403 Holloway Road

,’

403 Holloway Road

Historic Building Report for 403 Holloway Road Limited

August 2015

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 1 Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 2 403 Holloway Road, N7 6HJ

Historic Building Report

For 403 Holloway Road Limited

PROMAP

Ordnance Survey map with the site marked in red. [Reproduced under Licence 100020449]

This report and all intellectual property rights in it and arising from it are the property of or are under licence to Donald Insall Associates. Neither the whole nor any part of this report, nor any drawing, plan, other document or any information contained within it may be reproduced in any form without the prior written consent of Donald Insall Associates. All material in which the intellectual property rights have been licensed to DIA and such rights belong to third parties may not be published or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of such material for publication or reproduction should be made directly to the owner of the intellectual property rights therein. Checked by KXG.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 3 Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 4 Contents

1.0 Historic Building Analysis & Advice 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 The Buildings and their Current Legislative Status 6 1.3 Assessment of Significance 7 1.4 Summary of Proposals and Justification 8 1.5 Conclusion 9

2.0 Historical Background 2.1 Development of Holloway 10 2.2 Development of the Site 15 2.3 403-405 Holloway Road 16 2.4 Late-19th Century Bank Buildings 22 2.5 London & South Western Bank Limited 23 2.6 Architects 24 2.7 Sources 24

3.0 Site Survey Descriptions 3.1 Setting 34 3.2 The Buildings Externally 34 3.3 The Buildings Internally 36

4.0 Commentary on the Proposals 4.1 Description of the Proposals, their Impact on the Heritage Assets and Policy Justification 37 4.2 Conclusion 39

Appendices

Appendix I – Planning Policy Appendix II – Statutory List Description Appendix III – List of Plates and Endnotes

Contact Information

Kate Green (Associate) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888

Vicky Webster (Historic Buildings Advisor) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888

London Office 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB www.insall-architects.co.uk

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 5 1.0 Historic Building 1.1 Introduction Analysis & Advice Donald Insall Associates was commissioned in April 2015 by 403 Holloway Road Limited to assist them in the preparation of proposals for No.403 Holloway Road.

The investigation has comprised historical research, using both archival and secondary material, and site inspections. An illustrated history of the site and building, with sources of reference and bibliography, is in Section 2; the site survey findings are in Section 3. The investigation has established the historical and architectural significance of the building, which is set out below. This understanding has informed the development of proposals for change to the building, by Arc Design Consultants and Section 4 provides a justification of the scheme according to the relevant planning guidance.

The investigation and this report were undertaken by Kate Green and Vicky Webster.

1.2 The Buildings and their Current Legislative Status

No.403 Holloway Road is a locally listed building located in the London Borough of Islington. Although not within a conservation area, it is close to the Mercers Road/Tavistock Terrace and the Hillmarton Conservation Areas. The building is located opposite a Grade II-listed building – Nos.458-462 Holloway Road. The statutory list description of this building is included in Appendix II.

In order for a local authority to consider granting such permission, the proposed development should also be justified according to the policies on the historic environment set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The key message of the National Planning Policy Framework is the concept of ‘sustainable development’. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that heritage assets (a term that, with regard to UK planning legislation, includes listed buildings, conservation areas, and unlisted buildings of local importance) should be conserved in a manner ‘appropriate to their significance.’ It also notes the desirability of ‘sustaining and enhancing the significance’ of heritage assets and of putting assets to viable uses ‘consistent with their conservation.’ The National Planning Policy Framework recognises the ‘positive contribution of that the conservation of heritage assets can make towards economic

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 6 vitality’. However, it also recognises that, in some cases, proposals can lead to a heritage asset losing significance. The National Planning Policy Framework thus requires that the ‘public benefits’ of a proposal – which include securing the optimum viable use of a designated heritage asset – should outweigh any ‘less than substantial’ harm caused to the significance of a designated heritage asset.

With regard to undesignated heritage assets the National Planning Policy Framework states that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Copies of the relevant planning policy documents are included in Appendix I.

1.3 Assessment of Significance

403 Holloway Road is an unlisted building and does not lie within a conservation area. No.403 has however been classified by Islington Council as a locally listed building (grade B).

It was built in 1894 as the Holloway branch of the London & South Western Bank. The architects were George Truefitt and Archibald Duncan Watson. Of primary significance are the front and side elevations of the main three storey element of the building which face on to Holloway Road and Parkhurst Road respectively. These façades deftly display the Queen Anne revival style which typified a large number of commercial and institutional buildings at the end of the 19th century - features include: grouped mullioned and transomed casement windows, dressed with stone jambs, sills and lintels; deep bands of stonework at each floor level, with projecting mouldings; stone parapet detailing curving up to the wallhead gable; Dutch gable containing a blocked oeill-de-boeuf window, and above a scalloped apex. The style was championed by the London & South Western Bank’s own architect, James Edmeston, and came to be something of a trademark style for the bank.

The two storey gabled wing on Parkhurst Road is architecturally subordinate to the main corner block of the building; its lesser scale is reflected in its external composition including the misalignment of the stone banding which runs across the façade. However, although more restrained, it exhibits handsome features sympathetic to the main part of the building – contributing positively to its setting. Further west is a two-storey section which is of a later date (1980s), built forward from the original building line. Although again designed to be sensitive to the original design and reflecting the features found in the main building, this is clearly a later addition with lighter brickwork and a flat roof and is of no significance.

The roof of the main body of the building facing Holloway Road is formed of two interlocking pitched roofs, extending back from the Dutch gables on each elevation. This roof form is of architectural interest and contributes to the significance of the building. The rear pitch has however

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 7 been compromised by the addition of a full width dormer style extension, constructed in poor brickwork with a flat, asphalted roof. The two-storey block facing Parkhurst Road has a more typical pitched roof of lesser interest, again with unsightly rear dormer extensions which detract - as does the medley of plant on the flat roof of the 1980s extension, all visible in views east along Parkhurst Road. In addition, the ground floor extension to Holloway Road constructed c.1970 detracts from the significance of the building. The original interior has been almost completely eradicated and what is left is of no significance.

Secondary significance can be gathered from the building’s association with a successful bank, who were renowned for their suburban presence. Further significance can be garnered from the building’s association with a moderately well-known architectural practice – Truefitt & Watson, but this is limited.

1.4 Summary of Proposals and Justification

The proposals are described in the Arc Design Consultants drawings which this report accompanies. The proposed scheme seeks to extend no.403 (aside from the areas remaining in bank use at ground floor) to provide new residential units. The scheme proposes a second and part third floor mansard roof extension to provide 4 x 2-bedroom flats and provision of external amenity space. The roof extension would be located over the original wing and 1980s extension facing Parkhurst Road, of lesser significance and no significance respectively and the external terraces behind the high parapet at second floor facing Holloway Road. These works are described in detail in section 4.1 below.

The proposed roof extension is confined to the section of the building located on Parkhurst Road and would not impact on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings at Nos.458-462 Holloway Road or the setting of nearby conservation areas (indeed the Act does make provision for the setting of conservation areas); therefore the presumption against the grant of planning permission outlined in sections 66 and 72 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged.

403 Holloway Road is a locally listed building which, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, is a non-designated heritage asset whereby a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss brought about by the proposals in relation to the significance of the asset itself (paragraph 135).

The primary significance of the building is founded in the main corner building and its interesting roof form which would not be affected by the mansard roof extension, nor would the design and form proposed lessen the positive contribution the side wings make to the significance of the building. The roof extension would not be visible in the principle views of the locally listed building; indeed it would only be visible in long views looking east along Parkhurst Road where it would replace unsightly plant and poor quality rear dormer extensions to present a rationalised and more harmonious roofline.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 8 The loss of the pitched roof over the central two storey wing would cause some harm to the significance of the building; however this roof is clearly secondary to the main, particularly interesting, interlocking pitched roof and it has been compromised by the unsightly dormer extensions to the rear. As such the harm caused, considered relatively to the significance of the building overall, is limited and must be balanced against the overall benefits to the composition of the building of creating one single extension across the Parkhurst Road wings which would rationalise the existing roofscape and enable the conversion of the building to residential use to the benefit of the local community.

As outlined in paragraph 15 of the National Planning Practice Guidance, the vast majority of heritage assets are in private hands, and thus sustaining heritage assets in the long term often requires an incentive for their active conservation. In this instance, the construction of the roof extension would put the non-designated heritage asset to a viable residential use which would likely to lead to investment in its maintenance - necessary for its long-term conservation.

This assessment of the proposals was agreed with the London Borough of Islington planning and conservation officers at the pre-application meeting held on 15 July 2015.

1.5 Conclusion

The proposed scheme seeks to create residential accommodation to meet the needs of the local borough and which would secure the conservation of the building in the long-term. The harm caused to this non-designated heritage asset through the removal of the front pitched roofslope is limited and, when considered in terms of its relative contribution to the significance of the building, is acceptable given the associated benefits to the execution of the overall scheme of its removal. The proposals therefore meet the tests for sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as these relate to the historic environment, as agreed by London Borough of Islington planning and conservation officers at the pre-application meeting held on 15 July 2015.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 9 2.0 Historical 2.1 Development of Holloway Background Holloway, which includes Upper and Lower Holloway, was substantially developed during the 19th century. As the area is quite large, this analysis of its historical development will focus around the junction with Parkhurst Road, with some reference to other areas where necessary.

By 1307 the Great North Road which ran through Islington had become known as the Holloway. In the mid-15th century it was home to copyholders and craftsmen and had several medieval inns. By the 17th century settlement was concentrated at three main junctions of the high road which consisted of ‘Upper Holloway’ at the upper end of Maiden Lane, near the later Junction Road and Archway Tavern, ‘Lower Holloway’ at Roffe’s Lane, and ‘Ring Cross’ at Tollington Farm. A map of the Parish of St Mary in Islington shows this general layout still in existence by 1817 (Plate 1). From the 1820s the name Ring Cross was dropped and it merged with Lower Holloway, at a time when development began to pick up speed in the area.

The general division of Upper and Lower Holloway can be taken to be Camden Road which runs north-east to south-west (from Holloway Road to Camden), just south of Parkhurst Road. Camden Road appears to have been constructed after 1817 as it does not appear on the 1817 map (Plate 1). A new road running from Camden Road to King’s Cross was laid out in 1826 which stimulated some building growth in south-western part of Lower Holloway, although little of this was residential until the 1840s. On a map of 1841 the road is simply called ‘New Road from Battle Bridge to Holloway’, later to be named Caledonian Road (Plate 2). This map shows that at this point the area below Camden Road and much of Parkhurst Road was undeveloped.

In the 1840s the Great Northern Railway line was constructed which passed under a tunnel as it passed through part of Lower Holloway, but came out to the surface close to the junction of North Road and Caledonian Road (Plates 3-4). The area to the west of Caledonian Road was further developed with the construction of the Metropolitan Cattle Market which opened in 1855. The market closed in 1939 and some of the area was built over with housing in c.1967, leaving open space around the original market tower and south of Market Road.

The map of 1853 shows that at this time there was linear housing development along Camden Road and Parkhurst Road, with the area between Camden Road and the Market laying largely open and undeveloped (Plate 4). This remaining open land north of the market was mainly built over in the 1860s and early 1870s. Penn Road, with St. Luke’s Church to the west and the houses behind Camden Road, were built in the 1860s, as was the south-west side of Hillmarton Road. The angle between Hillmarton Road and Caledonian Road was filled a little later. Hungerford Road was partially built up by 1862 from either end and more houses there were leased in 1873. These houses were generally substantial terraced, semi-detached and detached buildings which were influenced by their proximity to Tufnell Park.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 10 1. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1817. Islington Archives

2. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841. Islington Archives

3. James Wylde’s Map of 1848. Islington Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 11 To the north of Camden Road the Tufnell estate had plans for a park, Tufnell Park, with two roads, Carleton and Tufnell Park Roads, which were to be lined with villas (Plate 4). By 1853 only a few houses had been built (for example near the junction of Carleton Road and Holloway Road) and the scheme for the park was eventually abandoned. Most of the area was gradually laid out; building began in the 1850s and took place for the next 30 to 40 years. By 1886 Carleton Road was lined with detached and semi-detached houses.

In Upper Holloway, by the 1740s houses stood on both sides of the high road at the junction with the original Maiden Lane. Houses were also present in Lower Holloway at the junction with Roffe’s Lane, with a few more at the three-mile stone, approximately at the later Camden Road junction. Similar to Lower Holloway, little change occurred in the settlement pattern until the 1820s when development began to increase.

Development in the early 19th century was first concentrated in the area to the east of Holloway Road (Plate 2). The western part of Upper Holloway was fairly free of building and so the Corporation of London bought c.10 acres for a cemetery during the cholera epidemic of 1832. In 1848 they held 27 acres on the north side of Camden Road, near the junction of Parkhurst Road. A prison was erected on this site between 1848 and 1852. It was designed by James Bunstone Bunning who was also the architect of the Metropolitan Cattle Market. Holloway Prison was noted for its front façade and gateway, a copy of Warwick Castle. It was used only for women from c.1903 and became well known for the imprisonment of suffragettes and also for internments during the Second World War. The prison was rebuilt over several years from 1972 to provide medical and psychiatric facilities for the whole women’s prison service. This eventually led to the demolition of the Gothic gateway, despite widespread protests.

There was an increase in building in Upper Holloway in the 1840s. Much was concentrated to the east, particularly around Hanley Road, Hornsey Road and Tollington Park; but houses were also being built in roads leading off Holloway Road to the west, between Parkhurst Road and Camden Road, and at the east end of Tufnell Park Road (Plate 3). Building at this time was still fairly scattered and many of the houses were

4. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1853. Islington Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 12 detached villas with spacious grounds.

Denser building occurred in the 1850s, particularly to the east of Holloway Road, where in 1851 110 houses were in construction as opposed to 18 on the western side. Land societies bought much land in the area, particularly to the east of Holloway Road, and developed estates; examples are the St Pancras, Marylebone and Paddington Freehold Land Society, who bought land to the east of Hornsey Road, and the National Freehold Land Society, who purchased land north of Hanley Road. These estates were developed with much open space between them and building was far from rapid or consistent, even where a street pattern had been laid down. Many of the streets which began in the 1850s were not completed until the 1870s or 1880s, and in the 1890s early villas were replaced by terraces.

Tradesmen and craftsmen had lived along Holloway Road since it was first recorded and became particularly prominent along the east side with the wave of building. Towards the end of the 19th century the stretch of Holloway Road north-west of the G.N.R line became an important shopping area. There were some substantial retail premises on the east side, which included a linendrapers, tailors, house furnishers and fancy drapers. The west side of the street remained mainly residential from Loraine Place to Mercers Road, which includes Parkhurst Road. In 1902 there was a concentration of doctors and dentists between Camden Road and Parkhurst Road.

By the early 20th century there was much overcrowding in both Upper and Lower Holloway, although the east of Upper Holloway was particularly bad with 1.75 people to a room in Whadcoat Road (now built over), Playford Road and Poole Park in 1929. This resulted in a wave of local authority housing developments from the 1920s and the demolition of many 19th century buildings. By 1967 the borough had 27 estates of 20 or more dwellings in the area, with 12 more in progress, and the G.L.C. owned five estates and four housing schemes and sites.

5. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841 [Close up]. Islington Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 13 2.1.1 Parkhurst Road

Development of Parkhurst Road appears to have begun c.1840, as depicted on a map of the parish of St Mary from 1841 (Plate 5). This shows a group of four semi-detached buildings on the north side of the street, with two pairs located to the south. The street, at this time, formed part of the Seven Sisters Road which extends to the east across Holloway Road, although the name Park Road is labelled to the south of the street. The street was renamed Parkhurst Road in 1876.1

A map of 1848 shows the development of the street in the 1840s more clearly, where individual plots are marked out (Plate 6). Development continued and, by 1859 a long terrace, seven semi-detached houses and two detached dwellings were depicted on the north side of the street (Plate 7). On the south side were two shorter terraces (separated by William Street), six semi-detached houses and a group of three attached buildings. Development was very much centred on the middle section of the road, although Holloway Prison was present to the west from c.1850. The 1871 Ordnance Survey map shows that not much development took place on Parkhurst Road during the 1860s, the area to the west, in particular, being largely undeveloped (Plate 8). A spate of building had taken place by the late 1880s. Bacon’s map from 1888 shows the addition 6. James Wylde’s Map of 1848. Islington Archives of several rows of terraced houses to the west and a single terraced row to the east (Plate 9). The main area of open space only existed to the east where the back gardens of houses fronting Holloway Road lay.

7. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1859. 8. 1871-3 Ordnance Survey Map. Islington Islington Archives Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 14 9. 1888 Bacon’s Map. Islington Archives Parkhurst Road underwent significant change in the 20th century with the demolition of many Victorian buildings and the construction of several local authority apartment blocks. The earliest council development was Parkhurst Court which was built by 1936. Most local authority developments took place in the 1960s and 70s which included: Hilton House 1964, Fairweather House 1966, Barnesbury House 1967-8, McMorran House 1968, Bunning House 1970, Crayford House 1970, Holbrooke Court 1974 and Whitby Court 1975.2

2.2 Development of the Site

The Parish of St Mary Islington map (1841) shows Seven Sisters Road crossing Holloway Road (note the section of this road to Camden was also named Seven Sisters Road, this was later renamed as Parkhurst Road) (Plate 10). The site of 403-405 Holloway Road was at this date occupied by Union House which was set within a reasonable plot, with gardens to the front and rear. On Holloway Road, west of the Seven Sisters Road junction was a collection of buildings named ‘Landsdowne Place’ and opposite was a terrace group named Holloway Terrace. The 1853 Parish map again identifies Union House on the site. A map from 1859 shows that by this date, the site had been redeveloped with Landsdowne Place. It comprised an assortment of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses. Bacon’s map of 1888 shows that the houses on the site of 403- 405 Holloway Road were occupied by the London & South Western Bank.

In June 1887, alterations to No.403 Holloway Road were put forward to the Vestry by Ball and Wickes (builders). The plan shows the building on the corner of Holloway Road and Parkhurst Road. There was a large forecourt at the front of the property, facing Holloway Road (Plate 11). In November 1891, James Hart (builder) submitted an application to the

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 15 Vestry of St Mary, Islington to drain Nos.405 and 407 Holloway Road. The plan shows two houses, both with porches, closet wings and rear extensions. In February 1895, an application was submitted by Alfred Syon to the Vestry for drainage alterations to a building to the rear of No.405 Holloway Road, for use as warehousing.

2.3 403-405 Holloway Road

The Holloway branch of the London & South Western Bank opened in 1869 and was situated c.1870 at 11 Seven Sisters Road. By 1888, the London & South Western Bank occupied No.403 Holloway Road.

The Barclays archive holds material on their banking premises, which provides some information on the new Holloway branch which was to be built on Holloway Road. There were a few terse entries in the L&SW’s minute books - on 24 April 1893, Messrs. Truefitts’ submitted proposed plans and elevations of a suggested new branch premises. At this date, the matter was deferred.3 In November that year, a note was made in the House Committee minute book that the lease on no.403 was surrendered to the Bank, and a record of same had been entered in the Middlesex Deeds Registry.4 On 16 November 1893, the Board minute book stated that ‘Tenders for the new premises’ were submitted and approved. A list of ten named building firms with amounts of tenders stated were considered 10. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841 and the tender of Messrs. Wilkinson Bros. was accepted (£4,234).5 A [Close up]. Islington Archives design for a new bank on the site of 403-405 Holloway Road was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1894 by Messrs. Truefitts.

The American Architect and Building News published an engraving of the London & South Western Bank, Holloway on 29 September 1894. This engraving shows the south and east elevations of the building (Plate 12). The building was designed by Messrs Truefitt & Watson of Bloomsbury Square, in the Queen Anne revival style. This was the style of choice during the late-19th century and this particular take on the style was employed for police stations, libraries and banks. The red brick building rose three storeys, and presented a Dutch gable to Holloway Road. The main entrance to the bank was through an arched entrance, with hooded porch over and bottle balustrades. The windows were mullioned and transomed, the dressings picked out in stone. Above the ground floor was a deep band of stone, engraved with ‘LONDON & SOUTH WESTERN BANK LTD’. The second floor was set within the roof, and there was a small oeill-de-boeuf window within the gable. The gable was topped by a scalloped apex, and a ball finial. The Parkhurst Road elevation was divided into three sections, each stepping down in height from east to west. The corner section was much as the Holloway Road frontage (minus the entrance), this time of two main bays. The adjacent section was two storeys high and one bay wide, again with a Dutch gable topped by a scalloped apex and finial, and an oeill-de-boeuf window above the first floor. Further west was a single storey section, three bays wide, its parapet was lined with a bottle balustrade and ball finials. There were three mullioned and transomed openings, and another entrance – perhaps for staff. The building was set back from Holloway Road, behind 11. 1887 Drainage Plan of 403 Holloway a low wall and gardens, to the rear on Parkhurst Road, the single storey Road. Islington Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 16 12. 1894 Engraving from American section was also set back from the road - behind a low wall and railings Architect and Building News. and a small garden.

The building comprised a bank with an adjacent shop. Presumably the new building was completed fairly quickly as the Banking Almanac for 1894 lists the branch at 403 Holloway Road. The house adjacent shows what would have stood on the site prior to its redevelopment. These adjoining properties, Nos.405-407, were retained by the Bank as houses and shops in the 1890s and 1900s and let to tenants. It is presumed that there were alterations to No.403 when the bank changed hands and became Barclays in c.1918, but these have not been recorded.

The London County Council (LCC) bomb damage map reveals that Nos.403-405 sustained non-structural general blast damage, which is perhaps when the finials were lost from the gables (Plate 13). An application was made, presumably by Barclays, in May 1946 for the erection of a building on the forecourt of No.403 Holloway Road. This was refused by the LCC. The 1952 Ordnance Survey map shows that the rear wing of the building remained set back from Parkhurst Road and Holloway Road (Plate 14) at this time.

Barclays Bank Limited described the accommodation within the premises in 1954 as: ‘a Banking Office and offices on the ground and first floors and there is a residence on the second floor which has the benefit of a kitchen and scullery on the mezzanine floor but there is, however, a considerable amount of space at second floor level which is not utilised’.6 Their letter also stated their intention to change the use on the mezzanine floor to create a restroom for staff and to create a new kitchen on the second floor. An application was made in February 1954 for the change

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 17 of use of the mezzanine floor from residential to office use, in connection with its use as a bank. Permission was granted in March that year.

13. London County Council Bomb Damage In January 1959, Barclays lodged an enquiry with the LCC for alterations Map (top right) to the front façade of the bank on Holloway Road. They intended to 14. 1952 Ordnance Survey Map. Islington bring the building in line with neighbouring properties by extending over Archives the forecourt on Holloway Road. The architects Robert Sharp & Son submitted an application and plans for the proposed extension in May 1960 and again in September 1961. The architect mentioned the current construction and finishes of the bank in a letter to the LCC: ‘The existing premises are constructed of brick walls, with stone dressings, slated roofs and joists and boarded floors with plastered walls and ceilings’.7 The proposal drawings are no longer held by Islington Council, but clues are given as to the proposed changes in a series of letters from the architects. Permission was granted for a scheme in September 1960.

A further scheme was submitted in October that year and included a single storey extension to the front of the main building on Holloway Road – which was to follow the curved line of the existing forecourt boundary. This required the removal of the front wall at ground floor level, and insertion of steelwork. The extension was faced with narrow brown tiles and a deep fascia band. The majority of the proposals were internal, and included the construction of a new staircase adjacent to an existing vestibule (at ground floor level) on Parkhurst Road. This was required to give the public direct access to the first floor from Parkhurst Road.

Permission for alterations and additions to the premises at 403 Holloway Road was approved once more in November 1961. A photograph from 1952 shows the building prior to these major alterations (Plate 15). In May 1963, the works were still underway.8 At this point, the bank made enquiries to providing a carpark to the rear of the site on Parkhurst Road. The intention was to remove a low brick wall to allow access onto the existing forecourt here (Plate 17). An application for this was submitted in October 1963, and planning permission was granted at the end of November that year. In 1964, an application was submitted for the creation of a staff room on the second floor within the existing roof space. Again the agents were Robert Sharp & Sons on behalf of Barclays. This

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 18 was permitted in July 1964 and the work was complete by November.

A photograph from c.1968 shows the building as altered – the original entrance porch has been removed and has been replaced with a curved plan entrance extension containing timber slatted doors, rows of narrow casement windows and mosaic stallriser panels. ‘Barclays Bank’ is spelt out in playful blocky signage (Plate 18). An interior photograph from the 1960s shows an open plan banking hall, with suspended ceilings and a mosaic floor (Plate 19). A photograph from the 1970s shows the rear on Parkhurst Road, where the setback wing can just be made out (Plate 16).

Further alterations were proposed to the bank in the late-1970s, which included the installation of comfort cooling throughout the building. However, these alterations did not require planning permission. In April 1982, an application for alterations to 403 Holloway Road was submitted. The proposals included a first floor extension to the rear, the formation of a store room at mezzanine level, a large corridor and boiler room at ground floor level and enclosing the existing carpark area. The proposals aimed 15. 1952 Photograph of 403 Holloway to bring forward the building line of the ground floor wing on Parkhurst Road. Barclays Archives Road, building on part of the ground floor carpark and retaining the other half but enclosed with a new first floor built over. The new construction was designed in the style of the original building – with red brick walls and (reconstructed) stone dressings; the roof was to be part flat and asphalted and part pitched and slated. The scheme was approved in July that year [Planning reference 820615]. In September an application was submitted by Barclays for alterations to the Holloway Road frontage at ground floor (Plates 20a-20c). This was approved in December 1982. In April 1983, a further application was submitted for a revised scheme based on the 16. 1970s Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives previous consented schemes from 1982; this was approved in July 1983

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 19 [Planning reference: 830596]. The alterations included the extension of the storeroom at ground floor level, the rebuilding of the Parkhurst Road entrance staircase behind the existing façade. The proposals also included the creation of an emergency exit across the flat roof, a revision to the consented new frontage, and the addition of rooflights to the first floor extension (Plates 21a-21f).

As-existing drawings from 1988 show that the scheme from 1983 was implemented with a variation to the elevation on Parkhurst Road (Plate 22). In 1988, the bank submitted an application for change of use of the ground floor garage/store to office use, and for alterations to enact this change of use. Externally this involved the blocking of the garage door and infilling to match the existing work (Plates 23 and 24). This was permitted in January 1989. In 1993, an application was submitted for alterations to the first floor of 405 Holloway Road. This was approved in September that year. There are no related drawings on file at Islington Council.

In July 2009, an application was submitted for alterations to 403-405 Holloway Road; these included replacing fascia signs, and introducing new ATMs. In September, this was approved [Planning reference: P091186]. Presumably as part of the same overall scheme, alterations to the fascia signs were approved in September 2009 [Planning reference: P091187].

2.3.1 Planning History

• An application was refused in August 1946 for the erection of a building over the forecourt of No.403 Holloway Road.

• Permission was granted in March 1954 for the change of use of the mezzanine floor from residential to office use, in connection with its use as a bank.

• In September 1960, an application was submitted for change of use of the upper floors from residential to office use. This was permitted in November 1960.

• Permission for alterations and additions to the premises at 403 Holloway Road was approved in September 1960.

• Permission for alterations and additions to the premises at 403 Holloway Road was approved in November 1961.

• In November 1963, an application for the formation of a carpark over the forecourt on Parkhurst Road was permitted.

• In May 1964, an application was submitted for the creation of a staff room on the second floor within the existing roof space. This was permitted in July 1964.

• In April 1982, an application for alterations to 403 Holloway Road was submitted. The scheme was approved in July that year

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 20 [820615]. This was for the formation of a new building over of the carpark, and the rear of the building at ground and first floor level. • A further application for alterations was submitted in September, and was approved in December 1982 [821296]. This was for a new ground floor frontage – ‘constructed on the same building line of the existing’.

• In April 1983, another application was submitted for changes to the building, this was approved in July 1983 [830596]. The alterations included those proposed in 1982, with the addition of an extension of the storeroom at ground floor level, and the rebuilding of the Parkhurst Road entrance staircase.

• In January 1989, planning permission was granted for change of use and alterations to 403/405 Holloway Road [881382]. This related to the ground floor on Parkhurst Road.

• In 1993, an application was submitted for alterations to the first floor of 405 Holloway Road. This was approved in September that year.

• In July 2009, an application was submitted for alterations to 403-405 Holloway Road; these included replacing fascia signs, and introducing new ATMs. In September, this was approved [P091186], as was the application P091187 (fascia signs).

• In April 2014, an application was submitted for the change of use of the first and second floor of the building to residential (C3) use comprising six flats (one x four-bedroom unit, three x two-bedroom units, one x one-bedroom unit, and one x studio) at 403-405 Holloway Road. This was approved in June 2014 [P2014/1394/ PRA]

• In September 2014, an application was submitted for change of change of use of the first and second floor of the building to residential (C3) use comprising seven flats (four x two-bedroom units, two x one-bedroom unit, and one x studio flat) at 403-405 Holloway Road. This was approved in November 2014 [P2014/3687/PRA]

2.3.2 Occupants

1882 – London and South Western Bank Limited, Holloway Branch (Head Office was at 7, Fenchurch Street) 1902 – ‘Bank Chambers’ 1914 - Holloway & District Permanent Bank Chambers9 1927 – Holloway & District Permanent Bank Chambers 1947 – François Georges Domaungue, Barclays Bank, 403 Holloway Road M.B., B.S 1957 – Barclays Bank 1973 – E.D. Smith & Fry/Josling & Hamlyn Quantity Surveyors (‘403, Holloway Road, Bank Chambers’)

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 21 1980 – M.A. Kaftee & Co Limited – Dentist; Cartwright Professional Transfers (‘Barclays Bank Chambers, 403 Holloway Road’)

2.4 Late-19th Century Bank Buildings

The history of bank building in England is linked, of course, to economic expansion and change - the late-19th century saw many banks (often within buildings in multiple use) built throughout major cities and eventually smaller towns. An English Heritage Listing Guide to the architecture of commerce and exchange buildings summarises this in this way:-

Banks were built in great numbers to fuel the economy in the nineteenth century. Greater central control led to C.R. Cockerell’s designs for the Bank of England in Bristol (1844- 7), Manchester (1845-6), and Liverpool (1845-8) representing a high point of the Greek Revival in architecture and all are listed Grade I. Image and appearance mattered, with outward impressiveness being pursued as the embodiment of reliability, confidence and security. After the financial reforms ofthe 1840s, banks began to assume a more standard guise: as with exchanges, the common formula for larger banks is a grand entrance leading into a banking hall with offices off to the side. Italianate or Renaissance designs became the favoured idiom, such as the former Westminster Bank at 1-15, Bishopsgate, London of 1863 by John Gibson (listed Grade I) with effort being concentrated on front elevations and public areas, above all the banking hall.10

Andrew Saint and Elaine Harwood in Exploring England’s Heritage: London judge that bank architecture in the capital (as elsewhere) developed to present the best possible commercial front whilst maximising the use of space. They note that:-

… If shops and markets stand for the public face of exchange, London banks and offices struggle with the enigma of trying to reconcile dignity, privacy and safety with the maximising of business opportunity. So their architecture is a little self- contradictory…

Early Victorian insurance companies were the first to diffuse an opulent commercial architecture in London, projecting … Their ornate mini-palazzi, like the Law Fire Insurance Office in Chancery Lane, soon escape the City itself and are imitated by others. But by 1870 the most interesting kind of office has become the speculative or semi-speculative block, of which the owner occupies part at most while letting off the rest. C F A Voysey’s grandfather is said to have designed London’s first such building, long gone, in 1823. Its development was less dramatic and ruthless than in Chicago or other cities with a milder record of restraint in building codes, but just as fascinating. Ingenuity in stowing accommodation into the modest cubic capacity and height allowable, and in securing the best possible light, direct

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 22 or ‘borrowed’ was the hallmark of such famous buildings as Norman Shaw’s New Zealand Chambers…11

From the 1860s, banks began to appear on high streets throughout the UK and, where once there may have been some control from head office as to their design, this seems to have abated as the century drew on. A standard work on the history of bank architecture, Temples of Mammon, pinpoints the later part of the 19th century as a period of expansion for many banks, although the author John Booker deems that by the 1890s a proliferation of architectural styles had led to “tradition in disarray”. John Booker notes that:-

The ultimate result of the introduction of new styles [as architectural idioms diversified] was the impracticability for most banks of continuing the characteristic ‘in-house’ presentation which many had adopted in the seventies and eighties… The factors which brought about the collapse of in-house styling worked equally to undermine the position of bank architect…12

He also recognised that the suburban bank developments often combined a commercial venture in which adjacent properties were purchased in order to be let as shops or offices, usually occupying ‘bank chambers’. At its Wimbledon branch, the London & South Western Bank built a branch with three cells – a central bank and two flanking shops.13 One of the first banking companies to be interested in the systematic urban expansion was the London & South Western and, if only one bank set a style for building in the late Victorian era, it was this one. Their style was typified by Portland stone bases, and red brick upper storeys, with stone dressings and elements of Queen Anne revival features such as Flemish gables. The style of their banks had been set by the bank’s principal architect – James Edmeston of J & J.S Edmeston. Several commissions did however go to George Truefitt and his firm Truefitt & Watson. Its most ambitious building project was James Weir’s Bristol branch (1880).14

2.5 London & South Western Bank Limited

The London & South Western Bank Ltd head office was at 168 Fenchurch Street. The bank amalgamated with London & Provincial Bank Ltd at the end of 1917 to form London, Provincial & South Western Bank, which was then acquired by Barclays Bank Ltd in October 1918.

This major joint stock bank was founded in 1862, and began operations on 1 July 1863; head office was at 12 Regent Street. The bank’s original strategy was to link London with modest account holders in the main towns of the South West. By December 1863 the bank had opened 12 provincial branches (mainly in Devon and Cornwall) but was forced to close 8 of these within the first decade, it then decided to turn its attention instead to the more profitable and rapidly expanding London suburbs, which had hitherto been largely ignored by the other banks. In 1887 the London and South Western acquired the goodwill of the failed West London Commercial Bank. Meanwhile the head office had been moved twice: to 29 Lombard Street in 1865 and then to 7 Fenchurch Street in

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 23 1871. They did have a slump in profits, and as a result had to close a number of branches to stay in business.15 However, in 1888, the bank built a new head office on the north side of Fenchurch Street and by the end of the century the London and South Western had become one of the leading joint stock banks. In 1912, to coincide with the bank’s golden jubilee, the head office was again rebuilt and extended to occupy the corner plot with Gracechurch Street. At the end of 1917, partly because of difficult wartime conditions, the London and South Western amalgamated with one of its formidable rivals, the London and Provincial Bank, to form the London, Provincial and South Western, this becoming effective on 1 January 1918. By this time the London and South Western had over 200 branches and deposits of £38m. The resulting combined company only had a short life, however, as it was in turn acquired by Barclays Bank Ltd on 2 October 1918. The grand former London and South Western head office building, with its sumptuous Edwardian interiors, ideally situated opposite Barclays’ head office which occupied the corner of Gracechurch and Lombard Streets, was used to house Barclays’ Chief Foreign branch and City Office.16

2.6 Architects

Messrs Truefitt & Watson

George Haywood Truefitt (born c.1855) was the son of George Truefitt (1824-1902) – a respected architect, who designed an unsuccessful scheme for the Army and Navy Club in London and was known to have designed a number of banks including the savings bank at Newberry in 1849. George Haywood Truefitt was articled to his father for two years from 1879, however his subsequent experience is uncertain. He was admitted ARIBA on 9 January 1882, his proposers were Sir Horace James, his father and James Brooks. In c.1894, he went into partnership with Archibald Duncan Watson but may have practiced alone thereafter. He and Watson submitted a design for the London & South Western Bank, Holloway Road at the Royal Academy Exhibition in 1894. George Haywood Truefitt was thought to be a more orthodox, but accomplished designer than his father – as was evident in his well-executed alterations to Aboyne Castle during the 1890s.17

Archibald Duncan Watson (born c.1861) was born in Cambridgeshire. Little is known of his training. He is known to have been in partnership with George Truefitt from 1894 to 1899. RIBA records suggest that he was still practicing in 1914.

2.7 Sources

London Metropolitan Archives GLC Photographs Collection Maps Collection Plans (Building Act Case Files)

Camden Local Archives Drainage Plans Ratebooks

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 24 Census Records

Camden Planning Archives Building Case File Redevelopment Drawings

Barclays Archives London and South Western Bank Minute Books Photographs Collection

Published Sources

Booker, John. Temples of Mammon. Edinburgh University Press (1991)

English Heritage (Historic England). Designation Listing Selection Guide: Commerce and Exchange Buildings (2011)

Harwood, E and Saint, A. Exploring England’s Heritage: London (1991)

HM Stationery Office. Commonwealth Shipping Committee (1914)

Willats, E A. Streets with a Story: The Book of Islington. London (1988)

Unpublished Sources

https://www.archive.barclays.com/items/show/5269 [Accessed 01.05.14]

http://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/architect_full.php?id=203876 [Accessed 26.04.14]

http://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/architect_full.php?id=404823 [Accessed 26.04.14]

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 25 17. 1963 Plan. Islington Planning Archives

18. c1968 Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 26 19. 1960s Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 27 20a. 1982 Proposed Frontage Plan. Islington Planning Archives

20b. 1982 Proposed Frontage Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 28 20c. 1982 Proposed Frontage Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

21a. March 1983 Ground Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 29 21b. 1983 First Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives

21c. 1983 Second Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 30 21d. 1983 Proposed Section. Islington Planning Archives

21e. 1983 Proposed Parkhurst Road Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 31 21f. 1983 Proposed Holloway Road Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

22. 1988 Existing Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 32 23. October 1988 Proposed Elevation. Islington Planning Archives

24. October 1988 Proposed Plan. Islington Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 33 3.0 Site Survey 3.1 Setting Descriptions This section of Holloway Road forms a major crossroads in which Parkhurst Road leads down to Camden and Seven Sisters Road leads to Finsbury Park. Adjacent to the north are No.405 (which shares its address and bank use with 403) and 407 Holloway Road – two very heavily altered 19th century houses – which only retain their original plot widths; both rise four storeys and have modern projecting shops at ground floor. The façades have a large sign at first and second floor level reading: ‘Drivers & Norris Estate Agents’. Nos.407-415 Holloway Road form a continuous row of housing with shops at ground floor. They are four storeys, in a Neo- Georgian style, of red brick with stone dressings (probably late-1930s/ early-1940s). They have modern zinc-clad mansards.

Directly across Holloway Road is the Grade II-listed 458-462 Holloway Road and No.1 Seven Sisters Road. The building was constructed in 1891 as shops, offices and perhaps also originally flats. It is a good example of elaborate late Victorian commercial terracotta work, and very striking in the broad streetscape of Holloway Road. At the corner, stands a contrastingly plain circular tower with a Lombard frieze supporting the cornice but the roof and other details above now missing. The former Nag’s Head at 456 Holloway Road lies on the south eastern corner of Holloway Road and Seven Sisters Road, it now has a betting shop at ground floor. The building was built as a public house (c.1840s); it is three storeys, cream brick with stone dressings, arch-headed windows and has large ball finials to the parapet.

Opposite, on the southern side of Parkhurst Road, is a large 7-storey late- 20th century commercial building which also fronts Holloway Road. This vast building stretches right back to Warlters Road. On the south side Parkhurst Court sits at the north-west corner of Warlters Road, where it meets with Parkhurst Road. This is a 5-storey local authority apartment block dating from the early-20th century. Opposite this, on the north side, lies a part of the Holbrooke Court development which fronts Parkhurst Road. This is a 1970s gated local authority estate which comprises three blocks of 3- and 4-storey apartment blocks, the rear blocks have projecting staircases. The estate stretches back from Parkhurst Road towards Tufnell Park Road. To the rear of the bank are numbers 81- 93 Parkhurst Road which comprise a short terrace of late-19th-century brick-built houses, most of which have bay windows; several have been adapted for commercial use.

3.2 The Buildings Externally

This bank and bank chambers were built in 1894 in a Queen Anne revival style, in red brick with stone strapwork and dressings. It comprises three sections – the main section facing Holloway Road and Parkhurst Road, the stair block to the rear of this on Parkhurst Road, and a further extension on Parkhurst Road (1980s).

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 34 3.2.1 Front Elevation (Holloway Road)

The main building rises three storeys (over a basement), and is divided into four main bays. It is constructed in red brick, with sandstone banding and dressings (painted white). At ground floor is a c.1970 entrance extension, which is curved in plan, and stretches across the façade of No.405. It is curved at the corner with Parkhurst Road. This extension has a deep fascia, is faced with narrow brown tiles and contains metal- framed windows (1980s). The first and second floors of the building are set back from the pavement, and date from c.1894. At first floor, there are four pairs of mullioned and transomed casement windows, dressed with stone jambs, sills and lintels, above is a deep band of stonework, with projecting mouldings. At second floor are two pairs of mullioned and transomed windows, with segmental-arch lintels. At this level, there is a stone parapet which curves up to the wallhead gable. Above second floor 25. Holloway Road Elevation. DIA is a Dutch gable containing a blocked oeill-de-boeuf window, and above a scalloped apex (Plate 25).

3.2.2 Side Elevation (Parkhurst Road)

The Parkhurst Road elevation is divided into three sections, each stepping down in height from east to west. The corner section rises three storeys and is surmounted by a Dutch gable, it is two bays wide. The elevation is constructed in red brick, with sandstone dressing painted white. The windows are all mullioned and transomed, the ground floor windows are fixed (for security) whilst the upper storeys contain casements. At ground 26. Parkhurst Road Elevation. DIA floor are two sets of tripartite windows. Above the ground floor was a deep band of stone, engraved with ‘LONDON & SOUTH WESTERN BANK LTD’; this is now covered with a metal fascia panel reading: ‘Barclays’. At first floor there are two further sets of tripartite windows, above which is a deep band of stonework, with projecting mouldings. The second floor is set within the roof, and there is a blocked oeill-de-boeuf window within the gable. The gable is topped by a scalloped apex. The adjacent section is two storeys high and one bay wide, again with a Dutch gable topped by a scalloped apex, and a blocked oeill-de-boeuf window above first floor. At ground floor is a tripartite window, at first a taller tripartite window, and at third floor the gable and blocked opening. This is the stair block. The stone banding runs through from the adjacent building at ground floor, but misaligns at first floor. Further west is a two-storey section which is of a later date (1980s). It is three bays wide, and its detailing and materials match those of the main building. The ground floor contains an entrance with modern timber doors and glazed overlight. There are also two sets of tripartite windows. At first floor, there are two sets of taller tripartite windows and one pair over the entrance. There is a moulded stone parapet (Plate 26).

3.2.3 Rear Elevation

The rear of the main building is partially visible from further down Parkhurst Road. The only portion visible is a small poor-quality rear extension with a flat roof; this is brick-built and contains two timber sashes. The gable of the three-storey section of building (original) is visible from this view;

27. Rear Elevation. DIA it is brick built with stone band and dressings. The two-storey extension

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 35 presents a blank façade of red brick with stone bands (Plate 27 and 28).

3.2.4 Roof

The roof of the block facing Holloway Road is formed of two interlocking pitched roofs, extending back from the Dutch gables on each elevation and is covered in natural slate, with red ridge tiles. The rear pitch has been compromised by the addition of a full width dormer style extension, constructed in poor brickwork with a flat, asphalted roof. The two-storey 28. Rear Elevation. DIA block facing Parkhurst Road has a pitched roof; again with unsightly rear dormer extensions, covered in a mix of natural and artificial slate with red ridge tiles. The two-storey block has a flat roof, which is asphalted. This section of roof houses a vast array of unsightly plant, and a walkway lined with tubular steel railings. A further extension to the rear of this has a mono-pitch roof which is slated; this contains skylights (Plate 29).

3.3 The Buildings Internally

Ground Floor

29. Roof. DIA Main customer area of bank accessed only. Part set within the 1960s extension, part within the original 1894 section. The front wall of the original building was removed as part of the extension to create a large, mostly open plan bank. The front wall was replaced by a steel structure, submerged in square-section columns. The interior is entirely modern.

First Floor

At first floor a suspended ceiling and raised floor have been removed – 30. First Floor. DIA leaving scars on the walls. There are original casement windows to the east and south walls, these have been altered internally with the addition of timber transom. The floors are bare timber boards. On the northern side of the room is an inaccessible space, framed in studwork. Four steps lead down into the rear extension, with screeded floors, skylights. The south wall of the extension is exposed blockwork walls with modern casement windows to match the original. The chimneybreast has been removed in one room and the stack above is supported by a large I-beam. The staircase from ground to first is within the stair block. The stair itself has timber treads and risers, metal balusters and a vinyl-covered rail – 31. Second Floor. DIA probably all dating from the 1960s. There is a large pair of casement windows (original), which have geometric metal grilles fixed internally (possibly 1960s) (see Plate 30).

Second Floor

This floor is set within the roof. The walls have been partially dismantled – leaving only the studwork, some of which is original and has been reused. The floors are bare timber boards. There are original casement windows to the east and south walls. Within an extension to the rear are two modern timber sashes with metal bars fitted internally. The staircase from 32. Second Floor Staircase. DIA second to first is timber treads and risers, metal balusters and a vinyl- covered rail – probably all dating from the 1960s (see Plates 31 and 32).

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 36 4.0 Commentary on 4.1 Description of the Proposals, their Impact on the the Proposals Heritage Assets and Policy Justification

The extension would comprise a mansard roof extension, set back from the parapet of the existing two storey wings. The mansard would run across at second floor level, replacing the existing unsightly dormer extensions and the pitched roof to the central two storey wing but retaining the significant roof form over the main body of the building. The mansard floor would be set at a lowered floor level to match the lower level of the central wing. The mansard would also comprise a half-storey set back third floor element to accommodate duplex flats and to give southern aspects windows. The extension would be traditionally detailed, clad in a zinc standing seam with dormer windows aligning with those in the façade below; the western flank wall at second floor level would be constructed in red brickwork to match the existing with a stone coping, inset to retained the first floor parapet moulding. Terrace areas would be created at second floor in recesses set behind the high parapet facing on to Holloway Road – these would be concealed from view and have no impact on the appearance or significance of the building.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is the legislative basis for decision making on applications that relate to the historic environment. Sections 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty upon local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals upon listed buildings and their setting and conservation areas and to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the special architectural or historic interest of listed buildings and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. As a minimum, therefore, the impact of development on these heritage assets should be neutral to not engage the presumption within the Act against the grant of planning permission. The proposed roof extension is confined to the section of the building located on Parkhurst Road and would not impact on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings at Nos.458-462 Holloway Road or the setting of nearby conservation areas (indeed the Act does make provision for the setting of conservation areas); therefore the presumption against the grant of planning permission is not engaged.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 37 The primary significance of the building is founded in the main corner building and its interesting roof form which would not be affected by the roof extension proposed. The design and form of the proposed mansard roof extension is suited to the architectural character and period of the building and in itself would not lessen the positive contribution the side wings make to the significance of the building. By setting the mansard roof at a lowered level and behind the existing parapet, the bulk and prominence of the addition is reduced, maintaining a hierarchy of scale between the different parts of the building, sympathetic to its overall composition.

To achieve the floorspace necessary it is proposed that the mansard would also comprise a half-storey set back third floor element – this part of the roof extension would not be visible in all but long views looking east along Parkhurst Road. Visibility alone however does not render the roof extension unacceptable. The roof extension would see the removal of the unsightly plant and poor quality rear dormer extensions and present a rationalised and more harmonious roofline which would improve the appearance of the building in these views. Furthermore, setting the raised section to the rear of the floor plan would maintain the views of the noteworthy roof over the main body on the building and therefore would not compromise its significance.

The pitched roof over the central two storey wing is of some interest and complements the form of the main roof. However, it is clearly secondary to the main, particularly interesting, interlocking pitched roof and it has been compromised by the unsightly dormer extensions to the rear – as such it makes a limited contribution to the significance of the building overall. However, it is acknowledged that its loss would cause some harm which must be balanced against the beneficial impact of constructing a single addition across both wings architecturally and on the appearance of the building. Retaining the pitched roof would create a very awkward relationship with the mansard roof extension proposed and imbalance the overall composition and hierarchy across this façade of the building. This would undermine the overall benefits of consolidating the existing rooftop clutter and poor extensions and create a haphazard roofline which would detract from the significance of the building overall. The gable set above the second floor, the most prominent element of this central wing, would however be retained with the roof form glimpsed behind as the pitched roof is as existing.

The limited harm brought about by the loss of the pitched roof should be balanced against the overall benefits to the composition of the building of creating one single extension across the Parkhurst Road wings, replacing the existing ad-hoc extensions and roof plant with a single considered rooftop addition which would enable the conversion of the building to residential use to the benefit of the local community. As outlined in paragraph 15 of the National Planning Practice Guidance, the vast majority of heritage assets are in private hands, and thus sustaining heritage assets in the long term often requires an incentive for their active conservation. In this instance, the construction of the roof extension would put the non-designated heritage asset to a viable residential use which

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 38 would likely to lead to investment in its maintenance - necessary for its long-term conservation.

4.2 Conclusion

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 39 Appendix I Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning Policy and The Act is the legislative basis for decision making on planning applications Guidance that relate to the historic environment.

Sections 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty upon local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals upon listed buildings and conservation areas.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:

in considering whether to grant 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.

Similarly, section 72 of the above Act states that:

… with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

National Planning Policy Framework

Any proposals for consent relating to heritage assets are subject to the policies of the NPPF (2012). This sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With regard to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, the framework requires proposals relating to heritage assets to be justified and an explanation of their effect on the heritage asset’s significance provided.

The NPPF has the following relevant policies for proposals such as this:

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.

The NPPF sets out twelve core planning principles that should underpin decision making (paragraph 17). Amongst those are that planning should:

• not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; • proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 40 should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities; • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); • conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;

With regard to the significance of a heritage asset, the framework contains the following policies:

129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal 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.

In determining applications local planning authorities are required to take account of significance, viability, sustainability and local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF identifies the following criteria in relation to this:

• 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.

With regard to potential ‘harm’ to the significance designated heritage asset, in paragraph 132 the framework states the following:

…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.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 41 With regard to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of a designated heritage asset, of the NPPF states the following;

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.

In relation to the consideration of applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 137 of the document states the following:

Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

In terms of non-designated heritage assets, the NPPF states:

135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balance judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

With regards to the loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to a Conservation Area, paragraph 138 states this should be treated:

…As substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area…as a whole.

National Planning Policy Guidance

The planning practice guidance was published on the 6th March 2014 to support the National Planning Policy Framework and the planning system. It includes particular guidance on matters relating to protecting the historic environment in the section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The relevant guidance is as follows:

Paragraph 3: What is meant by the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment? 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.

Conservation is an active process of maintenance and managing

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 42 change. It requires a flexible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets as diverse as listed buildings in every day use to as yet undiscovered, undesignated buried remains of archaeological interest.

In the case of buildings, generally the risks of neglect and decay of heritage assets are best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Ensuring such heritage assets remain used and valued is likely to require sympathetic changes to be made from time to time. In the case of archaeological sites, many have no active use, and so for those kinds of sites, periodic changes may not be necessary.

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.

Part of the public value of heritage assets is the contribution that they can make to understanding and interpreting our past. So where the complete or partial loss of a heritage asset is justified, the aim then is to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance which is to be lost, interpret its contribution to the understanding of our past, and make that publicly available.

Paragraph 7 states:

There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available inthe right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well- being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 43 including moving to a low carbon economy.

Paragraph 8: What is “significance”? “Significance” in terms of heritage policy is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In legislation and designation criteria, the terms ‘special architectural or historic interest’ of a listed building and the ‘national importance’ of a scheduled monument are used to describe all or part of the identified heritage asset’s significance. Some of the more recent designation records are more helpful as they contain a fuller, although not exhaustive, explanation of the significance of the asset.

Paragraph 9: Why is ‘significance’ important in decision- taking? Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals

Paragraph 13: What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into account? The “setting of a heritage asset” is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.

A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it.

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.

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

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 44 time and according to circumstance.

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 15: What is a viable use for a heritage asset and how is it taken into account in planning decisions?

The vast majority of heritage assets are in private hands. Thus, sustaining heritage assets in the long term often requires an incentive for their active conservation. Putting heritage assets to a viable use is likely to lead to the investment in their maintenance necessary for their long-term conservation.

By their nature, some heritage assets have limited or even no economic end use. A scheduled monument in a rural area may preclude any use of the land other than as a pasture, whereas a listed building may potentially have a variety of alternative uses such as residential, commercial and leisure.

In a small number of cases a heritage asset may be capable of active use in theory but be so important and sensitive to change that alterations to accommodate a viable use would lead to an unacceptable loss of significance.

It is important that any use is viable, not just for the owner, but also the future conservation of the asset. It is obviously desirable to avoid successive harmful changes carried out in the interests of repeated speculative and failed uses.

If there is only one viable use, that use is the optimum viable use. If there is a range of alternative viable uses, the optimum use is the one likely to cause the least harm to the significance of the asset, not just through necessary initial changes, but also as a result of subsequent wear and tear and likely future changes.

The optimum viable use may not necessarily be the most profitable one. It might be the original use, but that may no longer be economically viable or even the most compatible with the long- term conservation of the asset. However, if from a conservation point of view there is no real difference between viable uses, then the choice of use is a decision for the owner.

Harmful development may sometimes be justified in the interests of realising the optimum viable use of an asset, notwithstanding the loss of significance caused provided the harm is minimised. The policy in addressing substantial and less than substantial

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 45 harm is set out in paragraphs 132 – 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 20: What is meant by the term public benefits? Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.

Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as:

• sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting • reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset • securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset

Historic England: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning (March 2015)

The purpose of the Good Practice Advice note is to provide information on good practice to assist in implementing historic environment policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the relate guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guide (NPPG).

Note 2 ‘Managing Significance in Decision-Taking’

This note provides information on:

assessing the significance of heritage assets, using appropriate expertise, historic environment records, recording and furthering understanding, neglect and unauthorised works, marketing and design and distinctiveness.

It states that:

The advice in this document, in accordance with the NPPF, emphasises that the information required in support of applications for planning permission and listed building consent should be no more than is necessary to reach an informed decision, and that activities to conserve or investigate the asset needs to be proportionate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact on that significance.

In their general advice on decision-taking, this note advises that:

Development proposals that affect the historic environment are much more likely to gain the necessary permissions and create successful places if they are designed with the knowledge and understanding of the significance of the heritage assets they

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 46 may affect. The first step for all applicants is to understand the significance of any affected heritage asset and, if relevant, the contribution of its setting to its significance. The significance of a heritage asset is the sum of its archaeological, architectural, historic, and artistic interest.

Paragraph 6 highlights the NPPF and NPPG’s promotion of early engagement and pre-application discussion, and the early consideration of significance of the heritage asset in order to ensure that any issues can be properly identified and addressed. Furthermore, the note advises that:

As part of this process, these discussions and subsequent applications usually benefit from a structured approach to the assembly and analysis of relevant information. The stages below indicate the order in which this process can be approached – it is good practice to check individual stages of this list but they may not be appropriate in all cases and the level of detail applied should be proportionate.

1. Understand the significance of the affected assets; 2. Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance; 3. Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF; 4. Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance; 5. Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of conserving significance and the need for change; 6. Offset negative impacts on aspects of significance by enhancing others through recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the important elements of the heritage assets affected.

The Assessment of Significance as part of the Application Process

Paragraph 7 emphasises the need to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting early in the process, in order to form a successful development, and in order for the local planning authority to make decisions in line with legal objectives and the objectives of the development plan and the policy requirements of the NPPF.18

8. Understanding the nature of the significance is important to understanding the need for and best means of conservation. For example, a modern building of high architectural interest will have quite different sensitivities from an archaeological site where the interest arises from the possibility of gaining new understanding of the past.

9. Understanding the extent of that significance is also important because this can, among other things, lead to a better under-

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 47 standing of how adaptable the asset may be and therefore improve viability and the prospects for long term conservation.

10. Understanding the level of significance is important as it provides the essential guide to how the policies should be applied. This is intrinsic to decision-taking where there is unavoidable conflict with other planning objectives.

11. To accord with the NPPF, an applicant will need to undertake an assessment of significance to inform the application process to an extent necessary to understand the potential impact (positive or negative) of the proposal and to a level of thoroughness proportionate to the relative importance of the asset whose fabric or setting is affected.

Conservation Principles and Assessment

Conservation Principles (2008) explores, on a more philosophical level, the reason why society places a value on heritage assets beyond their mere utility. It identifies four types of heritage value that an asset may hold: aesthetic, communal, historic and evidential value. This is simply another way of analysing its significance. These values can help shape the most efficient and effective way of managing the heritage asset so as to sustain its overall value to society.19

Curtilage Structures

15 Some buildings and structures are deemed designated as listed buildings by being fixed to the principal building or by being ancillary within its curtilage and pre-dating 1 July 1948. Whether alteration, extension or demolition of such buildings amounts to harm or substantial harm to the designated heritage asset (i.e. the listed building together with its curtilage and attached buildings) needs careful consideration. Some curtilage structures are of high significance, which should be taken fully into account in decisions, but some are of little or none. Thus, like other forms of heritage asset, curtilage structures should be considered in proportion to their significance. Listed buildings designated very recently (after 25 June 2013) are likely to define curtilage definitively; where this is (or is not) the case will be noted in the list description.

Assessing the Proposals

25. In deciding applications for planning permission and listed building consent, local planning authorities will need to assess the particular significance of the heritage asset(s) which may be affected by the proposal and the impact of the proposal on that significance reflecting the approach as described in paragraphs 3-5 above.

26. Successful sustainable development achieves economic,

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 48 social and environmental gains jointly and simultaneously through planning decisions. If there is any apparent conflict between the proposed development and the conservation of a heritage asset then the decision-maker might need to consider whether alternative means of delivering the development benefits could achieve a more sustainable result, before proceeding to weigh benefits against any harm.

27. Substantial harm is a high test which may not arise in many cases. In those cases where harm or loss is considered likely to be substantial, then the LPA will need to consider the relevant NPPF tests. Further detail on the tests on levels of harm can be found at paragraphs 133-135 and 139 of the NPPF. Further guidance on heritage conservation as a public benefit in itself, optimum viable use, levels of harm and mitigating harm are given in the PPG section ID 18a, paragraphs 15 to 20.

Cumulative Impact

28 The cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the significance of a heritage asset as a larger scale change. Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development to the asset itself or its setting, consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset in order to accord with NPPF policies. Negative change could include severing the last link to part of the history of an asset or between the asset and its original setting. Conversely, positive change could include the restoration of a building’s plan form or an original designed landscape.

Listed Building Consent Regime

29. Change to heritage assets is inevitable but it is only harmful when significance is damaged. The nature and importance of the significance that is affected will dictate the proportionate response to assessing that change, its justification, mitigation and any recording which may be needed if it is to go ahead. In the case of listed buildings, the need for owners to receive listed building consent in advance of works which affect special interest is a simple mechanism but it is not always clear which kinds of works would require consent. In certain circumstances there are alternative means of granting listed building consent under the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

Opportunities to Enhance Assets, their Settings and Local Distinctiveness

52. Sustainable development can involve seeking positive improvements in the quality of the historic environment. There will not always be opportunities to enhance the significance or

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 49 improve a heritage asset but the larger the asset the more likely there will be. Most conservation areas, for example, will have sites within them that could add to the character and value of the area through development, while listed buildings may often have extensions or other alterations that have a negative impact on the significance. Similarly, the setting of all heritage assets will frequently have elements that detract from the significance of the asset or hamper its appreciation.

Design and Local Distinctiveness

53. Both the NPPF (section 7) and PPG (section ID26) contain detail on why good design is important and how it can be achieved. In terms of the historic environment, some or all of the following factors may influence what will make the scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and proposed use of new development successful in its context:

• The history of the place • The relationship of the proposal to its specific site • The significance of nearby assets and the contribution of their setting, recognising that this is a dynamic concept • The general character and distinctiveness of the area in its widest sense, including the general character of local buildings, spaces, public realm and the landscape, the grain of the surroundings, which includes, for example the street pattern and plot size • The size and density of the proposal related to that of the existing and neighbouring uses • Landmarks and other built or landscape features which are key to a sense of place • The diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, colour, detailing, decoration and period of existing buildings and spaces • The topography • Views into, through and from the site and its surroundings • Landscape design • The current and historic uses in the area and the urban grain • The quality of the materials

Note 3 ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’

This note provides guidance on the setting of heritage assets, which is separate to issues of curtilage, character or context.

The Extent of Setting

4. The setting of a heritage asset is 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.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 50 The setting of a heritage asset may reflect the character of the wider townscape or landscape in which it is situated, or be quite distinct from it. Extensive heritage assets can include many heritage assets and their nested and overlapping settings, as well as having a setting of their own. I.e. A conservation area will include the settings of listed buildings and have its own setting.

Views and Setting

5. The contribution to the setting of a heritage asset can be expressed through a wide variety of views.

6. Views which contribute more to understanding the significance of the heritage asset include:

• those where relationships between the asset and other historic assets or places or natural features are particularly relevant; • those with historical associations, including viewing points and the topography of battlefields; • those where the composition within the view was a fundamental aspect of the design or function of the heritage asset; and • those between heritage assets and natural or topographic features, or phenomena such as solar and lunar events.

Even if recent unsympathetic development has affected the setting or views of a heritage asset, consideration will still be given to whether developments would further detract or enhance the significance of the asset.

Setting and the Significance of Heritage Assets

9. Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset, which may vary from asset to asset….Therefore, implications of development affecting the setting of heritage assets should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Setting and urban design

The numbers and proximity of heritage assets in urban areas mean that the protection and enhancement of setting is intimately linked to townscape and urban design considerations, and often relate to townscape attributes such as lighting, trees, and verges, or the treatments of boundaries or street surfaces.

Setting and economic and social viability

Sustainable development under the NPPF can have important

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 51 positive impacts on heritage and their settings, for example by bringing an abandoned building back into use or giving a heritage asset further life. However, the economic and social viability of a heritage asset can be diminished if accessibility from or to its setting is reduced by badly designed or insensitively located development.

A staged approach to proportionate decision-taking

10. Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive, for instance where the setting has been compromised by poor development.

Local Policy

Islington Council

Islington’s Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011. Of particular note is the following policy:

Policy CS 9: Protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic environment

High quality architecture and urban design are key to enhancing and protecting Islington’s built environment, making it safer and more inclusive.

• The borough’s unique character will be protected by preserving the historic urban fabric and promoting a perimeter block approach, and other traditional street patterns in new developments, such as mews. The aim is for new buildings to be sympathetic in scale and appearance and to be complementary to the local identity. • The historic significance of Islington’s unique heritage assets and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced whether designated or not. These assets in Islington include individual buildings and monuments, parks and gardens, conservation areas, views, public spaces and archaeology. Active management of conservation areas will continue, through a programme of proactive initiatives for the conservation-led regeneration of historic areas, and potential designation of new conservation areas. Archaeological Priority Areas will continue to be defined on the proposals map to assist in the management of these historic assets. • Where areas of Islington suffer from poor layout, opportunities will be taken to redesign them by reintroducing traditional street patterns and integrating new buildings into surviving fragments of historic fabric. Reconfiguration based on streets and a perimeter block approach will be a key requirement for new developments, in particular housing estate renewal. • All development will need to be based on coherent street frontages and new buildings need to fit into the existing

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 52 context of facades. Housing developments should not isolate their residents from the surrounding area in ‘gated’ communities. • New buildings and developments need to be based on a human scale and efficiently use the site area, which could mean some high density developments. High densities can be achieved through high quality design without the need for tall buildings. Tall buildings (above 30m high) are generally inappropriate to Islington’s predominantly medium to low level character, therefore proposals for new tall buildings will not be supported. Parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be suitable for tall buildings, this will be explored in more detail as part of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan. • New homes need to provide dual-aspect units with clear distinction between a public side and a quieter private side with bedrooms. • High quality contemporary design can respond to this challenge as well as traditional architecture. Innovative design is welcomed, but pastiche will not be acceptable. The council will establish new advisory mechanisms to ensure the highest standards of architecture and environmental design.

In June 2013 the Development Management Policies were adopted of which the following policies are relevant:

Policy DM2.3 Heritage

A. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Islington’s historic environment is an irreplaceable resource and the council will ensure that the borough’s heritage assets are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. Development that makes a positive contribution to Islington’s local character and distinctiveness will be encouraged.

B. Conservation areas i) The council will require that alterations to existing buildings in conservation areas conserve or enhance their significance. Similarly, new developments within Islington’s conservation areas and their settings are required to be of high quality contextual design so that they conserve or enhance a conservation area’s significance. Harm to the significance of a conservation area will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to the significance of a conservation area will be strongly resisted. ii) The council will require the retention of all buildings and structures which make a positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area. The appropriate repair and re-use of such buildings will be encouraged. The significance of a conservation area can be substantially harmed over time by the cumulative impact arising from the demolition of buildings

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 53 which may individually make a limited positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area. Consequently, the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to a conservation area will frequently constitute substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area. iii) The council will resist the loss of spaces, street patterns, views, vistas, uses, trees, and landscapes which contribute to the significance of a conservation area. iv) The council will use its statutory powers to ensure that buildings and spaces within conservation areas that are at risk from neglect or decay are appropriately maintained and repaired. v) Planning applications are required to include a Heritage Statement which demonstrates a clear understanding of the significance of any heritage assets affected by proposals and the impact on their significance.

C. Listed buildings i) The significance of Islington’s listed buildings is required to be conserved or enhanced. Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged.

iii) New developments within the setting of a listed building are required to be of good quality contextual design. New development within the setting of a listed building which harms its significance will not be permitted unless there is a clear and convincing justification, and substantial harm will be strongly resisted.

E. Non-designated heritage assets Non-designated heritage assets, including locally listed buildings and shopfronts, should be identified early in the design process for any development proposal which may impact on their significance. The council will encourage the retention, repair and reuse of non-designated heritage assets. Proposals that unjustifiably harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will generally not be permitted.

The London Plan Policies (Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) 2015)

On 10 March 2015, the Mayor published (i.e. adopted) the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP). From this date, the FALP are operative as formal alterations to the London Plan (the Mayor’s spatial development strategy) and form part of the development plan for Greater London.

The London Plan has been updated to incorporate the Further Alterations. It also incorporates the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (REMA), which were published in October 2013.

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 54 Policy 7.8

Heritage assets and archaeology

Strategic

A London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account. B Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site’s archaeology.

Planning decisions

C Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, reuse 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.

Policy 7.9

Heritage-led regeneration

Strategic

A Regeneration schemes should identify and make use of heritage assets and reinforce the qualities that make them significant so they can help stimulate environmental, economic and community regeneration. This includes buildings, landscape features, views, Blue Ribbon Network and public realm.

Planning decisions

B The significance of heritage assets should be assessed when development is proposed and schemes designed so that the heritage significance is recognised both in their own right and as catalysts for regeneration. Wherever possible heritage assets (including buildings at risk) should be repaired, restored and put to a suitable and viable use that is consistent with their conservation and the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 55 Appendix II Nos.458-462 (Even) HOLLOWAY ROAD (North East side)

Statutory List II Descriptions Includes: No.1 SEVEN SISTERS ROAD. Shops, offices and perhaps also originally flats. Dated 1891 in a cartouche above the second-floor corner window. Light buff terracotta, roof of slate. Five storeys, two-and- a-half window range to Holloway Road and to Seven Sisters Road, and one-window range to curved corner. The ground floor has C20 shop fronts except for segmental-arched entrance to northernmost bay in Holloway Road with inscription in frieze ‘BATHURST MANSIONS’. Giant order of Corinthian pilasters decorated with elaborate festoons and other ornaments, to first, second and third floors, the first and second floors in two easternmost bays in Seven Sisters Road and two southernmost in Holloway Road treated as an arcade with round archivolts springing from just above the bases of the pilasters; first-floor windows flat-arched, the full-bay windows with scrolled consoles to the lintels except on the southernmost window in Holloway Road; the second floor has flat-arched pediments to the windows in half bays, tripartite windows stepped in height under the arcade, and flat-arched windows flanked by piers to the corner. The third floor has flat-arched windows, bulbous fluted corbelled balconies over the centre of the archivolts, and grotesque heads in sunk foliage roundels to either side of the balconies. Entablature with ornate frieze of festoons and heads in roundels under modillion cornice; balustraded parapet interrupted by massively ornate dormers with scrolled consoles, pilasters, enriched frieze and pediment with arabesque ornament to tympanum; at the corner, a contrastingly plain circular tower with Lombard frieze supporting cornice but roof or other details above now missing. Mansard roof with elaborate iron cresting, pilasters to stacks. A good example of elaborate late Victorian commercial terracotta work, and very striking in the broad streetscape of Holloway Road.

Listing NGR: TQ3046786032

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 56 Appendix III List of Plates List of Plates and 1. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1817. Islington Archives Endnotes 2. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841. Islington Archives 3. James Wylde’s Map of 1848. Islington Archives 4. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1853. Islington Archives 5. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841 [Close up]. Islington Archives 6. James Wylde’s Map of 1848. Islington Archives 7. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1859. Islington Archives 8. 1871-3 Ordnance Survey Map. Islington Archives 9. 1888 Bacon’s Map. Islington Archives 10. The Parish of St Mary Islington, 1841 [Close up]. Islington Archives 11. 1887 Drainage Plan of 403 Holloway Road. Islington Archives 12. 1894 Engraving from American Architect and Building News. 13. London County Council Bomb Damage Map 14. 1952 Ordnance Survey Map. Islington Archives 15. 1952 Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives 16. 1970s Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives 17. 1963 Plan. Islington Planning Archives 18. c1968 Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives 19. 1960s Photograph of 403 Holloway Road. Barclays Archives 20. a. 1982 Proposed Frontage Plan. Islington Planning Archives b. 1982 Proposed Frontage Elevation. Islington Planning Archives c. 1982 Proposed Frontage Elevation. Islington Planning Archives 21. a. March 1983 Ground Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives b. 1983 First Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives c. 1983 Second Floor Proposals. Islington Planning Archives d. 1983 Proposed Section. Islington Planning Archives e. 1983 Proposed Parkhurst Road Elevation. Islington Planning Archives f. 1983 Proposed Holloway Road Elevation. Islington Planning Archives 22. 1988 Existing Elevation. Islington Planning Archives 23. October 1988 Proposed Elevation. Islington Planning Archives 24. October 1988 Proposed Plan. Islington Planning Archives 25. Holloway Road Elevation. DIA 26. Parkhurst Road Elevation. DIA 27. Rear Elevation. DIA 28. Rear Elevation. DIA 29. Roof. DIA 30. First Floor. DIA 31. Second Floor. DIA 32. Second Floor Staircase. DIA

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 57 Endnotes

1 Willats, E A. (1988) 2 Ibid 3 London and South Western Bank Minute Book, House Committee (ref. 3/120) 4 London and South Western Bank Minute Book, House Committee (ref. 3/120) 5 London and South Western Bank Minute Book, Board (ref. 3/111) 6 Letter dated 19th February 1954. Islington Planning Archives 7 Letter dated 30th August 1961. Islington Planning Archives 8 Letter dated 9th May 1963. Islington Planning Archives 9 HM Stationery Office(1914) p60 10 English Heritage “Designation Listing Selection Guide: Commerce and Exchange Buildings” 2011 p7. 11 E Harwood and A Saint “Exploring England’s Heritage: London” 1991 p206-207. 12 Booker, J. (1990) p201. 13 Booker, J. (1990) p191 14 Booker, J. (1990) p194 15 Booker, J. (1990) p194 16 https://www.archive.barclays.com/items/show/5269 17 Dictionary of Scottish Architects 18 Historic England. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (2015) p3 19 Historic England. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (2015) p5

Donald Insall Associates 403 Holloway Road 58 London Office 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB Tel: 020 7245 9888 www.insall-architects.co.uk