Holland House Terrace DAS Jan'17 by XQLA formerly Camlin Lonsdale

CA M L I N L O N S DA L E

Holland House Terrace, Kensington W8 6LU

PLANNING SUBMISSION: DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT FINAL REPORT

JANUARY 2017

Overall width : 2.55 Max. track width : 2.55 Kerb to kerb radius :12.20

CRANE - FORWARD Issued for Information Issued for Information Ver Date Drawn Eng

Crane Start

This document is the Design & Access Statement to support the landscape improvements for Holland House Terrace in Kensington, west London. The statement should be read with all submitted planning drawings, schedules and reports submitted with the application.

Prepared by: NB/ XQ Checked by: XQ Issue Record:

This report includes analytical and design presentations which have been formatted in accordance with the CABE guide; "Design and Access Statements - how to write, read and use them" 2007 and C&LG Guidance 2010.

Dft 1 - 12th December 2016 Dft 2 - 6th January 2017 Dft 3 - 13th January 2017 Dft 4 - 16th January 2017 Final Draft - 18th January 2017

Specific reference is made to the Holland Park Conservation Statement prepared by Luczak Associates Landscape Management & Heritage Landscapes and the Holland Park Options Appraisal by Robin Snell and Partners. A suite of further supporting documents also accompany this application and are listed to the right.

DOC REF: 722_510_DAS.indd

Crane End Lonsdale unless otherwise stated. AlI images are copyright of Camlin

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham copyright license. Applicant: Ian McNicol, Cultural Programmes Project Manager, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Agent: Xanthe Quayle, Camlin Lonsdale Landscape Architect

CRANE - REVERSE

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Amendment

HOLLAND PARK LONDON W8 6LU Design Team: Landscape Architecture & Lead Consultant - Camlin Lonsdale VEHICLE TRACKING Landscape Heritage & Management - Luczak Associates Civil & Structures Engineering - Price & Myers Access - Jane Simpson Access Ltd Cost Consultancy - Huntley Cartwright Mechanical & Electrical - Eng Design Status

FOR INFORMATION

Reports and surveys referenced in this document: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

• Conservation Statement (Fourth Draft) by Camlin Lonsdale & Luczak Associates (May 2016) Drawn Eng • Arboricultural Survey by Quaife Woodlands 21 May 2016 ScalesCraven July 2016 • Topographic Survey by Plowman • SuDs Report & Drainage Strategy Drawingby NoPrice & Myers January Ver 2017

24900-SKD7-01

Consulting Engineers 37 Alfred Place London WC1E 7DP T 020 7631 5128 F 020 7462 1390 E mail@pricemyers.com www.pricemyers.com

CONTENTS 1.0

Project Overview 1.1 Project Partners and Stakeholders 1.2 Funding & Programme

2.0

Planning Policy Context 2.1 Statutory Protection 2.2 National Planning Policy 2.3 Local Planning Policy 2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.0

Site Context 3.1 Understanding the Place 3.2 Key Public Realm Issues 3.3 Seasonality of use & associated terminology 3.4 Non Festival Mode 3.5 Set Up Mode 3.6 Festival Mode

4.0

Design Process 4.1 Enhancing the setting of the building 4.2 Relocation of access road 4.3 Temporary toilet relocation

5.0

Scheme Proposals 5.1 Vision 5.2 South Terrace 5.3 Cafe Terrace 5.4 Green Walk 5.5 Hardworks & Furniture Palette 5.6 Planting Palette

6.0

Heritage Matters 6.1 Introduction 6.2 National Planning Policy Framework 6.3 Development Plan 6.4 Historic Development of Holland Park 6.5 Significance of Holland Park 6.6 Significance of other heritage assets 6.7 Assessment of impacts on the significance of the designated heritage assets 6.8 Conclusions

7.0 8.0

Tree Matters 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Early design proposals 7.3 Tree protection 7.4 No Dig Solutions 7.5 Achieving required clearances Consultation 8.1 Consultation approach 8.2 Public consultation 8.3 Consultation response

9.0

Accessibility 9.1 Inclusive Design Statement

10.0

Drainage & Flood Management

11.0

Mechanical & Electrical

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea proposes to make improvements to the south side of Holland House. There are three key aspects to this work: • Creating an appropriate setting for the Grade 1 listed Holland House by replacing the gravel and Astroturf on the South Terrace with a hard landscaping scheme that enhances this part of the park. • Realigning the service road to the terrace that runs immediately adjacent to the Cafe to improve safety. Realigning the service road will involve relocating the Cafe’s outdoor seating area to be closer to the Cafe building. • Improving access to the South Terrace through the provision of a path from the Duchess of Bedford end of Holland House which will allow wheelchair and pushchair access. The improvements are intended to make better use of these spaces, improve safety and improve the visibility and understanding of Holland House within the park. In their totality they intend to provide an improved, high quality environment for users of the park.

Existing South Terrace, Holland House

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

This narrative recounts the difficult and protracted discussions and negotiations and the repairs and rebuildings that took place over the next 25 years, drawing on the departmental records of the official bodies that were concerned ZLWK WKH SURSHUW\ SUHVHUYHG LQ WKH /RQGRQ 0HWURSROLWDQ $UFKLYHV /0$ DQG WKH 1DWLRQDO $UFKLYHV 71$ DQG RQ WK FHQWXU\ SODQV LQ WKH %ULWLVK /LEUDU\ %/

Illustration of south frontage of Holland House 1846

Illustration of South frontage of Holland House, 1846

'LDJUDPV VKRZLQJ GHYHORSPHQW RI +RODQG +RXVH SUHVHQW 6

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

1.1 Project Partners & Stakeholders The Project Steering Group has included the following partners from the outset in 2015: • • •

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBK&C) Opera Holland Park (OHP) Friends of Holland Park (FoHP)

The group has met on a monthly basis since the outset of the project in late 2015. In the preliminary stages of the project, that is the Options Appraisal Stage, each key stakeholder clarified their Priority Lists as follows: RBK&C (Parks) 1) Expansion of existing toilet facilities 2) Refurbishment of adventure playground 3) Reconfiguration of roadway to reduce impact of OHP on wider park 4) Review of Stable Yard to ensure space is maximized 5) Review of borehole, irrigation and drainage systems 6) Restoration of tiled walkway above the café into an area that can be used as a viewing platform or extension of the café 7) Reconfiguration of the café 8) Vehicle management and access strategy to ensure vehicle movements are done in a safe way to minimise the danger and impact to general park users 9) Refurbishment of Holland House Terrace to make this a useable area outside opera season and one that enhances the frontage of the historic house 10) Refurbishment of glasshouse facilities Opera Holland Park 1) Improve facilities front & back of house 2) Commission the design of a new auditorium 3) Reduce construction & deconstruction time 4) Expand outreach activities (both off and on site) 5) Year round activities 6) Audience cultivation 7) Uphold OHP’s tradition of performing rare late Italian work 8) Establish touring productions 9) Toilets 10) Improved vehicle access and surface

11) Improved front of house areas 12) More efficient energy solutions 13) Integrated with parks setting including planting Friends of Holland Park 1) Retain the three areas: woodland wildlife habitat to the north; historic buildings and formal gardens across the middle; sports, dog exercise and other activities to the south 2) Resolve issues of ‘tented city’ used solely by OHP 3) Enhance Holland House Terrace as a fitting environment for Grade 1 listed building 4) Design structure for each border and replant with shrubs and deep-planted bulbs to reduce gardener resource spent on annual bedding 5) Create a long-term (50 year?) tree strategy 6) Plan for proactive tree health 7) Traffic control both traffic entering the park and Quadron vehicles driving off path 8) No tarmac, except highway quality road from Ilchester Gate to Duchess of Bedford Gate. Improve pathways with appropriate surfaces 9) Plan and install information signage and ‘bye-law’ signage. Directional signage achieved recently 10) Improve grass surfaces so they are resilient under heavy usage 11) Commission scoping study for future water usage, irrigation of plants 12) Finish work to restore and protect Wildlife Enclosure. Complete prickly plant defensive planting 13) Open walkway 14) SUDS drainage plan for woodland area and car park 15) Install low fences round vulnerable borders 16) Plan cyclist management by entrance to Design Museum (and cross-park cycle route?) 17) Replace steel railings to SW or Orangery and at Campden Hill School entrance with something more fitting

1.2 Funding & Programme The development and delivery of the project is being funded through the Capital Projects programme of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Subject to planning permission the project is planned to commence on site in September 2017 with completion in March 2018.

Whilst some of these priorities are clearly outwith the scope of this application the process highlighted the issues and aspirations of stakeholders which are associated with this important piece of public realm, and the potential cross organizational benefit to be achieved by appropriate intervention.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Inigo Jones piers, South Terrace

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 Statutory Protection The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the legal requirements for the control of development and alterations which affect buildings and their setting, including those which are listed or in conservation areas. Buildings which are listed or which lie within a conservation area are protected by law. Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest, Grade II* are particularly significant buildings of more than special interest and Grade II are buildings of special interest, which warrant every effort being made to preserve them.

Conservation Areas Policy CL 3 - Heritage Assets - Conservation Areas and Historic Spaces The Council will require development to preserve and to take opportunities to enhance the cherished and familiar local scene. To deliver this the Council will: a. require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and protect the special architectural or historic interest of the area and its setting; require full planning applications in conservation areas. d.

2.2 National Planning Policy The Government issued Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) in March 2010 (OCLG 2010). The framework integrates planning strategy on ‘heritage assets’, bringing together all aspects of the historic environment, below and above ground, including historic buildings and structures, landscapes, archaeological sites and wrecks. The significance of heritage assets needs to be considered in the planning process, whether designated or not, and the settings of assets taken into account. The framework requires using an integrated approach to establishing the overall significance of the heritage asset using evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal values, to ensure that planning decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of significance.

Policy CL 11 - Views The Council will require all development to protect and enhance views, vistas, gaps and the skyline that contribute to the character and quality of the area. To deliver this the Council will: c. require, within conservation areas, development to preserve or enhance views: i. identified in conservation area appraisals; ii. generally within, into, and out of conservation areas, including the rear of properties; iii. that affect the setting of and from development on sites adjacent to conservation areas and listed buildings.

2.3 Local Planning Policy The London Plan The Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, the London Plan (2008 onwards) sets out the Mayor’s objectives for the protection and enhancement of London’s historic environment, waterways and natural heritage.

General Townscape Policy CL 1 - Context and Character The Council will require all development to respect the existing context, character and appearance, taking opportunities available to improve the quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it functions, including being inclusive for all. To deliver this the Council will: a. require development to contribute positively to the townscape through the architecture and urban form, addressing matters such as scale, height, bulk, mass, proportion, plot width, building lines, street form, rhythm, roofscape, materials and historic fabric as well as vistas, views, gaps, and open space; b. require development to respond to the local context.

Kensington & Chelsea’s Consolidated Local Plan The Consolidated Plan updated the Core Strategy 2016 and sets out the council’s intentions for land use and development to 2028. It must be in conformity with the London Plan. The council uses the CLP, together with the Mayor of London’s adopted London Plan, as the basis for dealing with planning applications. The main planning considerations applying to the site and the associated policies have been identified through pre-application discussions. Relevant extracts are as follows:

Policy CL 2 - Design Quality The Council will require all development to be of the highest architectural and urban design quality, taking opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it functions. To deliver this the Council will a. require development to be: i. Functional - fit for purpose and legible; ii. Robust - well built, remain in good condition and adaptable to changes of use, lifestyle, demography and climate; iii. Attractive - pleasing in its composition, materials and craftsmanship; iv. Locally distinctive - responding well to its context; v. Sustainable - in the use of resources, including energy, in construction and operation; vi. Inclusive - accessible to all; vii. Secure - designs out crime. Policy CL 6 - Small-scale Alterations and Additions The Council will require that alterations and additions do not harm the existing character and appearance of the building and its context. To deliver this the Council will resist small-scale development that: a. harms the character or appearance of the existing building, its setting or townscape; b. results in a cumulative effect which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area; c. is not of high quality form, detailed design and materials or is not discreetly located. Policy CR 5 - Living Conditions The Council will require all development ensures good living conditions for occupants of new, existing and neighbouring buildings. To deliver this the Council will: a. require applicants to take into account the prevailing characteristics of the area; e. require that the reasonable enjoyment of the use of buildings, gardens and other spaces is not harmed due to increases in traffic, servicing, parking, noise, disturbance, odours or vibration or local microclimatic effects.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Holland Park sports field looking towards Holland Walk and the Design Museum (former Commonwealth Institute)

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Listed Buildings Policy CL 4 - Heritage Assets: Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology The Council will require development to protect the heritage significance of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest. To deliver this the Council will: a. require all development and any works for alterations or extensions related to listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest, to preserve the heritage significance of the building, monument or site or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic merit; b. resist the demolition of listed buildings in whole or in part, or the removal or modification of features of architectural importance, both internal and external; c. require the preservation of original architectural features, and later features of interest, both internal and external; d. take opportunities to: i. reinstate internal and external features of special architectural or historic significance, commensurate with the extent of proposed development; ii. take opportunities to remove internal and external features that harm the architectural or historic significance of the asset, commensurate with the extent of proposed development; f. require any work to a listed building to sustain the significance of the heritage asset and as such strongly encourage any works to a listed building to be carried out in a correct, scholarly manner by appropriate specialists; g. require desk based assessments and where necessary archaeological field evaluation before development proposals are determined, where development is proposed on sites of archaeological significance or potential. Trees Policy CR 6 - Trees and landscape The Council will require the protection of existing trees and the provision of new trees that complement existing or create new, high quality green areas which deliver amenity and biodiversity benefits. To deliver this the Council will: a. resist the loss of trees unless: i. the tree is dead, dying or dangerous; ii. the tree is causing significant damage to adjacent structures; iii. the tree has little or no amenity value; iv. felling is for reasons of good arboricultural practise;

b. resist development which results in the damage or loss of trees of townscape or amenity value; c. require where practicable an appropriate replacement for any tree that is felled; d. require that trees are adequately protected throughout the course of development; e. require new trees to be suitable species for the location and to be compatible with the surrounding landscape and townscape; f. require landscape design to: i. be fit for purpose and function; ii. be of a high quality and compatible with the surrounding landscape, and townscape character; iii. be clearly defined as public or private space; iv. optimise the benefit to wildlife habitat; g. serve Tree Preservation Orders or attach planning conditions to protect trees of townscape or amenity value that are threatened by development. Transport Policy CT 1 - Improving alternatives to car use The Council will ensure that there are better alternatives to car use by making it easier and more attractive to walk, cycle and use public transport and by managing traffic congestion and the supply of car parking. To deliver this the Council will: b. require it to be demonstrated that development will not result in any material increase in traffic congestion or on-street parking pressure; g. require improvements to the walking and cycling environment, including securing pedestrian and cycle links through new developments; p. ensure that development does not reduce access to, or the attractiveness of, existing footways and footpaths used by the public, or land over which the public have a right of way.

accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated and to ensure that this can take place without manoeuvring on the highway; require on-site servicing and coach parking spaces and entrances to be sensitive to the character and appearance of the building and wider townscape and streetscape.

Flooding Policy CE 2 - Flooding The Council will require development to adapt to fluvial flooding and mitigate the effects of, and adapt to, surface water and sewer flooding. To deliver this the Council will: b. require a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, including an ‘Exception Test’ for all development in Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3 as defined in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, for sites in areas with critical drainage problems and for all sites greater than one hectare; c. where required undertake the ‘Sequential Test’ for planning applications within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, and for sites in areas with critical drainage problems; d. require development at risk from flooding in Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, in areas with critical drainage problems, or sites greater than 1ha to incorporate suitable flood defence or flood mitigation measures in accordance with the recommendations of the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment; e. require sustainable urban drainage (SUDs), or other measures, to reduce both the volume and the speed of water run-off to the drainage system ensuring that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible in line with the hierarchy in the London Plan. In particular, major development must make a significant reduction in the current volume and speed of water run-off to the drainage system.

Policy CR7 - Servicing The Council will require servicing facilities and coach parking to be well designed, built to accommodate the demands of new development and sensitively integrated into the development and the surrounding townscape. In particular servicing activities and coach pick-up and drop-off should not give rise to traffic congestion, conflict with pedestrians or be detrimental to residential amenity. To deliver this the Council will: a. require sufficient on-site servicing space and coach parking to

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Holland Park from the air with OHP in situ

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance The Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance identified of relevance to this application are: Transport and Streets The quality of the borough’s streets is of national renown and, along with the cultural and commercial centres of the borough, it is a key factor in making Kensington and Chelsea such an attractive place. Protecting and enhancing this heritage is a key objective for the Council as well as others. Ensuring that new development does not increase traffic and parking congestion is a key part of this. Given that the majority of the borough’s streets were designed and laid out before the advent of the car this is a challenge, despite borough residents having some of the lowest levels of car ownership in the country.

Holland Park South Terrace and Cafe from the air

In the context of this demanding environment, this Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is written to help applicants make successful planning applications. In particular, it provides further information and guidance in support of Consolidated Local Plan Policies CT1 (Improving Alternatives to Car Use), CR1 (Street Network), CR3 (Street and Outdoor Life), CR4 (Streetscape), CR7 (Servicing), CE6 (Noise and Vibration), CL6 (Small-scale Alterations and Additions) and CL7 (Basements). Each section highlights the basis within the National Planning Policy Framework for the guidance presented. All standards included within the document are consistent with the London Plan 2015 (as amended). The sections relevant to this application are 6; Servicing, 7; Streetscape and 9; Table and Chairs on the highway although it is important to note that the routeways within the park fall under the responsibility of the Parks Department rather than Highways. Trees and Development Trees are a vital component of the built environment, adding variety and creating a more healthy and enjoyable living environment. Trees enrich our surroundings and are instrumental in enhancing quality of life. Apart from their visual amenity value, trees provide shade, help to absorb noise and provide a habitat for wildlife. The more general environmental benefits of trees include the filtering of air-borne pollutants and the net production of oxygen. They also help to offset the Urban Heat Island by creating valuable shaded areas, and their presence can increase the value of property by 5-15%. When considering proposals for development, it is important to take into account the effect they may have on existing trees, and to

explore the opportunities for new planting. This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out the Council’s requirements in relation to any proposed development with trees on or near the site, and is particularly pertinent in the context of this application. Access This document seeks to achieve an inclusive and accessible environment within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In all new developments where planning permission is required the Royal Borough will require buildings to be designed so that they can be used safely and easily by all people without unnecessary effort, separation or special treatment. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has a rich architectural heritage with over 70 per cent of the Borough designated as Conservation Areas and over 4,000 Listed Buildings. However, such buildings are often not wheelchair accessible. This Borough is also the most densely populated in London.Therefore, extra consideration will often be required when improving the accessibility of many of its existing buildings, for example, in alterations, refurbishments or extensions. In this respect, the guidance contained in this Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) should be applied where practicable and feasible. Planning applicants are also required to be aware of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995. Part of this legislation affects the way in which the built environment is designed and managed. It is of particular importance to service providers such as shops and hotels, but also applies to most buildings and open spaces that are open to the general public. Listed buildings are not excluded. Since 2004, service providers have had a duty to make reasonable physical adjustments to their premises to improve access.This duty can require the removal or modification of physical features of buildings – provided it is reasonable. The duty to make reasonable adjustments can be affected by Building Regulation compliance. This measure is to ensure that those services are reasonably accessible to disabled people.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Observational Studies used to inform place specific design response

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

3.0 SITE CONTEXT 3.1 Understanding the Place Holland House Terrace and associated environs is a uniquely special place of national significance. This significance is evident from multiple statutory designations placed upon it. The entire park is a Grade 2 Registered Park and Garden (1987) as well as being a substantial part of the Holland Park Conservation Area. The space also provides the setting to Holland House, a Grade 1 listed building. This means that any change must respect and support the defined attributes of significance as well as being a safe and attractive public space for all. The design team for this project have taken this context very seriously and before designing have undertaken desk and site based studies to properly understand the origins of the landscape layout and features associated with the South Terrace. This has included the production of a Conservation Statement in accordance with Historic England guidelines which has traced the origins of the house and park from its inception as ‘Cope’s Castle’ by Sir Walter Cope in 1604 through Georgian and Regency periods to modern times and uses of today’s park. The key findings of this piece of work in relation to the terrace are discussed in further detail at Section 6. We have also undertaken observational studies of the existing built fabric in and around the house and terrace to better appreciate the character and defining qualities of these elements which are central to its unique sense of place. These studies have highlighted the importance of geometry and repeated pattern forms in the elevation, the quality and intricacy of detailing and the rich tapestry of buff, rust and red materials arising from numerous phases of change to create what is evident today. Proposals must sensitively respond and build on this inherited language whilst also adding a contemporary layer with integrity.

Aerial of Holland House in summer with Opera Holland Park in residence (‘Festival Mode’)

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Existing Cafe space with Opera installation under way

Green Walk (View from Duchess of Bedford Gate)

South Terrace wall, terracotta tiles, Yew hedge and gateway dominate Green Walk and limit views to Holland House

Existing interface between Green Walk and South Terrace with FoHP seating

Filtered view towards Holland House (East elevation) from Green Walk with Opera container storage to left

Service Road (View from South Terrace towards Cafe space) with tiled walkway to right

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE ANALYSIS DIAGRAM North Lawn (informal use)

Key:

3.2 Key Public Realm Issues From a solely public realm perspective the following issues were identified as key challenges to overcome in the early stage of the project.

South Terrace Underutilised space

• The poor condition of the existing South Terrace space and its perceived, if not actual, separation from busier areas makes the space feel neglected and even unsafe at times.

‘Honey pot’ location Hedge Dominance of wall

Holland House

Lost historic axis High Quality Trees

• The dominance of the South Terrace walls and gate on Green Walk. Both elements discourage physical and visual access to the house. The terrace is over 2m above the level of the Green Walk at the most western corner. • Whilst significantly obscuring views of the house from surrounding areas of the park, the treed landscape structure within which the building and terrace are located is important to their setting. A number of these trees have been identified, through an arboricultural assessment, to be of particular merit whilst others are selfseeded and of poor quality.

Security line (semi public)

Icecream

Steps up to garden

• The absence of visual references to the presence of a grand house means that the significance of the house within the park is not fully appreciated from Green Walk as well as from the Duchess of Bedford and Ilchester Gates, and the key threshold space associated with the tiled walkway (also known as the Cafe area.)

Entrance to Café

Café seating

3.3 Seasonality of use and associated terminology Given the very dynamic, seasonal nature of the activities and uses related to the refurbishment of the South Terrace and Cafe spaces, these issues are considered in the following way:

Water Fountain

•

‘Non Festival Mode’ - Mid September to Mid March

•

‘Set Up Mode’ - Mid March - May

•

‘Festival Mode’ - June - Mid September

Sports Field

Key public realm issues

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

‘Dogs off Lead’ walking zone to the south of Green Walk with the sports field beyond

Views to house (East elevation)

Use of Cafe space for ‘community meeting’ including chess playing

Maintenance vehicle ‘gators’

Summer park users including schools, families and tourists

Cafe delivery vehicles

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE NON FESTIVAL MODE 3.3 Non Festival Mode: Existing land uses and park users

Key:

North Lawn (informal use)

Youth Hostel Cafe Park Police & Quadron office Security line (semi public) 7.5 tonne delivery truck (daily deliveries)

Holland House

Refuse and laundry (26 - 30 tonne, twice a week)

The South Terrace is open to the public between October and mid-March. Whilst relatively isolated at this time from the wider park and unknown as a public space, it is flanked by a broad range of public and private user groups with differing and sometimes competing requirements. The café area is a very popular area of activity which also includes two ice cream kiosks (one disused) and access through to the Dutch and Iris Gardens. The space is used by a broad range of park visitors and is a crucial informal meeting place for local residents, where Chess tournaments, birthday party gatherings and mothers meetings, for example, occur. Quadron are currently responsible for the maintenance of the space including furniture.

Quadron maintenance vehicles, shredders and arboricultural trucks

The green space to the south of the Terrace is an important area for dog walking where dogs can run free (‘a dogs off lead area’) and beyond this is the sports field. To the east of the terrace and beyond an informal area of parkland the Safestay Hostel is located within the Casson listed building which forms a quadrant with the east elevation of Holland House (utilised by the hostel). As the Cafe space is at a key juncture with the gardens and uses to the north and west of the house as well as those to the east, even out of the opera season there are vehicular access requirements which must be carefully managed to limit effects on park users, including regular deliveries/refuse to the Cafe and hostel, and maintenence vehicles for the park.

Café seating

Water Fountain

Dog walking

Sports field

Existing land uses & vehicular access movements (Non Festival Mode)

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Crane setting out the Opera canopy

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Temporary security boundary along Green Walk to Opera realm

Installation of picnic room, security and toilet facilities between canopy structure and Cafe

Setting up delivery vehicles blocking Green Walk

Oak Room (right) and OHP toilet facilities from Green Walk

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE SET UP MODE 3.5 Set Up Mode: Deliveries and temporary unloading areas

Key: Anchor points Structural base plates •

HIAB trucks with 28ft flatbed and 20ft trailer • 45ft articulated truck (reversed access to site required) •

Backstage Terrace

50 tonne city crane

Holland House

50 tonne city crane storage area for landing/ unloading of large items

Stage

Alternative landing/ unloading areas Security line

Auditorium

To achieve the early June opening of Opera Holland Park, activity for its set up commences in mid-March and entails the construction of the tensile canopy structure using a variety of heavy load vehicles. At the current time access for this activity can only be achieved between the café building/tiled walkway and seating area. It entails the construction of the canopy followed by the auditorium, stage and mezzanine components. Marquees and security facilities (including temporary fencing) are installed following the main structure and then ‘finishes’ complete the set up. It is important to note that a series of permanent base plates and anchoring points are central to the construction of the canopy system, which not only limits further vehicular movements and storage areas once the main structure is in place but results in a pinch point at the top of the service road through which all traffic during the Opera session, must pass. Due to the prevalance of the base plates and anchoring points, as well as mature tree cover it is therefore not possible to access the site from the east access road. Deliveries during the set up period also regularly obstruct Green Walk to enable items to be either taken up to the terrace using trolleys or craned over.

Cafe Seating

Temporary unloading and storage areas are also required on the north side of Green Walk during these activities.

Cafe Seating

Water Fountain

Set Up Mode

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Non-Festival Mode

View from Green Walk of tensile fabric and steel canopy system installed for opera use

Theatre interior illustrating integral use of building fabric as part of stage set

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Temporary disabled toilet facilities

Entrance to kitchen with Oak Room to right

OHP temporary toilets on Green Walk

Key:

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE Hospitality FESTIVAL MODE

3.6 Festival Mode: Performance Activity During operation, between June and August, shows run on average 3 - 4 nights a week between the hours of 19:30 and 22:15. Visitors are able to arrive from all public entrances in to the park and enter the facility either through the Inigo Gates or the service road in front of the Cafe where queueing for performances generally occurs.

OHP temporary toilets Back of house function Anchor points Structural base plates Terrace

Soakaway for canopy drainage 7.5 tonne set truck (14 deliveries per season)

At the end of performances visitors are directed to leave the park from either the Duchess of Bedford or Ilchester Gates.

Backstage Dutch Garden Lounge

The key components of the Opera are: • Auditorium • Mezzanine (with ticket office and reception installed below) • Oak Room hospitality suite to the east of the terrace • Picnic Deck over the western portion of the site against the tiled walkway • Dutch Garden Lounge and Terrace to the north west of the house • Backstage support facilities to the north of the house • Five temporary toilets are provided along the Green Walk on the eastern side of the entrance • Disabled access is located at the western entrance (although substandard) • Regular delivery vehicles for stage sets also require access during this time, associated with changing productions

Holland House

Landing area for set deliveries Pedestrian movement

Stage

Security line

Auditorium

Theatre goers from car park

Picnic Deck

Oak Room

The theatre season completes by mid-August after which six weeks are required to clear the site broadly in reverse order to set up.

Mezzanine Security Office Disabled WC

Theatre goers from Ilchester Gate

Ticket office (underneath) Theatre goers from Duchess of Bedford Gate

Festival Mode

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Early design proposals exploring potential service road alignment, inclusive access and improving visibility to terrace/ house

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

4.0 DESIGN PROCESS Following the preliminary stages of the project, when the key aspirations and issues of the stakeholders as well as the wider public realm considerations were identified, the scheme has undergone an iterative and inclusive design development process. Working closely with both the Project Steering Group and the RBK&C planning team, proposals have been incrementally tested and refined through open and transparent dialogue and debate. The key issues addressed through this process were: • How to reshape the setting for the building which would achieve the appropriate balance between working with the existing fabric and introducing new elements historically relevant and appropriate to the place. • How to achieve an appropriate balance between tree retention and relocation of the service road. • How to reconfigure the café to ensure the character is retained and varied user groups can continue to enjoy the space. • How to improve access to the South Terrace to enable an inclusive environment to be delivered within the constraints of the heritage context. • How to accommodate the new toilets within the confines of the Opera demise to reduce impact of these features on the wider park while it is in residence. 4.1 Enhancing the setting of the building The approach for the improvement to the setting of the house has been to look for opportunities to resonate the positive qualities of the space. This has included the retention of key features and characteristics, removal of clutter and elements of poor quality that detract from the heritage narrative, and ensuring contemporary additions are understood as such, and relate with integrity to the historic fabric.

tree removal and would not enable a direct visual link to be forged between the Cafe threshold space and the house. The alternative of creating a link further east off Green Walk was also explored but again resulted in significant tree loss and an unworkably steep slope up to the terrace. Following detailed exploration of the matter, in collaboration with the Project Steering group, the preferred layout was identified which balances competing requirements and arrives at a technically deliverable solution. Further information regarding the Cafe reconfiguration is discussed at Section 5.3. Further information on the process undertaken to deliver inclusive access is discussed at Section 9.0. 4.3 Temporary toilet relocation The impact of the temporary toilets on the park has been a significant issue with stakeholders over many years. The daily waste collection requirements, entail the obstruction of Green Walk, and are both visual and olfactory detractors to users of the route in close proximity. A range of solutions with regard to their location and construction have been explored through the design process. The proposals that form this application include for their relocation into the woodland area to the east of the terrace where they will be accomodated within a temporary marquee.

4.2 Relocation of the service road The relocation of the service road from directly in front of the Cafe entrance to the south side of the seating area has also been a key requirement of stakeholders with a view to delivering a safer and more convivial setting, and to enable more effective Opera access, in particular the accommodation of (reversing) articulated vehicles and the City Crane for the canopy construction. Early options explored the potential to use the extent of the existing grass slope to accommodate a completely new alignment. However this would require extensive

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

General Arrangement

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

5.0 SCHEME PROPOSALS Key:

5.1 Vision The proposed scheme has been sensitively yet confidently shaped to deliver a simple yet highly considered response to the brief requirements. Ultimately the presence and significance of this important historic building, albeit fragmentary in nature, will once again be reasserted in its setting and supported to re-engage with the park and key auxillary spaces namely the Green Walk and Arcade spaces. The proposals are intended to be a cohesive and integrated landscape led response to the design challenges offering a multilayered experience to both regular park users and visitors, rather than a functional solution to demanding operational requirements. In short the intention is to deliver intervention which restores the privacy of the house and re-engages it with the parks genuine response which is both place and people focused. The consideration of contextural issues, featured at Section 3, highlighted the key issues affecting the setting of the building, in particular the poor state of the terrace’s landscape fabric and its ‘lost’ physical and visual relationship with the wider park. The following interventions have been specifically honed to resonate with the positive and unique characteristics of this special space, and assist with the interpretation of the house and its historic relationship with the park (and associated heritage assets): • the realignment of the service road and Cafe space to reintroduce a view line to the house and emphasise the threshold on the Green Walk from which the house and its setting and relationship with the park have been conceived since at least the Georgian period. • the removal of the kiosk on the western side of the arcade so that the entire route way (from the house to the Orangery) can once again be appreciated, and potentially used, for the purpose it was intended. • the safeguarding of viewlines from the Cafe space to related garden destinations, namely the Dutch Garden, Ice House and Orangery (formerly the ballroom) and the space designed to support their appreciation. • the retention of the majority of existing parkland trees, on both sides of the house, which provide the treed setting for the building evident in even early imagery. • the introduction of a new formal and green boundary along the north side of Green Walk to provide a consistent, human scale treatment to this key interface which can successfully accommodate the Opera facilities within it, provide a positive security line and clearly express the ‘presence of a great house’.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

South Terrace visualisation

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

5.2 South Terrace Proposals for the South Terrace are intended to be simple and elegant, gently setting the building ‘centre stage’. The key north-south axis is emphasised to articulate the importance of the house with the wider landscape and the gate piers as a significant threshold. A rich palette of natural materials, of similar tone but differing texture, will resonate with the rich patina and texture of the historic fabric and also provide a simple ‘canvas’ against which the beauty and intricacy of the limestone building elevation can continue to be appreciated. Water jets are proposed at the centre of the terrace to animate the space and add an appropriate ‘stately’ feature whilst also making reference to the former Victorian fountain on the terrace, along with other furniture including seating. The terrace will be accessed from the Cafe seating area or by a sloping path along the top of the boundary wall within the woodland from the Duchess of Bedford Gate. Precedent Image, Brentford High Street, natural stone paving with mottled, tapestry quality

Precedent Image, Hans Crescent London, mottled, honey-grey-purple porphyry paving

Currently underutilised space (when the theatre is not in residence) the wooded area to the east of the terrace will be opened up for informal use. Materiality Observational studies at the outset of the project highlighted the weathered and granular nature of the space’s materiality, the textural range and patina of the stonework, the warm, mottled colour range from buff through to red and orange/purple colours of the brick elevations, and the striking prominence of the Limestone elevation. The proposed palette intends to form a mottled, predominately honey threshold to the building allowing the elevation to be the visual dominant feature. Use of high quality natural materials will complement and resonate with the existing brickwork elevation whilst providing the durable, stain resistant surface required for the intended use of the space. Simple, elegant planes of natural stone paving, ‘keying in’ to the elevation and grain of the building will define the terrace. The former ‘plats’ which would have originally been grass in the Tudor time are referenced by the use of bound aggregate and the remaining areas infilled with a high quality Dutch paviour as a background materiality.

Precedent Image, Sheffield Peace Gardens, Water Jets

Precedent Image, Blenheim Palace Courtyard, Subtle textural variation

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Cafe Terrace scheme proposals

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Whilst very different from the context of the South Terrace the precedent examples illustrate the concept of a rich mosaic of contemporary, high quality materials which provide an appropriate setting for historic buildings. 5.3 Cafe Terrace Proposals for the Cafe Terrace will provide a new, improved Cafe environment which effectively integrates the realigned access road for the South Terrace to the east of the seating area while retaining high quality tree cover which is important to the setting and enjoyment of the space. Materiality Materials of natural stone and brick work will be used to shape a new cohesive space which retains and enhances the setting of the Arcade, providing a pedestrian focused space with improved access to existing facilities. The Cafe Terrace itself is split into two tiers so as to step up the slope towards the house. In this way different use zones will be shaped, one at the lower level which will be accessible for dog owners and one at the higher level, for those requiring dog free seating. A key design driver has been to ensure the dominance of the Arcade is articulated. The form of the Cafe Terrace takes reference from the distinctive circular forms prevalent in the dutch gables of the house, the tiled walkway and the terracotta roundels. Formed from crisp brick work and an elegant natural stone coping the terrace will have a fresh and contemporary feel whilst remaining sympathetic to adjacent historic fabric which contains and defines the space.

KEY:

A shared surface route provides vehicular access between Green Walk and the Dutch Garden.

Cafe Terrace scheme proposals in summer

Sitting steps provide a welcoming interface for users arriving from the Ilchester Gate and low walls impromptu perching opportunities, whilst ensuring clear viewlines and separation between use zones.

CAFE Location Plan (not to scale)

KIOSK

STORE

ALK W N

0 0m

10 10m

Scale 1:200 @A3 Refer to:

SCALE

15 15m

A secondary gate is proposed to define the boundary of the Cafe with the southern terrace and to enable control of access to the upper level.

BASE PLAN AND LEVELS 35543T - Topo Survey - Plowman Craven July 2016 CAMLIN LONSDALE 722_101_General Arrangement GENERAL NOTES: 1. Do not scale from this drawing. 2. All levels, dimensions & setting out to be checked & agreed on site. 3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. 4. This drawing must be read in conjunction with the relevant speciďŹ cation clauses & detailed drawings. 5. This drawing is copyright protected & may not be reproduced in whole or part without written authority.

Cafe Terrace detailed plan

170113

161031

Amended materiality

REV

161007 DATE

Amended materiality First issue DESCRIPTION

DB DB DRAWN BY

XQ APPRVD BY

FOR PLANNING HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE PROJECT

CAFE AREA DRAWING NAME

1:200 @ A3

October 2016

SCALE

722_110 DRAWING NO.

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE

REVISION

APPROVED BY

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

ÂŠ Philip Vile

Precedent Image Regents Park Open Air Theatre, Contemporary Feature Gate

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

5.4 Green Walk The analysis stage identified the opportunity to enhance the setting of the house by improving views and access to it. The design takes historical precedent from the manner in which great houses commonly ‘present’ to the wider estate with formal boundary treatments and composed views at key thresholds. In this way a relationship between the Park and the house will again be confidently forged. Key interventions proposed include the introduction of a sloped path along the southern boundary wall from the Duchess of Bedford Gate. This will provide inclusive access to the terrace. A formal hedge will be introduced at the top of the wall to replace the removal of the existing hedge. A beautiful ‘Feature Gate’ befitting a house of such significance is proposed to replace the existing timber entrance gate and the Green Walk resurfaced in a bound aggregate finish following the completion of this scheme.

Precedent Image Hatfield House, contemporous with Holland House

Precedent Image Hatfield House, Gates Precedent Image detail of Kensington Palace Gates

The Feature Gate would be designed to be as beautiful and intricate as the house, and as translucent as possible to enable visibility to it. It could be of either modern or traditional conception and would make reference to the rich stories of the house and its former residents. The precedents illustrated include Hatfield House, Hertfordshire which is contemporaneous with Holland House, and Montacute House, Somerset. Materiality As with the wider scheme proposals the proposed material palette would be restrained to remain sympathetic with the existing historic fabric, and would use predominately natural materials. The sloped path would be clay paviours and Green Walk would be finished in a bound aggregate. Mixed herbaceous and shrub planting are proposed in the new borders on either side of the Feature Gate.

Precedent Image Montacute House, Gates

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Bound Aggregate, Precedent Image

Timber Benches

Natural Stone Porphry, Precedent Image Greengate, Manchester

Natural Stone Porphry, Precedent Image Hans Crescent, Kensington

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Bound Aggregate, Precedent Image British Museum

Natural Clay Paviour

5.5 Hardworks & Furniture Palette In broad terms the scheme proposals are for the use of natural materials which are to be selected to be sympathetic/harmonise with the existing historic fabric by providing a neutral canvas against which the building and associated structures can be appreciated.

Proposed materials against existing materiality

Proposals The Café Terrace will use a palette of materials which takes reference from the existing fabric including the large unit Yorkstone slabs within The Arcade and the mottled brickwork of the arched elevations. Large unit Yorkstone paving will be extended across the space to form a simple and cohesive paving treatment. Where there are level changes bespoke, large unit Yorkstone steps are formed or low retaining brick walls with stone copings to match. The low walling will be topped with simple painted metal railing to achieve necessary safeguarding as requirements. If not walling is designed to offer informal seating opportunities. A shared surface through the space to connect Green Walk with the Dutch Garden is provided for vehicular use. This is formed using small unit tumbled blocks of Yorkstone. A contrasting edge will be provided to delineate the movement route using inground Yorkstone kerbs. The distinction between the Café space and Green Walk will also be formed using a contrasting edge however this will be achieved using granite to indicate the interface with the principal vehicular route. This delineation will include corduroy hazard strips.

materiality will be handled with a lightness of touch to minimise the visual effect of these elements. The Upper South Terrace will be finished using artisan grade Yorkstone paving which will provide the highest quality threshold to the building’s entrance and loggia areas. An alternative material to the Upper Terrace is used to emphasis the significance of this contained space and draw the space together. The tone and hue will harmonise with the materality used on the South Terrace and be formed using large square and rectilinear units which key in to the building and loggia elevation. A rough textured finish surface is provided at the upper and lower paving areas to the Limestone balustrade, along with a demountable black metal knee rail, provide protection to this feature. All surfaces will be designed to be hard wearing and low maintenance for the purpose of intended uses. Although not part of this application Green Walk is intended to be finished with a buff aggregate dressing following the refurbishment of the South Terrace to complete the environmental improvements.

The service road leading up to the South Terrace will be paved using small unit natural clay paviours laid in a herringbone pattern. A small unit granite edge will be used to form a rumble strip and act as a design device to visually narrow the width of the carriageway in views from the café space.

Natural Stone Flag Paving

On the South Terrace random coursed small-medium units of porphyry will form a mottled surround referencing the grain and gentle colour tones of the brickwork elevations of the building and harmonising with the lighter Limestone surfaces. The granular nature of the material and subtle textural variation to used across the surface will work with the weathered patina of the fragmentary ruin creating a tapestry effect rather than a stark or overly crisp finish which could threaten to overwhelm the remaining fabric of the building. The terrace surround will be infilled using a natural bound honey coloured aggregate and remaining areas infilled with a natural clay paviour of similar tone and hue. Edging details between

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Concept Cope Coat of Arms

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Planting Palette A South Terrace

5.6 Planting Palette Concepts The Cope coat of arms included red roses set against feathery plumes. This has been taken as inspiration for the design of the South Terrace planting, as well as the current character of existing borders in adjacent spaces associated with the café space. The planting will be low maintenance and robust, offering year round interest as well as ecological benefits.

Fraxinus angustifolia subsp oxycarpa ‘Raywood’

Acer saccharum ‘Temple’s Upright’

A South Terrace The planting is intended to be formal and restrained yet contemporary, forming mixed borders of shrubs, grasses and perennials appropriate for the setting of a fine country estate house. It will be low-medium in height with the exception of that immediately adjacent to the gate piers where planting height will be increased to anchor the pillars in the absence of the Yew hedge which is to be removed. Principal use of fresh green foliage and red flowing plants with additional apricot and deep purple/crimson red to harmonise with the building brick work and proposed surface materiality. B Green Walk A formal, contemporary mixed border, again appropriate for the setting of a fine house, using high to low shrubs and grasses to provide strong year round structure. Herbaceous perennials will be mixed through creating a dynamic seasonal border. The character of the planting is intended to chime with the established planting around the café space as well as the South Terrace. The red brick backdrop provided by the south boundary wall is a significant design driver: Fresh green foliage and flowering plants from red through to purples and blues are proposed.

Planting Palette B Green Walk

Nyssa sylvatica

Acer rubrum ‘Scanlon’

C Focal Tree A semi-mature tree is proposed to form a focal feature within the café space. Important for shade purposes as well as contributing to the verdant, parkland character of the space the tree will be chosen for its eventual upright form, autumn colour and medium to large size. Possible suggestions for this tree include • Acer rubrum ‘Scanlon’ • Acer saccharum ‘Temple’s Upright’ • Nyssa sylvatica • Fraxinus angustifolia subsp oxycarpa ‘Raywood’

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Holland House, South Terrace c1920s

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

6.0 HERITAGE MATTERS 6.1 Introduction

6.3 Development Plan

This section informs and supports the planning application for the proposed improvements to the Holland House South Terrace, café area and accesses to both. It summarises the Holland Park Conservation Statement prepared earlier in 2016 which informed the design process for the improvements.

This Heritage Matters section has also been included to comply with Policies in the RBK&C Consolidated Local Plan (July 2015), especially

The Conservation Statement assessed the significance of Holland Park as a heritage asset, a Grade II Registered park on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Importance maintained by Historic England. Holland Park is one of a group of designated heritage assets. These include (i) Grade I Listed Holland House and gate piers, the South Terrace is part of their setting; (ii) Listed buildings and structures in the park; (iii) numerous Listed buildings outside the park boundaries; and (iv) the park forms the core of the Holland Park Conservation Area. Contents of the section This section includes (i) an outline of the most relevant national and local planning policy; (ii) a summary of the historic development of the park based on analysis of historic maps and other sources; (iii) an assessment of the significance of the park; (iv) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the designated heritage assets, and conclusions. 6.2 National Planning Policy Framework This Heritage Matters section has been included in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), especially paragraph 128: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.’ paragraph 129: ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset)…. 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.’

Policy CL3: Heritage Assets - Conservation Areas and Historic Spaces ‘The Council will require development to preserve and to take opportunities to enhance the cherished and familiar local scene. To deliver this the Council will: a. require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and protect the special architectural or historic interest of the area and its setting;’ Policy CL11: Views ‘The Council will require all development to protect and enhance views, vistas, gaps and the skyline that contribute to the character and quality of the area. To deliver this the Council will: a. resist development which interrupts, disrupts or detracts from strategic and local vistas, views, and gaps and the skyline….c. require, within conservation areas, development to preserve or enhance views: i. identified in conservation area appraisals; ii. generally within, into, and out of conservation areas, including the rear of properties; iii. that affect the setting of and from development on sites adjacent to conservation areas and listed buildings; d. require development to respect the setting of a landmark, taking care not to create intrusive elements in its foreground, middle ground or background.’ Policy CL4: Heritage Assets - Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology ‘The Council will require development to protect the heritage significance of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest. To deliver this the Council will: a. require all development and any works for alterations or extensions related to listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest, to preserve the heritage significance of the building, monument or site or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest;’

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

1694/5 re-drawn 1734: Sir Walter Copeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estate

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

6.4 Historic development of Holland Park Tudor and Stuart landscape Key features which remain from this period: alignment of the house loggias with the Green Walk. The 1734 copy of an earlier survey is the main record of the Tudor and Stuart landscape, created some 130 years after Sir Walter built ‘Cope’s Castle’. The gardens around the house were a series of brick-walled enclosures. The south front of the house had walls running from the wings to the Green Walk, with the extant gate piers at the outer corners. The walls enclosed an area of grass and a T-shaped path to the principal, south entrance of the house. The survey shows that around the house, the gardens were a succession of brickwalled enclosures with grass, hedges and fruit trees; the design of the house related to the enclosures and vice-versa. The gardens were essentially an extension of the house. The smaller scale of the gardens would have contrasted with the long, processional route or avenue to the south front of the house. The south approach would also have provided the principal view of the house in this period. Georgian landscape Key features which remain from this period: the raised upper terrace between the loggias of the house; area of grass north of the house; single area of grass south of the house enclosed by avenues of trees. The next major changes were carried out by Henry Fox, 1st Baron Holland. The 1741-45 survey by Roque showed walls, terraces and grass plats on the north, south and east sides of the house, and the central approach avenue from the south. But by the 1769 edition they were no longer present, which is corroborated and shown in more detail by Rhodes in 1766. Vardy showed in elevation what Roque and Rhodes showed in plan. A raised terrace had been created between the two wings of the house. It had steps and a balustrade with pierced panels and overlooked a grass sweep with a semi-circular carriage drive, fronted by railings. The three enclosing Tudor walls had been removed. The formal Tudor landscape was therefore probably removed between 1741-45 and 1766, which would fit well with the tenancy (from 1746) and ownership (from 1763) of Henry Fox. If the Tudor landscape was created in the early 17th century, it had survived for around 150 years. The 1770 survey by Haynes for Henry Fox is the most detailed record we have of the Georgian landscape. It corroborates Roque, Rhodes and Vardy and gives further information. In summary, the

principal Georgian contributions to the present landscape are the grassed spaces immediately north and south of the house and the avenues leading through the park from Kensington High Street. This arrangement is therefore around 250 years old. We can see that elements of the Tudor landscape were both removed and adapted to create the English Landscape Garden style, parkland with avenues and informal groups of trees in grassland that came right up to the house. Walls were removed but grass was retained. This created longer views north and south of the house, so that it could be seen unimpeded in its setting of trees and grassland. This was the height of fashion in the mid-18th century and Henry Fox was advised by some of its leading proponents, William Kent, Charles Hamilton and Peter Collinson. Regency/early Victorian landscape Key features which remain from this period: the arches and Dutch garden; stables; raised South Terrace in front of the house; arcade to link the raised terrace with the ballroom. The buildings and structure of the gardens around the house can be recognised as essentially those that remain today. The Metropolitan Sewer Survey records the changes carried out up to 1840 during the Regency period. The Italianate style was fashionable and Lord and Lady Holland were leading proponents. They took ownership of the estate in 1796. The main change was that the stables created by Henry Rich were demolished, leaving the arches from their back wall. A new stable block was created to the south west, where it remains. South of the arches the stables were transformed into an assembly room and conservatory. This enabled the whole functional area of the old stable yard to be upgraded and become formal, Italian gardens, now the Dutch garden. The Green Walk remained. The 4th Lord Holland inherited the indebted estate in 1845. His main contribution to the current landscape was to create the raised South Terrace and the sunken courtyard to the east, (now occupied by the youth hostel). To enable carriages to come up to the house, the entrance to the house was re-orientated from the south to the east. The new sunken courtyard was walled and the gate piers relocated to the north side of it, above a semi-circular fountain. The southern terrace was raised with the spoil from the sunken courtyard, and enclosed. After the informality of the Georgian parkland, the style of the gardens close to the house thus became more formal again. The raised, upper terrace connecting the two wings of the house was retained, but the grass sweep and carriage drive below it were removed. A single formal lawn with a central, circular fountain was created on the South Terrace.

The 4th Lord Holland also created the arcade in 1851 and 1857/8 to link the now raised South Terrace to the earlier conservatory/assembly room. The latter became a summer ballroom. High Victorian/Edwardian landscape Key features which remain from this period: housing on north and west reduced the extent of the park; wooded northern half of remaining parkland. The 1st edition Ordnance Survey shows that due to the debts of the Hollands, it was necessary to sell land from the park for housing, which on the north became Holland Park and Holland Park Mews, and Melbury and Addison Roads to the west. The housing to the west was screened by existing tree belts and the functional areas of the kitchen gardens, and therefore did not require additional screening. However it was necessary to plant tree belts diagonally across the park and around the new housing to the north to screen it from Holland House. A west-east walk was also created across the northern park. By 1894-6, the northern half of the parkland was completely filled with trees, apart from the area immediately north of the house, as it remains. The southern half of the park was also curtailed with housing and associated tree screening. The 1916 Ordnance Survey shows little overall change from 1894-96. However the images from Country Life in 1903 better convey the changes that had taken place in the latter half of the 19th century. There was far greater change in the style of planting than in the overall structure of the gardens. The changes were the height of fashion and included a water garden, rockery and Japanese garden in the Oak Enclosure and what is now the Kyoto garden. Emphasis was placed on the collection of plants, giving rise to what we now regard as the high Victorian gardenesque style. The 5th Earl was also responsible for planting the majority of the trees which are mature today. 20th century to the present Key features which remain from this period: development in south of park reduced its extent; provision of play areas, café, tennis courts, parking; 1960s South Terrace takes current form and 17th c. gate piers re-located again; 2011 current landscape created on South Terrace. In 1922 a country club with a putting course and squash courts was created on the south lawn between the house and Kensington High Street. In 1940 the house was bombed and in 1952-53 what remained of the house and park was sold to London County Council. The 1962 OS map showed the changes; the majority of the house had been demolished and the youth hostel built on the northern half of the sunken east

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Landscape features and routeways remaining from

Post War - Present

Landscape features and routeways remaining from

the High Victorian/Edwardian period

Landscape features and routeways remaining from

the Regency/Early Victorian period

Landscape features and routeways remaining from

the Georgian Parkland

Landscape features and routeways remaining from

the Tudor/Stuart Formal Gardens

Extract from Landscape Conservation Statement (2015) indicating origins of landscape features

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

courtyard. The southern raised terrace with its central fountain remained. Further west a Cafeteria had been built north of the arcade, in addition to the refreshment room shown in the old ballroom. The layout of the flower beds in the Dutch garden had been re-designed around one central feature, not two. Facilities expected in a public park had been added; two children’s play areas, tennis courts and parking; they remain in those locations. The Ordnance Survey maps show overall continuity in the features of the park between 1962 and 1996. The greatest area of change is in the raised South Terrace at the front of the house. Subsequent to the Conservation Statement, there was further analysis of the development of the South Terrace to its current form using 1960s photographs. These revealed that the balustrade of the South Terrace was new. Compared to the early Victorian original, it had been raised in height with an additional third row of the terracotta roundels transferred from the east courtyard. The modern bricks in the upper courses of the terrace south wall can also be seen on-site, but may have been replacement/repair rather than adding height. The flight of steps and associated balustrades, currently on the south front of the terrace, were relocated from the west side of the house, and the gate piers from the east. This was corroborated by Nicholas Pearson’s research on 1957-1963 in Robin Snell and Partners’ 2016 report as follows ‘On the south side the terrace wall and balustrade needed to be rebuilt, and the Inigo Jones gate piers might be re-erected at the centre... In January 1963 the Architect and the Chief Officer of the Parks Department issued a joint policy statement. The loggias should be refurbished for ‘occasional dramatic performances’, the north side of the house should be turfed and marked with the lines of demolished walls, toilets for performers should be inserted in the band room, on the west side terraces should be formed with earth-banks rather than retaining walls, steps should be formed at the junction between the house and the causeway to link the two areas of the grounds, the South Terrace should be turfed and enclosed by yew hedges, the fountain should be removed and the balustrade rebuilt with terracotta roundels.’ To facilitate performances, the South Terrace was not made accessible to the public and the central fountain was removed. The sloped area of the South Terrace and the frontage to the café were also changed post-1960s. In 2009 repairs were carried out to the house and it was removed from the Heritage At Risk register. The current gates were also installed between the Grade I gate piers. However

it was not until the winter of 2011 that the South Terrace was re-landscaped and opened for public use during the non-festival period. This was when the current arrangement of four quadrants of artificial grass surrounded by bound gravel was created. It was acknowledged as an interim solution, which would be improved upon when funding permitted, (Friends of Holland Park website). The treatment of the landscape since 1960 has been a compromise between the requirements of performances and public access. 6.5 Significance of Holland Park Significance tells us what makes a place special, the essential qualities and features of a place that we should keep and pass onto future generations (‘conserve’). It is the impact of proposed development on signiﬁcance that must be assessed. Below, significance has been described using the criteria in Historic England ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance’, 2008. Holland Park is included in the Register of nearly 1,650 sites. As a Grade II site, it is less significant than those Grade II* and I, but is still of national significance. Evidential value There is a body of evidence about the development of the park. In particular there is a series of historic maps which demonstrate the evolution of the landscape, a copy of a 17th century survey, and 18th and 19th century maps. On site there is most evidence of the historic landscapes of the 19th c., some of the 18th and a little of the 17th c. Whilst its origins are early, from before 1750, the park is a multiperiod site. The wooded northern half of the park, extending as far as the north side of the house, has high significance for biodiversity. As one of the largest areas of semi-natural habitat, derived from its historic landscape design, Holland Park is an important site for nature conservation in London. It is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), and a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). It supports important communities of bats, birds, mammals, invertebrates and fungi, and its main habitats are woodland edge, grassland and ponds. Aesthetic value For the house, it is the Tudor period which is of most aesthetic significance. In the landscape, the formality of the 17th century remains in the relationship of the terrace to the house and the Green Walk, and the central axis of the terrace. However for the landscape it is the design of the later periods which are noted by Historic England in the Registration, particularly the 18th and 19th centuries. The informality of the 18th century parkland is most evident in the grassed areas north and south of the house and terrace. Formality returned with the creation of the

Dutch garden in the early 19th century and then the separation of the house from the park by the creation of the raised terrace. Since Holland House was the centre of a glittering social and political circle, preeminent designers were involved with the design of its parkland and shrubbery in the 18th century, including Kent, Hamilton and Collinson. Into the 19th century, Holland House continued in the vanguard of taste linked to political sympathies and became a focus for another group, which resulted in the Napoleon and Italian gardens, now the Dutch garden. Landscape treatment post-1960 in the environs of the house has lessened the aesthetic and historical value of the park and garden and detracted from the setting of the Listed building Historical value The site is of national importance due to its association with prominent figures for much of its history • 17th century: courtier and holder of high office Sir Walter Cope and his son-inlaw Sir Henry Rich • 18th and 19th centuries: a centre for Whig politicians and writers, begun by the 1st Lord Holland Henry Fox and continued by the 3rd, Henry Richard Fox nephew of Charles James Fox. Because of these owners it is also associated with one of the great political parties of the 18th century and as a setting for gatherings of leading politicians, writers and thinkers. The Whig party is particularly associated with the English landscape style, as a way of visibly demonstrating their new thinking on the ground, the return to the classical and removal of old Tudor landscapes. Henry Richard and his wife then made the house and garden the focus for supporters of the Republicanism and Napoleon in France. Communal value RBK&C is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country (Holland House Management Plan) and the park serves the population of west London from Notting Hill, Kensington and Hammersmith (Conservation Area Proposals Statement). The park is the largest public open space in the Borough and its function for recreation is of key importance. As the principal park it has a wide range of facilities including sports pitches (football, cricket, tennis, netball, basketball, golf), a café, four play areas and a car park. This formal provision is in addition to the central gardens around Holland House used for informal recreation. Holland House is one of the few Grade I-Listed buildings in west London people can experience close-up, albeit for 6 months of

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Registered Parks & Gardens boundary Site of Nature Conservation Holland Park Conservation Area (1989) Important views featured in Holland Park Conservation statement 1989

Current Site Layout with red line Registered Parks & Gardens Boundary

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

the year, compared to Kensington Palace for example where there is little access. The park also contains one of the largest areas of woodland in the centre of London; its size and wooded character therefore give users an unusual experience. In addition and contrast to this freely available green resource for informal activity and often tranquillity, the park is the venue for many events, including a longstanding series of summer operas by Opera Holland Park, and provides facilities and space for organised sports, many groups and informal activities, all of which are valued by different segments of users. Large numbers of school children and youth groups visit the Ecology Centre. Field study trips and workshops are offered throughout the year. The Holland Park Management Plan 2006-2016 notes that visitor numbers are high and visitors include many tourists as well as residents. The Holland Park Advisory Group and the Friends of Holland Park are active. The park has consistently achieved a Green Flag award and did so again in 2016. This together with the summary above, demonstrates the high value of the park to its community. 6.6 Significance of other heritage assets The National Heritage List for England was searched and the following heritage assets noted. Holland House and gate piers The Grade I Listings are due to the 17th Century origin and design of the house and its association with important historical figures. The listing recognises that the survival of part of the house is of national, and perhaps international, importance. Its significance includes the archaeological interest of the design, use of materials and form of construction, all from the early post-medieval period. Other Listed buildings There are three Grade II Listed buildings or structures within the park; the gateway on the southern boundary with Kensington High Street; the statue of Lord Holland in the woodland; and Abbotsbury Lodge on the western boundary. There are many Listed buildings outside the boundaries of the park. These include the Grade I 29 Melbury Road; II* Leighton House on Holland Park Road; and II* the Commonwealth Institute/Design Museum. Of significance in their own rights, these buildings are also evidence of the development of the park and estate and tell the story of land sales to furnish the Hollands’ mounting debts. The park is also the context for many Grade II listed buildings, usually assessed to be of more than local importance, particularly Holland Park and Holland Park Mews. With the notable exception of the 1960s Commonwealth Institute, the vast majority of the buildings are Listed for the quality of their Regency and Victorian design and their associations with prominent people of the time.

Conservation Area The park forms the core of the Holland Park Conservation Area. Its historic character is derived from the development of a rural estate west of London into high quality Regency and Victorian housing. The Holland Park Conservation Area Proposal Statement (1989) draws out the essential character of the park which is different to other parks nearby; it is enclosed, domestic, personal, rural and in parts, wooded. The house is the principal asset of the park, and the park should continue to be seen as associated with Lord Holland’s house. Important views in the park are the axis to the south of the house over the Cricket Ground and the axis to the north of the house to the statue of Lord Holland and the crown of the hill. 6.7 Assessment of impacts on the signiﬁcance of the designated heritage assets Holland House: The proposed development of the South Terrace area has the potential to affect the setting of the Grade I Listed Holland House and gate piers. This section therefore focuses first on the South Terrace. The effect of the proposed South Terrace development on the setting of Holland House and gate piers is considered below, using the method of assessment in Historic England’s ‘Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 - The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (2015). South Terrace area: Location and siting of the development: Proximity to asset - Development abuts the asset; lies between loggias of the house and forms a terrace to the south of it and sloped area to its west Extent - South front of the house and sloped area to its west Landform - Set below the south façade of the house Isolation - Development and asset have a direct relationship Key views - Development forms the foreground for the most important façade of the house Form and appearance of the development: Prominence - Development will form the foreground of the asset, it will not dominate it Competition with asset - Textural quality and buff tones, especially of the porphory, paving will complement the house, rather than either competing with it or draining the subtle colour from it. The contrast of the paving with the house will be based more on textures and tones rather than colours

Dimensions, scale and massing - Paving design relates to the dimensions and scale of the house Proportions - Paving design relates to the wings of the house and the boundaries of the South Terrace Visual permeability - High, the development introduces no tall structures and replaces the full timber gate with a more permeable, metal alternative. Removal of a small number of trees improves visual permeability and enables the house to be seen from one of the main entrance routes Materials - High quality natural materials immediately against the house, stone with a clay paviour surround. Bound aggregate quadrants. Stone edging. Timber seats. Water feature in paving Architectural style or design - Contemporary but using a blend of traditional and modern materials which express craftsmanship Introduction of movement or activity - Development is to encourage better access and greater pedestrian use of the space. Water feature will animate the space Diurnal or seasonal change - One additional lighting column at east end of terrace will have limited impact on diurnal change. Additional planting will exhibit seasonal change Other effects of the development: Change to built surroundings or spaces - The development will physically and visually re-connect the terrace with the park Change to skyline - The development will not change the skyline Noise, odour, vibration, dust - Impacts during construction only Lighting effects and ‘light spill’ - Introduction of one lighting column near entrance to hostel Change to general character e.g. suburbanising or industrialising - The development will improve the general character of the terrace with the introduction of high quality materials and craftsmanship, reflecting the use of both in the heritage asset. Changes to public access, use or amenity - The development will re-connect the terrace with the park and thereby increase use of an under-used space in a public park Change to land use, land cover, tree cover - No change to landuse. The development entails the removal of a small number of trees but the overall tree groups in the area remain intact Changes to archaeological context, soil chemistry; or hydrology - Already an area of considerable change. Development includes improved drainage Changes to communications/accessibility/ permeability - Improved as described above

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Permanence of the development: Anticipated lifetime - Permanent Long-term effects of the development Changes to ownership arrangements - None, the area remains part of a public park Economic and social viability - The development will provide an improved setting for Holland House and working arrangements for Opera Holland Park with associated economic and social enhancements Communal use and social viability - The development will animate the terrace, encourage use of the space, interpretation of and engagement with the heritage asset Therefore the effect of the South Terrace development on the Grade I Listed Holland House and its setting is considered to be positive. Registered Park and Garden The South Terrace and café area are part of and at the centre of the Registered Park and Garden. Firstly, the proposals for the South Terrace are considered in relation to the significance of the Park and Garden. The proposals are respectful of the historic features which remain, especially the 17th c. gate piers, Victorian boundaries of the South Terrace including the front wall and balustrade, and the arcade, all of which would be unchanged. The relationship of the terrace to the Green Walk, which is one of the most historic alignments, is unchanged. The proposals do not affect the formality of the Regency and Victorian gardens around the house, nor what remains of the grassland of the Georgian parkland, nor the ecological value of the wooded areas north of the house. With the exception of the mature trees, the current landscape of the South Terrace is a product of the 1960s, 2009 and 2011, the last scheme being recognised as an interim one. The proposed development does not therefore negatively impact on the evidential, aesthetic or historical significance of the heritage asset. The proposals enhance significance, especially aesthetic and communal, by making the space higher quality, more appropriate, visible and accessible. Therefore the effect of the South Terrace development on the significance of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden is considered to be positive.

Cafe area: Location and siting of the development: Proximity to asset - At the centre of the asset Extent - Foreground of the Victorian arcade Landform - Slopes gently down from the arcade to one of the main walks and the entrance gates Isolation - Development and asset have a direct relationship Key views - Development forms the foreground of a key structure within the heritage asset, and a key view from one of the main entrances Form and appearance of the development: Prominence - Development will form the foreground of the asset, it will not dominate it Competition with asset - Smooth texture and pale buff tones of the paving will complement the arcade, rather than competing with it. Bound gravel treatment of Green Walk will enhance, compared to existing tarmac which detracts Dimensions, scale and massing - Paving and other aspects are in scale with surrounding area and relate to the dimensions and architectural rhythm of the arcade Proportions - Paving and other aspects are in proportion to the surrounding space Visual permeability - High, the development introduces no tall structures and railings are recessive. Removal of a small number of trees enables Holland House and the arcade to be seen from one of the most used routes and areas Materials - High quality natural materials; large unit sandstone paving as a foreground to the arcade with accesses in stone setts or bound aggregate. Stone edging and seating. Brick walling. Simple, black-painted railings Architectural style or design - Contemporary; traditional materials expressed in a modern, minimal vocabulary to rationalise what is currently a very busy and cluttered space Introduction of movement or activity - Development is to encourage better and safer use of the space and accesses Diurnal or seasonal change - Little additional diurnal change, up-lighting of a feature tree. Trees and planting will exhibit seasonal change Other effects of the development: Change to built surroundings or spaces - The development will improve circulation through and access to spaces, and improve their quality Change to skyline - The development will not change the skyline Noise, odour, vibration, dust - Impacts during construction only Lighting effects and ‘light spill’ - Minimal. Introduction of lighting under one feature

tree. (The arcade is already lit) Change to general character e.g. suburbanising or industrialising - The development will improve the general character with the introduction of high quality materials Changes to public access, use or amenity - The development will better separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic thereby improving safety, and will improve amenity by reducing visual clutter Change to land use, land cover, tree cover - There is no change to landuse. The development entails the removal of a small number of trees but the overall tree groups in the area remain intact Changes to archaeological context, soil chemistry; or hydrology - Already an area of change. Development includes improved drainage Changes to communications/accessibility/ permeability - Improved as above Permanence of the development: Anticipated lifetime - Permanent Long-term effects of the development: Changes to ownership arrangements - None, the area remains part of a public park Economic and social viability - The development will provide an improved area and working arrangements for Opera Holland Park and the operators of the café, with associated economic and social enhancements Communal use and social viability - The development will encourage better use of the space and engagement with the heritage asset The proposals are respectful of the historic features, principally the Victorian arcade; there are no changes to the building and no new entrances. The relationship of the area to the Green Walk, which is one of the most historic alignments, is unchanged. The proposals do not affect the formality of the Regency and Victorian gardens around the house, nor what remains of the grassland of the Georgian parkland, nor the wooded areas north of the house. With the exception of the mature trees, the current landscape of the café area is post-1960s, utilitarian and cluttered. The proposed development does not therefore negatively impact on the significance of the park. The proposals enhance its aesthetic and communal significance in particular, by making the space higher quality, more appropriate, better defined and safer. Therefore the effect of the café area development on the significance of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden is considered to be positive.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

South front, before 1940

South front, bombed, 1940-50

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Other Listed buildings The proposed development comprises landscape improvements with change to paving, walling, railings and furniture. New buildings are not part of the proposal and the only tall structure will be a new lighting column at the east end of the South Terrace, near the entrance to the youth hostel. The changes to the South Terrace will be screened by the existing balustrade and additional hedging. The South Terrace and cafĂŠ area are also screened by mature trees to the south and east, and buildings to the north and west. There will therefore be no visual impact of the development on the Listed buildings and structures in the park. In addition to screening from trees within the park, there is also the screening provided by the mature tree belts along the boundaries, and north of the house, a block of woodland. The eastern end of the South Terrace is screened from Holland Walk by a mature tree belt along the eastern boundary. There will therefore be no visual impact of the development on the Listed buildings outside the park.

6.8 Conclusions This section has identified and assessed the significance of the heritage assets which may be affected by the proposed development. The impacts of the works have been considered. The assessment concludes that the proposed development will replace detrimental features with new and more harmonious ones which better connect Holland House and its terrace to the rest of the park. The development will improve the setting, access and interpretation of the heritage assets. The proposed development therefore protects and enhances the significance of the heritage assets. Thus it accords with the requirements of the NPPF and the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

Therefore the effect of the development on the significance of the other Listed buildings and their settings is considered to be neutral. Holland Park Conservation Area Due to the amount of screening, the visual impact of the proposed development on the Conservation Area is considered to be the same as for the Listed buildings outside the park boundary, and the development has no impact on the key views identified in the Statement. The visual impact is therefore neutral. However one of the proposed developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aims is to re-connect the house and the South Terrace with the rest of Holland Park, and it achieves this. The proposed development is therefore also in accordance with and implements one of the key recommendations of the Conservation Area Statement, that the park should be seen as associated with Lord Hollandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house. Therefore the effect of the development on the significance of the Conservation Area is considered to be positive.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Insert tree image

Horse Chestnut (T1257) to be retained close to service road to provide verdant setting to Cafe

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Holm Oak (T1246) and Tree of Heaven (T1245) with anchor point at location of new pathway onto terrace

Yellow BuckEye trees in Cafe area

KEY: Proposed Level Existing Level

24.00 (24.00)

Proposed Ground Level Existing Ground Level

0m 7.0 TREE MATTERS 0m

Scale 1:50 @A3

T1257 Horse Chestnut Tree Height 19 metres (to be retained)

Canopy Uplifting to acheive 4.2metres min. headroom

val Plan

rea

nstruction

Limb overhang 1.25m achieves min. headroom 4.2m before proposed access road (to be retained)

Proposed Cafe Terrace

85mm clay paviour block paving (Herringbone) sand filled on 30mm sharp sand bed on geotextile Cellweb 200mm 30mm (min) assumed sub-base Wearing course removed

22.36 22.58

22.40

(22.42)

Granite delineation strip (see above left) Proposed levels married into existing with bark mulch dressing

(22.36)

race

the relevant specification clauses & detailed drawings. 5. This drawing is copyright protected & may not be reproduced in whole or part without written authority.

The Arboricultural Survey for the site, undertaken in 2016, is included in the planning submission. This has informed the development of the design proposals from an early stage at both strategic and micro levels. (21.87) BB

Soft Landscape: Groundcover Planting

(21.91) Existing stone slabs to be removed 30mm (min) assumed sub-base

Refer to:

SURVEY 7.1 Introduction TREE AR3566 Appendix A/B/C - Arboricultural survey Quaife Woodlands 21 May 2016 Tree cover at the park, and in the context of the application, has been identified as BASE PLAN AND LEVELS - Topo Survey - Plowman Craven July 2016 a key characteristic 35543T to be retained and valued. This is not simply for their aesthetic CAMLIN LONSDALE Arrangement and landscape value722_101_General but also from a historic perspective, as the framework of 722_215_Service Road Sections 722_410_Tree Protection & Removal Plan parkland trees is understood to have been designed and to orginate from the GENERAL NOTES: Georgian era. At that time the trees were intended to frame the grand country 1. Do not scale from this drawing. 2. All levels, dimensions & setting out to be house, forming partchecked of the Picturesque landscape - a highly regarded style of & agreedwider on site. 3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. the time. 4. This drawing must be read in conjunction with

Remove existing cafe wall boundary

Drainage withinclearance build ups Granite strip methods with retention of 4.2m Section indicating proposed ‘no dig’delineation construction canopy Specificaiton to be confirmed Concrete to engineers specification

Alu-excel AE150 RM metal edging with Alu-excel Steel Fixings

Refer to Price & Myers drawing 24900-602 for below ground drainage layouts

The proposed scheme intends to safeguard the large majority of the existing tree cover and take opportunities to make improvements to their growing conditions. However a small number of trees is proposed to be removed primarily to enable the relocation of the service road and reconfiguration of the Cafe space. C B A REV

170109 161216 161209 161007 DATE

Limb measurements Edge treatment Amended Levels First issue DESCRIPTION

NB DB NB NB DRAWN BY

utilising the upper section of the existing access to form the improved routeway. These matters are dealt wih further within the Arboricultural Method Statement included in the planning submission. 7.5 Achieving required clearances A particular challenge has centred on ensuring that proposals will not result in unacceptable impact on retained tree cover through, thinning or uplift, to achieve heavy vehicle clearance requirements. It has also been necessary to ensure build ups retain the existing clearance of the canopy structure by heavy vehicles once it has been erected and thus a balanced approach has been required between ‘no dig’ and dig solutions.

XQ XQ XQ XQ APPRVD BY

7.2 Early design proposals FOR PLANNING Early proposals considered the realignment of the service road to the south of its HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE current position taking a new alignment to provide a clear view of the house from SERVICE ROAD SECTION B the principal historic approach from Green Drive and a more direct routeway for heavy vehicles using722_301 the access.C This was subsequently discounted. PROJECT

DRAWING NAME

1:50 @ A3

DATE

DRAWING NO.

REVISION

DRAWN BY

1:20 @ A3

September 2016

SCALE

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

7.3 Tree protectionC A M L I N L O N S D A L E All trees proposed to be retained will be protected in accordance with Good Practice including BS5837. This means trees with be fenced off from the area of construction to form a protected zone. Within this zone no storage will be possible and all work will be undertaken by hand. Britannia Mill | Britannia Road | Slaithwaite | HD7 5HE | 01484 84100

studio@camlinlonsdale.com www.camlinlonsdale.com CL Projects Ltd Company Reg No. 08288659

7.4 ‘No dig’ Solutions Working closely with arboricultural and engineering consultants a bespoke construction response has been shaped to enable the retention of the majority of the parkland trees on the east side of the house, which are important both to the setting of the house and the verdant character of the Cafe, whilst also achieving the demanding technical and loading requirements of heavy plant required to access the terrace for the construction method of the temporary canopy structure. The solution centres on the delivery of the routeway using a ‘no dig’ construction and

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Preferred Landscape Masterplan (Consultation proposal)

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

8.0 CONSULTATION

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea plans to make improvements to the area around Holland House. There are three key aspects to this work: • Creating a appropriate setting for the Grade 1 listed Holland House by replacing the gravel and Astroturf on the South Terrace with a hard landscaping scheme that enhances this part of the park. This will include the provision of new gates, both at the front and on the cafe side of the terrace, which will create better views of Holland House from the park. • Realigning the service road to the terrace that runs immediately adjacent to the cafe to improve safety. Realigning the service road will involve relocating the cafe’s outdoor seating area to be closer to the cafe building. • Improving access to the South Terrace through the provision of a ramped path from the Duchess of Bedford end of Holland House which will allow wheelchair and pushchair access.

8.1 Consultation Approach

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE

INTRODUCTION

Wider stakeholders The engagement of a wide range of stakeholders has been central to the evolution of the project proposals to enable problems to be resolved through the balancing of competing requirements in the interest of shared gain. This has had an important capacity building role which is intended to be continued through the life of the project.

Stakeholders & Funding The Council is seeking views from a range of stakeholders on the proposed improvements and has appointed Camilin Lonsdale as our landscape architects. Stakeholders include: • • • • •

The Council Local residents and Residents’ Associations Friends of Holland Park Friends of Opera Holland Park Park users

The improvements will make better use of these spaces, improve safety and improve the visibility of Holland House from the park and are intended to provide an improved, high quality amenity for the park.

The following interest groups have been consulted through one of one meetings and correspondence: • Cooks & Partners (Cafe operators) • The Cafe Interest Group • Residents of Plane Tree House • Staysafe Hostel • Kensington Civic Trust Society

Understanding the place Holland House Terrace and associated environs is a uniquely special place of national significance. This significance is evident from multiple statutory designations placed upon it. The entire park is a Grade 2 Registered Park and Garden (1987) as well as being a substantial part of the Holland Park Conservation Area. The space also provides the setting to Holland House, a Grade 1 listed building. This means that any change must respect and support the defined attributes of significance as well as being a safe and attractive public space for all. The design team for this project have taken this context very seriously and before designing have undertaken desk and site based studies to properly understand the origins of the landscape layout and features associated with the South Terrace. This has entailed the production of a Conservation Statement in accordance with Historic England guidelines which has traced the origins of the house and park from its inception as ‘Cope’s Castle’ by Sir Walter Cope in 1604 through Georgian and Regency periods to modern times and

uses of today’s park. The key findings of this piece of work in relation to the terrace were the importance of the Green Walk as a drive to the house in the Tudor/ Stuart period, the central significance of the designed axis, and the separation of the house from the park caused by the raised Victorian terrace. Analysis of historic photographs before and after the 1940s shows that the current balustrade on the South Terrace dates from the 1960s. We have also undertaken observational studies of the existing built fabric in and around the house and terrace to better appreciate the character and defining qualities of these elements which are central to its unique sense of place. These studies have highlighted the importance of geometry and repeated pattern forms in the elevation, the quality and intricacy of detailing and the rich tapestry of buff, rust and red materials arising from numerous phases of change to create what is evident today. Proposals must sensitively respond and build on this inherited language whilst also adding a contemporary layer with integrity.

Holland House, South Front c1920s

South Terrace (Consultation proposal)

Holland House, South Front, 2016

Exhibition Board from Public Consultation

Cafe Terrace (Consultation proposal)

8.2 Public Consultation A public exhibition, run by RBK&C, of the emerging proposals for the terrace and Cafe was held within the Stable Block between 20th June and 13th July 2016. The exhibition was open to the public between the hours of 10am and 6pm with questionnaires provided to capture feedback. The returned questionnaires highlighted the following: • Retaining trees important, especially for shade value. • Cafe area – separation of dog area at Cafe; proportion of area given over for those with dogs in Cafe; retaining tailing or barrier high enough to prevent dogs jumping over into non-dog area • Service road – no perceived need; not clear what the improvement will be; high visual impact that will destroy park setting. • Dog /no dog area – many people have strong views that dogs should be adequately segregated from the Cafe space • Wavy benches – these need to be retained as donation from Friends. • Planting – view that it will be destroyed by dogs, herbaceous border not suitable • Ramp – query where loos for OHP will go; is it necessary. • Cafe – cover is important, segregation from park in general and dogs is desirable; queries re space allocation between dog and non-dog area and queries regarding the appropriateness of the step design for the dog area of the Cafe. These comments led to a review of the cafe proposals with stakeholders, detailed in the proceeding section.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

HOLLAND HOUSE CAFE TERRACE FABRIC AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES

HOLLAND HOUSE CAFE TERRACE VIEWS AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS

Existing Cafe Views and Spatial Analysis

Existing

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

View to House CAFE

evel

er L Low

.78

+21

UTALITARIAN SPACE

1:36

rise

4 fa

1:2

STORE

fall

+22

fall

1:29

fall

STORE

6 fa

Upp

1:15 fa

1:18

STORE

+22

1:22

.30

+22

fa 1:21 evel er L

.00

View to Ballroom

Existing C Currently Regular v Large joi Attractio Cafe & Te Cafe use Conkers Inflexible Over 200 Poor wh

.25

ris 1:18

CAFE TERRACE CONTAINED CLUTTERED SPACE

ise

1:1

KIOSK View to Dutch Garden

Current clash of utilitarian/open vs contained/protected space Large expanse of space underutilised with the potential to extend seating capacity Trees outgrowing hard landscaping Large expanse of space underutilised with the potential to extend seating capacity Contained space is fragmented and cluttered Arcade- dark hole, contained space so need to avoid clutter Utalitarian space underutilised - negative edge with Arcade. CAFE Prominent views & site lines from Archway thresholds View line of Holland House People welcome to use up until half an hour before park closes Used for picnicking by OHP Seasonal variances in use - summer KIOSKbusy/winter quiet

View along walkway

Litter bins Underutilised space View lines Thresholds Unappreciated elevation

Views & spatial analysis of exsiting Cafe Terrace

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Paving

Public access

Low walls

Staff access

Covered walkway

1:18 rise Gradients

CA M L I N L O N S DA L E

Fabric & operational issues of exsiting Cafe Terrace

Asphalt surfacing

Access

1.4 m high Railing

Utilities Temporary planting

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

• Attraction of pests with food being left behind • Cafe & Terrace Quadron cleaned once a day & jet spray once a week • Cafe use outwith control of cafe operator • Existing Conkers falling on seating area and from trees. Existing Cafe Views andadjacent Spatial Analysis Cafe Views Spatial Analysis • Inflexible layout meaning not conducive to huge seasonal variances. • Current Current clashqueueing of utilitarian/open utilitarian/open vssummer contained/protected space space clash of contained/protected • •Over 200 people to kiosk invs • Large Large expanse of space space underutilised underutilised with with the the potential potential to to extend extend expanse of • •Poor wheelchair access seating capacity capacity seating Trees outgrowing outgrowing hard hard landscaping landscaping •• Trees Large expanse expanse of of space space underutilised underutilised with with the the potential potential to to extend extend •• Large seating capacity capacity seating 8.3 Consultation Response Contained space space isis fragmented fragmented and and cluttered cluttered •• Contained Arcade- dark dark hole, hole,contained contained space space so so need need to to avoid avoid clutter clutter Development of Cafe proposals: •• ArcadeUtalitarian space space underutilised underutilised -- negative negative edge edge with withArcade. Arcade. Discussions with stakeholders and the wider public, and a fresh consideration of the •• Utalitarian physical and spatial condition of the Cafe space highlighted the following matters: Prominent views views && site site lines lines from fromArchway Archway thresholds thresholds •• Prominent • the significance of the space as a historic threshold as well as a key orientation View line line of of Holland Holland House House space today, and the importance of views from this space towards the house, •• View People welcome welcome to to use use up up until until half half an an hour hour before before park park closes closes the Dutch Garden and Ballroom(now renamed the Orangery) as well as •• People glimpsed views to the the Ice House. Used for for picnicking picnicking by by OHP OHP •• Used • the importance of the existing verdant setting to the Cafe, created by both the Seasonal variances variances inin use use -- summer summer busy/winter busy/winter quiet quiet •• Seasonal wider parkland trees and those located within the existing Cafe space. Related

ise

r :10

HOLLAND HOUSE CAFE TERRACE .25 CONCEPT DIAGRAM

fall

CAFE

CE RRA

KIOSK

•

Sha

STORE

Unified pedestrian focus & space

ur dS

ris 1:36

TE AFE

RELOCATED CAFE TERRACE

face

STORE

er L Low

8 21.7

evel

View to to House House View

fall

.00

+22

1:22

1:29

Upp

6 fa 1:1

1:21 evel er L

+22

•

Key threshold for orientation

•

ACE ACE ED CLUTTERED SPACE SPACE D CLUTTERED

• View lines

• •

Access

CA M L I N L O N S DA L E

Concept for relocated Cafe Terrace

Litter bins

Existing Cafe Terrace issues

Asphalt surfacing

Access

Paving

Public access

Low walls

Staff access

Covered walkway

1:18 rise Gradients 1.4 m high Railing

•

to this was stakeholders need for shade within the summer months. The loss of the two trees within the space was therefore not acceptable. the current imbalance between the utilitarian, vehicular dominated space in the west quadrant of the arcade and the contained, cluttered space of the Cafe seating area which together do not form a cohesive setting to the listed arcade. the underutilised nature of the western section of the arcade and the disused kiosk. the importance of the space as an arrival point and gathering space before OHP performances as well as the Cafe for visitor picnicking at intervals. stakeholders wishes for the Cafe area’s ambience to be safeguarded from vehicular noise and movement as well as the critical issue of ‘ the dogs off lead area’. seasonal variations, with queuing from the kiosk being a particular issue. the need to accommodate Cafe deliveries and park traffic within the improved space the need to upgrade surfaces to improve accessibility and assist with maintenance regimes as well as provide improved interface with historic fabric.

In response proposals have been shaped to address each of these issues as indicated in Section 5.0

Utilities Temporary planting

Underutilised space space Underutilised

CA M L I N L O N S DA L E

View lines lines View Thresholds Thresholds Unappreciated Unappreciated elevation elevation

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

KEY: Surface Water Drain

Combined Sewer

Proposed connection to combined Sewer (26

(25

.08

T1250 )

(25

Ramp Option A 84.40m long (including landings) 1: 1 1: 1: 1: 1:

KIO

As Existing

+23

1:10

(25 (25

+22

.25

+24 .98

+24 .20

1:1

1:15

.53

Level landing

1:18

+23

.45

1:15

Non compliant gradient

+23

.12

1:15

+22

.51

REV

.70

(25

.93

)

T1239

(25

.88

.72

(25

)

+24.00

)

.83

Metallic Feature

) (25

T1238 .11

(25

+25

)

.32

.50

(25

.55

(25 .58

(25

) 25.5

) (25

)

.50

.51

)

(25

Oak Room

.50

(25 )

F (2

Scrub vegetation to be cleared 1:12

1:12

+23

1:12

(23

.97

(24

.92

)

+24

.59

.68

.49

(25

)

(25 .49

)

+24

.40

Ramp Option D 42m long (including landings)

.35

)

T1236

1:57

++2245 ..7017

)

+25

.03

.67

T1237

)

T1240 T1241

T1242

T1245 )

.54

)

Holly (unsurveyed)

)

.24

+23

.91

5.1

(25

.14

)

(25

.09

)

Scale 1:200 @

ty Cable

Schedule of Rem

Ramp Option C 53m long (including landings)

- T1248 Yew (C - Stump (unsur - Holly (unsurv - Sorbus (unsur - Unsurveyed - Unsurveyed

Electrici

+24

(24 . 5 4 .54 )

Refer to: TREE SURVEY AR3566 Append Quaife Woodla BASE PLAN AN 35543T - Topo 2016 CANOPY AND Architen Landre 216 117A 0809 216 106A 0611 Access Route TREE LOCATIO USM OHP 002A Management 28 REV

161111 DATE

Firs DES

DRAFT

161111 DATE

First issue DESCRIPTION

DB DRAWN BY

XQ APPRVD BY

PROJECT

RAMP ACCES DRAWING NAME

DRAFT

1:200 @ A3

HOLLAND HOUSE TERRACE

722_221

PROJECT

1:200 @ A3

November 2016

SCALE

DATE

722_220 DRAWN BY

SCALE

DRAWING NO.

DRAWING NAME

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

(25

)

HOLLAND H

DRAWING NO.

)

.25

.40

RAMP ACCESS OPTIONS APPRAISAL 1

Alternative ramp/ path options considered to enable inclusive access

+25

(25

+23

.79

1:14

Ramp Option B 57.85m long (including landings)

+20 .80

.03

)

1:12

.06 .87

(25

.32

.92

.83

.01

)

Proposed gradient & direction of fall Ramp (varying gradient)

+23

(25

.92

Proposed Level

+24.00

T1246

(26

Toile (25.8 26.2 2) Ce 0 Le llw ve Men Sorbus (unsurveyed) eb Bu l of ild Up

(25

26.2 0

Refer to: TREE SURVEY AR3566 Appendix A/B/C - Arboricultural survey Quaife Woodlands 21 May 2016 BASE PLAN AND LEVELS 35543T - Topo Survey - Plowman Craven July 2016 CANOPY AND PINS Architen Landrell: 216 117A 080917 THD - OHP Theatre Canopy 216 106A 061129 Tensile Fabric Canopy Vehicle Access Route TREE LOCATIONS USM OHP 002A - OHP WCs - Urban Space Management 28 July 2016

+22

1:30

10m

(25

) 8no. Stepped(2 (25 5.4 6) .06 Riser )

Scale 1:200 @ A3

Gated access

)

Toilets Women

)

T1235

26.2 Ce 0 Le llwe vel b B of uild Up (25 .89 )

1:12 1:12

1:12

1:1

+24

.86

)

Stump (unsurveyed)

) 2 6.2 0

.56

.86

1:12

.65

) (25 .87

1:10

+21 .53

(25

8 S no. R i tep s e pe r d

.83

T1249

.00

+22 .66

)

T1247

(25

T1248

+25 .10

(25

25.7

1:16

1:10

.48

.15

CHECKED BY

REVISION

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECK

9.0 ACCESSIBILITY 9.1 Inclusive Design Statement The works at Holland Park will be designed to be an accessible environment meeting the needs of all potential users. The indicated proposals in Section 5.0 will involve revision to routes and pathways to provide level and stepped access to the South Terrace. Access Consultant As part of the project Jane Simpson Access ltd (JSA) have been employed to advise. Director Jane Simpson has over 20 years’ experience in inclusion, is an architect and National Register of Access Consultants (NRAC) consultant and is assisting with statutory permissions, consultations, reviewing of designs and specifications, supporting other design team members and maintaining a monitoring capacity during the construction phase. Policy Context The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The majority of Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance have been replaced by the framework. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of a sustainable development. The NPPF sets out that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. The NPPF points out that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion, and contain legible pedestrian routes and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. It states that incisive design is therefore; designing of the built environment, including buildings and their surrounding spaces, to ensure they can be accessed and used by everyone.

The Principles of Inclusive Design (CABE 2006) Inclusive Design is a process that delivers an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society. It aims to remove barriers that create undue effort, separation or special treatment, and enables everyone regardless of disability, age or gender to participate equally, confidently and independently in mainstream activities with choice and dignity. The London Plan (2016) The London Plan Policies recognise that disabled people continue to be excluded from many mainstream activities which other people take for granted and are frequently denied the opportunity to participate fully as equal citizens. London Plan Policy 7.2: An inclusive environment The Mayor will require all new development to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design and supports the principles of inclusive design which seek to ensure that developments: DPD policies should integrate and adopt the principles of inclusive design. Design and access statements submitted with development proposals should explain how, following engagement with relevant user groups, the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of older and disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development, whether relevant best practice standards have been complied with, and how inclusion will be maintained and managed. Shaping Neighbourhoods - Accessible London: Achieving an inclusive environment SPG October 2014 One of the Mayor’s aims for London is that everyone, whether resident, visitor or worker, is able to participate and enjoy all that the city has to offer. To help achieve this aim the London Plan 2016 includes a number of policies which promote an inclusive environment to help ensure that all of London’s diverse communities can contribute to London’s growing economy and enjoy a high quality of life. Accessible London provides guidance on the policies contained in the London Plan regarding the creation and promotion of an accessible and inclusive environment, explaining the principles of inclusive design and how these principles should be applied in London. It gives designers ideas on where to find good technical advice and guidance.

Equality Act (2010) Under the Equality Act (EA) there are nine protected characteristics including, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage & civil partnerships, pregnancy & maternity, race, religion & belief, sex and sexual orientation. The EA requires that as a service provider, whether you give the service for free, or if you charge for it, the Equality law applies. Service providers are required to make reasonable adjustment to; practices, policies and procedures which would exclude disabled people; provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate use of a service; and provide a reasonable alternative method of service where a physical feature precludes use of the service. In relation to the EA and Building Regulations, the Approved Document M Use of Guidance, clearly states, in 3rd paragraph page 6 that compliance with Part M of the Building Regulations does not necessarily equate to compliance with the obligations and duties set out in the EA. In addition, Building Regulations ADM refers to other best practice guidance, such as the Sign Design Guide and Sport England documents. The provision must be appropriate for Building Regulations and the duties of the client under discrimination legislation. Legislation, Guidance and Standards Inclusive design issues will be addressed in accordance with the objectives and those identified in this statement with particular reference to: Equality Act 2010 Building Regulations 2010 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 The London Plan 2016 There are a number of best practice guidance documents available. It may not be possible to comply with all of these documents, they are cyclic and continue to be updated or amended and therefore some may be contradictory. Where any conflict occurs, any deviation will be discussed and agreed as to the most appropriate solution. There are a number of key best practice design standards which have been and will continue to advise the development of the design of the project. These access standards have been informed by the anticipated obligations of the current legislation. Building Regulations Approved Document Part M Volume 2 - Buildings other than dwellings 2015 (ADM)

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Key: Level Access DDA Compliant Level Access suitable for Assisted Use or Motorised Wheelchair Non DDA Compliant Route Stepped Access (Non DDA Compliant)

Access Strategy

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Building Regulations Approved Document Part K – Protection from falling, collision and impact 2013 (ADK) BS8300:2009 + 1: 2010 Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people - Code of Practice Dulux – Colour and Contrast: A design guide for the use of colour and contrast to improve the built environment for visually impaired people JMU Access Partnership/Sign Design Society – Sign Design Guide London Plan published 2016 Accessible London SPG Planning for Equality and Diversity in London December 2014 The Scheme As already identified, a number of statutory regulations and best practice guidance have and will continue to influence the design as it progresses. The following text outlines the principles that have been adhered to.

terraces and ramps with falls of no more then 1:12 with inclusive moveable seating (to be specifed by the Cafe operator). Level access has been retained along Green Walk. Level access to the South Terrace has been created from Green Walk with a slope curving around the existing wall. Access via the new service road is non DDA compliant in order to retain key trees and necessary vehicle access. Access during temporary installations Access will remain the same as used as for the permanent facilites. Gates will be closed along ramp and stairways while temporary facilities are in situ but not being used.

Routes and pathways Level access has been provided to both the Cafe Terrace and South Terrace as permanent routeways with falls of no more than 1:12 over 2metres in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document Part M Volume 2. Specifying a high surface quality has taken into consideration reducing wherever possible slip and trip hazards ensuring all routes have a suitable ground surface in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document Part M Volume 2. Surfaces also create viusal guides for people to locate themselves within large spaces. A shared surface delineation strip creates level separation between Green Walk and the Cafe Terrace creating safe cohesive use of the space. Where appropriate railings, gates and bollard systems are used to create distinction and safety. Gates comply with Building Regulations Approved Document Part M Volume 2 with minimum opening widths of 850mm and 300mm nib to the leading edge. A drainage strategy (at Section 10.0) ensures level access routes are kept clear and useable throughout the year. Access to permanent facilities (Cafe) Level access has been created to all areas of the Cafe terrace using a series of

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

.87 23

EOT

d1.0

3 .6 ) C

TT U

ers

m 0.7

5m 0.6

ep Sle

d0.5

EOT

d0.5

7 .6 22 m 0.5

0.7m

m 0.75

m 0.6 25 ¯2

0.4

0.5 m ar Sc

1.1

0.6

RE C IL:L: 22.6 21.7 1 4

re ea

rth

Woo

25.0

¯1 50 0.9m

1.1 5m ¯1 00

25.0

25.1

26.0

Bare

25.0

25.8

cret

Artif

icia

25.5

6 25.8

25.9

25.0

Woo

den

24.9

24.9 24.9 6 9

24.9

Shin

gle

22.6 22.51 1

Provision for25drainage .05 connections from 24.9 24.5 canopy subject to 7 7 further 24 coordination 2

24.5

24.9

8 Proposed new connection to existing 22.822.87 drainage ss

Gra

22.9

Pavi

24.9

Shin

gle

0.5m

EX.SWMH 2 CL: TBC 2.60 IL: TBC

22.8

22.7

Metallic Feature

Water Pipe

23.1

0.4m

23.2

d hu

23.6

23.4

0.6m

0.35m

Spee

BELOW DRAIN

Gra

23.0

22.9

0.4m

0.35m

22.7

23.6

23.5

23.2

Pavi

tatio

Wall

23.2

23.11.16

23.2 Gra

12.01.17

HOLLA LONDO

Wall

23.1

Vege

24.9

Ver Date Dra

25.0

Flow control device limiting flow to 2.7 l/s 1:100 year + 30% Metallic Feature 23.0 storm event

24.4

Wall

25.3

25.0

4.9

.57

Hed

25.4

25.5

n Fe

25.2

25.0

24.8

Wal

24.9

(2255 .5 .511 )

Gra

25.3

earth

25.0

Hed

25.5

Bare

25.0

Scar

24.9

ing

Hoard

(225 .55 )

Scar 25.0

24.9

boar

Possible Linear Feature

earth

gle

king

tatio

25.1

Shin

ass

Dec

Vege

2IC5.7

l gr

Scar Scar

25.0

Con

Bare

25.8 Con

25.0

earth

25.0

0 Catch Pit & Access Point

0.55m

25.9

boar

Drainage in Root Protection 25.1 Area TBC 0

25.1

den

25.1

0.6m

25.0

25.1

0.7m

0.55m

25.1

Attenuation Tank 15 x 8 x 1m 25.0 25.0 8 115m³ Volume: 5 25.0 to (access arrangements 9 suit manufacturer's details)

ass

1 25.1

24 25CD .0 .97

24.9

Gra

IL CL C1 S1 FCMH1 RE FWP RWP FG YG EXCMH EXSWMH EXFWMH

rdin

¯1

25.8

25.1

25.0

ABBREVIA

king

Hoa

25.0

Dec

gle

0.5

0.65m

Fence

0.65m

0.3 0.5 5m 5m

1.15m ¯150

¯1 50

1.0m

0.4m

ass

0.45

0.6m

l gr

0.35

2P0.0

b Ca

icia

25.4

Shin

1.3m ¯225

EXCMH 19.9 4 CL: 19.36

Paving

Artif

path

20.7 20.9

Paving

1.3m

0.55 m ¯2 25 M C H IL:L: 19.3 17.8 6 6

¯100 1.15m 5m 1.0 00 ¯1

k Un

pty

22.2

Fence

25.8

25.0

m 1.1 50 ¯1

6 20.7

Paving

0.6m

Foot

20.9

20.2 Con

FCM

0.65m

EX.CMH RE CL:2525.13 .07 IL: 24.30

23.2

ACCESS ROAD

23.3

23.6

Status

22.6

22.4

22.8

22.9

23.0

23.2

23.4

23.6

0.45

0.45m

0.3

5 2R0G 20.2 .06 9

0.4m

Combined Sewer

20.9

20.6

0.2

0.9m

20.1 PE

CD 7

1.25m

Surface

0.7m ¯150

25.0

gle

Gra

Pavi

Drawn

Scales

1:20

Gra

M C H IL:L: 25.1 24.3 3 0

Shin

0.55

Gra

0.35m

EX.CMH CL: 25.15 IL: 24.35 Water Drain

24.9

Wall

0.85m

24.9

22.3

21.9

0.3m

ea ic F

tall

ature

lic Fe Metal

0.65m

ACCESS ROAD

0.55m

22.1

25.1

l gr

0.25m

0.7m

21.6

ty D uct

Emp

0.5m

ture

Wall

21.3 Proposed new connection 6 to existing drainage

21.0

MH C IL:L: 25.1 24.3 5 5 0.6m

24.7

24.9

25.1

Wall

21.8

¯150 2.0m

0.8m

20.9

EXSWMH CL: 21.67 IL: 20.90

Surface Water Drain

4 20.6

Catch Pit & Access Point Artif

gle

0.7m

20.8

21.5

Assumed

Paving

21.2

MH C IL:L: 21.6 20.9 7 0

Paving

21.0

ass

25.1

22.8

0.25m 0.8m

l gr

25.1 25.14 2

22.3

Water Pipe

25.0

25.1

0.7m

25.2

Assumed

Existing25connection .14 from canopy 25.20

25.0

Gra

Wall

22.1

21.8

25.0

25.6

1.25m

25.1

Empty Duct

Shin

0.4m

20.6

22.7

0.65m

25.0

25.1

Gra

23.5

0.6m ¯150

25.0

25.1

Gra

Tarm

22.6

Paving

0.7

0.3m

0.4m 0.5m

25.1

ates

¯150 0.7m

0.65m

RE HO

25.8

0.35 0.5m m

25.1

Fence

m 0.1

Paving

5.0

21.9

00 ¯1

Wall

0.5m

21.7

9 25.0

DRAINAGE

Tree Root

25.7

Existing As

EXCMH CL: 25.81 IL: 24.53

al pl

24.5

25.8

25.1H 7

25.1

0.3m 0.5m

25.1

Met

2.4 Drainage in Root 8 Protection Area TBC 0

0.5m

EXCMH CL: 20.68 IL: 19.84

0.25m

0.45

24.7

23.3

Gra

22.8

Fence

2.35m ¯150

¯150 0.6m

¯100 0.4m

20.4 0.25m

20.0

0.45m

22.1 3 21.9 6

21.7

all

gle

icia

ates

Paving

2 25.0

Shin

icia

25.0

24.0

23.5

22.8

22.3

EX.SWMH CL: 25.09 IL: 22.92 2

Artif

Wall

Gra

al pl

Con

Existing Co

25.1

0.55m

20.5

Met

Existing FW 7

25.1

0.55m

¯225

20.5

21.0

tatio

24.2

0.5m ¯150 MH C IL:L: 20.6 19 0.4 .84 8 m

Wall

22.2

20.8

0.6m ¯100

20.9

Wall

22.1

21.8

21.5

0.6m

(R)

Brick work

0.2m

25.7 MH

25.1

25.0

25.1

23.8

22.9

0.3m

21.05

21.04

0.5m

MH 25.8EX. 3

SWMH

Existing SW

7 25.8

M CH IL:L: 25.8 24.5 1 3

Wall

25.1

25.0

25.6 7

0.45

0.5m

25.1

24.7

Mou nt poin ing t

Wall

Existing connection from canopy

25.1

Wall

Tarm

25.1

0.7m

21.2

21.0

21.0 63PE

Top of bank

0.5m

Tarm

21.2

Wall

23.7

23.4

72 5.6

2.0m ¯150

25.0

25.9

25.8

25.6

Paving

252.0 57.1 2

Tarm

25.1

24.9

23.0

22.6

0.2m

25.1

24.2

gle

24.0

23.8

Wall

22.4

0.25m

Metallic Feature

erbe

0.5m

21.9

Flow

ers

25.1 Bottom of bank

Arches

22.2

20.9

0.4m

21.5

0.55

21.2

0.6m

21.7

21.2

21.0

Scar

22.8 6

Arches

21.6

0.3m

Vege

23.0

Top of bank

21.6

22.5

M C H IL:L: 25.0 22.9 9 2

25.8

0.2m

New SW C

M CH IL:L: 25.3 24.5 2 3

New SW D

25.8

Paving

Shin

21.2

24.3

Gra

22.3

2.0m

25.1

0.4m

25.1

25.8

Wal

25.9

25.7

25.1

N 22.8PV 9

22.2

¯100

25.1

23.5

21.6

22.2

25.8

Wal

25.0 Sle

25.2

23.8

21.2

0.75

21.2

21.71

0.65m

26.8

25.7 EX. 5 SWMH

New FW D

25.2

5 25.1 3 25.1

Wall

22.0

21.8

21.5

120 Pd0 PE .33

0.25m

21.8

21.5

Arche

21.72

22.8

25.6c. 8

0.55m

0.45m

0.8m

25.2

24.4

all

21.4

CL 6 2 IL2 2.76 2.0 3

23.7

24.1

21.5

ExG

21.3

21.7

5 CL 22.7 22.7 IL21.8 6 0 5

21.9

21.67

22.12

25.1 25.10 Wall 1

23.5

all

21.77

Con

DRAINAGE

26.0

26.9

21.53

21.5

25.1

25al.6plates 9

25.2

1.1m ¯150 2.35m ¯150

25.1 EX.SWMH 9 CL: 25.18 IL: 22.66

25.1

Paving

G DP RG RG

Wall

LLA

Tarm

CL 7 2 90P 3.55 E 23.4Pd0 9 .69

21.64

21.3

22.0 d0.3 22.0 8

22.0

all

23.9

22.2

150

Wall

0.4m

22.2

22.6

22.5

d0.5

22.14

21.84

22.5

22.4

22.12

1.15m

Cables alon g2 walls 22.3 2.2 7 9

0 22.7 d 4 22.7 6

MH C IL:L: 25.1 22.6 8 6

ingl

23.5

22.7

21.9

22.1

Pd0.44

21.93 d0.6

)

(AC

22.7

Possible buried MH 22.2 1

22.1

25.1

21.9

(AC)

22.13

22.1NSV EXFWMH 0 CL: 22.15 BL NP 20.92 IL: V

150

2 EO1.93 T

22.1

22.2

0.4m

25.5 Wall

25.2

24.6

Gra

25.7

Met

25.2

Mou nt poin ing t

25.6

26.8

Paving

25.6

gle

0.2m

Tarm

8 3.

22.7

22.18 2d0.9 2.0 9 Pd0.45

22.25

CL 3 2 IL2 2.15 0.9 2 22.1 1 22.1 1

22.17

21.98

) 2(AC 2.0 9

22.24 CL NF 22.0I

4 2.2 22 2.7

225

22.8

22.1

23.0

Step

Shin

26.8

26.9

25.2

all

CL 23 NP .67 V

22.0 21.9

23.1

22.28

22.0

23.3

23.0

22.6

22.48

22.1

8 CL 23 IL2 .50 23.5 2.65 0

.4 d0

22.49

22.0

0.6m

23.69

22.3

26G.9

26.9

25.7

25.1

25.2

Wall

25.8

26.9

24.3

.56

22.0

21.9

22.75

22.67

ST 0 25.11

22.58

21.9

6 22.8

225

22.84

27.0

25.1

22.9

26.9

Gra

For Exte 24900-8

0.2m

0.4m ¯100

Wall

Paving

25.7

26.8 26.9 9 5 26.9 Slab 1 26.7 Wall 5 26.1 26.6 4 1

23.5

23.4

22.9

Hed

25.9

23.7

23.42

Gra

23.31

23.13 23.2

23.1 5

22.1

d0.4

23.23

22.99

25.3

tatio

22.87

22.80

.73

25.1 1 25 24.7 .15 4 25.1 4

Brick work

26.8

26.6

24.27

23.6

22.5

Vege

26.9

Brick work ¯100 0.4m

25.8

26.9

26.0

Gra

26.9

25.2

Health & All spec with the

26.4

ving

26.4

DP G

ving

.94 22

22.55

23.1

.96

27.0

24.42

25.1

23.5

23.08

22 22.96

25.2

Gra

26.9

MH C IL:L: 26.8 26.3 6 5

Pavi

26.9

3. 26.5

7 26.4 26.46 3

26.4 26.4 5 5

Brick work

ACCESS ROAD

0.2m

0.7m

26.8

0.7m

26.5

24.7

.50

23.98

.55

23.3

26.4

Paving

26.9

27.0

9 26.8

0.2m

M CL:H IL: 26.9 26.0 5 9

26.8

Gra

0.2m

26.9

.124 6.7

26.9

4 26

26.9

Gra

26.5

Gra

Brick work

Gra

0 25 .2

23.0

.88 22

22.51

22.4

23.8

22.90

24.4

23.00

25.4

25.3

24.8

24.01 23.9

23.7

Dis co Tre nnec e lig te htin d g

22.78

22.64

d0.6 24.03

24.00

23.53

23.1

.95

21.6

23.51

23.92

23.0

22.10

d0.5

23.6

22.7

22.6

22.3

24 24.0 .09 5

24.0

23.9

23.07

22.50

24.1

26.9

25.3

2 26.9

26.9

Mou nt poin ing t

Gra

Pavi

Hed

24.1

26.9

ving

24.9

24.0

23.9

24.1 0

23.94

21.9

23.1

22.5

24.0

26.9

0.2m

26.9

26.8

Brick work

26.9

26.4

26.6

0.4m

Wall

Gra

4 0.5m

26.4

5 26.9

Gra

26.1 26.82 4

25.3

24.14

23.39

23.26

22.97

26.9

24.22

23.23

d0.3 1

23.9

24.0

23.9

9 24.0

25.3

24.84

22.97

22.9

24.04

26.9

6 26.5 2

Gra

26.5

26.9

1WD Dd0.32

24.0

23.82 23.94

23.53

23.96

24.03

22.85

23.51

24.04

23.9 23.95 3

23.29

23.98 1WD Dd0.27 50PE Pd0.35

25.3

24.7

24.6

EOT

23.30

23.9

23.86

23.34

23.26

Dis co Tre nnec te e lig htin d g 22.6 9

23.51

23.5

1 23.9 0 5

23.87

24.0

d0.3

d0.5

23.22

23.46 23.4

.3 23

1WD Dd0.27

d0.4

24.1 24.0 0 4

24.0

24.08

23.25

Pd50P 0.3 E 5 Dd 23 1W 0.27 .3 D 0 CL 14 23.3 4

24.0

50PE Pd0.40 1WD UTT Dd0.32

24.0

23.90

23.9

23.5

23.93

23.14

24.0

24.0 23.9

23.93

23.50

22.93 d0.7 22.94

23.20

23.24

22.89 22.91

23.3

24.05

23.0

Hed

24.1

24.02

22.95

23.18

.44 23.4

.4 23

1 23 DdWD .51 6 0.3 1WD 2 BL Dd0.32 50PE Pd0.40 CL 11 23.5 1 23.52 6 .4 23 BL

23.97

23.19

22.97

22.94

.5 23

.53

23.2

23.4

23.56

23.29

22.94 B L

23.81

D 1Wd0.30 BL D E 50dP0.35 D P CL 13 23.1 1Wd0.30 6 D

Dd0.30 23.14 1WD(BL) 22.96

23.9 23.9 7 7

.56

23.83

22.97

22.94

.2 23 d0.3

24.0

23.98

22.98

24.0

23.96

23.94

23.13

23.89

5 24.9

Wall

Tarm

Scar

23.5

22.9

23.52

24.6

0.65m

26.4

0.5m

Gra

26.9

Gra

25.4 2 4 25.0 5.41 FH Con c. 82 5.3 7

24.11

23.3

23.52

23.9

24.07 24.4 5

24.0

(AR)

23.4

23.55

1 .3 0.3 d

24.0

23.9

ving

50PE Pd0.40 CL

24.00

23.9

7 24.0 23.99 3

23.6

23.5

23.98

23.96 23.9

26.9

24.07

23.22

23.55

26.7

26.8

0.4m

26.9 8

0.65m

1.0m

23.49

24.09

25.3

Ram

Wall

24.06

22.95

23.38 23.4

23.30

22.99

23.21

23.0

23.37 23.41 23.41 CL 12 23.4 0 6 .3 23 23 50PE.35 1W .4 0 2 D Pd D Dd 7 W .2 1 d0 0.2 D 23.38 7

23.30

23.2

24.724 6.63

24.56 24.3

23.95

23.01

24.43

24.1

24.05

d0.4

25.7

1.1m

0.45m

26.6

0.4m

26.4 256.5 2 26.4 8

0.45m

26.5

0.2m

0.25m

0.75m

23.30

23.31

22.92

24.43

Do not s form. U drawing should b

0.8m

0.3m

26.5

Pavi

Brick work

Wall

25.5

26.4

0.45m

Wall

¯100

23.95

23.80

24.27 24.25

25.4

26.5

Brick work

23.75

24.08

Wall

26.9

vel

26.9

Gra

26.9

26.8

26.5

8 26.0

Gra

26.9

1 26 .8

26.1

25.5 Paving

23.72

23.98

24.53

24.63

23.73

24.62

24.27

24.63

23.62

24.07

24.62

23.41

23.95

23.77

23.71

d0.4

23.44

23.29

23.78

23.76

23.56

d0.3

23.29

23.76

23.29

26.9

Hed

Gra

Brick work

rth

0.4m

Wall

24.7

23.2

re ea

25.4

1.1m

0.5m

Wall

26.4

¯150

0.8m

0.5m

26.4

Wall

25.9

Wall

25.4

24.7

1.35m

24.62

24.59

Wall

24.7

24.5

MH C IL:L: 26.4 25.8 8 2

Gra

MH C IL:L: 26.5 25.0 5 3

1.1

Wall

¯150 1.2m

26.4 5 26.4 1

0.5 5 ¯1 m 00

26.9

1.2m

24.4

26.19

24.3

24.2

0.4m

24.0

vel

Wall

26.4 0.15m

0.45m

26.3

25.8

Gra

25.9

25.5

0.55m

0.35m

26.3

0.55m

25.98

25.78 23.8

26.2

26.3

Gra

0.8m

26.18

25.8

26.3

0.5m

26.2

Wall

drawing

26.5

0.45m

26.4

0.45m

26.4

0.7

26.2

26.3

0.35m

0.45m ST

26.2

0.4m

Pavi

26.2

26.1

tatio

23.5

Vege

26.1

25.9

Fence

26.1

26.0

26.3

0.3m

26.4

0.35m

26.4

25.9

.86 25

25.9

25.3

26.4

0.7m

26.2

6 0.5m

ACCESS ROAD

25.8

26.10

26.2

26.1

25.9

26.01

26.3

25.8

25.1

25.99

25.93

0.75m

26.0 26.0

26.0

26.3

0.5m

25.87

25.82

0.7m

25.73

25.70

25.9

26.2

26.1

d0.5

GPR Anomaly

25.9

Scar

25.77

d0.5

25.9

25.8

26.0

26.03

26.00

d0.4

25.7

26.05 Fence

25.99

25.80 d0.4

0.5m

25.7

25.69

d0.4

0.8m

25.69

25.74

24.74

25.7

25.59 GPR Anomaly

0.2

25.87 25.53 d0.5

Fence

25.74

Gra

path

25.5

150 Pd0 .3

25.68

Gra

Drawing No

24900-

2IL: 0.0 17.8620.2 7 2 4 19.7 0.2 1 6 Pa ving

19 19.7 .22 0 MH 0.3m

19.7

0.3m

Gra

ACCESS RO

19.5

Drainage Strategy P

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

Consulting E 37 Alfred Plac T 020 7631 5 E mail@price

10.0 DRAINAGE & FLOOD MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Price & Myers have been commissioned to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and SuDs strategy for the landscaping alterations in Holland Park in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The site is located within Flood Zone 1, an area with less than 0.1% annual probability of flooding and covers an area of 0.41 ha. However, the site is located within RBK&C Critical Drainage areas (CDA) therefore a FRA is required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of CLP policy CE2. The purpose of this report is to provide a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and SuDs assessment, setting out the principles for the surface water drainage design for the proposed development. This FRA and SuDs strategy has been carried out in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), along with advice and guidance from the Environment Agency (EA), The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) March 2014 and CIRIA documents. The proposed below ground drainage will be designed in accordance with Building Regulations Document Part H, taking into account relevant Environment Agency (EA) guidance, The London Plan March 2015, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBK&C) policy CE2 of the local plan. Climate change has been considered for the surface water drainage design calculations.

Attenuation will be provided to ensure that the surface water run-off is restricted to as close to Greenfield runoff rates as practicable. Preliminary calculations show a volume of 115m3 storage is required to attenuate to 2.7 l/s utilising a vortex flow control, for storms up to the 1 in 100 plus 30% (climate change) event. The SuDs proposal demonstrates compliance of RBK&C Local Plan policy CE2, reducing proposed peak surface water runoff rates and providing a betterment post development. A SuDs Maintenance plan is to be put in place to ensure efficient operation and prevent failure of the system.

The findings and conclusions of the report are as follows: The existing site is approximately 0.4 ha. The site falls within Flood Zone 1 â&#x20AC;&#x153;areas with little or no potential risk of flooding (annual probability less than 0.1% for fluvial flooding), which are already developed.â&#x20AC;? Therefore the site is not at risk of flooding from rivers and/or the sea. The local topography and site layout indicates that the site is at low risk of flooding from surface water as site levels will direct overland flows away from the site. The risk of groundwater flooding is likely to be low due to the impermeability of this soil. The SFRA confirms that there have also been no recorded incidences of groundwater flooding at the site. The proposed redevelopment has an acceptable flood risk within the terms and requirements of NPPF and accompanying technical guidance.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement

11.0 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL EngDesign Limited have been appointed as mechanical and electrical services designers for the improvements at Holland House Terrace. We will be bringing our experience of services engineering in parks, historic monuments and listed buildings to the setting of the Grade 1 listed Holland House. The present services on site include arrangements for temporary electrical supplies for the summer opera season and external water taps for temporary facilities. The wiring is old and in a poor state. Some is contained within an old system of underground ducting with manhole covers at strategic points, but the majority of the existing system is poorly configured for present and future needs, has reached the end of its safe life and runs in wireways which potentially contain asbestos. Most of the cabling used by Opera Holland Park during the summer season is rigged every year temporarily over the ground. The improvements to the landscaping give an opportunity to provide a new electrical and cold water main infrastructure which will be neat, inconspicuous and minimise over-ground temporary wiring, whether for the opera or any other facility which may make use of the historic setting of the house for public entertainment. The electrical infrastructure will generally follow existing duct routes to minimise ground disruption and possible damage to trees. Electrical switchgear will be accommodated at the existing location within Holland House itself, allowing rationalisation of the existing unsightly feeder pillar on the east edge of the Terrace. The further power points are intended to be discretely located within the demise of the site from which temporary mains and communication systems can be run.

Holland House Terrace | Design & Access Statement