Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal By

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPEAL BY STARBONES LTD

LAND AT CHISWICK ROUNDABOUT, GREAT WEST ROAD, CHISWICK, LONDON W4

APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 & APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208

PROOF OF EVIDENCE: ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW WORLD HERITAGE SITE

Andrew Croft BA MA

On behalf of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

May 2018

CONTENTS

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...... 3

2.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 5

3.0 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ...... 9

4.0 SETTING AND THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ...... 45

5.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW WORLD HERITAGE SITE ...... 53

6.0 OTHER AFFECTED ASSETS WITHIN THE WHS ...... 84

7.0 REVIEW OF THVIA AND THVIA ADDENDUM...... 107

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 113

Appendices

A EXTRACTS FROM 2014 WHS MANAGEMENT PLAN B EXTRACTS FROM 2002 WHS CONSERVATION PLAN C SUPPORTING MATERIAL D ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS E HISTORIC ILLUSTRATIONS, MAPS AND PLANS F 2014 PERIODIC REPORT G EXTRACTS FROM 2014 WHS MANAGEMENT PLAN RELATING TO SETTING H EXTRACTS FROM LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND LOCAL PLANS I LAND BETWEEN CITY FARM AND COTSWOLD VIEW, BATH: APPEAL DECISION J LAND SOUTH OF ST GEORGE’S ROAD, HAYLE: APPEAL DECISION K ELIZABETH HOUSE, 39 YORK ROAD, LONDON: APPEAL DECISION L LAND OFF NORTH AVENUE, DARLEY ABBEY: APPEAL DECISION

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1.1 My name is Andrew Croft. I am a Director at Chris Blandford Associates, an independent environmental, heritage and landscape consultancy. I was formerly a Technical Director at Atkins Ltd, a firm of multi- disciplinary engineering and environmental consultants.

1.1.2 I am a professional heritage consultant with a BA in Archaeology and Prehistory and a MA in Landscape Archaeology, both from the University of Sheffield. I have over 20 years’ experience in heritage management and environmental planning.

1.1.3 I have considerable experience in relation to the management of World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in the UK and overseas. I have supported sites at all stages in their development from initial feasibility, through nomination and onto management planning and development control. I have also supported the development of destination and tourism masterplans for a number of WHSs; as well as pioneering the development of Capacity Studies, Setting Studies and adopted Supplementary Planning Documents for WHSs in the UK. I have prepared legally binding Decrees for a WHS in Oman and engaged with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and supported various nomination and advisory missions.

1.1.4 Relevant projects include preparing Management Plans for the Liverpool WHS, Durham Castle and Cathedral WHS, Giants Causeway WHS and Bahla Fort WHS (Oman); development of a capacity and setting study for the Saltaire WHS; a transport strategy for the Avebury WHS; a setting study for the Orkney WHS; a regeneration strategy for part of the Derwent Valley Mills WHS; and a full Supplementary Planning document for the Liverpool WHS. I have also developed a number of strategies for sustainable tourism projects at WHSs including the Hadrian’s Wall WHS, Al Zubarrah (Qatar) WHS and Orkney WHS. I am currently advising Highways England on the proposed A303 scheme through the Stonehenge WHS.

1.1.5 Notably, I played a key role in the successful Nomination of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS in 2002 / 2003, including defining the significance of the Site, its boundaries and its Buffer Zone. I led the preparation of the Nomination Document, WHS Management Plan and full Conservation Plan for the Site. Key elements of the 2002/3 Management Plan were carried forward into the 2014 Management Plan.

1.1.6 I have developed numerous conservation plans, management plans and strategies for heritage sites in the UK. I have also prepared conservation plans and studies for archaeological complexes, historic buildings and historic landscapes; as well as Historic Landscape

May 2018 3 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Characterisation studies. Clients have included English Heritage, Historic England, Historic Scotland, Cadw, the National Trust, numerous councils and other charities and organisations.

1.1.7 I have prepared detailed analyses of the setting of important heritage sites to inform their conservation and long-term planning decisions and strategies. This has included work for the Orkney WHS, Belton House and Gardens, Hardwick Hall and the Thornborough Henges. My work for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS, Saltaire WHS, Durham WHS and Liverpool WHS also involved extensive analysis of setting and approaches to the management of change within that setting.

1.1.8 I have broad experience in the heritage and environmental planning sector. This includes preparation of a large number of Environmental Statements (ES) for schemes across the UK, including for wind energy developments, housing developments, road projects, rail schemes, defence projects and flood alleviation works. This work has been undertaken for a range of private and public sector clients.

1.1.9 I have served as an expert witness at inquiries in relation to the impact of wind energy schemes, highways and housing developments on the setting, character and fabric of the historic environment.

1.1.10 I am familiar with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS and its setting. I have visited the WHS and its environs on a number of occasions in preparing for this inquiry and in preparation of the WHS Nomination and Management Plan. Additionally, I have been to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as a visitor on a number of occasions.

1.1.11 My evidence provides my professional views on the potential impact of the proposed development on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS. My evidence identifies all matters which I consider to be relevant and I have drawn the Inquiry’s attention to such matters that could affect perceptions of the validity of my professional views. The contents of my evidence are correct to the best of my knowledge and the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.

May 2018 4 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

2.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 Development Proposals

2.1.1 The appeal relates to two applications:

Planning application (Appeal ref. APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 - LPA ref. 00505/EY/P18) “Redevelopment of site to provide a mixed-use building of one part ground plus 31 storeys and one part ground plus 24 storeys, comprising 327 residential units (Use Class C3), office (Use Class B1) and retail/restaurant uses (Use Class A1-A3), basement car and bicycle parking, resident amenities and hard and soft landscaping with all necessary ancillary and enabling works”

Advertisement consent application (Appeal ref. & APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208 – LPA ref. 00505/EY/AD22) “Erection of three internally illuminated fascia signs to proposed building”

2.1.2 My evidence relates to Appeal ref. APP/F5540/W/17/3180962.

2.1.3 The scheme is described in the appellant’s Design and Access Statement (CDA.01 + CDA.02) and accompanying application drawings (CDA.17).

2.2 Determination of Application and RGBK’s Objection

2.2.1 Both applications were refused by the Local Planning Authority on the 9th of February 2017. Five reasons for refusal were given, the first of which is relevant to my evidence:

“1. The development, by virtue of its location, scale and design, would cause harm, including substantial harm to a range of designated heritage assets including Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, a Grade II* listed registered park, listed buildings of all grades, locally listed buildings and conservation areas through harm to their settings. It has not been demonstrated that the substantial harm would be necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss or that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm caused. The development is contrary to policies 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology), 7.10 (World Heritage Sites), 7.7 (Location and design of tall and large buildings) and 7.4 (Local character) of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011), policies CC4 (Heritage), CC3 (Tall buildings) and GB1 (Greenbelt and Metropolitan Open Land) of the Hounslow Local Plan (2015) and the aims and objectives of the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)”

May 2018 5 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

2.2.2 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBGK; the organisation) objected to the development in February 2016 (see letter CDE.07). This stated that:

“We wish to object to this application due to the substantial harm the proposed building will cause to attributes contributing to Kew’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as set out in our World Heritage Site Management Plan, namely:

i) Kew’s rich and diverse historic cultural landscape, and ii) Kew’s iconic architectural legacy, in particular Kew Palace and the Orangery.

We also object to harm the proposed building would cause to the setting of the World Heritage Site, particularly views from Kew Green.”

2.2.3 RBGK also provided a concise report in December 2016 responding to the appellant’s amended Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) (CDE.07). This report is considered further in Section 7 of this proof of evidence.

2.2.4 Historic England, as the Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment has objected to the scheme, partly on the basis of its impact on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS. Additionally, the local planning authority has also refused the scheme citing the impact on the setting and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS in its reason for refusal.

2.2.5 In a letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Support (DCMS) dated 16th April 2018 (see Appendix C), Mechtild Rossler, the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris, confirmed their support for the refusal of the scheme, stating that “I wish to welcome the decision to refuse the planning permission due to the impact on the setting of the World Heritage property, which favoured the conservation of designated heritage assets and the property’s Outstanding Universal Value. I note that the impact of the proposal on the property’s heritage values was measured carefully, and that it took into consideration the adverse effect of the proposal to the World Heritage property and to the significance of the Kew Green.”

2.2.6 Other parties that have objected to the proposed development on heritage grounds include Historic Royal Palaces, the London Parks and Gardens Trust and the Garden Trust, the Georgian Group, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

May 2018 6 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

2.3 Scope of Evidence

2.3.1 As set out in the Reasons for Refusal and RBGK’s Statement of Case, the proposed development is in conflict with local, London-wide and national historic environment policy due to its impact on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS and key listed buildings within it.

2.3.2 My evidence relates to the impact of the proposed development on setting and OUV the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS and the setting and significance of a number of listed buildings within it that contribute to its OUV. My evidence demonstrates that in combination with other existing development the proposed development would cause significant harm to the setting and OUV of the WHS, resulting in it reaching a tipping point from Less than Substantial Harm to Substantial Harm.

2.3.3 My evidence also demonstrates that the proposed development would cause very significant harm to the setting and significance of the Grade I listed Orangery and lesser harm to the setting and significance of Kew Palace (Grade I and Scheduled Monument), Temple of Aeolus (Grade II), Palm House (Grade I), Cambridge Cottage (Grade II). As such, it would be in conflict with national and local planning policy.

2.4 Structure of Evidence

2.4.1 To support consideration of the issues I have structured my evidence as follows:

 Section 3.0 Legislative and Planning Policy Context provides information on the policy and legislative context for consideration of historic environment issues;.  Section 4.0 Setting and the Assessment of Impact provides a concise discussion of the concepts of setting, significance and impact in relation to policy and sets out how I have addressed these matters in considering the proposed scheme.  Section 5.0 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site provides an overview of the WHS, its OUV and its historic development; describes the setting of the WHS and identifies how it contributes to the significance and OUV of the WHS; highlights the current detractors and inappropriate development in its setting; and describes the impact of the proposed development on the setting and OUV of the WHS.  Section 6.0 Other affected assets in the WHS identifies and describes a number of affected assets within the WHS, describes their settings and how this contributes to their significance, highlights the current detractors and inappropriate development in their setting and assesses the impact of proposed development on their setting and significance.

May 2018 7 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Section 7.0 Review of THVIA and Addendum provides a brief review of the findings of the THVIA (CDA.11) and THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) in relation to impacts on the RBGK WHS and other assets discussed in my evidence.  Section 8.0 Conclusions

2.5 Illustrative Photographs

2.5.1 Appendix D of my evidence contains a number of illustrative photographs which support points I make in connection with the setting of the WHS and other assets and the impact of the proposed development on that setting. The photographs are purely illustrative. They are not verified images.

2.5.2 In some of the photographs I have highlighted the approximate location of the proposed development through reference to a large crane currently in operation on a neighbouring development site. The crane is shorter than the proposed development and lies c. 110m southwest of the edge of the proposed development site. This is intended as a guide only.

2.6 Accurate Visual Representations

2.6.1 At various places in my evidence I make reference to accurate visual representations (AVRs) prepared by Mr Spence and included in Appendix 4 of his evidence. These additional AVRs were commissioned by the London Borough of Hounslow and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I was involved in identifying viewpoints for the AVRs within the WHS.

May 2018 8 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.0 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Relevant Conventions, Acts, Policies and Guidance

3.1.1 The following Conventions, Acts, policies and related guidance documents are considered relevant to the application in relation to consideration of the historic environment:

 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972)  Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO (July 2017)  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)  National Planning Policy Framework (2012)  National Planning Practice Guidance (online resource – 2018)  London Plan (2017 - consolidated with alterations since 2011)  Hounslow plan (2015-2030)  London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings, SPG (2012)  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan (2014)  Historic England, Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings (2015)  Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition – Dec. 2017)

3.2 Summary of Considerations

3.2.1 The inscription of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew onto the World Heritage List places a significant obligation on the UK Government, under the terms of the 1972 Convention, to do all that it can, and to the utmost of its resources, to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS. This obligation includes the management of change outside of the site that may affect its OUV. The effective implementation of legislation and national, London-wide and local planning policy provides the primary mechanism for meeting these obligations.

3.2.2 A failure to provide effective management and protection can lead to a WHS being placed on the In-Danger list and potentially de-listed. Other urban properties threatened by development outside of their boundaries are currently on the In-Danger list and consequently threatened with de-listing – these include Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City WHS (UK) and the Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria). At Liverpool the primary issue relates to proposals for tall buildings in the setting of the WHS which may affect the backdrop of views of key buildings in the WHS. At Vienna tall buildings and urban development in and around the WHS are also the key

May 2018 9 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

reason for inclusion on the In-Danger List. It is also of note that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has expressed concern about urban planning and tall building decisions in the setting of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey WHS and is actively monitoring development around that site. This concern is the first step in placing a property on the In- Danger List.

3.2.3 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBA 1990) states that “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

3.2.4 National Planning Policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a key starting point for consideration of policy. Section 12 provides clear guidance for planning authorities on the determination of applications affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets. Paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 provide guidance on the policy test and weighting that should be given to situations where Less than Substantial and Substantial Harm to an asset’s significance would occur.

3.2.5 Paragraph 132 requires the decision maker to place “great weight” on the conservation of an asset’s significance and greater weight still for more important assets such as WH Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings and Grade I and II* Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (all designations that apply to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and buildings within it). This test reflects the requirement in s.66 of the LBA 1990 for a decision maker to have special regard in relation to listed buildings.

3.2.6 In terms of harm, paragraph 132 states that “Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting”. The policy test in 132 indicates that Substantial Harm should be exceptional or wholly exceptional depending on the importance of assets.

3.2.7 Paragraph 132 also makes it clear that “any harm or loss [to the significance of heritage assets] should require clear and convincing justification”. This includes less than substantial harm. Given the great weight that must be given to the conservation of assets of the highest significance, any harm on these forms of assets will require very convincing justification.

3.2.8 Paragraph 133, indicates that in cases involving Total Loss or Substantial Harm, consent should be refused unless the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits, this is a high policy test.

May 2018 10 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.2.9 Paragraph 134 sets out that in terms of Less than Substantial Harm there is a need to weigh this against the public benefits of a development; but this must be done in the context of the guidance in Paragraph 132 to give great weight to the conservation of an asset and even greater weight to very important assets e.g. World Heritage Sites, Grade I listed Registered Parks and Gardens and Grade I listed buildings.

3.2.10 In relation to design matters, Paragraph 56 sets out the Government’s commitment to good design, and this is supported by further guidance in paragraphs 61, 63, 64 and 65. While not diluting the importance the government places on good design, these paragraphs make it clear that decisions relating to new development need to take into account the integration of the development into the historic environment and the impact of the development on the setting of designated heritage assets and that the architectural quality of a building cannot automatically overrule those considerations. In essence, good design cannot be used to outweigh impacts on the setting of heritage assets and it is the “economic, social and environmental benefits” of a development that need to be weighed against its harms – not the quality of its design.

3.2.11 The Government has recently published a revised consultation draft of the NPPF. The draft document has been revised (paragraph 182) to clarify that World Heritage Sites are recognised internationally for their OUV, and that this forms part of their significance and should be taken into account in considering development proposals. It has also been revised at paragraph 189 to clarify that when considering the impact of a proposed development on a designated heritage asset, decision-makers should give great weight to the asset’s conservation irrespective of whether the potential harm to its significance amounts to ‘Less Than Substantial Harm’ or ‘Substantial Harm or Total Loss’ of significance.

3.2.12 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) contains guidance to support the implementation of the NPPF. Relevant guidance is in the “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” section and the “Design” section.

3.2.13 Paragraph 26 in “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” sets out how World Heritage Sites are protected and managed in England. It indicates that “England protects its World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zones or equivalent, through the statutory designation process and through the planning system. The Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage Site, set out in a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, indicates its importance as a heritage asset of the highest significance…”

3.2.14 Paragraph 32 states that “When developing Local Plan policies to protect and enhance World Heritage Sites and their Outstanding Universal Value, local planning authorities, should aim to satisfy the following principles:

May 2018 11 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 protecting the World Heritage Site and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate development  striking a balance between the needs of conservation, biodiversity, access, the interests of the local community, the public benefits of a development and the sustainable economic use of the World Heritage Site in its setting, including any buffer zone  protecting a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect  enhancing the World Heritage Site and its setting where appropriate and possible through positive management  protecting the World Heritage Site from climate change but ensuring that mitigation and adaptation is not at the expense of integrity or authenticity

3.2.15 These principles highlight the importance of the setting of WHSs and the need to manage cumulative change. Importantly the NPPG goes on to state that “Planning authorities need to take these principles and the resultant policies into account when making decisions.” (Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 2a-032-20140306).

3.2.16 The London Plan sets out in Policy 7.10: World heritage sites, that: "Development in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zones, should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance their authenticity, integrity and significance and Outstanding Universal Value" and goes on to state that "Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans". This reflects policy in the NPPF.

3.2.17 The London Plan is supported by the “London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings” SPG (2012) (the SPG). This provides a clear methodology for assessing impacts, which reflects Historic England guidance. Notably, the SPG highlights the importance of assessing cumulative impacts. As stated in Paragraph 5.31 [my highlights] “The cumulative effect of separate impacts should also be considered. These are impacts that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or potential developments with planning permission that cumulatively with the proposed development can have a significant impact on the setting of a World Heritage Site. The potential cumulative impact of the proposed changes should therefore be assessed to consider whether proposed developments will increase the likelihood of other similar developments occurring and any consequences of that. There should also be recognition that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily represent acceptability of impacts on setting; as the cumulative effect is different for each new proposal and there may be

May 2018 12 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

a tipping–point beyond which further development would result in substantial harm to the OUV, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site.” This accumulation of harm is an important consideration for this appeal.

3.2.18 Local Plan policies CC3 and CC4 are of note. CC3 (Tall Buildings) states that Tall buildings should “‘Be carefully designed and sensitively placed so as not to have a significant adverse impact on the setting of, views from and between heritage assets including Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, Syon Park and the Thames foreshore landscape...” and that they should that “Not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of, or views from heritage assets including Gunnersbury Park, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, Syon Park and Osterley Park”.

3.2.19 CC4 (Heritage) states that all developments should “Conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its setting in a manner appropriate to its significance” and that developments should “Conserve and enhance the internationally recognised Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its setting, including views to and from the site”.

3.2.20 The primary purpose of the 2014 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan is to set out a framework for the management of the WHS to ensure the conservation of its OUV and continued sustainable use. Policy 1d of the Plan states that “Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its Outstanding Universal Value or its setting should not be permitted.”

3.2.21 Policy 3h states that “The visual integrity of the WHS should be improved by the removal or screening of existing inappropriate structures” and that:

 “In medium / long term seek opportunities to promote a reduction in the impact of the visually intrusive Brentford High rise.  Seek opportunities to regenerate public realm of Brentford waterfront  Monitor/ comment upon various emerging development proposals within Brentford in the Buffer Zone”

3.2.22 Appendix G of my evidence provides a summary of relevant references to “setting” in the 2014 WHS Management Plan and highlights the considerable attention that has been paid to the issue.

3.2.23 Historic England’s Setting of Heritage Assets, Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (2017) (the HE Setting Guidance) defines setting and explains how it can contribute to the significance

May 2018 13 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

of a historic asset. It sets out the principles for assessing the impact of development within the settings of historic assets. It states that:

Cumulative change Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF policies consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset. Negative change could include severing the last link between an asset and its original setting; positive change could include the restoration of a building’s original designed landscape or the removal of structures impairing key views of it (see also paragraph 40 for screening of intrusive developments).

3.3 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972)

3.3.1 The inscription of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as a World Heritage Site in 2003 places international obligations on the UK Government under the terms of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and its supporting Operational Guidelines.

3.3.2 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) (henceforth known as “the Convention”) was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1984. Ratification places certain obligations on the UK Government including:

Article 4 Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain.

Article 5 To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State Party to this Convention shall endeavor, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country:

May 2018 14 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

(a) to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes; (b) to set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions; (c) to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage; (d) to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage; and (e) to foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage and to encourage scientific research in this field.

Article 6 1. Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate. 2. The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 11 if the States on whose territory it is situated so request. 3. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 situated on the territory of other States Parties to this Convention.

3.3.3 The UK Government meets these obligations through the relevant national planning systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and the funding of heritage services and research in the individual nations of the UK.

3.3.4 The convention also established an Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, called "the World Heritage Committee" (see Article 8). This committee is responsible for the establishment and management of a list of places that are considered to be of outstanding universal value, called the World Heritage List. The committee also maintains the “World Heritage in Danger” list,

May 2018 15 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

this, as the name implies, identifies World Heritage Sites that are facing significant threats to their outstanding universal value. The Committee also has the power to de-list a World Heritage Site should it determine that its Outstanding Universal Value has been degraded to a sufficient degree.

3.3.5 The Committee is supported by the World Heritage Centre, an executive body housed at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris. The Committee and Centre are advised by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (the Rome Centre), the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

3.4 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO (July 2017)

3.4.1 These guidelines support the implementation of the Convention by UNESCO and signatory state parties. The guidelines are periodically revised to reflect the decisions of the World Heritage Committee; the latest version (as of 15th May 2018) is dated July 2017.

3.4.2 The Operational Guidelines set out the procedures for:

 “the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger;  the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties;  the granting of International Assistance under the World Heritage Fund; and  the mobilization of national and international support in favor of the Convention.” (Paragraph 1)

3.4.3 In terms of broad principles paragraph 4 states that: “The cultural and natural heritage is among the priceless and irreplaceable assets, not only of each nation, but of humanity as a whole. The loss, through deterioration or disappearance, of any of these most prized assets constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples of the world. Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of “Outstanding Universal Value” and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them.”

3.4.4 The Operational Guidelines go on to indicate in Paragraphs 6 and 7 that:

“6. Since the adoption of the Convention in 1972, the international community has embraced the concept of "sustainable development". The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage are a significant contribution to sustainable development.

May 2018 16 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

7. The Convention aims at the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value.”

3.4.5 Paragraph 8 highlights the process for addressing world heritage sites (called properties in the Operational Guidelines) that are considered to be under threat “When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List is threatened by serious and specific dangers, the Committee considers placing it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. When the Outstanding Universal Value of the property which justified its inscription on the World Heritage List is destroyed, the Committee considers deleting the property from the World Heritage List.” There are currently 54 properties (out of 1,073 World Heritage Properties in total) on the In-Danger list. To date two properties have been de-listed: the Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany (delisted 2009) and Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, Oman (delisted 2007).

3.4.6 Paragraph 49 helpfully defines Outstanding Universal Value “Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole.”

3.4.7 Paragraph 52 reinforces the special attention that World Heritage Properties deserve stating that “The Convention is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most outstanding of these from an international viewpoint. It is not to be assumed that a property of national and/or regional importance will automatically be inscribed on the World Heritage List.”

3.4.8 Section II.F - Protection and management (Paragraphs 96 to 119 inc.) provides important guidance on how UNESCO expects state parties to protect World Heritage Properties.

3.4.9 Paragraph 96 reminds State Parties that “Protection and management of World Heritage properties should ensure that their Outstanding Universal Value, including the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription, are sustained or enhanced over time.”

3.4.10 Paragraph 98 goes on to state that “Legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the protection of the property from social, economic and other pressures or changes that might negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value, including the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. States Parties should also assure the full and effective implementation of such measures.” The ultimate responsibility for the safeguarding of Royal

May 2018 17 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS’s Outstanding Universal Value therefore lies with the UK Government.

3.4.11 Paragraphs 103 to 107 provide guidance on the definition of Buffer Zones around World Heritage Properties. Paragraphs 103 and 104 state that:

"103. Wherever necessary for the proper protection of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided.

104. For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms..."

3.4.12 Paragraphs 108 to 118 provide guidance on Management Systems. Paragraphs 108 and 109 state that:

"108. Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which must specify how the Outstanding Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.

109. The purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations."

3.4.13 Importantly for this appeal paragraph 112 provides guidance on effective management within and outside an inscribed property, it states that [my highlights]:

"112. Effective management involves a cycle of short, medium and long-term actions to protect, conserve and present the nominated property. An integrated approach to planning and management is essential to guide the evolution of properties over time and to ensure maintenance of all aspects of their Outstanding Universal Value. This approach goes beyond the property to include any buffer zone(s), as well as the broader setting. The broader setting, may relate to the property’s topography, natural and built environment, and other elements such as infrastructure, land use patterns, spatial organization, and visual relationships. It may also include related social and cultural practices, economic processes and other intangible

May 2018 18 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

dimensions of heritage such as perceptions and associations. Management of the broader setting is related to its role in supporting the Outstanding Universal Value."

3.4.14 This paragraph clearly indicates that the effective management of a World Heritage Property requires the management of change in its broader setting, including outside of any Buffer Zone.

3.5 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (CDH.01)

3.5.1 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. The Barnwell decision at the Court of Appeal1 (CDH.05) addressed this provision and made it clear that special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. In the Barnwell Manor decision, the Court held that the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting should not simply be given careful consideration but should be given "considerable importance and weight" when the decision-maker carries out the planning balance (Para 22 of Judgment). In essence, this statutory policy test must be given great weight when dealing with impacts on listed buildings and their settings. The judgment also indicates that where impacts on setting result in Less than Substantial Harm these still need to be given considerable weight. Less than Substantial Harm cannot be treated as a “…less than substantial objection to the granting of planning permission” (see Para 29 of Judgment).

3.5.2 The Act (as amended) states in Section 72 that “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”. The Barnwell decision makes it clear that the provisions “special regard” and “special attention” are in essence the same duty2.

1 Court of Appeal decision in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire DC, English Heritage, National Trust and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 137 2 Paragraph 16 of the judgement states “What was Parliament’s intention in imposing both the section 66 duty and the parallel duty under section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act to pay “special attention ….. to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of conservation areas? It is common ground that, despite the slight difference in wording, the nature of the duty is the same under both enactments”

May 2018 19 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.6 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979

3.6.1 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (AMAAA) provides the legislative framework for the protection of ancient monuments. All such monuments are considered to be of national importance.

3.6.2 Section 61 (7) defines a monument as:  “any building, structure or work, whether above or below the surface of the land, and any cave or excavation;  any site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or of any cave or excavation; and  any site comprising, or comprising the remains of, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or other movable structure or part thereof which neither constitutes nor forms part of any work which is a monument within paragraph (a) above;”

3.6.3 Under the terms of the Act it is an offence to undertake works that would result in the demolition of, destruction of, or any damage to a scheduled monument; or to undertake works for the purpose of removing or repairing a scheduled monument or any part of it or of making any alterations or additions to a scheduled monument; or to undertake flooding or tipping operations on land in, on or under which there is a scheduled monument; unless Scheduled Monument Consent has been granted.

3.6.4 The Act makes no legal provision in relation to the setting of Scheduled Monuments.

3.7 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (the NPPF) (CDC.01)

7. Requiring good design

3.7.1 As set out in paragraph 56 “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

3.7.2 Paragraphs 61, 63, 64 and 65 build on this and state that:

“61. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

May 2018 20 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

63. In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.

64. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

65. Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).”

3.7.3 While not diluting the importance the government places on good design, these paragraphs make it clear that decisions relating to new development need to take into account the integration of the development into the historic environment and the impact of the development on the setting of designated heritage assets and that the architectural quality of a building cannot automatically overrule those considerations. In essence, good design cannot be used to outweigh impacts on the setting of heritage assets and it is the “economic, social and environmental benefits” of a development that need to be weighed against its harms – not the quality of its design.

Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

3.7.4 Section 12 provides clear guidance for planning authorities on the determination of applications affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets. It states that:

“128. In 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 on their significance…”

“129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

May 2018 21 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

131. 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 conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

3.7.5 The NPPF provides clear guidance in paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 on the policy test and weighting that should be given to situations where Less than Substantial and Substantial Harm would occur:

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

3.7.6 Paragraph 132 clearly requires the decision maker to place “great weight” on the conservation of an asset’s significance and greater weight still for more important assets such as WH Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings and Grade I and II* Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (all designations that apply to Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS and buildings within it). This test reflects the requirement for a decision maker to have special regard (see above) in relation to listed buildings. In terms of harm, the policy test clearly indicates that Substantial Harm should be exceptional or wholly exceptional depending on the importance of assets.

3.7.7 Paragraph 132 also makes it clear that “any harm or loss [to the significance of heritage assets] should require clear and convincing justification”. This includes less than substantial harm. Given the great weight that must be given to the conservation of assets of the highest significance, any harm on these forms of assets will require very convincing justification.

May 2018 22 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

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

3.7.8 In cases of Total Loss or Substantial Harm it is clear that consent should be refused unless the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits, this is a high policy test.

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

3.7.9 In terms of Less than Substantial Harm there is a need to weigh this against the public benefits of a development; but this must be done in the context of the guidance in Paragraph 132 to give great weight to the conservation of an asset and even greater weight to very important assets.

NPPF - Consultation Draft (CDC.03)

3.7.10 The Government has recently published a revised consultation draft of the NPPF. The draft document has been revised (paragraph 182) to clarify that World Heritage Sites are recognised internationally for their Outstanding Universal Value, and that this forms part of their significance and should be taken into account in considering development proposals. It has also been revised at paragraph 189 to clarify that when considering the impact of a proposed development on a designated heritage asset, decision-makers should give great weight to the asset’s conservation irrespective of whether the potential harm to its significance amounts to ‘less than substantial harm’ or ‘substantial harm or total loss’ of significance.

May 2018 23 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.8 National Planning Practice Guidance (online resource – 2018) (the NPPG)

3.8.1 NPPG contains guidance to support the implementation of the NPPF. Relevant guidance can be found in the Conserving and enhancing the historic environment section and Design section of NPPG.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3.8.2 Paragraph 001 reminds us that “Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development... The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the ‘Core Planning Principles’ (paragraph 17 bullet 10 [of the NPPF]) that underpin the planning system…” (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 18a-001-20140306)

3.8.3 Paragraph 003 indicates that “The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is a core planning principle. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and effective conservation delivers wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.” and that “Where changes are proposed, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear framework for both plan-making and decision-taking to ensure that heritage assets are conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner that is consistent with their significance and thereby achieving sustainable development.” (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 18a-003-20140306).

3.8.4 Paragraph 13 provides further information on setting of heritage assets – this is discussed in Section 4 of my evidence. Paragraph 17 provides information on how to assess if a proposal would cause substantial harm; this is discussed in Section 4 of my evidence.

3.8.5 Paragraphs 026 to 036 provide guidance on World Heritage Sites in England. Paragraph 28 reminds us that “The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee inscribes World Heritage Properties onto its World Heritage List for their Outstanding Universal Value – cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. World Heritage Properties are referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework and in this guidance as ‘World Heritage Sites’ and are defined as designated heritage assets in the National Planning Policy Framework.” (Paragraph: 028 Reference ID: 18a-028-20140306).

3.8.6 Paragraph 26 sets out how World Heritage Sites are protected and managed in England. It indicates that [my highlights] “England protects its World Heritage Sites and their settings,

May 2018 24 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

including any buffer zones or equivalent, through the statutory designation process and through the planning system. The Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage Site, set out in a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, indicates its importance as a heritage asset of the highest significance to be taken into account by:

 the relevant authorities in plan-making, determining planning and related consents (including listed building consent, development consent and Transport and Works Act Orders)  and by the Secretary of State in determining such cases on appeal or following call in

Effective management of World Heritage Sites involves the identification and promotion of positive change that will conserve and enhance their Outstanding Universal Value, authenticity, integrity and with the modification or mitigation of changes which have a negative impact on those values.” (Paragraph: 026 Reference ID: 18a-026-20140306)

3.8.7 Paragraph 29 highlights the role and importance of Statements of Outstanding Universal Value. “A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value is agreed and adopted by the World Heritage Committee for each Site on inscription. The Statement sets out what the World Heritage Committee considers to be of Outstanding Universal Value about the Site in relation to the World Heritage Convention and includes statements of integrity and, in relation to cultural sites or the cultural aspects of ‘mixed’ Sites, authenticity, and the requirements for protection and management. Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are key reference documents for the protection and management of each Site and can only be amended or altered by the World Heritage Committee.” (Paragraph: 029 Reference ID: 18a-029-20140306)

3.8.8 Paragraph 31 clarifies how the terminology used by UNESCO relates to that in the NPPF. “World Heritage Sites are inscribed for their ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ and each World Heritage Site has defined its ‘attributes and components’ the tangible remains, visual and cultural links that embody that value. The cultural heritage within the description of the Outstanding Universal Value will be part of the World Heritage Site’s heritage significance and National Planning Policy Framework policies will apply to the Outstanding Universal Value as they do to any other heritage significance they hold. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, the significance of the designated heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting.” (Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 18a-031- 20140306)

3.8.9 Paragraph 32 sets out important principles for the conservation of World Heritage Sites in terms of plan making and decision making. It indicates that “…policy frameworks at all levels should conserve the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and authenticity (where relevant for

May 2018 25 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

cultural or ‘mixed’ sites) of each World Heritage Site and its setting, including any buffer zone or equivalent.” It reminds readers, again, that “World Heritage Sites are designated heritage assets of the highest significance.”

3.8.10 In terms of plan making the guidance indicates that “When developing Local Plan policies to protect and enhance World Heritage Sites and their Outstanding Universal Value, local planning authorities, should aim to satisfy the following principles:

3.8.11 These principles highlight the importance of the setting of WHSs and the need to manage cumulative change. Importantly the NPPG goes on to state that “Planning authorities need to take these principles and the resultant policies into account when making decisions.” (Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 2a-032-20140306).

3.8.12 The importance of the setting of a WHS is further emphasised in Paragraph 33. This states that “The UNESCO Operational Guidelines seek protection of “the immediate setting” of each World Heritage Site, of “important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the Property” and suggest designation of a buffer zone wherever this may be necessary. A buffer zone is defined as an area surrounding the World Heritage Site which has complementary legal restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the World Heritage Site. The buffer zone forms part of the setting of the World Heritage Site.”

3.8.13 It is important to note that the guidance is clear that a Buffer Zone can form part of the setting of a WHS but does not necessarily encompass all of its setting. This would indicate that development outside of the buffer zone may affect the setting of a WHS.

May 2018 26 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.8.14 The guidance also indicates that “It may be appropriate to protect the setting of World Heritage Sites in other ways, for example by the protection of specific views and viewpoints. Other landscape designations may also prove effective in protecting the setting of a World Heritage Site. However it is intended to protect the setting, it will be essential to explain how this is to be done in the Local Plan.” (Paragraph: 033 Reference ID: 2a-033-20140306).

3.8.15 Paragraph 34 provides information on WHS Management Plans; indicating that “Each World Heritage Site has a management plan which contains both long term and day to day actions to protect, conserve and present the Site...” and that “Each plan should be attuned to the particular characteristics and needs of the site and incorporate sustainable development principles”.

3.8.16 The need to consider relevant policies in WHS Management Plans is also set out in Paragraph 34: “Given their importance in helping to sustain and enhance the significance of the World Heritage Site, relevant policies in management plans need to be taken into account by local planning authorities in developing their strategy for the historic or natural environment (as appropriate) and in determining relevant planning applications.” (Paragraph: 034 Reference ID: 18a-034-20140306).

3.8.17 In terms of assessing the impact of development on WHSs and their OUV, Paragraph 35 provides guidance to applicants and authorities. It indicates that applicants “...need to submit sufficient information with their applications to enable assessment of impact on Outstanding Universal Value. This may include visual impact assessments, archaeological data or historical information. In many cases this will form part of an Environment Statement. Applicants may find it helpful to use the approach set out in the International Council on Monuments and Sites’s Heritage Impact Assessment guidelines and Historic England’s guidance on setting and views.” (Paragraph: 035 Reference ID: 18a-035-20140306).

3.8.18 Paragraph 36 provides information on consultation requirements in relation to proposals that affect a WHS.

Design

3.8.19 In relation to heritage matters, paragraph 004 reiterates policy in the NPPF (see above) that good design cannot be used to outweigh impacts on the setting of heritage assets and that it is the “economic, social and environmental benefits” of a development that need to be weighed against its harms – not the quality of its design.

May 2018 27 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.8.20 Paragraph 004 states that “Local planning authorities are required to take design into consideration and should refuse permission for development of poor design. Local planning authorities should give great weight to outstanding or innovative designs which help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area. This could include the use of innovative construction materials and techniques. Planning permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).” (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 26-004-20140306).

3.9 London Plan (2017 - consolidated with alterations since 2011) (CDC.04)

3.9.1 Key historic environment policies in the current London Plan include Policy 7.8 and 7.10. Elements of policy 7.7 on Tall Buildings are also relevant to my evidence:

Policy 7.7 Tall Buildings

3.9.2 Section E of the policy states that “The impact of tall buildings proposed in sensitive locations should be given particular consideration. Such areas might include conservation areas, listed buildings and their settings, registered historic parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, battlefields, the edge of the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, World Heritage Sites or other areas designated by boroughs as being sensitive or inappropriate for tall buildings.”

Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology

3.9.3 This provides general policy for designated and non-designated heritage assets in London. In terms of making planning decisions the Policy states that:

“C Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. E New development should make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. The physical assets should, where possible, be made available to the public on-site. Where the archaeological asset or memorial cannot be preserved or managed on-site, provision must be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset.”

May 2018 28 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.9.4 This broadly reflects policy in the NPPF.

3.9.5 The supporting text highlights the importance and value of London’s rich architectural heritage and continuing urban evolution. Para 7.29 states that “London’s built and landscape heritage provides a depth of character that has immeasurable benefit to the city’s economy, culture and quality of life. Natural landscapes can help to provide a unique sense of place whilst layers of architectural history provide an environment that is of local, national and world heritage value. It is to London’s benefit that some of the best examples of architecture from the past 2000 years sit side by side to provide a rich texture that makes the city a delight to live, visit, study and do business in. Ensuring the identification and sensitive management of London’s heritage assets in tandem with promotion of the highest standards of modern architecture will be key to maintaining the blend of old and new that gives the capital its unique character.”

3.9.6 Para 7.31 states that “Development that affects the setting of heritage assets should be of the highest quality of architecture and design, and respond positively to local context and character outlined in the policies above.” This is in addition to the national policy tests relating to the need to balance the harm and benefit of proposals.

3.9.7 Paragraph 7.31A repeats the substantial harm and less than substantial harm tests set out in NPPF.

Policy 7.10 World Heritage Sites

3.9.8 Policy 7.10 provides important strategic and decision making guidance in relation to London’s four internationally important WHSs.

“Strategic A Development in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zones, should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance their authenticity, integrity and significance and Outstanding Universal Value. The Mayor has published Supplementary Planning Guidance on London’s World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings to help relevant stakeholders define the setting of World Heritage Sites.

Planning decisions B Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans.”

May 2018 29 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.9.9 Paragraph 7.34 returns the point about integrating WHSs into the wider urban fabric “The World Heritage Sites at Maritime Greenwich, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including St Margaret’s Church and Tower of London are embedded in the constantly evolving urban fabric of London. The surrounding built environment must be carefully managed to find a balance between protecting the elements of the World Heritage Sites that make them of Outstanding Universal Value and allowing the surrounding land to continue to change and evolve as it has for centuries. To help this process, the Mayor will encourage the development and implementation of World Heritage Management Plans.”

3.9.10 Paragraph 7.36 states that “Development in the setting (including buffer zones where appropriate) of these World Heritage Sites should provide opportunities to enhance their setting through the highest quality architecture and contributions to the improvement of the public realm consistent with the principles of the World Heritage Site Management Plans. Development in the setting of World Heritage Sites must contribute to the provision of an overall amenity and ambience appropriate to their World Heritage status.” This seeks to balance the need for new development with the need to retain the ambience and amenity of a WHS.

3.9.11 The paragraph also identifies the relevance of the SPG on WHSs stating that “The Mayor encourages developers, policy makers and other stakeholders to follow the stepped approach set out in his guidance on settings to assess the effects of development proposals and proposals for change through plan-making on the setting of the World Heritage Sites.”

3.10 London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings, Supplementary Planning Guidance, March 2012 (CDC.11)

3.10.1 This adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (the SPG) supports the implementation of Policy 7.10 of the London Plan. As stated in paragraph 1.7 of the introduction:

“The purpose of this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) therefore is to support the implementation of Policy 7.10 by providing: • a consolidated source of information on understanding World Heritage Sites and their settings in the context of London; • a discussion of the elements of setting that contribute to the appreciation of Outstanding Universal Value that should be considered by policy makers, developers and other stakeholders to ensure World Heritage Sites and their settings are conserved and enhanced;

May 2018 30 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

• an assessment framework with a stepped approach to assess the effect of development proposals and proposals for change in plan making on London’s World Heritage Sites and their settings.

3.10.2 The guidance in the SPG reflects national policy and guidance at the time of preparation i.e. shortly before the adoption of the NPPF3 and the publication of NPPG and the more recent iterations of the HE Setting Guidance. Its broad thrust and approaches however remain valid as wider heritage policy has not fundamentally transformed in this period.

3.10.3 Aspects of note in the SPG include:

 The identification of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and the attendant attributes expressed in the WHS Management Plan as the basis for the assessments of setting and impact on setting (see Section 3.0);  The recognition that the setting of a WHS may extend beyond any buffer zone (see Paragraph 3.19);  The recognition that “All of London’s World Heritage Sites have complex and multi-layered settings” (paragraph 4.1) and that “Each of the London World Heritage Sites is made up of many separate heritage assets, most or all of which contribute to the attributes that make up the World Heritage Site’s OUV. While the settings of individual assets within the World Heritage Site may overlap or nest with each other; the World Heritage Site itself has a wider setting of its own.” (paragraph 4.2);  The identification of a series of elements of setting that may apply to WHSs in London (see Section 4.0): o Physical elements: 1. Context; 2. Character; 3. Landscape and Topography; 4. Relationship with the River Thames; 5. Views in, out and across World Heritage Sites; 6. Routes; 7. Public Realm o User experience: 8. Diurnal and Seasonal Considerations; 9. Accessibility and Inclusion; 10. Safety and Security o Other considerations: 11. Historic and Cultural Associations; 12. Environmental Factors; 13. Sustainability and Climate Change  The establishment of an framework for assessing the potential impact of development on the setting and OUV of WH Sites and assets within those sites (Section 5.0) which reflects the 2011 English Heritage (as was) Guidance on Setting; the as then emerging draft NPPF; and the draft 2011 ICOMOS Guidance on Assessing Impacts on Cultural World Heritage Sites; and

3 It did however draw on the draft NPPF

May 2018 31 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 The recognition in the methodology of the importance of assessing cumulative impacts. As stated in Paragraph 5.31 “The cumulative effect of separate impacts should also be considered. These are impacts that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or potential developments with planning permission that cumulatively with the proposed development can have a significant impact on the setting of a World Heritage Site. The potential cumulative impact of the proposed changes should therefore be assessed to consider whether proposed developments will increase the likelihood of other similar developments occurring and any consequences of that. There should also be recognition that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily represent acceptability of impacts on setting; as the cumulative effect is different for each new proposal and there may be a tipping–point beyond which further development would result in substantial harm to the OUV, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site.”.

3.11 Hounslow Local Plan (2015-30) (CDD.01)

3.11.1 The reasons for refusal cite 3 local plan policies CC3 (Tall buildings), CC4 (Heritage) and GB1 (Greenbelt and Metropolitan Open Land). The following considers CC3 and CC4.

Policy CC3 Tall Buildings

3.11.2 Policy CC3 provides a framework for the development of tall buildings in the borough. It is notable for its consistent emphasis on the need to manage change in the setting of key heritage assets and in particular the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS (see c and d in extracts from the Policy below):

“Our approach To contribute to regeneration and growth, we will support tall buildings of high quality in identified locations which accord with the principles of sustainable development.

We will achieve this by … (c) Supporting a limited number of tall buildings in Brentford town centre. These should be carefully designed and sensitively placed so as not to have a significant adverse impact on the setting of, views from and between heritage assets including Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, Syon Park and the Thames foreshore landscape. They should also respect and respond to the area’s special townscape and heritage value; (d) Supporting tall buildings along sections of the A4 Golden Mile frontage. Specific sites will be identified in the Great West Corridor Plan subject to the delivery of strategic public transport improvements. These should be carefully placed so as not to create a wall of tall buildings,

May 2018 32 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

ensuring they relate sensitively to surrounding residential areas and do not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of, or views from heritage assets including Gunnersbury Park, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, Syon Park and Osterley Park; (e) Preserving the predominantly 2 to 3 storey (less than 10m) building heights across the rest of the borough with some limited scope for 4 to 6 storey (up to 20m) buildings/ elements along main streets (for example London Road), to assist with way-finding and where the opportunity exists for higher density development; (f) Not seeking to replace existing tall buildings which are in inappropriate locations (assessed against the criteria of this policy) and not allowing them to be a justification for the provision of new ones; (g) Undertaking more detailed design analysis including a study to identify spatial sensitivities; and (h) Working with our partners, particularly Historic England and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site.

We will expect tall building development proposals to (i) Be sensitively located and be of a height and scale that is in proportion to its location and setting, and carefully relate and respond to the character of the surrounding area; (j) Be of the highest architectural design and standards; be attractive, robust and sustainable; … (p) Take opportunities to enhance the setting of surrounding heritage assets, the overall skyline and views;

CC4 Heritage

3.11.3 CC4 provides heritage policy, the following highlights aspects relevant to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS:

“Our approach We will identify, conserve and take opportunities to enhance the significance of the borough’s heritage assets as a positive means of supporting an area’s distinctive character and sense of history.

We will achieve this by …. (d) Working with Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, London Borough of Richmond and Historic England to conserve and enhance the outstanding universal values of The Royal Botanical Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its setting, including

May 2018 33 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

views to and from this asset. This includes assisting in the implementation of the World Heritage Site Management Plan;

We will expect development proposals to (i) Conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its setting in a manner appropriate to its significance; … (k) Demonstrate that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset is avoided, unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, consistent with the NPPF; (l) Demonstrate that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (see Glossary), this harm will be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use; or…”

3.12 Richmond Local Plans

3.12.1 While the following two Local Plan documents are not directly applicable because the proposed development lies in the London Borough of Hounslow rather than Richmond, they are considered to be relevant as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS itself is in Richmond and there are a number of policies within the documents which seek to protect its OUV and setting.

Unadopted Plan

3.12.2 The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is nearing the point at which it will adopt a new Local Plan. The Local Plan (Publication Version for Consultation, January 2017) (see extracts at Appendix H) includes a policy (LP 6) specifically concerning the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS. This policy was not identified for discussion at the Local Plan examination hearings and there have been no proposed modifications to it post-examination. As such, the policy should carry considerable weight at present. The text of LP 6 is as follows:

 ‘The Council will protect, conserve, promote and where appropriate enhance the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its wider setting. In doing this, the Council will take into consideration that:  The World Heritage Site inscription denotes the highest significance to the site as an internationally important heritage asset.  The appreciation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, its integrity, authenticity and significance, including its setting (and the setting of individual heritage assets within it) should be protected from harm.

May 2018 34 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Appropriate weight should be given to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Landscape Master Plan.’

3.12.3 The accompanying text goes on to state that LB Richmond upon Thames will work closely with its partners to prevent any further harmful impacts ‘from development proposals, particularly as a result of inappropriate and unsympathetic tall buildings, in Brentford and Hounslow’s wider Great West Corridor’ (4.6.4).

2011 Development Management Plan

3.12.4 The adopted 2011 Development Management Plan (see extracts at Appendix H) remains relevant. This includes three key policies: Policy DM HD 5, World Heritage Site; Policy DM OS 4 Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes and Policy DM HD 2, Conservation of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments

3.12.5 Policy DM HD 5, World Heritage Site states that

“The Council will work with others, to protect, promote, interpret, sustainably use, conserve and where appropriate enhance the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site and its setting including the buffer zone by conserving its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance.

Development proposals should not cause adverse impact to the World Heritage Site or its setting that would compromise its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance, and give appropriate weight to the World Heritage Site Management Plan.”

3.12.6 Supporting text states that:

"4.3.21 The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List in 2003, in recognition of its outstanding and internationally significant universal value. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010), the outstanding international importance of the World Heritage Site is a key material consideration to be taken into account by the Council when determining planning applications and listed building consents. The site should be protected for the benefit of future generations and development proposals affecting the site or its buffer zone will require careful scrutiny for their likely effect on the site or its setting.

4.3.22 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2003) and subsequent updates provides a framework for the activities that take place in the site whilst

May 2018 35 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

ensuring that these activities do not conflict with the need to protect the qualities which make Kew Gardens such a special and unique place." 3.12.7 Policy DM OS 4 Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes, states that "Parks and gardens as well as landscapes of special historic interest included in the Register compiled by English Heritage and other historic parks, gardens and landscapes referred to in para 4.1.11 below, will be protected and enhanced. Proposals which have an adverse effect on the settings, views, and vistas to and from historic parks and gardens, will not be permitted." The supporting text directly refers to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

3.12.8 Policy DM HD 2, Conservation of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments is also of relevance.

3.13 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Heritage Site Management Plan 2014 (CDF.10)

3.13.1 The primary purpose of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan is to set out a framework for the management of the WHS to ensure the conservation of its OUV and continued sustainable use, and the continued maintenance of its heritage whilst also introducing new displays, facilities and interpretation representing the role of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew in the 21st century.

3.13.2 The WHS Management Plan has five overarching objectives. These are:

 to manage the WHS so that its Outstanding Universal Value is conserved and enhanced.  to facilitate the gardens to provide for innovative botanic research, horticultural display and interpretation in order to communicate the importance of plant diversity to the future of our planet; both on a global and local level.  to interpret the gardens as a palimpsest of landscape design and changing attitudes and values in respect to its scientific programme, collections and taxonomic display.  to outline a sustainable approach to the future management of the whole WHS which aims to balance all values and needs, such as world heritage, scientific research, visitor experience, nature conservation and environmental education.  to identify a phased programme of action that is achievable and flexible and will contribute to the conservation of the WHS; the understanding of its Outstanding Universal Value, and the improvement of the WHS for all those who visit, work in or live within its vicinity.

3.13.3 Aim 1 of the Management Plan states “The Management Plan should be endorsed by those bodies and individuals responsible for its implementation as the framework for long term detailed decision making on the conservation and enhancement of the WHS and the

May 2018 36 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

maintenance of its Outstanding Universal Value, and its aims and policies should be incorporated into relevant planning guidance and policies.” 3.13.4 This is supported by Policy 1d which states that “Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its Outstanding Universal Value or its setting should not be permitted.”

3.13.5 Aim 2 of the Plan states that “The WHS boundary should ensure the integrity of the WHS is maintained by including all known significant landscape features and interrelationships related to the attributes of the Site’s Outstanding Universal Value.”

3.13.6 Policy 2c which supports this states “Review the status of protection for significant sightlines and vistas which extend outside the World Heritage Buffer Zone but contribute towards the site’s Outstanding Universal Value”.

3.13.7 Aim 3 of the Plan states “The Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS should be sustained and enhanced through the conservation of the Site and the attributes that carry its Outstanding Universal Value.” Relevant policy considerations under this Aim include:

 Policy 3a - The WHS should be managed to protect its attributor of Outstanding Universal Value, to protect their physical fabric, to improve and enhance their condition and to explain their significance. - Conserve the historic landscape framework of the gardens inc. planting programme for reconstruction of key avenues and vistas; Pagoda Vista, Cedar Vista, Syon Vista, Minor Vista and Broad Walk. - Improve protection, setting and interpretation of key build fabric and landscape features. - Promote the reading of the site as a palimpsest of landscape history

 Policy 3c - The setting of listed buildings and key landscape features within the gardens and their interrelationships should be maintained and enhanced, with particular attention to the gardens overall spatial cohesion and WHS River Thames landscape settings. - Restore site perimeter planting alongside Kew Road. - Open view lines towards River Thames. - Improve ambience of Broad Walk as the Gardens’ main promenade.

 Policy 3d - The overall spatial coherence and legibility of the gardens has incrementally lost and should gradually be improved upon. - The recovery of vistas, sightlines and serial vision of open / enclosed should be more fully explored to create spatial legibility and cohesion. - Areas of open space and corridor vistas should be protected from further encroachment.

May 2018 37 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

- The spatial containment created by boundary planting needs further adjustment, e.g. strengthening screening alongside Kew road and back-stage areas but more open views across the River Thames. - The long term provision of structural planting should be carefully studied in relation to tree species, age distribution, affect of climate change etc.

 Policy 3h - The visual integrity of the WHS should be improved by the removal or screening of existing inappropriate structures. - In medium / long term seek opportunities to promote a reduction in the impact of the visually intrusive Brentford High rise. - Seek opportunities to regenerate public realm of Brentford waterfront - Monitor/ comment upon various emerging development proposals within Brentford in the Buffer Zone.

3.14 Historic England, Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings (2015) (CDF.14)

3.14.1 This guidance was published in December 2015 and replaced earlier 2007 guidance prepared by CABE and English Heritage. It provides high level advice and guidance for developers, designers and decision makers in relation to the development of tall buildings and potential impacts on the historic environment.

3.14.2 The guidance indicates in paragraph 1.1 that “…In the right place well-designed tall buildings can make a positive contribution to urban life. Past examples show us that they can be excellent works of architecture, and some of the best post-war examples of tall buildings are now listed.”, it goes one to state on paragraph 1.2 that “However, if the building is not in the right place and well designed a tall building, by virtue of its size and widespread visibility, can also seriously harm the qualities that people value about a place…One of the principal failings in the design of certain tall buildings was a lack of understanding of the nature of the area around them, and the impact they would have on both specific features of the historic environment and its general character. There have been many examples of tall buildings that have had a lasting adverse impact through being unsuitably located, poorly designed, inappropriately detailed and badly built and managed.”

3.14.3 It goes on to note in paragraph 4.6 that “Careful assessment of any cumulative impacts in relation to other existing tall buildings and concurrent proposals will also be needed to fully understand the merits of the proposal. The existence of a built or permitted tall building does not of itself justify a cluster or additions to a cluster.”

May 2018 38 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.14.4 Section 5, Assessing a proposal, states in Paragraph 5.1 that “Many of the issues associated with determining an application for a tall building proposal are the same as for other applications with heritage implications and should therefore be approached in the same way... Some aspects of tall buildings proposals raise particular issues, however, and these are discussed below.”

3.14.5 The guidance goes on to highlight in paragraph 5.2 the issues relating to WHSs, indicating the importance of these assets, it states that “Where relevant, the LPA will need to consider the impact on world heritage sites. The statement of significance and the management plan prepared for each World Heritage Site (which may include a buffer zone to help protect its setting) are material considerations in the planning process.”

3.14.6 Paragraph 5.5 is of particular note in relation to this appeal, stating that [my highlights]:

“5.5 When considering any proposal that has an adverse impact on a designated heritage asset through development within its setting, ‘great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’, with any harm requiring a ‘clear and convincing justification’ (NPPF paragraph 132). In assessing this justification, and in weighing any public benefits offered by a tall building proposal, local planning authorities will need to pay particular regard to the policies in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the NPPF that state that economic, social and environmental gains are to be sought jointly and simultaneously in order to deliver positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment. This may involve the examination of alternative designs or schemes that might be more sustainable because they can deliver public benefits alongside positive improvement in the local environment. If a tall building is harmful to the historic environment, then without a careful examination of the worth of any public benefits that the proposed tall building is said to deliver and of the alternative means of delivering them, the planning authority is unlikely to be able to find a clear and convincing justification for the cumulative harm.”

3.15 Historic England, The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition – Dec. 2017) (the HE Setting Guidance) (CDF.13)

3.15.1 The guidance defines setting and explains how it can contribute to the significance of a historic asset. It sets out the principles for assessing the impact of development within the settings of historic assets. It is intended to be used alongside NPPF and NPPG and the Conservation Principles and supports the implementation of their policy and advice. It provides information on issues relating to setting and the assessment of impacts on it.

May 2018 39 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.15.2 Points to note in Part 1 include:

May 2018 40 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Paragraph 8

“Extensive heritage assets, such as historic parks and gardens, landscapes and townscapes, can include many heritage assets, historic associations between them and their nested and overlapping settings, as well as having a setting of their own. A conservation area is likely to include the settings of listed buildings and have its own setting, as will the hamlet, village or urban area in which it is situated (explicitly recognised in green belt designations).” Bullet Point 2)

Paragraph 9 and sub headings / bullets

“Setting and the significance of heritage assets 9 Setting is not itself a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, although land comprising a setting may itself be designated (see below Designed settings). Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset or to the ability to appreciate that significance. The following paragraphs examine some more general considerations relating to setting and significance.

Change over time Settings of heritage assets change over time. Understanding this history of change will help to determine how further development within the asset’s setting is likely to affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset. Settings of heritage assets which closely resemble the setting at the time the asset was constructed or formed are likely to contribute particularly strongly to significance but settings which have changed may also themselves enhance significance, for instance where townscape character has been shaped by cycles of change over the long term. Settings may also have suffered negative impact from inappropriate past developments and may be enhanced by the removal of the inappropriate structure(s).

May 2018 41 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Setting and economic viability Sustainable development under the NPPF can have important positive impacts on heritage assets and their settings, for example by bringing an abandoned building back into use or giving a heritage asset further life. However, the economic viability of a heritage asset can be reduced if the contribution made by its setting is diminished by badly designed or insensitively located development. For instance, a new road scheme affecting the setting of a heritage asset, while in some cases increasing the public’s ability or inclination to visit and/or use it, thereby boosting its economic viability and enhancing the options for the marketing or adaptive re-use of a building, may in other cases have the opposite effect.”

Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 and sub headings / bullets

Views and setting 10 The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, long, short or of lateral spread, and include a variety of views of, from, across, or including that asset.

11 Views which contribute more to understanding the significance of a heritage asset include: • those where the composition within the view was a fundamental aspect of the design or function of the heritage asset • those where town- or village-scape reveals views with unplanned or unintended beauty • those with historical associations, including viewing points and the topography of battlefields • those with cultural associations, including landscapes known historically for their picturesque and landscape beauty, those which became subjects for paintings of the English landscape tradition, and those views which have otherwise become historically cherished and protected • those where relationships between the asset and other heritage assets or natural features or phenomena such as solar or lunar events are particularly relevant

12 Assets, whether contemporaneous or otherwise, which were intended to be seen from one another for aesthetic, functional, ceremonial or religious reasons include: … • historic parks and gardens with deliberate links to other designed landscapes and remote ‘eye-catching’ features or ‘borrowed’ landmarks beyond the park boundary

13 Views may be identified and protected by local planning policies and guidance for the part they play in shaping our appreciation and understanding of England’s historic environment, whether in rural or urban areas and whether designed to be seen as a unity or as the

May 2018 42 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

cumulative result of a long process of development. This does not mean that additional views or other elements or attributes of setting do not merit consideration. Such views include: … • views identified in character area appraisals or in management plans, for example of World Heritage Sites • important designed views from, to and within historic parks and gardens that have been identified as part of the evidence base for development plans, and • views that are identified by local planning authorities when assessing development proposals

Where complex issues involving views come into play in the assessment of such views – whether for the purposes of providing a baseline for plan-making or for development management – a formal views analysis may be merited.”

3.15.3 Part 2 of the document sets out a suggested methodology for assessing setting and change, this is discussed further in Section 4 below), its introductory elements however make some pertinent general points:

Part 2: Setting and Views – A Staged Approach to Proportionate Decision-Taking 17 All heritage assets have significance, some of which have particular significance and are designated. The contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies. Although many settings may be enhanced by development, not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset or the ability to appreciate it. This capacity may vary between designated assets of the same grade or of the same type or according to the nature of the change. It can also depend on the location of the asset: an elevated or overlooked location; a riverbank, coastal or island location; or a location within an extensive tract of flat land may increase the sensitivity of the setting (ie the capacity of the setting to accommodate change without harm to the heritage asset’s significance) or of views of the asset. This requires the implications of development affecting the setting of heritage assets to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

18 Conserving or enhancing heritage assets by taking their settings into account need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive, for instance where the setting has been compromised by poor development. Many places coincide with the setting of a heritage asset and are subject to some degree of change over time. NPPF policies, together with the guidance on their implementation in the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), provide the framework for the consideration of change affecting the setting of undesignated and designated heritage assets as part of the decision-taking process (NPPF, paragraphs 131-135 and 137).

19 Amongst the Government’s planning policies for the historic environment is that conservation decisions are based on a proportionate assessment of the particular significance of

May 2018 43 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset…”

May 2018 44 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

4.0 SETTING AND THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

4.1 Guidance

4.1.1 Historic England’s “The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition – Dec. 2017)” (CDC.13) provides the primary guidance for addressing the setting of historic assets in England. As set out above in Section 3, other guidance is provided in “London’s World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings, Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012)” (CDC.11).

4.1.2 These two guidance documents have formed the basis for my assessment of the proposed development and its impact on the setting and significance of the WHS and associated listed buildings.

4.2 Definition of Setting

4.2.1 NPPF provides the following definition of setting:

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”

4.2.2 This has been used in my assessment.

4.2.3 NPPG elaborates on that definition. It states in para Paragraph 013 (Reference ID: 18a-013- 20140306), that:

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

The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the experience of the significance of each.

May 2018 45 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

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

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

4.3 Approach to assessing impact on setting and significance

4.3.1 The SPG identifies 8 stages for assessing impact:

May 2018 46 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

4.3.2 The HE Setting Guidance sets out a broad four stage process:

“Stage 1: Identify the historic assets that might be affected by a proposed change or development. Stage 2: Define and analyse the settings to understand how they contribute to the significance of the historic assets and, in particular, the ways in which the assets are understood, appreciated and experienced. Stage 3: Evaluate the potential impact of a proposed change or development on that significance. Stage 4: If necessary, consider options to mitigate or improve the potential impact of a proposed change or development on that significance.”

4.3.3 There is considerable cross-over between the two approaches (they are based on the same 2011 guidance). In broad terms Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the SPG’s approach are encapsulated by Stages 1 and 2 of the HE Setting Guidance. Stage 5 of the SPG approach reflects Stage 3 of the HE Setting Guidance and Stages 6, 7 and 8 of the SPG approach are covered by Stage 4 of the HE Setting Guidance.

4.3.4 Stages 6, 7 and 8 of the SPG approach and Stage 4 of the HE Setting Guidance are not relevant to my evidence and have been set aside.

4.3.5 For the purposes of my evidence I have adopted the first 5 stages of the SPG approach, supported by relevant guidance set out in the HE Setting Guidance document. The following sets out my approach and highlights were the relevant outputs are contained in my evidence.

Step 1 Consider the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage, including authenticity and integrity

4.3.6 Section 5 of my evidence provides an overview of the WHS, its history, its character and its OUV. This draws on the published Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (SOUV), the 2014 WHS Management Plan and other published material.

Step 2 Analyse the contribution made by the World Heritage Site’s setting to its Outstanding Universal Value

4.3.7 Section 5 of my evidence presents the outcome of this step. The analysis has taken into account the factors identified in the SPG, namely:

May 2018 47 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Physical elements: 1. Context; 2. Character; 3. Landscape and Topography; 4. Relationship with the River Thames; 5. Views in, out and across World Heritage Sites; 6. Routes; 7. Public Realm  User experience: 8. Diurnal and Seasonal Considerations; 9. Accessibility and Inclusion; 10. Safety and Security  Other considerations: 11. Historic and Cultural Associations; 12. Environmental Factors; 13. Sustainability and Climate Change

4.3.8 I have also taken into account the non-exhaustive checklist set out in Step 2 of the Historic England Setting Guidance:

“The starting point for this stage of the assessment is to consider the significance of the heritage asset itself and then establish the contribution made by its setting. The following is a (non- exhaustive) check-list of potential attributes of a setting that may help to elucidate its contribution to significance. It may be the case that only a limited selection of the attributes listed is likely to be particularly important in terms of any single asset.

The asset’s physical surroundings • Topography • Aspect • Other heritage assets (including buildings, structures, landscapes, areas or archaeological remains) • Definition, scale and ‘grain’ of surrounding streetscape, landscape and spaces • Formal design eg hierarchy, layout • Orientation and aspect • Historic materials and surfaces • Green space, trees and vegetation • Openness, enclosure and boundaries • Functional relationships and communications • History and degree of change over time

Experience of the asset • Surrounding landscape or townscape character • Views from, towards, through, across and including the asset • Intentional intervisibility with other historic and natural features • Visual dominance, prominence or role as focal point • Noise, vibration and other nuisances • Tranquillity, remoteness, ‘wildness’ • Busyness, bustle, movement and activity

May 2018 48 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

• Scents and smells • Diurnal changes • Sense of enclosure, seclusion, intimacy or privacy • Land use • Accessibility, permeability and patterns of movement • Degree of interpretation or promotion to the public • Rarity of comparable survivals of setting • Cultural associations • Celebrated artistic representations • Traditions

Step 3 Identify and consider the significance of other heritage assets

4.3.9 Analysis of the development proposals has identified the following designated assets within the WHS whose settings may be affected by the proposed development:

 Orangery – Grade I listed building  Kew Palace – Grade I listed building and Scheduled Monument  Temple of Aeolus – Grade II listed building  Cambridge Cottage – Grade II Listed building  Palm House – Grade I listed building

4.3.10 These assets are identified and described in Section 6 of my evidence.

Step 4 Analyse the contribution made by other heritage assets’ settings to their significance

4.3.11 Drawing on the checklist in the HE Setting Guidance and guidance in the SPG, I have set out the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of these assets in Section 6 of my evidence.

Step 5 Assess the effects of the development proposals or proposals for change through plan making on the Outstanding Universal Value, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site and on the significance of other heritage assets

4.3.12 Section 5 of my evidence describes the impact of the proposed development on the OUV of the WHS, Section 7 describes the impact on the significance of the identified designated heritage assets. In doing so I have drawn upon the guidance set out in both the HE Setting Guidance and the SPG.

May 2018 49 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

4.3.13 This has included reviewing a range of factors as set out in Historic England’s guidance:

4.3.14 In accordance with guidance and policy (see Section 3) I have assessed the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the setting of the WHS and key buildings. This has taken into account the impact of the proposed development in combination with other existing developments which are already causing harm to the WHS and its OUV.

4.3.15 For each asset and the OUV of the WHS I have scored the potential impact using both the scoring mechanism recommended in the SPG (as defined in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 of the SPG – CDC.11) and the terminology of Less than Substantial Harm and Substantial Harm utilised by national planning policy. This is reported in Sections 5 and 6 of my evidence and summarised in the conclusions (Section 7).

May 2018 50 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

4.4 Total Loss, Substantial Harm and Less than Substantial Harm

4.4.1 Paragraphs 132 to 134 of the NPPF require the assessment of a proposal to determine if it would cause “Less than Substantial Harm” or “Substantial Harm” to the significance of an asset or “Total Loss” of an asset’s significance. No definitions of these terms are provided in the NPPF.

4.4.2 The NPPG (online resource April 2018) sets out in “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, Decision-taking: historic environment” guidance on “How to assess if there is substantial harm?”

“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting.

While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.”

4.4.3 A number of points emerge from this guidance. Firstly, change to an asset’s setting can result in Substantial Harm to its significance. Secondly, Substantial Harm is a high test and may not be a common occurrence. The majority of proposals for development therefore will probably not result in Substantial Harm. Thirdly, the harm test relates to an asset’s significance not its setting. It is therefore important that decisions are based on adequate and proportionate material that defines significance and the contribution that setting makes to it. Fourthly, smaller scale works to an asset or small / localised changes to its setting can result in Substantial Harm

May 2018 51 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

but realistically this is likely to be a rare situation and is far more likely to occur when physical change is involved.

4.4.4 Finally, it is noted that the NPPG does not define what constitutes Substantial Harm and is clear that determining “Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker...”

4.4.5 In the context of the above, I set out below, at a high level, my understanding of what three terms (Total Loss, Substantial Harm and Less than Substantial Harm) relate to:

 “Total Loss” is perhaps best understood in terms of demolition or physical removal of an asset. Although for particular assets where setting makes profound contribution to their significance “Total Loss” could be taken to involve the total loss of setting e.g. the enveloping of an asset in a form of development that removes all vestiges of its immediate landscape and severs linkages with other related assets.

 “Substantial Harm” is a step down from Total Loss, but is still represents a considerable degree of change to the significance of an asset. This could be as the result of removal of significant elements of fabric or the degradation / removal of key aspects of an asset’s setting that notably contribute to its significance.

 “Less than Substantial Harm” could be taken to cover very a broad range of potential harm from very minor impacts through to alterations that border Substantial Harm. For the purposes of my evidence, I have disregarded negligible changes and have utilised the term “Less than Substantial Harm” to indicate changes to significance that would be noticeable and appreciable and warrant consideration in policy terms. Throughout my evidence I describe, in general terms, within the broad spectrum of Less than Substantial Harm, where I consider the level of harm to be.

May 2018 52 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.0 ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW WORLD HERITAGE SITE

5.1 Summary description of RBG, Kew WHS

5.1.1 Set on the bank of the Thames, the 132 hectares of the internationally significant Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS is built on a foundation of centuries of Royal gardens and palaces (Kew Palace survives and is the smallest Royal Palace in the UK) and smaller domestic houses (many used by the Royal court).

5.1.2 In an episode of politically-charged competitive garden building, the Hanoverian Royal family built the physical framework of the gardens with the help of several historically important landscape designers and architects, including Charles Bridgeman, ‘Capability’ Brown and William Kent. Queen Caroline’s earlier gardens at Richmond were nestled side by side with her estranged son and daughter-in-law’s (Frederick and Augusta) later Kew Gardens, separated by the poignantly named “Love Lane”. The two Royal gardens were brought together into one landscape by Frederick and Augusta’s son, George III, who had spent much of his childhood at Kew as well as later being confined there for treatment for his mental health.

5.1.3 Augusta began the first Physic Garden at Kew Gardens in 1759, which is generally held to be the origin of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. From this point on, and under the patronage of the royal family, Kew Gardens began to grow as an increasingly scientific establishment at the heart of the expanding British empire, receiving, identifying, propagating and dispatching plants around the world - promoting the practice of economic botany and furthering botanical science.

5.1.4 The gardens underwent a major phase of change in the mid-19th century, under the directorship of the famous plant hunter, Sir Joseph Hooker. The site became the national botanic garden, and was physically reordered into the Victorian landscape we can strongly see today, with its phenomenal glasshouses, formal walkways and well-defined vistas.

5.1.5 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, are a unique and globally-significant combination of historical contradictions. Now holding the largest documented living collection of plants in the world, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, are a unique mixture of the public and the private; the aesthetic and the scientific; nationhood and global perspective. Public arrangements for visiting the site have existed for more than 250 years and its modern scientific mission is for the benefit of the entirety of humanity, yet its historic foundations lie in privacy and retreat for the Royal families and their courts. It uniquely combines historical whimsical, artistic and political aesthetics, as evidenced by its surviving Georgian follies, with more than 250 years of increasingly objective scientific endeavour.

May 2018 53 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.1.6 It is a botanic garden in a designed landscape, where, highly unusually, historical aesthetics shape the scientific display of plants. It is a place that has reinvented itself several times: a private Royal estate, opened to the public for the benefit of the nation; at the economic and scientific heart of the British empire; and now focussed on the conservation of the plants of the world for the benefit of humanity and planetary health. It is a fundamentally unique jewel of irreplaceable international significance.

5.2 Inscription as a World Heritage Site

5.2.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS was inscribed onto the World Heritage List by UNESCO in 2003. As part of this nomination process, I led the preparation of a suite of documentation including a Nomination Document; the WHS Management Plan and the WHS Conservation Plan.

5.2.2 The Management Plan was reviewed in 2014 (and draws extensively on the 2002 document), A retrospective SOUV was adopted by UNESCO in 2010 (CDF.17).

5.2.3 During the nomination process the site was visited by missions from both the IUCN and ICOMOS, who both recommended its inscription as a World Heritage Site (CDF.19).

5.2.4 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew was proposed for inscription as “A cultural landscape designed and created intentionally for scientific and aesthetic purposes.” The Nomination Document (CDF.16) states that “This recognises the complex history of the nominated site and the ever-changing character of its designed landscape and architectural heritage. The continued development of the Gardens has been driven by the changing role of the site as it metamorphosed from being two Royal estates, into an Imperial botanic garden and public attraction and then to today’s role as a world-class scientific institution and major public attraction. The site has been sculpted, in all these periods, by keynote architects and garden designers, all of whom drew inspiration from the work of their predecessors, whilst also making their own mark on the landscape and history of Kew.”

5.2.5 The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) evaluation of Kew at the time of its nomination (CDF.19) highlighted that Kew “has had a greater historical impact on the world than any other botanic garden” and that “Kew is not of course the oldest botanic garden in the world - that status goes to Padua in Italy, already a World Heritage Site - and other gardens may be larger or have larger areas of natural vegetation. But in terms of its contribution to botany and the comprehensiveness of its collections, it is hard to consider any other botanical institute matching Kew.”

May 2018 54 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.2.6 The WHS at Kew was inscribed in 2003 under three criteria defined by UNESCO, and described as follows in the 2010 SOUV (CDF.17):

 Criterion (ii): Since the 18th century, the Botanic Gardens of Kew have been closely associated with scientific and economic exchanges established throughout the world in the field of botany, and this is reflected in the richness of its collections. The landscape and architectural features of the Gardens reflect considerable artistic influences both with regard to the European continent and to more distant regions;  Criterion (iii): Kew Gardens have largely contributed to advances in many scientific disciplines, particularly botany and ecology;  Criterion (iv): The landscape gardens and the edifices created by celebrated artists such as Charles Bridgeman, William Kent, Lancelot 'Capability' Brown and William Chambers reflect the beginning of movements which were to have international influence.

5.3 Overview of RBG, Kew’s Outstanding Universal Value

5.3.1 The RBG, Kew WHS was inscribed in 2003 using the criteria listed in Section 5.2. After 2005, UNESCO required all World Heritage Sites to produce a SOUV, with an accompanying Statement of Integrity and, for cultural sites, a Statement of Authenticity, along with a description of Protection and Management Requirements. The retrospective SOUV for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew submitted by the UK Government to UNESCO, was adopted by UNESCO in 2010 (CDF.17).

5.3.2 The SOUV places very considerable emphasis on the historic designed landscape that underpins and differentiates the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew from other Botanic Gardens across the world. The SOUV states that [my emphasis]:

“Set amongst a series of parks and estates along the River Thames’ south-western reaches, this historic landscape garden includes work by internationally renowned landscape architects Bridgeman, Kent, Chambers, Capability Brown and Nesfield illustrating significant periods in garden design from the 18th to the 20th centuries. The gardens house extensive botanic collections (conserved plants, living plants and documents) that have been considerably enriched through the centuries. Since their creation in 1759, the gardens have made a significant and uninterrupted contribution to the study of plant diversity, plant systematics and economic botany.

The landscape design of Kew Botanic Gardens, their buildings and plant collections combine to form a unique testimony to developments in garden art and botanical science that were subsequently diffused around the world. The 18th century English landscape garden concept

May 2018 55 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

was adopted in Europe and Kew’s influence in horticulture, plant classification and economic botany spread internationally from the time of Joseph Banks’ directorship in the 1770s. As the focus of a growing level of botanic activity, the mid 19th century garden, which overlays earlier royal landscape gardens is centred on two large iron framed glasshouses – the Palm House and the Temperate House that became models for conservatories around the world. Elements of the 18th and 19th century layers including the Orangery, Queen Charlotte’s Cottage; the folly temples; Rhododendron Dell, boundary ha-ha; garden vistas to William Chambers’ pagoda and Syon Park House; iron framed glasshouses; ornamental lakes and ponds; herbarium and plant collections convey the history of the Gardens’ development from royal retreat and pleasure garden to national botanical and horticultural garden before becoming a modern institution of conservation ecology in the 20th century.

5.3.3 The statement of integrity within the SOUV states that “The boundary of the property contains the elements that bear witness to the history of the development of the landscape gardens and Kew Gardens’ uninterrupted role as national botanic garden and centre of plant research. These elements, which express the Outstanding Universal Value, remain intact.” But is goes on to state that “Development outside this Buffer Zone may threaten the setting of the property.”

5.3.4 In common with other WH Sites a series of attributes have been identified that summarise and describe its SOUV, these were set out in the 2014 WHS Management Plan (CDF.10) as ‘Attributes of the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS’:

“The different categories of attributes which contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of Kew are:  a rich and diverse historic cultural landscape providing a palimpsest of landscape design  an iconic architectural legacy including the Palm house, the Temperate House and modern additions such as Princess of Wales Conservatory  globally important preserved and living plant collections  a horticultural heritage of keynote species and collections  key contributions to developments in plant science and plant taxonomy.

Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS rich and diverse historic landscape include:  Relationship with River Thames and wider Arcadian landscape beyond.  The Victorian garden lay-out designed as collaboration of Sir William Hooker, William Nesfield and Decimus Burton.  Remaining aspects of William Chambers ‘Anglo-Chinese’ garden style.  Remaining aspect of Capability Brown landscape incl. plantations, landform and ha-ha connection to river.

May 2018 56 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Archaeological remains of former Charles Bridgeman and William Kent landscapes structures.  A series of key vistas.

Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS iconic architectural legacy include:  A series of iconic glasshouses, most still in original use, representing key developments in the design and construction of glasshouses throughout history  A range of garden buildings and structures such as temples, follies, gates and ha-ha as integral part of the designed landscape.  Royal residency and patronage of the gardens as evidenced in Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte’s cottage and archaeological remains of White House and Castellated Palace.  Brick perimeter wall punctuated by ornate entrances.

Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS preserved and living plant collection include:  World class herbarium; the world’s biggest collection with some 7,000,000 plant specimens and over 1,200,000 specimens of fungi. Included in this collection are 270,000 type specimens representing a quarter of the world’s named plants  Living plant collection; the world’s largest documented botanical collection of about 40,000 plant taxa representing about 19,000 species  Museum, archive and library collection. The Economic Plant Collections include some 80.000 items including plant products, associated implements and artefacts.  The Library contains one of the world’s most important botanical collections with more than 750,000 items including books, periodical titles, letters and 200,000 drawings and prints.

Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS in respect to horticultural heritage of keynote species and collections:  Collection of heritage trees  Bentham & Hooker taxonomic lay-out  Archaeological remains of key developments in the botanic gardens

Key attributes contributing to developments in plant science esp. in respect of  Plant taxonomy & systematic botany  Economic botany  Biodiversity and plant conservation  Tradition of training students in horticulture  Reputation of centre of excellence and of sharing knowledge.”

May 2018 57 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.4 Designations

5.4.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is overlain by and contains a number of designations including:

 World Heritage Site (see Boundary Plan in Appendix A)  Registered Historic Park and Garden, Grade I (see Plan of extent in Appendix C)  2x Conservation Areas (see Plans of extents and key characteristics in Appendix C)  46x Individual listed buildings and structures, ranging from Grade I to Grade II  1 x Scheduled Monument (Kew Palace)

5.4.2 The Park and Garden boundary largely encompasses the WHS except for a small section of Kew Green by the Main Gate. It does however extend considerably further to the south covering large areas of Richmond Park.

5.4.3 The WHS is contained entirely within two Conservation Areas designated by the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames namely “Kew Green” and the “Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew”:

 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Conservation Area covers the majority of the WHS except for the buildings facing onto Kew Green at the northern end of the site and the length of the Thames riverbank behind Kew Palace, facing the Brentford Ait.

 The Kew Green Conservation Area encompasses the buildings facing onto Kew Green at the northern end of the site and the length of the Thames riverbank behind Kew Palace, facing the Brentford Ait.

5.4.4 The following listed buildings lie within the WHS boundary (see Plan in Appendix C):

 Grade I listed buildings: - The Orangery - The Pagoda - Kew Palace - The Palm House

 Grade II* listed buildings: - The Aroid House - The Main Gates - The Temperate House Lodge

May 2018 58 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

- The Ruined Arch - Queen Charlotte’s Cottage

 Grade II listed buildings: - 17-19 Kew Green - Kew Cottages - 47 Kew Green - King William’s Temple - 49 Kew Green, covered - Lion Gate passageway and railings - Lion Lodge - 53 Kew Green - Marianne North Gallery - 55 Kew Green - Museum No. 1 - Alcove by Brentford Ferry Gate - Museum No. 2 - Alcove north of Lion Gate - Retaining wall of Palm House - Boundary Stone Pond - Cambridge Cottage - Sculpture of Hercules and - Cast Iron Gates to no.s 39-45 Achelous Kew Green - Sundial to Little Broadwalk - Cumberland Gate - Temple of Arethusa - Descanso House - Temple of Bellona - Evolution House - Temple of Aeolus - Hanover House - The Campanile - Herbarium with railings and - The Sower gate - Unicorn Gate - Isleworth Ferry Gate with - Urn to Little Broadwalk drawbridge - Victoria Gate - Japanese Gateway - Water Lily House

5.4.5 Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte’s Cottage are also designated as Scheduled Monuments.

5.5 Summary History of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

5.5.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew are the product of a complex history stretching back over many millennia. The Site occupies a prominent bend in the river Thames and bears the remains of many thousands of years of human activity. These range in age and type from Mesolithic stone tools, to several Georgian royal palaces, through to the modern Princess of Wales Conservatory and Davies Alpine House.

May 2018 59 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Royal Gardens at Richmond and Kew

5.5.2 The Royal Botanic Gardens as we know them today have evolved over several centuries from two distinct foci - the settlements of Richmond (to the south) and Kew (to the north). As the site of a royal palace, Richmond has exerted a strong influence on the development of Kew, most notably in the Tudor and Georgian periods when Kew developed as a preferred residence for royal courtiers and other people of influence. Kew became the site of a number of large houses, lining Kew Green and the Thames. One of these, the Dutch House, later became known as the royal Kew Palace. The Dutch House/Kew Palace built in 1631 by a rich merchant on the site of an earlier building, whose cellars still survive beneath.

5.5.3 During the 18th century, the royal Richmond Gardens were expanded northeast along the Thames from Richmond, and the royal Kew Gardens were expanded southwest from the settlement of Kew (see Maps 1a, 1b and 4 in Appendix E and Figures 2.4, 2.5 and 2.17 in the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15).

5.5.4 Both 18th century gardens were developed by their royal patrons in conjunction with iconic Georgian landscape gardeners. The leading lights of the English Landscape Movement worked on either Kew or Richmond, and, in the case of William Kent, even worked on both gardens simultaneously. Bridgeman, Kent, Chambers and ‘Capability’ Brown all made their mark there, creating not just painterly landscapes to be admired, but intellectually, politically and emotionally-charged places to be inhabited, understood and enjoyed. The spectacular evening events created at Richmond by William Kent for Queen Caroline and King George II are touched on in documentary sources, but never captured in paintings. Paintings of this period tend to be far more static than the events that actually took place in these intentionally theatrical spaces.

5.5.5 In a unique historical development that has defined the history of the site, for two decades from 1731 to 1751, the gardens of Richmond and Kew increasingly became the focus of competitive garden building as a tool for contrasting political expression between the estranged mother and son, Queen Caroline and Prince Frederick. This was particularly influential in the development of Kew Gardens under the directorship of Frederick, as Caroline’s Richmond Gardens were already highly well-developed by this point.

5.5.6 During 1731- 1751, Frederick, Prince of Wales, commissioned several of the historic features that still define Kew Gardens to this day – his Great Lake partially survives as the Palm House Pond; his incomplete Mount Parnassus now houses the Temple of Aeolus on its top; and the remains of the Great Lawn still provide the setting for his wife, Augusta’s, classical Orangery, as well as providing an important open character for the northern end of the gardens.

May 2018 60 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.5.7 The expansive and open Great Lawn in front of Frederick’s extensively remodelled residence, the White House, was a much-praised feature of Kew Gardens, even amongst those who were not so keen on the rest of the exotic design: “The only beauty of this garden is the first view of the lawn, with the Pagoda at the end” (London Magazine, August 1774). Contemporary paintings and engravings show Georgian ladies and gentlemen walking with their dogs on the Great Lawn, enjoying the freedom to wander across the close-cropped grass at will (e.g. See Illustrations 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix E and Figures 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 in the THVIA Addendum (CDE.15). Where the rest of the gardens had paths from which to enjoy the follies and views in a recommended order, this was a free-flowing space to be enjoyed in an unstructured and more personal way. These same paintings show the open lawn as being enclosed at its far edges by dense boundary plantings of trees, controlling the views from within the lawn to the contrived features of the site, with no intrusions visible from outside (see Illustrations in 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix E and Figures 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 in the THVIA Addendum (CDE.15)).

5.5.8 Frederick’s widow, Augusta, continued the development of Kew Gardens as an internationally trendsetting Georgian garden after his early and unexpected death in 1751. She continued to expand the Gardens to the south, commissioning William Chambers, and others, to build follies in this new area – some of which were reputedly constructed overnight. Many of the follies were flimsy structures, of wood, lath and plaster, but some buildings were more substantial. Of Augusta’s garden the Pagoda, Ruined Arch and Orangery all remain. As one element of this landscape of exotic follies, intentional views and carefully-defined experiences, Augusta started the Physic and Exotic Garden in Kew Gardens in 1759, and this is generally taken as the founding date for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

5.5.9 Both Richmond and Kew Gardens eventually came into the ownership of George III after the death of his mother, Augusta in 1772, and his grandfather, George II, in 1760. In 1765 George III ordered the demolition of the high brick walls of Love Lane that separated the site into two distinct gardens.

5.5.10 George III gained ownership of Richmond Gardens first, where he swept away Queen Caroline’s more formal Bridgeman gardens, and commissioned ‘Capability’ Brown to create his trademark landscape. Brown had also worked at Syon Park across the Thames, and rather than creating a new body of water in Richmond, as was his usual practice, instead he incorporated the Thames into his design, visually linking the two parks together into one landscape design. The Thames became the ultimate “Brownian Lake” (see Maps 1a, 1b and 2 in Appendix E).

5.5.11 By contrast, the overall structure of Augusta’s Kew Gardens was changed far less by George III. ‘Farmer George’ turned the entire estate of Kew and Richmond into an elaborate Ferme Ornee, turning areas of grass into arable, and feeding ‘improved’ animals in the gardens. At the north

May 2018 61 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

of the site, George began the ill-fated Castellated Palace, preceded by a major demolition event to create the enormous site – demolishing not only his father’s White House, but also the Queen’s House and other buildings between Kew Palace and the Brentford Ferry.

5.5.12 Under George III, the physical space occupied by his mother, Augusta’s, Botanic Gardens did not substantially alter. However, his appointment of Joseph Banks as the Superintendent of the Botanic Gardens brought a step change in its reputation. The highly ambitious Banks enjoyed a close relationship with George III and used this influence both to his advantage and for the Gardens. By 1800, Kew Garden’s reputation and influence had grown to such an extent that virtually no ship left India or any other colony without some living or preserved specimen for Kew.

From Royal Ownership to National Botanic Garden

5.5.13 After the death of George III and Joseph Banks in 1820, the gardens went into decline, despite some ongoing royal patronage. The future of the gardens was brought into question during a Treasury review in 1837, with a formal Parliamentary Committee being set up to examine Kew Gardens in 1839 (see Map 2 in Appendix E for view at this time). Intensive lobbying during this period finally brought the recommendation that the Gardens be made into the new National Botanic Garden and be transferred from the Crown to the Government.

5.5.14 The new National Botanic Garden occupied an area to the north of the site, largely corresponding to the Palm House Zone and Entrance Zone landscape character areas (see Maps 2, 3 and 5 in Appendix E). The Western, Syon Vista, South Western and Pagoda Vista Zones all remained as the Pleasure Grounds, which become the National Arboretum. This physical distinction remained until the wire fence dividing them was taken down in 1895, and the gardens were reunited.

5.5.15 The 45-year period under the Directorship of the two Hookers (1841-1885) is one of the defining periods of the site, when the Victorian landscape design and buildings were implemented and the reputation of the National Botanic Gardens firmly established. It saw the establishment of two of the keynote glasshouses – the Palm House and the Temperate House; the laying out of the National Arboretum; the founding of the Herbarium collection; and the restructuring of the Gardens by William and Joseph Hooker, William Nesfield and Decimus Burton.

5.5.16 For the first time both Richmond and Kew Gardens were conceived of as a single landscape, albeit separated by a fence into the densely planted National Arboretum and the more open National Botanic Garden (see Map 5 in Appendix E). Emanating from the central point of the

May 2018 62 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Palm House, and integrated into the design of its formal parterres, were Nesfield’s three vistas – the Syon Vista, Pagoda Vista and the Cedar Vista. These vistas formally united the Arboretum and Botanic Garden into a single designed landscape, and the surviving vistas still structure the landscape today.

5.5.17 In recognition of its new status, Decimus Burton reorganised the formal entry into the National Botanic Gardens, designing his new Main Gates to create a grand and visually prominent entrance from Kew Green. From the Main Gates, Burton built the Little Broad Walk to take the visitor into the gardens, from where they could sweep left next to the Orangery and promenade down the Broad Walk with its formal plantings, straight into the heart of the reinvented Gardens. Marching through the open expanse of the much-reduced Great Lawn (the western part of which was still fenced off as part of the grounds of Kew Palace), the magnificent Broad Walk took the visitor directly to the proud Palm House, standing in all its glory beside its formal pond (a vestige of Frederick’s Great Lake) and surrounded by high Victorian parterres with far-reaching views into the Arboretum and the Pagoda. When the visitor made the return journey to leave the Palm House and the Gardens, the Orangery made a prominent visual terminus for the end of the Broad Walk.

Late 19th century and 20th development

5.5.18 In the early years of the 20th century, the area occupied by the Gardens continued to grow, with private and Royal areas of the Northeast Zone and Riverside Zone coming into the management of RBG, Kew (see Map 6 in Appendix E).

5.5.19 During this phase in Kew’s history, the Gardens were increasingly being impacted on by developments across the river in Brentford, and Kew began to turn its back on the Thames in design terms, breaking from Brown’s vision by repeatedly planting screens of trees. The Syon Vista, well away from Brentford, remained as the sole design link with the Thames in the new Victorian design (see also Section 5.7 for further detail).

5.5.20 This Victorian overlay onto the earlier Georgian gardens, with its strong vistas and formal walkways, areas of dense tree-planting, and iconic buildings, is one of the key defining characteristics of the character of the gardens today. At the same time, scientific research expanded at the site, and RBG, Kew became essential to the developing Empire, supplying seed, crops and horticultural advice to the colonies. With the arrival of the railway in 1871, the site’s role as a visitor attraction also grew.

5.5.21 During the 20th and 21st centuries, RBG, Kew has continued to build on its Georgian and Victorian landscape and architectural roots, going through phases of physical development and

May 2018 63 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

decline, and all the while developing the institution’s international importance and reputation as a unique and highly-focussed scientific institution. It is due to this rich, unique and irreplaceable heritage and ongoing vision that the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, were recognised with World Heritage Site status in 2003.

5.6 Description of the Gardens today

Overview

5.6.1 The gardens at Kew are largely flat. In broad terms the character of the Gardens can be broken down into three high level areas:

 the Woodland Conservation Area to the southwest of the site;  the main Victorian arboretum, where trees are formally organised by family; and  the area around the Palm House and the original 1759 botanic garden, with the former gardens of historic properties along Kew Green.

5.6.2 The area around the Palm House, open lawns in front of Kew Palace and original 1759 Botanic Garden is a distinctive part of the site where views open up for the visitor to enjoy and there are expanses of lawns between the open paths. The character of the formal arboretum and the woodland garden, to the south, by contrast, is generally quite crowded with trees, plants structures and buildings, punctuated by the strong views down the formal vistas. This contrast of character between these two areas makes the sense of space and views available in the area of the Palm House, around the open lawns in front of Kew Palace and original botanic garden particularly noticeable and appreciable.

5.6.3 As discussed below (see Section 5.7) the gardens are well-bounded to the north, south and east, while open views are still available across the Thames to the southwest of the gardens, to Syon Park. Historically, the western views were far more open along the length of the Thames beside the Richmond gardens, however, with time they have closed down with industrial and housing developments across the river in Brentford.

5.6.4 The modern experience of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, by the visitor is of a safe haven in the busy city; a place to escape and walk alone or to spend time with family and friends. This reflects historic design intents to separate Kew from the wider world. The high walls and decorative gateways that puncture the walls, and the enclosing nature of the trees all contribute to this feeling of retreat and escape into a world apart. Features that break into the skyline outside the garden’s boundaries are highly noticeable and infringe on the experience of

May 2018 64 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

immersion in this verdant landscape and our ability to understand and experience its design intent. This sense of being a ‘world apart’ is rooted in its historic design ethos and purpose.

Management Zones / Character Areas

5.6.5 The 2002 Management Plan divided the site into 8 Management Zones. These were carried forward into the 2014 Management Plan (CDF.10) as Landscape Character Zones:

 South Western Zone;  Syon Vista Zone;  Western Zone;  Entrance Zone*;  Palm House Zone*;  Pagoda Vista Zone;  Riverside Zone*;  North Eastern Zone*;

5.6.6 Four of these (marked with an * in the list above) are of particular relevance to my evidence. The descriptions of these as set in the 2014 Management Plan are reproduced below. These descriptions are essentially the same as contained in the 2002 Management Plan. A plan of the Zones can be found in Appendix A.

Entrance Zone

“3.5.2 This zone historically contained three main areas: Kew Green, the White House and the original Botanic Gardens. Kew Green used to extend as far as the Dutch House where it intersected with Love Lane, which divided Kew Gardens from Richmond Gardens, and led to the Brentford Ferry. The original Botanic Gardens were founded in 1759 and grew to form a formal area of beds and a 9-acre arboretum. This is the core from which the current Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew developed. The White House (demolished 1802) was the home of Frederick, Prince of Wales and Augusta, his wife. Together they were the main driving forces behind the development of Kew Gardens, and it was Augusta who founded the original Botanic Gardens.

3.5.3 The character of this zone is relatively mixed, consisting of open lawn areas interspersed with trees and plantings. These are crossed by a number of formal pathways, often with avenue plantings, including Nesfield’s and Burton’s Broadwalk and Little Broadwalk. An open dispersed planting of young trees, intended to represent many of the major groups of trees, now marks the area of the original Botanic Gardens. The southern end of this zone is

May 2018 65 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

characterised by a large, open area of grass, marking the site of the 40 acre Great Lawn which formerly lay in front of the White House. The keynote buildings in the zone include the Main Gates, the Aroid House [now known as the Nash (or Architectural) Conservatory] and the Orangery. Two of these buildings, the Orangery and the Aroid House, have been refurbished. The historic Main Gates currently handle approximately 30% of the visitors to the Gardens and the zone is often one of the first areas experienced by visitors” (WHS Management Plan 2014).

Riverside Zone

“3.5.4 The Riverside Zone occupies a strip of land that originally lay outside Kew Gardens and Richmond Gardens. The external and internal boundaries of the zone are largely based on the land plots of historical private buildings and their gardens. The northern end of the zone is dominated by the Herbarium. This houses the internationally significant preserved plant collections and the area is an important focus for scientific activity on the Site. The recently completed new wing of the Herbarium and Library extension has provided space for the growing stream of specimens that arrive each year. The oldest building on the Site, the 17th century Dutch House (also known as Kew Palace), lies further to the west. This was built as a merchant’s riverside villa, and later became a royal residence. Behind the Dutch House is a small, 1960s formal garden designed in a 17th century style to complement the building.

3.5.5 Between the Herbarium and the Dutch House is the modern Sir Joseph Banks Centre for Economic Botany. The building was constructed in 1990 and stands within a 3ha landscaped site. The building is one of the largest earth-covered complexes in the UK and is currently not open to the public. South of this and the Dutch House is the Lower Nursery Complex and the Building and Maintenance or Estates Yard. These are bounded, private areas of extensive modern greenhouses, administrative offices and staff residences. The Lower Nursery Complex is the site of the ill-fated Castellated Palace, commissioned by George III and demolished, unfinished, by George IV.

3.5.6 Some of the zone is open to the public but the majority of the zone houses ‘backroom’ activities, such as curation, horticulture and science. As such it is of particular importance the care and management of the collections on the Site. A new Quarantine House is currently being constructed (2010).” (WHS Management Plan 2014)

5.6.7 The Riverside Character Zone has a different history to the Royal Gardens. In the early 16th century, the land in this area was laid out in a series of fairly regular plots with a series of dwelling houses and other buildings. Under the influence of Tudor politics, this landholding pattern coalesced into larger, less equal landholdings, eventually dividing into two plots. On one of these, the rich merchant, Samuel Fortrey built the Dutch House, later known as Kew

May 2018 66 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Palace, on the cellars of the pre-existing building which he had had demolished. It is possible that these cellars belonged to the building known to have belonged to Queen Elizabeth’s ill- fated favourite, Robert Dudley, who, by 1558 owned all the land between the modern Brentford Gate and the plot of the Dutch House.

5.6.8 The history of Kew Palace is elaborated elsewhere (see Section 0). In summary, the building played an important role in the lives of the Hanoverian royal families, particularly for the elder daughters of George II, and for George III and his family. It could be argued that Frederick leased the Capel’s house and gardens at Kew precisely because his sisters were using Kew Palace as one of their residences, and so the development of Kew Gardens was begun. Richmond Gardens swept up towards Kew Palace, and despite the public presence of the old Kew Green between them, Kew Palace and Richmond Gardens had a very strong inter- relationship.

5.6.9 This part of the site was largely private, with Georgian paintings showing the area to be screened from the Thames by large trees. The public space of Kew Green did once extend further into the modern Gardens, but despite this, Kew Palace was considered private and secluded enough to house George III during his famous episode of ill-health or neurological disorder.

North Eastern Zone

“3.5.7 Historically this zone consisted of small houses and gardens set in linear plots extending from Kew Green, and in squarer plots lining Kew Road. Many of these were incorporated into the Royal Botanic Gardens in a piecemeal manner during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Currently the buildings around the outside edges of this zone are used for administrative and residential purposes. Many of these buildings are also historically interesting and are statutorily listed.

3.5.8 The historic garden plots are occupied by small discrete garden areas generally representing particular elements of botanic interest, i.e. the Aquatic Garden and the Rockery. These are currently focused around the Princess of Wales Conservatory, one of the most advanced glasshouses on the site. The recently constructed Davies Alpine House creates a striking new display area for alpine plants. Although the core of the zone is predominately open to the public, the buildings and yards, including the Jodrell Laboratory and Melon Yard, are distinctly private areas. The location of the Jodrell Laboratory in this zone makes it a particularly important focus for scientific activity on the Site. The new Wolfson wing of the Jodrell Laboratory has increased the floor space by 70%, adding over 2000 square meters to a facility that has steadily grown in output since 1877” (WHS Management Plan 2014).

May 2018 67 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.6.10 The Northeastern character zone has a history that is very distinct from the history of the early Royal Kew and Richmond Gardens, though strongly influenced by their presence. Whereas the Riverside Character Zone was very much a part of the Garden’s historic development, the Northeastern Character Zone, was physically shut out by high brick walls, despite the fact that eventually several members of the extended royal family lived there. This area closely referenced Kew Green and its historic development to the north, rather than the Kew Gardens behind them, to the south.

5.6.11 The Northeastern Zone was once part of an open field called the ‘Tinderland’, and remained thus through the 16th century. By the start of the 17th century, some small building plots were being developed along the field’s north-western edge, adjacent to Kew Green. By 1771 the area had become much more developed, with unequally-sized housing plots facing onto Kew Green with long gardens stretching out behind them, butting up against the impermeable boundary of Kew Gardens (see Maps 1a and 1b in Appendix E). The Royal Kitchen Garden was also located to the east of this area, laid out in square plots.

5.6.12 The historic character of this area is very linear, a feature which can still be identified today in the layout of the current landscape. Gradually this area was brought under royal control by strategic purchases by the Crown, though the character remained of private houses lining, and facing onto, the Green, with private gardens behind them. Various members of the extended royal family used some of these houses as their residences whilst at Kew, including George III’s son, the Duke of Cambridge at Cambridge Cottage. The specific history of Cambridge Cottage is outlined in Section 6.6.

5.6.13 A couple of the houses in this area gained notoriety in the mid-18th century, when they housed the family and offices of Lord Bute. Lord Bute was an accomplished plantsman and had advised Frederick at Kew and elsewhere. It was when he was observed to be working very closely with Augusta, Frederick’s widow, to develop Kew Gardens, that their relationship became the topic of very public speculation in the scandal sheets of the time. It was speculated in these documents that there was a gate linking the gardens of Bute’s office with Kew Gardens, however, this has yet to be physically proven.

5.6.14 As all the buildings in this area came under the management of RBGK (see Figure 6 in Appendix E), so the boundary of Kew Gardens moved north, using and redesigning their garden spaces. Now these historic buildings all benefit from two settings - their setting facing out onto Kew Green, and their setting, backing onto the gardens that have moved north to meet them.

May 2018 68 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.6.15 Of particular note in these gardens in the Northeastern Character Zone are the Order Beds. These were first conceived by Decimus Burton in c. 1846/47 as a series of highly ornamental parterres (see illustration in Appendix B) and clearly part of his plan for the area of the Gardens around his new Temple of Aeolus. They were constructed between 1857 and 1860 and contain over 3000 species from 52 families of herbaceous plants. The Order Beds were laid out in their current format in the late 1860s – early 1870s (see Map 3 in Appendix E). The Order Beds are particularly important for preserving in physical form the Bentham-Hooker classification of plants, and have been an important feature of horticultural education for students, scientists and visitors since their creation.

Palm House Zone

“3.5.9 This zone forms the heart of the 1840s Nesfield and Burton landscape design. The design, in this zone, overlies the earlier 18th century Kew Garden landscape, created, in part, by William Chambers. This cumulative design activity has created a variety of landscape character areas, making this one of the more varied zones on the site. These character areas range from small plots of open lawn to formal flowerbeds, terraces with seats, an ornamental lake, clumps of mature trees and open vistas. In all, the zone represents an unusual mix of high Victorian design, 18th century formality and 20th century intervention.

3.5.10 The zone is dominated by its keynote buildings, particularly the Palm House. The Palm House is a Grade I listed building and is one of the world’s finest surviving 19th century glasshouses. Built of wrought iron and glass this building was the largest greenhouse in the world when it was built and it remains one of the architectural icons of the Site. The Palm House is surrounded by a terrace and flowerbeds and overlooks a lightly wooded landscape which comprises plantings of diverse genera. Dividing the landscape are Nesfield’s three vistas, the Syon Vista (leading to the Thames), the Pagoda Vista (to the Pagoda) and minor vista (to a Cedar of Lebanon). These three vistas form the core structural elements of the Nesfield / Burton design and are best experienced from the west entrance to the Palm House.

3.5.11 There is a key visitor entrance point at Victoria Gate, now serviced by a modern visitor centre. This popular access point is well served by public transport. The location of the Victoria Gate, combined with the attraction of the highly visible and iconic Palm House, makes this zone a ‘honey-pot’ for visitor activity. The Broad Walk, the vistas and numerous other paths structure visitor movement around the zone and into other areas of the site. Museum Number One, opposite the Palm House, currently houses the educational resource centre for the Gardens and as such is major focal point for school children visiting the site as well as offering a presentation on plants of economic importance to the public on its ground floor.” (WHS Management Plan 2014)

May 2018 69 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.7 Setting of the WHS and contribution to OUV

Management Plan

5.7.1 The setting of the WHS is described at a high level in Section 3.6 of the 2014 WHS Management Plan, this largely reflects the description set out in the 2002 Management Plan, and is set out below for reference

“The character of the WHS and its regional setting

“3.6.1 Kew Gardens is located on free draining sand and river terrace gravel deposits in the River Thames floodplain landscape. The relatively flat river terrace landscape of Kew Gardens has been modified as a result of gravel extraction and sculpting of ongoing landscape works. Between Hampton and Kew in the upper reaches of the Thames, there is a remarkable number of connected open spaces – a unique landscape of historic, natural and cultural significance that has been celebrated for over three hundred years as ‘The Arcadian Thames’. The landscape character is based upon a unique combination of natural landscape, with rural pastures and flood meadows and formally designed landscapes of avenues and vistas. The historic value of Kew comes from its relationship to the wider Thames green open space and especially its unique history of design continuity in respect to the two other Grade I listed landscapes within the WHS buffer zone, i.e. the Old Deer Park and Syon House Estate. The green Buffer Zone of Kew is surrounded by a predominately urban environment. The setting of the Site is described below in four sections. The description highlights significant views and vistas and the nature and quality of the visual character and setting of each area, as well as examining historical and other linkages.

Northern Edge (Kew Green)

3.6.2 The area around the northern edge of the Gardens is dominated by a predominately urban environment, including major local roads and mixed use residential and commercial properties. The key open space is Kew Green which has strong historical links with the Gardens. The views out of the North Eastern Zone along the northern boundary adjacent to Kew Green tend to be limited by the buildings and boundary features that define the boundary / edge of the Gardens. There is a significant restricted short view from the Entrance Zone running northeast through the main entrance across Kew Green towards the Cricket Pavilion.

3.6.3 The area around the Dutch House and the Herbarium in the Riverside Zone has a number of significant views leading northwards out of the Garden. Significant views are also possible from the upper storeys of the Dutch House and Herbarium across the Thames towards

May 2018 70 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Brentford and the six Haverfield Estate tower blocks; there is also a glimpsed view of Kew Bridge. The Haverfield Estate tower blocks are also visible from the Broadwalk, a key vista, where they punctuate the skyline above the trees in the Riverside Zone and represent an unfortunate “eyesore”.

3.6.4 There are also a number of short to medium length views into the Gardens from around the Northern edge, including significant open views from the northern end of Kew Bridge; open and partial views from several office buildings on the north side of the Thames; partial views from elevated sections of Brentford High Street; views from the A207 and A206 road junction looking southwards; significant restricted views towards the Main gates from Kew Green and the east side of the Green; and distant views from sections of the M4 / Great West Way where the Pagoda is visible above the trees within the Gardens.

3.6.5 The significant views from the Northern Edge include those running northwest along the Broad Walk, the views from the Grade I Listed Dutch House and views along the Little Broadwalk through the Main Gates. The particularly significant views into the site are from Kew Bridge and Kew Green. The major features affecting the setting on the northern edge of the Gardens are the Haverfield estate tower blocks, but the emerging dominant development along the western bank of the Thames within Brentford also poses a threat to the quality of the overall setting.

Eastern Edge (Kew Road)

3.6.6 The area to the east of the Gardens consists of an urban environment, predominantly residential, separated from the Gardens by Kew Road, a major thoroughfare. The high brick boundary wall along this edge of the Gardens tends to screen most outward views. However, there are a number of locations where restricted (narrow) views are obtained, these occur mainly at the gates. Otherwise the views that are obtained over the wall in both the Pagoda Vista Zone and the Palm House Zone are to the upper storeys of the houses and flats located on the east side of Kew Road.

3.6.7 A significant restricted view is obtained from the Victoria Gate in the Palm House Zone towards Kew Gardens Station along Lichfield Road. Another relatively restricted view can be obtained through the Temperate House Gate adjacent to the Marianne North Gallery in the Pagoda Vista Zone. In addition the six tower blocks on the Haverfield Estate form part of the skyline for views obtained from viewpoints located within the northern parts of the Gardens, and especially along the Broadwalk in the Palm House Zone. Views from the upper storeys of the Pagoda are wide reaching and cover much of the surrounding landscape and Windsor Castle can be seen at great distance to the west on clear days.

May 2018 71 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

3.6.8 There are a number of views towards the Site from this area. However, the majority of these are short restricted views looking along roads, as housing development in the area tends to screen most views. Key views include: sight lines down the length of Kew Road and along adjoining side roads; significant restricted views from Lichfield Road and parts of Station Approach towards Victoria Gate; general glimpsed views of the Pagoda from the surrounding area; restricted views from The Avenue towards Marianne North Gallery; and a restricted view towards the Pagoda from Burdett Road.

3.6.9 The most significant views out of the Gardens are along both directions of the Broadwalk in the Palm House Zone and from the Victoria Gate. The views from the upper storeys of the Pagoda are also particularly significant and unusual for the area. The views into the Gardens from Lichfield Road and Kew Road are also considered significant views and the view from Burdett Road is incidental, but noteworthy, for local residents.

Broad themes / elements of Setting

5.7.2 Analysis has identified a number of broad themes / elements relating to its setting and the relationship between Kew and the outside world.

Arcadian paradise - Open views across the Thames

5.7.3 There are two distinct features of the relationship between the gardens at Kew and the outside world. To the west, along the Thames, the gardens have traditionally been open, starting with Queen Caroline’s celebrated early 18th century Riverside Terrace. ‘Capability’ Brown swept the terrace away, replacing it with a ha-ha in 1767 so that he could create an even closer relationship between Richmond Gardens and the Thames, reaching across the river to intentionally conjoin Richmond with Syon Park as one Arcadian paradise.

5.7.4 This historic theme of openness along the west side of the gardens was celebrated by Nesfield with his Syon Vista in 1852, retaining an element of openness along the west side as the rest of the historic Richmond Gardens were filled up with plantings for the new National Arboretum from 1848.

Closing the view - Stopping the visual intrusion of industrial development in Brentford

5.7.5 In response to industrial development across the river in Brentford, the design of the Thames- side of the gardens were fundamentally changed in the latter part of the 19th century. The Thames-side of the Gardens was increasingly planted up to screen views of new development

May 2018 72 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

that were considered to be intrusive. This took place in several phases, showing how much of an ongoing concern it was to have development intruding into the gardens from outside. The process was begun in 1862 when a belt of trees and shrubs were planted along the riverside from Brentford Ferry Gate to Syon Vista “to hide the view of the new docks and railway terminus in Brentford” (Desmond 1995, 370). More planting took place in 1877 (Desmond 1995, 372), and was thickened again in 1896 (Desmond, 195, 374) before being replanted in 1912 and 1913 (Desmond, 1995, 376). In 1922 Kew was even given permission to plant trees and shrubs on land adjacent to Brentford Dock (Desmond 195, 377). And when, in 1931, a new gasometer, 160 feet high, was constructed in Brentford, dominating the northern skyline of Kew, the gas company agreed that the Director of Kew should have a say in the choice of colour it was painted – he chose ‘an innocuous pale grey’ (Desmond 1995, 378).

High walls and tall trees

5.7.6 From at least 1763, Kew Gardens were purposefully bounded by high brick walls in all directions (see Figure 2.5 in THVIA Addendum (CDE.15) - 1763 Plan of Princess Augusta’s garden at Kew). Lining the insides of these brick walls were boundary plantings of trees around a more open central space of lawns, the Lake and Island. Hidden within these boundary trees and wildernesses were a series of theatrical follies, acting as thought-provoking eye-catchers and set locations from which to enjoy the view. Views in Chambers’s monograph on Kew repeatedly show, from several different perspectives, a central landscape of open lawns and water, encircled by trees, and overlooked by buildings set back into the woodland, behind which the trees act as screens, backdrops and visual foils (see example Illustrations 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix E).

5.7.7 Between Kew and Richmond Gardens was Love Lane – an ironically named pubic right of way, given the animosity between Frederick and his parents. It must have been a long tunnel of a passageway, lined by high walls on both sides. After George III inherited Richmond in 1760 from his grandfather, George II, the public right of way down Love Lane was closed by Parliament in 1765. After he inherited Kew from his mother in 1772 as well, the walls on both sides of Love Lane were demolished, taking “upwards of four hundred labourers” to complete the task in April 1774 (cf Blunt, 1978, 14), proving just how substantial they were.

5.7.8 Kew Palace was a quiet countryside retreat for the royal family, being particularly used by the daughters of George II and Caroline, and later, was famously secluded enough for George III to be constrained there during his ‘madness’ – now variously thought to be porphyria, mental ill health or bipolar disorder. Historic pictures of the Dutch House/Kew Palace show mature trees behind it, separating the building from the Thames. These include the Philip Mercier painting of Frederick and his sisters having a ‘Music Party’ from 1733 and an undated etching of Kew

May 2018 73 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Palace in (see Illustration 5 in Appendix E) again shows mature trees between the building and the Thames.

5.7.9 This sense of separation from the Thames during royal use of the northern end of the site is further reinforced by historic paintings of the White House, which repeatedly show large mature trees to the north (eg Illustration 3 in Appendix E and Figure 2.15 in THVIA Adendum CDE.15).

Domesticity and Kew Green

5.7.10 The private dwellings to the northeast of the Gardens, subsequently brought into the Royal Botanic Gardens during the latter 19th century, were excluded from Kew Gardens to the south by the Gardens’ high brick wall, which still exists at the end of Cambridge Cottage garden and elsewhere. During the time of Princess Augusta, this strict boundary was only punctured by a gate leading from the garden of Lord Bute’s study into the royal gardens.

5.7.11 The properties in this area were domestic and built to face onto Kew Green to the north, semi- permeable to the public space in front of them. The pleasant public sphere of Kew Green with its open spaces and genteel and polite domestic buildings was their physical setting, the view from their windows and, indeed, their social raison d’etre.

Current Detractors

5.7.12 Historically, the setting of Kew has been challenged and degraded by built development in and around the Brentford area (see above). This trend continues with external development continuing to have an impact on the setting of the WHS. Key issues include:

 Haverfield Estate Towers – these six c.1970 tower blocks are a particularly prominent feature of the urban landscape around Kew. They have a significant visual impact on the setting and character of the Garden, in particular in relation to the Riverside Zone, Entrance Zone and Palm House Zone. They regularly overtop the screening afforded by the tree planting within the gardens and most significantly two of the blocks are framed in views northwards along the Broadwalk – directly impacting on one of the Gardens’ primary design features. They also affect the setting of the Orangery (see Section 6.2) and the experience of the open lawns in the Entrance Zone which occupy the areas of the former Great Lawn. Glimpses of them can also be had from near to the Palm House. The Illustrative Photos in Appendix D provide examples of the visual intrusion as do Figures 2.40, 2.41, 2.45 and 2.46 of the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15).

May 2018 74 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 The Kew Eye (also known as the Wallace house development) – this development is particularly intrusive into views from the Riverside Zone and into the visual setting of Kew Palace where it dominates views from the rear of building and also features strongly in some views of it from the south. Illustrative Photos in Appendix D provide examples of the visual intrusion as do Figures 2.44 and 2.48 of the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15).

5.7.13 These detractors, in particular the Haverfield Estate towers, have long been acknowledged. The 2002/2003 inscription review mission by ICOMOS (CDF.19) did noted the negative impact of tall buildings stating that: “The ICOMOS mission took the view that the overall aspect of six 22-storey tower blocks (Haverfield estate) at Brentford on the opposite bank of the Thames, opposite the gardens and outside the buffer zone, seriously diminished the visual experience at Kew at several points in the gardens.”

5.7.14 As set out above, the 2014 WHS Management Plan also highlights the current impact of development. Appendix G of my evidence highlights the numerous locations in the WHS Management Plan where setting impacts are identified. The 2010 SOUV (CDF.17) also noted that under the authenticity of the site that “Development outside this Buffer Zone may threaten the setting of the property.”

5.7.15 As part of its obligation to UNESCO, the UK Government undertakes periodic reporting on its World Heritage Sites. The 2014 report (see Appendix F) notes in the comment section (2.1) on the SOUV, that “Inappropriate development outside buffer zone causing harm to WHS.”, it also notes in Section 2.4 that the SOUV needs revision to reflect “development outside buffer zone in Brentford causing harm to the OUV”. Section 2.5 goes on to state “It is appreciated that Kew’s SOUV will not be changed in the foreseeable future. It is however desirable to express the significance of Kew as well and fully as possibly. This is particularly important given other values - such as economic regeneration - which are currently seen as antithetical to the protection of OUV. A new synthesis is required, protecting OUV whilst allowing the economy of the surrounding area to flourish. A fuller SOUV could contribute to this process.”

5.7.16 Table 3.16 - Assessment of current negative factors, also identifies Housing and Commercial Development as Significant negative factors, with an increasing trend. Section 4.2.6 - Comments, conclusions and / or recommendations related to protective measures goes on to state “The Royal Botanic Gardens has adequate protective measures in place. However new development carried out within the buffer zone (and beyond) since inscription has harmed OUV. The Mayor of London has produced Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) on the protection of the settings of World Heritage Sites in London. However the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow have still to incorporate relevant polices of the 2011 WHS Management Plan within their Local Development Frameworks.”

May 2018 75 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.7.17 The summary states that:

Contribution to OUV

5.7.18 The setting of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew makes a direct and important contribution to its significance as an evolved designed landscape representing key periods in garden history and royal history. The setting of the Site also makes a contribution to the setting of individual architectural icons within it and the setting of individual garden structures and temples etc.

5.7.19 The setting therefore makes a contribution to the Site’s inscription under Criterion ii and iv (as described above) and to two of the attributes of OUV identified in Management Plan namely: a rich and diverse historic cultural landscape providing a palimpsest of landscape design; and an iconic architectural legacy including the Palm house, the Temperate House and modern additions such as Princess of Wales Conservatory.

5.7.20 Key contributions that the setting of the site makes include:

 The visual and physical relationships westwards over and to the River Thames and wider Arcadian landscape beyond, including the designed relationships with Syon Park;  The backdrop to key views and vistas including the Syon Vista, Broadwalk, Cedar Vista, Pagoda Vista; and other internal views such as the views over the open lawns in the Entrance Zone which reflect the historic Great Lawn;

May 2018 76 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 The backdrop to views of and from architectural icons on the site including the Palm House, Temperate House, Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Palace and the Orangery;  The backdrop to views of and from the numerous historic garden buildings, follies etc. on the site; and  The creation of a sense of enclosure and separation from the wider world created by the walls and boundary planting and supported by the largely unbroken skyline.

5.7.21 The 2014 Management Plan also identified a series of views to and from the WHS (see Plan in Appendix A) which contribute to the setting and OUV of the WHS.

5.8 Assessment of Impact

Description of Impact

5.8.1 In the Entrance Zone the proposed development would be a significant new intrusion into the setting of the Orangery (see Section 6.2) below for more discussion on this impact) and on the character and setting of the open lawns in the area, these are the descendants of the Great Lawn. The development would be clearly visible from numerous locations sitting above the defined tree lined edge of the gardens. Illustrative Photographs 3, 5, 8 and 9 in Appendix D, Views 14 and 15 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence, Views 16, 16A in the THVIA (CDA.11) and Views 36, 37 in the THVIA addendum (CDA.15) demonstrate the increased visual intrusion.

5.8.2 The Orangery (Grade I Listed), which is one of a very few of William Chambers’ buildings to survive from Augusta’s Kew Gardens and is also the earliest surviving glasshouse on the site – and was once the largest glasshouse in England. The Orangery is a key part of the “rich and diverse historic cultural landscape” and the “iconic architectural legacy” attributes of the site’s OUV. The views vista across the remains of the Great Lawn to the Orangery are important elements of the site’s character contributing to the “rich and diverse historic cultural landscape” as well as being a key part of the setting of the Orangery.

5.8.3 The proposed development would also feature in limited views out of Kew Palace and in views of the Palace – these impacts are less significant than others in this zone (see Section 0 below for further discussion).

5.8.4 In the Northeastern Zone the development would have further particularly striking impacts. The underlying grain of the landscape in this area is founded on the historic layout of the landscape as domestic gardens associated with properties on the south side of Kew Green. The grain therefore runs roughly north-south, drawing views axially along this orientation i.e.

May 2018 77 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

towards the proposed development. The area is also heavily bounded and more finely grained in scale compared to other areas within the Gardens, reflecting its historic development and its use for a series of important specialist designed gardens including the Order Beds, Rockery and Grass Garden. It is also the home of the Princess of Wales Conservatory. Views 18, 19, 20 and 21 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence along with View 35 in the THVIA addendum (CDA.15) show the scale of visual intrusion from within the Order Beds, in views over the Order beds from the Temple of Aeolus (also see Section 6.5), in views from the path beside the rockery and in views from the Grass Garden. These views demonstrate that:

 The proposed development would significantly change the sense of enclosed domestic scale space within the Order Beds, adversely affecting their character and form;  The proposed development would present a very significant visual intrusion into the bounded spaces of the Rockery and Grass Garden and would compete with the Princess of Wales Conservatory and new Alpine House as the architectural centrepieces of this area;  The proposed development would detract from the appreciation and setting of the Grade II listed 19th century statue “The Sower”4 at the heart of the Grass Garden; and  The proposed development would overtop and dominate Cambridge Cottage (Grade II listed building) – this historic building has a long association with Kew Gardens and is a highly prominent and important historic feature in the area. It would also affect views out form this property over Kew Green and its principal entrance portico (also see Section 6.6 for further discussion).

5.8.5 These views also demonstrate that the area is largely screened from external modern development and that the proposed development would be significant new visual intrusion into an area of the Gardens that currently retains its historically intended enclosed character.

5.8.6 In the Palm House Zone the development would be seasonally screened by trees but as discussed in Section 6.4 in relation to the Palm House it would still feature as a glimpsed element in some seasonal views; although minor in scale these glimpses do slightly increase the overall level of external visual intrusion into the Gardens. In terms of the Temple of Aeolus, a Grade II listed historic garden building, the proposed development would be a significant visual intrusion in northwards views over the Order Beds, which form a designed element of its setting.

5.8.7 Further south in the WHS the development would continue to have some visual impact.

4 List entry for the statue reads “1886. Sir William Hamo Thornycroft. Bronze statue "The Sower", on Portland stone base. Male figure wearing shirt, trousers and leggings, striding forward over furrowed earth carrying a basket from which he casts the seed. Cast posthumously in bronze” (see https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1262481) (accessed May 12th 2018)

May 2018 78 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

5.8.8 From within the Grade I listed Temperate House the development would be visible from the publically accessible gallery in northward views over the Palm House (see Photo 20 in Appendix D). This would be intrusive into the setting of the Temperate House, the Palm House and the visual connectivity between them.

5.8.9 The Grade I listed Pagoda at the far south of the WHS is one of the Royal Botanic Gardens’ most iconic features. Designed by Sir William Chambers as a centrepiece in Augusta’s garden this highly ornate 10 storey building dominates the south of the garden and forms the terminus of the later Pagoda Vista and Cedar Vista; originally it formed a focal point on the Great Lawn. The building was more than an eye-catcher and was designed with a spiral stair case and accessible floors at all levels. Its windows provide views out in all directions and it was obviously intended to provide a unique experience overlooking the designed landscapes below and wider landscape of London beyond that. The building was historically open to the public and is due to reopen to the public in 2018 following a major restoration. As summarised in paragraph 3.9.26 of the WHS Management Plan “The Grade I listed Pagoda, the most significant surviving architectural element of William Chambers’ designs has become an iconic landmark. The view from the Pagoda provides a key overview of the Gardens and the wider landscape beyond. Its position within the garden and relatively original state makes it a key attribute towards the OUV of the WHS.”

5.8.10 Current views northwards from the Pagoda over the Gardens are illustrated on Photo 19 in Appendix D. As highlighted the proposed development would significantly increase the scale of tall development in the view, being the tallest visible structure and expanding the spread of near tall buildings in views northwards over the Gardens.

Cumulative Impacts

5.8.11 As set out above under “Current Detractors” (see Section 5.7) the setting and significance of the WHS has already been significantly adversely affected by external development. The proposed development will worsen this situation in two key ways.

5.8.12 Firstly, by introducing significant new visual intrusion into areas of the WHS that currently retain their historically intended enclosed character e.g. the Order Beds, Grass Garden, Rockery, and views from and to Cambridge Cottage. This essentially extends the current impact of external development into new areas of the WHS, leaving less of the WHS with its historically intact setting and character.

5.8.13 Secondly, it would significantly increase the cumulative impact of current development on the setting of key assets in the WHS and on important areas of the WHS. For example, it would

May 2018 79 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

intensify the impact of external development on the setting and character of the still open former areas of the Great Lawn, it would significantly increase the impact of development on the setting of the Orangery and would slightly worsen the impact of development on the setting of Kew Palace and Palm House.

5.8.14 Additionally, there are other possible future developments in the environs of the WHS which could contribute to the overall impact on its setting and OUV including the Citroen site at Capital Interchange Way (Ref P/2017/4692). This has been refused by the LPA citing harm to heritage assets including Kew and the application is currently before the Mayor.

5.8.15 As set out in NPPG (see Section 3.8), Historic England Setting Guidance (see Section 3.15) and the London SPG (see Section 3.10) the consideration of cumulative impacts with existing and potential developments is a critical element determining the acceptability of a development.

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

5.8.16 The setting of the WHS directly contributes to its OUV including its authenticity and integrity. The attributes of OUV of a WHS are of Very High value (as set out in Appendix 2 of the London WHS Setting SPG (CDC.11)). Existing development is already having a very significant impact on the setting and OUV of the WHS, for example the Haverfield Towers at the end of the Broadwalk and along the Pagoda Vista, and the impact of the Kew Eye on the Riverside Zone and Kew Palace (see Illustrative Photos 1 to 4, 6 to 16, 18 to 20 in Appendix D). The proposed development would significantly increase that harm in the round by introducing significant new visual intrusion into areas of the WHS that are currently unaffected and significantly increasing the impact of existing development on the setting of key assets in the WHS and on important areas of the WHS.

5.8.17 On balance, the proposed development adds to the existing impacts resulting in comprehensive changes to the setting of the WHS, i.e. a Major Adverse impact resulting in a Very Large Adverse Effect.

NPPF

5.8.18 As set out in Section 3.8, NPPG identifies a number of principles relating to WHSs that need to be taken into account by planning authorities when both plan making and making decisions. These principles include:

May 2018 80 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 “protecting the World Heritage Site and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate development  protecting a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect”

5.8.19 The setting of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS makes a significant contribution to its OUV (significance). The proposed development in conjunction with existing development would have very significant impact on the WHS’s setting and significance. The scale of impact resulting from existing and proposed development is severe and affects important aspects of the WHS’s setting and the setting of key assets within the WHS that make a direct contribution to its OUV.

5.8.20 As set out in paragraph 5.31 of the SPG (CDC.11) “There should also be recognition that previous permissions for similar developments do not necessarily represent acceptability of impacts on setting; as the cumulative effect is different for each new proposal and there may be a tipping–point beyond which further development would result in substantial harm to the OUV, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site”. My view is that the proposed development achieves this tipping point, making already very significant and severe impacts worse and introducing new impacts on previously unaffected areas.

5.8.21 As set out in NPPF paragraph 132 (CDC.01) “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” NPPG reminds decision makers that “World Heritage Sites are designated heritage assets of the highest significance”. The greatest weight should therefore be given to the conservation of a WHS’s Significance / OUV and “clear and convincing justification” is required for any harm (regardless as to whether it is Less than Substantial Harm, Substantial Harm or Total Loss).

5.8.22 Appeal decisions in relation to WHSs reflect these requirements, for example in refusing permission for housing development in the setting of the Bath WHS, the Inspector at the Land between City Farm and Cotswold View appeal5 (at Appendix I) stated that “17. The City of Bath WHS is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. The landscape setting of Bath is one of the city's most important assets.” and went on to state in determining the balance that:

5 APP/F0114/W/16/3150680

May 2018 81 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

“45. I have found that … the development of this site would lead to less than substantial harm to the character and significance of the WHS as a designated heritage asset. As Framework 134 makes clear, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 'Less than substantial' does not necessarily mean insignificant and any harm, as a matter of law, must be given considerable importance and weight in the overall balance.

46 ... However, on balance, after giving the appropriate weight to the identified harm to the WHS, I consider that these public benefits do not outweigh that harm. I find no clear and convincing justification for the harm that would be caused to the significance of the WHS as an important designated heritage asset”

5.8.23 At the Land South of St George’s Road, Hayle appeal (APP/D0840/W/15/3006077) (at Appendix J) adjacent to the Cornwall and West Devon Mining WHS, the Inspector found (in Paragraph 56) “…that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of the WHS, the SAM, the listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site and the Hayle CA. For the reasons set out previously, I have given the large degree of harm to the significance of the WHS very significant weight, the minor to moderate harm to the SAM slight weight, the minor to moderate harm to the significance of the listed buildings slight weight and the minor harm to the significance of the CA slight weight. It is the case that the SAM, the listed buildings and the CA are constituent elements of this part of the WHS. It is however their interaction which creates the WHS which is then afforded the highest level of policy protection; hence the greater level of harm to its significance and the greater level of weight given to that harm”. He went to state in paragraph 57 “…Having considered all of the above, there is no clear or convincing justification for harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, and I am of the opinion that the harm would clearly outweigh the public benefits of the proposal.”

5.8.24 These cases, amongst others, demonstrate that clear and convincing justification for any harm is required and the Less than Substantial Harm or Substantial Harm to a WHS should carry very significant weight in decision making.

5.8.25 Pre-NPPF the importance of WHSs and the weight that needs to be given to the conservation of their Outstanding Universal Value was recognised in PPG15 and in earlier appeal decisions. For example, in the Elizabeth House appeal6 (2009) (see Appendix K), which addressed tall buildings and their impact on the Westminster WHS, the Inspector noted in 12.4.7 that “What is important is whether the development when seen, as it will be, from various viewpoints in Parliament Square and The Sanctuary would either on its own or in combination with other

6 APP/N5660/V/08/1203387

May 2018 82 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

buildings preserve the outstanding significance and appreciation of these universally valued and historic buildings.” This recognises both the extraordinary value of the WHS and the need to address cumulative impacts. In recommending refusal the Inspector stated in 12.6.7 “The buildings proposed would not achieve the level of excellence necessary and would cause irreversible and widespread harm to a number of important elements of the historic environment, including the Westminster World Heritage Site, the Royal Festival Hall, the Royal National Theatre and County Hall.” The Inspector’s decision and conclusions were supported by the Secretary of State.

5.8.26 In terms of arguments made that the proposed development would only affect part of the WHS and hence should be given less weight, it is important to note other appeal decisions in this regard. For example, at the Derwent Valley Mills WHS the Inspector in relation to the Land off North Avenue, Darley Abbey, Derby7 (see Appendix L) appeal specifically addressed this point when refusing permission stating that:

“36. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF notes that not all elements of a World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Nevertheless, overall, the WHS represents an asset of very high value. Although the appeal site represents a small fragment of the 24km long WHS, should not be under-rated when considering the effect on the WHS as a whole. It should not lie below that of a similar effect on a much smaller world heritage site, otherwise such reasoning could lead to the proliferation of similar harm throughout the WHS. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)9 endorses the principle of protecting a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect.”

7 APP/C1055/W/15/3137935 &APP/C1055/W/15/3141117

May 2018 83 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.0 OTHER AFFECTED ASSETS WITHIN THE WHS

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This section identifies a number of other affected assets within the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, WHS. It describes those assets, describes their setting, describes the contribution that their setting makes to the significance and then assesses the impact of the development on their setting and significance. Assets addressed are:

 Orangery – Grade I listed  Kew Palace – Grade I listed and scheduled monument  Palm House – Grade I listed  Temple of Aeolus – Grade II listed  Cambridge Cottage – Grade II listed

6.2 Orangery

Background and History

6.2.1 The 1757-17618 Orangery was designed by Sir William Chambers and is constructed of brick with original 18th century stucco (to his personal recipe). It is a Grade I listed building. It was an integral part of Augusta’s Kew Gardens and stood on the northern edge of Fredrick’s Great Lawn. The Orangery was originally accompanied by a small arboretum of hardy trees and shrubs to the east.

6.2.2 At the time of its construction the Orangery was the largest glasshouse in England and was designed and located to form a major architectural statement in Augusta’s gardens; its location on the edge of the Great Lawn ensured that it was a highly visible and prominent feature in the landscape, complementing the White House to the west. It features in a number of contemporary paintings and engravings, including Illustrations 1 and 2 in Appendix E and Figures 2.10 and 2.12 of the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15).

6.2.3 It was built as a hot-house for oranges, with two furnaces in a shed behind the main building. Sir John Parnell reported in 1769 that it was “filled completely, chiefly with oranges which bear extremely well and large”. However, Desmond (1995, 39) states that “the experience of a succession of gardeners all confirms that its tiles roof, inadequate light and insufficient heat made it an unsatisfactory building for growing citrus fruit” (Desmond 1995, 39). The plants

8 According to Desmond (1995, 39), “records indicate it was started in 1757, but Chambers said it was built in 1761”

May 2018 84 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

from the Orangery were eventually transferred to the new Temperate House in 1863, almost 100 years later.

6.2.4 In 1851 Kew was a major beneficiary of material from the Great Exhibition, and subsequently received donations from other international exhibitions. After the Orangery was cleared of plants in 1863 it was turned into a Timber Museum with internal cast iron galleries and spiral stairs. These were taken out again in 1959, when the Orangery was renovated and reopened as part of the Kew Gardens bicentenary celebrations, with oranges placed inside once again. This lasted until 1972, when and the building became a bookshop and exhibition area. Further renovation works were carried out in the early 2000s with the building reopening as a restaurant.

Setting

6.2.5 The Orangery is an important building in the landscape history of Kew. It was designed to be seen across the Great Lawn and Lake as a key designed architectural element in the landscape. Alongside the White House, and later Crenelated Palace, it was the principal architectural feature in this area of Augusta’s gardens. It was later adopted by Decimus Burton in his geometric design as a key feature along the Broad Walk, drawing the eye down the walk (when coming from the Palm House) and providing a visual barrier to views from the Little Broad Walk until the junction with Main Broad Walk was reached from the entrance gates. It acts a visual marker to the change of direction in the Broad Walk.

6.2.6 Its current setting has retained important elements of its historic setting including views of the Orangery over open areas of lawn from the southwest (which reflect its designed relationship with the Great lawn), its screening function in relation to the Broadwalk, its prominence in the landscape and its screening planting to the rear that reinforces its prominence in the landscape.

6.2.7 There are however features in its setting that are adversely affecting that setting and the contribution it makes to its significance, these include:

 The Haverfield Estate Towers. These feature in views directly along the Broadwalk challenging the prominence of the Orangery in those views (See Photos 6 and 7 in Appendix D). They also appear in the flanks of views across the lawns in front of the Orangery (see Photos 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 in Appendix D and see View 14 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence) and appear directly behind the Orangery in some views from the south (See Photo 4 in Appendix D).

May 2018 85 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Some of the coniferous planting along the Broadwalk has become substantial in size and is reducing the visual prominence of the Orangery in views form the Broadwalk and areas of the lawn to the south.  A large mature deciduous tree to the southwest of the building is partially obscuring views of the Orangery.

6.2.8 While the local planting is affecting the building’s setting, it is the Haverfield Estate Towers that are the most intrusive element, particularly in views down the Broad Walk and from the south.

Overview of Significance and contribution of setting to significance

6.2.9 The Orangery’s significance resides in a number of aspects relating to its history, architectural form, relationship to the evolution of the Gardens and its setting.

6.2.10 In relation to the WHS, of which it forms and integral part, it is directly mentioned in the SOUV (CDF.17) which states that “Elements of the 18th and 19th century layers including the Orangery, Queen Charlotte’s Cottage; the folly temples; Rhododendron Dell, boundary ha-ha; garden vistas to William Chambers’ pagoda and Syon Park House; iron framed glasshouses; ornamental lakes and ponds; herbarium and plant collections convey the history of the Gardens’ development from royal retreat and pleasure garden to national botanical and horticultural garden before becoming a modern institution of conservation ecology in the 20th century”; and it contributes to two of the criteria under which the site was inscribed:

 Criterion (ii): Since the 18th century, the Botanic Gardens of Kew have been closely associated with scientific and economic exchanges established throughout the world in the field of botany, and this is reflected in the richness of its collections. The landscape and architectural features of the Gardens reflect considerable artistic influences both with regard to the European continent and to more distant regions;  Criterion (iv): The landscape gardens and the edifices created by celebrated artists such as Charles Bridgeman, William Kent, Lancelot 'Capability' Brown and William Chambers reflect the beginning of movements which were to have international influence;

6.2.11 Historically it is of particular note for its relationships with Princess Augusta and Sir William Chambers, both key players in the development of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. It was also England’s largest glass house at the time of its construction and represents a key phase in the development of horticulture in England.

May 2018 86 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.2.12 Throughout its history it has played key roles in the landscape design of Kew. Firstly, as a key classical building in the landscape design of Augusta’s gardens; sited in a prominent location overlooking and viewed across the Great Lawn and Lake. Later as a key feature of Decimus Burton’s grand Broadwalk. Its imposing classical form forming a key element of the Broadwalk design and experience.

6.2.13 It is also of significance as an exceptional well detailed classical garden building, an exemplar of its type from this period. It has a defined symmetry and powerful presence and its manifestly designed to be a strong and prominent feature in views. It is still the largest classical building at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and is the only plant house that survives from Augusta’s gardens at Kew.

6.2.14 Its setting in the designed landscape of the gardens as a key prominent feature in views across the former Great Lawn and along the Broadwalk are key elements of its historic, architectural and aesthetic significance.

Description of Impact

6.2.15 Views 14 and 15 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence; Views 16 and 16A in the THVIA (CDA.11); and Views 36 and 37 in the THVIA addendum (CDA.15) provide illustrations of the proposed development in relation to views of the Orangery. Photos 3, 5, 8 and 9 in Appendix D also provide a sense of likely impacts.

6.2.16 They provide a clear understanding as to how the development will appear in and around the Orangery, challenging its prominence in the landscape and detracting from important views of the Orangery across the open lawn area that mark the surviving extent of the Great Lawn – these views are a very important aspect of the Orangery’s setting and make a direct contribution to its significance. Views 14 ad 15 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence provide a particularly stark contrast between the existing situation and domineering effect of the proposed development.

Cumulative Impacts

6.2.17 The Haverfield Estate towers are already having a very harmful impact on the setting of the Orangery. Firstly, their presence on views along the Boardwalk is a seriously distracting element in views that feature the Orangery and demonstrate the design intent of Decimus Burton in relation to the Orangery (See Photos 6 and 7 in Appendix D). Secondly, they appear in the flanks of views across the former Great Lawn towards the Orangery (see Photos 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 in Appendix D and see View 14 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence), providing a

May 2018 87 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

visual intrusion into an otherwise uninterrupted enclosed backdrop. Thirdly, they appear directly behind and dominate views of the Orangery from the south (see Photo 4 in Appendix D).

6.2.18 The proposed development exacerbates existing impacts by placing development immediately over the Orangery in certain key views and by extending the visual intrusion of external modern development across a range of views. These changes significantly challenge the prominence of the building in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew’s designed landscape and seriously affect its setting and significance.

6.2.19 It is also worth noting that if the mature tree to the southwest of the Orangery was lost or reduced in size the impact of the development would be significantly worsened.

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

6.2.20 The Orangery directly contributes to the OUV of the WHS and this coupled with its Grade I status makes it a High value asset. Existing development is already having a notable impact on the setting of the Orangery, the proposed development would substantially increase that with significant intrusion above the roofline of the building and in the flanks of views of the building in its landscape setting. On balance the combination of existing harm and proposed development with have a Major Adverse Impact on the Orangery resulting in a Large Adverse Effect.

NPPF

6.2.21 As set out above, the setting of Orangery makes a significant contribution to its significance; and its unchallenged prominence on the landscape is a key element of its significance. The development in conjunction with existing development would have very significant impact on the asset’s setting and significance. The scale of change is severe and affects key aspects of its setting and significance. The harm is borderline Less than Substantial Harm / Substantial Harm.

6.2.22 As noted above, the loss or reduction of one tree would increase the scale of visual intrusion and harm.

May 2018 88 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.3 Kew Palace (Dutch House)

Background and History

6.3.1 Kew Palace is a 17th century square, red brick mansion in Flemish bond brickwork. It is a Grade I listed Building and Scheduled Monument. It has impressive cut and moulded brickwork, three imposing Dutch Gables, and classical cornices, pilasters and pillars. The three-storey building is covered with ruddle (terracotta coloured limewash) and has a pan-tile roof with attics. It has several large diagonal chimney stacks in 19th century stock brick. The building has an array of 18th century white painted sash windows, which replaced the original mullion and transom windows.

6.3.2 In about 1630, Samuel Fortrey, a rich merchant, bought and then demolished a house at Kew to make way for a new mansion. This new, red brick house (Kew Palace) was built in 1631 (according to the date stamp over the door) and incorporated the rib-vaulted cellars of the demolished, pre-existing building, which have been stylistically dated to about 1550-1570. Both these structures, the red brick mansion above and the pre-existing cellars beneath, comprise the building variously known as the Dutch House and Kew Palace.

6.3.3 Nearly 100 years after the red brick mansion was built, the then Prince and Princess of Wales (later to be George II and Queen Caroline), moved into the Crown property at Richmond Lodge in 1718. By 1729, Caroline had leased Kew Palace and its lands, extending her pre-existing landholdings at Richmond Lodge to the south, up to Kew Green in the north. The later Queen Charlotte completed the task, purchasing the northern land and buildings, including Kew Palace, in 1781.

6.3.4 The three eldest daughters of George II and Queen Caroline took up residence at Kew Palace after 1729, making Kew Palace a Royal residence for the first time. George II and Caroline’s eldest son, Frederick, Prince of Wales, who had a troubled relationship with his parents, moved to a neighbouring property in 1731 (later subsumed by the White House), bringing his new wife, Augusta, there in 1736. It is this Royal family of Prince Frederick, Princess Augusta and Queen Caroline, with their gardening aspirations, political affiliations and troubled relationships, who, through their residence at Richmond and Kew, created the historic structure of the landscape that underpins the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

6.3.5 It could be speculated that if Queen Caroline had not installed her three daughters at Kew Palace, perhaps Frederick might not have bought the house and gardens at Kew House, directly next door to them. Whatever his motivation in buying the property – about which there has

May 2018 89 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

been much speculation, from conciliation to aggravation – the presence of the princesses in Kew Palace exerted a draw to him that effectively began the entire story of Kew Gardens.

6.3.6 Later, George III inherited both properties at Richmond and Kew, bringing them into a single Royal ownership for the first time. George III and his wife, Queen Charlotte, chose to focus the domestic life of their family at Kew, alongside Windsor. Under his ownership, Richmond Lodge was demolished (1772), and the Royal family focussed their domestic energies on the Kew end of the property. The Dutch House was used as an annexe to the White House (built earlier by Frederick and Augusta). Later, famously, George III was confined to Kew Palace during his first episode of ‘madness’ in 1788, where his doctors could attempt to treat him in privacy, away from the public eye.

6.3.7 From 1809, Kew Palace fell out of favour as a Royal palace and gradually fell into disuse and decay. In 1880 the service wing was demolished, leaving it standing alone in its grounds, as it does today. Queen Victoria initiated a programme of restoration, after which the building was opened to the public. It was restored again in the 1970s, and again in 2006.

6.3.8 In 1834, the grounds around Kew Palace were separated from the rest of the gardens by a combination of a ha-ha and railings, stretching from the river near the site of the former Castellated Palace, to the ice house near the Botanic Gardens. This boundary was slightly altered in 1845-6 to allow for the construction of Burton’s Broad Walk, which ran alongside the Palace Grounds for almost half of its length. The Palace boundary was removed in 1895, when the land around Kew Palace was brought into the rest of the Royal Botanic Gardens.

Setting

6.3.9 Kew Palace sits on its own at the north of the gardens, the buildings that were once attached to it having been demolished historically. It has an open aspect on three sides, with unobstructed views to the river. There are formal gardens to the front and rear, specifically designed to complement the historic building.

6.3.10 There are important views of the building from the lawns to the southeast and from the gardens to the northwest. The visual and physical relationship to the Thames is an important element of its history and setting. Paragraph 88.38 of the THVIA (CDA.11) states “Its background setting includes tall development at Brentford, including the Haverfield Estate tower blocks, which are seen in views towards the principal south elevation of the listed building from within Kew Gardens.” The Kew Eye also features in these views (see Photos 11 and 12 in Appendix D). The views from the rear (Thameside) elevation of the building strongly feature the tall buildings which adversely affect the character of these views (see Photos 13 and 14 in Appendix D).

May 2018 90 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.3.11 Views from upper floors of the Palace have been identified in the WHS Management Plan as being of significance the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Kew Palace (see Appendix A).

Overview of Significance and contribution of setting to significance

6.3.12 In terms of the WHS and its OUV, Kew Palace is the earliest surviving element of the royal history of the Site and is an important and authentic building that with later structures conveys history of the Royal Botanic Gardens’ development from royal retreat and pleasure garden to national botanical and horticultural garden. The WHS Management Plan (CDF.10) (paragraph 3.8.1) identifies the following as an attribute of Site’s OUV “an iconic architectural legacy including the Palm house, the Temperate House and modern additions such as Princess of Wales Conservatory”. It goes on to state in paragraph 3.8.3 that “Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS iconic architectural legacy include: …Royal residency and patronage of the gardens as evidenced in Kew Palace and Queen Charlotte’s cottage and archaeological remains of White House and Castellated Palace.“ The WHS Management Plan therefore clearly identifies Kew Palace as contributor to the OUV of the WHS.

6.3.13 Kew Palace is a unique building, being the smallest of the Royal palaces surviving in the UK today. Kew Palace played a central role in the domestic and dynastic history of the Georgian Royal families, and it can be argued that the Kew side of the gardens, and thus the very first botanic gardens at Kew, owe their origins to the presence of the Royal family in Kew Palace.

6.3.14 Kew Palace is a fine example of an early 17th century country house. The building is an early instance of a house constructed in Flemish bond brickwork and includes some impressive classical columns on the south front. The brick-work is in parts cut and rubbed with decoration of great virtuosity for its date, and the use of ruddle (terracotta-coloured lime-wash) creates a striking exterior. The incorporation of earlier 16th century fabric within the cellar is of additional interest. Kew Palace is also of considerable historic significance as a royal residence during the 18th and 19th centuries.

6.3.15 Inside, the building is notable for the substantial amount of the original hall that survives in the King’s Dining Room on the ground floor, including early 17th century panelling. The rest of the interior is largely 18th and 19th century, and is particularly significant as it arises from the adaptations made specifically for the Georgian Royal families.

6.3.16 Kew Palace is central to the story of the development of both Richmond and Kew as Royal gardens; their subsequent unification under George III and their historical development as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Though Kew Palace did not start out as a Royal Palace, by 1729

May 2018 91 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

it had been drawn into the historic drama of the Georgian Royal gardens. While other, purpose-built, palaces grew up around it at this northern end of the site, each has been demolished, along with Richmond Lodge to the south, leaving Kew Palace standing in physical isolation as the sole survivor of this particularly dramatic Georgian Royal story.

6.3.17 Its immediate setting contributes to the appreciation of its significance as a detached royal residence and enables appreciation of its architectural form. Views from the windows have been identified in the WHS Management Plan and provide visual connectivity between the Palace, the Thames and wider gardens with which it was historically entwined.

Description of Impact

6.3.18 The proposed development will not strongly appear in views of the building. There will be glimpses of the development in tangential views along the front façade of the Palace (see View 12 of Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and View 32 of the THVIA (CDA.11) and these will distract slightly from the appreciation of the Palace’s architecture. There will also be views of the development from limited upper storey windows (see View 13 of Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and View 31 of the TVIA (CDA.11)).

Cumulative Impacts

6.3.19 The setting of Kew Palace is already subject to a significant degree of harm, in particular the Kew Eye building in views from the northern elevation and in some views of the building from the south; and the Haverfield Estate Towers in views of the building and from the rear of the building. The proposed development would very slightly increase the scale of harm by increasing the overall scale of visual intrusion of modern development into views of and from the building.

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

6.3.20 Kew Palace directly contributes to the OUV of the WHS and this coupled with its Grade I and scheduled monument status makes it a High value asset. As indicated above existing development is already having a significant impact on the setting of the Palace. The proposed development would slightly increase the overall level of impact but not significantly. In broad terms it is considered that the existing development is having a borderline Moderate / Major Adverse impact on the Palace and that, while increasing the overall scale of impact, the

May 2018 92 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

addition of the proposed development would not change that score. Overall a borderline Moderate / Major Adverse impact is recorded resulting in a Large Adverse Effect.

NPPF

6.3.21 Existing development is already having a significant impact on the setting and significance of the Palace. The proposed development would only have a minor additional impact. The current levels of impact are considered to be towards the upper end of Less than Substantial Harm and although the proposed development would worsen this it would not cross the Substantial Harm threshold.

6.4 Palm house

Background and History

6.4.1 The Grade I listed Palm House was commissioned in 1844 and completed within 4 years. Several architects submitted plans, with Richard Turner (Ireland’s leading glasshouse designer) submitting the winning design and being appointed as engineer. In turn he appointed Decimus Burton as the consulting architect, and so began Burton’s highly influential relationship with the Royal Botanic Gardens.

6.4.2 The Palm House is a glazed structure of curvilinear wrought iron trusses with a central double height hall and lower wings to the north and south. It is a masterly and technologically innovative building, both in its size and in the use of materials to create a clear span for the palms. It is aligned almost north-south along its main axis, and there are doors to the north, south, east and west, leading out to the formal gardens that surround it.

6.4.3 The Palm House is located beside the remnants of Prince Frederick’s early 18th century Great Lake at the southern end of his Great Lawn, next to his intended Mount Parnassus (now housing the Temple of Aeolus). Thus, the high-Victorian Palm House sits within the recognisable features of a high-Georgian landscape. The already reduced Great Lake was transformed by Burton into the Palm House Pond, creating a formal setting for the Palm House. This formal setting is further enhanced by the remnants of Nesfield’s formal Victorian parterres, designed specifically for this elegant building.

6.4.4 The location of the Palm House was a point of great importance for the development of the Victorian gardens. Once Hooker had persuaded Parliament to give him the money for his ambitious project, the Commissioners intended for the building to be hidden in the trees. However, when Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort saw plans for the building, she

May 2018 93 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

expressed a hope that it would be visible from Kew Palace. Hooker seized on this comment, and the building moved through several theoretical locations before the current one was agreed on, in the open landscape on top of the mostly backfilled Great Lake.

6.4.5 When Richard Turner appointed Decimus Burton to work on the Palm House with him, Burton was also commissioned by Kew to redesign the new Royal Botanic Gardens (in their restricted geographical form inside the wire fence). Out of this work came the Broad Walk and Little Broad Walk, the Main Gates, redesign of the Palm House Pond, works to the Orangery and the rebuild of the Temple of Aeolus and the clearing of its mound, alongside works to the glasshouses and other features integral to the new gardens.

6.4.6 Burton placed the Palm House at the heart of his comprehensive landscape re-design for the Royal Botanic Gardens, a job continued by Nesfield (who was retained by Burton) a few years later, when he extended the vistas reaching out from the Palm House into the new National Arboretum. The Palm House shines like a bright sun in the centre of this jubilant Victorian design, with rays reaching out to the corners of the Gardens. It is an architectural centrepiece both to look at and to look out from, and an experience that totally embodies the highly ambitious Victorian aspirations for the new Royal Botanic Gardens and Arboretum.

Setting

6.4.7 Together, the Palm House Zone and Entrance Zone form the extent of the Victorian Royal Botanic Gardens, with the slightly later National Arboretum occupying the South West Zone, Pagoda Vista Zone and Syon Vista Zone.

6.4.8 The proposed location of the Palm House was a much-debated concept until it was placed where it stands today, in the heart of Prince Frederick and Princess Augusta’s Georgian garden. Its ultimate location was designed to be proudly visible, at the request of Queen Victoria. The Palm House was subsequently used as the key lynchpin for Burton’s design of the Royal Botanic Gardens, and for Nesfield’s slightly later design of the vistas through the National Arboretum. The Palm House is truly the centrepiece for the Victorian gardens, and remains so today.

6.4.9 The setting of the Palm House therefore has several crucial elements:

 The immediate physical setting of the architectural form of the Palm House, with its nearby formal gardens and longer vistas;  The historic conceptual setting of the Palm House as the lynchpin in the Victorian landscape design, from which both Burton’s and Nesfield’s designs flow;

May 2018 94 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

 Its physical location in the heart of the Georgian Kew Gardens, surrounded by surviving Georgian garden features;  Its conceptual role as the icon of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Kew, sitting in its immediate formal setting;  Its conceptual role as the physical compass by which visitors psychologically orient themselves during their visits to the gardens, aided by the rays of Nesfield’s vistas, and a key destination honeypot; and  Glimpsed views of the Palm House from many locations around the Gardens, at the centre of Nesfield’s vistas and at the edge of the relatively open area of the historic Great Lawn, including views from its sister glasshouse, the Temperate House.

6.4.10 There are however a small number of detractors in its setting including seasonal glimpsed views of the Haverfield Estate towers in northwards views from the south and southeast (see Photos 16 and 18 in Appendix D), views of the Vantage building behind the Palm House in axial views along the Pagoda vista and seasonal glimpses of the towers in views across the Palm House Pond.

Overview of Significance and contribution of setting to significance

6.4.11 The Palm House is a Grade I listed building and the physical, conceptual and iconic heart of a Grade I Registered Park and Garden and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS. The Palm House is of fundamental significance to all these layers of designation and is one of the most recognisable features of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

6.4.12 In terms of the WHS the Palm House is directly mentioned in the SOUV “As the focus of a growing level of botanic activity, the mid 19th century garden, which overlays earlier royal landscape gardens is centred on two large iron framed glasshouses – the Palm House and the Temperate House that became models for conservatories around the world.” And the 2014 WHS Management Plan identifies the site’s “iconic architectural legacy including the Palm house, the Temperate House and modern additions such as Princess of Wales Conservatory” as a category of attributes which contribute to the OUV of the WHS.

6.4.13 The Palm House is carefully designed to be highly visible within the wider setting of the Royal Botanic Gardens as well as forming the conceptual and physical heart of the Victorian designed landscape created by Burton and Nesfield. Its immediate landscape was carefully contrived by both Nesfield and Burton with formal parterres and the formal Palm House Pond to create a striking setting for the visually distinctive building, both for when seen from inside the building looking out, and for when the building is viewed from outside. Its wider

May 2018 95 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

landscape was also carefully constructed to enhance the visibility of the Palm House, at the end of Burton’s Broad Walk and at the heart of Nesfield’s vistas.

6.4.14 The setting of the Palm House is therefore of fundamental importance both to its significance and to the significance of the World Heritage Site.

Description of Impact

6.4.15 Views 16 and 17 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and Views 17, 18, 19 and 20 in the 2015 THVIA, provide an overview of the likely scale of change associated with proposed development and the Palm House.

6.4.16 Views 17 and 18 in the 2015 THVIA (CDC.11) demonstrate that the proposed development will slightly encroach into the setting of the Palm House in some views from the southwest/west across the immediately associated designed landscape. These views currently feature no intrusive external development. View 19 in the 2015 THVIA (CDC.11) demonstrates that from some locations the development would be obscured from view by the Palm House itself. Photograph 17 in Appendix D of my evidence also shows that it is likely that the development will appear in other glimpsed views of the Palm House from the landscape around it. It is also of note that the view from the gallery of the Temperate House of the Palm House (its sister glasshouse) will feature the proposed development (see Photo 20 in Appendix D).

6.4.17 Views 16 and 17 in Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and View 20 in the THVIA (CDC.11) provide a sense of the scale of visual intrusion that would be experienced in views from the Palm House and its immediate environs. In winter the development would feature as a minor discordant element when viewed through the leafless trees. In summer the trees would effectively mask the development.

6.4.18 Paragraph 7.11 of the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) states that [my highlights] “The significance of the Palm House derives from its aesthetic and historic value as one of the world’s most

important surviving 19th century glass houses and its central position with the designed landscape at Kew Gardens, as set out in the December 2015 THVIA. The proposed development was carefully designed to ensure that it would be largely hidden behind trees to the north of the Palm House. The presence of the proposed development will, therefore, do no harm to the significance of the heritage asset.” The development is clearly “largely hidden” but not entirely. It would harm the designed setting of the Palm House presenting a seasonally discordant element in views.

May 2018 96 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.4.19 It is also important to note that its impact and harm would substantially increase were any of the mature trees in the views to be lost due to disease / storm damage or to have their crowns significantly reduced for human health and safety or tree health reasons.

Cumulative Impacts

6.4.20 There is some existing impact on the setting of the Palm House from external development including visual intrusion from the Haverfield Estate in views around and towards the Palm House which affect the appreciation of its designed landscape setting (see above). These are a notable intrusion into the designed landscape setting of the Palm House. The proposed Brentford Stadium development may also very slightly visually intrude.

6.4.21 The proposed development would slightly increase the overall scale of visual intrusion into the setting of the Palm House and also spread its influence into areas of the setting not currently affected.

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

6.4.22 As a building of international importance and key element of the OUV of the WHS the Palm House is a Very High value asset. Existing development is already noticeably changing the setting and significance of the Palm House, and the proposed development would slightly exacerbate that impact, resulting in a Minor Adverse Impact and Medium Adverse Effect.

NPPF

6.4.23 The setting of the Palm House makes a very significant contribution to its significance. Existing development is already harming the setting and significance of the Palm House. The proposed development would slightly increase the scale of harm to the setting and the significance of the Palm House, resulting in Less than Substantial Harm, at the lower end of the scale.

6.5 The Temple of Aeolus

Background and History

6.5.1 The Temple is a Grade II listed classical domed rotunda built of Portland stone with 8 Tuscan Doric Portland stone columns and set on a circular stepped stone plinth. The Temple sits on the Cumberland Mound, and its architectural design is open to all sides. The mound is planted

May 2018 97 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

with trees, which largely enclose the Temple but there are views northwards over the Order Beds and beyond, over to the Palm House and to the Museum.

6.5.2 The Cumberland Mound (named the ‘Laurel Mount’ in Chambers’ 1770 letter book) was the first feature in this location, predating the first Temple of Aeolus by more than a decade. The mound was created from the spoil of the Lake, a feature ordered by HRH Frederick, the Prince of Wales, and begun in about 1750. The mount was an integral part of the Lake design and construction, providing a viewing platform intended to be in the form of Mount Parnassus, adorned with paired statues of ancient and modern philosophers, from Archimedes to Pope – this was to be Frederick’s interpretation of his friend, Cobham’s, Temple of British Worthies and Temple of Ancient Virtue at Stowe, and similarly as political. It was Frederick’s wish “to make an aqueduct thro his gardens at Kew and the earth thrown up was to make a mount which he intended to adorn with the statues or busts of these philosophers and to represent the Mount Parnassus” (Vertue’s papers, cf Desmond, 1995, 27). George Vertue, the antiquary and engraver, was commissioned by Frederick to collect or make drawings of ancient philosophers for this project.

6.5.3 Frederick commissioned the architect, Joseph Goupy, to design his Parnassus along with other structures for Kew. In 1751, Goupy submitted plans to Frederick, before Frederick’s death in that same year, for “A Grecian Pavilion or Building to be upon the Mount” (cf Desmond 1995, 27). Frederick died in 1751, before Goupy’s building was begun. The 1753 contract for Greening, the new Head Gardener, stated that the empty mound was to be planted, apparently with laurels, and it is referred to in documents in 1765 and 1771 as the Laurel Mount.

6.5.4 Sometime between 1751 and 1753, Chamber’s Temple of Aeolus was built on the mound. The Temple of Aeolus was named after Aeolus (Eolus), a mythical king and ruler of storms and winds. Built of timber, this first Temple celebrated its airy position on top of the mound, with views of the developing gardens to the west and southwest.

6.5.5 Decimus Burton reinvented the area in 1845 as part of his wider aspirations for the Botanic Garden. The Mound was stripped of its enclosing laurel and laid to grass. On the top, a new Temple of Aeolus was constructed out of Portland stone; the building that is still there today. This building is faithful to the eight columned, open structure shown on Chamber’s plan, which reinforces the interpretation that this was also the form of the earlier timber structure. The opening up of the view in all directions enabled Decimus Burton to unite the emerging core of the Gardens around the Palm House and Pond to the west with the newly acquired land to the north – land he quickly prepared designs for in the form of an elaborately parterre (the Herbaceous Grounds) (see Appendix B).

May 2018 98 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.5.6 When the grass mound, with its views of the gardens in all directions, was proven to be popular with Victorian children to play on, and “the scars of countless sliding feet made it an eyesore” (Desmond, 1995, 228), the Mound was transformed again in 1882, this time into a wild garden with spring bulbs. The mound was closed to the public at this time, and it gradually evolved into the Woodland Garden of today.

6.5.7 When the gardens were first inscribed as a WHS in 2003, the mound was covered with long grass and trees, views out being obscured by the Woodland Garden. The mound was closed to public access, and the temple had been graffiti’d. In line with the recommendations of the first Conservation Plan for the WHS, work has been undertaken to open the area to the public, to open views out and to physically conserve the Temple structure. The area is once again as Frederick, Augusta, Chambers and Burton intended – a mount from which to view the designed landscape, and a place to contemplate.

Setting

6.5.8 The mound and temple were conceived to enable views out across a designed landscape and to enable views of the temple in that landscape – these are central aspects of its setting and significance. The original 18th century landscape the mound and original temple was designed to address and form part of lay predominately to the south, west and northwest. Views northwards over the Royal Kitchen Gardens were less important at that time.

6.5.9 Its relationship to the landscape changed in c. 1845 when the old temple was replaced by the current structure, the trees were removed and the mound grassed – at around the same time the landscape to the north was transformed from kitchen garden to ornamental herbaceous grounds (then replaced 20 years later by the Order Beds). The new temple now provided an outlook to the south / west over the pond and Palm House and to the north over the new herbaceous grounds and later order beds – it had been reimagined to form a publically accessible viewpoint from which to admire the full gamut of Kew’s emerging Victorian splendour, while reflecting its Georgian past with a classical eye catcher design.

6.5.10 Its current setting reflects this mid-19th century position with views out to the north and west linking to the Palm House and Order Beds. Once again the Temple is publically accessible.

Overview of Significance and contribution of setting to significance

6.5.11 In terms of the OUV of the WHS the building is one of the “folly temples” mentioned in the SOUV as one of the elements that “convey the history of the Gardens’ development from royal retreat and pleasure garden to national botanical and horticultural garden before becoming a

May 2018 99 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

modern institution of conservation ecology in the 20th century”. It also contributes to criteria ii and iv under which the site is inscribed (see Section 5.3). The WHS Management Plan (CDF.10) (paragraph 3.8,1) identifies the following as an attribute of Site’s OUV “an iconic architectural legacy including the Palm house, the Temperate House and modern additions such as Princess of Wales Conservatory”. It goes on to state in paragraph 3.8.3 that “Key attributes contributing to the OUV of the WHS iconic architectural legacy include: …A range of garden buildings and structures such as temples, follies, gates and ha-ha as integral part of the designed landscape.“ The Temple of Aeolus therefore contributes to the OUV of the WHS.

6.5.12 The Temple of Aeolus and its mound (variously named the Cumberland Mound and the Laurel Mount) are both highly significant historical features of Kew Gardens. Nearly 270 years old, the mound is one of the very few physical features surviving from Frederick’s garden design, in partnership with the remnant of his great lake, now forming the Palm House Pond. The mound was not simply a convenient way to deal with the spoil from the lake, it was an integral feature of his design, providing a viewing platform from which to experience the gardens and an elevated position for his planned, but unbuilt, political garden feature, the Mount of Parnassus. Mounts, temples and political iconographies were integral elements of the Georgian landscape garden of the time, and Frederick’s version was in direct reference to the great Whig garden at Stowe, developed by his friend, Field Marshal Lord Cobham.

6.5.13 Princess Augusta’s political world shifted after Frederick’s death, and his intended Mount Parnassus was supplanted by a wooden temple to a mythical god of wind and storms on top of the Laurel Mount. This temple was designed by the famous architect Sir William Chambers, as one of a group of buildings designed by him for Kew Gardens. The exact form of this first temple is slightly uncertain, but it is highly likely that it was open to views of the gardens.

6.5.14 In 1845 the famous architect Decimus Burton designed a new Temple of Portland Stone, open to all sides and faithful to Chamber’s original plan, though without a seat. This was designed to enable views over the nearly established Palm House and Palm House Pond and over the emerging Herbaceous Grounds and later Order Beds. It was a publically accessible point from which to admire the new Kew in all its aspects.

6.5.15 The Cumberland Mound (Laurel Mount) and the Temple of Aeolus are both highly significant historical features, directly related to the garden designs of both Frederick and Augusta and carried forward into the new Victorian gardens by Decimus Burton. They are intended to be positions of advantage for close and long-ranging views of the Gardens and in turn to be seen from different angles as visitors move around the Gardens. They are a physical reminder and an invitation to get above the crowds, away from the detail of the design, and to view the garden as a whole - from more of a bird’s eye view, with the wind on your face. And this is the

May 2018 100 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

original purpose for which they have recently been renovated and made open to the public again.

Description of Impact

6.5.16 As set out in Section 6, the Temple occupies an elevated location and was designed to both provide views out over the designed landscape and to be an eye catcher in that landscape. Its role in the gardens has evolved over time with the transformation of the original 18th century garden into the later grand Burton design of today. Through this transformation it has developed an important relationship with the Order Beds.

6.5.17 As evidenced in View 18 in the Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and View 35 in the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) the proposed development would feature clearly in the view, providing a distracting element which would draw the eye away from the axial relationship with the Order Beds. The development lies behind a large mature evergreen tree and its impact on the view is reduced by this. However, loss of the tree or reduction of its crown for health and safety or on tree health grounds would very significantly increase the visual intrusion of the development into the scene further challenging the layout below.

6.5.18 Views 16 and 17 in the Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence illustrate the glimpsed nature of views of the Temple from the west and southwest. The proposed development would feature in these general views, during the winter months, and its glimpsed nature would slightly distract from the role that the Temple plays in these views.

6.5.19 Other aspects of the setting of the temple, e.g. views to the south and west would be unaffected.

Cumulative Impacts

6.5.20 In terms or views out the BSI building (at 389 Chiswick High Road) already features in general northwards views over the Order Beds and slightly distracts from these views, but is of a smaller scale and has a less prominent profile compared to the proposed development. Other detracting elements such as the Haverfield Estate are largely screened from this location. In terms of the glimpsed views of the Temple from the west, the BSI building is a minor distracting element, in winter, although one that due to its height reads more akin to glimpses of the Princess of Wales Conservatory. The proposed development would notably increase the overall scale of visual intrusion into the setting of the Temple.

May 2018 101 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.5.21 Overall, the proposed development would adversely affect notable aspects of the asset’s setting, but would not affect westward and southerly facing visual relationships. In conjunction with the BSI building it would have a notable impact on northward views over the Order Beds and a less notable impact on seasonal views of the Temple from the west.

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

6.5.22 The Temple of Aeolus is a High Value asset (in that it is a nationally important building in its own right and also contributes to the Site’s OUV). In combination with the BSI building the proposed development would have a Minor / Moderate Adverse Impact on the setting and significance of the Temple resulting in a Medium Adverse Effect.

6.5.23 This impact and effect would be significantly worsened if the evergreen tree that partially obscures the development (see View 18 of Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence and View 35 of the THVIA (CDA.15)) was lost or reduced in size. This is likely to occur in the lifetime of the development.

NPPF

6.5.24 The setting of Temple of Aeolus makes a significant contribution to its significance in that it was designed to provide views over and landscape and be seen from a landscape – it was then rebuilt in the mid-19th century to serve the same function in relation to new landscapes to the north. The development would affect an aspect of the asset’s setting and hence significance; the scale of change is notable and the development would result in Less than Substantial Harm, at the mid-point of that scale. As noted above the loss or reduction of one tree would increase the scale of visual intrusion and harm.

6.6 Cambridge Cottage and Garden

Background and History

6.6.1 At No 37, Kew Green, Cambridge Cottage is a Grade II listed two-storey Georgian house with a slate roof and a lower two-storey extension to the east. The building lies in the Kew Green Conservation Area. The building is of solid brick construction, of yellow London clay brisk with flat regimental window openings formed of rubbed brick voussoirs, with double hung sash windows facing onto Kew Green. The north face onto Kew Green is obscured at ground level by a brick wall on the property boundary and by the freestanding porte-cochere, which

May 2018 102 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

projects in front of the boundary wall and is connected to the Cottage by a link corridor. The porte-cochere forms an impressive carriage entrance to the Cottage. The rear garden is surrounded by high brick walls, joined to the Kew Gardens to the south by two openings in the brick walls.

6.6.2 There has been a building in this location at the edge of Kew Green since at least the early 17th century. The present building was built by the barrister Christopher Appleby and was mentioned in his will of 1739. Appleby’s widow, Ann, subsequently leased it to Lord Bute, who worked with Augusta to develop Kew Gardens after Frederick’s death. Lord Bute had his study in a building almost next door (now 33, The Green), and housed his family in Cambridge Cottage.

6.6.3 George III brought the property in 1772 and the two young princes, William and Edward, were lodged there. Later, George III’s son, Adolphus Frederick, was given Cambridge Cottage as a residence in 1806, after being made the Duke of Cambridge. Absent from England between 1813 to 1837, Cambridge Cottage was given a redesign on his return in 1837. A new east wing was added in 1839, providing more bedrooms and a drawing room, and in 1840 the imposing porte cochere was added to the main façade. The Duchess of Cambridge continued in residence after her husband’s death in 1850, until she too died in 1889. Her son, George, the 2nd Duke and Field Marshall moved into Cambridge Cottage, until he died in 1904.

6.6.4 The 2nd Duke of Cambridge was the last Royal to live in Cambridge Cottage, and on his death, the Director, Thistleton-Dyer applied to the king to have the building turned over to Kew, so he could use it to realise Joseph Hooker’s vision of a new forestry museum. The use of the building was handed to Kew, for “a Museum of Forestry, as quarters for the staff of the Gardens, and for other cognate purposes” (cf Desmond, 1995, 288), but Thistleton-Dyer retired before any of his plans for Cambridge Cottage were fulfilled.

6.6.5 Sir David Prain, Thistleton-Dyer’s successor as Director, followed through with Thiseleton- Dyer’s plans for a forestry museum, converting six rooms on the ground and first floors of the central block and east wing into the museum, which opened to the public in 1910. Specimens from the Orangery were later added in 1958, making it into a general wood museum.

6.6.6 Prain did consider changing the use of Cambridge Cottage once again, in his efforts to make better working conditions for the gardeners but his plans to put the timber exhibits in Kew Palace were vetoed by the Lord Chamberlain, so his hostel plans never came to fruition at Cambridge Cottage. In 1988 an art gallery was opened in Cambridge Cottage.

May 2018 103 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.6.7 In the winter of 1907-8, the enclosing brick walls of the rear garden were punctured for the first time, to create two new entrances directly linking Cambridge Cottage gardens to the north and Kew Gardens to the south (These gateways were rebuilt in reclaimed brick in 1933, to better harmonise with the garden wall).

Setting

6.6.8 Cambridge Cottage has a number of aspects to its setting reflecting both its origins as a high status townhouse and its later life as an important building within Kew Gardens.

6.6.9 Its frontage onto Kew Green with its overstated and grandiose portico presents a clear statement of the building’s, and its then owner’s, status. It marks the building out along the road and provides a dramatic entrance and exit. It was designed to be seen and to provide a commanding exit from the building onto the Green. The frontage overlooks Kew Green and it has an important relationship with the green space and flanking buildings beyond.

6.6.10 To the rear the building is closely connected to Kew Gardens. Over time it has served a number of functions for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and is an imposing historic building in this area of the Gardens. It has its own bounded garden to the rear which forms an element of its setting.

Overview of Significance and contribution of setting to significance

6.6.11 Cambridge Cottage is a notable 18th century town house with high status connections (It was the home of the Duke of Cambridge 1840-1904). Its architectural form expresses this status, particularly through the extravagant portico which creates a dramatic entrance and exit. It has a clear relationship with Kew Green, forming part of a collection of notable 18th century and later town houses that flank the green creating a distinctive bounded space whose character has been recognised through the designation of the Kew Green Conservation Area.

6.6.12 In terms of the WHS, Cambridge Cottage has strong links to Kew Gardens. Initially, through its role in the story of Lord Bute and Augusta, and hence its connection to the Royal Patronage of the Gardens, but also in its later history serving a range of functions and roles for the gardens over the years e.g. as a Museum. Consequently it makes some contribution to the OUV of the WHS, although it is not a critical attribute of the WHS’s OUV. It also plays a notable role in character of the northeastern part of the Gardens, being a prominent historic building in the area.

May 2018 104 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

6.6.13 The setting of the building makes a notable contribution to its significance through its relationship to Kew Green, the views to and from its prominent portico entrance / exit and its visual and physical connectivity to the gardens.

Description of Impact

6.6.14 The proposed development would affect two key aspects of the Cottage’s setting – namely views out of the building over Kew Green including at its primary entrance and exit; and views of Cambridge Cottage from within Gardens.

6.6.15 In terms of views out across Kew Green and from the principal entrance and exit to the building, View 11 in the Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence broadly shows the nature of the change that the proposed development would bring. While views from individual windows, doors and the portico would be different from that shown in View 11, it does give an indication of the likely scale of change. The new development would become a dominant element in views seriously disrupting the relationship between Cambridge Cottage and the wider historic street scene around Kew Green.

6.6.16 From within the Garden, Views 20 and 21 in the Appendix 4 of Mr Spence’s Evidence provide a clear indication of the scale of change that would occur to views of Cambridge Cottage. The proposed development would dominate the broadly north-south axial views of the building, seriously compromising the quality of the visual relationship between the gardens and the building. Historically, pre-1845, these views would have been from within the domestic space associated with the building. Since the incorporation of the building into the Gardens in the mid-19th century, its relationship has been direct and functional with the building serving a variety of purposes directly linked to the Gardens. Views of the building from within the Gardens reflect these relationships and our ability to understand them. The building is one of the principal historic buildings in this part of the Gardens and plays a strong visual role in the structure of the space. It is a prominent building, and its prominence reflects its importance. The proposed development would seriously challenge this prominence.

6.6.17 The changes to the setting of the building caused by the proposed development would have a significant impact on the aesthetic and historic significance of Cambridge Cottage.

Cumulative Impacts

6.6.18 Currently, large-scale modern development is relatively limited in the setting of Cambridge Cottage and there are no significant consented or un-consented schemes that would affect the setting of the asset. Consequently, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

May 2018 105 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

Scoring and assessment of Impact

SPG / ICOMOS Scoring

6.6.19 As a listed building, Cambridge Cottage is a High Value asset. The proposed development would have a Moderate to Major Adverse Impact on its setting and significance. This reflects the fact that the development would undoubtedly significantly change the setting of the building (moderate) and is borderline to comprehensive changes (major). I conclude that the development would result in a Large Adverse Effect.

NPPF

6.6.20 The setting of Cambridge Cottage makes a significant contribution to its significance, the scale of change to its setting would seriously harm its setting and significance. The level of harm does not in my view breech the Substantial Harm threshold, but is in the upper half of Less than Substantial Harm.

May 2018 106 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

7.0 REVIEW OF THVIA AND THVIA ADDENDUM

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Alongside the Design and Access Statement (CDA.01 and CDA.02) and Environmental Statement (CDA.09, CDA.10, CDA.13 and CDA.14), the applicant submitted a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) with their original application – dated 2015 (CDA.11).

7.1.2 Following consultee and LPA responses a further THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) was submitted in 2016. This contained additional material on the WHS and other heritage assets; as well as further visual representations from new and previously identified viewpoints.

7.2 RBGK Response

7.2.1 In response to the THVIA Addendum, the RBGK provided a short report (CDE.07) to the LPA in December 2016 to support their existing Objection Letter dated February 2016 (CDE.07). The RBGK report dealt with points made in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the THVIA Addendum, on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Kew Green.

7.2.2 The RBGK report highlighted a number of concerns relating to the THVIA Addendum, not all of these are repeated here but remain relevant to the case. Some of the issues raised included:

 The interpretation by the applicant of the Site’s OUV in a way that seeks to reduce its importance as a designed landscape and place greater emphasis on its Botanic collections and role;  The interpretation by the applicant of the Entrance Zone as being of lesser significance, when that is contrary to the WHS Management Plan’s analysis;  The over emphasis by the applicant of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew’s urban environment in terms of justifying new major development;  The statement by the applicant that the Haverfield Estate Towers are an issue due to their design, rather than their visibility. RBGK’s response to this was “We disagree with this assessment. In our view, it is the appearance of tall buildings in particular locations which is harmful. In particular where tall buildings are seen breaking the treeline, at the ends of vistas, or in backdrop of key buildings such as Kew Palace and the Orangery. On many days, particularly in winter, it is the form and mass of tall buildings that is the issue, not the design and detail.”; and  The conclusion by the applicant that the development would not affect the OUV of the WHS and would be in accordance with the policies of the WHS Management Plan, which RBGK indicate is incorrect based on their analysis of the impacts.

May 2018 107 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

7.2.3 The RGB, Kew stands by these concerns and I support them in that.

7.3 Further points

7.3.1 In addition to the issues raised and discussed in the December 2016 RBGK report, I have identified a number of other concerns and comments relating to the appellant’s documentation. These include:

Section 2.0 of the THVIA Addendum

7.3.2 The original Design and Access Statement and THVIA included limited analysis of the history development and significance of the RBGK, WHS and its internationally important designed landscape. In response to comments the applicant sought to address this through the provision of more detail in Section 2.0 of the THVIA addendum. As identified in RBGK’s response there are issues of interpretation in this section relating to the different areas of the WHS and their relative importance. Some of these are discussed below:

Sir William Chambers, the Pleasure Grounds and the Great Lawn

7.3.3 At paragraph 2.9 the THVIA addendum (CDA.15) states that:

“From c.1757 ‘Pleasure Grounds’ of 120 acres were laid out by the architect William Chambers to the south of the Great Lawn. Chambers designed a number of ancillary buildings for the gardens, including various classical temples, the ten-storey octagonal Pagoda (1762), and the Orangery to the east of the White House (1761). The 1771 plan at fig.2.13 shows the Pleasure Grounds as a ‘Chinoiserie’ style landscape designed with a fairly open character with strong formal plantings and a naturalistic edge, intertwined with pathways and plantings of trees, various temples and the lake. The main view was focused on the Pagoda, to the south of the grounds (fig.2.8).”

7.3.4 The emphasis in the paragraph on the view towards the Pagoda misses the essence of the nature of the designed landscape that William Chambers was seeking to create. The large open flowing lawns, including the Great Lawn at the north of the site, where designed to encourage exploration, they and the associated paths were laid out to enable a series of structured set piece encounters with follies / temples / views etc and to provide a changing experience. An experience that could include climbing to the top of the Pagoda and viewing back out over the gardens and wider landscape. As shown in Appendix E of my proof, see Illustrations 1 and 2, and in Figures 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.15 in the THVIA (CDA.15)

May 2018 108 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

there are illustrations of the Great Lawn that focus views to the north end of the Gardens, not just south to the Pagoda. In these views the, now demolished White House, the Temple of Aeolus, the Great Lake and significantly the Orangery play important roles. To place the emphasis of William Chambers landscape on the Pagoda downplays the importance of the other designed elements and experiences of that landscape.

7.3.5 This downplaying continues into the assessment of potential impact on the William Chambers landscape attribute of the OUV in 2.39 and 2.40. 2.40 states that “The only manner in which the proposed development at Chiswick Roundabout has any effect on the underlying, partially remaining landscape of Chambers and its built elements, is its visibility from the Temple of Aeolus mound, as illustrated in View 35 of this addendum.” This does not take into account the impact on the remaining areas of the Great Lawn in the north of the Site, on views of the Orangery from that area – which were important and formed part of the landscape experience.

7.3.6 Paragraph 2.40 goes on to state that “The proposed development will also be visible from the upper levels of the Pagoda, since this structure is taller than the trees in the gardens. This view is currently unavailable as the pagoda is closed to members of the public. It is anticipated that such a view would show the proposed development within a wide view of London, which apparently extends as far as to Windsor Castle. The proposed development would be unlikely to do harm to such a wide and open view of London’s urban environment.” As discussed in paragraph 5.8.9 above, the Pagoda will shortly be open to the public and the proposed development would be a very notable and intrusive feature in the views northwards from it.

Contribution of the designed landscape to the OUV of the WHS

7.3.7 Paragraph 2.33 of the THVIA Addendum (CDA.15) states that [my emphasis]:

“Both the WHS Management Plan and The Landscape Master Plan (2010) acknowledge the partial loss of the 1840s layout and spatial definition within the gardens over time. This is owing principally to ambitious tree planting and natural growth, which has led to the obscuration of certain views and the reduction in designed spaces. This leaves the OUV of Kew invested more prominently in the value of its horticulture and its tree collections, rather than its designed layout, which has been compromised. The WHS Management Plan calls for further research into what earlier patterns of development were and what additional views may have existed. Good conservation of such landscape environments would consider the potential re- establishment of lost views.”

May 2018 109 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

7.3.8 The OUV of the site is defined by UNESCO based on analysis provided by the State Party and advice from ICOMOS. The SOUV (CDF.17) clearly contradicts the applicant’s interpretation highlighted above. As set out in Section 5.3 above the SOUV places very considerable emphasis on the historic designed landscape that underpins and differentiates Kew from other Botanic Gardens across the world, the SOUV starts by saying [my emphasis]:

7.3.9 It goes on to state:

“The landscape design of Kew Botanic Gardens, their buildings and plant collections combine to form a unique testimony to developments in garden art and botanical science that were subsequently diffused around the world. The 18th century English landscape garden concept was adopted in Europe and Kew’s influence in horticulture, plant classification and economic botany spread internationally from the time of Joseph Banks’ directorship in the 1770s.”

7.3.10 Additionally, two of the three criteria it is inscribed under directly relate to its landscape design:

 Criterion (ii): Since the 18th century, the Botanic Gardens of Kew have been closely associated with scientific and economic exchanges established throughout the world in the field of botany, and this is reflected in the richness of its collections. The landscape and architectural features of the Gardens reflect considerable artistic influences both with regard to the European continent and to more distant regions;  Criterion (iv): The landscape gardens and the edifices created by celebrated artists such as Charles Bridgeman, William Kent, Lancelot 'Capability' Brown and William Chambers reflect the beginning of movements which were to have international influence.

7.3.11 The appellant’s interpretation of OUV is significantly at odds with UNESCO’s, the UK Government’s and RBGK’s expression of OUV.

Visibility from the Broadwalk

7.3.12 Paragraph 2.34 of the THVIA addendum (CDA.15) states that (my highlight) “The proposed development will have a visual effect on the setting of what is defined in the WHS Management Plan as the ‘entrance zone’ of the WHS, namely the area at the north of the gardens which

May 2018 110 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

includes the Orangery, Aroid House and the Elizabeth Gate. The area is described in the Management Plan as of a ‘relatively mixed’ character, ‘consisting of open lawn areas interspersed with trees and planting’ and crossed by formal pathways, including the Broad Walk (running between the Orangery and Palm House) and Little Broad Walk (between the Orangery and the Elizabeth Gate onto Kew Green). The proposed development will not be seen from these formal pathways, but will be visible from the informal pathway to the southwest of the Orangery at the furthest point of what was the Great Lawn of the White House.”

7.3.13 Photograph 5 in Appendix D of my evidence is taken from a location on the Broadwalk near to the Orangery from where it is considered likely that the proposed development would be seen based on current visibility of a crane that is operating in the proximity of the proposed development site.

7.3.14 It is also worth noting that the proposed development will be visible from area of open space to the southwest of the Orangery which occupy the remains of the historically significant Great Lawn; and in some views from the area the development would appear directly over the Orangery (see Sections 6.2 above).

Haverfield Estate Towers and Kew Eye

7.3.15 Paragraph 2.35 highlights that elements of the urban environment around the Gardens are detrimental to its setting. It states that “….others are acknowledged to be detrimental to the setting, such as the six Haverfield Estate tower in Brentford and the Great West Quarter tower [Kew Eye]. It is not the visibility of these elements in the surrounding urban environment per se that gives rise to negative visual effects, but rather the poor quality of the design of each particular element.”

7.3.16 The issue with the Haverfield Estate towers and Kew Eye is to do with their visibility, not just their design (they are quite different in design). It is the fact that they protrude above the defined tree line within the WHS and appear on major vistas and key views across and of the Gardens. As the WHS Management Plan states “3.6.3 The Haverfield Estate tower blocks are also visible from the Broadwalk, a key vista, where they punctuate the skyline above the trees in the Riverside Zone and represent an unfortunate “eyesore”” and “3.6.7 In addition the six tower blocks on the Haverfield Estate form part of the skyline for views obtained from viewpoints located within the northern parts of the Gardens, and especially along the Broadwalk in the Palm House Zone.”

7.3.17 The 2002 ICOMOS Mission (CDF.19) also took the view that “…the overall aspect of six 22- storey tower blocks (Haverfield estate) at Brentford on the opposite bank of the Thames,

May 2018 111 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

opposite the gardens and outside the buffer zone, seriously diminished the visual experience at Kew at several points in the gardens.”

7.3.18 In these cases it is the bulk, mass and strong visual presence of the buildings that is the issue for the setting and significance of the WHS, not their design.

Temple of Aeolus

7.3.19 Neither THVIA or THVIA addendum (CDA.11 and CDA.15) provide an analysis of the impact of the development on the setting and significance of the Grade II listed Temple. A viewpoint is provided but this does not address the history, significance and setting of the temple.

Cumulative Impacts

7.3.20 Throughout the THVIA and THVIA Addendum’s (CDA.11 and CDA.15) assessment of impact on the WHS and designated heritage assets within it there is no assessment of the level of harm associated with existing development. This is particularly an issue for the WHS, the Orangery and Kew Palace all of which are currently experiencing very significant levels of harm due to major development e.g. the Haverfield Estate towers and Kew Eye. The NPPG, the Historic England Setting Guidance and the SPG (see Section 3.0 above) all require consideration of the impact of current development to ensure that even minor incremental change does not gradually degrade an asset’s significance through time. The absence of this analysis limits the usefulness of the findings of the THVIA and THVIA Addendum (CDA.11 and CDA.15) to a decision maker.

May 2018 112 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.1.1 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is an internationally important designed landscape and botanic research institution. It embodies centuries of horticultural, botanic and landscape design practice and its buildings, arboretum, open landscape areas, statues and collections convey the history of its development from royal retreat and pleasure garden to national botanical and horticultural garden.

8.1.2 The inscription of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew onto the World Heritage List in 2003 recognised this unique and special history and its combination of cultural heritage interest and botanical research value; as captured within the three criteria under which it was inscribed and the later 2010 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value.

8.1.3 The Inscription also places a significant obligation on the UK Government, under the terms of the 1972 Word Heritage Convention, to do all that it can, and to the utmost of its resources, to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

8.1.4 The proposed development does not protect and conserve the Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Instead it exacerbates already existing harms primarily caused by the Haverfield Estate towers and Kew Eye developments. My evidence has demonstrated that the proposed development would trigger a tipping point from the existing high levels of Less than Substantial Harm into Substantial Harm, by:

 Firstly, introducing significant new visual intrusion into areas of the Gardens that currently retain their historically intended enclosed character e.g. the Order Beds, Grass Garden, Rockery, and views from and to Cambridge Cottage. This essentially extends the current impact of external development into new areas of the Garden, leaving less of the WHS with its historically intact setting and character.

 Secondly, significantly increasing the cumulative impact of current development on the setting of key assets in the Gardens and on important areas of the Gardens. For example, it would intensify the impact of external development on the setting and character of the still open former areas of the Great Lawn, it would significantly increase the impact of development on the setting of the Orangery and would slightly worsen the impact of development on the setting of Kew Palace and Palm House.

8.1.5 As an asset of the greatest importance any harm to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS must be given the greatest weight in decision making and clear and convincing justification for that

May 2018 113 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates

harm is required. The cumulative Substantial Harm requires wholly exceptional circumstances to be justifiable and in accordance with NPPF the proposed development should be refused consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm.

8.1.6 In addition to the harm to the WHS, I have also identified that the development would, with other existing development, harm, to varying degrees, the setting and significance of the following designated heritage assets:

 The Orangery – Grade I Listed Building  Kew Palace - Grade I Listed Building and Scheduled Monument  Palm House - Grade I Listed Building  Temple of Aeolus - Grade II Listed Building  Cambridge Cottage - Grade II Listed Building

8.1.7 These are significant impacts that require clear and convincing justification and consideration in the planning balance.

8.1.8 As a result of these impacts on the WHS and other designated assets the proposed development is considered to be in conflict with: Policies CC3 (Tall buildings) and CC4 (Heritage) of the adopted local plan; Policies 7.7 (Tall Buildings), 7.8 (Heritage Assets and Archaeology) and 7.10 (World Heritage Sites) of the London Plan; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.1.9 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) is also engaged given the impacts on the listed buildings.

8.1.10 On a final note, it is important to recognise that UNESCO has expressed an interest in the development and the outcome of the appeal. They have indicated in a letter dated April 2018 (see Appendix C) that they supported the refusal of the application. There is therefore a risk that consenting the application would result in UNESCO placing the WHS on the In-Danger list, as they did at Liverpool in 2012 (see paragraph 3.2.2 above), given both the threat posed by the development and the significant risk that its presence would encourage further similar developments in the setting of the WHS.

May 2018 114 Proof of Evidence: RBG, Kew WHS Kew Curve-PoE_05-18-AC (FINAL) Chris Blandford Associates