DOCSLIB.ORG

London Borough of Haringey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Haringey Conservation Area No. 1 Highgate Conservation Area Character Appraisal Consultation Draft: October 2012 CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL HIGHGATE CONSERVATION AREA No.1 Contents Page Nos. 1. Introduction 7 Background to the study General identity and character of a conservation area Designation and extensions Context of the conservation area within the wider settlement Topography Views 2. Definition of special interest 10 Summary of Highgate conservation area 3. Archaeology and historic development 12 Archaeology Historic development Before 1813 1813 – 1896 1896 – 1914 1914 – 1967 1967 – present day 4. Sub areas of Highgate conservation area 16 5 Audit of heritage assets 17 Introduction Statutory and locally listed buildings, Positive contributers Shopfronts of merit Elements of streetscape Interest Neutral contributors Detractors 6 Sub area 1: the village core 19 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 7 Sub area 2: Highgate Bowl 46 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 8 Sub area 3: Archway 55 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 9 Sub area 4: the Miltons 74 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 10 Sub area 5: Shepherd’s Hill 91 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 11 Sub area 6: Gaskell 100 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets is 12 Sub area 7: Bishops 102 Spatial and character analysis Audit of heritage assets 13 Planning policy framework 114 National Regional Local Supplementary 14 Challenges, pressures and opportunities for development 118 Design considerations Traffic management Streetscape and public realm improvements 15 Development management issues 121 Demolitions and replacement buildings Residential areas Shopfronts Forecourt parking and vehicular crossovers Original features Brickwork, stonework, painting, render and cladding Dormer windows Future change Opportunity sites 16 Conservation area boundary review 124 Review 17 Potential for Article 4(2) Directions 124 Introduction 18 Advice on maintaining your property 124 19 Bibliography and Internet websites 126 APPENDIX 1: Sub area 1 – the village core 128 Designations and negative features APPENDIX 2: Sub area 2 – Highgate Bowl 133 Designations and negative features APPENDIX 3: Sub area 9 – the Miltons 134 Designations and negative features [Historic maps and photos to be inserted prior to publication.] 1. Introduction Background to the study 1.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 defines a conservation area as ‘ an area of special architectural or historic interest the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. Under section 69 of the Act, the London Borough of Haringey (the ‘Borough’ or ‘Council’) has a duty to: ‘determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or historic interest’ and to ‘designate those areas as conservation areas.’ 1.2 The borough has 29 conservation areas, designated over 41 years, of which Highgate conservation area was the first to be designated. 1.3 Under section 71 of the Act, once an area has been designated the Council has a duty to: ‘ formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of their area which are conservation areas.’ 1.4 The Local Development Frameworks (LDF), introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, will replace Unitary Development Plans (UDP). As part of the transition, the UDP policies are automatically saved while the new LDF system is being completed. 1.5 To meet Government requirements, the Council is producing documents to protect its conservation areas in stages. The first stage is this character appraisal, which aims to give a clear assessment of the special interest, character, and appearance that justified the designation of the area as a conservation area. It is intended that each appraisal will provide a sound basis (defensible on appeal) for the development plan policies and development control decisions, for the guidance of residents and developers. The second stage will be the production and adoption of a supplementary planning document (SPD) on Conservation, including design guidance, as part of the Council’s evolving LDF. The third stage will be the production and adoption of proposed management strategies for the conservation areas that will also support the SPD. 1.7 In line with the guidance given by both Government and English Heritage, this appraisal aims to define the character of the conservation area on the basis of an analysis of all or some of the following criteria: • current and past land use; • social and economic background; • orientation; • archaeological and historic sites; • geological and topographical mapping; • density and types of building; • place names and earliest references; • communication types and patterns; • comprehensive and selective historic mapping; • aerial photographs; • documentary sources; • historic environment record (HER) data; • characterisation and extensive urban studies (EUS); • statutory and non-statutory designations. 1.8 The aims of this appraisal are therefore to: • Set out the special architectural and historic interest of the Highgate conservation area and clearly describe the special character and appearance that it is desirable to preserve or enhance. • Identify through an audit of the built heritage of the area, buildings and other elements that positively contribute to its character. • Identify elements and buildings that detract from the character of the area and any sites where an opportunity to enhance the character of an area may exist. • Examine the existing boundaries of the conservation area and consider the potential for other areas to be included. • Identify areas subject to pressure for change that would adverse affect the character and appearance of the area, as a result of permitted development, and identify any areas where the removal of permitted development rights would safeguard the essential character and appearance of the area. The Council is very grateful to the Highgate Society for its assistance in helping to prepare some of the sub areas information. 1.9 It should be noted that the appraisal does not represent an exhaustive record of every building, feature or space within the conservation area and an omission should not be taken to imply that an element is of no interest. General identity and character of a conservation area 1.10 The character and appearance of an area depends on a variety of factors. Its appearance derives from its physical and visual characteristics, materials, heights of buildings, types and relationship of built form, topography, open spaces and trees. Its character includes other less tangible effects relating to the experience of an area. This may include levels and types of activity, patterns of, or prevailing, land uses, noise and even smells. The character of an area may also differ according to the day of the week or time of day. 1.11 A conservation area depends on much more than the quality of its individual buildings. It also depends on the historic layout of property boundaries and thoroughfares; on a particular 'mix' of uses; on characteristic materials; on the appropriate scale architectural style and detailing of buildings; on the quality of shopfronts, street furniture and hard and soft surfaces; on vistas along streets and between buildings; and on the extent to which traffic intrudes and limits pedestrian use of spaces between buildings. The quality of townscape in its broadest sense relies on the positive contribution of all the individual elements; buildings, groups of buildings, historic street furniture, the sense of enclosure of open space, trees, etc, that go to make it special. It is the overall historic and architectural quality and interest of the area, not merely the interest of the buildings, which make conservation areas special. 1.12 This assessment of the character and appearance of the area is based on the present day situation. The intrinsic interest of an area, therefore, reflects both the combined effect of subsequent developments that replaced the earlier fabric and on the original remaining historic buildings, street patterns and open spaces. Designation and extensions 1.13 Highgate was originally designated as a conservation area on 21 December 1967. The original conservation area boundary included the village core and the Bishopswood area, the Gaskell Estate, together with the area bounded by Southwood Lane, Jacksons Lane, the central part of Archway Road, Muswell Hill Road, and Wood Lane up to Queen’s Wood. 1.14 The conservation area boundary was extended on the eastern side on 27 September 1990, to include the upper and lower parts of the Archway sub area, together with the Miltons and Shepherd’s Hill sub-areas. 1.15 The final relatively small boundary extension was on the eastern side to include part of Stanhope Road in the Shepherd’s Hill sub area on 29 November 1994. Context of the conservation area within the wider settlement. 1.16 Highgate is situated in north London and occupies the southwest corner of the borough of Haringey. Highgate village, located on top of Highgate Hill, is divided between the London boroughs of Haringey and Camden. The southern edge of the conservation area follows the borough boundary along Hampstead Road, runs along the middle of Highgate High Street, and down Highgate Hill. The London Borough of Barnet lies on the western edge of the conservation area and the London Borough of Islington on its southeast edge. Topography 1.17 The village of Highgate lies at the top of Highgate Hill. Highgate School and The Gatehouse public house on North Road stand at a level of 129.7 m. above sea level and 4.3 m. below the highest point of London, in Hampstead, to the West. The highest parts of the hills are covered by sand and gravel while the lower reaches gradually change to London clay. The area has many springs, streams and ponds draining into the River Lee and River Fleet basins. Views 1.18 The character of an area depends on views inside, outside, and within it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • London's Poverty Profile
    London’s Poverty Profile Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway London’s Poverty Profile Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk A summary of this report can be downloaded in PDF format from www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk We are happy for the free use of material from this report for non-commercial purposes provided City Parochial Foundation and New Policy Institute are acknowledged. © New Policy Institute, 2009 ISBN 1 901373 40 1 Contents 5 Foreword Acknowledgements 6 7 Introduction and summary 11 Chapter one: An overview of London London’s boroughs: ‘cities’ in their own right 11 The changing populations of Inner and Outer London 12 London’s diverse population 12 London’s age structure 15 London’s ‘sub-regions’ 16 At London’s margins 17 19 Chapter two: Income poverty Key points 19 Context 20 Headline poverty statistics, ‘before’ and ‘after’ housing costs 21 Before or after housing costs? 22 Poverty in London compared with other English regions 23 Poverty in Inner and Outer London 26 In-work poverty 27 29 Chapter three: Receiving non-work benefits Key points 29 Context 30 Working-age adults receiving out-of-work benefits 30 Children and pensioners in households receiving benefits 34 37 Chapter four: Income and pay inequality Key points 37 Context 38 Income inequality in London compared with other English regions 39 Inequalities within London boroughs 40 43 Chapter five:Work and worklessness Key points 43 Context 44 Working-age adults lacking work 45 Children in workless households 48 Lone parent employment rates 49 The
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan for Highgate
    A P L A N FOR HIGHGATE Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Draft For Consultation January 2015 Foreword Welcome to the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan – the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum's vision for Highgate for the next 15 years. We hope you like what you see here and will let us know, one way or the other, what you think. More than 50 people who live and work in N6 have contributed ideas, time and energy to the Plan, but thanks are due especially to two individuals. Former Chair Maggy Meade-King has been instrumental in holding the Forum together, tirelessly coercing, campaigning and consulting, and making the final edit on the Plan. Without Maggy's focus and drive it is doubtful whether the Forum would exist at all. The other is Elspeth Clements who played the central role in pulling the Plan together. It is difficult to reach compromises and coordinate all interested parties in Highgate with officers from one Borough Council, let alone two. Elspeth has attended dozens of meetings, discussed and written planning policy, and pushed hard to include elements that seemed unthinkable at the outset. How and why the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum was set up and why we have a Neighbourhood Plan is covered in detail in the following pages, but without Maggy and Elspeth it is unlikely the Forum, and certainly the Plan, would ever have reached this stage. My thanks, on behalf of everyone involved with the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum, to them both. Rachel Allison Chair, Highgate Neighbourhood Forum January 2015 2 Contents Page Foreword 2 Contents page 3 Acknowledgements
    [Show full text]
  • Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy
    Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Proposals Highgate Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy Part 1: Conservation Area Appraisal Introduction Purpose of the appraisal The Planning policy context National planning policy Local planning policy Summary of special interest Conservation Area designation history Location and Setting Location General character and plan form Topography Historic development Character Appraisal Sub area 1: Highgate Village Sub area 2: Fitzroy Park Sub area 3: Waterlow Park and cemeteries Sub area 4: The Whittington Hospital Sub area 5: Merton Lane and Millfield Lane Key views and approaches Commemorative plaques Appendices 1. Listed buildings 2. Positive buildings 3. Negative buildings 4. Historic shopfronts 5. Streetscape audit 6. Highgate Conservation Area map 2007 showing context with Borough boundaries and Haringey’s Highgate Conservation Area 7. Highgate Conservation Area townscape appraisal map 2007 8. Highgate Conservation Area sub areas map 2007 9. Urban Grain map 2007 10. Topography map 11. OS extract 1870-75 12. OS extract 1894 Part 2: Management Strategy Introduction Monitoring and Review Maintaining quality Conservation Area boundary review Investment and Maintenance New Development Listed Buildings Buildings at Risk Maintenance and Repair Enhancement Initiatives Control of demolition New development and work to existing buildings within the Conservation Area: Quality erosion Shops fronts Fascias Estate agents boards Roof alterations Rear extensions Gardens and front boundaries
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan for Highgate
    A PLAN FOR HIGHGATE Highgate Neighbourhood Plan ReferendumAdopted version Version May 2017 Acknowledgements The Forum would like to thank those who have contributed to the Plan over the production process. These include CABE (The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment), the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, Planning Aid and Locality for guiding us in the process, and the London Boroughs of Camden and Haringey for their support and advice (as well as Haringey for the Key Sites maps). Also, the Department for Communities and Local Government for awarding us Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights Programme grants, which enabled us to engage Maroon Planning to help us write the first draft of the Plan and AECOM to help us assess comments on that draft and produce a second draft. Thanks are also due to Lauderdale House for processing the first grant for us. In addition, the Highgate Society, Channing School, the Murugan Hindu Temple, Jacksons Lane, St Michael’s Church, the United Reformed Church and The Bull public house for generously donating their premises. Text: Martin Adeney, Rachel Allison, Karen Beare, Simon Briscoe, Sydney Charles, Elspeth Clements, Antony Grossman, Anne Jamieson, Michael Hammerson, Delcia Keate, Louise Lewis, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Jim Meikle, Alex Munro (Maroon Planning), Martin Narraway, Neil Perkins, Alicia Pivaro, David Porter, Christopher Riley, Susan Rose, Christoph Schedll, Gail Waldman, Richard Webber, Ciara Whelehan. Photos: Ian Henghes, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Christopher Riley Maps, website and technical support: Ian Henghes Design: Mark Wilson/MWA 2 Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version May 2017 Contents Page Section 1 Introduction 5 The background to the Plan; what makes Highgate special; and the challenges the Plan seeks to meet.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Monuments to Glorious Defeat: Socialist Memorial Art in Britain
    Stud. ethnol. Croat., vol. 29, str. 225–248, Zagreb, 2017. Owen Hatherley: Our Monuments To Glorious Defeat: Socialist Memorial Art In Britain OUR MONUMENTS TO GLORIOUS DEFEAT: SOCIALIST MEMORIAL ART IN BRITAIN OWEN HATHERLEY DOI: 10.17234/SEC.29.7 United Kingdom, SE5 8RF London, Camberwell Preliminary communication Grove 94 Received: 24. 5. 2017. [email protected] Accepted: 12. 9. 2017. orcid.org/0000-0002-2843-4236 This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the CC BY- NC-ND 4.0 license. Britain is the one major European country never to have had a numerically significant Communist movement, with Marxism generally limited either to far-left enclaves in Wales and Scotland, Labour Party entryism or, most commonly, academia. However, the Labour movement at its more radical edges has produced numerous monuments, memorials and spaces, littered around urban and even rural Britain. Typically, they are monuments to defeat, given the lack of any hegemonic socialism in Britain. They are also unusually figurative for 20th century public sculpture, suggesting a perhaps unexpected traditionalism, not usually considered to be the case for the ‘west’, in the Cold War polarities often used to analyse monumental artworks. This paper will discuss these narratives of heroic failure as expressed in mosaics, murals, sculptures and plaques in South Wales, the north of England and London as attempts to answer the question of what socialist memorials are like in a country without even historical socialism. Keywords: Britain, Marxism, Social Democracy, Urbanism, Nostalgia, Sculpture, Architecture In Highgate Cemetery, North London, is one of the largest Soviet memorials in any country that has not been occupied at any point by the Red Army.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Highgate Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2031
    Report on Highgate Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2031 An Examination undertaken for the London Boroughs of Haringey and Camden Councils with the support of the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum, on the July 2016 submission version of the Plan. Independent Examiner: Jill Kingaby BSc(Econ) MSc MRTPI Date of Report: 28 February 2017 Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 6NB Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 1 Contents Page Main Findings - Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction and Background 3 • Highgate Neighbourhood Plan 2016 – 2031 3 • The Independent Examiner 4 • The Scope of the Examination 4 • The Basic Conditions 5 2. Approach to the Examination 5 • Planning Policy Context 5 • Submitted Documents 6 • Site Visit 7 • Written Representations or Public Hearing 7 • Modifications 7 3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights 7 • Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area 7 • Plan Period 8 • Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation 8 • Development and Use of Land 8 • Excluded Development 8 • Human Rights 9 4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions 9 • EU Obligations 9 • Main Issues 9 • Issue 1 – Social and Community Needs and 10 Economic Activity • Issue 2 – Transport 14 • Issue 3 – Open Spaces, Public Realm and Historic 16 Environment • Issue 4 – Key Sites 21 5. Conclusions 24 • Summary 24 • The Referendum and its Area 24 Appendix: Modifications 26 Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 6NB Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 2 Main Findings - Executive Summary From my examination of the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan and its supporting documentation including the representations made, I have concluded that subject to the policy modifications set out in this report, the plan meets the Basic Conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan for Highgate
    A P L A N FOR HIGHGATE Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version May 2017 Acknowledgements The Forum would like to thank those who have contributed to the Plan over the production process. These include CABE (The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment), the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, Planning Aid and Locality for guiding us in the process, and the London Boroughs of Camden and Haringey for their support and advice (as well as Haringey for the Key Sites maps). Also, the Department for Communities and Local Government for awarding us Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights Programme grants, which enabled us to engage Maroon Planning to help us write the first draft of the Plan and AECOM to help us assess comments on that draft and produce a second draft. Thanks are also due to Lauderdale House for processing the first grant for us. In addition, the Highgate Society, Channing School, the Murugan Hindu Temple, Jacksons Lane, St Michael’s Church, the United Reformed Church and The Bull public house for generously donating their premises. Text: Martin Adeney, Rachel Allison, Karen Beare, Simon Briscoe, Sydney Charles, Elspeth Clements, Antony Grossman, Anne Jamieson, Michael Hammerson, Delcia Keate, Louise Lewis, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Jim Meikle, Alex Munro (Maroon Planning), Martin Narraway, Neil Perkins, Alicia Pivaro, David Porter, Christopher Riley, Susan Rose, Christoph Schedll, Gail Waldman, Richard Webber, Ciara Whelehan. Photos: Ian Henghes, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Christopher Riley Maps, website and technical support: Ian Henghes Design: Mark Wilson/MWA 2 Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version May 2017 Contents Page Section 1 Introduction 5 The background to the Plan; what makes Highgate special; and the challenges the Plan seeks to meet.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election Results, 9 April 1992
    No 61 GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS, 9 APRIL 1992 This paper presents some analyses of voting in the general election held on 9 April 1992. It is based on the definitive results which are published in Britain Votes 5, by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (Dartmouth 1993). CONTENTS 1. Summary of voting. 2. Votes cast for major parties by region. 3. Percentage distribution of votes cast for major parties by region. 4. Changes since June 1987 in major parties' share of votes by region. 5. The results in Northern Ireland. 6. Seats won by party in each region of Great Britain. 7. Change from 1987 in seats won by party in each region. 8. Changes in seats relative to June 1987. 9. Changes in seats relative to dissolution in March 1992. 10. Highest and lowest turnouts (percent). 11. Largest and smallest majorities by party. 12. Highest and lowest shares of the vote, by party. 13. Largest constituency changes between 1987 and 1992 in main parties share of the total vote. 14. Candidates finishing in first, second, third and fourth places (Great Britain only). Staff of the House of Commons Statistical Section regret that they are not available to discuss the contents of this paper with enquirers. The 1992 General Election set several records. More votes were cast than ever before and a single party received more than 14 million votes for the first time. More women (571) stood than ever before and the 60 elected were twice the number elected at any previous election except in 1987. Of these 60, 20 were Conservative, 37 Labour, two Liberal Democrat and one Scottish National Party.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan for Highgate
    A P L A N FOR HIGHGATE Highgate Neighbourhood Plan AdoptionReferendum Version Version Adoption Version 2017May 2017 Acknowledgements The Forum would like to thank those who have contributed to the Plan over the production process. These include CABE (The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment), the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, Planning Aid and Locality for guiding us in the process, and the London Boroughs of Camden and Haringey for their support and advice (as well as Haringey for the Key Sites maps). Also, the Department for Communities and Local Government for awarding us Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights Programme grants, which enabled us to engage Maroon Planning to help us write the first draft of the Plan and AECOM to help us assess comments on that draft and produce a second draft. Thanks are also due to Lauderdale House for processing the first grant for us. In addition, the Highgate Society, Channing School, the Murugan Hindu Temple, Jacksons Lane, St Michael’s Church, the United Reformed Church and The Bull public house for generously donating their premises. Text: Martin Adeney, Rachel Allison, Karen Beare, Simon Briscoe, Sydney Charles, Elspeth Clements, Antony Grossman, Anne Jamieson, Michael Hammerson, Delcia Keate, Louise Lewis, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Jim Meikle, Alex Munro (Maroon Planning), Martin Narraway, Neil Perkins, Alicia Pivaro, David Porter, Christopher Riley, Susan Rose, Christoph Schedll, Gail Waldman, Richard Webber, Ciara Whelehan. Photos: Ian Henghes, Hannah Liptrot, Maggy Meade-King, Christopher Riley Maps, website and technical support: Ian Henghes Design: Mark Wilson/MWA 2 Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version May 2017 Contents Page Section 1 Introduction 5 The background to the Plan; what makes Highgate special; and the challenges the Plan seeks to meet.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    HIGHGATE SCHOOL GOVERNORS’ ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2020 Haysmacintyre LLP Chartered Accountants Registered Auditors HIGHGATE SCHOOL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2020 CONTENTS PAGE Governors’ Report 1–22 - Chairman’s Foreword 1 - Main Report 2-22 Statement of Governors’ Responsibilities 23 Independent Auditors’ Report 24-25 Statement of Financial Activities 26 Balance sheet 27 Cash Flow Statement 28 Statement of Accounting Policies 29-33 Notes to the Accounts 34-48 HIGHGATE SCHOOL CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2020 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD I am pleased to present Highgate School’s report and accounts for the year ending 31 July 2020, following another year of excellent achievements, across many fronts as described more fully in this report. Our continuing imperatives as a school – to keep pupils safe and happy and to ensure that they receive the best possible education – remain constant but I hope that this report will enable those interested in Highgate to understand something of the energy and self-reflective determination which characterise the School in consistently striving to improve how those imperatives are delivered. Additionally, significant commitment continues, and I hope is captured within this report, to strengthen what it means, as a school, to be a charity; I and my fellow governors strongly support the Head’s determination to pursue greater impact still of Highgate as a charity. Indeed, in September 2019, Highgate was selected as both the Independent School of the Year 2019 and the Independent School of the Year for Contribution to Social Mobility 2019 within the Independent Schools of the Year 2019 award scheme designed by Independent School Parent magazine.
    [Show full text]
  • Highgate Wood Heritage Assessment
    Project Title: Highgate Wood Heritage Assessment Client: City of London Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by Principal 1 21/10/11 First Draft KM MT DC 2 24/10/11 Revised First Draft KM MT DC 3 22/05/12 Second Draft – Final Report JM/KM MT DC 4 8/01/13 Revised Final Report MP MP JEW S:\5200\5222 Highgate Wood Heritage Assessment\B Project Working\THIRD ISSUE 1205022\Highgate Wood Heritage chapter V3 13018 Compressed.doc Highgate Wood Heritage Assessment Prepared by LUC January 2013 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London NW1 1JD Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management T 020 7383 5784 Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology F 020 7383 4798 London NW1 1JD LUC uses 100% recycled paper Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 Contents 1 Background and Context 1 2 Documented History 3 3 Historic Woodland Management Practices 15 4 Built Fabric 19 5 Archaeology 21 6 Historic Map Regression 23 7 Conclusions 25 Figures Figure 1.1 Location Plan Figure 1.2 Designations Figure 2.1 Ancient Woodland Context Figure 2.2 The Medieval Park Figure 2.3 Timeline Figure 4.1 Built Fabric Figure 5.1 Archaeology Figure 6.1 Historic Map Regression Appendices Appendix 1 Historic Maps Acknowledgements LUC is grateful to Michael Hammerson and Jonathan Meares who shared their knowledge and research with LUC to enable this Heritage Assessment to be produced. Also to City of London staff – Dennis Fletcher, David Humpheries, Cindy Blaney, Declan O’Brien and Rebecca Hirst for their contribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Candidates Greater London
    Page | 1 LIBERAL/LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES IN THE GREATER LONDON REGION 1945-2015 INCLUDING SDP CANDIDATES in the GENERAL ELECTIONS of 1983 and 1987 PREFACE The process of compilation of this Index for the Greater London Region, despite its sheer size, has presented no intraCtable problems. All Constituencies within the Greater London area as constituted in 2015 are inCluded. Before the boundaries of Greater London were Changed in the reform of loCal government in the 1970s many of these constituencies were loCated, in whole or part, within the adjoining Home Counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey. In the mid 1970s names of ConstituenCies lengthened to inClude the name of the London Borough in whiCh they were situated. These sometimes rather Cumbersome designations, whiCh have frequently Changed, have been included in full to avoid Confusion. At the General EleCtion of 1950 the Home Counties in general and London Boroughs in partiCular were the prinCipal theatre of operation of the Martell Plan, whiCh is explained further under a separate heading. A considerable number of candidates listed have fought elections in other regions. It has taken some time to traCk down the eleCtoral Career of many of these individuals. Some candidates listed have joined the party from other parties and their previous Contests under a different banner reCeive mention as do the subsequent Careers of a handful of former party Candidates who have defeCted to Labour, the Conservatives etC. After the defeat of Sir Percy Harris at Bethnal Green in 1945, London and the Home Counties remained without a Liberal MP until the by-election viCtory at Orpington in 1962.
    [Show full text]