Appeal Against the Refusal of Planning Permission by the London Borough of Islington in Relation to Planning Application P2016/3477/FUL

Home , Closet

Appeal against the refusal of planning permission by the London Borough of Islington in relation to Planning Application P2016/3477/FUL

Removal of existing closet wing pitched roof and creation of new opening in rear wall of closet wing; the erection of a single storey garden room to the rear of the existing closet wing and a flat roof unifying the closet wing and extension. Conversion of interior of existing closet wing interior from shower room to WC and corridor.

On behalf of Francesco Muntoni

Prepared by Mr Ben Redsell LLB (Hons)

LPA Reference: P2016/3477/FUL Table of Contents Introduction ...... 3 Description of development site and proposals ...... 3 Planning History ...... 4 Planning Applications ...... 4 Policy Justification ...... 5 National Planning Policy Guidance ...... 5 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 6 London Borough of Islington Core Strategy ...... 7 London Borough of Islington Development Management Policies ...... 7 Canonbury Conservation Area Design Guidelines SPD ...... 8 Urban Design Guide SPG ...... 9 Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 9 Commentary ...... 10 Conclusion ...... 11 Appendix One ...... 12

0091-BR-Muntoni Introduction This appeal is submitted on behalf of Mr Francesco Muntoni, the appellant, against the refusal by London Borough of Islington against the awarding of planning consent and listed building consent (P2016/3716/LBC) allowing the removal of existing closet wing pitched roof and creation of new opening in rear wall of closet wing; the erection of a single storey garden room to the rear of the existing closet wing and a flat roof unifying the closet wing and extension. Conversion of interior of existing closet wing interior from shower room to WC and corridor.

The application was refused by the London Borough of Islington under application reference P2016/3477/FUL, and by decision notice dated 23rd November 2016.

The decision notice contains the following grounds for refusal:

The proposed rear extension would fail to be adequately subordinate to the original building. Consequently, the proposed extension would harm the significance of the heritage asset. The proposed works are, therefore, contrary to Policy 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policy 7.8 (Sustaining and Enhancing the Significance of Heritage Assets) of the London Plan 2015 and Policy CS9 (Protecting and Enhancing Islington's Built and Historic Environment) of Islington's Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM2.3 of the Development Management Policies (2013).

Description of development site and proposals 32 St Paul’s Road is a Grade II listed building in the Canonbury Conservation Area. It is one of a row of early Victorian properties completed in around 1845, a three-storey house with raised ground floors above a basement; the front ground floor elevations are rendered with rustications; the rear elevations are in plain London stock brickwork. The importance of these properties is reflected by the care with which the architect has taken to put together the application and the Design & Access Statement.

Most of the rear facades of the properties have been modified over the years - with varying degrees of success: single storey closet wings were added when siphoning lavatories became popular; in some properties a second storey was added to the closet wing; in others contemporary structures have replaced, or built out from, the closet wing.

32 St Paul’s Road is one of the few properties which still has the original tall, slim first floor stair half- landing window over a single storey closet wing. The design highlighted this feature by replacing the existing pitched roof of the single storey closet wing with a flat roof, increasing the proportion of the main volume visible from the rear.

Permission for a single storey extension to the closet wing was sought in order to create a garden room and so provide a greater connection between the living space of the property and the garden. The proposed access to this garden room was via a short corridor next to a replacement WC.

Given the listed building status of the property, it was felt important to keep a WC in the closet wing, so as to retain the original purpose for which that wing was added. Moving the WC elsewhere would have compromised the original layout of this Grade II listed building, and was not considered an option by the architects.

0091-BR-Muntoni In order to accommodate the WC as well as the new garden room, the extension had to be appropriately sized. If the total depth of the extended closet wing were limited, for instance, to 3.5m, then the garden room could only be 1.6m in depth. This was clearly unacceptable from an amenity point of view, and so a closet wing with total depth of 5m, which would allow a living room of similar size to the rear drawing room, was proposed.

It was proposed that the extension and the closet wing be unified under a single flat sedum roof, so as to minimise the visual impact when viewed from the garden, or from above. Windows, cladding and rainwater goods were to have a natural finish, such as timber and zinc, to be agreed with the Conservation Officer. It was felt this approach would result in an extension which would have significantly less impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building than other nearby extensions allowed in recent applications.

Planning History

Planning Applications (Local Planning Authority References)

P2016/0308/FUL Removal of existing closet wing pitched roof and creation of new opening in rear wall of closet wing; the erection of a single storey garden room to the rear of the existing closet wing and a flat roof unifying the closet wing and extension. Conversion of interior of existing closet wing interior from shower room to WC and corridor (Withdrawn).

P2016/0382/LBC Listed Building Consent for P2016/0308/FUL above. (Withdrawn).

P2016/1486/FUL Removal of existing closet wing pitched roof and creation of new opening in rear wall of closet wing; the erection of a single storey garden room to the rear of the existing closet wing and a flat roof unifying the closet wing and extension. Conversion of interior of existing closet wing from shower room to garden room. (Approved 10/06/2016).

P2016/1654/LBC Listed Building Consent for P2016/1486/FUL above. (Approved).

P2016/1497/FUL Installation of a shower room in the former coal store under the entrance approach, and a new glazed door to the void under the entrance stairs including lowering over existing floor levels. (Refused 07/07/2016)

REFUSED: By virtue of the lowering and underpinning of the coal vault would harm the significance of the heritage assets of the Listed Building and Canonbury Conservation Area.

P2016/1790/LBC Listed Building Consent for P2016/1497/FUL above. (Refused).

0091-BR-Muntoni Policy Justification

National Planning Policy Guidance The Government issued National Planning Practice Guidance in 2014, replacing 7,000 pages of planning guidance that was previously published in separate documents. Together with the National Planning Policy Framework, the NPPG sets out what the Government expects of local authorities. The overall aim is to ensure the planning system allows land to be used for new homes and jobs, while protecting valuable natural and historic environments.

Among the 42 different topics is a substantial amount of work regarding conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and effective conservation delivers wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.

Conservation is an active process of maintenance and managing change. It requires a flexible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets as diverse as listed buildings in every day use to as yet undiscovered, undesignated buried remains of archaeological interest.

In the case of buildings, generally the risks of neglect and decay of heritage assets are best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Ensuring such heritage assets remain used and valued is likely to require sympathetic changes to be made from time to time. In the case of archaeological sites, many have no active use, and so for those kinds of sites, periodic changes may not be necessary.

Where changes are proposed, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear framework for both plan-making and decision-taking to ensure that heritage assets are conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner that is consistent with their significance and thereby achieving sustainable development.

Part of the public value of heritage assets is the contribution that they can make to understanding and interpreting our past. So where the complete or partial loss of a heritage asset is justified, the aim then is to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance which is to be lost, interpret its contribution to the understanding of our past, and make that publicly available. (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 18a- 003-20140306).

A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.

Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not.

The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting

0091-BR-Muntoni is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each.

The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance.

When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its ongoing conservation. (Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 18a-013-20140306).

National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework was introduced by the Government in 2012. The Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It does not replace development plans, but is a material consideration in decision making. It is intended to be read in combination with the NPPG, as detailed above.

Chapter 12, Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, deals with the principles and policies relating to heritage related consent regimes under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Paragraph 129 of the Framework provides that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, including development that affects the setting of a heritage asset, taking into account the available evidence and any necessary expertise. LPAs should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of the proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraph 131 of the Framework provides that LPAs should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Paragraph 132 of the Framework deals with the weight that should be placed on the conservation of a heritage asset. The more important the asset, the greater weight should be given. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction or through development within its setting. Heritage assets are irreplaceable so any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm or loss of a Grade II listed building should be exceptional.

0091-BR-Muntoni Paragraph 133 of the Framework deals with applications which will lead to substantial harm or total loss of significance, which should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss.

Paragraph 134 of the Framework requires LPAs to weight any less substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset against public benefits of the proposal, including securing optimum viable use.

Paragraph 137 of the Framework requires LPAs to look for opportunities for new development to enhance or better reveal the significance of a designated heritage asset or Conservation Area.

London Borough of Islington Core Strategy Islington’s Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011 and forms part of the Islington Local Development Framework. The Core Strategy sets out an objective to maintain and enhance Islington’s historic environment through conservation-led regeneration initiatives.

As part of the Spatial Strategy, the Core Strategy provides (in Policy CS8) that enhancements must be made to Islington’s character. Areas of the Borough that are outside the key areas listed in the Spatial Strategy will see the scale of development reflecting the character of the area. The Council sees this as achievable through Conservation Area policies and other Development Management policies, which are set out in the Development Management Policies DPD and the Canonbury Conservation Area Design Guidelines SPD.

Turning to the Strategic Policies, the Core Strategy provides (in Policy CS9) a framework for protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic environment. High quality architecture and urban design are seen as key to enhancing Islington’s built environment; in this appeal the very high quality of the work produced by the appellant’s architect is evident.

Policy CS9 provides that Islington’s unique character will be protected by preserving the historic urban fabric. CS9(G) provides that High quality contemporary design can respond to this challenge as well as traditional architecture. Innovative design is welcomed, but pastiche will not be acceptable. The council will establish new advisory mechanisms to ensure the highest standards of architecture and environmental design.

London Borough of Islington Development Management Policies Islington’s Development Management Policies DPD was adopted in June 2013 and forms part of the Islington Local Development Framework.

Policy DM2.1 provides that for a development proposal to be acceptable it is required to demonstrate how it has successfully addressed the elements of the site and surroundings, including the historic context, such as distinctive local built form, significance and character of any heritage assets, scale and details that contribute to the character of a place.

In the context of the application appealed here, there have been a number of changes to the rear of these listed properties, which do not reflect well on previous planning regimes. The proposals under consideration here have been carefully designed to ensure that they have a minimal impact on the setting

0091-BR-Muntoni of the heritage asset and they enhance the views of the original tall, slim half landing stairs window, and increase the proportion of the main building that can be seen. Although a deeper extension into the garden, the proposal is carefully designed to appear less intrusive than the existing closet wing, and indeed cannot be seen from most vantage points outside the immediate property and garden.

Another element that DM2.1(B) requires an application to address is the understanding of the significance of the heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. It is evident from the Design & Access Statement submitted that the architect of this application considered carefully the significance of this Grade II listed building; it is for this reason that such lengths have been gone to in order to retain the WC in the closet wing, which has resulted in the marginal increase of the rear extension beyond that normally acceptable to Islington.

Policy DM2.3 notes that Islington’s historic environment is an irreplaceable resource and the council will ensure that the borough’s heritage assets are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. Importantly it goes on to say that developments that make a positive contribution to Islington’s local character and distinctiveness will be encouraged.

We contend that this application preserves the importance of the Grade II listed building, including the purpose of the closet wing, while enhancing the character of the building by increasing the proportion that can be seen, and providing a garden room for use by the occupants that does not cause significant harm to the designated heritage asset.

Alterations to existing buildings in conservation areas must conserve or enhance their significance. Again, the proposals do enhance the significance of the building, in that they retain the original use of the closet wing and enhance the features that have been sadly lost by other extensions.

On Listed Buildings the policy is relatively detailed, providing that the significance of Islington’s listed buildings is required to be conserved or enhanced, while appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged. The appellant agrees with the LPA when it states that “The significance of a listed building can be harmed by inappropriate repair, alteration or extension. Proposals to repair, alter or extend a listed building must be justified and appropriate.” We believe that the Heritage Impact Assessment and the Design & Access Statement make clear that the proposals are neither inappropriate nor harmful and are entirely justified and appropriate.

Canonbury Conservation Area Design Guidelines SPD The Council does not have a Conservation Area Character Appraisal or a Management Plan for the Canonbury Conservation Area, but it has produced and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of CA Eight – Canonbury Design Guidance.

The guidance sets out policies that will operate to preserve and enhance the special character and appearance of the area. The guidance provides assistance to developers for a number of commonly encountered issues within the Conservation Area, indicating what will be resisted and what will be encouraged. Some of these development management issues require listed building consent, and the subject matter of the Design Guidance includes dormer windows and rooflights, roof extensions, extraction equipment on commercial premises, infilling of front light wells, carports, or railings and paving.

0091-BR-Muntoni Paragraph 8.19 provides that a policy will be operated for side extensions, including that they should have a flat or low pitch roof hidden behind a horizontal front and side parapet. The policy is very specific that it relates to side extensions, and presumably is aimed predominantly at detached and semi-detached villas, and end terraces.

Paragraph 8.21 deals with full width rear extensions higher than one storey or half width rear extensions higher than two storeys. These will not be permitted, unless it can be shown that no harm will be caused to the character of the area.

The Council does not operate a policy regarding half width single storey extensions, nor is a specific depth from the main rear elevation proscribed. There is nothing in this Conservation Area Design Guide which might be considered to restrict the development proposed by the appellant. Urban Design Guide SPG An updated Urban Design Guide SPG has been adopted in January 2017, after the application was refused. It is therefore relevant policy for the Planning Inspector, and builds upon Development Management policies DM2.1 and DM2.3 as detailed above.

At Paragraph 5.133 the Guide provides that the rear elevations of Georgian and Victorian buildings were typically built with a consistent arrangement down the length of the terrace or street. The Heritage Impact Assessment considers the possibility that this were true of St Paul’s Road (at Paragraph 6.5) and makes reference to the fact that a number of the closet wings have been replaced by more substantial rear wings of two, two and a half or three storeys, but with the two storey wings in particular having no consistency of overall height or roofing treatment.

It is clear that whatever uniformity once existed, if it did indeed once exist, has long since been lost and so any alterations should be considered for their impact on the Grade II listed building, not on the form of the terrace as a whole.

At Paragraph 5.169 the Guide provides that the predominant Islington townscape is urban and densely developed in character; the visual and environmental relief provided by gardens underlines their importance in this context. Where garden rooms are acceptable by virtue of their small scale, low height and location within a garden, they will be subject to other adopted design policies and considerations.

Heritage Impact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment has been commissioned to support the appeal. The author of the report attached at Appendix Two is Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC MRTPI, the former Head of Conservation, Urban Design and Planning Policy for Ipswich Borough Council. Mr Kindred has 40 years’ experience in the heritage sector and is a member of the Council of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. He is a Trustee of the Ancient Monuments Society, a Casework Panel member of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, a member of the RIBA Suffolk Design Review Panel and a member of the St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Advisory Committee. He was the Special Heritage Advisor to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee from 2005 until 2012, the UK Commissioner for UNESCO from 1999 to 2020 and serves on the Main Committee of the Victorian Society. He was awarded the MBE for services to heritage in 1999 and is submitted to the Inspectorate as an expert in his field.

0091-BR-Muntoni The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) concludes that the 1972 listing description does not aid the understanding of the terrace’s significance as it merely acts as an aid to identification. Rear elevations were not described in the 1972 listing.

The present single storey extension has been repaired or rebuilt in inappropriate materials, including the mortar for the masonry, flashings, abutment details and guttering, detailing that departs from traditional historic building construction and diminishes the little historic interest the extension possesses.

There has been an inconsistent past approach to the treatment of the several larger two and three storey extensions in terms of depth from rear main facades, height, roofing treatment and patterns of fenestration. This detracts from the architectural coherence and special interest of the terrace.

It is considered that the size, scale and proportion of the appealed extension forming the reconfigured shower/WC and new garden room would provide an appropriate level of accommodation capable of being used in a simple and uncontrived way while remaining modest in the context of the listed building and the terrace as a whole, and responding to the change and adaptation of the building in a contemporary idiom, i.e. as a clearly 21st century change not a pastiche of a later 18th century style. Despite being largely concealed the appealed scheme would be a positive change, addressing the existing physical constraints of layout and responding to the guidance set out in Paragraph 137 of the NPPF.

With regard to the impact on the setting of the listed building it is considered that there are no implications as only restricted glimpses of the rear elevation can be obtained from St Paul’s Shrubbery and the proposals would marginally enhance the main rear elevation by allowing the tall, narrow staircase window to be better discerned.

The later rear extension notwithstanding, the terrace forms a coherent architectural composition but this is not readily appreciable from the only vantage points within the public realm, which are the open spaces forming St Paul’s Shrubbery. It is considered that the single storey scale of the appealed scheme would result in there being no discernible impact on the character and appearance of the Canonbury Conservation Area.

On the basis of the diminished special interest of the existing extension, the modest scale and discrete contemporary architectural treatment of the replacement extension which it is considered would be a positive enhancement on the setting of the rear main elevation, the appeal should be allowed.

Commentary This appeal follows a carefully drafted application by a responsible architect and applicant, which had a clear motive of retaining the importance of the Grade II listed structure, including the original purpose of the closet wing, while repurposing it for the 21st century.

The application was dismissed by 5 paragraphs of evaluation on the part of the LPA – hardly the careful and considered application of the facts that any development to a designated heritage asset deserves. It does not appear from those five paragraphs that the LPA made any effort to evaluate the impact this minor extension would have on the setting of the Grade II listed building; a perfunctory refusal that claims no public benefit and unacceptable harm to the significance of the heritage asset.

0091-BR-Muntoni As we have shown by application of Local and National Policy, and by submission of the attached Heritage Impact Assessment, the LPA has failed in its duty to properly assess the application on its merits, failed to assess the significance of any harm, failed to appreciate the public benefits of retaining the WC in the closet wing if possible, since that retains its original purpose, and therefore failed to properly apply policy to the application in the specific and the abstract.

Had the LPA properly assessed the project, it would have concluded, as did our highly experienced and expert Heritage Consultant, that this application should go ahead. As the LPA acknowledges, there would be no amenity impact because of the height of the existing shared boundary wall.

The LPA claim that the proposal would fail to be adequately subordinate to the original building. Notwithstanding the substantial number of rear extensions that the LPA has allowed to surrounding buildings, this proposal would be less intrusive to the building than the original closet wing, and would allow more of the rear of the building to be seen.

The LPA claim that because the proposal would “fail to preserve the visual appearance and historic character” it should be refused. However, the purpose of policy is not the preservation of that which is existing to the exclusion of all others. Indeed, the policy allows for total demolition of a designated heritage asset if that is what is called for to further the setting of other heritage assets. By removing the pitched roof of the existing closet wing, the proposal would enhance the setting of the heritage asset; the conclusion reached by the Heritage Consultant, Mr Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC MRTPI, was that the replacement extension is a positive enhancement to the setting of the rear main elevation.

Conclusion For the reasons set out above, the LPA erred in determining this application. Far from unacceptably harming the significance of a designated heritage asset, the proposal is found to be a positive enhancement to the setting of the heritage asset by a highly experienced and respected Heritage Consultant.

Given there are no other grounds for refusal, the application being acceptable in amenity terms, the Inspector must find for the appellant and allow this appeal.

0091-BR-Muntoni Appendix One Heritage Impact Assessment by Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants

0091-BR-Muntoni Heritage Impact Assessment for 32 ST PAUL’S WAY, ISLINGTON, LONDON N1 2QW For Mr. Francesco Muntoni

Cover photo: Front elevation from Saint Paul’s Road, Islington National Grid Reference: 532604 -184865

Notice

This document has been prepared for the stated purpose in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were commissioned and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants Ltd. We accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.

© Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants Ltd 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be otherwise reproduced or published in any form or by any means, including photocopying, storage on computer or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants is a trading name of Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants Ltd. Registered in England & Wales, No. 8051552.

February 2017 V.4 13-01-17

4 HENLEY ROAD, IPSWICH IP1 3SF Tel: 01473 259441 Mob: 077 13245 485 E: [email protected] W: www.bobkindredheritageconsultants.co.uk Registered in England & Wales. Registered No. 8051552

2 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Bob Kindred Heritage Consultants were commissioned by Planning Direct in association with Tobias Davidson Architects on behalf of Mr. Francesco Muntoni to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment [HIA] for No. 32 Saint Paul’s Road, Islington, London N1 2QW in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF].

1.2 This HIA is submitted in support of a planning appeal against refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for minor alteration works to the rear of the ground floor of the property. These works were to comprise the removal of a pitched roof to an existing single storey rear closet extension and the formation of a single storey garden room to the rear with a unifying flat sedum covered roof, and other minor alterations to reconfigure an existing WC/shower room.

1.3 No.32 Saint Paul’s Road is a designated heritage asset, Listed Grade 2 and situated within the Canonbury Conservation Area designated in 1969 and extended in 2001. The Council has published a Design Guide setting out the special policies that will be operable in the Conservation Area to preserve and enhance its special character and appearance, but this document refers to Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 and does not take into account that this national policy guidance was withdrawn in March 2010. The Council has not published a revised design guide nor a Conservation Area Character Appraisal or Management Plan for the area.

1.4 An external and internal inspection of the building, and its immediate environs to evaluate it’s setting, was undertaken on 25th January 2017.

1.5 This report may be deposited with Greater London Historic Environment Record and a copy sent to the National Monuments Record maintained by Historic England if required.

Fig.1 Location Plan Not to scale

2. NATIONAL POLICY

2.1 The law relating to listed buildings and conservation areas is enshrined in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This places a duty on local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings (Sections 16 and 66); while there is a similar requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas (Section 72).

2.2 This Heritage Impact Assessment Statement, to accompany the appealed proposals, is intended to comply with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 128 in that the impact on the significance must be described to a level of detail proportionate to the assets’ importance. This should be no more than is sufficient to understand the potential of that impact on the significance; and further, to assist under the terms of paragraph 129 with an assessment of the relationship between the conservation of the special architectural and historic interest of the building and the alterations necessary to ensure its continued viability.

2.3 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF apportions great weight to a designated asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. The NPPF asserts that significance can be harmed or lost through physical change and any harm requires clear and convincing justification.

2.4 It is considered that the appealed proposals will lead to less than significant harm and where this is the case, paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires the special interest to be weighed against the public benefits, including securing the building’s optimum viable use.

2.5 The NPPF also attaches great importance to matters of design. Paragraph 17 sets out twelve core planning principles, one of which is to ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’.

2.6 Paragraph 58 states that planning ‘policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments are well designed’. Paragraph 60 states that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles - notwithstanding the desirability of promoting or reinforcing local distinctiveness.

3. LOCAL GUIDANCE

3.1 While there is no Conservation Area Character Appraisal or Management Plan for the Canonbury Conservation Area the Council has published a Design Guide (‘CA Eight – Canonbury’) setting out the special policies that will be operable to preserve and enhance its special character and appearance.

3.2 The guidance deals with a number of development management issues that the Council regularly encounters throughout the area and indicates what proposals will be prohibited and what proposals will be encouraged, some of which are matters requiring listed building consent. The subject matter includes for example: dormer windows and rooflights; roof extensions; extraction equipment on commercial premises; infilling of front light wells; carports; and railings and paving.

3.3 Paragraph 8.11 of the Guide states that “In considering applications for extensions (…) the Council will normally require the use of traditional materials” on the basis that the existing character and appearance of the area has been largely established by the surviving 18th and 19th century buildings faced in brick or stucco and have timber joinery and slate roofs. The Council rightly states that it is important that extensions should blend in with and reinforce this character, but with an important presupposition that such extensions would therefore be clearly visible, not potentially highly discrete as is the case with the appealed scheme.

3.4 In paragraph 8.19 of the Guide the Council states that it will operate a policy regarding side extensions (on the basis that: new or replacement side extensions should not exceed 3m above ground level and should be set back by 3m or more from the front corner of the house. Also, all extensions should have a flat or low pitch roof hidden behind a horizontal front and side parapet (presumably on the basis that this can be seen from the street and could erode the gap between detached, semi- detached and groups of villas that would otherwise be afforded pleasant views to trees and/or rear gardens). Although not made explicit it must be assumed this is aimed principally at detached and semi-detached villas not terraces.

3.5 In paragraph 8.21 the Guide refers to a requirement that new rear full width extensions should be no higher than one storey, or if half the width of the façade - no higher than two storeys, so as to ensure that the scale and integrity of the existing buildings is preserved by extensions subordinate to the massing and height of the main building.

3.6 The Guide does not have any explicit policy regarding half width single storey extensions nor is a specific depth from the rear main façade proscribed; matters that would in any event require listed building consent and would presumably be judged on their merits.

4. STATUTORY LISTING

4.1 No.32 forms part of a long terrace of dwellings Nos. 26-60 Saint Paul’s Road grouped together as a single listing entry and includes the attached railings to the street elevation. The terrace was Listed Grade 2 on 29th September 1972 [List Entry Number: 1297971 UID: 369321 National Grid Reference: TQ 32580 84860]. The statutory list description is as follows:

Terraced houses. c.1845. Yellow brick set in Flemish bond, stucco, roofs obscured by parapet. Three storeys above basement, two windows each except Nos. 26 and 50. Basement and ground floor stuccoed, the ground floor decorated with banded rustication. Steps up to round-arched entrance, the doorcase recessed within a further round arch of smooth stucco. Ground-floor window round-arched and recessed in a round-arched panel of smooth stucco. First- and second-floor windows flat-arched with first-floor balconies on iron brackets. Parapet; stacks on party walls. No.26 has one bay to the street and its principal facade in St Paul's Place, apparently much renewed: round-arched central entrance up steps with pilaster jambs, panelled door and fanlight, flanked by round-arched windows, that to the right being blank. Upper windows flat-arched with balconies to first floor. Nos.28-34 have doorcases with pilaster jambs, panelled doors of original design to Nos.28-34, decorative glazing to fanlights on Nos.28 and 32, balconies with iron brackets and railings to Nos. 28-34, sashes of original design to second floor of No. 28. No.36 has a simple moulded doorcase and cast-iron balcony. Nos. 38-48 have doorcases with fluted quarter-columns, decorative glazing to fanlights on Nos. 40-48, panelled doors of original design, and balconies with cast-iron brackets and railings, sashes of original design to first floor of no 44 and second floor of No. 46. Nos. 50-60 also have doorcases with fluted quarter-columns, decorative glazing to fanlights on Nos. 54-58, panelled doors of original design, and balconies on cast-iron brackets on Nos.48-56; the upper storeys of Nos. 50-60 have been covered with stucco. No.50 has a broad tripartite window to first floor in place of usual two, and a tripartite window with segmental arch to second floor. Cast-iron railings to area of Nos.26-60 with spear-and-tassel finials and panels of anthemion ornament; they are decayed in places but appear to be original throughout. (Eric Willatts: Streets with a story. The book of Islington: London: 1986-).

4.2 Notwithstanding the length of the statutory list description, the assessment of the features of the front elevations of these eighteen dwellings is relatively perfunctory and typical of those buildings added to the statutory list by the Department of the Environment during the first national resurvey undertaken throughout the 1970s.

4.3 In that era designation descriptions still served more for the purposes of identification than as an objective evaluation of the degrees of significance and/or the component features contributing to a building’s special architectural and historic interest. In this respect the description of Nos. 26 to 60 Saint Paul’s Road does not represent current best practice regarding designation and assessment of relative significance.

4.4 No reference is made in the listing to the special interest of the interiors or to the rear elevations. Prior to recent heritage protection reforms, interiors were not routinely inspected prior to a building being protected if the calibre of street elevations, singly or collectively was considered sufficient to justify inclusion on the statutory list. The 1972 entry has not been subsequently amended.

5. THE APPEALED PROPOSALS IN AN OVERALL HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The significance of No.32 Saint Paul’s Road in relation to the characteristics of London dwellings of the period

5.1 Canonbury owes its name to the estate of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, which passed in 1570 to John Spencer, later Lord Mayor of London and through his daughter to the Comptons, Earls of Northampton, with whom it remained until 1954. The name of the area is therefore associated with the remains of the Spencers’ Canonbury House and signifies the period when Islington still comprised individual (large) houses in open countryside.

5.2 The development of the estate commenced in earnest around 1805 and the overall pattern of urbanisation was somewhat piecemeal for about half a century thereafter. Stucco fronted villas were completed from the 1820s as in part of the nearby street Northampton Park to the north of Saint Paul’s Road; brick fronted terraces were built in St Paul’s Place to the east in c.1837; and Nos. 26 to 60 Saint Paul’s Road were built in c.1845. The pattern of streets in Canonbury was also conditioned to some extent by the course of the New River. This ran north-northeast to south- southwest (roughly along the present alignment of Wallace Road) a little further west of Nos. 26 to 60 Saint Paul’s Road.

5.3 Immediately to the south in Saint Paul’s Road there is a sharp contrast to the early 19th century character of the area. This is the post-war Marquess Estate. designed by architects Darbourne and Darke from 1966 to 1976. This development was the first of Islington’s big council housing estates following the creation of new large boroughs under the Greater London Council.

5.4 The physical character of late Georgian and early Victorian facades to be found in many parts of Islington were the result of a careful consideration of classical proportion, the aesthetic effect of which is usually somewhat greater than the sum of their parts. The balance of, and emphasis on the related architectural details fluctuated almost from year to year in the 18th and early 19th centuries as building design was revised in accordance with the prevailing fashion or the latest iteration of the Building Act.

5.5 Throughout much of the Georgian period, the architectural proportions adopted were based on an imaginary grid derived from a concept inherited from Italian Renaissance architects - who had in turn drawn from Ancient principles taken from the proportioning of classical columns. A much more rudimentary approach to design was taken with rear elevations and these were generally plain without embellishment.

5.6 Even for quite modest dwellings such as No.32 Saint Paul’s Road, completed in the early Victorian era, the principle of a differentiated principal floor, the piano nobile, was so well entrenched that even when terraced houses were being mass produced by cheap property speculation all over London between the 1820s and 1840s; a standard formula emerged as defined in pattern books such as the Practical Builder of 1823 by Peter Nicholson. Despite an abundance of such books published between 1714 and 1840, those written at the end of the Georgian era still put forward the same stock building solutions, practically word for word, as had been the case a century earlier.

5.7 A succession of Building Acts influenced architectural design. The notable Building Act of 1774 to some extent reflected the general norms in taste of that era with clauses affecting elevations, enforcing a bold simplicity to front facades but generally disregarding the composition of rear facades.

5.8 The 1774 Act divided buildings into seven different classes or Rates according to their volume, expense of construction, use and position. Nos. 28-60 Saint Paul’s Road would probably have been categorised under the Act as Third Class buildings1 being at least three storeys above the ground in height and stated to be worth between £150 and £850.

5.9 Building activity in London increased after 1805 when it became obvious that the French would not invade England nor disturb Britain’s trade with the colonies - although defeat of Napoleon was not achieved until 1814. After 1810 much of London’s development lined existing country roads radiating outward with neat terraces and small suburban villas while new roads opened up previously inaccessible land for building with new terraces laid off the new and improved highways.

5.10 Speculative builders financing the residential development of inner London were motivated by the urgent desire to run up houses for rent as quickly as possible and they were not interested in architectural set-pieces or squares. Terraces such as Nos. 26 to 60 Saint Paul’s Road became the standard speculative form and builders such as E. Conquest, William Aspland, King & Co., William Timewell, P. Donnelly, J. Rashbrook, and George Frasi no doubt had an eye for larger scale general effects.

5.11 Whole streets began to be leased for development because this was more economic than smaller scale building but it would seem that the houses now forming the present listed terrace were not completed all in one operation. This is reflected in the length of the statutory list description necessary to define the wide variation of architectural detailing to the front elevations.

5.12 In the western part of the terrace, Nos. 50 to 58 the left and right had pairs of dwellings can be seen to have handed front entrances and all have rendered upper facades. The facades of the terraces are stepped between Nos. 42 and 44 and Nos. 34 and 36 reflecting an eastward fall in the topography. Also, Nos. 26 to 34 have distinctly different first floor cast-iron balconette patterns to those in the remainder of the terrace. It is therefore speculated that the terrace as a whole may have been the subject of at least four separate builds as follows: Nos.26 to 34; Nos.36 to 46; No.48 on its own (with a uniquely different upper floor fenestration pattern); and Nos. 50 to 60.

1 First class buildings included structures such as churches, manufacturies, warehouses and large dwellings worth at least £850 and exceeding 9 squares in area (a square = 100 square feet). All other buildings had to be either four storey above ground level or exceed 31 feet in height from pavement level to the top of the front wall. A Second class building being at least three storeys above the ground in height and be worth over £850. 8

Fig. 2 Ordnance Survey Six Inch Series Map of 1868 showing the mature largely complete urban development of the area before post-war development in parts of the south side of Northampton Park and the Marquess Estate south of Saint Paul’s Road. Saint Paul’s Shrubbery occupies the central triangle. Appeal site in red. Map not to scale.

6. DESCRIPTIVE RECORD AND SIGNIFICANCE

6.1 The rationale behind the design approach to the appealed scheme is set out in the accompanying Design and Access Statement and drawings by Tobias Davidson Architects. This heritage impact assessment should be read in conjunction with those documents.

6.2 The appealed proposals are confined entirely to the basement and ground floor rear elevation of No.32 Saint Paul’s Road, which as noted above, forms part of terrace of three-storey houses with raised ground floors over basements. Although the front ground floor elevations are rendered with rustications, the rear elevations are in plain London stock brickwork (also used for the flanking side and rear principal elevations of the adjacent terrace of Nos.1 to 6 St Paul’s Place to the north).

6.3 Guidance for builders contained in 18th and 19th century pattern books tended to concentrated on the architectural arrangement and embellishment of front facades; cross-sections to explain the proper laying out of foundations and roof structures; the plan layout of principal rooms on each floor including, for example for the spanning of floor joists; but very rarely plans for ‘domestic offices’ - sculleries and kitchens. Until the advent of proper internal plumbing, rear closet extensions were not provided for Georgian and early Victorian houses and no pattern book advice was offered.

6.4 The mass manufacture and installation of siphoning toilets is likely to have post- dated the construction of Nos. 26-60 Saint Paul’s Road and none of the present rear extensions are likely to be original. Such closet extensions were conveniently added at the rear at a later date where half-landings to a rear staircase provided convenient point of rear access.

6.5 It is not clear if single storey rear closet extensions were first added to all the houses in the terrace with further second storey additions built at a later date and the brickwork of the facades is not conclusive in this respect. In several instances single storey closet wings may have been replaced by more substantial rear wings of two, two-and-a-half and three storeys but these have no consistency of architectural arrangement, depth from the rear main façade, overall height or roofing treatment. (Figs.3 -5)

Fig. 3 Rear elevations and extensions to Nos. 26-32 Saint Paul’s Road

Fig.4 Rear elevations and extensions to Nos. 34-38 Saint Paul’s Road

Fig. 5 Mid-terrace rear extensions and extensions in Saint Paul’s Road to the west

6.6 The only public vantage point of the rear of the terrace is from St Paul’s Shrubbery. When seen from this direction the uncoordinated approach to rear additions is evident. It is considered that there detract from the overall architectural interest. No.32 St Paul’s Road is one of the few properties to retain its original tall, slim first floor stair half-landing window (above the single storey closet wing). The closet wing extension itself cannot clearly be seen from any public vantage point and only the apex of the slate roof can be discerned.

6.7 The external elevations of the present single storey extension are built in Flemish bond brickwork and have bee at the very least, comprehensively and not very expertly repointed in a weather struck, hard cementitious mortar, inappropriate in both composition and appearance. The ridges of the roof have been covered in ill- fitting sections of cover flashings that appear to be in zinc sheet rather than traditional and more closely fitting and more weather tight leadwork. A cement fillet covers the junction between the rear extension roof slates and the rear main elevation brickwork where a more traditional and appropriate lead flashing dressed into the existing main façade brickwork would be expected. The extension is drained by modern, half-round, 11 light grey plastic guttering on the north and west sides and on the east side by what appears to be a modern proprietary flashing to plastic guttering abutting the garden boundary wall to No.30. (Fig.6)

Fig.6 The rear single storey closet extension to No.32 Saint Paul’s Road

6.8 Overall the extension appears to have been either rebuilt or heavily and unsuitably repaired using some materials and detailing that depart from traditional historic building construction. This diminishes what little historic interest the closet wing extension possesses.

6.9 The interior of the extension has been fitted out to provide modern shower and toilet facilities and has no features of intrinsic heritage interest or significance.

6.10 The existing shower/WC extends 1.9m to the rear of the main façade and is 2.9m wide. It is understood in 2016 consent was given for a 3.5m extension to provide a garden room on the footprint of the existing closet extension (minus a WC) but the applicant subsequently concluded that from functional and structural perspectives, and the potential impact on the internal fabric of the listed building, the re-location of a shower/WC elsewhere within the dwelling would be less suitable.

6.11 The appeal extension proposes a single storey extension replacing the existing pitched roof with a flat roof, thereby improving the proportions of the main rear façade. The scheme proposes incorporating, but slightly reconfiguring, the shower/WC located off this corridor to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations. A garden room 3.4m deep is also proposed, bringing the total depth of the extension to 5.0m while retaining the same width as existing.

6.12 The overall proposed footprint is considered to be the minimum size necessary for a room suitable for daily habitable use and is considered appropriately proportioned in relation to the overall scale and massing of the rear façade. The garden room would provide a direct and pleasing relationship between the interior and the rear garden and would better reveal the significance of the upper parts of the listed building from St Paul’s Shrubbery while providing an attractive and optimally functioning dwelling.

6.13 As noted in Section 3, the council’s published design guide is silent regarding the treatment of any rear extensions that do not extend the full width of rear main elevations. It is therefore contended that the proposals should be judged on their architectural merits and their limited heritage impact.

6.14 The appealed extension uses an understated contemporary architectural language so as to avoid being a pastiche design of the early Victorian era. It is clearly of its time and a compliment and contrast to the substantial scale and traditional materials and detailing of the original historic fabric of the rear main facade.

6.15 A sedum ‘green’ roof is proposed to further minimise the visual impact when viewed from the windows above and the upper rear windows of immediately adjacent properties in the Saint Paul’s Road terrace. No.32 is not otherwise overlooked from properties elsewhere in the vicinity.

6.16 With regard to the impact of the appealed extension on the fabric of the listed building, no alteration is required to the existing rear opening between the main façade an the present closet wing, but a new structural opening will be necessary in the rear wall of the closet wing itself. As noted above, the closet wing may not be original to the building. In the appealed scheme, the existing pitched roof to the wing is intended to be removed and the present small modern west facing side window bricked up to match.

6.17 It is considered that the impact of the appealed proposals on the fabric and significance of the listed dwelling and the terrace as a whole would be less than substantial in line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

6.18 The impact of the appealed extension on the setting of the listed building and the conservation area more widely is dealt with in Section 7 below.

7. CONSERVATION AREA CONSIDERATIONS AND SETTING

7.1 Islington Council has a statutory duty to periodically review the character and boundaries of its conservation areas. Guidance on such matters is usually based upon Historic England’s Historic Environment Advisory Note 1 [HEAN1] Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal & Management (February 2016).2

7.2 Currently there is no Conservation Area Character Appraisal or Management Plan for the Canonbury Conservation Area. The extent of the designation is quite large but in the vicinity of No.32 the boundary runs along the centre of Saint Paul’s Road excluding the post-war estate to the south. The designated area thus encompasses inter alia the listed terrace Nos. 28-60; St Paul’s Place to the east; the triangular public open space known as St Paul’s Shrubbery; and houses in Northampton Park. (Fig. 7)

7.3 The rear of No.32 faces the rear gardens of Nos. 1-6 St Paul’s Place with St Paul’s Shrubbery offset to the northwest. There is no side view of No.32 from St Paul’s Place as a 9ft 6in gault brick wall screens this road boundary.

Fig. 7 Conservation Area in green, (Islington Council website screen capture) No.32 Saint Paul’s Road arrowed in red

7.4 St Paul’s Shrubbery to the northwest of No.32 is described by the London Gardens Online website [maintained by the London Parks & Gardens Trust] as a small park entirely overlooked by the backs of houses on land owned by the Marquess of Northampton and leased to the New Crown public house, owned by the Cannon Brewery Co. Ltd.

7.5 The Ordnance Survey map of 1868 (Fig. 2) shows a central circular walk connected by bisecting east west paths with lines of trees to the perimeter. Part of the site is said to have been was laid out at one time as tennis courts and let out to a tennis club.

7.6 In 1928 this open space was provided for the use of tenants of the houses overlooking the site for an annual charge of £1. The lease stipulated that the gardens were to be “maintained as a pleasure garden or recreation ground”. St Paul’s Shrubbery is publicly accessible during daylight hours and maintained by Islington Council. Numerous large trees survive including mature horse chestnut, false acacia, lime, cherry and sycamore. The site includes a large sunken football pitch.

2 This supersedes the (former) English Heritage publications: Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals and Guidance on Conservation Area Management (2006) 14

7.7 Observation of the rear of Nos. 26-60 Saint Paul’s Road is partly obscured by the well-established large mature trees and perimeter brick walls to the rear gardens of the terraced properties. Views of the rear ground floors of the terrace are particularly difficult to obtain from public vantage points within the centre of the public open space because of the presence of the mature trees and this is only marginally improved at the perimeter. (Fig. 8) The rear garden of No.32 is further obscured from St Paul’s Shrubbery by a garden gazebo adjacent to the rear boundary wall and a further planted archway spanning the width of the garden at the halfway point of its depth.

Fig.8 Rear of No.32 arrowed - viewed approximately opposite the rear of Nos.36 -38 when seen from the boundary of St Paul’s Shrubbery The rebuilding of the upper rear facades of Nos. 28 and 30 is clearly evident as is the variation in fenestration patterns.

7.8 It is considered that the appealed single storey extension at No.32 will not be visible from any public vantage point within conservation area and its conservation area impact will therefore be negligible. The architectural language and use of materials therefore not considered to be pertinent conservation area policy considerations.

Setting 7.9 The NPPF requires the proponents of development proposals to evaluate the impact of those proposals on the setting of heritage assets (listed buildings and conservation areas) likely to be affected by them. As already noted above, the appealed extension requires such consideration.

7.10 Advice regarding the setting of heritage assets is set out in Historic England’s ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3’ [HEAN 3]3 document. While the aim is to assist in implementing historic environment policy in the NPPF, paragraph 10 (p.6) of HEAN3 also states that the implications of development affecting the setting of heritage assets should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

7.11 Setting is seen as separate from concepts of curtilage, character and context: • curtilage describes an area around a building - in the case of No.32 the extent is defined by consideration of ownership, both past and present, functional association and layout. Consequently, it is contended that this extends only to the rear garden of No.32. • setting includes (but generally may in some instances be more extensive than) curtilage, however for the purposes of this heritage impact statement, the setting is

3 Published by English Heritage in March 2015 and re-published by Historic England July 2015 15

taken to relate to the eastern part of St Paul’s Shrubbery.

7.12 While HEAN 3 defines the character of a historic place as the sum of all its attributes: its relationships with people, now and through time; its visual aspects; and the features, materials, and spaces associated with its history, including its original configuration and subsequent losses and changes; in St Paul’s Road it is the visual relationship of the proposals to the rear of the existing terrace that requires consideration.

7.13 The NPPF makes it clear that while the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which it is experienced, its extent is not always fixed and may make a positive or negative contribution to significance or may be neutral in its effect and this may also change over time.

7.14 It is contended that from the public realm (St Paul’s Shrubbery) the site of the appeal can only experienced from close quarters within the Shrubbery and even then the ground floor is almost entirely obscured by existing brick boundary walls, garden structures and landscaping etc.

7.15 It is contended that the appropriately scaled, sympathetically designed form of the proposed extension being appealed against would be subservient to the ‘main rear façade of the building, and would be modest in massing and scale in the context of the neighbouring two storey (and taller) rear wings and extensions elsewhere in the terrace.

7.16 Paragraph 11 of HEAN 3 states that protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive.

7.17 Examination of the nature, extent and levels of significance of heritage assets is encouraged by HEAN 3 but this should be considered proportionately as the guidance recognises that where developments are not likely to be prominent or intrusive the effects on setting may often be limited to the immediate surroundings or indeed may be negligible.

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires a description of the potential impact on a statutorily listed building’s significance to a level of detail proportionate to its importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential of that impact. Similar evaluation is required because of the location within a designated conservation area.

8.2 The 1972 Listing description does not aid understanding of the significance of Nos. 26 to 60 Saint Paul’s Road by defining the appearance only in broad terms and describing variations to the features of the front facades (particularly fenestration patterns and doorcases) as an aid to its correct identification. Rear elevations are not described.

8.3 The external envelope of the present single storey extension at No.32 has been repaired or rebuilt in inappropriate materials including hard cementitious mortar for the masonry; zinc flashings, cement flaunching and plastic guttering. Such detailing departs from accepted traditional historic building construction and diminishes the little historic interest the extension possesses.

8.4 An inconsistent approach can be observed to the design of the numerous two and three storey rear extensions to the terrace in terms of their depth from the rear main facades; their height, roofing treatment and also the patterns of fenestration. This detracts from the architectural coherence and limited special interest of the rear of the terrace.

8.5 It is considered that the size, scale and proportions of the appealed extension to form a reconfigured shower/WC and new garden room would provide an appropriate minimum level of additional accommodation while remaining modest in the context of the listed building and the terrace as a whole. It is considered that this would also be a valid response to the change and adaptation of an early Victorian dwelling in a contemporary idiom, that is, as a clearly 21st century change not a pastiche.

8.6 Despite being almost entirely concealed from the public realm, the appealed scheme would be a positive change, address the existing physical constraints of layout and responding to the guidance set out in paragraph 137 of the NPPF.

8.7 With regard to the impact on the setting of the listed building it is considered that there are no implications as only restricted glimpses can be obtained of the rear elevation from southeastern part of St Paul’s Shrubbery. The appealed proposals would be positive alteration in that they would marginally enhance the main rear elevation by allowing the tall, narrow staircase window to be better appreciated.

8.8 The adjacent later rear extensions notwithstanding, by virtue of its overall massing the rear of the terrace forms a coherent architectural composition, but this is not readily appreciable from the only vantage points within St Paul’s Shrubbery, the only vantage point in the public real. Consequently it is considered that the single storey scale of the appealed scheme would result in there being no discernable impact on that character and appearance or setting of the Canonbury Conservation Area.

8.8 On the basis of the limited significance of the of the existing closet extension; its unsympathetic modern repair; and diminished special interest; and the modest scale and discrete contemporary architectural treatment of the replacement extension, the appealed proposal would be a satisfactory minor alteration and a positive enhancement of the setting of the rear main elevation and should be allowed.

Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC MRTPI Bob kindred Heritage Consultants Ltd February 2017

Authorship of this Heritage Statement The author of this report is Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC MRTPI - the former Head of Conservation Urban Design & Planning Policy at Ipswich Borough Council with over 35 years experience in the heritage sector. He was awarded the MBE for services to heritage in 1999.

He is a member of the Council of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation; a Trustee of the Ancient Monuments Society; a Casework Panel member of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings; an honorary member of the Suffolk Association of Architects; a member of the RIBA Suffolk Design Review Panel; and a member of the St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Advisory Committee. He is joint consulting editor of the international Journal of Architectural Conservation.

He was the former Special Heritage Advisor to the House of Commons Culture Media & Sport Committee from 2005 to 2012; a member of the UK Commission for UNESCO from1999 to 2010; and a Main Committee of the Victorian Society from 1987 to 1997.