,’
1-18 York Terrace East
Historic Building Report for RP1 Devco Limited
February 2021
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 1
1-18 York Terrace East
Historic Building Report
RP1 Devco Limited
Ordnance Survey map with the site marked in red. [Reproduced under Licence 100020449]
This report and all intellectual property rights in it and arising from it are the property of or are under licence to Donald Insall Associates. Neither the whole nor any part of this report, nor any drawing, plan, other document or any information contained within it may be reproduced in any form without the prior written consent of Donald Insall Associates. All material in which the intellectual property rights have been licensed to DIA and such rights belong to third parties may not be published or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of such material for publication or reproduction should be made directly to the owner of the intellectual property rights therein. Checked by CXZ
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 3
Contents
Summary of Historic Building Report 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 The Buildings, their Legal Status and Policy Context 6 1.3 Assessment of Significance 9 1.4 Summary of Proposals and Justification 12
Historical Background 2.1 Regent’s Park and the Nash Terraces 14 2.2 The Buildings: 1-18 York Terrace East 15 2.3 Occupancy 56 2.4 The Architect and Builder 57 2.5 Sources 59
Site Survey Descriptions (Undertaken in 2009) 3.1 The Setting of the Building 60 3.2 The Building Externally 60 3.3 The Buildings Internally 68
Commentary on the Proposals 4.1 Description of the Proposals and their Impact on the Heritage Assets 73 4.2 Justification of the Proposals 82 4.3 Conclusion 87
Appendices
Appendix I – Statutory List Description Appendix II – Planning Policy and Guidance Appendix III – List of Plates
Contact Information
Cordula Zeidler IHBC (Consultant) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888
Ashleigh Murray IHBC (Associate) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888
London Office 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB www.insall-architects.co.uk Summary of Historic 1.1 Introduction Building Report Donald Insall Associates was commissioned by RPI Devco Ltd in February 2021 to assist them in the preparation of proposals for 1-18 York Terrace East NW1 4PT.
This report relates to new proposals for residential accommodation. This follows a previous consented (2018) scheme for the formation of apartments and two large family houses, comprising 28 residential units (17/06973/FULL & 17/06974/LBC). This application is for a non-material amendment to the planning 2018 consent and a variation of condition 1 of the listed building consent.
In terms of the planning history, following the 2018 consents, listed building consent (19/04385/LBC) was granted for the use of the buildings as 21 dwellings, although the associated planning application (19/04384/FULL) was refused. In 2020, permission was granted for a non-material amendment to the original 2018 planning consent (20/02593/NMA) and a variation of condition 1 of the associated listed building consent (20/02590/LBC), relating to internal layout changes.
The investigation has comprised historical research, using both archival and secondary material, and a site inspection. An illustrated history of the site and buildings, with sources of reference and bibliography, is in Section 2; the site survey findings are in Section 3. The investigation has established the significance of the buildings, which is set out below. This understanding has informed the development of proposals for change to the building by John Simpson Architects. Section 4 provides a full justification of the scheme according to the relevant planning policy and guidance.
1.2 The Buildings, their Legal Status and Policy Context
1-18 York Terrace East are listed at Grade I and are located in the Regent’s Park Conservation Area in the City of Westminster. Development which affects the special interest of a listed building or its setting and development in conservation areas requires listed building consent and planning permission.
The statutory list description is included in Appendix I and extracts from relevant legislation and planning policy documents are contained in Appendix II.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is the legislative basis for decision-making on applications that relate to the historic environment. Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Act impose statutory duties upon local planning authorities which, with regard to listed buildings, require the planning authority to have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ and, in respect of conservation areas, that ‘special attention shall be
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 6 paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan applicable to the study site comprises Westminster’s City Plan (November 2016), Westminster’s Unitary Development Plan (January 2007), and London Plan (March 2021). The City Plan 2019-2040 (submitted November 2019) is also a material considerations.
Westminster’s City Plan (2016) contains policies pertaining to the historic environment, including Policy S25: Heritage, which states that Westminster’s ‘extensive heritage assets will be conserved, including its listed buildings, conservation areas...’ Westminster’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) has saved policies that deal with development affecting the historic environment, including Policy Des. 10: Listed Buildings, which requires that applications for development ‘respect the listed building’s character and appearance and serve to preserve, restore or complement its features of special architectural or historic interest’. The Development proposals also have to accord with the regional plan, in this case, the London Plan. T
Policy HC1 Heritage Conservation and Growth of the London Plan (March 2021) stipulates that ‘(C) Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process.’
The courts have held that following the approach set out in the policies on the historic environment in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 will effectively result in a decision-maker complying with its statutory duties. The Framework forms a material consideration for the purposes of section 38(6). At the heart of the Framework is ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and there are also specific policies relating to the historic environment. The Framework states that heritage assets are ‘an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’.
The Framework, in paragraph 189, states that:
In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 7 assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.
Section 1.3 of this report – the assessment of significance – meets this requirement and is based on the research and site surveys presented in sections 2 and 3, which are of a sufficient level of detail to understand the potential impact of the proposals. The Framework also, in paragraph 193, requires that:
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
The Framework goes on to state at paragraph 194 that:
Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification.
Section 4 of this report provides this clear and convincing justification.
The Framework requires that local planning authorities categorise harm as either ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’. Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset’, the Framework states, in paragraph 195, that:
… local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
Where a development proposal will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework states, in paragraph 196, that:
…this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 8 1.3 Assessment of Significance
York Terrace East is an impressive palatial terrace that forms part of the backdrop to Regent’s Park. Together with York Terrace West which has a near identical elevation facing the park, it forms a balanced pair. The stuccoed terrace at York Terrace East is formed of 18 former townhouses (Nos. 1-18) that were originally planned as single-family dwellings. The terrace was designed between 1821-6 by the architect John Nash (1752-1835), renowned for his transformative masterplans and grand façades and who was responsible for planning the laying out of Regent’s Park and its enclosing terraces. Nash, however, often did not design the interior of his buildings and frequently left this part of the design to builders or other architects; in the case of York Terrace East the builder responsible for the interiors was James Burton (1761-1837). James Burton was a prolific builder in Georgian London, responsible for large areas of Bloomsbury, as well as St John’s Wood and Clapham Common.
York Terrace East was occupied as townhouses until the Second World War. It experienced significant bomb damage and was in part reconstructed after the War. It was subject to significant and detrimental change when it was converted to office use in the 1950s and use as student residences in 1967. This entailed the creation of lateral corridors which breach the party walls; the loss of nine original staircases; the loss of nearly all internal finishes and fittings; the removal of three roofs; and changes to the rear elevation which meant the loss of the original fenestration pattern. A fire in 1969 destroyed the interiors of Nos. 7-13 and the roofs of Nos. 7-12.
York Terrace East is on the statutory list at the highest grade (Grade I) for the contribution it makes to John Nash’s masterplan of Regents Park and its outstanding townscape group value and palatial composition, balancing with the park-facing elevation at York Terrace West. This 1820s ‘palace’ block retains an impressive and largely intact north-facing elevation, acting as a picturesque backdrop to the Park, which is of the highest significance. This grand façade comprises a prominent columned portico which stands proud of the flanking ranges. The ranges, in turn, are positioned above a colonnaded loggia and terminate with columned pavilions.
On this important north elevation, many of the windows have been replaced but they generally follow the original fenestration pattern, apart from within the lightwell which was created after the war and where there is a variety of window designs. Historic external staircases connecting the raised ground floors with the garden are also of significance, although they have been unsympathetically altered with the addition of platforms to span across the modern lightwells. The lightwells themselves alter the original relationship of the terrace with the front garden and are covered with modern metal grilles that are a detracting feature.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 9 The south-facing street elevation was originally designed as the lesser of the two main elevations, is faced in stock brick, presenting a more domestic character, and provided the main access to the houses via a stucco screen. It has been partially rebuilt and altered in places, most notably where original half-landing windows onto the internal staircases have been moved to align with the main floor levels, thereby losing the typical rhythm of a Georgian rear elevation. Nevertheless, this elevation is still of high significance, both in terms of historic fabric (where it survives) and of its form, including the decorative continuous stuccoed screen at ground-floor level. The southern forecourts, one per house, are concealed from view and have been significantly altered and present an incoherent picture with fabric of very limited interest.
The west-facing side elevation to York Gate and in fact the entire house at 1 York Terrace East was entirely rebuilt after the Second World War but is still of significance as it is a successful replica that continues to read as part of Nash’s overall development of York Terrace and York Gate. The east elevation is partially obscured from the street via a screen but also survives largely intact and is also of significance.
The primary significance of the listed terrace lies in its external appearance and the major contribution it makes to Nash’s planned townscape around Regent’s Park. The interiors of the buildings, which were designed by Burton rather than Nash, were always of lesser interest. They have been largely lost as a consequence of the post- war remodelling and fire, and, apart from original staircases (where they survive) and remaining elements of the original plan form (mostly relating to stair enclosures, chimneybreasts and party walls), there is virtually no internal historic fabric. As a consequence the interiors are of low significance.
Some original fabric remains at roof level which is of some significance, although several of the roofs have been replaced and the original M-plan form of a number of roofs has been heavy altered. Original roof structures and their original M-plan roof forms survive at Nos. 3, 5, 14 and are of significance. So too are the original roof structures at Nos. 6, 13, 15, 17, although their original M-plan roof forms have been altered with the addition of central flat roofs. The roofs of Nos. 7-12 were rebuilt following a fire in the 1960s and the roofs to Nos. 2 and 18 are also modern replacements. At Nos. 7 and 12, although modern, the M-plan roof forms were reinstated and therefore are of some significance. The chimney stacks are missing across the whole terrace group which detracts from the appearance of the roofline.
Of the highest significanceare:
• The palatial north-facing elevation which, in tandem with York Terrace West and other terraces by Nash grouped around the park’s perimeter, acts acting as a picturesque backdrop to Regent’s Park.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 10 Of high significance are:
• The south-facing domestic façade, although later accretions and changes detract from its appearance. • The side elevations; • The surviving original staircases at Nos. 4, 9, 12-18; • Original roof structures which retain their original form (Nos. 3, 5, 14).
Of moderate significance are:
• The interior elements of plan form that survive in a recognisable form, namely stairwell openings (Nos. 1, 4, 9, 11-18) and mostly intact party walls (Nos. 11-18) • The reused original lower-ground-floor staircase metal handrails (Nos. 4, 9, 14 and 15) • Original roof structures where the original M-plan has been heavily altered (Nos. 6, 13, 15 and 17) • Modern roof structures where the original M-plan roof form has been reinstated in the 20th century (Nos. 7 & 12); • The original service doors at Nos. 6, 15, 17, and 18; • The floor structures.
Factors which detract from the building’s significance are:
• The modern north lightwell and its associated metal grilles and platform extensions to the historic external metal staircases; • Modern window insertions to the north-facing façade, outlined in 3.2.1; • Patchy brickwork repairs and rebuilding to the south-facing façade; • The lack of chimney stacks across the terrace; • The alterations to the southern forecourts; • The loss of the original plan form at all levels; • The modern interiors; • The large modern ceiling beams in the ground-floor northern rooms of Nos. 2, 8-10, and 17-18 and at third-floor level in Nos. 14-16.
The significance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area is defined by Regent’s Park’s extensive parkland and the surrounding grand stuccoed terraces, which all form part of John Nash’s original masterplan for the area. The picturesque urban planning of the park contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area, as do the 19th-century terraces (including York Terrace East) which form an impressive backdrop to the park. Their grand classical façades are faced in stucco and incorporate typical key features, including pediments, portico and various orders of columns.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 11 1.4 Summary of Proposals and Justification
The proposed scheme is shown in the drawings produced by John Simpson Architects, which this report accompanies. The ambition of the scheme overall is to substantially enhance the significance of the buildings and that of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area and the registered park through the removal of all modern subdivisions in the buildings, the reinstatement of vertically arranged dwellings, and with apartments at the lower levels, with internal layouts and decorative schemes reminiscent of their original architectural character, hierarchy and grandeur. These works are outlined in more detail in Section 4.
The main aim of these proposals is to convert the terrace back to use as permanent housing, with:
• Plan forms that more appropriately reflect those lost in the post-war refurbishment; • Internal decorations in an appropriate early-19th-century style, mostly at the principal levels; • The discreet introduction of passenger lifts in altered areas; • Further works throughout the terrace include the provision of some concealed roof accommodation for plant and terraces, and modern concealed basements; • To improve the viability of the scheme, the construction process would be accelerated with the replacement of the existing floor structures; • Similarly, some of the roofs would be permanently replaced, but where original roof structures remain these would be recorded, removed off- site during construction, repaired as necessary, and subsequently reinstated, albeit some involving alteration to accommodate central terraces; • The nine original staircases would be retained but two would be relocated to equivalent positions in other houses in the terrace (this is in contrast to 3 staircases being mothballed in the recent consent).
The proposals would lead to significant public benefits, including heritage benefits. These would include providing a significant number of residential units, including houses and apartments in a variety of sizes: this is in line with residential use being the optimum viable use, and with policy and aspirations to provide additional housing in the borough. The scheme would also reinstate interior layouts and finishes that reflect the lost original interiors. This would allow these dwellings to accommodate residents including families, as originally planned, and generate the patterns of occupation that best suit this terrace, whilst also allowing the proper and sustainable repair, upkeep and maintenance of these buildings in the future, alongside with creating more housing units for Westminster. This would enhance the significance of both the Grade I-listed terrace and the Regent’s Park Conservation Area and the setting of the registered park.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 12 Although some harm would be caused by the formation of these dwellings, namely through the temporary and permanent removal of some elements of historic fabric namely floor structures and localised elements of party walls which would be removed, the associated changes can generally be comfortably accommodated as these buildings have lost much of their original plan form and finishes because they have already been subdivided and were last in use as student flats. The scheme is in line with the previous consent, but additionally, in terms of benefits, would reinstate vertical accommodation rather than laterally connected apartments.
Although some harm has been identified within the proposals, this harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’, in accordance with the terminology of the NPPF (para 196). The many compelling benefits offered by the scheme would easily outweigh the ‘less than substantial harm’ caused and are, therefore, considered a material consideration which overcomes the presumption against proposals set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Furthermore, the NPPF heritage policies are also a material consideration to overcome the in part non-compliance with the local and regional plans.
The proposals are similar to the consented scheme (17/06973/ FULL & 17/06974/LBC) but some of the units are larger and would span vertically from the ground to the third floor. This means that the accommodation would be more vertically arranged which would be more in keeping with the original character of the building and would be a substantial improvement when viewed from the surrounding area. Apart from internal layout changes, there are a number of new additions to the consented scheme, which are set out in detail in Section 4 of this report but include, for example, the relocation of two original staircase within the terrace (rather than mothballing three staircases as consented) and the incorporation of a mezzanine level at basement level.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 13 Historical Background 2.1 Regent’s Park and the Nash Terraces
Regent’s Park occupies an area which was originally known as Marylebone Park. In the Middle Ages it was held by the Nunnery of Barking and from the 16th century by the Crown, who enclosed it as a deer park. The area was used as farmland by the Duke of Portland in the 18th century, illustrated in Potter’s 1789 Plan of Mary-le-Bone Park [plate 1]. In 1811 it reverted to the Crown who had drawn up a number of plans for developing in and around the park.
A scheme by John Nash was chosen for development; it envisaged a considerable number of buildings to be erected in and around the park, not all of which were built. The plan included a circus at Portland Place and one in the park, as well as two crescents north of it, and twenty- six villas in the park. This ambitious plan was realised only in a very rudimentary fashion; only the terraces surrounding the park were built; to the south (Park Square, Ulster Terrace, York Terrace and Cornwall Terrace), east (St Andrew’s Terrace, Cambridge Terrace, Chester 1. Potter’s 1789 Plan of Mary-le-Bone Terrace, Cumberland Terrace and Gloucester Gate) and west (Clarence Park Terrace, Sussex Place and Hanover Terrace with Kent Terrace set
2. Nash’s Plan of the Regent’s Park as behind). Also built were a small number of villas in the park, and half realised, 1827 the circus at Portland Place [plate 2].
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 14 2.2 The Buildings: 1-18 York Terrace East
2.2.1 Initial Development
The terraces, designed by Nash, were built between 1821-6, largely by James Burton. York Terrace derived its name from George IV’s brother, Frederick Duke of York, and was built to define the southern boundary of Regent’s Park. It was initially designed as a single continuous terrace, but was ultimately constructed as two symmetrical wings flanking York Gate, framing the route and view to the newly constructed St Mary’s Church by Thomas Hardwick to the south. The initial plots for the western terrace are visible in Horwood’s map of 1819 [plate 3]. Nash had intended a Doric colonnade linking the east and west wings of York Terrace across York Gate, but this was never built.
Both the terrace’s east and west wings were designed to present symmetrical façades to the park, as illustrated in Greenwood’s map of 1827 [plate 4]. The buildings were entered off the mews on their south side in order to avoid steps and entrance porticoes fragmenting the all- important, park-facing elevation, which was intended as a continuous façade - likened by some to two palaces [plate 5].1 An 1827 engraving by T.H. Shepherd depicts the principal elevation of York Terrace as built [plate 6], while Mayhew’s 1835 map provides a clearer view of the early outline of the terrace to the east of York Gate [plate 7]. The 1867 Ordnance Survey illustrates the differences in outline plan of the east and west sides of York Terrace [plate 8].
Few early pictorial records of the terraces are available, save for a number of undated historic photographs on file at the Westminster and London Metropolitan Archives [plates 9A-C]. No pictorial records of the terrace interiors are available, though it should be noted that Nash was principally renowned for his master plans and building façades; acting as an architectural overseer, he often left interior plans and details to the builder or other architects. In 1960 Terence Davis commented that ‘the interiors are not of great interest’,2 and since then the interiors have been further compromised through their conversion into offices in the late 1940s-50s and again as part of a comprehensive conversion which occurred in the late 1960s (see below).
Drainage plans dating to the early 20th century [plates 10-26] illustrate that the buildings were generally laid out as standard late-Georgian terraces. The ground and first floors consisted of a large northern room with a smaller room and staircase to the south, linking to the main entrance from the mews. The lower ground and second floors appear to have followed a similar layout, albeit with minor variations; in the lower ground floor the northern room was subdivided into two and included an extension of the corridor, while on the second floor the northern room was also subdivided into two rooms. The plan form of the third floor is not as easily discernable in the available drainage plans but traditionally these floors were used by staff and were often further subdivided.
1 Davis, 1973, p. 67. 2 Davis, 1960, p. 101.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 15 3. Horwood’s map of 1819 4. Greenwood’s map of 1827
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 16 5. 1823 engraving by w. Westall and C. Neath, view across Regent’s Park 6. Engraving (T.H. Shepherd), York Terrace, 1827
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 17 7. Mayhew’s 1835 map showing York Terrace East 8. 1867-70 Ordnance Survey map
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 18 Due to the narrow plot widths of Nos. 8, 10 and 11, their plan form differed with the positioning of the staircase in the centre of each building between the front and rear rooms. The plan form of No. 8 (previously 31 York Terrace) in 1955 is shown in plate 18 and the lower- ground-floor plan form of No. 10 (previously 33 York Terrace) in 1905 is shown in plate 19.
There were forecourts to the south of the terrace which included ground-floor entrance lobbies that provided access from the street to the main houses. At lower-ground-floor level these forecourt areas included lightwells (confirmed by the presence of several original lower- ground-floor windows) and several utilitarian rooms, such as sculleries. The original layout of the forecourts at lower-ground-floor level is unclear but they may have followed the L-shaped form shown in plates 13 and 15. Additional rooms were constructed in the forecourts at ground-floor level, some resulting in the insertion of a secondary street entrance.
Plates 10 and 11 show that the lodge at 6 York Gate did not originally connect internally with 1 York Terrace East; it was not until later in the 20th century that the two were linked at lower ground and ground floors.
The lower-ground-floor plan of the recessed blocks (Nos. 3-7 and Nos. 12-16) originally included narrow lightwells beyond the main north building line [see plates 15 and 16]. Fronting the gardens, these lightwells were served by segmental openings which included grilles as opposed to windows [plate 9C].
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 19 9A. Undated photograph of west end and centre of York Terrace East 9B Undated photograph of west end of York Terrace East showing York Terrace West
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 20 9C Undated photograph of north elevations of York Terrace West and East
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 21 10. 24 York Terrace, floor plans and short section, 1923
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 22 11. York Terrace, drawings for erection of a conservatory, 1929
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 23 12. 25 York Terrace, basement and second floor plans, 1909 13. 25 York Terrace, basement and second floor plans and section, 1916
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 24 14. 25 York Terrace, third and fourth floor plans and section through attic, 1921 15. 26 York Terrace, basement plan and section, 1909
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 25 16. 27 York Terrace, basement, second and third floor plans, 1921 17. 28 York Terrace, second and third floor plans, 1938
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 26 18. 31 York Terrace, floor plans 1955
19. 33 York Terrace, basement and third floor plans, long section, 1905
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 27 20. 35 York Terrace, ground and second floors, long section, 1920 21. 37 York Terrace, basement and second floor plans, long section, 1913
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 28 22. 38-41 York Terrace, ground, first and second floor plans, 1966
23. 39 York Terrace, ground and second floor plans, rear elevation, 1924
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 29 24. 40 York Terrace, basement plan, 1966
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 30 25. 40 York Terrace, floor plans, 1942
26. 41 York Terrace, basement, ground, second and third floor plans, long section, 1926
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 31 2.2.2 War Damage
It appears that by the early 20th century the houses survived generally unsubdivided, except on the upper floors where in some of the buildings additional bathrooms had been installed. The houses remained largely unaltered in regards to their overall plan form and exterior, until World War II. The north elevation of what is now York Terrace East was depicted in a 1937 photograph, as well as an unobscured view of a central part of the north elevation in c1940 [plates 27 and 28].
27. North elevation of York Terrace East, 1937 28. c1940 photograph of central portion of York Terrace North elevation
The LCC Bomb Damage Map 1939-45 and historic photographs show that the western end of the terrace experienced some substantial bomb damage in c1941 [plates 29 and 30]. 24 York Terrace (now 1 York Terrace East) was apparently damaged beyond repair, while 27 York Terrace (now 4 York Terrace East) was severely damaged, and 25 and 26 York Terrace had some blast damage. The extensive post-war rebuilding of 24 York Terrace was documented by a historic photograph [plate 31].
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 32 29. LCC Bomb Damage Map 1939-45 30. 1942 photograph of York Terrace East following bomb damage 31. 1-3 York Terrace East reconstruction following bomb damage, undated
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 33 2.2.3 Government and Crown Reports on the Future of the Nash Terraces
In 1947 a report was presented to Parliament3 which discussed the future of the Nash terraces at Regent’s Park, responding to calls for their demolition following bomb damage and structural problems. At that stage the Ministry of Works had tenure of 212 of the 374 Nash terrace houses. The government accepted the report and concluded that the terraces were ‘of national interest and importance’4 and that they ‘should be preserved, so far as that is practicable’5. The report also recommended that the terraces be kept in residential use rather than being converted for offices, and that the office use they were in at the time serving government departments (see Section 2.3) was to be temporary only.
A conversion plan for York Terrace had been prepared already during the War, in c1943, by the architect Louis de Soissons6; this may have been for flats. The condition of York Terrace at that time is recorded to have been poor in various respects. The buildings were the thought to have been built from ‘very poor brickwork throughout’ and erected on ‘treacherous subsoil’, without proper bonding between party walls and main walls, with floors ‘carried mainly by internal partitions of poor timber frame structure’, the buildings were generally lacking damp proof courses, and were suffering from dry rot and general deterioration.7
This account was confirmed by an investigation carried out for the 1947 report, compiled by the engineer Oscar Faber; in his account dry rot is mentioned specifically for the houses at York Terrace.8 The Georgian Group and a number of residents, however, took issue with this damning assessment and stated that there were no serious structural problems to the buildings at York Terrace.9
The authors of the 1947 report recommended that some of the Nash terraces should be preserved despite the poor state they were in; they listed the following as essential to preserve: Hanover Terrace, Sussex Place, Cornwall Terrace, York Gate, Park Crescent, Chester Terrace, and Cumberland Terrace. As regards York Terrace the report reads that this was ‘admittedly not of quite the same architectural merit [as the above-listed terraces], but we nevertheless feel that it should be preserved’10.
Following the government’s 1947 report, the Crown Estate published three reports, entitled ‘The Future of the Regent’s Park Terraces’, in 1957, 1959 and 1962. The final 1962 report stated that the Nash terraces needed investment and a modern use, and that such a use
3 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947. 4 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947, p. 3. 5 ibid 6 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947, p. 14. 7 ibid 8 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947, p. 33. 9 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947, p. 14. 10 Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces, 1947, p. 21.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 34 would need to yield an income and be realised in conjunction with commercial developers. As many of the terraces were found to be in a very poor state of repair, the Crown commenced reconstructing some of the terraces by 1962, but ultimately decided that all remaining terraces, including the York Terraces but excepting Park Crescent, Sussex Place and Clarence Terrace, were to be retained rather than rebuilt.
2.2.4 Ministry of Work Occupation and Related Changes
The Ministry of Work requisitioned and occupied most of the houses at 24-41 York Terrace for some time after World War II, with the exception of 30, 35 and 37, and carried out works for themselves in order to create interconnected office space; drawings dated to 1946 and show alterations proposed in 1951 [plates 32A-E], including a central corridor connecting the buildings at 24-28 York Terrace laterally at the ground, second and third floor levels.
The drawings also show that at this stage the stairs between the second and third floors at 35-41 were located further north than the main staircase below, forming more modest service stairs; drainage plans reveal that this was the original stair configuration [plates 10-26]. This explains why today the top flight of stairs in those houses which is located directly above the lower flights is all modern construction; these modern top flights were built as part of the late 1960s scheme following the demolition of the historic, and presumably original, top flights further north (see below).
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 35 32A 1951 proposed basement plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 36 32B 1951 proposed ground floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 37 32C 1951 proposed first floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 38 32D 1951 proposed second floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 39 32E 1951 proposed third and fourth loor plans, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 40 2.2.5 Post-War Redevelopment
It was decided by the Crown, but only following vehement objections to demolition by the London County Council, that a refurbishment of York Terrace was to be carried out with two developers, one for the east terrace and one for the west. Both were initially to be converted into flats following the demolition of their rear walls and party walls. York Terrace East was to be developed by Max Rayne with Cecil Elsom as architect, York Terrace West by a subsidiary of the Taylor Woodrow Group with Thomas Bennett as architect.
Max Rayne and Cecil Elsom were dropped as developer and architect respectively in 1967, when the International Students’ Trust asked TP Bennett Architects to draw up a scheme to convert York Terrace East into student accommodation and flats for married students.11 London District Rotary occupied some of the ground floor areas at 1 and 2 York Terrace East and 6 York Gate, which is attached to 1 York Terrace East.
An account of the buildings provided for the opening of the student accommodation in 1971 reads as follows:
‘By then [1967] the terrace had not only deteriorated sadly but had lost much of its original character. Attics had been added, windows had been changed and extensions constructed on the south side which was festooned with pipework. The interiors, through successive conversions and repairs, had been stripped of much of their original features. There was therefore nothing to lose internally and much to gain externally …The plan was to return to the original design for the exterior and to refurbish the structure, roofs and services of the building and so to ensure its survival for at least another century without further major work.
…At that time, the American School occupied ten houses but the remaining eight had been empty for some years. Exhaustive surveys were made to ascertain the condition of the structure. The buildings were generally sound, with little evidence of dry rot, but the original construction had involved burying great quantities of timber within the thickness of the walls, all of which had to be exposed – for replacement where necessary – by removing every scrap of plaster in the building.
In several houses, the whole of the splendid façade facing the park rested on timber beams and cast iron posts which had luckily survived intact for 150 years but could not be trusted for another century. It was therefore necessary to pin up much of this construction and put in new supports.
… [work started] on the 8th April 1969 on the eight empty houses in the centre of the block. Four more houses – at the east end – were started in August 1969, but the remaining six houses and No. 6 York Gate were not available until one year ago, in July 1970. The contract completion dates were phased between August 1970 and May of this year [1971].
11 National Archives, CRES 35/5202.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 41 … The conversion work has involved the complete renewal of the roofs, the internal partitions, the finishes and services of the houses and the damp-proofing of the entire warren of basements. Much of the timber floor construction was found to be sound, and was been left, but all timber construction, old and new, has been sandwiched with asbestos and thick plaster to prevent fire and all the new partitions are entirely incombustible. Seven of the original staircases have been removed…’12
The Bennett scheme [plates 33, 34A-E and 35A-E] was carried out between c1968 and 1971; the buildings at 1-11 York Terrace East were opened as student accommodation by the Queen Mother on 7 July 1971.
This scheme cleared away all extensions on the south elevation and generally sought to create a uniform, cleaner elevation facing York Terrace East; a roof extension at 2 York Terrace East (formerly 25 York Terrace) was removed, several shallow southern extensions were taken away, and the fenestration on the south elevation was regularised, with windows at half levels removed and standard six-over-six sashes inserted instead [plates 36 and 37].
36. Photograph of south elevation of Internally, the Bennett plan retained the corridor connection in the west York Terrace East, 1960 part of the terrace which had been created by the Ministry of Works, 37. Photograph of south elevation of York Terrace East, 1976 extending it to run between Nos. 2 to 9, and removed most of the stairs in 1-11 York Terrace East; only the stairs in Nos. 4 and 9 were retained. The staircases in Nos. 1 and 11 which are modern might have been replaced as part of the Bennett scheme, or earlier, during the Ministry of Works refurbishment.
In the lower ground floor the scheme provided community rooms such as dining rooms, television rooms and music practice rooms, along with photography dark rooms and workshops. The scheme also created a continuous area lightwell area at lower-ground-floor level to the north, and a new retaining wall beyond.
For a map regression of building footprint changes to both York Terrace East and West throughout the mid-to-late 20th century, please refer to the Ordnance Surveys included in plates 38-41. 33. South, east and west elevations showing proposed alterations, TP 12 Notes on York Terrace…1971, p. 5. Bennett & Sons, 1968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 42 34A Existing basement plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s 34B Existing ground floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 43 34C Existing upper floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s 34D Exising third floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 44 34E Existing south elevation, TP Bennett & Sons, c1968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 45 35A Proposed south, east and west elevations, section, TP Bennett 35B Proposed north elevation, TP Bennett & Sons, & Sons, June 1968 November 2968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 46 35C Proposed basement and ground floor plans, TP Bennett & Sons, July 1968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 47 35D Proposed first and second floor plans, TP Bennett & Sons, June 1968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 48 35E Proposed third floor and roof plans, TP Bennett & Sons, June 1968
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 49 38. 1934-40 Ordnance Survey map
39. 1953 Ordnance Survey map
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 50 40. 1965 Ordnance Survey Map
41. 1972 Ordnance Survey Map
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 51 42A 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, existing ground floor plan
42B 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed ground floor plan
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 52 42C 2000 Reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed reflected ceiling plan
42D 2000 Reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed sections
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 53 2.2.6 The 1969 Fire
In 1969 a fire broke out at 11 York Terrace East. The fire damaged seven of the adjoining houses, including 7-13 York Terrace East; all except No. 13 needed new roofs. An account of the works necessary to repair the houses, dated 11 December 1969, is held by the Crown Archives13 and lists the works as follows:
• 7 York Terrace East (YTE): New roof. New floorboards and repairs to joists at third floor.
• 8 YTE: New roof. Third floor to be renewed. New floorboards to second floor.
• 9 YTE: New roof. Third floor to be renewed. New floorboards to second and first floors.
• 10 YTE: New roof. Third floor to be renewed including concrete beams. Second floor to be renewed. New floorboards to first floor.
• 11 YTE: New roof. Third floor to be renewed including concrete beams. Second, first and ground floors to be renewed.
• 12 YTE: New roof. Third floor to be renewed. New floorboards to second floor.
• 13 YTE: Roof repairs only.
2.2.7 21st Century Alterations
In 2000 the ground floor reception area was altered and a new curved reception desk introduced at 10 York Terrace East [plate 42A-D]. Other minor alterations are likely to have been carried out throughout the buildings, such as the fitting of modern sanitary ware and light fittings, and the upgrading of the M&E systems. Other works have involved tree and playground maintenance to the north garden and CCTV equipment installations.
13 National Archives, CRES 35/5203
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 54 2.2.8 Recent Planning History
Although no recent works have taken at the site, apart from those outlined in Section 2.2.7, a number of unimplemented planning and listed building applications have been recently submitted, as follows:
• 17/06973/FULL – Permitted (June 2018) Use of buildings as 28 residential units (Class C3) including 26 flats and two single dwelling houses; removal and replacement of roof, retention of all facades, excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park.
• 17/06974/LBC – Permitted (June 2018) Removal and replacement of roof, floors, non original stairs; retention of all facades and spine walls; excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park all in association with the use of buildings as 28 residential units (Class C3) including 26 flats and two single dwelling houses.
• 19/04385/LBC – Permitted (December 2019) Use of buildings as 21 new dwellings; removal and replacement of roof, floors, non-original stairs; retention of all facades and spine walls; excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park.
The associated planning application (19/04384/FULL) was refused.
• 20/02593/NMA - Permitted (May 2020) Amendments to planning permission dated 6 June 2018 (RN: 17/06973/ FULL) for: use of buildings as 28 residential units (Class C3) including 26 flats and two single dwelling houses; removal and replacement of roof, retention of all facades, excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park. NAMELY, to allow the rearrangement of the 28 units within the existing buildings.
• 20/02590/LBC – Permitted (May 2020) Variation of condition 1 of listed building consent dated 06 June 2018 (RN: 17/06974) for the: Removal and replacement of roof, floors, non original stairs; retention of all facades and spine walls; excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park all in association with the use of buildings as 28 residential units (Class C3) including 26 flats and two single dwelling houses. NAMELY, to allow the rearrangement of the 28 units within the existing buildings.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 55 2.3 Occupancy
York Terrace was known as such until the late 1960s when the terraces were converted into flats and student accommodation, and renamed York Terrace East (east of York Gate) and York Terrace West (west thereof). Initially, the York Terrace houses were numbered consecutively from west to east before being renumbered at the time of their renaming, when 24-41 York Terrace (consec.) became today’s 1-18 York Terrace East.
The following record of occupancy for 1-18 York Terrace East was compiled from Kelly’s Directories, Electoral Registers and Boyle’s Court Guide.
Before World War II the buildings were occupied as single family dwellings leased by the Crown on 99-year leases, which were renewed in the 1920s for another 21 years. These were repairing leases which required the leaseholders, rather than the Crown, to maintain the buildings.
Occupants comprised members of the professional classes, such as physicians and solicitors, and others part of the aristocracy; York Terrace clearly was a fashionable address prior to wartime.
In 1920 and 1930 30 York Terrace (now 7 York Terrace East) was in use as the Cuban Legation. Between 1922 and 1923 the author Hugh Walpole lived at 24 York Terrace (now 1 York Terrace East).
In 1941 or 1942 the terrace was bomb damaged, and the 1945 directory only lists occupants at 35 and 37 York Terrace (now 12 and 14 York Terrace East).
In 1950, only 30, 35 and 37 York Terrace appear to have been occupied as residences, and this pattern continued through the 1960s: the 1960 Electoral Register only lists occupants at 30, 31 and 37 York Terrace, and in 1965 only 30 and 31 were occupied as residential units. The rest of the buildings were in interim use as government offices for the Ministry of Works during the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s; in 1957 40 of the buildings at York Terrace were recorded to have been government offices.14
In 1970 there were no entries for the terrace in the electoral register, presumably due to ongoing construction works. From 1972 the Electoral Register lists the students of International Students’ Hostel at 10 York Terrace East (presumably occupying 1-10). 11 York Terrace East appears to have remained in use a single family house, the occupants listed as Harold and Barbara Shaw, while 12-18 York Terrace East were subdivided into flats and in multiple occupation. This pattern of occupation continued through the 1970s and 1980s.
14 The Crown Estate, 1957, p. 9; Davis, 1960, p. 101.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 56 2.4 The Architect and Builder
2.4.1 The Architect of Regent’s Park: John Nash (1752-1835)
John Nash was the son of a millwright from Neath, Glamorgan, who entered the office of architect Robert Taylor as an indentured pupil in 1766 or 1767.
The successful launch of Nash’s career as a fashionable London architect owed much to his partnership with Humphry Repton, the best-known English landscape gardener of his time, which began when Nash took Repton’s son John Adey Repton into his office as an assistant. Repton and Nash quickly built up a reputation as designers of rural and suburban villas set in carefully landscaped settings on relatively small estates. By 1800 Nash was on his way to becoming one of the most successful domestic architects in England, and in the first decade of the nineteenth century he succeeded, despite the distractions of the Napoleonic wars, in building up a large and lucrative country house practice among the English and Irish gentry and minor nobility.
Nash’s most memorable commission for the Prince Regent was for the rebuilding of the Royal Pavilion at Brighton (1815–23) in what he called an ‘Eastern’ style. A more orthodox but no less lavish spirit reigns at Buckingham Palace (the former Buckingham House), rebuilt to Nash’s designs after the king, as he now was, decided to abandon Carlton House.
Nash’s greatest achievements stemmed from the decision by the Office of Woods and Forests in 1810 to implement long-matured proposals for the profitable development of Marylebone Park, on the north-western fringe of London. Nash’s plan for Regent’s Park - as it became known - was prepared and approved in 1811–12. The building of the terraces of houses around the park’s fringe, on which the profitability of the whole scheme depended, was delayed until the economy revived in the post- Waterloo years. These palatial-looking structures (including Sussex Place, 1822; Chester Terrace, 1825; and, grandest of all, Cumberland Terrace, 1825) disguise ordinary brick construction behind Nash’s gleaming stuccoed façades, but as urban scenery they are second to none, justifying contemporary pride in London as an imperial capital worthy of comparison with Rome. Finally in 1825, on the north-eastern fringe of the site, spanning the Regent’s Canal, Nash laid out the park village, ‘more’, as he said himself, ‘for amusement than profit’. Nash’s influence on London culminated in the creation of Regent Street, linking Regent’s Park with St James’s Park, Whitehall, and the Strand.
Nash’s career reached its climax between 1811, when he produced his first designs for Regent Street and Regent’s Park, and 1830, when his greatest patron, George IV, died. In the same year, Nash had a stroke and retired to the Isle of Wight, leaving his junior relative James Pennethorne to manage what remained of his practice in London. In 1834 he formally made the practice over to Pennethorne, recommending him to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for future employment. Nash died in 1835.15
15 Tyack, 2004.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 57 2.4.2 The Builder: James [Haliburton] Burton (1761-1837)
James Burton was one of the most significant builders of Georgian London, responsible for large areas of Bloomsbury, as well as St John’s Wood and Clapham Common. He was born on 29 July 1761 in London to William Haliburton, a Southwark builder of Scottish descent. After being articled to surveyor James Dalton in 1776, he began his career as a speculative builder in 1785 overseeing a small Southwark housing development. His professional ambition escalated soon after, however, when he went on to develop a substantial portion of the Foundling Hospital Estate, including 586 houses, which led to further schemes throughout Bloomsbury.
Although primarily a builder, Burton designed many of his own works. His early work was characterised by a uniformity and austerity of elevation, and spacious formal layouts comprising terraces, squares and crescents. Between 1785 and 1823 he was responsible for the construction of 2,366 houses in London, in addition to numerous other developments including houses in Kent and the development of St Leonards-on-Sea in Sussex. Burton also played a crucial role in the major London building projects of John Nash; working on the development of Waterloo Place and the terraces and villas of Regent’s Park, including Cornwall Terrace, York Terrace and Chester Terrace. Burton’s son, Decimus, was responsible for the architectural styling of much of the Regent’s Park collaboration between Nash and his father, though his specific role in the design of York Terrace is unclear. The partnership was not without controversy, however; Nash was so dissatisfied with Burton’s interpretation of his designs for the 1825 Chester Terrace that he sought its demolition and rebuilding, though in vain.
James Burton’s prolific portfolio and renown led to remarkable success which generated some of London’s most characteristic architecture. He died on 31 March 1837, and was buried at St Leonards.16
16 Bowdler, 2001.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 58 2.5 Sources
London Metropolitan Archives GLC Photographs Collection Maps Collection
The Crown Estate Building Files
The National Archives Building files for the Crown Estate
Westminster Local Archives Drainage Plans Electoral Registers Kelly’s Directories Photographs Collection
Published Sources
Bowdler, R. 2004. ‘Burton, James (1761-1837)’ in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cherry, B. and Pevsner, N. 1991. The Buildings of England: London 3: North West. London: Yale University Press. Davis, T. 1960. The Architecture of John Nash. London: Studio Books. Davis, T. 1973. John Nash: The Prince Regent’s Architect. Newton Abbot: David and Charles PLC. Mansbridge, M. 1991. John Nash: A Complete Catalogue. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Mordaunt Crook, J. 2001. London’s Arcadia: John Nash and the Planning of Regent’s Park. Annual Soane Lecture, 2000. London: Apollo Magazine. Summerson, J. 1980. The Life and Work of John Nash, Architect. London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. Tyack, G. 2004. ‘Nash, John (1752-1835)’ in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unpublished Sources
Crown Estate Commissioners. 1957. The Crown Estate: The Future of the Regent’s Park Terraces. Held at the RIBA Library. Crown Estate Commissioners. March 1959. The Future of the Regent’s Park Terraces, Second Statement. Held at the RIBA Library. Crown Estate Commissioners. June 1962. The Future of the Regent’s Park Terraces, Third Statement. Held at the RIBA Library. Notes on York Terrace and the New Extension to International Students House. Held at the National Archives: CRES 35/ 5203. Report of the Committee on the Regent’s Park Terraces. April 1947. Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury by Command of His Majesty. Held at the RIBA Library.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 59 Site Survey Descriptions 3.1 The Setting of the Building (Undertaken in 2009) 3.1.1 York Terrace East
This is a relatively narrow street in tarmac with some modern cobbles which has a mews character and which forms the continuation of York Terrace West. To the north are the rear elevations of 1-18 York Terrace East with a projecting continuous entrance screen, and to the south a row of post-war three-storey buildings in stucco and brick. The pavement outside York Terrace East is in York stone, and towards the road are inappropriate modern metal railings.
3.1.2 Outer Circle
This is the peripheral road to Regent’s Park. The terrace is set back from it with gardens between the road and terrace. A continuous run of handsome cast-iron railings, presumably original to the construction of the terrace, separate the gardens from the road. Historically there would have been a small number of gates in the railings – these have been fixed shut. The railings are generally in need of repair, and show damage, presumably caused by subsidence through trees, and the lack of a plinth in some areas. To the north of 1 York Terrace East, wrapping around to face onto York Gate, are poor replica railings which are fixed into an inappropriately high stone plinth.
3.1.3 York Gate
This is Nash’s short north-south axis which leads from the Park to Thomas Hardwick’s church. It is lined on either side by a stuccoed Nash terrace and forms part of Nash’s grand scheme for Regent’s Park. The York Terrace East terrace addresses it by means of a projecting single storey stuccoed element which is accessed from York Gate and which has modern replica railings to the north and replica railings to a different design to the south.
3.2 The Building Externally
3.2.1 The North Elevation
Although this elevation does not provide off-street access into the buildings, it is the main elevation of the terrace. It addresses Regent’s Park and was designed as a backdrop to the park, together with the other Nash terraces arranged around its perimeter. When viewed
43. Front elevation from the north the building appears as a long and continuous palatial composition, intentionally uninterrupted by entrance porches and other protruding elements.
This elevation survives in its original form, albeit refinished and with a considerable number of replacement windows [plate 43]. It consists of a central pavilion with two recessed ranges that are, in turn, flanked by two end pavilions (Nos. 1-2 and Nos. 17-18). It is generally as described in the Historic England listing description:
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 60 Central pedimented hexastyle pavilion features and plain 15 window brick ranges above Doric colonnaded loggia terminating in projecting 5-window pavilions with Ionic order in antis. Channelled ground floors of pavilions have semicircular arched windows recessed for one order. Greek Doric colonnaded loggia with balustraded balcony parapet screens the ground floor windows of the link ranges, and the balustraded parapet is carried over the pavilions. Plain recessed sashes to upper floors. The central pavilion has single pilasters to bays flanking hexastyle portico and the giant order in antis on the end pavilions creates a 2-storey loggia in front of the windows. Continuous entablature over 2nd floor. The attic windows of pavilions have semicircular arched windows between pilaster strips. Continuous attic cornice and blocking course
The exterior has been refinished in modern paint in recent decades but retains its original decorative features such as balconies and Doric and Ionic columns. The fenestration pattern is to a large extent original; this is in the form of double hung sliding timber sash windows which diminish in size from ground to third floors; on the ground floor six-over- six sashes with arched top sashes, on the first floor are six-over-six sashes and at second and third floors are three-over-three sashes. Replacement windows are randomly distributed over the elevation but are mostly of matching profiles to the original window designs. 44. Modern lightwell The lower-ground-floor level is sunken below garden level and continuous lightwells have been added to the north of the terrace (apart from at No. 3) which are covered by metal grilles and have painted brick retaining walls [plate 44]. Forming part of this alteration, the openings facing the lightwells at Nos. 4-7 and Nos. 12-16 have been altered with the dropping of their cills and the insertion of modern windows and doors (these alterations are discussed in further detail in section 3.3.2). The fenestration facing the lightwells at Nos. 1-2, 8-11 and Nos. 17-18 includes some historic sashes but most are modern replacements. 45. Historic metal staircase to No.7 Ground-floor level is raised over the garden and access from each house into the garden is via sash windows which lead out to cast and wrought iron staircases [plate 45]. These staircases are a consistent design across the entire terrace and are thought to be original; however some elements may be later replacements, particularly the treads which appear to have been replaced with new diamond-patterned treads. The lower two risers at No. 3 are plain modern replacements and the balusters at No. 13 are likely to be later replacements as they follow a different pattern.
To extend the external staircases across the modern lightwells additional platforms have been added to the bottom of the staircase flights. The recessed ranges also include historic metal railings between the columns, with central cross bars and upper sections detailed with Greek key pattern. These appear to be mostly original, although there are some later replacements.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 61 3.2.2 The South Elevation
This elevation faces York Terrace East, a narrow mews, and provides access into the houses [plate 46]. This façade was clearly conceived as a secondary elevation but is nevertheless of historic interest.
The elevation above ground-floor level is in fair-faced yellow stock brick laid in Flemish bond, with both end buildings at Nos. 1 and 18 rendered and painted. The brick elevation has been repaired and renewed in many places and presents a patchy picture of original and 20th-century brickwork. This indicates where a number of extensions were removed in the 1960s, and also where windows were replaced and window openings altered to achieve a coherent elevation with mostly identical windows on each floor. At third-floor level wider tripartite windows have been inserted at Nos. 4 and 7 and several windows at No. 1 have been enlarged. Modern vents have also been inserted in several locations. The fenestration on this elevation is a mixture of some original sliding 46. South elevation timber sash windows and post-war replacements to corresponding 47. Service doors to rendered screen designs, some with horns.
At ground-floor level is a continuous rendered screen, set forward of the facade, which incorporates entrance doors into the houses. This has a high-level cornice and a simple handsome architrave around each door. While the finishes of the screen have been renewed, the form and structure appear to be original. The entrance doors are 1960s replacements but in the original style.
The rendered screen includes several service doors which provide access to the southern forecourts; these are mostly located at the eastern end of the terrace [plate 47]. These doors are a mixture of original doors (Nos. 6, 15, 17, and 18) and simple modern panelled doors (Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 16).
The forecourt areas between the façades and the rendered screen have been significantly altered and largely rebuilt. They present an incoherent picture and the fabric within them is of very limited interest. The infill forecourt structures have roofs lined in asphalt and rendered and painted elevations, with modern sash and casement windows facing into the courtyard.
3.2.3 The West Elevation
This is the flank elevation of 1 York Terrace East and connects with the projecting single-storey former lodge at 6 York Gate [plate 48]. The projecting element is in stucco with a pedimented architrave to the entrance door. At upper levels the flank elevation has three bays of blind window openings set between pilasters. Above second-floor level is a heavily moulded cornice.
In the early 20th century the southernmost bay of the west elevation featured windows (see photograph in plate 9A and drainage plans 48. West elevation in plates 10 and 11) which appear to have been removed during the course of the post-war construction of the building. This elevation was rebuilt in replica, with the exception of abovementioned windows, following bomb damage.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 62 3.2.4 The East Elevation
This is partially hidden from view and looks over the adjoining Doric Villa to the east. The elevation is in stucco and similar to the west elevation, with mostly blind recessed window openings at upper levels and heavy cornices over the ground and second floors.
3.2.5 Roofs
The chimneystacks have all been removed and the roofs appear to be covered in asphalt. The roofs are hidden behind parapets and there are three different roof forms:
• Nos. 1 and 18 have had their roofs decked over with pitched sections to the north, south and sides (west – No. 1; east – No. 18); • The central houses at Nos. 8-11 and Nos. 4, 6, 13, 15, 16 have their roofs decked over between the north and south external roof pitches; • Several houses retain original M-plan roof forms; these are at Nos. 3, 5, 7, 12, 14 and 16.
On-site inspections were undertaken of the attic spaces, apart from No. 16 where the hatches are sealed shut. There is modern insulation and a multitude of modern servicing pies and ducts. The roof battens are concealed by plywood but the roof structures are visible and several 49. Original roof structure to the south of are original; these can be divided into categories, as follows: No.5 50. Original roof structure to No.17 with the central section raised • Original roof structure which retains its original M-plan roof form (Nos. 3, 5, 14) [plate 49]; • Original roof structure which retains its original M-plan roof form but the centre of the roof has been decked over (Nos. 6, 13, 15, 17) [plate 50]; • Historic timbers also appear to have been reused in the roof of No. 1 which has been decked over between the north, south and west pitches.
Roofs with modern roof structures can also be divided into the following categories:
• Modern roof structure with original M-plan roof form (Nos. 7, 12); • Modern roof structure with decked over areas between external slopes (Nos. 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18).
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 63 Basement
Ground Floor
Tripartite window, flanking windows late 19th/early 20th century
Key
Original party wall Late19th/early 20th century window
Original chimneybreast (or rebuilt at No.1) Original sash window
Modern staircase in original location Tanked original vault
Original staircase Rebuilt staircase with retained original handrail
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 64 Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century
Upper sash original, lower sash late 19th/early 20th century
Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 65 First Floor Some replacement glazing bars
Tripartite window, central and west window late 19th/early 20th century, east window original Tripartite window, central sash late 19th/early 20th century
Second Floor Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century
Third Floor
Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century
Key
Original party wall Late19th/early 20th century window
Original chimneybreast (or rebuilt at No.1) Original sash window
Modern staircase in original location Modern staircase in non-original location
Original staircase
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 66 Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century Some replacement glazing bars Lower sash late 19th/early 20th century Upper sash original, lower sash late 19th/early 20th century
Tripartite window, central sash late 19th/early 20th century
Upper sash late 19th/early 20th century Upper sash original
Upper sash original
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 67 3.3 The Buildings Internally
3.3.1 Overview
Internally the buildings have been comprehensively refurbished, first during the Ministry of Works occupation which started in the 1940s, and then as part of the late 1960s scheme by TP Bennett which saw the terrace converted into student accommodation at 1-11 York Terrace East and into flats at 12-18 York Terrace East. Although the buildings are now vacant, the most recent use was student accommodation and flats throughout most of the terrace, in addition to a school in the western half of the lower-ground-floor and a Rotary Club in No. 1.
The original plan form of the buildings has been considerably altered, most significantly where student accommodation has been introduced with the addition of lateral corridors. These corridors were inserted at every level between Nos. 2 and 9, with additional connecting breaks in the party walls of Nos. 1 and 10. Further openings in the lower ground floor and second floor of No. 11 were also formed connecting it with No. 10 but, otherwise, No. 11 largely remains in use as a separate building. A bisecting lateral corridor was also inserted at lower-ground-floor level between Nos. 12 and 18. The original staircase enclosures and party walls of Nos. 12-18 survive intact but the floor plans have otherwise been remodeled.
Original staircases have been retained in Nos. 4, 9, 12-18 [plate 51], while modern staircases in the original locations have been erected in Nos. 1 and 11. The original staircases follow the same design with profiled stone treads covered in modern carpet, decorative metal balustrades and hardwood handrails. Where lower-ground-floor staircases remain, these have been rebuilt but the original handrails to Nos. 4, 9, 14 and 15 appear to have been reused [plate 52].
The principal staircases originally terminated at the second floor and additional staircases of secondary importance were positioned adjacent to the principal staircases to connect the second and third floors. These secondary staircases have all been removed and where principal staircases have been retained they have been extended vertically to 51. Original staircase in No.18 52. Retained original handrail in No.15 connect the second and third floors.
Considerable changes took place to southern forecourt areas in the 20th century, including the removal or alteration of several of the entrance lobbies, the reformation of many of the lightwells and the rebuilding of the lower-ground and ground-floor rooms. These changes are discussed in further detail in 3.3.4.
To the north of the building, new lightwells were also formed in the 1960s serving Nos. 1-2 and Nos. 4-18. This involved the changes to the plan form at lower-ground-floor level which is discussed in further detail in 3.3.2.
The works carried out in the 20th century involved the removal of virtually all historic fittings and features. The only historic fabric to
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 68 remain includes chimneybreasts, party walls (although some have been altered), a number of original staircases and several windows. Original and late-19th/early 20th-century features are marked on plans for clarity [see pages 50-53]. Furthermore, there is boxing out to the chimneybreast in the first-floor northern room of No. 11 which may suggest that a chimneypiece is concealed; however, further investigation is required.
The interiors have been comprehensively altered and the rooms have refinished walls and ceilings, modern service risers, and modern doors and architraves. None of the rooms retain original cornices, skirtings, picture rails or other decorative features. Most of the floors are concealed by carpet or modern finishes, apart from two service cupboards on the second and third floors of No. 9 where modern floorboards are present. It is possible that some original floorboards remain in the terrace but further investigation is required.
In several northern ground-floor rooms there are large modern ceiling beams adjacent to the windows. These beams are located in nos. 2, 8-10, and 17-18 and appear to support the upper-level façades which are set back behind colonnades. There are also exposed modern ceilings beams on the third floor of nos. 14-16.
53. North ground-floor room of No.1 with There are also suspended ceilings throughout most of the corridors, doorway inserted in the centre of the apart from the third floor, in addition to the two music rooms on the chimneybreast 54. Original front lightwell now forming ground floor of No. 10, some WC/shower areas and several lower- part of a north basement room ground-floor rooms. Secondary glazing is also located in the two music rooms and in the south lower-ground-floor room of No. 7. The buildings also appear to retain their coal vaults but their entrances have mostly been blocked, apart from at Nos. 5 and 6 and in the lodge building. These are discussed in further detail in 3.3.3.
3.3.2 Detailed Description by Building Group
The terrace consists of a central pavilion (Nos. 8-11) with two recessed ranges (Nos. 3-7 and Nos. 12-16) that are, in turn, flanked by two end pavilions (Nos. 1-2 and Nos. 17-18). The buildings are discussed according to these ranges.
1-2 York Terrace East (End Pavilion)
The original plan form of these buildings was substantially altered in the 1960s with the creation of bisecting lateral corridors at every level between Nos. 2 and 7 and openings formed in the party wall of No. 1. There is also a large ceiling beam on the ground floor adjacent to the northern windows. Although No. 1 was largely rebuilt following World War II, some elements of its original plan form have been retained. This includes the location of the principal staircase, although now extended to serve the third floor, and the ground-floor plan form, comprising a large front room with a staircase and small room to the south. The rebuilding also resulted in the relocation of the southern chimneybreasts which originally ran up the southern façade but are now located to the west of the building.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 69 The adjoining lodge on York Gate was originally a separate dwelling which was subsequently linked to No. 1 at ground and lower-ground- floor levels [plate 53]. Otherwise, the original plan forms of Nos. 1-2 have been lost and remodelled with modern partitions. The staircase of No. 2 has also been removed but the stairwell is still partially evident at the lower levels (lower ground and ground floor). The front lower- ground-floor lightwells of Nos. 1-2 are shown on historic plans [see plates 10 & 12] but they have since been amalgamated and rebuilt.
3-7 York Terrace East (Recessed Range)
The original plan form of these buildings was substantially altered in the 1960s with the creation of bisecting lateral corridors at every level. Changes were also made at lower-ground-floor level with the addition of a new lightwell to the north of Nos. 4 to 7, which also connected with the lightwell at Nos. 8-18.
The new lightwell allowed the existing lightwells at Nos. 4-7 to be incorporated into the north lower-ground-floor rooms [plate 54]. These works involved the removal of all windows and doors from the main building line and the creation of door height openings. The segmental openings which originally fronted the garden now serve the northern lightwells. These openings were altered with the dropping of their cills and the insertion of new windows and doors.
The original plan forms of Nos. 3-7 have largely been lost [plates 55 and 56], apart from the retention of the original staircase in No. 4 which has been extended to the third floor. The original form of the ground-floor 55. Third-floor central corridor looking southern room in No. 4 has also been retained. Although the staircases toward No.6 have otherwise been removed, the form of original stairwells is partially 56. Third-floor central north student room of No.7 evident in the lower-ground-floor and ground floors of Nos. 3, 5-7.
8-11 York Terrace East (Central Pavilion)
The lateral corridors of Nos. 2-7 also span across Nos. 8-9 and there are openings in the party wall of No. 10. Openings also exist in the party walls of No. 11: on the lower ground and second floors, connecting it to No. 10; and on the lower ground floor connecting it with the south lower- ground-floor room of No. 12.
The original staircase has been retained in No. 9 and has been extended to the third floor. The staircase of No. 11 has been replaced in its original location. The positioning of this staircase differs from most of the other houses in the terrace as it stands perpendicular to the party wall.
There are large modern ceiling beams adjacent to the windows in the northern front rooms of nos. 8-10. In the north room on the first floor of No. 11 there is boxing to the chimneybreast, suggesting that it may be concealing a chimneypiece. However, further investigation is required. This house also has more decorative skirting boards but these appear to be a 20th-century addition.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 70 There two large modern rooflights located in the northern rooms of Nos. 9 and 10. A lift has also been installed in No. 8, rising from the lower ground to third floor.
12-16 York Terrace East (Recessed Range)
These buildings are in use as flats [plates 57a-c] and each retains its original principal staircase which has been extended to the third floor. The party walls also remain largely intact, apart from the lower ground floor where a bisecting lateral corridor has been inserted.
These buildings have also been altered at lower-ground-floor level, similar to Nos. 3-7, with the addition of a lightwell to the north of the buildings and the incorporation of the original lightwells within the northern rooms. Apart from the stairwells and entrance lobbies, the only element of the original plan form to be retained is the south lower- ground-floor room of No. 12.
On the third floors of Nos. 14-16 there are exposed structural downstands at the centre of the houses, which are particularly numerous in No. 15 [plate 58]. The north rooms on the lower ground floor of No. 16 are also raised and accessed via short flights of steps.
17-18 York Terrace East (End Pavilion)
These buildings are also in use as flats and retain their original principal staircases which have been extended to the third floor. The original plan form has been lost at every level, apart from the retention of the stairwells and entrance lobbies. There are also large ceiling beams adjacent to the windows in the northern ground-floor rooms.
3.3.3 Coal Vaults
Only three vaults are also currently in use and, as a result, only these vaults and the flanking vaults were inspected owing to light limitations and safety issues. There are also two vaults to the west of the lodge which can be accessed but are not in use.
Original coal vaults are located under the pavement to the south of the buildings. There are generally three vaults to each building. Access through the vaults is via a long corridor which bisects the vault walls at their northern ends through low-level openings; these openings were presumably inserted as part of the 1960s refurbishment. The 57a. North room in third-floor flat in No.16 lodge vaults and the three vaults accessed through Nos. 5 and 6 57b. Room in third-floor flat in No.16 5 7c. Corridor in third-floor flat in No.16 have been ‘tanked’ but those flanking those at Nos. 5 and 6 survive 58. Moern structural downstands to third in their original form with brick walls and ceilings; these were built in floor of No.15 the crudest manner with pointing carelessly applied and bricks laid in a random fashion. The floors are generally in the form of compressed soil or concrete and are of no historic interest. On the pavement at York Terrace East survive a number of original coal hole covers.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 71 3.3.4 Southern Forecourts
The forecourt areas have been significantly altered and largely rebuilt [plates 59a-b]. Several connections between buildings have also been formed across the terrace through adjoining lobby blocks and lower- ground and ground-floor rooms.
The original form of the entrance lobbies have been retained in Nos. 1, 9, 11-18. Otherwise, there have been significant changes, as follows:
• The entrance corridor of No. 2 has been removed, with the entrance door opening into an external space and the main façade altered with the insertion of a window.
• The recessed west range has also been altered with the internal blocking of the entrance door to No. 3 and the enlargement of its entrance lobby, now in use as a student room. The school’s entrance is through No. 4, which includes a partition and door in the lobby leading to a lower-ground-floor staircase. The lobbies of Nos. 5-7 have been rebuilt with sloped roofs and windows inserted in the main façades.
• In the central pavilion, the lobby of No. 8 has been removed and it forms part of an outdoor bike storage area with an open roof. The ground-floor forecourt area of No. 10 has been fully infilled and the staircase and the ground-floor wall of the main house removed to form a large reception room for the student accommodation.
59a. Example of rebuilt structures in southern forecourt 59b. Example of rebuilt structures in southern forecourt
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 72 Commentary on the 4.1 Description of the Proposals and their Impact on Proposals the Heritage Assets
The proposed scheme is shown in the drawings produced by John Simpson Architects, which this report accompanies. In 2018, a scheme was granted for the formation of apartments and two large family houses, comprising 28 residential units (17/06973/FULL & 17/06974/ LBC); this application is for a non-material amendment to the associated planning consent and a variation of condition 1 of the listed building consent. In terms of planning history, following the 2018 consents, listed building consent (19/04385/LBC) was granted for the use of the buildings as 21 dwellings, although the associated planning application (19/04384/ FULL) was refused. In 2020, permission was granted for a non-material amendment to the original 2018 planning consent (20/02593/NMA) and a variation of condition 1 of the associated listed building consent (20/02590/LBC), relating to internal layout changes.
The proposals centre on the conversion of the terrace for residential use, including two family houses and vertically arranged apartments across the terrace and the creation of apartments and studios at the lower levels. Discreetly placed accommodation is also proposed at roof level in the form of some roof terraces and in a new basement level.
The main dwellings would be formed with retained and some relocated original staircases, one new principal staircase, new lifts, and recreated period finishes at principal levels. Modern party wall breaches would be closed off where this is possible, and some new breaches created where necessary. As a result, the terrace would once more appear as a series of family homes.
Some historic fabric would be replaced as part of the proposals, namely the floor plates, which is required to improve the viability of the scheme (this was previously consented). Roofs would be replaced where they are modern, and reinstated after the construction works where they are original. The ambition of the scheme overall, however, is to substantially enhance the significance of the buildings through the creation of residential units, including houses, with internal layouts and decorative schemes on principal floors reminiscent of their original architectural character, hierarchy and grandeur, and improvements to the communal garden. This would substantially repair and enhance the terrace and reinstate much of its original character of a terrace of grand houses forming a calm backdrop to the park, as intended by John Nash.
The proposals are similar to the consented scheme (17/06973/FULL & 17/06974/LBC) but in addition to two houses, large vertically arranged apartments are now proposed on the main floors, while smaller apartments would be discreetly located within the lower floors. The vertical arrangement of the main houses would be in more in keeping with their original character and would be a substantial improvement when viewed from the surrounding area. Apart from internal layout changes, new additions to the consented scheme are as follows:
• Relocation of two original staircase from the eastern end of the terrace to the west, in equivalent positions and without loss of detail or changes
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 73 to landing sizes etc.; • A communal staircase in the entrance lobby of No. 1 at the west end (this is the largely reconstructed building following bomb damage); • Several new staircase locations to access the lower floors, within the original (or reinstated) entrance lobbies or in enclosed staircases against the south walls of the southern forecourts; • A limited number of additional single door width breaks in the party walls but the omission of other such openings in relation to the consent and the existing plan form; • The introduction of roof terraces at Nos. 3, 14 and 16, with the terrace floors raised to avoid alteration of the original M-plan roof form; • The marginal raising of the roof structures to increase internal the third-floor ceiling height, which would be similar to the ridge heights across York Terrace West; • Changes to the depth of the consented basement in some areas and the incorporation of a mezzanine level at lower ground floor level on the mews side where significance is low; • The addition of voids and staircases between lower-ground-floor and basement level; • The removal of several coal vaults; • The retention of previously consented fabric removal at lower ground floor beneath the main plan of the terrace in some areas; • More door openings within the north lightwell; • And some adjustments to openings in the altered mews elevation at lower level to introduce windows where they have been lost and allow natural illumination.
Proposals for Houses and Vertically Arranged Apartments
The proposals involve the creation of two houses and seven large vertically arranged apartments across the entirety of the terrace, occupying the ground to third floors and some lower ground space. The central four houses at Nos. 8-11 would be combined, while two pairs of houses - Nos. 1 & 2 and Nos. 12 & 13 - would form two double houses. The remaining 10 houses would be combined to form six vertically arranged apartments of varying width, utilising either single or double buildings.
The dwellings would each be served by a staircase and lift. Original staircases would mostly be retained (that is the case for seven staircases), but two would be relocated to equivalent positions in the west terrace. A new curved open-well staircase is also proposed at No. 10 in the largest dwelling. The impact of any staircase alterations is set out in the Staircase section below.
New lifts would be located at the centre of the plans, in varying positions, and similar to the consented scheme. As the plan form has been largely lost, the addition of the lifts would not cause any harm to the significance of the listed terrace.
The terrace would be freed of all modern partitions and a more rationalised plan form would be introduced at each level, particularly at
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 74 the western end of the terrace where there numerous small rooms and bisecting lateral corridors. Bisecting corridors would also be removed and the associated breaches in the party walls infilled, where possible. Instead, large rooms would be formed towards the park at principal levels, identical or similar to the lost original configuration. Appropriately designed early-19th-century decorative schemes, including chimneypieces, cornices, skirtings, etc. would also be introduced on the ground and first floors. Overall, these works would enhance the significance of the listed buildings substantially.
The party wall between Nos. 9 and 10 would be partially removed on the ground and first floors to create large front rooms for a reception room and a drawing room. While this would result in the removal of large sections of the party wall, these front rooms would more successfully complement the external symmetry of the building as they would span across the central protruding bays of the centre pavilion; this element of the proposals was consented as part of listed building consent 19/04385/LBC. As such, these proposed works would cause limited harm to the significance of the listed terrace.
Chimneybreasts would be retained throughout where they remain and period chimneypieces would be inserted in several principal and second-floor rooms. A mixture of double and single traditional timber- panelled doors is also proposed throughout. Several new doorway openings in the party walls would also be introduced, where required.
Secondary glazing is proposed throughout the terrace, which can be comfortably incorporated as no historic decorative features, such as shutters and architraves, remain internally. The existing internal walls would be re-lined in modern materials but to the same depth as would be the case with traditional plaster, preserving historic dimensions. These proposed works would not cause any harm to the significance of the listed terrace. This work has all been previously consented.
Apartments: Basement & Lower Ground Floor
Smaller apartments of varying sizes are proposed at lower-ground- floor level. These would be accessed via new staircases inserted in the original (or reinstated) entrance lobbies or in enclosed staircases against the south walls of the southern forecourts. These staircases would be comfortably accommodated and would not cause harm to the significance of the listed terrace.
It is also proposed to create an additional basement across the terrace, beneath its main footprint, in addition to an extension to the north, similar to the consented scheme. This additional floor would allow the introduction of back-of-house accommodation and shared amenity spaces, which would be largely concealed from view and would be utilised by the residents of the houses and large vertically arranged apartments.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 75 Underneath the southern part of the building, there would be two levels, with a newly proposed upper mezzanine level forming part of the proposed residential accommodation, resulting in the removal of the existing lower ground floor slab, and the creation of a sub-basement level beneath. Internally, narrow voids and a number of staircases are proposed at the rear of the lower ground floor to connect with the mezzanine levels and form comfortable accommodation. Owing to the modern character of the interiors and the scale and proportions of the buildings, the additional basement level accommodation and the associated changes to the lower ground floor could be comfortably accommodated without causing harm to the significance of the buildings.
At lower-ground-floor level otherwise, the proposals would involve rationalising the plan form, including the removal of mostly modern partition walls and bisecting lateral corridors, and limited section of historic party walls. As there is no coherent original plan form at this level, the loss of historic fabric would not cause harm to the significance of the listed buildings.
A large staircase is also proposed in the single-storey entrance lobby of No. 1, accessed from York Gate, which would provide communal access to the amenity space at basement level. No. 1 historically had two entrances, including a main southern access from York Terrace East, similar to all other houses in the terrace. As the southern access would be retained, it is considered that internally separating this single- storey structure from the main house at No. 1 to accommodate this communal staircase would not cause any harm to the significance of this listed building.
The lightwells on the northern, park-facing side that historically served the recessed ranges at Nos. 3-7 and Nos. 12-16 were incorporated into the north basement rooms in the 1960s (see sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.3.2.4), when door-height openings were formed in the original north walls to connect the north rooms with the now-enclosed lightwells. The incorporation of this additional floor area in the 1960s has not been successful as the lightwells are narrow and the space offered is largely unusable. The proposals, therefore, seek to provide more usable accommodation and allow better light levels by fully removing the remaining elements of the north walls, apart from the retention of nibs and downstands. As the former lightwells were considerably altered in the 1960s, these additional works would have a limited impact on the significance of the listed buildings and cause no more than low level ‘less than substantial’ harm.
Staircases
Modern staircases would be removed throughout, and original staircases that remain in Nos. 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 would be retained. The remaining two original staircases would be relocated to original staircase locations in Nos. 3 and 6. As all original staircases would be retained within the terrace, albeit some in new locations, the significance of the
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 76 listed terrace would be preserved. While the consented scheme involved the retention of all staircases in their original positions, partitions walls were proposed that would have resulted in three staircases (Nos 13, 15 & 16) being inaccessible and concealed from view. Relocating two original staircases to new locations, where they would be in use and consequently celebrated, would therefore be an improvement on the consented scheme.
The modern staircase within No. 1 would also be rebuilt to match the original staircases. A new curved open-well staircase would also be positioned within No. 9, which would be appropriately detailed and would cause no harm in this very altered location.
In the 1960s, the original staircases were extended vertically to connect the second and third floors, and the original service staircases at those upper levels, which sat at the centre of the plan rather than against the south elevation, were removed. These vertical extensions are to be retained in the scheme but the proposals involve their replacement with curved staircases that would be more in keeping with the form of the original staircases below. These works would enhance the significance of the listed buildings.
Where staircases are to be removed, the stairwells would be amalgamated with the plan form at each level, including the creation of large rear rooms on the ground floor. As the plan form has been considerably altered across the terrace, this is considered to have negligible impact on the overall significance of the listed terrace. New concrete staircases are proposed between the ground floor and lower ground floor throughout the terrace. The four original metal handrails to staircases at houses nos. 4, 9, 14 and 15 that remain at lower-ground-floor level would be reused, thereby preserving the significance of this fabric.
Floor Structures
It is proposed to replace the existing floor structures to accelerate the construction period, thereby improving the viability of the scheme. The floors have been altered and adapted as a consequence of the comprehensive changes to the plan form affected in the 1960s. Furthermore, floors have been replaced as a result of the 1969 fire in Nos. 7-13. The substantial loss of the interiors generally also means that the floors no longer relate to coherent interior schemes or plan forms. Consequently, they are of limited significance and their loss would have a limited impact on the overall significance of the listed terrace, and has recently been consented.
The replacement of the floor structures would also assist with the removal of intrusive downstands found in several ground and third-floor rooms, which would enhance the significance of the listed terrace. It would provide level floors suitable for new floor finishes, including stone in entrance halls and timber in principal rooms, and would allow the sensitive concealment of modern services, thereby providing the type of high-quality residential buildings that are demanded in today’s market.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 77 Roofs
The proposals involve the removal (some temporarily) of all roofs across the terrace. Where original roof structures remain, these would be recorded, removed off-site during construction, repaired as necessary, and subsequently reinstated.
Modern roof structures as Nos. 2, 4, 7-12 and 18 would be replaced by new structures that would retain their original sloped outer appearance but would contain central roof terraces set discreetly between the two outer pitches. The roof terraces would be accessed via ridge-height glazed access enclosures. These areas would also accommodate some concealed plant and concealed lift overruns. These works were previously consented.
A new element of the scheme is the insertion of roof terraces at Nos. 3 and 14, where the roofs are original. However, the terrace floors would be raised to avoid alteration of original fabric and the original M-plan roof form would remain legible as the terrace floors would be positioned lower than the roof pitches. Simple metal balustrades would be added for safety but these would be discreet additions that may not be visible from the surrounding area due to their set-back positions and the high destiny of trees within Regent’s Park. A similar approach is proposed at No. 16 where the roof may be original; the date of the roof fabric is unknown as it could not be inspected due to sealed ceiling hatches. Overall, these works would preserve the significance of the listed buildings.
Original roof structures would be fully retained at Nos. 1, 5, 6, 13, 15 and 17. The M-plan form of these roof structures would be reinstated, where required, with level access platforms also discreetly inserted within their valleys to house plant; plant units are also proposed within the roof space.
Several sensitively positioned openings are also proposed at the centre of some chimney stacks to provide roof-level access between the dwellings. These would be located in concealed areas and would therefore at worst cause minimal harm to the overall significance of the listed building.
The roofline of the whole terrace group would be enhanced through the replacement of modern roof coverings with slate and the reinstatement of lost chimney stacks and chimney pots, enhancing the significance of the listed terrace and the Regent’s Park Conservation Area.
It is also proposed to marginally raise the height of the roofs across the terrace. At third floor level, the floor to ceiling height is low and not suitable for modern living in a prestigious location such as this. The roof structures would therefore be raised to increase the internal ceiling height. As the ridge lines of the roofs of the adjacent York Terrace West are higher, the raising of the ridge heights across York Terrace East would sit comfortably within the overall composition as the two matching terraces would be balanced. As such, it is not considered that this alteration of the roof positions would cause any harm to the significance of the listed buildings or the character and appearance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 78 Southern Forecourts
The southern forecourts between the mews screens and houses proper, which have been significantly altered and largely rebuilt, would be reordered to present a more uniform appearance, thus enhancing the significance of the listed terrace. In connection with the proposed basement levels, it is proposed to lower the existing floor level of the south courtyards. At this lower level, paved lightwells would be formed adjacent to the southern elevations, apart from Nos. 9 and 10 where the lightwells would remain infilled. Narrow rooms are proposed to the south of most lightwells, with roofs accessed from street level through service doors and also from the entrance lobbies through several newly formed doorways. A number of enclosed or open staircases are also proposed to the lightwells, to suit the layouts of the lower apartments.
To the east of the forecourts, original ground-floor entrance lobbies over lower-ground-floor accommodation would be reinstated at Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, which would enhance the significance of these buildings. Concealed rooflights are also proposed above all ground-floor lobbies, in addition to the entrance on York Gate, allowing more light into these spaces. These are discreet additions that would preserve the significance of the listed terrace.
Several blocked openings to the original coal vaults to the south (Nos. 3-18) and to the west (York Gate) would be reopened, reactivating their use; currently there are only three vaults in use. Additional lateral connections would also be formed between some vaults, while six vaults which span across Nos. 8-10 would be removed to enable the formation of two one-bed apartments. The proposed fabric removal would cause some limited harm to the significance of the listed terrace.
North Elevation
The proposals to the north, park-facing elevation involve the extension of the modern lightwells across the full width of the terrace. The basement area would be lit by glazed panels flanked by ventilation grilles along the north side of the lightwell. The north lightwells were created in the mid-20th century and their minor alteration would not be harmful to the appearance of the listed terrace or its relationship with the conservation area; these works are as consented.
The original external staircases, connecting the ground floor with the garden, would be retained and refurbished. The unattractive metal grilles above the lightwell would be removed, as would a number of areas of modern perimeter railing. For safety purposes, metal railings are proposed around the perimeter of the lightwells, which would be sensitively designed. Overall, these works would enhance the significance of the listed building and its setting.
All windows and doors within the lightwell would be replaced by slim- line double-glazed double doors. This alteration would sit comfortably within the overall composition of the terrace as these doors would largely be concealed as they are located in the north lightwell. Several small, modern, high-level windows within the lightwell would be infilled.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 79 These alterations would not cause any harm to the significance of the listed terrace as this area was subject to considerable alteration with the formation of the lightwell in the 20th century.
South Elevation
The south elevation would be enhanced with the reinstatement of the tripartite window arrangement at lower-ground-floor level, where windows have been altered; some windows would be shifted to accommodate extensions within the ligthwell. The windows of the half landings would also be reinstated in many locations where they have been lost. Tripartite windows would also be introduced to serve the new basement level but these would be fully concealed from view and would not cause any harm to the significance of the listed terrace. Several inappropriate modern windows would either be replaced or removed to present a more uniform appearance. Modern louvres would also be removed.
New external metal rainwater pipes are proposed across the terrace, painted black against brickwork and cream against stucco. External rainwater goods would have existed originally to assist with water runoff from the roofs but they were removed as part of the 1960s works, as shown in plates 36 & 37. As such, there would be no harm to the significance of the listed buildings or the character and appearance of the conservations area.
The continuous rendered entrance screen, set forward of the south facade, would be enhanced by the reintroduction of lost service doors where they are missing, and their replacement where they are modern. The high-level infill between the entrances at Nos. 9-11 would be removed to reinstate the original form of the screen, further enhancing its appearance. The modern main entrance doors would also be replaced, matching the style of the original. The stone entrance steps to both the primary and secondary entrances are generally in poor condition and would be replaced by new period-style stone steps, based on local precedent.
Side Elevations
Works to the side elevations are limited to the replacement of the modern entrance door on York Gate with a new door copying the style of the original. The stone entrance steps are in poor condition and are likely to be replaced by new period-style stone steps, based on local precedent.
Landscaping
The landscape proposals for the communal north garden are outlined in the Landscape Report produced by Todd Longstaffe-Gowan. The proposals seek to restore Nash’s picturesque landscape and include the removal of the modern playground and inappropriate modern planting. The proposed layout is based on Mayhew’s 1835 plan which reflects Nash’s vision for a picturesque landscape of parkland and
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 80 houses, and which shows an undulating pathway at the perimeter of a central garden, which would be reinstated as part of the proposals.
The proposals involve opening up views of the palatial north elevation, and proposed tree, shrub and herbaceous planting would be informed by the historic records of the 19th-century planting within the terraces and park. These works would enhance the setting of the terrace, the Grade I-registered Regent’s Park, York Terrace West (Grade I) and the Doric Villa (Grade I). Furthermore, it would enhance the character and appearance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area.
To provide necessary privacy for the occupants, a limited number of planters and some low trees are also proposed adjacent to the new railings serving the north lightwell. These would be subtle additions that are in keeping with the picturesque approach to the landscaping. As such, they would not cause any harm to heritage assets.
Perimeter Railings
The western end of the Grade I-listed railings surrounding the communal garden have been refurbished by the Crown Estate Paving Commission. As the ground levels have risen over time, this section of railings was raised onto a stone plinth to reinstate the original proportions. The proposals involve a similar refurbishment programme for the rest of these railings and also those to the southwest corner of the site; the railings would be taken off site for restoration and subsequently reinstated on stone plinths.
The southwest corner railings would also be altered with the addition of traditionally detailed gates, resulting in a marginal loss of historic fabric. These gates are required to provide access to a new staircase against the York Gate entrance that lead down to the relocated UKPN substation, and their design would sit well in the historic railings, causing no harm.
The modern poorly-detailed railings along the pavement on York Terrace East would be removed which would enhance the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 81 4.2 Justification of the Proposals
4.2.1 Introduction
The principal, overarching and compelling benefit of the proposed scheme in historic building terms is the removal of the existing low grade interiors, including the many subdivisions and modern finishes, and modern staircases, and the creation of houses and apartments with large front rooms with period details at principal levels, and sympathetic accommodation elsewhere. The proposals would largely reinstate the lost original plan form, with some deviations from the original layouts and limited new party wall breaches, mostly in lesser areas, to achieve a the required mix of apartments and houses, with the type of internal accommodation now expected of buildings of this grandeur and status. The proposals would also see the creation of a new basement level.
Overall, the scheme would present a substantial enhancement to the buildings’ significance and would reunite the interiors with their striking palatial northern façade, and allow views from the park into largely recreated and appropriate historic interiors where one currently sees plain modern student bedsits. Modern services and ancillary spaces required, including the additional basement floor, can be comfortably accommodated owing to the sheer absence of historic character remaining internally.
Combining the buildings to form several large houses and vertically arranged apartments, in addition to smaller apartments at the lower levels, can be comfortably accommodated without causing no more than low-scale harm to the overall significance of the listed terrace as these buildings have lost their original plan form and finishes.
The proposals would result in a substantial enhancement of the significance of 1-18 York Terrace East by returning the buildings to residential use which would secure their conservation in the long-term, in accordance with paragraphs 192 and 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019). The proposed scheme has seized the opportunity to better reveal the significance of these buildings, while achieving the quality of internal accommodation required for apartments and houses befitting of the buildings’ status, still evident in the grand northern façade. Largely returning the terrace to the use which Nash originally intended, namely for the occupation of families and other permanent residents, would also enhance the distinctiveness and significance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area, and the setting of the registered park, reinstating the domestic character of the terrace which formed part of his picturesque backdrop to the Park.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 82 4.2.2 Justification
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan applicable to the Site comprises the City of London Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan (March 2016), and the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) and the draft City Plan 2019- 2040 form material planning considerations. Decision-makers must also comply with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act requirements.
This section therefore assesses the proposed development first against the City of Westminster’s local plan policies, then against the policies of the London Plan, and finally brings to bear heritage policies in the NPPF and the requirements of the 1990 Planning Act.
Local Plan Policies
Westminster’s City Plan (November 2016) includes a policy that relates to heritage. Policy S25 states that Westminster’s ‘heritage assets will be conserved, including listed buildings, conservation areas…’ Westminster’s Unitary Development Plan (January 2007) includes Policy DES 10 that addresses listed buildings and states that applications for development ‘should respect the listed building’s character and appearance and serve to preserve, restore or complement its features of special architectural or historic interest.’ The draft City Plan 2019-2040 (submitted November 2019) includes Policy 40, which states that ‘Works to listed buildings will preserve their special interest, relating sensitively to the period and architectural detail of the original building and protecting or, where appropriate, restoring original detail and significant historic fabric’.
Overall, the buildings would be conserved in a manner that is appropriate to their significance, by returning this Grade I-listed terrace to suitable residential use and largely reinstating the buildings’ most significant interiors and improving their relationship with their surroundings. However, as the proposals would involve some elements of low level ‘less than substantial’ harm, including the removal of the floor structures, and this would result in non-compliance with Policy S25, Policy DES 10 and Policy 40, as outlined above, as the buildings would not be fully conserved or preserved. However, the conflict with these policies would be minor.
Westminster’s City Plan (November 2016) also includes a policy that relates to basements. Policy CM28.1 states that basement development should ‘not unbalance the buildings’ original hierarchy of spaces, where this contributes to significance’. Owing to the modern character of the interiors and the scale and proportions of the buildings, the additional floor could be comfortably accommodated without causing harm to the scale or hierarchy of the buildings. This policy also states that basement development should ‘protect the character and appearance of the
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 83 existing building, garden setting or the surrounding area, ensuring lightwells, plant, vents, skylights and means of escape are sensitively designed and discreetly located’. The lightwells have been sensitively designed and relate to the north lightwell, which is a 1960s addition. As such, the proposals would comply with this policy.
Policy 40 of the draft City Plan 2019-2040 (submitted November 2019) also states that ‘Development will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas...’ These proposals would enhance the character and appearance of the Regent’s Park Conservation Area, particularly with the reinstatement of Nash’s picturesque landscape within the communal garden.
London Plan Policies
Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) states that ‘(C) Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process.’ These are positive proposals that would result in a substantial enhancement of the significance of the Grade I-listed 1-18 York Terrace East, which would be appropriately conserved, with some change to significance. The Regent’s Park Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade I registered park would also be enhanced by the proposed works.
The proposals would on the whole sympathetic to the form, scale, materials and architectural detail of the listed buildings. However, some would be some elements of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the listed buildings, which would result in some non- compliance with Policy HC1.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
The Act forms the legal basis for decision making where a proposed development will impact listed buildings or a conservation area. For listed buildings it sets out that the decision maker shall have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ (s. 16 and 66), and for conservation areas, that ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that [conservation] area’ (s. 72).
These statutory requirements set a high bar for allowing development that would harm heritage assets. However, the statutory requirements must be viewed in light of the relevant heritage policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As noted by the court in Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2015): ‘Paragraph 134 of the NPPF appears as part of a fasciculus of
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 84 paragraphs, set out above, which lay down an approach which corresponds with the duty in section 66(1). Generally, a decision-maker who works through those paragraphs in accordance with their terms will have complied with the section 66(1) duty.’ Although the court was concerned with the previous version of the NPPF and section 66 specifically, the same approach is considered appropriate in respect of the heritage policies in the current NPPF and in respect of the section 16 and 72 duties. It is therefore important to consider the proposed development against the relevant NPPF policies.
The National Planning Policy Framework
As set out above, the development partially complies with the heritage policies in the local and regional plan, although any conflict is not considered to be major. However, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out policies on heritage assets which form a material consideration in decision making and should be taken into account. As noted above, these policies are considered to set out a framework for how the relevant statutory duties should be complied with in practice.
These policies ask that great weight is given to heritage conservation, and that harm to significance be justified clearly and convincingly, and that it be outweighed by public benefits.
Paragraph 193 states:
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether the any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
The Framework goes on to state at paragraph 194 that:
Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification.
The NPPF states that any ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use (NPPF paragraph 196). The National Planning Policy Guidance offers more detail on what might constitute a public benefit. It states that ‘Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress’ and that ‘they should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.’ (NPPG paragraph 20). The guidance also states that public benefits may include heritage benefits such as ‘sustaining or
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 85 enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting; reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset; securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset.’
As outlined in Section 4.1, some elements of the scheme would cause ‘less than substantial harm’, in accordance with the terminology of the NPPF, to the significance of the listed terrace, including: the loss of remnants of the former north elevations of the lower ground floor; the removal of several original coal vaults between Nos. 8-10; the removal of two sections of a party wall; and the removal of the floor structures. However, this harm is considered to be on the lower end of ‘less than substantial’.
The proposals provide many compelling public benefits that would outweigh any ‘less than substantial harm’ caused by the proposals, and these include the following:
• Returning nos. 1-18 to suitable and viable residential use, which is the optimum viable use for these buildings; • Removing bisecting corridors and reinstating party walls in many areas, resulting in plan forms more akin to the historic layouts that have been largely lost; • Removing modern partition walls; • Reinstating historical internal layouts in a number of areas; • Reuniting the palatial façade with principal internal rooms and reinstated early-19th-century decorative schemes; • Removing intrusive downstands in ground and third-floor rooms; • Reinstating the M-plan form to several historic roofs, which have been altered; • Improving the appearance of the roofline with the introduction of slate coverings and reinstatement of chimney stacks and chimney pots; • Rationalising the southern forecourts, including reinstating several lost entrance lobbies; • Reactivating the original coal vaults; • Removing unattractive metal grilles to the north lightwells; • Reinstating elements of the original fenestration pattern to the south elevation; • Improving the appearance of the entrance screen, including removing elements of infill and reinstating service doors; • Restoring Nash’s picturesque landscape within the communal garden; • Restoring the listed perimeter railings; • Removing the poorly-detailed modern railings on the pavement on York Terrace East.
In summary, the NPPF requires that the identified elements of ‘less than substantial’ harm must be balanced against a wide range of public and heritage benefits, with the harm being given great weight in that overall balancing exercise, notwithstanding its ‘less than substantial’ nature. Together these benefits weigh more heavily than the harm, meaning that the NPPF policies on heritage, 193, 194 and 196 are
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 86 satisfied. The conclusion of this balancing exercise is a powerful material consideration that for the purposes of Section 38(6) is considered to weigh in favour of granting planning permission for the proposed development, notwithstanding some minor non-compliance with heritage policies in the development plan. The grant of planning permission and listed building consent for the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable even following consideration and application of the statutory duties in the 1990 Act.
4.3 Conclusion
The proposals would lead to substantial public benefits, by returning this Grade I-listed terrace to suitable residential use and largely reinstating the buildings’ most significant interiors and improving their relationship with their surroundings. The proposals would enhance the significance of the both the Grade I-listed terrace and the Regent’s Park Conservation Area and, as such, they would meet the tests for sustainable development outlined within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), insofar as they relate to the historic environment.
Although some harm has been identified within the proposals, this harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’, in accordance with the terminology of the NPPF (para 196). The many compelling benefits offered by the scheme would easily outweigh the ‘less than substantial harm’ caused and are, therefore, considered a material consideration which overcomes the presumption against proposals set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Furthermore, the NPPF heritage policies are also a material consideration to overcome the in part non-compliance with the local and regional plans.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 87 Appendix I 6, YORK GATE NW1, 1-18, YORK TERRACE EAST NW1, 1-18, REGENT’S PARK NW1, 1-18, OUTER CIRCLE NW1 Statutory List Descriptions Grade: GV I Date First Listed: 05 Feb 1970
TQ 2882 SW CITY OF WESTMINSTER YORK TERRACE EAST 35/17 REGENT’S PARK NWl 5.2.70
Nos 1 to 18 (consec). (including No 6 York Gate) (formerly listed as Nos 24-41 (consec) York Terrace) Long terrace block. c.182[0?] -26 by John Nash as part of his Regent’s Park Crown Estate development. Stucco, slate roofs. Balanced “palace” block composition with York Terrace West q.v. dressed with same Illissian Ionic giant order as York Gate q.v. the “palace” illusion to park front maintained by placing entrances to rear. 4 storeys (including attic storey). Central pedimented hexastyle pavilion features and plain 15 window brick ranges above Doric colonnaded loggia terminating in projecting 5-window pavilions with Ionic order in antis. Channelled ground floors of pavilions have semicircular arched windows recessed for one order. Greek Doric colonnaded loggia with balustraded balcony parapet screens the ground floor windows of the link ranges, and the balustraded parapet is carried over the pavilions. Plain recessed sashes to upper floors. The central pavilion has single pilasters to bays flanking hexastyle portico and the giant order in antis on the end pavilions creates a 2-storey loggia in front of the windows. Continuous entablature over 2nd floor. The attic windows of pavilions have semicircular arched windows between pilaster strips. Continuous attic cornice and blocking course. The York Gate return has giant porch feature with semicircular arched doorway in pedimented surround which was originally a gate keeper’s lodge. The plain brick rear elevation has built out stucco screen wall containing doorways framed by piers with Soanian incised Greek fret panels and block cornices. John Nash; John Summerson.
GARDEN RAILINGS TO PARK FRONT OF NUMBERS 1 TO 18
Grade: GV I Date First Listed: 01 Dec 1987
TQ 2882 SW CITY OF WESTMINSTER YORK TERRACE EAST 35/15 REGENT’S PARK NWl
Garden railings to park front of Nos 1 to 18 (consec) GV I Railings. c.1821-26 by John Nash. Cast iron Grecian palmette enriched railings and openwork panelled standards.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 88 10 LAMPSTANDARDS FROM OUTSIDE NUMBER 1 TO OUTSIDE NUMBER 22 ON NORTH PAVEMENT
Grade: GV II Date First Listed: 05 Feb 1970
TQ 2882 SW CITY OF WESTMINSTER YORK TERRACE EAST 35/23 REGENT’S PARK NW1
10 lampstandards from 5.2.70 outside No 1 to outside No 22 on north pavement (formerly listed as 10 lamp posts fronting GV Nos 24 to 50) II Lampstandards. c.1822-30 and mid C20 replicas. Cast iron octagonal, ribbed base standards with ladder bars and mid C20 Nico type lanterns. Included for group value only.
9 LAMPSTANDARDS IN FRONT OF YORK TERRACE EAST, OUTER CIRCLE
Grade: GV II Date First Listed: 01 Dec 1987
TQ 2882 SW CITY OF WESTMINSTER OUTER CIRCLE, 35/6 REGENT’S PARK, NW1 (south side)
9 Lampstandards in front of York Terrace East G.V. II Lampstandards. c1830-37 or replicas. Cast iron octagonal standards with replacement Nico-type lanterns, a number monogrammed W.IV.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 89 Appendix II - Planning Policy and Guidance
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
The Act is legislative basis for decision making on applications that relate to the historic environment.
Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty upon local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals upon listed buildings and conservation areas. Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 deals applications for listed building consent:
In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:
in considering whether to grant permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or as the case may be the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Similarly, section 72(I) of the above Act states that:
… with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
Westminster City Council Policies
Westminster City Council’s (WCC) Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the City Plan contain policies that pertain to proposals that affect development in locations such as this.
The City Plan (July 2016) has the following relevant policy:
Policy S25: Heritage “Recognising Westminster’s wider historic environment, its extensive heritage assets will be conserved, including its listed buildings, conservation areas, Westminster’s World Heritage. Site, its historic parks including five Royal Parks, squares, gardens and other open spaces, their settings, and its archaeological heritage. Historic and other important buildings should be upgraded sensitively, to improve their environmental performance and make them easily accessible.
And on design:
Policy S28: Design “Development must incorporate exemplary standards of sustainable and inclusive urban design and architecture. In the correct context, imaginative modern architecture is encouraged provided that it respects Westminster’s heritage and local distinctiveness and enriches its world-class city environment. Development will:
• reduce energy use and emissions that contribute to climate change during the lifecycle
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 90 • of the development; and • ensure the reduction, reuse or recycling of resources and materials, including water, • waste and aggregates.
This will include providing for an extended life-time of the building itself through excellence in design quality, high quality durable materials, efficient operation, and the provision of high quality floorspace that can adapt to changing circumstances over time.”
Regarding basements:
POLICY CM28.1 BASEMENT DEVELOPMENT
A. All applications for basement development will:
1. demonstrate that they have taken into account the site-specific ground conditions, drainage and water environment(s) in the area of the development;
2. be accompanied by: a) A detailed structural methodology statement and appropriate self-certification by a suitably qualified engineer with separate flood risk assessment where required. In cases where the council considers there is a high potential risk that the development will have significant impacts on the matters covered by this policy or where work will affect a particularly significant and/or sensitive heritage asset, the council will have reports independently assessed at the applicant’s expense. b) A signed proforma Appendix A which demonstrates that the applicant will comply with the relevant parts of the council’s Code of Construction Practice and awareness of the need to comply with other public and private law requirements governing development of this kind.
3. safeguard the structural stability of the existing building, nearby buildings and other infrastructure including the highway and railway lines/tunnels;
4. not increase or otherwise exacerbate flood risk on the site or beyond;
5. be designed and constructed so as to minimise the impact at construction and occupation stages on neighbouring uses; the amenity of those living or working in the area; on users of the highway; and traffic and highways function; and
6. safeguard significant archaeological deposits.
B. Basement development to:
a) existing residential buildings; b) buildings originally built for residential purposes where there is a garden and adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties; c) non-residential development adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties; and d) new build residential incorporating basements adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties; will: 1. provide a satisfactory landscaping scheme, incorporating soft landscaping, planting and
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 91 permeable surfacing as appropriate; 2. not result in the loss of trees of townscape, ecological or amenity value and, where trees are affected, provide an arboricultural report setting out in particular the steps to be taken to protect existing trees; 3. use the most energy efficient means of ventilation, and lighting, involving the lowest carbon emissions. Wherever practicable natural ventilation and lighting should be used where habitable accommodation is being provided; 4. incorporate sustainable urban drainage measures to reduce peak rate of run-off or any other mitigation measures recommended in the structural statement or flood risk assessment; 5. protect the character and appearance of the existing building, garden setting or the surrounding area, ensuring lightwells, plant, vents, skylights and means of escape are sensitively designed and discreetly located; 6. protect heritage assets, and in the case of listed buildings, not unbalance the buildings’ original hierarchy of spaces, where this contributes to significance; 7. be protected from sewer flooding through the installation of a suitable pumped device.
C. Basement development to:
a) existing residential buildings; b) buildings originally built for residential purposes where there is a garden and adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties; c) non-residential development adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties outside Core CAZ, the Opportunity Areas and the Named Streets; and d) new build residential incorporating basements adjoining residential properties where there is potential for an impact on those adjoining properties outside Core CAZ, the Opportunity Areas and the Named Streets; will:
1. either:
a) not extend beneath more than 50% of the garden land; or b) on small sites, where the longest distance between the existing building and any site boundary is less than 8m, the basement may extend up to 4m from the building in that direction. On all other sides of the building, the basement will not extend beneath more than half of any other garden area; and c) leave a margin of undeveloped garden land proportionate to the scale of development and the size of the affected garden around the entire site boundary except beneath the existing building. Where D below applies, the boundary with the highway is excluded from this requirement.
2. provide a minimum of 1m soil depth (plus minimum 200mm drainage layer) and adequate overall soil volume above the top cover of the basement; 3. not involve the excavation of more than one storey below the lowest original floor level, unless the following exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated; a) that the proposal relates to a large site with high levels of accessibility such that it can be constructed and used without adverse impact on neighbouring uses or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and b) that no heritage assets will be adversely affected.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 92 D. Basement development under the adjacent highway will: 1. retain a minimum vertical depth below the footway or carriageway of 900mm; 2. not encroach more than 1.8m under any part of the adjacent highway; and
3. where extending or strengthening/improving existing basements horizontally under the highway; a) maintain the existing depth below the footway or carriageway to ensure no loss of existing cover level above a vault; and b) will not be permitted where the existing basement already extends 1.8m or more under the highway.
Westminster City Council’s Unitary Development Plan (adopted in January 2007 and saved in 2011) contains policies which affect any proposals to alter buildings which are listed or are in conservation areas. Policies particularly relevant to the proposals addressed in this document are:
POLICY DES 1: PRINCIPLES OF URBAN DESIGN AND CONSERVATION
(A) Architectural quality, local distinctiveness and sustainability Development should: 1) be of the highest standards of sustainable and inclusive urban design and architectural quality 2) improve the quality of adjacent spaces around or between buildings, showing careful attention to definition, scale, use and surface treatment 3) use high quality, durable and, where possible, indigenous and recycled materials appropriate to the building and its setting and should respect and, where necessary, maintain: 4) the character, urban grain, scale and hierarchy of existing buildings and 5) the spaces between them 6) the character, scale and pattern of historic squares, streets, lanes, mews and passageways 7) the form, character and ecological value of parks, gardens and planned open spaces.
POLICY DES 5: ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS
(A) Permission will generally be granted for development involving the extension or alteration of buildings in the following circumstances: 1) where it is confined to the rear of the existing building 2) where it is does not visually dominate the existing building 3) if it is in scale with the existing building and its immediate surroundings 4) if its design reflects the style and details of the existing building 5) if the use of external materials is consistent with that of the existing building 6) where any necessary equipment, plant, pipework, ducting or other apparatus is enclosed within the external building envelope, if reasonably practicable 7) where external apparatus such as surveillance equipment is needed it is located so that visual or any other impact on amenity is avoided or minimised.
(B) Permission may be refused for development involving the alteration or extension of buildings in the following circumstances: 1) where an extension rises above the penultimate storey of the existing building (excluding roof storeys) 2) where it occupies an excessive part of the garden ground or other enclosure 3) where any added floorspace is obtained by the roofing over or physical enclosure of basement areas 4) where it involves the loss of significant gaps between buildings 5) where it involves the installation of entrance canopies which either obscure or are at variance with the architectural features of the building.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 93 (C) Permission will generally be granted for new shopfronts to retail or similar premises open to the general public, in the following circumstances: 1) where they relate satisfactorily to the design of the upper parts of the building 2) where they would not displace existing shopfronts which are locally distinctive or characteristic 3) where the new shopfront is not designed to be entirely or largely openable, in the absence of local circumstances or established patterns of trading activity 4) where they do not involve the installation of solid or perforated external shutters, except in specially justified circumstances
POLICY DES 9: CONSERVATION AREAS
(A) Applications for outline planning permission in conservation areas. In the case of outline planning applications within designated conservation areas it may be necessary to require additional details to be produced in order that the physical impact of the proposed development may be fully assessed.
(B) Planning applications involving demolition in conservation areas 1) Buildings identified as of local architectural, historical or topographical interest in adopted conservation area audits will enjoy a general presumption against demolition 2) Development proposals within conservation areas, involving the demolition of unlisted buildings, may be permitted a) If the building makes either a negative or insignificant contribution to the character or appearance of the area, and/or b) If the design quality of the proposed development is considered to result in an enhancement of the conservation area’s overall character or appearance, having regard to issues of economic viability, including the viability of retaining and repairing the existing building 3) In any such case, there should also be firm and appropriately detailed proposals for the future viable redevelopment of the application site that have been approved and their implementation assured by planning condition or agreement.
C) Planning application for alteration or extension of unlisted buildings states that: Planning permission will be granted for proposals which: 1) Serve to reinstate missing traditional features, such as doors, windows, shopfronts, front porches and other decorative features 2) Use traditional and, where appropriate, reclaimed or recycled building materials 3) Use prevalent facing, roofing and paving materials, having regard to the content of relevant conservation area audits or other adopted supplementary guidance 4) In locally appropriate situations, use modern or other atypical facing materials or detailing or innovative forms of building design and construction
(D) Conservation area audits The existence, character and contribution to the local scene of buildings or features of architectural, historical or topographical interest, recognised as such in supplementary planning guidance, such as conservation area audits, will be of relevance to the application of policies DES 4 to DES 7, and DES 10.
(E) Changes of use within conservation areas Permission will only be granted for development, involving a material change of use, which would serve either to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, bearing in mind the detailed viability of the development.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 94 (F) Setting of conservation areas Development will not be permitted which, although not wholly or partly located within a designated conservation area, might nevertheless have a visibly adverse effect upon the area’s recognised special character or appearance, including intrusiveness with respect to any recognised and recorded familiar local views into, out of, within or across the area.
(G) Restrictions on permitted development in conservation areas 1) In order to give additional protection to the character and appearance of conservation areas, directions may be made under article 4(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Types of generally permitted development to which such directions may apply will include: a) painting, cladding or rendering of building facades b) insertion or replacement of doors and windows c) removal or replacement of boundary walls and fences d) alteration of roof profiles and replacement of roofing materials. 2) Such added powers of planning control may be applied to designated conservation areas the subject of adopted conservation area audits or to buildings or groups of buildings therein identified as being of architectural, historical or topographical interest. 3) The existence of such directions will be taken into account in the authorisation of development that may itself be made subject to the removal of permitted development rights, in appropriate individual cases.
POLICY DES 10: LISTED BUILDINGS
(A) Applications for planning permission Applications for development involving the extension or alteration of listed buildings will where relevant need to include full details of means of access, siting, design and external appearance of the proposed development in order to demonstrate that it would respect the listed building’s character and appearance and serve to preserve, restore or complement its features of special architectural or historic interest. (B) Demolition of listed buildings 1) Development involving the total demolition of a listed building (or any building listed by virtue of being within its curtilage) will only be permitted if, where relevant, the following criteria are met: a) it is not possible to continue to use the listed building for its existing, previous or original purpose or function, and b) every effort has been made to continue the present use or to find another economically viable use and obtain planning permission, with or without physical alteration, and c) the historic character or appearance of the main building would be restored or improved by the demolition of curtilage building(s), or d) substantial benefits to the community would derive from the nature, form and function of the proposed development, and (in all cases) e) demolition would not result in the creation of a long-term cleared site to the detriment of adjacent listed buildings 2) If development is authorised in conformity with any of the above criteria, it may be made subject to a condition, agreement or undertaking that any consequential demolition shall not be carried out until all the relevant details of the proposed development have been approved and a contract has been entered into for its subsequent execution.
(C) Changes of use of listed buildings Development involving the change of use of a listed building (and any works of alteration associated with it, including external illumination) may be permitted where it would contribute economically towards the restoration, retention or maintenance of the listed building (or group of buildings) without such development adversely affecting the special architectural or historic interest of the building (or
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 95 its setting) or its spatial or structural integrity. (D) Setting of listed buildings Planning permission will not be granted where it would adversely affect: a) the immediate or wider setting of a listed building, or b) recognised and recorded views of a listed building or a group of listed buildings, or c) the spatial integrity or historic unity of the curtilage of a listed building.
(E) Theft or removal of architectural items of interest In order to reduce the risk of theft or removal of architectural items of interest or value from historic buildings during the course of development, the City Council may require additional security arrangements to be made while buildings are empty or during the course of building works.
Regent’s Park Conservation Area General Information Leaflet (1998)
The Regent’s Park Conservation Area General Information Leaflet was published by Westminster City Council in August 1998. It outlines the history of the park and the development in and around it. With regard to the Nash terraces it states:
John Nash’s design still dominates the character and appearance of Regent’s Park, with its stuccoed terraces, each a grand Classical composition, enclosing extensive parkland containing isolated villas and an ornamental lake.
The leaflet contains no specific policies for this conservation area.
City Plan 2019-2040 The council submitted the City Plan 2019-2040 to the Secretary of State on 19 November 2019. The ‘Examination in Public’ has now started, which is the last stage of the plan-making process.
Relevant policy on heritage is as follows:
40. Westminster’s heritage
A. Westminster’s unique historic environment will be valued and celebrated for its contribution to the quality of life and character of the city. Public enjoyment of, access to and awareness of the city’s heritage will be promoted.
B. Development must optimise the positive role of the historic environment in Westminster’s townscape, economy and character and will:
1. ensure heritage assets and their settings are conserved and enhanced, as appropriate to their significance;
2. secure the conservation and continued beneficial use of heritage assets through their retention and sensitive adaptation which will avoid harm to their significance, while allowing them to meet changing needs;
3. place heritage at the heart of place making and good growth, maintaining the unique character of our heritage assets and delivering high quality new buildings and spaces which enhance their settings.
C. The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), authenticity and integrity of the Westminster World Heritage Site will be conserved and enhanced. The setting of the site will be protected and managed
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 96 to support and enhance its OUV. D. Development will protect the silhouettes of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey and will protect and enhance significant views out of, across and towards the World Heritage Site. E. The council will work with partners to promote the use, management and interpretation of the site in ways that protect, enhance and better communicate its OUV.
F. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that any impacts of their proposals on the World Heritage Site or its setting have been fully assessed using Heritage Impact Assessment methodology.
LISTED BUILDINGS
G. Works to listed buildings will preserve their special interest, relating sensitively to the period and architectural detail of the original building and protecting or, where appropriate, restoring original detail and significant historic fabric.
H. Changes of use to listed buildings will be consistent with their long-term conservation and help to restore, retain and maintain buildings, particularly those which have been identified as at risk.
I. Development within the settings or affecting views of listed buildings will take opportunities to enhance or better reveal their significance.
J. Demolition of listed buildings will be regarded as substantial harm and will be resisted in all but exceptional circumstances.
CONSERVATION AREAS
K. Development will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas and protect their settings. Features that contribute positively to the significance of conservation areas will be retained and opportunities taken to enhance them and their settings, wherever possible.
L. There will be a presumption that unlisted buildings that make a positive contribution to a conservation area will be conserved, unless it has been demonstrated that the relevant tests in national policy have been met. Buildings which make a negative or neutral contribution may be replaced or refurbished where this will result in a high quality building which will improve their appearance in the context of the conservation area and their environmental performance.
M. The contribution of existing uses to the character, function and appearance of conservation areas will be considered and changes of use supported where they make a positive contribution to conservation areas and their settings…. …. HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS
Q. Proposals affecting Westminster’s historic parks, gardens and open spaces will safeguard their historic integrity, character and appearance, and protect their settings and significant views from and towards these spaces.
NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS
R. Non-designated heritage assets (including local buildings of merit, archaeology and open spaces of interest within and outside conservation areas) will be conserved. When assessing proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be made regarding the scale of any harm or loss of the asset and the benefit of the proposed development.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 97 The London Plan
In December 2020, the Mayor published (i.e. adopted) the London Plan. This is operative as the Mayor’s spatial development strategy and forms part of the development plan for Greater London. Policies pertaining to heritage include the following:
Policy HC1 Heritage Conservation and Growth
(C) Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process.
National Planning Policy Framework
Any proposals for consent relating to heritage assets are subject to the policies of the NPPF (February 2019). This sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With regard to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, the framework requires proposals relating to heritage assets to be justified and an explanation of their effect on the heritage asset’s significance provided.
Paragraph 7 of the Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to ‘contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’ and that, at a very high level, ‘the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
At paragraph 8, the document expands on this as follows:
Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives: a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. and notes at paragraph 10:
10. So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 98 With regard to the significance of a heritage asset, the framework contains the following policies:
190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
In determining applications local planning authorities are required to take account of significance, viability, sustainability and local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF identifies the following criteria in relation to this:
a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
With regard to potential ‘harm’ to the significance designated heritage asset, in paragraph 193 the framework states the following:
…great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether the any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
The Framework goes on to state at paragraph 194 that:
Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification.
Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm’ to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset paragraph 195 of the NPPF states that:
…local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
With regard to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset, of the NPPF states the following;
196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
The Framework requires local planning authorities to look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and world heritage sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 99 reveal their significance. Paragraph 200 states that:
Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.
National Planning Practice Guidance
The planning practice guidance was published on the 6th March 2014 to support the National Planning Policy Framework and the planning system. It includes particular guidance on matters relating to protecting the historic environment in the section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The relevant guidance is as follows:
Paragraph 3: What is meant by the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment?
The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and effective conservation delivers wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.
Conservation is an active process of maintenance and managing change. It requires a flexible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets as diverse as listed buildings in everyday use to as yet undiscovered, undesignated buried remains of archaeological interest.
In the case of buildings, generally the risks of neglect and decay of heritage assets are best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Ensuring such heritage assets remain used and valued is likely to require sympathetic changes to be made from time to time. In the case of archaeological sites, many have no active use, and so for those kinds of sites, periodic changes may not be necessary.
Where changes are proposed, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear framework for both plan-making and decision-taking to ensure that heritage assets are conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner that is consistent with their significance and thereby achieving sustainable development.
Part of the public value of heritage assets is the contribution that they can make to understanding and interpreting our past. So where the complete or partial loss of a heritage asset is justified, the aim then is to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance which is to be lost, interpret its contribution to the understanding of our past, and make that publicly available.
Paragraph 7 states:
There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:
• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 100 • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
Paragraph 8: What is “significance”?
“Significance” in terms of heritage policy is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In legislation and designation criteria, the terms ‘special architectural or historic interest’ of a listed building and the ‘national importance’ of a scheduled monument are used to describe all or part of the identified heritage asset’s significance. Some of the more recent designation records are more helpful as they contain a fuller, although not exhaustive, explanation of the significance of the asset.
Paragraph 9: Why is ‘significance’ important in decision-taking?
Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals
Paragraph 13: What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into account?
The “setting of a heritage asset” is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.
A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.
Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not.
The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each.
The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance.
When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its ongoing conservation.
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 101 Paragraph 15: What is a viable use for a heritage asset and how is it taken into account in planning decisions?
The vast majority of heritage assets are in private hands. Thus, sustaining heritage assets in the long term often requires an incentive for their active conservation. Putting heritage assets to a viable use is likely to lead to the investment in their maintenance necessary for their long-term conservation.
By their nature, some heritage assets have limited or even no economic end use. A scheduled monument in a rural area may preclude any use of the land other than as a pasture, whereas a listed building may potentially have a variety of alternative uses such as residential, commercial and leisure.
In a small number of cases a heritage asset may be capable of active use in theory but be so important and sensitive to change that alterations to accommodate a viable use would lead to an unacceptable loss of significance.
It is important that any use is viable, not just for the owner, but also the future conservation of the asset. It is obviously desirable to avoid successive harmful changes carried out in the interests of repeated speculative and failed uses.
If there is only one viable use, that use is the optimum viable use. If there is a range of alternative viable uses, the optimum use is the one likely to cause the least harm to the significance of the asset, not just through necessary initial changes, but also as a result of subsequent wear and tear and likely future changes.
The optimum viable use may not necessarily be the most profitable one. It might be the original use, but that may no longer be economically viable or even the most compatible with the long-term conservation of the asset. However, if from a conservation point of view there is no real difference between viable uses, then the choice of use is a decision for the owner.
Harmful development may sometimes be justified in the interests of realising the optimum viable use of an asset, notwithstanding the loss of significance caused provided the harm is minimised. The policy in addressing substantial and less than substantial harm is set out in paragraphs 132 – 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 20: What is meant by the term public benefits?
Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.
Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as:
• sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting • reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset • securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset
Other Relevant Policy Documents Historic England: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning (March 2015) Historic England: Conservation Principles and Assessment (2008)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 102 Appendix III List of Plates
1. Potter’s 1789 Plan of Mary-le-Bone Park (Westminster List of Plates Archives) 2. Nash’s Plan of the Regent’s Park as realised, 1827 (Westminster Archives) 3. Horwood’s map of 1819 (LMA) 4. Greenwood’s map of 1827 5. 1823 engraving by W. Westall and C. Neath, view across Regent’s Park (LMA) 6. Engraving (T.H. Shepherd), York Terrace 1827 (Westminster Archives) 7. Mayhew’s 1835 map showing York Terrace East 8. 1867-70 Ordnance Survey (LMA) 9. A) Undated photograph of west end & centre of York Terrace East (Westminster Archives) B) Undated photograph of west end of York Terrace East showing York Terrace West (Westminster Archives) C) Undated photograph of north elevations of York Terrace West & East (LMA) 10. 24 York Terrace, floor plans & short section, 1923 (Westminster Archives) 11. York Terrace, drawings for erection of a conservatory, 1929 (Westminster Archives) 12. 25 York Terrace, basement & 2nd floor plans, 1909 (Westminster Archives) 13. 25 York Terrace, basement & 2nd floor plans & section, 1916 (Westminster Archives) 14. 25 York Terrace, 3rd & 4th floor plans & section through attic, 1921 (Westminster Archives) 15. 26 York Terrace, basement plan & section, 1909 (Westminster Archives) 16. 27 York Terrace, basement, 2nd & 3rd floor plans, 1921 (Westminster Archives) 17. 28 York Terrace, 2nd & 3rd floor plans, 1938 (Westminster Archives) 18. 31 York Terrace, floor plans 1955 (Westminster Archives) 19. 33 York Terrace, basement & 3rd floor plans, long section, 1905 (Westminster Archives) 20. 35 York Terrace, ground & 2nd floors, long section, 1920 (Westminster Archives) 21. 37 York Terrace, basement & 2nd floor plans, long section, 1913 (Westminster Archives) 22. 38-41 York Terrace, ground, 1st & 2nd floor plans, 1966 (Westminster Archives) 23. 39 York Terrace, ground & 2nd floor plans, rear elevation, 1924 (Westminster Archives) 24. 40 York Terrace, basement plan, 1966 (Westminster Archives) 25. 40 York Terrace, floor plans, 1942 (Westminster Archives) 26. 41 York Terrace, basement, ground, 2nd & 3rd floor plans, long section, 1926 (Westminster Archives) 27. Photograph of north elevation of York Terrace East, 1937 (LMA)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 103 28. c1940 photograph of central portion of York Terrace north elevation (NMR) 29. LCC Bomb Damage Map 1939-45 (LMA) 30. 1942 photograph of York Terrace East following bomb damage (LMA) 31. 1-3 York Terrace East reconstruction following bomb damage, undated (Westminster Archives 32. A) 1951 proposed basement plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2- 18 York Terrace East) (Crown Estate) B) 1951 proposed ground floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East) (Crown Estate) C) 1951 proposed 1st floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East) (Crown Estate) D) 1951 proposed 2nd floor plan, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East) (Crown Estate) E) 1951 proposed 3rd & 4th floor plans, 25-41 York Terrace (2-18 York Terrace East) (Crown Estate) 33. South, east & west elevations showing proposed alterations, TP Bennett & Sons, 1968 (International Student House) 34. A) Existing basement plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s (International Student House) B) Existing ground floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons,1960s (International Student House) C) Existing upper floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons,1960s (International Student House) D) Existing 3rd floor plan, TP Bennett & Sons, 1960s (International Student House) E) Existing south elevation, TP Bennett & Sons, c1968 (International Student House) 35. A) Proposed south, east & west elevations, section, TP Bennett & Sons, June 1968 (International Student House) B) Proposed north elevation, TP Bennett & Sons, November 1968 (International Student House) C) Proposed basement & ground floor plans, TP Bennett & Sons, July 1968 (International Student House) D) Proposed 1st & 2nd floor plans, TP Bennett & Sons, June 1968 (International Student House) E) Proposed 3rd floor & roof plans, TP Bennett & Sons, June 1968 (International Student House) 36. Photograph of south elevation of York Terrace East, 1960 (LMA) 37. Photograph of south elevation of York Terrace East, 1976 (LMA) 38. 1934-40 Ordnance Survey (LMA) 39. 1953 Ordnance Survey 40. 1965 Ordnance Survey 41. 1972 Ordnance Survey 42. A) 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, existing ground floor plan (International Student House) B) 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed ground floor plan (International Student House)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 104 C) 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed reflected ceiling plan (International Student House) D) 2000 reception alterations, 10 York Terrace East, proposed sections (International Student House) 43. Front Elevation (DIA, 2016) 44. Modern lightwell (DIA, 2016) 45. Historic metal staircase to No. 7 (DIA, 2016) 46. South elevation (DIA, 2016) 47. Service doors to rendered screen (DIA, 2016) 48. West elevation (DIA, 2016) 49. Original roof structure to the south of No. 5 (DIA, 2016) 50. Original roof structure to No. 17 with the central section raised (DIA, 2016) 51. Original staircase in No. 18 (DIA, 2016) 52. Retained original handrail in No. 15 (DIA, 2016) 53. North ground-floor room of No. 1 with doorway inserted in the centre of the chimneybreast (DIA, 2016) 54. Original front lightwell now forming part of a north basement room (DIA, 2016) 55. Third-floor central corridor looking toward No. 6 (DIA, 2016) 56. Third-floor central north student room of No. 7 (DIA, 2016) 57. A) North room in third-floor flat in No. 16 (DIA, 2016) B) Room in third-floor flat in No. 16 (DIA, 2016) C) Corridor in third-floor flat in No. 16 (DIA, 2016) 58. Modern structural downstands to third floor of No. 15 (DIA, 2016) 59. A) Example of rebuilt structures in southern forecourt (DIA, 2016) B) Example of rebuilt structures in southern forecourt (DIA, 2016)
DIA Historic Buildings Consultancy 1-18 York Terrace East 105 London Office 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB Tel: 020 7245 9888 www.insall-architects.co.uk