PLAN N IN G, H ERIT AGE & ACCESS ST AT EMEN T LA N D T O REA R O F 28 A MW ELL ST REET , LO N D O N EC 1 ( A LSO K N O W N A S N EW RI VER H EA D ) Rev A – 28th April 2014

The Regeneration Practice 1 Huguenot Place Heneage Str eet E1 5LN www.regener at io n.co .uk

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SIT E CO N T EX T

2.1 H ist o r y 2.2 Location 2.3 Local Context 2.4 Townscape Set t ing 2.5 Land Use 2.6 Public Transport accessibility 2.7 Planning Policy Context

3.0 SIT E A N A LYSIS:

3.1 Historical Significance 3.2 Statutory Listing and Conservation Area Status 3.3 Constraints 3.4 Opportunities

4.0 D ESIGN PRIN CIPLES A D O PT ED :

4.1 Land U se 4.2 Bulk and Massing 4.3 Access 4.4 Conservation Philosophy

2

5.0 T H E PRO PO SA LS:

5.1 The Design Process 5.2 Design Evolution 5.3 Analysis of Options 5.4 Repair s 5.5 Sustainability 91 6.0 A CCESS ST A T EMEN T :

6.1 Purpose of the Access Statement 6.2 Methodology 6.3 D esign St andar ds 6.4 Project Description 6.5 Access context and Site Constraints 6.6 Car Par king 6.7 Pedestrian Access 6.8 Refuse Storage Access 6.9 H ar d Landscape D esign 6.10 Building Approach 6.11 St udios, Café , H er it age D isplay and Educat ion Ar eas D esign

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

A PPEN D ICES:

A: Option Plans extracted from the Options Study

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Planning, Heritage and Access Statement has been prepared on behalf of Heritage of London Trust Operations Limited (HOLTO PS) to support planning and Listed Building applications for the repair and refurbishment of the Engine House, Boiler Houses, Coal Store and W ind Pump Base on the Head site, bringing them into public and community use to accommodat e; a) a her it age-education area that presents the site’s significance and principle st ories, and runs education programmes for schools and the community, b) office space for char it ies, and c) community and meeting room facilities and a cafe.. This planning application follows completion of an Options Study on behalf of a partnership between two building preservation trusts; Heritage of London Trust Operations Limited (HOLTO PS) and Islington Building Preservation Trust (IBPT) which looked at possible sustainable uses for the site to meet the requirements of Islington Council’s Planning Briefs dated 1991 and 1999.

This statement has been prepared by Paul Latham, Director of The Regeneration Practice, and an accredited conservation architect. It set s o ut an analysis o f t he Figure 1: : Engine House and south Boiler House from west site, describing the evolution of the proposal and explaining the rationale behind the scheme. It should be read in conjunction with the application drawings and incor por at es a Planning and a H er it age St at ement .

W e have adopted the following structure:

. Site Context: a review of the existing characteristics of the site and its surroundings, history, local context, land uses, location and townscape setting, public transport accessibility, planning policy, context . Site Analysis: an analysis of t he hist or ical and t ownscape significance of the New River Head site and surviving buildings, and the constraints and opportunities for the restoration and development of the site. . Design Principles Adopted: describes the land use, bulk and massing, access, conservation philosophy and repair principles that have been adopted in the proposal. . The Proposals: reviews the design process, the evolution of the proposals leading to the final scheme design, and the implications of the proposals for sustainability. . Access Statement: describes how the requirements for access, including for disabled people, are incorporated into the design . Conclusions

Figure 2: Coal Store range from the south

4

2.0 SIT E C O N T EX T

2.1 H ist o r y

The construction of a ‘New River’ was completed in 1613 by Sir Hugh Myddleton under the auspices of the New River Company. Originating in Amwell, Hertfordshire, this artificial waterway was built to supply London with fr esh dr inking wat er , Fi gure 3 . The N ew River Head site and its environs are the original terminating point of this new water course. The New River Company was taken over by the Metropolitan W ater Board in 1904 which became part of Thames W at er in 1989, and although most operational functions have now been re-located, the site continues to supply London with water.

In 1613 a 200 ft diameter ‘round pond’ (part of which survives) was built to take The water dischar ged from the river. The flow of water was controlled through cisterns and stopcocks in the basement of the adjacent and contemporary, W ater House. The open space at the heart of Claremont Square, to the north was the site of the Upper Pond, completed in c 1709. W ater was pumped up to it from the lower plateau of the New River Head from a windmill, built between 1707 and 1708, to the north east of the round pound. The power generated by the windmill was not sufficient, and was soon replaced by an atmospheric steam engine designed by , a leading engineer of the time, in about 1768. It was erected under the supervision of , the New River Head Company’s second engineer and surveyor, and housed in a tall ‘engine house’, which was later enlarged by Mylne in order to accommodate a Boulton & W att engine. A tapering square chimney was added by W illiam Mylne in 1818 but was demolished in 1954.

Over time, the site gradually increased to about 7 acres in size and was composed of outer ponds and more sophisticated structures. The driving forces behind these developments was not only the increase in demand for fresh water in the rapidly growing Victorian city, but also the need for the New River Company to maintain its position against competitors, advancements in civil engineering and a need to meet the requirements of the Metropolis W ater Acts of 1852 and 1871 which dictated standards for water filtration amidst concerns of impurity.

As well as the river, the New River Company also purchased significant sw at hes of land in Islington. Initially, these were used for recreation but during the ear ly 19th century, much of the land was developed, forming the core of the southern area of the borough under the close architectural direction of . Figure 3: Plan of the New River by Warburton, (1747)

5

This development is characterised by uniform, brick fronted blocks with recessed blind arcading at first floor and uniform rows of sash windows at each storey, ar r anged around, squares or in wide parades establishing vist as emphasising a gr andio se mast er plan concept . W .C. Mylne w as st r o ngly influenced by the work of John W ood junior in Bath in 1768, and the late Georgian re-development of many parts of the City of London under the direction of the City Surveyor George Dance (the younger) in which single houses are treated as a monumental unity. The much altered Coal Store extended to the east by W .C. Mylne in 1849 exemplifies the architectural approach, seven blind ar caded bays for ming a single ar chit ect ur al unit y Fi gure 2 .

The W ater House which was used as a residence for the Company’s successive Engineers’ and surveyors’ and was extended by both Robert and W illiam Mylne in the 18th and 19th centuries, was cleared in the early 20th century to make way for the Metropolitan W ater Board’s Headquarter’s building. The round pond was drained at the same time.

The surviving buildings comprise the stump of the W ind Pump, Smeaton’s Engine Figure 4: View by Hollar showing the 1612 Water House and Round Pond,(1665) th House and its lat er 19 century additions including the Coal Store range to the east and a W orkshop range on the north boundary.

Figure 5: Canaletto, showing the decommissioned 1708-9 Wind Pump and Water House, (1753)

6

2.2 Location:

Figure 6: Location and Site Plan

7

2.3 Local Context:

The applicat ion sit e co ver s an ar ea of appr oximat ely 0.17 hect ar es and is in a back land locat ion t o t he r ear of Char les Allen House, 28 Amwell Street. The site is to the northeast of Amwell Street, close to the junction of Amwell Street with River Street, and is southwest of Myddelton Passage. The surrounding area to the north is pr e-dominantly residential in character, much of the development dating from the development of the New River Estate during the first half of 19th century under the direction of W .C. Mylne. To the west of the site is Charles Allen House, a seven storey block of flats, constructed in 1964-6 on the Amwell Street frontage to designs by J.F. Hearsum, surveyor to the Metropolitan W ater Board, to house employees and now in private residential use.

The Met r opolit an W at er Boar d H eadquarters building, designed by H Austen Hall between 1914 and 1920 and its gardens and car park were constructed on part of the site of the Round Pond to the south east of the site. The Headquarters has been converted to residential units reflecting the recent re-use of part of the site by Thames W at er . A new development of flats known as Nautilus House is situated on the eastern Boundary and further east are Met r opolit an W at er Boar d Laboratory buildings of 1938, designed by John Murray East o n, and also converted to private flats. The Gardens to the south and east are open to the public during controlled Hours, although this access has been the subject of recent enforcement action.

Figure 7: Aerial view showing local context

8

2.4 Townscape Set t ing.

The Engine House Complex comprises:

. a tall yellow stock brick Engine House, the exterior of which dates from the late 18th century with a mid 19th century Staircase Tower extended on the west. . Single storey mid 19th century Boiler houses extending on the South and East sides with shallow hipped slate roofs, and . A single storey mid 19th century Coal Store range extending to the east also in yellow stock brick. The Coal Store has seven blind arcaded bays to the south, some with modern arched windows.

The W ind Pump Base is a detached substantial circular red brick structure with a 19 th century plan tiled conical roof standing to the south west of the Engine House Complex.

The W orkshops are a single storey range adjoining the north boundary with a shallow hipped slate roof and many modern alterations to the elevations.

The buildings sit in a substantially open setting in a hard landscaped site which was originally cobbled but now is largely concreted over. Despite residential re- Figure 8: West view of the complex from Amwell Street entrance development and soft landscaping to the east, the current cluttered presentation and intrusive staff car park to the west, and loss of the emblematic brick chimney in 1954, the site can still be appreciated as an attractive surviving remnant of a much larger open industrial complex with individual historic buildings of considerable interest and architectural merit.

Figure 9: South West view from the Headquarters Building Car Park

9

2.5 Land Use

Par t o f the Engine House and south Boiler House contain operational Thames W ater pumping equipment. Part of the north W orkshops and an external fenced-off borehole also require access to Thames W ater. Thames W ater require staff car parking. The remaining Buildings and upper floor of the Engine House are vacant. The planning history is documented at Islington Council’s website.

2.6 Public Transport accessibility:

The site is a 10 minute walk from Angel (Northern Line City Branch). Trains run every few minutes northbound to Kings Cross and Euston, and southbound to Bank and . Bus routes 19, 38 and 341 travel from the W est End to the theatre's own bus stop. Many buses travel from W aterloo, Liverpool Street, Euston and Kings Cross stations to the Angel.

By car, there are no turns into St. John St from Pentonville, City and Goswell Roads. The easiest route is from Pentonville Road into the west side of Claremont Square and down Amwell Street.

2.7 Planning Policy Context:

The following provides is a brief summary of design related policies:

N ational Planning Guidance

The N ational Planning Policy Framework ( 2012)

Policy 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ sets outs the Government’s policies for protecting and enhancing t he historic built environment.

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: . the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conser vat io n; . the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and . the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness ( par agr aph 131) . . W hen 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.

D evelopment Plan Policy

The London Plan ( 2011)

. Policy 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology) of The London Plan seeks to protect the significance of London’s heritage assets.

London Borough of Islington: Core Strategy (2011)

. Policy CS7 sets out the council’s spatial strategy for the Bunhill and area. It notes the area’s rich character and historic value

10

London Borough of Islington: Unitary D evelopment Plan (2002)

The Islington UDP (2002) contains the following Design Policies which are relevant to this proposal:

- D4 Proposals for new and altered buildings should acknowledge the most important elements of the urban context and create a positive and appropriate relationship with surrounding buildings and spaces. - D11 Alterations and extensions should respect the architectural character and detail of the original buildings. - D20 In considering applications for changes of use within conservation areas, the Council will have particular regard to maintaining their character. - D24 In considering applications for extensions and refurbishment in conservation areas, the council will normally require the use of traditional mat er ials contains the following Design Policies which are relevant to this proposal:

London Borough of Islington: Planning Briefs

. New River Head and Claremont Square Reservoir Planning Brief (September 2013) This updated planning brief reflects current legislation and restates the Councils’ aims set out in earlier planning briefs to secure heritage/community use for the remaining buildings on the New River Head sit e.

. N ew River H ead and Claremont Square Planning Brief ( 1999) The planning brief states that ‘it remains the wish of the Council that when redundant the Engine House / Pump House and Mill base, t o get her wit h ancillar y buildings, should form the nucleus of a heritage and community facility’

. N ew River H ead and Claremont Square Planning Brief (1991) The planning brief states that the pump house, remains of the windmill and north stores ‘provide a nucleus of important historic buildings, to which access for the public could be greatly improved. Potential uses included community facilities, urban studies centre, meeting rooms, exhibition space or museum facilit ies, as w ell as mo r e co mmer cial uses such as r est aur ant o r café’.

Additional D esign guidance and advice

. Places, Streets and Movement: A Companion Guide to Design Bulletin 32, Residential Roads and Footpaths DETR (1998) . By D esi gn - Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice, Thomas Telford Publishing DETR & CABE (2000) . By D esign: Bet t er Places t o Live. a companion guide to PPG3, DTLR & CABE (2001) . Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention. ODPM/Home Office (2004) . Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice. DETR (1998) . Building in Context: New Development in historic ar eas. English Heritage/CABE (2001) . Protecting Design Quality in Planning. CABE (2003) . Urban Design Compendium. English Partnerships, The Housing Corporation (2000) . Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide ODPM (2003) . Access Statements: Achieving an Inclusive Environment, D isabi lity Rights Commission (2004)

English Heritage: Conservation Principles – Policies and Guidance for the sustainable maintenance of the historic environment (2008)

. This document assists in the assessment of heritage values and significance of heritage assets. It sets out principles to evaluate heritage values attached to a place

11

3.0 SIT E A N A LYSIS:

3.1 Historical Significance: a) The surviving buildings and site at the New River Head hold an important group and technological value for their association wit h a major civil engineering achievement of the 17th century - the supply of fresh water to London from the springs of Hertfordshire in 1613, and subsequently from the 1670’s to the W est End of London.

b) Associational value with the expansion of Islington into a London suburb, through the release and re-development of its land holdings under the architectural direction of W illiam Chadwell Mylne between 1810 and 1853. There exists an architectural association between the uniform architecture of the wider estate determined by W .C. Mylne, and the recent phases of individual buildings within the site, also designed by W .C. Mylne, for example, the monumental design of the Coal Store with seven blind arcades.

c) Associational value with the 18th century engineer John Smeaton (1724-92) and architect/ engineer Robert Mylne (1733-1811), both celebrated as the founders of the Society of Civil Engineers; and Robert’s architect /engineer son W illiam Mylne (1781-1863).

3.2 Statutory Listing and Conservation Area Stat us:

. The Engine House complex and Wind Pump base are Listed Grade II. . The site as a whole falls within the New River Conservation Area, designated in 1968.

3.3 Co nst r aint s:

The following factors summarise the most influential design constraints;

Si te Access and Permeability: There is a limited public consciousness of this significant heritage asset in London’s historical development and the associated story of public water supply due to lack of access and permeability. Although there are requirements for public access from Myddleton Passage and Roseberry Avenue upon the developers into adjoining gardens, these are not well used due to lack of compliance with the required access, lack of opportunities for through routes and a lack of at t r act ions t o dr aw the public into the site.

Ground Floor Access: The Coal Store and east Boiler House have a raised ground floor from the south requiring a ramp or lift under DDA Regulations which will impact on the townscape setting of the eastern range.

Fi r st Fl o o r A ccess: The Engine House has access via an ornate cast iron staircase. Full DDA access required to open up the first floor engine chamber is not possible without installation of a Lift. An external lift would have too great an impact on the compact more or less symmetrical design of the Engine House. An internal lift would require access across areas reserved for Thames W ater Plant causing un-resolvable conflicts with security and operational requirements.

Sit e Char act er : The original layout and functional elements of the site are not easily accessible nor readily decipherable, such as the round ponds, the original watercourse and the base of the former short-lived wind pump. The current staff Car Park, modern boundary fencing and concrete paving all have a significant negative impact on the character of a 19c working industrial site A key townscape feature, W .C. Mylne’s brick panelled chimney was destroyed in 1954.

12

Architectural Character: The Coal Store, although much altered, is an architectural ‘set piece’ by W .C. Mylne with seven, south facing, blind arcades constraining any alterations which threaten to weaken this significant architectural rhythm. Recent analysis of brickwork has revealed that the brick infill to blind arches above their springing point in all the bays on the south is in Flemish Bond displaying a similar pinkish char act er and bond type to the superstructure of the Coal Store. The infill is however unbonded indicating the arches were adapted shortly after the original construction, c1849 when a lean-to roof was added to the south elevation obliterating any daylight from the arched bay heads. The blind arches form the earliest of many changes to the south elevation and ar e an architecturally important part of the story the building has to tell.

3.3 Opportunities:

The main opportunities concluding the site analysis are;

A Sustainable Future: A Sustainable Future for the surviving Listed buildings which facilitates public access to the site and its buildings, and education in the significant heritage attached to the New River Head for the wider community involving school visits, meeting and office accommodation for heritage groups, events, exhibition space, guided tours and open days, restaurant or cafe facilities. Public Consciousness: Raising public consciousness of the N ew River Head site by improving access into and across the site between Amwell Street Myddleton Passage and Roseber r y Avenue. and by cr eat ing at t r act ive public exhibit ion, int er pr et at ion, r est aur ant or café facilit ies on site to draw the public in. Subject to funding, possible replacement of W .C. Mylne’s brick panelled chimney to repair the townscape significance and raise public awareness of the site from surrounding streets. Restoration of the Chimney is shown for illustration purposes only on the application drawings and is not part of this planning application. A ccess fo r A ll: W here practical, resolve DDA Access into the site and buildings in ways which complement the historic asset providing access for all. Sit e Char act er : Promote use of public transport to limit use of the current car park for disabled drop off and Thames W ater operational staff vehicles only to minimise the negative impact on the character of the site. Repair historic cobblestones and replace modern boundary fencing to enhance the original character of a19c working industrial site. and improve legibility of key features such as the round ponds, original watercourse and the base of the former short-lived wind pump. Archaeological Significance: Respect with the existing ar chaeo logical r ecor d embodied within the many changes to openings on the south elevation of the Coal Store, to preserve the story of its development from W .C. Mylne’s elegant seven-bay beginnings to the subsequent changes driven by developing technology within the adjoining engine houses.

4.0 D ESIGN PRIN CIPLES A D O PT ED :

4.1 Land U se:

. The land use strategy adopted is to comply with the planning briefs for the site dated 1991 and 1999.

4.2 Bulk and Massing:

. External interventions are kept to a minimum to facilitate internal uses using appropriate material for repairs or, a contrasting pallet of materials for new interventions

4.3 A ccess:

. Vehicular access from Amwell Street is limited to emergency and refuse collection, and Thames W ater operational or staff vehicles using the existing car par k.

13

4.4 Conservation Philosophy:

a) The site falls within the New River Conservation Area designated in 1968 and any interventions must not detract from its historic character and should comply with current local and National Planning Policy, especially the New River Head Planning Brief published by Islington Council in September 2013.

b) Modificatio ns to the buildings should seek to enhance t he ar chaeological significance of the site by respecting changes made to the fabric which reflect technological development at the New River Head site over time

c) Modifications to the site and buildings should not obscure the open 19th century industrial character of the site and the group value of individual buildings.

d) Minimum intervention into the buildings to maintain maximum significance.

e) Modern interventions should not obscure coherent appreciation of historic fabric and spaces by use a contrast ing mat er ial palet t e and by ‘floating’ new elements against, but not touching, historic structure.

f) Appropriate use of the various elements on the site should be compatible with their significance and vulnerabilities.

g) Materials and construction techniques should match those used originally as far as possible to ensure compatibility with the original building

h) There should be sensitive adaptation to allow full access for all.

14

5.0 T H E PRO PO SA LS:

5.1 The D esign Pr o cess:

D esign is an iterative process where each aspect of the project, including form, demographics, economics, scale, character, massing, movement and legibility are visited and revisited against the evolving brief until a distilled design solution emerges. The current proposals are the result of an Options Study commissioned by Islington Building Preservation Trust and Heritage of London Trust Operations Limited. The design team worked closely with both Trusts and consulted with the Local Authority in developing the current proposals. While initially allowed access for representatives of both Building Preservation Trust’s unfortunately, further access has been refused by the current landowners Turnhold Limited.

5.2 Design Evolution:

Four options for the site were considered during the development of the Options Study:

Options for re-use – Appendix A refers The options for the study were considered at professional and client team meetings with the valuer in attendance on 28th Mar ch and 1 st May 2012. All of the Options rely upon full Public Access during daylight hours between Amwell Street, Myddleton Passage and Rosebery Avenue in line with the S106 Agreements. Tho se options which the group felt could benefit from further consideration were then investigated by HOLTOPS and the Professional team.

Option 1: Public Heritage/Education/Community Use Centre and Café located in the W ind Pump Base and Engine House complex, including the east Boiler House and adjoining Co al St or e r ange.

Option 2: Turnhold have verbally offered the first floor Engine House and Wind Pump Base. This could enable a limited public Heritage/Education/Community use centre located in the W ind Pump Base and a small studio for a heritage group to occupy the first floor of the Engine H ouse.

Option 3: Viability of “Cultural Hub” involving Her it age/ Interpretation space within the W ind Pump Base; Artist’s Studios within the northern W orkshop range; St u d i o space for her it age gr oups, a Café and space for H er it age display, Interpretation and Education in the Engine House, east Boiler House and west Coal Store; and Commer cial O ffice space in two floors in the east Coal Store.

Option 4: As Option 3 but excluding the un-listed workshops which would be converted into three 1-bedroom flats for market sale to reduce the need for capital funding.

5.3 A nalysis o f O pt io ns – Appendix A refers

Option 2 (the current Turnhold verbal offer) No DDA compliant access would be possible to the upper floor of the Engine house rendering the space impossible to access by members of the public. Upper floor access would be isolated from view via a west door in the Engine House which is unseen from either the Amwell Street or Myddelton Passage site entry points. The W ind Pump base with potential for level ground floor access is too small to secure public access to the site as the gr ound floor space available would be inadequate for any meaningful heritage display, community or education space and the associated sanitation and disabled facilities required. Fo r these reasons Option 2 was rejected.

15

Option 4, involving the introduction of residential uses in the modern workshop range and dividing up historic cobblestone paved ar eas t o cr eat e pr ivat e gar dens was not considered satisfactory because it involved the partial loss of the 19th century open industrial character of the site, detracting from its group value. There are also potential conflicts as residential use, once est ablished o n t he sit e, would be irreversible and the occupants would seek to restrict access and use of t he yar d and buildings. Whilst this option is appealing in terms of the reduction in capital funding it is the most intrusive of the options as far as the works which would be required to the heritage fabric are concerned. There is also concern throughout the team that such an end use would remove the workshops from public access and understanding of the part they play in the wider understanding of the site. For these reasons it was rejected. Options 2 and 4 were not assessed further.

Option 3 was not seen to offer significant advantages over Option 1 as, although values were higher through increased commercial letting, build costs were also raised due to the higher specification required for office use. Interventions such as lining the walls for thermal insulation required under Building Regulations, and underpinning required for office floor loadings also had an increased impact on the indust r ial char act er and significance of the site.

The Team was attracted to Option 1 because it held the best potential of meeting all the aims of the original and the current planning brief published by the Council and the agreed Conservation Philosophy for the site. This Option combines a minimal intervention approach with substantive public interpretat ion and education space. It includes flexible space in the Coal Store range for her it age interpretation with a cafe dining area; use fo r scho o ls and education classes on themes to be developed as part of a Heritage Lottery Bid; and the potential for local arts events to be st aged. Option 1 retains the defining open 19th century industrial char act er o f t he sit e and r espect s it s ar chaeological significance. The introduction of a disabled ramp and internal platform lift to achieve access to the Coal Store range and upper floor in the east Boiler House is considered acceptable within the context of the Conservation Philosophy, as is the introduction of partial mezzanine floor within the east boiler house which maintains open views of the roof structure. Heritage of London Trust are prepared to relocate their existing offices to the first floor of the main Engine House assisting with security and management, and helping to attract heritage groups to events and meetings at the centre. Consultation with Islington Planning Department has been undertaken o ver a po ssi ble Rest aur ant /Dining use in t he Coal St or e r ange.

As part of the Options Study a Report by Heritage Interpretation Specialists CCN was undertaken to investigate how the themes for interpretation could be developed. It was agreed that following the Report, further work was required to develop a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund as recommended in the Report.

The conclusion was that Option 1 represented the basis of a sustainable approach to meeting the requirements of the Planning Briefs (1991 and 1999) and should be taken forwards to full planning application stage.

5.4 Repair Works:

Due to limited access, the design team has worked with desktop information comprising extensive photographic evidence, documentary evidence from planning records held at the local authority, records of the historical development of the site, especially the Survey of London. From these sources we are able to summarise the condition of the buildings as follows:

The W ind Pump Base This circular tapering red brick building with a conical roof is all that survives of a Wind Pump built to pump water to an upper pond in 1707-8 but abandoned in 1720. It was cut down in 1770 and further reduced in the mid-19c. The building has provided a storage facility ever since. Photographic evidence suggest the building retains most of the original walls and 19th century roof. Inside there appears to be an earth floor with brick supports for a metal working lathe. metal working hearth.

16

The Engine House and Coal H ouse John Sm eat o n ’s Engine House built under the direction of Robert Mylne in 1768 was much altered and expanded by Robert Mylne to meet the changing demands of steam pump technology until the current plan form was adopted and the associated Coal House range extended to the east by W illiam Mylne in 1849. An attractive cast iron dog-leg st air case pr oviding ver t ical access in t he Engine H ouse dat es fr o m t his last phase. The Engine House was partially re-roofed in slate at the start of the 20th century and some windows replaced in wrought iron. A concrete floor was inserted c.1957 with the introduction of electricity. The Coal House was used as a Garage and then to house generators in the 20th cent ur y and st ill r et ains a lar ge inspection pit. Both buildings have painted brick walls and original diagonal sarking boarding. The rooflights in the east Boiler House have been removed but original roof lights appear to survive on the south Boiler H ouse and Coal St o r e r ange. Original light wrought iron trusses survive in both Boiler H o uses and the Coal Store range. The ends of substantial cast iron beams survive in the west Engine House which may have supported cisterns or condensation t anks.

There have been many modifications in the lat e 20 th century to the north elevations of the Coal House range including the introduction of roller and sliding shutter doors and concrete lintols. The south elevation of the Coal House range has been much altered. The early adaptation of the south arcade to create blind brick ar ches asso ciated with the construction of a lean-to roof survives.. Two of the bays contain smaller arched windows inserted in the 20th century, the remaining having been bricked up. The Engine House complex has been stripped of all historic pumping equipment.

W orkshop Range The yellow stock brick W orkshop range was developed in the late 19th century and has been partially rebuilt in the 20th century. A slate roof is supported off an exposed 19th century timber trussed roof. The elevations are much altered and repaired in recent years. Most windows have concrete lintols. There are concrete floors. The buildings appear unplastered internally and have been in use for Storage in recent years.

The Site A small ar ea of worn cobblestones survives to the north of the Coal Store range, the majority of stones having been lifted and replaced in concrete in the last 30 years. There are modern railings dividing the space to the south of the Coal Store r ange and Palisade fencing forms a boundary with Thames W ater’s Ring Main Compound to the south of the Amwell Street entrance. A small fenced-off public viewing ar ea wit h int er pr et at ion boar ds accessed during controlled hours only has been created at the east end of the site and is accessed fr o m Myddlet on Passage.

5.4 Sustainability:

The following key elements will be included within the design and development.

. The studio tea points are to include high rating white goods, including low energy light fittings.

. The studio toilets will include water saving devices, such as spr ay t aps and low-flush toilets.

. The site will be an integrated part of the region, with easy access to public transport, employment opportunities, and community facilities.

. Where practicable, construction materials will be recycled and selected from renewable sources

17

6 A CCESS ST A T EMEN T :

6.1 Purpose of the Access Statement:

The purpose of the Statement is to ensure that appropriate standards for accessibility and inclusive design, and the aims of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Disability and the Equality Act 2010 are met.. The Statement confines itself to issues of relevance to Planning stage only.

In terms of the DDA there is a presumption that by complying with the statutory building requirements at the time a building is constructed, then these provide the basic level for the provision of reasonable access. If any of the existing buildings have features that are unaffected by this project and meet Part M 1999 regulatory standards then they may remain, without the need for changes in response to further emerging standards, for a period of 10 year s.

6.2 Methodology:

This statement uses the ‘sequential journey’ method of analysis i.e. examining the physical obstacles faced by disabled people arriving at the location, accessing the proposed building facilities and then leaving. The meaning of disabled is the definition that is stated within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

6.3 Design Standards:

Where applicable, the following design standards have been followed and will be applied as part of the detailed design:

. Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Department of Environment; . Disability and the Equality Act 2010 . London Borough of Islington Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Standards Guidelines, June 2000 (Updated August 2002) which sets out the required standards for access for people with disabilities. . Approved Document M (2004); . British Standard BS 8300: Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of . British Standard BS 5588 Part 8: Means of escape for disabled people; . CAE Designing for Accessibility (2004); . The London Plan, GLA (2011); Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment, in particular policies 7.2, 7.1 and 3.1

The principal aims are to ensure that the relevant standards have been intelligently applied in relation to sustainability in respect of access for all.

6.4 Project Description:

The project consists of the repair and conversion of the Grade 2 Listed Engine House, east Boiler House, Coal Store range and non-Listed northern W orkshop r ange pr o viding st udio accommodat ion, flexible her it age display, educat ion, meet ing space and a cafe and associated repair works to the site.

18

6.5 Access context and Site Constraints:

The site is located in a back land location to the rear of Charles Allen House, 28 Amwell Street. The site is to the northeast of Amwell Street, close to the junction of Amwell Street with River Street, and is southwest of Myddelton Passage. Pedestrian access is from Amwell Street but the proposals envisage opening up a further access during controlled hours via an existing gate leading onto Myddelton Passage.

The ground is substantially flat but rises to the north of the Engine House and Coal Store range providing an obstacle to wheelchair movements from the south accessing the Coal Store or east Boiler House.

6.6 Car Par king:

Car par king is accessed from an exist ing cr o sso ver in Amwell Street Upon entering the site access to car parking for vehicles is on the north boundary. Further access has been allowed for ant icipat ing oper at ional r equir ement s by Thames W at er st aff. A t ot al of 6 car par king spaces ar e provided, 2 of which will be designated for disabled drop off. enabling easy access for all staff and visitors.

6.7 Pedest r ian A ccess:

The historic Grade 2 Listed Engine house is accessed via an existing staircase tower on the west side. The Coal Store and east Boiler Houses are accessed via a wheelchair ramp on the south side. Pedestrian movement is clearly defined by handrails and shared road surfaces reinforcing pedestrian legibility.

6.8 Refuse Storage Access:

W e have held discussio ns o ver o ur proposals with Carol Ticknell-Smith in waste services and these revised proposals reflect her comments. Space for general storage and recycled waste is provided by means of a 2nr. 1100 litre W heelie-bin refuse containers located adjacent to the west gable of the W orkshop range. . This is within 12 meters of a point adjacent to the Engine House which the Councils’ refuse vehicle can reach from the Amwell Street entrance. A swept path analysis is shown on the site plan.

6.9 H ar d Landscape D esign

The surface design of the common landscaped areas will be granite setts. Paths will have a hard and firm surfaces constructed to ensur e t her e is smo o t h passage fo r wheelchair users, people with buggies, walking aids, etc. Street furniture, planting and lighting are minimised or combined where possible to prevent clutter and located so as not to cause obstruction. The levels in the site have been designed to be shallower than 1:20 to minimise the requirement for ramps or steps. W here these are unavoidable, they are designed easily negotiable (designed for the ambulant disabled) and to be an integral part of the landscape design. Any signage wit hin the building and immediate area will be clear and legible and easily distinguishable from their surroundings and will have a strong contrast between the text and backgr ound.

6.10 Building Approach:

There will be step free access into the buildings except in the case of the Engine House which is a ‘non-exclusive’ space as alternative accessible Studios exist for disabled staff. Access to the building entry points are shown in the Planning Application drawings. Any paths within or surrounding the proposed development will have a non slip surface and be free of obstacles and where possible contrasting colours will be used to assist partially sighted people. The external door(s) will allow easy wheelchair access, they will be light weight and easy to open. The main entrance doors will have a clear opening of at least 800mm. The doors will be power assist ed if necessar y.

19

6.11 Studios, Café , Heritage Display and Education Areas Design:

Each of the Studios (except the ‘non-exclusive’ Engine House at first floor), t he Café , H er it age D isplay and Educat ion Ar eas ar e designed for full disabled access in order to meet the demands of future wheelchair-bo und st aff and visit o r s.

In par t icular ;

. Disabled drop off car parking is within 30 meters of access points . The approach to all entrances should be level or gently sloping; . All entrances are illuminated and have level access over the threshold. . Co mmunal st air s pr o vide easy access; . The width of doorways and corridors allows enough space to arrive and turn with ease to close the door; . There are toilets throughout which are wheelchair accessible; . The design incorporates provision of a platform lift to give access to Studio 3 at first floor. . W here possible, glazing to windows should be no higher than 800mm and windows easy to operate; . All switches, sockets and controls, should be a height that is useable by all.

The design provides for doors to be capable of being opened and closed by wheelchair users and people with limited strength. Flights for internal stairs will not contain more than 12 risers (except access to the ‘non-exclusive’ first floor Engine House), with the rise of each step being between 150 – 170mm. Goings will be not less than 250mm.

20

7.0 C O N C LU SI O N S:

This Planning, Heritage and Access Statement has reviewed the historical and townscape context, assessed public transport accessibility, local facilities and summarised the planning context. W e have brought into focus the historical and townscape significance. The New River Head site in its own right makes an important contribution to the local heritage as well as being of National and International significance for its place in the development of London since 1613. The surviving buildings and site at the New River Head hold an important group and technological value for their association with a major civil engineering achievement of the 17th century - the supply of fresh water to London; an important associational value with the expansion of Islington into a London suburb; associational values with the 18th century engineer John Smeaton (1724-92) and architect/ engineer Robert Mylne (1733-1811), celebrated founders of the Society of Civil Engineers; and architectural significance for their group value with the uniform architectural development of Islington between 1810 and 1853 led by W illiam Mylne.

Among the development constraints identified are the limited public consciousness of this significant heritage asset in London’s historical development; lack of opportunities for through routes and attractions to draw the public into the site; difficulties in achieving DDA compliant access t o t he Engine House first floor and the problems experienced for the public in deciphering the hi st o r ic layout and functional elements such as the round ponds, the original watercourse and the base of the former short-lived W ind Pump, difficulties exacerbated by lo ss o f a key architectural feature of the 19th century industrial complex, W.C. Mylne’s panelled brick chimney destroyed in 1954. Restoration of the chimney to repair the townscape significance and raise public awareness of the site from surrounding streets is shown indicatively for illustration purposes only on the application drawings and does not form part of this planning application.

The principles of design which follow on from our Options Study looked at a range of Options for re-use of the site. Option 2 (the current Turnhold verbal offer) was considered unviable as no DDA compliant access would be possible to the upper floor of the Engine house rendering the space impossible to access by members of the public; upper floor access to the Engine House would be isolated from view via a w est door, unseen from either the Amwell Street or Myddelton Passage sit e entry points; and t he gr ound floor space available in the W ind Pump base would be inadequate for any meaningful heritage display, community or educat ion space and the associated sanitation and disabled facilities required.

Option 4, involving the introduction of residential uses in the modern, non-Listed W orkshop range and dividing up historic cobblestone paved areas to create pr ivat e gar dens w as not considered satisfactory because it involved the partial loss of the open 19th century industrial character of the site, ser io usly detracting from it s gr oup value. There were also potential conflicts as residential use, once established on the site, would be irreversible and the occupants would seek to restrict access and use of the yard and buildings on environmental grounds. It was also considered the most intrusive of the options as far as the works which would be required to the heritage fabric are concerned. Option 3 was not seen to offer a significant improvement in viability or a reduced impact on the heritage over Option 1. Although values were higher through increased commercial letting, build costs were also raised due to the higher specification required for office use, and t hi s Option 3 had a gr eat er impact on the industrial character and significance of the site through works such as dry lining of walls and underpinning.

The Team concluded that Option 1 held the best potential of meeting all the aims of the original planning brief and the agreed Conservation Philosophy for the site. This Option combines a minimal intervention approach with substantive public interpretation and education space, while retaining the defining open 19th century indust r ial char act er and significance of the site. It includes flexible space in the Coal Store range for heritage interpretation with a cafe dining area; use for schools and education classes on themes to be developed as part of a Heritage Lottery Bid; and t he potential for local arts events t o be st aged. H er it age of Londo n Tr ust ar e prepared to relocate their existing offices to the first floor of the main Engine House assisting with security and management , and helping t o at t r act her it age gr oups to events and meetings at the centre. The final design has been underpinned by an analysis of the repairs required although this has been largely a desktop exercise due to limitations on site access.

21

The design solution has been interrogated in an Access Statement adopting the ‘sequential journey’ method of analysis i.e. examining the physical obstacles faced by disabled people arriving at the location, accessing the proposed building facilities and then leaving. The scheme provides a suitable accessible built environment for st aff and visit o r s.

W e believe this Planning, Heritage and Access Statement together with the attached Drawings demonstrate a high quality conservat ion r epair and a suit able, high quality development proposal within the site. These proposals offer the best chance of securing a sustainable future for the New River Head site and achieving the public aims correctly identified and clearly set out in Islington Council’s current Planning Brief in September 2013 to secure heritage/community use for the remaining buildings on this key site after decades of dereliction.

22