21 Claremont Square

Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Mr and Mrs Brentan 21 January 2016

14626/IR/HM/KMo

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL nlpplanning.com

This document is formatted for double sided printing.

© Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2015. Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. All Rights Reserved. Registered Office: 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL

All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A 21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Summary of Pre-App 2 External Alterations ...... 2 Internal Alterations...... 2 Amenity ...... 2

3.0 Statutory and Policy Context 3 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ...... 3 National Planning Policy (NPPF) ...... 3 Regional and Local Planning Policy ...... 4 Other Material Considerations ...... 5

4.0 Significance of Heritage Assets 8 Existing Description of Site and Surrounds ...... 8 Site Exterior ...... 8 Site Interior ...... 9 Historic Development of Claremont Square ...... 9 William Chadwell Mylne and the New River Company ...... 15 Harley Sherlock ...... 16 Significance ...... 17

5.0 Assessment of Proposed Development 19 Heritage Impacts ...... 19 Other Material Planning Considerations ...... 22

6.0 Conclusion 25

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) has been asked by Mr and Mrs Brentan to produce this Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment regarding alterations to their flat within 21 Claremont Square.

1.2 21 Claremont Square is grade II listed (see Appendix 1 for listing description), together with the rest of the southern terrace of Claremont Square. It is located within the New River Conservation Area, within the London Borough of Islington (LBI). It is a five storey (including basement) Georgian terrace house dating to 1821-1828. The property was subdivided in the 1970s and Mr and Mrs Brentan’s flat comprises three floors (first to third floor). The ground floor and basement accommodates a separate flat which is under the ownership of the London Borough of Islington (LBI).

1.3 A pre-application request was submitted by Pierre Mare Architects to LBI for the following: 1 an extension to an existing rear water closet (increasing height from 2 to 2.5 storeys); 2 internal alterations including installing a wood burner stove and fitted cupboards to first floor; 3 alteration of plan form at second floor; 4 and removal of existing kitchen ceiling at third floor

1.4 A pre-application meeting was held on 22 April 2015. The subsequent written officer response (15 May 2015, included at Appendix 2) indicated that all elements of the proposal were considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact on the listed building. In addition, the acceptability of the extension in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight to No. 22 appears to be questioned.

1.5 This Statement establishes the significance of 21 Claremont Square including the consistency of the rear elevations, visibility of the rear elevations and the integrity of the interior rooms. It also provides the planning policy context against which the acceptability of proposed alterations to the property is assessed.

9617273v1 P1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

2.0 Summary of Pre-App

2.1 A summary of the pre-application written advice (15 May 2015) has been provided below.

External Alterations 1 Rear extension is unacceptable. It is not in accordance with Islington Urban Design Guide (IUDG) or Conservation Area Design Guidelines (CADG) advice and is harmful to the generally consistent height of the rear projections (with exception of taller element to rear of No. 18 which sits at end of terrace, but does not interrupt the consistent rhythm. This does not appear to have consent and should not be used as justification). 2 The design of the rear extension is inappropriate. If an increase in height was acceptable, which it is not, then a more traditional approach in keeping with the character and materials of the building would be more appropriate. 3 Window replacements - The replacement of whole sashes and glass is unlikely to be considered acceptable unless it can be demonstrated that the existing is not historic or beyond repair and that the replacement glass will not alter the appearance of the glazing.

Internal Alterations 4 First Floor – a woodburner is unacceptable. An appropriate fireplace should be installed. 5 First Floor – the built in cupboards should not be installed over the chimney breast as this is harmful to the historic plan form of the room. Fitted furniture should not be full height, leaving a punctuating gap between the top of the furniture and the ceiling. 6 Second Floor – relocation of spine wall and doorway is unacceptable as it is harmful to the original plan form (partition either original or modern but in location of original). 7 Third Floor - The proposed removal of the ceiling to kitchen at third floor level is considered unacceptable in principle as this will result in an inappropriate floor ceiling height at this level and therefore is harmful to the historic proportions of the house. 8 Repair work to plaster must be carried out on a like-for-like basis with lime plaster.

Amenity 9 Impact on upper ground floor windows of 22 Claremont Square – if the proposals are considered to be overbearing, reduce outlook or cause loss of light then the application may be refused. The BRE Guidelines should be used.

P2 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

3.0 Statutory and Policy Context

3.1 The following provides a review of legislation and national, regional and local planning policy relevant to the development.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

3.2 The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides specific protection for buildings and areas that are of special architectural or historic interest over and above the protection provided through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3.3 Section 66(1) requires development affecting a listed building or its setting to have special regard to the preservation of the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

3.4 Section 72 of the Act states that with respect to any buildings or land in a Conservation Area, special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

National Planning Policy (NPPF)

3.5 At the heart of the NPPF (2012) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which includes contributing to protecting our natural, built and historic environment and conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

3.6 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, the policies of the NPPF take precedence. Permission should not be granted if any adverse impacts would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF.

3.7 According to paragraph 128, when determining applications local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal of their significance.

3.8 Under paragraph 131, local planning authorities are required to take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. In addition, 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 (paragraph 132).

9617273v1 P3

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

3.9 Proposed developments which cause substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset should be refused unless substantial public benefits resulting from the development outweigh the loss or harm or a number of other tests are met (paragraph 133). Paragraph 134 states that where a development 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.

3.10 Paragraph 137 states that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and their setting and within the setting of other heritage assets to enhance and better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of, the asset should be treated favourably.

Regional and Local Planning Policy

3.11 The Statutory Development Plan for the application site comprises the London Plan (2015) and Islington’s Local Plan which consists of:

 Islington’s Core Strategy (2011)

 Islington’s Local Plan: Development Management Properties (2013)

 Islington’s Local Plan: Site Allocations (2013)

London Plan (2015)

3.12 Londoners should have a choice of homes “which meet their requirements for different sizes and types of dwellings in the highest quality environments" (Policy 3.8)

3.13 The maintenance and enhancement of the condition and quality of London’s existing homes is supported. Boroughs should promote efficient use of existing stock by reducing the number of vacant, unfit and unsatisfactory dwellings (Policy 3.14)

3.14 Proposals should contribute to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in line with the energy hierarchy: be lean, be clean be green (Policy 5.2) and the highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be achieved (Policy 5.3).

3.15 Buildings and structures should be of the highest architectural quality and should not use unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding buildings such as privacy and overshadowing. (Policy 7.6)

3.16 Development proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail (Policy 7.8).

P4 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Core Strategy (2011)

3.17 Policy CS9 ‘Protecting and Enhancing Islington’s Built and Historic Environment’ states that new buildings should be sympathetic in scale and appearance, and should be complementary to the local identity.

3.18 The council will seek to minimise Islington’s contribution to climate change. It will require all development to demonstrate that on-site carbon dioxide emissions are minimised and that the environmental impact of materials is minimised (sustainably-sourced, low impact and recycled materials) (Policy CS10)

Development Management Policies (2013)

3.19 Policy DM2.3 ‘Heritage’ notes that alterations to existing buildings within Islington’s conservation areas conserve or enhance their significance. Harm to the significance of a conservation area will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification.

3.20 In addition, the significance of Islington’s listed buildings is required to be conserved or enhanced. “Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged.” Proposals to repair, alter or extend a listed building must be justified and appropriate. Proposals which harm its significance will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification.

3.21 Improved adaption to climate change should seek to avoid harming the significance of heritage assets, where this is unavoidable the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change will be weighed against any harm to significance.

3.22 Policy DM3.4 sets out housing standards for extensions. The small extension subject of this application must show that a good standard of daylight, ventilation and useable floorspace can be provided. There are no minimum space standards for toilets.

3.23 Proposals are required to integrate best practice sustainable design standards during design, construction and the operation of development (Policy DM7.1). The extension (less than 100msq) does not need to be accompanied by a Sustainable Design and Construction Statement but shall include details of sustainable design and construction to a level of detail appropriate to the development.

Other Material Considerations

Islington Urban Design Guide (IUDG) (2006)

3.24 This deals with residential rear extensions at Section 2.5, it states (with NLP bold): 1 Typically, the rear elevations of Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian terraces were originally built with a consistent rear arrangement. “The

9617273v1 P5

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

rear elevations nevertheless generally have less formality than the more ordered front elevations. This reflects the fact they fulfil a private rather than a public function. For these reasons, it is appropriate that they normally have some freedom to adapt / extend to the occupier’s requirements.” (para. 2.5.1)

3.25 In relation to rear extensions section 2.5.2 states: 1 “Rear extensions should avoid disrupting the existing rhythm of the rear elevations, or dominate the main building. Particular care needs to be given to rear elevations visible from the public realm because of gaps within the street frontage, and the most prominent upper part of the rear elevation that are most visible from the private realm”. 2 “On the upper floors, the materials, detailing and form of the extension should normally be sympathetic to the terrace”. 3 “Single half-width upper floor extensions above existing extensions are often acceptable providing there is a punctuating gap between the eaves height and the top of the extension”. 4 “The natural rhythm of rear elevations can be disrupted by extensions above existing paired additions where they have a consistent roofline”. 5 Extensions that project out beyond the original back line of the rear extension above ground floor level, will normally be unacceptable where they: Interrupt a consistent arrangement / rhythm; Inappropriately dominate the garden / the main building. 6 The following image is included as an example of an appropriate rear extension above existing rear projections on varied rear elevations:

New River Conservation Area Design Guidelines (CADG) (2002)

3.26 The New River Conservation Area is of outstanding importance. It includes the site of the New River Head, with its historic industrial and water buildings and Sadler’s Wells Theatre. The rest of the area mainly comprises late 18th and early 19th century residential estates built by the New River Company, the

P6 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Brewer’s Company and the Lloyd Baker Estate. These include some of the finest terraces and squares in the Borough. The area has a rare quality and consistency of scale, materials, design and detailing which require careful and sensitive policies for its protection and enhancement (para. 2.2)

3.27 The predominant character of the New River Conservation Area is residential, although permission will not be granted for the over intensification of residential use in conversion schemes. Generally, the Council recognises that often the best use for a building is that which it was designed for (para. 2.4).

3.28 In considering applications for extensions and refurbishment in conservation areas, the Council will normally require the use of traditional materials. For new development, materials should be sympathetic to the character of the area, in terms of form, colour, and texture (para. 2.10).

3.29 On all redevelopment, extensions and refurbishment schemes the Council will expect to see the use of appropriate materials such as brick, stone, render, timber windows and slate roofs, which will blend with and reinforce the existing appearance and character of the area. Many properties in the area still have original external and internal architectural features, such as fanlights, cast-iron balconies, timber sash windows, panelled front doors, decorative stucco, moulded window surrounds and door cases, marble fireplaces, window shutters and ceiling cornices. These features contribute to the character of the area as a whole, and should be maintained and where necessary repaired. Where renewal is unavoidable or features are missing, these should be reinstated with traditional and matching designs (para. 2.11)

3.30 “Full width rear extensions higher than one storey or half width rear extensions higher than two storeys, will not normally be permitted, unless it can be shown that no harm will be caused to the character of the area.” (para. 2.16)

3.31 Rear extensions will be permitted on their merits and only where the scale, design and materials to be used are in keeping with the existing property and where all other planning standards are met. Normally, the two storey part of the extension will be on the staircase side of the elevation. Original windows, especially those to the principal rooms of the property contribute to the character and appearance of historic buildings and should be retained (para. 2.17).

9617273v1 P7

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

4.0 Significance of Heritage Assets

4.1 As required by the NPPF, the significance of heritage assets that have the potential to be affected by proposed development needs to be established to enable an understanding of the impact of the proposals on that significance.

4.2 The NPPF highlights a need to understand and describe the significance of heritage assets. Annex 2 of the NPPF defines significance, with respect to heritage, as follows: “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.”

Existing Description of Site and Surrounds

4.3 Claremont Square is located at the northern edge of the New River Conservation Area boundary. Its northern side is undeveloped and addresses Pentonville Road, the remaining three sides comprise early 19th century terraced housing enclosing the square.

4.4 The interior of the square comprises the grade II listed covered reservoir. It was built in 1855 to the designs of John Murray following The Metropolis Water Act of 1852 requiring all reservoirs in London to be covered due to the 1846 cholera epidemic. It is about 80m across, built of stock brick with some Yorkstone floor slabs. Externally little of the structure is visible, covered in grass about 4 metres in height, with steep sides rising to a low, stone-capped brick parapet above the line of the basin wall. The roof, also grass covered is pierced by rows of iron ventilation pipes and equipment hatchways with domed metal covers. It is enclosed by grade II listed mid-19th century cast-iron railings.

Site Exterior

4.5 No. 21 is located within the southern terrace of 14 houses which are grade II listed as a group. The listing description attributes it to William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Estate and dates it to 1821-1828 with restoration c.1970 by Andrews Sherlock Architects. It is a five storey building, including basement. It is beige and gold stock brick set in Flemish bond with a banded stucco ground floor. Its roof is obscured by a plain parapet wall with stone coping and has brick party wall stacks. There has been some rebuilding and patching-in of brick work above the upper windows. Each floor has two windows. Steps to the entrance are on the left of the doorway which has fluted column jambs carrying a corniced-head. It has the original six-panelled door and an elliptical-arched fanlight which is patterned. The ground floor sashes are 8 over 8. The first floor has a stucco sill band to six over six full-length sashes set in arched recesses linked by stucco impost bands. The first floor windows have coupled iron-bracketed balconies with iron railings in Vitruvian

P8 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

scroll and anthemion pattern. The second and third floors has six over six sashes. There are gauged-brick flat arches to the upper floor windows.

4.6 The rear elevation is not readily visible as there is no access to the rear garden. It has a half-width, two storey rear wing (originally water closet) of brick construction with concrete coping and a flat roof providing access to an (unused) balcony. It has staggered sash windows to the floors and stairwell and a modern doorway opening onto the flat roof of the water closet. The first floor rear window has an iron balcony matching the front elevation.

4.7 The original roof was replaced in the 1970s to provide an additional floor of accommodation. The front half of the roof provides a replacement roof enclosing additional accommodation, with the rear half comprising a terrace and roof to the internal stairwell. The replacement roof is finished in concrete tiles and there is a black metal safety railing attached to the parapet wall.

4.8 The windows throughout the property appear to be replacement sashes and glazing and not the original Georgian windows.

Site Interior

4.9 The ground floor has been separated from the upper floor flat. There is a long narrow hallway leading to the stairwell to the rear. A modern door provides access to the rear wing balcony. There is a replacement modern stair balustrade of no interest.

4.10 The first floor appears to conform to the original layout with a large front (currently living) room and double doors leading to a smaller rear room (currently bedroom). The double and single doors may be original or sympathetic replacements. The front room fireplace has been boxed in. Original or sympathetic replacement shutters remain. There are deep skirting and mouldings and a ceiling rose that may all be replacements. In the smaller rear room, the alcove has been boxed in on one side with matching moulding to the front room fitted. This may suggest that all the coving is a later replacement.

4.11 The second floor comprises a large front room (currently bedroom) with a subdivided rear room (now containing bedroom, bathroom and entrance hall). The rear alterations are all later, unsympathetic insertions.

4.12 The third floor is a 1970s insertion and is of no architectural or historic interest.

Historic Development of Claremont Square

4.13 A number of sources have been referred to which contribute to our understanding of Georgian terraces in Islington and of Claremont Square in particular. These are: 1 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol47/pp185-191 2 http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/William_Chadwell_Mylne

9617273v1 P9

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

3 The Squares of Islington: Cosh, Mary: Part I: Finsbury and Clerkenwell: London: 1990-: 21-26

4.14 In addition, the book Harley Sherlock, An Architect in Islington, 2006 was not available at the local history archives.

The Survey of London

4.15 The Survey of London, founded in the 1890s, provides detailed architectural and topographical studies of the capital’s built environment. It has been digitalised and is available to view on British History Online. Volume 47 covers Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (Chapter VII the New River Estate and Chapter VIII Claremont Square). Information from Chapters VII and VII has been included for the purposes of this initial assessment in Appendix 3. A summary of the key elements relevant to this analysis is provided below : 1 W.C. Mylne had overall control of building of the New River Estate for many years, which has resulted in the estate’s coherence and stylistic conservatism. 2 The estate was built out by 35 individual speculators or developers. These comprised builders and other craftsmen but also local tradesmen. Each agreed to build five or more houses. James Stalley built the largest number – 61 – this represents only 9% of all the houses built. There was, therefore, no single dominant developer prior to 1847. 3 Mylne’s role in the design and planning was primary. Mylne was essentially a water engineer. Yet he was the son of a highly competent architect-engineer, and was comfortable with the vocabulary of late Georgian estate development in London, as it had become standardized in the decades up to 1810. At the New River Company's fields he devised an orderly layout with three squares, one of which linked to a circus. The result has long been admired for the clarity, rationality and geometry of its townscape and planning. 4 In terms of house design, Mylne provided a template for highly standardized surveyor's architecture creating a 'house style'. 5 The estate is perceived as 'Georgian' due to its conservative architectural character and that only thirteen post 1846 houses survive. 6 The typical three- or four-storey terrace on the New River estate has first- floor blind arcading. Within this strong uniformity there is a variety of detailing introduced by the individual builders (including building the houses for their own occupation larger than the rest). Whilst this erked Mylne it contributes to the interest of the area. 7 There was much conservative repair and replacement around 1910, with many door architraves, balconies and sash windows echoing but not quite replicating earlier forms. From then into the 1970s, the New River Company kept a uniform and distinctive painted livery, with brown lower storeys and cream mouldings and reveals.

P10 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

8 The mid-terrace houses almost invariably have the two-room rear- staircase plan that had become common in London by 1800. The two ground floor rooms were generally linked, folding double doors allowing them to be made into a single large space. Unusually, water closets, often two per house, were provided in small rear service wings. Interior finishes appear to have been highly conformable, with stick-baluster staircases and simple fireplaces, architraves and ceiling cornices typical of the period, though much has been remade.

Nos 27–29 Claremont Square, reconstructed ground-floor plans (Source BHO, Survey of London). 9 Richard Chapman, an Islington builder, built the south side of Claremont Square, as second-rate (as established by the Building Act of 1774) houses with 18ft fronts in 1826-28. Symmetry is spoiled only by the position of the entrance to No. 24. Internally, front and back rooms interconnected, as was typical on the estate, with, unusually, curved corners at the backs of the front rooms.

9617273v1 P11

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Nos 18–31 Claremont Square (south side) in 1945 (source BHO, Survey of London) 10 There are mansards on the east and west sides of Claremont Square, but not on the south, where there is a full fourth or attic storey with a stucco parapet (now interrupted by rebuilding), a difference calculated to maintain consistent height, compensating for the fall of the ground to the south. 11 By 1851 Nos 15, 30 and 31 Claremont Square were lodging and boarding houses, and other houses were sub-divided later in the century, when there were growing numbers of tradespeople in Claremont Terrace. 12 The New River Company oversaw many flat-conversions, from as early as 1935–6. A systematic conversion programme was carried out in the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, following the acquisition of the estate by the Borough of Islington. Alterations were carried out under the borough architect Alf Head by Andrews Sherlock & Partners, architects of the borough's low-rise, high density Popham Street Estate (1968–74). At Claremont Square individual houses were made into two maisonettes, the lower ones having their entrances at basement level and the upper ones having roof terraces. A number of houses had to be substantially rebuilt; No. 31 in its entirety. Claremont Terrace has also seen much subdivision, including the lateral conversion of Nos 29 and 31. Following right-to-buy legislation some homes were sold, and a few divided houses have lately been taken back into single or double occupation.

P12 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

4.16 Appendix 4 provides a summary of the relevant information from Mary Cosh’s book on Islington Square in relation to the development of Claremont Square. However, it does not provide much in addition to the above summary.

Planning History

4.17 Many of the listed buildings within the terraces of Claremont Square have been recently altered and extended. A search of LBI’s online planning database provides evidence of similar schemes in the immediate locality (database dates back to 1995 only). In many cases similar rear extensions to that proposed for No. 21 Claremont Square have been granted.

4.18 These nearby developments demonstrate that the rear of the terrace buildings in Claremont Square have been subject to alterations, including the introduction of extensions to the rear. They therefore set a direct precedent for this aspect of the proposed development at No. 21 Claremont Square and provide evidence to show that the rear of the terrace is not unaltered.

4.19 Other applications provide evidence of internal alterations that have been approved (P091901 and P060578).

4.20 No online planning history is available for No. 21 Claremont Square and the Council has confirmed that it does not hold any paper/microfiche files.

Address Ref. Description Date of Decision Decision

Upper P2014/3082/LBC Erection of a rear extension at 01-08- Approve Maisonette 22 third floor level, installation of 2014 P2014/2970/FUL Claremont glass balustrade, and internal Square alterations.

Upper P2013/3909/LBC Replacing existing mansard 12-12- Approve Maisonette 4 roof to the rear slope and 2013 P2013/3910/FUL Claremont internal alterations. Square P2013/2263/FUL

Flat C, 28 P2013/2082/LBC Internal works including the 27-06- Approve Claremont creation of a double door 2013 Square width opening in the modern wall separating the kitchen and living room, reinstatement of doors and architraves and removal of ceiling at third floor level.

Flat A, 18 P112559 Erection of a fully glazed 01-11- Approve Claremont single storey rear infill 2011 P112560 Square extension. Associated works and alterations.

9617273v1 P13

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Flat A, 36 P110288 Erection of single storey 11-02- Approve Claremont conservatory extension to 2011 P110287 Square rear, plus various other external alterations.

Flat A, 19 P092326 Erection of rear extensions. 11-11- Approve Claremont Internal alterations to the 2009 P092325 Square listed building and landscaping works to the rear.

Flat A, 10 P092224 Erection of a single storey 21-10- Approve Claremont conservatory. 2009 P092225 Square

24 Claremont P091900 Internal alterations, 11-09- Approve Square replacement of third floor 2009 P091901 French doors with sliding folding doors.

41 Claremont P060578 Unauthorised internal 17-03- Approve Square alterations to convert a wc 2006 into an ensuite bathroom blocking door into corridor.

2 Claremont P052688 Internal alterations to layout of 08-11- Approve Square existing flats, together with the 2005 P052687 erection of a single storey rear extension at lower ground floor level.

Flat A, 30 P042480 Internal alterations to lower 30-09- Approve Claremont ground floor layout. Erection 2004 Square of single storey rear conservatory extension, and rear elevational alterations.

Local History Archives

4.21 A visit to Islington’s local history archives was made on 13 July 2015. The following plans for the New River Estate were stored at the archives and were photographed and these are contained in Appendix 5. 1 Plan of Claremont Square (1900) 2 72/73 Myddleton Square (1964) - Proposed Conversion into 5 Self- Contained Flats 3 18 Claremont Square (1969) – Proposed Conversion into Two Maisonettes 4 ? Claremont Square (1970) - Proposed Conversion into Two Maisonettes 5 7, 8, 9 Myddleton Square (1961) – Proposed Conversion into 5 Self- Contained Flats

P14 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

4.22 These indicate the extent of alterations that have been completed to the properties within Claremont Square.

Typical Original Layout

4.23 Based on a general understanding of Georgian properties, the original layout of this type of 1820s “Second Rate” Georgian property is likely to have been as follows: 1 Basement – kitchens and offices and possibly additional servants quarters 2 Ground floor – front drawing room (or parlour), rear dining room to be near ground floor kitchen 3 First floor – grand entertaining room and principal bedroom 4 Second floor – children’s/lodger’s bedrooms 5 Attic – servants quarters (typically with ceiling screening roof structure)

4.24 Substantial disruption to the typical Georgian floor plan has already occurred through the subdivision of the property into two separate flats and the insertion of modern bathrooms, terraces and a new roof.

William Chadwell Mylne and the New River Company

1 4.25 The 1870 Obituary from the institute of Civil Engineers provides background information on William Chadwell Mylne (1781-1863). He was the son of Robert Mylne, the architect of Old Blackfriars Bridge. He assisted his father on the Gloucester and Berkeley ship canal. He succeeded his father as Engineer of the New River Company in 1811, having assisted for three years; subsequently his name is associated with the water supply of London. He was likewise extensively engaged in the supply of water to many important towns in the United Kingdom, and to some places on the Continent, carried out large drainage undertakings in the fen districts, designed and superintended the erection of St. Mark's Church, Myddelton Square, as well as other buildings, and had a considerable practice as a surveyor and valuer, being for fifty years Surveyor to the Stationers' Company, and as a valuer he was employed by the Crown in connection with improvements in the Strand.

4.26 In around 1828, he constructed fifty acres of settling reservoirs at Stoke Newington, with a steam-engine for raising the water to a higher level, to supply the upper and outlying districts on the northern side of the metropolis.

4.27 In later years the introduction of new water companies to meet the rapid growth of the metropolis led to many parliamentary struggles, in which Mr. Mylne took a prominent part. In compliance with "The Metropolis Water-works Act, 1852," the reservoirs at the New River-head were converted into filter-beds, whence the lower districts are supplied. The reservoir in Claremont Square was deepened, and arched over to prevent the water from being affected by the

1 http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/William_Chadwell_Mylne

9617273v1 P15

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

atmosphere and the London soot, and the water is raised by pumping into this reservoir, together with a large proportion from the Stoke Newington reservoirs, from which the upper districts are supplied.

4.28 As surveyor to the New River Company, he laid out their property, near Islington, for the streets and buildings, which have been since carried out as he proposed.

4.29 A brief timeline of the relevant history of the New River Company is provided below2: 1 1606 The New River was commissioned by the Corporation of the City of London to carry water from the Chadwell and Amwell Springs to Islington, London 2 The scheme was completed by Sir Hugh Myddleton between 1609 and its official opening on 29 September 1613 3 1700 Supplemented by water from the River Lee. 4 1767 Robert Mylne was appointed assistant surveyor of the New River Co, to work with Henry Mill. 5 1771 Mylne was appointed surveyor of the New River Co 6 1810 Mylne retired from his position with the New River Co 7 1811 Robert's son William Chadwell Mylne was appointed surveyor 8 1800s Deep wells were dug along the route and pumping stations built. 9 1850s many of the river's bends were eliminated, saving 12 miles. 10 1861 Mylne retired 11 Some parts have been piped underground and today the river flows into Stoke Newington reservoir.

Harley Sherlock

4.30 Harley Sherlock (1927- 2014) was an architect who lived and worked in Islington. An extract from his obituary in The Guardian, written by his daughter, notes:

4.31 “My father, Harley Sherlock, was an architect and author, and an enthusiastic supporter of city living. His work successfully demonstrated that designs inspired by the much-loved Georgian terraces and squares of inner London could accommodate densities as high as those of tower blocks.

4.32 In his architectural practice, Andrews Sherlock & Partners, he developed a humane solution to the present-day pressure on space, designing four-storey terraced housing, for example Blenheim Court, near Archway in north London, in which each terraced house was divided into two maisonettes. The lower one had a small private garden and the upper one had a living-room and kitchen on

2 http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/William_Chadwell_Mylne

P16 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

the top floor, overlooking a small roof garden. When asked by Islington council to adapt 19th-century housing to contemporary needs, he employed a similar design. Much of this work – conceived as social housing – was later sold off under the "right to buy" scheme, which rather upset him.”

4.33 His obituary written in his own words (Islington Tribune, 23 May 2014) noted: 1 From 1972 to 1980, he was chairman of the London Amenity and Transport Association and from 1980 to 1985 chairman of Transport 2000 (now the Campaign for Better Transport), the national campaign for a transport policy that is compatible with a decent environment. 2 Harley served on the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects from 1982 to 1988. 3 He was chairman of the institute’s planning advisory group from 1986 to 1988, and chairman of the institute’s London region from 1984 to 1986. 4 From 1996 to 2006, he was president of the London branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, arguing that keeping people in our cities by making them pleasant places to live in was the best way to reduce pressure on the countryside. 5 Locally, he was chairman of the Islington Society 1996-99 (and the society’s president 1999-2006). In 1987, Harley was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. 6 In 2003, he was awarded an honorary MA by the London Metropolitan University for his services to architecture and planning in Islington and in London generally. And in 2009 he was appointed MBE for services to architecture, conservation and to the community in Islington.

Significance

New River Conservation Area

4.34 The significance of the New River Conservation Area is primarily architectural and historic. It includes the site of the New River Head, with its historic industrial and water buildings and Sadler’s Wells Theatre. The remainder of the Conservation Area generally comprises late 18th century and early 19th century residential estates including that built by the New River Company. Claremont Square is an example of the early 19th century terracing which surrounds three sides of an enclosed reservoir. The Conservation Area has a high consistency of scale, materials, design and detailing which contributes to its character and appearance.

Claremont Square

4.35 No. 21 Claremont Square is grade II listed. Its significance is primarily architectural and historic due to the following: 1 It is an example of one of the Georgian terraces that characterises the New River Estate.

9617273v1 P17

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

2 It conforms to the ‘house style’ of the estate that was established by William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Company. 3 It exemplifies a typical conservative, “Second-Rate” (as defined by the Building Act of 1774) Georgian terraced house that was common in London by this time.

4.36 Its significance has been undermined by its sub-division into two flats in the 1970s, and associated works, including alterations to the roof. These alterations have compromised its architectural significance, although it is acknowledged that Harley Sherlock, who carried out the works, is a respected local architect and planner who contributed immensely to social housing in Islington.

P18 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

5.0 Assessment of Proposed Development

5.1 The applicant proposes alterations to 21 Claremont Square to enhance the current living arrangements of the 1970s flat conversion whilst respecting the special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5.2 The development proposals comprise: 1 Minor height extension to an existing rear water closet (increasing height by c.1.3m). This would be a simple extrusion from the existing projection in matching reclaimed stock brick with a translucent glass roof screened behind a concrete coping; 2 New fireplace to 1st floor living room and alcove recreated to1Ist floor dining room; 3 Removal of existing kitchen ceiling at third floor; 4 Installation of replacement window to the upper terrace; and, 5 Other minor internal refurbishment works as set out in the Schedule of Works in the Design and Access Statement.

5.3 The following assesses the impact of the proposed works on the identified significance of 21 Claremont Square and in the context of relevant planning considerations.

Heritage Impacts

External Alterations

Rear Extension

5.4 The proposed rear alteration is modest, comprising a simple 1.3m extrusion of the existing brick box to create a new W.C. This will be lit from above by a translucent glass roof, which is hidden behind a concrete coping stone to match the existing. The materials, form and design of the proposed alteration have been designed to be contextually sensitive and to preserve the original building’s scale and character.

5.5 The IUDG notes that less formal rear elevations have greater freedom to adapt/extend to the occupier’s requirements (para. 2.5.1). Paragraph 2.5.2 supports extensions above existing rear projections provided there is already variation in the rear elevations and they remain lower than the roof.

5.6 It is considered that the proposal complies with the policies relating to rear alterations outlined in the IUDG as the simple height extension will remain subordinate to the mass and height of the main building and, as demonstrated below, there is already significant variation in the existing rear elevation.

9617273v1 P19

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

5.7 An assessment of the proposed alteration within the wider context of the terrace reveals that there is considerable variation to the rear of the terrace as follows: - No. 18 is taller than others. - No. 20 is missing a rear wing altogether. - The rear wings of No. 21 have been heavily altered over time and it is considered that they may have originally been single storey. - Nos. 23/24 are paired, the remainder of the terrace aren’t - Nos. 23/29 have ground floor conservatories - No. 23/24 and 29 are deeper in plan form - No. 31 was rebuilt and has a full height, to roof level, rear wing - Openings vary in size, location, materials and detailing to all the rear wings.

5.8 The original design and uniformity of the properties when viewed from the rear has therefore been disrupted and the height of the rear projections not consistent. Please see dwgs. 125 and 130 which show the variety in the existing rear elevation of the terrace.

5.9 A guideline in the CADGA (para. 2.16) notes that a half width rear extension higher than two storeys will not normally be permitted, unless it can be shown that no harm will be caused to the character of the area.

5.10 There is only one location where a public view of the rear of 21 Claremont Square is available – Amwell Street (see dwg 130). Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed alteration will result in the screening of some of the rear terrace, this rear elevation has not been preserved unaltered. It would result in a minor alteration to the view, which is seen by passers-by in the context of new additions to the rear of this terrace. The height increase of the rear projection will be difficult for any passer-by to readily perceive. There may also be a glimpsed view of the upper part of the proposed extension from Mylne Street at the other end of the terrace. However, the view of the proposal would be so slight there would be a negligible change to the view.

5.11 The rear elevation is not readily visible as there is no access to the rear garden. Whilst there would be private views of the minor alteration from surrounding properties, the existing views contain a modern ‘backland’ development which is not an example of an unaltered historic view.

5.12 It is not considered that the terrace’s rear elevation contributes substantially to the Conservation Area due to its limited visibility. The proposal will be perceived in a single public view and when viewed from neighbouring properties it will read as part of an already altered rear elevation. Further alterations to this rear elevation will not harm the significance of the building or its contribution to the Conservation Area and will not be readily perceptible. It will not detract from the special qualities of the Conservation Area which the Council is seeking to preserve through conservation area designation. This

P20 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

aspect of the proposal will not cause harm to the identified heritage assets and is acceptable in planning policy terms.

Internal Alterations

5.13 The listing description makes reference to various internal features. It is confirmed that the proposed works do not result in the loss of any of the features of interest; indeed, many will be restored and enhanced or better revealed.

Ground Floor

5.14 A new door will be inserted to access the proposed WC. The existing door to the balcony is a late 20th century glazed door of no architectural or historic interest. The fanlight will replace the existing and a new timber sliding door is proposed to match existing with timber panels instead of glass panels. This alteration does not affect the special interest of the building.

First Floor Fireplace

5.15 It is proposed that the first floor fireplace to the living room will replaced with an appropriate reproduction fireplace, enhancing this principal room. It is proposed to reinstate the cornicing surround. These works will be a considerable heritage benefit.

5.16 It is noted that the details of the cornicing which are proposed are similar to those approved for No. 16 Claremont Square (as shown below).

5.17 Within the rear dining room, the services will be rearranged to reinstate a lost alcove. Skirting board will be reinstated at floor level. This proposal is a heritage benefit.

9617273v1 P21

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Second Floor

5.18 The sanitary ware in the second floor bathroom is to be replaced. The existing bathroom, created in the 1970s is of no historic interest. This alteration will have no impact on the special interest of the property.

Third Floor

5.19 It is proposed to remove the third floor ceiling to increase the volume to this room. The ceiling will be a painted skim coated plasterboard.

5.20 As shown above, the roof is not historic, neither is the floor plan or terrace. The building’s subdivision into two flats, including alterations to the roof, in the 1970s has undermined the building’s architectural significance. The third floor is a 1970s alteration and is of no architectural or historic interest. This proposed intervention will therefore have no impact on the historic interest and integrity of the building.

5.21 Consent has been granted for the removal of the third floor roof at No. 28 Claremont Square (App. Ref. No. P2013/2082/LBC) and this provides an appropriate precedent for this aspect of the proposed development.

5.22 Other works to the third floor include appropriately designed kitchen units, replacing the existing modern terrace window and the reinstatement of the panelling beneath the original sash window (the historic windows were retained when the rest of the roof was altered during the 1970s conversion). The reinstatement of the panelling is a heritage benefit. In terms of the replacement window, the 1970s window is singled glazed with an unpainted hardwood frame, this will be replaced with a double-glazed timber framed window.

Summary

5.23 It can be seen that this submission addresses the pre-application feedback received in April 2015. The design of the scheme has been significantly altered to ensure that the works enhance the significance of the listed building and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Legislative considerations are met and the scheme now complies with policy at all levels of the planning hierarchy, as has been shown.

Other Material Planning Considerations

Principle of Development

5.24 The pre-application advice notes that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of land use.

5.25 There is policy support for the alterations. London Plan Policy 3.8 provides for Londoners to have a choice of homes which meet their requirements in the highest quality environments. London Plan Policy 3.14 encourages Boroughs to promote the maintenance and enhanced of the quality of existing homes.

P22 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Furthermore, DM2.3 states “Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged.”

Design

5.26 The proposed development is of high quality. The minimal height increase matches the design and proportions of the existing rear projection, in line with Islington’s design standards. The proposals will therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the listed building or the Conservation Area. On this basis the development complies with the requirements of London Plan and local policy (DM1 and DM3) and guidance regarding architecture and urban design.

Layout and Scale

5.27 The modest height increase of the rear projection respects the scale, proportions and architectural form of the existing building and its immediate context, in accordance with Islington’s Urban Design Guide and Conservation Area Guidelines for New River. The hierarchy of the principal building will be retained and the proposed extensions subordinate to the host building. The proposals are considered to be consistent with urban design policy in terms of layout, scale, height, form and internal standards. On completion, it would be difficult to establish that the existing rear projection has been altered at all.

5.28 The amount of new floorspace is modest; the alteration of the balcony to enclosed floorspace provides an additional 2.5 sqm of space. The height increase is c1.3m.

Daylight/Sunlight

5.29 The effects of the proposed rear alteration on the rear ground and first floor windows of No. 22 Claremont Square are likely to be negligible. The proposals will not significantly impact on the outlook of No. 22 Claremont Square, nor significantly affect the amount of light received.

5.30 The rear projection is oblique to the windows of No.22. The change to the outlook and daylight/sunlight of windows within No. 22 would be imperceptible. NLPs daylight/sunlight assessor has reviewed the drawings and confirmed that the minimal alteration is an addition of such modest scale that a BRE assessment is unnecessary and the guidelines would be met.

Sustainability

5.31 The proposed works accord with Policy CS10 ‘Sustainable Design’ and Policy DM40 ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’. The development has been designed to promote sustainability through the use of reclaimed stock brick for the alteration to the rear projection. The development therefore embraces local and strategic sustainability and energy objectives and is consistent with the requirements of policy in this regard.

9617273v1 P23

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

5.32 In accordance with the Environmental Design SPD (2012), extensions of less than 100sqm need to meet the minimum energy efficiency requirements under the Building Regulations.

P24 9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 This Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment has been produced to accompany the application for the development at 21 Claremont Square. The building is Grade II listed and falls within the New River Conservation Area.

6.2 The proposed works comprise increasing the height of the existing rear projection by c.1.3m, removal of the third floor ceiling and reinstatement of some of the building’s original features. It is considered that the proposals will benefit the listed building, enhancing and better revealing its significance. Consent has already been granted for the removal of the third floor ceiling at Flat 28 Claremont Square (within the same row) (P2013/2082/LBC), as such consent should now be granted for this property.

6.3 The rear alteration should be approved in line with the IUDG (2006) as there is no consistency to the rear elevations of the terraces. Contrary to the pre- application feedback (May 2015), it is clear that the IUDG and the CADG does allow rear extensions in certain contexts, such as the alteration proposed. The alteration is a very minor height increase to an existing rear projection. The minor increase to a half-width existing projection maintains a clear gap between the top of the extension and the eaves height. Furthermore, the proposal does not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.4 The proposals comply with the Development Management Policies DM1 (Design) and DM3 (Heritage). It complies with the relevant NPPF policies which seek to sustain the significance of heritage assets. The statutory requirement set out within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (sec. 66(1) and 72 (1)) which requires the decision maker to seek to preserve the listed building and to preserve or enhance Conservation Areas can be met.

9617273v1 P25

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 1 Listing Description

This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

Name: NUMBERS 18-31 (CONSECUTIVE) AND ATTACHED RAILINGS

List Entry Number: 1195542

Location

NUMBERS 18-31 (CONSECUTIVE) AND ATTACHED RAILINGS, 18-31, CLAREMONT SQUARE

County: Greater London Authority District: Islington District Type: London Borough Parish:

Grade: II

Date first listed: 29-Sep-1972

Date of most recent amendment: 30-Sep-1994

Details

ISLINGTON

TQ3183SW CLAREMONT SQUARE 635-1/64/268 (South side) 29/09/72 Nos.18-31 (Consecutive) and attached railings (Formerly Listed as: CLAREMONT SQUARE (South side) Nos.18 & 19;20- 26;27-31)

GV II

Terrace of 14 houses on south side of square. 1821-1828. By William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Estate; restored c.1970 (no. 31 completely dismantled and refronted 1979) by Andrews Sherlock, architects. Beige and gold stock bricks set in Flemish bond with banded stucco ground floors; roofs obscured by parapet, brick party-wall stacks. Side-hall entrance plan with staircase. Four storeys with basement; 2 windows each; centre block (nos. 23-26) projects slightly. Steps rise to entrance on left: doorway with fluted 1/4 column jambs carrying corniced-head, original 6-panelled door (no. 31 C20) and elliptical-arched fanlight (nos. 18-23 & 25, 27-31 patterned). Ground-floor 2/2 (no. 23), 6/6 (nos. 18-20, 22, 24) and 8/8 (21, 25-31) sashes; gauged-brick flat arches to upper floors. 1st floor with stucco sill band to 6/6 full-length sashes set in arched recesses linked by stucco impost bands; coupled iron-bracketed balconies with iron railings in Vitruvian scroll and anthemion pattern. 2nd floor 6/6 sashes; 3rd floor 3/6 (no. 21 6/6; no. 22 3/3) sashes. Plain parapets (with stone coping to nos. 20-22 & 31; stucco parapet to nos. 23-30). Rebuilding and patching-in to upper storeys. Attached iron area railings with knob and disc finials. (The Squares of Islington: Cosh, Mary: Part I: Finsbury and Clerkenwell: London: 1990-: 21-26).

Listing NGR: TQ3120683009

This copy shows the entry on 15-Jul-2015 at 01:12:25.

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 2 Pre-Application Advice (15 May 15)

9617273v1

PRE-APPLICATION RESPONSE Development Management Service Planning and Development PO Box 3333 222 Upper Street LONDON N1 1YA Pierre Maré T 020 7527 2449 F 020 7527 2731 Studio 1, 6-16 Arbutus Street E8 4DT E [email protected] W www.islington.gov.uk Our ref: Q2015/1246/LBC Date: 15 May 2015 Please reply to: Joe Aggar Dear Sir or Madam

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS

Reference: Q2015/1246/LBC quote on any Type: Pre-application - Listed Building reply Location: 21 Claremont Square, Islington, London, N1 9LX Proposal: Pre app advice

ENCLOSURES, PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENTS, AND MEETING ATTENDEES: I refer to the correspondence, plans, elevations and documents that form your pre- application submission and our pre-application meeting held on the 22nd April regarding the potential proposal at the above address.

For the ease of reference I have listed the documents which form the basis for this response at the last page of this pre-application response.

This response is my pre-application advice relating to the above site and is given specifically in relation to the proposal at the site as suggested by your pre-application documentation submitted and includes the content of our discussion at the pre-application meeting. Should your pre-application scheme be altered this advice may become redundant; and this advice may no-longer be considered relevant if adopted planning policies at national, regional or local level are changed or amended; other factors such as case-law and subsequent planning permissions may also affect this advice.

The following advice has been broken into sections for the ease of dealing with each of the planning considerations.

PROPOSAL AND LOCATION

The pre-application proposal put forward for comment is for (officer’s description):

Q-PRE-RSP ‘Erection of upper ground floor rear extension above existing outrigger plus internal alterations.’

CONSTRAINTS AND GUIDANCE

You may be aware that the site is the subject of the following designations/restrictions:

- Grade II Listed - New River Conservation Area

For ease of reference a list of the currently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents (SPG’s / SPD’s) to the Development Plan and also Council guidance notes which are relevant to this site is provided below:

Islington LDF London Plan - New River Conservation Area - none Design Guidelines - Islington Urban Design Guide

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

LAND USE

The proposed alterations would not raise any land use planning issues as the development would be considered ancillary to the main use of the family dwelling. The following paragraphs examine the remaining elements of the proposal.

CONSERVATION AND DESIGN

Provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose obligations on those considering whether to grant planning permission or listed building consent for development or works that affect the historic environment. In such cases, it is necessary to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas affected by development proposals.

The objectives which are established in the primary legislation are reinforced by policies in the Development Plan (notably Policy 7.8 of the London Plan and Policy CS9 of Islington’s Core Strategy).

Policy 7.8 of the London Plan says that development affecting heritage assets should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Policy CS9 of the Council’s Core Strategy states that the historic significance of Islington’s unique heritage assets and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset; the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

The Council has published its Conservation Area Design Guidelines 2002 (CADG). This document provides non-statutory guidance. Nevertheless, it includes guidance which is specific to the New River Conservation Area and states this area is of special architectural and historic interest, the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve and enhance.

External Alterations

The proposed enclosure of the rear terrace on top of the existing historic rear projection is considered unacceptable in principle. The existing extension is half-width two storey and this addition would result in an extension that in 2 ½ storeys high. This is not in accordance with the guidance given within the IUDG or the CADG and is considered harmful to the generally consistent height of the rear projections to this terrace, with the exception of that to no. 18 which is noticeably higher than the others. No. 18 sits at the end of the terrace and as such the taller rear projection does not interrupt the consistent rhythm as this proposed extension would.

The existing extension to no. 18 does not appear to have had consent, at least not under current policies, and as such should not be used as justification for other buildings within the listed terrace to increase the height of their rear projections.

The proposed design for the enclosure of the roof terrace is also considered inappropriate. If the increase of height to this rear projection was considered acceptable, which it is not, then a more traditional approach in keeping with the character and materials of the listed building would be more appropriate.

It was mentioned on site that works were proposed to the windows to improve their thermal performance. Some minor improvement works are likely to be acceptable, provided they do not involve the loss of or harm to any historic fabric e.g. draught proofing. However, the replacement of whole sashes and glass is unlikely to be considered acceptable unless it can be demonstrated that the existing is not historic or beyond repair and that the replacement glass will not alter the appearance of the glazing.

Internal Alterations

First Floor It appears that a woodburner is proposed to the first floor front room. This is considered an inappropriate feature. An appropriate fireplace should be installed. Details of which should be submitted as part of an application.

The proposed built in cupboards/furniture to the rear room at first floor level should not be installed over the chimney breast as this is harmful to the historic plan form of the room. Any fitted furniture should not be full height, leaving a punctuating gap between the top of the furniture and the ceiling.

Second Floor The proposed relocation of the spine wall between the front and rear rooms at second floor level in order to create bathroom between the rooms is considered unacceptable in principle as this is harmful to the original plan form.

There is already a bathroom installed within the rear room which would not be granted consent under current policy, but this at least retains the original partition (or at least a partition in the location of the original spine wall) and the doorway into the front room. This door opening should be retained in its original position.

It may be possible to install a smaller bathroom within the rear room if a larger bedroom is desired.

Third Floor The proposed removal of the ceiling to kitchen at third floor level is considered unacceptable in principle as this will result in an inappropriate floor ceiling height at this level and therefore is harmful to the historic proportions of the house.

Please note - any repair work to plaster must be carried out on a like-for-like basis with lime plaster.

AMENITY

The close proximity and scale of the rear extension with the adjoining property at 22 Claremont Square has been considered. As you may know, the standard method for calculating loss of light to properties is contained within the BRE Guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (BRE Guidelines). The BRE Guidelines suggest a three stepped approach to measuring whether there might be a real and noticeable loss of daylight to neighbouring properties. If the 'first test' is met then it is considered that sufficient light is achieved and the remaining two, quite technical tests, would not normally be required.

As the proposed extension to no. 21 Claremont Square is at a right-angle to the potentially affected window no. 22, the 'first test' in such circumstances would be the '45 degree rule' test. In short, a 45 degree angle line is drawn out from the centre point of the window. The BRE Guidelines state that if a proposed neighbouring extension obstructs both of these 45 degree lines (i.e in height and depth) then the extension may cause noticeable loss of light. If it obstructs one of these lines but not both then sufficient light should be maintained.

In terms of the proposed extension to no. 21 Claremont Squares’ impact on 22 upper ground floor windows, if the proposal fails the 45 degree rule on the plan (its depth) and on the elevation (its height) the proposal would be seen to fail in terms maintaining sufficient light.

It is important to note that any extension should not prejudice the daylight, sunlight or outlook both of the property itself and those nearby. Consideration should be given, in the main, to the impact of the amenities of 22 Claremont Square. If the proposals are considered to be overbearing, reduce outlook or cause loss of light then the application may be refused. WAY FORWARD

It is my opinion that a rear extension would be considered unacceptable in principle as would some of the proposed alterations to the interior. I suggest that you review the pre- application proposal in light of the concerns raised at this stage.

DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO VALIDATE A FUTURE PLANNING APPLICATION

Should you wish to submit a planning application without pursuing the above matters further at pre-application stage please note, in accordance with our local validation requirements, the following documents are likely to be required for validation before the application is considered valid. More detail is available on our website (www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/Planning /Applications). Some necessary documents have already been mentioned within this response. Please note that the list below forms an initial list and may be altered / added to depending on the nature of the submission made:

- Planning Application and Listed Building Application - Fee £172 - Existing and proposed drawings - Site Plan - Photographs/photomontages (as necessary) - Heritage Statement - Design and Access Statement

This information is required for validation of the application but it is not essential that it is organised exactly in the way suggested above.

CONSIDERATION OF THIS PRE-APPLICATION RESPONSE

Please be advised that this response is given at officer level and does not form a formal response or decision of the council with regard to future planning application(s) or other formal approaches. The views expressed above are given in good faith, to the best of ability, and without prejudice to the formal consideration of any future planning application, which will be subject to formal consultation and ultimately decided on by the council. Should you require any further information or advice, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or on the telephone number below.

Yours sincerely

Joseph Aggar Planning Officer Planning Applications Team Planning Service, Public Protection Division Environment and Regeneration Department T: 0207-527-2449 F: 0207-527-2731 E: [email protected]

Documents, Plans, Elevations, Correspondence Forming the Applicant’s Submission: - Location Plan 50, 100, 101, 102, 103 (3rd Floor Plans), 103 (Rear Elevation), 103 (Sections).

Attendees at Meeting of 22/04/15:

Pierre Mare Lucy Crone Joe Aggar

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 3 Survey of London Extract

6.5 The Survey of London, founded in the 1890s, provides detailed architectural and topographical studies of the capital’s built environment. It has been digitalised and is available to view on British History Online. Volume 47 covers Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville (Chapter VII the New River Estate and Chapter VIII Claremont Square). Information from Chapters VII and VII have been summarised for the purposes of this initial assessment below: 1 Control of the building of the New River Estate was in the hands of W.C. Mylne for a remarkably long time, a crucial factor in the estate’s sustained coherence and stylistic conservatism. 2 Mylne dictated architectural form and ensured quality and uniformity, exercising notably tight control, specifying building materials and methods down to the constructional details of guttering and cellar partitions. 3 The initial aspiration towards first-rate houses was unrealistic, but good standards were maintained. The houses were generally specified so as to be at the 'full sized' or upper end of the third rate, which meant frontages of about 17 ft and house depths of about 27 ft. Others, particularly in the squares, were second rate. 4 The speculators and builders with whom Mylne dealt came from a wide range of building-trade and other backgrounds including glass merchants, glaziers and local tradesmen such as opticians and grocers. Other important developers on the estate, like Richard Chapman or Thomas Oliver, appear to have been builders and nothing else. 5 Through the whole development 35 different people each agreed to build five or more houses and many others undertook fewer. The largest take, James Stalley's 61 houses, represents only 9 per cent of all the houses built. There was, therefore, no single dominant developer, at least not before 1847 when responsibility for completion of the estate was handed to Rhodes. 6 The overall appearance and general character of the estate is due above all to Mylne, whose role in the design and planning was primary. Mylne was essentially a water engineer, and his architectural achievements beyond this estate are few. Yet he was the son of a highly competent architect-engineer, and was evidently wholly conversant with the vocabulary of late Georgian estate development in London, as it had become standardized and codified in the decades up to 1810. The blank canvas of the New River Company's fields allowed him to devise an orderly layout with three squares, one of which linked to a circus. The result has long been admired for the clarity, rationality and geometry of its townscape and planning. 7 At the level of individual houses Mylne provided a template for highly standardized surveyor's architecture, appreciated by Christopher Hussey

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

in the 1930s through a repetition of Steen Eiler Rasmussen's evocation of London's Georgian houses as a 'refined industrial product'. Mylne defined the design parameters, and inventions by builders were, for the most part, constrained to keep within the regularity of what amounts to a 'house style'. This is made up of stock forms and details, and has local precedents and parallels, as nearby at Northampton Square or in Islington on the Cloudesley estate of the 1820s. 8 Adherence to straightforward terrace form seems to have been broken only for a flirtation with semi-detached villas on Hardwick Street in 1822, perhaps inspired by W. J. Booth's inventions on the Lloyd Baker estate. What were already conservative stylistic forms endured well into the 1830s, helping to ensure unity. In Mylne's hands a shift to a more fashionably Italianate approach was tentative, even in the 1840s. However, it should be borne in mind that perceptions of the estate as being 'Georgian' are coloured not just by its conservative architectural character, but also by the fact that of the 95 houses built on it from 1846 to 1853 only thirteen survive, largely an accident of war damage. The still later houses in and around Rydon Crescent have also almost all been destroyed, by bombing or for public housing redevelopment. 9 The typical three- or four-storey terrace on the New River estate has first- floor blind arcading, introduced in Myddelton Terrace and consistently redeployed in the developments of the 1820s north of New River Head (Ills 246–8, 250–2, 255, 260–2). Faced with the strong impression of uniformity that the estate generates, it is surprising to realize the degree to which, beyond this, elevational conformity was not attained. The piecemeal nature of the execution goes far beyond the oddities of builders flattering themselves with big houses, and is expressed through almost endless variation in details. It is clear that irregularity vexed Mylne, but it is the variety of detail that is the source of much of the area's enduring charm. This can be seen through the presence or absence of rusticated stucco on the lower storeys; in shifts back and forth between round or square heads to ground-floor windows; in the impost bands of the first-floor arcading, whether present, absent, or embellished; in the entrance surrounds, of which there are many types; or in fanlights, of which a wide range of semi-circular examples survive (Ills 252, 255, 264 and 284). (fn. 18) The arrival of Italianate detail after 1838 was entirely typical, with stucco architraves the usual minimum (Ills 287, 291– 4, 298, 299). There was much conservative repair and replacement around 1910, with many door architraves, balconies and sash windows echoing but not quite replicating earlier forms. From then into the 1970s the New River Company kept a uniform and distinctive painted livery, with brown lower storeys and cream mouldings and reveals (Ill. 250). 10 Behind their fronts New River estate houses almost invariably have the two-room rear-staircase plan that had become the all-but universal standard in London by 1800 (Ills 245, 249, 263, 274, 289 and 295). Most of the few exceptions are end-of-terrace houses that have essentially the same plan, but with side entrances that avoid the wasted space of a long

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

entrance hall. The two groundfloor rooms were generally linked, folding double doors allowing them to be made a single large space. Another general and state-of-the-art feature, unsurprising given the business of the freeholder, was the provision of water closets, often two per house, in small rear service wings. Interior finishes appear to have been highly conformable, with stick-baluster staircases and simple fireplaces, architraves and ceiling cornices typical of the period, though much has been remade. 11 Richard Chapman, an Islington builder, agreed to build the rest [Claremont Square]: six on the east side (Nos 32–37) and the whole south side (Nos 18–31), all as second-rate houses with 18 ft fronts. The whole east side was complete by 1825, except for No. 32 (demolished c. 1934). The fourteen-house terrace on the south side, which Chapman built himself, followed in 1826–8 (Ills 242, 248, 249). This was one of the largest single developments on the New River estate, and the only terrace in the area to make a nod towards a 'palacefront' conception. Symmetry is spoiled only by the position of the entrance to No. 24. Internally, front and back rooms interconnected, as was typical on the estate, with, unusually, curved corners at the backs of the front rooms. 12 Outwardly the houses on both the east and south sides closely followed the Myddelton Terrace precedent, giving Claremont Square considerable visual consistency. As everywhere on the estate there are variations of detail, in doors and door surrounds, fanlights and first-floor cast-iron balconies. While the stucco impost bands to the west are plain, those to the south and east are reeded or corniced. There are mansards on the east and west sides, but not on the south, where there is a full fourth or attic storey with a stucco parapet (now interrupted by rebuilding), a difference calculated to maintain consistent height, compensating for the fall of the ground to the south. At the north-east corner Nos 42 and 44 are double-fronted (Ills 250, 251). No. 44 was built as part of Claremont Terrace, and for that reason has four full storeys. Its part-flat roof, railed round with Gothic cast iron, offers views down Pentonville Road to St Pancras. 13 Already in 1851 Nos 15, 30 and 31 Claremont Square were lodging and boarding houses, and other houses were sub-divided later in the century, when there were growing numbers of tradespeople in Claremont Terrace. 14 The New River Company oversaw many flat-conversions, from as early as 1935–6 at No. 10. A systematic conversion programme was carried out in the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, following the acquisition of the estate by the Borough of Islington. This was carried out under the borough architect Alf Head by Andrews Sherlock & Partners, architects of the borough's low-rise, high density Popham Street Estate (1968–74). At Claremont Square individual houses were made into two maisonettes (reducing density), the lower ones having their entrances at basement level and the upper ones having roof terraces. A number of houses had

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

to be substantially rebuilt, No. 31 in its entirety. Claremont Terrace has also seen much subdivision, including the lateral conversion of Nos 29 and 31. Following right-to-buy legislation some homes were sold, and a few divided houses have lately been taken back into single or double occupation.

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 4 The Squares of Islington Extract

6.6 The Squares of Islington (Mary Cosh, 1990) provides detail on the historical development of Charterhouse Square, Claremont Square, Finsbury Square, Lonsdale Square and Northampton Square. A summary of the key elements relevant to Claremont Square and to this analysis is provided below: 1 Claremont Square, whilst harmonious in design, was piecemeal in construction. It was completed in 1828. 2 Claremont Square was acquired by Islington Council as part of a Conservation Area in the 1970s (New River Conservation Area). A rehabilitation programme was carried out, with sensitive conversions by the architects Andrews Sherlock. Some houses were converted laterally into self-contained flats and one, No. 31, was completely dismantled and was refronted in facsimile (1979). In this process many features of the houses, such as fanlights and Gothic cupboards, were lost. 3 The houses are of the usual New River estate pattern, comprising 3 storeys plus attic and basement, with balconies, string-courses, and circular sunk panels over the first floor windows. On the south side of the Square, however, the ground level begins to fall away and the attic has been dispensed with. On the west side there is slight variation of style and level at Nos. 16/17.

Other 4 Winchester Place formed on the north side of the reservoir, while Myddleton Terrace on its west side, which was built in 1821. The area was renamed Claremont Square in c. 1825 with the building of the east and south terraces. 5 Myddleton Terrace was rebuilt in 1948 after war damage. 6 Harley Sherlock had a vision of civilised high density city living, unreliant on the car. 7 Claremont Square reservoir is used intermittently by Thames Water, as it is surplus to their requirements.

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix 5 Drawings from Islington Local History Archives

9617273v1

21 Claremont Square : Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment

9617273v1