DOCSLIB.ORG

1-18 York Terrace East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

,’ 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in which the intellectual property rights have been licensed to DIA and such rights belong to third parties may not be published or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of such material for publication or reproduction should be made directly to the owner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
Recommended publications
  • St Marylebone Parish Church Records of Burials in the Crypt 1817-1853

    St Marylebone Parish Church Records of Burials in the Crypt 1817-1853

    Record of Bodies Interred in the Crypt of St Marylebone Parish Church 1817-1853 This list of 863 names has been collated from the merger of two paper documents held in the parish office of St Marylebone Church in July 2011. The large vaulted crypt beneath St Marylebone Church was used as place of burial from 1817, the year the church was consecrated, until it was full in 1853, when the entrance to the crypt was bricked up. The first, most comprehensive document is a handwritten list of names, addresses, date of interment, ages and vault numbers, thought to be written in the latter half of the 20th century. This was copied from an earlier, original document, which is now held by London Metropolitan Archives and copies on microfilm at London Metropolitan and Westminster Archives. The second document is a typed list from undertakers Farebrother Funeral Services who removed the coffins from the crypt in 1980 and took them for reburial at Brookwood cemetery, Woking in Surrey. This list provides information taken from details on the coffin and states the name, date of death and age. Many of the coffins were unidentifiable and marked “unknown”. On others the date of death was illegible and only the year has been recorded. Brookwood cemetery records indicate that the reburials took place on 22nd October 1982. There is now a memorial stone to mark the area. Whilst merging the documents as much information as possible from both lists has been recorded. Additional information from the Farebrother Funeral Service lists, not on the original list, including date of death has been recorded in italics under date of interment.
  • 'James and Decimus Burton's Regency New Town, 1827–37'

    'James and Decimus Burton's Regency New Town, 1827–37'

    Elizabeth Nathaniels, ‘James and Decimus Burton’s Regency New Town, 1827–37’, The Georgian Group Journal, Vol. XX, 2012, pp. 151–170 TEXT © THE AUTHORS 2012 JAMES AND DECIMUS BURTON’S REGENCY NEW TOWN, ‒ ELIZABETH NATHANIELS During the th anniversary year of the birth of The land, which was part of the -acre Gensing James Burton ( – ) we can re-assess his work, Farm, was put up for sale by the trustees of the late not only as the leading master builder of late Georgian Charles Eversfield following the passing of a private and Regency London but also as the creator of an Act of Parliament which allowed them to grant entire new resort town on the Sussex coast, west of building leases. It included a favourite tourist site – Hastings. The focus of this article will be on Burton’s a valley with stream cutting through the cliff called role as planner of the remarkable townscape and Old Woman’s Tap. (Fig. ) At the bottom stood a landscape of St Leonards-on-Sea. How and why did large flat stone, locally named The Conqueror’s he build it and what role did his son, the acclaimed Table, said to have been where King William I had architect Decimus Burton, play in its creation? dined on the way to the Battle of Hastings. This valley was soon to become the central feature of the ames Burton, the great builder and developer of new town. The Conqueror’s table, however, was to Jlate Georgian London, is best known for his work be unceremoniously removed and replaced by James in the Bedford and Foundling estates, and for the Burton’s grand central St Leonards Hotel.
  • Regent's Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy

    Regent's Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy

    Regent’s Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy Adopted 11 July 2011 Contents Part 1 Regent’s Park Conservation Area Appraisal Page 1 Introduction 4 2 Definition of special character 5 3 Planning Policy context 6 National – London Borough of Camden – local – Crown Estates 4 Assessing special interest 4.1 Location and setting – city borough and local 11 4.2 Character and plan form 12 4.3 Landscape and topography 13 4.4 Historic development and archaeology 14 4.5 Spatial analysis 17 4.6 Key views 18 4.7 Character zones 19 4.8 Land use activity and influence of uses 23 4.9 The quality of buildings and their contribution to the area 24 4.10 Local details 34 4.11 Prevalent local and traditional materials and the public realm 35 4.12 The contribution of green spaces 36 4.13 Audit of heritage assets 37 o Listed buildings o Positive o Neutral o Negative 4.14 Buildings at Risk 42 5 Problems, pressures and capacity for change 43 6 Community involvement 44 7 Boundary Review 45 8 Summary of issues 47 1 Part 2 Regent’s Park Management Strategy Page 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 49 1.2 Policy and legislation 50 2 Monitoring and review 52 3 Maintaining character 55 4 Recommendations for action 57 5 Boundary changes 58 6 Current issues 6.1 Summary 59 6.2 Maintaining special character 59 6.3 Enhancement schemes for the public realm 60 6.4 Economic and regeneration strategy 61 7 Management of change - Application of policy guidance 7.1 Quality of Applications 62 7.2 Guidance 62 7.3 Enforcement strategy 67 7.4 Article 4 Directions 68 7.5
  • CAMDEN STREET NAMES and Their Origins

    CAMDEN STREET NAMES and Their Origins

    CAMDEN STREET NAMES and their origins © David A. Hayes and Camden History Society, 2020 Introduction Listed alphabetically are In 1853, in London as a whole, there were o all present-day street names in, or partly 25 Albert Streets, 25 Victoria, 37 King, 27 Queen, within, the London Borough of Camden 22 Princes, 17 Duke, 34 York and 23 Gloucester (created in 1965); Streets; not to mention the countless similarly named Places, Roads, Squares, Terraces, Lanes, o abolished names of streets, terraces, Walks, Courts, Alleys, Mews, Yards, Rents, Rows, alleyways, courts, yards and mews, which Gardens and Buildings. have existed since c.1800 in the former boroughs of Hampstead, Holborn and St Encouraged by the General Post Office, a street Pancras (formed in 1900) or the civil renaming scheme was started in 1857 by the parishes they replaced; newly-formed Metropolitan Board of Works o some named footpaths. (MBW), and administered by its ‘Street Nomenclature Office’. The project was continued Under each heading, extant street names are after 1889 under its successor body, the London itemised first, in bold face. These are followed, in County Council (LCC), with a final spate of name normal type, by names superseded through changes in 1936-39. renaming, and those of wholly vanished streets. Key to symbols used: The naming of streets → renamed as …, with the new name ← renamed from …, with the old Early street names would be chosen by the name and year of renaming if known developer or builder, or the owner of the land. Since the mid-19th century, names have required Many roads were initially lined by individually local-authority approval, initially from parish named Terraces, Rows or Places, with houses Vestries, and then from the Metropolitan Board of numbered within them.
  • 'A Total Work of Architectural and Landscape Art' a Vision For

    'A Total Work of Architectural and Landscape Art' a Vision For

    ‘A Total Work of Architectural CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSION and Landscape Art’ A Vision for Regent’s Park February 2017 Todd Longstaffe-Gowan & David Lambert ‘A Total Work of Architectural CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSION and Landscape Art’ A Vision for Regent’s Park February 2017 Todd Longstaffe-Gowan & David Lambert Contents ‘A Total Work of Architectural and Landscape Art’ A Vision for Regent’s Park Introduction 1 1. Executive Summary: The Vision 3 2. The Making of Regent’s Park 5 3. Nash’s Vision 15 Regent’s Park as a designed landscape The terraces as individual architectural compositions Framed views of the terraces from the parkland Views of the parkland from the terraces The Outer Circle as a promenade Communal gardens and design unity 4. Themes 29 Views and vistas Planting Boundaries Cover Image: Charles Mayhew, Plans of all the Ground, Houses and other Buildings within the Jurisdiction of the Commissioners for Paving the Regent’s Park, Regent’s Street, Whitehall, &c. from an actual survey made in the years 1834 and 1835 Fig.1 Aerial view of Regent’s Park, Portland Place, Regent Street and Waterloo Place (2012) 1 A Vision for Regent’s Park Introduction Fig.2 Plan of Regent’s Park (c.1813) 2 Introduction Regent’s Park is a special place, a planned urban enclave where buildings and landscape were conceived as a single entity, neither one before or without the other. The buildings were designed to benefit from their landscape setting, while the park was designed to benefit from the palace-like buildings around it; ‘A total work of architectural and landscape art,’ as John Summerson called it.1 Responsibility for managing this total work of art is however split.
  • The Wellington Arch and the Western Entrance to London’, the Georgian Group Journal, Vol

    The Wellington Arch and the Western Entrance to London’, the Georgian Group Journal, Vol

    Steven Brindle, ‘The Wellington Arch and the western entrance to London’, The Georgian Group Journal, Vol. XI, 2001, pp. 47–92 TEXT © THE AUTHORS 2001 THE WELLINGTON ARCH AND THE WESTERN ENTRANCE TO LONDON STEVEN BRINDLE ondon possesses two free-standing triumphal defensive in purpose, but by the eighteenth century Larches, the Wellington Arch and the Marble its primary significance was fiscal. Towns and cities Arch. Their histories are closely connected: they are were under different jurisdictions and tax regimes, of similar date ( c. –) and were both planned in goods taken into them were subject to customs, and relation to Buckingham Palace. Neither was town gates represented a crucial element in the tax- completed to its original design, both have been gathering systems. Ledoux’s spectacular barrières moved and altered, and both stand in isolation, giving around Paris, erected by the corporation of Farmers little hint of their original settings. As a result, today General c. –, were the most spectacular instance both arches seem more like park ornaments than the of this. grand urban entrances they were intended to be. The City gates were also of obvious ceremonial and Marble Arch was the subject of a recent article in this symbolic importance, an architectural tradition going journal by Andrew Saint; the present article aims to back to ancient times which remained vigorous consider the history of the Wellington Arch, and also throughout the th century. In addition to Ledoux’s the complex prehistory of schemes for a grand work in Paris one could cite the Puerta de Alcalá in western entrance to London.
  • Burtons St Leonards Newsletter Spring 2020

    Burtons St Leonards Newsletter Spring 2020

    James Burton Decimus Burton 1761-1837 Newsletter Spring 2020 1800-1881 50th anniversary edition THE REGENT’S PARK AND DECIMUS BURTON Decimus Burton’s first architectural exercise, at the age of 17, was to design his family’s own house, the Holme, in Regent’s Park. He was later to have a hand in most of the remaining seven original villas. In 1821, he ‘gave the designs’ for the first terrace, Cornwall Terrace, soon fol- lowed by Clarence Terrace. Between 1824 and 1829, his works included the Zoo, and the long- since demolished ‘Colosseum,’ together with its central lift and surrounding conservatories. Fi- nally, in the 1840s, he designed, along with Richard Turner, the ‘Winter Garden’ in the Inner Circle, for the Royal Botanical Society (now also demolished and replaced by Queen Mary’s Rose Garden). In this way, Regent’s Park became Decimus Burton’s training ground as an archi- tect and landscape designer. Cornwall Terrace, built between 1821 and 1823 by James Burton to a design by Decimus Burton It could indeed be said that Decimus was based at the very centre of London’s transforma- tion into a capital worthy of the victors of Waterloo. ‘Once, and only once,’ claimed John Sum- merson, ‘has a grand plan for London, affecting the capital as a whole, been projected and car- ried to completion.’ This grand plan arose from the need to connect the park, originally con- ceived as a kind of royal housing speculation, to the centre of government in Westminster, by creating Regent Street. By the 1830s, these developments were to bring about the entire ‘reshaping’ of the West End.
  • The Economist 1859-10-01: Vol 17 Iss

    The Economist 1859-10-01: Vol 17 Iss

    Fhe Ex mist, WEEKLY COMMERCIAL TIMES, Bankers’ Gasette, and Railway Monitor: A POLITICAL, LITERARY, AND GENERAL NEWSPAPER. —oooooeeaooaoawanaeas——————SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1859: No. 840 CONTENTS. articles, the natives of India meet us by refraining from .con- «+e 1089 | Commercial Epitome.........9+« eopeee 1097 suming them. Nor is this a great difficulty to such persons. 1090 | Corn 1099 Markets of Manufacturing Districts 1099 Their habits are simple, their wants few, their penuriousness Loypon MARKETs :— in daily life extreme. ‘Their social position is not regulated State of Corn ‘Trade for. the Week 1100 Cotonial&Foreign ProduceMarkets 1100 like that of most persons in Europe by their expenditure. the Currency of India 3092 Additional Notices .......... — - 1101 The institution of caste interposes impassable barriers. be- of the United States .,. 1093 Bank Returns and Money Market ... tween one class and another : .however little a Brahmin may at Agricultural Societies i094 Price Current “ 1095 Imports and Exports spend, however mean and sordid his appearance and habita- 1096 | Epitome of Railway News tion may be, he is a Brahmin still: however much a man of see 1097 | Railway and Mining Share Mar 1098 | Share List and Traffic Returns inferior caste may expend, he has no chance of lessening even by a hair's breadth the distinction between his superior and himself. In almost all respects this is injurious, Che Political Economist. and in a financial point of view it is particularly so. The moral compulsion which compels persons here to live in the THE INDIAN SCHEDULE D. mode in which their neighbours do, and in which they have We believe that the financiai authorities in India are now been accustomed to live themselves, is one of the most effec- pursuing a very judicious course, but we are afraid that it is tive instruments of taxation.
  • 1-18 York Terrace East, London NW1 4PT PDF 1 MB

    1-18 York Terrace East, London NW1 4PT PDF 1 MB

    Item No. 2 CITY OF WESTMINSTER PLANNING Date Classification APPLICATIONS SUB For General Release COMMITTEE 26 November 2019 Addendum Report of Ward(s) involved Director of Planning Marylebone High Street Subject of Report 1-18 York Terrace East, London, NW1 4PT, Proposal 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.) Agent Savills On behalf of c/o agent Registered Number 19/04384/FULL & 19/4385/LBC Date amended/ completed 5 June 2019 Date Application 5 June 2019 Received Historic Building Grade Grade I Conservation Area Regent's Park 1. RECOMMENDATION 1. Refuse planning permission – land use 2. Grant conditional listed building consent. 3. Agree the reasons for granting conditional listed building consent as set out in Informative 1 attached to the draft decision letter. 2. SUMMARY The application site contains a grade I listed terrace on the south side of Regent’s Park and within the Regent’s Park Conservation Area. The buildings are currently vacant but were last in use as student accommodation (Use Class Sui Generis), a private school for 3-8 year olds and a rotary club (Both Use Class D1). Planning permission and listed building consent are sought for the use of buildings as 21 residential units; 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.) Item No.
  • New Electoral Arrangements for Westminster City Council Draft Recommendations October 2019 Westminster Cover Template Layout 1 26/09/2019 09:53 Page 3

    New Electoral Arrangements for Westminster City Council Draft Recommendations October 2019 Westminster Cover Template Layout 1 26/09/2019 09:53 Page 3

    Westminster Cover Template_Layout 1 26/09/2019 09:53 Page 2 New electoral arrangements for Westminster City Council Draft recommendations October 2019 Westminster Cover Template_Layout 1 26/09/2019 09:53 Page 3 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected] Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019 A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical. Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Westminster City Council Electoral review October 2019 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected] Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right.
  • 1-18 York Terrace East, London, NW1 4PT PDF

    1-18 York Terrace East, London, NW1 4PT PDF

    Item No. 2 CITY OF WESTMINSTER PLANNING Date Classification APPLICATIONS SUB For General Release COMMITTEE 23 January 2017 Report of Ward(s) involved Director of Planning Marylebone High Street Subject of Report 1-18 York Terrace East, London, NW1 4PT, Proposal Use of buildings as 13 single dwellinghouses (Class C3); removal and replacement of roof, floors, non original stairs; retention of all facades and spine walls and reinstatement of the properties as individual dwellings; excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park. Agent Savills On behalf of Westbourne Capital Partners Registered Number 17/06973/FULL and Date amended/ 17/06974/LBC completed 8 January 2018 Date Application 4 August 2017 Received Historic Building Grade I Conservation Area Regent's Park 1. RECOMMENDATION For Committee’s Views i) Do Members agree that the maximum amount of affordable housing which has been identified by our consultants (21.9%) as being viable must be provided on site, the proposal for 13 large townhouses fails to optimise the use of this site, contrary to policy S14 of the City Plan and the applicant has failed to justify loss of the existing student accommodation use, contrary to policy S15 of the City Plan and policy H6 of the Unitary Development Plan; ii) That, in view of the policy priority to seek affordable housing on site the current proposal to fund Chesterfield Lodge for the construction of 44 affordable units together with the applicant’s revised payment in lieu (£7,600,000.00) is not an acceptable alternative; and iii) Subject to i) and ii) and if the applicant does not revise the scheme in line with the above recommendations, the applications should be refused by the Director of Planning via his delegated powers.
  • Prime Central London Micro Markets Regent’S Park Nw1

    Prime Central London Micro Markets Regent’S Park Nw1

    PRIME CENTRAL LONDON MICRO MARKETS REGENT’S PARK NW1 September 2019 The Regent’s Park Park Life in Prime Central London Hidden within the principal Prime Central London (PCL) markets are a number of ‘micro markets’ that remain Burton’s extensive financial involvement ‘effectively been built to the south, east and west of the park, with the quite distinct from the broader areas and markets in which they are located. Understanding the make-up and guaranteed the success of the project’. In return, Nash agreed north side originally left open to protect the views towards to promote the career of Decimus Burton. Such were James Highgate and Hampstead. key points of appeal reveals their attraction and value. Burton’s contributions to the project that the Commissioners of Woods described James, not Nash, as ‘the architect of Primrose Hill to the north of Regent’s Park became Crown The Regent’s Park is one of eight Royal Parks in London and a prime property micro market. Located immediately to the north Regent’s Park’. Contrary to popular belief, the dominant property in 1841. In 1842, after an Act was passed securing of Marylebone Road, the park lies partly in the City of Westminster and partly in the London Borough of Camden and is home architectural influence in many of The Regent’s Park projects the land as public open space, the public were freely admitted. to a limited number of classic, listed stucco properties. Based upon local post coding, the area is technically sited in north-west was Decimus Burton, not John Nash, who was appointed A year later the bridge connecting Regent’s Park with Primrose London, though considered to be centrally located due to its proximity to London’s West End, Mayfair and Marylebone.