E Historic Maps and Plans
Contains 12 Pages
Map 1a: 1771 ‘Plan of the Royal Manor of Richmond’ by Burrell and Richardson.
Map 1b: Extract of 1771 ‘Plan of the Royal Manor of Richmond’ by Burrell and Richardson.
Map 2. 1837 ‘Royal Gardens, View’
Map 3. 1861-1871 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map
Map 4. c.1794 ‘A Plan of Richmond and Kew Gardens’
Map 5. 1844 ‘Sketch plan of the ground attached to the proposed Palm House at Kew and also for the Pleasure Ground - showing the manner in which a National Arboretum may be formed without materially altering the general features’ by Nesfield.
Map 6. ‘Royal Botanic Gardens: The dates and extent of successive additions to the Royal Gardens from their foundation in 1760 (9 acres) to the present time (288 acres)’
Illustration 1. 1763 ‘A View of the Lake and Island, with the Orangerie, the Temples of Eolus and Bellona, and the House of Confucius’ by William Marlow
Illustration 2. ‘A Perspective View of the Palace from the Northside of the Lake, the Green House and the Temple of Arethusa, in the Royal Gardens at Kew’ by William Woollett
Illustration 3. c.1750 ‘A view of the Palace from the Lawn in the Royal Gardens at Kew’ by James Roberts
Illustration 4. Great Palm House, Kew Gardens
Illustration 5. Undated ‘Kew Palace and Gardens’
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
Map 1a: 1771 ‘Plan of the Royal Manor of Richmond’ by Burrell and Richardson. Image courtesy of RBGK Archive is plan shows the two royal gardens st before g sta died in 1 and a er eorge had inherited ichmond Kew ardens have been completed by g sta and in ichmond apability rown has relandscaped the park for eorge e high walls of ove ane are still in place dividing the two gardens
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd MAP 1a
1 Map 1b: Extract of 1771 ‘Plan of the Royal Manor of Richmond’ by Burrell and Richardson. Image courtesy of RBGK Archive
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd MAP 1b
2 ap : 183 oyal ardens View mage co rtesy of the P O is plan shows the two gardens a er eorge demolished ove ane and bro ght ichmond and Kew ardens together for the first time t also shows Kew reen a er the section in front of Kew Palace was enclosed by Parliament by the re est of eorge V e reat ake has largely been backfilled is plan shows how the gardens looked prior to the work of the Hookers rton and Nesfield
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd MAP 2
3 Map 3: 1861-1871 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map. Image courtesy of the British Library . is map shows the oyal otanic ardens and National rboret m still separated by a wire fence a er the reorganisations ordered by illiam Hooker and designed by both rton and Nesfield rner and rton s Palm Ho se has been constr cted along with rton s Palm Ho se Pond and Nesfield s parterres and the lines of rton s road alk and ittle road alk can clearly be seen e reat awn can be seen s rviving as an open area within the Kew Palace ro nds and in front of the Orangery e elaborate Herbaceo s ro nd is in the process of being changed to the new more linear Order eds
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-P.indd MAP 3
4 ap c 1 9 Plan of ichmond and Kew ardens mage co rtesy of the ritish ibrary is plan shows the two gardens a er eorge inherited them both ichmond from his grandfather eorge and Kew from his mother g sta apability rown had finished his work in ichmond and eorge had ordered the demolition of ove ane bringing ichmond and Kew ardens together for the first time
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-P.indd MAP 4
5 ap 18 ketch plan of the gro nd attached to the proposed Palm Ho se at Kew and also for the Pleas re ro nd showing the manner in which a National rboret m may be formed witho t materially altering the general feat res by Nesfield o rtesy of Kew rchive is plan clearly shows the wire fence that separated the new oyal otanic arden and the National rboret m in the Pleas re ro nds from 18 3 to 189 e plan shows the development of Nesfield s tho ghts abo t the planting for the rboret m and how it co ld reinforce the vistas emanating from the patte d oie within the Palm Ho se parterres
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd MAP 5
6 ap oyal otanic ardens: e dates and extent of s ccessive additions to the oyal ardens from their fo ndation in 1 9 acres to the present time 88 acres mage co rtesy of Kew rchives is diagram from the K archives is a sef l o tline of how the oyal otanic ardens developed and clearly shows the division between the oyal otanic ardens and the National rboret m in the Pleas re ro nds
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-P.indd MAP 6
7 ll stration 1: 1 3 View of the ake and sland with the Orangerie the emples of Eol s and ellona and the Ho se of onf ci s by illiam arlow mage co rtesy of the Orleans Ho se allery ichmond oro gh o ncil is image was incl ded in illiam hambers book of Kew ardens showing how his architect ral designs fitted into the wider landscape e emple of eol s can be seen on its mo nd known vario sly as the mberland o nd and the a rel o nt overlooking the reat ake e Orangery can be seen at the northern end of the reat awn with a clear view across the lawn between the Orangery and the ake e b ildings are each s rro nded by the trees planted at the edges of Kew ardens to create an internally referencing and internally foc ssed garden that closed o t the world o tside
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd ON 1
8 ll stration Perspective View of the Palace from the Northside of the ake the reen Ho se and the emple of reth sa in the oyal ardens at Kew by illiam oollett mage co rtesy of the Orleans Ho se allery ichmond oro gh o ncil is image shows the Orangery visible across the reat ake and the reat awn ill strating the open character of this northern end of rederick and g sta s Kew ardens all contained within a thick bo ndary planting of trees Note also that the people in the pict re are not following formal paths b t are wandering at will across the grass
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd ON
9 ll stration 3 c 1 view of the Palace from the awn in the oyal ardens at Kew by ames oberts mage co rtesy of the Orleans Ho se allery ichmond oro gh o ncil is image shows the section of the reat awn that lay immediately in front of the hite Ho se and reinforces the point that people were not confined to the formal pathways in their experience of Kew ardens and were able to freely walk across the awn
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd ON 3
10 ll stration reat Palm Ho se Kew ardens mage co rtesy of the Orleans Ho se allery ichmond oro gh o ncil is image is not drawn with any realistic perspective and is instead a collage of the feat res of Hooker s new oyal otanic ardens that wo ld appeal to the Victorian visitor rton s road alk across the reat awn was obvio sly an important feat re as were the Palm Ho se Pagoda and een aroline s ottage n the mind of the artist these feat res were all contained within strong bo ndary plantings of trees reinforcing the sense of Kew as a place set apart from the everyday.
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd ON
11 ll stration ndated Kew Palace and ardens mage co rtesy of the Orleans Ho se allery ichmond oro gh o ncil is engraving shows Kew Palace at the end of Kew reen to be an enclosed and private space with high walls and mat re trees separating it from the p blic realm
May 2018 Appendix E AppE-L.indd ON
12 F 2014 Periodic Report
Contains 14 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
1. World Heritage Property Data Comment i ) C a n R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w b e a t t h e t o p o f t h e l i s t ? i i ) 1.1 - Name of World Heritage Property S uggest rem ove site description in E stonian. R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w 1.8 - Other designations / Conventions under which the property is protected (if applicable) 1.2 - World Heritage Property Details Comment State(s) Party(ies) R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s K e w w o r k s w i t h D E F R A t o m a n a g e U n i t e d K i n g d o m o f G r e a t B r i t a i n a n d N o r t h e r n I r e l a n d t h e C o n v e n t i o n o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a d e i n E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s Type of Property (C ITE S ) and holds various relevant plant collections. B uildings c u l t u r a l in the G ardens are protected by appropriate designations and t h e w h o l e p r o p e r t y i s w i t h i n a C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Identification Number 1084 Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 2. Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 2003 2.1 - Statement of Outstanding Universal Value / Statement of Significance 1.3 - Geographic Information Table Name Coordinates Property Buffer Total Inscription (longitude / (ha) zone (ha) year Statement of Outstanding Universal Value latitude) (ha) B r i e f s y n t h e s i s R o y a l B o t a n i c 51. 482 / - 0. 294 132 350 482 2003 S e t a m o n g s t a s e r i e s o f p a r k s a n d e s t a t e s a l o n g t h e R i v e r G a r d e n s , K e w T h a m e s ' s o u t h - w e s t e r n r e a c h e s , t h i s h i s t o r i c l a n d s c a p e Total (ha) 132 350 482 g a r d e n i n c l u d e s w o r k b y i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e n o w n e d l a n d s c a p e architects Bridgem an, Kent, C ham bers, C apability Brow n and 1.4 - Map(s) N esfield illustrating significant periods in garden design from t h e 18t h t o t h e 20t h c e n t u r i e s . T h e g a r d e n s h o u s e e x t e n s i v e Title Date Link to source botanic collections (conserved plants, living plants and T h e S i t e B o u n d a r y a n d B u f f e r Z o n e 17/ 01/ 2002
docum ents) that have been considerably enriched through the c e n t u r i e s . S i n c e t h e i r c r e a t i o n i n 1759, t h e g a r d e n s h a v e m ade a significant and uninterrupted contribution to the study 1.5 - Governmental Institution Responsible for the o f p l a n t d iversity, plant system atics and econom ic botany. Property T h e l a n d s c a p e d e s i g n o f K e w B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , t h e i r b u i l d i n g s C h r i s t o p h e r Y o u n g a n d p l a n t c o l l e c t i o n s c o m b i n e t o f o r m a u n i q u e t e s t i m o n y t o E n g l i s h H e r i t a g e developm ents in garden art and botanical science that w ere H e a d o f W o r l d I n t e r n a t i o n a l A d v i c e s u b s e q u e n t l y d i f f u s e d a r o u n d t h e w o r l d . T h e 18t h c e n t u r y P a u l B l a k e r English landscape garden concept w as adopted in Europe D epartm ent for C ulture, M edia and S port and K ew 's influence in horticulture, plant classification and H e a d o f W o r l d H e r i t a g e e c o n o m i c b o t a n y s p r e a d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y f r o m t h e t i m e o f J o s e p h B a n k s ' d i r e c t o r s h i p i n t h e 1770s . A s t h e f o c u s o f a Comment grow ing level of botanic activity, the m id 19th century garden, D C M S c o n t a c t n o w F r a n c e s c a C o n l o n , D C M S , 4t h F l o o r , 100 w h i c h o v e r l a y s e a r l i e r r o y a l l a n d s c a p e g a r d e n s i s c e n t r e d o n P a r l i a m e n t S t , L o n d o n S W 1A 2B Q + 44 ( 0) 20 7211 6117 t w o l a r g e i r o n f r a m e d g l a s s h o u s e s - t h e P a l m H o u s e a n d t h e Francesca.conlon@ culture.gsi.gov.uk Tem perate H ouse that becam e m odels for conservatories a r o u n d t h e w o r l d . E l e m e n t s o f t h e 18t h a n d 19t h c e n t u r y 1.6 - Property Manager / Coordinator, Local Institution / l a y e r s i n c l u d i n g t h e O r a n g e r y , Q u e e n C h a r l o t t e ' s C o t t a g e ; t h e Agency folly tem ples; R hododendron D ell, boundary ha - h a ; g a r d e n D a v i d H o l r o y d v i s t a s t o W i l l i a m C h a m b e r s ' p a g o d a a n d S y o n P a r k H o u s e ; R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s iron fram ed glasshouses; ornam ental lakes and ponds; H e a d o f E s t a t e s h e r b a r i u m a n d p l a n t c o l l e c t i o n s c o n v e y t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e G ardens' developm ent from royal retreat and pleasure g a r d e n K e i t h G a r n e r t o n a t i o n a l b o t a n i c a l a n d h o r t i c u l t u r a l g a r d e n b e f o r e b e c o m i n g a m o d e r n i n s t i t u t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n e c o l o g y i n t h e 20t h Comment c e n t u r y . D a v e H o l r o y d T e l e p h o n e : + 44 ( 0) 20 8332 5858 K e i t h G a r n e r C r i t e r i o n ( i i ) : S i n c e t h e 18t h c e n t u r y , t h e B o t a n i c G a r d e n s o f C o n s u l t a n t T e l e p h o n e : + 44 ( 0) 20 7585 0421 F a x : + 44 ( 0) 20 K e w h a v e b e e n c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s c i e n t i f i c a n d 7801 9591 e c o n o m i c e x c h a n g e s e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d i n t h e f i e l d o f b o t a n y , a n d t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r i c h n e s s o f i t s 1.7 - Web Address of the Property (if existing) collections. The landscape and architectural features of the 1. Patrim onium - m u n d i . o r g : v i s i t t h i s s i t e i n G ardens reflect considerable artistic influences both w ith panophotographies - im m ersive and interactive r e g a r d t o t h e E u r o p e a n c o n t i n e n t a n d t o m o r e d i s t a n t r e g i o n s ; s p h e r i c a l i m a g e s C r i t e r i o n ( i i i ) : K e w G a r d e n s h a v e l a r g e l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o a d v a n c e s i n m a n y s c i e n t i f i c disciplines, particularly botany and 2. V i e w p h o t o s f r o m O U R P L A C E t h e W o r l d H e r i t a g e e c o l o g y ; c o l l e c t i o n C r i t e r i o n ( i v ) : T h e l a n d s c a p e g a r d e n s a n d t h e e d i f i c e s c r e a t e d 3. R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w b y c e l e b r a t e d a r t i s t s s u c h a s C h a r l e s B r i d g e m a n , W i l l i a m 4. S i t e d e s c r i p t i o n i n E s t o n i a n K e n t , L a n c e l o t ' C a p a b i l i t y ' B r o w n a n d W i l l i a m C h a m b e r s P a g e 1 T u e s d a y , M a y 20, 2014 ( 9: 15: 45 A M C E S T ) P e r i o d i c R e p o r t - S e c t i o n I I - R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w W orld H eritage C entre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew reflect the beginning of movements which were to have The property has a World Heritage Site Management Plan, a international influence; Property Conservation Plan, and a Master Plan. Integrity (2009) Implementation of the Management Plan is coordinated by the The boundary of the property contains the elements that bear Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The World Heritage Site witness to the history of the development of the landscape Management Plan is currently being revised alongside a gardens and Kew Gardens' uninterrupted role as national specific landscape master plan. botanic garden and centre of plant research. These elements, At the time of inscription the World Heritage Committee which express the Outstanding Universal Value, remain intact. encouraged the State Party to include on the staff of the Royal The Buffer Zone contains the focus of one of the garden vistas Botanic Gardens a landscape architect or other specialist on the opposite bank of the Thames River - Syon Park House qualified in the history of art and history in general, so that - together with other parts of the adjacent cultural landscape architectural conservation activities can be coordinated on- (Old Deer Park - a royal estate south of Kew Gardens, Syon site. Landscape architects with experience of working in Park on the opposite bank of the Thames, the river from historic landscapes have been appointed to provide this Isleworth Ferry Gate to Kew Bridge, the historic centre of Kew advice. Green with the adjacent buildings and the church, and then to Comment the east, the built-up sectors of 19th and 20th century - Historical background could be developed, in particular to houses). Development outside this Buffer Zone may threaten refer to the two royal gardens. - Integrity compromised as the setting of the property. parts of the designed landscape, covered by criteria ii) and iv), Authenticity (2009) are outside the WHS. - Similarly, Chambers' Observatory and Since their creation in the 18th century Kew Gardens have the "Great Conservatory" at Syon are outside the WHS. - remained faithful to their initial purpose with botanists Inappropriate development outside buffer zone causing harm continuing to collect specimens and exchange expertise to WHS. - Errors in description of ownership. - Some internationally. The collections of living and stored material are amendments and rephrasing to the section on site protection used by scholars all over the world. desirable. The 44 listed buildings are monuments of the past, and reflect the stylistic expressions of various periods. They retain their authenticity in terms of design, materials and functions. Only a 2.2 - The criteria (2005 revised version) under which the few buildings are being used for a purpose different from that property was inscribed originally intended (the Orangery now houses a restaurant). (ii)(iii)(iv) Unlike the works of architecture, in each of the landscaped garden areas, the past, present and future are so closely 2.3 - Attributes expressing the Outstanding Universal interwoven (except in the case of vestigial gardens created by Value per criterion significant artists, such as the vistas), that it is sometimes Attributes are set out in section 3.8 of the WHS Management difficult to separate the artistic achievements of the past in Plan, 2011 under five categories: - a rich and diverse historic terms of the landscape design of the different periods. Recent cultural landscape providing a palimpsest of landscape projects such as recutting Nessfield's beds behind the Palm design. - an iconic architectural legacy. - globally important House have started to interpret and draw attention to the preserved and living plant collections. - a horticultural heritage earlier landscapes created by Capability Brown and of keynote species and collections. - key contributions to Nessfield. Other projects are proposed in the overall developments in plant science and plant taxonomy. NB: landscape management plan subject to resourcing. attributes are not set out "per criterion" in the WHS Protection and management requirements (2009) Management Plan. The property includes the Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew, Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte's Cottage, which are the hereditary property of Queen Elizabeth II and are managed for 2.4 - If needed, please provide details of why the conservation purposes by the Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew Statement of Outstanding Universal Value should be and Historic Royal Palaces. revised The property is included in a conservation area designated by See suggested revisions in answer to question 2.1 above, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Part of the relating to: - desirability of fuller description of the site's Buffer Zone is protected by a conservation area in the London history. - lack of integrity, with important parts of the designed Borough of Hounslow. Forty four buildings and structures landscape and key buildings outside the WHS. - development situated on the site have been listed under the Listed outside buffer zone in Brentford causing harm to the OUV. - Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 as buildings of errors in description of ownership. - the desirability of including special architectural and historical interest. The whole site is a fuller description of the protection and management regime. Grade I on the English Heritage Register of Park and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England Permission to carry out 2.5 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations works or change functions is subject to the approval of the related to Statement of Outstanding Universal Value local authorities, who consult English Heritage in the case of It is appreciated that Kew’s SOUV will not be changed in the listed buildings and conservation areas. foreseeable future. It is however desirable to express the Protection of the property and the Buffer Zone is provided by significance of Kew as well and fully as possibly. This is development plans in the planning systems of the London particularly important given other values - such as economic Boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Hounslow and by regeneration - which are currently seen as antithetical to the the London Plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy) and by protection of OUV. A new synthesis is required, protecting designation. OUV whilst allowing the economy of the surrounding area to Kew Gardens' conservation work has continued at an flourish. A fuller SOUV could contribute to this process. international level, notably for the cataloguing of species, supporting conservation projects around the world, the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES, 1975) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992). Page 2 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
3. Factors Affecting the Property
3.14. Other factor(s)
3.14.1 - Other factor(s)
Page 3 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
3.15. Factors Summary Table
3.15.1 - Factors summary table Name Impact Origin 3.1 Buildings and Development 3. 1. 1 H o u s i n g
3. 1. 2 Com m ercial developm ent
3. 1. 5 Interpretative and visitation facilities
3.2 Transportation Infrastructure 3. 2. 1 G round transport infrastructure
3. 2. 4 E f f e c t s a r i s i n g f r o m u s e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
3.3 Services Infrastructures 3. 3. 1 W a t e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
3. 3. 2 R e n e w a b l e e n e r g y f a c i l i t i e s
3. 3. 4 L o c a l i s e d u t i l i t i e s
3.4 Pollution 3. 4. 2 G round w ater pollution
3. 4. 4 A i r p o l l u t i o n
3. 4. 6 I n p u t o f e x c e s s e n e r g y
3.5 Biological resource use/modification 3. 5. 5 C r o p p r o d u c t i o n
3. 5. 6 C om m ercial w ild plant collection
3. 5. 10 F o r e s t r y / w o o d p r o d u c t i o n
3.7 Local conditions affecting physical fabric 3. 7. 2 R e l a t i v e h u m i d i t y
3. 7. 3 Tem perature
3. 7. 6 W a t e r ( r a i n / w a t e r t a b l e )
3. 7. 7 P e s t s
3. 7. 8 M i c r o - o r g a n i s m s
3.8 Social/cultural uses of heritage 3. 8. 6 Im pacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
3.9 Other human activities 3. 9. 1 I l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s
3.10 Climate change and severe weather events 3. 10. 1 S t o r m s
3. 10. 2 F l o o d i n g
3. 10. 3 D r o u g h t
3. 10. 6 T e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e
3. 10. 7 O t h e r c l i m a t e c h a n g e i m p a c t s
3.11 Sudden ecological or geological events 3. 11. 6 F i r e ( w i d l f i r e s )
3.12 Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species 3. 12. 1 T r a n s l o c a t e d s p e c i e s
3. 12. 2 Invasive/alien terrestrial species
3.13 Management and institutional factors 3. 13. 1 Low im pact research / m onitoring activities
3. 13. 2 H igh im pact research / m onitoring activities
3. 13. 3 M anagem ent activities
P a g e 4 T u e s d a y , M a y 20, 2014 ( 9: 15: 45 A M C E S T ) P e r i o d i c R e p o r t - S e c t i o n I I - R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w W orld H eritage C entre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Legend C u r r e n t P o t e n t i a l N e g a t i v e P o s i t i v e I n s i d e O u t s i d e
3.16. Assessment of current negative factors
3.16.1 - Assessment of current negative factors Spatial scale Temporal scale Impact Management Trend response 3.1 Buildings and Development 3.1.1 Housing l o c a l i s e d o n - g o i n g significant m e d i u m c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s i n g 3.1.2 Commercial development l o c a l i s e d o n - g o i n g significant m e d i u m c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s i n g 3.1.5 Interpretative and visitation facilities l o c a l i s e d interm ittent or sporadic m i n o r h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c 3.2 Transportation Infrastructure 3.2.1 Ground transport infrastructure restricted o n e o f f o r r a r e significant h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c 3.2.4 Effects arising from use of e x t e n s i v e f r e q u e n t significant l o w c a p a c i t y s t a t i c transportation infrastructure 3.4 Pollution 3.4.4 Air pollution restricted o n e o f f o r r a r e m i n o r h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c 3.4.6 Input of excess energy l o c a l i s e d interm ittent or sporadic significant m e d i u m c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s i n g 3.7 Local conditions affecting physical fabric 3.7.2 Relative humidity l o c a l i s e d interm ittent or sporadic significant h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c 3.8 Social/cultural uses of heritage 3.8.6 Impacts of tourism / visitor / l o c a l i s e d interm ittent or sporadic m i n o r h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c recreation 3.10 Climate change and severe weather events 3.10.1 Storms e x t e n s i v e o n e o f f o r r a r e significant h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c 3.12 Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species 3.12.2 Invasive/alien terrestrial species e x t e n s i v e o n e o f f o r r a r e significant h i g h c a p a c i t y s t a t i c
P a g e 5 T u e s d a y , M a y 20, 2014 ( 9: 15: 45 A M C E S T ) P e r i o d i c R e p o r t - S e c t i o n I I - R o y a l B o t a n i c G a r d e n s , K e w W orld H eritage C entre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
4.2. Protective Measures 3.17. Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations related to factors affecting the 4.2.1 - Protective designation (legal, regulatory, property contractual, planning, institutional and / or traditional) The property, which includes the Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew, Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte’s Cottage, are the 3.17.1 - Comments hereditary property of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II. The 3.1.1, 3.1.2 & 3.4.6 - New buildings (and "light outspill") extent of the property follows the current administrative affecting WHS and setting 3.1.5 - Need for new visitor and delimitation of the Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew (except for interpretation facilities 3.2.1 - Intrusive car park on river 3.2.4 - Little Kew Green) and also includes Kew Palace and Queen Aircraft noise beneath final approach to Heathrow. 3.4.4 - Film Charlotte’s Cottage, which are placed under the protection of of aviation fuel on thatched roof of Queen Charlotte's cottage Historic Royal Palaces. The whole of the property proposed 3.7.2 - Rapid deterioration of glasshouses 3.8.6 - Localised for inscription is included in a conservation zone designated concentrations of visitors 3.10.1- Loss of trees in 1987 storm by the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Another 3.12.2. Ash Dieback part of the buffer zone territory is protected by the conservation zone of the London Borough of Hounslow. The 4. Protection, Management and Monitoring of the permits needed to carry out works or change functions are Property subject to the approval of these local authorities, which in the case of historic buildings and zones, consult English Heritage. 44 buildings and structures situated on the site have been 4.1. Boundaries and Buffer Zones listed as buildings of special architectural and historical interest by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. 4.1.1 - Buffer zone status All listed buildings are protected by the 1990 Listed Buildings There is a buffer zone and Conservation Zones Act. This law provides statutory protection to the building, its characteristics and its environment. The whole of the property proposed for 4.1.2 - Are the boundaries of the World Heritage property inscription is Level 1 listed on the English Heritage register of adequate to maintain the property's Outstanding parks and gardens, because of its exceptional historic interest. Universal Value? English Heritage and the Garden History Society must be The boundaries of the World Heritage property do not limit consulted when a permit application is made concerning an the ability to maintain the property's Outstanding Universal intervention on the listed gardens and their environment. Kew Value but they could be improved Gardens are also protected by Richmond upon Thames from the viewpoint of nature conservation. Protection of the buffer 4.1.3 - Are the buffer zone(s) of the World Heritage zone (Old Deer Park, a royal estate south of Kew Gardens, property adequate to maintain the property's Outstanding Sion Park on the opposite bank of the Thames, the river from Universal Value? Isleworth Ferry Gate to Kew Bridge, the historic centre of Kew Inadequacies in the buffer zones of the World Heritage Green with the adjacent buildings and the church, and then to property make it difficult to maintain the property's Outstanding the east, the built-up sectors of 19th and 20th century houses) Universal Value is granted at various levels by the individual development plans of the two boroughs mentioned above.
4.1.4 - Are the boundaries of the World Heritage property Comment known? Suggest first sentence is rephrased to read: “The Royal The boundaries of the World Heritage property are known by Botanic Gardens, Kew is the property of The Crown Estate, both the management authority and local residents / managed by the Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte’s Cottage are communities / landowners. owned by HM Queen Elizabeth on behalf of the nation and are managed by Historic Royal Palaces ”. The paragraph would benefit 4.1.5 - Are the buffer zones of the World Heritage property generally from rephrasing and updating to take account of known? legislative changes. The buffer zones of the World Heritage property are known by both the management authority and local residents / 4.2.2 - Is the legal framework (i.e. legislation and / or communities / landowners. regulation) adequate for maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value including conditions of Integrity and / or 4.1.6 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations Authenticity of the property? related to boundaries and buffer zones of the World The legal framework for the maintenance of the Outstanding Heritage property Universal Value including conditions of Authenticity and / or Shortcomings of the boundaries of the WHS and buffer zone Integrity of the World Heritage property provides an adequate are problematic for maintaining OUV. Policy 2a of the WHS or better basis for effective management and protection Management Plan envisages extending the buffer zone further into Brentford, where it is narrow with development sites 4.2.3 - Is the legal framework (i.e. legislation and / or outside. However a greater benefit might be achieved if the regulation) adequate in the buffer zone for maintaining WHS itself could be extended to take in Syon Park in the Outstanding Universal Value including conditions of Hounslow. Integrity and / or Authenticity of the property? An adequate legal framework for the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value including conditions of
Page 6 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Authenticity and / or Integrity of the World Heritage property reference to annual budget. v) Line 12. Insert "entrance fees" exists but there are some deficiencies in implementation before "sale of products". Delete "services".
4.2.4 - Is the legal framework (i.e. legislation and / or 4.3.2 - Management Documents regulation) adequate in the area surrounding the World Comment Heritage property and buffer zone for maintaining the The principal management documents are: i) Royal Botanic Outstanding Universal Value including conditions of Gardens, Kew. World Heritage Site Management Plan, 2011. Integrity and / or Authenticity of the property? Gross. Max. Landscape Architects. ii) Royal Botanic Gardens, The legal framework for the area surrounding the World Kew. Landscape Master Plan. November 2010. Gross. Max. Heritage property and the buffer zone is inadequate to ensure Landscape Architects. iii) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Site the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value including Conservation Plan. November 2002. Chris Blandford conditions of Authenticity and / or Integrity of the property Associates.
4.2.5 - Can the legislative framework (i.e. legislation and / 4.3.3 - How well do the various levels of administration or regulation) be enforced? (i.e. national / federal; regional / provincial / state; local / There is acceptable capacity / resources to enforce legislation municipal etc.) coordinate in the management of the and / or regulation in the World Heritage property but some World Heritage Property ? deficiencies remain There is coordination between the range of administrative bodies / levels involved in the management of the property but 4.2.6 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations it could be improved related to protective measures The Royal Botanic Gardens has adequate protective 4.3.4 - Is the management system / plan adequate to measures in place. However new development carried out maintain the property's Outstanding Universal Value ? within the buffer zone (and beyond) since inscription has The management system / plan is fully adequate to maintain harmed OUV. The Mayor of London has produced the property's Outstanding Universal Value Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) on the protection of the settings of World Heritage Sites in London. However the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow have still 4.3.5 - Is the management system being implemented? to incorporate relevant polices of the 2011 WHS Management The management system is being fully implemented and Plan within their Local Development Frameworks. monitored
4.3. Management System / Management Plan 4.3.6 - Is there an annual work / action plan and is it being implemented? An annual work / action plan exists and many activities are 4.3.1 - Management System being implemented The property has two separate management units which work together for the conservation and management of the site. The Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew (board of directors and 4.3.7 - Please rate the cooperation / relationship with director) manage the whole site except for Kew Palace and World Heritage property managers / coordinators / staff of Queen Charlotte’s Cottage, which are managed by Historic the following Royal Palaces (board of directors and chief executive). Kew Local communities / residents Fair Gardens are placed under the responsibility of the Secretary Local / Municipal authorities Fair of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Indigenous peoples Not applicable Historic Royal Palaces is appointed by the Secretary of State Landowners Fair for Culture, Media and Sport on behalf of Her Majesty the Visitors Good Queen. The property management plan was adopted by the Secretariat of State for Culture, Media and Sport in November Researchers Good 2002. The Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew is in charge of its Tourism industry Good implementation. At the same time, the authorities have drawn Industry Good up a Property Conservation Plan (November 2002), which is a flexible management tool. It thus reinforces the management 4.3.8 - If present, do local communities resident in or near plan to ensure that the values of the site are conserved. These the World Heritage property and / or buffer zone have two documents are in line with the Guidelines for the input in management decisions that maintain the implementation of the World Heritage Convention as regards Outstanding Universal Value? management issues. Resources: The Department of the Local communities have some input into discussions relating Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides most of the to management but no direct role in management funds necessary for the functioning of Kew Gardens, whose annual budget is around 27 million pounds sterling. The other sources of financing are the sale of products and services, 4.3.9 - If present, do indigenous peoples resident in or donations and fund-raising. The financing sources of Historic regularly using the World Heritage property and / or buffer Royal Palaces are visitors’ entrance fees, sales of products, zone have input in management decisions that maintain etc. the Outstanding Universal Value? Comment No indigenous peoples are resident in or regularly using the World Heritage property and / or buffer zone i) Line 6. "Secretariat" should be "Secretary". ii) Line 8. "Property" should be "Site". iii) Line 10. After "Rural Affairs" insert abbreviation "DEFRA" in brackets. iv) Line 12. Delete 4.3.10 - Is there cooperation with industry (i.e. forestry, mining, agriculture, etc.) regarding the management of Page 7 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew the World Heritage property, buffer zone and / or area 4.4.5 - Does the World Heritage property provide surrounding the World Heritage property and buffer economic benefits to local communities (e.g. income, zone? employment)? There is contact but only some cooperation with industry There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities regarding the management of the World Heritage property, buffer zone and / or area surrounding the World Heritage 4.4.6 - Are available resources such as equipment, property and buffer zone facilities and infrastructure sufficient to meet management needs? 4.3.11 - Comments, conclusions and / or There are adequate equipment and facilities recommendations related to human resources, expertise and training 4.4.7 - Are resources such as equipment, facilities and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has wide contacts with infrastructure adequately maintained? companies, universities and governments worldwide Equipment and facilities are well maintained concerning its central mission of plant conservation. This is not necessarily related to the management of the WHS. There is little traditional industry surviving in the area surrounding the 4.4.8 - Comments, conclusion, and / or recommendations WHS, other than some boat repair yards at Brentford Dock, related to finance and infrastructure with which there is little contact at the present time. Fundraising is in progress for the conservation of the Grade 1 listed Temperate House, including a bid to the national lottery 4.3.12 - Please report any significant changes in the legal and approaches to private benefactors and supporters. The status and / or contractual / traditional protective fundraising is progressing well. Further major projects measures and management arrangements for the World identified in the WHS Management Plan, such as new visitor Heritage property since inscription or the last Periodic facilities at Victoria Gate and "Breathing Planet" walk, may report present greater challenges if current economic conditions persist. The Management Plan drawn up in 2002 prior to inscription is now superseded by the Management Plan drawn up in 2011. Changes to the English planning system since 2010 are set 4.4.9 - Distribution of employees involved in managing the out at section 4.2 of the WHS Management Plan 2011. World Heritage property (% of total) Full-time 85% 4.4. Financial and Human Resources Part-time 15%
4.4.1 - Costs related to conservation, based on the 4.4.10 - Distribution of employees involved in managing average of last five years (relative percentage of the the World Heritage property (% of total) funding sources) Permanent 95% Multilateral funding (GEF, World Bank, etc) 0% Seasonal 5% International donations (NGO´s, foundations, etc) 0% Governmental (National / Federal) 40% 4.4.11 - Distribution of employees involved in managing Governmental (Regional / Provincial / State) 0% the World Heritage property (% of total) Governmental (Local / Municipal) 0% Paid 53% In country donations (NGO´s, foundations, etc) 10% Volunteer 47% Individual visitor charges (e.g. entry, parking, camping fees, etc.) 40% Commercial operator payments (e.g. filming permit, concessions, 10% 4.4.12 - Are available human resources adequate to etc.) manage the World Heritage property? Other grants 0% Human resources are adequate for management needs
4.4.2 - International Assistance received from the World 4.4.13 - Considering the management needs of the World Heritage Fund (USD) Heritage property, please rate the availability of Comment professionals in the following disciplines None Research and monitoring Good Promotion Good 4.4.3 - Is the current budget sufficient to manage the Community outreach Good World Heritage property effectively? Interpretation Good The available budget is acceptable but could be further Education Good improved to fully meet the management needs Visitor management Good Conservation Good 4.4.4 - Are the existing sources of funding secure and Administration Good likely to remain so? Risk preparedness Good The existing sources of funding in the medium- are secure Tourism Good term and planning is underway to secure funding in the long- Good term Enforcement (custodians, police)
Page 8 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
4.4.14 - Please rate the availability of training 4.5.5 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations opportunities for the management of the World Heritage related to scientific studies and research projects property in the following disciplines Research and monitoring High 4.6. Education, Information and Awareness Promotion High Building Community outreach High Interpretation High 4.6.1 - At how many locations is the World Heritage Education High emblem displayed at the property? Visitor management High In one location and easily visible to visitors Conservation High Administration High 4.6.2 - Please rate the awareness and understanding of Risk preparedness High the existence and justification for inscription of the World Tourism High Heritage property amongst the following groups Enforcement (custodians, police) High Local communities / residents Average Local / Municipal authorities within or adjacent to the Average 4.4.15 - Do the management and conservation property programmes at the World Heritage property help develop Local Indigenous peoples Not applicable local expertise? Local landowners Average A capacity development plan or programme is in place and Visitors Average partially implemented; some technical skills are being Tourism industry Average transferred to those managing the property locally but most Local businesses and industries Average of the technical work is carried out by external staff 4.6.3 - Is there a planned education and awareness 4.4.16 - Comments, conclusions and / or programme linked to the values and management of the recommendations related to human resources, expertise World Heritage property? and training There is a planned education and awareness programme but The Royal Botanic Gardens is greatly assisted in its work by it only partly meets the needs and could be improved volunteers drawn from the local community. 4.6.4 - What role, if any, has designation as a World 4.5. Scientific Studies and Research Projects Heritage property played with respect to education, information and awareness building activities? 4.5.1 - Is there adequate knowledge (scientific or World Heritage status has influenced education, information traditional) about the values of the World Heritage and awareness building activities, but it could be improved property to support planning, management and decision- making to ensure that Outstanding Universal Value is 4.6.5 - How well is the information on Outstanding maintained? Universal Value of the property presented and Knowledge about the values of the World Heritage property is interpreted? sufficient The Outstanding Universal Value of the property is not adequately presented and interpreted 4.5.2 - Is there a planned programme of research at the property which is directed towards management needs 4.6.6 - Please rate the adequacy for education, and / or improving understanding of Outstanding information and awareness building of the following Universal Value? visitor facilities and services at the World Heritage There is considerable research but it is not directed towards property management needs and / or improving understanding of Visitor centre Poor Outstanding Universal Value Site museum Adequate Information booths Adequate 4.5.3 - Are results from research programmes Guided tours Adequate disseminated? Trails / routes Adequate Research results are shared with local participants and Information materials Adequate some national agencies Transportation facilities Adequate Other Adequate 4.5.4 - Please provide details (i.e. authors, title, and web link) of papers published about the World Heritage property since the last Periodic Report 4.6.7 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations Scientific papers are published by Kew's research staff on related to education, information and awareness building specific topics. Kew Magazine publishes articles on all aspects The World Heritage Site emblem is displayed in the Nash of the management and presentation of the World Heritage Conservatory near the Main Gates, unveiled by HM Queen Site and scientific research projects in progress. Elizabeth in 2006, and in the foyer of the administration building. The emblem is not currently displayed at the four public entrances: the Main Gates, Brentford Gate, Victoria Gate or Lion Gate. It is planned to add the emblem to the Donor Wall at Victoria Gate.
Page 9 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
4.7. Visitor Management 4.8.2 - Are key indicators for measuring the state of conservation used to monitor how the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is maintained? 4.7.1 - Please provide the trend in annual visitation for the last five years Information on the values of the World Heritage property is sufficient for defining and monitoring key indicators for Last year Minor Increase measuring its state of conservation Two years ago Decreasing Three years ago Decreasing 4.8.3 - Please rate the level of involvement in monitoring Four years ago Decreasing of the following groups Five years ago N/A World Heritage managers / coordinators and staff Excellent Local / Municipal authorities Average 4.7.2 - What information sources are used to collect trend Local communities Average data on visitor statistics? Researchers Average Entry tickets and registries NGOs Average Other Industry Average Local indigenous peoples Not applicable 4.7.3 - Visitor management documents Comment 4.8.4 - Has the State Party implemented relevant Visitor Management and education issues are discussed at recommendations arising from the World Heritage Section 10 of the WHS Management Plan. There are no Committee? specific visitor management documents. Implementation is underway
4.7.4 - Is there an appropriate visitor use management 4.8.5 - Please provide comments relevant to the plan (e.g. specific plan) for the World Heritage property implementation of recommendations from the World which ensures that its Outstanding Universal Value is Heritage Committee maintained? The SOUV notes that, at the time of inscription, the World Visitor use of the World Heritage property is managed Heritage Committee encouraged the inclusion on the staff at but improvements could be made Kew a landscape architect or other specialist in art history to coordinate conservation activities. In the event, this service 4.7.5 - Does the tourism industry contribute to improving has been provided by consultants rather than by in-house visitor experiences and maintaining the values of the staff. World Heritage property? There is limited co-operation between those responsible for 4.8.6 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations the World Heritage property and the tourism industry to related to monitoring present the Outstanding Universal Value and increase The principal means of monitoring is the meetings of the WHS appreciation Steering Group, which take place twice a year in May and November. The meetings are attended by representatives of 4.7.6 - If fees (i.e. entry charges, permits) are collected, do the Royal Botanic Gardens, English Heritage, DCMS, DEFRA, they contribute to the management of the World Heritage London Borough of Richmond, London Borough of Hounslow property? and others as required. The fee is collected and makes a substantial contribution to the management of the World Heritage property 4.9. Identification of Priority Management Needs
4.7.7 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations 4.9.1 - Please select the top 6 managements needs for the related to visitor use of the World Heritage property property (if more than 6 are listed below) The strategy for visitor management is set out in policies 4a-j Please refer to question 5.2 of the WHS Management Plan. In particular policy 4e refers to enhancement of the visitor experience, including the proposed redevelopment of the Victoria Gate to improve facilities for interpretation and orientation, and the new Breathing Planet Garden Walk which will "manifest Kew's mission in relation to worldwide plant conservation". Question 4.7.2.6 refers to visits to Kew's web site to assess visitor trends.
4.8. Monitoring
4.8.1 - Is there a monitoring programme at the property which is directed towards management needs and / or improving understanding of Outstanding Universal Value? There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of monitoring, which is relevant to management needs and / or improving understanding of Outstanding Universal Value
Page 10 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
5. Summary and Conclusions
5.1. Summary - Factors affecting the Property
5.1.1 - Summary - Factors affecting the Property World Heritage Actions Monitoring Timeframe Lead agency (and More info / comment criteria and others involved) attributes affected 3.1 Buildings and Development 3.1.1 Housing Criterion iv WHS Management - Prospective 5 years and Royal Botanic New residential development in Attributes Plan Aim 1: developments ongoing Gardens in Brentford is ongoing cause for contributing to Management Plan impacting on OUV of collaboration with concern. 25 storey tower at Wallis Kew's rich and to be endorsed. WHS discussed at Historic Royal House site, Brentford approved in diverse landscape: Policy 1b: London six monthly WHS Palaces, English 2005, currently under construction, - Relationship with Plan and LDF Steering Group Heritage, London will appear in backdrop of Kew the Thames and policies. Policy 1c: meetings. - RBGK Borough of Palace. Other proposals coming wider Arcadian Management Plan consultants monitor Richmond, London forward. landscape. - policies incorporated development Borough of Victorian layout by into LDFs. Policy 1d: proposals and Hounslow and the Nesfield and Development advise on Greater London Burton. - adversely impacting appropriate Authority. Remaining WHS should not be responses. landscapes by permitted. Brown and Chambers. - Key vistas. 3.1.2 Commercial Criterion iv WHS Management - Prospective 5 years and Royal Botanic Similar issue to 3.1.1 concerning development Attributes Plan Aim 1: developments ongoing Gardens in new commercial development in contributing to Management Plan impacting on OUV of collaboration with Brentford. Also recent case of Kew's rich and to be endorsed. WHS discussed at Historic Royal consent granted for illuminated diverse landscape: Policy 1b: London six monthly WHS Palaces, English advertisements on Haverfield estate - Relationship with Plan and LDF Steering Group Heritage, London towers. Consent subsequently the Thames and policies. Policy 1c: meetings. - RBGK Borough of quashed following legal action by wider Arcadian Management Plan consultants monitor Richmond, London RBGK. landscape. - policies incorporated development Borough of Victorian layout by into LDFs. Policy 1d: proposals and Hounslow and the Nesfield and Development advise on Greater London Burton. - adversely impacting appropriate Authority. Remaining WHS should not be responses. landscapes by permitted. Brown and Chambers. - Key vistas. 3.2 Transportation Infrastructure 3.2.4 Effects arising No inscription Kew responds as Not applicable Ongoing Royal Botanic Relates to planes passing over Kew from use of criteria or attributes required to Gardens, Kew in at low altitude at approximately 1 transportation contributing to OUV government collaboration with minute intervals on the final infrastructure affected as such. consultations on London Borough of approach to Heathrow Airport. However other capacity of Richmond, London values, such as Heathrow Airport. Borough of educational, social For example Hounslow as the and artistic values, response to the local authorities are affected. consultation on a affected by aircraft proposed variation noise. Also Greater to hours of usage of London Authority existing runways at and Department for Heathrow in 2008. Transport. 3.4 Pollution 3.4.6 Input of Criterion iv WHS Management - Prospective 5 years and Royal Botanic Similar to 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Relates to excess energy Attributes Plan Aim 1: developments ongoing Gardens, Kew "light outspill" consequential on the contributing to Management Plan impacting on OUV of construction of new residential and Kew's rich and to be endorsed WHS discussed at commercial buildings in Brentford. diverse landscape: Policy 1d: six monthly WHS Also inappropriate advertising. - The relationship Development Steering Group with the River adversely impacting meetings. - RBGK Thames and wider WHS should not be employs consultants Arcadian landscape permitted. Aim 3: to monitor beyond. Conserve and development enhance OUV proposals and to Policy 3h: improve advise on visual integrity of appropriate WHS by screening responses. inappropriate structures. 3.10 Climate change and severe weather events
Page 11 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
World Heritage Actions Monitoring Timeframe Lead agency (and More info / comment criteria and others involved) attributes affected 3.10.1 Storms Criterion ii WHS Management Periodic review Ongoing Royal Botanic Significant loss of trees in relatively Attributes Plan Aim 3: Gardens, Kew recent past; eg 1000 trees in 1987 contributing to Conserve and storm. Kew's horticultural enhance OUV heritage of keynote Policy 3f: The species and overall nature collections. - conservation value Collection of of the WHS should heritage trees be maintained and enhanced. 3.12 Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species 3.12.2 Invasive/alien Criterion ii WHS Management As required Ongoing Royal Botanic Relates to current concerns over the terrestrial Attributes Plan Aim 3: Gardens, Kew impact of "Ash Dieback" disease" at species contributing to Conserve and Kew. Information on the disease and Kew's horticultural enhance OUV how Kew is responding is described heritage of keynote Policy 3i: Risk by Tony Kirkham, Head of Kew's species and management Arboretum, here: collections. - strategies should be http://www.kew.org/news/chalara- Collection of kept under review. dieback-of-ash.htm heritage trees
5.2. Summary - Management Needs
5.2.2 - Summary - Management Needs 4.1 Boundaries and Buffer Zones Actions Timeframe Lead agency (and others More info / comment involved) 4.1.2 Boundaries WHS Management Plan Aim 2: - Policy 2b: long term - Policy 2c: - Policy 2b: Royal Botanic Question as to whether timeframe could be The boundary should ensure 5 years Gardens, London Borough of for implementation of policy 2b improved integrity of the WHS is maintained. Richmond, London Borough of should be brought forward, given Policy 2b: Review whether WHS Hounslow, English Heritage, ongoing pressure of development in boundary and buffer zone are DCMS. - Policy 2c: Royal Botanic Brentford on OUV. sufficient. Policy 2c: Review the Gardens, English Heritage. status of protection of significant sightlines and vistas. 4.2 Protective Measures 4.2.4 Inadequate WHS Management Plan Aim 1: The 5 years Royal Botanic Gardens, London Perceived economic benefits of legal Management Plan should be Borough of Richmond, London redevelopment are given greater framework endorsed by those bodies Borough of Hounslow, English priority by London Borough of responsible for its implementation. Heritage, DCMS. Hounslow than protection of OUV of Policy 1c: Relevant policies should Kew. Extending the WHS to include be incorporated within LDF's. Policy Syon Park in Hounslow would give 1d: Adverse development should a sense of “ownership” of the WHS. not be permitted.
Page 12 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
6.2 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations 5.3. Conclusions on the State of Conservation of related to World Heritage status Despite continued success and national and international the Property fame, the World Heritage Site is not celebrated at a local level to the degree that might be expected. This may in part be due 5.3.1 - Current state of Authenticity to a failure of presentation on the part of Kew. The authenticity of the World Heritage property has been preserved 6.3 - Entities involved in the preparation of this Section of the Periodic Report 5.3.2 - Current state of Integrity Site Manager/Coordinator/World Heritage property staff The integrity of the World Heritage property has been External experts compromised by factors described in this report 6.4 - Was the Periodic Reporting questionnaire easy to Current state of the World Heritage property’s 5.3.3 - use and clearly understandable? Outstanding Universal Value yes The World Heritage property’s Outstanding Universal Value has been impacted by factors described in this report, but this situation is being addressed through effective management 6.5 - Please provide suggestions for improvement of the actions. Periodic Reporting questionnaire The available text, at 500 characters, is insufficient to give a complete answer to the question or comment requested, eg 5.3.4 - Current state of the property's other values comments on SOUV at 2.1. There should be more opportunity Other important cultural and / or natural values and the state to enter text, rather than clicking radio buttons, to allow a more of conservation of the World Heritage property are nuanced discussion of issues affecting the WHS. Slightly predominantly intact negative emphasis to the questionnaire, dealing predominantly with "threats". No particular opportunity to 5.4. Additional comments on the State of report on the "positives" that have taken place at the WHS Conservation of the Property since 2003.
5.4.1 - Comments 6.6 - Please rate the level of support for completing the Periodic Report questionnaire from the following entities In the period since inscription, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been enhanced a series of well-received new UNESCO Good buildings and structures, including : the Davies Alpine House; State Party Representative Good the Shirley Sherwood Gallery for Botanic Art; the Xtrata Advisory Body Good Treetop Walkway, and the Sackler Crossing. The Royal Botanic Gardens received the RIBA/Arts Council "Client of the 6.7 - How accessible was the information required to Year" award in 2006. complete the Periodic Report? Most of the required information was accessible 6. World Heritage Status and Conclusions on Periodic Reporting Exercise 6.8 - The Periodic Reporting process has improved the understanding of the following 6.1 - Please rate the impacts of World Heritage status of The World Heritage Convention the property in relation to the following areas The concept of Outstanding Universal Value Conservation Positive The property's Outstanding Universal Value Research and monitoring No impact The concept of Integrity and / or Authenticity Management effectiveness Positive The property's Integrity and / or Authenticity Quality of life for local communities and indigenous No impact peoples Recognition Positive 6.9 - Please rate the follow-up to conclusions and recommendations from previous Periodic Reporting Education Positive exercise by the following entities Infrastructure development No impact UNESCO Not Applicable Funding for the property No impact State Party Not Applicable International cooperation No impact Site Managers Not Applicable Political support for conservation No impact Advisory Bodies Not Applicable Legal / Policy framework Positive Lobbying Positive Institutional coordination Positive 6.10 - Summary of actions that will require formal consideration by the World Heritage Committee Security No impact Other (please specify) No impact Statement of Outstanding Universal Value / Statement of Significance Reason for update: - Historical background could be developed, in particular to refer to the two royal gardens. - Integrity compromised as parts of the designed landscape, covered by criteria ii) and iv), Page 13 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre Periodic Report - Second Cycle Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
are outside the WHS. - Similarly, Chambers' Observatory and the "Great Conservatory" at Syon are outside the WHS. - Inappropriate development outside buffer zone causing harm to WHS. - Errors in description of ownership. - Some amendments and rephrasing to the section on site protection desirable.
6.11 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations related to the Assessment of the Periodic Reporting exercise
Page 14 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 (9:15:45 AM CEST) Periodic Report - Section II-Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Centre G Extracts from 2014 WHS Management Plan relating to setting
Contains 15 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
12 OUV Setting Integrity (2009) This is an excerpt from the statement of OUV, which is set out at the start The boundary of the property contains the elements that bear witness to the history of the Management Plan. of the development of the landscape gardens and Kew Gardens’ uninterrupted role as national botanic garden and centre of plant research. These elements, which express the Outstanding Universal Value, remain intact. The Buffer Zone contains the focus of one of the garden vistas on the opposite bank of the Thames River – Syon Park House - together with other parts of the adjacent cultural landscape (Old Deer Park - a royal estate south of Kew Gardens, Syon Park on the opposite bank of the Thames, the river from Isleworth Ferry Gate to Kew Bridge, the historic centre of Kew Green with the adjacent buildings and the church, and then to the east, the built-up sectors of 19th and 20th century houses). Development outside this Buffer Zone may threaten the setting of the property.
16 Executive Setting Policy 1d – Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its Executive summary of the aims and Summary Outstanding Universal Value or its setting should not be permitted. policies of the Management Plan.
17 Executive Setting Policy 3C – The setting of listed buildings and key landscape features within the Executive summary of the aims and Summary gardens and their interrelationships should be maintained and enhanced, with policies of the Management Plan. particular attention to the gardens overall spatial cohesion and WHS River Thames landscape settings.
27 1.3.1 Setting Additionally, there is also a number other aspects and values of the Site which Taken from the section on "The need managing and/or improving: these are discussed in sections 3.3.4-3.3.9. purpose of the Plan" in Section 1.0 ‘Conservation’ in the context of this Plan includes not only ensuring the physical "Function of a World Heritage Site survival of the site and its structures and/or the improvement of their condition, but Management Plan". also enhancing the visual character of their landscape setting, increasing biodiversity and improving the interpretation and understanding of the WHS as a landscape without parallel.
1
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
34 3.1.4 Setting The buffer zone of the WHS comprises areas key to the protection of significant Taken from Section 3.0 “Description views in and out of Kew (e.g. Syon Park); land with strong historical relationships to and significance of the World Kew (e.g. The Old Deer Park, Kew Green); areas that have a bearing on the Heritage Site”. character and setting of the Gardens (e.g. the River Thames and its islands between Isleworth Ferry Gate and Kew Bridge).
52 3.6.3 Haverfield The area around the Dutch House and the Herbarium in the Riverside Zone has a Taken from Section 3.6 “The Estate number of significant views leading northwards out of the Garden. Significant character of the WHS and the views are also possible from the upper storeys of the Dutch Herbarium across the regional setting”, looking at the Thames towards Brentford and the six Haverfield Estate tower blocks; there is also a Northern Edge (Kew Green). glimpsed view of Kew Bridge. The Haverfield Estate tower blocks are also visible from the Broadwalk, a key vista, where they punctuate the skyline above the trees in the Riverside Zone and represent an unfortunate “eyesore”.
52 3.6.5 Haverfield The major features affecting the setting on the northern edge of the Gardens are the Taken from Section 3.6 “The Estate Haverfield estate tower blocks, but the emerging dominant development along the character of the WHS and the western bank of the Thames within Brentford also poses a threat to the quality of regional setting”, looking at the the overall setting. Northern Edge (Kew Green).
53 3.6.7 Haverfield In addition the six tower blocks on the Haverfield Estate form part of the skyline for Taken from Section 3.6 “The Estate views obtained from viewpoints located within the northern parts of the Gardens, character of the WHS and the and especially along the Broadwalk in the Palm House Zone. regional setting”, looking at the Northern Edge (Kew Road).
54 3.6.13 Haverfield The western boundary of the Site is dominated by the River Thames and Taken from Section 3.6 “The Estate developments along its western bank. There are partial and glimpsed views at the character of the WHS and the northern end of the boundary towards Augustus Close and the marina through regional setting”, looking at the boundary vegetation. Some views to the north are also possible from this section Western Edge (River Thames). with the six Haverfield Estate tower blocks clearly visible on the horizon. These high-rise buildings are the major visual feature in the locality.
2
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
60 3.9.2 Haverfield ICOMOS International in the past has taken the view that the overall aspect of six Taken from Section 3.9 “Evaluation Estate 22-storey tower blocks (Haverfield estate) at Brentford on the opposite banks of the of Attributes”, “Relationship with Thames, opposite the gardens and outside the Buffer Zone, diminished the visual River Thames and wider Arcadian experience at Kew at several points in the Gardens. Current development proposals landscape beyond”, in relation to the for Brentford raise additional concern for future intrusion within the visual statement of OUV. envelope of the WHS.
72 4.2.3 Setting In October 2011, English Heritage published a guidance document entitled The Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Setting of Heritage Assets which provides the basis for English Heritage advice on contains a summary of the planning the setting of heritage assets when responding to consultations by third parties and and policy framework. is still effective under the NPPF. This text comes from the section on national policy, looking at the NPPF.
73 4.2.5 Setting It should also be noted that the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure Section 4.0 "Current policy context" that an applicant describes the contribution of setting to the significance of a contains a summary of the planning heritage asset, making that an important element for consideration when and policy framework. determining an application. This text comes from the section on national policy, looking at the NPPF.
3
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
73 4.2.6 Setting WHS status is a key material consideration and in developing such policies to Section 4.0 "Current policy context" protect and enhance WHSs, local planning authorities should aim to satisfy the contains a summary of the planning following principles: and policy framework.
- Protecting the WHS and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate This text comes from the section on development. national policy, looking at Circular 07/09: Protection of World Heritage - Striking a balance between the needs of conservation, biodiversity, access, the Sites in England. interests of the local community and the sustainable economic use of the WHS in its setting.
- Protecting the WHS from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have significant effect.
- Protecting WHSs from climate change but ensuring that mitigations is not at the expense of authenticity or integrity.
Protecting the setting of WHSs:
- In developing plans for WHSs it is important to consider carefully how to protect the setting of each WHS so that its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance is not adversely affected by inappropriate change or development.
- A buffer zone is defined in the UNESCO Operational Guidelines as an area surrounding the WHS which has complementary legal restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the WHS. Additional policies may also be needed in the London Plan and local plans if it is necessary to protect the setting beyond any buffer zone.
- It may be appropriate to protect the setting of WHSs by the protection of specific views and viewpoints.
4
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
75 4.2.9 Setting Conservation Principles defines ‘Conservation' as the process of managing change Section 4.0 "Current policy context" to a ‘significant place’ and its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage contains a summary of the planning values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for and policy framework. present and future generations. This text comes from the section on national policy, looking at the English Heritage document “Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable management of the Historic Environment”.
75 4.2.11 Setting The Guidance advises that local planning authorities should include the Section 4.0 "Current policy context" conservation and enhancement of the setting of heritage assets in their local plans contains a summary of the planning by using criteria based and site-specific policies and supplementary planning and policy framework. documents where necessary. It also sets out a five step process to be used to assess the implications of development proposals on the setting of heritage assets: This text comes from the section on national policy, looking at the Step 1: Identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected; English Heritage document “The Step 2: Assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution Setting of Heritage Assets". to the significance of the heritage asset(s); Step 3: Assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Step 4: Explore ways of maximising enhancement and avoiding or minimising harm; Step 5: Make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
5
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
76 4.2.12 Setting Policy 7.10 World Heritage Sites Section 4.0 "Current policy context" contains a summary of the planning Strategic and policy framework.
A. Development in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer This text comes from the section on zones, should conserve, promote, sustainable use and enhance their authenticity, regional policy, looking at the integrity and significance and Outstanding Universal Values. The Mayor will work London Plan. with relevant stakeholders to develop supplementary planning guidance to define the setting of World Heritage Sites.
Planning Decisions
B. Development should not cause adverse impact to World Heritage Sites or their setting, including any buffer zone which is likely to compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate it Outstanding Universal Values, integrity, authenticity and significance. In the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans.
Local Development Framework preparation
C. LDFs should contain policies to: a) protect, promote, interpret, and conserve, the historic signifi cance of World Heritage Sites and their Outstanding Universal Values, integrity and authenticity
b) safeguard, and, where appropriate, enhance both them and their settings
c) where available, World Heritage Site Management Plans should be used to inform the plan-making process.
6
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
77 4.2.13 Setting Development in the setting , or buffer zone where appropriate, of these World Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Heritage Sites, should provide opportunities to enhance their setting through the contains a summary of the planning highest quality architecture and contributions to the improvement of the public and policy framework. realm that are consistent with the principles of the World Heritage Site Management Plans. However, it is vital that development in the setting of World This text comes from the section on Heritage Sites contributes to the provision of an overall amenity and ambience regional policy, looking at the appropriate to their World Heritage status. London Plan.
77 4.2.13 Setting Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings Strategic Section 4.0 "Current policy context" contains a summary of the planning Planning Decisions and policy framework.
D. Tall Buildings in certain areas need particular consideration to be given to their This text comes from the section on impacts. Such areas might include conservation areas, listed buildings and their regional policy, looking at the settings, registered historic parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, battlefields, London Plan. the edge of the green belt or Metropolitan Open Land, World Heritage Sites and their the settings in other areas designated by boroughs as being sensitive or inappropriate for tall buildings.
7
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
77 4.2.15 Setting As required by Policy 7.10A of the London Plan, the Mayor has prepared the World Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) which sets out the elements contains a summary of the planning of a World Heritage Site’s setting that contribute to its Outstanding Universal Value and policy framework. (OUV) as well as an assessment framework for managing change in the setting of WHSs. SPG states that it is for those responsible for managing change in the setting This text comes from the section on of WHSs to take the elements forward into their plans and strategies. The elements regional policy, looking at the Mayor are grouped into physical, user experience and other considerations and are as of London’s World Heritage Site follows: Setting SPG.
Physical 1. Context 2. Character 3. Landscape and Topography 4. Relationship with the River Thames 5. Views in, out and across World Heritage Sites 6. Routes 7. Public Realm
User Experience 8. Diurnal and Seasonal Considerations 9. Accessibility and Inclusion 10. Safety and Security
Other Considerations 11. Historic and Cultural Associations 12. Environmental Factors 13. Sustainability and Climate Change
[NB: The Management Plan also sets out the assessment framework]
8
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
80 4.2.19 Setting Neighbourhood Plans must be in compliance with the relevant Local Plan, the Section 4.0 "Current policy context" London Plan, the World Heritage Site Setting SPG, and the NPPF and consequently contains a summary of the planning they will need to carefully consider the effect of any of their proposals on the and policy framework. Outstanding Universal Value of Kew should these occur in the vicinity of the WHS or its setting including the buffer zone. This text comes from the section on local policy.
80 4.2.21 Setting Policy DM HD 5 – World Heritage Site Section 4.0 "Current policy context" contains a summary of the planning The council will work with others to protect, promote, interpret, sustainably use, and policy framework. conserve and, where appropriate enhance the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage site and its setting including the buffer zone by conserving it Outstanding This text comes from the section on Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance. Development proposals local policy, looking at Richmond's should not cause adverse impact on the World Heritage Site or its setting that Core Strategy. would compromise its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance and give appropriate weight to the World Heritage Site Management Plan.
81 4.2.23 Setting The BAAP [Brentford Area Action Plan] policies include the following: Section 4.0 "Current policy context" contains a summary of the planning - Development should respect and enhance riverside views and the setting of Kew and policy framework. Gardens and Kew Palace on the opposite side of the River within the London Borough or of Richmond. Links between Kew Palace across the River Thames to This text comes from the section on the entrance to the Grand Union Canal at Brentford and views from the towpath to local policy, looking at the BAAP St. George’s Church and Kew Bridge Steam Museum campanile are regarded as (January 2009). extremely important to the setting and character of Kew Gardens.
9
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
82 4.5.1 Setting Under the provision of Part II of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Areas) Act 1990, Local Planning Authorities have a duty to designate and care for contains a summary of the planning Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest (Conservation Areas). The Act and policy framework. grants statutory protection to the fabric, character and setting of the special architectural or historic interest of conservation areas. This text comes from the section on “Historic Environment Designations”.
83 4.5.4 Setting Forty-four buildings and structures within the Site have been ’Listed' as Buildings of Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Special Architectural or Historic Interest by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media contains a summary of the planning and Sport. All listed buildings are statutorily protected under the Planning (Listed and policy framework. Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The Act protects the interior, exterior, fittings fixtures and settings of these structures, and stipulates that proposed This text comes from the section on alterations to these buildings, or their settings, require consultation with the “Buildings of Special Architectural or relevant local planning authority. Historic Interest (Listed Buildings)”.
83 4.5.7 Setting The whole of the Site is designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Section 4.0 "Current policy context" Special Historic Interest compiled by English Heritage, in recognition of its contains a summary of the planning exceptional historic interest. Inclusion on the Register is a material consideration in and policy framework. determining planning applications, and local planning authorities are required to protect such sites through their development plan policies and in development This text comes from the section on control decisions. English Heritage and the Garden History Society are to be the “Register of Parks and Gardens”. consulted on planning applications affecting registered gardens and their settings.
10
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
93 7.7 Setting Issue 4: Protections through the Spatial Planning System Taken from the list of issues set out in Section 7.0 “Planning and Policy Ensuring that any new development within the WHS is compatible with its status as Framework”. a WHS is a clear priority for the Plan. Development management policies should seek to prevent or avoid, as appropriate, the adverse impacts of development within the WHS upon the Site and its OUV. Similarly, development outside the WHS which might adversely affect its setting should also be controlled through appropriate policies.
94 8.1 Setting Issue 7: The need to keep the boundary of the WHS Buffer Zone under review Taken from the list of issues set out in Section 8.0 “Boundaries and The greatest development pressures relating to the setting of the Gardens are setting of the WHS including Buffer currently situated in the Brentford area on the west bank of the Thames. The Zones and views”. existing Buffer Zone boundary of the WHS in respect to Brentford is regarded as not sufficient and therefore does not encompass all the necessary future visual protection of its setting. The extension of the WHS Buffer Zone further into Brentford is likely to be beneficial for both Kew Gardens and the aspirations for the regeneration of the area. Defining the scope of any changes to the Buffer Zone boundary will be a separate piece of work. Changes to the Buffer Zone boundary are treated as minor boundary modifications and would not require a re- nomination of the Site. Clarification is required to resolve the discrepancies between the written description of the Buffer Zone in the nomination dossier and the map showing its boundaries. If necessary a minor Buffer Zone boundary alteration will be submitted for approval by the World Heritage Committee.
In the long term a review of the significance of the interrelation of the Site in the context of the Old Deer Park / Syon House and the wider River Thames Arcadian landscape should be considered in order to establish whether the WHS site boundaries and Buffer Zone are sufficient to protect the integrity and authenticity of the Site within the wider natural and cultural landscape. This change is likely to require a renomination as additional.
11
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
94 8.3 Haverfield Issue 8: The need to protect view lines outside the WHS buffer zone Taken from the list of issues set out Estate in Section 8.0 “Boundaries and The view lines of the vistas and their visual envelopes extend outside the World setting of the WHS including Buffer Heritage Site Buffer Zone, but are an integral part of the Site's Outstanding Zones and views”. Universal Value and will need additional planning protection. The Haverfield Estate tower blocks in Brentford built in 1950-60's are 22 storeys high and rise to approximately 70 metres. They have a detrimental effect on the skyline due to their visibility throughout most of the Gardens and especially from the Broadwalk and Pagoda Vistas, both of which are key attributes of the Nesfield/Burton design. The Bull Building, with a height of 69m, is also visible from various parts of the site. These buildings increase pressure for further tall buildings in their vicinity. Developers have argued that the presence of tall buildings is a particular feature of the locality and hence feel that further tall buildings would be in keeping with the character of the area. Due to 2010 economic recession various developments which could have a significant impact on Kew have either been delayed or put on hold however these developments are likely to resume once favourable economic conditions return.
96 9.1.2 Setting Sustaining the OUV of the Site should focus on the protection, conservation and Taken from Section 9.0 on enhancement of the WHS, so that the landscape setting and interrelationships of “Conservation of the World Heritage the designed landscape and listed buildings can be fully appreciated. This should Site and its features”, looking at include the removal or screening of intrusive features, as well as the preservation of “Landscape Conservation”. surviving visual and contextual links and the encouragement of an appropriate setting for the WHS and the attributes of its OUV. It should also include consideration of the changing role of the Botanic Garden in the 21st Century and include inspirational effects of contemporary garden intervention.
96 9.1.5 Setting The setting of Kew Palace could become more distinct by the creation of a Taken from Section 9.0 on ‘Georgian Quarter’ with possibly a Georgian Kitchen garden and direct access from “Conservation of the World Heritage the riverside, although the authenticity/integrity must be maintained. Site and its features”, looking at “Landscape Conservation”.
12
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
98 9.2.8 Setting Issue 11: Reading the historic transformation of the landscape on site Taken from Section 9.0 on “Conservation of the World Heritage The historic transformation of the gardens is well documented but difficult to ‘read’ Site and its features”, looking at on site. The original distinction between the two separate Royal Parks has been “Historic Landscape”. largely lost. The historic relationship with the Deer Park and Syon House (both part of the World Heritage Buffer Zone) and the wider relationship with the ‘Arcadian’ landscape could be more fully expressed and interpreted.
Of importance is that the landscape setting and interrelationships of the designed landscape and listed buildings can, once again, be fully appreciated. This includes the removal or screening of intrusive features, as well as the preservation of surviving visual and contextual links, opening sight lines and the enhancement of key attributes.
102 9.3.19 Setting Issue 21: the enhancement of the setting of key buildings in WHS Taken from Section 9.0 on “Conservation of the World Heritage Within the context of building conservation plans, it is possible to identify actions Site and its features”, looking at that would enhance the architectural heritage. These include simple measures such “Conservation of buildings and built as improving the setting through the removal / screening of unsympathetic features features”. and the disguising / removal of intrusive modern services. These enhancements need to be carefully considered as any alterations may affect the significance of a structure.
Key buildings and structures have lost their original landscape setting. The setting of the Palm House has been improved by the reinstatement of the original William Nesfield’s bed layout (1848) in the modern rose garden. The setting of Kew Palace, The Pagoda and Temperate House could all be improved.
138 12.2.7 Setting The historic landscape of vistas, avenues and sightlines will be reinforced to create Taken from Section 12.2 on a spatial framework and improved setting for listed buildings, temples and follies. “Vision”, looking at "Preserving the The landscape framework, combined with a carefully composed serial vision and past". spatial sequencing along the Gardens’ main routings will contribute to legibility and cohesion.
13
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
138 12.2.8 Setting Kew Gardens will provide excellence and innovation in respect to best practice in Taken from Section 12.2 on regards to sustainability, bio-diversity and contemporary horticulture/landscape “Vision”, looking at "Presenting the architecture. Kew's global mission will be expressed in its local setting with future". demonstration of local plant biodiversity and celebration of the Gardens’ unique riverside setting.
139 12.2.11 Setting Kew Gardens is positioned in a unique location along the meandering River Taken from Section 12.2 on Thames and forms part of a natural and designed landscape representing an “Vision”, looking at "River Thames Arcadian vision throughout time. An important part of the Landscape Master Plan is Frontage". that Kew Gardens will, once again, become focused towards the River Thames. An improved relationship with the River Thames provides a unique opportunity to create a historic, cultural and ecological dialogue between the Gardens and its setting.
142 12.3 Setting Policy 1b – The London Plan and Local Development Framework and other Section 12.3 sets out the “Statutory statutory plans should contain policies to ensure that the importance of the and Policy Framework” of the protection of the WHS and its setting and the maintenance of its Outstanding Management Plan. Universal Value are fully taken into account in determining planning applications. Apart from OUV, policies should seek to conserve, promote, sustainable use and enhance their authenticity, integrity and significance of the WHSs.
142 12.3 Setting Policy 1d – Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its Section 12.3 sets out the “Statutory Outstanding Universal Value or its setting should not be permitted. and Policy Framework” aims and policies.
14
Page Paragraph Keyword Text Context Number Number
143 12.5 Setting Policy 3a – The WHS should be managed to protect its attributor of Outstanding Section 12.5 sets out the Universal Value, to protect their physical fabric, to improve and enhance their “Conservation of the World Heritage condition and to explain their significance. Site” aims and policies.
Improve protection, setting and interpretation of key build fabric and landscape features.
Promote the reading of the site as a palimpsest of landscape history.
144 12.5 Setting Policy 3c – The setting of listed buildings and key landscape features within the Section 12.5 sets out the gardens and their interrelationships should be maintained and enhanced, with “Conservation of the World Heritage particular attention to the gardens overall spatial cohesion and WHS River Thames Site” aims and policies. landscape settings.
Implement a coherent set of design guidelines and reduce visual clutter. […] Improve setting of Kew Palace. Develop concept of Georgian Quarter including Georgian Kitchen garden. Study possibility of direct access to Kew Palace.
15
H Extracts from London Borough of Richmond Local Plans
Contains 8 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
Protecting Local Character 4 Adopted Development Management Plan
Policy Background National: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regs 1990, Circulars 01/01, 09/05, 01/07 and 07/09. PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005); PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) PPS 5: Practice Guide (2010) PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) Regional: London Plan (2011); policy 7.8 Local: Core Strategy CP7
Targets and Monitoring N/A
Policy DM HD 5
World Heritage Site
The Council will work with others, to protect, promote, interpret, sustainably use, conserve and where appropriate enhance the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site and its setting including the buffer zone by conserving its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance.
Development proposals should not cause adverse impact to the World Heritage Site or its setting that would compromise its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance, and give appropriate weight to the World Heritage Site Management Plan.
4.3.21 The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List in 2003, in recognition of its outstanding and internationally significant universal value. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010), the outstanding international importance of the World Heritage Site is a key material consideration to be taken into account by the Council when determining planning applications and listed building consents.The site should be protected for the benefit of future generations and development proposals affecting the site or its buffer zone will require careful scrutiny for their likely effect on the site or its setting.
4.3.22 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2003) and subsequent updates provides a framework for the activities that take place in the site whilst ensuring that these activities do not conflict with the need to protect the qualities which make Kew Gardens such a special and unique place.
73 4 Protecting Local Character Adopted Development Management Plan
Policy Background National: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regs 1990, Circulars 01/01, 09/05, 01/07 and 07/09. PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005); PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) PPS 5 Practice Guide (2010) PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) The Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England: English Heritage Guidance Note to Circular for England on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (2009) Regional: London Plan (2011); policy 7.10 Local: Core Strategy CP7 Maintaining and Improving the Local Environment The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2003 and any updates)
Targets and Monitoring N/A
Policy DM HD 6
War Memorials
The Council has recorded all Borough war memorials on a register. Memorials should be retained in situ, if possible or sensitively relocated
4.3.23 The Council has 115 War Memorials recorded, some of these are in public places and others on private premises, such as those for companies. It is important to ensure that these significant features, and where appropriate their settings, are protected and restored where necessary. Whilst preservation in situ is the ideal option, as the location is often of significance to the memorial, should it need to be removed the Council will require a sensitive relocation. (The GLA has a register.) Some of these could be designated as Buildings of Townscape Merit, others are already part of the fabric of Listed Buildings or BTMs.
Policy Background National: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regs 1990, Circulars 01/01, 09/05, 01/07 and 07/09. PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) PPS 5: Practice Guide (2010) PPS12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) Regional: London Plan (2011); policies 7.4, 7.8 Local: Core Strategy CP7
Targets and Monitoring N/A
74 Protecting Local Character 4 Adopted Development Management Plan
Policy DM OS 4
Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes
Parks and gardens as well as landscapes of special historic interest included in the Register compiled by English Heritage and other historic parks, gardens and landscapes referred to in para 4.1.11 below, will be protected and enhanced. Proposals which have an adverse effect on the settings, views, and vistas to and from historic parks and gardens, will not be permitted.
4.1.10 Historic parks, gardens and landscapes make a rich and varied contribution to Richmond’s landscape. The “Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest” in England was established and is maintained by English Heritage.
4.1.11 Richmond borough has currently 14 open spaces on the English Heritage register of historic parks and gardens, including Richmond Park, Bushy Park, Hampton Court Park, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (including Old Deer Park), Ham House, Marble Hill House, Strawberry Hill, Hampton Court House, Richmond Terrace Walk, Pope’s Garden, York House Gardens, Terrace Gardens and Buccleugh Gardens (Richmond Hill) and Teddington Cemetery. These areas are shown on the Proposals Map but there are also other areas which could be included on the Register and which merit protection and enhancement, including the following: Kew Green, Orleans House Gardens, Radnor Gardens and Richmond Green.
4.1.12 This policy ensures that the character, appearance, setting and views into and from the historic parks and gardens listed on this Register, including the other areas which merit protection, are protected from development that would adversely affect their character and historic interest. Proposals affecting historic parks, gardens and landscapes should preserve and enhance their historic character and appearance. Policy guidance of PPS 5 applies.
4.1.13 The Council will support National Heritage Lottery bids to help secure improvements to these important and recognised open spaces.
Policy Background National: PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) Regional: London Plan (2011); policy 7.8 Local: Core Strategy CP10 Open Land and Parks
Targets and Monitoring Core Strategy Indicator for CP10
41 Protecting Local Character 4 Adopted Development Management Plan
Policy DM HD 2
Conservation of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments
The Council will require the preservation of Listed Buildings of special architectural or historic interest and Ancient Monuments and seek to ensure that they are kept in a good state of repair by the following means:
1. consent would only be granted for the demolition of Grade II Listed Buildings in exceptional circumstances and for Grade II* and Grade I Listed Buildings in wholly exceptional circumstances following a thorough assessment of their significance;
2. retention of the original use for which the listed building was built is preferred. Other uses will only be considered where the change of use can be justified, and where it can be proven that the original use cannot be sustained;
3. alterations and extensions including partial demolitions should be based on an accurate understanding of the significance of the asset including the structure, and respect the architectural character, historic fabric and detailing of the original building. With alterations, the Council will normally insist on the retention of the original structure, features, material and plan form or features that contribute to the significance of the asset. With repairs, the Council will expect retention and repair, rather than replacement of the structure, features, and materials of the building which contribute to its architectural and historic interest; and will require the use of appropriate traditional materials and techniques;
4. using its legal powers to take steps to secure the repair of Listed Buildings, where appropriate;
5. protecting the setting of Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings where proposals could have an impact;
6. taking a practical approach towards the alteration of Listed Buildings to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and subsequent amendments, provided that the building’s special interest is not harmed, using English Heritage advice as a basis.
4.3.6 Listed Buildings and Ancient Monuments make a major contribution to the borough's heritage and the Council has a statutory duty to protect them. The borough's three Ancient Monuments are: The Brew House, Bushy Park; Hampton Court Palace; and Kew Palace; These come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for planning control purposes. There are currently over 1,600 Listed Buildings in the borough, generally the Council has power to grant listed building consent for demolition or works to these; with some categories this is subject to approval by English Heritage.
4.3.7 PPS 5 sets out a general presumption in favour of the conservation of such buildings and harm or loss should be wholly exceptional. Any such proposals would be subject to the tests within HE 9.2 of PPS 5. Generally, the original use for which historic buildings were designed and built should be continued because it will have the least impact on their character or appearance. However, there may be cases where a change of use may be the only viable
67 4 Protecting Local Character Adopted Development Management Plan
way to keep them in active use. Where this is the case, the onus will be on the applicant to justify the new use, and to demonstrate on balance that it will be compatible with the fabric, exterior, interior and the setting of the historic building, and will not detract from other evidential, historic, aesthetic or communal heritage values, in line with HE 9.5 of PPS 5.
4.3.8 The character of historic buildings and their contribution to the townscape can be severely diminished through insensitive alteration, extension or neighbouring development, or through neglect and dilapidation. When considering proposals for works to, or within the settings of, Listed Buildings or Ancient Monuments, special attention will be paid to:
1. conserving original architectural features such as windows, doors, chimney stacks, walls and gates;
2. the scale, proportions, design and materials of new proposals in relation to the existing heritage asset;
3. retaining original or historic garden or landscape features;
4. the effect of development on the setting of the historic heritage asset;
5. detriment to the significance of the heritage asset.
4.3.9 Detailed guidance contained within the PPS 5 Practice Guide, Guidance on Alterations to Listed Buildings, will be followed in considering suitability of proposals. Legislation places upon those who own or manage Listed Buildings an obligation to ensure that they are properly maintained and where appropriate the Council will use its powers to ensure that this is done, particularly if the asset is on the Heritage at Risk register.
4.3.10 Various bodies make loans or give grants for the repair or replacement of original features using traditional or sympathetic materials or requiring the use of specialist materials and craftsmanship, and the Council may be able to assist owners to secure such assistance.
4.3.11 The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 does not just require physical access for disabled people, but also equal access to services. It is recognised that there may be difficulties in altering a Listed Building to meet modern day access standards and that sometimes a compromise is required. However, it must be demonstrated that any works of alteration to improve the accessibility of a listed building does not harm its special interest. The English Heritage Guidance “Easy Access to Historic Buildings” is recommended as a practical guide and is available free of charge from www.english-heritage.org.uk.
4.3.12 Applications for alterations and extensions to Listed Buildings need to be to a high standard of accuracy and detail. Drawings should therefore include sufficient information to convey the exact nature of the proposals and of the existing building and should include survey drawings and plans, elevations and sections at 1:100. Further drawings at 1:20 or full size may be required in certain cases. The Council has also produced supplementary planning guidance on the repair and maintenance of historic buildings. Further advice can be obtained from “A Stitch in Time” available free of charge from www.ihbc.org.uk.
68 Protecting Local Character 4 Adopted Development Management Plan
Policy Background National: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regs 1990, Circulars 01/01, 09/05, 01/07 and 07/09. PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) PPS 5: Practice Guide PPS 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) Regional: London Plan (2011); policies 7.4, 7.5,7.6, 7.8 and 7.9 Local: Core Strategy CP7 Maintaining and Improving the Local Environment
Targets and Monitoring Core Strategy Indicator for CP7
Policy DM HD 3
Buildings of Townscape Merit
The Council will seek to ensure and encourage the preservation and enhancement of Buildings of Townscape Merit and will use its powers where possible to protect their significance, character and setting, by the following means:
1. consent will not normally be granted for the demolition of Buildings of Townscape Merit;
2. alterations and extensions should be based on an accurate understanding of the significance of the asset including the structure, and respect the architectural character, and detailing of the original building. The structure, features, and materials of the building which contribute to its architectural and historic interest should be retained or restored with appropriate traditional materials and techniques;
3. any proposals should protect and enhance the setting of Buildings of Townscape Merit;
4. taking a practical approach towards the alteration of Buildings of Townscape Merit to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and subsequent amendments, provided that the building’s special interest is not harmed, using English Heritage advice as a basis.
4.3.13 These are buildings, groups of buildings or structures of historic or architectural interest which have been identified as contributing significantly to the townscape but are not on the statutory list. However, these buildings are of considerable local importance.
4.3.14 The list of Buildings of Townscape Merit (BTMs) is maintained by the Council. An appraisal of the architectural or historic interest of a building, followed by a process of public consultation, should be undertaken before the designation of a new building of townscape merit. The following criteria will be used for designation of BTMs:
69 I Land Between City Farm and Cotswold View, Bath: Appeal Decision
Contains 10 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
J Land South of St George’s Road, Hayle: Appeal Decision
Contains 17 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
K Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London: Appeal Decision
Contains 98 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates
2. On 22 October 2008, the then Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the application be referred to her instead of being dealt with by the relevant planning authority, the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council), because she considered that the proposal may conflict with national and regional policies on important matters.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission be refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with her recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Procedural matters
4. In reaching this position the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (IR1.3.1). The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application.
5. The description of the application given in paragraph 1 above is an updated and detailed description of the application submitted in July 2007, which the Inspector considers represents a more accurate account of the scheme subsequently considered by the Council and the Greater London Authority. It was the basis on which the proposal was considered at the Inquiry (IR1.1.1). The Secretary of State considers that no prejudice has been caused to any party by this course of action and has determined the application on this basis.
6. In determining the application, the Secretary of State has had regard to its potential impacts on listed buildings, with particular regard to the desirability of preserving those buildings or their settings, as required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. He has also had regard to the development’s potential impacts on the Lower Marsh, Roupell Street, South Bank, Waterloo and Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Areas. He has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of these areas. He has also had regard to the potential impacts of the proposed development on the Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS).
Policy considerations
7. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. In this case, the development plan comprises the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations Since 2004, issued in 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP, 2007). The Secretary of State
- 2 -
considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those set out by the Inspector at IR3.1.2 to 3.1.7.
9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1, Delivering Sustainable Development and its supplement, Planning and Climate Change; PPS3, Housing; Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13, Transport; PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment; Circular 11/95, Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; and Circular 05/2005, Planning Obligations. He has also taken into account Guidance on Tall Buildings, issued by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in 2007 and the London Plan supplementary planning guidance entitled the Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework, adopted in 2007.
10. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the consultation draft of PPS15, Planning and the Historic Environment, published for consultation in July 2009, but as that document is still in draft and may be subject to change, he affords it little weight.
Main issues
11. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are as set out by the Inspector at IR12.3 and 12.4.
Appropriateness of tall buildings in this location
12. For the reasons given at IR12.3.1-12.3.8, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the development plan offers site specific support for tall buildings in this location, subject to the need to have regard to design quality and impact on historic environment amongst other planning considerations (IR12.3.9), which are considered below.
13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the scheme would introduce pleasant public spaces between the proposed three buildings, physically and visually connecting Waterloo Station with the wider area. He also agrees that active frontages at ground level and an enhanced public realm would encourage people to engage with the development (IR12.3.12) and that the space between the International Terminal and the application site would be considerably improved, with the proposed landscaping rendering it a user-friendly and welcoming area of public space. He also notes that the scheme allows for future integration with a re-planned station and the City Square (IR12.3.13).
14. As regards the sustainability of the site, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, situated as it is in a central area of the city, with good public transport choices locally and easy access to a range of facilities, the site has excellent sustainable credentials. He is content that energy efficiency and carbon reduction measures could be achieved to comply with levels required by policy and that, with appropriate measures in place, satisfactory microclimatic conditions could be maintained (IR12.3.21-12.3.22).
- 3 -
Architecture and appearance
15. However, for all the reasons given at IR12.3.16-12.3.19, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.3.15 that the success of the scheme is severely compromised by the appearance of the buildings, the way they would relate to each other and the resulting effects on their surroundings. He agrees with the Inspector at IR12.3.20 that, as pieces of architecture, neither Building C nor the two office towers would possess the balanced, sculptural or elegant qualities crucial to the success of tall buildings. He also agrees with her that, individually, the buildings would fall short of the excellence expected and, collectively, the scale of the design flaws would be heightened with far reaching concerns about the effects on the skyline, on important views and historic assets (IR12.3.20).
16. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the positive aspects of the scheme do not overcome the fundamental unacceptability of the architecture of the three individual towers, the way they relate to each other and ultimately their impact on the skyline, on their immediate surroundings and when viewed from some distance. Like the Inspector, he considers that the all-round excellence in standards exhorted by policies at all levels would not be met (IR12.3.26). He endorses her conclusion at IR12.6.7 that exemplary design is even more of an imperative in a tall building, because of its visibility, intensity of activity and, in this case, because of its potential to impact on historic assets of international and national importance.
Impact on historic environment
17. The Secretary of State endorses the Inspector’s point that the potentially harmful impact of tall buildings on historic elements can be mitigated by good design, and he agrees with her that the converse must also be the case (IR12.4.5).
Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS)
18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in assessing the impact of the proposed development on the WWHS, what is important is whether the development, when seen from various viewpoints in Parliament Square and The Sanctuary would, either on its own or in combination with other buildings, preserve the outstanding significance and appreciation of these universally valued and historic buildings (IR12.4.7). He also agrees with the Inspector’s description of the gap between Big Ben Tower and Portcullis House as all- important in this context (IR12.4.11). Although the proposed development would occupy that gap to varying degrees or not at all, depending on viewpoints, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons at IR12.4.11-12.4.12 that, where visible in the gap, the towers would materially detract from the size and importance of Big Ben not by mere fact of visibility in the skyline, but by virtue of their bulk and disturbing aspects of design (IR12.4.11). He further agrees that, although the ability to appreciate the values of the Palace of Westminster as a group would not diminish, the awareness of the dominance and architectural form of the Big Ben tower would be lessened, and that this is sufficient to conclude that the setting and value of the WWHS would be adversely affected by the proposal (IR12.4.13). The Secretary of State also agrees that the same conclusions would apply in respect of harm to the Westminster Abbey and
- 4 -
Parliament Square Conservation Area and to the settings of the listed buildings within it (IR12.4.13).
Other listed buildings
19. For the reasons at IR12.4.15-12.4.18, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the setting of the Royal Festival Hall (RFH) would be unacceptably marred by the proposed development, which would also fail to preserve the setting of the Royal National Theatre (RNT). He also agrees with the Inspector that the balance and dominance of County Hall would be eroded by the proposal, for the reasons given (IR12.4.20).
20. As regards the Victory Arch, the General Lying-in Hospital and the Church of St John the Evangelist, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the points in favour of the proposal would extend to the settings of the Victory Arch and the Hospital, but that the design flaws identified would cause the development to impact unfavourably on and detract from views of the Arch, the Hospital and the Church, particularly given the scale of the development (IR12.4.22).
Other conservation areas
21. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area and that views into it would be neither preserved nor enhanced by reasons of the design and disposition of the three towers (IR12.2.24).
22. For the reasons at IR12.4.25-12.4.27, the Secretary of State considers that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the setting of the Roupell Street or the Waterloo Conservation Area. As regards the Lower Marsh Conservation Area, he agrees with the Inspector that its setting and character would be preserved (IR12.4.28).
23. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed towers, for reasons of their intrinsic designs, would not preserve but would impact unacceptably on the settings of the WWHS, the RFH, RNT and County Hall, and that it follows that the scheme would similarly affect the settings and views of buildings forming an integral part of the relevant conservation areas. He therefore also agrees the application scheme would be in clear conflict with the London Plan and UDP policies recognising the merits of these historic assets, their international value and importance to the economy of London, and that the development would not be consistent with PPG15 (IR12.4.29).
Employment, retail and housing
24. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the mix of homes, employment and retail proposed for the site are in accordance with relevant London Plan and UDP objectives and policies as listed by the Inspector at IR12.5.3 and 12.5.5. He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment at IR12.5.4 that the retail element of the scheme would not jeopardise the district centre of Lower Marsh.
- 5 -
Affordable housing
25. The level of affordable housing proposed is considerably below the levels sought in the London Plan and the UDP (IR12.5.6). However, the Secretary of State accepts that, even with the 17% provision offered, the scheme would have viability issues due to factors identified at IR12.5.7. He agrees with the Inspector at IR12.5.9 that the scheme accords with relevant London Plan policies on affordable housing.
Fallback position
26. A fallback permission to develop the site exists in the shape of a permission approved in 1996 and varied on 11 July 2006, on which work has been commenced (IR4.2). On the basis of the available evidence, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.6.4 that that proposal is unlikely to proceed.
Conditions
27. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions in the light of the Inspector’s comments at IR11.1.1 and 12.5.10 and national policy as set out in Circular 11/95. He considers that the proposed conditions as amended by the Inspector comply with the policy tests in that circular. However, he does not consider that they overcome the reasons for refusing the application.
Obligation
28. The Secretary of State has considered the provisions of the planning obligation as outlined at IR11.2.2, national policy as set out in Circular 05/2005 and the Inspector’s views at IR12.5.10. He is satisfied that the obligation is in compliance with Circular 05/2005, but considers that the obligation does not overcome the reasons for refusing the application.
Overall conclusions
29. For the reasons set out above, the Secretary of State concludes that the application is not in accordance with the development plan and is contrary to guidance in PPG15. He has therefore given consideration to whether there are material considerations of sufficient weight to determine the application other than in accordance with the development plan. He considers that the scheme’s potential to regenerate the area around Waterloo Station, connecting the station to the wider area, improving conditions for pedestrians and creating a welcoming and user-friendly area of public space all weigh in its favour, as do the regeneration benefits including provision of employment opportunities and housing incorporating an element of affordable units. He concludes, however, that these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan.
- 6 -
Formal decision
30. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby refuses your client's application for planning permission for redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 2 office buildings and a residential building as follows:
building A (117.08m AOD) - 27 storeys plus a double height storey for a plant room (Class B1 Use);
building B (90.2mAOD) - 22 storeys including a top floor plant room (Class B1 Use);
building C (106.78mAOD) - three segments, being of 20 storeys, 26 storeys and 33 storeys containing 274 flats (Class C3 Use);
3,458sqm of retail (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) space at ground level of Building A and ground and first floor levels of Buildings B and C with shared two level basement, access and servicing; and
public realm improvements at street level incorporating retail kiosks, new pedestrian access/egress to Waterloo Station and associated highways and landscaping works
at Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ in accordance with application number 07/02628/FUL, dated 5 July 2007.
Right to challenge the decision
31. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
32. A copy of this letter has been sent to the London Borough of Lambeth and all parties who appeared at the inquiry.
Yours faithfully
Julian Pitt Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
- 7 -
The Planning Inspectorate Report to the Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Secretary of State Bristol BS1 6PN for Communities and GTN 1371 8000 Local Government
by Ava Wood DIP ARCH MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Date 15 July 2009 for Communities and Local Government
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
London Borough of Lambeth
Application
by
Elizabeth House GP LLC
Inquiry opened on 15 April 2009
Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ
File Ref: APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS ...... 1
2. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS ...... 2
3. PLANNING POLICY...... 3
4. PLANNING HISTORY ...... 5
5. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 6
6. THE CASE FOR ELIZABETH HOUSE GP LLC AND LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH...... 8
7. THE CASE FOR ENGLISH HERITAGE...... 27
8. THE CASE FOR WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (WCC)...... 38
9. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY OTHER PARTIES APPEARING AT THE INQUIRY (in order of appearance) ...... 43
10. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS ...... 45
11. CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS...... 46
12. INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS ...... 48
13. RECOMMENDATION...... 61
Page 2 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
File Ref: APP/N5660/V/08/203387 Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ • The application was called in for decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 22 October 2008. • The application is made by Elizabeth House GP LLC to London Borough of Lambeth Council. • The application Ref: 07/02628/FUL is dated 5 July 2007. • The development proposed is redevelopment of Elizabeth House to provide two office buildings and a residential building containing 280 flats with retail and leisure uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground and first floor level with shared basement, access and servicing. Public realm improvements at street level incorporating retail kiosks, new pedestrian access/egress to Waterloo Station and associated highway and landscaping works. • The reason given for making the direction was that the proposal may conflict with national and regional policies on important matters. • On the information available at the time of making the direction, the matters on which the Secretary of State particularly wished to be informed for the purpose of consideration of the application are listed in Annex A to this Report. Summary of Recommendation: that planning permission not be granted.
1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1.1 Development Description
1.1.1 The description cited in the banner heading above is taken from the application form submitted to the London Borough of Lambeth (referred to as LBL or the Council hereon) in July 2007. Below is an updated and detailed description of the application that represents a more accurate account of the scheme subsequently considered by the Council, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and widely consulted upon. It is the basis on which the proposal was considered at the inquiry and the terms in which this Report is drafted.
Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 2 office buildings and a residential building as follows: • building A (117.08m AOD) - 27 storeys plus a double height storey for a plant room (Class B1 Use); • building B (90.2mAOD) - 22 storeys including a top floor plant room (Class B1 Use); • building C (106.78mAOD) - three segments, being of 20 storeys, 26 storeys and 33 storeys containing 274 flats (Class C3 Use); • 3,458sqm of retail (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) space at ground level of Building A and ground and first floor levels of Buildings B and C with shared two level basement, access and servicing; and • public realm improvements at street level incorporating retail kiosks, new pedestrian access/egress to Waterloo Station and associated highways and landscaping works.
1.1.2 The application plans, incorporating all changes since July 2007, and forming the subject of the application before the Secretary of State, are contained in Inquiry Document 22 (ID22).
Page 1
Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
1.2 Inquiry and Site Visits
1.2.1 The Inquiry sat for 7 days on 15-17 April, 21-23 April and 28 April. I carried out an accompanied site visit on 24 April, that included an extensive walking tour (indicated on ID43) to take in wide and distant views referred to in evidence and at the inquiry. The accompanied visit also included an inspection of the application site and its immediate environs. In addition I carried out unaccompanied visits before and after the inquiry, viewing the site from the many vantage points requested by the parties.
1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment
1.3.1 The development proposed falls within the scope of Schedule 2 Paragraph 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regulations). The planning application was accompanied by 3 volumes of an Environmental Statement (ES)1 and a non-technical summary (CD 2/14). The non-technical summary was updated to take account of the changes in the number of residential units and affordable housing as a proportion of those units (ID21).
1.3.2 The Statement of Common Ground (CD 8/2) identifies the findings and conclusions on each of the topics considered in the ES, plus the policy context and mitigation measures to be incorporated in conditions or via the S106 planning obligation (ID27). Statutory responses to the application are included in ID28.
2. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS2
2.1 The Application Site
2.1.1 The site extends to an area of 1.99 ha and is currently occupied by three linked 1960s buildings of 16, 11 and 8 storeys construction, jointly referred to as Elizabeth House. The roads in the immediate surroundings comprise York Road to the northwest, Leake Street to the southwest, Mepham Street to the northeast and Waterloo Station occupies much of the area to the east and southeast. Elizabeth House is largely a commercial building of offices and an arcade of small, individual shops on York Road. The images on pages 03-11 and 03-12 of CD 2/4 (Design and Access Statement, Part 1) give a flavour of the existing Elizabeth House and its immediate environs.
2.2 The Surrounding Areas
2.2.1 The area to the northeast and east of Elizabeth House cannot be described as attractive or user friendly. The main entrance and exit points at the station are at best unprepossessing and often grim3. Of the railway buildings, the Waterloo International Terminal and the Victory Arch (Grade II listed) provide some historic and architectural interest in an area otherwise, and undisputedly, dominated by the confluence of heavily trafficked roads and railway infrastructure4. The Portland Stone clad
1 CDs 2/15-2/20: ES Volumes 1, 2, revised 2, 3A and 3B 2 See also description in CD 8/2 - Statement of Common Ground 3 CD 2/5 – Design and Access Statement, Part 2 4 CD 2/5 – Design and Access Statement, Part 2, pages 4 and 5
Page 2 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
buildings of the Shell Centre, including the 27 storey Shell tower, occupy the space between York Road, Jubilee Gardens and the river front1.
2.2.2 The site is not within a conservation area. However, it adjoins the South Bank Conservation Area2 and immediately to the north/northeast, beyond the circular glazed Imax cinema, lie the Waterloo and Roupell Street Conservation Areas3. The latter two are well contained and characterised by tight grained urban patterns of early C19 and C20 developments. Roupell Street in particular is distinguished by the domestic scale and consistency of its terraced houses. By contrast, the South Bank Conservation Area extends over a wide area alongside the Thames and is internationally renown for its complex of C20 cultural buildings – not least the Grade I listed Royal Festival Hall and Grade II* listed National Theatre and County Hall. The South Bank is also home to the London Eye, which can be seen from the southern end of the application site across York Road.
2.2.3 The application site lies some 800m across the river from the Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS) and Parliament Square forming the core of the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area4.
2.2.4 Developments granted permission or under construction are also worth noting for their likely impact and contributions to the local urban fabric. The most noteworthy and relevant, in my view, are5:
• Planned development on the podium site at the Shell Centre6(37)
• Under construction - the Hotel development on the Island Site and York House (39 and 40)
• Planning permission granted for towers at Nos. 1 and 20 Blackfriars7 (15 and 16)
• Planning Permission granted for the Doon Street tower8 (35)
3. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The Development Plan
3.1.1 The London Plan (consolidated with Alterations since 2004) (CD7/1) and the London Borough of Lambeth adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (CD 6/1) form the main components of the development plan for the purposes of considering this application. The Statement of Common Ground contains an extensive list of relevant policies. I record those most likely to have a
1 Image on page 03-14 of CD 2/4 – Design and Access Statement 2 CD 6/5 – South Bank Conservation Area Statement 3 CDs 6/4 & 6/6 – Roupell Street and Waterloo Conservation Area Statements 4 CD 6/12 – Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area Audit 5 The numbers in brackets correspond with the numbers on the walking route map, ID43 6 CDs 19/11 and 19/12 – Secretary of State Decision and Inspector’s report on the Shell centre 7 CDs 19/21 and 19/22 - Secretary of State Decision and Inspector’s report on nos 1 and 20 Blackfriars 8 CDs 19/1 and 19/2 - Secretary of State Decision and Inspector’s report on the Doon Street tower. The decision is the subject of a legal challenge
Page 3 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
bearing on the matters identified by the Secretary of State in calling in the application.
The London Plan (CD 7/1)
3.1.2 The range of 3A policies in Chapter 3 look to increasing London’s supply of housing (3A.1), maximise the potential of sites (3A.3) and encourage proposals for large residential development to locate in areas of high public transport accessibility (3A.7). The affordable housing policies in the same chapter advise Boroughs to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in negotiations on private residential and mixed use schemes (3A.10), having regard to the Mayor’s strategic target of 50% provision and a 70:30 social/intermediate proportional split (3A.9).
3.1.3 Policy 3B.2 encourages Boroughs to enhance the environment and offer of London’s office locations, while 3B.3 looks for a mix of uses where increase in office floorspace is proposed within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The 3C policies dealing with travel require integration of transport with development (3C.1), development to match transport capacity (3C.2) and support measures that encourage modal shift (3C.3). Improvement of local transport and public realm enhancements and improving conditions for walking and cycling are covered by Policies 3C.19, 3C.21 and 3C.22 respectively. Minimal on-site parking is encouraged in the parking strategy, under Policy 3C.23.
3.1.4 The 4A policies in Chapter 4 deal with a range of climate change issues and measures to combat the phenomenon. The 4B design policies are prominent in this application, as they cover matters considered at length at the inquiry: 4B.1 design principles for a compact city, 4B.3 enhancing the quality of the public realm, 4B.5 creating an inclusive environment. The location and design of tall and large scale buildings are addressed in Policies 4B.9 and 4B.10. Protection and enhancement of London’s historic environment are given prominence in Policies 4B.11, 4B.12 and 4B.15, while commitment to management plans for World Heritage Sites and their protection are covered by 4B.14. Policies 4B.16, 4B.17 and 4B.18 are of particular concern to the application proposal, as they cover the Mayor’s designation of strategically important views and their management. The London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance (CD 7/6) provides additional clarity and guidance to the policies.
3.1.5 In Table 5E.1 Waterloo is identified as one of three Opportunity Areas in South West London, where developments will be expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities (5E.2). The Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework (WOAPF CD 7/3), adopted in October 2007, was published in response to Policy 5F.2 and provides “……strategic vision and overarching planning guidance for a defined Waterloo Opportunity Area….”. The application site also falls within one of the designated Central Activities Zones (CAZ), as the country’s most important strategic office location. Combining increases in office floorspace with a mix of uses is the business of Policy 5G.3
The UDP (CD 6/1)
3.1.6 The vision for Lambeth as a great place to live, work and visit (Policy 1) is carried forward into subsequent policies. Protection of the character and
Page 4 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
function of the CAZ (Policy 3), the transport and housing policies (Policies 8- 12, 14-16) and protection of the historic environment (Policies 45, 47 and 48) provide important general considerations for judging developments. As a site falling within the Waterloo Office Regeneration Area, Policy 21 also comes into play. Policies on building scale and design, renewable energy in major developments, sustainable design and construction, streetscape, landscape and public realm design and protection of important views (Policies 33, 34, 35, 39 and 41) give detailed and local expression to the London Plan policies covering similar matters. Policy 40 defines “Tall Buildings” and sets out criteria for assessing such proposals.
3.1.7 More specifically, Section 5.16 of the UDP recognises that the Waterloo area is in need of regeneration and the Council is committed to preparing a Waterloo Development Framework to guide the future development and regeneration of the Opportunity Area. In response to which, a Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document (SPD CD 6/2) was prepared on behalf of LBL and is currently in draft. The application site falls within the Waterloo Development Framework Area and is identified as a Major Development Opportunity site (MDO 92).
3.2 National policy guidance and relevant publications
3.2.1 Of the many that have a bearing on this application, the national policy guidance and statements most relevant are : Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development and its supplement Planning and Climate Change; PPS 3 Housing; PPG13 Transport and PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment.
3.2.2 Also referred to at the inquiry and in the evidence were By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System (DETR/CABE, 2000) (CD 5/1) and Guidance on Tall Buildings (English Heritage and CABE, 2007) (CD 5/2).
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The Statement of Common Ground (CD 8/2) is a good source of information for the detailed planning history of the site. I concentrate on the prominent aspects of its history.
4.2 On 15 May 1996 planning permission was granted for redevelopment of a site that included Elizabeth House to provide a total of 104,477 sqm of offices and 2,183 sqm of retail and 91 parking spaces (CD 20/1). The Elizabeth House part of the application site included 3 of the 4 buildings proposed of 13 storeys and no retail floorspace. On 11 July 2006 a new permission was granted on the site following approval of a Section 73 application to vary Condition 7 of the 1996 approved scheme (CD 20/4). To all intents and purposes, LBL are satisfied that the approved applications represent the “fallback” position, as they have been commenced (ID20).
4.3 An application submitted in February 2004, for alternative proposals for redevelopment of the Elizabeth House site, was withdrawn in September of the same year, as it involved diversion of York Road which was not supported by LBL, TfL or GLA.
4.4 The site owners prepared a “Statement of Development Principles” which was agreed with LBL and GLA in 2005 (CD 20/9). The statement contains a
Page 5 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
set of agreed parameters including principles for improvement to the public realm, the potential balance of uses and the consensus that a tall building would be required to meet policy objectives. To test the land use policy implications for future development of the site, a redevelopment scenario was established which was based on an indicative redevelopment of approximately 111,525 sqm. The implications of a tall building in key views and public realm opportunities were acknowledged in the statement.
4.5 In 2005 an architectural competition was held to appoint an architect to design a scheme reflecting the agreed principles. Allies and Morrison were appointed and their concept design was used as a basis for extensive consultation in the first quarter of 2006. The scheme was abandoned in the summer of 2006 after it emerged, through the consultation process, that the size and height of the concept scheme could not be sustained on visual impact grounds.
4.6 Significant changes were made to the scheme following the consultation process. Instead of pursuing the concept scheme which included approximately 160,000 sqm gross floorspace in towers of 28, 37 and 54 storeys, the architects, working to a new set of criteria, produced the application scheme which involves 136,000 sqm of floorspace in towers of 27, 22 and 33 storeys. The building heights are in the order of the height of the Shell tower. The proposal evolved in tandem with the plan making process. Table 4.1 on page 16 of the Statement of Common Ground illustrates the chronology of the two separate processes.
5. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT1
Inspector’s note: A detailed account of the scheme is provided in the section reporting on the applicants’ case on quality of design. The summary here is intended only to give an outline description to set the scene.
5.1 The development is a mixed use scheme comprising three buildings: Buildings A, B and C. Buildings A and B (of 27 and 22 storeys respectively, plus double height storey for a plant room on A and a top floor plant room on B) will contain offices on the upper floors, with retail on the ground floor of Building A and on the ground and first floors in the case of Building B. Building C, to be located at the southern end of the site, will consist of three triangular segments of 20, 26 and 33 storeys and will house 274 residential units, 46 of which would be affordable (21% by habitable rooms and 17% by number of units). The affordable units would occupy floors 1-4 with a proportional split of 76:24 in favour of social rented.
5.2 Improvements to the public realm and improved conditions for pedestrians are fundamental to the scheme’s concept2. The layout has been developed to create links through the site from Waterloo Station to the South Bank and to enable direct access to the underground station from York Road. New public spaces would be created around the buildings (north plaza, station court and southern plaza) and between Elizabeth House and the Waterloo International Terminal (West Street and The Terraces). A roof
1 ID22 – Application Plans 2 CDs 2/4, 2/5 & 2/7 – Design and Access Statements, CD 2/27 – Further Greening of Public Realm
Page 6 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
terrace is proposed for the top of Building B with evergreen semi-mature trees planted at the edges to provide a distinctive skyline. Further landscaped gardens are intended on the roof tops of Buildings A and C1.
5.3 Pedestrian crossings are to be given greater priority at Mepham Street, Leake Street and York Road. The scheme has been designed to support wider ambitions for the area such as redevelopment and improvements to the Station and a new City Square outside the Victory Arch2. The pedestrian access details are summarised in the Statement of Common Ground (CD 8/2) at 14.4.
5.4 The three buildings would be connected at basement level to facilitate a common service area with a single point of access. Changes to the local highway network are described in Volume 1 of the Transport Assessment (CD 2/11). There would be no private car parking provided within the site, with the exception of 4 parking spaces for disabled motorists. A total of 755 cycle parking spaces are proposed to be located within publicly accessible spaces and distributed across basement areas in the buildings3.
1 CD 2/28 – Further Roofscape Greening Opportunities 2 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, page 83 3 CD 2/11 - Volume 1 of Transport Statement, 8.6.2
Page 7 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
6. THE CASE FOR ELIZABETH HOUSE GP LLC AND LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
Inspector’s note: The applicant and Council’s cases were presented jointly at the inquiry. The summary below is drawn from the evidence (written, visual and oral), from the opening statement and closing submissions.
6.1 Appropriateness of a tall building in this location
A plan-led approach
6.1.1 The English Heritage/CABE guidance urges the plan-led approach to the identification of suitable locations for tall buildings which it describes as a fundamental question of principle1. English Heritage considers that proposals of this nature should be plan-led2 and that the identification of an area as suitable for tall buildings in a plan-led process is “the crucial test of appropriate location”3.
6.1.2 The applicants and LBL have worked together and co-operated with each other for years, in order to bring forward a suitable redevelopment to regenerate this important site and wider area. Since approval of the 1996 scheme (CD 20/1), redevelopment of Elizabeth House has been regarded as a much greater opportunity to improve Waterloo Station than was appreciated at the time. The new strategic planning role for London focussing on growth added to this momentum. The growing emphasis on sustainability is reflected in a desire to maximise the site’s highest possible public transport accessibility (PTAL6B).
6.1.3 Increasing density while improving the station were key themes of the subsequent 2004 scheme. Although the scheme was withdrawn, it reflected an agreement to embark on a new process of collaboration. It was recognised that the Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework (WOAPF) would provide the route to achieving a strategy for tall buildings at Waterloo Station and through the plan-led process.
6.1.4 The first report on the Framework was published in July 20044 (CD 7/4). The applicants were represented at the inquiry held into the Revised Lambeth UDP in 2005 and by July 2005 it was possible to agree a “Statement of Development Principles” (CD20/9). The Statement includes a review of the potential scheme content, the key views and public realm considerations. It reflected the strong consensus between LBL, the Mayor and the applicants that the Elizabeth House redevelopment would make a strong contribution to the regeneration of Waterloo and, as the first major development, would provide the catalyst for other investments. The events in 2004 and 2005 illustrate the three way collaboration between the Mayor, the Borough and the applicants. As demonstrated hereon, the application is fully compliant with the development plan and other policy guidance.
1 CD 5/2 - e.g. on the front cover and in paragraphs 2.4 – 2.6 (the fundamental question of principle is found in 2.6) 2 CD 14/2 – London Advisory Committee 26/1/07 paragraph 5.4 3 CD 14/3 LAC 21/9/07 paragraph 6.5 4 CD 7/4 – Waterloo Development Framework, Stage 1 Consultation Document
Page 8 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Development Plan and Other Policy Compliance
6.1.5 The appropriateness of the application site for tall buildings is the result of the first complete cycle of the London Plan review, which identified Waterloo as an Opportunity Area and the suitability of such areas for tall buildings. The Central London Sub-regional Development Framework (CD 7/7) identified Waterloo’s potential for tall buildings which was taken forward in the WOAPF (CD7/3). The current adopted London Plan encourages the delivery of “…..good design, including public realm, open space and, where appropriate, tall buildings” (Policy 2A.5). It additionally acknowledges the WOAPF and states that: “Tall buildings should cluster on and around the station” (paragraph 5.140). Furthermore, at strategic level the London View Management Framework (LVMF) cross-refers for detailed guidance concerning the location of tall buildings to the WOAPF, as does the Lambeth UDP, which therefore suggests that the WOAPF performs a supplementary role at both strategic and Borough levels.
6.1.6 The WOAPF was prepared by the Mayor in association with LBL, and both authorities have a wide ranging statutory duty to have regard to heritage implications. In the WOAPF, the site is identified together with Waterloo Station1 as an appropriate location not only for tall buildings but explicitly for a “highly visible station cluster” of tall buildings with a “high degree of visibility”2 where “the highest buildings” in the entire Opportunity Area should be located3. The site specific nature of the WOAPF station cluster clearly points to an understanding that tall buildings at Elizabeth House and the station would appear above the riverside listed buildings and that might also be seen from the WWHS and nearby conservation areas.
6.1.7 It is true that the WOAPF does not specify the height of tall buildings in this location. However, one would have to quite wilfully misread the text to construe these as anything other than references to an expectation that tall buildings on the site would be visible from far and wide. After all, they are intended to mark Waterloo from the bridges over the Thames and from south along Waterloo Road4. In addition to giving greater legibility to Waterloo, tall buildings in this location would correspond with other townscape objectives established in the WOAPF: catalyst for regeneration, lack of conservation constraints at the station, greater coherence to existing distribution of tall buildings, amongst others5.
6.1.8 The LVMF as an SPD is contemporaneous with the WOAPF, published by the same authority and the two documents are consistent with each other. The LVMF6 refers to the prospect of a cluster of tall buildings at Waterloo in discussing managed views from Waterloo Bridge to Westminster7, from Hungerford Bridge to the City8, from Westminster Bridge to County Hall1,
1 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, page 112 2 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, page 113 3 CD 7/3 - WOAPF, page 114 4 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, page 113 5 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, pages 108-111 6 CD 7/6 - LVMF 7 CD 7/6 – LVMF, page 161 paragraph 5 8 CD 7/6 – LVMF, page 178 paragraph 20
Page 9 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
from Lambeth Bridge to Westminster2, from the Victoria Embankment to the Royal Festival Hall3 and from the Serpentine Bridge4 and more generally5. These cross-references to the WOAPF in the LVMF can only signify an expectation that a cluster of tall buildings at Waterloo would be clearly visible in these managed views of Westminster, County Hall and the Royal Festival Hall.
6.1.9 English Heritage confirmed that it had no “in principle” objection to tall buildings on the site being “highly visible” from the neighbouring South Bank Conservation Area, from the nearby Roupell Street Conservation Area, from Waterloo, Hungerford and Westminster Bridges, nor from the Conservation Areas on the Embankment side of the Thames opposite the site6. Nor does English Heritage have an “in principle” objection to tall buildings on the site being highly visible from Parliament Square although EH would be likely to object7. English Heritage has, in the past, criticised the WOAPF process, but its adoption was not subject to challenge and the Secretary of State gave it the appropriate weight in coming to her decision on the Doon Street application.
6.1.10 Equally, the Secretary of State endorsed the findings of the Inspector at the Doon Street inquiry that there is planning policy and guidance support for tall buildings at Waterloo8. The matter was also covered in Mr Karski’s evidence to that inquiry, when he rightly construed the WOAPF as providing for a cluster of tall buildings at the station and Elizabeth House with “real prominence and landmark significance” and “landmark primacy”9 and that: “The Framework …makes it clear that the expectation is that the main station cluster10 should have pride of place (and height) in the Opportunity Area”11. The views expressed still represent his understanding of the WOAPF12.
6.1.11 In contrast to the Doon Street site, the Station and Elizabeth House sites have clear site specific support as well as a fundamental role within the overall strategy. The site is in the CAZ (UDP Policy 3) and the Waterloo Office Regeneration Area (UDP Policy 21). It is defined as the only area within the Opportunity Area where large scale office development would be acceptable. Policy 12 discusses the MDOs – of which Elizabeth House is MDO 92 - at or near Waterloo Station and says that full and effective use must be made of them, and that there should be maximisation.
6.1.12 In order to achieve the status of “real prominence and landmark significance”, “landmark primacy” and “pride of place” in the Opportunity
1 CD 7/6 page 185 paragraph 15 2 CD 7/6 page 190 paragraph 7 3 CD 7/6 page 196 paragraph 12 4 CD 7/6 page 211 paragraph 5 5 CD 7/6 page 35 paragraph 3.53 6 Mr Collins stated in cross-examination 7 Mr Collins stated in cross-examination 8 CD 19/1 – Decision on the Doon Street tower, paragraph 16 9 CD 14/39 page 46 paragraph 5.7.11 10 This includes Elizabeth House – see CD 7/3 at pages 112 – 114 11 CD 14/39 top of page 47 paragraph 5.7.12 12 Mr Karski stated in response to a question from the Inspector
Page 10 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Area, tall buildings at Elizabeth House would have to be at least of the order of the height of the Shell tower. The WOAPF cannot possibly be construed as limiting the height of tall buildings to the 30m definition in the UDP1. The tallest existing building on the site is some twice this threshold height and the extant permissions establish a baseline position in terms of height of some 57 metres AOD (again, about twice the threshold height). The applicants did not need to spend several years going through the plan-led approach in order to establish that the site is a suitable location for buildings of at least 30 metres height, as this had already been established by existing and permitted development on the site.
6.1.13 It is hardly surprising that the WOAPF identifies Elizabeth House and Waterloo Station as sites which are appropriate for “highly visible” tall buildings, with the expectation that a cluster of tall buildings on these sites would have “pride of height” in the Opportunity Area, given that: both strategic2 and local planning policies urge the maximisation of redevelopment opportunities here; the site has the highest public transport accessibility level that it is possible to attain in London (PTAL 6B).
6.1.14 Other similar locations have been concluded by the Secretary of State to be appropriate for far higher tall buildings than are proposed here. The Shard at London Bridge Station3 is some three times higher than the Elizabeth House proposal and a similar distance from the Tower of London WHS as Elizabeth House is to Westminster WHS. No.1 Blackfriars Road, on the other side of the Thames, is 170 metres AOD with the two towers at 20 Blackfriars Road being 148 metres AOD and 109 metres AOD4. To put things in context, far from being super-tall or very tall the three tall buildings proposed at Elizabeth House at 117, 90 and 107 metres AOD are the shortest by some margin of the central London tall buildings that English Heritage has, unsuccessfully, opposed at inquiries5.
6.1.15 Neither the applicants nor LBL argue for ignoring heritage considerations, in the light of the policy based suitability of the site for a cluster of highly visible tall buildings. Instead the argument is the weight that should be given to any harmful impact on the settings of listed buildings, conservation areas and the WHS must be tempered by the inevitability of highly visible tall buildings on the site, with pride of height in the Opportunity Area, which must cause some impact on heritage considerations. The WOAPF call for highly visible tall buildings on this site would be rendered otiose if such buildings were acceptable only if they would cause no harmful impacts on heritage interests and their settings.
6.1.16 The only other policy document that bears upon the issue is the draft Waterloo SPD (CD 6/2) which specifies heights for tall buildings on the site reflecting those applied for. There is nothing in the SPD which is inconsistent with the WOAPF but as it is only in draft and the Council has not been able to demonstrate that the heritage implications of different
1 CD 6/1 – Policy 40 2 CD 7/1 (London Plan) Policy 5E.2 page 339 and see 3A.3 page 68 and 4B.1 page 245 3 CD 19/15 – Secretary of State’s decision concerning The Shard tower 4 CD 19/21 - Secretary of State’s decision concerning Nos 1 and 20 Blackfriars Road 5 ID25 – Significant Tall Building Cases, Central London
Page 11 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
heights of tall buildings have been assessed in drawing up the SPD, neither the applicant nor Lambeth rely upon it to any real extent. Representations made concerning the draft SPD were due to be considered by Cabinet on 8 June 20091.
Visual appropriateness of tall buildings
6.1.17 English Heritage’s fundamental opposition to tall buildings in this location is based on the concern that “……an increase in the number of tall buildings around Waterloo would create the impression of another ‘town’ in competition with Westminster2.” The whole idea is to make Waterloo more visible and better equipped to ‘compete’ with Westminster.
6.1.18 The new City Square and buildings at Waterloo Station would be at the heart of Waterloo and the axis of the 90 degree bend in the Thames. The topography of the area means that the station cluster would form a static central point as the riverside buildings appear to move in the foreground as an observer travels around the arc of Embankment3. The appropriateness of the site for tall buildings was also recognised by the Doon Street Inspector in his characterisation of Waterloo4. The application scheme would create a complementary grouping with the Shell tower and a positive relationship, as advised in the English Heritage/CABE guidance5. The buildings are not intended to achieve iconic status but will represent an interpretation of the policy of clustering to achieve a new focus at the station and would be more suited to the character and context of Waterloo.
6.1.19 The Shell tower sets the precedent for height in the locality, which the application scheme respects. Additional tall buildings on the northern part of the station would simply add to the cluster and be viewed in settings where tall buildings and structures already exist. Such compositional considerations were a crucial part of the brief that generated the present scheme and demonstrate the balance sought between the planning strategy for a new cluster with heritage considerations, namely avoiding wholly new visual interventions into the settings of St James’ Park6 and the WWHS.
6.2 Design Quality
6.2.1 There is no support for retention of the existing buildings on site. They are part of the problem, not only because of their brutal, dated, dilapidated appearance but they reinforce the impermeability of the area, lack vibrancy and a sense of civility. By contrast, the public realm and permeability of the site would be transformed out of all recognition with the application scheme, for the better and the common good. A redevelopment scheme would be expected to improve upon the existing dire situation – although the extant
1 Mr Smith informed the inquiry accordingly in evidence in chief 2 CD14/2 – LAC exempt minutes of meeting of 26/1/07 paragraph 5.4 and CD 14/32 – EH letter of 14/2/07. In cross examination Mr Jones for English Heritage confirmed that this was not an objection being made at the inquiry. 3 CD 2/3 – Planning Statement, Diagram 13, page 70. 4 CD 19/2 – Inspector’s Report, paragraph 15.33 5 CD 5/2 – English Heritage/CABE Guidance, paragraph 4.1.1 6 Inspector’s note: English Heritage did not pursue an objection in relation to views from St James’ Park
Page 12 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
permitted schemes would fail to do so1 - but the application proposal would achieve these improvements in a quite exceptional way.
6.2.2 The manner of their positioning and the shapes of the new buildings would encourage pedestrian movement between York Road and Waterloo Station through a series of new public spaces2. Permeability in the layout would provide a vista to the Thames, the London Eye and the Houses of Parliament, formed by the sculpted spaces created between the two office buildings and the residential tower.
6.2.3 The buildings’ sculptural forms would reinforce public realm gestures. Thus, the volumetric inflections of the two office buildings would signal the entrance to the underground station and announce the entrance to Waterloo Station. Leaving the station, the telescopic nature of this space would be reversed to open towards the city.
6.2.4 The shapes and structure of the two office buildings is complex: they appear to lean towards each other - an effect achieved by rotating the gable line of each floor around a single vertical point in the centre of their north and south facades. As a consequence of the twisting, the east and west faces of the buildings would be skewed, the facades forming into parallelograms3. The seven storey difference in height between the office pair would add to the composition’s informality, emphasised by the grove of trees on the roof of the lower building. The inflected outline of the two office buildings would form the backdrop to and contrast with the sturdy masonry and form of the Shell tower.
6.2.5 The triangular geometry of Building C distinguishes it from the office buildings and would provide a powerful point of stasis to the composition4. Two sides of the triangle would create street-like spaces to the south and to the north, while the third would open to the public realm and signal the way to the London Eye and beyond. The three separate segments of differing heights would form blade-like parts with the thinnest element of the tallest section most visible from Parliament Square5.
6.2.6 The facades are designed to take advantage of views while creating elevations with interesting texture and depth alongside appropriate environmental performance. From a distance they would appear predominantly white and blend into the context of the Portland stone dominated landscape of neighbouring buildings. Different façade solutions are proposed for the office and residential buildings. The latter would be constructed of white masonry with deep incisions into the face of its terrazzo-like surface, catching and reflecting the light differently from its neighbours.
6.2.7 In contrast to the white masonry, the patterned surfaces of the office towers is made up from vertical cladding panels comprising plates fixed on
1 CD 20/8 – Perspective and Elevations 2 CD 2/5 – Design and Access Statement, Part 2, Page 16 3 CD 2/4 – Design and Access Statement, Part 1, pages 06-49 to 06-59 4 CD 2/4 – Design and Access Statement, Part 1, pages 06-60 to 06-67 5 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View P2
Page 13 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
the east and west facades at each floor level1. From the bottom of the building to its top, the surfaces are designed to undergo a series of subtle changes2 through: 1) incline on the east and west facades, 2) plates following the gradual rotation of each floor, 3) main folds along the sides of each plate revealing the gilt coloured back surfaces, and 4) the final fold in the toe of each plate. Close up, these facades would display richness in texture and depth. Further away, the plates would appear like a shoal of fish about to change direction3. They would provide an ever-changing surface reflecting and absorbing the constantly changing light – creating a glistening backdrop to the solid mass of the Shell tower.
6.2.8 English Heritage, rightly, regards Allies and Morrison as having a proven track record in designing high quality buildings which relate well to their setting and context4. The consistent quality of their body of work speaks for itself.5 It is subtle and contextual. There is no egotistical pursuit of the iconic. Their restoration and enhancement of the listed Royal Festival Hall and its public realm is exemplary6 and demonstrates sensitivity of touch in dealing with important heritage assets7.
6.2.9 Equally, the subtlety and ingenuity, sheer quality and class of this scheme are first rate. The architects bring to the scheme their expertise in master planning, knowledge of the South Bank and ambitions for the South Bank Quarter8 without resorting to the icon as a palliative. The development would be highly successful in the way it would contribute to the public realm and impact on its immediate surroundings.
6.3 Effect on Heritage Considerations
The principles of approach
6.3.1 The best method of assessment of views is by personal inspection on the ground. Images can only act as a guide, or an aide-memoir. Having said that, the images produced by the applicant use all the best and commonly accepted techniques and methodologies and must be preferred to the crude and misleading material produced by Westminster City Council which chops out the wider context that is seen and appreciated in reality.9
6.3.2 Nor can the work of Urban Initiatives10 be relied upon in relation to the application (which was in turn relied upon by the Council’s Conservation officer11), not least because it is wholly inaccurate and flawed, as pointed
1 CD 2/7 – Design and Access Statement, Addendum March 2008, pages 15 and 16 2 CD 2/4 (page 06-59), CD 2/7 (page 15) and Mr Morrison’s proof (page 49) give a detailed account of the plates and their intended performances. 3 Mr Morrison’s proof, page 50. 4 CD 14/1 – LAC letter of 26/1/07, paragraph 6.1 5 Graham Morrison’s presentation (ID 5) and his book of selected projects (ID 6) 6 Mr Collins in cross examination 7 Mr Golding evidence in chief 8 Mr Morrison refers to the South Bank Quarter as the area bound by the Thames and Waterloo Station to the west and east respectively and completed by the Waterloo and Westminster Bridges to the north and south 9 Mr Ayton’s revised appendix as criticised in CD 8/10 – Photomontage Methodology 10 CD 9/7 – Elizabeth House, Visual Impact Assessment 2007, by Urban Initiatives 11 CD 9/5 – LBL Committee Report, July 2008, paragraphs 6.53-6.81
Page 14 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
out by the applicants1, accepted by the Council2 and not suggested to be otherwise at this inquiry.
6.3.3 Various principles were agreed by English Heritage during the course of the inquiry. The distinction between adding to elements of a modern city that already appear in the skyline in views as opposed to adding something that is entirely new is an important one3. The Elizabeth House proposal would not be the first intervention of tall buildings in the settings of any of the heritage assets discussed at the inquiry.
6.3.4 Thus, the Shell tower and the London Eye together with the permitted towers at Doon Street, 20 Blackfriars Road and the Shards of Glass impact upon the setting of the Tower of London WHS; the Shell tower and the London Eye do, and The Shard and 20 Blackfriars Road will affect the setting of County Hall. The Shell, LWT and Kings Reach towers do, and Doon Street will impact upon the setting of the Royal Festival Hall, likewise the setting of the Royal National Theatre.
6.3.5 The argument is not that these tall buildings have caused harm to the settings of these heritage assets therefore further harm should be countenanced. Instead the point is a more subtle and better one, namely that tall buildings are an established and permitted part of the setting of each of the WHS, County Hall, the Royal Festival Hall and the Royal National Theatre. As the Blackfriars Road Inspector concluded, and similarly should be concluded here: “the site is a suitable one for a …tall building, …the building proposed is of very high design quality and that, as a result, and however prominent the building, its impact would not be harmful and would generally be an enhancement.”4
6.3.6 Further principles to bear in mind are London’s dynamic and diverse skyline with a context of change and diversity. Tall buildings have become part of the London scene and feature in many views; London is primarily a mercantile city and that the wider context of heritage assets is the thriving city; distance and the dynamic nature of views are important considerations. Change in a great and dynamic city is inevitable, and juxtaposition of the old with the new can be appropriate, even exciting5.
Relevance of architectural quality in assessing impacts
6.3.7 The architectural quality of a particular proposal must be taken into account when judging the degree to which a proposed tall building impacts in views which include heritage assets and their settings. Put simply, adding a tall building of high architectural quality to the scene must surely be different in these regards than adding one of poor architectural quality. For instance, English Heritage’s Commissioners took into account the architectural quality
1 CD 16/6, CD 16/7 CD 16/11 CD 16/16 2 Mr Smith in cross-examination and re-examination 3 Mr Jones in cross examination agreeing with the point made by WCC in CD 19/2 paragraph 9.28 4 CD 19/22 paragraph 13.50 5 Mr Jones in cross examination (CD 19/2 taken from English Heritage’s case at the Doon Street inquiry, Inspector’s Report 8.6 page 44 and 8.34 page 48)
Page 15 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
of the Swiss Re scheme and decided that this outweighed any harm it would cause1.
6.3.8 The Inspector responsible for The Shard inquiry concluded that a potentially harmful impact can be mitigated by good design2 and the same Inspector concluded more recently in relation to the proposed Blackfriars Road towers that architectural quality is relevant in assessing whether there would be harm caused to the WHS3.
6.3.9 In the case of Elizabeth House, English Heritage disagreed with both of these propositions and explained that the position was “black and white” namely that architectural quality could not mitigate harm4. That approach is an incomplete one. One cannot decide whether a proposal would cause harm, and if so to what extent, simply by considering its height and silhouette; the entirety of all those elements that would go to make the new building a fine or a poor work of architecture need to be brought into the equation.
Impact on the WWHS5
6.3.10 Visual impact on the WWHS has remained a constant area for consideration as the design evolved. Design principles were radically appraised in the light of comments from consultees. Views from Parliament Square were crucial to the process leading to the current configuration of two lower office buildings twisted on their axis and the third triangular residential building.
6.3.11 The Design and Access Statement (CDs 2/4, 5, 6 and 7), the Townscape and Visual Assessment (CD 2/17) and Assessment of the Westminster World Heritage Site and Parliament Square (CD2/21) illustrate the results of the many assessments via visual representations, physical models and computer generated images that were undertaken testifying to the care and attention paid to this aspect of the scheme’s impact (CD 2/25 and CD 2/26). The scheme was examined in a number of views from within and across the WHS, as agreed with English Heritage and LBL6.
6.3.12 The Government has explained to UNESCO that protection of views to and from the WHS focuses on the protection of key views7. Furthermore, as recognised by the Blackfriars Inspector, what must be protected is one’s ability to understand and appreciate the outstanding universal value (OUV) of the WHS8 - and what it is that justified its inscription.9
6.3.13 Parliament Square lies outside the WHS, as does Portcullis House. At the moment as one walks around Parliament Square a number of buildings and
1 CD 19/20 - Heron Tower Inspector’s Report paragraph 15.81 page 114 2 CD 19/16 - Shards of Glass Inspector’s Report paragraph 16.65 3 CD 19/22 - Blackfriars Road Inspector’s Report paragraph 13.75 page 100 4 Mr Jones’ position in cross examination but the “black and white” approach was rejected by The Shard Inspector 5 CD 5/10 – The Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan provides an understanding of the WHS and identifies the key features defining its OUV 6 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, paragraphs 1.13-1.18 7 CD 21/7 – DCMS State of Conservation Report 31/1/08, paragraph 2.6 8 CD 5/10 – Westminster WHS Management Plan – Section 2.2 9 CD 19/22 – paragraph 13.74
Page 16 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
structures drift in, across and out of the gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben1. The gap is itself framed by a modern building (Portcullis House) which lies outside the WHS and was built after its inscription2. On the other side of the river, County Hall is ever present in the gap but is not perceived to be harmful to the setting of the WHS. The Shell tower drifts across the gap in views from the south/south-eastern areas of Parliament Square and appears in some views to “attach” itself visually to the foot of Big Ben. The new development on the former County Hall “Island Site” is very visible from the north / north-western areas of Parliament Square3. The London Eye is clearly apparent in the gap in many views from Parliament Square.
6.3.14 The same applies to the additional new buildings that have been permitted in recent years which will also appear in the gap in various views from Parliament Square. The Shard is much further away than Elizabeth House but some three times the height. The Doon Street Tower would appear in the gap in some views from Parliament Square4. The residential tower at No. 20 Blackfriars Road would appear in the gap when viewed from the south/south-eastern area of Parliament Square (images in ID8). Finally, the 15 storey (68 metres AOD) tall building on the “York House” site would appear in the gap in views from the north / north-western area of Parliament Square5.
6.3.15 Despite these existing and planned buildings and structures filling parts of the sky of the gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben, and visually “attaching” themselves to Big Ben in certain views, one can appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. Views out from Parliament Square embrace ever-changing unplanned vistas. Seeing out from the Square, to the evolving city beyond, is after all what one would expect to be able to do. Such views cannot be frozen in time. In other words, there is nothing wrong as a matter of principle with adding further new buildings in the gap, just as the Blackfriars Road Inspector concluded6.
6.3.16 The only part of the WHS that is remotely affected by the buildings and structures that appear in the gap is Big Ben. But Big Ben is such a powerful tower in its own right that the buildings and structures that lie on the South Bank cannot and do not undermine one’s ability to appreciate it. This is particularly the case once it is appreciated that the proposed tall buildings would not appear at all in the best or key views of the WHS from Parliament Square. The key view is consistently regarded by authoritative bodies to be the north/north western area of Parliament Square7. It must also be said that the LVMF does not include any views of the WHS from Parliament Square, concentrating instead on the protecting views of the WHS from
1 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Views P1, P2, P3, P4 2 CD 19/22 paragraph 13.74 and CD 2/30 – Additional Visual Impact Study, A1 3 According to Mr Jones in cross examination it has an “unhappy impact” 4 ID8 - See the wireline images on page 71 and the first page of ID31. 5 See image in CD 2/31 and CD 19/4 for the location plan 6 CD 19/22 – Blackfriars Inspector’s Report, paragraphs 13.74, 13.75 7 CD 5/10 – World Heritage Site Management Plan, page 62. CD 6/13 – WCC’s draft Metropolitan Views SPD, View 37 on page 46. CD 6/12 – WCC’s Parliament Square Conservation Area Audit, CDs 2/25 and 2/26
Page 17 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
nearby bridges, the river and from the South Bank1. None of which would be undermined by the proposed development.
6.3.17 That the best views of the WHS from Parliament Square are from that part of the Square where the proposal would not be seen is borne out by the draft Dynamic Visual Impact Study for the WWHS (DVIS) (CD 21/12) which has selected the five views “considered to best encapsulate the OUV” of the WHS2. Mr Jones (for English Heritage) agreed in cross examination that the development proposal would not affect the OUV of the WHS of four of the five best selected views and would not be visible from the “optimum viewpoint”3.
6.3.18 Repeated reference by English Heritage and Westminster City Council to a “wall of development” in the gap is not a good point. First, the site has been identified through the plan-led process for a cluster of tall buildings, i.e. not one point block4. Secondly, the locations where one of the individual blocks would appear to merge with another one are limited in any event5.
6.3.19 Both CABE6 and the Mayor/the GLA7 consider that the proposals would not cause unacceptable harm by appearing in the gap, with positive support in the latter case8. If it is concluded that the OUV of the WHS would be preserved, then the same conclusion should be reached in relation to protection of the settings of listed buildings and of the conservation areas. All these points must stand or fall together.
Impact on listed buildings
Royal Festival Hall (RFH) – Grade I9
6.3.20 In LVMF views of the RFH from Embankment Gardens (17B.1), Waterloo Bridge (12A.1 & 12A.2) and the Hungerford Footbridge (LVMF view 14A.2),10 the proposed buildings would be seen rising behind it. The Grade I listed building is not within an intact skyline here. Tall buildings already appear in the setting of the RFH in dynamic views. If anything, the “lurking” Portland stone faced buildings, of lesser height, have a greater impact on the setting of the RFH than the taller ones.
6.3.21 English Heritage considers that the Shell tower, LWT & Kings Reach towers are neither rival nor consort to the RFH11 and accepts that the setting of the RFH has been in a continuous state of flux and change12. But the Secretary
1 CD 7/6 – LVMF, River Prospect 22 pages 203 – 208; see views of the WHS at pages 206, 207 & 208 2 CD 21/10 – 2nd page of Annex A 3 CD 21/12 – Parliament Square study, paragraph 4 4 Mr Ayton in cross examination 5 See the analysis in CD 8/5 6 CD 13/1 – CABE letter dated 24/10/07, page 2 7 CD 10/2 - GLA Stage 2 report, pages 1, 5 & 6 (paragraphs 11 – 14) 8 ID 16 - Letter from Sir Simon Milton 17/4/09, page 2 9 See CD 22/9 for List Description 10 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Visual Impact Studies M37, M38 and M39 respectively 11 Mr Jones in cross examination 12 Mr Jones in cross examination
Page 18 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
of State’s decision on the Doon Street tower took into account that the RFH is not experienced in isolation and that it has a dynamic relationship with neighbouring buildings and its urban context1. Similarly the Blackfriars Inspector declared it difficult to see how the composition of two architecturally excellent tall buildings could compromise the settings of two lower buildings of equally high architectural quality2
6.3.22 Applying the approach in these two recent decisions of the Secretary of State, the appropriate conclusion to draw is that reached by the Mayor / the GLA, namely that the RFH is a strong building in its own right with a horizontal emphasis which can take vertical structures, including these proposals, behind it3.
County Hall – Grade II*4
6.3.23 The inherent qualities and interest of the building (impressing by size and architectural bombast rather than finesse) appear to lie in its civic and historic important rather than architectural merit. From Westminster Bridge (LVMF 15B), Westminster Pier (LVMF 25A) and Victoria Embankment (LVMF 17A)5 the development would be seen rising behind the Grade II* building to varying extent. The building is already seen in conjunction with the Shell tower and the London Eye. The latter in particular in all likelihood is the focus of attention for most viewers and visitors to the area. If, as English Heritage alleges, the setting of County Hall is not unacceptably harmed by current developments 6, then it could accept buildings which are nowhere near as high and are further away.
6.3.24 The Secretary of State disagreed with English Heritage’s views on the Shards7 and 20 Blackfriars8 cases on the point about impact on County Hall, accepting that it is strong enough to withstand buildings of obviously different heights and silhouettes appearing in the view. This is borne out by the opinions of the Mayor/GLA9. If one is to have new buildings in the setting of County Hall, as is intended for the application site, far better to have a real change in height as opposed to the buildings that “lurk” around the same height and cause more damage, as in the case of the island site development and York House.
The Royal National Theatre (RNT) – Grade II*10
6.3.25 Observations made in relation to the RFH apply equally to the Grade II* listed National Theatre1. The approaches adopted by the Secretary of State
1 CD 19/1 - paragraph 27 2 CD 19/22 - Secretary of State’s decision on Doon Street, paragraph 13.87 3 CD 10/1 – paragraph 86 and CD 10/2 pages 1, 5, 6 – Mayor’s Stages 1 and 2 Letters and Reports 4 See CD 22/1 for List Description 5 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Visual Impact Studies M27, M26 and M27 respectively 6 Mr Jones in cross examination 7 CD 19/16 - at 9.66 (EH) and 16.89 (Inspector); see the images in ID 11 8 CD 14/14 - (8.3) and CD 19/22 (13.76; 13.87) 9 CD 10/2 – Mayor’s Stage 2 Report, pages 1, 5 and 6 10 See CD 22/8 for List Description
Page 19 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
State and the Inspectors in the Doon Street2 and Blackfriars3 cases respectively are relevant here: both considered that the setting would not be harmed. Bearing in mind also that English Heritage considers that the Doon Street tower would be more harmful to the setting of the RNT than the Elizabeth House proposals4.
Victory Arch – Grade II5
6.3.26 This listed building is closest to the application site. Elizabeth House is a poor neighbour to this listed building6. The proposed scheme would re-face and improve the return elevation of the Arch. Redevelopment of the site as proposed, and creation of a lively public space between the station and proposed development, would improve the setting of this Grade II listed building7.
General Lying-in Hospital – Grade II8
6.3.27 The setting of this Grade II listed building already includes tall buildings (Park Plaza on Addington Street and Park Plaza on the islands site). It lies within an area of the city that is changing and developing and the proposal would not harm the setting of the building in this context.
Church of St John the Evangelist – Grade II*9
6.3.28 The setting of the church is primarily experienced in the immediate spaces and street frontages. As it is located within a robust urban environment that already includes substantial buildings, the development would cause no harm.
Impact on Conservation Areas
South Bank Conservation Area
6.3.29 English Heritage confirmed that its case in relation to the South Bank Conservation Area was parasitic upon its case regarding the settings of the listed buildings within it, namely County Hall, the RFH and the RNT. If the conclusion is reached that the impact of the proposals on the settings of these listed buildings is acceptable, no separate and different argument arises from the fact that they are within a conservation area10.
6.3.30 In any event, replacement of the single, continuous, dominating façade of the existing Elizabeth House with three separate buildings, high quality public realm and active frontages, would enhance the setting of the adjoining conservation area.
1 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Visual Impact Studies M37, M38 and M39 respectively 2 CD 19/1 – paragraph 28 3 CD 19/22 – paragraph 13.87 agreed by the Secretary of State (CD 19/21) 4 Mr Jones cross examination and Mr Jones’ proof (EH3) paragraph 7.7.6 5 See CD 22/2 for List Description 6 CD 2/4 – Design and Access Statement, Part 1, pages 02-8 and 08-81 7 CD 2/4 - Design and Access Statement, Part 1,page 05-44 8 See CD 22/2 for List Description 9 See CD 22/5 for List Description 10 Mr Jones cross examination
Page 20 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
6.3.31 Once again the approach adopted by the Secretary of State in the Doon Street decision1 is instructive, in particular the view held that many tall buildings are visible beyond its boundaries. Identification of the Elizabeth House site in the WOAPF (unlike Doon Street) for a highly visible cluster of tall buildings is especially telling.
Roupell Street Conservation Area
6.3.32 The development would have the most impact on the Roupell Street Conservation Area2. While best known for its small scale C19 artisan terraced houses, it takes much of its character from the sense of being surrounded by buildings and structures of much greater size and scale (Shell tower and railway viaduct). The development would be seen from the conservation area more so than the Shell tower, but it would represent one of a number of developments that have taken place in the vicinity, and would leave the essential character of the conservation area unchanged. A significant amount of sky would still be seen in views out of Roupell Street, and the buildings would neither dominate nor overshadows these views.
Other Conservation Areas
6.3.33 Views L3 and L4 (CD 2/17) demonstrate the limited impact on the Lower Marsh Conservation Area, and Views M16, 17 and 18 illustrate that the character and appearance of the Albert Embankment and Lambeth Palace Conservation Areas would be preserved or enhanced. In relation to the Waterloo Conservation Area3 the conclusions reached by the Blackfriars Road Inspector 4 that the “contained and inward looking character is if anything enhanced by contrast with the modern city beyond”, applies as much to this case. In an urban environment that has changed and developed considerably over time, the modern design of the scheme, high quality materials and improvement in the public realm would all add to an enhancing effect on nearby conservation areas.
Impact on other views
6.3.34 CD 2/17 considers the visual impact of the proposed development on 60 different views. The list of proposed viewpoints was agreed with English Heritage. Impact on views to and from the WWHS, listed buildings and conservation areas are covered above. For the record, the scheme would not harm any of the remaining views to the extent of justifying refusal.
English Heritage and Westminster City Council (WCC) objections
6.3.35 The claims made by English Heritage & WCC with regard to impact on the heritage environment are of a piece with their – unsuccessful - objections to other tall buildings proposals in central London in the 2000s. Thus, to name a few, they objected to the Heron Tower in the City; EH objected to the Shards of Glass in Southwark and the “Walkie-Talkie” in the City; English Heritage & WCC objected to the Doon Street Tower in Lambeth and Nos. 1
1 CD 19/1 - paragraph 20 2 CD 2/17 – Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Visual Impact Study L1. 3 CD 19/22 – paragraphs 13.52, 13.77, 13.86 4 The Secretary of State agreed CD 19/21
Page 21 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
and 20 Blackfriars Road Towers in Southwark – on grounds of either affecting a WHS or views of St Paul’s.
6.3.36 Successive Secretaries of State have seen the bigger picture and disagreed with the objections in these seminal cases. The ministerial view over time has acknowledged that being able to see good quality contemporary architecture in the same view as heritage assets1 is either a good thing in itself and nothing to get agitated about, or at least not such a bad thing that permission should be refused.
6.3.37 Perhaps the root cause of the problem is that, unlike the decision maker, it is no part of the remit or responsibilities of either English Heritage or WCC to seek to balance competing considerations in the case. They are single- issue objectors. While their sincerity is in no doubt, they are singularly ill- equipped to consider the issues in the round – thus English Heritage is not a planning authority at all and WCC has no responsibility for securing the much needed regeneration of the area around Waterloo, as its jurisdiction lies on the other side of the Thames.
6.4 The overall test
6.4.1 The English Heritage / CABE Joint Guidance suggests that the overall test of acceptability2 is that proposals for tall buildings should exhibit four qualities.
6.4.2 First, they should be in an appropriate location. Both English Heritage and WCC, rightly, acknowledge that the site is an appropriate location for tall buildings, having been identified as such by the WOAPF.
6.4.3 Secondly, new tall buildings should be of excellent design quality in their own right. Neither English Heritage nor WCC have considered the quality of the architecture of the proposals in their own right. They have considered the height of the proposed tall buildings and the fact that there would be three tall buildings on an elongated rectangular site (the so-called “wall of development”) but this is not the same thing at all as considering the quality of the architecture of the scheme as a whole and in the round. These proposed tall buildings would be objects worthy of being looked at for their own architectural quality. They would grace the scene.
6.4.4 Regrettably CABE expressed inconsistent opinions from letter to letter3 which almost certainly results from differently constituted panels having considered the proposals over time4. CABE’s criticism of the 20 Blackfriars Road proposals did not inhibit the Inspector from concluding that the scheme was of the highest architectural quality and nor should it inhibit a similar conclusion being reached here.
6.4.5 Thirdly, new tall buildings should enhance the qualities of their immediate location and wider setting. This consideration is not restricted simply and
1 CD 2/31 – Further Images 2 CD 5/2 paragraph 4.4 3 Contrast e.g. CD 13/1 and 13/2 (massing unsatisfactory) with CD 13/3 (massing convincing); CD 13/2 (residential tower height should be increased) with CD 13/1 (residential tower height satisfactory); CD 13/2 (residential tower massing criticised) with CD 13/1 (residential tower successful) 4 Graham Morrison in evidence in chief
Page 22 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
solely to the settings of heritage assets. The proposals would enhance the public realm and permeability of the site – and hugely so – and would transform a grotty site into a memorable place. 1960s tat and a plodding scheme rooted in the 1990s would be replaced by a high quality and exemplary scheme. To the extent that there would be some degree of harm caused to the settings of heritage assets by the addition of new tall buildings, any such harm would be more than compensated for by the new tall buildings being of high architectural quality in their own right.
6.4.6 Fourthly, new tall buildings should produce more benefits than costs to the lives of those affected by them. This consideration brings into play the wider planning issues. The position of the Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG) demonstrates that the perception of local residents is that the scheme would bring more benefits than costs to them. This is the first tall buildings scheme that the Group has supported and their support has not been won lightly1. Adjoining landowners (including Network Rail) and the local business community, as represented by the South Bank Employers’ Group, support the proposals (WR7 and CD 1/5- 1/9).
6.4.7 Only English Heritage and WCC argue that permission should be refused. Neither has any remit to bring into account wider considerations and weigh them in the round, and so necessarily focus exclusively on heritage issues to the exclusion of all other considerations. Those with wider remits at strategic (GLA), local planning (LBL) and most local levels (WCDG) have struck the balance in favour of granting permission.
6.5 Other Matters
Inspector’s note: I report briefly on a number of development control, design and land use matters. The reader may wish to refer to the Statement of Common Ground which covers each of these topics and to the more detailed assessments included in the core documents.
Housing
6.5.1 The 274 additional homes forthcoming would equate to more than half of the London Plan’s estimate for growth in the Waterloo Opportunity Area (5E.2). The proposal must also be seen in the context of a requirement of 30,500 new homes per year in the City and a Lambeth annual target monitoring target of 1,100 new dwellings (London Plan Policy 3A.2).
6.5.2 The scheme has been developed to include a substantial quantum of residential floorspace to balance the office provision and create a mixed use development in accordance with UDP Policy 20. The unit mix of studio, one, two and three bed units was agreed with Lambeth and considered by the GLA to be “broadly acceptable”, given the location and context of the site2.
Affordable Housing
1 ID 35 – Michael Ball (WCDG), proof of evidence 2 CD 10/1 – GLA Stage 2 Report, paragraph 42
Page 23 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
6.5.3 Extensive consultation was undertaken with RSLs and Lambeth housing in developing the scheme’s residential component. As the RSL’s space standards require larger units than comparable market properties, floors with a similar layout are stacked together to maximise building efficiency and simplify service arrangements.
6.5.4 The affordable housing content of the building is a benefit of the proposal. Independent assessments of viability have confirmed that, even with no affordable housing, the scheme would not be viable1. The Valuation Office, commissioned by the GLA, confirmed that the scheme struggles for viability because of high build costs and concluded that with no affordable housing the scheme would not be viable2. Nevertheless, despite these conclusions, the applicant has offered 17% units as affordable.
6.5.5 Furthermore, Lambeth has insisted upon, and the applicant has inclusively agreed to, an “overage” clause in the S106 planning obligation(ID27, Schedule 1, Part 2) by virtue of which additional monies will be paid should a further appraisal demonstrate that the scheme is able to fund a greater amount of affordable housing when the permission is implemented. This is breaking radical new ground (contrast the Flambard Way, Godalming decision3) and has resulted from creative thinking on the Council’s part met by the applicant’s co-operative attitude.
Retail Impact
6.5.6 The retail element of the scheme is a key component of the design proposal to achieve connectivity and improvements to the public realm. The Retail Impact Assessment concluded that the level of retail proposed can be supported by the office and residential floorspace proposed and would not have an unacceptable impact on the District Centre at Lower Marsh4.
Employment
6.5.7 The London Plan envisages the creation of 15,000 additional jobs in the Waterloo Opportunity Area (Policy 5E.2). Provision of large scale office developments in this location is supported by the CAZ policy and UDP Policy 21. Large scale offices are also encouraged in the LBL designated Waterloo Office Regeneration Area, where the site is located.
6.5.8 The application scheme will not only deliver 3,600 additional jobs, but makes provision (through the S106) for local training in construction and general employment and training.
Sustainable Design and Construction5
6.5.9 The scheme fully exploits the site’s sustainable location. It would be virtually car free and the design features generous cycle parking spaces and an improved pedestrian environment. Passive design features would reduce the building’s energy demands. The bio-mass boiler proposed, to provide
1 ID19 – Summary of Viability Appraisals 2 CD 10/1 and 10/2 – Mayor’s Letters and Reports 3 ID38 and ID 39 4 CD 2/18 – ES, Appendix 8.1 5 CD 2/9 – Sustainability Statement and CD 2/10 – Energy Statement
Page 24 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
the base heating load for the total site, would exceed the 10% requirement of meeting the development’s needs through on-site renewable energy. The S106 makes provision for the developer to achieve Code Level 3 on the residential units, and aspire to Code Level 4.
Microclimate and effect on local facilities
6.5.10 The assessment to determine local wind conditions is contained in the ES Volume 1, paragraphs 16.18-16.40 (CD 2/15). Essentially, the findings conclude that 80% of the proposed public areas would be suitable for seating and 100% of the intended seating areas would be suitable for that purpose. With mitigation measures (to be covered in the landscaping strategy), all other locations within the public realm are considered suitable for purpose. Equally, other environmental issues were examined and found to be acceptable with measures proposed to overcome any deficiencies1.
6.5.11 Increase in the number of jobs by 3,600 and a new residential population in the region of 430 would have an effect on local services. The Planning Obligations SPD (CD 6/9) incorporates formulae for the calculation of contributions to mitigate the impact of development on local services and facilities. The S106 (ID27) provides for contributions towards education, health and care and other community facilities to overcome the likely impacts. These and other monetary contributions have been the subject of protracted negotiations with LBL, and consultation with the Waterloo Community Development Group.
Provision of Open Space and Outdoor Play Areas
6.5.12 The application site falls within an area of open space deficiency. The proposal dedicates the ground floor of the scheme as public realm to link the South Bank and Waterloo Station, which limits the potential for open space and play space at street level. Every habitable room in each residential property would have access to a balcony, and rooftop terraces are to be provided on all three buildings. Nevertheless, it would be unfeasible to expect the applicants to provide appropriate open space while maximising use of the site.
6.5.13 To overcome the shortfall, the applicants have proposed a significant contribution of £1.5 million towards improvement of Jubilee Gardens, which is less than 100m from the site.
LBL’s response to the Urban Initiatives Assessment and to the Urban Design Team Leader
6.5.14 Urban Initiatives were engaged on behalf of the Council’s Planning Conservation and Urban Design team to provide an assessment of the visual impact of the development on key townscape views. The report (CD 9/7) concluded that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and visual amenity of Waterloo with the highest tower causing undue damage to views from Parliament Square.
1 See Statement of Common Ground for summary and mitigation measures proposed
Page 25 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
6.5.15 The Council considered that the assessment was inaccurate for two reasons. First, the assessment did not consider verified LVMF views. Secondly, the assessment failed to use rendered images or photomontages provided with the application package and thereby failed to accurately represent the scheme and its surroundings. The alternative model utilised was flawed1, as it excluded buildings already under construction and failed to include the roofscape of existing buildings, which would alter views from across the river. For these reasons, the Urban Initiatives assessment was considered unreliable and the Council accorded it very little weight.
6.5.16 The Council’s Urban Design Team Leader concluded that the application would have a major impact on a range of historic interests and that amendments to the scheme in March 20082 would fail to address the concerns.
6.5.17 Having weighed these comments against the relevant policy framework and considered the views of GLA’s planning officers, the Planning Applications Committee agreed with the conclusions of the planning officers that the scheme would not impact unacceptably on London’s heritage assets. It would act as a gateway to Waterloo Station and aid regeneration of the area.
6.6 Overall Conclusions
6.6.1 The scheme exemplifies high quality architecture which would transform, for the better, a site which has been identified through the plan-led process as a suitable location for a cluster of highly visible tall buildings, with pride of height in the Opportunity Area. The applicants’ engagement with the plan- led approach has been exemplary as has its model and genuine consultation with the local community. The end product of this painstaking approach has been that each of those authorities that have a role in considering and balancing the full range of material considerations has lent its support to the scheme. The support of the strategic and local planning bodies and the local community is not given lightly.
6.6.2 There would have to be a very compelling and overwhelming reason to turn all this away and to condemn the site to more years of uncertainty. There is no such reason. This is another case in which English Heritage has adopted an exaggerated position. Time and again the Secretary of State has had the foresight and courage to say these concerns are overstated and a more balanced and rounded view must be taken. This is another case in this long line but it has one unique mark of distinction in that the Elizabeth House site has been identified through the plan-led process as suitable for a cluster of highly visible tall buildings.
6.6.3 The proposal would not prevent appreciation of the outstanding universal value of the WWHS nor would it overwhelm County Hall, the RFH or the RNT. Instead, it would add well designed tall buildings to the scene on a site that ranks amongst the most sustainable for this form of development in London.
1 CD 16/6 – Letter from Metropolis PD of 10/01/08 2 CD 2/7 – Addendum to Design and Access Statement
Page 26 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
6.6.4 If the applicants’ long and thorough engagement with the planning system, and Lambeth’s willingness to be constructive, are to mean anything then they should lead to permission being granted.
7. THE CASE FOR ENGLISH HERITAGE
Inspector’s note: The gist of English Heritage’s case is drawn from the evidence presented to the inquiry (written, visual and oral), the opening statement and closing submission.
7.1 English Heritage’s Approach
7.1.1 In appropriate locations English Heritage has no objection to tall buildings, as demonstrated in their support for the Swiss Re Tower, the Lots Road scheme and 100 Bishopsgate1. However, the development of Elizabeth House, as proposed in the current application, would cause substantial harm to the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas of local, London- wide, national and international significance. It is under a duty, in those circumstances, to advise the Secretary of State accordingly, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s decision to grant planning permission for 7 called-in cases2.
7.1.2 English Heritage recognises that the decision whether or not to grant planning permission rests with the local planning authority or with the Secretary of State. It does not have, and does not pretend to have, the remit or the resources to address and to weigh in the balance all the relevant aspects of planning decisions.
7.1.3 It is nevertheless entitled – indeed it must – advise the decision-maker on the weight which it believes should be accorded to heritage considerations in the decision-making process. In this case, the weight to be given to heritage considerations is very significant. If the harm is substantial, English Heritage considers that a grant of planning permission is virtually inconceivable. The heritage assets that would be harmed are of more than local importance whereas the claimed benefits are not3.
7.1.4 English Heritage’s greatest concern about the Elizabeth House proposal is the effect it would have on the setting of the Palace of Westminster, and the Clock Tower (Big Ben) in particular. Its greatest impact however would be on the setting of the Royal Festival Hall4. This order of priorities accurately reflects the Commission’s view about the application, which itself reflects the relative importance of these two heritage assets5.
7.1.5 English Heritage does not have an objection in principle to any new development being seen from Parliament Square in the gap between Portcullis House and the Clock Tower. Each such development would have to be assessed on its merits. However, any new development that would be visible to any significant extent in the gap would be likely to cause some
1 ID25 – Significant Tall Building cases, Central London 2 ID25 – Significant Tall Building cases, Central London 3 Mr Cooper agreed in cross examination 4 Mr Jones in cross examination 5 CD14/6 - LAC exempt minutes of meeting 5/12/07, paragraph 14.7
Page 27 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
degree of harm to the setting of the Palace of Westminster; and, as a result, English Heritage may have an objection to the development. The strength of any objection will depend on the degree of harm. Here the degree of harm to the Palace of Westminster is substantial; therefore, the objection is a strong one.
7.2 Appropriateness of a Tall Building in this Location
7.2.1 The very large number of policies relevant to assessment of this application has been fully addressed in the Statement of Common Ground, and in evidence, and need not be repeated here. The case put forward establishes the principal policy strands, London Plan downwards, and the way in which the application should be approached and how its effect on the historic environment is to be assessed.
7.2.2 London Plan Policy 4B.9 expects suitable locations for tall buildings to be identified and included in Development Plan Documents and for such buildings to be acceptable in terms of design and impact on surroundings, to be considered against Policies 3A.3, 4B.1 and 4B.10.
7.2.3 Policy 4B.10 requires tall buildings to be “of the highest quality design” and sets out a list of relevant design criteria. Under Policy 4B.1, developments must “respect local context, history, built heritage, character and communities”. Policy 3A.3 provides that “development proposals [should] achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context”.
7.2.4 The Lambeth UDP also includes criteria-based policies for assessing tall building proposals. Policy 40 is clear that tall buildings should enhance London's character, and should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of conservation areas or listed buildings, strategic views and locally significant views, or the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey World Heritage Site.
7.2.5 Policy 33 (“Building Scale and Design”) states that “for development affecting conservation areas or listed buildings (or their setting), protecting or enhancing their character and appearance takes precedence.” The UDP also includes policies for the protection of views, and of the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas.
7.2.6 Tall buildings are buildings over 30m tall, since this is the threshold for applications to be referred to the Mayor, and because it is the “locally based threshold” in the Lambeth UDP. Therefore, the buildings that are proposed in this application, in terms of their height, are greatly in excess of the threshold above which an application would fall to be treated, in policy terms, as an application for a tall building. This does not of course mean that the application is, for that reason, likely not to be acceptable. It does mean, however, that proposals could come forward for the application site for buildings that were much less tall but which would still be “tall buildings” for the purposes of all the relevant policies.
7.2.7 The LVMF recognises in a number of places1 that “new clusters of tall buildings may emerge at the Waterloo Opportunity Area”. Thus, it does not
1 CD7/6 - LVMF, paragraph 5; p 178 paragraph 20
Page 28 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
say that, from a particular viewpoint, new clusters of tall buildings in the Opportunity Area necessarily will emerge; nor that the buildings will necessarily be visible from the viewpoint, nor (if they are) to what extent it is anticipated that they will be visible; nor does the LVMF make any policy judgment about whether or not the development of such buildings would be acceptable.
7.2.8 In identifying the application site, together with adjacent land forming part of the “railway area”, as being suitable for tall buildings1, the WOAPF anticipates that the station cluster will be “highly visible”, so that “a high degree of urban clarity and visibility can be achieved”2. It goes on to indicate that “the highest buildings should be located around the station area with a falling away in height towards the river and other parts of Waterloo”. In so far as the Plan gives any guidance as to what is meant by highly visible, what is said is that the tallest buildings “…could be placed along the northern section of the edge adjacent to York Road and above the station itself … where important views are respected” and “….will be seen from the Golden Jubilee Bridges and Waterloo Bridge and from the south, along Waterloo Road, to help orientation, visibility, placemaking and legibility.”
7.2.9 This degree of visibility could plainly be achieved by buildings that are not as tall as those proposed in this application. In relation to Waterloo Road, visibility from here can be achieved through development at or over the station, not on the application site. There is no suggestion that the buildings on the application site might be seen in the setting of the WWHS or of any of the listed buildings along the South Bank. Whilst it is possible that this might be the outcome of constructing tall buildings in the railway area, the WOAPF does not and could not make any reliable judgment on the acceptability of this, because no assessment was undertaken as part of its preparation of the potential impacts on these heritage assets of developing buildings of any particular heights on any particular parts of the railway area.
7.2.10 The application scheme itself does not in fact altogether comply with the guidance in the WOAPF, since there is no gradation in height away from the northern part of the site: Buildings A and C are comparable in height, and Building B is lower. The WOAPF makes it clear that, while buildings could be at varying heights, there should be a discernible reduction in height away from the station.
7.2.11 In the Tall Buildings Strategy section of the WOAPF the proposals are neither particularly informative nor underpinned by robust analysis. The policy justification for promoting the suggested clusters and specific locational possibilities (including the area above and around the station) are based on the London Plan policies (4B.9 and 4B.10) and the English Heritage/CABE guidance (CD 5/2). However, it acknowledges that the proposals are still to be fleshed out and must be interpreted in the light of adopted policies and guidance3. Furthermore, there is no presumption in
1 CD7/3 - WOAPF paragraphs 108 and 112 2 CD7/3 – WOAPF, page 113 3 CD 7/3 – WOAPF – page 114
Page 29 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
the WOAPF in favour of tall buildings proposals overriding or lessening the weight to be given to policies for protection of the historic environment. It is plain that these matters are to be taken into account.
7.2.12 The WOAPF does not therefore specify any building heights that might be acceptable on the application site, or elsewhere within the Opportunity Area. Nor does it say that any tall building, whatever its height, will be acceptable in locations identified as suitable for tall buildings.
7.2.13 The WOAPF makes reference to a proposed Development Capacity Study1. This Study was never done. Any work undertaken in order to establish the capacity of the area to support new development – in terms of the amount of new floorspace, and thus the number of new jobs and new homes – would have had to have established likely maximum building envelopes in the light (inter alia) of likely impacts on the historic environment.
7.2.14 What has been produced (by Lambeth) is the draft Waterloo SPD (CD 6/2), which is accepted not to be a capacity study2. It has also now been accepted that, in preparing the draft SPD, no analysis was undertaken of the impacts of particular building heights in particular locations in the Waterloo area on heritage assets, including the WHS3.
7.2.15 The draft SPD can be given little weight at this stage, as the results of the consultation exercise have yet to be taken into account by Lambeth; and the form in which it is adopted later this year may therefore be quite different from the present version4. It does not fulfil the function of the Capacity Study. Nor does it have the evidence base or analytic tools to properly assess where tall buildings could be located.
7.2.16 In any event, the draft SPD includes no more than a factual record of the content of the present planning application for Elizabeth House5. It does not seek to reach any conclusions about impact of the proposal on the historic environment, nor as to whether the proposal might be granted planning permission. It therefore does little to advance the policy basis for consideration of the application.
7.2.17 The draft SPD does, however, consistently with the other relevant policy documents, include as one of the design and evaluation criteria for tall buildings in the Waterloo area the following:
“…..not harm the setting or views of conservation areas, historic assets and significant local or London-wide views6.”
7.2.18 As a matter of approach, therefore, the fact that the site is identified as a suitable location for tall buildings is only a starting-point. If the impacts of the proposal on the setting of heritage assets are found to be materially adverse, then in that respect they will be non-compliant with policy at all
1 CD 7/3 – WOAPF, page 120 2 Mr Cooper and Mr Smith agreed in cross examination 3 Mr Katkowski statement day 5 4 Mr Smith agreed in cross examination 5 CD6/2 - Draft Waterloo SPD, pages 78-80 6 CD6/2 - Draft Waterloo pp 33, 37
Page 30 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
levels, and planning permission should be refused, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.3 Design Quality
7.3.1 The criteria for evaluating tall buildings in the English Heritage/CABE guidance include consideration of the architectural quality of the building. The latter criterion is a wide concept, and includes “scale, form, massing, proportion and silhouette, facing materials and relationship to other structures”; in other words, it goes well beyond matters of detailed architectural treatment.
7.3.2 Proper consideration was given to “architectural quality”, in this broad sense. At its meeting on 26 January 2007, LAC members were given a copy of CABE’s letter of 20 December 2006, in which the architecture of the buildings was discussed1. The architectural details of the buildings were also covered in the Report for the LAC meeting on 21 September 20072. LAC members were additionally given two presentations of the scheme by the architects, at which it is reasonable to assume that the virtues of the proposed buildings, including their architectural detailing, were described.
7.3.3 But impacts on heritage assets of the scale, bulk and massing of the proposed buildings are such that they could not be substantially mitigated by the detailed design treatment. No amount of deep incisions or gilt- coloured plates3 could remedy the fact that these buildings are too big to the extent of overwhelming their immediate surroundings with severe adverse effects on important heritage assets.
7.3.4 English Heritage also questions whether the architecture of the scheme is necessarily as outstanding as the applicants believe. In contrast to their position in relation to other tall building proposals, CABE are not convinced that “this quantum of development, distributed on the site in the manner proposed, results in a successful scheme”; are “unconvinced by the overall massing arrangement”; and “are concerned about the bulk and potential wall-like appearance of the office buildings”4. Other distinguished architects have not written in to support the scheme, unlike at Doon Street5. Nor was the Council’s Conservation and Design Team in the least enthused by the architectural quality of the building6. In English Heritage’s submission the quality of the architectural design should not weigh heavily in the balance in this case.
7.4 Effect on Heritage Considerations
7.4.1 English Heritage recognises that cities and their skylines evolve. In the right place, tall buildings can make positive contributions to city life7.
1 CD14/1 - LAC report, 26/1/07, paragraph 4.5 2 CD14/3 – LAC Report, 21/9/07. paras 5.3-5.4 3 Mr Morrison’s proof sections 4.6-4.7 4 CD13/1 – Letter from CABE to LBL, 24/10/07 5 CD19/2 - Inspector’s report , paragraphs 12.17-12.19 6 CD9/5 – Committee report, paragraphs 6.69-6.74, 6.144 7 CD5/2 – English Heritage/CABE guidance paragraph 1.1
Page 31 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
London’s historic buildings and parks are an essential part of its appeal to people who live and work here as well as to visitors, and of its status as a World City. Whilst this aspect of London’s character is bound to undergo change, it is vitally important to the future of London, and to the value of its tourist economy, not to allow it to be seriously undermined. The harm that the application scheme would cause to the setting of some of London’s most important historic buildings is so great that its standing as one of the world’s great cities would be noticeably and irreparably diminished.
7.4.2 Examination of English Heritage’s position in relation to other tall building proposals is likely to yield little of value in terms of the issue that has to be decided in the present case. Its approach to these various proposals has been consistent and properly reasoned, and in each case English Heritage has been careful to identify the degree of harm that it considered the proposal in question would have caused, and to articulate its concerns accordingly.
7.4.3 Equally, it is difficult to make any valid or relevant comparison between the impact on a heritage asset of one proposal and the impact of another one with quite different characteristics. Attempting to compare the impacts of the Doon Street proposal and this application proposal on the settings of the Royal Festival Hall and Royal National Theatre is an example of this. However, what may be observed is the utterly different scale of the two sets of proposals1: the Doon Street tower is taller, but the application scheme has three buildings, which when seen together (as they will be), and with the Shell tower, have an entirely different and much larger scale and massing than the single Doon Street tower.
7.4.4 The same can be said about the impacts of the five permitted schemes on the setting of the WWHS2. Each will have an effect on that setting, and both (to a degree) individually, and cumulatively, that effect will be significant. But these are all single-tower schemes, and the three tallest ones are all substantially further away from Parliament Square than the Elizabeth House site3. The impact of the application proposal would therefore be of a quite different order of magnitude.
7.4.5 In this case, the test of whether the scheme would spoil or transform any important views that are hitherto unspoilt by modern intrusions4 is wrong. Such a test is nowhere stated in those terms in policy, nor (it seems) in any relevant decision of the Secretary of State5. Whilst it is of course relevant to identify the existing setting of a listed building or conservation area, or the components of a view, including any modern intrusions, before assessing the likely impact of new development on it, it cannot be right to take the view, as a matter of principle, that there can be no adverse impact on the setting of such a building or area, or on a view, if that setting or view is already damaged by modern development. Even where modern
1 Compare images of Doon Street proposal in ID31 with CD2/17 pp 31 (M1), 107 (M38) 2 Doon Street, Shards, Blackfriars, Island Block, York Road 3 Elizabeth House 0.8km (CD2/17 p 51 of 193); Blackfriars 1.7km (CD19/22 paragraph 13.74); Shards c.2.5km; Doon Street c.1km 4 Mr Golding’s proof paragraph 11 5 Mr Golding agreed in cross examination
Page 32 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
development can be seen in a setting or view, this does not necessarily justify allowing a further such intrusion1.
7.4.6 There is adequate visual material on the basis of which to make a properly informed assessment of the likely impacts of the development, and their severity, on heritage assets. However, it must be remembered that these images have not been presented in “real scale” and that they do not and cannot represent what the eye will actually see if the development is built and the viewer stands in the locations for which images have been produced. Standing in one or more of these locations2 demonstrates how much more immediately apparent the existing buildings are in the view than they appear in the photographs to understand that the development, if it is built, will also be more apparent and immediate to the viewer than the images suggest3.
Westminster World Heritage Site
7.4.7 In 2006 UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee expressed concerns about the impact of tall buildings on the setting of the WWHS and the inadequacy of planning policies to offer the expected level of protection. However, with reassurance of management plans, commencement of a DVIS and inclusion of statutorily protected view, the committee decided not to place the site on the ‘in danger’ list4.
7.4.8 Views of the Palace of Westminster from within Parliament Square provide an opportunity to clearly appreciate its architectural significance and silhouette in relation to its wider setting. The gap between the Clock Tower and Portcullis House is an integral part of the clarity and appreciation of this view, as it allows the architectural form and detail to be read against the open sky. The gap ensures that the eye is immediately drawn to the soaring architectural form of the tower. Views P2 and P3 (CD 2/17) illustrate the striking clarity of the silhouette of the Palace of Westminster and demonstrate that in some views County Hall is the only built form visible, the roof of which sits quite low down in those prospects.
7.4.9 If the development is built, parts of all three buildings would be clearly visible in the gap, substantially filling it up to around the level of the eaves of Portcullis House and the roof of the Palace of Westminster, depending on one’s precise location. Thus, Portcullis House and the Palace of Westminster would become visually connected by substantial development that lies only about 800m away. The ability to appreciate the form and striking clarity of the silhouette of the Clock Tower would become more difficult, thus eroding the ability to appreciate and to understand the outstanding universal value of this element within the WHS. The clear vista looking out of the Square towards Westminster Bridge would be lost, as would Charles Barry’s architectural intention to link the Palace with the River.
1 CD19/10 – Island Site, Inspector’s Report paragraph 209 penultimate sentence, Mr Golding agreed in cross examination 2 E.g. CD2/17 views M16, M22, P1 3 Mr Golding agreed in cross examination 4 CD 21/4 – World Heritage Committee Decision 31 COM 7B.91, 31/7/07
Page 33 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
7.4.10 The applicants accept that there are places from within Parliament Square from where the view is not currently spoiled by modern intrusions1. Whilst the Shell tower is also seen from within Parliament Square, it is an agreed fact that the application scheme would be visible on its own from a large part of the Square, and that the scheme would be visible together with the Shell tower from only a relatively small part of the south-east corner of the Square2. In any case, the Shell tower is not of a scale approaching the proposed development, which would give the impression of being continuous in the skyline.
7.4.11 It would be wrong to place considerable reliance on the draft DVIS3, and the extent to which the development would or would not be visible from the viewing points identified in that document, as it is at such an early stage in its progress towards publication in its final form4. It has not even been agreed as a draft amongst the members of the Steering Group responsible for producing it: the current version is a first draft, prepared by consultants with assistance from EH staff, and comments from members of the Group are presently awaited. In short, if the setting on the Palace of Westminster would be harmed by the development from viewpoints from which it would be seen from Parliament Square, whether or not these have been identified as key or optimum views in the DVIS, then permission should be refused.
7.4.12 In all, the development would appear as a very large and very unsympathetic intrusion into one of the most cherished and best-known urban landscapes in the world. It should be rejected for this reason alone.
Listed Buildings
County Hall – Grade II*
7.4.13 County Hall is an important landmark on the South Bank, justifiably listed as Grade II* for its high historic and architectural value. The profile of its roofline, with its chimney and central fleche, is substantially undisturbed by more recent development. In existing view M26 (CD 2/17) the northern end of County Hall is seen against the backdrop of the Shell tower but its influence is peripheral. It is also overhung to a small extent by the London Eye but the transparency and lightness of that structure do not cause it to dominate the listed building.
7.4.14 By contrast, the Elizabeth House proposal would soar above the roofline of County Hall in important views from Westminster Bridge, Westminster Pier and Victoria Embankment5. The sheer mass of the three new tall buildings would transform the setting of County Hall, towering over it and diminishing its significance. It is easy enough to employ the incantation that “County Hall is a strong enough building to withstand a building behind”6, but it is not true if applied to the three massive buildings proposed in this
1 CD2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Views P2, P3 2 CD8/5 – Analysis of Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square and Metropolitan Views, page 5 3 CD21/12 – Dynamic Visual Impact Study 4 ID40 – Note in relation to DVIS 5 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Views M25, M26 and M27 6 CD10/1 - Mayor’s Stage 1 Letter and Report, July 2008, paragraph 83
Page 34 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
application. The imposing symmetry of County Hall’s river façade would be severely disturbed by the proposed development; and in view M251, the new buildings would effectively complete the subjugation of County Hall already begun by the Shell tower in this view. The ability to appreciate the building against the open sky would be lost.
Royal Festival Hall (RFH) – Grade I
7.4.15 As one of the first post-war buildings to be listed as Grade I, the RFH’s architectural and historical pre-eminence is confirmed. It is London’s most famous post-war public concert hall and cultural centre. It is described as a “landmark in the view” in LVMF Assessment Points 15A.1, 15A.2 and 20B.1.
7.4.16 The effect on the setting of the RFH would be most severe from LVMF designated viewing points on Victoria Embankment and Waterloo Bridge (Viewing Places 15A and 20B). The extent of the harm can be seen in Image M38, view from Waterloo Bridge (CD 2/17), which offers one of the finest prospect of both banks of the river. The new development, in combination with the Shell tower, would introduce a continuous backdrop of development above the RFH with no apparent distinction or division between the various components. The RFH would appear architecturally and functionally subservient and lose its command of this view; its setting and architectural prominence on the river would be lost. A similar effect would be seen in Image M37, view from Embankment Gardens (CD 2/17).
7.4.17 The proposal has the potential for the greatest harm on the setting of the RFH – greater than that caused to other heritage assets. This is a building of national importance, the setting and architectural form of which would be seriously harmed.
Royal National Theatre (RNT) – Grade II*
7.4.18 The geometric balance of horizontal planes and verticals, that so preoccupied the architect Denys Lasdun, is evident in views of the RNT from the Victoria Embankment, directly opposite the theatre. The fly towers are prominent and seen in a dramatic and unusual panorama comprising a number of tall elements (CD 2/17 View M1). In this view, the new development would be seen aligning very closely to the flytower of the Olivier Theatre and would considerably reduce the contribution made by a major element of the building. The relationship between the horizontal and vertical elements and the careful massing of solid and void would be compromised.
Conservation Areas and LVMF views
South Bank Conservation Area
7.4.19 The development would detract from the quality, appearance and architectural integrity and settings of the individual buildings in the conservation area that are visually prominent in it and contribute to its character, namely County Hall, the RFH and the RNT. The visual and
1 CD2/17 p 79
Page 35 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
physical dominance of the new buildings would consequently harm the setting of this conservation area.
Roupell Street Conservation Area
7.4.20 The terraces of listed buildings that make up most of this conservation area have high evidential, historic and aesthetic value. This is essentially an unchanged residential quarter valued by those who live there. The proposed development would be highly visible in views along the length of its 3 principal streets, Roupell Street, Whittlesey Street and Theed Street (CD 2/17 Views L1 and M6). Existing tall buildings are visible from parts of the conservation area but the scale of this development would wreak such a significant and harmful change and unlike the Doon Street tower, it would be visible from most of the conservation area.
Waterloo Conservation Area
7.4.21 The area is characterised by fine-grained, low rise developments of the C19 and early C20, of a mix of uses with many listed buildings. The Grade II* listed St John the Evangelist Church is an important landmark fronting Waterloo Road1. Its silhouette, visible against the open sky, has been adversely affected by background tall buildings in a number of views2. With the new Building A soaring above the tower, at some 50m higher than the existing Elizabeth House, the scale and significance of the church from these views would be diminished more so than it is at present. Equally, the development would be seen rising substantially above the roofline of the Grade II listed Regency Terraces on Stamford Street3. Harm to the settings of these listed buildings would adversely affect the setting of the conservation area.
LVMF Views
Linear View 8A.1 – Westminster Pier to St Paul’s Cathedral4
7.4.22 Attention would be diverted from St Paul’s Cathedral which, framed by the RFH and Shell Centre, forms the centrepiece of this view. The proposal would also impinge upon and detract from the roofline of County Hall.
LVMF River Prospect 15, 18 and 20: Waterloo Bridge5, Westminster Bridge6, and Victoria Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridges7
7.4.23 Building A would dominate the foreground of these views, distracting from the horizontality of the RFH. The architectural and historic significance of County Hall would be damaged, as its prominence would be diminished.
1 CD 6/6 – Waterloo Conservation Area Statement 2 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M6. From Secker Street, and its junction with Cornwall Road, and from the western ends of Theed Street and Whittlesey Street the church tower is seen against the background of the existing Elizabeth House northernmost building. 3 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M4 4 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M26 5 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Views M38 and M39 6 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M25 7 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M27
Page 36 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
7.4.24 Harm to the setting of the Waterloo Conservation Area, likely harm to the settings of other conservation areas (Whitehall, Savoy and Strand) and to LVMF linear views referred to above add to the weight of objection resulting from the impacts on the WWHS, County Hall, RFH, RNT and South Bank Conservation Area. However, if the Secretary of State does not find these compelling, then a refusal of planning permission cannot be justified solely because of the impacts of the development on these other heritage assets and views.
7.5 Benefits of the Scheme
7.5.1 The development could link in to a renewed and revitalised station; but this forms no part of the proposal. For this reason, and because policy requires that any redevelopment of the site must be broken up and must improve visual and pedestrian connections between the station and the Shell Centre1, little weight should be given to this prospective benefit.
7.5.2 The financial contributions included in the S106 are put forward on the basis that they are necessary in order to make the development acceptable2. Any other application for the development of the site would also have to offer contributions which would be likely to be of the same kind, if not necessarily in the same amounts, as those offered in the present case3.
7.5.3 The amount of affordable housing offered as part of the development is limited4. Although the S106 includes an overage provision, it seems highly unlikely that this will ever have effect. The scheme is not presently viable5. The overage is to be calculated upon implementation of the development6. Since it seems inevitable that implementation will take place in a rising market, it is hard to envisage circumstances in which these provisions will come into play. Even if they did, the maximum overage payment of £1.88million7 would only fund perhaps up to 25 additional affordable units8, and there would still be a shortfall against the policy target.
7.5.4 Furthermore, the significant financial contribution which is to be made to Jubilee Gardens is, in a sense, at the expense of affordable housing, the provision of which is a policy priority, because it is understood to be the lack of amenity space in the development that has led to the requirement for a contribution on this scale.
7.5.5 The weight to be attributed to the public realm improvement and permeability benefits, whilst these would plainly be significant, must be tempered by the fact that these are requirements of the UDP and therefore would have to be provided as part of any scheme of redevelopment. Equally, for any development to accord with the relevant policies would have to provide for new jobs and homes.
1 CD6/1 - UDP, page 199 MDO 92 2 LBL officer comment during conditions/S106 session on day 6 of the inquiry 3 Mr Ball for WCDG agreed in cross examination 4 46 units = 17% 5 ID19 – Summary of Valuations 6 ID27 – S106 p 39 Schedule 3 pt 2 paragraphs 1.1, 1.6(b), 3.1 7 Ibid paragraph 3.2 8 Mr Ball agreed in cross examination – not contested by applicants
Page 37 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
7.6 Conclusions
7.6.1 These proposals would be very seriously harmful to the setting of heritage assets of huge architectural and symbolic significance to the nation. It is English Heritage’s responsibility to advise the Secretary of State of these implications. Whilst recognising that there is always a balance to be struck, the damage that would be caused to the historic environment by the proposal could not be outweighed by other considerations.
8. THE CASE FOR WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (WCC)
Inspector’s note: The gist of WCC’s case is drawn from the evidence presented to the inquiry (written, visual and oral), the opening statement and closing submission.
8.1 WCC’s case is based on four propositions:
1) The decision whether to grant or refuse planning permission will depend on balancing competing considerations.
2) While the WOAPF promotes a highly visible cluster of tall buildings (above 30m) at Waterloo Station, it does not require three buildings in the particular arrangement of location, height and scale of the application proposal.
3) There would be clear harm to the setting of the Palace of Westminster and the WHS and to views from Westminster based listed buildings.
4) There is no evidence to suggest that the benefits of the proposal can only be provided by a scheme in this or similar form.
8.2 Architectural and Design Quality
8.2.1 Mr Morrison is an architect of the very first rank. However, an architect is only able to be as good as the location they have to work with and the brief from their clients. It was said in evidence on behalf of the applicants that the brief to the architect did not expressly include a minimum volume of development. It is equally clear that the broad range of the amount of accommodation to be provided was inherent in a design that would win the competition and then evolve with the site owners’ support.
8.2.2 This leaves the architect with the scope for creating a building that is visually pleasing and which will create new public realm. But, it does not leave the architect with very much scope for taking into account the guidance of the WOAPF (CD 7/3), which is to take into account the area’s heritage assets and their settings, impact on views and on the WWHS.
8.2.3 Design is not simply a matter of the appearance of the buildings in a vacuum and the quality of materials chosen1; it is also a matter of scale. Each of the proposed buildings alone is in the region of the height of Centrepoint, and as tall as the Shell tower or Millbank Tower2. None of the buildings is of the conventional “tower” proportions with the height to width
1 CD 19/22 – Inspector’s Report on the Blackfriars Towers, paragraph 13.2 2 ID 43 – Site Visit Map denotes heights of buildings
Page 38 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
ratio giving a slender appearance, which has often been a key element of the architectural quality of the buildings, as well as playing a key part in any judgment of the degree of impact on any views in previous “tall or super tall” buildings cases1.
8.2.4 From many views the buildings would appear and read as a single visual block. This is different even to a cluster where the buildings still read with separate vertical emphasis. What is certainly clear is that it is simply not appropriate to be talking about “towers” or “slender” buildings in this case2.
8.2.5 There can be no doubt of the magnitude of the scale of change. To use the phrase “ a wall of development” is crude and certainly does not reflect the architectural intention. Nevertheless in the significant views from Parliament Square and of the listed buildings from the river, Buildings A and B would mostly appear with no gap between them. This is not a “tower” case. There is no room for the considerations of slender pleasing profiles which have, for instance, been a factor in the decisions of the Shards of Glass and Blackfriars Towers cases (CDs 19/15 and 19/21).
8.2.6 In this case, the architects have been set a different challenge to producing the stand alone but slender and elegant tower. They have been required to design three buildings close together and in doing so to produce as much development on the site as it is considered has an appropriate chance of obtaining planning permission. Although it is said no explicit floorspace targets were included in the brief, it is clear the sort of scale the developers have always been seeking to place on the site, through the legitimate involvement in seeking alteration of planning policy.
8.3 Planning Policy Position
8.3.1 Planning policy affecting this proposal is not unusual or even controversial until the last documents in the series (i.e. the WOAPF3 and the Lambeth Waterloo SPD4). The London Plan and the UDP provide for tall buildings to be sited at locations of high public transport accessibility or where they can be the focus of regeneration. Both these Plans define tall buildings in the application site location as over 30m.
8.3.2 However, planning policy does not say that a location next to a mainline station and an area which would be assisted by regeneration leads inexorably to tall buildings or that only tall buildings can achieve the appropriate balance of considerations. Policies at a strategic level reflect a balance between growth and the benefits of tall buildings and the need to adequately preserve heritage assets, which themselves provide part of the attraction of London for investment and can aid regeneration5.
1 See for instance the dimensions and appearance of the Doon Street tower in ID 31 compared to the dimensions and appearance of the proposed buildings in views WCC2, RA3. 2 WCC2 - Mr Ayton Appendix 1 or for views RA4, RA5 and RA6 set in wider context CD 8/10 pages 7,9/11. 3 CD 7/3 4 CD 6/2 5 CD 7/1 – London Plan, paragraph 4.125
Page 39 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
8.3.3 Paragraph 5.140 of the London Plan expressly dealing with the Waterloo opportunity area states that “….tall buildings should cluster on and around the station”. UDP Policy 33 (CD 6/1) is perhaps a little more in favour of the preservation of the setting of listed buildings and UDP Policy 40 dealing with tall buildings is similarly concerned with listed buildings and the WWHS.
8.3.4 The WOAPF is the high point of the applicants’ case. It has the status of adopted SPD, which gives it considerable weight, but it cannot override or extend development plan policy. WCC recognises that tall buildings are also dealt with in the sub-regional development framework for Central London ( May 2006) . However whilst this repeats the guidance elsewhere it does not really add to it for the purposes of this inquiry.
8.3.5 The WOAPF in any case does not give predetermined carte blanche in the way suggested by the applicants. Firstly, the WOAPF does not give any express indication that the normal definition of tall buildings needs redefining or would be inappropriate in this location. It does not suggest that the cluster should be visible from all view points or all directions. In fact, it is clear that it is meant to indicate the presence of the station to those already relatively close to it who are either crossing the river towards the South Bank or are already in the Waterloo area south of the station (WOAPF page 113). The “highly visible” reference does not promote buildings of the height and scale proposed here. Indeed, it does not even require visibility from across the river.
8.3.6 In the absence of a Waterloo Development Capacity Study (as referred to in the WOAPF page 114), and with the potential for the Waterloo SPD to change before its adoption, there is no evidence of anybody having done any analysis of various heights or arrangements of buildings on this site and their effects on capacity and views. References to the Elizabeth House site in the WOAPF simply record the current proposals.
8.3.7 Analysis of policy relating to the proposal is a circuitous journey and comes back to the balance between the harm to heritage assets and benefits of the scheme.
8.4 Heritage Considerations
The Palace of Westminster and the World Heritage Site
8.4.1 The correct approach is to judge the importance of the view and then consider the effect of the proposal on it. The images depicted in the ES (CD 2/17) are not inaccurate but misleading to a degree, due to the wide angle photography used for the views. The wide angle lens tends to emphasise perspective by making nearer objects appear larger than they are and distant ones appear smaller. The effect is acknowledged in the LVMF (CD 7/6 page A18) and is apparent in the view from Parliament Square images, which show the proposed towers appearing more distant than they would do in reality. Images in WCC2 Appendix 1, when held at arm’s length, are closer to reality.
8.4.2 Views of the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Square are of national and international significance and many are very sensitive to change,
Page 40 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
especially large scale development in the background. The views are recognised in the Site Management Plan1 and the plan is in no doubt about how they can be affected by development2. The DVIS also emphasises the importance of the views of the Clock Tower and the Palace of Westminster from the viewing place3, i.e. the whole of the central island of Parliament Square.
8.4.3 The gap between the Clock Tower and Portcullis House makes a significant contribution to the views from Parliament Square by signifying the relationship between the Palace of Westminster and the River Thames. It allows the architectural form and silhouette of the tower to be seen against the open sky. The new buildings would fill and hence reduce the whole width of the gap. In doing so, they will reduce the appreciation of Big Ben against the open sky and reduce appreciation of the asymmetry of Westminster Palace4.
8.4.4 One of the key qualities of the Clock Tower (its vertical asymmetric dominance of the Palace) derives, in significant part at least, from the lack of any serious and nearby challenge to it. The fact that it stands against open sky emphasizes its size and importance. Its visual domination and ability to draw and hold the eye is its special architectural history and not a reason for ignoring any change in its setting. Furthermore, any extent to which the settings of listed buildings and of the WWHS may be damaged already by other buildings drifting in and out of the views, makes their remaining qualities and undamaged elements even more valuable.
8.4.5 In architectural and planning terms there is no comparison of magnitude between the changes to the view and the effect of the Shell tower and the recently permitted proposals (ID8) compared with the proposed scheme and the extent of Parliament Square from which they would fill and materially detract from the current value of the view. The Shell tower is only visible from a small area of the Square, whereas the three new buildings would be seen from a much larger area (ID32). At night the gap appears dark. The residential element of the new development with its extensive glazing is likely to appear highly illuminated and prominent, again detracting from the views and setting of the Clock Tower.
8.4.6 In WCC’s opinion, there would be a serious threat to the OUV of the WWHS and could result in its addition to the Endangered List.
Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area5
8.4.7 There are a large number of Grade I listed buildings in this conservation area, including the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, St Margaret’s Church and the Jewel Tower. Middlesex Hall, Methodist Central Hall, 11 Great George Street and Westminster Bridge are listed Grade II*. The
1 CD 5/10 – WWHS Management Plan, paragraphs 1.6.4.2, 2.3.3.2 and 2.3.3.3 2 CD 5/10 - WWHS Management Plan, paragraph 3.1.3.2 3 CD 21/12 – DVIS, page 4
4 CD 2/17, view P2 and WCC2 RA views 1 and 2
5 CD 6/12 – Conservation Area Audit
Page 41 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
proposal would affect the settings of these buildings and views of important elements that contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Other Westminster Conservation Areas and LVMF Views
8.4.8 The new towers would be visible from conservation areas with river frontages – Smith Square, Whitehall, Savoy and Strand and would harm river prospect views identified in the LVMF. WCC adopts English Heritage’s case in respect of the impact in these views. In effect, harm to the settings of County Hall, RFH and RNT would adversely impact on views out of the Westminster conservation areas.
Overall Balance of Considerations
8.4.9 Mr Ball’s unchallenged evidence for Waterloo Community Development Group suggests that the applicants would not build out the consented schemes on the site. There is no evidence that there is a realistic chance of the permission being actually taken up and constructed, should the Secretary of State refuse permission. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary since both Mr Morrison and Mr Cooper (for the applicants) agreed that, if there was a refusal, the owners of the site would reconsider their development proposal in the light of the guidance to be gained from the Inspector’s report and the Secretary of State’s decision letter.
8.4.10 There is no evidence that the application scheme is the only viable configuration. The viability appraisals put into the inquiry are linked to the quantum of affordable housing to be provided by this scheme and can provide no guidance on viability of another scheme. The applicants have chosen not to put any viability evidence for particular options. It may be said that at the moment no development is viable and it is possible that could be demonstrated but the decision in this case must look beyond the most immediate economic circumstances.
8.4.11 The S106 package appears to have been influential in gaining the support of the WCDG1. LBL are clear that each and every contribution passes the test in Circular 5/05. However, all this demonstrates is that Lambeth would seek the necessary S106 package in considering every proposal to come forward on this site, which would have to be in accord with the Elizabeth House UDP MDO policy in any event.
8.4.12 Finally, there is no evidence that the site (one of five in the railway area alone) should have a particular amount of development on it to fulfil any aspect of planning policy such as the objectives of the WOAPF. The applicants have not put forward any such evidence or analysis and no policy document does so either.
8.4.13 To conclude, there is no evidence before the inquiry to suggest that the benefits of the proposals can only be provided by a scheme in this or similar form. If permitted, the harm to heritage assets would be permanent and
1 ID35 – Mr Ball’s proof
Page 42 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
irreversible. The consequences of a refusal, whilst hugely frustrating to the applicants, would not be so stark. There would be a further consideration of the future of the site in the light of the guidance provided by the Inspector’s report and the Secretary of State’s decision letter. Whilst this could cause a delay in redevelopment of the site coming forward, it has to be remembered that in addition to the harm these proposals would cause, the applicants already seek an extension of the three year time period for implementation to 5 years.
8.4.14 WCC does not necessarily object to the principle of tall buildings in North Lambeth, provided that important views from the City of Westminster are not harmed. A decision to refuse planning permission would not be any doctrinaire statement against tall buildings. It would neither advance nor derail any other tall building proposals. It would simply be a sustainable planning decision that these proposals in their form and bulk would cause more harm than benefit, and after consideration of the development plan and all other material considerations, the clearly correct decision is to refuse planning permission.
8.4.15 The application proposal represents overdevelopment which would cause unjustified harm to heritage assets. That judgment is not overridden by the WOAPF. The Opportunity Area objectives which themselves include having regard to heritage assets should be fulfilled in a different way.
9. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY OTHER PARTIES APPEARING AT THE INQUIRY (in order of appearance)
9.1 Mr PFJ Lawson – Thorney Island Society (ID9)
9.1.1 By its crude manipulation of an original German built design, the proposed development does not indicate artistic skill but an apparent seeking of a self centred dubious personal ‘icon’ standard. However, the greatest failure would occur in the wider townscape, namely in views from the North Bank, crossing Waterloo Bridge to the Victory Arch and Waterloo Terminus.
9.2 Mr Stuart Balfour – Red Bus Shop (ID34)
9.2.1 Shops occupying the arcade at the existing Elizabeth House complex have changed the locality from an urban wasteland to the thriving tourist location it is today. At Waterloo and Lower Marsh there are niche, family run shops which are vital to the character of the area and should be maintained. While supportive of redevelopment of the site, the grant of planning permission should include a condition to retain the existing outlets.
9.3 Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG)1
9.3.1 WCDG, as the Waterloo community’s land planning group, has given evidence and/or assumed Rule 6 status at over 40 public inquiries. This inquiry is the first for WCDG’s support for tall buildings. The applicants’ have proved to be exemplary in their approach to consultation with the local community since 2007 and responded well to criticism. WCDG is supportive of the application but with some reservations.
1 ID35 – Mr Ball’s Proof of Evidence on behalf of the WCDG
Page 43 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Suitability of the site for tall buildings
9.3.2 The proposal is plan led and the applicants should be commended for the manner in which they argued their case through the plan making processes. WCDG accepts that a key for Waterloo policy is the cluster of tall buildings centred on sites at and around Waterloo Station. However, that does not mean that buildings at heights of 90m or 115m are necessarily appropriate, since each proposal must be judged on its merits.
Design Quality
9.3.3 The benefits of intensifying land use at key transport nodes are apparent and the impact of tall buildings can be minimised or mitigated more easily around the station, while a high quality designed tall building could identify the unique cultural focus of the area. The area currently suffers from the absence of a focal point, characterised instead by tall buildings dotted along the river. The application scheme could help create the missing focal point.
9.3.4 The application also provides the much needed step change in the quality of the public realm and its permeability. The two major spaces between the buildings would allow pedestrians to pass through and guide them towards key destinations in the area. The space along the length of the Waterloo International Terminal would provide opportunities for people to saunter, linger or sit. The environment created would be inclusive, lively and a pleasurable experience in place of the traffic dominated unattractive areas currently experienced by pedestrians. In effect, the design at ground level would be first class. Lack of amenity space would be compensated by contributions towards Jubilee Gardens. The scheme would connect Lower Marsh with the South Bank.
9.3.5 The heights of the proposed towers appear to be commensurate with the concept of a cluster of tall buildings around the station connected to the Shell tower. The unusual twists in the office blocks would provide an attractive commentary and contrast to the fixed solidity of the existing tower without dominating or detracting from it. The buildings would be far enough away from Jubilee Gardens to provide an attractive backdrop without appearing overbearing. The residential tower plays no part in this effect and would feel disconnected. A missed opportunity.
9.3.6 Impact on local views would not always be attractive. Local residents, mostly living east/south of the station, cherish views of the London Eye from Millennium Green and Waterloo Road1. These views would be lost. The views from the south east and from the Imperial War Museum would feel dominated and uninteresting2.
Heritage Considerations
9.3.7 The view from Roupell Street would be significantly harmed3. The conservation area will all but be wrecked by the grotesque intrusions at
1 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View L2 2 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M13 3 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, Views M6 and L1
Page 44 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Elizabeth House, combined with the intrusions of the permitted Doon Street and Blackfriars towers.
9.3.8 WCDG partly agrees with LBL’s analysis insofar as the proposal would enhance the setting of the South Bank Conservation Area and provide a good frame for Jubilee Garden which currently lacks well-defined edges.
9.3.9 The application scheme would interfere in views of County Hall to a far greater extent than the Island Block scheme refused in 20011 and would disturb the balance and grandeur of the listed building. Views of the RFH from Waterloo and Hungerford Bridges would be dominated by the three proposed buildings melding together into an overwhelming group2. Effects on the RNT would be damaging, albeit to a lesser extent, as views of the building at its most brutal and dramatic would be overrun by the bloated bulk of the new office Building A. Sadly, the RNT’s powerful profile has already been undermined by the decision to allow the Doon Street tower.
Affordable Housing
9.3.10 The issue of affordable housing is of significant concern to the local community. It is disappointing that the scheme does not include an appropriate level of affordable units. Despite some concerns about the validity of the viability exercise, WCDG accepts that the overage provision in the S106 is the most viable solution to the problem of combining a feasible scheme with the maximum affordable provision possible.
Microclimate
9.3.11 The areas around the bases of tall towers in Waterloo are notorious for windy, unpleasant conditions for pedestrians. While accepting that the impact of the proposed towers on the microclimate has been tested, the methodology for analysis does not extend to testing outcome against prediction.
9.3.12 The applicants’ evidence suggests that the existing Elizabeth House block contributes to the high winds and poor environment along York Road, there is some concern that the public spaces between the new buildings would be similarly subjected to unacceptable levels of wind and turbulence. More needs to be done at the detailed design stage to improve environmental conditions.
10. WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
10.1 Sir Simon Milton, Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning, writes in to reiterate the Mayor’s supportive position with regard to the application, declaring it consistent with the London Plan and permission should be granted (ID16). Labour Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark, Valerie Shawcross, is equally concerned to stress that the developer has fully satisfied the Mayor and LBL on the heritage aspects of the scheme, and expresses her concerns at the potential for such considerations being given
1 CD 19/9 and 19/10 – SoS decision and Inspector’s report on the Island Block 2 CD 2/17 - Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment, View M38
Page 45 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
too much emphasis at the expense of regenerative redevelopment, public realm and employment benefits likely to be forthcoming (ID10).
10.2 Additional support for the application comes from King’s College London, South Bank Employers’ Group, Shell International Ltd (CDs 1/5-1/7) and Park Plaza Westminster Bridge (WR9). BRB (Residual) Ltd welcome demolition and redevelopment of Elizabeth House (WR7), particularly as the scheme provides for the area west of the Waterloo Terminus to be opened up and its setting enhanced.
10.3 Councillor Gavin Dodsworth objects to the proposal on the grounds of its effect on Lambeth residents due to its adverse effects on the Roupell Street Conservation Area and because the buildings would be architecturally unacceptable. The three buildings would form a wall of concrete and glass with harmful consequences on the area (ID41).
10.4 Paul and Ann Coggle, P Koschel, Mike Gifford, Mike Callaghan and Piyush Dev have concerns about the heights of the buildings, as they would cause windy conditions, obstruct daylight and sunlight and appear disproportionately high when compared to their surroundings (WR1, WR2, WR5, WR6, WR8). Steve Mcginley asks for the bus stop outside the North Block County Hall on York Road to be relocated, as the development would diminish his living conditions through noise and disturbance from increased use of the bus stop (WR3). Mrs Timms considers that the buildings should be designed to allow for flexible use of the spaces to take account of changing economic circumstances. She also asks for the elevated rail track to be screened or the viaduct renovated to improve the entrance to one of London’s major main line stations (WR4).
11. CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
11.1 Conditions
11.1.1 Should planning permission be granted, in my view it should be subject to the conditions listed in Annex B of this Report. The conditions recommended are based on the list (ID37) compiled by LBL and the applicants; they were discussed at length on Day 6 of the inquiry. I have modified the wording of some conditions and combined or deleted others, in the interests of clarity, brevity, compliance with Circular 11/95 or updated policy advice. The reasons for imposing the conditions are adequately explained in ID37. I include brief commentaries where necessary in relation to some conditions. These appear in italicised text following the relevant condition.
11.2 Planning Obligations
11.2.1 The provisions of a draft planning obligation were discussed at the inquiry. The document had not been completed by the time the inquiry closed, as the necessary parties had not signed and a few minor changes had to be made. In the event, a copy of a completed version was sent to me via the Planning Inspectorate by the agreed deadline date of 9 May. This forms the subject of ID27C.
11.2.2 The main provisions of the obligation are:
Page 46 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
• Provision of 46 on-site affordable units with a proportional split of 34:12 social rented: intermediate units and an overage payment for additional off-site units at the time of implementation of the development.
• Submission of an Energy Statement and implementation of its measures.
• A sum of £430,322 towards the provision of additional school places.
• A sum of £527,694 towards community facilities (health, library and sports and leisure).
• Public Art works involving restoration and refurbishment of the parts of Victory Arch revealed after demolition of the existing Elizabeth House.
• Public realm works in accordance with a landscape and public realm strategy.
• A sum of £50,000 towards improvements between the site and Lower Marsh
• A sum of £1,500,000 towards improvements of Jubilee Gardens.
• A sum of £100,000 towards a City Square study.
• Off-site highway works in accordance with highway works schemes to be agreed with LBL and TfL.
• A Travel Plan
• Waiver of rights for residents to obtain parking permits.
• A sum of £300,000 towards the improvement of bus services.
• A sum of £10,000 towards monitoring of parking in the vicinity of the site.
• A deliveries and servicing management plan.
• Commitment to considerate constructors’ scheme.
• Mitigating measures relating to TV reception.
• A sum of £600,000 towards local labour training.
Page 47 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
12. INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS
Numbers in square brackets refer to paragraphs in earlier sections of the Report.
12.1 My reasoning and conclusions are broadly structured on the basis of the matters about which the Secretary of State wishes to be informed (Annex A). I have taken the liberty of referring to the main matters as issues and disaggregated the key components of each issue before concluding on it. The policy framework is set out in Section 3 of this Report. I have considered the core issues against the relevant provisions of the development plan. Approaching it in this way obviates the need to separately consider whether the scheme complies with the London Plan or Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) – matters (c) and (d) in the call-in letter.
12.2 My reasoning includes an overall balance of considerations which draws together my conclusions on the main issues and takes account of subsidiary matters debated in the evidence and at the inquiry.
12.3 Issue 1: The appropriateness of tall buildings in this location and the extent to which the proposal is consistent with policies in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development for the promotion of high quality, inclusive design in terms of function and impact, which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area
Policy principles of locating a tall building on the application site
12.3.1 Policy 4B.9 of the London Plan offers support for tall buildings that create attractive landmarks, provide a coherent location for economic clusters and/or act as a catalyst for regeneration. Boroughs are urged to work with the Mayor to identify suitable locations which may include Central Activities Zones (CAZ) and Opportunity Areas. The application site falls within a CAZ, where capacity through redevelopment is encouraged (Policy 5G.2) and also falls to be considered within the policy framework of an Opportunity Area where developments are expected to maximise residential and non- residential densities. [3.1.3, 3.1.4, 6.1.5]
12.3.2 The London Plan additionally refers to the scope for tall buildings to cluster on and around Waterloo Station. The suitability of tall buildings above and around the station is given further credence in the Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework (WOAPF). Its tall building strategy confirms that the choice of location is justified not only for the opportunities for regenerating the area around the station, but also because of factors such as the potential for tall buildings to act as a catalyst for wider regenerative development opportunities, for giving greater legibility to Waterloo and the lack of conservation constraints at the station, amongst others. The WOAPF is a plan-led document, flowing from the London Plan’s identification of the Waterloo Opportunity Area and was adopted following a legitimate process of stakeholder consultation. It is therefore an important material consideration. [3.1.5, 6.1.3, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 8.3.3, 8.3.4]
Page 48 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
12.3.3 Of the five possible development areas within the “Railway Area” shown in the WOAPF , Elizabeth House and surrounds (Area 1) is identified as a location where the highest buildings could be provided to accommodate mixed uses and development is to be treated as part of a new highly visible “station cluster”. In recognition of this strategy, the London View Management Framework (LVMF) refers to the prospect of a cluster of tall buildings at Waterloo, in relation to a range of managed views. [6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.8, 7.2.7, 7.2.8]
12.3.4 Tall buildings find support in Policy 40 of the UDP, where they would contribute to the focus and momentum of regeneration and are located in an area of high transport accessibility. The definition of tall buildings is confined to 30m in this instance but, for the purposes of the London Plan Policy 4B.9, tall buildings are those significantly higher than their surroundings. The emerging Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which seeks to bring together the policies and proposals of the UDP and WOAPF, sets out a building height framework for new district landmarks of 65-110m and expects development proposals at the Elizabeth House site (MDO92) to contribute to the cluster of tall buildings around Waterloo Station. [3.1.6, 3.1.7, 6.1.16]
Scheme’s compliance with the Tall Buildings policy framework
12.3.5 There is no doubt about the applicants’ diligence in pursuing a tall buildings option at the Elizabeth House site through the plan-led process. Indeed, they exemplify the sort of collaboration and plan-led approach advocated in the English Heritage/CABE guidance on tall buildings. In so doing, they have succeeded in reflecting the strategic and local policy framework that establishes the appropriateness of, indeed the strong desire to, position buildings significantly taller than their surroundings as part of a cluster of such buildings at and around Waterloo Station, with the application site singled out for such treatment in the WOAPF. As a prominent site in the locality and with considerable scope for a scheme to bring forward environmental improvements, tall buildings in this locality would represent the catalyst for regenerating this Opportunity Area. [6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 9.3.2]
12.3.6 Tall buildings on the application site would additionally comply with the policy requirement to maximise development in an Opportunity Area, taking full advantage of the high transport accessibility of its location and contributing significantly to the supply of employment and new homes in the area. In these respects, the concept of introducing buildings of the height proposed on the site would reflect the aspirations and strategic objectives for the area. [6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.11, 9.3.3]
12.3.7 Placing Building C, the highest of the three proposed, to the south of the site does not accord with the WOAPF concept of locating the tallest buildings around the northern section of the edge adjacent to York Road. However, in itself that breach should not be regarded as a failure of the scheme to reflect the townscape requirements of the WOAPF. Equally, the absence of a Development Capacity Study of the kind mentioned in the WOAPF should not prevent proper consideration of this or any other tall buildings scheme covered by the document, as the analysis of heights and arrangements of
Page 49 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
buildings would inevitably be carried out in relation to individual applications. [7.2.8, 7.2.10, 7.2.13, 8.3.6]
12.3.8 The UDP limit of 30m for tall buildings has already been exceeded by the tallest section of the current Elizabeth House complex and the application permitted in 1994 sets the precedent for a height of at least 57m AOD. The draft Waterloo SPD may be more specific about the heights of buildings anticipated, but neither the WOAPF, nor the London Plan or the UDP are prescriptive about the heights of buildings required to attain “high visibility” or “pride of place” or to help with orientation, placemaking or legibility. Such characteristics have to be assessed alongside other issues and must depend on the circumstances of each particular case. [4.2, 6.1.12, 7.2.12, 8.3.5]
12.3.9 Equally, the enthusiasm and policy support for tall buildings in this, or any other location in the City and Borough, is tempered by the need to have regard to design quality, local context and historic environment, amongst other planning considerations, as explained in London Plan Policies 3A.3, 4B.1 and 4B.10, and UDP Policy 40. The site specific support for tall buildings in this location may be the starting point but cannot on its own point to the acceptability of the application proposal. The architectural and design quality of the scheme, impact on historic context and a number of other considerations have a material bearing, which lead me to the PPS1 or design part of the first issue [3.1.2, 3.1.4, 6.1.15, 6.4.6, 7.2.18, 8.1, 9.3.2, 10.1]
Consistency with PPS1/Design Quality
12.3.10 The English Heritage/CABE guidance lists the areas for evaluating the success of a tall building. These give detailed expression to the broad aspects of design covered in PPS1 and provide the necessary tools for considering the quality of the proposed development. That is how I approach the assessment below and with the strategic and local policy context in mind. Effects on historic context and on the WWHS, as identified in the English Heritage/CABE evaluation process, form the subject of the second issue. [6.4.1]
Relationship to context, contribution to public space, permeability and architectural quality of the buildings
12.3.11 The area around Waterloo Station is host to a variety of activities and uses. The area is characterised by a liveliness brought about by the intensive coming and going of people between the station and South Bank, the mix of commercial, retail, eating and drinking outlets and residential properties at the Shell complex, County Hall buildings and developments to the south of the application site. The proposed development would add to this mix with its own combination of retail, residential and commercial uses. [2.2.1, 5.1]
12.3.12 The application layout proposes changes that would transform the perception of what is now an unpleasant, traffic dominated area with poor links to the station from the river and South Bank. In place of the impenetrable mass of the present Elizabeth House, the scheme would introduce pleasant public spaces between the three buildings, physically and visually connecting Waterloo Station with the wider area. Active frontages at ground level and an enhanced public realm would provide people with
Page 50 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
reasons to pause, linger and engage with the development. [2.2.1, 6.2.1, 6.4.5, 6.5.6, 7.5.5, 9.3.4]
12.3.13 The space between the International Terminal building and the application site would be considerably improved. The proposed landscaping would render it a user friendly and welcoming area of public space, giving more incentive to wander and explore the shopping areas at Lower Marsh. The scheme additionally allows for future integration with a re-planned station and the City Square. [5.2, 5.3, 6.1.18, 6.2.2, 7.5.1, 9.2.1]
12.3.14 The three towers proposed would be considerably higher than buildings in their immediate surroundings, though consciously designed to approximate the height of the Shell tower. They would not, by reason of height alone, individually appear out of place against buildings such as the LWT tower and the Island Block site, or in relation to the permitted schemes at Doon Street or the Shell podium site. As a group of three, the towers would represent the start of a cluster envisaged at and around the station. While initially appearing overly tall within the immediate core of York Road, in time the impact of buildings of such heights would lessen as the area regenerates and evolves as anticipated. [2.2.1, 2.2.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.18, 6.1.19, 9.3.5]
12.3.15 My observations above demonstrate that there is much in the layout and masterplanning of the site that measures up to the high quality expected from a practice of the standing and experience of the architects - Allies and Morrison. Unfortunately, the success of the scheme is severely compromised, in my opinion, by the appearance of the buildings, the way they would relate to each other and the resulting effects on their surroundings. [6.2.8, 6.2.9, 8.2.1]
12.3.16 To start with, the composition is disconcerting due to the contrast in the modelling and appearance of the office buildings and the residential tower. The segmented triangular shape of the latter, and its deeply incised masonry façades, would bear no resemblance to the forms or façade treatments on the pair of office buildings alongside. In distant and close views the residential tower would appear visually disconnected from the cluster. With buildings so closely positioned and designed to function together at ground level, a degree of consistency and complementary relationship is desirable, in my view. The concept of the triangular block as a stasis, while good on paper, would not be so perceived on the ground. [5.4, 6.2.2, 6.2.5]
12.3.17 The design of the office buildings is intriguing in the way the structure twists and the facades sparkle with coloured, folded plates fixed to the eastern and western facing glazed walls. However, the ingenuity of these devices would not overcome fundamental issues of width to height proportions and uncomfortable massing of the two towers. To my mind, the arrangement of plates on the elevations and the twisted geometry would reinforce the ungainly bulk of the office buildings. Photographic images and the application plans clearly illustrate the way in which the towers would appear distended with little of the pleasing elegance required of buildings of such prominence and height. The contrast with the simple solidity of the Shell tower would be stark and disturbing. [6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6, 6.2.7, 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 8.2.3, 9.3.5]
Page 51 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
12.3.18 Trees on the roof of Building B would only serve to highlight the uninteresting tops and profiles of the two office buildings which would not, in my opinion, represent attractive additions to the skyline. There is also concern in the way the buildings would meet the ground. The lightness of frameless glazed facades at ground level would be compromised by the disturbing effects of the canted colonnade and the visual bulk of the floors above. I am not convinced that the gesturing intended by inflections in the two office towers would be apparent to those approaching or leaving the station. [6.2.3, 6.2.4]
12.3.19 I have similarly strong reservations about the appearance of the residential tower. There is logic to the deep incisions in the masonry façades which would function well with the internal layout of individual apartments. And I understand the reasons for the stepping down arrangement of the three segmental sections. Nevertheless, the resulting effect is neither pleasing nor visually convincing. The shortest of the three segments would appear disproportionately bulky, while cutting short the two segments and the blade like appearance of the tallest section would give the building an unfinished look. [6.2.5, 7.3.3]
12.3.20 As pieces of architecture, neither Building C nor the two office towers would possess the balanced, sculptural or elegant qualities crucial to the success of tall buildings. Individually the buildings would fall short of the excellence expected, but collectively the scale of the design flaws would be heightened with far reaching concerns about effects on the skyline, on important views and historic assets. [7.3.4, 8.2.3, 8.2.6, 9.1.1]
Relationship to transport infrastructure, sustainable design and construction, local environment and credibility of the design
12.3.21 The development provides opportunities for advertising the presence of Waterloo Station, the links to which would be improved by the pedestrian friendly areas of public open space proposed in the layout. Situated as it is in a central area of the city, with good public transport choices locally and easy access to a range of facilities, the site has excellent sustainable credentials. The Energy Strategy document demonstrates the energy efficiency and carbon reduction measures that could be achieved, to comply with levels required by policy. [5.2, 5.3, 6.1.2, 6.1.7, 6.5.9, 11.2.2]
12.3.22 The Environmental Statement demonstrates that, with measures in place, satisfactory microclimatic conditions could be maintained. The wind tunnel effect currently experienced on York Road is unlikely to be replicated, given the shape and placing of the three towers. It does appear that concerns about windy conditions around the towers may be unfounded. [1.3.1, 1.3.2, 6.5.10, 9.3.11, 9.3.12, 10.4]
12.3.23 Given the many years of commitment by the applicants to the specific design, it seems unlikely that the high standards espoused throughout the planning process would be compromised at the time of implementation. [4.2-4.6, 6.1.2]
Conclusions on First Issue
12.3.24 London Plan Policies 3A.3, 4B.1 and 4B.10 tell us that compatibility, respect for and suitability to local context are matters for consideration be it in
Page 52 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
relation to maximising the potential of sites (3A.3), as one of a number of principles of design (4B.1) or as one of the specific requirements when evaluating the design and impact of large scale buildings (4B.10). Policy 4B.1 also expects buildings to have qualities that inspire, excite and delight. Policy 4B.10 calls for the highest quality in the design of large scale buildings with the potential for such developments to become attractive city elements and to provide high quality spaces. [3.1.2, 3.1.4]
12.3.25 Relationship to surroundings, especially to the height and form of other tall buildings, to prominent features in the vicinity is the concern of UDP Policy 40, with other considerations listed for tall buildings to effect improvements to sense of place and identity. Again, the building is expected to be of the highest quality of design and construction, enhancing the skyline through profile and use of material. [3.1.6]
12.3.26 In many ways, the scheme has all the makings of a successful outcome when evaluated against policy and in terms of the criteria laid out in the English Heritage/CABE guidance and PPS1. The layout has the potential to transform the way the area functions through provision of good quality public spaces, effective linkages, permeability and integration at ground level with its surroundings. These are positive aspects of the scheme but they would not overcome the fundamental unacceptability of the architecture of the three individual towers, the way they relate to each other and ultimately their impact on the skyline, on their immediate surroundings and when viewed from some distance. The all-round excellence in standards exhorted by policies at all levels would not be met. For that reason, and notwithstanding the policy appropriateness of the site to accommodate tall buildings, the scheme is not an acceptable solution to redevelopment at Elizabeth House.
12.3.27 I recognise that my views are not shared by bodies responsible for the stewardship and application of policies at strategic and local levels, namely the Council and the GLA. CABE and the Council’s Urban Design Team Leader expressed concerns not dissimilar to mine, and I have explained at some length my reasons for coming to the conclusions that I have. [6.4.4, 6.4.7, 6.5.16, 7.3.4, 9.3.1]
12.4 Issue 2: The extent to which the proposed redevelopment is consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment
The Approach to Assessing Effects on the Historic Environment
12.4.1 There is no substitute for personal inspection when making visual assessments of the kind required in this case. The many excellent images and representations are helpful as aide-memoirs but they cannot replicate what is seen with the naked eye. Indeed, there is some disquiet about the propensity of images to present a misleading picture. My assessments derive from first hand experience of the many views referred to in the evidence. [6.3.1, 7.4.6, 8.4.1]
12.4.2 Despite coming to the conclusion that there is policy support for one or a cluster of tall buildings on the site, I make no judgement about the effects of such buildings in general. In this respect, I accord with the position adopted by English Heritage and WCC, in that acceptability or otherwise of
Page 53 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
any proposal for tall buildings will depend on the circumstances of each case, the degree of harm and other material factors. [6.1.9, 7.1.5, 8.4.14]
12.4.3 Another important principle of approach comes with the reality of accepting the many instances of current and expected tall buildings in the London skyline. The proposal at Elizabeth House is not and would not be the first intervention of tall buildings in the settings of any of the heritage assets considered in the evaluation. Tall buildings are an accepted part of the dynamic and ever changing skyline. As successive decisions by the Secretary of State demonstrate, they are an established part of the city sitting alongside and complementing the historic environment. [6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5, 6.3.6, 7.4.1, 7.4.5]
12.4.4 Finally, the relevance of architectural quality in assessing impacts is an important one. The Blackfriars Road Inspector’s words are worth repeating:
The introduction of a very tall building does not automatically mean a harmful impact. I take a similar view to the applicant– that the site is a suitable one for a very tall building, that the building proposed is of very high design quality and that, as a result, and however prominent the building, its impact would not be harmful and would generally be an enhancement.
12.4.5 In effect, and as demonstrated in recent decisions, potentially harmful impact on historic elements can be mitigated by good design. The converse must also be the case, in that a design not of high quality would be likely to exacerbate any harm caused by a tall building to the historic environment. [6.3.7, 6.3.8, 6.3.9]
Effect on the Settings and Views of the Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS)
12.4.6 PPG15 confirms that no additional statutory controls follow from a site’s inclusion in the World Heritage list. The WHS is however protected by national and local planning policies. Thus, Policy 4B.14 commits Boroughs to take account of and give appropriate weight to the provisions of the WHS Management Plans which should contain policies to protect their historic significance and settings. Views and settings of important landmark buildings, such as the Houses of Parliament, are protected under UDP Policy 41, while Policy 40 expects tall buildings to be located where they would not harm the character or setting of the WWHS. [3.1.4, 3.1.6, 8.4.2]
12.4.7 There is every likelihood that the proposal would not affect the ability to understand and appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS from four of the five best selected views in the DVIS. To me, the key is not whether the buildings appear in views specifically identified in the draft DVIS or in views in WCC’s Metropolitan Views draft SPD. What is important is whether the development when seen, as it will be, from various viewpoints in Parliament Square and The Sanctuary would either on its own or in combination with other buildings preserve the outstanding significance and appreciation of these universally valued and historic buildings. Views from Victoria Street are also important but less likely to be affected, because of the effects of distance and shielding by trees or buildings. [6.3.12, 6.3.13, 6.3.17, 7.4.11, 8.4.2]
Page 54 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
12.4.8 Depending on one’s position, looking out from Parliament Square across to the South Bank, the Shell tower, the London Eye, County Hall and buildings currently under construction appear to drift in and out of the gap between the Big Ben tower and Portcullis House. The degree to which one or other building or structure can be seen in this gap varies as the viewer changes position. [6.3.13, 6.3.15, 7.4.10, 8.4.5]
12.4.9 With the aid of illustrative material it is also possible to construct a picture of other tall buildings likely to appear in this gap (Shards, Blackfriars and Doon Street towers). The Elizabeth House development would similarly occupy parts of the gap and the extent to which it does, and affects, the WHS would depend on the viewing location. For instance, the proposal would not be visible from the “optimum viewpoint” identified in the draft DVIS, or the north/north western area of Parliament Square. Nevertheless, it would be seen from a number of views and the way it would appear in that gap is also an indication of how it would impact on the setting of the WWHS. [6.3.14, 6.3.15, 6.3.16, 6.3.17, 8.4.5]
12.4.10 Intrusions, or interventions, by recent or planned developments confirm the presence of a modern city evolving beyond the confines of the WWHS. None it has to be said is overwhelming or devalues the WWHS when seen from Parliament Square, because of distance or size of building concerned, the quality of its design or a combination of one or other. The same cannot be said about the Elizabeth House proposal, which would be closer to the WWHS than any of the tall buildings granted permission in recent years. [6.3.15, 7.4.3, 8.4.5]
12.4.11 The proposed development would occupy that all-important gap to varying degrees or not at all, depending on viewpoints. Where visible in the gap, the new buildings would be seen with a clarity not replicated in the visual images presented. The towers would materially detract from the size and importance of Big Ben not by mere fact of visibility in the skyline but by virtue of their bulk and disturbing aspects of design. [6.3.15, 7.4.9, 8.4.3]
12.4.12 The visual and architectural strengths of Big Ben are considerable, but the eye would be drawn away from its verticality by one or a number of features. These include the uncomfortable composition of the three towers (albeit seen together from limited viewpoints), the obvious tilting of the office buildings and fragmented modelling of the residential tower, all of which singly and cumulatively would jar in views against the historic tower. The river would help maintain a feeling of separation between the WWHS and the Elizabeth House development in much the same way that it accentuates the sense of distance with existing buildings on the South Bank. However, even with distance, real or perceived, the intrusive effects of this proposal would not dissipate. Night time views would be less affected, as only the residential tower would be illuminated to any extent. [6.3.16, 7.4.9, 8.4.3, 8.4.4, 8.4.5]
12.4.13 I agree that the ability to appreciate the values of the Palace of Westminster as a group would not diminish but the awareness of the dominance and architectural form of the Big Ben tower would be lessened, which is sufficient to conclude that the setting and value of the WWHS would be adversely affected by the proposal. It follows that the same conclusions would apply in respect of harm to the Westminster Abbey and Parliament
Page 55 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Square Conservation Area, and to the settings of listed buildings within it. [6.3.16, 7.4.11, 8.4.6, 8.4.7]
Effect on the Settings of Other Listed Buildings
12.4.14 In this section I focus on listed buildings most likely to be affected by the proposed scheme. In doing so, I have in mind the statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the local policy framework, in particular London Plan Policy 4B.12 and UDP Policy 45. [3.1.4, 3.1.6]
The Royal Festival Hall (RFH) and the Royal National Theatre (RNT)
12.4.15 The list description confirms the status of the RFH as Britain’s premier concert hall since its opening in 1951. Besides which, it represents the spirit and times of the Festival of Britain. Inclusion of this post-War building in the statutory list, as Grade I, confirms its outstanding architectural quality. The form of the building is best appreciated and understood from Waterloo Bridge and the North Bank. The LVMF has marked it a “landmark” in View Assessment points 15A.1, 15A.2 and 20B.1. [2.2.2, 7.4.15]
12.4.16 The Shell tower is a constant feature of the building’s background, particularly in these views. By virtue of height, it strikes a contrast with the low profile of the RFH, and its “lurking” companions. Otherwise there is consistency in the way that the Portland stone and concrete buildings cluster around the RFH, the familiar curved profile of its roof, double height windows and terracing standing out in spite of the cluster of low buildings in the background and the lone tower in the skyline. [6.2.6, 6.3.21]
12.4.17 The Elizabeth House development and the Shell tower together would form an almost continuous backdrop of development in this setting. The towers would meld together with no apparent distinction between them. The complex facades and twisting shapes of the two office towers would not sit well with the uncluttered lines of the listed building. Images M37 and M38 of CD 2/17 best illustrate the manner in which the new development would cast an imposing presence at the expense of the prominence of the RFH in panoramic river views. Its setting would be unacceptably marred. [6.3.22, 7.4.16, 8.4.8, 9.3.9]
12.4.18 I make similar observations in respect of the RNT (Grade II*), though its setting would be affected to a lesser extent, because of distance from the application site. Nevertheless, it is true that from some viewpoints Building A would be aligned close to the Olivier Theatre flytower. It is not the height or positioning of the tower that concerns me, but its profile in the skyline. Once again, the massing of the new tower and its twisting facade would detract from the uncomplicated silhouette of the flytower, and diminish its contribution to the South Bank skyline. Accordingly, the development would also fail to preserve the setting of the theatre. [6.3.25, 7.4.18, 8.4.8, 9.3.9]
County Hall
12.4.19 County Hall is listed as Grade II*. It attracts praise and criticism in equal measure but there can be no doubts about its historic and civic importance or the significance of its presence in key river views. The long river facing
Page 56 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
elevation is symmetrical. Other distinctive features include a steep mansard roof, gently curving over the central pavilion, and a central fleche. The London Eye is clearly a large modern addition within County Hall’s sphere of influence but its transparency and lightness have allowed it to be assimilated into the setting. [2.2.2, 6.3.23, 7.4.13, 8.4.8, 9.3.9]
12.4.20 It is difficult to come to similar conclusions in respect of the Elizabeth House scheme. Given the massing of the two office buildings in particular, the three towers would present a disturbing picture of canted buildings and poor composition against the roofline of County Hall. As another landmark building identified in the LVMF designated river views, its balance and dominance would be eroded. [7.4.14, 8.4.8, 9.3.9]
Victory Arch, General Lying-in Hospital and Church of St John the Evangelist
12.4.21 I have considered these listed buildings together, as the points in favour or against these three listed buildings are not determinative. The application scheme will fail or succeed on the basis of its impact on the WWHS, the RFH, RNT and County Hall.
12.4.22 In general it has to be said that the points I find in favour of the proposal – improvements to the layout and functioning of the area, good pedestrian conditions and enhanced public realm- would extend to the settings of the Victory Arch and the Hospital. However, the design flaws identified earlier would also cause the development to impact unfavourably on and detract from views of the Arch, the Hospital and the Church, particularly given the scale of the development. [6.3.26, 6.3.27, 6.3.28]
Effect on Conservation Areas
12.4.23 The application site is not within a conservation area. However, it abuts the easterly boundary of the South Bank Conservation Area, is close to the Roupell Street and Waterloo Conservation Areas and the towers would be visible from Lower Marsh and the Westminster City river fronting Conservation Areas of Smith Square, Whitehall, Savoy and Strand. London Plan Policy 4B.12 urges Boroughs to adopt policies for the protection of areas of special quality or character. Accordingly, UDP Policy 47 describes the manner in which proposals within conservation areas will be considered and expects developments outside conservation areas to not harm the setting of the area or views into or out of it. [2.2.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 8.4.8]
South Bank Conservation Area
12.4.24 The case in relation to this conservation area is dependent on the conclusions with regard to the settings of the listed buildings within it. Although the many good points in the layout and masterplanning of the site would enhance the character of the area around York Road that would not be sufficient to overcome the way the towers would intrude into views and the settings of the RFH, RNT and County Hall. Given the value of these buildings, and their respective focal positioning in the conservation area, the proposal would have a similarly harmful impact on its appearance. Views into the South Bank Conservation Area would be neither preserved nor enhanced by reasons of the design and disposition of the three towers. They would be visible from some distance and similarly affect views out of the Westminster conservation areas. [6.3.29, 6.3.30, 7.4.19, 8.4.8, 9.3.8]
Page 57 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Roupell Street Conservation Area
12.4.25 The character of the conservation area and indeed its appearance derives from the historic enclave of C19 terraced houses, remarkably preserved in their original state. The current Elizabeth House dominates views out of the conservation area but not to the extent of detracting from its inner core and contained nature. Building A would similarly appear in views out of the conservation area but at a height considerably greater than the current Elizabeth House. [2.2.2, 6.3.32, 7.4.20]
12.4.26 Tall buildings may be an accepted fact of the modern city beyond these C19 streets and the obvious contrasts of scale add to their intimacy. However, the ungainly bulk of the new office towers would extend those disparities beyond the bounds of acceptability, to the detriment of the setting of the conservation area. [6.3.32, 7.4.20, 9.3.7]
Waterloo Conservation Area
12.4.27 The views I express in relation to the Roupell Street Conservation Area apply equally here. There is a lot to be said for the mixed character of this conservation area and the contrast with the modern city beyond. However, the prospect of Building A terminating views out of the conservation area gives me cause for concern. The over dominant effects of the bulk of the tower is best illustrated in CD 2/17 image M6, which additionally demonstrates the unfortunate contrast with the spire of the Church of St John the Evangelist. The tower would appear in the skyline looking southwards from Stamford Street; for reasons I gave earlier, the views out of the conservation area would not be favourable. [2.2.2, 6.3.33, 7.4.21]
Lower Marsh Conservation Area
12.4.28 The new towers would be glimpsed over the tops of buildings on Lower Marsh. On the other hand, improvements to spaces adjacent to the International Terminal building and contributions towards improvements between the site and Lower Marsh would have a positive impact on this conservation area. Its setting and character would be preserved. [6.3.33]
Conclusions on Issue 2
12.4.29 Having concluded that the proposed towers, for reasons of their intrinsic designs, would not preserve but would impact unacceptably on the settings of the WWHS, the RFH, RNT and County Hall, it follows that the scheme would similarly affect the settings and views of buildings forming an integral part of the relevant conservation areas. There would be clear conflict with the London Plan and UDP policies recognising the merits of these historic assets, their international value and importance to the attraction and economy of London. The development would not be consistent with advice in PPG15.
12.5 Other Matters
12.5.1 An ES was prepared by the appellant, under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Before the inquiry opened, I satisfied myself as to the adequacy of the statement in terms of the scope of the information it provides, and there
Page 58 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
was nothing at the inquiry that might have caused me to take a different view. [1.3.1, 1.3.2]
12.5.2 Matters raised in the written representations are largely addressed in the main body of my reasoning above. It would be unfeasible to expect the applicants to retain existing shops through the use of a condition. The issue is best addressed through other channels between the parties concerned. [9.2.1]
Employment, Retail and Housing
12.5.3 The mix and intensity of uses proposed properly reflect the London Plan’s objectives of maximising the potential of sites and expecting large scale developments to locate in areas of high public transport accessibility. It would additionally satisfy the requirements of Policy 5E.2 by contributing significantly to the employment and housing targets expressed for the Waterloo Opportunity Area. Enhancement of the public realm, improved walking conditions and better links with Waterloo Station address the requirements of policies listed in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this Report. [6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.7, 6.5.8]
12.5.4 The retail element of the scheme is part of its attraction and is necessary to its success. I am satisfied that the district centre of Lower Marsh would not be jeopardised, partly because it has a distinctive character of small, individual shops targeting a different market to the outlets likely to occupy the application scheme. [6.5.6]
12.5.5 The application site represents one of the key sites in the regeneration of Waterloo and is so identified in the UDP and WOAPF. The mix of homes, employment and retail satisfy UDP policies on locating developments close to public transport nodes, making effective use of land, encouraging the growth of the CAZ and generally expecting developments to contribute to the vision of Lambeth as a great place to live, work and visit. [3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 6.1.2, 6.1.11, 6.1.12]
Affordable Housing
12.5.6 At 17% the level of affordable housing proposed is considerably below the 50% urged in the London Plan (Policy 3A.9) and the 40-50% sought in UDP Policy 16. [3.1.2, 3.1.6, 5.1]
12.5.7 The proposal was subject to two financial appraisals. The appraisal commissioned by LBL concluded that, even with the 17% provision, the scheme would have serious viability issues. The Valuation Office, commissioned by GLA, concluded that the scheme’s struggle for viability is because of high build costs. The costs are a consequence of abnormal site costs involving demolition, sub-surface works and the complexity of the site, given the presence of underground rail tunnels and services. Added to which, the S106 includes financial contributions to mitigate impacts of the development. These include contributions towards education, community facilities, open space, public realm works and public transport. They are justified and meet the tests of Circular 05/2005. [6.5.4, 7.5.3]
12.5.8 It is to the applicants’ credit that an element of affordable housing is included at the proportional split quoted in the London Plan, in the light of
Page 59 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
these unfavourable viability forecasts. At the inquiry I questioned whether the contributions offered in the planning obligation were at the expense of increasing the affordable housing provision but was assured that the terms of the S106 had been the subject of protracted negotiations with LBL and the Waterloo Community Development Group. It is said the monetary offerings are necessary and related to the development concerned. I accept that is the case. [6.5.4, 11.2.2]
12.5.9 Furthermore, the overage clause in the S106 raises the prospect of an additional 25 off-site affordable units. The mechanism has not been tried and tested and there may even be scope for increasing the level of provision, if a future viability exercise was not confined to the time of implementation. That said, use of the overage clause in the S106 demonstrates a will to provide as much affordable housing as the scheme could bear, despite difficult feasibility conditions. I am satisfied that the scheme accords with London Plan Policy 3A.9 and 3A.10. [6.5.5, 7.5.3, 9.3.9, 11.2.2]
Conditions and S106
12.5.10 Conditions are covered in paragraph 11.1.1 of this Report. The conditions recommended in Annex B are necessary and should be imposed for the reasons stated in ID37, in the event that planning permission was to be granted. The provisions of the S106 planning obligation largely accord with Circular 05/2005 and the sums were negotiated in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD (CD6/9).
12.6 Overall Conclusions and Balance of Considerations
12.6.1 There is a strong policy base and support for one of more tall buildings to be located on the Elizabeth House site. The London Plan, the WOAPF, LVMF and the emerging Waterloo SPD envisage a cluster of such buildings at and around the station, with expectations of forthcoming regeneration of the wider area in Waterloo. Tall buildings are regarded favourably in townscape terms, for the legibility they would bring to the station and the opportunities they provide to maximise residential and non- residential densities, amongst other considerations.
12.6.2 Notwithstanding the applicants’ exemplary plan-led approach to progressing redevelopment of the site, and policy endorsement for tall buildings, the many components of policy also underline the importance of high quality design and regard for the historic environment.
12.6.3 The proposal would bring about many positive transformational changes to the area with good quality public realm, permeability, legibility and enhanced conditions for pedestrians, in many ways improving the character and quality of the area. However, the success of the design is severely compromised by the architectural quality of the proposed three towers. Shortcomings in the massing, disposition, appearance and compositional qualities of the individual towers would render the scheme unacceptable in the skyline, in relation to its immediate surroundings and for the far reaching detrimental effects it would have on important historic assets.
12.6.4 Neither the applicant nor the Council have made any serious claims about implementing the consented schemes; to all intents and purposes that
Page 60 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
proposal is unlikely to proceed. I agree that the application development is a considerable improvement over the consented one, in the way it aspires to a range of policy imperatives and for the benefits it would bring to the area. [4.2, 6.4.5, 8.4.9]
12.6.5 However, it cannot be claimed that the benefits would be forthcoming with this scheme alone. Any application for redevelopment of the Elizabeth House site would need to bring forward improvements to the public realm and traffic conditions, introduce permeability (UDP Site Allocation MDO 92) and accord with the relevant provision of policies concerning new jobs and homes. Financial contributions included in the S106 are put forward on the basis of making the development acceptable. Again, similar mitigating measures or S106 package would be likely with an alternative development on this site. [7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.5, 8.4.11]
12.6.6 There is insufficient evidence to conclude one way or another that the mix of uses and quantum of development proposed is the most financially optimum solution for this site. In short, there is no reason to suppose that an alternative proposal, of high design quality and respectful of London’s historic assets, would not similarly bring forward the many good features claimed for the application scheme. [8.4.10, 8.4.11]
12.6.7 I am acutely aware of the many years of collaboration and resources expended in developing the application scheme. The work carried out to date has successfully established a number of policy and design principles which manifest themselves in the proposed development. However, and notwithstanding support for the proposal from a number of influential quarters, I am unable to endorse it for the quality of its architecture and design. Exemplary design is even more of an imperative in a tall building, because of its visibility, intensity of activity and in this case because of its potential to impact on historic assets of international and national importance. The buildings proposed would not achieve the level of excellence necessary and would cause irreversible and widespread harm to a number of important elements of the historic environment, including the Westminster World Heritage Site, the Royal Festival Hall, the Royal National Theatre and County Hall.
13. RECOMMENDATION
13.1 I recommend that planning permission not be granted. If the Secretary of State is minded to grant planning permission, then in my view it should be subject to the conditions listed in Annex B of this Report.
Ava Wood Inspector
Page 61 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
ANNEX A
The matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed are: a) the appropriateness of tall buildings in this location and the extent to which the proposal is consistent with her policies in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development for the promotion of high quality, inclusive design in terms of function and impact, which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area; b) the extent to which the proposed redevelopment is consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, with particular regard to the consideration of:
i) preserving the settings of listed buildings;
ii) preserving or enhancing the setting, views into and out of and character or appearance of Conservation Areas in Lambeth; and
iii) protecting the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site from damaging development. c) whether the proposed development accords with the relevant provisions of Lambeth Council’s Unitary Development Plan adopted in August 2007; d) whether the proposed development accords with the relevant provisions of the London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London consolidated with alterations since 2004 (February 2008); e) whether any permission should be subject to conditions and, if so, the form they should take; and f) any other relevant material planning considerations.
Page 62 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
ANNEX B
CONDITIONS1
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Departure from the standard 3 years is justified in this case on the basis of the complexity of the development and the time required to finalise plans for land situated outside the control of the applicant and of the application site.
Design Details
2. No development shall take place until details of the design and external appearance of the ground floor elevations and street frontages have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.
Details of the elevational treatments on the upper floors of the buildings are illustrated on the application plans (ID22) and therefore not subject to a detailed design condition.
3. Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences. The development shall thereafter be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.
4. No development shall take place until a Landscape and Public Realm Strategy for all external areas on the public highway and external public realm areas within the curtilage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy shall include full details of the materials and plants to be used in the hard and soft landscaped areas indicated on Plans 449_07_023 P9, 449_07_029 P5, C2245/10/08 and D2245/10/08. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; cycle parking spaces, vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retail kiosks (including their moveability within the public realm). The Strategy is additionally to include a review for the provision of docking stations for use by TfL’s Cycle Hire Scheme and, subject to the review, the completed works shall include such docking stations. The landscaping and public realm works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Strategy.
1 I do not recommend imposing the following conditions listed in ID37: Condition 23 because it is unenforceable Conditions 35, 36 and 37, as the matters are covered by other legislation
Page 63 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
5. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.
6. Full details of how the trees on the roof of Building B will be secured and maintained, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
7. No development shall take place until a lighting strategy, to include lighting of all public areas and external lighting on the new buildings, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details and the buildings shall not be occupied until the lighting is installed as approved.
8. A waste management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the use hereby approved. The waste management plan shall include full details regarding the proposed litter, refuse, and recycling facilities. The litter, refuse, and recycling facilities shall be provided, and the development shall be operated in accordance with the details of the approved waste management plan.
9. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings.
10. The net floorspace of Class A1 food uses shall not exceed 750sqm and the total combined net floorspace for A1 and A2 uses shall not exceed 1,667sqm.
11. No development shall take place until details of the use of the first floor of Buildings A and B are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the uses agreed.
The plans allow for the first floors of Buildings and A and B to be used for either office or retail purposes. This flexibility is necessary to enable an assessment to be made in the light of economic circumstances at the time of occupation.
Access/Transport/Highways
12. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until all lifts, escalators and station accesses are complete and fully operational.
13. Details of the proposed accesses to the service area, car park and basement, including a raised entry treatment, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be completed in accordance with the approved Landscape and Public Realm Strategy submitted in accordance with Condition 4. No part of the development shall be occupied until the new means
Page 64 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
of access has been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.
14. No development shall take place until full details showing an increased width of the pedestrian crossing on Mepham Road to 10m has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the pedestrian crossing has been completed in accordance with the approved details.
15. Details of any encroachment of the development onto the highway and the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. No part of the development shall be occupied until the details approved have been implemented.
16. Details of the separation between the bus lane and the general traffic lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. No part of the development shall be occupied until the details approved have been implemented.
Conditions 15, 16 and 17 are worded as “Grampian” style conditions, as the land concerned falls outside the applicants’ control.
17. Prior to commencement of the development, details of the provision to be made for all cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of location and means of access to secure cycle storage areas. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained for its designated use.
18. Within two months of completion of the development hereby permitted, all redundant accesses located within the area of development and not incorporated in the development shall be permanently closed with kerbs and footway reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
19. No later than 2 months before development commences, full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: management of pedestrians and cyclists (including temporary cycle parking) during the demolition and construction phases of the development; notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; parking, deliveries, and storage; dust mitigation; measures to prevent deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area including Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital. Details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.
Page 65 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
Residential Amenity
20. The development shall be completed in accordance with a sound insulation and noise mitigation scheme for the residential units in Building C to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The residential units in Building C shall be designed and constructed so as to provide sound insulation against environmental road traffic noise to the following maximum standards:
a) Living Rooms: 40dB(A) Leq 18 hour between 07:00 and 23:00 hours; b) Bedrooms: 30dB(A) Leq 8 hour between 23:00 and 07:00 hours; and c) Individual noise event shall not exceed 45dB(A) (measured with F time weighting) between 23:00 and 07:00 hours.
21. All commercial kitchen extractor fans and flues shall be installed and fitted with anti-vibration and noise mitigation measures, in accordance with a scheme approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, and shall be retained for the duration of the use.
22. The environmental noise from any externally mounted kitchen flue or externally mounted plant shall not increase the typical background noise level measured as a L90dB(A)1 hour, outside any residential window.
23. Details of the discharge of all fumes from the cooking process for A3 and A4 uses under the Use Classes Order 2005, or any other order revoking or reenacting that order with or without modification, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any vents or ducts shall be installed before the use commences and thereafter maintained for the duration of the use in accordance with the approved details.
24. The Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses hereby permitted shall not be open to customers between the hours of 01:00 and 06:30.
Environmental Mitigation
25. No development shall take place until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
26. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until sub-section 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until sub-section 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.
1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or
Page 66 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
• human health,
• property (existing or proposed) including buildings, service lines and pipes,
• adjoining land,
• groundwaters and surface waters,
• ecological systems,
• archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Page 67 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of sub- section 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of sub-section 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with sub-section 3.
27. Before development commences details of finished floor levels of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with the approved levels.
Homes Standards and Full Access
28. All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report “Meeting Part M and Designing Lifetime Homes”.
29. At least 27 of the residential flats hereby permitted shall be designed so that they are capable of conversion to wheelchair accessible standards.
30. No development shall take place until a detailed access statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the details of the approved access statement.
Energy/Sustainability
31. Prior to commencement of the development, full details of the locations of the proposed biomass facilities, including all associated storage, and a strategy for managing deliveries to these facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed and operated thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
I do not see the necessity of including suggested condition 45 (ID37), as the provision of an Energy Statement and implementation of its contents form the subject of Schedule 4 in the S106 obligation. Adoption of the measures required to be included in the Energy Statement would ensure that the development would meet the PPS1 supplement’s requirements for low energy consuming and carbon emitting developments, as well as the London Plan’s standards.
Public Safety
32. No development shall take place until full details of a scheme demonstrating measures to mitigate the impact of terrorism have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
Page 68 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
implemented in accordance with the approved details, prior to occupation of the premises and retained thereafter.
33. A management plan detailing the operational strategy and the location and specifications of CCTV, building security and lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, prior to occupation of the premises and retained thereafter.
Page 69 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
ANNEX C
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Brief Opening Submissions for the Applicant and Lambeth LBC 2 Opening Statement on behalf of English Heritage 3 Short Opening on behalf of Westminster City Council 4 Letter of Notification of Inquiry dated 6 March 2009 5 Record of Presentation, Graham Morrison 6 Allies and Morrison Architects, April 2009 7 Allies and Morrison DVD of Fly Through 8 20 Blackfriars Road, Appendix 1 to Rebuttal Proof of Professor Robert Tavenor, September 2008 9 Peter Lawson, Thorney Island Society, Written Representation 10 Valerie Shawcross, letter dated 14 April 2009 11 General Lying-In Hospital Candidate Viewpoint Study, 26 February 2009 12 English Heritage Letter dated 12 March 2009 13 English Heritage Letter dated 2 April 2009 14 Francis Golding, Speaking Notes 15 Francis Golding, Record of Presentation 16 GLA letter dated 17 April 2009 17 LVMF View Update 18 Stage 1 Framework Study 19 Summary of Viability Appraisals 20 Report on Implementation, dated 20 April 2009 21 Environmental Statement; Non-Technical Summary: Update April 2009 22 Application Drawings for Determination, April 2009 23 Errata to Proof of Evidence of Nicholas Collins 24 LAC Member Biographies 25 Significant Tall Building Cases, Central London 26 Timothy Jones, Evidence in Chief, Speaking Note 27 Section 106, plans and conditions schedule 28 Environmental Statement Statutory Consultation responses (other than main parties already represented) 29 Errata to Summary Proof of Evidence of Andrew Karski 30 Errata to Proof of Evidence of Andrew Karski 31 Images of Doon Street 32 Robert Ayton, Visibility from Parliament Square 33 General Lying-In Hospital, Application Description 34 Stuart Balfour, Red Bus Shop, Written Representation 35 Michael Ball, WCDG, Summary proof of Evidence 36 Michael Ball, WCDG, Westminster Place Environmental Statement, February 2008, p39 37 Regrouped Conditions 38 Appeal by Flambard Development Limited, CLG decision letter dated 31 October 2008 39 Inspector’s Report for Waverly BC, appeal by Flambard Development Ltd 40 Note in relation to Dynamic Visual Impact Study work carried out in relation to the Westminster World Heritage Site (Inquiry Core Document CD21/12) 41 Councillor Gavin Dodsworth, Written Submission dated 26 April 2009 42 Shards of Glass additional images from Parliament Square 43 Site Visit Map
Page 70 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
44 Closing Submissions on behalf of Westminster City Council 45 Closing Submissions on behalf of English Heritage 46 Closing Submissions for the Applicant and Lambeth LBC
ANNEX D Proofs and other Written Evidence
Applicants App1 Mr Morrison’s Proof of Evidence
App2 Mr Cooper’s Proof of Evidence
App3 Mr Golding’s Proof of Evidence
App4 Mr Golding’s Summary Proof
London Borough of Lambeth
LBL1 Mr Smith’s Proof of Evidence
English Heritage
EH1 Mr Collins’ Proof of Evidence
EH2 Mr Collins’ Summary Proof
EH3 Mr Jones’ Proof of Evidence
EH4 Mr Jones’ Appendices
EH5 Mr Jones’ Summary Proof
EH6 Mr Karski’s Proof of Evidence
EH7 Mr Karski’s Summary Proof
Westminster City Council
WCC1 Mr Ayton’s Proof of Evidence
WCC2 Mr Ayton’s Appendix 1
WCC3 Mr Ayton’s Summary Proof
Pre-Inquiry Written Representations
WR1 Paul and Ann Coggle
Page 71 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
WR2 P Koschel
WR3 Steve McGinley
WR4 Mrs Timms
WR5 Mike Gifford
WR6 Mike Callaghan
WR7 BRB (Residuary) LTD
WR8 Piyush Dev
WR9 Park Plaza Westminster Bridge
ANNEX E
CORE DOCUMENTS
CD1 – Call-In Letters CD1/1 Letter from Government Office for London to LB Lambeth issuing a notice under article 14 (10 July 2008)
CD1/2 Letter from Government Office for London to LB Lambeth advising of call-in of Elizabeth House application (22 October 2008)
CD1/3 Inspector’s Notes on Inquiry Procedure (22 January 2009)
CD1/4 Inspector’s letter enclosing Site Notice and timetable (30 January 2009)
CD1/5 Inspector’s letter enclosing letters of support from Kings College London and Park Plaza Westminster Bridge. (11 March 2009)
CD1/6 Inspector’s letter enclosing letters of support from SBEG & Shell (12 March 2009)
CD1/7 Inspector’s letter enclosing letter of support from Shell (27 March 2009)
CD1/8 Inspector’s letter enclosing Third Party Reps (06 January 2009)
CD1/9 Inspector’s letter enclosing Third Party Reps (05 December 2008)
CD2 – Planning Application Documents
CD2/1 Cover letter prepared by MPD (July 2007)
CD2/2 Application forms and Certificates (July 2007)
Page 72 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD2/3 Planning Summary (July 2007)
CD2/4 Design and Access Statement, Part 1: Architecture and Public Realm (July 2007)
CD2/5 Design and Access Statement, Part 2: Public Realm and Streetscape Strategy (July 2007)
CD2/6 Design and Access Statement, Part 3: Access Statement (July 2007)
CD2/7 Addendum to Design and Access Statement (March 2008)
CD2/8 Planning Statement (incorporating Statement of Community Consultation) (July 2007)
CD2/9 Sustainability Statement (July 2007)
CD2/10 Energy Statement (July 2007)
CD2/11 Transport Assessment, Volume1: Main Report and Volume 2: Appendices (July 2007)
CD2/12 Supplementary Information to Transport Assessment (March 2008)
CD2/13 Flood Risk Assessment (July 2007)
CD2/14 Environmental Statement: Non Technical Summary (July 2007) (superseded by ID 21)
CD2/15 Environmental Statement: Volume 1: Main Report (July 2007)
CD2/16 Environmental Statement: Volume 2: Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment (July 2007)
CD2/17 Revision of Environmental Statement: Volume 2: Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment (March 2008)
CD2/18 Environmental Statement: Volume 3A: Technical Appendices Part 1 (July 2007)
CD2/19 Environmental Statement: Volume 3A: Technical Appendices Part 2 (July 2007)
CD2/20 Environmental Statement: Volume 3B: Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare Appendices
CD2/21 Elizabeth House Proposals and the Westminster World Heritage Site Volume 1, Volume 2 and Appendices (September 2007)
CD2/22 Townscape Analysis DVD (November 2008) (provided separately)
CD2/23 Application Drawings (July 2007)
Page 73 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD2/24 Application Drawings Revised (March 2008)
CD2/25 Parliament Square Visual Analysis – Building “C” Tallest Section (A2245/10/08) (November 2008)
CD2/26 Parliament Square Visual Analysis – Building “C” Middle Section (B2245/10/08) (November 2008)
CD2/27 Additional Landscaping in Public Realm (C2245/10/08) (November 2008)
CD2/28 Additional Landscaping of Roofscape (D2245/10/08) (November 2008)
CD2/29 Assessment of Westminster World Heritage Site and Parliament Square (25 June 2007)
CD2/30 Additional Visual Impact Study, March 2009
CD2/31 Further images to be presented at public Inquiry by Miller Hare (27 March 2009)
CD3 – National Planning Guidance
CD3/1 PPS 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (February 2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/plann ingpolicystatement1
CD3/2 Supplement to PPS 1 ‘Planning and Climate Change’ (December 2007) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppscli matechange
CD3/3 PPS 3 ‘Housing’ (November 2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps3 housing
CD3/4 Consultation Paper on new Planning Policy Statement 4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Development’ (December 2007) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/consu ltationeconomicdevelopment
CD3/5 PPS 6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (March 2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps6
CD3/6 PPS 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (August 2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps9
CD3/7 PPS 12 ‘Local Spatial Planning’ (June 2008) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps1 2lsp
Page 74 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD3/8 PPG 13 ‘Transport’ (April 2001) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg1 3
CD3/9 PPG 15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (September 1994) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg1 5
CD3/10 PPG 16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ (November 1990) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg1 6
CD3/11 PPG 17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (July 2002) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/plann ingpolicyguidance17
CD3/12 PPS 22 ‘Renewable Energy’ (August 2004) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps2 2
CD3/13 PPS 23 ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ (November 2004) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/pl anningpolicystatement23.pdf
CD3/14 PPG 24 ‘ Planning and Noise’ (October 1994) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg2 4
CD3/15 PPS 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (December 2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps2 5floodrisk
CD4 – Circulars
CD4/1 Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circul arplanningobligations
CD4/2 Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circul aruse
CD5 – Other National Guidance
CD5/1 By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice (DETR/CABE 2000) http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=446
CD5/2 Guidance on Tall Buildings (English Heritage/CABE July 2007) http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=2000
Page 75 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD5/3 Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/good practiceguide
CD5/4 Delivering Affordable Housing (2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/deliveringaffordab lehousing
CD5/5 Design at a glance: a quick reference to national design policy (CABE, June 2006) http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=683
CD5/6 Design at appeal: Advice on dealing with design issues within planning appeals (CABE, May 2006) http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1310
CD5/7 Better Places to Live by Design: a companion guide to PPG3 (CABE, September 2001) http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuild ing/betterplaces
CD5/8 Protecting design quality in planning (CABE, September 2003) http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=688
CD5/9 Enabling Development and the conservation of significant places (English Heritage September 2008) http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/EnablingwebV2_20080915124334.pdf
CD5/10 Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan (English Heritage, GLA and Westminster City Council May 2007) http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/westminster_plan.pdf
CD5/11 Seeing the history in the view: Assessing heritage significance within views (Draft) (English Heritage, April 2008) http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.00100200500q
CD5/12 Review of Call-In Directions (Draft January 2008)
CD5/13 Circular 02/09 - Call-In Directions (30 March 2009) http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planning policyguidance/planningcirculars/
CD6 – Local Planning Policy
CD6/1 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (August 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4594CF56-E9F7-4431-9854- 2D37056B6E20/0/UDP2007.pdf
Page 76 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD6/2 Lambeth Draft Guidance to Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/144A2712-D7EA-4A3E-8C0E- DDFC05B1D830/0/DraftWaterlooSupplementaryPlanningDocument.pdf
CD6/3 Lambeth Lower Marsh Conservation Area Statement (October 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/574EB92A-B8F2-467E-AFBA- 8FE96E3B0711/0/lowermarshCAstatement11.pdf
CD6/4 Lambeth Roupell Street Conservation Area Statement (October 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C5073E52-EED2-4DC2-A995- 20030D8EA07B/0/RoupellStreetCAstatement2007publisher.pdf
CD6/5 Lambeth South Bank Conservation Area Statement (September 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D58380AA-1448-4F35-A775- 235DCF907AF2/0/southbankCAstatement19.pdf
CD6/6 Lambeth Waterloo Conservation Area Statement (October 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D1C8E883-2374-447C-8153- D618A0C30B47/0/WaterlooCAstatement2007.pdf
CD6/7 Lambeth The Mitre Road and Ufford Street Conservation Area Statement (November 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/252C98BA-FE14-42F5-B192- F2B44393D38D/0/MitrerdandUffordstCAstatement01.pdf
CD6/8 Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (July 2008) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E65D48B3-D074-4F8B-92B6- 4791F5D067C2/0/AdoptedHousingDevelopmentandHouseConversions.p df
CD6/9 Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document ‘S106 Planning Obligations’ (July 2008) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2A510A13-1A23-4662-8321- B73F4F03773E/0/ApprovedS106PlanningObligationsSPD.pdf
CD6/10 Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (July 2008) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/910E5104-F2D7-48B2-A973- 5D3AB1EAD8A5/0/AdoptedSustainableDesignAndConstructionSPD.pdf
CD6/11 Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document ‘Shopfronts and Signage’ (2008) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4B8992D4-6AAB-4D6D-9159- 62BF6A0DCE12/0/ApprovedShopfrontsAndSignageSPDV12.pdf
CD6/12 Westminster City Council Supplementary Planning Document ‘Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area Audit’ (September 2008)
Page 77 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Westmin ster%20Abbey&Parliament%20Square%20CAA%20SPD.pdf
CD6/13 Westminster City Council Draft Supplementary Planning Document ‘Metropolitan Views’ (October 2007) http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Metropoli tan%20views%20Consultation%20draft.pdf
CD6/14 Lambeth’s Economic Development Strategy 2007-2010 (October 2007) http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/Regeneration/Lambe thEconomicDevelopmentStrategy.htm
CD6/15 Lambeth’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document ‘Section 106 Planning Obligations’
CD7 – Strategic Policy and Guidance
CD7/1 The London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (consolidated with alterations since 2004) (February 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf
CD7/2 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 (February 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/monitoring_report4.pdf
CD7/3 ‘Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework’ (October 2007) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/waterloo-framework- final.pdf
CD7/4 ‘Waterloo Development Framework’ Stage 1 Consultation Document (July 2004)
CD7/5 ‘Waterloo Development Framework’ Stage 2 Consultation Document (January 2006)
CD7/6 GLA Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘London View Management Framework’ (July 2007) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/spg-views-final- all.pdf
CD7/7 GLA ‘Sub-Regional Development Framework for Central London’ (May 2006) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/srdf/docs/central-srdf.pdf
CD7/8 London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’ (November 2005) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/spg-housing.pdf
CD7/9 GLA Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation’ (March 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-children- recreation.jsp
Page 78 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD7/10 GLA Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (May 2006) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/sustainable_design.jsp
CD7/11 GLA Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment’ (April 2004) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/accessible_london.jsp
CD7/12 The London Plan SPG – Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (October 2007) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/spg-planning-for- equality.pdf
CD7/13 GLA Housing Requirements Study (2004) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/docs/housing_reqs_2004.pdf
CD7/14 GLA Draft Housing Strategy (November 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/strategy/docs/strategy.pdf
CD7/15 Joint Statement by Government Office for London and GLA on the Greater London Housing Requirement Study (June 2007) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/docs/SHMAs.pdf
CD7/16 Joint Statement by Government Office for London and GLA on the Greater London Housing Requirement Study (March 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/15-yr-land-supply.pdf
CD7/17 Joint Statement by Government Office for London and GLA and the London Councils on the Greater London Housing Requirements Study http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/shmas.pdf
CD7/18 London Office Policy Review 2001 (July 2002) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/tr9_offices.pdf
CD7/19 London Office Policy Review 2002 (February 2003) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/lon_office_policy_rev_ 02.pdf
CD7/20 London Office Policy Review 2004 (August 2004) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/London_office_policy_r eview_2004_2.pdf
CD7/21 London Office Policy Review 2007 (May 2007) http://london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/lopr-07.pdf
CD7/22 Mayor's Biodiversity Strategy (July 2002) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/biodiversity/biodiversity_st rategy.jsp
CD7/23 The Mayor of London's Report: – Planning for a Better London (July 2008) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/plan-better-london.pdf
Page 79 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD7/24 Transport for London’s Cycle Parking Standards http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Proposed-TfL-Guidelines.pdf
CD7/25 London Renewables Toolkit (September 2004) http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/energy/renew_resources .jsp
CD7/26 GLA report, Waterloo Development Framework, 15 December 2005
CD7/27 GLA report, Waterloo Development Framework, 05 September 2007
CD8 – Elizabeth House GP LLP Core Documents
CD8/1 Statement of Case (December 2008)
CD8/2 Statement of Common Ground (March 2009)
CD8/3 Heads of Terms
CD8/4 Conditions and Informatives
CD8/5 MPD Analysis of Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square & Metropolitan Views, November 2008
CD8/6 Gap Analysis, Parliament Square, December 2006
CD8/7 Core Documents List
CD8/8 Chronology Chart
CD8/9 Miller Hare Photomontage Methodology (27 March 2009)
CD8/10 Miller Hare Photomontage Methodology (07 April 2009)
CD9 – London Borough of Lambeth Core Documents
CD9/1 Statement of Case (December 2008) (same as CD8/1)
CD9/2 Statement of Common Ground (March 2009) (same as CD8/2)
CD9/3 Steer Committee Report (October 2007)
CD9/4 Steer Committee Report (January 2008)
CD9/5 Committee Report (July 2008)
CD9/6 Cabinet Report
CD9/7 Urban Initiative’s Report
Page 80 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD9/8 Report (Members Briefing) 04 June 2008
CD9/9 Minutes of Committee Meeting 16 January 2008
CD9/10 Minutes of Committee Meeting 04 June 2008
CD9/11 Minutes of Committee Meeting 23 July 2008
CD10 – Greater London Authority Correspondence and Reports
CD10/1 Mayor’s Stage 1 Letter and Report (July 2008)
CD10/2 Mayor’s Stage 2 Letter and Report (October 2008)
CD11 – English Heritage Core Documents
CD11/1 Statement of Case
CD11/2 Conservation Principles – Policies and Guidance (2008)
CD11/3 Changing London – An Historic City for a Modern World (2002)
CD11/4 Capital Solutions (2004)
CD11/5 Shared Interest (2006)
CD11/6 Research Study Conducted for English Heritage by MORI (2002)
CD12 – Westminster City Council Core Documents
CD12/1 Statement of Case
CD12/2 DCLG’s consultation paper ‘Protection of World Heritage Sites’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/82 1646.pdf
CD12/3 English Heritage guidance note ‘The Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England’ (2008) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/82 1646.pdf (page 15-35)
CD12/4 City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan (2007) http://www.westminster.gov.uk/environment/planning/unitarydevelopm entplan/index.cfm
CD12/5 City of Westminster - Conservation Area Audits
Page 81 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Whitehal l%20CAA%20SPG.pdf http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Savoy.p df
CD12/6 City of Westminster High Buildings Study
CD12/7 City of Westminster reports and decision letters
CD12/8 Extracts from the Statutory Lists of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/spgs/publications/Listing%20buildings .pdf
CD12/9 The House of Commons Transport, Local Government & the Regions Committee Inquiry & Report into Tall Buildings September 2002. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/4 82/482.pdf
CD13 – CABE Correspondence
CD13/1 CABE to LBL 24 October 2007
CD13/2 CABE to Allies and Morrison 27 February 2007
CD13/3 CABE to Allies and Morrison 20 December 2006
CD13/4 CABE to Allies and Morrison 24 July 2006
CD13/5 CABE to Allies and Morrison 20 July 2006
CD13/6 Allies and Morrison to CABE 13 July 2006
CD13/7 CABE to Allies and Morrison 27 June 2006
CD13/8 CABE to GLA 09 May 2006
CD13/9 Metropolis PD to CABE 15 September 2005
CD14 – English Heritage Correspondence
CD14/1 LAC report, 26 January 2007
CD14/2 LAC exempt minutes of meeting 26 January 2007
CD14/3 LAC report, 21 September 2007
CD14/4 LAC exempt minutes of meeting 21 September 2007
CD14/5 Commission report, 05 December 2007
Page 82 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD14/6 Commission exempt minutes of meting 05 December 2007
CD14/7 Director’s report, 18 July 2008
CD14/8 Exempt minutes of meeting 18 July 2008
CD14/9 LAC report, 12 September 2008
CD14/10 LAC exempt minutes of meeting 12 September 2008
CD14/11 LAC exempt report, 05 December 2008
CD14/12 LAC exempt minutes of meeting 05 December 2008
CD14/13 EH to MPD 01 October 2008
CD14/14 EH written reps in relation to 1/20 Blackfriars, 06 August 2008
CD14/15 EH additional written reps in relation to 1/20 Blackfriars, 20 August 2008
CD14/16 EH to LBL 22July 2008
CD14/17 Metropolis PD to EH 04 July 2008
CD14/18 Metropolis PD to EH 13 June 2008
CD14/19 EH to LBL 11 June 2008
CD14/20 EH to LBL 21 April 2008
CD14/21 Metropolis to DCLG 31 March 2008 & 04 April 2008
CD14/22 EH to LBL 09 January 2008
CD14/23 LBL to EH 30 November 2007
CD14/24 Metropolis PD to EH 12 November 2007
CD14/25 EH to LBL 30 October 2007
CD14/26 EH to Metropolis PD 26 October 2007
CD14/27 Metropolis PD to EH 18 October 2007
CD14/28 Metropolis PD to EH 19 September 2007
CD14/29 EH to Metropolis PD 23 August 2007
CD14/30 Metropolis PD to EH 26 June 2007
Page 83 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD14/31 EH to LBL 24 May 2007
CD14/32 EH to Allies and Morrison 14 February 2007
CD14/33 Metropolis PD to EH 18 October 2006
CD14/34 Metropolis PD to EH 27 July 2006
CD14/35 Metropolis PD to EH 02 June 2006
CD14/36 EH to GLA 28 April 2006
CD14/37 Metropolis PD to EH 04 January 2006
CD14/38 EH to LBL 28 April 2004
CD14/39 EH proof of evidence in relation to Doon Street Inquiry, Andrew Karski, 22 January 2008
CD14/40 EH to LBL, 23 January 2002
CD14/41 EH to Metropolis PD 26 February 2009
CD14/42 Metropolis PD to EH, 04 July 2008
CD14/43 Metropolis PD to EH, 02 June 2006
CD14/44 A&M meeting minutes, 16 October 2006
CD14/45 EH to LBL 05 December 2008
CD14/46 EH to Metropolis PD 17 March 2009
CD15 – WCC Correspondence
CD15/1 WCC to LBL 30 June 2008
CD15/2 Metropolis PD to WCC 26 June 2007
CD15/3 WCC to GOL 11 April 2007
CD15/4 Metropolis PD to WCC 02 November 2006
CD15/5 Metropolis PD to WCC 10 July 2006
CD15/6 Metropolis PD to WCC 02 June 2006
CD15/7 WCC to GLA 11 April 2006
CD15/8 WCC to LBL 23 March 2004
Page 84 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD16 – LBL Correspondence
CD16/1 LBL to GoL 09 October 2008
CD16/2 LBL to GLA 02 October 2008
CD16/3 Metropolis PD to LBL 04 July 2008
CD16/4 LBL to GoL 02 July 2008
CD16/5 Metropolis PD to LBL 12 March 2008
CD16/6 Metropolis PD to LBL 10 January 2008
CD16/7 Metropolis PD to LBL 10 January 2008
CD16/8 LBL to Metropolis PD 05 December 2007
CD16/9 LBL to Metropolis PD 30 November 2007
CD16/10 LBL to EH 30 November 2007
CD16/11 Metropolis PD to LBL 26 November 2007
CD16/12 Metropolis PD to LBL 23 November 2007
CD16/13 Metropolis PD to LBL12 November 2007
CD16/14 Metropolis PD to LBL 12 November 2007
CD16/15 Metropolis PD to LBL 28 October 2007
CD16/16 Metropolis PD to LBL 05 October 2007
CD16/17 LBL to Metropolis PD 20 September 2007
CD16/18 Metropolis PD to LBL 12 September 2007
CD16/19 Metropolis PD to LBL10 August 2007
CD16/20 Metropolis PD to LBL 18 July 2007
CD16/21 Metropolis PD to LBL 26 June 2007
CD16/22 Metropolis PD to LBL 26 June 2007
CD16/23 Metropolis PD to LBL 08 May 2007
CD16/24 LBL to Metropolis 29 January 2007
Page 85 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD16/25 LBL to Metropolis 03 January 2007
CD16/26 Metropolis PD to LBL 01 December 2006
CD16/27 Metropolis PD to LBL 15 November 2006
CD16/28 LBL to Allies and Morrison 28 September 2006
CD16/29 Metropolis PD to LBL 27 July 2006
CD16/30 LBL to Metropolis PD 14 July 2006
CD16/31 LBL to Metropolis PD June 2006
CD16/32 Metropolis PD to LBL 02 June 2006
CD16/33 LBL to Metropolis PD 13 January 2006
CD16/34 EH to LBL 05 January 2006
CD16/35 LBL to Halpern, 22 February 2006
CD16/36 Halpern to LBL 21 June 2006
CD16/37 LBL to Metropolis PD 12 March 2009
CD17 – GLA correspondence
CD17/1 Metropolis PD to GLA 31 July 2008
CD17/2 GLA to WCC 22 January 2008
CD17/3 Metropolis PD to GLA 31 July 2008
CD17/4 Metropolis PD to GLA 22 October 2007
CD17/5 Metropolis PD 26 June 2007
CD17/6 Metropolis PD to GLA 18 June 2007
CD17/7 Halpern to GLA 02 June 2006
CD17/8 Halpern to GLA 10 May 2006
CD17/9 Halpern to GLA 01 March 2006
CD17/10 Halpern to GLA 19 January 2006
CD17/11 GLA to Halpern 17 August 2005
CD17/12 GLA to Halpern 21 February 2005
Page 86 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD18 – Other Correspondence
CD18/1 LBL to GoL 02 July 2008
CD18/2 Metropolis PD to GoL 26 June 2007
CD18/3 Metropolis PD to GoL 20 September 2007
CD18/4 WCDG to LBL 03 September 2007
CD18/6 SBEG to LBL 09 August 2007
CD18/7 National Theatre to P&O 30 August 2007
CD18/8 SBGG to Hazel Blears MP 30 July 2007
CD18/9 London Eye to P&O 30 May 2007
CD18/10 LCR to P&O 10 April 2007
CD18/11 Network Rail to P&O 12 February 2007
CD18/12 Metropolis PD to WCDG 26 January 2007
CD18/13 Guy St Thomas Hospital to Metropolis PD 19 December 2006
CD18/14 Metropolis PD to WCDG 17 July 2006
CD19 – Relevant Planning Decisions
CD19/1 Secretary of State Decision concerning Land bounded by Doon Street, Cornwall Road and Upper Ground, SE1 (19 August 2008)
CD19/2 Inspector’s report concerning Land bounded by Doon Street, Cornwall Road and Upper Ground, SE1 (22 May 2008)
CD19/3 LB Lambeth Decision Notice York House
CD19/4 LB Lambeth Committee Report York House
CD19/5 LB Southwark Draft Decision Notice 1 Blackfriars Road, 18 December 2007
CD19/6 LB Southwark Committee Report, 1 Blackfriars Road
CD19/7 LB Southwark Draft Decision Notice 20 Blackfriars Road
CD19/8 LB Southwark Committee Report 20 Blackfriars Road
Page 87 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD19/9 Secretary of State Decision concerning Island Block, County Hall, York Road/Westminster Bridge Road, SE1 (28 September 2001)
CD19/10 Inspector’s report concerning Island Block, County Hall, York Road/Westminster Bridge Road, SE1 (18 June 2001)
CD19/11 Secretary of State Decision concerning The Shell Centre (07 April 2004)
CD19/12 Inspector’s report concerning The Shell Centre, SE1
CD19/13 Secretary of State Decision concerning 20 Fenchurch Street, EC3 (09 July 2007)
CD19/14 Inspector’s report concerning 20 Fenchurch Street (11 May 2007)
CD19/15 Secretary of State Decision concerning Land adjoining London Bridge Station, SE1 (18 November 2003)
CD19/16 Inspector’s report concerning Land adjoining London Bridge Station, SE1 (23 July 2003)
CD19/17 Secretary of State Decision concerning St George Wharf Tower, SW8 (14 July 2005)
CD19/18 Inspector’s report concerning St George Wharf Tower, SW8 (27 September 2004)
CD19/19 Secretary of State Decision concerning 110 Bishopsgate, EC3 (22 July 2002)
CD19/20 Inspector’s report concerning 110 Bishopsgate, EC3 (30 April 2002)
CD19/21 Secretary of State Decision concerning 1 and 20 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 (25 March 2009)
CD19/22 Inspector’s report concerning 1 and 20 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 (09 December 2008)
CD 20 – Application Site Planning History
CD20/1 Decision Notice LBL ref 91/1064 dated 15th May 1996.
CD20/2 1996 Approved Scheme Drawings CD20/3 Decision Notice Approval of Details ref 99/00860/DET dated 31st August 2005. CD20/4 Decision Notice ref 04/02704/FUL dated 14th March 2007. CD20/5 Decision Notice Approval of conditions on permission 04/02702 dated 23rd May 2007 LBL ref 07/01240/DET CD20/6 Decision Notice Approval of conditions on permission 04/02702 dated 18th July 2007 LBL ref 07/01973/DET
Page 88 Report APP/N5660/V/08/1203387
CD20/7 Letter regarding discharge of condition 1c of 04/02702 dated 24th May 2007 CD20/8 Planning Condition Details – Perspectives & Elevations, March 2007 CD20/9 Statement of Development Principles July 2005 CD20/10 Competition Brief 2005
CD 21 – Westminster World Heritage Site CD21/1 Letter from MPD to WCC, 02 November 2006 CD21/2 DCMS report To UNESCO World Heritage Committee, January 2007 CD21/3 UNESCO Mission Report, 11 May 2007 CD21/4 World Heritage Committee Decision 31 COM 7B.91, 31 July 2007 CD21/5 Letter from ICOMOS UK to LBL, 18 September 2007 CD21/6 Letter from MPD to ICOMOS UK 16 October 2007 CD21/7 DCMS State of Conservation Report, 31 January 2008 CD21/8 Letter from DCMS 27 June 2008 CD21/9 World Heritage Committee Decision 32 COM 7B.113 CD21/10 DCMS State of Conservation Report, 25 February 2009 CD21/11 World Heritage Committee Decision 30 COM 7B.74 CD21/12 Dynamic Visual Impact Study for the Westminster WHS.
CD 22 – Listing Descriptions CD22/1 County Hall, Grade II* CD22/2 Victory Arch, Grade II CD22/3 General Lying-In Hospital, Grade II CD22/4 Royal Waterloo Hospital, Grade II CD22/5 Church of St John the Evangelist with All Saints, Grade II* CD22/6 Waterloo Bridge, Grade II* CD22/7 Various listed buildings along Stamford Street, Grade II CD22/8 National Theatre, Grade II* CD22/9 Royal Festival Hall, Grade I CD22/10 No. 5 Whichcote Street, Grade II CD22/11 Old Vic Theatre, Grade II* CD22/12 121 Westminster Bridge Road, Grade II CD22/13 The Tower of former Christchurch and Upton Chapel, Grade II
Page 89 L Land off North Avenue, Darley Abbey: Appeal Decision
Contains 14 pages
May 2018 Proof of Evidence: Historic Environment
Kew Curve-PoE_Apps_Final_05-18-AC Chris Blandford Associates