Harrow Views Assessment 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
harrow views assessment JULY 2012 i Harrow-on-the-Hill by John Betjeman CONTENTS ii when melancholy autumn comes to wembley and electric trains are lighted after tea the poplars near the stadium are trembly with their tap and tap and whispering to me, 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................1 Like the sound of little breakers spreading out along the surf-line when the estuary’s filling 2.0 Planning Policy......................................................................................2 with the sea. 3.0 Relevant Guidance on visual assessment.........................................6 then Harrow-on-the-Hill’s a rocky island and Harrow churchyard full of sailor’s graves and the constant click and kissing of the trolley buses hissing 4.0 The Landscape of Harrow: is the level of the wealdstone turned to waves Key Characteristics and Landmarks....................................................8 and the rumble of the railway is the thunder of the rollers 5.0 Analysis of existing and Proposed views: as they gather for the plunging into caves Methodology.................................................................................10 there’s a storm cloud to the westward over Kenton, 6.0 Proposed Protected views................................................................62 there’s a line of harbour lights at Perivale, is it rounding rough Pentire in a flood of sunset fire the little fleet of trawlers under sail? 7.0 Suggested Planning Policies................................................................88 Can those boats be only roof tops as they stream along the skyline 8.0 Further Recommendations................................................................90 in a race for port and Padstow with the gale? 1.0 intRODUCtiOn 1 INTRODUCTIoN SLr Consulting Limited (SLr) was appointed • Prepare and provide any and all necessary by London Borough of harrow (LB harrow) to supporting material (e.g. images and maps); carry out a Views assessment for the Borough. and The main objectives of the study are to: • Report the findings and recommendations • Review and assess the existing views, to the Council landmarks and vistas identified in the UDP (2004); this views assessment is based upon a • Provide robust justification for the thorough review of existing policies and retention, modification or removal of each guidance as well as site visits carried out in both existing view, landmark and vista; winter and summer. surveys were carried out by a Chartered Landscape architect with over • identify and assess possible new views and 20 years of experience who has specialised in vistas; Landscape and visual impact assessment. • Recommend any new views and vistas in addition, consultation with local residents was for inclusion in the development plan, carried out to review the suggested protected providing robust justification for the views and consider alternatives. a meeting was inclusion or exclusion of each new view or held on 29th november 2011, at which residents vista identified; were asked to contribute additional viewpoints which they felt could meet the required criteria. • Recommend appropriate policies for every suggested viewpoint was assessed on inclusion in the area action Plan and the further site visits, and some of these viewpoints vistas; have been incorporated as protected views. 2 2.0 PLanninG POLiCY 2.0 PLanninG POLiCY 3 regional Policy: The London Plan 2011 Policy 7.12 states that new development within Local Policy: Saved Policies in the harrow Unitary a review of the relevant planning policies has designated panoramas “should be managed Development Plan (UDP) been carried out to set the planning context Policy 7.11 of the London Plan introduces the Policy 7.12 then sets out how the chosen views so that development fits within the prevailing Paragraph 4.93 of the UDP states that: for this assessment and to help inform the London views management Framework (LvmF), should be protected. the overall objective is set pattern of buildings and spaces and should not methodology. which identifies 27 views across London that out in part a of 7.12: detract from the panorama as a whole”. where “for many people Harrow is best known for require particular protection and sets out the strategically important landmarks occur within its imposing landmarks and attractive skyline methodology for protecting these views. none of New development should not harm, and where these views they should be given an “appropriate ridges. Views of Harrow on the Hill and the the identified viewing places, vistas or landmarks possible should make a positive contribution setting and prevent a canyon effect from new Harrow Weald Ridge extend over large parts is located within Harrow. to, the characteristics and composition of the buildings crowding in too close to the strategically of the Borough and the surrounding area and strategic views and their landmark elements. It important landmark in the foreground, add significantly to the quality of the local However, the principles set out in policy 7.11 should also preserve or enhance viewers’ ability to middleground or background where appropriate”. landscape”. could equally apply to other London Boroughs. recognise and to appreciate strategically in relation to the selection of viewing places and important landmarks in these views and, where For townscape and linear views, Policy 7.12 this paragraph also notes that the Borough also vistas these principles include: appropriate, protect the silhouette of landmark states that development should be “managed contains: elements of World Heritage Sites as seen from so that the ability to see specific buildings ... in • viewing places should be publicly accessible designated viewing places. conjunction with the surrounding environment, “panoramic views over Harrow, the and well-used including distant buildings within views, is neighbouring authorities, and beyond towards Policy 7.12 also states that development in the preserved.” Central London”. it is noted here that “poorly • Protected views should include significant foreground or middle ground of a protected sited and over sized buildings can intrude buildings or urban landscapes that help to view should “not be overly intrusive, unsightly on these spectacular views and detract define London at a strategic level or prominent to the detriment of the view”. considerably from a key characteristic of the Development in the background of designated Borough”. • views should represent panoramas across views should “give context to landmarks and not substantial parts of London, anD/OR views harm the composition of the view as a whole”. in order to protect these valued views, saved from an urban space of a building or group policy D31, views and Landmarks, states that: of buildings within a townscape setting (including narrow, linear views to a defined “The Council will resist development that object) anD/OR broad prospects along the has an adverse impact on important local River thames views, panoramas and prospects, and will seek to ensure that public access to identified viewpoints is maintained and enhanced” 4 2.0 PLanninG POLiCY 2.0 PLanninG POLiCY 5 schedule 4 of the UDP lists the views and (i) St mary’s Church, Harrow on the Hill, (ii) Panoramic view of Harrow and Central Landmarks to be protected: from: London from Old Redding • Harrow Recreation Ground, at (iii) Panoramic view of Harrow from Pinner entrance from Cunningham Park Golf Club • Courtenay avenue, at bridge over (iv) Panoramic view of south Harrow, Rayners railway lane and Pinner from st mary’s Church, Harrow on the Hill • the Bridge/George Gange way, wealdstone (v) Panoramic view of Harrow and Central London from stanmore Golf Course • Junction Uxbridge Road/Brookshill (vi) Harrow weald Ridge from: • Headstone manor Recreation Ground – opposite melbourne avenue • the Bridge/George Gange way, wealdstone • Footpath at mountside/vernon Drive, and • George v avenue/st thomas’ Drive • Harrow view, at junction with Radnor • stanmore Golf Course Road • Courtenay avenue, at bridge over railway • wakehams Hill, and • Roger Bannister Playing Fields 6 3.0 ReLEVANT GUiDanCe On tHe ASSESSMENT OF VIEWS 3.0 ReLEVANT GUiDanCe On tHe ASSESSMENT OF VIEWS 7 the wider setting Consultation area encloses a two stage approach is advocated within commonly asked to assess the value of views and London Views Management Framework the Landmark viewing Corridor, although this is this guidance. in the Phase a analysis, the the effects of development upon those views. (LVMF, 2012) not always present. as paragraph 47 of the LvmF importance of heritage assets within the view states, this area “is integral to the viewer’s ability is determined by identifying elements such as in assessing the effects of development upon the London views management Framework to recognise and appreciate the Strategically world Heritage sites, Listed Buildings, scheduled views, the GLvia focuses on the sensitivity of builds upon policies 7.11 and 7.12 within the Important Landmark and is sensitive to change”. monuments and/or historic parks and gardens. viewpoints and the magnitude of effects which London Plan by providing guidance on the it too has a threshold plane and any development the importance of the view as a whole is then a development would cause. the sensitivity of character and protection of the 27 views. which exceeds this will be subject to the same assessed viewpoints depends upon a number of factors, viewing Places,