Built Heritage Townscape Visual Impact Assessment 1 by earlscourtdevelopmentcompany

Environmental Statement Volume2: Built

Heritage,Townscapeand VisualAssessment

Ramboll

EC.PA.12B

July 2024

We are creating a place the world will watch with wonder, on London’s iconic site of human ingenuity. rough our masterplan, we will reimagine the very fabric of living, working and urban wellbeing for London and future spaces.

Attracting the world’s most inventive, imaginative and extraordinary minds. at place is Earls Court.

Our four place pillars underpin our vision and set the ambitions for the place we want to create.

Nature

A celebration of nature and its ability to connect and revive.

Innovation

A showcase for climate and clean innovation and skills.

Culture

A cultural ecosystem for the future of talent.

Neighbourhood

An inspiring neighbourhood designed for all stages of life.

Foreword

After four years of deep consideration and collaboration with stakeholders and local people, The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) is delighted to present the ambitious future plans for this iconic Site.

We formed in 2021 during the lockdown imposed by the first global pandemic in a century, an era which was both disruptive and formative, demanding that we reflect and reassess how we will be living in the future. There could be no more engaging mission for a team specifically assembled to design a place fit for the 22nd century.

As a team, ECDC shares a passion for transformational inner-city projects, and collectively have wide-ranging experiences from diverse international projects. Together, we are driven to fulfil the opportunities of this complex strategic site for London and rightfully put Earls Court as a place back on the global map.

Our intent from the very beginning, was to take a different approach to community involvement in shaping design. Setting up as a local business and being right next to Site everyday, working closely with both local authorities, the Mayor’s office, local businesses and our neighbours has been fundamental in shaping our plans for the Site, which we believe are more relevant and exciting for it.

We have listened and taken huge inspiration from Earls Court’s heritage, as a place that dared — to showcase, to entertain and celebrate the spectacular. A place that was so clearly cherished for being bold and brave, welcoming people from across the globe.

Our plans retain that innovative spirit that embraces future thinking — an approach we believe has become more important now than ever before. An approach that continues to drive us to create a global exemplar of sustainability.

We understand our responsibility to deliver much needed homes and employment opportunities for London. Critical to achieving these aims is creating a place with personality, a place that once again becomes a destination with a broad cultural appeal and is fully inclusive to all that come to experience it.

The masterplan has been created to prioritise urban wellbeing and includes a network of Exhibition Gardens that will be open and accessible for everyone to enjoy. We’re creating a pedestrian-first environment alive with daytime and evening active uses. This generosity of open space is evident at key arrival points as well as the unique Table Park and Lillie Sidings.

Our commitment to create a better piece of city has been evidenced over the last three years as we have

welcomed over 500,000 people back onto Site to enjoy a programme of events that nod to the past and point to the future of Earls Court.

ECDC began with a mantra ‘to make haste slowly’ and ensure we took the time to both listen and appreciate the world of Earls Court, which helped to establish the early vision to bring the wonder back to Earls Court.

Now, after over four years of consideration, we are proud to present our hybrid planning submission to the authorities for determination — a key milestone to enable the future of Earls Court as a place, once again, to discover wonder.

Rob Heasman CEO

e Earls Court Development Company

CHAPTER 1: BUILT HERITAGE

Technical Appendix 1.1: Heritage Impact Assessment

Technical Appendix 1.2: Maps of Heritage Study Area

Technical Appendix 1.3: Maps of Heritage Study Area Overlaid with Zone of Visual Influence

Technical Appendix 1.4: Initial Heritage Scoping Tables

Technical Appendix 1.5: Initial Summary List of Sensitive Assets

Technical Appendix 1.6: Maps of Heritage Assets Scoped in for Assessment

CHAPTER 2: TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL

Technical Appendix A: Baseline Townscape Character Area Table

Technical Appendix B: Assessment Townscape Character Area Table

Technical Appendix C: Supplementary Verified Views (A1-A33)

Technical Appendix D: Supplementary Non-Verified Views (B1-B22)

Technical Appendix E: Illustrative Scheme

Technical Appendix F: 50 mm Equivalent Images

Technical Appendix G: Zone of Visibility Images

Technical Appendix H: Cityscape Verified View Methodology

1 BUILT HERITAGE

Introduction

1.1 This chapter of the ES reports on the likely effects on built heritage assets that would arise from the demolition and construction stage and the completed development stage of the Proposed Development. It forms Chapter 1 of ES Volume 2: Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual Assessment (the ‘BHTVA’).

1.2 The chapter describes the legislation and policy context for built heritage; the methods used to assess the potential impacts and likely effects; the baseline conditions at the Site and within the study area; the likely built heritage effects taking into consideration embedded mitigation; the need for additional mitigation and enhancement; the significance of residual effects; and inter-project cumulative effects.

1.3 This assessment should be read together with:

• ES Volume 1: Main Environmental Statement Report –

ES Chapter 1: Introduction which provides a general summary of the Site;

ES Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology which provides a summary of the EIA scoping outcomes, the general approach adopted in the EIA and the list of cumulative schemes;

Chapter 3: Alternatives and Design Evolution which provides a summary of the masterplan design evolution process and the Illustrative Masterplan consulted upon, which has informed the basis for the Detailed Component and the Outline Component of the Proposed Development

ES Chapter 4: Proposed Development Description, which provides a summary of the completed Proposed Development assessed in the EIA as a whole;

ES Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description, which provides a summary of the development programme, demolition and construction works and embedded mitigation management measures and controls assessed in the EIA as a whole;

• ES Volume 2: BHTVA, Chapter 2: Townscape and Visual which reports on the likely effects on townscape character and visual amenity that would arise from the Proposed Development; and

• ES Volume 3: Technical Appendices associated with relevant chapters of ES Volume 1.

1.4 The chapter is supported by the following technical appendices at the end of this chapter:

• Technical Appendix 1.1: Heritage Impact Assessment;

• Technical Appendix 1.2: Maps of Heritage Study Area;

• Technical Appendix 1.3: Maps of Heritage Study Area Overlaid with Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

• Technical Appendix 1.4: Initial Heritage Scoping Tables;

• Technical Appendix 1.5: Initial Summary List of Sensitive Assets; and

• Technical Appendix 1.6: Maps of Heritage Assets Scoped in for Assessment.

1.5 Technical Appendix 1.1 provides a heritage impact assessment that uses the language of the NPPF which is required by policy. The policy findings translate to the language of likely effects identified for the purposes of the ES, and the assessment (in terms of both methodology and qualitative judgements on impact) which underpins the policy assessment and likely effect assessment is the same.

1 Secretary of State, 1990. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act London HMSO. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/contents [accessed 9 May 2024]

2 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2023. National Planning Policy Framework. London. HMSO. Online. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf [accessed 9 May 2024]

3 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Planning practice guidance online resource: Historic Environment. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment [accessed 9 May 2024]

4 Historic England, 2017. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment. Historic England. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa2-managing-significance-in-decision-taking/ [accessed 9 May 2024]

5 Historic England, 2017. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Historic England. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/ [accessed 9 May 2024]

1.6 It is noted that following completion of the assessment, a heigh parameter of Outline Component Development Zone R was reduced. This amendment does not affect the methodology and conclusions presented in this chapter of the ES.

Methodology

1.7 The assessment has been informed by the following legislation, policies and published guidance:

• National Legislation, Policy and Guidance:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 19901, in particular

Section 66(1) and Section 72(1); NPPF (2023)2, in particular Chapter 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment; PPG3;

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment4 (‘GPA2’);

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets5 (‘GPA3’); and Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (2021)6;

Principles of Selection of Listed Buildings (2018)7;

• Regional Policy and Guidance:

London Plan (2021)8 , in particular the following policies:

‘SD1 - Opportunity Areas’;

‘D1 - London’s form, character and capacity for growth’;

‘D3 - Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach’;

‘D4 - Delivering good design’;

‘D9 - Tall buildings’;

‘HC1 - Heritage conservation and growth’

‘HC3 - Strategic and Local Views’; and

‘HC4 - London View Management Framework’;

Planning Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessment and the Setting of Heritage Assets (2023)9;

• Local Policy and Guidance:

RBKC Local Plan (2019)10 in particular the following policies:

‘CR5 - Parks, Gardens, Open Spaces and Waterways’;

‘CL1 - Context and character’;

‘CL2 - Design Quality’;

‘CL3 - Heritage assets – conservation areas and historic spaces’;

‘CL4 - Heritage assets – listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeology’;

‘CL11 - Views’;

6 IEMA, 2021. Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK. Online. IEMA. Available at https://www.iema.net/resources/blog/2021/07/20/launch-of-principles-ofcultural-heritage-impact-assessment [accessed 27 March 2024]

7 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2018. Principles of Selection of Listed Buildings. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5beef3c9e5274a2b0b4267e0/Revised_Principles_of_Selection_2018.pdf [accessed 7 June 2024]

8 Greater London Authority, 2021. The London Plan 2021 Online. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf [accessed 9 May 2024

9 Greater London Authority, 2023. Planning Practice Note: Heritage Impact Assessment and the Setting of Heritage Assets. Online. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/Heritage%20Impact%20Practice%20Note%20%281%29.pdf [accessed 10 May 2024]

10 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2019. Local Plan September 2019. Online. Available at: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planningpolicy/local-plan [accessed 9 May 2024]

‘CL12 - Building heights’;

‘CV6 - Vision for Earl’s Court in 2028’;

‘CA4 - Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre’;

LBHF Local Plan (2018)11 , in particular the following policies:

‘FRA - Fulham Regeneration Area’;

‘FRA1 - Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area’;

‘OS1 - Parks and Open Spaces’;

‘DC1 - Built environment’;

‘DC2 - Design of New Build’;

‘DC3 - Tall buildings’;

‘DC7 - Views and landmarks;

‘DC8 - Heritage and conservation;

Draft

RBKC New Local Plan Review (2022)12 , in particular the following emerging polices:

‘GB16 - Parks, Gardens and Open Spaces’;

‘CD1 - Context and Character’;

‘CD2 - Design Quality, Character and Growth’;

‘CD3 - Heritage Assets – Conservation Areas’;

‘CD4 - Designated Heritage Assets – Listed Buildings’;

‘CD6 - Registered Parks and Gardens’;

‘CD7 - Tall Buildings’;

‘CD14 - Views’;

‘T4 - Streetscape’;

‘PLV2 - Earl’s Court Opportunity Area’;

‘PLV14 - Earl’s Court’; and

‘SA2 - Earls Court Exhibition Centre’.

1.8 Further details are provided in ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1: Heritage Impact Assessment (see Section 3.0).

Consultation

1.9 Table 1.1 summarises the consultation that has been undertaken with respect to the built heritage assessment, including the EIA Scoping Process.

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Pre-Application Consultation

RBKC

Overview of consultation over four years to submission

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

The evolution of the Proposed Development was presented to officers at various meetings, including the constraints guiding the layout of massing and key test points for the main heritage assets, including the views from Brompton Cemetery and Philbeach Gardens.

Contributed to the design evolution of the Proposed Development assessed within this chapter as a whole.

See Section 8.0 of Technical Appendix 1.1 for summary of design evolution process.

11 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 2018. Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan February 2018 Online. Available at: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/local_plan_2018_web_version.pdf [accessed 9 May 2024]

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

LBHF

Overview of consultation over four years to submission

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

buildings and the height distribution between the LBHF and RBKC, or reducing the height of buildings.

The evolution of the Proposed Development was presented to officers at various meetings, including constraints guiding the layout of massing and key test points for the main assets, including the views from Brompton Cemetery, Philbeach Gardens and the Olympia and Avonmore CA.

The potential for harm to heritage assets was identified at an early stage and suggestions about how to remove or reduce the harm were made. This may be summarised as removing tall building Plots, refining the location of tall buildings and the height distribution between the LBHF and RBKC, or reducing the height of buildings.

Contributed to the design evolution of the Proposed Development assessed within this chapter as a whole.

See Section 8.0 of Technical Appendix 1.1 for summary of design evolution process.

Historic England

Pre-application meeting 1, 26 January 2023

Written advice, 2 March 2023

• Requested theoretical Zone of Visual Influence (‘ZVI ) to help understand the potential heritage impacts.

• Most sensitive assets likely to be Brompton Cemetery (Registered Park and Garden (‘RPG’) and Conservation Area (‘CA’)), Philbeach CA and Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias.

• The Cemetery was particularly sensitive to the change in views looking north along the ceremonial axis.

• The church and CA on Philbeach Gardens sensitive to further large-scale development.

• Nevern Square CA, Earl’s Court Square CA, Olympia and Avonmore CA, Queen’s Club Gardens CA, Barons Court CA, Gunter Estate CA, Sedlescombe Road CA, Courtfield CA, Edwardes Square/Scarsdale CA, Abingdon CA also identified as sensitive to the proposals because of proximity.

• It was confirmed that visibility along does not necessarily cause harm and many of the CAs do not have deliberate outward-facing relationships with their existing setting but there are notable exceptions (exceptions not explicitly stated).

• Suggested to clarify extent of listing of Earls Court Station, Grade II.

• Tall buildings on the Site would be visually dominant and likely to cause harm, in some cases of a high order, in the settings of Brompton Cemetery, Church of St Cuthbert and Philbeach CA, and in mid- to longrange views from multiple sensitive areas, including along the Thames

Refer to the Methodology, Baseline and Assessment of Effects sections of this chapter

Historic England

Pre-application meeting

2, 8 June 2023

Updates to the scheme were presented to Historic England ahead of the presentation to the London Advisory Committee – see below.

Contributed to the design evolution of the Proposed Development

12 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2022. Local Plan Review Publication (Regulation 19, October 2022). Online. Available at: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-andbuilding-control/planning-policy/new-local-plan-review-examination [accessed 9 May 2024]

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

No written advice assessed within this chapter as a whole.

See Section 8.0 of Technical Appendix 1.1 for summary of design evolution process.

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Historic England London Advisory Committee, 19 September 2023

Written advice, 16 October 2023

Historic England

Pre-application workshop 3, 2 November 2023

No written advice

• The London Advisory Committee (‘LAC’) recognised that the Proposed Development would be a different scale to the historic townscape in this part of West London.

• There would be harmful effects on the significance of Brompton Cemetery, Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias, Philbeach CA and Nevern Square CA and other buildings and areas designated as heritage assets in the surrounding area.

• Acknowledged the site is an Opportunity Area and taller development is part of the development plan for the site. It was also acknowledged that some elements of the scheme would compare favourably to the 2013 Consented Masterplan when considered in terms of urban design and wider public benefits.

Historic England provided the following verbal feedback:

• The proposed buildings were too tall (especially Plot WB04) and in many views too great in terms of massing, particularly where they coalesce in views.

• In Brompton Cemetery, the coalescing mass of buildings at irregular angles contributed to the impact relative to the organised nature of the Cemetery. Materiality and base, middle and top would be important as part of Coding.

• In Philbeach Gardens, Plots EG05 and EG06 on Lillie Sidings were most impactful. Reducing some mass from CW05 would likely make a difference. Design would not be capable of substantially reducing the impact on the Philbeach CA.

• The changes to CW05 may improve the composition of the cluster seen from Nevern Square but subject to design. There would still be a negative impact.

• Harm at the lower end of less than substantial was reported for Queen’s Club Gardens CA, and small amount of harm to the Olympia and Avonmore CA.

• Layering of massing through design could address the impact on the Earls Court CA.

RBKC

Workshop 14

November 2023

No written advice

The RBKC provided the following verbal feedback:

• The importance of the Design Code for the Plots visible from Philbeach Gardens was noted by RBKC. The materiality should be ‘recessive’ and avoid large amounts of red brick.

• Positive changes to the massing in view R2B – view A14 in the Hybrid Planning Applications – were

See the Assessment of Effects section of this chapter.

LBHF

Workshop 14

November 2023

No written advice

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed noted, and this helped to reduce the impact on the Philbeach CA and Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias. Nevertheless, a finding of less than substantial harm was anticipated by officers on these assets.

• Visibility from surrounding CAs noted: not intrusive in Eardley Crescent CA and Earls Court Square CA, and not concerned by Nevern Square CA impact. The composition of the proposals had improved in the Nevern Square views.

• The impact was described as intense in Trebivor Road (view 24, Nevern Square CA) and unavoidable. The Coding would be important, and the same comment was made in respect of the views from Penywern Road (view 29, Earls Court Square CA).

• RBKC did not agree with level of harm identified in Historic England letter dated 16 October 2023 but agreed there would be some harmful impact to Brompton Cemetery as a result of distraction.

The LBHF provided the following verbal feedback:

• Impact on All Saints Church from Putney Bridge raised by officers and the articulation of the top of Plot WB04 would be important – could it be made slenderer or the form simplified.

• Officers reported they were not comfortable with height and mass in relation to the heritage impacts.

• Officers agreed the impact on Fulham Palace was negligible and asked for a view to be tested from moat.

• Comments on how architecture could address coalescence in Parsons Green views.

• It was confirmed that Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation […] listed building should be assessed.

• Less than substantial harm to Barons Court CA was noted and Coding would be important to achieve differentiation in the Plots seen in the views from this CA.

• The proposals were considered to be ‘stark’ in the Queens Club Garden’s views and require consideration.

• Concern in how the proposals appear in views from Mornington Avenue in the Olympia and Avonmore CA.

GLA

Pre-application meetings on 19 April 2023 and 13 June 2023

Written advice, 21 November 2023

The summary from the written advice from the GLA on built heritage is reproduced below:

See the Assessment of Effects section of this chapter.

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

outweighed by public benefits associated with the proposed development. In this case, there are wide ranging public benefits associated with the proposed scheme which would carry substantial weight and could outweigh the harm caused, subject to further detailed assessment at submission stage.”

Royal Parks

Pre-application meeting, 13 March 2024

No written advice received

RBKC

Pre-application meeting

16 April 2024

Written advice, 30 April 2024

The Royal Parks would present the Proposed Development to the board and DCMS before providing formal comments. The benefits that may arise from the creation of the green corridor, enhanced biodiversity, new jobs and affordable housing were recognised, however there were concerns about the visual impact, tranquillity, increased footfall and the maintenance burden on the historic landscape.

Summary comments:

“Officers note the objection from Historic England’s London Advisory Committee and agree that the proposal could result in less-than-substantial harm to a number of heritage assets. We would expect the applicants to work with Historic England towards resolving their concerns. Officers also remain concerned about the extent of harm to heritage assets that would be caused by the height, bulk and massing of the current proposals.”

The following comments were provided in respect of the scope of assessment:

• “The approach taken is acceptable as a basis for further work. The identification of heritage assets is comprehensive, and the views selected are considered appropriate, subject to further testing outlined in the main feedback below.”

• The study area for the ES was noted to be 3 km for built heritage.

• The Boltons, 326 Earls Court Road, SW5 9BQ was designated after the Scoping Report was prepared and should be identified and assessed.

• The heritage assessment should follow GPA3.

• There should be clarity on the extent of listing of Earls Court Station and that part within the Site.

• The assessment should review potential for setting impacts on Ismaili Centre.

• Subject to comments above, approach proposed for the identification of heritage assets and the selection of views was considered acceptable as a basis of further work.

• In respect of the potential impact of the Proposed Development, RBKC identified the potential for adverse impacts on a range of heritage assets.

See the Assessment of Effects section of this chapter.

Table

1 1: Summary

of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

LBHF

Pre-application meeting, 16 April 2024

No written advice

Historic England

Pre-application meeting 4, 9 May 2024

No written advice

Refer to the Methodology and Assessment of Effects sections of this chapter.

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

• The latest full set of draft TVA views were presented to officers.

• In verbal feedback, LBHF officers confirmed that The Mall CA and Hammersmith Bridge should be assessed.

• A harmful impact on All Saints Church was identified by officers because of how Plot WB04 is seen together with the church tower from Putney Bridge.

The structure and content of the Design Codes and reporting for the application was presented to Historic England at this meeting. It was acknowledged between Historic England and the Applicant there had been no material changes to the proposed massing and Historic England’s previous comments would remain valid in terms of the impact of the scheme. In terms of materiality, Historic England noted verbally during the meeting that façade articulation could help break the massing down to address coalescence.

Refer to the Baseline and Assessment of Effects sections of this chapter.

Scoping

RBKC

RBKC Scoping Opinion (including Waterman Report) received 8 December 2023

RBKC was in agreement with the proposed scope of the EIA subject to the following comments.

Scope in:

• listed buildings bordering the north-east of the Site;

• concentration of listed buildings located 500 m southeast of the Site within the Brompton Cemetery RPG; and

• listed buildings “scattered” at varying distances to the north, south-west and west of the Site.

It was noted that consultation would be required on the scope with RBKC and LBHF conservation officers.

Non-designated heritage receptors should be identified and scoped in where appropriate.

Include Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK (2021) as part of the methodology.

Include Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (2020) in the methodology.

RBKC Officer comment:

• Further discussion with RBKC and Historic England will be needed to understand the sensitivity and extent of listing of the Earls Court Station.

• The Boltons, 326 Earls Court Road, SW5 9BQ, was added to the National Heritage List on 20 November 2023 (Listed Building Grade II, list entry no 1487217).

Statutory Consultee comment: HE

• The emerging proposals could impact on large number of designated heritage assets and their settings;

See the Assessment of Effects section of this chapter.

Refer to the Methodology, Baseline and Assessment of Effects sections of this chapter.

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

• Thorough assessment of likely effects on elements contributing to the significance of those assets is required;

• There is a particularly high likelihood and degree of potential impact on Brompton Cemetery, St Cuthbert’s Church; Philbeach Conservation Area; Nevern Square CA;

• Ongoing discussions with Historic England and others on the contribution of setting to significance was welcomed;

• HE disagreed with several assessments in Appendix 4 e.g. on Brompton Cemetery;

• The ES should also consider potential impacts on non-designated features of historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest;

• 3D models and other tools would be useful to ensure all impacts are fully understood;

• The ES should consider the potential impact of associated activities (e.g. construction, servicing and maintenance, associated traffic) might have upon perceptions, understanding and appreciation of heritage assets in the area; and

• The ES should consider the likelihood of alterations to drainage patterns leading to decomposition or destruction of below ground assets or subsidence of buildings and monuments.

Statutory Consultee comments: The Gardens Trust

• The Site lies diagonally across the road to the northwest of Brompton Cemetery;

• The scoping documents appear to cover all the heritage assets;

• It would seem that the main vista/axis in the RPG will probably be unaffected; and

• However there is likely to be some peripheral visibility, despite the existing tree cover. LBHF

LBHF Scoping Opinion (including Waterman Report) received 12 December 2023

Include Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK (2021) as part of methodology.

Include Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (2020) in methodology.

LBHF was in agreement with the proposed scope of the EIA subject to the following comments:

Scope in:

• listed buildings bordering the north-east of the Site;

• concentration of listed buildings located 500 m southeast of the Site within the Brompton Cemetery RPG; and

Refer to the Methodology, Baseline and Assessment of Effects sections of this chapter.

Table 1 1: Summary of Consultation

Consultee and Form/ Date of Consultation

Summary of Comments Where in this Chapter Comments are addressed

• listed buildings “scattered” at varying distances to the north, south-west and west of the Site.

It was noted that consultation would be required on the scope with RBKC and LBHF conservation officers. Non-designated heritage receptors should be identified and scoped in where appropriate.

Waterman, RBKC and LBHF Post- EIA Scoping Opinions

Discussion Meeting (19 March 2024) and Correspondence (April 2024)

Agreed that Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (2020) would not be included because that is most relevant to archaeology and the guidance for built heritage is already comprehensive (i.e. GPA2 and GPA3).

See the Methodology section of this chapter.

1.10 The scope of the built heritage assessment has been subject to ongoing review since the Scoping Report was prepared to ensure that all sensitive assets and potential heritage effects of relevance to the assessment are identified. This included consideration of the verified views, for example, to identify heritage assets that may be sensitive to the Proposed Development but were not known at the time of Scoping.

1.11 The following assets were scoped in as a result of this subsequent review and discussions with RBKC and LBHF:

• Fulham Palace, Grade I listed building (LBHF);

• Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation […]13, Grade II listed building (LBHF);

• The Boltons (RBKC), Grade II listed budling;

• The Mall CA (LBHF); and

• Parsons Green CA (LBHF).

1.12 In the pre-application consultation response dated 30 April 2024, the RBKC identified a potential effect on a “group of sensitive buildings” in South Kensington, citing visibility that RBKC officers assessed using VUCITY where the Proposed Development would appear “rising behind the Ismali Centre [sic] in views looking westwards on the southern side of Brompton Road, just east of the Brompton Oratory”. It is confirmed that the Ismaili Centre is not a listed building, however it is located opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, a Grade I listed building.

1.13 The Victoria and Albert Museum is located approximately 1.8 km north-east of the Site boundary at the nearest point. Heritage assets in this location fall outside the study area, which was based on the ZVI

1.14 The ZVI does not show any visibility from Cromwell Road near the Ismaili Centre, Victoria and Albert Museum and group of sensitive buildings (which has been taken to mean the museums and other institutions at South Kensington).

1.15 The extract from the ZVI at Figure 1.1 shows a small degree of visibility on Cromwell Road to the east of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The colour grading indicates that it would be only the top-most part of Plot WB04 that would be visible and given the orientation of the road and buildings it would not backdrop the Victoria and Albert Museum’s south elevation or change any appreciation of the North Italian Renaissance architectural style of the museum. Therefore, it is considered to be disproportionate to assess heritage assets in this location based on this type of potential visibility and they have not been scoped in for full assessment.

walls and railings facing Fulham Road.

Assessment Scope

1.16 This assessment is based on professional judgement and expertise. It is informed by Historic England guidance on how to understand the special interest of heritage assets and their settings (GPA2 and GPA3 respectively) and further information is provided in the methodology below and ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1 (see Section 2.0)

Technical Scope

1.17 The technical scope of the assessment has considered the following:

• Direct change to the special interest of heritage assets (designated and non-designated) as a result of physical alterations and/or alteration of their immediate settings within the Site boundary arising from the demolition and construction stage;

• Indirect change to the special interest of heritage assets (designated and non-designated) within the study area as a result of alteration to their setting arising from the demolition and construction stage;

• Indirect change to the special interest of heritage assets (designated and non-designated) within the study area as a result of alteration to their setting arising from the completed development.

14 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, December 2023. National Planning Policy Framework. Online. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf [accessed 9 May 2024]

1.18 Heritage assets are designated and non-designated heritage assets including:

• World Heritage Sites;

• Listed buildings;

• Conservation Areas;

• Registered Park and Gardens;

• Locally listed buildings; and

• Non-designated heritage assets such as buildings and features identified on the Historic Environment Record or during the design development process

1.19 The heritage assets will hereafter be referred to as heritage ‘receptors’ in this assessment.

Spatial Scope

1.20 The study area has been determined by means of a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence (‘ZVI’) modelling exercise, professional judgement and through discussion with RBKC and LBHF officers. It covers an area of up to 3 km from the Site boundary.

1.21 The study area incorporates existing sensitive heritage receptors located in a 1.5 km radius of the Site boundary and five further areas which are more distant (1.5 km+) where theoretical visibility was indicated by the ZVI

1.22 The maps at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.2 show the heritage receptors identified in the study area, and Technical Appendix 1.3 has those maps overlaid with the ZVI. Due to the high number of heritage receptors in the study area, there are eight separate maps:

• Map 00 – Site only;

• Map 01 – 500 m;

• Map 02 – 500 m-1 km;

• Map 03 – 1 km-1.5 km;

• Map 04 – Old Oak Common;

• Map 05 – Stamford Brook;

• Map 06 – Barnes Area and Riverside;

• Map 07 – Battersea Park and Riverside;

• Map 08 – Putney/Wandsworth Riverside; and

• Map 09 – Kensington Palace.

1.23 Paragraph 194 of the NPPF14 requires that: “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance”

1.24 To ensure the built heritage assessment is proportionate, the heritage baseline has been refined to only scope in those receptors which may experience significant effects as a result of the Proposed Development (the ‘sensitive receptors’). This is also considered to be appropriate in this context, given the very high number of heritage receptors in the study area and it was agreed with the RBKC and LBHF through Scoping and pre-application consultation

1.25 The sensitive built heritage receptors have been identified using ZVI modelling of the Proposed Development, deskbased review and professional judgements.

1.26 The spatial scope was determined through the following two-stage process:

• The ZVI overlay maps were reviewed to identify those receptors where there would be no intervisibility and therefore no change to their setting as a result of the Proposed Development. These receptors have been scoped out from assessment.

• A desk-based review of the remaining receptors where visibility or change to setting was indicated by the ZVI. At this stage, the list entry descriptions, CA appraisals were consulted in order to understand their heritage interest

Figure 1.1: Zone of Visual Influence Extract - Cromwell Road Near to Ismaili Centre

and the contribution of setting to significance. The nature of the intervisibility of the Proposed Development and the likelihood of an impact on significance was reviewed in a virtual model and using the non-verified massing images that have been produced as part of the TVIA. This general approach was agreed with officers in pre-application discussions and the scoped-in heritage receptors were agreed with officers through the Scoping process. The second stage for each receptor is set out in the tables at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.4.

1.27 The heritage receptors that have been scoped in for assessment in the tables at Technical Appendix 1.4 are summarised in simple list form at Technical Appendix 1.5. In total, 92 heritage receptors have been scoped in for assessment.

1.28 The heritage receptors that have been scoped in for assessment are shown on the maps at Technical Appendix 1.6.

Temporal Scope

1.29 While demolition and construction works are anticipated to be undertaken over 13 years for the Early Phases and 19 years for the All Phases development scenarios respectively (considering infrastructure works commencing Q4 2024), the duration of impacts at Development Plots and Development Zones would be temporary over targeted short- (0-5 years) to medium-term (5-10 years).

1.30 The indicative development programme is based on the assumption that planning permission is secured in Q3 2025. It is noted that elements of infrastructure works are expected to commence prior to Q3 2025. Where applicable, separate applications have already been submitted or may be submitted for these works as described in ES Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description. The impacts of these works have been considered as part of this assessment for completeness and robustness.

1.31 First residential occupation is likely to be in Q1, 2031.

1.32 The impacts of the completed development stage would be permanent and long-term (i.e. more than 10 years).

1.33 The assessment has been undertaken against the existing baseline (e.g. current year) and the following scenarios:

• Demolition and Construction Stage:

Scenario 1: Existing Baseline (2024);

Scenario 2: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (Early Phases);

Scenario 3: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (All Phases);

Scenario 4: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (Early Phases) + Cumulative Schemes (based on information in the public domain, if available); and

Scenario 5: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (All Phases) + Cumulative Schemes (based on information in the public domain, if available).

• Completed Development Stage:

Scenario 1: Existing Baseline (2023);

Scenario 2: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (Early Phases);

Scenario 3: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (All Phases);

Scenario 4: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (Early Phases) + Cumulative Schemes (based on information in the public domain, if available); and

Scenario 5: Existing Baseline + Proposed Development (All Phases) + Cumulative Schemes (based on information in the public domain, if available).

Baseline Characterisation Method

Desk Study

1.34 To establish the built heritage baseline conditions in the study area, relevant data was reviewed and assessed. Data was obtained from the following sources:

• National Heritage List for England15 for World Heritage Site, listed buildings and Registered Park and Gardens;

• RBKC Local Plan (2019) for CAs; Philbeach Conservation Area Appraisal16; Nevern Square Conservation Area Appraisal17; Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area Appraisal18; Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area Appraisal19;

Conservation Area Proposals Statement: Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area20;

Draft Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area Appraisal21;

Courtfield Conservation Area Appraisal22;

Holland Park Conservation Area Appraisal23;

• LBHF Local Plan (2018) for CAs;

Barons Court Conservation Area Character Profile24;

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area Character Profile25;

Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area Character Profile26; Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area Character Profile27; Crabtree Conservation Area Character Profile28; Parsons Green Conservation Area Character Profile29;

Bishops Park Conservation Area Character Profile30;

The Mall Conservation Area Character Profile31;

• LBHF Local List of Buildings of Merit (August 2015)32;

• Greater London Historic Environment Record (‘GLHER’)33; and

• Site observations and desk-based research.

Field Study

1.35 The baseline characterisation has been informed by numerous site visits between March 2022 and June 2024 to identify the heritage receptors assessed in this chapter and to aid an understanding of their special interest, setting and relationship to the Site.

Assessment Method

1.36 As outlined in ES Volume 1, ES Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology the assessment of effects has been considered for two development scenarios: Early Phases and All Phases.

1.37 The assessment has been based on the relevant Hybrid Planning Applications’ documents, as well as the information presented in ES Volume 1, ES Chapter 4: Proposed Development Description and ES Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description

25 LBHF, May 2010. Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area Character Profile

26 LBHF, 2005. Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area Character Profile

27 LBHF, September 2000. Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area Character Profile

28 LBHF, June 2001. Crabtree Conservation Area Character Profile

29 LBHF, April 1999. Parsons Green Conservation Area Character Profile

30 LBHF, November 1998. Bishops Park Conservation Area Character Profile

31 LBHF, October 1997. The Mall Conservation Area Character Profile

32 LBHF, August 2015. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Local Register of Buildings of Merit – As at August 2015. Online. Available at: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Local_Register_of_Buildings_of_Merit_2015.pdf [accessed 9 May 2024]

33 GLHER search ref. 18057

1.38 Given the hybrid nature of the Applications (part Detailed and part Outline), the assessment of the Outline Component has been based on worst-case assumptions as described in relevant sections below. The worst-case scenario has been derived from referring to the Proposed Maximum Heights Parameter Plan of the Outline Component, which are represented in the verified views, and the Demolition Parameter Plan which shows the potential for full demolition of all buildings on the Site (including the non-designated heritage receptors in the western and north-western parts of the Site), with the exception of the 3 storey annex at Cluny Mews and the Table

1.39 The assessment has drawn information from the HIA presented in Technical Appendix 1.1, especially in respect of the following:

• Historical development of the Site and study area;

• Baseline assessment of heritage value for heritage receptors scoped in for assessment; and

• Assessment of the effect of the Proposed Development (Early Phases and All Phases) upon that heritage value including cumulative effects and residual effects.

Early Phases

Demolition and Construction Stage

1.40 The heritage assessment has considered the demolition and construction stage information for the Early Phases of the Proposed Development presented at ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description and the effects of the works on the contribution of setting to the heritage interest of the heritage receptors that have been scoped in for assessment.

1.41 For the Outline Component, the heritage assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, i.e. full demolition of existing buildings on the Site where the Demolition Parameter Plan indicates options in respect of full, partial or potential demolition of existing buildings.

Completed Development Stage

1.42 The heritage assessment has considered the completed development stage information for the Early Phases of the Proposed Development presented at ES Volume 1 Chapter 4: Proposed Development Description and the effect of the physical built form on the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage receptors.

1.43 The heritage assessment has been informed by accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’ or ‘verified views’) of the Proposed Development showing the Early Phases and All Phases as a mix of render and wireline. The AVRs have been produced by Cityscape Digital and their methodology is provided at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix H

1.44 For the Outline Component, the assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, based on the Proposed Maximum Heights Parameter Plan.

Cumulative Stage

1.45 The heritage assessment has considered the list of cumulative schemes presented at ES Volume 1 Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology and the additional effect of the Proposed Development on the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage receptors with the cumulative schemes

1.46 The heritage assessment has been informed by accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’ or ‘verified views’) of the Early Phases as render or wireline plus cumulative schemes as wirelines. The AVRs have been produced by Cityscape Digital and their methodology is provided at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix H

1.47 For the Outline Component, the assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, as described for the demolition and construction stage and the completed development stages above.

All Phases

Demolition and Construction Stage

1.48 The assessment considers the demolition and construction stage information for the All Phases as presented at ES Volume 1 Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description and considers the impact of those activities on the heritage interest of the heritage receptors that have been scoped in for assessment.

34 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2018. Principles of Selection of Listed Buildings. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5beef3c9e5274a2b0b4267e0/Revised_Principles_of_Selection_2018.pdf [accessed 7 June 2024]

1.49 For the Outline Component, the heritage assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, i.e. full demolition of existing buildings on the Site where the Demolition Parameter Plan indicates options in respect of full, partial or potential demolition of existing buildings.

Completed Development Stage

1.50 The heritage assessment has considered the completed development stage information for the All Phases at ES Volume 1 Chapter 4: Proposed Development Description and the effect of the physical built form on the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage receptors.

1.51 The heritage assessment has been informed by accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’ or ‘verified views’) of the All Phases as a mix of render and wireline. The AVRs have been produced by Cityscape Digital and their methodology is provided at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix H

1.52 For the Outline Component, the assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, based on the Proposed Maximum Heights Parameter Plan.

Cumulative Stage

1.53 The heritage assessment has considered the list of cumulative schemes presented at ES Volume 1 Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology and the additional effect of the Proposed Development on the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage receptors with the cumulative schemes

1.54 The heritage assessment has been informed by accurate visual representations (‘AVRs’ or ‘verified views’) of the Early Phases and All Phases as render or wireline plus cumulative schemes as wirelines. The AVRs have been produced by Cityscape Digital and their methodology is provided at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix H

1.55 For the Outline Component, the assessment has considered the worst-case scenario, as described for the demolition and construction stage and the completed development stages above.

Assessment Criteria

1.56 The criteria used to assess if an effect is significant or not, is set out in subsequent sub-sections. This has been determined by consideration of the sensitivity of the receptor, magnitude of impact and scale of the effect. In considering the significance of an effect, consideration has been given to the type of effect, duration of the effect, the geographical extent of the effect and the application of professional judgement.

Receptor Sensitivity Criteria

1.57 The sensitivity of a receptor has been determined by calibrating its heritage significance – hereafter ‘heritage value’ –with its susceptibility to the change introduced by the Proposed Development.

1.58 ‘Significance’ (for heritage policy) is defined in the NPPF Annex 2 as:

“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”

1.59 The significance (or heritage value) of heritage receptors may be expressed with reference to their historical or architectural value identified in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the '1990 Act’), or the other values set out in the NPPF: archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each site’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its value.

1.60 This assessment has had regard to the guidance in GPA2 in describing heritage value

1.61 Paragraph 200 of the NPPF states that the “…level of detail [to describe the significance of heritage receptors] should be proportionate to the assets’ importance”

1.62 Great weight has been given to the conservation of all designated heritage receptors, although a gradation of ‘heritage value’ is appropriate for the purposes of the ES. This is supported by the Principles of Selection of Listed Buildings (DCMS, 2018)34 which states “listed buildings are graded to reflect their relative special architectural and historic interest:

Grade I buildings are of exceptional special interest;

Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;

Grade II buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.”

1.63 The criteria adopted for heritage value in this assessment and in the HA are presented in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Receptor Value Criteria

Value Criteria Typical Examples

Very High Building/site/area of international heritage value

High Building/site/area of national heritage value

Medium Building/site/area of lower national or particular local heritage value

World Heritage Sites, Grade I statutorily listed buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens, and some scheduled monuments, Grade II* statutorily listed buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Some Scheduled Monuments, Grade II* and II Registered Parks and Gardens, Grade II* and II statutorily listed buildings and conservation areas.

Some Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens, Grade II statutorily listed buildings and conservation areas.

Low Building/site/area of local heritage value Locally listed buildings (or equivalent non-designated heritage receptors).

Very Low Building/site/area of low local heritage value

Receptors not formally identified, but which may have a degree of value meriting consideration in planning decisions

1.64 Where a proposal may affect the surroundings in which the heritage receptor is experienced, a qualitative assessment is made of whether, how and to what degree setting contributes to the value of heritage receptors. The assessment is informed by the checklist contained in GPA3. Setting is defined in the NPPF as:

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

1.65 The heritage baseline articulates the contribution made by relevant aspects of setting towards heritage value. Again, the level of detail is proportionate to the receptor’s importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal to their heritage value; however, each heritage receptor’s susceptibility to change derives from the particular nature of its heritage value, the existing character of its setting and the type of development proposed. The baseline assessment therefore describes what is sensitive about each heritage receptor and its setting.

1.66 Paragraph 17 of GPA3 provides guidance on how to evaluate the sensitivity of a heritage receptor to changes in its setting:

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

1.67 A heritage receptor is likely to be more sensitive to change if the proposals involve direct works to its fabric. This will depend on the facts of every case, and the qualitative text should clearly articulate where any deviation is made from this judgement.

1.68 Where a heritage receptor’s fabric and contribution that setting makes to heritage value have already been altered, the degree of alteration may influence its susceptibility to accommodate the type of change introduced by the Proposed Development.

1.69 The criteria adopted for susceptibility of change are presented in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Receptor Susceptibility Criteria

Susceptibility Criteria

High The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a low ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

Medium The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a moderate ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

Low The setting of the receptor or receptor itself has a high ability to accommodate the type of change without change to its value.

1.70 The sensitivity of receptors has been classified as low, medium or high (with mid-range levels) in accordance with the matrix presented in Table 1.4.

1.71 It is confirmed that where sensitivity ratings have ‘/’ this is a category in and of itself and does not mply a range or a value which is either/or.

Table 1.4: Receptor Sensitivity Criteria Value

Impact Magnitude Criteria

1.72 GPA3 provides a checklist to consider the impact of a proposal on the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of a receptor. GPA3 states that although the change arising from a proposed development may be large in physical scale or geographical extent, there may nonetheless be little or no actual impact on heritage value.

1.73 The impact of the Proposed Development has been considered in relation to the degree of change caused to those parts of the receptor and/or its setting which contribute to its heritage value.

1.74 The criteria adopted for magnitude of impact has been classified as low, medium or high, as presented in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5: Impact Magnitude Criteria

Magnitude of Impact Criteria

High Major change to the value of the receptor. Loss of or major alteration to key elements/features/ characteristics that contribute to value The duration of this impact may be permanent and non-reversible.

Medium Moderate change to the value of the receptor. Alteration to one or more key elements/features/ characteristics that contribute to value. The duration of this impact may be semi-permanent and partially reversible.

Low Minor change to the value of the receptor. Minor alteration to one or more elements/features/ characteristics that contribute to value. The duration of this impact may be temporary and reversible.

Scale of Effect Criteria

1.75 Impacts have been assessed on the basis of the sensitivity of receptors against the magnitude of impact to determine the scale of effect as presented in Table 1.6.

1.76 It is confirmed that where the scale of effect has ‘/’ this is a category in and of itself, and does not imply a range or a value which is either/or.

Table 1.6:

of Effect Criteria

Magnitude of Impact Sensitivity of Receptors

Low Medium High

Nil None None None

Very Low Negligible Negligible Negligible/Minor

Low Minor Minor/Moderate Moderate

Medium Minor/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Major

High Moderate Moderate/Major Major

1.77 The description of each scale of effect is presented in Table 1.7 and is based on professional judgement.

1.78 On this basis, moderate, moderate/major and major effects are considered significant in EIA terms.

1.79 In determining the significance of reported effects, consideration has been given to the type of effect i.e. direct, indirect or secondary, the geographical extent of the effect and the duration of the effect i.e. temporary which is considered to be either short-term (up to five years) or medium-term (5-10 years) or permanent (10 years or more).

Table 1.7:

of Effects Description

Scale of Effect Description

Major The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a very significant effect.

Moderate/Major The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a very significant effect.

Moderate The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a significant effect.

Minor/Moderate The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to an effect, but this would not be significant.

Minor The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to an effect, but this would not be significant.

Negligible/Minor The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a discernible effect. This would not be significant.

Negligible The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would give rise to a barely discernible effect. This would not be significant.

None The change resulting from the impact of the Proposed Development upon the heritage value of the receptor would have no effect.

Nature of Effect Criteria

1.80 The nature of the effect has been described as either adverse, neutral or beneficial as follows:

• Beneficial – An advantageous effect to a receptor;

• Neutral – An effect that on balance, is neither beneficial nor adverse to a receptor or is equally beneficia and adverse to a receptor; or

• Adverse – A detrimental effect to a receptor.

Assumptions and Limitations

1.81 The assessment has relied on data provided by HE, the GLHER and local planning authorities. It has been assumed that these data sets have been reported correctly and this is appropriate because it is those bodies who are responsible for maintaining lists and data for heritage receptors.

1.82 The cumulative is an assessment of the likely effects of the Proposed Development in the context of the cumulative schemes. It assumes that all cumulative schemes are of high quality because they have been approved or submitted following a period of design development in consultation with LBHF or RBKC officers (or the relevant LPA officers where cumulative schemes are located outside of the LBHF or RBKC).

Baseline Conditions Existing Baseline

1.83 The built heritage baseline comprises the historical development of the Site and surrounding study area, as well as the individual designated and non-designated heritage receptors.

Historical Development

1.84 The historical development of the site and surrounding study area is described in detail at HIA Section 4.0 (ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1). It has not been repeated in this chapter for the sake of proportionality.

On-Site Heritage Receptors

1.85 The heritage receptors on the Site, as presented in Figure 1.2 (see ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.6), are as follows:

• Earls Court Station, a Grade II listed building (map reference 01.12);

• Philbeach CA (map ref. 01.A);

• Barons Court CA (map ref. 01.F);

• LBD Train Maintenance Shed (map ref. 01.34); and

• 9, Beaumont Avenue (map ref. 01.185).

1.86 The baseline heritage value of the receptors is described in detail in HIA Sections 5.0 and 6.0 in ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1. For completeness, and because the receptors would be directly affected by the Proposed Development, the baseline descriptions are summarised in this chapter. A tabled summary is presented in Table 1.8 of this chapter.

Scale

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.2: On-Site Built Heritage Receptors

Earls Court Station, Grade II Listed Building (RBKC)

1.87 Earls Court Station was designated as a Grade II listed building in November 1984. It is located at the north-east boundary of the RBKC Site and a small part of the listed building falls within the RBKC Site boundary.

Relationship to the RBKC Site

1.88 The Earls Court Station listed building comprises:

• The Edwardian entrance to Earls Court Road;

• The Victorian train shed and platforms between Earls Court Road and Warwick Road;

• The altered interwar (1937) entrance to Warwick Road and associated footbridge; and

• The altered interwar (1937) below-ground pedestrian subway, escalator hall and ticket hall to the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, and associated fire escape building at ground level.

1.89 The extent of listing is represented on Figure 1.3 This shows that the majority of the listed station is excluded from the RBKC Site boundary, including the pedestrian subway and escalator hall which are beneath the RBKC Site.

1.90 The only part of the listed building to be located within the RBKC Site boundary is the small, single storey building that provides a fire escape from the subterranean ticket hall – see Figure 1.4.

History

1.91 The Metropolitan District Railway (‘MDR’) (now the District line) first opened a station at Earls Court in October 1871 when the line was extended between Gloucester Road to West Brompton. The first station was constructed in wood, and it was destroyed by fire in December 1875. The station was replaced on a new site in 1876-8.

1.92 The new station was designed by Sir John Wolfe Barry (1836-1918) and it was an example of the MDR taking a more plain and functional approach to architecture. The station was constructed in white Suffolk brick with island platforms and a train shed over, spanning 29 m. The engineer was T. S. Speck and contractors were Lucas and Aird. The station was ornamented by lamps from Stevens and Sons and ironwork by John Butler and Sons.

1.93 An entrance to the station on Warwick Road was first constructed in 1887. It was a single storey circular building.

1.94 The line was electrified in the early 1900s and the Great Northern Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now the Piccadilly line) connected to the station in 1906. The main station entrance to Earls Court Road was rebuilt at this time, which is extant.

1.95 The 1906 entrance building to Earls Court Road was designed by Harry Wharton Ford (1875-1947) (see Figure 1.5). It is typical of MDR stations, many of which were designed by Ford as the MDR’s architect from 1900 to 1911. It is two storeys and five bays wide, and architectural features include use of terracotta and faience, keyed semi-circular windows to first floor and a balustrade.

1.96 Earls Court Station was the first to have escalators which were installed in 1911 and made by the Otis Elevator Company of New York.

1.97 In 1937, the Warwick Road entrance was rebuilt in a Modernist style by Stanley A. Heaps and this is the foundation of extant building – see Figure 1.6

1.98 At this time, Heaps added a pedestrian subway and escalator shaft which travelled from Earls Court Station beneath Warwick Road into the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, which had also opened in 1937, and an above-ground structure replacing an earlier footbridge from the platforms to the Warwick Road entrance. The booking halls, subways and other new works by Heaps were finished in cream faience tiles with bright blue banding.

1.99 The escalator hall into the Exhibition Centre site is described in the list entry description as “one of the best surviving escalator halls on the underground system, with bronze uplighters”. It is noted that the subway and escalator hall are

currently not in use, and there were various works to modernise and make safe the access route during its operation, particularly in the 1990s. This included the replacement of the wooden escalator treads following the fire at King’s Cross underground station in 1987.

1.100 The Warwick Road entrance was extended by two storeys in the 1960s and a glazed rotunda was added in the 1970s. It is understood that the ticket hall associated with the 1937 tunnel and escalators to the Earls Court Exhibition Centre was subject to a refit in the 1980s or 1990s which removed the 1930s character in this part of the station.

Heritage Value

1.101 The heritage value of Earls Court Station is derived from the historic and architectural interest of the surviving late Victorian station structure by the MDR and the later alterations by Ford and Heaps which have architectural and artistic interest. The alterations to the original station are also interesting as representative of the evolution in the function of the station and its role in this part of west London. The 1960s and 1970s alterations to the Warwick Road entrance have no historic or architectural interest and they have diminished the legibility original interwar design, which was a single storey.

1.102 The interwar pedestrian subway and escalator hall that connected the station to the exhibition centre are considered specifically because of the relationship to the RBKC Site boundary. The list entry states this part of the listed building was “one of the best surviving escalator halls on the underground system, with bronze uplighters”, however this should be considered in light of changes since the list entry was written in 1984. In particular, the safety upgrades and remediation work in the 1990s and 2000s have removed or replaced the 1930s fabric (with relevant permissions, it is understood), so the space can no longer be regarded as the best surviving.

1.103 The pedestrian subway and escalators contribute to the historic interest of the listed building as part the Heaps phase of alterations and how the building responded to the changing character of the wider area in the interwar period. There is some remaining architectural interest in the fabric and features, however this is very limited. In the ticket hall, there is no interest because of the refit in the later 20th century. The primary heritage value is found in the Victorian station and Edwardian entrance to Earls Court Road.

1.104 Heritage value: High Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.105 The setting of Earls Court Station is residential, mainly comprising developments from the 19th and early 20th century. There are commercial and retail uses on Earls Court Road immediately opposite the station, which complements the function of the listed building as a transport hub. The surrounding residential townscape contributes positively to the heritage value of the station because it maintains the contemporary historic setting.

1.106 The main entrance is best appreciated from Earls Court Road where one can admire its architecture. Otherwise, the heritage value of the majority of the station is best appreciated from within because the station platforms and belowground parts are not appreciated from the surrounding area. Setting makes no contribution to those parts.

1.107 The only other part which can be appreciated from other setting area is the entrance to Warwick Road, which is best appreciated from Warwick Road.

1.108 On the opposite side of Warwick Road is the former site of the Earls Court Exhibition, which is the Site for the Applications.

1.109 The Site has a historic functional link with the listed building and contributes positively to its heritage value for this reason, however the Site is cleared and the physical connection is no longer used, so the positive setting relationship has been limited by later changes.

1.110 Relevant TVA views: N/A

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.3: Aerial Mark Up of Earls Court Station Showing the Extent of Listing and Site Boundary

Philbeach CA (RBKC)

Heritage Value

1.111 The Philbeach CA was first designated in January 1993 and it was extended in 1997 and 2003. It is located adjacent to the east boundary of the Site.

1.112 The map at Figure 1.2 shows that a very small part of the Philbeach CA falls within the RBKC Site at the south end of Eardley Crescent.

1.113 The part of the CA that falls within the RBKC Site boundary was added to the designation in 2003 to recognise two terraced buildings that dated to 1867-1869. Those terraced buildings have been demolished pursuant to the planning permission for the demolition of the 1960s public house on the corner of Old Brompton Road and Eardley Crescent, The Tournament, and construction of a flat block. The flat block was not built, and the planning permission expired in September 2015.

1.114 Therefore, the contribution that this part of the CA made to its heritage value has been removed and will be replaced with a modern development.

1.115 The larger part of the CA which falls outside of the RBKC Site boundary is made up of the principal roads of Philbeach Crescent and Eardley Crescent which lie on the west side of Warwick Road. Eardley Crescent and Kempsford Gardens were laid out first, in the 1860s and early 1870s, followed by Philbeach Crescent in the later 1870s and 1880s.

1.116 The crescents were developed separately by different developers, although both developments were designed in the Italianate style popular at the time, in pale gault brick with Doric porches and stucco detailing.

1.117 In Philbeach Gardens there is an abrupt stylistic change around halfway along the terrace, as a more English style of Classicism became favoured by the builders in the 1880s, in line with shifting fashions and the growing popularity of the Domestic Revival style. This creates a pleasing contrast of material palette in the streetscene, unified by trees lining the road and a consistency of scale, height and clean parapet lines.

Figure 1.4: Fire Escape Building Which Forms Part of Listed Earls Court Station On-Site

Figure 1.5: Earls Court Station façade to Earls Court Road (Off-Site)

Figure 1.6: Earls Court Station façade to Warwick Road (Off-Site)

1.118 The large communal garden in the centre of Philbeach Gardens and the individual private gardens contribute to the heritage value of the CA through the aesthetic contribution as well as an understanding of historic ideas around clean air and health (Figure 1.9)

1.119 The generally homogenous character of the CA both in terms of plan form and architecture is complemented by occasional diversions in architectural style, such as the aforementioned switch in design implemented in the 1880s as well as the presence of breaks in the building line, such as at the Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias on Philbeach Gardens.

1.120 The individual façade detailing to the houses contributes to the overall heritage value of the CA. This includes stucco dressings, iron railings and tiling. Rear elevations are characteristically plainer than the frontages but also contribute to the character and appearance of the CA. Original features such as closet wings, chimneys and verandas can be glimpsed from public vantage points as well as from the communal garden and other private locations.

1.121 The heritage value of the CA is derived from the historic and architectural interest of the original street pattern which created crescents to work within the earlier railway lines. The Victorian residential development is attractive and the church on Philbeach Gardens is a landmark building. There is an awareness of modern development, including postwar infill and buildings in its wider setting that are visible or experienced in the context of the historic townscape.

1.122 The heritage value of the CA is best appreciated in views along Philbeach Gardens (see TVA views 25, 26, A13, A14 and A15) (see Figure 1.8), Eardley Crescent (see TVA views 28 and A16) and Kempsford Gardens, as well as 360 degree views from within the communal garden. Views into the CA can also be obtained from the axial streets on the other side of Warwick Road (see TVA views 21 and 23). Generally, the CA is experienced without urbanising external influences, however, the Empress State Building can be seen above the parapet line from some locations, including views into the CA from Penywern Road (see View 29). Figure 4.1 (reproduced at Figure 1.7) from the CA Appraisal illustrates important views and landmark buildings.

1.123 Heritage value: Medium

1.124 Relevant TVA views: 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, A13, A14, A15, A16

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.125 The CA is experienced in the context of other CAs that represent the interest of 19th century residential development, such as Nevern Square CA and Earl’s Court Square CA. This context contributes to the understanding of the historic context of development in the CA. Eardley Crescent and Kempsford Gardens terminate opposite Brompton Cemetery to the south. Views of the cemetery from the CA are pleasant and the verdant character of the cemetery provides a complementary setting for the CA to the south.

1.126 The leafy environment contributes significantly to the interest of the CA and creates a strong sense of enclosure. Breaks in the building lines provide relief and enable views through and across the CA.

1.127 The Site separates the CA into two halves. This is a historic legacy owing to the trajectory of the Metropolitan District Railway. The crescents are inward facing and back onto the Site. There is no direct orientation to the Site from the CA. There is a historic functional link between the Site and the CA, as the configuration of the railway line within the Site dictated the crescent form of street layout. The crescent form creates the special identity of the CA and sense of tranquillity in contrast to the main road.

1.128 The Appraisal has the following description of the setting of the CA:

1.11 Philbeach Conservation Area is situated in Earl’s Court Ward and in postcode SW5. The conservation area has an unfortunate setting from the north. It is harshly bound by the very busy Cromwell Road which has six traffic lanes and some huge advert hoardings as well as several large and unattractive modern buildings in view, although these are mitigated by large trees to a certain extent.

1.12 Brompton Cemetery forms a charming part of the setting to the south with the gates and trees being seen from the conservation area. Kramer Mews cuts into the conservation area creating an area that is clearly smaller and less grand in terms of architecture. The Empress State Building on Lillie Road can be seen above rooflines in several parts of the conservation area.

1.13 To the east and north there are further Victorian terraced houses forming a continuous urban environment with a garden square (Nevern Square), trees, mansion flats and Italianate terraces.

1.14 Part of the setting for the time being is formed by the former Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre development site, for which a major scheme of housing was approved by the council in 2013. This site bisects the conservation area in much the same way that the railways did originally.

Figure 1.7: Views Map from Draft Philbeach Conservation Area Appraisal (Figure 4.1) (Source: RBKC)

Barons Court Conservation Area (LBHF)

Heritage Value

1.129 The Barons Court CA was first designated in 1998 and extended in 2004 and 2005. It is subject to a CA Character Profile which was adopted by LBHF in 2005.

1.130 The Barons Court CA is located at the north-west boundary of the Site and covers a large area, with a small portion of the Site in the far north-west corner falling within the CA designation. The part of the CA within the LBHF Site comprises:

• Nos. 175-177b North End Road; and

• approximately 76 m of the frontage to West Cromwell Road on the north side of the railway line from the rear of the Famous Three Kings public house. This is currently scrubland.

1.131 The CA is large in size and spans a distance of approximately 975 m at its widest point. It is bounded to the north by the railway line, to the east and west by an irregular boundary running along residential streets and to the south by the Queen’s Club Gardens CA.

1.132 The CA recognises the historical and architectural interest of Victorian speculative development within the area, typically dating to the mid-late 19th century and which varies in form and style across the designation.

1.133 The character and appearance of the CA is defined by its predominant residential use formed of terraced housing on an irregular street pattern, a number of which are statutorily listed.

1.134 The CA Character Profile identifies three sub-areas which help to distinguish areas of particularly similar character. The sub-areas can be summarised as follows:

• Sub Area A: Talgarth Road and Barons Court Station – characterised by mixed use development, much of which is Victorian and remains in its original form, including terraced housing, fine art studios and the premises of the former Royal Ballet School. This sub-area also includes the Grade II listed Barons Court Station designed by Harry Wharton Ford and built in 1905;

• Sub Area B: Hammersmith Cemetery and the terraced residential development – characterised by the open space of Hammersmith cemetery which provides an unusual open aspect within a dense urban area and which is surrounded by Victorian terraced development dating from the mid and late 19th century, laid out in a grid formation, and as represented by View B15. This area also includes some instances of post-war infill development;

• Sub Area C: Lanfrey Place, Beaumont Crescent and North End Road – characterised as the oldest developed area within the CA comprised predominantly of small scale early Victorian properties with later red brick mansion blocks and late-Victorian stuccoed terraces.

1.135 The buildings within Barons Court CA are mixed in scale across these sub-areas but typically remain at three to four storeys and vary in form from small mews cottages to grand stuccoed terraced properties and large mansion blocks. Overall, it is a well-preserved area of Victorian speculative development.

1.136 The part of the CA that falls within the LBHF Site boundary forms part of Sub-Area C. The terraced development at Nos. 175-177b North End Road make a limited contribution to the character of the CA because of the heavy alteration which has removed any historic character they many have once possessed. It is considered they are included in the CA for framing the block with the station and the traditional scale with active frontages. Similarly, the scrubland on West Cromwell Road is a buffer to the railway line and makes no particular contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

1.137 Heritage value: Medium

1.138 Relevant TVA views: 46, 47, 48, A30, B15, B16, B17

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.139 The setting of the Barons Court CA is mixed in character. To the north the railway line, the heavily trafficked thoroughfare of West Cromwell Road creates a jarring contrast to the quieter residential streets of the CA. To the east the CA is bounded by the large expanse of the Site in its current unused and mostly cleared state. The extant buildings on the Site, namely the tall building of Ashfield House in the north-west corner, can be seen in glimpsed views from the CA in axial roads that align with the Site such as along Comergah Road looking east, as represented by TVA view 47 (as shown in Figure 1.10)

1.140 These aspects of setting make no contribution to the heritage value of the CA.

Figure 1.8: Existing TVA View A16

Figure 1.9: Existing View from Philbeach Conservation Area Residents Garden

Volume 2: Built Heritage, Townscape and Visual

1.141 To the south and west the CA is bounded by further Victorian speculative development of a similar form and style which contributes to the CA’s heritage value to a small degree in placing it within the wider Victorian development of the area.

1.142 Relevant TVA views: 46, 47 (Figure 1.10), A30, B15, B16, B17

1.143 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is located in the north half of the Site, within the Lillie Bridge Depot, and approximately 160 m south of West Cromwell Road, as shown in Figure 1.11 The building is not in a CA and it is not locally listed. For the purposes of this assessment it is considered a non-designated heritage receptor because of its low architectural and historic interest

1.144 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed was originally constructed as a train depot building in 1871 when there was an extension to the Metropolitan line at Earls Court. The original architect is unknown, but it was likely to be constructed to the designs of an engineer working for the railway company. The building was strictly made to serve utilitarian purposes and therefore contains minimal ornamentation or architectural quality. The building is a standard design for the period and has been considerably altered.

1.145 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is a cast iron frame constructed from standardised parts and materials, with an austere brick façade. The brick facades are divided proportionally between each bay, defined by windows. The definition is further accentuated by protruding brick piers which visually carry the roof structure across the otherwise plain elevations. The elevations have 22 bays with windows in gauged brick arches. There is a large gable roof with elements of light sandstone dressings. The central lights within the gable are now infilled with brick. The roof of the depot is corrugated steel, illustrating the industrial use of the building.

1.146 The building was subject to considerable alterations over the 20th century and approximately seventy percent of its original size has been lost and very little original fabric remains. The roof structure is believed to have been entirely replaced.

1.147 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed has a very low degree of interest through its Edwardian ornamentation and industrial history which relates more widely to the industrial railway presence in the area. A very low degree of interest is also derived from the building’s age, though quite how much of the original structure remains is not clear. It has a very low degree of historic interest in its relation to the Metropolitan Railway, its expansion westwards, and being synonymous with London’s growing population of this time. This does, however, mean that many buildings of this type were constructed during this period and it is not a special example. The LBD Train Maintenance Shed, proportionally, played a very limited role in this expansion and was not integral to the railway’s success.

1.148 Heritage value: Very Low Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.149 The building is currently experienced within the context of the cleared Site. Some minor heritage value is derived from the surrounding railway infrastructure which relates to the building’s historic use and helps to contextualise the LBD

Figure 1.10: Existing TVA View 47 Comergah Road

LBD Train Maintenance Shed, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Heritage Value

Figure 1.11: LBD Train Maintenance Shed, 2023

Train Maintenance Shed within the wider industrial history of the local area but the setting of the building has changed substantially over its lifespan and its heritage value is predominantly derived from its low intrinsic architectural and historic interest.

1.150 Relevant TVA views: N/A

9 Beaumont Avenue, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Heritage Value

1.151 9, Beaumont Avenue sits within the north-west boundary of the Site approximately 110 m east of North End Road near West Kensington station (see Figure 1.12). The building is not statutorily or locally listed and is not in a CA. For purposes of this assessment, it is considered to be a non-designated heritage receptor because of its low architectural and historic interest.

1.152 9, Beaumont Avenue comprises two linked buildings dating from approximately 1883 and 1961 which have been much altered. This comprises a former artist’s studio and metal foundry built in the late 19th century at the rear (east) of the Site, and the former Fulham Imperial Laundry building, built in approximately 1961. They are located at the east end of Beaumont Avenue.

1.153 The older east range has been much altered subsequently and is of brick construction. Roofs are generally of corrugated steel and hipped. This part of the building ranges from one to three storeys in height.

1.154 The west range dates to approximately 1961 and has been altered at various times since. It is of simple brick and steel construction. It ranges from one to three storeys in height. In plan, it is made up of a series of oblong ranges set on an east-west axis, in the centre of the building, with a number of linked structures to the east and a single entrance and office building forming the west entrance (a later addition). It is of simple, utilitarian design.

1.155 The building was expanded and altered over a number of years as a result of change in occupiers. The building does not represent a particular historical typology. Its architecture is plain and does not eloquently reflect the use it was originally built for, and the building has mutated architecturally as the uses have changed over time.

1.156 Heritage value: Very Low

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.157 The setting of 9, Beaumont Avenue has changed substantially over the course of its existence and it is currently experienced within a residential enclave of mansion blocks to the west and hardstanding and industrial structures relating to the railway lines in the east. The setting does not make any contribution to the heritage value of this receptor. The wider Site also makes no contribution to the heritage value of this receptor.

1.158 Relevant TVA views: N/A

Off-Site Heritage Receptors

1.159 The heritage receptors in the study area are located on the nine maps at Figures 1.13-1.21 – see also ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.6.

1.160 The heritage interest of the receptors in the study area is described at Section 5.0 (for receptors in RBKC) and Section 6.0 (for receptors LBHF) of ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1. A summary of the heritage value of each receptor is set out in Table 1.8 of this chapter.

1.161 The baseline descriptions for the heritage receptors that are likely to experience significant effects or have been main considerations to the design of the Proposed Development are reproduced here for completeness. They are:

• Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias, Grade I listed building (RBKC);

• Brompton Cemetery RPG, Grade I RPG (RBKC);

• Brompton Cemetery CA (RBKC);

• Nevern Square CA (RBKC);

• Earl's Court Square CA (RBKC);

• Olympia and Avonmore CA (LBHF); and

• Queen's Club Gardens CA (LBHF).

Figure 1.12: 9, Beaumont Avenue, 2016

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.13: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Short Distance (within 500 m) – Plan 01

1620010725

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.14: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Mid-Distance (500 m – 1 km) – Plan 02

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.15: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Long-Distance (1 km – 1.5 km) – Plan 03

Figure 1.16: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Old Oak Common – Plan 04 (No Receptors Scoped In) (For High Resolution Please Refer to Technical Appendix 1.6)

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.17: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Stamford Brook – Plan 05

Figure 1.18: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Barnes Quadrant – Plan 06

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.19: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Battersea Park and Grounds – Plan 07

1620010725

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.20: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Putney/Wandsworth Riverside – Plan 08

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.21: Off-Site Heritage Receptors – Kensington Palace – Plan 09

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias, Grade I Listed Building (RBKC)

Heritage Value

1.162 The Church of St Cuthbert at St Matthias is Grade I listed and was first designated in 1969. The list entry was amended in September 2014. The church is located on Philbeach Gardens, approximately 30 m east of the Site boundary at the nearest point.

1.163 The church was built in 1884-7 to designs by Hugh Roumieu Gough, with later additions. It is red brick with Bath stone dressings, a slate roof and a modest crocketed spire. It has a particularly ornate and lavish interior which takes Reference from a number of medieval buildings including Tintern Abbey in Monmouthshire.

1.164 The church has historic interest as part of a planned residential development, demonstrating the 19th century interest in providing sites for religious buildings, so reflecting the cultural history of the period. The placement of the chancel, the liturgical focus of the church, at the east end reflects the strict cardinal orientation of Anglican worship. This means the interior of the church is not approached in the usual way (that is through the west entrance). This circumstance occurs in many town churches.

1.165 The church has architectural interest as a highly regarded example of High Victorian design, in particular its interior which is ornate and employs materials of very high quality. Indeed, the heritage value of the building derives mainly from its interior, on account of which its grading was increased to Grade I. The long and singular proportions of the nave, with the use of a slender fleche to mark the liturgical arrangement (separation of nave and chancel) produces a recognisable silhouette from certain locations.

1.166 The lavish interior is the result of artistic applications by multiple generations, including metalwork by William Bainbridge Reynolds and architect Ernest Geldart who contributed the reredos (Figure 1.22)

1.167 Externally, the architectural embellishment of the east end or main elevation, distinguished by an elaborate chancel window and strong, vertical proportions, which are accentuated by corner spirelets, contribute to the distinctive main elevation of the church. The clerestory windows and roof are visible on the north and south elevations. The use of brick is characteristic of town churches from this period too and reflects interiors in Continental medieval architecture (in particular the polychromatic architecture of Tuscany)

1.168 The juxtaposition of Gothic with other styles characteristic of the period, and used for residential buildings, demonstrates the eclecticism of late Victorian urban design.

1.169 This takes place in a crescent form, a town planning device which is a survival of Georgian forms, demonstrating the continuity of residential architectural design over nearly a century and which is particularly British, deriving ultimately from the later Georgian crescents on the upper slopes of the City of Bath.

1.170 The church was damaged during the Second World War, including loss of Kempe’s stained glass. Subsequently the bellcote was removed and nave pews removed.

1.171 Heritage value: Very High Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.172 The church is located on the west side of Philbeach Gardens within the Philbeach CA, sandwiched between Victorian terraces and surrounded by mature trees. The church entrance is accessed from the Philbeach Gardens limb that runs along the north side of the church and forms a through-route with Cluny Mews. The entrance sequence to the church includes the Grade II listed St Cuthbert’s Clergy House adjacent, through which the church is accessed, forming an attractive grouping nestled behind the formal Victorian terraces on the crescent. The more intricate planform of the clergy house and its refined external detailing complements the plainer and stockier north elevation of the church.

1.173 An element of the building’s heritage value does derive from its setting, namely its incorporation into a residential town planning scheme which falls within a CA. The style of the building seen in context likewise contributes to an appreciation of its distinctive forms (by contrast, accentuating its medieval character).

1.174 Part of the heritage value of this planned ensemble results from the presence of mature plane trees which were probably planted when the crescent was laid out in the late 19th century.

1.175 The trees combine with the crescent form to create an attractive and layered scene that changes as one moves along it, enabling changing perspectives and the interaction of buildings with landscape, which is attractive. The trees likewise create a spatially layered scene and setting for the houses, reinforcing their residential use (by reason of their

amenity value). This kinetic sequence is reflected in views scoped into the TVA and modelled in the AVRs. The relevant views are A13, 25 and 26 (moving south along Philbeach Gardens from the north junction with Warwick Road) and View A15 which faces directly along the close towards the Clergy House (see also separate assessment below). View B3 faces the church from the south-east/south-east.

1.176 The church has an enclosed immediate setting, owing to its apsidal location on the crescent and the effect of the Plane trees. It is best experienced in immediate views from Philbeach Gardens, in conjunction with the terraces which flank its east end and the Clergy House which extends from its west end.

1.177 The Site is located to the rear (west) of the church. There is no interconnectivity between the church and the Site due to the interposing railway infrastructure. Historically, the Site developed separately to Philbeach Gardens and despite its proximity there is no functional link between the church and the Site. It does not contribute to the heritage value of the listed building.

1.178 The listed building has been scoped into assessment due to its proximity to the Site and the incidental intervisibility between Philbeach Gardens and the Site.

1.179 Relevant TVA views: 25, 26 (Figure 1.24), A13, A15, B3

Figure 1.22: Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias – Interior

Brompton Cemetery, Grade I Registered Park and Garden (RBKC)

Heritage Value

1.180 Brompton Cemetery is a Grade I RPG and was first designated in September 1987. It is located approximately 20 m south-east of the Site at the nearest point and covers an area of 16 ha between Old Brompton Road and Fulham Road.

1.181 The historical development of the Cemetery is described at Section 4.0 and is not repeated here. In summary, the RPG is a mid-19th century public cemetery designed by architect Benjamin B. Baud. Baud won a competition to design the Cemetery and also designed several of the buildings within the Cemetery. Baud is a relatively obscure architect, but it is noted that he worked on the rebuilding of Windsor Castle with Jeffry Wyatville between 1826-1840.

1.182 The heritage value of Brompton Cemetery may be described as follows.

Historic interest

1.183 Brompton Cemetery is of high historic interest for the following reasons:

• It is one of the most elaborate and impressive of the first wave of private cemeteries in London, reflecting the arrival of the privately funded garden cemetery inspired by the model of Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.

• It was one of the first of the new cemetery companies (seven in all established in London by the 1840s) to meet the needs of an expanding metropolis, replacing churchyard burials with planned environments.

• In its architectural design and layout it reflects the ambition of early Victorian society in creating burial places for its dead, centred around an Anglican chapel (the Church of England Chapel, Grade II* listed) which was highly unusual in its classical design and relationship with other buildings, with an unmatched formal symmetry.

• It embodies emerging Victorian approaches to different sorts of burial, from traditional earth burials to extravagant catacomb burial: while they were not the earliest such buildings, they remain the largest such structures in any British cemetery.

• It’s superb series of monuments, ranging from the 1840s to the mid-20th century, constitutes one of the best groups in any British cemetery, placed within a deliberately conceived landscape setting, and which provide many insights into London society of the 19th and 20th centuries.

• It’s singular history, which involved the failure of the original company and its acquisition by the Government, making it the only state-owned garden cemetery of its day.

1.184 The cemetery also has ecological and natural value, reflected in its designation as a site of local nature conservation value.

1.185 The proliferation of memorials within the great circle particularly is a departure from the original scheme and reflects population growth and associated urban development beyond what was anticipated. The use of land, which was otherwise set aside for landscape and architectural reasons, for burials, reflects these developments in the wider city graphically.

1.186 Following a period of closure for new burials, the cemetery is open for burials once again.

Architectural Interest (Including its Landscape Value)

1.187 Brompton Cemetery is architecturally significant (including in relation to layout and landscape) for the following reasons.

• For its overall architectural character, of a form unmatched by any other British cemetery, and reflected in its high grading.

• For the Grade II* listed Church of England Chapel, which was designed by Baud to a high degree of finish and which, unusually, drew on Italian Renaissance sources rather than the more conventional Neo-classical or Gothic Revival forms; the location of the chapel, along the central axis flanked by the catacombs, endows it with great presence particularly in views from the north.

• For the remarkable flanking ranges of colonnades and catacombs flanking the chapel, which combine traditional cloisters with the emerging category of the subterranean burial complex, in a singular plan form and which sport fine funeral cast iron grilles: cumulatively these create a fine architectural group at the heart of the cemetery.

• For the monumental entrance gateway and screen on the Old Brompton Road (Grade II* listed, see separate entry), which is a particularly imposing example of the genre which creates a memorable approach to the cemetery, enhanced by trees.

Figure 1.23: Historic Photograph of Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias from North-East on Philbeach Gardens

Figure 1.24: TVA View 26

• For the very high interest of the monuments, as reflected in the listed status of 28 individual tombs (one at Grade II*: the Leyland sarcophagus by Burne-Jones). These range from the sculpturally significant to the symbolically singular, and constitute one of the best collections of memorials in any British cemetery.

• These structures include great lengths of substantial brick boundary walls, creating physical security and providing a seemly and enclosed environment for the commemorative and religious purposes of the landscape.

• The plan form of the cemetery departs from the picturesque arrangement and organisation of the other historically important cemeteries in London of this period. Brompton Cemetery has a symmetrical plan about a single, long central avenue, that stretches from the entrance to the entrance of the Church of England Chapel. The great circles are symmetrical mainly.

Layout: Hierarchy and Experience

1.188 There is a difference in hierarchy and intention as between the main approach from the north and the contrasting arrangements to the south.

1.189 The former, from the north, is clearly the status axis, the view terminating in the chapel and great circle (Figure 1.26)

1.190 The approach from the south is not axial, skirting around the Church of England Chapel, and the entrance gate in the distance has no real presence because of the closely spaced trees along the north half of the avenue.

1.191 The architectural conceit, therefore, is theatrical, and redolent to some extent of country house design: a grand gate, a tree lined drive, and then a sudden reveal of an architectural composition appreciated over a defined distance.

1.192 The walk from south to north, which is the view affected by the Proposed Development, is not theatrically constructed, and so of lesser design and landscape interest.

1.193 Given the strong alignments in the cemetery, the defined use and well-marked boundaries, the cemetery has an enclosed quality. Views within it follow the axes and routes in the plan.

1.194 The land between the great circles and the start of the lime avenue was meant to be enclosed by more lime trees, which would have enclosed the view. Thus, the open character of that axial view today, in its middle range, is not as originally intended and undermines the cohesiveness of the design’s intended integration of architecture and landscape. Thus, the design concept looking north from the chapel is not as intended.

Summary

1.195 Heritage value: Very High

1.196 Relevant TVA views: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, A5, A6, A7, B4

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.197 Originally the cemetery setting comprised open land (market gardens, for example, typical of urban fringe areas) and the Kensington Canal. The cemetery boundary was, and still is, well defined and secure, and the edges planted. There is no indication that there was any planned view out from it, over rural land, exploiting that setting for aesthetic purposes It was self-contained: a place for inward reflection.

1.198 By the 1860s that rural setting began to be transformed, through relatively dense terraced housing and the railway (replacing the canal).

1.199 In the 20th century there was further change, particularly on the west side – the construction of Lillie Square, for example, and the Stamford Bridge football ground. Beyond the Church of England Chapel, the chimneys of Lots Road Power Station can be discerned, and now the pair of residential towers, along with an earlier generation of tower development and more recent tall development. On the west side, to the north, the treeline is punctuated by the Empress State Building and for many years the old exhibition centre was a notable feature on the skyline.

1.200 Thus, the cemetery’s setting is much changed. The increased urbanisation of its setting and the physical manifestation of which has resulted in a direct impact to the character of Brompton Cemetery and the way the land itself is used for leisure (essentially it is used more intensively than it was originally). The proximity to Stamford Bridge means the cemetery is often used as a through-route on match days, and it is also used for commuting purposes. It is used as a place to walk and dwell as one of the principal green spaces in the area. As a result of the urban setting and the way in which the cemetery is used by visitors and local residents / commuters, the cemetery does not have a tranquil character, but rather one defined by movement.

1.201 Trees within the Cemetery maintain a sense of physical enclosure from the surrounding areas. Notwithstanding, the character of the Cemetery as a place for inward reflection is not affected by changes to built form within its setting. From its inception, the Cemetery has been a place well-defined from its surroundings.

1.202 The Cemetery has a strong axial arrangement and the primary, designed view looks north to south towards the Chapel. The Site is located north of the Cemetery and would not appear in that primary view.

Figure 1.25: Aerial Photograph of Brompton Cemetery

Figure 1.26: Photograph of the Primary View (North to South) on the Central Axis to the Church of England Chapel Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area (RBKC)

Heritage Value

1.203 Brompton Cemetery CA was designated in 1985. It is located approximately 20 m south-east of the Site at the nearest point and covers an area of 16 ha between Old Brompton Road and Fulham Road. This assessment has had regard to the adopted Brompton Cemetery CA Proposals Statement (1999) and the draft Brompton Cemetery CA Appraisal (2017)

1.204 The extent of the CA is coterminous with the boundaries of Brompton Cemetery RPG. The intrinsic heritage value of the RPG (i e not in relation to contribution made by setting) is assessed above under the heading Brompton Cemetery (map ref. 01.H) and is not repeated here. A separate analysis of the contribution made by setting to the heritage value of the CA is provided below.

1.205 Heritage value: Very High

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.206 The adopted 1999 Appraisal does not make specific comments on the contribution that setting makes to heritage value of the cemetery.

1.207 The draft 2017 Appraisal does, however, consider contemplate the setting of the receptor. Whilst this document is not adopted, it was prepared by the RBKC and provides an informed analysis.

1.208 It does not say how the current setting contributes to the heritage value of the receptor. It does identify larger modern structures as detracting from the setting, for example, at paragraph 2.46 it states:

“Stamford Bridge football stadium is located close to the south western corner of the cemetery and can be seen in many views in a south westerly direction and is particularly with its looming presence and uncompromisingly modern and functional appearance which is seen in views of the Arcades and Church of England Chapel.”

1.209 This analysis continues at paragraphs 2.47-2.49:

“At the northern end of the cemetery on the western boundary, adjacent to West Brompton Station, is no. 289 Old Brompton Road, a substation and office block that was built in the late 1940s by the Central London Electricity Company. This monolithic building also has a looming presence and is seen in many views looking out of the cemetery.

Also situated 300 metres north-west beyond the substation is the Empress State Building that was built between 19581961. This was refurbished and an additional two storeys added to its height in 2003, increasing its presence. The resultant building is also seen in many views looking north west from within the cemetery rising up above the canopies of the trees and impacting on the cemetery’s setting.

Recent tower block developments in Chelsea Creek and across the Thames in Wandsworth have also had little regard to the setting of the Church of England Chapel. The new tower blocks currently being constructed are now seen in the back drop to the chapel creating a cluttered skyline of which the chapel’s domed silhouette used to dominate.

The planned views looking south along the Central Avenue towards the Chapel have, as a consequence, been significantly affected.

More recent development is now taking place to the west of the cemetery on land formerly used as a car, coach and lorry park. This covers the area of no. 20 Seagrave Road, Diary House and the electricity substation, Roxby Place. The development will change the outlook from the cemetery significantly in the coming years with 808 new residential units within blocks ranging in height from 8 to 16 storeys along the railway line fronting the cemetery. This will result in the more open outlook to the west being lost and the conservation area appearing more enclosed.”

1.210 And finally at paragraph 2.51:

“Despite the intrusion of later development there are still some areas in the cemetery where the original sense of openness, beyond the confines of the cemetery, can be appreciated, particularly where development has not encroached close to the cemetery boundary or risen higher than the canopies of the trees. This can be appreciated from the more central areas looking out towards more heavily treed screening. The open views make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the cemetery and are present in both static and kinetic views as one moves around.”

1.211 From this, the following can be extrapolated:

• The west side of the cemetery has a much-changed setting, including from development close to its boundary; and

• The skyline of the most important view – looking south – is also much changed as a consequence of more recent development (which is now pronounced due to Lots Road, which is on axis);

• These are deemed to be harmful effects by reason of reducing openness of outlook, producing more ‘enclosure’;

• The CA Appraisal does not explain which aspect of heritage value is undermined. But from the choice of wording – such as ‘looming’ and ‘presence’ – this is surmised to be as a result of:

• The proximity of some of the development (Stamford Bridge football ground and Lillie Square);

• The location of other development in a key view (south to the Church of England Chapel);

• The style or character of some development (Stamford Bridge football ground again as a consequence of engineered trusses);

• Change to skyline and consequent enclosure;

• Prominence leading to distraction from the receptor (lifting the eye from the landscape and buildings); and

• Leading to a significant and, it is implied, harmful impact.

1.212 The draft appraisal does not explain or assess how much harm has arisen from these developments. It also does not explain which aspect of heritage value is affected.

1.213 The assessment of the setting of Brompton Cemetery RPG discusses the influence of the increased urbanisation of its setting, and this is similarly relevant here. The character of the existing setting, including the presence of modern development, can be appreciated in AVRs taken from a number of view locations within the cemetery. These views span a distance of around 450m.

1.214 The location of these views has had regard to important views identified by the RBKC in the draft CA appraisal (see the views map reproduced at Figure 1.27).

1.215 Relevant TVA views: 8, 9, 10, 11, A5, A7, A8, A9, B4

Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

1.216 Nevern Square CA was first designated in May 1985 and extended in 1997. The CA is located approximately 30 m east of the Site at the nearest point.

1.217 This assessment has had regard to the Nevern Square CA Appraisal which was adopted in October 2018.

1.218 The CA comprises a group of roads on the east side of Warwick Road which date to the late 19th century. Architectural typologies vary from Italianate terraces through to Domestic Revival and including mansion flats, the latest development and one that departed from the prevailing height and scale of development hitherto. The differing styles are unified by an overall consistency of scale and proportionality of the buildings.

1.219 The prevailing use is residential, in line with its historic development in the Victorian period. Built form is complemented by greenery and trees within private gardens and squares, including Nevern Square itself. The CA is navigated by local roads which link with the secondary roads to the east and west.

1.220 The CA is of historic interest for its development in conjunction with the wider Earl’s Court area in the late 19th century. It reveals much of the socio-economic history of the area and the way in which it developed, and the changing architectural tastes of the late Victorian period. It is of architectural interest as a holistic piece of town planning with a coherent identity. The variety of architectural detailing provides visual interest, and trees and vegetation add to the aesthetic quality of the area. Its character and appearance is defined by the rhythmic and formal quality of the terraces and the abundance of trees and greenery.

1.221 Figure 4.1 of the CA appraisal is reproduced below at Figure 1.28. It shows key views of the CA, including views into and out of the CA. Townscape gaps enable views through and across the CA, and soften the repetitiveness of the terraces. These views are heavily filtered by mature trees within the CA. Most of the views are contained within the CA and include street views, views across the rear gardens of properties, and views into the CA from Philbeach Gardens CA.

1.222 Heritage value: Medium

1.223 Relevant TVA views: 21, 22 (Figure 1.29), 23, 24 (Figure 1.30), A12

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.224 The CA is surrounded on most sides by other CAs, denoting a high quality of built environment that is broadly contemporary in date to the Nevern Square development. This contributes to the understanding of the historic development in the CA.

1.225 The CA has clear boundaries formed of busy transport thoroughfares, most notably West Cromwell Road to the north. Earls Court Station and the railway line form the south border.

1.226 The Site is located directly adjacent to the CA at the south corner of the CA on Warwick Road. There is no functional or visual connection between the Site and the CA at present but a number of the streets within the CA are oriented towards the Site, including Nevern Square, Longridge Road and Trebovir Road.

Figure 1.27: Views map from Draft Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area Appraisal, Fig 2.2 (source: RBKC)

Nevern

Figure 1.28: Views map from Nevern Square Conservation Area Appraisal, Figure 4.1 Source: RBKC

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.29: TVA View 22 Looking Across Nevern Square

Figure 1.30: TVA View 24 from Trebivor Road in Nevern Square Conservation Area

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

Heritage Value

1.227 Earl’s Court Square CA was first designated in 1975 and has been extended numerous times, most recently in 2002. The CA is located approximately 10 m east of the Site at the nearest point. This assessment has had regard to the Earl’s Court Square CA Appraisal, adopted June 2016.

1.228 The CA is characterised by Victorian residential terraces, mansion blocks and semi-detached houses set on a grid of roads with Earl’s Court Square forming the epicentre. Buildings are generally low-rise and the CA has a consistent scale (with the exception of Grade II listed 30-52 Earls Court Square, which are of lower scale). Most of the area was developed in the 1870s.

1.229 The strong rhythmic form of the buildings is complemented by mature trees and greenery. Buildings are generally stock brick and stucco, with the later buildings at the south of the CA built of red brick. Decorative stucco is a feature throughout the CA and adds to the quality of the architecture and the rhythm of the facades.

1.230 The CA is experienced in kinetic views when travelling through the area, as well as in views from outside the CA, such as from roads such as Barkston Gardens and Bramham Gardens within Courtfield CA to the east, and from Old Brompton Road. In these views, the rhythmic 19th century architecture can be appreciated, filtered by vegetation. Views of the wider areas are limited by the sense of enclosure created by mature trees and building heights.

1.231 Heritage value: Medium

1.232 Relevant TVA views: 29, 30, A17

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.233 The CA is experienced in the context of other CAs that represent the interest of 19th century residential development. This contributes to the understanding of the historic development in the CA and provides an attractive and contextual setting from which to experience the CA.

1.234 The south-west corner of the CA directly adjoins the Site. There are a number of streets within the CA which are oriented towards the Site, such as Penywern Road, and as such there is potential for intervisibility. Views have been scoped from within the CA to better understand this potential impact. The visual scope has also had regard to views identified as important in the CA appraisal and the views map from the appraisal is reproduced at Figure 1.31. Views A17 and 30 from Earl’s Court Square and 29 from Penywern Road correlate with important views identified by the Council.

1.235 The Olympia and Avonmore CA is adjacent to the north boundary of the LBHF Site on the north side of West Cromwell Road. It is bound to the east by the railway line and to the west by an irregular boundary running along Blythe Road, North End Road, Lisgar Terrace and Stanwick Road. It extends north from West Cromwell Road over a distance of approximately 700 m to the Olympia exhibition centre.

1.236 Olympia and Avonmore CA was first designated in 1988 and extended in 1991 and 2002. The CA Character Profile was adopted by LBHF in 2001 and updated in 2010.

1.237 The CA recognises the historical and architectural interest of the historic exhibition halls which comprise the Olympia Estate to the north and the Kensington Village development to the south and includes the highly ornamental Victorian and Edwardian terraced development between them.

1.238 The character and appearance of the CA was established in the 19th century, when the area was transformed by speculative residential development. The first part of the CA to be developed was to the south of Hammersmith Road, but only fragments of the Georgian development survive. The majority of the residential development dates from the mid-late 19th century

Figure 1.31: Views Map from Earls Court Square Conservation Area Appraisal, Figure 5.1 (Source: RBKC) Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (LBHF) Heritage Value

1.239 The Character Profile identifies five sub-areas which help to delineate the various different development styles. The subareas can be summarised as follows:

• Sub Area A: Olympia (Exhibition Centre Site) – large Victorian exhibition halls dating from 1886 with a considerable footprint and scale. The primary historic frontages address Hammersmith Road and Olympia Way;

• Sub Area B: Bishop King’s Road – residential development from the late 18th and early 19th century. Prevailing building height is two-three storeys in exposed brick with stucco dressings. There are some later mansion blocks which increase the height datum;

• Sub Area C: Avonmore/Stanwick Road – residential development comprising highly ornamented Victorian terraces. Cohesive architectural style from a single phase of development. They are generally three or four storey, some with basement accommodation, and are brick built with stucco, stone or moulded detailing;

• Sub Area D: Kensington Village – a large and intact Victorian warehouse complex which is now operated as offices and assessed separately under its locally listed designation below;

• Sub Area E: North End Crescent – a short Victorian terrace of three storey brick buildings.

1.240 The Olympia and Avonmore CA contains a variety of areas including quiet residential streets, mansion blocks, commercial spaces, and primary schools. Buildings vary in scale and use, and its location along a main arterial route helps to define circulation through the area.

1.241 The predominant domestic character of the area is emphasised through the heights of terraces, which typically comprise three to four storeys.

1.242 The heritage value of the CA is derived from its historical and architectural interest as an area of mixed 19th century development which includes the historic structures of the exhibition centre. The original street pattern survives well and the design and materiality of the buildings in the area add to its aesthetic interest and exhibit good examples of Victorian and Edwardian suburban development.

1.243 Heritage value: Medium

1.244 Relevant TVA views: 40, 41, A29, B12 Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.245 The CA is almost entirely surrounded by other CA designations which demonstrate the historical and architectural interest of the wider area and the shared historical development of a large swathe of land subject to Victorian and Edwardian speculative development. The setting therefore makes a positive contribution to the heritage value of the CA.

1.246 The Site forms part of the setting to the south of the CA, terminating views down axial roads orienting towards the Site such as Mornington Avenue, as represented by TVA view 41. West Cromwell Road (the A4) provides a physical barrier which separates the CA from the wider setting to the south. The road infrastructure is considered to make a negative contribution to the heritage value of the CA, and the wider setting to the south is considered neutral: visibility is limited and there is no continuity in the townscape or its historical development.

1.247 The Site is presently seen in TVA views 41 and A29 from within the CA. Views from the south are enclosed by the Ashfield House, commercial slab block which was built as offices.

Figure 1.32: Olympia Exhibition Hall within the Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (Source: Olympia.London)

Figure 1.33: Kensington Village archway along Avonmore Road within the Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (Source: Olympia.London)

Queen’s Club Gardens Conservation Area (LBHF)

Heritage Value

1.248 The Queen’s Club Gardens CA was first designated in 1975 and extended in 1991 and 2004. The CA Character Profile was adopted by LBHF in 2004 and updated in 2005. The CA is located approximately 515 m east of the Site at the nearest point.

1.249 The Queen’s Club Gardens CA abuts the Barons Court CA to the north and the Turneville and Chesson CA to the east. It is bounded to the north by Comeragh Road and the boundary of Hammersmith Cemetery, to the south by Disbrowe Road and Normand Park and to the east and west by irregular boundaries following the rectilinear street pattern of development. The whole scope of the CA falls into the study area.

1.250 The CA Character Profile identifies four sub-areas which help to delineate the various different development styles. The sub-areas can be summarised as follows:

• Sub Area A: Queen’s Club Gardens Group;

• Sub Area B: Musard Road Group;

• Sub Area C: Greyhound Road and St Andrew’s Road Group; and

• Sub Area D: The Queen’s Club and Field Road Group.

1.251 The CA recognises the historical and architectural interest of the historic Queen’s Club sports complex, established in 1886, and the development of the surrounding estate principally comprised of mansion blocks around communal gardens and sports facilities, as represented in TVA views 52 and A31. These are all uniform in architectural style and four to five storeys.

1.252 The CA also includes the surrounding development around Greyhound Road which is more varied in nature, comprising terraces, mansion blocks, a school, pubs, churches, mews and flat blocks. The buildings vary in age and style but all date between the Victorian period and first half of the 20th century.

1.253 Heritage value: Medium

1.254 Relevant TVA views: 50, 51, 51N, 52, A31, A32

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Value

1.255 The setting of the Queen’s Club Gardens CA is mixed in character. To the north and east the CA is bounded by Victorian speculative development encompassed in the Barons Court and the Turneville and Chesson CA designations which contributes to the CA’s heritage value to a degree in placing it within the wider Victorian development of the area. To the south the CA borders onto Normand Park, represented in TVA view 54, which is a pleasant open green space and a positive contributor in the local area. It relates closely to the green space of the Queen’s Park Gardens complex, creating a verdant pocket of residential development and therefore contributes to an extent to the heritage value of the CA. To the west across Field Road the CA faces onto late 20th housing developments which are of limited architectural quality and of which Muscal House is the tallest, standing at 12 storeys. This aspect of the CAs setting makes no contribution to its heritage value

1.256 There is currently no intervisibility or historical or physical relationship between the CA and the Site.

Summary of Heritage Value

1.257 The heritage values are summarised in Table 1.8. The map references are related to Figures 1.2, 1.13-1.21 and the maps at Technical Appendix 1.2.

Table 1.8: Summary of Built Heritage Baseline

Figure 1.34: Existing TVA View A31 Queen’s Club Gardens Central Garden

*Only listed buildings and RPGs are designated using a Grading system.

Future Baseline

1.258 The existing baseline forms the basis of the built heritage assessment, and the future baseline is not relevant.

Sensitive Receptors

1.259 The sensitivity of the identified receptors in Table 1.8 have been identified based on professional judgement, taking into account their susceptibility to the type of change introduced by the Proposed Development.

1.260 A detailed assessment of the susceptibility and sensitivity of the receptors are presented in HIA Section 9.0 (for RBKC) and Section 10.0 (for LBHF) at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1. The explanatory text for the sensitivity of the receptors likely to experience significant effects is reproduced below for completeness. A tabled summary is presented in Table 1.9 of this chapter.

On-Site Heritage Sensitivity

Earls Court Station, Grade II Listed Building (RBKC)

1.261 The heritage value of the receptor is described in the baseline. It is a Grade II listed building. It is identified as having High value for the purposes of the ES.

1.262 A small part of Earls Court Station falls within the Site boundary. This is the emergency exit stair structure which is photographed at Figure 1.4

1.263 The 1937 pedestrian subway tunnel, elevator hall and ticket hall which are below-ground and once provided access between the station and the Earls Court Exhibition Centre are excluded from the Site boundary.

1.264 The Proposed Development does not involve any direct physical works to Earls Court Station and the Applicant is not seeking planning permission or Listed Building Consent for any alteration to this receptor. The emergency exit stair structure would not be demolished or form part of Development Zones J or M. However, the heritage receptor would be located in close proximity to Plot EC16 and beneath Plot EC08 and Warwick Square of the Outline Component. Due to

the outline nature of the Proposed Development, details of demolition and construction works in this part of the Site cannot be confirmed at this stage and will follow as part of Reserved Matters.

1.265 However, as set out at ES Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description in ES Volume 1, the Applicant would seek to avoid harm to the heritage receptor. Taking into account embedded mitigation set out in ES Chapter 5 – including appropriate piling locations; appropriate piling methods (where relevant) and vibration monitoring – direct impacts are not anticipated at this stage.

1.266 In the event that proposals for works to and the use of the listed structure are developed at a later stage, the Applicant will submit applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for those works at which time the detailed proposals would be considered and assessed as necessary.

1.267 Accordingly, no direct impacts or effects are identified for the listed building and no further assessment is undertaken in respect of the pedestrian subway, escalator hall, ticket hall or emergency exit stair structure.

1.268 There would, however, be potential indirect (setting) impacts on the listed station as a result of the Proposed Development and these impacts are assessed here.

1.269 The most significant part of the station are the Earls Court Road entrance and the Victorian station structure. They would be entirely unaffected by the Proposed Development and intervisibility would be limited. The experience of the building as a transport node would likewise be unaffected, and it has been experienced historically in the context of nonresidential uses on the Site (the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre).

1.270 Susceptibility: Low

1.271 Sensitivity: Medium

Philbeach Conservation Area (RBKC)

1.272 The heritage value of the receptor is described in the baseline. It has Medium value for the purpose of the ES.

1.273 A small part of the CA falls within the Site boundary and it would be developed as part of Development Zone A, introducing new built form to the CA. The remaining and larger part of the CA extends north and east on Philbeach Gardens and Eardley Crescent. The CAbounds the Site, and the Proposed Development would transform the immediate setting of the CA to the west. This assessment will consider whether and to what extent visibility of the Proposed Development from within the CA would affect its special interest.

1.274 The heritage value of the CA is intrinsic to its historic development and architectural character which is appreciated in views along the crescents. The Site has had no functional association with land within the CA, and the CA turns its back on the Site. There would be no change to the positive aspects of setting identified in Section 5.0 and the impact would be from intervisibility only.

1.275 Susceptibility: Low

1.276 Sensitivity: Low/Medium

Barons Court Conservation Area (LBHF)

1.277 The heritage value of the receptor is described in the baseline. It has a Medium value for the purposes of the ES.

1.278 A very small part of the CA is located within the LBHF Site boundary, at the north-west corner. The part of the CA within the LBHF Site comprises:

• Nos. 175-177b North End Road; and

• approximately 76 m of the frontage to West Cromwell Road on the north side of the railway line from the rear of the Famous Three Kings public house. This is currently scrubland.

1.279 The remainder and majority of the CA extends west from the Site boundary, up to and including the Margravine Cemetery. For the avoidance of doubt, West Kensington Station and the Famous Three Kings public house are excluded from the LBHF Site boundary.

1.280 There would be direct and indirect (setting) impacts as a result of the Proposed Development. The direct impacts would comprise potential demolition of Nos. 175-177b North End Road and new development in Development Zone Y in the All Phases scenario. It is noted that Development Zone X does not include Nos. 175-177b North End Road and these buildings remain on the parameter plan for Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm.

1.281 Susceptibility: Medium

1.282 Sensitivity: Medium

LBD Train Maintenance Shed, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

1.283 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is a non-designated heritage receptor. The heritage value of the receptor is described in the baseline and it has Very Low value for the purposes of the ES.

1.284 This assessment is required to consider the worst-case scenario and the demolition parameter plans show the nondesignated heritage receptor demolished by the Proposed Development. The receptor is part of the LBHF Outline Component and the aspiration, if possible, is to retain and integrate the building and this would come forward in Reserved Matters.

1.285 Susceptibility: High

1.286 Sensitivity: High

9 Beaumont Avenue, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

1.287 The heritage value of the receptor is described in the baseline. It is identified as having Very Low value for the purposes of the ES.

1.288 This assessment is required to consider the worst-case scenario and the parameter plans show the non-designated heritage receptor demolished by the Proposed Development.

1.289 Susceptibility: High

1.290 Sensitivity: High

Off-Site Heritage Sensitivity

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (RBKC)

1.291 The Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias is a Grade I listed building located adjacent to the north-east boundary of the Site on Philbeach Gardens. The heritage value of the church is described at Section 5.0 and it is identified as having Very High value for the purposes of the ES.

1.292 The church is an excellent example of a High Victorian design, and it is highly graded for the ornate interiors that present a unified interior which is highly coloured with a rich palette derived in many instances by a variety of materials (the term used is ‘permanent polychromy’). The interior is the main reason for the high grading, as made clear in the documentation prepared by Historic England to inform the listing review.

1.293 The church also derives heritage value from the group value with the associated Grade II listed Clergy House, and as part of a planned ensemble with the residential crescent. Together, the Clergy House and church are a pair of buildings with a complementary purpose and style. The group was built to meet the spiritual needs of this part of the parish The mature street trees reinforce the residential character and provide enclosure.

1.294 There was never a historic orientation towards the Site or connectivity between the church and the Site, which was already railway land when the church was built. Indeed, Philbeach Gardens was laid out in response to the geometry of the pre-existing railway lines to the west, a fact that will not be apparent to anyone walking on the street. Therefore, the church turns its back on the Site, and the location to appreciate the church is from the north on Philbeach Gardens. These views of the church are represented by TVA views 25, 26, A13, A15 and B3.

1.295 The Proposed Development would involve no physical works to the church and its intrinsic historical and architectural interest would be wholly unaffected, as would the interest of the Clergy House and the group interaction between the two.

1.296 Furthermore, it was confirmed following a query in the EIA Scoping Opinion (as amended) that there would be no potential for structural impacts arising from groundworks to deliver the development nearest to the church at the northeast boundary of the Site (Zone U/Plot EC19). It is noted that the land to the north of Plot EC19 and immediately opposite the west elevation of the church would not be built on, and this would comprise the Northern Access Road.

1.297 This assessment therefore considers the effect on the special interest church arising from the visibility of the Proposed Development in its setting, and particularly the views from the north on Philbeach Gardens which offer the best opportunity to appreciate the church in its important setting (the crescent).

1.298 Susceptibility: Medium

1.299 Sensitivity: Medium/High Brompton Cemetery RPG (RBKC)

1.300 Brompton Cemetery is a Grade I RPG. Its heritage value is described in the baseline. It is identified as having Very High value for the purposes of the ES.

1.301 The Cemetery is located near to the south-east corner of the Site and it covers a large area, 16 ha, between Old Brompton Road and Fulham Road.

1.302 The Proposed Development would not involve any development within the RPG or direct physical change to it. This assessment therefore considers whether and to what extent the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of the RPG would be affected by the Proposed Development.

1.303 The heritage receptor is a large, commemorative landscape and its original use and function is well-defined by its layout and the buildings and features within it. Section 5.0 describes how its setting does not contribute to an understanding or appreciation of its heritage value, where all of its heritage value (which has many aspects; historical, aesthetic and architectural) are found within it.

1.304 The heritage receptor is inward-looking and, indeed, downward-looking: the focus is on the monuments, tombs, landscape layout and buildings.

1.305 The surrounding context for the RPG has changed materially over time. The area has urbanised, and the change is marked to the west, where a canal was replaced by a railway line and there has been redevelopment including mid-rise residential buildings, and to the south where there is the Stamford Bridge stadium and tall buildings along the River Thames are visible.

1.306 The Cemetery is along most of its boundaries well-contained by trees which reinforce the landscape quality and provide a sense of privacy.

1.307 It is recognised that many people use the Cemetery for recreation, and it is a well-used permissive way between Fulham Road and Old Brompton Road. The amenity and functional use of the Cemetery is separate heritage values.

1.308 The Proposed Development would transform the vacant former exhibition centre Site which lies to the north-west of the Cemetery and so create a new neighbourhood residential and commercial uses, cultural uses and buildings of varying heights and styles.

1.309 The height and scale of the Proposed Development means that it would be visible from within the RPG, producing an indirect or setting effect from the intensification of the number and scale of structures which are visible out from it on this west side, and looking north.

1.310 The views looking north along the central axis of the Cemetery have been one of the main considerations to the location of tall buildings and refinement of the massing. At an early stage in the process, an important test view was from the Church of England Chapel and across the Site – see Section 8.0 of ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1

1.311 Based on pre-application consultation with the Royal Parks, it is understood that the increased number of people using the Cemetery would have two potential impacts: first, it may lead to more maintenance being required and second, it could make the Cemetery less tranquil or peaceful. The tranquillity of the landscape may be considered to contribute to its historical interest because of its spiritual or commemorative function.

1.312 The spiritual function is not strictly a heritage interest, and it is difficult to quantify or explain for the purposes of identifying and impact on heritage value. This assessment has therefore focussed mainly on the impacts on the appreciation of the historical and architectural interests as set out in best practice guidance for heritage assessments.

1.313 ‘Communal value’, which is identified in Historic England’s Conservation Principles, is not recognised in the NPPF definition of heritage value, and to the extent it is relevant then it can be understood as an aspect of historic interest (through the legacy of use and the expression of that use in buildings which served as places of worship associated with burial – and which today, in the case of the Church of England Chapel, provide community uses).

1.314 This assessment has had regard to a number of verified and non-verified views of the Proposed Development within the Cemetery. They are reproduced in a separate Appendix for ease of reference – see Appendix 7.0.

1.315 Susceptibility: Low

1.316 Sensitivity: Medium/High

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area (RBKC)

1.317 The boundary of the Brompton Cemetery CA is coterminous with the Brompton Cemetery RPG designation. Therefore, the assessment of likely effects is the same as the RPG and not repeated here.

1.318 Susceptibility: Low

1.319 Sensitivity: Medium/High

Nevern Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

1.320 The heritage value of the Nevern Square CA is described in the baseline. It is located approximately 200 m north-east of the Site at the nearest point. The CA is identified as having Medium value for the purposes of the ES.

1.321 This assessment considers whether and to what extent the visibility of the Proposed Development from within the CA would affect the appreciation of its heritage value. The Proposed Development would introduce tall and larger-scale residential and commercial development to the experience of the CA as a result of appearing in views looking southwest through the CA. The proximity between the CA and the Site and the alignment of the streets means there would be visibility across the area. The intrinsic historical and architectural interest would be unaffected, and the Site does not contribute to the heritage value of the receptor in its current form. In addition, the Proposed Development would be seen over distance and interposing development.

1.322 Susceptibility: Medium

1.323 Sensitivity: Medium

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

1.324 The heritage value of the Earl’s Court Square CA is described in the baseline. It is located approximately 100 m east of the Site. The CA is identified as having Medium value for the purposes of the ES.

1.325 This assessment considers whether and to what extent the visibility of the Proposed Development from within the CA would affect the appreciation of its heritage value. The Proposed Development would introduce tall and larger-scale residential and commercial development to the experience of the CA as a result of appearing in views looking west through the CA. The proximity between the CA and the Site and the alignment of the streets means there would be visibility across the area. The intrinsic historical and architectural interest would be unaffected, and the Site does not contribute to the heritage value of the receptor in its current form. In addition, the Proposed Development would be seen over distance and interposing development.

1.326 Susceptibility: Medium

1.327 Sensitivity: Medium

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (LBHF)

1.328 The heritage value of the Olympia and Avonmore CA is described in the baseline. It has a Medium value for the purposes of the ES.

1.329 The CA is located approximately 20 m north of the Site at the nearest point on the opposite side of West Cromwell Road. The CA extends north to the Olympia exhibition centre and comprises the Olympia exhibition centre and the historic residential townscape between.

1.330 The Proposed Development would introduce new buildings into axial views looking south in the CA, and the impact would be greatest in Sub-Area C in the CA which is nearest to the Site. The visibility of the Proposed Development would reduce further north into the CA.

1.331 There would be no change to land within the CA and its intrinsic interests would be unaffected. In terms of the setting impact, the CA is appreciated in a varied wider townscape, and the south boundary is defined by the road infrastructure (West Cromwell Road) and some existing views towards the Site are defined by Ashfield House, a 1980s office building.

There are no historical associations between the Site and the CA, and the West Cromwell Road creates a harsh physical boundary between the two.

1.332 Susceptibility: Low

1.333 Sensitivity: Low/Medium

Queen’s Club Gardens Conservation Area (LBHF)

1.334 The heritage value of the Queen’s Club Gardens CA is described in the baseline. It has a Medium value for the purpose of the ES. The receptor is located approximately 525 m west of the Site at the nearest point.

1.335 The Proposed Development would not change any land or building within the CA or its intrinsic historic and architectural interest as area of speculative, Victorian residential development would be preserved. This assessment considers whether and to what extent the visibility of the Proposed Development in views looking out of the CA would affect an appreciation of its heritage value

1.336 Susceptibility: Low

1.337 Sensitivity: Low/Medium

Summary

of Sensitive Receptors

1.338 The sensitivity of all heritage receptors scoped in for assessment is summarised in Table 1.9.

Table 1.9: Summary of Sensitive Receptors

Receptor Heritage Value Susceptibility Sensitivity

Map Ref. Receptor

RBKC

01.1 Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (listed building)

01.2

02.3

Entrance Gates and Screen on Old Brompton Road (listed building)

St Cuthbert’s Clergy House (listed building)

West Brompton Station including Booking Hall and Train Shed and Staircases and Retaining Wall (listed building)

Earls Court Station (listed building)

30-52, Earls Court Square SW5 (listed building)

The Boltons (listed building)

Arcade Forming North West Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming North East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Table 1.9:

Summary of Sensitive Receptors

1.9: Summary of Sensitive Receptors

Table 1.9: Summary of Sensitive Receptors

01.52 1 Challoner Street (locally listed building)

01.53 Institute of Indian Culture (locally listed building)

43 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

24 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

01.34 LBD Train Maintenance Shed (non-designated heritage receptor)

01.185 9, Beaumont Avenue (nondesignated heritage receptor)

Assessment of Effects

1.339 As outlined in Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology, Volume 1, the assessment of effects has been considered for two development scenarios: Early Phases and All Phases.

Early Phases

1.340 The proposed demolition and construction works are set out in detail in ES Volume 1, Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description. The demolition and construction works of the Early Phases would have the potential to directly and indirectly affect heritage receptors as a result of the following works:

• Erection of demolition and construction infrastructure e.g. scaffolding, lighting and siting of workers welfare facilities;

• Movement of heavy plant and material both within, to and from the Early Phase Site;

• Erection of construction infrastructure e.g. scaffolding, site lighting and siting of workers welfare facilities; and

• Construction of infrastructure, the buildings and landscaping.

1.341 In accordance with standard practice, mitigation measures relevant to effects on townscape character and views would be employed, including hoarding and other measures as set out in ES Volume 1, Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description.

1.342 The likely significant effects on heritage receptors would vary according to the nature of the demolition and construction works over time and across the Early Phases Site, with certain operations having more perceptible effects than others. The likely significant effects identified as part of this assessment represent a precautionary worst-case based on the maximum potential effect on each receptor across the demolition and construction stage as a whole, including the assumption that under-construction buildings have the same magnitude of impact as that of the finished buildings. The appearance of under-construction buildings is taken to be without full external cladding, and therefore generally adverse in nature.

1.343 While works are anticipated to be undertaken over 13 years for the Early Phases, the duration of impacts would be temporary, over targeted short-(0-5 years) to medium-term (5-10 years).

1.344 The effect of the Early Phases on heritage receptors is described in detail in HIA Sections 9.0 (for RBKC) and Section 10.0 (for LBHF) at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1.

1.345 The assessment text is reproduced in this chapter for completeness. A tabled summary is presented in Table 1.10.

Earls Court Station, Grade II Listed Building (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.346 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would have indirect impacts on the on-site and off-site parts of the listed Station. The indirect impacts would be construction activity, including movement, noise and vibration, in the local area of the receptor, particularly the Warwick Road entrance.

1.347 The above-ground demolition and construction activity that would take place on the Early Phases Site around Warwick Crescent and opposite the Warwick Road entrance to the Station would introduce intensive activity in the otherwise residential setting of the Station. However, this would not change the appreciation or understanding of the Station’s infrastructure interest or its architecture. This assessment takes into account the existing vacancy of the Early Phases Site which does not contribute to the heritage value of the station.

1.348 It is concluded there would be no harm to the heritage receptor as a result of the demolition and construction of the Early Phases.

1.349 Magnitude of impact: Nil

1.350 Likely effect: None

Completed Development Effects

1.351 The Early Phases would change the immediate and wider setting of the receptor. In the immediate setting, the Early Phases would introduce a new area of public realm (Warwick Square) and new buildings to the setting of the listed Station on the west side of Warwick Road. This would change the context in which the Warwick Road entrance was appreciated. More widely, the totality of the Early Phases would introduce a noticeable change to the setting of the Station by creating an entirely new residential and commercial destination on its doorstep.

1.352 The proposed Warwick Square area would be subject to high-quality landscape design, incorporating a reference to the former exhibition hall steps, and this would benefit the heritage value of the listed building by creating a more attractive and active area at the west entrance to the Station, which was added in the 1930s and whose functionality and purpose was minimised following the closure of the exhibition halls. Warwick Square would introduce a location that frames the Station entrance and provides an opportunity to appreciate its architectural design from a new perspective.

1.353 The Early Phases Site was historically developed, and the principle of new building of contrasting scale and new uses would not affect the appreciation of the receptor as a listed station. In fact, the new destination would reinforce its importance as a transport hub in the locality.

1.354 There would be no visibility of the Early Phases from Earls Court Road or within the station itself that would distract from the appreciation of the heritage interests of the building.

1.355 Therefore, the Early Phases would introduce a benefit to the heritage value of the listed building. The benefit is considered to be low.

1.356 It is noted that a strict application of the ES methodology would result in a Minor/Moderate scale of effect, however this is concluded to be Minor on the basis of professional judgement, given that the most important parts of the listed building would be very little affected.

1.357 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.358 Likely effect: Minor Beneficial (not significant)

Philbeach Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.359 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would be experienced from within the CA due to the construction of Development Zone A and proximity of the Early Phases to the west edge of the CA.

1.360 The part of the CA that is within the Early Phases Site has already been cleared and there would be no demolition of buildings within the CA to facilitate Development Zone A. The part of the CA within the Early Phases Site therefore

makes no real contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, and construction activity on the Early Phases Site would not be able to worsen this contribution or cause harm to the heritage value of the CA.

1.361 The works would introduce activity such as cranes and the gradual appearance of new buildings (including cores, framelike structures and movement of people and materials) to the setting of the CA, which would be visible in the key views, particularly from the north end of Philbeach Gardens.

1.362 The construction activity would be seen over 150 m (distance between Philbeach Gardens around the centre of the crescent, and Plot EC06, the nearest of the Early Phases) and the separating distance means it would not overbear upon Philbeach Gardens or Eardley Crescent.

1.363 The works could result in a degree of distraction from the crescents and, on Philbeach Gardens, may draw the eye away from the Grade I listed church as the focal point in the streetscene. They would not, however, disrupt or interfere with the silhouette of the church as the focal point in this part of the CA. The Plots under construction would lack any architectural finish, and such activities are generally alien and unattractive in their character relative to the residential development that provides the setting for the church. There may also be noise which would disturb the residential character.

1.364 Demolition and construction activity is common in this and similar parts of London and would be understood as temporary. It is a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.365 The visibility of demolition and construction activity from the Early Phases is considered to result in some harm to the CA as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of those aspects that contribute to the heritage value of the CA, namely an appreciation of its crescent forms (or half-crescent in the case of Eardley Crescent), and the consistent parapet lines of the Victorian terraces.

1.366 Given that the intrinsic interest of the CA would be wholly preserved and considering the separating distance between the Plots under construction and the CA, the harm is considered to be less than substantial and very low on the scale.

1.367 This finding is based on the worst-case scenario, which is maximum parameters for the Outline Plots and winter conditions, i.e. no leaves on the mature London Plane trees. In the summer months, the tree canopies would provide screening of the construction activity and the impact on the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of the church would be greatly reduced, to the extent that any harm would be removed. Therefore, the very low level of less than substantial harm would be seasonally dependent and removed or greatly reduced for half the year.

1.368 Regardless of seasonal change, the construction activity would be temporary and medium-term in duration, and the effect would cease upon completion of the Early Phases.

1.369 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.370 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.371 The Early Phases would introduce new development to land within the CA in Development Zone A, and tall residential buildings into views from within the CA.

1.372 In Development Zone A, the Early Phases would introduce Plot EC22 which would have maximum parameter height of approximately 40 m with lower podium. This would introduce a modern scale to the CA, albeit this is an edge site where the former historic buildings have been demolished and it does not form part of the planned terraced crescents. Therefore, the development of Plot EC22 is not considered to harm the CA despite the different scale and architectural expression of the Early Phases.

1.373 The remainder of the Early Phases would be visible to varying extents in views looking north and south views along both crescents, see TVA views 26 and 28 at Figures 1.35 and 1.36

1.374 The impact of seeing the Early Phases in these views would introduce a distraction from the understanding and legibility of the crescent form of the streets, a change to the clean parapet line of the terraces, a conspicuousness taller development in the immediate backdrop which would result in distraction from the receptor and those aspects that contribute to its heritage value (the Grade I listed church as focal point on Philbeach Gardens, the crescent forms and the Victorian architecture) and increased urbanisation of its immediate setting.

1.375 The harm to arise from the Early Phases has been minimised as far as possible through design, including the number and location of tall building in the main cluster which were reduced and refined during design development. The

materiality and expression has also be subject of careful consideration in the Detailed Component, and the lighter tonality of Plots WB03-05 would contrast with the strong red brick language in the CA to maintain the strong townscape foreground in the views and ensemble with the church.

1.376 The harm would be reduced during the summer months when the London Plane trees are in full leaf and provide screening and greater containment to the CA.

1.377 It is considered that weight may be given to the summer screening effect, however, because the trees are attractive, mature plane trees which are historic, dating roughly to the period when the street was laid out. Works of felling or lopping are controlled in a CA, and the maintenance of these trees as a townscape feature is recognised in planning documents, for example, the RBKC’s draft CA Appraisal which identifies the trees of significant townscape features. Paragraph 1.10 of the Appraisal states that:

“The other elements of great heritage value in the conservation area include St Cuthbert’s Church (which is grade I) and the associated Clergy House and Philbeach Hall; the mature trees, particularly those that line Philbeach Gardens; and the communal garden behind Philbeach Gardens which creates a green oasis in a densely built-up area.” (our emphasis)

1.378 The overall effect of the Early Phases would therefore be less than substantial harm which is considered to be low on the scale, considering the intrinsic interests are entirely preserved, the CA draws no heritage value from its setting and the important setting relationships for appreciating the heritage value of the CA are preserved. The harmful effect is caused by potential distraction and the contrasting scale which would be regarded in important views through the CA.

1.379 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.380 Likely effect: Minor/Moderate Adverse (not significant)

1.381 It is noted that a strict application of the matrix tables in the ES chapter would result in a Minor/Moderate likely effect, however for the professional judgement provided above, the effect is considered to be Minor to fairly reflect the effect on the CA as a whole.

Figure 1.35: Early Phases TVA View 26

1.36: Early Phases TVA View 28

Barons Court Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.382 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce visibility of the construction of the upper storeys of Plots WB04, WB06 and EC05 (see for reference TVA views 46 and B17 from Barons Court Road and Lanfrey Place). This would be limited to high-level equipment such as cranes and the emergence of the building skeletons. This activity would be seen over a distance of approximately 300m from the nearest boundary of the CA, and it would only be visible in the east part of the CA in axial views oriented towards the Early Phases Site. There would be limited or no visibility from the majority of the CA extending to the west as illustrated in views 47, 48, A30 showing the experience of a typical street scene within the CA, and B15 from the open space of Margravine Cemetery.

1.383 The limited extent of the impact across the CA, the separating distances and nature of how the demolition and construction activity would change views within the CA means that it would not distract from any appreciation of the historic residential townscape. There would, therefore, be no harm to its heritage value. Furthermore, the visibility of this type of activity is temporary and there would be no permanent or long-term impact.

1.384 Magnitude of impact for ES: Very Low

1.385 Likely effect for ES: Negligible Neutral (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.386 The tallest buildings in the Early Phases would appear in views from the east part of the CA. The upper storeys of Plots WB04 and WB06 which would be visible above the rooflines of the historic residential townscape in the CA. This impact is represented by TVA view 46 from Barons Court Road. There are no routes within the CA that are oriented directly towards the tall buildings in the Early Phases, so the Early Phases tallest buildings would always be seen off to the side or mostly occluded by development within the CA.

1.387 The Early Phases would not be readily appreciated from the remainder of the CA, as demonstrated by the Early Phases ZVI and TVA views 47, 48, A30, B15 and B16 which show that the Early Phases would not be visible.

1.388 The change to the setting of the CA that would arise from the Early Phases would therefore be limited. Whilst the taller Plots of WB04, EC05 and WB06 appear above the parapet line of the Victorian residential development, this is only in incidental views and it would appear peripheral to the route along east-west roads. Therefore, whilst the Early Phases would introduce change to the setting of the CA, it would not adversely affect the ability to appreciate the historic and architectural interest of the CA by means of distraction. Therefore, the Early Phases would preserve the heritage value of the Barons Court CA.

1.389 Magnitude of impact for ES: Very Low

1.390 Likely effect for ES: Negligible Neutral (not significant)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.391 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is not located within the Early Phases Site and therefore, there would be no direct works to the building in the Early Phases.

1.392 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce activity to the setting of the receptor however this is not considered to affect any appreciation of its interest as part of a Victorian train shed. This is because a train shed is an industrial structure and it would remain in its current operation during the demolition and construction of the Early Phases, and the demolition and construction of the Early Phases would not change how the building is appreciated in any views, because the LBD is surrounded by the cleared former Earls Court Exhibition Centres Site where there is no public access.

1.393 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would be temporary in any event and cause no harm to the local interest of the building.

1.394 Magnitude of impact: Nil

1.395 Likely effect: None

Figure

Figure 1.37: Early Phases View 46

LBD Train Maintenance Shed, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Completed Development Effects

1.396 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is not located within the Early Phases Site and therefore, there would be no direct works to the building in the Early Phases.

1.397 The Early Phases would introduce new buildings and activity to the setting of the receptor to the south. However, this is not considered to affect any appreciation of its interest as part of a Victorian train shed. This is because a train shed is an industrial structure and it would remain in its current operation, and nor would it create any public access or meaningful new appreciation of the structure. There would be a change to setting but this is not considered to affect an appreciation of its heritage value. Therefore, there would be no harm from the Early Phases.

1.398 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.399 Likely effect: Negligible Neutral (not significant)

9, Beaumont Avenue, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.400 9, Beaumont Avenue is not located within the Early Phases Site and therefore, there would be no direct works to the building in the Early Phases. The separating distance from the Early Phases Site, the fact that the public access route from the west would be unaffected and the interposing development of the Lillie Bridge Depot means that the demolition and construction of the Early Phases would have no effect on the heritage value of the building.

1.401 Magnitude of impact: Nil

1.402 Likely effect: None

Completed Development Effects

1.403 9, Beaumont Avenue is not located within the Early Phases Site and therefore, there would be no direct works to the building in the Early Phases. The separating distance from the Early Phases Site, the fact that the public access route from the west would be unaffected and the interposing development of the LBD means that Early Phases would have no effect on the heritage value of the building.

1.404 Magnitude of impact: Nil

1.405 Likely effect: None

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias, Grade I Listed Building (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.406 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce activity such as cranes and the gradual appearance of new buildings (including cores, frame-like structures and movement of people and materials) to the setting of the church, which would be visible in the important views of the listed building from the north.

1.407 TVA view nos. 25 and 26 show how Plots WB06, WB04 and EC06 would appear in the setting of the receptor. The demolition and construction activity for these Plots in the Early Phases would be seen over approximately 250 m to 500 m and the separating distance means it would not overbear upon Philbeach Gardens and the ensemble quality between the church and its residential setting would be unaffected.

1.408 Similarly, there would be a generous sky-gap between the church and the Early Phases demolition and construction which would preserve its silhouette and maintain part of the existing framing by the lower-scale terraces either side.

1.409 The demolition and construction activity could, however, result in a degree of distraction from the crescent and draw the eye away from the church as the focal point in the streetscene. This potential impact would be particularly apparent in winter; in summer the street trees present a relatively closed or inward focused setting.

1.410 The Plots under construction would also lack any architectural quality, and such activities are generally alien in their character relative to the residential development that provides the setting for the church. There may also be noise which would disturb the residential character.

1.411 Construction activity is, however, not unusual in London, and the impact of the Early Phases would be understood as temporary and part of the continuing life and development of a large city in a location well served by public transport

and with a busy urban character. Such equipment is, therefore, a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.412 In summary, the visibility of demolition and construction activity from the Early Phases is considered to result in some harm to the church as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of the building in the crescent setting and taking away from its status as the focal point in the streetscene.

1.413 Given that the intrinsic interests of the church would be wholly preserved, the separating distance to the Plots under construction and the maintenance of the clear sky behind the church and its immediate neighbours, the harm is considered to be less than substantial and very low. It is also temporary.

1.414 This finding is based on the worst-case scenario, which is maximum parameters for the outline Plots and winter conditions, i.e. no leaves on the mature London Plane trees. In the summer months, the tree canopies would, as noted, provide screening of the demolition and construction activity and the impact on the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of the church would be greatly reduced, to the extent that any harm would be removed. Therefore, the very low level of less than substantial harm would be seasonally dependent and removed or greatly reduced for half the year.

1.415 Regardless of seasonal change, the demolition and construction activity would be temporary and medium-term in duration, and the effect would cease upon phased completion of the Early Phases.

1.416 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.417 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.418 The Early Phases would introduce new, tall buildings as peripheral features in the views of the church from the north on Philbeach Gardens.

1.419 There are five verified views which represent the visibility with the church and they are reproduced at ES Volume 2. TVA view 26 is in this section at Figure 1.38because it represents the greatest visibility of the Early Phases in the most important views of the church from Philbeach Gardens, i.e. where the east front of the church can be appreciated to the best extent. Moving further south into the view, the east elevation of the church moves out of view and the main focal point of the crescent.

1.420 It is described earlier in this chapter how the appreciation of the church has been one of the main considerations to the layout and scale of the massing. The views of the church from Philbeach Gardens were identified at an early stage in order to ensure that the silhouette of the church would be respected by the Early Phases.

1.421 The position and height of the Plots that appear in the backdrop of the church in the views from Philbeach Gardens have been carefully adjusted to move away from the church as far as possible and not affect its historic profile. In some cases, Plots were removed or reduced in height, such as a tall building that would have been seen immediately behind the Clergy House and the experience of the north elevation of the church.

1.422 The architecture and materiality of the Early Phases has also been carefully considered in reference to the views of the church and the buildings in the crescent which contribute to its heritage value

1.423 The intrinsic historic and architectural interest of the church would be unaffected, including the interiors which are the reason for its high grading. On this basis, and because the church’s heritage value does not draw anything from the Early Phases Site as a setting element, if there was a finding of harm then it could only be less than substantial and is unlikely to creep very high into that scale.

1.424 Figure 1.38 shows how the Plots WB06, WB04 and EC06 would appear in the views of the church from Philbeach Gardens. These Plots are located approximately between 250 m and 500 m from the residential crescent and the separating distance would be part of how the new buildings would be experienced. This, combined with the location of the Plots relative to the church – where there is a generous sky gap – is the reason they are described as peripheral objects in the appreciation of the church.

1.425 However, the scale contrast with the Early Phases in the crescent would, in the winter months, raise the eye from the historic streetscene and the church, as a distinctive feature within it, reducing our appreciation of its exterior to a limited extent.

1.426 The harm is considered to be a very low level of less than substantial harm because:

• the intrinsic interest of the listed building would not be affected;

• the high grading is derived from the interiors, which goes to the nature and extent of the harm, taking the sensitivity of the receptor into account;

• the separating distances which avoid overbearing;

• the interest and variety of the immediate setting of the church which is the focus of one’s attention in the scene;

• further to that, the well-defined spatial quality of the crescent form, which is reinforced by the repetition of architectural forms and materials. These together create a close awareness of the scene;

• the silhouette of the church would be unaffected and the skyline of the properties immediately to either side; and

• the materiality of the new development as set out in the Design Code would be lighter than the red brick that defines the crescent and provides a helpful contrast to retain attention in the lower part of the view.

1.427 In formulating these conclusions, through the above analysis, there has also been regard to that awareness one has already of denser and larger development outside the immediate setting of the church, as a consequence of the Empress State Building. That general awareness goes to whether and/or to what extent a visitor to this area finds the ability to see more modern development intrusive or alien.

1.428 The harm would be reduced or removed entirely during the summer months when the London Plane trees are in full leaf and provide screening and greater containment to the residential setting in which the church is appreciated. This assessment considers the worst-case scenario, which would be the winter months.

1.429 It is considered that weight may be given to the summer screening effect, however, because the trees are attractive, mature plane trees which are historic, dating roughly to the period when the street was laid out.

1.430 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.431 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Brompton Cemetery, Grade I RPG (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.432 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce the visibility of equipment and activity in views looking out of the Cemetery and on Old Brompton Road near to the North Lodge entrance the Cemetery. In undertaking this assessment, regard has been given to the verified views of the Early Phases at ES Volume 2 which indicate where the demolition and construction activity would appear on the skyline in views looking north from the Cemetery.

1.433 The construction activity would introduce cranes and the skeletons of new tall buildings that would appear above trees and features such as the cupola in the Arcade that define the skyline and enclose the Cemetery. This may draw attention away from the Cemetery and affect the inward- and downwards-focus that forms part of the appreciation of it. This would result in less than substantial harm.

1.434 The level of less than substantial harm is considered to be very low because there would be an awareness of the nature of demolition and construction activity, and it would be able to be understood as part of a changing modern context. It is also temporary. The cranes in particular would be lightweight and frame-link structures that do not have visually dominating characteristics.

1.435 Furthermore, the experience of the majority of the Cemetery and primary axial views, which looks south from the North Lodge to the Church of England Chapel, would be unaffected.

1.436 The separating distance between the North Lodge and entrance to the Cemetery and the Early Phases Site means that construction activity at the south boundary of the Early Phases Site would not affect the appreciation or experience of entering the Cemetery. When entering, one would be turning away from the Early Phases Site and the focus would be concentrated into the historic landscape. Old Brompton Road itself is already well-used and busy so there would be no material change from increase in traffic or movement.

1.437 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.438 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.439 The historic and architectural interest of Brompton Cemetery would be unaffected by the Early Phases. This assessment considers whether and to what extent the visibility of the Early Phases would affect the appreciation of its heritage interests.

1.440 The ZVI indicates that there would be visibility across the Cemetery – see ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix G– and this has been further interrogated through a series of verified and non-verified views (reproduced at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendices C and D).

1.441 The ZVI does not account for trees, and the views demonstrate how the Early Phases would be screened or filtered from many locations within the Cemetery.

1.442 In particular, ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1 has 14 non-verified views from locations requested by the Royal Parks (the Brompton Cemetery Non-Verified Views) which show how the Early Phases would come in and out of view as you moved around the Cemetery.

1.443 This assessment has concentrated on the main visual impact, which is how the Early Phases would appear from the central planned axis looking north.

1.444 A selection of three axial views looking north from within the Cemetery are reproduced in this section at Figures 1.401.43. These are verified view nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

1.445 The verified views show how the Early Phases would introduce new, tall buildings on the horizon in views looking north along the central axis. The tallest buildings – Plots WB03, WB04 and EC06 – would be off-centre and they have been designed so as not to backdrop the cupola that forms part of the north-west Arcade. The buildings that would appear behind the cupola are lower and they have been designed to appear beneath, set away or subservient to the cupola’s dome.

1.446 In terms of the Cemetery’s sensitivity to this type of modern influence, taller and modern development already forms part of the experience of the Cemetery, including along the central axis. Figure 1.39 shows how tall buildings are seen

Figure 1.38: Early Phases TVA View 26

together with the Church of England Chapel which is the focal point for the central axis, and the primary, planned view is looking south from the North Lodge to the Chapel.

1.447 The Early Phases would not affect the primary planned view, or the silhouette of the Chapel

1.448 The Early Phases would affect the view in the other direction, from the Chapel looking into the Arcade and along the avenue to the North Lodge. It is not the primary view, but of course is important because it demonstrates the symmetrical layout of the cemetery and enables an appreciation of important listed buildings within it along with the plethora of memorial stones and monuments which communicate the historic interest of the receptor and which also provide aesthetic or design/architectural interest too

1.449 As before, the views looking north along the central axis of the Cemetery have been one of the main considerations to the location of tall buildings and refinement of the massing. At an early stage in the process, an important test view was from the Church of England Chapel and across the Early Phases Site.

1.450 As a result, the tall proposed tallest buildings in the Early Phases are set off-centre from the axis to ensure the strength and legibility of the historic Cemetery plan is not diluted, and the view north continues to be defined by its extent and the symmetry it creates.

1.451 The massing was then subject to further design development based on view test points within the Cemetery. The proposed tall buildings have been moved away from the main features in the views – the central axis and Arcade cupola – and in some cases removed entirely in order to reduce the intensity of the visual impact as far as possible.

1.452 The Design Code stipulates that Plots visible from Brompton Cemetery must form a clearly defined skyline, and that this can be achieved through a varied materiality and colour palette. The Design Code includes provision for the consideration of colour for building Plots visible from Brompton Cemetery, in order to ensure distinction between the foreground and background and create a layered effect.

1.453 The design process has therefore sought to minimise and mitigate the potential harmful setting impact/effect in line with best practice. The statutory authorities and consultee have been part of this process of incremental refinement. This part of the process reflects Historic England guidance on setting and harm mitigation.

1.454 Notwithstanding that process, the Early Phases would draw attention and introduce a distraction from the appreciation of the Cemetery’s heritage value which is derived from its inward- and downward-focus. This is considered to result in less than substantial harm.

1.455 It is concluded that the level of less than substantial harm is very low for the following reasons:

• The view sequence affected is not the primary, planned one which was intended to terminate in the Chapel, with its distinctive design and skyline;

• The Cemetery is already influenced by modern development of contrasting scale, and one is aware of the surrounding context which includes modern and tall buildings. Thus, the Early Phases are not a new or novel impact;

• The Cemetery is encapsulated within the modern city and its popularity as a publicly accessible route reinforces its functional interaction with the surrounding area;

• The Cemetery was not designed to have a visual interaction with its setting, as so many were (for example, Highgate and Nunhead) where gaps in vegetation allowing wider panoramas and vistas across London were part of the original design concept. Brompton is an urban landscape, well enclosed and defined by its striking layout, buildings and memorials and its vegetation;

• The symmetry communicated in the impacted view is a powerful organising attribute of the receptor, and it is reinforced by the symmetry of the quadrants and the proliferation of memorials which crowd in onto the axial view;

• The Early Phases would be screened from the majority of locations in the Cemetery, or they would be behind the person using the Cemetery;

• The impact and effect is calibrated with reference to the whole of the receptor, which is varied in its characteristics and in its relationship with setting. Due regard has to be paid to the importance of the attribute affected (symmetry notably) but recognising that this attribute itself is powerfully articulated;

• The clear-sky silhouette of the cupola would be mostly preserved in key views from the south, near the Chapel;

• There would be a separating distance of approximately 700 m between the cupola in the Arcade and the Early Phases, which means that motion parallax would be apparent, and so would enable an understanding of the separating distance. The consequent effect of setting depth is not evident in the two-dimensional views but would be apparent on-site;

• The position of the tall buildings is off the central axis and their architecture has been carefully considered to reduce the visual impact, and there are gaps between the two main groups of taller buildings; and

• The design of the tallest buildings has been carefully considered to reduce their visual and setting impact. They have slender proportions and complementary materials. This reduces their visual impact.

1.456 Additionally, and for reasons of context only, change in the setting of this receptor is required by the development plan. This does not go to offsetting or removing potential harm. It is a matter for the planning decision maker to take into account in weighing up the Early Phases overall, and in thinking about what public benefits are required to offset the degree of harm identified.

1.457 In conclusion, there would be a very low level of less than substantial harm to Brompton Cemetery from the Early Phases.

1.458 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.459 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.39: Primary View of the Chapel Looking South on the Central Axis with Existing Tall Buildings in Background

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.460 Please refer to assessment for the Brompton Cemetery RPG.

1.461 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.462 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.463 Please refer to assessment for the Brompton Cemetery RPG.

1.464 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.465 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.40: Early Phases TVA View 7

Figure 1.41: Early Phases TVA View 8

Figure 1.42: Early Phases TVA View 9

Figure 1.43: Early Phases TVA View 10

(RBKC)

Nevern Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.466 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce the visibility of high-level construction activity such as cranes and cores in views from the south part of the CA. This is because routes through the CA would align with the Early Phase Plots. There would be no visibility of the demolition and construction of the Early Phases from the north part of the CA nor in views looking east, north and south in the CA. The visibility of demolition and construction activity from the Early Phases would be considered to result in some harm to the CA as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of those aspects that contribute to the heritage value of the CA, namely an appreciation of the rhythmic architectural qualities of the terraces, the sense of enclosure within the streets, particularly Nevern Square, and the consistent parapet lines of the terraces which would be disrupted by views of construction activity described.

1.467 Views of demolition and construction activity would signal the redevelopment of the Early Phases Site and the increase in urban character that this would bring to the setting of the CA, in turn urbanising the character of the CA itself. That said, one is aware of the wider urban setting of the CA when moving through it, particularly given the busy boundary roads and presence of the WLL.

1.468 Demolition and construction activity is also not unusual in London, and it would be understood as temporary. It is a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.469 The intrinsic architectural and historic interest of the CA would be preserved, and the effects would be temporary. As such, the harm identified is considered to be less than substantial and low.

1.470 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.471 Likely effect: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.472 The Early Phases would introduce tall residential development to east-west views in the south part of the CA as represented by TVA views 23 and 24. The upper parts of Plots WB03 and WB04 would appear above the terraces that enclose Nevern Square from the private residents’ garden – see TVA views 22 and A12.

1.473 The Early Phases would result in harm to the CA because of the contrast in scale between the historic townscape and Early Phases which would introduce distraction and awareness of the wider setting. It would draw the eye and change the legibility of the continuous historic roofscapes and character of the Victorian residential development.

1.474 The impact would be greatest on Trebivor Road where the Early Phases would be layered against each other and enclose the view. The TVA views demonstrate how the composition of the Early Phases would change as one moves through the area and it is noted that in other directions the Early Phases would not be visible and the appreciation of the CA would be conserved.

1.475 There is not considered to be any material effect on the appreciation of the gardens in Nevern Square as a result of the upper parts of Plot WB04 being visible. This is because the landscape would retain attention and the red brick terraces provide a strong enclosing features.

1.476 The harm to the CA has been minimised through the location and number of tall building Plots, and Plots were removed and the proposed heights reorganised in order to introduce sky gaps between buildings and improve the composition of buildings which had an improvement on the visual impact on the Nevern Square CA. The materiality has also been carefully considered for the Detailed Components and would be subject to Reserved Matters for the Outline Components.

1.477 In the views from Trebivor Road and Nevern Square (TVA views 23 and 24) the light-toned materials for the tall buildings and the articulation of the crowns would respond to the materials palette in the foreground of the CA and maintain the sense of uniformity and traditional masonry.

1.478 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.479 Likely effect: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.44: Early Phases TVA View 23

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.480 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases Plots would be experienced from most roads within the CA as indicated by the ZVI. Given the proximity of the Early Phases Site to the CA, this would comprise visual impacts, namely views of Plots WB03, WB04, EC10 and EC11 being constructed, and other environmental effects: an increase in noise and activity.

1.481 These effects are not an existing feature within the setting of the CA and would signal an increased urbanisation of its immediate setting. Views of construction equipment, such as cranes, and the construction of the Plots, would distract from the receptor in views from axial streets (such as Earls Court Square and Penywern Road). This is considered to result in a very low level of less than substantial harm as a result of distraction from the settled, historic residential townscape.

1.482 These impacts would be temporary.

1.483 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.484 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.485 The ZVI indicates intervisibility between the Early Phases and the CA from most of the thoroughfares within the CA, as they tend to align axially with the Early Phases Site. Intervisibility is also likely given the proximity of the CA to the Early Phases Site: an east corner of the Early Phases Site adjoins the CA at its north-east/north-east edge.

1.486 The intervisibility has been further interrogated through analysis of verified views. TVA views 29, 30, and A17 are taken from positions within the CA.

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.45: Early Phases TVA View 24

Figure 1.46: Early Phases TVA View 22

1.487 The Early Phases would result in a marked change to the setting of the CA, increasing the sense of urbanisation and introducing modern development into key views from within the CA (as indicated in the CA appraisal map, reproduced earlier in this chapter).

1.488 Plots EC02, EC03, WB04, EC10, EC03 would be visible to varying extents in views from the CA.

1.489 While Plots WB04 and WB03 would alter the skyline with additional tall development, the material treatment of these buildings, which resonates with the Empress State Building which is an existing feature of the CA’s setting, would reduce the impact of these buildings on the setting of the CA. The light tonality and articulation of the facades of these buildings results in a recessive aesthetic that has sought to mitigate visual impacts from the CA. See TVA view 29 in particular. Further, the heights of Plots EC10 and EC11 step up away from the CA, rising to Plots WV03 and WB04 further to the south-west. In other views from the CA, the tall buildings would be less conspicuous owing to interposing development and orientation and would form a peripheral element in views (for example from Earls Court Square south, see TVA view 30).

1.490 Plots EC10 and EC11 are judged to have a greater impact on the setting of the CA by virtue of their proximity and alignment, as they are located parallel to Eardley Crescent (within Philbeach CA). These Plots, the design of which is secured through the Design Code, would be conspicuous in axial views from the CA and would impact the way the CA is experienced in conjunction with Philbeach CA adjacent (see TVA view 29 from Penywern Road which looks into Philbeach CA from Earl’s Court Square CA, and View 30 in which Plots EC01-03 and EC10 are partially visible behind properties in Philbeach CA).

1.491 The CAs share common characteristics and Philbeach CA makes a positive contribution to the setting of Earl’s Court Square CA by virtue of their shared characteristics and historic development. There would be a degree of distraction from the appreciation of this relationship in views from and across the CA by virtue of the dimensions, scale and massing of the Early Phases which would increase the sense of urbanisation in the immediate setting of the CA and distract from those characteristics of the CA that contribute to its heritage value

1.492 The Design Code includes provision for the consideration of visual impacts to Earl’s Court Square and Penywern Road (SW.B.6 and SW.B.7) in order that the outline elements respond positively to the setting of heritage receptors.

1.493 The Early Phases would result in harm to the Earl’s Court Square CA. The harm is considered to be a low to medium level of less than substantial harm because:

• The intrinsic interests are not affected;

• The separating distances;

• The skyline of the CA’s setting is already influenced by the Empress State Building so one is aware of the ‘outside world’;

• The strength of the character of the planned squares and detailing of the residential development in the CA which directs attention inward; and

• The impacts are mainly in relation to Plots EC03 and EC10 (rather than WB04 and EC05) and the setting effect on the relationship between Earls Court Square CA and Philbeach CA

1.494 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.495 Likely effect: Minor/Moderate Adverse (not significant)

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.496 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce visibility of cranes and the gradual construction of the upper parts of the tallest Plots in the Early Phases in views looking south from across the CA. The demolition and construction would be seen over a distance in the view from Mornington Avenue (TVA view 40) it would be partly screened by Ashfield House.

1.497 The demolition and construction activity of the Early Phases would appear above the historic townscape within the CA, but the separating distance, interposing development (including Ashfield House) and light-weight temporary nature of demolition and construction activity means that there would be change how the historic townscape in the CA is appreciated and its character and appearance would be preserved.

1.498 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.499 Likely effect: Negligible Neutral (not significant)

Figure 1.47: Early Phases TVA View 40 Completed Development Effects

1.500 The ZVI indicates the extent to which the Early Phases would be visible across the Olympia and Avonmore CA. The Early Phases would introduce tall modern development to the skyline of the historic townscape in streets within the CA that are aligned with the Early Phases Site. The impact on those views is represented by the TVA views.

1.501 The visibility of the Early Phases is concentrated in the south part of the CA and it would be limited in Sub-Area D, and near to the junction with Hammersmith Road – see TVA view 40. The impact would be limited to views looking south and the experience would be preserved in the majority of locations, where there would be no visibility of the Early Phases, or in views looking north.

1.502 The Early Phases would not affect the important views in the CA that are identified by the Appraisal or the appreciation of listed buildings within the CA, which are best appreciated in views that look north and the Early Phases would not appear in. The key views in the Appraisal are for the avoidance of doubt: along the curve of Hammersmith Road (eastwest route); Matheson Road and Stanwick Road.

1.503 In the view from Stanwick Road looking south, the Early Phases would be seen as a small feature in the backdrop of existing modern development that terminates the view on the West Cromwell Road. There would be no change to how this part of the CA is appreciated in the context of modern development of different scale. The appreciation of the prevailing historic character of the street would be unaffected.

1.504 Where visible, the Early Phases would be seen over distance and the appreciation of the historic character of development in the foreground of views in the CA, which tend to be quite short because of the street pattern, would not be considered to change to such an extent that the understanding of the historic character of the area and appreciation of the architecture within it would be affected.

1.505 Furthermore, the CA is already experienced in the context of modern development of contrasting scale, for example Ashfield House at the south end of Mornington Avenue and the commercial development referenced for Stanwick Road.

1.506 In conclusion, whilst the Early Phases would appear in view looking south in the CA, the important views in the area would be unaffected, and the distance, interposing development and disposition of the street patten in the CA, which covers a large and varied area, means that there would be no harmful effect on how the heritage value of the CA is appreciated. The heritage value of the CA would be preserved.

1.507 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.508 Likely effect: Negligible Neutral (not significant)

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.48 Early Phases TVA View 41

Figure 1.49: Early Phases TVA View A29

Figure 1.50: Early Phases TVA View B12

Queen’s Club Gardens Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.509 The demolition and construction of the Early Phases would introduce views of cranes and construction activity into eastfacing views from within the CA, including the main set piece around Queen’s Club Gardens and the private residents garden itself. The construction activity would relate to the realisation of Plots WB04-06, EC05 and EC06.

1.510 The demolition and construction activity would likely cause some distraction from the architectural interest of the historic residential townscape in some views as the activity and construction infrastructure would draw the eye from the architectural interest of the buildings which comprise a well-defined spatial entity. It would therefore cause a very low level of less than substantial harm to the CA.

1.511 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.512 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.513 The Early Phases would introduce visibility of new tall buildings in a number of locations looking east out of the CA, including from the main set piece of Queen’s Club Gardens and the private residents garden itself. There has also been regard to views looking east from the Queen’s Club, however the function of this part of the CA as primarily a leisure facility means that it is less sensitive as attention would be focussed on the activity within the sports ground. The architecture that faces onto this part of green space within the CA s also the rear elevation of residential terraces and is likewise less sensitive that the architectural set pieces and front elevations of the residential townscape which were designed with more ornamentation and detailing.

1.514 Whilst modern built form has historically been visible from the CA with the Empress State Building punctuating the skyline in a number of views (see views A31, 50 and 52) the Early Phases would introduce a larger amount of modern, tall built form into views looking out of the CA.

1.515 This impact is most noticeable seen in view 50 from The Queen’s Club looking east. In this view, Plots WB06 and WB04 would appear above the historic townscape in these views.

1.516 Whilst the Early Phases introduce a change to the way one experiences the architectural interest of the CA, the substantial separating distance allows it to be read as a background layer of modern development that is clearly separate from the Victorian townscape of the CA and only visible in views oriented to the east.

1.517 In some views the contrast in height and scale of the Early Phases in comparison with the building stock of the CA would reduce the architecturally cohesive quality of the receptor. This is best evidenced in view 52 from the central garden of the Queens Club. Whilst tree cover screens some of the impact from the tallest building of Plot WB04, the Early Phases would increase an awareness of the outside world from within the CA. Although this has previously been introduced through intervisibility with the crown of the Empress State Building, the Early Phases clearly furthers this impact.

1.518 The contrast in height and scale of Early Phases results in a degree of distraction from the architectural interest of the CA in some select views, such as 52 from the north side of Queen’s Club Gardens. Along with a minor adverse change to the degree of enclosure experienced from within the CA the Early Phases of completed development results in a low level of less than substantial harm to the receptor

1.519 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.520 Likely effect: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.51: Early Phases View 50

Figure 1.52: Early Phases View 51

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.53: Early Phases View 51N

Figure 1.54: Early Phases View 52

Figure 1.55: Early Phases View A31

Figure 1.56: Early Phases View A32

Summary of All Receptors – Early Phases

1.521 A summary of the effect on all heritage receptors scoped in for assessment is provided by Table 1.10 with reference to the analysis at ES Volume

Summary Early Phases Heritage Effects

All Phases

1.522 The effect of the All Phases on heritage receptors is described in Sections 9.0 (for RBKC) and Section 10.0 (for LBHF) in the Heritage Impact Assessment at ES Volume 2: Technical Appendix 1.1.

1.523 The effects of the All Phase are summarised for all heritage receptors which have been scoped in for assessment at Table 1.11.

1.524 The assessment text for the main receptors and/or those which would experience significant effects is reproduced in this chapter for completeness.

Earls Court Station, Grade II Listed Building (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.525 The effect of the demolition and construction of the All Phases would be the same as the Early Phases because it is the same Development Zones that would affect the setting of the receptor

1.526 Magnitude of impact: Nil

1.527 Likely effect: None

Completed Development Effects

1.528 The effect of the demolition and construction of the All Phases would be the same as the Early Phases because it is the same Development Zones that would affect the setting of the receptor

1.529 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.530 Likely effect: Minor Beneficial (not significant)

Philbeach Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.531 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would be experienced from within the CA due to the construction of Development Zone A and proximity of the All Phases.

1.532 The part of the CA that is within the All Phases Site has already been cleared and there would be no demolition of buildings within the CA to facilitate Development Zone A. The part of the CA within the All Phases Site therefore makes no real contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, and construction activity on the All Phases Site would not be able to worsen this contribution or cause harm to the heritage value of the CA.

1.533 The works would introduce activity such as cranes and the gradual appearance of new buildings (including cores, framelike structures and movement of people and materials) to the setting of the CA, which would be visible in the key views, particularly from the north end of Philbeach Gardens.

1.534 The construction of Plots WB04, WB05, WC05, WK08 and WK09 would appear in views from the north on Philbeach Gardens together with the church. This would introduce demolition and construction activity that would be visible from the CA, and it would appear close to the listed building which is a focal building in the CA. From Eardley Crescent there is less intervisibility, although cranes and cores would still be glimpsed when travelling along this road.

1.535 The construction activity would be seen over 150 m (distance between Philbeach Gardens around the centre of the crescent, and Plot WK08, the nearest of the All Phases Plots to appear in the views) and the separating distance means it would not overbear upon Philbeach Gardens or Eardley Crescent.

1.536 Demolition and construction activity is common in this and similar parts of London and would be understood as temporary. It is a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.537 The visibility of demolition and construction activity from the All Phases is considered to result in some harm to the CA as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of those aspects that contribute to the heritage value of the CA, namely an appreciation of its crescent forms (or half-crescent in the case of Eardley Crescent), and the consistent parapet lines of the Victorian terraces.

1.538 Given that the intrinsic interest of the CA would be wholly preserved and considering the separating distance between the Plots under construction and the CA, the harm is considered to be less than substantial and very low.

1.539 This finding is based on the worst-case scenario, which is maximum parameters for the outline Plots and winter conditions, i.e. no leaves on the mature London Plane trees. In the summer months, the tree canopies would provide screening of the construction activity and the impact on the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of the church would be greatly reduced, to the extent that any harm would be removed. Therefore, the very low level of less than substantial harm would be seasonally dependent and removed or greatly reduced for half the year.

1.540 Regardless of seasonal change, the construction activity would be temporary and medium-term in duration, and the effect would cease upon completion of the All Phases.

1.541 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.542 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.543 The All Phases would introduce new development to the CA in Development Zone A, and tall residential budlings into views from within the CA and views of the CA from outside its boundary.

1.544 In Development Zone A, the All Phases would introduce Plot EC22 which would have maximum parameter height of approximately 40 m with lower podium. This would introduce a modern scale to the CA, albeit this is an edge site where the former historic buildings have been demolished and it does not form part of the planned terraced crescents. Therefore, the development of Plot EC22 is not considered to harm the CA despite the different scale and architectural expression of the All Phases.

1.545 The remainder of the All Phases would be visible to varying extents in views looking north and south views along both crescents, see TVA views 26 and 28

1.546 Given the proximity of Plots WK08 and WK09 to the CA, and the alignment of the crescents (in particular the north ends of Philbeach and Eardley Crescents) in relation to the All Phases Site, a substantial amount of built development within the All Phases would be visible in key views within the CA. The greatest impact would be from the north part of Philbeach Gardens, where Plot WK08 and WK09 would be partially visible in conjunction with the Grade I listed Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (see TVA view 26) including Plots WB04, EC05 and WB06. This is a kinetic experience that would change as one moves along the street, and would become less visible as one moves southwards through the crescent. It is also a seasonal impact, with the intervisibility being greater in the winter months owing to the enclosing effect of street trees in summer months.

1.547 The effect of seeing the All Phases in these views would be harmful as a result of distraction from the crescent form of the street, disruption to the clean parapet line of the terrace, conspicuousness of the All Phases and resulting distraction from the receptor and those aspects that contribute to its heritage value (the Grade I listed church as focal point on Philbeach Gardens, the crescent forms and the Victorian architecture) and increased urbanisation of its immediate setting.

1.548 The harm to arise from the Early Phases has been minimised as far as possible through design, including the number and location of tall building in the main cluster which were reduced and refined during design development.

1.549 The materiality and expression has also be subject of careful consideration in the Detailed Component, and the lighter tonality of Plots WB03-05 would contrast with the strong red brick language in the CA to maintain the strong townscape foreground in the views and ensemble with the church.

1.550 Furthermore, the Warwick Crescent Design Code would ensure that the building tops of Plots WK08 and WK09 are designed to be visually distinct from the lower parts, to modulate the scale of the development. The Design Code also includes suggestions for the material treatment of these Plots so that it is distinct from the rich red tonality of Philbeach Gardens terraces and the Grade I listed church.

1.551 The harm would be reduced during the summer months when the London Plane trees are in full leaf and provide screening and greater containment to the CA.

1.552 It is considered that weight may be given to the summer screening effect, however, because the trees are attractive, mature plane trees which are historic, dating roughly to the period when the street was laid out. Works of felling or lopping are controlled in a CA, and the maintenance of these trees as a townscape feature is recognised in planning

documents (for example, the RBKC’s draft CA Appraisal which identifies the trees of significant townscape features. Paragraph 1.10 of the Appraisal states that:

1.553 The overall effect of the All Phases would therefore be less than substantial harm which is considered to be low on the scale, considering the intrinsic interests are entirely preserved, the CA draws no heritage value from its setting and the important setting relationships for appreciating the heritage value of the CA are preserved. The harmful effect is caused by potential distraction and the contrasting scale which would be regarded in important views through the CA.

1.554 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.555 Likely effect: Minor Adverse

1.556 It is noted that a strict application of the matrix tables in the ES chapter would result in a Minor/Moderate likely effect, however for the professional judgement provided above, the effect is considered to be Minor to fairly reflect the effect on the CA as a whole.

Barons Court Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.557 This assessment assumes that Nos. 175-177b North End Road which fall within the CA are not demolished because they are only indicated as ‘potentially’ demolished on the parameter plans for the All Phases and would be outside of Development Zone X. Therefore, there would be no effect on the heritage value of the CA as a result of works to these buildings, and the contribution they make to the CA would be preserved.

1.558 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would, however, introduce construction activity within the Barons Court CA to realise Development Zone Y on West Cromwell Road, and construction activity in the immediate setting of the CA on Beaumont Avenue for Development Plots X and Z. Ashfield House on the LBHF Site, which is seen in views looking east out of the CA as represented by view 47, would be demolished.

1.559 The construction of the tall buildings to the south of the All Phases Site (that would be part of the Early Phases) would also be visible. This would mainly be cranes and the skeletons of the taller Plots as they were constructed and the assessment for the All Phases would be the same: there would be no harmful distraction from the CA as a result of Plots WB04, WB06 and EC05.

1.560 The effect of the demolition and construction of the All Phases on the CA is particularly focused in the north-east corner of the designation area where the All Phases Site terminates views along axial routes, as along Mund Street and Charleville Road where the demolition of Ashfield House and construction of Plot WK02 and the substation would be visible on the All Phases Site within the CA boundary, as illustrated in views 47, 48 and A30. This would introduce some temporary visibility of cranes and construction activity at closer proximity which may cause some distraction from the architectural interest of the receptor in more views than before, such as along Charleville Road (TVA view A30).

1.561 However, in the majority of the CA to the west and including the Margravine Cemetery there would be no intervisibility with the demolition and construction on the All Phases as illustrated by TVA views B15 and B17 to the west of the CA.

1.562 It is concluded that the demolition and construction of the All Phases would result in a very low level of less than substantial harm to the Barons Court CA. The adverse impact is derived from demolition and construction activity of

Figure 1.57: All Phases TVA View 26

Figure 1.58: All Phases TVA View 28

land within the CA for Development Zones X, Y and Z, and the proximity of those Plots to the CA boundary that would cause distraction.

1.563 Any benefit to the CA from the demolition of Ashfield House in views out of the CA would be limited because of the construction of Plots at the west edge of the All Phases Site that would replace it in views out from CA.

1.564 Magnitude of impact for ES: Very Low

1.565 Likely effect for ES: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.566 For the reasons described above for the Early Phases, Development Zones A-S in the All Phases to the south and east of the All Phases Site in the All Phases would preserve the heritage value of the Barons Court CA.

1.567 Development Zones T-Z in the north part of the All Phases are located closer to the Barons Court CA, and a small part of the CA comprises Development Zone Y.

1.568 In terms of direct impacts, the Development Zone, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm plan shows that Development Zone X would not take in Nos. 175-177b North End Road. On this basis and for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the buildings would be retained and the frontage to North End Road within this part of the CA would be preserved.

1.569 In Development Zone Y within the CA, the Proposed Maximum Heights parameter plan shows a building in this location would be up to 12.5 m AOD with sui generis or cultural use at ground level. This would activate the north boundary of the CA with new uses and activity which would complement the pub on the corner and enrich the character and appearance of the CA. There would be a heritage benefit for this reason.

1.570 It is noted that the character of West Cromwell Road is very different to the settled residential townscape comprising the majority of the CA, and because it is a road corridor and at the edge of the CA, the greater height for Development Zone Y compared with traditional development is not considered harmful. The architectural treatment and relationship to the Famous Three Kings public house on the corner would be carefully considered through Reserved Matters. The indirect impact would be the visibility of commercial and residential buildings of greater scale in views out of the CA, which is represented by view 46 along Barons Court Road with the completion of Plots WK05-WK09. This would increase the visibility and awareness of modern development outside of the CA, due to the increased quantum, to a point where it may cause an element of distraction from the architectural interest of the CA, drawing focus upwards, away from the detailing of the buildings in some views.

1.571 This type of impact would be kinetic and the perspective would change as one travels through the CA, and limited to the east part of the CA. There would be no visibility from the west part of the CA or the Margravine Cemetery which is demonstrated by views B15 and B17.

1.572 In some views looking out of the CA the All Phases would appears as a comfortable addition to the skyline, such as in view 48 at the junction of North End Road and Mund Street near to the All Phases Site where Plots WK02-3, WK04 and WK05 are seen in conjunction with the existing post-war estate of Fairburn and Churchward Houses.

1.573 Views A30 along Gledstanes Road and 47 along Palliser Road illustrate two examples of where intervisibility would be at its greatest in axial views along roads orienting towards the All Phases. Plots WK08-10 would terminate these views. This would substantially increase an awareness of modern development in the setting of the CA and likely cause a degree of distraction from some elements of the architectural interest of the buildings in these views as the scale of the All Phases would draw focus.

1.574 On the east boundary of the CA nearest to the All Phases Site, as represented by view B16 along Barons Court Road, Ashfield House would be replaced by Plot WK02. Whilst this introduces a significant change in massing and scale of development in the setting of the CA, the setting is already highly varied, with residents and users of the space within the CA aware of the presence of nearby West Cromwell Road, and the All Phases forms part of the contrasting townscape outside of the CA. The design of Plot WK02 has been carefully considered through the Design Code in order to ensure it would be contextual and in this way the All Phases improves upon the existing large building of Ashfield House.

1.575 The West Kensington Design Code ensures the massing of these buildings is mitigated through a breakdown of the grain of elevations to create a human scale to the large, commercial buildings and meaningful stepping to create a perception of depth. The materiality of these Plots would also help to contextualise the All Phases of the buildings is

warm in tone which relates to the red brick of the buildings in the CA – an important and characterful aspect of its architectural interest. The ensures that the All Phases is complimentary to the CA.

1.576 The change to the setting of the CA here is significant, and the All Phases would be highly visible from the east portion of the CA when completed. This would cause an element of distraction as the All Phases would raise the skyline and draw focus which would impact upon the ability to appreciate the heritage value of the CA in some areas – principally the architectural detail of the buildings. However, in consideration of the baseline condition of Ashfield House, which already terminates a number of views out of the CA and which would be improved upon; the fact that much of the CA remains unaffected by the All Phases with no intervisibility arising at all, and the handling of the scale and massing of the nearest Plots through design coding all serve to minimise this impact.

1.577 Therefore, it is concluded there would be a low level of less than substantial harm to the CA as a whole, considering the size of the receptor, the nature of the impacts and the existing setting conditions. It is a low level of harm rather than low to medium because the benefit to the CA from Development Zone Y has been considered which off-sets some of the harmful impact using the internal heritage balance.

1.578 Magnitude of impact for ES: Low

1.579 Likely effect for ES: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.59: All Phases TVA View 46

LBD Train Maintenance Shed, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.580 This assessment and the ES are required to consider the worst-case scenario for the LBD Train Maintenance Shed, which would be its full demolition.

1.581 It is noted that harm to a non-designated heritage receptor is not considered as ‘less than substantial’ or ‘substantial’. Rather, paragraph 209 of the NPPF states that:

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

1.582 In the case of the LBD Train Maintenance Shed, the scale of harm would be high as there would be total loss.

1.583 The LBD Train Maintenance Shed is part of the LBHF Outline Component for Development Zone T. The Design Code sets out how the LBD Train Maintenance Shed would be retained and integrated with Plot WK08 if possible. This means there is the opportunity for the harm to be removed or reduced as part of the RMA process

1.584 Magnitude of impact: High

1.585 Likely effect: Major Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.586 This assessment is required to consider the worst-case scenario and the non-designated heritage receptor would be demolished. Therefore, no assessment of the All Phases is necessary as the heritage value of the building would be lost at the demolition and construction stage.

1.587 If the non-designated heritage receptor can be retained and integrated as part of Plot WK08 through RMA then there is the potential for benefits of reuse and refurbishment of historic fabric to offset any harm from development proposals.

1.588 Magnitude of impact: N/A

1.589 Likely effect: N/A

9 Beaumont Avenue, Non-Designated Heritage Receptor (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.590 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would involve the demolition of the non-designated heritage receptor The demolition of the receptor is proposed to facilitate Development Zone Z/Plot WK01. As before, harm to a nondesignated heritage receptor is not considered as ‘less than substantial’ or ‘substantial’. Rather, paragraph 209 of the NPPF states that:

1.591 In the case of 9, Beaumont Avenue, the scale of harm would be high as there would be total loss.

1.592 Magnitude of impact: High

1.593 Likely effect: Major Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.594 No assessment of the All Phases is required because the heritage value of the building would be lost at the demolition and construction stage.

1.595 Magnitude of impact: N/A

1.596 Likely effect: N/A

Figure 1.60: All Phases TVA View A30

Figure 1.61: All Phases TVA View B16

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias, Grade I Listed Building (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.597 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would introduce activity such as cranes and the gradual appearance of new buildings (including cores, frame-like structures and movement of people and materials) to the setting of the church, which would be visible in the important views of the listed building from the north.

1.598 In the demolition and construction of the All Phases, the construction of Plots WK08, WK09, WB06, WB04, WB03, WB05 and EC06 would appear in the views of the church from the north on Philbeach Gardens and would be more noticeable in winter than in summer because of the existing tree canopy.

1.599 This would mean that a considerable amount of demolition and construction activity would be visible in the wider setting of the receptor, and it would appear at a distance of around 200 m-400 m from the listed building and the crescent setting. This is judged to result in a very low level of less than substantial harm, because it would change the extent to which the skyline of the immediate terraces is maintained and development would be visible adjacent to the church silhouette, potentially resulting in distraction from the foreground scene which includes the receptor and comprises its important setting, and which is also a designated heritage receptor, namely a CA (see TVA view 26 specifically).

1.600 The Plots under construction would also lack any architectural quality, and such activities are generally alien in their character relative to the residential development that provides the setting for the church. There may also be noise which would disturb the residential character.

1.601 Construction activity is, however, not unusual in London, and the impact of the All Phases would be understood as temporary and part of the continuing life and development of a large city in a location well served by public transport and with a busy urban character. Such equipment is, therefore, a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.602 In summary, the visibility of demolition and construction activity from the All Phases is considered to result in some harm to the church as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of the building in the crescent setting and taking away from its status as the focal point in the streetscene.

1.603 Given that the intrinsic interests of the church would be wholly preserved, the separating distance to the Plots under construction and the maintenance of the clear sky behind the church and its immediate neighbours, the harm is considered to be less than substantial and very low. It is also temporary.

1.604 The harm would be reduced or removed entirely during the summer months when the London Plane trees are in full leaf and provide screening and greater containment to the residential setting in which the church is appreciated.

1.605 Regardless of seasonal change, the demolition and construction activity would be temporary and medium-term in duration, and the effect would cease upon completion of the All Phases.

1.606 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.607 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant) Completed Development Effects

1.608 The All Phases would introduce new, tall buildings as peripheral features in the views of the church from the north on Philbeach Gardens.

1.609 There are five verified views which represent the visibility with the church and they are reproduced in the TVA. TVA views 25 and 26 are reproduced below because they represent the greatest visibility of the All Phases in the most important views of the church from Philbeach Gardens, i.e. where the east front of the church can be appreciated to the best extent. Moving further south into the view, the east elevation of the church would move of view and the focus of the townscape.

1.610 It is described earlier in this chapter how the appreciation of the church has been one of the main considerations to the layout and scale of the massing. The views of the church from Philbeach Gardens were identified at an early stage in order to ensure that the silhouette of the church would be respected by the All Phases.

1.611 The position and height of the Plots that appear in the backdrop of the church in the views from Philbeach Gardens have been carefully adjusted to move away from the church as far as possible and not affect its historic profile. In some cases,

Plots were removed or reduced in height, such as a tall building that would have been seen immediately behind the Clergy House and the experience of the north elevation of the church.

1.612 The architecture and materiality of the All Phases has also been considered in reference to the views of the church and the buildings in the crescent which contribute to its heritage value. Codes LS.B.39-LS.B.41 require Plots WK08 and WK09 to have their building tops to be expressed, be distinguishable from the foreground and have a visual richness in the architecture.

1.613 The verified views show the All Phases as seen in the setting of the church from Philbeach Gardens. In the All Phases scenario, Plots WK08 and WK09 would appear to the left of the church and interpose between Plots WB06, WB04 and EC06.

1.614 The All Phases would introduce a considerable quantum of new development and the proximity of the All Phases in the setting of the church.

1.615 The design of the All Phases, including the position, layout and massing of the Plots has minimised the harmful impact as far as possible: the height of Plot WK08 which would be seen closest to the church would sit below the cornice of the spirelets that adorn the east elevation; and the main spire would remain the tallest feature in the foreground and seen against clear sky.

1.616 However, the scale contrast with the Early Phases in the crescent would, in the winter months, raise the eye from the historic streetscene and the church, as a distinctive feature within it, reducing our appreciation of its exterior to a limited extent.

1.617 The intrinsic historic and architectural interest of the church would be unaffected, including the interiors which are the reason for its high grading. On this basis, and because the church’s heritage value does not draw anything from the All Phases Site as a setting element, if there was a finding of harm then it could only be less than substantial and is unlikely to creep very high into that scale.

1.618 In principle, the replacement of the cleared and largely vacant Site with a new destination location would improve the area surrounding the church and may lead to investment and new communities that would support the continued function of the church. New residents, for example, are not less likely to want to be married, baptised and buried from a church, or to visit it regularly for worship. The All Phases Site as existing makes no contribution to the historic and architectural interest of the church and provides an unattractive boundary, and its vacant condition contributes nothing to the church’s mission in the local area.

1.619 The harm is therefore considered to be a very low level of less than substantial harm because:

• the intrinsic interest of the listed building would not be affected;

• the high grading is derived from the interiors, which goes to the nature and extent of the harm, taking the sensitivity of the receptor into account;

• the separating distances which avoid overbearing;

• the interest and variety of the immediate setting of the church which is the focus of one’s attention in the scene;

• the silhouette of the church would be unaffected and the skyline of the properties immediately to either side; and

1.620 In formulating these conclusions, through the above analysis, there has also been regard to that awareness one has already of denser and larger development outside the immediate setting of the church, as a consequence of the Empress State Building. That general awareness goes to whether and/or to what extent a visitor to this area finds the ability to see more modern development intrusive or alien.

1.621 The harm would be reduced or removed entirely during the summer months when the London Plan trees are in full leaf and provide screening and greater containment to the residential setting in which the church is appreciated. This assessment considers the worst-case scenario, which would be the winter months.

1.622 As before, it is considered that weight may be given to the summer screening effect, however, because the trees are attractive, mature plane trees which are historic, dating roughly to the period when the street was laid out. Works of

felling or lopping are controlled in a CA, and the maintenance of these trees as a townscape feature is recognised in planning documents (for example, the RBKC’s adopted CA Appraisal which identifies the trees of significant townscape features.

1.623 The impact on the church of the All Phases would include Plots in the north-west part of the All Phases Site where opportunities have been taken to enhance the contribution that setting makes to the heritage value of the listed building by creating new ways to appreciate it.

1.624 In particular, there would be an area of public realm between Plots WK06 and WK05/WK07 on the west side of the WLL. This is referred to in the West Kensington Design Code as the ‘West Kensington Deck Over’.

1.625 The West Kensington Deck Over would, additionally, provide a new location to appreciate the church, where one would be able to see the west elevation and spire which are distinctive and recognisable features. The West Kensington Deck Over and the space opposite would be in close alignment with the orientation of the church which would maximise this effect, and this represents a benefit to the experience of the church considering there is no access to the All Phases Site and the only way to appreciate the church currently is from Philbeach Gardens.

1.626 The Design Code states that the West Kensington Deck Over should be car free and preserve existing trees and vegetation. It must provide a landscape edge to the WLL. It would therefore have soft landscaping.

1.627 In summary, the benefits of the All Phases on the heritage value of the church would be:

• the regeneration of the All Phases Site to create a new destination location that would improve the surrounding area and potentially offer investment and new communities to use and enjoy the church; and

• new opportunities to appreciate the church from the west, in particular the West Kensington Deck Over.

1.628 The harm to the church from the All Phases would arise from:

• the contrast in scale and proximity of the All Phases in views from the north on Philbeach Gardens, introducing distraction from the contemplation of what is largely an uninterrupted skyline profile.

1.629 It is concluded that the benefits of the All Phases would be able to countervail some of the harm from the new massing. Accordingly, and following the internal heritage balance approach, it is concluded there would be a very low level of less than substantial harm from the All Phases on a net basis.

1.630 The application of the internal heritage balance accounts for the finding of a Negligible Adverse likely effect for the purposes of the ES, notwithstanding the magnitude of impact is Low.

1.631 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.632 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.62: All Phases TVA View 25

Brompton Cemetery, Grade I RPG (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.633 The effect of the demolition and construction of the All Phases on Brompton Cemetery would be the same as the Early Phases because it is the same Development Zones that would change the setting of Brompton Cemetery.

1.634 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.635 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.636 The effect of the All Phases on Brompton Cemetery would be the same as the Early Phases because it is the same Development Zones that would change the setting of Brompton Cemetery.

1.637 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.638 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.639 Please refer to assessment for the Brompton Cemetery RPG.

1.640 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.641 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.642 Please refer to assessment for the Brompton Cemetery RPG.

1.643 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.644 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Nevern Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.645 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would introduce the visibility of high-level construction activity such as cranes and cores in views from the east-west routes throughout the CA. This is because routes through the CA would align with the All Phases.

1.646 The visibility of demolition and construction activity from the All Phases would be considered to result in some harm to the CA as a result of the potential distraction from the appreciation of those aspects that contribute to the heritage value of the CA, namely an appreciation of the rhythmic architectural qualities of the terraces, the sense of enclosure within the streets, particularly Nevern Square, and the consistent parapet lines of the terraces which would be disrupted by views of construction activity described.

1.647 Views of demolition and construction activity would signal the redevelopment of the All Phases Site and the increase in urban character that this would bring to the setting of the CA, in turn urbanising the character of the CA itself. That said, one is aware of the wider urban setting of the CA when moving through it, particularly given the busy boundary roads and presence of the WLL.

1.648 Demolition and construction activity is also not unusual in London, and it would be understood as temporary. It is a necessary part of bringing forward sites and understood as such.

1.649 The intrinsic architectural and historic interest of the CA would be preserved, and the effects would be temporary. As such, the harm identified is considered to be less than substantial and low.

1.650 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.651 Likely effect: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.63: All Phases TVA View 26

Figure 1.64: Extract from West Kensington Design Code showing Location of ‘West Kensington Deck Over’ Public Realm Area

Completed Development Effects

1.652 The All Phases would introduce tall residential development to east-west views across the CA as represented by TVA views 21, 23 and 24. The upper parts of Plots WB03 and WB04 would appear above the terraces that enclose Nevern Square from the private residents’ garden – see TVA views 22 and A12.

1.653 The All Phases would result in harm to the CA because of the contrast in scale between the historic townscape and All Phases which would introduce distraction and awareness of the wider setting. It would draw the eye and change the legibility of the continuous historic roofscapes and character of the Victorian residential development.

1.654 The impact would be greatest on Longridge Road and Trebivor Road where the All Phases would be layered against each other and enclose the view. The TVA views demonstrate how the composition of the Early Phases would change as one moves through the area and it is noted that in other directions the All Phases would not be visible and the appreciation of the CA would be conserved.

1.655 There is not considered to be any material effect on the appreciation of the gardens in Nevern Square as a result of the upper parts of Plot WB04 being visible. This is because the landscape would retain attention and the red brick terraces provide a strong enclosing features.

1.656 The harm to the CA has been minimised through the location and number of tall building Plots, and Plots were removed and the proposed heights reorganised in order to introduce sky gaps between buildings and improve the composition of buildings which had an improvement on the visual impact on the Nevern Square CA. The materiality has also been carefully considered for the Detailed Components and would be subject to Reserved Matters for the Outline Components. In the views from Longridge Road, Trebivor Road and Nevern Square (TVA views 23 and 24) the lighttoned materials for the tall buildings and the articulation of the crowns would respond to the materials palette in the foreground of the CA and maintain the sense of uniformity and traditional masonry. The harm to the Nevern Square as a result of the All Phases is considered to be low to medium less than substantial because it would affect the full extent of the CA in views from the axial roads. This is as compared to the Early Phases, where the effect was on the south part of the CA only.

1.657 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.658 Likely effect: Minor/Moderate Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.65: All Phases TVA View 21

Figure 1.66: All Phases TVA View 23

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area (RBKC)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.659 The demolition and construction activity for the All Phases in the setting of the conservation area would be the same as the Early Phases, because it is the same Development Zones that would appear in the setting of the receptor

1.660 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.661 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.662 The effect of the All Phases would be the same as the Early Phase because it is the same Development Zones that would appear in the setting of the receptor

1.663 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.664 Likely effect: Minor/Moderate Adverse (not significant)

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.665 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would change the setting of the CA by removing Ashfield House in views out of the CA on Mornington Avenue and it would introduce visibility of construction activity, such as cranes and the gradual emergence of the taller buildings proposed to the south of the All Phases Site (Development Zone H) and the construction of the proposed Plots in Development Zone X on the north boundary of the All Phases Site would terminate the view along Mornington Avenue and parallel streets at the south boundary of the CA.

1.666 The demolition of Ashfield House is considered to have a positive effect on the heritage value of the CA because the 1980s office buildings is considered to detract from the historic character of the townscape seen in views through this part of the CA. Given the size of the CA and limited impact overall that Ashfield House has on the understanding of the

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.67: All Phases TVA View 24

Figure 1.68: All Phases TVA View 22

historical and architectural interest of the townscape, which is intrinsic to the historic townscape covered by the designation, the benefit is considered very low.

1.667 At the demolition and construction stage of the All Phases, Ashfield House would be replaced by construction activity for taller buildings in Development Zone X and there would be views of high-level construction activity and the emergence of the tallest All Phases buildings in views from across the CA. The appearance of construction activity above the residential townscape in incidental views is not considered to have an impact on the appreciation of its special interest which, as above, is intrinsic. From the large part of the CA, the activity would be seen over a considerable distance and understood as separate to the CA.

1.668 The proximity, however, of demolition and construction activity from Sub Area D in the south part the CA would have a more noticeable and distracting effect, and this is considered to cause less than substantial harm to its heritage value When considering the benefit of removing Ashfield House, size of the CA (and effect on its interest as a whole) and the preservation of the area’s intrinsic interests, the level of harm is considered to be very low on balance.

1.669 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.670 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.671 The ZVI indicates the extent to which the All Phases would be visible across the Olympia and Avonmore CA. Plots WB03, WB04, WB05 and WB06 would introduce tall modern development to the skyline of the historic townscape in streets within the CA that are aligned with the All Phases Site. The impact on those views is represented by the TVA views

1.672 The visibility of the All Phases is concentrated in the south part of the CA, and the visibility would be limited in Sub Area D and near to the junction with Hammersmith Road (see TVA view 40). The impact would be limited to views looking south and the experience would be preserved in the majority of locations, where there would be no visibility of the All Phases, or in views looking north.

1.673 The All Phases would not affect the important views in the CA that are identified by the Appraisal or the appreciation of listed buildings within the CA, which are best appreciated in views that look north and the Early Phases would not appear in. The key views in the Appraisal are for the avoidance of doubt: along the curve of Hammersmith Road (east-west route); Matheson Road and Stanwick Road.

1.674 In the view from Stanwick Road looking south, the All Phases would be seen as a small feature in the backdrop of existing modern development that terminates the view on the West Cromwell Road. There would be no change to how this part of the CA is appreciated in the context of modern development of different scale. The appreciation of the prevailing historic character of the street would be unaffected.

1.675 Where visible, the All Phases would be seen over distance and the appreciation of the historic character of development in the foreground of views in the CA, which tend to be quite short because of the street pattern, would not be considered to change to such an extent that the understanding of the historic character of the area and appreciation of the architecture within it would be affected.

1.676 Furthermore, the CA has been experienced in the context of modern development of contrasting scale, for example Ashfield House at the south end of Mornington Avenue and the commercial development referenced for Stanwick Road.

1.677 The exception to this assessment is the views from Mornington Avenue looking south where the All Phases would replace Ashfield House with two, large commercial buildings in Development Zone X. The effect of this Development Zone on the CA has been minimised through the embedded design with particular reference the views on Mornington Avenue (TVA view 41) to create a break between Plots WB03 and WB05 and thereby extend the view to follow Mornington Avenue and respond to the enclosure of the street provided by the historic residential development in the foreground.

1.678 Mornington Avenue is not identified as a key view in the CA Appraisal, however the change to the setting of the CA would be very noticeable, and the contrast in scale and degree of distraction that would be introduced by the All Phases would result in harm to the CA. The harm is considered to be less than substantial and a low level when considered in light of the effect on the CA as a whole, the embedded mitigation and the improvement upon Ashfield House, which was an unattractive slab block and terminated across the view from Mornington Avenue.

1.679 The impact of the All Phases in the view from Mornington Avenue would be further mitigated through design which is secured through the West Kensington Design Code.

1.680 The Design Code states that the building tops of Plots WK03 and WK04 are designed to be visually distinct from the lower parts, to modulate the scale of the development. Design Code WK.L.14 requires that the material treatment of these Plots “should integrate with both the existing and emerging character”, and a section of the West Kensington portion of the All Phases would utilise the mansion block typology informed by the character of the CA.

1.681 In particular, the fine detailing of the architecture, stepped and articulated massing and the use of light colour materials to reduce the visual impact of the buildings. Design Code WB.K.14 requires that “the articulation of all deep plan blocks should contribute towards the reading of a continuous intermediate datum” and code WK.B.13 requires that the tonality of the blocks facing Mornington Avenue “must provide a distinct contrast from the red brick toned facades” of the CA, in order to make legible the differentiation between foreground and background.

1.682 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.683 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.69: All Phases TVA View 40

Queen’s Club Gardens Conservation Area (LBHF)

Demolition and Construction Effects

1.684 The demolition and construction of the All Phases would introduce views of cranes and construction activity into eastfacing views from within the CA, including the main set piece around Queen’s Club Gardens and the private residents garden itself. The construction activity would relate to the realisation of Plots WB04-06, EC05 and EC06.

1.685 The demolition and construction activity would likely cause some distraction from the architectural interest of the historic residential townscape in some views as the activity and construction infrastructure would draw the eye from the architectural interest of the buildings which comprise a well-defined spatial entity. It would therefore cause a very low level of less than substantial harm to the CA.

1.686 Magnitude of impact: Very Low

1.687 Likely effect: Negligible Adverse (not significant)

Completed Development Effects

1.688 The All Phases would introduce visibility of new tall buildings in a number of locations looking east out of the CA, including from the main set piece of Queen’s Club Gardens and the private residents garden itself. There has also been regard to views looking east from the Queen’s Club, however the function of this part of the CA as primarily a leisure facility means that it is less sensitive as attention would be focussed on the activity within the sports ground. The architecture that faces onto this part of green space within the CA is also the rear elevation of residential terraces and is likewise less sensitive that the architectural set pieces and front elevations of the residential townscape which were designed with more ornamentation and detailing.

1.689 Whilst modern built form has historically been visible from the CA with the Empress State Building punctuating the skyline in a number of views (see views A31, 50 and 52) the All Phases would introduce a larger amount of modern, tall built form into views looking out of the CA.

Figure 1.70: All Phases TVA View 41

Figure 1.71: All Phases TVA View A29

Figure 1.72: All Phases TVA View B12

1.690 This impact is most noticeable seen in view 50 from The Queen’s Club looking east. In this view, Plots WB06 and WB04, WK05, WK09, WK03 and WK04 would appear above the historic townscape in these views.

1.691 Whilst the All Phases would introduce a change to the setting of the CA, the substantial separating distance allows it to be read as a background layer of modern development that is clearly separate from the Victorian townscape of the CA and only visible in views oriented to the east.

1.692 In some views the contrast in height and scale of the All Phases in comparison with the building stock of the CA would reduce the architecturally cohesive quality of the receptor. This is best evidenced in view 52 from the central garden of the Queens Club. Whilst tree cover screens some of the impact from the tallest building of Plot WB04, the All Phases would increase an awareness of the outside world from within the CA. Although this has previously been introduced through intervisibility with the crown of the Empress State Building, the All Phases clearly furthers this impact.

1.693 The contrast in height and scale of All Phases results in a degree of distraction from the architectural interest of the CA in some select views, such as 52 from the north side of Queen’s Club Gardens. Along with a low level of negative change to the degree of enclosure experienced from within the CA the All Phases of completed development results in a low level of less than substantial harm to the receptor

1.694 Magnitude of impact: Low

1.695 Likely effect: Minor Adverse (not significant)

Figure 1.73: All Phases View 50

Figure 1.74: All Phases View 51

Figure 1.75: All Phases View 51N

RAMBOLL

Figure 1.76: All Phases View 52

Figure 1.77: All Phases View A31

Figure 1.78: All Phases View A32

Summary of All Receptors – All Phases

1.696 A summary of the effect on all heritage receptors scoped in for assessment is provided by Table 1.11 with reference to the analysis at ES

Technical Appendix 1.1. Table 1.11: All Phases – Summary of Effects on All Heritage Receptors

Assessment of Residual Effects

Early Phases

Additional Mitigation

Demolition

1.697

1.698 No additional mitigation measures are proposed in respect of built heritage receptors.

1.699 No enhancement measures are proposed in respect of built heritage.

Demolition and Construction Residual Effects

1.700 As no additional mitigation would be required, the residual demolition and construction effects remain as reported in the assessment of effects section.

Completed Development Residual Effects

1.701 As no additional mitigation or enhancement measures are proposed for heritage receptors, the residual effects remain as reported in the assessment of effects section.

All Phases

Additional Mitigation

Demolition and Construction Stage

1.702 Historic Building Recording would be secured through a suitably worded condition to record the non-designated heritage receptors that would be demolished by the All Phases: the LBD Train Maintenance Shed and 9 Beaumont Avenue.

Completed Development Stage

1.703 No additional mitigation measures are proposed in respect of built heritage receptors.

Enhancement Measures

1.704 No enhancement measures are proposed in respect of built heritage.

Demolition and Construction Residual Effects

1.705 The additional mitigation proposed for the LBD Train Maintenance Shed and 9, Beaumont Avenue would not change the effect on these non-designated heritage receptors, which would be subject to full demolition and therefore there would be a total loss of heritage value. That would not be reduced or changed by recording; however, recording would ensure that the historic interest of the buildings and their role in the evolution of the area would remain part of public knowledge.

1.706 The harm to the Lillie Bridge Depot and the 9, Beaumont Avenue would therefore remain as reported in the assessment of effects section: Major Adverse (significant, direct, permanent, irreversible, long term).

1.707 As no other additional mitigation or enhancement measures are proposed for other heritage receptors assessed, the residual effects remain as reported in the assessment of effects section.

Completed Development Residual Effects

1.708 As no additional mitigation or enhancement measures are proposed for heritage receptors, the residual effects remain as reported in the assessment of effects section.

Summary of Residual Effects

1.709 Table 1.12 provides a tabulated summary of the outcomes of the built heritage assessment of the Proposed Development.

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Early Phases

Demolition and Construction

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor. None Negligible (not significant)

Entrance Gates and Screen on Old Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in None Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Brompton Road (listed building) the setting of the heritage receptor.

St Cuthbert’s Clergy House (listed building)

West Brompton Station including Booking Hall and Train Shed and Staircases and Retaining Wall (listed building)

Earls Court Station (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

30-52, Earls Court Square SW5 (listed building)

The Boltons (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Arcade Forming North West Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming North East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South Western Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South East Quarter

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

and

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Church of England Chapel (listed building)

8, Melbury Road W14 (listed building)

35 and 37

Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

39 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

41 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

43 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

45, Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

The temple (in the gardens in middle of south side) (listed building)

Edwardes Place (listed building)

construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in

(not significant)

1.12:

of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Earls Terrace (listed building)

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases

Chelsea Old Church (listed building)

Lindsey House (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility

Phases

91, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility

92, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

93 and 94, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

107 and 108, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the

109, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases

110, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

of Early Phases

and

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

the setting of the heritage receptor.

113, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

118 and 119, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Brompton Cemetery RPG

Edwardes Square RPG

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Holland Park RPG Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Gardens RPG

Negligible (not significant)

Philbeach Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Nevern Square Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in

(not significant)

significant)

Table

Summary

1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Courtfield Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Holland Park Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

62-68 Lillie Road SW6 (listed building)

St Andrew’s Church, Fulham Fields (listed building)

Church of St Alban (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Sir Oswald Foundation […] (listed building)

Stamford Brook House Wall to Stamford Brook House (listed

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

building) (listed building) the setting of the heritage receptor.

The Brook (listed building) (listed building)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

9 and 11, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

15, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

17 and 19, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

21 and 23, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Administration Block to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital (listed building)

Hammersmith Bridge (listed building)

6, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

7, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in

Table

1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

the setting of the heritage receptor.

8, Lower Mall W6 (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases demolition and

activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

9, Lower Mall W6 (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

10 (Kent House)

Lower Mall including railings and gate (listed building)

11 and 12, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Visibility of Early Phases

and

activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of Early Phases

and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Parish Church of All Saints (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases

and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Fulham Palace (listed building) Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park RPG Visibility of Early Phases

Fulham Palace RPG

Phases

Barons Court Conservation Area

Phases

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Gunter Estate Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Turneville/Chesson Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Crabtree Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Parsons Green Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

The Mall Conservation Area

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Table

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Avonmore Gardens (locally listed building)

8 Avonmore Road (locally listed building)

20 Avonmore Road (locally listed building) Visibility

Kensington Village (locally listed

Phases

Baron’s Court House (locally listed building)

2 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building) Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction

23 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building)

24 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

30 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of

43 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

5 Barton Road (locally listed building)

2 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

6 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

13 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Crescent (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Street (locally listed building)

Institute of Indian Culture (locally listed building)

LBD Train

Maintenance Shed

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

(non-designated heritage receptor) the setting of the heritage receptor.

9, Beaumont Avenue (nondesignated heritage receptor)

Visibility of Early Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Completed Development

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (listed building)

Entrance Gates and Screen on Old Brompton Road (listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

St Cuthbert’s Clergy House (listed building) Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

West Brompton Station including Booking Hall and Train Shed and Staircases and Retaining Wall (listed building)

Earls Court Station (listed building)

30-52, Earls Court Square SW5 (listed building)

The Boltons (listed building)

Arcade Forming North West Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming North East Quarter of Circle and

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

significant)

(not significant)

significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South Western Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Church of England Chapel (listed building)

8, Melbury Road W14 (listed building)

35 and 37 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

39 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

41 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

43 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

45, Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

The temple (in the gardens in middle of south side) (listed building)

Edwardes Place (listed building)

Earls Terrace (listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

Chelsea Old Church (listed building)

Lindsey House (listed building)

91, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

92, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

93 and 94, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

107 and 108, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

109, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

110, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

113, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

118 and 119, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Brompton Cemetery RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Edwardes Square RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Holland Park RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Gardens RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Philbeach Conservation Area

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Nevern Square Conservation Area Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area

Courtfield Conservation Area

Holland Park Conservation Area

62-68 Lillie Road SW6 (listed building)

St Andrew’s Church, Fulham Fields (listed building)

Church of St Alban (listed building)

Sir Oswald Foundation […] (listed building)

Stamford Brook House Wall to Stamford Brook House (listed building)

The Brook (listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Minor (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Minor/Moderate (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Minor (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

Residual

9 and 11, Stamford Brook Road (listed building) Visibility

15, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

17 and 19, Stamford Brook Road (listed building) Visibility

21 and 23, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Administration Block to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital (listed building)

Hammersmith Bridge (listed building)

6, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

7, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

8, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

9, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

10 (Kent House) Lower Mall including railings and gate (listed building)

11 and 12, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Phases

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Fulham Palace (listed building)

Parish Church of All Saints (listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Fulham Palace RPG Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Barons Court Conservation Area

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Gunter Estate Conservation Area Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Turneville/Chesson Conservation Area Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area

Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area

Crabtree Conservation Area

Parsons Green Conservation Area

Bishops Park Conservation Area

The Mall Conservation Area

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

significant)

Negligible (not significant)

significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Minor (not significant)

(not significant)

Minor (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

Avonmore Gardens (locally listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

8 Avonmore Road (locally listed building) Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

20 Avonmore Road (locally listed building) Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Village (locally listed building)

Baron’s Court House (locally listed building)

2 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

23 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building) Visibility

24 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

30 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

43 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

5 Barton Road (locally listed building)

2 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

6 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

13 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

1 Challoner Crescent (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Street (locally listed building)

Institute of Indian Culture (locally listed building)

LBD Train

Maintenance Shed (non-designated heritage receptor)

9, Beaumont Avenue (nondesignated heritage receptor)

All Phases

Visibility of the Early Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Demolition and Construction

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (listed building)

Entrance Gates and Screen on Old Brompton Road (listed building)

St Cuthbert’s Clergy House (listed building)

West Brompton Station including Booking Hall and Train Shed and Staircases and Retaining Wall (listed building)

Earls Court Station (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in

Mitigation

and Significance of Residual Effect

significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Minor (not significant)

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

30-52, Earls Court Square SW5 (listed building)

The Boltons (listed building)

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Arcade Forming North West Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming North East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South Western Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming South East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Church of England Chapel (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Phases

and

8, Melbury Road W14 (listed building) Visibility of

35 and 37 Harrington

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Gardens SW7 (listed building)

39 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

41 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

43 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

45, Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

The temple (in the gardens in middle of south side) (listed building)

Edwardes Place (listed building)

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

Earls Terrace (listed building)

Negligible (not significant)

Chelsea Old Church (listed building)

Lindsey House (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor. None Negligible (not significant)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in

Negligible (not significant)

1.12:

Receptor

of Residual Built Heritage Effects

the setting of the heritage receptor.

91, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

92, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

93 and 94, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

107 and 108, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

109, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

110, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases

113, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

118 and 119, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the

Brompton Cemetery RPG

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Edwardes Square RPG Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Holland Park RPG Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Palace RPG Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Philbeach Conservation Area Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Nevern Square Conservation Area Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Courtfield Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in

Negligible (not significant)

Minor (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table

Summary

1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

Holland Park Conservation Area

the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases

in the setting of the heritage receptor.

62-68 Lillie Road SW6 (listed building)

St Andrew’s Church, Fulham Fields (listed building)

Church of St Alban (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of All Phases

and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Sir Oswald Foundation […] (listed building)

Stamford Brook House Wall to Stamford Brook House (listed building) (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

The Brook (listed building) (listed building) Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the

9 and 11, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

15, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

17 and 19, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

21 and 23, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Administration Block to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital (listed building)

Hammersmith Bridge (listed building)

(not significant)

6, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

7, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

8, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Mitigation

9, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

and Significance of Residual Effect

Table

1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

10 (Kent House) Lower Mall including railings and gate (listed building)

11 and 12, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Parish Church of All Saints (listed building)

Fulham Palace (listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park RPG Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Fulham Palace RPG Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Barons Court Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Gunter Estate Conservation Area Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Turneville/Chesson Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Crabtree Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Parsons Green Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

The Mall Conservation Area

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Avonmore Gardens (locally listed building)

8 Avonmore Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Minor (not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Table

1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

20 Avonmore Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Village (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Baron’s Court House (locally listed building)

2 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

23 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building) Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

24 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

30 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

43 Comeragh Road (locally listed building) Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

5 Barton Road (locally listed building)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

2 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

6 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

13 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

1 Challoner Crescent (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Street (locally listed building)

Institute of Indian Culture (locally listed building)

Lillie Bridge Depot (non-designated heritage receptor)

9, Beaumont Avenue (nondesignated heritage receptor)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Visibility of All Phases demolition and construction activity in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Negligible (not significant)

Completed Development

Church of St Cuthbert and St Matthias (listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Table

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Entrance Gates and Screen on Old Brompton Road (listed building)

St Cuthbert’s Clergy House (listed building)

West Brompton Station including Booking Hall and Train Shed and Staircases and Retaining Wall (listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Minor/Moderate (not significant)

Earls Court Station (listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

30-52, Earls Court Square SW5 (listed building)

The Boltons (listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Arcade Forming North West Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Arcade Forming North East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the

Arcade Forming South Western Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Arcade Forming

South East Quarter of Circle and Avenue (listed building)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Church of England Chapel (listed building)

8, Melbury Road W14 (listed building)

35 and 37 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

39 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

41 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

43 Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

45, Harrington Gardens SW7 (listed building)

The temple (in the gardens in middle of south side) (listed building)

Edwardes Place (listed building)

Earls Terrace (listed building)

Chelsea Old Church (listed building)

Lindsey House (listed building)

91, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

92, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

93 and 94, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

107 and 108, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

109, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

110, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

113, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

118 and 119, Cheyne Walk SW3 (listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Brompton Cemetery RPG Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Edwardes Square RPG Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Holland Park RPG Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Kensington Palace RPG Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Philbeach Conservation Area Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Nevern Square Conservation Area Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Earl’s Court Village Conservation Area Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Earl’s Court Square Conservation Area

Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area

Courtfield Conservation Area

Holland Park Conservation Area

62-68 Lillie Road SW6 (listed building)

St Andrew’s Church, Fulham Fields (listed building)

Church of St Alban (listed building)

Sir Oswald Foundation […] (listed building)

Stamford Brook House Wall to Stamford Brook House (listed building) (listed building)

The Brook (listed building) (listed building)

9 and 11, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

15, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

17 and 19, Stamford Brook

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor

Residual

Road (listed building)

21 and 23, Stamford Brook Road (listed building)

Administration Block to Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital (listed building)

Hammersmith Bridge (listed building)

6, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

7, Lower Mall W6 (listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the

8, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

9, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

10 (Kent House) Lower Mall including railings and gate (listed building)

11 and 12, Lower Mall W6 (listed building)

Parish Church of All Saints (listed building)

Fulham Palace (listed building)

of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

Fulham Palace RPG Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Barons Court Conservation Area Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area

Gunter Estate Conservation Area

Turneville/Chesson Conservation Area

Queen’s Club Garden Conservation Area

Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area

Crabtree Conservation Area

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Parsons Green Conservation Area Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Bishops Park Conservation Area

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

The Mall Conservation Area

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

Avonmore Gardens (locally listed building)

8 Avonmore Road (locally listed building)

20 Avonmore Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Minor (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect

Kensington Village (locally listed building)

Baron’s Court House (locally listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

2 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

23 Baron’s Court Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

24 Comeragh Road (locally listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

30 Comeragh Road (locally listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

43 Comeragh Road (locally listed building) Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

5 Barton Road (locally listed building)

2 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

6 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

13 Castletown Road (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Crescent (locally listed building)

1 Challoner Street (locally listed building)

Institute of Indian Culture (locally listed building)

Visibility of the All Phases in the setting of the heritage receptor.

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

(not significant)

Negligible (not significant)

Table 1.12: Summary of Residual Built Heritage Effects

Receptor Description of Residual Effect Additional Mitigation Scale and Significance of Residual Effect

LBD Train Maintenance Shed (non-designated heritage receptor)

9, Beaumont Avenue (nondesignated heritage receptor)

Notes:

* - = Adverse/ + = Beneficial/ +/- = Neutral; D = Direct/ I = Indirect; P = Permanent/ T = Temporary; R=Reversible/ IR= Irreversible; St = Short-term/ Mt =Medium-term/ Lt=Long-term.

**Negligible/Minor/Moderate/Major

Cumulative Effects

Intra-Project Effects

1.710 As explained in Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology, intra-project cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects.

Inter-Project Effects

1.711 Table 1.12 provides a summary of the likely cumulative effects resulting from the Proposed Development and the cumulative developments.

Table 1.13: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects Early Phases

Cumulative Development Demolition and Construction Completed Development

Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason

1 Land to the rear of 1 Cluny Mews, and 51-63 Philbeach Gardens, London, SW5

2 100 West Cromwell Road, London, W14 8PB

3 257-265 Kensington High Street, and 4-10 and 24 Earl's Court Road, London, W8

4 Fulham Gasworks, Imperial Road, SW6 2AD

No Cumulative scheme near completion.

Yes Demolition and construction may appear with the Early Phases in views from Brompton Cemetery.

No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

No Demolition and construction of cumulative scheme

No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

Yes Cumulative scheme would appear with the Early Phases in views from Brompton Cemetery.

No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

Yes Cumulative scheme would change the setting of Brompton

Table 1.13: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects

Early Phases

Cumulative Development Demolition and Construction

Cumulative Effects Likely?

5 Olympia Exhibition Centre, Hammersmith Road, London, W14 8UX (including the Maclise Road Multi Storey Car Park)

Completed Development

Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason would not change the effect of the Early Phases on heritage receptors in the study area because of distance and location.

Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

6 Maclise Multi-Storey Car Park (MSCP) Olympia Exhibition Centre Hammersmith Road London, W14 8UX No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

7 Former West London Magistrate's Court, 181 Talgarth Road, London W6 8DN

8 Edith Summerskill House Clem Attlee Court Lillie Road, London SW6 7TD

9 St Pauls Girls School Brook Green, London, W6 7BS

Cemetery relevant to the effect of the Early Phases

Table 1.13: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects

Early Phases

Cumulative Development Demolition and Construction Completed Development Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason

11 1 - 9 Lillie Road, Part of Diary House, Roxby Place and Land Adjacent to the Railway Tracks, London SW6

Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction. No Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

No Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors.

10 Car, Coach and Lorry Park and 20 Seagrave Road, Diary House and Adjoining Electricity Substation Roxby Place London SW6 (known as ‘Lillie Square’)

Yes Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and occupied and have therefore been considered as part of the existing baseline. Phase 3 has been considered as cumulative scheme. Adjacent to Brompton Cemetery and would appear in views of the Early Phases from the receptor.

12 43 Brook Green London W6 7EF

Yes Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and occupied and have therefore been considered as part of the existing baseline. Phase 3 has been considered as cumulative scheme.

Adjacent to Brompton Cemetery and would appear in views of the Early Phases from the receptor.

Yes Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and occupied and have therefore been considered as part of the existing baseline. Phase 3 has been considered as cumulative scheme.

Adjacent to Brompton Cemetery and would appear in views of the Early Phases from the receptor.

No Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors. No Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors.

Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors.

13 68-72 Hammersmith Road, London, W14 8UD

14 Kensington Centre, 66 Hammersmith Road, London, W14 8UD

15 Landmark House Hammersmith Bridge Road London W6 9EJ

No Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors.

16 The Triangle (5-17 Hammersmith Grove) and Britannia House (1-11 Glenthorne Road), 3 and 3A Hammersmith Grove and 12-18 Beadon Road, Hammersmith, London W6 0LH

Considered to be too far away from the Early Phases Site to introduce cumulative effects on heritage receptors.

Table 1.13: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects

Early Phases

Cumulative

17 70-80 Lillie Road, London, SW6 1TN Yes Intervisibility with listed buildings and the Early Phases on Lillie Road.

All Phases

1 Land to the rear of 1 Cluny Mews, and 51-63 Philbeach Gardens, London, SW5

Cumulative scheme near completion.

2 100 West Cromwell Road, London, W14 8PB Yes Demolition and construction may appear with the Early Phases in views from Brompton Cemetery.

3 257-265 Kensington High Street, and 4-10 and 24 Earl's Court Road, London, W8

Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

Intervisibility with listed buildings and the Early Phases on Lillie Road.

Table 1.13: Inter-Project Cumulative Effects

Early Phases

Cumulative Development Demolition and Construction Completed Development Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason Cumulative Effects Likely? Reason

9 St Pauls Girls School Brook Green, London, W6 7BS

Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

Cumulative scheme would appear with the Early Phases in views from Brompton Cemetery.

Part of existing baseline given advanced stage of construction.

4 Fulham Gasworks, Imperial Road, SW6 2AD No Demolition and construction of cumulative scheme would not change the effect of the Early Phases on heritage receptors in the study area because of distance and location. Yes Cumulative scheme would change the setting of Brompton Cemetery relevant to the effect of the Early Phases