21 Claremont Square Planning and Heritage Impact Assessment Mr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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