MAKE Design statement for Listed Building and Planning submission

This project aims to revive key existing internal features of the house, such as the staircase and the richly ornamental plasterwork, while carefully creating and inserting new elements which will enhance the spatial qualities of the interior. The proposals will offer a senstive response to the past while accommodating the natural changes and developments of the present, acheiving an exemplary aesthetic balance between period and modern features and upholding Kensington’s tradition of the highest qualities of design and craftmanship. The scheme will maintain and restore key internal features while creating a family home which provides the areas and amenities relevant to today’s needs. As part of this process, living accommodation is to be reorganised to create a more flexible and contemporary living space.

16 Stanley Gardens

Design statement for Listed Building and Planning submission

ToHilary Bell and Ian Williams Directorate for Planning and ConservationThe Royal Borough of Kensington and ChelseaThird Floor Town Hall Hornton Street

LONDONW8 7NX

15th December 2006Dear Hilary and Ian,The following design statement is submitted in support of the Listed Building application and the planning application for works to 16 Stanley Gradens in Notting Hill

The majority of the proposed work forms part of the Listed Building submission We understand that the components which relate to a planning submission are the alterations of the roof and the fixture of a flue stack at the side of the building The document presented combines all issues and formulates one concept for the building

In addition to our recent discussions with yourselves over the past four months, we have also consulted Ian Morrison (Transport Planner) to discuss the proposed re-opening of a manhole (located on the site of a former coal chute) in the pavement in front of the house

On the advice of Hilary Bell, we have presented our design concepts to Amanda Frame at the Kensington Society and Malcolm Pawley from the Ladbroke Association We have also presented the proposals to Anne Chorley, owner of the neighbouring property at 17 Stanley Gardens All parties had no objections to the design proposals as presented

Please note that we have been advised by the Planning Desk at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that an access statement is not required for this application since the property is a listed private dwelling and there are no proposals to alter existing access to the house

Please read this statement in conjunction with a set of scaled drawings (existing and proposed) as well as a set of engineers drawings as an appendix set submitted to you

Conservation advice has been provided by The Paul Drury Partnership

I trust you will find the above acceptable

Yours sincerely,

Christina Gresser

This project aims to revive key existing internal features of the house, such as the staircase and the richly ornamental

plasterwork, while carefully creating and inserting new elements which will enhance the spatial qualities of the interior The proposals will offer a senstive response to the past while accommodating the natural changes and developments of the present, acheiving an exemplary aesthetic balance between period and modern features and upholding Kensington’s tradition

of the highest qualities of design and craftmanship

The scheme will maintain and restore key internal features while creating a family home which provides the areas and

amenities relevant to today’s needs As part of this process, living accommodation is to be reorganised to create a more flexible and contemporary living space

External works are to be mainly confined to the roof area, where a roof light above the main stair well assists the ventilation

of the building’s upper levels Minor alterations made to the roof at the front of the property will reduce the height and visual dominance of the existing maintanance access dormer In order to address the resulting limitations of access to this area, a conservation style roof light will be inserted opposite the party wall within the hidden valley of the roof

In compliance with the Grade II Listing of the building and its location within the Ladbroke Conservation Area, the minor works proposed for the building exterior will not impact upon the general appearance of either the building itself or the general townscape

Various aspects which will make this transition possible have been explored and analysed:

1 Site area

2 Site history and cultural heritage

3 The architect of the building

4 The building’s past

5 Architectural features of the existing house

6 New architectural concept

7 Art and design - collaboration with an artist and designer

8 Modern M&E concept

9 Structural implications

Key architectural features of the existing building

Original staircase detailing in neighbouring properties 28

AppendixMethod statementon heating and coolingby Piers Heath(pha

01

Site and building

01

16 Stanley Gardens is a Grade II listed

building situated in the conservation

area of the Ladbroke Estates

complex in Notting Hill, West London

‘The Ladbroke Estate was one of the

Council’s earliest conservation area

designations under the Civic

Amenities Act of 1967 It has since

been recognised by the Sectretary of

State for the Environment as an area

of ‘outstanding interest’ (The Royal

Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/

Ladbroke Conservation Area Proposals

Statement - 1st edition, 1976)

The area is located at the top of a

steep hill (Notting Hill) to the

north-west of Hyde Park The Westway lies to

the north, while Holland Park Avenue

lies to the south The area is bisected

by Ladbroke Grove, which springs

perpendicular from Holland Park

Avenue and establishes a wide, straight

streetscape similar to the grand

boulevards of continental Europe

The overall footprint of this urban

quarter provides an exceptional

example of the careful planning and

townscape considerations of London’s

early-mid nineteenth century urban

development The masterplan for this

particular area was conceived by

Thomas Allason in 1823

The House itself has a main entrance

on Kensington Park Road Stanley

Gardens links Kensington Park Road

and the prestigious Stanley Crescent,

which forms the centrepiece of the

area’s townscape ensemble, along with

Landsdown Crescent

Kensington Park road is characterised

by terraced houses as well as smaller mews houses leading off on either side

of the street, with St Peter’s Church sited diagonally opposite the house

Today, this area is possesses some of the finest examples of London’s grand terraced housing and squares, along with smaller mews houses It also has extremely fashionable shopping districts around Westbourne Grove and the antique market of Portobello Road Although primarily an affluent and middle class district, this richly varied London quarter also has a mix of different ethnic and social groups

The immediate area in which the building is located is, however, almost certainly one of the most desirable quarters within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea today

Site area

St Peter’s Church by Thomas Allom

The foundation stone of St Peter’s was laid in November 1855, and

it was consecrated on 7 January 1857 by the Bishop of London, Archibald Campbell Tait, who in 1869 was to become Archbishop

62

74 74a 90

92

11 7

1

28 29

27 22 17

16

12

47 45

KENSINGT

ON P AR

K R OAD

STANLEY GARD ENS

808 808

Ordnance Survey

Superplan Data

Crown Copyright 2006

Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited

Listed building plan, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Until the early 19th century the area

north of Holland Park Avenue consisted

of unspoilt country with a few farm

houses doted around the area From

1820 onwards, however, buildings

began to spring up on either side on

Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill

Gate

This building work was masterminded

by Richard Ladbroke, the principal

landowner in the area son of one of the

wealthiest families in London

Ladbrooke began to convert his

property into building plots, and

employed architect Thomas Allason to

produce a grand plan for the site

Allason envisioned a grand estate

featuring a central circus bisected by a

broad avenue, and the basic principles

of this plan can still be seen in the

streetscape today in the form of

Ladbroke Grove and Landsdown and

Stanley Crescents Inspired by Nash’s

work on Regent’s Park, Allason hoped

to build an urban development of

similar grandeur featuring elegant

houses, terraces and detached or

semi-detached villas set in sizable gardens

and organised around a disciplined

street pattern

These grand plans were abruptly

curtailed by the financial crisis of 1825,

and only a limited amount of building

took place along the main roads

In 1840, John Whyte leased 140 acres

of the Ladbroke estate to create a

racecourse which became known to

Londoners as the Hippodrome

‘An aerial view of North Kensington, that part of the Borough lying north of Holland Park Avenue, makes it hard to believe that, a little more than one hundred years ago, the congestion of bricks, mortar and concrete that now covers the area, was delightful country site; that even in the 1850s, Portobello Lane, now Portobello Road, leading to Portobello Farm, was much favoured by Londoners as ‘one of the most rural and pleasant walks in the summer in the vicinity’, and that cornfields and meadows lay on either side of the path meandering on to Kensal Green, that in

1837, the year of Queen Victoria’s accession, one could back a horse on the Hippodrome race course and mix with London’s high society in there splendid equipages or with the pedestrians on the hill on which St

John’s Church was to be built, to watch one’s selection carrying one’s money to victory or defeat and, when the race was over, to celebrate or drown one’s sorrows in the marquees serving iced champagne; that, at the same time, if the wind was from the south-west, whiffs of piggeries and the smoke of

Mr Adams’s pottery kilns from Notting Dale might assail the nostrils.’

(Kensington, by Geoffrey Evans, published by Hamish Hamilton, 1975)The above excerpt highlights the factor which eventually spelt the end for the Hippodrome Although it enjoyed a spectacular rural setting, fashionable Londoners could only access the Hippodrome by travelling through the slums and areas of light industry at the city’s edge The Hippodrome eventually closed in 1842

Notting Hill Toll Gate - looking west

From water-colour drawing by Paul Sandby, R.A., 1793.

The Hippodrome in Notting Hill, 1839

Site history and cultural heritage

The urban layout of the terrace houses from the Survey of London

It was not until the late 19th century

that the district was developed to the

standards and condition that we see

today The area north of Holland Park

Avenue was always prone to high risk

speculation, but due to the extreme

constrasts between the

poverty-stricken population and the absence of

sanitation, sewers and drainage, the

developers’ dreams of building houses

for the middle classes usually failed or

were confined to very small pockets As

a result, building development

proceeded very slowly

Even as late as 1864, The Building News

was able to describe the area around

Arundel Gardens and Elgin Crescent as

consisting of ‘naked carcasses,

crumbling decorations, fractured walls

and slimy cement work’ The entire

estate was subsequently described as

a ‘graveyard of buried hopes’ , and was

nicknamed ‘the Stumps’

The area enjoyed a briefly fashionable

phase during the late 19th century, but

turned into a slum again from the

1930s to the mid 20th century, with

properties divided and sub-divided

into one bedroom tenements of very

poor living standards Several financial

crises, two world wars and the

socio-cultural proplems that manifested

themselves in the Notting Hill riots of

the post war years prevented the

district from blossoming It was only in

the late 60s and early 70s that the

district gradually changed into the

‘leafy Ladbroke’ estate originally

envisaged by Thomas Allason

View published in ‘The Illustrated London News’ of the gipsies encamped near latimer Road 1879-1880

Kensington Park Road, c.1905

Typical floor plans of terrace (from Survey of London)

Plan for Ladbroke estate by T Allason

1823 Plan for Ladbroke estate by Barbara Denny

Altered plan of Hippodrome from 1841,

by Sporting Review

From ‘Map of Kensington’ by B R

Davies 1841

Thomas Allom (13 March 1804 - 21

August 1872) was an English artist,

topographical illustrator and architect,

and founder member of what to

become the Royal Institute of British

Architects (RIBA)

Born in Lambeth, the son of a

coachman from Suffolk, he was

apprenticed at the age of 15 to the

architect Francis Goodwin He worked

for him for several years, before gaining

a place at the Royal Academy School

His principal buildings in London

include a workhouse in Marloes Road,

Kensington, the Church of Christ in

Highbury, the Church of St Peter in

Notting Hill, and the Ladbroke Estate in

west London He was also responsible

for designing workhouses at Calne in

Wiltshire and in Liverpool, the William

Brown Library in Liverpool, and the

tower of the church of Basford St

Leodegarius near Nottingham He also

collaborated with Sir Charles Barry on

numerous projects, including the

Houses of Parliament and the

remodelling of Highclere Castle

Allom is also known for his numerous

topographical works, which were used

to illustrate books on travel From the

1820s onwards, he travelled extensively

throughout Britain and mainland

Europe In 1834 he arrived in Istanbul,

Turkey, and produced hundreds of

drawings during journeys through

Anatolia, Syria and Palestine The

results of this expedition were

published in 1838 in Constantinople

and the Scenery of the Seven Churches

of Asia Minor He also contributed

illustrations to Reeve’s Character and

Costume in Turkey and Italy, published

in 1840, and to China Illustrated in 1845

Although suffering from a heart condition in his later years, Allom continued to work until 1870 His later works include the Holy Trinity Church in south west London) in 1868 and a mausoleum for former MP George Dodd in West Norwood Cemetery

Allom died at the age of 68, and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery

The architect

View of Stanley Crescent and Kensington Park Gardens by Thomas Allom

Illustration by Thomas Allom

St Peter Church - interior

1.1 The development of the Notting Hill area and the career

of Thomas Allom, the architect of this ‘spectacular pocket of

development1’, have been set out above (p15) The terrace of

which 16 Stanley Gardens forms part was begun by the

developer C H Blake c1852-3, but not completed until 1858

because of the bankruptcy of the original builder, D A

Ramsay2 It forms the terminal of a palace-fronted Italianate

five storey terrace of particularly complex and unusual plan,

and elaborate external treatment in painted stucco This and

other terraces enclose a communal garden, giving each

house two significant facades, a street front and a garden

front The whole terrace was listed grade II in 1969

1.2 The plan is unusual in consisting of a carefully composed

series of interlocking apsidal, flattened oval and rectangular

spaces, more reminiscent of a mid-18th century villa than a

mid-Victorian terrace house The care in planning extends to

the fit-out, in the form of elaborate cornices and joinery of a

higher standard than was normal in contemporary

developments

1.3 A drainage plan3 of 1899 hints at Edwardian

‘modernisation’, as in many high-status London houses, and

the linkage of the first floor rooms by archways probably

dates from this period There are a few features that suggest

that the house was later divided into flats – this most

commonly happened in the years following the Second World

War – but these were later reversed to bring the building

back into use as a single family house The conversion may

have been somewhat superficial and informal, since apart

from changes to the staircase it has left few traces There is

no record of conversion or re-conversion since 1948 in the

planning records of the Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea

2 The historic form and evolution of the interior

2.1 The internal plan is little altered within the structural

compartments The lower ground floor, which would have

housed the domestic offices, has been largely refitted in

Existing Lower Ground Floor Plan

recent years and retains no original fittings or finishes other

than the frames and shutters of the front windows The room

uses shown on the 1899 drainage plan probably reflect the

original ones, with the kitchen (LG-5) being the largest room

and the pantry sited in the brick vaulted space under the

ground floor entrance lobby (LG-1,3) The French doors from

the rear room (LG-6, historically the housekeeper’s room) are

modern Building regulation approval for the current

arrangement of a maid’s bedroom in the former scullery

(LG-4), linked by a new doorway to an en-suite shower and WC

formed within the former pantry, was given in 2003, with the

works being completed by 2005.4 There are modern false

ceilings, to conceal services and structural steelwork

2.2 Three pavement vaults were provided, the two smaller

ones (LG-10), unusually, being accessed by a lobby lit by a

window in the area wall Whilst LG-10 seems to have been

built as a coal cellar, since it had the usual pavement access

cover, it was soon converted into a wine cellar with bins

formed by stone slabs supported on half brick walls The

third and largest vault (LG-9) remained the coal cellar The

space adjacent to it, under the steps to the front door, was

later enclosed and now serves as a boiler and utility room

2.3 At ground floor level, what would have been the dining

room, to the front (G-5), is now the kitchen The room to the

rear (G-6) probably served as a morning room (an informal

sitting room for use in the morning), the small front room

(G-4) the study or business room of the male head of the

household The only extant fireplace surround is a reinstated

(but stylistically appropriate) one to G-6, but lacking a grate

All three rooms retain largely original joinery and cornices,

except the door and doorcase to G-4 which is a simplified

modern copy of the historic ones All three rooms also

probably had central ceiling roses of identical pattern, but

the one from the present kitchen, G-5, has been lost (the

majority of the ceiling has been replaced) and the two

survivors have lost their outer band of palmette ornament,

as is apparent by comparison with a rose on no 12 Stanley

Gardens The crude making good where this has been lost is

4 RBKC, BN/03/01618; there was no parallel listed

building consent application

Ceiling rose at no 17 Stanley Gardens to the right and ceiling rose at no 16 to the

far right

Existing Ground Floor Plan

2.4 At first floor level the three principal rooms are linked by

enriched plaster arches which could be closed off by

curtains This arrangement has occasional mid-19th century

parallels (eg The Grange, Ramsgate, 1843-4), but the

difference in the style of the enrichments to the plasterwork

suggests that it is an Edwardian intervention of c1899 The

usual arrangement would have been front and rear drawing

rooms linked by an opening fitted with wide or folding doors,

the third room (01-4) providing a boudoir (private sitting

room for the lady of the house) Direct access from the main

stair landing to the front drawing room (01-5) was probably

blocked when the arches were installed Otherwise all the

rooms retain their original joinery, original French doors

opening onto balconies to front and rear The two larger

rooms (01-5, 6) have had appropriate chimneypieces

reinstated in recent years (but lacking grates)

2.5 The second floor provided a main bedroom (02-5) with a

dressing room (now bathroom, 02-1) off to the front, and a

second bedroom (02-6) to the rear Apart from the modern

bathroom fittings, original joinery survives

2.6 The third floor provided three further bedrooms, but the

layout has been altered Originally the structural wall

between the two front rooms (03-4, 5) followed the line of

those below, but at some point probably early in the 20th

century it was altered to its present line, evidenced by the

rolled steel joist inserted above ceiling level to provide

alternative support to the roof structure above Otherwise

the top floor mostly retains original joinery, a simple cornice

(made good after the alterations) and original simple

fireplaces and grates Water closets off the stairs are

probably an original feature, integrated into the geometry of

the plan rather than (as was common in houses with a ‘back’

elevation) being tacked onto the rear

2.7 The roof structure itself is of shallow pitch, behind a low

parapet and designed not to be seen from the street, and

largely slated The covering was renewed in 2006 The

structure is notably slight and crude, perhaps because of the

hiatus in original building, the purlins being simply propped

off the internal walls below The structure has been much

First floor arched opening

Second floor fireplace

Second floor plan

First floor plan

First floor window casing

reinforced and repaired; in consequence the top floor

ceilings are partly replaced in plasterboard A large ‘dormer’

housing a door has been created (long ago) on the street side

to give maintenance access to the parapet gutter, and a

railing added along part of the parapet These are ugly

additions to the skyline, prominent in views from Kensington

Park Road

2.8 The stair and stairwell is a particularly important feature

of the house As usual in high status houses of this period,

the flight from ground to first floors has Portland stone

cantilever treads, here unusually carried across a window

opening, and an elaborate cast iron balustrade, which

continues along the first floor stone landing The lower flight

rose from a small vault across the north end of the stairwell

at ground floor level The upper flights of the stair are of

timber, again cantilevered, with turned balusters, and both

have mahogany handrails All flights wind around the curved

end of the stairwell, to good effect

2.9 However, several alterations to the stair are obvious The

inner ends of the landings at ground and first floor levels

were once partitioned off, probably to make flats (the marks

are visible on the walls), and the ends of the flights turned

through a right angle against that partition The result is

awkward and unsightly, compounded by a wide beam

downstanding from the ground floor ceiling, the introduction

of entirely incongruous turned mahogany newels and the use

of concrete for the winders introduced at ground floor level

These flights would be best returned to their original form

The formerly blind window at first floor level was fitted with

a sash in 1998, but this is a positive intervention5, improving

lighting

2.10 Throughout the ground floor, save for the ‘morning

room’, floor level has been raised by about 150 mm, with York

stone slabs (very recent) over pink marble flooring (1960s or

70s?), in the entrance lobby 1), hall 2), and study

(GF-4) The kitchen has some form of suspended floor above the

original structure at the same level, and its door has been

shortened to accommodate the difference, whereas the

‘morning room’ door (G-6) now closes against a step The

5 RBKC, TP98/2006/X/44/142R

Third floor plan

First floor landing Underside of first floor

landing

Ground floor stone stair up to first floor

Street view

lowest rise of the main stair is largely subsumed within this

raised floor, only the nosing showing

2.11 The lower ground floor to ground floor stair is a very

modern timber construction, which relates to the raised

ground floor level Historically a plain stone stair would be

likely, with access to it enclosed under the main stair to keep

kitchen smells and servants confined to the lower ground

floor, as in the other houses in the terrace, for example 11

Stanley Gardens

2.12 In fact the sequence is clear from opening up the side of

the trimmed opening through the ground floor The original

hall floor was of Portland stone slabs, like the first floor

landing; part of one survives in situ As was common in flat

conversions, the original lower ground floor stair was

removed and the hallway floored across from wall to wall, on

softwood joists The altered lower end of the main flight up

to the first floor was carried on steelwork When the present

stair was inserted, to reunite the house, more steelwork was

inserted under the previous steelwork, to trim the well, and

‘disguised’ in the deep bulkhead that now appears in the

lower hall The balustrade around the well at ground floor

level is a modern copy (aluminium balusters with threaded

rods set into their bases) of the historic balustrade to the

stone flights of the stair, with incongruous mahogany newel

posts

3 The special interest or ‘significance’ of the house

3.1 The house forms part of a mid-19th century urban

development of exceptional quality and inventiveness, which

is reflected in the unusual planning of the interiors of the

corner houses, including no 16 All the surviving original

external features contribute to that quality; the loss of some

few original details, notably the balustrade to the basement

area on the garden front, detracts from it, as do visible

modern services, and the prominent front dormer and

balustrade at roof level

3.2 Internally, the distinctive plan form of the building is an

important part of its special interest, as is the original stair,

and surviving original joinery and plasterwork The works

probably of c1899 to the principal floor, and the plasterwork

No 11 Stanley Gardens, staircase, entrance level 1973 (73/4/3793)

Steel beam at far distance

Piece of slab existing, modern

structures on top

associated with them, are historic changes that relate well to

the original character of the building, and contribute to its

special interest By contrast some of the more recent

changes, particularly to the stair, detract from its quality and

character; but most reflect the ongoing adaptation

necessary to allow the house to evolve to meet changing

needs

Paul Drury FSA MRICS IHBC

The Paul Drury Partnership

Original vent shaft closed up from

underside

Steel beam propping the roof

with alterations in red

Existing Third Floor Plan Existing Roof Plan

Key architectural features of the existing building

02

The existing stone stair

All images on this page: Existing Stone Stair at no 16 Stanley Gardens

The existing staircase (shown to the

right) is a wonderful example of a

cantilevered stone stair Structure and

design work together in perfect

harmony to produce a structure of

outstanding elegance which maintains

a sense of lightness despite the heavy

materials used

Careful investigate works carried out

by the Paul Drury Partnership and Make

in conjunction with PAYE Stone,

indicate that the principal material

is Portland stone with cast iron

balustrades and original timber

banisters

In recent years, the staircase has been

altered and the original newel post has

been replaced by a Victorian post

which is rather heavy in appearance

and which is wholly out of tune with the

staircase

(Please also refer to Paul Drury’s notes

on)

Our proposals involve replacing this

later addition with a more suitable

post, similar to that which would

originally have been used In addition,

the staircase will be restored at the

base and returned to its original shape

and form In order to achieve this, it will

be necessary to lower the elevated

level of the floor finish, taking it back to

its original level at the current height of

the dining room floor

The design team has recruited

specialist craftsmen to conduct

extensive research into the possible

build up and structure of the ground

floor slab As part of this process, a

First floor landing of timber stair

Ground floor landing cantilevering stone stair (picture above)

No 6 and 8 Lansdowne Road

Cleveland Square, 1855-1858

flagstone in the entrance hall has been

lifted and careful core drilling has been

undertaken to establish any lost layers

of flooring below

This survey did not reveal any

remaining original features, such as,

natural stone or ceramics Only a thick

layer of modern concrete of no more

than 30-50 years old was found The

modern plasterboard upstand ceiling

at the high level basement has also

been investigated, where a portion of a

presumably original stone slab is in

situ The remainder of the supporting

structure was found to consist of

concrete and modern steel beams

holding up the floor above

(Please also refer to Paul Drury’s

statement)

The stair on the landing to the first

floor has also been altered from the

original We propose to restore the

bottom steps to their original position

Two adjacent properties (12 and 17

Stanley Gardens) have been visited in

order to determine the exact nature of

the original newel posts This research

has established the ideal form the

newel post should take, and it is

proposed to replace the current newel

post on the ground floor of the stone

stair with a replacement which will

restore this original detail to the house

No 11 Stanley Gardens, staircase, entrance level 1973 (73/4/3793)

No 11 Stanley Gardens, Staircase between ground and first floor, 1973

(73/4/3796)

No 11 STANLEY GARDENSPhotographs to the right formerly held

in the GLC photographic library now held in the London Metropolitan

Archive (LMA ref: SC/PHL/01/232)

17 Stanley Gardens Fully intact newel

post with additional studs

17 Stanley Gardens Mahogony carved

banister

Original staircase

detailing in

neighbouring properties

12 Stanley GardensFully intact and restored newel post

The existing plaster work

The house interior features elaborate

stucco dressings which combine with

the fine external plaster work to offer

a wonderful example of the richly

decorative Italianate style favoured by

Thomas Allom Although the house is

an fine example of early to mid

Victorian architecture, the wealth of

cornices and mouldings are already

fully expressed

With the passing of time, however, the

stucco work has suffered considerable

damage from a combination of general

wear and tear and over-painting It is

therefore in need of restoration to

restore it to its former glory We

propose to revive this important

aspect of the house interior by

employing careful and appropriate

restoration techniques

We have consulted with the specialist

companies of Cliveden Conservation

and London Plastercraft, both of whom

have worked in the area They have

examined the internal and external

features and have presented us with

their advice on the best way to proceed

with repairs This advice has been

essential in determining the best

method of proceeding with the works

on site, and has also provided the

design team with a critical insight into

historic building restoration

The design team has also consulted

Ian Constantinides (St Blaise), who is

an expert on plaster works on historic

buildings

All images on this page are from no

16 Stanley Gardens

Arch over entrance hall

First Floor arch detailing First floor detailing

Existing plasterwork in entrance hallExisting external window cornice

Entrance area wall dado

First Floor cornices

Examples of plaster work

from no 12 and

17 Stanley Gardens

Above and below details from no 12 Stanley Gardens Above and below details from no 17 Stanley Gardens

on the overall thermal performance of the building.

However, in light of stated Government policies and with the increasing

pressure for more sustainable

strategies within both our new

buildings and inherited stock, it would

be responsible to undertake a careful review of the opportunities to optimise these windows to achieve their

maximum potential One possible course of action would be to replace the existing windows with new, double glazed windows in the exact same style and proportion of the historic windows These new windows would be an exact copy of the originals but would

incorporate a thicker frame which would accommodate two layers of glass This action is not being proposed

as part of this application, but a further conversation on this matter would be welcomed on a case by case basis

The joinery

The ground floor flagstones are not

original (see Paul Drury’s comments on

page 19)., but have been laid in a overly

thick cement bedding atop a variety of

substrates PAYE Stone have

undertaken a careful core drilling study

of the entrance hall floor area in order

obtain a better understanding of the

floor build up A very thick layer of

concrete cement was found and sent

off for analysis which revealed that this

concrete was between 30-50 years old

A salmon-coloured marble was

discovered in some places, and this

material was commonly excavated

and laid in the 1970’s

As mentioned previously, further

investigations around the staircase

landing also uncovered a piece of what

was presumably the original stone floor

This lies in varying depths but is always

at least 100mm below the current

finished floor level

Only the current dining room floor

seems to be at the original floor height

We are proposing to reset the floor to

the original height It should be noted,

however, that although at a height

similar to the original, the current floor

is of modern origin The same applies

to all the ground floor rooms, where

new finishes have been applied at

varying heights

A limestone called ‘Hopton Wood’ is

proposed for the entrance hall and

stairwell floor area, which would

complement very well the Portland

Stone of the stair

The kitchen, dining room and study

floor is proposed to be oak floor

The floor build-up and

finishes

boards

Currently the floor boards on the 1st floor are not original and again the proposal is to use oak baords like on the ground floor

The 2nd and 3rd floor still comprise original floor boards and the idea is to carefully remove, restore and relay the borads as they are very used and also damaged in parts

For the lower ground floor the concept will combine the internal as well as external flooring of the lightwell (both front and back) There are no original features on that floor Please refer to page 44 paragraph on art

Core drilling in entrance hall Period ceramic inlay floor

Step to dining room from stair hallFirst floor timber floor - not original First floor ceramic floor - not original

Entrance hall flag stone (Yorckstone)

Existing roof - garden viewExisting roof - top view

Conservation statement

03

1 The policy framework

1.1 Listed Building Consent (LBC) is required for ‘any works

for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or

extension in any manner which would affect its character as a

building of special architectural or historic interest’ (Planning

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, s7) ‘In

considering whether to grant listed building consent for any

works, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State

shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the

building or its setting or any features of special architectural

or historic interest which it possesses’ (ibid, s16(2)) Sections

16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas) Act 1990 require a local authority to have special

regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and

their settings Section 72 of the Act requires that special

attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions

to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character

or appearance of a conservation area

4.1.2 Government policy on listed buildings and conservation

areas is set out in PPG 15, Planning and the Historic

Environment, giving guidance on the interpretation of duties

established under the Act Of particular relevance here is

paragraph 3.13: ‘Many listed buildings can sustain some

degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate

continuing or new uses…listed buildings do vary greatly in

the extent to which they can accommodate change without

loss of special interest Some may be sensitive even to slight

alterations; this is especially true of buildings with important

interiors…Some listed buildings are the subject of

successive applications for alteration or extension: in such

cases it needs to be borne in mind that minor works of

indifferent quality, which may seem individually of little

importance, can cumulatively be very destructive of a

building’s special interest’

4.2.1 The key policies in the Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea UDP 2002 relating to listed buildings and relevant to

the proposals are as follows:

CD65 To resist the demolition of listed buildings in whole or

in part, or the removal or modification of features of

architectural importance (both internal and external)

CD66 To resist proposals to alter listed buildings unless:

a) the original architectural features, and later features

of interest, both internal and external, would be preserved; and

b) alterations would be in keeping with the style of the original building; and

c) all works, whether they be repairs or alterations, are carried out in a correct scholarly manner, under proper supervision, by specialist labour where appropriate; andd) the integrity, plan form and structure of the building including the ground and first floor principal rooms, main staircase and such other areas of the building as may be identified as being of special interest are preserved

4.2.2 Paragraph 4.5.16 of the Plan explains, by way of justification of Policy CD66, that ‘In dealing with works to listed buildings there is a presumption firmly in favour of preservation All proposed works to the building should

be shown on an application for listed building consent It should be demonstrated that any matter that might be the subject of control under other legislation or by another authority can be dealt with, without adversely affecting the building’s character.’

2 The proposed alterations2.1 Overview

2.1.1 The overall intention of the proposals in terms of their effect on the character of the listed building is to retain all those elements that contribute to the special interest of the house; restore important elements like the main stair and roofline, that have been degraded by later, unsympathetic alteration and addition; to make limited changes that seek to add a further layer of interest to the house, which (like the Edwardian changes) may be valued

in the future; and to upgrade the environmental performance of the house to the extent possible without compromising its special interest The following sections address in more detail the principal alterations proposed

2.2 The entrance hall floor and main stair2.2.1 It is proposed to reinstate the altered sections of

Conservation statement

Arched opening under external stair landing to be closed with timber door