HIGHGATE NEW TOWN PHASE 1, CAMDEN Community-led Conservation Guidance for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area and Application for Grade II* Listing

Prepared by: The Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) Working Group & Tom Davies (with input from Prof. Mark Swenarton) March 2020

CONTENTS SUMMARY...... 9 1 INTRODUCTION...... 12 1.1 Project background...... 12 1.2 Location & Topology...... 12 1.3 Summary Statement of Significance...... 16 2 METHODOLOGY...... 22 2.2 Aims and Objectives...... 22 2.3 Process...... 22 2.4 Workshops and Consultation...... 24 2.5 Sources...... 24 2.6 Assessment Criteria...... 24 2.7 Assumptions and Limitations...... 25 3 REGULATION AND POLICY...... 25 3.1 Regulation...... 25 3.2 Policy...... 25 3.3 Guidance from Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA)...... 28 3.4 DPNF Neighbourhood Plan...... 29 3.5 Other Guidance...... 29 4 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE...... 32 4.2 Background to HNT...... 32 4.3 Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT)...... 33 4.4 Peter Tàbori...... 35 4.5 Density & Execution...... 40 4.6 From building to street...... 41 4.7 Urban Renewal and Community...... 48 4.8 The Hill-town at HNT...... 54 4.9 Life at HNT...... 54 4.10 Setting, Views and Patterns of Use...... 58 5 HERITAGE VALUES...... 62 5.2 Evidential Value...... 62 5.3 Historical value...... 63 5.4 Aesthetic Value...... 64 5.5 Communal Value...... 64 5.6 Group Value...... 65 6 THE RESIDENTS WORKING GROUP WORKSHOPS...... 66 6.2 Basis of Approach...... 66 6.3 Buildings and External Space...... 66 6.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation...... 67 6.5 Technical installation ...... 68 6.6 Amenity space and community events...... 68 6.7 Gardening and Pruning...... 68 6.8 Refuse and Recycling...... 68 6.9 Signage and maps...... 68 6.10 Cooperation...... 69 6.11 Maintaining and Enhancing Highgate New Town’s Setting...... 69 6.12 Parameters for Acceptable Impact...... 69 7 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDANCE AND POLICIES...... 72 7.2 Basis of approach...... 72 7.3 Buildings and external space...... 72 7.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation...... 72 7.5 Views and visual amenity...... 73 7.6 Technical installation (heating, lighting and water)...... 73 7.7 Amenity space and community events...... 73 7.8 Gardening and Pruning...... 73 7.9 Refuse and Recycling...... 73 7.10 Signage and maps...... 73 7.11 Cooperation...... 73 8 ADOPTION & REVIEW...... 73 9 APPLICATION FOR GRADE II* LISTING...... 76 9.2 Summary of impact at HNT...... 80 9.3 Justification for Grade II* Listing...... 80 9.4 Architectural Interest...... 80 9.5 Historic Interest...... 81 9.6 Aesthetic merits...... 84 9.7 Communal Value...... 85 9.8 Selectivity and National Interest...... 85 9.9 State of repair...... 88 10 CONCLUSION ...... 89 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 90 APPENDIX 1 RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE...... 93 APPENDIX 2 LISTING BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL (...) INTEREST...... 102 APPENDIX 3 WORKSHOP POSTERS...... 103 TABLES Table 1: Heritage Asset Significance...... 25 Table 2: Proposed Conservation Policies for inclusion in DPCA...... 74

Cover - Sketch of Play Area (Peter Tábori) Previous- Fig. 1: Residents at evening, HNT (TD) Adjacent- Fig. 2: Cooks Camden HNT Playsquare at centre of Cluster (Martin Charles RIBA) FIGURES Cover- Play Square Drawing (PT) Figure 1 Residents at evening, HNT (Tom Davies) Figure 2 Cooks Camden HNT Playsquare at centre of Cluster (Martin Charles RIBA) Figure 3 London Borough of Camden Figure 4 Hampstead Ward and Location of HNT Figure 5 HNT Playsquare (Tim Crocker/Mark Swenarton TC/MS) Figure 6 Roof plan of original design for entire site showing four clusters (PT/LBC) Figure 7 Sandstone Place (TC/MS) Figure 8 Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD) Figure 9 Lulot Gardens from the steps (TC/MS) Figure 10 DPCA Sub-Areas (LBC) Figure 11 DPCA Townscape Appraisal (LBC) Figure 12 Lulot Gardens toward Highgate Cemetery (TD) Figure 13 Polygon Road (TD) Figure 14 View from Bridle Way into the Greens (TD) Figure 15 Cooks Camden Sketch showing environmental strategy (PT/LBC) Figure 16 Lower maisonette, looking from dining to living area and balcony (TC/MS Figure 17 Lower maisonette, paired doors to bedrooms (TC/MS) Figure 18 3 Storey house, kitchen from living room (TC/MS) Figure 19 Axonometric of cluster showing pedestrian streets and play square (PT/LBC) Figure 20 Civita di Bagnoregio (Stephanie Bower) Figure 21 Informal Square at Sandstone Place (TD) Figure 22 Informal Square, Seggiano, Tuscany (TD) Figure 23 External Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD) Figure 24 External Stairs, Arcidosso, Tuscany (TD) Figure 25 Egg and Spoon Race, Stoneleigh Terrace (Jo McCafferty) Figure 26 Evening at the Greens (TD) Figure 27 Historic Views (TD) Next- Fig. 28: Lulot Gardens towards DPH (TD) Figure 29 Entrance to Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) Figure 30 Protected view between Cemetery and Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) Figure 31 Stoneleigh Terrace towards Cemetery (TD) Figure 32 Residents at evening at Sandstone Place (TD) Figure 33 A damaged cabinet (TD) Figure 34 Fenced off play-area at the Greens (TD) Figure 35 Pedestrian Entrance from the East (TC/MS) Figure 36 Steps from Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street (TD) Figure 37 View east along Lulot Gardens (TC) Figure 38 The Greens (TD) Figure 39 Former Bridal Way (now route) adjacent Highgate Cemetery (TD) Figure 40 Cycling along Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) Abbreviations: Tim Crocker(TC)/Mark Swenarton(MS)/ Peter Tàbori(PT)/London Borough of Camden(LBC), Tom Davies (TD)

Fig. 3: London Borough of Camden

Fig. 4: Hampstead Ward and Location of HNT 8 Summary This report presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and an application for Grade II* Listing for Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT), Camden, London, designed by architect Peter Tábori and constructed 1967-78. The study it presents was produced by a working-group comprising residents from HNT, supported by their Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) the Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) and community/heritage researcher Tom Davies (AHO) together with architectural historian Professor Mark Swenarton as consultant. The report sets out conservation guidance, developed through a community-led process and specific to HNT, for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA). This is followed by the application for Grade II* Listing for the deliberation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Historic England (HE), which seeks to recognise the national significance of HNT as exemplary public-housing. These are made on the basis of its exceptional heritage values, the importance of retaining community spaces for its community and strong resident support from that community.

The conservation guidance seeks to address the current lack of guidance specific to HNT in the DPCA appraisal, whilst the application for Grade II* Listing is made on grounds of threat from the cumulative impact of inappropriate maintenance and other interventions at HNT. As such, it seeks to provide adequate protection from such impacts in the future. This accords with and meets the requirements of the DCMS’ Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings, the Historic England Listing Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war buildings and current Strategic Listing Priorities as a Post-war Landscape for the external aspects and community spaces at HNT (DCMS 2018). This study takes its lead from the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (DPNF), which identifies a need for better community engagement and representation and who have expressed their support for this initiative. It is intended to present the heritage of HNT from the perspective of its community, then and now, exploring HNT’s design, build and use (adoption/adaptation) by the community to develop a diverse narrative providing a comprehensive understanding of HNT as ‘place’ (in the sense of its significance) and community (Norberg-Schulz in Knox 2005: 1).

The application for Grade II* Listing presents new information about design, development and life at HNT from the extensive insights of new research by Mark Swenarton in Cook’s Camden: The Making of Modern Housing, additional research by Tom Davies and a programme of workshops with residents (Swenarton 2017: 108-135). It provides a fuller and richer picture of HNT than that available for consideration under a previous application in 2006. This comprises Tábori’s distinct approach at HNT, drawing on the heritage of Italian Hill-towns and teaching and experience gained from working with architects Ernö Goldfinger, Richard and Su Rogers (who has expressed support for the listing) and Team 4, Denys Lasdun, Serge Chermayeff, Paul Rudolph and Tábori’s colleagues at Camden Architects (Camden Borough Architects). It reveals connections between the UK, Europe and the US and a unique approach to urban renewal with an exotic Italian flavour at HNT; through which Tábori drew upon his diverse experience to achieve something his peers had been unable to do. Tábori’s adeptness in assimilating and developing ideas, from community-focused design to standards of production and technical innovation, represents a unique achievement in HNT as housing for community, in which it stands its ground with contemporaries such as Alexandra Road and Lillington Gardens; both Grade II* Listed. Grade II* Listing at HNT would recognise its high significance and with adoption of specific conservation guidance will provide the support and protection it warrants in addition to that extended under the DPCA (Camden 2009).

The resident workshops revealed a strong correlation between how residents have adopted and use HNT in everyday-life and Tábori’s intentions for the design. They also provided the opportunity to discuss findings and to exchange stories and views through which the conservation guidance was developed. Frustrations over current management, support and inappropriate repairs were revealed to stem from a lack of understanding and representation of how HNT works in current conservation guidance (the DPCA). This was addressed by developing the specific conservation guidance set out in this report for inclusion in the DPCA. In these workshops an initial focus on maintenance and use of external areas developed into considering how that enables residents to share space, communicate and socialise. Through this the unique community spaces at HNT emerged as key in providing the quality of everyday life and as an important community resource requiring better support and maintenance. The vital community resource they provide, represents just one of the important factors in the application for Grade II* Listing. The workshops also covered the technical aspects of HNT’s design and how they can and can’t be modified addressing inappropriate alterations and identifying areas of potential to help residents get more out of HNT. On this basis of this, the conservation guidance and the application for Grade II* Listing are made equally on the basis of HNT as place and community. 9 10 11 1 Introduction 1.1 Project background 1.1.1 This report presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and application for Grade II* Listing of Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT), Camden, London, designed by architect Peter Tábori (1967-78). The study it presents was produced by a working-group comprising residents from HNT, managed through the Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) and community/heritage researcher Tom Davies (AHO) together with architectural historian Mark Swenarton as consultant. It sets out conservation guidance, developed through a community-led process and therefore specific to HNT, for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA), and the case for Grade II* Listing on grounds of threat and its high significance as per the procedure and qualifications detailed in the above Summary. These are made on the basis of the exceptional heritage values at HNT, the importance of retaining community spaces for its community and strong resident support from HNT’s community. The project is the work of and owned by HNT’s community and contributes to academic studies of heritage and community in Post-war housing. (occas.aho.no/people/tom-davies). 1.1.2 Designed by Peter Tábori and executed by job architect Kenneth Adie, HNT saw the redevelopment of an area regarded by some at the time as one of Camden’s worst Victorian slums; although this is strongly contested (Webb 1972: 148 & Pers. Comm. Treherne: 2019). Following a joint-venture planned with the neighbouring London Borough of Islington, Tábori took HNT forward as a two- part scheme for Camden, whilst the Islington portion became the Girdlestone Estate completed in 1975/76 (Willats 1986). Tábori’s initial scheme was revised following a council decision in ’67 to take forward Phase 1 (housing) and complete Phase 2 (south of Raydon Street) at a later date. This resulted in Tábori completing Phase 1, whilst phases 2A/2B and 2C were developed by Camden colleagues Bill Forrest and Oscar Palacio in 76-78 & 78-81. 2A/2C was recently redeveloped by Rick Mather Architect’s as Chester Balmore (2012-14), whilst 2C, comprising yellow-brick blocks and houses, lies to the south facing onto Dartmouth Park Hill and Raydon Street. Whilst acknowledging the contribution of Forrest and Palacio, this study considers Tábori’s work at Phase 1 on the basis of its achievement as community-focused design and its value for its community. This should not exclude the surviving work by Forrest and Palacio at Phase 2C from consideration in the future, but it does not form part of this study. 1.1.3 This study takes it lead from the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (DPNF) Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan (DPNF 2016), which identified a need for better community engagement and representation at HNT. It presents the heritage of HNT from the perspective of its community, then and now, exploring design, build and use (adoption/adaptation) by the community to provide a comprehensive understanding of HNT as place and community. This forms the basis for specific conservation guidance for inclusion in the DPCA and Grade II* Listing, in recognition of HNT’s national significance. The core studies and workshops were undertaken 2018-2020 with wider consultation of residents through survey to include those unable to take part in the open workshops. Proceedings have been relayed to the community with their responses being used to inform the study. 1.1.4 HNT is one of three studies which contribute data concerning communities on Post-war housing schemes in London and Oslo as part of Tom Davies’ PhD. Thesis ‘The Architecture of the Ordinary: Redefining the role of stakeholders in the future of Brutalist heritage’. This explores the balance between heritage protection and vitality of use through ‘community commissioning’ to define new approaches to heritage protection. This term, borrowed from UCL’s Engineering Exchange, is summed up by Jeremy Till as the ‘Expert-Citizen/Citizen-Expert’ dynamic. In this, the expert (heritage etc.) is most effective when they engage as both expert and citizen ‘working on behalf of and as a dweller’ whilst residents as Citizen-Experts contribute critical ‘local-knowledge’ of community and place. This helps build real consensus and create a successful outcome (here HNT) (Till 2005: 33). 1.1.5 It produces a diverse (or strong) narrative about place and community presenting ‘the origin and goal of the current activity that refers to different aspects of the core values and thus provides “entries” for holders of different values. Once ‘entry’ is gained into the unfolding story of the activity in focus the member can participate in the further elaboration of the adventure” in this case the conservation guidance and Grade II* Listing (Jönsson 2002: 138-39). This narrative and the neighbourhood resilience it incorporates represent capital for future projects (Stevenson and Petrescu 2016). 1.2 Location & Topology 1.2.1 HNT is located in the northeast of the London Borough of Camden, lying centrally at TQ 28888680 and measuring 2.06 hectares. It is bordered to the east by Dartmouth Park Hill, to the west by Highgate Cemetery. the Highgate Wing of Whittington Hospital lies to the north whilst Raydon Street forms the southern boundary. The topology climbs steeply from Raydon Street to the north. 12 HNT in Redline (Phase 2 to south of Raydon Street)

Previous- Fig. 5: HNT Playsquare (Tim Crocker/Mark Swenarton TC/MS) Fig. 6: Roof plan of original design for entire site showing four clusters (PT/LBC) 13 14 15 1.2.2 HNT represents Phase 1 of the original scheme for Highgate New Town developed in from late ‘60s, which is described as a “Funnel shaped site of 15. Acres (6.1. Hectares) on Camden/Islington boundary. Flanked to north by Whittington Hospital, Highgate Cemetery to west and terraced streets at Chester Road, Bertram Street, Winscombe Street and Bramshill Gardens (Swenarton 2017: 110-111). An account of this larger scheme, which was eventually developed in two parts, follows in Section 4. 1.3 Summary Statement of Significance 1.3.1 HNT (1967/72-78) makes an outstanding contribution, to the Low Rise High Density (LRHD) housing built under Camden’s head architect Sydney Cook, between 1965-73, as well as to London, the UK and beyond. Its design embodies an urban renewal approach achieved through continuity, connectivity and permeability with the surrounding streets, which capitalises on its former layout as part of Victorian Highgate. The then revolutionary concept of ‘urban renewal’ was expounded in a special issue of the Architectural Review in 1967 compiled by Nicholas Taylor (later re-printed as his book The Village in the City, 1973), which counterposed the modernist concept of ‘the estate’ with the way in which cities had normally developed – and which, he said, needed to be re-adopted. This is captured in the following quote from Taylor;

“The British used to know how to build houses as an integral part of their towns; now they build separate estates, with disastrous results socially and visually” (Swenarton 2017: 112)

1.3.2 Tábori took this thinking on-board, drawing on the character of the Victorian streets and overlaying it with exotic elements drawn variously on Italian hill-towns together with influences from his Hungarian background, studies and earlier work. In addition to drawing together Victorian Camden and the hill-town, the buildings and streets are executed with attention to detail and the exacting standards of job architect Kenneth Adie resulting in a high-standard throughout. The scheme is characterised by clearly articulated relationships between public and private-space, as espoused by key contemporary figures such as Jane Jacobs, Serge Chermayeff and Jaap Bakema, which makes intensive use of a rich variety of devices from Italian hill-towns. The influences from Hungary and Tábori’s former mentor, fellow Hungarian Ernö Goldfinger are embodied in the bold interiors of the dwellings and the detailing of external features, such as grills and railings, whilst the later influence of Richard and Su Rogers is present in several aspects (see under). Combined with the Brutalist ‘as found’ approach, this continuity is achieved through integrating the scheme with the street layout and character of earlier Highgate. Together with discrete squares, greens and recreation-spaces, with a richly varied circulation of routes and views, Tábori’s design successfully lays out in built-form the pre-conditions for community life (Pers. Comm: Swenarton: 2019). 1.3.3 The design of HNT draws heavily on the influence of contemporary sources which according to Tábori “every student read” at that time (Swenarton 2017: 113). Key in this is the work of American journalist and community activist, Jane Jacobs’, particularly her notion of eyes-on-the-street, as set out in her The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs 1961). This formed standard reading at the time, was a major influence for Tábori, and is today widely considered to be a seminal work on urban planning. Jacobs’ views concerning how traditional streets largely police themselves and how good built environment is to a degree self-regulating are manifest throughout HNT in the interrelation of dwellings, blocks and streets and the overlooking of external areas from kitchens and terraces. As such HNT was one of the first projects in the UK to apply this transatlantic thinking. Swenarton tells us that;

“For Tábori, as for Jane Jacobs, this strong visual link between public and private was a key feature of the traditional street, providing self-policing and thereby contributing to a successful community” (Swenarton 2017: 127).

1.3.4 The focus on both distinct elements and their assemblage here, stems from the influence of the Post-war architecture and planning pioneers Team 10 and the ‘Notions of inclusiveness, contestation and personal engagement’ as described by one of its key members Jaap Bakema (Van den Heuvel 2018: 240). The term ‘habitat’, used to describe a more holistic approach to living, became common currency in the ‘60s and can be traced back to Team 10’s Statement on Habitat (The Doorn Manifesto) presented at their inaugural conference at Doorn in the Netherlands in 1954. Providing an idea of its intent the manifesto opens with “It is useless to consider the house except as a part of a community owing to the inter-action of these on each other” (evolutionaryurbanism. com). Jaap Bakema, Team 10’s secretary after Doorn, established a Post-box service in the early ‘60s which sought to “develop architecture and town planning towards a language which can communicate about human behaviour” (Van den Heuvel 2018: 66). This reached architects from Previous- Fig. 7: Sandstone Place (TC/MS) 16 the UK, Europe and Scandinavia and further afield to individuals such as KenzoTange in Japan, working towards the needs of the anonymous client (the resident community) and the idea of an ‘open society’ in which;

“Each man’s attitude towards life will strongly be defined on by the balance of these new rights and responsibilities and vice-versa. The expression (gestaltung) of this attitude could nowhere be manifested so clearly as in our cities.” [With this] “Our urban districts could surprise and stimulate again if only the hidden potential of our new social structure (the open society) were to be expressed by building for the anonymous client.” (BPH Newsletter 27th January 1961 in Ibid. 71).

1.3.5 HNT along with the other Camden projects built under Sydney Cook (1965-73) can be seen as belonging to this school of thought, with its focus on provision for the anonymous client and in the words of contemporary Dutch architect John Habraken in Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing (1972) trying “to make provision for what cannot be foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016: 173). 1.3.6 The hill-town influence, through Tábori’s relationship with architect Richard Rogers, is in the use of external stairs and circulation, rich arrangements of public-routes, entrances with gantries and parapets, spaces and greens achieving the hill-town’s sense of intimacy helped by paired entrances and shared amenities and the visual connections between street, home and surrounding area. This extends to the axial layout of HNT, which can be traced all the way back to pre-Roman Etruscan planning, which determined the layout of many of the hill-towns studied by Tábori. Notable details here are the axial relationship and use of squares for community-focus and the diagonal cut-through which relates back to the Etruscan’s belief that their God Tin’s gaze cleaved the town in two halves (Barbacci 1989: 6-13). 1.3.7 Through this personal connection with Richard (Tábori’s tutor in the early ‘60s) and Su Rogers HNT’s design draws on unrealised housing schemes and individual houses developed by the Rogers at Team 4, notably Coulsdon, Surrey and Pill Creek, Cornwall (Appleyard 1996 & Powell 1999). This connection extends to Serge Chermayeff who had a significant influence on the Rogers’ when they studied at Yale in 1961-62. The attention to detail and technical precision, seen in environmental thermal and air regulation (see 4.6), finds parallels in Rogers’ and Team 4’s work and through the Yale connection can be traced back to architects such as Paul Rudolph (head of Yale architecture school in 1961-62), Raphael Soriano and Charles and Ray Eames. Other personal connections include Ernö Goldfinger who mentored Tábori and Denys Lasdun whom Tábori worked for subsequently (Swenarton 2017: 113). Technical and engineering expertise is drawn both from Ernö Goldfinger and Tábori’s time at Denys Lasdun & Partners (DLP), where he worked on the Ziggurat halls of residence at the University of East Anglia. This technical expertise is apparent in concreting techniques and technical solutions. 1.3.8 This diverse range of influences and experience is drawn together at HNT into a cohesive and original scheme, countering the earlier assumption that Tábori drew only from colleague Neave Brown’s work at Alexandra Road (English Heritage 2006). Whilst Tábori worked closely with and was influenced by Brown, Brown formed an important part of Tábori’s diverse influences and experience, rather than being exclusive. One measure of Brown’s influence on Tábori’s decision to move to Camden from DLP, was determined that by the fact that Brown was already there (Swenarton 2017: 110). 1.3.9 Common to Brown, Tábori and others at Camden, is Chermayeff and Christopher Alexander’s 1963 publication Community and Privacy: towards an architecture of humanity, which sought to achieve “both privacy and the true advantages of living in a community [through] an entirely new anatomy of urbanism…. built of many hierarchies of clearly articulated domains” (Chermayeff &Alexander 1963: 37). This should establish “A new physical order needed to give expression and meaning to the life of ‘urbanising’ man, to clarify, to define, to give integrity to human purposes and organisation, and finally, to give these form” (Ibid. 34) The methodology centres around a system of locks in the form of transitional spaces and rooms, moving from Urban public to Individual Private, which they define as “The ‘room of one’s own’ the inner-most sanctum to which individuals may withdraw from their family.” (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963: 121-122). They conclude that “Only when the habitat of urbanising man is given such an order shall we perhaps restore to urban life a fruitful balance between community and privacy” (Ibid. 37). 1.3.10 Returning to Camden, Neave Brown’s 1967 article the ‘Form of Housing’ provides his account of “how concepts of street, neighbourliness and continuity re-appeared, in project form in the Smithsons’ Golden Lane and in fact at Park Hill”. He describes how;

17 “The individual house is itself a puzzle, but housing is not just a collection of houses, high or low. More fundamental are the concepts which hold housing together, relate each house to its neighbour and to it open space, determine the desirable relationships between housing and the attendant functions of shopping, schools, social and welfare buildings, the circulation systems for pedestrians and cars which hold the area together and establish contact. These concepts are concerned with more than utilitarian criteria. They concern interpretations of desirable relationships in order to make perceptible and therefore meaningful the contact between one activity and another, and their mutual dependence.” (Brown 1967).

1.3.11 In addition to Rogers, Jacobs, etc., this shows that Tábori had this influence at close hand. From which it is possible to imagine what conversations took place at Camden Architects on a daily basis. 1.3.12 The skill in which Tábori drew on his different associations, is present throughout the design of the residences internally and externally, their varied layouts and flexible interior solutions and the utilisation of the steep south-facing slope to achieve high densities with good lighting and air. There is also near total accessibility for different levels of ability across the public areas of HNT and many ground floor residences, provided by a scheme of ramps throughout, which presents an early example of ‘access for all’ or ‘universal design’. As such HNT’s innovative design and standard of execution, within the canon of community-focused design from the late ‘60s and increasing recognition of Camden’s LRHD housing, demonstrate high evidential, historical and aesthetic value (5 Heritage Values). 1.3.13 HNT’s story following completion reveals how its community has adopted and adapted the provision of space and today enjoy living in a rich environment of diverse housing and external spaces. The public spaces and gardens are used for community events, such as parties and social gatherings realising the intended use of external space at design. As a community, residents have a collective understanding of how HNT works and provides for them as individuals and families, not least in its car-free space for play and recreation. Characteristic in this is an informality, in which residents are free to determine how to use the external areas, reminiscent of the discrete squares of the hill-town. This demonstrates the legacy of Tábori’s design and how that has played out in delivery, which can usefully inform both current and future management. 1.3.14 Given the community’s role as the ‘anonymous client’, their story is integral in understanding HNT’s role within the story of late ‘60s housing. As such their lived experience as residents in a scheme with community-focused design provides a legacy from which we can learn. Returning to the quote from John Habraken, with the benefit of 40 years’ hindsight, it is possible to review what was delivered by provision of design. At HNT this has proved to be remarkably successful and marks the pinnacle of its architect’s achievements. Whilst forming a core part of the historical and evidential values mentioned above in particular it demonstrates high Communal value which is key in binding together the historical, evidential and aesthetic values of HNT (Historic England 2008). This provides a basis for informing conservation and care through the needs of its community, retaining them as the anonymous client of both its design and future care (This Summary of Special Significance is set out in full in 4. Statement of Significance).

1.3.15 Some of the key characteristics can be summed up as follows; Community-focused design through detailed attention to public-private relationships Scale of ambition, perseverance and achievement in the face of changing requirements, support and funding Provision of a unique layout of diverse community spaces forming a central resource in the quality of everyday life for residents Achievement in determining and delivering a scheme which accords with and provides for the developing needs of its residents as anonymous client in the long-term; Innovative approach to housing which combines continuity and community focus with Italian and other influences, realising something distinct from its contemporaries High-standard of architectural design and execution drawing from various celebrated influences Technical innovation in variation of dwellings, utilisation of slope and daylight and early provision of accessibility

Adjacent- Fig. 8: Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD) 18 19 20 21 2 Methodology 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 The study starts with the Statement of Significance, presenting the historic baseline/development, heritage values and character of HNT as a basis for determining sensitivity, setting, views and patterns of use. The residents working group used this together with their own experiences as the basis for detailed conservation guidance which seeks to protect the built-environment at HNT and their interests as residents. It is intended that adoption of this, will help Camden and other bodies to ensure that future repairs and interventions are appropriate to the character of HNT. To achieve this, the study presents HNT as both place and community with an eye to raising the profile of both community and place which might serve as an example for other post-war communities.

2.2 Aims and Objectives 2.2.1 The aims of Statement of Significance are to, Present the historical-baseline of HNT, Assess the character, built form and significance of HNT, Determine sensitivity as a heritage-asset and establish the basis for assessing impact,

2.2.2 The aim of the Conservation Guidance work is to; Learn from residents to fully understand the heritage values at HNT and how these have developed over time, Develop guidance for inclusion under Sub Area 5 of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) Secure specific conservation policy for the better management of HNT as place and community

2.2.3 The aims of the application for Grade II* Listing are; To demonstrate, recognise and safeguard HNT as a site of national significance, Provide the additional protection to that included under the DPCA required in recognising the national significance of HNT,

2.2.4 The Listing application is made on the basis of; the high significance of HNT as revealed by recent research; the threat of cumulative impact from inappropriate maintenance and interventions and; Qualification under the DCMS’ Principles for Listing (DCMS 2018) Qualification under Historic England Listing Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war buildings Qualification under Historic England’s Strategic Listing Priorities as a Post-war Landscape.

2.3 Process 2.3.1 The ‘community-commissioning’ approach at HNT, as captured in Jeremy Till’s ‘Expert-Citizen/ Citizen-Expert’ dynamic, represents a ‘meeting in the middle’ which moves beyond top-down/ bottom-up approaches and their inherent power relationships (Till 2005). Using workshops, discussion and interviews it is also possible to avoid the assumptions and inflexibility of written survey and questionnaires, and allow process to remain responsive. This allows diverse and developing requirements to emerge, avoiding coercive engagement which overrides community interests in securing agenda (Friedman & Miles 2002, Blundell Jones Et. Al. 2005, Zimmermann & Maennling, Crane & Ruebottom 2011). Sten Jönsson of the Gothenburg Research Institute (GRI) describes this process; ‘We resort to consensus to overcome the doubt, but also to end divisions and misunderstandings between defenders of different positions. We believe strongly in the benefits of mutual criticism and free examination of arguments to reduce prejudice and subjective judgment on our way to a sound decision. But as we approach choice and action there is a convergence of individuals to associate with others, to demonstrate commitment to a shared attitude towards the contemplated action so that others can rely on us to do our part, include us in their plans, groups and project. Action presupposes unity of intent and discipline in pursuit of a Common fate.’ (Jönsson 2002: 140).

Previous- Fig. 9: Lulot Gardens from the steps (TC/MS) 22 2.3.2 Jönsson’s analysis demonstrates both the difficulty in retreating from decisions taken in consensus- building and with that the importance of carrying the whole community forward in process, for which he recommends building ‘strong narrative’; “This can probably be accomplished by continuous production of a narrative about the origin and goal of the current activity that refers to different aspects of the core values and thus provides “entries” for holders of different values. Once ‘entry’ is gained into the unfolding story of the activity in focus the member can participate in the further elaboration of the adventure” (Jönsson 2002: 138- 39).

2.3.3 This notion of ‘strong’ (or diverse) narrative underpins the work at HNT by building the narrative of HNT’s architectural history into an evolving narrative which covers design and construction to community and place. In so doing it builds community ties and ‘neighbourhood resilience’ through the diverse understanding of HNT (Stevenson & Petrescu 2016 & Davies 2020). 2.3.4 Architect Doina Petrescu explains how this contributes to supporting place and community in future; “Participation is a formative process. Residents are initiated through dialogue and interventions into becoming an active part of their immediate surroundings. They start to shape their own policies, to articulate their own voices and preferences, to organise themselves independently. By facilitating this process we might manage to pass on tools that will allow them to re-shape their world. We learn to ‘make-do’ together with the available resources” (Petrescu 2005: 53).

2.3.5 The working group at HNT was set up through the WERA through consultation to work on behalf of residents. Using the WERA’s role as TRA to communicate between the working group and residents as a whole helped keep process responsive and communicated as widely as possible. This was done using material prepared by Tom Davies, which the WERA relayed to residents who were able to respond to the WERA or by email to Tom Davies. The first stages were to establish the working group as working on behalf of the community at HNT and then to determine the scope of the project (conservation guidance and exploring the option of Grade II* Listing). The working group developed the project, the WERA communicated and relayed information and all residents were invited to participate either through the workshops or by sending in information. 2.3.6 Public noticeboards at HNT were used throughout to relay information together with the workshops, WERA meetings and ‘walkabouts’ talking to residents, which provided opportunity to talk to members of the community who did not join the workshops. Process concluded with a three-week residents’ review of results for feedback and questions during which summaries of the project were displayed in the notice-boards and delivered in person to each household, with an email address for responses, which have been included in this report.

2.3.7 The constituent parts of the study are;

Workshops and site-visits with working group comprising WERA and other residents, Preparation of baseline from documentary and other sources, Review of the relevant planning policy and guidance as a basis for recommendations, Preparation of Statement of Significance including Setting and views, Preparation of conservation policies with working group, Listing Review Residents review.

23 2.4 Workshops and Consultation 2.4.1 The main programme of workshops was carried out between March and November 2019. This was preceded by three initial meetings between residents and Tom Davies to determine the scope of the project. The workshops were supplemented by prior preparation and research (including the earlier consultations) as well as ongoing liaison with the working group throughout the project period, and evening walkabouts to talk to residents. 2.4.2 The workshops were held on, June 6th 2019- evening session on community and use, conservation guidance and scope for listing (3 hours) attended by 11 individuals, variously members of the WERA, short and long-term residents and former tenants. This working group has been approved by the WERA to represent both represent residents across the estate and will report back through the WERA to the community. August 6th 2019- Group interview with three long-term residents to fill out the community’s timeline at Highgate New Town Phase 1. November 25th 2019- Draft Presentation and discussion workshop (Autumn 2019) February 15th – 30th 2020 – Public review for HNT residents and neighbours

2.4.3 Architectural Historian Professor Mark Swenarton the author of Cook’s Camden: the making of Modern Housing (Swenarton 2017) was engaged on the project in August 2019 and provided review and support on the historical baseline sections from thereon.

2.5 Sources 2.5.1 A range of sources were used to assess HNT’s significance and potential in line with best practice guidance as outlined by Historic England and relevant legislation and guidance as well as current best practice examples of Conservation Management. The conservation guidance policies have been developed using current guidance from Historic England and other sources (HE 2019).

2.6 Assessment Criteria 2.6.1 Assessment of significance seeks to identify how particular parts of a site and different periods in its evolution contribute to, or detract from, identified heritage values associated with the site.This considers the present character of the site based on the chronological sequence of events that produced it, and allows management strategies to be developed that sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets. 2.6.2 Significance (for heritage policy) is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Annex 2 as: ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’

2.6.3 Current national guidance for the assessment of the significance of heritage assets is provided by Historic England in the document Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (HE 2008) in which significance is weighed by consideration of the potential for the asset to demonstrate the following value criteria:

Evidential value. Deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.

Historical value. Deriving from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative.

Aesthetic value. Deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.

Communal value. Deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific aspects.

24 Table 1: Heritage Asset Significance

Significance Factors Determining Significance International World Heritage Sites

Assets of recognised international importance

Assets that contribute to international research objectives National Scheduled Monuments

Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings

Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens

Undesignated assets of the quality and importance to be designated

Assets that contribute to national research agendas Regional Grade II Listed Buildings

Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens

Conservation Areas

Assets that contribute to regional research objectives Local Locally listed buildings

Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor contextual associations

Assets with importance to local interest groups

Assets that contribute to local research objectives Negligible Assets with little or no archaeological/historical interest Unknown The importance of the asset has not been ascertained from available evidence

2.7 Assumptions and Limitations 2.7.1 The provisions of this study are provisional and draft (until adopted), whilst the data used, comprising secondary information derived from a variety of sources, is as far as it is reasonably verifiable accurate.

3 Regulation and Policy

3.1 Regulation Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 3.1.1 The primary legislation relating to Listed Buildings is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which makes provision for the listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, designation of conservation areas, and the exercise of planning functions in relation to these. It requires Councils to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a Listed Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses (sections 16 & 66) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas (section 72) (HMS0 1990).

3.2 Policy National Policy 3.2.1 Present government planning policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012). Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment provides guidance for the conservation and investigation of heritage assets and requires local authorities to take the following into account:

25 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. 3.2.2 The aim of NPPF Section 12 is to ensure that Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities, developers and owners of heritage assets adopt a consistent and holistic approach to their conservation and to reduce complexity in planning policy relating to proposals that affect them. 3.2.3 To summarise, government guidance provides a framework which; requires applicants to provide proportionate information on the significance on heritage assets affected by the proposals and an impact assessment of the proposed development on that significance. This should be in the form of a desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation; takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and their setting; places weight on the conservation of designated heritage assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas);

The Localism Act 2011 3.2.4 The Localism Act, 2011 sets out the grounds for devolution of power and resources ‘passing new powers and freedoms to town halls’. It “gives councils more freedom to work together with others in new ways to drive down costs. It gives them increased confidence to do creative, innovative things to meet local people’s needs” (DCLG 2011a&b). 3.2.5 In delivering this ambition the Localism Act established the grounds for neighbourhood-planning allowing communities to produce neighbourhood plans, to which the recent Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan belongs. “Neighbourhood planning will allow communities, both residents, employees and business, to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like” (DCLG 2011b).

Camden Local Plan (Adopted 2017) 3.2.6 The Camden Local Plan forms the core part of the London Borough of Camden’s Local Development Framework. The following excerpts are from policies regarding the historic environment, health and well-being, communities, accessibility, bio-diversity and sustainability which are considered relevant in informing detailed conservation guidance. The policies are set out in full in Appendix 1. Heritage 3.2.7 From Policy D2 Heritage “Designed heritage (NB: including Listed Buildings) assets include conservation areas and listed buildings; “The Council will not permit the loss of or substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, including conservation areas and Listed Buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; b. no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; c. conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”

3.2.8 On Conservation Areas from Policy D2 Heritage; “Conservation areas are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction with the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. In order to maintain the character of Camden’s conservation areas, the Council will take account of conservation area statements, 26 27 Fig. 10: DPCA Sub-Areas / Fig. 11: DPCA Townscape Appraisal appraisals and management strategies when assessing applications within conservation areas.”

Other relevant policy 3.2.9 From Camden Policy C1 Health and Wellbeing “The Council will improve and promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities through ensuring a high quality environment with local services to support health, social and cultural wellbeing and reduce inequalities.” 3.2.10 From Camden Policy C6 Access for All “The Council will seek to promote fair access and remove the barriers that prevent everyone from accessing facilities and opportunities.” 3.2.11 From Camden Policy E1 Economic development “The Council will secure a successful and inclusive economy in Camden by creating the conditions for economic growth and harnessing the benefits for local residents and businesses.” 3.2.12 From Camden Policy A2 Open space “b. safeguard open-space on housing estates while allowing flexibility for the re-configuration of land uses.” And, “f. conserve and enhance the heritage value of designated open spaces and other elements of open space which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas or to the setting of heritage assets.” 3.2.13 From Camden Policy A3 Biodiversity “f. seek to improve opportunities to experience nature, in particular where such opportunities are lacking;” and “h. secure management plans, where appropriate, to ensure that nature conservation objectives are met.” 3.2.14 From Camden Policy CC2 Adapting to climate change “The Council will require development to be resilient to climate change. All development should adopt appropriate climate change adaptation measures such as: a. the protection of existing green spaces and promoting new appropriate green infrastructure; b. not increasing, and wherever possible reducing, surface water runoff through increasing permeable surfaces and use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; c. incorporating bio-diverse roofs, combination green and blue roofs and green walls where appropriate; and d. measures to reduce the impact of urban and dwelling overheating, including application of the cooling hierarchy.”

3.3 Guidance from Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) 3.3.1 The Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) was designated on the 4th of February 1992 on grounds of special interest that justifies designation through a character appraisal of the area. It describes DPCA as a ‘variety and complexity that charts the history of domestic architecture from the late 18th century to the present day’ (Camden 2009: 5). The current Conservation Area Appraisal (DPCAA) dates to 22nd of January 2019 (Ibid. 25-27). 3.3.2 The Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) Appraisal, within which HNT is included as Sub Area 5, commits the planning authority (Camden) to: “from time to time, review the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area appraisal and update the man- agement plan from which development control decisions and where required design briefs can be effectively achieved. keep under review a list of buildings which, in addition to those already included on the statutory list, positively contribute to the character or appearance of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, to aid decision-making and the preparation of proposals. produce where relevant and possible supplementary planning documents including design guidance and planning briefs – www.camden.gov.uk expect the historic details, which are an essential part of the special architectural character of Dart- mouth Park Conservation Area to be preserved, repaired and reinstated where appropriate. ensure that professional officers from the Conservation and Urban Designeam T and Development Control can advise on all aspects of development which could affect the conservation area.”

28 3.3.3 Current guidance for Sub Area 5 of the DPCA is limited and generic, but is supported by local policy and guidance (see 3.2.7). The provisions specific to Sub Area 5 are; Views In the Whittington Estate views between the blocks towards Highgate Cemetery View westward Chester Road up to Highgate Ridge.

Negative Features Satellite dishes Unsympathetic shopfronts and clutter on Chester Road Unsympathetic windows to Mission Hall

3.3.4 The conservation area appraisal is described as being, “for the use of local residents, community groups, businesses, property owners, architects and developers and is an aid to the formulation and design of development proposals and change in this area and its setting” (Ibid. 4).

3.3.5 Taken together with the requirement for supplementary planning guidance under Local Plan Policy D2, this provides precedent for residents to actively contribute to guidance by informing about their community and use of their area as a basis for determining policy.

3.4 DPNF Neighbourhood Plan 3.4.1 The Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum is currently finalising a report on engagement with residents and the needs of the community, which included a day’s pop-up event at Highgate New Town Phase 1 (The Whittington Estate). They managed to speak with around 20 respondents, mostly families, given that the pop-up took place at school closing time. Residents talked about a high sense of community acknowledging the role of car-free space in providing this, as well as a need for social-housing provision and more shops. A high proportion of the respondents were longer-term residents who emphasised the need for conditions that allow families to stay and grow in the area. The report’s findings include a need to prioritise the TRA’s and RA’s of several estates including Highgate New Town Phase 1 (the Whittington Estate) (DPNFNP 2016). 3.4.2 Further to this, Appendix 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft April 2018: describes Highgate New Town Phase 1 as, “one of a series of ground-breaking housing estates designed by the Camden Architects’ Department under Sydney Cook in a signature house style, with linear stepped-back blocks”.

3.4.3 It concludes (without assessment of heritage significance) on grounds of “similarities to the Alexandra Road estate in the west of the Borough, which is nationally listed at Grade II*. That Highgate New Town should be included on the local list at a minimum.” (DPNFNP 2018: pp.123- 24)’.

3.5 Other Guidance 3.4.4 In addition to the current Historic England guidance Conservation Area Appraisal, Designation and Management (Historic England Advice Note 1) (HE 2019), other best-practice guidance considered includes the internationally recognised ‘Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance’ by James Semple Kerr, Heritage Lottery Fund’s ‘Conservation Plan Guidance’ (Semple Kerr 2013 & HLF 2008). 3.4.5 Historic England Good Practice Advice (GPA) 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, which sets out guidance on managing change within the settings of heritage assets and is applicable to this study. (HE 2017).

29 Planting at Lulot Gardens

30 31 4 Statement of Significance 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This Statement of Significance establishes the heritage values of HNT, presenting its historic baseline and wider context. The development of HNT given is drawn from a range of sources, notably Cook’s Camden: The Making of Modern Housing, information from residents, the DPCA Appraisal and other sources (Camden 2009 & Swenarton 2017). It considers the influences and experience of Peter Tábori, the design and development of HNT and its subsequent history detailed by the working group and other sources.

4.2 Background to HNT 4.2.1 Low Rise High Density (LRHD) projects at Camden and elsewhere developed from a rejection of the legacy of interwar Modernism seen in the ‘mixed development’ housing of 1940’s and ‘50s. This mix of high-rise and low slab-blocks, preferred by the London County Council (LCC) and other authorities came to be regarded as problematic due to issues such as their isolation of families and individuals in tall structures and the lack of community produced by their disconnection from street. This provoked a reappraisal of the street and other aspects of the traditional city such as squares and terraces, which can ostensibly be traced back to the work of Team 10 and Brutalist architects such as the Smithsons through their elevated ‘streets in the sky’. Notions of continuity and community were central in this, discernible in the cooperation between architects and sociologists undertaking surveys of working-class communities in areas of redevelopment. Examples include the Smithsons and Nigel and Julia Henderson’s mapping of Bethnal Green, East London or the French state employing thinkers such as Foucault and Lefebvre to advise on housing (Foucault 1967, Swenarton, Avermaete & van den Heuvel 2015: 14 & Cupers 2016: 171). 4.2.2 The origins of LRHD as a type are diverse, responding to individual situations. These extend from Le Corbusier’s Roq et Rob (1949) and Cap Baume (1948) which sit low in the landscape so as not to detract from the wild beauty of Cote D’Azur, in the South of France or Patrick Hodgkinson’s turning the tall-block on its side to articulate density through length; which proved inspirational for Neave Brown and others at Camden (Steyn 2010: 22-26 & Swenarton 2017: 20-21). An impression of the expansive take-up of LRHD can be gained from Hoffman and Repenthin’s Neue urbane Wohnformen, with its myriad European and some American examples, published in 1956 and reprinted in 1966 (Hoffman & Repenthin 1966). Against a backdrop of competing public and private development interests, clear notions of habitat and community emerged in the late ‘50s within which architects sought to reconcile private dwelling with public-space and increasingly to integrate their schemes within the surrounding area and to redefine their housing as ‘a piece of the city’ (Freear 2013: 46). This is seen from Team 10 with Peter and Alison Smithson and Jaap Bakema’s advancement of the Open-Society. This sought to balance collective provision and individual expression to the complex dynamics of Foucault’s heterotopia’s as real city-spaces (Foucault 1969). Concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ zones, were advanced by Chermayeff and Alexander in Community and Privacy: Towards a new Architecture of Humanism (printed 1963) which whilst it received critique from Team 10, presented a problem-based methodological approach which influenced Tábori, Brown and others (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963, Cupers 2016 & Boyer 2018: 16-26). Notably, Chermayeff and Alexander conclude that “Only when the habitat of urbanising man is given such an order shall we perhaps restore to urban life a fruitful balance between community and privacy” echoing Bakema and the Smithsons (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963: 37). 4.2.3 Given the influence of Community and Privacy on Camden Architects between 1965-73, it is important to explain their system in greater detail and clarify the nature of its effect at Camden.The locks or gradations of public to private set out in Community and Privacy are; “Urban Public- The places and facilities in public-ownership: highways, roads, paths, civic parks. Urban semi-public- The special areas of public use under government and institutional controls: city halls, courts of justice, public schools, post offices, hospitals, transportation exchanges, parking lots, garages, service stations, stadia, theatres. Group public- The meeting ground between public services and utilities and private property requiring joint access and responsibility: places requiring mail delivery, garbage (refuse) collection, utilities control, access to fire-fighting equipment and other emergency service rescue devices. Group private- Various secondary areas under control of management acting on behalf of private or public interest for the benefit of tenants and other legal occupants: receptions, circulation and other spaces, community gardens, playgrounds, laundries, storage, etc. Previous- Fig. 12: Lulot Gardens toward Highgate Cemetery (TD) 32 Family private- The spaces within the private domain controlled by a single family that are devoted to communal family activities such as eating, entertainment, hygiene and maintenance. Individual private- The ‘room of one’s own’ the inner-most sanctum to which individuals may withdraw from their family” (Ibid. 121-122).

4.2.4 Having established this hierarchy of spaces, Community and Privacy then considers only the group private by reviewing a series of stereotypes comprising well-known built-projects. Two important principles are established by this which were carried forward in most of the Camden schemes (including HNT). These are separate provision and buffering of zones for children and adults and the use of upper terraces for adults which overlook lower terraces or gardens for children. This provides both separate outdoor recreation space and ease of supervision for adults. Community and Privacy wasn’t interpreted literally at Camden, but prompted the devising of different interpretations of public to private, which for Neave Brown at Alexandra Road was to be fourfold (Public, semi-public, semi- private and private) and for Tábori at HNT was as far as reasonably possible public and private. One factor which may have discouraged more literal implementation was Alison Smithson’s abrupt critique of Alexander proposed the use of prototypes at the Team 10 meet at Doorn, Netherlands in 1954. Smithson’s harsh critique reflects Team 10’s aspiration to toward something more organic and responsive (Boyer 2018: 31). 4.2.5 Whilst habitat/community-focused design and LRHD are two different things (the former an ideology and the latter the physical means of delivery) they became largely synonymous in the late ‘60s by virtue of occurring at the same time. While community-focused design can be achieved in high-rise format (as at Goldfinger’s Balfron and Trellick Towers), the rise of LRHD in the ‘60s, driven by a return to ground and street, following the rejection of mixed development, resulted in it becoming the main means of delivering community (Roberts 2017).

4.3 Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT) 4.3.1 Setting the scene, the DPCA Appraisal describes Sub Area 5: (in which HNT is located) as “an interesting mix of terraced housing from the 19th and 20th centuries. Highgate New Town was the name given to the area in the 19th century, providing working-class housing largely multi- occupied from the start, and was reused when redeveloped in the 1970s by Camden Council.” This combination “give[s] the sub-area its unique character despite the diverse age and styles of the buildings. HNT is described in contrast with piecemeal development in the south of Sub-Area 5 as one of the “larger areas… planned and built at the same time which give a greater sense of unity within each distinct development. This is reflected also in the public realm (in and around HNT) where the materials and spaces relate well to the built form” (Camden 2009: 25). HNT is described in the Appraisal as Highgate Newtown Stage 1 (aka. The Whittington Estate) as, 4.3.2 “The estate is arranged in six terraces that climb the Highgate ridge, with vast underground car- parking, now converted to storage space for security reasons. A dominating mass, it has strong horizontal lines with balconies and cornices at each level and strong vertical cross walls, in pale concrete (now painted), with similarities to the Alexandra Road estate (listed Grade II*) in the west of the Borough. Between each block are pedestrian streets, each with its own character, with extensive planting which plays an important role in breaking up and softening the sometimes brutal use of concrete. In the middle is a grassed open space. On the western side is Highgate Cemetery that provides a wild and leafy end to the terraces and pedestrian streets. The external walls (of Phase 1 not the cemetery) were sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted, with timber windows. Most of them have been painted white. The design allows for each flat or house to have its own private south facing terrace or courtyard.” (ibid. 25).

4.3.3 When planned, HNT formed part of one of three areas of the borough rightly or wrongly condemned as slums and earmarked for redevelopment in January 1966 by Camden’s Head of Planning Bruno Schlaffenberg. The initial scheme covered a funnel-shaped site of 15 acres at the Camden/Islington boundary, extending from Whittington Hospital, in the north to the streets connecting to Chester Road in the south, which would be developed over two phases (Swenarton 2017: 110-111). This included the replacement of around thirty shops at Dartmouth Park Hill which in line with council policy should be away from main-roads. This in part explains their eventual inclusion in Phase 2A&B (now demolished) at the junction of Chester Road and Raydon Street. Other provision included a library, play-groups, workshops, tenants-meeting rooms, a multi-use community centre, a day- centre for mental-health patients, clubroom for disabled, old people’s home for 40-50 residents (the Chester Road hostel) swimming baths and maternity/child welfare clinic and medical group practice (Webb 1972: 155 & Swenarton 2017: 111).

33 Polygon Road 34 4.3.4 The scheme began in joint venture with neighbouring Islington Council; the Islington side eventually becoming the Girdlestone Estate completed in 1975/76 (Willats 1986). The architects at this early stage were Richard Gibson for Camden and Norman Cedar for Islington. Tábori replaced Gibson in late ’68, when he left Camden. Something of Gibson’s legacy remains in the layout of streets set at right angles to Dartmouth Park Hill, which Tábori developed (see 4.8). 4.3.5 The Retcar Street section (north) of HNT was given first priority because conditions were perceived to be worst there, no doubt aided by the fact that the council had already begun to acquisition houses. An alternate view of this is that the threat of CPO hanging over Highgate New Town prompted neglect and a lack of investment (Webb 1972: 148) The 1966 scheme was primarily residential and would see an increase from 1800 residents to 2060, which would be sufficiently above the housing yardstick density of 136 persons per acre (ppa.); the lower limit for subsidies to councils (required to make the scheme viable) as set by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 4.3.6 The acquisition by Compulsory purchase order (CPO), requiring approval by the MHLG, dragged out between ‘68-69 and resulted in a public enquiry delaying the start of construction. During this time Sydney Cook, recently appointed head of architecture at the new London Borough of Camden (by merging St Pancras, Hampstead and Holborn under the Civic Act of 1965) engaged Tábori on another scheme at Polygon Road in the south of the borough where he designed “a four-storey terrace embracing two two-storey ones, arranged on five levels. These are divided at ninety degrees, creating an L-shape, so that every flat gets some southern light.” Polygon Road provided Tábori the opportunity to test out ideas for HNT (Watkinson 2019: 2). It achieved a density of 220 ppa. and has been described as “A scheme of panache with stairs linking up between units” (Webb 1972: 148). By the time matters were resolved, a decision had been taken to progress Phase 1 of Highgate to the north of Raydon Street (HNT), whilst Phase 2 would follow at a later date. Redevelopment east of Chester Road was dropped in preference for retaining the existing terraces.

4.4 Peter Tábori 4.4.1 Before describing the scheme that Peter Tábori produced and Kenneth Adie delivered for HNT an account of Tábori as an architect is required so as to contextualise the influences borne out in HNT. It is also important to note that whilst Adie ensured exacting standards in construction, the scheme as completed is largely as designed by Tábori. Whilst some changes were suggested by Sydney Cook’s successor Alfred Rigby, only the glass canopies above stairwells at Lulot Gardens are recorded as having been implemented (Swenarton 2017 & Pers Comm. Watkinson: 2018). 4.4.2 Peter Tábori moved to London in 1956, following the Russian invasion of Tábori’s home country of Hungary during which he was incarcerated for 6 months. Arriving in London, Tábori studied at Regent Street Polytechnic (today Westminster University), where his tutors and critics included fellow architects James Stirling, Neave Brown, Eldred Evans and Richard Rogers. He earnt a travel scholarship in the first year which he used to travel in northern Italy, visiting Siena, Florence and Pisa. At the end of his second year Tábori took a break at architect James Stirling’s recommendation, during which he worked for fellow Hungarian Ernö Goldfinger. Goldfinger undertook to mentor Tábori which he described as “every night [it] was like a tutorial” (Swenarton 2017: 109). This mentoring is reflected in a shared interest in Pre-Modernist buildings and form and the rich wood interiors of HNT and Goldfinger’s Willow Road (built 1939) (McKay 2006: 155). The former of these Swenarton describes as having a “sense of the mysterious and formal” which is completely unlike the clarity of Neave Brown’s interiors and links them to Tábori’s Hungarian background which suggests a further link with Goldfinger (Swenarton 2017: 130) 4.4.3 On returning to Regent Street in 1963-64, Tábori was inspired by tutor Richard Rogers’ enthusiasm for mass production (from Eames, Soriano and others see 4.4.7) and began his thesis exploring industrialized housing typologies under Rogers’ supervision who recommended he use real sites and briefs. The Italian-born Rogers also encouraged Tábori to draw on experience from travels visiting Italy’s hill-towns, providing a likely link between the focus of the thesis on vertical facades and hung balconies, and the terraces and externalised features (stairs, accesses etc.) of HNT and Polygon Road. Swenarton cites San Gimignano, Umbria as an example, in addition to others he visited. Whilst the hill-towns and terraced sites were being made popular at the time by coverage in the Architectural Review (AR), this was more in the Picturesque tradition advanced by Gordon Cullen characterised by his “interest in a psychological approach to form and the complex issues surrounding urban renewal and the conservation of identity” and others rather than Tábori’s reading of them as a source for urban renewal (Appleyard 1986: 127, Orillard 2012: 728 & Swenarton 2017: 20-21).

35 Adjacent- Fig. 13: Polygon Road (TD) 4.4.4 Richard Rogers had recently returned from studying at Yale before tutoring Tábori, where he was taught by amongst others Serge Chermayeff, whose influence is clearly discernible in the early work of Rogers, Su Brumwell (Rogers), Wendy Cheesman and Norman Foster’s firm Team 4. This output comprises housing, both individual houses and schemes, which represented Rogers’ major interest at the time. Built projects comprise private houses at Creek Vean, Feock, Cornwall (’64-’67), the Jaffes’ House, Radlett, Herts (’64) and Murray Mews as well as two unrealised housing schemes at Pill Creek Housing, Feock, Cornwall (1964) & Coulsdon, Surrey (1965). 4.4.5 At Coulsdon a steep 70-acre site demanded an unconventional approach, which drew on Atelier 5’s Siedlung Halen and Chermayeff & Alexander’s Community and Privacy, producing integrated routes and terraces which separated pedestrians and cars and carefully grouped residences and amenities. Commissioned by Wates housing, Coulsdon formed a response to the success of the late ‘50s early ‘60s schemes by Eric Lyons and Span at Blackheath, South London. Team 4 followed Lyons’ use of materials but with a more aggressive solution drawing heavily from Chermayeff’s ideas concerning the separation of private, semi-private and public spaces’. Coulsdon “leaned heavily on Chermayeff’s analysis of the need for a hierarchy of spaces divided by ‘locks’ which reinforced those spaces and signalled movement from one to another” which Rogers’ recalls as one of his best unbuilt schemes (Appleyard 1986: 124). 4.4.6 The smaller Pill Creek, took lessons in landscape and integration from neighbouring Creek Vean resulting in a dense terraced village, in which individual houses were afforded complete privacy whilst remaining part of a distinct community. Both schemes are intensely integrated within their landscape and have extensive retention of planting, reflecting Rogers’ admiration for Frank Lloyd- Wright who “advocated an ‘organic’ architecture as the expression of a democratic society” and chiming with the habitat ideas of Team 10 and Jaap Bakema (Van den Heuvel 2018: 240). These unbuilt schemes contrasted with the AR’s promotion of Italian hill-towns as picturesque by drawing instead on the potential to deliver dense housing with a strong sense of community (Powell 1999: 36-37). Tábori was as inspired by Rogers as Rogers was by Chermayeff, describing him as ‘a wonderful tutor’ (Swenarton 2017: 110). At the end of Tábori’s fourth year Rogers gave up teaching full-time to focus on Coulsdon, but continued to mentor Tábori on an ad-hoc basis. In return for this mentoring Tábori produced some of the drawings for Creek Vean (Swenarton 2017: 110). 4.4.7 Given this personal relationship, the Yale connection bears some further consideration. Whilst at Yale, Rogers was similarly impressed, as by Chermayeff, by the work of architects such as Paul Rudolph (head of the architecture school in 1961-62), Raphael Soriano and Charles and Ray Eames, through their use of new materials and technology. These architects were heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright whose “peculiarly American romanticism had softened the edges of new technology presenting it as a form of simplicity”, which was opened up for Rogers at Yale by the teaching of Vincent Scully (Appleyard 1986: 127). In his biography of Rogers, Appleyard describes how Rogers was influenced by projects such as the Florida houses byYale Head Paul Rudolph and Ralph S. Twitchell, the work of Raphael Soriano & Craig Ellwood and the Eames’ Case-study houses (1945). Rogers later reflected on how Eames “utilised his awareness of industrial processes to construct a house off-the-shelf using standard, widely available parts, which seemed ad hoc and cheap, representing a casualness and open transformability which broke with the agonising of the past”; which in its re-use and empowering the user has some affinity with Brutalism’s ‘as found’ ethic (Appleyard 1986: 127). These projects employed lightweight steel construction and an interest in ‘technology transfer’ and prefabrication informing the technological expertise that Rogers developed through Team 4’s trials and errors (with exasperating results and cost overruns). Rogers was also influenced by the work of Louis Khan who often chose to externalise services in his buildings.This can be seen in Rogers’ work and may accompany the hill-town influence at HNT in external stairs and accesses, freeing up space for internal layout. (Ibid., Sudjic 1994: 39-40 & Powell 1999: 12-13). 4.4.8 Team 4 faced severe difficulties in their early projects which were mostly of brick and concrete. This may explain why Rogers’ later work has a characteristic focus on technical solutions with the use of glass and steel. Rogers describes this as; “On the one hand the buildings were off-the-shelf, implying that they could be available to everyone rather than simply those with special expertise or access to particular materials. On the other, they were easily transformable, changeable for changing needs, and were, as a result, appealing to a generation which valued above all the possibilities of a condition of constantly becoming (Powell 1999: 128).”

36 4.4.9 These diverse influences via the close relationship with Rogers are evident at HNT in the technical detail and precision and the flexible and varied dwelling-types and community-focus, alongside Jacobs and the other influences. In addition to the fact that Tábori had worked on Creek Vean, Swenarton tells us that the initial scheme ‘a strip of parking, with two strips of housing on either side, and two strips of parkland beyond that’ was essentially that used by Team 4 at Coulsdon (Swenarton 2017: 115 & 126-130). Before leaving the Rogers/Yale connection it is worth mentioning Rudolph’s proposal for the LOMEX (Lower Manhattan Expressway) (1967-72 unbuilt). Whilst achieving a terrifying futuristic vision for New York on an epic scale, the terraced low-rise blocks of the LOMEX scheme have something in common with HNT and other European terraces at the time, perhaps reflecting influence going the other way (Lamster 2010). 4.4.10 Tábori was subsequently taken on by Denys Lasdun & Partners (DLP) (’65-68), primarily to work on the University of East Anglia, where he was engaged on the terraced ziggurat-like halls of residence, spending five-months on the details of the pre-cast concrete working closely with the engineers, Arup (Swenarton 2017: 109-110). Tábori’s arrival at Camden in 1967 came about through an informal interview with Sydney Cook, who was reportedly excited by the prospect of meeting Tábori, given his background in connections with Team 4, Goldfinger and Lasdun. Tábori arrived at Camden with the wealth of experience in production, materials, detail and ideas concerning community derived from these earlier associations, which he translated into the urban renewal approach taken to HNT and Polygon Road. He had also been impressed by Neave Brown, during their earlier association, through Regent Street Polytechnic and the Architecture Association (AA). To which end, he has explained his decision to leave somewhere as prestigious as DLP as being largely determined by the fact that Brown was already at Camden (Swenarton 2017: 110). 4.4.11 Through Rogers and the clear affinities with Team 4’s schemes for Coulsdon and Pill Creek, a shared admiration for Serge Chermayeff and indirectly the diverse influences of Lloyd-Wright (nature and an organic approach to planning), Rudolph, Soriano, Eames (mass-production and technological innovation) present both the progressive and the communal. Other characteristics from Rogers and Team 4’s work include generous use of height in living rooms and halls and the externalisation of circulation etc. to free up interiors. The progressive theme introduced by Rogers goes together with Tábori’s experience at DLP and Lasdun’s renowned attention to detail, whilst influence from Goldfinger is clearly present in the bold dynamics of the interiors and external detailing of railings and other devices, which show affinities with Willow Road.Tábori’s admiration for Neave Brown is evident in the treatment of public and private space and the terraces and balconies, and dimensions and layout on which he bases the distinct character of HNT. 4.4.12 Returning to Rogers, given that neither of Team 4’s housing schemes were realised, despite Rogers committed passion for housing, it seems that he took particular interest in Tábori’s achievement at HNT. The fact that Su Rogers ‘reviewed’ the as-then unbuilt HNT design in 1973 for the Architectural Review is indicative of the support that the Rogers family was giving Tábori at this time. Their interest and support appears further evidenced by the decision by the AR to publish an unbuilt project being unusual at that time, reflecting the Rogers’ influence. There are also reports from Camden colleagues of Richard and Su Rogers’ visiting the Camden department to give a lecture while Tábori was there and lobbying for delivery of Tabori’s polygon road project once the decision had been taken to outsource it. What is certainly, apparent in HNT as physical evidence of this development is Tábori’s success in drawing together the diverse array of influences he had on hand and refining it with his own stamp (Rogers 1973 & Pers. Comm. Swenarton: 2019). 4.4.12 Finally, having demonstrated the diverse experience Tábori drew on at HNT, it is important to mention Neave Brown’s 1967 article ‘The Form of Housing’ which provides a succinct account of “how concepts of street, neighbourliness and continuity re-appeared, in project form in the Smithsons’ Golden Lane and in fact at Park Hill”. Talking about housing Brown describes how; “The individual house is itself a puzzle, but housing is not just a collection of houses, high or low. More fundamental are the concepts which hold housing together, relate each house to its neighbour and to it open space, determine the desirable relationships between housing and the attendant functions of shopping, schools, social and welfare buildings, the circulation systems for pedestrians and cars which hold the area together and establish contact. These concepts are concerned with more than utilitarian criteria. They concern interpretations of desirable relationships in order to make perceptible and therefore meaningful the contact between one activity and another, and their mutual dependence.” (Brown 1967).

4.4.13 In addition to Rogers, Jacobs, etc., this shows that Tábori had this influence at close hand. From which it is possible to imagine what conversations took place at Camden Architects on a daily basis.

37 38 39 4.5 Density & Execution 4.5.1 Tábori’s preparatory research for HNT revealed that many contemporary projects achieved lower densities than the housing they replaced. He reasoned that this was because they were calculated on bed-spaces not on the actual number of residents who lived there and hence argued for an increase in the density of bed-spaces to rectify this. Whilst the density figures for the entire 10.9- acre site (HNT and Phase 2 together) fluctuate through its development they were presented in October 1970 at 500 dwellings (78 for elderly people) with 1804 bed-spaces achieving a density of 141 ppa. At HNT the ensemble of flats, maisonettes and three-storey houses at Stoneleigh Terrace, total some 275 units, equating to 1070 bed-spaces over just 5 acres (2 hectares). This achieves a density of 214 ppa. (529 persons per hectare by today’s terms) delivering two thirds of the original projected figure. This is comparable to that achieved by Neave Brown at Alexandra Road and considerably above the zoned density of 136 (Swenarton 2017: 116 & 126). 4.5.2 This is no small part achieved by the steep south-facing topography, presenting scope for significantly higher densities and closer spacing of buildings, because its elevation naturally resolves daylight issues. This is further aided by the adjoining open-space of Highgate Cemetery. On the basis of this Tábori was able to project higher densities for HNT than the rest of the scheme (Phase 2) whilst still including open and green-spaces (Ibid.). Writing about the scheme in AD (1972) former Camden Architects colleague Sam Webb tells us “The spacing of the blocks was determined by lighting considerations and their form by the fact that straight, parallel blocks give higher densities than blocks that turn corners” (Webb 1972: 155). 4.5.3 Tábori’s initial scheme comprised “a strip of parking, with two strips of housing on either side, and two strips of parkland beyond that” (PT 2010, quoted in Swenarton 2017: 114) which did not deliver the required parking. Hence the concept was altered to three rows of housing, with two strips of underground parking in between and parkland beyond. This defined 3 rows of housing and two rows of parking as a ‘cluster’, with clusters separated by parkland. A range of connections between rows were provided by breaks at the centre of the site which became children’s play-areas, a diagonal alleyway (discussed in detail in 4.8) and the retention of a former bridle-way (for horses) as the north-south route between Stoneleigh Terrace and Lulot Gardens bordering the cemetery. Of the play-areas one remains today whilst the others have become recreation-spaces or informal squares, the use of which is discussed in 4.9 (Swenarton 2017: 112). 4.5.4 Swenarton suggests that the clusters of HNT may have been influenced by Eldred Evans & David Shalev’s 1965 scheme for the Natural Trust at Broadclyst, Devon, which presented 280 units ‘in a series of clusters along a protected [pedestrian] route’. Describing HNT’s clusters, Tábori stated that “Pedestrian decks will be hard-paved but well-planted with trees and shrubs forming a pleasant contrast to the grassed and landscaped open spaces, separating the clusters from each other. Children’s play-spaces will be provided at focal points within each cluster.” Swenarton interprets this as Tábori overlaying his design onto Neave Brown’s street-based format to provide a scheme in which a third of the total area is “play areas and landscaped greenspace open to the public” (Swenarton 2017: 116). 4.5.5 Sam Webb describes in AD (1972) HNT as follows; “The dwellings, flats, maisonettes and houses, are arranged in clusters of standard bay types with terraces grouped in threes, which form between them, the pedestrian streets and connecting playsquares. All semi-public areas, lifts, access corridors etc. are avoided and all private units are entered directly from public routes. The rise of the building[s] was determined by the maximum acceptable walk-up of 2 storeys, this means a rise of 3 storeys over the site.” (Webb 1972: 155) 4.5.6 The facades at HNT are of concrete, constructed variously from precast and in-situ elements and blocks. The colour is a Bath-stone like yellowish tinge, complementing the yellow stock brick of neighbouring buildings. The columns and beams of the substructure were cast in-situ, while loadbearing cross-walls are of block-work and internal walls combine fair-faced blocks (Tábori specified Forticrete but this was cut for cheaper variant) and the precast elements which make up the fin walls and balcony planters. As Tábori put it, ‘The concrete specification [was] borrowed from DLP [Denys Lasdun & Partners], to create the uniform sandstone colour executed with high attention to detail’ (Swenarton 2017: 110). This is summarised in AD in 1972 as “in situ concrete; superstructure, loadbearing cross-walls; external walls sand coloured concrete blocks” (Webb 1972: 155)

40 Previous- Fig. 14: View from Bridle Way into the Greens (TD) 4.5.7 Construction firm AE Symes were appointed in December 1971 and started work in June 1972 overseen by Tábori’s colleague Kenneth Adie. In 1976 AE Symes went bankrupt, resulting in a long delay before their replacement by YJ Lovell in May ’77. Lovell had to begin by remedying substantial damage to works completed which had occurred during the delay, together with some defects in AE Syme’s work. It was also discovered that the reinforcement of the fin-walls was too close to the surface requiring them to be coated to cover the reinforcement which significantly impacted the uniformity of the finish (Swenarton 2017: 135).

4.6 From building to street 4.6.1 HNT is constructed on the same 18 foot (5.5m) plot structural grid (defined by the width of the garages) employed at Alexandra Road, but rather than opting for Brown’s range of 6 residential unit types, Tábori exploited the topology of HNT to produce a greater variety of different plans for the dwellings. By carrying the structure on the cross-walls it was possible to make all internal walls demountable, allowing adjacent bedrooms to be opened up as one and a day/night cycle achieved through the sliding partitions in kitchen and dining areas and in the larger units between dining and living areas (Swenarton 2017: 128). 4.6.2 Living spaces and bedrooms are located on the south side of the dwellings directly connecting to balconies (for adults) and gardens at lower level (for children), an arrangement which reflects both the influences of Chermayeff and Alexander and Neave Brown, notably at Winscombe Street (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963). The bathrooms, storage and kitchens are located to the north setting the former two into the natural slope and providing the kitchen with a clear view over the pedestrian street. This is where the ‘eyes on the street’ self-policing described by Jacobs in Death and Life of Great American Cities is most evident, allowing adults to keep a keen eye on children at play. Jacob’s thinking is also present across HNT in the interrelation of routes and public and private spaces (see 4.7). Swenarton describes Jacobs’ influence as; “For Tábori, as for Jane Jacobs, this strong visual link between public and private was a key feature of the traditional street, providing self-policing and thereby contributing to a successful community” (Swenarton 2017: 127).

Fig. 15: Cooks Camden Sketch showing environmental strategy and south facing conservatory with open glazing (PT/LBC)

41 42 43 44 45 4.6.3 This internal/external arrangement optimises the south-facing aspect to bring sun into living areas. There is partial screening in the majority of flats from over-heating by the protruding overhang of the balcony above. Elsewhere, rooms which don’t require daylight are set into the slope. In the narrower housing-units the living-room spans the plot whilst in the four-bed units it extends over the entire upper floor, demonstrating something of the variation of dwelling types Tábori achieved in exploiting the topology of the site. 4.6.4 It is in the interplay between daylight and movable space (through partitions and full-height doors) and the dynamic of light and dark it produces, that Swenarton’s description of the interiors as ‘mysterious and formal’ becomes apparent (Swenarton 2017: 130). Contrast is between the dark wood of surrounds, doors, stringers and hand-rails against the lighter tones of the stair-treads, risers and white or cream walls. This is heightened by the darker north aspects and the daylight brought in through balconies and gardens, which shifts gradually across the facades as the day progresses. The stairs, constructed in light and dark wood, are illuminated by natural light via a tall narrow window connecting to the living-room, spreading down from a small landing apparently intended for buggies or other equipment. The flexible plan provided by the full-height doors and sliding partitions, allow adjoining rooms to be opened up as one space and is also seen in the other practical considerations, such as the small landings and housing of heaters within benches between living-room and balcony (Pers. Comm. Watkinson 2018). 4.6.5 These contrasting tones presented with pared-back simplicity have a distinctive character with affinities with Goldfinger’s work at Willow Road (Mackay 2006). Additional references to Goldfinger are seen in the external areas in the grilles at car-parking level and various locations across HNT. These are particularly reminiscent of the entrance gates and the railings of the internal stairs at Willow Road. Significantly, some of these grilles form part of the façade facing Highgate Cemetery from Stoneleigh Terrace, which is the only view of HNT currently detailed under Sub-area 5 of the DPCA “In the Whittington Estate views between the blocks towards Highgate Cemetery” (DPCA 2009: 27) 4.6.6 The full-width south-facing balconies throughout HNT reflect the ideas of Team 4 in their housing, and respond to contemporary ecological thinking, notably Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) which the Rogers’ were exposed to at Yale. They also reflect influence from Camden Architects colleague Patrick Hodgkinson’s winter-gardens at the Brunswick which allow use year-round. Tábori designed a version of the winter-garden for HNT, with a twin openable glazing system intended to act as heat-trap, which would form part of the environmental system of HNT. They would have been retained by an insulated façade, inspired by Team 4’s work at Creek Vean and possibly using the same neoprene rubber for jointing which has apparently never leaked, but were cut due to cost constraints (Powell 1999: 22-23 & (Swenarton 2017: 126-27). 4.6.7 Similar attention to detail was taken in designing the district-heating and gravity-water systems, both of which are through-scheme installations. The district-heating system runs from stacks and a boiler at Stoneleigh Terrace, whilst the water system is gravity-based, balancing distribution across HNT. This reputedly worked well initially, but has been modified over the years by the addition of power- showers and other devices which has impacted distribution (Pers. Comm. WERA: 2019). Tábori also calculated that the design and siting of buildings and spaces across HNT would draw in heat through the open full-height glazing to the south, whilst the smaller and fewer apertures to the north would help to retain heat. This being ‘open’ to the sun on the south side and ‘closed’ to the cold on the north provides natural thermal regulation, detailed through technical drawings, which is balanced by the shading provided by balcony overhangs etc. to prevent excessive light and heat build-up. This reflects both influence via Yale and more generally the nascent environmental movement, as per texts such as Silent Spring (1962) (Pers Comm. Swenarton: 2019). More significantly, it is not paralleled in the other schemes at Camden designed by Neave Brown and others, which marks HNT as one of the first housing designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the need to protect the planet.

Previous- Fig. 16: Lower maisonette, looking from dining to living area and balcony (TC/MS) Previous- Fig. 17: Lower maisonette, paired doors to bedrooms separated by on-axis demountable partition (TC/MS) Previous- Fig. 18: 3 Storey house, kitchen from living room (TC/MS) 46 Fig. 19: Axonometric of cluster showing pedestrian streets and play square (PT/LBC)

Previous- Fig. 16: Lower maisonette, looking from dining to living area and balcony (TC/MS) Previous- Fig. 17: Lower maisonette, paired doors to bedrooms separated by on-axis demountable partition (TC/MS) Previous- Fig. 18: 3 Storey house, kitchen from living room (TC/MS) 47 Fig. 20: Civita di Bagnoregio (Stephanie Bower) 4.7 Urban Renewal and Community 4.7.1 Tábori was opposed to the idea of the estate as an enclosed enclave and supported an approach through urban renewal (Swenarton 2017: 135). Through this he sought to utilise existing qualities, retain existing housing of quality where able and introduce new housing using what was essentially an infill principle. As part of this, non-housing functions would be located within the buildings at street in an effort to draw in the public from surrounding areas.This connecting up HNT as a piece of city was developed by through-routes and establishing a network of visual connections with the surrounding streets and Highgate Cemetery. This sense of continuity is strengthened by the extensive planting throughout HNT, matching the greenery of the cemetery. Another facet of continuity was the use of the same street signs as neighbouring streets. These were later removed and replaced with standard Camden council signs and estate maps which mark HNT out as something separate to the neighbouring streets (Pers. Comm. Watkinson: 2018). 4.7.2 The community-spaces at HNT, particularly the informal squares and the greens, are a very important resource for residents in their everyday discourse. Historian Robert Maxwell writing about Alexandra Road describes the various community spaces built at Camden reflect the ‘optimistic’ mood of the time and a ‘confidence in large developments at high densities, and faith in complex briefs’. In particular, he notes how this included the opportunity to improve whole areas through the inclusion of a public park and the scope for needed social buildings (Maxwell 1979). What singles the community spaces of HNT out from other schemes, such as Alexandra Road where there is one large single park, is the diversity of use made possible through the many smaller community spaces. 4.7.3 In establishing the routes of HNT Tábori worked with the diagonal line of the earlier Retcar Street, and the right-angled street-plan developed under Gibson which connects to Dartmouth Park Hill. The line of Retcar Street was developed into a cut-through which rises and falls via steps and slopes, beginning with steps from Raydon Street up to Stoneleigh Terrace, beyond which it intersects the terraces and greens of Sandstone and Retcar Place continuing up to Lulot Gardens.

Fig. 21: Informal Square at Sandstone Place (TD)

48 This reinterpreted feature is a key part of the Italian influence at HNT, drawing inspiration from the discrete informal routes of hill-towns and potentially the divisions of the Etruscan hill-town (see 4.8). It previously provided informal short-cuts between residences, the greens and other recreation spaces, but is currently closed by locked gates at two of the intersections. The other north-south route is the former bridle-path bordering Highgate Cemetery (Swenarton 2017: 112). 4.7.4 Tábori’s approach to ‘the street’ takes an essentially two-fold interpretation of public and private relating to Chermayeff and Alexander’s Community and Privacy (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963 & Swenarton 2017: 112). In this, space is defined as public (beyond the front door) or private (behind it) removing the need for any semi-private areas and in externalising stairs and accesses, avoiding any no-man’s land of internal circulation such as stairwells and lifts. It might be argued that the shared landings and entrances and the foot and head of stairs represent a semi-public space given that whilst they belong to the public their proprietorship is really held by adjoining neighbours. At the same time, they remain public by virtue of their visual connection and interplay with street. This achieves both Jane Jacob’s notion of eyes-on-the-street and Tábori’s wish to avoid interim circulation space whilst presenting something of Chermayeff andAlexander’s locks through proprietorship (Jacobs 2011: 44-45 & Swenarton 2017: 127). 4.7.5 Tábori describes this approach in a note to head architect Sydney Cook, “-Low rise, very high density low cost project. Pedestrian level continuous at level 2 (street). Direct entry from street. Sense of identity: each front door having its own street number…. – Pedestrian access by [sic] self-policing: helps community spirit [and] neighbourliness. Other measures to reinforce social interdependence, e.g. handed front doors, terraces double as deep front courts, kitchens look out onto approach/toddlers play (and neighbours’) and mutual awareness vis-à-vis person on a street and from kitchens” (Swenarton 2017: 113).

Next- Fig. 23: External Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD) Fig. 24: External Stairs, Arcidosso, Tuscany (TD) Fig. 22: Informal Square, Seggiano, Tuscany (TD) Fig. 25: Egg and Spoon Race, Stoneleigh Terrace (Jo McCafferty)

49 50 51 52 53 4.7.6 Tábori’s scheme as described to Sydney Cook demonstrates the mixture of retention and renewal and Italian influence,

Site 1= Tuscan Hill-town Site 2= Panhandle joined onto Site 1 Site 3= Chester Road to be worthy of retention. front retained, gutted, back-wall mirror to new built Site 4= Refurbishment with strategic infill Site 5= Ditto: difficult topology best related to refurbished adjoining sites, smaller new-built infill (Swenarton 2017: 114)

4.8 The Hill-town at HNT 4.8.1 A tangible affinity with the Italian hill-town is apparent throughout HNT, seen in the open external stairs, facing of blocks across the pedestrian-routes and discrete recreational areas comprising the community spaces, play and recreation-areas and the greens. More detailed consideration of the hill-town which originated with the Etruscans who occupied central Italy prior to the Romans, reveals further shared elements incorporated into the design of HNT. The Etruscan hill-town had an axial layout defined by an east-west street which under the Romans became known as the Decumanus and a north-south street which became the Cardo. This layout is thought to have had religious origins relating to the Etruscan’s God Tinia who sat in the North and gazed southward cleaving each town, which creates the Decumanus. The intersections of these streets became known as the Mundus under the Romans and typically provided the location for temples. This may reflect the Etruscans’ conception of them as entrances to the Underworld but more practically the temple provided the forum for everyday life and community (Barbacci 1987: 6-9). The grid-plan established under the Etruscans, spread to prevalence under the Romans and remains as the basis of layout for the hill-towns today (Barbacci 1987: 9-10 & Baron 2008: 5-10). 4.8.2 During the post-Roman period central Italy went into decline which was followed by a revival of markets and industrial centres started from the 8th Century resulting in a population explosion from the 10th Century onwards. This boom which lasted until the 13th-14th Centuries, increasing land values through a scarcity of space in the hill-towns as populace grew and their being fortified with town-walls restricted growth. This prompted largely unregulated infilling of the already narrow streets and the creation of irregular piazzas. Inventive solutions sought to get more out of each building plot creating the interlinking and compact relationships between properties which give the hill-towns their sense of warmth and intimacy today (Barbacci 1987: 10-13). 4.8.3 The cut-through following the former route of Retcar Street, mimics the Etruscan Cardo, the east- west streets the Decumanus and perhaps most significantly the distribution of informal greens, squares and recreation-spaces several Mundus or Mundi. Together, as part of the overall layout and urban renewal and community-focused design, these aspects of the hill-town provide HNT with an exotic ‘otherness’. This extends across the axial layout which situates the community and public-life of HNT together with the greens, recreation and play-spaces. It combines continuity with Victorian Highgate with the Etruscan layout and medieval detailing of elevated shared entrances and discrete routes and stairs, providing neighbourliness which echoes that of the hill-towns today with their sense of proprietorship over HNT’s streets. 4.9 Life at HNT 4.9.1 Discussions with residents through the WERA working group provided detail about life at Highgate prior to HNT, during and since its construction. The account in this section is based upon those recollections and some published sources, starting with life prior to HNT and then proceeding to the current day. Recollections of Highgate prior to HNT record a mixture of smaller and larger Victorian and Edwardian houses, with the smaller located around the former Retcar Street within HNT. Shops at that time included a post-office/dairy, off-licenses, at least one sweetshop, a fish and Chip shop, butchers, greengrocers, laundry and a working-man’s café, local employment included the Livingstone Laboratories at Retcar Street and a paint factory at Dartmouth Park Hill and residents from this time describe a tightknit working-class community of multi-generational families. (Pers. Comm. Treherne: 2019). 4.9.2 Interviewees recalled the early ‘80s as a period of relative calm with no significant issues, contrasting with local media who by April 1983 were portraying HNT as a problem estate. One article ‘A Haven for Hoodlums’ which appeared in the St Pancras Chronicle describes residents as living “in daily fear of robbery, burglary and vandalism’ and the Estate itself as ‘a warren of lonely walkways and blind spots”. At the same time council officers described HNT as having a “large number of potential hiding places for attackers who can then make their escape through any one of the many entrances to the area”. These accounts contrast with the perceptions 54 of residents, revealing differences on-site and off-site and need to be seen in the light of the wider trend for ‘defensible space’ which saw many housing schemes condemned, regardless of actual circumstances and subjected to redesign (Messenger 1983 & Municipal Dreams 2015). Similar, media misrepresentation is recorded at other housing schemes from the period, such as Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower (Campkin 2013 & Roberts 2017). It is not until the late ‘80s that interviewees recalled problems developing with burnt-out cars and delinquency. They attribute this to reductions in funding resulting in the removal of play-equipment and reduced services (such as the electric delivery carts used in the early years), fencing and restriction of areas as part of efforts to design out crime and wider societal decline at that time. 4.9.3 Interviewees described two major phases of improvements and maintenance, as well as a number of minor interventions outside of these phases. The first phase took place in the early ‘90s and the second between 2005-2007, at which time HNT was first submitted for listing by residents. The first phase formed part of the wider scheme improvements to estates at that time and at HNT saw the painting of concrete and doors which was executed to a poor standard, which rapidly deteriorated. In the late ‘90s additional revisions belonging to this first phase, included new street-lighting and grilles as part of designing out crime, restricting access, introducing overly bright conditions at evening and impacting the aesthetic of HNT’s design. These works also saw the removal of play- areas and revision of community spaces, representing a serious impact. 4.9.4 The second major phase of works (2005-07) was more extensive, comprising water-proofing of balconies and external decking and resurfacing of the street at Lulot Gardens. As part of the balcony works recessed drain-pipes were set into side-walls and the floor area of the balconies was reduced by the insertion of new gullies around the edges and plastic protections were added below the concrete troughs. Extensive drilling was carried out across HNT to test the condition of concrete and rebar, which apparently found no areas requiring remediation work and thereby indicating that the condition of the buildings was good throughout. Residents from the working group and others worked closely with the architects, engineers and contractors through monthly meetings whom they report were receptive and supportive. However, they record that conditions were strained between those undertaking the works and the client (Camden) with the former feeling that they were given insufficient tender information and support to undertake the works, which resulted in their dismissal and eventual replacement by Camden. Interviewees recall a high level of satisfaction with the replacement contractors. In summing up the issues relating to the various works interviewees felt that regular changes of staff resulted in a lack of clarity over responsibilities and roles and that there was little understanding of HNT from either a technical or social/community level, which would have improved their suitability and implementation. 4.9.5 HNT has remained under council control throughout the last 40 years, but was included in New Labour’s efforts to transfer council ownership to housing associations (HA) around the time of the Commonholds Act of 2002 (HMSO 2002). Deliberations regarding this were affected by intense protests at the time from the Camden Federation (who were opposed to transfer) which resulted in HNT remaining under Camden. Interviewees were undecided as to whether or not this was the right decision, given that they have no experience of being managed as an HA. 4.9.6 There have also been positive episodes, such as MUF Architecture’s Whittington Estate play-spaces installation in 2013, which through consultation with the children and families of HNT resulted in the design and installation of a fountain, raised walkway and play-space in one of the greens. Unfortunately, this has since fallen into disrepair owing to lack of maintenance and the fountain and play equipment have been removed. Another recent success was the WERA raising funding to replace play equipment at Stoneleigh Terrace, removed in the ‘90s. 4.9.7 Talking about HNT today interviewees discussed current events and their community. They talked about community activities within HNT and with other communities at Camden and highlighting the importance of community spaces. These include trips for residents using money from filming at HNT, summer parties on the greens and other seasonal and occasional events. A particular asset in this is the Garden-room their tenants meeting space, acquired after it was used as a site office for the latter phase of work. This room is used regularly by different groups on the estate for recreation, WERA meetings and other activities. Alongside the greens, regular use of the informal squares or recreation-areas is evident in fine weather, with groups of residents who sit out and play in them in the early evening and at weekends. The lack of programmed-use in the squares, recreation-areas and greens provides an openness for residents to engage in a range of activities including sitting, playing, sports and other games. 4.9.8 The interviewees also commented on the current installation of ‘Wood that Works’ a wood workshop formerly located at the Highgate Community Centre, Winscombe Street (currently under redevelopment) in the garages of HNT. They were positive to this and would like to see options for further community amenities explored within the disused garage space, which might introduce more of the amenity functions Tábori made provision for in Phase 2. 55 56 57 4.9.9 The working group included members of Camden’s District Management Committees (DMC) who are engaged in representing HNT as part of Camden’s housing. They would like to see better integration and structured communication through such channels, which reflects the need for improved structure and support identified by the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan (DPNFNP 2016: 53). 4.9.10 This has changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling properties to be bought) has seen a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. The community includes individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few who lived at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously challenged the perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they feel HNT has succeeded in carrying forward in several aspects, whilst acknowledging the reduction in numbers of shops and other amenities. Rather than there being division, between tenants and leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation in the WERA and elsewhere with managing and developing this sense of community. 4.9.11 Wider relationships between the community at HNT and the surrounding area are sustained through outings and trips with neighbouring housing schemes (recently a day-trip to Southend) and also through engagement in The Camden Leaseholders Forum, the Camden Federation for Private Tenants etc. This sees residents working for HNT and other housing estates, which helps raise their profiles, share resources and attract advocacy for the various issues faced.A key topic at workshops was how this might be better orchestrated through the WERA for example and developed to better support communities. The residents who took part in the workshops had a strong sense of connection to HNT as a place and sense of their community. Some were aware of HNT’s history and many were keen to hear about it, presenting scope for developing this further through projects and events. 4.9.12 Those who took part in the workshops are keen to see further support in developing tenants and leaseholders as one community and also in building links to neighbouring groups and wider representation within Camden. They are also pleased with the increasing recognition of their homes as having qualities such as architectural merit and historical interest, which accords with their own perception of HNT as a place to live. Those who are politically engaged are sensitive to the need to develop diverse housing-models to ensure that the demographic mix is sustained long-term, but because they regard the change as gradual do not view it as an urgent matter or crisis (Pers. Comm. WERA Working Group: 2019). 4.9.13 In showing the long-term and continuing success of HNT, the above challenges the media view of post-war housing and reveals the intrinsic importance of community in that success. This provides a picture of a vibrant and vital place and community which is reliant on the opportunities for interaction afforded by its community spaces and focus on external relationships.

4.10 Setting, Views and Patterns of Use 4.10.1 This section considers Setting and Views based upon current guidance as a means of understanding the visual qualities at HNT (Historic England 2017). This provides a basis for determining the impact of potential changes to buildings and space at HNT and providing conservation policy which protects these qualities.It concludes with consideration of current patterns of use at HNT to demonstrate the relationship between residents (users) and the built-environment. 4.10.2 At 214 ppa., the built-form of Highgate New Town Phase 1 is dense with non-housing areas forming routes, shared spaces, the greens and a basketball court. Principal views are lateral, running east to west along Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens, which from the stepped entrances at Dartmouth Park Hill provide long vistas across to Highgate Cemetery and the approach to HNT from Raydon Street. North - south views are shorter running between the terraces, which being staggered, break some views into even shorter sections. Some views are essentially incidental, creating a sense of connectivity with the surrounding streets, whilst others relate closely to movement across HNT. The only through route/view is the diagonal access which marks the route of the former Retcar Street, which has been blocked for some years. This and the route following the former bridle path adjacent to Highgate Cemetery have historic precedent, replicating the line of earlier thoroughfares and reflects that totality continuity in the scheme.The north-south routes/views provide permeability of movement and a visual connection to Raydon Street, through the stepped alleyways from Stoneleigh Terrace. In addition to which the balconies, external stairs and ramps introduce a vertical aspect providing views over the different public-spaces.

58 Previous- Fig. 26: Evening at the Greens (TD) Fig. 27: Historic Views (TD) Next- Fig. 28: Lulot Gardens towards DPH (TD) Fig. 29: Entrance to Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) Fig. 30: Protected view between Cemetery and Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) Fig. 31: Stoneleigh Terrace towards Cemetery (TD)

59 60 61 4.10.3 Views from neighbouring streets provide glimpses through the alleyways between Raydon Street and Stoneleigh Terrace. There was previously a degree of inter-visibility between HNT and Highgate Cemetery, which is today screened by mature planting. However, inter-visibility between HNT and the cemetery remain in the expansive views of the cemetery afforded from the south of the former bridle path and the elevated walkways above the inclined approach from Raydon Street along Stoneleigh Terrace. The incline along Stoneleigh Terrace provides a key view into HNT from the cemetery gates at Raydon Street, contrasting with both the stepped accesses from Raydon Street along Stoneleigh Terrace and the gateway entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill. The gateway entrances where their stairs, access and ramps and gantries meet, command views over the Girdlestone Estate and Whittington Hospital and with their clear affinity with the gates of the hill- towns, are a practical means of accommodating the underground parking required by the MHLG. 4.10.4 The views, setting and patterns of use at HNT are intertwined in a sense of intimacy and community across the outdoor space. Key examples being the paired-entrances to dwellings and the bridges at the upper level and the walkway views over Highgate Cemetery from Stoneleigh Terrace. A broader sense of shared amenity is present in the public-spaces and greens, which are all small enough to have some intimacy. Residents discussed a sense of ownership or proprietorship over the spaces near their own residences and a general sense of liberty of use in which they feel comfortable to use the different spaces. Within this they are in some ways local to the different terraces. Practically, the choice of routes from residences, along the street, down to Raydon Street or Dartmouth Park Hill, via steps or to other areas of HNT via squares and cut-through routes provides immediate access and avoids lengthy circulation. At the same time the logical axial layout is easily readable.

5 Heritage Values 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Heritage significance is defined in NPPF Annex 2 as: ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ Current national guidance for the assessment of the significance of heritage assets is provided in Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Historic England 2008). This guidance establishes significance is weighing consideration of the potential for the asset to demonstrate the following value criteria: Evidential value. Deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. Historical value. Deriving from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative. Aesthetic value. Deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Communal value. Deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific aspects. 5.1.2 This section draws together baseline data (set out above) to present HNT in terms of these four value categories.

5.2 Evidential Value Evidential value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.

5.2.1 The Evidential value of HNT is in its achievement as community-focused design which successfully produces an open space/route strategy by reconciling the qualities of the Italian hill-town with continuity with Victorian Highgate. This is achieved with a tangible sense of informality and intimacy, through careful arrangement of discrete public and semi-public areas and a clear sense of proprietorship over ‘street’ which sets it apart from the other Camden housing schemes built under Sydney Cook. Its design realises ‘eyes on the street’ and other ideas concerning community safety and surveillance from Jacobs in the democratic spirit of the open-society sought by Team 10, the Smithsons, Jaap Bakema and others. This is achieved in part by interpreting Chermayeff and Alexander’s practical application to design which moves from intention to realisation of a scheme which places the anonymous client of the resident community centre stage. Considered together with the diverse influences of Richard and Su Rogers, Goldfinger, Lasdun, Brown and others HNT with its eclectic mix of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-town, makes a highly significant contribution to the housing of the period. 62 5.2.2 This community-focused design and success in providing for the ‘anonymous client’ in the resident community represent HNT’s most significant and lasting achievement. Through the workshops with the residents’ working group and 40 years of hindsight, it has been possible to see how Tábori’s design has achieved Habraken’s assertion and made “provision for what cannot be foreseen” resulting in a scheme which is and remains successful in “creating the rules for a game designed to make creativity possible” (Cupers 2016: 173). 5.2.3 In drawing together various elements from his experience as an architect Tábori arguably achieves something which Richard Rogers and Team 4 were unable to do, executed with attention to detail, variety and execution, which make it an exemplary achievement. Within the canon of late ‘60s housing HNT as a living piece of heritage represents the realisation of something striven for by the greater number of architects and planners as well as thinkers such as Foucault and Lefebvre in this period. As such, its value as physical evidence, which has translated into lasting value is closely integrated with its historical and communal values, makes it a key part of post-war heritage.

5.3 Historical value Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative.

5.3.1 HNT’s historical value and interest relates closely to its evidential value and contribution to a critically important chapter of Post-war housing. Tábori’s drawing together diverse influences and experience, at HNT have potential to inform on the wider context of post-war architectural and planning development, HNT’s contribution to Camden’s housing and the individuals who influenced him. As a surviving built-project HNT doesn’t just emulate these influences but succeeds in redefining them into a consistent whole. 5.3.2 It is possible to read in HNT the individual relationships with the Rogers and Team 4, Ernö Goldfinger, Denys Lasdun, Neave Brown and the wider influence of Jacobs, Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema and Chermayeff and Alexander as well as indirect influence from Lloyd-Wright, Paul Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc. HNT forms a key part of the legacy of Sydney Cook and Camden Architects within which the combination of different influences and diverse elements from Italian hill-towns and Victorian Highgate represents something unique from the other schemes of the period at Camden or elsewhere. It both compliments and contrasts with Alexandra Road, to which it is often compared, and the other Camden projects, at the same time as realising the public-private dynamic needed as the groundwork for community-life, with the rigorous technical standards and environmental engineering in its own way. Environmentally, it is significant in not being paralleled in the other schemes at Camden by Brown and others, which marks HNT as one of the first housing designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the need to protect the planet.

5.3.3 HNT’s place within the legacy of Post-war housing, is confirmed post-construction by its developing success as a residential project. Despite extensive changes to Scheme 2 and the provision of amenities intended, HNT has maintained a consistent satisfaction from residents, who enjoy and appreciate the provisions of its design. Two periods of frustration are included in the this, in the ‘90s and 2000s when problematic works were implemented to improve and maintain the buildings. The latter of these prompted the 2006 Listing application. Excluding these two periods the story has been one of incremental impact through successive minor interventions, which may explain why HNT has not garnered the attention needed for listing until now. Whilst this period post-construction largely pertains to its communal value (see under) that story forms a vital part of HNT’s historical value, not least in its revealing what transpired for the “anonymous client”. 5.3.4 The quality and importance of HNT is increasingly recognised both in England and abroad. It is a powerful icon of the optimism and idealism that underpinned post-war public sector architecture. This is well evidenced by the 2019 RIBA-funded project undertaken by Karakusevic Carson architects, which included HNT in its selection of nine exemplar housing schemes taken from the US, UK and Europe. The intention is that the projects selected might contribute to a possible model for densifying the periphery of London as stipulated by the current London Plan, indicating the potential to learn from HNT. These were presented at the Barbican’s recent Revolutionary Low-Rise exhibition (www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/architecture-on-stage-revolutionary-low-rise). 5.3.5 Beyond this, HNT is increasingly visited by architectural students and practitioners, visiting London from across the World, reflecting gathering interest and opinion concerning its architectural and societal achievement. Within which HNT is Tábori’s most outstanding achievement as a pioneering architect.

63 5.4 Aesthetic Value Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place.

5.4.1 HNT’s distinctive tactile and intimate aesthetic, combining the familiarity of continuity and exoticism derived from hill-towns, is manifest throughout its streets, stairs and other routes. It stands in contrast with the more abstract conceptual forms of other housing built under Sydney Cook (1965- 73). This is potentially at its most distinctive in the distribution and character of discrete community spaces, greens and other communal meeting points, which invite both use and a sense of proprietorship. The sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted with timber window surrounds form a key part of this more organic presentation, hinting at Georgian or Neo- Classicism, combining to produce the aesthetic mix of strong ‘60s Modernism and materiality drawn from to the Victorian and earlier surroundings. The informality of the external environment contrasts with the ‘mysterious and formal’ interiors of the residences with their heady mix of Goldfinger at Willow Road and ideas drawn from contemporary influences such as Hodgkinson, Brown and Chermayeff and Goldfinger and Tábori’s Hungarian background. The external wooden window surrounds provide a hint of the dark wood detailing of the interiors and in doing so link exterior and interior in a similar manner to the eyes on the street relationship between kitchens and street. 5.4.2 Entering HNT from the hill-town gate-like entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill, there is a sense of elevation over neighbouring streets. This contrasts with the gentle inclined approach passing the taller houses along Stoneleigh Terrace or the informal stepped alleyways leading up from Stoneleigh Terrace. All three have clear precedents in the hill-towns and are instrumental in the exoticism of HNT. Within HNT the close relationships between private and public-space provide an informal warmth and intimacy, with a distinct sense of community. The lateral layout of the streets connecting to the different shared spaces presents a clearly legible layout within which movement and recreation are clearly delineated. This sense of proprietorship and definition of place in which it is difficult not to acknowledge others whilst walking around, providing a close link to HNT’s communal value. Discussion with residents revealed that their perception of this aesthetic is intrinsically linked with its sense of use and the manner in which the streets, squares, greens and meeting points provide places for recreation and interaction. Alongside this the buildings falls into the background, providing the setting for the activities of daily-life, confirming the externality of life at HNT.

5.5 Communal Value Communal Value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific aspects. 5.5.1 Communal value at HNT relates principally to its residents, but also extends to residents from the neighbouring streets, visitors and others from further afield. The understanding of HNT’s communal value through the workshops and interviews revealed a diverse community at HNT, which has changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling properties to be bought) included a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. This community includes individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few who lived at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously seek to challenge the perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they feel HNT has succeeded in carrying forward. Rather than there being division between tenants and leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation with managing and developing this sense of community. 5.5.2 For these residents, the communal value of HNT is intrinsically linked to and a result of its design through the sense of proprietorship over and liberty to use the various ommunity spaces and streets. This is assisted by the proximity and linking of private and public space through the paired entrances, externality of community life and the tangible visual relationship between dwellings and street with the sense of informality this creates. Residents described how this supports the regular and diverse use of these spaces with the number of areas allowing multiple groups and activities to be out at once. They feel the opportunity this is key in underpinning community at HNT and how this relies on their upkeep and maintenance. Central in this, are the various community- spaces, principally the squares and greens, which are largely unprogrammed. These allow informal interaction on a daily basis as well as siting planned events, when needed. They provide the physical arena for a range of activities which build and maintain contact between residents and as such are most significant in the long-term success of HNT. 64 5.5.3 The connection to place felt by residents and their keenness to engage with place and community at HNT reflects the successful outcome of Tábori’s intentions to provide appropriable space at design which the community can take proprietorship over demonstrating a high level of significance in communal value. In the words of Dutch architect and theorist John Habraken in his 1972 publication Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing this seeks to “try to make provision for what cannot be foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016: 173).

5.6 Group Value Group value derives from associative or cumulative value of a place in relation to its wider context; through time-period, architect, type etc.

5.6.1 HNT’s relates principally to its achievement in community-focused design, as an LRHD project, as part of the housing produced by Camden Architects under Sydney Cook. Within this HNT represents the crowning achievement of Peter Tábori as one of the most capable architects of the time, making it one of the most significant projects built at Camden. In responding to ‘50s disenchantment with mixed-development and the high-rise and as part of the habitat and community-focus espoused by Jacobs, Chermayeff, Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema etc. it distinguishes itself as an exemplar achievement. This is further supported in consideration of its achieving things that Tábori various mentors and influences were unable to do. With its use of terracing and other pre-Modernist devices, shared with Brown and others, it belongs to a wider reappraisal of pre-Modernist and vernacular architecture, within which the combination of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-town achieves something unique. Similarly, the technical innovation learnt from Goldfinger, Rogers, Lasdun etc. includes aspects of environmental control and accessibility, which were pioneering at that time. HNT distinguishes itself in these various group associations and makes a significant contribution in all cases.

Fig. 32: Residents at evening at Sandstone Place (TD)

65 6 The Residents Working Group Workshops 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This section provides a thematic account of the topics for conservation guidance raised during the workshops and the process by which this was achieved. The topics are presented in relation to local and other policy and guidance as well as other initiatives such as the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan. It concludes by setting out these topics as policy for inclusion under Sub-Area 5 of the DPCA. 6.1.2 The topics for conservation guidance were put together by the WERA working group (comprising members of the WERA and other residents) at the June 2019 meeting, which considered the development of HNT and discussed past and current issues. This provided valuable insights into life at HNT which were then developed through the second workshop which took the form of an informal group session with longer-term residents to broaden the understanding of those issues and how they and their management has developed over time (see 4.9). The final session in November 2019 considered the draft report and presented the conservation guidance being put forward and the case for Listing. The draft report and conservation policies were reviewed and discussed with approval for a final version and preparation of summaries for circulation to all residents of HNT. In addition to the ongoing feedback via the working group and the WERA, this would provide all residents the opportunity to approve and comment prior to submitting the conservation guidance and the application for Grade II* Listing. The report, conservation guidance and application for Listing were then finalised on the basis of this.

6.1.3 The topics include; Buildings and external space, Community spaces, green-space and recreation, Technical installation and environmental controls Amenity space and community events, Gardening and Pruning, Refuse and Recycling, Signage and maps, Cooperation

6.2 Basis of Approach 6.2.1 The conservation guidance seeks to develop the role that residents at HNT play in determining the outcome of initiatives and maintenance and implement measures which take better care of HNT; the outcome of which would be of benefit to the community, buildings and external environment as a whole. This is in line with provision for empowering communities as set out under the Localism Act, Camden Local Plan and Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum etc. (DPNFNP 2016: 53). For community members an increased stake in process can help ensure that measures are appropriate for the needs of the community and support that community in taking care of the place where they live (Knox 2005 & Davies 2019). Collective engagement as provided through the workshops serves as a platform/vehicle for views and accounts of events to be shared and discussed helping to build community-ties and awareness. This supports tenants and leaseholders in continuing to develop as an integrated community through its potential to build shared knowledge about HNT and how its buildings and spaces work technically and socially. This can inform community initiatives and help resolve difficulties in the management of HNT with Camden and others. In this it makes a clear contribution to preventing inappropriate interventions to buildings and spaces. Given that infrastructure is already present at HNT in the WERA, the working group, memberships of the DMC etc. this conservation guidance seeks to support these groups in their work at HNT and support their development.

6.3 Buildings and External Space 6.3.1 Discussion of the built environment at HNT started from its community-friendliness, with residents talking about how they use space and how this encourages contact between neighbours. Specifics included the paired entrances and oversight of public-areas from kitchens and balconies. During discussion of the Georgian character of the yellowed limestone-mix concrete (currently painted over in several areas) and the influence of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-towns residents raised concerns over the cumulative impacts of inappropriate interventions overtime. This includes cabling, ducting and other services (much of it redundant) which has gradually spread across HNT, screening and fencing of areas (with various impacts) and the inappropriate lighting added 66 Fig. 33: A damaged cabinet (TD)

during the earlier phases of works. It was agreed that much of this has a detrimental impact on the character of HNT and that to date there have been no efforts to address implementation, limit impact and visual intrusiveness nor to remove redundant installations. Whilst redundant services, were seen as a universal negative as was inappropriate lighting, it was felt that some of the screening and fencing is needed requiring consideration on a case basis. It was resolved that there is a need to review these elements, in terms of their impact and function and implement appropriate measures. There was also unanimous support for reopening of the cut-through route following the former line of Retcar Street, which would return both aspects of HNT’s original design and a useful route into play. This could be implemented as part of repairs to ramps and slopes required generally. Residents were also keen to see repair and maintenance of recent works at HNT, particularly the MUF sculpture, fountain and play-area.

6.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation 6.4.1 Discussion of community-spaces, green-space and recreation focused on three areas, the hard- standing recreation-spaces or squares, the greens at the centre of the estate (currently fenced-off) and interaction in HNT’s streets and the entrances to residences. Residents recalled that the greens were fenced-off as a temporary measure to remedy contamination from dog-fouling.They currently have limited access and residents would like to see them reopened. This should be done in consultation with residents to determine use within the greens and which areas are fully or partially reopened. Together with the community spaces provided by the squares, they provide space for important community events and day to day recreation. The removal of play-equipment from some of the community spaces (principally that at Lulot Gardens and the sloping entrance to the car-park at Stoneleigh Terrace) was also discussed, with residents feeling that it has reduced the offer for families. This included an account of the WERA having raised money in recent years for the play- area at the centre of Stoneleigh Terrace, independently of Camden Council. It was resolved that a review of play and recreation opportunities within HNT is needed. This is particularly important given 67 it’s as a priority under Local Plan Policy A2 Open Spaces- “f. conserve and enhance the heritage value of designated open spaces and other elements of open space which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas or to the setting of heritage assets” (Camden 2017). 6.5 Technical installation 6.5.1 Discussion of technical installation considered the environmental-design, through-water and heating systems and the thermal regulation of internal temperatures and plans for winter-gardens (enclosed balcony terraces). The heating and water systems are comprehensive networks running throughout HNT. In particular, the efficiency of the water system which has been impaired by incompatible localised alterations, resulting in loss of pressure in many homes because they are applied locally without consideration to the system as a whole. Detailed drawings and information are available of these systems which could help ensure the design of future interventions and maintenance are compatible. It was resolved that a package of available technical information about these systems is needed and that its review should be mandatory in advance of any future works to technical aspects. Given the problems some residents are currently experiencing with supply it was also felt that efforts should be made to remedy that as opportunities arise.

6.6 Amenity space and community events 6.6.1 Seasonal, regular and one-off events emerged as a key topic through discussion of use of the external environment, with two examples given being Halloween and summer parties. Discussion considered how this might be developed in terms of current space, siting and provision. Currently events utilise the greens for outdoor events and HNT’s community spaces, the Garden-Room for smaller, indoor occasions (such as WERA meetings). Beyond the current areas available for events (shared-spaces, greens and the Garden-room) the extensive underground-parking required under late ‘60s planning has limited use, which will be developed by Wood that works (carpentry workshop) beyond which potential exists for further changes of use. It was resolved that discussion with Camden about how much of the capacity might be made available for resident activities would be desirable. It was also determined that the programme of current events and proposed events be shared between the WERA and Camden Council to secure support and funding where possible.

6.7 Gardening and Pruning 6.7.1 Gardening and pruning emerged as a variable issue over time, which has been dependent on funding and changing management strategies. It is felt that the frequency of maintenance has reduced recently, which residents felt was likely the result of cutbacks. Whilst some residents have taken the initiative to tend to areas of planting over the years and there is a willingness to contribute in this way, reaching a consensus with Camden over responsibilities and roles is needed. Residents’ were positive to how their own engagement provides them with an active role in management, planting and use of the spaces, but that this needs to be done with a clear picture of different responsibilities, which needs discussion.

6.8 Refuse and Recycling 6.8.1 Refuse and recycling was brought into discussion through frustration over the current large green refuse bins which are set out across the streets of HNT and collection arrangements introduced by Camden in recent years. The current bins do not fit the bin-housing located under the stairs, requiring them to be kept on the street. The principal issues with this are that they often block shared spaces at the entrances in which neighbours meet and converse and are unsightly. Whilst residents are sensitive to the new bins being standardised across the borough and too large to fit the original housing, they are very keen to reclaim these spaces and that an alternative location for the bins is found. They would like to see a review of the refuse and collection strategy, which aims to limit impact to community-space as well as the built character of the HNT. This might see a return to smaller containers (used elsewhere in Camden) which would fit the original bin-housing or alternative storage arrangements being made for the existing containers, removing them from the streets.

6.9 Signage and maps 6.9.1 Signage and maps were a specific issue for Tábori who sought to avoid aspects which define housing as an estate and thereby establishing it as separate to its surroundings. As part of his approach through urban renewal, the original street-signs were the same as those of neighbouring streets and any need for maps should have been unnecessary because of the logical layout and 68 through-continuity with the surrounding area, providing readability. These signs were replaced at some point with standard Camden signs whilst maps were added (of the same type) at various entrances. This ‘labelling’ forms part of the work to modify public housing in the late ‘80s prompted by the views of Alice Coleman and Oscar Newman (Coleman 1985). These views concerning ‘defensible space’ have received extensive criticism in recent years indicating a need to review the effect of the interventions to design and layout they prompted. Residents are conscious of this ‘labelling’ given recent media discussion of how it marks housing schemes as separate to the areas they belong to. It was resolved that a return to Tábori’s intention that HNT should not be singled out in this manner, would be desirable, through the restoration of original signage and removal of Camden Housing maps. 6.10 Cooperation 6.10.1 Residents at HNT are in the process of re-establishing the format of the WERA at present, following a period of limited activity. There is also contact with the Tenants and Residents Association at Highgate Stage 2C which could be developed and scope for cooperation with Chester Balmore residents (the redeveloped Phase 2A&B). On the back of the recent Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan and forum the working group and the WERA are keen to see support for building this network through the new estates Landlord scheme and other mediums. 6.11 Maintaining and Enhancing Highgate New Town’s Setting 6.11.1 Discussions concerning setting and views covered those detailed in this report, within which there is little scope for additional structure, without significant impact to HNT ‘s character. Key impacts to the setting of external space considered include the painting of facades and extent of cabling, pipes and other services and clutter of shared space such as the refuse bins. Other issues regard the removal of play-equipment and planting from areas which detract from their use and visual character. It was resolved that the more detailed assessment of setting and views in this report be put forward for inclusion in the DPCA. 6.12 Parameters for Acceptable Impact 6.12.1 Given the high occupation density at Highgate there is little scope for additional building/ densification without significant impact to public space. Given that density is already above that of the neighbouring streets there is little argument for densification within the existing area. Future impacts should instead relate to improvements to the external spaces, such as returning and developing recreation and play-equipment and restoring the greens to their former use. One particular asset in this is are the unused garage-spaces, within which the Wood that works scheme presents a potential model. It was resolved that these priorities be adopted for new use and the recreation-spaces be reviewed with HNT’s community.

Fig. 34: Fenced off play-area at the Greens (TD)

69 70 71 7 Draft Conservation Guidance and Policies 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The following section sets out Conservation Policies which should be adhered to ensure responsible and sustainable management of HNT. Each proposed conservation policy is set out with relevant policy and guidance from local to national level as per appendix 1.

7.2 Basis of approach 7.2.1 Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new landlord service), Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20th Century Society for future support. (Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan C1, C5, D2, E1 & DPCA) 7.3 Buildings and external space Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint, Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually, Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street, Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing, Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens, Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels,

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA)

7.4 Community spaces, green-space and recreation Complete restoration of squares and greens and remove fencing, Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack, Consultation over use and maintenance of all community spaces (squares, greens and other meeting points), Implement improvements to community spaces, Revise refuse and recycling regime,

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA)

7.5 Views and visual amenity View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street, Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street, Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections, Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to define responsibilities (Camden/residents) and establish clear management guidelines with resident input, Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA)

7.6 Technical installation (heating, lighting and water) Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems, Remedy incompatible elements, All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service infrastructure to ensure compatibility, (Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan C1, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA) Previous- Fig. 35: Pedestrian Entrance from the East (TC/MS) 72 7.7 Amenity space and community events Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space, Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area as well as Camden Council, Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes, Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses, Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use,

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, E1, CC2 & DPCA)

7.8 Gardening and Pruning Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and Camden, Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA)

7.9 Refuse and Recycling Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original bin- housing can be made,

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA)

7.10 Signage and maps Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring streets, Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something non- visually intrusive,

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, C1, C3, C5, D2, CC2 & DPCA)

7.11 Cooperation Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community, Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile, Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc.

(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2 & CC2)

8 Adoption & Review 8.1.1 The Conservation Policies remain draft at this stage, requiring review by the client and statutory consultees for approval. Once approved the final list of Conservation Policies will then be included under Sub-Area 5 of the DPCA for future management. 8.1.2 Following this the WERA in conjunction with residents will periodically be allowed to review the current guidance to identify potential improvements and revision to address future developments.

73 Table 2: Proposed Conservation Policies for inclusion in DPCA. Proposed Conservation Policies National Localism Camden Local Plan Planning Policy Act (2011) Framework (NPPF) Basis of Approach Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C5, D2, E1 & DPCA/DPNF Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new landlord service), Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20th Century Society for future support Buildings and external space Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint, Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually, Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street, Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing, Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens, Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels, Community Spaces, green-space and recreation Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Complete restoration of squares and greens and remove fencing, DPNF Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack, Consultation over use and maintenance of all community spaces (squares, greens and other meeting points), Implement improvements to community spaces, Revise refuse and recycling regime, Views and visual amenity Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street, Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street, Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections, Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to be pruned and slightly reduced to open up through views, Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery, Technical installation (heating, lighting and water) Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems, Remedy incompatible elements, All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service infrastructure to ensure compatibility, Amenity space and community events Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, E1, CC2 & DPCA/ Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space, DPNF Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area as well as Camden Council, Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes, Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses, Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use, Gardening and Pruning Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and Camden, DPNF Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT Refuse and Recycling Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original bin-housing can be DPNF made, Signage and maps Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C3, C5, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring streets, Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something non-visually intrusive Cooperation Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPNF Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community, Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile, Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc.

74 Proposed Conservation Policies National Localism Camden Local Plan Planning Policy Act (2011) Framework (NPPF) Basis of Approach Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C5, D2, E1 & DPCA/DPNF Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new landlord service), Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20th Century Society for future support Buildings and external space Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint, Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually, Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street, Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing, Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens, Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels, Community Spaces, green-space and recreation Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Complete restoration of squares and greens and remove fencing, DPNF Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack, Consultation over use and maintenance of all community spaces (squares, greens and other meeting points), Implement improvements to community spaces, Revise refuse and recycling regime, Views and visual amenity Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street, Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street, Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections, Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to be pruned and slightly reduced to open up through views, Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery, Technical installation (heating, lighting and water) Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems, Remedy incompatible elements, All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service infrastructure to ensure compatibility, Amenity space and community events Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, E1, CC2 & DPCA/ Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space, DPNF Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area as well as Camden Council, Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes, Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses, Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use, Gardening and Pruning Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and Camden, DPNF Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT Refuse and Recycling Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/ Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original bin-housing can be DPNF made, Signage and maps Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C3, C5, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring streets, Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something non-visually intrusive Cooperation Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPNF Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community, Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile, Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc.

75 9 Application for Grade II* Listing 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This section sets out the application for Grade II* Listing in recognition of HNT’s nationally important heritage significance. It presents HNT’s importance within the UK’s post-war housing, Peter Tábori’s exceptional design, within which HNT is recognised as the outstanding flagship scheme and the architectural and social context to which it belongs as a highly successful housing scheme with a vibrant community that continues to develop today. In doing this, it achieves both excellence in the architectural and planning thought of the 1960s and in today’s aspirations for sustainability and socially responsible design. The evidence for this is in the detailed understanding we now have of HNT and Tábori’s work through his background and the wider context drawn from Mark Swenarton’s research and the work carried out specifically for this study. It is made on the basis of the exceptional heritage values at HNT, the importance of retaining community spaces for its community and strong resident support from HNT’s community. 9.1.2 The application is made on grounds of the threat and ongoing cumulative negative impact of interventions and maintenance which are detrimental to the character of HNT and that Grade II* Listing is required to reflect the current understanding of HNT. In doing this it addresses relevant criteria from the DCMS requirements under Listing buildings of special Architectural and Historic Interest (DCMS 2018) (See Appendix 2). It also aligns with priorities under the Historic England Listing Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war buildings and Historic England’s Strategic Listing Priorities as a Post-war Landscape for the external aspects of HNT. 9.1.3 In particular, it addresses the conclusion of the rejection letter in response to the 2006 Listing application that, “It [HNT] has architectural interest for the striking, tiered south elevations of the blocks, but this approach was not innovative and the design of the other elevations is unremarkable” and that “The interior fittings and finishes are typical of their time and do not have particular merit” (EH 2006). The current understanding of HNT demonstrates that this is not the case and as such meets the grounds for review set out under the 2006 response that this would be undertaken where “there is significant evidence which was not previously considered, relating to the special architectural or historic interest of the building, as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.” The 2006 assessment was carried out at a time when no substantive historical research had been undertaken on HNT and the only information available was that which had been published at the time. Hence it was unable to consider the overall qualities and holistic design of HNT through its innovative spatial layout and contribution to social structuring as a scheme, because of the limited understanding available and a more material focus in heritage appraisal at that time. 9.1.4 Current heritage practice (particularly with relation to 20th Century buildings) is concerned with the ‘essence’ and significance of places considered through their form, function, use and relationship to user which in light of recent research requires reassessment (Powers 2001). In HNT’s instance, essence, form and function are entirely bound up with its community making their views as the anonymous client of Tábori’s design intrinsically important. The 2006 response acknowledges the character of facades, terraces and balconies, but disregards all other aspects both materially and in terms of their significance or essence as part of the whole. By example, internal inspection was minimal, concluding that the interiors were only standard to housing of the period, which ignores their innovation in use, layout and design/aesthetic. This is similarly applicable to the consideration of external aspects which make little or no comment of its innovative design, use and community nor the wider context (of post-war planning thought etc.) to which it belongs. Rejection of the 2006 application was justified on the basis that it was of insufficient merit and that its inclusion under the DPCA would adequately safeguard its heritage character (EH 2006). 9.1.5 The basis for threat from the cumulative negative impact on the character of HNT and the quality of life of its residents from ongoing inappropriate interventions and works is established under Historic England’s Listing Guidance,

‘We strive to consider assets which are genuinely under threat of demolition, major alteration or destructive neglect where designation could make a difference, and will regard such cases as priorities. A major alteration is regarded as one likely to compromise the significance of an asset. We encourage people to put in applications as early as possible when there is a threat to allow us time to establish the status of the asset. (HE 2017).

Adjacent- Fig. 36 Steps from Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street (TD) 76 77 78 79 9.2 Summary of impact at HNT 9.2.1 Inspection of buildings and external areas across HNT in 2018-19 identified several areas and types of interventions which have an ongoing cumulative negative impact. This includes the cabling and ducting for lights and services which is often cut into buildings and remains in-situ after active use, the removal of play-areas, fencing of greens and closure of routes, such as that following the former Retcar Street which negatively impact the flow and use of space of the squares and routes as well as visual connections central to the design of HNT. The importance of these community-spaces for residents means their partial closure and lack of maintenance have a particularly significant impact on daily life at HNT. Given a scarcity of community-spaces of this quality more widely in London and a lack of funding and support for those that do exist, this represents a key issue. 9.2.2 Other impacts include the replacement of the original bins and bin-housing outside residences with the large portable containers which obstruct spaces intended for communication and neighbourliness and impact the visual aesthetic of HNT. Similarly, the standardised signage and maps introduced by Camden which mark HNT out as an ‘estate’, contribute to a sense of separateness and conflict with Tábori’s intention that HNT be an integrated part of Highgate. Other impacts are of a technical nature, such as the alteration and installation of power-showers, etc. which have impaired the delivery of HNT’s district water and heating systems. These demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the design of these systems and how they function which could easily be remedied. The most recent of these impacts comes from ongoing conversion of unused garage- spaces under Stoneleigh Terrace, for the Wood that works community facility which whilst wanted by residents had insufficient funding for the grills which are features of the only façade detailed to date as significant in the DPCA to be retained. 9.2.3 This cumulative impact should have been prevented by its Conservation Area status as part of the DPCA, according to the 2006 Listing rejection (EH 2006). Whilst the adoption of the guidance set out in this document for DPCA: Sub Area 5 will help address this, the current understanding of HNT following recent research, clearly demonstrates a national level of significance which should qualify HNT for Grade II* Listed status. As such, the following tests demonstrate the grounds to support Grade II* Listing and provide the protection required of a Grade II* Listed asset to support the conservation guidance being put forward for inclusion in the DPCA.

9.3 Justification for Grade II* Listing 9.3.1 In demonstrating the tests for Listing, the following demonstrates that HNT qualifies as a building ‘from the period after 1945’ which is of high significance (DCMS 2018: 19).

9.4 Architectural Interest ‘To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms’ (DCMS 2018: 16); 9.4.1 HNT’s embodiment of Tábori’s distinct approach to urban renewal, combining aspects of Victorian Camden with the built-form and externality of the Italian hill-town to create community-focused design, reveals it as an exemplar of the site-specific approach to housing.This is as much relevant to the progressive trends at the time of its design as it is to notions of sustainability and community today (Swenarton 2017 & Davies 2019 pubs). It includes the detailed consideration of how HNT would function together with Phase 2 and the surrounding streets in creating a piece of city, which is remarkable when looked at in terms of how its design has weathered the changes to the scheme under development and remained successful in the long-term. HNT achieves a tangible sense of informality and intimacy, through the careful arrangement of discrete public and semi-public areas and a clear sense of proprietorship over ‘street’, with diverse and distinct areas which set it apart from the other schemes built under Sydney Cook. This design makes manifest ‘eyes on the street’ and other ideas concerning community safety and surveillance from Jane Jacobs, Chermayeff and the democratic spirit of ‘open-society’ sought by Team 10, the Smithsons and Jaap Bakema etc. The interpretation of Chermayeff and Alexander’s applied practical approach enabled Tábori to move from intention of design to its realisation in a scheme which places the anonymous client of the resident community centre stage. When considered with the diverse influences of Richard and Su Rogers, Goldfinger, Lasdun, Brown and others HNT, with its eclectic mix of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-town, occupies a distinct place within the housing built at Camden in the late ‘60s and elsewhere.

Previous- Fig. 37: View east along Lulot Gardens (TC) Next- Fig. 38: The Greens (TD) 80 9.4.2 Externally, this is most striking in the high-quality internal layouts and design which play into the external space through full-length balconies and entrance bridges and stairs and kitchen windows which forms an almost first-hand realisation of Jacobs’ ‘eyes on the street’. The layering of these aspects all the way back to the affinities with the Etruscan origins of the hill-town produces a rich landscape of buildings and appropriable space which are manifest throughout the externalisation of stairs, routes, accesses and places of retreat. 9.4.3 Internally, the flexibility and reverse-plan (bedrooms below) is shared with Neave Brown’s Alexandra Road, but aesthetically put to very different use. Similar, to Team 4’s Creek Vean, this realises key principles from Chermayeff and Alexander concerning provision of privacy and separate spaces to cater for families etc. The architectural pedigree of HNT develops further through Tábori’s ‘mysterious and formal’ treatment of the internal spaces relating to his Hungarian background and experience working with Ernö Goldfinger (Swenarton 2017: 130). Whilst other aspects of the interiors relate to contemporary thinking such as the use of full-height spaces by fellow Camden architect Patrick Hodgkinson and Leslie Martin (Swenarton Et Al. 2015: 244). The technical finesse and attention to detail throughout and the innovation of the varied internal plans, environmental systems and services, derived in part from Richard Rogers and Denys Lasdun amongst others are all instrumental in achieving this. This is particularly significant in not being paralleled in the other schemes at Camden designed by Neave Brown and others, which marks HNT as one of the first housing designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the need to protect the planet. In all these aspects it is possible to see concerns and aspirations from the different influences in Tábori’s background being executed in HNT. Critically, the 2006 rejection doesn’t mention the diverse range of internal plans and solutions made possible by Tábori’s innovative approach to creating different unit sizes.

9.5 Historic Interest ‘To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing’ (DCMS 2018: 16).

9.5.1 HNT’s historical value and interest relates closely to its evidential value and contribution to a critically important chapter of Post-war housing. Tábori’s drawing together diverse influences and experience, at HNT have potential to inform on the wider context of post-war architectural and planning development, HNT’s contribution to Camden’s housing and the individuals who influenced him. As a surviving built-project HNT doesn’t just emulate these influences but succeeds in redefining them into a consistent whole. 9.5.2 It is possible to read in HNT the individual relationships with Richard and Su Rogers and Team 4, Ernö Goldfinger, Denys Lasdun, Neave Brown and the prevailing influence of Jane Jacobs. It also occupies a tangible position within the holistic approach to architecture and planning championed by Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema and Chermayeff and Alexander as well the background of habitat thinking through Foucault, Lefebvre and others. This extends to the indirect influences of Lloyd-Wright, Paul Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc, brough both through the Rogers connection and Tábori’s own studies. HNT forms a key part of the legacy of Sydney Cook and Camden Architects within which the combination of different influences and diverse elements from Italian hill-towns and Victorian Highgate represents something unique from the other schemes of the period at Camden or elsewhere. It both compliments and contrasts with Alexandra Road, to which it is often compared, and the other Camden projects, at the same time as realising the public-private dynamic needed as the groundwork for community-life, with the rigorous technical standards and environmental engineering in its own way. 9.5.3 In the experience Tábori gained through his peers, Rogers’ provides a catalyst for both the community focus, as a conduit to Chermayeff, and the technical focus on the potential of materials through Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc. This builds on Jacob’s influence which characterises the whole scheme and is polished by with the attention to detail and technical standards from Goldfinger and Lasdun. Brown’s influence as a colleague at Camden provides a final and crucial stage in this development in offering opportunities to both learn and cooperate, providing more equal ground, which allowed Tábori to test and experiment after arriving at Camden (Polygon Road and Tábori‘s work on Alexandra Road). Given that neither of Team 4’s housing schemes were realised, despite Rogers committed passion for housing, it seems that he took particular interest in Tábori’s achievement at HNT. This adds to the evidence of Tábori‘s ability to learn from others and to refine and articulate inspiration in his own work. Su Rogers ‘reviewing’ the as-then unbuilt HNT design in AR (1973) provides just one further example of the support that the Rogers family was giving Tábori at this time (Rogers 1973 & Pers. Comm. Swenarton: 2019). 81 External space at HNT the Greens 82 83 9.5.4 HNT’s importance in the legacy of Post-war housing, is confirmed by its long-term success. Despite the extensive changes to Phase 2 and the provision of amenities intended, HNT has maintained a consistent satisfaction from residents, who (through the workshops) enjoy and appreciate the provisions of its design. Two periods of frustration are included in this, in the ‘90s and 2000s during major improvement and maintenance works; the latter of which prompted the 2006 Listing application. Excluding these, the story has been one of incremental impact through successive minor interventions, which may explain why HNT has not garnered the attention needed for Listing until now. Whilst this largely pertains to its communal value (see under) the story of HNT as a community forms a vital part of HNT’s historical value, which reveals what transpired for the “anonymous client” through Tábori‘s success in creating the public-private dynamic as the groundwork for community-life, achieving the zeitgeist of late ‘60s architecture and planning and remains a focus in planning today. 9.5.5 The quality and importance of HNT is increasingly recognised both in England and abroad. It is a powerful icon of the optimism and idealism that underpinned post-war public sector architecture. This is well evidenced by the 2019 RIBA-funded project undertaken by Karakusevic Carson architects, which included HNT in its selection of nine exemplar housing schemes taken from the US, UK and Europe. The intention is that the projects selected might contribute to a possible model for densifying the periphery of London as stipulated by the current London Plan, indicating the potential to learn from HNT. These were presented at the Barbican’s recent Revolutionary Low-Rise exhibition (www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/architecture-on-stage-revolutionary-low-rise). 9.5.6 HNT is increasingly visited by architectural students and practitioners, visiting London from across the World, reflecting gathering interest and opinion concerning its architectural and societal achievement. Within which HNT is widely recognised as Tábori’s most outstanding achievement as a pioneering architect.

9.6 Aesthetic merits ‘The appearance of a building – both its intrinsic architectural merit and any group value – is a key consideration in judging listing proposals, but the special interest of a building will not always be reflected in obvious external visual quality. Buildings that are important for reasons of technological innovation, or as illustrating particular aspects of social or economic history, may have little external visual quality’ (DCMS 2018:13).

9.6.1 HNT’s distinctive tactile and intimate aesthetic, combining the familiarity of continuity with its surroundings and exoticism derived from hill-towns, characterises its streets, stairs and other routes. This stands in contrast with the more abstract conceptual forms of other housing built under Sydney Cook (1965-73) and is at its most distinctive in the distribution and character of HNT’s community spaces, greens and other communal meeting points, inviting both use and a sense of proprietorship. The sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted with timber window surrounds are key in this more organic presentation, hinting at Georgian or Neo-Classicism references whilst combining to produce an aesthetic mix of strong ‘60s Modernism and materiality drawn from to HNT’s earlier surroundings. The informality of the external environment contrasts with the ‘mysterious and formal’ interiors of the residences with their heady mix of Goldfinger at Willow Road and the ideas of Hodgkinson, Brown, Chermayeff and others as well asTábori’s Hungarian background. The external wooden window-surrounds provide a hint of the dark wood detailing of the interiors and in doing so link exterior and interior in a similar manner to the eyes on the street relationship between kitchens and street. 9.6.2 Entering HNT from the hill-town gate-like entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill, there is a sense of elevation over neighbouring streets which contrasts with gently the inclined approach passed the taller houses along Stoneleigh Terrace and the informal stepped alleyways from Raydon Street. All three have clear precedents in the hill-towns and are instrumental in the exoticism of HNT. Within HNT the close relationships between private and public-space provide an informal warmth and intimacy whilst the network of streets and routes connecting the different shared spaces forms an easily traversable and clearly legible layout, within which movement and recreation are clearly defined. This sense of proprietorship and definition of place makes it difficult not to acknowledge others whilst walking around, encouraging social contact. Discussion with residents revealed that their perception of HNT’s aesthetic is intrinsically linked with its sense of use and the manner in which the streets, squares, greens and meeting points provide places for recreation and interaction. Alongside this the buildings form context, providing the setting for the activities of daily- life, confirming the externality of life at HNT. This supports Tábori’s binary (twofold) interpretation of public and private space. Whether the shared entrances, stairs, bridges etc. are viewed as transitional semi-public or public space, by being external and visible from street, they interact in public-life and that there is therefore no ambiguity of interim uncertain space at HNT. 84 9.7 Communal Value 9.7.1 Communal value is not included under the statutory tests for Listing, but as a core part of HNT’s design is included in the Listing application by virtue of its being a key consideration. At HNT communal value relates principally to its residents, but also extends to residents from the neighbouring streets, visitors and others from further afield. An understanding communal value was gained through the workshops and interviews, which revealed a diverse community at HNT. This has changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling properties to be bought) has had a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. The community includes individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few who lived at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously challenged the perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they feel HNT has succeeded in carried forward in several aspects, whilst acknowledging the reduction in numbers of shops and other amenities. Rather than there being division between tenants and leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation in the amongst residents with managing and developing this sense of community. Relationships between the community at HNT and the surrounding area are an important part of this and are sustained through outings and trips. Equally, representation through The Camden Leaseholders Forum, the Camden Federation for Private Tenants etc. sees residents working for HNT and other housing estates, which helps raise their profiles, share resources and attract advocacy for the various issues faced. 9.7.2 The communal value of HNT is intrinsically linked to and a result of its design through the sense of proprietorship over and liberty to use the various shared spaces and streets. This is assisted by the proximity and linking of private and public space through the paired entrances, externality of community life and the tangible visual relationship between dwellings and street with the sense of informality this creates. Residents described how this supports regular, diverse use of these spaces with the number of areas allowing multiple groups and activities to be out at once. They feel the opportunity this presents, is key in underpinning community at HNT and how this relies on their upkeep and maintenance. This emphasises the importance of the diverse community spaces at HNT and the need to address their care and maintenance. 9.7.3 Communal value has been impacted during difficult periods, but has formed a constant attribute of life at HNT. This is demonstrated by long-term residents saying that they didn’t recognise HNT in negative reports in the local media in the early ‘80s, although they do acknowledge problems with delinquent behaviour in the early ‘90s. The connection to place felt by residents and their keenness to engage with place and community at HNT reflects the successful outcome of Tábori’s intentions to provide appropriable space at design which the community can take a sense of proprietorship over demonstrating a high level of significance in communal value. In the words of Dutch architect and theorist John Habraken in his 1972 publication Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing this seeks to “try to make provision for what cannot be foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016: 173).

9.8 Selectivity and National Interest ‘Where a building qualifies for listing primarily on the strength of its special architectural interest, the fact that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is not likely to be a major consideration. However, a building may be listed primarily because it represents a particular historical type in order to ensure that examples of such a type are preserved. Listing in these circumstances is largely a comparative exercise and needs to be selective where a substantial number of buildings of a similar type and quality survive. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s policy is to list only the most representative or most significant examples of the type’ (DCMS 2018:14).

9.8.1 Whilst HNT belongs to the Camden portfolio as an example of LRHD, the detailed understanding from recent research reveals it as having a distinctive character marking it out from its peers. Whilst there are clear affinities with Alexandra Road and certain other projects, Tábori’s background and individual approach through urban renewal at HNT achieves community-focused design in a way which is unique and of an organic and intimate character in which it stands in contrast with its contemporaries. In the context of the habitat and community-focused architecture and planning espoused by Jacobs, Chermayeff, Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema etc. HNT represents an individual and unique part of the surviving aspects of that heritage which is further supported in its achieving things that some of Tábori’s influences were did not. It also relates to and informs on the wider reappraisal of pre-Modernist and vernacular architecture, through the combination of Victorian 85 View along Highgate Cemetery from Lulot Gardens to Stoneleigh Terrace 86 87 Highgate and Italian hill-town and technical innovation of the time. Most important and testament to this is HNT’s long-term and continued success in provision for the ‘anonymous client’ revealed through working with its community during this study, delivering Habraken’s ‘unforeseen potential’ (Cupers 2016: 173). 9.8.2 Swenarton describes this in Cook’s Camden in this quote which tangibly reflects on the various links to Etruscan and Italian heritage, Jacobs, Team 10, Chermayeff and Alexander, the Rogers family, Lasdun and Goldfinger; “Taking Brown’s model as a starting point, Tábori put his own stamp on it: replacing the no-entry housing estate’ with the concept of ‘urban renewal’; using the Tuscan hill towns as a model of high- density dwelling; making the cluster the basis of the site layout; restoring the binary (public/private) spatial division of the street; and organizing the interior on ecological lines, to benefit from solar heat gain and minimise heat loss. Within the Camden ‘stable’, this amounted to a distinctive sensibility - and a distinctive contribution to the architecture of street-based low-rise housing.” (Swenarton 2017: 135). 9.8.3 Through these diverse aspects, HNT demonstrates exceptional “special architectural or historic interest” and makes a vital contribution to a representative account of post-war housing and architectural and planning thought, which Tábori achieves by assimilating and refining his diverse experience from some of the leading architects of the time to produce something unique from his peers (DCMS 2018:15). As such it demonstrates clear national interest as a unique and in the long-term successful example of late ‘60s housing warranting Grade II* Listing in recognition of its achievement and in support of the conservation guidance to be included in the DPCA. 9.8.4 Some of the key characteristics can be summed up as follows;

Community-focused design through detailed attention to public-private relationships Scale of ambition, perseverance and achievement in the face of changing requirements, support and funding Achievement in determining and delivering a scheme which accords with and provides for the developing needs of its residents as anonymous client in the long-term; Innovative approach to housing which combines continuity and community focus with Italian and other influences, realising something distinct from its contemporaries Provision of a unique layout of diverse community spaces forming a central resource in the quality of everyday life for residents High-standard of architectural design and execution drawing from various celebrated influences Technical innovation in variation of dwellings, utilisation of slope and daylight and early provision of accessibility

9.9 State of repair ‘The state of repair of a building is not a relevant consideration when deciding whether a building meets the test of special interest. The Secretary of State will list a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair (DCMS 2018: 16).’ 9.9.1 Whilst not a consideration in determining eligibility, listing of HNT would afford it statutory protection needed to prevent further cumulative impact and a strong starting position for remedying that impact.

Previous - Fig. 39: Former Bridal Way (now route) adjacent Highgate Cemetery (TD) Fig. 40: Cycling along Stoneleigh Terrace (TD) 88 10 Conclusion 10.1.1 This study for community-led conservation Area guidance for HNT (for inclusion under Area 5 of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area Appraisal (Camden 2009) and an application for Grade II* Listing has sought to demonstrate the need for and the nature of specific conservation area guidance for HNT, which represents both place and community. The methods employed, are aimed at establishing an approach that considers projects such as HNT with the communities for whom they were designed. This realises the potential benefit of the community’s experience and knowledge to ensure future care and longevity which optimises the opportunities for HNT as a place and for those who live there to fully engage with it. In establishing the basis of threat and the case for Grade II* Listing this study demonstrates a rich and comprehensively developed design, which has borne out over time into a very successful housing scheme and warrants protection as part of the UK’s national heritage. Whilst the conservation guidance seeks to determine how care and support is implemented, Grade II* Listed status will recognise the national significance of HNT and ensure the appropriate basis for that care in the long-term.

89 11 Bibliography Appleyard, B. (1986) Richard Rogers: A Biography. Frome: Butler & Tanner Ltd. Barbacci, N. (1987) Adaptive Re-use of a Medieval Complex in an Italian Hilltown: Civita di Bagnoregio – Italy Columbia University Baron, R.M. (2008). Castiglion Fiorentino: Re-thinking the Spirit of Place. openarchive.icomos.org Boyer, C. (2018) Total Space and the Open Society. In Van den Heuvel, D. (eds.) Jaap Bakema and the Open Society: Delft: Archgis Publishers. pp. 26-37 Chermayeff, S. & Alexander, C. (1963) Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. USA: Anchor Books Camden Council (2009) Dartmouth Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Statement. Camden Campkin, B. (2013). Remaking London: Decline and regeneration in urban culture (Vol. 19). IB Tauris. CIfA 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on Trial. London: Hilary Shipman Crane, A. & Ruebottom, T. (2011) Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 1 January 2011, Vol.102. pp. 77-87 Cupers, K. (2016) Human territoriality and the Downfall of public housing. Public Culture 29:1 Duke University Press. Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (2016) Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Engagement (Final). London Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (2018) Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Consultation Draft. London Davies, T. (2019) A Social Excursion: a short trip around the heritage and community of Post-war housing in London and Oslo. Boligforskning (Housing Research) in press Davies, T. (2020) Defining new values for cavemen and finding the human in heritage. In Rönn, M. & Grahn Danielson, B. Cultural heritage compensation: Approaches to transformation of sites with cultural values and architectural qualities: Proceedings 2020. Kulturlandskapet & Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology pp. 79-103 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011) The Localism Act. London: HMSO DCLG (2011) A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act. London: HMSO Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) (2018) Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings. London: HMSO English Heritage (2006) Rejection Letter: Whittington Estate: RAYDON STREET, CAMDEN TOWN, GREATER LONDON. London: English Heritage Foucault, M. (1967) Translated from Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité no. 5 (1984). pp. 46-49. Friedman, A.L. & Miles, S. (2002) Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies 39:1 January 2002 Hoffmann, O., & Repenthin, C. (1966). Neue urbane Wohnformen: Gartenhofhäuser, Teppichsiedlungen (New Urban House Forms: Courtyard and terraced houses). Ullstein. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1990) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act London Historic England (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. London Historic England (2017) The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic England (2017) The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition). Swindon: HE Historic England (2017) Listing Process: Frequently asked Questions. London: HE Historic England (2019) Conservation Area, Appraisal, Designation and Management. Swindon: Historic England 90 Heritage Council of Victoria (2010) Conservation Management Plans: A Guide HMSO (2002) Commonhold and Leaseholder Reform Act. HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) London Heritage Lottery Fund, (2012) Conservation Plan Guidance Heritage Lottery Fund (2012) Management and Maintenance Plan Guidance Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Jason Epstein. pp. 37-71 Jønsson, S. (2002) Projects and Core Values. In Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Søderholm, A. Beyond Project Management: New Perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma (2002) Malmø: Ola Håkansson and Nigel Pickard. pp. 126-150 Knox, P.L. (2005) Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 10. No. 1 1-11 February 2005 Lamster, M. (2010) LOMEX: Paul Rudolph’s Plan for Lower Manhattan. Design Observer 05.11.2010 Available at: https://designobserver.com/feature/lomex-paul-rudolphs-plan-for-lower- manhattan/21968 McKay, H. (2006) The Preservation and Presentation of 2 Willow Road for the National Trust. In Sparke, P., Marton, B. & Keeble, T. (2006) The Modern Period Room: The Construction of the exhibited interior. London: Routledge. pp.154-164 Messenger, T. (1983) ‘Haven for Hoodlums’, St Pancras Chronicle, 15 April 1983 Miller, B (2017) Homes boy: Sydney Cook’s Camden. Camden New Journal. 16th November 2017 Municipal Dreams (2015) Highgate New Town: Dreams and Nightmares. [Accessed 24/10/2019 Available at [municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/highgate_new_town_dreams_and_ nightmares/] Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980) Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli. Orillard, C. (2012) Gordon Cullen beyond The Architectural Review: some new perspectives from his personal archives, The Journal of Architecture, 17:5, pp. 719-731 Petrescu, D. (2005) Losing Control, keeping desire. In Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005) Architecture and Participation. Oxon: Spon Press. pp. 43-64 Powell, K. (1999) Richard Rogers: Complete Works Vol. 1. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Powers, A. (2001) Style or Substance: What are we trying to conserve? In Macdonald, S. (ed.) Preserving Post-War Heritage: The Care and Conservation of Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture and English Heritage (Shaftesbury: Donhead Publishing, 2001). pp. 3–11 Roberts, D. (2017) Make public: performing public housing in Ernő Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower. The Journal of Architecture, 22:1, pp. 123-150 Su Rogers, ‘Preview: Highgate New Town’, Architectural Review, 154, 919 (September 1973), pp. 158-162. Semple-Kerr, J. (2013) The Seventh Edition Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance Australia ICOMOS Stevenson, F. & Petrescu, D. (2016) Co-producing neighbourhood resilience. Building Research & Information, 44:7, pp. 695-702 Steyn, G. (2010) Re-Considering Le Corbusier’s Unfinished Projects. International Journal for Housing Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 1 pp.15-35 Sudjic, D. (1994) The Architecture of Richard Rogers. London: Wordsearch Limited. Swenarton, M. (2013) Politics, property and planning: building the Brunswick, 1958-74. Town Planning Review, 84 (2) 2013. pp.197-226 Swenarton. M., Avermaete, T. & Van Den Heuvel, D. (2015) Architecture and the Welfare State. Oxon: Routledge. pp.1-25 Swenarton, M. (2017) A City on a hill: Peter Tábori’s Highgate New Town. In Cook’s Camden: The making of Modern Housing. London: Lund Humphries. pp.109-135

91 The Princes Regeneration Trust, (2009) How to: Write Conservation Reports Till, J. (2005) The negotiation of hope. In Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005) Architecture and Participation. Oxon: Spon Press. pp. 23-41 Van den Heuvel, D. (2018) Post Box for the development of the Habitat. In Van den Heuvel, D. (eds.) (2018) Jaap Bakema and the Open Society: Delft: Archgis Publishers. pp. 66-75 Van den Heuvel, D. (2018) Architecture and democracy – contestations in and of the open society. In Van den Heuvel, D. (eds.) (2018) In Jaap Bakema and the Open Society: Delft: Archgis Publishers. pp. 240-257 Watkinson, F. (2019) Hill Housing in Somers Town. Somers Town History Magazine. July 2019 Webb, S. (1972) Housing in Camden, Architectural Design, March 1972. pp. 145-164 Westminster Council (2012) 49 Conservation Area Audit: Lillington and Longmoore Gardens. London Willats, E.A. (1986) Streets with a Story: The Book of Islington. Islington Local History Education Trust. Digital Edition (revised) (2017) Islington Heritage Service Zimmermann, A. & Maennling, C. (2007) (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) Mainstreaming Participation: Multi-stakeholder management: Tools for Stakeholder Analysis: 10 building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Eschborn, Germany

Websites National Heritage List for England: https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list Defra Magic https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx Evolutionary Urbanism https://evolutionaryurbanism.com/2017/03/24/the-doorn-manifesto/

Personal Communication Mark Swenarton WERA Working Group

92 Appendix 1 Relevant Policy and Guidance

National Policy Present government planning policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012). Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment provides guidance for the conservation and investigation of heritage assets and requires local authorities to take the following into account: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment sets out the principal national guidance on the importance, management and safeguarding of heritage assets within the planning process. The aim of NPPF Section 12 is to ensure that Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities, developers and owners of heritage assets adopt a consistent and holistic approach to their conservation and to reduce complexity in planning policy relating to proposals that affect them.

To summarise, government guidance provides a framework which: requires applicants to provide proportionate information on the significance on heritage assets affected by the proposals and an impact assessment of the proposed development on that significance. This should be in the form of a desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation; takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and their setting; places weight on the conservation of designated heritage assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas); requires developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.

Policy and guidance concerning Listed Buildings is as follows;

Paragraph 132 – When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II Listed Building…should be exceptional…

Paragraph 134 – Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Further guidance on all aspects of the NPPF is provided on the Planning Practice Guidance website which includes a section entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’.

Camden Local Plan 2017 Policy C1 Health and wellbeing The Council will improve and promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities through ensuring a high quality environment with local services to support health, social and cultural wellbeing and reduce inequalities. Measures that will help contribute to healthier communities and reduce health inequalities must be incorporated in a development where appropriate. The Council will require:

93 a. development to positively contribute to creating high quality, active, safe and accessible places; and b. proposals for major development schemes to include a Health Impact Assessment (HIA).

We will: c. contribute towards the health priorities of the Health and Wellbeing Board and partners to help reduce health inequalities across the borough; d. support the provision of new or improved health facilities, in line with Camden’s Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS England requirements; and e. protect existing health facilities in line with Policy C2 Community facilities.

Policy C2 Community facilities The Council will work with its partners to ensure that community facilities and services are developed and modernised to meet the changing needs of our community and reflect new approaches to the delivery of services.

The Council will: a. seek planning obligations to secure new and improved community facilities and services to mitigate the impact of developments. The Council may also fund improvements to community facilities using receipts from the Community Infrastructure Levy where this is identified on the Council’s CIL funding list; b. expect a developer proposing additional floorspace in community use, or a new community facility, to reach agreement with the Council on its continuing maintenance and other future funding requirements; c. ensure that facilities provide access to a service on foot and by sustainable modes of travel; d. facilitate multi-purpose community facilities and the secure sharing or extended use of facilities that can be accessed by the wider community, except for facilities occupied by the emergency services due to their distinct operating needs; e. support the investment plans of educational, health, scientific and research bodies to expand and enhance their operations, taking into account the social and economic benefits they generate for Camden, London and the UK. In assessing proposals, the Council will also balance the impact proposals may have on residential amenity and transport infrastructure; f. seek the inclusion of measures which address the needs of community groups and foster community integration; g. ensure existing community facilities are retained recognising their benefit to the community, including protected groups, unless one of the following tests is met: i. a replacement facility of a similar nature is provided that meets the needs of the local population or its current, or intended, users; ii. the existing premises are no longer required or viable in their existing use and there is no alternative community use capable of meeting the needs of the local area. Where it has been demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction there is no reasonable prospect of a community use, then our preferred alternative will be the maximum viable amount of affordable housing; h. take into account listing or nomination of ‘Assets of Community Value’ as a material planning consideration and encourage communities to nominate Assets of Community Value.

Policy C3 Cultural and leisure facilities Protection of cultural and leisure facilities The Council will seek to protect cultural and leisure facilities and manage the impact of adjoining uses where this is likely to impact their continued operation. Where there is a proposal involving the loss of a cultural or leisure facility, it must be demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction there is no longer a demand. When assessing such planning applications, we will take the following into account: a. whether the premises are able to support alternative cultural and leisure uses which would make a positive contribution to the range of cultural and leisure facilities in the borough; b. the size, layout and design of the existing facility; c. proposals for re-provision elsewhere; d. the impact of the proposal on the range of cultural and leisure facilities and; e. the mix of uses in the area. Exceptionally it may be practicable for a cultural or leisure facility to reprovided on-site through redevelopment, or elsewhere in the Borough. The Council will take the following into account when determining the suitability of proposals: i. the impacts of the re-provision on the existing occupier and users of the facility;

94 ii. changes in the mix of uses arising from the loss of the existing cultural/leisure facility; iii. the loss of cultural heritage; and iv. the affordability of the new facility. If a replacement facility is provided, it should be at the same or better standard than the facility which is lost and accessible to its existing users.

New cultural and leisure facilities The Council will seek opportunities for new cultural and leisure facilities in major, mixed use developments and support the temporary use of vacant buildings for cultural and leisure activities. We will seek shared-use or extended access for the community in appropriate developments through developer agreements.

We will expect the siting of new facilities, including the expansion of existing provision, to take into account its associated impacts. Large-scale facilities should be located where as many people as possible can enjoy their benefits and make use of public transport to get there. Central London and town centres will, therefore, be the most appropriate locations. Smaller facilities may, however, be appropriate anywhere in the Borough providing they do not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area or the local community.

Policy C5 Safety and security

The Council will aim to make Camden a safer place. We will: a. work with our partners including the Camden Community Safety Partnership to tackle crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour; b. require developments to demonstrate that they have incorporated design principles which contribute to community safety and security, particularly in wards with relatively high levels of crime, such as Holborn and Covent Garden, Camden Town with Primrose Hill and Bloomsbury; c. require appropriate security and community safety measures in buildings, spaces and the transport system; d. promote safer streets and public areas; e. address the cumulative impact of food, drink and entertainment uses, particularly in Camden Town, Central London and other centres and ensure Camden’s businesses and organisations providing food, drink and entertainment uses take responsibility for reducing the opportunities for crime through effective management and design; and f. promote the development of pedestrian friendly spaces. Where a development has been identified as being potentially vulnerable to terrorism, the Council will expect counter-terrorism measures to be incorporated into the design of buildings and associated public areas to increase security.

Policy C6 Access for all The Council will seek to promote fair access and remove the barriers that prevent everyone from accessing facilities and opportunities. We will: a. expect all buildings and places to meet the highest practicable standards of accessible and inclusive design so they can be used safely, easily and with dignity by all; b. expect facilities to be located in the most accessible parts of the borough; c. expect spaces, routes and facilities between buildings to be designed to be fully accessible; d. encourage accessible public transport; and e. secure car parking for disabled people. The Council will seek to ensure that development meets the principles of lifetime neighbourhoods. Policy E1 Economic development

The Council will secure a successful and inclusive economy in Camden by creating the conditions for economic growth and harnessing the benefits for local residents and businesses. We will: a. support businesses of all sizes, in particular start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises; b. maintain a stock of premises that are suitable for a variety of business activities, for firms of differing sizes, and available on a range of terms and conditions for firms with differing resources; c. support local enterprise development, employment and training schemes for Camden residents; d. encourage the concentrations of professional and technical services, creative and cultural businesses and science growth sectors in the borough; e. support the development of Camden’s health and education sectors and promote the 95 development of the Knowledge Quarter around Euston and King’s Cross while ensuring that any new facilities meet the other strategic objectives of this Local Plan; f. direct new office development to the growth areas, Central London, and the town centres in order to meet the forecast demand of 695,000sqm of office floorspace between 2014 and 2031; g. support Camden’s industries by: i. safeguarding existing employment sites and premises in the borough that meet the needs of industry and other employers; ii. supporting proposals for the intensification of employment sites and premises where these provide additional employment and other benefits in line with Policy E2 Employment premises and sites; iii. safeguarding the Kentish Town Industry Area; iv. promoting and protecting the jewellery industry in Hatton Garden; h. expect the provision of high speed digital infrastructure in all employment developments; and i. recognise the importance of other employment generating uses, including retail, education, health, markets, leisure and tourism.

Policy A2 Open space The Council will protect, enhance and improve access to Camden’s parks, open spaces and other green infrastructure.

Protection of open spaces In order to protect the Council’s open spaces, we will: a. protect all designated public and private open spaces as shown on the Policies Map and in the accompanying schedule unless equivalent or better provision of open space in terms of quality and quantity is provided within the local catchment area; b. safeguard open space on housing estates while allowing flexibility for the re-configuration of land uses. When assessing development proposals we will take the following into account: i. the effect of the proposed scheme on the size, siting and form of existing open space and the functions it performs; ii. whether the open space is replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality; and iii. whether the public value of retaining the open space is outweighed by the benefits of the development for existing estate residents and the wider community, such as improvements to the quality and access of the open space. c. resist development which would be detrimental to the setting of designated open spaces; d. exceptionally, and where it meets a demonstrable need, support smallscale development which is associated with the use of the land as open space and contributes to its use and enjoyment by the public; e. protect non-designated spaces with nature conservation, townscape and amenity value, including gardens, where possible; f. conserve and enhance the heritage value of designated open spaces and other elements of open space which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas or to the setting of heritage assets; g. give strong protection to maintaining the openness and character of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL); h. promote and encourage greater community participation in the management of open space and support communities seeking the designation of Local Green Spaces through the neighbourhood planning process; i. consider development for alternative sports and recreation provision, where the needs outweigh the loss and where this is supported by an up-to-date needs assessment; j. preserve and enhance Hampstead Heath through working with partners and by taking into account the impact on the Heath when considering relevant planning applications, including any impacts on views to and from the Heath; and k. work with partners to preserve and enhance the Regent’s Canal, including its setting, and balance the differing demands on the Canal and its towpath. New and enhanced open space To secure new and enhanced open space and ensure that development does not put unacceptable pressure on the Borough’s network of open spaces, theCouncil will: l. seek developer contributions for open space enhancements using Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Council will secure planning obligations to address the additional impact of proposed schemes on public open space taking into account the scale of the proposal, the number of future occupants and the land uses involved; m. apply a standard of 9 sqm per occupant for residential schemes and 0.74 sqm for commercial 96 and higher education developments while taking into account any funding for open spaces through the Community Infrastructure Levy; n. give priority to securing new public open space on-site, with provision off-site near to the development only considered acceptable where provision on-site is not achievable. If there is no realistic means of direct provision, the Council may accept a financial contribution in lieu of provision; o. ensure developments seek opportunities for providing private amenity space; p. give priority to play facilities and the provision of amenity space which meet residents’ needs where a development creates a need for different types of open space; q. seek opportunities to enhance links between open spaces recognizing the multiple benefits this may bring; r. tackle deficiencies to open space through enhancement measures; and s. seek temporary provision of open space where opportunities arise.

Policy A3 Biodiversity The Council will protect and enhance sites of nature conservation and biodiversity. We will: a. designate and protect nature conservation sites and safeguard protected and priority habitats and species; b. grant permission for development unless it would directly or indirectly result in the loss or harm to a designated nature conservation site or adversely affect the status or population of priority habitats and species; c. seek the protection of other features with nature conservation value, including gardens, wherever possible; d. assess developments against their ability to realise benefits for biodiversity through the layout, design and materials used in the built structure and landscaping elements of a proposed development, proportionate to the scale of development proposed; e. secure improvements to green corridors, particularly where a development scheme is adjacent to an existing corridor; f. seek to improve opportunities to experience nature, in particular where such opportunities are lacking; g. require the demolition and construction phase of development, including the movement of works vehicles, to be planned to avoid disturbance to habitats and species and ecologically sensitive areas, and the spread of invasive species; h. secure management plans, where appropriate, to ensure that nature conservation objectives are met; and i. work with The Royal Parks, The City of London Corporation, the London Wildlife Trust, friends of park groups and local nature conservation groups to protect and improve open spaces and nature conservation in Camden.

Trees and vegetation

The Council will protect, and seek to secure additional, trees and vegetation. We will: j. resist the loss of trees and vegetation of significant amenity, historic, cultural or ecological value including proposals which may threaten the continued wellbeing of such trees and vegetation; k. require trees and vegetation which are to be retained to be satisfactorily protected during the demolition and construction phase of development in line with BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’ and positively integrated as part of the site layout; l. expect replacement trees or vegetation to be provided where the loss of significant trees or vegetation or harm to the wellbeing of these trees and vegetation has been justified in the context of the proposed development; m. expect developments to incorporate additional trees and vegetation wherever possible.

Policy D2 Heritage The Council will preserve and, where appropriate, enhance Camden’s rich and diverse heritage assets and their settings, including conservation areas, listed buildings, archaeological remains, scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks and gardens and locally listed heritage assets. Designated heritage assets Designed heritage assets include conservation areas and listed buildings. The Council will not permit the loss of or substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, including conservation areas and Listed Buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: 97 a. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; b. no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; c. conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

The Council will not permit development that results in harm that is less than substantial to the significance of a designated heritage asset unless the public benefits of the proposal convincingly outweigh that harm.

Conservation areas Conservation areas are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction with the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. In order to maintain the character of Camden’s conservation areas, the Council will take account of conservation area statements, appraisals and management strategies when assessing applications within conservation areas. The Council will: e. require that development within conservation areas preserves or, where possible, enhances the character or appearance of the area; f. resist the total or substantial demolition of an unlisted building that makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area; g. resist development outside of a conservation area that causes harm to the character or appearance of that conservation area; and h. preserve trees and garden spaces which contribute to the character and appearance of a conservation area or which provide a setting for Camden’s architectural heritage.

Listed Buildings Listed buildings are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction with the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. To preserve or enhance the borough’s listed buildings, the Council will: i. resist the total or substantial demolition of a listed building; j. resist proposals for a change of use or alterations and extensions to a listed building where this would cause harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building; and k. resist development that would cause harm to significance of a listed building through an effect on its setting.

Archaeology The Council will protect remains of archaeological importance by ensuring acceptable measures are taken proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset to preserve them and their setting, including physical preservation, where appropriate. Other heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets The Council will seek to protect other heritage assets including nondesignated heritage assets (including those on and off the local list), Registered Parks and Gardens and London Squares. The effect of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, balancing the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Policy CC2 Adapting to climate change The Council will require development to be resilient to climate change. All development should adopt appropriate climate change adaptation measures such as: a. the protection of existing green spaces and promoting new appropriate green infrastructure; b. not increasing, and wherever possible reducing, surface water runoff through increasing permeable surfaces and use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; c. incorporating bio-diverse roofs, combination green and blue roofs and green walls where appropriate; and d. measures to reduce the impact of urban and dwelling overheating, including application of the cooling hierarchy. Any development involving 5 or more residential units or 500 sqm or more of any additional floorspace is required to demonstrate the above in a Sustainability Statement. Sustainable design and construction measures 98 The Council will promote and measure sustainable design and construction by: e. ensuring development schemes demonstrate how adaptation measures and sustainable development principles have been incorporated into the design and proposed implementation; f. encourage new build residential development to use the Home Quality Mark and Passivhaus design standards; g. encouraging conversions and extensions of 500 sqm of residential floorspace or above or five or more dwellings to achieve “excellent” in BREEAM domestic refurbishment; and h. expecting non-domestic developments of 500 sqm of floorspace or above to achieve “excellent” in BREEAM assessments and encouraging zero carbon in new development from 2019.

99 Appendix 2 Listing Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest 5. Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to compile or approve a list or lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest as a guide to the planning authorities when carrying out their planning functions. The planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public’s interest. The designation of historic sites enables the planning system to protect them, through the complementary systems of listed building consent and conservation area control, coupled with controls over scheduled monument consent.

6. The statutory criteria for listing are the special architectural or historic interest of a building. Many buildings are interesting architecturally or historically, but, in order to be listed, a building must have “special” interest.

7. Buildings on the list are graded to reflect their relative architectural and historic interest. Buildings of historic interest may justify a higher grading than would otherwise be appropriate.

• Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest; • Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; • Grade II buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.

8. In addition to the statutory criteria and the general principles contained in this guidance, Selection Guides for different building types are published on English Heritage’s website. The Selection Guides provide detailed technical information about each building type, and are linked to the general principles contained in this guidance. They demonstrate what features are considered significant and likely to make a building of special architectural or historic interest when assessing buildings of a particular type from different periods, regions, or styles. It is recognised that some buildings are unique or will fall into more than one building type. Where a building is a composite of different types, then any relevant criteria from the Selection Guides applies.The general principles outlined below take precedence over the Selection Guides, which are published as supplementary information. The Guides are updated and revised when needed to reflect the growing understanding of the significance of particular types of building through further research.

Statutory Criteria 9. The Secretary of State uses the following criteria when assessing whether a building is of special interest and therefore should be added to the statutory list:

• Architectural Interest. To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms; • Historic Interest. To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing.

10. When making a listing decision, the Secretary of State may take into account the extent to which the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part. This is generally known as group value. The Secretary of State will take this into account particularly where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or model villages) or where there is a historical functional relationship between a group of buildings. If a building is designated because of its group value, protection applies to the whole of the property, not just the exterior.

11. When considering whether a building is of special architectural or historic interest the Secretary of State may take into account the desirability of preserving, on the grounds of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building containing a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building. The desirability of preserving such a feature is a factor which would increase the likelihood of the building being listed. However, in the absence of any other aspects of special architectural or historic interest, such features will justify the listing of the building only if they are of themselves of sufficient interest to render the building of special interest. The provision can be used for a variety of features; examples could include a finely panelled sixteenth century room, a fireplace and over-mantel that has been 100 introduced from another building, or an elaborate plaster ceiling. This provision cannot be used to preserve in situ anything that is not a fixture, such as furniture or paintings.

General Principles 12. Age and rarity. The older a building is, and the fewer the surviving examples of its kind, the more likely it is to have special interest. The following chronology is meant as a guide to assessment; the dates are indications of likely periods of interest and are not absolute. The relevance of age and rarity will vary according to the particular type of building because for some types, dates other than those outlined below are of significance. However, the general principles used are that:

• before 1700, all buildings that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are listed; • from 1700 to 1840, most buildings are listed; • after 1840, because of the greatly increased number of buildings erected and the much larger numbers that have survived, progressively greater selection is necessary; • particularly careful selection is required for buildings from the period after 1945; • buildings of less than 30 years old are normally listed only if they are of outstanding quality and under threat.

13. Aesthetic merits. The appearance of a building – both its intrinsic architectural merit and any group value – is a key consideration in judging listing proposals, but the special interest of a building will not always be reflected in obvious external visual quality. Buildings that are important for reasons of technological innovation, or as illustrating particular aspects of social or economic history, may have little external visual quality.

14. Selectivity. Where a building qualifies for listing primarily on the strength of its special architectural interest, the fact that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is not likely to be a major consideration. However, a building may be listed primarily because it represents a particular historical type in order to ensure that examples of such a type are preserved. Listing in these circumstances is largely a comparative exercise and needs to be selective where a substantial number of buildings of a similar type and quality survive. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s policy is to list only the most representative or most significant examples of the type.

15. National interest. The emphasis in these criteria is to establish consistency of selection to ensure that not only are all buildings of strong intrinsic architectural interest included on the list, but also the most significant or distinctive regional buildings that together make a major contribution to the national historic stock. For instance, the best examples of local vernacular buildings will normally be listed because together they illustrate the importance of distinctive local and regional traditions. Similarly, for example, some buildings will be listed because they represent a nationally important but localised industry, such as shoemaking in Northamptonshire or cotton production in Lancashire.

16. State of repair. The state of repair of a building is not a relevant consideration when deciding whether a building meets the test of special interest. The Secretary of State will list a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair.

Appendix 3 Workshop Posters

Community and Neighbourhood at Highgate

Public meeting for Conservation and community project at Highgate 19:30-21:00 - 6th of June 2019 - The Garden Room

Dear residents, We would like to invite you to tell us your views and provide input for a resident- led project, which will produce guidance for the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, covering Highgate. Come and tell us about what matters to you as residents and how you can get the most out of living here. Picking up the focus on community in the Dartmouth Park neighbourhood plan, we are looking to fill in the gaps in Camden’s Conservation Area Guidance to ensure the best for Highgate as a place and community.

The evening will include; • A short presentation about the project and history of Highgate • An open discussion about how to better care for the estate and your residents. • How we might achieve this through the conservation area and neighbourhood plan and whether an application for heritage listing might help secure your interests.

Any questions? contact [email protected] 102 Update on Community & Neighbourhood Project at Highgate New Town (Whittington Proposed Conservation Policies Estate) Basis of Approach Dear Residents, after three workshops organised through the WERA residents working group set- Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new landlord service), up in May 2019, here is an update on the resident-led guidance we have developed for Camden Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20th Century Society for future support to add to the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, which your homes lies within. Firstly, thank you Buildings and external space very much to those that have taken part for helping to develop something that will help to ensure Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint, that better care is taken of Highgate New Town (The Whittington Estate). Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually, Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street, This is your opportunity to review the outcome of the work the WERA and residents’ working Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing, group have been doing on behalf of residents as a whole at Highgate New Town. Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens, Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels, The WERA working group also decided to go for heritage Listing which will support the protection Green-space and recreation of the Conservation Area, to reflect the quality of Highgate as a place to live and its importance Complete restoration of greens and remove fencing, as part of London’s history. This has been developed from a community perspective to support Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack, residents in enjoying Highgate as a place to live and to help ensure that conservation guidance Consultation over use and maintenance of other shared-spaces (informal squares), (see opposite) is carried out in practice. Implement improvements to shared-spaces, Revise refuse and recycling regime, Please have a read through the conservation guidance we are going to submit to Camden Views and visual amenity View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street, (opposite) and email any comments or suggestions to [email protected] Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street, (who is coordinating for the WERA working group) Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections, Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to be pruned and slightly reduced to open up through views, Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery, Technical installation (heating, lighting and water) Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems, Remedy incompatible elements, All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service infrastructure to ensure compatibility, Amenity space and community events Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space, Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area as well as Camden Council, Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes, Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses, Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use, Gardening and Pruning Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and Camden, Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT Community and Neighbourhood at Highgate Refuse and Recycling

Public meeting for Conservation and community project at Highgate Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original bin-housing can be 19:30-21:00 - 6th of June 2019 - The Garden Room made,

Dear residents, Signage and maps We would like to invite you to tell us your views and provide input for a resident- Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring streets, led project, which will produce guidance for the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something non-visually intrusive covering Highgate. Come and tell us about what matters to you as residents and how you can get the most out of living here. Picking up the focus on community in the Cooperation Dartmouth Park neighbourhood plan, we are looking to fill in the gaps in Camden’s Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community, Conservation Area Guidance to ensure the best for Highgate as a place and community. Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile, The evening will include; Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc. • A short presentation about the project and history of Highgate • An open discussion about how to better care for the estate and your residents. • How we might achieve this through the conservation area and neighbourhood plan and whether an application for heritage listing might help secure your interests. 103 Any questions? contact [email protected] Peter Tábori’s Highgate New Town: Phase 1 (1967-78), one of the exemplary projects built at Camden from the late ‘60s (Alexandra Road, Maiden Lane etc.), is a singular achievement in the ‘urban-renewal’ and community-focus of the late 1960s, which blends continuity and the exoticism of Italian hill-towns to create vibrant place and community. This study tells the story of its development from origins in its challenging design to the heritage of its community today, spanning a wealth of rich connections from Richard and Su Rogers, Neave Brown, Ernö Goldfinger and the Etruscan God Tinia to Jane Jacobs and the megastructures of Paul Rudolph on the other side of the Atlantic. Reflecting the gathering recognition of Tábori’s achievement seen in its inclusion in a 2019 RIBA-funded project identifying nine exemplar housing schemes for future housing models, this study presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and an application for Grade II* Listing to recognise and support Highgate New Town: Phase 1. As a resident- led initiative, this story is told by the residents, historians and other sources, making a compelling case for care and support on the basis of its exceptional heritage values, the importance of its vital and unusual community spaces for its community and strong resident support from within that community.

The authors (Tom Davies and the WERA Working-Group) would like to thank; Professor Mark Swenarton (Cooks Camden: the making of Modern Housing) who contributed expert knowledge and support throughout and Fabian Watkinson, who kick-started the project and contributed boundless enthusiastism and invaluable assistance, as well as Even Smith- Wergeland (AHO, Oslo), Luis Diaz (University of Brighton) and David Roberts (The Bartlett, UCL), for their guidance and steadfast support. Thanks also to Jonathon Makepeace at RIBA for the permission to use some of Tim Crocker and Martin Charles’ fantastic images and illustrator Stephanie Bower for lending her image of Civita di Bagnoregio.

Maridalsveien 29 0175 Oslo dd +(0047) 41258875 m +44 (0)7815 301 399 e [email protected]