4-1, and Table 4-1 below to a ground level car park which is otherwise surrounded by 3 Coronet Cinema II Gate, and they include the local landmarks of Newcombe for a tabulated schedule of relevant listed buildings. the buildings on the site on its north and east sides, and by House and Campden Hill Tower (Views 8, 9 and 12 of the 4 23, Kensington Place II small domestic scale buildings on its south. Internally, the THVIA Views Assessment, below). 5 138, Kensington Church Street II roof and the retaining wall, which has blind arcades has a fine 136, Kensington Church Street II composition. The station’s shed roof has modern glazing set 4.4 This strip of land is distinguished from its surroundings by 132 and 134, Kensington Church Street II in what appear to be modern glazing bars and sits behind a the scale, character and (poor) quality of its modern archi- rendered parapet wall with modern steel security railings and 128, Kensington Church Street II tecture. These modern buildings provide the primary shop modern access equipment. Externally, it is less visually inter- frontages of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre. RBKC have 6 Mall Chambers II esting and has limited visibility from ground level. Overall, 7 Second Church of Christ Scientist II while a statutorily protected structure, the significance of the 8 24, Kensington Palace Gardens II* roof’s setting is limited and is not visible in any of the town- 9 Kensington Palace Gardens residences II scape views that were selected. 10 18 and 19, Kensington Palace Gardens II* 11 Entrance Arch from Linden Gardens, Linden Mews II 12 Numbers 4 to 34 Pembridge Gardens II 13 Cabman’s Shelter II 14 Kensington Temple II

THVIA Views 8, 9 and 12

18 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 own analysis of the area (HBCAA 2017), that the character of 4.17 Key views are identified in the Draft Kensington CAA 2016 this Conservation Area is not uniform to the extent that there (Ref 1-23; Fig. 4.1, page 147) and none looks towards the is only one material or colour that could be accommodated Notting Hill Gate frontage of the Site. Only a view east along within its vicinity. The character is typically varied; the mate- Kensington Place looks towards the southern end of the Site. rials and colours are not homogenous. It is observed in the Draft Kensington CAA 2016 that: “Due to the grid-like character of much of the street layout, there 4.15 In the area adjacent to the site and in particular to the south are numerous short views and vistas in the conservation and west, there are a series of narrow streets of early 19th area. Many streets terminate with a vista to houses in the century cottages, largely of two storeys but some with three. next street often enhanced by street trees or garden planting. These are stucco rendered and gaily painted and, arguably, are Such views give the area a coherent inward-looking character quintessentially Royal Borough type dwellings of Kensington […]” (para 4.21). and Chelsea. There are numerous views of Newcombe House, and it is a significant townscape element in Hillgate Street, Kensington Conservation Area Significance Statement Hillgate Place, Jameson Street and Farmer Street, especially Summary where there are clear sight lines in the west/east direction. 4.18 This conservation area is bounded by Holland Park Avenue/ Up to nine upper storeys of its flank elevation are visible from Notting Hill Gate (N), Kensington Church Street (E), Kensington these streets. High Street (S), and Holland Park (W). It is predominantly residential in character, though it also includes large build- 4.16 To the east of the Site is Kensington Church Street, a ‘shopping ings (Town Hall and Library, Holland Park School, and large street’ (according to the Draft Kensington CAA 2016) (Ref mansion blocks/apartment buildings). There is no prevailing 1-23), which forms the boundary with Kensington Palace CA architectural character. Mature trees are numerous. The east to the east. The south face of Newcombe House is visible at boundary is a ‘shopping street’, the north and south retail and the north end of the street for much of its length. The lower commercial. Campden Hill Tower and/or Newcombe House Figure 4.2: Townscape and Conservation Areas Map part of Kensington Church Street was the first part of the are clearly visible across the northern part of the conservation street to be developed and a terrace built in the eighteenth area, which ‘book end’ the District Centre of Notting Hill Gate Conservation Areas in RBKC 4.11 Area 5 is Hillgate Village, which is generally described as being century survives today at nos. 1-17 (odd), listed in recogni- (Views 18 and 25). View 28 below equates to ‘verified view’ 4.8 No part of the Site is within a conservation area, but is located in generally uniform in character (brick and stucco terraces and tion of their early date. North of these, the street was devel- on Fig. 11 of the Newcombe House Development Principles an area designated for urban change as set out in the Notting villas) although the document continues: “Having consid- oped when the corresponding streets to the west were built, Plan of the Notting Hill Gate SPD (Ref 1-13). View 29 looks Hill Gate SPD (July 2014) (Ref 1-13). Four major conservation ered the generally residential streets, the two remaining starting in the early nineteenth century. This piecemeal evolu- northwards into the Site from the conservation area. areas surround the Site and the area designated for change: add an interest note of variety which adds to the character tion gives the street a varied character with groups of build- and interest of the Village.” It continues: “Uxbridge Street is ings of different styles and sizes punctuated regularly by the • Kensington Conservation Area (Proposals Statement a useful transition zone between Notting Hill Gate and the side streets. (para 3.281) 1995) (Ref 1-22) and Kensington Conservation Area Village […] properties are varied, often representing the sides (draft appraisal Sept 2016) (Ref 1-23) or backs of buildings with the main frontages elsewhere.”

• Kensington Palace Conservation Area (no audit exists) 4.12 As stated in the Draft Kensington CAA 2016 (Ref 1-23), the (Ref 1-24) separate identity of Hillgate Village dates from 1808 when John Jones of Harley Street bought this part of the Campden • Pembridge Conservation Area (draft appraisal Sept House estate and the resulting housing development has a 2016) (Ref 1.25) high degree of unity despite a large number of builders being involved (para 3.120). The Village consists generally of simple • Ladbroke Conservation Area (draft appraisal 2015) (Ref two and three storey brick and stucco terraces of artisans’ 1.26) houses that have a strong visual coherence which is quite distinct from the other character areas (para 3.121). 4.9 As stated in Section 3 above, the townscape characters of the THVIA Views 18 and 25 conservation areas are inextricably linked to the significance 4.13 The visual character of sub-area 10: “falls into three distinct of the conservation areas: see Figure 4-2 below. parts. First comes the main road, where large monolithic buildings predominate. These have their own aesthetic princi- Kensington Conservation Area ples and their own internal geometry, the logic of which does 4.10 A draft appraisal was produced by RBKC in September 2016 not necessarily relate to the street scene or acknowledge (Ref 1-23). The Kensington Conservation Area is noted in the wider townscape considerations such as vistas […]”. foreword of Conservation Area Proposals Statement (1995) (Ref 1-22) as containing ‘all styles and ages of buildings’ 4.14 In the area adjacent to the site and in particular to the south and as a result has possibly the most eclectic variety of the and west, there are a series of narrow streets of early 19th age of buildings and their materials and colours. There is no century cottages, largely of two storeys but some with three. Conservation Area Appraisal but the Proposals Statement From these streets, there are numerous views of Newcombe splits the Conservation Area into several sub-areas. House. It is clear from the Proposals Statement and DIA’s THVIA Views 28 and 29

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 19 Kensington Palace Conservation Area (Ref 1-24) Pembridge Conservation Area Pembridge Conservation Area Significance Statement 4.19 There is no Conservation Area Audit for the Kensington Palace 4.21 A draft appraisal was produced by RBKC in September 2016 Summary Conservation Area. The red brick Queen Anne Kensington (Ref 1-25). The Pembridge Conservation Area is gener- 4.22 This conservation is bounded by Westbourne Grove and Palace dominates the Conservation Area, but the develop- ally characterised by mid/late 19th century town houses of the City of Westminster (N), the City of Westminster (E), ment of the streets and great houses around it shows the four storeys with attics and basement accommodation in Notting Hill Gate/Bayswater Road (S), and Portobello Road successful use of stock brick, stucco, red brick, grey granite an Italian Renaissance style made popular by Prince Albert and Pembridge Road (W). Pembridge Square Garden is at Portland stone and concrete. Its architectural character is and Cubitt’s Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. There are its centre, with late Georgian and Victorian terraces of large described as very varied. smaller scale earlier buildings nearer to the site. In terms of residential buildings surrounding it. The Draft Pembridge materials, the character of the Conservation Area, in very Conservation Area Appraisal (September 2016; Ref 1-25) Kensington Palace Conservation Area Significance simple terms, is of buff or brown brick with stucco. Orange, summarises its character as “primarily a quiet residential area Statement Summary brown and red are also found throughout the conservation that provides a welcoming break from the noise and bustle of 4.20 This conservation area is bounded by Notting Hill Gate/ area. The brick format and bond varies considerably from three primary thoroughfares Notting Hill Gate, Westbourne Bayswater Road (N), Kensington Gardens and the boundary longer format bricks on the more recent buildings to shorter Grove and Pembridge Road / Pembridge Villas” (Para 1.5). of the City of Westminster (E), Kensington High Street (S), and wider format bricks on the older properties. The tallness However, its western and southern boundaries are commer- and Kensington Church Street (W). Kensington Palace and of most of these residential buildings accompanied by the cial in character. Mature trees are numerous. Newcombe Kensington Gardens to the east dominate the Conservation relative narrowness of the streets means that the Site (and House is very visible from its southern boundary (View 13). Area. The exclusive residential mansions of Kensington Newcombe House in particular) is rarely visible from this Palace Street runs N-S down the centre the area, with large Conservation Area. It is visible above houses in Pembridge hotel buildings and mansion blocks to the SW, and residential Gardens, because the street vista runs north-south with the terraces to the NW. There is no prevailing architectural char- Site visible across Notting Hill Gate (View 38); and also from acter. Mature trees are numerous. The western boundary is a the junction of Kensington Park Road and Ladbroke Road (e.g. ‘shopping street’, the south retail and commercial. Newcombe View 16). Other glimpses are visible in Linden Gardens, where House is partially visible from Kensington Gardens and about seven upper storeys are visible (View 37). Being from Kensington Palace Gardens (Views 42c and 43), and clearly the north, these views are all generally of the north facing visible from the NW part of the conservation area along elevation of Newcombe House. Kensington Church Street (e.g. Views 4 and 5).

THVIA Views 42c and 43 THVIA Views 16 and 38

THVIA Views 4 and 5 THVIA Views 37 and 13

20 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Ladbroke Conservation Area Designated Heritage Assets relevant to the Site in the 4.23 The Ladbroke Conservation Area Appraisal (2015; Ref 1-26) City of Westminster summarises the character of the area as having been developed from the mid-late 19th century and utilising an alter- 4.25 The Site is located approximately 300m west of the western native garden form, in that rather than having a communal boundary of Westminster City Council. Several conserva- garden in a central square opposite the front of the terrace, tion areas are located within the Westminster boundary: the communal gardens were created to the rear, and accessed Westbourne CA, Bayswater CA, Knightsbridge CA, Albert Gate directly from the house (rather than having to cross a road). CA, Aldridge Road Villas & Leamington Road Villas CA, Royal Buildings tend to be either half or fully stuccoed, although a Parks CA (Hyde Park), Hallfield Estate CA, and Queensway CA. variety of other materials and palettes, including red brick, The Royal Parks Conservation Area is the most significant to grey stone and concrete are used locally. There are limited the Proposed Development because of the large open spaces views to Newcombe House from Ladbroke Conservation area and views within it – other CAs in WCC will be referred to in and none that have been identified as key in the Ladbroke the narratives of the views A1-A5 of the Views Assessment as CAA (2015). Campden Hill Tower and Newcombe House are appropriate. visible from its southern edge and from its SE quadrant (Views 6 and 32). The Royal Parks Conservation Area

Ladbroke Conservation Area Significance Statement 4.26 The Royal Parks Conservation Area (May 2004, Ref 1-27) Summary focusses on the importance of Hyde Park, Green Park, St 4.24 This conservation is bounded by the Westway (A40)/ James’s Park, Buckingham Palace Gardens and Kensington Cornwall/Blenheim Crescent (N), Portobello Road (E), Holland Gardens (insofar as they fall within Westminster’s boundary). Park Avenue/Notting Hill Gate (S), and Clarendon Road (W). The character of the conservation area is linked to the The sweeping residential Lansdowne and Sydney Crescents historic ownership of these green areas in central London dominate its centre, bisected by Ladbroke Grove. Commercial by the Crown, and their subsequent re-design as essentially activities are located along its NW boundary; otherwise, it is Picturesque landscapes from the middle of the 18th century predominantly a residential area. The residential stock comes until the middle of the 19th century. Often the park forms in a variety of characters, crescents, terraces, ‘palace front- the setting for a particularly important Royal building such ages’, and large semi-detached. Its large communal gardens as Kensington Palace or Buckingham Palace, whilst other – such as Ladbroke Square – are heavily treed. grand townhouses form the backdrop to the parks especially in longer views. Together, the parks are known as the ‘green lungs’ of London and provide essential outdoor recreational space in the centre of the city. The existing palette of materials for the buildings is largely red brick and Portland Stone, although the overwhelming character of the conservation area is, as one would expect, greenery. Two views have been taken from the Royal Parks Conservation Area, both from the part of Kensington Gardens, which is located within the City of Westminster. These are no. 39 (adjacent to Lancaster Gate) and no. 40 (just to the east of the Round Pond near Kensington Palace). In the former (no. 39) both the existing and proposed buildings are entirely hidden behind a dense THVIA Views 6 and 32 canopy of trees. In the latter, the proposed building would fractionally rise above the existing tree canopy.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 21 5 Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects

Demolition and Construction Construction Effects on Views good office (or residential) space, its base is a barrier to pedes- glare and heat gain/loss. The block has also been set back trian permeability and is not DDA compliant, and while open from the main east-west artery (compared to Campden Hill 5.1 This assessment is based on the likely significant effects of the 5.4 Visible construction activities are likely to form only small to space is contained within the site, its character is that of a Tower further west), perhaps to minimise overshadowing, and process of demolition of the existing buildings on the Site, and medium features in the views assessed and in many instances surface car park. performs poorly as an urban marker in local views east-west – the visibility of large plant and construction equipment used in would be seen in combination with existing buildings and a ‘primary road’ – and north along Kensington Church Street the construction process, which would have direct townscape other local construction activities. Cranes, hoarding, large 5.9 The exclusion of the Site from the four conservation areas – a ‘secondary road’ (as defined in the Draft Kensington CAA and visual effects on the surrounding local area. The assess- vehicles and other visual aspects of construction works are that surround it, each with their very different townscape 2016, p.10; Ref 1-23). ment is based on an extrapolation of the effects of the Proposed not considered to be alien features within the existing urban characters, is significant. It is stated in the Consolidated Local Development demonstrated in the Visual Assessment and the context. As for Townscape Character Areas, overall, the effects Plan (July 2015) (CLP; Ref 1-10) that the existing Newcombe 5.14 The Site could not accommodate a slab block oriented north- likely construction processes, using expert professional judge- of construction effects are not considered to be significant in House is “tired and unattractive” and has a ‘negative impact’ south. Being a relatively narrow plot, with Notting Hill Gate ment. Due to the transient nature of construction activities, all relation to any views assessed in Section 6 due to the tempo- on the “character of Notting Hill Gate and the wider area” Underground Station forming the western boundary, it was construction related effects will be temporary and short-term rary nature of the effects. (para 16.1.5). It also lacks any ‘special architectural and necessary to keep construction away from that edge for during the construction programme. historic interest’ required for designation. It is reasonable to structural reasons, as engineering limitations in the 1950s Construction Effects on Built Heritage Assets assume therefore – although this is not stated explicitly in precluded building over the LUL pedestrian interchange tunnel 5.2 The likely significant effects on townscape character, the the existing and emerging conservation area appraisals (of (see the Arup report in the DAS). Also, a long slab block on or settings of above ground built heritage assets and visual 5.5 The greatest impacts during the demolition and construction September 2016) – that the Site currently has a negative close to the narrow width of Kensington Church Street would amenity would vary according to the nature of the construc- phases of the Proposed Development will be on listed build- impact on these conservation areas. have presented environmental issues, even if it had been tion works over time, with certain operations having more ings and those parts of the four main conservation areas feasible structurally. The distribution of heights built as part perceptible effects than others. The construction of the closest to the Site. There would be much less effect on the 5.10 The Site is located in a District Centre at a significant urban of the 1950s development on the Kensington Church Street Proposed Development has the potential to affect the town- listed buildings and settings in the wider area, the settings of nodal point. Notting Hill Gate Underground Station is adjacent part of the Site – with the taller Newcombe Street residential scape quality and visual amenity of the Site and its surround- which are already likely to be affected by other construction and Notting Hill Gate, a major east-west traffic artery, is well block, Royston Court, at the southern end, and low set retail ings as a result of the following processes: activities in the locality. As for Townscape Character Areas served by buses. Commercial frontages on Notting Hill Gate units adjacent to the north – demonstrate that there were and Views, overall, construction effects are not considered extend south along Kensington Church Street to Kensington different urban constraints for the eastern street boundary. • Demolition of the existing buildings; to be significant in relation to any heritage assets identified High Street. It follows that a well-designed replacement devel- The south-facing space these buildings enclose adjacent to in Section 4 due to the temporary nature of the effects. No opment has the potential to enhance the Site and to provide the underground station was not optimised as public space, • Ground work excavations, including construction of demolition works are proposed to any Heritage Assets as part a local landmark. either in terms of activated edges, surface materials, and it foundations, and excavation of a basement; of the Proposed Development. lacks pedestrian connections with Kensington Church Street. Site Massing • Movement of heavy plant and material to and from the Construction – Cumulative Assessment 5.11 A review of the existing buildings on the Site in The Architect’s 5.15 Although poorly conceived spatially, formally and in detail in Site; Journal (December 1957), written soon after they were the 1950s, the principle of a tall building at the north end of 5.6 It is possible that there would be construction works taking completed, notes the importance of the Newcombe House the Site remains appropriate, providing its precise location, • Erection of construction infrastructure e.g. scaffolding, place in relation to other cumulative schemes at the same and Campden Hill Tower for landmarking this locality: “the form and character is reconsidered, and its architecture is of fixed tower crane, mobile cranes, hoarding, Site lighting; time as the Development is under construction. The likely main feature of the scheme visually is the placing of two tall high quality. This is because: and significant cumulative effects would be greater than if the slab blocks at right angles to each other on either side of the Development was built in isolation. Those construction main road and these, seen together, will act as a landmark to • The Site is in a District Centre and has the highest PTAL • Construction of new buildings. programmes are unknown, however the effects will all be pin-point the area as one of importance when approached rating of 6B; temporary. Due to the temporary nature of these combined from either Marble Arch or Shepherd’s Bush.” Construction Effects on Townscape Character Areas/ effects on the settings of heritage assets, views and town- • There has been a tall building on the Site for more than Conservation Areas scape character, they are not considered to be significant. 5.12 Tall buildings run east-west along the north side of Hyde half a century. It is now an integral part of the commer- Park from the International Centre of Oxford Streets, to the cial character of the locality (along with the nearby resi- 5.3 Construction activities within the Site would have an effect Completed Development District Centre of Notting Hill Gate (see DAS). These provide dential Campden Hill Tower of the same vintage). The on the character of the Site itself. The comprehensive nature urban legibility through their visibility in relation to key urban Notting Hill Gate SPD (Ref 1-13) describes Newcombe of redevelopment proposed means that construction would 5.7 All likely effects arising from the completed Development are intersections, marking street intersections and underground House as part of a cluster of taller buildings locally, be visually prominent from the Site’s boundaries. The magni- considered long-term and therefore potentially significant. stations: Centre Point (Grade II listed), the Lancaster Hotel including the taller Campden Hill Tower, and acknowl- tude of effect would vary depending on the proximity of the The following pages include a visual impact assessment of and Newcombe House mark underground stations on the edges that a development is unlikely to come forward receptor to the Site. In streets in the surrounding area that 49 views. The pages following that assessment consider likely Central Line (Tottenham Court Road, Lancaster Gate and on this site that does not retain a tall building. It states align with the Site, construction works would be visible, but effects on the townscape and heritage, based largely on the Notting Hill Gate, respectively). that a modest increase to its existing height may be the effect on the majority of the townscape that forms the findings of the visual assessment. appropriate. The north end of the Site is identified in the Site’s urban context would be insignificant due to its distance. 5.13 Designed in the 1950s/60s, the majority of these tall build- SPD as the location for a ‘Landmark Building’ (Fig. 11 of Overall, the effects of construction works are not considered Visual Character of the Proposed Development ings are slab blocks oriented north-south, which maximises the SPD); to be significant in relation to any Townscape Character Area/ sunlight from the east and west, and minimises it from the Conservation Area identified in Section 4 due to the tempo- The Site north and south. Also, this orientation minimises over-shad- • A taller, appropriately scaled building on this brown- rary nature of the effects. 5.8 The Site does not contain any buildings of merit – on the owing this major artery with most of the blocks on the north field site would better landmark this commercial centre, contrary, the existing buildings detract from the urban char- side of the street. The two exceptions are Centre Point (Grade the underground station adjacent and the new public acter and quality of the locality. Newcombe House is poor II listed) and Newcombe House, which are on the south side square within the Site. It would enhance this landmark’s architecturally and urbanistically: its primary north-south of this east-west artery. Newcombe House is the only slab visibility from further away, assisting in urban wayfinding orientation and long narrow floorplates does not make for block oriented east-west, with the worst balance of sunlight/ from surrounding residential areas and tourist areas,

22 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 including Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, without 5.18 Tall buildings can consequently have very varied charac- tall which, more usually, have the proportions of 1:4 to 1:5 in 5.27 The Buildings on Kensington Church Street will have a harming any key views (assessed in section 6 below); ters, and may be composed to respond directly to particular London. It is feasible for residential buildings. consistent height similar to that of the existing Royston Court. contexts and/or view locations. The simplest towers may have However, unlike the existing buildings along the street, their • The Draft Kensington CAA (Ref 1-23, September 2016) a singular or unitary character that tend towards a point, 5.23 The Central Form of the Proposed Development Corner length will be interrupted by two pedestrian passageways, at refers to the view towards the existing slab block from or have parallel sides like a pier or column; or they may be Building will have overall proportions of 1:6 for its most approximately one-third intervals along its length. This will the below ground station platform: “The railway cutting composed of a cluster of several slender towers of different slender south and north elevations, compared to just over 1:1 create three groups of buildings, Kensington Church Street leaves an interesting view of unspoilt side elevations and heights, from which a slender top emerges. In an attempt for Newcombe House. The effect of combining several slender (KCS) 2, 1, and the Corner Building located at the junction an unusual prospect all the way to Newcombe House on to be ‘iconic’, their essentially columnar character may be elements into one composition enhances the visual effect of with Notting Hill Gate. Notting Hill Gate.” (para 4.23, ‘Views and Landmarks’). ‘distorted’ into a range of shapes: in London, at least, the slenderness – the eye being drawn to the closest element This view from the listed underground station would be shapes of these tall buildings – in my direct experience – have as well as the overall height. The east elevation of the East enhanced by the replacement of the existing slab block been shaped by planning constraints (and in particular as Form of the Proposed Development will have a proportion with a well-designed tall building; responses to particular view locations) rather than caprice. of 1:3.2, which is stretched visually by its attachment to the Central Form offset from it, the NE corner having a propor- • The existing quantum of accommodation in the slab 5.19 The tall building of the Proposed Development falls into the tion of almost 1:11 (6,550m : 71,800m). This combination of block on the northern end of the Site cannot spread more ‘cluster of several slender towers’ category. Its tall ‘Corner tall forms will achieve greater slenderness and more pleasing generally along its eastern edge because of daylight/ Building’ – so-called because of the urban role it performs at proportions than a single form of this overall width and height; sunlight restrictions. A well-proportioned tall building, the street junction, and providing the eastern bookend to the it will therefore be well mannered and truly modest in height. conceived for this specific Site as an integral part of its District Centre (with Campden Hill Tower at the western end) urban context, would provide a positive, memorable – will comprise of a taller slender Central Form, and the East 5.24 This positive massing effect has been further enhanced by the marker with the potential to complement its commercial Form, which is lower set and ‘slips’ down from it towards the elevational detail, the architects having created very slender and heritage-sensitive context; and lower blocks proposed around its base, and which will form an window strips with contrasting dark metal surrounds, which integral part of the existing and – with the recently consented benefits the overall proportions visually by separating the • Internally and externally, the slab block provides the David Game House – the emerging context. Its form has window strips from the light coloured masonry and further main publicly accessible space on the Site – currently a been modelled by the architects in direct response to a accentuating the vertical. Also, the eye will be drawn up the surface car park and Saturday Farmer’s Market – with careful assessment of the constraints of its specific location in planar elements of the tall building by the glass strips which a memorable landmark. A well designed public space relation to key views – as set out by the architects in their DAS. culminate in larger, highly glazed winter gardens, the trans- and tall building, assisted by views from around the Site parency of which contrast with the heavier masonry mass of would have the potential to create a positive destination 5.20 The increased height of the northern part of the Proposed the tall building composition. The three-dimensional char- for the locality. Development is a proportionate response to what exists acter of the corner winter gardens enclosed by glass on two on the Site already, and is justified for the good urbanistic sides as well as their soffits, will permit the changing sky to Proportion and Figure reasons already outlined. A lower building than proposed be seen through the glass from the ground by day, and will 5.16 The most elegant tall building form that would also minimise would appear poorly proportioned – squat and ungainly – and create a subtle lantern effect at dusk when the spaces are issues of orientation is a slender tower. A modest height would not optimise the potential of the District Centre and illuminated from within. Furthermore, vertical strips of corner increase would result in a height and proportion, base width the Site’s position within it at a key road junction, adjacent to windows will reduce the width of masonry and the mass of to height, which would require the building is made up from a tube station, and which incorporates a Saturday Farmers’ the tall building. These positive architectural devices have floor plate sizes unsuitable for commercial occupation for its Market. Its proportions would not improve on those of the been deployed by USCA with considerable skill, and they will full height, particularly once service cores are incorporated. existing Newcombe House. A taller building has the poten- serve to enhance the appearance of the tall building, as well A tall slender residential building is feasible here proportion- tial to balance the height of the nearby Landmark Building, as reducing its visual mass and weight. ally, which would be enriched functionally, urbanistically and Campden Hill Tower: the Notting Hill Gate SPD (Ref 1-13, p. visually by a mix of uses arranged around new public realm 22, Fig 16) proposes that the height of that building could be 5.25 The tall building will define the street junction and the newly accessible on three sides. increased by 2 floors. defined urban block in which it is a key component. Perimeter buildings will relate to the different status and character of 5.17 Typical slab blocks, like Newcombe House, have slender ends Proportions and materials each street frontage: the office floors on Notting Hill Gate with a vertical emphasis, and are much taller than they are 5.21 Certainly, height should be proportionate to, and tempered will be set over retail units and a major new entrance into the wide; while their main elevations are broad, with ‘squat’ by what is appropriate to the Site’s urban status and the public realm at the heart of the Site. The residential terrace on proportions – being wider than they are tall. The RFAC (Royal specific opportunities and constraints of its location, including Kensington Church Street will be set over retail units, its length Fine Art Commission) and their successors CABE (Commission its visibility from further afield in relation to other significant interrupted by pedestrian passageways that will connect for Architecture and the Built Environment) have consistently buildings and places (the visual impact of the Proposed the enhanced public space at the heart of the Proposed urged architects to reject slab blocks when designing taller Development in the selected views will be assessed in section Development with its street edge and the locality beyond. buildings, as they have an uncompromising visual impact on 6 below). the silhouette of urban environments, which does not relate Designing a Coherent Urban Quarter to historic contexts. The advice on the design of tall buildings 5.22 The history and theory of architecture emphasises that that CABE initiated with English Heritage (EH/CABE Guidance human proportions and well-proportioned buildings are inter- 5.26 The well-proportioned Corner Building will be the Landmark on Tall Buildings), and more recently Historic England have related: the idealised human proportions of 1:6 since classical Building for the District Centre. It will also landmark a new developed alone (Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice antiquity have set the benchmark for ornamental columns urban quarter at its base, by replacing the buildings on the Note 4 (December 2015); Ref 1-7), is for tall buildings to be and towers, as well as modern tall buildings. This proportion Site with a mix of uses arranged around a new public square. conceived as 360-degree forms designed ‘in the round’. is not easy to achieve for commercial tall buildings unless very This urban quarter is described in detail in the DAS.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 23 5.28 The Corner Building will be the landmark head of the new urban quarter, and the lower East Form will step up from the lower scale of Kensington Church Street towards the taller Central Form.

View by Millerhare of Kensington Church Street perimeter buildings at dusk (from the DAS)

24 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 5.29 The new public square will extend from Kensington Place 5.30 Just north of the retained Baptist Chapel the SE corner of 5.31 A consistent paving will unite the different building charac- to the Corner Building, and will be lined with retail units on the Cube (WPB2) will be placed in the SW corner of the main ters arranged around the public space. The Saturday Farmer’s either side, with the West Perimeter Buildings (WPB1) and the public space. It will be pure white in colour, faced with Corian – Market will occupy the central part of this new high quality Kensington Church Street Buildings (KCS 1 and 2), having resi- a very modern take on the white render of the Baptist Chapel. space (see View 29, Existing and Proposed below). The setting dential above. The Doctors’ Surgery (WPB3) will occupy the It will contrast with the handmade character of the bricks of of the Victorian Baptist Chapel will be enhanced considerably NW corner of the new public square. the KCS blocks to the right and the Doctors’ Surgery in the NW and left unharmed. corner, and the Portland stone of the Corner Building.

THVIA Views 29: existing and proposed

View by Millerhare of new public square at the heart of the urban block (from DAS)

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 25 Professional assessments of the Visual Character and Architectural Design district scale and a height/ratio of 1:1.3. The existing • 7.53 “The closest listed building is the adjacent grade II Quality of the Proposed Development • the perimeter blocks “have a contemporary architec- building appears slimmer in side profile, where its rela- listed underground station, though its low position and ture that in parts, show a good contextual response”. tively shallow depth of 14½m gives a ratio of 1:3.2. significance of the early cut-and-cover station platform 5.32 The GLA Stage II report (Ref 1-11, 25 April 2016) concluded The use of high quality materials is supported and sits The proposed building steps in height from 55m in its is unaffected by the tall building’s position to the north. (at paragraph 28) that: “The tall building, public realm and well within the context: “The building fronting Notting lower eastern element to an overall height of 72m to The settings of the grade II listed Gate and Coronet urban setting has been carefully considered and well resolved Hill Gate expresses its structural frame with deeply set its higher western element. The western element also Cinemas are similarly unaffected: they presently sit on and the scheme should be a considerable improv[ement] on windows and large panels of stonework, providing a exceeds nearby Campden Hill Tower by 8.5m. The depth the thoroughfare as town centre activities, bookended the existing circumstances.” In addition, it is stated (at para- robust appearance that contrasts with the openness of and width of the two elements are much narrower by the existing Campden Hill Tower and Newcombe graph 47) that: “it is a high quality scheme that would deliver the glazed windows. The double height openings and (12½m and 17-20m), which if read independently give House. The replacement building does not appear a number of public benefits.” glazed corner add a sense of scale to the building and slimmer ratios of between 1:3.2 and 1:6. Taken together disruptive to the settings.” draw the eye around to Kensington Church Street. The at mid-rise level, the effect diminishes. However, when 5.33 The Report on Newcombe House by the Executive Director use of Portland stone for this building, and bronzed seen in the round the slipped form is slimmer than • “A number of verified views have been provided of the of RBKC to the Planning Committee (on 17 March 2016; Ref coloured aluminium provide an attractive material finish Newcombe House more often than not.” (para 7.47) wider townscape and the settings of the conservation 1-28) finds much that is positive about the urban and archi- to the elevations that sit well with the context.” (7.38); areas. The tall building can be seen in a number of views tectural design character and quality of the previous applica- • “In terms of the elevational design, the level of detailing where Newcombe House cannot currently be seen but tion/Appeal Scheme, and as the design appearance has not • “The buildings to the east and west side of the site, either submitted is thorough and the main facing material is is similarly not visible in some views where the existing changed for the current application, relevant comments in side of the public square, share a consistent architecture attractive and high quality, using a smooth Portland building is. Where the existing building can be seen the the Report have been summarised here (with reference to that has a domestic quality and give a more human Stone cladding matched with patinated dark bronze impact of the additional scale is neutral or modestly relevant paragraphs in that Report): scale to the public square and Kensington Church Street. coloured aluminium. The same material palette is used beneficial, with the exception of long views from Aubrey […] The facades are generally well detailed.” (7.39); “The on the tall building and the lower building fronting Walk to the west. […]”. (para 7.56) Urban Design and Public Realm proposed brick for the western and eastern perimeter Notting Hill Gate building. The windows and doors are • the proposed layout and design strategy “constitutes buildings is a long format Peterson brick. This would specified as low iron glass, minimising any discoloura- 5.34 In comparison to the many positives, the Report of the good urban design” (7.30); bring a distinctive appearance and has an attractive tion, though the impacts of tinting and solar gain are Executive Director of RBKC to the Planning Committee (on texture if not overplayed with recessed joints”. (7.40); unclear. […] The material palette is used well with the 17 March 2016; Ref 1-28) raises very few negative concerns • the “layout improves the urban grain” and provides a stonework returned into deep window openings and concluding that: “the masterplan and overall site layout valuable and more inviting link, whilst the proposed • the architecture of the Cube building is distinctive, its jointing used to give a robust feel and more of a are welcome and offer a good urban grain and improved upgrading of Uxbridge Street also provides a more providing a dynamic appearance which is intricate and vertical emphasis to the elevations. Juliet balconies connectivity. The scale respects the contextual built form and attractive route – overall improving permeability of the playful but functions well with appropriate materials and guttering are integrated into the shadow gaps the lower elements of the scheme are of good architectural site by providing “a variety of routes that connect with (7.41 and 7.42). between the window frames and stonework, avoiding quality. The replacement tall building is appropriately scaled”. the adjoining street network” (7.31); and any additional clutter. The details are well executed and The only negative point raised in that summary was that: Tall Building supported.” (para 7.48) “the elevations are arguably fragmented and lack a strong • the retail and entrance lobbies ensure that “the public • “the presence of an existing district scaled tall building identity”. (para 7.57) square is simultaneously activated”, which is welcome, on the site, which already has a negative impact on • “At base level the architecture works well. The building “and natural surveillance of the public realm which is some aspects of the townscape, is an important consid- is seen to come to ground effectively onto Kensington 5.35 The Planning Inspector concluded in his decision in June welcome” (7.32); eration” (para 7.43) Church Street and the public square. The canopied 2017 in relation to the character, appearance and design entrance is legible on both elevations. The main office of the Proposed Development [Appeal Decision APP/ Scale and Massing • “The repositioning of the proposed tall building is a entrance is to one side on Kensington Church Street, but K5600/W/16/3149585] that: • “the perimeter blocks are relatively modest in scale welcome improvement compared to Newcombe House, is made distinctive by the double height glazed lobby and integrate sufficiently well with their neighbours”, which sits disconnected from the adjoining public and glazed treatment of the office floors immediately Para 28: […] the design has been carefully tailored to enhancing the townscape (7.33); realm”. (7.45) above. The glazed ‘link’ effectively provides a visual link respond to its context from each direction, the angle and passageway through to Uxbridge Street and to of the proposed tower would be one where the positive • “The Kensington Church Street buildings sit lower than • “The building’s increased volume is handled by separate visually the blades and particularly from the aspects of the slipped form design would come into play the surrounding buildings and […] the height is improved expressing the building as interlocking vertical elements Notting Hill Gate building.” (para 7.49) and this would be reflected in the quality of the views. from the existing and provides sufficient enclosure to with the intention to suggest two visually distinct but Generally, the combination of the varied proportions of the street” (7.34); related forms of different heights that suggest a more • “In terms of impact on views and heritage assets, the tall stone and glazing together with the unifying rhythm slender development. Seen in silhouette the height building is not visible in any of the strategic views that would make the tower appear much more attractive • the Cube building is attractively proportioned and well and massing is engaging and provides a dynamic form cross the Royal Borough, and is of insufficient height to when compared with Newcombe House. positioned in the public square. It “has an attractively that changes in profile when seen in the round. The sit noticeably within any backdrops to the views. The proportioned cube form and is sufficiently scaled to effect works well and for the most part presents a taller, replacement building is seen within the more imme- Para 29: […] On balance, with regard to the overall effect terminate and enclose the southern end of the square. slimmer built form for example in views from Notting diate context, given the tower’s district scale, though on streetscenes, I find that the proposed tower would It also mediates well with the Baptist Chapel and low Hill Gate to the west. However in other oblique angles the visual impact is contained to an extent by the tight not be excessively tall or bulky but would have a positive rise dwellings in Kensington Place beyond. The buildings the full extent of the tower’s massing can be read, for urban grain and rising topography of Campden Hill to impact and be a benefit to the character and appear- on the west side of the public square have a shallow example in views from Notting Hill Gate from the east.” the south and west and Notting Hill to the northwest. ance of the wider area. depth and are low rise so do not impact on the setting of (para 7.46) Nevertheless, its additional height and modest shift in the grade II listed station and optimise afternoon and position on site does result in the building being seen early evening sunlight to the public square” (7.35); • “In terms of comparative scale, Newcombe House is in more locations that the current building”. (para 7.51) 47m tall and 35m wide, forming a tall slab block of

26 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 6 Visual Assessment

6.1 49 views have been selected in consultation with RBKC officers Table RT2.1: Re-ordered Townscape Views including additional Kensington Gardens views and WCC views to assess the Proposed Development in the round with repre- New view Existing view New view Existing view sentative views. The views have been ordered as 9 sequen- number number Title number number Title tial groups, to follow linear routes and successive views that View Sequence 1 View Sequence 6 would be experienced by pedestrians when moving towards 1 38 (repos) Kensington Church Street – South of Dukes Lane 30 L Outside 1 St John’s Gardens the Proposed Development, as well as in-between areas 2 1 Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk 31 18 Ladbroke Road – Junction with Horbury Mews between these linear routes. In addition, based on the ZVI map produced by Millerhare, 5 supplementary views (views 3 2 Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street 32 I Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Winter A1-A5) were tested at the request of WCC officers. The views 4 L4 Kensington Church Street – Opposite Edge Street View Sequence 7 are listed in Table 6-1 below. 5 L2 Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall 33 N Pembridge Place, at junction with Pembridge Villas | Winter View Sequence 2 34 M At junction of Dawson Place and Pembridge Place | Winter 6.2 In this assessment the representative verified views have 6 15.1 Holland Park Avenue – West of Ladbroke Terrace | Winter 35 24 Pembridge Villas – Junction with Chepstow Crescent been used as a tool to assess: 7 16 Notting Hill Gate – Opposite junction with Campden Hill Road 36 25 Pembridge Square – Outside no.30 • The impacts of the Proposed Development on the local 8 L9 Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant 37 27.1 Linden Gardens – West side | Winter townscape – the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the 9 L6 Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road 38 26 Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 townscape and its distinctive character; View Sequence 3 View Sequence 8 10 30 Bayswater Road – Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens 39 32 Kensington Gardens – Lancaster Gate entrance • The impacts of the Proposed Development on the 11 31 Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 40 35.1 Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond | Winter settings of built heritage assets including local listed buildings; and 12 29 Notting Hill Gate – by junction with Linden Gardens 41 35.1e Kensington Gardens – West of Round Pond | Summer 13 L3 Notting Hill Gate – Looking south along Kensington Church Street 42a 33.1f Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer • The visual impacts of the Proposed Development on the View Sequence 4 42b 33.1b Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer content and character of views. 14 21 Kensington Park Road – Junction with Ladbroke Gardens 42c 33.1c Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 15 K Outside toilets at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road 42d 33.1d Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 16 20 Kensington Park Road – Opposite junction with Ladbroke Square 42e 33.1 Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Winter 17 19.1 Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Winter 42f 33.1h Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer View Sequence 5 43 36.1 Kensington Palace Gardens | Winter 18 9 Uxbridge Street – by Farm Place 44 B Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace 19 G Outside 25 Campden Hill Square | Winter Additional Views requested by WCC (and submitted on November 2016) 20 12.1 Campden Hill Square – South | Winter A1 New view Hallfield Estate, entrance to Exeter House 21 C Outside the back of Youth Hostel in Holland Park A2 New view Talbot Road, looking south along Moorhouse Road 22 D Outside 50 Bedford Gardens A3 New view Talbot Road, looking south along Courtnell Street 23 F At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk A4 New view Talbot Road, looking south along Sutherland Place 24 L7 Kensington Place – Junction with Hillgate Place A5 35 Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond 25 6 Hillgate Place – by Hillgate Street 26 E Outside 16 Kensington Place 27 L8 Kensington Place – Junction with Jameson Street 28 L5 Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 29 L1 Kensington Place – Looking north along Newcombe Street

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 27 Millerhare’s technical notes on the Views

Scope 6.8 In this study the following groups of views have been Presentation Schemes defined: 6.3 This study tests the visual impact of the Proposed 6.11 For each view the AVRs have been presented using a double 6.13 In the Cumulative view, the Proposed Development has Development by Notting Hill Gate KCS Ltd at 45 Notting Hill • Distant views – horizontal Field of View approximately page layout which facilitates desktop study. The layout shows been shown in the context of other schemes shown in either Gate. It consists of a series of accurately prepared photomon- 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm film the existing and proposed conditions at the same size and silhouette form (AVR 1) using an orange line, orange chalk tage images or Accurate Visual Representations (AVR) which camera) scale on the first page, and an enlarged version of the cumula- massing (AVR2) or fully rendered (AVR3). Where parts of are designed to show the visibility and appearance of the tive condition on the second page. these schemes would not be visible in AVR1 style they are Proposed Development from a range of publicly accessible • Mid-distance views – horizontal Field of View approxi- shown as a dotted line. The details of the additional schemes locations around the site. The views have been prepared by mately 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on Styles included in the Cumulative view are given in the schedule and Miller Hare Limited. 35mm film camera) overview map included in Appendix A2 "Details of schemes", 6.12 For each viewpoint, the Proposed Development is shown in a these include: 6.4 The views included in the study were selected by the project • Local views – horizontal Field of View approximately defined graphical style. These styles comply with the defini- team and they include, where relevant, standard assess- 74 degrees (equivalent to a 24mm lens on 35mm film tions of AVR style defined by the London View Management • 145 Kensington Church Street ment points defined by the Mayor of London and the Royal camera) Framework. The styles used in this study are: Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Where requested, view • Queensway locations have been refined and additional views added. The 6.9 For each AVR image, the precise Field of View, after any • AVR 1 – a wireline representation showing the silhouette full list of views is shown in thumbnail form on the following cropping or extension has been applied is shown clearly using of the proposals. Where a part of the silhouette would be • 66-74 Notting Hill Gate pages, together with a map showing their location. Detailed indexed markings running around the edges of the image. visible in the view it is shown in blue, where it would be co-ordinates for the views, together with information about These indicate increments of 1, 5 and 10 degrees marked invisible, as a result of being occluded by existing struc- • 92-120 Notting Hill Gate the source photography are shown in the Views section on away from Optical Axis. Using this peripheral annotation it tures or dense vegetation, it is shown as white dotted line. the following pages. is possible to detect optical distortions in parts of the image In a limited number of cases white has been used for the • 47-69 Notting Hill Gate away from the Optical Axis . It is also possible to simulate a proposed scheme to enhance the clarity against dark 6.5 In preparing each AVR a consistent methodology and different field of view by masking off an appropriate area of the photography. • 15-35 Notting Hill Gate approach to rendering has been followed. General notes image. More detailed information on the border annotation is on the AVRs are given in Appendix A3 “Accurate Visual contained in Appendix A3 “Accurate Visual Representations”. • AVR 3 – a fully rendered representation of the building 6.14 The Proposed Development shown in the study has been Representations”, and the detailed methodology used is showing the likely appearance of the proposed materials defined by drawings and specifications prepared by the described in Appendix A4 “Methodology for the production Conditions under the lighting conditions obtaining in the selected client’s design team issued to Millerhare in July 2016. of Accurate Visual Representations”. photograph. Computer models reflecting the Proposed Development have 6.10 From each selected viewpoint a set of accurate images have been assembled and refined by Millerhare and images from 6.6 From each viewpoint a large format photograph has been been created comparing the future view with the current these models have been supplied to the project team to be taken as the basis of the study image. The composition of conditions represented by a carefully taken large format checked for accuracy against the design intent. An overview this photograph has been selected to allow the Proposed photograph. In this study the following conditions are of the study model annotated with key heights is illustrated in Development to be assessed in a meaningful way in relation compared: Appendix A2 “Details of schemes”. to relevant elements of the surrounding context. Typically, photographs have been composed with a horizontal axis of • Existing – the appearance today as recorded on the view in order to allow vertical elements of the proposals to specified date and time be shown vertically in the resulting image. If required in order to show the full extent of the proposals in an natural way the • Proposed – the future appearance were the Proposed horizon line of the image has been allowed to fall above or Development to be constructed below the centre of the image. This has been achieved by applying vertical rise at source using a large format camera or • Cumulative – the Proposed Development is shown in by subsequent cropping of the image. In a limited number of the context of other significant schemes considered cases the source photograph has been extended vertically to relevant by the project team ensure that the full height of the proposals are shown in the images of the future condition. In all cases the horizon line and location of the optical axis are clearly shown by red arrow markers at the edges of the image.

6.7 The lenses chosen for the source photography have been selected to provide a useful Field of View given the distance of the viewpoint from the site location.

28 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 29 The Views

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 31 The Views

32 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View location map

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 33 Camera Location HFOV View Description MH Reference Type Method Easting Northing Height Camera Lens Photo Image Photo date/time Bearing distance (km) View Sequence 1 1 view 1(38) | Kensington Church Street – South of Dukes Lane 4850 AVR3 | Render Verified 525591.8 179854.9 21.42 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.1 73.0 20/04/2016 11:06 334.3 0.7 2 view 2(1) | Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk | Spring 1150 AVR3 | Render Verified 525457.7 179971.0 27.62 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 73.6 72.8 20/04/2016 11:30 342.5 0.5 3 view 3(2) | Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street 1250 AVR3 | Render Verified 525399.6 180205.4 30.32 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.3 73.3 25/10/2015 08:07 339.1 0.3 4 view 4(L4) | Kensington Church Street – Opposite Edge Street 5450 AVR3 | Render Verified 525377.2 180302.1 28.73 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.3 73.1 26/11/2016 08:36 334.0 0.2 5 view 5(L2) | Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall 5200 AVR3 | Render Verified 525367.3 180361.6 27.44 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.2 73.0 09/07/2013 11:16 323.9 0.1 View Sequence 2 6 view 6(15.1) | Holland Park Avenue – West of Ladbroke Terrace | Winter 2550 AVR3 | Render Verified 524930.4 180376.2 27.11 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.1 72.9 06/02/2015 16:13 80.5 0.4 7 view 7(16) | Notting Hill Gate – Opposite junction with Campden Hill Road | Spring 2650 AVR3 | Render Verified 525011.7 180399.2 29.65 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.0 20/04/2016 13:10 82.2 0.3 8 view 8(L9) | Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant 0510 AVR3 | Render Verified 525193.0 180442.7 29.76 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.8 73.4 08/10/2015 14:27 91.3 0.1 9 view 9(L6) | Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road 5500 AVR3 | Render Verified 525226.1 180445.7 29.35 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.6 72.6 15/05/2014 14:29 93.9 0.1 View Sequence 3 10 view 10(30) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens 4000 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525544.9 180529.2 29.61 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 72.9 72.9 30/06/2013 11:09 249.2 0.3 11 view 11(31) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 4100 AVR3 | Render Verified 525568.2 180554.5 29.89 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.1 73.1 30/06/2013 11:38 246.1 0.3 11n view 11n(32) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 4150 AVR3 | Render Verified 525568.1 180554.5 29.94 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.7 73.1 05/02/2017 17:25 246.1 0.3 12 view 12(29) | Notting Hill Gate – by junction with Linden Gardens 3900 AVR3 | Render Verified 525429.1 180509.6 28.73 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.8 72.8 25/06/2013 10:38 239.7 0.1 13 view 13(L3) | Notting Hill Gate – Looking south along Kensington Church Street 5350 AVR3 | Render Verified 525344.2 180480.2 28.98 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.1 11/07/2015 10:16 220.4 0.1 View Sequence 4 14 view 14(21) | Westbourne Grove – Junction with Ladbroke Gardens | Winter 3150 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524697.8 180893.3 23.00 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.4 73.4 08/02/2015 14:09 126.5 0.8 15 view 15(K) | Outside toilets at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road 7100 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524892.7 180996.1 22.17 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.0 73.0 19/05/2014 17:40 143.1 0.7 16 view 16(20) | Kensington Park Road – Opposite junction with Ladbroke Square | Winter 3050 AVR3 | Render Verified 525004.5 180676.7 28.87 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.5 73.0 08/02/2015 13:36 127.8 0.4 17 view 17(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Winter 2950 AVR3 | Render Verified 525104.6 180574.0 28.20 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 73.7 72.8 08/02/2015 13:20 123.1 0.3 17n view 17n(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Night 2960 AVR3 | Render Verified 525104.6 180573.9 28.25 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.4 73.0 01/02/2017 17:15 123.1 0.3 View Sequence 5 18 view 18(9) | Uxbridge Street – by Farm Place 1900 AVR3 | Render Verified 525066.7 180335.6 32.38 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.0 30/06/2013 15:42 66.8 0.3 19 view 19(G) | Outside 25 Campden Hill Square | Winter 6750 AVR3 | Render Verified 524871.8 180179.2 37.96 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 72.8 08/02/2015 12:33 59.2 0.5 20 view 20(12.1) | Campden Hill Square – South | Winter 2250 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524908.9 180197.1 38.72 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.4 72.9 08/02/2015 12:43 58.8 0.5 21 view 21(C) | Outside the back of Youth Hostel in Holland Park 6300 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524906.8 179664.2 24.69 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 72.7 72.7 15/05/2014 12:22 27.5 0.9 22 view 22(D) | Outside 50 Bedford Gardens | Spring 6450 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525251.5 180094.6 33.12 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.1 20/04/2016 12:48 9.6 0.4 23 view 23(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk 6600 AVR3 | Render Verified 525048.8 180186.6 41.69 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.9 72.9 24/07/2012 15:35 45.9 0.4 23n view 23n(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk | Night 6650 AVR3 | Render Verified 525048.9 180186.8 41.86 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 74.0 02/02/2017 17:19 45.9 0.4 24 view 24(L7) | Kensington Place – Junction with Hillgate Place 7600 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525205.2 180262.7 32.62 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.5 73.2 04/11/2014 13:04 30.6 0.2 25 view 25(6) | Hillgate Place – by Hillgate Street 1600 AVR3 | Render Verified 525194.9 180300.9 31.09 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.8 73.0 30/06/2013 14:36 39.6 0.2 26 view 26(E) | Outside 16 Kensington Place 6500 AVR3 | Render Verified 525245.6 180278.5 31.08 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 72.8 72.8 15/05/2014 14:11 21.8 0.2 27 view 27(L8) | Kensington Place – Junction with Jameson Street 7800 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525297.7 180299.1 29.36 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.6 73.2 04/11/2014 13:12 5.0 0.1 28 view 28(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 1350 AVR3 | Render Verified 525278.3 180336.5 28.71 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 72.9 25/06/2013 14:57 17.0 0.1 28n view 28n(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 | Night 1360 AVR3 | Render Verified 525278.3 180336.6 28.76 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.7 73.1 02/02/2017 17:31 17.0 0.1 29 view 29(L1) | Kensington Place – Looking north along Newcombe Street 5150 AVR3 | Render Verified 525338.4 180315.1 28.28 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.4 73.2 21/05/2015 11:50 347.2 0.1 View Sequence 6 30 view 30(L) | Outside 1 St John’s Gardens 7200 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524646.2 180597.5 30.14 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.2 73.2 19/05/2014 17:16 103.3 0.7 31 view 31(18) | Ladbroke Road – Junction with Horbury Mews 2800 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 524994.3 180512.9 27.60 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.0 30/06/2013 17:07 103.0 0.3 32 view 32(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Winter 6950 AVR3 | Render Verified 525085.8 180533.4 27.89 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.2 73.0 08/02/2015 13:06 112.6 0.2 32n view 32n(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Night 6960 AVR3 | Render Verified 525085.8 180533.4 27.95 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.5 72.9 01/02/2017 17:23 112.6 0.2 View Sequence 7 33 view 33(N) | Pembridge Place, at junction with Pembridge Villas | Winter 7950 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525274.8 181025.0 23.03 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 72.9 18/02/2015 09:38 176.6 0.6 34 view 34(M) | At junction of Dawson Place and Pembridge Place | Winter 7350 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525315.0 180842.8 23.95 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 72.9 18/02/2015 09:48 180.7 0.4

34 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Camera Location HFOV View Description MH Reference Type Method Easting Northing Height Camera Lens Photo Image Photo date/time Bearing distance (km) 35 view 35(24) | Pembridge Villas – Junction with Chepstow Crescent 3400 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525169.7 180846.7 25.08 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.9 72.9 25/06/2013 18:57 161.0 0.4 36 view 36(25) | Pembridge Square – Outside no.30 3500 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525263.7 180747.1 26.13 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.8 72.8 25/06/2013 09:19 171.4 0.3 37 view 37(27.1) | Linden Gardens – West side | Winter 3750 AVR3 | Render Verified 525335.6 180588.6 28.04 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.3 72.8 17/02/2015 09:57 189.8 0.2 38 view 38(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 3600 AVR3 | Render Verified 525242.5 180524.6 28.70 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.9 73.0 25/06/2013 18:42 141.4 0.1 38n view 38n(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 | Night 3650 AVR3 | Render Verified 525242.5 180524.6 28.76 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.5 72.9 01/02/2017 17:33 141.4 0.1 38a Pembridge Gardens – From Vincent House 3620 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525238.1 180634.1 27.17 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.0 12/04/2016 18:15 159.7 0.2 View Sequence 8 39 view 39(32) | Kensington Gardens – Lancaster Gate entrance | Spring 4250 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526409.9 180638.5 25.00 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 73.8 73.1 20/04/2016 10:27 259.8 1.1 40 view 40(35.1) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond | Winter 0610 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526287.1 180144.9 26.22 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.6 73.2 15/08/2016 11:14 286.8 1.0 41 view 41(33.1e) | Kensington Gardens – West of Round Pond | Summer 0620 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526044.0 180070.4 26.76 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.4 13/09/2016 11:01 296.7 0.8 42a view 42a(33.1f) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 0630 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526065.9 179957.7 25.61 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.7 73.1 15/08/2016 11:34 302.5 0.9 42b view 42b(33.1c) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 0590 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526039.7 179986.8 25.93 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.6 73.0 15/08/2016 11:51 301.8 0.9 42c view 42c(33.1) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Winter 4350 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526024.9 180036.3 26.29 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.3 72.9 08/02/2015 11:28 299.5 0.8 43 view 43(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Winter 4650 AVR3 | Render Verified 525642.6 180224.5 30.41 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.3 73.0 17/02/2015 10:22 302.9 0.4 43n view 43n(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Night 4660 AVR3 | Render Verified 525642.6 180224.6 30.43 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 74.2 73.1 09/04/2016 20:33 302.9 0.4 44 view 44(B) | Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace 6200 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 525527.2 180202.9 28.82 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 72.5 72.5 15/05/2014 11:33 317.5 0.3 View Sequence 9 A1 view A1(A1) | Hallfield Estate, entrance to Exeter House 0520 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526061.7 181248.7 19.81 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.0 73.1 20/04/2016 09:57 222.9 1.1 A2 view A2(A2) | Talbot Road, looking south along Moorhouse Road 0530 AVR3 | Render Verified 525110.8 181338.5 23.47 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 73.9 72.7 20/04/2016 09:22 167.5 0.9 A3 view A3(A3) | Talbot Road, looking south along Courtnell Street 0540 AVR3 | Render Verified 525049.9 181325.4 23.22 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 74.5 73.1 20/04/2016 09:14 163.6 0.9 A4 view A4(A4) | Talbot Road, looking south along Sutherland Place 0550 AVR3 | Render Verified 525170.6 181354.0 23.57 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR 24mm 73.6 72.6 20/04/2016 09:25 171.3 0.9 A5 view A5(35) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond 4500 AVR1 | Wireline Verified 526287.3 180144.2 26.27 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR 24mm 73.5 72.0 25/06/2013 11:50 286.8 1.0

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 35 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate

1 view 1(38) | Kensington Church Street – South of Dukes Lane 2544_4851 2544_4855

Existing Proposed

6.15 This is a distant view from the Kensington Palace Conservation 6.16 The Proposed Development would have slightly greater visi- Area and this winter photograph replaces the original bility than the existing Newcombe House. However, it would summer view 38, and is located closer to the pavement edge. be a distant form, partially concealed by trees, and light in The Kensington Conservation Area is across the road to the coloration – in contrast to the earth colours of the foreground west, with the listed Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in brickwork – and the foreground townscape would continue to the foreground, and there are two listed telephone boxes to dominate the view. The townscape would be enhanced. The the east. The townscape comprises an eclectic mix of periods, Proposed Development would not harm the significance of architectural styles and scales, with brick a common facing the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets material. Newcombe House is a distant form on the horizon in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced. and is partially concealed by foreground trees: it has a negligible impact on the townscape. Significance of impact: minor, beneficial

36 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 1(38) | Kensington Church Street – South of Dukes Lane 1 2544_4856

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 37 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

2 view 2(1) | Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk | Spring 2544_1151 2544_1155

Existing Proposed

6.17 This view from the Pitt Estate sub-area of the Kensington 6.18 The light coloration of the Portland stone of the Proposed Conservation Area has the Kensington Palace Conservation Development with its vertically aligned windows would be Area to the east (right) and early 19th century listed commer- partially visible beyond the trees: a wider sky gap will be cial buildings to the west. The view is framed by the relatively created to the left of the Corner building. What is visible consistent four-five storey mixed-use commercial/residential would contribute positively to the street vista, providing a buildings to the east and the taller late 19th century interven- minor distant vertical accent, continuing the rhythm estab- tions to the west. There is an almost continuous avenue of lished by the buildings to the west (left) of the view, comple- trees to the east, which conceals part of Newcombe House at menting and positively completing the street vista. The the end of the street vista. However, the horizontal banding of townscape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development its windows can be discerned from here. would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: minor, beneficial

38 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 2(1) | Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk | Spring 2 2544_1156

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 39 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

3 view 3(2) | Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street 2544_1251 2544_1255

Existing Proposed

Existing: Proposed

6.19 This view looks towards the Kensington Conservation Area 6.20 The Corner Building of the Proposed Development will provide from Kensington Palace Conservation Area, with listed early a strong local landmark at the junction with Notting Hill Gate. and mid-19th century domestic houses and commercial The existing slab block of Newcombe House will be replaced premises to the east (right). Buildings are diverse in char- by a taller stepped building that has been carefully composed acter, but generally lower in scale at the northern end of the to give the appearance of two separate vertical forms (Central street, with a mixture of two, three and four storey build- and East) conjoined, each with defined middle sections ings. Newcombe House, located outside, but immediately and tops and with horizontal bands that add to the skyline adjacent to the Kensington Conservation Area, defines the variety of the conservation area in its foreground. The vertical junction with Notting Hill Gate. A large proportion of its south- window strips will accentuate its overall slenderness, and the facing elevation and repeating horizontal bands of windows Portland stone facing between will be recessive in coloration. are visible. The lower run of buildings on the Site are partially The Kensington Church Street Buildings, similar in height to concealed by trees. buildings they will replace, will be faced with high quality bricks that will reinforce the street edge and will contrast with the coloration and design of the Corner Building beyond. The view will be enhanced by the high quality architecture of the Corner Building and Kensington Church Street Buildings, the junction and adjacent tube station clearly identified. The townscape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

40 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 3(2) | Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street 3 2544_1256

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 41 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

4 view 4(L4) | Kensington Church Street – Opposite Edge Street 2544_5451 2544_5455

Existing Proposed

6.21 Existing Proposed

6.22 This view from the Kensington Palace Conservation Area 6.23 The Corner Building of the Proposed Development will provide has the NE corner of the Kensington Conservation Area to a strong local landmark at the junction with Notting Hill Gate. the foreground left, and the Site beyond. The regular hori- Additionally, from this closer view location, the high quality zontal bands of the existing slab block of Newcombe House detailing of the brickwork of the Kensington Church Street concludes the street vista, and the poor architectural quality Buildings will be more evident, as will the interiors of the winter of the foreground SE corner of the Site contributes to the gardens of the Corner Building. While different in architectural anti-climax of this sequence of views. The trees soften their character and material facing, because of their different roles negative impact in summer. in the urban scene, the Kensington Church Street and Corner Buildings will be linked visually by their corresponding glazed corner window strips. At street level, the proposed retail units will add positively to the vitality and character of Kensington Church Street. The view will be enhanced by the high quality architecture of the Corner Building and Kensington Church Street Buildings, the junction and adjacent tube station clearly identified. The townscape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

42 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 4(L4) | Kensington Church Street – Opposite Edge Street 4 2544_5456

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 43 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

5 view 5(L2) | Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall 2544_5201 2544_5205

Existing Proposed

6.24 This view from the Kensington Palace Conservation Area 6.25 The Corner Building of the Proposed Development will focuses on Newcombe House, which reads largely in isola- provide a strong local landmark at the junction with Notting tion from the one and two storey residential and commercial Hill Gate. The focus from here, however, will be on the high shop buildings fronting the street, largely concealed behind quality detailing of the brickwork of the Kensington Church the avenue of street trees. Notting Hill Gate’s 18th and 19th Street Buildings. Their increased height to G+3 storeys will century two and three storey commercial buildings are just better frame the street, and the retail units and entrances visible beyond to the north at the southern edge of the to the housing above will add to its vitality and character. Pembridge Conservation Area. The brickwork of the Kensington Church Street Buildings will contrast with the Portland stone of the Corner Building, in coloration and texture, clearly distinguishing their separate roles and relative importance in the urban scene. The view will be enhanced by the high quality architecture of the Corner Building and Kensington Church Street Buildings, the junction and adjacent tube station clearly identified. The townscape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

44 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 1: Views 1-5 East along Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 5(L2) | Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall 5 2544_5206

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 45 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street

6 view 6(15.1) | Holland Park Avenue – West of Ladbroke Terrace | Winter 2544_2551 2544_2555

Existing Proposed

6.26 The existing residential blocks dominate the north side (left) 6.27 The Proposed Development Corner Building will have a of the view set within the Ladbroke Conservation Area, with height similar to the Campden Hill Tower, but – because of the Campden Hill Tower in the middle ground of the view to its distance – will appear lower. It will be the most slender of the left of centre. Trees on the pavement edge line Holland the modern buildings in view, and the most elegant and best Park Avenue and partially screen the listed Coronet Cinema, composed, with the Central Form most visible, and part of the 1 Holland Park Avenue and the mostly four/five storey early East Form beyond. Along with the Campden Hill Tower, it will 19th century located on the northern edge of the Kensington bookend the commercial core of the Notting Hill Gate District Conservation Area on the south side of the street. Newcombe Centre, and will landmark the underground station and House is a distant form, its slender western end discernible junction with Kensington Church Street set on either side of it. between the trees. This is a robust townscape environment in The proposed, lower set, Notting Hill Gate office building will which large 20th century buildings predominate. reinforce the height of the lower buildings that otherwise line the street. The townscape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

46 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

view 6(15.1) | Holland Park Avenue – West of Ladbroke Terrace | Winter 6 2544_2556

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 47 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

7 view 7(16) | Notting Hill Gate – Opposite junction with Campden Hill Road | Spring 2544_2651 2544_2655

Existing Proposed

6.28 This view from the area excluded from the Ladbroke 6.29 The Proposed Development would be mostly concealed by Conservation Area looks towards the Northern Corridor foreground trees, especially in summer. If noticed at all from sub-area of the Kensington Conservation Area to the south, this location, the elegant slender silhouette, high quality which features the dome of the listed Coronet Cinema at materials and careful detailing of the Corner Building would centre. The similarly listed Gate Cinema is barely visible as enhance this District Centre, and would be set well to the largely hidden by foliage, as is Newcombe House beyond. left of the dome of the listed Coronet Cinema, the setting of Otherwise, the District Centre is framed by largely four storey which would be left unchanged and unharmed. The town- mid-19th century brick and stucco buildings to the south and scape would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would the mid-20th century concrete buildings to the north. This is a not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the robust townscape environment framed by a mix of large scale settings of any heritage assets in view; the settings of the 20th century blocks to the north and lower set brick buildings listed buildings would be enhanced. to the south, the run of which is terminated by the dome of the listed Coronet Cinema. Significance of impact: minor, neutral

48 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

view 7(16) | Notting Hill Gate – Opposite junction with Campden Hill Road | Spring 7 2544_2656

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 49 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

8 view 8(L9) | Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant 2544_0511 2544_0515

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.30 This view from the area excluded from the Ladbroke 6.31 The Central Form of the Corner Building of the Proposed 6.32 The G+4 storey Doctors’ Surgery (WPB3) to the west of the Conservation Area, has the area excluded from the Pembridge Development will provide a positive and elegant vertical coun- tall Corner Building will be concealed. The consents for David Conservation Area across the road to the left, and looks across terpoint to the long horizontal thrust of the existing street Game House and Astley House – to the west and east of the Notting Hill Gate to the area excluded from the Kensington frontages. Its western and northern elevations will appear Corner Building of the Proposed Development will transform Conservation Area from centre to right, and that part of the well composed, and its height subdivided into distinct parts the southern street frontage of the Notting Hill Gate District Kensington Palace Conservation Area in the distance to the – middle and top – by the disposition of the vertically aligned Centre, which the Proposed Development will complement, left of Newcombe House. The south side of Notting Hill Gate window strips. The corner windows at the top will lighten its providing a visual counterpoint to their strong horizontal is fronted by David Game House, then Newcombe House, visual character, while its middle part will appear more solid. forms. with Astley House beyond. The heritage sensitivity is low and The G+4 storey Doctors’ Surgery (WPB3) located to the west the townscape robust: none of the 20th century buildings in of the tall Corner Building will have a minor impact on the Significance of impact: minor, beneficial view are of architectural merit. Newcombe House, the tallest view, rising slightly beyond David Game House (but see the building in the view, is set back from the Notting Hill Gate cumulative view below in which the recently consented David commercial frontage, and it is unclear from this view location Game House is illustrated). The Notting Hill Gate commercial what it is landmarking. building will provide a stepped end to the run of the existing commercial terrace to its west, and its NE corner will be less solid as it turns the corner at the junction with Kensington Church Street. The Proposed Development will bookend the eastern end of the commercial core of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, and will landmark the underground station and junction with Kensington Church Street set on either side of it. The townscape would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

50 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

view 8(L9) | Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant 8 2544_0516

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 51 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

9 view 9(L6) | Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road 2544_5501 2544_5505

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed: Cumulative

6.33 The visible areas are largely excluded from the surrounding 6.34 The Central Form of the Corner Building of the Proposed 6.35 The consents for David Game House and Astley House – to conservation areas. The south side of Notting Hill Gate is Development will provide a positive and elegant vertical the west and east of the Corner Building of the Proposed fronted almost entirely of buildings of the post-war years with counterpoint to the long horizontal thrust of the existing Development will transform the southern street frontage David Game House forming the foreground, then Newcombe street frontages. Its western and northern elevations will of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, which the Proposed House, with Astley House and the Czech Republic Embassy appear well composed, and its height subdivided into distinct Development will complement, providing a visual counter- beyond. The heritage sensitivity is low and the townscape parts – middle and top – by the disposition of the vertically point to their strong horizontal forms. robust: none of the 20th century buildings in view are of aligned window strips. The corner windows at the top will architectural merit. Newcombe House, the tallest building in lighten its visual character, while its middle part will appear Significance of impact: major, beneficial the view, is set back from the Notting Hill Gate commercial more solid. The Notting Hill Gate commercial building will frontage, and it is unclear from this view location what it is provide a stepped end to the run of the existing commercial landmarking. terrace to its west, and its NE corner will be less solid as it turns the corner at the junction with Kensington Church Street. The Proposed Development will bookend the eastern end of the commercial core of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, and will landmark the underground station and junction with Kensington Church Street set on either side of it. The townscape would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

52 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 2: views 6-9 North along Kensington Church Street (continued)

view 9(L6) | Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road 9 2544_5506

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 53 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate

10 view 10(30) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens 2544_4001 2544_4005

Existing Proposed

6.36 This view is from the Kensington Palace Conservation Area 6.37 The visual impact of the Proposed Development on the view adjacent to the listed gateways to Kensington Park Gardens. is likely to be slight. The upper NE corner of the Central Form The southern edge of the Pembridge Conservation Area is to of the Corner Building may be visible, particularly in winter, the north (right) side of Bayswater Road. The view is framed but its recessive Portland stone coloration and glazed corner to the north by the mid-19th century Renaissance Revival windows and winter gardens will dapple its surface. The style blocks of four storey brick and stucco commercial/resi- Campden Hill Tower will continue to provide the primary focus dential buildings which form regular terraces. To the south the to the street vista, the heritage assets in view left unharmed. view is framed by a large tree which hides the neo-Brutalist Czech Embassy building. The urban street vista is terminated Significance of impact: minor, neutral by the breadth of the east elevation of Campden Hill Tower: Newcombe House is concealed behind both the foreground foliage and the Czech Embassy.

54 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 10(30) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens 10 2544_4006

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 55 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

11 view 11(31) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 2544_4101 2544_4105

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.38 This view from the Bayswater Conservation Area in 6.39 The Proposed Development will provide a visually strong 6.40 The consents for David Game House and Astley House – to Westminster is close to the eastern boundary of the Pembridge vertical counterpoint to the neo-Brutalist embassy building the west and east of the Corner Building of the Proposed Conservation Area. The commercial mid-19th century devel- in its foreground. In the summer midday sunlight of this Development will transform the southern street frontage opments at the southern end of Pembridge Gardens are photograph, the East Form will cast a shadow over the Central of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, which the Proposed visible further right. Kensington Palace Gardens – identified Form of the Corner Building, and the masonry strips at their Development will complement, providing a visual counter- by its listed gates – is in the Kensington Palace Conservation tops will appear to taper like pinnacles into the sky dissolving point to their strong horizontal forms. Area is to the south (left), with the seven-storey concrete post its top edges. It will form an elegant urban landmark at the war neo-Brutalist Czech Embassy buildings and listed stucco corner of Notting Hill Gate and Kensington Church Street Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial rendered neo-Classical gates and lodges beyond. Newcombe within the District Centre, the underground station adjacent. House is mostly hidden by Astley House to its east, but is The domed tower of the listed Coronet cinema would remain partially visible as a setback slab block. In the far distance is visible, and would contrast positively with the scale and form the domed tower of the listed Coronet cinema located within of the Proposed Development, and the skyline and townscape the Kensington Conservation Area. of the view would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of the listed buildings in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

56 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 11(31) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 11 2544_4106

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 57 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

11n view 11n(32) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 2544_4151 2544_4155

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.41 The urban context is described in the day view above. At 6.42 The residential interiors of the Corner Building of the Proposed 6.43 The commercial interiors of David Game House and Astley dusk, the street lights, commercial units and traffic emit Development will emit low levels of light, complementary to House – to the west and east of the Corner Building of the the strongest light, with random subdued lighting from the that emanating from the foreground street scene. Its local Proposed Development are likely to provide a more uniform office interiors beyond. The lack of light in Kensington Palace landmark status will be evident but it will have a subdued – but subdued level of light, which the Proposed Development Gardens contrasts with the more public street scene. almost calm – urban presence at dusk. Kensington Palace will complement, adding positively to the street scene. The Gardens will remain an area of darkness. The settings of the settings of the heritage assets will be left unharmed. heritage assets will be left unharmed. Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

58 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 11n(32) | Bayswater Road – Junction with Ossington Street 11n 2544_4156

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 59 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

12 view 12(29) | Notting Hill Gate – by junction with Linden Gardens 2544_3901 2544_3905

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.44 This view from the Pembridge Conservation Area looks west- 6.45 The Notting Hill Gate Building of the Proposed Development 6.46 The consents for David Game House and Astley House – to wards along Notting Hill Gate towards the northern boundary will relate positively to the existing long horizontal runs of the west and east of the Corner Building of the Proposed of the Kensington Conservation Area and the listed Coronet Astley House and David Game House, stepping up slightly Development will transform the southern street frontage and Gate Cinemas on the south (left) side of Notting Hill in scale to turn the corner of Kensington Church Street, its of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, which the Proposed Gate: the dome provides a clear visual punctuation to the glazed corner addressing the viewpoint. The Central and East Development will complement, providing a visual counter- skyline of the street. Excluded from the conservation areas are forms of the Corner Building will rise from it, and the stepped point to their strong horizontal forms. the mid-20th century commercial blocks to the foreground silhouette their conjoined forms will create will step up from left: Astley House, Newcombe House and David Game House the south and Kensington Church Street towards the heart Significance of impact: major, beneficial beyond. Campden Hill Tower is set at right angles to the line of the District Centre. The simple lines of the two forms will of development to the north side of the street. have a secondary order of masonry and vertical glazed strips, which will feather their forms against the sky. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation areas or the settings of the listed buildings in view; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

60 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate(continued)

view 12(29) | Notting Hill Gate – by junction with Linden Gardens 12 2544_3906

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 61 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

13 view 13(L3) | Notting Hill Gate – Looking south along Kensington Church Street 2544_5351 2544_5355

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.47 This southerly view down Kensington Church Street demon- 6.48 As in the previous view, the Notting Hill Gate Building of the 6.49 The consents for David Game House and Astley House – to strates the architectural and urban poverty of the existing Proposed Development will step up slightly in scale from the west and east of the Corner Building of the Proposed buildings on the Site: all the built fabric dates to the post-war David Game House to turn the corner of Kensington Church Development will transform the southern street frontage years, with Astley House to the left and David Game House Street, its glazed corner addressing the viewpoint. The Central of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, which the Proposed further right. Beyond Newcombe House to the south are and East forms of the Corner Building will rise from it, and Development will complement, providing a visual counter- the contemporary terraces of one, two and four storeys. the secondary order of masonry and vertical glazed strips will point to their strong horizontal forms. Newcombe House is set back from the corner and placed onto appear more solid towards the base, in contrast to the large the lower forms without any visual transition. The townscape glazing of the street corner. The brick facing of the western Significance of impact: major, beneficial character is poor, particularly for such a key junction in the Perimeter Building running south on Kensington Church District Centre. Street will contrast materially and architecturally with the proposed street corner forms, balancing the existing buildings on the east side of the street. The streetscape will be activated visually and actively by the proposed retail units and office and residential entry points, creating a welcoming and quality pedestrian experience. The townscape would be enhanced considerably.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

62 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 3: Views 10-13 West along Notting Hill Gate (continued)

view 13(L3) | Notting Hill Gate – Looking south along Kensington Church Street 13 2544_5356

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 63 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road

14 view 14(21) | Westbourne Grove – Junction with Ladbroke Gardens | Winter 2544_3151 2544_3155

Existing Proposed

6.50 This south-easterly view along Kensington Park Road in the 6.51 The height of the Proposed Development will be appropriate Ladbroke Conservation Area is framed by the early 19th the scale of the street, its Portland stone cladding, articulated century mixed use four storey buildings to the east (left), by vertical window strips will have a recessive character in the with the bell tower of the Grade II* listed Church of St Peter view. Its visual impact will be minor in winter and negligible in adding positively to the linearity of the street. To the west, summer. If noticed at this distance, its high quality design and the run of stucco finished listed residential blocks in Stanley materials will enhance the view. The Proposed Development Gardens and Kensington Park Gardens are interrupted by the would not harm the significance of the conservation area or landscaping in Ladbroke Gardens. At the end of the vista is the settings of the listed buildings; the settings of the listed the concrete and glass north elevation of Newcombe House, buildings would be enhanced. largely screened by trees in this winter view (and entirely concealed in summer). Significance of impact: minor, neutral

64 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

view 14(21) | Westbourne Grove – Junction with Ladbroke Gardens | Winter 14 2544_3156

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 65 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

15 view 15(K) | Outside toilets at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road 2544_7101 2544_7105

Existing Proposed

6.52 This south-easterly long view along Denbigh Road in the 6.53 The height of the Proposed Development will be appropriate Pembridge Conservation Area is lined by a dense avenue of the scale of the street, its Portland stone cladding, articulated mature trees. The buildings mostly screened in this summer by vertical window strips will have a recessive character in photograph are brick and stucco faced, three/four storey the view. The north and west faces of the Corner Building will mid-19th and mid-20th century shops and residential provide a distant, elegant conclusion to the street vista, its premises. Newcombe House terminates the street vista. form, high quality design and materials, will enhance the view. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area or the settings of the listed buildings; the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: minor, beneficial

66 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

view 15(K) | Outside toilets at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road 15 2544_7106

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 67 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

16 view 16(20) | Kensington Park Road – Opposite junction with Ladbroke Square | Winter 2544_3051 2544_3055

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.54 This south-easterly view in the Ladbroke Conservation Area 6.55 The Proposed Development will be a significant local landmark 6.56 The eastern part of the consented 92-120 Notting Hill Gate is located further southeast of view 14 above. The street in this view. Its Portland stone cladding, articulated by vertical development adjacent to Campden Hill Tower will be visible includes a diverse mixture of historic building types, with window strips will have a recessive character in the view. The at the end of Pembridge Road – it will have a minor impact on some large pre-WWII mansion block developments to the north and west faces of the Corner Building will add positively the streetscape and heritage assets in view. east (left), G+5 storeys tall, and with lower height and earlier to the skyline, and its vertical form, high quality design and residential terraces of G+3 storeys to the west. Trees are a materials, will clearly landmark the core of the Notting Hill Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial significant feature along the eastern pavement, particularly in Gate District Centre. The G+4 storey Doctors’ Surgery (WPB3) summer. The curving road cuts across to the right and obscures located to the west of the tall Corner Building, rising slightly the base of Newcombe House on the skyline beyond. Further beyond David Game House, will have a negligible impact on west, the top of Campden Hill Tower is visible: together they the view from this distance (and see those cumulative views in landmark the core of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre. Just which the recently consented David Game House is illustrated). visible on the right is the listed Kensington Temple, and in the The Proposed Development would not harm the significance distance the listed cabmen’s shelter stands in the middle of of the conservation area or the settings of the listed buildings; the road. the settings of the listed buildings would be enhanced.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

68 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

view 16(20) | Kensington Park Road – Opposite junction with Ladbroke Square | Winter 16 2544_3056

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 69 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

17 view 17(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Winter 2544_2951 2544_2955

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.57 This south-easterly view from within the Ladbroke 6.58 The Proposed Development will be a significant local landmark 6.59 The eastern part of the consented 92-120 Notting Hill Gate Conservation Area is located further south of the previous in this view. Its Portland stone cladding, articulated by vertical development adjacent to Campden Hill Tower will be visible view and taken on the other side of Kensington Park Road, window strips would have a recessive character in the view. at the end of Pembridge Road – it will have a minor impact on immediately adjacent to the listed Kensington Temple. The The north and west faces of the Corner Building will add posi- the streetscape and heritage assets in view. listed cabmen’s hut in the middle of the road is now clearly tively to the skyline, and its vertical form, high quality design visible. The eastern side of the road is formed of three storey and materials, will clearly landmark the core of the Notting Significance of impact: major, beneficial terraced houses of the early 19th century, faced in brick Hill Gate District Centre. The Proposed Development would with stucco dressings, and further south are stucco rendered not harm the significance of the conservation area or the mixed-use shop/residential buildings of a similar age and settings of the listed buildings; the settings of the listed build- scale, which turn the corner enclosing the street level view. ings would be enhanced. The curving road cuts across to the right and obscures the base of Newcombe House on the skyline beyond. Significance of impact: major, beneficial

70 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

view 17(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Winter 17 2544_2956

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 71 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

17n view 17n(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Night 2544_2961 2544_2965

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.60 The urban context is described in the day view above. At 6.61 The residential interiors of the Central and East forms of the 6.62 The eastern part of the consented 92-120 Notting Hill Gate dusk, the street lights provide the brightest light source, with Corner Building of the Proposed Development will emit low development adjacent to Campden Hill Tower will be visible random subdued lighting from the residential interiors of the levels of light, complementary to that emanating from the at the end of Pembridge Road – it will have a minor impact on terraces and the church, which vary with occupancy. properties in the foreground. The street lights will continue the streetscape and heritage assets in view. to provide the strongest levels of light. The settings of the heritage assets will be left unharmed. Significance of impact: major, beneficial

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

72 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 4: Views 14-17 South east along Kensington Park Road (continued)

view 17n(19.1) | Kensington Park Road – by Kensington Temple | Night 17n 2544_2966

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 73 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West

18 view 18(9) | Uxbridge Street – by Farm Place 2544_1901 2544_1905

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.63 This westerly view is through the Northern Corridor sub-area 6.64 The lower set brick clad Doctors’ Surgery (West Perimeter 6.65 Part of the upper floors of David Game House will be visible to of the Kensington Conservation Area. Uxbridge Street is lined Building 3) will relate directly to the scale and materiality the foreground left of the Proposed Development: its impact with two storey cottages of the late 18th/early 19th century of the buildings in the street: part of the top of the Notting on the street view will be minor, and will leave the heritage with a mixture of later 19th and early 20th century buildings Hill Gate commercial building will be visible to the left. The assets in view unharmed. of a larger scale, including the stock brick rear of the listed Portland stone clad west elevation of the Corner Building of Coronet and Gate Cinemas on the left. The top of Campden the Proposed Development will provide the local landmark Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial Hill Tower rises beyond on the left, with the west elevation that relates to Notting Hill Gate as a District Centre and the of Newcombe House at the end of the street on the right. underground station and junction with Kensington Church Uxbridge Street currently terminates in the vehicular under- Street set on either side of it. The townscape would be croft of Newcombe House. As the Draft Kensington CAA 2016 enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the (CD 8.5) opines: “Due to the grid-like character of much of the significance of the conservation area – its ‘coherent inward- street layout, there are numerous short views and vistas in looking character’ would be maintained – or the settings of the conservation area. Many streets terminate with a vista the listed buildings; the settings of the listed buildings would to houses in the next street often enhanced by street trees or be enhanced. garden planting. Such views give the area a coherent inward- looking character […]” (para 4.21). The earlier Proposals Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial Statement (adopted 1995; CD 4.18) states in relation to Area 5, Hillgate Village, that Uxbridge Street is “a useful transition zone between Notting Hill Gate and the Village […] properties are varied, often representing the sides or backs of buildings with the main frontages elsewhere”.

74 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 18(9) | Uxbridge Street – by Farm Place 18 2544_1906

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 75 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West

19 view 19(G) | Outside 25 Campden Hill Square | Winter 2544_6751 2544_6755

Existing Proposed

6.66 This view is from the SW corner of Campden Hill Square in 6.67 Only a small part of the upper storeys of the Corner Building the NW part of the Campden Hill sub-area of the Kensington of the Proposed Development would be visible in the distance Conservation Area. The verdant Square dominates the between the trees. Its Portland stone facing articulated location, and there is a tall terrace to the right of upper G+3/4 by vertical strips of glazing will insure it is a recessive form storey buildings, with three listed buildings obscured by trees with minimal impact on this small part of the view. There is in the SE corner of the Square. Newcombe House, which is much else to draw the eye in the foreground. The Proposed 0.5km distant, is not visible. Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area or the settings of the listed buildings.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

76 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 19(G) | Outside 25 Campden Hill Square | Winter 19 2544_6756

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 77 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

20 view 20(12.1) | Campden Hill Square – South | Winter 2544_2251 2544_2255

Existing Proposed

6.68 This view approaches the SE corner of Campden Hill Square in 6.69 The upper NW top of the Corner Building of the Proposed the NW part of the Campden Hill sub-area of the Kensington Development will potentially be visible, but it is obscured by Conservation Area. The late 18th/ early 19th century build- tree branches even in winter. If noticed at all, it would be a ings in view are not listed, as in the previous view, the three recessive form and would not stand out from the mix of listed buildings are obscured by trees to the right of the building forms and materials concealing its lower form. The Square. Newcombe House is not visible. Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area or the settings of the listed buildings.

Significance of impact: negligible

78 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 20(12.1) | Campden Hill Square – South | Winter 20 2544_2256

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 79 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

21 view 21(C) | Outside the back of Youth Hostel in Holland Park 2544_6301 2544_6305

Existing Proposed

6.70 This view looks northwest from Holland Park within the 6.71 There will be no change to this view. Holland Park Conservation Area. No buildings are visible ahead through or above the trees. Significance of impact: neutral

80 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 21(C) | Outside the back of Youth Hostel in Holland Park 21 2544_6306

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 81 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

22 view 22(D) | Outside 50 Bedford Gardens | Spring 2544_6451 2544_6455

Existing Proposed

6.72 This view is taken from within the heart of the Kensington 6.73 There is unlikely to be a change to this view once construction Conservation Area and looks northwards. The late Georgian work is completed. terraced houses at Nos. 36-46 to the right of the view – concealed by temporary scaffolding and netting – are Grade Significance of impact: neutral II listed. Newcombe House is not visible.

82 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 22(D) | Outside 50 Bedford Gardens | Spring 22 2544_6456

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 83 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

23 view 23(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk 2544_6601 2544_6605

Existing Proposed

6.74 There are no listed buildings in this westerly view along 6.75 The west and south elevations of the Central and East forms Aubrey Walk in the Kensington Conservation Area, and of the Corner Building of the Proposed Development will there is a very mixed range of architectural styles at the be visible in the distance, providing the local landmark that junction with Campden Hill Tower ahead. Newcombe House relates to Notting Hill Gate as a District Centre and the under- is visible in the distance rising above the residential terraces ground station and junction with Kensington Church Street of Kensington Place. set on either side of it. More glazing would be apparent on the southern elevation of the Proposed Development than the western elevation, where the Portland stone is more evident, providing a recessive and relevant material backdrop to the rendered and painted building elevations in view. The townscape and local wayfinding would be enhanced. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

84 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 23(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk 23 2544_6606

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 85 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

23n view 23n(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk | Night 2544_6651 2544_6655

Existing Proposed

6.76 The urban context is described in the day view above. At dusk, 6.77 The residential interiors of the Corner Building of the Proposed the street lights will emit the strongest light, with random Development will emit low levels of light, and it will clearly be subdued lighting from the residential interiors, which vary a more distant and secondary part of the streetscape. The with occupancy. street lights will continue to provide the strongest levels of light. The settings of the heritage assets will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial

86 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 23n(F) | At junction of Wycombe Square and Aubury Walk | Night 23n 2544_6656

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 87 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

24 view 24(L7) | Kensington Place – Junction with Hillgate Place 2544_7601 2544_7605

Existing Proposed

6.78 This north-westerly view is from the Hillgate Village sub-area 6.79 The very top of the Corner Building of the Proposed of the Kensington Conservation Area and takes in the Development will be visible beyond the parapet of the Classical 19th century terrace of Kensington Place terminated listed brick house, its predominantly Portland stone facing by the Tom Kay Architect’s 1960s Grade II listed sculptural will be closer in coloration to the rendered house frontages brickwork modernist house at 23 Kensington Place, with its adjacent. Its top will be more visible a few steps to the west of turreted staircase return onto Hillgate Street. It demonstrates this position, and invisible a few steps forward – from which how high quality, but a very different architecture – here position, at the junction with Hillgate Place, the southern inspired by 1920s Dutch Expressionist precedents – can add elevation of Campden Hill Tower terminates the street vista qualitatively to the setting of existing historic buildings. On to the north. The Proposed Development would not harm the the opposite side of the road and further down is the late significance of the conservation area. Victorian St George’s Hall. Significance of impact: minor, neutral

88 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 24(L7) | Kensington Place – Junction with Hillgate Place 24 2544_7606

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 89 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

25 view 25(6) | Hillgate Place – by Hillgate Street 2544_1601 2544_1605

Existing Proposed

6.80 This north-westerly view in the Hillgate Village sub-area of the 6.81 The west and south elevations of the Central and East forms Kensington Conservation Area focuses on mid-19th century of the Corner Building of the Proposed Development will terraces of two and three storeys, mainly stucco rendered but be visible in the distance, providing the local landmark that with stock brick examples too. There is a strong orthogonal relates to Notting Hill Gate as a District Centre and the under- street plan which is highly legible. Newcombe House is visible ground station and junction with Kensington Church Street rising beyond the terrace ahead, and out of shot to the left set on either side of it. More glazing would be apparent on the southern elevation of Campden Hill Tower terminates the the southern elevation of the Proposed Development than street vista to the north. the western elevation, where the Portland stone is more evident, providing a recessive and relevant material backdrop to the rendered and painted building elevations in view. The townscape and local wayfinding would be enhanced. Tall buildings are already visible close to this part of the conservation area, and the Proposed Development would not harm its significance.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

90 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 25(6) | Hillgate Place – by Hillgate Street 25 2544_1606

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 91 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

26 view 26(E) | Outside 16 Kensington Place 2544_6501 2544_6505

Existing Proposed

6.82 Slightly further east along Kensington Place from view 24, in 6.83 The very top of the Corner Building of the Proposed the Kensington Conservation Area, the street is narrow and Development will be visible beyond the parapet of the terrace, the view channelled eastwards along it. Newcombe House is but barely so, and amidst the rooftop paraphernalia of TV not visible. aerials and chimney pots. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

92 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 26(E) | Outside 16 Kensington Place 26 2544_6506

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 93 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

27 view 27(L8) | Kensington Place – Junction with Jameson Street 2544_7801 2544_7805

Existing Proposed

Existing: Proposed: Cumulative

6.84 This northerly view along Jameson Street in the Kensington 6.85 The view will be left unchanged. 6.86 Part of the southern elevation of David Game House will Conservation Area is lined with Victorian terraces of various conclude the street vista: its impact on the street view will be heights, interspersed with a three-storey 1930s brick house. Significance of impact: neutral moderate. It will leave the heritage assets in view unharmed. Small trees line the eastern side of the street. The view is terminated by the rear elevation of David Game House. Significance of impact: moderate, beneficial Newcombe House is not visible from here.

94 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 27(L8) | Kensington Place – Junction with Jameson Street 27 2544_7806

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 95 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

28 view 28(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 2544_1351 2544_1355

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.87 This northerly view in the Hillgate Village sub-area of the 6.88 The west and south elevations of the Central and East forms 6.89 Part of the southern elevation of David Game House will Kensington Conservation Area along Jameson Street has a of the Corner Building of the Proposed Development will be conclude the street vista: its impact on the street view will be three storey early/mid-19th century brick-faced terrace, which visible beyond the terrace, providing the local landmark that moderate. It will leave the heritage assets in view unharmed. backs onto the Notting Hill Gate railway station cutting, in the relates to Notting Hill Gate as a District Centre and the under- foreground. The rear of David Game House is at the end of ground station and junction with Kensington Church Street Significance of impact: major, beneficial the street on the left, and Newcombe House rising beyond at set on either side of it. The Portland stone elevations will centre. The context of the terrace is clearly very urban. provide a recessive material backdrop to the rendered and painted building elevations in view, and will be a high quality addition to the street scene. The corner winter garden at the SW corner of the top of the Central form, containing a tree, will be a visually interesting addition to the urban scene. The townscape and local wayfinding would be enhanced. Tall buildings are already visible close to this part of the conservation area, and the Proposed Development would not harm its significance.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

96 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 28(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 28 2544_1356

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 97 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

28n view 28n(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 | Night 2544_1361 2544_1365

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.90 The urban context is described in the day view above. At 6.91 The residential interiors of the Central and East forms of the 6.92 Part of the southern elevation of David Game House will dusk, the street lights and the office interiors of David Game Corner Building of the Proposed Development will emit low conclude the street vista: its modern office interiors are likely House emit the strongest light, with random subdued lighting levels of light, complementary to that emanating from the to emit a uniform level of light when occupied. It will leave the from the residential interiors of the terrace, which vary with residential terrace in the foreground. The street lights and the heritage assets in view unharmed. occupancy. office interiors of David Game House will continue to provide the strongest levels of light. The settings of the heritage Significance of impact: major, beneficial assets will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

98 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 28n(L5) | Hillgate Place – Outside no.1 | Night 28n 2544_1366

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 99 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

29 view 29(L1) | Kensington Place – Looking north along Newcombe Street 2544_5151 2544_5155

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed SE corner of the Cube (WPB2) will provide the SW corner of the main public space. It will be pure white in colour, faced with 6.93 This view location in the Hillgate Village sub-area of the 6.94 The Proposed Development will replace the buildings on the Corian – a very modern take on the white render of Baptist Kensington Conservation Area looks north from Kensington Site with a coherent urban quarter arranged around a new Chapel. It will contrast with handmade character of the bricks Place into Newcombe Street, the existing service access and public square. The Perimeter Buildings on Kensington Church of the KCS blocks to the right (and the Doctors’ Surgery out of yard of the Site. The Site is not within a conservation area. To Street will have a constant height like that of Royston Court. shot in the NW corner), and the Portland stone of the Corner the west (left) is the mid-19th century rendered Kensington However, unlike the existing buildings, their length will be Building. A consistent paving will unite the different building Place Bethesda Baptist Chapel (established 1866), with a interrupted by two pedestrian passageways, at approxi- characters arranged around the public space: the Saturday 1950s, mixed-use development of five storeys to the east: the mately one-third intervals along its length. This will create Farmer’s Market will occupy the central part of this new high entrance to Royston Court is in the foreground right. Past the three groups of buildings, Kensington Church Street (KCS) 2, quality space. The setting of the Victorian Baptist Chapel will backs of the retail units on the right, refuse bins and surface 1 and the Corner Building at the junction with Notting Hill be enhanced considerably, as will the setting of the conserva- car park rises the broad south elevation of Newcombe House. Gate. The Corner Building will form the landmark head of the tion area, which will be left unharmed. The townscape and architectural value is low, except for the new urban quarter, and – in this view – the lower East Form Victorian Chapel. on the right steps up from the lower scale of the surround- Significance of impact: major, beneficial ings towards the taller Central Form. The new public square will extend from Kensington Place to the Corner Building, and will be lined with retail units on either side, with the West Perimeter Buildings (WPB1) to left, which have retail below and – like the Kensington Church Street Buildings (KCS 1 and 2), residential above. The Doctors’ Surgery (WPB3) will occupy the NW corner of the new public square. There will be an undercover pedestrian route at its northern end leading first to Uxbridge Street, then Notting Hill Gate. Closer to the viewpoint, just north of the retained Baptist Chapel and tree, the

100 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 5: Views 18-29 West and South West (continued)

view 29(L1) | Kensington Place – Looking north along Newcombe Street 29 2544_5156

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 101 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate

30 view 30(L) | Outside 1 St John’s Gardens 2544_7201 2544_7205

Existing Proposed

6.95 This view looks southeast from within the Ladbroke 6.96 There would be no change to this view, even in winter, because Conservation Area, and is located to the north and west of of the density of trees and the distance from the Site. the Site. The corner of a 1930s brick Neo-Georgian block, The Lodge, is on the left-hand side. The Grade II listed Church of Significance of impact: neutral St John Notting Hill is just behind the viewing location. The existing buildings are entirely hidden by the dense, mature tree planting within Ladbroke Square ahead.

102 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

view 30(L) | Outside 1 St John’s Gardens 30 2544_7206

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 103 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

31 view 31(18) | Ladbroke Road – Junction with Horbury Mews 2544_2801 2544_2805

Existing Proposed

6.97 This view within the Ladbroke Conservation Area looks east 6.98 No change. along Ladbroke Road. The early 19th century three storey houses lining the road are arranged in curving terraces, and Significance of impact: neutral are brick faced with stucco rendered dressings. Ahead is the mid-19th century listed Kensington Chapel (now Kensington Temple), in ragstone with Bath stone dressings. The listed cabmen’s shelter is barely discernible beyond the church through the trees. The top of Campden Hill Tower is clearly visible above the houses on the east side of the road, marking the western end of the District Centre beyond.

104 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

view 31(18) | Ladbroke Road – Junction with Horbury Mews 31 2544_2806

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 105 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

32 view 32(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Winter 2544_6951 2544_6955

Existing Proposed

6.99 This south-easterly view in the Ladbroke Conservation Area 6.100 The Proposed Development will be a new addition to the includes three-four storey stucco rendered mid-19th century skyline beyond the conservation area. The upper portion residential buildings. Campden Hill Tower defines the western of the north and west faces of the Corner Building of the end of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre on the right, but Proposed Development will be visible in the distance. Its Newcombe House is not visible. Portland stone facing will complement the coloration of the foreground buildings; the vertical window strips will articu- late its form. The eastern end of the Notting Hill Gate District Centre, and the underground station, will be provided with a high quality landmark. The significance of the Ladbroke Conservation Area will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

106 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

view 32(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Winter 32 2544_6956

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 107 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

32n view 32n(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Night 2544_6961 2544_6965

Existing Proposed

6.101 The urban context is described in the day view above. At dusk, 6.102 The residential interiors of the Corner Building of the Proposed the street lights and emit the strongest light – particularly Development will emit low levels of light, complementary the commercial units ahead, with random subdued lighting to that emanating in the foreground. The street lights will from the residential interiors of the terrace and Campden Hill continue to provide the strongest levels of light. The settings Tower, which vary with occupancy. of the heritage assets will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

108 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 6: Views 30-32: South west from Ladbroke Estate (continued)

view 32n(I) | Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on opposite site of the road | Night 32n 2544_6966

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 109 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate

33 view 33(N) | Pembridge Place, at junction with Pembridge Villas | Winter 2544_7951 2544_7955

Existing Proposed

6.103 This view looks south down the avenue of trees along 6.104 The top of the north elevation of the Corner Building of the Pembridge Place within the Pembridge Conservation Area. Proposed Development may be visible through the screen Newcombe House is not visible. of trees in winter, though it will be a distant form, and its Portland stone elevations will make it a recessive component of the view. If noticed at all it will landmark the Notting Hill station, assisting in wayfinding, while leaving the significance of the Pembridge Conservation Area unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

110 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 33(N) | Pembridge Place, at junction with Pembridge Villas | Winter 33 2544_7956

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 111 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

34 view 34(M) | At junction of Dawson Place and Pembridge Place | Winter 2544_7351 2544_7355

Existing Proposed

6.105 From further south along Pembridge Place, the rear of two 6.106 The top of the north elevation of the Corner Building of the of the listed buildings on Pembridge Square are visible. Proposed Development may be visible through the screen Newcombe House is not visible. of trees in winter, though it will be a distant form, and its Portland stone elevations will make it a recessive component of the view. If noticed at all it will landmark the Notting Hill station, assisting in wayfinding, while leaving the significance of the Pembridge Conservation Area unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

112 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 34(M) | At junction of Dawson Place and Pembridge Place | Winter 34 2544_7356

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 113 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

35 view 35(24) | Pembridge Villas – Junction with Chepstow Crescent 2544_3401 2544_3405

Existing Proposed

6.107 This view south in the Pembridge Conservation Area, with the 6.108 No change. rear of a listed house to the east (but screened in summer by trees), has a three/four storey 19th century terrace of houses Significance of impact: neutral to the west. The heavily tree-lined avenue street vista is terminated by Campden Hill Tower.

114 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 35(24) | Pembridge Villas – Junction with Chepstow Crescent 35 2544_3406

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 115 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

36 view 36(25) | Pembridge Square – Outside no.30 2544_3501 2544_3505

Existing Proposed

6.109 This south-westerly view from Pembridge Square, through the 6.110 No change. central Gardens, within the Pembridge Conservation Area, has multiple listed four/five storey detached stucco rendered Significance of impact: neutral houses to the south and southwest of the Square. The plain brickwork of an inter-war ‘modern’ block of flats contrasts with the original stucco of the adjacent listed properties, but main- tains their height and sense of enclosure. Newcombe House is not visible.

116 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 36(25) | Pembridge Square – Outside no.30 36 2544_3506

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 117 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

37 view 37(27.1) | Linden Gardens – West side | Winter 2544_3751 2544_3755

Existing Proposed

6.111 This southerly view from within the Pembridge Conservation 6.112 The Proposed Development has been designed to comple- Area is taken where the mid-19th century Italian Renaissance ment its historic context: the Corner Building will complement style terraced houses create a tight enclosure to the street the setting of the foreground buildings. Its East Form will have space – a little further north the street enclosure is frag- an apparent height from this view location that coincides mented by the underground tube line. The four storeys with the parapet of the north elevation in Linden Gardens terraced houses, of brickwork with stone dressings including ahead. Its sunlit east elevation relates to Kensington Church porticos and heavily modelled door and window cases, have Street adjacent to it. The taller Central Form will be mostly a tall, vertical emphasis. Newcombe House, located across concealed: it will be invisible a few steps before, more visible a Notting Hill Gate, is visible through the corner gap beyond few steps forward, and will read as a separate urban form. Its the Grade II listed entrance arch from Linden Gardens, and high quality design and materials will enhance the setting of contrasts with the dominant foreground character. the listed entrance arch, and the significance of the conservation area will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, beneficial

118 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 37(27.1) | Linden Gardens – West side | Winter 37 2544_3756

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 119 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

38 view 38(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 2544_3601 2544_3605

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.113 This southerly view along the southern end of Pembridge 6.114 The Proposed Development has been designed to comple- 6.115 Part of the northern elevation of David Game House will Gardens is located within the Pembridge Conservation Area. ment its historic context: the slender and elegant silhouette, conclude the street vista, and 66-74 Notting Hill Gate will The street is lined with Grade II listed mid/late 19th century Portland stone cladding, and careful detailing of the Corner increase the bulk and mass of the left hand part of the ‘bottle terraces four storeys tall including attics, with roof dormers Building will complement the setting of the foreground build- neck’, and will have a visual relationship with the Proposed above. A ‘bottle neck’ narrows the street where it meets ings. The Proposed Development will not be visible from the Development beyond. Their impact on the street view will Notting Hill Gate with two modern buildings: the earlier of the opposite pavement (see view 38a below). The significance of be moderate. They will leave the heritage assets in view two on the left exposes its brick party wall, detracting from the conservation area and the settings of the listed buildings unharmed. the otherwise ‘whiteness’ of the street. Newcombe House will be left unharmed. rises to one side across Notting Hill Gate, and David Game Significance of impact: major, beneficial House, with its multi-coloured spandrel panels concludes the Significance of impact: major, neutral street vista. Pembridge Gardens has an established modern urban context that includes a tall building, but the quality of the modern architecture is poor.

120 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 38(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 38 2544_3606

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 121 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

38n view 38n(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 | Night 2544_3651 2544_3655

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.116 The urban context is described in the day view above. At 6.117 The residential interiors of the Corner Building of the Proposed 6.118 Part of the northern elevation of David Game House will dusk, the street lights and the office interiors of David Game Development will emit low levels of light, complementary to conclude the street vista: its modern office interiors are likely House emit the strongest light, with random subdued lighting that emanating from the residential terrace in the foreground. to emit a uniform level of light when occupied. 66-74 Notting from the residential interiors of the terraces, which vary with The street lights and the office interiors of David Game House Hill Gate will increase the bulk and mass of the left hand part occupancy. will continue to provide the strongest levels of light. The of the ‘bottle neck’, and will have a visual relationship with the settings of the heritage assets will be left unharmed. Proposed Development beyond. Their impact on the street view will be moderate. They will leave the heritage assets in Significance of impact: major, neutral view unharmed.

Significance of impact: major, beneficial

122 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

view 38n(26) | Pembridge Gardens – Outside no.6 | Night 38n 2544_3656

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 123 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

38a Pembridge Gardens – From Vincent House 2544_3621 2544_3625

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Cumulative

6.119 This southerly view along the southern end of Pembridge 6.120 No change. 6.121 The consent for David Game House will be visible through Gardens is located within the Pembridge Conservation Area, the trees in winter as the conclusion of the street vista. 66-74 further north and from the opposite side of the road to view Significance of impact: neutral Notting Hill Gate to the left will be mostly concealed by 38. The street is lined with Grade II listed mid/late 19th trees. The setting of the heritage assets in view will be left century terraces four storeys tall including attics, with roof unharmed. dormers above. David Game House, with its multi-coloured spandrel panels will be concludes the street vista, though will Significance of impact: minor, neutral be largely screened by trees.

124 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Views Sequence 7: Views 33-38 South from Pembridge Estate (continued)

Pembridge Gardens – From Vincent House 38a 2544_3626

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 125 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens

39 view 39(32) | Kensington Gardens – Lancaster Gate entrance | Spring 2544_4251 2544_4255

Existing Proposed

6.122 Kensington Gardens, a Grade I listed Park and Garden, 6.123 In summer, the Proposed Development will be entirely is defined as the western extent of Hyde Park, with West concealed by the dense foliage of the avenue of trees. In Carriage Drive (The Ring) and the Serpentine Bridge forming winter, the Proposed Development will remain screened by the boundary between them. The Gardens are fenced and tree branches, though a small part of its tall building may more formal than Hyde Park. Kensington Gardens are open be slightly visible in the distance through the trees. Its light- only during the hours of daylight. In this westerly view, the coloured Portland stone cladding articulated by slender vertical dense avenue of trees channels the eye towards Campden Hill window strips – if noticed at all – will be recessive in colora- Tower, the southern, left hand, edge of which aligns with the tion and will have a negligible to minor impact on the view centre of the footpath. depending on the lighting conditions. Campden Hill Tower beyond will remain the distant focus of the vista, the Proposed Development a peripheral form. The setting of the Royal Park, a Grade I listed Park and Garden, will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

126 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 39(32) | Kensington Gardens – Lancaster Gate entrance | Spring 39 2544_4256

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 127 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

40 view 40(35.1) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond | Winter 2544_0611 2544_0615

Existing Proposed

6.124 This equates to ‘View 12: Kensington Palace from Hyde Park’ 6.126 The Proposed Development will be 1km distant and located in WCC’s Metropolitan Views Draft SPD (October 2007; CD well to the right of the view. Only a small part of its top will 8.4), which bears the description: “Seen across the lake, the be visible above the undulating tree line. In relation to the low skyline is only interrupted by the Royal Kensington Hotel Middleground, the Proposed Development will not block block. The outline of the Palace is softened by the backdrop views of Kensington Palace; and it will not affect the“outline of a continuous tree canopy. These Trees help to screen the of the Palace” in this view across the Round Pond. The Royal upper stories of apartment blocks to the west. On the western Kensington Hotel block and the spire of the Grade II* listed side of the Lake, the outline of the Palace can be enjoyed set St Mary Abbot Church will remain the most visible back- against the sky.” The view’s focus and composition is also clar- ground forms above the tree line. The Proposed Development ified:“This focus is the east front of the Palace, which appears will be no more visible than the top corners of the Grade II to be set in a semi-rural location. Trees frame the view and Barkers’ Store beyond the Royal Kensington Hotel, which is the Round Pond provides an attractive foreground.” not mentioned in the SPD view. The Proposed Development would not detract from the setting of the Royal Park, the 6.125 View protection relates to its ‘Foreground’, formed by the setting of either the Grade I listed Kensington Palace or the Round Pond; and its ‘Middleground’, where it is stated that: significance of the Grade I Registered ‘Park and Garden’. Its “Whilst the trees enhance the view and help screen unsym- minor visibility in the distance, well away from the principal pathetic development in the background, it will be impor- visual axis of the view towards Kensington Palace, will leave tant to ensure that their future management avoids views the settings of the heritage assets unharmed. of the Palace being blocked.” As for its ‘Background’: “The background to the Palace is potentially vulnerable to further Significance of impact: minor, neutral development in the residential area between Hyde Park and Holland Park and any proposals will need careful assessment to ensure that this view is not compromised.”

128 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 40(35.1) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond | Winter 40 2544_0616

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 129 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

41 view 41(33.1e) | Kensington Gardens – West of Round Pond | Summer 2544_0621 2544_0625

Existing Proposed

6.127 This western view in Kensington Gardens, a Grade I listed Park 6.128 No change. and Garden, is taken from just west of the Round Pond and focuses on a tree at centre, with the Grade I listed Kensington Significance of impact: neutral Palace to the left: the Grade II listed Statue of Victoria is under scaffolding in its foreground. The ancillary buildings to the right, including the Grade I listed Orangery and the sunken garden, are mostly concealed by hedging and trees: the lower parts of the Orangery are just visible under the tree to the right.

130 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 41(33.1e) | Kensington Gardens – West of Round Pond | Summer 41 2544_0626

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 131 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

42a view 42a(33.1f) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 2544_0631 2544_0635

Existing Proposed

Existing Proposed Significance of impact: neutral to minor, neutral

6.129 These are incidental views, experienced kinetically as part of 6.131 In view 42a, the feathered top edge of the Portland stone a wider experience of the locality. Views 42a-42b were not and glass Corner Building of the Proposed Development may included in the original planning submission and were subse- have the slightest impact above the treeline in summer, and quently requested by Westminster City Council planning foreground trees will mostly screen its recessive coloration in officers. The views approach the Broadwalk in a north-west- winter. In view 42b, there will be no visibility of the Proposed erly direction from a minor diagonal path through Kensington Development in summer, and foreground trees will mostly Gardens. The SE corner of the Grade I listed Kensington screen its recessive coloration in winter. The impact on these Palace is hidden behind trees, so that mostly only its south incidental views is therefore likely to be negligible. face is visible in view 42a, and entrance east face in 42b. 6.132 In view 42c, the feathered top edge of the Portland stone 6.130 View 42c was part of the original planning submission. It and glass Corner Building of the Proposed Development may is taken in winter, and off the main axis of the east front be visible through the branches of the trees in winter, but – of Kensington Palace, which aligns with the Grade II listed experienced kinetically – it will be a distant form related to the Statue of Victoria to the right. Views 40 – 41 above are the other – more visible – buildings around it, including Campden axial views of the east front. View 42c is therefore an inci- Hill Tower. It will not be visible at all when the trees are in leaf. dental view, and Views 40-41 the principal – or ‘key’ views. At centre, urban development is clearly visible in the distant 6.133 In all three incidental views, the Proposed Development will background of the Palace buildings, including Campden Hill be a distant, incidental urban form, and the settings of the Tower in the gap between the trees to the left of the statue. Grade I listed Kensington Palace and Orangery and Grade The Grade I listed Orangery is visible to the right of the statue II listed Statue of Victoria will not be ‘compromised’, nor will in the middleground. they be harmed. Kensington Palace will continue to dominate the foreground of the views.

132 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 42a(33.1f) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 42a 2544_0636

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 133 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

42b view 42b(33.1c) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 2544_0591 2544_0595

Existing Proposed

134 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 42b(33.1c) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Summer 42b 2544_0596

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 135 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

42c view 42c(33.1) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Winter 2544_4351 2544_4355

Existing Proposed

136 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 42c(33.1) | Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace | Winter 42c 2544_4356

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 137 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

43 view 43(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Winter 2544_4651 2544_4655

Existing Proposed

6.134 This is a private road with restricted access. The houses at 6.135 The Proposed Development will replace Newcombe House the northern end are mostly Italianate, while those at the in the view. It will be taller, with slender and elegant propor- southern end are mostly in the Queen Anne style. For much tions, and faced in high quality materials, including Portland of the 20th century a large proportion of the houses were stone. While taller than Newcombe House, it will be largely occupied by embassies and ambassadors’ residences, though concealed by evergreen trees, and a similar surface area will now some are privately owned. 18-19 Kensington Palace be visible. It will represent an enhancement over the existing Gardens is owned by Lakshmi Mittal and is Grade II* listed. Newcombe House because of its proportions, high quality No. 20 to the right is Grade II listed. Newcombe House can design and materials. The settings of the listed buildings and be seen in the distance between them partially obscured by the significance of the Kensington Palace Conservation Area evergreen trees. will be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

138 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 43(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Winter 43 2544_4656

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 139 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

43n view 43n(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Night 2544_4661 2544_4665

Existing Proposed

140 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 43n(36.1) | Kensington Palace Gardens | Night 43n 2544_4666

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 141 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

44 view 44(B) | Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace 2544_6201 2544_6205

Existing Proposed

Existing: Proposed

6.136 his north-westerly view in the Kensington Palace Conservation 6.137 No change. Area is channelled by the long terraces and trees lining the street. None of the buildings in view is listed. This is a high Significance of impact: neutral density inward-looking urban enclosure.

142 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 8: Views 39-42a/b/c and 43-44 West/north west from Kensington Gardens (continued)

view 44(B) | Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace 44 2544_6206

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 143 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster

A1 view A1(A1) | Hallfield Estate, entrance to Exeter House 2544_0521 2544_0525

Existing Proposed

Existing view selected is taken from further within the site just south of view 8. 6.138 The Hallfield Estate, comprises residential and predominantly linear slab blocks, between six and ten storeys high, that run Proposed parallel or at right angles to one another, at odds with the older Bayswater urban grid of parallel streets and buildings. 6.140 No change. Instead of regular aligned windows punched into facades of brick and stucco, the broad expansive faces of the blocks are Significance of impact: neutral patterned by white balcony strips linked vertically to create distinctive rectilinear patterns, all arranged in a gridded masonry frame. The slabs are laid out with spacious open landscaped spaces between. Built by the former London County Council according to designs by Tecton that were executed by Lasdun and Drake (and extensively refurbished in the 1990s), Hallfield was designated a conservation area by Westminster City Council in 1990, and the majority of Estate buildings were listed Grade II in June 2011. Due to the distinctive, separate character of the Estate, with its greater mass and scale, and its distance from the Site, the setting of this area is considered to have a minor sensitivity to change.

6.139 Only one of the local views identified in the CAA Consultation Draft for this conservation area (WCC, March 2008; Fig. 38 Local Views), view 4, is directed towards the Site – however, the view is very local and blocked by foreground buildings. The

144 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

view A1(A1) | Hallfield Estate, entrance to Exeter House A1 2544_0526

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 145 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

A2 view A2(A2) | Talbot Road, looking south along Moorhouse Road 2544_0531 2544_0535

Existing Proposed

6.141 Westbourne Conservation Area Audit (WCC, 2002) was first 6.142 The Proposed Development would be an addition to the designated in 1973 and extended in 1978. The area (and skyline beyond the conservation area. The tallest part of the parts of Kensington adjacent) was laid out and developed Proposed Development would appear 0.5km distant above mostly around 1850-1855 following the earlier rapid urbani- the roofline of the terrace that terminates the street vista. The sation of Bayswater and Paddington to the south and east. upper part of the slender tall building faced in Portland stone Westbourne Grove itself still crossed open fields as late as would have a recessive coloration, which would provide an 1840. Architectural form and townscape are recognisably elegant distant skyline focus to the street vista, landmarking coherent comprising both terrace and villa developments Notting Hill Gate and the Underground Station and assisting mainly arranged either side of streets running north-south local wayfinding. The Proposed Development would not harm between Westbourne Grove and Talbot Road, giving the area the significance of the conservation area or the setting of the a rigid grid pattern, except for the terraces and villas around listed buildings, largely screened by trees. St. Stephen’s church, Westbourne Park Road. Generally, a more modest scale, three or four storeys, than nearby Bayswater but Significance of impact: minor, neutral employing a similar combination of brick and stucco facades, many in compositions emphasising the end and centre group of houses as in Chepstow Road. In land use terms, the area is predominantly residential, the main exceptions being the Victorian shopping street of Westbourne Grove and the informal workspaces found in rear mews. This view is located in the western part of the conservation area at the northern end of Moorhouse Road, looking south.

146 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

view A2(A2) | Talbot Road, looking south along Moorhouse Road A2 2544_0536

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 147 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

A3 view A3(A3) | Talbot Road, looking south along Courtnell Street 2544_0541 2544_0545

Existing Proposed

6.143 This view is located in the western part of the Westbourne 6.144 The street vista is dominated by trees, even in this early Conservation Area, at the northern end of Courtnell Street, summer photograph. The tallest part of the Proposed immediately west of view A2 (see the description of the Development would be partially screened by the trees and will context there). be mostly concealed in summer. Located 0.5km to the south, it would appear above the roofline of the houses that line Artesian Road. If noticed at all, it would be a slender, elegant and distant form with a recessive Portland stone coloration articulated by vertical window strips. It would appear lower than the existing slab block to the left. The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area, and the settings of the heritage assets in view would be left unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

148 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

view A3(A3) | Talbot Road, looking south along Courtnell Street A3 2544_0546

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 149 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

A4 view A4(A4) | Talbot Road, looking south along Sutherland Place 2544_0551 2544_0555

Existing Proposed

6.145 This view is located in the western part of the Westbourne 6.146 The tallest part of the Proposed Development would margin- Conservation Area, at the northern end of Sutherland Place, ally break the roofline of the buildings on Artesian Road, and immediately east of view A2 (see the description of the would rise slightly above the terrace on the western side of context there). Sutherland Place and the western elevation of the Grade II listed RC Church of St Mary and the Angels. However, it would be a distant form and there is a taller building to its immediate right closer to the viewpoint. Any visibility would be negligible due to the screening offered by the trees on Sutherland Place (partial in winter/complete in summer). The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of the conservation area or the setting of the heritage asset in view.

Significance of impact: negligible

150 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

view A4(A4) | Talbot Road, looking south along Sutherland Place A4 2544_0556

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 151 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

A5 view A5(35) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond 2544_4501 2544_4505

Existing Proposed

6.147 This view is taken slightly further south of View 40 above, and 6.148 The impact of the Proposed Development and the descrip- the panorama extends from the spire of the Grade II* listed tion and conclusions reached for View 40 otherwise remain St Mary Abbot Church on the left (excluding the tall modern the same. The Proposed Development would not detract blocks to its left). from the setting of the Royal Park, the setting of either the Grade I listed Kensington Palace or the significance of the Grade I Registered ‘Park and Garden’. Its minor visibility in the distance, well away from the principal visual axis of the view towards Kensington Palace, will leave the settings of the heritage assets unharmed.

Significance of impact: minor, neutral

152 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 View Sequence 9: Views A1-A5: West from Westminster (continued)

view A5(35) | Kensington Gardens – East of Round Pond A5 2544_4506

Cumulative

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 153 Townscape and Conservation Area Assessment

6.149 The characters of the townscape and conservation areas part of the Kensington Conservation Area, and the high Listed Buildings and Registered Landscapes within the Study Area are judged to be the same. quality landmark tall building of the Proposed Development would not harm its significance. 6.159 Relevant Listed Buildings are indicated in Figure 4-1 and Conclusions regarding Linear View Sequence 1 described in Table 4-1 (and see DIA’s HBCAA 2017 for further 6.150 The townscape would be enhanced in each of the five views Significance of likely effect: minor, neutral to major, detail). Listed buildings in the wider surrounding area are that run in a sequence south-north along Kensington Church beneficial described where relevant within the Views Assessment above. Street. The overall quality of the townscape and conservation Potential impacts are assessed in the following Table 6-1. area is judged to be between low to high, with low to high Conclusions regarding View Sequence 6 sensitivity to change. The Proposed Development would not 6.155 The overall quality of the townscape and conservation area harm the significance of the conservation areas; the settings is judged to be high with medium sensitivity to change. of the listed buildings would be enhanced. As set out in para Tall buildings are already visible within and adjacent to the 2.10 above, considerable weight and importance should be southern part of the Ladbroke Conservation Area, and the high Table 6-1 Assessment of Impacts on Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens given to this enhancement. quality landmark tall building of the Proposed Development Likely would not harm its significance. The townscape would be Likely significance significance of Significance of likely effect: minor to major, beneficial enhanced in the three views assessed in which the Proposed of effect on cumulative effect Development would be visible. The Proposed Development Resulting likely effects on significance on significance Ref Listed structure Likely effects on setting significance of asset of asset of asset Conclusions regarding View Sequence 2 would not harm the significance or settings of the heritage Listed Buildings 6.151 The townscape would be enhanced in each of the four views, assets in the views. which run west-east along Notting Hill Gate. The overall 1 Notting Hill Gate As noted in Table 4-1, the station has a very Only the roofline of the listed building would Negligible Negligible quality of the townscape and conservation area is judged to Significance of likely effect: neutral to minor, neutral Underground limited setting, is only visible from within be visible from the Site. The relationship Station the Site, and is therefore not shown in any between the listed building, the historic be low to moderate with medium sensitivity to change. The of the views. The Proposed Development Jameson Street terrace to the west, and the Proposed Development would not harm the significance of Conclusions regarding View Sequence 7 would be intervisible with the listed building Bethesda Baptist Chapel to the south, which the conservation areas in the first view in the sequence. 6.156 The Proposed Development will not be visible in half of from within the carpark at the centre of the contribute to the building’s significance, the views assessed in the sequence of 6 views through the Site, and would form a new element within would not be affected by the Proposed Significance of likely effect: minor to major, beneficial Pembridge Conservation Area. The overall quality of the its setting. Development. Although the Proposed Development would form a major new townscape and conservation area is judged to be high with addition to setting of the station, it would be Conclusions regarding View Sequence 3 high sensitivity to change. Where it is visible it is evident that consistent with the character of its existing 6.152 The townscape would be enhanced in each of the four views, the Proposed Development has been designed to comple- setting which includes the substantial which run east-west along Notting Hill Gate from Bayswater. ment its historic context: the slender and elegant silhouette, modern buildings on the Site. The overall quality of the townscape and conservation area is Portland stone cladding, and careful detailing of the Corner 2 The Gate Cinema The likely effects on the setting of the listed Although forming a major new element Negligible Negligible buildings are shown in View 18, which shows of the buildings’ setting, the carefully- judged to be low to high with medium sensitivity to change. Building will complement the setting of the listed buildings. 3 Coronet Cinema The Proposed Development would not harm the significance The townscape would be enhanced. The significance of the the perspective from Uxbridge Street, and considered palette and materiality of the Views 7, 8 and 9, which show the perspective Proposed Development would ensure that or the settings of any heritage assets. conservation area and the settings of the listed buildings from Notting Hill Gate. From the west end of it read as a distant form, visually distinct would be left unharmed. Notting Hill Gate the Proposed Development from the foreground historic buildings. The Significance of likely effect: minor to major, beneficial would be visible as a distant slender form, visibility of the Proposed Development Significance of likely effect: minor to major, neutral appearing lower and less broad than the would not affect the relationship between Conclusions regarding View Sequence 4 modern foreground development, including the listed buildings and the surrounding Campden Hill Towers. From Uxbridge Street, buildings which form their historic context. 6.153 The townscape would be enhanced in each of the four views, Conclusions regarding View Sequence 8 the Proposed Development would be seen in The buildings’ wider setting, which is which run southwards through the Ladbroke Conservation Area 6.157 The overall quality of the townscape and conservation area relation to the rear elevation of the historic characterised by mixed built forms of and Pembridge Conservation Area. The overall quality of the is judged to be high with high sensitivity to change. Most of terrace lining the north side of the road, varying scale, age and form, would not be townscape and conservation area is judged to be high with the views look across the Royal Parks and Kensington Palace but would again appear lower and less fundamentally altered by the Proposed high sensitivity to change. The Proposed Development would Conservation Area, from where there would be limited or dominant than Campden Hill Towers. Development. not harm the significance or the settings of any heritage assets. no views. The significance of the conservation area and the 4 23, Kensington As shown in View 24, a small part of the Due to the carefully-selected palette and Negligible Negligible settings of the listed buildings would not be harmed. Place Proposed Development would be visible materiality of the Proposed Development, rising above the roofline of 23 Kensington it would appear as a distant form, visually Significance of likely effect: minor, neutral to major, Place. Part of the Proposed Development distinct from the historic foreground beneficial Significance of likely effect: neutral to minor, neutral would also be seen above the roofline of the development. Although forming a new Kensington Place terrace, further to the east. element within the setting of 23 Kensington Conclusions regarding View Sequence 5 Conclusions regarding View Sequence 9 Although visible, the Proposed Development Place, visibility of the Proposed Development would be a minor element within the setting would be consistent with the wider character 6.154 Twelve views in the Kensington Conservation Area were 6.158 These comprise two sets of views in Westminster, in the of the listed building and would reduce of the building’s setting which includes assessed in this sequence. The overall quality of the town- Hallfield Estate and Westbourne Conservation Areas. The in prominence as the receptor advanced substantial modern buildings to the north scape and conservation area is judged to be high with high overall quality of the townscape and conservation area is eastwards along Kensington Place. and south. The Proposed Development would sensitivity to change. The townscape would be enhanced in judged to be high with medium to high sensitivity to change. not affect the relationship between the listed those views in which the Corner Building is visible. Overall, The Proposed Development would have a minor or negligible building and the surrounding historic terrace, the Proposed Development will provide a new mixed-use impact in these views, and would not harm the significance or which contributes to its significance. urban quarter that will enhance the townscape, and local settings of the heritage assets in the views. wayfinding will be enhanced by the Corner Building. Tall buildings are already visible within and adjacent to the northern Significance of likely effect: neutral to minor, neutral

154 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Likely Likely Likely significance significance of Likely significance significance of of effect on cumulative effect of effect on cumulative effect Resulting likely effects on significance on significance Resulting likely effects on significance on significance Ref Listed structure Likely effects on setting significance of asset of asset of asset Ref Listed structure Likely effects on setting significance of asset of asset of asset 5 128, 132, 134, View 3 shows the effect of the Proposed The listed buildings are within an area of Negligible Negligible 11 Entrance Arch from As shown in View 37, the Proposed Although a new element within the Negligible Negligible 136, 138, Development on the setting of the listed coherent, fine-grained, historic development Linden Gardens, Development would be visible between the setting of the listed building, the carefully- Kensington Church buildings. The tower and east elevation of which forms their primary setting and Linden Mews west and south Linden Garden terraces. In considered palette and materiality of the Street the Proposed Development would be visible contributes to their significance. The views from further to the north along Linden Proposed Development would ensure that along Kensington Church Street, marking carefully-considered palette and materiality Garden, the prominence and apparent scale it read as a distant, distinct form from the junction with Notting Hill Gate. The of the Proposed Development in relation of the Proposed Development would reduce, the foreground historic development. The Proposed Development would form part of to the listed buildings would ensure that and in views from the west side of the road, listed structure’s primary setting, the Linden the buildings’ secondary urban backdrop, it read as a distant and visually distinct it would be screened from view. Gardens terrace and mews, is relatively visually distinct from the surrounding form in views from Kensington Church limited and insular; visibility of the Proposed historic buildings. Street. Although a major new element Development would be consistent with the of the buildings’ setting, the Proposed wider character of the this setting and would Development would complement the not harm the fundamental relationship character of their existing setting, which between the Linden Garden heritage is already defined by mixed built forms, assets, and therefore the significance of the including broad modern buildings to the entrance arch. north and the south. 12 Numbers 4 to View 38 shows the effect of the Proposed Due to the carefully-selected palette and Negligible Negligible 6 Mall Chambers The eastern elevation of the Proposed The eastern elevation of the Proposed Negligible Negligible 34 Pembridge Development on the setting of the materiality of the Proposed Development, Development is likely to be visible in relation Development responds to the palette Gardens Pembridge Gardens terraces. The Proposed it would appear as a distant form, visually to the listed building in views from the east and form of the surrounding townscape Development would be seen in relation to distinct from the historic foreground end of Kensington Mall. The elements of and would enhance the setting of the the modern frontages of Notting Hill Gate, development. From this proximity, the well- the Proposed Development that would be listed building. Its scale, when seen from rising above the roofline of Pembridge articulated façade and high-quality design visible along Kensington Mall would be of a Kensington Mall, would relate well to Gardens. The prominence and apparent would be appreciable, providing additional comparable scale and form to the existing the surrounding historic buildings and scale of the Proposed Development would depth and visual interest to views from buildings on the Site, forming a minor new would form a new, high-quality element reduce as the receptor advanced northwards Pembridge Gardens. Its visibility would be addition to the setting of the listed building. within local views. Its visibility would not along Pembridge Gardens. The building consistent with the mixed urban character fundamentally alter the character of the would not be visible from the east side of of the listed building’s setting which includes listed building’s existing setting which the road. substantial modern buildings to the south includes a range of built forms. and west. The relationship between each of the listed buildings, which contributes to the 7 Second Church of Due to the scale of intervening development The Proposed Development would have no Negligible Negligible significance of the group, would be unharmed Christ Scientist and the orientation of the surrounding impact on the setting of the listed building. by visibility of the Proposed Development. roads, the Proposed Development is unlikely Its significance would therefore remain to be visible from the Second Church of unharmed. 13 Cabman’s Shelter View 16 and 17 and Views 31 and 32 show The Proposed Development’s carefully- Negligible Negligible Christ Scientist. It is also unlikely to be the effect of the Proposed Development considered materiality and palette would 14 Kensington Temple visible in key views of the building from on the setting of the listed buildings. ensure that it read as a retiring, distant form, Palace Gardens Terrace. The Proposed As shown, the tower of the Proposed visually distinct from the surrounding historic Development would therefore have no Development would be visible above terraces. Its visibility would not affect this impact on the setting of the listed building. the roofline of the surrounding terraced primary setting and would be consistent houses, replacing Newcombe House, the with the building’s wider, secondary urban 8 24, Kensington View 43 shows the effect of the Proposed Due to the carefully-selected palette and Negligible Negligible existing building on the Site. The Proposed setting, which includes Campden Hill Towers. Palace Gardens Development on the settings of the materiality of the Proposed Development, Development would be seen as a distant The buildings’ setting and significance would Kensington Palace residences. As shown, it would appear as a receding distant form, 9 Kensington Palace form, its high-quality, slender design adding therefore be preserved. the Proposed Development would be visible visually distinct from the historic foreground Gardens residences further depth and visual interest to the between each of the villas, at various points development. As a minor, glimpsed element setting of the listed buildings. 10 18 and 19, along Kensington Palace Gardens, reducing of views from Kensington Palace Gardens Kensington Palace in apparent size and prominence as the and periodically visible in kinetic views along Gardens receptor advances southwards. The Proposed the road, it would form a minor element Development is unlikely to be visible above of the setting of the listed buildings. The the rooflines of the villas, even towards the buildings’ immediate historical setting and north end of Kensington Palace Gardens. their relationship with one another, which makes an important contribution to their significance, would be unaffected by the Proposed Development.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 155 Overall Conclusion regarding the visual impact of the Proposed Development on relevant Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens

6.160 The overall conclusion regarding the nine view sequences Para 24. “Turning west to the streets in Hillgate Village the some less favourable impacts from the north, overall I find and that they are secured and delivered if you believe they assessed above is that no heritage assets will be harmed impact would be more varied. From the junctions of Hillgate that the effect on the streetscenes from this direction would justify the harm.” by the Proposed Development. The responses of the statu- Place with Jameson Street, and with Hillgate Street, the be neutral”. tory consultees will now be reviewed. While the consultees’ tower would be significantly taller than Newcombe House Final conclusions regarding impacts on the settings of comments refer to the urban and architectural design char- but appear roughly as wide. It would stand above the mostly CONCLUSIONS ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE, heritage assets acter and quality of the previous application/Appeal Scheme, regular rows of houses, and so be at odds with its character. AND DESIGN the design appearance has not changed for the current appli- However, given the well-considered external appearance, 6.169 Our final conclusions with regards to any alleged harm may cation and their comments remain relevant. unlike Newcombe House, the new building would not be 6.164 Para 28. “Taking these views together, I find that the exten- be summarised as follows: unattractive in itself. Moreover, despite its increased height, sive site analysis, and the way that this has been used to Response of Mayor of London on Urban Design and it would be apparent in surprisingly few public views. Further inform the details of the design, would result in a convincing • The assumption that some or any visibility of a new Heritage west, from around Campden Hill Square, the tower would ensemble. In most of these views, as the design has been development in a view will automatically be harmful is either be obscured by buildings or far from prominent in a carefully tailored to respond to its context from each direc- misplaced. Stage II Report more varied streetscene. Overall, from the south west, I find tion, the angle of the proposed tower would be one where the 6.161 The Mayor of London’s Stage II report of 25 April 2016 that the improvement in appearance, where Newcombe positive aspects of the slipped form design would come into • The visual impact on Kensington Palace in View 42c concluded (Ref 1-11; paragraph 28) that the proposals meet House can be seen, would offset the harm as a result of the play and this would be reflected in the quality of the views. used by HE to assess the level of impact of change is the requirements of the relevant London Plan policies: “The proposed tower’s increased height and bulk in these and not from a key viewing location, but simply from an area tall building, public realm and urban setting has been care- other views”. Generally, the combination of the varied proportions of stone where there may be some – very slight – visibility of just fully considered and well resolved and the scheme should be and glazing together with the unifying rhythm would make part of the tall building. a considerable improve[ment] on the existing circumstances. Para 25. “To the west of the site, be that Uxbridge Street the tower appear much more attractive when compared Accordingly, the proposal meets the requirement of London or NHG, the views would be of the side of the taller of the with Newcombe House. In many more views it would be a • The set-piece view towards Kensington Palace is from Plan policies, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7.” slipped forms compared with the existing view of the end small shape in the distance where it would not stand out. the east side of the Round Pond, View 40, described by of Newcombe House. Even disregarding the green netting In closer views, the low rise parts of the proposals would WCC (within whose boundary the view falls) as view 12: 6.162 The report also concluded that the scheme is considered to currently covering this façade, the pattern of solid to glazing be markedly better designed and more attractive than the Kensington Palace from Hyde Park). WCC clearly define accord with London Plan policies in respect of tall buildings, with the corner winter gardens, in a context of 20th century buildings that they would replace”. (Appeal Decision APP/ what is sensitive about this specific view and what would design, housing, affordable housing and transport, stating commercial buildings, would be a marked improvement. K5600/W/16/3149585, pp. 5-7.) harm it. “it is a high quality scheme that would deliver a number of Along Ladbroke Road, where the proposed tower would be public benefits.” (paragraph 47) visible, views would be dominated by Campden Hill Towers Response of Historic England on Heritage impacts (letter • In relation to these sensitivities, in relation to the middle and so the tower would not stand out”. dated 19 January 2016 from Nigel Barker) ground of the view, the Proposed Development will not Response by the Planning Inspector to Character, block views of Kensington Palace; and it will not affect Appearance and Design (Appeal Decision APP/ Para 26. “Further to the north-west, on Kensington Park 6.165 Historic England (HE) assessed the visual impact of the the “outline of the Palace” in the background of the view. K5600/W/16/3149585) Road, the proposed tower would be more prominent and in Proposed Development on adjacent conservation areas, Furthermore, the Proposed Development is located well some views would be at odds with the horizontal forms of compared to that of the existing building – which they regard to the right of the view, will be 1km distant, and only a 6.163 The Inspector concluded at: Para 22 “[…] Looking along NHG the terraced housing. On the other hand, the potential harm as typical of Post-War office buildings and now visually ‘tired’ small part of its top will be visible above the undulating from the east, the current slab that is Newcombe House from the narrow and more elegant face from this direction – as ranging between neutral and beneficial. tree line. The small part of the Proposed Development would be replaced by a much taller tower but one broken should be balanced against the variety of styles and heights that would be visible would be recessive in coloration down and articulated through its twin forms and pattern of of the terraces along the road and against the detrimental 6.166 HE regard as definite benefits the creation of a new public and faced in Portland stone – a high quality material stone to glazing. Overall these would be wider than the end effect of the wide combination of north and west elevations space at the centre of the Proposed Development, along across time – articulated by glass. elevation of Newcombe House but the slipped form would to Newcombe House. On balance, I consider that the effect with improved permeability and higher quality design, and provide a degree of elegance to each half of the tower. The on this streetscene would be neutral”. that the overall impact of the development on the setting of • The Proposed Development would not detract from the stepped height and offset plan form, with a pleasing rhythm adjacent conservation areas to be generally beneficial. As set settings or significance of the Grade I listed Kensington to its fenestration, would provide considerable articulation Para 27. “Finally, from the north, there would be views of out in para 2.10 above, considerable weight and importance Palace, the Grade I Registered ‘Park and Garden’, or that would result in a bold and attractive appearance. In the tower from around Pembridge Square, along one side should be given to this enhancement. the Royal Park. Its minor visibility in the distance, well the context of the varied commercial streetscene, where the of Pembridge Gardens and from Linden Gardens. From the away from the principal visual axis of the view towards existing building is very unattractive, this would be a marked first of these, it would be barely discernible. From the west 6.167 Generally, HE consider that the existing Newcombe House Kensington Palace, will leave the settings of the relevant improvement”. side of Pembridge Gardens there would be a clear view of the has a greater detrimental impact on the setting of conserva- heritage assets unharmed. If noticed at all, it would tower above the closely packed houses. This would be alien to tion areas than the Proposed Development. However: “There modestly remind the viewer that this is an urban park, Para 23. “From the south, in various views along KCS, the their character and distract from their homogeneity. On the is some identified, modest, harm to assets of the higher set in London. It will be seen and understood as a distant transformation from the full width of the ugly slab that is other hand, this would be one of the more elegant views of significance.” In particular, they state that the visibility of object in London’s wider townscape. Newcombe House into the staggered elegant forms of the the taller part of the tower, replace views of the wide slab the Proposed Development in a currently green setting from proposed tower would be even more favourable and a signifi- of Newcombe House, and only be visible from one side of Kensington Palace and Kensington Gardens is unwelcome, • In relation to the incidental view on the Broadwalk, View cant enhancement. In more distant public views from the the street. From Linden Gardens, Newcombe House currently but that the significance of that harm“is clearly less than 42c. This is not a key view, and while the background south east the tower would either be screened by existing fills the width of the view above the delightful arch at the substantial” (my emphasis). of Kensington Palace would certainly be sensitive to a housing or not prominent on account of the distance and the corner between the rows of terraced houses. This would be change to its foreground and background, the Proposed more slender proportions of the slipped forms from this angle. replaced by a taller tower roughly filling the width. However, 6.168 In line with their assessment of ‘less than substantial’ harm Development is located to the right of the Palace well As these views also contain a variety of building styles, and the stepped form would mean that its elements would be in relation to the impact on Kensington Palace, HE advised beyond a foreground statue and trees in the middle some tall structures, the effect from greater distances would better articulated and receding and so more attractive than RBKC: “to ensure that the public benefits being put forward ground, which would evidently mostly screen its visual be neutral”. Newcombe House. While I acknowledge that there would be are convincing, that they outweigh the extent of the harm impact even in winter. The setting of Kensington Palace

156 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 will neither be ‘compromised’ nor harmed in these inci- surgery adjacent would serve the wider community at would be as a result of impact on views from Hillgate Village dental views. Notting Hill Gate; and the perimeter shops, restaurants, in the Kensington CA, Kensington Park Road in the Ladbroke including carefully curated independent retailers at CA, and from Pembridge Gardens in the Pembridge CA. • Consequently, with regards to WCC policy, Newcombe ground and lower ground levels, would serve local resi- However, even where the impact would not be neutral or an House is not ‘adjacent’ to the Royal Park, and its partial dents and create a local destination in its own right; enhancement, the overall effect would be only minor harm. and incidental visibility in the key view of Kensington The same applies to Kensington Palace and Kensington Palace leads me to conclude that the Proposed • the retail frontage has been increased significantly Gardens. Nevertheless, even combining the minor harm to all Development would not contravene policy relating to across the site by optimising the use of the basement the heritage assets, I find that the impact would be well below tall buildings and their impact on heritage assets and for ancillary space and carefully locating the residen- the hurdle for substantial harm. I have therefore considered open space, including the Royal Park. tial and office cores. In addition to the introduction of the potential public benefits before reaching my conclusion retail frontage to Notting Hill Gate and improvements on this issue.” Heritage Benefits to the Kensington Church Street frontage, will enhance • replacement of an existing tall building, which is the town centre and encourage pedestrians into the And finally, described as an “eyesore” by the Council’s Local Plan, animated site, ensuring the creation of a new vibrant and which has a negative visual impact on surrounding destination; “62. As set out above, the scheme would be acceptable and conservation areas and listed buildings, with a well- accord with the development plan with regard to character designed, well-proportioned residential tall building that • new high quality Grade A office employment space, and appearance, and design. will leave all heritage assets unharmed; and including large, flexible office floor plates would be unique to Notting Hill Gate and meet diverse local 63. There would be some less than substantial harm to some • the provision of step free access from street level to the occupier requirements; and the high quality residential designated heritage assets, including the Ladbroke CA and eastbound (inner rail) Circle and District line platform. accommodation would complement and strengthen the Royal Parks CA, for which there would be a small negative The opportunity for step free access to this platform is existing residential community at Notting Hill Gate; and impact. In other CAs, the effects on some of the different unique to this Site and will only be delivered as part of views would pull in different directions so that there would be its comprehensive redevelopment. English Heritage said • fully integrated servicing, with public cycle parking and no overall harm to the settings or an enhancement. However, that this would increase the resilience of the Grade II basement car parking, and the provision of a new cycle in each instance of harm, or even taken together, the substan- listed station by facilitating step free access, and has the hire stand near Notting Hill Gate Underground Station, tial benefits of the scheme would clearly outweigh this. On potential to reduce the risk of pressure for further, poten- will ensure the functional – and popular – success of the balance, on the issue of settings, the proposals would be tially inappropriate alterations. Proposed Development. supported by NPPF134. It would comply with London Plan policy 7.8 which expects development affecting heritage Townscape Benefits 6.170 The planning appraisal by Quod identifies broader additional assets to conserve their significance. The scheme would • the removal of buildings that are inaccessible, imperme- public benefits. accord with CLP policies CL3a, and CL4 which require devel- able and have reached the end of their functional and opment to preserve or enhance the character or appearance economic life, including an poorly designed existing Response of the Planning Inspector regarding impact on of a CA and its setting; and protect the heritage significance tall building, replaced by the spaces and buildings of Settings (June 2017) of listed buildings and their settings.” the Proposed Development that respond directly to the needs of the immediate locality and its wider setting; 6.171 The Planning Inspector concluded in his decision of June 2017 in relation to the impact of the Proposed Development • the architecture and urban design of the Proposed on the settings of heritage assets [Appeal Decision APP/ Development is contextual and of the highest stand- K5600/W/16/3149585] that: ards visually and materially, in silhouette and in detail, and would provide an exemplar for the regeneration of Para 41. “[…] I find that there would be some harm in some Notting Hill Gate; views within the settings of both some of the CAs, a listed building and a heritage asset. However, there would also be • the Proposed Development would create a coherent a high degree of enhancement while in several instances the urban quarter with a public square at its heart and a effect would be neutral. In none of the cases where there slender, elegant Corner Building to define a regener- would be any harm to a heritage asset would this amount ated and enhanced district centre, marking the street to substantial harm under paragraphs 132-134 of the NPPF. junction of Notting Hill Gate and Kensington Church As the scheme would replace one tower block with another, I Street, and the adjacent new public realm framed by give limited weight to the concern that allowing the appeal the listed station to the west and Kensington Church would set a precedent for other tower blocks which might be Street to the east; there would be new step free access harmful. from street level to the eastbound (inner rail) Circle and District line platform; Para 42. I have considered the way that the balance between harm and enhancement should be struck, including the possi- • the new public square would be accessible, permeable bility that less than substantial harm to many heritage assets and inclusive and would provide a vibrant space for the could, cumulatively, amount to substantial harm. Looking at existing Saturday Farmers’ Market; the provision of a GP each CA in turn, I find that the greatest harm to any setting

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 157 7 Mitigation and Residual Effects

Table 7-1 Summary of Residual Effects Mitigation of potential effects during demolition and Geographical construction extent of likely Sensitivity significant effect to change Significance of likely significant effect Significance of likely significant cumulative effect 7.1 Mitigation of potential effects would be through the use of Townscape/ Conservation Areas appropriate hoarding and following industry best practice Kensington Conservation Area local to district high neutral to minor, and neutral to major, beneficial n/a to moderate and major, beneficial construction standards. No mitigation of the visibility of Kensington Palace Conservation Area local to district high minor to major, beneficial and neutral to minor, neutral n/a large plant and equipment above roofs and trees is proposed; it is considered that mitigation measures to hide the visi- Pembridge Conservation Area local to district high neutral to minor and major neutral, and minor to major, beneficial n/a to major, beneficial bility of such activities and equipment, for example high Ladbroke Conservation Area local to district high minor to major, beneficial n/a to moderate and major, beneficial level screening, would be more visually obtrusive than the Notting Hill Gate SPD area (Ref 1-13) local low minor to major, beneficial minor, beneficial process or equipment itself. Site lighting would be designed Hallfield Estate Conservation Area district high neutral n/a to illuminate the Site while minimising light pollution in the Westbourne Conservation Area district high minor, neutral n/a surrounding areas by selecting light sources of the minimum Visual intensity required for site illumination and evaluating the lighting design to ensure that light is used only where needed. 1 – Holland Park Avenue, west of Ladbroke Terrace, Viewing East (Winter) local high minor, beneficial n/a 2 – Kensington Church Street – South of Gloucester Walk local high minor, beneficial n/a 7.2 The Applicant would develop and implement a Construction 3 – Kensington Church Street – South of Campden Street local high moderate, beneficial n/a Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which would set 4 – Kensington Church Street Opposite Edge Street local low major, beneficial n/a out the standards and procedures to which the Applicant 5 – Kensington Church Street – Junction with Kensington Mall local low major, beneficial n/a would adhere while demolition and construction takes place; this would manage the short term environmental effects. 6 – Holland Park Avenue, west of Ladbroke Terrace, Viewing East (Winter) local to district moderate moderate, beneficial n/a 7 – Notting Hill Gate, Opposite Junction with Campden Hill Road local moderate minor, beneficial n/a 7.3 Mitigation measures would have the greatest likely significant 8 – Notting Hill Gate – Outside Jamie Oliver Restaurant local low major, beneficial minor, beneficial effect in the areas adjoining the Site, where hoarding would 9 – Notting Hill Gate – Corner with Pembridge Road local low minor, beneficial minor, beneficial screen views of construction activities at the lower level. 10 – Bayswater Road, Junction with Kensington Palace Gardens local to district moderate minor, beneficial n/a 11 – Bayswater Road at Junction with Ossington Street local to district high moderate, beneficial moderate, beneficial Mitigation of potential effects during operation 11n – Bayswater Road at Junction with Ossington Street at Dusk local to district high moderate, beneficial moderate, beneficial

7.4 The acceptability of the long-term potential effects of the 12 – Notting Hill Gate, by Junction with Linden Gardens local low major, beneficial major, beneficial completed Development has been an integral part of the 13 – Notting Hill Gate – Looking South Along Kensington Church Street local low major, beneficial major, beneficial design approach. It has been implemented through the 14 – Kensington Park Road, Junction with Ladbroke Gardens district high minor, neutral n/a design development process and has been used to adapt and 15 – Outside the WCs at Westbourne Grove and Denbigh Road district high minor, beneficial n/a modify the designs to take account of constraints and opportunities in relation to potential townscape and visual effects. 16 – Kensington Park Road, Opposite Junction with Ladbroke Square local to district high moderate, beneficial moderate, beneficial Potential negative effects have been considered throughout 17 – Kensington Park Road by Kensington Temple (winter) local to district high major, beneficial major, beneficial the design process and are avoided by the submitted design 17n – Kensington Park Road by Kensington Temple (winter) at Dusk local to district high major, beneficial major, beneficial of the Proposed Development. 18 – Uxbridge Street by Farm Place Viewing East local high moderate, beneficial moderate, beneficial 19 – Outside 25 Campden Hill Square (Winter) local to district high minor, neutral n/a 7.5 For reasons already discussed in this assessment, the 20 – Campden Hill Square, South (Winter) local to district high negligible n/a Proposed Development is not anticipated to result in any likely negative townscape or visual effects either in isolation 21 – Outside the rear of the Youth Hostel in Holland Park district high neutral n/a or cumulatively with other cumulative development. As such, 22 – Outside 50 Bedford Gardens district high neutral n/a additional mitigation is not required and the likely significant 23 – At Junction of Wycombe Square and Aubrey Walk local to district high moderate, beneficial n/a residual effects of the Proposed Development on townscape 23n – At Junction of Wycombe Square and Aubrey Walk at Dusk local high moderate, beneficial n/a and visual amenity would remain as identified in Section 6 of 24 – Kensington Place – Junction with Hillgate Place local high minor, neutral n/a the assessment and are summarised in Table 7-1. 25 – Hillgate Place by Hillgate Street Viewing Northeast local high major, beneficial n/a 26 – Outside 16 Kensington Place local high minor, neutral n/a 27 – Kensington Place – Junction with Jameson Street local high neutral moderate, beneficial 28 – Hillgate Place Outside No 1 local high major, beneficial major, beneficial 28n – Hillgate Place Outside No 1 at Dusk local high major, beneficial major, beneficial 29 – Kensington Place – Looking North Along Newcombe Street local moderate major, beneficial n/a 30 – Outside 1 St John’s Gardens district high neutral n/a 31 – Ladbroke Road Junction with Horbury Mews local to district high neutral n/a 32 – Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on Opposite Side of the Road (Winter) local high minor, neutral n/a

158 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Geographical Residual Effects extent of likely Sensitivity significant effect to change Significance of likely significant effect Significance of likely significant cumulative effect 7.6 The Proposed Development has been designed through a 32n – Outside 25 Ladbroke Road on Opposite Side of the Road (Winter) at Dusk local high minor, neutral n/a process of pre-application consultation with stakeholders to 33 – Pembridge Place, at junction with Pembridge Villas (Winter) local to district high minor, neutral n/a respond positively, in scale and mass and architectural treatment, to the existing townscape, the settings of local conser- 34 – Junction of Dawson Place and Pembridge Place (Winter) local to district high minor, neutral n/a vation areas and listed buildings, registered parks and gardens 35 – Pembridge Villas at Junction with Chepstow Crescent local to district high neutral n/a and strategic and local views towards the Site. Potential 36 – Pembridge Gardens outside No 30 local to district high neutral n/a negative effects have been considered throughout the design 37 – Linden Gardens, West Side, Viewing South (winter) local high minor, beneficial n/a process, such that all have been mitigated by design though 38 – Pembridge Gardens Outside No 6 looking South local high major, neutral major, beneficial an iterative design evolution process. 38n – Pembridge Gardens Outside No 6 looking South at Dusk local high major, neutral major, beneficial 7.7 The potential long-term significant effects of the completed 38a – Pembridge Gardens – From Vincent House local high neutral minor, neutral Development, assessed in isolation, on local townscape 39 – Kensington Gardens Lancaster Gate Entrance (spring) district high minor, neutral n/a character and quality have been assessed in the Townscape 40 – Kensington Gardens East of Round Pond (summer) district high minor, neutral n/a Assessment. The potential effects of the Proposed 41 – Kensington Gardens West of Round Pond district high neutral n/a Development on the townscape character areas assessed 42a-c – Kensington Gardens – Broadwalk looking across Kensington Palace district high neutral to minor, neutral n/a would range from negligible to moderate, positive significance. Taking into account the high design quality of the 43 – Kensington Palace Gardens (winter) local to district high minor, neutral n/a Proposed Development and the sensitivity to change of each 43n – Kensington Palace Gardens (winter) at Dusk local to district high minor, neutral n/a townscape character area, none of the potential effects of the 44 – Outside 56 Palace Gardens Terrace local high neutral n/a Proposed Development are judged to be negative. As demon- A1 – Hallfield Estate Conservation Area entrance to Exeter House district high neutral n/a strated in the rendered views and as described in detail in the A2 – Talbot Road/Moorhouse Road (Westbourne Conservation Area). district high minor, neutral n/a assessment of those views, the Proposed Development would A3 – Talbot Road/Courtnell Street (Westbourne Conservation Area) district high minor, neutral n/a be of high architectural and urban design quality and would respond sensitively to its unique townscape context and A4 – Talbot Road/Sutherland Place (Westbourne Conservation Area) district high ???????? n/a would therefore have a positive likely significant effect on its A5 – Kensington Gardens East of Round Pond district high minor, neutral n/a townscape setting.

7.8 The potential long-term significant effects of the completed Development, assessed in isolation, on the settings of above ground built heritage assets in the wider vicinity of the Site have been assessed in the Built Heritage Assessment in this volume: see Figures 4-1 and 4-2, and Tables 4-1 and 6-1. There would be no harm to the significance of local conservation areas or the settings of nationally and locally listed structures.

7.9 In the Visual Assessment, the suitability of the design of the Proposed Development in its spatial location has been assessed through 44 views in RBKC and 5 views in WCC, which were selected in consultation with the Council. These views permit the Proposed Development to be assessed in the round and its effect on the character and composition of the agreed views to be tested allowing the potential visual effects of Development to be understood. As the assessment demonstrates, the Proposed Development, where visible, considered in isolation, would have an negligible effect on sub-regional views and a negligible to moderate, positive likely significant effect on district views. The likely significant effect of the Proposed Development on local views would be negligible to moderate, positive. Taking into account the sensitivity to change of each townscape view and the high design quality of the Proposed Development none of the likely significant effects are judged to be negative.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 159 8 Summary and Conclusions

Response to relevant Legislation and Planning Policy buildings: urban analysis is set out in the DAS, and the Views Final Conclusions Assessment in section 6 above demonstrates that no local National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) (Ref or strategic views will be adversely impacted (7.7D: Ref 1-8, 8.9 The Site is already occupied by a tall building. The Proposed 1-1) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) p.285), including impacts on listed buildings, conservation Development will not have an adverse effect on strategic and (March 2014) (Ref 1-3) areas, and Registered Parks and Gardens (7.7E). local views, townscape character and heritage assets. The 8.1 The assessment has been formed to accord with the NPPF Proposed Development will comply with local, regional and and NPPG policies which are based on the requirements of 8.6 The Inspector concluded in this respect that: “On balance, national policy and guidance. the Act. The relevant records have been consulted as part with regard to the overall effect on streetscenes, I find that of the design process and the significance of potentially the proposed tower would not be excessively tall or bulky but 8.10 The taller elements of the proposals have been conceived affected heritage assets has been assessed in proportion to would have a positive impact and be a benefit to the character and tested with an added rigour during the design develop- the likely effects of the proposals. The Site does not contain and appearance of the wider area” (para 29). And, “I find that ment phase due to the scale of their potential impacts and any listed buildings but it is surrounded by conservation areas. the overall design of the scheme would accord with policies the significant extent of their visibility. The preceding assess- There are listed buildings and conservation areas in the wider 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan, (consolidated with ment has provided a thorough 360-degree visual analysis to surrounding area. Opportunities to enhance or preserve alterations) dated March 2016, which set criteria by which fully consider those wide-ranging effects and has found no positive aspects of the conservation area it is situated within to judge local character, public realm, architecture and the potential adverse effects on views, townscape character and and the setting of heritage assets have informed the design location and design of tall and large buildings. These include heritage assets. process and any potential harm has been weighed against a high quality design response and the highest standards of other heritage and public benefits brought by the develop- architecture” (Appeal Decision APP/K5600/W/16/3149585, p. 8.11 The Proposed Development will enhance and promote ment: the significance of relevant conservation areas and the 7, para 30). sustainable development. It has been conceived as an settings of heritage assets will be left unharmed, as set out in integral part of the townscape of the locality. It will have a sections 6-7 of this Volume. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Consolidated distinctive character and sense of place, drawn from analysis Local Plan (July 2015) (Ref 1-10) of the specific location of the Site and the local identity. The 8.2 The Inspector at the recent Planning Inquiry for Newcombe 8.7 The Inspector concluded in this respect that: “The scheme high quality of the architectural and urban design proposals House (Appeal Decision APP/K5600/W/16/3149585) would comply with CLP policy CV16 which sets an ambitious and the creation of a new public square will significantly concluded in this respect that: “The proposals would satisfy vision for NHG to be strengthened as a District Shopping enhance the local townscape and the character and quality policy in chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework Centre, and a major office location, requiring development of Notting Hill Gate. (NPPF) which requires good design.” (p. 7, para 30) of the most exceptional design and architectural quality; and Policy CP16 which seeks to strengthen NHG’s role as a Historic England, Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice district centre and seek new high quality architecture and Note 4 (December 2015) (Ref 1-7) public realm. The proposals would satisfy CLP policies CL1, 8.3 Based on the Views Assessment in section 6 above, the archi- CL2, CL11 and CL12 which set criteria for context and char- tectural quality of the Proposed Development will be exem- acter, design quality, views and building heights including: plary in respect of HE’s checklist of: a. Scale; b. Form and a comprehensive approach to site layout and design, that massing; c. Proportion and silhouette; d. Facing materials; e. all development be of the highest architectural and urban Detailed surface design; f. Relationship to other structures; design quality, protecting and enhancing views, and resisting g. Impact on streetscape and near views; h. Impact on city- buildings significantly taller than the surrounding townscape scape and distant views; and i. Impact on the skyline” (Ref other than in exceptionally rare circumstances where the 1-13, para 4.8). development has a wholly positive impact on the character and quality of the townscape” (Appeal Decision of 12 June The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater 2017, p. 7, para 31). London: Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 (March 2016) (Ref 1-8) Westminster City Plan: Strategic Policies (November 2016) 8.4 The Mayor of London concluded in the Stage II Referral of (Ref 1-16) 25 April 2016 (CD 2.12; at paragraph 28) that the Proposed 8.8 Policy S25 in respect of Westminster’s wider historic environ- Development would meet the requirements of the relevant ment and Policy S26 that protects views within and across London Plan policies: “The tall building, public realm and Westminster will be satisfied: the Proposed Development will urban setting has been carefully considered and well resolved not detract from the existing qualities of the environment, and the scheme should be a considerable improve[ment] on nor will it be intrusive or insensitive to Westminster’s urban the existing circumstances. Accordingly, the proposal meets context. Saved Policy DES 15 protects views that are desig- the requirement of London Plan policies, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7.” nated as having local and metropolitan value: it is concluded from the Views Assessment in section 6 above that the 8.5 The Views Assessment in section 6 above demonstrates that Proposed Development will not impinge on important views local character and public realm will be protected – Policies or skylines; would not appear too close or high in relation 7.4 and 7.5, and that the Proposed Development will be of to a landmark or historic feature or building, and would not the highest architectural quality – Policy 7.6 and will make a appear behind, and mar the silhouette of, a landmark or positive contribution to the city (7.6A). In relation to Policy historic feature or building. 7.7 relating to the location and design of tall and large

160 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 References

1-1 DCLG, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) 1-21 Historic England, Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: Historic England Advice Note 1 (2016 1-2 Historic England (formerly English Heritage, Conservation Principles (2008) 1-22 RBKC, Kensington Conservation Area Proposals Statement (1995) 1-3 DCLG (formerly DCMS), Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings (March 2010) 1-23 RBKC, Kensington Conservation Area Appraisal (draft appraisal September 2016) 1-4 DCLG, National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (March 2014) 1-24 RBKC, Kensington Palace Conservation Area Proposals Statement (1996) 1-5 Historic England, Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic 1-25 RBKC, Pembridge Conservation Area (draft appraisal Environment (2008) September 2016)

1-6 Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice 1-26 RBKC, Ladbroke Conservation Area (draft appraisal 2015) in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (March 2015) 1-27 WCC, Royal Parks Conservation Area (May 2004)

1-7 Historic England, Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 1-28 RBKC, Report of the Executive Director of RBKC to the 4 (December 2015) Planning Committee, Planning and Borough Development, on Newcombe House, 17 March 2016. 1-8 GLA, The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 (March 2016)

1-9 GLA, London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance (LVMF SPG) (March 2012)

1-10 RBKC, Consolidated Local Plan (CLP) (July 2015)

1-11 GLA, Mayor of London’s Newcombe House Proposals Stage II referral (GLA Ref: D&P/3109/02/NR, Dated 25 April 2016)

1-12 RBKC, Building Height in the Royal Borough SPD (September 2010)

1-13 RBKC, Notting Hill Gate SPD (July 2014)

1-14 WCC, Metropolitan Views Draft SPD (October 2007)

1-15 WCC, Heritage, Views and Tall Buildings, Booklet No. 15 Westminster City Plan Revision (January 2015)

1-16 WCC, City Plan: Strategic Policies (November 2016)

1-17 WCC, Kensington Gardens Management Plan (2007)

1-18 IEMA & Landscape Institute, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) Third Edition (April 2013)

1-19 English Heritage (now Historic England), Seeing the History in the View (May 2011)

1-20 English Heritage (now Historic England), The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (March 2015)

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 161 Appendices

A1 View Locations

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525591.8E 179854.9N National Grid Reference 525457.7E 179971.0N National Grid Reference 525399.6E 180205.4N National Grid Reference 525377.2E 180302.1N National Grid Reference 525367.3E 180361.6N National Grid Reference 524930.4E 180376.2N Camera height 21.42m AOD Camera height 27.62m AOD Camera height 30.32m AOD Camera height 28.73m AOD Camera height 27.44m AOD Camera height 27.11m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 334.8°, distance 0.6km Bearing 342.9°, distance 0.5km Bearing 327.4°, distance 0.3km Bearing 330.8°, distance 0.2km Bearing 329.0°, distance 0.1km Bearing 83.3°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 25/10/2015 Date of photograph 26/11/2016 Date of photograph 09/07/2013 Date of photograph 06/02/2015 Time of photograph 11:06 Time of photograph 11:30 Time of photograph 08:07 Time of photograph 08:36 Time of photograph 11:16 Time of photograph 16:13 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

162 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525011.7E 180399.2N National Grid Reference 525193.0E 180442.7N National Grid Reference 525226.1E 180445.7N National Grid Reference 525544.9E 180529.2N National Grid Reference 525568.2E 180554.5N National Grid Reference 525568.1E 180554.5N Camera height 29.65m AOD Camera height 29.76m AOD Camera height 29.35m AOD Camera height 29.61m AOD Camera height 29.89m AOD Camera height 29.94m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 101.5°, distance 0.3km Bearing 101.6°, distance 0.1km Bearing 100.7°, distance 0.1km Bearing 255.3°, distance 0.3km Bearing 240.9°, distance 0.3km Bearing 241.3°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 08/10/2015 Date of photograph 15/05/2014 Date of photograph 30/06/2013 Date of photograph 30/06/2013 Date of photograph 05/02/2017 Time of photograph 13:10 Time of photograph 14:27 Time of photograph 14:29 Time of photograph 11:09 Time of photograph 11:38 Time of photograph 17:25 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 163 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525429.1E 180509.6N National Grid Reference 525344.2E 180480.2N National Grid Reference 524697.8E 180893.3N National Grid Reference 524892.7E 180996.1N National Grid Reference 525004.5E 180676.7N National Grid Reference 525104.6E 180574.0N Camera height 28.73m AOD Camera height 28.98m AOD Camera height 23.00m AOD Camera height 22.17m AOD Camera height 28.87m AOD Camera height 28.20m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 240.8°, distance 0.1km Bearing 199.0°, distance 0.1km Bearing 126.3°, distance 0.8km Bearing 143.9°, distance 0.7km Bearing 130.6°, distance 0.4km Bearing 123.7°, distance 0.2km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Date of photograph 11/07/2015 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Date of photograph 19/05/2014 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Time of photograph 10:38 Time of photograph 10:16 Time of photograph 14:09 Time of photograph 17:40 Time of photograph 13:36 Time of photograph 13:20 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

164 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525104.6E 180573.9N National Grid Reference 525066.7E 180335.6N National Grid Reference 524871.8E 180179.2N National Grid Reference 524908.9E 180197.1N National Grid Reference 524906.8E 179664.2N National Grid Reference 525251.5E 180094.6N Camera height 28.25m AOD Camera height 32.38m AOD Camera height 37.96m AOD Camera height 38.72m AOD Camera height 24.69m AOD Camera height 33.12m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 123.7°, distance 0.2km Bearing 53.6°, distance 0.3km Bearing 53.9°, distance 0.5km Bearing 41.8°, distance 0.5km Bearing 45.9°, distance 0.9km Bearing 9.3°, distance 0.4km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/02/2017 Date of photograph 30/06/2013 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Date of photograph 15/05/2014 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Time of photograph 17:15 Time of photograph 15:42 Time of photograph 12:33 Time of photograph 12:43 Time of photograph 12:22 Time of photograph 12:48 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 165 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525048.8E 180186.6N National Grid Reference 525048.9E 180186.8N National Grid Reference 525205.2E 180262.7N National Grid Reference 525194.9E 180300.9N National Grid Reference 525245.6E 180278.5N National Grid Reference 525297.7E 180299.1N Camera height 41.69m AOD Camera height 41.86m AOD Camera height 32.62m AOD Camera height 31.09m AOD Camera height 31.08m AOD Camera height 29.36m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 50.1°, distance 0.4km Bearing 51.4°, distance 0.4km Bearing 37.7°, distance 0.2km Bearing 34.0°, distance 0.2km Bearing 42.8°, distance 0.2km Bearing 341.3°, distance 0.1km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 24/07/2012 Date of photograph 02/02/2017 Date of photograph 04/11/2014 Date of photograph 30/06/2013 Date of photograph 15/05/2014 Date of photograph 04/11/2014 Time of photograph 15:35 Time of photograph 17:19 Time of photograph 13:04 Time of photograph 14:36 Time of photograph 14:11 Time of photograph 13:12 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

166 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525278.3E 180336.5N National Grid Reference 525278.3E 180336.6N National Grid Reference 525338.4E 180315.1N National Grid Reference 524646.2E 180597.5N National Grid Reference 524994.3E 180512.9N National Grid Reference 525085.8E 180533.4N Camera height 28.71m AOD Camera height 28.76m AOD Camera height 28.28m AOD Camera height 30.14m AOD Camera height 27.60m AOD Camera height 27.89m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 17.7°, distance 0.1km Bearing 18.1°, distance 0.1km Bearing 359.2°, distance 0.1km Bearing 115.4°, distance 0.7km Bearing 93.9°, distance 0.3km Bearing 121.2°, distance 0.2km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Date of photograph 02/02/2017 Date of photograph 21/05/2015 Date of photograph 19/05/2014 Date of photograph 30/06/2013 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Time of photograph 14:57 Time of photograph 17:31 Time of photograph 11:50 Time of photograph 17:16 Time of photograph 17:07 Time of photograph 13:06 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 167 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525085.8E 180533.4N National Grid Reference 525274.8E 181025.0N National Grid Reference 525315.0E 180842.8N National Grid Reference 525169.7E 180846.7N National Grid Reference 525263.7E 180747.1N National Grid Reference 525335.6E 180588.6N Camera height 27.95m AOD Camera height 23.03m AOD Camera height 23.95m AOD Camera height 25.08m AOD Camera height 26.13m AOD Camera height 28.04m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 121.1°, distance 0.2km Bearing 188.0°, distance 0.6km Bearing 176.2°, distance 0.4km Bearing 180.4°, distance 0.4km Bearing 200.5°, distance 0.3km Bearing 175.2°, distance 0.2km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 01/02/2017 Date of photograph 18/02/2015 Date of photograph 18/02/2015 Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Date of photograph 17/02/2015 Time of photograph 17:23 Time of photograph 09:38 Time of photograph 09:48 Time of photograph 18:57 Time of photograph 09:19 Time of photograph 09:57 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

168 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 525242.5E 180524.6N National Grid Reference 525242.5E 180524.6N National Grid Reference 525238.1E 180634.1N National Grid Reference 526409.9E 180638.5N National Grid Reference 526287.1E 180144.9N National Grid Reference 526044.0E 180070.4N Camera height 28.70m AOD Camera height 28.76m AOD Camera height 27.17m AOD Camera height 25.00m AOD Camera height 26.22m AOD Camera height 26.76m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 150.9°, distance 0.1km Bearing 151.5°, distance 0.1km Bearing 175.6°, distance 0.2km Bearing 260.0°, distance 1.1km Bearing 253.0°, distance 1.0km Bearing 272.1°, distance 0.8km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Date of photograph 01/02/2017 Date of photograph 12/04/2016 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 15/08/2016 Date of photograph 13/09/2016 Time of photograph 18:42 Time of photograph 17:33 Time of photograph 18:15 Time of photograph 10:27 Time of photograph 11:14 Time of photograph 11:01 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 169 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 526065.9E 179957.7N National Grid Reference 526039.7E 179986.8N National Grid Reference 526024.9E 180036.3N National Grid Reference 525642.6E 180224.5N National Grid Reference 525642.6E 180224.6N National Grid Reference 525527.2E 180202.9N Camera height 25.61m AOD Camera height 25.93m AOD Camera height 26.29m AOD Camera height 30.41m AOD Camera height 30.43m AOD Camera height 28.82m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 301.0°, distance 0.9km Bearing 307.6°, distance 0.9km Bearing 286.9°, distance 0.8km Bearing 303.3°, distance 0.4km Bearing 303.2°, distance 0.4km Bearing 325.2°, distance 0.3km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 15/08/2016 Date of photograph 15/08/2016 Date of photograph 08/02/2015 Date of photograph 17/02/2015 Date of photograph 09/04/2016 Date of photograph 15/05/2014 Time of photograph 11:34 Time of photograph 11:51 Time of photograph 11:28 Time of photograph 10:22 Time of photograph 20:33 Time of photograph 11:33 Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

170 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location Camera Location National Grid Reference 526061.7E 181248.7N National Grid Reference 525110.8E 181338.5N National Grid Reference 525049.9E 181325.4N National Grid Reference 525170.6E 181354.0N National Grid Reference 526287.3E 180144.2N Camera height 19.81m AOD Camera height 23.47m AOD Camera height 23.22m AOD Camera height 23.57m AOD Camera height 26.27m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 230.1°, distance 1.1km Bearing 167.3°, distance 0.9km Bearing 161.7°, distance 0.9km Bearing 176.9°, distance 0.9km Bearing 272.3°, distance 1.0km Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Photography Details Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Height of camera 1.60m above ground Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 20/04/2016 Date of photograph 25/06/2013 Time of photograph 09:57 Time of photograph 09:22 Time of photograph 09:14 Time of photograph 09:25 Time of photograph 11:50 Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm Lens 24mm

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 171 Appendices (continued)

A2 Details of schemes

index scheme name address reference PA status source of model data positioning method MH reference colour 1 145 Kensington Church Street 145 Kensington Church Street, London, W8 7LP PP/16/00301 RBKC Legal Consent granted Paper planning application drawings from local authority Best fit to Ordnance Survey kchl0050.mass161202-fg-existing Orange 2 Queensway Development Site At 117 – 125 Bayswater Road, 2 – 6 15/10671/FULL WCC Legal Consent granted Paper planning application drawings from local authority Best fit to Ordnance Survey wmin1152.mass160413-dp-consented Orange Queensway, Consort House And 7 Fosbury Mews London 3 66-74 Notting Hill Gate 66-70 and 72-74 Notting Hill Gate, LONDON, W11 3HT PP/15/05730 RBKC Legal Consent granted Paper planning application drawings from local authority Best fit to Ordnance Survey kchl0179.mass160412-dp-consented Orange 4 92-120 Notting Hill Gate 92-120 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3QB PP/16/05299 RBKC Legal Consent granted Model supplied by Squire and Partners Position relative to O.S. supplied by architect kchl0157.detail160728-sp-proposed- Orange northblock 5 47-69 Notting Hill Gate 47-69 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3JS PP/16/05236 RBKC Legal Consent granted Model supplied by Squire and Partners Position relative to O.S. supplied by architect kchl0056.detail160728-sp-proposed- Orange southblock 6 15-35 Notting Hill Gate 15-35 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3JQ PP/16/05212 RBKC Legal Consent granted Model supplied by Squire and Partners Position relative to O.S. supplied by architect kchl0029.detail160728-sp-proposed- Orange eastblock 7 45 Notting Hil Gate 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ n/a RBKC Proposed CAD drawings supplied by Urban Sense Position relative to O.S. supplied by architect kchl0051.detail160408-bw-proposed Blue Consultant Architects Ltd.

99.35m AOD

82.78m AOD

Aerial view of Proposed Development

172 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

5 6

2 1

Aerial diagram showing location of schemes

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 173 Appendices (continued)

A3 Accurate Visual Representations

A3.1 Each of the views in this study has been prepared as an A3.7 Secondly, where the wider context of the view must be consid- AVR 3 – Photoreal Accurate Visual Representation (AVR) following a consistent Field Of View ered and in making the assessment a viewer would naturally methodology and approach to rendering. Appendix C of make use of peripheral vision in order to understand the the London View Management Framework: Supplementary The term ‘Field Of View’ (FOV) or more specifically whole. A print has a fixed extent which constrains the angle Planning Guidance (March 2012) defines an AVR as: Horizontal Field of View (HFOV), refers to the horizontal of view available to the viewer and hence it is logical to use angle of view visible in a photograph or printed image and a wide angle lens in these situations in order to include addi- “An AVR is a static or moving image which shows the is expressed in degrees. It is often generally referred to as tional context in the print. location of a proposed development as accurately as ‘angle of view’, ‘included angle’ or ‘view cone angle’. possible; it may also illustrate the degree to which the A3.8 Thirdly where the viewing point is studied at rest and the eye development will be visible, its detailed form or the Using this measure it becomes practical to make a compar- is free to roam over a very wide field of view and the whole proposed use of materials. An AVR must be prepared ison between photographs taken using lens of various focal setting of the view can be examined by turning the head. following a well-defined and verifiable procedure and lengths captured on to photographic film or digital camera In these situations it is appropriate to provide a panorama can therefore be relied upon by assessors to represent sensors of various size and proportions. It is also possible to comprising of a number of photographs placed side by side. fairly the selected visual properties of a proposed devel- compare computer renderings with photographic images. opment. AVRs are produced by accurately combining A3.9 For some views two of these scenarios might be appropriate, images of the proposed building (typically created from Studies of this type use a range of camera equipment; in and hence the study will include two versions of the same a three-dimensional computer model) with a represen- recent times digital cameras have largely superseded the view with different fields of view. tation of its context; this usually being a photograph, traditional film formats of 35mm, medium format (6cm x Example of AVR 3 – confirming the use of materials (in this case using a a video sequence, or an image created from a second 6cm) and large format (5in x 4in). Comparing digital and Representation of the Proposed Development and ‘photo-realistic’ rendering technique) computer model built from survey data. AVRs can be film formats may be achieved using either the HFOV or the cumulative schemes presented in a number of different ways, as either still or 35mm equivalent lens calculation, however quoting the moving images, in a variety of digital or printed formats.” lens focal length (in mm) is not as consistently applicable Classification of AVRs A3.12 The purpose of a Level 3 AVR is to represent the likely appear- as using the HFOV when comparing AVRs. A3.10 AVRs are classified according to their purpose using Levels 0 ance of the Proposed Development under the lighting condi- A3.2 In this study the baseline condition is provided by carefully to 3. These are defined in detail in Appendix C of the London tions found in the photograph. All aspects of the images that taken large format photography. The proposed condition is Lens focal View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning are able to be objectively defined have been created directly 35mm Lens HFOV degrees represented as an accurate photomontage, which combines length (mm) Guidance (July 2007). The following table is a summary. from a single detailed description of the building. These a computer generated image with the photographic context. Wide angle lens 74.0 24 include the geometry of the building and the size and shape In preparing AVRs of this type certain several key attributes Medium wide lens 54.4 35 AVR level showing purpose of shadows cast by the sun. need to be determined, including: Telephoto lens 28.8 70 AVR 0 Location and size Showing Location and size of proposal A3.13 Beyond this it is necessary to move into a somewhat more Telephoto lens 20.4 100 • the Field of View AVR 1 Location, size and degree Confirming degree subjective arena where the judgement of the delineator must Telephoto lens 10.3 200 of visibility of proposal of visibility be used in order to define the final appearance of the building • the representation of the Proposed Development Telephoto lens 6.9 300 under the specific conditions captured by the photographic AVR 2 As level 1 + description Explaining form of architectural form and subsequent printing processes. In this area the delineator • documentation accompanying the AVR is primarily guided by the appearance of similar types of build- AVR 3 As level 2 + use of materials Confirming the use The FOV of digital cameras is dependent on the physical ings at similar distances in the selected photograph. In large of materials Selection of Field of View dimensions of the CCD used in the camera. These depend scope studies photography is necessarily executed over a long on the make and model of the camera. The comparison period of time and sometimes at short notice. This will produce A3.3 The choice of telephoto, standard or wide-angle lens, and table uses the specifications for a Canon EOS-5D Mark II A3.11 In practice the majority of photography based AVRs are a range of lighting conditions and photographic exposures. consequently the Field of View, is made on the basis of the which has CCD dimensions of 36.0mm x 22.0mm. either AVR 3 (commonly referred to as “fully rendered” or The treatment of lighting and materials within these images requirements for assessment which will vary from view to view. “photoreal”) or AVR 1 (commonly referred to as “wire-line”). will respond according to those in the photograph. Model based AVRs are generally AVR 1. A3.4 In the simple case the lens selection will be that which A3.6 Firstly, where the relationship being assessed is distant, the A3.14 Where the Proposed Development is shown at night-time, the provides a comfortable Viewing Distance. This would normally observer would tend naturally to focus closely on it. At this lightness of the scheme and the treatment of the materials entail the use of what most photographers would refer to as point the observer might be studying as little as 5 to 10 was the best judgment of the visualiser as to the likely appear- a “standard” or “normal” lens, which in practice means the use degrees in plan. The printing technology and image resolu- ance of the scheme given the intended lighting strategy and of a lens with a 35mm equivalent focal length of between tion of a print limit the amount of detail that can be resolved the ambient lighting conditions in the background photo- about 40 and 58 mm. on paper when compared to the real world, hence in this situ- graph. In particular the exact lighting levels are not based on ation it is appropriate to make use of a telephoto lens. photometric calculations and therefore the resulting image is A3.5 However in a visual assessment there are three scenarios where assessed by the Architect and Lighting Designer as being a constraining the study to this single fixed lens combination reasonable interpretation of the concept lighting strategy. would not provide the assessor with the relevant information to properly assess the Proposed Development in its context.

174 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

AVR 1 – Outline the proportion of immediate foreground visible in the photo- Comparing AVRs with different FOVs graph. Horizontal shift will not be used. Where the prospect A3.26 A key benefit of the index markings is that it becomes prac- is framed by existing buildings, portrait format photographs tical to crop out a rectangle in order to simulate the effect of may be used if this will result in the proposal being wholly an image with a narrower field of view. In order to understand visible in the AVR, and will not entirely exclude any relevant the effect of using a longer lens it is simply necessary to cover existing buildings. up portions of the images using the graticule as a guide.

A3.20 Where the Proposed Development would extend off the top of the photograph, the image may be extended vertically to ensure that the full height of the Proposed Development is show. Typically images will be extended only where this can be achieved by the addition of sky and no built structures are amended. Where it is necessary to extend built elements of the view, the method used to check the accuracy of this will be noted in the text. Sample graticule showing optical axis markers Documenting the AVR Example of AVR 1 confirming degree of visibility (in this case as an A3.24 The vertical and horizontal field of view of the final image occluded ‘wire-line’ image) Border annotation is declared using a graticule consisting of thick lines at ten A3.21 A Millerhare AVR image has an annotated border or ‘grati- degree increments and intermediate lines every degree, cule’ which indicates the field of view, the optical axis and the measured away from the optical axis. Using this graticule it is A3.15 The purpose of a wire-line view is to accurately indicate the horizon line. This annotation helps the user to understand possible to read off the resultant horizontal and vertical field location and degree of visibility of the Proposed Development the characteristics of the lens used for the source photo- of view, and thereby to compare the image with others taken in the context of the existing condition and potentially in the graph, whether the photographer applied tilt, vertical rise or using specific lens and camera combinations. Alternatively it context of other proposed schemes. horizontal shift during the taking of the shot and if the final can be used to apply precise crops during subsequent analysis. image has been cropped on one or more sides. A3.16 In AVR1 representation each scheme is represented by a single A3.25 The blue marks on the left and right indicate the calculated line profile, sometimes with key edges lines to help under- A3.22 The four red arrows mark the horizontal and vertical location location of the horizon line i.e. a plane running horizontally stand the massing. The width of the profile line is selected to of the ‘optical axis’. The optical axis is a line passing through from the location of the camera. Where this line is above or ensure that the diagram is clear, and is always drawn inside the eye point normal to the projection plane. In photography below the optical axis, this indicates that the camera has been the true profile. The colour of the line is selected to contrast this line passes through the centre of the lens, assuming that tilted; where it is not parallel with the horizontal marking of with the background. Different coloured lines may be used in the film plane has not been tilted relative to the lens mount. the optical axis, this indicates that the camera was not exactly order to distinguish between proposed and consented status, In computer rendering it is the viewing vector, i.e the line from horizontal, i.e. that “roll” is present. Note that a small amount or between different schemes. the eye point to the target point. of tilt and roll is nearly always present in a photograph, due to the practical limitations of the levelling devices used to align A3.17 Where more than one scheme is represented in outline form A3.23 If the point indicated by these marks lies above or below the the camera in the field. the outlines will obscure each other as if the schemes where centre of the image, this indicates either that vertical rise opaque. Trees or other foliage will not obscure the outline was used when taking the photograph or that the image has of schemes behind them. This is because the transparency subsequently been cropped from the top or bottom edge. of trees varies with the seasons, and the practical difficul- If it lies to the left or right of the centre of the image then ties of representing a solid line behind a filigree of branches. cropping has been applied to one side or the other, or more Elements of a temporary nature (e.g. cars, tower cranes, unusually that horizontal shift was applied to the photograph. people) will similarly not obscure the outlines.

Framing the view A3.18 Typically AVRs are composed with the camera looking horizontally i.e. with a horizontal Optical Axis. This is in order to avoid converging verticals which, although perspectively correct, appear to many viewers as unnatural in print form. The camera is levelled using mechanical levelling devices to ensure the verticality of the Picture Plane, being the plane on to which the image is projected; the film in the case of large format photography or the CCD in the case of digital photography. Sample graticule showing horizon line markers

A3.19 For a typical townscape view, a Landscape camera format is usually the most appropriate, giving the maximum horizontal angle of view. Vertical rise may be used in order to reduce

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 175 Appendices (continued)

A4 Methodology for the production of Accurate Visual Representations

Overview of Methodology A4.8 The models used to represent consented schemes have A4.16 Using differential GPS techniques the Surveyor established alignment model as a record of the match. This was annotated been assembled from a variety of sources. Some have been the location of at least two intervisible stations in the vicinity to show the extents of the final views to be used in the study. A4.1 The study was carried out by Millerhare (the Visualiser) by supplied by the original project team, the remainder have of the camera location. A photograph of the GPS antenna in combining computer generated images of the Proposed been built by Millerhare from available drawings, generally situ was taken as confirmation of the position. Development with either large format photographs or with paper copies of the submitted planning application. While rendered images from a context model at key strategic loca- these models have not been checked for detailed accuracy by A4.17 From these the local survey stations, the requested alignment tions around the site as agreed with the project team. Surveying the relevant architects, Millerhare has used its best endeav- points were surveyed using conventional observation. was executed by Absolute Survey (the Surveyor). ours to ensure that the models are positioned accurately both in plan and in overall height. A4.18 The resulting survey points were amalgamated into a single A4.2 The methodology employed by Millerhare is compliant with data set by the Surveyor. This data set was supplied as a spread- Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Process – photographic context sheet with a set of coordinates transformed and re-projected Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) and into OSGB36 (National Grid) coordinates, and with additional Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11. Reconnaissance interpreted lines to improve the clarity of the surveyed data. A4.9 At each Study Location the Visualiser conducted a photo- A4.3 The project team defined a series of locations in London graphic reconnaissance to identify potential Assessment A4.19 From the point set, the Visualiser created a three dimen- where the proposed buildings might have a significant visual Points. From each candidate position, a digital photo- sional alignment model in the visualisation system by placing effect. At each of these locations Millerhare carried out a graph was taken looking in the direction of the Proposed inverted cones at each surveyed point. Example of alignment model overlaid on the photograph preliminary study to identify specific Assessment Points from Development using a wide angle lens. Its position was noted Preparing models of the Proposed Development which a representative and informative view could be taken. with field observations onto an OS map and recorded by a Photo preparation A4.27 A CAD model of the Proposed Development was created from Once the exact location had been agreed by the project team, second digital photograph looking at a marker placed at the A4.20 From the set of photographs taken from each Assessment 3D CAD models and 2D drawings supplied by the Architect. a photograph was taken which formed the basis of the study. Assessment Point. Point, one single photograph was selected for use in the The level of detail applied to the model is appropriate to the The precise location of the camera was established by the study. This choice was made on the combination of sharp- AVR type of the final images. Surveyor using a combination of differential GPS techniques A4.10 In the situation where, in order to allow the appreciation ness, exposure and appropriate lighting. and conventional observations. of the wider setting of the proposal, the assessor requires A4.28 Models of the Proposed Development and other schemes are more context than is practical to capture using a wide angle A4.21 The selected photograph was copied into a template image located within the spatial framework using reference infor- A4.4 For views where a photographic context was to be used lens, multiple photographs may be combined to create a file of predetermined dimensions. The resulting image was mation supplied by the Architect or, when not available, by additional surveying was carried out. A number of features panorama, typically as a diptych or triptych. This will be then examined and any artefacts related to the digital image best fit to other data from the spatial framework reference on existing structures visible from the camera location were prepared by treating each panel as a separate AVR and then capture process were rectified. database . Study renders of the model are supplied back to surveyed. Using these points, Millerhare has determined the combining in to a single panorama as a final process. the Architect for confirmation of the form and the overall appropriate parameters to permit a view of the computer A4.22 Where vertical rise has been used the image is analysed and height of the Proposed Development. The method used to model to be generated which exactly overlays the appropriate A4.11 The Visualiser assigned a unique reference to each compensation is applied to ensure that the centre of the locate each model is recorded. Each distinct model is assigned photograph. Each photograph has then been divided into Assessment Point and Photograph. image corresponds to the location of the camera’s optical axis. a unique reference code by the Visualiser. foreground and background elements to determine which parts of the current context should be shown in front of the Final Photography Calculating the photographic alignment Determining occlusion and creating simple renderings Proposed Development and which behind. When combined A4.12 From each selected Assessment Point a series of large format A4.23 A preliminary view definition was created within the visuali- A4.29 A further rendering was created using the aligned camera, with the computer-generated image these give an accurate photographs were taken with a camera height of approxi- sation system using the surveyed camera location, recorded which combined the Proposed Development with a computer- impression of the impact of the Proposed Development on mately 1.6m. The camera, lens, format and direction of view target point and FOV based on the camera and lens combina- generated context. This was used to assist the operator to the selected view in terms of scale, location and use of mate- are determined in accordance with the policies set out above tion selected for the shot determine which parts of the source image should appear rials (AVR Level 3). in front of the Proposed Development and which behind it. A4.13 Where a panoramic view is specified the camera/tripod head A4.24 A lower resolution version of the annotated photograph was Using this image and additional site photography for infor- Spatial framework and reference database is rotated through increments of 40 degrees to add additional attached as a background to this view, to assist the operator mation, the source file is divided into layers representing fore- panels to the left and/or right of the main view. to interpret on-screen displays of the alignment model and ground and background elements. A4.5 All data was assembled into a consistent spatial framework, other relevant datasets. expressed in a grid coordinate system with a local plan A4.14 The centre point of the tripod was marked and a digital A4.30 In cases where the Proposed Development is to be repre- origin. The vertical datum of this framework is equivalent to photograph showing the camera and tripod in situ was taken A4.25 Using this preliminary view definition, a rendering was created sented in silhouette or massing form (AVR1 or AVR2), final Ordnance Survey (OS) Newlyn Datum. to allow the Surveyor to return to its location. Measurements of the alignment model at a resolution to match the scanned renderings of an accurate massing model were generated and field notes were also taken to record the camera location, photograph. This was overlaid onto the background image and inserted into the background image file between the fore- A4.6 By using a transformation between this framework and the lens used, target point and time of day. to compare the image created by the actual camera and ground and background layers. OSGB36 (National Grid) reference framework, Millerhare its computer equivalent. Based on the results of this process have been able to use other data sets (such as OS land line Surveying the Assessment Points adjustments were made to the camera definition. When using A4.31 Final graphical treatments were applied to the resulting maps and ortho-corrected aerial photography) to test and A4.15 For each selected Assessment Point a survey brief was a wide angle lens observations outside the circle of distortion image as agreed with the Architect and environmental and document the resulting photomontages. prepared, consisting of the Assessment Point study sheet and are given less weighting. planning consultants. These included the application of a marked up photograph indicating alignment points to be coloured outlines to clarify the reading of the images or the A4.7 In addition, surveyed observation points and line work from surveyed. Care was taken to ensure that a good spread of A4.26 This process was iterated until a match had been achieved addition of tones to indicate occluded areas. Millerhare’s London Model database are used in conjunction alignment points was selected, including points close to the between the photograph and alignment model. At this stage, a with new data in order to ensure consistency and reliability. camera and close to the target. second member of staff verified the judgements made. An A3 print was made of the resulting photograph overlaid with the

176 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment September 2017 Appendices (continued)

Creating more sophisticated renderings A4.40 Peripheral annotation was added to the image to clearly A4.48 Using differential GPS techniques the Surveyor established A4.57 Peripheral annotation was added to the image to clearly A4.32 Where more sophisticated representations of the Proposed indicate the final FOV used in the image, any tilt or rise, and the location of at least two intervisible stations in the vicinity indicate the final FOV used in the image, any tilt or rise, and Developments were required (AVR3) the initial model is whether any cropping has been applied. of the camera location. A photograph of the GPS antenna in whether any cropping has been applied. developed to show the building envelope in greater detail. situ was taken as confirmation of the position. In addition, definitions were applied to the model to illustrate A4.41 Any exceptions to the applied policies or deviations from the A4.58 Any exceptions to the applied policies or deviations from the transparency, indicative material properties and inter-reflec- methodology were clearly described. Creating the context model methodology were clearly described. tion with the surrounding buildings. A4.49 Three dimension model data from a variety of sources was A4.42 Where appropriate, additional images were included in the assembled to determine the location of significant roofs- A4.59 Where appropriate, additional images were included in the A4.33 For each final view, lighting was set in the visualisation system study report, showing the Proposed Development in the cape features (parapet edges, ridge lines, chimneys etc) and study report, showing the Proposed Development in the to match the theoretical sunlight conditions at the time the context of other consented schemes. groundscape features (kerb and dock edges, walls etc). context of other consented schemes. source photograph was taken, and additional model lighting placed as required to best approximate the recorded lighting Process – modelled context A4.50 From this data an accurate roofscape model was prepared. conditions and the representation of its proposed materials. For buildings close to the site fenestration detail was added to the model to aid in understanding the scale of the context. A4.34 By creating high resolution renderings of the detailed model, Indicative trees with estimated height and width where using the calculated camera specification and approximated added to the model. Additional entourage (cars, buses, street lighting scenario, the operator prepared an image of the furniture etc) was inserted in order to provide scale. building that was indicative of its likely appearance when viewed under the conditions of the study photograph. This Creating the study model rendering was combined with the background and fore- A4.51 Using drawings and 3D models supplied by the Architects, an ground components of the source image to create the final accurate massing model of the project was created showing study images. all significant elements of the building that would affect that overall silhouette of the proposals. A palette of simple A4.35 Material definitions have been applied to the models assem- abstract materials is applied to the model. In general specific bled as described. The definitions of these materials have construction materials are not shown, except for glass which is been informed by technical notes on the planning drawings used in order to indicate a degree of transparency where this and other available visual material, primarily renderings affects the profile of the Proposed Development. created by others. These resulting models have then been Example of AVR using a modelled context rendered using the lighting conditions of the photographs. A4.52 Using data supplied by the Architects that defined the relation- Reconnaissance ship of the building grid to the Ordnance Survey, the completed A4.36 Where the Proposed Development is shown at night-time, A4.43 At each Study Location the Visualiser conducted a photo- study model was located in the same geometric space as the the lightness of the scheme and the treatment of the mate- graphic reconnaissance to identify potential Assessment context model, the survey and other reference data. rials was the best judgment of the visualiser as to the likely Points. From each candidate position, a digital photo- appearance of the scheme given the intended lighting graph was taken looking in the direction of the Proposed A4.53 Indicative trees with estimated height and width where strategy and the ambient lighting conditions in the back- Development using a wide angle lens. Its position was noted added to the model. Additional entourage (cars, buses, street ground photograph. with field observations onto an OS map and recorded by a furniture etc) was inserted in order to provide scale. second digital photograph looking at a marker placed at the A4.37 Where a panoramic view is specified each panel is prepared Assessment Point. Rendering and Post-production by treating each photograph as an individual AVR following A4.54 For each selected view, a virtual camera was created at the the process described in the previous paragraphs. The panels A4.44 The Visualiser assigned a unique reference to each Assessment same location as the digital photograph and using a similar are then arranged side by side to construct the panorama. Point and Photograph. FOV and target. Renders of both the existing model and the Vertical dividers are added to mark the edge of each panel in proposal model were produced using lighting from a sun order to make clear that the final image has been constructed Reference Photography at an appropriate time of day. As the models are internally from more than one photograph. A4.45 From each selected Assessment Point a large format photo- consistent the relationship of the Proposed Development to graph was taken with a camera height of approximately the context is exact. Documenting the study 1.6m. The camera, lens, format and direction of view are A4.38 For each Assessment Point a CAD location plan was prepared, determined in accordance with the policies set out above Documenting the study onto which a symbol was placed using the coordinates of the A4.55 For each Assessment Point a CAD location plan was prepared, camera supplied by the Surveyor. Two images of this symbol A4.46 The centre point of the tripod was marked and a digital onto which a symbol was placed using the coordinates of the were created cross-referencing background mapping supplied photograph showing the camera and tripod in situ was taken camera supplied by the Surveyor. Two images of this symbol by Ordnance Survey. to allow the Surveyor to return to its location. Measurements were created cross-referencing background mapping supplied and field notes were also taken to record the camera location, by Ordnance Survey. A4.39 The final report on the Study Location was created which shows lens used, target point and time of day. side by side, the existing and proposed prospect. These were A4.56 The final report on the Study Location was created which shows supplemented by images of the location map, a record of the Surveying the Assessment Points side by side, the existing and proposed prospect. These were camera location and descriptive text. The AVR level is described. A4.47 For each selected Assessment Point a survey brief was supplemented by images of the location map, a record of the prepared consisting of the Assessment Point study sheet. camera location and descriptive text. The AVR level is described.

September 2017 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 45 Notting Hill Gate, London W11 3LQ 177